Comments for Heathen's Guide Blog

Comment on The Myth of Good and Evil: From Hitler to Mother Teresa by heathensguide

heathensguide — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 01:16:43 +0000

First off, I have not lived my life in some kind of amoral hedonistic bent. I have, in fact, spent a good portion of it working with homeless and disabled folks (not to mention the years at university studying religions). So no, I am not looking for some way to absolve myself of absolutes because of guilt.

You say that you would interfere if my mother was being raped. But what if my mother was a Midonite whom God sent the Israeli army to rape? (Numbers 31). Stopping the Israelis from raping my mother would then go against the Will of God. Inversely, what if my mother was Israeli when God commanded that the Israeli women be raped? (Zechariah 14:1-2) Where is your absolute ‘good’ now?

Morality is not from some magical place inside you, but from the environment you were raised in and the laws of the land. Sometimes rape is ‘evil’. These days we see it as universally so. But this was not always so, and many cultures today still adhere to practices that we would call rape and hold it dear to them.

The terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are just catch phrases that people use to label the world so they can exonerate themselves. As long as there is a ‘devil’ of some other innate ‘evil’, the deeds of fallen Christians can be blamed on succumbing to this evil, instead of being recognized for what they are” Part of human nature.

[That is not to say that human nature justifies the act btw. Merely that the individual is ultimately responsible for it, not some demon, snake, or mythical 'evil' force.]

Comment on The Myth of Good and Evil: From Hitler to Mother Teresa by Edward Millet

Edward Millet — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:23:23 +0000

Replying on my own comment to fix that last sentence, I meant ,”You can find them in the actions of individuals and these actions will be what we are remembered for.” Which is the reason Mother Teresa and Hitler are remembered in the way they are.

Comment on The Myth of Good and Evil: From Hitler to Mother Teresa by Edward Millet

Edward Millet — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:14:04 +0000

Where then did the idea of good and evil come from? So, if I go and rape your mother, that was not evil I was just being who I am??? Bullshit, that is evil and just wrong. There is a law of morality on the inside of me that tells me that is wrong and a matter of fact if I saw someone raping your mother or any woman at that, I would run to help them. Why? Because raping women is wrong or should I say evil and standing by, letting it happen would be just as wrong. Explain this law of morality inside of me that pushes me to know and do what is right. I agree there is no perfect person and more times than I would like to admit, I, myself have ignored this push toward what is right, but that is what I love about the stories in the Scriptures. The Scriptures point out flawed people that God used for his purposes regardless of their flaws.
You know what I believe, I believe that people like yourself, do your best to reason or justify the fact that an absolute good and evil do not exist, so that in your mind there is no absolute that you have to answer to for all the jacked up stuff you did in your life. Without an absolute good (God) there is no higher authority than yourself and you are free to do whatever you want. Well, there is proof of good and evil not necessarily fully embodied in one particular person, but are expressed by acts of kindness or acts of hatred. You can find them in the actions of individuals will be what you are remembered for.

Comment on Virgin Births (an excerpt from The Heathen’s Guide to Christmas) by thegloriousone

thegloriousone — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:57:24 +0000

I’m assuming if he led a failed revolt that he wasn’t the peaceful, turn the other cheek Jesus style character?

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and the quick replies. Take care.

Bill

Comment on Virgin Births (an excerpt from The Heathen’s Guide to Christmas) by heathensguide

heathensguide — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:41:34 +0000

Honestly (and I don’t usually say this online, and would never do a post on it because it’s total conjecture). I think the Jesus of modern fame was patterned after a guy named Jesu Ben Surrah, one of the leaders of the failed Jewish Revolt of 66AD. I think the Gnostic stuff meshed in with Judaism just before the fall of Israel, and it all became the myth of Jesu by the turn of the century. Tales grow in the telling, and by 325 when this was all looked at by the council Jesu Ben Surrah had become intertwined with so many other god legends (like Mithra) that it was all a hodgepodge of theology. Rome accepted the Roman aspects of it, and rejected the other influences. But this is just a personal suspicion based on research. Not a hard, cold fact that I could defend.

Comment on Virgin Births (an excerpt from The Heathen’s Guide to Christmas) by thegloriousone

thegloriousone — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:28:58 +0000

That’s where I was going. You write “This is why many contend that the story and character of Jesus was entirely constructed from Roman gods, notably Mithra, to create a new religion in 325AD.”

I guess my point is that it seems unlikey that the entire character of Jesus was put together and based of off Mithra in 325 when the Jesus divinity program was in full swing well before that. He may have been based off of Mithra etc., but that would have had to have happened well before 325.

My understanding of Nicea is that Constantine didn’t really care whether Jesus was divine or not provided Rome settled on whether he was divine or not in unison. It was more important to have a single book and single belief regardless of what that belief was.

Comment on Virgin Births (an excerpt from The Heathen’s Guide to Christmas) by heathensguide

heathensguide — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:55:47 +0000

Paul and Peter hung around together, so we can assume Paul was around between 30 and 75 AD or so. Contemporary with the disciples, but he never met Jesus. He came along after Jesus was gone but had a vision of the divine Jesus. Or high blood sugar. One of the two.

Comment on Virgin Births (an excerpt from The Heathen’s Guide to Christmas) by heathensguide

heathensguide — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:51:51 +0000

I may have been unclear. The individual books and letter existed before the council. But the Bible (or Codex) did not exist. The authoritative compilation of books we now know as the Bible came into being at Nicaea. Prior to this there were dozens of Christian sects with different books and letters etc. Most of these were declared heretical and tossed out in 325. Paul’s stuff was accepted as canon by Rome in 325 where many books were not.

Comment on Virgin Births (an excerpt from The Heathen’s Guide to Christmas) by heathensguide

heathensguide — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:47:57 +0000

Not that I have found… and trust me, I’ve looked. Outside of Xianity Jesus’ life is a non-event. He may have existed, but neither Rome nor the Jews mention him until teh rise of Xianity in the third century.

Comment on Virgin Births (an excerpt from The Heathen’s Guide to Christmas) by thegloriousone

thegloriousone — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:40:23 +0000

The reason I ask about Saul is because his letters explicitly refer to Jesus, and he is widely believed to have lived and died well before the Council of Nicea.

It is most probable that none of the evangelists responsible for writing the canonical gospels had any direct contact or knowledge of Jesus, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that these works did not exist until after the Council of Nicea.

in fact, Iranaeus of Lyons mentions the gospels in his works, and Iranaeus himself was dead before Nicea.