The Son of God:

Men of faith flew planes full of people into buldings packed with more people on a blatant suicide mission in the name of their own faith. I'm far more impressed with their commitment.

Though neither story lends any credence as to whether any of them were correct or not.

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Men of faith flew planes full of people into buldings packed with more people on a blatant suicide mission in the name of their own faith. I'm far more impressed with their commitment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2z6mQrfdPI

I didnt found something better, but well.
We should be against Immigration from these Areas in General.
The Koran literaly destroy´s those people.

How do you feel about Jesus dieing, being resuscitated, separates from his disciples, moves to a new country, becomes an ordained Buddhist monk, dies of natural causes, and the monastery has the bones on display to the public?

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Men of faith flew planes full of people into buldings packed with more people on a blatant suicide mission in the name of their own faith. I'm far more impressed with their commitment.

So... you're more "impressed" by the commitment of dying in an instant versus the commitment of enduring death by crucifixion?

I won't call you an idiot, because it's against the Code of Conduct, but....

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Though neither story lends any credence as to whether any of them were correct or not.

Apples and oranges. But since you can't differentiate between being tortured to death for what you believe, and murdering hundreds and hundreds of people instantly because you believe something, ... I mean, why bother explaining?

"

bwam wrote:

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

I'll tell you this, I would honestly follow the word of the bible if God told me it was true. Until then I can only accept its truthfulness as far as I am willing to accept and have faith in the people giving that message and it feels wrong to me to worship the word of man before God, false idols and all that.

OK, here's the situation:
1. God gives his Word through Man, whom he deems appropriate to relay his Word.
2. God gives us his Word, who was with God in the beginning and was God, directly: the Word became flesh -- that is, the Son of Man, Christ Jesus.
3. God appoints men to relay the gospel of Jesus, so that we might all receive his Word.

God routinely uses Man for his Will. Among other things, we are his agents. We have a long history of seeing men reject God....

Your idea is this: "If I believe 'the people God appointed,' then I'd be worshiping them."

Your idea is that, if God did not truly appoint these men, then you would be worshiping Man instead of God. Implicit is your conclusion: "Therefore you should reject all men who claim God appointed them to spread his Gospel."

This isn't a sound conclusion. In order for it to be a valid one, you would have to reject the premise that God uses Man to accomplish his Will. And if you are not willing to listen to anyone, how can you be sure your rejection of this premise is a sound rejection?

Now if you acknowledge it is possible that God uses Man as his agents, among others, then it is logical to ask the following question: "Why have I closed myself off to hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ as given to us by four faithful witnesses? What have these men done that I reject them? Isn't it worth at least reading what they wrote?"

---

***

After Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, the Disciples were persecuted unto death. None of them recanted from their testimony.

Take a moment to think about how stunning that is. If their testimony had been some mere conspiracy, surely at least one of them would have broken, facing death. But none did.

You can contrast this to Joseph Smith's Mormonism. He claimed to have received tablets from an angel from God, and he had multiple witnesses. When confronted by a US Judge -- in fear of incarceration (not even death) -- all the witnesses recanted, admitting their testimony had been false.

Food for thought.

But to accept the idea that God used man to express His will you would first have to have faith in the person saying that, requiring faith in that person's word before God's because he is saying he speaks for God. Isn't that the definition of a false idol?

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

But to accept the idea that God used man to express His will you would first have to have faith in the person saying that, requiring faith in that person's word before God's because he is saying he speaks for God. Isn't that the definition of a false idol?

I'll try to answer you directly. Indulge me while I direct you to something that is recorded in Scripture:

"

In Lystra there sat a man who was lame. He had been that way from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, “Stand up on your feet!” At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.

When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

(Acts 14:8-17, NIV)

No child of God would accept worship, which is reserved for God only. If someone were confused, as in the case we just read, that confusion would be put to bed as quickly as possible.

(This happens with John, when he is on the Island of Patmos and he receives the Revelation of Jesus Christ. At one point, John is about to worship an angel, when the angel corrects him, dispelling John's confusion over who the angel was.)

But let's talk about Daniel. When King Nebuchadnezzar had his first dream interpreted by Daniel, Daniel told the King what he had dreamed and interpreted the King's dream for him -- without being told by King Nebuchadnezzar what the dream had been. The king said to Daniel, "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery."

And no, King Nebuchadnezzar did not worship Daniel, nor did he put Daniel before God in any way.

Does this answer you?

"

Pwnzors87 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

-....that Marxism and irreligiousness are best friends..

What ;D ? Atheism is irreligiousness, they do not believe or recognice anything they cannot experience,...jet. But very nice post, it´s always good to be backed up by somebody that is actually smarter than once self.

Not so. Atheism is the refusal of belief in God(s). Irreligiousness is the refusal of religion. It is possible to be religious while being and atheist, or theistic while being irreligious.

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

Although it isn't inherently true that atheism and Marxism must be linked, as a matter of circumstance it is historically true that they are linked.

Marxists seek to achieve equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity). To achieve this end philosophically, Marxists are often keen on propagandizing societies with the doctrines of value nihilism — that is, that all outcomes are equally devoid of meaning — in order to minimize resistance to Marxism within those societies. Value nihilism leads to moral nihilism, the belief that choices are meaningless; one then tends to be quite generous with that one believes to be worthless. A culture of nihilism is a culture of cuckoldry, ripe for conquest.

Moral relativism is a euphemism for moral nihilism. Or perhaps more accurately, the former is the logical completion of the latter; the latter says there is no right or wrong, while the former says there is no right or wrong in labeling things right or wrong.

Historically, theistic religions, for all their mystic irrationality, tend to reject nihilism and instead assert a specific set of values and morality. The reason for this is evolutionary: societies based on ideological rejection of morality die, as there is no longer a mission within the culture that it's people feel is meaningful to achieve. Any doctrine based on moral nihilism couldn't survive without an abundance of value, spawned from a competing ideology, to leech off of, so you won't find any that lasted long more than about 400 years ago.

That said, it is possible to create a nihilistic theism, such as Thelema. But such theisms are relatively new and lack the, um, cultural entrenchment of the faiths of Abraham.

I think Pwnzors87 is slightly off. It is not the belief in God, but the belief in Good that serves as antagonist to Marxism; it is not that Atheism and Marxism are best friends, but that Marxism and irreligiousness are best friends. Essentially, he's guilty of the common error of assuming religion and their are the same thing.

While I don't take much issue with any of that, I don't feel that anyone can establish a solid enough base of specifically Marxist and specifically atheist societies to validate that. Much as the common mislabeling of countries like Russia and North Korea as atheist nations, which couldn't be further from the truth. We also have to decide what we are considering an atheist nation, one that outwardly considers itself to be atheistic (see again Russia and North Korea) or a nation that by terms of population is predominantly atheist or secular, as in my list previously.

Moral relativism however I must disagree with you on. I do not see the leading of moral relativism to moral nihilism or vice verse. I would suggest that basically every single person, secular or not, is an unwitting relativist. Every religious person picks and chooses for themselves which book, which laws, which tenets make the most sense to them, in terms of their own personal view as to the nature of God. This can be messy and is pretty much a discussion in and of itself. Take american slavery, as just an easy relatable example. Religion was one of the major driving forces in american history used to prop up the arguments and laws in support of slavery, citing old testament law. Joseph Smith and his misguided Mormonism was no doubt the biggest driving force, but Mormoms were far from alone in this belief. Today, pretty much all of these same denominations have given up the idea of slavery in favor of the more socially acceptable teachings of Jesus. It is not that the bible changed. It is not that the text changed. Society changed, and religious values followed suit. If it was objectively true in the 1800's the slavery was not only acceptable, but mandated by God, how can it be objectively true now that slavery is no longer okay? The quick answer is it was never objectively true to begin with, nor is it now.

"Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."
Source: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_relativism.html

"Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others..."
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

So to clarify, moral relativism (other than "descriptive") holds not only your observation that people's beliefs on the morality of slavery have changed over time; it further claims that neither "slavery is morally acceptable" nor "slavery is morally unacceptable" is objectively right or wrong. To clarify, I take no strong issue with descriptive moral relativism and only abhor its other forms, except that it is very misleading terminologically.

You are confusing moral relativism with a rejection of affirmative moral mysticism — that is, the belief that, because a single common ancestor ate the fruit of a magic tree, all humans are imbued with the supernatural ability to truthfully classify all choices as good or nongood a priori. This is, of course, nonsense; determining such a classification is a difficult puzzle of which many people hold different pieces and attempt to solve in various, and often conflicting, ways. Disagreement in morality is no less natural than disagreement in economics or in psychology — or in mathematics. However, what you are ignoring is that moral relativism is negative moral mysticism — it claims, with no more evidence than its affirmative cousins, that objective moral classification of choices is unknowable, that we are all as ethically helpless as Adam in Eden pre-Tree, and thus the puzzle is already solved as much as it shall ever be: there is no right answer, merely different ones.

"

bwam wrote:

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Men of faith flew planes full of people into buldings packed with more people on a blatant suicide mission in the name of their own faith. I'm far more impressed with their commitment.

So... you're more "impressed" by the commitment of dying in an instant versus the commitment of enduring death by crucifixion?

I won't call you an idiot, because it's against the Code of Conduct, but....

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Though neither story lends any credence as to whether any of them were correct or not.

Apples and oranges. But since you can't differentiate between being tortured to death for what you believe, and murdering hundreds and hundreds of people instantly because you believe something, ... I mean, why bother explaining?

Oh you're welcome to call me an idiot, it's a compliment coming from someone who believes that real demons actually exist and influence people in the world today.

The secondary ponit of my post being, a small group of people being tortured, some killed, for supporting their alleged Messiah is not the amazing story you would have us believe. For the simple minded I'm sure it's quite astonishing. How many times have people been tortured, died, or otherwise actually went on to do great things for their cause? Your point is literally a non-point.

The main point you happened to skip right over, is that it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Jesus even was who the bible claims he is, or if any other part of the still in-process-at-the-time bible has any truth to it at all. And if it is indeed not true, it isn't even an uplifting story of faith, it's a story of the unnecessary deaths of a group of dumb people. People die for stupid reasons all the time, here's a few more. *Bwams mouth drops open in awe*

I've been staying out of this for the past few pages as I feel it descended into complete meaningless
stupidity, but I did want to come back to point out an obvious false comparison no one seems to have addressed;

"

bwam wrote:

you're more "impressed" by the commitment of dying in an instant versus the commitment of enduring death by crucifixion?

Dying in the knowledge that you will be resurrected a few days later is not the same as dying knowing it will be your last breath. All the meaning that is given to the concept of death is irrelevant if you will be resurrected within days.

This is all conveniently leaving aside the fact that if a person being tortured to death is your condition for mercy then you demonstrably aren't all merciful, but none the less, I just wanted to point out that "the sacrifice" of Jesus dying isn't comparable to actual permadeath. It's like SC vs HC, dying simply isn't such a big deal if you get to respawn in town with all your gear, and nor is the prospect of it.

"

bwam wrote:

OK, here's the situation:
1. God gives his Word through Man, whom he deems appropriate to relay his Word.
2. God gives us his Word, who was with God in the beginning and was God, directly: the Word became flesh -- that is, the Son of Man, Christ Jesus.
3. God appoints men to relay the gospel of Jesus, so that we might all receive his Word.

We can't trust Man to begin with. That's the point.