The foundations of Christianity

[Elijah John]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 33 by Realworldjack]

PART 2

Well let us continue, you say,

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
You "assert" that the risen Jesus was seen by many individuals.

This is another one of your overstatements. I have not asserted, that the risen Jesus was seen by many individuals. What I have said is a fact, not an assertion.

And yet you cannot produce their many and various testimonies to this "fact" can you? Because you purposely choose to ignore the difference between a "fact" and an "assertion." Many people "assert" that they have seen a Sasquatch. Many people "assert" that they have seen the Loch Ness monster. But THESE are the "facts;" no Sasquatch has even been captured. No Sasquatch carcass has ever been found. The "fact" is, in reality and despite many assertions to the contrary, no actual Sasquatch can be produced. They exist in the imagination of some people, but they do NOT exist as "fact." They are MAKE BELIEVE. The same is true for the Loch Ness monster. Fact and fiction are two very different things, you see.

Here are the "facts" relating to your "assertions." There are actually five primary sources for the story of eyewitnesses to the "risen" Jesus; The works attributed to Paul, plus Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (1Peter mentions the resurrection in passing but gives no details). These are simply the facts. That various individuals saw Jesus resurrected from the dead are assertions made by the five authors of these sources. Are these assertions believable? Well, is the claim that a corpse came back to life and ultimately flew away a reasonable and sustainable claim? Since it clearly is not, then we have every valid reason to suspect that these claims are not true. But what of the credibility of the accounts, and of the authors themselves? Here is a fact! ALL FOUR GOSPELS WERE AUTHORED ANONYMOUSLY. The names of the authors have been assigned to the works simply as a matter of Christian tradition. In truth we know almost nothing about the authors. Here are the "facts" concerning what we do know. And first of all is should be noted that all four Gospels are written in pure common or Koine Greek.

Koine Greek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Koine Greek (from κοινή "common", also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic or Hellenistic Greek) was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity. It developed through the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries. It was based mainly on Attic and related Ionic speech forms, with various admixtures brought about through dialect levelling with other varieties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_greek

Although the Gospel of Matthew is the first Gospel placed chronologically in the NT, because the early Catholic church believed it to have been written first (for reasons I will address shortly), it is now almost universally accepted that the Gospel of Mark was actually written first. The reason for this change in opinion is actually quite solid. Virtually the ENTIRE Gospel of Mark is contained in Gospel Matthew. Gospel Matthew essentially IS the Gospel of Mark, with additional information woven in. Since the author of Gospel Matthew could not have used Gospel Mark as the foundation for his narrative if Gospel Mark had yet to be written we are left with two options. The first and most obvious is that Gospel Mark was actually written first. This is now the prevailing opinion. The second possibility is that Gospel Mark is nothing more then an abridged version of Gospel Matthew. But evidence for the independent authorship of Mark is actually the best and strongest of the four. Christian writer Papias, writing near the middle of the second century recorded this concerning the author of Gospel Mark:

"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Mark was a believer. A follower of Peter, according to the earliest evidence. But Mark was NOT a personal eyewitness to any of the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus. And this is about all that is known concerning the author of Gospel Mark. This sparse bit of information in fact represents just about the most information known concerning any of the Gospel authors.

The Gospel of Luke is traditionally attributed by Christians to "Luke, the beloved physician," mentioned in Col.4:14. In truth however there is absolutely no evidence contained in scripture which would serve to connect the physician named Luke mentioned in Galations to the author of the Gospel traditionally attributed to an individual named Luke, other then the name Luke. It would be convenient of course, but Like so much of Christian belief what we are really dealing with is pure Christian mythology here. As we can see from the profusion of Marys listed in the NT, common names were commonly used, just like they are today. Two facts do emerge rather unambiguously concerning the author of Gospel Luke however. The first is the almost unanimous opinion of scholars and experts that the author of Gospel Luke and the author of Acts of the Apostles are the same person. And it is very clear from the details provided in Acts that the author was an admirer and a disciple of Paul. We know clearly that Paul himself has no claim to have had personal eyewitness information surrounding the life and death of Jesus and as such neither does his disciple, the author of Gospel Luke and Acts.

Like the other Gospels, the Gospel According to John was authored anonymously, and it's authorship was traditionally attributed by early Christians to an individual named John. There is nothing in the Gospel that serves to connect it to the apostle John. And like Mark, again we run into the problem of John being a very common name.

Gospel of John
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Authorship
"The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[7][8] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john

Papias indicates that there were two distinct individuals named John in the early church, the apostle John, known as the evangelist, and a second John known as the Presbyter, or elder.

Writings of Papias:

One
"I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html[/quote]

Papias knew this second John, the Presbyter, personally, and it is to this John that the author of Gospel John and the epistles may be attributed.

The author of Gospel John has NO claim to have had personal eyewitness information surrounding the life and death of Jesus.

Now we come to the Gospel According to Matthew. The question of authorship here is the most interesting simply because the actual origins of canonical Gospel Matthew are the most nebulous. Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook writing a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to have been attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it is clear that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70, the Catholic Church, which only came into being in the fourth century, traditionally placed the Gospel of Matthew as the first book of the Gospels, Mark second, then Luke, with Gospel John clearly the last to be written. One problem though for a book written some few years prior to the Gospel of Mark. The canonical Gospel of Matthew (canonical, found in all modern copies of the NT) contains within it virtually the entire Gospel of Mark, excluding mainly the "long ending" of Gospel Mark, verses 28:9-20, which are not found in the oldest manuscripts of Gospel Mark. How could the Gospel of Matthew contain the entire Gospel of Mark if the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIOR to the writing of Gospel Mark? And why would the apostle, an eyewitness, rely on the work of an individual, Mark, who clearly never even met Jesus?

Another and even greater problem with the authorship of Gospel Matthew occurs however. Papias also wrote:

"For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able."`

And in fact both Polycarp and Eusebius also confirmed in their own writings that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel "in the language of the Jews." In other words in the Hebrew language, Aramaic. And that's a serious problem for determining the authorship of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, which was written in pure KOINE GREEK. All FOUR canonical Gospels are in fact written in pure Koine Greek, the common language of that time, and show no signs of translation. Pure unaltered Greek in pure Greek verse and idiom, with no indication of the next to impossible adjustments which would have necessarily been evident in any translation from the vastly more completed Aramaic. There WAS an early document well known at the time to have been written in Aramaic known as the Gospel of the Hebrews, but all mention of that document abruptly disappeared about the time of the formation of the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Only some few fragments of it remain today. And those fragments show no connection to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. The canonical Gospel of Matthew so well known to modern Christians WAS NOT originally written in Aramaic and cannot be a direct translation FROM Aramaic. This is not the work attributed to the apostle Matthew referred to by Papias, Polycarp and Eusebius.

So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS! What is clear today is that it was written AFTER Gospel Mark, because the author of Matthew used Gospel Mark as his starting place. Gospel Matthew IS essentially Gospel Mark, with some material original to Matthew woven in. Gospel Luke contains elements of both Gospels Mark and Matthew, and was clearly written third.

The unknown author of Gospel Matthew has NO claim to have had personal eyewitness information surrounding the life and death of Jesus.

Bottom line, all of the Gospels were written anonymously decades after the fact, and NONE of them can be shown to have been first hand accounts for what they are describing. The same is true for Paul's letters. What we are dealing with are accounts of the beliefs as written down by believers years after the events according to what each individual author supposed was true according to his personal indoctrination. And these accounts contain stories of such as hoards of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem (Matt.27:52-53). And stories of flying reanimated corpses. These are ANYTHING but undeniable "facts." These are classic tall tales and make believe. History is filled with tall tales and make believe. But tall tales and make believe are NOT HISTORICAL "FACTS."

The fact is, Paul testified that many individuals saw the risen Christ.

Yes he did. Paul also saw dead people and had other strange visions.

2Cor.12
[1] It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
[2] I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
[3] And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

But in fact I am not denying that Paul was told by others that they had seen the risen Christ. I have been specifying that there were individuals who were actively spreading the rumor of the risen Christ. Just as the chief priests supposed they planned to do. Stories and rumors of a corpse which comes back to life and then flies away are not the same thing as undeniable historical "fact" however.

Can you see the difference here? There is a huge difference in me asserting, there were those who saw the risen Christ, and saying it is a fact that Paul at least claimed this. Now, it is also a fact, that Paul may have been lying, or deceived, but it is a fact that Paul claimed this to be true. This is why, there is a difference between us. I continue to deal with facts, while what you claim is on assumption.

Yes, it is a fact that Paul claimed to know individuals who claimed that they saw the risen Jesus. It is beyond this point that you leap to the ASSUMPTION that the claims of Paul's sources for the story are true however. And that IS the difference here. If I assume anything, it's that claims which violate all reason and common experience should necessarily rely on something more concrete than "That's what I was told!" before they are considered to be factual.

Now you may have looked at the facts to come to your assumptions, but in the end this is all you can bring to the table is assumption. What I am saying is fact. The fact is, Paul claimed there were many who saw the risen Christ.

Yes, Paul did make this claim.

It is also a fact, the rest of the Apostles claimed to have seen the risen Christ.

While I am not denying that this may well be true, it is not "a fact." It is a supposition based on the story at hand. Unless of course you can provide the testimonies of "the rest of the Apostles" in statements clearly attributed to them personally (the way that most of the letters attributed to Paul are generally recognized to have been written by a singular individual, Paul) which clearly indicates that they each one personally saw the risen Christ, then this is not a fact at all. This is what is known legally as hearsay. And it is not considered to be legal personal testimony in a court of law, for good reason. Without such personal testimony we do not know WHAT these individuals actually personally claimed or personally believed. What you are claiming is actually derived from the testimony provided by a total of five others. Four out of five of whom upon almost no information exists.

It is a fact, that the letter attributed to Mark claimed Jesus rose from the dead. It is a fact that Luke testifies to this as well, and also tells us the actions of the Apostles, after the ascension of Christ.

It is a fact that the letters of Paul, and letters attributed to individuals identified as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John indicate that others proclaimed that they had an experience with a man that they claimed was resurrected from the dead.

It is a fact that Paul claims to have encountered the risen Christ on the Damascus Road, and it is also a fact, that he claims this experience, turned him from being opposed to this movement to becoming it's biggest missionary.
It is a fact that Paul claimed these things.

claim [kleym] verb
3. to assert or maintain as a fact:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claims?s=t

None of these things are assertions, or assumptions, they are simply facts. Therefore I do not have to deal in assertions, or assumptions, from here, I can now go on to read about the rest of the lives of these men, and the result of their work, and determine, if they seem to be credible witnesses. I have done this, and have come to the conclusion, they are in fact credible.

Lets consider your standards for credibility.

cred·i·ble [kred-uh-buhl] adjective
1.capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2.worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/credible?s=t

in·cred·i·ble [in-kred-uh-buhl]adjective
1. so extraordinary as to seem impossible: incredible speed.
2. not credible; hard to believe; unbelievable:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incredible?s=t

Is the story of a man having a conversation with another man who has been dead for several years a credible story, or an incredible story? Do you see the problem with your standards of credibility?

Now, you and others, may come to a different conclusion, and I have no problem with that. I have never held the position that all must believe. But in the end, this is just another one of your extreme overstatements. I have never asserted, "Jesus was seen by many," rather I have said, Paul reported this event, which would be a fact. Now, I happen to believe this report, but this is a far cry from me saying, it is a fact that Jesus was seen by many.

Yes we very well may come to a different conclusion, and for very good and pertinent reasons. But ultimately you are right. It is NOT an established "fact" that the resurrected Jesus was seen by many. Nor is it an established historical fact. It's an unsupported and insupportable supernatural BELIEF. Like believing that the god Thor causes lightning bolts, there is no real evidence to support such a belief, and very good evidence based on experience and observation to dismiss such a belief as complete nonsense.

Now you go on to say,

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"You "assert" that the apostles were persecuted and died martyrs deaths for maintaining their beliefs to the bitter end."

If you will go back, and read my comments which you copied, and pasted, you will see that I concede this to you. Now I do not concede this to myself, but I am willing to concede it for sake of the argument. But, as I said, even if I concede this, there is still things that would have to be explained, and I point these things out.

Terrific! Now that this particular issue is settled, it should never be introduced as evidence by you again. I will be forced to deal with this particular commonly held bit of Christian mythology over and over again, ad nauseam, with every single Christian I encounter in the future of course. As I always have. I do consider this an obvious sign of the evolution (if you will pardon the term) of your understanding of the actual facts however. You may not be enjoying this particular learning experience, but it has BEEN a learning experience for you, appreciated or not.

I have maintained, that in the end, neither of us will be able to prove our points. I have stated, that all I can do is to give reasons for my belief. I have also stated, that in the end this is all that you can do, which is to give reasons for your unbelief. Now, is that better?

This runs afoul of just what constitutes "proof." It is often noted that it is impossible to prove a negative. When long time experience and observation indicates that a thing does not cannot and will not occur, it is considered to have been established to be "impossible." This conclusion is as close to proving a negative as it is possible to get.

im·pos·si·ble [im-pos-uh-buhl] adjective
1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
2. unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.: an impossible assignment.
3. incapable of being true, as a rumor.

A claim that something counter all experience and observation has in fact occurred, even once, does bring with it the expectation of some extraordinarily conclusive evidence that the impossible has suddenly become possible. "That's what I was told" clearly does not qualify is extraordinarily conclusive evidence. Especially when we look about and notice no one else making such a claim. For about a quarter of a century or so.

So just how are we to reach a conclusion on just what constitutes proof and what does not? By doing exactly what we are doing right here. Comparing actual facts to insupportable assertions. General opinion can then decide which of us has sufficiently proven our case.

With this being said, lets look at another one of your comments. This one seems extremely comical,

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"I don't just give "reasons for my unbelief," I give detailed reasons for my unbelief."

I Do give detailed reasons and explanations, and that is a fact. If you are not finding this an entertaining learning experience, then you are completely missing the point.

My position is, neither of us will prove our position, all we can do is give reasons. You say here, "you don't just give reasons for your unbelief." Okay then, what is it that you give? You then go on to repeat the exact same sentence, and simply insert the word,"DETAILED," as if this is makes any difference in the least. Even if your reasons are greatly, "DETAILED," they still prove nothing. You are simply giving us possibilities. I also take your statement here to mean, my responses are not all that detailed. Well I will not take up that argument, I will simply allow my responses to speak for themselves. We have been going back and forth on this since last year, and I believe it is time to move on. At any rate, as I said, I will allow my responses to speak on their own as far, as detail. The point is, detailed or not, you seem to agree, that we are not proving anything at all, we are simply giving reasons for our position. I apologize, that I left out the word detailed as far as you were concerned, so allow me to correct this. We are not proving anything, all I can do is give reasons for my belief, while all you are doing is giving, DETAILED, reasons for your unbelief. Now, is that better?

I sometimes slip in things that are intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, or that I find a bit amusing, just for my own entertainment. The problem is, getting too frivolous on this form can often lead to a warning. Otherwise I would constantly be poking fun, again simply for my own amusement. What I don't do is make statements based on "That's what I heard," or "That's what my mommy told me." Or, "This is what I believe because this is the way I was raised and it gives me comfort to believe this way." I tend to back my statements up with masses of detailed support. That's why I am often accused of being full of myself. Or the sin of pride that you have already accused me of.

And you will break poor dukekenha's heart, I am afraid.

Allow me to ask you, what fact is this comment based on? It has absolutely no relevance, to our conversation whatsoever. Rather, it is clearly a stab. This is a tactical comment, much like the rest of your arguments. What we have seen is you make extreme overstatements. Now, this could mean you are not reading my comments carefully, or it could be you are making these overstatements on purpose. In other words, you are attempting to get me to defend something I have never said. This sort of tactic works well at times. Lets take where you say, I agree with you that Mormonism, and Islam, is based on a lie. I could take the bait here, and begin to defend this position, even though I do not hold this position. Before I know it, I am attempting to defend a position I do not hold, and before you know it, it is to late, and I have backed myself into a corner. But you see, I do not hold the same position as you on this subject. We have been having this same discussion since last year, and you have continued to make these overstatements. I have overlooked them in the past, because there was just too many of them to address, just as you can see here in this rather small post of yours.

In post #19 of this thread Dukekenha wished you a Godspeed. I was merely suggesting that, as Dukenenha's champion in this debate, Dukenha would find himself (or herself) left without a champion if you decide to cut and run, and would surely be heart broken at your apparent retreat in the face of the enemy. A comment I slipped in just for my own amusement.

Was I attempting to get you to defend something you did not say? I was attempting to get you to continue to defend your beliefs AT ALL, and not completely disappear the way most of your Christian brethren invariably do at this stage of the game. The way you implied you intended to do as well. Congrats for hanging in there. And don't be shy about stating exactly what your position is. Again, what denomination are you affiliated with? Knowing that would give me a better handle just where you actually do stand.

But to demonstrate how you continue to make these overstatements, allow me to refer to a comment you made here on this thread, to Elijah John, you said,

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Paul fell ill during a trip to Damascus. During a period when Paul was desperately ill and delusional, and at a time when he was being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, Paul underwent a life changing experience that caused him to became a firm Christian.

Do you see how you say, "Paul fell ill," as if it was an actual fact? You then go on to say, "Paul was desperately ill and delusional,' as if this was an actual fact. Well let me explain, that what you say here, is not a fact, rather, it is a possibility. You see, I admit, this would be a possibility, but it is far from a fact! Let me give you some facts.

It is a fact, that Luke records, Paul having some sort of experience. It is a fact, that Luke, records, it was a, Divine Visitation. It is a fact, that both Luke, and Paul, say that Paul was opposed to Christianity. It is a fact, that Paul becomes a Christian. It is a fact that Paul goes on to preach the message of the Gospel, he was once opposed too. You see, all of these are facts. However, it is not a fact that Paul was ill, this is only a possibility. Now, I will say, it is a possibility, that both Luke, and Paul, were lying, or deceived, but again, this would not be a fact, only a possibility.

You may want to read my post # 18 of this thread again. read it thoroughly this time, because it is just packed with loads of detailed information. Yes, it is a fact that we have covered this issue thoroughly, and I have given detailed explanations for my statements. Paul was specifically described as being unable to eat or drink for three days. Dysphagia is a condition which causes the muscles of the throat to become paralyzed, which in turn limits or completely inhibits the afflicted person's ability to eat or drink. This fits the discription of Paul being unable to eat or drink exactly. It is generally a symptom of a neurological condition. Physical trauma to the head, or other conditions such as a stroke or heat stroke are possible causes. Being unable to drink for three days, especially in a hot arid climate, is a grave to the point of being a life threatening condition. Among the symptoms of such severe dehydration is the onset of delusions. Like the afflicted believing that they are conversing with someone who is not really there, BECAUSE THAT PERSON HAS BEEN DEAD FOR YEARS! All the symptoms and indications of Paul being desperately ill are clearly detailed right there in chapter 9 of Acts, no matter how you, Luke and Paul choose to interpret it. It is also a fact that ancient peoples believed that individuals with classic symptoms of epilepsy were afflicted with demons. And it is also a modern medical fact that epilepsy as nothing whatsoever to do with demons, no matter how ancient peoples chose to interpret it. Epilepsy is a neurological disorder. We actually have modern medical science now to explain these things to us, you see. For those who choose to live in the 21st century at least. For those who prefer to cling to ancient iron age beliefs, then naturally make believe is a perfectly obvious answer.

I attempt to stay focused on facts, even among my Christian friends. Allow me to give an example. There have been those who have been deathly ill, to the point the Doctors gave no hope. These people have been prayed for. There have been reports, of some of these people, recovering, and the Doctors have no idea how this occurred. In other words, the Doctors could not explain it. Now, there will be many Christians that will say it was an act of God, however, I would never say this. Rather, I would stick to the facts.

Fact 1. The Doctors believed this person to be ill, with no hope.

Fact 2. They were prayed for.

Fact 3. They recover.

Fact 4. The Doctors say they cannot explain it.

These are the facts. As I said, there would be many Christians, who would say it was in fact Divine intervention, however, I would never make such a claim, there is just to many things we do not know. It is possible, it may be Divine intervention, but it is not a fact, and I believe it is less than honest to make such a claim. For one thing, although the Doctors, may be very good, they do not know all, and it would be possible for them to overlook something. My point again is, I attempt to stay focused on the facts, however, we can see from your comments, you will state something as a dogmatic fact, that is simply a possibility.

Oh, if only all the people who "miraculously" returned from death's door were uniformly only Christian's in the process of being prayed for. Then you would have a true statistical anomaly to work with. It doesn't work that way of course. On the other hand, when good believing Christians die in the very act of worshipping God, should that not serve as evidence that God doesn't exist? What kind of an empirical test only accepts the positive data and totally ignores any and all data that does not serve to support the desired conclusion?

In 1994 a tornado hit the Goshen Alabama Methodist Church during Sunday service, causing the walls of the church to collapse. Twenty people died including six children. Why would God allow the deaths of those in His own house of worship, including the most innocent, who were there in the very act of worshiping him, when all He had to do was to prevent the walls from collapsing? A snap for an omnipotent God, and something which would not have even been overtly obvious. The problem is that when put to the test, we invariably observe that make believe is routinely unaffected by the harsh realities of real life. If a wall falls on you, or a mad man shoots you in the head, make believe does not serve as protection. Even for innocent children. Because in real life what we actually observe is that when the chips are down and faith is confronted by reality, reality will ALWAYS win out. When the chips are down and a Supreme Being would really REALLY come in handy, God, invisible but assumed to exist anyway God, will invariably act in exactly the same manner as a God who isn't actually there. A God who refuses to act even in the face of the ultimate crisis of life and death for the most innocent of His followers is a God who corresponds in every way to A GOD WHO NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH! This is as close to an empirical test for the actual existence of God as one might reasonably hope for. And in these sorts of make or break tests, the result for the question "does God exist?" invariably corresponds in every way to a negative finding.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/03/us/pi ... y-tornado- an...

You go on to say,

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"But if you refuse to continue on here, don't assume that I am simply going to give you any free passes on any of the other topics on this forum."


All I can say here is, thank goodness. This is what I have been saying we need to do. In other words, we have said all that can be said here, and it is time to move on. I look forward to you not giving me a pass.

We are done if you say we are done. Attempting a one way discussion is simply the act of talking to one's self.

Finally you say,

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"And let me say again, that it is never my intention to be needlessly offensive. Offense simply comes with the territory in discussions such as these. That you may FEEL offended is because you have discovered that you were unable to overcome my argument even though you feel deep in your heart that you can't possibly be wrong."


This causes me to wonder if you are reading my responses carefully. The first thing I will point out is, I have stated numerous times, that I understand the possibility of my error. Therefore, I do not FEEL in my heart. You have me mistaken with the other Christians, you have dealt with. I put no confidence whatsoever, in how I feel. I preach against going on feelings, and anyone who knows me will attest to this. In fact, they will more than likely say, I preach against it to a fault. The Bible never tells us to go on our feelings in fact it warns against it. This means I would be with you, against Christians, that believe God communicates to them through their feelings.

So your relationship with God and Jesus is not a personal emotional one, but rather a factual one? Like the "fact" that several ancient people claimed that others told them that a corpse came back to life and flew away? That sort of undeniable "fact?"

I also wonder if you are reading carefully, because I plainly stated, I do not understand why anyone would take offense. I also said, if what you are saying is true, then it does not matter to me how you say it. Therefore the last person you will have to worry about offending is me. Even if you were to make personal attacks on me, I would not take offense. Why? Because either your attacks are correct, or they are false. So I do not take offense.

It's good that you do not take offense. And highly unusual. Because you are an almost singular exception to the rule. I understand why many Christians invariably become so incensed at what I have to say. I am only pointing out to them that their entire view of reality is utter nonsense after all. I am also essentially denying their belief in the afterlife, denying that their sins are forgiven, since there is actually no one there to hand out such forgiveness, and implying at least that there is no great cosmic purpose to life. Other than the one each of us creates for ourselves, of course. And if those things really are true, many would prefer simply not to know it. The ostrich strategy. Then there are those of us who prefer the truth straight and unvarnished, simply for what it is. Even if it turns out to be completely indifferent to us.

This posting may actually represent a personal record in length. And I am not unaccustomed to long postings. But I do hope that you appreciate that I have made every effort to answer you both thoroughly and in DETAIL.

[nothead]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

It is hard to read your tirade "against nonsense." Obviously you require empirical fact over any comprehension of truth in religion.

The very intellect which you portray is contradictory toward ANY comprehension of that which is by definition beyond the human intellect...God, God-will and God-revelation.

It is the science of the atom bomb. It is the medicine of the pill to make a man live longer, but he still dies no matter what. It is the comprehension of nothing predetermining anything in the universe, only what comes within the boundaries of what we know in the science lab.

A hindu mystic is better off than you, raising his arm to the heavens and having this arm cemented in its own horrible stasis. He at least in action asks the hard questions to the end of his own time.

[nothead]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

Christianity IS about morality, since Jesus said to follow his commands.

Only if you LOVE him, of course, knowing this love is really pointed to the SENDER of him and him in secondary stance.

As HE pointed to his own Father as primary God among elohim.

And WHAT are Jesus' commands? Yes, the Golden Rule although this was already said in the Law. And the Lord's Prayer.

The HARD commands all fall under Shema, to love your God with all. This was explicitly stated by Jesus in Mk 12. The FIRST command is Shema exactly, to know God is One in number and to engage in loving this God with full immersion.

This is true Christianity, and those imbued with the same Spirit he was and is glorified in, know the unity of the faith.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 42 by nothead]

It is hard to read your tirade "against nonsense." Obviously you require empirical fact over any comprehension of truth in religion.

The very intellect which you portray is contradictory toward ANY comprehension of that which is by definition beyond the human intellect...God, God-will and God-revelation.

It is the science of the atom bomb. It is the medicine of the pill to make a man live longer, but he still dies no matter what. It is the comprehension of nothing predetermining anything in the universe, only what comes within the boundaries of what we know in the science lab.

A hindu mystic is better off than you, raising his arm to the heavens and having this arm cemented in its own horrible stasis. He at least in action asks the hard questions to the end of his own time.

It is true that my last two postings to Realworldjack were exceptionally long and wordy. They were intended to be a very thorough response to his previous posting to me, and it would be vain of me to expect many others to wade through both of my posts in their entirety. If you managed to read both of them completely, then congratulations. On the other hand, if you DID NOT read both postings in their entirely, then your critique of them, and me, rings hallow.

I was religious as a youngster. I was raised Christian myself. But I managed to overcome and escape the mental illness that is religion by the time I was in my early teens. I have never once regretted it. I have spent my entire adult life completely free of this particular illness. Nor am I a carrier.

***
Religious OCD: 'I'm going to hell'
By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
updated 7:33 AM EDT, Sat May 31, 2014

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or OCD, involves unwanted thoughts ("obsessions") and accompanying behaviors called compulsions that patients use to reduce anxiety. In scrupulously, the obsessions have a religious or moral underpinning.
Patients with scrupulously often describe how they believe their thoughts are morally equivalent to actions, Abramowitz said. Psychologists call this phenomenon "thought-action fusion."

"Scrupulosity literally means 'fearing sin where there is none,' " Abramowitz and colleague Ryan Jacoby wrote in a recent article.

How common is this condition?

Scrupulosity is an understudied subcategory of OCD. Attempts at characterizing how many people might have this disorder, from the 1990s and early 2000s, suggested that somewhere between 5% and 33% of OCD patients have religious obsessions. Scientists are not sure what causes OCD, but they believe a combination of genetic and environmental factors may be at play.

In societies where religiosity is more stringent, the numbers are higher: 50% of OCD patients in Saudi Arabia and 60% in Egypt said they had religious obsessions, according to studies from the early 1990s.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/health/oc ... ?hpt=hp_t3
***

Christianity IS about morality, since Jesus said to follow his commands.

Only if you LOVE him, of course, knowing this love is really pointed to the SENDER of him and him in secondary stance.

As HE pointed to his own Father as primary God among elohim.

And WHAT are Jesus' commands? Yes, the Golden Rule although this was already said in the Law. And the Lord's Prayer.

The HARD commands all fall under Shema, to love your God with all. This was explicitly stated by Jesus in Mk 12. The FIRST command is Shema exactly, to know God is One in number and to engage in loving this God with full immersion.

This is true Christianity, and those imbued with the same Spirit he was and is glorified in, know the unity of the faith.

See what I mean? Here is a pure unarguable fact for you. Jesus wrote absolutely NOTHING at all during his lifetime. When you cite what Jesus "said" you are actually citing the words placed into his mouth by others decades after Jesus died. Unknown Individuals and who in all probability never even met Jesus. And yet Christians obsessively and compulsively structure their entire world view around these ancient obscurely authored words. ESCAPE THE INSANITY! DOUBT.

Morality is about treating others they way you would want others to treat you. No religion is required to understand and practice this obvious truth.

[nothead]

It is true that my last two postings to Realworldjack were exceptionally long and wordy. They were intended to be a very thorough response to his previous posting to me, and it would be vain of me to expect many others to wade through both of my posts in their entirety. If you managed to read both of them completely, then congratulations. On the other hand, if you DID NOT read both postings in their entirely, then your critique of them, and me, rings hallow

.


Your tirades are exceptionally long because you are an exceptionally meticulous instigator of emirical data. Thinking this is your salvation, when it means very little in religion or philosophy of the meaning of Life.

I was religious as a youngster. I was raised Christian myself. But I managed to overcome and escape the mental illness that is religion by the time I was in my early teens. I have never once regretted it. I have spent my entire adult life completely free of this particular illness. Nor am I a carrier.

You are nowhere and have nothing to offer the purveyors of Truth in religion or philosophy. You are only where the naysayer can end up. Nay to God and nay to a Superior Creator or Intelligence. YOUR intelligence is sufficient for you.

***
Religious OCD: 'I'm going to hell'
By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
updated 7:33 AM EDT, Sat May 31, 2014

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or OCD, involves unwanted thoughts ("obsessions") and accompanying behaviors called compulsions that patients use to reduce anxiety. In scrupulously, the obsessions have a religious or moral underpinning.
Patients with scrupulously often describe how they believe their thoughts are morally equivalent to actions, Abramowitz said. Psychologists call this phenomenon "thought-action fusion."

"Scrupulosity literally means 'fearing sin where there is none,' " Abramowitz and colleague Ryan Jacoby wrote in a recent article.

How common is this condition?

What is the scrupulosity of a plethora of data which goes nowhere but your posts? You are so meticulous we know you to be obsessive about this. Thus the propensity for words strung along with more words. All meaning what, to doubt the supernatural in our lives? Whoo hoo.

Banality and anality. Obsessive compulsion, yes.

Scrupulosity is an understudied subcategory of OCD. Attempts at characterizing how many people might have this disorder, from the 1990s and early 2000s, suggested that somewhere between 5% and 33% of OCD patients have religious obsessions. Scientists are not sure what causes OCD, but they believe a combination of genetic and environmental factors may be at play.

Scientists know nothing of the workings of God. This is an altogether different field of study. What else can you offer us?

In societies where religiosity is more stringent, the numbers are higher: 50% of OCD patients in Saudi Arabia and 60% in Egypt said they had religious obsessions, according to studies from the early 1990s.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/health/oc ... ?hpt=hp_t3
***

Religious obsessions are bad, yeah hum. I worship my own rational constructions, em. They are the buildings of the new regime, yes.

Viva la revolucion! May the mental paradigms of all scientists rule!
Atom bombs unite!

Christianity IS about morality, since Jesus said to follow his commands.

Only if you LOVE him, of course, knowing this love is really pointed to the SENDER of him and him in secondary stance.

As HE pointed to his own Father as primary God among elohim.

And WHAT are Jesus' commands? Yes, the Golden Rule although this was already said in the Law. And the Lord's Prayer.

The HARD commands all fall under Shema, to love your God with all. This was explicitly stated by Jesus in Mk 12. The FIRST command is Shema exactly, to know God is One in number and to engage in loving this God with full immersion.

This is true Christianity, and those imbued with the same Spirit he was and is glorified in, know the unity of the faith.

See what I mean? Here is a pure unarguable fact for you. Jesus wrote absolutely NOTHING at all during his lifetime. When you cite what Jesus "said" you are actually citing the words placed into his mouth by others decades after Jesus died. Unknown Individuals and who in all probability never even met Jesus. And yet Christians obsessively and compulsively structure their entire world view around these ancient obscurely authored words. ESCAPE THE INSANITY! DOUBT.

So I believe the testimonies of those who loved him. Sue me. For being obsessive, worshiper of thine own mind...

Morality is about treating others they way you would want others to treat you. No religion is required to understand and practice this obvious truth.

I doubt you got this from your mind. Since it was in Leviticus before you were born genius.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 44:

...
Scientists know nothing of the workings of God.

I challenge anyone to show they know the "workings of God" - beyond the usual prattle of "faith", "my deeply held belief", or unreliable, anonymous testimonials presented by the ancients.

[nothead]

[Replying to post 45 by JoeyKnothead]



Ya I got the Baptism of the Holy Ghost in the 80's...

...and I will never forsake my God or the ecstatical Joy and desire to love God since.

This testimony you will not believe, but it serves as my best answer to you.

You on the other hand have NO answers to men, unless it might be to smoke more weed, eat more muchies and get more fat. Amen.

Quite a religion you got, Joey. Congrats.

[Zzyzx]

.

...and I will never forsake my God or the ecstatical Joy and desire to love God since.

How is that different from children loving their preferred superheroes ecstatically (with a feeling of ecstasy)? Of course their superheroes are imaginary. Can "gods" be shown to be anything more than imaginary? If so, how?

This testimony you will not believe, but it serves as my best answer to you.

Your "best answer" (personal testimonial / opinion) is meaningless in debate. One is expected (and required by Forum Rules) to substantiate their claims. Making a claim is not substantiating that claim.

You on the other hand have NO answers to men, unless it might be to smoke more weed, eat more muchies and get more fat. Amen.

It is not uncommon for those who find "ecstasy" loving their favorite "god" (even if imaginary) to feel superior to those who do not worship that "god." They often fail to observe that people can live just as well without "loving" or worshiping one of the proposed "gods."

Quite a religion you got, Joey. Congrats.

Non-religion is increasing among the US population (as it already has in Europe) while religion is decreasing. Perhaps the public is learning that one can live a full, interesting, fulfilling, honorable life without recourse to (or baggage of) religion.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to nothead]

Your tirades are exceptionally long because you are an exceptionally meticulous instigator of emirical data. Thinking this is your salvation, when it means very little in religion or philosophy of the meaning of Life.

Not all my "tirades" are as long as the one's that I have posted to Realworldjack. I can keep them short as well. I don;t think that empirical data is the means to my salvation however, since I have nothing to be saved FROM. Except possibly your imagination. Please save me from that.

You are nowhere and have nothing to offer the purveyors of Truth in religion or philosophy. You are only where the naysayer can end up. Nay to God and nay to a Superior Creator or Intelligence. YOUR intelligence is sufficient for you.

It's true that I don't talk to invisible friends, if that is what you are getting at.

What is the scrupulosity of a plethora of data which goes nowhere but your posts? You are so meticulous we know you to be obsessive about this. Thus the propensity for words strung along with more words. All meaning what, to doubt the supernatural in our lives? Whoo hoo.

Banality and anality. Obsessive compulsion, yes.

Ummm... what?

Scientists know nothing of the workings of God. This is an altogether different field of study. What else can you offer us?

Well, how about I offer to you that computer you are sitting at. When you choose to personally shun the use of the fruits of scientific investigation, the science that you disparage, then we can talk. Of course you won't be able to talk to us on this forum any longer. Or on your cell phone. They do seem to work don't they? How do those stupid know nothing scientists manage to pull that off anyway. Must be God's Will. Because you know He works in mysterious ways.

Religious obsessions are bad, yeah hum. I worship my own rational constructions, em. They are the buildings of the new regime, yes.

Viva la revolucion! May the mental paradigms of all scientists rule!
Atom bombs unite!

WHAT?

So I believe the testimonies of those who loved him. Sue me. For being obsessive, worshiper of thine own mind...

Apparently none of the individuals who knew him thought enough of him to write about him. All we have are stories written many years later by unknown authors.

Morality is about treating others they way you would want others to treat you. No religion is required to understand and practice this obvious truth.

I doubt you got this from your mind. Since it was in Leviticus before you were born

Neither the Christians or the Jews own exclusive rights to "The Golden Rule." It is a concept that is as old as civilized society.

****
Golden Rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rushworth Kidder notes that the Golden Rule can be found in the early contributions of Confucianism (551–479 BC). Kidder notes that this concept's framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions".[7] According to Greg M. Epstein, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely."[8] Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".[9] All versions and forms of the proverbial Golden Rule have one aspect in common: they all demand that people treat others in a manner in which they themselves would like to be treated.

Ancient Egypt
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."[16][discuss] An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[17]

The Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:
"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus[18] (c. 640 – 568 BC)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[19] (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean.[20] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.[21]
"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." – Isocrates[22](436–338 BC)
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus[23]
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." – Epicurus[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
****

genius.

Thank you.

[nothead]

How is that different from children loving their preferred superheroes ecstatically (with a feeling of ecstasy)? Of course their superheroes are imaginary. Can "gods" be shown to be anything more than imaginary? If so, how?

My Baptism in the Holy Ghost was the common pentecostal experience. You too can have it if you pray with at least hope if not faith.

It is supernaturally manifest. And the answer to your question. No man can describe this experience adequately...it is as intense as a tab of LSD, but not artificially induced.

My 'baptism' came alone in bed when I awakened from a sleep. I don't believe it was hypnotism either. How can you hypnotize the asleep? Or self-hypnotize?

This testimony you will not believe, but it serves as my best answer to you.

Your "best answer" (personal testimonial / opinion) is meaningless in debate. One is expected (and required by Forum Rules) to substantiate their claims. Making a claim is not substantiating that claim.

Then no testimony in Bible is valid either, or claim by men either, or spiritual guru or acolyte either. We are reduced to speaking only of frogs on the dissection table.
Is this really the case here?

You on the other hand have NO answers to men, unless it might be to smoke more weed, eat more muchies and get more fat. Amen.

It is not uncommon for those who find "ecstasy" loving their favorite "god" (even if imaginary) to feel superior to those who do not worship that "god." They often fail to observe that people can live just as well without "loving" or worshiping one of the proposed "gods."

I got a sort of ecstacy when I smoked weed...now this hydro stuff is supposed to be better...the various MDA synthetics more nicer, etc.

But again this is not an answer to sincere spiritual questions.

Quite a religion you got, Joey. Congrats.

Non-religion is increasing among the US population (as it already has in Europe) while religion is decreasing. Perhaps the public is learning that one can live a full, interesting, fulfilling, honorable life without recourse to (or baggage of) religion.

[/quote]

Good luck with it...this is all you want then bully for you. I got more, and this ain't Jesus per se, only a certain access to the spirit of God in his name...

...and this what I will promote as I do the Shema, Great Command of the Judeo-Christian faith.