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

[Helm]

He taught this in parable (Matt. 15) and he taught this in plain words (Luke 17). I don't know where you've gotten this notion that God forgives sins with or without repentance. And I don't know if you're interested even the least in reading the Bible at this point, but since we're talking about it, I figured it was logical to refer to it.

How about when he forgave everyone before dying for their sins? Does that footnote hold any weight?

Forgiveness makes no sense

Makes no... sense? Are you approaching christianity with pragmatism in mind? It seems to me you desire to be an atheist much more than it originally was clear. THERE IS NO PRACTICAL USE in forgiving someone that doesn't want to be forgiven, but it makes all the difference for their immortal souls and yours (I am playing devil's advocate, but what can I do?). Christian doctorine makes no sense inherently. It says 'love your enemy' and 'forgive those that do not wish to be forgiven'. It makes me wonder on what sort of christianity you were brought up on. It must have been something different. Were we reading the same book, at least? I was brought up in a Christian Orthodox environment. Perhaps you are a protestant or strange catholic of some sort? We kiss pictures, you kiss statues! Let's have an orgy!

I'm going by what the Bible and Jesus himself appear to me to have taught. I'm also fairly certain that we don't understand the same thing by the word "faith."

How about when he forgave everyone before dying for their sins? Does that footnote hold any weight? It's in the bible somewhere. I think.

Yes, his standard is difficult. But in my opinion this is not Christ's standard that you're suggesting.

Okay. I understand that. I think your idea of christ's teachings is a very besides-the-point one, probably one that makes more sense to apply (forgive when it's needed, help when help is wanted) but one that severily disgraces the concept of christianity as I understand it. Love everybody, forgive everybody! Turn the other cheek and SMILE.

[Nacho]

It's great, some Christians say that the message is that God forgives us, some other think It won't, some think that believing is the key of being saved, some others think that God does not make blackmail...  And the list go on... It's really funny to see that most people believe in God and they don't have a clue of what It really says... 

[SSH]

Personally, I think Helm has a greater understanding of what he doesn't belive in than Erenan has of what he does believe in. Although my understanding is that Jesus forgave us by dying on the cross, rather than before dying on the cross.

Anyone who thinks that God's mercy is restricted to some set of neat rules clearly has missed the point. And anyone who thinks that forgiveness has to be accepted or acknowledged by the other party is obviously too young to have experienced real life. The point of forgiveness is that the other person doesn't deserve it! And forgiveness is more for the sake of the forgiver than the one forgvien. Families of murder victims in the US often don't get a sense of closure from the killer being executed, but rather when THEY let go of it. Which is another reason why the death sentence is so barbaric.

[Helm]

Yes I agree that by putting his money where his mouth was, he actualy forgave WHEN he died, although I'd say it would take huge balls just to say 'it's ok' to someone that is nailing you to the cross, but to the general point I think you are correct. Jesus was one awesome motherfucker.

[Nacho]

It' s amazing how the people still believes that Ieshua bar Iosef was "Jesus" the Son of God who hapilly walked to the cross for giving his life for us...

Ieshua bar Iosef was a Rabi, probably an ultra-orthodox nationalist Pharisee who was condemned by the Romans by acts of Nationalism and Sedition, whose life was changed into something "cool" and suitable for romans standards by Saint Paul, who also changed the reasons of his death, attributing them to the "evil Jews", and inventing a resurrection and a divinity that their actual original followers never knew about...

For me reading this of an adult person causes so stupor as reading that someone adult really believes in Santa Claus, and reading how he enumerates evidences such "Gifts appear in the houses in Christmas!!!"

Quick questions:

- Do you really think that if we educate a person following education rules based in moral and science, and, when he becomes an adult, we first talk him of "God, and his son Jesus" is he going to believe it?

Let' s be clear... probably not. Religion is told to kids for some reason... And to be honest, to put in the brain of the kids ideas based in folklore, with no rational evidence, just because the "faith" of the parents, for me it' s a conduct that thought in cold can fall into inmorality.

Second question:

If Jesus went to the cross as a sacrifice... Why the hell did he resurrected? Personally, for me, that's a complete shit of sacrifice. That's taking advantage of the knowleadge (he knew he was going to ressurect) and the power (He knew hoe to resurrect) to commit an empty and totally hypocrital sacrifice. The only rational reason for that is that, without the idea of resurrection, the whole idea of Christianity should have lasted like 2 weeks. So, resurrection basically is an act of propaganda.

Divine propaganda? Mmmm... if so, I am not going to join that God, sorry.
Human propaganda? 99,9999999999999999 % of possibilities that yeah... And I an not going to swallow it, either.

EDIT: I am re-reading the post and seems to be directed to SSH... I can' t know him just by the forums and IRC, but I think he is the nemesis of the inmorality. So, the commentary based of "it's an inmorality to educate kids in a lie" it' s not related to the parents who do this with the firm belive that it' s the best for the education of their kids, but in the others... and there will be of those, I am sure.

[Helm]

The historical truth about the person to whom the acts and teachings of Jesus are attributed to does not interest me very much, since I am discussing theology, morality and philosophy, and not history here, for one. If there's anyone that must bear the burden of the 'You christ didn't exist, lol!' that is the christians of this forum. I am content to discuss the Christ paradigm even though I don't think such a person existed and did the miracles attributed to him.

Because I don't know who this god thing is at all.


but I agree with you nacho on that the ressurection weakens the sacrifice, and that in the end if there wasn't a ressurection Christ would by just another martyr for a cause, just like oh, millions before and since, who would not be of much use as the figurehead of a religion. I mean, he'd do, but probably not for 2,000 years. The moral ramifications of this 'empty sacrifice' are... interesting, but besides the point that Christianity should be/is about full-on love and forgiveness to all.

[Babar]

It' s amazing how the people still believes that Ieshua bar Iosef was "Jesus" the Son of God who hapilly walked to the cross for giving his life for us...

Ieshua bar Iosef was a Rabi, probably an ultra-orthodox nationalist Pharisee who was condemned by the Romans by acts of Nationalism and Sedition, whose life was changed into something "cool" and suitable for romans standards by Saint Paul, who also changed the reasons of his death, attributing them to the "evil Jews", and inventing a resurrection and a divinity that their actual original followers never knew about...

I find it very odd that people use this argument. As if calling him Ieshua bar Iesof and politicising what he was supposed to have done makes him more 'normal' and makes what most christians believe a load of malarky. It's like correcting someone who mentions Adam and Eve by telling them, no, it's actually Adâm and Hawa, and they were 2 micro-organisms.

I don't think there is any mention of Jesus anywhere outside of religious texts. While what is written in the religious texts may be very, very unlikely, it is the only source of any of the events that could possibly have happened to Jesus. So while what is written in the Bible may be wrong, to make up (or assume from the basics) your own version is going to result in something just as wrong. If you insist on believing in Jesus, but completely discount all the texts, assuming that there must have been SOME guy who was the basis of all these stories, the most you can come up with is "He must have been an awesome guy".

I don't know about your quick question 1, Nacho, because it hasn't happened yet. It's pointless to assume. From what I know of the story of Abraham (despite how much this may mean to you), he searched and discovered without much provocation that there must be God. Then he went through worshipping the sun, moon and stars, before realising that God is more than that. But hey, it's just a story, right?

[Helm]

I don't think there is any mention of Jesus anywhere outside of religious texts. While what is written in the religious texts may be very, very unlikely, it is the only source of any of the events that could possibly have happened to Jesus.

That is such an awesome argument you present to us here. Because there's no mention of Jesus anywhere else than on the texts that later consisted of the Bible... they are... the best account of what... possibly... must... have... happened... to him.

[SSH]

Ieshua bar Iosef was a Rabi, probably an ultra-orthodox nationalist Pharisee who was condemned by the Romans by acts of Nationalism and Sedition, whose life was changed into something "cool" and suitable for romans standards by Saint Paul, who also changed the reasons of his death, attributing them to the "evil Jews", and inventing a resurrection and a divinity that their actual original followers never knew about...

You've said this before, but have never given any evidence. Anyone who believes "what some guy on the internet says" is surely even more gullible than us Christians?

Do you really think that if we educate a person following education rules based in moral and science, and, when he becomes an adult, we first talk him of "God, and his son Jesus" is he going to believe it?

Well, with modern secular society bringing kids up this way in the UK at least, we'll probably find out quite soon whether any of them get converted.

Let' s be clear... probably not. Religion is told to kids for some reason... And to be honest, to put in the brain of the kids ideas based in folklore, with no rational evidence, just because the "faith" of the parents, for me it' s a conduct that thought in cold can fall into inmorality.

I tell my daughter that she shouldn't pick up dirty things off the ground and put them in her mouth or she will get a sore tummy. I could try and explain the evidence for this assertion, and a detailed explanation of bacterial lifecycles, but she really wouldn't follow or be interested. Similarly, I don't explain freewill versus predestination to her or present evidence of ancient manuscritps and reliability of modern translations. I tell her what I believe to be true and important. I'm sure that athiest parents tell their children thigns that they believe to be true and important, too. What's the difference? The difference is your opinion of whether I am correct in my beliefs. I don't see how that affects whether I am being moral or ethical.

If Jesus went to the cross as a sacrifice... Why the hell did he resurrected? Personally, for me, that's a complete shit of sacrifice. That's taking advantage of the knowleadge (he knew he was going to ressurect) and the power (He knew hoe to resurrect) to commit an empty and totally hypocrital sacrifice. The only rational reason for that is that, without the idea of resurrection, the whole idea of Christianity should have lasted like 2 weeks. So, resurrection basically is an act of propaganda.

So an omnipotent God can do anything, right...? That's what omnipotent means. Oh, his son was killed, but he doesn't do anything about it? Oh, he doesn't want to bring him back to life in case some cynics say it was all a big fix. If it helps you, consider the agony of being nailed by the wrists to a bit of wood for hours to be the sacrifice rather than the death.

EDIT: I am re-reading the post and seems to be directed to SSH... I can' t know him just by the forums and IRC, but I think he is the nemesis of the inmorality. So, the commentary based of "it's an inmorality to educate kids in a lie" it' s not related to the parents who do this with the firm belive that it' s the best for the education of their kids, but in the others... and there will be of those, I am sure.

I don't have a high opinion of anyone who tells stuff as true to their kids that they don't believe is true themselves. I've already told my kids that Santa is just a story, and I tell them that Los Reyes Magos did come to visit baby Jesus with gifts.

[Pesty]

If Jesus went to the cross as a sacrifice... Why the hell did he resurrected? Personally, for me, that's a complete shit of sacrifice. That's taking advantage of the knowleadge (he knew he was going to ressurect) and the power (He knew hoe to resurrect) to commit an empty and totally hypocrital sacrifice. The only rational reason for that is that, without the idea of resurrection, the whole idea of Christianity should have lasted like 2 weeks. So, resurrection basically is an act of propaganda.

So an omnipotent God can do anything, right...? That's what omnipotent means. Oh, his son was killed, but he doesn't do anything about it? Oh, he doesn't want to bring him back to life in case some cynics say it was all a big fix. If it helps you, consider the agony of being nailed by the wrists to a bit of wood for hours to be the sacrifice rather than the death.

What Nacho is saying is not why it happened. If I was Jesus's mommy, I'd want to fix his boo-boos too. What he's saying is that it sort of takes away the validity, or at least some of the validity of his sacrifice since he knew he could come back all along. It's sort of unfair for Jesus to say "Hey, people, I'm dying for your sins! This is a very crucial and important thing I'm doing JUST FOR YOU!" and then come back to life a couple days later, like "Yeah, I was just joshin', dying isn't nothin' to me!"

[Babar]

That is such an awesome argument you present to us here. Because there's no mention of Jesus anywhere else than on the texts that later consisted of the Bible... they are... the best account of what... possibly... must... have... happened... to him.

Is there something illogical in what I say? I did not enforce the view that what was written about Jesus is true, just that the religious texts probably have greater precedence than any 'truer' account that can be completely made up from the 'false' one.

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.

[Sylvr]

"Hey, people, I'm dying for your sins! This is a very crucial and important thing I'm doing JUST FOR YOU!" and then come back to life a couple days later, like "Yeah, I was just joshin', dying isn't nothin' to me!"

However, Jesus was fully God, and fully a human man at the same time, so dying like that would've course been a huge deal. All the pain (I can provide details if you would like), plus the humiliation that went along with a crucifiction, would've been keenly felt by any human, and consequently God himself.

[SSH]

What he's saying is that it sort of takes away the validity, or at least some of the validity of his sacrifice since he knew he could come back all along.

Did he know? I'm not quite sure what orthdox (little O) theology is on this point, but I think that Jesus as a human was not himself omniscient...

[SilverWizard_OTF]

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.

A, and something else that it is not off-topic, because i have heard this also by a White Mage, actually for a strange reason, this belief that Jesus is reffered only to religious texts made him to follow magic and a wonder if many mages are affected by that. Anyway, Jesus as a person is reffered to MANY HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS. Roman, Jews (not Christians) and many other have reffered him to his writtings, of course not as a God, but as a person who indeed said that he is God. His existence fulfills all demands of history-crisitism to accept that aperson existed in the past. So, Jesus is ABSOLUTELY a historical person and his existence IS CONFIRMED BY HISTORY, whatever you say. Now if he is a God or he was only a human, that is another matter.

[Pesty]

What he's saying is that it sort of takes away the validity, or at least some of the validity of his sacrifice since he knew he could come back all along.

Did he know? I'm not quite sure what orthdox (little O) theology is on this point, but I think that Jesus as a human was not himself omniscient...

I dunno, I'm no Jesusologist. From what I thought I've heard, but I could be wrong because I don't care that much, Jesus gave his buddies some idea that he was going to come back after he died, and that he knew what was going to happen to him. I agree Jesus probably wasn't omniscient, but he always had angels yelling at him, maybe one of them told him. Angels like to yell about stuff all the time in the Bible.

[SilverWizard_OTF]

orthdox (little O)

Something typical: the word "orthdox" of course is with "little O", since it's a word that you evented, as i don't think it is written in any english vocabulary. But if you mean the word "orthodox", then it would be nice to show some respect and write him "Orthodox", as i write "White Magic" and "White Mages" and "Spiritualism", although i am a Christian You could edit that part of your reply and delete this branding that you made. Or may you want to edit that word "orthdox" and change it into "orthodox", insisting to your opinion. Of course it's up to you.

EDIT: Oh, ehm i see below Tuomas' explanation that you meant not Christian Orthodox but the actual word "orthodox", so that's why you said "little O". Ok, sorry for the incovinience, anyway, this joke that i made with word "orthdox" wasn't for to offend you, don't be insulted , it was just a request. Greetings!

[Nacho]

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. To make a quick brief:

- Romans were basically respectful with Religions, and, therefore, the "profets". Except if these profects inducted to insurrection, who were killed by crucifixion.
- The Jews were allowed to kill people, therefore, if they wanted to kill Jesus for what he was accused, they could have done it by lapidation.

So, all the trial in the Sanhedrin and the visit to Pilates is, from the historycal point of view, a joke. For me looks like a cheap trick in the storyline made by a bad scriper (let's say that there was a conspiration, ok? Sounds great!!!) If the Sanhedrin wanted to kill Jesus it could have been really easy to kill him with a sword in the middle of the desert, all that pantomime was unnecessary. Not only unncessary, but also very dangerous because it could have been unnefective.

For me it makes more sense that Jesus was an unltra orthodox who attacked the invaders and the collaborators as well, considering the Sanhedrin a doll in the hands of the invaders. How can a man like the one you worship say:

"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?)

or

"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?"

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.

[Tuomas]

orthdox (little O)

Something typical: the word "orthdox" of course is with "little O", since it's a word that you evented, as i don't think it is written in any english vocabulary. But if you mean the word "orthodox", then it would be nice to show some respect and write him "Orthodox", as i write "White Magic" and "White Mages" and "Spiritualism", although i am a Christian You could edit that part of your reply and delete this branding that you made. Or may you want to edit that word "orthdox" and change it into "orthodox", insisting to your opinion. Of course it's up to you.

orthodox: "Straight opinion." Conforming to established doctrines or beliefs. Opposite of heterodox, "different opinion."

I think he meant the word, not the religion...

Oh yeah, and that's from the hinduism dictionary, for orthodox. At least where I come from it's a word as much as a religions.

Furthermore: Orthodox . (Gr. "correct or true belief"). The common and official name used by the Greek Christians and Eastern Christian Church. The Orthodox Church maintains her belief that she alone has kept the true Christian faith, complete and unaltered.

this was from the site of some orthodox dictionary thing... http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9152.asp

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

[Erenan]

@SSH and Helm: It appears that I am caught between "you are not the good sort of Christian" and "you obviously are too young to understand," as well as between "of course it's not practical!" and "yes, it is practical, and here's why!" This is neither a position that I really care to defend nor one that really encourages me to continue talking about this issue. I feel that I've made my point and argued it fairly and reasonably well, and I stand by it, but I think I'm going to have to bow out at this point. I don't mean to guilt trip, and I understand it's generally a bad idea to take Internet discussions personally, but that's all the more reason I need to stop now, because it's not beneath me to get upset.

[Sylvr]

I think that Jesus as a human was not himself omniscient...

You can't really separate the fact that Jesus was completely God and completely man all at once, except to acknowledge it, if that makes any sense. The concept of being two things at once as Jesus was is truly mind-blowing. Since he was fully God, he had to have known what was going to happen. As a man, that allowed him to suffer fully, with the weight of the world's sin upon him and experience the emotional pain of rejection.