• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

He who is not with me is against me

phattonez said:
The pope speaking in an interview does not speak infallibly and cannot change what the Church has always taught
Click to expand...

Really? The Pope does not speak infallibly? Sounds to me like you're changing what the church has always taught.

The Church hasn't gone back on previously held notions like with purgatory or the status of Mary Magdelene?

phattonez said:
which is that "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought it was "Outside of Christ"

John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I know my bible Sir.
 
phattonez said:
I'm just waiting for an explanation as to how I'm supposed to interpret His words any differently when He is so explicit about it? Was it some metaphor that I missed? Sarcasm? I think not.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to know or do you just want to keep heading down the path you have chosen?

If you want to know then the answer will be self evident.
 
Lachean said:
Which god?
Click to expand...

Lachean said:
I don't know that, not do I believe the use of a capital G is of any indication; As if YHWH were any more special than any other alleged god being promulgated.
Click to expand...

Lachean said:
Not according to the Pope.
Click to expand...

Lachean said:
YHWH is not the only monotheistic deity.

Please do not presume to tell me what I know.
Click to expand...

Lachean said:
Really? The Pope does not speak infallibly? Sounds to me like you're changing what the church has always taught.

The Church hasn't gone back on previously held notions like with purgatory or the status of Mary Magdelene?



Funny, I thought it was "Outside of Christ"

John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I know my bible Sir.
Click to expand...

Just stop.
 
Lachean said:
Really? The Pope does not speak infallibly? Sounds to me like you're changing what the church has always taught.
Click to expand...

The pope is not infallible all the time. He is only infallible when speaking authoritatively on issues of faith and morals. An off the cuff interview does not apply.

The Church hasn't gone back on previously held notions like with purgatory or the status of Mary Magdelene?
Click to expand...

The infallible Magisterium of the Church does not and cannot change.

Funny, I thought it was "Outside of Christ"

John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I know my bible Sir.
Click to expand...

Yet you don't know who compiled the Bible and declared it to be inerrant.
 
Lutherf said:
Do you really want to know or do you just want to keep heading down the path you have chosen?

If you want to know then the answer will be self evident.
Click to expand...

I'd like for you to argue the point that you are so convinced is correct.
 
Welcome to Phattonez's version of libertarianism, where liberty means that anyone who doesn't 100% share his authoritarian religious views is against him.
 
rathi said:
Welcome to Phattonez's version of libertarianism, where liberty means that anyone who doesn't 100% share his authoritarian religious views is against him.
Click to expand...

My personal views have nothing to do with my political views. For the most part evil should be tolerated in society, but we can still point it out as evil.

Congratulations on being petty.
 
phattonez said:
My personal views have nothing to do with my political views. For the most part evil should be tolerated in society, but we can still point it out as evil.

Congratulations on being petty.
Click to expand...

Funny how you had no problem condemning Dick Durbin when he had different personal and political views.
 
rathi said:
Funny how you had no problem condemning Dick Durbin when he had different personal and political views.
Click to expand...

I did what about who now?
 
Phat, is scripture open to interpreatation?
 
Evil or the ultimate ruler of the universe? I don't think those are the only two choices. For example, he could be, you know, a fictional character who never existed in the first place. Probably an amalgamation of several actual wandering Jewish preachers who claimed mystic powers at the time, and several earlier Jewish and Roman myths. This very reasonable conclusion has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting anything. It has to do with legends and myths just being stories.

rathi said:
Welcome to Phattonez's version of libertarianism, where liberty means that anyone who doesn't 100% share his authoritarian religious views is against him.
Click to expand...

It always confuses me when people who yell so loudly about freedom and liberty are so eager to submit to an all-powerful king. Not only does this king demand your absolute obedience from the moment you are born, but doesn't just want to control your actions, he wants your mind as well. And then you are still his slave after you die. And all of this is backed up with the most horrific torture imaginable. No earthly dictator or tyrant ever had such absolute control over us, and I cannot fathom why anyone would ever want to suffer this fate. Least of all people who value freedom so strongly. If these religious assertions are true, then we are never free for even an instant of our existence, or after we die.

If such a king did exist, wouldn't our love of freedom obligate us to struggle against this tyrant with all of our might? This king wants us to brainwash ourselves into loving him, the way that Big Brother does in 1984, and condemns us for thought crime. Actually, come to think of it, it's just like 1984.
 
phattonez said:
My personal views have nothing to do with my political views. For the most part evil should be tolerated in society, but we can still point it out as evil.

Congratulations on being petty.
Click to expand...

THIS is the problem With many American modern christians .... especially when it comes to Social Justice, they can read all the Mountains of scriptures dealing With social justice, but then totally forget them when dealing With civic society.
 
Paschendale said:
Evil or the ultimate ruler of the universe? I don't think those are the only two choices. For example, he could be, you know, a fictional character who never existed in the first place. Probably an amalgamation of several actual wandering Jewish preachers who claimed mystic powers at the time, and several earlier Jewish and Roman myths. This very reasonable conclusion has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting anything. It has to do with legends and myths just being stories.
Click to expand...

No it's quite clear that he existed and made the claim to be the Son of God. You reject Him, then you are implicitly calling Him evil.

It always confuses me when people who yell so loudly about freedom and liberty are so eager to submit to an all-powerful king. Not only does this king demand your absolute obedience from the moment you are born, but doesn't just want to control your actions, he wants your mind as well. And then you are still his slave after you die. And all of this is backed up with the most horrific torture imaginable. No earthly dictator or tyrant ever had such absolute control over us, and I cannot fathom why anyone would ever want to suffer this fate. Least of all people who value freedom so strongly. If these religious assertions are true, then we are never free for even an instant of our existence, or after we die.

If such a king did exist, wouldn't our love of freedom obligate us to struggle against this tyrant with all of our might? This king wants us to brainwash ourselves into loving him, the way that Big Brother does in 1984, and condemns us for thought crime. Actually, come to think of it, it's just like 1984.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. I search for truth. For a political system, the most hands-off government works best. That's the truth. As for who created the universe, it is God. That's the truth. He calls us into a relationship with Him, to be His sons. He sent His son to be tortured and killed for us as expiation for our rejection of God. Our whole lives He is calling us to Him, even as we are wallowing in sin (rejection of Him).

You're still under the impression that sin is arbitrary. That's clearly not what the Church teaches. Sin is sin because it is bad for us and bad for others. By choosing sin, we harm ourselves and reject God who made us who perpetually calls us into a relationship with Him. When we reject His son we call Him evil. Tell me, what do you do with a son who is constantly harming himself and totally rejects your authority as a father? You try helping him year after year and still it keeps on happening. Eventually you have to give up on him, because he is going to keep choosing evil. And that is what hell is. Hell is a choice, and those who choose sin and obstinately remain in it and reject Jesus choose it. Hell is abandonment from God. Yes you have all of your images (mostly probably wrong) about Hell, but ultimately it is abandonment from God.
 
phattonez said:
No it's quite clear that he existed and made the claim to be the Son of God. You reject Him, then you are implicitly calling Him evil.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as clear as you think. See, for example, the rest of that quote that you edited out.

You don't get it. I search for truth. For a political system, the most hands-off government works best. That's the truth. As for who created the universe, it is God. That's the truth. He calls us into a relationship with Him, to be His sons. He sent His son to be tortured and killed for us as expiation for our rejection of God. Our whole lives He is calling us to Him, even as we are wallowing in sin (rejection of Him).

You're still under the impression that sin is arbitrary. That's clearly not what the Church teaches. Sin is sin because it is bad for us and bad for others. By choosing sin, we harm ourselves and reject God who made us who perpetually calls us into a relationship with Him. When we reject His son we call Him evil. Tell me, what do you do with a son who is constantly harming himself and totally rejects your authority as a father? You try helping him year after year and still it keeps on happening. Eventually you have to give up on him, because he is going to keep choosing evil. And that is what hell is. Hell is a choice, and those who choose sin and obstinately remain in it and reject Jesus choose it. Hell is abandonment from God. Yes you have all of your images (mostly probably wrong) about Hell, but ultimately it is abandonment from God.
Click to expand...

Tell me more about how much you love Big Brother.
 
Paschendale said:
Not nearly as clear as you think. See, for example, the rest of that quote that you edited out.
Click to expand...

I edited it out because it's ridiculous and is quite telling that this pseudo-myth movement only started in the last few decades and not, you know, the first decades after Christ.
 
phattonez said:
I edited it out because it's ridiculous and is quite telling that this pseudo-myth movement only started in the last few decades and not, you know, the first decades after Christ.
Click to expand...

That it was just a silly story not worth listening to was the common reaction by most Jews at the time, and then by most Romans. This continued for two centuries until the emperor just happened to be part of the Jesus cult and forcibly converted the empire. Most people who hear it think it's nonsense. That's why the majority of the world is not Christian. Do you think people don't know your stories and myths? They're ubiquitous. Everyone knows them. Most people think it's just a silly myth. And throughout history, most people that Christians came into contact with thought the same thing. That's why Christianity was violently spread throughout Europe by conquest, and then through South America and Africa by imperialism.

It is very reasonable to hear a myth and think it's nonsense. You do that with the majority of myths you hear. You don't think that the Jade Emperor must either be the supreme ruler of the celestial bureaucracy or an evil lying charlatan. Instead, you quite rightly think that he doesn't exist. The same is true of Odin, Ra, the Fair Folk, the Aztec sun god who demands the perpetual sacrifice of human hearts, of Papa Legba, or Susanoo.

Throughout history, almost everyone who heard a myth they weren't indoctrinated into as a child or forced to adhere to through violence, thought that myth was nonsense. Yours isn't special, nor is it deserving of special consideration above any other. Your premise is wrong. No one has to choose to accept Jesus or reject him. No more than one must do the same for Anansi the spider or Izanagi and Izanami. Any one of them can say "you must be with me or you're against me". And all of them would be wrong. Including Jesus.
 
"How much is it worth to ya"?
 
Paschendale said:
That it was just a silly story not worth listening to was the common reaction by most Jews at the time, and then by most Romans. This continued for two centuries until the emperor just happened to be part of the Jesus cult and forcibly converted the empire.
Click to expand...

I've heard estimates around 15% as to how large Christianity was before Constantine converted. 15% of people converted, knowing full well that humans don't come back from the dead. 15% converted knowing this and knowing that practicing the faith would lead to their persecution. That's no myth.

Most people who hear it think it's nonsense. That's why the majority of the world is not Christian. Do you think people don't know your stories and myths? They're ubiquitous. Everyone knows them. Most people think it's just a silly myth. And throughout history, most people that Christians came into contact with thought the same thing. That's why Christianity was violently spread throughout Europe by conquest, and then through South America and Africa by imperialism.
Click to expand...

The reason that many people do not believe it (and be sure that many people do believe it) is because it is jarring to our sensibilities. We all know death. We know that people do not come back from the dead. Still, so many people are convinced that the resurrection did happen. The evidence for it is far more compelling than you would like to admit, probably for your own comfort rather than what you see objectively.

It is very reasonable to hear a myth and think it's nonsense. You do that with the majority of myths you hear. You don't think that the Jade Emperor must either be the supreme ruler of the celestial bureaucracy or an evil lying charlatan. Instead, you quite rightly think that he doesn't exist. The same is true of Odin, Ra, the Fair Folk, the Aztec sun god who demands the perpetual sacrifice of human hearts, of Papa Legba, or Susanoo.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to believe their existence. We have plenty of reason to believe that Jesus existed and that He claimed to be the Son of God. The existence of Jesus is unworthy of debate.

Throughout history, almost everyone who heard a myth they weren't indoctrinated into as a child or forced to adhere to through violence, thought that myth was nonsense. Yours isn't special, nor is it deserving of special consideration above any other. Your premise is wrong. No one has to choose to accept Jesus or reject him. No more than one must do the same for Anansi the spider or Izanagi and Izanami. Any one of them can say "you must be with me or you're against me". And all of them would be wrong. Including Jesus.
Click to expand...

Jesus existed.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

You must either accept it or reject it. You, obviously, reject it, and so implicitly call Him evil. If I called myself the Son of God, you would rightfully call me crazy or a liar.
 
phattonez said:
There is no thinking that Jesus was just a good guy with a good message.
Click to expand...
Of course there is.

It's not entirely clear that the historical personage of Jesus thought he was in fact divine. Jewish history is full of people who claim to be the Messiah, without also claiming to be ontologically unified with Hashem, and it's not hard to imagine his followers interpolating those claims into his own words.

And no, I don't regard the New Testament as a 100% accurate historical document. It's a collection of gospels, documents designed to persuade people to join a religion. The Synoptic Gospels were almost certainly not written by people who personally knew him, let alone followed him around all day and took extensive notes on his actions and statements. A great deal of the New Testament was shaped in reaction to historical events in the times of the early Christian movement, its separation from Judaism, the repeated destruction of the Temples, the repeated failures of Jewish revolts, not to mention conflicts within the early Christian movements.


There is no yeah He's a historical person but I honestly don't think much about Him.
Click to expand...
There is. It's what I do. To me, Jesus is a historical figure and source of curiosity, much like Nero or Claudius or JP Morgan. And I don't think he was either insane or evil.

He was a guy, with a fanatical religious-based hatred of Roman occupation, living in a time when miracle workers, self-proclaimed prophets and Messiahs were dime-a-dozen.


No, Jesus demands a response.
Click to expand...
I feel no such necessity.

I might add that it is entirely possible to ignore an injunction to take "my way or the highway," and still learn something valuable. For example, Milton Friedman tolerated no dissent from his positions; that does not prevent me from accepting the concept of "regulatory capture," without also accepting his view that "nothing can stop regulatory capture" and/or "almost all government intervention is ineffective."


By claiming to be the Son of God, you must either accept Him or call Him a liar or a lunatic. If He's a liar then He's evil, and if He's a lunatic then He's not a good guy with a good message.
Click to expand...
Or, we can attribute any claims that he is literally divine as applied post hoc by his followers.

There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to say he was a "liar or a lunatic." I certainly don't regard him as evil -- though some of his followers certainly were, notably those who tortured people in his name.


So the idea that people can see Jesus as a guy with a good philosophy and worthy of resepct: sorry, not good enough. You either must fully embrace Him or reject Him. There is no middle ground.
Click to expand...
Fallacy: False Dilemma
 
phattonez said:
I've heard estimates around 15% as to how large Christianity was before Constantine converted. 15% of people converted, knowing full well that humans don't come back from the dead. 15% converted knowing this and knowing that practicing the faith would lead to their persecution. That's no myth.
Click to expand...

Lots of people have been persecuted for their faith. Often at the hands of Christians. People still clung to those faiths and died for them. And converted to them. Does that make their myths true? Does the refusal of Jews and Muslims to convert in the face of the Inquisition proof of the veracity of their religion? Does the survival of African tribal myths among slaves despite their violent suppression by Christians mean that we must presume that Ogoun and Ghede are real and demand our allegiance?

The reason that many people do not believe it (and be sure that many people do believe it) is because it is jarring to our sensibilities. We all know death. We know that people do not come back from the dead. Still, so many people are convinced that the resurrection did happen. The evidence for it is far more compelling than you would like to admit, probably for your own comfort rather than what you see objectively.
Click to expand...

Most myths involve people coming back from the dead. It's a very common story element. The evidence for any of them is nil. Do you have to call Orpheus a liar or believe that he had supernatural powers? Or maybe his trip into the underworld to revive his wife was just a story that never happened. Or how about Ishtar, who dies and comes back to life every single year? By all means, give me evidence. There's a lot less than you think, and as I am trying to point out to you, most attempts to validate the story of Jesus likewise validate many other contradictory stories.

I have no reason to believe their existence. We have plenty of reason to believe that Jesus existed and that He claimed to be the Son of God. The existence of Jesus is unworthy of debate.
Click to expand...

You're right. It is unworthy of debate. It doesn't really matter. Lots of people throughout history have claimed to have supernatural powers and divine origins. Some were liars and charlatans. Some were crazy. Some were just confused and didn't know any better. Some believed others when they were told that they were special. I'm sure that many medieval kings who were told from birth that god had chosen them to rule just thought it was the truth. I don't see any reason to assume malice on the part of Jesus or any of the many other messianic prophets who were his contemporaries when simple human ignorance or craziness will do. One simply does not have to hear this legend and conclude that it is a source of great good or great evil. It can simply not matter.

Jesus existed.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

You must either accept it or reject it. You, obviously, reject it, and so implicitly call Him evil. If I called myself the Son of God, you would rightfully call me crazy or a liar.
Click to expand...

Accept and reject, in the context you're using, mean a lot more than those words actually do. Thinking that something isn't true doesn't mean "reject" in the way you mean. You're using them to mean some kind of cosmic moral choice about our souls. The choice simply isn't that important. Rejection is active, it's meaningful. What most of the world does towards your god and your Jesus is dismiss them. You dismiss things that don't matter. Just like you dismiss Yu Huang Shangdi, the Jade Emperor. You don't have to reject him. You just don't care. Neither do I.

And no, there is no implicit accusation of evil. As above, malice is not necessary. Fiction, craziness, or stupidity suffice just fine. Certainly fiction fits for any claims of supernatural power.

So, to come full circle, your premise is wrong. One does not have to choose between accepting your religion or opposing it, between accepting your Jesus or hating him. Ignoring him, dismissing him, and being completely apathetic towards him are equally viable. And those conclusions are very reasonable for anyone who doesn't believe in fairy tales.
 
Visbek said:
Of course there is.

It's not entirely clear that the historical personage of Jesus thought he was in fact divine. Jewish history is full of people who claim to be the Messiah, without also claiming to be ontologically unified with Hashem, and it's not hard to imagine his followers interpolating those claims into his own words.

And no, I don't regard the New Testament as a 100% accurate historical document. It's a collection of gospels, documents designed to persuade people to join a religion. The Synoptic Gospels were almost certainly not written by people who personally knew him, let alone followed him around all day and took extensive notes on his actions and statements. A great deal of the New Testament was shaped in reaction to historical events in the times of the early Christian movement, its separation from Judaism, the repeated destruction of the Temples, the repeated failures of Jewish revolts, not to mention conflicts within the early Christian movements.
Click to expand...

Prove it. The evidence that it was written by whom they were traditionally attributed to is far greater than that of modern scholarship.

There is. It's what I do. To me, Jesus is a historical figure and source of curiosity, much like Nero or Claudius or JP Morgan. And I don't think he was either insane or evil.

He was a guy, with a fanatical religious-based hatred of Roman occupation, living in a time when miracle workers, self-proclaimed prophets and Messiahs were dime-a-dozen.
Click to expand...

The man who says "render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" clearly doesn't care all that much about the Romans.

I feel no such necessity.

I might add that it is entirely possible to ignore an injunction to take "my way or the highway," and still learn something valuable. For example, Milton Friedman tolerated no dissent from his positions; that does not prevent me from accepting the concept of "regulatory capture," without also accepting his view that "nothing can stop regulatory capture" and/or "almost all government intervention is ineffective."
Click to expand...

Milton Friedman didn't claim to be the Son of God.

Or, we can attribute any claims that he is literally divine as applied post hoc by his followers.

There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to say he was a "liar or a lunatic." I certainly don't regard him as evil -- though some of his followers certainly were, notably those who tortured people in his name.



Fallacy: False Dilemma
Click to expand...

The religion grew in the immediate years following His death and resurrection. The people who joined knew what He said first hand or from direct observers. The message that He claimed to be the Son of God is undeniable, and it is what got Him killed.
 
Paschendale said:
Lots of people have been persecuted for their faith. Often at the hands of Christians. People still clung to those faiths and died for them. And converted to them. Does that make their myths true? Does the refusal of Jews and Muslims to convert in the face of the Inquisition proof of the veracity of their religion? Does the survival of African tribal myths among slaves despite their violent suppression by Christians mean that we must presume that Ogoun and Ghede are real and demand our allegiance?
Click to expand...

The people who died weren't direct observers. As I said, people don't die for what they know to be a lie, and the first Christian martyrs were direct witnesses of what happened. You mean to tell me that they all died for what they knew to be something that they made up?

Most myths involve people coming back from the dead. It's a very common story element. The evidence for any of them is nil. Do you have to call Orpheus a liar or believe that he had supernatural powers? Or maybe his trip into the underworld to revive his wife was just a story that never happened. Or how about Ishtar, who dies and comes back to life every single year? By all means, give me evidence. There's a lot less than you think, and as I am trying to point out to you, most attempts to validate the story of Jesus likewise validate many other contradictory stories.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for any of these other claims. The direct evidence for the resurrection of Jesus are the words of His followers, the other 500 who saw and gave testimony, the brutal persecution and death of those direct observers, and the continuation of the religion despite the persecution. As I said, the evidence is far greater than you make it out to be.

You're right. It is unworthy of debate. It doesn't really matter. Lots of people throughout history have claimed to have supernatural powers and divine origins. Some were liars and charlatans. Some were crazy. Some were just confused and didn't know any better. Some believed others when they were told that they were special. I'm sure that many medieval kings who were told from birth that god had chosen them to rule just thought it was the truth. I don't see any reason to assume malice on the part of Jesus or any of the many other messianic prophets who were his contemporaries when simple human ignorance or craziness will do. One simply does not have to hear this legend and conclude that it is a source of great good or great evil. It can simply not matter.
Click to expand...

Yet people responded to Him and followed Him. They saw the miracles for themselves. They had the evidence of the resurrection for themselves. Look, it would have been very easy for the Jews to shut down Christianity simply by showing everyone the body. The Romans could have suppressed it easily by the same method. That they couldn't find it means that the apostles stole it despite the guard on the tomb (the penalty for not keeping the guard is death) and hid the location of the tom despite torture and death, or it means that it actually happened.

Accept and reject, in the context you're using, mean a lot more than those words actually do. Thinking that something isn't true doesn't mean "reject" in the way you mean. You're using them to mean some kind of cosmic moral choice about our souls. The choice simply isn't that important. Rejection is active, it's meaningful. What most of the world does towards your god and your Jesus is dismiss them. You dismiss things that don't matter. Just like you dismiss Yu Huang Shangdi, the Jade Emperor. You don't have to reject him. You just don't care. Neither do I.
Click to expand...

I reject them. I have no evidence to believe them.

And no, there is no implicit accusation of evil. As above, malice is not necessary. Fiction, craziness, or stupidity suffice just fine. Certainly fiction fits for any claims of supernatural power.
Click to expand...

Someone who claims to be the Son of God or claims to be divine and is not is doing evil.

So, to come full circle, your premise is wrong. One does not have to choose between accepting your religion or opposing it, between accepting your Jesus or hating him. Ignoring him, dismissing him, and being completely apathetic towards him are equally viable. And those conclusions are very reasonable for anyone who doesn't believe in fairy tales.
Click to expand...

Deception isn't evil, apparently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom