Religion

[Black Core]

Um, nearly every strength that the human species possesses.

What bad came of war? (Except modern shallow war.)


Our modern society is fucked up, but you seem to be saying all human society has been fucked up. This is quite false. There have been a great deal of extremely valuable ancient societies, nearly all of which have been very war-like. A large part of the very reason modern society is fucked up is we try to attain a war-less utopia, snuffing out any hint of rebellion or dissent. And "colony of animals" is "bad" in what way?

our total modern so called "culture" is fucked up, it's all based on the strong without giving the truly wead an opportunity, just look at the US monopoly in basicly everything

 

[OldScratch]

our total modern so called "culture" is fucked up, it's all based on the strong without giving the truly wead an opportunity, just look at the US monopoly in basicly everything

Please tell me you are kidding! This from the professed "Satanist" moaning about the "Strong" not "giving the weak an opportunity." How deliciously Christian and humanitarian of you...what "Satanic" texts are you reading from?
The US monopolizing "everything??" Would you care to elaborate on this preposterous generalization?

 

[Έρεβος]

our total modern so called "culture" is fucked up, it's all based on the strong without giving the truly wead an opportunity, just look at the US monopoly in basicly everything

Actually, it is based more upon elevating the weak and snuffing out real strength altogether.

Anyway, not that what you say is the way of our society, isn't the strong prevailing positive? The weak shouldn't be snuffed out, but why let them flourish? It is not within them to do it on their own, as they are weak. The strongest surviving creates a stronger species, is positive.

You have a rather backwards view of modern society, and a backwards view of what society should be.

 

[JColtrane]

when I hear Jesus being used to support every tribe or color under the sun (jesus was a jew, and only preached to jews despite Paul's best efforts to present him otherwise).

....
Time to read the gospels again, haha. Jesus definitely preached to people other than Jews and healed people other than Jews too. Check out the story of the woman at the well or the healing of the centurion's servant. It's clear that faith is what saves a person, for Jesus, not ethnicity. Paul added nothing new on this point.

 

[speed]

Ive always wondered why Christianity made it. There were hundreds of religions, many more popular than Christianity, and they died out, were all but erased from the record (pesky Church officials were quite zealous in stamping out any challenges, religion or philosophical, to jesus and the church of Niceae dogma), or were incorporated into the Christian myth.

My answer years ago, was that Christianity was the only religion to directly address the plight of most of the world at the time--the poor, the weak, etc. It was the only religion to console and exalt the poor and weak. And the more I read on the subject, the more I become convinced, this is primarily the reason for Christianities popularity. Especially, as if one looks at history, Christianity really became popular in the late 2nd and 3rd centuries, when most of Europe had been striken by the first versions of the plague, and the Roman Empire began to crumble both in power and economically. With so many downtrodden and poor persons, one can see why many would turn to a new religion that offerred a future utopia.

 

[speed]

....
Time to read the gospels again, haha. Jesus definitely preached to people other than Jews and healed people other than Jews too. Check out the story of the woman at the well or the healing of the centurion's servant. It's clear that faith is what saves a person, for Jesus, not ethnicity. Paul added nothing new on this point.

Which gospels?

The Gospel of Judas has just been unearthed, and casts doubt on many of the gospels. In some gospels, Jesus only cares for Jews. Only Luke, mentions his non-jew mission; there is nothing about gentiles in the canonical Mark and Matthew (and Mark was the earliest written). And Luke was written as part of, or under the influence of, Paul's ministry. In fact, the quelle bible (or the source bible to the later written gospels), as many theologians have studied, portrays a jesus who was a jewish religious and political revolutionary above all else.

Point being, there is really no conclusive Jesus.

 

[Έρεβος]

Ive always wondered why Christianity made it. There were hundreds of religions, many more popular than Christianity, and they died out, were all but erased from the record (pesky Church officials were quite zealous in stamping out any challenges, religion or philosophical, to jesus and the church of Niceae dogma), or were incorporated into the Christian myth.

My answer years ago, was that Christianity was the only religion to directly address the plight of most of the world at the time--the poor, the weak, etc. It was the only religion to console and exalt the poor and weak. And the more I read on the subject, the more I become convinced, this is primarily the reason for Christianities popularity. Especially, as if one looks at history, Christianity really became popular in the late 2nd and 3rd centuries, when most of Europe had been striken by the first versions of the plague, and the Roman Empire began to crumble both in power and economically. With so many downtrodden and poor persons, one can see why many would turn to a new religion that offerred a future utopia.

It is manipulative and coercive, a religion crafted excellently to gain support through underhanded means, playing on fears, hopes, etc. It is a truly abominable religion, playing upon the dearest aspects of human existence, and twisting them to get the leaders power. It never converted anyone honestly; it was always coercive, never intelligent in any manner. When the manipulation and coercion failed it became violent. This is how it made it; i is a grand, ingenious, and utterly disgusting, construction.

 

[Black Core]

Please tell me you are kidding! This from the professed "Satanist" moaning about the "Strong" not "giving the weak an opportunity." How deliciously Christian and humanitarian of you...what "Satanic" texts are you reading from?
The US monopolizing "everything??" Would you care to elaborate on this preposterous generalization?

what the hell has Satanism got to do with anything. I've got my own interpretation and keep an open mind. I think that you need to help anyone as long as it helps you as well (like a good feeling or that they'll help you if you need any help)

on the US matter: see Iraq, Afghanistan, Microsoft, the UN, etc.

Actually, it is based more upon elevating the weak and snuffing out real strength altogether.

Anyway, not that what you say is the way of our society, isn't the strong prevailing positive? The weak shouldn't be snuffed out, but why let them flourish? It is not within them to do it on their own, as they are weak. The strongest surviving creates a stronger species, is positive.

You have a rather backwards view of modern society, and a backwards view of what society should be.

not really, it's more base on elevating the middle class, the really poor rarely get a chance (Africa).

All crime is due to poverty.

I must admit that I am rather negative when it comes to humanity, yes.

Ive always wondered why Christianity made it.

one answer:
the inquisition

 

[Black Core]

Please tell me you are kidding! This from the professed "Satanist" moaning about the "Strong" not "giving the weak an opportunity." How deliciously Christian and humanitarian of you...what "Satanic" texts are you reading from?
The US monopolizing "everything??" Would you care to elaborate on this preposterous generalization?

what the hell has Satanism got to do with anything. I've got my own interpretation and keep an open mind. I think that you need to help anyone as long as it helps you as well (like a good feeling or that they'll help you if you need any help)

on the US matter: see Iraq, Afghanistan, Microsoft, the UN, etc.

Actually, it is based more upon elevating the weak and snuffing out real strength altogether.

Anyway, not that what you say is the way of our society, isn't the strong prevailing positive? The weak shouldn't be snuffed out, but why let them flourish? It is not within them to do it on their own, as they are weak. The strongest surviving creates a stronger species, is positive.

You have a rather backwards view of modern society, and a backwards view of what society should be.

not really, it's more base on elevating the middle class, the really poor rarely get a chance (Africa).

All crime is due to poverty.

I must admit that I am rather negative when it comes to humanity, yes.

Ive always wondered why Christianity made it.

one answer:
the inquisition

 

[speed]

what the hell has Satanism got to do with anything. I've got my own interpretation and keep an open mind. I think that you need to help anyone as long as it helps you as well (like a good feeling or that they'll help you if you need any help)

on the US matter: see Iraq, Afghanistan, Microsoft, the UN, etc.



not really, it's more base on elevating the middle class, the really poor rarely get a chance (Africa).

All crime is due to poverty.

I must admit that I am rather negative when it comes to humanity, yes.


one answer:
the inquisition

I dont disagree with your ideas of a once American economic hegemony over the world, however, the inquisition? This was centuries after the fact; after Christianity had been distorted and made into a state religion. Perhaps after Constantine the sword was the most powerful tool for conversion (as it was with Islam as well), however, before Constantine, a good 40% of the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity, when they had hundreds of other religions to choose from.

 

[JColtrane]

Which gospels?

The Gospel of Judas has just been unearthed, and casts doubt on many of the gospels. In some gospels, Jesus only cares for Jews. Only Luke, mentions his non-jew mission; there is nothing about gentiles in the canonical Mark and Matthew (and Mark was the earliest written). And Luke was written as part of, or under the influence of, Paul's ministry. In fact, the quelle bible (or the source bible to the later written gospels), as many theologians have studied, portrays a jesus who was a jewish religious and political revolutionary above all else.

Point being, there is really no conclusive Jesus.

Uhh...no.
The Great Commission is in Matthew, and the story of the woman at the well is also in John (both of which you would have much difficulty linking to Paul). Jesus did primarily preach to Jews, but it is foolish to draw the conclusion that his message only applies to Jews.

The canonical gospels are in the Christian canon for good reasons. They are simply the most reliable. The Gospel of Judas was written later than all of the canonical gospels, the earliest copy we have of it is from the 4th century, and it was composed by a group of gnostics, and how anyone even discovered the damn thing is a huge mystery
To put it simply, it is not accepted for a reason.

 

[Black Core]

I dont disagree with your ideas of a once American economic hegemony over the world, however, the inquisition? This was centuries after the fact; after Christianity had been distorted and made into a state religion. Perhaps after Constantine the sword was the most powerful tool for conversion (as it was with Islam as well), however, before Constantine, a good 40% of the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity, when they had hundreds of other religions to choose from.

not really, most of those who people think were christian, were actually Jewish and Christianity came from that.
if it wasn't for the inquisition, there would be alot less christians nowadays cuz the indoctrination of the inquisition was the start of the whole "if you aren't christian, you go to hell" philosophy that went on until this generation.

 

[speed]

Uhh...no.
The Great Commission is in Matthew, and the story of the woman at the well is also in John (both of which you would have much difficulty linking to Paul). Jesus did primarily preach to Jews, but it is foolish to draw the conclusion that his message only applies to Jews.

The canonical gospels are in the Christian canon for good reasons. They are simply the most reliable. The Gospel of Judas was written later than all of the canonical gospels, the earliest copy we have of it is from the 4th century, and it was composed by a group of gnostics, and how anyone even discovered the damn thing is a huge mystery
To put it simply, it is not accepted for a reason.

Such a foolish thread.

Damn, I've completely forgotten most of Matthew and John. I still dont remember Matthew directing his message to anyone but fellow jews however. And John is far from literal history. I think much scholarship has been done to show how the early christians were all jews, or a sect of judaism. But still, you dont have any proof, as much as I dont have any proof. Was Jesus an Essene from a century earlier? These questions abound. Did Jesus think himself savior of the jews--the messiah--or merely just a prophet? How many followers did he have? Who knows?

I;m really not anti-semitic. I have just read a few histories (but not the actual gospels since I was a mere lad)that make such claims that Jesus was a jewish revolutionary politically and spiritually, in the Essene tradition.

I think it spurious to claim the canonical gospels were somehow more reliable. Surely you're aware of their selection in the 4th century AD? Were they more reliable for political reasons? I think many would make such a claim. Cant have a bunch of gnostics going around can we?--well, there were a few until those pesky cathars were finally liquidated. And you have Marcion, whose followers were for a time in the 200's, more populous than any other Christian sect, and they had their own new testament.

Amazing they didnt burn all of those gnostic bibles. They did a pretty good job though.

 

[Έρεβος]

The canonical gospels are in the Christian canon for good reasons. They are simply the most reliable. The Gospel of Judas was written later than all of the canonical gospels, the earliest copy we have of it is from the 4th century, and it was composed by a group of gnostics, and how anyone even discovered the damn thing is a huge mystery

Those good reasons being that they do not contradict each other, and work perfectly for coercion of the people and enrichment of the church. They are the hand picked canons of the church, bound together as a volume without obvious idiocies; there could have been a hundred other such volumes, as there were many texts just as valid as the canons, but the church chose these, for "good reasons." And does it really matter how late they were written? I could write a canon right now and it would be basically as likely as the rest. Every single canon of the bible that pertains to Jesus was written long after his death, most over a hundred years after his death. I call that a load of bullshit. Writing another book a bit after such canons is only just a tiny bit more bullshit.

To put it simply, it is not accepted for a reason.

Quite true, and you don't seem to realize that reason. The reason all aside from the canons are rejected is they contain text that would challenge the validity of the church. The reason they are not accepted is greed, not any proven assertions of falsehood. The canonized scriptures are just as likely to be false, meaning forged by "gnostics," they simply are accepted as they do not contradict each other too obviously, and work perfectly for the churches' motives. Anything that speaks a word out of line with the churches teachings, which allow them to maintain power, is labeled as "gnostic" -- not because they are actually shown to be gnostic.

 

[Έρεβος]

not really, it's more base on elevating the middle class, the really poor rarely get a chance (Africa).

All crime is due to poverty.

I must admit that I am rather negative when it comes to humanity, yes.

Strong = Has money ???

Where the hell did you get that? Having large boobs and/or a pretty face is about all you need to make money in this society. You're talking about something entirely separate from out conversation. Africa has nothing to do with the working of our society; they are being hurt by our bringing it there, but that is utterly separate.

 

[JColtrane]

The canonized Gospels contradict each other numerous times. Therefore, it's not really an argument that they chose them b/c they all fit together perfectly.
And actually, gnosticism is a particular kind of sect, believing that the body is bad and the spirit is good

 

[speed]

There's a number of jesus-based threads that cover many of these same issues. I will stop my serious comments here. Clearly we agree Coltrane, that on the issue of the historical jesus, and even the very foundation of the Christian faith, there is no set truth, only questions, contradictions, and conundrums. Perhaps therein, lie its attractiveness to so many.

 

[Black Core]

Strong = Has money ???

Where the hell did you get that? Having large boobs and/or a pretty face is about all you need to make money in this society. You're talking about something entirely separate from out conversation. Africa has nothing to do with the working of our society; they are being hurt by our bringing it there, but that is utterly separate.

with strong, I meant powerfull and those who are powerfull are those who have the money, you can't deny it.
Africa has everything to do with our society since alot of the base materials come from there

 

[OldScratch]

what the hell has Satanism got to do with anything. I've got my own interpretation and keep an open mind. I think that you need to help anyone as long as it helps you as well (like a good feeling or that they'll help you if you need any help)

on the US matter: see Iraq, Afghanistan, Microsoft, the UN, etc.

You have professed to be a Satanist elsewhere on this forum, and your bleeding-heart attitude about the weak, poor or what have you, run counter to the typical perspective of one who calls themselves a Satanist - that is what it has to do with Satanism. Directly helping someone in need, is a whole lot different than whining about the "weak" being taken advantage of by the strong, on a global basis, etc. One is human decency...the other is, to be kind, an overdeveloped sense of altruism.(again, very Christian)

Statements such as "all crime is due to poverty" are curious. Are you not familiar with Wall Street and global stock-market shenanigans, Multinational, corporate white-collar crime, various organized crime enterprises, money-laundering schemes, state and government corruption, etc? Poverty?
Moreover, a great deal of blue-collar crime is committed by individuals who can hardly be called genuinely impoversihed by any meaningful definition of the word.

 

[Έρεβος]

The canonized Gospels contradict each other numerous times. Therefore, it's not really an argument that they chose them b/c they all fit together perfectly.
And actually, gnosticism is a particular kind of sect, believing that the body is bad and the spirit is good

I never said it didn't contradict itself; it simply doesn't dead obviously and bluntly contradict itself. It contradicts itself in ways that can be covered up quite easily, and smoothed over with bullshit.

If I am not mistaken ... Gnostic is a general term that has been attributed to that which is outside of the general accepted Christian orthodox.