there are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
Hey Cofty,
I'm not ignoring you, but I am going to re-read through the new testament with the slant you've presented and see if it changes my perspective. If not, I'll be citing more specifics regarding my slant....I'll probably end up making a new thread about it. Thanks!
there are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
Cofty, my apologies for the condescending tone. I think we are simply speaking past each other, as you are talking about the "L"aw, and I am speaking of the shore laws and various others that were implemented by Judaism to prevent violating Mosaic Law.
I think Randy wrote a pretty good post about what Jesus meant by "fulfilling the law." These are the kinds of things that, much like any Shakespeare novel, are in my opinion open to interpretation and debate, but is so often looked over by those who can view it from an objective standpoint (no religious bias). This is one of them. What is meant by fulfilling the law?
Again, while there are some minor contradictions in the new testament, even between Jesus and the apostles, but the overall gist I pulled from it was that Jesus came to abolish the Law, including Mosaic Law; otherwise, as you mention, Christianity would simply be a Jewish sect. So it seems a lot rides on this concept quite heavily. Jesus said that the entire law hinges on two things: to love one's neighbor as himself, and to love God with all of one's heart.
There is a vast difference between the God of the old testament and of the new testament. One commands to hate those who oppose him, the other to freely forgive all. One has freely forgiven sinners, the other kills on a whim. One judges based on action, the other on heart condition. To say that Christians follow the same God as Jews at the time did appears simply to be false.
there are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
Cofty, I see you've chosen not to address any of the examples I listed of Jesus violating sabbath laws, blaspheming that he was as great as God, and associating with sinners. Until you address that, I can't take your out of context scripture seriously for discussion.
there are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
Today's religions, even so called christian ones, fall far short of his vision, which would not have needed a formal religion, or rules and regulations, at all.
I agree. To me it's interesting at how quickly the message has been continuously corrupted throughout the time of its supposed origin. Early on, no doubt the lack of distribution had something to do with it. Today, there's really no excuse. Yet, I think it says something about the underlying psychology of manking when the same hierarchy and church structure continuously keeps appearing, even when the message its based on is contrary to it.
there are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
I'm trying to figure out if you're yanking my chain or not cofty......
Jesus was a religious Jew, the ultimate Jew who cared pasionately for every jot and tittle of the Law. He believed in sabbath keeping - just not in the pedantic interpretation of it. He worshipped as a Jew, kept the festivals and sacrifices and avoided unclean foods etc etc. He never said a single word about any of that passing away - his followers after his death were a Jewish sect.
Yes he opposed the oppressive imposition of the law and the hypocrisy of some religious leaders but never did he encourage anybody to do anything apart from obeying the Law to the very letter
Jesus chose to violate Jewish law and tradition every chance he got. He healed, performed miracles, and walked through fields numerous times on the Sabbath, was strongly opposed to stoning a woman who had committed adultery, regularly associated with those who were "disfellowshipped" from the Jewish church or were otherwised considered sinners, and made it clear that it wasn't what one "ate" them made them unclean.
Have you even heard of the Torah? It seems like you don't understand how far reaching, restrictive, and complex Jewish law was on the life of the everday person....or maybe I'm missing your point. I don't mind providing various verses to prove my point...
there are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
Recently I have taken to reading Thomas Jefferson's Bible, and I'm in the process right now. I think it's fascinating, and it's exactly how I am forced by belief to read the new testament. It casts a light on it that I rarely have an opportunity to discuss with others, seeing as how most believe the Bible to be true, and the other portion believe it to be false and not worth the time or effort.
I agree, there are some glaring contradictions in the original poem, and in the new testament for that matter. For instance, the one criteria for being saved is believing absolutely that Christ was the son of God and was sent to redeem us all of our sins. Well, if that supercedes the heart condition of an individual-- if somebody can get everything else right, but still doesn't believe that--then they won't be saved? I call shenanigans.
However, saying that Christ started his own dogmatic religion in the same sense that the religion exists in the majority of the world today is a little dismissive. Consider this statement:
There are no absolutes.
It's impossible for this statement to be true, because it is itself an absolute. When you consider the philosophy Christ taught, it was essentially to free men from the rigid, bogged down legalism of the church at the time. Although from our cloud of millenia of progress it might seem simple, it musts have been extremely revolutionary to the majority of people at the time. The emphasis was on loving your neighbor as yourself, and loving God. So while it in and of itself is a religious doctrine, it was a religious doctrine demanding that people not get involved and bogged down with religious doctrine. To conflate such a doctrine with those that exist today, requiring absolute obedience to man and the church, with no participation or freedom of thought from its members, is disingenuous.
I won't deny that there are parts of the new testament that also somewhat contradict this overarching theme. But from an atheist standpoint, that's okay, because we're not trying to prove this is the perfect and undisputable word of God; rather, I am simply stating that the majority of church structure today is not only far different from that of the first century, but also from the philosophy of Christ himself. I frankly believe Christ's message started deteriorating even as recently as when Paul started his tour de Europe.
So while the messenger of the poem on youtube might be plagued by some dogmatic belief himself, when contrasted with the dogmatism and requirements of the church, I find little evidence demonstrating the two are the same or equivalent by any means. We all have dogmatic belief. The objective is to root out those that are repressive and demonstrably false to the greatest degree possible. While Christianity might not have done that, it was a clear and drastic improvement over the system in place in Christ's time.
there are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
Well apparently I figured it out.
I watched both of these videos in one sitting. First off, full disclosure: I'm an atheist agnostic- I don' tknow if there's a God, but I don't believe that there is, at least in terms of most conventional definitions of the word. However, I was extremely disgusted and insulted by the response to the initial video, which I felt was heartfelt and beautiful.
I've recently discovered that arguments over the factuality of the Bible bore me to tears. It's like endless conversations having to deal with whether the works of Shakespeare ever actually happened. Atheists (including myself) have spent so much time and energy trying to disprove the inspired origin of the Bible, we’ve completely missed and neglected what I find to be a fascinatingly complex story of human triumph, hope, aspiration, and an enormous leap forward in our understanding of morality.
On the atheist’s response, I commented that it was like listening to a young earth creationist argue against why evolution is true. I already knew that atheism was no safeguard against ignorance, but it’s still shocking and embarrassing to see the lack of empathy and understanding, the frothing arrogance, and the wild-eyed intolerance, pouring out of the AmazingAtheist. Ironically, it’d do him some good to read his Bible.
I am an atheist of the Dawkins/Hitchens/Dennett generation, and I rabidly devoured all of their books on the subject. I went through my militant atheist phase. I got it, I was proud of it, but now, I’m over it. It’s interesting that one of the natural reactions to discovering the belief that a Christian God doesn’t exist is that suddenly, you feel qualified to talk about Christianity and the Bible. It turns out, nothing is further from the truth. It immediately discourages a deeper understanding of the complex themes of the Bible, the implications of the New Testament and the impact on religion of the character, real or fictional, Jesus Christ. Recently, I mourned the loss of a great champion of reason and eloquence, Christopher Hitchens. As I read through the various eulogies, I was fascinated by several of those written by religious figures as they detailed their close friendships with Hitchens. One had talked about an eleven hour roadtrip in which Hitchens demanded to talk about the book of John for the entire duration. I was floored. For many years, I’ve heard the expression “don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater,” never fully understanding its meaning. Now, sadly, I realize that the new generation of atheism has instilled a deep disdain for anything originating from the Bible, without any appreciation of the detailed development of mankind’s development of the idea of God and morality.
I have been in a relationship with a Jehovahs Witness for over a year now (talk about the odd couple). It’s strange, yet warmly familiar, since I was raised as a Jehovahs Witness until I was about fifteen. At first, I was very opposed to spending any time or mental energy on re-exploring the Bible, but I’m so thankful now that I did. It has shown me just how little I knew about the Bible, but even more alarmingly, how little I’m sure most atheists know about the Bible. And I get it: why spend time discussing or researching something that one considers fictional? Why waste the energy? Well, it turns out that it’s to avoid looking like a complete doofus when trying to discuss the Bible and Christianity. I really wish there was a new trend in atheism, where people actually spent the time and effort thoroughly understanding scripture so they can intelligently engage in Biblical discussions with Christians. At the very least, I propose that atheists should acknowledge that if they don’t have a thorough understanding and knowledge of the Bible’s storyline, themes, and meanings, then they simply aren’t qualified to discuss it further than admitting their disbelief in its inspired origin. However, with the arrogance and false sense of triumph that accompanies the realization of a belief in a world without God, I fear I may be asking too much.
there are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
There are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that I'd like to discuss. Both are posted below. My next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary. :-) (I have no idea how to embed the videos apparently, if anybody would like to help I'd appreciate it).
this is what we were told in a recent public talk.
if true then it is very intriguing and may support the point being made in the talk that we know nothing compared to god.
the audience was spell bound and even i had to admit the young man gave an excellent talk.. i thought i'd come here to check the facts first though.
I actually think maybe this is what I read about...but maybe not. I have a hard time remembering yesterday, much less what I read many moons ago. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
Edit: my apologies, the article I read may have been pertaining to antimatter, not dark matter / energy, and I may have conflated the two.
this is what we were told in a recent public talk.
if true then it is very intriguing and may support the point being made in the talk that we know nothing compared to god.
the audience was spell bound and even i had to admit the young man gave an excellent talk.. i thought i'd come here to check the facts first though.
Bohm, I don't think we're in disagreement here necessarily....but I can't make sense of what you're saying. It comes down to two questions:
Are atoms mostly empty space? As far as I can tell, the answer is yes:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/28/why-are-atoms-mostly-empty-space/
Does that empty space have a mass? Again, the answer is yes. So within the empty space of an atom, there is mass. This mass would be caused by dark matter / energy. It's as if you're saying atoms are a closed system where the space within is 100% accounted for. I can't see any evidence of that other than what you're telling me is true.
