If Christianity ....

[headheart]

Simple: it's when the 'new stone age' started and gave rise to the age of agriculture. At that point in time (roughly 10-12,000 years ago) the makings of present-day monotheism started taking shape via shifting loyalties in the polytheistic communities, and political pressures in the ANE. Out of that morass of religious cross-pollination Christianity came to the fore roughly 2000 years ago and became the most successful cult in history.

I think that's probably why I've always wondered what it might have been like to live among the Shoshone or perhaps earlier when life wasn't so filled with complicated tunes. It's all mixed up now, into a giant cauldron with the three witches stirring and chanting until no one can remember the tune anymore. (I think that Larry Norman's song 'The Tune' has some merit in making the point I'm trying to with my mixed tunes.)

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

We need to look to authority for answers to this. St Paul tells us that the Christian Church is the living body of Christ. Asking atheists to grapple with such a mystical concept is a Big Ask. But I admire your optimism.

Magellan

I'm not much into the whole POWER game and prefer to just open up dialogue and see where that takes us. Obviously you don't and prefer the old SLAM DUNK routine of earlier Dinosaurs.
I find your comment facetiousness and condescending.

Your comments are not welcome here.

Goodbye,
Eric.

[magellan004]

I'm not much into the whole POWER game and prefer to just open up dialogue and see where that takes us. Obviously you don't and prefer the old SLAM DUNK routine of earlier Dinosaurs.
I find your comment facetiousness and condescending.

Your comments are not welcome here.

Goodbye,

You have pulled the temperamental Thor act before. 'Open up the dialogue.' without anyone being able to say waht they think? Oh wait on !!!! It;'s OK for people to post stuff that you judge worthwhile. Nice rule for a baby.

I'll stay.

Magellan

[magellan004]

You - Headheart , get upset whan I mention any Biblical stuff. Why? IF someone said (say) 'Prof Isaac Shrompostivic said that the Earth is 756778778 years old' you'd be head over heels fawning about such a great revelation. I have a suggestion - Ask permission to start a thread where everybody has to say WOW stuff from 'Science ' media and no one can reference any counter material. Anyone who actually believes anything slightly religious could be black-balled. You could set TWeb straight with your infantile view of debate.

Magellan

[headheart]

You have pulled the temperamental Thor act before. 'Open up the dialogue.' without anyone being able to say waht they think? Oh wait on !!!! It;'s OK for people to post stuff that you judge worthwhile. Nice rule for a baby.

I'll stay.

Magellan

It's entirely up to you as our Moderators have their hands full, but as I recommended to you on "Modern Christian Philosophy" (post 21) "I've got some play dough if you'd like?"

Play Doh!.jpg

God Adventure

However, if you think you've got past "baby" stage then there's always:

The Alpha Course.png

The Alpha Course

Or, if that's too dumb down for you, you can always have a go at:

The Beta Course.png

The Beta Course


Goodbye,
Eric.

[headheart]

You - Headheart , get upset whan I mention any Biblical stuff. Why? IF someone said (say) 'Prof Isaac Shrompostivic said that the Earth is 756778778 years old' you'd be head over heels fawning about such a great revelation. I have a suggestion - Ask permission to start a thread where everybody has to say WOW stuff from 'Science ' media and no one can reference any counter material. Anyone who actually believes anything slightly religious could be black-balled. You could set TWeb straight with your infantile view of debate.

Magellan

As this thread has nothing to do with the age of the earth at the moment, though it might end up being an exploration into "Anthropology" ( How Religion has Evolved by Dr. David Lahti ) depending whether or not you can't take your seat along with myself and others that are interested to read some of the comments by t-webbers who just happen to be atheists, free-thinkers, rationalists and brights, instead of using this thread as a peach box to vent your unsolved frustration here instead of where they belong on threads such as the one I started dealing specifically with "The age of the Earth, Universe and Hominidae!" then you aught to prepare yourself for a rocky ride because I don't take kindly to the sort of antics you pull there with comrades of your ilk.

Now either settle down or incur the wrath of Thor!

Leave These People Alone - The Wrath of Thor!.jpg

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Simple: it's when the 'new stone age' started and gave rise to the age of agriculture. At that point in time (roughly 10-12,000 years ago) the makings of present-day monotheism started taking shape via shifting loyalties in the polytheistic communities, and political pressures in the ANE. Out of that morass of religious cross-pollination Christianity came to the fore roughly 2000 years ago and became the most successful cult in history.

Hi Kane,

After my mystical rap - post 31), I thought I try and go a little deeper. (though I'm certainly NOT and expert in these matters, though I know that some of you guys eat sleep and drink it):

The reason I've taken so long to get back to you is that I wanted to have some time to listen to Dr. Lahti's lecture "Has Religion Evolved?" again because though it's all pretty new to me. Well, not entirely new, but there is a lot of terminology and information (data) that I need to process to come up to speed with the sort of things that he's talking about. (There's a rather interesting exchange near the end between himself and who I think is Prof. Jeff Schloss.) If you could listen to his lecture "Can Biology Explain Religion?" though I wouldn't say it's something I necessarily agree with, I think a combination of this and what Revd. Dr. Watts's "Theological Issues Raised by Neuroscience" has to say and stir the witch's cauldron one more time, then I'd say that I'm somewhere 'South of Heaven', if you know what I mean?

Watts + Lahti + Schloss KABOOOOM!.png

Peace,
Eric.

[bertatberts]

If Christianity is in essence neither a creed, nor a code, nor ceremonies,

Why would you think it wasn't.

It wasn't my question. Why would you think it was?

It's your OP, so it appeared to be a question you were asking, it appeared you were of the opinion that Christianity was neither a creed, nor a code, nor ceremonies. If I'm wrong, then why did you post it?

what is it?

A death cult. (Vicarious redemption is immoral.)

Please explain how you arrived at Christianity = 'A death cult. (Vicarious redemption is immoral.)'

Vicarious redemption
Is to have someone else suffer punishment on your behalf. Would you consider vicarious redemption to fully absolve you of your sins?

We have heard the arguments that justify the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. And we are asked to believe that the death of an innocent man somehow absolves us of our responsibility for our sins. And this is good, and justified, because it is a way of showing God’s love for mankind.
This passing of the buck for our deeds and responsibilities is happily accepted by Christians; they prostrate themselves in thanks to their God, and wait for their clear path to heaven. Where they will get their reward, when they die.
It is then ok, for all Christians to earn heaven through the sacrifice and death of an innocent victim.
It is a double standard; would you think it correct if you were asked to take the place of the person to be executed? Yet you would allow another to do it for you.

Would you allow them to give your child punishment for another child’s bad behaviour?
No Christian has yet indicated they would, yet they understand the morality of the question, yet at the same time, say that it is quite ok for them to hide behind Jesus and his punishment for their sins.

Christianity is obsessed about death.
Christianity has an exceedingly narrow view of morality. Christianity reduces morality to that of death doesn't matter.
Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils (Killing/murder) while focusing on imaginary BS.
Life is precious, however Christians will and can kill with impunity, because they believe in an after-life, thus they have no respect for anyone’s right to live. Life is merely a testing ground for heaven/hell too them.
They cannot wait for death.

In time, the Deity perceived that death was a mistake; a mistake, in that it was insufficient; insufficient, for the reason that while it was an admirable agent for the inflicting of misery upon the survivor, it allowed the dead person himself to escape all further persecution in the blessed refuge of the grave. This was not satisfactory. A way must be contrived to pursue the dead beyond the tomb.

The Deity pondered this matter during four thousand years unsuccessfully, but as soon as he came down to earth and became a Christian his mind cleared and he knew what to do. He invented hell, and proclaimed it.
- Mark Twain

[headheart]

It's your OP, so it appeared to be a question you were asking, it appeared you were of the opinion that Christianity was neither a creed, nor a code, nor ceremonies. If I'm wrong, then why did you post it?

Okay. BERTABERTS!!!! (Do you ever sign your real name on posts? Is it "Bert"? I see you have a young maiden as your avatar, would this mean that you're a "g" a "g" a "g" a "g" a "girl"? )

Just call it that old witchcraft boiling in my veins matey. I think it's a "GREAT" topic for discussion and now here's that question again: Why would you think Christianity is in essence a creed, a code and ceremonies?

I'll need some time to read and think about your "COLOSSAL" post.

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Hi there.

Okay, I had a little read and think and chatted with a few friends who I trust and who either totally discouraged me from bothering, explained that you've got so many ideas mixed up or that you've got a view which needs some serious upgrading. Well, I always loves me spinach and am up for a little mud wrestling.
So, I'll bite though I'm sure it's going to take more than some well placed dynamite to dislodge this boogie.

Perhaps a little music will help me think as I respond to your thoughts: "In The Great Wide Open" (Tom Petty)

I don't know about you but music helps me think.

Peace,
Eric.

Let's go:

My initial question: Please explain how you arrived at Christianity = 'A death cult. (Vicarious redemption is immoral.)'

Before I begin my response, I decided to a Google 'vicarious redemption' and this was the first link my browser delivered magically to my computer screen:

Is vicarious redemption immoral - Yahoo Answers.jpg

This was the 'best answer':

'The vicarious redemption through Christ is a completely different thing than one person taking a punishment for another in a legal system. Legally, we hold each individual personally responsible and there is no reason why each person can't pay the price for a crime. Spiritually, there is no way we CAN pay the price, so Christ did it for us. I don't see where hypocrisy comes into the issue.

I actually know of one example of vicarious punishment. I have a friend from Iran who was periodically arrested because she was on a list of some kind. After several stretches in jail, her father and brother were given permission to serve her terms for her. Eventually, they helped her sneak out of the country.'

Now, I'm no psychic but I think you got your idea from Christopher Hitchens who said:


Christopher Hitchens - Vicarious redemption IS immoral (RIP)

Okay, let's get down with your answer:

Vicarious redemption
Is to have someone else suffer punishment on your behalf. Would you consider vicarious redemption to fully absolve you of your sins?

When I arrived on this forum in 2006, my first question was about this and to most Christians it is known as "ATONEMENT" or as Douglas Moo refers to it "the sacrifice of atonement" Daresay this is a considerable subject and if I was going to do it justice I would probably dedicated one entire thread to unpacking the relative passages and essays that I would need to accomplish such a feat. In fact if you were able to go to our Theology forum you'd discover that I actually participated in a thread which dealt most directly with this and which then resulted in a few posts to our Biblical Languages section where brother John Reece gave me some assistance with the difficult stuff. Do I fully understand it? No, but I am going to hook you up to those thread so you can read and consider before I begin addressing bertabert's description of the Atonement. After which I am actually going to post this to Theology and see how our magnificent t-webbers feel about it.

Firstly. My post to Theology:

Modern Theology 101 - The Doctrine of Atonement

Secondly. I initiated two posts one to our BL301 and the other to Apologetics.com Forum Discuss (AFD):

'While I am having a serious read and re-think, of this very important doctrine, I have enlisted the scholars from Biblical Languages 301 @ TWC and Bible @ Apologetics.com to examine the 3 verses referred to in my opening post'

As this reply is already quite long, I'm going to open a second one to deal directly with your version of the Christian Doctrine of Atonement.

Goodnight,
Eric.

[headheart]

Part 2: Our Theological Minded Lads and Lasses are going to examine the first part of bertaberts's reply:

Please click here in a week or so to read some of the comments: Vicarious redemption according to bertaberts

Part 3 and Part 4 will be my attempt to respond to both of bertaberts's points as they first appeared in post 38:

1. Vicarious redemption
2. Christianity is obsessed about death.

Sela Vie,
Eric

[headheart]

To one and all,

I'm not going to go any further with the sidebar to bertaberts at least until bertaberts replies to this, so if you want to go on with the thread please be my guest.

To Bertaberts,

I'm still waiting for your reply to post 39

Peace,
Eric



+++++++++Sidebar to Begins++++++++++++

Part 3a:

1. Vicarious redemption

This first response is going to be a non-theological approach. Just a layman who's studies the Bible and thinks.

Bertaberts,

You wrote:

We have heard the arguments that justify the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. And we are asked to believe that the death of an innocent man somehow absolves us of our responsibility for our sins. And this is good, and justified, because it is a way of showing God’s love for mankind.

Romans 5:12-21 refers thrice to Jesus as mere man. Yet is Jesus mere man or was this the same Jesus referred to in John 1:1-18 ? I'm not asking a faith question, simply a textual question. Not if you believe he was, but if the Christian sacred texts informs us that Jesus was not just a mere man but in fact 'the Word who lived in his tent, among us'?

I know this is a technicality but it is very important when studying the Christian's sacred texts to as least have all the balls in the air at the same time. Hey, I'm only a layman so I'm looking up with Jimi Hendrix to the skies and hoping that others who are better skilled in this will add their 2p.

Blessings,
Eric.

+++++++++Sidebar to Ends"++++++++++++

[bertatberts]

Okay. BERTABERTS!!!! (Do you ever sign your real name on posts? Is it "Bert"? I see you have a young maiden as your avatar, would this mean that you're a "g" a "g" a "g" a "g" a "girl"? )

Yes. And yes, Albert(Bert) is my name. I see you have an old geezer(Getafix) as your avatar, would this mean that you're a "g" a "g" a "g" a "g" a "gaul"? )

Just call it that old witchcraft boiling in my veins matey. I think it's a "GREAT" topic for discussion and now here's that question again: Why would you think Christianity is in essence a creed, a code and ceremonies?

Sorry that a different question. Your original question was "If Christianity is in essence neither a creed, nor a code, nor ceremonies, what is it?" Hence why I ask why you would think it wasn't. I really couldn't careless either way, to me the majority of religions are an abomination.

I'm sometimes extremely busy and only get time to glance over threads, I'll need some time to read and reply to your posts too.

Thanks,
Bert.

[headheart]

Yes. And yes, Albert(Bert) is my name. I see you have an old geezer(Getafix) as your avatar, would this mean that you're a "g" a "g" a "g" a "g" a "gaul"? )
Sorry that a different question. Your original question was "If Christianity is in essence neither a creed, nor a code, nor ceremonies, what is it?" Hence why I ask why you would think it wasn't. I really couldn't careless either way, to me the majority of religions are an abomination.

I'm sometimes extremely busy and only get time to glance over threads, I'll need some time to read and reply to your posts too.

Thanks,
Bert.

Oh, okay 'you got a name' Albert (now that's a fine name!!!!)

Apparently my great, great, great, great, great, great, great (how ever many to get back to the Vikings) grandad was probably a Viking. I'd like to think of myself as a tea-wizard but I think I identify more with the guy whose plays dreadful dirges.

So you have a one or two religions that you think might be okay. Care to enlighten me pilgrim?

You take your time. Ain't no hurry on this forum where the river flows backwards.

Peace,
Eric

[bertatberts]

Hi there.

Okay, I had a little read and think and chatted with a few friends who I trust and who either totally discouraged me from bothering, explained that you've got so many ideas mixed up or that you've got a view which needs some serious upgrading. Well, I always loves me spinach and am up for a little mud wrestling.
So, I'll bite though I'm sure it's going to take more than some well-placed dynamite to dislodge this boogie.

Perhaps a little music will help me think as I respond to your thoughts: "In The Great Wide Open" (Tom Petty)

I don't know about you but music helps me think.

Peace,
Eric.

It does me too, but sorry not Tom Petty. But ok each to their own. I would choose David Bowie, or David Essex.

Let's go:

My initial question: Please explain how you arrived at Christianity = 'A death cult. (Vicarious redemption is immoral.)'

Before I begin my response, I decided to a Google 'vicarious redemption' and this was the first link my browser delivered magically to my computer screen:

This was the 'best answer':

'The vicarious redemption through Christ is a completely different thing than one person taking a punishment for another in a legal system. Legally, we hold each individual personally responsible and there is no reason why each person can't pay the price for a crime. Spiritually, there is no way we CAN pay the price, so Christ did it for us. I don't see where hypocrisy comes into the issue.

I actually know of one example of vicarious punishment. I have a friend from Iran who was periodically arrested because she was on a list of some kind. After several stretches in jail, her father and brother were given permission to serve her terms for her. Eventually, they helped her sneak out of the country.'

Now, I'm no psychic but I think you got your idea from Christopher Hitchens who said:

The best answer doesn't work as you're still expecting someone to take your place, regardless of it being real or imaginary, the intent is still there. Christians are still passing the buck, for their sins. They don't take responsibility for their own actions. And yes Chris did say it in video form but that doesn't mean he was the only one who thought it.

Okay, let's get down with your answer:

Vicarious redemption
Is to have someone else suffer punishment on your behalf. Would you consider vicarious redemption to fully absolve you of your sins?

When I arrived on this forum in 2006, my first question was about this and to most Christians it is known as "ATONEMENT" or as Douglas Moo refers to it "the sacrifice of atonement" Daresay this is a considerable subject and if I was going to do it justice I would probably dedicated one entire thread to unpacking the relative passages and essays that I would need to accomplish such a feat. In fact if you were able to go to our Theology forum you'd discover that I actually participated in a thread which dealt most directly with this and which then resulted in a few posts to our Biblical Languages section where brother John Reece gave me some assistance with the difficult stuff. Do I fully understand it? No, but I am going to hook you up to those thread so you can read and consider before I begin addressing bertabert's description of the Atonement. After which I am actually going to post this to Theology and see how our magnificent t-webbers feel about it.

I'm ok with that, however realise this, I have no belief in the bible, or it's scriptures. So using that to fight your cause will fail. Jesus was merely a man, and allowing him to die in your stead or to think a man called Jesus died in your stead is immoral. Vicarious "Atonement" is Immoral

Part 2: Our Theological Minded Lads and Lasses are going to examine the first part of bertaberts's reply:

Please click here in a week or so to read some of the comments: Vicarious redemption according to bertaberts

Part 3 and Part 4 will be my attempt to respond to both of bertaberts's points as they first appeared in post 38:

1. Vicarious redemption
2. Christianity is obsessed about death.

Sela Vie,
Eric

So we wait, for what I don't know.
It won't stop vicarious redemption (atonement) from being immoral.
P.S. the help you have received thus far from theology 201 is laughable it does nothing to counter vicarious redemption (atonement), it is just someone spewing nonsensical BS.

Thanks,
Bert.

Part 3a:

1. Vicarious redemption

This first response is going to be a non-theological approach. Just a layman who's studies the Bible and thinks.

Thinks what!
Christians suspend any critical thought when it comes to the bible, so their imaginations are free to do whatever they wish.

Bertaberts,

You wrote:

We have heard the arguments that justify the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. And we are asked to believe that the death of an innocent man somehow absolves us of our responsibility for our sins. And this is good, and justified, because it is a way of showing God’s love for mankind.

Romans 5:12-21 refers thrice to Jesus as mere man. Yet is Jesus mere man or was this the same Jesus referred to in John 1:1-18 ? I'm not asking a faith question, simply a textual question. Not if you believe he was, but if the Christian sacred texts informs us that Jesus was not just a mere man but in fact 'the Word who lived in his tent, among us'?

I know this is a technicality but it is very important when studying the Christian's sacred texts to as least have all the balls in the air at the same time. Hey, I'm only a layman so I'm looking up with Jimi Hendrix to the skies and hoping that others who are better skilled in this will add their 2p.

Had they proven Jesus' divinity, then you may have had a case, but the bible is just a book, all evidence points to Jesus being a mere man. Was Sidney Carlton (A tale of two cities) divine or is any martyr in fiction equally divine.

So you have a one or two religions that you think might be okay. Care to enlighten me pilgrim?

Buddhism, some would have us call it a philosophy rather than a religion, however it fits most dictionary discription for a religion.

Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition): defines religion as: "any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."
It is one where they actually use critical thought.
The Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha), has stated,

1, Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
2, Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
3, Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
4, Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
5, Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
6, But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
But even that has it skeletons.

Addenum: do you think it is morally right that the sins of the father carry down to the son, because god does. and because of this we have vicarious redemption (atonement), both of which are morally wrong.