Messages

I can't say I disagree with anything. I'm glad we had a chance to have this discussion.

Me too, friend.  

So why is it okay for Christians (not all of them but alot of them) to discriminate aginst other religions.

Unless you're a relativist, I'd wager you do your fair share of "discrimination" too.  If you embrace a given belief as true, then logically you reject all mutually contradictory views as false.  IMO, the only time it becomes a problem is when one lacks the ability to allow for the possibility that they could be wrong, or when one feels that their belief gives them a divine mandate to be an arse to their fellow human beings.  Otherwise, it's the mark of maturity to be able to disagree with someone and still fully enjoy their company and treat them as an equal.

In my experiences as a Christian, I learned that they think anyone who isn't Christian burns in hell no matter how good of a person they may be, and in a few cases, telling me not to socialize with non-christians.

I'm sorry you've had such negative experiences.  However, as a Christian who has more non-Christian friends than Christian ones, is dating a Jew, and rejects the traditional concept of Hell as being poisonous and false, I can tell you that said experience is not true for all Christians.

Does anyone else agree with me that alot of Christian teachings are not good hearted?

No, because any teaching that is not compatible with the statement "God is love" is not a Christian teaching -- it's a false teaching with Christian packaging.

The reason I take my view is because I know a lot of very open-minded liberal Christians, I even discuss my AP experiences with them, and my beliefs on the afterlife and God. They don't necessarily agree with me, but they enjoy exchanging ideas and don't class me as a lunatic outright

You're no more of a lunatic than I am (and you can take that how you will... muahaha).  My own religious beliefs are part of what brought me here -- I believe we have what could be considered a responsibility to explore all that we, and this thing we call "reality" are capable of, and that includes AP.  I just wish I didn't suck so much at it.  

Original Christianity was an advanced branch of the ancient Greek enclyclica, or in 21st century speak--educational curriculum--that was fundamental to ancient Judaism as well as the Greek mystery traditions. This curriculum was all of the expected topics such as grammar, mathematics, astronomy, science, literature, music, art, and ethics. Early Christianity was probably much like our American high school or university level education, where all of these general topics had already been studied and then through the literature of the Greek philosophers and an allegorical interpretation of biblical scripture, the higher 'mysteries' were then studied in depth.

As per my current understanding, wouldn't this be a more apt description of, for instance, 2nd century Alexandrian Christianity though, rather than Christianity as a whole?  In the 1st century, the focus was primarily on survival and the expected eschaton, which I believe was fulfilled by the war from 63-70.  As such, Christians didn't really have the luxury of developing well established schools and receiving education, and the allegorical interpretation of scripture wasn't really introduced until it found its fullest expression in the works of Origen decades later.  These folks were much more preoccupied with their belief that the world as they knew it would end in their lifetime.  And I suppose, in a sense, it did.

Additionally, I'm under the impression that we can't really make generalizations about what "early Christianity was..." since as I was saying before, there was so much diversity represented under that umbrella.  Sure, there were the intellectuals... but there were also the charismatic groups, the "Judaizers," the mystery cults, the folk religion aspect... and so on.  Plus, there was a reason Celsus criticized Christianity for being "a religion of women, children and slaves," i.e. the lower class: on the whole it was radically egalitarian for the time, even if it did have its "spiritual elite."  

What has totally fallen through the cracks of time is that original Christianity was not even a religion per se, it was about the acquisition of knowledge--of expanding and using the rational mind to learn as much as one had the capacity to learn.

I agree that the rational mind was important, but it wasn't the be-all end-all.  Equally or perhaps more important was gnosis, the mystical experiential knowing that only comes via revelation, and cannot be approached by reason alone.  The distinction between Christianity and capital-G-Gnosticism of course came later, but I would argue that gnosis was still an integral concept from the beginning. (I realize you addressed gnosis later in your post... but here you make it sound like rationalism was the main ideology of early Christianity, which I have to disagree with, assuming I haven't misunderstood.)

A few important points here: 1) the ancient synagogues were, according to Philo of Alexandria, their educational institutions,

But Philo of Alexandria was a Jew.  This may have been true prior to 70 AD when the majority of Christians were still Jews, and Christianity was still a messianic sect within Judaism.  However, the relationship between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews was uncomfortable at best and violent at worst (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) until after the war, when that relationship was finally severed for good.

2) not everyone could become a Christian--it required a great deal of study and dedication as well as the ability to stay the course.

Again, I would say that not everyone could become this kind of Christian... but there were still factions within Christianity that welcomed everyone.  In the canonical NT for instance, we see entire families and large crowds being baptized en masse.  See also: the aforementioned criticism from Celsus.

3) It also required the dedication to learn of and live a virtuous life--this was actually very important,

Agreed.

3) At some point--if one was found worthy--he/she was invited to become a member in the highest mysteries, or what Origen of Alexandria referred to as true Christianity. These higher mysteries concentrated on the more metaphysical aspects of knowledge as well as those of personal experience.

I agree with this assessment, though I would place the distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christianity, rather than between Christian and not Christian.  It's all a matter of how far into the rabbit hole one cared to venture, I suppose.

While the earliest Christians stressed the importance of studying a variety of cultures and disiciplines, the use of discernment was heavily stressed.

Very heavily stressed, heh.  What lead you to that conclusion?  From what I've seen, namely the seemingly endless stream of dialogues, refutation, slander, condemnation and so forth that came from all three sides (Christian/Jewish/Pagan) during those first few centuries, it seems the relationship between many (most?) Christians and their contemporaries wasn't nearly as friendly as you seem to indicate.  For that matter, we see the same from Christians of competing factions amongst each other, and occasionally amongst themselves (1 John 2).

But the spritual truths have survivedin spite of one sect becoming the Roman Catholic Church and hopefullyall these spiritual truths will eventually be revealed! It is actuallya wonderful time (and not a decade too soon!) for a new fresh look at this ancient tradition to come into our consciouness.

Definitely agree with this.  I believe the politico-religious institution of temple-centered Judaism was done away with after having fulfilled its purpose, so that the new outpouring of a more life-affirming, personal, individualized truth could survive and flourish.  Unfortunately certain lessons were not learned, and still more monolithic institutions were promptly erected in Jesus' name shortly after his lifetime.  Claiming to operate in the best interest of the faithful, it inserted itself into the void left by the Jewish temple, and proceeded to monopolize "orthodoxy" and choke out living spirituality in much the same way.  I see a similar day of reckoning on the horizon for institutional Christianity (or Churchianity, as I'm fond of calling it), perhaps even sooner than we think... and I know I'm not the only one feeling these birth pangs.  Such transitions often prove to be rather messy and painful for the material-minded folks still hanging on for dear life, but ultimately, we all only stand to benefit in the long run.  Incidentally, the hope for such an unveiling is the reason behind the quote in my sig.

Anyway, I appreciate your reply.  Though we seem to disagree on a few things, I respect the amount of study you've put into all this, and I really appreciate the opportunity to engage with someone who's been at this for a while longer than I have.

Maranatha,
--PH

Originally, however, Christianity was nothing like it would become in later centuries. This is actually very sad...but true. Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years. It is, however, still alive and well in the world, it is just called by an entirely different name.

What name would that be?  I'm not trying to "get a piece of you," lol... 'tis just that the first two centuries of Christianity is one of my main focuses, mostly because I believe therein lies the key to what it was meant to be, and how far we've strayed since.  So I'd be very interested to see you elaborate on this further.

You don't really believe that stuff, do you Beth? Surely someone as educated as you knows better. You sound like you have bought into Dan Brown's work of fiction.

I agree with what she said as well -- the traditional account of Christianity's origins is quite a different story compared to what we're finding out to be true in this very century.  For instance, according to popular conception, there was One True Faith™ handed straight from Jesus to the apostles, which then remained uncorrupted despite the repeated attempts to undermine it by heretics who apparently had nothing better to do than deliberately believe and teach things they knew to be false, just for the sake of being ornery.  

Of course, the picture being painted by more recent finds is a whole other story: that even from the beginning there was a vast diversity of belief and practice, Jesus meant many things to many people, and there were all sorts of groups vying for position as the legitimate heirs to the Christian message.  When that is understood, the fact that one of those sects happened to gain imperial favor and was then imposed on the whole empire at the expense of all others becomes inconsequential as far as spiritual truth and authority is concerned.

This may or may not be the sort of thing Beth has in mind, but I'm interested to find out.

now the christianity forums were only created due to incidents with fundamentalists last year, and the idea was to try to limit the evangelists who kept coming here disrupting everything by giving them their own platform,.. but i dont entirly agree with this policy because now there is a forum catering for their needs... its only served to increase their numbers!

Well, I for one am very appreciative to have this forum here.  As a rather unorthodox Christian, it's really nice to have a place where I can propose and discuss some of my more "out there" theologizing that would otherwise be immediately dismissed and/or condemned by my more mainline, conservative brethren.

Since I am a student of economics, I couldn't help but notice howJesus' parable relied on the principle of "opportunity cost," the costof forgoing an opportunity. Or, in other words, it's the cost of doing nothing with what you're given. In trade theory, economies are most efficient and most prosperous when everyone minimizes their opportunitycost. Since resources would be distributed efficiently, everyone wouldbe rich.

Your input from your background in economics is awesome, and really serves to make the point that we all have something unique to share about the divine from our diverse perspectives and various disciplines.  Excellent stuff, that... especially since I'm so mathematically challenged that I'd never be able to see it that way on my own.

But to this I would say that the principle of opportunity cost doesn't necessarily have to refer to material assets.  It could also refer to the "currency" of the universe -- experiences and that which is gained from having them.  If no one ever wasted an opportunity to learn and grow, just think how rich all of us would be in the spiritual sense as a result.  So, I don't think your interpretation is incompatible with my own thoughts on exactly what kind of wealth Jesus is indicating here.  As for your comments about the rich man who hordes his wealth, I would liken it to the folks who claim to have a monopoly on truth... and have thus forfeited any opportunity to grow or contribute to the greater reality.

Regarding Paul... the more I read the New Testament, the more itseems like the books are in order of importance. I'm already hesitantabout Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John putting words into God's mouth, much less a lunatic convert from Tarsus

Hah!  IMO this is especially true considering the books that were traditionally supposed to have been written by Paul, but... weren't.  Such is why I'm no fan of biblical inerrancy though.  While I believe these people to be generally authoritative considering their firsthand (or secondhand, as the case may be) knowledge of Christ, I still consider them to be subject to the same critical analysis as anything else.  As for Paul, in a strange sort of way, his wackiness is a point in his favor for me.  Meaning: if God can accomplish such things with the self-proclaimed "worst of sinners," then maybe there's hope for me after all.  

As for that lil graphic you made, that made my day.  I like what you did with my icon, too... I had to shrink the original down to the point where all the details get mushed together to use it here, but I may just have to crop and upload yours, lol.

Start with the theology of vicarious atonement and you end up with the film of Mel Gibson.

...And I think you might have to make another one.  Gandalf shoots, he scores.  

I never understand it when people use the term "divine spark." You saywe "possess" it, but is it who we are? Does that mean that there is anon-spark that is who we are, that deteriorates?

"Spark" is just the term I happened to use for a concept that has been given many names by many different people over the years.  The Gnostics called it "pneuma."  People on this site might call it one's higher self.  The Buddhists have a term for it that I'm not remembering offhand, heh.  Genesis referred to it as being made in God's image, as well as the breath of life.  Since the Bible occasionally refers to God as a "consuming fire," a piece of that fire, a spark, seemed like as good a term as any.

Whatever you want to call it, I believe it is a literal part of God and also what constitutes our true selves.  So what part of "me" is this, exactly?  Good question, and one that I think is the easiest to address by ruling out what we are not.  This is where the ego, the false self, what the Bible refers to as the carnal man, comes in.  This carnal man is made up of everything about us which is temporary, but which also competes the hardest for our attention during our physical lifetime.  I am not my body, I'm not my past, I'm not my job, I'm not my present circumstances, I'm not my relationships, I'm not even my gender, ethnicity or memories, for all of those things are ultimately temporary.  So once we rule out all these things, what are we left with?  The image of God.  Consciousness.  Creative ability.  Potential.  And to the extent that we've cultivated them, the divine attributes: love, justice, mercy, compassion, and so forth.  I also believe that the sum total of our lessons and experiences figures into our identity somehow, though I haven't reached a satisfactory answer as to how it all works out quite yet.  And, it's possible there are things that should be added that I haven't thought of yet... but I do think this is a pretty good working list so far.

It's like someone desperately wants to feel aconnection with God, but doesn't want to overstate it out of fear.

On the contrary, I don't think quantity matters all that much in this instance.  If your true self is literally composed of the same "stuff" as God, does it really matter how much of it you have, especially considering God's infinite nature?  

The only meaning I can recognize by the word "spark," is something that lights a fire. And for that, we need materials.

Ahhh, very good observation.  Even though the quote in my sig is from Thomas, which most Christians don't accept, I like it a lot and think it fits well here.  This is another reason I don't think a spark is quite so inadequate -- since a spark is all it takes to catch on and ignite one's whole being.  This fire burns away all the chaff, destroys what is unsalvageable about the ego, purifies and refines what's left, until finally the individual's whole life has been transformed, and he has "put on the new man in Christ."

Yes. But as evidenced by our material bodies and our existence in thematerial world, we seem to need material things in order to learn theselessons. And we know not what they are, for we haven't learned themyet.

I think the answer to this lies in the nature of physical life itself.  The uncertainty, the lack of real security, the pain, the pleasure, the atrocity, the compassion and acts of heroism, the triumphs, the defeats, the need to solve the problem of competition for finite resources in order to survive... I could go on and on.  If my time here on AP has taught me anything, it's that none of those things, and the lessons to be gained from them, are possible in the nonphysical realm.  Thus, in the physical world it could be said that the contrast between light and dark is turned up several notches in order that we might know and appreciate the distinction to our fullest capability.  In comparison, if we had remained in the proverbial garden of Eden, where one never dies, doesn't compete for resources, has full knowledge of his origin, and so on, I submit that we would have remained a race of very shallow beings.  If we had never been temporarily separated from the Source of our existence, we would know appreciate His love (and all His other attributes) about as much as a fish "appreciates" the water it lives in; it would simply be all we knew.

Reconciling Wattles' view with your "spark" view, God seems like hewants the material creation to burn in the spiritual fire, for it to begiven more life. Heraclitus said something similar, when he asserted that all existence was made out of fire, "Everything flows, nothing stands still."

Absolutely!  That's a big part of my own beliefs, and I alluded to it above when I said "the divine is experiencing the infinite fullness of Himself through us."  In short, God is infinite in His creative potential, and He's experiencing every possible permutation of this potential through all He's created, including us.  Through creation, God expresses and explores various attributes of Himself.  For instance, if we're going to say "God is love," then there's the implied question "what does God love?  That's where creation comes in, since something needs to exist to be loved by God ("...and He saw that it was good.").  What is the highest expression of love?  Mutual love.  What's logically required for that?  Someone capable of loving Him back.  That's where we come in.  I submit that if our minds were able to process and comprehend it all, we could take literally anything in creation and match it to the expression of one of God's attributes in much the same way.

That doesn't connect very well with the parable talents at all. Theservants weren't building solid structures - they were building liquidwealth.

What does Paul's metaphor suggest we're building? A Ziggurat? TheTower of Babel? A house or shelter, with a lock and key to hold ourstuff, to hide in when it rains?

The fact that I wouldn't mind having my own ziggurat nonwithstanding...

IMO you're being too literal with this (especially since Jesus' statement is a parable, which are never literal), and Paul and Jesus are both using different word-pictures to make the same point.  Both are referring to that "great and terrible Day of the Lord," the day of reckoning.  Both are indicating that some people will gain, and others will suffer loss, based on the choices we make in this life.  Thus the question becomes what is there to be gained, and what is there to be lost.  My own answer to that lies in the temporal vs. eternal bit above... but I also think that if we take their words anymore literal than that, this whole thing gets needlessly complicated real quick.

Palehorse_ what do you mean by your idea of a bridge?
That all people will now go via this 'bridge' (ie through jesus) after their death?

Well, not quite that literal, but yeah, pretty much.  Basically, Jesus showed us how to become one with God through his life and works, and opened the way to get there in a metaphysical sense through his death and resurrection.  It's not even necessarily an afterlife thing though, either... Jesus said "I and my Father are one" as well as "the kingdom of Heaven is within you" while he was still alive, and the same sort of divine union has been the goal of all Christian mystics throughout Church history.

As for after death, my take on "judgment day" is connected with the "life review" that's so common to hear about from NDEs.  I believe one views their life from the perspective of everyone it's affected for good or ill, and from God's perspective.  This is the best scenario I can conceive of for satisfying the requirement of justice, since your experience of this will be directly proportional to the sort of life you've lived.  

Other than that, I believe the afterlife is a rather open-ended question.  Jesus said "in my Father's house are many mansions."  Well, the Father's house is all of reality, and the word for mansion, "mone," literally means "dwelling places."  Thus, I believe everyone goes on to whatever places and situation is best suited for his further spiritual development.  And while everyone will reach the same sort of divine union eventually, everyone moves at his own pace regardless of how long it takes.

Heb. 9:27, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment"

My view of what 'judgment' means is above.  Other than that, I think MustardSeed is on the right track with this one, so I'll just say "what s/he said."

I love that statement! Did you make that one up?

Yessir.  ::bows::

Palehorse, as far as time constraints go for salvation and all that. In light of the parable of the talents, do you think there might just be a natural process, where a person who neglects their abilities eventually diminishes themselves, until they just simply disintegrate and cease to exist?

I think 1 Cor. 3:12-15 further elaborates on the theme expressed in that parable, so I'll quote it here:

If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

I think we all posess a spark of the divine that is eternal and thus won't ever disintegrate, but at the same time it's up to us what we do with what we've been given in this lifetime.  If we focus solely on materiality and what is temporal, then all our works will perish and we'll take absolutely nothing with us into eternity.  Thus, as we see here, such a person will survive... but will stand in front of God with the knowledge that he's just come out of an entire lifetime no better off than he was when he entered it.  What a waste, no?

On the other hand, if we focus on spirit, modeling ourselves after the revealed divine attributes, having experiences and learning lessons, then we'll end up with something we can take with us after death, and on into whatever existence comes after this one.  Thus, we bring back something to the master that has added to the richness of our own experience, of collective human experience, and ultimately to the Divine, who is experiencing the infinite fullness of Himself through us.

Thus, it makes sense that the master then takes away what the former had and gives the latter even more.  He does this not because He's a big meanie, but because logically the first person is not ready to handle what he was given the first time around, whereas the second person has learned enough and gained enough experience to move on to bigger and better things.

But do you believe that In order to have a life beyond this one you must believe and accept jesus as your lord and if you do not accept him then you go to hell or cease to exist? the old 'no one comes to the father except through me' routine.

MS has already done a wonderful job of answering these posts and basically said most of what I would have said, so there's not a whole lot for me to add here.

The only thing I'd like to toss out is that I believe Jesus' death and resurrection, and the "rending of the veil" opened up a sort of gateway to the divine that did not exist prior to his lifetime.  This allows all men the opportunity to unite with God in the same way Jesus was able to say "the father and I are one," a way that was not open prior to his ministry.  

The difference between myself and most evangelicals is that when Jesus said "no one comes to the father but through me," I take him to mean that everyone who comes to the father (which is all men, "the testimony given in its proper time" [1 Tim. 2:6]) will do so because of and through the gateway he opened up 2000 years ago, and this is the way God will become "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28).  This is of course at odds with the typical evangelical take on it that basically says "anyone who wants to get to the father has to get through me first."  I'm fond of saying I prefer to see Jesus as a bridge, not a bouncer.  And I see no reason whether from scripture or logic, to believe that gateway is "for a limited time only!" and will slam shut on a person just because they happened to end a single lifetime without figuring out or saying the magical password, more popularly known as the "sinner's prayer."  No, that gateway will remain open until the lost coin is found, the last sheep is brought back to the flock,  the prodigal son returns home, and God is finally "all in all."

I agree, there should always be room for "growth" and I assure you that Admin. and the moderators here fully support that notion. But at the same time no one person should be allowed to dominate this place, nor should they be overtly offensive to others in the course of their development. But in the general course of events there is an underlying agreement with what you say.

Does this mean Soma got banned?  Haven't seen him in a day or two I don't think.

Ah well; whether he did or not, I wish him the best and I hope he eventually makes peace with God, man and himself.

Palehorse, if someone like Soma-sight believes in the inerrency of the bible and is to be taken literely, 'written in stone' (a stance which is fanatasism and dangerous imo, as bad as muslim fanatics), there is little point in wasting breath and energy trying to argue otherwise.

I disagree.  What you probably aren't aware of is that I myself used to hold beliefs very similar to his.  If I can change (especially to the extent that I have in the past few years) anyone can.  I shudder to think where I might be today if everyone had simply written *me* off as being beyond all hope.

As far as I'm concerned, effort is never wasted when addressing spiritual bondage in all its forms -- not the least of which is the fear based theology peddled by so many Christians today.  Since my background and predominant field of study is Christianity, my fellow Christians are the people who I feel most well equipped to engage with in this way.  Not that any other form of religious or spiritual bondage is less important by any means; this is just where my own strengths are.

Do I expect to persuade many of them to my point of view?  Nope, and that's not what I'm about anyway -- everyone should study and reach his own informed conclusions rather than being told by anyone else what to believe.  Only God can change hearts; my place is only to put the relevant info out there so that maybe they'll remember it and have a good starting point to work from when (not if) He does.  I view my role as being one who  demonstrates by example that there's room for a vast diversity of belief and practice under the umbrella of Christianity, and that being a Christian does not entail checking your intellect or even your humanity at the door.

I'm a Christian, so I believe in the bible. Somewhere in Revelations it says that the generation that witnessed the recreation of Israel as a country will not die out before the apocalypse. So basically I'm saying it will be very soon. Be prepared...

Wow that is an amazing prophecy if it is true.

I will check that out.

That would mean that it is very soon.

The Second Coming that is.

This idea is never explicitly stated in the NT -- it is read into it by those who  interpret Revelation through the lense of premillenial dispensationalism.  Basically, there is a lot in Revelation and in the eschatological prophecies of Jesus that revolves around the Jewish temple... but of course the slight problem with that is that there isn't one anymore.  So, in order for a futurist interpretation to work, it would have to be rebuilt... and in order for it to be rebuilt, there would have to be a Jewish state, which there is now as of the end of WW2.  Today's popular interpretation of Revelation was invented around the turn of the century and first started to gain popularity during the 20's-30's, so of course when Israel became a nation in 1948, they viewed it as "the pieces falling into place" as a sign that "the end is near."

The funny thing, to me, is that this view is most popular among people who consider themselves biblical literalists.  If they were as much into literalism as they claim, then why not take Rev. literally when it specifically states who it's addressed to: the seven churches of 1st century Asia Minor?

I'm not a big fan of the "age of accountability" doctrine.  Taken to its logical conclusion, it would hypothetically make child-killers the greatest evangelists of all, since allowing someone to pass that magical age, and thus be eligible for an eternity of torment, would arguably be the much greater crime.  If you've ever heard of Susan Smith, she actually *did* kill her kids for that very reason -- in her eyes, she was acting as a loving mother who wanted to save her kids from the possibility of going to Hell.  Disturbing and misguided?  Absolutely.  But we are nonetheless forced to admit that within the parameters of this belief system, her logic is valid.

But then, the Heaven/Hell dichotomy is a false dilemma as far as I'm concerned anyway.  Kids go to Heaven not because they are innocent, or because they are kids -- they go for the same reason we all do: because God is love.

Withcraft is the use of the Devil's power.

What power do you believe the devil has that we can make use of?  (I'm not trying to be an arse; I'm just trying to narrow this down to be as specific as possible, since if we're going to debate something, I think it generally helps to first make sure we're all on the same page here).

It is the worship of false gods.

This, I believe, is why a lot of things are condemned in the Bible -- in ancient times, if you couldn't explain something, it was attributed to one deity or another, thus for the Jews and Christians it would have been idolatry.  Today, not so much.  There's not necessarily any logical connection between psychic phenomena, astral projection, etc. etc., and gods of any sort, let alone false ones.

Revelations and Galations tell us that those who are witches will NOT see the Kingdom of God.

Do you have the actual references handy?

2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I assume you're a believer in biblical inerrancy, and if so that's all well and good, but I have a significantly different take on this one.

1.  When it was written, the Bible in its current form did not yet exist.  Thus, when the author of 2 Tim. says "all scripture," he might well be referring to writings that YOU would not accept as scripture.

2.  Inspiration is not quite the same thing as being the direct words of God.

3.  I'm of the school of thought that 2 Tim. was one of the books written some time after Paul's lifetime by someone using his name.  This same guy has some rather misogynistic things to say about women in particular, which shows me he didn't share Christ's belief in equality, or Paul's sentiment that "there is no Jew, Greek, slave or free, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  So, while he may have had other good things to say to his congregation, that's enough for me not to feel any compelling need to take every word he says as God-breathed truth.

Saying God's Word's are Truth is not idolatry my friend.

I believe the bible contains the words of God (most notably spoken by Jesus and the OT prophets) but it, in itself, is not THE Word of God.  It is a book, into which the words of God have been written by men, after being filtered through their own finite understanding.  A useful tool for discovering who this Jesus character was, and through him, who God is and what He wants from us, but that's as far as I'd go.

A Christian without a knowledge of the Bible is like a ship on a grand voyage...................without a compass! The waves will quickly sink you in false security.

Agreed.

The KJV is the closest to the original Greek, Hebrew manuscripts.

Disagreed.  The KJV is great as far as beautifully poetic language is concerned, but it's actually among the least accurate translations out there,    Which shouldn't be all that surprising -- it was translated in the 15th century by a committee on the king's payroll.  Not only have more manuscripts been discovered in the centuries since then, biblical scholarship has come quite a long way, and now we have the benefit of scholars who can work without fear that they'll lose their heads (literally) if they don't come out with a finished product that the king approves of.

Since all translations have their strengths and weaknesses, the best choice is to have a bunch of 'em on hand to compare and study.  That's where biblegateway.com comes in -- I think they have like twenty different versions now.  I personally have found the NRSV to be the best balance between readability and accuracy I've seen so far, so that's the one I get the most general use out of.

Get it ? The first Adam bombed out and ate from the "Tree of Good and Evil". The second Adam (Jesus) didn't and NULLIFIED the ENTIRE LAW at the Cross .
No Law, gone kaput, therefore ,who are you to judge what is good and Evil without going back to the Law?

Not quite biblically accurate.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Exactly what it means to "fulfill" the law is a matter of debate, but the fact remains that the very first Christians, who were all Jewish, remained religious Jews for the rest of their lives.  So, obviously they didn't understand Jesus to have gotten rid of the law completely.  Then again, after the temple fell in 70AD (and with it the priesthood and everything pertaining to sacrifice), much of it became a moot point.

I think the better question would be that of what business we (and I'm assuming we're all gentiles) would have binding ourselves to ancient Jewish religious law.  The question of whether gentiles are obligated to follow the law was decided at the council of Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, and the answer was "no."  

Does that mean we can (or rather, should) live by any standard we feel like?  Not at all.  As Paul said in 1 Cor. 6:12 and elsewhere "everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial.  Everything is lawful, but I will not be mastered by anything."  Put together with Jesus' teachings, the ideal Christian "rule for living" soon becomes clear -- "love God, love your neighbor, and use the common sense God gave ya."

The Bible is God's Word and all Truth.

Actually, the bible never refers to itself as God's Word.  Biblically, the Word (Logos) is Christ.  You're coming dangerously close to idolatry here, IMO.

Only the Gospel of Christ leads to happiness and eventually an Eternity with Him.

I'm a Christian, and I disagree.  I've known some pretty happy atheists, and some pretty miserable Christians in my lifetime.  It's all a matter of perspective, really.

Get a good KJV Bible

Why the KJV, out of curiosity?

paker7,

Witchcraft is evil.

Why ?

I think a better question (to Soma Sight) at this point would be -- how do you define "witchcraft"?

There are many paths to "God" or "Realisation". No-one, but no-one has the right to claim that there is ONLY one way.

Sure they do.

You simply have the right to accept or disregard what they say as you see fit.

Free speech is a wonderful thing, no?

It seems to me that Pale horse thinks of a very stereo-typical image when he reads the word Jihad. By Jihaad it is meant defense of the Muslims, their rights and their lands. So of course fighting for Allah (SWT) is uplifting the banner of Islam, because if someone goes against our rights or invades us we do not deny it being justified to killing the afore mentioned parties.

No.  When I started my research on this last semester, I did so with the expressed intent to figure out what the definition of the word was from an unbiased perspective, which I did by letting the sources (mainly the Quran and Muslim authors) speak for themselves.  As Fazlur Rahman put it: "The most unacceptable on historical grounds, however, is the stand of those modern Muslim apologists who have tried to explain the jihad of the early community in purely defensive terms."  (source) For the Quran quotes I found that explicitly commanded physical aggression for the purpose of spreading Islam, refer back to my previous post.  I also consulted some historical sources to see what the earliest period of Muslim history was like, as I figured that would give a good sense of the original interpretation.  Needless to say it didn't take more than a brief glimpse at how the early Muslim communities jihad-ed their way across the Middle East, all the way into western Europe and North Africa to prove that these people weren't exactly acting in self defense.

But if quotes from the Quran, Muslim authors and history books aren't enough, then you might also want to take it up with Islamis4u, as he's been saying the same thing.

Regarding Jizyah:

Tell me "Pale Horse", do you pay the tax? I think you do. If you didn't, what would the government do to you.

I pay the same state and federal taxes everyone else in the country does.  I don't have to pay a special tax that discriminates against me on the basis of my religion (a case could be made that it does based on my being a Californian, but let's not get into THAT. ).

Also, if lands which are under Muslim control and in which non-Muslims live, are invaded, the non-Muslims are protected and are in no way forced to fight to fight or join the army.

Is that an official part of Muslim law, or just something that happens in some Muslim countries, or...?

Anyway, that's a nice perk, but it doesn't exactly make up for the way non-Muslims have historically been treated in Muslim societies.  Another excert from my essay:

So then, what was it like to live as a member of a foreign religion in a Muslim dominated land?  Historical source documents from early in Muslim history do not paint a pretty picture.  The Pact of Umar, which is assumed to date around 720 CE, details many of the restrictions placed on Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule.  Jews and Christians, or "dhimmis" as they were called, were obligated to rise from their seats when a Muslim wished to sit.  They were not allowed to preach their religion, and were prohibited from trying to prevent anyone of their own religion from converting to Islam.  They had to refrain from raising their voices when following their dead in funeral processions.  They were also prohibited from riding on horses or mules but only donkeys, and were not permitted to use saddles.  Christians were not permitted to build new churches, or maintain existing ones.  The wooden clapper used by Christians to call their members to prayer was banned, as was chanting, carrying a bible or a cross in processions.  Christians were required to wear special clothing, such as a particular style of girdle, so they could be readily identified.  A Muslim woman could not marry a Christian man; however a Christian woman could marry a Muslim man.  Children of a mixed marriage were always considered Muslim.  A Muslim could own a dhimmi slave, but never the opposite.

I can think of two particular instances in both German and American history where certain groups of people were forced to wear "special clothing" so they could be identified... or had to get up when someone of the dominant group wanted to sit, along with many other discriminatory practices and restrictions of freedom.  These eras are widely regretted and looked upon with disgust today, and rightfully so.  How is this any different?

"And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the 'Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)"

So warfare and murder isn't "mischief"?  Sounds like Allah has caused a lot more mischief than he's prevented.

Ya i do agree with the interpretation. What is gained from fighting is uplifting the word of la ilaha illa Allah(there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah).

In what way is Allah's name "uplifted" by killing people?   How can a conversion really be genuine if it's forced at swordpoint?

Fighting jihaad brings people out of the servitude unto people, into the servitude unto the Lord of all people.

Doesn't sound that way to me -- all its done is put various people into servitude to Muslims.

"The fitnah(oppression) of the kuffaar(unbelievers) themselves and their preventing others from hearing and accepting the truth. That is because the kaafir(unbelieving) systems corrupt the innate nature and reason of people, and make them get used to worshipping and submitting to things other than Allaah, getting addicted to alcohol, wallowing in the mire of sexual licence, and losing all characteristics of virtue. Whoever is like that can rarely tell truth from falsehood, good from evil, right from wrong. So jihad is prescribed in order to remove those obstacles that prevent people from hearing and accepting the truth and getting to know it. "

So in summary, "we kill people to stop them from violating our moral code."  

This is fallacious on two counts.

1. Obviously, very strong arguments can be made that unprovoked killing is, itself, immoral.

2. When you kill someone for being immoral, you've perhaps gotten rid of an immoral person, but you've done nothing to combat (or even address) the causes of immorality.  For instance, someone might steal because they have no way to get their needs met legally.  You can go and kill all the thieves you like, but until you create a society where people have adequate opportunity to meet their basic needs, some people are going to keep stealing.

When the Muslims conquer a nation, the individuals of the nation are not forced to accept Islam, but they are forced to accept the rule of the Islamic state.

I hope you understand that the very same rationale was used by the Roman Catholic Church to justify the Crusades.  Namely "it's our God-appointed duty to liberate the land and people from the influence of 'heathens' until they see the light."  

And you're both wrong for the same reasons.  We agree that the same God created us all -- so how could it possibly please Him to see ANY of His kids killing each other for any reason?

Sayed Qutb said:

This is something for which Islam deserves to be praised, not condemned.

Methinks Sayed Qutb seriously needs to rethink his priorities.

This is the religion of Allaah, not the ideas of any person or the product of human thought,

Just about every religious person on earth thinks the same -- that their religion came straight from God, and others are manmade -- but that doesn't give them (or you) license to kill for it.

That said, the Quran contains enough misrepresentation of Christian theology (among other things... that's just my area of personal knowledge) and history to easily refute the claim that it's divinely inerrant.  I realize Muslims believe that Christians and Jews are the ones whose religions are corrupted, and Islam showed up 500 years after the fact to tell us what "really" happened.  But as far as I'm concerned, this is a dubious (and in many cases, near impossible and/or demonstrably false) claim, and a cop-out.

The acknowledgement of Quranical errancy on the part of Muslims would be a good first step toward developing a theology that allowed all Muslims to live at peace with their fellow human beings.  But as you've helped to demonstrate, that might never happen, save for some sort of divine miracle.

AS for what makes me think polytheists are undeserving of life, it is because they contradict the very purpose of their existence, and commit the worst sin against God. They worship something else besides Him, although it is clear that He is the Creator whom everything depends on and deserves all worship

Obviously it's not clear to them, or they'd be monotheists by now.  If the worship of one God was really the matter of life and death that you presume it to be, this God would have revealed Himself to every human being on an individual basis in an undeniable way by now.  While I do believe that such a time is coming, it obviously has not at this point.  Thus, the best thing we can do is to share what truth we do have with each other with compassion and understanding, and learn from what each has to contribute.  From this, we'd all stand to benefit, regardless of what religious label we happen to classify ourselves under.

I completely agree with that interpretation, for it is the historical interpretation and is correct. Jihaad is the means in which the banner of monotheism is uplifted and none is worshipped but the Creator.

So you do agree with the interpretation that says violence is a legitimate way of spreading Islam?  Don't you think there's enough violence in the world as it is?  What exactly is gained when someone is killed for not converting?  Also, if your religion is true, then shouldn't its truth speak for itself without having to convert people against their will, by force?

The Prophet(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fought in order to rid the arabian peninsula from the darkness of idolatry.

So you feel that murdering Pagans who won't accept your religion is completely justified?  What is it about polytheists that you feel makes them undeserving of life?  Why is killing them and sending them to Hell preferable to allowing them to live, thus preserving the possibility that they might convert later?

As for Jews and Christians and the Zoroastrians, he accepted Jizyah(protection tax) from them, in exchange that their lives, wealth, and honour would be protected.

In other words, "give me money and I'll allow you to exist."  What a deal.

There's a word for that, y'know -- extortion.

Gandalf,

Prove to me that Jesus did any wrong or that it was ever even mentioned.

I'm not Gandalf, but I can certainly provide the proof that he was accused.

Luke 7:34
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." '

Matt 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

And let's not forget that whole "king of the Jews" thing.  Jesus was crucified, which was a punishment generally only reserved for insurrection against Rome and similar treasonous crimes.  Of course, whether any of these accusations are legitimate or not is a whole other story.

As for Islam, I agree that the claims that have been presented are things each side can portray in whatever way they see fit.  However, I'm more concerned about statements that come from the Q'uran itself.  Suffice to say that the modern PC claim that "jihad" is only an internal struggle, or an act of self defense, appears to be blatantly false.

From an essay I wrote on the subject of "Christians and Jews under Muslim Conquest and Rule" last semester:

It is commanded of believers to "fight in the way of Allah ... with full force of numbers and weaponry" because "by jihad is Islam established (Surah 2:190)." Muslims are to "fight them until there is no more disbelief and idolatry (Surah 2:193)," and Muhammad himself is commanded to "give tidings of painful torment" to those who disbelieve (Surah 9:3).  Elsewhere, Muhammad is commanded to fulfill the terms of his treaty with another group, after which he is instructed to ambush and kill all the unbelievers he finds, until the survivors repent.  Surah 47:4 is probably the most extensive and explicit verse in this category; as such I will quote it in its entirety.  "So, when you meet (in fight – jihad in Allah's cause) those who disbelieve, smite their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, take them as captives).  Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (free them without ransom) or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden.  Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue carrying out jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam and are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire or at least come under your protection] but if it had been Allah's will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you).  But (He lets you fight) in order to test some of you with others.  But those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."  

...

    Reactions to Pagans and polytheism in general is significantly more harsh, such as in Surah 9:5, where it is recommended that Pagans be killed whenever they are found unless they agree to convert to Islam, provided that the killing does not take place in the "forbidden months."

It must be said that the majority of Muslims today seem to want nothing more than to live in peace with their fellow human beings, and they should be commended for it.  However, they are acting AGAINST what is plainly stated in the Q'uran, and how it has historically been interpreted, rather than in accordance with it.  After doing the research for this essay, it really wasn't hard for me to see where more militant Muslims get their ideas -- their creed and mandate is essentially spelled out in their holy book, in no uncertain terms.

In light of this, I'd say it's the ethical responsibility of every peaceful Muslim to agree on an interpretation of their religion that condemns this sort of violence, and proclaim it from the rooftops.

Suffice it to say that my sources have been well researched and unless I believed them to be accurate I would not have included them.

Then I assume they'll be included in a bibliography in this book you're writing...?  Otherwise, one can't exactly expect to make claims that fly in the face of things most people take for granted, and just expect us all to take your word for it.

My only advice in this regards is to keep clear of sources that exist to promote christianity as being biased.

Most of what I had to say comes from scholarly sources... some written by Christians, some not.  But it's all peer-reviewed and whatnot, so I don't really think it should matter.

The fact still remains that there is no evidence whatsoever that the bible ever actually existed. Apart from possibly a few tiny fragments there is no physical evidence whatsoever; it is all hearsay.

I'm not quite clear on what you mean here... do you mean that the Bible as we have it today didn't exist at the time of Jesus?  Well, on that you'd technically be right.  The Old Testament was written over the course of about 5000 years IIRC, but the Jewish canon was pretty much universal a few centuries before Jesus' time.  The books of the New Testament was all written between the mid 1st to early 2nd century.  There was a generally accepted canon by the late 2nd-3rd century, and it finally became official in the 4th.  The only significant changes that have been made since then have been the removal of the apocrypha by Martin Luther, resulting in the Protestant Bible.  This is all a matter of scholarly consensus.

That site you quote in the context of Mithraism is a rebuttal by christians.

I realize that, but I also think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone other than Christians putting serious effort into debunking the supposed Mithra connection.  However, just because an essay happens to be written by a Christian defending Christianity does not mean it doesn't have a lot of valid things to say.  I wouldn't have posted it if it didn't appear to be well researched... this guy appears to have done his homework and deconstructed the opposing argument the same way any respectable scholar would.

Anyway, I'll get to the other half sometime soon, but if you don't plan on responding to what I have to say, then I'm in no rush, heh.

I've copied this whole thing into MS Word and I'm going to address it about five pages at a time (it's 10 total).  

First of all, I think you initially present some good reasons why modern, mainline Christianity isn't the most spiritually healthy thing on earth, and I'd agree there.  What you and so many fail to realize though, is that Jesus himself cannot be faulted for the shape his movement has taken, as much of it happened in blatant contradiction to his most basic teachings.  As far as I can tell it took about a full century before those seeds of corruption began to sprout, and even then, it didn't fully take effect for three more, until the religio-political marriage between proto-orthodox Christianity and the Roman Empire in the 4th century.  In other words, if you have a problem with Christianity, then take it up with the Roman Empire and the fruit of its former dominance, not with Jesus.

My second major concern is that you make a lot of claims without citing any sources, and some of them I know to be false just off the top of my head.  So, getting into the text:

These are some of the reasons together with rampant materialism and an uncontrolled ego why mankind has failed for the most part to achieve true progress, peace, harmony and happiness, and why there is still so much suffering on this planet rather than being, as it should be, "the kingdom of heaven on Earth".

This is exactly what Jesus was attempting to show people 2000 years ago.  As we all know, he wasn't exactly well received.

There is absolutely no tangible evidence whatsoever that the bible itself, any of the "books" from which it is constituted, or indeed any the people who supposedly wrote those books ever actually existed.

Yes, there actually is archaeological and historical evidence to corroborate much of what is said in the Bible.  No the record is not anywhere near complete, but it is about what you'd expect after several thousand years.

During the time Jesus was believed to have lived, there is considerable evidence to suggest he was a member of a Spiritual order known as the Essenes,

What evidence might that be?

Further, many of the ethical teachings of the Essenes can be traced directly back to the origins of Buddhism which originated around five hundred years before Jesus was born.

Any evidence for any interaction that may have taken place between Essenes and Buddhists?

Currently available evidence suggests Jesus spent much of his life, thirty years or so, with the Essene order,

Do share.

Many of the philosophies, teachings and healing services of Buddhism were, and still are today, remarkably similar to those of the Essenes. The Jewish Talmud, which pre-dates the time of Jesus, also refers to parables of "The marriage feast", the "Labourers in the vineyard" and the "Pearl of great price".

The fact that Jesus' teachings echo other Jewish Rabbis shouldn't be surprising, since Jesus was, himself, a religious Jew.  

What Christians came to refer to as the "last supper" was in fact a long standing Essene tradition which was observed before a brother of the Essene order was to embark on a long journey or mission.

Actually it was a Passover Seder.

The origin of this simple ceremony can in turn be traced to Mithraism, the worship of the god Mithra, which was still highly prevalent at the time of Jesus.

No, it's traceable to the Passover holiday, which is based on the tradition of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt.  It predates Mithraism by quite a few centuries.

There is considerable evidence that Mithraism profoundly influenced the basis and the origins of the Christian religion,

No there isn't.  
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

The god Mithra was still very important to the people of the region at the time of Jesus and for centuries afterwards, and there is no way the people could or would simply set this aside.

Actually, Mithraism was simply one of many mystery religious that were prevalent at the time, such as the cults of Isis, Dionysus, etc.  The statement is fallacious because "the region" encompasses everything from N Africa up through Italy and back down to Syria.  As such, it covers a vast diversity of people and religions.

The resemblance between Buddhism and early Christianity is so profound,

I'll grant that they both place a strong emphasis on compassion, but that's about as far as it goes IMO.  Their beginnings, theology and ultimate goals are all completely different.

Such anointments were by no means unique or even uncommon: there were numerous other "anointed ones" or "Christ's" at the time, this being a popular tradition of the area. At the time of Jesus there were also many teachers and healers, members of the Essenes and other orders, who were all equally regarded as "messiah's".

Christ was indeed the Greek word for "anointed one," but the Jewish messiah, or moshiach, is more specific.

It was Jesus however who, due to circumstance it seems, happened to be in the right place at the right time, and hence came to be known as "The Messiah". It was Paul who is believed to have elevated Jesus to this level,

Believed by whom?  Jesus is called the messiah in texts that were produced independently of anything Paul wrote.

and Paul himself was by all accounts influenced by the ancient religions of Egypt and Greece, and in particular by the Egyptian god Osiris and the Greek god Dionysus.

...And what accounts might those be?  Paul was raised a Pharisee, and would probably either laugh or cry if you told him he was influenced by Greek or Egyptian Paganism.

It was not until twelve hundred years later in the year 1611 the book, after countless amendments, even began to resemble the bible in the form it is known today.

I assume you're referring to the King James Bible.  This is simply a translation that was produced in order to have an English Bible.  The translation itself admittedly isn't the greatest, but it didn't make any serious changes to the books or the text as we know them.  And even if it did, we would still have much older manuscripts available with which to compare.

In order to formally endorse this contrived official status of Jesus, over two thousand representatives gathered in Nicaea, consisting of members of the very early Christian church and also of paganism, notably the followers of the dominant Mithraic religion. As a result of this diverse assembly, numerous resolutions were placed before Emperor Constantine, who in turn subsequently burned them all, apparently to prevent the contents therein from becoming common knowledge.

Source?  Suffice to say that this is quite different from any account of the council I've read, whether Christian or secular.

One hundred and fifty years later in the year 680 CE, a further meeting of monks was ordered to decide how Jesus was to have died. As a result it was decided Jesus was to have died on a cross.

Erm... where exactly are you getting this?  The idea of Jesus having died on a cross is much older than 680.  If you won't take the canonical Bible as evidence, I have a whole lot of writings from early Church figures (both orthodox and not) as well as scriptures not endorsed by Constantine's church that all say the same thing.

It was also around this time the truth of reincarnation was removed from the official church doctrines

Source?  Reincarnation was never official doctrine.  It *was* held as a possibility by various Christians in the diversity of the 1st-2nd centuries (most notably I think Origen's beliefs allow for it even if it's not explicitly stated to my knowledge), but was sort of ruled out as various creeds were written.  

and replaced instead with the doctrines of "heaven" and "hell". These conceptsmade it much easier for the officials of the church to control their congregations by literally scaring people into believing they would go to "hell and damnation for all eternity" at the pleasure of "satan", if they did not believe, accept and conform to the official teachings of the church and accept Jesus as their saviour.

Agreed, but a good case can be made that the concept of eternal hell was imported from Pagan sources.  Anyway, almost from the very beginning, there have been three schools of Christian thought on punishment in the afterlife: eternal torment, universal reconciliation and annihilation.

Emperor Constantine, a vicious tyrant who apparently murdered his own wife, son and nephew, created the Christian religion for purposes know only unto himself.

Not quite.  Christianity thrived for four centuries before Constantine ever showed up on the scene.  There's no reason to believe it needed his help to keep growing and flourishing, and IMO it would have been much better off without him.

To be continued...

According to the Bible God's wrath is the other side of His love

Which I've always though was utterly ridiculous, however if thats what turns you on...

Only if you're operating with the human definition of "wrath."  When people are wrathful, we're generally reacting because our ego has been offended somehow, motivating us to seek recourse against the offending party.

Biblically, the wrath of God (who has no ego to speak of) is meant for our ultimate benefit, even if it doesn't seem that way at the time.

Hebrews 12:11
No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.