ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , bible

Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM   #1761
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14,553
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
Has this thread lost focus?

This signature is intended to irritate people.
Yes.

As far as I can see, if someone points out that the bible glorifies atrocities, they get accused of a Disney view of the world, and that the Nazis (and presumably Stalin) also committed atrocities and weren't Christian.

This seems to miss the point. People are claiming the bible as a moral guide, so I would want it to be an exemplar of good morality, not praising atrocities. That is nothing to do with a Disney view of the world, but promoting what should be.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:28 PM   #1762
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Yes.

As far as I can see, if someone points out that the bible glorifies atrocities, they get accused of a Disney view of the world, and that the Nazis (and presumably Stalin) also committed atrocities and weren't Christian.

This seems to miss the point. People are claiming the bible as a moral guide, so I would want it to be an exemplar of good morality, not praising atrocities. That is nothing to do with a Disney view of the world, but promoting what should be.
Well, yes.

From the start, bible god is demonstrated to have NO power at all. Read genesis. Bible god is a bizarrely immoral thug who is not omnipotent, omnipresent nor omniscient, is given to outright lies and is filled with fear which he/she/housecat can only deal with by means of outright threats of violence and death.

None of which happen.

Not to mention, he cannot even get the order of creation correct.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:05 PM   #1763
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,550
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
The name is "Jesus Barabbas".

"Barabbas" (בר אבא) is Aramaic and translated means "son of the father", which is an aramaic idiom for "son of God". Curious that one prisoner was called "Jesus the Christ", and the other prisoner was called "Jesus son of God".

From the NIV:

Matthew 27:16
"At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas."
Luke 23:19 tells us what crime he had been accused of "Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder."

The obvious solution to this enigma is this. Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Nazarene were the same person. This person had been arrested for insurrection with bloodshed. However the idea that Jesus committed violent acts was unpalatable to the later authors of the gospels, so they split the character into two persons and made another one do the bad things, while the familar one was represented as completely innocent of all violence.
Quote:
You appear not to know that the sanhedrin was the 'Supreme Court'
I think Vixen is confusing the words "Sanhedrin" and "Sadducees".
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:09 PM   #1764
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 55,573
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
Has this thread lost focus?
Did it ever have focus?
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:01 PM   #1765
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Luke 23:19 tells us what crime he had been accused of "Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder."

The obvious solution to this enigma is this. Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Nazarene were the same person. This person had been arrested for insurrection with bloodshed. However the idea that Jesus committed violent acts was unpalatable to the later authors of the gospels, so they split the character into two persons and made another one do the bad things, while the familar one was represented as completely innocent of all violence.
Interesting.

I have not studied the NT, only have read it. But there is so much that does not make sense (including the outright distortion of jewish laws, beliefs and customs).

What you have written makes total sense.


Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I think Vixen is confusing the words "Sanhedrin" and "Sadducees".
Vixen confusing the two words is what it looked like to me as well.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:20 PM   #1766
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
Interesting.

I have not studied the NT, only have read it. But there is so much that does not make sense (including the outright distortion of jewish laws, beliefs and customs).

What you have written makes total sense.




Vixen confusing the two words is what it looked like to me as well.
The attempt was made to cover up the violence of jebus, but some of it crept in. The whole jebus hates figs thing was a larf. jebus got peeved that a fig tree had no fruit OUT OF SEASON. Being god and all, he could have simply made the fig tree bear fruit out of season. Hallelujah, a miracle!!! But no. He cursed said tree in a fit of pique. Why he cursed it? Well, the faithful will tell you it is a metaphor. For what, they are unable to say.

Then there are the money lenders in the temple. jebus goes postal on them, laying about with a whip, overturning tables etc in an act of outright violence. All the while forgetting that the money lenders were not in the actual temple, but in the outer precincts and that it was their traditional place to trade and that they were providing a valuable foreign exchange facility. The revolutionary violence shines through despite the efforts to suppress it and excise it from the holey babble. A reading of the non-canonical books makes it even more plain that young jebus was a total dick.

Then there is the wilful misinterpretation of various verses. E.g. "Suffer little children to come unto me". As raised in the RCC, this was presented as a requirement that children must suffer to reach jebus. As a kid, I was aware that "suffer" had the meaning "allow", not victimise. The RCC did not, hence the Mo theresa cult. I suppose, as a kid, I had sufficient grasp of english nuance to spot that nonsense, but the fact remains...the RCC likes suffering, they fundamentally want it, to the extent that they will bend language to justify it.

Go figure.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:22 PM   #1767
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
As far as I can see, if someone points out that the bible glorifies atrocities, they get accused of a Disney view of the world, and that the Nazis (and presumably Stalin) also committed atrocities and weren't Christian.
Yes, and additionally, the atrocities get handwaved away as unimportant because they were done by the "OT God".

As another poster responded to that statement; "So much for monotheism".

Also, "NT God" is not exactly an improvement since he takes atrocities to a whole new level. With "OT God" smiting meant you were dead. Those atrocities were bad enough.

"NT God" came up with the new idea of a permanent, eternal atrocity of infinite firey torture. An infinite punishment for a finite "crime". And what is the "crime"? The crime of not letting "NT God" 'save' you from he is going to do to you if you do not let him 'save' you.


Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
This seems to miss the point. People are claiming the bible as a moral guide, so I would want it to be an exemplar of good morality, not praising atrocities. That is nothing to do with a Disney view of the world, but promoting what should be.
And the few actual good moral points, Do not murder, do not steal, be nice to neighbours, Golden Rule, etc, already existed outside of and/or predate the bible.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM   #1768
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
Yes, and additionally, the atrocities get handwaved away as unimportant because they were done by the "OT God".

As another poster responded to that statement; "So much for monotheism".

Also, "NT God" is not exactly an improvement since he takes atrocities to a whole new level. With "OT God" smiting meant you were dead. Those atrocities were bad enough.

"NT God" came up with the new idea of a permanent, eternal atrocity of infinite firey torture. An infinite punishment for a finite "crime". And what is the "crime"? The crime of not letting "NT God" 'save' you from he is going to do to you if you do not let him 'save' you.




And the few actual good moral points, Do not murder, do not steal, be nice to neighbours, Golden Rule, etc, already existed outside of and/or predate the bible.
Hammurabi need I mention? Epic of Gilgamesh need I mention? And so on.

Even the NT is flat out hearsay, but park that for a moment. Your christian will claim that the NT superseded the OT due to the sacrifice of jebus. He died for our sins, apparently. Did he actually die? Well, no. He rose from the dead on the third day. Well, no. Two days according to the babble. Who was present when to corpse was discovered to be missing? Well, the babble is completely bonkers on that question. According to John 20:1, it was Mary Magdelene alone. According to Matthew 28:1 It was Mary magdalene and "the other Mary". According to Mark it was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome. According to Luke 24:1 it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women, IOW 5 or more.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:42 PM   #1769
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
And as to the naming, the prophecy was that the child would be named "Emmanuel" except that the kid was named jebus and never named "Emmanuel". Way to go non-profit.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:02 PM   #1770
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The attempt was made to cover up the violence of jebus, but some of it crept in. The whole jebus hates figs thing was a larf. jebus got peeved that a fig tree had no fruit OUT OF SEASON. Being god and all, he could have simply made the fig tree bear fruit out of season. Hallelujah, a miracle!!! But no. He cursed said tree in a fit of pique. Why he cursed it? Well, the faithful will tell you it is a metaphor. For what, they are unable to say.
The fig tree story sounds like a pretty pathetic little snit for a "god" to get his knickers in a twist about.

I have actually had the "metaphor" explained to me by fundie missionaries. It is about us bad jews, who refuse to accept j-man as god which means we do not "bear fruit". Since we are so stubborn and refuse to "bear fruit" (become xian) j-man will curse us and we will be "destroyed for eternity like the fig tree".

I can just feel the "love".


Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Then there are the money lenders in the temple. jebus goes postal on them, laying about with a whip, overturning tables etc in an act of outright violence. All the while forgetting that the money lenders were not in the actual temple, but in the outer precincts and that it was their traditional place to trade and that they were providing a valuable foreign exchange facility. The revolutionary violence shines through despite the efforts to suppress it and excise it from the holey babble. A reading of the non-canonical books makes it even more plain that young jebus was a total dick.
I never understood why christians think that is such a charming story. Not only destruction and violence, but j-man was actually breaking a biblical law since it was a commandment that the buyers and sellers were supposed to provide that service!

I have read parts of the non-canonical gospels where j-man was a child-god. VERY easy to see why they did not make it as canon!

I would love to read more. Definitely a good laugh!


Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Then there is the wilful misinterpretation of various verses. E.g. "Suffer little children to come unto me". As raised in the RCC, this was presented as a requirement that children must suffer to reach jebus. As a kid, I was aware that "suffer" had the meaning "allow", not victimise. The RCC did not, hence the Mo theresa cult. I suppose, as a kid, I had sufficient grasp of english nuance to spot that nonsense, but the fact remains...the RCC likes suffering, they fundamentally want it, to the extent that they will bend language to justify it.
That is horrible. And that quote by mother theresa in ddt's signature is beyond disgusting. What a complete bitch!
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:24 PM   #1771
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
The fig tree story sounds like a pretty pathetic little snit for a "god" to get his knickers in a twist about.

I have actually had the "metaphor" explained to me by fundie missionaries. It is about us bad jews, who refuse to accept j-man as god which means we do not "bear fruit". Since we are so stubborn and refuse to "bear fruit" (become xian) j-man will curse us and we will be "destroyed for eternity like the fig tree".

I can just feel the "love".
LOL, I am on the JW no visit list. I have now deconverted two. I found it fascinating that when they ask the inevitable "Have you read the bible?" question, they were most put out when I answered "yes, several times. HAVE YOU?". The mormons have given up altogether..

You might think that is flippant, but they actually do keep records of this crap. And I am most happy to go on record.

Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
I never understood why christians think that is such a charming story. Not only destruction and violence, but j-man was actually breaking a biblical law since it was a commandment that the buyers and sellers were supposed to provide that service!
Politics of power, I'm afraid. Christians of various sorts will make up all manner of excuses for a celibate priesthood. The reality is that the intent was to maintain money and power. The RCC is notorious for this. As is the anglican tradition.

In fairness, Jews seem not to care much about this, which makes them oddly more "christian" than "christians".

Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
I have read parts of the non-canonical gospels where j-man was a child-god. VERY easy to see why they did not make it as canon!
Power agendas were happening. Quelle surprise.

Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
I would love to read more. Definitely a good laugh!
I hesitate to point you in any given direction lest accusations of partisanship get wheeled out as they so often do. Nevertheless, some research will inform your view of the christian crankery. Look at Vixen's citation of the fake Josephus passage. Somehow, this obvious and long known fakery passed her by entirely.

Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
That is horrible. And that quote by mother theresa in ddt's signature is beyond disgusting. What a complete bitch!
Um, you have no idea. The poisonous Albanian dwarf has a lot to answer for. All those donations? You think those got to the poor suffering buggers? Nope. Diverted to the Vatican. Because suffering is somehow holy.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:31 PM   #1772
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16,920
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That has to be euphemism of the week.

So Germany 'deported' millions of Jews and others to concentration camps outside of Germany, so this proves Jews in Germany were not eliminated in Germany and therefore no laws were broken within German jurisdiction.
You seem to be totally ignorant of the Holocaust, or trying to twist my words.

Restricting the argument to the Jewish victims, only about 144,000 of the ca. 6 million Jews came from Germany itself, and ca. 49,000 from Austria which might arguably be called German territory at the time. The rest from all over Europe: Poland, the Soviet Union, Hungary, Romania, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. Around 105,000 Dutch Jews were transported in cattle cars through Germany to Auschwitz and Sobibor in Poland. Around 3 million Jews in Poland were first holed up in ghettos and then transported to the Aktion Reinhard camps (Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Treblinka) to be gassed there. The Jews in the Soviet Union were first and foremost gathered at execution places on the spot and mass-murdered there - you had done research on the Einsatzgruppen, hadn't you? On 1 December 1941, Karl Jäger, leader of Einsatzkommando 3, said in his report that Lithuania was judenfrei except for a couple of ghettos. Where do you think his EK killed those Lithuanian Jews?

The great majority of the Holocaust took place outside German borders and thus German law was totally irrelevant. It was a breach of international laws of war, specifically the The Hague Conventions.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:40 PM   #1773
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
And as to the naming, the prophecy was that the child would be named "Emmanuel" except that the kid was named jebus and never named "Emmanuel". Way to go non-profit.
That prophecy was about an event that occured ~700 years before jesus, and NOTHING to do with a "virgin birth".

There were wars going on between the kingdoms of judah, israel and assyria. The prophecy was to the king of judah. In Isaiah 7:14, the young woman (the word "virgin" is not used) is ALREADY PREGNANT and about to give birth (not "will conceive").

She is to name her child Emmanuel.

None of that is the prophecy.

The prophecy (a couple verses later) is that before little Emmanuel is old enough to know good from bad, the two kings that the king of judah is afraid of will be defeated. (The death of those two kings is recorded in the book of kings).

So, it was never a "prophecy" about a virgin birth 700 years later. That was just something else the NT writers made up.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:40 PM   #1774
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
You seem to be totally ignorant of the Holocaust, or trying to twist my words.

Restricting the argument to the Jewish victims, only about 144,000 of the ca. 6 million Jews came from Germany itself, and ca. 49,000 from Austria which might arguably be called German territory at the time. The rest from all over Europe: Poland, the Soviet Union, Hungary, Romania, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. Around 105,000 Dutch Jews were transported in cattle cars through Germany to Auschwitz and Sobibor in Poland. Around 3 million Jews in Poland were first holed up in ghettos and then transported to the Aktion Reinhard camps (Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Treblinka) to be gassed there. The Jews in the Soviet Union were first and foremost gathered at execution places on the spot and mass-murdered there - you had done research on the Einsatzgruppen, hadn't you? On 1 December 1941, Karl Jäger, leader of Einsatzkommando 3, said in his report that Lithuania was judenfrei except for a couple of ghettos. Where do you think his EK killed those Lithuanian Jews?

The great majority of the Holocaust took place outside German borders and thus German law was totally irrelevant. It was a breach of international laws of war, specifically the The Hague Conventions.
And it was intentional that it be beyond greater germany. There is a reason that the extermination camps were largely located in occupied territories. There is a reason why the Nazi's tried to cover it up. There is a reason why the Death Marches happened.

So, a question for vixen. Are you suggesting that the Holocaust never happened?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:43 PM   #1775
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16,920
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was disappointed to see Luther write what he did in the 16th Century.

However, the Christian doctrine is, as stated in the New Testament, and as supported by history of the Romans, who did indeed crucify large numbers of people, it was the Romans who crucified Christ.

The Sanhedrin were disapproving of Christ, sure.
All four Gospels tell us that Pilate gave the Jewish people the choice, to release Jesus or Barabbas, a murderer, and that Pilate added that he saw no crime in Jesus. But the Jewish people answered: "Crucify Him!". And Matthew adds his antisemitic creed that they also cried "His blood be on us and on our children".

There's simply no way you can get around that. All four gospels agree on that story. Unless - to paraphrase an argument from Geert Wilders about the Quran - you rip out those passages from all four gospels, that story is Christian doctrine: The Jews decided that Jesus had to be crucified, while Pilate wanted to set him free.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:46 PM   #1776
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16,920
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As we saw above, he never did emigrate.
Innere Emigration.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:50 PM   #1777
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
That prophecy was about an event that occured ~700 years before jesus, and NOTHING to do with a "virgin birth".

There were wars going on between the kingdoms of judah, israel and assyria. The prophecy was to the king of judah. In Isaiah 7:14, the young woman (the word "virgin" is not used) is ALREADY PREGNANT and about to give birth (not "will conceive").

She is to name her child Emmanuel.

None of that is the prophecy.

The prophecy (a couple verses later) is that before little Emmanuel is old enough to know good from bad, the two kings that the king of judah is afraid of will be defeated. (The death of those two kings is recorded in the book of kings).

So, it was never a "prophecy" about a virgin birth 700 years later. That was just something else the NT writers made up.
Made up? Oh, it is far worse than that. The NT writers simply made crap up out of whole cloth.

Consider the two genealogies presented for the descent of jebus from the line of David. Neither agree. The faithful must then perforce claim that one is the descent of jebus through his father, Joseph and the other is the descent of mary. Which entirely ignores that jebus was claimed to be begotten of the holy spook in an act of rape and had no connection whatsoever with the line of David. We shall ignore the implicit incest.

Consider mary's position. Be stoned as an adulteress, or make some wild claim to be divinely inseminated. What is one to do? I know what I would do.

In any event, no matter how much one might attempt to trace Big Joe all the way back to King David, the fact remains that the claimed jebus cannot be of the line of David at all.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; Yesterday at 05:51 PM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:29 PM   #1778
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
We shall ignore the implicit incest.

Consider mary's position. Be stoned as an adulteress, or make some wild claim to be divinely inseminated. What is one to do? I know what I would do.

In any event, no matter how much one might attempt to trace Big Joe all the way back to King David, the fact remains that the claimed jebus cannot be of the line of David at all.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNvWN1mUEAAr0wi.jpg
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:46 PM   #1779
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
And thus we learn how utterly borked christianity really is.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:56 PM   #1780
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,550
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Luke 23:19 tells us what crime he had been accused of "Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder."

The obvious solution to this enigma is this. Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Nazarene were the same person. This person had been arrested for insurrection with bloodshed. However the idea that Jesus committed violent acts was unpalatable to the later authors of the gospels, so they split the character into two persons and made another one do the bad things, while the familar one was represented as completely innocent of all violence.
There is further support for this proposition in Acts Chapter 5 (which is believed to have been written by the same person who wrote the gospel of Luke.) After Jesus' death his followers are arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Gamaliel (no less!) recommends that they be released, in these words
Acts 5:34 Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while. 35 And he said to them: “Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. 38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”
So Gamaliel compares the companions of Jesus with Judas of Galilee and Theudas, although he puts Judas and Theudas in the wrong chronological order. These two are known from Josephus as rebels against Rome. Gamaliel thinks that such people (if they succeed) may be "of God" and recommends they be released. The Sanhedrin was therefore sympathetic to potential rebels against Rome, it seems. This is consistent with a previous Jewish demand to free "Jesus bar Abba", arrested for rebellion, and again suggests that this was the same Jesus as the Nazarene.

But the later Gospels in general set all this aside and depict Jesus of Nazareth as as a purely spiritual preacher, even though they report his "cleansing" of the Temple, a rather violent act.

Again from Luke we have this extremely significant event. In Chapter 22 Jesus commands his disciples
36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” 38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
So Jesus the Nazarene had followers who bought swords, and who were believed by Gamaliel to be comparable with Judas of Galilee (who led the great insurrection against the Roman annexation of Judaea in 6 CE).

This Jesus must surely be the same person as the arrested insurrectionist bar Abba.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:06 AM   #1781
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16,920
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
And those persons who carried out those orders - an issue you keep evading - number tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands 'ordinary citizens'.
I don't evade that issue, I have addressed it in post #1625. Immediately after the war, only the top dogs and the most egregiously cruel ones from the lower echelons were prosecuted.

Prosecuting every cog in the Nazi war machine was not deemed opportune. The Cold War had already started, and West-Germany was to be an ally against the Soviets. The country lay in ruins after the war, and had to be rebuilt. And often, those were the people with the relevant expertise. For instance, the BKA and the various LKAs, the federal and state crime investigation units of the police, were set up by ex-Gestapos; who else are you going to get who knows about such police work?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It became legal by common law practice.
Another dose of fail. Germany doesn't have common law.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:38 AM   #1782
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14,553
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
70 ce.

Basic history.
Ouch
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:54 AM   #1783
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16,920
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was disappointed to see Luther write what he did in the 16th Century.
"Disappointed" is all you have to say about that? And you're serious you didn't know about Luther's virulent comments about Jews?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We see quite a lot in the early Bible about jacob and his brothers and their squabbles over inheritance.
Could you enumerate all those brothers (plural) of Jacob? I know of only one, his twin brother Esau, and "squabble" would not be the first word on my mind to describe how Jacob got his father's blessing as first-born.

Originally Posted by Beady View Post
Has this thread lost focus?
It's become more of a whack-a-mole. And as a certain poster manages, on average, to introduce two basic factual errors per post, the number of moles increases exponentially.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:59 AM   #1784
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14,553
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
"Disappointed" is all you have to say about that? And you're serious you didn't know about Luther's virulent comments about Jews?


Could you enumerate all those brothers (plural) of Jacob? I know of only one, his twin brother Esau, and "squabble" would not be the first word on my mind to describe how Jacob got his father's blessing as first-born.


It's become more of a whack-a-mole. And as a certain poster manages, on average, to introduce two basic factual errors per post, the number of moles increases exponentially.
Another exemplar of dodgy morality, I'd forgotten about that.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:49 AM   #1785
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16,920
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Another exemplar of dodgy morality, I'd forgotten about that.
"Dodgy morality"? Outright deception. While Esau was out hunting Isaac's favourite meal, on Isaac's request, Rebecca dressed up Jacob (aka Israel) in Esau's clothes, got some meat from the pantry and prepared it and thus Jacob went to his blind father to receive the first-born blessing.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:47 AM   #1786
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,886
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
Also, "NT God" is not exactly an improvement since he takes atrocities to a whole new level. With "OT God" smiting meant you were dead. Those atrocities were bad enough.

"NT God" came up with the new idea of a permanent, eternal atrocity of infinite firey torture. An infinite punishment for a finite "crime". And what is the "crime"? The crime of not letting "NT God" 'save' you from he is going to do to you if you do not let him 'save' you.
I have often used an analogy between Jesus and when Giovanni "The Kneecapper" Corleone comes into your shop and offers you protection. Something bad might happen to your shop or to you if you don't let them protect you.

But the truth is, NT God is actually even more awful than that.

I mean, the OT God may have been a dick, and had a bit of a temper problem. But then he has a mid-life crisis, reinvents himself, finds himself a much younger woman, has a kid, ditches his old friends, etc... and ends up a far worse person at the end of it.

The new God throws any pretense at justice right out the window for a start. Obeying the law won't save you. (Cf. Paul.) Meanwhile, brown-nosing junior will get you off the hook for ANYTHING.

The new God proudly likens himself (well, God the son likens God the father, but it's still just one God, right?) in moralizing stories to:
- some king who would tie someone up and leave them outdoors at night, for not having the right clothes for the occasion
- some master who'll beat up a slave for doing what he didn't know his master didn't want done. But it's apparently OK, if he doesn't beat him up as severely as he'd beat up someone who knew they're doing the wrong thing.

But really, the whole idea that it's justice if a complete innocent was punished for your sins? That's the biggest red flag right there.

And so on. That's not a nicer, kinder god. That's him becoming an even worse narcissistic psycho in his old age.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Today at 06:49 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:02 AM   #1787
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14,553
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
"Dodgy morality"? Outright deception. While Esau was out hunting Isaac's favourite meal, on Isaac's request, Rebecca dressed up Jacob (aka Israel) in Esau's clothes, got some meat from the pantry and prepared it and thus Jacob went to his blind father to receive the first-born blessing.
Ah, yes, you are Dutch and I am British - we've trained our Dutch colleagues to interpret British understatement, just as they've trained us about their more... direct approach
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:16 AM   #1788
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,550
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
Also, "NT God" is not exactly an improvement since he takes atrocities to a whole new level. With "OT God" smiting meant you were dead. Those atrocities were bad enough.

"NT God" came up with the new idea of a permanent, eternal atrocity of infinite firey torture. An infinite punishment for a finite "crime".
Where did this idea of punishment after death evolve? I think it predates the NT. Because the distinction between Sadducees and Pharisees is somewhat older than the NT, and we find this difference of doctrine in these two sects. Let's go back again to the Sanhedrin. Here it is Paul who is appearing before that assembly, in Chapter 23 of Acts.
6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)
Josephus gives us a more detailed account in War 2.1.14
They (The Pharisees) say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees ... take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behaviour of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them.
It appears that the concept of posthumous rewards and punishments was making some headway in Jewish sects even before the advent of Christianity.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:53 AM   #1789
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
There is further support for this proposition in Acts Chapter 5 (which is believed to have been written by the same person who wrote the gospel of Luke.) After Jesus' death his followers are arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Gamaliel (no less!) recommends that they be released, in these words
Acts 5:34 Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while. 35 And he said to them: “Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. 38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”
So Gamaliel compares the companions of Jesus with Judas of Galilee and Theudas, although he puts Judas and Theudas in the wrong chronological order. These two are known from Josephus as rebels against Rome. Gamaliel thinks that such people (if they succeed) may be "of God" and recommends they be released. The Sanhedrin was therefore sympathetic to potential rebels against Rome, it seems. This is consistent with a previous Jewish demand to free "Jesus bar Abba", arrested for rebellion, and again suggests that this was the same Jesus as the Nazarene.

But the later Gospels in general set all this aside and depict Jesus of Nazareth as as a purely spiritual preacher, even though they report his "cleansing" of the Temple, a rather violent act.

Again from Luke we have this extremely significant event. In Chapter 22 Jesus commands his disciples
36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” 38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
So Jesus the Nazarene had followers who bought swords, and who were believed by Gamaliel to be comparable with Judas of Galilee (who led the great insurrection against the Roman annexation of Judaea in 6 CE).

This Jesus must surely be the same person as the arrested insurrectionist bar Abba.
I made a mistake in this post and got the dates wrong:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1755

In that post I mistakenly said that Hillel was the nasi of the sanhedrin during the alledged "trial" of jesus.

Actually, Hillel was the nasi until 9 ce. It is recorded that his grandson, Gamaliel the Elder was nasi of the sanhedrin from 30 ce - 50 ce. That would mean that Gamaliel was the nasi during the "trial" of jesus.

(There were several nasim of the sanhedrin, at various times, named either "Gamaliel" or "Gamliel").

Last edited by Zivan; Today at 09:55 AM.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:48 AM   #1790
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Where did this idea of punishment after death evolve? I think it predates the NT. Because the distinction between Sadducees and Pharisees is somewhat older than the NT, and we find this difference of doctrine in these two sects.
I was talking about the "OT God" vs "NT God". In the "NT", Hell and eternal firey torture, is a constant threat.

Hell does not exist in tanakh ("OT"). The concept of an "afterlife" is not spelled out at all, good or bad.

During Hellenic times, the concept of an afterlife came about. This is shown in Daniel 12:2 which was written in Hellenic times.

From that time (hellenic) the pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, the sadducees never did.

The sadducees died out (along with the zealots, sacarii, essenes, and other sects) and what was left were the pharisees which is what is today rabbinic judaism.

There is still no mainstream concept of eternal punishment. (There is among a fringe minority).

The mainstream belief in judaism is that there is "gehinnom" which is where unrepentant souls go after death for "purification" before they go to "olam haba" (the "world to come"/paradise/gan eden).

A soul is only in Gehinnom for a maximum of 12 months and they get shabbat off. (Do not ask how there just happens to be a material calendar in an immaterial world).

Mourners say kaddish (the prayer for the dead) for deceased relatives. But kaddish is only recited for 11 months, because no one wants to believe their loved ones are unrepentant in Gehinnom for the whole 12 months.

An afterlife is not spoken of much as it is not the focus. The focus is on this life.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:52 AM   #1791
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,886
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Where did this idea of punishment after death evolve? I think it predates the NT. Because the distinction between Sadducees and Pharisees is somewhat older than the NT, and we find this difference of doctrine in these two sects. Let's go back again to the Sanhedrin. Here it is Paul who is appearing before that assembly, in Chapter 23 of Acts.
6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)
Josephus gives us a more detailed account in War 2.1.14
They (The Pharisees) say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees ... take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behaviour of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them.
It appears that the concept of posthumous rewards and punishments was making some headway in Jewish sects even before the advent of Christianity.
Considering that the whole area had been under Zoroastrian and then Greek influence for centuries at that point, I would say it's hardly surprising.

That said, it may be at least as old as Isaiah. If you look at the final chapter, and more specifically the final verse (Isaiah 66:24), it kinda paints the idea that the people who have transgressed against God will not be resurrected. Or at least it can be interpreted that way, if one wants to support such a view.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Today at 10:53 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:21 AM   #1792
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Considering that the whole area had been under Zoroastrian and then Greek influence for centuries at that point, I would say it's hardly surprising.

That said, it may be at least as old as Isaiah. If you look at the final chapter, and more specifically the final verse (Isaiah 66:24), it kinda paints the idea that the people who have transgressed against God will not be resurrected. Or at least it can be interpreted that way, if one wants to support such a view.
Scholars believe the last part of Isaiah was written during/after the return from Babylon, which had been defeated by the Persians. So it makes sense that chapter 66 would have had Zoroastrian influence.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:10 PM   #1793
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,550
Thank you all for the comments on punishment in the afterlife. I realise that this doctrine has not been clearly enunciated in the Tanakh; but I was suggesting that it had made headway in some of the major Jewish sects before the NT was composed.

For what it's worth, in the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, Jesus seems to take the view that unrighteous people will not be resurrected into a future life, and will simply be cast into the refuse heap and be reduced to nothing; but the later gospels of Matthew and Luke do refer to deceased people consciously suffering in the afterlife. The doctrine seems to have carried on evolving even after the NT started to be committed to writing.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:18 PM   #1794
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,274
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Luke 23:19 tells us what crime he had been accused of "Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder."

The obvious solution to this enigma is this. Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Nazarene were the same person. This person had been arrested for insurrection with bloodshed. However the idea that Jesus committed violent acts was unpalatable to the later authors of the gospels, so they split the character into two persons and made another one do the bad things, while the familar one was represented as completely innocent of all violence.
I admit to knowing nothing about it, but I do find the Barabbas aspect to be really weird. What does the scholarly literature say about it, I wonder?
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:57 PM   #1795
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16,920
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Ah, yes, you are Dutch and I am British - we've trained our Dutch colleagues to interpret British understatement, just as they've trained us about their more... direct approach


The fab of your company (*) in my city is nicknamed "the cathedral" due to its outer appearance.

Maybe that vaunted British understatement doesn't work that well in an international forum, discussing with someone who gets their knowledge of WW2 from Finnish "brothers in arms" which sounds a lot like they're Nazi apologists.

(*) or former company, due to the split earlier this year.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:19 PM   #1796
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,624
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Thank you all for the comments on punishment in the afterlife. I realise that this doctrine has not been clearly enunciated in the Tanakh; but I was suggesting that it had made headway in some of the major Jewish sects before the NT was composed.

For what it's worth, in the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, Jesus seems to take the view that unrighteous people will not be resurrected into a future life, and will simply be cast into the refuse heap and be reduced to nothing; but the later gospels of Matthew and Luke do refer to deceased people consciously suffering in the afterlife. The doctrine seems to have carried on evolving even after the NT started to be committed to writing.
I'm just popping in here to add my two shekels to this conversation. I'm not disagreeing with anyone, just pointing out one Second Temple Jewish sect who had some notion of an afterlife:
Quote:
...Then the priests are to invoke a blessing on all that have cast their low with God, that walk blamelessly in all their ways; and they are to say: MAY HE BLESS THEE with all good and KEEP THEE from all evil. And ILLUMINE thy heart with insight into the things of life, and GRACE THEE with knowledge of things eternal, and LIFT UP HIS gracious COUNTENANCE TOWARDS THEE to grant thee peace everlasting.

The Levites, on the other hand, are to invoke a curse on all that have cast their lot with Belial, and to say in response: Cursed are thou for all thy wicked guilty works, May God make thee a thing of abhorrence at the hands of all who would wreak vengeance, and visit thine offspring with destruction at the hands of all who would mete out retribution. Cursed art thou, beyond hope of mercy. Even as they works are wrought in darkness, so mayest thou be damned in the gloom of the fire eternal. May God show thee no favor when thou callest, neither pardon to forgive thine iniquities. May He lift up an angry countenance towards thee, to wreak vengeance upon thee. May no man wish thee peace of all that truly claim their patrimony...
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

My bold: Eternal punishment or eternal reward? Death or Cake? Tough choice...
__________________
Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs

Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

I have eaten breakfast and have not written an Epistle to any Church. - dejudge.
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.