Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

[Gnostic Bishop]

You mixed the posts and end in saying nothing.

Are you a product of your environment and are you not the sum total of all your interactions with it?

Yes you are and that is why you are a sinner.

Who is to blame for you being a sinner.

Give me more of your same garbage as above and be ignored.

Regards
DL

[Flann 5]

Give me more of your same garbage as above and be ignored.

Bad move Bishop!
Try engaging with what is being said. You can call it garbage and ignore it but that's a cop out.
On second thoughts I'm thinking that it's just problematic for you. I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I'm trying to consistently follow where I think your ideas are taking you as I understand it.

[lehelvandor]

Actually Flann, would dare to say that it is not a cop out - I mean that what they do on this forum is not actually to dismiss, ignore etc. points that contradict theirs.
Instead, the so far seen often desperate attempts to whip up dust instead of engaging serve (very well) one purpose: some terrible, desperate need to re-enforce their own (and I use the word with the fullest semantic intent) *belief* system.
Every time an abusive and/or belittling statement is made, it just helps the person with feeling safer, more certain, more convinced of his/her *beliefs*.
Note the verbal patterns used, they are very typical and very consistent. Not sure about England, but they are taught in some countries in first year psychology. Thus, this forum is not a discussion for some, where there is engagement and any mutual respect for sometimes wildly different views/ideas, it is a tool for gaining strength in their *beliefs*.

[ant]

DL.,

I just viewed the youtube video you have at the bottom of your first post.

Do you feel like sharing what significance it has for you?

[lehelvandor]

[Movie Nerd]

There is evidence for an historical Christ and the setting is historic in time and geography and the writers claim to be writing historical biography and one is claimed as eyewitness account.
It's very different to the Greek pantheon and Roman and other pagan accounts.

There is evidence that a Jesus Christ might have existed, yes, but that does not necessarily mean he was divine or completely true as depicted in the Bible. Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm not sure what you're saying in reference to Greek and Roman accoutns, so I will not address that point.

There didn't seem to be much traction to this particular post, but I'd like to know others' thoughts on this side point.

[lehelvandor]

I guess the reference to the Greek and Roman menagerie of gods was made because their existence is confined to a purely imaginary realm - as much as we can tell from such temporal distance, via myths, mentions by poets of the time etc. Of course Greeks and Romans believed in them, they had very deeply human traits (especially when it came to their weaknesses and sometimes adolescent mindsets)... but also in terms of their professions / activities and dominant features. One of them was a deity just because he was so beautiful... the other was working his backside off sweating in a workshop...
One could say that their vague "shape" in the historic records (well, mythology) is vague only because we are so separated in time and perhaps many (more solid) chronicles and eyewitness accounts have been lost to us.
We then stopped believing in them, I think today anybody walking up to us and saying that he/she is a devout follower of Hephaistos would be referred to a medical professional, or just ignored.
However, Jesus has some more "solid" descriptions and accounts, as Flann pointed out - on the other hand, it is interesting how he comes across much more ethereal and, well, more divine than the Roman/Greek gods. OK, he throws one tantrum, but that is motivated by something other than an ego-trip, jealousy, lust, etc. etc. that those often silly Greek/Roman gods were often motivated/animated by.

[Movie Nerd]

I guess the reference to the Greek and Roman menagerie of gods was made because their existence is confined to a purely imaginary realm - as much as we can tell from such temporal distance, via myths, mentions by poets of the time etc. Of course Greeks and Romans believed in them, they had very deeply human traits (especially when it came to their weaknesses and sometimes adolescent mindsets)... but also in terms of their professions / activities and dominant features. One of them was a deity just because he was so beautiful... the other was working his backside off sweating in a workshop...
One could say that their vague "shape" in the historic records (well, mythology) is vague only because we are so separated in time and perhaps many (more solid) chronicles and eyewitness accounts have been lost to us.
We then stopped believing in them, I think today anybody walking up to us and saying that he/she is a devout follower of Hephaistos would be referred to a medical professional, or just ignored.
However, Jesus has some more "solid" descriptions and accounts, as Flann pointed out - on the other hand, it is interesting how he comes across much more ethereal and, well, more divine than the Roman/Greek gods. OK, he throws one tantrum, but that is motivated by something other than an ego-trip, jealousy, lust, etc. etc. that those often silly Greek/Roman gods were often motivated/animated by.

While Jesus does come off as divine in Biblical and general Christian texts, that alone does not justify belief in Christ as a god figure. There is still a difference between there being a historical figure named Christ and Christ actually being the Son of God. Once we dig deeper and find the true source of myths, legends and tall tales, we are usually underwhelmed by the truth.

[Flann 5]

While Jesus does come off as divine in Biblical and general Christian texts, that alone does not justify belief in Christ as a god figure. There is still a difference between there being a historical figure named Christ and Christ actually being the Son of God. Once we dig deeper and find the true source of myths, legends and tall tales, we are usually underwhelmed by the truth.

Thanks Movie Nerd.
I suppose I was picking up on Bishop's stuff from Freke and those who positively assert the whole Pagan influence and parallels idea and claim there was no historical Jesus.
I think the messianic prophecies are good evidence. Of course some postulate ideas of the gospel authors just looking at the old testament and inventing a person and story to fit the prophecies.
But then there is evidence for Christ being crucified by Pilate and how a religion starting in Jerusalem with this as foundational could start if they would know it hadn't happened doesn't make sense.
One interesting prophecy concerned John the Baptist the forerunner of Jesus.What's worth noting here is that Josephus also talks about him so you cant fit it into the unknown authors concocting fictional stories scenario.
I think the miraculous is what people really object to.
I'm going to provide a link on messianic prophecy mainly for those new to this forum.
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/prophecy_jesus.html
Here's the excerpt from Josephus.
http://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ ... he-baptis/
Josephus also accords with the gospel narrative concerning Herod having taken his brother Philip the Tetrach's wife, and the fallout from it.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Give me more of your same garbage as above and be ignored.

Bad move Bishop!
Try engaging with what is being said. You can call it garbage and ignore it but that's a cop out.
On second thoughts I'm thinking that it's just problematic for you. I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I'm trying to consistently follow where I think your ideas are taking you as I understand it.

Not when mixing responses from two completely different issues and showing you could not follow either.

Perhaps if I find a real simple topic you will be able to keep on it.

Regards
DL