What is sin and mans relation to God?

Agreed.



Why!?! How boring. Christian heaven sounds positively ghastly. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Ah but if we were in Heaven, we would presumably be mystically reprogrammed to not want anything other than what we were given. I kinda think it would be like perpetually being on some sort of mind numbing happy feel good drug.

I've always wondered why the only God out there would feel the need to make that demand.
Originally Posted by Doove

Makes you think about the implications of other gods being out there if that one is telling its worshippers not to worship other ones, no?

There's not that many polytheists out there these days. Monotheism has been all the rage for a few thousand years. Do you have any particular favorites? I always thought Neptune was pretty cool.

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I think polytheism is more common in Asia than in the West. In Chinese and Japanese cultures, you have little gods for everything on top of ancestor worship, etc.

The Hindu religion also has multiple gods in it. I don't know enough about Buddhism to say if they're polytheistic or not but it wouldn't surprise me if there were elements of it in there.

As others have pointed out, even Christianity has effectively polytheistic tendencies, especially Catholicism with their separation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost on top of worship of Mary and various Saints.

Most people who say 'I've read the Bible' have never actually read the bible cover to cover.

What they mean is that they have been to church and heard some verses, or listened to some writer who has used some selective verses to push their viewpoint.

We tend to read fragments. It was interesting when I had to read the complete gospel of John from start to end for homework at school. Gives a very different impression compared to the quotes from the pulpit. Originally Posted by essence

I don't have TV. I don't go to churchj my daughter's never been to one. I've read the Bible - we're back to which one have you read. I've also read the Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the gnostic gosples. I don't believe in Christianity in fact I consider it the bane of the last 1,600 years.

QUOTE=essence;1052427998]Same with Paul. You have to read and study the entire letters.

So, again, when did you read at least the new testament cover to cover?

People also forget how, as depicted in the gospels, angry Jesus could get, throwing out money lenders, and was quite fire and brimstone. Not the sweet and gentle Jesus people seem to think.[/QUOTE]

WHAT FUCKING BIBLE DID YOU READ? There, in all caps; now maybe you'll "notice" it.

As others have pointed out, even Christianity has effectively polytheistic tendencies, especially Catholicism with their separation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost on top of worship of Mary and various Saints. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

ALL christian sects, and you're forgetting the oldest sect: Eastern Orthodox, are polythiest.

WHAT FUCKING BIBLE DID YOU READ? There, in all caps; now maybe you'll "notice" it. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Various. King James, Revised, New English.

At least the new Testamenet I have read cover to cover.

Have you?

The old canards about Paul are nonsense. Anti sex? So why did he write:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship

Nothing there about vile bodies.

1 Corinthians 7 is hardly anti sex - husbands and wives must give themselves to each other.

As in most of Paul's writings, you have to understand the circustancesu under which he was writing, why he was writing what he did. They were special times. Some early christians thought the end of the world was near, so previous society norms could be broken. Or some Christian communities were influenced by ceratin other idealogies. It was nothing to do with being anti Greek philosophy in general.

The theologian David Hurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bentley_Hart had this to say about your book:

He gets the amateur historian Charles Freeman in his sights, and points out that Freeman “attempts long discourses on theological disputes that he simply does not understand, continually falls prey to vulgar misconstruals of the materials he is attempting to interpret, makes large claims about early Christian belief that are simply false, offers vague assertions about philosophers he clearly has not studied, and delivers himself of opinions regarding Christian teaching that are worse than simply inaccurate (57).

I've always wondered why the only God out there would feel the need to make that demand.
Originally Posted by Doove

Makes you think about the implications of other gods being out there if that one is telling its worshippers not to worship other ones, no? Originally Posted by jbravo_123

No.

I've always wondered why the only God out there would feel the need to make that demand.
Originally Posted by Doove

Maybe it's in reference to "false gods," à la The Golden Calf.



Of course I'm just guessing here.

MOOBIE!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. More fairy tale discussion.

Myths brought about due to man's ignorance. Early Man needed to explain away scary things and feel safe. That simple.

Children will believe what they are taught......until they grow up and realize that their teachers were full of shit. Examples: Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God......


Talk about BIG BROTHER......and those assheels eat it up and wash it down with cool aid.
Religion is the biggest PIMP game there is. Sell an invisible and free product.....get paid and have the power of influence in the congregation...did I mention get PAID?
And the assholes pony up weekly.
Like regular "Johns".


Seeing folks go to church is fucking comical.... IMO.

Maybe it's in reference to "false gods," à la The Golden Calf.



Of course I'm just guessing here. Originally Posted by MC

That's the traditional interpretation. By saying thou shalt not have any other Gods before me. Jehova isn't saying that other Gods exist. He's prohibiting the worship of false Gods.

Holy shit, Bloehard. Now you speak for the Almighty?

But what if God is a she? Would you then post a review?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. More fairy tale discussion.

Myths brought about due to man's ignorance. Early Man needed to explain away scary things and feel safe. That simple.

Children will believe what they are taught......until they grow up and realize that their teachers were full of shit. Examples: Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God......


Talk about BIG BROTHER......and those assheels eat it up and wash it down with cool aid.
Religion is the biggest PIMP game there is. Sell an invisible and free product.....get paid and have the power of influence in the congregation...did I mention get PAID?
And the assholes pony up weekly.
Like regular "Johns".


Seeing folks go to church is fucking comical.... IMO. Originally Posted by UB9IB6

You seem to think that believing in God is inherently stupid. There are lots of really intelligent people that believe in God; many of them are far smarter than you. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea so completely.

ps, concerning polytheism and the trinity, Hart has a more modern interpretation - from a review of one of his books -The beauty of the Infinite - (my nickname essence is partly influenced by Deleuze and his book 'Difference and Repetition', and Hart builds on the work of Deleuze and Derrida, amongst others):

Hart argues that the Trinity is the answer to the postmodern problem of *difference.* Where postmoderns see the world--and language--as chaotic and violent because of the inherent difference of reality, Hart sees the Trinity as a sublime answer to difference. The Trinity can accommodate difference because the Trinity can posit a reality that is both diversity without confusion, otherness without violence. This is the hardest part of the book. What Hart is saying is that postmoderns--and most Calvinists, ironically--assume that any difference in reality is necessarily violent. Hart shows how the Trinity solves the problem of linguistic violence.

I must find this book and struggle through it one day.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. More fairy tale discussion.

Myths brought about due to man's ignorance. Early Man needed to explain away scary things and feel safe. That simple.

Children will believe what they are taught......until they grow up and realize that their teachers were full of shit. Examples: Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God......


Talk about BIG BROTHER......and those assheels eat it up and wash it down with cool aid.
Religion is the biggest PIMP game there is. Sell an invisible and free product.....get paid and have the power of influence in the congregation...did I mention get PAID?
And the assholes pony up weekly.
Like regular "Johns".


Seeing folks go to church is fucking comical.... IMO. Originally Posted by UB9IB6

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ another dopey opinion about how ancient peoples
were ignorant superstitious rubes that hadn't been enlightened by
our modern sophisticate. Seems they would be closer to the source
wouldn't you say. What do you rely on, your own ignorance, you
have it covered then my man.

Modern fairy tales are more to your liking, there are the stupid and
then there are the willfully stupid.

People like you always relate everything to your own state of
ignorance and call it a state of modern enlightenment, just because
we have some barley measurable understanding of our universe.

Who is the real rube?

ps, concerning polytheism and the trinity, Hart has a more modern interpretation - from a review of one of his books -The beauty of the Infinite - (my nickname essence is partly influenced by Deleuze and his book 'Difference and Repetition', and Hart builds on the work of Deleuze and Derrida, amongst others):

Hart argues that the Trinity is the answer to the postmodern problem of *difference.* Where postmoderns see the world--and language--as chaotic and violent because of the inherent difference of reality, Hart sees the Trinity as a sublime answer to difference. The Trinity can accommodate difference because the Trinity can posit a reality that is both diversity without confusion, otherness without violence. This is the hardest part of the book. What Hart is saying is that postmoderns--and most Calvinists, ironically--assume that any difference in reality is necessarily violent. Hart shows how the Trinity solves the problem of linguistic violence.

I must find this book and struggle through it one day. Originally Posted by essence

The Trinity is sort of like the quantum paradox of light having the characteristics of a wave and a particle simultaneously, even though it can't be both at the same time. The Christian church has always talked about the mystery of the holy Trinity not the paradox of the holy Trinity. It seems to me, it's the same thing.

I don't know that dieing to live is any closer to God and Godesk concepts than Tim McGraw's song "Live Like You're Dieing". I do not find too much overly complicated about God / s. They exist for us and vice versa. The difference is it's their rules because they were here first.

I more think of him as his mother named him - Saul. He was a horiffic little man that is quite concievably the worst human being to ever have lived given Christianity has killed more people than both world wars combined to say nothing of how Christianity has enslaved our minds. Truth has nothing to do with it. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I'm still waiting for the scriptures where Paul explains that the call of
Christianity is the call to murder and mayhem.

And where that murdering bastard Jesus backs him up.