Happy Easter to Everyone and Soon my Birthday is Coming Up Soon, I Won't Say My Age, and has Anyone Else Got a Birthday Coming Up??

I TO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TOP WISH EVERYONE A HAPPY EASTER AND TO ALL CHRISTIAN FORUM MEMBERS(AND THERE ARE MORE THAN YOU THINK) I WOULD LIKE TO WISH YOU A HOLY EASTER AND REMEMBER..

EASTER IS NOT ABOUT BUNNIES AND EGGS ITS ABOUT THE DEATH AND RESSURECTION OF OUR LORD, WHICH IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT.

HAVE A GOOD ONE PEOPLE!!!

Dude.. what is the relation between the death and ressurection.. and chocalate eggs?

I'm just curious.. not trying to offend or anything!

no offence intended, none taken RADIO

that is my point, there is(or should be) no real connection,  in fact the origin of easter as we know it(as opposed to the death and ressurection of christ which i beleive is a different issue) has its roots in paganism and has a variaty of sources.

the word easter is not found anywhere in scripture and most likely has its foundations in the worship of the old german(or more correctly TEUTONIC) goddess EASTRE.

much of what we traditionally associate with Easter in terms of egg symbolism goes back even further to babylonion religious practices(as well,it is a fertility symbol in other cultures) and is associated with the goddess SEMIRAMIS.

As with Christmas..another tradition rooted in paganism easter has found its way into what we considers as the "christian tradition"

there are a number of sites that will explain this in greater detail than i can (my typing finger tires easily) here is one  

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.htmld - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.htmld

but that is why i said that the death and ressurection is MORE important than such silly things as eggs and chocolate.

an intersting site to show that christ death was about this time of year is.

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/33ad.htm - http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/33ad.htm

please understand i am not an expert but one who is learning but i hope this information is interesting  and helpful

BY THE WAY THIS IS MY FIRST AND LAST comment on this subject i do not wish to get into arguments as i beleive this format is not a good one for such complex issues.

I just was curious..

and you're absoluteley right.. I really have an different feeling of this all. It should be very interesting stuff for you too! Maybe you've read about Rudolf Steiner, hans stolp? even Elisabeth Kubler Röss writes about it! I've got some stuff about it here.. in the german language.. http://www.hansstolp.nl/eso_chr.php - http://www.hansstolp.nl/eso_chr.php  (IF YOU CAN'T READ GERMAN, I'LL TRANSLATE IT!)

Don't take the bible literally! Almost the whole bible is symbolism. I strongly suggest "esoterical bible reading, Jezus of Nazareth" from Hans Stolp.. It made a lot clear to me. I was an sceptic little kid before reading this book.

Just a little something about the church, Jezus never meant to make, create or something like that of an church! Altough his word had to be spread.. He came to make things clear, he came with an message witch was overflown with spirituality, there's so much of this whole message that he gave about spiritism that we aren't ready for yet.. I think that there are already people who aren't taking me sereously.. I wasn't taking my ex-girlfriends dad sereously either.. in the beginning of his speaking.. He was the one who tought me a lot about the esoteric bible.. I hope this speaking did some good, and again.. I'll never try to offend anyone here.. or have such intentions!

Dude, You raised the subject ... and closed it down : the Alpha and the Omega, so to speak.

Happy Easter

JrKASperov wrote: Radioactive Toy wrote: I just was curious.. and you're absoluteley right.. I really have an different feeling of this all. It should be very interesting stuff for you too! Maybe you've read about Rudolf Steiner, hans stolp? even Elisabeth Kubler Röss writes about it! I've got some stuff about it here.. in the german language.. http://www.hansstolp.nl/eso_chr.php - http://www.hansstolp.nl/eso_chr.php  (IF YOU CAN'T READ GERMAN, I'LL TRANSLATE IT!) Don't take the bible literally! Almost the whole bible is symbolism. I strongly suggest "esoterical bible reading, Jezus of Nazareth" from Hans Stolp.. It made a lot clear to me. I was an sceptic little kid before reading this book. Just a little something about the church, Jezus never meant to make, create or something like that of an church! Altough his word had to be spread.. He came to make things clear, he came with an message witch was overflown with spirituality, there's so much of this whole message that he gave about spiritism that we aren't ready for yet.. I think that there are already people who aren't taking me sereously.. I wasn't taking my ex-girlfriends dad sereously either.. in the beginning of his speaking.. He was the one who tought me a lot about the esoteric bible.. I hope this speaking did some good, and again.. I'll never try to offend anyone here.. or have such intentions! Even when reading the Bible literally, there's a lot of stuff going on with spiritism. Yeshua made this clear by announcing the coming of the Holy Spirit. Not the whole of the Bible is symbolism, to say that is to deny the historic accounting as in Acts or the four 'Evangeliën'.(English?) Yeshua says literally, the Church is My Body. And His Body is every person that believes He is the Son of God. That is what He says, literally. Church in wich way? There was NO church at that time, Isn't church meant as religion, or even in a way that he IS an church!? that he won't need an building of stone and wood for God?? In fact, we ARE ready for everything He announces. And according to prophecies, we don't have that much time to 'become' ready either. We've got all the time! why would you think otherwise, of the esotiricism? You're really showing it right now...   As to Dude, the Dutch word for Easter is Pasen. It's much more resembling the Jewish Pascha. I don't know how this difference came into being, but it proves that the name of it all has not so much to do with the paganism or not with Easter. Christmas is another story entirely. It's on the exact date of winter solstice, the birthday of an idol, a false god, Mithras in this case. Combined with the paganistic symbols as a pine tree, a star on it, and a 'Saint' Claus. Edit: I read that site about esoteric Christianity, and it is nothing but un-Christian talk. It takes the three parts of man as Yeshua told it, being the Soul, Spirit(from God) and the Flesh, and turns it into a paganistic explanation. In fact, it points to Buddha, which is a false god in Christian teaching, and that is in this nothing more than a demon. Un Christian talk? Who Said that it is Unchristian? Who said Buddha is an false god? Who said that Buddha was a god AT ALL? What is the paganism about this explanation? And paganism in wich eyes? the ones of the pope? the true disipline of the church, not religion itself! Yeshua taught AGAINST reincarnation, as He defeats death, meaning, eternal life. In eternal life, there is no reincarnation. Also, the Kingdom of God is NOT some 'way of life' it is the realm in which God again lives with his people. The message that this is a way of life is diametrically opposed to books as Revelations. How would you describe god? An man ? an woman? I think god is inside of us, Just as the devil! As we can choose for Sin same just as much as Enlightning! And we have eternal life, strange as it sounds.. You can almost see it as an snake, who losen his skin once at the time. We will rise and desend on earth, (the same as Jezus incarnated some days after his death) and every time, we shape our soul within that process. but no there is no reincarnation, we are eternal! And the kingdom of God IS a way of life! The kingdom god is for everyone!

I'm not an pagan.. If you think so, think so!.. But I would like to mention that I've seen all sides of the story, you've did not. If you're willing to read the book, (I'm not telling you to do so) please tell me afterwards what you think..

Thanks, once again.. I am NOT trying to offend!

well as much respect for spirituality as i have, im ready to celebrate a completely commercial easter! and enjoy it very much!

You know what my mom is cooking for this sunday when I head up to her place?
Rabbit

Enjoy all the mystical mumbo-jumbo you want if it makes you truly happy.

Remember this though;religion is usually the word of one individual interpreted to fit whatever area or person it wishes to permeate.Following the mantra of individuals who lived thousands of years ago is fraught with problems.It is impossible to know the true meaning of words spread across the centuries,translated into many different languages and using confusing idiom.How do you seperate the hyperbole and rhetoric from the authentic teachings? You cant.

Know your own way and be true to that. All this karma and spiritulism bullsh*t just f**ks with your mind.

JrKASperov wrote: Reed Lover wrote: .It is impossible to know the true meaning of words spread across the centuries,translated into many different languages and using confusing idiom.How do you seperate the hyperbole and rhetoric from the authentic teachings? Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit = Religious Zeal = Fanaticism.

Jr we are never ever going to agree,but you are decent person and that is good enough for me!

Happy Easter, all!

Whether it's a time of serious spiritual contemplation for you, or merely a chance to relax and drink for three (instead of two) nights in a row, I hope you have a good one -- stay well!

Peter wrote: Happy Easter, all! Whether it's a time of serious spiritual contemplation for you, or merely a chance to relax and drink for three (instead of two) nights in a row, I hope you have a good one -- stay well!

Same to you Peter.
 I've managed to get a few days off and I'm hitting the old cab sauv with a vengeance!!!

Luvvly

JrKASperov wrote: By alinea: -Yeshua never says we will reincarnate. Yeshua says we will be reborn just by believing in Him as the Son. That we are forgiven as soon as we ask Him to. But believing in Him as the Son is is just an tiny bit of the story, for He had an message -Here you talk again about Buddha, him being an idol, diametrically opposed to Christianity. Maria is someone who has been lifted up from the Bible while the Scripture hardly says ANYTHING about her. And saying the world will not end in an Apocalyptic way is completely ignoring Revelations, making you pagan indeed. Not by my judgement, but by comparison with Scripture. There accually was an Maria evangelium, for she was also, an student of Jezus. But hers, same as many other evangeliums were destroyed by the church! (I really can't say anything about that, because I've forgotten many little facts. If you're interested to read those, get "Maria Magdalena, of het lot van de vrouw" also from Hans Stolp. You're missing a great point here about Buddha. Just not only the Christians can be spiritual in the way that Jezus is. Jezus himself had some great teaching about spiritism, before he teached.. Even in lifes before! There are proofs, that he was among others, where he teached. I can't really say the name of them right now.. But in those times, WOMEN carried water. You know the scene were one of Jezus's apostles had to follow an MAN who was carrying water. Just one of many clues.. "Yeshua says we will be reborn just by believing in Him as the Son" To get back on this one again... - I know some of this sounds rediculous.. but really I'm not making things up.. - Why did he said this.. when he knew there were more ways for spirituality in this way? With the bible, he broke an rule in spirituality. B.C. there were men who were highly dedicated (toegewijden) in spirituality. But this was only an high culture secret.. Myths.. Jezus broke the rule indeed.. He even said that in the bible! wich scene? The one in witch he were mad.. Saying when a tree don't grow any fruits.. Chop him down! Why would the bible put in some words in wich Jezus was set as an angry man? Well it wasnt just an tree, It was an Vijgenboom (sorry.. just know the dutch word of it!). What's wrong with an Vijgenboom? An vijgenboom was an symbol of family, and spiritual knowledge.. passed on by family. Buddha (YES BUDDHA) himself was always meditating under such a tree. Well fill in the rest for yourself! The tree didn't grow any fruits no more.. Spiritualism was weakening.. Jezus gave with the bible the knowledge.. for everyone! And maybe there was an speaking of an personal apocalypse! -Only my 'vision' is careful argumentation using the Bible as basis, the basis of Christianity. The bible is indeed the basis, but there's more then just an bible! -Yeshua teaches us to ask for forgiveness, but warns us that if we do certain things, we will not be forgiven. It's not about understanding Him, which is futile, as we will never have the intellect of wisdom of God. We can instead, for our imperfection, ask forgiveness and be absolved, if we do not commit sins which are unforgivable such as blashpemy of the Holy Spirit and such. you are mistaken in saying that asking for forgiveness is just saying sorry. It's living our sins before The Son, acknowledging that we were wrong and our thus 'unclean' and need to be cleansed in order to do our Lord's bidding. The Holy Spirit will change you if you believe Yeshua to be the Son in that you will do that. That is what Yeshua taught. ITS ALL ABOUT UNDERSTANDING HIM!!!! His coming is all about getting the intellect of wisdom of God. We have to live by the resamblance of jezus.. Not trying our best and God has to deal with that! We have the devil and the Enlightment inside of us.. It takes almost forever to live just by the way of enlightment.. and we have to deal with the devil in the first place. It takes So long.. we can't make something of ourselves in only 70 years! -Your talk about walking to the other world borders on occultism and spiritism, something which is naturally opposed to Christianity. Yeshua Himself calls things as such evil. I bid you to watch your step, as we are taught by Paul to always test everything by the Holy Spirit. I watch my steps very carefully, but I've got to say that there's no line between spiritism and Christianity! I was saying this all the time, just read some stuff of that book. It isn't heathen, satanic or anything near that!.. It just contains an different view.. one wich includes spiritism! -Your words are in disagreement with the Bible. Your saying that we can't find the moral of the story is in disagreement. We are taught to use the Holy Spirit to understand the meaning. If you do not grasp that, that by all means, you are not truely a Christian by defenition. It is not I who am calling you pagan, it is the Bible which describes the words from your site as false teachings. I've read the bible really good.. I've never seen anything like that.. Nor have read some Mel Gibsonesque stuff about buddhism is wrong.. Read the bible word by word, just read do not obtain an message! Finally, I would like to add something, I have deliberately not spoken about karma, because in a sense, according to the defenition of karma, Christianity has something similar. Certain sins will not be forgotten, and if you have not asked for forgiveness than you are by no means free of your sins. This is a form of karma by the definition. Though karma in itself is a Buddhistic word I believe, which is a false teaching according to Christianity. You've judged.. oh no.. the bible has judged so much people already! Where can I read that Buddhism is WRONG in the bible?

Sorry I've written some stuff very quick.. had to go.. excuse me for anything wrong..

Reed Lover wrote: Same to you Peter.  I've managed to get a few days off and I'm hitting the old cab sauv with a vengeance!!! Luvvly

Tanksalot, Reedy!

A "whine" man, eh? CLASSY! Don't know that I'd admit that foo-foo, clog-wearing, manpurse-sporting, lisping girly-man trait  in such macho, prong-mental company.... I suggest you drink it out of a chipped mug, or straight from the (screwcap) bottle (or better yet, the box -- MMMM.... last week -- a fine vintage!) for extra manly cred.   Arrrrgh -- a goodly gargle!

Wine is fine, and liquor is quicker

But I find they just make me sicker.

Beer is best -- you can keep the rest!

Peter the Poemer

Red's not too bad, I suppose, but I'd rather sniff airplane glue, or Danbo's old gym socks,  than drink dry white wine -- yeee-uck!

Peter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Same to you Peter.  I've managed to get a few days off and I'm hitting the old cab sauv with a vengeance!!! Luvvly  Tanksalot, Reedy! A "whine" man, eh? CLASSY! Don't know that I'd admit that foo-foo, clog-wearing, manpurse-sporting, lisping girly-man trait  in such macho, prong-mental company.... I suggest you drink it out of a chipped mug, or straight from the (screwcap) bottle (or better yet, the box -- MMMM.... last week -- a fine vintage!) for extra manly cred.   Arrrrgh -- a goodly gargle!     Wine is fine, and liquor is quicker But I find they just make me sicker. Beer is best -- you can keep the rest! Peter the Poemer Red's not too bad, I suppose, but I'd rather sniff airplane glue, or Danbo's old gym socks,  than drink dry white wine -- yeee-uck!

Wine for the home drinking,but beer and only beer at the pub.In my local you might as well sip banana daquiries as drink lager! Bitter,lovely bitter or Guinness for the more exotic types.

If i go on a bender with the lads I wimp out and drink bottles of Stella Artois. (nancy boy!)

To be honest,if I was more thick-skinned I would drink Red Wine wherever I was!

Well all RIGHTY then -- glad we cleared that up...

you panty-waist!

You wouldn't catch me drinking any of the filthy beer!

utah_man wrote: PROGMAN wrote: Happy Easter to Everyone and Soon my Birthday is Coming Up Soon, I Won't Say My Age, and has Anyone Else Got a Birthday Coming Up?? Happy Easter to you too, Progman  My birthday (the physical one anyway) - is coming up (4/4)... I stopped celebrating my birthday years ago (gettin' too old), but in my heart I'm somewhere between 28 and 32

My mom died on the 4th of April. My b-day is coming up 4/11...hence the Gdub411...I'll by 39.

gdub411 wrote: utah_man wrote: PROGMAN wrote: Happy Easter to Everyone and Soon my Birthday is Coming Up Soon, I Won't Say My Age, and has Anyone Else Got a Birthday Coming Up?? Happy Easter to you too, Progman  My birthday (the physical one anyway) - is coming up (4/4)... I stopped celebrating my birthday years ago (gettin' too old), but in my heart I'm somewhere between 28 and 32  My mom died on the 4th of April. My b-day is coming up 4/11...hence the Gdub411...I'll by 39.

Your mom died on my birthday... which happens to be 4/4

Cygnus X-2 wrote: gdub411 wrote: utah_man wrote: PROGMAN wrote: Happy Easter to Everyone and Soon my Birthday is Coming Up Soon, I Won't Say My Age, and has Anyone Else Got a Birthday Coming Up?? Happy Easter to you too, Progman  My birthday (the physical one anyway) - is coming up (4/4)... I stopped celebrating my birthday years ago (gettin' too old), but in my heart I'm somewhere between 28 and 32  My mom died on the 4th of April. My b-day is coming up 4/11...hence the Gdub411...I'll by 39. Your mom died on my birthday... which happens to be 4/4

I won't hold it against you.

gdub411 wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: gdub411 wrote: utah_man wrote: PROGMAN wrote: Happy Easter to Everyone and Soon my Birthday is Coming Up Soon, I Won't Say My Age, and has Anyone Else Got a Birthday Coming Up?? Happy Easter to you too, Progman  My birthday (the physical one anyway) - is coming up (4/4)... I stopped celebrating my birthday years ago (gettin' too old), but in my heart I'm somewhere between 28 and 32  My mom died on the 4th of April. My b-day is coming up 4/11...hence the Gdub411...I'll by 39. Your mom died on my birthday... which happens to be 4/4 I won't hold it against you.

Well with death comes life I suppose.

Without adding to the clamor of the religious debate, someone specifically asked me to address the connection, if any, between the Judaic Pesach ("Passover") and "Easter," which claims to be about Jesus' death and resurrection.

I'm sure most of you have seen the film "The Ten Commandments," so you know at least a little about how Pesach began.  When Pharoah called down the last of the ten plagues - the killing of the firstborn - on the Jews, he did not realize he was also calling it upon his own people.  But the Jewish High Priest received "divine" instructions (I'm simply stating the story) that, in order to save their own firstborn, the Jews had to spread lamb's blood on the doorpost and lintel of the door, so that the angel of God (who would come to kill the firstborn) would "pass over" their houses.  Because of the extraordinary deliverance in this event, the Jews were told to celebrate this event each year.  And it has been kept by the Jewish people for well over 4,000 years.

"Easter," on the other hand, like Christmas, is rooted in a pagan holiday (as someone else has noted).  However, there are two important connections between Pesach and Jesus' death and resurrection.

First, Pesach was the meal that Jesus and the apostles had (the "Last Supper") just prior to His trip to Gethsemane, where He was arrested (after which followed His trial, the beatings and scourgings, His crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection).  It should not be forgotten that Jesus' "playbook" was the Old Testament; i.e., He was a devout Jew, and followed the historical practices of the Jews.  And Pesach was among the most important of those practices.

Second - and this is a bit more esoteric - go back to the spreading of the lamb's blood on the doorpost and lintel for Pesach.  Imagine yourself doing this.  You will find that the motion of your arm will, of necessity, create a cross.  Many Judeo-Christian theologians believe that this was a sign of the future coming of the Messiah.

One other comment on Jesus and the Old Testament.  Jesus would certainly have known the OT better than most, if not everyone.  It is likely that He could quote chapter and verse in any given situation.  In that regard, he would certainly have been familiar with - and believed in - the admonitions against "spiritism."  The strongest of these can be found at Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (bracketed text is simply explanatory):

"There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination [i.e., tarot cards, numerology, etc.], or an observer of times [i.e., astrology], or an enchanter [i.e., using spells], or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits [i.e., a medium or psychic], or a necromancer.  For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord.."

Note that an "abomination" is even worse than a "sin."  Thus, all manners of "spiritism" are clearly forbidden not only in Judaism, but also in Christianity, since Jesus Himself would have considered them "abominations."

As for "unforgivable" sins, according to Jesus, there is only one:

"Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men.  And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.  But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."  Matthew 12:31-32.

Finally, Radioactive Toy notes that Jesus did not come to establish a "church."  If by "church" we mean a building, rituals, etc., then RT is correct.  Jesus was a Jew who came to teach the Jews how to be "better" Jews - how to practice their faith correctly: to realize that the proper practice of that faith was not in "the letter of the law" (though there was a place for that), but rather in the "spirit of the law."  (This was why Jesus had such righteous indignation against the priests, scribes and pharisees: because they were misguiding the populace.)  It was only when the vast majority of the Jews rejected Him and His teachings that He brought those teachings to the Gentiles.

However, as JrKASperov correctly points out, the "church" that Jesus did come to establish was the "body" of believers in His teachings.  Indeed, many people fail to realize that when Paul wrote to the "church in Corinth," or the "church in Ephesus," or the "church in Phillipi," he was writing to a group of people who met in someone's home - what we would now call a "home church" or "alternative church"; i.e., one that does not meet in, or even necessarily have any connection with, a building owned or maintained by mainstream, heirarchical, "organized" religion.  It was only after Paul brought "Christianity" to Rome and converted the leaders -and then Constantine "legalized" Christianity in the third century A.D. - that it became what we know as "organized Christianity," complete with its rituals, etc.

As a final note, if this discussion is to continue, let's all try to remember that there are people of disparate beliefs on the site: Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, maybe even a Zoroastrian or two.   No one is trying to "convert" anyone else.  From what I have seen so far, the Christians among us are simply stating facts and beliefs about Christianity as we understand them from our faith.  And like all faiths, we believe ours to be "the" faith.  However, in stating those things we understand about our faith, we are not attempting to denigrate or insult any other faith, much less the individuals who practice them.

So let's try to keep the discussion as civil as possible, given the "emotional" nature of faith.  And if someone "says" something that sounds arrogant, callous, denigrating or otherwise negative, give them the benefit of the doubt that they are simply stating what they believe to be true about their own faith, and do not mean to come across as arrogant, callous, etc.

Peace to all.

maani wrote: .  And if someone "says" something that sounds arrogant, callous, denigrating or otherwise negative, give them the benefit of the doubt that they are simply stating what they believe to be true, and do not mean to come across as arrogant, callous, etc.

I resemble that remark

Please everyone, stop the theological debating, good grief, this is supposed to be a 'good-wish' thread, not a battleground for everyone's beliefs and Buddha vs Jesus contests...

A warm, peaceful Holidays spent in the best of company to everyone here from me.

Manunkind wrote: Please everyone, stop the theological debating, good grief, this is supposed to be a 'good-wish' thread, not a battleground for everyone's beliefs and Buddha vs Jesus contests... A warm, peaceful Holidays spent in the best of company to everyone here from me.

Let them debate waht they want!

it is the only way to learn

Reed Lover wrote: Manunkind wrote: Please everyone, stop the theological debating, good grief, this is supposed to be a 'good-wish' thread, not a battleground for everyone's beliefs and Buddha vs Jesus contests... A warm, peaceful Holidays spent in the best of company to everyone here from me. Let them debate waht they want! it is the only way to learn

Well, I don't know, I'm religious myself and my religion forbids me to discuss religion since such discussion almost always has some very unreligious consequences...

Manunkind wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Manunkind wrote: Please everyone, stop the theological debating, good grief, this is supposed to be a 'good-wish' thread, not a battleground for everyone's beliefs and Buddha vs Jesus contests... A warm, peaceful Holidays spent in the best of company to everyone here from me. Let them debate waht they want! it is the only way to learn Well, I don't know, I'm religious myself and my religion forbids me to discuss religion since such discussion almost always has some very unreligious consequences...

Damned if you do and damned if you dont.........

Reed Lover wrote: Manunkind wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Manunkind wrote: Please everyone, stop the theological debating, good grief, this is supposed to be a 'good-wish' thread, not a battleground for everyone's beliefs and Buddha vs Jesus contests... A warm, peaceful Holidays spent in the best of company to everyone here from me. Let them debate waht they want! it is the only way to learn Well, I don't know, I'm religious myself and my religion forbids me to discuss religion since such discussion almost always has some very unreligious consequences... Damned if you do and damned if you dont.........

Spot on

JrKASperov wrote: Well I'm not letting your fear of stepping out of line get in the way of me discussing things. I'm capable of doing that without those consequences, and maybe it's important for you too to work on that,but I don't know what your religion prescribes.

Discuss on, you've got my best wishes (no irony meant), but from my experience I know that these discussions rarely lead anywhere.  

Manunkind may be referring to three Scriptural passages:

"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things."  (Romans 14:1)

That is, if a "teacher" is seen to be disputatious with a "student," the former will be doing the latter far less good.

"Nor give heed to fables and endless geneologies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."  (1 Tim 1:4)

And, perhaps most particularly:

"But avoid foolish disputes, geneologies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.  Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition."  (Titus 3:9-10)

Thus, while Christians can and should engage in discussion and conversation about faith and faith issues, it is critical, as Manunkind correctly suggests, that Christians not permit themselves to "devolve" into "disputes" or "contentions," at which point they only do more harm than good.

Re JrKASperov's question re "rebuke," he is probably referring to one of three passages:

"Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." (1 Tim 5:20)

The application of this is to brothers and sisters in Christ, not to non-believers.

"Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority.  Let no one despise you." (Titus 2:15)

And, especially:

"Preach the word!  Be ready in and out of season.  Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside by fables."  (2 Tim 4:2-4)

Peace.

maani wrote: Manunkind may be referring to three Scriptural passages: "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things."  (Romans 14:1) That is, if a "teacher" is seen to be disputatious with a "student," the former will be doing the latter far less good. "Nor give heed to fables and endless geneologies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."  (1 Tim 1:4) And, perhaps most particularly: "But avoid foolish disputes, geneologies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.  Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition."  (Titus 3:9-10) Thus, while Christians can and should engage in discussion and conversation about faith and faith issues, it is critical, as Manunkind correctly suggests, that Christians not permit themselves to "devolve" into "disputes" or "contentions," at which point they only do more harm than good. Re JrKASperov's question re "rebuke," he is probably referring to one of three passages: "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." (1 Tim 5:20) The application of this is to brothers and sisters in Christ, not to non-believers. "Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority.  Let no one despise you." (Titus 2:15) And, especially: "Preach the word!  Be ready in and out of season.  Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside by fables."  (2 Tim 4:2-4) Peace.

Of course we'd better not mention the glaring contradictions to be found by mix and matching those quotes Maani.

The bible is a hotchpot of half-baked philosophy and hangs its hat on every mythology that has ever done the rounds of popular consciousness.

As for being the word of God~oh dear.

And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

Nuff said really.

Easter is a festival that isn't for any particular group; my understanding is that pascha (or at least, the concept) is not only part of ancient Egyptian festivities, but of Teutonic, Sumatran - in fact just about all Western cultures and probably a lot of Eastern cultures. As I noted in another Easter thread in Main Discussions, there is a Goddess of fertility who is recognised in dozens of cultures by different names. If we simply understand the Goddess to BE fertility, and "grow" the concept, then the common link becomes more apparent.

In short - from the little I know about it, it's a really, really ancient global celebration of moving on, reproducing and just being alive. The fact that it's global means that we're all united in this single thing, and the moving on, reproducing and being alive bit suggests that this one simple thing could become as many more simple things as we want to let it.

Anyone else care for a hit?

Certif1ed wrote: Easter is a festival that isn't for any particular group; my understanding is that pascha (or at least, the concept) is not only part of ancient Egyptian festivities, but of Teutonic, Sumatran - in fact just about all Western cultures and probably a lot of Eastern cultures. As I noted in another Easter thread in Main Discussions, there is a Goddess of fertility who is recognised in dozens of cultures by different names. If we simply understand the Goddess to BE fertility, and "grow" the concept, then the common link becomes more apparent. In short - from the little I know about it, it's a really, really ancient global celebration of moving on, reproducing and just being alive. The fact that it's global means that we're all united in this single thing, and the moving on, reproducing and being alive bit suggests that this one simple thing could become as many more simple things as we want to let it.

It shouldnt really be global,Cert as it is a pagan celebration of Spring,hence the allusion to rebirth.As you know when it is Spring in the Northern Hemisphere it is Autumn in the Southern Hemisphere.

If we go backwards from now, the Romans did indeed assimilate the Pagan festival of spring into the Christian celebration - or did they just put a Christian spin on it...? I don't know. I wasn't there... I read somewhere that March 25 is when Jesus' conception is celebrated.

Before that, there were festivities all over the world at approximately the same time, and references to Goddesses with strikingly similar names; the Saxons had Eostre and the Germanics had Ostara. Before that, the Anicent Britons and Irish celebrated the vernal equinox and made sacrifices to the Sun Goddess.

The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Mayans - and even Zoroastrianists celebrated rebirth at spring - the latter used to have the new year begin around the equinox, and the Bahai also have their new year then. Such celebrations at this time have been reported to have been held by Native American Indians, who built stone circles (or at least ampitheatres).

...I'll have to check up on the Mayans...

I like Easter,

The Traditions of Easter

As with almost all "Christian" holidays, Easter has been secularized and commercialized. The dichotomous nature of Easter and its symbols, however, is not necessarily a modern fabrication.

Since its conception as a holy celebration in the second century, Easter has had its non-religious side. In fact, Easter was originally a pagan festival.

The ancient Saxons celebrated the return of spring with an uproarious festival commemorating their goddess of offspring and of springtime, Eastre. When the second-century Christian missionaries encountered the tribes of the north with their pagan celebrations, they attempted to convert them to Christianity. They did so, however, in a clandestine manner.

It would have been suicide for the very early Christian converts to celebrate their holy days with observances that did not coincide with celebrations that already existed. To save lives, the missionaries cleverly decided to spread their religious message slowly throughout the populations by allowing them to continue to celebrate pagan feasts, but to do so in a Christian manner.

As it happened, the pagan festival of Eastre occurred at the same time of year as the Christian observance of the Resurrection of Christ. It made sense, therefore, to alter the festival itself, to make it a Christian celebration as converts were slowly won over. The early name, Eastre, was eventually changed to its modern spelling, Easter.

The Date of Easter

Prior to A.D. 325, Easter was variously celebrated on different days of the week, including Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. In that year, the Council of Nicaea was convened by emperor Constantine. It issued the Easter Rule which states that Easter shall be celebrated on the first Sunday that occurs after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. However, a caveat must be introduced here. The "full moon" in the rule is the ecclesiastical full moon, which is defined as the fourteenth day of a tabular lunation, where day 1 corresponds to the ecclesiastical New Moon. It does not always occur on the same date as the astronomical full moon. The ecclesiastical "vernal equinox" is always on March 21. Therefore, Easter must be celebrated on a Sunday between the dates of March 22 and April 25.

The Lenten Season

Lent is the forty-six day period just prior to Easter Sunday. It begins on Ash Wednesday. Mardi Gras (French for "Fat Tuesday") is a celebration, sometimes called "Carnival," practiced around the world, on the Tuesday prior to Ash Wednesday. It was designed as a way to "get it all out" before the sacrifices of Lent began. New Orleans is the focal point of Mardi Gras celebrations in the U.S. Read about the religious meanings of the http://wilstar.com/holidays/lent.htm - Lenten Season .

The Cross

The Cross is the symbol of the Crucifixion, as opposed to the Resurrection. However, at the Council of Nicaea, in A.D. 325, Constantine decreed that the Cross was the official symbol of Christianity. The Cross is not only a symbol of Easter, but it is more widely used, especially by the Catholic Church, as a year-round symbol of their faith.

The Easter Bunny

The Easter Bunny is not a modern invention. The symbol originated with the pagan festival of Eastre. The goddess, Eastre, was worshipped by the Anglo-Saxons through her earthly symbol, the rabbit.

The Germans brought the symbol of the Easter rabbit to America. It was widely ignored by other Christians until shortly after the Civil War. In fact, Easter itself was not widely celebrated in America until after that time.

The Easter Egg

As with the Easter Bunny and the holiday itself, the Easter Egg predates the Christian holiday of Easter. The exchange of eggs in the springtime is a custom that was centuries old when Easter was first celebrated by Christians.

From the earliest times, the egg was a symbol of rebirth in most cultures. Eggs were often wrapped in gold leaf or, if you were a peasant, colored brightly by boiling them with the leaves or petals of certain flowers.

Today, children hunt colored eggs and place them in Easter baskets along with the modern version of real Easter eggs -- those made of plastic or chocolate candy.

Copyright © 1998-2001 by Jerry Wilson. http://wilstar.com/holidays/permission.htm - Get permission to reprint this article.

Certif1ed wrote:   Before that, there were festivities all over the world at approximately the same time, and references to Goddesses with strikingly similar names; the Saxons had Eostre and the Germanics had Ostara. Before that, the Anicent Britons and Irish celebrated the vernal equinox and made sacrifices to the Sun Goddess.

The Saxons were Germanic........and Spring takes place at the same time all over the Northern Hemisphere.

They made sacrifices because in Spring all the plants and crops grow again.Naturally it was easier to believe that it was the work of a god or goddesses-usually godesses as women are responsible for giving birth.

COPYRIGHT REED LOVER'S ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE BLEEDIN OBVIOUS.

Easter is the greatest Christian celebration;Christ has died ,Christ is risen, Christ will come again.Christ conqeured death to free mankind from sin.The message is simple for those who believe.A holy Easter to all on here and a happy one to those who don't.

                           Pax  Vobiscum

                                                      John

Reed Lover:

I would be interested in knowing where you see "glaring contradictions" in the Scriptural passages I noted above.

Peace.

^AND WHILE YOU ARE AT IT REED LOVER COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY "HALF BAKED PHILOSOPHIES"

AND GIVE EXAMPLES OF FULL BAKED PHILOSOPHIES AND WHY YOU CONSIDER THEM TO BE MORE VALID.

WITH RESPECT

dude wrote: ^AND WHILE YOU ARE AT IT REED LOVER COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY "HALF BAKED PHILOSOPHIES" AND GIVE EXAMPLES OF FULL BAKED PHILOSOPHIES AND WHY YOU CONSIDER THEM TO BE MORE VALID. WITH RESPECT

Easy Dude!

And you dont need to add the "with respect" thing-if my opinion gets up your nose say so!

You are born,you grow up,you produce children to "further the species" and you die.
It is an all-encompassing philosophy because it is the same for every living thing everywhere!It is the most obvious and logical philosophy to have once you can deal with your own mortality.

On the other hand we have a supernatural being,occasionally benevelent who is responsible for all the workings of this vast universe.Yet he only understands the basic workings of science when we discover them for ourselves,unless of course it is the Holy Spirit who is the dumb one.He is omnipotent and omniscient and yet he concerns himself with the beings on this tiny insignificant planet.He is sophisticated beyond our wildest imaginings,but takes offence if his name is taken in vain and he is not particularly fond of women.Oh and he only speaks to his people in private,yet hears our prayers simultaneously.

Any philosophy that involves supernatural intervention is half-baked in my opinion.
When one reads the bible and then demand an explanation for events that dont add up (and in your heart of hearts you and Maani know what I am referring to) you get that old cop out-it is a matter of faith,or we shouldnt presume to second-guess God.
Anyone who cannot see the flaw in this is deluded,in my opinion.

Happy now? My honest opinion,like it or not.Oh and "deluded" is used euphemistically.

maani wrote: "Nor give heed to fables and endless geneologies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."  (1 Tim 1:4)

So are we to believe the Adam and Eve fable and the Noah's Ark fable,or give them no heed?

Oh no you cant discuss it can you,because it will cause "dispute".

fancy that!

But don't forget that Easter Sunday was originally a Pagan festival - i.e. you don't have to be a Christian to celebrate it.

Who needs an excuse to celebrate anyway?

Fragile wrote: Oh dear, here we have Reed and Maani in scripture squabbling again.One who believes and one who was born to believe but no longer does.You can debate as long as you wish and regurgitate from books or the internet or from memory.But at the end of the day you either believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ or you don't.In that Maani clearly does he gets my vote.Today is the greatest Christian celebration; Easter Sunday.Christ is risen.And I pray you highly intelligent men can find something else to cross swords over.

http://www.jokes.thefunnybone.com/waves/blowwhis.wav - http://www.jokes.thefunnybone.com/waves/blowwhis.wav

Velvetclown wrote: Bone `?????????? ...Got that every morning !!!

http://www.allwavs.com/wav02/Simpsons2/32dohs.wav - hmmm

Reed Lover:

First, I have no qualms whatsoever "in my heart of hearts."  Even if there are things I do not understand, or seeming contradictions that I cannot explain (with my all-too-human intellect), it must be remembered that "faith is the belief in things not seen, the substance of things hoped for."  That is why it is called "faith."

Re "fables" etc., your "selectiveness" is meant to bait, but ultimately the question of the Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark stories is, again, a matter of faith: perhaps less in the "details" (which is, after all, "where the devil is" ), but rather in the spiritual meaning.

As for not engaging in that discussion due to some notion of "disputation," again you attempt to bait.  There is nothing wrong with me (or any Christian) engaging in a discussion, even an ongoing one, about any Scriptural or faith-based matter.  It only becomes "disputative" when either I fail to remain "peaceful" in my approach, or the other person fails to remain at very least civil in theirs.

Peace.

maani wrote: Reed Lover: First, I have no qualms whatsoever "in my heart of hearts."  Even if there are things I do not understand, or seeming contradictions that I cannot explain (with my all-too-human intellect), it must be remembered that "faith is the belief in things not seen, the substance of things hoped for."  That is why it is called "faith." Re "fables" etc., your "selectiveness" is meant to bait, but ultimately the question of the Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark stories is, again, a matter of faith: perhaps less in the "details" (which is, after all, "where the devil is" ), but rather in the spiritual meaning. As for not engaging in that discussion due to some notion of "disputation," again you attempt to bait.  There is nothing wrong with me (or any Christian) engaging in a discussion, even an ongoing one, about any Scriptural or faith-based matter.  It only becomes "disputative" when either I fail to remain "peaceful" in my approach, or the other person fails to remain at very least civil in theirs. Peace.

Now see,that's not fair.I am not baiting you-merely pointing out what I believe are gaping holes in the whole fabric of religious belief.It is so easy to keep trotting out this "its all a matter of faith" mantra.If we all used that approach in discussion on this forum then it would become even more ridiculous than it already is.
For example:

Cert:I believe that Radiohead are a prog rock band.
Marcello: Why? Can you justify this in any way?
Cert: just trust me-it is a matter of faith.
Marcello:well alrighty then............

Frivolous but we could spend a lifetime blocking every query with a "trust me" retort!
Can you not see how this "it is all a matter of faith" rider is just a plain and simple means of blocking intelligent discussion.At some point somebody said " hey wait a minute ...something doesnt add up here".Once you look at the bible with any kind of critical eye,the only means of justification and defence is to say "its all a matter of faith-so do not question it"

We can bang on about this for ever:

"faith is the belief in things not seen, the substance of things hoped for."  That is why it is called "faith."

This is the most tragic avoidance of reality and should be dismissed for what it is:thought control.

gdub411 wrote: What...there is no Easter Bunny!!

http://familyinternet.about.com/library/media/audio/highscream.wav - http://familyinternet.about.com/library/media/audio/highscre am.wav

Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: What...there is no Easter Bunny!! http://familyinternet.about.com/library/media/audio/highscream.wav - http://familyinternet.about.com/library/media/audio/highscre am.wav

...you made me shut off Arena so I could hear that scream!!

gdub411 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: What...there is no Easter Bunny!! http://familyinternet.about.com/library/media/audio/highscream.wav - http://familyinternet.about.com/library/media/audio/highscre am.wav ...you made me shut off Arena so I could hear that scream!!

http://koti.mbnet.fi/badbee/wavs/exelent.wav - http://koti.mbnet.fi/badbee/wavs/exelent.wav

now you scream!

Glads to see all the great wits are on show today  damn, have to sort out my schpelling

Reed Lover:

"Thought control?"  Au contraire!    If anything, allowing for "faith" is far more open-minded than assuming that our human intelligence and intellectual capabilities are adequate for knowing or understanding even 1/1000th of what is knowable in the physical universe that we can touch and see - much less areas like metaphysics and, yes, "spirit," which are more intangible and ephemeral.   Indeed, it almost seems that your (and others') dismissal of "things spiritual" - and particularly where "God" and "faith" are concerned - borders on "fear," and is a desperate attempt to maintain an "intellectual," "analytical," "rational" and "empiric" view of everything.

If anyone is dabbling in "mind control," it is those like you who would "close off" subjects like God and faith out of an irrational fear that perhaps, just perhaps, you might be wrong about the whole thing.

Peace.

maani wrote: Reed Lover: "Thought control?"  Au contraire!    If anything, allowing for "faith" is far more open-minded than assuming that our human intelligence and intellectual capabilities are adequate for knowing or understanding even 1/1000th of what is knowable in the physical universe that we can touch and see - much less areas like metaphysics and, yes, "spirit," which are more intangible and ephemeral.   Indeed, it almost seems that your (and others') dismissal of "things spiritual" - and particularly where "God" and "faith" are concerned - borders on "fear," and is a desperate attempt to maintain an "intellectual," "analytical," "rational" and "empiric" view of everything. If anyone is dabbling in "mind control," it is those like you who would "close off" subjects like God and faith out of an irrational fear that perhaps, just perhaps, you might be wrong about the whole thing. Peace.

Absolutely not!I have no fear of this subject physically or mentally.How can I be afraid of something that doesnt exist?If one cannot interact with something,cant see,taste or detect its presence in any way,causally or effectually then it is reasonable to suggest it is the product of imagination.

Why is it that whenever anyone questions something they are accused of being "frightened"?

This is just another form of control.

It is a phenomenom I have noticed with the gay community.Understand that this is not an attack on the gay community,but whenever someone speaks out against homosexuality they are often accused of harbouring latent homosexual tendencies that they are frightened of.This is merely a tool to prevent debate and criticism.

Read this and consider it:

You might be deluding yourself because you cannot accept Man's mortality.
The fear of death is unique to human beings.
The promise of eternal life is only open to human beings.
Go figure.............................

I am not frightened-you are!

Of course this is now an impasse because the argument would dissolve into pantomime.

"Oh no I'm not-you are"  "No you are" etc ad nauseum.

Just because your belief in God is deemed more noble than my disbelief,does not make it so.
I appear arrogant and dismissive to you, you appear smug and gullible  to me.So who is right and who has the right to decide?

Reed Lover:

I was specifically addressing your accusation of "thought control."  To "control" is to limit.  So what is more limiting: believing that the rational, empirical universe is "all there is?"  Or at least considering the possibility that there is "more" than what we can see, feel, detect, etc.?  In his regard, there is no question - by any argument, semantic or otherwise - that the rational, empirical worldview is more "limiting" - and thus "controlling" - than one that has room for faith.

As Hamlet says to his best friend, "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."  Horatio's philosophy, of course, was the rational, empirical one.

Even eminent scientists like Darwin, Einstein, Hawking, Gould and others are (or were) not prepared to completely dismiss the "spiritual."  Are you smarter, more knowledgeable than they are?  If they were open-minded enough to at least consider the possibility of God, faith and a spiritual dimension to life and the universe, why do you feel such an urgent need to protect and defend an ultra-rational worldview?

This is what I mean by "fear."  Darwin, Einstein et al did not "fear" to consider the possibility of a "spirit world," despite their decades of extensive, intense scientific education, training, and work.  Yet you find it necessary to defend a position that even they would disagree with.  If you do not call this "fear" in the broader sense, then how would you describe it?

Peace.

maani wrote: Reed Lover: I was specifically addressing your accusation of "thought control."  To "control" is to limit.  So what is more limiting: believing that the rational, empirical universe is "all there is?"  Or at least considering the possibility that there is "more" than what we can see, feel, detect, etc.?  In his regard, there is no question - by any argument, semantic or otherwise - that the rational, empirical worldview is more "limiting" - and thus "controlling" - than one that has room for faith. As Hamlet says to his best friend, "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."  Horatio's philosophy, of course, was the rational, empirical one. Even eminent scientists like Darwin, Einstein, Hawking, Gould and others are (or were) not prepared to completely dismiss the "spiritual."  Are you smarter, more knowledgeable than they are?  If they were open-minded enough to at least consider the possibility of God, faith and a spiritual dimension to life and the universe, why do you feel such an urgent need to protect and defend an ultra-rational worldview? This is what I mean by "fear."  Darwin, Einstein et al did not "fear" to consider the possibility of a "spirit world," despite their decades of extensive, intense scientific education, training, and work.  Yet you find it necessary to defend a position that even they would disagree with.  If you do not call this "fear" in the broader sense, then how would you describe it? Peace.

I do not fear to consider the "possibility of a spirit world"! Just as surely at some point in your life you considered a possibility that God did not exist,then became convinced convinced that he did,the reverse is true of me.

There is no merit in comparing my beliefs (or lack of them) to anyone else.Yes, obviously these people were/are far brighter than I am,but that does not preclude the possibility that there are non-intellectual reasons for their belief in God.I have stated frequently that I think there is a link between Man's belief in God and his fear of dying.There is no reason to doubt that the people you mention could succumb to this emotional response to mortality.Also your quoted Scripture passages suggest that one is to set aside one's intellectual notions and give in to spiritual thoughts.Furthermore, these people devoted their lives to their chosen sphere of excellence so probably have had little time or care to study theology or debate the issues of their beliefs.

As for my "urgent need to protect and defend an ultra-rational worldview" that's a bit of a cheap shot as you seem to have an "urgent need" to defend the opposite!

Reed Lover:

It is interesting that you suggest that I once considered the possibility that there was no God, but then became convinced that there was.  Indeed, I could easily - and correctly - posit that my original consideration of the possibility of the non-existence of God was largely, if not solely, the result of the brainwashing - the "thought control" () - of the rational, empirical worldview imposed on me by academia and my upbringing by rationalist, empirical-minded parents.  In this regard, I had to "get out from under" the "thought control" of the so-called "rational worldview" in order for me to even find the open-mindedness to consider the possibility that God exists.  In this way, as I've said before, the rational, empirical worldview can be just as "controlling" as you believe that a faith-based worldview can be.

Re the Scriptural passages suggesting that "one is to set aside one's intellectual notions and give in to spiritual thoughts," this is not what is meant.  One need not "set aside" - if by that one means "dismiss" - "intellectual notions."  No thinking Christian would deny that man's ability to learn and assimilate knowledge, and make use of that knowledge, is a gift, and is an important part of who we are as human beings.

Rather, the suggestion is that spiritual thoughts be given precedence over "temporal" or "carnal" (i.e., worldly, not necessarily sexual) beliefs, attitudes, etc.  It is simply a matter of "priority": to a rationalist, the priority is the temporal beliefs, feelings, notions, etc.  To a believer, the priority is spiritual beliefs, feelings, notions, etc.  Indeed, it is, ironically, the rationalist view that considers these two "approaches" mutually exclusive; the spiritual view does not: i.e., the spiritual worldview has more "room" for - and indeed can even incorporate - the "temporal" viewpoint, while the temporal viewpoint has little or no room (or even tolerance) for the spiritual viewpoint.

You continue to insist that the primary, if not sole, reason for "belief" or "faith" is man's fear of death, his mortality.  Unfortunately, this is one of those things that cannot be proven either way.  I could tell you that I do not fear death, and that my faith does not rest - either minimally or primarily, much less exclusively - on this.  And I believe that there are millions of people for whom this is true.  However, I am guessing that you would simply gainsay this, and accuse us of "denial" or some other psychological term.  As noted, since it cannot be proven either way, it is a moot point.  Suffice to say that, while mortality may indeed be the root of faith or belief for many, perhaps even of most, it is not so for all.  And if even one person truly does not fear death, and yet believes in God and the afterlife, your position is weakened.

Finally, re my "cheap shot," again you misread.  I do not have an "urgent need" to defend my faith.  I do, indeed, defend it in when the opportunity presents itself naturally, and when I can do so in a peaceful manner.  However, one need only read through this thread and compare our attitudes, approaches and demeanors to see that your "defense" of your position is far more vigorous and "urgent" than mine.

Peace.

SAPPY PEASTER!!!!!!!!!

Mine has not been a vigorous and urgent reply to you at all Maani.Apart from the fact that I believe you use them words euphemistically for "aggressive" or "ill-considered" any "vigorous reply" was meant for Dude who made some rather sneering challenges-in my opinion.

dude wrote: ^AND WHILE YOU ARE AT IT REED LOVER COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY "HALF BAKED PHILOSOPHIES" AND GIVE EXAMPLES OF FULL BAKED PHILOSOPHIES AND WHY YOU CONSIDER THEM TO BE MORE VALID. WITH RESPECT

Ok,so my reference to "half-baked" is a tad incendiary,but anyone who studies Christianity in an intellegent manner knows what mean when I say that,even if they do not agree with or like that sentiment.Also I do not need to joust with you Maani as we both know and hopefully understand each others positions, and that is why I took umbrage with Dude's ill-disguised "what's this creep writing now?" attitude.

This new strategy of yours to play the humble Christian battling against the "empirical world-view" as disingenuous.Why,because whilst not everyone on this planet is Christian,Christianity holds sway in world politics and culture.Yours is not the lone voice in a world of disbelievers,in fact the reverse is true-I court controversy just by having this debate with you as if there is something a bit anarcic about doubting the existence of God.
Look around you Maani,or anyone else who might be reading this.Where do you truly see evidence of God?The Earth is blue and beauitiful and probably one of millions if not billions of similarly beautiful worlds out there.We have no name for why things are the way they are so we call it the work of God.Fine,if that was all it was-just putting a name to what we cant explain or understand.But no-we build churches,we "devote our life to God's work" and we cause untold misery for millions across the ages and for what? A roll of the dice bet which you can only win if you bet your life and nobody will ever know you've lost.Just look at the ridiculous mythology that has been created-angels,devils,angels who want to be greater than God,Hell,Heaven,virgin births,vengeful Gods,Commandments,excorcisms,Inquisitions,Holy wars,Noahs Ark andAdam and Eve.
Now,I dont doubt for one minute that Maani is a good man-but somehow I get the feeling that the perceived wisdom is that I might not be.All the quasi-religious and lapsed Christians among you (which in the purest sense of adherence statistically almost all of you are) are very good at spouting outrage at world disasters to the faceless, unfortunate "they" who suffer when the Earth turns nasty,yet chunter on about the right to bear arms, a woman druggie who should be hung drawn and quartered and how the very poorest members of society should be cleansed from the tax burden so you can buy an extra CD this week.The only person apart from me who has spoken out against all these forum-wide beliefs has been Maani.This is what pisses me off the most-the absolute need to love God but hate your fellow man.
Maybe we invented God to forgive our sins......

Clappiy Reedster!!!!!!

I have had a bit too much to drink!

Garion81 wrote:     Clappiy Reedster!!!!!!   I have had a bit too much to drink!

You can never have too much to drink!

Except those of you under the age allowable in your respective countries-then let me tell you this:drinking alcohol is bad m'kay?

Reed Lover:

Forgive me if I misinterpreted to whom your comments were addressed.  I apparently wasn't paying attention re the tete-a-tete between dude and yourself.

Re my "new strategy," it is not new.  Indeed, you fall into the same trap that so many people do: lumping all believers together in a big box marked "Christian Right."  I do not support the vast majority of the views of the so-called "Christian Right" (which, like the Moral Majority before it, is neither...), nor do many, many other Christians.  Indeed, there is a growing "centrist" - even "left" - Christian movement in the U.S. that is starting to have very real impacts on some of the issues that the Christian Right has dominated for so long.  For example, the Christian Right supports this administration's horrible environmental record.  However, a new, large group of evangelical - yes, evangelical - groups and ministers have come together to change the discussion - moving the administration  toward greater responsibility - by reminding this administration that stewardship of the earth is mandated by Scripture.  In addition, despite the fact that over one-half the population of the earth - some 3 billion people - live on less than two dollars a day, and despite the fact that there are more passages in Scripture about poverty - some 3,000 - than any other "moral" issue, this admnistration has done little to help end world poverty and hunger.  However, Tony Blair just announced that, when the UK gets the rotating chairmanship of the G8 this year, he will be putting poverty first on the agenda.  This was a direct result of a meeting between Blair (a devout Christian) and a group of centrist faith-based leaders (rabbis, ministers, priests, etc.) late last October.

Re the Church causing "untold misery," I can only assume you refer to the Crusades, the Inquisition and wars in the name of God and Christ.  While it would be disingenuous in the extreme to excuse any of that, it must be put in perspective two ways.  First, the Crusades were engaged in by a comparatively small group of Christians, led by a few zealots: it was a case of Christianity being "hijacked" similar to the way Islam is being hijacked today by a relatively few leaders deliberately interpretating the Qu'ran in the most narrow and unloving of ways.  The Inquisition was in similar vein.  Again, this does not excuse the horror of those episodes, nor the clearly hyprocritical use of Jesus' name to foment war, when Jesus Himself preached peace, love, forgiveness, tolerance, etc.

Second, you seem to ignore all the good that the Church has done over the centuries.  More orphanages, hospitals, schools, community centers, etc. were created or started by Christian churches than by any other faith or non-faith.  Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist, women's suffrage, child labor law, and civil rights movements.  For God's sake (): what would have become of the civil rights movement if Rev. Martin Luther King had not put his faith - and his understanding of Christianity vis-a-vis what Jesus actually taught - up front and center?

Yes, Christianity can take its share of blame for war, death and hypocrisy.  But it can also claim credit for a great deal of good.

Finally, what you seem to be missing - and why I keep going back to your "fear" and the "urgency" of your position - is the difference in how we speak.  You use words that demean, degrade, dismiss, and often insult those of us who are faith-based: "stupid," "bull***," "fanatic," "deluded."  At no time have I ever suggested that your belief in a rational, empirical world - one completely devoid of anything "spiritual" - is "stupid," or that your belief in such is "bull****," or that you are "fanatic" or "deluded" for believing it.  So why do you find it necessary to use such incendiary words?  It is this "way" of speaking that betrays what I keep calling your "fear" and the "urgency" of your "desparate need to protect and defend" your position.  If you were as comfortable in it as you claim, you would not need to resort to such denigration.

Peace.

maani wrote: Finally, what you seem to be missing - and why I keep going back to your "fear" and the "urgency" of your position - is the difference in how we speak.  You use words that demean, degrade, dismiss, and often insult those of us who are faith-based: "stupid," "bull***," "fanatic," "deluded."  At no time have I ever suggested that your belief in a rational, empirical world - one completely devoid of anything "spiritual" - is "stupid," or that your belief in such is "bull****," or that you are "fanatic" or "deluded" for believing it.  So why do you find it necessary to use such incendiary words?  It is this "way" of speaking that betrays what I keep calling your "fear" and the "urgency" of your "desparate need to protect and defend" your position.  If you were as comfortable in it as you claim, you would not need to resort to such denigration. Peace.

The reason you do not call my belief in a rational,empirical world stupid is that there are no grounds to whatsoever even if you had a mind to.You mistake my hyperbole for "urgency"-I just call things how I see them.
I do believe you are deluded for believing in God,I am sorry I can see it no other way.We are not talking about comparing the merits of Genesis and Yes here ie a matter of taste.We are discussing a belief system that demands the acceptance of events that are patently ridiculous-NOAHS ARK,ADAM AND EVE etc etc.
Yes,I do feel superior to anyone who believes in these things and yes,I do believe anyone who believes this nonesense is stupid.Explain to me how belief in Noahs Ark can be anything other than silly?If you say the Bible is talking metaphorically about these "events" how then do we decide what else is metaphorical.How about "Son Of God"? Surely that too is metaphorical.The death and resurrection of Christ-metaphorical?
Every time I read this nonesense I feel embarrassed for the writer.To me it is in the same ballpark as believing in Father Christmas delivering presents and The Tooth Fairy,Sasquatch,The Loch Ness Monster,ghosts,astrology and whatever else we should have grown out of.

Yes,it is your right to believe this stuff, but I feel it is my right to disdain you,just as you should with anyone with ridiculous beliefs.

Reed Lover:

"Patently ridiculous" to whom?  Yes, they are patently ridiculous to you, and those who believe in a strictly rational, empirical worldview.  But that is simply your opinion - to which you are entitled, but which does not, in any way, make you "better" than or "superior to" anyone else.

To say that I would have "no grounds...whatsoever" to call your rational, empirical worldview "stupid" is equally specious: Since I believe in a God, and in His power - and further believe that, despite my inability to "prove" His existence, I have been witness to and beneficiary of His power - from my perspective, I would have an equal right to call your worldview, if not "stupid," then at very least "limited" and "closed-minded."  Yet I don't.

Which brings us back to the fact that you still miss the point.  What I cannot get my mind around is your choice - since choice it is - to denigrate, demean and insult people of faith.  And not only do you choose to do so, you choose to vigorously defend doing so: "You are stupid and deluded, so I not only have a right to tell you that you are stupid and deluded, but I will exercise that right at every possible opportunity."  Setting aside our differences re faith and God, this attitude cannot be seen as anything other than arrogant and mean-spirited.  I find this very sad.

It is a good thing that you are not representative of - much less spokesperson for - those who hold a rational, empirical worldview, because I think your compatriots would kick you out of the club for your unnecessarily haughty and obnoxious attitude: it does not help your "cause," much less do you justice.

Peace.

My pastor did a great sermon yesterday (Easter).

JrKASperov wrote: How can miraculous stuff be silly if a God is there to make it happen?  How can you, after all you appear to be smart, make this terrible mistake by not putting those two things together immediately? If there's a God, such stuff CAN happen, simple as that.

Very well said. I think what is missing or lacking in Reed is belief.You either believe or you don't.The free thinkers of this age or any other dismiss those who believe without proof.Doubting Thomas's there are plenty.But the real trick is to believe without seeing.Faith is a great gift to have had bestowed upon us.I genuinely feel sorry for any who choose to disbelieve.In my own faith I have friends who are lapsed and I hear the same arguments whenever God and Christ are spoken of.How they lost what was shared to them is very sad.

maani wrote: It is a good thing that you are not representative of - much less spokesperson for - those who hold a rational, empirical worldview, because I think your compatriots would kick you out of the club for your unnecessarily haughty and obnoxious attitude: it does not help your "cause," much less do you justice. Peace.

I do not represent anyone but myself and am prepared to be seen as haughty and obnoxious over this issue.I do not hold with anyone else's view "rational,empirical" or otherwise.To annoint myself as a Rational Empiricist would be just as useless and futile as deciding I was Christian,Jew,Moslem or other.To make a cause out of non-belief (which is opposite to what you believe I am doing) would be just as daft.One might equally make a cause for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun or that that humans evolved from apes,but seeing as these are science fact (no matter what the Creationists might think)I would be taking up the cudgels too late.My arguments are not part of a mission on my behalf,just a reaction to whatever catches my eye at a given moment.I do not see myself as Mr Atheist or Myth Debunker.This is genuinely not part of my life at all.
Lets just set this straight-I have no real problem with your beliefs in general but to be in a position where you subscribe to the fact that a man,however divinely guided,put every living organism on this Earth,two by two,on a large boat he had built,to survive a flood-c'mon!
I have every right to be arrogant and obnoxious.What do you want me to do? Pity you and say well if that's what he wants to believe so be it? That is not how knowledge and wisdom are gained.
To me you cant keep saying "you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater" over a few issues.You either believe it all or not at all in my view.
So I would rather be seen as rude and obnoxious than believing in a silly fairy story.

I don't see you as rude and obnoxious Reed you believe what you believe.But I do get annoyed at the silly fairy story comment.Since there is still time left, enjoy what is left of Easter.For me and millions more it is a time for great celebration.

Fragile....

The idea for the resurrection of Christ comes from the myth of the Pagan god "Sol Invicta".It was amalgamated into Christianity at the time of Constantine,partly because he was a worshipper of Sol Invicta himself.The whole idea of death and resurrection predates Christ by many hundreds or thousands of years.I am not making this up,nor is this information available as a criticism of Christianity-it is just out there to be read from thousands of different reliable sources!
How many people in this country (UK) believe there was a King Arthur, exactly as the legend states,complete with Camelot,Knights of The Round table,Excalibur and Merlin.Yet it is virtually all myth.I have actually had a discussion about this with people and have been laughed at for stating this is all make believe.Or a fairy story.

Tell me:why did Christ die on the cross?Actually put into words the reasons and analise them.Do they make any sense?
Christ died so that we could be free from the Original Sin-ie Adam &Eve,snakes in the garden,the Tree Of Knowledge etc,the source of this Original Sin.
So Fragile,do you believe in Adam and Eve or did Christ die a real death for a metaphor or did Christ die a metaphorical death and had a real Resurrection?Or a real death and a metaphorical ressurection?You get my drift?
Think about this!

RL.

There are only a small amount of text recovered which proof Julius Cesar ever excisted, yet we believe he excisted and take for granted all we think we know about him.

On the other hand there are thousands of pieces of text recovered which claim Jesus excisted, and mention his resurection from the dead, but we don't believe a word from it. And apparently we think those text's are not to be taken literarly.

I have nothing to say on this whole "religion -- divine word of God, or load of complete and utter bollocks?" debate ('tis a personal matter -- to each his/her own). I just wanted to inform my legion of loyal fans that my computer is still down (writing from work -- your Canadian tax $$ at work), and I'll be back reviewing and making silly, useless posts ASAP.

Miss you!

Be good, TTYL, Luv & Hugs,

P.

tuxon wrote: There are only a small amount of text recovered which proof Julius Cesar ever excisted, yet we believe he excisted and take for granted all we think we know about him. On the other hand there are thousands of pieces of text recovered which claim Jesus excisted, and mention his resurection from the dead, but we don't believe a word from it. And apparently we think those text's are not to be taken literarly.

This claim about the texts proving Christ existed and resurrected-sorry Tuxon,this is simply not true.Part of the problem is that there is so little documentary evidence of Christ's life.Oh and for the record I think it would be equally absurd to state that Christ did not exist.

Peter wrote: I have nothing to say on this whole "religion -- divine word of God, or load of complete and utter bollocks?" debate ('tis a personal matter -- to each his/her own). I just wanted to inform my legion of loyal fans that my computer is still down (writing from work -- your Canadian tax $$ at work), and I'll be back reviewing and making silly, useless posts ASAP. Miss you! Be good, TTYL, Luv & Hugs, P.

Hello Peter,dont usually see you round this neck of the woods.

Trust you are well oh,and thanks for coming!