Jesus the man or Jesus the Son of God

[rusmeister]

Man. Being an atheist is so much easier. I can't figure why people write eight-bazillion block paragraphs about a 2,000 year old text, which had it never existed we'd still have the main apparatus of moral prerogative that common sense and our natural inclination to develop a social universe creates. Now. Back to girl-on-girl pr0n.

I agree. It IS easier. And it is easier to be an uneducated redneck than to really learn , say, an academic discipline. The truth is not about what is "easy".

And yes, the pagans DID have those things without Christ, and they built the very best that paganism could possibly develop, and we called it "Rome". And YET, it fell. It wasn't enough.

The ancient philosophies and religions came to a dead end; the religions in worshiping an obvious mortal as a god (which IS a form of atheism) and the philosophies in crashing and burning in their logical conclusions which few of their adherents thought out to the end, and the arenas, gladiators, Christians and lions, etc, was the ultimate result.

The hedonists probably said the same thing about porn. And they wound up screaming at the Colosseum, some jaded and glutted on death, others seeing no point even in living, and then, finally, some of them seeing in the Christian martyrs people who had something both to live for and to die for that they didn't have. And so the conversion of Rome began.

The one thing the neo-pagans forget, when they set out to do all the old pagans did, is that the last thing the old pagans did was to get baptized.

[Fist and Faith]

So you're NOT going to find the sense of Orthodoxy by just reading Biblical texts on your own. Did you read the link I posted? www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=111
By all means, read the Bible, and ask what it means. But don't forget to learn how we see the Bible.

Yes, I did. I understand what it means. That's why I'm asking. How do you see the Bible? This seems like a good point to ask about. Frankly, I'm shocked that you didn't immediately have an answer for me. I'd think that, either because the Fall is a vastly important topic, or because it's the very first thing in the Bible, this would have been something you'd have learned about. The fact that you simply ignore the apparent contradiction - between your belief that the Fall was a natural consequence of eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and what is said in Genesis - amazes me. How can you not have asked the same question I'm asking about something as important as the Fall?? Or, if you did, how can you have forgotten the answer to such a thing? This isn't a picky little detail, like "Why does it say here that Ed begat Charlie, when it says over there that Charlie's parents were Bob and Carol?"

I can offer an explanation on that. If Ed was Charlie's biological parent, but he was adopted by Bob and Carol, then everything turns out to be true. There are a great many things like that that we are up against in reading Scripture - thus, you have to find out if extenuating circumstances are claimed and on what basis. The person going on "plain reading" is screwed, because 'plain reading' means reading without any contextual knowledge.

You've come up with a possible explanation for the picky little detail, and continue to ignore the important issue. You often tell me that your faith isn't the result of simply blindly accepting what you're told to accept. But you've never thought of or asked for a way to reconcile the belief that the Fall is a natural consequence of having eaten the fruit, and what it says in Genesis? What are the extenuating circumstances or contextual knowledge for the profoundly important issue of the Fall?

[aliantha]

The one thing the neo-pagans forget, when they set out to do all the old pagans did, is that the last thing the old pagans did was to get baptized.

You say this stuff deliberately to get a rise out of me, don't you?

A whole lot of those old pagans died before they were baptized -- many while refusing baptism. And at least some of them died at the hand of the very people who held the baptismal water. Which is a pretty effective argument for undergoing a dousing...and then continuing to practice your *real* beliefs in secret.

And I don't think there are too many Neopagans these days who believe they'll be able to reconstruct the religion and observances of their ancestors. So your comment is misinformed at best.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Why was the tree there?

Do you mean the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

The Garden of Eden was Heaven on Earth from an allegorical point of view, not a literal place with actual trees as you well know.

In our original form, we were "in God's image", which means that we were pure and holy, sanctified, without blemish. The knowledge of good and evil introduces impurity, which immediately gave us a nature other than what we had before.

Why would Adam and Eve listen to Lucifer and choose to disobey God? I don't know. I also suspect that they didn't even know why they did it, in retrospect.

Lord Foul, being a child is also being easier than being an adult but that doesn't mean that one should remain a child. I also can't figure out why people watch reality TV shows but I know that they do. *shrug* If you don't try to convince me that I am wrong for believing, I won't try to convince you that you are wrong for not believing.

Why would someone wanting to be pagan, a really generic term that encompasses a wide variety of belief systems, want to reconstruct the practices and beliefs of their ancestors? Why wouldn't they create some new ones of their own?

[rusmeister]

The one thing the neo-pagans forget, when they set out to do all the old pagans did, is that the last thing the old pagans did was to get baptized.

You say this stuff deliberately to get a rise out of me, don't you?

A whole lot of those old pagans died before they were baptized -- many while refusing baptism. And at least some of them died at the hand of the very people who held the baptismal water. Which is a pretty effective argument for undergoing a dousing...and then continuing to practice your *real* beliefs in secret.

And I don't think there are too many Neopagans these days who believe they'll be able to reconstruct the religion and observances of their ancestors. So your comment is misinformed at best.

I don't think there's much useful that I can say to you, Ali.
Anything would appear as if we were both drawing ammunition from our respective sides. I don't think the balance of the truth is on yours, though, and that's always going to come up if we talk at all - the fact that historical evidence from primary sources -as opposed to the claims of modern historians - is generally going to work against those claims. Add to that that I can freely admit that Christians - or people who called themselves so - sinned, and DID do evil, without changing the more basic fact that paganism nevertheless died, and on the whole it was not because of wicked Christian persecution (and not only wicked but righteous as well) - which came when paganism was already on its deathbed and the temples of Zeus and the hedonists were ripe to fall. I've got all the evidence of history and literature right up to the late twentieth century on my side - you've got a small number of scholars eager to re-establish paganism. It's not a 'fair fight', as you once noted, because the evidence against it is overwhelming. Truth is never about "fair fights", anyway, but about intellectual honesty.

Although you will likely not care for it, here is a summary that I think rather apt: www.ncregister.com/site/article/8121/
Nevertheless, I think it fair.

[rusmeister]

Yes, I did. I understand what it means. That's why I'm asking. How do you see the Bible? This seems like a good point to ask about. Frankly, I'm shocked that you didn't immediately have an answer for me. I'd think that, either because the Fall is a vastly important topic, or because it's the very first thing in the Bible, this would have been something you'd have learned about. The fact that you simply ignore the apparent contradiction - between your belief that the Fall was a natural consequence of eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and what is said in Genesis - amazes me. How can you not have asked the same question I'm asking about something as important as the Fall?? Or, if you did, how can you have forgotten the answer to such a thing? This isn't a picky little detail, like "Why does it say here that Ed begat Charlie, when it says over there that Charlie's parents were Bob and Carol?"

I can offer an explanation on that. If Ed was Charlie's biological parent, but he was adopted by Bob and Carol, then everything turns out to be true. There are a great many things like that that we are up against in reading Scripture - thus, you have to find out if extenuating circumstances are claimed and on what basis. The person going on "plain reading" is screwed, because 'plain reading' means reading without any contextual knowledge.

You've come up with a possible explanation for the picky little detail, and continue to ignore the important issue. You often tell me that your faith isn't the result of simply blindly accepting what you're told to accept. But you've never thought of or asked for a way to reconcile the belief that the Fall is a natural consequence of having eaten the fruit, and what it says in Genesis? What are the extenuating circumstances or contextual knowledge for the profoundly important issue of the Fall?

That "picky little detail" is symptomatic of everything that you read, Fist.
I want to give you the best answer, which you'll have to wait for, for the simple reason that I have to wait, too. So I'm not ignoring you; the e-mail is outstanding, and just for additional back-up, I'l throw out my lines elsewhere, too. But a response to this question alone will be evidence that there really ARE answers to all of these questions, and they are questions that have been actively thought out by a great many people of a high caliber of intelligence for two thousand years - so the idea that you may have come up with something to stump them is essentially nil.

I admit that I have not thought of everything and do not know all the answers. I am NOT the Orthodox Church. I seem to be the only member willing to try to answer your questions on this board, though. Hopefully I get some credit for that.

[Worm of Despite]

Man. Being an atheist is so much easier. I can't figure why people write eight-bazillion block paragraphs about a 2,000 year old text, which had it never existed we'd still have the main apparatus of moral prerogative that common sense and our natural inclination to develop a social universe creates. Now. Back to girl-on-girl pr0n.

I agree. It IS easier. And it is easier to be an uneducated redneck than to really learn , say, an academic discipline. The truth is not about what is "easy".

You're right. I only just realized this despite making a 3.8 GPA in college and studying history, English and still doing those things for pleasure. I do find religion interesting, don't get me wrong, and I study its place in culture and history much as any other discipline; perhaps even more disciplined than the lack of research and tit-for-tat I see on this topic here.

For my money, my observation of the Bible is the most open and least emotional after seeing the dense, brain-numbing series of posts between you and Fist. As a piece of literature, I find the Bible tough to swallow, its myths surpassed by the Odyssey (it doesn't even have to try), and again, my point; it's teachings don't have a patent on good and normal human behavior, which requires civilization first (hell; Christ wouldn't have even been born had there been no civilization).

Good and moral behavior comes as quality of life improves, as well as a natural, evolutionary principle of what's good for our biological survival as a group of people.

So ignoring the Bible altogether? Hardly. I'm more than considering it. I think my view of it is the most realistic in a world that is Beatlemania about it.

And yes, the pagans DID have those things without Christ, and they built the very best that paganism could possibly develop, and we called it "Rome". And YET, it fell. It wasn't enough.

The ancient philosophies and religions came to a dead end; the religions in worshiping an obvious mortal as a god (which IS a form of atheism) and the philosophies in crashing and burning in their logical conclusions which few of their adherents thought out to the end, and the arenas, gladiators, Christians and lions, etc, was the ultimate result.

The hedonists probably said the same thing about porn. And they wound up screaming at the Colosseum, some jaded and glutted on death, others seeing no point even in living, and then, finally, some of them seeing in the Christian martyrs people who had something both to live for and to die for that they didn't have. And so the conversion of Rome began.

The one thing the neo-pagans forget, when they set out to do all the old pagans did, is that the last thing the old pagans did was to get baptized.

You speak of academic discipline and yet this is a slide-show in primary colors--"The World According to Rus" perhaps? Rome fell for a number of complex reasons (much of which was political corruption and an economic downfall similar to our own, which they tried to spend their way out of).

Yes, Christianity won. But there was no Christianity at one point, and logically there could be another religion to answer society's needs in the future. Why look at it as an intrinsic, scientific fact that it's right? That's hardly academic. In a more reasonable light one would conclude that Christianity evolved to success because it answered what people needed in the fall of Rome--reassurance in a world that seemed to be ending. Perhaps something else will transpire, thousands of years from now, that brings us to need some other tract or precepts of faith?

The religions of Rome and Egypt were not wrong. They were a reflection of those eras. The ancient Mesopotamian religion focused on death and the wrath of the Gods because the Fertile Crescent was frequently flooded by heavy rains and warring states. Egypt suffered little invasion and had regular, predictable flooding that renewed their crops. They had much nicer Gods and an after-life. Approximately, our God of the past 200 years has been less wrathful and more merciful with the advent of the unparalleled convenience we've come into.

[aliantha]

I don't think there's much useful that I can say to you, Ali.

Not if you're intent on converting me, no. And believe me, I feel the same about you. At this point I'm pretty much reduced to challenging you when you make statements like this one that I *know* are wrong.

Your "overwhelming historical evidence" was written by the winners, rus. That's why your "overwhelming historical evidence" claims the pagans were wiped out. But it's obviously not true.

I'm not saying Christianity didn't win. I'm not saying it wasn't a rout. I'm saying that the whole pagan world did not convert. And a lot of the ones who did convert, didn't do it gladly.

The last time we went this route, as I recall, you finally did acquiesce to my point. But here you are, trotting out your inaccurate one-liner again. So here I am, reminding you again that it's wrong. Happy to keep doing that for as long as it takes for you to quit saying it.

[rusmeister]

I don't think there's much useful that I can say to you, Ali.

Not if you're intent on converting me, no. And believe me, I feel the same about you. At this point I'm pretty much reduced to challenging you when you make statements like this one that I *know* are wrong.

Your "overwhelming historical evidence" was written by the winners, rus. That's why your "overwhelming historical evidence" claims the pagans were wiped out. But it's obviously not true.

I'm not saying Christianity didn't win. I'm not saying it wasn't a rout. I'm saying that the whole pagan world did not convert. And a lot of the ones who did convert, didn't do it gladly.

The last time we went this route, as I recall, you finally did acquiesce to my point. But here you are, trotting out your inaccurate one-liner again. So here I am, reminding you again that it's wrong. Happy to keep doing that for as long as it takes for you to quit saying it.

It doesn't matter, "winners" or "losers", Ali. It's the only evidence there IS. That's why so much of what you lean on MUST be fancy and speculation.
And yes, the whole pagan world did convert. Certainly all that was connected to civilization did, and paganism was not tolerated within the bounds of Christendom. The only thing I acquiesced on is that completed isolated, and generally secret pockets could sporadically exist (kind of like Japanese soldiers on the islands who believed the war was still going on) - but continuously - again, no.

So as to who's wrong, it's historical evidence vs wishful thinking. It's not much of a fight. Paganism was more thoroughly defeated - and largely by itself and its own failures, much more even than by the rise of Christendom - than the South was by the North in the Civil War.

[aliantha]

paganism was not tolerated within the bounds of Christendom.

Thank you for proving my point.

Fist, I'm hereby renewing HLT's request that all this back-and-forth over Orthodoxy be split off from his original thread. It's not what HLT had in mind and it's killing the debate on his original question -- which there was some of, before things degenerated into the usual arguments. Thanks!

[Worm of Despite]

So as to who's wrong, it's historical evidence vs wishful thinking. It's not much of a fight. Paganism was more thoroughly defeated - and largely by itself and its own failures, much more even than by the rise of Christendom - than the South was by the North in the Civil War.

I guess you're right. Though how thoroughly something is defeated compared to something else is like saying how pregnant Woman A to B is. I'd also like to point out that Christendom had the weight of the Roman Empire behind it, while Pagans were screaming old naked men painted all in blue. That might be a factor as well.

Again; right or wrong of a religion is not proven by its dominance. If it is thus so, then I suppose Elvis is an intrinsic Right in the universe, whatever that means. Societies craft the religion they need at the time and modify it according to the changes and tribulations of the era. It's merely that and nothing more.

Though perhaps we could devise a Risk-like book on the geographical battles and Generals who fought in the never-ending Religion War, which Christianity won. Where is the first battle? Perhaps Tuscany. Let's make that up. I like the country there, and perhaps Pagan foot-soldiers and light troops versus Christian charioteers? Fun!

[rdhopeca]

So as to who's wrong, it's historical evidence vs wishful thinking. It's not much of a fight. Paganism was more thoroughly defeated - and largely by itself and its own failures, much more even than by the rise of Christendom - than the South was by the North in the Civil War.

I guess you're right. Though how thoroughly something is defeated compared to something else is like saying how pregnant Woman A to B is. I'd also like to point out that Christendom had the weight of the Roman Empire behind it, while Pagans were screaming old naked men painted all in blue. That might be a factor as well.

Again; right or wrong of a religion is not proven by its dominance. If it is thus so, then I suppose Elvis is an intrinsic Right in the universe, whatever that means. Societies craft the religion they need at the time and modify it according to the changes and tribulations of the era. It's merely that and nothing more.

Though perhaps we could devise a Risk-like book on the geographical battles and generals who fought in the never-ending Religion War, which Christianity won. Where is the first battle? Perhaps Tuscany. Let's make that up. I like the country there, and perhaps Pagan foot-soldiers and light troops versus Christian charioteers? Fun!

Indeed. As history is defined by those civilizations with the better war record, so too is religious history defined by those sects with the better missionaries.

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, I'm hereby renewing HLT's request that all this back-and-forth over Orthodoxy be split off from his original thread. It's not what HLT had in mind and it's killing the debate on his original question -- which there was some of, before things degenerated into the usual arguments. Thanks!

Here's what I said to HLT:

I haven't split topics often. Not sure how specific it can be. Can I pick posts out from among others?

Really, though, I don't see the need. Your topic is fairly related in spirit? Was Jesus merely human; or also the divine being rus believes he was? Is the Biblical story of the Fall just a story that a guy wrote; or was it insipred by God, and, therefore, part of the larger story, meaning it must be reinterpreted in light of that larger story?

Like many threads, this one has gone into different areas. rus and I started this when someone brought up that Adam and Eve, using their free will, chose to disobey God. I'm not sure it can be split without leaving gaps in various places. But if you want, it's your thread, so I'll do it. But I think I'll likely need your guidance about the specific posts.

If HLT wants to, or wants to let you, figure out how to do it, it's ok with me. I think there'd be several posts cut in half, part going to one thread, part to the other. But really, which thread in the Close in the last few years has not gone the same way this one has?

[Fist and Faith]

I can offer an explanation on that. If Ed was Charlie's biological parent, but he was adopted by Bob and Carol, then everything turns out to be true. There are a great many things like that that we are up against in reading Scripture - thus, you have to find out if extenuating circumstances are claimed and on what basis. The person going on "plain reading" is screwed, because 'plain reading' means reading without any contextual knowledge.

You've come up with a possible explanation for the picky little detail, and continue to ignore the important issue. You often tell me that your faith isn't the result of simply blindly accepting what you're told to accept. But you've never thought of or asked for a way to reconcile the belief that the Fall is a natural consequence of having eaten the fruit, and what it says in Genesis? What are the extenuating circumstances or contextual knowledge for the profoundly important issue of the Fall?

That "picky little detail" is symptomatic of everything that you read, Fist.
I want to give you the best answer, which you'll have to wait for, for the simple reason that I have to wait, too. So I'm not ignoring you; the e-mail is outstanding, and just for additional back-up, I'l throw out my lines elsewhere, too. But a response to this question alone will be evidence that there really ARE answers to all of these questions, and they are questions that have been actively thought out by a great many people of a high caliber of intelligence for two thousand years - so the idea that you may have come up with something to stump them is essentially nil.

I admit that I have not thought of everything and do not know all the answers. I am NOT the Orthodox Church. I seem to be the only member willing to try to answer your questions on this board, though. Hopefully I get some credit for that.

I really couldn't care less about that picky little detail. I didn't even give one. Ed, Charlie, Bob, and Carol?? Obviously, it doesn't matter. Someone getting the names of parents wrong, or not mentioning adoptions or whatever, doesn't change anything remotely as important as the reason we are Fallen. That's HUGE! And the reason you say we are Fallen does not match the reason given in Genesis. Truly, I can't imagine how someone who has devoted their life to this stuff - especially if one does so with an eye toward intelligent questioning; not accepting apparent contradictions just because you're told to - can have ignored this incredibly important topic, which comes right at the beginning of the Bible, until being put on the spot in public about it. Will I learn next that the Bible says: "The only way to salvation is the Hokey Pokey.", and nobody thought that was odd?

[Savor Dam]

The only way to salvation is the Hokey Pokey.

That's what it's all about?



Guess I better turn myself around...

[aliantha]

Don't forget to put your whole self in first, SD.

Fist, no worries, I'll leave it up to you and HLT to determine where/if there should be a split. I don't think you can pick and choose posts, tho -- you have to pick one break point. I'm sure another mod will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Savor Dam]

Don't forget to put your whole self in first, SD.

No worries there, ali. If anything, my inclination to go all-in is overly strong, to the point of being a weakness.

Of course, SRD has told us a weakness is merely a strength that has yet to find its proper application...

[Vraith]

The only way to salvation is the Hokey Pokey.

That's what it's all about?



Guess I better turn myself around...

I think it is significant that, while there is certainly a right way, there is also a left way, and no wrong way at all.

[Fist and Faith]

Why was the tree there?

Do you mean the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

The Garden of Eden was Heaven on Earth from an allegorical point of view, not a literal place with actual trees as you well know.

Well, not believing any of it, yeah, I don't think it was a real place, either. But if I'm continuing to speak as though it's real in even the allegorical sense, I suppose the whole story is the best way for us to grasp: the creation of everything; the beginning of humanity; and the Fall. I mean, just because it's allegorical, doesn't mean the Fall isn't really the Fall. Yes? We are apart from God because of what happened then. And the best way for us to grasp it is that God did not want us to have eternal life because we had the knowledge of good and evil. At least that's how all the translations into English have it.

In our original form, we were "in God's image", which means that we were pure and holy, sanctified, without blemish. The knowledge of good and evil introduces impurity, which immediately gave us a nature other than what we had before.

How can we have been "in God's image" without the knowledge of good and evil? God had that knowledge all along. We were ignorant without it. And I maintain that free will without it is adisability, and giving us free will without it was a sham. Acquiring it put us more in God's image.

Why would Adam and Eve listen to Lucifer and choose to disobey God? I don't know. I also suspect that they didn't even know why they did it, in retrospect.

We agree on that, at least! Because they couldn't understand what they were doing until they had the knowledge.

[High Lord Tolkien]

How about Serscot's "Nestorian" post way back on page 2?