The Evolution of Religion

[Thought Riot]

Okak, here's the evolution of monotheism.

Part I The foming of God
The majority of the people living around this time were pagans. One day people started quetioning paganism. They said wait a minute, these idols cannot be true, because we sculpted them, henceforth they have no divine presence. So instead they made another idol that they called God. The difference was that they couldn't see this idol, henceforth it had more spiritual essence. The reason they created Gods in the first place was because they were afraid of the unknown. They wanted to have someone watching over them so they created God. They felt much better now.

Part II The forming of Christianity
Around this time, being Jewish really sucked. Their lives were miserable. Then suddenly Rabbi Joshua was born. He was a good speaker, people liked him. Then Rabbi Joshua was crucified :(. Then the people said that he was their saviour. Some pointed out that in the text it said that the messiah would be a general and conquer all the land and bring peace. Of course, this never happened, so instead the people said that the messiah created this kingdom called heaven were everything was perfect and once again the sheep were happy.

Well, there you have it. Hope you enjoyed!

[KWJams]

Well. are you forgetting the evolution of the "Un-Religious"?

How about they all looked around and said: Behold, what if there is a Supreme Being -- all these nasty and mean things we are doing makes us bad people,,,, hey I know!
Let's declare all the believers as silly superstitious fools so we can absolve ourselves of guilt. :thinking:

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by KWJams
Let's declare all the believers as silly superstitious fools so we can absolve ourselves of guilt. :thinking: If it were only that simple. ;)

Ok...I'm agnostic, but I'm not an atheist.
I respect and appreciate the diversity of the world's religions.
I also abhor the in-fighting and acts of violence performed in the name of religion.

My 'religion' is simple.
One planet, one people, so let's get on with living and stop finding differences to battle over.
It's silly, it's childish, it's a complete waste of time and lives.

If there is a God, I'm sure he/she/it would prefer to see us getting on with things and being the best that we can be, instead of arguing, fighting and killing in his name.

[Thought Riot]

All I'm saying is that no matter how hard that I try I can't believe in God. My rational thinking just explodes. It is quite logical and seems much more accurate to say that humans created God out of fear of the unknown

[KWJams]

So a bunch of non believing dudes got together and beget ungod to satisfy their unbeliefs :D
I can respect that ;)
If everybody respected each others beliefs then this big rock in space would be a whole lot better place to hang out. :cool:

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Thought Riot
Okak, here's the evolution of monotheism.

Part I The foming of God
The majority of the people living around this time were pagans. One day people started quetioning paganism. They said wait a minute, these idols cannot be true, because we sculpted them, henceforth they have no divine presence. So instead they made another idol that they called God. The difference was that they couldn't see this idol, henceforth it had more spiritual essence. The reason they created Gods in the first place was because they were afraid of the unknown. They wanted to have someone watching over them so they created God. They felt much better now.

Part II The forming of Christianity
Around this time, being Jewish really sucked. Their lives were miserable. Then suddenly Rabbi Joshua was born. He was a good speaker, people liked him. Then Rabbi Joshua was crucified :(. Then the people said that he was their saviour. Some pointed out that in the text it said that the messiah would be a general and conquer all the land and bring peace. Of course, this never happened, so instead the people said that the messiah created this kingdom called heaven were everything was perfect and once again the sheep were happy.

Well, there you have it. Hope you enjoyed!

I've got to know where this theory came from.

[Thought Riot]

I just made it up, although I know I'm not the only one who believes it.

[DRMIZER]

cool

[Cedars]

ThoughtRiot, belief in God is actually very logical. While many do not question their faith, still others do. I think there are many believers who grow stronger in faith (including me) because we find that belief in God is very logical. You can believe in the Big Bang theory and all the other theories, but who started the big bang and WHY did it start? In this world there has to be a cause to have an effect. Discoveries in science never disprove anything about God. Think about it. God makes sense logically, scientifically and philosophically. You may not want to believe in God, but God believes in you. He believes in all of us--that is why we are here. He has left it up to all of us to choose life (God) or death. Essentially, that is what Jesus is all about. God sent Jesus to save us and give us eternal life if we but choose Him.

[Kai_Hawatari]

Why does everyone assume we should follow the most logical path? Logic is often flawed.

Also, many aspects of God are not logical. And that's fine because God is far beyone our comprehension. He is neither logical nor illogical. He is outside of our entire system.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Kai_Hawatari
Why does everyone assume we should follow the most logical path? Logic is often flawed.

Also, many aspects of God are not logical. And that's fine because God is far beyone our comprehension. He is neither logical nor illogical. He is outside of our entire system.
I agree with you that God is far beyond human comprehension; but I disagree that "He is neither logical nor illogical." Human logic is flawed. God's logic is perfect. If we find any aspect of God as not logical, it is not God's logic that is flawed; it is our own. God is only outside our entire system if that is what we choose.

[lawman]

Once you allow faith into the equation, any reasoning about God quickly and inevitably becomes circular. The only starting position from which one can reason objectively is one of skepticism.

(Some post-structuralists would argue that reason itself is a belief system that relies upon faith. For the record, I say **** 'em; that's pointless sophistry. But I digress.)

[JD3]

Originally posted by lawman
(Some post-structuralists would argue that reason itself is a belief system that relies upon faith. For the record, I say **** 'em; that's pointless sophistry. But I digress.)

Lawman, I was onced asked to give a presentation about the value of deconstrutionism. If I had decided to do so, my response might have been like that.:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Cedars]

Originally posted by lawman
Once you allow faith into the equation, any reasoning about God quickly and inevitably becomes circular. The only starting position from which one can reason objectively is one of skepticism.

(Some post-structuralists would argue that reason itself is a belief system that relies upon faith. For the record, I say **** 'em; that's pointless sophistry. But I digress.)
Not sure what your point is, lawman. Placing one's faith and trust in God does not mean that a believer's reasoning must therefore be circular. While some never question their faith, many others do (which may lead to a stronger belief if they have found their answers or may lead to disbelief altogether if they have not). God is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal. He is outside our logic -- no matter how smart we may think we are, there is always another human who is smarter (and another still and another still). There are even differing degrees of human genius. When you look at a fighter plane, you don't assume that it just got there; you know it was built by someone. Well, when you look at the mountains, the skies, the rivers, the human body, the various animals and plants, how can you not know that it was built by SOME ONE! Our whole ecological system works perfectly; and if the earth and its atmosphere were made of anything other than what it was, life would not be possible. That was no accident. It is our experience that our life begins at birth and ends at death. There is a beginning and an ending. That there is God who is outside of our time and space makes perfect sense, and that He wants to share His eternal life with us also makes sense.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Cedars
ThoughtRiot, belief in God is actually very logical. While many do not question their faith, still others do. I think there are many believers who grow stronger in faith (including me) because we find that belief in God is very logical. You can believe in the Big Bang theory and all the other theories, but who started the big bang and WHY did it start? In this world there has to be a cause to have an effect. Discoveries in science never disprove anything about God. Think about it. God makes sense logically, scientifically and philosophically. You may not want to believe in God, but God believes in you. He believes in all of us--that is why we are here. He has left it up to all of us to choose life (God) or death. Essentially, that is what Jesus is all about. God sent Jesus to save us and give us eternal life if we but choose Him. Without preaching. . . .Belief in God MAY be logical. However the dogma attached makes it impossible to ligitimize or take seriously. Look around. Churches are no more than non-profit money pits! If we had the tax money lost to churches we could pay off the national debt! Believe it. . . . . .or not!

[FreeMason]

Well your evolution is a bit off....

Pagans never questioned their paganism...what happend was ... in the Jew's case, they became "henotheistic."

That's why in the bible all these places are being destroyed by the "one true God" because they are worshipping other gods.

They believed there were more than one god, but that YHWH their War God was the supreme and only one worthy of worship...

Eventually this became to mean that he was the only one that existed, but this hold didn't take until around the time of Christ.

The reason they created Gods in the first place was because they were afraid of the unknown.

This is a load of crap, in actuality paganism especially comes from illiteracy, the inability to think analytically creates a world of "fantasy", where things have dieties instead.

Religion also comes from the fact that our minds go beyond the world around us, we can't see it, touch it, hear it, it just is there within us, and we fill that feeling stories to make it describable...

I hope you've read Josephus, but actually you haven't, which explains why your views of Judaism at the time of Jesus are completely WRONG.

You're the reason I hate those so-called "Freethinkers" those atheists...whether you're actually an atheist or not, your view points are full of holes, which reminds me of all those atheists I run across claiming that science explains everything.

[DRMIZER]

FreeMason,

Who was this written to?

[FreeMason]

To the original author, and it's far incomplete I tried to pack a lot of stuff into a few paragraphs lol!

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
When you look at a fighter plane, you don't assume that it just got there; you know it was built by someone. Well, when you look at the mountains, the skies, the rivers, the human body, the various animals and plants, how can you not know that it was built by SOME ONE! Our whole ecological system works perfectly; and if the earth and its atmosphere were made of anything other than what it was, life would not be possible.
For someone who claims the existence of God is supported by logic, your logic sure seems flawed. The shape and existence of mountains, the skies, the rivers, the human body, the various animals and plants are not determined by someone but by nature and physical processes, most of which are already explained. Our ecological system further doesn't work perfectly, some species can get extinct and is not stable at all, various ice ages and periods of global warming prove that.

Further, your logic is most flawed when you say that when the earth and its atmosphere were made of anything other than what it was, life would not be possible. This is like saying if it weren't for my mom and dad to have had sex, I wouldn't be here. You would never have known if they didn't have, and therefore on many other planets life doesn't know it is not there because there is no life; precisely because of the boundary conditions.

Let me simplify it for you : there are billions of planets and on one of it intelligent life is possible, and one of these "intelligent" but actually quite stupid lifeforms claims God exists because the conditions are just perfect. Well duh, because there is no life on planets with less than perfect conditions, and because there are enough planets around, the whole existence of life is nothing more than a statistical anomaly.

[FreeMason]

Let me simplify it for you : there are billions of planets and on one of it intelligent life is possible, and one of these "intelligent" but actually quite stupid lifeforms claims God exists because the conditions are just perfect Simon666

Well you and your comrades might be quite stupid, but over here there are plenty of quite intelligent beings.

As for life being a statistical anomaly?

Wrong.

Try getting some Ph.Ds in Physics and Chemistry...last thing we need is another psuedo-scientists telling us that this universe is here because of some "probabilities".

Science can't explain why or how anything works...it only explains what happens and the general mechanisms of it.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by FreeMason
Well you and your comrades might be quite stupid, but over here there are plenty of quite intelligent beings.
Too bad you're not one of them, but you can always try.
Originally posted by FreeMason
Try getting some Ph.Ds in Physics and Chemistry...last thing we need is another psuedo-scientists telling us that this universe is here because of some "probabilities".

Science can't explain why or how anything works...it only explains what happens and the general mechanisms of it.
It can explain why and how as well as what happens and what mechanism. :rolleyes: What degree do you hold? Better than civil engineer? I doubt it.

[Sandy]

There are two fabulous books written by Dan Brown. The first one is "Demons and Angels" and gets right into the middle of the Catholic church and how it developed. The second is called "The DaVinci Code" which is still on the N.Y. Times best seller list (#1) and goes into some well researched information on the time of Jesus Christ. Both books are written with a mystery format and are extremely well written.

This last book goes into detail of the various books written by the Apostles but were never used in the New Testaments. These books are a real eyeopener to anyone interested in Christian history.

I recommend both books as fast and excellent reading!

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
For someone who claims the existence of God is supported by logic, your logic sure seems flawed. The shape and existence of mountains, the skies, the rivers, the human body, the various animals and plants are not determined by someone but by nature and physical processes, most of which are already explained. Our ecological system further doesn't work perfectly, some species can get extinct and is not stable at all, various ice ages and periods of global warming prove that.

Simon, WHO do you think created nature and physical processes? They didn't create themselves! And no matter how much scientific discovery has progressed, we STILL have no answer for everything -- and we may even find out in later centuries how wrong we were on some points we believe today (this is not a new thing; our science is constantly being updated and revised with new discoveries). And so what, man can now understand a little more of God's creation. That does not prove God DOESN'T exist. As far as maintaining all the species are concerned, how do you determine what is perfect and what is not perfect?

Further, your logic is most flawed when you say that when the earth and its atmosphere were made of anything other than what it was, life would not be possible. This is like saying if it weren't for my mom and dad to have had sex, I wouldn't be here. You would never have known if they didn't have, and therefore on many other planets life doesn't know it is not there because there is no life; precisely because of the boundary conditions.

So you think yourself and all the rest of creation are an accident? Something that just happened, and boy, aren't we all lucky it did? Because if it didn't, we wouldn't exist? Basically, Simon, you ARE saying you believe yourself to be an accident, with no greater cause than that "**** happens."

Let me simplify it for you : there are billions of planets and on one of it intelligent life is possible, and one of these "intelligent" but actually quite stupid lifeforms claims God exists because the conditions are just perfect. Well duh, because there is no life on planets with less than perfect conditions, and because there are enough planets around, the whole existence of life is nothing more than a statistical anomaly.

Now, you can insult me all you wish - that is usually a sign of someone who knows they are losing an argument. Let me reiterate what you just said, "There are billions of planets and on one of it intelligent life is possible." My point exactly. You can call God an anomaly or whatever else you wish. But He exists, and He knows what He is doing. STATISTICAL anomalies do not. And if you believe the odds are so great that everything could have "just happened" the way it had without God's putting it into motion, then you're not as smart as I originally gave you credit for. If you don't believe in God and He does not exist, then you have nothing to lose. If you don't believe in God and He does exist, you have everything to lose. If you do believe in God and He exists, you have everything to gain. A[n intelligent] betting man would bet on God.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
Simon, WHO do you think created nature and physical processes? They didn't create themselves! And no matter how much scientific discovery has progressed, we STILL have no answer for everything -- and we may even find out in later centuries how wrong we were on some points we believe today (this is not a new thing; our science is constantly being updated and revised with new discoveries). And so what, man can now understand a little more of God's creation. That does not prove God DOESN'T exist. As far as maintaining all the species are concerned, how do you determine what is perfect and what is not perfect?
First, I never claimed I could prove God doesn't exist, only that it can't be proven that God exists and for what was cited you do not need a God. Second, all species are imperfect in one way or another.
Originally posted by Cedars
So you think yourself and all the rest of creation are an accident? Something that just happened, and boy, aren't we all lucky it did? Because if it didn't, we wouldn't exist? Basically, Simon, you ARE saying you believe yourself to be an accident, with no greater cause than that "**** happens."
That's what it comes down to. Some people have trouble facing this reality, start getting insecure, and want to invent a God to feel safe and not to be confronted with thinking there just might not be a God, that we are all here by luck and that when our lives are over, they really are over.
Originally posted by Cedars
Now, you can insult me all you wish - that is usually a sign of someone who knows they are losing an argument. Let me reiterate what you just said, "There are billions of planets and on one of it intelligent life is possible." My point exactly. You can call God an anomaly or whatever else you wish. But He exists, and He knows what He is doing. STATISTICAL anomalies do not. And if you believe the odds are so great that everything could have "just happened" the way it had without God's putting it into motion, then you're not as smart as I originally gave you credit for. If you don't believe in God and He does not exist, then you have nothing to lose. If you don't believe in God and He does exist, you have everything to lose. If you do believe in God and He exists, you have everything to gain. A[n intelligent] betting man would bet on God.
I'm not going to insult you, I'll do that some other time. And the odds indeed are so great that everything could have happened by statistics. You lack evidence of the contrary yet you seem absolutely convinced this is true and insinuate I am dumb for not following you in your belief. Now who is insulting who?

[BoFA]

It’s quite obvious to me that if any God must be scrutinized, debated, and over intellectualized, that you are all equally wrong in theorizing the evolution of religion.

How is it possible for true religion to evolve with the human species? Wouldn’t that be a religion of convenience?

[Simon666]

You finally figured out what it is?

[BoFA]

Originally posted by Simon666
You finally figured out what it is?
No. And I never presumed to know.
Trying to deduce a God by means of human intellect is rather silly.

[Simon666]

Well, you're the one who called it a religion of convenience, so I figured out you might have got a clue.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by BoFA
...Trying to deduce a God by means of human intellect is rather silly.
Not if your atheist friends deduce, by intellect, that there is no God because he has not actually seen or heard Him.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
First, I never claimed I could prove God doesn't exist, only that it can't be proven that God exists and for what was cited you do not need a God. Second, all species are imperfect in one way or another.

That's what it comes down to. Some people have trouble facing this reality, start getting insecure, and want to invent a God to feel safe and not to be confronted with thinking there just might not be a God, that we are all here by luck and that when our lives are over, they really are over.

I'm not going to insult you, I'll do that some other time. And the odds indeed are so great that everything could have happened by statistics. You lack evidence of the contrary yet you seem absolutely convinced this is true and insinuate I am dumb for not following you in your belief. Now who is insulting who?
My only response is that if your own viewpoint really satisfied you, you would not be wasting your time on a religious thread.

[xexon]

If religion is evolving, then it has a destination.

You have to think that at some point, all your questions will be answered. You have "arrived" in that place.

At some point in each person's own evolution, you will have a day where all the stage lights are brought up, and for the first time in your journey...You can see where you are.



.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
My only response is that if your own viewpoint really satisfied you, you would not be wasting your time on a religious thread.
Care to motivate that? Silliest thing I ever heard: you post on thread X because your viewpoint in thread X doesn't satisfy you. Come on. :rolleyes: I post on thread X as to shove my viewpoint down your throat whether you want to read it or not.

[eyesandears]

Since the beggining of Humanity , so far as prehistorical arts and later other records. Human beings feel the existance of forces larger than life. When primitive man was sleep , they puzzle if such stage was a kind of temporary death . Many some assume there was a kind of astral body which left the body while we are sleep and return when we wake up.

This is just one of the questions or the many that for years hunted mankind quest for explanation.


The need to create rules in order to build communities. the need to find loftier message and sense of destiny , and duty . the reality that there is more than our senses can perceive . Fact that still holds truth for us in the XXI century.

Helped to bring beliefs systems into being.


EVen their crudety and contradictories beliefs states in their holies books , does not deny the existance of soul, spirit and Higher Power in one way or other.


A code of behavior is good in order to promote safety and well being among the member of a community . A code which create respect and responsability toward those beyond their blood ties in a society . Beliefs have been helpful to internalize such behavior in many cases, lamentably not all.

However, if Mankind is just plain secular ( which I respect the choice and support )not really feeling than beyond matter there something higher I feel we lost a lot .

I remember actions speak better than words.

Calling oneself a believer , regardless of which religion anyone follow , face such believer with hard choices.

If anyone care to read the holy books of at least the major religions ( in number of follower I mean) in our planet. The classification of what is the rigth believe (right interpretation )and the practice is

a tough call.


many sincere believer find a way in the around. They called themselves followers of the books(whatever the book) by the letter and living a life according to the book principle . Which give comfort and sometimes a sense of peace and even spiritual fulfillment however .

REAding books and checking precepts by precepts with the actual practice ,bring the results that such believers are making a picking and choose . The so called liberal and social religious conservatives and the so called mainstream . ( I am using terms usually employ in Christianity but with the intention to use them in a larger context with all its limitations) really avoid to face the hard question . We pick and choose because such put them in crisis.

Such avoidance is maybe more intense in
the social regilious conservatives but at least in Christianity the so called liberal had make the religion more an object politics which instad of nourishing faith seems just secularism .

The conservatives also are using politics more intensive than faith . But the reality is that politics and religion always came hand to hand .

but when to find a way that it will not .

When , many wish . I love it .

Live the Spirit and I am a believer but clear than honest enough to confess than I am also I am picker and choose but open to it without deceiving God or my fellow men . I can handle most do not .

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Cedars
ThoughtRiot, belief in God is actually very logical. While many do not question their faith, still others do. I think there are many believers who grow stronger in faith (including me) because we find that belief in God is very logical.

You should look up the term "faith" in the dictionary. It is by definition, irrational. Thus, if the very word you use to describe your beliefs is irrational - please explain to me how the belief in God is very logical?

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
Care to motivate that? Silliest thing I ever heard: you post on thread X because your viewpoint in thread X doesn't satisfy you. Come on. :rolleyes: I post on thread X as to shove my viewpoint down your throat whether you want to read it or not.
In other words, you would not waste so much of your time on a religious thread if you really did not believe in God. If your mind were as set as you insist it is that there is no God, why bother reading threads you don't believe in anyway? Big waste of time. A person interested in politics reads the politics thread; a person interested in sports reads a sports thread, and so on. You are interested in religion, that is why you are drawn to a religious thread. If you truly do not believe in God, why would you be so intent as to "shove my viewpoint down your throat whether you want to read it or not"? On some level you believe in God, or else you would not identify with Simon666 -- so your purpose is really to either discover more about religion or to heckle others who do profess belief in order to turn them from God. If God did not really matter, what would be the purpose of heckling? Either way, nonbelief in God is not a true belief of yours. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by NimNim
You should look up the term "faith" in the dictionary. It is by definition, irrational. Thus, if the very word you use to describe your beliefs is irrational - please explain to me how the belief in God is very logical?
You are correct that belief in God is faith. However, how do you explain faith to an atheist? You have to get down to basics. Belief in God is not as illogical as some may believe just because they cannot see God with their eyes or hear His voice. One only has to look at nature and our environment to know that SOMEONE made all this and it was not by accident. I have explained all this before. Please check.

[Simon666]

Look, I'm wasting my time on all threads, face it: the chances you will change someone from his viewpoint there are WMD hidden in Iraq despite all odds are zero or near to it. That doesn't mean I will not debate it or that I think there are WMD. Atheism is a belief to by the way as you can't prove there is no God. And that is my true belief.

[Innocent Abroad]

Well, actually there are a whole load of possible positions that any of us might take...

However this thread started with a (to me, whimsical) account of the origin of monotheism.

Why people in a particular part of the world should have felt the need for monotheism, when other, equally advanced civilisations in other parts of the world did not is a valid question. I am not sure that anthropologists, theologians and other scholars have any definite ideas about it.

What is beyond doubt is that human beings have, in the main, practised religion of some sort, and that the way they have done it has changed over the course of history.

I would suggest that religion is an attempt, sometimes with greater success than others, to make sense of life. There are basically two kinds of religion:-

(1) Private and personal; this includes all forms of mysticism and all private and personal spiritual experiences. These are notoriously difficult to put into words, but it seems to me reasonable to suppose that, given there is only one kind of human neuro-physiology, there is only one kind of private spiritual experience, irrespective of culture.

(2) Communal, ranging from collective worship - of any form - at one end to a theocratic state at the other. A defining feature here is the need for an Other who does not do the religious things that we do, whatever they are. Now, to return to neuro-physiology, confrontation with the Other creats electro-chemical changes in the brain which we experience as fear, and which we can deal with by fight, flight or some form of rationalisation... or by accessing an inner strength from our previous personal spiritual experience.

So we have a situation in which public religion is a form of social glue, and as such inevitably a political matter, whilst private religious experience is necessarily disconnected from public religious superstructures (churches, mosques etc) and indeed can even be a threat to them.

It seems reasonable to suppose that the changes in public religion through history have come about through a dialectical process with the accumulation of reports of private experience. This would account for the fact that no culture, having adopted monotheism, has reverted to polytheism. It would also explain why monotheists have such difficulty persuading Buddhists!

In our culture, the supposed opposition of science and religion is yesterday's news. (Although a lot of people - on both sides - are still reading old newspapers!) There is every reason to believe - on the back of our current scientific understanding - that there will always questions which science can't answer, and also that science will continue to answer more questions.

I would certainly regard creationists as every bit as much fetish-worshippers as those Arab idolators Mohammed preached against! But I would also have compassion for them, since they are clearly unable to see that whether creation happened in seven days or billions of years can't possibly have any consequences for their own personal conduct, which is presumably the only thing that matters, at the end of the day.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Cedars
One only has to look at nature and our environment to know that SOMEONE made all this and it was not by accident.
So I have to ask, who created God? I anticipate an answer along the lines that he has always existed. If this is theory is accepted, why is it so hard to accept a more plausible (rational) idea that the universe has always existed in some form or another - rather than some being who created it?

This is what it comes down to, the question of how everything began. If you think someone or some thing created it, then you will most likely cling to some religion. If you think it has always existed, or was the result of some physical phenomenon - then you will most likely be an atheist.

To dream up some superior being is extremely irrational - since it goes against everything we experience and learn. There is no evidence pointing to such a creature, except in men's minds. To accept God does nothing more than to alleviate the burden of thinking coherently. Now you can dream up anything on a whim and believe it - because you have already thrown rationality out the window - and God forbid - find it acceptable to think this way. Can you imagine what that does to a mind?

[mahayana]

I think this is starting to repeat the "Is there a God" thread.

Can we switch over to discussing evidence for a "spirit" or "soul", which lasts beyond death, or may precede conception?

I read an account somewhere of persons, under hypnosis, speaking in languages which they did not know when awake. Is anyone familiar with this? I'd like to find the reference info.

Does anyone wish to share personal spiritual experiences? Things that have influenced the evolution of your personal religion?

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by mahayana
I think this is starting to repeat the "Is there a God" thread.

Can we switch over to discussing evidence for a "spirit" or "soul", which lasts beyond death, or may precede conception?

I read an account somewhere of persons, under hypnosis, speaking in languages which they did not know when awake. Is anyone familiar with this? I'd like to find the reference info.

Does anyone wish to share personal spiritual experiences? Things that have influenced the evolution of your personal religion? Under hypnosis, people open themselves to "suggestion". The hypnotist is the one to be looked at when people "speak" languages they did not know previously.
Have you ever seen stage hypnosis where people bark like dogs, do other strange things and no remember it later?

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
Look, I'm wasting my time on all threads, face it: the chances you will change someone from his viewpoint there are WMD hidden in Iraq despite all odds are zero or near to it. That doesn't mean I will not debate it or that I think there are WMD. Atheism is a belief to by the way as you can't prove there is no God. And that is my true belief.
You are entitled to your opinion.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by NimNim
So I have to ask, who created God? I anticipate an answer along the lines that he has always existed. If this is theory is accepted, why is it so hard to accept a more plausible (rational) idea that the universe has always existed in some form or another - rather than some being who created it?

This is what it comes down to, the question of how everything began. If you think someone or some thing created it, then you will most likely cling to some religion. If you think it has always existed, or was the result of some physical phenomenon - then you will most likely be an atheist.

To dream up some superior being is extremely irrational - since it goes against everything we experience and learn. There is no evidence pointing to such a creature, except in men's minds. To accept God does nothing more than to alleviate the burden of thinking coherently. Now you can dream up anything on a whim and believe it - because you have already thrown rationality out the window - and God forbid - find it acceptable to think this way. Can you imagine what that does to a mind?
Why? Why? Why? THAT is the question! I understand your doubts and your skepticism; but I could in turn say that belief in God brings clarity to an otherwise incoherent mind. A fool runs through the street and declares everything to be foolish.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Innocent Abroad
...I would certainly regard creationists as every bit as much fetish-worshippers as those Arab idolators Mohammed preached against! But I would also have compassion for them, since they are clearly unable to see that whether creation happened in seven days or billions of years can't possibly have any consequences for their own personal conduct, which is presumably the only thing that matters, at the end of the day.
How kind of you to take pity on us poor feeble-minded creationists. I am happy for you that you consider yourself to be of a superior analytical mind. Good luck with that.

[Innocent Abroad]

Well, Cedars, I had thought that the object of a forum was to have a discussion - if you can show me that I would be happier as a Christian Creationist, I'd be a fool not to become one, wouldn't I?

But perhaps that is not what this forum is for, I don't know.

[mahayana]

DRMIZER- I think you missed what I was trying to say in my last post. "Evolution of Religion" is not "Is there a God?", though I guess you could discuss "will people eventually discard religion?" and still be on-topic.

I asked if we could discuss the origin of religion, which I think is belief in spirits and the soul.

Do you believe you have a "soul"?

Do you have personal experience of the existence of spirit?

My comment about people being conversant in languages they have never been exposed to, under hypnosis, was a question. Does anyone have references to this phenomenon?

If the rumor is true, it would constitute evidence that "spirits" exist. I am not convinced that they do.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by mahayana
DRMIZER- I think you missed what I was trying to say in my last post. "Evolution of Religion" is not "Is there a God?", though I guess you could discuss "will people eventually discard religion?" and still be on-topic.

I asked if we could discuss the origin of religion, which I think is belief in spirits and the soul.

Do you believe you have a "soul"?

Do you have personal experience of the existence of spirit?

My comment about people being conversant in languages they have never been exposed to, under hypnosis, was a question. Does anyone have references to this phenomenon?

If the rumor is true, it would constitute evidence that "spirits" exist. I am not convinced that they do.
I am not sure whether I have a soul. I have emotions, feelings, habits and beliefs which go into the creation of the nature of a "soul" in the religious sense. Is there an entity as a "soul" in a purely spiritual sense? I don't know.

I am not sure what it means to have personal experience of the existence of spirit. Do you mean have I ever felt the presence of a spirit? If that is the question, I have had experiences which have been extraordinary and "unbelievable". As to a spirit inspiring these events, I don't know.

I do, however, agree with the teachings of the bible on one point which clearly indicates that "spirits" of the dead, ghosts, etc. do NOT exist.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Innocent Abroad
Well, Cedars, I had thought that the object of a forum was to have a discussion - if you can show me that I would be happier as a Christian Creationist, I'd be a fool not to become one, wouldn't I?

But perhaps that is not what this forum is for, I don't know.
I can attempt to show you, but will you follow? Generally, a stubborn mind refuses to change. How open is your mind?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
I can attempt to show you, but will you follow? Generally, a stubborn mind refuses to change. How open is your mind?
Ask first how open yours is if you believe all the crapola made up by creationists long refuted by scientists, like real scientists.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
Ask first how open yours is if you believe all the crapola made up by creationists long refuted by scientists, like real scientists.
Whose mind is more open: the person who cannot see God and so insists He does not exist, or the person who cannot see God and believes He does!

[Cedars]

If I had to define what a soul was, I would say that it is the essence of a person, meaning that person's character and personality as a whole, everything and anything in each person's makeup that differentiates that person from every other person (as no two people are alike). I am not sure if that would cover all a soul is, but I think it would be a good start.

[Simon666]

That is a rethorical question to you and a ridiculous question to me. Both are narrow minded as there is no evidence of either. However, some aspects of your religion can be refuted by scientists, while not one single part of atheism can be disproven.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
That is a rethorical question to you and a ridiculous question to me. Both are narrow minded as there is no evidence of either. However, some aspects of your religion can be refuted by scientists, while not one single part of atheism can be disproven.
It is not a rhetorical question to me. Why is it ridiculous to you? An open mind is "open" to everything, including God.

[Simon666]

I have an open mind that God may exist, yet the chances I give him in my mind are around 10%. That makes me atheist largely and a small part agnostic. I don't think I can say the same of you.

[Cedars]

You believe God MAY exist (finally admitted). I believe God DOES exist. Why should that make me less open than you? What I don't understand about God, I attribute to faith. What you don't understand about God, you attribute to non-faith.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
You believe God MAY exist (finally admitted). I believe God DOES exist. Why should that make me less open than you? What I don't understand about God, I attribute to faith. What you don't understand about God, you attribute to non-faith.
I believe that chance is very small, do you believe for one, small part that God may not exist after all and all your little rules and regulations would be pointless restrictions on your freedom?

[mahayana]

I'm not sure I'm following.

Cedars, you believe you have a soul, and Simon- you are pretty sure that you don't?

[Simon666]

I'm pretty sure I don't indeed.

[Innocent Abroad]

Well, believing that God exists (or not) doesn't really get us much further forward. It only gets interesting (to me, anyway) when people start making statements about what they mean by 'God', and in particular whether God 'exists' in the way that material objects exist. I am not aware of any religion which subscribes to the idea that the 'existence' of God is in any sense the same as the existence of, say, a tree.

And obviously we all believe in the existence of non-material things. An example that comes to mind is a phrase like "a wild party" where we mean that the energy generated by the group of people who make up the party is something over and above the energy of each individual in it.

This of course is very different from accepting the truths of any religion.

Also, for the record, I do not think that a fetish-worshipper is necessarily feeble-minded. What I am saying is that I have yet to meet one who isn't, but there's always a first time!

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
I believe that chance is very small, do you believe for one, small part that God may not exist after all and all your little rules and regulations would be pointless restrictions on your freedom?
For many years I believed that maybe God did not exist. It is true that I WANTED to believe, but I did not. I had so many questions that I wanted answers. Believing that God does not exist was quite easy. For several years I was very "whatever." A few years ago my mother had a brain tumor. The surgeon was sure it was cancer and was not rosy with prospects. I prayed as I haven't prayed since I was a kid. Today my mother has no cancer, she is fine and fully recovered from surgery. She has "left neglect," which means she doesn't see to her left. Now, I know you can think of several alternative, scientific solutions; and so can I, including the easy ones ("well, the doctor was wrong about the cancer and isn't modern medicine wonderful"). But I have to tell you that this really started me thinking that maybe I never gave God a good chance and my mind wasn't as open as I thought it was. I thought that if God did exist, I at least owed Him an open mind. I started researching many religions, including the one I grew up with (Catholicism), and actually found good, logical answers to many questions. Catholicism rang the truest to me. Do I have ALL the answers? Of course, not; that, of course, is where faith comes in. But nothing I have ever heard, scientifically or otherwise, has proved my belief wrong. In fact, the more I learn, the more my faith grows.

I hope that answers your question.

[Simon666]

Well, I had thought you were flatly going to deny ever doubting God which would have been a great lie as even Jesus once said Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani. I appreciate your honesty and can find myself in your position, which I will never take though.

[whatever]

what i always wonder about those who believe in god is this, do you believe that he exist in material sense, as in maybe he's sitting somewhere looking down at world, and perhaps directing some of the things that happen on this earth, or do you just have faith, meaning god is just something in you?
regarding to the evolution of religion, i think in today's sense religion is more than god. it is more about rituals and rules made up by ppl, so of sourse it's going to change over time.

[Innocent Abroad]

Well, if anyone does think that god exists in a material sense, "sitting somewhere looking down at the world" (and doubtless with a long white beard) I can only suggest they read 1 Corinthiams 13 - the bit about putting away childish things!

However, you'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't be) at the number of people who find this nursery theology adequate to their needs and even get cross when its shortcomings are pointed out...

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
Well, I had thought you were flatly going to deny ever doubting God which would have been a great lie as even Jesus once said Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani. I appreciate your honesty and can find myself in your position, which I will never take though.

One thing - You assume that "even" Jesus had doubts. He did not. The Catholic Church teaches that as Jesus hung on the cross he found strength in Psalm 22 (where it is said Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani. Jesus understood that many of the statements in this Psalm spoke prophetically of him. His Cry of Triumph showed his recognition that he was fulfilling this Word of God as he laid down his life.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by whatever
what i always wonder about those who believe in god is this, do you believe that he exist in material sense, as in maybe he's sitting somewhere looking down at world, and perhaps directing some of the things that happen on this earth, or do you just have faith, meaning god is just something in you?
regarding to the evolution of religion, i think in today's sense religion is more than god. it is more about rituals and rules made up by ppl, so of sourse it's going to change over time.
I believe God is a Holy Spirit. He can dwell in nature and in man; He knows all.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
One thing - You assume that "even" Jesus had doubts. He did not. The Catholic Church teaches that as Jesus hung on the cross he found strength in Psalm 22 (where it is said Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani. Jesus understood that many of the statements in this Psalm spoke prophetically of him. His Cry of Triumph showed his recognition that he was fulfilling this Word of God as he laid down his life.
I did not say he doubted God's presence, it is an exclamation of doubt though if God is still with him. To my knowledge, that translates to something like "Father, father, why have you left me alone?"

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
I did not say he doubted God's presence, it is an exclamation of doubt though if God is still with him. To my knowledge, that translates to something like "Father, father, why have you left me alone?"
Whatever the translation you wish to hold to, Jesus is God. He knows and understands God; therefore He does not doubt God at all. He had total faith in God in ALL things.

[Innocent Abroad]

Well, that only follows if you accept the teaching of the Catholic (or other Christian) churches.

It does not follow from simply reading the Bible in any reputable translation.

[Fasdf]

Didn't you hear? Christianity is the best religion and the only one acceptable for talking about on internet forums.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Innocent Abroad
Well, that only follows if you accept the teaching of the Catholic (or other Christian) churches.

It does not follow from simply reading the Bible in any reputable translation.
Considering we were talking about Jesus and the Christian faith, it does follow. Sounds to me like you're arguing another point.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Fasdf
Didn't you hear? Christianity is the best religion and the only one acceptable for talking about on internet forums. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[Fasdf]

I have a feeling all the trees are wrong.

I notice almost all the time other religions are disregarded, and only christianity is discussed. The bible seems to be the only book, and the 6 days of tomfoolery is the only creationalist idea. If you are ever to argue to an atheist, the sides are believers vs non believers, not christians vs non believers.

Of course I know other religions have been discussed, but more often than not they are not mentioned.

[Innocent Abroad]

Cedars, my point was that Christianity is not a consequence of reading the Bible. The historical record is that some people have read it and then become Christians; others have read it and ceased to be Christians!

Your own doctrine, of which you seem lamentably unaware, is that because reading the Bible does not make a Christian out of me, therefore I am excluded from God's grace. (Obviously I don't believe that.) But this doctrine is itself unbiblical! The Catholic Church has no problem with this - it says that the authority of its tradition, i.e. what it thinks it has learnt in the last 2000 years - has equal status with what the Bible says. If you are a catholic, you really should go to confession soon as what you are posting is rank heresy & you are in a state of mortal sin! Do be careful crossing the road, won't you?

Fasdf, you've forced it out of me - confession time! I'm a Unitarian Universalist, which basically means that I know that all the trees have a lot of rotten wood in them and yet the forest is still beautiful!

[mahayana]

IA- My first girlfriend was raised as a Unitarian; her mother was Catholic and her father was jewish. I was much impressed at the time with the "comparative religions" approach of your church.

I think it would be interesting to look at the distnctive features of the different protestant churches as evolution. I believe Unitarianism was a rejection of "trinitarianism" originally, rather than the seeking of good in all religions which is more prevelant there now.

One of the excellent things about zen is an almost total lack of doctrine!

[Innocent Abroad]

Mahayana, you are right about Unitarian evolution, at least.

The development of Protestantism has I think historically been more a reaction to perceived corruption than to theological differences, which have perhapsed developed to sustain the various churches rather than being a factor in their origin.

So, Luther denounced Catholic corruption; Wesley (the founder of Methodism) Anglican corruption and the Jehovah's Witnesses Baptist corruption! The Baptists (and I am winging this bit, so if anyone can put me right that'll be good) are probably the heirs to millenarian sects from the 17th Centrury.

As Marxits were to discover later, once you start the splitting process it tends to be self-perpetuating!

For me there is a very close correspondence between the notion of religious doctrine and the rotten wood I mentioned earlier.

Being someone who would say that they have become religious, but has no fixed doctrine tends to be equally confusing to the conventionally pious and to atheists alike!

[Fasdf]

Going back further in history, Christianity is a reaction to roman society. Romans, who controlled areas in which jews lived, had a different set of beliefs. Obviously, they were not very tolerant. when christianity was forming, much of its stories are borrowed from paganism. Christians are more pagans than anything else actually.

[Simon666]

Romans were pretty tolerant towards other beliefs, they largely took over Greek religion and also some Persian religion and other religions. Ultimately one Roman emperor even declared christianism the state religion. They have had issues with christians during some periods though.

[Fasdf]

Whoops, I was unclear on my part. The romans were a very tolerant people who annexed all sorts of places to their empire. The jews of the time had beliefs which clashed with roman beliefs (eg. roman orgies). It was the jews who were not tolerant.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Fasdf
I have a feeling all the trees are wrong.

I notice almost all the time other religions are disregarded, and only christianity is discussed. The bible seems to be the only book, and the 6 days of tomfoolery is the only creationalist idea. If you are ever to argue to an atheist, the sides are believers vs non believers, not christians vs non believers.

Of course I know other religions have been discussed, but more often than not they are not mentioned.
I mostly see Christian and atheist standpoints on this site. The logical assumption is that it is Christians and atheists, then, who visit and reply. One cannot represent a Muslim view if one does not believe in Islam. Nor can one represent a Jewish view or even a Mormon or Seventh-Day Adventist view if one does not believe in those either. I believe most religions have some truths; but logically only one can be right, if any, because ALL religions have something that is in direct opposition to another, including the many Protestant religions. In any event, I haven't noticed any bulletins or signs telling others they may not post. They are free to do so if they desire.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Innocent Abroad
Cedars, my point was that Christianity is not a consequence of reading the Bible. The historical record is that some people have read it and then become Christians; others have read it and ceased to be Christians! !
You are correct that Chrisitianity is not a consequence of reading the Bible. Christianity existed a few centuries before the Bible was even compiled! Early Christians had no Bible to read, just the apostolic tradition passed down to them. I don't know of the "historical record" you refer to, but I can see the possibility of losing Christians, especially in light of no guidance in understanding the Bible. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that in addition to the authority of the Bible, there is apostolic tradition, oral tradition, that has been handed down, as well as the Bible itself.

Your own doctrine, of which you seem lamentably unaware, is that because reading the Bible does not make a Christian out of me, therefore I am excluded from God's grace. (Obviously I don't believe that.) But this doctrine is itself unbiblical! The Catholic Church has no problem with this - it says that the authority of its tradition, i.e. what it thinks it has learnt in the last 2000 years - has equal status with what the Bible says. If you are a catholic, you really should go to confession soon as what you are posting is rank heresy & you are in a state of mortal sin! Do be careful crossing the road, won't you?
Where have I ever said that anyone is excluded from God's grace if they do not read the Bible?! This is your own assumption. As a Catholic, I believe you do not have to be Catholic to have grace from God. I DO believe that the Catholic Church was started by Jesus Himself and was meant as a teaching authority of Chrisitianity. Protestants protested the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. That is why they broke away, and that is why they have splintered into so many denominations. There was nothing to hold them together.

[mahayana]

Cedars, my take is that most of the Protestants got their unique doctrines from actually reading the Bible, something Luther made possible by translating it out of the Latin. I can remember in the 1970s when Mass started being given in English.

Part of the authority of the Church was that it took a priest class to read and interpret the Bible for a largely illiterate population.

Innocent probably knows what I was talking about, how the Church of Christ promotes certain doctrines of Paul, how the Seventh Day Adventists rightly point out that the Sabbath is Saturday, the Presbyterians have their presbters, presumably Methodists have their method, etc.

This kind of evolution of religion is something I find interesting.

[Innocent Abroad]

Cedars wrote "Protestants protested the teaching authority of the Catholic Church" - there is a case for saying so in respect of Calvin, but not Luther, whose famous Theses were directed against the corruption of the Reniassance Papacy more than anything else and were addressed by the Council of Trent, which shut the stable door after the horse had bolted.

Every doctrinally-based form of religious organisation needs practices (which may be rituals, such as circumcision, or what I might call "special status" beliefs - such as the "Rapture" hocus-pocus) to create an in-group and an out-group and so to perpetuate itself.

This "sheep and goats" approach meets a deep psychological need in each of us. The question, from a religious perspective, is to figure out whether this is part of the problem or part of the solution!

One obvious downside of it is that it makes religion vulnerable to exploitation by the secular power. To prevent this, "modern" constitutions separate Church and State and guarantee freedom of conscience.

[Cedars]

QUOTE]Originally posted by mahayana
Cedars, my take is that most of the Protestants got their unique doctrines from actually reading the Bible, something Luther made possible by translating it out of the Latin. I can remember in the 1970s when Mass started being given in English.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the Baptists got their own unique doctrines from reading the Bible, and the Presbyterians got their own, and the Pentecosts got their own, and the....! If you will notice, they do not all agree on the same doctrines, they may have SOME in common but not all, which is why each denomination exists.

When the Masses were in Latin, the missals included an English version on the right-hand side of the missal if anyone wished to follow what was being said.

Part of the authority of the Church was that it took a priest class to read and interpret the Bible for a largely illiterate population.
Yes, illiteracy was a common thing. What's your point? Are you blaming the priests for the illiteracy problems of the world at that time? You make it sound like it's a bad thing that the priests were educated so that they could teach! Isn't it common for teachers to be educated? That is why they are teachers! There were three readings from the Bible in Mass, as there still are today, a reading from the O.T. a reading from the epistles (letters), and a reading from the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John). Also, the Catholic Church started its own schools to educate the people.

Innocent probably knows what I was talking about, how the Church of Christ promotes certain doctrines of Paul, how the Seventh Day Adventists rightly point out that the Sabbath is Saturday, the Presbyterians have their presbters, presumably Methodists have their method, etc.

This kind of evolution of religion is something I find interesting.
Whether Innocent knows what you are talking about remains to be seen. That is neither here nor there. I am not familiar with the Church of Christ. (Is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons?) It is true that the Jewish Sabbath was on Saturday, and still is for that matter. Early Christians (some of whom still retained Jewish customs) celebrated the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) and Our Lord's Day (Sunday). Christians who were not Jewish, the Gentiles, did not celebrate the Jewish Sabbath, only Our Lord's Day, Sunday.

The Catholic Church itself has evolved over time but has retained its doctrines unchanged.

[Innocent Abroad]

Cedars says [I]"The Catholic Church itself has evolved over time but has retained its doctrines unchanged"[/] - absolutely not!

The doctrine of papal infallibility was proclaimed only by Vatican I (in the 1870s I think) - some say as a counterweight to the loss of the Papal States.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is of even more recent origin, having been the subject of an infallible papal pronouncement as late as about 1950.

Of course, both these doctrines were widely held informally before those dates.

If you want a church with unchanging doctrine, the Greek and Russian Orthodox are far better examples.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Simon666
Romans were pretty tolerant towards other beliefs, they largely took over Greek religion and also some Persian religion and other religions. Ultimately one Roman emperor even declared christianism the state religion. They have had issues with christians during some periods though.


issues??? as in "hey, they make great torches for night games."???? if you want to argue roman tolerance, christianity is a bad place to do it from.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Thought Riot
Okak, here's the evolution of monotheism.

Part I The foming of God
The majority of the people living around this time were pagans. One day people started quetioning paganism. They said wait a minute, these idols cannot be true, because we sculpted them, henceforth they have no divine presence. So instead they made another idol that they called God. The difference was that they couldn't see this idol, henceforth it had more spiritual essence. The reason they created Gods in the first place was because they were afraid of the unknown. They wanted to have someone watching over them so they created God. They felt much better now.

problem; firstly; as a fake invisible God would not produce any more results than a fake visible one, explain the success of the invisible God in spreading and beating out all the visible ones. it seems that if people are going to get cold comfort they'd at least prefer something they could see and touch.

second; i was once an atheist; having no intention and no desire to find God. i was unafraid of the unknown except of course that i wasn't keen on heights or asking out particularly attractive girls etc. (hey, i was in high school). how do you explain my "creation" of God when i had no desire or felt no need to do so?

Part II The forming of Christianity
Around this time, being Jewish really sucked. Their lives were miserable. Then suddenly Rabbi Joshua was born. He was a good speaker, people liked him. Then Rabbi Joshua was crucified :(. Then the people said that he was their saviour. Some pointed out that in the text it said that the messiah would be a general and conquer all the land and bring peace. Of course, this never happened, so instead the people said that the messiah created this kingdom called heaven were everything was perfect and once again the sheep were happy.

problems: being Jewish has sucked many many many times throughout jewish history; in fact, if you were to compare 30 AD with (say) 700BC or 500BC or 70AD or the Middle Ages, or the Crusades, or the Holocaust i think you would find that by and by the jews in 30 AD weren't doin all that badly.
so not only do we have a lack of true suckage in the time period, we have a large number of other times where being a jew has sucked even worse. why no savior figure there?
thirdly, messianic belief depended upon the branch of judaism at the time: Zealots were the one's excpecting a second Judas Maccabeus; not necessarily (say) the pharisees and certanly not the sadducees; although you might be able to make a case for the Essenes.
fourthly (again) if this Jesus produces no results for people, why has He lasted 20 centuries; and looks poised to last for several more?

Well, there you have it. Hope you enjoyed!

twas cute, very Douglas Adams':p

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made alot of people very upset and has been generally regarded as a bad move."

:D

[mahayana]

Sorry if I have offended you in some way, Cedars. I was trying to get back to the idea of evolution of religion, i.e. new forms coming from old.

I do see great change within American Catholicism. One of my Catholic friends, in his mid-fifties, is actually doing Bible study at his church, reading other translations of of the Bible as well as the King James version, for the first time.

I have great interest in the sources of peoples' deeply held beliefs, and seek to understand them both now and in a historical context. I certainly don't blame the Church for illiteracy in the past. In Europe at least, there were few places of learning that were not a part of the Church. What I was really saying was that people were told what to believe, and had the Bible interpreted for them, by priests. Literacy changed the relationship; not having to learn another language to read it was a giant step.

I have often wondered if Jesus could read; apart from the story of being found "in my Father's house", I find nothing in the gospels about His education.

[cpwill]

all jewish boys i believe, are educated in hebrew, it is a part of their coming-of-age ceremony. for a boy to be able to discuss with rabbis indicates not only education but high intellegence.

if you want him reading; flip to the part where he visits his old hometown and reads from the Torah.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Innocent Abroad
Cedars says [I]"The Catholic Church itself has evolved over time but has retained its doctrines unchanged"[/] - absolutely not!

The doctrine of papal infallibility was proclaimed only by Vatican I (in the 1870s I think) - some say as a counterweight to the loss of the Papal States.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is of even more recent origin, having been the subject of an infallible papal pronouncement as late as about 1950.

Of course, both these doctrines were widely held informally before those dates.

If you want a church with unchanging doctrine, the Greek and Russian Orthodox are far better examples.
Absolutely yes! Just because the doctrine was not "written" does not mean it did not exist! Many misunderstand this, including some Catholics. The Catholic Church usually defined doctrines when the need arose, such as when heresies arose against the teaching of the Catholic Church. But that certainly did not mean the Catholic Church was creating anything or changing a doctrine to mean anything other than what was already believed. The doctrine of papal infallibility was defined because it was questioned. It was not a new belief. It was a preexisting one. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was also a preexisting belief but was defined when it was questioned. You admitted as much when you said "Of course, both these doctrines were widely held informally before those dates." That is true--WELL before those dates. These doctrines were in keeping with the beliefs of early Christians. That being said, doctrine CAN develop or mature, but it cannot change--that is, it cannot be contrary to Scripture or apostolic tradition (the oral teachings handed down from the apostles).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15, cf. 1 Cor. 11:2).

[Cedars]

Originally posted by mahayana
Sorry if I have offended you in some way, Cedars. I was trying to get back to the idea of evolution of religion, i.e. new forms coming from old.

I do see great change within American Catholicism. One of my Catholic friends, in his mid-fifties, is actually doing Bible study at his church, reading other translations of of the Bible as well as the King James version, for the first time.

I have great interest in the sources of peoples' deeply held beliefs, and seek to understand them both now and in a historical context. I certainly don't blame the Church for illiteracy in the past. In Europe at least, there were few places of learning that were not a part of the Church. What I was really saying was that people were told what to believe, and had the Bible interpreted for them, by priests. Literacy changed the relationship; not having to learn another language to read it was a giant step.

I have often wondered if Jesus could read; apart from the story of being found "in my Father's house", I find nothing in the gospels about His education.
I was not, and am not, offended, mahayana; but I thank you for your concern.
Don't forget that until the invention of the printing press, even if a Christian could read the Bible, a copy of the Bible was not readily available. They were usually copied by hand; so copies were rare. The printing press contributed greatly to getting copies of the Bible out to the masses. But just because a Bible is readily available for reading does not mean that we can open it up and interpret doctrine for ourselves. Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit guides them in the correct interpretation of the Bible. But the Holy Spirit is Truth; how can the Holy Spirit give Baptists one interpretation, Presbyterians another, Pentecosts another, and so on? If the Holy Spirit guided all individuals in interpretation, then everyone would have the same interpretation; and we know that this is not the case because of the many denominations. No interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit can conflict with another interpretation--how can the Holy Spirit conflict?--IT DOES NOT. The Holy Spirit is Truth. Catholics, on the other hand, believe in the teaching magisterium (composed of the pope and the bishops) of the Catholic Church, which we believe is guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why we hold to the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2)

[Cedars]

mahayana, I must confess when you first said that "Innocent probably knows what I am talking about," I was thinking of Pope Innocent I! Imagine my astonishment when I thought you made such a preposterous suggestion! I need to get some R&R!

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Innocent Abroad
Mahayana, you are right about Unitarian evolution, at least.

The development of Protestantism has I think historically been more a reaction to perceived corruption than to theological differences, which have perhapsed developed to sustain the various churches rather than being a factor in their origin...
The Protestant movement did come about because of actual corruption (not just perceived) in the Catholic Church. Consider the following from www.catholic.com:
Great saints of scandal born

Unfortunately, scandal is nothing new for the Church. There have been many times through the ages when things were much worse off than they are now. The history of the Church is like a cosine curve with many ups and downs. At the times when the Church hits its low points God raises up tremendous saints to bring the Church back to its real mission. It's almost as if in those times of darkness the light of Christ shines ever more brightly. I would like to focus on a couple of saints whom God raised up in such difficult times, because their wisdom can guide us during our own difficult time.

Francis de Sales came along after the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation was not principally about theology-although theological differences came later-but about morals. Martin Luther, an Augustinian priest, lived during the reign of perhaps the most notorious pope in history, Alexander VI. This pope never taught anything against the faith-the Holy Spirit prevented that-but he was a wicked man. He had nine children from six different concubines. He put out contracts on the lives of those he considered his enemies.

Luther, like everyone, must have wondered how God could allow a wicked man to be the visible head of his Church. All types of moral problems confronted Luther even in his own country of Germany. Priests were living in open relationships with women. Some made exaggerated claims about indulgences. There was terrible immorality among lay Catholics. Luther was scandalized, as anyone who loved God should have been. He allowed the scandal to drive him from the Church.

Eventually God raised up many saints to combat this erroneous solution and to bring people back to the Church Christ founded. Francis de Sales was one of them. At the risk of his life he went through Switzerland, where the Calvinists were popular, preaching the gospel with truth and love. Several times on his travels he was beaten and left for dead.

Someone once asked him to address the situation of the scandal caused by so many of his brother priests. What Francis de Sales said is as important for us today as it was then. He did not pull any punches. He said, "While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder [i.e., destroying other people's faith in God by their terrible example], those who take scandal-who allow scandals to destroy their faith-are guilty of spiritual suicide." They are guilty, he said, of cutting off their life with Christ by abandoning the source of life in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. He went among the people in Switzerland trying to prevent their committing spiritual suicide on account of the scandals. As a priest today I would say the same thing to you.

What should our reaction be then? Another saint who lived in a difficult time also can help us. Francis of Assisi lived in the thirteenth century, which was a time of terrible immorality in central Italy. Priests were setting horrible examples. Lay immorality was terrible, too. Francis himself while a young man gave scandal to others by his carefree ways. But eventually he was converted back to the Lord, founded the Franciscans, helped God rebuild his Church, and became one of the great saints of all time.

There is a story told of Francis of Assisi that sticks in my mind from one of the biographies I read as a seminarian. Once one of the brothers in the order of Friars Minor who was sensitive to scandal asked him, "Brother Francis, what would you do if you knew that a priest celebrating Mass had three concubines on the side?" Francis replied, "When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the sacred body of my Lord from the priest's anointed hands."

Francis was getting at a tremendous truth of the faith and a tremendous gift of the Lord: God has made the sacraments "priest-proof." No matter how holy or wicked a priest is, provided he has the intention to do what the Church does, then Christ himself acts through the priest, just as he acted through Judas when Judas ministered as an apostle. So whether Pope John Paul II or a priest on death row for a felony consecrates the bread and wine, it is Christ himself who acts to gives us his own body and blood. Francis was saying he was not going to let the wickedness or immorality of the priest lead him (Francis) to commit spiritual suicide.

Christ can work still and does work still even through the most sinful priest. And thank God! If we were dependent on the priest's personal holiness, we would be in trouble. Though they are chosen by God from among men, priests are tempted and fall into sin just like anyone else. But of course God knew that from the beginning. Eleven of the first twelve apostles scattered when Christ was arrested, but they came back.

[mahayana]

Thanks Cedars for explaining your reaction to my "innocent" remark. I'll use the whole name from now on, I thought of using IA but someone might think I was mischaracterizing the views if a midwestern State!

I've always been drawn to St. Francis; your account is pertinent to the US Catholic priest child molestation scandals. Modern communications is changing the relationship between clergy and parish once more. I'm not sure that many will condone the "sinner priest" these days. Hasn't the Pope decided to let some of them be defrocked?

[DRMIZER]

It's interesting that the Bible was written mostly by and for the Israelites. Other civilizations did likewise, naturally. Why? Primarily because they didn't understand a rotting flesh which used to be human flesh. Seeing this, a crack of lightening, hearing thunder, observing a rainbow, something had to take "credit" for these things and also dismiss the fleshy part of life, or death.

Today, if people heard voices or saw angels and told others, they would probably be placed on medication. Then, it was "understood" that a mighty intervention was taking place within the individual.

People still have abberations in Conyers, Ga., Mexico, etc.

One of the signs of being born in the spirit is speaking in tongues.
Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) is fabricated, meaningless speech.

According to Dr. William T. Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto, glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly .... Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language [Nickell, 108].

When spoken by schizophrenics, glossolalia are recognized as gibberish. In charismatic Christian communities glossolalia is sacred and referred to as "speaking in tongues" or having "the gift of tongues." In Acts of the Apostles, tongues of fire are described as alighting on the Apostles, filling them with the Holy Spirit. Allegedly, this allowed the Apostles to speak in their own language but be understood by foreigners from several nations. Glossolalics, on the other hand, speak in a foreign language and are understood by nobody.

Provided that this and other facts of the bible have been dismissed as primitive beliefs, how can we continue to believe in such "facts" today?

[Cedars]

Originally posted by mahayana
Thanks Cedars for explaining your reaction to my "innocent" remark. I'll use the whole name from now on, I thought of using IA but someone might think I was mischaracterizing the views if a midwestern State!

I've always been drawn to St. Francis; your account is pertinent to the US Catholic priest child molestation scandals. Modern communications is changing the relationship between clergy and parish once more. I'm not sure that many will condone the "sinner priest" these days. Hasn't the Pope decided to let some of them be defrocked?
No need to change on my account--your remark was "Innocent" enough to be clear; I just dropped the ball, so to speak!

Rather than condoning "sinner priests," I think the point is to not lose sight of one's faith just because other members of the Church (albeit priests) are not setting a good example. The point of faith is in God, not in people. I certainly hope the current "sinner priests" will be dealt with justly, as I believe they will be.

[mahayana]

Cedars, I'm interested in your thoughts about the other sexual issues in the Church. Should priests be allowed to marry? What about nuns? Female priests?

The advent of women's rights must surely be causing some changes, (evolution of thinking?), within Catholicism.

Feminists pointed out at least 30 years ago the sexism of Paul. Have you ever read "A History Of Sex"? Much of this is pertinent to the current Western/Islamic situation as well.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
issues??? as in "hey, they make great torches for night games."???? if you want to argue roman tolerance, christianity is a bad place to do it from.
For more on the Roman approach towards religion, read this (http://kylemartin.ca/Forum/hoofd_his&rel.html) once.

[cpwill]

from your own article: The Romans were very tolerant to the new influences, as long as these cults and worships were not practised in secret fellowships. They also had to agree with the state religion. So the secret liturgy of Christianity and the refusal of military service were reasons to prosecute the Christians.

partially correct, i'll let it stand for now.

At first the Romans were very tolerant to the Christians. A bottleneck, however, was the secrecy of the liturgy. Even the Christians were only allowed to attend the beginning. They could not stay throughout the complete ritual. That's how rumours about cannibalism and magic came into being. Magicians, who increased the general feeling of discomfort, had their secret practices and sometimes even expressed curses about emperors. They were very much distrusted.
Some people were sentenced to death. For some the penalty was decapitation. For others it meant being flung off the Tarpeic rock at the Capitol. Executions were allocated to traitors.
Everyone could practise his religion, if it happened in public and agreed with the state religion. Christianity, however, was both secret and hostile towards the main religion and also hostile to the state. A lot of Christians refused to join the army or even to do their duties as citizens. They even refuse to respect the emperor. They were also a threat, because they formed secret societies, the so-called 'hetaeriae'. Political reasons were the main motive behind the persecution of the Christians in Rome. It was many years later that Christianity became the official state religion. This happened under the rule of Emperor Constantine.

incorrect, starting from Paul onwards christianity was preached openly. christianity made a great target because while there weren't very many of us, there were enough of us in the cities for folks to think us wierd, especially that whole monotheism thing (see, corinthians). furthermore, christianity was not hostile towards roman authority (see: romans), if you want a monotheistic religion that was antagonistic to the romans, try judaism. Nero (i notice it sorta kinda maybe skipped over him;)) blamed the fires on us because we were an easy handy target that everyone could agree on to punish.

Christianity showed some similarities with the Mithras cult. It was influenced by the Mithras cult indeed. Like Jesus, Mithras had definite features of a saviour. Moreover the Mithras cult had aspects of messianism, including some kind of heaven and hell. In its liturgy bread and wine were taken. The Mithras cult and Christianity were fierce competitors for a long time. When Christianity finally won, it took over the 'Mithraeum' on more than one occasion. The 'Mithraeum' was the place where the Mithras followers professed their faith, and the Christians made it their prayer room. In Rome, for instance, such a Mithraeum was situated under the San Clemente.

Mithraic strains can be seen in christianity only by those with the most active imaginations and the least respect for the facts gained by studying the actual history of the period. early christianity was fairly hostile to mithraism; mithras is pictured as a bull alternately and also always with his trusty animal companions. furthermore, mithraism was mainly a religion of the roman army which (as noted) most chrsitians refused to join. virtually all religions have a concept of heaven and hell, and a heckuva lot include food and wine in their "services".:rolleyes: the case for christianity/mithraism is weak.

[osiris]

Originally posted by Cedars
I DO believe that the Catholic Church was started by Jesus Himself and was meant as a teaching authority of Chrisitianity.

I'm glad you claimed this statement as a belief, as the origins of Christianity are very vague.During the time of Nero they are believed to be mainly Pistics and Gnostics.

As for the Roman Catholic church, they came into the faith quite late and there are those who would argue the purity of their beginnings.

After many turbulent years the then pagan emperor, Constantine, decided to create a universal (catholic) church and probably with the help of Pope Sylvester decided to call a council: The First Council of Nicaea.

This council comprised of representatives from the Christian churches, it also had representatives from many pagan religions is this not so?

[osiris]

Whoops wrong thread sorry.:o

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
from your own article:
So? To modern standards this may seem intolerant, but if you compare it to christianism in the Middle Ages it is extreme tolerance. And few societies tolerate secret fellowships, do you know what happened in Waco Texas?
Originally posted by cpwill
incorrect, starting from Paul onwards christianity was preached openly. christianity made a great target because while there weren't very many of us, there were enough of us in the cities for folks to think us wierd, especially that whole monotheism thing (see, corinthians). furthermore, christianity was not hostile towards roman authority (see: romans), if you want a monotheistic religion that was antagonistic to the romans, try judaism. Nero (i notice it sorta kinda maybe skipped over him;)) blamed the fires on us because we were an easy handy target that everyone could agree on to punish.
I'll trust historians over you: (http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/ricerche/ricerca5.html)

Most christians were from among the poor and the slaves; they neither possessed riches nor exercised political power. Christian religion was considered strange and hostile to the country since it objected to the establishment of the power of Rome, based on the ancient pagan religion and worship of the emperor, means and symbol of the unity of the state.
Originally posted by cpwill
Mithraic strains can be seen in christianity only by those with the most active imaginations and the least respect for the facts gained by studying the actual history of the period. early christianity was fairly hostile to mithraism; mithras is pictured as a bull alternately and also always with his trusty animal companions. furthermore, mithraism was mainly a religion of the roman army which (as noted) most chrsitians refused to join. virtually all religions have a concept of heaven and hell, and a heckuva lot include food and wine in their "services".:rolleyes: the case for christianity/mithraism is weak.
Well, Jesus being born on December 25th is most certainly not in the Bible.

Pagan Christs (http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/PaganChrists_Mithras.html)

Before Rome. When the Christ myth was new Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Worshiped for centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, Mithras was long revered by the Persians (Zoroastrianism) and the Indians (see the Vedic literature).

Dating Mithras in Rome. Plutarch (Pompey, 24, 7) and Servilius (Georgics, 4, 127) say Pompey imported Mithraism into Rome after defeating the Cilician pirates around 70 BC. Mithras appears epigraphically in the circles of the Roman emperor in the first century AD -- around the time the canonical Christian Gospels were written (Corpus Incscriptionum Latinarum, 6, 732), and statues of the God were present by 101 AD (Corpus Incscriptionum Latinarum, 6, 718). As with Attis, Christian apologist Justin (1 Apologia, 66, 4) denounces the devil for having sent a God so similar to Jesus -- yet preceding him.

Sadly there's a lot we don't know about this faith that comforted million of souls. Early Christians established the dominance of their religion by exterminating Mithras' faithful, razing His temples, burning His sacred texts.

We do know this:

With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men.

He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing.

Every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, the Son of God was born one more, putting an end to darkness. Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God."

His followers kept the Sabbath holy, eating sacramental meals in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

Baptism in the blood of the bull (taurobolum) -- early
Baptism "washed in the blood of the Lamb" -- late
Baptism by water [recorded by the Christian author Tertullian]

Mithraic rituals brought about the transformation and Salvation of His adherents -- an ascent of the soul of the adherent into the realm of the divine. From the wall of a Mithraic temple in Rome: "And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood."

The great Mithraic festivals celebrated his birth (at the winter solstice) and his death and resurrection (at the spring solstice)

[mahayana]

Thanks, Simon, for the account of Mithraism. More support for Ecclesiastes "what has been done will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun."

I have often wondered if a simpler religion honoring Jesus as a teacher and Holy man could exist, shedding the embroidery that changed "Pray like this: our Father who art in heaven...the kingdom of heaven is in your heart," to "Jesus is the only Son of God...if you don't confess the Apostles' Creed as truth, we will kill you and you will burn in hell forever."

Siddhartha never claimed to be God, and I doubt that Jesus did either.

[Innocent Abroad]

Mahayana, your "simpler religion" exists - it is gnosticism purged of millenarial fantasies. A little patient googling should unearth a few nuggets...

[Fasdf]

Whenever some one tells some one else to go to google... I always think of those tech support forums where the only response to every question is "RTFM!!! RTFM!!!"...

[Cedars]

Originally posted by mahayana
Cedars, I'm interested in your thoughts about the other sexual issues in the Church. Should priests be allowed to marry? What about nuns? Female priests?

The advent of women's rights must surely be causing some changes, (evolution of thinking?), within Catholicism.

Feminists pointed out at least 30 years ago the sexism of Paul. Have you ever read "A History Of Sex"? Much of this is pertinent to the current Western/Islamic situation as well.
In the Catholic Church, the idea of priests not being able to marry is a discipline of the Church, or a practice of the Church; it is not a doctrine. Disciplines or practices CAN be changed. I understand where the Church is coming from with regard to this--and that is following Paul's guidance when he says it is better not to marry; that way one can devote oneself more fully to God, whereas a married person has a spouse that s/he should also please. Marriage in the Catholic Church is a sacrament, so is Holy Orders. Of course, men are free to not be priests and to enjoy married life. There are no female priests in the Catholic Church. Nuns make a vow of devotion to God, and like priests, do not marry. They are also following St. Paul's advice.

If the Catholic church DID change this discipline (and I know there are some Catholics who believe it should be changed), it would not bother me. However, I am not one of them who necessarily want it changed as I believe the Church's reasoning is a good one. If men/women are called to marry, then they should marry (they can worship and pray together). If they are called to a more focused devotion to God, then they could become priests or nuns, as the case may be. In the Catholic Church there are also deacons (who may be married).

No, sorry, I have not read "A History Of Sex." As for Paul being sexist, he has not ever really struck me that way, although I can understand why he would seem that way to some. Christ chose only male apostles. Some could argue Christ was sexist.

I accept that men are priests and nuns are women as a matter of my faith in Jesus's promise that his Church will never fail. If Christ means for this to change in time, it will change.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by osiris
I'm glad you claimed this statement as a belief, as the origins of Christianity are very vague.During the time of Nero they are believed to be mainly Pistics and Gnostics.

As for the Roman Catholic church, they came into the faith quite late and there are those who would argue the purity of their beginnings.

After many turbulent years the then pagan emperor, Constantine, decided to create a universal (catholic) church and probably with the help of Pope Sylvester decided to call a council: The First Council of Nicaea.

This council comprised of representatives from the Christian churches, it also had representatives from many pagan religions is this not so?
The Catholic Church teaches that Peter, one of the apostles, was the first pope, and that the other apostles were the first bishops. The line of succession can be traced back to the apostles.

The following is from www.catholic.com

Origins of Peter as Pope

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else, even though the Greek word for "this" (touto) means "this very."
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.
_
Tatian the Syrian

"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
_
Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
_
The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
_
The Clementine Homilies

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
_
Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
_

[Cedars]

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).
_
Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).
"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).
_
Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
_
Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
_
Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
_

[Cedars]

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
_
Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
_
Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
_
Council of Ephesus

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
_
Sechnall of Ireland

"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).
_
Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).
_
Council of Chalcedon

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3