The sum of us: Rugby league hero Steve Mortimer proud of his son's gay union

[Rex]

Hi @pjayz,

1. Thanks for your respectful and informative reply. You seem to be a student of the history, which is helpful. Which books in the new testament do you see as being written by one of the twelve disciples, who saw Jesus close up? And are there others which you see as being written by others who had more peripheral contacts? I understand that Jesus is estimated to be born in 4BC due to errors in initial calculations of the years, so there may need to be slight changes in your calcs?

2. Personally, I think the story of Jesus is far more powerful when all the mystique and supernatural connotations are removed... when he is seen as an ordinary man who was extraordinarily compassionate. Rather than being similar to a godlike alien whose achievements are out of reach. By viewing him as ordinary, like he repeatedly requested he be seen, he then becomes a role model.

I'm thinking you may have missed the centrality of my words "something like". I didn't mean that God must have done this or must have done that. What you call God and what others call God are different. The label is never the same as the thing in itself. And we all see the world differently. That is the nature of language and of perception. Most arguments begin with people talking about quite different things, assuming they are talking about the same thing.

So before we could talk about God talking through men, we would need to get closer understandings on what we might individually mean by the word "God".

You are here to challenge others viewpoints. To show them the truth you believe you see. This can be a disruptive and threatening process if people are attached to their belief systems. Emotions then flare up. So when others do the same with you, challenging your beliefs, see them as coming from a similar place as you. When we move out of fixed belief into open enquiry, these emotive battles disappear.

 

[Rex]

Hi Rex, Pittwater Legend and others - as a Christian, I am hoping you see that the above can apply to me also.

As mentioned before, the bible is clear that we are to love all people, and one can love a person without agreeing with their beliefs or actions.

And we can have a different viewpoint without condemning, or moralising about, the other. As I see it, condemning and moralising imply not only that there is an absolute truth, but that we have direct, complete and totally accurate access to that absolute truth. A deluded and arrogant position? And it implies we have lost the ability to empathise.

 

[pjayz]

Hi @pjayz,

1. Thanks for your respectful and informative reply. You seem to be a student of the history, which is helpful. Which books in the new testament do you see as being written by one of the twelve disciples, who saw Jesus close up? And are there others which you see as being written by others who had more peripheral contacts? I understand that Jesus is estimated to be born in 4BC due to errors in initial calculations of the years, so there may need to be slight changes in your calcs?

2. Personally, I think the story of Jesus is far more powerful when all the mystique and supernatural connotations are removed... when he is seen as an ordinary man who was extraordinarily compassionate. Rather than being similar to a godlike alien whose achievements are out of reach. By viewing him as ordinary, like he repeatedly requested he be seen, he then becomes a role model.

I'm thinking you may have missed the centrality of my words "something like". I didn't mean that God must have done this or must have done that. What you call God and what others call God are different. The label is never the same as the thing in itself. And we all see the world differently. That is the nature of language and of perception. Most arguments begin with people talking about quite different things, assuming they are talking about the same thing.

So before we could talk about God talking through men, we would need to get closer understandings on what we might individually mean by the word "God".

You are here to challenge others viewpoints. To show them the truth you believe you see. This can be a disruptive and threatening process if people are attached to their belief systems. Emotions then flare up. So when others do the same with you, challenging your beliefs, see them as coming from a similar place as you. When we move out of fixed belief into open enquiry, these emotive battles disappear.

Hi @Rex,

Yes, Jesus was estimated to have been born between 2-6 BC, due to initial errors in the dating calcs. So the ages that I listed should be relatively accurate give or take a few years.

I see the books written by John (John, John 1, 2, 3 and Revelation), Matthew, Peter (Peter 1 & 2), James and Jude to be written by people who knew Jesus personally. Paul states that whilst he did not physically meet Christ, that he was spoken to in a very direct and clear fashion many times - the first of which led him to instantly change from a persecutor of Jesus' followers to being a follower himself - one who suffered much in doing so.

As for the other writers (such as Mark & Luke), these accounts are based on the oratory tradition of the time, and as much as, for example, biographies are written today, these were based on discussion and investigations with those that did in fact walk with him. Luke wrote "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have been taught."

Timothy (Timothy 1 & 2) was very close to Paul and learned from him, although he did not physically met Jesus.

You mentioned "By viewing him as ordinary, like he repeatedly requested he be seen, he then becomes a role model." Jesus declared himself to be the Son of God and one with God on a number of occasions. His reference to Son of Man (which you may or may not have been referring to) is to show both his humanity (in that he came to earth as human) and his divinity as was originally referenced in Daniel 7 which is where 'Son of Man' is first mentioned in scripture.

As to what I mean by 'God', for me, when I talk of God, I talk of the creator of heaven and earth, the creator of all things - including all of us. The God as described in the scriptures.

 

[pjayz]

And we can have a different viewpoint without condemning, or moralising about, the other. As I see it, condemning and moralising imply not only that there is an absolute truth, but that we have direct, complete and totally accurate access to that absolute truth. A deluded and arrogant position? And it implies we have lost the ability to empathise.

I don't fully agree with this statement; again though, it depends on what you mean by an absolute truth - your statement itself could be taken as an expression of an absolute truth.

I believe God to be an absolute truth otherwise I would not invest myself fully in following Him and trusting my eternity to Him. Having said that, I do not believe that I have a complete and total understanding of the absolute truth that is God. There is so much I do not know, so much I cannot comprehend and so much that cannot be explained by anyone - let alone someone as ill-equipped as myself. I have enough trouble trying to keep up with you Rex ;-)

Now as much as I am sure this will be to the disappointment of the majority on this forum (tongue firmly planted in cheek) - I am happy to leave my involvement in this discussion here. I see these as interesting and important topics, and there is value to those involved directly and those observing; however, there can also be a point of diminishing returns from any discussion which I am mindful of. I am also mindful of the primary reason for this forum which is supporting Manly and discussing all things Maroon and White. It has been a pleasure engaging in this discussion with you Rex and I thank you for affording me the opportunity to do so in a mutually respectful manner.

 

[Technical Coach]

See we do agree. You are engaging in abuse. And it seems we agree that your abuse is intentional, preplanned, systematic, and sustained. You have clarified that in your admissions.

How you present yourself is your business. How you represent yourself as a Christian in today's world is your business. If you wish to represent yourself - and Christians - to others as hateful, vile filled, vindictive then so be it.

You have actively, intentionally and repeatedly incited your group to engage in your systematic abuse. I have interpreted this as a sign of weakness from you, because it suggests you don't believe you can stand on your own two feet. Your clan of influence comprises yourself, plus:
@Ralphie,
@Technical Coach,
@highlandeagle, and
@Woodsie.

This five forms your "hit group" of abuse. You five posters comprise almost the entirety of the postings and ratings for the anti gay/anti mardi gras case in this thread. And it is notable that where-ever any of your group posts, others in that group give positive ratings (and does rarely anyone else). On first viewing, it appears that not one of your hit group of abuse has given positive ratings to anyone outside of your hit group. If there have been any, they have been extremely minimal.

It is notable that three of the posters in your hit group of abuse have named themselves as Christians (Ralphie, TC, and yourself). Based on their postings and ratings, the other two virtually certainly identify themselves as Christians. All of you five have actively engaged in personal abuse in this thread. I don't think anyone else has abused me (or anyone else) except you five. Your gang of five is representing not just themselves but Christianity. If this is how you wish Christianity to be portrayed, then so be it.

There is an alternative. For example, @pjayz is clearly strongly Christian. He and I disagree on a variety of matters, and the tone he has presented is respectful all the same. He presents modern Christianity in an entirely different light to your Christian Reform Group.

Edit: After 17 minutes Wombat Legacy has troll rated this posting. Perhaps he thinks no-one takes note of who rates?

I wouldn't say i am Christian, don't believe i have named myself as such,(if i did it was from my part to establish the side i lean more towards for the benefit of others in the thread) i just read small parts of the Bible and see a lot of wisdom ahead of it's time, along with not falling for the simplistic research of picking out extreme quotes and not looking into the quotes from all perspectives.

I don't believe in religions i believe in God and the parts of the Bible i have read up on seem to make a lot of sense in many but not all passages.

 

[Rex]

I wouldn't say i am Christian, don't believe i have named myself as such,(if i did it was from my part to establish the side i lean more towards for the benefit of others in the thread) i just read small parts of the Bible and see a lot of wisdom ahead of it's time, along with not falling for the simplistic research of picking out extreme quotes and not looking into the quotes from all perspectives.

I don't believe in religions i believe in God and the parts of the Bible i have read up on seem to make a lot of sense in many but not all passages.

OK. Apologies if you feel I've misrepresented your stance TC.

I've also found various wisdoms in the Bible, as I have in the texts of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism. Also other parts in them all don't sit well with me. Haven't studied Islam, Judaism (outside of the Old Testament), etc but would be surprised to not find similar wisdoms and similar areas that don't fit. For me, and I appreciate many/most would disagree, they all derive (at least in part) from a similar attempt to point to the same spiritual experience, and in the search for freedom from the pains and worries of worldly experience.

 

[Woodsie]

See we do agree. You are engaging in abuse. And it seems we agree that your abuse is intentional, preplanned, systematic, and sustained. You have clarified that in your admissions.

How you present yourself is your business. How you represent yourself as a Christian in today's world is your business. If you wish to represent yourself - and Christians - to others as hateful, vile filled, vindictive then so be it.

You have actively, intentionally and repeatedly incited your group to engage in your systematic abuse. I have interpreted this as a sign of weakness from you, because it suggests you don't believe you can stand on your own two feet. Your clan of influence comprises yourself, plus:
@Ralphie,
@Technical Coach,
@highlandeagle, and
@Woodsie.

This five forms your "hit group" of abuse. You five posters comprise almost the entirety of the postings and ratings for the anti gay/anti mardi gras case in this thread. And it is notable that where-ever any of your group posts, others in that group give positive ratings (and does rarely anyone else). On first viewing, it appears that not one of your hit group of abuse has given positive ratings to anyone outside of your hit group. If there have been any, they have been extremely minimal.

It is notable that three of the posters in your hit group of abuse have named themselves as Christians (Ralphie, TC, and yourself). Based on their postings and ratings, the other two virtually certainly identify themselves as Christians. All of you five have actively engaged in personal abuse in this thread. I don't think anyone else has abused me (or anyone else) except you five. Your gang of five is representing not just themselves but Christianity. If this is how you wish Christianity to be portrayed, then so be it.

There is an alternative. For example, @pjayz is clearly strongly Christian. He and I disagree on a variety of matters, and the tone he has presented is respectful all the same. He presents modern Christianity in an entirely different light to your Christian Reform Group.

Edit: After 17 minutes Wombat Legacy has troll rated this posting. Perhaps he thinks no-one takes note of who rates?

I am absolutely gobsmacked. Rex, seriously, seek assistance from a medical professional. Your grip on fact and reality has become tenuous.

 

[COMMANDER]

390

 

[Rex]

I don't fully agree with this statement; again though, it depends on what you mean by an absolute truth - your statement itself could be taken as an expression of an absolute truth.

I believe God to be an absolute truth otherwise I would not invest myself fully in following Him and trusting my eternity to Him. Having said that, I do not believe that I have a complete and total understanding of the absolute truth that is God. There is so much I do not know, so much I cannot comprehend and so much that cannot be explained by anyone - let alone someone as ill-equipped as myself. I have enough trouble trying to keep up with you Rex ;-)

Now as much as I am sure this will be to the disappointment of the majority on this forum (tongue firmly planted in cheek) - I am happy to leave my involvement in this discussion here. I see these as interesting and important topics, and there is value to those involved directly and those observing; however, there can also be a point of diminishing returns from any discussion which I am mindful of. I am also mindful of the primary reason for this forum which is supporting Manly and discussing all things Maroon and White. It has been a pleasure engaging in this discussion with you Rex and I thank you for affording me the opportunity to do so in a mutually respectful manner.

Might this be Jesus' meaning of John 8:58?

I only have access to appearances. I may not know exactly who or what I am, but it is undeniable I do exist. I may not know exactly what it is that exists, but there is undeniably existence. So there are undeniably absolutes in terms of existence.

What it all means though is entirely disputable. Every concept I have about it is disputable (including the concept of a separate "me"). The meanings form our world, the existence heaven. The deniable changes as appearances change. The undeniable absolute remains there eternally. Some might call this undeniable absolute "God" (and therefore Christ, and the holy spirit), the creator of our world.

It has been fun and informative pjayz.

 

[Rex]

I am absolutely gobsmacked. Rex, seriously, seek assistance from a medical professional. Your grip on fact and reality has become tenuous.

That's OK, but it is much more powerful if you express it within one of your good jokes. 6 out of 10.

 

[Woodsie]

That's OK, but it is much more powerful if you express it within one of your good jokes. 6 out of 10.

Wasn't joking, your delusional. I fear for your mental health.

 

[Rex]

Wasn't joking, your delusional. I fear for your mental health.

That's what I'm saying. Put it into a good joke and it would be more powerful. 6/10.

 

[Captain Moondog]

Religion is great but you can't beat magic underpants.

 

[Rex]

Hi Rex,

1) Most of the other accounts were written between 60 - 75 AD, Jesus began his ministry around 28AD, at the age of 30. That does not mean that his followers were exactly the same age. Whilst the bible does state the ages of the apostles, it was common for Jewish boys to take on a Rabbi at the age of 15/16 onwards as their formal education back then finished at 15. Most scholars believe that aside from Peter who was estimated to be between 18-20 at this time (was married), to have been around 16-17.

This would make them between 76 - 92, James was written approx. 10 years earlier and Revelation 10 years later.

Hi pjayz,

You've helped shift my thinking to different possibilities. Thank you. I had assumed the twelve disciples were age peers of Jesus. But, while we'll never know, it is entirely possible as you say they could have been just boys (15-16) when Jesus recruited them. So lets take your estimate of ages for the apostles of somewhere around 76+ when they wrote their accounts - whatever it is, it is many decades after the events themselves.

Perhaps you'll similarly be able to shift my perceptions in some other ways. In particular with the infallibility claim for the bible. Here's the main drawbacks I see with accounts written by someone else many, many years after the event (not just the bible, but any account):

1. Decay of memories
We know memories decay. The longer since the event, the more fuzzy the memories. I am way younger than the 76+ above, and if I tried to write an account now of my teenage years, it would be mere snippets of this and snippets of that. Isn't that normal and expected for us humans?

2. Distortion of memories
There is the distortion of memories through the mere passage of time. And scientists tell us that every time we recall an event, we rewrite it to memory, and the memory alters. It is reconstructed.

3. Second Person inaccuracies
I've lived with my wife for many decades. We have many deep discussions and she knows me better than anyone else on the planet. And she is quite exceptional in her perceptiveness and understandings. Yet if she wrote about my thinking and perspectives right now it would still be a clear distortion.

4. Third Person inaccuracies
First person accounts already contain some biases (reading autobiographies shows this). Unfortunately Jesus didn't write any accounts. Second person accounts are more distorted by going through a second person's filters. And third person accounts more distorted again. Third person accounts are considered so unreliable they are not allowed in court, and even second person accounts are considered unreliable there. For very good reasons, the courts seek direct experience, not second or third hand accounts. Of the 27 books in the new testament:
* 17 books are ascribed to third person authors: Paul (13 books), Luke (2), Mark (1), Unknown (1).
* 8 books are ascribed to the main second person authors - disciples who were with Jesus during his teaching years: John (5 books), Peter (2), and Matthew (1).
* 2 books are ascribed to other second person authors - Jesus' brothers who knew him in his youth: James (1) and Jude (1).

These drawbacks are not a criticism of the bible per se, they reflect on any account of another's life and thoughts and teachings written well after the event. So in the normal course of events, in these circumstances, there would be significant opportunities for distortions and inaccuracies.

Now, you've explained that there is another factor here. That God is writing through these authors. They are divinely inspired. And that is why Paul's writings so dominate current Christian thought - because it is believed that God is writing through him.

If I accepted that premise, then this is where I would naturally need to take that logic. Perhaps you can help me see a different viewing lens? Perhaps I am missing something?

If God is able to write through all of these authors, what need is there for Jesus at all?

There are 4 books on Jesus' life and teachings in the bible. That is a mere 15% of the books in the new testament, or just 6% of the books in the bible. So if all these books are divinely inspired, might Christians be better called Paulians, given his perspectives account for 48% of the books in the new testament? Or Judaists because 60% of the books of the bible (all of the old testament) are from the divinely inspired writings in the Tanakh?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

 

[Wombat Legacy]

Maybe the men in white coats finally turned up.

 

[Jerry1]

Because this thread has gay in the title all the mods are hiding. If it was holden V ford it would have been moved...

 

[wedgetail eagle]

I didn't realise Jesus Jones was still popular?

 

[bones]

I didn't realise Jesus Jones was still popular?

@bob dylan didn't have this to sing about, you know it feels good to be alive.

 

[Captain Moondog]

It's the Jesus impersonators you've got to be wary of...