REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BTW, Lief, I loved your answer to GM's question! It shows your heart - you love the truth, and are fearless when it comes to thinking and seeking, and you have a heart of integrity, honesty, and courage.

Sorry to make you blush , but I just wanted to point that out. One of the coolest things about Christianity is that we can really love the truth and be fearless in seeking it out, because God Himself is truth. I'm so fortunate as to NEVER have to stoop to deception in these discussions; I want the truth, and I seek the truth, and anything but honesty and truth only hinder a discussion, IMO.

. . . thanks!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
yes Jesus was and IS the only Son of God but He also IS God and God is perfect according to Christian belief. He showed human qualities because He was both human and divine...however, He never sinned because God can't sin logically.

And that's doctrinal, by the way. He himself said he had never sinned.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
a psychiatric argument? must have missed it when you were diagnosing jesus.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
"Well, it's true that people with psychological difficulties will often claim to be somebody they're not," Collins replied as he clasped his hands behind his head. "They'll sometimes claim to be Jesus himself or the president of the United States or somoene else famous- like Lee Strobel," he quipped.

"However," he continued, "psychologists don't just look at what a person says. They'll go much deeper than that. They'll look at a person's emotions, because disturbed individuals frequently show inappropriate depression, or they might be vehemently angry, or perhaps they're plagued with anxiety. But look at Jesus: he never demonstrated inappropriate emotions. For instance, he cried at the death of his friend Lazarus-that's natural for an emotionally healthy individual."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor of psychology Collins, who has studied, taught and written about human behavior for thirty-five years, proceeded to speak of other types of mental illness, and show how Jesus was free of all of them.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He was loving but didn't let his compassion immobilize him; he didn't have a bloated ego, even though he was often surroundd by adoring crowds; he maintained balance despite an often demanding lifestyle; he always knew what he was doing and where he was going; he cared deeply about people, including women and children, who weren't seen as being important back then; he was able to accept people while not merely winking at their sin; he responded to individuals based on where they were at and what they uniquely needed."

"So, Doctor-your diagnosis?" I asked.

"All in all, I just don't see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness," he concluded, adding with a smile, "He was much healthier than anyone else I know-including me!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On what evidence, Insidious Rex, do you base your belief that Jesus was insane?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
and... once again... im truly not interested in bickering about the petty little details of the life of jesus. my whole point all along was well beyond that. Im sure we could both list pages of things both for and against the idea that a jesus figure (like a joan of ark or ten thousand other well known figures through history) wasnt normal mentally. And there were other things going on up there. But really whats the point of that. Im not here to declare to all christians that woe be to you for your jesus was a nut. I dont really think thats the important part of the whole jesus story. And I sure hope as a christian it isnt for you either.

Obviously, yes indeed, it is not THE IMPORTANT PART of the Jesus story. The argument is an evidence to support the Jesus story. And it has been supported by the psychiatric arguments of distinguished professionals (Whew, I used a lot of long words there to make an impression ).

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
wait wait... show me where Im saying what god IS. Show me one sentence in that paragraph where Im declaring god is definitively one specific way.

You have declared, perhaps not in that paragraph, but in other places, to believe him to be extremely "otherly", and uncaring about what happens to humanity. Nonpersonal. You've said he might be able to be found through mathematics one day, which seems to imply to me you don't have any direct evidence to support this belief. Is this concept you have of God supported?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
How do you get Im making a specific declaration about (a) god from me saying over and over that the divine is imperceptible. "well show me PROOF that you cant perceive god! " Come on now... lets think about that statement shall we. You are trying really hard to back me into a corner in which my point will never fit. Concentrate on my point for once.

Perhaps we're just talking over each other's heads, here. I don't understand what you're saying.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men who knew him intimately taught that he knew sin. The authors of two of the gospels were actually his disciples, men who had known him for a long time.

Huge crowds had experienced his healing the sick, and the people that wrote the gospels were witnesses. We have writings from other apostles and disciples that experienced his miraculous power as well.

His having huge numbers of followers is attested to in sources outside of Christianity, and we actually have evidence concerning his miracles from the mouths of his enemies. We have documents from the religious leaders, saying that he was a practicer of black magic. This tends to support very strongly his being a miracle worker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


more veil. stories and points of view in documents written by men.

Written by eyewitnesses, some of them, and many of the others by personal friends of the eyewitnesses. Remember, Mertucio wrote a very detailed post showing the historical authenticity of the Bible, how it has been carried down from incredibly early. How incredible lengths were gone to by the copyists to keep it correct in every detail (though I believe I have further evidence on that, which hasn't yet been presented). You are bypassing all of the historical documentation and the time slots that scholars have identified the gospels and epistles as belonging to. See the last page, in which Mertucio wrote on this extensively.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I could have a close friend who could write things about me today that in 2000 years could easily make me look god like.

You mean by legend infiltrating original documents?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
This has gone on countless times throughout history. The Egyptian pharos had huge tombs covered with hieroglyphs extolling all the base evidence for them being super human. Ramses the great in his life time propagated the story that he single handedly destroyed an army of his enemy despite barely breaking even in the battle. for this reason he quickly achieved demigod like stature which was simply accepted as the truth. lots and lots of veil.

The writers of these documents were eyewitnesses. What they were writing about were events that occurred, witnessed by thousands. Thousands of people who were still alive at the time of the writing of these documents.

These weren't people forced to do things by arrogant kings or pharoahs. They weren't describing things they didn't witness, like the workers in Egypt. The gospel writers also were people who had everything to lose, by what they were doing. They were people ready to perish for what they wrote, and they were writing their own experiences.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Huge numbers of religions have engaged in religious warfare. Christianity is not separate from that, but that does not mean it is not good for society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

conflict thoughout history has been inspired by many religions... christianity is in no way the only the only force behind it... however, the one thing these conflicts share is one group insisting, not only that their truths are the only truths, but that they should be imposed upon others... this is bad for society

Forcibly imposed, you mean. If by imposed you mean "evangelism", I can't agree. Whether forcibly imposed is always bad or not, I have difficulty answering. I think I agree with you that at least the vast majority of religious wars in history have been bad for society.

However, the reasoning seems flawed to me that any religion that involves itself in religious wars
a) Is bad for society
b) Is wrong to include in its beliefs that it is the only truth.

For a), I think this should be pretty self apparent. Christianity is hugely beneficial to society. It is impossible, I believe, to calculate the benefit we have given to society through our churches. I suppose one would have to know something about it, and I'm afraid I don't have statistics. Have you ever heard of "Food for the Hungry"? The group that goes around the world trying to feed the needy.

Man, that's only one small example (though it's a big organization). Christianity has been of immense help to society, and we've seen from the example of the religious diversity of America that other religions too, which have previously held religious wars, can also be of service.


b) Let's say my brother believes 2 + 2 = 4, and my other brother believes it's 3. They argue. My brother who believes the answer is 4 hits my brother who believes the answer is 3.

Obviously, the first brother was wrong to hit the other. Does that immediately follow that not only were they wrong to hit their brother, but he should say and believe "all right, 2 + 2 = 4 or 3."

Compromise has its boundaries. The issues we're talking about aren't as clear cut as mathematics, but on a different scale, they are the same thing. The fact that participants of a religion might have led a war wrongly against another people does not mean that the religion in itself is not the only truth.

Originally posted by brownjenkins

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can one say to that? It's not really an argument- just what you'd almost say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

to put it more plainly... no belief system should be incapable of making compromisies to accommodate other belief systems they must coexist with

Can you put it even more plainly, for me? Are you saying they should be tolerant of each other? Or are you saying that they should compromise some parts of their beliefs in order to unite and become one?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary. You're making an absolutely incorrect assumption that people cannot know God. I have met God. Vast numbers of other Christians have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i cannot argue how you choose to perceive reality... just as i wouldn't tell a tibetian monk that he had not reached nirvana, or a muslim that allah does not hear his prayers

Even in that statement, you're making the incorrect assumption that this is merely how we perceive reality.

What of fulfilled prophesy? That is something that is solid, easy to confirm and possible to use to validate or knock down your beliefs.

What of miracles? For example, someone in here recently said that prayer used on a person right before surgery caused the cancer to completely disappear. I can go on endlessly about my answered prayers, many of which remarkable. I think that the way I can make that evidence the most clear is with the simple fact that the majority of my answers have been postively answered. So many of my prayers have been answered in fact, that mere days after starting my "Spiritual Relationship document" (after I received the Born Again experience), I had to stop writing the answered prayers down in the document, because there were so many. In any case, miracles, some particularly startling ones especially, can be a strong evidence.

Other spiritual experiences can also be perfectly valid. For example, some of the times I've encountered angels or demons are times where they affected real people and events, and weren't just sensed. I can cite some examples of this.

Spiritual experiences can go on and on, but they are not mere perceptions of reality. They are real experiences that people go through. Whether they are of God or of scientific explanation, they are real experiences, and they must have explanations.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
that said, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact because it can be demonstrated to anyone... independent of faith... this is not true of supreme beings

That actually doesn't make it a fact. It makes it a fact perceived by almost everyone. Supreme beings may be facts that are perceived only by a few, but this does not make them any less of facts. Something being a fact or not being a fact does not depend upon how many people view it as so.

Faith is involved, but it doesn't have to be without any foundation. Paul wrote in one of his epistles that faith for those that saw what he was doing didn't have to be based upon human wisdom, but upon demonstration of the Spirit's power.

One of the really wild things I've discovered through these debates on Entmoot is something about perceptions of Atheism and Christianity.

Atheism actually is what it claims Christianity is- blind faith. There can be no evidence that there is no God.

Christianity, on the other hand, offers huge numbers of evidence that there is a God.

Looking at it logically, which should be easier to believe?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some beliefs are more likely to be wrong than others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is the essence of where i disagree with you... i touched upon this in the passion of christ thread... it is one thing to say that your beliefs are your truths, and quite another to say they are the truth... which, by implication, says they should be everyone's truth

it creates a division in humanity where there doesn't have to be one... as long as you are secure in your own beliefs why does it matter one way or the other how well your "factual" evidence compares with another religion's... is it not possible that the monk's belief in nirvana is just as valid as your own belief in jesus christ?

Christianity, unlike Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism, and things like that, actually offers an explanation for experiences of Nirvana. We do acknowledge powers as existing in the spiritual realm that are other than those of God, and which do attempt to deceive mankind. A monk's experiencing Nirvana does not sound impossible to me.

Someone outside of the Christian faith actually experiencing the real God I believe in also is possible to me. For examples of this, one can actually look in the Old Testament. There was an old pagan in the Old Testament who received prophesies from God, concerning Israel. There was a medium whom many believed God answered by sending the spirit of Samuel to.

However, when one is claiming things about absolute truth, I think it definitely makes a difference how good your factual information is.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? I see a myriad of beliefs, most of them incorrect. A nonreligious person also must admit the vast majority of them must be at least essentially incorrect, because they disagree so frequently with one another. One might not be able to prove the existence of God, but one can show so much evidence that lack of belief becomes unreasonable, and one can show sufficient evidence to support faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

or maybe they are all incorrect... there's a lot of evidence for UFOs, bigfoot and astrology too

I do not know much about those subjects, and I suspect you don't either, but it seems a large leap to slap something like that together in the same boat with Christianity, which is an experiential religion that is experienced by millions of Christians worldwide.

[i]Originally posted by Insidious Rex[/]
as shakespeare said "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose"

this is why i tend to lean more towards the eastern faiths, since their moral systems are presented more as advice than decrees... that said, a large portion of christian society these days view the bible in a similar light... more guidelines than steadfast "to the letter" words

there is room in the world for both... but both must be respected as equally valid as far as such things go

What do you mean by "equally valid"?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
"Is it not true that, in, the study of languages, ethics, religions, and codes of manners, ‘He who knows but one knows none?'" ~ Bushido

That quote seems to be saying they're all interconnected.

[brownjenkins]

the above posts you quoted are from me... not IR... which is a perfectly understandable mistake considering the vast amout of quoting

i'll try to get to responses when i have the time to address it properly

on the bushido quote, i take it to mean that one cannot truely understand even ones own religion without having understanding of other's religions... since this takes one outside of their own baises, and looks towards the concepts of as a whole

which leads me to a question for you... why do you think that so many different versions of what is the true "will of god" exist among mankind?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
which leads me to a question for you... why do you think that so many different versions of what is the true "will of god" exist among mankind?

At most, one is right... and all the rest are wrong. (nice tries or otherwise)

But I'm just a simple Hobbit at heart...

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
However, the reasoning seems flawed to me that any religion that involves itself in religious wars
a) Is bad for society
b) Is wrong to include in its beliefs that it is the only truth.

For a), I think this should be pretty self apparent. Christianity is hugely beneficial to society. It is impossible, I believe, to calculate the benefit we have given to society through our churches. I suppose one would have to know something about it, and I'm afraid I don't have statistics. Have you ever heard of "Food for the Hungry"? The group that goes around the world trying to feed the needy.

Man, that's only one small example (though it's a big organization). Christianity has been of immense help to society, and we've seen from the example of the religious diversity of America that other religions too, which have previously held religious wars, can also be of service.

religion has brought about good things... i agree 100%... and the scriptures which speak about doing onto others certainly reinforce these practices... my point is that i think most major religions would be better served by keeping these parts, while losing the idea that their way of going about life is the only right way... i prefer to think of it as one of many

b) Let's say my brother believes 2 + 2 = 4, and my other brother believes it's 3. They argue. My brother who believes the answer is 4 hits my brother who believes the answer is 3.

Obviously, the first brother was wrong to hit the other. Does that immediately follow that not only were they wrong to hit their brother, but he should say and believe "all right, 2 + 2 = 4 or 3."

Compromise has its boundaries. The issues we're talking about aren't as clear cut as mathematics, but on a different scale, they are the same thing. The fact that participants of a religion might have led a war wrongly against another people does not mean that the religion in itself is not the only truth.

what it means is that for concepts, unlike mathematics, that have no clear cut answer, one should not present themselves as knowing the absolute truth... the fact that it is not clear cut is the reason why it is not absolute

Can you put it even more plainly, for me? Are you saying they should be tolerant of each other? Or are you saying that they should compromise some parts of their beliefs in order to unite and become one?

i don't think anyone needs to compromise how they believe things are in their own mind... but they need to accept the fact that another's beliefs about the unknowable are just as valid as theirs

Even in that statement, you're making the incorrect assumption that this is merely how we perceive reality.

What of fulfilled prophesy? That is something that is solid, easy to confirm and possible to use to validate or knock down your beliefs.

What of miracles? For example, someone in here recently said that prayer used on a person right before surgery caused the cancer to completely disappear. I can go on endlessly about my answered prayers, many of which remarkable. I think that the way I can make that evidence the most clear is with the simple fact that the majority of my answers have been postively answered. So many of my prayers have been answered in fact, that mere days after starting my "Spiritual Relationship document" (after I received the Born Again experience), I had to stop writing the answered prayers down in the document, because there were so many. In any case, miracles, some particularly startling ones especially, can be a strong evidence.

Other spiritual experiences can also be perfectly valid. For example, some of the times I've encountered angels or demons are times where they affected real people and events, and weren't just sensed. I can cite some examples of this.

Spiritual experiences can go on and on, but they are not mere perceptions of reality. They are real experiences that people go through. Whether they are of God or of scientific explanation, they are real experiences, and they must have explanations.

i would tend towards the scientific explanations myself... not understanding something is not the same as proof of divine intervention

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That actually doesn't make it a fact. It makes it a fact perceived by almost everyone. Supreme beings may be facts that are perceived only by a few, but this does not make them any less of facts. Something being a fact or not being a fact does not depend upon how many people view it as so.

Faith is involved, but it doesn't have to be without any foundation. Paul wrote in one of his epistles that faith for those that saw what he was doing didn't have to be based upon human wisdom, but upon demonstration of the Spirit's power.

One of the really wild things I've discovered through these debates on Entmoot is something about perceptions of Atheism and Christianity.

Atheism actually is what it claims Christianity is- blind faith. There can be no evidence that there is no God.

Christianity, on the other hand, offers huge numbers of evidence that there is a God.

Looking at it logically, which should be easier to believe?

a fact is something that can be verified over and over again... it has nothing to do with faith... or how much supporting evidence exists

a vast majority of scientists believe in evolution on a macro scale (i.e. apes to humans)... but until is is actually observed (i.e. a strain of apes developing human cognitive abilities over millions of years of observation) it is not a fact

i'm not an atheist in the strict sense of the word anyway... probably closer to agnostic... i think that the existance of god can never be proven, and find it very easy to believe

I do not know much about those subjects, and I suspect you don't either, but it seems a large leap to slap something like that together in the same boat with Christianity, which is an experiential religion that is experienced by millions of Christians worldwide.

"Millions of Germans had absolute faith in Hitler. Millions of Russians had faith in Stalin. Millions of Chinese had faith in Mao. Billions have had faith in imaginary gods." ~ Steve Allen

this is not to say that faith without question is always a bad thing... but it always has the potential to become a bad thing

What do you mean by "equally valid"?

there is more than one way to achieve a moral life... and they don't all require the belief in a supreme being

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
a fact is something that can be verified over and over again... it has nothing to do with faith... or how much supporting evidence exists

Nope, a fact is something that is true, whether or not it can be verified by people at any given time. For example, it's a fact that I'm wearing a certain color sweater today. And no one but I (and the dog) can see it right now (and I think dogs are colorblind, so he can't even see the color!) Yet it remains a fact, and if you were to guess the sweater was green, you would be wrong, and if you were to guess the sweater was purple, you would be right.

Now I'll grant you that a scientific fact is something that can be verified over and over again.

[BeardofPants]

Just a general question, but what does everyone think about the 'demonisation' of Mary Magdalene? I just finished reading the davinci code, and it postulates that Mary was a direct descendent from the House of Benjamin (?), and not a whore (this was supposedly a move by the church to discredit her at a much later stage.) Thoughts?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Valandil
Unless you've heard of The Dead Sea Scrolls... verifiably dated to some number of years before Christ and containing at least portions of every single Old Testament book, I believe... with no significant wording changes that would alter meanings of prophecies, etc.

I did not, but as I said not all of the prophecies were written afterwards; I heard that some say the Bible predicted the 9/11. I don't know, I have no evidence, I've just heard.

But does the scrolls contain? So what if they have parts of every book in the Bible, does it mean anything?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Obviously, yes indeed, it is not THE IMPORTANT PART of the Jesus story. The argument is an evidence to support the Jesus story. And it has been supported by the psychiatric arguments of distinguished professionals (Whew, I used a lot of long words there to make an impression ).

how would they diagnose say Hamlet? King Arthur? Achilles? Odysseus? They could probably write reams on those figures too. As to what the point of it would be Im not really sure.

You have declared, perhaps not in that paragraph, but in other places, to believe him to be extremely "otherly", and uncaring about what happens to humanity. Nonpersonal.

I reject the whole notion of viewing a creative force in human terms. Therefore I cant argue with you when you insist on bringing the discussion down to that level. To me god is neither caring or uncaring. Neither sentient or omnipotent or limited. To attempt to describe a god force with human words from the perspective of a human brain instantly sabatoges the usefulness of your description. So now you can see why I would view a religion such as Christianity as missing the whole point by many scales of ten.

Perhaps we're just talking over each other's heads, here. I don't understand what you're saying.

ok… basically what it comes down to is that the little religious stories (such as the Christian one as just one example) don’t really mean much to me. Whether they are simple tales used to deliver a message, symbols that many can relate to, or actual documentation of followers of a well respected figure. Its ALL smoke. Its ALL the trappings of the human mind attempting to approach the divine somehow. My argument all along was that there IS actually a thread of the divine in Christianity because it is how a group of genuinely convinced people attempt to get their minds around something beyond their capacity to perceive. My argument was never “Christianity is wrong!� which you keep trying to project on me. Im not concerned with Christianity. Im concerned with the divine. Whatever it might be.

Now for YOU, the divine IS Christianity and that’s where you reach the ceiling. It doesn’t go up any higher for you. You are inside that bubble. Therefore the way I think makes no logical sense to you. And you keep coming back to “well but doctors say jesus was right minded.� to which my only response can be “that doesn’t matter.�

You are bypassing all of the historical documentation and the time slots that scholars have identified the gospels and epistles as belonging to. See the last page, in which Mertucio wrote on this extensively.

this is a perfect example of what I was just saying. It makes no difference to me whether the bible contains statements made by people who lived within the same century as jesus. This proves absolutely nothing to me. People can follow others and praise them and write things about them from the point of view of attracting others further to their cause. This is pretty standard stuff. And this is meaningless to me. There is simply no way to link one event to the next throughout history, take it back to jesus and then link jesus to a divine force. Your religion requires faith as a prerequisite and faith remains the ultimate tool for clothing oneself in belief and not in fact.

The writers of these documents were eyewitnesses. What they were writing about were events that occurred, witnessed by thousands. Thousands of people who were still alive at the time of the writing of these documents.

1. how do you know? 2. how does this say anything about the link between jesus and the divine? 3. why does this matter one way or the other? Was this still about jesus not being crazy by the way or was this more about the Truth of the bible?

The gospel writers also were people who had everything to lose, by what they were doing. They were people ready to perish for what they wrote

This can be taken the opposite way too. They were people so out of touch that they were willing to die for something that wasn’t reality. So is it any wonder they put forth things in the bible to support their own belief system and to lure others into buying into their belief system?

Note: Im playing the devil’s advocate here just so you know. I don’t necessarily hold to that specific way of thinking BUT it makes it clear that your argument can easily be shown to be empty.

By the way Ill take your confusion between my comments and brownjenkin’s comments as a compliment (to me). *tips hat to bj * I find many of his arguments about as compelling as Ive seen on this message board.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Just a general question, but what does everyone think about the 'demonisation' of Mary Magdalene? I just finished reading the davinci code, and it postulates that Mary was a direct descendent from the House of Benjamin (?), and not a whore (this was supposedly a move by the church to discredit her at a much later stage.) Thoughts?

I don't really see it as a demonisation so much as a Deification. Mary Magdalene, contrary to non-Christian thought, is not portrayed as a wicked person by Christians; she is rather the archetypal sinner who repented. There is not a single Christian who is not also a sinner who has repented. Indeed, Mary Magdalene is seen in a way as a symbol of all believers. IIRC, Certain Gnostic groups today hold (I don't know how far back it goes) that the Holy Spirit descended upon three women, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the sister of Martha, and Mary Magdalene, whom they teach to be the wife or else lover of Jesus; in this way, the Divine Sophia is embodied thrice-over. I think that this embodiment is held to be equal or similar to the Christ-spirit descending upon Jesus; I'm not sure about that, though. But as far as I can tell, this whole Mary Magdalene (whom many say was actually the Apostle John; you can tell because it calls John "the beloved disciple") controversy, so far as I can honestly see, is nothing but a rejection of Christianity, and an attempt to change it to what it as not.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Just a general question, but what does everyone think about the 'demonisation' of Mary Magdalene? I just finished reading the davinci code, and it postulates that Mary was a direct descendent from the House of Benjamin (?), and not a whore (this was supposedly a move by the church to discredit her at a much later stage.) Thoughts?

I'm not aware of any evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Some people, from what I can tell, think she is the prostitute mentioned in the Bible that washes Jesus' feet (a social custom) with v. valuable perfume, but the prostitute's name isn't mentioned. She could very well be of the house of Benjamin, but it isn't recorded anywhere that I know of.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would think that people would be more worried about being "possessed with seven devils" than prostitution, really...

Ri, ancient tradition states that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, though I'm not sure if it's that one, and I'm not sure that the tradition dates back to Apostolic times. It is a VERY old tradition, however.

Have you seen the Passion?

[Rían]

Yes, I'm aware it's tradition, but haven't seen enough to judge for myself

No, I haven't seen the movie - I have a big problem with movie violence, and I'm sure I would either throw up or pass out in that movie. I'd like to get it when it comes out on DVD, and I can control the settings a little more. Have you seen it? Is it out, or coming out, in Russia?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I did; we have a CD. Interestingly, pirating electronics isn't illegal here...

It was amazing; it was definitely brutal, but it was worth it, in my opinion. But I'm afraid that's all I can say right now; I need to sign off (5:00 A. M. here); if you want, feel free to email me, and we discuss the film via that media. :-)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
how would they diagnose say Hamlet? King Arthur? Achilles? Odysseus? They could probably write reams on those figures too. As to what the point of it would be Im not really sure.

It can be established very reasonably that Jesus was not at all crazy, which was the stance you were taking. Therefore, it is relevant.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

I reject the whole notion of viewing a creative force in human terms. Therefore I cant argue with you when you insist on bringing the discussion down to that level. To me god is neither caring or uncaring. Neither sentient or omnipotent or limited. To attempt to describe a god force with human words from the perspective of a human brain instantly sabatoges the usefulness of your description.

Thank-you. Would you please describe the evidence to support your belief that God is "Neither caring nor uncaring, neither sentient nor omnipotent nor limited."

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Now for YOU, the divine IS Christianity and that’s where you reach the ceiling. It doesn’t go up any higher for you. You are inside that bubble.

You keep saying that you're "way up here". I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever to strengthen your point of view. Rather, repeatedly, you have ignored my arguments.

Insidious Rex "Jesus was crucified for his beliefs because he was crazy."
Lief Erikson "Jesus was not crazy- the psychiatrists have certified that."
Insidious Rex "The doctors don't matter."

Insidious Rex "Christianity has a divine thread in it, but is a flawed religion."
Lief Erikson "It is not flawed. We can see that because of these and these and these evidences."
Insidious Rex "Those evidences don't matter. More veil."

At least, that's how I'm seeing it, anyway. It's getting a little frustrating.

Can't respond to more now- I have to go. Talk to you more later.

~Lief

[BeardofPants]

Well, I would think that because the psychiatrists haven't personally evaluated him, that it would be a bit hard to draw conclusions on whether he was delusional or not.