I am not Catholic

[Amadeus]

Dear John:

It will take a bit longer time for you to expound on, and for the Catholics here to understand, what you mean by your statement!

Let’s limit our discussion of THAT topic to OC.net.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Jadesfire20:

Hell is essentially eternal separation from God. The souls in hell are there because they chose to be there.

The way I was taught (in Catholic school, in Church, and by my parents) was that hell is a place of eternal damnation/suffereing/etc., i.e. not a nice place to go. If people only went there because they chose to, then being away from God wouldn’t be suffering for them. But I was taught that even if people don’t want to be with god, there is still suffering and torture awaiting them in hell. So the way I see it, there is supposed to be more to it then just “being away from god”.

Jadesfire20:

Think of it this way…God offers humanity a relationship with him; we are perfectly free to either accept or reject it. If a person spends their entire life rejecting God and not wanting to have anything to do with him, why the heck would God then force that person to spend all eternity with him?

Ok, so I have Wiccan beliefs, but I accept relationship with god and goddess (still the same god to me just not in the same way that Catholic’s view the divine), I’m not rejecting a relationship with the divine, but yet, I’ve been told that I will go to “hell” because I don’t picture god the same way a Catholic does. Now, according to your description of hell, that doesn’t make sense.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Heathen Dawn:

Who do I say Jesus is? My position on Jesus is the same as my position on Elvis Presley: a mostly historical figure who, after death, had extraordinary claims attached to him. Elvis was born, lived, performed and died in 20th-century America, a historical figure; but after he died, sightings of him, alive again, in various places began to circulate—extraordinary claims attached to him. In like manner, Jesus was born, lived, ministered/preached/taught and died (crucified) in 1st-century Roman Judaea, a historical figuire; but after he died, people believed in his rising from the dead, the virgin birth, miracles performed by him during his life—extraordinary claims attached to him.

That’s a good description of how I feel about Jesus, but you did a much better job of putting it into words that I can.

 

[hlgomez]

Who do I say Jesus is? My position on Jesus is the same as my position on Elvis Presley: a mostly historical figure who, after death, had extraordinary claims attached to him. Elvis was born, lived, performed and died in 20th-century America, a historical figure; but after he died, sightings of him, alive again, in various places began to circulate—extraordinary claims attached to him. In like manner, Jesus was born, lived, ministered/preached/taught and died (crucified) in 1st-century Roman Judaea, a historical figuire; but after he died, people believed in his rising from the dead, the virgin birth, miracles performed by him during his life—extraordinary claims attached to him.

Heathen,

Did you find someone, at least, who came to adore Elvis Preley?

Is there any martyr for believing Elvis Presley?

Did Elvis Presley able to divide the world’s history? Like what Christ did from BC to AD?

I have some more but please answer those if you may.

Your position is not the same. For no man can compare to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pio

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

hlgomez:

Did you find someone, at least, who came to adore Elvis Preley?

Loads. Loads of people adore Elvis Presley. He’s even called The King.

Is there any martyr for believing Elvis Presley?

Not yet, though there are lots of people willing to die for Elvis Presley.

Did Elvis Presley able to divide the world’s history? Like what Christ did from BC to AD?

Not yet but give it time. The BC/AD split wasn’t adopted overnight; at least for the first 500 years (ie until the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus), Christians used nothing but AUC (ab urbe condita, the founding of Rome in 753 BCE).

Your position is not the same. For no man can compare to our Lord Jesus Christ.

You only say that because you’re a Christian, probably raised on Christianity. Those who adhere to Preslianity say no man can compare to their King Elvis Presley.

 

[Fidelis]

Heathen Dawn:

Who do I say Jesus is? My position on Jesus is the same as my position on Elvis Presley: a mostly historical figure who, after death, had extraordinary claims attached to him. Elvis was born, lived, performed and died in 20th-century America, a historical figure; but after he died, sightings of him, alive again, in various places began to circulate—extraordinary claims attached to him. In like manner, Jesus was born, lived, ministered/preached/taught and died (crucified) in 1st-century Roman Judaea, a historical figuire; but after he died, people believed in his rising from the dead, the virgin birth, miracles performed by him during his life—extraordinary claims attached to him.

On a certain level, this a perfectly valid position to hold, however it raises some interesting questions: upon what basis do you believe this? If it is based on just your feelings or what you choose to believe about Jesus, that’s perfectly legit, however it is a very ephemeral basis for making a decision on something so potentially life-changing. The book of Jeremiah says “The heart is deceitful above all things.” Not only is this a religious truth, but any mature person will tell you it is sound psychological advice.

If you base your belief about Jesus on provable facts from the available evidence, this also is cool, but I would be interested in seeing that evidence. In truth, the best basis we have for believing that Jesus existed at all, are the four gospels. If they are trustworthy enough to prove he existed, on what experiential or evidential basis could you deny the many other remarkable claims said about him in those same gospels? As I said in a previous post, if he is not God, then based on what he clearly said he is either a self-deluded fool, a madman, or a liar. If he is none of these then he is what he said he was, which is God.

Revisionists have made claims that the events recounted in the gospels reflect a later gloss and that Jesus didn’t do say or do what is recorded, but on what basis would you believe their analysis, 2000 years removed, over what the gospels say for themselves, or what the first believers (some only a few years from the time of Jesus) believed in and were willing to be martyred for? The same things said about Jesus in the paragraph above can be said about his first followers. It is unlikely they gave their lives because they thought Jesus was a nice guy. I guess the ultimate question is: Who do you say that Jesus is and upon what basis do you believe what you do?

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Fidelis:

On a certain level, this a perfectly valid position to hold, however it raises some interesting questions: upon what basis do you believe this? If it is based on just your feelings or what you choose to believe about Jesus, that’s perfectly legit, however it is a very ephemeral basis for making a decision on something so potentially life-changing. The book of Jeremiah says “The heart is deceitful above all things.” Not only is this a religious truth, but any mature person will tell you it is sound psychological advice.

If you base your belief about Jesus on provable facts from the available evidence, this also is cool, but I would be interested in seeing that evidence. In truth, the best basis we have for believing that Jesus existed at all, are the four gospels. If they are trustworthy enough to prove he existed, on what experiential or evidential basis could you deny the many other remarkable claims said about him in those same gospels?

Revisionists have made claims that the events recounted in the gospels reflect a later gloss and that Jesus didn’t do say or do what is recorded, but on what basis would you believe their analysis, 2000 years removed, over what the gospels say for themselves, or what the first believers (some only a few years from the time of Jesus) believed in and were willing to be martyred for? I guess the ultimate question is: Who do you say that Jesus is and upon what basis do you believe what you do?

There seems to be a little trouble in the burden of proof department. Let me clarify this:

1. The burden of proof is on the one who makes an extraordinary claim. For example, if an atheist says the universe popped into existence out of nothing, that is an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof is on him to show it, since things don’t ordinarily pop out of nothing. Likewise, virgin births and resurrections aren’t a daily occurrence, they’re extraordinary things, so if you want me to believe Jesus rose from the dead, it is you who have to give me evidence for it.
2. The burden of proof is on the one who wishes to convert someone else. If you’re a Christian on an atheist board on a mission to convert atheists to Christianity, it’s up to you to give evidence of the truth of Christianity. Conversely, if an atheist comes on this board to deconvert Catholics to atheism, it’s up to him to prove the falsehood of Catholicism and the truth of atheism. And I’m a Wiccan whose religion is my own personal affair, I come here not to convert people but to explain and to counter misconceptions, so there is no burden of proof on me whatsoever.

I believe Jesus is a historical figure because there are various lines of independent evidence (records) pointing to him to be such, and because the Jesus Myth view (Jesus as an entirely mythological figure) is ridiculous, its criteria would have it than Hannibal never existed. But the New Testament cannot be the source of information on Jesus I rely upon, since there were many motivations, interpolations and redactions involved in its making.

Finally, it would not change my worldview one whit to acknowledge a virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus; that would only put him in the list of demigods, of whom pagans recognise many, like Herakles (Hercules).

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Fidelis:

or what the first believers (some only a few years from the time of Jesus) believed in and were willing to be martyred for? The same things said about Jesus in the paragraph above can be said about his first followers. It is unlikely they gave their lives because they thought Jesus was a nice guy.

If people giving up their lives for Jesus mean what you say, then what does it mean that people through the ages have given up their lives to Allah (Islam, Qur’an, Muhammad)?

Who do you say that Jesus is and upon what basis do you believe what you do?

Who do you say that Elvis is and upon what basis do you believe what you do? Many people believe Elvis is alive today—died but is now risen again. They’re willing to die for Elvis. They call him The King. On what basis do you disbelieve in the kingship of Elvis?

 

[BlessedBe13]

Fidelis:

As I said in a previous post, if he is not God, then based on what he clearly said he is either a self-deluded fool, a madman, or a liar. If he is none of these then he is what he said he was, which is God.

As I mentioned in another thread when someone asked me if I thought he was lying about being the “Son of God”:*Now, there are a couple of ways I look at this:

A. We are all “sons and daughters” of God - therefore, not he would not be lying.

B. No-one on this board, or anyone anywhere, for a VERY long time, was around when Jesus was alive. There are no “eye-witnesses” to prove that he said this. He could have very well taught and preached about religion, without saying he was the son of God (other than the way I mentioned it above). Anyone who took part in writing the Bible could have very easily added that he said it, or taken the way he said it out of context to promote this “new religion” and a very important figure in the religion.*

Fidelis:

It is unlikely they gave their lives because they thought Jesus was a nice guy. I guess the ultimate question is:

I’m not necessarily implying this about Jesus’s followers (at least not in a rude way), but a lot of people have given/lost their lives over things that may seem more or less valid than someone being a “nice guy” - cultists in mass suicides, people committing suicide for because they got “dumped”, and that person was everything to them, people dying to prove a point. People getting themselves killed rather than admit they were wrong. Maybe his followers believed that whether he was/was not the “son of god”, he sure sounded like he knew what he was talking about when he spoke of god, so if they get killed standing up for him, they’ll be on their way to heaven in no time.

 

[Fidelis]

Heathen Dawn:

The burden of proof is on the one who wishes to convert someone else. If you’re a Christian on an atheist board on a mission to convert atheists to Christianity, it’s up to you to give evidence of the truth of Christianity.

Actually, I was addressing your stated opinion on who Jesus is. I’m not trying to prove anything; just asking and discussing. That’s how we learn.
Heathen Dawn:

I believe Jesus is a historical figure because there are various lines of independent evidence (records) pointing to him to be such, and because the Jesus Myth view (Jesus as an entirely mythological figure) is ridiculous, its criteria would have it than Hannibal never existed. But the New Testament cannot be the source of information on Jesus I rely upon, since there were many motivations, interpolations and redactions involved in its making.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find “various lines of independent evidence (records) pointing to him” as a historical figure that do not originate, ultimately, in the New Testament; a handful at the most, and those are fragmentary and, arguably, open to interpretation. No, it all goes back to the Gospel evidence and whether it is reliable. Even if it were true that the NT contains " many motivations, interpolations and redactions involved in its making," which of those, specifically disprove the claims of Christianity and upon what basis do you believe this?

 

[Fidelis]

Heathen Dawn:

If people giving up their lives for Jesus mean what you say, then what does it mean that people through the ages have given up their lives to Allah (Islam, Qur’an, Muhammad)?

If you re-examine my post, you will see that I was limiting my remarks to his first followers. As regards the first followers of Muhammed, those who knew him, they followed him for other motivations, but not because they thought he was God.

1)Who do you say that Elvis is and upon what basis do you believe what you do? 1) Many people believe Elvis is alive today—died but is now risen again. 3) They’re willing to die for Elvis. They call him The King. On what basis do you disbelieve in the kingship of Elvis?

1. Elvis never claimed to be anything but a singer, and nothing in he subsequent legacy indicates he was anything but; 2) Exactly how many people really believe Elvis has died and risen; 3) You and I both know this is silly and not at all the same what Christians believe about Jesus.

 

[Fidelis]

BlessedBe13:

A. We are all “sons and daughters” of God - therefore, not he would not be lying.

If this were the case, the Jewish authorites would not have condemned him for blasphemy, for saying he was equal to God.

B. No-one on this board, or anyone anywhere, for a VERY long time, was around when Jesus was alive. There are no “eye-witnesses” to prove that he said this. He could have very well taught and preached about religion, without saying he was the son of God (other than the way I mentioned it above). Anyone who took part in writing the Bible could have very easily added that he said it, or taken the way he said it out of context to promote this “new religion” and a very important figure in the religion.

I addressed this above.

I’m not necessarily implying this about Jesus’s followers (at least not in a rude way), but a lot of people have given/lost their lives over things that may seem more or less valid than someone being a “nice guy” - cultists in mass suicides, people committing suicide for because they got “dumped”, and that person was everything to them, people dying to prove a point. People getting themselves killed rather than admit they were wrong. Maybe his followers believed that whether he was/was not the “son of god”, he sure sounded like he knew what he was talking about when he spoke of god, so if they get killed standing up for him, they’ll be on their way to heaven in no time.

Usually people who do what you described are either under the direct influence of a living person (i.e. Jim Jones) or under extreme emotional stress, i.e. suicide or to prove a point, or to highly motivated individuals. This would not apply to a group of followers of a nice guy who got himself killed and rotted in the grave.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Fidelis:

As regards the first followers of Muhammed, those who knew him, they followed him for other motivations, but not because they thought he was God.

No, but they thought he had the message from God, and it was for his monotheistic message that they were willing to die. They were willing to die for Islam. Would they die for a lie? If so, then you can’t be sure the first Christians didn’t either. If not, then you’re in the impossible predicament that both Christianity and Islam are true.

1. Elvis never claimed to be anything but a singer, and nothing in he subsequent legacy indicates he was anything but;

There are clear references to Elvis’s ministry and power and authority in the songs he wrote. For example:

The need to accept Him quickly — It’s Now Or Never
Consolation to those who are lonely — Are You Lonesome Tonight
Faithfulness to those who adore Him — Stuck On You
His humility — A Fool Such As I
His suffering — I Got Stung
Imputation of His righteousness — Wear My Ring Around Your Neck
Hurry to accept Him — Doncha Think It’s Time
Emphasis on love — A Bing Hunk O’ Love
The ability to soften even the hardest of people — Wooden Heart
Simple faith — Don’t Ask Me Why
Probing the innermost of each man — Your Cheating Heart

Facetious? Maybe, but here you have an example of how a message can be embellished into something special, something divine. Which I believe happened with Jesus.

1. Exactly how many people really believe Elvis has died and risen;

I don’t know, but I think it’s in the hundreds. Not much less, anyway, than the alleged eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.

1. You and I both know this is silly and not at all the same what Christians believe about Jesus.

It’s silly because it’s so recent. Christianity looked silly at its inception too.

 

[Fidelis]

Heathen Dawn:

No, but they thought he had the message from God, and it was for his monotheistic message that they were willing to die. They were willing to die for Islam. Would they die for a lie? If so, then you can’t be sure the first Christians didn’t either. If not, then you’re in the impossible predicament that both Christianity and Islam are true.

Islam is a poor example. If you read the history of Islam, even Islamic sources, you will find that religious ideology was not all that contributed to the rapid spread of early Islam. Muhammed very pointedly decided to spread his new religion by the sword. His first followers were heavily rewarded by being allowed to take a share of captured booty and slaves for their part in these early conquests. In other words, that had something to gain. In contrast, Jesus’ first followers (the same one’s that believed he was God) had nothing to gain by following him except martyrdom, rejection, and imprisonment.

There are clear references to Elvis’s ministry and power and authority in the songs he wrote. For example:

The need to accept Him quickly — It’s Now Or Never
Consolation to those who are lonely — Are You Lonesome Tonight
Faithfulness to those who adore Him — Stuck On You
His humility — A Fool Such As I
His suffering — I Got Stung
Imputation of His righteousness — Wear My Ring Around Your Neck
Hurry to accept Him — Doncha Think It’s Time
Emphasis on love — A Bing Hunk O’ Love
The ability to soften even the hardest of people — Wooden Heart
Simple faith — Don’t Ask Me Why
Probing the innermost of each man — Your Cheating Heart

Facetious? Maybe, but here you have an example of how a message can be embellished into something special, something divine. Which I believe happened with Jesus.

You’re right, it is facetious, and, again, you are drawing a huge conclusion for which you have no stated basis other that it is what you “believe happened with Jesus.”

I don’t know, but I think it’s in the hundreds. Not much less, anyway, than the alleged eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.

If you don’t know, let’s not pretend that it’s in the hundreds. Again, it goes back to the reliability of the primary information we have that Jesus even existed–the New Testament. Besides his immediate followers who saw him after his resurrection, it is recorded that he appeared to more than 500 people at once(1Corinthians 15:6).

It’s silly because it’s so recent. Christianity looked silly at its inception too.

People were martyed for their belief in Christ. They weren’t looked at as silly, but as a threat. If there is such a thing as Elvisism it would be pathetic rather than a threat.

 

[Imprimartin]

BlessedBe13:

As I mentioned in another thread when someone asked me if I thought he was lying about being the “Son of God”:Now, there are a couple of ways I look at this:

A. We are all “sons and daughters” of God - therefore, not he would not be lying.

B. No-one on this board, or anyone anywhere, for a VERY long time, was around when Jesus was alive. There are no “eye-witnesses” to prove that he said this. He could have very well taught and preached about religion, without saying he was the son of God (other than the way I mentioned it above). Anyone who took part in writing the Bible could have very easily added that he said it, or taken the way he said it out of context to promote this “new religion” and a very important figure in the religion*.*

A) Yes, but the people who heard what he said didn’t take it like that. they took it as “I am God and you are not.” Which is why they planned to kill him. If they had misunderstood Jesus, he would’ve corrected them. Therefore it follows that,

IF “Everyone is sons and daughters of God” = acceptance
AND
“I am God and you are not” = getting killed
AND Jesus Got killed without him correcting anyone,
Then Jesus got killed for saying that he was God.

B) If there is no one alive to verify christian claims, it means nothing. Everyday, You rely on other authorities (dead and alive) to tell you things are you aren’t able/willing to verify yourself. These dead witnesses aren’t neccessarily any different. You are basically denying the the gospel accounts as plain old historical documents. How do you respond to the secular, non-christian historians who claim that history went down the way the gospels say it went down? You have to admit, to prove there was any changing, you’d be arguing from silence (among other things).

BlessedBe:

I’m not necessarily implying this about Jesus’s followers (at least not in a rude way), but a lot of people have given/lost their lives over things that may seem more or less valid than someone being a “nice guy” - cultists in mass suicides, people committing suicide for because they got “dumped”, and that person was everything to them, people dying to prove a point. People getting themselves killed rather than admit they were wrong. Maybe his followers believed that whether he was/was not the “son of god”, he sure sounded like he knew what he was talking about when he spoke of god, so if they get killed standing up for him, they’ll be on their way to heaven in no time.

The reasons why christians gave their lives back then was because someone told them, “Deny what you claim or die”. There’s a saying which says, “No one dies for what they believe to be a lie.” If they responded, “Well then, kill me”, then we must assume that it is VERY probable that what they claimed was true.

Dying for this reason is very different then dying out of sorrow. The cult deaths occured because they believed that they were going to heaven afterwards. Nice guys can’t promise anything.

Martin

 

[Imprimartin]

HeathenDawn:

It’s silly because it’s so recent. Christianity looked silly at its inception too.

Fidelis:

People were martyed for their belief in Christ. They weren’t looked at as silly, but as a threat. If there is such a thing as Elvisism it would be pathetic rather than a threat.

He’s right. An organized government such as the Roman Empire had common sense too. You don’t go around killing ‘silly’ people. Silliness is not a crime (which is what Pontius Pilate’s basic argument for Jesus was --which can be easily applied to Jesus’ recent followers)

And being recent has little to do with it. If people in the future know Elvis as we know him, he will look just as silly 500 years from now. One need only to look at the footage we have of him–ALL of the footage–every last bit. He speaks for himself.

Martin

 

[prodromos]

Amadeus:

Dear John:

It will take a bit longer time for you to expound on, and for the Catholics here to understand, what you mean by your statement!

Let’s limit our discussion of THAT topic to OC.net.

So I guess I shouldn’t add that we are Roman as well (in the Greek church anyways)

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Fidelis:

Muhammed very pointedly decided to spread his new religion by the sword.

And this is different from Constantine and Charlemagne how?

You’re right, it is facetious, and, again, you are drawing a huge conclusion for which you have no stated basis other that it is what you “believe happened with Jesus.”

My belief of what happened with Jesus is the ordinary explanation, the natural course to take. Your belief that he is actually God is the extraordinary claim and requires the burden of proof.

Again, it goes back to the reliability of the primary information we have that Jesus even existed–the New Testament.

We have other lines of evidence that Jesus existed, as any Christian apologist defending the Historical Jesus against the Jesus Myth position will cite.

People were martyed for their belief in Christ. They weren’t looked at as silly, but as a threat.

They were looked at as silly as well, as any reading of pagan authors like Celsus shows. But also a threat. No contradiction here. Just as David Koresh and Scientology are silly religions, but they are also threats.

If there is such a thing as Elvisism it would be pathetic rather than a threat.

Not if its followers were intent on upsetting the societal and/or political status quo.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Imprimartin:

If people in the future know Elvis as we know him, he will look just as silly 500 years from now.

But we are less than 30 years after his death and, already, people imagine him differently than people knew him when he was alive. Could it, perhaps, have happened to Jesus as well?

 

[Fidelis]

Heathen Dawn:

And this is different from Constantine and Charlemagne how?

We are not talking about Constantine and Charlemagne; we are talking about his first followers, the ones who saw him, wrote the Gospels, and were martyred for him.

My belief of what happened with Jesus is the ordinary explanation, the natural course to take. Your belief that he is actually God is the extraordinary claim and requires the burden of proof.

As stated before, what is being discussed is your basis (or lack of same) for believing what you do about Jesus. My basis is well known, yours is unknown.

We have other lines of evidence that Jesus existed, as any Christian apologist defending the Historical Jesus against the Jesus Myth position will cite.

I addressed this above as well.

They were looked at as silly as well, as any reading of pagan authors like Celsus shows. But also a threat. No contradiction here. Just as David Koresh and Scientology are silly religions, but they are also threats.

Even if they were looked upon as both silly and a threat, this alleged silliness is not what they were martyred for.

Not if its followers were intent on upsetting the societal and/or political status quo.

Which they are not. Why aren’t they? Because theoretical Elvisism as you imagine it does not and cannot exist, exactly because of the reasons you say it could: there is no comparison between the claims of Christianity and your theoretical Elvis sect.

But we are less than 30 years after his death and, already, people imagine him differently than people knew him when he was alive. Could it, perhaps, have happened to Jesus as well?

We live in a radically different age of mass communication. Thirty years after the death of Jesus was still a pre-literate society and things were passed down orally with painstaking exactness. Any variation proposed in the Gospel accounts so soon after Jesus death would have had people up in arms – literally.

In our age of massive and instant communication, “Elvisism,” if it were going to occur at all would have, if anything, been a full blown religion long ago. It has not for reasons stated above.