Free download.
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online The Cosmic Religion: Love God, Love Neighbor, Love Self file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Cosmic Religion: Love God, Love Neighbor, Love Self book.
Happy reading The Cosmic Religion: Love God, Love Neighbor, Love Self Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF The Cosmic Religion: Love God, Love Neighbor, Love Self at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Cosmic Religion: Love God, Love Neighbor, Love Self Pocket Guide.
THE COSMIC RELIGION: LOVE GOD, LOVE NEIGHBOR, LOVE SELF (PAPERBACK). Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, United States,
Table of contents
One I read, for example, was that refugees are 'door kickers', kicking down the borders - no proof, just hyperbolic propaganda. Their unwelcome presence beyond our doors, for one. And there's lots of proof they exist, so they certainly aren't a figment of the imagination. Why you're bringing it up in a discussion about deities is beyond me. Starting a riot on Passover Eve would have definitely been mentioned if it was a historical event. Same goes for the cleansing of the temple. As for the Gospels being "proven" to have been contemporary accounts, the historical consensus starts at 70CE at the absolute earliest for Mark, and the rest being later with Matthew and Luke using Mark and Q as sources for huge chunks of their Gospels and that is mainstream historical consensus.
That would fit more in the Bar Khoba Revolt than the first Jewish-Roman war as would Revelation 14 for anyone that read the Talmud And no the Gospels are not historical documents, mainstream scholarship have given up on that along time ago. They are incredibly dogmatic, they don't even have any hints they were ever written in Aramaic or Hebrew, they read as Greek original writings, heavily contradictory and all 4 mainstream ones let alone all the other Gospels the Council of Nicaea disregarded all have different theological messages: Mark is a staunch Paulinists, Matthew is staunchly Jewish and wants strict observation of the Torah, John is gnostic and Luke is attempting to harmonise the conflicting theologies.
Surely an event of this nature this would have been noticed and recorded by someone. Please don't overstate the certainty of the ancient sources. For example, ignoring the later gospels, the only near contemporaneous evidence we have for Pontius Pilate's a Roman of some significance entire life are one inscription, which confirms his historicity, and brief mentions by Tacitus, Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. However you are correct that the Gospels are pretty poor evidence by historical standards.
The Romans made a fortune from enemies they conquered. Maybe Jesus coined the phrase after hearing a Biggus Dickus address at the Colosseum. I thought it was joke at the beginning, really! Why would any rational person afford credence to the superstitious nonsense that is religion by using religious terms for the European reference date, i. Better to start with a clean slate.
Acknowledge the mistake of the uneducated commonly known as religion, set it aside as ancient history, and move on into the future. The currently majority view is that he was born between 6 BC and 4 BC, which literally means Christ was born 6 or 4 years before Christ was born. See the problem now? Also, December is approximately the date of the Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice and has been celebrated for centuries by Pagans before Jesus was born. It's like nails on a chalkboard to them, which makes me chuckle.
If you're insisting that I worship said person, give his followers a tax-free ride, invest my tax dollars into converting more children to his almighty causes, give said followers special dispensation to have their guano-insane ideas given a free ride in public schools, have their beliefs given a central role in shaping public policy, and so on, then: You're damn straight I want a higher level of evidence than I have for the existence of some random Roman tradie.
The real question is why don't you?
I agree, I have nothing against religion if that's what people need to act in a civil manner. What boggles my mind is that here in QLD scripture is still part of the curriculum in public schools. It is a private matter, and has no place in publicly funded schools - not to mention the disrespect to other fairy tales, I mean religions. I am agnostic about the historical Jesus. The historical consensus seems to be he existed, but the historical consensus also says we don't really know anything about the guy as the guy in the Gospels are deemed to be a fictional interpretation about the historical Jesus.
The current understanding of Jesus has more to do with non-Christian Jewish Gnosticism than it does to the historical apocalyptic preacher. The "Logos" literally "Word" being both the firstborn son of Yahweh and Yahweh's celestial high priest can both be traced back to a Hellenised Jew known as Philo of Alexandria who was writing about this character while Jesus was supposedly wondering around Galilee Christianity seems to have started from attaching that Logos character to the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Either way you look at it, if the historical consensus is that the Gospels are fiction, the Jesus in the Gospels too is fiction. A composite character is still a fictional character, even if it is partly based on a real life person.
- Search form!
- Christian, Do You Love God’s Law??
- Catechism of the Catholic Church!
A composite character is still a fictional character, even if it is partly based on a real life person" I agree that what Jesus was or did is up for debate, however the fact is there is actual written evidence of his story whether it be fiction or not. So it then comes down to whether to believe it or not, with arguments on both sides. However as I have no proof he was who the say he was, neither can you prove he wasn't. One thing that often distorts those arguments and is rarely mentioned, is a basic contempt for the intelligence of historical peoples by 'our superior modern intelligence'.
We all assume they were a bunch of idiotic superstitious gullible people. I don't. Their politics, economic and theoretical skills were as good as we are today albeit less advanced in scientific discoveries.
The Cosmic Religion – Finding the Truth In Religion
So for someone to write a far fetched superhero story and convince thousands of people to abandon their entrenched cultural identity is a bit of a task it was also done via word and not sword which makes it even harder. Now yes we have cults in our own time that also attracts thousands, some even willing to kill themselves for it, but time is the destruction of false cults as most do not last more than a generation, whereas this faith has surpassed most.
But as I said before it can't be proven either way and it is up to each to chose if they believe or not, just don't put all your eggs in the 'consensus' bag, as consensus often changes. Neither can you prove they don't exist. Does that make our opinions equally valid? If I write a book saying unicorns exist and tell you the book was written by someone else a thousand years ago and you believe me, does that mean my claim is now proven with evidence? Honestly, it really does - Google it if you doubt me. Therefore unicorns exist The intellectual appeal of the bible for many is not dependent on it being proven to be a factual guide to history or physics.
Just like devotees of the Bhagavad Gita aren't troubled by the fact that it comes as part of an epic poem. MA: Until the 17th century AD the church mostly decided what was 'truth' and imposed its dogma on the populace. There were challenges, to be sure, but they were dealt with. Ask Galileo. There was also plenty of sword used to maintain the status quo. It is no more acceptable to believe in god than it is to believe that evolution is a lie, that the world is flat and that the universe revolves around the earth.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
When every single shred of knowledge about the world shows that the biblical stories are impossible, and when the support for those biblical stories involves not one single shred of evidence then it is not simply a matter of choice about whether to believe in their veracity, any more than it is a simple matter of choice to believe in the existence of Sherlock Holmes or James Bond.
Take the resurrection - of all the possible explanations: misreporting, lies, delusion, exaggeration, schizophrenia; all of which are plausible and all of which we have witnessed in our own lives as explanations for other similarly magical claims - is it really just a matter of choice that we believe that a dead man came back to life, turned into god and floated up to heaven?
That explanation is not even in the choice set.
- An Earthy Christology: 'For God so loved the cosmos'?
- How To Sell Your Soul.
- Religious views on love.
- REFLECTION | ‘Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself’.
That explanation is simply not available to choose. Magic is not something in which we can choose to believe or not - there is no evidence for it, it's a simple as that. If you make the decision that you're going to believe it anyway then that's not 'choice', that's evidence of a mental illness. If I believe that the world is run by a conspiracy of shape-shifting lizards, then do you really think I am simply exercising 'choice'? Or do you think I might have something wrong with me?
Top Stories
You claim: 'Magic is not something in which we can choose to believe or not - there is no evidence for it' Doesn't this statement contradict your own faith in the theory of evolution? The theory that the world created itself out of a puff of smoke? Your's appears to be an argument from silence, or argumentum ex silentio, where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
Some of your arguments are reasonable, but you appear to have failed to consider that the religious cults of ancient history were able to survive for extended periods because it took a LONG time to propagate news - years if not decades from one side of Eurasia to the other, with plenty of "chinese whispers" to distort things along the way. Today that same propagation takes seconds, followups for confirmation take at most days, and the quality of the information is quite a bit higher - word of mouth versus high-definition video and audio.
WSDD: You are totally correct! There's absolutely no proof of anything that happened in the bible. Even Jewish scholars who tried to prove things came back defeated. The RC church was just a continuation of the Roman empire, that recognised that it was just about to fail and took other means to further their political interests. Also, the current depiction of "Jesus" is Caesar Borgia, son of Pope Alexander IV who forced his son's image on the church because he thought he was god! Christians were an established religious group long before Rome fell.
Roman historian Tacitus records that Nero blamed the fire of Rome supposedly started by Nero on the Christians. I think that was around 64AD. Sure, Emperor Constantine raised Christianity to a state religion but that doesn't mean he or Roman officials simply invented it. Yes it developed outside the Roman Empire spreading down to Ethiopia very quickly, and more slowly across Edessa, Arabia, Persia. To my mind, the Ethiopian manuscripts are the best proof Constantine did not rewrite it all at Nicea.
Constantine made Christianity legal and effectively ended the official persecution of Christians within the Roman Empire. But he did not raise it to the status of the official state religion, and the various Pagan religions were free to continue to practice their religions openly. It was Emperor Theodosius who came to power 42 years after Constantine died and made Christianity the official state religion. Interestingly, his other claim to fame was that he banned the Olympic games. Basically it was the moment at which Christianity began a centuries-long rampage that ultimately destroyed paganism all across Europe.
In fact the Romans chronicled everything," I'm an atheist and an historian and you are guilty of the same sin as the religious aplogists. The ancient sources are patchy at best and you are completely wrong to say that 'the Romans chronicled everything'. The Christian gospels are the only near contemporous source for the historicity of Jesus but lack of independent evidence can't be used as proof of his non-existence.
B Seeto "Why not? The alternative explanation is that the figure of Jesus is entirely invented but I can't why would that be necessary as the area was littered with holy men and messiahs at the time John the Baptist, Judas of Galilee, etc. Occam's Razor inclines me to believe that a Jesus did exist but that little can be known about him with any certainty.