In God We Still Trust

I sit here amazed that you just make an all inclusive remark as a fact that religion and scam artists are one and the same. Tell me are you going to celebrate the next Christian holiday: Christmas? I don't want to know about the history of it ,it is still a "Christian Holiday" I can show exactly where our moral codes came from. Can You?

BillMarti wrote: I can show exactly where our moral codes came from. Can You?

The inquisition? (and all the wars Phillip II started to rid the world of protestants)

The Crusades? The Pope blessed the crusades and he is infallible. Therefore your God is OK with the slaughter of innocents and wars of conquest.

The French wars of religion in the 16th century.

The 30 Years war in the 17th century

The abject silence by the Catholic church on the holocaust in the 20th century? (not to mention overtly helping Nazis escape to south america after the war)

The "troubles" that go on in ireland even now?

The ongoing accessory after the fact and conspiring to protect child molesters.



You moral codes permitted and condoned all of this. Most of it was done in the name of religion.

BillMarti wrote:I sit here amazed that you just make an all inclusive remark as a fact that religion and scam artists are one and the same.

Come now, you can make your argument without distorting what I said. I said priests, from the earliest religions to the present, FREQUENTLY were and are scam artists, not that "religion and scam artists are one and the same".
And could you mail me some cash, please? God says if I don't raise a million dollars by Christmas, he will call me home. I have to believe it -- look what happened to Oral Roberts!

It seems this thread has but put primariy the Catholic Church on trial. There is no doubt that there are individuals have done wrong things over the centuries and some of them have been in positions of leadership. There is no excuse for burning people at the stake for instance. That is barbaric. I'm not Catholic myself but I know many. Those I know are good people. I came across a web site listing the most horific leaders of the 20th century. The list speaks for itself.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/monsters.htm

Of the top three on the list Hitler was the one I checked what Wikipedia had to say about his religious beliefs. It seems he used a twisted view of Jesus as an arien fighting the Jews. After the end of the war the Nazis had plans to destroy the Christian church. I wouldn't classify him as a Christian.

Erik,
You like to lump all religions together. I will disagree with you on this point my belief doesn't allow for murder 6th commandnent (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... EfsgDSkiXi) in the name of a god. You have not named a particular religion that was responsible for these atrocities but you should have but you know they would jump on you. You need to do a little more research on the different beliefs of those who would call themselves Christians. There a 2 nominal christians and biblical Christians. So before you make accusations of those guilty of atrocities and those who had nothing to do with it and were part of the murdered people do a little more research to find out the truth rather than opinion.

BillMarti wrote:Erik,
You like to lump all religions together. I will disagree with you on this point my belief doesn't allow for murder 6th commandnent (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... EfsgDSkiXi) in the name of a god. You have not named a particular religion that was responsible for these atrocities but you should have but you know they would jump on you. You need to do a little more research on the different beliefs of those who would call themselves Christians. There a 2 nominal christians and biblical Christians. So before you make accusations of those guilty of atrocities and those who had nothing to do with it and were part of the murdered people do a little more research to find out the truth rather than opinion.

Have you read Josephus? Have you read the gnostic gospels and other apocrypha? I have. I am fascinated by the history the early church and the interactions between Rome, Jews, and early Christians. In particular the political dynamic which drove the whole thing. Trust me, I know the history.

Your assertion that morality derives from religion is ridiculous. As I have demonstrated there are many of examples where religious people behaved immorally in the name of religion. There are plenty of people who are immoral who are religious, there are plenty of religious people who act morally, and there are also plenty of atheists who are moral, there are also immoral atheists. There is no consistent causal relationship. These are facts that I can demonstrate with examples, not opinions.

All you can assert is that YOU feel religion is an important part of YOUR morality. I am happy for you. Whatever helps you get through the day.

rberq wrote:

BillMarti wrote:I sit here amazed that you just make an all inclusive remark as a fact that religion and scam artists are one and the same.

Come now, you can make your argument without distorting what I said. I said priests, from the earliest religions to the present, FREQUENTLY were and are scam artists, not that "religion and scam artists are one and the same".
And could you mail me some cash, please? God says if I don't raise a million dollars by Christmas, he will call me home. I have to believe it -- look what happened to Oral Roberts!

rberq,

As I said in a prior post what faith I follow doesn't demand anything you give money voluntarily because God doesn't need your money .Our money supports the church's outreach programs ie those who are struggling and missionary's we support about 20 at this time we also pay our minister and a few others that work for our church. Nobody gets any money unless it's approved by the congregation of about 300. That means raises for the pastor,missionary's or laymen workers. Oral Roberts was a lying thief as all TV evangelists who have the audacity to ask for money to receive a blessing God don't bargain for anything. The Bible says support your church voluntarily period not the charlatan.

ErikLaurence wrote:

BillMarti wrote:Erik,
You like to lump all religions together. I will disagree with you on this point my belief doesn't allow for murder 6th commandnent (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... EfsgDSkiXi) in the name of a god. You have not named a particular religion that was responsible for these atrocities but you should have but you know they would jump on you. You need to do a little more research on the different beliefs of those who would call themselves Christians. There a 2 nominal christians and biblical Christians. So before you make accusations of those guilty of atrocities and those who had nothing to do with it and were part of the murdered people do a little more research to find out the truth rather than opinion.

Have you read Josephus? Have you read the gnostic gospels and other apocrypha? I have. I am fascinated by the history the early church and the interactions between Rome, Jews, and early Christians. In particular the political dynamic which drove the whole thing. Trust me, I know the history.

Your assertion that morality derives from religion is ridiculous. As I have demonstrated there are many of examples where religious people behaved immorally in the name of religion. There are plenty of people who are immoral who are religious, there are plenty of religious people who act morally, and there are also plenty of atheists who are moral, there are also immoral atheists. There is no consistent causal relationship. These are facts that I can demonstrate with examples, not opinions.

All you can assert is that YOU feel religion is an important part of YOUR morality. I am happy for you. Whatever helps you get through the day.

We don't accept the "gnostic gospels" as true or the "apocrypha" as factual and you being a bit ridiculous assuming you no the history of Christianity. There were splits way back because of a man assuming full authoriy over the church. All church's were individual when the apostles started them and the reason why is because of heresy if one makes a mistake in doesn't affect the others and the others can intervene by counseling as was done a few times in the bible and it's mentioned in Revelations. So maybe you know secular history but you need to brush up on church history! Anybody is prone to be immoral Matthew 15:19-20 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. So your point is ? morality just appeared one day because we're good people Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

BillMarti wrote:We don't accept the "gnostic gospels" as true or the "apocrypha" as factual and you being a bit ridiculous assuming you no the history of Christianity.

Why not, just because Irenaeus said so 150 years after the fact? Heck the Canon did not get settled for another few hundred years after Irenaeus. The decision about what ended up in the Canon were political decisions.

If you care about what the man Jesus taught rather than the religions that grew up around him you have to read the apocrypha, the gnostic gospels, and quelle.

ErikLaurence wrote:

BillMarti wrote:We don't accept the "gnostic gospels" as true or the "apocrypha" as factual and you being a bit ridiculous assuming you no the history of Christianity.

Why not, just because Irenaeus said so 150 years after the fact? Heck the Canon did not get settled for another few hundred years after Irenaeus. The decision about what ended up in the Canon were political decisions.

If you care about what the man Jesus taught rather than the religions that grew up around him you have to read the apocrypha, the gnostic gospels, and quelle.

They don't agree with what we have today in the bible. And how do you know they were not rejected from the beginning. What do they have to add or detract that will change anything. There were a lot of so called scriptures that were rejected when they put the cannon together. The bible is and has been completed. What I need to know what Jesus taught is in the completed bible. Your opinion on how the bible was assembled is noted I believe God influence those who wrote it and that same influence made it what it is today. It's about salvation and how Jesus accomplished it and how and why we continually reject God's plan for us. So tell me why we need to add more confusing information?

BillMarti wrote:
They don't agree with what we have today in the bible. And how do you know they were not rejected from the beginning.

What do you mean "the beginning"? Mark wasn't even written until 40 years after the crucifixion. John was another 30 years after that.

The gnostics went out because of what Irenaeus wrote in Adversus Haereses in 180 AD. But the archaeological record (ie the Nag Hammadi library) has shown most of what Irenaeus wrote about gnosticism was wrong. But really christianity didn't become christianity until the Council of Nicaea in 325.

So once again... What do you mean "the beginning"?

ErikLaurence wrote:

BillMarti wrote:
They don't agree with what we have today in the bible. And how do you know they were not rejected from the beginning.

What do you mean "the beginning"? Mark wasn't even written until 40 years after the crucifixion. John was another 30 years after that.

The gnostics went out because of what Irenaeus wrote in Adversus Haereses in 180 AD. But the archaeological record (ie the Nag Hammadi library) has shown most of what Irenaeus wrote about gnosticism was wrong. But really christianity didn't become christianity until the Council of Nicaea in 325.

So once again... What do you mean "the beginning"?

Read your bible they were called Christians At the church of ANTIOCH http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.or ... stians.htm
What a historian you are? And when the name "CHURCH" in the bible is used it means there were christians there. Thats twice now your history is dead wrong. By the way I've been a biblical Christian for about 20 years now and have done o lot of research separating truth from secular opinion. Gnosticism is wrong regardless of your opinion I'll stick with the bible and not mans opinion of it. What I will sat is that In God I Trust in His complete work the bible.

BillMarti wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:

BillMarti wrote:
They don't agree with what we have today in the bible. And how do you know they were not rejected from the beginning.

What do you mean "the beginning"? Mark wasn't even written until 40 years after the crucifixion. John was another 30 years after that.

The gnostics went out because of what Irenaeus wrote in Adversus Haereses in 180 AD. But the archaeological record (ie the Nag Hammadi library) has shown most of what Irenaeus wrote about gnosticism was wrong. But really christianity didn't become christianity until the Council of Nicaea in 325.

So once again... What do you mean "the beginning"?

Read your bible they were called Christians At the church of ANTIOCH http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.or ... stians.htm
What a historian you are? And when the name "CHURCH" in the bible is used it means there were christians there. Thats twice now your history is dead wrong. By the way I've been a biblical Christian for about 20 years now and have done o lot of research separating truth from secular opinion. Gnosticism is wrong regardless of your opinion I'll stick with the bible and not mans opinion of it. What I will sat is that In God I Trust in His complete work the bible.

Both Barnabas and Paul of Tarsus predate at least two of, and likely all three of the synoptic gospels.

Barnabas and Paul never read Matthew, Luke, or John. It is possible he may have read Mark. It's also possible he read Quelle (but you seem not to think that Q matters).

So again, what do you mean "the beginning"?

They don't agree with what we have today in the bible. And how do you know they were not rejected from the beginning. [/quote]

What do you mean "the beginning"? Mark wasn't even written until 40 years after the crucifixion. John was another 30 years after that.

The gnostics went out because of what Irenaeus wrote in Adversus Haereses in 180 AD. But the archaeological record (ie the Nag Hammadi library) has shown most of what Irenaeus wrote about gnosticism was wrong. But really christianity didn't become christianity until the Council of Nicaea in 325.

So once again... What do you mean "the beginning"?[/quote]

Read your bible they were called Christians At the church of ANTIOCH http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.or ... stians.htm
What a historian you are? And when the name "CHURCH" in the bible is used it means there were christians there. Thats twice now your history is dead wrong. By the way I've been a biblical Christian for about 20 years now and have done o lot of research separating truth from secular opinion. Gnosticism is wrong regardless of your opinion I'll stick with the bible and not mans opinion of it. What I will sat is that In God I Trust in His complete work the bible.[/quote]

Both Barnabas and Paul of Tarsus predate at least two of, and likely all three of the synoptic gospels.

Barnabas and Paul never read Matthew, Luke, or John. It is possible he may have read Mark. It's also possible he read Quelle (but you seem not to think that Q matters).

So again, what do you mean "the beginning"?[/quote]


OK you got me there oooooohhhh wait a minute were not they all taught and corrected by Jesus himself? and were not they all friends and spoke with one another on a regular basis? Did not Jesus teach them as a group from the "BEGINNING" before sending them out? Do you think Jesus sent them out with different doctrines? This is the third time your history failed you? Doesn't matter when they were written the fact is they all agree about Jesus as the savior and on doctrine? So why would it make any difference whether they read one another's letters on church doctrine or discipline. Quell does not matter if he's not mentioned in the bible his opinion does not matter. God wrote it I believe it nothing else matters He made sure everything we needed was included in the bible. But you can keep using the "what if's" but if it makes you happy. Why does there need to be more and why do you believe something is missing? I do believe there is someone at work in the world to deceive usJohn 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Which is why I don't believe there is "Extra Lost" or not "Included" biblicial text. Christ taught correct doctrine to His apostles I don't see Quell mentioned there were 14 in all and still I don't see Quell mentioned?

BillMarti wrote:
OK you got me there oooooohhhh wait a minute were not they all taught and corrected by Jesus himself? and were not they all friends and spoke with one another on a regular basis? Did not Jesus teach them as a group from the "BEGINNING" before sending them out? Do you think Jesus sent them out with different doctrines? This is the third time your history failed you? Doesn't matter when they were written the fact is they all agree about Jesus as the savior and on doctrine? So why would it make any difference whether they read one another's letters on church doctrine or discipline. Quell does not matter if he's not mentioned in the bible his opinion does not matter. God wrote it I believe it nothing else matters He made sure everything we needed was included in the bible. But you can keep using the "what if's" but if it makes you happy. Why does there need to be more and why do you believe something is missing? I do believe there is someone at work in the world to deceive usJohn 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Which is why I don't believe there is "Extra Lost" or not "Included" biblicial text. Christ taught correct doctrine to His apostles I don't see Quell mentioned there were 14 in all and still I don't see Quell mentioned?

Mark, along with Quelle, is the source material for the other two synoptic gospels.

Mark was not an apostle.

Matthew and Luke are derivative works of Mark and Q

Very few serious biblical scholars still believe John the Apostle wrote the gospel.

By the way, Quelle is not a person. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html


There's far more to understanding Jesus (or any religion) than the canonical. If you only follow the canonical you are limited by the dogma of whatever denomination you choose to follow.


You believe what you believe out of faith.

I believe what I believe out of reason, history, archaeology, and linguistic research.

You clearly have no interest in learning anything you don't already know so I'm going to give up trying to get you to learn something new.

Good night.