Religion
Related: About this forumA familiar, and very old, observation.
17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished.
19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)P.Smith #unknown.
rug
(82,333 posts)So your quoting the Bible instead of saying something of your own is not idiosyncratic?
rug
(82,333 posts)Not 21st century "original" criticism and mockery.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)is mainstream, but quoting a contemporary artist is idiosyncratic?
rug
(82,333 posts)Quoting "P.Smith #unknown" did not salvage it.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Me and P.Smith are OK with that.
rug
(82,333 posts)the sentiment of the OP is truly deep and not at all complete nonsense.
Admittedly, Paul barely can hold his own with P.Smith #unknown.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Case closed.
rug
(82,333 posts)Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you use that term, as you understand it, to a first century Jewish convert, who also had the privilege of Roman citizenship, you cannot escape viewing all of human history, save the last century or two, as the result of bigotry, as you understand it. And that is ignorance.
So, who in the first century CE would you consider not to be a bigot?
If he existed. Didn't he say, "above all else, love one another."? Too bad Paul didn't pick up on the message.
rug
(82,333 posts)8 Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.
9 Be hospitable to one another without complaining.
So, if all humans then, save Jesus of Nazareth, were bigots, it rather renders the word useless in this context.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)I suspect that there were always good people and bad. You sure have a low opinion of the human race to say everyone was a bigot back then.
rug
(82,333 posts)As to bigotry, I was simply applying your definition which you interjected. Those opinions you quoted were the norm then. So, I'll ask you again: what contemporary of Paul, save Jesus, would you NOT consider a bigot?
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)The slaves, the poor, the lepers, etc.
The usual demographics.
rug
(82,333 posts)Marx is a better guide here. There are plenty of bigotries to peddle to keep the oppressed divided, even in their oppression.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I won't even get into Samaritans.
okasha
(11,573 posts)different in kind from 1st. Century downtrodden and oppressed?
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)There are good people and bad people. I wasn't there, but I'm sure there were good people back in the first century. That was what rug asked. I named a few that might have been good people back then.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)That was from out in right field, and totally irrelevant. Try to stay on topic.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Whoever told you you were subtle is an idiot.
You brought up the poor and oppressed. I still want to know how you differentiate the poor and oppressed on chronological grounds. You haven't been responsive.
the argument between the two seems to center on zombies, so I'd call it a draw.
rug
(82,333 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)
someone died for something you did, and you're happy about it...that is immoral.
rug
(82,333 posts)Particularly since you can't make a moral pronouncement without dishonesily claiming someone is happy about a crucifixion.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Seems reasonable to me. You should probably borrow a dictionary from a friend, if possible.
rug
(82,333 posts)George Romero must be a secret Cardinal.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Seems to me you could have put the time you spent building that ridiculous straw man of yours to much better use.
rug
(82,333 posts)You don't need a dictionary to tell the difference between science fiction and "supernatural powers".
bvf
(6,604 posts)in the English language is duly noted, as is your unwillingness to accept the very existence of beliefs of cultures other than your own.
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I tried to fill in for you, in a very small way.
rug
(82,333 posts)I admire your patience and deftness.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)I do believe I comforted one poster though. I f only three or four people outside of your insulated little clique will respond to you, losing one for forty days could be devastating.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)lol I will live.
okasha
(11,573 posts)with their 4th. hide in 90 days.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But i always advise people who have several hides to put those on ignore who cause them issues.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Because that's the impression I get.
Try to do a modicum of research on other religions, and crack a god-damned reference book or two, for crying out loud.
rug
(82,333 posts)Other than that, you may be confusing me with one of two posters.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Pay particular attention to the difference between a zombie and a corpse revived through supernatural intervention.
The unicorn in my basement died on Friday, btw. Still dead, which reminds me I have to call the city's Animal Control Department first thing in the morning.
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't think you can afford my rates.
bvf
(6,604 posts)you don't have a clue, fucking or otherwise.
Thanks for the elucidation.
Again I ask: Why is a dead guy brought back to life through supernatural intervention not a zombie?
That's where you came in with your cavalier dismissal of others' religious beliefs.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If others incorporate zombie in their faith that does not offend me.
bvf
(6,604 posts)why it doesn't apply to a dead guy whose corpse is revived through supernatural means, simply because he's your guy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Can you comprehend why we might take offense to it?
bvf
(6,604 posts)that rug did in setting up his silly straw man, although I don't think that's your intent here.
I'm simply saying that the standard English definition of the word precisely applies in this case.
I'm not talking about half-decomposed, brain-craving (guessing here) characters from a TV show I've never watched. I'm only talking about what the word really means.
ETA:
Do you comprehend why saying "Jesus died for your sins" would be just as offensive to an atheist?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)To the extent zombies, technically nzambi, reflects a belief system, you're mixing and conflating two distinct belief systems.
In the meantime, the article explains why, if there are any documented cases of zombies at all, there is a scientific, not religious, explanation at the base.
Congratulations on your amazing Google skills. I'm speaking plain English here. You seem to be confused by that.
rug
(82,333 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Those were my actual words. So far, you've yet to explain why the definition is inapplicable in the case of what's-his-name.
rug
(82,333 posts)Now prove it.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Crimony. GMAFB!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He is risen!
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believe in a literal resurrection that saves all humanity.
I believe in the extreme mercy of God.
pinto
(106,886 posts)I find it fascinating, fwiw.
Good to see you rug!
rug
(82,333 posts)Hope you're well, pinto.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)and never mentioned the empty tomb. Modern apologists use the empty tomb that way all the time, but it didn't occur to Paul to do so? I think it's more likely to be a tradition that was formulated between the writings of Paul and the creation of the Gospel of Mark.
rug
(82,333 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)But if Jesus was, for example, tossed into a mass grave, then it's quite possible that the apostles did not actually know for sure whether Jesus's body had been raised. They could have assumed it, or claimed it for theological reasons (to make a point about the goodness of physical creation in response to greeks who devalued the physical world).
The point is that Paul could have used the empty tomb as evidence. The gospels certainly make it an important part of the story. But Paul didn't, and I think it's because he didn't know about, because it was a later invention.
rug
(82,333 posts)But I think his message in this Epistle was the boldness of the claim. His emphasis was on the many said to have seen the resurrected Jesus rather than the empty cave itself. Then, impelled, he goes on to the astonishing conclusions and meaning of it.
okasha
(11,573 posts)His relations with the mother church in Jerusalem seem to have fluctuated between coolly polite and bitterly hostile. We have no way of knowing what got lost in that wrangle, possibly including the location of Jesus' tomb.
I know Crossan advances the interpretation that Jesus was, if buried at all, tossed into a common grave with the other victims who died the same day. Many scholars, however, believe that there is an eyewitness account incorporated into the final chapters of John. Following this, and if Tabor is correct that Jesus was crucified on the Mount of Olives, the last four verses of Chapter 19 fall neatly into place. There were burials on Olivet at this time, including one intriguing Simon bar Jonah and more than one Mary and Martha. If these were in fact among Jesus' first followers, it would be natural for them to want to be buried as close to his own tomb as possible.
longship
(40,416 posts)The gospels and Paul are quite divergent on many issues. It certainly seems that the Christianity of Paul was different than that of the gospels. You know, the old acts versus beliefs argument.
Then there's the synoptic problem within the gospels themselves. Markan Priority versus the "standard" sequence. And John stands alone. Of course, all four names were added after the fact, some say much later. There does not appear to be any definitive provenance for the most important literature in Christianity. Funny that some claim inerrancy.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)So I guess you do.
Now that, that is answered....
rug
(82,333 posts)edhopper
(33,615 posts)I answered.
He didn't rise, the rest follows.
rug
(82,333 posts)He did and it tells you why.
Against that, we'll have your fourteenth thousand iteration of the phrase "there is no (physical) evidence".
That is, when you're not claiming he never lived, let alone died or resurrected. Therein lies your problem. There is zero data from that phenomenon, which by every measure is physically impossible and, if it happened at all, must necessarily be supernatural.
So, what you're saying in essence is that it cannot happen because it violates every known natural law. To which, "no shit, Sherlock" is an apt response. Hence the boldness of the claim.
You don't know it did not happen. You are simply saying it can't happen and therefore it didn't happen.
If it did not happen, it is all nonsense. If it did happen . . . .
edhopper
(33,615 posts)So I don't have to.
Though I am not a mythicist.
rug
(82,333 posts)I was giving my young son a wash when all of a sudden he shat in the tub.
"Bath turd!" I yelled as he sat there giggling.
The little fucker won't be laughing when I get rid of my lisp.