Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Morality and Religion
<3 </3
Reply
< 1 2 3 4

Offline
Lady Kariel
This is was a pretty detailed response, however, why are you assuming 'cognitive dissonance management'? From the beginning of your replies it's evident that you have an anti-supernatural bias so you're obviously going to argue for resurrection as 'untenable'.

I'm offering it mainly as a third option to the detective's claim to a dilemma between "conspiracy theory" and "resurrection happened."

It actually grants that a sort of resurrection happened, but that this was initially conceived as a spiritual resurrection (because they needed to reconnect their beliefs in the face of Jesus's death) and evolved over time into the story of a literal resurrection. You can see this evolution even in the progression from Mark to Matthew to Luke.

Quote:
There's no reason for them to preserve the belief of a risen Messiah if his corpse was stolen, hidden somewhere, and rotting. It certainly would not make his apostles so optimistic in preaching the Word in the face of major opposition and risk of death.

Neither a theft nor an actual resurrection is required for those reactions. We can see this in Paul, who built an entire theological system out of getting knocked on his butt by a Booming Voice™; and in Martin Luther, who had a near-encounter with a lightning bolt that similarly inspired him.

Quote:
Not all of the records of apostolic death were 'fanciful stories'. Much of them ended up dying in foreign countries on their missionary journeys, some were tortured, thrown in prison, and stoned to death such as Stephen.

Stephen is really the only one we definitely have; the others we have are rather hard to confirm, even the ones that don't have fanciful elements.

Quote:
Also your point about twisting prophecy, should be studied more carefully. There are many messianic prophecies which came to be fulfilled by Jesus. For example in Daniel, there is a mathematical prophecy about the rebuilding of the temple, messiah's coming, death, and destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

I'm familiar with Daniel, and the way it's been interpreted by scholars of various persuasions, including those that point to the "abomination of desolation" of Antiochus IV Epiphanes profaning the Most Holy Place with an offering to Zeus, to Jesus, or to others. A deeper topic than the scope of this one, that would be.

Offline
Sandokiri
They distributed it to the needy, which is what happens in an idealised socialist society: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. So yes, I did.
Yes, and this goes against your claim that Peter killed them for profit.

Sandokiri
It doesn't say how the deaths happened. So we can say sword, magic, or miracle, and it'd be equally speculative.
Well, it says that they dropped dead. Whenever a saint does something miraculous... isn't it always the power of God the real cause? I mean, surely you must have heard of this part of Christian theology, no?

Sandokiri
That god has a tendency to avoid directly punishing sinners.

Yah is not particularly notable for aiming Its direct punishments at the actual wrongdoers; It does on occasion, but such cases are the exception.
This is cherry picking of the highest order. So he didn't punish Adam and Eve, Cain, Onan, Moses, Jonah, Eli & his sons, King Saul, David, Solomon... etc. etc. the entire Hebrew nation, which is always punished for idolatry?

Sandokiri
Consider the very core act of the Christian drama, wherein it is believed by Christians that the one innocent person in existence was smoted in that most pinpoint of misaimed smotings, the crucifixion.
This is one case in which you are right, but it's a special one and Christ had to die because he is the only one who can pay the penalty for our sins. It literally could not be anyone else.

Sandokiri
Even here there's a couple of slight problems. The first, is that "this" has no antecedent. If we assume that the antecedent is the lower price, then it's not a matter of "sticking to," as the question only came up once. And in any case, it is certainly not what Jesus would do in the situation. Not allow them to be part of the fellowship? Yes. Feed them a parable that would expose their guilt to them and turn them to repentance? Yes. Yell "Your duplicity is exposed! Avada Kedavra!" Not so much. Yet this (or a quick sword strike) was precisely what Peter did.
There's no antecedent because it's already understood that the price was stated, the text just doesn't go into the finer details of how much was it, or how much they got taxed for selling real estate, blah blah blah.

Sandokiri
Yes, it says that they kept back part of the money. It doesn't say at any point that they were obligated to give everything, nor to swear to god that they had given everything. And the death of Ananias caused "great fear" among everyone nearby.
And does it say that everyone else withheld money from them? Like Barnabas from Acts 4? Does it also say that he kept some for himself and that it was standard practice to withhold some amount for your self-profit? Or is it that the text clearly implies, with the Ananias and Sapphira example, that they gave all of it?

Sandokiri
The message is clear. Give everything to the church - don't try to hide anything - or the church will murder you and take it.
Yes, give everything so they can do the detestable act of ...properly distributing it to everyone according to their needs? You do realize that, had they fooled Peter & company, it would have endangered the well-being of some the church's members?

Offline
Kaworu 17
Yes, and this goes against your claim that Peter killed them for profit.

What is done with the profit afterward doesn't mitigate the immediate problem: Peter (in the name of the community) staked a claim to money that Ananias didn't relinquish immediately, and killed him for it.

Quote:
Well, it says that they dropped dead. Whenever a saint does something miraculous... isn't it always the power of God the real cause? I mean, surely you must have heard of this part of Christian theology, no?

It makes your case that much worse to say that Peter was slinging around divine fiat as a lethal weapon. Just saying.

Quote:
This is cherry picking of the highest order. So he didn't punish Adam and Eve, Cain, Onan, Moses, Jonah, Eli & his sons, King Saul, David, Solomon... etc. etc. the entire Hebrew nation, which is always punished for idolatry?


Let's see.
-Adam and Eve: "Punished" by removal of divine protection. According to Christian theology, a SUPREME example of misaiming as the additional curses, lumped into the collective name "original sin," afflict the entire human race as a result.

-Cain: "Punished" by being branded, the brand actually having a double effect as a proof of his sin and a promise of sevenfold divine retribution against whoever kills Cain.

-Onan: An exception, sure. Smoted dead for what the Mosaic law declares to be a non-death penalty offence. Meanwhile, no punishment for Er's widow, who went on to trick Judah into having incestuous prostitute sex.

-Moses: I'll give you this. His sin was using his staff instead of his Thu'um to fetch water from a rock. The punishment was dying of old age before he could participate in the numerous genocides of Joshua.

-Jonah: Misaiming: god did not specifically attack Jonah with the sea-storm, but his boat-mates until they threw him overboard. The three-day sojourn in the fish belly was a double effect. (Also, the framing story reveals god as untrustworthy, which I'll expand upon if needed.)

-Eli and his sons: As with Adam and Eve, misaimed in scope, as it affected all of Eli's descendants forever. Note that the sons were actually guilty of death-penalty offences and not smoted for them.

-Saul: "Punished" by removal of divine favour, which was shifted to David. The crime in question was failing to properly commit genocide against the Amalekites and Kenites.

-David: "Punished" by removal of divine favour, which manifested as enemies gunning for the throne. More directly, his firstborn b*****d son by Bathsheba was smoted (despite the fact that being a b*****d is not a death-penalty offence.) The related sin was allowed to CONTINUE unaffected, resulting in...

-Solomon: "Punished" by the twelve tribes splitting into two nations AFTER his death. His personal crimes were death-penalty level.

-The entire Hebrew people repeatedly: This chalks up to propaganda for Yahweh Tsabaoth, the war aspect of the Hebrew deity.

Quote:
There's no antecedent because it's already understood that the price was stated, the text just doesn't go into the finer details of how much was it, or how much they got taxed for selling real estate, blah blah blah.

We have a one-sided account, and one that establishes a pair of murders where Jesus would have done otherwise.

Quote:
And does it say that everyone else withheld money from them? Like Barnabas from Acts 4? Does it also say that he kept some for himself and that it was standard practice to withhold some amount for your self-profit? Or is it that the text clearly implies, with the Ananias and Sapphira example, that they gave all of it?

You're missing the point.

Quote:
Yes, give everything so they can do the detestable act of ...properly distributing it to everyone according to their needs? You do realize that, had they fooled Peter & company, it would have endangered the well-being of some the church's members?

No, it would not have. It's not even reasonable to suggest that it could have, and Peter says as much: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" It was theirs to do as they would, and they gave most of it - but not ALL of it - and therefore were killed on the spot.

Not exiled, not made to repent, not denied a share of the community pool. Killed instantly.

Offline
Brad Parker
Lucky aka Sir Charms
Brad Parker
Lucky aka Sir Charms
Brad Parker
Lucky aka Sir Charms

I just looked at your profile!
Your name is Bradley Milton Parker! So obviously you slacked off so much that Hasbro bought both halves of you!
Get your act together! I don't care if it's Parker Brothers, or Milton Bradley, or Hasbro, but one of you better make me a damn a** lie detector to go on my Ouija board!
Get to work Bradley Milton Parker!

Listen Mr. Charms.
Neither my first and middle name, nor my last name and my brothers, or my adoptive parent is going to make your lie detector just so you can go see if some guy died 2000 years ago!

And that's why the two of you were bought my Hasbro.

******** you!

You know I'm right Bradley Milton Parker.

Hasbro did not buy Milton-Bradley and Parker Brothers because Ouija boards did not come equipped with lie detectors Mr. Charms

No, the two halves of your name with bought my Hasbro because you can't get your s**t together.

You can't even manage to parallel park without hitting both the cars.

(I've creeped your post history. I know what you do. cool )

Offline
Kaworu 17
Sandokiri
The message is clear. Give everything to the church - don't try to hide anything - or the church will murder you and take it.
Yes, give everything so they can do the detestable act of ...properly distributing it to everyone according to their needs?


According to the church's assessment of their needs.

Offline
Sandokiri
What is done with the profit afterward doesn't mitigate the immediate problem: Peter (in the name of the community) staked a claim to money that Ananias didn't relinquish immediately, and killed him for it.
What is done with the money, as stated by the text, clearly contradicts your claim that they were in it for the dosh.

Sandokiri
It makes your case that much worse to say that Peter was slinging around divine fiat as a lethal weapon. Just saying.
Peter literally says "you have not lied to man but to God!" to emphasize that God punishes sinners, and then Ananias suddenly dies.

Sandokiri
We have a one-sided account, and one that establishes a pair of murders where Jesus would have done otherwise.
"There's no word-by-word transcript of the dialogue they had, therefore it never happened!" Take off your modernity goggles, please.

Sandokiri
You're missing the point.
More like I just refuted your claim and you have no rebuttal.

Sandokiri
It was theirs to do as they would, and they gave most of it - but not ALL of it - and therefore were killed on the spot.
"Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common." Acts 4:32.

It wasn't really theirs, the money belonged to everyone, like that glass in your home which everyone uses and is not exclusive to anyone.

Sandokiri
Not exiled, not made to repent, not denied a share of the community pool. Killed instantly.
And who has the power to kill sinner immediately? There you go.

Offline
Kaworu 17
What is done with the money, as stated by the text, clearly contradicts your claim that they were in it for the dosh.

The direct motive for killing Ananias was money. Or are you saying that it is acceptable to kill rich people for their money as long as you intend to use all of the money to fund social-welfare programs?

Quote:
Peter literally says "you have not lied to man but to God!" to emphasize that God punishes sinners, and then Ananias suddenly dies.

So the example that god (as Jesus, presuming that you are trinitarian) set, god (as Peter's sword) doesn't bother following.

Quote:
"There's no word-by-word transcript of the dialogue they had, therefore it never happened!" Take off your modernity goggles, please.

There's no account of the dialogue, therefore we go with what we have - which is this.

- A couple sell a property, withhold some of the gain, and give the rest to the apostles.
- Peter, using magical knowledge of the withheld sum, accuses Ananias of what amounts to blasphemy for not giving all of the money, and kills him with what is apparently god-magic.
- Then a few hours later, he asks one question of Sapphira, and then uses what is apparently god-magic to smote her after she gives the wrong answer.
- These doings scared the s**t out of nearby observers.

So based on what we have in the text, Peter murdered two people for something as trivial as money.

Quote:
"Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common." Acts 4:32.

It wasn't really theirs, the money belonged to everyone, like that glass in your home which everyone uses and is not exclusive to anyone.

So you're suggesting that had they not sold the property, they would have been fine; but as soon as they sold it, they were obligated to give all of it to the community; and that their failure to do so justifies killing them. And not only killing them, but killing them with god-magic.

That explains a lot of things about European history, come to think of it.

Magical Investigator

22,875 Points
  • Bookworm 100
  • Pine Perfection 250
  • Forum Regular 100
Offline
Lady Kariel
Did the Disciples Lie about Jesus’ Resurrection?

If not them, then people did later (the actual authors of the Bible). You'd be surprised how fast rumors spread.

Offline
Lucky aka Sir Charms
Brad Parker
Lucky aka Sir Charms
Brad Parker
Lucky aka Sir Charms

And that's why the two of you were bought my Hasbro.

******** you!

You know I'm right Bradley Milton Parker.

Hasbro did not buy Milton-Bradley and Parker Brothers because Ouija boards did not come equipped with lie detectors Mr. Charms

No, the two halves of your name with bought my Hasbro because you can't get your s**t together.

You can't even manage to parallel park without hitting both the cars.

(I've creeped your post history. I know what you do. cool )

you're ******** stupid

Offline
Brad Parker
Lucky aka Sir Charms
Brad Parker
Lucky aka Sir Charms
Brad Parker
Lucky aka Sir Charms

And that's why the two of you were bought my Hasbro.

******** you!

You know I'm right Bradley Milton Parker.

Hasbro did not buy Milton-Bradley and Parker Brothers because Ouija boards did not come equipped with lie detectors Mr. Charms

No, the two halves of your name with bought my Hasbro because you can't get your s**t together.

You can't even manage to parallel park without hitting both the cars.

(I've creeped your post history. I know what you do. cool )

i'm ******** stupid

Captain Obvious strikes again.

Offline
Either they lied or were so heavily intoxicated that they convinced themselves it happened.

Offline
I would like to contribute an insight (That I incidentally get from Higurashi no Naku Koro ni); the resurrection was actually an allegory for the ideas and beliefs of Jesus continuing to spread despite his physical death.
Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Morality and Religion

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
More
Get GCash
Offers
More
Get Items
More Items
More
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
  • Guilds
    fan clubs for the stuff you love
  • Chat
    chat in real time with other Gaian's
  • Art Arenas
    browse & rate gaian art galleries
  • Clans
    play zOMG with others
More
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
More
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
More
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum
More