Your religious beliefs

[Nerys Ghemor]

I'm curious if you've ever read what C.S. Lewis had to say on that subject. I cannot wait until The Last Battle comes out, to see if people flame one of the "big" intellectual figures of the faith in modern times as a heretic...it will be a conversation that really needs to be had. (He addressed it in much clearer language in Mere Christianity, but in The Last Battle it appears allegorically with the character of Emeth.)

 

[Amaris]

Your 4 would mean my 3. Your 5 doesn't mesh with the actual timeline of the early church and the gospels. Trust me, my aunt is a minister who went to Harvard Divinity. She knows her stuff.

6 is wrong. Ask any archaeologist.

No, 4 does not mean 3, unless you believe that a billion Christians are nuts. You do believe God speaks to you, do you not? That the Holy Spirit is your Comforter? That Jesus lives in your heart?

Yes, 5 does mesh with the established timeline quite well. The Gospels were written, at the earliest, around 70 - 100 A.D., which gives about 40-60 years of oral history before being written down.

6 is not wrong. Also, I would not ask an archaeologist about the historical Jesus. I would ask a historian.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Your 4 would mean my 3. Your 5 doesn't mesh with the actual timeline of the early church and the gospels. Trust me, my aunt is a minister who went to Harvard Divinity. She knows her stuff.

6 is wrong. Ask any archaeologist.

No, 4 does not mean 3, unless you believe that a billion Christians are nuts. You do believe God speaks to you, do you not? That the Holy Spirit is your Comforter? That Jesus lives in your heart?

Yes, 5 does mesh with the established timeline quite well. The Gospels were written, at the earliest, around 70 - 100 A.D., which gives about 40-60 years of oral history before being written down.

6 is not wrong. Also, I would not ask an archaeologist about the historical Jesus. I would ask a historian.

Your stated option was that Jesus simply thought God was speaking to him and that he wasn't divine. Which is a contradiction. If any Christian said "I am the son of God" we'd agree he's nuts. So either he was divine or cuckoo.

5. That short an amount of time in the early church left little to no room for drastic changes, especially considering the variety of writers and church figures at the time.

6. Or you could ask someone who has seen first hand the Roman records of the crucifixion. Or the records of him overturning the tables in the temple. Denying the existence of Jesus is like denying climate change or evolution.

 

[Amaris]

Your stated option was that Jesus simply thought God was speaking to him and that he wasn't divine. Which is a contradiction. If any Christian said "I am the son of God" we'd agree he's nuts. So either he was divine or cuckoo.

There is no contradiction here, unless you consider Elijah, Elisha and Melchizedek to be nuts as well. All of these men acted in the name of God, being the voice of God, being the sons of men, talking in the authority of God. Considering, also, the history of the prophets, you cannot simply paint a black and white picture. The "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" options are severely limited and merely create a false dilemma.

You see, we can focus on the above, but it's much simpler to understand that Jesus could have simply been mistaken. It doesn't make him a nut.

5. That short an amount of time in the early church left little to no room for drastic changes, especially considering the variety of writers and church figures at the time.

I strongly disagree. Given the ease at which simple statements not observed can change very easy over a short period of time and a small sampling of people, it is quite plausible that the oral witness had changed before being written as scripture. This doesn't even take into account the effect Constantine had on the forming of the scriptures themselves, how elements of other mythologies were added to the texts to create a more broadly appealing religion.

6. Or you could ask someone who has seen first hand the Roman records of the crucifixion. Or the records of him overturning the tables in the temple. Denying the existence of Jesus is like denying climate change or evolution.

Show the records.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

Your 4 would mean my 3. Your 5 doesn't mesh with the actual timeline of the early church and the gospels. Trust me, my aunt is a minister who went to Harvard Divinity. She knows her stuff.

6 is wrong. Ask any archaeologist.

No, 4 does not mean 3, unless you believe that a billion Christians are nuts. You do believe God speaks to you, do you not? That the Holy Spirit is your Comforter? That Jesus lives in your heart?

Yes, 5 does mesh with the established timeline quite well. The Gospels were written, at the earliest, around 70 - 100 A.D., which gives about 40-60 years of oral history before being written down.

6 is not wrong. Also, I would not ask an archaeologist about the historical Jesus. I would ask a historian.

Your stated option was that Jesus simply thought God was speaking to him and that he wasn't divine. Which is a contradiction. If any Christian said "I am the son of God" we'd agree he's nuts. So either he was divine or cuckoo.

5. That short an amount of time in the early church left little to no room for drastic changes, especially considering the variety of writers and church figures at the time.

6. Or you could ask someone who has seen first hand the Roman records of the crucifixion. Or the records of him overturning the tables in the temple. Denying the existence of Jesus is like denying climate change or evolution.

There are no contemporaneous records of Jesus existence. The earliest possible mention of him is Josephus' in 93 A.D. There are only a handful within one century and several of those are vague enough that they might not be referring to Jesus at all.

There also is a drastic change in the Pauline view of Christ(which are the earlier documents) and the Gospel view of Christ. Paul appears to have little historical information about Jesus viewing him as a mostly supernatural figure who might have existed earthly some time in the past.

 

[Deckerd]

As a completely non-religious person, I find it baffling that religious people get so bogged down in the minutiae of scripture, which looked at in the best possible light can only be seen as a writing down of oral history (legend), instead of looking at the broad message which is immutable and unclouded by sophistry.

 

[Gov Kodos]

As a completely non-religious person, I find it baffling that religious people get so bogged down in the minutiae of scripture, which looked at in the best possible light can only be seen as a writing down of oral history (legend), instead of looking at the broad message which is immutable and unclouded by sophistry.

I'm sure it's the same impulse that gets folks bogged down in the minutia of Star Trek, or who really wrote Shakespeare's plays.

 

[Amaris]

As a completely non-religious person, I find it baffling that religious people get so bogged down in the minutiae of scripture, which looked at in the best possible light can only be seen as a writing down of oral history (legend), instead of looking at the broad message which is immutable and unclouded by sophistry.

I'm sure it's the same impulse that gets folks bogged down in the minutia of Star Trek, or who really wrote Shakespeare's plays.

The answer to both questions is "Klingons".

 

[Gov Kodos]

As a completely non-religious person, I find it baffling that religious people get so bogged down in the minutiae of scripture, which looked at in the best possible light can only be seen as a writing down of oral history (legend), instead of looking at the broad message which is immutable and unclouded by sophistry.

I'm sure it's the same impulse that gets folks bogged down in the minutia of Star Trek, or who really wrote Shakespeare's plays.

The answer to both questions is "Klingons".

Indeed, and those two don't claim to posses the meaning to life, making their debates far less prone to violence when the words run out.

 

[Amaris]

I'm sure it's the same impulse that gets folks bogged down in the minutia of Star Trek, or who really wrote Shakespeare's plays.

The answer to both questions is "Klingons".

Indeed, and those two don't claim to posses the meaning to life, making their debates far less prone to violence.

Then again, when being prone to violence is 100%, anything less is a good thing.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The answer to both questions is "Klingons".

Indeed, and those two don't claim to posses the meaning to life, making their debates far less prone to violence.

Then again, when being prone to violence is 100%, anything less is a good thing.

So, having been created by Klingons, does that explain why most everyone of importance is dead at the end of the Bard's better tales?

 

[Amaris]

Indeed, and those two don't claim to posses the meaning to life, making their debates far less prone to violence.

Then again, when being prone to violence is 100%, anything less is a good thing.

So, having been created by Klingons, does that explain why most everyone of importance is dead at the end of the Bard's better tales?

That, my friend, is exactly why everyone of importance is dead. For a Klingon, THAT is a happy ending!

taH pagh taHbe'. DaH mu'tlheghvam vIqelnIS.
quv'a', yabDaq San vaQ cha, pu' je SIQDI'?
pagh, Seng bIQ'a'Hey SuvmeH nuHmey SuqDI',
'ej, Suvmo', rInmoHDI'? Hegh. Qong --- Qong neH ---
'ej QongDI', tIq 'oy', wa'SanID Daw''e' je
cho'nISbogh porghDaj rInmoHlaH net Har.

 

[HoneyBLilly]

My Guy in the sky is better than your Guy in the sky.

That basically a religious conflict right there.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

Then again, when being prone to violence is 100%, anything less is a good thing.

So, having been created by Klingons, does that explain why most everyone of importance is dead at the end of the Bard's better tales?

That, my friend, is exactly why everyone of importance is dead. For a Klingon, THAT is a happy ending!

taH pagh taHbe'. DaH mu'tlheghvam vIqelnIS.
quv'a', yabDaq San vaQ cha, pu' je SIQDI'?
pagh, Seng bIQ'a'Hey SuvmeH nuHmey SuqDI',
'ej, Suvmo', rInmoHDI'? Hegh. Qong --- Qong neH ---
'ej QongDI', tIq 'oy', wa'SanID Daw''e' je
cho'nISbogh porghDaj rInmoHlaH net Har.

It is indeed a good play to die!

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

My Guy in the sky is better than your Guy in the sky.

That basically a religious conflict right there.

Guy in the sky? Wasn't that an Alan Parsons Project song?

 

[Gov Kodos]

My Guy in the sky is better than your Guy in the sky.

That basically a religious conflict right there.

Guy in the sky? Wasn't that an Alan Parsons Project song?

Or 'Journey'

 

[HoneyBLilly]

My Guy in the sky is better than your Guy in the sky.

That basically a religious conflict right there.

Guy in the sky? Wasn't that an Alan Parsons Project song?

If it was I wouldn't know, I've never heard of them.

My musical knowledge could fill a cup.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I was an Atheist before i knew what the word meant...

Same here. I invented Atheism when I was about nine years old. I thought I had made a great discovery and was very excited to tell my mother about it. I didn't quite get the reaction that I expected....

"You'll never believe it, Mom! I found out that, logically speaking, God doesn't exist!"

<gasp, faint>

"Mom?"

More like: "Who told you to say that?! Somebody help! Call a doctor!"

 

[Amaris]

It is indeed a good play to die!

Q'apla!

More like: "Who told you to say that?! Somebody help! Call a doctor!"

Smooth.

 

[iBender]

I see a lot of relgion, in my life, even today. Like the Madam across the road, just now, in her garden, sorting out the recycling. A lot of robes, head dresses, I never thought about it until now, but, I see religious garments worn just as much as I see Jeans, T-Shirts and Running Shoes. I like where I live.