Christianity

[Sheriff Fatman]

Well my Bible is very clear that Jesus ( Matthew 5 ) fulfilled the law for me because it was/is simply impossible for mankind to keep God's law. That's the awesome thing about Grace that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. Hebrews 8 will also confirm that the old covenant with its emphasis on the law was made obsolete His sacrifice the cross.

 

So Joshua was lying then?

[Der Kaiser]

Science is about how.

 

Religion is about why.

I dunno ......I'd like to know how Jesus managed to feed the 5000 cos my two sons ate their tuna on toast within ten minutes.....barely enough for me!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So Joshua was lying then?

Aye, too fond of blowing his own trumpet.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Aye, too fond of blowing his own trumpet.

 

Wrong Joshua.

[JALBO]

So Joshua was lying then?

 

Hi SF, if you look at the way Jesus deals with Sabbath issues in Matthew 12, I think it's pointing to what JL is trying to describe. On the one hand, he is being challenged because his disciples were accused of not upholding the law; yet Jesus doesn't give way. In fact he doesn't even say the accusers were wrong - instead, he seems to be suggesting that mercy trumps the law, and this theme is repeated when you look at how Jesus handled other incidents - such as the woman who had been caught with a bloke who wasn't her husband (Deuteronomy 22 should have seen her finished off). He doesn't try and pretend the law wasn't valid, but his response can basically be summed up by mercy. So was Jesus lying in the bit of the bible you were quoting? I don't think so. He clearly didn't rubbish the law, but he seems to be advocating for something that wasn't an option previously - grace. So you might paraphrase what Jesus was saying in your passage as "The law still stands, absolutely, and always will."  But then he's clearly showing something in his words and actions that Christians say they rely on, which is, of course, that whilst the sentences to be dished out for transgressing the law still stand, Jesus took those himself instead (Isaiah 53 v 5 would be the bible verse folk generally use).

 

My next sermon is at 11am on Sunday.......

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Wrong Joshua.

I don't actually care if it is the right or wrong Joshua!

[maltese jambo]

In my experience, yes it is.

 

Personally though, I couldn't give a **** if you believe in Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, The flying spaghetti monster or any other entity.

 

As long as you don't try to impose your beliefs on others, we'll get along just fine.

 

Saying that, in a perverse sort of way, I actually have more respect for the fundamentalists than the run of the mill religious types. If your God states that gay people are wrong or that women are inferior, then that should be that. Just because the modern world thinks otherwise, that shouldn't mean your God is wrong. I don't understand how a God can be right about somethings but wrong on others.

Where exactly does it state that gays are wrong?

[Chris Benoit]

Where exactly does it state that gays are wrong?

 

If a man lays with a man like he lays with a woman it is an abomination and they should be put to death. I'm sure that's in Leviticus

[AlphonseCapone]

I feel really sad about Jesus, a simple man with mental health issues in a time where no one understood mental health.

 

He was crucified when he should have been in therapy.

[aussieh]

I feel really sad about Jesus, a simple man with mental health issues in a time where no one understood mental health.

 

He was crucified when he should have been in therapy.

Going by today morals, i can see where being a good , generous and selfless man, could be seen as mentally ill.

[Rudolf's Mate]

I feel really sad about Jesus, a simple man with mental health issues in a time where no one understood mental health.

 

He was crucified when he should have been in therapy.

Just like the bibles open to interpretation. Maybe he was a revolutionary, someone way ahead of his own time.

[AlphonseCapone]

Going by today morals, i can see where being a good , generous and selfless man, could be seen as mentally ill.

Voices in his head, delusions of grandeur, narcissistic, but aye he was also a nice wee man.

[AlphonseCapone]

Just like the bibles open to interpretation. Maybe he was a revolutionary, someone way ahead of his own time.

I don't think the bible is open to interpretation to be honest, it's basically a lot of shite that folk try to give meaning to because they want to believe it, bit like modern art.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

What about the Illuminati - do they exist?

[JALBO]

Voices in his head, delusions of grandeur, narcissistic, but aye he was also a nice wee man.

 

If you're right, he's got to be the first simple man with mental health issues who has managed to command billions of adherents, influence laws in dozens of countries, have calendars and holidays fixed according to his life, see top universities issue degrees in subjects he taught on, have the book where he's the central character outstrip print runs of every other publication of all time, and have his person constantly discussed on internet forums time and again hundreds or thousands of years after apparently taking leave of this earth. 

[AlphonseCapone]

If you're right, he's got to be the first simple man with mental health issues who has managed to command billions of adherents, influence laws in dozens of countries, have calendars and holidays fixed according to his life, see top universities issue degrees in subjects he taught on, have the book where he's the central character outstrip print runs of every other publication of all time, and have his person constantly discussed on internet forums time and again hundreds or thousands of years after apparently taking leave of this earth.

He didn't command billions, his stories written years after his death were used by powerful organisations to control the masses. His actual life had little impact beyond a few and he was crucified. That would have been the end of that but the elevation of him and his impact came long after because it suited the agenda of others.

 

The fact remains, there is no God so it logically follows there is no son of God, just a mentally ill man.

[2NaFish]

If you're right, he's got to be the first simple man with mental health issues who has managed to command billions of adherents, influence laws in dozens of countries, have calendars and holidays fixed according to his life, see top universities issue degrees in subjects he taught on, have the book where he's the central character outstrip print runs of every other publication of all time, and have his person constantly discussed on internet forums time and again hundreds or thousands of years after apparently taking leave of this earth. 

 

Moses beat him to it.

[aussieh]

 

 

The fact remains, there is no God so it logically follows there is no son of God, just a mentally ill man.

And you know this, because?

[AlphonseCapone]

 

The fact remains, there is no God so it logically follows there is no son of God, just a mentally ill man.

And you know this, because?

 

That he was mentally ill? You are right I am speculating, he might have been intentionally manipulative.

 

If you mean the God part then I know this because I am not 5 years old.

[JALBO]

He didn't command billions, his stories written years after his death were used by powerful organisations to control the masses. His actual life had little impact beyond a few and he was crucified. That would have been the end of that but the elevation of him and his impact came long after because it suited the agenda of others.

 

The fact remains, there is no God so it logically follows there is no son of God, just a mentally ill man.

 

Hi hmfcbyt, of course, I wasn't suggesting he had billions with him 2,000 years ago. It was a general point that enduring influence on such a scale seems remarkable for someone characterized in the terms that you used.

 

Apart from any claims concerning deity, looking overall at the way Jesus said things in the gospels, would you say much of what he teaches reads like someone who is mentally ill?

[JALBO]

Moses beat him to it.

 

...I better start a Moses thread.....

[AlphonseCapone]

Hi hmfcbyt, of course, I wasn't suggesting he had billions with him 2,000 years ago. It was a general point that enduring influence on such a scale seems remarkable for someone characterized in the terms that you used.

 

Apart from any claims concerning deity, looking overall at the way Jesus said things in the gospels, would you say much of what he teaches reads like someone who is mentally ill?

That makes the massive assumption that what is in the gospels is actually things he said.

[aussieh]

That makes the massive assumption that what is in the gospels is actually things he said.

True, so where does that leave your assumption.

[AlphonseCapone]

True, so where does that leave your assumption.

What assumption?

[2NaFish]

...I better start a Moses thread.....

He wrote the first 5 books of the bible - I'd say he's at home in a thread in Christianity.

[aussieh]

What assumption?

Mental illness.

[BigC]

 

The fact remains, there is no God so it logically follows there is no son of God, just a mentally ill man.

And you know this, because?

 

He knows it in the same way you know there are no unicorns.

[JALBO]

That makes the massive assumption that what is in the gospels is actually things he said.

 

...in which case, it would be difficult for me to conclude that Jesus was mentally ill on the basis of a massive assumption about things he was reported to have said.

 

 . 

[JALBO]

He wrote the first 5 books of the bible - I'd say he's at home in a thread in Christianity.

 

ha - I'll give you that one!

[AlphonseCapone]

Mental illness.

That's not an assumption, it's speculation.

[AlphonseCapone]

...in which case, it would be difficult for me to conclude that Jesus was mentally ill on the basis of a massive assumption about things he was reported to have said.

 

.

So we agree there is no real evidence in support of Jesus being the son of God, cool, I'm happy with that.

[JALBO]

And you know this, because?

 

He knows it in the same way you know there are no unicorns.

 

Hi BigC, there's the thing. I don't really think that most people who believe there is a God feel that way. I accept there might be loads of reasons for that which could easily play into the unicorn scenario if things were different. I don't know much about them, but if society around us had assured us for hundreds of years that the unicorn was more than a mythical creature, maybe as many people would feel the same about the existence of unicorns as about a God or gods.

 

For me, there is a difference though. Something seems to gnaw away at people all over the place, and through the ages, about the divine. I'm sure that was often because our predecessors didn't understand stuff that we do now, and so the explanation had to be some superhuman /supernatural being. But we really can't lay that charge at many of people who believe in a God these days. I had an astrophysicist tell me recently that he'd given up being an atheist because it wasn't tenable any more to dismiss evidence for some sort of conspiracy behind what we see around us. He certainly would leave me behind intellectually and obviously in terms of scientific endeavour and he was totally in the 'no God' camp, so what's going on there? I'm not sure people get that with unicorns. Or maybe they do and don't admit to it.

 

I'm not appealing to authority there - just musing over it myself really.

[JALBO]

That's not an assumption, it's speculation.

 

That's alright then.

 

So we agree there is no real evidence in support of Jesus being the son of God, cool, I'm happy with that.

 

ha - I was waiting for that..... evidence must be at least as strong as anything that backs up this: "The fact remains, there is no God....."

[aussieh]

That's not an assumption, it's speculation.

So its not a fact then.

[AlphonseCapone]

So its not a fact then.

Of course not, I never said it was.

[aussieh]

He didn't command billions, his stories written years after his death were used by powerful organisations to control the masses. His actual life had little impact beyond a few and he was crucified. That would have been the end of that but the elevation of him and his impact came long after because it suited the agenda of others.

 

The fact remains, there is no God so it logically follows there is no son of God, just a mentally ill man.

My mistake, sorry.

[deesidejambo]

Its interesting that its quite normal not to believe in god as it tends to defy rational analytical thinking.

 

Until such time as you have a personal crisis like a gravely ill child.  Then things change suddenly.

[AlphonseCapone]

My mistake, sorry.

There is no God, that part is fact, Jesus being mentally ill is speculation on my part.

 

My sentence was maybe ambiguous so apologies.

[AlphonseCapone]

That's alright then.

 

 

ha - I was waiting for that..... evidence must be at least as strong as anything that backs up this: "The fact remains, there is no God....."

Evidence to prove a negative? Can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist?

[GlasgoJambo]

I quite like churches, a lot of Western religious art and some choral music so big nod to the Christians for that. I also like the fact that the self doubt caused by religion has prompted Stuart Murdoch to write some tremendous stuff for Belle & Sebastian.

However unless you've personally investigated every possible religion available - not just the one which was most prevalent in the society you were born into (and religion of sort has penetrated every society which has ever existed so there is a hell of a lot of research out there) then it's terribly arrogant (and unreliably presumptuous) to suggest ones own religion is superior to any other.

I also detest the recent trend to infer 'devout' atheists are just as bad as religious zealots - mainly borne of the fact Richard Dawkins has an obstinate and often obtuse manner.

And finally Deuteronomy clearly states eating pigs is not allowed (there's no misreading or translation issues - point blank banned for Christians).

[michael_bolton]

I quite like churches, a lot of Western religious art and some choral music so big nod to the Christians for that. I also like the fact that the self doubt caused by religion has prompted Stuart Murdoch to write some tremendous stuff for Belle & Sebastian.

However unless you've personally investigated every possible religion available - not just the one which was most prevalent in the society you were born into (and religion of sort has penetrated every society which has ever existed so there is a hell of a lot of research out there) then it's terribly arrogant (and unreliably presumptuous) to suggest ones own religion is superior to any other.

I also detest the recent trend to infer 'devout' atheists are just as bad as religious zealots - mainly borne of the fact Richard Dawkins has an obstinate and often obtuse manner.

And finally Deuteronomy clearly states eating pigs is not allowed (there's no misreading or translation issues - point blank banned for Christians).

 

No. Another one who completely misses the point of the Old Testament / New Testament division. Pork is banned for Jews, not Christians.

 

Amazing how many people bring up rules from the OT and seem take glee in pointing them out, yet have zero understanding of the structure and point of the Bible.

[redjambo]

There is no God, that part is fact, Jesus being mentally ill is speculation on my part.

 

My sentence was maybe ambiguous so apologies.

 

Nope. You're making the same mistake as the people who hold the beliefs you oppose.

 

We have not proven that there is a God. Equally we have not proven that there is not a God.

 

It all comes down to what we believe.

 

If you insist that it is a fact that God doesn't exist then I would merely say "prove it". And you can't.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

No. Another one who completely misses the point of the Old Testament / New Testament division. Pork is banned for Jews, not Christians.

 

Amazing how many people bring up rules from the OT and seem take glee in pointing them out, yet have zero understanding of the structure and point of the Bible.

 

Yet it is also amazing how many Christians use the Torah as a justification for their stance on things like gay marriage.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

So what rules are in the New Testament!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So what rules are in the New Testament!

Do you mean Jesus's rules or Paul's rules?

[michael_bolton]

Yet it is also amazing how many Christians use the Torah as a justification for their stance on things like gay marriage.

 

I agree. 

[AlphonseCapone]

Nope. You're making the same mistake as the people who hold the beliefs you oppose.

 

We have not proven that there is a God. Equally we have not proven that there is not a God.

 

It all comes down to what we believe.

 

If you insist that it is a fact that God doesn't exist then I would merely say "prove it". And you can't.

Not even close. God doesn't exist, there is not a shred of evidence he does, there is no obligation to go around proving that things that aren't there are in fact not there.

 

If someone makes a bold claim that goes against every sense that a rational human being has then the obligation is on them and them alone to prove it.

 

You can't prove a two headed cow with male genitalia on it's face didn't create the universe, is its existence just as likely as God? If not why not?

[GlasgoJambo]

No. Another one who completely misses the point of the Old Testament / New Testament division. Pork is banned for Jews, not Christians.

 

Amazing how many people bring up rules from the OT and seem take glee in pointing them out, yet have zero understanding of the structure and point of the Bible.

Apologies for my glee and misunderstanding. It was in the bible I was given as a youngster and has always stuck with me (as did a lot of the reasons for not entering the House of the Lord, no penis being the most mirthful to a nine year old of course - RSV I think).

If you could explain the structure (and fascinatingly to this heathen, the point) of the bible I'd be much enlightened?

[michael_bolton]

Apologies for my glee and misunderstanding. It was in the bible I was given as a youngster and has always stuck with me (as did a lot of the reasons for not entering the House of the Lord, no penis being the most mirthful to a nine year old of course - RSV I think).

If you could explain the structure (and fascinatingly to this heathen, the point) of the bible I'd be much enlightened?

 

I believe the concept of grace in relation to the law and the role of Jesus' life and suffering is explained in a post further up the thread. Or a quick Google search. I'm at work and don't have time just now. Admittedly, it's not the most straightforward concept, but it's at the heart of the whole religion and, obviously, the Bible. If you don't understand that, you won't understand why the two sections of the Bible are so different.

 

Not having a go at you specifically. This thread is full of such ideas, indeed it's incredibly common in general life.

 

IT SAYS THIS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SO CHRISTIANS ARE BARBARIC/HYPOCRITICAL!!!!! etc

 

It's just basic lack of understanding. Yet it rumbles on as the misunderstanding is so widespread.

[jambo lodge]

Having worked in scientific research for a number of years I can tell you that understanding within science constantly changes and today's facts are tomorrow's new research challenges. If science is truly the answer then surely it could create something from nothing? Until then the big bang etc is nothing but the theory of man.