One God or two?

[fodders]

Black said:

Yet, Christians believe if you practice any other religion (which follows along the "Thou shall have no other Gods before me" Commandment) that you are going to hell. Now what kind of narrow minded God would do that? If the Christian God is going to send me to hell for thinking on my own then fuck him. I don't want a self righteous nazi of a God like the Christians worship. All I can really say is no matter how you look at it, Christianity equals hypocrite.

Black

It is my plan, on my deathbed, to convert to Moslem, and with my dying breath I can say "That's another one of the bastards dead!"

[Sharessa]

Black's Post

Ahh, there you go. You've added detail to your statement. Now there is something to argue about and not just random unfounded thoughts floating about in the air.

And now the arguing:

I agree with you about the Jesus thing. Jesus was a good man, and basicaly is one of the surprisingly few individuals who realise the concept of knowing right from wrong. Sadly, most Christians don't follow his ideas at all, instead acting tyrannical individualists instead of compassionate anarchists like Jesus was.

Sadly, Buddhists are better Christians than Christians.

You see, thats what happens when you enforce dogma upon the masses. If you try to make others do as you do, then they begin to lose themselves and lose touch with humanity, becoming compassionless fools.

If you learn to think for yourself, however, you have more free time that would otherwise be spent licking the boots of your superiors to find yourself, to realise your humanity, and find yourself in others, realizing their right to individuality as equal to yours.

[Fredrik]

I agree with you about the Jesus thing. Jesus was a good man, and basicaly is one of the surprisingly few individuals who realise the concept of knowing right from wrong. Sadly, most Christians don't follow his ideas at all, instead acting tyrannical individualists instead of compassionate anarchists like Jesus was.

Yeah.

[fodders]

Jesus wasn't a Christian actually, he was Jewish, Matthew, Mark , Luke and John would be, but not Jesus, he could be considered a Baptist, since John baptised him

[Black]

I think since Christianity was named after Christ, the Christians would maybe want to try and practice what Christ taught. That's just what I think though.

Black

[fodders]

Strange we never became Jesusians following Jesusianity :)

[IMJack]

but not Jesus, he could be considered a Baptist, since John baptised him

... You lost me, old man.

My biggest point with God being a hypocrite follows along the lines that supposedly God is giving us the choice to choose our own destiny. Yet, Christians believe if you practice any other religion (which follows along the "Thou shall have no other Gods before me" Commandment) that you are going to hell.

And thus we come full circle, to my original point: Modern "Christians" believe in both a "good" god and religion and a "not good" god and religion. Thus, modern Christianity = dualism.

[fodders]

IMJack said:

... You lost me, old man.

John the Baptist, baptised Jesus

[Sharessa]

fodders said:

Strange we never became Jesusians following Jesusianity :)

Sadly no...

When divinity was brought into the picture, all the ideas got screwed up.

[IMJack]

fodders said:

John the Baptist, baptised Jesus

And that makes him a Baptist? I mean, all Christian sects baptise. And John's the Baptist because he baptised people, that modern-day sect called the "Baptists" wasn't even imagined then.

[Scientist]

fodders said:

Jesus wasn't a Christian actually, he was Jewish, Matthew, Mark , Luke and John would be, but not Jesus, he could be considered a Baptist, since John baptised him

All acknowlegded that Jesus was the Christ so they were all Christians if you ask me.

[fodders]

I meant baptist as in follower of , not the modern day sects

[Little Faith]

Whew, that thread took me half a day to read.

Let me get a few things sorted out about that dualism thing.

ImJack is the one who has the best definition, though it does deviate from the classical definition.

Right from the start Christianity has been plagued by internal problems. One of the most notorious was the ongoing dualist heresy. The problem was about the attitude towards the material world. Christianity advocates that you do not love the riches of the material world and it's vainglory. One should hold no love for such things. But one should not hate such things. It is through the love of higher things (which in the final end means God in all his being), not through hatred of the material things.

Dualists (also known as Manicheans or Catharii) got this wrong. They believed that anything material was evil. The problem with this wiewpoint was that if the material world was fundamentally evil then it couldn't have been created by God, since what God does is good. Thus Satan, in the sense of anything material, would be a kind of evil Anti-god for a Dualist opposed to the real God of anything spiritual.

This misunderstanding was a result of monastic christendom. Many a time a monk would spout that he loathed the world and sought to flee to Christ. This should be understood as a wish to get rid of all which did no good in order to fully appreciate the good things in life, mainly prayer. This point is, however, not that obvious in many monastic writings and therefore many confused righteous disregard for the material world with the outright hatred of the dualists making many pious people heretics.

[Little Faith]

I think it's on place to inform you that I don't believe in any of that bullshit i was writing about in the above post.

The whole idea about a spiritual or ideal dimension of life being more essential than the material existence revolts me.

Also the idea about one all-powerful entity, fundamental to all monotheistic religions, seems very stupid to me.

I wouldn't like to live in a world with one truth.

But truly the dualist stance is even more revolting.

[Lüt]

Little Faith said:

I wouldn't like to live in a world with one truth.

Uh, how does a single God-type entity mean there's only one truth in the world?

[fraggle]

Scientist said:

When the evolution theory was first announced many scientists ignored and shunned it. The same goes for Einstein’s relativity theory and many other theories.

And Alex Chiu!

[Fredrik]

Einstein didn't have as big problems as Darwin, his ideas got accepted quite early after they were publicated.

And Alex Chiu!

Rofl

[Phoenix]

Not to sure if to butt in here, I completed my own studies about my own faith.

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. John the Baptist was not a Christian. Based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, he could have been part of the Essenian. A sect preaching all kinds of Eastern Mythology. Therefore Christ is not Christ. Yeah I know I posted here as a Borne Again Christian. No more.

The Church introduced the trinity idea to overcome the first question posted. Since you can't fulfill the ten commandment and the apostel's worship of Jesus. Trinity partly solved that problem. But it raises the obvious, how God could have died and resurrected himself. If just part of Him died on the cross, which part was alive? When I was a Christian I did accept Christ as one individual God. God said You shall have no other God's before Me. Yet Paul in his letters clearly puts Jesus in the number one spot.

Bottom line, Christians by default accept at least two God's. The omnipotent one and Satan. They preach the big fight in heaven between good and evil. This would make omnipotent a paradox. - So no matter how you slice it Christianity is polytheism, and totally fucked up.

[Little Faith]

Lüt said:

Uh, how does a single God-type entity mean there's only one truth in the world?

In what I have read about christianity there only exists one real truth, anything else is hollow and inconsequential. That truth is God's word and God's word is God.

I thought that was something you learned as a child.

Of course I mean that is a complete nonsensical use of the word truth.

[Black]

Well I am glad to see Little Faith arguing for my cause. Although I should say "Well, I am glad to see Little Faith arguing for his/her own cause in which (for the most part) I agree with."

For the relatively short time I have been here I have run into an overwhelming amount of senseless "Politically Correct" garbage in which I do not agree with. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I, in no way want to deny people of that opinion. It just seems like a lost cause at this point in time since there are no right or wrong answers to really anything, so unless you are (as Danarchist blantly put it) "arguing to expand your mind," we should all join factions and hold aggressive negotiations. : )

Or not, either way... I have a question which will probably become relevant down the line. I ask not so much 'as' a question but rather to get an idea of what you think.

Do you think things in general run on a basis of numbers or on a basis of individuals?

Tell me what you think. Speak thoughts to me.

Black

And one other thing... Why the hell do people think (of all people) that Lut is the Jesus Christ incarnate? I remembered seeing that from the little Millenium post thing. Yes, most people see Lut, that since Christianity practices a monotheism or belief in one God, that whatever God says is truth. Hence if you do not follow what Christians depicted God to say (remember since no one really actually knows what God thinks) you are wrong, since in fact what the Christian's pseudo-god 'says is truth' is what you should follow and if you don't follow what God says you go to hell. That may or may not have made sense to you. So let me put it this way... My wording, times ten in crappiness and that is the Christian religion. Amen.

[Little Faith]

Ok, Black you really got me warmed up there. The barrels are red-hot and spinning so I might just chuck out a bit o lead now.

Tonite's ammunition will be the concept of truth.

See, the problem is that so many philosophies and religions have a completely screwed notion about what truth is. You will probably welcome this with outstretched arms. But keep in mind, I do not agree with your individualist ethics. I am no follower (seems to be an odd word to use there) of Anton Szandor LaVey.

Truth is a screwy little word. It looks and acts as a regular noun and this tricks people into believing that it can be used as such. The problem is that nouns are usually used to refer to object. But the truth is no true object. It seems rather to be some kind adjective/noun crossbreed that behaves like a noun, but carries the meaning of an adjective.
See, you would probably agree that if we refer to somthing as the truth we are really saying that that something is true. This sounds pretty obvious. I could also exemplify it in this way: If i said to you: "I know the truth," you would probably ask: "The truth about WHAT?". If I then answered: "It is just the truth, plain and simple" then in reality i wouldn't have said anything at all.

But this is exactly what christians do when they describe their god as being the truth. Just try to ask a christian that if God is truth what is he the truth about? I am sure you will get no intelligible answer. See, you have killed God. Not from the outside in like many morons try to, but from the inside out. You have telefragged God!
Be proud!

Personally I think we would be much better off if only the adjective "true" existed and not also the noun "truth". Then people would not get those silly notions and instead use their powers on the real world around them.

The last empty cartridges fall to the floor as the spinning barrels grinds to a halt.

[Black]

Well Little Faith, I am impressed. Again, I see you and myself on the same side as of now so there will be no disagreement. Rather a compliment from me for whatever that is worth.

I was also pleased to see you mention Anton LaVey in spite of me. In return I'd like to more or less state two things.

First of all, I do not necessarily agree with any religion, that including Satanism. I, however, found it's main philosophies more practical and realistic than most accepted forms of religion thus my action to join the Church of Satan. I actually consider myself something more profound than a mere Satanist. You may take that as you will although I'd like to clarify I do not mean to seem arrogant with that comment.

And my second point, which is actually a question: What do you consider yourself? I am not necessarily speaking from a religion standpoint but more or less where do you stand with religion, truth and individualism?

I may have something to say if you have a rational answer. Until then...

The King of Thieves,
Black

[Little Faith]

Actually I was just about making a thread for that (then Doomworld crashed for some reason).

As it will be a sort of poll it will be over at the poll section.


What I said in the post before was mainly that you should be extremely leery at anyone who speaks about truth without mentioning what the truth is about.