Understanding the religious mindset

[gaffo]

How does the quotation above, or anything in Romans 3, say that Jesus saves us from death... in all its forms, as you claimed?

Well, Romans 3 covers that, but if you don't have time to read any more, and yet want more...

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

"...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned..." (Romans 5:23)

"...as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 5:21)

I could give dozens, but just use a concordance and you'll have all you ever want.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “... everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. ...”

Hebrews 11:12&13 "... so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith ...

Nice post Saunder.

since i view all 50+ (even more since Isaih has 3 at least authors - how many others do as well?). I'm fine with book a saying te opposite of book b. each author has a theology and some are not compatible with other authors in the bible.

Christian have a fixation on unifying a disunity - to even making a square a circle, so i'm sure emmanual has some word sophistry to make the circle a square so we can all sleep soundly tonight.

[Age]

I would agree that those who, "identify themselves in terms of some category they belong to," (I'm a Greek, a Japanese, a Hindu, an American, a Christian, a Muslim, a Democrat, A Buddhist, a Jew, an African, a Communist, a feminist, etc. etc.) are all racists and always a source of problems.

Very true.

I will also add that not one of those ones could successfully, nor sufficiently, provide an agreed upon definition of those words, even among a group of their own, so called, "themselves".

The term and phrase 'human beings' can be defined in agreement and separate from other 'things'. However, 'trying to' separate 'human beings' into separate "races" can NOT be done successfully, and REALLY is ACTUALLY just what 'racism' IS.

[gaffo]

[
The so-called "civilised" expansion into pre-agricultural societies has been a disaster for morality. From what little was left when the "civilised" people decided to record the diminishing cultures, we learn of peoples who were generally well behaved beyond the dreams of organised religion's so-called "Ethics".

I suspect you are talking abotu the Americas - but FYI - the American Indians had agriculture since about 10,000 yrs ago - when the Europenas arrived the indians ad Corn, Squash and Tobacco - in fac tthe latter was cultivized so long ago that its wild form is no longer existant!

-all the world agricuturalized around the same time. what allowed the Euriopeans supremecy in the new words as - in order of infuluance:

1. Desease - the europeans had 2-4 waves of both smallpox and the plague from 15,000 yrs earlier in europe - by the time fo 500 ago those in europe were mostly resistant to it - the American indians never had the waves of death from those two deseases fron 15000 yr ago to 1500 AD - so when the europeans arrived the indians got sick and 90-=perent diead from them (just as 890-percnt fo europeans did 15,000 yr ago from the 2-4 wav in prehistroy) - if would ahve been better if the indians had cuagh the plague adn smallpox 15,000 ys ago and so by the time the european showed up they could fight mano on mano(sp) - without regard to germs - but that did not happen and so europeans were resistant to what killed off most indians.

2. the horse - indians never had it, its a great war machine and if you have it you usually win (the indian had the elephant - which gave Alxander the great greif - so maybe if the europeans used elepants they could have conquored the indians faster tan with horses?

3. gunpower - guns cannons (technonlgy) - it did wonders verse bosws and arrows from horeles men,

4. Aztecs were ASSHOLES! - had they not ben the other tribs they inslaved would not have allied with the Spanish in 1518 - but they did (why - becasue the aztecs were dicks) - had the Aztecs not ben dicks the other indian tribes would ahve sided with the Aztecs to fight the Spanish and the Spanish would ahve lost that first war

5. per 4 above - the europeans had the population numbers, so had the aztecs not been dicks and won that first war with the help of other trib, the indians would ahve lost eventually

6. I'm personally glad the Aztecs got their ass beat - they were wors then the Spanish (like which is worse a cat trud or a dog turd - both turds - but Aztecs were wors) - so fine with their destruction.

7. not fine with the rest of histroy and how europeans treated indians in general.

8. I know had indian "disscovered eurrope" they would have done the same and the europeans

9. Not into Eugentics - so an american indian is not more noble or less an asshole than a european - see number 8 above.

10. we are all the same - fuck each other over when we can regardless of race or sex. or step up and refuse to fuck others even at personal cost - again regardless of race sex /etc.

[gaffo]

...you cannot have a "Christian ethics" that is grounded, durable, defensible and rational, one that can even answer the simple questions of a child, like "Why?" unless you also have Christianity? This is the mistake the "modern world" made, long ago: they imagined they could have the goods of faith without any faith. They can't. And it's simply that all people aren't that persistently irrational. At some point, they ask, "Why?" If we have no answer...

And now we see where that goes. As you say, we "desperately need" those ethics, and can't any longer sustain them.

We're never going to have a viable Christian morality without faith in Christ.

Faith is needed because Christianity makes unsubstantiated claims that create more questions than it can reasonably or honestly answer – but the benefit of such beliefs may be perceived as worth the huge margin of error. Faith can ignore anything.

The problem, however, with any belief that is given so much power... on all levels... is that many humans cannot see or move beyond all of the human distortion that is actually in service to themselves. It is really creepy. Such people speak of Jesus, yet do not reflect his documented teachings in any way. Some people will even present themselves as the mouthpieces for a god... as if a god would be so limited as to only be seen and interpreted through limited human thoughts and writings... in certain places and at certain times.

you are talking about Ego - "I wish it so, so it is so, God is this this and this"

When I was growing up immersed in Christianity, it seemed to me that people were embellishing a lot... and seeing themselves as separate from that which they worshipped. Yet they did not see that as worshipping false idols, as the Bible warned against. It seemed to me that any creative force would be so immense and unlimited that it could not be conceived of accurately by humans. Such a force that pulses and flows through all things... from the tiniest to the largest... could not be contained or represented through the stories I was being told. And, in fact, the static stories were being given way too much importance over the ever-unfolding awareness that could be tapped into every present moment. There is so much beyond religion. Do we want the perceived comfort and validation of a story... do we need the perceived control and "knowns" that gives us... or do we want to experience the ever-present connection and awareness of how much a part of everything we divinely are?

yep. Robert Sheckley - long forgotten comedic philosophical thinker that wrote scifi in the 50's (Duglas Adams was a fan - ironic that he is known and his better mentor is now long forgotten)

"ask a foolish question" short story is my entire philosophy per knowing Truth - i'm not able even if it was presented before me - my nature as an ant is too limited.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33854/3 ... 3854-h.htm

I do feel sorry for The Answerer though (being not large nor small), for HE Knew (all things Truth /etc) - and was lonely because he wishe dto share it - and welcome visitors so he can tell then The Truth - but all that visited Him lacked the nature to understand the Truth - so lonely the Answerer - sitting on his planet "neither large nor small".

i hope he/she/it is doing well - alone - knowing Truth - and knowing all visitors that come cannot know Truth even when Answerer tried to help them to see it so he is not so lonely "rephrase the question"- lol).

;-(. poor Answerer

[gaffo]

You have His word. You may listen or ignore at your leisure.

or peril, since she may die tommorrrow and your God's mercy does not extend to those in Hell that repent.

[gaffo]

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “... everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. ...”

Hebrews 11:12&13 "... so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith ...

Excellent. Thanks for that.

In a way, you've just troubled Lace's world, if she's 'listening' and thinking. I thought of mentioning that fact myself, because it leads to exactly the necessary question.

When Jesus promised "life" to people, one thing is very clear: He certainly knew that physical death wasn't disappearing in the immediate. He even told people like his disciples that they would die, despite being His disciples, and prophesied that many of his followers would be put to death. He, Himself foretold His own death, for that matter. And certainly, as the Hebrews passage pointed out, the Old Testament figures all died.

So what "life" and what "death" can He have thought He was talking about? It very clearly cannot have been what most people think of immediately when they hear the word "death," can it?

Well, what do you think?

I don't think Saudner is affirming your view but countering it by providing another verse in another book that say that in effect "our ancestors had faith but died anyway" - i assuem the author wasa impying the new faith of Chrsitianity is not like the old one so not die - (but if so provide that part in Hebrws (isn't Hebrews the odd man out in the two theologies - Michelsidek is Jebus and Jebus is the Archangel Michel? no other works claims either assirtion.

i welcoem suanders clariifing if he is affirming your view (I dont thnk he is) - or siding with me - that his post showed a contradiction to your assirtion that "all that beleive as saved" blah blah blah - and saunders - put me in my place if i'm wrong about my interpretatio of your post.

[gaffo]

When Jesus promised "life" to people, one thing is very clear: He certainly knew that physical death wasn't disappearing in the immediate. He even told people like his disciples that they would die, despite being His disciples, and prophesied that many of his followers would be put to death. He, Himself foretold His own death, for that matter. And certainly, as the Hebrews passage pointed out, the Old Testament figures all died.

So what "life" and what "death" can He have thought He was talking about? It very clearly cannot have been what most people think of immediately when they hear the word "death," can it?

So what were all the forms of death you were referring to?

there is only one form of life and one form of death.

wen you see an animal alive you do not say - hhhm it see it is a particular form of alive - same with dead.

I had to kill my cat 5 months ago - she was only 13 yrs old - healthy and strurdy at 12.75, but the last 3 months lost 1/2 her weight - shelled out 800 buck on vets to find the casue and try to revers the illness - they could not find a cause - blood tests came back "ok" - by the last wek she was crying to me to "fix her" she was in pain, saw me as her mom and wanted me to fix her - i could not.

I only had a choice to either kill hr now or later - 2 more weeks of pain. i chose the former - i shelled out 300 bukc (v 50 or so for me to carry her to the vet office) - i called the Angel of Death to kill my cat on Christmas eve last yr - so that she would die at home instead of the vet clinic - she was also always fearfull of people outside of m - i always though "how silly to be afraid of my friend Bob and John - you've scenen then while ruing away at least 40 times over the years when they show up at my house. so not rason to be ffearfull on her part --------well the last time, when the angle of death showed up to inject my best friend - Fidget was as sual cringy- tried to run away - "stranger danger" - but this time the only time - she had cause to fear!!!!!!!!! for thi time the staranger offered death!.......so my best buddy was afriad of all folks except me - her mom - for 13 yrs for no reason - but that last time he had a reason! ;-/.

she never feared me, but it was me who killed her ;-(. not the vet i called to my home - not really.

I saw the whole proces and it breaks my heart - took 20 minutes - first shot made her fel good - startd suckling (referting to kittenhood) - second shot 10 minutes in was in the stomach - she was too thin to find a vien by that time - 6 minutes later she stopped breathing, took another 3 minutes for her heart to stop - after slwoing down.

i had the duty yo bury her - eyes opened after death - in my backyard witin 5 minutes (I dug the grave and bought the soil 2 weeks earlier) of death.

I remember her eyes wide open on a sunner december day - pupils wide open/dialated (if alive she eyes would be like snake eyes - slits due to sun) - uttlery lifles.

-----------------

emmanual is fine with a God for man and no God for the rest of us.

my best firend was an animal, and vise versa - and if God only gave me a soul and not Fidget- then I give my soul back to emmanual's god.

is my best friend was just a soules animal (plant) - then i want emmanual's god to make me souless like my bst friend - so we can die and never rise again - being without souls.

[gaffo]

All of the qualities that human beings are naturally born with and capable of are not dependent on whether or not a person ever hears of, or believes in, a god. Does anyone here not agree with that?

agreed

Claims which cast non-theists as doomed for not subscribing to the belief of a god, seem obviously to be the work of humans who, themselves, cannot perceive or fathom perfect magnificence throughout all, greater than their own small thoughts and fears.

no, maybe thoe theists claims are True and YHWH exists as the True god - or Zeus - whomever - but since this is a western formumi'll fixate on YHWH.

I'm just a dumb atheist - so maybe there is a god and he is a dick - sends me and otehr - and makes animals without sols so not offeredd life after death - to Hell - so I and others of Hindu or Muslim +thousands of others - not even counting all the billions that lived and died 2000 yrs ago before Christ so never heard him in this life on earth - to just sit in Hell and cry out to a God they now know - afteer fiding thmeselves in Hell - to no avail.

so no, i have no need to affirm any kind of God - adn so no need to affrim a just one if there is one. maybe the one god there is is just a dick - and affimr the bible - all those taht go to hell sit there forever - even if they repent.

As an atheist i cant make god to make me not fear my death, nor can i re-write the bible to make him just and allow me to repent from Hell to be saved.


------so since i can't know if there is a God nor make him just - i just sit here until my death - not worry about it - ince both are outside ofmy p[ower to chenge - and live the best i can until my dath. and after, well what shall be shall be and i don't fixate upon.


of course i fear death as an athesit - i shall always fear the death of myself.

[gaffo]

Is that correct?

Neither. Even the people who take it as a mythos don't take it as "nonsense." You're missing the point.

You're still misunderstanding the term. "Original sin" we might say, is something like inheriting a gene for a dread disease like cystic fibrosis: you might not have actually committed a sin at birth, -- how could you? -- but you will. Everyone does.

That's what "original sin" implies. It's not "original sins," as if you inherit the penalty for all Adam's particular misdeeds; it's "sin," singular, meaning the propensity and inclination, the nature of sin. And it's manifestly inherent in all of us, so the empirical evidence for it is awfully strong.

I think i understand what you are saying here - not sure though.

per my view man was just one of the many beasts of the field until he ate of the fruit - prior he had no self undertanding=reflection (not self aware - unlike the God), the sanke spoke the truth BTW - when man ate of one of the two tree - the on eof wisdom, his eyes opened and he understood himself, and ow small he was WRt to God - why he hid from god after - prior he was like my cat - veiwing me as an equal buddy - instead of a higher being.

BTW the eating of that first tree was not a sin, it was a rise from animal to man for man - had any other animal ate from it they would be manlike. God got afriad that man would overthrow him - like Chronos with his son Zues - so removed that other tree - tha tof immortality.

;-/. oh well.

[gaffo]

Excellent. Thanks for that.

In a way, you've just troubled Lace's world, if she's 'listening' and thinking. I thought of mentioning that fact myself, because it leads to exactly the necessary question.

When Jesus promised "life" to people, one thing is very clear: He certainly knew that physical death wasn't disappearing in the immediate. He even told people like his disciples that they would die, despite being His disciples, and prophesied that many of his followers would be put to death. He, Himself foretold His own death, for that matter. And certainly, as the Hebrews passage pointed out, the Old Testament figures all died.

So what "life" and what "death" can He have thought He was talking about? It very clearly cannot have been what most people think of immediately when they hear the word "death," can it?

Well, what do you think?

I think it's a fudge of an obvious contradiction.

Well, let's see if that hypothesis makes sense.

You'd have to suppose that Jesus was either a) unaware death existed, b) deceived about his ability to do anything about it, c) deliberately misleading people, d) being purely metaphorical, or e) meant more than just the death we all have at the end of life.

Of course, a) and b) are pretty implausible, c) requires one to assume that Jesus was not at all the kind of moral exemplar most take Him to be, but the sort of person who might do that...very hard to sustain, d) is possible, but begs for a lot of elaboration if one opts for it...and if you aren't going to opt for one of those, or some other you want to suggest, we're left with e).

What do you think?

I think i fyou wan tto know the view o fJesus on the matter you can't find since he left no record.

if you wish to know the view of the matter per John or the authoer of Hebrews (not Sual - but a latter author not nammed) - you can read their works.

[gaffo]

Can you please show what you are specifically referring to?

A short quotation, then? I can do that.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Rm. 3:23)

Immanuel Can, please explain to us how the children in the following image...



...have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God?
_______

as soon as you have self awareness you have to be carefull. for a 6yr old that sins and never accepts Christ gooes to Hell forever. like most of the rest of us.

with 2 million yr of pre histroy and today worlds with 8/10th not saved - Hell must be bursting with former alive lif in cages lightyears wide, and haven must be almost unpolulated - 1/2 billlion at most. the rest 10 billion are sitting burning in hell forver.

lovely.


but remember God is one of mercy and lvoe - lol.

[gaffo]

I think it's a fudge of an obvious contradiction.

Well, let's see if that hypothesis makes sense.

You'd have to suppose that Jesus was either a) unaware death existed, b) deceived about his ability to do anything about it, c) deliberately misleading people, d) being purely metaphorical, or e) meant more than just the death we all have at the end of life.

Of course, a) and b) are pretty implausible, c) requires one to assume that Jesus was not at all the kind of moral exemplar most take Him to be, but the sort of person who might do that...very hard to sustain, d) is possible, but begs for a lot of elaboration if one opts for it...and if you aren't going to opt for one of those, or some other you want to suggest, we're left with e).

What do you think?

I have no idea what Jesus said or didn't say, or if he said anything. I only know some writer (attributed to John) said Jesus said anyone who believed, "would never die," and another writer (usually attributed to Luke) named a whole host of individuals that believed and said they all died. What that writer (if it was Luke) wrote seems most likely true, since everyone there has ever been up 'til now has died, but what the other writer (if it was John) wrote is doubtful, whoever was supposed to have said it, because no one yet has not died. In any case, they cannot both be true.

per historical accuracy- "luke" did not write Hebrews - he wrote Acts of the Apostles and Gospel of Luke.

TRadition attributes Saul (Paul - i hate using Paul's name because i hate Paul as a person - so use Saul instead - i don't hate any of the other authors of the New Tstament - i view the rest of them as having honest belief - Saul i do not see as so but just a shyster-phoney opportunist) - anyway the author of Hebrews is attributed to Saul, but modern sholorship dos not beleive it was authored by him but by a later unattributed author (BTW author of Hebrews not Saul - and offer a hand to him as assuming he had an honest theological view on things during his time).

I offer a hand to all the authors of the NT ecept Saul and a hand to all the authors of the OT - xcept Levitcus (a filthy rag - on par withthe worst of the Koran).

2-cents.

per your post - i agree with it - just wished to clarify who wrote what on the matter.

[gaffo]

if you really wanna know what, for example, Christianity is about -- stop listenin' to Christians and go get yourself a Bible and start readin'.

Straight, simple and to the point - and true!!!!!!!

as i did in the 80's - as i did the Koran.

i do like most of the NT - but find i like the OT more (minus the Torah) - ya i know "what? you like the OT minus the torah!!!!!????????? - yes because the Minor Prophets works are the best o fthe OT.

same with NT - i like most of it - minus Sauls 13 letters - ys i know today's Christianity is Saul's letters and not Jesus brother's work James nor his other borther Jude, nor Peter......whichi s sad, but it is what it is.

oh well.

[gaffo]

I said absolutely nothing about original "sins" (plural)

Fine.

But so far as I can see, you still don't show you know the difference between inheriting a sin nature and actually sinning. You can't inherit the latter, and "original sin" doesn't mean you can. So when Scripture says, "All have sinned," it's not referring to "original sin" inherited from Adam.

Book of Jubalee - one i love BTW - ys i know it not canon, claims that the animals inherited sin along with men - and the whole earth "fell" - some animals became carnivores (when prior to Adam; "fall" all animal ate straw - hense the Jesus quote about the lion lying down with the lamb and (both) eating straw - i.e. at the end times the lion will loose his incisors and become like a lamb (its clear from jesus reference - which i think is authentic sicn it is from more than one book of the bible - he had read or know of and affirmed the teaching of Jubalees).

BTW according to Jubalees animals and man could talk to each other - until the fall - when man separated himself from the rest of the beast of the field - then animals could not talk to man - i assume they could to ach other? - and man's sin (I see no sin - just a rise - just telling you what the book says here) infected the rest of the world/animal kingdon, and so the creation of carnivore (and man killing animals to wear for clothing BTW).

and eating meat - you may know of the levites? vegitarians - John the Baptist was a vegitarian - though i think he ate locusts.

there is a link in archaic Chrsitanity/Judasim and vegitarianism - eating meat is sinfull - like being a carnivore - so the devout are vegitargians.

2-cents.

Jubalees is a great works BTW - one of my top 5 of all - fk the canon, i take what i read and ignore canon. Shepard of Hermis and Didache are two others worhty of the conon and left out/

enoch - all 2 - original mostly, then secrets of - decent, better than saul' filth - not as good as Jubalee - but still out of canon.

oh well.

as long as i retain my mind and ignore canon i have no fear upon judging works afterr them.

[gaffo]

I said absolutely nothing about original "sins" (plural)

Fine.

But so far as I can see, you still don't show you know the difference between inheriting a sin nature and actually sinning.

And so far as I can see, you are incapable of understanding what people are saying to you.

Or worse yet, understanding it but absolutely refusing to entertain anything that might show problems with the belief system that you are so emotionally invested in.

And the emotion that I am mostly referring to is "fear."

For it is obvious...

(based on your online persona and what you have stated in many of your almost 12,000 posts)

...that you deeply fear that if you harbor or display any doubt in your belief in the tenets of Christianity, you will be punished by God.

To which I say, did it ever cross your mind that the Creator of a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets may not be as mean-spirited or as petty as the Bible makes him out to be?

Anyway, again I ask you, what is the historical source from which we have "inherited" a sinful nature?
_______

interesting physological supposition.

you might be right - not sure - don;t know Emanual enough to be far to him - but you may be.

good post BTW.