₦airaland Forum

a) why was Marcion editing documents which he did not author? (b) could you defend Marcion's postulations even from the texts he finally collated as his own canon?

a) It was the absolute norm to edit texts. Everyone involved with early Christianity was editing. You speak as if this was some sort of great conspiracy unlike the absolute norm that it was back then.

b) I tell you yet again that I don't need to. You don't seem to understand that the contents are irrelevant when in the context of this topic.

If Marcion had nothing to fear in himself, one wonders why he would be busy editing documents he never authored in the first place

Are you for real? The whole Bible has been edited by people who "never authored it in the first place". What do you think you read when you pick up your Bible?

Which has no bearing yet on your earlier defence of "stamped out" in regards to following them on to the regions of "Islam" that did not yet exist at the time!

Yet again you totallly ignore the fact that I stated that the Nestorian sect was protected prior to Islam. Which part of the word prior do you not understand?

Now, if you cannot understand these simple issues, how else could one help you, Bastage?

Issues? I've shown repeatedly I understand the issues yet you seem not to understand plain English.

Second, even when you advance the idea of the Eastern Church being the protector of Catholic persecution, are you not once again making a weaker case for your postulations?

No. Because it was a progression. You're the one that doesn't seem to grasp the chronological timeline so let me put it in simple terms for you - First it was protected by the Eastern Church. Then the Persians. Then the Islamic countries.
There's no easier way to put it and no other way that can be taken in context. Got it?

You seem oblivious to the fact that if Nestorians needed protection, there must have been a persecutor. Who do you think this persecutor was? The Tooth Fairy?

Nestor was branded a heretic by the same Catholic Church in the Ephesian Council in 431 AD - how does the resulting schism advance the idea that the Eastern Church was "protecting" Nestorius from the "persecution" of the Catholic Church

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

The Assyrian Church of the East refused to drop support for Nestorius or to denounce him as a heretic.

Yes it created a schism, but you seem to be totally denying that the Eastern Church defended Nestor when that is plainly untrue.

From all these splits arising from differences in opinions, where was the Catholic Church "stamping out" others whom they branded 'heretics'?

Are you being serious? No really. Are you? Are you honestly saying that the Catholic Church has never persecuted and stamped or tried to stamp out opponents?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

But why post just three instances when there is a whole site full of examples here?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

I wonder why you keep pushing that same logic and then coming back to complain about it. If you paid any close attention yourself, would this argument have dragged on to this time? You and I disagree with Marcion, QED - but no, you would not want to leave it at that and that is why you have been coming back again and again to that same point.

No. My argument is that he wasn't a "heretic". He and his followers were merely people who believed a different kind of Christianity. Which part of that don't you understand?

If indeed the Catholic Church "stamped out" everything it deemed a "heresy", how is it that Nestorianism survived such "stamping" especially where it was not a case of suspected occurence where it unequivocally branded Nestorius a heretic in an open council?

Quite simply, it retreated Eastwards out of the clutches of Rome. But then I've already stated that.

Islam was a late comer to the scene, not a contemporaneous religion when these events occured! So, how could Islam that came way later have been the one thing that stood in the way of the Catholic persecutors if they wanted to reach the Nestorians?

Do you intentionally not read my posts and then pick me up on points I've already answered? Let point out to you again what I have already written -  "The only surviving sect members are found in staunch Islamic countries where the arm of the Catholic Church could not reach. Nestorianism survived simply because the Catholic Church did not have the reach to stamp it out. Prior to the protection of Islam it was the Eastern Church that was the protector from Catholic persecution." You even quoted it yourself!!!
There is absolutely no chronological misunderstanding on my part. If you're going to make an accusation then please try not to base it where it can be so easily dissected and disowned.


You keep harping on about how my arguments are weak yet you offer nothing whatsoever of substance in retort. Do you think by repeating the phrase "Your argument is weak" it becomes true? Do you also think that by repeating questions that I've already answered you become more convincing?

Thank you, I'm not the one confusing the dates of events in these histories.

And if you'd been honest, you'd have seen that I haven't.

Then let them call me a heretic.

But let them also explain how the nomadic, tribal god of the OT, who doesn't even recognise anyone but the Tribes of Israel, can be the same Universal god of the NT. Let them also explain the vast discrepancies between the characters of those gods. Let them also explain away the logical, historical progressions of scripture. Let them explain away everything that science and knowledge has provided to mankind in the last few millenia regarding how, where, when and why the Bible was written and compiled.

But I assure you that I am not the only "Christian" who holds this view. The opposing evangelicals, literalists and fundamentalists tend to be the more vocal and therefore drown out those who use logic to create a differing picture from theirs.

As I've already stated, some scholars don't even believe that there is only one god in the Old Testament!! It starts out with the Creator God taken from Babylonian myth, next there's the personal god who interacts personally with his subjects and then onto a Cannanite tribal storm god. Take a good look at the 3 characters given there and it's very hard to see how they are the same god, let alone comparable with the New Testament god in any way.

the same GOD of the NT and OT is what they worshipped

History doesn't point to that. It points to "pagan" religions converting to Christianity and concentrating on the god of the NT. As I've already stated elsewhere, the OT was used more as a stepping stone. The NT contained the trappings of those pagan religions to make it comfortable. The OT merely contained the justification by way of history and tradition for that cross-over.
A simple question: If the god is the same, why even bother with Christianity? Why not remain Jewish?

what if this earth was just an experiment forlife on other planet?
DO YOU HAVE TO CARE IF YOU MAKE SOMETHING?

Of course that's possible. Anything is possible. But you've got to take logic into account and balance the probabilities.
You normally do care if you make something. On balance therefore it would be logical that a god cares.

How do you defend Marcion's idea that Jesus was sent by a god greater than the Creator from his own canon?

Why would I want to? If you've actually read anything I've posted, you'd see me stating time and time again that I disagree with Marcion. Yet you seem to totally disregard this and want me to justify a position I don't hold with. How is that logical?

nor would I be that extreme to say that it was the overwhelming destroyer of anything that stood in its way.

That is just pure denial. History shows us that the Catholic Church stamped out "heresy" where-ever it could find it. Where-ever it was even suspected of existing.

You use Nestorianism as an example of a sect that survived? Oh please get real. The only surviving sect members are found in staunch Islamic countries where the arm of the Catholic Church could not reach. Nestorianism survived simply because the Catholic Church did not have the reach to stamp it out. Prior to the protection of Islam it was the Eastern Church that was the protector from Catholic persecution. But Nestorianism within Catholic jurisdiction was stamped out.
If they could have destroyed it totally, they would have, as witnessed by the sects persecution where Cathloicism did have influence. A sect surviving because it was able to retreat out of harm's way is not a relevant example. Give an example of a major sect that survived under Rome's nose instead.

The claim you make is just pure and utter deception on your part.

I would take the link with a pinch of salt.

It's BNP. A far right political party that most UK citizens find abhorrent.

Agreed that most of the photos here do not show the UK. What is the point of posting photographs of other countries and saying this is UK? It is lies and deceit.

I live in the UK. Of course it has it's downsides - every single country in the world does. But to say that it is decadent, violent or poverty stricken is utterly, utterly ridiculous. You only have to take a look at statistics when compared to other nations to see how advanced it is. That's not defending anyone, just a plain, cool, hard fact.

And a few photos of other countries do not prove otherwise. Even if you could post a few photos that show the UK, it still does not prove a thing.

LOL.

Please Pilgrim. What are these sects that survived Catholic persecution?
You make the early Church sound like it embraced it's competitors rather than being the overwhelming destroyer of anything that stood in it's way.
The Church itself viewed Marcionism as it's most dangerous foe. Would it really hold this view if Marcionism was a crack-pot sect that would die out naturally? Your claim is utterly illogical.

You keep saying "Go to the texts". I've been there. They prove nothing that you're preaching. So how about you pull something from the texts rather than bleating the same thing over and over again?

Please. Less hiding behind eloquent wordplay and more truth.

Finally:

People seem to blame everything on the "brute force" of Catholicism; but I don't take that approach.

You don't? Then which planet have you been living on? Of all the statements you've made, this one displays utter ignorance and totally disregards history. Even with the Church writing most of that history, we can see that it controlled every single aspect of a human being's life for centuries and we have records of how it treated dissenters.

If Marcion had any real danger to the Christian testimony, his teachings would have gained a powerful movemnt to this very day!

Probaby not after they had been stamped out by the Catholic Church so thoroughly. Twelve hundred years (give or take a century or two) of persecution is a pretty difficult hurdle to recross. Do you believe that Orthodox Christianity would recover just as easily if the shoe was on the other foot? As I stated previously, the victor writes the history. Over a thousand years of working on Marcion has given the Catholic Church a big advantage.
But then he was danger enough to warrant the Church placing the mantle of heretic on.

That his own movement phased out for precisely the reason as seen is testimony that not many people could defend his teachings.

Phased out? That's a very sanitary way of saying "destroyed by Catholicism". The early Church didn't tolerate any dissent. The demise of Marcionism was not down to it's own weakness - rather the brute power of Catholicism.

* I am aware that you are not Catholic, but I use the denomination because that was the one concerned with Marcionite "heresy" when it began.

I don't think it was wrong of the Republicans to contact her. It would be natural to talk to someone who has been attacked because of their political affiliation. They weren't to know what a crack-pot liar the girl is. I support Obama but even I can't blame McCain for this.

The blame rests solely on Ashley Todd's shoulders. Not only that, but the dumb bitch couldn't even carve the letter B on her cheek the right way. Didn't anyone tell her that if you use a mirror, the image is always reversed?

The reason why my answer is terse is not to mean that there were no other sources for drawing that inferences; but seeing that Galatians itself mentions the fact that anyone preaching differently from what the apostles (including Paul) were preaching, brought themselves under an anathema.

This is where I have the problem. As I've already stated, the book cannot condemn on it's own. It takes a reader to make that step. If you're referring to Chapter1 Verses 6-9 in your condemnation, I find them to be totally open to interpretation and certainly not enough in themselves to brand him as a heretic.

In Marcion's day, his views were only a major problem to the fledgling Catholic Church and it was only because he and his movement were deemed a threat to Catholocism that he was branded a heretic. To justify their own beliefs, the Church  branded millions of believers (or certainly a large proportion of the new religion) heretics by implication.

Ironically, if history had turned out slightly differently, people today would be revering Marcion - he certainly had the support.

The saying goes that the victor writes the history. But is that not a denial? How can we brand people heretics when all they merely are is people with a different belief to our own?

By the way. Marcion didn't just collate Galatians. He edited it. Sometimes omitting and sometimes re-writing (although this is rarer). Hence "Marcion's Galatians". To tell the truth, I thought you were aware of this and that it was part of your reasoning behind branding him heretical.

You can compare his version with the KJV authorised version with these two links.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm

But you still haven't answered the question.
By whose authority is Marcion a heretic?

I'll state again, I do not agree with Marcion's views but I will not brand him or his followers heretics. By the way, the fact that I don't agree with him would seem to point to the fact that I've already studied Marcion's Galatians. Galatians in itself does not say "Marcion is a heretic". A book cannot talk. Only the reader can.

This is not even my definition

No. It was the definition from the Wikipedia link.


Finally, I am not reactive or unchilled. I merely disagree with your opinion that he was a heretic. I find it a distasteful word and an insulting one when used to describe anyone's beliefs. By implication it would also mean that a major proportion of early Christianity's followers (though you'll disagree that they were Christians as they were Marcionites) were also heretics.

Lol, this logic even fails to produce any substance. If I let others do the reading or determine anything for me, why would I be taking my time to share issues from the Bible and lay out my points logically?

The important word here is "my", They're not your points. They're what you've been spoon-fed and are are parroting. You're doing nothing more than spouting the "party-line". You prove that with the continued statement that Marcion was a heretic. It's not insubstantial logic. It's inescapable.

Marcion was a heretic - and I summarily made a few pointers as to why so. Was that difficult to digest?

Marcion was a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This does not mean that he was a heretic full stop. Many, many people did not and do not view him as a heretic.

Marcion's christology saw Jesus as nothing more than a ghost

Marcion believed that Jesus was not the promised Messiah

Marcion also believed that Jesus was sent by 'a god greater than the Creator'

Marcion affirmed Jesus Christ as the saviour sent by God and Paul as his chief apostle. Disagree with a fact all you like. He believed in "Christ". He may not have believed in your version of Christ but he still believed. Because you define in a different way, this makes him a non-Christian?

If Marcion actually believe in the NT canon he collated mainly from Paul' epistles, then those epistles simply put Marcion out as a heretic.

Again the word "heretic". On whose authority?

It's tiresome watching somebody chase their tail.

@MAzaje

by the way who is a christain? are catholics christains(there are about a billion of them)? what about mormons? are white garment wearing people christains? what about the greek orthodoxs? there is no universally acceptable defination for the word christain.

They're all Christians. It's just that some of them believe that they're the only "true" Christians and spend a long time trying to shove that belief down other people's throats.

In some respects that's no different to the different sects within Islam -ie: Sunnis, Shias and Suffis, etc.

@MAzaje

are you for real? what do you mean by old testament god and new testament god? so are you now running away from the old testament god? what the heck are you saying?

You will find that the vast majority of Christians have run away from the OT god. Of course, people like Pilgrim would say that they're not Christians but the majority of people who follow the Christian faith in the West recognise that the OT and NT gods are not one and the same. Heh!! Some even recognise that there is more than one god in the OT - take the god who comes down and has a friendly meal with Abraham and the god who tells Moses to piss off when he asks him who he is on the mountain. "I am what I am" basically "Mind your own business". Contrast the friendliness of the early OT god with the cold indifference of the later OT god and it's hard to look at it in any other way. And contrast the difference between any OT god and the NT god and you've got a real problem reconciling the two.

Of course, there are people who would tell you that this simply isn't true although all the while they ignore historical and literary evidence in their rush to justify that only they speak for Christianity but then doesn't every religion have those types of people?

As an example I may not be a Muslim but there's no way I would I would pull bullshit like this on you.

ast time i checked, Jesus Died For The WHOLE WORLD>>>>EVERYBODY
its left to you, to accept this, No one was born a Christian.

It's hypocritical crap that says "You're wrong, but you can choose to be right". That's the fundamentalist way though. The majority of Christians I know would not make such a statement.


@pilgrim1

It is so easy to confuse the OT  for the OC (old covenant).

Confusing to you maybe. But as the OC is contained within the OT and as Christ creates a new Covenant in the NT, it doesn't really matter in this context.

Judaism was not given as a continuum into Christianity

As I've already stated elsewhere, Judaism was necessary to sell Christianity. And as Jesus was a Jew I'd think it only logical that it was a given that Christianity was a continuum!!!

Having a clear balance of these matters would give you the simple reason why one could not assume that the OT is recognized as being "out of date" - nothing could be farther from the truth.

OK, I'll bite. Apart from a few obvious places - ie the 10 Commandments (which were a given amongst most civilised socieites anyway) and two very, very dodgy prophesies that legitimise Christianity, what relevence does the OT have today?

Anyone can take the Bible any which way they have predetermined - that doesn't make them right, unless out of the sake of ignoring the details, one desires to shove his own ignorance as a wild card in the face of the gullible public.

Hmmm. Yet the same accusation could not be levelled at you I suppose? Why not? I should also say that I specified that mine is only an opinion - not something that I see coming from you.
Haven't you merely taken the Bible in a way that's been pre-determined? In fact, which is better? To pre-determine yourself or to let other people do it for you? Isn't the latter lazy or maybe even dangerous?

Rightly so - Marcion was a heretic, and I'm glad for your sake that you mentioned it unequivocally

I used the words "branded a heretic". Branded is a pretty important part of that statement don't you think? And also, does it necessarily mean that the branding was correct?

Marcion believed in a god that was neither Christian nor Jewish

Errrr,  no he didn't. He discarded the Jewish god as merely the creator and looked upon the Christian god of the New Testament as the "real" god.

Can you defend Marcion's proposition about his "god" as either Jewish or Christian?

I don't have to. I'd be basing it on a false assumption that you've made.

When you take a view such as Marcion's and label him 'Christian', please take the time to look at the details and not the label. Not everyone who goes about calling the name 'Jesus' is actually a believer.

Says who? What gives you the right to say that Marcion was not a believer? The facts show that he certainly did believe in Christ. Who made you judge and jury? What authority do you hold to say who is a Christian and who is not? I don't necessarily believe in Marcion's duality view but that's only my opinion and I don't have the right to say that he wasn't a Christian. I wonder what power you have that says that you can say otherwise.

please take the time to look at the details and not the label.

I would level the same accusation right back at you. Maybe you should read up on the subject before commenting further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
http://www.marcion.info/

And even one from the other side:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

Marcionism was, "a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known."
"The most dangerous foe"? Is it any wonder that he was branded a heretic? And if he was the "most dangerous", why? Obviously his views was very popular before Catholic persecution otherwise he wouldn't have been considered so dangerous. I love the way that they say that he was the most dangerous foe "Christianity has ever known". In reality, that passage should read "Catholisism has ever known", but then that wouldn't give them the aura of speaking for a whole religion and everyone in it would it? Control freaks.

There's plenty of other info on Marcion on the net if you can be bothered to look.

if he is not an atheist,then he should be a narcissist

LMAO. Totally illogical.

Ever heard of "I think, therefore I am"?

God only has to believe in His own existence for him to not be an atheist. And that certainly doesn't make Him a narcissist.

I think, therefore I am. Does that make me a narcissist?

Isn't A God Who Only Created More Logical Than A God Who Cares

I'd say it's the opposite if you're using pure logic.

If you create something, you normally have a reason for creating it. And if you create something, you don't normally just do so to throw it away.
So therefore it's more logical that a creator god cares simply because there would have been no point in him creating anything otherwise.

@mazaje. Christians tend to give Islam a hard time because they are disconnected from the Old Testament god by the New Testament god. The vast majority of Christians seem to recognise the atrocities perpetrated by the OT god but are able to expel those parts of him from their religion. The OT is recognised as being out of date by the vast majority of Christians and is considered more in the realms of Islam and Judaism. You would certainly have a hard time finding a main-stream Christian who can condone the majority of the OT god's actions.

There's a saying that ignorant people make their heart's condition obvious to the public.

Not really. Marcion represented a very large proportion of Christianity until the Catholic Church cemented their power and branded him a heretic. And when one also realises that the Bible has been edited so many times, it makes the discarding of anything seem less of a major point. Protestantism itself has discarded the Apocrypha. Does this make Protestants evil? The Bible itself contained hundreds of books all vying for different status until it was cemented at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century - when Christ was also given god status.

But let's take the Old Testament specifically. This was a book compiled in a couple of stages. The first was when the Hebrews were in exile and the second when they were nomadic and travelling around the Holy Land. In the first instance, we have a book that relies heavily on local religion and in the second we have a book concentrating on nomadic warfare. Is this pertinent to the way that we live today? Here's my opinion:

Take a look at Leviticus. Why do you think that the laws sound strange and that Christians do not adhere to them? Do not eat shellfish. Do not eat pork? Why? Well, if you are a desert nomad warrior living in the desert, the last thing you want your army to come down with on the eve of a battle is a dose of food poisoning. So you forbid it.
By the time the New Testament writers come along, these things aren't a problem any more. People live in towns. They have access to hygiene and proper food storage. It isn't necessary to ban a food product because the risk of food poisoning is minimal.

The same goes for the Sabbath. You must take that day off in the Old Testament. Why? Well, an army needs it's rest doesn't it? If you're fighting to conquer a country, you must take time off or you become no use to anyone. And what better thing to do on that day but cement your army together by all worshipping the same god on that day?

Then take a look at the violence within the pages of the Old Testament. There's quite a bit of advocation of murdering an enemy or somebody who gets in the way of the god. Not suprising really when you realise that the Jews were pretty much at war with everyone - including themselves. It's a justification.

And these are just two small examples. The Old Testament is riddled with rules, regulations and a way of life that are alien to the way we live today. But it's the historical aspects, geography and social issues that dictated the rules back then. Not the god. But you need the order to come from the god to make it official.

When Christianity came along, a lot of those rules weren't needed so they were thrown out of the window. Not only that, but Christianity needed to spread and so it needed to appeal to non-believers and converts (incidentally why Christianity contains a lot of aspects from other religions). So why is the Old Testament pertinent to Christianity?
In my opinion, Marcion got it right. It isn't. It has done it's job. And that job was to sell the new religion. Early converts would have a hard time following something brand new. By tying it in with the Judaic religion it gave a comfort blanket and a stepping stone to it's new followers. Islam did no different. It took the Old Testament and adapted it for the Arabs. But the Arabs being nomadic and living closer to the ways of the Hebrews in the Old Testament, Islam kept most of the rules because they were still pertinent. This may sound "heretical" but it isn't. It's the way things are done in almost every apsect of our life. If you try something new, you need to compare it to something else. And if it's the "New and Improved" version of something, you're given that extra push that you need to try it. Human beings are creatures of habit - on the whole, we're not natural risk-takers, but give them something familiar to cushion the blow and they won't see it as a risk.

There's no ignorance in advancement. No evil in recognising that something has done it's job and isn't needed any more. It's what drives the human race forward. It's progress. And isn't that what any god would want? Traditionalists would say "No. Change is bad", but then they've adapted the Bible to fit themselves, so they're no less guilty than anyone else.

So Huxley has it right. There are people who can take the Bible in the ways that he's proposed. None are necessarily the right way and none are necessarily wrong. It's up to the individual. The only people who would state otherwise are those who insist that you follow their faith and that their's is the only right one.

I do not have to put what is rotten to my nose, before I know it has a disagreeable smell to me.

Put it to your nose? You've never even had a copy anywhere near you, let alone near your nose. All you've done is rely on other brainwashed people to tell you that the book is "bad". You criticise it without even the slightest awareness of what it's content is. That's not the sign of an educated person, it's the sign of someone being an unthinking drone.

People like yourself can be called to commit acts or hold an opinion just on the basis that someone tells you to. Not because you think for yourself or from your own experience.

And you say that's not the actions of an extremist or a fanatic? Get a clue. You live in a fantasy land.


But aside from that, isn't it amazing that you've been accused off dragging this off-topic dozens of times and now want to discuss a book? What has the Satanic Verses got to do with murdering people for not believing in the same god as you?
Well, for once, this advertises your way of thinking and does explain something.
You would hate the author of a book you know nothing about simply because other people tell you to. You would kill people who leave your religion simply because other people tell you to. Both are the act of somebody who cannot think for himself and just follows the rest of the sheep.

How could you possibly intelligently discuss a book you haven't read?

He can't.

So instead, expect more smoke and mirrors, more changing the subject and more illogical rhetoric.

He cannot even answer a simple question like the one in the thread title without resorting to lies and brainwashed drivel. How do you expect him to answer your question when he has even less information?

He resorts to defending murder by saying "Look!!! Here's one person who wasn't murdered when they left Islam!!!". Big deal. Is that meant to justify all the thousands of other killings?

Olabalwe is an extremist. He is what we call a fanatic. There is no other way of looking upon people with his disgusting views. The amazing thing is that he parasites on a Christian society whilst holding these disgusting views. So not only an extremist but also a hypocrite.

I've heard of this theory before but don't really believe it.
A better explanation is that the word comes from the Hebrew "aman", which means to be firm or solid in the sense of permanency. Thus by implication, it means to be sure, true or faithful. So whenever we see this word Amen used in scripture, it is affirming truth, or illustrating something is said that is of absolute certainty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen

That said, it is possible that the root of the word is based in ancient Egyptian religion. After all, the Hebrews did originally come from there in Exodus.

The issue of preservation of life, as clearly specified in the Qur'an is of the uptimost importance.

After all the drivel that you've posted in this thread, it's nice to see you finally crack a really funny joke.




Not all Muslims are terrorists. But most terrorists are Muslims.

I loved your analysis, what you said is the trend we see today people continually try to bend what the bible says to fit with reality and I fear we are coming to its yield point where the bible would finally give way as man continues to evolve

It's actually not a new trend. In fact early Christianity operated in that way. The Catholic Church stamped it out and introduced dogma.

Tradition and evidence come into play but the answer is down to you alone.

You've first got to understand what religion is. Then you have to study it's history and meaning. This can lead to all sorts of interesting possibilities.

It can lead to one studying the very nature of reality itself. It may even lead into the realms of quantum physics. In this scenario perceived reality becomes relative.

The Earth goes around the Sun in our perceived reality. That is a "physical" fact. But from there, you may lead onto the question of does the Sun really exist? You see it and other people see it, but what if all those other people are just figments of your imagination? What if the Sun doesn't exist and you're just imagining it to be so? You then have a choice. You can choose to believe it exists or you can choose to believe that it is a figment of your imagination. Religion operates on much the same level. Tradition and authority tells us that the Sun exists but is it correct? Evidence tells us that it exists as we can see it and feel it's warmth. But is that evidence correct?

We weigh up our options and then make our decisions based on the above. But one has to understand that even with the knowledge that we have about the Sun (both authoratative and evidential) no individual can prove that it does actually exist. It can only be pertinent to your relative reality and it's your decision wether or not to believe it's there.

So in answer to your question "if you believe it is literal then it is literal. If you believe it is metaphoric, then it is metaphoric" the cold hard truth in the light of day is YES. You and only you can decide what is metaphoric and what is literal. You can listen to other people and they may sway your views, you can view the evidence and adapt that to your belief system, but the whole answer is relative to you alone.

olabalwe.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of relevance.

This topic is about murdering people for their beliefs.

It has nothing to do with the Vatican State City.
It has nothing to do with Nigerian Bishops.
It has nothing to do with building mosques.
It has nothing to do with treason.
It ha nothing to do with the IRA (which incidentally was a financial organisation not a religious organisation).

Even if those excuses you used were relevant, they are so poor that they can be shot down in flames within seconds by anyone with half a brain. Some are just outright blatant lies while others are smoke-screens and distortions of the truth.

I find it utterly amazing that you can insult someone and tell them that they are immoral whilst you sit there calling for the death penalty for people who don't believe in the same god as yourself.
If you're the best that your religion has to offer, I have no sympathy whatsoever for you when the extremists from the other side perpetrate any of the so-called atrocities you're whining about.

Reap what you sow, brother.

What is the criterion?

This is the biggest question of them all.

The answer is: Belief.


A lot of people let their Church do their believing for them. That Church defines what is literal and what is metaphorical. But the problem here is that their doctrines are often set in stone, are centuries old and are rarely adaptable to new knowledge.
Others are not so rigid. They study the Bible and apply the metaphors and literalism where they think it is appropriate on a personal basis. When new knowledge comes to light, they can adapt it to their belief system.

The criterion for definition of what is literal and what is metaphorical is belief. But it's up to you wether you define it or let someone else do it for you.

Huxley.

Yes. It is meant to be taken metaphorically and the physical form part of the passage is relatively unimportant.
The physical aspect is used merely to emphasise the importance of not sinning.

At the end of the passage, Jesus says: "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

This reinforces the fact that the passage is to be read metaphorically. Jesus is not saying that man should literally take salt. He's saying "Don't sin. Be pure".

Yet more burbling.

You do not seem to understand what the Vatican State City actually is. Go read up about it. It is not your local neighbourhood and has no comparison whatsoever. Yet again you hide in irrelevancies for the purpose of your vaccuous argument.

Musa almost lost his life. He almost crushed his skull with a rock

Keyword here is almost. He almost got killed. Not he was killed as many Islamic apostates are. But why are you harping on about this anyway? Do you think I believe that Jewish extremists are any different? They're no different from the likes of you. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because there are ignorant people in Judaism does not give you justification for advocating murder. Even so, the fact that "Musa Cohen's" experience is unique in Judaism whereas the murder of Islamic apostates is commonplace gives you no credibility yet again.

Please point to a religiusly homogenous community that will allow a "traitor," of their religion to continue to live in their mist, without repacursion?

Sure. Come to Europe. People convert between religions all the time. It's a fact of life here. They're not shunned and we don't stone them to death for it. Of course, you'd love it to be otherwise but it plainly isn't. Religious tolerance is a totally different kettle of fish here.

The point that I am making which you seem not to be able to grsp is this, it is what the people in power wants you to know will be all that you know. What they decide that you will not know of whats happening in their jurisdiction, until otherwise, will be outside your sphere of knowledge.

Clutching at straws. If it's a secret, how would you know about it and be able to make the above statement? Are you privy to some information that the rest of the world doesn't have or are you just saying that there must be a conspiracy because you want to believe in one?
The people in power in liberal societies happen to be the same people that walk the streets. They're not smart enough to keep secrets of the nature you talk about. In liberal societies there is information overflow - it's almost impossible to keep a secret and certainly impossible to keep a secret of the nature that you're so ignorantly theorising.

Is there a possibility for any nuns or priest to apostate Catholicism and still remain in Vatican city?

Man you are really reaching now.
That's like saying can a Christian hold prayers in a mosque? And that's without even explaining why a Catholic apostate would want to remain in the VSC. Or do you think they'd relish being surrounded by 800 clergymen? In fact, do you even know what the Vatican State City is?
Utterly ridiculous but also (yet again) entirely irrelevant.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between "leaving someone alone to conduct their business" and murdering them.

ask these because Musa Cohen in Brooklyn left Israel with his life, only by a thread!

The thing is (and it's a big thing) he left alive. A lot of apostates in Islam don't even get to do that.




Your arguments are either not relevant or not logical. You're trying to defend murder by saying that "the other side does bad things". But even then you can't show that they murder apostates or do anything nearly as bad.

I have categorically not said that treason is not on the statute books. Don't put words into my mouth to justify your lame argument.

Please ask "Bastage," if anyone have been convicted for "treason," in the past 30 years and have not be sentenced to be executed?

Plenty have been tried and jailed so your so-called lawyer friend is talking through his rectum. A quick Google will show that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Its a crime that the society as a whole frowns upon, and the harshest of all sentences are metered for it!

I repeat. Although the death penalty is on the statute books in the US, it is not used and there are plenty of cases where spies have been sentenced to jail instead. In Europe, the last death sentence for treason was removed from the statute books in the UK about a decade ago. Even though it was on the statute books, again, nobody has been executed for treason for decades. Again, plenty have been jailed.

? This guy takes the charge of treason to be as its like stealing a love of bread.

Actually, you have that totally wrong. In fact, I believe that Treason is a crime that deserves punishment. Unlike apostacy which I believe is a "crime" dreamt up by fanatics who's religion and god is founded on such shaky ground, it needs extremist measures to prevent it from falling apart.

But like I said earlier, the crime of treason has nothing whatsoever to do with murdering someone because they don't believe in the same god as you. Keep plugging away at that smoke-screen for all it's worth but from this side it's starting to look like the wind of reason and truth is blowing it away.

By the way. Timothy McVeigh was executed for conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives, and eight counts of first-degree murder. Nowhere is there a mention of a "crime against the state". Yet again another one of your crackpot theories blown apart.

A nice long post from you there, but totally irrelevant and also deceitful in places. You haven't answered the question I've put to you but merely posted more fanatical, illogical hatred.

Let me just put you straight.
FACT: Nobody has been executed in a "liberal" country for treason for decades. People have been recently murdered for "apostacy".

Do you think that dragging up the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition gives your argument credibility that people should be murdered today for their religious beliefs? Historical wrongs give you justification for an argument that isn't even related? Pathetic.

And from among the muslims in Gitmo, America will struggle to execute at least one from them!

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. America cannot and will not execute a single Gitmo detainee. Even those that have committed blatant acts of treason against their own Western countries have not had the death sentence applied to them. But then I guess planting seeds of hatred based on lies is fair game for people of your outlook.

To keep your head fogged up with this kind of dilutional "liberalism" is pure deficiency of "Human Quality!" You must not have any blood flowing in your body.

"Dilutional liberalism"? How about "Not agreeing that people should be murdered for their beliefs?" If that's dilutional liberalism I'll take it over murder any day.
You say I'm deficient of human qualities but someone who advocates the murder of their fellow man because he does not believe in the same god doesn't just make a person devoid of human qualities - it makes them lower than even the most base life-form on this planet.

Keep preaching your hatred and keep justifying murder, my friend, but don't expect those of us who realise what morality and humanity are to follow your disgusting ethos of extremism and fanatasism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7679212.stm

A woman working for a UK-registered charity has been shot dead near Kabul University in the Afghan capital.

The woman, Gayle Williams, was a UK and South African national. She was killed by two men on a motorbike, witnesses told the BBC.

The Taleban are reported to have said they killed her because she was working for a Christian organisation called Serve Afghanistan.

In August the Taleban killed three foreign women near Kabul.

I guessed she got what was coming to her, huh?



@Huxley. I'm aware of the Rosenkrantzes. But take a look at the date they were executed. Well over 50 years ago and outside of the 30 year time period I speicified. That's half a century ago when the world was a much, much more different place. Such executions are not carried out now and any spies are jailed - not murdered. Even when the Cold War was at it's height (well after the Rosenkrantz case) nobody was executed in the US for spying.

But let's get one thing straight here. See through the smoke-screen that olabowale is trying to throw up to justify murder. There is a huge difference between executing someone for treason and murdering someone because they do not believe in the same god. Even if the US was now executing 50 spies a day, it would not give justification to his argument that apostates should be killed.

How about the Genesis narratives, the Jonah narratives,  the resurrection narratives, etc, etc?

Lets not confuse the Old Testament with the New Testament. Both were written by different people in different times. Their use of metaphors are different.

A lot of the Bible has to be read metaphorically as it was no doubt originally intended.

The Old Testament examples you've given up there have their roots in even older Babylonian religions. Take Genesis for example - the Garden of Eden story is almost a direct copy of the older Enuma Elish. The story of Noah is a copy of the older Epic of Gilgamesh. It's almost certain that the Old Testament copies were created when the Hebrew scholars who composed them were in exile in Babylon - the home of the originals. They took those stories and gave them the moral twist that we see in the Bible.

The New Testament is blatant in it's use of metaphors. What else is a parable?

It's probable that early Christians saw a lot of metaphors in Biblical literature and very, very doubtful that they were literalists. One has to realise that much of early Christianity was composed of Gnosticism - a line of religious thought that thrives on symbolism and metaphors. It was not until the Catholic Church stamped out these other sections of Christianity that literalism became main-stream. Again, there are aspects of Christianity in the New Testament that are present in older religions - the Virgin Birth being one of them, the Resurrection another.

Literalism is (in my opinion) the refuge of the brain-washed. Not to question is not to understand.