Who is "The Adversary" and is it a real entity?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in reference to this, you are entirely entitled to your opinion IMHO - likewise about judaism. brian, if this is the case, i have to say - any belief system worth espousing ought to be able to handle serious, intelligent questioning and scepticism. if it can't stand up to the questions posed, it has no business making claims on one's behaviour or one's belief. in other words, i'm a grownup and i don't get offended by people disagreeing with me!

The issue there is that these forums aim to encourage respectful inter-faith dialogue. There are different ways to couch criticisms and objections. Repetitive statements that Jesus was a fraud is likely to be overtly offensive to Christians, hence why I made that particular request to Skeptic 44.

I have no interest in protecting and favouring any particular faith on it's strengths and weaknesses - but instead intend to work within a general blanket of accomodation.

By keeping to a simple ethic of mutual respect, that is precisely the sort of environment to foster any form of intelligent interfaith dialogue. And that is the particular aim of this forum.

I'll be re-ordering the boards tomorrow, and will try and make clearer something of how to utilise the different areas to best effect and expression.

[Skeptic44]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The issue there is that these forums aim to encourage respectful inter-faith dialogue. There are different ways to couch criticisms and objections. Repetitive statements that Jesus was a fraud is likely to be overtly offensive to Christians, hence why I made that particular request to Skeptic 44.

.

_____________________

First, nothing in my statements were repetitive. I always attacked the subject from an original perspective and, guess what.... it came out to the same result.

Chapter 5 of Acts - Peter takes the bodies of two members of his cult outside and buries them, three hours apart.

I suggested that you couldn't ignore the possibility that something was wrong in this cult, a cult led by Peter, who told it's members "the end of all things is at hand".... but this is NOT - and should NOT be considered - as a lack of respect for the people in this discussion.

Peter died ~65 AD. Surely I don't have to worry about offending HIM????

But... since you raised the question.

What if Jesus WAS a fraud?

Who am I hurting by bringing up that possibility?

Jesus has been dead for a long, long time. Roughly, 20 times as long as anyone here has been alive.

There's an important issue at stake, a balance between (a) respect for a man who had conversations with invisible spirits in front of dozens of witnesses, and (b) the importance of recognizing a CON game as a CON game before we fall for it.

Because.... the idea of a con game.... is that you FOOL the victims into thinking you're legitimate. "Matchstick Men" just opened, and as Nic Cage's character says, "I'm not a con MAN. I'm a con ARTIST."

Some con men are artists. They take great pride in their cons. I could name a few - David Copperfield, David Blaine - who take their cons on television and get huge ratings.

If a group of con "artists" pulled off a good one, there's no reason why we shouldn't sit back - two thousand years later - and admire how they did it. How they fooled so many for so long. It isn't disrespect - except for the small part about the two bodies Peter buried, and the question of how Peter knew God was going to kill Sapphira before it happened.

Doesn't that make you THINK?

[Skeptic44]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

.....it is axiomatic to us

(Identifies himself as "us".... point of reference)

that G!D Is One and that

where you see references to 'bene elohim' it cannot possibly mean "sons of G!D"! biblical hebrew of whatever period simply *cannot* be read in the way you suggest without doing violence to both its context and its grammar - let alone its intent. :

"I Said that you are like the celestial beings and like all higher beings, but you shall die like adam and fall like one of the princes".

but what you are failing to understand is

>> a set of three categories,
>> where G!D Is at the top,

>> humanity is at the bottom and

>> there is an *intermediate* category inbetween of enlightened or 'higher' beings.

...
b'shalom

bananabrain

________________

Now, what I'm seeing here is a "religion" that has, as part of ( ),

... humanity - ie, human beings, including me - is the lowest level of beings.

God is in a separate category, at the top.

But there is also a category between humanity and (God), composed of enlightened or "higher' beings.

And I am NOT to raise the possibility that this is a con game?

IMO, this seems like the ONLY intelligent reply to what you posted.

The idea that the men who wrote the OT, Torah, whatever the written source of these ideas, the men who wrote them...

(and this is one possibility)

were (a) writing stories ABOUT their idea of God, as a way of showing what the universe would be like IF they were right about God, but these stories should not be taken as a source of wisdom or anything else other than a story, and

(b) after a "religion" was formed, using these stories as their sacred writings, the "word of God," it became a con game. That a great number of people are being fooled, and we can't get past a certain point because the "thought police" make a stink... I'm thinking of an evening talk that Hugh Ross gave. I made a point and Ross said, "If what you said is true, then everything I've said here tonight is wrong." And then I was not allowed to ask any more questions. Because they didn't want to hear it. They couldn't process the information. They had a ( ) that they were proud of and, even if it was wrong, they didn't want to admit they had been conned. At least, not right then and there.

Possible? Worth talking about?

My problem was, How can I write an intelligent response to your post without mentioning this possibility?

[Skeptic44]

(Sorry, ran past time limit for editing)

What is the alternative?

How do I rationally discuss the possibility that creatures "above human" on the scale of divinity exist?

What could I possibly say that would advance this conversation?

I see ONLY one proper response.

This is a "story" - a product of someone's imagination - and the only "bad" thing occurs when you attempt to elevate this story from "imagination" to "inspired Word of God."

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Skeptic44

What if Jesus WAS a fraud?

Who am I hurting by bringing up that possibility?

The problem is that this is an forum dedicated to promoting inter-faith dialogue. There's a purposeful meaning to words such as "respect".

There are respectful ways to communicate objections or criticisms - but your overtly referencing religious figures as "fraud" or "con" is not to be tolerated here.

Thread closed.