The Faith & Religion mega Thread

And, @business_kid, you have now accounted for "just a human life-span beyond AD." That's only the barest beginning. More than two thousand years have now elapsed since the period of time when Jesus – and every single person who claims to have seen or encountered Him – existed on this planet.

Once it became clear that Jesus "must have been understood somehow" when He said that some people within his hearing "would not taste death before I return" (Matt. 16:27-28), many very-interesting and thoroughly-political things happened during each of the ensuing centuries. And, it is precisely these things that are very important to me. These "subsequent developments" are, if I may say, far more relevant to "the Christian religion as we now know it" than anything which Christ personally did. (And exactly the same thing can be said, e.g, about The Buddha and Mohammad, for the same reasons.)

Even though religion is founded on almighty deities, "By God" it is an extremely human enterprise. And that is "the greater context" in which I personally choose to view it.

So, it simply comes down to this for me: "an unexamined 'faith' is probably not worth having." I've encountered too many "faithful" people whose "faith" was shaken to the core when they least expected it. To me, that's wrong.

But at the same time: "I believe that there is much more to our situation than can be detected by any of our human senses." Far be it from me to suggest that anyone else is "wrong," let alone "ignorant." One of the most important lessons that I see taught in the Christian Bible (New Testament) is to me a very, very profound one: "Do not sin against your brother. (Because: you can.) You can be dead-wrong even when you are "right." I never, ever want to do that.

I've heard that "still, small voice" myself. And I do not intend to even begin to "explain" it. I did not "hear it" through any of my senses.

I will never judge anyone else's faith. No matter what thing(s) s/he "has faith" in. And I must say that I've thoroughly enjoyed these discussions because I know that everyone here ... across now 10,666(!) posts ... understands this. Vivé la Internet!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Do not sin against your brother. (Because: you can.)

At least we can agree on that.

For the record, the fulfillment of Matthew 16:28 is in the succeeding verses, Matthew 17:1-9.

The fact is, if you keep an open mind, people will throw garbage into it. And since you appear open to a plethora of opinions, truth will be the casualty. Jesus answered questions on only one topic to Pontius Pilate, and Pilate's response was the question in John 18:38

There is truth. Jesus told us as much in Luke 18:8. Do you agree with Jesus? Is there truth? How can you find it?

Personally, I think that the accounts of Jesus' trial are probably mostly fabricated. The Romans seized him and executed him for insurrection, because he presented himself in Jerusalem as a king and was publicly lauded by the people – the "triumphal entry" with palm fronds and so forth. The Romans didn't tolerate this. They executed many other people before and since for this crime against their state. They would even crucify a common thief. Public executions were an everyday occurrence.

To the Romans, the local authorities, religious or otherwise, were simply "useful idiots" who quickly learned to toe the line. The Romans didn't put people to death at the request of the local priests, nor for any religious offense. They would not have conducted a trial like the one described. (Roman citizens could request a Roman trial, and even "appeal to Caesar," but the occupied people could not.) Pilate certainly would not "wash his hands of it," and he had no need to consult with his superior officer. They probably would not have scourged him if they had already decided to execute him – why bother.

The people who wrote these sensational scenes had one objective: they wanted to blame the whole thing on the Jews and on religion. But Jesus sealed his own fate in the eyes of the Romans when he entered the city claiming to be a returning king and was taken seriously by the people. That was a capital offense, and that's the only and sufficient reason why he was killed.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Personally, I think that the accounts of Jesus' trial are probably mostly fabricated.……

I wonder at this. Most of the "facts" you laid down are contradicted by scripture. Yet you are very lucid on other forums here. You know your stuff in linux. If you put ¼ of the effort into scripture that you put into linux, you would have a much different outlook.

@business_kid: You take "scripture" to be "the ultimate authority," and you accept it apparently without question, exactly as it is written down in that lengthy book. I don't do that. I am very skeptical, including about what is written in this book.

Jesus committed insurrection, as the Romans saw it, by claiming to be king. He was arrested and put to death, as were people before and since who made similar claims. As a Jew (non-Roman), he didn't have any rights under Roman law including the right to trial. The Romans didn't care what the Jews thought and they had no standing in Roman courts. Pilate wouldn't have done pretty much any of the things that he was said to have done: consulting with his superiors, offering anyone's release, or washing his hands. None of it. He would have been arrested without ceremony and put on the cross within a matter of hours, with a sign over his head describing his capital crime – "He said he was the King of the Jews."

The accounts instead describe it as a religious crime and "the revenge of the Jews" using the Romans as a proxy to carry out their wishes. That's simply not the way that it ever worked. The Jews were a conquered people. When, seventy years later, their rebelliousness got out of hand, their Temple was destroyed stone-by-stone.

Paul, a "fake Jew" if ever there was one, was about to be put to death when he announced that he was actually a Roman citizen by birth. Notice how everyone's approach to him immediately changed. He "appealed to Caesar" and that was granted, although we don't know how everything turned out in the end. A later text when he describes himself about to be "poured out as a drink offering" at the hand of Jewish authorities is almost certainly false: if he was a Roman citizen by birth, the Jews had no power over him and he wasn't really a Jew. He claimed to be a Pharisee but he couldn't have been one and he never talked like one. He was Roman, through and through.

I agree, I am a bit off-handed about laying out the facts in scripture, and I take your point that perhaps I should be less resolute.

OTOH, you seem intent on pushing most aspects away from any decisions. On the few occasions you have a firm opinion, it is inevitably negative towards inspired scripture. There's no end of expert validation of those trial accounts. We appear to be living in the time of the end, and decisions are sorely needed. When you look at folks who made it through similar past events, they had a few things in common:

• They believed the in fulfillment of prophecy or the word of a messenger.
• They responded by uprooting their lives and obeying instructions for survival.

You can't do that without firm opinions.

In the matter of Jesus trial,you need to know that

1. John had some contacts in the High Priest's house or in that circle.
2. Tiberius Caesar was paranoid (perhaps with good reason). He had expanded the law against treason to cover any insult to himself. I believe 'Injured Majesty' was the legal term they used.
3. For these reasons, anyone who wasn't pro-caesar was against him. Tiberius was fond of capital punishment for such ones.

So, in John 19:12-13 you can see Pilate turn from wanting to release Jesus, to having to kill him. This is because the (rather desperate) Pharisees & Sadducces were threatening to complain that Pilate was an enemy (= 'no friend') of Tiberius Caesar. The matter of his riding into Jerusalem didn't ruffle feathers as there were no weapons, and Jesus left again fairly quick as the crowds were leaving. He went straight to the Temple anyhow, which was off limits to Romans. Romans were no students of scripture.

Although not 100% accurate and not by JWs "The Trial" by Gordon Thomas is a reasonably good account of matters.

On a slightly different but not OT topic: Paganism.

It took just ≤50 years after the death of the last apostle for Christianity to go apostate, it seems. I am left amazed how Christians have been so faithful to pagan traditions. I grew up going to Mass every week as a Catholic, and looking at the back of priests who wore a 'cross' with a circle surrounded by rays. As soon as I met Jehovah's Witnesses and started thinking, it dawned on me that it was straight out of sun worship. So indeed it was, although that particular outfit has changed slightly.

Now I don't go running around churches 'symbol spotting,' and I'm sure others are better up than I am on this. But I have noticed or read of some pagan symbols which I will mention.

• The origin of the most crosses came from the letter T, which was a phallic symbol. But it was carried by a handle, hence the cross shape. The Romans used a single beam for executions as was normal. Even the Greek word translated "cross" actually means "stake."
• The Monstrance, requiring precious metals, is an obvious left-over from sun worship. There's no christian requirement for expense.
• The symbol of an 'X' with a P over it is another pagan symbol whose origin I forget.
• Likewise the "cHs" symbol.
• On sites like This one - the consecration of a bishop there are a bewildering array of symbols. Every form of cross, item of clothing, and particularly every symbol I recognise is of pagan origin.
• The bishop's miter(sp?) appears to be traceable right back to Dagon, the Philistine fish God.
• I believe the skull caps are not Jewish yamhakas but trace to a pagan source (although the Jewish attire may also).
• The images (2D &3D) of the 'Madonna' are identical to pre-christian goddess images to the extent that some Christians have worshipped the pagan ones in ignorance.
• Mary has been given titles: "Mother of God"; "Queen of heaven;" and others which were previously ascribed to pagan godesses.

I certainly see no Christian significance in any of this symbolism. For true Christianity as practised by Jesus, no special clothes or symbols were needed. Can anyone enlighten me on the pagan stuff? I don't want to grok Hislop's 'Two Babylons' again if I can avoid it. And What wcan we draw from the fact that people shook off Christianity in a few decades but have been faithful to paganism for millenia? It certainly makes the existence of an 'anti-god' or devil more credible.

Depends on interpretation of paganism: is the Egyptian ankh a pagan symbol? Or a scarab? Or the golden disk representing Ra?

Even on the tomb of Hezekiah, who is described biblically as one of the most righteous kings of Judah and as one who cracked down on paganism, ankhs were found, as well as on the LMLK pottery seals manufactured during his reighn, along with golden orbs and scarabs.

Apparenly these symbols were not pagan enough to be reformed during Hezekiah's reformation. Yahweh commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply". Thus celebrating fertility is not in and of itself pagan idolatry. Neither is celebrating the sun, which according to this "expert," was often chosen as a symbol to represent Yahweh.

Just because a symbol has non-judaic / non-christian sources doesn't automatically make it pagan (in this Judeo-Christian perspective), and the use of such a symbol doesn't make one guilty of idolatry. Rather, it is whether or not the underlying meaning of the symbol is contrary to Judeo-Christian doctrine.

Clearly, in the case of Hezekiah, an ankh was exempt from reform.

Originally Posted by business_kid [*]The symbol of an 'X' with a P over it is another pagan symbol whose origin I forget.[*]Likewise the "cHs" symbol.

I agree that a lot of Roman Catholic symbolism is pagan in origin but you won't find much of that sort of thing in protestant churches. And the Chi-Rho symbol that you describe isn't pagan at all. Chi (looking like a capital X) and rho (looking like P but actually an R) are simply the two Greek letters that begin the word "Christos" (anointed one or messiah or Christ). Similarly IHS are the first three Greek letters of the name Jesus. The "H" is a long E.

This is an area where I'm trying to draw on other people's knowledge, not sound off about my own. So I don't want this to be about my standards.

EDIT: I don't want to dodge direct questions either, I suppose. I would be guided by passages like Deut. 4:15-20

Many "pagan" holidays were co-opted by Christian replacements ... including both Christmas and Easter. (The latter of which occurs on different days every year due to the sun and the moon.) Remember that the Christian religion was being installed as a replacement "state religion" within the Roman Empire. Any festivals pertaining to the deposed former religion had to be replaced. This also happened in other parts of the world.

As I've emphasized before, "religion and [state ...] politics are joined at the hip." You cannot meaningfully talk about one without the other. The notion that the United States would not have an "official state religion" was at the time unheard-of. Believe whatever you like for whatever reasons you may have, but always be aware of this. "Some of it comes from your (G|g)od, and some of it doesn't."

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs "religion and [state ...] politics are joined at the hip."

Can't you stop repeating this? In general I agree with you, and nobody is really contesting it. Why repeat it? It also gives me the job of pointing out that JWs are the exception that proves the rule. Whereas we respect all State institutions, we are strictly neutral. I'll spare folks a list of examples, and you spare us the 'joined at the hip' lecture.

Originally Posted by business_kid The fact is, if you keep an open mind, people will throw garbage into it.

That's ok: mind is a flux capacitor!

@business_kid: What does anything that I have said, have anything(!) to do with "Jehovah's Witnesses?" While I have become aware that you of this particular persuasion, what of this leads to the notion that "you have the job of pointing out ..." anything at all? Why did your pronouns suddenly become "we" and "us?"

Everything that I say in this forum is meant to be neutral. When I say, for example, that "religion and politics are joined at the hip," I mean exactly(!) that. I speak of no religion –*including but not limited to yours. "Likewise, I speak of no participant!"

So: "you don't have any 'job' at all." And neither does anybody else.

My comments, although frequently made in response to you posts, are never(!) "directed at you, nor to the particular religion to which you subscribe." This must at all times remain perfectly clear – to you, and to our audience. I think that everyone in this 10,679-post thread really does understand each other.

After all: what are the two most-human aspects of "human relations?" Yes: (1) religion – the relations of humans versus their chosen god, and (2) politics – the relations of humans versus each other. It cannot be any surprise to anyone that these two things are, as I say, objectively "joined at the hip." As you well know, the Vatican City has embassies for most nations on this planet. "Yes. That powerful!"

Please do not therefore consider that I am ever "challenging" either you or the Jehovah's Witnesses, and so do not feel that you must ever jump to defend it. We are "ships that pass in the night" on this point, mutual self-appointed philosophers with no mutual boundaries to defend.

(I invite you to message me privately if you feel any further need to do so. I do not feel the need to reach out privately to you, and I would not have it be discussed publicly.)

Jesus Christ, is my King and Redeemer. I knew from an early age [14]
that I was a flawed person and thus my acceptance of both the Bible,
Christianity and Christ.

All Glory to Him !