- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So... you just WANT to have a religion. You don't care if it's accurate. You just want to believe something that makes you feel special.
Not necesserally;
In a situation where neutrality is very difficult, or where all partie have very much to win AND the means of controlling what is printed, later studies might be more reliable.
I mean, in your example of the WW II books, both the NAZIs and the Allied Forces had to keep the moral high, while not releasing information usefull for the enemy. When the fights are over, and when there is nothing to win in distorting the truth, a more accurate version is possible (and this indeed might be decades after the facts).
Now, I'm not saying thet the quran is more reliable than the bible (or the other way round). I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't apply to all situations.
Except that there was no feasable reason as to why the evangelists would have lied, knowing God's wrath if they were to deceive his message.
Except that there was no feasable reason as to why the evangelists would have lied, knowing God's wrath if they were to deceive his message.
Except that there was no feasable reason as to why the evangelists would have lied, knowing God's wrath if they were to deceive his message.
Some religious people view it as "holy lying" or "lying for Jesus", by lying in order to serve their god they think that their god will overlook it.
If they claimed Jesus was divine, whilst believing he was no such thing, that would be blasphemy, and there is no way they could have imagined that to be something God would either sanction or overlook. In first century Palestine, blasphemy was a capital offence.
Some religious people view it as "holy lying" or "lying for Jesus", by lying in order to serve their god they think that their god will overlook it.
They probably were concerned that the cycle of Yahweh (YHWH) punishing the Israelites would start up again.
If they claimed Jesus was divine, whilst believing he was no such thing, that would be blasphemy, and there is no way they could have imagined that to be something God would either sanction or overlook. In first century Palestine, blasphemy was a capital offence.
I don't see how that relates to my post. They could hardly have imagined blasphemy to be an effective method of forestalling God's wrath.
Believe it or not, people have and do do that. Regardless of what is being talked about in religion, if a person think that a lie will help their religion and think that their god will overlook it, they will do so.
Their religion was Judaism, they were strict monotheists, and there is no way they could imagine that claiming a human being to be divine would have any effect except to bring divine retribution upon themselves.
Unless, of course, they had some reason to believe that that extraordinary claim was true, in which case they wouldn't have been lying.
The god of the Old Testament didn't hesitate on the punishment. They had reason to be scared.
Maybe it's because I'm tired or due to my lack of English skills, but are you agreeing or disagreeing with leslie?
Because it sounds a lot like you're agreeing with him?
Maybe it's because I'm tired or due to my lack of English skills, but are you agreeing or disagreeing with leslie?
Because it sounds a lot like you're agreeing with him?
Their religion was Judaism, they were strict monotheists, and there is no way they could imagine that claiming a human being to be divine would have any effect except to bring divine retribution upon themselves.
Unless, of course, they had some reason to believe that that extraordinary claim was true, in which case they wouldn't have been lying.
Christians, also monotheists, lie in order to promote their god. Most Christians accept the trinity, so to promote Jesus is also promoting god. If they were taught the trinity, then it would not really be any different. Unless they honestly did not think that Jesus was the son of god and part of the trinity, but thought he was a pretty cool guy.
I am simply saying that they could have lied in order to promote the new direction that Judaism was going in.
Christians, also monotheists, lie in order to promote their god.
Most Christians accept the trinity, so to promote Jesus is also promoting god.
If they were taught the trinity, then it would not really be any different. Unless they honestly did not think that Jesus was the son of god and part of the trinity, but thought he was a pretty cool guy.
I am simply saying that they could have lied in order to promote the new direction that Judaism was going in.
Unsubstantiated and diffamatory claim.
Yes.
And if they did not think he was part of the trinity, then they were committing blasphemy and as such would fear not only the wrath of the Romans/Jews, but the wrath of God as well.
Again, your arguments boil down to:
A) There was no divine story.
B) They lied, even though they knew they'd likely die for it.
C) They lied in order to appease the God that didn't exist as per (A).
or
A) There was a God, but he wasn't Jesus.
B) They still lied, even though they knew they'd likely die for it.
C) They even lied although they knew God would smite them down for it also.
Even in Crazyland, this just doesn't make sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?