revbill2001
Registered Senior Member
No! It sounds like pure bullshit to me.
eternal hell awaits anyone who questions gods infinite love
- Thread starter Baba O'Riley
- Start date
originally posted by me
God is infinite joy.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?!? honestly though, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH GOING TO HEAVEN?!? man, no-one can answer my question straight. heaven would be ultra-boring (living for eternity without anyway to thrill yourself- exitment is derived from adrenalin(sp?) which is activated when you are in perceived danger or physical activity which might result in harm) and forever. who honestly would want to be subjected to such a horrible existance? no, actually i won't ask that because i'll never get an answer.
then postedby okinrus
God is infinite joy.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?!? honestly though, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH GOING TO HEAVEN?!? man, no-one can answer my question straight. heaven would be ultra-boring (living for eternity without anyway to thrill yourself- exitment is derived from adrenalin(sp?) which is activated when you are in perceived danger or physical activity which might result in harm) and forever. who honestly would want to be subjected to such a horrible existance? no, actually i won't ask that because i'll never get an answer.
R
Redoubtable
Guest
Firstly, for quite some time, the majority of Romans were not Christians, but the relentless antagonists and nemeses of the early Church.
Secondly, some persons are conceived into this world totally unburdened by the awful onus of a conscience. Against what, exactly do they sin?
Human history can proffer up a lavish array of examples to contradict this claim.
Multitudinous individuals: hedonists, Epicureans, Stoics, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucists, have all subsisted on this earth, practicing their respective trades, relating to friend and foe, supping of the earth's vials, and gestating ideas expedient to human life, without ever giving regard to Christianity or its Savior.
I'm willing to wager that many amongst them were quite rapt and ebullient, however their nescience and subsequent noncompliance of the Christian Scourge.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
Redoubtable
Guest
Yes, Okinrus. Rileywins is definitely, indubitably, absolutley out of his mind.
He is overly agressive and habitually conflates biblical accounts with common historical postulates, afterward employing this misconstrued and esoteric version of events to depict Jesus as a scoundrel, demagogue, and fraud.
Yes, he is certainly off his rocker.
What are you, a complete dunce?
Heaven would be an eternity spent in the presence of God, and, as Okinrus so brusquely indicated, GOD IS INFINITE JOY.
LOOK, DUMBASS: IF HEAVEN EXISTS, THEN WHEN YOU ARRIVE, ADRENALINE WON'T EVEN FLOW THROUGH YOUR BODY. YOU WOULDN'T EVEN POSSESS A CORPOREAL, OR FLESHY, FORM, YOU DUMB FUCK!
ADDITIONALLY, IF GOD WERE INFINITE HAPPINESS, WHICH IS THE PREMISE UPON WHICH I'M OPERATING, THEN YOU WOULDN'T BE CAPABLE OF FEELING ENNUI, BOREDOM, OR RESTLESSNESS IN HIS PRESENCE. SIMPLY BECAUSE GOD WOULD EMBODY FELICITY AND ECSTASY THEMSELVES PORTENDS THE NONEXISTENCE OF DISPLEASURE IN HEAVEN.
IN HEAVEN, YOU WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO FEEL BAD, YOU STUPID DICK.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
Redoubtable
Guest
_____
I am not out of my mind.
That was a personal attack, rather than a discussion of the issues.
Try to stick to the questions raised.
Look, I'm trying to help you. It's not that I fear exorcisms.
It is simply that if you go to apply for a job, or have a conversation with intelligent people interested in science, and you make an accusation like "I think there's a deeper reason why you fear exorcisms," they're going to think you're an idiot.
And that's not a personal attack of any kind.
It's a warning that people will get a certain impression of you if you say certain things. Like accusing them of being afraid of the power of an exorcism or your... religious whatever.
NO, to be honest, when I discuss Christianity and the Bible with Christians, I try to bring up the verses about Exorcism at the beginning of the conversation. Because, most Christians - maybe not you, but most of them - are not aware that Jesus was described as having conversations with demons, and as soon as they read those verses, they get uneasy and start to wonder if their faith in the NT could be mistaken.
Because demons don't exist and exorcists are scam artists.
Last edited:
I did not depict Jesus as a fraud.
Jesus was a poor dupe who got sent on a mission to make a public protest against the Jews who bought their religious titles from the Romans.
The scoundrel, demagogue and fraud was Peter, the guy who ran the End of the World cult after Jesus died.
Everything I said about fraud re: the NT accounts must be traced to Peter, not Jesus.
unbound.biola.edu
.
In a letter, Paul tells how he learned about Christ rising from the grave on the third day. After all, Paul wasn't there to see it happen.
1 Corinthians 15:1
And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood, through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain,
1 Corinthians 15:3
for I delivered to you first,
>> what also I did receive,
that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,
1 Corinthians 15:4
and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings,
1 Corinthians 15:5
>>> and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve,
1 Corinthians 15:6
afterwards he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, and certain also did fall asleep;
1 Corinthians 15:7
afterwards he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
So, when Paul visited the Christian Church, he learned that Jesus appeared first to... guess who?... Cephas. Peter.
So, Peter told Paul, "I know Jesus rose from the dead because he appeared to me."
That's where all the nonsense came from.
From a guy running an End of the World cult.
Last edited:
R
Redoubtable
Guest
Ok, some originally Petrine developments in Christianity (particualarly Catholicism) are rather untenable and dubious, so you're right to some degree.
As for Christ, he probably meant well, and also probably foresaw his own demise, so I wouldn't stigmatize him as a poor "dupe."
By the by, when I adjusted the font size, I was addressing the comments of Atheroy, not you, Rileywins.
As for Christ, he probably meant well, and also probably foresaw his own demise, so I wouldn't stigmatize him as a poor "dupe."
By the by, when I adjusted the font size, I was addressing the comments of Atheroy, not you, Rileywins.
There have been saints who have lived only on the Eucharist.
Where exactly do I or anyone else say how bad you are?
If you do any good then it must have been done through God since only God is good.
I was joking... So your a professional at this? Anyways demons do exist.
Okinrus,
It would seem then to be a real advantage for God not to exist if that means the elimination of anything bad.
But what would it mean for there to be no good or bad?
And if indeed that God is responsible for good and bad then it would seem then that humans have no role to play.
Forgive me but this seems somewhat confused.
It would seem then to be a real advantage for God not to exist if that means the elimination of anything bad.
But what would it mean for there to be no good or bad?
And if indeed that God is responsible for good and bad then it would seem then that humans have no role to play.
wow redoubtable, i am overwhelmed by your amazing eloquence with words and ability to answer my question with calm composure. the reason i was getting uptight is because i have asked that very same question many times before without an answer and "god is infinite joy" didn't seem like much of one either. if you are exposed to joy for all of eternity you would get bored of it. just like in hell if you are exposed to pain for all of eternity you'd get used to it. i still don't understand the want to go to heaven. your amazing answer did nothing to change that.
(I was just experimenting because it looked different. I went back and took out the larger font.)
The way I understand the story, jesus was arrested by the Romans during a trip to Jerusalem. Nothing we have in the NT was written while Jesus was alive, or even in the first five or ten years following his death.
The only real information I have about Jesus is that he went into the Temple of Jerusalem during Passover, overturned the tables of the moneychangers and threw their coins on the ground as some kind of a protest.
This does not make him, in my book, the brightest man who ever lived. Seems like a Galilean of ordinary intelligence would have been able to avoid dying a prolonged and agonizing death on a cross - unless he was tricked into it by someone else.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/01650b.htm
Here's an interesting word.
Apotheosis
(Gr. apotheosis, from, and theos, deify).
(The Greek language has a word for "elevating an ordinary human being to the status of a God." Hmmm. Why would they have a word... unless they did it often enough that people needed a word to describe why "Joe Roman" was now known as "God Joe Roman"?
Deification, the exaltation of men to the rank of gods.
Closely connected with the universal worship of the dead in the history of all primitive peoples was
>> the consecration as deities of heroes or rulers,
>> as a reward for bravery or other great services.
>> Hero-worship had familiarized the minds of the Greeks with the idea that
a man by illustrious deeds can become a god,
and contact with the Orient made them ready to accept the grosser form of apotheosis by which divine honours were offered to the living (Boissier, La religion romaine I, 112).
Philip of Macedon was honoured as a god at Amphipolis, and his son,
>> Alexander the Great, not only claimed descent from the gods of Egypt, but decreed that he should be worshipped in the cities of Greece (Beurlier, De divinis honoribus quos acceperunt Alexander et successores ejus, p. 17).
After his death, and probably largely as the result of
>> the teaching of Euhemerus, that all the gods were deified men,
the custom of apotheosis became very prevalent among the Greeks (Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, 314 sqq.). In Rome the way for the deification of the emperors was prepared by many historic causes, such as the cult of the manes or the souls of departed friends and ancestors, the worship of the legendary kings of Latium, the Di Indigetes, the myth that Romulus had been transported to heaven, and the deification of Roman soldiers and statesmen by some of the Greek cities. The formal enrollment of the emperors among the gods began with Caesar, to whom the Senate decreed divine honours before his death. Through politic motives Augustus, though tolerating the building of temples and the organization of priestly orders in his honour throughout the provinces and even in Italy, refused to permit himself to be worshipped in Rome itself.
Though many of the early emperors refused to receive divine honours, and
>> the senate, to whom the right of deification belonged,
refused to confirm others, the great majority of the Roman rulers and
>. many members of the imperial family, among whom were some women, were enrolled among the gods.
Emperor-worship... was a powerful element of unity in the empire, as it afforded the pagans a common religion in which it was a patriotic duty to participate. The Christians constantly refused to pay divine honours to the emperor, and their refusal to strew incense was the signal for the death of many martyrs. The custom of decreeing divine honours to the emperors remained in existence until the time of Gratian, who was the first to refuse the insignia of the Summus Pontifex and
>>the first whom the senate failed to place among the gods.
_________
SO, the Roman Senate placed their rulers "among the gods."
How would an End of the World cult like Christianity respond to such a law? By elevating one of their own martyrs to the status of "son of God"?
Yup. Probably in a funeral service, where Peter quoted OT prophecies about resurrection, in order to prove his belief that the End of the World was at hand to his audience.
Last edited:
Siddhartha
Registered Senior Member
Precisely. I'm Buddhist, and here I am, I don't judge as God does, I don't get angry as God does, I forgive people regardless. I could never believe in a God that gets angry and allows that anger to cloud his vision. Like I've said a million times over, look at the product of Buddhism and the product of Christianity, then judge for yourself.
That's one opinion, but it isn't supported by the evidence.
Paul wrote his letter to the Church at Rome before the Gospels were written, or perhaps simultaneous with them.
Paul seems to offer the theory that Jesus was made a God when he was resurrected from the dead:
Romans 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God -- which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings --
Romans 1:3
concerning His Son,
who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,
(If Jesus came of the seed of David, sounds like Paul never heard the "virgin birth" or "virgin conception" theories, which only came into the story later.)
Romans 1:4
>> who is marked out Son of God in power,
>> according to the Spirit of sanctification,
>> by the rising again from the dead,)
______
So, in Paul's mind, and consistent with the theory of apothesis, Jesus Christ was "marked out Son of God" by the raising from the dead.
Once you know the background - how the Roman senate had the authority to proclaim men to be gods - and how often they used it - then paul's meaning became clear.
Jesus was elevated to the status of "theos" or "Son of god" when he was resurrected from the dead.
Jesus wasn't born God, he was only "Son of God" - and then only by a supernatural proclamation after his death.