So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Trying to fix Afghanistan is an oxymoron. You can't fix a civil society that has never existed.

---

And then Jesus said to his disciples: hear me oh ye of little faith. Thou shalt not try to fixeth the lands of Bactria, for lost to the son of man they art. Amen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Which is why they're not Christians. Unless one can conclusively prove that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would recognize Jesus as Bob if they lived in the AD years, they cannot be called Christians. They might have been, but one cannot be sure.

---

You are missing the obvious... I'll rephrase it to a direct question.
Are not Bob, Jesus and Yaweh the same entity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

You are missing the obvious... I'll rephrase it to a direct question.
Are not Bob, Jesus and Yaweh the same entity?

---

Sure they are. What's the catch?

Quote:

---

Anyone got the comprehensive list of all the empires that have conquered or tried to conquer that country?

---

Well, y'know, it wasn't unconquerable, there were several Islamic states that conquered and held it, actually centering their capital around that environment, such as the Ghaznavids, the Ghurids and the Seljuks (although the last were centered around Isfahan). Still, I think all of those states only exerted very light control without interfering in things like Pashtunwali.

Still, I was at a conference hosted by our professor of Persian Literature, and a guest speaker was invited to talk about Pashto literature. He said that it's an area that people have hardly invested time is, but perhaps the fact that recently there has been more and more attention to Pashto culture will actually be beneficial to their society. I don't know, I'm not an expert on the Pashto culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Just merely pointing out that the argument against Christianity by referencing older religions with similar content should be a fallacy.

Christianity shouldn't start with Christ, it should start with the creation story. I would rather say that today's Christianity lost its original form. Somewhere along the line it lost the elements of before creation, council of, and the war in heaven. Older religion puts much emphasis on this and the savior that would redeem.
As Rhyf has pointed out in previous discussions; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and later David were Christians.
Even Abel, the slain brother, was a Christian and understood the significance of the Savior that would come. That is why his offering (a first born lamb) was accepted, but his brother Cain's were not.

---

Yes and no, Christianity begins with Christ, and ends with Christ but Christian time runs in two directions, with creation at one end and recreation at the other, both seen through the prism of Christ's teachings.

However.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Would you say Enoch, Noah and even Abraham were Jews?
Both the Jews and the Christians believe they existed and that they have the same chance as any to inherit a place in heaven. They are not saved by their own merits, but by the saving work that Christ performed. Or for them, the work that Christ would perform.
You can't dismiss this fact of doctrine in Christianity. All men's salvation is dependent on Christ also those that lived prior to his birth. To say otherwise is not understanding what Christianity is all about. Looking to Christ for salvation is the definition of being a Christian. Not which denomination you belong to.

---

According to the Gospel of Nicodemus (a translation of which I am editing, hands off) Enoch was already in paradise with Elijah when the Patriarchs and Prophets were brought through the gate by Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Christianity shouldn't start with Christ, it should start with the creation story.

---

Thank you for making this excellent point. I see my 'Christian' faith as being different from other religious systems since while they tend to be based on either ritual or ideology, my faith is more of a worldview.

It's hard to say what I mean here and I'm not sure if my terminology is entirely correct. Both ideologies and worldviews attempt to create usually quite grand narratives in explaining how the world is. The difference is that ideologies are more designed for a specific context, usually at a certain period of time or development. An example of this would be the laws given to the Israelites after they came out of slavery in Egypt. These ideologies are useful at the time, but become redundant as things change. Likewise Islam to some extent came about as a response to what was seen as the watering down of monotheism in Christianity.

Worldviews on the other hand are less about providing particular solutions to particular problems and more about understanding how things develop, and why these issues come to be in the first place. I believe that my faith comes under this category. Many of my values go back as Sigurd said to the creation story, since I see that as the fundamental point to look at when it comes to understanding how we were meant to live under God and live our lives. Thus I appeal to a sort of natural law when explaining where my morals come from. For example, I am currently considering observing the sabbath. Many Christians would do this as they see it as a tradition, or perhaps as an artibtrary commandment. But I have taken this decision upon coming to the conclusion that the sabbath is a creation ordinance - meaning that to work six days and rest on the seventh is natural to the human condition.

I hope all that made some sense.

btw, @rvg - the idea that the Old Testament saints looked forward in faith to Christ and called him their Lord is seen in the New Testament itself. Matthew 22:41-46 reads:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Simple as time went by one could lie more without it being so obvious.

Edit: I somehow find it funny how Christianity completely fits within the cultural and religious evolution of it's region. The newly trending apocalyptic sects and all. And boom! Christianity. Planned or an other marker on how Christianity was made by men of their time. Not unlike the inapplicable or outright rules all old religions these days have. At least when you speak to the mentally functioning believers of the religion. Wacko's of course don't care that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Sure they are. What's the catch?

---

The catch is that you are all bungled up with a technicality; the name Christ. Which is just the Greek translation of the Aramaic that Jesus and his contemporaries used. This entity we call Christ i just a parameter in the Judeo - Christian tradition.
It shouldn't matter what is used. It could be X, Y or Z for that matter. The equation would still be the same. So if I use Christ and Christian as parameters in the religion which should be the same that was taught Adam, I refer to the same entity as you call Bob and the Jews call Yahweh.
The point is, that they all look to this entity for salvation and hence they are alike. But for simplicity's sake, Christ and Christendom is something we all understand. It brings instant recognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Why is it that the four books of the Gospel get progressively better written and more interesting!? I know this is terribly off-topic, but its been bothering the heck out of me ever since I read the bible that one time.

Like, Matthew is bare-bones and basic compared to John.

---

It actually goes Mark, Mathew, Luke, John.

how's that change your persepctive? John is also the most accurate about 1st Century Palastinian geography while Mark and Mathew make the least "real world" sense. Basically, Luke is cleverer and better educated than Mark and Methew, he has access to better sources and he does the "Greek thing" of taking the existing account and modifying it based on other sources he deems more plausable, while keeping the narrative basically the same. John, on the other hand, is actually coming from a completely different literary stream, which is why he dissagrees with the other "Canonical" Gospels so often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Simple as time went by one could lie more without it being so obvious.

Edit: I somehow find it funny how Christianity completely fits within the cultural and religious evolution of it's region. The newly trending apocalyptic sects and all. And boom! Christianity. Planned or an other marker on how Christianity was made by men of their time. Not unlike the inapplicable or outright rules all old religions these days have. At least when you speak to the mentally functioning believers of the religion. Wacko's of course don't care that way.

---

The best dressed gets the girl, or the truth makes the most sense. Take your pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, sure, but I want to hear the theological explanation. I'm genuinely interested in why the styles got progressively more.. I wanna say.. eloquent? Its like each one was just expanding and embellishing on the one before--but I don't even know if they're arranged in chronological order.

---

It is, roughly, "We don't know which one's right, but we think all the writers were cool - so read them all."

Fact is, if the early Church fathers had felt able to pick the "right" bits from each Gospel they would have rewritten a single account based on the 20-30 sources to hand, instead what they did was picked the best/earliest and presented them "as is".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Fact is, if the early Church fathers had felt able to pick the "right" bits from each Gospel they would have rewritten a single account based on the 20-30 sources to hand, instead what they did was picked the best/earliest and presented them "as is".

---

Just quoting this as this was the last comment on this particular issue. Didn't first want to reply to further sidetrack the topic, but I think we have gone too far down that road to redeem it.

The Bible and its origins, one of the favourite topics...
Always when discussing the Bible, we have to take into account that it did not exist in a compiled version at the time the books within was written. They should be scrutinized as individual texts. With the exception of some of the letters, these texts was not created to expand on or discuss a previous text. E.g. Matthew was probably not written to expand on Mark (common belief being the older text) etc.

However...
Many scholars believe as Philipvs suggests that the authors used source texts when writing the life and ministry of Jesus, commonly referred to as Gospels.
This whole theme is extremely complex and you would need to devote hours to get a grasp of it all. There are so many factors to consider and skeletons to uncover that it will leave you with nightmares.
You might begin to ask; why only four gospels, and why those gospels? The sacred number of 4 is a product of some early church father with weird ideas. "There can be no less or more than 4". Basing this on an obscure references to earths 4 corners.
Truth is, many groups in the very early church, used only one gospel. The church fathers referred to this quite frequently. Most notably was the gospel of Matthew. Not today's version, but in a version they either called the Hebrew gospel or the gospel of the Nazarene; which we of course do not have a copy of other than Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Origen quoting from it.

Then there are early church scholars that accuse each other of tampering with the gospels, one even accusing Irenaeus for forging the gospel of John. It could be that this man was just projecting his own wrongdoing. (Common for most liars).
The after match of the martyrdom of the early apostles left a mess. There were many fractions and ideas being put forward. Earlier they had the Apostles to bring these "apostates" back in line, but after their deaths these ideas flowed freely. No wonder we have over 35 000 different Christian denominations today.
That some, after all these happenings, many are even documented, would go to the step of proposing an infallible Bible; A book that they can't trust having been compiled correctly, is beyond me. Truth is, there are 120 texts which could be candidates in a New Testament, yet they chose 4 gospels and a number of letters and books, which in its lifetime has been changed back and forth with regard to compilation.

There are more gospels or sources to the gospels in the Bible, scholars have been arguing this for hundreds of years. Some they can't even name. They remain the hypotetical Q-source, M-source and L-source. You have many of the early Church fathers quoting Jesus: "Jesus said thus:" but those quotes are not found in the 4 gospels of today. Where are they recorded? Which source were they quoting? Maybe they were just inventing stuff?
Others you might have heard of; Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Philip (there are more).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Just quoting this as this was the last comment on this particular issue. Didn't first want to reply to further sidetrack the topic, but I think we have gone too far down that road to redeem it.

The Bible and its origins, one of the favourite topics...
Always when discussing the Bible, we have to take into account that it did not exist in a compiled version at the time the books within was written. They should be scrutinized as individual texts. With the exception of some of the letters, these texts was not created to expand on or discuss a previous text. E.g. Matthew was probably not written to expand on Mark (common belief being the older text) etc.

However...
Many scholars believe as Philipvs suggests that the authors used source texts when writing the life and ministry of Jesus, commonly referred to as Gospels.
This whole theme is extremely complex and you would need to devote hours to get a grasp of it all. There are so many factors to consider and skeletons to uncover that it will leave you with nightmares.
You might begin to ask; why only four gospels, and why those gospels? The sacred number of 4 is a product of some early church father with weird ideas. "There can be no less or more than 4". Basing this on an obscure references to earths 4 corners.
Truth is, many groups in the very early church, used only one gospel. The church fathers referred to this quite frequently. Most notably was the gospel of Matthew. Not today's version, but in a version they either called the Hebrew gospel or the gospel of the Nazarene; which we of course do not have a copy of other than Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Origen quoting from it.

Then there are early church scholars that accuse each other of tampering with the gospels, one even accusing Irenaeus for forging the gospel of John. It could be that this man was just projecting his own wrongdoing. (Common for most liars).
The after match of the martyrdom of the early apostles left a mess. There were many fractions and ideas being put forward. Earlier they had the Apostles to bring these "apostates" back in line, but after their deaths these ideas flowed freely. No wonder we have over 35 000 different Christian denominations today.
That some, after all these happenings, many are even documented, would go to the step of proposing an infallible Bible; A book that they can't trust having been compiled correctly, is beyond me. Truth is, there are 120 texts which could be candidates in a New Testament, yet they chose 4 gospels and a number of letters and books, which in its lifetime has been changed back and forth with regard to compilation.

There are more gospels or sources to the gospels in the Bible, scholars have been arguing this for hundreds of years. Some they can't even name. They remain the hypotetical Q-source, M-source and L-source. You have many of the early Church fathers quoting Jesus: "Jesus said thus:" but those quotes are not found in the 4 gospels of today. Where are they recorded? Which source were they quoting? Maybe they were just inventing stuff?
Others you might have heard of; Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Philip (there are more).

---

Yes, well I have the Apochryphal New Testement on my bookshelf (the proper Oxford one, not the one you buy in bookshops claiming to present "lost" texts) and the fact is that many of these texts were read, quoted from, and used as authorities well into the Middle Ages and up to the Renaissance, when the Humanists were able to prove they post-dated the Canonical texts by a few centuries and they were dropped.

A cynic on the internet

Shocking

[Video had too much swearing and not much relevant content - Tiaexz ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

A cynic on the internet

---

Are you calling me a dog?

Funny you should mention this... There are those who say that one of the sources of the gospels might have been Cynicism. Others, that Jesus was simply a Jewish cynic, on the grounds that there was a town close to Nazareth which was a center for Cynic philosophy. There are notably many cynic traits in the early church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Are you calling me a dog?

Funny you should mention this... There are those who say that the one of the sources of the gospels might have been Cynicism. Others, that Jesus was simply a Jewish cynic, on the grounds that there was a town close to Nazareth which was a center for Cynic philosophy. There are notably many cynic traits in the early church.

---

I was talking about the OP

And no I'm not calling you a dog lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I was talking about the OP

And no I'm not calling you a dog lol

---

YES. I'm a dog. I love dogs.

You can't love dogs, you're a nhillist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

YES. I'm a dog. I love dogs.

---

We have so much in common! You should like totally give me a call and like hang out in the mall or something. :gorgeous:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

We have so much in common! You should like totally give me a call and like hang out in the mall or something. :gorgeous:

---

OH MAI GAWD! We should totally compare shoes and go on a shopping spree! :kiss::kiss:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

OH MAI GAWD! We should totally compare shoes and go on a shopping spree! :kiss::kiss:

---

:sweetheart:

Very interesting meme suite. And much like DNA it is both mutable and self correcting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

:sweetheart:

---

I'll see you at the mall, babe. Mwah.

Soo... my question is. Does nihilism necessitate atheism? can one believe in a higher entity and at the same time subscribe to nihilism?

My short answer, which unfortunately is all that I have time for at the moment, is that in the most literal sense, nihilism rules out beleif in a theistic concept of the universe. In practice however, individuals tend to have individual beliefs. It would not surprise me if someone was able to reconcile the idea of a higher power with a belief in the efficacy of nihilism as an ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Soo... my question is. Does nihilism necessitate atheism? can one believe in a higher entity and at the same time subscribe to nihilism?

---

There is always the question of semantics, what exactly nihilism means. One definition is that it is the idea that there is no [absolute] meaning of existence.

This definition does not necessarily crash with theism (belief in higher entities), it is just that any god or gods would be just gods. You could say that a god might have created the universe, but that this would not allow him to create a meaning of existence more than anyone else. That regardless of whether life is the result of a "random" process or carefully designed by a designer, a meaning of existence would not follow; which is to say that because a mouth might be perfectly suited to eat with, one could still say that eating was not the purpose or meaning of the mouth, because 'meaning' and 'purpose' are philosophic concepts that are supposed to exist separately of physical reality.

In short, any god is, as everything else, relativised. Any god would also be a part of something, and not outside of everything.

I'll go a little more into depth, because there is one more interesting aspect: how about the god being everything (or the only thing to exist originally)? With this viewpoint, he can still be relativised and compared with nothing. That is to say one can not take the existence of any eventual god for granted (even if one says that it is physically inevitable).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

There is always the question of semantics, what exactly nihilism means. One definition is that it is the idea that there is no [absolute] meaning of existence.

This definition does not necessarily crash with theism (belief in higher entities), it is just that any god or gods would be just gods. You could say that a god might have created the universe, but that this would not allow him to create a meaning of existence more than anyone else. That regardless of whether life is the result of a "random" process or carefully designed by a designer, a meaning of existence would not follow; which is to say that because a mouth might be perfectly suited to eat with, one could still say that eating was not the purpose or meaning of the mouth, because 'meaning' and 'purpose' are philosophic concepts that are supposed to exist separately of physical reality.

In short, any god is, as everything else, relativised. Any god would also be a part of something, and not outside of everything.

I'll go a little more into depth, because there is one more interesting aspect: how about the god being everything (or the only thing to exist originally)? With this viewpoint, he can still be relativised and compared with nothing. That is to say one can not take the existence of any eventual god for granted (even if one says that it is physically inevitable).

---

None of those definitions would qualify as "God" in the modern understanding, they would not even really qualify in the Norse or Greek understanding as the only constraint on Odin's power were other Gods (or fate) and Zeus was no more constrained than El.

It's also worth pointing out that in most modern theistic doctrines the universe is fundamentally a perpetual expression of Divine Will, not a created "thing" seperate from the God that created "it".

I think that the whole God created the universe is a straw man. I don't think the Bible really claims it. Looking through most of the creation stories and religious text that deals with before the creation, you might notice that most if not all deals with the creation of this system (solar).

I was hoping someone would quote Nietzshe on the issue of Religion and Nihilism. I think he had his own definition of what nihilism was all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

None of those definitions would qualify as "God" in the modern understanding, they would not even really qualify in the Norse or Greek understanding as the only constraint on Odin's power were other Gods (or fate) and Zeus was no more constrained than El.

---

I disagree. What I did was simply to take the familiar deities and put them in a different perspective.

A religious person puts faith in whatever deity the person believes in, whereas an areligious person would not. In the case of atheism, no deities are thought to exist. In the case of nihilism, it is my argument that one could, for whatever reason, believe that a certain deity exists, but that the deity is not what it claims to be. So, same deity, different interpretation.

In other words, I do not find that nihilism implies atheism, insofar as atheism excludes the existence of deities.

There are several theories being postulated as to the purpose of the Universe. One claims that when the true scope and purpose of the universe has been discovered, including why it is here, the Universe will instantly disappear. And from this, it will be replaced by something even more bizarre and complex. And other's claim that this has already happened.

I think this discussion arose due to my first post, which says something like "I'm a nihilistic atheist". In retrospect, it doesn't make much sense, so I will explain my transition from being part if a religious sect, to dismissing all religions, on the basis that they are scientifically incorrect.

I'm Japanese. I was born into a Shinto-Buddhist family. Whatever. When I got to age 13, I started to question religions (including my own, which is not really a religion). And thus, I became an agnostic. I was only agnostic for about a year, before I became a deist. I was a deist until the age of 18, whereby I embraced atheism. Now this is where my "nihilistic" thoughts began.

I have manic depression, without the depression part. I can be quite loony and think abstract thoughts, and then I go back down into the logical thought. When I'm "manic", I start to question not only the purpose of myself, but the purpose of everything. If we all die, in the end, what's the point in doing anything? What's the point in finding love (which I tend to walk away from), what is the point in playing Shogun 2 for 8 hours straight. What's the point in researching animal behaviour?

In the end, we all die. Which is another reason why I posted my "theory" in the first post. This fear of death gave rise to religion. When I questioned everything, I did not become scared. Scared of what's to come. No, I just wanted answers.

Then, my "mania" stops. And I do play Shogun 2 for 8 hours straight (on occasion). I do study animal behaviour. I then realise I'm doing it for short term satisfaction. That's all life really is. Short term satisfaction.

Playing computer games is short term satisfaction...other things are short term dissatisfaction, long term satisfaction.

thats all life is and probably can ever be to science. because what it is, is descriptive and such is science. what it can be or ought to be is normative and is beyond the realm of scientific duty.

btw if you play STW2 8 hours straight u need to get yourself checked. and ask yourself why the in name of hell and heaven arent you playing RTW EB.