On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC you missed that, you were born centuries after classical greek paganism died down?  Yes, the gods were once believed to intervene and chat up mortals..to have a personal relationship with them..they even had demi-god children with them.....



Your myths are an item in that set.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, since I'm on the subject, not only is this idea of a personal relationship with the divine common to classical paganism, it;s common to contemporary paganism...and in all three examples of contemporary christianity, classical paganism, and contemporary paganism...some deficiency in this personal relationship with the divine is suggested to be the root of much of our misery (if not all).  Each goes so far as to posit that the decreasing interest in the proper relationships with their prospective invocations of divinity are at least partially if not largely at fault for the apparent decline of their respective civilizations.    

To the classical greeks, divine abandonment was predicated on the wickedness of man and portended disaster.   To contemporary christians, the dimished role of christ in our lives and society is indicative of moral decay, and to contemporary pagans our disconnection with the numinous natural is very literally destroying the thing regarded as the source of divinity.

---

It's also interesting to point out that while each of the three groups has (and two still) carries a priestly class, there's a heavily refined form of shamanism presenting itself as mystery tradition in all three.  

Those truly called to the numinous both expect and report a deeply personal relationship with the divine.  This is, bluntly, what informs them of the very existence of the divine. The conceit of a priestly caste has always been that some have better ears than others - and this fails to make sense as a conjecture in the absence of the assumption that the divine engages in personal relationships with human beings. This single statement is the difference between deism and theism. All theists have this thing you thought was unique in common. It's what defines you as theists. The notion that we can and have had a personal relationship with gods.

[GrandizerII]

Virgin Birth:

" It is a fact that divine births were so commonly accepted among ancient people that whenever they hear of one who has greatly distinguish himself, they immediately classify such a person as having been born of a supernatural lineage. The learned Thomas Maurice in his book called Indian Antiquities, goes far as to state that “in every age and in almost every religion of the Asiatic world, there seems uniformly to have flourished an immemorial tradition that one god had from all eternity begotten another god”It is a fact that divine births were so commonly accepted among ancient people that whenever they hear of one who has greatly distinguish himself, they immediately classify such a person as having been born of a supernatural lineage. The learned Thomas Maurice in his book called Indian Antiquities, goes far as to state that “in every age and in almost every religion of the Asiatic world, there seems uniformly to have flourished an immemorial tradition that one god had from all eternity begotten another god”

https://www.nairaland.com/193520/there-m...gin-births

To be fair, the virgin birth bit seems to be unique to Christianity (or at least not directly borrowed from prior myths). What is pagan (and seen in other myths) about the supposed birth of Jesus is the idea that a mortal woman is able to give birth to a being of divinity (see, for example, the mortal Semele giving birth to the god Dionysus according to Greek mythology).

The virgin birth idea in the Christian myth perhaps may have come about because Christians would not have liked the thought of their sacred Son of God being the product of filthy human sex.

[downbeatplumb]

What I must ask is that when jesus "god" was down on earth plonking around Palestine for 30 odd years who was doing the day to day godding? was he answering prayers in his down time from wrecking temples? who was causing floods and punishing sinners etc etc?

Or is god not needed for the day to day running of the planet and if so how long would it be before its utter disappearance would take effect?

[MilesAbbott81]

I've been debating whether or not I should continue this discussion. Both times I've attempted to drop it, however, people have come out of the woodwork in opposition, and so I'm compelled to continue. Which is all fine, of course - the Lord will determine when this all ends, not me. I will say this, though: it would be nice if those who have something to say to me say it while I'm still actively engaged; otherwise, it looks very much like cowardice.

I'll begin with Astreja.

So now we're "phonies" because we think your religion is nonsense?  My, my -- aren't you the precious one.

I think it would be appropriate for you to lose your faith and join the rest of us "phonies" in the real world.  

Multiple times now you've spoken on assumption. Once again you're wrong. I wasn't referring to your interpretation of Scripture, which is quite useless considering you don't even believe in God (how can you rightly divide the Word if you don't know the Source of the Word?). I was speaking of those in nominal Christendom, those who claim to divide rightly but in reality wrest the Scriptures to their destruction. These people are phonies, by and large. Not all of them; some the Lord simply hasn't yet apprehended.

As far as I'm aware Christianity contains no original features

A few examples below. Found after a very brief search.

God as man:

Ancient Greek gods habitually took human form and lived among humans.--lest any Christian claim these are myths, I reply so is the Christian claim of Jesus as the son of God, to me and I think more than a few atheists.

Same goes for Hinduism; the God Krishna  often appeared  in human form. Perhaps the best known example can be found in the Baghavad
Gita .(The Song OF God) This is part of the Mahabharata, one of Hinduism's most revered .In the Gita , Krishna has a conversation a man called Arjuna, explaining the origin of suffering. The Gita is a sublimely  beautiful book, which answers one of the great questions men have asked for millennia: why do we suffer?. The explanation is simple and elegant, providing a rational answer where Christianity  cannot.

Virgin Birth:

" It is a fact that divine births were so commonly accepted among ancient people that whenever they hear of one who has greatly distinguish himself, they immediately classify such a person as having been born of a supernatural lineage. The learned Thomas Maurice in his book called Indian Antiquities, goes far as to state that “in every age and in almost every religion of the Asiatic world, there seems uniformly to have flourished an immemorial tradition that one god had from all eternity begotten another god”It is a fact that divine births were so commonly accepted among ancient people that whenever they hear of one who has greatly distinguish himself, they immediately classify such a person as having been born of a supernatural lineage. The learned Thomas Maurice in his book called Indian Antiquities, goes far as to state that “in every age and in almost every religion of the Asiatic world, there seems uniformly to have flourished an immemorial tradition that one god had from all eternity begotten another god”

https://www.nairaland.com/193520/there-m...gin-births

The dying and resurrecting god has been part of fertility religions for millennia. And I think in South American civilisations, independently.

Son of God: Horus; son of the goddess, mother Isis  and  her brother the god Osiris.

Just because Krishna, one of a vast pantheon of gods (or the result of a silly "monotheistic" version of Hinduism, which is pure confusion from what I can tell), supposedly incarnated, or Zeus reportedly did the same, it's far different than the one and only Omnipotent God coming to us in human form, humbling Himself to the point of humiliation and crucifixion, and offering those who follow Him salvation only through suffering the cross. This is nothing like Hinduism or any other kind of polytheism. Maybe there are some monotheistic religions that hold similar doctrine, but it seems a good deal of these descend from Abrahamic tradition. In any case, if anything like it does exist, it's on the fringe and not really worth consideration.

Grandizer also points out your ignorance in your claiming the virgin birth is unoriginal. Really, it's sort of foolish to discuss these religions from premises of originality, because no one has any proof that one came before the other in the case of "Judaism," and no definitive proof that Christianity is a copycat religion, either. At least, not from what I've seen...perhaps someone can prove me wrong.

Unless you make a claim , such as "there is no god" or "I believe there is no god" There is no burden of proof. That honour belongs to the person claiming "I believe in god" or' there is a god"

You need prove exactly nothing. It's a common ploy of ignorant people to say something like 'OH yeah, well YOU prove I'm wrong"

The person claiming 'there IS proof" is incorrect. The claimant is either lying or  is simply ignorant. Credible proof of the existence of God would change the world,.I'm confident I would have heard about it, but I haven't  so there isn't.

Below for your info if you continue to engage with Christian apologists.---I have never yet seen one accept either sound logic or facts which contradict their  dogmatic beliefs. They can't afford to; admitting error could destroy their world view.

"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".[2] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_...hilosophy)

Credible proof of God's existence has changed the world. Not that these changes have all been good; quite the opposite, in fact. You're simply in the minority, because God has withheld common sense from you, at least concerning this matter. Truly, you're powerless to reason your way to His existence - we can't receive a single thing, whether that be a piece of valid knowledge, a physical blessing, or spiritual revelation except by His grace.

Of course, you and others here don't accept the proof as proof, because it would destroy your worldview.

Also, atheists claim there is no God all the time, if not explicitly then implicitly. Equating God with unicorns and comic book characters, which possibletarian has done several times, is a very clear example of this. So perhaps the burden of proof IS actually on you. I think that's a totally fair assessment.

Well, I did have a look. Then a second. Then a third.

What I read was astonishing. Amazing, even.

Then I did some background checking and found confirmation of my initial reaction.

It is one of the biggest piles of unmitigated bullshit, delusional fantasy and outright lies ever assembled by a schizophrenic lunatic.

It's so out there that eventually, you can't help but start to laugh at the outrageous claims. I mean, having a house cat is idolatry? Really? And house pets in general are a huge government covert plot to turn us all on to bestiality? What the actual fuck?

I heartily recommend it to anyone needing jaw exercises, because your jaw will hit the deck so often, also because it becomes so side splittingly funny so quickly as you surf around it.

And what is Miles' opinion of this vast repository of absolute batshittery and wingnuttery? This...

"To be clear, practically everything I've written here I discovered for myself at this site. It's the only place I'm aware of that has true wisdom from God."

Holy shit!

---

Who knows, perhaps you're all right and I'm completely incorrect in my assertions. Maybe what I've pointed to as proof actually doesn't qualify as such, and there is no way to reason your way to the existence of God on the basis of it. Could be.

In any case, I have no desire to continue posting in this thread. I've provided the same resources that were made available to me to everyone here, so anyone reading this has the opportunity to come to their own conclusions.

Hi Miles.

I have read your sources. They are nukking futs.

Even other christians think they are nukking futs. All of them.

Abaddon, your post was pretty interesting, but not for the reasons you think. Let me ask you a question: if everything you read on The Path of Truth was so "side-splittingly funny" and ridiculous, then why did you have to look elsewhere to confirm your initial reaction to it? I could be wrong, of course, but I suspect it's because it wasn't at all ridiculous to you, and that it struck some chord in you that made you uneasy to the point of looking elsewhere for assurance.

Many refuse to recognize the Truth for what it is; indeed, those who refuse to accept it will froth at the mouth and seek to destroy it, and also those who preach it.

Let's have a look at what you specifically call "batshittery and wingnuttery." I also find it interesting that you happened upon this "House Pets" article, because that comment you found is probably the only thing on the entire site I might call questionable, though it's really just you making assumptions about what is actually being said.

Granted, I've not spoken directly to Victor about what he said, but you're free to clarify with him if you wish. I think it's pretty obvious what he meant, though, which I'll explain.

Victor does not believe that the Canadian government is conspiring to turn people on to bestiality. That is preposterous, and he never even said that; you put words in his mouth. It could be argued that he could've chosen the words in his response more carefully, or perhaps that he didn't consider the comment carefully enough, but to make the leap as you did merely proves that you made a snap judgment and didn't think things through. I will say that it's possible he meant there could be a small conspiracy of people or even just individuals attempting to drive a bestiality agenda (however unlikely that might be), but he certainly wasn't speaking in terms of a monolithic entity driving such an agenda, which is what you were insinuating. It's clear to anyone who reads the comment fairly. (It's here at the bottom of the page for those interested) And yes, pets can be idols, and it's laid out clearly in the article, which is very much worth reading.

But it's certainly true that the Canadian government couldn't care less if people are committing acts of bestiality, and that they might even be consciously making an effort to protect those guilty of such crimes. It's really not that farfetched. In 2016, the Canadian government failed to indict a man for acts of bestiality, citing a loophole in their law. Since then, they've been slow to fix the loophole, though bills have been proposed, and to my knowledge the loophole still hasn't been corrected. It's sick.

Why have they done this? Because the Canadian government has no interest in basic human decency. They're more interested in protecting sick behaviors, even enacting laws protecting them. How else could they make a law that forces people to recognize transgendered individuals by their "proper" pronouns? This is a fact; it's been done.

Any society that thinks it's okay to reinforce sick delusions like transgenderism, which compels people to destroy and mutilate their bodies (and souls), is a mere stone's throw away from legalizing bestiality. After all, why judge a person who just really loves their pets? That's the sort of rationale that the general public has freely displayed about things like incest. I saw a man question random people at a beach who actually thought that no one should judge a man for having sex with his daughter, provided they were in love. It's a sad fact that God has given people over to the most depraved of behaviors in this day, and protecting the rights of people who are committing sexual crimes with animals is something I wouldn't at all be surprised to see, because it's already happened.

So Abaddon, you can continue laughing yourself into oblivion if that's what you're actually doing, but know that such as you have been identified and prophesied of already in the Scriptures:

"Most importantly, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. “Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world of that time perished in the flood. And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:3-7)

I guess it's true, "You are what you eat!"

I can only take from this "pithy" remark that you think my consumption of this documentary has led to my becoming the "garbage" it espouses. The only thing from the film that I mentioned is hyperthermia, which even by the article you link to is not legitimately discounted. Not that I'm saying the rest of what the film espouses is garbage...maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe your source is garbage, which I have to wonder about considering it blithely dismisses hyperthermia.

My point is that you obviously took little care in considering what I'd written, or, if you did, then you failed to comprehend the content of your source, which does nothing to dissuade me from my stance (neither should it dissuade anyone else that hyperthermia is a bad treatment), particularly when I've heard testimonials from trustworthy sources saying it works.

Truth comes from many sources. Atheists often have good things to say concerning the inadequacies and contradictions of orthodox "Christianity." What is important is that one not throw out the baby with the bathwater, which is the error you make (besides not carefully reading, apparently). 

I'd also be careful of citing sources as you do. Many twist facts or cite a lack of evidence as evidence. Take, for instance, this snippet from your own article, which links to an FDA document: "Ozone is a toxic gas with no known medical use in specific, adjunctive, or preventative therapy." How ridiculous! So there being no known medical uses qualifies as an argument? I could say the same about rocks! And so what if ozone is a toxic gas? Chemotherapy literally uses poison! Radiation therapies can CAUSE cancer! Well, perhaps you don't condone every idiotic statement made in that article. This acknowledgement, by the way, is a courtesy I'm extending to you that you didn't extend to me.

Hardly anyone has caught onto dandelion root powder yet, but it's been curing cancer for years. It may not be well-documented, but what IS true and documented is that chemotherapy is a terrible treatment for cancer, radiation therapy can cause cancer, and that doctors have a conflict of interest in prescribing cancer treatments.

Doctors are also quite often miserable failures with no understanding of what they're doing. So why put so much trust in them? So what if they disregard dandelion root powder or hyperthermia? Neither of those treatments earns them a penny, and both threaten the livelihoods of oncologists in particular (not to mention the evil companies pandering their poisonous "cures"). Men are evil, and rarely do the right thing when it costs them much. So it is with doctors, who are sinners like anyone else.

Your article is also quick to dismiss testimonials. Keep in mind that these are people who have actually had cancer and been cured of it, recommending treatments that aren't going to benefit them in any way. On the other hand, you have doctors and those involved in the cancer industry (and it IS an industry, its eyes set upon profit) decrying these people as what...liars? It's easy to point at someone and call them a liar, particularly when you're looking out for your own interests.

Will you see the sense in what I'm saying here, Jormungandr?

Up to a year ago, I had a dear friend called Wayne.

Wayne watched a lot of 'fringe '  health documentaries online and visited a heap of sites, learning  about wonderful products, including many about which he would end with the enthusiastic  endorsement "-----AND, it cures cancer!"

He took a range of quack medicines, ate and drank  some unusual  things, as preventative measures. He refused to listen when I tried to tell him these (often expensive) things were bogus.

Because of these beliefs, Wayne was anti mainstream medicine, and rarely went to a doctor.

About a year ago he began complaining of feeling tired all the time. Took months to get Wayne to see a doctor.

He finally went to the doctor and had some blood test done.  On the evening of having blood taken, his GP rang him, telling him to get to hospital, NOW! (I have never in my life had a GP ring me)

Wayne went to hospital where he was diagnosed with  Leukemia.  My dear friend died 8 days later.

I can't express my anger for and contempt of these  ignorant and often dishonest con men/women, who sell snake oil. They are responsible for the deaths of naive and gullible people such as my friend.

My anger and contempt  includes the ignorant fools who endorse such utter nonsense on internet forums ,including this one.. No, not you Jormungandr. (sorry, I don't know how to do an umlaut on my windows keyboard)

I don't completely disregard conventional medicine, never said that I did. Sometimes it's useful, and it sounds to me like your friend Wayne would've benefited from going to the doctor to at least figure out what was wrong with him. He acted foolishly, and it sounds like it was quite possibly a direct result of him holding alternative medicine in idolatry. In the end, however, Wayne's sin killed him. No amount of dandelion root powder is going to save someone the Lord has condemned to die.

Your anger and contempt should be directed at yourself for making foolish assumptions and accusations.

OFC you missed that, you were born centuries after classical greek paganism died down?  Yes, the gods were once believed to intervene and chat up mortals..to have a personal relationship with them..they even had demi-god children with them.....

Your myths are an item in that set.

I understand that you were replying to someone else with this, but your argument is foolish and I'm going to point out why.

You're talking about isolated incidents of some god appearing in human form and having a superficial relationship with various individuals. Completely different story with Jesus Christ, Who has an intimate relationship with every single person ever created, to the point of determining the fates of the very hairs on our heads (Luke 12:7).

What I must ask is that when jesus "god" was down on earth plonking around Palestine for 30 odd years who was doing the day to day godding? was he answering prayers in his down time from wrecking temples? who was causing floods and punishing sinners etc etc?

Or is god not needed for the day to day running of the planet and if so how long would it be before its utter disappearance would take effect?

What on earth do you not understand about the word "omnipotent"?

[Abaddon_ire]

Don't you think we have seen all of this horseshit before? Your horse shit is the only l true horseshit? As evidence you present something you read once on a cereal packet? Really?

[MilesAbbott81]

Don't you think we have seen all of this horseshit before? Your horse shit is the only l true horseshit? As evidence you present something you read once on a cereal packet? Really?

Perhaps you should actually try formulating your thoughts into a coherent argument, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC you missed that, you were born centuries after classical greek paganism died down?  Yes, the gods were once believed to intervene and chat up mortals..to have a personal relationship with them..they even had demi-god children with them.....

Your myths are an item in that set.

I understand that you were replying to someone else with this, but your argument is foolish and I'm going to point out why.

You're talking about isolated incidents of some god appearing in human form and having a superficial relationship with various individuals. Completely different story with Jesus Christ, Who has an intimate relationship with every single person ever created, to the point of determining the fates of the very hairs on our heads (Luke 12:7).

Not at all, though obviously stories of divine relationships and interaction are meant to typify the object of belief, just as your own magic book is a collection of stories about a god appearing in human form and having superficial relationships with people.  

The notion of fate determining forces and supernatural knowledge are similarly well represented in all other forms of theism.  The central and defining position of theism, all theism..yours, the greeks, whomever, is a personal god that interacts.  This is what separates it from other forms of god belief, but is not a difference between any representative of theistic belief.

-but nevermind all of that, when was the last time jesus popped down to the bar and had a drink with you? Does he watch while you pee and count the times you shake it? Any benefits to this intimate relationship?

[Cod]

Knowing Jesus he'd shake it for him, really really fast.

[MilesAbbott81]

Not at all, though obviously stories of divine relationships and interaction are meant to typify the object of belief, just as your own magic book is a collection of stories about a god appearing in human form and having superficial relationships with people.  

The notion of fate determining forces and supernatural knowledge are similarly well represented in all other forms of theism.  The central and defining position of theism, all theism..yours, the greeks, whomever, is a personal god that interacts.  This is what separates it from other forms of god belief, but is not a difference between any representative of theistic belief.

Yes, actually, it's quite different. The Bible is not at all about God appearing in human form and having superficial relationships with people. It's about Him having the most intimate of relationships with everyone, where He willfully lays down His life for us all to save us. That is nothing like any other religion (again, to my knowledge, others are free to prove me wrong). And I should mention polytheism doesn't count - who cares about the sacrifice of individual gods when there are so many others to take their place? The sacrifice becomes meaningless. There is also the fact that there is actually evidence for the life and death of Jesus Christ (and stories in the Old Testament), and that evidence is not found only in the "magic book." It's Hinduism and the like that has "magic books."

-but nevermind all of that, when was the last time jesus popped down to the bar and had a drink with you? Does he watch while you pee and count the times you shake it?  Any benefits to this intimate relationship?

How clever.

---

Knowing Jesus he'd shake it for him, really really fast.

Know, those of you reading this, that making comments such as these merely exposes you for what you are: nasty, nasty people. But go ahead and have at it...you will understand the gravity of your error in due time.