The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
roundshort said:
I agree withthe Finnish on this, but i just picutre standing out side the pearly gates and letting out a lound Homer Simpsonesq "D'oh!" and people like Indy will walk by and say,
"Told you So!"
Well, there'll be quite a load of the likes of us, as we'll have to keep in mind that less than the third of the people on this Earth are christians, and the number of those actually believing in God is even smaller.

Wonder if anyone's ever really thought about it, but the guy with horns may just be running a way bigger installation than the almighty one. Heh.
 

Paden

Member
I?d like to add something, but not out of a desire to stir up further controversy. :)

I didn?t come to faith in Christ until I was well into my twenties and I will readily confess that my views toward the Christian faith prior to that time were quite hostile. My own view of Christianity, based on my limited understanding of Scripture, was that it was, in essence, a heavily legalistic code of behavior, designed to hold individuals to a high standard of moral behavior. As has been already stated in this thread, the essence of the Christian belief centers on a faith relationship with Jesus Christ and the acceptance of His divine sacrifice in payment for individual sin. It is a bond with Our Savior, Who offers grace and forgiveness for a fallen mankind who are unable to live up to God?s standard of holiness. Salvation is offered as a free gift to any who would accept it.

I think the problem is that when we, in our humanity, encounter something that gives us meaning or happiness, we often have the desire to share that thing with others. I believe that most believers in Christ have this desire, and the Bible clearly indicates that Christ?s followers are commissioned to share His message. Yet, when I have contemplated the life of Christ that is presented in the New Testament, while Jesus was uncompromising in presenting Himself as the only path to salvation, He didn?t attempt to force or coerce others to accept Him and in fact faced rejection on several occasions, according to the gospel accounts. Christ offered salvation to man, but He allowed individuals the free choice to receive or reject Him.

Throughout history, I think the impetus to share the gospel has often taken forms that Christ, as I understand Him, never intended. Sometimes the desire to share has become twisted into a dark zeal that has historically resulted in some terrible events, most notably (in my mind) the Crusades. As has been elucidated clearly in this thread, there are numerous atrocities committed by the church through the centuries that bluntly, are inexcusable. Even in contemporary America, one only has to look up incidents of violence against abortion clinics to see that some continue to do shameful acts in the name of Jesus. Acts that I believe He clearly does not condone.

But on a lesser scale, I think there are times when followers of Christ can, in the process of trying to share Him, come across as harsh or unyielding. Sometimes, in the desire to share the message it is easy to become insensitive to the individual you?re speaking to. I think that Jesus was always respectful of individuals. He was concerned with meeting the needs of individual people. Each person was special to Him. One of the most striking pictures of Christ from the gospels, for me personally, is Him having dinner with the undesirables of Jewish society. In the Judaic tradition, the taking of a meal together represented an invitation into intimate fellowship. Thus, Christ was inviting the rejected into a close friendship with Him. I think that?s really the spirit that His followers are meant to keep as well.

The problem is, when we who believe are confronted by strong skeptics, it?s easy to become defensive. After all, Jesus means the world to us. By the same token, I?m certain we can come across as brash and judgmental when we fail to show respect to the feelings of others. Granted, the message of Christ is an "all or nothing" proposition which is going to be offensive to some. But we believers can offer it as He did: as a choice. When we attempt to force the message on others, I earnestly believe that we do more harm than good and we don?t honor Christ with our actions.
 
IndyJohan said:
You see that's the difference. You people are seeing religion as old scripts and manuscripts, rules and regulations. You don't see the BIGGER picture. Which is the relationship and power that comes out of it. Seeing blind men see and the lame walk (both of which I witnessed). Seeing angels and the battles of the heavenly realm (both of which I am a witness). You will never know these things through the paradigm you are viewing the scripture which we fully believe are inspired by the living God.

I was going to reply in full to the substance of this argument, but couldnt get to an internet connection until now and thankfully the thread seems to have come to a dignified conclusion with a couple of thoughtful posts from all sides.

Must admit I found a lot of the thread thoroughly disheartening. I am just pleased that there are far many more people NOT like indyjohan et al than like them in our society, as maybe, just maybe, humankind thereby stands a chance.

Somewhat perturbed by the warning dealt out to CH. Yes he was somewhat vitriolic but can I quote Indyjohan?

"You are starting to sound like those people that said "The holocost never happened"

And not a peep from a moderator? Some things need a good slapping down, and that was one of those things. I cant actually think of a worse slur to bandy about to those who disagree with you on a totally unrelated issue.

Thanks to Finn for so eloquently phrasing many of our thoughts. I can't help thinking that most posters actually agree with the original early sentiments of those of us who do not adhere to a religion - it is organised religion we have a problem with and not spirituality, which more fits the descriptions given by many of their own personal 'faith'. Paradoxically, the sentiments thereby expressed are actually more akin to the gnostic interpretation of Christ than the current orthodox one. But there you go.

I personally feel no manner of spirituality in my life, let alone a need for religion to bring meaning or satisfaction to my life. I live my life, I interact with others, I enjoy the world around me, I take people as I find them for what they are. Consequently, i treat people with respect and compassion unless and until they inspire a different reaction from me and I have a strong sense of social responsibility. I marvel at the wonders of nature, our ever-increasing understanding of the universe around us and conversely the vast volume of things that remain inexplicable and undiscovered. I am as such fully aware of, and actually pleased by, my own utter insignificance in the scheme of things. This brings its own brand of humility and plenty sense of wonderment. I am able to look after myself and enjoy a good quality of life and know this is down to those who love me, pure luck at being born with academic capabilities (in my case this has helped) and my own hard work and decency (he said, humbly). There is no supreme being around who looks over us and has sent a son or scriptures or performed miracles. And if you have read this then you would have to be deeply arrogant and close-minded to think that me feeling this way in any way diminuishes my life experience or my decency/goodness in any meaningful way.

But a final word to indyjohan, and the claims you have made for the things you have seen and experienced... Well, i think I even felt a shudder from other posters who were happily and sanely providing the case for religion/spirituality and what it brings to their lives... Seriously, and with all due respect, I think you have problems. CH may have put it crudely, but such delusions are symptomatic of genuine and severe problems. I just hope their effects remain confined to personal religious fervour. And before anybody jumps, that is not meant as a personal slur. From the content of the posts, it really does seem that way and it does more harm than good to politely humour such things.
 
"the essence of the Christian belief centers on a faith relationship with Jesus Christ "

I find it impossible to have any kind of relationship with something when I see no indication of that something even existing in the first place....

There's as much evidence to support this existence of The Tooth Fairy, or Santa Clause, or Superman....

*shrug*

"Somewhat perturbed by the warning dealt out to CH"
Don't sweat it eh.... Aaron has a 'grudge' and feels the need to air it publicly.... I don't let it bother me, so don't let it bother you on my behalf o.k. :)
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
ClintonHammond said:
Don't sweat it eh.... Aaron has a 'grudge' and feels the need to air it publicly.... I don't let it bother me, so don't let it bother you on my behalf o.k. :)
CH... a word.

Despite we sharing some views on how to take certain doctrines on faith existing on this Earth, I'm not closing my eyes from some of your posts either. It's not a 'grudge' as I see it, not at least towards your opinions, but more like the way you represent them. As they tend to be little crass and aggressive to the eyes of many. I spoke my mind on this subject, but as you can see, I made it in a way that gave no one any reasons to bash me.

So, it's not your actual opinions that cause the 'grudge'... but the manner they're brought up with. Little toning down, little more civilized way to bring your points up, and no one's going to have a problem with you. Or, if still do, then they're the ones who're in trouble and not you.

***

And to further elaborate the subject in this topic and my last post, I hope that many of you have noticed that there isn't one single (organized) belief on this Earth. So, that is what makes me to wonder, what is the thing that makes a person think that the one in his or her possession is the correct one, despite all the evidence of controversial beliefs that are as good as any than those represented defending your case.

There are also numerous different strong stories, good books and persons doing miraculous things, and I can't help than to find it a little insulting towards someone with different faith to claim that "I'm sorry to say that the thing you believe in is a myth, but my one really happened". Simply explaining this thing with 'one book - bible - to rule 'em all' seems a little arrogant way in doing it and one can't help but think that the ones believing in this thing live more in denial than those who don't.

Of course, we can also note the way these stories seem similar around the world, the Great Flood, men of miracles like Christ, Mohammed, Buddha and so on. So one way of explaining this can be brought down to one single monomyth that has just been interpreted differently around the world. But still, the same question lies, how can one be so sure that the interpretation they're basing their faith on... is the correct one?
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Paden said:
Yet, when I have contemplated the life of Christ that is presented in the New Testament, while Jesus was uncompromising in presenting Himself as the only path to salvation, He didn’t attempt to force or coerce others to accept Him and in fact faced rejection on several occasions, according to the gospel accounts. Christ offered salvation to man, but He allowed individuals the free choice to receive or reject Him.

The problem is, when we who believe are confronted by strong skeptics, it’s easy to become defensive. After all, Jesus means the world to us. By the same token, I’m certain we can come across as brash and judgmental when we fail to show respect to the feelings of others. Granted, the message of Christ is an "all or nothing" proposition which is going to be offensive to some. But we believers can offer it as He did: as a choice. When we attempt to force the message on others, I earnestly believe that we do more harm than good and we don’t honor Christ with our actions.

I had a ton of immediate thoughts on your entire post, most of which were "excellent point" or "well said." Yet I really don't have the will to comment on too much of it, so I'll just stick to two quick comments concerning the paragraphs above. Keep in mind, I thought that this post was a great one.

Christianity is a choice, but it's not the simple "yes" or "no" choice that has been presented thus far. It's more complicated than that. Like many things in life, we try stuff out in order to determine whether it's a good fit for us. I made that choice many years ago with christianity. It simply didn't do it for me, so I made another choice. I guess I didn't tithe enough, sing loud enough, or pray long enough to feel the warm and fuzzy effects that you guys seem to feel. For whatever reason, I just felt like I was abandoning reason and independent thought for the "promise" of a better life tomorrow. No thanks.

Christ witnessed through example. He lived an amazing life which others wanted desperately to know more about, and he taught them. That's an important distinction. He led through example and presented his teachings to those who came asking for them. We've got too many nutjobs running around today with nice little pre-packaged salvation kits trying to witness badly to people who don't want it or see any need for it. Why is it so hard for christians to lead by example? Why do they always take the easy way out and threaten you with eternal damnation for failing to accept christ instead? Sorry, I'm questioning christianity again...

I think the frustration and defensiveness stems from an attempt to reconcile two "truths." On one hand, the church is telling people that jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Once introduced to christ, people's lives will be filled with the peace and happiness of knowing him. Then once you're back in the real world, you see many examples of how this is untrue. You start to question your own beliefs on a microscopic scale, then get frustrated with yourself for thinking critically about or questioning your religion, become defensive, and attack the source of inconsistency. Just a theory.
 
Last edited:
There is NO geological evidence that this planet was ever covered in water as described in "The Bible"

If it had been, where did all that water go?

It's impossible
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
ClintonHammond said:
If it had been, where did all that water go?

It's impossible
Well, actually it is technically possible... that amount of water that could do the trick is packed as ice around our poles.

How likely that is however... not very, in that I agree.

Nevertheless, the Great Flood is one of the most interesting monomyths on this earth.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
CH, not sure how successful you were in finding info on Richard Dawkins. This bio was borrowed from Wikipedia:

"Clinton Richard Dawkins DSc, FRS, FRSL (known as Richard Dawkins; born March 26, 1941) is an eminent British ethologist, evolutionary theorist, and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University."

Some of his works include The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, A Devil's Chaplain, and The Ancestor's Tale among others. All of them are great books and invaluable resources for the study of evolutionary biology and the scientific evidence supporting evolution over creationism. I give them all excellent reviews.
 

Johan

Active member
StwongBwidge said:
"You are starting to sound like those people that said "The holocost never happened"
Though you are taking this out of context I admit it was likely not a good analogy. In fact it has nothing to do with the holocost but rather the IGNORANCE of the ones in recent day that are saying it never happened.
It was my example of ignorance, but admittently a bad one at that. My apologies to CH.
 

Johan

Active member
ClintonHammond said:
There is NO geological evidence that this planet was ever covered in water as described in "The Bible"

If it had been, where did all that water go?

It's impossible

Actually IT did not rain before the flood so all the water was in the atmosphere. This is why the dinsaurs were able gro so large and people were able to live so long, because the earth was tropical atmosphere.
And remember...Its God he has the universe at his disposal. If he wanted to get rid of the water he can!
 
"that amount of water that could do the trick is packed as ice around our poles."

Not remotely.... For that matter such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions. So if there had been a great flood, there wouldn't BE polar ice-caps....

Ice cores from Greenland have been dated as far back as 40,000 years with NO evidence to support ANY Great Flood. (From the same myth as The Great Flood, the 'earth' is only slight more than 5 thousand years old too....) A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence.

Heck... Tree ring records date back accurately about 10,000 years, and there's ZERO evidence of any such flood there.....

I think calling "The Great Flood" a monomyth is a misnomer... The fact that emerging cultures share similar back-stories does not necessitate a singular event.... Agriculture being the foundation for 'culture' leads to people settling in places where crops grow well.... (The people who settle where crops don't grow well die) The best places for crops is flood basins... the thing about flood basins is that they flood....

For that matter, the Egyptians don't mention it... nor do the Mesopotamians.... Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

"Its God he has the universe at his disposal."
Sorry... I stopped accepting "Just because" as an answer at about age 4 or so.... Cause it is, in fact no sort of answer at all.

"Actually IT did not rain before the flood... the earth was tropical atmosphere."
Well, which is it?!?! You can't have it both NOT rain, but be rain-forest.... The highest rainfall totals occur near the equator in the tropics, where the strong heating by the Sun creates significant vertical uplift of air, and the formation of prolonged heavy showers and frequent thunderstorms. Annual rainfall totals in the tropics usually exceed 100 inches or 2,500 millimetres, and can be as high as 400 inches or 10,000 millimetres, particularly if influenced by the monsoons or if mountains enhance the uplift of air.

"My apologies to CH."
No blood, no foul.... play on.
 
Last edited:

Johan

Active member
And that is why you will never understand the biblical flood.

Anyway, the carbon dating system is not reliable. In fact the flood contributed to the carbon dating system being out of wack. When the water came the heavier particles settled first creating a lot of pressure, this caused a LOT of heat and therfore creating a lot of carbon.
Nevermind the fact that they found aquatic fossils on top of mountains.
It was tropical because all the moisture was in the AIR...it didn't rain. Anyway, this is not biblical...its a theory of mine. But it didn't rain. I heard a professor talk about it and it made a lot of sense at the time...the way he explained it. I am not doing justice to the theory.
 
"they found aquatic fossils on top of mountains"
Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids.) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.

A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.

On the fossil record subject...
Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals. As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded.

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, "Floodists" would seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

Even if there was room physically for all the large animals which now exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a stable ecology before the Flood? Montana alone would have had to support a diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than anything now observed.

"that is why you will never understand the biblical flood"
Oh but I -do- understand it all too well.... It's a myth... a fable... Its beginnings might even have been rooted in a localized event somewhere around the Black Sea... But it is NOT literal truth.
 

Johan

Active member
Ok...so I would say to you that Science is YOUR religion. Your religious belief.
And I am a Christian.
Your faith lies in physical evidence. My faith lies on a personal relationship with the one that created the planet. mmm...I think I'll take my chances on believing the creator.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
IndyJohan said:
Anyway, the carbon dating system is not reliable. In fact the flood contributed to the carbon dating system being out of wack.
Ahem, source?

Because... if the one claiming this comes from the christian club, there is a high chance that the opinion is more or less biased. We're dealing with huge what ifs here. IF there was a biblical flood, the carbon dating system isn't reliable. But alas, we have no way of proving that there's been one. True, there are evidence that can be interpreted that way if wanted, but there's nothing one couldn't deny or come up with alternative theories.

That is one of the biggest grudges with old beliefs anyway, as it tends to throw a wrench in the works of a practical science. Religion is a great tool for preservation, but not that much for advancement.

And there's another problem most rational thinkers have with religion... it's just plain mad that people shrug off contradicting evidence only because they believe and want things to be as they've been told.
 
I don't have a religion....

Actually Richard Dawkins seems to suggest somewhere that religion IS a scientific idea.... just not a very good one....

You do what you feel you must.... But I'll just encourage you to maybe look further than that one book.... The more sources you have, the more informed your decisions are.

I'm out... I have rabbit to BBQ in preparation for feasting tonight.... Eostres bacchanal is one of my favourite excuses for a little excess

"evidence that can be interpreted that way"
Not all interpretations are equal
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
ClintonHammond said:
Actually Richard Dawkins seems to suggest somewhere that religion IS a scientific idea.... just not a very good one....
Well, on core ideals religion and science are practically the same, as both try to explain the unknown. The difference is that religion tends to provide all the answers right away whereas science doesn't.

So it shouldn't be a big surprise that many pick beliefs over what has been scientifically proved. People don't like living in uncertainty.
 

Johan

Active member
Finn said:
Ahem, source?

Because... if the one claiming this comes from the christian club, there is a high chance that the opinion is more or less biased. We're dealing with huge what ifs here. IF there was a biblical flood, the carbon dating system isn't reliable. But alas, we have no way of proving that there's been one. True, there are evidence that can be interpreted that way if wanted, but there's nothing one couldn't deny or come up with alternative theories.

That is one of the biggest grudges with old beliefs anyway, as it tends to throw a wrench in the works of a practical science. Religion is a great tool for preservation, but not that much for advancement.

And there's another problem most rational thinkers have with religion... it's just plain mad that people shrug off contradicting evidence only because they believe and want things to be as they've been told.

I fogot to mention that it is also out of whack because they counted chronologically on the rulers...where there are times when there were parallell kingdoms.

I read these things from Egyptologist and historian David Rohl in "A Test Of Time" Good read.
Also, "Noah's Flood - The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History" by William Ryan And Walter Pitman
 

Johan

Active member
Finn said:
Well, on core ideals religion and science are practically the same, as both try to explain the unknown. The difference is that religion tends to provide all the answers right away whereas science doesn't.
.
My point exactly. I heard quote once," if you believe in God or not you have a religious belief"
 
Top