what is the greatest threat to christianty toda.Is it the muslim or the enemy within?

[unculbact]

How do you disprove polytheism? I'm curious.

If I was to go on with every proof from every church doctor I've read, we'll be here for (giggle) - Eternity! - so here's the short version with their originators, some of whom did not give up polytheism altogether.

1. PLATONIC ARGUMENT (Taken to the end Plato never finished): God is the Greatest Good that there can be. Since any change in Him or his Will would be away from perfection, He is Unchangeable. Since Eternal Life and Felicity is the Greatest Good that there can be, He is Eternal (neither a beginning nor an end), and happy. Since he is Eternal, without a beginning, he is the Creator of All Things, since all besides Him had a beginning. Logically, there can only be one such creature. If there were two or more, there would be differences between them, One less perfect than The Other, and the lesser creatures would not be The Greatest Good.

2. VARRO-AUGUSTINIAN ARGUMENT: All polytheistic religions describe a race of creatures that are immortal, but not eternal. They themselves were created. Some of these DO have a leader, a King who did Create All Things - in this narrative, only that King is truly a god. The other creatures, though called gods, are His creations and obey his will, so at the most, if they exist, they are simply a race of creatures no more and no less than us, except that they are incorporeal.

In the Greco-Roman narratives, similar to the Norse narratives, the gods themselves are described as being subject to wrath, lust, anger, love, ect. Their lives can be disturbed, and felicity interrupted. This is not the property of an Eternal Creature, who knows no disturbance. In the Greco-Roman-Norse mythologies, the souls and wills of "the gods" are malleable, and changeable, subject to forces outside of themselves. These creatures cannot be gods.

Keeping the Greco-Roman-Norse mythology and adding in the Hindu pantheology, even these creatures cannot be described as gods, or God. The most fundamental property of God is that he himself knows Eternal Life and Felicity, and is the only creature that can grant it.

Eternal Life and Felicity is the greatest good any mortal or immortal creature can know. None of the gods in polytheological religions have the power to grant such a thing, except those that have a God-King who is the Creator of All Things. As both Augustine and Varro noted, most of the gods in any pantheon are worthless for attaining such a goal, being subject to the will of the Creator, and involved in menial jobs in the corporeal world. Athena may help you shoot your arrow straight, and keep virgins virgins, but if you want Eternal Life and Happiness, da bitch don't come thru.

There's more, such as the Varro-Augustinian proof that even Zeus or Odin could not be the creator of all things, since they themselves are subject to being disturbed by emotional or even earthly forces, but this is a good overview of the subject.

 

[MechaBlade]

If I was to go on with every proof from every church doctor I've read, we'll be here for (giggle) - Eternity! - so here's the short version with their originators, some of whom did not give up polytheism altogether.

1. PLATONIC ARGUMENT (Taken to the end Plato never finished): God is the Greatest Good that there can be. Since any change in Him or his Will would be away from perfection, He is Unchangeable. Since Eternal Life and Felicity is the Greatest Good that there can be, He is Eternal (neither a beginning nor an end), and happy. Since he is Eternal, without a beginning, he is the Creator of All Things, since all besides Him had a beginning. Logically, there can only be one such creature. If there were two or more, there would be differences between them, One less perfect than The Other, and the lesser creatures would not be The Greatest Good.

2. VARRO-AUGUSTINIAN ARGUMENT: All polytheistic religions describe a race of creatures that are immortal, but not eternal. They themselves were created. Some of these DO have a leader, a King who did Create All Things - in this narrative, only that King is truly a god. The other creatures, though called gods, are His creations and obey his will, so at the most, if they exist, they are simply a race of creatures no more and no less than us, except that they are incorporeal.

In the Greco-Roman narratives, similar to the Norse narratives, the gods themselves are described as being subject to wrath, lust, anger, love, ect. Their lives can be disturbed, and felicity interrupted. This is not the property of an Eternal Creature, who knows no disturbance. In the Greco-Roman-Norse mythologies, the souls and wills of "the gods" are malleable, and changeable, subject to forces outside of themselves. These creatures cannot be gods.

Keeping the Greco-Roman-Norse mythology and adding in the Hindu pantheology, even these creatures cannot be described as gods, or God. The most fundamental property of God is that he himself knows Eternal Life and Felicity, and is the only creature that can grant it.

Eternal Life and Felicity is the greatest good any mortal or immortal creature can know. None of the gods in polytheological religions have the power to grant such a thing, except those that have a God-King who is the Creator of All Things. As both Augustine and Varro noted, most of the gods in any pantheon are worthless for attaining such a goal, being subject to the will of the Creator, and involved in menial jobs in the corporeal world. Athena may help you shoot your arrow straight, and keep virgins virgins, but if you want Eternal Life and Happiness, da bitch don't come thru.

There's more, such as the Varro-Augustinian proof that even Zeus or Odin could not be the creator of all things, since they themselves are subject to being disturbed by emotional or even earthly forces, but this is a good overview of the subject.

Yeah, these suffer from massive problems in deductive reasoning.

 

[crzydesert]

And stoning blasphemers? Is that just Punishment? When is not okay to kill?


I feel the same way about monotheism, but I asked because I think it's impossible to disprove polytheism.

I believe the Bible is for corporal punishment.
Was there any stoning of blasphemers in the New Testament? I don't think there where but I could be wrong. Things changed after Jesus died on the cross.

 

[unculbact]

Yeah, these suffer from massive problems in deductive reasoning.

I invite you to take us through them.

Do you have any thoughts of you're own or do you just like quoting great philosophers to make you look smart?

Just quoting them. This allows me to indulge in the Sin of Sloth.

 

[unculbact]

I believe the Bible is for corporal punishment.
Was there any stoning of blasphemers in the New Testament? I don't think there where but I could be wrong. Things changed after Jesus died on the cross.

The martyrdom of St. Stephen by stoning is described in The Acts. In fact, I can't think of any stoning in the Old Testament, but it's been awhile.

At another point in The Acts, the Apostle Paul and Timothy are attacked by a mob that tries to stone them, but an angel hides them (so the story goes), and they escape.

 

[MechaBlade]

If I was to go on with every proof from every church doctor I've read, we'll be here for (giggle) - Eternity! - so here's the short version with their originators, some of whom did not give up polytheism altogether.

1. PLATONIC ARGUMENT (Taken to the end Plato never finished): God is the Greatest Good that there can be.

False assumption, especially from the Roman/Greek theology point of view.

2. VARRO-AUGUSTINIAN ARGUMENT: [....]In the Greco-Roman narratives, similar to the Norse narratives, the gods themselves are described as being subject to wrath, lust, anger, love, ect. Their lives can be disturbed, and felicity interrupted. This is not the property of an Eternal Creature, who knows no disturbance.

False assumption. Even the Judeo-Christian god gets angry sometimes.

In fact, I can't think of any stoning in the Old Testament, but it's been awhile.

It's leviticus something or another.

 

[KRCummings]

Yes, but Abraham had to be prepared to kill. My point is that God says not to kill, but there are exceptions. He says "Thou shall not kill" but it's not exactly set in stone (rimshot).

I also find it distressing that you disagree with some of the rules, but you still believe in them. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than people who pick and choose what they like out of the Bible. I can only hope you haven't stoned any blasphemers yet.


How do you disprove polytheism? I'm curious.

There is nothing wrong with believing in something but disagreeing with it at the same time. God knows more than me so I gotta think his way is better than mine but human arrogance makes me think I know better sometimes. And I don't know if disagree is really the right word. Understand might be better. It is not possible for a person to understand everything God does so what may seem odd or wrong to us may make perfect sense to God and maybe even to us once we are let in on the big plan or given full understanding.
Since I am not perfect then of course I break the rules all the time. Many times I do it willingly, knowing full well that I shouldn't. Don't mean I think the rules are wrong.
I must also follow the laws of the land whether or not I think they contradict the Bible. Still, many of these old testament rules don't apply after Jesus so it doesn't matter. And some people confuse what happened in the Bible with what is Gods will. Just because somebody did something doesn't mean God liked it. Moses is looked upon as such a great man but in the end God wasn't happy with him because of things he did. Others such as Lots wife were given a chance because they were good people but then they did something stupid and were punished.
It must always be clear what God said and what people did are two different things and that many times people say something was the word of God when if you look at it, it's just some guy who said it, not the Lord.

 

[crzydesert]

I believe the Bible is for corporal punishment.
Was there any stoning of blasphemers in the New Testament? I don't think there where but I could be wrong. Things changed after Jesus died on the cross.

The only stoning for blasphemy I can find in the New Testament is John 10:31-39 which was the stoning of Christ.

I'm no Bible scholar so feel free to throw me a bone.

 

[KRCummings]

The only stoning for blasphemy I can find in the New Testament is John 10:31-39 which was the stoning of Christ.

I'm no Bible scholar so feel free to throw me a bone.

Geez, that Christ guy just couldn't catch a break.

 

[crzydesert]

Geez, that Christ guy just couldn't catch a break.

Nope, that story is a tear jerker.

 

[unculbact]

The only stoning for blasphemy I can find in the New Testament is John 10:31-39 which was the stoning of Christ.

I'm no Bible scholar so feel free to throw me a bone.

The stoning of St. Stephen is in Acts 7:57. It's instigated by the same Sanhendrin that condemned Christ.

St. Paul and Timothy are also in Acts, I forget which one.

 

[crzydesert]

So murder of innocents by humans might be okay under certain circumstances. Also, death by stoning is okay for blasphemers.

The stoning of St. Stephen is in Acts 7:57. It's instigated by the same Sanhendrin that condemned Christ.

St. Paul and Timothy are also in Acts, I forget which one.

We are talking about when and if the Bible condoned stoning for blasphemy.

 

[MechaBlade]

There is nothing wrong with believing in something but disagreeing with it at the same time.

In my opinion there is. It's like you know that no one should be put to death for saying "Screw Ye!" to god, but your faith tells you to do what he says. Like Darth Vader I see this conflict between your heart telling you what is good and your obligation to your master. Don't kill Luke, KR.

Sorry, went overboard with that metaphor.

God knows more than me so I gotta think his way is better than mine but human arrogance makes me think I know better sometimes.

You are the creation of a perfect being, crafted in his image. How could you be any less perfect?

Oh, nevermind.

 

[MechaBlade]

We are talking about when and if the Bible condoned stoning for blasphemy.

Lev 24: 14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

Isn't the Bible as relevant today as it was back then? I thought that's what we were arguing.

 

[KRCummings]

In my opinion there is. It's like you know that no one should be put to death for saying "Screw Ye!" to god, but your faith tells you to do what he says. Like Darth Vader I see this conflict between your heart telling you what is good and your obligation to your master. Don't kill Luke, KR.

Sorry, went overboard with that metaphor.


You are the creation of a perfect being, crafted in his image. How could you be any less perfect?

Oh, nevermind.

It's saying I don't understand why someone should be killed for blasphemy, not that I think it's wrong. Since I don't understand and I'm a Christian then I'm gonna go with not killing people over words. I don't think Jesus would have done it and He made it pretty clear not to do such things.
I was made in His image but it's very clear that we are not perfect from the very beginning. There may be a reason for this. It may be that God simply doesn't want to create perfect things or that we cannot be perfect and have free will at the same time or something so far out there that we couldn't possibly understand.

 

[crzydesert]

In my opinion there is. It's like you know that no one should be put to death for saying "Screw Ye!" to god, but your faith tells you to do what he says. Like Darth Vader I see this conflict between your heart telling you what is good and your obligation to your master. Don't kill Luke, KR.

Sorry, went overboard with that metaphor.


You are the creation of a perfect being, crafted in his image. How could you be any less perfect?

Oh, nevermind.

I know that the Bible is not for "death for saying "Screw Ye!" to god" Since Jesus' sacrifice. If someone came forward in these days and said God told me "we need to stone blasphemers". Than they would be crazy and need to be locked up with ol' Charlie Manson.

 

[KRCummings]

Lev 24: 14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

Isn't the Bible as relevant today as it was back then? I thought that's what we were arguing.

That's Leviticus which is old, old, old testament.
I thought we were talking about Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus who said not to go around killing people.

 

[KRCummings]

Lev 24: 14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

Isn't the Bible as relevant today as it was back then? I thought that's what we were arguing.

BTW, that same chapter you just quoted was very clearly erased by Jesus. He said to forget all that and turn the other cheek so that's what I'm gonna do when I'm able to and good enough to. Others times I'm gonna sin and smack the motherfucker down but probably not for blasphemy.

 

[MechaBlade]

It's saying I don't understand why someone should be killed for blasphemy, not that I think it's wrong. Since I don't understand and I'm a Christian then I'm gonna go with not killing people over words. I don't think Jesus would have done it and He made it pretty clear not to do such things.
I was made in His image but it's very clear that we are not perfect from the very beginning. There may be a reason for this. It may be that God simply doesn't want to create perfect things or that we cannot be perfect and have free will at the same time or something so far out there that we couldn't possibly understand.

Or God created perfect beings who are unaware of their own perfection?? Leaving the Garden of Eden was all part of God's plan perhaps?

I know that the Bible is not for "death for saying "Screw Ye!" to god" Since Jesus' sacrifice. If someone came forward in these days and said God told me "we need to stone blasphemers". Than they would be crazy and need to be locked up with ol' Charlie Manson.

I guess. I have trouble remember which parts of the Bible are GOD'S WORD and which are GOD'S WORD (WAIT, REVISED IN THE BIBLE PART II).

That's Leviticus which is old, old, old testament.
I thought we were talking about Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus who said not to go around killing people.

It's all the same book. And Christians use Leviticus all the time to condemn gays.

 

[KRCummings]

Or God created perfect beings who are unaware of their own perfection?? Leaving the Garden of Eden was all part of God's plan perhaps?


I guess. I have trouble remember which parts of the Bible are GOD'S WORD and which are GOD'S WORD (WAIT, REVISED IN THE BIBLE PART II).


It's all the same book. And Christians use Leviticus all the time to condemn gays.

Christians also go around disrupting funerals and bombing clinics and killing blacks and jews and all kinds of things. Don't make them right and certainly don't make them good Christians.
A Christian by definition is supposed to follow the teaching of Jesus and Jesus said to forget a lot of what had been previously said.

 

[unculbact]

1. PLATONIC ARGUMENT (Taken to the end Plato never finished): God is the Greatest Good that there can be.

False assumption, especially from the Roman/Greek theology point of view.

If not God, than what is the Greatest Good that can be sought?


2. VARRO-AUGUSTINIAN ARGUMENT: [....]In the Greco-Roman narratives, similar to the Norse narratives, the gods themselves are described as being subject to wrath, lust, anger, love, ect. Their lives can be disturbed, and felicity interrupted. This is not the property of an Eternal Creature, who knows no disturbance.

False assumption. Even the Judeo-Christian god gets angry sometimes.

Good point. I'll let Augustine handle that one.

THE CITY OF GOD, Book XV

Chap. 25 Of the Anger of God, which does not inflame his mind, nor disturb His unchangeable tranquility

The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like a man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain. But if Scripture were not be use such expressions as the above, it would not familiarly insinuate itself into the minds of all classes of men, whom it seeks access to for their good, that it may alarm the proud, arouse the careless, exercise the inquisitive, and satisfy the intelligent; and this it could not do, did it not first stoop, and in a manner descend, to them where they lie.
-------------------------------
We do not have the power to drive God into a purple-faced foaming rage. Nothing we can do can hurt him. The "wrath" of God is the same as "the finger of God" parting the Red Sea. It's an anthropomorphism. In the Greco-Roman-Nordic pantheology, it isn't, the "gods" react just like people.

You are the creation of a perfect being, crafted in his image. How could you be any less perfect?

Because of original sin. KR's nature, created by God, is perfect. However, her will is not perfect, and is opposed to her nature.

This ties in with the above. In many ways, the "wrath" of God is not even of his doing. If we get drunk, and wake up with a hangover, a brilliant blue sky with the Sun shining in it is not a cause of delight, but of great pain and resentment. What once gave us great pleasure is now a source of misery. We may even pray to have it go away.

The properties of the sky and Sun have not changed, nor are they "angry" with us. In that situation, we are the ones who have changed. Our indulgence in gluttony has changed us so that we can no longer enjoy a sunny day, and so, we pay for our sins.

 

[crzydesert]

I guess. I have trouble remember which parts of the Bible are GOD'S WORD and which are GOD'S WORD (WAIT, REVISED IN THE BIBLE PART II).

The entire Bible is God's Word. In the Old Testaments we had to sacrifice animals and such for our sins. Since than God sacrificed his only begotten son for our sins (the perfect sacrifice) which is the New Testaments.

 

[MechaBlade]

If not God, than what is the Greatest Good that can be sought?

I would say that the Romans had no notion of the Greatest Good. Doesn't exist, at least not in the form of a being.

Good point. I'll let Augustine handle that one.

THE CITY OF GOD, Book XV

Chap. 25 Of the Anger of God, which does not inflame his mind, nor disturb His unchangeable tranquility

The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. [...]
We do not have the power to drive God into a purple-faced foaming rage.

So god gets angry, but not "really angry." What a cop out, and I doubt the original writers/believers of the Bible thought that way. They were just evolving from polytheism, after all.

Because of original sin. Her nature, created by God, is perfect. However, her will is not perfect, and is opposed to her nature.

Her will was crafted by god, her brain, her wants and needs, and her ability to fulfill God's will was crafted by god. Surely they must be perfect as well.

This ties in with the above. In many ways, the "wrath" of God is not even of his doing. If we get drunk, and wake up with a hangover, a brilliant blue sky with the Sun shining in it is not a cause of delight, but of great pain and resentment. What once gave us great pleasure is now a source of misery. We may even pray to have it go away.

The properties of the sky and Sun have not changed, nor are they "angry" with us. In that situation, we are the ones who have changed. Our indulgence in gluttony has changed us so that we can no longer enjoy a sunny day, and so, we pay for our sins.

God's active action is different from what the sun does every day. Whether you drink or not, the sun still comes up. Whether Sodomites commit sodomy or not change whether their town is destroyed by god.

"God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day." Psalm 7:11
"For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God"
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son"

The Bible describes god as a very emotional being.

 

[MechaBlade]

The entire Bible is God's Word. In the Old Testaments we had to sacrifice animals and such for our sins. Since than God sacrificed his only begotten son for our sins (the perfect sacrifice) which is the New Testaments.

So what changed in order for us to eat shellfish?

 

[crzydesert]

So what changed in order for us to eat shellfish?

You lost me on that one.