Go Back   The Scream! > COMMUNITY FORUMS > Expostulation Plaza

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 30-March-2002, 22:42
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why not? If you wish to go in the direction of proving we are all sinners and in need of redemption
I'll take the 'why not ' as a yes, yes?

As for my direction , that is your assumption, and although wrong it is not uninteresting

From your statements so far 'proof' would seem to be unnecessary as you have already admitted joint responsibility and inherited guilt in not only the crucifixtion but of every other sin perpertrated by mankind.

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 30-March-2002, 22:54
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

this is getting interesting and the wheel is turning full circle

we are all sinners, those sins can only be forgiven by God and in order for that, we need to accept Him, so goes the Christian teaching.

but it is only important if we accept that sin is a bar to Heaven. if not then its only guilt and that is not the same thing

3 hail Mary's is not enough.

interesting discussion for an athiest and a 'dont know'

where do you lie fenix

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:08
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

where do you lie fenix
Tony a, you should know that 'Superman' can't lie

Also, as its over 2000 years since Christ has apparently graced our earth the doctrine of Christianity has taken many turns and interpretations since. Indeed, before the 5th century AD the doctrine included the belief in reincarnation for all, something which is now an anathema to the so-called 'christian' church

In answer to your enquirey, my sympathies lean towards the 'Buddhist' interpretation of existence.

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:11
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Whilst waiting for Fenix........

interesting discussion for an athiest and a 'dont know'
Tony for some time I used to state that I was "agnostic" as folks seem to find this more acceptable than "atheist" (An "agnostic" is a person who takes a philosophical view that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists)

Surely an "agnostic" in common with an "atheist" lacks faith and belief in a spiritual God.

I don't necessarily see an "atheist" in active denial of the existence of a God but merely a personal statement that I do not believe in God.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:15
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Whilst waiting for Fenix........
WL, as you seem to have no reply for my post concerning your acceptance of guilt , I assume you are in full agreement

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:24
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

christianity i know something about, although your information about early beliefs are new to me.

certainly it is not in the Bible as we know it today and was not taught by Jesus,

neither is other parts of what is taught and believed today, for example the beliefs of the Catholic church in Mary is an invention of man. Jesus tought that the way to the Father was through him, not through his earthly mother!

if by Christ you mean Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph then i would take issue with your statement ' has apparently graced our earth'

Jesus is an historical figure, what he did, who he in fact was is open to debate, but the fact that he lived and died on the cross is, i believe, fact

as to Buddhism, i am willing to learn
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:26
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Fenix in your religion how do you view the dominance of mankind and his destruction of other living species and the environment.

Am I correct in understanding that some Buddhists believe in re-incarnation?

Would a Buddhist regard humankind collectively responsible for killing creatures that may have been humans in a previous existence?

Apologies if this is a stupid ignorant question but it is not intended to be offensive or mocking.

PS your post popped up whilst diverted to this one.

My answer is I am ashamed of what humans beings have done in the past and are doing now and must share some of the burden for this.

'Night all. Have to go now pick up the thread in the morning. Thanks for interesting discussion

Last edited by Worldlife; 30-March-2002 at 23:36.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:41
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Vic, i am not sure what the exact definitions of athiest or agnostic are. these are mine

an athiest is someone who with knowledge has concluded that God does not exist, he therefor accepts that Heaven and Hell cannot exist and that this life we lead is all there is

an agnostitic, is someone who to some degree is sat on the fence, he knows all the facts but cannot either decide or be convinced

a christian, is someone who accepts, [believes is better] that Jesus was put to death and on the 3rd day rose from the dead, that he is the son of God and Lives today in their life. it is this belief that Jesus died for them that takes away their sins and gives them eternal life

it is through this sure knowledge that they know that there is a life after physical death.

as i said earlier, going to church is not enough, being good is not enough, the way to the Father is Through the Son and that is only achieved by a belief in the resurection

my wife has had this belief for the last 20 odd years, which is where my 'knowledge' comes from.

you describe your wife as a 'Christian' if she is anything like mine you will know it is not easy to ignore.

but knowledge is one thing, belief is another!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:42
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Although Eastern religions accept reincarnation as part of their doctrine, Christianity has rejected it since 553 AD, when it was dropped from their doctrine at the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. At that time, the Roman Empire was divided into two parts: the Eastern Empire at Constantinople and the Western Empire at Rome. It has been noted historically that the rejection of reincarnation was personally motivated by Justinian, the Emporer of the Eastern Empire, and his wife, Theodora. Although the vote at the Council relied on bishops from both the Eastern and Western Empire, only two bishops from Rome came to Constantinople to vote. As two previous popes had been murdered after they denounced the dropping of the belief of reincarntion of the Bible, many of the Roman bishops were afraid to vote against the wishes of Justinian. After the vote, all Bibles were confiscated throughout both empires, burned and rewritten.

Below is an excerpt from the Fifth Ecumenical Council.





THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN

I.

IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

II.

IF anyone shall say that the creation (thu paragwghn) of all reasonable things includes only intelligences (noas) without bodies and altogether immaterial, having neither number nor name, so that there is unity between them all by identity of substance, force and energy, and by their union with and knowledge of God the Word; but that no longer desiring the sight of God, they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following his own inclinations, and that they have taken bodies more or less subtile, and have received names, for among the heavenly Powers there is a difference of names as there is also a difference of bodies; and thence some became and are called Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as there may be: let him be anathema.

III.

IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema.

IV.

IF anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema.


For the full doctrine go to Medieval Sourcebook: Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553


The above information comes from here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~donacia/reincarnation.html

It would seem to me that the earlier doctrine rejected above being closer historically to the figure that generated it would be more likely to represent a more truthful representation of his teachings

fenix

Edit: Look here too- http://www.angelink.com/cathedral/reincarnation.html

edit (sil) fixed links

Last edited by silver; 31-March-2002 at 14:57.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:47
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

an interesting post Fenix
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 30-March-2002, 23:54
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

WL, I do not have a 'religion' per say. Like many in this country I was raised a christian ( baptized, sunday school, church. christian marriage etc). However, I have come to believe that christianity, a 'theist' religion ( one god) is naive. After much reading and experience, I believe the 'Buddhist' explanation is far more credible in explaining our 'roles' on earth.

Reincarnation is a basic 'Tenet' of buddhism and in fact most eastern philosophy and belief systems.

Fenix
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 31-March-2002, 00:17
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

if by Christ you mean Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph then i would take issue with your statement ' has apparently graced our earth'
The truth is that none of us can be 'absolutely' sure of anything unless we personally experience it, even then, the interpretation we put on any event is limited by our personal stage of development in 'Awareness'

Given that, and if I were a betting man I would probably agree that Jesus Christ did exist. Much of which has apparently grown from his life and teachings has probably been twisted and shaped by 'lesser' mortals into that which is considered 'christian truth' today.
I think that the 'basic' morality of christianity is sound , though to be fair I think this is also true of all major belief systems.


fenix
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 31-March-2002, 01:03
squidgy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cool thread. I'll try to deal with each point in turn.

posted by wl
Is it not understandable then that some would therefore regard Jesus as the leader of a politically subversive movement?

In these circumstance Jesus and his followers would, quite correctly in their opinion, be treated as criminal political conspirators and dealt with in the same way as other traitors.
Guess what? You're not the first person that's ever said that. I haven't really checked it out, but I'm led to believe that Israel was invaded by the Romans in 69BC, and that Jesus was one of the people campaigning against their occupation, he was a pretty active one too. That's why the Romans crucified him. Crucifixion was really intended to be showy, as a way of saying to onlookers "stay in line or this will happen to you too." It wasn't really intended to kill people, though, hence why Jesus was unsurprisingly still alive afterwards. He wanted his followers to know that he was most definitely still alive and kicking, and that he wanted to keep up the fight, but he wanted the Romans to think that it had killed him, because he didn't want them hunting him down and crucifying him a second time.

It kinda blew a bit big, so all a bit embarrassing for the Romans. Still, they sat down and got their public relations bods together and thought about how they could (a) conveniently explain it away, and (b) better still, exploit rumours about Jesus as a way of furthering their own political interests. This piece of Roman spin has developed into what is today known as Christianity, so it's hardly surprising that Jews don't support it.

Apologies if that sounds a wee tad cynical, but I'm worried by the potential of any religious, political or media empire gaining too much blind support. Yes I was brought up Christian, but I'm intelligent enough to see how the teachings can be exploited for sinister political and economic purposes, and I've yet to meet anyone who can convince me that it has any virtue which isn't politically motivated.

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 31-March-2002, 08:55
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Good morning all Astounded at the development of the discussion in my absence. Will try to catch up....

Firstly in reply to tony...

On your definition of an atheist I would not consider I have the expertise, knowledge or need to argue that God does not exist.

On your definition of an agnostic I don't know "all the facts"

However despite indoctrination as a kid at school I remain unconvinced that a God exists.

If an Almighty God does exist I would not be able to worship a God that tolerates an evil world of cruelty between man and man and beast and beast. I'm not necessarily happy with a get out clause that he allows this in the interests of independent development. As a Father or a Mother we would not allow our children to squabble, starve or kill each other and I don't see why that criteria should not apply to a loving and caring God.

IMHO a worthy God would not care whether or not I worshipped Him (or Her) and would assess my life on the care, kindness, love and consideration I offered to other humans and animals.

I would have nothing to fear from such an Almighty God deserving of my love and respect. In this context therefore I don't think it matters whether or not a believe or disbelieve... the way I lead my life is the most important issue.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 31-March-2002, 09:51
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Fenix
Given that, and if I were a betting man I would probably agree that Jesus Christ did exist. Much of which has apparently grown from his life and teachings has probably been twisted and shaped by 'lesser' mortals into that which is considered 'christian truth' today.
I think that the 'basic' morality of christianity is sound , though to be fair I think this is also true of all major belief systems.
Agree with you 100%

Thanks too for your superb post on re-incarnation in relation to the Christian faith



Ah..... Maybe earlier on in this thread folks could not understand that an atheist too might accept that Jesus, lived and died as a man

Last edited by Worldlife; 31-March-2002 at 09:56.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 31-March-2002, 10:11
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Squidgy

Do you have a little more information on your contention that crucifixion was a punishment not intended to kill?

The details I have are from a Christian site:-

Medical Aspects of the Crucifixion

There too they endeavour to allocate most of the pressure for the punishment of Jesus as coming from the Jewish community.

Wonder if you have background information on your contention that Jesus was opposing the Roman occupation as well as the established faith.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 31-March-2002, 10:13
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From WL.........
Agree with you 100%
After Fenix steadied himself he cried out for a glass of water. He sipped it slowly and falteringly, unable to take in such a devastating thought that the day had dawned when he and WL actually agreed on something

Sort of a 'minor' miracle wouldn't you say WL

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 31-March-2002, 11:16
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Fenix - it is said that God works in miraculous ways

Is this evidence of divine intervention?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 31-March-2002, 11:27
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Is this evidence of divine intervention?
If it was,,, sorta blow our beliefs ( or lack of em) out of the window


.......no, I think its more likely the Law of Averages . I think it was just about 'overdue' that we found something that we could agree on

fenix

PS......... not that it will last though
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 31-March-2002, 12:39
Dicky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

We did not crucify anybody, that was a barbaric habit in some far-off foreign countries.
Unlike the beheadings, floggings, hangings and public humiliations that have peppered British history then?
Not forgetting the Iron Maiden, Cat o' nine tails, stretching rack or perhaps the most gruesome of all British Tortures - being hung, drawn and quartered.

Vic you seem fascinated in events surrounding Israel.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 31-March-2002, 12:54
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Fenix I have to agree your previous post too

Does this not blow the law of averages? How long can this continue?

Dicky I am interested in many issues and wonder why you should intimate a "fascination" in respect of the circumstances leading to the foundation of the Christian faith.

(Latin fascinare, to enchant, bewitch, from fascinus, a bewitching amulet in the shape of a phallus)

Agree with you too about the barbarity of British punishments.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 31-March-2002, 12:58
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Does this not blow the law of averages? How long can this continue?
Don't knock it M8, it won't last long

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 31-March-2002, 13:13
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Unlike the beheadings, floggings, hangings and public humiliations that have peppered British history then?
I don't think any country or creed has a monopoly on barbarity.
Throughout history many 'choice' tortures and slayings have emanated from most so-called civilised and uncivilised cultures,,,,,,,sorta the downside to the advancements that some cultures also produce.

It seems to me that many world religions have also fought their wars in the name of their 'Gods' except Buddhism . This I believe is because the original teacher Guatama Buddha presented his 'ideas' to people with the advice that, if they did not find his precepts to be true in their own lives, to reject them. He gave people the Choice and this I believe is a major difference between Buddhism and most other belief systems

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 31-March-2002, 13:35
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

just come on and need to read this morninggs posts, but will just add

on the 3rd day he rose again,

best thread we have had for a while
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 31-March-2002, 14:10
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

have just read your post Squidgy and have to say it is creative thinking.

first time i have heard that crusifixion was not a means of putting somebody to death, maybe that is true but a spear piercing the body under the rib cage and pushed upwards into the heart would sure as hell hurt and whilst my knowledge of this act is not good i believe Jesus did not react.

interesting theory though!!!

edit

and having just read from WL's link on crusifixion, it leaves little doupt in my mind that it was a death sentence, not a lesser punishment
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 31-March-2002, 15:08
ewtie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Two or three comments.

Worldlife, I think you are re-writing history. Never, never did Jesus involve himself in politics. Pay back to Ceasar etc.

Jesus was dead when he was 'pierced', this fullfilled one of many prophecies regarding him.

Again the 'cross' preceded Jesus by many centuries. As a fact of history, the Romans used a simple stake to crucify criminals.

And again in answer to your first question, no 'we' didn't kill Jesus, an element of Jews did, and understandly, at that time under Roman rule they would have logically used Roman methods of execution.

Fathers and Mothers would certainly not permit agresson against their children. Could it not be that God is biding his time?

Interesting discusssion.

Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 31-March-2002, 15:17
Dicky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile Long post, need keyboard rest - help!

and i can take you to churches that have non.
Is that none or Nuns?

Vic I'm just curious about your curiosity.
I was just wondering if your thoughts were leading you in any specific directions.
Regarding the topic of this thread, I would just like to say that heritage of the Bible is like the World's longest running game of "Chinese Whispers".
Whole sections of the Bible have survived by word of mouth alone, and the number of translations made of it is considerable.
Declaring any single interpretation of the Bible as "the one true way" is a highly questionable act.

Fenix, your point about choice within Buddhism is a good one.
Furthermore Chrisitianity has at various points in history portrayed God as a external creator. An anthropomorphic deity.
That to serve in the name of God is to serve something non human.

Buddhism appears different in that God is considered to be within ones self.
The body is the true house of God, and learning to understand God is learning to understand yourself.

Will post more.

a bewitching amulet in the shape of a phallus
Haha, must go look that up.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 31-March-2002, 16:19
squidgy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

asked by WL
Do you have a little more information on your contention that crucifixion was a punishment not intended to kill?
To be honest, it was a documentary on Channel 4 a few years ago, forgotten what it was called, but I think there was a book which went with it, I think it was called "And The Witnesses Were Silent" or something, but admittedly I don't have it. I thought about buying it, and I have bought books on the strength of TV documentaries in the past, but not this particular one.

I think the point it was trying to make was that in as much as Christians try to blame anyone for the "death" of Jesus, they try to blame the Jews, as opposed to the Romans. This documentary made the point, however, that crucifixion was a Roman tradition, rather than a Jewish one. By contrast, the Jewish execution tradition tended to be to stone people to death instead.

It also went on to say that there are apparently records of hundreds of people being crucified by the Romans, however, historical records apparently only confirm one person as having died by it, and give the whereabouts of the skeleton which was subsequently found by archaeologists - and that person wasn't Jesus.

My point is not really whether I think crucifixion was intended to kill people or not, but it's apparently well documented that people stayed alive for substantial lengths of time after they were nailed up, sometimes several days. So it's not unthinkable that people might have been nailed up, and then taken down again whilst they were still alive. And it's not unthinkable that this might have happened to Jesus too - remember Joseph of Arimathea?

No, my point really is that there's good reason to believe that he was physically alive and breathing both before the crucifixion and after the so-called resurrection. So, you'd have to question the motives - why would anyone actually want you to believe that he had died and then come back to life again? Why does it matter?

It certainly seems to make sense to me that Jesus didn't want to go through the crucifixion all over again, so he might have kept a low profile, maybe even left the area, and try to lead the Romans to believe that he was dead. Result? Contrasting rumours, some saying he's alive, others saying he's dead.

Now you can argue whether someone is alive or dead until you're blue in the face, and unless you can physically see them, it doesn't really get you anywhere. So I think the Romans thought, rather than get tangled up in that argument, they would spin it out in a way that appears to acknowledge both sides - by saying that Jesus died and rose again. They would make out that this is all part of God's plan, and that it proves that the Roman occupation was part of God's plan in much the same way. Which is perhaps why belief in the death and resurrection is such a central part of the Christian faith. To question whether Jesus really died and rose again or not, and to question whether it's such a miracle or not even if he did, is to question the authority of the Roman occupation.

So there's good reason, if not to believe, then at least to suspect, that the Christianity we know today is a spin off from precisely the political empire that Jesus was campaigning to overthrow. Rather ironic, really ....

But I don't want to make a big deal of it, I just think that it helps to take a balanced view and keep things in perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 31-March-2002, 17:02
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Worldlife, I think you are re-writing history. Never, never did Jesus involve himself in politics. Pay back to Ceasar etc.
Surely, in the sense of challenging the policy of the religious leaders of the Country in which he was living Jesus was involved in political action . The occupying Roman forces and the Jewish religious leaders were both involved in running the state.

I'm having some difficulty balancing the accounts in the Bible with the views expressed in Jewish text (linked to the mocking "King of the Jews" inscriptions) that Jesus was not the Messiah.

Certainly in entering Jerusalam on a colt and the actions by Jesus in the Temple was a challenge to the established religious leaders. To cause turmoil in a religious place and demand change of policy, as Jesus did, was a confrontation with their power and thus political.

We can understand that "the chief priests and scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him: for they feared him"

I do not deny that the Jewish leaders prepared and presented the case against Jesus but do not exonerate the Romans as the occupying military force and upholders of Roman Law for joint responsibility in the condemnation of Jesus.

The Jews did not actually kill Jesus ..the execution was carried out by Romans.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 31-March-2002, 17:05
tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Squidgy i am speechless,
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bad, car, christmas, company, connection, dead, forward, google, happy, health, home, key, law, line, liverpool, lost, mail, make, opinion, police, product, public, rates, sound, speed, speeds, talk, virgin

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999-2014 The Scream!