Saul Luizaga wrote:

Hmm. Ok, like I was saying to someone earlier today, most of the 
principles of Western civilization are Roman, not Biblical. Same more or 
less goes for Jesus. We have basically:

1. 3 Gospels, which actually contradict each other on a number of 
points, all of them written starting 50 years after the fact, then the 
others *after* that, and none of them, apparently, at the same time, or 
even by people we can verify ever met each other. Revelations is even 
written by someone that "admits" never meeting anyone else.

2. Strong parallels between some events in Titus Flavius' campaigns 
against the Jewish people, which happened... 50 years after Jesus. There 
is some implication that he intended to be declared the "second coming", 
but things didn't work out right. I find it plausible, given that 
members of his families close cousins declared themselves the first 
Christians, that they opted to use their new "invented" religion to hold 
onto some power, even though their line no longer held the empire.

3. The only secondary, and usually the "most important" source, for many 
believers, is... a short section at the start of the works of Josephus, 
which "chronicles" those wars against the Jewish people. Problem is.. 
they are almost certain, based on style, content, its disconnect from 
the rest of the contents, etc., that it was added, probably 100+ years 
*after* the NT itself was written.

Basically, the reality is, we don't even have as much evidence of Jesus 
actually existing as we have to Noah, and we are pretty sure Noah was 
borrowed from the much older story of Gilgamesh.

That said.. What you get is a conglomeration of ideas. Much like the 
constitution of the US isn't all 100% original ideas, but a combination 
of many bits of prior thinking. Everything Jesus said was, in one form 
or another, existent in other faiths, social systems, etc. But, 
fragmentary. The same group teaching you about the value of treating 
servants well would also tell you to kill foreigners. The same ones 
telling you to valid truth, would also tell you to value human 
sacrifices. The Greek and Roman gods where all over the map, but even 
their own followers, like Plato and Aristotle where looking at things 
and asking, "How much of this makes sense, and shouldn't be just keep 
the stuff that does, and get rid of what doesn't?"

So, then you have to ask, "Ok, so what did he teach, really?" Well... If 
a modern Christian believes he did, they are probably wrong. Not always, 
but often. He had *some* good ideas, mangled, like all others who have 
had them, by the nature of his time, and assumptions about how the world 
was "supposed" to work, like rule by kings, slavery as so common he used 
it in parable, without condemning it, etc. Even telling people that they 
can't be disciples, unless they hate everyone they know, including 
themselves. One may as well try, as some did, to follow the teachings of 
Karl Marx, as though nothing he said had flaws, or condemn it all, 
because it was naive and incomplete. Difference is, we don't presume 
that his ideas are a religion, or refuse to change them, the way 
religions pretty much demand people treat their ideas (while slowly 
changing anyway, just in a tooth and nail fight to try to prevent it).

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> And I don't know what the 
> Mormon stance on loving each other, but I'm pretty sure there's a bunch 
> of caveats in there too, given they dislike their gay members loving 
> their neighbors, for example.

If you mean "love" as in caring for someone more than for yourself, then 
the Mormons preach it quite literally.

If you mean romantic or sexual, then it's quite restricted.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that

Sorry, I stopped reading right there.  I thought about making a comment 
about basing a religious conversation on a work of text, but I'd be far 
too tempted to go too far and offend someone...

I think I'd better stop now ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> If you mean "love" as in caring for someone more than for yourself, then 
> the Mormons preach it quite literally.

Well, I guess unless you're gay. Or black.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that
> 
> Sorry, I stopped reading right there.  I thought about making a comment 
> about basing a religious conversation on a work of text, but I'd be far 
> too tempted to go too far and offend someone...
> 
> I think I'd better stop now ;)
> 
> ....Chambers

Hehe, that attitude... "I'm so good writing that I'm offensive, 
especially on unprepared people".

IMO people that offends when communicating has weak character and spirit 
plus, and finds shelter and shield on their intellectual vanity. I'm not 
interested in these kind of people or what they have to say, mainly 
because because that vanity won't let them be humble to learn or accept 
some flaws or different POVs or even part of them, these kind of people 
live in denial, defensive, self-centered and narrow minded worlds, so 
what's the point?

I'm sorry too, but I like people that actually want to discuss trying to 
find the truth and the good in everything not people that want to be 
given the reason on everything they think they have.

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

You have said probably many truths here, but my point of view about the 
Bible I think is still valid and the same as I wrote in my previous 
post. A guide gets outdated and sometimes have some erroneous facts but 
have to cope with that and take the good and the truth and apply it to 
our life for constructive benefice which is basically what religions, 
governments and society in general strives for, right? unless you deal 
in absolutes, which I think this is a serious character flaw, and just 
take the flaws of the Bible or any other text as a pretext to deny them 
entirely; and AFAIK trying to follow a "perfect" path in life is just 
utopia, I think at the contrary we have to make constant but gradual 
changes in our life doing our very best.

And I don't re member well but I think that the Bible/Jesus don't say we 
have to hate everyone including ourselves, but to deny ourselves meaning 
detach from intellectual, personal or any other kind of pride that will 
disable our capability of being ourselves: be in touch with our feeling, 
flaws, virtues, etc and won't allow us to be humble to learn, improve, 
find the better part of ourselves and greater good than what we think 
we're capable of. In short is a meditation not a literal advice.

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is 
>> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love each 
>> other the best way possible, you get me?
> 
> Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
> 
> Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly 
> admirable. Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted you 
> to kill each other.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather 
> obedience to God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't 
> actually show up in the old testament as well.
> 
> Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed only 
> the loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is overblown.
> 

Your attitude is "Why is God doing this?" on answer, no, what you 
believe is just crap, God and any religion, OK dude, then I'll write: 
what ever you say...

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is 
>>> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love 
>>> each other the best way possible, you get me?
>>
>> Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
>>
>> Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly 
>> admirable. Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted 
>> you to kill each other.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather 
>> obedience to God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't 
>> actually show up in the old testament as well.
>>
>> Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed 
>> only the loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is 
>> overblown.
>>
> 
> Your attitude is "Why is God doing this?" on answer, no, what you 
> believe is just crap, God and any religion, OK dude, then I'll write: 
> what ever you say...

Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is 
based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any 
statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other 
is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is 
crap", because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly 
every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way 
possible" is flawed.

That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition 
(how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your 
posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga schrieb:

> I'm sorry too, but I like people that actually want to discuss trying to 
> find the truth and the good in everything not people that want to be 
> given the reason on everything they think they have.

Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?


BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh... 
does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity 
solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted 
at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?

already explained in previous post.

> 
> BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh... 
> does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity 
> solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted 
> at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"

It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about 
Christianity so yeah that would be a good argument to change your 
believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think 
is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.

Post a reply to this message