That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with there.

As far as I can tell though, atheists generally don't care or haven't been convinced of the existence of a God. It would seem if a burden to prove one's case should fairly exist, that burden ought to be on the group trying to assert the existence of God rather than the group which isn't asserting the existence of anything.

I disagree. The agnostics are as you speak, but atheists are quite vocal in their complete confidence that there is no God.

From a science standpoint existence in God and non-existence in God are both things which cannot be proven. The only thing that is logical neutral is agnostisism. Everything else is a belief.

I tend to think that when we speak of truth (little "t") in the context of religion we are missing the point.

But there's also the "capital T" argument, as in "we hold these truths to be self-evident...." Perhaps that is what we are really speaking of.

I disagree. The agnostics are as you speak, but atheists are quite vocal in their complete confidence that there is no God.

From a science standpoint existence in God and non-existence in God are both things which cannot be proven. The only thing that is logical neutral is agnostisism. Everything else is a belief.

Well, at least according to Wikipedia, (yes, it's sort of late and I'm entitled to lazy research) atheism has many definitions, some which would agree with your assertion, others which wouldn't. It is ironic though how in a sense, atheism in many respects shares a lot of tendencies of religion, e.g., the tendency to have dogmatic positions, to have unsupportable assumptions, etc.,

But those tendencies, so far as I can tell are not absolute commonalities between all of the various defined sorts of atheism. The [positive] rejection of the existence of a supernatural supreme being isn't even universal.

Such is also the case with philosophy and religion.

Marriam-Webster is more clear in its definition of atheism vs. agnosticism FYI.

I'm sure Marriam-Webster also has a standard definition for Christianity.

My friend at work doesn't believe in God and all of that. His response was.... "Show me where it says anything about the dinosaurs in the bible." I'll have to agree with him on that part. The bible have too many conflicts. Adam and Eve was not the first on this planet.

I've never been one to have "pictures" of Jesus because of the law not to make any graven images of god(s). You may not agree with it, but I figure a picture of the G-d I believe in would still fall under that, so I prefer symbols like the fish, cross or geometric symbols rather than images.

I also thought that having images of Jesus may be considered idolatry, and as I understand the info that I've found, it seems to be the case.

Commandment 2, King James version : "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Exodus 20:4-6


So, then would this mean to say that every image of Jesus should be removed from society, and that even in church the image of Jesus on the cross is being used as a false idol? Then too would the image of the Sacred Mother and every medal or charm with the image of the saints be idolatry.

From Ten Commandments of God are Laws with Purpose (http://godstenlaws.com) "While the first commandment deals with God being foremost at the center of our lives, the second addresses the manner by which He is to receive our attention and affection. As people, we like facts - tangible physical proof! We like things we can touch, see, feel, and hear. In an attempt to relate to God, it is easy for us to set up images (either in our minds or literally) that help to define who God is to us.

To make an image of the True God or other gods is forbidden in this commandment. God is Spirit and therefore no material representation could possibly resemble Him. The worship of God or other gods through likenesses in the sky (sun, moon, and stars); or the earth (animals); or water (fish and other sea life) is idolatry. It is clear in the Bible that the evidence of God is clearly seen in the things which He has made, but God's creation was never intended for worship. God's creation points to Himself.

Unlike the rest of creation, we were created in God's image. We have a spirit. Our spirit has the ability to transcend physical barriers of understanding in order to relate to and fellowship with God. This spiritual ability is activated by faith. God is unique and must be worshiped as such. When we try to "box" God into our restricted understanding, we subsequently put limitations on who God is.

God is jealous of our devotion. He will not tolerate so-called "love or devotion" to Him through some image or likeness of him; nor will he share devotion with other gods. He requires a spiritual devotion and has created us with this ability through faith.

As alluded to previously, a person does not have to physically bow down to a carved idol to violate this commandment. Idolatry is a very common sin among pious, religious people! For various reasons we create an image of God in our own minds. Often His character and person is manipulated and shaped into an image that suites our own fancies. When this image of god eventually fails us, disillusionment with religion, church, and God is a common result. Such appear to be religious people, but do not have the spiritual life necessary for devotion to the true God. The Pharisees of the New Testament are a good example of religious leaders who had set up an image of God, but failed to grasp the spiritual devotion to God through faith. Jesus described them as "white washed tombstones, appearing beautiful on the outside, but are full of dead men's bones" (Matthew 23:27).

A very practical definition of idolatry is: "expecting from people or things what only God can give". Only God can satisfy our deepest needs. To expect satisfaction from any other source is idolatry.

"It does not belong to us, Lord. The glory belongs to you because of your love and loyalty. Why do the nations ask, “Where is their God?” Our God is in heaven. He does what he pleases. Their idols are made of silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but they cannot speak. They have eyes, but they cannot see. They have ears, but they cannot hear. They have noses, but they cannot smell. They have hands, but they cannot feel. They have feet, but they cannot walk. No sounds come from their throats. People who make idols will be like them, and so will those who trust them" (Psalm 115:1-8)."




I am not trying to stir anything up, but I am sincerely curious about this. I am not and do not claim to be a religious person, just a curious one. It does seem to me that we have gone against gods laws by displaying picture of Jesus and by worshiping him in church, but if this is the case, then this is quite the slippery slope.

Fanusen, nice post. Jehovah's Witness is clearly the winner for following the bible. No worshipping idols, even if it is in good faith, it is forbidden in God's words.

I'm staying out of this thread.

I think the idol worshipping is easy enough.
But dont we hold some people higher, then they should be.
There's role models, then again if a persons word, is more influential on you behavior, or how you think of the world or your fellow man then Gods Word
Isnt that a form of idol worship?

I'm staying out of this thread.

But you just got involved by posting! :LolLolLol

I don't think the bible says anything about role models and worshipping a man or woman. All those people that worshipped Michael Jackson and still does, I do not know how the bible applies to that. Maybe the bible is specifically on the religious worship. But then again, a lot of people have the Michael Jackson religion in their mindset.

I have a cross in my car. It is composed of leather strap, nails, and wires. I do not worship it, but I have it in my car in a way to be protected, kind of like a rabbit's foot.

Fanusen, I think you are talking about the old blustering man behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz. Don't worry about it anymore. That was just a children's story. Adults were not expected to believe it.

The God is jealous schtick is quite useful. Invariably, with an empire the size of Rome, they ran into other religions, mostly polytheistic. With an argument like "See, we beat you in battle, our God is better than yours," how could they go wrong? And oh, by the way, our God is jealous and you're going to have to melt down or destroy all of your idols.

Not only does this instantly impose the Roman culture and theology on the conquered people, it destroys their entrenched religious establishment -- probably the most likely place to foster dissent and rebellion. Talk about an ingenious way to instantly impose your culture on another people.

It's a pretty brilliant concept if you ask me.

Er, Rome was known for being really tolerant towards other religions. Part of its brilliance for a long, long time.

Er, Rome was known for being really tolerant towards other religions. Part of its brilliance for a long, long time.

Tolerance? Yes. But the goal in extending the imperial boundaries was always the same -- supplant the local religious establishment. How many native European religions are left?

Tolerance? Yes. But the goal in extending the imperial boundaries was always the same -- supplant the local religious establishment. How many native European religions are left?


Christianity is pretty much gone, too.

the god is jealous schtick is quite useful...

i won't disagree that the 'jealous god' concept was/is useful in maintaining religious authority and consistancy... but i think your history is off the mark.

first, the concept of a 'jealous god' predates christianity. it's a jewish concept presented in the book of exodus. you therefore can't really say that it was a device tacked on by the romans in order to help impose roman culture.

second, roman christianity is something that came to being relatively late in the empire. for the bulk of its history, rome took a different strategy in maintaining order. that is, they allowed the synchronous observance of local religion to be practiced alongside the roman religion. as long as rome was given a religious nod in local practice, it didn't do much to impose itself on other methods of religious observance. in fact, this is one of the primary reasons that it was able to sustain such a large size among many diverse cultures. exclusively imposing religion would have forced rome to deal with numerous local uprisings that it simply didn't have the resources or manpower to deal with.

-M

I think the idol worshipping is easy enough.
But dont we hold some people higher, then they should be.
There's role models, then again if a persons word, is more influential on you behavior, or how you think of the world or your fellow man then Gods Word
Isnt that a form of idol worship?

"It is clear in the Bible that the evidence of God is clearly seen in the things which He has made, but God's creation was never intended for worship. God's creation points to Himself."

Isn't 'role model' pretty much the same as 'idol'? When I was a kid, we didn't people that we looked up to 'role models', we called them 'idols'... The word itself implies idolatry.

During an election year, are we not worshiping the candidates by waving around placards with their images on them, and by singing their praises for all of the world to hear?

It just strikes me as curious that this question isn't debated more in religious circles... it seems to me that if I were a religious person that I might be a little worried.


On a separate topic, I'm not terribly familiar with what Jehovahs Witnesses do or do not believe, I'm just curious: Do they have a form of the Ten Commandments as well?

Christianity is pretty much gone, too.

True.. Been to Francistan or Denmarkistan lately?

Er, Rome was known for being really tolerant towards other religions. Part of its brilliance for a long, long time.
Pre-Christian Rome, yes. Pay your taxes & worship whomever you want. Seems like a pretty good idea. Christianity changed all of that.

Christianity is an evangelical religion - makes a huge difference. Happy little pagans were just out there living and let living (or sometimes being kinda bloodthirsty but they weren't much into converting). Christians have a mandate to spread the good word.

So, then would this mean to say that every image of Jesus should be removed from society, and that even in church the image of Jesus on the cross is being used as a false idol? Then too would the image of the Sacred Mother and every medal or charm with the image of the saints be idolatry.

That is actually one of the major rifts between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholics use a crucifix, which of course has an image of Jesus on the cross, while Protestants have just the cross.

The God is jealous schtick is quite useful. Invariably, with an empire the size of Rome, they ran into other religions, mostly polytheistic. With an argument like "See, we beat you in battle, our God is better than yours," how could they go wrong? And oh, by the way, our God is jealous and you're going to have to melt down or destroy all of your idols.

Not only does this instantly impose the Roman culture and theology on the conquered people, it destroys their entrenched religious establishment -- probably the most likely place to foster dissent and rebellion. Talk about an ingenious way to instantly impose your culture on another people.

It's a pretty brilliant concept if you ask me.

I disagree. I think the whole point Jesus was trying to make, and it certainly is present in the New Testament, was that God is not the jealous God of the Old Testament, that he is a loving God and that his son, rather than being the warrior king everyone expected, was Jesus who was but a common carpenter/shepherd and who taught others not to fight but to love their neighbors and to help one another, that anyone could be with God regardless of their societal status and that no one had to get the blessing of a priestly cast of humans to be a follower... everything was basically between you and God. Not exactly the message to build a warrior empire upon. In fact the Romans were quite alarmed at Christianity at first as it was very anti-authoritarian and counter-cultural for its time.

second, roman christianity is something that came to being relatively late in the empire. for the bulk of its history, rome took a different strategy in maintaining order. that is, they allowed the synchronous observance of local religion to be practiced alongside the roman religion. as long as rome was given a religious nod in local practice, it didn't do much to impose itself on other methods of religious observance. in fact, this is one of the primary reasons that it was able to sustain such a large size among many diverse cultures. exclusively imposing religion would have forced rome to deal with numerous local uprisings that it simply didn't have the resources or manpower to deal with.-M

Yes, if memory serves it wasn't until hundreds of years later when Constantine took the throne that the Roman Empire morphed into the Holy Roman Empire, and at that time they kind of "Romanized" Christianity.

If memory serves me right, the Holy Roman Empire began a few hundred years after Constantines "conversion."

isnt this forum wonderful?
there's points then counterpoints.
There's fact checking and correction when needed.

Who needs books or TV when there's okctalk!

Maybe that is the source of confusion. Roman Empire vs. Holy Roman Empire. If memory serves, and I am no biblical scholar, Constantine converted on his deathbed in about 300 AD. The dates could be wrong. The Roman Empire was certainly going strong before that and expanding all over the place.

Even after it went Christian, it still incorporated a lot of local beliefs -look at Ireland. And no question they lifted all the cool pagan holidays because people didn't want to give them up.

Well, the battle which Constantine allegedly promised God he'd convert the empire to Christianity happened in 325 A.D..

I disagree. I think the whole point Jesus was trying to make, and it certainly is present in the New Testament, was that God is not the jealous God of the Old Testament, that he is a loving God and that his son, rather than being the warrior king everyone expected, was Jesus who was but a common carpenter/shepherd and who taught others not to fight but to love their neighbors and to help one another, that anyone could be with God regardless of their societal status and that no one had to get the blessing of a priestly cast of humans to be a follower... everything was basically between you and God. Not exactly the message to build a warrior empire upon. In fact the Romans were quite alarmed at Christianity at first as it was very anti-authoritarian and counter-cultural for its time.

Jesus was VERY counter-cultural, a true rebel. He was broke and homeless.

Jesus was a rebel, a renegade, outlaw/ sanctified
troublemaker but He never sinned, naw/ and He lived His life by a different set of Rules/ the culture ain't approve/so you know they had to bruise em/ that's the way they do/ man, they swear they so gangsta everyone the same/ everybody do the same stuff/ tattoos, pierces smokin' up and drinking/ money sex plus them extravagant weekends/ man if that's the high life/ I'll puff puff pass that/ you leave evaporated like missing a gas cap/ I guess I'm passed that/ I'm in rebellion/ rather have a dollar in my pocket than a mill-ion/ scared to worship money, my wants over Elyon/ I'll remain a rebel while the rest of them just carry on/this is what I live fo/ this the hill I'm buried on/ if Jesus is the truth/ that means one of us is VERY wrong/ think about it

Verse 2:
No glory in me/ all glory's to the King on the throne (Jesus)/ you either love Him or leave Him alone but you cant do both/ yeah, I know you heard that once in song/ I pray you hear 10 mo fo ya gone/ hey listen up, holmes/ The stage is the corner crowd is the streets/ That's why I rap the bread of life cause they dyin' to eat/
I'm a rebel you know the kind that die in the street/Cause you refuse to
conform, won't eat the kings meat/ yeah, Christ rebelled by shunning the
Cultured/ He eatin' with sinners/ givin Pharisees ulcers/ He never got married, was broke and plus homeless/yeah that's the God I roll wit/ ya boy gotta wife
and no I neva cheated/ I'm prayin for humility whenever I get heated/ forget
about the drugs/ rebel against pornography/ this ain't how it oughta be,
homie/ this is how it's gotta be/ A rebel

maybe that is the source of confusion. roman empire vs. holy roman empire.

the holy roman empire began in the a.d. 900's... it's an entirely different animal than the roman empire.


well, the battle which constantine allegedly promised god he'd convert the empire to christianity happened in 325 a.d..

not exactly sure which battle you're thinking of... i can think of the one where constantine promised to paint the chi-rho ligature on the shields of his army in order to win the battle. i any event, the alleged promise you claim was never fulfilled... while constantine issued reforms that outlawed christian persecution, he never actually converted the roman empire to christianity. that distinction goes to theodosius.

-M

the holy roman empire began in the a.d. 900's... it's an entirely different animal than the roman empire.



not exactly sure which battle you're thinking of... i can think of the one where constantine promised to paint the chi-rho ligature on the shields of his army in order to win the battle. i any event, the alleged promise you claim was never fulfilled... while constantine issued reforms that outlawed christian persecution, he never actually converted the roman empire to christianity. that distinction goes to theodosius.

-M

Constantine I and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_and_Christianity)

ahh... battle of milvian bridge. thanks.

still... didn't see anything about a battle where constantine promised to convert the empire. -M

I like to picture Jesus in a tuxedo t-shirt. It says I wanna be formal, but I'm here to party, too.

I just found this thread and read it all the way through, and I must say it is one of the best internet forum religious debate I've seen.

I'm Agnostic, so I take the side of the argument that Jesus probably never existed in the first place. Not much I can add since the subject has been so well argued here, and in an impressively civil manner as well. Someone earlier in the thread posted a link to Zeitgeist the Movie. I highly recommend everyone watch it:

Zeitgeist - The Movie (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/)

And for some comic relief, enjoy the late George Carlin's take on the subject:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeSSwKffj9o&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeSSwKffj9o&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

My personal favorite...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LRIypcaIX4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LRIypcaIX4

This reminds me, I haven't seen Thunder around here in a few days. Do we know why?

I was wondering the same thing. I thought I might check his blog. Maybe that is just taking a lot of his time.

What? I've been reading here every day.

What? I've been reading here every day.You have to say something or we don't know you're in the room. You've been awfully quiet, so had to wonder.

I dunno what to say. Pretty much this topic gone off the mark.

I came to conclusion that Jesus is not as pictured. It would be an insult to him, I think.

I mostly meant on other threads. Anyway, glad to know it wasn't due to a problem. I think your conclusion on this subject is the right one. Later.....