What do you REALLY believe?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Ya, okay. What I meant was that I was the only one that went with the Christianity, Islam, Judaism option. 

That's okay.  You can be a follower of the Abrahamic God, AND a Discordian.  We won't kill you for it.

The other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ya, okay. What I meant was that I was the only one that went with the Christianity, Islam, Judaism option. 

That's okay.  You can be a follower of the Abrahamic God, AND a Discordian.  We won't kill you for it.

The other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.

[The Wizard]

The other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.

And in the process, screwing up the beliefs they are supposed to believe in. Funny that.

[Telarus]

Yeah, well, see the TFYS,S thread about Grade 5 Syndrome:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21062.0

[Elezar th Apostate]

How the hell did I get in here?  Where's the toilet?  Oh!  Sorry!

What do I really believe?  I believe that everything in the space-time universe must have an explanation for its existence, so there must be at least one explanation, for the existence of the whole shebang, somewhere outside of the space-time continuum.  Out there, it can have no size, shape, location, or motion, no outside or inside, no number (nix the multiplicity)--'cause its "outside" of space.  It can have no beginning or end, no change, no events, no action, no transition--'cause it's "outside" of time.  Whatever explains the universe is closer to the Brahman than to any of the Hindu deities.  We may call it "the Grand Mystery" or "spirit", but I don't think it'll match up well with any deity from any holy book or mythology.

But since everything including we ourselves come from that source of all being, isn't it to be expected that we all would seek to know that thing, and share it with each other when we think we've found it?  Isn't it just like us to make a bunch of religions based on different visions of the one Grand Mystery and then kill each other off for not believing the same way?  I mean, ain't that why we're Erisians?  It's like God says in that Randy Newman song, he says, "...that's why I love mankind!"

Elezar the Apostate

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.

And in the process, screwing up the beliefs they are supposed to believe in. Funny that.

[Triple Zero]

What do I really believe?  I believe that everything in the space-time universe must have an explanation for its existence, so there must be at least one explanation, for the existence of the whole shebang, somewhere outside of the space-time continuum.

(emphaseses added)

that does not logically follow.

doesn't mean it's untrue, but you cannot logically draw that conclusion ("so") from just the beliefs you stated.

Out there, it can have no size, shape, location, or motion, no outside or inside, no number (nix the multiplicity)--'cause its "outside" of space.  It can have no beginning or end, no change, no events, no action, no transition--'cause it's "outside" of time.  Whatever explains the universe is closer to the Brahman than to any of the Hindu deities.  We may call it "the Grand Mystery" or "spirit", but I don't think it'll match up well with any deity from any holy book or mythology.

But since everything including we ourselves come from that source of all being, isn't it to be expected that we all would seek to know that thing, and share it with each other when we think we've found it?

again, your last conclusion does not logically follow. doesnt mean it's untrue again, maybe it is to be expected (by who is another question), but you gave no reason to assume so.

Isn't it just like us to make a bunch of religions based on different visions of the one Grand Mystery and then kill each other off for not believing the same way?

for example, this could be a result of originating from that One Thing, just as well. in fact, as long as I go along with (my personal idea of) that one thing hypothesis, I believe it is (a result).

[Elezar th Apostate]

Triple Zero, everything you say is true, at least I won't be picky.  This illustrates most superbly the uselessness of logic in philosophical discussion.  It invariably requires the discussion be restricted to the parameters of approved logical forms, and those forms are, often, incapable of taking any discussion anywhere beyond the statement of fact.  If you wish to understand what I'm saying, I can go into more detail on the first point.  You can also look up the article by Bran th' Blessed at Witchvox (he only submitted one thus far).  If you are a skilled sophist, you may always be able to argue against any conclusion, or for it as may please you, but if it becomes more important to find fault than to find truth, you will find only what you seek.

I'm a mystic and a poet.  I tell you only what I believe.  It's up to you to accept or reject it.  I've done my part by putting it out there.  If you feel there may be something of value to you in what I've written, ask me to clarify certasin points and I will.

Thanks for reading and responding to my post.
Elezar the Apostate

[The Wizard]

Hello Elezar. Interesting belief structure.

[P3nT4gR4m]

My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.

I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc

If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.

I totally agree, but Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said,so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was
1] real
2] God's son
3] a saucy sailor
4] an alien plant OR
5] a fucking cabbage

Don't matter whether he lived or died, was a swinger or a celibate, screwed Mary Magdalen or screwed in a lightbulb, It really just does not matter

It matters absolutely to his followers. They know nothing of philosophy. Superhuman powers is the only language they understand.

Jesus = Gods son and magical superninja with recover from dead, walk on water and transmutation superpowers.

If jesus had not these powers and you could somehow prove it, irrefutably*, christianity would collapse.

Anything christ is reported to have said in the bible (other than thou shalt/shalt not) is filtered out by the believer. It's just a set up to a punchline which is always along the lines of "Then Jesus dids't wave his hands, all mystical and shit, and lo a bunny didst appear from the hat"

That's the only important bit - the magical powers. Without them jesus would have no authority, therefore the guys he left in charge would have no authority, therefore they would not obey their masters.

*irrefutable proof is impossible in this situation since christians are programmed to ignore both irrefutable proof and simple logic. It's like trying to force an amputee to shake your hand.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.

I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc

If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.

I totally agree, but Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said,so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was
1] real
2] God's son
3] a saucy sailor
4] an alien plant OR
5] a fucking cabbage

Don't matter whether he lived or died, was a swinger or a celibate, screwed Mary Magdalen or screwed in a lightbulb, It really just does not matter

It matters absolutely to his followers. They know nothing of philosophy. Superhuman powers is the only language they understand.

Jesus = Gods son and magical superninja with recover from dead, walk on water and transmutation superpowers.

If jesus had not these powers and you could somehow prove it, irrefutably*, christianity would collapse.

Anything christ is reported to have said in the bible (other than thou shalt/shalt not) is filtered out by the believer. It's just a set up to a punchline which is always along the lines of "Then Jesus dids't wave his hands, all mystical and shit, and lo a bunny didst appear from the hat"

That's the only important bit - the magical powers. Without them jesus would have no authority, therefore the guys he left in charge would have no authority, therefore they would not obey their masters.

*irrefutable proof is impossible in this situation since christians are programmed to ignore both irrefutable proof and simple logic. It's like trying to force an amputee to shake your hand.

This is the correct donkey that has been tied up, which no one has ridden. 

As an ex fundie, I concur with P3Nt's view... if it became, somehow, irrefutably obvious that the scriptures were in ANY WAY errant, it would destroy a number of different faiths (assuming we could get past their cognitive dissonance). For example, Jesus performed miracles for two reasons: First, and most important it showed that God was with Jesus, much like Moses coming to the Israelites after seeing the Bush. YHVH gave Moses magic powers to give himself leprosy and turn his walking stick into a snake. All of this was to provide direct evidence that this WAS God's representative on Earth. Secondly, Jesus whole life had to be a fulfillment of numerous 'prophecies' (or at least what later Church Fathers deemed to be prophecies) to prove that he was the Messiah.

Further, most Fundies hold the scripture in Peter sacrosanct: All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial for Teaching, Reproving, Setting Things Straight.. etc etc. I didn't quote it precisely. Anyway, this means that ANY 'error', exaggeration, hyperbole or tall tale in the Bible would mean either ALL SCRIPTURES are not inspired, or occasionally God inspired fiction, neither option would be acceptable to most of the believers. 

If it ever became 100% evident that Jesus was just a man, even just a man with good ideas... then Christianity as we know it would probably collapse. Christianity, unlike Judaism is a transcendental system. The Christian suffers now, for Glory later. They have faith, an "assured expectation of the things hoped for, though not yet beheld" (according to Paul). Most Christian faiths hold that when you die you go to heaven (or hell). This is based on literal interpretations of passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures, particularly regarding Jesus. If those passages are fraudulent, or meant as metaphor, then the hope for everlasting life in the Kingdom of God is suddenly in question.

If you're a Christian that's deep in the metaphysics of your belief system, Jesus must be more than a man for another reason. He MUST have been a completely PERFECT man. See, Adam and Eve were perfect humans until they sinned. According to scripture "The wages of sin are death" thus Adam and Eve were imperfect and condemned to die. Since they were imperfect, they could no longer create perfect children... all humans then become imperfect and doomed to die. YHVH makes a way out though. The very first prophecy in the Bible sets the stage for the entire Jewish, Muslim and Christian belief system... everything else in the Bible is in support of this theme.

15 And I will put enmity
       between you and the woman,
       and between your offspring [a] and hers;
       he will crush your head,
       and you will strike his heel."

Now, the savvy Bible Student understands that the 'serpent' here was a puppet under the control of Satan. Therefore, God was promising that one of the offspring of the woman would bruise the serpent/Satan in the head (death blow) while the serpent would bruise him only in the heel (minor inconvenience). Now, this is where stuff gets really whacked out, but it still requires supermadjickal Jesus.

Adam was a perfect man and he failed to follow God perfectly. His sin therefore had to be balanced. The only way to pay back (cause God is the Cosmic Justice of the Peace...) the blood of a perfect man, is with the blood of a perfect man because a perfect man would be the only one whose blood isn't already condemned. Jesus, being born of a virgin through super magical YHVH sperm, creates just such a being. A man (offspring of woman) who is perfect (cause he came directly from God, without imperfect humans mucking about in Mary's uterus). He remained without sin for 33 years and then died. Death is the cost of sin, If Jesus didn't sin, then the blood shed was not payment for his sins. Instead it became repayment for Adam's sin. It balanced the cosmic scales and YHVH got a blood sacrifice cause he's a bastard.

Even without the resurrection, the above has to be true in most Christian belief systems. If Jesus were just a man, or just a prophet, then he was a sinful human... and therefore not a equal payment for Adam's sin... therefore all humans would be condemned to die.

Many Christian belief systems must have faith that Jesus was WAY MORE than just a man.

[MMIX]

My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.

I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc

If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.

I totally agree, but Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said,so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was
1] real
2] God's son
3] a saucy sailor
4] an alien plant OR
5] a fucking cabbage

Don't matter whether he lived or died, was a swinger or a celibate, screwed Mary Magdalen or screwed in a lightbulb, It really just does not matter

It matters absolutely to his followers. They know nothing of philosophy. Superhuman powers is the only language they understand.

Jesus = Gods son and magical superninja with recover from dead, walk on water and transmutation superpowers.

If jesus had not these powers and you could somehow prove it, irrefutably*, christianity would collapse.

Anything christ is reported to have said in the bible (other than thou shalt/shalt not) is filtered out by the believer. It's just a set up to a punchline which is always along the lines of "Then Jesus dids't wave his hands, all mystical and shit, and lo a bunny didst appear from the hat"

That's the only important bit - the magical powers. Without them jesus would have no authority, therefore the guys he left in charge would have no authority, therefore they would not obey their masters.

*irrefutable proof is impossible in this situation since christians are programmed to ignore both irrefutable proof and simple logic. It's like trying to force an amputee to shake your hand.

This is all great material - totally irrelevant to my point but stonking stuff just the same, well actually tbh it may it sounded better the first time I heard it . . . you know, novelty value and such

and just to repeat the point I was actually making and not the one you think you are referencing:-

Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said, so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was . .

. etc, etc

and thanks for the sermon Brother Ratatosk but I'm pretty sure the same proviso applies to your material, fascinating, but not relevant to the point I made.

The words and actions attributed to Jesus can be perfectly adequately analysed and interpreted/re-interpreted without any reference at all to whether he was an historic individual/ a mythological personage/ a useful political icon/ whatever / whatever

[Kai]

Rat, your response was just great.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The words and actions attributed to Jesus can be perfectly adequately analysed and interpreted/re-interpreted without any reference at all to whether he was an historic individual/ a mythological personage/ a useful political icon/ whatever / whatever

Well, sure... anyone can analyze anything in any way they choose. Part of the analysis though, particularly if we gonna draw any conclusions about Jesus, need to be considered in light of his existence or non-existence. For example, if Jesus were a real person and really said the lines Cain quoted from, then the conclusion that Jesus was a Mindfucker, would be meaty stuff to dig into.

If however, we were to determine that Jesus was the creation of a Jewish writer in the first century and wrote the lines Cain quoted from, then the conclusion that Jesus was portrayed as a Mindfucker by the author and would be meaty stuff to dig into, from a different perspective.

If, we were to determine that Jesus was the creation of multiple Jewish writers in the first century and they collaborated while writing the lines Cain quoted from, then the conclusion that Jesus was portrayed as a Mindfucker by the authors and would be meaty stuff to dig into, from a different perspective.

If, we were to determine that Jesus was the creation of multiple Jewish writers in the first century who were occasionally stealing material from each other, past myths, past messiahs and additionally made shit up as they went (and then adding a heap of scribes over a period of centuries tweaking the words to fit their views...)... The the lines Cain quoted from and the conclusion that Jesus was portrayed as a Mindfucker by the authors suddenly turns into a case of the Law of Fives... or might be a meaty topic to dig into, based on the idea that they describe an archetype by accident which included some Mindfucking aspects.

The context of the written word and its intentionality, plays a big part in analyzing the stuff written/said. Where these examples intentionally placed there by an author/authors working in concert, or are they artifacts of a smushed up bunch of legends/myths/bits of historical fact/cribbed material that unintentionally appear in the text.

Of course, as a bit of mindfuckery, it would be good to build on Cain's argument and use it to 'prove' that Jesus was really Erisian. 

[the last yatto]

Jesus was a roman soldier