[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Pope tells priests to pardon women who have abortions
Source: AFP
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/pope-tells-pr ... women-abortions-110936598.html
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2015-09-01 08:17:04 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 3118
Comments: 44

Pope Francis on Tuesday called on priests to pardon women who have abortions, and the doctors who perform them, during the upcoming Jubilee year -- overruling hardline traditionalists within the Catholic Church.

"I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it," he said.

In a message outlining special measures for the Jubilee, Francis said he knew that while "the tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness... many others... believe that they have no other option".

The Argentine pontiff said he was "well aware of the pressure" that some women were under to abort, adding that he had "met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonising and painful decision".

The 78-year-old, who has repeatedly urged the Church to show greater compassion, said priests should use "words of genuine welcome", as well as making sure those involved were aware of "the gravity of the sin committed".

Francis announced earlier this year a Jubilee year -- traditionally a time for remission and forgiveness -- which will run from December 8 to November 20 and be celebrated not only in the Vatican but in dioceses across the world.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 44.

#1. To: cranky (#0)

The Pope is nothing. The WORD of GOD and His word are everything.


Friday August 15, 2014 Who does God hold most responsible for an abortion? Leviticus 20:1-5

I'm going to do this thought as if it were a letter to a young girl, a young girl who has had an abortion. It makes no difference what I call her, and it makes no difference how many abortions she has had, or even her age, she could be 16, 26 or even 60 or more. I'm going to call her Rachael.

Dear Rachael,

I know you have had an abortion and I know that you know that what you did is wrong. How you got pregnant is not relevant, what is relevant is that you allowed the life of the little baby in your womb to be ended.

Rachael, I also know that you think that Christ hates you for what you did and that He could never forgive you. Two things my little one, first Christ does not hate you and second He can't wait to forgive you, but, He is holy and as such must maintain His rules, and His rule is that you must respond to His persistent, through the Holy Ghost, call for you to ask to be forgiven. (Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any *man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me. * the Greek word translated man is "tis" it would be better translated "whomever" for it is not limited to man, but all of mankind, male and female, unlike the Hebrew "'iysh" word used in Leviticus 20:1-5 which means man, not mankind, not man and women but only man, for the Hebrew word for man is "adam".)

Rachael, as you will see, as we go through the most important prohibition of abortion, by God Almighty, it is the guy who got you pregnant that God commands to be killed for allowing you to abort his seed, it is not you God is furious with, it is the man whose sperm joined with your egg and became his seed. Now, why you ask does God hold the baby's father more responsible for the baby's death than you? It is because he is, in the original Hebrew, adam and you are 'ishshah. ... www.christianpatriot.com/08-15-2014_print.htm

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-09-01   8:45:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: BobCeleste (#1)

The WORD of GOD and His word are everything.

Sad to day, Bob, but words are cheap.

It may be time for God To reveal Himself or move on down the road.

cranky  posted on  2015-09-01   8:47:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: cranky, GarySpFc, liberator (#2)

It may be time for God To reveal Himself or move on down the road.

God already manifested Himself in the flesh for all to see. You just don't believe the people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ.

But, even Thomas doubted until he put his hand in nail prints and side of the Risen Christ.

On the night Jesus Christ was betrayed He spoke this prayer to The Father in Heaven:

From John 17:

20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

The entire prayer can be found Here.

Those are the words of Christ with relation to those who would come after the first disciples who walked with Him on earth. Walk up to any Christian or Chrisitian church which exhibits the attributes explained by Jesus Christ above. You will see fulfillment in His very Words.

If it is the scholarship behind the NT as a reliable historical document, you might have to go beyond blog pages and the internet. Below is an excellent source. Sir William Ramsay was an accomplished scholar of antiquity and archaeologist. He entered his studies and research a skeptic much like you.

Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915,

It's not an easy read...trust me:) But if you are looking for non-drive by internet scholarship, it is this work you should examine.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   10:23:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: redleghunter (#4)

You just don't believe the people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ.

That's true enough.

I don't believe any of the chapters in the Bible were written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred nor are they first person accounts written by eyewitnesses or participants after the fact.

I don't believe the actual authors of the Gospels are known. There may have been individuals around circa 33 AD preaching those Gospels and decades or centuries later oral traditions of those teachings were codified and ascribed to one disciple or another by author(s) unknown.

But, I have no reason to believe, for example, that the historical Luke sat down one day and penned the Gospel of Luke.

cranky  posted on  2015-09-01   15:43:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: cranky, liberator, GarySpFc (#19)

I don't believe any of the chapters in the Bible were written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred nor are they first person accounts written by eyewitnesses or participants after the fact.

Then you have deemed the Scriptures complete frauds with the intent to deceive. That puts all historical manuscripts tucked into the fraud category by your approach.

So for example, the Simon Peter in the Gospels and Acts is not the Simon Peter who wrote this:

2 Peter 1:

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

So the above was a fabrication? If so then all the letters we supposedly have of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson et. al. are fabrications. We only have historians who tell us that the letters belonged to those men. All the original eyewitnesses are dead. So there's not much of any history that seems trustworthy for you.

For the NT Scriptures we can put a 'cap' on your escape clause. In addition to the NT manuscripts, no later than the end of the 1st Century we have sermons and theological works quoting the exact same Scriptures we have today. No writings or works of antiquity can claim the same. That is how the early church fathers combated heresies. They had the Word by tradition and in writing. That is called a dual independent check. Nothing else from antiquity other than Judaism can claim that.

I don't believe the actual authors of the Gospels are known. There may have been individuals around circa 33 AD preaching those Gospels and decades or centuries later oral traditions of those teachings were codified and ascribed to one disciple or another by author(s) unknown.

Again we have the testimony not only of the NT Scriptures themselves, but those who followed who used them in sermons and KNEW those who walked with Christ. The Apostle John it is estimated by 2nd century church fathers lived until the close of the 1st Century. He was young when he walked with Christ on earth.

Sounds like a bit of investigation into early Christian church history is in order for you.

For example: John the Apostle walked with Christ and witnessed His death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven. Then he wrote about it and lived another 60 years or so. While John evangelized Polycarp became his pupil. When John died Polycarp became a bishop/overseer. Polycarp taught Irenaeus and passed down both the oral message and taught him from the written word. By the time of Irenaeus theological institutions cropped up throughout the Roman Empire. This was mid-2nd Century. What's interesting is spread out all over the Roman Empire with no internet, these bishops and theologians somehow were writing sermons and papers on the same scriptures.

But, I have no reason to believe, for example, that the historical Luke sat down one day and penned the Gospel of Luke.

Actually, based on an unbroken line of Christians from the time of Christ, and the wide use of and attribution of the Scriptures while Apostles still lived should lead you to be amazed.

For example, Paul's epistle to the Galatians was not just found in Galatia, but all over the Roman Empire by the turn of the 1st Century. That's pretty amazing.

At the turn of the 1st Century Polycarp quotes from 17 of the 27 NT books we have today in a two page letter to his congregation.

The link below shows all the NT (and some OT) quotes Polycarp uses at the turn of the 1st Century, which is evidence the scriptures themselves were in wide circulation during his lifetime:

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

I don't believe the actual authors of the Gospels are known. There may have been individuals around circa 33 AD preaching those Gospels and decades or centuries later oral traditions of those teachings were codified and ascribed to one disciple or another by author(s) unknown.

Leading scholars who studied manuscript evidence and actually conducted digs or examined archaeological data extremely disagree with you:

Dating the Books of the New Testament

Who Wrote the New Testament Books?

But you have seen these links before and even more.

Here's the information on various religious and secular manuscript evidence from antiquity:

Manuscript Evidence

So you have seen all of the above before. It is not a question of having 'no reason to believe' but looking for any reason to doubt.

If you want to throw out thousands of years of scholarship just because you could not witness it unfold on TV or the internet, then you deny all of history or think history is a giant ponzi scam.

So if you would like to discuss the evidence I presented you, I will be more than willing to discuss. However, don't bother continuing this conversation if you find no reason to believe anything from history. Because that is the standard you have established for everything from history.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   16:47:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: redleghunter (#20)

Then you have deemed the Scriptures complete frauds with the intent to deceive.

Do you actually believe there were human eyewitnesses to the Creation? And they were taking notes as Creation occurred?

cranky  posted on  2015-09-01   18:26:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: cranky (#22)

Do you actually believe there were human eyewitnesses to the Creation? And they were taking notes as Creation occurred?

Genesis is quite a jump from discussing the Roman Empire era.

Goal post shifting noted.

We were discussing Caesar, Jesus Christ and the NT era.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-01   21:39:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: redleghunter (#25)

Goal post shifting noted.

Either there are first person, eyewitness accounts transcribed at the time the events described in Scriptures occurred or there are not.

I say no such first person, eyewitness accounts have yet to be uncovered.

Pliny wrote about of the eruption of Vesuvius at the time it erupted.

Herodotus' accounts of Marathon were written while survivors of the battle were living.

Xenophon recorded many daily events in the lives of ordinary Greeks.

Even first hand accounts of Socrates trial and punishment are available.

I've even read of an account of a person complaining about the fees Hippocrates charged him.

The list goes on and on.

I just wish I could find some similar accounts of events mentioned in Scriptures dating from the time the events actually occurred.

Who knows? Maybe that synagogue that predated and survived Jesus will cough up something.

I'll just have to wait and see.

cranky  posted on  2015-09-02   7:49:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: cranky, GarySpFc, liberator, tomder55 (#33)

Either there are first person, eyewitness accounts transcribed at the time the events described in Scriptures occurred or there are not.

That does not even happen today. During the Gulf War in 1990-1991 all the history books you have today on the subject were interviews with Soldiers AFTER the events happened. Sure CNN and others had some cameras around but the media could never capture even a fraction of the story. So Army War College historians came down and interviewed all of us for the engagement my unit was a part of. All 2,000 Soldiers gave an account in some form or fashion.

Read the beginning of Luke again. I did and it sounds a lot like how the Army War College investigated the events of the historical engagement I was a part of.

Pliny wrote about of the eruption of Vesuvius at the time it erupted.

How do you know that? What is the earliest extant manuscript evidence of Pliny?

Pliny A.D. 61-113 Earliest Copy 850AD Number of copies: 7

NT? Less than 100 years and 5600 copies.

Pliny is a sole source. The NT had 8 separate authors.

Not even close Cranky.

Herodotus' accounts of Marathon were written while survivors of the battle were living.

Again not even close:

Herodotus: 480-425 BC. Earliest Manuscript: 900 AD 1,300 year gap.

NT? Less than 100 years and 5600 copies.

Herodotus loses.

If you read any of the scholar reviews I linked from Gary's site you will see the dating of the NT books. Most were complete no later than AD 70 before the fall of Jerusalem. That is less than 40 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Most of the disciples who walked the earth with Christ were still alive and active planting churches, writing epistles, throughout the Roman Empire. See the epistles of Peter for example. Also, Paul who did not witness physically the events of Jesus Christ said the following circa 50 AD:

1 Corinthians 15:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

I don't know why you keep suggesting the NT books were written after everyone who eyewitnessed events were dead and gone. That's just a false statement given the VERY early manuscript evidence.

Xenophon recorded many daily events in the lives of ordinary Greeks.

Must be hearsay as we don't even know if Xenophon wrote what is attributed to him, plus he could have embellished daily events to make 'ordinary' Greeks look good. Just applying your method.

The earliest manuscript evidence for Xenophon? 9th-10th Century AD are the earliest. So another over 1,000 year gap.

http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/3451/5733

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/greek_classics.htm#Xenophon

Xenophon 430 – 354 BC Earliest manuscript 9-10th Century AD. I will let you do the math this time. So about 1,000 years.

I just wish I could find some similar accounts of events mentioned in Scriptures dating from the time the events actually occurred.

Who knows? Maybe that synagogue that predated and survived Jesus will cough up something.

I'll just have to wait and see.

They are there, but you have ignored them. I gave you a great work to start with. The Sir William Ramsay research. He confirmed Luke used accurate geography, political leaders, and day to day life in 1st Century AD Roman Empire.

But you do put a lot of faith in fragments collected 700 hundred to thousands of years later by Catholic monks and transcribed into manuscripts. That IS the GAP, huge between these supposed reliable secular historical accounts. But for some reason you keep missing the point that the NT manuscripts are less than 100 years. LESS Than. All the others are hundreds of years and in some cases 1,000-1,300 years later than the original writing.

So I have exposed your double standard.

Luke says "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."----Cranky says can't be Luke. Skepticism

Xenophon says "I went to the market today and heard a great speech."--- Cranky says that is reliable history.

So by the evidence presented...The NT is the most reliable collection of documents from antiquity. The NT books have a less than 100 year gap from the autographs to the earliest manuscipts. Other such well known documents from antiquity don't even come close boasting only Homer with a 500 year gap between original copy and manuscipt copy.

Supplemental:

Where in the units of a time gap where lower is reliable and greater is less reliable:

The NT manuscripts time gap is less than 100 years

Other comparable historical documents exceed by 500-1000 years or more this standard.

Timeframe from original to earliest manuscript copy is not the only factor in heavy favor of the NT books. The number of manuscripts are important as well.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Here are some comparisons:

Plato: 7

Caesar: 10

Aristotle: 49

Sophocles: 193

Homer: 643

Again the comparsion is not even close. The NT wins hands down.

Supplemental:

Where the increasing number of manuscripts allow for greater accuracy of a text and the fewer in number allow for error in the text:

The NT has 5,600+ extant manuscripts, whereas the closest comparable historical document has less than 200 extant manuscripts.

What I can gather from your responses is that you will not even entertain the evidence presented. Some advice from Aristotle may be in order:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

And that is the meat of the matter with NT skeptics. If those pages are truly what they say they are and about Who they say it is about, and what they say is Truth indeed...then one is left with the decision to accept or deny the claims. Many do not want to be faced with that kind of decision.

They rather deny it all happened or somehow there was an unreliable transmission of the message etc. But going down that road is futile and illogical. Why? Because when you apply the same standard to non-NT historical documents one will have to deny all history.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-02   11:22:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: redleghunter (#37)

That was a very good expose of the historical record.

Of course, for parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are manuscripts from the First Century at the latest. Some of them are a century or two older. They are copies of copies, and they do not contain the complete Old Testament, but they give us a view of the relative accuracy of transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Christ over a gap of 1000 years, to the earliest complete Hebrew texts: the Aleppo and Leningrad codicies, both from about 1000 AD.,

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-02   12:41:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Vicomte13, liberator, GarySpFc (#40)

Of course, for parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are manuscripts from the First Century at the latest. Some of them are a century or two older. They are copies of copies, and they do not contain the complete Old Testament, but they give us a view of the relative accuracy of transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Christ over a gap of 1000 years, to the earliest complete Hebrew texts: the Aleppo and Leningrad codicies, both from about 1000 AD.,

Indeed and thank you for pointing this out. We decided in our conversation to keep 'works' within the time of Christ plus or minus a few hundred years. And the DSS do fit that timeline.

Add to the fact, as you know, how often the TaNaKh is quoted in the NT from both the Greek LXX tradition and Hebrew/Aramaic tradition. We also know Jerome used the existing OT texts available to him during his life (382 AD).

When we carefully examine the various extant pieces of evidence, the Bible stands above every other work of antiquity and beyond.

So what's left to argue on this point with skeptics. They deny their entire history if they hold secular historical documents to the same standard they hold Scriptures to.

So what's left of possibilities. One is such skeptics know the message and commands in scriptures but choose to reject them/don't like them.

What is frightening for many (and just about everyone has been there) is that the Scriptures have absolutes. The Creator's Absolutes. And the fact is we all fall short of the standards for those absolutes.

Yet those same Scriptures show a merciful, graceful, loving and longsuffering God who loves us so much He promises all who come to Him contrite and repentant will receive His Spirit and He will write His statutes on our hearts.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-02   13:46:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: redleghunter (#41)

Here is what is left to the reasonable skeptic:

The best attested of ancient manuscripts are these: Egyptian hieroglyphic stories of their gods and kings, dating from circa 1200 BC. These are well attested because they were painted on the inside of sealed tombs and vaults in desert places.

Babylonian-region clay prisms containing cuneiform records of various things. These are well-preserved because of the medium: baked clay.

Hebrew writings of the 1st Century BC and 1st Century AD. These are well- preserved because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, although the oldest complete Old Testaments are in Greek from the mid-350s AD (Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; the oldest complete Hebrew Old Testament is the Leningrad Codex, from 1010 AD).

Christian writings, starting with the two (nearly) complete Greek Bibles of the mid 350s (the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). There are some fragments from before that. And there are lots and lots of manuscripts from after the 300s.

From these four streams of ancient writings, we have four reasonably complete sets of ancient religious writings: the Egyptian Books of the Dead, the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epics, the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Greek and Latin New Testament.

From the Christian monastic tradition we also have a considerable corpus of ancient Greek and Roman pagan writings, because the monastics copied older manuscripts before they fell apart and disappeared. The oldest and most famous of the Greek epics are those of Homer. Granted that these copies are, in age, from the middle ages and were copied by Christians, but clearly they are copies: Christians were not spending their time in the 1000s and 1100s devising pagan myths for the ancients. They were, rather, carefully copying the ancient pagan texts in order to preserve them for scholarly study.

So, what do we have in terms of ancient manuscripts? Egyptian accounts of their gods and kings, and Babylonian accounts of their gods and kings, Hebrew accounts of their gods and kings, Greek and Roman accounts of their gods and kings, and Christian accounts of their man-god, whcm they believe is the eternal king.

Human beings seem to be very consistent across cultures and times: they are fascinated by their gods, and by demi-godlike rulers. The "why" of that is not hard to discern: men are limited by nature, by other men, and by death. Through gods and beliefs in the afterlife, they seek to transcend these limits, and in the stories of demi-godlike men - Pharaohs ("sons of the Sun-god"), Gilagamesh and his demigod heirs to the throne, Moses and the prophetic line, down to David and Solomon and their lines, the Titans, the Olympian gods, the gods of hearth and home, and of course Jesus Christ, the demi-god born of a vestal virgin.

The pattern repeats, because man's imagination strains against nature and death and darkness, and weaves myths of starfire. And men choose to believe these myths, and place their hopes in them...and that's what they write about. In the Greco-Roman Empire, a lot more people could write over a larger area than in earlier times. Also, the Greco-Romans were far more organized and systematic, on a vaster scale. So, when this literate empire formally organized a state religion, all over the vast area literate men wrote about what men always write about: gods and kings. The Empire became formally Christian in the 300s, and the vast bulk of ancient Christian manuscripts start to be churned out then, starting with the great codicies (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and continuing on from there.

Now, these accounts of the gods and kings could be one of three things:

(1) mythical accounts of divine powers intermingled with real kings reflect the ardent hopes of the human heart and are universal - all ancient cultures' texts and architecture focus, above all, on their gods, leading to a universal.

(2) The other accounts are all fictional, deceits of Satan or conceits of men seeking power through false, except for the one account that is true...but how do we decide WHICH one is true? Just because our parents happened to believe one, so THAT must be the true one?

OR (3) They're ALL true, and the world has been interacting with gods since the beginning. If that's the case, then the Christian god may really be the Most High God, because once he came along the other gods were driven visibly from the scene (except Satan and evil, who still hangs around in the shadows until the "Scouring of the Shire" at some point in the future.

Number 1 requires no corroboration and is a rational assumption: we see no gods, science reveals nothing, apparently, so all of these ancient texts, including the very copious Christian ones are myths. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and there is no such proof.

Numbers 2 and 3 require extraordinary proof, and to be acceptable to the skeptic, the proofs must be scientific. No manuscript speaking of gods can self-authenticate, and argument from the VOLUME of manuscripts is unavailing: in earlier times, the tribes were mostly illiterate, and they didn't have papyrus technology to make writing easier. The Greco-Roman Empire was the first "world empire" in the West capable of producing mass literacy, and therefore the bulk of ancient manuscripts are Greco-Roman (and from the hotter, drier, more urban and therefore more literate eastern parts of that Empire). That's why the Christian manuscripts are so numerous. Men write about gods and kings everywhere, which is why the volume of Greco-Roman writing is religious, just like virtually the entirety of Egyptian hieroglyphs, and all of the epic Greek works as well.

The only extraordinary scientifically sustainable proof of gods is the Shroud of Turin, the Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle, the Incorrupt bodies of the saints, and the more recent (and ongoing) Lourdes healing miracles. Because all of them are signs from the Christian god, therefore, the Christian god is a true God.

And the other gods? Well, the Jewish and Christian Scriptures TELL US that angelic beings mated with humans and produced heroes of old, and YHWH humiliates the gods of Egypt with his miracles - against religious magicians who ARE able to perform minor miracles with the power of their gods. Jesus casts out real demons that twist people and kill animals.

So, the truth appears to be answer 3: the gods of old are real, to an extent. But they were not good. And the Christian Father is the Most High God, above those lesser powers he made (and that departed from their orbits), and above men, whom he made (and who also departed from THEIR assigned orbit).

That is how a skeptical pagan can arrive at the truth. To really BELIEVE it requires a divine revelation - a spark of faith from God to close the circuit. But certainly on the facts, written and scientific, the pagan skeptic can have all of the circuitry ready. But absent the divine revelation, he still won't quite believe it.

Why?

Because belief is confining, limiting, especially when it comes to sexual and financial matters, and matters of power. If a man thinks in the back of his mind that maybe it's just a myth and doesn't really believe it, will he REALLY give up all of that pleasure and luxury and authority? No. Hell, Christians who claim to believe it all don't follow the law and refuse to give up the violence, charging of interest, or forgive debts, or remain chaste or, in the absence of that, forgive other men's and women's sexual offenses, so if the Christians themselves, who profess the faith, refuse to actually OBEY their God, what reason does a virtuous pagan who DOESN'T really believe it have to follow the Christian myths anyway?

The Christian God is pretty demanding. His only real followers are the ones who keep his laws or, if they fail to, who are mild, moderate, and completely forgiving of the weaknesses of other men and therefore never judge harshly.

I myself passed from being a virtuous pagan to the latter form of Christian - the imperfect-and-therefore-very-forgiving-and-merciful kind, but only because God closed the gap.

I think that virtuous pagans who DON'T have the truth but who follow their truth - what they believe to be god - and who therefore act more in accordance with the will of the real God - are more pleasing to God than Christians who don't obey and who are harsh and unforgiving. I would expect that there are more Jains in the City of God than there are harsh, unforgiving Christians.

"What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you do not keep my commandments?" - Jesus

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-02   15:08:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc, liberator, Don, tomder55 (#42)

And we also have the following to consider from a conversation I had with a poster on another site. I believe his comments are quite close to your own above:

In addressing the above question, there are 2 possibilities. Both require faith to believe.

1) No, nothing serious would happen 2) Yes, something serious would happen. You thus need to responsibly seek out what would happen

If you believe 1) is the case, your religion is that you believe with faith that "nothing serious would happen". That remains your religion of faith but possibly without your own awareness.

If you believe 2) is the case, it branches out into the various religions.

Now here you go;

A religion acts as a reliable vessel for an important message (truth) to pass along the line of humanity. The method employed to pass such a message is called human witnessing. This is the most efficient way for a truth to be conveyed among humans as long as God has a strong reason not to show up to humans in majority. There's no other way round.

1. Not all religions have a strong reason for their gods to hide behind. If a god is much more superior than humans and he cares about humans he should show up publicly to guide humans.

The strong reason for the Christian God to hide behind is that all humans are bound to a covenant which everyone requires faith in order to be saved. God shows up to everyone simultaneously means no one can be saved.

On the other hand, if God doesn't show up to anyone, then no humans can get to know who God is. No humans can know what are God's requirements set forth for humans to follow.

The only way which works for a hiding God to make Himself known to humans, to make His requirements known to humans is to show Himself up to a small group of direct witnesses (explicitly His prophets and chosen witnesses), and for them to write about Him and what He wants then for others (humans in majority) to believe or not.

There's no other way round for such a truth to be conveyed.

2. Now which God can explicitly name this method of conveying truth?

Multiple accounts of witnessing, witnesses, prophets being explicit called God's witnesses, emphasizing on no false witnessing allowed, these are all unique characteristics of Christianity.

No other gods can be true in this perspective.

Moreover, no witnessing can be made more valid than those who martyred themselves for what is said and done.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-03   17:38:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 44.

        There are no replies to Comment # 44.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 44.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com