Christianity VS White Magic (Only for Spiritualist/WhiteMagicians & Christians)

[SSH]

Firstly, no disrepect was intented to those of Greek or Russian Orthodox faiths when I said "orthdox (little o)". As Tuomas said, I wanted to mean "standard" rather than refer to the specific denomination. And the missing o was a typo.

SSH, my theories about the real trial of Jesus are not "something told in the internet" like the "missile to the Pentagon" or something... They are serious studies made by experts in history and historycal roman and hebrew law, and consider a lot of aspects.

So which theological book is this claim made in?

I'm sure you'll find plenty of historians and hebrew law experts in Bible colleges across the world who have also studied such things and come to different conclusions. You have chosen to believe one side of it, and I chose another.

"I am here not to change the spells, I am here to keep every comma and accent of them"

(Remember that the Spells are the ultra orthodox "If your husband dies, his brothers will be allowed to marry you" spells, ok?)

In English, the quote is:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Yes, he came to fulfil the law by taking our punishment (the death penalty) for us on the cross, so we could be forgiven. And the thing of brothers marrying the widow of their dead sibling was to provide for the widow who would otherwise have no means of support and thus a very early form of social security.

"I am not here to bring peace, I am here to bring the sword, to make that in a house of 5, father will be facing the son, and mother the daughter and the brother the sister"

If he was not an orthodox nationalist?

It just makes no sense to me. Actually it makes no sense to anybody, dozens of sentences in the Bible make the believers say "uh?"

He actually asks a question: "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth?". Why would his followers think that if he was an orthodox nationalist?

Maybe he was simply describing the kind of division that can occur in a family (or a forum) when people disagree on religion?

So, I don' t know, it would be cool to hear a believer say "Mmmm... Dunno, maybe it's not real, actually it does not look real at all, but it's great, it helps me" in spite of "Believe, it' s truth, if you don' t, you'll be a inferior being, a person without faith". But it' s up to you! I don' t believe, and I have all that believers have. If you believers need a tale to have what I have, it' s ok, but don' t come me telling you are better or that I am wrong.

I certainly don't think I am better than you, Nacho. I'm a pretty lazy person (amongst other vices), and I'm sure you are not as lazy as I am. But, I'm forgiven, and as such will have eternal life. Maybe God's mercy will mean that it doesn't  matter if you believe or not, but I believe in the Bible, and it doesn't really convey that message: "No-one can come to the Father except through me". So I'd be pretty happy if people I like, such as yourself, also could have eternal life. That's why I argue about this stuff, even though I know there's little chance of it making an impression on anyone.

[Helm]

Consider the fellow who originally came up with the Little Red Riding Hood story (bad example, I know there are many versions, but take it as an example). A few hundred years later, someone says "No! That can't possibly be true, because AHAAA! If you look at it scientifically, wolves can't look like grandmas, and they cannot possibly talk. THIS MEANS THAT THE STORY DISTORTED! The original antagonist was a cannibal who's name translates to Wolf'!". It's a ridiculuous argument, because (if you are going along with the example), the guy who originally wrote Little Red Riding Hood is probably the best bet on what happened, and it's his story after all.

I think the clue that you're missing from my other post is that Little Red Riding Hood is a ficitional character.


Erenan: I don't know what you think you're caught between (I and SSH? Now here's a shit orgy!), and feel free to not reply to me, since this is a conversation that can end at any time, but I don't think there's any reason for you to get upset by what I'm saying. I respect you bowing out before you became unreasonably upset anyway.

[Babar]

That's completely irrelevant, Helm (at least concerning my point in the previous post). In fact, if assuming that it is fiction, creating an alternate "more realistic and earthly" version of events is even more ludicrous, especially considering that this 'fact' would be built on fiction.

[Helm]

But... I don't know why you make me do this: The point was that was being made is that the Jesus the bible speaks of is a fictional character only very lightly based on one of the many prophets that came -along with scorpions- from Judea, and that in this case, looking inside the Bible for the acurate historical information regarding the latter is not the wisest thing to do. Nobody said you could learn more about the theological figure, Jesus, anywhere outside the Bible.

[Nacho]

Mmmm... about the Orthodox thing... I am not sure what Jesus was, he has been said (By an hystorical analysis of his words) that he was a Pharisee, a Shamai or Hilel (quoting from memory, maybe misspelled), so, as the most simillar to those currents nowadays is the Jewish Orthodoxia, or Hareddim, therefore, I am calling him Orthodox. I don't really see if this is the point of making an issue of this...

About some things said here... Ok, then, he is not going to abolish the laws that say that if your husband dies, his brother can marry you if he wants... Great. this laws also allow penalty death, so, it is ironic that he sacrificed his life for deffending a Law like this...

And yeah... There are a lot of serious scientists studing the Bible. And no one has came with something of the sort of "Yes!!! I believe everything it's Ã, true, He walked over the waters, He made water into wine and he resurrected, yes... All He said has been perfectly translated and there have been no alterations in the Bible!!!" Come on... Even the choosing of the Gospels was... curious.

About the Quotes. The paragraph I am talking about is this:


Luke 12, 49-53

I came to set the Earth on fire, How I'd liked it to light it on! Do you think I came to put Peace on Earth? No, I tell you, better division; So, from now, there will be 5 in a house, and they will be divided three against two, and three against three, they will be divided the fahter against the son and the son against the father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, and the mother in law against the daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law.

I think it's a stalement... not a question. Or.

Matthew 10, 34-36

Don' t think I came to bring peace on Earth, I did not came to put peace, but the Sword. I came to sepparate; The father against the son, the daughter against the mother, daughter in law agaisnt the mother in law and the enemies of the man; The ones in his house.

And now, to end, I must say that you are probably better than me in many aspects... You are a good and loving husband and father with a productive job. But you would be better than me in that aspects if you were not a believer, therefore, still better than me.

So, the question basically is: Has the faith had something to see into making you a better person? Probably yes, and examples like yours are the ones that make me deffend the religion in many discussions. But cases like your are one in a hundred. And I honestly think that you' d have probably been as good as you are with exact the same education without the supernatural stuff.

Anyway I wouldn't attack religion if it was hamless, or uneffective. But there is 1% good believers (like you), 79% of "average" ones, and 20% of hypocrites who use the religion as an alliby to be total assholes. I know they would be assholes anyway without the religion, but the use of it as an excuse still annoyes me.

And just talking of Christianism...

[Mordalles]

i don't think Jesus knew he would be resurected (spelling?).
but i also think that the "sacrifice" was more the immense pain and suffering he went through. his resurrection took him to heaven (afterlife). its not like he stayed on earth and lived untill he died again. 

as to whom will be saved, according to Christianity (since it seems there are a lot of confusion, which nacho find funny ):

loosely translated: "He who says Jesus is God and believes with his heart that God resurrected His son from the death, will be saved."
doesn't matter if your a Jew or a Greek or whatever.

And i dont believe God is this friendly guy who will just be friends with everyone and forgive you just like that and won't judge you. we as humans should not judge others, for we shall be judged. but God, he can judge whomever he wants to. and he will.

also, in my life i have rarely met someone who were "trying to force" Christianity on me.
but i have met uncountable number of people who have tried to convince me that God does not exist. because, they really want be be right, because if they are wrong, bad things will happen. 

[Mordalles]

nacho, Jesus didn't want to sacrifice his own life, God asked him to. it was God's sacrifice.

[Nacho]

Eeeer... Ok!Ã, 

One question... How can you find people forcing you to be Christian, if you are Christian?

It`s like a white guy in Alabama saying "I' ve never suffered racial problems..."

[SilverWizard_OTF]

Thanks Tuomas, i realised you have right about the word "orthodox". I thought this word was used only with religious-meaning.

On a sidenote, I'm not taking part in this silly argument since it's never going to create any sensible solution.

I tried my fellow to prevent this argument which indeed is never to create any sensible solution and i told that many times this conversation was not the purpose of this topic, but you can check how many attacks i had from people who suppose that to start discussing a completely another subject then the original of this topic is very normal and that this has fun to go on...

[Nacho]

What do you preffer? A 3-post thread about Saruman against Gandalf or a popular one? 

[Erenan]

Erenan: I don't know what you think you're caught between (I and SSH? Now here's a shit orgy!), and feel free to not reply to me, since this is a conversation that can end at any time, but I don't think there's any reason for you to get upset by what I'm saying. I respect you bowing out before you became unreasonably upset anyway.

I don't feel up to defending my position simultaneously against two viewpoints at once which are themselves directly opposed to one another ("forgiveness without repentance is not practical, but that's how it's supposed to be" and "forgiveness without repentance is practical after all because..."). But I'm not really all that upset. I just don't want to become upset, and I felt pressure from two directions, so I was worried. Maybe I didn't need to be.

I suppose I was just disappointed that instead of reasoning with me concerning how forgiving despite a lack of repentance constitutes greater faith, you did what looked to me like a punt. "Well, if you can't see how that's true, then you're just not a good Christian." I honestly don't understand how acting in a manner that I understand to be contrary to what Jesus appears to have taught constitutes greater faith. If this looks like poorly practiced Christianity to you, that's fine, but at least attempt to explain to me how this is so, because as much as I think I'm right, I'm not interested in simply stating my opinion. I am actually in this for discourse. I just don't see what your purpose is in saying that you don't think I'm the good sort of Christian.

And I understand we're jumping back a few posts here, but eh... This is what's on my mind.

[SilverWizard_OTF]

What do you preffer? A 3-post thread about Saruman against Gandalf or a popular one?Ã, 

I prefer the subject this topic has created for, no matter if it will ended a 3-post or a 0-post. As i said, maybe there are people who want to discuss the subject i wanted to discuss, but they don't want to have an argument with all you that you don't believe in a Higher Power. Is it so hard to respect that? It seems that is for you (and for some others of course).

Quote from me:
Note: This question goes only to these people that know for what i am talking about.

Has anyone who has readen the Ritual of the Messenger, performed or tried to perform it? Even if the author of the book in which this ritual is decribed says to his website that this ritual should not be performed (at least that was i understood from his sayings), the matter remains that in his book he performed that ritual and he said that this is a useful "experience" and he helped him a lot e.t.c.

[Nacho]

What do you preffer? A 3-post thread about Saruman against Gandalf or a popular one?Ã, 

I prefer the subject this topic has created for, no matter if it will ended a 3-post or a 0-post. As i said, maybe there are people who want to discuss the subject i wanted to discuss, but they don't want to have an argument with all you that you don't believe in a Higher Power. Is it so hard to respect that? It seems that is for you (and for some others of course).

Apparently Christianism brings bad humour also... 

[SilverWizard_OTF]

I wasn't joking. Because you talk ironically and you don't respect the others ("prefer a Gandalf vs Voodoo lady discussion", "christianism brings bad humor", "you want to discuss about Gandalf against Saruman" e.t.c.) this doesn't mean that the others are also doing the same.

[Nacho]

It' s obvious that you are not joking... And that your are very sensitive... I will shut up now...  :'(

[Helm]

I suppose I was just disappointed that instead of reasoning with me concerning how forgiving despite a lack of repentance constitutes greater faith, you did what looked to me like a punt. "Well, if you can't see how that's true, then you're just not a good Christian."

But it's very embarassing for me because what I can only tell you - and remember I am a godless heathen that eats feces and marries goats! - to explain that you are not what I understand to be a good christian is.... study the Bible more.

Do you see why I wanted to avoid having to say this? Seeing how the christian faith is not important to me but is important to you, to recieve that sort of patronizing instruction by me would rightly seem infuriating.

I think the message of Christ's death is very clear as far as what forgiveness is and what unconditional love is, and I've written to you about this three times and running now and you seem to dodge it. What can I say? If you don't see how the ultimate sacrifice of Christ means a good christian (a person following Christ's example) should love everybody and forgive everybody... then look at your sources again until you do.


I am ashamed to cause you grief about this because for me it is an academic conversation: I hold no faith and I am moral (probably very similar morality to yours) without the need of gods, but for you it's probably a bigger deal to be told 'read the bible, lol!'.

[Mordalles]

Eeeer... Ok! 

One question... How can you find people forcing you to be Christian, if you are Christian?

It`s like a white guy in Alabama saying "I' ve never suffered racial problems..."

er . . . how would you or anyone else know I'm a Christian? I never said I was, nor did I say I was a Muslim or Atheist or anything else.    what i believe in is between me and myself.

you can see someone is physically white, but when somebody walks past you in the street you can't tell which religion he belongs to.

[MrColossal]

unless he's wearing really tight pants.

[Mordalles]

hehehe. 

[SilverWizard_OTF]

Note: Please answer only if you know and not for to tell "i don't believe in this e.t.c.", because there is no reason to tell that, since it won't offer any help.

For those who have searched and believe to that: About Spirit Guides, when i noticed that the two most famous version of this theory are:
1.) We have many Spirit Guides to protect us and we can contact with all of them
2.) There is one our personal Spirit Guide, which is different from our Guardian Angel, and also we can contact with him, be friends, but we should not reveal his name to other people (or spiritual entities).

Which one of these two do you find most near to the truth? And if you are also Christians, what do you have to say about Christianity's belief that any attempt to contact with such spiritual entities it is doomed to fail or it will make you to be trapped by daemons?