On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:54:06 -0500, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>
wrote:

In article <43e0bcb2.4158690@news.telusplanet.net>,

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:46:55 GMT, 808 <noname@nospam.com> wrote:

What's the point in having a holy book if you aren't going to believe
what it says? If you don't believe that god *literally* spoke to
people then why should anyone believe that Jesus was *literally*
crucified?

Well for one thing there is ample historical evidence that Rome
crucified lots of people. Further we know that declaring oneself to
be the messiah would in fact have been a crucifixion offense (since
the messiah was well documented to be the fabled person who would
restore the kingdom of Israel as an independant and united realm). So
it seems quite probable that Christianity originated with one of those
crucified self-proclaimed messiahs.

"Probable" and "possible" are not synonyms.

I wasn't using them as synonyms.

And if Christ had the sort of following while he was alive that the
Bible says he did,

Does the Bible say his following was really all that large? I think
the fact that he lost a popularity poll to Barabbas in the story
indicates otherwise.

how come there's no mention of him anywhere outside

of the Bible?

Well one entirely likely reason is because once it became the official
state religion of Rome that Jesus was a god, any record of Jesus the
man would be heretical and therefore deliberately expunged.

snipped for brevity<

And here I thought it was if he even actually existed at all.
(Seeing as how there's no actual evidence for him)
Peter

Actually there is....but I'll leave you to do your own research. (Try
Google: historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, or Yeshua ben
Joseph)

adios,
alicat

On 1 Feb 2006 20:39:22 -0800, "Peter" <grendlemonster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Alicat wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:46:55 GMT, 808 <noname@nospam.com> wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:47:39 GMT, Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:54:29 GMT, "Watcher" <nobody@nonesuch.com>
wrote:

"Alicat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pvhlt1dll191k823n6460bbe6ug9gif9nj@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:01:53 -0500, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

In article <a9lkt11i7bdg0l1crshtrrn0g5fjbi8t17@4ax.com>,
Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote:

God speaks to each of us in the exact same way, actually

Which explains the 30,000+ different religions how?

Human desire to express what God has said to them in our human,
limited language and human desire to turn God's word to them into a
form that can inspire their existence (thus: ceremonies like baptism)
and mark the important events of their lives - in other words, people
like to organize everything - why should religion be any different?
Since we can only talk about God in such a limited, subjective way
(because we aren't all seeing Him face to face, as we will after
bodily death), everyone has their own idea of how to organize....like
minded groups get together, start hating other people who don't think
like they do....and voila! 30,000+ religions, and lotsa really stupid
wars.
What I am saying is the fundamental communication: the God-to-human
contact takes place at a much deeper level than language. No, I don't
think God usually *says* stuff to people like, go ye, and do this and
thus. Only very rarely, and not quite like that anyway.

Rarely? No kidding. Have you counted how mnay times "He" did that in
the OT?
I quickly lost count. Are we reading the same book?

Watcher

Okay, first of all, I'm not a Biblical literalist, so even if it says
in the Old Testament: God spoke to Samuel and said this and that, that
doesn't mean to me that Samuel heard words in human language
necessarily. When Jesus was baptised in the River Jordan and the dove
appeared and God said, "This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased,
listen to him", I don't think those words boomed across the landscape
for everybody present to hear, or you would have a whole lot of
terrified people running away very quickly and that would have been
noted as part of the event. In fact, I think its very childish to
think God speaks in such an obvious way and thats just one small part
of seeing God like some sort of "old daddy in the sky" - its a child's
literal idea of religiosity, and one that quickly leads to
disillusionment (as in, "so, why isn't God speaking to me? Oh, there
is no God....just like Santa Claus."), or really bad stuff, like the
woman in Texas who drowned her kids because God was supposedly
speaking to her. If you hear voices in your head, you need therapy!

I think God guides us much more subtly than that. We come to a right
knowledge of God's will for us by being receptive to that will, and it
doesn't often happen in a flash (although it certainly can).

adios,
alicat

What's the point in having a holy book if you aren't going to believe
what it says? If you don't believe that god *literally* spoke to
people then why should anyone believe that Jesus was *literally*
crucified?

You need to go back and re-read what I posted. I do believe that God
"literally spoke", but not that He necessarily "literally spoke in a
human language, that was a clear and unmistakable message in a human
like voice, such as if someone next to you was speaking to you."
That doesn't mean God can't do the latter - I just think God does it
very infrequently, but speaks to us all more subtly quite often.

(By the way, the argument is not whether Jesus was crucified, but
whether He was resurrected from the dead on the third day - the latter
being much more controversial, no?)

adios,
alicat

And here I thought it was if he even actually existed at all.
(Seeing as how there's no actual evidence for him)
Peter

Actually there is....but I'll leave you to do your own research. (Try
Google: historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, or Yeshua ben
Joseph)

adios,
alicat

On 1 Feb 2006 20:39:22 -0800, "Peter" <grendlemonster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

And here I thought it was if he even actually existed at all.
(Seeing as how there's no actual evidence for him)

Ah. Another person who things that religions just appear out of
nowhere and nobody has to start them.

On 1 Feb 2006 20:39:22 -0800, "Peter" <grendlemonster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

And here I thought it was if he even actually existed at all.
(Seeing as how there's no actual evidence for him)

Ah. Another person who things that religions just appear out of
nowhere and nobody has to start them.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:21:23 GMT, Clell Harmon <c.harmon@mchsi.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:28:50 GMT, Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:46:55 GMT, 808 <noname@nospam.com> wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:47:39 GMT, Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:54:29 GMT, "Watcher" <nobody@nonesuch.com>
wrote:

"Alicat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pvhlt1dll191k823n6460bbe6ug9gif9nj@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:01:53 -0500, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

In article <a9lkt11i7bdg0l1crshtrrn0g5fjbi8t17@4ax.com>,
Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote:

God speaks to each of us in the exact same way, actually

Which explains the 30,000+ different religions how?

Human desire to express what God has said to them in our human,
limited language and human desire to turn God's word to them into a
form that can inspire their existence (thus: ceremonies like baptism)
and mark the important events of their lives - in other words, people
like to organize everything - why should religion be any different?
Since we can only talk about God in such a limited, subjective way
(because we aren't all seeing Him face to face, as we will after
bodily death), everyone has their own idea of how to organize....like
minded groups get together, start hating other people who don't think
like they do....and voila! 30,000+ religions, and lotsa really stupid
wars.
What I am saying is the fundamental communication: the God-to-human
contact takes place at a much deeper level than language. No, I don't
think God usually *says* stuff to people like, go ye, and do this and
thus. Only very rarely, and not quite like that anyway.

Rarely? No kidding. Have you counted how mnay times "He" did that in the OT?
I quickly lost count. Are we reading the same book?

Watcher

Okay, first of all, I'm not a Biblical literalist, so even if it says
in the Old Testament: God spoke to Samuel and said this and that, that
doesn't mean to me that Samuel heard words in human language
necessarily. When Jesus was baptised in the River Jordan and the dove
appeared and God said, "This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased,
listen to him", I don't think those words boomed across the landscape
for everybody present to hear, or you would have a whole lot of
terrified people running away very quickly and that would have been
noted as part of the event. In fact, I think its very childish to
think God speaks in such an obvious way and thats just one small part
of seeing God like some sort of "old daddy in the sky" - its a child's
literal idea of religiosity, and one that quickly leads to
disillusionment (as in, "so, why isn't God speaking to me? Oh, there
is no God....just like Santa Claus."), or really bad stuff, like the
woman in Texas who drowned her kids because God was supposedly
speaking to her. If you hear voices in your head, you need therapy!

I think God guides us much more subtly than that. We come to a right
knowledge of God's will for us by being receptive to that will, and it
doesn't often happen in a flash (although it certainly can).

adios,
alicat

What's the point in having a holy book if you aren't going to believe
what it says? If you don't believe that god *literally* spoke to
people then why should anyone believe that Jesus was *literally*
crucified?

You need to go back and re-read what I posted. I do believe that God
"literally spoke", but not that He necessarily "literally spoke in a
human language, that was a clear and unmistakable message in a human
like voice, such as if someone next to you was speaking to you."
That doesn't mean God can't do the latter - I just think God does it
very infrequently, but speaks to us all more subtly quite often.

And how would your proposed theory differ from any of our
current citizens who tell us that god is speaking to them? Odd that
few of them agree on what god is saying...

Read what I wrote! I think God "speaks to us all...quite often" - I
just said that in the paragraph above. And as to why people don't
agree on what God is saying - I replied to that already too.

(By the way, the argument is not whether Jesus was crucified, but
whether He was resurrected from the dead on the third day - the latter
being much more controversial, no?)

Given the lack of records of this particular crucifixion, no
not really.

Oh, so the crucifixion is more important, historically speaking, than
the Resurrection? Billions of Christians might disagree...

adios,
alicat