timmybauer

timmybauer is a cutsey combination of my name. I have also been a "gadfly" in the past....

we'll be happier without your constant assertions that  we're moronic lowlives for having our own opinions.   

 

I think we all at times both assert this and have this asserted about us. I know I have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, Timmy, have I implied that you're a moronic lowlife?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not that I am aware of. I wasn't being specific. Just noting that we all fall short at times.

we'll be happier without your constant assertions that  we're moronic lowlives for having our own opinions.   

I think we all at times both assert this and have this asserted about us. I know I have.

That's what I told him Charlie. Plus I recommended James, John, and Adrian...

It was White Wolf's Vampire and Mage that led me to Hellblazer. Funny. When WW released their first edition of Sorcerer there was a gaming magazine that really played up the connection between Hellblazer and the new game. Plus within the game book there was a stat that used Constantine as an example. I was hooked. Went out to a local comic store and found about twenty Jenkin's back issues for a $1 a piece and bought them all. The rest is history.

NO SEQUEL. PLEASE.

My fiance is a tiny, beautiful Vietnamese nurse who reads no comics. She loved the LOTR books and the films, and enjoys reading fantasy novels. Last night she says to me, "Have you seen the Sin City trailer?" She had this look of delight in her eyes. I asked her, "what did you think, do you want to see it?" She said, "Yes, it looks awsome!"

I don't think stereotyping women works very well these days.

I am ready for a change in direction. A new voice. She sure is nicer to look at than those other Scots. :p

I'd like to be called "Official disturber of the Peace" then *lol* because that's what I often do..although  to me it's the peace of the docile and ignorant people I disturb

So, your brilliance is calling anyone who sees things differently than you do docile and ignorant...?

I used to call them the "sheep people". In this context I'm rather a wolf or a dog then and sometimes I bite...despite the fact that there's no real offense. I'm working on that.

Seems you need to work a bit harder. Don't get upset when a sheep up and bites your doggy/wolfy arse.

But then there's the English saying: "Ignorance is bliss" or in other words: Dumb people lead happier lifes.

Then you must be really, really unhappy given your scintillating intellect.

Well, I've often wished I could be happy with just going from day to day without the need for seeing, exploring, analyzing...but hey, I'm just not like that.

Neither am I, and your assumption that anyone who believes differently than you do must just mope about through the day is really pitiful. You are not as brilliant as you think my fellow. Realize that we all come to our opinions with just as much blood, sweat and tears as you have, and remember that greater minds than you or I have walked this planet to a tune that is totally in disagreement with your great knowledge.

Leave room for others, otherwise your just a prig.

Cheers

Ralf (that's my real name, btw. what are yours?)

timmybauer's the name. Forget it at your peril.

Elijah. Oops you said fictional. Oh well.

It only reveals that there is some modicum of Truth that has been percolated among the gentiles since the first Christological text of Genesis

.

 

Mithraism has evolved independently of judaism and the text of genesis. As did dionysis mythos. But please feel free to morph any contrary evidence. Christ his divinity his self sacrafice. The cornerstone of your faith as mentioned is adopted from older pagan beliefs. Sorry if this insight offends you. Probably should study the roots of dionysis and mithra before assuming you know what it means and what it reveals huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My friend, you assume too much. Do you think that I haven't engaged the other pseudo-Christian developments throughout cultures? You can't even get the gist of a post my fellow. You continually place words in my mouth to support your position. You would benefit well from a closer study of comparitive religions when you make statements such as "the cornerstone of my faith was adopted from older pagan beliefs." That is insane. But I see how your whole system would fall apart if it turned out to be untrue. So by all means don't look into any scholarship that is antithetical to your preconcieved notions. Just sit comfy by the warm fire of ignorance.

Is it not possible that the myth of Mithras when it emerged from Mesopotamia slowly gathered Christian elements as it was adopted by the Romans? Of course not. That is crazy? Even when the Hebrews were compiling doctrines of the Messiah thousands of years earlier. Is it possible that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians might have adopted some Hebrew scholarship into their mythology. Of course not. We all know that pagans are superior to monotheists and would never borrow from them even though there are significant High God myths buried deep within many religious mythologies. The Babylonians and Persians never elevated Jews to positions of power. Magi didn't leave Mesopotamia to follow a star to Bethlehem. Insane!

I mean if something has two feet, two arms, a circulatory system, and lungs, it has to be a human right? Just too many similarities. Couldn't be an ape?

Doesn't matter that when you set Mithraism, Osiris, and any other dying and rising god next to Christ the internal messages are light years apart ! Couldn't have anything to do with sympathetic magic to make the crops fertile and babies heatthy now could it? Crazy! :wacko:

I'm done. I've beat my head against this wall enough this week.

Josh- Religion to me is what ever defines ultimate concern. Anything that attempts to address questions of being, purpose, destiny, etc. As such, humanism, which places humanity at the center of reality, makes statements about the existence of God, ethics,etc. falls into the category of religion. When you now want to reply , "Well crap timmybauer, that makes everything religious" you have made a step towards understanding my position. How any of this relates to poltics is not a concern to me. I vote Conservatie because it is the lesser of two evils and closest to my personal world view. Are political conservatives perfect, not at all, they are humans, therefore they are driven toward evil.

darkobserver- I came to my opinions through 4 years of University and 5 years of graduate school. I didn't accept Christ until I was in college. My family is not very religious, and I grew up in a large metropolitan community in South Florida. Your stereotyping of me is pitiful. To be blunt of course. Your child like adherence to your presuppositions that religious people are simpletons is telling. Any cursory study of the history of humankind will reveal that the religious have outnumbered the secular by thousand's to one. Your position is Western elitist, and what is more it that you are so duped by your blind adherence to secularism that you can't see that that too is a religious position.

How's that for stereotyping?

If jesus called himself a god or anyone else is pretty low priority as far as what should be responded to. I really dont care if he did or didnt.

Well you should because Christianity as revealed in scripture and the Old Testament build up to the apex in the Cross and Resurrection completely stands or falls on Christ's ontological Deity as YHWH Himself, from the begininng of time, foundations of the world.

That he was saying "god" existed within in each person as a means to justify his claim of being god and to not be stoned seems a pretty consistent explanation of the usage of the word.

The fact that you will not admit to the truth of the passage even in the face of the entire canon, even after having been spoon fed a grammatical diagraming of the text, reveals that your a priori presuppositions are preventing you from approaching this text with ANY semblance of objectivity. Don't mean to be snarky but we are all looking at a green coat and you kepp calling it red because that is your favorite color.

The fact the story of christ pre-dates the birth and death of christ by pagan religions in the same city where the bible was formed seems vastly more interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It only reveals that there is some modicum of Truth that has been percolated among the gentiles since the first Christological text of Genesis.

Paul invented the idea of Original Sin to justify Christ's sacrifice.

I read the article. Interesting. There is a reason that Christianity and Judaism parted ways. There is a reason Paul arose at about the same time. But Paul didn't invent it. Paul merely taught what was revealed to him on the Damascus Road. Jesus also engaged it expanding Old Testament Scriptures. See the Sermon on the Mount. But this was not new. Look into the book of Jeremiah to see an expansion of the concept of the Covenant with the people of Israel at Sinai. The Jews lost this original focus during the Babylonian exile when they became much more inward looking than outward looking as God had commanded them. Judaism pre-Diaspora was universal, inclusive, missionary. After Babylon and the construction of the "fence around the Law" the Jews became more exclusive, territorial, private club-ish. But this was never God's intention. He called Israel out to be missionaries among the nations, not to hoard His special blessing. Think of the revelation to Paul as a return to what God originally had desired of His chosen people. Both the OT and NT will be more easily comprehended for it.

Sorry Charlie, but Jesus is not talking about anything else but Godhood in John. Not being a Magistrate, not being one of the people of God, not being an angel, not anything else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus is using BOTH definitions of elohim in the passage. He uses it as God for Himself and as something like "high officials" when He quotes the Psalms. His point is this: Hey High Priests, why are you so amazed that I am calling my self God. You accepted Asaph's usage of elohim when used it sarcastically to mean corrupt officials. You didn't balk at that. You didn't get all slap happy and edit that out of the text. Why then are you so suprised when I use it for MySelf, I who am not the written word, but the Word Himself?

The elohim question is now a matter of Hebrew grammar. Re-read the entry Charlie offered from the Catholic encyclopedia. Grammar in this case is like mathematics. You just cant argue against it's intended use. There is no agenda of interpretation, only what the original author wrote. All else is poor hermeneutics and a priori wishful thinking. Charlie is corrrect, there is a reason that gnosticism lost the war to orthodoxy.

By all means, read Elaine Pagels, and any other member of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan is another, but for your own sake, read some orthodox works as well. How can you call yourself learned, and balanced if you don't. I understand that gnosticism has always flourished on the fringes, I see a correlation with other "anti-establishment" movements, but please don't think that just because the church, the "establishment" has committed many gross injustices, that the core teaching they adhere to, which emerged from the scriptural texts, is not true. There is an amazing inner logic from Genesis to Revelation that to my thinking is miraculous given the varying time frame, cultural, linguistic, distances that those documents have travelled. Read a little F. F. Bruce, some I. Howard Marshall, some D. Carson.

There was a question about Paul's authority. Please read Acts 9:1-19. It is here that Saul the zealous persecutor of the Church was transformed on the Damascus road into the premiere Apostle of Christ. An apostle was one of the followers who saw Christ after he rose from the grave. Paul believed that he had recieved a special ministry to take the message of the Cross to the Gentiles. All of the letters attributed to Paul are saturated with his belief in his special dispensation.

About Colossians. It is funny that a gnostic would find some comfort there because the writer is cynically bashing gnostic beliefs specifically. The entire book is an agrument against gnostic infiltration into the church.Look closer and one will see that the writer is using specifically gnostic teachings then deftly turning them on their ear.

There may be more but I'd like to second the sentiment that if we would like to keep this discussion civil, we might refrain from using loaded terms like "brain washed" or "indoctrinated" etc. Also, can we please stay on subject, one at a time, so there aren't so many various threads to address with each post?

Good discussion all.

Ok, that's your take. But I'm sure you can see where there could be other reasonable interpretations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, sorry, it just doesn't fit with the entirety of scripture. Plus it undermines the Gospel where Christ is God and dies for the sins of the world because only He (as God) was a holy sacrifice which was necessary for the sin debt to be paid. See Colossians 1:13-23.

Why would Jesus justify his claim to Godhood with the phrase "You are Magistrates"?

P.S. The Catholic Encylopedia states that Elohim is the common name for God.

However, it doesn't make sense that Jesus would respond with that meaning in mind. When asked to justify how he and God are one, responding with "God says we are magistrates" does not justify his statement or even relate to it whereas saying that God said we are all gods does.

Yes I am quite aware that the most common definition of elohim is the name of YHWH. BUT it is also used as a superlative and I believe in this case this is it's intended meaning. Jesus reference is to Psalm 82:6 . If you will look at that passage in it's entirety you will see that in a subsequent passage the Psalmist also calls these same subjects "princes" (verse 7) He is clearly using elohim as a superlative for something like "mighty men". It wasn't necessary for you to assume it meant "magistrates" this was only one of the examples in the concordance. Now when Jesus quotes this passage He is using some very tricky hermeneutics on the priests, but the sense is not "gods" theos as in deities but theos in the sense of the superlative, "most high" or "mighty ones".

Thats my take at least.

Nicely done Charlie.

I would also like to point out that in John 10:34 "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, You are Gods." the word here for "gods" is elohim which in some cases is used as "magistrates", and as a superlative meaning "very great". The bulk of scripture would indicate that a literal translation of elohim as "gods" doesn't follow.

In John 10:30, Jesus tells a group of Jews "I and my Father are one." Yes this is a statement of unity in the sense of Christ being God, not the mystical sense of Christ having attained union with God. Jesus says "I AM" which is a direct self-reference to his deity. (Remember that YHWH is the close approximation of the phrase I AM which God used with Moses)

Evil by very definition is the opposite of God. God's very being provides the ruler by which we can determine what is or is not evil. Therefore God cannot do evil. As someone said. God is outside evil. Does God allow evil? Yes. Does God allow and even bring disaster? Yes. But in all cases, we define evil. God is the antithesis, the reference point. He defines evil with His very being.

It wasnt that judaism wasnt aware of spiritual conflict the history of judaism is ridden with it. Its that they didnt accept any being or force as the counter aspect to their god. Other deities are reconized its never said that other gods dont exist merely not to worship them and that they are false.

Yes. This is my point. Judaism is not dualistic.

Mankind is neither good nor evil, intrinsically, but both. Which is logical seeing as both concepts have been invented by us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If we invented the concepts then I would readily agree wit ya Red. But evil is defined as opposition to God. At least in my book. The standard for right and wrong has to come from beyond us so we can be held accountable to it. Otherwise, your right might not be my right and thus we are mired in a moral (amoral?) Babel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. Morality is and has always been decided by people. A thousand years ago burning women at the stake as witches, and torturing people was considered moral actions. (almost) Noone would say it is so today.

It is, and has always been, up to us both to define morality, and create moral societies. That is both a scary and liberating thought, IMHO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Burning witches at the stake or torturing people has never been moral based upon scripture which was around long before those activities. Those activites were only seen as moral based upon a false reading of scripture. God remains the ruler by which we measure right and wrong. He is the only reason we even percieve that there is a right or wrong.

Gotta go back to work now . Be back tomorrow.

Zorastrianism is the first dualistic religion that is known. if you know of one that predates it id be amazed.

True. But Judaism is onler than Zoroastrianism but it is not dualistic, rater theistic.

Gnostism isnt a dualistic belief system by nature. Some sects lean that way more than others. The belief that they believed the material world was evil was a point used by the then forming church to discredit them. More common is the belief that god isnt evil he is ignorant the material isnt evil its an illusion based on ignorance.

Actually it was the teachings of the Neo-Platonists who posited the "evil" of the material. The church contributed inasmuch as it imbibed this neo-platonism. Thanks Justin Martyr. Gnosticism is a mish-mash of Greek/Persian and perhaps even a little Buddhist (according to J. Campbell) philosophy. Perhaps there are some sects that do not have a dualism of entities, but I would argue that all have at least a dualism of essence (ie spirit/material) and when one personifies or spiritualizes these essences, they then enter the realm of entities.

Im not aware of a religion that accepted "satan" as an equal in zorastrianism he was fated to lose so obviously not an equal. In christianity deffinitly not an equal either.

True that it is not logically pure dualism. But in the religio-philospohical definition of dualism, Zoroastrianism is the poster child.

judaic ancient text ascribes both the concepts of good and evil to god. Satan carried out the will of god but god was the one dictating. No need to differentiate betweel good and evil if your god encompasses both aspects.

Judaism/Christianity define evil as opposition or rebellion to God. There is no evil in God.

Juadism predates zorastrianism and christianity by many hundreds of years. It adopted and interchanged many concepts with them the concept of an opposing independent evil force wasnt one of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We'll have to disagree on this one. The Israelites were very aware of spiritual opposition to God with hierarchies. As residents of the area they interacted with the many other cultures and certainly shared numerous frames of reference in regard to language, culture, and mythology. Genesis 1 reveals that they considered the Babylonian deities as mere creations of Yahweh, but they also regarded anyone who sought power from these entities as abominations (Deut. 18:9-14) which tells me that there was some actual power to be had.

However, the mystical component of any religion is still a part of that religion. You can't discount it because it is not orthodox or dogmatic.

 

Yeah. Some would say it's actually closer to the divine than religion is, with religion simply being Man's imperfect expression of the mystic experience.

True Christianity is defined by the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. Anything that alters this or deviates from this is no longer "Christianity" even though it might call itself such.

I'll be away from the computer for a while so ta ta all. Benn very enjoyable converstaions today.

Mankind is neither good nor evil, intrinsically, but both. Which is logical seeing as both concepts have been invented by us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we invented the concepts then I would readily agree wit ya Red. But evil is defined as opposition to God. At least in my book. The standard for right and wrong has to come from beyond us so we can be held accountable to it. Otherwise, your right might not be my right and thus we are mired in a moral (amoral?) Babel.

The inclusion of the jinn into Islamic doctrine reveals some of the pagan influence that was incorporated.

 

So do angels have free will in Christianity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know and there seems to be a consensus among sholars that there is no clarity on that subject. Christ says that angels do not marry. In the Old Testament angels take many forms, as messengers, guardians, even emanations of God Himself as in the burning bush (The Angel of the Lord). Seems this greek desire to group and quantify everything hurts us a bit. The Israelites had no such need to dissect and categorize everything. My best guess is that some do and some don't. The being called Lucifer must have in order for him to have been able to declare himself higher than God and rebel. There must have been others as well who could have followed him into rebellion.

Sophia, in Judaism, is the feminine aspect of God and in the Torah seems to act independently in some circumstances as if she is a separate being.

This is true in Jewish mysticism not Judaism. In Judaism, Sophia (wisdom) is indeed a feminine term to describe an aspect God but not a seperate entity as gnosticism and mysticism seem to imply.

In Christianity, I suppose the Holy Spirit (or the Virgin Mary) would be the closest representation.

This very true of Christian mysticism and gnosticism but is certainly not true of orthodox christianity (not Eastern Rogan). Just wanted to help keep things clear.

As we get closer to the birth of christ judaism starts to adopt alot of the ideas from zorostrianism. The dualistic concepts god is good satan evil. Also the concepts of an immortal soul and a bunch of other stuff. to then become the modern christian idea of satan. i suppose modern judaism as well tho im not that certain.

That is a common belief of many liberal theologians. The problem is that Judaism developed before and along side the other dualistc systems, but somehow (miraculously?) remains deeply theistic not dualistic. Satan is never considered an equal of God in the Torah, Law, Writings or Prophets (Old Testament) and subsequently not in the New Testament. Other groups developed around the Jews/Christians like the dualistic community at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) and the gnostics. It is true that the Jews couched their theism in arguments that utilized the common language of the surrounding cultures (play spot the Babylonian deity in Genesis 1) but the internal message was never compromised.

It is also worth noting that gnosticism is vehemently opposed throughout the New Testament by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. and even more so during the development of the nascent church. Entire Councils were held to protect doctrine from the false teachings of Gnosticism. The letter to the Colossians is basicallt an anti-gnostic treatise.

Charlie, I believe the Book of Revelation, as an apocalyptic writing, was sending coded messages to believers who were under great persecution. These messages served to bring hope and encouragement as well as setting forth a figurative outline of future events. I think scholars like Schofield and money-grubbers like Jenkins/Lahaye (Left Behind series) who meticulously set forth diagrams of how the end times (apocalypse) is going to happen , are fooling themselves and doing great damage to the church. Our only mandate from apocalyptic writings such as Daniel, Eziekiel, parts of Isaiah are to watch and pray and be ready for Christ's return in our behavior. Being in the world but not of the world .   

The inclusion of the jinn into Islamic doctrine reveals some of the pagan influence that was incorporated.          

My only point was that for the most part, liberal thinking presupposes the religion of humanism which holds as a fundamental doctrine that human beings are intrinsically good. I disagree. I guess calling myself a conservative really has no bearing on my observation. My only true connection to the politically "conservative" position is in the arena of morality. Of the two given choices I take the lesser of two evils.

And Dark Observers addition of the "scientific" theory of subconscious determinism is a laughable example of the dominance of the religion of science in our culture.

Christian, the conservative's position on abortion is not focused upon a woman's right to her body, that reveals your bias. The conservative is focused upon the rights of the baby. Personally I believe that to choose infanticide over personal rights is indeed evil. Once again the issue is the definition of that little entity in the womb. There really isn't black or white, there are varying shades of black.

Charlie...just wanted to point out that The Book of Revelation is indeed canonical. It is apocalyptic literature not apocryphal.

I somewhat agree with the quotes Charlie gave from the Catholic site. The biblical doctrine of Satan is certaionly not clear cut nor straight forward. Here are a few thoughts:

The big biblical texts for the fall of Lucifer are:

Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:1-10. Now both of these passages are prophetic declarations agains earthly kings (Babylon and Tyre respectively) who declared themselves higher than God. The word Lucifer is not a name but a title which means something like "Daystar" . It is interesting to note that Christ is also referred to as "Daystar" (Rev. 22:16) I believe that this has significance only as far as the understood meaning of this title at that time. Possibly it means something like great leader, brightest hope, etc. It is believed that these passages (Isaiah and Ezekiel) draw upon a larger and better known Satan myth (I use this word in it's sense as a literary form not the veracity of the tale) which is used in both of these cases to declare the utter rebellion of the kings. Jesus refers to this myth in Luke 10:18 specifically referring to Satan, thus coupling the titles Lucifer/Satan to one specific being.

Paul also couples these titles in 2 Corinthians 11:14 when he says that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light ie literally Lucifer.

The Genesis 3:15 passage is supported in Romans 16:20 and Revelation 12:17. It was understood that the snake in the garden was Satan.

Now Satan is itself another title. It means the Adversary or the Accuser of the Bretheren. It is true in the Book of Job that Satan seems to fill the role of chief prosecuter in a trial. There is some debate whether the Book of Job is literal history or parable. I take the parable route myself.

But I cannot dispute the temptations of Christ in the desert where once again Satan takes on the role of accuser/tempter/adversary. I take my start for the doctrine of Satan from Jesus Himself. I believe that Satan both fulfills a role but is the adversary of God. He is not equal to God since he is a created being (so a true dualism as is found in Zoroastrianism or it's child Gnosticism is not possible) but in God's plan, even the rebel Satan can be used for ultimate good.

The Medieval Church and subsequent hermetic teachings have really influenced demonology with all the names, classes and heirarchies. These do have some biblical support but certainly not to the level of detail found in church sources, texts, Dante and Milton, Dee, Order of the Golden Dawn, etc.