|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/03/2004 : 23:04:18 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid wrote:quote:
Tithes are a way for the church to stay on it's feet financially. Who is supposed to pay those bills? According to Christianity, God gives to His people, and he expects them to return a small portion of it in order to keep the church going.
And according to Jesus, we're supposed to pray in closets, out of sight of others. Financially supporting a church (or even going to one) seems anathema to that instruction, so one is left wondering why anyone does so.quote:
And then another note...those stories, from what I understand of them, aren't taught as fact anymore. They are remembered still, but aren't considered to be true.
Go ahead and ask a serious Isis worshipper if the old tales are false. You should get the same answer you would give if someone were to ask you if the Bible were false.
And from Religious Tolerance.org, one can learn that "Hinduism is generally regarded as the world's oldest organized religion." It's got about 1,500 years on Christianity, so don't go counting your "aren't considered to be true" chickens before they've hatched. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 06:04:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Moakley,
You are equating the doctorine of the church administration with the reason most pastors devote their life to the church. I have been to several different Christian churches during my search for religion. The ones stressing tithing have been in the extreme minority. Mostly, the more radical Evangelical Fundamentalist a denomination is, the more they stress tithing to fund their "war on Satan". (See Bob Larson Ministries for example.)
I apologize for not being clearer. I only mentioned the story about tithing as an illustration of what happened when I began looking at the complete picture. No longer isolating the God stories and attributes from one another. Didn't add up to something based in reality. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 06:12:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
According to Christianity, God gives to His people, and he expects them to return a small portion of it in order to keep the church going. And again I agree some people have used Christianity to their own financial profit, and if it were up to me they would be imprisoned for stealing from people, because some of the people they take money from don't have the money to spare, but are desperate for an answer. None of the churches I have attended have said "You have to give or you're going to hell" or anything like that. Tithes aren't monitored...no one knows who pays their tithes and who doesn't, discluding the treasurer, and the only way he knows is if you write a check. There have never been tabs kept on tithe givers in any church I've ever been in, and if there were, I would stand up and tell the pastor how wrong he was. Someone said that they stopped giving their tithe and then 4 weeks later someone asked them why they stopped giving their tithe...man I wish I'd been there, because that's nobody's business but your own...but hey that's just my opinion I guess;)
Jarrid
Agreed, but as the plates are being passed around, usually by the same individuals, it becomes clear who is or isn't making a deposit. If depositing behavior changes, that will be observed. If God is responsible for giving to his flock(s), then he appears to be a bit random in his decision making. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 07:43:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
Val,
I do understand that there are some people who use religion to gain profits for themselves, but judging every pastor by that or saying that Christianity is a money scheme because of a few people would be like me saying that all cars are pink because I've seen a few cars that are pink. I've not seen all the cars in the world, and the majority of the cars may not be of pink. The pastors that I've known, which have been many, have not been in this type of business for financial gain. Also, again to clarify, discluding maybe the Catholic church in the 1500's or whatever, the church isn't a large corporation. There isn't a whole lot of profit. The church I attend now is actually in debt every month by several hundred dollars(and this isn't in debt to the pastor, this is in debt to bill collectors). My church I came from before I moved here to South Dakota was 40 thousand dollars in debt. Tithes aren't a way for the pastor to get rich. Tithes are a way for the church to stay on it's feet financially. Who is supposed to pay those bills? According to Christianity, God gives to His people, and he expects them to return a small portion of it in order to keep the church going. And again I agree some people have used Christianity to their own financial profit, and if it were up to me they would be imprisoned for stealing from people, because some of the people they take money from don't have the money to spare, but are desperate for an answer. None of the churches I have attended have said "You have to give or you're going to hell" or anything like that. Tithes aren't monitored...no one knows who pays their tithes and who doesn't, discluding the treasurer, and the only way he knows is if you write a check. There have never been tabs kept on tithe givers in any church I've ever been in, and if there were, I would stand up and tell the pastor how wrong he was. Someone said that they stopped giving their tithe and then 4 weeks later someone asked them why they stopped giving their tithe...man I wish I'd been there, because that's nobody's business but your own...but hey that's just my opinion I guess;)
Jarrid
Wicca and several other religions don't build structures or own property specifically for worship. Again, tithing is unnecessary for religious conviction. Tithing is a way for the church administration to get money. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 07:47:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
Oh and also Val, I guarded myself on that one;) if you'll notice, I said "the majority of 'made up stories' don't last 2000 years." And then another note...those stories, from what I understand of them, aren't taught as fact anymore. They are remembered still, but aren't considered to be true.
I see. So the coincidence that the mythos you ascribe to just happens to be in force today has some sort of special validating power? If one looks back at the mythos of Hercules, he was considered to be a real person for over 2000 years, how is that any different than the story of Jesus? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
audie123
New Member
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2004 : 19:31:35 [Permalink]
|
It is hard to dismiss the fact that historically a Jesus did exist. Even the historian Josephus admitted that. What is more difficult to prove is that he was: (a) the Messiah, and (b) resurrected. To accomplish this you have to rely on only 2 data sources: (a) the Bible and (b) subjective experience, (eg. "I know it's true because I feel it in my heart, or he changed me, or...").
There are no primary documents written in the first century that support the ressurection other than the Bible. Josephus states that the disciples "claimed" it but offers no opinion that it happened. If it was an explosive event as the biblical accounts claim one would imagine that Josephus gave it much more attention. But the didn't.
Ultimately, one has to accept or reject the biblical accounts to determine the historical accuracy. Unfortunately, to do that one has to be able to clearly demonstrate that the New Testament Canon assembled post-Constantinian was indeed "preserved" through the growing politicization of the church that began as early AD 70 (if not earlier). Furthermore, one has to believe that the individuals (Roman religious heirarchy) who assembled the canon were indeed committed to maintaining absolute integrity when selecting some accounts of the resurrection over other accounts that gave a different account of the event altogether.
As such, to "believe in Jesus, and accept him in your heart," really means that you are accepting the biblical account as instituted by Constantine while he was still an active "pagan," in lifestyle and religion.
One also has to accept that the folks who put the New Testament canon together did not have any motives to preserve the Roman heirarchy and theology which is so replete in the New Testament.
So, it involves a tremendous amount of faith, and a whole lot of ignoring history and human nature to accept the biblical accounts.
I for one have a difficult time thinking God wants me to sacrifice my brain, my god given intellect, to have that kind of faith.
And subjectively? To claim it's true because you "feel" it is nonsense. Sincerity never proved anything. If feeling it makes it true then the Heaven Gate eunuchs must be having a grand time traveling through the galaxy. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2004 : 20:11:00 [Permalink]
|
| Welcome audie123. I believe that I'm going to enjoy reading your comments. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 15:48:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
Oh and also Val, I guarded myself on that one;) if you'll notice, I said "the majority of 'made up stories' don't last 2000 years." And then another note...those stories, from what I understand of them, aren't taught as fact anymore. They are remembered still, but aren't considered to be true.
Then, realize that the Jesus myth is loosing followers too, and more and more people realize it for what is is: a myth among many other. We still remember it, but we do no longer hold it as truth, because we have uncovered so much evidense that runs contrary to the myth. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
kellbelle0214
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2004 : 16:56:04 [Permalink]
|
| Content deleted, see next post - Dave W. |
|
|
|
kellbelle0214
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2004 : 17:02:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
The probabilites are that Jesus is the same kind of myth that Hercules was.
Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
You assert that "Jesus, like Hercules, probably never existed at all." I would really appreciate an honest effort on your part to defend that assertion. If, for whatever reason, you choose not to do so, we can simply let the topic die. What you're doing here, however, is transparent and unworthy of you.
Allow me.
There are no documents outside the Bible which mention the existance of a man who led a cult of Jews that believed him to be the Messiah. In addition, the story of Jesus parallels the histories of other mythological figures. Most closely to the God Mithra, an ancient Iranian God. The fact that a Mithraic cult existed in Italy roughly between 67 BCE and 500 CE suggests that Jesus may be the cult of Mithra reworked. As Christianity, a possible Mithraic/Jewish sub-sect, ascended, Mithras worship declined until the Catholic Church was able to utterly destroy it in the 5th Century CE.
Given that we have a heavily edited document (the Bible) as the only mention of Jesus during the time frame 5 BCE- 33 CE, it is highly unlikely that a Jewish Rabbinical figure named Jesus existed during that time frame. No Jewish records record a Jesus of Nazareth. Nor do Roman.
**** I messed up when I replied last time: so sorry! -this is how it is supposed to read:
Hi.
Well~I'm shocked that you could make the statement that there is absolutely no Jewish or Roman records of a Jesus of Nazareth. You have obviously not done your research. I, on the other hand have and am more than happy to share it with you and whoever else decides to read this. There is PLENTY of non- Christian records of Jesus. I have spent some time typing out some of these witnesses and their accounts. If you would like more information on any of them feel free to contact me:)
Many ancient secular writers mention Jesus and the He birthed. The fact that they are usually antagonistic to Christianity makes them especially good witnesses, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events surrounding a religious leader and His following, which they disdain.
According to Habermas, “Cornelius Tactius (c.A.D.55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half a dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the ‘greatest historian' of ancient Rome. Tacitus's most acclaimed works are The Annals and the Histories. The Annals cover the period from Augustus's death in A.D. 14 to that of Nero in A.D. 68, while the Histories begin after Nero's death and proceed to that Domintian in A.D. 96”(Habermas, VHCELJ, 87). Writing in the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome.
Tacitus's comments provide us with testimony by the leading Roman historian of his day “independent confirmation that Jesus lived and was formally executed in Judea in the reign of Tiberius and during Pontius Pilate's office as procurator (technically still a prefect, A.D. 26-36).
Lucian of Samosata
A Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century, Lucian spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians, ne |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2004 : 18:51:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by kellbelle0214
Well~I'm shocked that you could make the statement that there is absolutely no Jewish or Roman records of a Jesus of Nazareth. You have obviously not done your research.
I have - extensively. While an agnostic on the question of historicity, I will gladly take you on. There's nothing that I enjoy quite so much as playing with shocked pedants. But I suggest that we proceed in a somewhat more disciplined way: present your probative records one by one, and we'll see where it leads us ... |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2004 : 08:53:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by kellbelle0214
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Allow me.
There are no documents outside the Bible which mention the existance of a man who led a cult of Jews that believed him to be the Messiah. In addition, the story of Jesus parallels the histories of other mythological figures. Most closely to the God Mithra, an ancient Iranian God. The fact that a Mithraic cult existed in Italy roughly between 67 BCE and 500 CE suggests that Jesus may be the cult of Mithra reworked. As Christianity, a possible Mithraic/Jewish sub-sect, ascended, Mithras worship declined until the Catholic Church was able to utterly destroy it in the 5th Century CE.
Given that we have a heavily edited document (the Bible) as the only mention of Jesus during the time frame 5 BCE- 33 CE, it is highly unlikely that a Jewish Rabbinical figure named Jesus existed during that time frame. No Jewish records record a Jesus of Nazareth. Nor do Roman.
**** I messed up when I replied last time: so sorry! -this is how it is supposed to read:
Hi.
Well~I'm shocked that you could make the statement that there is absolutely no Jewish or Roman records of a Jesus of Nazareth. You have obviously not done your research. I, on the other hand have and am more than happy to share it with you and whoever else decides to read this. There is PLENTY of non- Christian records of Jesus. I have spent some time typing out some of these witnesses and their accounts. If you would like more information on any of them feel free to contact me:)
You might be surprised about how much research I've done.
quote:
Many ancient secular writers mention Jesus and the He birthed. The fact that they are usually antagonistic to Christianity makes them especially good witnesses, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events surrounding a religious leader and His following, which they disdain.
According to Habermas, “Cornelius Tactius (c.A.D.55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half a dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the ‘greatest historian' of ancient Rome. Tacitus's most acclaimed works are The Annals and the Histories. The Annals cover the period from Augustus's death in A.D. 14 to that of Nero in A.D. 68, while the Histories begin after Nero's death and proceed to that Domintian in A.D. 96”(Habermas, VHCELJ, 87). Writing in the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome.
Tacitus's comments provide us with testimony by the leading Roman historian of his day “independent confirmation that Jesus lived and was formally executed in Judea in the reign of Tiberius and during Pontius Pilate's office as procurator (technically still a prefect, A.D. 26-36).
"allude" does not equal "definatively reference".
quote:
Lucian of Samosata
A Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century, Lucian spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians, never assuming or arguing that they were unreal. As Lucian said: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…they deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2004 : 18:40:07 [Permalink]
|
| Damn you, ValiantDancer! It would have been far more fun to pummel our shocked pedant piecemeal. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
