Post Reply
Page 583 of 807  •  Prev 1 ... 581 582 583 584 585 ... 807 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The 'existence' of gods
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 12:05PM #5821
teilhard
Posts: 51,828

None, necessarily ...


Some of my fellow Clergy have also held Elected Office ...


What's your Point ... ???


Aug 22, 2012 -- 12:01PM, wohali wrote:


What's the effective difference between clergy and politicians?





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 12:10PM #5822
JCarlin
Posts: 6,945

Aug 22, 2012 -- 10:11AM, teilhard wrote:

***Those bald Statements are C-L-A-I-M-S They are NOT E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E ... They are O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S ... not  F-A-C-T-S ...


This is a discussion of an ancient text, not an academic theological argument.  Even in an academic argument about Paul one is necessarily dealing with opinions supported by references to Paul and contemporary documents.  So far in this discussion you have provided nothing resembling discussion.  Typographical BS with no real content contributes nothing to the discussion.  Either point out why the claims and opinions are incorect with some sort of support for your alternative opinion or claim, or STFU.

J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 12:15PM #5823
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Aug 22, 2012 -- 12:01PM, wohali wrote:


What's the effective difference between clergy and politicians?




Not a lot. At least with pollies they can be voted out when they turn out to be corrupt or devious or perverted.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 12:39PM #5824
teilhard
Posts: 51,828

No ... The Question at hand ISN'T about "an Ancient Text," but about HISTORY ... i.e., WHAT "Paul" did or did not DO ...


Aug 22, 2012 -- 12:10PM, JCarlin wrote:


Aug 22, 2012 -- 10:11AM, teilhard wrote:

***Those bald Statements are C-L-A-I-M-S They are NOT E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E ... They are O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S ... not  F-A-C-T-S ...


This is a discussion of an ancient text, not an academic theological argument.  Even in an academic argument about Paul one is necessarily dealing with opinions supported by references to Paul and contemporary documents.  So far in this discussion you have provided nothing resembling discussion.  Typographical BS with no real content contributes nothing to the discussion.  Either point out why the claims and opinions are incorect with some sort of support for your alternative opinion or claim, or STFU.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 1:48PM #5825
christine3
Posts: 7,637

Paul wasn't balanced. He went from assisting the hunting and killing of Gnostic Christians, assisting Rome by being against them and attending the stonings, to being converted.  For a bird's eye view, here is some of what he was involved with at that time. 


www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2841/w...


And here is the profile of a mercenary, which is Paul's psychological profile before he was converted.  Read the first paragraph.  Gasp.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary


He was in today's terms what is known as a serial killer (by proxy).  Now you may gasp, but I don't see any difference between a lone individual in society popping off single victims at a time, or a collective people or group (government or religion) popping off hundreds or thousands of people at a time in wars or for entertainment.  People indicting others.  It's crap.  A truly high consciousness cannot come from those mental activities.  Paul was ***like*** a serial killer of a different color before he converted.  His conclusions were limited, he was unbalanced.  What came out of that time, i.e., the Christian religion, was more of the same limited consciousness perpetrated by the same kind of people, known as the Dark Ages. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 2:51PM #5826
chevy956
Posts: 1,968

Aug 22, 2012 -- 1:48PM, christine3 wrote:

Paul wasn't balanced. He went from assisting the hunting and killing of Gnostic Christians, assisting Rome by being against them and attending the stonings, to being converted.  For a bird's eye view, here is some of what he was involved with at that time. 


www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2841/w...


And here is the profile of a mercenary, which is Paul's psychological profile before he was converted.  Read the first paragraph.  Gasp.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary


He was in today's terms what is known as a serial killer (by proxy).  Now you may gasp, but I don't see any difference between a lone individual in society popping off single victims at a time, or a collective people or group (government or religion) popping off hundreds or thousands of people at a time in wars or for entertainment.  People indicting others.  It's crap.  A truly high consciousness cannot come from those mental activities.  Paul was ***like*** a serial killer of a different color before he converted.  His conclusions were limited, he was unbalanced.  What came out of that time, i.e., the Christian religion, was more of the same limited consciousness perpetrated by the same kind of people, known as the Dark Ages. 


Since Paul was a traveling missionary during the time BEFORE Romans actively persecuted Christians and was held under house arrest in Rome and killed under Nero, who was the first Emperor to actively persecte Christians, I'd say that your link is irrelevent to the discussion.


  Paul wasn't a serial killer. He was someone who did indeed harm others, who by his testimony had a profound, totally life changing experience thru an experience with Jesus. As Jesus' message was about unconditional love and forgiveness, Paul realized that he needed that forgiveness. That message runs through his actual writings (6 of the books that are written in his name) You don't seem to grasp the concept that people can and do change. He was writing based on his experience, which may not have included actually having even seen Jesus in the flesh.


    There is a vast difference between organized warfare and sociopathy, as the reasons for war (for instance:self defence) don't need to fall under sociopathy, but legitamate human concerns for survival.


    Is persecuting others on religious grounds sociopathic behavior? Based on definitions of sociopathy, sociopaths lack any moral compass. The Religious claim a moral compass and generally declare their moral compass to be the only true one. Paul claimed religious and legal authority to persecute, and had that authority thru his function as a Pharasee of high standing. This question is a very good one and one I'd actually like to start a new thread with. My personal feeling is that it is.


    At this point in time, we don't really know that much about the historical Jesus, and will likely never find out all that happened during his time of ministry. Gnosticism's serious influence in Christianity seems to have come quite a bit later than Paul's time, although there were plenty of non- Christian gnostic cults during his time that could have influenced Paul. The Christ of faith is what actively concernes the Church, and for better or worse, Paul had a large part in that. The winners get to write the history books, but paul saved Christianity from simply being one more small Jewish cult which in time would been absorbed back into mainstream Judaism.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 3:02PM #5827
wohali
Posts: 10,227

What's the effective difference between clergy and politicians?


Duh! I didn't think that through.


Both groups manipulate followers to effect control.


So: none.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 3:19PM #5828
Nino0814
Posts: 1,760

Aug 21, 2012 -- 8:58PM, teilhard wrote:


Anyone certainly is FREE to present anything and everything that (s)he considers to be "Evidence" ... and then others will or will not find it interesting and/or compelling ...


But the Claim (below), that, "'Paul' invented 'Jesus'" is patently a Claim about HISTORY, i.e., Events and Persons ... IF that  particular specific "History" (asserted) Fact is known ONLY by "Divine Revelation," then it certainly would be DIFFICULT to substantiate ...



Did you change your opinion or did you previously mistate it?   You said, "all evidence is subjective", now you are qualifying between a "divine" claim and something that can known from historical investigation. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 3:51PM #5829
christine3
Posts: 7,637

Aug 22, 2012 -- 2:51PM, chevy956 wrote:


Since Paul was a traveling missionary during the time BEFORE Romans actively persecuted Christians and was held under house arrest in Rome and killed under Nero, who was the first Emperor to actively persecte Christians, I'd say that your link is irrelevent to the discussion.




I'm afraid you are wrong.  Here is a paragraph from the link I provide below.


Legal basis for persecution


Due to the informal and personality-driven nature of the Roman justice system, nothing “other than a prosecutor, a charge of Christianity, and a governor willing to punish on that charge”[2] was required to bring a legal case against a Christian. Roman law was largely concerned with property rights, leaving many gaps in criminal and public law. While the well-regulated quaestio system was in place to fill such gaps, it was limited to Rome itself. Thus the processcognitio extra ordinem (“special investigation”) filled the legal void left by both code and court. All provincial governorshad the right to run trials in this way as part of their imperium in the province.[3]


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Chr...


AND....


Elizabeth Castelli asserts that " Christianity itself is founded upon an archetype of religio-political persecution, the execution of Jesus by the Romans." She points out that " the earliest Christians routinely equated Christian identity with suffering persecution" as attested by numerous passages in the New Testament. As examples, she cites the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account”.[32] As another example, she cites the passage in the Gospel of John where Jesus warns his disciples with these words: “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you” (John 15.20).




COMMENT:  I think it is very telling that Jesus says in the Gospel of John these words: "Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.'  If they persecuted me, they will persecute you".  (John 15.20).  I still feel that Jesus didn't say those words, but John did.  Therefore, in defense of my former argument about John being the real McCoy, and Jesus was a connection Paul made (John means "Jehovah is gracious" and Iesous means "God saves"), it is clear to me that the non-existant Jesus is speaking words from John's mouth.  During the redaction, editing and collating the Bible, the whole of the account of the New Testament is what the early clergy wanted to serve to the people, the rest ended up on the cutting room floor.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2012 - 5:01PM #5830
farragut
Posts: 4,120

Chevy:" Paul claimed religious and legal authority to persecute, and had that authority thru his function as a Pharasee of high standing. "


 


Hyam Maccoby in The Mythmaker argues very convincingly that Paul could not have been a Pharisee. Have you read him?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 583 of 807  •  Prev 1 ... 581 582 583 584 585 ... 807 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook