What is sin and mans relation to God?

For several centuries Christianity had no state support. It was not until late in the 4th century AD (380) that the Romans adopted Christianity as the state religion; thus, during its incipient decades, Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes, the Niceen Creed. They took a vote that declared Jesus a God. Arian and his followers lost and were summarily executed.

Christianity’s missionaries converted believers through personal evangelism alone without any form of state coercion. BTW, the Romans were not "tolerant"; they demanded obeisance to their pantheon of gods, and Christians were notoriously persecuted by the Romans. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Romans traditionally had incorporated others' Gods into their own religious system, but not Christianity. Part of it was political, part of it was they needed scapegoats, and part of it was that they saw it as a danger.

By the time Rome (btw, Rome was not "fractured" at that time: it was still united) adopted Christianity as the state religion, Christianity had remarkably spread from Jerusalem – without state support – east to India, south to Ethiopia, west to Hispania and north to the Britannia. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Constantine took Christianity as his religion as a political move and only as he was dieing. He ruled as a Roman Emperor observing the Roman Gods.

Constantine had a co-Emperor (I can't remember his name.) in the West, and he moved his capital to New Rome. He eventually defeated his co-Emperor,, but the split was underway.

The Crusades were Christian Europe’s commercial, political and military response to Islamic (Turkish) militancy in the 11th century. Islam, btw, had already been hammering at the gates of Byzantium since the 7th century. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that Christians were doing as Saul and the Church demanded - Spreading the word and converting souls. Well that and the Orient had some mighty fine treasure and some choice real estate.

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1052429266]The infamous Spanish Inquisition lasted for a little over 350 years. In all of that time it is estimated that only some 3,000 and 5,000 souls were executed because of the Inquisition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#cite_note-87 [/quote[


The Inquisition wasn't just the Spanish Inquisition. Millions of people have been killed in the name of Christianity. Mary of England burned almost 300 people. How many women were tortured to death or burned behind "witch craft"? Please. This number is ridiculously low even if you take out the Crusades.

Christianity has now been around for about two thousand years. Meanwhile, 62 million died in the U.S.S.R. under atheistic, communist rule, and approximately another 40 million died in China during the revolution and during Mao’s atheistic, communist reign. Twenty-nine million were killed during WWII (source: Rudolph J. Rummel, Death by Government, 2010). Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I didn't say it was ok to kill Christians back. I said I'm not Christian and explained why and some of Christianity's history to the uninformed.

Here’s another tidbit: the first documented instance of biological warfare occurred at Kaffa in 1346 where an Islamic Mongol army led by Janibeg Khan hurled plague infected bodies over Kaffa’s fortress walls into the midst of the defending Genoese Christians. From there, by way of Genoese galleys, the plague found its way to Sicily and then to Europe. Between 1347 and 1353 the Black Death carried away some 33% to 50% of the extant population. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm not down with the other Desert God Allah either. I don't recall endorsing Him at all.

Depending on the source, some 20 to 50 million Christian Europeans died. Conscientious monks and priests were especially susceptible, because they were the ones who attempted to nurse and succor the sick and dying. Jews also suffered excessively in that, in addition to the disease, they were wrongly blamed and widely persecuted for originating the contagion. It would take Europe 150 years to recover its population (wiki). Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What does the plague have to do with Christian history and brutality?

Yeah that's part of why I personally find religion so facinating. There are many intelligent people who I respect that believe in one religion or the other. What makes people believe in what they do? (and conversely, what makes them not believe?) Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Same here. I find the whole topic fascinating.

I admit, many times I feel it'd be easier for me if I believed in some religion, but I simply don't think there's anything out there (although I acknowledge the possibility of its existence). Sweet cold oblivion for me when I die! Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Odd, I feel the exact opposite. I wish I could believe in the peace of not believing.

No, MsJane69 is not me. In fact, I'm fixing to contact the administrator. See your PM's .

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? Originally Posted by bojulay

You would be the rube. Im not the joker bragging about how he believes without proof.
Dumb fuck.

You're a Christian and you like black hookers.

No, wrong on both, I used to be a Christian, I used to like black hookers.

And you seem to want to persecute me for my beliefs

where am I persecuting you?




So the question, what Bible did you read matters. These are just the things that come to me from off the top of my head.

It is perfectly possible to have different interpretations based on exactly the same translation of the bible, so I don't know why you think each strand depends on a different translation.



St Augustine referred to Reason as Sinful Curiosity. He fucking dog cussed Greek philosophy, and he oppressed reason with a zeal.

Complete bollocks, I will get back to that later.

New Age LOL; I'm a Jew by Choice. About as far away from New Age as you can get. I'll have to go back to what I said to the OP, read what I've said not what you think I said. I said I've been a militant Zionist all my life and the constant worship of Jesus as a God in the Christian Chruch turned me into a premature atheist at the age of 11.

This passage is littered with Jesus being a God. And as such, I reject it wholly as blaspheme, and I completely reject Saul's writings because I completely reject his motive.

That's OK, you are not a Christian, but don;t blame and demonise Saul/Paul, blame all the writings of the New Testament. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I have purchased today:

The Closing of the Western Mind and A New History of Early Christianity by Freeman, and Atheist Delusions by Hart.

When I have read them I will get back to you on your delusions and prejudices. I can already see from what I have read that Freeman has a very personal and 'interesting' interpretation of Paul's writings, but they aren;t really that interesting because it is just a repeat of previous biased hatchet jobs.

By the way, to take one example, when Paul was talking about the wise in the passage I quoted, he started by quoting

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

which I believe is a quote from the old testament, so if you want to accuse Paul of being anti reason, you might as well accuse the complete Jewish people.

This is too easy, give me a challenge.

I have purchased today:

The Closing of the Western Mind and A New History of Early Christianity by Freeman, and Atheist Delusions by Hart.

When I have read them I will get back to you on your delusions and prejudices. I can already see from what I have read that Freeman has a very personal and 'interesting' interpretation of Paul's writings, but they aren;t really that interesting because it is just a repeat of previous biased hatchet jobs. Originally Posted by essence

so this thread inspired you to do homework??

Each paragraph in that post directly addresses and contextualizes an historically incorrect statement made by OH -- including a paragraph about the Crusades being defensive wars against Islamic jihad. You don't understand, Assup the jackass, because you are a golem: a brainless amalgamation of animated piss and shit.

BTW, cite where WWI and WWII were wars perpetrated under the banner of "Christianity", you puny pricked putz. OH's POV was that Christians killed more people than were killed during both World Wars, and that -- her -- reference was contextualized.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So this IS a meta-discussion irrelevant to the subject of the thread. You've hijacked it, in other words. No biggie. I wouldn't be surprised if you've done that to your own threads.

BTW -- I never claimed that "WWI and WWII were wars perpetrated under the banner of 'Christianity'" as you so eloquently put it.

I was interested in why you've taken this topic and turned it into a shitfight with OH. Over what? Your innate intolerance of anything non-Christian? Sounds like a personal spiritual issue. I guess you don't have anything to say about SIN.

And frankly, you've mentioned my penis non stop for a long time now, "dude." I'm beginning to wonder why you'd care so much about it.

Maybe you ought to get together with Barleyswine and together maybe you can get over your fixation on it. You both are beginning to frighten me. LMAO! (But really, you guys are getting kinda creepy!)



NO DICK FOR YOU!

Weirdos!

Back to the topic?

OK, if so, then this helps put sin and man's relationship to God in perspective how?

Little help here.

Thanks. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I think one of my links is pertinent to that question, it discusses the question of original sin, apart from anything else, and puts it into a context of greek philosophy. It also discusses various early Christian leaders and the extent to which they were influenced by Greek philosophy.

http://www.gospeltruth.net/gkphilo.htm

so this thread inspired you to do homework?? Originally Posted by JCM800

Yes, I had to go to a big London bookstore anyway, I ended up going to three, to look for some mathematical advanced textbooks, found one of the ones I was looking for (Model Selection and Model Averaging in the Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probablistic Mathematics), and got the other books for some light reading .

The point is, I got books from two authors who are in very direct opposition, so I can form my own opinion.

David Bentley Hart is a passionate writer, but his more academic work can be very heavy going. Even his popular work needs careful reading. he wrote interesting stuff, for example, on pornography.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/public...graphy-culture

It seems I should buy his book the Beuaty of the Infinite.

I'm watching this right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6noP00-Jw0w

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

which I believe is a quote from the old testament, so if you want to accuse Paul of being anti reason, you might as well accuse the complete Jewish people.

This is too easy, give me a challenge. Originally Posted by essence

I accused St. Augustine as being anti-reason not Saul. Get it right. If this is going to be your argument, it's going to be awfully easy for ME!

Complete bollocks, I will get back to that later.

Seriously you say "complete bollocks" and then I'll get back to ya? Oh, ok.............I'm convinced now. St. Augustine wasn't a Church hack, and he was a super-duper great thinker. You're buying advanced math books and you hold with a man that said 1+1+1=1 not 3? Even he had trouble reconciling that one.


That's OK, you are not a Christian, but don;t blame and demonise Saul/Paul, blame all the writings of the New Testament.

You don't get it do you. Saul is the inventor of the "Church". Christianity was just another sect of one of many religions within the Roman Empire. Saul is the one that pimped it far and wide. Of the 27 books in the New Testament, he wrote at least 16 perhaps 18 (Although there are some scholars that claim that although Paul's letters say they are written by Paul, they may not.). HELLO? I thought you were getting a book on advanced mathematical statistics.

I will say that I'm sure Jesus and his close followers were probably as they seem in the Bible, but that's just a few men and fewer women. What the Church today is far removed from the original teachings. And that is demonstrated by the fact that within different sects of Christianity no one can even agree on what Grace is and how to attain or keep it. Mother fuck!

Christian witnessing and aggression towards "non-believers" is what turns me off the most. I don't believe your God is a God. No biggie. I don't go around trying to convince Christians that they should disavow their Gods. Again, mother fuck!

oh yeah, like that is one-way street............jeez, mother fuck ...........

Christian witnessing and aggression towards "non-believers" is what turns me off the most. I don't believe your God is a God. No biggie. I don't go around trying to convince Christians that they should disavow their Gods. Again, mother fuck!
[/COLOR][/COLOR] Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

oh yeah, like that is one-way street............jeez, mother fuck ........... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I couldn't care less who people worship or how. It's their business. I just want to be left out of it. I don't want the Christian Right in my bedroom. I don't want to be witnessed to. I don't Christian "values" legislated. It's not my business, but therefore who and what I worship is none of anybody elses. And I damn sure don't want to continually have to defend my religion against the aggressive Christian values and ideas. Oh, and all religious entities need to pay taxes - that pisses me off too.

I accused St. Augustine as being anti-reason not Saul. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

OK, let me check your previous posts.

you have to start at the beginning not on some lonely road to Damascus where the father of the Church, a tax collecting, power thirsty, misogynist who never met Jesus, decided enough was enough and he needed some to dig into into some juicy pork ribs.

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.

He was a pig. The world would have been much better off without him making Jesus of Nazareth a God.

I would suggest a book, "The Closing of the Westerm Mind", to you. I've read the Bible. Which one do you read and follow out of curoisity?

I said Saul was a bad man - in fact I said he was a pig that the world would have much better off without.

I've drawn this correlation earlier in the thread. As I said earlier, I suggest reading, "The Closing of the Western Mind".

Now let me look at this book you find so useful....

On my version, starting at bottom of p 118, Freeman asserts that, concerning the Pauline view of faith, " the idea of being open to faith is a powerful one....however for those who believe in the importance of using reason to define the truth, this surrender must raise concerns...so for Paul it is not only the law that has been superseded by the coming of christ, it is the concept of rational argument, the core of the greek intellectual achievement itself'.

Now, putting all that together, your ability to deny that you accuse paul of being anti-reason is looking increasingly shaky.

Freeman's text is a classic case of deciding on a theme (Christianity and its founders are anti reason and delayed the development of modern society by 1000 years), and imposing that viewpoint on all his sources. His book seems to be full of speculation. I will get back to more examples later.

What i would really like is to avoid the work and find a decent academic who has already demolished the book, or provided a counterpoint.

I couldn't care less who people worship or how. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I love you, I love you, I love you


At last, somebody from Texas who says 'I couldn't care less' instead of the incorrect 'I could care less'.

I haven't been to church for maybe ten years, apart from a funeral or two.

You would be the rube. Im not the joker bragging about how he believes without proof.
Dumb fuck. Originally Posted by UB9IB6

Yeah you are, just too dumb to see it.

Elementry? How so?

We were talking about Christanity and the Christian Bibles not translations of the Torah.

I never said Jesus was a bad man. I said Saul was. I said Christians have killed more people than both world wars - the Crudades, the Inquisition, witch hunts,etc. Stop reading what you want me to say and read what I said. But now we've gotten to the heart of what you've been dieing to get on with: infadels. Rant on with your paradoxes and Muslims.................I'll be here in the morning. Nightie-night. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Seems you need to check history, the only real difference in the different
bibles has to do with the old testament. Jewish scholars revised the
old testament leaving out the Apocrypha scriptures that were include
in the Septuagint. The Protestants used the revised Jewish scriptures
and the Catholics stuck with the Septuagint version.

Your different bibles are really different Jewish versions.

Why did you leave England and America out of the mix.
They are considered Christian Nations and both fought
in world wars for supposedly God and Country, where
millions of Germans and Japanese were killed.

Another Christian killing spree by your logic.

... I'm a Jew by Choice. About as far away from New Age as you can get. I'll have to go back to what I said to the OP, read what I've said not what you think I said. I said I've been a militant Zionist all my life and the constant worship of Jesus as a God in the Christian Church turned me into a premature atheist at the age of 11. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

OK, that makes no sense. Are you an atheist or a Jew?

Strictly speaking, you CAN"T be Jew unless your mother was a Jew. That's the traditional rule. Especially if you view being Jewish as an ethnic thing, not a religious thing.And if you are talking about it from a religious point of view, then you can't be an atheist and claim to be a "religious" Jew.

Or are you saying you WERE an atheist and THEN became a religious Jew? If that is the case, that makes the least sense of all.

I'm not going to stand up and speak on behalf of Christianity, but the New Testament has the Old Testament beat hands down.If an atheist had to pick one of the other to follow, I can't see the Gospels losing out to the dense body of laws and customs laid out in the Torah and Talmud.