The Bible: Guide to Heaven or Scripture of Death?

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by adjensen

 

It may be out of context as you see it. You are a strict Christian. I am looking from an outside point of view at both religions. Both texts advocate violence in some way or another. Both state that the spirit MUST be given to God or else.

AKA: Heaven and Hell.

It's a RELIGION! What else would you expect? "Oh, do what you want, I'll just be hanging around up here in heaven to forgive you when you think I've had enough." I am not a Christian because of threat or fear, by the way. Most Christians that I know are not, either.

There are also radical elements in each religion. But what we see in the MSM is a generalization of all Islam being a radical and "wrong" because of these radical extremes. We also ridicule the governments that are based in an Islamic faith.

That may be your reading of what the media portrays. I see plenty of efforts to demonstrate that the radicals are kooks, and not representative of Islam as a whole. Maybe you should try watching some other channel.

I am trying to make the argument that the U.S.'s Christian based laws, and the Christian religion can be shown in the same light as Islam and corresponding governments.

No, they can't. The United States is not a theocracy, not even close. "Christian based laws"? What, Christians have a corner on not allowing murder? Theft? Freedom of speech? Do you think that laws against speeding or insider trading are Christian laws?

Don't confuse nitwits like Sarah Palin with American democracy. Religion plays a fairly minor role once electioneering is done.

You claim that my interpretation of the Bible is flawed. I assert that our general interpretation of Islam may be wrong. Either way, we have no reason to bastardize their religion to legitimize a war or its people.

Who says what my interpretation of Islam is? Who says I support that war? Who says that the only reason the war exists is because of some arbitrary view of Islam?

Your issue seems to be with media portrayal of Islam. How about fixing that, rather than lying about Christianity in order to make it seem just as bad? Whom does that serve?

reply to post by adjensen


You're wrong you know. Those that set up the Bible left Deuteronomy and all the objectionable nonsense in the Bible. Even Jesus claims that not a letter will of the law will pass away. Oh sure its the prevailing doctrine that the New Covenant is all you need. But that doesn't change the fact that millions of people DO believe that the Old Testament is still the Word of God and many claim it is still relevant. How many times have you heard Psalm 23?

Besides, Jesus doesn't make it any better. Need I remind you that he himself admitted that he came to bring division, not peace in Matthew, and that his teachings would divide families.

Also, the doctrine of Jesus is an insult to the idea of justice for sins. Many Christians claims that God MUST punish sin and carry out JUSTICE. But punishing an innocent person for the sins of the world is not justice. What God does is the equivalent of letting someone off for murder and punishing an innocent man in that person's place. That is not justice EVEN if the person being punished AGREES to be punished.

Furthermore the idea that those who merely believe in Christ gain eternal life regardless of their deeds is absurd. This means that if Hitler repented in his last breath he could get into Heaven but that a Buddhist living a selfless good life who fails to accept Jesus for one reason or another would still end up in Hell.

Revelation 21:8 depicts the New Testament God as even more evil than the Old testament one as he casts people into the Lake of Fire for things as simple as being "cowardly" or being a "liar" or a "magician" also, all unbelievers and worshipers of other Gods are also thrown into ETERNAL torment for a FINITE list of sins. This is not justice.

The New Testament depiction of God isn't much better than the Old Testament one.

Sure there's a few lovely poetic ideas expressed by Jesus and his followers, just as there are lovely poetic ideas in Psalms and some good proverbs in Proverbs but those qualities do not redeem the Bible, they merely show it for what it is, just another book of myth.

My, as you say, "biases" are based on what the book itself says. You can throw out everything horrible about the book and keep the good if you want but when I rant against the Bible I am speaking directly to those who believe it to be the Word of God.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by adjensen
It's a RELIGION! What else would you expect? "Oh, do what you want, I'll just be hanging around up here in heaven to forgive you when you think I've had enough." I am not a Christian because of threat or fear, by the way. Most Christians that I know are not, either.

I expect that God would have found a way to make his intentions clear. Why leave his most important messages up to personal interpretation by governments and corrupt priests? How can one have an intelligent faith in God when everything seems contradictory? In all honesty, God has been asleep on the job, while those who claim to do his bidding has bastardized the religion.

That may be your reading of what the media portrays. I see plenty of efforts to demonstrate that the radicals are kooks, and not representative of Islam as a whole. Maybe you should try watching some other channel.

Can you honestly say that Islam as a whole has not been demonized by the MSM and politicians? If not, why is their such a big hub-bub about the Mosque on ground zero? Has public perception been manipulated to the detriment of Islam? I think so.

Your issue seems to be with media portrayal of Islam. How about fixing that, rather than lying about Christianity in order to make it seem just as bad? Whom does that serve?

Aren't the talking heads, such as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, media monsters these days? They have the power to influence opinion in many ways. Yet, they expose their Christian beliefs as the sole reason they believe what they believe. Do they have a firm understanding of Islam or Christianity for that matter? Do they serve to benefit the faith of all Christians, or their wallets? Is still doesn't stop them from blaming Islam for the woes of the Middle East.
Edit: Fix quotes

[edit on 3-8-2010 by sheepslayer247]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by sheepslayer247]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by sheepslayer247]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hopefully at some point, you'll read the parts of the Bible that don't support your biases

You're wrong you know. Those that set up the Bible left Deuteronomy and all the objectionable nonsense in the Bible. Even Jesus claims that not a letter will of the law will pass away. Oh sure its the prevailing doctrine that the New Covenant is all you need, which even when I was a Christian I generally agreed with. But that doesn't change the fact that millions of people DO believe that the Old Testament is still the Word of God and many claim it is still relevant. How many times have you heard Psalm 23?

Those that "set up" the Bible included the Old Testament as a testimony to the divinity of Christ. Its main purpose is to bring in the prophecy that foretells of the Christ, his nature, and what he would do.

Christ says, as I referenced earlier, that he did not come to destroy the Law, because, if you want to remain Jewish, the Law is still there. Still there, today. Good luck with it, of course, since the destruction of the Temple makes it all a bit tricky, but it's all still there.

God cares, a lot, if you lie, or steal, or kill. He doesn't care if you eat pork or wear clothes with mixed thread, or any of that rot. Love God, love everyone else. A simple message that we've managed to needlessly complicate in the interim. Morality? If there's an issue, it's between that person and God, not me and him.

Besides, Jesus doesn't make it any better. Need I remind you that he himself admitted that he came to bring division, not peace in Matthew, and that his teachings would divide families.

What he said was that his MESSAGE, the thing that he came to do, would separate people, exactly as it did. Some Jews saw Christ as the Messiah and followed him, the rest did not, and Christ's message was one which, if you didn't believe it, you were compelled to call blasphemy in the worst way, a Jewish crime for which death was the prescribed punishment. So if son chose Christ and father did not, there would be a pretty big gulf there.

Do you believe that Christ should have just dropped the whole "fulfillment of the Law" bit, because it would cause dissension? (I know, you don't believe in Christ anyway, but I hope that you see the point.)

Furthermore the idea that those who merely believe in Christ gain eternal life regardless of their deeds is absurd. This means that if Hitler repented in his last breath he could get into Heaven but that a Buddhist living a selfless good life who fails to accept Jesus for one reason or another would still end up in Hell.

Revelation 21:8 depicts the New Testament God as even more evil than the Old testament one as he casts people into the Lake of Fire for things as simple as being "cowardly" or being a "liar" or a "magician" also, all unbelievers and worshipers of other Gods are also thrown into ETERNAL torment for a FINITE list of sins. This is not justice.

Christ gives you a very simple path to reconciliation with God. If you choose to reject him, you live with the consequences. Not sure why that's so hard to understand, or why so many people have an issue with it.

If there is a God, we rightly live by his justice, not our perception of what it should be. If there is not God, you've nothing to complain about.

The New Testament depiction of God isn't much better than the Old Testament one.

Sure it is. A handful of lines in a book otherwise chock full of admonitions of living an honest and loving life. Go look up the term Eisegesis. Since you exercise it so prevalently, you might as well use the proper word for your bias.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Well, you made a bit of a mess out of that, so I won't try to quote you, but, no, I don't think that it's appropriate to smear Christianity just to make things "even" with whatever you perceive has been done to Islam.

Is "two wrongs don't make a right" not something you subscribe to?

As with Dr Forrester over there, your beef is with something other than Christianity, and I would recommend that you take it up with them. The Jewish writers of scripture, in his case, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck in yours.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

Well, you made a bit of a mess out of that, so I won't try to quote you, but, no, I don't think that it's appropriate to smear Christianity just to make things "even" with whatever you perceive has been done to Islam.

Is "two wrongs don't make a right" not something you subscribe to?

As with Dr Forrester over there, your beef is with something other than Christianity, and I would recommend that you take it up with them. The Jewish writers of scripture, in his case, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck in yours.

Ya, I messed up the quotes but I believe I fixed that. I am not trying to "even" anything out. I am pointing out how one religion can be portrayed to be as one see fits. Islam being manipulated as to make the American Christian fear the brown people our government wishes to bomb.

I think that the "two wrongs make a right" analogy would all depend on the situation. The Old testament subscribes to an "eye for an eye" way of thinking. But Jesus preached to turn the other cheek. The old testament comes close to what Islam abides by, except Islamic Lex talionis is not as harsh as what is described in the Old Testament.

Pick and choose....

Lex talionis

reply to post by adjensen

Its main purpose is to bring in the prophecy that foretells of the Christ

Care proving this?

It wouldn't matter anyway since most of what is claimed as Messianic prophecy is taken out of context from the Old Testament and is either misapplied or madly vague.

He doesn't care if you eat pork or wear clothes with mixed thread, or any of that rot

Where do you get that from? The Bible clearly states that God DOES care, at least until he changes his mind. Its funny how a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever can change his mind and even, apparently, change religions.

A simple message that we've managed to needlessly complicate in the interim

I agree. It started with the Apostle Paul, he goes into detail about all sorts of stuff that has nothing to do with loving each other, like how women should stay quiet and church and slaves obey their masters. And what's this talk about gifts of the Holy Spirit and such... what does that have to do with loving each other and following the Golden Rule?

If I had my way every Bible would just have the love commandment.

I know that it was Christ's message that divided people. Apparently this means that from day 1 Jesus knew his mission on Earth, to save all humanity, would be a miserable failure. And this is another thing that doesn't make sense. Is this really the best idea God can come up with?

To send one third of himself to die horrifically in a sacrifice to appease himself but then to require that people believe in this sacrifice without any evidence it ever happened or else they burn for eternity? And if God is all-knowing shouldn't he understand how pathetically ineffective this plan is going to be, he's going to end up sending BILLIONS to hell.

Not sure why that's so hard to understand

Perhaps because the consequences are about as unjust and evil as can be possibly imagined.

In the Old Testament it was an Eye for an Eye, which is harsh in and of itself but is fairly fair considering how long ago they came up with that idea.

In the New Testament it becomes Believe or Burn.

So why does God think it is okay to require that we all be gullible enough to believe a story about a Jewish Zombie that has no evidence behind it or else we go to Hell FOREVER? I'm not sure why its so hard to understand why this story makes no sense whatsoever...

Bill Hicks put it this way:

"Eternal suffering awaits those who question God's infinite love."

Also, no human being could ever commit enough sins in one life time to deserve eternal punishment. What exactly is the point of eternal punishment? The point of prisons in the real world is to separate the violent people out ... but they aren't tortured day and night with "Weeping, and wailing and gnashing of teeth". The other purpose of punishment is to teach someone a lesson, but in Hell its too late to learn any lessons, because you're there, FOREVER.

A handful of lines in a book otherwise chock full of admonitions of living an honest and loving life.

You might want to reread your Bible. Its actually the other way around. Its a handful of lines about living an honest loving life, surrounded by morally reprehensible and logically contradictory content.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by adjensen

 

Its main purpose is to bring in the prophecy that foretells of the Christ

Care proving this?

It wouldn't matter anyway since most of what is claimed as Messianic prophecy is taken out of context from the Old Testament and is either misapplied or madly vague.

No need to prove it then, eh?

He doesn't care if you eat pork or wear clothes with mixed thread, or any of that rot

Where do you get that from? The Bible clearly states that God DOES care, at least until he changes his mind. Its funny how a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever can change his mind and even, apparently, change religions.

If you'd like to explain how Jewish dietary regulations impact Christ's two commandments, I'd love to hear them, particularly in the context of Matthew 15:11 and Acts 10:9-16

Christ came to fulfill the law, not to overturn it. God didn't change his mind, did he?

A simple message that we've managed to needlessly complicate in the interim

If I had my way every Bible would just have the love commandment.

I think that you and I have finally found a point of agreement.

I know that it was Christ's message that divided people. Apparently this means that from day 1 Jesus knew his mission on Earth, to save all humanity, would be a miserable failure. And this is another thing that doesn't make sense. Is this really the best idea God can come up with?

Did Christ divide the people, or did the people divide themselves? You sit over there, whinging about the horrible things in the Old Testament, but you're complaining about this guy that came and said "forget all that crap. Love God, love each other. Enough's enough"?

He didn't come to "save all humanity", most people are too arrogant and stubborn to consider what he has to say, even on a basic level. Look at the OP, who thinks it's okay to lie about Christianity in order to "even things out" with lies told about Islam.

Not sure why that's so hard to understand

Perhaps because the consequences are about as unjust and evil as can be possibly imagined.

Eternal life? For being humble and acting like a decent person? Seems like a pretty fair consequence to me.

A handful of lines in a book otherwise chock full of admonitions of living an honest and loving life.

You might want to reread your Bible. Its actually the other way around. Its a handful of lines about living an honest loving life, surrounded by morally reprehensible and logically contradictory content.

The most important things in the Bible for a Christian are the words of Christ, which are neither morally reprehensible and logically contradictory. You give as much weight to Jewish Law as that, hence your confusion. But, again, Christian theology teaches that we come to God through Christ, NOT through the Law, NOT through the Bible.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

Well, you made a bit of a mess out of that, so I won't try to quote you, but, no, I don't think that it's appropriate to smear Christianity just to make things "even" with whatever you perceive has been done to Islam.

Is "two wrongs don't make a right" not something you subscribe to?

As with Dr Forrester over there, your beef is with something other than Christianity, and I would recommend that you take it up with them. The Jewish writers of scripture, in his case, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck in yours.

Ya, I messed up the quotes but I believe I fixed that. I am not trying to "even" anything out. I am pointing out how one religion can be portrayed to be as one see fits. Islam being manipulated as to make the American Christian fear the brown people our government wishes to bomb.

I think that the "two wrongs make a right" analogy would all depend on the situation. The Old testament subscribes to an "eye for an eye" way of thinking. But Jesus preached to turn the other cheek. The old testament comes close to what Islam abides by, except Islamic Lex talionis is not as harsh as what is described in the Old Testament.

Sorry, but Christians, at least those who follow the teachings of Christ, there are plenty who call themselves Christians but aren't (as Christ himself predicted,) do not accept any form of "two wrongs make a right." That's not acceptable as part of the theology. Judgement is for the Lord to deal with, not us.

Again, and I don't know why I have to keep saying this, your beef is with those who wrote things like "an eye for an eye", who were not Christians. If you want to drop the pretense and just say "look, I just don't like Christians" then please do so, and stop trying to wrangle in all sorts of ancillary things to rationalize it.

Lots of people don't like us very much, and that's okay.

reply to post by adjensen

For being humble and acting like a decent person?

But that isn't what the Bible says. The requirements are believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. As it says, whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. So something as simple as accepting Christ is rewarded by eternal bliss while something as simple as lying, or deciding to accept a different religion (or NO religion at all) is punishable by eternal Hellfire (Revelation 21:8).

It is by grace THROUGH FAITH that salvation is had, according to Paul at least. Not by deeds.

The most important things in the Bible for a Christian are the words of Christ

I agree, but tell that to the fundamentalists and raging zealots who have mistaken their God for an old dusty tome of myths. When I "whine" about the Bible, as you call it, it is because I was raised a fundamentalist and spent years breaking out of that belief system. I personally don't think the Old Testament should even be attached to the Bible, as I said before the love commandment is all one really needs, that and the Golden Rule.

But if it really were Christ's religion I would think that ALL the gospels would be in the canon and not much else. But most of the Gospels were thrown out in favor of the four we have today.

When I "whine" against the Bible I'm trying to point out to people who believe it as the Word of God that it, as a whole, is anything but.

As for Jesus, he has some good philosophies and if followed his teachings usually lead to a non-violent, peaceful and loving life. I have no issue with that. Any issue I have at all with Jesus comes when people cheapen his teachings by bringing up unsubstantiated supernatural elements to the story. After all what is the point of living like Christ if in the end all you have to do is believe in order to be saved?



[edit on 3-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
It's important that you put these quotes into proper context. This passage refers to Israel during Mosaic times, not the modern-day Christian Church:

Then why are you still using that REALLY old book? Seriously...why? Why are the abramic religions not viewed as old myths and cults and nonsense?

Oh right...'cause they run most of the world.. As the saying goes: It is the victors who write history.

Gday,

Originally posted by adjensen
Peter, and the other apostles, saw Christ after the resurrection. They knew, for a fact,

No they didn't.
Not one the NT books was written by anyone who met a historical Jesus.
That is the view of modern NT scholars,
but believers are the last to know.

In fact -
we do NOT have even ONE authentic claim to have met Jesus :

Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.

It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.

the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.

G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.

G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.

G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.

G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.

Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.

Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.


James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.

Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.

the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.


Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.

Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus

Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.

So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.

There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.

But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Christians - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.

So,
If Jesus wasn't historical, there is NO LIE, NO HOAX and NO CONSPIRACY required at all - because there are NO actual claims to have met Jesus to be a hoax or a lie or a conspiracy in the first place.

Just later books and claims, and claims about books.


Kap

reply to post by adjensen


I believe I pointed out parts of scripture in the New Testament that show the hypocrisy (acceptance of violence) of said scripture Vs. the teachings of Jesus. I would love to exclude the bible from the teachings of Jesus as I believe that, if he existed, he was a true man of piece and enlightenment, but what I have been taught is that the New Testament is key to learning his word.

I have beef with no religion. I have my beliefs and in the grand scheme, it wont matter. I believe that if I live my life with as much honor as I can, I will be invited as a pure soul into heaven. If I have to bow down to a God that KNOWS how hard it is to believe in the world today, and exclaim him to be the only true God, then I will accept my fate in hell with as much honor as I lived my life.

I thought Jesus paid for my ticket anyway! He paid for our sins on the cross.

Gday,

Originally posted by adjensen
They testified to something that was the worst form of blasphemy for a Jew to say, knowing full well that it would get them killed, because they knew it to be true. They'd seen it.

No they didn't.
No Christian personally witnessed any of it.
What we have is STORIES written by unknown people who never met anyone IN the stories.

Originally posted by adjensen
If they had not, it's unlikely that they would have done much more than the slinking away that they did on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday.

That is merely part of the STORY.
There is no evidence it happened.

Originally posted by adjensen
As for whether or not Peter and the other Apostles were "real", most evidence points to John's Gospel being truly written by John the Apostle

No it doesn't.
Modern NT scholars agree G.John's author is UNKNOWN - it was NOT written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.

Originally posted by adjensen
(along with his letters and Revelation),

Wrong again.
Modern NT scholars agree these letters were written by unknown persons who never met jesus.

Originally posted by adjensen
and Paul's letters clearly indicate that he had met Peter, John and other Apostles in person.

Paul says he met people - so?
Paul does NOT clain he met people who had met Jesus - in fact he says the exact OPPOSITE :

Paul says they had VISIONS - and that HE is as much an apostle as they were, because he had a vision too.

Paul says specifically he recieved the Gospel about Jesus from NO MAN.
Paul says he did NOT learn about Jesus.

Paul says his knowledge of Jesus came from revelation and scripture.

Originally posted by adjensen
If you want to throw the whole of that away as "lies", then what's your purpose in participating in a discussion on the Bible at all?

Please PAY ATTENTION !!!
No-one said it was lies!

It was a religious story - which some people BELEIVED.
No-one lied at all.

Some people have this bizarre idea that a book MUST be EITHER :
* completelty historically TRUE.
or
* a LIE

What nonsense - many books are NOT TRUE without being a lie :
* Shakespeare for example - is Shakespeare a lie?
Of couse NOT !
How silly.


Kap

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by adjensen

 

For being humble and acting like a decent person?

But that isn't what the Bible says. The requirements are believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. As it says, whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. So something as simple as accepting Christ is rewarded by eternal bliss while something as simple as lying, or deciding to accept a different religion (or NO religion at all) is punishable by eternal Hellfire (Revelation 21:8).

It is by grace THROUGH FAITH that salvation is had, according to Paul at least. Not by deeds.

Correct. I just had a nice conversation last night with my church small group and a Hindu fellow who joined us for the evening about this very subject.

James says "faith without works is dead", which is a big stumbling point for Protestants, including me. On the other hand, you have Paul, whose point of view is that no one can do enough to save themselves, therefore Christ is the key piece, and works are irrelevant.

The reconciliation of those two contrary points (essentially, Catholic versus Protestant) is that James is right, and Paul is right. We cannot be saved by our own works, but if we claim to have faith, and if our "works" (things we do) demonstrate that we have a hollow faith, our faith collapses. Jesus wasn't a big fan of the hypocritical Pharisees, and this is the resolution of that in Christianity. If you claim the faith, but still act sinfully, your faith is dead.

The most important things in the Bible for a Christian are the words of Christ

I agree, but tell that to the fundamentalists and raging zealots who have mistaken their God for an old dusty tome of myths. When I "whine" about the Bible, as you call it, it is because I was raised a fundamentalist and spent years breaking out of that belief system. I personally don't think the Old Testament should even be attached to the Bible, as I said before the love commandment is all one really needs, that and the Golden Rule.

But if it really were Christ's religion I would think that ALL the gospels would be in the canon and not much else. But most of the Gospels were thrown out in favor of the four we have today.

When I "whine" against the Bible I'm trying to point out to people who believe it as the Word of God that it, as a whole, is anything but.

As for Jesus, he has some good philosophies and if followed his teachings usually lead to a non-violent, peaceful and loving life. I have no issue with that. Any issue I have at all with Jesus comes when people cheapen his teachings by bringing up unsubstantiated supernatural elements to the story. After all what is the point of living like Christ if in the end all you have to do is believe in order to be saved?

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Beyond a love of MST3K, I think that you and I have a common background in faith. I, too, was raised in a fundamentalist environment (Methodist, but a pretty stark end of it) and it took me a long time to break away from that thinking (although, to be honest, I still catch myself in that mode from time to time.)

Ultimately, for me it came down to accepting God on a context that was beyond a Biblical perspective, and then reconciling myself to the Bible. That required recognizing that simple passage in Luke, which I posted here, which condenses all of that religious overhead into a very basic contract between God and I.

Once I reached that point, everything else just kind of "made sense." I realized that my fundamentalism was myopic, shoved into a path proscribed by people, and that, while it effectively managed the basic contract, it only did so by limiting me, and, to a large degree, God.

At that point, I started learning more about Christian theology, and that helped me to intellectually sort out the problems that I had with moving away from fundamentalist thinking, and it continued to "make sense."

As I have written a number of times, I have had a number of experiences in my life that give me absolute proof of God's existence, though they remain subjective experiences that have meaning for me, and me alone. But I'm able to reconcile my experiences with my intellectual expectations, and it all fits together, for me.

I identify, very much, with your question of why we should live like Christ if all we have to do is believe. The answer to that, I think, lies in the doctrine of forgiveness. When people treat me poorly, or take advantage of me, or otherwise slight me, I forgive them. To a degree, I do that because I think it's part of being a Christian, but a bigger part of it is that I recognize the value, to me, of forgiveness.

Similarly, I think that, if we strip away it all, the doctrine, the religion, the morals, we would find that being good is good. That acting in the way that Christ has taught is ultimately as good, or better, for us as it is for the people that we are loving. Even going beyond any "ultimate judgement", I think that Christ's message was one that tells us we benefit from acting in a right manner.

That's a struggle, because it often means being treated poorly by others here on Earth. I can't tell you the number of people that have taken advantage of me. But I view that twofold -- first, as a Christian, that's okay; secondly, it hasn't cost me anything that I've apparently missed, as my life is okay, aside from things that are apart from those kinds of issues, and if it helped them, that's great. Glad to make someone else's life a bit better.

That probably makes me a bit of a chump but, meh, doesn't really matter.

In the end, I rejected my fundamentalist roots, but not Christianity, because I recognized that, for myself, God made sense, Jesus improved my life, and all of the things that ran contrary to that passage in Luke just needed to be set aside. I don't spend every Sunday whinging to the pastor about this or that, but I recognize that, at its core, the relationship is between me and God, and that's what really matters.

reply to post by Kapyong


Almost all Biblical scholars attribute the Gospel of John to the Apostle John, based on the writing style, subject matter, and attribution of the Apostle ("beloved of Christ") in the text. As a text completely apart from the Synoptic Gospels, John is believed to have been written within about 20 years of Christ's death, and by the Apostle himself (or dictated.) Similarly, the letters of John are attribute to the Apostle. The authorship of the Revelation of John is less concrete.

Gday,

Originally posted by adjensen
When not taken out of context, it may be clearer to you that Christ is talking about the divisiveness of his message, particularly among the community that he was preaching it to. "Son would turn against Father, daughter against the mother" and so on. Christ is obviously not teaching to hate your family, but rather that being right with God is more important than being right with your family.

Bollocks.

the statement
"I come not to bring peace bit a sword"
is about division and violence.

The chapter is about division and violence, as even you admit :
"talking about the divisiveness of his message"
"Son would turn against Father, daughter against the mother"
Yup - division and violence.

Like I said - completely IN CONTEXT - the context is violence and division.

And what do we see in Christian history?
Division and violence :
* with the Jews
* with pagans
* with the Muslims

So, we see a complete and consistent match between :
1. Jesus' statement - violence and division
2. the chapter context - violence and division
3. Christian history - violence and division

Jesus DID specifically call for division and violence, and he got it.


Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by adjensen
They testified to something that was the worst form of blasphemy for a Jew to say, knowing full well that it would get them killed, because they knew it to be true. They'd seen it.

No they didn't.
No Christian personally witnessed any of it.
What we have is STORIES written by unknown people who never met anyone IN the stories.

Allow me to summarize, to save the valuable time of the readers.

You do not believe the Bible.

Thank you very much for your opinion. As you dismiss the entire thing, further input by you is longer necessary. Have a great day!

reply to post by Kapyong

Very well said. Thanks for pointing out the inadequacies of the modern Christian banter.

Can you understand how, if in a different situation, even Christianity can be misconstrued to be a religion of violence and hate? My point was to bring to light how Islam has been manipulated to bring about the same emotional response, for the betterment of those who wish to control the Middle East.

I believe that there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Islam even recognizes Jesus as a prophet. The religions are not that different in the end, and may even have the same historical background. But it is Islam that has been demonized by America and the media.

reply to post by Indigenous equity


""its a Book, that specifically states not to worship objects, yet the people that follow it end up worshiping just about any religious icon they can get their hands on including shrouds, rocks, wooden crosses, create saints, pray and worship to various peoples, pray to angels, create idols out of artifacts, etc, etc, etc.""

For me it is not just a Book it is the living word of God. The Old Testament or covenant is how man was to live before Jesus came and made it to where individuals could access God on a one to one basis. And the New Testament or covenant where now we are to love one another follow the Ten commandments and to live in such a way that if we offend someone else with our actions that are questionable as to whether or not they are sinful to stop doing that.

As for all that you stated above only one so called God fearing sect does that. I will not name them for the sake of being called a basher.

But I grew up a Southern Baptist, and we never did any of those thing we did not even have to confess our sins to the pastor as Jesus is all we have to confess to.

I have been a Pentecostal for 10 year now and find that it is more to the way God wanted us to be.

Baptized in Jesus name filled with the Holy Ghost speak in tongues, lay hands on people, dance in the spirit, clap hand in praise, shout out in praise, tell everyone of Jesus, read the Bible (which many of the sect you refer to do not as there priests claim that only they can properly interpret it) Which by the way is contrary to the word which says we are to search the scriptures our self.