Sunday, January 17, 2010

When the roll is called up yonder I'll be there

What was the goal of the early church? Profit? Sure there is a lot of money generated today because of Christianity. Movies, books, CD's and DVD's etc. But many of those early Christians left real jobs for no jobs. Some early Christians even began to give away there money and sell off some of there possessions. And that money went directly to those who had less, not the church Pastors who usually just got room and board, as they travelled and taught and preached in the temples and in peoples homes. Then of course what good would it do if you did get super rich off of this new religion if you couldn't live to spend it?

Christianity could not have been a very wise decision if it meant you had to give up your money, possessions, friends and in some instances family and life as you knew it. Especially taking into account that it wasn't very safe to practice this new religion. I just don't see what advantage it was to call yourself a Christian back then?

What motivates a Christian today? Profit? Sure, I'm sure many do it as a job only? But I would also say that most Believers have less money because of their faith. Many tithe, or give to missions. Many Christians spend 5,6,7 thousand dollars a year putting their kids in Catholic or Christian schools. Not to mention how much time we spend away from work because we are doing something at/for the church.

Can the Christian actually have a noble reason to try to convince you to turn to God? We don't want your money or possessions. We all share the same things in this world, joy, sorrow, pain, sickness, happiness, good times and bad.

We want to rejoice with you when you accept Christ and become part of the Church. We want to share our future in God's glory with you. We want you to taste his love, like we have. We want you to realize that the Creator of this world desires a relationship with you. We want you to have hope in Christ and for his return. Instead of at best, becoming food for buzzards and maggots.

Christians still struggle in this world, we share the same problems as everyone else. But they don't seem to be as important knowing we have an advocate who is rooting for us and desires for us a glorious future. Christians are just a bunch of nomads passing through this world until his return. So while I'm waiting and ain't got anything better to do, I'll try to convince some of my friends to join me for a ride of a lifetime?

Late, feeno

30 comments:

  1. The origins of the church and Christianity are interesting. Sigh.

    To properly talk about Constantine and the development of the first Christian Empire is long and sordid. But, the Bible and Christianity were designed to allow people to split off from Judaism. Jewish people were the biggest political threat to the Roman Empire, and they used this as a means of creating a dichotomous population with a common enemy. There is way more to it, but again, do some research. You will find what you need.

    Again, the Bible and Christianity were a political movement with a unique contextual history. I really do not understand why people fail to see this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jewish people were the biggest political threat to the Roman Empire

    Buah-ha-ha-ha! You mean to tell me that a bunch of Jewish seperatists in a backwater part of the Roman Empire were more of a threat than the Visigoths and Goths? Link. You clearly are as ignorant of history as your are concerning religion. In order to support your assertion, please proivide a study from a credible historian to support your above assertion. (Not an atheist internet cesspool)

    Feeno, a great man once put it thusly. "If Christianity is not true then it is a massive fraud and hoax perpetrated by evil men bent on making the world a place where Christ’s commandment to ‘Love thy neighbor’ reigns supreme, which is the antithesis of the criminal mind, and hence the theory that Christianity is a fraud is entirely incompatible with logic and human nature."

    Dr. D. James Kennedy

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you mean the early Christians who wrote the Gospels, I'd have to disagree. Most of them, by the definition of their literacy, had to be wealthy upper class citizens of Greece!

    The Jesus in the Gospel Mark is an apocalyptic prophet who is expecting God's coming kingdom before his time on earth is up. There are even signs that Jesus was surprised and unsuspecting of his impending doom.

    It's not until the later Gospels, especially John, written 70 years after Christ's death (at the earliest) describes a Jesus who foresees his impending doom. Now we have a divine figure instead of a prophet. My how the times change.

    My point is, the only reason Jesus said to give up all your things and follow him with no thought of tomorrow was because he truly believed time was limited, that there would likely be no tomorrow! If you believe that, it's sort of like the guy who tries to bamboozle a hot chick into having sex with him because the world is going to end.

    So yeah, I'm sure there was a superstitious lot who followed his lead, but I would say these people just didn't think things through. After all, the kingdom Jesus spoke about never came to pass. Theologians have changed the properties of it saying is was a "spiritual" kingdom Jesus was talking about, whatever this should mean.

    But then this idea contradicts Jesus' teachings about the physicality of relinquishing one's material goods and giving up on caring about caring for tomorrow or planning for the future. So as nice as that might sound in a theological setting, it's pure conjecture which only *barely does a decent job at reconciling a huge conundrum for Christians, and goes against the grain of Jewish thought on the subject.

    @JD-

    The call to 'Love thy neighbor' existed 500 years prior to Jesus when Confucius said it first, sorry to say. It's Christians who are criminal when they pretend to have such perfect moral teachings yet rarely ever take heed of them. It's worse when they act deluded and pretend it's the *only moral teachings. That's just ignorance speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JD, that bunch of Jewish separatists eventually swayed the Emperor Constantine and ultimately the Empire. For those politicians who were used to a populace worshipping Jupiter, it would have been like the US government watching its President convert to a new Islamic sect and then drag the whole country with him. A perceived national threat in the eyes of such politicians at some stage in the process, no?

    D. James Kennedy was quick to judge those who hypothetically perpetrated the hoax. If a fraud is for the good of the world, are the fraudsters necessarily evil? Perhaps they saw their own violation of the "false witness" Commandment as a personal sacrifice they had to make, if indeed they believed the Commandments were any more divine than the hypothetically ordinary man Jesus, or even as important as his new teachings.

    Feeno, the early goal of the Christian church is the same as the goal of the modern Christian church: the survival and growth of the Christian church. Its most important two instructions to its members are:
    1. Stay Christian.
    2. Make more Christians.
    Only then does it get to the behavioural stuff, like not murdering. As you probably tell the kids at your meetings, "grace" or being "saved" trumps good works every time.

    It's no mystery why devout Christians stay Christians despite the hardships of being a Christian: they feel they must, and pros and cons don't enter into it. Is there any hardship, any event on this planet besides concrete proof of a different religion's truth claims, which would give you a good reason to stop being one?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @JD- I do not have anything to prove to you. Do your own research, for once learn something outside of your little, middle aged, propaganda world. You are pathetic, and I really do not care what you have to say. How is the last 50 pounds going? Thought so.

    Feeno, do the research. Read, it is all there. I can privately send you a link if you are interested. I will not publicly do it, because it would be good for others to do it for themselves. The fact is, Christianity was born of human conflict - the conflict between the imperialism of the Roman Empire and the self-perceived entitlement of the ancient Jewish culture, resulting in Roman attempts at manipulation of religious forces in Judea.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And, actually "Love Thy Neighbour" actually was also said in the Old Testament, which predated JC. "Love thy neighbour as thyself.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:18)" But, I clearly know nothing of history or religion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To the rest of you, check out the link that JD posted, worth a laugh. I would say that 99% of what we all are saying is over his head. And, he has the nerve to suggest that I use a credible historian when he considers that to be credible himself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Jesus in the Gospel Mark is an apocalyptic prophet who is expecting God's coming kingdom before his time on earth is up

    Would you mind actually substantiating a claim of your's for a change? Beginning with this one?

    It's not until the later Gospels, especially John, written 70 years after Christ's death (at the earliest) describes a Jesus who foresees his impending doom

    Source?

    The call to 'Love thy neighbor' existed 500 years prior to Jesus when Confucius said it first, sorry to say. It's Christians who are criminal when they pretend to have such perfect moral teachings yet rarely ever take heed of them

    Outstanding Vickster. Now please tell me who predates..

    A. "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44), and

    B. The idea that our thoughts constitute sin (Isaiah 59:7)

    and I'll really be impressed. Insert the sound of CV scrambling for richarddawkins.net here.

    that bunch of Jewish separatists eventually swayed the Emperor Constantine and ultimately the Empire

    Since I'm sure youre aware that Constantine fought the battle of the Milvian bridge in the year 312, how did you determine that the labarum that Constantine reportedly saw in the sky prior to the battle was that of "Jewish seperatists" rather than the Christian church that had already been in existance for well over 275 years?

    It's no mystery why devout Christians stay Christians despite the hardships of being a Christian: they feel they must, and pros and cons don't enter into it

    Balderdash. If the accounts/historical records/testimonies of the early Christian church are examined using the same criteria that other ancient documents are measured by credible historians and archeologists, then the claims made by Christianity are as readily acceptable as those made in other historical documents.

    JD- I do not have anything to prove to you

    TRANSLATION: I am comfortable in my bias and I cannot support my above assertion

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Jews were no threat to Rome, but Rome was a threat to the Jews. The Jews lost their homeland, and it is arguably their time in diaspora (following the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD) combined with the teachings of Jesus being adapted by a highly literate gentile (Paul) which allowed Christianity to spread beyond Judaism.

    I think the reason is succeeded to gain momentum in Rome was its adoption by the nobility, and eventually Emperors. The idea of a singular power was very attractive to the Roman mind, I imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JD, I misunderstood "Jewish separatists" as Christians - the sense that they separated from the Jews, not Rome.

    ...the claims made by Christianity are as readily acceptable as those made in other historical documents.

    Usually rationalisation after the fact, even if true. How much of that stuff did you know when you first began to believe? Feeno didn't know diddly, and didn't need it. I had to chase it down when I started to seriously question Christianity, even after a full Christian upbringing.

    It may be a reason to believe, whether good or not, but most of the time it's something believers learn about later, as armour and ammunition. It's not in most Sunday schools' curricula, and not many go questing for it like Josh McDowell. It may be a reason, but it's not why.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyway, JD, I think you're responding to an attack where there really isn't one.

    The reason devout Christians feel they must stay Christian is that, for one reason or another, they believe. They really think they have to die Saved(tm) to go to Heaven, so it makes no difference whether it's easy or hard to live as a Christian. That's all I meant. Any hardship is worth eternal life in Heaven, if it's there and if that's really the road to it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @JD

    TRANSLATION: I am comfortable in my bias and I cannot support my above assertion

    TRANSLATION- Call it what you will... I not only can assert my above assertion, but here is the catch. You are nothing, and not worth it. You need to read for yourself, like the rest of us do and did.

    Just curious. How did you get at the establishment of the Christian Church at 275 years earlier... Let me guess, you count 0 AD as the start. But, historians do not do that. The first Christian Empire is dated by historians at 313-476.

    @ Ginx- You are right, sorta... As the Empire began to grow, they began to futher marginalize them. And, they were always a political threat to the Romans- that is why it was so important in the death of JC to show that the Jewish Council ordered his execution.

    Neverthless, as the Empire began to grow, Christianity offered an answer: the Church called individuals out of the nations and offered them salvation in the form of a life beyond the grave. The Gentiles (as the Church called them) embraced original sin, which to them simply meant the sin of having been born Gentile, that is, to a culture doomed to extinction. (The Jews, who think of themselves as an eternal people, were having none of it).

    And, pagans also factored into the political position, which politically became its greatest weakness. Because Christianity's salvation is promised when you die, the canonization of the Bible required that they provide people with tangible ideas; they ended up humanizing myths of God, with a humanized mother and saints. Christianity allowed the pagans to continue to worship their own image. Germans worship a blond Jesus, Spaniards worship a dark-haired Jesus, Mexicans worship the dark Virgin of Guadalupe, and so forth. The result, is that Christians "are forever torn between Jesus and [the medieval pagan hero] Siegfried".

    At the political level, Christianity sought to suppress Siegfried in favor of Christ through the device of the universal empire, the suppression of nationality by the aristocracy and Church. The lid kept blowing off the pot. Just when the Habsburgs brought the universal empire to its peak of power in 1519 under Charles V, controlling Austria, Spain and the Netherlands, Germany revolted under the banner of Reformation. There followed a century and a half of religious wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) that wiped out more than half the population of Central Europe. France under Cardinal Richilieu (See The Sacred Heart of Darkness, Asia Times Online, February 11, 2003) gave a fatal twist to the Christian idea. Instead of universal empire, the French nation would be the standard-bearer for Christendom, such that French national interests stood in place of divine providence.

    All Europe caught the French disease, substituting the warrior Siegfried for the crucified God. Christianity's inner pagan ran amok. A second Thirty Years War (1914-1944) gave unlimited vent to Europe's pagan impulses and drowned them in blood. There was still hope that Europe still would embrace its Jewish population as a counterweight against its destructive pagan self. It never occurred to the Christian Church that Europe would choose destruction and take its Jews with it. Siegfried triumphed over Christ during World War I. No shred of credibility was left in the Christian idea of souls called out of the nations for salvation beyond the grave. In 1914 Europe's soldiers still fought under the illusion of a God that favored their nation. Germany fought World War II under the banner of revived paganism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To geek it up real easy Feeno- Christians and Christian Empire= Darth Vader and Death Star. Jews and Pagans= Rebel Alliance. And, Star Wars taught us nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tink

    May the force be with you.

    feen

    ReplyDelete
  16. You too....
    I respect Christians who have properly looked at history, placed the Bible within its actual political context, and are actually intelligent enough to become critical of what they see and hear, or at least humble enough to admit that they do not know. And, if they can do all this and maintain their faith- power to them. I completely believe in informed choices.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How much of that stuff did you know when you first began to believe?

    I admit that I hadnt been aware of the widespread depth of skepticism out there until only the last couple of years, especially in North America. I've since examined my faith in greater depth and I come away with a belief that is more firm and solid every time I do so.

    One can get their answers from sources that are either so-so or absolutely brilliant. There are numerous theologians and seminary profs writing all types of books and articles that examine nearly any question about the Christian faith you can think of. There are always going to be a few fringe scholars out there, putting forward every manner of wild and foolish theories. One must ask if these pet theories of theirs are mainstream or not and might they have an agenda for doing so. Shelby Spong comes to mind.

    It's not in most Sunday schools' curricula, and not many go questing for it like Josh McDowell

    Interestingly enough, I was thinking about emailing a seminary prof about McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict to ask them what they thought about it. I might buy it. Did you ever examine it?

    The reason devout Christians feel they must stay Christian is that, for one reason or another, they believe

    OK. I would say there are some who critically examine their faith and others much less so. They might have been brought up in their faith and have no idea who Hitchens or Harris is and thus arent enticed by their "faux rationality".

    They really think they have to die Saved(tm) to go to Heaven, so it makes no difference whether it's easy or hard to live as a Christian

    The "have to die saved" part I tink is a reference to an Arminian tenet (Check out #5 and tell me if that is what you are referring to). I don't adhere to that though and I much prefer Calvinism.

    I would also add that I don't know how many Christians (here in the West) there would be tomorrow if they had to face even half of the persecution that Christians face in other parts of the world.

    I not only can assert my above assertion, but here is the catch. You are nothing, and not worth it. You need to read for yourself, like the rest of us do and did

    The way these things usually work Tink-bot, is that when asked to provide corroborating evidence for a wild assertion such as your "Jewish people were the biggest political threat to the Roman Empire" gem, it's usually given right away and then we go on from there. Your lack of providing any speaks for itself. You would think that one credible historian would have been cited by now. And no, "Gandolf" doesnt count unless he reveals himself to be an actual historian rather than a warlock's apprentice.

    How did you get at the establishment of the Christian Church at 275 years earlier... Let me guess, you count 0 AD as the start. But, historians do not do that. The first Christian Empire is dated by historians at 313-476

    The point was that Christianity had already been in existance over 275 years before Constantine even fought the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD against Maxentius for control of Rome. I subtracted 33 from 312, being that many cite the "birthday" of the Christian church as the Day of Pentecost which is commonly cited as having occurred in 33 AD, fifty days after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

    I was dating the existance of the Christian church, not any "empire'.

    I think the rest of your post is "opinion' and revisionist history at it's best. Of the remainder of your post, what is it's strongest argument?

    But please try to assert your earlier claim first.

    Where's Tristin Vick?

    ReplyDelete
  18. JD, an Australian blogger recommended More Than a Carpenter by McDowell. Being in DC at the time I easily picked it up for five dollars. I get the feeling it was the wrong choice, because it mostly consists of the final sentences of other people's favourable conclusions on the subject without any of the material leading up to them.

    The multiple Verdict books, I hear, are more like reference texts than books to read cover to cover. Opinions, of course, are divided.

    I've had some of the McDowell/Strobel/Habermas historical-cred arguments sent to my site regularly since before the overhaul. I look into them as they come in.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Again JD.... I have nothing to offer you. Read for yourself like the rest of us have. I am not here to teach you. Instead of demanding evidence from me, and you yourself are so fond of providing references to Wikipedia, or some other crap like the link that you posted, READ A BOOK FOR A CHANGE... Or here is a wild idea, take history, art history classes just for the fuck of it. People do not get pegged as "Christ Killers" for nothing, perhaps you may actually want to read some Jewish history. Or, wait, anything outside of your Googled, Americanized, Patriotic, Uncle Sam Education might just do. I really do not care if you see what I wrote as revisionist history. That is why you remain ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I see you blogging tink, but all I'm hearing is a loud Screeeech akin to nails scratching a chalkboard. after 3 attempts you still wont back up your earlier statement with something that resembles a quote or article from a credible historian. I guess I might as well stop asking. I was uninformed that, "Just like, trust me, okay?" was acceptable as rebuttal in these types of discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here is a link, if anyone is interested, from a noted Jewish scholar. It is a long, but concise history of how Christianity and Judaism have had an antagonistic relationship over the centuries. A pretty good read, but long.

    http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/church/persecution/persecution.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks Sir Tink-a-lot. Only took 3 tries. does it go into depth about the Romans?

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The article is not for you. You will not find what you are looking for. I posted it for other people so that they can read it themselves. Look for the answer yourself. But, let me guess, you cannot find it for yourself, judging from what you have posted yourself. You need me to spoon feed you. You will not find it in that article. I would never give you what you are asking for.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tink?! Babydoll! What's going on here? I thought we were having a discussion. Heck, I even gave you the honor of being the first blogger I ever directly quoted and gave their own thread over on my blog. We were a TEAM! Oh well, ya can't have everything. Where would you put it?

    ReplyDelete
  26. JD-

    I substantiate the majority of my claims on my blog. You have to be willing to research the material for yourself. I can't spoon feed you what has been general knowledge for the past 300 years of Biblical studies.

    So I'm speaking as an semi-informed layman on the subject of Biblical history, but I do have professors, theologians, and Biblical historians commenting on my blog, so if that doesn't convince you that I am at least knowledgeble in this area then you'll have nothing to worry about!

    Yet if you're serious about the Bible and the history of your faith, you may want to check out my sources by reading my exegesis when I write academic level papers on scripture. And if you don't think the slew of citations I leave in my wake are credible, then the burden is up to you to explain why.

    But I'm happy to share with you a couple of excellent lists that I have read a lot of. If you want to read many of books I have read, try this list:

    http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/study_list.htm

    Also (even as some materials are overlapping) try this list:

    http://earlychristianreligion.org/bibliography.htm

    I've read a large portion of these books. That's validation enough. If you want specific page numbers and footnotes I can reference them all just fine, but I do that a lot on my more technical papers, so I don't see why I should repeat it all here. After all, I expect you to be familiar with the critical theories and historical trends of Christianity if you're going to take the opposition and debate with me.

    I mean, I can't argue with you if you don't know what you're talking about. And furthermore, if you're unwilling to engage the material, then how can I convince you my sources are trustworthy when you haven't even taken the time to look at them for yourself? So, review some of these books, and that will be a start.

    I suggest that you try and pick at least five books from each list, or ten from one list, read them, and your faith should be strengthened. That's what I did at first.

    Certainly your understanding of Jesus and early Christianity will be broadened. What do you have to lose?

    Happy researching!

    I've already discussed Matt. 5:44 in my post:

    http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2009/11/imperfect-and-immoral-teachings-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you Tristan, when it comes to him, you always do much better.

    I too can back up anything I say. However, when I see something that I do not believe, do not understand, or do not have much information about, I do not whine on four threads demanding a source. I have not gotten to where I am by demanding that those that challenge me to provide a source. That being said, you are fond of quoting Wikipedia yourself, so you clearly have alot to learn about extracting your own information. I get the answers myself, and then bring them to the table. That is how you debate, and part of that is learning how to broaden and deepen your own knowledge for the next time that the argument presents itself. Maybe, the next time you will have something to add....

    That being said, Tristan is correct. You need to start reading to deepen your faith. If I was choosing to be Christian, I would be reading everything that I could get my hands on to ensure that my belief was properly informed. Not just looking at the Bible, but other sources of history such as Islamic, and Jewish points of view. In order to understand the complexity of the Death Star and the Imperial Order, you also need to see what the Rebel Alliance is fighting for.

    Good luck

    ReplyDelete
  28. The trick is talking to JD as if he were his mental age, not his chronological age... and assume that nothing you say will sink in.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, I know. What is his mental age as opposed to his chronological age? And, yes, like I said... You can lead JD to water, but he will not drink. Might get better results with beer and pork rinds.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Chronological age: mid 40's
    Mental age: 12
    Victorian age: 1837-1901

    ReplyDelete