Did we crucify the true "Messiah" ?

[Worldlife]

Gecko I find myself agreeing with so muchof what you are writing.

Your definition of religion is quite helpful.

I'm am sure the religious people here will attribute our daughter's reprieve from a potentially fatal disease to God working through the hands of the medical profession and drug companies to save her.

So I guess there is a good Christian reason why Almighty God inflicted these illnesses on your wife and my daughter.

I suppose in his infinite Wisdom he decided that there would be a reprieve for one illness and not the other.

Of course if you have faith you believe that there is a logical reason for a caring God behaving in this manner.

As a non-believer you can see there is no valid reason for an innocent person to suffer a long, lingering and painful death and for an Almighty God to allow these awful diseases and afflictions to exist

to go back to an earlier post, do not mix the religious with christians.

the religious are usually those who go to church and can mostly be described as pew fillers

christians are very differant to that

[silver]

So I guess there is a good Christian reason why Almighty God inflicted these illnesses on your wife and my daughter

why a 'Christian reason' ?

[Gecko]

Hey W/L,

Some of the Bible is so contradictory it cannot be explained by any faith or logic.

Faith means that you can say black is white & white is black with conviction, because faith is not logical.

I suppose in his infinite Wisdom he decided that there would be a reprieve for one illness and not the other.

"Infinite wisdom" implies it cannot be wrong about anything, funny....if it knows all, how come it messed up this planet so much.

As an example, I cannot for the life of me see the need for mosquitos, except to transport diseases from person to person. Anyone know what mosquitos contribute to the planet? If a God created mosquitos, it was not the act of a compassionate being.

Of course if you have faith you believe that there is a logical reason for a caring God behaving in this manner.

By definition, if you have faith in a God, you cannot be logical and if you are a logical person, a "caring God" is a paradox.

The only faith I have, is in myself, because I know I'm not always right & I'm not always nice!!

Thank God its Friday!!!

If you believe in a God, there is usually a religion attached of some denomination, if you follow a religion, there is usually a hierarchy attached, with a leader/god.

Gecko, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Buddhism; it would appear that it has not been covered 'yet' in your ideas so far in this thread. It has neither a 'personal' God that can have 'all' the ills of the World foistered on it, nor a 'set' of historical writings you are asked to believe without question. Indeed the Buddha's dying words were
"Work out your own salvation with diligence"

I think for many this is the greatest stumbling block, that they actually have to take responsibility for their own lives, that they are responsible for everything they do, that there is no hiding place, not even in death.
It begins with life as we know it, analyzes its nature and descibes in detail a path to better things. It produces a delicate balance between all extremes, and fosters the all too rare capacity for minding one's own business. On the one hand, its conception of universal compassion for 'ALL' forms of life, based on a realization of the common source from which they spring, has never been equalled; on the other hand, it stresses the importance of a sympathetic tolerance of other's right to find their own way to the common goal.

fenix

[Gecko]

Fenix,

I admit I have little or no knowledge of other religions, other than the Christian faith and I'm not well read on that subject either.

What little I know about eastern religions, I like, but like I said the only thing I believe in is myself. I don't need to believe in anything or anyone else. Buddha sounds like a wise fellow, at least he doesn't claim to know it all.

I have no problems with anyones faith Christian or otherwise, my objections stem from my rather logical mindset, I find it hard to understand why people smoke, when all the evidence says it will kill you, never mind why people believe in a God, my own philosophy is:-

Believe what you want, as long as you keep it to yourself.

Do what you want, as long as it harms no one, phyically or mentally. (Unless you like that kind of thing, in which case keep it to yourself and only with consent from the other party(s)!!)

Be good to yourself & others.

Money doesn't matter, people do.

Open doors for ladies, even though they never return the favour.

Let other cars in at junctions, no matter how many other road users don't bother.

Don't fart in bed.

AND brush your teeth.



Hmmm.....does this mean I've worked out my own salvation and I am therefore a Buddhist?

Gecko I take my hat off to you pal.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So I won't.

Gecko
Sounds like you and Buddhism could get on quite well. Its extremely logical and asks you to accept nothing that you cannot test in your own life to be so.

Incidently, in my experience, people initially smoke ( as kids) because of peer pressure, then once the nicotine bites , their 'hooked', least, that was my experience ( though thankfully I've shed the habit now).

..... and another thing, farting in bed ain't all bad, it keeps you warm

Gecko I take my hat off to you pal.

You ain't got a Bl***y hat, just that hairnet on yer chin m8 .
Mind you, if there's half a chance yer gonna shed that , you got my vote

fenix

Fenix if I was going to get into any religion it would be buddhism.......

it's just I cannot forget that truely awful film with Keanu (one expression) Reeves in.......

@fenix.............

THAT......."hairnet" happens to be a VERY important part of MY particular faith........

Now PLEASE apologise...

otherwise my GOD will come round and shoot your dog

OH sorry that was a typo.....Im meant GOD

Fenix if I was going to get into any religion it would be buddhism.......

Awwwww..... go on, your just saying that

THAT......."hairnet" happens to be a VERY important part of MY particular faith........

Whats that???? without it your Chin will drop off

[Gecko]

Farting in bed for me, earns a trip to the couch and in the middle of the night thats COOOOLLLLLLDDDDD!!!

You obviousley haven't learnt the 'Silent but Violent' technique

.......and with TWO German shepherd dogs under the bed, no probs with shifting the blame

[Gecko]

Oh contraire, mon ami!

I am noted for my SBD's (Silent But Deadly), but one whiff and its out with the gas mask & air freshener and straight to the couch.

Sadly, no pets to blame.

I have tried the Bad Smell = Ghosts routine, but it didn't work.



Edit: I was going to say this was getting a bit off topic but, I have mentioned the afterlife so I guess it counts.

I wonder if JC farted.......

after all I hear his Bowels moved in a mysterious way........

I'll get me coat.......

[AJ113]

Thank you for your welcome.

As no-one has answered my questions I have little to add, but I ask W/L for some specific clarification on the following quote:

"There are different versions of events depending on the source material and some key events are unexplained. "

Evening AJ, will read your posts and get back

To those who accept Christ as a genuine historical character, but reject his claims to deity and/or the resurrection: On what basis do you accept his historicity, and what criteria do you utilise for the acceptance/rejection of various parts of the Gospels?

On the available evidence, on balance I accept Christs existence

A lot of his apparent teachings are valid but only echo older texts

fenix

[AJ113]

"On the available evidence, on balance I accept Christs existence "

.....the available evidence being?

Gecko, thx for your quote about the word religion. I would insist that the difference between meanings 1a and 1b is essential, at least to me. Beleiving in God does not always mean that you accept/endorse/follow all teachings of one system, one institutionalised religion.
The bible also warns against "bad teachers" which i would interpret as those pushing endoctrination.

IF GOD CREATED THE PLANET AND EVERYTHING ON IT, IT DID A F*****G BAD JOB AND THEREFORE IS FLAWED. IF A GOD IS FLAWED IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED PERFECT. IF IT IS NOT PERFECT IT MUST BE IMPERFECT. IF IT IS IMPERFECT IT CAN BE BAD/EVIL.

Many Christians would argue that God made the planet perfect, man corrupted it. Then follows the recipe to make it good again, called the path to salvation in christianity, it comes as a set of guidelines with religion (10 commandments), one of the main ones being " sow goodness and you will reap goodness".

Fenix, i don't know much about buddhism, and the quotes you gave us earlier seem to point to a very individualistic form of faith. I think that christianity also has a strong element of encouraging believers to find wisdom and god within themselves.

On the existence of Jesus as a historical character:
AJ: the available evidence being 2000 years of historical research and controversy! Historical studies mainly in the field of Roman and Midle-Eastern studies, in modern times not done by religious people but by independent scientific methods of historical / archeological research. I can't give quotes, but the existence of Jesus must be one of the most researched and documented points of history.

AS for farting in bed: "Love bears all things"

[Worldlife]

Seems that you don't have to be a Christian to believe in God but if you are a Christian then you must believe in God.

If one is "religious" then one has belief or in or reverence for a superhuman being, power or powers creating or governing the universe.

The Christian God is not the concept of God shared with all faiths.

Is that a reasonably correct conclusion from some of the discussion so far?

There is no serious issue in accepting that various prophets, including Jesus, existed as a human beings. The problem with Jesus is separating man from myth and those events that can be explained to be believable to those without faith.

I'm certain that the non-religious (are agnostics non-religious?) find the concept of suffering a handicap to the acceptance of God.

I'll input some of the serious discussion arising from Voltaire's "Candide" but before doing so have posted an extract from Bernstein's musical version (very true to the original though!)

Suffering for beginners - "Candide"

morning

cannot speak for all faithse but God as in Christian is the same god worshiped by the jews, believe that is also true with the Muslims?

the differance is Mainly Jesus, Christians see him as the son of God, whereas some other religions accept his existance, but not in this sence

.....the available evidence being?

Pretty much all empirical information associated with christianity, ie churches, literature, peoples personal experiences and also what Fab alludes to , research etc.

fenix

My main 'beef' with Chistianity ( which has been mentioned before) is the concept that there is a 'Saviour' who will/can come along and make all the stuff you have knowingly done wrong all your life 'Right'. Its just a complete travesty of everything we know.
You Reap what you Sow has been mentioned also and this in a nutshell is everyones story; no 'Gods' nor 'Saviours' will protect you from a chain of causation that you have put into effect.
When this lesson is learned a more favourable causation can be started with more favourable results. If everyone could manage their own actions with this in mind the World would be changed in an instant.

fenix

[AJ113]

"Pretty much all empirical information associated with christianity, ie churches, literature, peoples personal experiences and also what Fab alludes to , research etc. "

If you accept Christian empirical information as evidence of Christ's historicity, on what basis do you reject Christ's deity and resurrection, as all Christian empirical information gives these events and occurrences as fact?

Can you and Fab be more specific about the available historical information that convinces you of Christ's existence?

"You Reap what you Sow has been mentioned also and this in a nutshell is everyones story; no 'Gods' nor 'Saviours' will protect you from a chain of causation that you have put into effect.
When this lesson is learned a more favourable causation can be started with more favourable results. If everyone could manage their own actions with this in mind the World would be changed in an instant"

Unfortunately man is flawed and imperfect. Man is not capable of living a perfect life, therefore all chains of causation will be imperfect. The noblest thing we can do under these circumstances is to accept without reserve responsibility for our own actions.

[AJ113]

"There is no serious issue in accepting that various prophets, including Jesus, existed as a human beings."

Again, I ask, why do you accept Christ's historical existence?

....of Christ's historicity....

OK, lets clear this one up first. In responding to your question regarding the above quote, my acceptance is that , on balance, given the evidence available and already alluded to, that Christ did exist sometime in the past and was IMHO a genuine historical figure. That is the limit to his 'Historicity' that I am willing to accept. If by 'that' term you also mean for instance the 'Gospel's (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) interpretation of his life, then that is one step too far for me. If this breeches 'Historicity' as you intended it then my acceptance of that term in my original answer is incorrect.

Unfortunately man is flawed and imperfect. Man is not capable of living a perfect life, therefore all chains of causation will be imperfect. The noblest thing we can do under these circumstances is to accept without reserve responsibility for our own actions.

Man is capable of improving his causation and therefore his life. Indeed with diligance man can work out , eventually, his own Salvation. To throw in the towel because there is work to be done and rely on a Saviour would seem to me the easy way out and contrary to reason and logic.

fenix

[Worldlife]

from AJ Again, I ask, why do you accept Christ's historical existence?

Let's have your views on the case for acceptance or denial AJ - Answers to open questions like this could duplicate much that has been covered in the thread so far

If you accept Christian empirical information as evidence of Christ's historicity, on what basis do you reject Christ's deity and resurrection, as all Christian empirical information gives these events and occurrences as fact?

When we use the name Jesus there is no problem in accepting that he was one of the many Galilean "hasids" that were heirs of the prophetic tradition. When you add "Christ" you then accept Jesus as the both man and deity

It is impossible to believe in events such as the Resurrection without belief in God and so the two issues are not linked at all