Problem with Christianity [Archive]

Byzantine Prince

08-13-2005, 06:00

Ok I was sitting down watching I heart Huckabees and thinking hard about philosophy and I just realised something I think is important.

Ok as a disclaimer, I am not in any ways trying to bash Christianity, just trying to communicate an theory I just made up about the history and theory of it.

Ok here we go. I think the fatal flaw in christianity is that the Bible is not necessarily a philosophical text. Ok now let's talk about the history. For ages the church and Christians in general have been pretty mean and even evil people, even in a christian context. How do we explain all the lynching, the murders, the war, the executions, the slavery that has been commited in the name of christ? A person who taught love and to treat everyone as he would like to be treated. How could people blatantly ignore that?

How can we as a Christian society be capitalists? Jesus himself was a socialist I'm sure. ~;)
Seriously though aren't the christian conservatives in the US being a tad hypocritical about following god's message and at the same time supporting a government that would ban homosexuality, give capitalism, which is let's face, greed! more tax breaks. Or how about letting the poor and needy die by destroying social security and privatizing health care, which is already is in the US. Is this really what Jesus was talking about. Or how about the Pope, a mear *man* being given so much wealth and power and so much attention for the sake of god or jesus. Look at Jesus, he taught humility, the was nothing modest about the pope's inaguration. These are Christians?!?! These people make me sick, they are even lower then sychophants!

Hell even Nitzsche makes Jesus out to be a great person even though Jesus... well didn't believe in God because technically he WAS god wasn't he. Hm. Interesting, so I can only assume that if Jesus lived today he would be an existentialist socialist guy just like god. Hell I can quote JAG "I am God". JAG is Jesus! OMFG!!!:laugh:

Well so I guess the question is, is JAG god? ~:)

AntiochusIII

08-13-2005, 06:34

To be fair, many of the Christian (devout ones) posters here condemn the Vatican for its corruption.

Edit: Yeah, this thread is quite a fat bait for flaming. I smell BBQ...

Papewaio

08-13-2005, 06:39

When a footballer makes a mistake do you blame the individual or the rules and spirit of the game?

IliaDN

08-13-2005, 06:43

KafirChobee

08-13-2005, 06:48

Please lock this thread. It has no purpose except to incite the believers into a fury of Gods Will. And condemn the rest of us to hell.

Me thinks.

Also, it has been done, over and over and over again. Either we believe, or we don't. If we do, God blesses us. If we don't Satan does. So? What is the point?

:balloon2:

Byzantine Prince

08-13-2005, 06:54

A) PAPE I have not idea what you're talking about

B)This is not about Muslims, so let's try and forget about them

C)Kafeer, this thread is great and will not be closed. And no we are not going to hell for not believing in God. Jesus didn't believe in god for example.

Redleg

08-13-2005, 06:56

C)Kafeer, this thread is great and will not be closed. And no we are not going to hell for not believing in God. Jesus didn't believe in god for example.

Now that is funny and shows a lack of understanding of the Bible.

Strike For The South

08-13-2005, 07:12

BP do try to get a rise out of people or is it a god-given talent

PanzerJaeger

08-13-2005, 07:15

In my understanding, Jesus recognized the role of government and society. "Give unto Ceasar... "

Jesus also made things in exchange for money.. So I dont think he made any statements by example in the economic arena.

Ive got to say your portrayal of the bible and the church are a bit skewed in my opinion.

The biggest contradiction between American Christians and what Jesus taught is the wealth. From what Ive been taught Jesus didnt like wealth.

However, Jesus also embraced forgiveness and a loving God.

Byzantine Prince

08-13-2005, 07:19

Thanks for being the only one that actually adressed my post Panzer. You are one of my favorite members here, you always see both sides of an argument. That's a very smart thing.

What do you thin about my Jesus is a Socialist argument? Don't you think that the philosophy of treat other as you would like to be treated is great metaphor for socialism?

Also I don't see how extreme capitalism is anything like Jesus's humility and compassion. Also it's very contradicotry to the 'greed is sin' idea in the Bible.

And no I have not actually erad the Bible. All I know is from school and from things I've read in religious books in school.

Papewaio

08-13-2005, 07:44

Do you blame the sinner for their mistake or the Bible which attempts to lay a path to steer them clear?

PanzerJaeger

08-13-2005, 07:46

What do you thin about my Jesus is a Socialist argument? Don't you think that the philosophy of treat other as you would like to be treated is great metaphor for socialism?

In the purest sense of the word I would say he could be called a socialist. He certainly believed in taking care of the lowest in society and disliked the pharisee mentality.

Also I don't see how extreme capitalism is anything like Jesus's humility and compassion. Also it's very contradicotry to the 'greed is sin' idea in the Bible.

As I said, the biggest contridiction between Christians today and Jesus is the wealth. However, Jesus did work for a living and helped support his family, which is what people living in capitolist societies do all over the world.

Its also important to note the differences between the different Gospels. I studied a whole year just on that. The writers MML&J each put their own emphasis' on their accounts and had their own agenda's.

If a person really wants to get a picture of Jesus the man, i think he needs to find common events that transcend the four official Gospels and those that were not admitted.

The book of Thomas, if i remember right, should be read carefully.

Byzantine Prince

08-13-2005, 08:03

Yes I agree, but socialist economies still have some use for money and making money, they just take care of the poor and less fortunate much better. I wasn't suggesting that Jesus was a communist. ~D

Pape, I blame the church for misleading people. Not necassarily the church I was a part of, they seemed pretty blameless, but certainly the catholic church. Look at how much they worship the pope, with his inaguration being almost the same as that of a king in magnitude and extravagance. Do you really think Jesus aproves of that. Or how about the way they killed people for simply saying that the earth was round?!?! Or causing the crusades? Or ignoring the holocaust. These things actually hapened and how am I suposed to take when they actually still have the same traditions and leadership?

I never said Jesus was bad, I even admire him in my initial post. I thought *Christianity* was about Jesus last I checked, so not being like him is pretty unChristian wouldn't you agree?

Strike For The South

08-13-2005, 08:11

IMO Yes I agree the pope is given way to much credit (one of the reasons im baptist ~:) ) as for trying to be like jesus thats every true christians goal but we will eventually fall short because he is the son of god and we are man that is what repentance is for but that in no way means some of things done in the name of christ were right. As for being a socialist I don't think so neither do I think he was a capitalist I think he was trying to get people to find god and provide a set of moral codes to live by

Divinus Arma

08-13-2005, 08:38

Byzantine Prince

08-13-2005, 09:18

I don't mind tolerating Christians if they were like Jesus Christ, but most are pricks. Seriously, I don't doubt most actually believe in God and "accept" Jesus(whatever *that* means) but do they act on it? No.

That's the problem with Christianity, the church and the majority of Christians. The story of Jesus is just a story and it doesn't really matter, what he tought should be the Bible! Like what Nietzsche wrote is his philosophy not how he lived and died!(for example)

Sigurd

08-13-2005, 09:47

You do strike at something important and I am sure the intent of this thread is not to discuss that which is to follow: The origin of the church.
At least that was what I thought of when reading your remarks. The latter part of your remarks is just a rant which ended in an unserious question which could very likely result in spam…

Ok BP, you got me thinking of the origin of the Christian church and whether it was Jesus’ intent to let it survive. As you indirectly pointed out, the infant church was peace loving, pacifist and evangelical. What changed that?

I would say the organisation that Jesus and his Apostles founded did not survive. And that a bastardisation was organised at a later point; the remnant of which survived and branched off to the 250+ Christian denominations that exists today.

Ever since Eusebius sought to prove the survival of the church the church history has been the same; to give a clear and comprehensive, scientifically established view of the development of the visible institution of salvation founded by Christ.
To describe it – not to question it. ...
Church history requires unquestioning acceptance of the basic propositions that the church did survive. There are endless writings about the infant church, but not one questions the notion that the early church does not consider its organisation as infant but rather as an old failing woman. ...
One writes about the unquenchable light through storm and shadow, yet does not question why Jesus himself insisted that the Light was to be taken away. In fact Jesus announced in no uncertain terms that his message would be rejected by all men(1). That he would soon leave the world to die in its sins and seek after him in vain(2). The light was soon to depart, leaving a great darkness in which no man can work while the prince of this world would remain, as usual, in possession of the field(3). ...
This bodes ill for the interval between the ascension and the parousia; it was to be a bad time and a long one(4). What is more it begins almost immediately, the apostles themselves calling attention to all the fatal signs and marvelling only that it has come so soon(5).

A short while the early church enjoyed the leadership of apostles as nomadic preachers and overseers of the small churches in the Mediterranean area, each of which was lead by a bishop.
The apostles where finally all killed by the opposition to the early church. Who would take the mantle of the empty positions of the apostles?
The bishops gathered with the intent to sort out this predicament of the church. Clementine (the bishop of Rome) would not take the mantle of general leadership as he proposed that such authority lay within the tomes of the apostles (6).
The esoteric knowledge of the church was lost and there were no guidance. This knowledge was later claimed by the Gnostics.

The fact is the early church was an eschatological one or in other words a doomsday church. And it ended as predicted with the apostles. They (the church) were all to be martyrs and would all face the fate of its founder and his apostles; death. And the earth would dwindle in unbelief and led by the prince of darkness until the return of Him who would destroy his enemies; the time of reconciliation or judgement. The enemies of the church exploited every inconsistencies and absurdities in its position and made merry over “Jesus the King who never ruled” they never played up what would be the biggest joke of them all – the feverish, hourly expectations of the Lord who never came. This is according to Robert Eisler: “The most astonishing of all historical paradoxes”.

[edit]: Be advised that I started my response when this thread only had one reply...
[edit II]: Added italics and colour to quoted material from the book When the Lights Went Out by Hugh W. Nibley.

(1) Matthew 17:12; 21:37-39; 23:31-37; Mark 12:6-8; Luke 17:25; John 1:5, 10-11; 3:11-12, 19, 32; 5:38, 40-47; 7:7; 8:19,23-24, 37-38,40-47; 15:22-25; Acts 3:21
(2) Matthew 9:15; Luke 9:41; 13:25-27; 17:22; John 12:33-36; 13:33; 14:30; 16:16; Acts 3:21
(3) John 9:4-5; 14:30; Recognitiones Clementinae 3.61(PG 1:1208)
(4) Matthew 13:30, 39-43; Mark 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; Didache 16
(5) John 17:25; 1 Peter 5:8; 1 John 3:1
(6) Recognitiones Clementinae xxx

rasoforos

08-13-2005, 09:52

First of all there isa fundamental flaw in believing on a omnipotent and error free God. Simply, everyone things that God thinks like him and would encourage his views, as a result everyone else is wrong or a heretic ( Just look how fast religious fight broke at the 'Christian Club' thread.)

Secondly its the bible. We have two very contradictory groups of texts there. An angry God with a serious attitude problem in the old testament, killing children, killing ppl who dont follow what he says, vengeful and in serious need of anger management classes. On the other hand Jesus comes and talks about non violence, forgiveness, tollerance, the support of the marginalised.

Not willing to abandon one testament in favour of the other people have found convenient compromises using the version that suits them most every time. So nothing changes, its just that before religion to kill someone you would need to bypass your moral barriers ( if you had any), after religion you can just find a relevant quote and go on killing guilt free...in the name of an All mercifull God.

Finally the bible has another problem. Most versions out there, especially in protestant countries with various different dogmas, are not only greviouslt misstranslated but also heavily revised, with verses missing or having beem changed totally to suit the ideas of the dogma. Since most people cannot read Hellenistic Greek they get away with it.

As to if capitalism can go with Christianity:

Well, truth be told, the first Christians were more or less Communal. They were mostly living in groups, were sharing their goods, finance and their food, were eating in big communal dinners. Also the early forms of confession, if memory serves right, were communal.

As a result the first Christians were something between hippies and communists the way I see it. ~D

However, lets face it, there is no such thing as 100% capitalism. Even countries like the US, who have been priding on being capitalist, have implemented large socialist reforms ( they just dont call them that ), like wellfare, public health programs, benefits etc etc. As a result, for a society where the rich do give to the poor...somewhat, like most free market economies today , you cannot say that the Economy is incompatible with the Christian ideals.

bmolsson

08-13-2005, 10:08

Christianity, like most other religions, are nothing but a powerstructure used to oppress people. Instead of elections you have the leaders appointed by a deity. Furthermore, it is a socialist structure with people treated as a mob and the trading with "souls" is used beside the normal economocal trade.
The entry of democracy will in the end remove the religions as they will loose power and become outdated.

Navaros

08-13-2005, 10:36

On the other hand Jesus comes and talks about non violence, forgiveness, tollerance, the support of the marginalised.

Jesus certainly does not tolerate sin. he tries to help sinners, yes, but to say he is "tolerant" is a gross misrepresentation of what Jesus is all about.

@the comment saying Jesus was socialist: correct me if i'm wrong, but do socialists not support the murder of babies via "abortion"? if so most certainly Jesus is not a socialist.

as for saying that Christians have done so many evil things: secular society at large has done and does do much more evil things than what Christians have done. the worst of course being the legalized holocaust and genocide of babies called "abortion"

any evil committed by Christians certainly pales immensely in comparison to that

AggonyDuck

08-13-2005, 12:00

Ok here we go. I think the fatal flaw in christianity is that the Bible is not necessarily a philosophical text.

What I find is strange is that you claim that the fatal flaw in christianity is that the Bible is not a philosophical text, but yet you don't have an argument why this would be a flaw. I would honestly say that your claim is false, because the bible is a philosophical book, that basically revolves around Jesus' teachings. In my opinion if the bible can't be considered a philosophical text, then a lot of the dialogues written by philosophers can't be considered philosophical either. Anyways I'd like to hear your argument why the Bible is not a philosophical book?

Just as note, that what I refer as the Bible is actually the new testament.

AggonyDuck

08-13-2005, 12:14

For ages the church and Christians in general have been pretty mean and even evil people, even in a christian context. How do we explain all the lynching, the murders, the war, the executions, the slavery that has been commited in the name of christ? A person who taught love and to treat everyone as he would like to be treated. How could people blatantly ignore that?

Because they're humans in good and bad...For ages the humans have been pretty mean and evil people. All those lynchings, murders, wars, executions etc. are not caused by Christianity, but by humans who claimed that they believed in it. Remember that religion is a mighty tool in the hands of someone who knows how to manipulate the people who believe in it.
It's also a very easy way to justify things and the perfect excuse at times.
What I'm trying to say is that the blame for those horrendous acts goes to the humans who commited them, not to Christianity.

Devastatin Dave

08-13-2005, 14:19

I don't mind tolerating Christians if they were like Jesus Christ, but most are pricks.

Very revealing.... ~:handball:

rasoforos

08-13-2005, 14:21

Jesus certainly does not tolerate sin. he tries to help sinners, yes, but to say he is "tolerant" is a gross misrepresentation of what Jesus is all about.

@the comment saying Jesus was socialist: correct me if i'm wrong, but do socialists not support the murder of babies via "abortion"? if so most certainly Jesus is not a socialist.

Yes, I clearly remember Jesus giving an anti-abortion speech at the hills of Gallilea... ~:confused:

If you need to talk anti abortion please do so without quoting something totally irrelevant to what u want to say.

I also find the idea that 'socialists' greatest atribute to be 'abortion' to be a bit....shall i say...non realistic?

I think you really need to see what socialist policy means, you kinda have it all wrong.

I m not gonna go into a theological discussion but, Jesus, having said 'love eachother', and having said ' forgive em ' when they crucified him must have been at least a bit tollerant to sin. Else he d say ' love eachother unless the others are sinners' and ' waste the bloody $%#^&$ and sent their sinful #$%# to hell'

But this kind of idea of an intollerant Jesus proves my point, people just 'shape' religion to fit their ideals.

KukriKhan

08-13-2005, 14:48

Temporarily closed pending staff review.
--------------------------------------
:tick-tock-tic-tock
--------------------------------------
Action complete. Re-opened for CIVIL discussion.

The Stranger

08-14-2005, 15:53

this thread is soooooo funny. you backroomers make me laugh everytime. ~D

Redleg

08-14-2005, 16:58

And no I have not actually erad the Bible. All I know is from school and from things I've read in religious books in school.

Then my suggestion is that you actually read the bible before making certain claims.

It is the source of your complaint - churches and people have failed numerous times in upholding the philosophy of being a christian - but it does not make the philosophy unsound.

Crazed Rabbit

08-14-2005, 19:22

Do you really think Jesus aproves of that. Or how about the way they killed people for simply saying that the earth was round?!?! Or causing the crusades? Or ignoring the holocaust. These things actually hapened and how am I suposed to take when they actually still have the same traditions and leadership?

Um, they didn't kill people for saying the earth was round. In fact, I believe it is a misconception that people believed the earth was flat in the middle ages.

As for the crusades; they were a defensive move. It was responding to the Muslim invasion of the Holy Land. Christians have a right to defend themselves, after all.

And ignoring the holocaust?! Please, our last Pope actually was in the resistance against the Nazis!

Could you at least get your facts straight and not accuse Christians of every thing you may have read on some dan-brown-lovin' website?

Crazed Rabbit

AntiochusIII

08-14-2005, 19:55

Um, they didn't kill people for saying the earth was round. In fact, I believe it is a misconception that people believed the earth was flat in the middle ages.Really? Interesting. Could you show me some links please? :bow:

As for the crusades; they were a defensive move. It was responding to the Muslim invasion of the Holy Land. Christians have a right to defend themselves, after all.Erm...defensive move? Don't be joking. The Muslims took it from the Eastern Romans - Orthodox Christians, perhaps, but surely not Catholic, and both were bitter rivals as much as Christians and Muslims were - centuries before the First Crusade. Everybody knows Eastern Roman Emperor (Byzantine, I know :p) Alexius Comnenus was desperate for reinforcements to fight off the Turks in Anatolia and started the whole thing...except the West (at the time) was a bit more fanatical and responded a bit too positive to his plea than poor Alexius thought...

And then the wars get into the cycle of revenge and counter-attack and new generations of ambitious "knights" until the Christians finally gave up.

Crazed Rabbit

08-14-2005, 20:03

The myth of the flat earth theory (http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm)

Orthodox Christians, perhaps, but surely not Catholic, and both were bitter rivals as much as Christians and Muslims were

The Orthodox and Catholics were bitter rivals? I find that interesting, could you provide any links?

And yes, it was defensive: the Muslims attacked (and not just around Israel either, but also in the west on the Iberian pennisula) and the Christians had to defend themselves and their faith.

Crazed Rabbit

AntiochusIII

08-14-2005, 20:12

The Orthodox and Catholics were bitter rivals? I find that interesting, could you provide any links?

And yes, it was defensive: the Muslims attacked (and not just around Israel either, but also in the west on the Iberian pennisula) and the Christians had to defend themselves and their faith.

Crazed RabbitI guess I shouldn't go to biased websites for the link, so...wikipedia then. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism)

(will my link work?)...

There is also a record about how the last Constantine (X or something...) tried to plead for the help of the West by "reuniting" the two churches, and that results in the alienation between him and his few subjects. Several websites (not biased, historical ones) recorded this.

However, I never heard of any wars between the two sides of the church, as it is clear that the Byzantines were the leaders of the Orthodox and that by the time the two churches broke apart, they were in decline, fighting for their lives against the Seljuks, and later, the Ottomans.

Of course, unless you count the 4th crusade.

Edit: Oh, and the invasion of Iberia (and Southern France) was like...4 or 5 centuries before the First Crusade. In fact, by the time of the First Crusade, Christian Spain already started the Reconquista, by El Cid ;p , and, as far as I know, the pope never really called for an "international" crusade (continental would be better?) in Spain.

King Henry V

08-14-2005, 23:36

The Crusade was a response to the closing of the routes of pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Denied access to their religious sites, they decided take the Holy Land by force.

Roark

08-15-2005, 01:27

Christianity, like most other religions, are nothing but a powerstructure used to oppress people.

I reject this notion, given the extensive charity work that goes on under the Christian banner. Conveniently ignored?

The church that I was raised in as a youngster never tried to oppress me, nor am I aware of anything like this going on in the mainstream denominations.

Perhaps your knowledge of Christianity is limited to the medieval/Renaissance periods, and to the Catholic church...

The entry of democracy will in the end remove the religions as they will loose power and become outdated.

Again, I don't find this to be accurate. The vast majority of Christian nations have been democratic for some time now...

Church attendance is falling, but I don't see a link to democracy.

bmolsson

08-15-2005, 02:57

I reject this notion, given the extensive charity work that goes on under the Christian banner. Conveniently ignored?

The church that I was raised in as a youngster never tried to oppress me, nor am I aware of anything like this going on in the mainstream denominations.

Perhaps your knowledge of Christianity is limited to the medieval/Renaissance periods, and to the Catholic church...

Not at all. Devoted Christians are not always evil, most of them are actually good people. But this doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a religion, which strives for political power and have always done so.

Again, I don't find this to be accurate. The vast majority of Christian nations have been democratic for some time now...

Church attendance is falling, but I don't see a link to democracy.

There is a direct link between increased secularism and democracy. It's quite obvious actually.

Papewaio

08-15-2005, 03:14

...a religion, which strives for political power and have always done so.

A religion that does not gain political power often finds itself at the mercy of one that has gained power.

Hence there has been a wittling away of virtually all faiths that do not have political clout. Even internal sects will get removed if they fall prey to a stronger ones political moves (Templars).

In the end the more political faiths will increase in frequency while those less fit will die out.

Roark

08-15-2005, 03:24

This is really the statement I kinda took issue with, Bmolsson. It is far more dismissive and blinkered than I have come to expect from you.

nothing but a powerstructure used to oppress people

There are many more considerable facets to faith and the religion itself. This is what I would I would have expected from the one-liner atheists that pronounce their "obvious truths" about the universe in many of the other religious threads.

I doubt that Christianity will ever truly die out, even considering the passing of primeval faiths like Shamanism and pantheism.

Navaros

08-15-2005, 09:44

If you need to talk anti abortion please do so without quoting something totally irrelevant to what u want to say.

I also find the idea that 'socialists' greatest atribute to be 'abortion' to be a bit....shall i say...non realistic?

I think you really need to see what socialist policy means, you kinda have it all wrong.

I m not gonna go into a theological discussion but, Jesus, having said 'love eachother', and having said ' forgive em ' when they crucified him must have been at least a bit tollerant to sin. Else he d say ' love eachother unless the others are sinners' and ' waste the bloody $%#^&$ and sent their sinful #$%# to hell'

But this kind of idea of an intollerant Jesus proves my point, people just 'shape' religion to fit their ideals.

i was not the first one in this thread to bring up "abortion". another poster attributed Jesus to being a member of a type of group that supports that. in response, i was simply posting the truth of the matter. Jesus would never ever support that sort of murder.

and aside from that, if characterizing many Christians as evil for bad things they have done is fair game, then characterizing secularists for committing an even bigger atrocity should also be fair game

yes, Jesus did say to love each other. however, that is not a free license to sin. Jesus will try to help a sinner, but that does not mean he condones or tolerates the sinner's evil behaviours.

incidentally, the title of this thread is also a misnomer. because the biggest problem with Christianity is when non-Christians who do not understand the doctrine at all try to make definitive statements as if they knew what Jesus represents

Sigurd

08-15-2005, 09:46

*Starts wondering if I am on everyone’s ignore list*

I posted a quite provocative post in this thread and no one found it such? No comments?

The question of this thread is Problem with Christianity and I postulated that the real problem is that there should be no Christian organisation today. It ended in the crossover of the 1st and 2nd century.

Adrian II

08-15-2005, 10:01

*Starts wondering if I am on everyone’s ignore list*You're not on my ignore list, on the contrary. We've discussed this before in posts and PM's. But it is really an issue that Christians should address, not outsiders like me. And I'm interested in their answers just like you.

Roark

08-15-2005, 10:02

Adrian II

08-15-2005, 10:11

There is a direct link between increased secularism and democracy. It's quite obvious actually.Please elaborate, because to me this isn't obvious at all. How does it apply to the United States, for instance?

Sigurd

08-15-2005, 10:54

Sigurd, I personally didn't respond because you obviously plagiarised an essay by Hugh Nibley. This guy is a Mormon "scholar" who has also postulated that there were elephants in North America (as the Book of Mormon dubiously states) in Biblical times. I have no respect for his academic work, and I don't really dig the fact that you cut, pasted, and presented his work as your own.

Mmkay?It is true I am guilty of not properly quoting my work here in this thread, but this is hardly a hand in assignment. As you duly demonstrated there is a reason why I not always give exact references: that is, the response would be directed against the author and not at his ideas.
Truth to tell: I have many opinions on the subject of religion and have studied it for quite some time now. And it was my ideas to certain subjects that resulted in me getting a book called: When the Lights Went Out, by a friend that happens to be a Mormon. It was quite a surprise in the first place that my friend agreed to many of my views. So far I only have this one book which consists of three studies on the ancient church.

Personally I was a little suspect over his work since he obviously is biased against Mormonism. When I found out that his work agrees with prominent scholars of other faiths and the fact that his work is well referenced and nearly all quoted from sources itself, he wrote himself into my good book. The elephant thing you mention have I not come across myself but sounds more like a real bias against his faith and should not discredit all his work.

[edit]: made corrections to my post #17 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=883545&postcount=17)in this thread...

Al Khalifah

08-15-2005, 11:07

Ah... another slag off the Christians thread.

bmolsson

08-15-2005, 14:47

Please elaborate, because to me this isn't obvious at all. How does it apply to the United States, for instance?

US faces a decreased democratic process, where lobby has a far larger power than before. This results in less participation in decisions by the voters. Also to note is that US is a democratic republic and not a democracy.

Pindar

08-15-2005, 18:08

Sigurd, I personally didn't respond because you obviously plagiarised an essay by Hugh Nibley. This guy is a Mormon "scholar" who has also postulated that there were elephants in North America (as the Book of Mormon dubiously states) in Biblical times. I have no respect for his academic work, and I don't really dig the fact that you cut, pasted, and presented his work as your own.

Mmkay?

Hello,

I think it is a flaw to discount one conclusion because you disagree with another. Regarding Nibley and elephants, this is an example of his work:

"What happened to the elephants? The Jaredites used them, we are told, but there is no mention of the Nephites having them. They disappear in between the two cultures. When? The Book of Mormon does not say, and the guesses of scientists range all the way from hundreds of thousands to mere hundreds of years ago. Elephants have strange ways of disappearing. If it were not for the written accounts of unquestionable authenticity, no one would ever have guessed that the Pharaohs of the XVIII Dynasty hunted elephants in Syria - where are their remains? Prof. Mallowan says that the wonderful Birs Nimrud ivories which he discovered were made from the tusks of a now-extinct breed of elephant that was being hunted in Mesopotamia as recently as the eighth century B.C. Who would have guessed that ten years ago?" - Since Cumorah, p. 255:

Here is a site that shows some interest in the subject: Elephants (http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/elephant.html)

I know in my home state of California there have been found several remains of pygmy mammoths on the Channel Islands that are dated to around 2000 B.C. Even so...

Pindar

08-15-2005, 18:14

You're not on my ignore list, on the contrary. We've discussed this before in posts and PM's. But it is really an issue that Christians should address, not outsiders like me. And I'm interested in their answers just like you.

I think its problematic to argue that Primative Christianity is consistant with what came after: organizational, doctrinal and theological shifts were massvie and obvious.

Al Khalifah

08-15-2005, 22:56

Also to note is that US is a democratic republic and not a democracy.
If you're going to split hairs like that, could you please name a true modern democracy?

I've heard no reasonable criticisms of Christianity yet in this thread that I could not also level against many Western nations or indeed some large corporations. I just don't see why people are so threatened by it.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-15-2005, 23:35

Why homosexuality is banned by the Catholic Church:
(taken from the New English Bible, published by Oxford Cambridge)

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 10

Surely you know the unjust will never come into the Kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or homosexual perversion, no theives or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will posses the Kingdom of God

Al Khalifah

08-15-2005, 23:56

Why homosexuality is banned by the Catholic Church
The First Epistle to the Corinthians was a letter from St. Paul of Tarsus to the people of Corinth. Corinth, as was much of Greece at this time was home to 'the Greek homosexuality.' The purpose of this part of the letter was probably to set out, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality was not permitted in the Christian creed. The alleged dating of the letter is AD 57.
Prosecution of homosexuals was common in the early Church, but then again, this was prevalent in many religions of the time and in the following millennia with a few notable exceptions such as the Greek Pantheon. It is worth noting, however, that Bishop Amborse refused to allow Emperor Theodosius to re-enter Rome until he made a public repentance for the massacre of homosexuals in Thessalonica.

Roark

08-16-2005, 03:14

Hello,

I think it is a flaw to discount one conclusion because you disagree with another. Regarding Nibley and elephants, this is an example of his work:

"What happened to the elephants? The Jaredites used them, we are told, but there is no mention of the Nephites having them. They disappear in between the two cultures. When? The Book of Mormon does not say, and the guesses of scientists range all the way from hundreds of thousands to mere hundreds of years ago. Elephants have strange ways of disappearing. If it were not for the written accounts of unquestionable authenticity, no one would ever have guessed that the Pharaohs of the XVIII Dynasty hunted elephants in Syria - where are their remains? Prof. Mallowan says that the wonderful Birs Nimrud ivories which he discovered were made from the tusks of a now-extinct breed of elephant that was being hunted in Mesopotamia as recently as the eighth century B.C. Who would have guessed that ten years ago?" - Since Cumorah, p. 255:

Here is a site that shows some interest in the subject: Elephants (http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/elephant.html)

I know in my home state of California there have been found several remains of pygmy mammoths on the Channel Islands that are dated to around 2000 B.C. Even so...

You think it's a flaw? Under other cirumcstances I would agree... The elephants example is a drop in the ocean. Prehistoric pygmy mammoth remains are a far cry from domesticated Loxodontas anyway. Nibley's career has been dedicated to writing apologetics for the scriptural farrago that is the Book of Mormon. I understand, and have studied, the proofs that he has painstakingly accumulated and presented over his long career. His writing contains some measure of truth and scholarship, but he is insincere in his methodology and his claims have been lambasted multiple times by worthier scholars. I don't want to get into a prolonged debate about the Book of Mormon. I can't believe that the cult associated with this "scripture" still operates in such huge numbers.

Thanks for the link, though.

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 03:31

If you're going to split hairs like that, could you please name a true modern democracy?

I would think that Switzerland is the closest today....

Pindar

08-16-2005, 06:58

You think it's a flaw?

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.

I can't believe that the cult associated with this "scripture" still operates in such huge numbers.

Cult? Sounds like a pejorative use. What's the definition of cult you are appealing to?

Roark

08-16-2005, 07:31

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.

I wasn't making a rebuttal. I was explaining why I didn't respond to his original post when he asked if he was on everyone's ignore list.

Cult? Sounds like a pejorative use. What's the definition of cult you are appealing to?

I don't think it's pejorative (do you ever get just... exhausted talking like that all the time?). From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

There is no question that Mormonism fits definition (1). There is also no question that it fits definition (3a)--although the members may quibble over the applicability of "obsessive" most outsiders would say that the devotion to Joseph Smith et al is a bit obsessive. Likewise the devotion to the odd temple rituals, the Word of Wisdom, and the Church generally. And as for definition (3b), it also can be said that Mormonism or the Mormon Church is the object of devotion. (Even though Elders will tell you that it is the "Saviour" they are devoted to, I don't buy it. As a practical matter it is the Church organization that is regarded as the saviour and redeemer by most Mormons.)

Definition (2) above is the one that we most often think about when we use the word "cult" in modern times. The word conjures up an image of a group of lunatics chanting zombie-like and blindly following a charismatic leader. We think of cult members as people who are incapable of thinking for themselves and who are prepared to commit any act, no matter how bizarre or destructive, that they are commanded to do by their leader or cult organization. I believe that this definition of cult can encompass a range of organizations - from the somewhat extreme to the very extreme. I believe that Mormonism can be called a cult under this definition, but that it is a the mildest end of the range. Compared to the really screwy cults that many people think of, the Mormon Church is pretty mild. It screws with people's minds a bit, but you can get out of it if you really want to and they won't hunt you down to kill you or kidnap you. The really extreme cults will demand that you fork over everything you own and then become completely dependent on the cult. They demand 10% of gross plus a lot of time and other donations, but they'll let you keep your day job and the punishment for not complying is just occasional dirty looks from the Bishop and being barred from the secret handshake learning center.

So Mormonism is a bit bizarre and can be called a cult. But it should be distinguished from the violent, really extreme cults that most people think of when the word "cult" is used in conversation. Now, if you're talking about the Mormon Church under Brigham Young, that's another story. That was about as extreme as they get. Polygamy, blood atonement, Brigham Young as virtual king...

A quote from a former Mormon who I have had email contact with:

- They psychologically, if not physically, isolate the followers from the rest of society.
- They use min control to make members believe the world is divided between absolute good (the group and its ideology) and absolute evil(all else).
- The group is the "elite"; outsiders are "of the world", "evil", "unenlightened," etc.

So, I've just done what I said I didn't want to do, haha... Are we done?

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 07:36

Mormons are pretty convincing and always so correct. The of course they allow polygamy.... ~;)

Albino Gorilla

08-16-2005, 08:10

The problem is religion. Religion is a perpetual dilemma of contradiction.

If there was a hell, then it would be unethical to have children. Why? Because they might go to hell. Don't you love the idea of your children enough not to risk them an eternity of hell? I don't even know them and I would rather not have them than risk damning them to an eterntiy of fiery damnation.
Because it is up to that person wheather they go to hell or not, just like it is their choice to live a sucsseful life or not
If thou shall have no other Gods before me, then what up with the J man?
He is the son of god, and some belive he is the incarnation of god
If thou shalt not make any graven image unto me, then what up with the crucifix?

If Jesus actually died and came back, then why isn't he still hanging around?
He was ressurected and ascended to heaven. He hasn't returned to our world yet.
And if Jesus is God, couldn't he come back any time he wants? So then what is the big deal with the short-term death? Die, come back, die again, come back again, rinse wash repeat.
When he returns many belive the world will end

And if he isn't God, then why are thou putting someone before the big man upstairs?
Not everyone does. Each person has an individual belif in Christianity, of course they adhere to the rules, but in each person there will be slight differences. But look, either he is or he isn't, those who think he is belive he is god, and those who belive is is only the son of god don't put him before god
If he died for our sins wouldn't that mean he actually died? Like really died. If he got to come back, then it isn't much of a sacrifice!
It wasn't a painless death
Omens and portents, myths and legend. No different from our superstitious ancestors. The earth is flat! The stars are gods! The sun is a flaming chariot! Jesus rose from the dead and will come again! Simply believe and you will be given a life of eternal paradise!
Like as was said, many people belived and yet did horrible things. For what they did, despite their belifs, they will not be granted eternal paradise
I believe in monkeys that sling poo. That I can see.
I can't remember who said this, and this isn't exactly how he said it, but having faith, is having belifs in what you can't see

Albino Gorilla

08-16-2005, 08:15

There is a direct link between increased secularism and democracy. It's quite obvious actually.
What about Athens?

Pindar

08-16-2005, 08:19

I wasn't making a rebuttal. I was explaining why I didn't respond to his original post when he asked if he was on everyone's ignore list.

I see.

I don't think it's pejorative. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

So you believe all uses of the above apply and you don't consider (2) or (3a) as pejorative. That's interesting.

Now I noted you refer to Mormonism as: a mild extremism, a bit bizarre and it screws with people's minds a bit. You then quote a former Mormon who says they isolate followers, use mind control and see outsiders as evil.

(I don't think Mormonsim has ever renounced the principle of polygamy or blood atonement so this would fall into the really extreme camp of cults I take it)

You appear pretty hostile.

Are we done?

It's up to you. Do you feel Mormonism has been properly labeled and marginalized?

Papewaio

08-16-2005, 08:26

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

Oh crap my DnD group is a cult. Well maybe only the Chaotic characters.

Pindar

08-16-2005, 08:29

Oh crap my DnD group is a cult. Well maybe only the Chaotic characters.

Only if you have former members who say you isolate members, use mind control and see outsiders as evil.

Roll a twenty sided to find out.

Roark

08-16-2005, 08:36

I'm not hostile, Pindar. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was having a laugh that you got me talking about it with such minimal effort, despite my original protestations.

Their semi-worship of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young et al means that, yes, I consider (3a) to be accurate.

Joseph Smith's falsified "translation" of a rubric from the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" into the "Book of Abraham", and several other doctrinal farces mean that, yes, I also consider (2) to be true. I did try to qualify this with the fact that I don't consider them to be as bad as some of the other groups out there, but you seem bent on making some point here (I just can't ascertain what it is...)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has recanted physical polygamy and blood atonement, but they can have multiple "spiritual" wives...

Labelled and marginalised? OK, if that's how you see it. Feel free to challenge what I've said, though. I think that you yourself might be gettin' a little snarky here...

Pindar

08-16-2005, 08:49

I'm not hostile, Pindar. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was having a laugh that you got me talking about it with such minimal effort, despite my original protestations.

That's what I do. ~;)

Their semi-worship of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young et al means that, yes, I consider (3a) to be accurate.

Joseph Smith's falsified "translation" of a rubric from the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" into the "Book of Abraham", and several other doctrinal farces mean that, yes, I also consider (2) to be true. I did try to qualify this with the fact that I don't consider them to be as bad as some of the other groups out there, but you seem bent on making some point here (I just can't ascertain what it is...)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has recanted physical polygamy and blood atonement, but they can have multiple "spiritual" wives...

Labelled and marginalised? OK, if that's how you see it. Feel free to challenge what I've said, though. I think that you yourself might be gettin' a little snarky here...

I'm Mormon so I think its interesting reading the whys and wherefores of labels and what I believe and worship.

Roark

08-16-2005, 08:53

I bow to your restraint in responding to my tirade, then...

...and I'm utterly embarrassed as to the graceless manner in which I presented it.

Pindar

08-16-2005, 09:32

I bow to your restraint in responding to my tirade, then...

...and I'm utterly embarrassed as to the graceless manner in which I presented it.

:bow:

No harm no foul.

A representative of a country that produces some of the best surfing around deserves a lot of slack. ~:cool:

Papewaio

08-16-2005, 09:36

Pindar is a surfing Mormon... that I would like to see, black tie, white shirt, colourful boardshorts and a surfboard balancing on the end of a push bike... Yes sir, honest I am going to the beach to tell the surfers about the book of Mormon... I have learned their lingo to talk with them and spread the word... Dude the waves are really like radical so is the Good Book man.

~:cheers:

Bartix

08-16-2005, 09:48

C)Kafeer, this thread is great and will not be closed. And no we are not going to hell for not believing in God. Jesus didn't believe in god for example.

Temporarily closed pending staff review.
--------------------------------------
:tick-tock-tic-tock
--------------------------------------
Action complete. Re-opened for CIVIL discussion.

See! The prophecy of BP still holds!
:balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

Question of faith rquierd is question. If you KNOW God exists, your faith cannot save you....

Bartix

08-16-2005, 10:15

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.
Good point! :bow:
It is often good to set a thief to catch a thief. :book:

Adrian II

08-16-2005, 17:55

US faces a decreased democratic process, where lobby has a far larger power than before. This results in less participation in decisions by the voters. Also to note is that US is a democratic republic and not a democracy.True or not true -- where is the link with 'increased secularism' that you spoke of?

Redleg

08-16-2005, 18:07

Pindar is a surfing Mormon... :

No Papewaio - you got it wrong - Pindar is a surfing Mormon Lawyer otherwise known as a shark. ~D

Pindar

08-16-2005, 18:52

No Papewaio - you got it wrong - Pindar is a surfing Mormon Lawyer otherwise known as a shark. ~D

Redleg knows me too well. ~;)

Papewaio

08-16-2005, 22:01

Q: "Why don't sharks eat lawyers?"

A: "Professional courtesy."

Roark

08-17-2005, 04:55

Good point! :bow:
It is often good to set a thief to catch a thief. :book:

Again... my postix was not intendedix to rebuttix the pointix...

bmolsson

08-17-2005, 07:16

What about Athens?

Greece is pretty secular and democratic I would say.... The womens are a bit emotional though.... ~;)

bmolsson

08-17-2005, 07:19

I'm Mormon so I think its interesting reading the whys and wherefores of labels and what I believe and worship.

Pindar, we know, you are a cult in person..... ~:grouphug:

bmolsson

08-17-2005, 07:24

True or not true -- where is the link with 'increased secularism' that you spoke of?

US have a decreased secularism, it's Europe who have the increased secularism..... :book:

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 09:28

US have a decreased secularism, it's Europe who have the increased secularism..... :book:I know, I know, but what is the connection with the development of democracy? It is time to prove some of your statements, BMolsson.

Papewaio

08-17-2005, 09:36

Look at it this way, the countries that are more religious tend to have less democracy.

The countries that indulge in adsolute answers rather then exploring the unknown are less likely to be democracies.

Religion has been used for centuries to prop up generations of despots err Kings.

----

The roots of modern democracy can be traced to the Black Plague, printing press and weakening of the Church. People started to question and be better informed to do so... they become the basis of a democracy.

Bartix

08-17-2005, 09:39

Again... my postix was not intendedix to rebuttix the pointix...
:bow:
I was not thinking you as a thief.
The one crackpot religion being good at revealing the cracks of other was my thougt. Main Stream Churches of today probably far from original Jesus cult in many many fashion!!!! Organization, of course, and messages also!! ~:eeg:
If we truly believe in the Jesus, we must find True Core of Jesus, and not self serving things of Paul and mediaeval inventions of different things!!! :duel: :duel: :duel:

PS...:

adsolute:smug2: ~;)

Papewaio

08-17-2005, 09:41

Spellcheck stat! :help:

bmolsson

08-17-2005, 11:28

I know, I know, but what is the connection with the development of democracy? It is time to prove some of your statements, BMolsson.

What Papewaio said....

Bottomline, religion is a powerstructure that is in direct conflict with the principles of democracy.

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 11:44

The roots of modern democracy can be traced to the Black Plague, printing press and weakening of the Church. People started to question and be better informed to do so... they become the basis of a democracy.Do you really think that 'people' only started 'questioning' after the Black Plague and that democacy has its roots in Late Medieval Europe? Amazing. I think that its roots go back much farther. And I think that questioning (received) notions about man, society and the universe is an even older urge, as old as mankind to be precise.

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 11:47

Bottomline, religion is a powerstructure that is in direct conflict with the principles of democracy.That is nonsense, if you'll excuse my bluntness. As far as the United States is concerned I think a daily dose of Tocqueville will soon cure you of any illusions about linear correlations between religiosity and democracy.

Papewaio

08-17-2005, 13:57

bmolsson

08-17-2005, 14:59

That is nonsense, if you'll excuse my bluntness. As far as the United States is concerned I think a daily dose of Tocqueville will soon cure you of any illusions about linear correlations between religiosity and democracy.

A lot of people want it to be nonsense, including me, but it's not. :book:

I never said it was a linear correlation. There are different religions and the despot over the theocratic organisation can have democratic ambitions, which make that religion more democratic, for example compare Indonesia with Iran. Also to note that the old pagan religions in Europe was more "democratic" than the monoetistic religions. Mostly due to the "tribe" traditions.

I maintain that US and Europe go different directions today, leading to less democratic and more religious US and more democratic and less religious Europe.

Roark

08-18-2005, 00:45

What Papewaio said....

Bottomline, religion is a powerstructure that is in direct conflict with the principles of democracy.

The family unit is an undemocratic powerstructure... Anytime you get humans together, you've got a power structure. Quite often, these are not democratic. The corporation, the armed forces.

My parent's church (just as an example) votes on issues of policy. They attend the church because they all have certain articles of belief in common.

Doesn't sound terribly counterdemocratic or oppressive to me.

Again, I think that these generalisations apply more to the theocracies and right-wing fundamentalist societies of the world... and the pages of history.

bmolsson

08-18-2005, 03:17

Doesn't sound terribly counterdemocratic or oppressive to me.

Undemocratic doesn't always mean oppression. There are several despots during history that has manage to not be oppressive against it's people, on the contrary, very popular and brought prosperity to their people....

Papewaio

08-18-2005, 03:43

Do you really think that 'people' only started 'questioning' after the Black Plague and that democacy has its roots in Late Medieval Europe? Amazing. I think that its roots go back much farther. And I think that questioning (received) notions about man, society and the universe is an even older urge, as old as mankind to be precise.

I'm talking about the the modern roots of democracy, much like the modern olympics it is an old idea that has come about again given the right conditions.

Black Plague showed that being a good Christian did not stop you getting killed indiscriminately. That the Church actually did not have any earthly power. People started to look for answers elsewhere.

Add to that the spread of ideas and information increasing with the printing press. That the Church was no longer the sole holder of information and that others had access to information and started to form opinions on what they read.

Democracy needs informed citizens who ask questions and do not act as automatons. The citizens need to ask Why? They need enough information and understanding to make informed choices when voting.

What the printing press allowed was a flourishing of ideas and the rate of exchange of ideas multiplied. Having a weaker church allowed decentralization of authority and the ability of non-absolute answers to spread.

As new ideas became to flourish, so did the discovery of old ones. Modern democracy had all the right conditions to flourish as it had fertile ground to use. The people found the ideas of old and spread them, it was a lot harder for the Church to contain people when those people had a broader knowledge and the training of logic, reasoning, questioning.

So the modern proto democracy can be looked at like the rest of the Renaissance, an idea thats time had come about again.

Most despots do not function very well with an educated middle class. As such they are some of the first to be either brought to the side of the despot or wiped out. China's cultural revolution, the rise of the soviets, the rise of the Nazis (black shirts in particular) etc.

An unquestioning absolute faith in a we are right monoculture does not a safe democracy make.