• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

EADD Theology Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok... Leaving aside what you see as the 'ossification' of the canon for now and looking at the second point I made and you defiled :| You seem to be suggesting that the collation of the canon in 331AD was a rushed job under the direction of a fearsome Roman Emperor.
Firstly let me ask you, does that letter to Eusebius I linked look as though he was likely to be slung to the lions if this impossibly unreasonable task were not completed? Did you read it? There is evidence to suggest that the two men were friends.* Constantine was a scholar and apparently surrounded himself with learned men.
Let me re-iterate. Most of the books that made it to the final canon were accepted as scriptural by Christians over 100 years before. ( see my reference to the Muratorian Canon) The church had been discussing Revelations and I think Jude. In the end they were included.
Additionally, have a look at Athanasius Bishop of Alexandrias' Easter letter to the church He gave an exact same list of books as canonical and that was in 367.
Eusebius was not left to make the final decision on his own bless. There was a final church council. Anyway had he been the sole editor of our final Canon he would have chucked Revelations out because he didn't see it as inspired.

* The Empereror even addresses Eusebius as 'Dear Brother'. Which might also lend more weight to the argument that Constantine was a Christian before the commonly held view that he converted on his death bed.
 
Last edited:
I want to find out more about goddess worship and ur. It seems to make more sense to me. read the modern antiquarian by julian cope

Coincidentally, I was meditating last night and really felt a sense of Gods Love. I'm familiar with the Love of Christ, and sometimes, awesomely, of the Father.. but this had a really feminine quality to it, nurturing ..like a Mother.

I don't worship goddesses but am fascinated in the mythology. Especially Indian, Greek, Egyptian.. ha all of it really.


shakti-goddess_zps41e060cf.jpg


Shakti or Parvati is Shivas Mrs and Mother of the Hindu Pantheon.


Ed: You probably know this but for the benefit of anyone who doesn't.. God is described as male and female in Genesis. Interestingly, Hindu gods are often seen with consort goddesses illustrating that creation is both masculine and feminine.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Gen 1.27


That looks like a good read Pink.^
 
Last edited:
^ he forgot his password one too many times.

surely if you worship god you worship the idea of godesses? God is neither man nor woman. God is both? Hermaphroditee hee?

Here's my news for today. About 10 minutes ago the door went. About 10 min b4 this my son had come home and told me I wasn't to answer the door in my tottenham hotspur shirt. i said fine. So my son tries to tell me the doors for me. i tell him I'm not in unless it's a friend. he answers the door, is longer than he should be. Comes back up the stairs with a leaflet with a picture of a man pretending to be jesus. and a date claiming to be the anniversary of jesus' death.

Jesus has been rebranded by the jehovahs. He has short hair, brown eyes and a n ample beard. Has anyone ever considered the thought that Jesus could have been bald? baldness comes from the mothers side so they say so it is possible.

questions about jesus. I'm going to set up a website where i issue reverend certificates. i must 1st get my authority from the rev - doc. Ian.
 
Authorised by the church of Saint Papaver. :D

He was 32 or 33 when He died so its probable he still had his hair. He could have been bald though. Its argued that He's black. He most certainly was Middle Eastern looking. As were all Jews at the time.

Theres a whole section in Isaiah called the Suffering Servant that relates to the Messiah.. it says 'there was nothing in his appearance that we should desire Him'. There was obviously nothing remarkable about Him physically then if we are to believe the Isaiahs christology..

Isaiah 53:2-10 NIV

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Is it a photograph of a man that the Jehovahs Witness had. They've had that image of Jesus with short brown hair and a beard in their mag for a long time. At least 15 years anyway. I got talking to a couple when my daughter was a toddler. Actually, debating with them taught me a lot about the bible. They were/are lovely people.

The resurrected Christ though can look like anybody. He appeared to the disciples in other forms several times after the crucifixion.
 
Last edited:
now that has spoilt it for me. that is very convenient that the resurrected christ could look like anyone he wanted to. that sounds a bit pointless. STOP STOP STOP. i must do as Jesus said and look at it all with the eyes of a child and believe. My rational mind is rationalising it all and it is quite good to find these good reasons. Well, real or unreal, I'm going to carry on being a nice person. The muslims say he's coming back too? but that must be only because that's what the christians were waiting for. "don't worry, we know he's coming back too. come and join our band of merry men.
 
now that has spoilt it for me. that is very convenient that the resurrected christ could look like anyone he wanted to. that sounds a bit pointless. STOP STOP STOP. i must do as Jesus said and look at it all with the eyes of a child and believe. My rational mind is rationalising it all and it is quite good to find these good reasons. Well, real or unreal, I'm going to carry on being a nice person. The muslims say he's coming back too? but that must be only because that's what the christians were waiting for. "don't worry, we know he's coming back too. come and join our band of merry men.

Gods not going to force you to do anything. Its a rare thing to have child like faith but if you are a part of Him you'll know if His spirit is moving you forward and you'll just go with the flow. Dont panic. Just pray!! :D Ask Him.
We do receive a new nature when we believe. and it begins to unfold as we learn that we are loved and accepted in spite of anything we may have done. We become new. I've known the rancid side of my old nature, but its dead and i'm living. I'm a new creation. Jesus was/is the first born of the new creation.
I'm not going to stop talking about Theology. I'm interested in Religion and the history of the church and I think you are too actually :)

I wrote a longer response but my computer crashed. You can breathe a huge sigh of relief that I've got to go and do something else now lol...it was longgg and rambling anyway.

'deep peace of the quiet stars to you' <3
 
Last edited:
who art thou? what art thou? thou dost imagine thyself a wise man because thou could'st utter those blasphemous words - while thou art more foolish and artless than a little babe playing with the parts of a cunningly fashioned watch.. and, because he does not understand its use - dares to say he does not believe in the master who made it
 
" go fill the earth and make it yours" "go forth and multiply"

and from here on in the holy book has been misinterpreted and used for bad.
same sex couples cannot do this, contraception stops this happening. and the rest. Shows how crazy some of the deductions adn rules of religion are.

"god said have children therefore, if you're not having sex to have children you are a bad person"
 
Sorry i'm so late with all the posts here, have been away on a grand fishing trip with the boys (that's a lie, my laptop has had a fault)

Raas_2012: 1) "The Christian Canon is more about Apostolic Authority.': Says the Catholic Church. In reality is is about State Authority. Constantine wasn't even a Christian but recognised that having Christianity become the State Religion would serve to unite a rapidly fracturing empire. It is the same with the Qur'an in Islam, it represents the views of the state and not the faith. Islam had a distinct advantage in that canonisation took place much earlier than it had in Christianity, and, literacy was almost nil amongst Arabs. Even into the late Umayyad Era scribes were almost universally Christian slaves. The Jewish Canon on the other hand was constructed to meet the narrow views of a small group of theologians. It took place just after the end of the Bar Kochba Rebellion and so it represents a view that seriously downplays the huge ethno-nationalist component of the religion.

Hey, Rachamim. It's nice to see some detailed posts on the thread, which you have clearly thought about and looked into. Though I clearly oppose your viewpoint, it's nice to see you come out with facts and research.

Now let's tear it apart ;) ...

Constantine wasn't even a Christian but recognised that having Christianity become the State Religion would serve to unite a rapidly fracturing empire

This is nothing more than a conjectural theory. Infact it goes against what is historically recorded.

Constantine wasn't a Christian when he became emperor. True. But because of a religious experience he turned to Christiannity, and it inspired him to make Christiannity the state religion. The religious experience - the story goes that Constantine had a vision of the words "in hoc signo vinces" upon the symbol of Christianity, a cross, that led him to promise to follow the Christian religion if victory were granted.

Now it may be that constantine is a liar, and made the story up to justify making Christiannity the state religion. But that is just a theory. There is no way of proving how genuine his religious experience was.

Whether God was working through the emperor to make Christiannity a more prominent religion on the world, or whether constantine is a damn liar, is, like most religious experiences - unprovable - and ones perception on the matter, is going to be influenced by whether they believe in God or not.

rachamim said:
IV) 'The meaning of Matthew 10:35-36 is that Jesus will divide righteous from unrighteous.': It could be. It can also be Jesus warning followers that choosing to follow him might cause families to break up, considering that he was only speaking to Jews. However, that verse is basically taken verbatim from the Book of Micah (7:5-6), and can be found paraphrased as well in Isaiah 9:14 in the Jewish Canon and 2 places in the Jewish Apocrypha, I Enoch, 56:7 and 100:1-2). In this context it is entirely about the immediate precursor of the Messianic Advent. In other words, just before the Messiah appears families will be split into Believers and Unbelievers. As try as they might the early Christian Theologians couldn't get around some very uncomfortable facts ("facts" according to Christianity). Jesus was a Jew and Judaism, try as they might to humanise it for Western tastes, is an extremely violent faith, especially during the lifetime of Jesus (IF he existed).

I don't think anyone will argue that Jesus aroused violence. Have you ever seen "the passion of Christ"? But it was the innocent nature, and respect for the truth which clashed with mans vile, sinful nature that caused violence to errupt.

Matthew 26:51-52 said:
With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

It seems jesus and his followers were always the victims on violence, never the instigators. If you're trying to tell me that scripture says christians were instigators of violence, then you have a very warped and misinformed understanding of the bible.



shambles said:
Also, haven't forgotten your uberpost, Raas. Will reply properly soon. Is a bit lengthy though so am working up to it

Well it's been over a month now.

It's the third time in this thread you have stated "i'll get back to specifics later" (or words to that effect) and not bothered when I respond to your posts. Though I agree these posts are time-consuming, and you are under no obligation to reply. It seems very hypocritical to say
shambles said:
"All of y'all believers really. You've answered maybe two or three questions of mine out of several dozen so far. The "easy" ones, naturally;))

The post was big, but most of it were quotes and pictures! Let me break it down for you, into 3 easy questions...

1) From your posts, you seem to be unaware of all the good that comes from religion (stating "art is the only good thing to come from christiannity, seems a little ignorant), and judge the entire religion on a few spiritual abusers (You denigrated the entire religion of Bhuddism because of a minority of abusers). Would you say it is fair to assess your perception towards religion as biassed in a negative respect?

2) considering I quoted at least 5 questions answered, would it be fair to say that your statement: I'm "only answering 2 or 3 easy questions", is an example of a biassed perception against Christians?

3) You claim that scripture supports the idea that you are going to hell because you deny the holy spirit. I say this is not neccessarily true, and scripture actually shows someone turning to God in their last hours before death. With the possibility of personal progression inspired by life experience ahead of you,
would you accept it is more correct to say that scripture does not support the idea you are condemned, it just speaks of the possibility.

pinkpaver said:
It's weird when you get guided by a force/ instinct. I ended up in a prayer group today. I wasm't forced or coerced or anything. Story is I have a few ailments . I've been meaning to go the docs for months. Been off work all week and really should have gone on monday, but I am a bit lazy. So I slept in a bit today again and thought I wouldn't get an appt. till the arvo. At 10 am I had an uncontrollable urge to walk down to the docs to check if there was an appt. free. There was - with a real doc too! (normally they give you a stoody doc) So , i took the appt, for 10. 50. I waited till 11.30 to be seen. While waiting i realised that my bank had gone overdrawn and i have an account that isn't meant to go over drawn. I panicked at the thought of there being 30 days worth of over drawn charges to be applied just as my 1st wages of the year went in. So after the docs I popped into the bank. The bank where quite helpful and reduced the damage on my account to under £10 so unauthorised charges did not apply. ( I went from almost floods of tears to joy in a nano sec- and still think banks are a bit twatty- I have another account that does not let me go overdrawn at all at all so does not charge for returned dds)
I left the bank with joy in my heart and set off in the direction of my home. My parish church and bank are almost next door. I looked into the car park and saw a couple of cars. (normally tis all locked up, i like to pass thru and light candles but never can)
I skipped down the path and entered to find a sort of mass without the consecration thing going on. There were only 6 people there, they told me they were having a prayer afterwards and I was welcome to stay. So I did. It was quite nice really. I just watched the candle burning and made rays come out of it. Honestly, it was quite nice. I'm going to do it like a muslim from now on and do me prayers and church visiting on a friday. (I work sat night n sunday morning)

Which brings me onto another point. I really still don't like religious rammers or damners whatever their faith or lack thereof. The arrogance of the Iam right does annoy me.

I love that Phil Collins song. I've been talking to Jesus. I do like the idea that a nun brought up today that you will only get a cross that you can carry. You won't get anything thrown at you that you can't cope with. I like those metaphors.

I'm not too confused. since the death of my uncle I do believe that a bit of faith is good for those who want it to be good for them
tis a private thing. I know I'm not following religion in the way that the religious leaders want it to be followed (the evangelical spread the good word stuff) coz that's the bit I'm uncomfortable with. I'll spread good, and use metaphors and parables to people to give them comfort n that but no way am I saying "thou shalt blah blah" or "your religion is shite, mine is right" (even if I think it is. (actually, I might if some one is spouting out n out shite)

I also love the way that so many names do come from the old book. I love translating names. Transfigure or disfigure? That is the wuestion.

(I do go on....watched that magdelane laundry film yesterday too. That is certainly the bad side of religion. some twisted bitches end up nuns alright)

Thought this was a really nice post, because it was very honest. Unlike many others which just seem more concerned with taking a side, rather than addressing the truth (Perhaps im as guilty of that as anyone else)

I agree that religious (as you termed it) "rammers and damners" are a nuisance. Whether it's a street preacher, a street pastor or a jehova knocking at your door... I think religion loses all credibility when people try asserting it onto others. I think one should come to religion, for their own reasons.

Which brings me to...

Shambles said:
Or, for the religious folk amongst us, to give them a chance to maybe save a soul. Bit of a longshot admittedly.

Please guys, don't think I come on here trying to save souls. The theology is all a bit of fun. And very useful, I was talking about these issues with an atheist friend recently and had so much to say thanks to the fact i'd already done my homework and rehearsed it all online.


I believe for one to take scripture and religious theology seriously, (ie - not refute everything you're told, but try to make sense and take meaning from it) it takes a change inside of that person. That change may never happen, and if it does - it usually comes from life experience. Simply, God himself may be the inaugurator of that change. Someone who didn't believe in God would then percieve that "change" as a delusion.

Now, considering the fact that i'm only posting here to avoid pending coursework. I feel it's getting a little beyond my scope to try changing lives. But, at best, i do hope to give Christiannity a bit more credibility, because it is a religion that I feel is very much misunderstood and misrepresented.
 
Last edited:
Raas said:
The post was big, but most of it were quotes and pictures! Let me break it down for you, into 3 easy questions...

1) From your posts, you seem to be unaware of all the good that comes from religion (stating "art is the only good thing to come from christiannity, seems a little ignorant), and judge the entire religion on a few spiritual abusers (You denigrated the entire religion of Bhuddism because of a minority of abusers). Would you say it is fair to assess your perception towards religion as biassed in a negative respect?

2) considering I quoted at least 5 questions answered, would it be fair to say that your statement: I'm "only answering 2 or 3 easy questions", is an example of a biassed perception against Christians?

3) You claim that scripture supports the idea that you are going to hell because you deny the holy spirit. I say this is not neccessarily true, and scripture actually shows someone turning to God in their last hours before death. With the possibility of personal progression inspired by life experience ahead of you,
would you accept it is more correct to say that scripture does not support the idea you are condemned, it just speaks of the possibility.

1: Of course it's true to say my perception of religion is "negatively biased". Is yours perhaps "positively biased"? You seem to be making molehill mountains out of a throwaway comment about Buddhism not being all ohm, prayer flags and finger cymbals. Was just part of a broader point about no religion being free from evils done in it's name - not even the "nice" ones is all. Am quite fond of Buddhist philosophy meself. Just don't believe in the wackier bits of it is all. Could say the same about most religions really - there's good bits dotted hither and yon but they ultimately do far more harm than good. Yes it's all people doing stuff in the name of their religion - not any particular deity's fault - but that's precisely the point: there ain't no deity's so all of it is unnecessary. The good stuff is just basic common sense and human decency. Such a shame that it gets bogged down in all the bullshit really. Just people long ago unsure of themselves and the world around them is all. Time to put away childish things now - dummies may be soothing but they fuck ya teeth if you don't wean yerself sooner or later. As a species I mean - I'm sure you've not suckled on a dummy since some sweaty tent before you swore off the furries ;)

2: No it's not a "bias against Christians" it's just that I'm very sloppy on replying and lost all me references when I switched pooters. But mostly cos I'm very sloppy on replying. My biases have never exactly been hidden so not sure why you feel the need to point 'em out. But ya - I am heavily "biased" against Christians along with more or less all other religees. Well, more specifically I dislike the entire concept of religion and dislike individual relgions to varying degrees. Individual believers are just dandy though - is when y'all are en masse that things can turn nasty ;)

3: Not my understanding of it, Raas. But don't have me handy quotes to hand since losing all those bookmarks so can't quote chapter and verse off the top of me head. Think I may have done before though. Is very clear on the matter: Denial of the Holy Ghost (or whatever it is) is the one and only unforgivable sin. Totally unforgivable. No way back. Straight down. As it were. Is singled out as being the one thing you can't repent from afterwards. But that's just one of the Gospels. I'm sure there are other bits that contradict it too. To be fair there really isn't much in the book that doesn't have it at least both ways at once. And either way, as a non-believer I give nary a toss cos I don't believe in the concept of sin.

As for other points... I'll get back to ya ;)<3
 
I'm no facist. Should we get upset and make allowances fro the fact that interest is haram in the eyes of islam? I heard on the wireless today someone saying that the student loan system meant that some muslims were put off going because they think that interest is haram.

You see, giving in to organised religion, well therefore should individula belief systems be given into. "I'm afraid that I believe this that and t'other. Therefore such and such should not be applicable to me and I should be excused from all things that I do not want to do and be allowed to do anything that i want to do. Cmon guvnor. You've gotta respeck my beliefs"
we are all special. I'm babbling on now.
 
I'll have a look BHM... funnily enough I just read that the dalai llama is a watchmaker. If you think about it actually must take so much patience, and single minded zen like concentration to mend something so fiddly.

There you go you learn a new thing every day.
 
1: Of course it's true to say my perception of religion is "negatively biased". Is yours perhaps "positively biased"?
It's a matter of perception of theology. Perception is going to be effected by predominant issues that determine your attitude towards religion.

If you were to determine that existance of God is an impossibility. Ideas that the bible has to be contradictive nonsense, Christians have to be naive... would become appealing as it fits in with your hypothesis.

If I had life experiences which suggested to me God as an entity was real, I'd be more keener to see sense in scripture, debunk complaints of scripture authenticity, because this fits in with my hypothesis that God is real.

We can argue day and night about the interpretation of scripture; I'm sure it will get no-where... because what it boils down to is our underlying belief in God, and this is learnt from your own experience of life. Your life experience has lead you to believe God is not real, whereas my has lead be to believe he exists. And this is influencing our perception of theology.

You seem to be making molehill mountains out of a throwaway comment about Buddhism
It was a great example of negative perception towards religion.

Could say the same about most religions really - there's good bits dotted hither and yon but they ultimately do far more harm than good. Yes it's all people doing stuff in the name of their religion - not any particular deity's fault - but that's precisely the point: there ain't no deity's so all of it is unnecessary. The good stuff is just basic common sense and human decency. Such a shame that it gets bogged down in all the bullshit really.

I understand what you're saying. If the grounds of the religion aren't credible (the deity doesn't exist), all that stems from it is going to be corrupted somewhat.

Like trying to make a baby in vietnam after chemical warfare, it's never going to come out right.

(Awful analogy, i know)

How about... A branch... cannot bear good fruit... unless it abides in the vine.

(Thats a lot better)











(OK I stole it from the bible)



However, as I believe in God... I'm obviously going to take a greater interest in the spiritual lives and experiences of Christians, and it will become more credible to me. And thats why im shocked when I see you write "Art is the only good thing to come from Christiannity". We have differences in perception, remember...

there ain't no deity's so all of it is unnecessary
Just people long ago unsure of themselves and the world around them is all.
Again, this is nothing more than personal conjecture that fits in with your original hypothesis. You may be wrong...

Time to put away childish things now - dummies may be soothing but they fuck ya teeth if you don't wean yerself sooner or later. As a species I mean - I'm sure you've not suckled on a dummy since some sweaty tent before you swore off the furries ;)

Damn these posts become time-consuming and produce headaches. I'm getting too tired for this now (busy week) i'll finish off this post next week.

In the mean time, here's another intelude song...

Though I clearly oppose the devil in almost every way... when it comes to Rock music, the Satan boys do it so much better than the Christians...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgbTNEPPF0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top