Originally posted by ShakyamunisonHe could be locked up in Belview right now 😱
If you take the average insane person and you say, besides his insane behavior, how can you tell he's insane? You can't without testing the person, and when the person is dead; then all you can judge by is the insane behavior. Last I heard, seeing god or Jesus was grounds for insanity.
"If you take the average insane person and you say, besides his insane behavior, how can you tell he's insane? You can't without testing the person, and when the person is dead; then all you can judge by is the insane behavior. Last I heard, seeing god or Jesus was grounds for insanity."-----Shaky
Is there such a thing as an "average insane person?" lol. As someone in the mental health world, I can tell you that even the legally insane (and that's all the word "insane" is, a legal term) can be extremely lucid and observant. Many people claim to have heard messages or seen acts of God and are not regarded as insane by society as a whole. Look at St. Bernadette who said she saw the Virgin Mary at Lourdes. Even nonbelievers do not regard her as some nutjob as you're implying Paul was. It's usually just the people who claim to be Jesus that get locked up.
If you're trying to pawn Paul off as schizophrenic, maybe you should read up on the rest of the symptoms. We have sample after sample of his writings and not one of them has evidence of him being mentally unstable in any way. Schizophrenics (and that is the most prominent mental disorder that would involve someone hearing voices and seeing hallucinations) are often categorized as apathetic, disorganized, and unable to complete tasks. None of these fit Paul. It also surfaces in the late teen years, so by the time Paul started his writings, he would have been well known as a madman years ago.
Now before you go and compare him to say, Charles Manson, who is also known to be very bright and coherent, his delusions are about himself. He and most dangerous people declared legally insane have delusions of grandeur, whereas Paul was very humble, praising Jesus far more than himself.
His writings are also based on one vision. People who are mentally ill do not have just one hallucination. They keep coming and keep adding confusion and paranoia to a person. If someone has a dream and says it was inspired by God, how is that insane? I still don't see how his writings differ that much from Jesus' teachings. This really is the thread for that topic because based on the title, this thread is about "discrepancies" in the Bible.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
"If you take the average insane person and you say, besides his insane behavior, how can you tell he's insane? You can't without testing the person, and when the person is dead; then all you can judge by is the insane behavior. Last I heard, seeing god or Jesus was grounds for insanity."-----ShakyIs there such a thing as an "average insane person?" lol. As someone in the mental health world, I can tell you that even the legally insane (and that's all the word "insane" is, a legal term) can be extremely lucid and observant. Many people claim to have heard messages or seen acts of God and are not regarded as insane by society as a whole. Look at St. Bernadette who said she saw the Virgin Mary at Lourdes. Even nonbelievers do not regard her as some nutjob as you're implying Paul was. It's usually just the people who claim to be Jesus that get locked up.
If you're trying to pawn Paul off as schizophrenic, maybe you should read up on the rest of the symptoms. We have sample after sample of his writings and not one of them has evidence of him being mentally unstable in any way. Schizophrenics (and that is the most prominent mental disorder that would involve someone hearing voices and seeing hallucinations) are often categorized as apathetic, disorganized, and unable to complete tasks. None of these fit Paul. It also surfaces in the late teen years, so by the time Paul started his writings, he would have been well known as a madman years ago.
Now before you go and compare him to say, Charles Manson, who is also known to be very bright and coherent, his delusions are about himself. He and most dangerous people declared legally insane have delusions of grandeur, whereas Paul was very humble, praising Jesus far more than himself.
His writings are also based on one vision. People who are mentally ill do not have just one hallucination. They keep coming and keep adding confusion and paranoia to a person. If someone has a dream and says it was inspired by God, how is that insane? I still don't see how his writings differ that much from Jesus' teachings. This really is the thread for that topic because based on the title, this thread is about "discrepancies" in the Bible.
Do you think that Charles Manson is Jesus? He does... and he is bright and coherent, and as loony as a cartoon character.
So, you can be a nut and still write well.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Many people that read the Bible and believe in it have a different opinion than you as well, many different opinion just on this forum. This is what I've been saying, you can have a multitude of different people read or view the same thing and come up with a multitude of different views.
* true... that's why there is a Bible as basis... the example of willofthewisp should have slightly elaborated it... different religious denominations have different styles of baptism and some of them sprinkles water... go back to the Bible and see if the procedure of doing baptism is sprinkling of water... hope you got my point...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know that you are not under the influence of false preachers' and prophets'?
* same as above...
"If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself."
John 7:17
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree, I am smarter then a lot of people. 😉
* still, being smarter than a lot of people does not mean you're right and absolute...😉
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Angels, demons and ghosts do not exist.
* in the Bible, angels and demons exist...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People, who die, do not return from death.
* in the Bible, when a person dies, his body as dust returns to the ground/earth, while his spirit and soul is in God's hands...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a possibility that Jesus did not die on the cross, so those who saw him after the crucifixion may have really seen him, but he was not dead in that case.
* it was recorded however, in Roman history that a certain Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on the cross/tree...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I think Paul had hallucinations.
* i know it's not hallucinations...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It smells like politics.
* nope...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
According to the Jewish religion the Messiah would have to be human and not divine. Therefore, if Jesus was divine he was not the Messiah, but if he was human, then he might have been the Messiah. You choose.
* in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, it was prophesied by Isaiah that the Messiah is a Mighty God...
Originally posted by peejayd
* same as above..."If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself."
John 7:17
I follow the teachings of Buddha. He never saw and talked with an imaginary god.
Originally posted by peejayd
* still, being smarter than a lot of people does not mean you're right and absolute...😉
We are talking about what you believe. I have not told you what I believe. You are now resorting to the tactic of reversing the point. It will not work.
Originally posted by peejayd
* in the Bible, angels and demons exist...
And only in the bible, not in reality.
Originally posted by peejayd
* in the Bible, when a person dies, his body as dust returns to the ground/earth, while his spirit and soul is in God's hands...
There is no such thing as a soul or spirit, with the exception of in books like the bible and other works of fiction.
Originally posted by peejayd
* it was recorded however, in Roman history that a certain Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on the cross/tree...
You would think that the son of god would have had more of a mention then just a note of a crucifixion.
Originally posted by peejayd
* i know it's not hallucinations...
You do not know; you believe. Knowing something requires facts, and there are none to support your claim. I understand that you believe by faith, and that is fine. I just find it strange you even care about proof. Faith does not require proof.
Originally posted by peejayd
* nope...
You can’t tell me how something appears to me.
Originally posted by peejayd
* in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, it was prophesied by Isaiah that the Messiah is a Mighty God...
Not according to the Jewish religion. They know the OT better then we do.
"I follow the teachings of Buddha. He never saw and talked with an imaginary god."----Shaky
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Buddha a spoiled prince who decided to justify the sufferings of the sick and poor by concluding that they deserved what they got? He may have been a real person, but he did sit under a tree for a long time to reach the conclusions he did. Some would call this a vision, but you said earlier it's insane to have visions.
"And only in the bible, not in reality."----Shaky
Many, many cultures believe in spiritual creatures that are either angels or demons of the equivalents of them. The Koran and the Torah both mention angels and demons, as do traditional African religions.
"You would think that the son of god would have had more of a mention then just a note of a crucifixion."-----Shaky
You would think someone as intelligent as you would know your ancient history. The Romans at the time of the crucifixion didn't believe Jesus was the son of God. He was just a troublemaker the local folks wanted out of the way. There would have been no need to record anything more about him. The Middle East was a territory no Roman citizen really wanted to go to. They considered it a huge ghetto filled with disgusting people, so what would be so important to them about someone making the religious leaders there unhappy? It never said Pontius Pilate became a believer; he just didn't believe it was right to kill Jesus.
"Not according to the Jewish religion. They know the OT better then we do."-----Shaky
Well I guess why today there is a distinction between what Jews believe and what Christians believe. No, Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. However, those who do believe that Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies about the Messiah, and as everyone here has said many times, just because a group believes something doesn't make it fact, so the fact that Jews do not believe the Messiah will be God in human form has nothing to do with what others believe.
Originally posted by peejaydSo you think the Bible should be taken literally?
* true... that's why there is a Bible as basis... the example of willofthewisp should have slightly elaborated it... different religious denominations have different styles of baptism and some of them sprinkles water... go back to the Bible and see if the procedure of doing baptism is sprinkling of water... hope you got my point...
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Buddha a spoiled prince who decided to justify the sufferings of the sick and poor by concluding that they deserved what they got? He may have been a real person, but he did sit under a tree for a long time to reach the conclusions he did. Some would call this a vision, but you said earlier it's insane to have visions.
😆 You have to stay away from those Christian propaganda web sites.
If you really want to know the truth, here is a place to start:
http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismofnichirendaishonin.php
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Many, many cultures believe in spiritual creatures that are either angels or demons of the equivalents of them. The Koran and the Torah both mention angels and demons, as do traditional African religions.
One man’s delusion does not justify another man’s delusion.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
You would think someone as intelligent as you would know your ancient history. The Romans at the time of the crucifixion didn't believe Jesus was the son of God. He was just a troublemaker the local folks wanted out of the way. There would have been no need to record anything more about him. The Middle East was a territory no Roman citizen really wanted to go to. They considered it a huge ghetto filled with disgusting people, so what would be so important to them about someone making the religious leaders there unhappy? It never said Pontius Pilate became a believer; he just didn't believe it was right to kill Jesus.
Maybe they were right, after all, they were there. You, as a Christian, put a lot of weight on eye witness accounts, but you choose to ignore the majority in favor of a few.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Well I guess why today there is a distinction between what Jews believe and what Christians believe. No, Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. However, those who do believe that Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies about the Messiah, and as everyone here has said many times, just because a group believes something doesn't make it fact, so the fact that Jews do not believe the Messiah will be God in human form has nothing to do with what others believe.
Christianity is based on Judaism.
No Christian propaganda site gave me my education (albeit an elementary one) on Buddhism. The secular school system from 7th grade on explained Buddhism in such a way.
Please correct me if I'm wrong because I should know more about Buddhism than I do, but Buddha (or Siddharta) had a very isolated life until his late 20s when he went out to meet his subjects and first learned of sickness, poverty, old age, disease, etc. He decided to ponder these realities by...I don't know the technical name but it is (or was) a group that focused on heavy meditation and not indulging in many things. I think we were taught this was called the Great Departure by which Buddha had his enlightenment: that human suffering is caused by ignorance and that by eliminating greed from one's life, one can become enlightened.
I do respect Buddhism because it promotes peace and acceptance of others and living as good a life as one can, but I do not see how this man's teachings are any more valid than anyone else's.
By the way, if any of my world history/social studies teachers that covered Buddhism were Christians, they certainly kept that fact to themselves because they covered all the other religions the same way, wisely never uncovering a bias towards or against any of them.
Don't you think there's more anti-Christian propaganda in the world than Christian propaganda?
Originally posted by willofthewispthats EXACTLY what i learned this year
No Christian propaganda site gave me my education (albeit an elementary one) on Buddhism. The secular school system from 7th grade on explained Buddhism in such a way.Please correct me if I'm wrong because I should know more about Buddhism than I do, but Buddha (or Siddharta) had a very isolated life until his late 20s when he went out to meet his subjects and first learned of sickness, poverty, old age, disease, etc. He decided to ponder these realities by...I don't know the technical name but it is (or was) a group that focused on heavy meditation and not indulging in many things. I think we were taught this was called the Great Departure by which Buddha had his enlightenment: that human suffering is caused by ignorance and that by eliminating greed from one's life, one can become enlightened.
I do respect Buddhism because it promotes peace and acceptance of others and living as good a life as one can, but I do not see how this man's teachings are any more valid than anyone else's.
By the way, if any of my world history/social studies teachers that covered Buddhism were Christians, they certainly kept that fact to themselves because they covered all the other religions the same way, wisely never uncovering a bias towards or against any of them.
Don't you think there's more anti-Christian propaganda in the world than Christian propaganda?
Originally posted by willofthewisp
No Christian propaganda site gave me my education (albeit an elementary one) on Buddhism. The secular school system from 7th grade on explained Buddhism in such a way.Please correct me if I'm wrong because I should know more about Buddhism than I do, but Buddha (or Siddharta) had a very isolated life until his late 20s when he went out to meet his subjects and first learned of sickness, poverty, old age, disease, etc. He decided to ponder these realities by...I don't know the technical name but it is (or was) a group that focused on heavy meditation and not indulging in many things. I think we were taught this was called the Great Departure by which Buddha had his enlightenment: that human suffering is caused by ignorance and that by eliminating greed from one's life, one can become enlightened.
“Shakyamuni
The origins of the SGI-USA worldview can be traced to the teachings of the historical Buddha Shakyamuni, who lived some 2,500 years ago in what is modern-day Nepal. Born Gautama Siddhartha, he abandoned his sheltered, princely life and sought instead to understand the inescapable sufferings of every human being — birth, aging, sickness and death — and the means by which these sufferings could be overcome.
Following his enlightenment at age 30, he traveled throughout India for some 50 years, sharing the wisdom he had discovered. The term Buddha, or “enlightened one,” is applied to any human being who realizes the eternity of life and the operation of cause and effect throughout the three existences of past, present and future.”
http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismofnichirendaishonin.php
Buddha was only the start. Like your first grade teacher, he taught what people could learn.
“Nichiren Daishonin
After Shakyamuni’s passing, his teachings became splintered and increasingly misunderstood as they spread throughout Asia and beyond. In the 13th century, a Japanese Buddhist reformer, Nichiren Daishonin, declared the Lotus Sutra, taught during the final eight years of Shakyamuni’s life, to be the highest and ultimate teaching of Buddhism. The Lotus Sutra most clearly shows Buddhism as a powerful, life-affirming, egalitarian and humanistic teaching.
Born the son of a fisherman in a time of social unrest and natural catastrophe, Nichiren became a religious acolyte and after a period of intensive study came to realize that the Lotus Sutra constitutes the heart of Buddhist teachings. His great gift to humanity was in giving concrete expression to this life-affirming philosophy by creating a simple yet profound daily practice accessible to all people. Nichiren first chanted the title of the Lotus Sutra Nam-myoho-renge-kyo--on April 28, 1253, and later inscribed the mandala of the Gohonzon (the physical object of devotion for all humanity). It is the philosophy taught by Nichiren that forms the foundation of the SGI.”
Buddhism is more then a belief; it is a daily practice that over time, will move your life into a high state. In the past, monks could only gain this kind of Enlightenment, but Nichiren found a way that the common person could get the benefits of enlightenment, buy a day to day practice.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
I do respect Buddhism because it promotes peace and acceptance of others and living as good a life as one can, but I do not see how this man's teachings are any more valid than anyone else's.
Buddha was way ahead of his time. During a time when women were considered to be property, Buddha was one of the first to allow women to become nuns in his religion.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
By the way, if any of my world history/social studies teachers that covered Buddhism were Christians, they certainly kept that fact to themselves because they covered all the other religions the same way, wisely never uncovering a bias towards or against any of them.
The Buddhism I practice is nothing like the time of Buddha. We don’t have a temple; we don’t have a priest hood. We have a personal practice that we do at home everyday. We get together at a center that we are allowed to use, every week. The people in my group, are my family, and I’m a person who has no family, besides my wife. I am no different then you are. If you met me on the street, you would not know I was a Buddhist.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Don't you think there's more anti-Christian propaganda in the world than Christian propaganda?
There is a lot of anti-Christian propaganda and it is regrettable.
"The Buddhism I practice is nothing like the time of Buddha. We don’t have a temple; we don’t have a priest hood. We have a personal practice that we do at home everyday. We get together at a center that we are allowed to use, every week. The people in my group, are my family, and I’m a person who has no family, besides my wife. I am no different then you are. If you met me on the street, you would not know I was a Buddhist."-----Shaky
I make no assumptions about what religion different people practice if any. I didn't assume you were a monk and isolated yourself from everyone. Excuse me if I left that impression.
"Buddha was way ahead of his time. During a time when women were considered to be property, Buddha was one of the first to allow women to become nuns in his religion."-----Shaky
Women in ancient history is indeed an interesting subject and at times it is hard for a woman like myself to see past the severely patriarchal society in the Old Testament. However, it's more the culture than God's doing that women take a back seat in the Bible. The brave deeds of Zipporah, Deborah, and Jael are recorded but the ancient sexists didn't want to pay attention to it. Jesus accepted women as his followers and had close relationships with them, assessing that in his eyes, it didn't matter if someone was male or female. While they weren't part of his "12," they were often his financiers, his cooks, his innkeepers, and most importantly, his followers that were willing to brave a host of Roman soldiers just so they could properly bury him.
Originally posted by willofthewispThis is one of the issues that I have about the Bible and that it is supposed to be divine, if this was inspired by a being that transcends time and space then the words in it should be timeless and not written for the current time and culture. If God only meant it for the current time then why hasn’t a new version of the Bible been written to the current culture?
Women in ancient history is indeed an interesting subject and at times it is hard for a woman like myself to see past the severely patriarchal society in the Old Testament. However, it's more the culture than God's doing that women take a back seat in the Bible. The brave deeds of Zipporah, Deborah, and Jael are recorded but the ancient sexists didn't want to pay attention to it. Jesus accepted women as his followers and had close relationships with them, assessing that in his eyes, it didn't matter if someone was male or female. While they weren't part of his "12," they were often his financiers, his cooks, his innkeepers, and most importantly, his followers that were willing to brave a host of Roman soldiers just so they could properly bury him.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
This is one of the issues that I have about the Bible and that it is supposed to be divine, if this was inspired by a being that transcends time and space then the words in it should be timeless and not written for the current time and culture. If God only meant it for the current time then why hasn’t a new version of the Bible been written to the current culture?
JIA is working on it. 😆
Originally posted by Da Pittman
This is one of the issues that I have about the Bible and that it is supposed to be divine, if this was inspired by a being that transcends time and space then the words in it should be timeless and not written for the current time and culture. If God only meant it for the current time then why hasn’t a new version of the Bible been written to the current culture?
Maybe God is a good politician? Would the people of gladly received the decree that women were equal in intellect to men and should be given every right as a man had? I dunno...maybe.
Originally posted by dadudemonWell they did have to sell it and it would have been a hard sell with the men saying that women were their equals 😱
Maybe God is a good politician? Would the people of gladly received the decree that women were equal in intellect to men and should be given every right as a man had? I dunno...maybe.