The Gospel

[Alex DeLarge]

Being a good person is not enough!

Well, that's just too bad because that's the best I can do.
If being a good person and also a critical thinker is what your god considers a crime worthy of eternal torture, then I don't wouldn't want to be anywhere near that insane tyrant anyway.

 

[Kimpatsu]

True. Now how about that Tiberius reference?

I'll get back to you on that.

 

[Kimpatsu]

No, they aren't. The betrayal and murder of Osiris are essentially a mythological version of a court intrigue. The betrayal and murder of Jesus is the stomping down of a troublemaking peasant. Osiris gets resurrected long enough to have sex with Isis, but still ends up trapped in the underworld, which is a poor sort of resurrection. Jesus' resurrection is permanent, and he isn't trapped in either Heaven, Earth, or any sort of underworld. As far as I can tell, the only places where it is claimed that Osiris rose on the third day are in polemics that try to claim parallels between Christianity and Paganism. Two of your point of contact, betrayal-murder and resurrection, are the kind of blurry connections that one gets if one searches through a broad swath of mythology and tries to fit some of it to a particular broad pattern. The third point of contact has yet to be established.

What is interesting is that you go so far afield to find a vague parallel in Egyptian mythology, when Judaism of the first century already had ideas of resurrection of its own that were tied to a final judgment. Gee, sound familiar?



My point in bringing up the virgin birth is that it is a claim Freke and Gandy made that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

Everything you have just written is a 21st century spin on an ancient legend. Stop committing the sin of present-mindedness, and instead try to put yourself in the shoes of Roman serfs 2,0000 years ago. Then you'll see the parallels.

 

[jjramsey]

Everything you have just written is a 21st century spin on an ancient legend.

Court intrigues are nearly as old as monarchies. Rulers killing troublemakers is nothing new, either.

try to put yourself in the shoes of Roman serfs 2,0000 years ago. Then you'll see the parallels.

If I'm a Roman serf, then Christianity tends to look like a weird story about some guy named Oiled (Christ or Anointed) or Nice-guy (Chrestus) who got killed by the Romans in a manner reserved for ignoble criminals but was brought back to bodily life instead of having his spirit go to the underworld as normally happens. (My idea of "normal" here is the Roman serf's idea of "normal.") Somehow, this is supposed to show that this guy is the boss of the world. If I'm a Roman serf familiar with a Jewish synagogue in the diaspora, then Christianity looks like a Judaism-lite where I don't have to get circumsized or worry about dietary laws, which might look good to me if I'm a "God-fearer" (Gentile who believes in the Jewish God but is not a full proselyte), and irrelevant if I'm not.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Well, that's just too bad because that's the best I can do.
If being a good person and also a critical thinker is what your god considers a crime worthy of eternal torture, then I don't wouldn't want to be anywhere near that insane tyrant anyway.

God is the same yesterday, today, and for eternity.
Why would you let carnality stand in the way of coming to know your creator? Isn't that what a critical thinker does? Trying to see what's wrong in a situation rather than see what's right about it?
The Gospel is right. Jesus died to save us. We must come to believe in Him to be saved! One simple truth saves us and sets us free!! Forgiveness is divine and He did it all on the cross!

 

[Ducky]

Kathy do you honestly think your constant barrage of preaching is doing anything good here?

I can guarantee you're not converting anyone. You are, however looking the fool for not answering direct questions and preaching over and over.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Kathy do you honestly think your constant barrage of preaching is doing anything good here?

I can guarantee you're not converting anyone. You are, however looking the fool for not answering direct questions and preaching over and over.

I answer plenty of questions that I am being asked.
Just because you don't like the fact that I am on this forum does not mean that I have to stop sharing. It is God's job to reach anyone, not mine. But I will share when I feel compelled.

I wish you would try being a bit less judgemental towards me.
I haven't asked you to reply if you don't like what I have to say. Maybe you could try to learn to turn the other cheek yourself!

 

[Ducky]

I answer plenty of questions that I am being asked.
Just because you don't like the fact that I am on this forum does not mean that I have to stop sharing. It is God's job to reach anyone, not mine. But I will share when I feel compelled.

I wish you would try being a bit less judgemental towards me.
I haven't asked you to reply if you don't like what I have to say. Maybe you could try to learn to turn the other cheek yourself!

Whatever. You're so oppressed because you're preaching to a skeptics forum and no one cares. Get over it.

And for the record, It's not that I don't like what you have to say, it's that I find it rather irritating to hear the same drivel over and over.

And, if it is God's job to reach people, then why are you continuing to annoy us all with your preaching?

 

[TwoShanks]

http://angryflower.com/jesusc.gif

 

[Spidey13]

I consider myself to be a non-denominational Christian.

I've always hated the term "nondenominational Christian." Isn't that, in and of itself, a denomination?

 

[Ceritus]

I answer plenty of questions that I am being asked.
Just because you don't like the fact that I am on this forum does not mean that I have to stop sharing. It is God's job to reach anyone, not mine. But I will share when I feel compelled.

I wish you would try being a bit less judgemental towards me.
I haven't asked you to reply if you don't like what I have to say. Maybe you could try to learn to turn the other cheek yourself!

Wow a real answer you are taking a step forward now kathy!!!! Keep it up!

 

[ceo_esq]

I wish you would try being a bit less judgemental towards me.
I haven't asked you to reply if you don't like what I have to say.

A perfectly legitimate request. I'm sorry that your experience here has been such that you felt it necessary to raise this.

 

[Freakshow]

A perfectly legitimate request. I'm sorry that your experience here has been such that you felt it necessary to raise this.

No, it isn't.

This is a discussion forum. That's what we do here. We post, and we reply. If someone is going to post something here, they'd better be ready for people to post replies, disagreeing with them. If someone can't handle that, they should not post in the first place.

 

[Freakshow]

Isn't that what a critical thinker does? Trying to see what's wrong in a situation rather than see what's right about it?

No, critical thinking is not about "trying" to see something that is "wrong" or "right".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
"Critical thinking is a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that are offered as true. It is a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts."

I think that is a reasonably good definition. Notice it is not about "trying" to see a particular point of view. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[ceo_esq]

No, it isn't.

This is a discussion forum. That's what we do here. We post, and we reply. If someone is going to post something here, they'd better be ready for people to post replies, disagreeing with them. If someone can't handle that, they should not post in the first place.

You've been posting here for all of what, two months? Welcome to the forum.

After fourteen pages of this thread, it should be evident that Kathy has the requisite tolerance of disagreement. Otherwise she would have quit after one page. That's not at issue here.

If I understood her correctly, Kathy was requesting that another newcomer (fowlsound) refrain from indulging his apparent penchant for making comments that could easily be mistaken for betraying personal hostility. That, I reiterate, is a legitimate request and perfectly consonant with the desired tone of discussion here (civil and polite) and with the principle of critical discourse that discourages remarks directed ad hominem. You might counter by accusing Kathy of manifesting similar behaviour with regard to other posters. That's irrelevant.

Hopefully "what we do here" is a little clearer now, although I admit that this thread has perhaps not set the best of examples.

 

[Ducky]

You've been posting here for all of what, two months? Welcome to the forum.

After fourteen pages of this thread, it should be evident that Kathy has the requisite tolerance of disagreement. Otherwise she would have quit after one page. That's not at issue here.

If I understood her correctly, Kathy was requesting that another newcomer (fowlsound) refrain from indulging his apparent penchant for making comments that could easily be mistaken for betraying personal hostility. That, I reiterate, is a legitimate request and perfectly consonant with the desired tone of discussion here (civil and polite) and with the principle of critical discourse that discourages remarks directed ad hominem. You might counter by accusing Kathy of manifesting similar behaviour with regard to other posters. That's irrelevant.

Hopefully "what we do here" is a little clearer now, although I admit that this thread has perhaps not set the best of examples.

My intent isn't hostility, though I do believe my remarks are valid. She repeats her preaching, and we repeat out same responses. What good is actually coming of this discourse?

 

[Freakshow]

You've been posting here for all of what, two months? Welcome to the forum.

After fourteen pages of this thread, it should be evident that Kathy has the requisite tolerance of disagreement. Otherwise she would have quit after one page. That's not at issue here.

If I understood her correctly, Kathy was requesting that another newcomer (fowlsound) refrain from indulging his apparent penchant for making comments that could easily be mistaken for betraying personal hostility. That, I reiterate, is a legitimate request and perfectly consonant with the desired tone of discussion here (civil and polite) and with the principle of critical discourse that discourages remarks directed ad hominem. You might counter by accusing Kathy of manifesting similar behaviour with regard to other posters. That's irrelevant.

Hopefully "what we do here" is a little clearer now, although I admit that this thread has perhaps not set the best of examples.

"What we do here" refers to the general concept of using a computer-based discussion forum (something I have been doing since using a Commodore Vic-20, and then 64, with Compuserve, about 20 years ago), not this particular one.

I was referring to her particular comment of "I haven't asked you to reply if you don't like what I have to say." Which seemed to me to imply "If you don't like what I have to say, then don't reply." Which, as I said before, is what we do here. We reply when people say things that we don't like. I wasn't talking about ad hominem attacks. I was talking about replies critical of her ideas.

Is it more clear to YOU now?

Now get off your holier-than-thou high horse about how long I have or have not been posting here. And you have no idea how long I was lurking here before I started posting.

 

[ceo_esq]

I was referring to her particular comment of "I haven't asked you to reply if you don't like what I have to say."

Curious; I should think it was evident that the "legitimate request" to which I was referring, and to which you immediately objected, was Kathy's expressed wish that fowlsound try to be a little less judgmental toward her. (The other remark was simply a statement of the obvious.) Still, thank you for the clarification.

Now get off your holier-than-thou high horse about how long I have or have not been posting here. And you have no idea how long I was lurking here before I started posting.

One could be forgiven for suspecting that a little longer might have been salutary. Now that you're here, though, try not to be so defensive. You're making Kathy seem positively thick-skinned by comparison. And if I have been overly touchy, then I apologize.

 

[pmurray]

Isn't that what a critical thinker does? Trying to see what's wrong in a situation rather than see what's right about it?

"Critical" is one of those words with a couple of meanings. I understand it to mean to evaluate carefully. I suppose you would call it "testing the spirits". Doesn't Jesus say that before you build a house, you should first count the cost?

 

[Freakshow]

Curious; I should think it was evident that the "legitimate request" to which I was referring, and to which you immediately objected, was Kathy's expressed wish that fowlsound try to be a little less judgmental toward her. (The other remark was simply a statement of the obvious.) Still, thank you for the clarification.
One could be forgiven for suspecting that a little longer might have been salutary. Now that you're here, though, try not to be so defensive. You're making Kathy seem positively thick-skinned by comparison. And if I have been overly touchy, then I apologize.

I'm plenty think skinned. But I defend myself when I feel it is necessary.

Kathy's problem is that she expects that by posting her views about god, and tossing in a few quotations of scripture, the rest of us will suddenly see the light, convert, and realize that we've been living in darkness all our lives. When this doesn't happen, she gets very confused. So she doesn't expect that anyone is actually going to answer her with critical questions. I'm sure she was very surprised that many of us here replied to her not to agree and convert, but to debate. She wasn't expecting that. Which is why she asked that if we don't agree with her, we shouldn't reply at all. She doesn't want a debate. She wants a filibuster.