Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Dinosaur, Dec 23, 2011.
I think there are more of your kind visiting shrinks then devoted Christians
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The Christadelphians are a Christian group who believe Jesus is the son of God, but not God.. in the same way that a man is from his father, but is not his father. This is because, i as far as i can tell, there is no mention in the Bible of Jesus being God..
The Word was God. The Word became flesh. God became flesh. Pretty clear.
Again, pretty clear. Jesus was the fullness of the Deity (God).
But why do we find examples in the Bible where God is referring to Jesus as "Lord" and "God" in one verse, and in the very next verse talks about being the God of Jesus? Further, why is Jesus also described as being the Son of God? Why does Jesus play a subservient role?
Here we find out that it is by design. Jesus is indeed God, but was playing the role of a Son.
Of course it is possible when studying the New Testament to try to spin this the other way. Rather than interpret the subservience of Jesus in light of the verses that demonstrate that He is God, one can interpret the verses that seem to demonstrate that He is God in light of the verses that demonstrate his subservience. But I've never seen anyone build a scripture based case on that premise that is as consistent as the majority Christian view.
What I would say, then, is that any Christian who holds that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is likely, after careful study, to embrace Jesus as God. If on the other hand they have more liberal ideas about the veracity of the written word, they can justify significant departures from that majority view.
Christianity is an invention of man. Jesus was not a christian.
Red Devil: Slightly off topic, but an interesting & likely valid POV.Christianity is an invention of man. Jesus was not a Christian.Various posts to this Thread have convinced me that the dogma of most Christian sects require that a believer accept the notion that Jesus was/is god.
I am aware of one exception: The Quakers (Society of Friends) do not require such a belief. They are a small sect & I suspect that they would accept an atheist as a member. They are very behavior-oriented.
Your remark brings up a very different issue, which might be an interesting topic for another Thread.I tend strongly toward a belief that Jesus was attempting to reform Judaism, not attempting to establish another religion.Christian theology seems to be more based on the later parts of the New Testament than on the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John.
To me, Jesus seems similar to Martin Luther who initially was attempting to do away with certain practices established long after the initial founding of the Catholic church.
BTW: I am an atheist who had a lot of religious training & education. When posting to a religion oriented thread, it seems correct to mention one’s faith or lack thereof, although it is easy to recognize born-again Christians & Islamics.
Dinosaur. Briefly. I was brought up in a catholic school and am a confirmed athiest. And, because I was brought up in a catholic school, my religious education was totally biased, wrong and full of hell fire and brimstone. I rejected the indoctrination at an early stage in my teens.
I do believe Jesus was real, and that he was obviously not divine. He was not christian because christianity did not exist in his lifetime, it was something invented later on. Jesus belonged to an organisation known as the Sons of God and that's where it becomes garbled into a 'son of god'. These wanted to change Judeah and rid themselves of the roman occupation.
In my opinion, what we apparently know about this persons life is written down by people who did not want him to be, or appear to be, a mere human. He is a creation of misinformation. The fact that he was no longer around to dissuade followers speaks volumes.
I am not a scholar, or even young anymore, but I do read and research things that interest me. This is my heart held belief of this person.
Zav, religion itself relies almost solely upon faith rather than reason.
Martin Luther himself said something along the lines of "...Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight....". While this is a quote from only one man among many faiths, he is nonetheless representative of a common theme.
I find it somewhat unreasonable, then, that a pattern of thought which denies reason should insist upon it as the only means by which any opponent of that faith should argue his case.
That is a pavise shield behind which the proponents of faith have a tendency to hide at their convenience, and one of the reasons by which religion, and in particular organised religion, have sheltered for so long in the face of the increasing proliferation of knowledge.
Given that religion relies to one degree or another on the denial of reason in favour of faith, is it any wonder that a frustrated non-believer should resort to something less than useful in order to communicate opposition?
Or, to state things a little more simply:
You theists are a mob of bloody hypocritical bastards, and everyone bloody knows it.
Separate names with a comma.