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

[MechaBlade]

You lost me on that one.

You said because of Christ's sacrifice, we don't have to sacrifice animals (I didn't know that was even in the bible).

The Old Testament says "No shellfish". Christ says, "all food's okay" or something like that. What changed? Did christ die so we could eat shrimp?

 

[The Mutt]

You said because of Christ's sacrifice, we don't have to sacrifice animals (I didn't know that was even in the bible).

The Old Testament says "No shellfish". Christ says, "all food's okay" or something like that. What changed? Did christ die so we could eat shrimp?

Christ died so you could eat Fishsticks.

Mrs. Paul's Fishsticks.

She was the Apostle Paul's wife.

Swear to God.

.

 

[crzydesert]

So what changed in order for us to eat shellfish?

All I can say is we are not bound by Mosaic Law since Christ's sacrifice.

 

[crzydesert]

You said because of Christ's sacrifice, we don't have to sacrifice animals (I didn't know that was even in the bible).

Looks like you have some studying to do.

 

[The Mutt]

Christianity is doomed. its that simple, like. but what is the cause?

Because children eventually grow up and realize there is no Santa Claus.

 

[MechaBlade]

Swear to God.

.

Sinner! *stone*

 

[MechaBlade]

Looks like you have some studying to do.

No thanks, I'll take your word on it.

Because children eventually grow up and realize there is no Santa Claus.

There's no...

*single tear drops*

 

[MechaBlade]

All I can say is we are not bound by Mosaic Law since Christ's sacrifice.

I would argue that it's conflicting messages from different cultures and Christians just happen to believe one book overrules the other.

 

[phrodeau]

Only those who wished to atone for their sins were obliged to sacrifice animals. It was a way of feeling better about yourself.

If you acknowledge that the sacrifice of Jesus atones for the entire world's sins past and future, you've taken away the inequality between those who choose to atone and those who don't. Yet there still seems to be a lot of disdain between those groups. Why is that?

 

[crzydesert]

Sinner! *stone*

"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

 

[crzydesert]

I would argue that it's conflicting messages from different cultures and Christians just happen to believe one book overrules the other.

That's an ignorant statement since you have not studied the subject.

 

[The Mutt]

No thanks, I'll take your word on it.


There's no...

*single tear drops*

Sorry, I should have used spoiler tags.

 

[phrodeau]

Here's a "what if".

You're one of the eleven remaining Disciples. Another comes to you on the day after Jesus died on the cross and says, "We're all going to the tomb of Jesus to eat His flesh and drink His blood, like He told us to do."

Would you do it?

 

[crzydesert]

Yet there still seems to be a lot of disdain between those groups. Why is that?

Who are these "groups" you are talking about and who talks like that?

 

[crzydesert]

Here's a "what if".

You're one of the eleven remaining Disciples. Another comes to you on the day after Jesus died on the cross and says, "We're all going to the tomb of Jesus to eat His flesh and drink His blood, like He told us to do."

Would you do it?

My God brother are you on drugs?

 

[sweetabama]

i thought it was krcummings.

 

[MechaBlade]

"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

By my own standards, I am sinless.

That's an ignorant statement since you have not studied the subject.

I've studied the subject quite a lot, thank you very much.

If you acknowledge that the sacrifice of Jesus atones for the entire world's sins past and future, you've taken away the inequality between those who choose to atone and those who don't. Yet there still seems to be a lot of disdain between those groups. Why is that?

Yeah, but you have to believe in Jesus for your sins to be atoned for. I think. I never got the whole "Jesus died for your sins!" thing.

 

[phrodeau]

Who are these "groups" you are talking about and who talks like that?

You were talking that way earlier. You said, "God sacrificed his only begotten son for our sins".

It sounds like all of our sins are covered whether we atone for them or not.

So now there are two camps. The people who accept the sacrifice of Jesus for their sins and gain atonement from it, and the people who do not accept the sacrifice and do not gain atonement. You could say that these are Christians on one side, and non-Christians on the other.

But the sacrifice wiped out all the sins of the world. So why do the sinless Christians hold the sinless non-Christians in such disdain, if the only difference is whether they accept the sacrifice or not?

 

[phrodeau]

My God brother are you on drugs?

Good answer. I'd probably say that to him, too.

 

[unculbact]

All I can say is we are not bound by Mosaic Law since Christ's sacrifice.

“Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, ‘Which is the first commandment of all?’ (29) Jesus answered him, ‘The first of all the commandments is: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (30) And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” This is the first commandment. (31) And the second, like it, is this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.’

(32) So the scribe said to Him, ‘Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. (33) And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself*, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ (34) So when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’ And after that no one dared question Him.” (Mk. 12:28-34; see Matt. 22:34-40)

At the risk of overquoting Augustine, but also bringing in some of Aquinas, the Ten Commandments are described by these church fathers as "The carnal law of the Jews". By "carnal", they mean that the Mosiac commandments dealt with earthly things, and are all "shalt nots" - things that you are not supposed to do. The Ten Commandments enjoins us to restrain and police ourselves.

But the Two Commandments of Christ can be described as the "thou shalts". Rather than check every five minutes to see if we're compliant with Mosiac Law, the new commandments, when followed, guarantee that we'd obey the Mosiac Law, and it wouldn't be a chore. Augustine (I know, you're tired of him) calls this the Spiritual Law of Christ, replacing the carnal law of the Jews.

The Mosiac Law tells us how to restrain our corporeal lives so as to do no harm, and as such, is restrictive. Christ's Spiritual Law frees us to enjoy our spiritual lives where we can do nothing but good, and is completely different in nature - for it is liberating!

To sum up. The Ten Commandments is for the earthly life. The Two Commandments for the Eternal Life.

This is why I call the Christian Zionists heretics. They quote Mosiac Law endlessly, while ignoring Christ's two commandments. Makes sense - when they put their stamp of approval on Bush's war, they could not have gotten more carnal, or farther away from the spiritual.

(*Augustine describes this as "the new sacrifice". Rather than sacrificing our carnal goods for God's pleasure - which, as he says to Moses at one point, is not His pleasure at all really, for he has no use for cows - the new sacrifice is our will. Once dedicated to our own gratification, we now sacrifice what we percieve as our personal best interest and instead dedicate our energies to the love of God and neighbor. Jesus reinforces this point when he says, paraphrased here, "to save your life, you must first lose it".)

 

[crzydesert]

You were talking that way earlier. You said, "God sacrificed his only begotten son for our sins".

It sounds like all of our sins are covered whether we atone for them or not.

So now there are two camps. The people who accept the sacrifice of Jesus for their sins and gain atonement from it, and the people who do not accept the sacrifice and do not gain atonement. You could say that these are Christians on one side, and non-Christians on the other.

But the sacrifice wiped out all the sins of the world. So why do the sinless Christians hold the sinless non-Christians in such disdain, if the only difference is whether they accept the sacrifice or not?

John 3:16

 

[crzydesert]

Hey everyone this has been fun but I gotta get goin'. Talk to you all later.

 

[unculbact]

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.

Plato was centuries before the Romans, but both Marcus Varro and Prophory, Rome's two greatest theologians, wrestled with exactly that question. They're rather obscure though, and don't seem to make it into the general history books. Which after all, do deal with the carnal world.

Observation of Interest: Prophory was a bitter enemy of Christianity, and tried to discover the route to the Greatest Good that was consistent with his theology, and not theirs.

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.

Do tell. What could we possibly do that could drive God into a blind, irrational rage? How could we possibly hurt him?

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..

A perfect will is a free one, under the control of the owner. KR's wants and needs are for Eternal Life and Felicity, even Satan wants that. But like every other rational creature, she has the ability to turn her face from God, in fact, under the doctrine of Original Sin, was born that way. Her free choice now is whether or not she'll turn her face to him, or decide that the Greatest Good lies elsewhere - or is of no interest to her.

------------------------------
But we've had some "topic drift" here. This began with the request that proofs that polytheism was not the truth, and monotheism was, be asserted.

1. Plato said God was the Greatest Good, and logic dictates there can only be one such creature. If there was more than one, there would be differences between them, and either none or only one would be the Greatest.

2. Varro/Augustine pointed out that polytheism universally consists of a race of lesser, incorporeal creatures who are themselves created, not the Creator, and cannot deliver Eternal Life and Felicity. In fact, they don't even enjoy Felicity themselves, for their lives are also a struggle.

Such are the proofs I offer that polytheism is a fraud. I invite proofs that it isn't.

 

[MechaBlade]

Plato was centuries before the Romans, but both Marcus Varro and Prophory, Rome's two greatest theologians, wrestled with exactly that question. They're rather obscure though, and don't seem to make it into the general history books. Which after all, do deal with the carnal world.

Observation of Interest: Prophory was a bitter enemy of Christianity, and tried to discover the route to the Greatest Good that was consistent with his theology, and not theirs.

I meant Greek. Anyway, there's no notion of Greatest Good in Greek theology.

Do tell. What could we possibly do that could drive God into a blind, irrational rage? How could we possibly hurt him?

Sodom and Gomorrah, worshipping false idols, blasphemy, heresy, and gay marriage. I hear they all get him upset, if that's your definition of "hurt". And lies make baby Jesus cry.

The Judeo-Christian god starts off like a Greek god, full of emotion and demanding sacrifice and obedience. Selfish and imperfect.

A perfect will is a free one, under the control of the owner. KR's wants and needs are for Eternal Life and Felicity, even Satan wants that. But like every other rational creature, she has the ability to turn her face from God, in fact, under the doctrine of Original Sin, was born that way. Her free choice now is whether or not she'll turn her face to him, or decide that the Greatest Good lies elsewhere - or is of no interest to her.

A perfect will is still at the mercy of her perfect brain. She studies the Bible, so she's got the perfect religion. If she makes a choice, it must be the result of perfect reasoning.

1. Plato said God was the Greatest Good

Once again, the Greek gods were all flawed, so how did he come to this conclusion?

and logic dictates there can only be one such creature. If there was more than one, there would be differences between them, and either none or only one would be the Greatest.

If I was a polytheist (maybe Wiccan?) I'd argue that there could be multiple perfect creatures, perhaps different but not contradictory. Only complimenting each other, like yin and yang, Gaia and Uranus, Shiva, Vishnu and Brahama, perhaps.

2. Varro/Augustine pointed out that polytheism universally consists of a race of lesser, incorporeal creatures who are themselves created, not the Creator, and cannot deliver Eternal Life and Felicity. In fact, they don't even enjoy Felicity themselves, for their lives are also a struggle.

Why is that impossible.

Such are the proofs I offer that polytheism is a fraud. I invite proofs that it isn't.

I cannot prove polytheism and I don't even believe in it, but I again hypothesize that it is impossible to disprove polytheism, just as it is impossible to disprove monotheism.

 

[webbo1]

Religion is the base for ALL war.........you want no more war??? then ban every religion.....