Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What do see the Bible as?

Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:19:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

i see the christian bible as a social commentary of how one tribe started another tribe who think they are superior in their beliefs because they choose to believe they are

all religious texts written at a time when people thought comets were a sign of impending doom are worthless for todays world as a means to learn anything other than a snap shot of what people of that time thought
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:31:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:19:26 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

i see the christian bible as a social commentary of how one tribe started another tribe who think they are superior in their beliefs because they choose to believe they are

all religious texts written at a time when people thought comets were a sign of impending doom are worthless for todays world as a means to learn anything other than a snap shot of what people of that time thought

That's true. It does make a lot of sense. Considering other written documents from other cultures and other times, it is usually based on a certain "tribe" or "people", since globalization was non-existent. On the other hand, no matter why the Bible was written, how long it took to write it, it is a powerful book, since a massive religion sprung from it. Perhaps it's more than simply a social commentary, despite its reflections of its time.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:41:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am of the view that the bible/quran/book of mormon whatever is most plausible contains falsehood. Humans are good at making stories.............

What sh*ts me is that people take some things which are true in their book, yes there was some guy name muhamed who went into a cave, and because that one thing is true that some how justifies believing everything else in the book is true.

We don't accept such reasoning for the quran, or book of mormon or the book of scientology, and I don't accept such reasoning for the bible and anyone who tries to justify ALL bible claims cause some bits are confirmed true are guilty of a double standard.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:48:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:31:44 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:19:26 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

i see the christian bible as a social commentary of how one tribe started another tribe who think they are superior in their beliefs because they choose to believe they are

all religious texts written at a time when people thought comets were a sign of impending doom are worthless for todays world as a means to learn anything other than a snap shot of what people of that time thought

That's true. It does make a lot of sense. Considering other written documents from other cultures and other times, it is usually based on a certain "tribe" or "people", since globalization was non-existent. On the other hand, no matter why the Bible was written, how long it took to write it, it is a powerful book, since a massive religion sprung from it.
it was written with in a 70 year span...and had constantinople not have his wacky dream, it would have never gained traction...then during the middle ages we had king charlemagne behead anyone who wouldn't convert....fast forward to the native american indians who were massacred etc...

Perhaps it's more than simply a social commentary, despite its reflections of its time.
yea, it's a "how to book" for tyrannical dictators
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:50:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

I see the Bible as a large number of writings placed together into a single book. It consists in varying degrees of personal histories, national history, world history, genealogy, personal experience (or revelation), general wisdom, etc. There are parts of the Bible which still apply and are quite valuable even today. There are other parts which were once very important, but which today make little to no contribution. Oh, and much of it is allegorical.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:58:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Thanks for the replies all.
Would you guys consider the existence and the predominance of the Bible as a coincidence? Or do you think its content is powerful enough to justify its predominance?
Also, what are your opinions on why the bible was written? Why so many people went through all this trouble to put it together?
And would you consider the influence of the Bible failing as we progress through the modern, scientific society?
Thanks
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:02:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:48:13 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:31:44 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:19:26 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

i see the christian bible as a social commentary of how one tribe started another tribe who think they are superior in their beliefs because they choose to believe they are

all religious texts written at a time when people thought comets were a sign of impending doom are worthless for todays world as a means to learn anything other than a snap shot of what people of that time thought

That's true. It does make a lot of sense. Considering other written documents from other cultures and other times, it is usually based on a certain "tribe" or "people", since globalization was non-existent. On the other hand, no matter why the Bible was written, how long it took to write it, it is a powerful book, since a massive religion sprung from it.
it was written with in a 70 year span...and had constantinople not have his wacky dream, it would have never gained traction...then during the middle ages we had king charlemagne behead anyone who wouldn't convert....fast forward to the native american indians who were massacred etc...

There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine made it the "official" religion of Rome. Of course he also continued to encourage due respect for the traditional Roman gods in order to placate traditional Romans.

The Native Americans were "massacred" for land, not that this was any better. They were a nomadic people. It required many acres of land to support a single Native American, which pretty-much made their lifestyle incompatible with European laws and customs regarding land-ownership. Yes, the Bible has been used to lend authority to unjust actions by corrupt people, but it is the people involved who must carry that shame. I personally don't accept the Bible as "God's Own Word" but I don't think it's fair to attack it arbitrarily.

Perhaps it's more than simply a social commentary, despite its reflections of its time.
yea, it's a "how to book" for tyrannical dictators
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:10:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 9:02:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:48:13 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:31:44 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:19:26 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

i see the christian bible as a social commentary of how one tribe started another tribe who think they are superior in their beliefs because they choose to believe they are

all religious texts written at a time when people thought comets were a sign of impending doom are worthless for todays world as a means to learn anything other than a snap shot of what people of that time thought

That's true. It does make a lot of sense. Considering other written documents from other cultures and other times, it is usually based on a certain "tribe" or "people", since globalization was non-existent. On the other hand, no matter why the Bible was written, how long it took to write it, it is a powerful book, since a massive religion sprung from it.
it was written with in a 70 year span...and had constantinople not have his wacky dream, it would have never gained traction...then during the middle ages we had king charlemagne behead anyone who wouldn't convert....fast forward to the native american indians who were massacred etc...

There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine made it the "official" religion of Rome. Of course he also continued to encourage due respect for the traditional Roman gods in order to placate traditional Romans.

yes and?

The Native Americans were "massacred" for land,
yes they were....
not that this was any better. They were a nomadic people. It required many acres of land to support a single Native American, which pretty-much made their lifestyle incompatible with European laws
yes and?

do you have a point somewhere in there?

Perhaps it's more than simply a social commentary, despite its reflections of its time.
yea, it's a "how to book" for tyrannical dictators
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:17:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:58:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Thanks for the replies all.
Would you guys consider the existence and the predominance of the Bible as a coincidence? Or do you think its content is powerful enough to justify its predominance?

Nope, no more than I think the predominance of other religious beliefs justify believing it's content as true.

Islam in the middle east, morminsm in utah, scientolgy in.........ummm where are those Scientology

There are various reasons why such and such beliefs exist as they do and in what area's and in what numbers. Some of those reasons include a religion or religious beliefs setting it's self up and using violence to eliminate any opposition or counter arguments to it, religious indoctrination, the double standards of using high skeptical when it comes to other religious claims but given your own religious beliefs a free pass......

Also, what are your opinions on why the bible was written? Why so many people went through all this trouble to put it together?

People get idea's, they make stories, they make claims, they write them down, and of course they have agenda's, and some times those agenda's are not in your best interest.

And would you consider the influence of the Bible failing as we progress through the modern, scientific society?

The bible or any religious book loses influence when enlightenment principles/critical thinking becomes the norm.

In such an environment the well God hates gays so lets ban same sex marriage ain't going to cut it.

Thanks
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:23:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The idea, roughly, is this: God has revealed Himself to humanity in a number of ways through history: in profound mystical encounters, in providential events, and through our relationships with one another (especially insofar as those relationships operate as channels through which divine love can flow in the world). For Christians, however, the most significant revelation of God is that which occurred some two thousand years ago in the person and life of Jesus.

...the Bible collects the writings of people who have experienced divine revelation in these various ways, and who have sought to express their understanding of those revelatory experiences through poetry, words of wisdom, stories, theological ruminations, etc. The Bible also collects and redacts other things"such as transmitted oral histories, religious myths, and folk tales, as well as records of the laws and holiness codes of earlier peoples. In many of these cases, the actual writers were probably not striving to express their own experience of divine revelation so much as striving to faithfully put to writing stories that expressed the religious experiences of earlier generations.

Put more simply, the Bible collects both first-hand and second-hand (and sometimes third- or fourth-hand) human testaments to divine revelation."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:35:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 9:23:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"The idea, roughly, is this: God has revealed Himself to humanity in a number of ways through history: in profound mystical encounters, in providential events, and through our relationships with one another (especially insofar as those relationships operate as channels through which divine love can flow in the world). For Christians, however, the most significant revelation of God is that which occurred some two thousand years ago in the person and life of Jesus.

...the Bible collects the writings of people who have experienced divine revelation

well before i consider anything else you say...don't you need to present the criteria that would determine what "divine" means ?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:50:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 9:23:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"The idea, roughly, is this: God has revealed Himself to humanity in a number of ways through history: in profound mystical encounters, in providential events, and through our relationships with one another (especially insofar as those relationships operate as channels through which divine love can flow in the world). For Christians, however, the most significant revelation of God is that which occurred some two thousand years ago in the person and life of Jesus.

...the Bible collects the writings of people who have experienced divine revelation in these various ways, and who have sought to express their understanding of those revelatory experiences through poetry, words of wisdom, stories, theological ruminations, etc. The Bible also collects and redacts other things"such as transmitted oral histories, religious myths, and folk tales, as well as records of the laws and holiness codes of earlier peoples. In many of these cases, the actual writers were probably not striving to express their own experience of divine revelation so much as striving to faithfully put to writing stories that expressed the religious experiences of earlier generations.

Put more simply, the Bible collects both first-hand and second-hand (and sometimes third- or fourth-hand) human testaments to divine revelation."

Thanks for that!
To what extent would you consider the Bible to be truthful? Do you believe in Jesus's existence as a historical figure or maybe the facts about the miracles he performed. Humans can sometimes exaggerate things, to make them look good. Not saying the Bible does that, but it is claiming a lot of things.
Is God really what he claims to be in the Bible, if he exists at all?
Thanks
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:52:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 9:10:47 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:02:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:48:13 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:31:44 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:19:26 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

i see the christian bible as a social commentary of how one tribe started another tribe who think they are superior in their beliefs because they choose to believe they are

all religious texts written at a time when people thought comets were a sign of impending doom are worthless for todays world as a means to learn anything other than a snap shot of what people of that time thought

That's true. It does make a lot of sense. Considering other written documents from other cultures and other times, it is usually based on a certain "tribe" or "people", since globalization was non-existent. On the other hand, no matter why the Bible was written, how long it took to write it, it is a powerful book, since a massive religion sprung from it.
it was written with in a 70 year span...and had constantinople not have his wacky dream, it would have never gained traction...then during the middle ages we had king charlemagne behead anyone who wouldn't convert....fast forward to the native american indians who were massacred etc...

There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine made it the "official" religion of Rome. Of course he also continued to encourage due respect for the traditional Roman gods in order to placate traditional Romans.

yes and?

And that is opposed to your claim that "had constantinople not have his wacky dream, it would have never gained traction." It already had traction. In fact, part of Constantine's reasoning was that since Christianity had proved to be fruitful even in the face of continuous persecution then they "must" have had a strong god, and he was hoping this god might help heal the ails of the Roman Empire. The Bible is the Christian book, you know. Are you sleepy tonight?

The Native Americans were "massacred" for land,
yes they were....
not that this was any better. They were a nomadic people. It required many acres of land to support a single Native American, which pretty-much made their lifestyle incompatible with European laws
yes and?

And this is in response to your statement that "fast forward to the native american indians who were massacred etc," which suggests that the Bible and religion were what caused the massacre. Are you sleepy tonight?

do you have a point somewhere in there?

I'm pretty surprised that you don't recognize the point. One thing I've never accused you of is lack of intelligence.

You

Perhaps it's more than simply a social commentary, despite its reflections of its time.
yea, it's a "how to book" for tyrannical dictators
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:15:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:52:55 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:10:47 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:02:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:48:13 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:31:44 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:19:26 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

i see the christian bible as a social commentary of how one tribe started another tribe who think they are superior in their beliefs because they choose to believe they are

all religious texts written at a time when people thought comets were a sign of impending doom are worthless for todays world as a means to learn anything other than a snap shot of what people of that time thought

That's true. It does make a lot of sense. Considering other written documents from other cultures and other times, it is usually based on a certain "tribe" or "people", since globalization was non-existent. On the other hand, no matter why the Bible was written, how long it took to write it, it is a powerful book, since a massive religion sprung from it.
it was written with in a 70 year span...and had constantinople not have his wacky dream, it would have never gained traction...then during the middle ages we had king charlemagne behead anyone who wouldn't convert....fast forward to the native american indians who were massacred etc...

There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine made it the "official" religion of Rome. Of course he also continued to encourage due respect for the traditional Roman gods in order to placate traditional Romans.

yes and?

And that is opposed to your claim that "had constantinople not have his wacky dream, it would have never gained traction." It already had traction. In fact, part of Constantine's reasoning was that since Christianity had proved to be fruitful even in the face of continuous persecution then they "must" have had a strong god, and he was hoping this god might help heal the ails of the Roman Empire. The Bible is the Christian book, you know. Are you sleepy tonight?

By the mid-2nd century, mobs could be found willing to throw stones at Christians, and they might be mobilized by rival sects. The Persecution in Lyon was preceded by mob violence, including assaults, robberies and stonings (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.1.7).

Further state persecutions were desultory until the 3rd century, though Tertullian's Apologeticus of 197 was ostensibly written in defense of persecuted Christians and addressed to Roman governors.[12] The "edict of Septimius Severus" familiar in Christian history is doubted by some secular historians to have existed outside Christian martyrology.

The first documentable Empire-wide persecution took place under Maximinus Thrax, though only the clergy were sought out. It was not until Decius during the mid-century that a persecution of Christian laity across the Empire took place. Christian sources aver that a decree was issued requiring public sacrifice, a formality equivalent to a testimonial of allegiance to the Emperor and the established order. Decius authorized roving commissions visiting the cities and villages to supervise the execution of the sacrifices and to deliver written certificates to all citizens who performed them. Christians were often given opportunities to avoid further punishment by publicly offering sacrifices or burning incense to Roman gods, and were accused by the Romans of impiety when they refused. Refusal was punished by arrest, imprisonment, torture, and executions. Christians fled to safe havens in the countryside and some purchased their certificates, called libelli. Several councils held at Carthage debated the extent to which the community should accept these lapsed Christians.

Some early Christians sought out and welcomed martyrdom. Roman authorities tried hard to avoid Christians because they "goaded, chided, belittled and insulted the crowds until they demanded their death."[13] According to Droge and Tabor, "in 185 the proconsul of Asia, Arrius Antoninus, was approached by a group of Christians demanding to be executed. The proconsul obliged some of them and then sent the rest away, saying that if they wanted to kill themselves there was plenty of rope available or cliffs they could jump off."[14] Such seeking after death is found in Tertullian's Scorpiace or in the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch but was certainly not the only view of martyrdom in the Christian church. Both Polycarp and Cyprian, bishops in Smyrna and Carthage respectively, attempted to avoid martyrdom.

Palestinian bishop Eusebius of Caesaraea described the mass murder of Christians by Jews during the Bar Kochba revolt.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Great Persecution - AD 303
Had Christianity generally grown and established some roots across the empire in the years following the persecution by Marcus Aurelius, then it had especially prospered from about AD 260 onwards enjoying widespread toleration by the Roman authorities.
But with the reign of Diocletian things would change. Towards the end of his long reign, Diocletian became ever more concerned about the high positions held by many Christians in Roman society and, particularly, the army.
On a visit to the Oracle of Apollo at Didyma near Miletus, he was advised by the pagan oracle to halt the rise of the Christians.
And so on 23 February AD 303, on the Roman day of the gods of boundaries, the terminalia, Diocletian enacted what was to become perhaps the greatest persecution of Christians under Roman rule.
Diocletian and, perhaps all the more viciously, his Caesar Galerius launched a serious purge against the sect which they saw as becoming far too powerful and hence, too dangerous.
In Rome, Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor (Turkey) the Christians suffered most. However, in the west, beyond the immediate grasp of the two persecutors things were far less ferocious.

Constantine the Great - Christianization of the Empire
The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.

http://www.roman-empire.net...

"There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine made it the "official" religion of Rome.
hmmmm
exaggerate much?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:19:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey
Just out of curiosity, imagine if the man who walked in Galilee was not Jesus, but in fact a Buddhist monk who had traveled across the seas to preach. I know its two different religions, but what if that monk gained status for his new ideas, and people began to practice his ways, then the monk was captured and executed by the Roman Empire...
Perhaps some years later, they would walk in the tomb and find the body did not decay(which is what is said would happen to enlightened monks)...
Would Buddhism be a more predominant religion?
Personality I find Buddhism to be a religion which is more fair, more peaceful and tranquil. It focuses on a personal meditation than worship to a God, which might seem more attractive to some.
I know it looks like a random question, but it got me thinking real hard.
Thanks
The Random Guy
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:06:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:15:17 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:52:55 PM, Idealist wrote:

The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.

http://www.roman-empire.net...

"There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine mad

Your remark was about how Christianity was nothing before Constantine.

"From the beginnings, the Church had developed an elaborate system and structure by the time of the emperor Constantine (fourth century). Constantine carried forward most of Diocletian's reforms. His major departure, inaugurating a basic change in the nature of Roman civilization itself, was in the empire's policy toward Christians. Diocletian had persecuted the Christians in the belief that they were undermining his efforts to win back for the empire the favor of the gods. But in 312, Constantine ordered complete freedom of worship throughout the territories under his control (Edict of Milan). Probably because the Christians had withstood the power of the emperors, Constantine came to the conclusion that it was their one God, not the crowd of pagan deities,ho was truly almighty. It was the Christian God, then, around whom the citizens of the empire must be rallied; and it was the pagan cults that Constantine and his successors came to view as subversive of the empire's relationship with divine power." ~ A History of the Western World by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis.

This backs up my statements that the Church already had "traction" and that the emperors adopted the Christian God in the hopes it would provide a fix for the failing empire. I trust a college class on history and a text written by two historians over an anonymous entry in Wikipedia.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:12:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:06:02 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:15:17 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:52:55 PM, Idealist wrote:

The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.

http://www.roman-empire.net...

"There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine mad

Your remark was about how Christianity was nothing before Constantine.

"From the beginnings, the Church had developed an elaborate system and structure by the time of the emperor Constantine (fourth century). Constantine carried forward most of Diocletian's reforms. His major departure, inaugurating a basic change in the nature of Roman civilization itself, was in the empire's policy toward Christians. Diocletian had persecuted the Christians in the belief that they were undermining his efforts to win back for the empire the favor of the gods. But in 312, Constantine ordered complete freedom of worship throughout the territories under his control (Edict of Milan). Probably because the Christians had withstood the power of the emperors, Constantine came to the conclusion that it was their one God, not the crowd of pagan deities,ho was truly almighty. It was the Christian God, then, around whom the citizens of the empire must be rallied; and it was the pagan cults that Constantine and his successors came to view as subversive of the empire's relationship with divine power." ~ A History of the Western World by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis.

This backs up my statements that the Church already had "traction" and that the emperors adopted the Christian God in the hopes it would provide a fix for the failing empire. I trust a college class on history and a text written by two historians over an anonymous entry in Wikipedia.

I do not think Christianity, although already quite a formidable group at the time, would've go on to become one of the few major religions if Rome had not adopted it. As attractive as its concepts may be, a religion would still need a powerful advocate who can actively speak for it (Constantine), a non active advocate's influence(Jesus) without the basis of a large amounts of staunch believers can be easily overwhelmed by other major religions. Constantine made Christianity known, and famous, and it was forced onto an entire empire. Rome, even at its dusk, was still incredible large and powerful.
I give credit to the ancient Christians who showed incredible courage, determination and faith, but I must also credit their incredible luck. If Jesus had been born a few decades earlier or later, or in another place entirely, it might turn out very differently.
Thanks
The Random Guy
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:10:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:06:02 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:15:17 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:52:55 PM, Idealist wrote:

The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.

http://www.roman-empire.net...

"There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine mad

Your remark was about how Christianity was nothing before Constantine.

nope.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:40:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:19:31 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hey
Just out of curiosity, imagine if the man who walked in Galilee was not Jesus, but in fact a Buddhist monk who had traveled across the seas to preach. I know its two different religions, but what if that monk gained status for his new ideas, and people began to practice his ways, then the monk was captured and executed by the Roman Empire...
Perhaps some years later, they would walk in the tomb and find the body did not decay(which is what is said would happen to enlightened monks)...
Would Buddhism be a more predominant religion?
How would we know that Jesus was actually a Buddhist monk (in your scenario)?

Personality I find Buddhism to be a religion which is more fair, more peaceful and tranquil. It focuses on a personal meditation than worship to a God, which might seem more attractive to some.
I know it looks like a random question, but it got me thinking real hard.
Thanks
The Random Guy
Some Buddhists have professed to seeing demons while meditating. I worked with one guy who this happened to. It scared him away from Buddhism. Where do you think the images you see of statues of demons and deities in the Buddhist religion come from?

You say that you find Buddhism more fair and tranquil, but you're coming from the perspective of a non-practicing Buddhist looking at it from a western window (I'm assuming). If you went to Thailand, your current impression might change.

Buddhism appeals to many westerners it would seem primarily from the contrast it appears to have with Judeo-Christianity. It's not appealing enough for most to actually become practitioners. There are a number of western expat Buddhists in Thailand. When I went to Bangkok, I only saw one white Buddhist monk. There are very few westerners that will actually become monks. And a lot of the interest seems aimed more at the western fascination of the orient in general. Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. are just part of the package. I like Asia = (therefore) I like Buddhism. I like Japan/anime = (therefore) I like Shintoism. Or even (therefore) I am a Buddhist, Shintoist, etc.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:21:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 9:35:58 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:23:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"The idea, roughly, is this: God has revealed Himself to humanity in a number of ways through history: in profound mystical encounters, in providential events, and through our relationships with one another (especially insofar as those relationships operate as channels through which divine love can flow in the world). For Christians, however, the most significant revelation of God is that which occurred some two thousand years ago in the person and life of Jesus.

...the Bible collects the writings of people who have experienced divine revelation

well before i consider anything else you say...don't you need to present the criteria that would determine what "divine" means ?

From God?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 4:17:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 1:21:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:35:58 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:23:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"The idea, roughly, is this: God has revealed Himself to humanity in a number of ways through history: in profound mystical encounters, in providential events, and through our relationships with one another (especially insofar as those relationships operate as channels through which divine love can flow in the world). For Christians, however, the most significant revelation of God is that which occurred some two thousand years ago in the person and life of Jesus.

...the Bible collects the writings of people who have experienced divine revelation

well before i consider anything else you say...don't you need to present the criteria that would determine what "divine" means ?

From God?

meaningless...define god?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 4:33:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:19:31 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hey
Just out of curiosity, imagine if the man who walked in Galilee was not Jesus, but in fact a Buddhist monk who had traveled across the seas to preach. I know its two different religions, but what if that monk gained status for his new ideas, and people began to practice his ways, then the monk was captured and executed by the Roman Empire...
Perhaps some years later, they would walk in the tomb and find the body did not decay(which is what is said would happen to enlightened monks)...
Would Buddhism be a more predominant religion?
Personality I find Buddhism to be a religion which is more fair, more peaceful and tranquil. It focuses on a personal meditation than worship to a God, which might seem more attractive to some.
I know it looks like a random question, but it got me thinking real hard.
Thanks
The Random Guy

Can I ask you a question? "IF" there is a God, what attracts you about the concept of god in Buddhism? Not it's doctrine but god in it's self.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 6:11:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 1:12:29 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:06:02 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:15:17 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:52:55 PM, Idealist wrote:

The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.

http://www.roman-empire.net...

"There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine mad

Your remark was about how Christianity was nothing before Constantine.

"From the beginnings, the Church had developed an elaborate system and structure by the time of the emperor Constantine (fourth century). Constantine carried forward most of Diocletian's reforms. His major departure, inaugurating a basic change in the nature of Roman civilization itself, was in the empire's policy toward Christians. Diocletian had persecuted the Christians in the belief that they were undermining his efforts to win back for the empire the favor of the gods. But in 312, Constantine ordered complete freedom of worship throughout the territories under his control (Edict of Milan). Probably because the Christians had withstood the power of the emperors, Constantine came to the conclusion that it was their one God, not the crowd of pagan deities,ho was truly almighty. It was the Christian God, then, around whom the citizens of the empire must be rallied; and it was the pagan cults that Constantine and his successors came to view as subversive of the empire's relationship with divine power." ~ A History of the Western World by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis.

This backs up my statements that the Church already had "traction" and that the emperors adopted the Christian God in the hopes it would provide a fix for the failing empire. I trust a college class on history and a text written by two historians over an anonymous entry in Wikipedia.

I do not think Christianity, although already quite a formidable group at the time, would've go on to become one of the few major religions if Rome had not adopted it. As attractive as its concepts may be, a religion would still need a powerful advocate who can actively speak for it (Constantine), a non active advocate's influence(Jesus) without the basis of a large amounts of staunch believers can be easily overwhelmed by other major religions. Constantine made Christianity known, and famous, and it was forced onto an entire empire. Rome, even at its dusk, was still incredible large and powerful.
I give credit to the ancient Christians who showed incredible courage, determination and faith, but I must also credit their incredible luck. If Jesus had been born a few decades earlier or later, or in another place entirely, it might turn out very differently.
Thanks
The Random Guy

Thanks for your contribution. :) You could very well be right. I was only saying that it had already established substantial roots and was likely to survive. According to the Mormon Church they have only fifteen-million adherents worldwide, while Christianity before Constantine already had twenty-five million within the Roman provinces.

I'm not sure why you say a religion would need a powerful advocate like Constantine. I mean, what other religion has that? Most modern religions are founded on much more common persons. Christianity's greatest explosion actually occurred after the fall of Rome. It survived, Rome didn't.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 6:12:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 1:12:29 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:06:02 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:15:17 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:52:55 PM, Idealist wrote:

The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.

http://www.roman-empire.net...

"There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine mad

Your remark was about how Christianity was nothing before Constantine.

"From the beginnings, the Church had developed an elaborate system and structure by the time of the emperor Constantine (fourth century). Constantine carried forward most of Diocletian's reforms. His major departure, inaugurating a basic change in the nature of Roman civilization itself, was in the empire's policy toward Christians. Diocletian had persecuted the Christians in the belief that they were undermining his efforts to win back for the empire the favor of the gods. But in 312, Constantine ordered complete freedom of worship throughout the territories under his control (Edict of Milan). Probably because the Christians had withstood the power of the emperors, Constantine came to the conclusion that it was their one God, not the crowd of pagan deities,ho was truly almighty. It was the Christian God, then, around whom the citizens of the empire must be rallied; and it was the pagan cults that Constantine and his successors came to view as subversive of the empire's relationship with divine power." ~ A History of the Western World by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis.

This backs up my statements that the Church already had "traction" and that the emperors adopted the Christian God in the hopes it would provide a fix for the failing empire. I trust a college class on history and a text written by two historians over an anonymous entry in Wikipedia.

I do not think Christianity, although already quite a formidable group at the time, would've go on to become one of the few major religions if Rome had not adopted it. As attractive as its concepts may be, a religion would still need a powerful advocate who can actively speak for it (Constantine), a non active advocate's influence(Jesus) without the basis of a large amounts of staunch believers can be easily overwhelmed by other major religions. Constantine made Christianity known, and famous, and it was forced onto an entire empire. Rome, even at its dusk, was still incredible large and powerful.
I give credit to the ancient Christians who showed incredible courage, determination and faith, but I must also credit their incredible luck. If Jesus had been born a few decades earlier or later, or in another place entirely, it might turn out very differently.
Thanks
The Random Guy

Thanks for your contribution. :) You could very well be right. I was only saying that it had already established substantial roots and was likely to survive. According to the Mormon Church they have only fifteen-million adherents worldwide, while Christianity before Constantine already had twenty-five million within the Roman provinces.

I'm not sure why you say a religion would need a powerful advocate like Constantine. I mean, what other religion has that? Most modern religions are founded by much more common persons. Christianity's greatest explosion actually occurred after the fall of Rome. It survived, Rome didn't.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 6:54:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:10:59 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:06:02 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:15:17 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:52:55 PM, Idealist wrote:

The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.

http://www.roman-empire.net...

"There were upward of twenty-five million Christians in the Roman territories before Constantine mad

Your remark was about how Christianity was nothing before Constantine.

nope.

Somehow I knew you would deny saying what you said . . . again! No worries, though, because I'm going to copy your words and paste them here: "Had constantinople (I assume you mean Canstantine) not have his wacky dream, it (Christianity, the Bible) would have never gained traction." Since Christianity already had approximately twenty-five million followers - ten million more than the Mormon Church has today - then it's fair to say that it had already gained traction.
Poikilotherm
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 7:18:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:19:26 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:10:33 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm just curious about the way people see the bible.
Do you see the Bible as a piece of history and everything written in it to be completely true? Or do you see it as completely fabricated? Maybe some parts of it you believe, and others you don't?
Do you feel that the ideas and the messages of the Bible is more important than its facts? Do you see it as a symbol of goodness and salvation instead of the truth?
Also, what do you think about other religious texts? In comparison to the Bible, how much of the other do you believe and how are they different?
I'm just trying to start a completely harmless conversation, so please don't get mad at me...(Some people seemed to do that...)
Thanks
A Random Guy

i see the christian bible as a social commentary of how one tribe started another tribe who think they are superior in their beliefs because they choose to believe they are

all religious texts written at a time when people thought comets were a sign of impending doom are worthless for todays world as a means to learn anything other than a snap shot of what people of that time thought

The bible is what became a useful tool to control the ignorant masses with spiritual threats and promises.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 7:50:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 4:17:12 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/26/2014 1:21:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:35:58 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:23:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
"The idea, roughly, is this: God has revealed Himself to humanity in a number of ways through history: in profound mystical encounters, in providential events, and through our relationships with one another (especially insofar as those relationships operate as channels through which divine love can flow in the world). For Christians, however, the most significant revelation of God is that which occurred some two thousand years ago in the person and life of Jesus.

...the Bible collects the writings of people who have experienced divine revelation

well before i consider anything else you say...don't you need to present the criteria that would determine what "divine" means ?

From God?

meaningless...define god?

Perfect being theology.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 8:49:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
After reading some posts on some history of chrisitianity it seems to fall into the same trap of religious belief that came before it and after it.

People are trying to make sense of the world around it, one of those ways to make sense of it is that their is an intelligent powerful being or beings (Gods/Spirits) that reward and punish depending if what you do pleases them or pisses them off.

How come we won that war but lost that one ? well the Gods seem to have turned against us, or for us.......

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation does not imply causation), in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection."
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12