Jefferson quote on Christianity

[robert68]

Robert! I have missed your attacks! I was getting worried about you!

Sure you have. That’s why the last time I pointed out the tyrannical history of your religion, you responded with an angry worded negative rep. But you need something, even a lie, to deflect from the fact your moral compass has little to do with individual rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure you have. That’s why the last time I pointed out the tyrannical history of your religion, you responded with an angry worded negative rep. But you need something, even a lie, to deflect from the fact your moral compass has little to do with individual rights.

I missed that exchange-were you pointing to Protestants or the post-Constantine Roman Emperors or what? Christianity has long been in a very wide diaspora, and it's pretty hard to blame Christianity generally for what specific Christians did. Regardless, when you pick n' choose from Christian history to make a point, you've already committed the fallacy of reasoning from parts to whole-leaving your conclusions questionable at best.

[Ronin Truth]

Here is a question I'm always interested in: What would you accept as evidence?

You can't hold a resurrection in your hands, its not a thing. You can't smell it. I imagine you could see or hear it, maybe even taste it after a sense if it build ozone in the air. But none of that could happen without you being a direct eyewitness to it. Since its hard to just demand a resurrection occur, you're left with eyewitness account.

So, what about eyewitness accounts? Most people dismiss them because well they come from Christians. The problem I see with that logic is that all the people who have the evidence for the Resurrection became/were Christians. And why wouldn't they? They saw the Risen Son of God. Having defeated Death is a pretty big proof of divine status. So of course eyewitnesses to the Resurrection would become Christians. Yet most Christian sources are dismissed simply because they're Christian. Its like studying D-Day and dismissing the testimony of soldiers at D-Day because they were there and thus know what it was like.

An excellent question, I often use it myself. Currently I'm using Occam's Razor and Carl Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" dictum. They may be difficult to apply in these types of old history situations. That is also why I am a fan of the TJ approach of excising all of the mystical mumbo jumbo and magical miracles as not being verifiable or provable. If someone can come up with some extraordinary evidence and simplest explanations, I'm all ears. The official orthodox explanations leave an awful lot to be desired.

[robert68]

I missed that exchange-were you pointing to Protestants or the post-Constantine Roman Emperors or what? Christianity has long been in a very wide diaspora, and it's pretty hard to blame Christianity generally for what specific Christians did. Regardless, when you pick n' choose from Christian history to make a point, you've already committed the fallacy of reasoning from parts to whole-leaving your conclusions questionable at best.

I made a truthful remark about his religions history, with some sarcasm (and he got upset). That’s all there was.

[Ronin Truth]

I made a truthful remark about his religions history, with some sarcasm (and he got upset). That’s all there was.

I can relate. There's a lot of that sort of thing going around.

[jmdrake]

Why do they need to?

If someone says Jesus created the finest moral code the human race has ever seen, does he really need to be more impressed by the crucifixion and the redemption of sins? Is that not at least as great a miracle as resurrection? Really?

I am reminded of John Lennon talking about people caring about the man Jesus but ignoring what He said. Is that not rejection of Him? If impressing us with His miracles was the main point, then why did He encourage His disciples to call Him 'Teacher'? If the temptation have a greater reverence for Him than for His divine lessons isn't what the anti-Christ is counting upon to help him pull off his evil agenda, then why would he misidentify himself as Jesus Reincarnate at all?

Jesus' miraculous forgiveness could only be more important than His miraculously wise moral code to someone who is trying to sneak into Heaven through a loophole, rather than go to the trouble to get their heart fit enough to be worthy of the place and the community which will make up God's Kingdom.

Actually the two go hand in hand. Without the "miracle of forgiveness" (as you put it), someone could look at the moral code, which Jesus actually made harder, and say "Screw it! There's no way I can live up to that!" Seriously. Do you know a man that wasn't born blind or gay who can honestly say he's never looked at a woman with lust? Further the "miracle of forgiveness" is part of the moral code itself. Remember the parable of the two debtors? One owed the king a lot of money, the other owed his fellow servant a few pennies? The king forgave the debt of the first servant, but when he was unwilling to forgive his fellow servant's debt, his debt to the king was reinstated. Jesus then said part of His moral code was "If you aren't willing to forgive your fellow man, your heavenly Father will not forgive you." Jesus' moral code means nothing if you lack the ability to forgive. And the true Christian's ability to forgive springs from his gratitude for being forgiven.

[acptulsa]

Actually the two go hand in hand.

Yes, I know. And I've said so elsewhere--iirc in this very thread. I just neglected to fatten up that post with it; I didn't see the need.

But I'm giving you a rep anyway, because I've never seen it stated so elegantly.

[Ronin Truth]

Actually the two go hand in hand. Without the "miracle of forgiveness" (as you put it), someone could look at the moral code, which Jesus actually made harder, and say "Screw it! There's no way I can live up to that!" Seriously. Do you know a man that wasn't born blind or gay who can honestly say he's never looked at a woman with lust? Further the "miracle of forgiveness" is part of the moral code itself. Remember the parable of the two debtors? One owed the king a lot of money, the other owed his fellow servant a few pennies? The king forgave the debt of the first servant, but when he was unwilling to forgive his fellow servant's debt, his debt to the king was reinstated. Jesus then said part of His moral code was "If you aren't willing to forgive your fellow man, your heavenly Father will not forgive you." Jesus' moral code means nothing if you lack the ability to forgive. And the true Christian's ability to forgive springs from his gratitude for being forgiven.

I really kind of doubt that Jesus demands perfection from his fallible (by design) sinful human brethren, sincere efforts with some successes will probably suffice. If I'm wrong, I apologize, and please forgive me.

[jmdrake]

I really kind of doubt that Jesus demands perfection from his fallible (by design) sinful human brethren, sincere efforts with some successes will probably suffice. If I'm wrong, I apologize, and please forgive me.

I dispute whether we are fallible by design. I believe we are fallible as a result of the fall. But besides that, yes. We aren't perfect. That's why we need forgiveness.

[acptulsa]

I really kind of doubt that Jesus demands perfection from his fallible (by design) sinful human brethren, sincere efforts with some successes will probably suffice. If I'm wrong, I apologize, and please forgive me.

God seems to find earned character more interesting than design perfection. And has a right to do so.

[otherone]

God seems to find earned character more interesting than design perfection. And has a right to do so.

I am under the impression that God's chief concern is obedience.

[Crashland]

I am under the impression that God's chief concern is obedience.

Also power. In Genesis 3 the reason God would not allow Adam and eve to eat from the tree of life again is because now that they have become like God in having an understanding of good and evil, allowing them to live forever like God too would just be totally unacceptable. Genesis 3:22

Interesting too that God expected them not to do evil *before* they even had any knowledge of what good and evil were. They soon found out that God declares good and evil is synonymous with obedience or disobedience to God

[Seraphim]

Who is this Jesus fellow I keep hearing about?

[heavenlyboy34]

Who is this Jesus fellow I keep hearing about?

Be more specific. There are lots of people named Jesus. It's a very common name and has been translated into almost every language. It means "Joshua" in English.

[acptulsa]

Who is this Jesus fellow I keep hearing about?

No such thing. You just keep overhearing Phoebus Apollo and Athena and Ares and Aphrodite and all that family calling their father--'Hey, Zeus!'

[robert68]

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire

The persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire began late during the reign of Constantine the Great, when he ordered the pillaging and the tearing down of some temples.[1][2][3] The first anti-Pagan laws by the Christian state started with Constantine's son Constantius II,[4][5] who was an unwavering opponent of paganism; he ordered the closing of all pagan temples, forbade Pagan sacrifices under pain of death,[2] and removed the traditional Altar of Victory from the Senate.[6] Under his reign ordinary Christians started vandalizing many of the ancient Pagan temples, tombs and monuments.[7][8][9][10]

From 361 till 375, Paganism was relatively tolerated, until three Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I, under Bishop of Milan Saint Ambrose's influence, reinstituted and escalated the persecution.[11][12] Under pressure from the zealous Ambrose, Theodosius issued the infamous 391 "Theodosian decrees," a declaration of war on paganism,[12][13] the Altar of Victory was removed again by Gratian, the Vestal Virgins were disbanded, and access to Pagan temples was prohibited.
...

Emperor Theodosius I, a "Saint" in the "EOC", was a baptized Christian miltary commander. He arranged the 2nd Ecumenical Council and formally made "Catholic Christianity" the only legal religion in the Roman Empire:

The Theodosian Code (Book XVI), 326 From The Theodosian Code

I, 2. IT IS Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans, as the religion which he introduced makes clear even unto this day. It is evident that this is the religion that is followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity; that is, according to the apostolic discipline and the evangelic doctrine, we shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.

We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment (28 February 380).

I, 3. We command that all churches shall immediately be surrendered to those bishops who confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one majesty and virtue, of the same glory, and of one splendor; to those bishops who produce no dissonance by unholy distinction, but who affirm the concept of the Trinity by the assertion of three Persons and thr unity of the Divinity. . . . All, he ever, who dissent from the communio' of the faith of those who have been expressly mentioned in this special enumeration shall be expelled from their churches as manifest heretics and hereafter shall be altogether denied the right and power to obtain churches, in order that the priesthood of the true Nicene faith may remain pure, and after the clear regulations of Our law, there shall be no opportunity for malicious subtlety (30 July 381).
--more

[Deborah K]

Thanks! I think I'm looking for something else more physical and definitive. It may not even exist. How inconvenient? Learned opinions are going for about 5 cents per truckload. But I'll keep it in mind.

You mentioned Carl Sagan earlier in a post, I believe. Did you know that he once stated: "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" ?

[Ronin Truth]

You mentioned Carl Sagan earlier in a post, I believe. Did you know that he once stated: "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" ?

Yep, thanks, but I'm not sure I agree. Gonna have to work on that one some more.

[Deborah K]

Yep, thanks, but I'm not sure I agree. Gonna have to work on that one some more.

That's similar to someone who lived before the microscope was invented stating that there is no evidence of molecules, therefore they don't exist.

[Ronin Truth]

That's similar to someone who lived before the microscope was invented stating that there is no evidence of molecules, therefore they don't exist.

For that person they didn't exist. It invokes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". No evidence, discount the claim. Then there's the claims about the Anunnaki. The evidence sure looks extraordinary to me.

[Deborah K]

For that person they didn't exist. It invokes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". No evidence, discount the claim. Then there's the claims about the Anunnaki. The evidence sure looks extraordinary to me.

Why are you willing to accept the Annunaki story and not the Jesus story? If the Annunaki came from another world, mined our gold, and fused us with the humanoid already evolving here, (which is the theory) right, the THEORY - how is that so different from a man being sent to earth by a Creator; a man who was given, by the Creator, extraordinary powers that were witnessed by thousands, written down, and changed humanity forever; a man who was brought back to life and ascended into the heavens? Why is one story more credible than the other?

[TER]

Why are you willing to accept the Annunaki story and not the Jesus story? If the Annunaki came from another world, mined our gold, and fused us with the humanoid already evolving here, (which is the theory) right, the THEORY - how is that so different from a man being sent to earth by a Creator; a man who was given, by the Creator, extraordinary powers that were witnessed by thousands, written down, and changed humanity forever; a man who was brought back to life and ascended into the heavens? Why is one story more credible than the other?

Because in the previous theory, Ronin won't have to answer for his sins.

[amy31416]

If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.

[Ronin Truth]

Why are you willing to accept the Annunaki story and not the Jesus story? If the Annunaki came from another world, mined our gold, and fused us with the humanoid already evolving here, (which is the theory) right, the THEORY - how is that so different from a man being sent to earth by a Creator; a man who was given, by the Creator, extraordinary powers that were witnessed by thousands, written down, and changed humanity forever; a man who was brought back to life and ascended into the heavens? Why is one story more credible than the other?

EVIDENCE!

[Ronin Truth]

Because in the previous theory, Ronin won't have to answer for his sins.

Jesus died WHY? My God doesn't hold a grudge about a poached apple for eternity.

[Ronin Truth]

If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.

"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan! The proper study of mankind is Man."

[heavenlyboy34]

If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.

God gave us the "middlemen", comrade. (but I don't think that's an accurate word for clergymen, saints, prophets, and so on...I'll think of a better one sometime)

[TER]

If you believe that God created the universe, skip the flawed middlemen who wrote the bible and study nature.

The saints who you called flawed middlemen who wrote the bible are amongst the most beautiful things to study in nature.

God is certainly glorified in nature and in His handiworks, such as in the cosmos and in the rivers and under the microscopes and beyond human perception, but nowhere is He more glorified and His beauty more clearly shown from nature than in His saints who are the children of God made in His image and likeness. The human act of selfless mercy and love for the love of another is the greatest 'thing' this universe can do and the greatest proof of His existence. Science has beauty in it, no doubt, and through the study of science, the person can come to find God in the order and beauty of it, but the culmination of science, the reason there is a material science, is so that His children might share in full and eternal loving communion with all and in all by the grace of God.

[TER]

Jesus died WHY?

Jesus died so that you might rise again from the dead and not be held captive to eternal separation of your body from your soul on account of the transgression of Adam. Having been granted this awesome gift, you will then be judged by Christ on whether you should enter into His Kingdom according to the things you have said and done in this life.

[Ronin Truth]

Jesus died so that you might rise again from the dead and not be held captive to eternal separation of your body from your soul on account of the transgression of Adam. Having been granted this awesome gift, you will then be judged by Christ on whether you should enter into His Kingdom according to the things you have said and done in this life.

Uhhh, did you just conveniently forget about the sins of the world part?