Christianity and civilisation

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Never mind.

Obviously.

[CuteOldGuy]

Next time, try to understand what I'm talking about. You won't sound so stupid.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Next time, try to understand what I'm talking about. You won't sound so stupid.

Name calling! Now you are resorting to tactics you purport to despise.

Good night.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Bible is a great book, but let's be honest.....Much was left out, because it didn't provide enough controls on the people to be of use to an Emperor. But a lot of good stuff slipped through, no doubt about that.

wrong

[CuteOldGuy]

Wrong?

[nevergaveitathought]

yes wrong...the bible wasnt put together so some emperor could more readily control people..thats just poppycock..or in your case poppyviagra

[nevergaveitathought]

we could go into it all but its beyond the scope of probably what you want to hear...but the old testament was already an organized historicity of the jews over centuries, written and copied meticulously by scribes so as to not lose one jot or tittle, and its sacredness to Christians was confirmed by Jesus teaching from it and revering it

the new testament...well the word canon..the canonization of the new testament..the inclusion of writings and the discarding of others...the word canon means in simple terms "reed", as a standard from which to measure other things.

the books adopted as canon included those which had been measured by a certain standard and having met the standard, were included.

first you need to know what apostle means. the term apostle is limited to someone who saw the risen Christ and could bear witness and were chosen. they derived from the 12 disciples whom Jesus, himself, chose during his ministry. after the death of Judas, they were left with 11. these became "apostles" after Jesus ascended, the remaining group chose a man to complete the 12 who met the qualifications, a man named Mathias. later Paul, who on the road to Damascus to persecute Christians, was one (an apostle) as abnormally chosen.

the canon.....these were all books written by first century witnesses and apostles or in the case of Luke a close follower, he being a doctor and historian himself, and his book had apostolic acceptance during their lifetimes, or Hebrews, of which scholars debate the author, but it too was widely accepted during the apostles lives.

the canon discarded books written by 2nd and 3rd century offshoots and people who attempted to gather their own unique following for different "man made" purposes.it also discarded superfluous latter day writings that were not of first century origin and therefore could not have been widely accepted during the apostles lives.


later heresies written, like the book of Judas or others that were akin to gnosticism..they didnt measure up and in fact they were at odds with the books that had been written by apostles or accepted by them.

it had nothing to do with controlling people by an emperor, it had to do with the assembly of trustworthy documents

[CuteOldGuy]

That's the standard line, but I don't believe it. The Council disregarded many books which were on the same level than those selected. We are told, mainly by the Church, who wants to retain its control of the laity that those were "lesser" books.

The message of Jesus, when taken in context of the times was one meant to unite and uplift. The current message of the Church is to divide and punish. Sorry, I used to buy into that, but I don't anymore.

If there was supposed to be one book to guide the faith, wouldn't Jesus have directed the same? He never referred to any "future guide" other than the Holy Spirit. But when Constantine made Christianity legal, the preparation of a "guide book" would make it easier for him to control the masses. No longer was individual revelation allowed. All was written in the Guide. And that Guide has since been used to massacre and torture "non-believers" in the Guide. Not unbelievers per se, but those who didn't believe the "Guide".

Constantine used the story that he saw a cross in the sky and was told "In this sign, conquer." Really? What message of Jesus, even in the approved history, would make one think that He would have given that command?

It's a great book. They couldn't keep the truth out of it enough so as to blind those actively seeking Truth. But it is not the only book. God is too big to be defined by one book. Those who try, end up religionists, and then try to divide people by what they believe, into "believers" and "pagans".

And who gave the Council the authority to decide which documents were trustworthy, and which weren't? Hmmm . . . A council selected and approved by Constantine. The Emporer. The government. Hence, control. They were not going to return to him a book that promoted individual freedom of thought. They wanted one that could be twisted to control the population.

I don't blame Jesus for what His followers have done. But it's not the "only Word of God." Unless you enjoy excluding people from your special little "God club."

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That's the standard line, but I don't believe it. The Council disregarded many books which were on the same level than those selected. We are told, mainly by the Church, who wants to retain its control of the laity that those were "lesser" books.

The message of Jesus, when taken in context of the times was one meant to unite and uplift. The current message of the Church is to divide and punish. Sorry, I used to buy into that, but I don't anymore.

If there was supposed to be one book to guide the faith, wouldn't Jesus have directed the same? He never referred to any "future guide" other than the Holy Spirit. But when Constantine made Christianity legal, the preparation of a "guide book" would make it easier for him to control the masses. No longer was individual revelation allowed. All was written in the Guide. And that Guide has since been used to massacre and torture "non-believers" in the Guide. Not unbelievers per se, but those who didn't believe the "Guide".

Constantine used the story that he saw a cross in the sky and was told "In this sign, conquer." Really? What message of Jesus, even in the approved history, would make one think that He would have given that command?

It's a great book. They couldn't keep the truth out of it enough so as to blind those actively seeking Truth. But it is not the only book. God is too big to be defined by one book. Those who try, end up religionists, and then try to divide people by what they believe, into "believers" and "pagans".

And who gave the Council the authority to decide which documents were trustworthy, and which weren't? Hmmm . . . A council selected and approved by Constantine. The Emporer. The government. Hence, control. They were not going to return to him a book that promoted individual freedom of thought. They wanted one that could be twisted to control the population.

I don't blame Jesus for what His followers have done. But it's not the "only Word of God." Unless you enjoy excluding people from your special little "God club."

whatever...

blind zealotry may forget its point but will always redouble its effort

your belief system regarding the bible's origin is one made of whole cloth and conspiracies and out of a dan brown book...its not subject to rational discussion

[CuteOldGuy]

Bless you, my child.

Were you calling me a zealot? How can I be a zealot, when I try to see the unity of all? You can believe what you want. Makes no difference to me unless you try to force me to believe as you do. If you're happy, go for it. Pay no attention to me, I was just stating an opinion, which I think happens to be true. You've said yours. Cool. But if I am a zealot in any measure, it's zealotry in favor of allowing you to do, say and believe what you want. Just don't try to harm another's life, liberty or property.

Reminds me when I was walking with the Buddha. We stopped by a street vendor, and the Buddha ordered a hot dog. He said, "Make me one with everything."

[essence]

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

In addition, the Ten Commandments haven't changed at all from the the time Moses brought the tablets down from the mountain.

Might one conclude that this *COULD* indicate that Whoever gave Moses those tablets Got It Right?

If you strip the religious trappings away from the Commandments, you are left with some pretty good rules for people to live together in relative peace and harmony.

[CuteOldGuy]

A close look at the old testament will show that it parallels almost exactly with the Epic of Gilgamesh. It wasn't new then. It is a bunch of oral history written down at a later period. Obvious Sumerian roots. Sorry, I don't want to disturb anyone, but those are facts. Still a lot of beauty in the old testament, if you overlook the sexual immorality and genocide.