Christianity. A Religion of Convenience, or Polytheism?

The bible wasn't written for everyone. It's full of wonderful stories and good advice as much as contradictions galore. It's written in a way so that it can interpreted any way you like.

What you consider a problem with the New and Old testament, church leaders would consider a valuable tool. The more "mysterious" or confusing, the better. That way you NEED priests and preachers to explain it to you, which again, allows for them to control you any way they like depending on the current need.

This makes it the ideal tool to control the masses. Even though it's outdated, the lifelong brainwashing and fear mongering tied to it will keep many loyal to it and force it to work in modern times as best they can.

Many interpret true spiritual events as a sign that the "bible" or their current religion must be true, when in reality, it could be anything.

It's true that you evolve and mature spiritually, but Christians are trained to take ANY criticism or hard question as an attack, if its a particularly effective attack, then the Satan must be the root.


I believe there are elements of the bible that are accurate and helpful, but like everything else, man has perverted it into something else. Let's be clear on something else, the bible was NOT written by God, as much as some would like it to haven been, it was written by men who claim to have been inspired by god. If I said the same thing today, I would laughed at, but because it was by people you don't know a couple thousand years ago, it's somehow sacred. I therefore have no use whatsoever for the bible, the church or those that post random bible quotes as proof of anything other than their own delusions. But just in case, God bless you all.




[edit on 4-8-2010 by Paschar0]

What I'm saying is:

Was that addressed to me?

If you say "it was too harsh for man", that's implying G-d doesn't understand human nature and his law was not perfect to begin with.

I didn't say it was too harsh. I said that God did what was necessary to achieve his objective. If you think that was "harsh," then you need to take that up with him.

So far as I am aware, Old Testament "law" was binding only on the covenant partners to which it pertained. Gentiles did not and do not partake of that covenant. There would be no reason to think they are governed by its terms.

As it happens, Paulist Christians differ with Jews about human perfection. Some observant Jews cite examples of Jews who did fully comply with the law. Paul, of course, felt the law was too "harsh," in the sense that "nobody" could comply with its terms.

That is a problem for Christians, since Jesus is held to have been in complete compliance. Well, he's God. However, the vast majority of living Paulist Christians (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some others) believe that another Covenant-Jew also fully complied, Jesus' mother.

She wasn't God. So, what's Paul's beef? If Mary could make the grade, why couldn't he?

Why would G-d change his approach, if it was perfect to begin with?

There's the bottom line. Did God change his "approach"?

Or did he, by accomplishing his objective, change the facts on the ground so that things that were necessary before were no longer necessary?

because he had to change it. It sounds more like an excuse to omit the old testament considering G-d did some really awful things in it.

No, that's covered in Acts. The early church leaders, in their altogether human legislative capacity, decided that Gentile Christians weren't bound by the terms of the Jewish Covenant. Gentiles didn't need any "excuse," they were already excused.

Just so there is no confusion, I am an agnostic, so I am not on the hook for any Christian's view of all this. When I said I understood an aspect of the story, I was speaking about my own reading of the story. You know, reading the story, not taking some church's spin about what it "really means." As an earlier poster wrote,

Forget churches.

Word.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by Illumin Not I
What I'm saying is: Why would G-d change his approach, if it was perfect to begin with? If you say "it was too harsh for man", that's implying G-d doesn't understand human nature and his law was not perfect to begin with. because he had to change it. It sounds more like an excuse to omit the old testament considering G-d did some really awful things in it.

Who says that he changed his approach? God established the Law for the Jewish people. Started out pretty simple -- "hey, here's ten things. Don't do them." Next thing you know, those ten things have turned into hundreds of things, a religious hierarchy and complications that exclude, rather than include. The more complicated things become, the less inclined people are to try and follow them, so you have all those references to the "stiff necks" of the Jews.

The Law was perfect, people goofed it up. Not only that, but the day was coming when the Temple in Jerusalem was going bye-bye, and that would mean the end of reconciliation through the Law as Jews knew it.

Jesus came as the fulfillment of the Law. He brought it back to its original simplicity and gave us the means to reconcile ourselves to God. For a Christian, the Old Testament is the testimony of Christ's divinity, but the Law has no bearing on us. We can eat shellfish, dance with women, have door jams without things written on them, all sorts of stuff that a Jewish adherent to the Law still needs to do, because the Law is still there.

Of course, we've gone and done the same thing to Christianity that the Jews did, needlessly complicate it with doctrine, opinions and the like. But it's still reasonably simple if you get to the root of Christ's message, which was "Love God, and love everyone else."

Do that, and you're golden, regardless of what you eat.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by Illumin Not I

 

Forget churches.

I follow Jesus - and even if you do not believe in Jesus, we should follow what He said (0r did not say).

Love, peace and forgiveness.

Not that this world will ever follow those rules.

We hate, we wage war, and we do not forgive. Why do we wonder why our environment is suffering and our planet is ending?

I cannot prove Jesus existed 2000 years ago but his values are worth following for all of us.

Originally posted by eight bits
As it happens, Paulist Christians differ with Jews about human perfection. Some observant Jews cite examples of Jews who did fully comply with the law. Paul, of course, felt the law was too "harsh," in the sense that "nobody" could comply with its terms.

That is a problem for Christians, since Jesus is held to have been in complete compliance. Well, he's God. However, the vast majority of living Paulist Christians (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some others) believe that another Covenant-Jew also fully complied, Jesus' mother.

She wasn't God. So, what's Paul's beef? If Mary could make the grade, why couldn't he?

Catholic belief (so it's one that I'm not sure I'm keen on) is that Mary was born without Original Sin. For some reason, until a year or so ago, I had always associated the term "Immaculate Conception" with Jesus' birth, but it's actually about Mary. So she had divine grace in her that Paul lacked, and which allowed her to stay in line with the Law.

Being more Protestant than Catholic, I'm not sure how comfortable I am on that, as the whole of Mariology is murky water for me, but I guess it would explain how she'd be able to manage.

reply to post by Illumin Not I


It may just be a problem of improper representation perhaps? Jesus Himself was a jew you know. The OT God and NT God are the exact same. Take a look here at Hebrews 10:1-4

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should had no more conscience of sins. But in those [sacrificees there is ] a remembrance again made of sins every year. It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

The OT is important history to know as well as if you look into it, and read it in proper context, you can take some lessons from it but ultimately be able to recognize sin and what it does to you externally, as well as spiritually, and moreso that there is NOTHING you can do by "works" to gain entrance into heaven. Jesus came to abolish that train of thought through the pharasees who cared more about their ancestors' traditions rather than GOD's LAW. But the NT is about the mystery being revealed and the grace of God being shown through the beauty of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Through recognizing sin we can realize how it damages us spiritually and takes us away from God, and Thank Him because He sent his only begotten Son, that we can be forgiven and constantly grow in a relationship with Him.

Don't let other individual's folly lead you to destruction. Look into it for yourself! Surely anyone truly knows to read the bible is more than just a brief summary on a website, or a few minute read here in there, but rather it truly is a life commitment. Every verse in the bible is something that can be meditated upon. Hopefully this helps a little bit, peace

reply to post by Illumin Not I

Originally posted by Illumin Not I
O.k. Here it goes. The reason for pointing this out, whether or not Christians want to face it, is because they think that they can choose what version of the Bible they choose to want to follow.

Here are some scenarios about asking a Christian about the vengeance of G-d.

Why did G-d choose to advocate violence?

Answer: Oh, thats the Old Testament, G-d's not like that NOW.

God chose to advocate violence for many reasons. But the main point about how death is viewed is the issue. If the God of the Bible is an eternal being, then our lifetime on earth is just a second on the clock compared to a year. Our individual pain and suffering is minute when compared to eternity. Physical life and death are insignificant compared to eternal life or death.

The other thing to take into consideration is that God is Holy and totally without sin. Everything He does has superior motives. I can't even begin to comprehend what holy actually means. The Old Testament is just as relevant spiritually as the New. It's just that Christians are not under Judaic law.

So is the G-d of the OT the same as the NT? Or are their 2 different G-d's? Or are you choosing the G-d more convenient to your day to day, and or argument towards those that pose the same question?

Yes they are one and the same. I am limited by my understanding and interpretation, but I still believe. And each day something new is revealed as long as I continue studying.

reply to post by Illumin Not I

Originally posted by Illumin Not I
What I'm saying is: Why would G-d change his approach, if it was perfect to begin with? If you say "it was too harsh for man", that's implying G-d doesn't understand human nature and his law was not perfect to begin with. because he had to change it. It sounds more like an excuse to omit the old testament considering G-d did some really awful things in it.

It's really not a change to His approach. The huge list of things you can and can't do in the Old Testament was to prove a point. In the OT you had to offer a perfect, unblemished sacrifice to atone for you sins, because we are not perfect and will eventually break some of those laws.

The NT was about the Son of God who is the perfect, unblemished sacrifice taking the place of those burned offerings. Jesus atoned for our sins by His death and Christians still have to forgive each other and ask forgivness, but we asre no longer under penalty of spiritual death.

Oh, dear. We seem to have fallen Below.

adj

Catholic belief (so it's one that I'm not sure I'm keen on) is that Mary was born without Original Sin. For some reason, until a year or so ago, I had always associated the term "Immaculate Conception" with Jesus' birth, but it's actually about Mary. So she had divine grace in her that Paul lacked, and which allowed her to stay in line with the Law.

Being more Protestant than Catholic, I'm not sure how comfortable I am on that, as the whole of Mariology is murky water for me, but I guess it would explain how she'd be able to manage.

Yes, well, Mariology is complicated.

The churches I mentioned (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Eastern Rite Catholic, maybe some others, too) believe that Mary was born free of the macula of original sin. However, the Eastern Orthodox believe that everybody is born free of the macula. No special grace for Mary on that score; it's a Roman thing.

The issue in my post, however, was actual sin, determined by her own personal behavior. These churches believe that she committed no actual sin, either. Since she was Jewish, that would mean she kept the Covenant rigorously.

The legislation I mentioned in Acts would not have "released" her from the Covenant. She wasn't Gentile. So, the doctrine must be that she kept the Covenant law perfectly for her entire life.

Among Protestants, the largest "single" denomination is the Anglican Communion. Like the Churches already mentioned, they retain a doctrine of the Theotokos, a special role for Mary. Because of the diversity of views within the Communion, there is not a dogma about her lack of actual sin, but it is something that I think some Anglicans accept.

See, for example, articles 38, 45, 46 (interesting for the importation of some Orthodox Marian titles into an Anglican context), and perhaps a few other articles of

www.ecumenism.net...

This is the so-called "Seattle Statement." It is not binding on anybody, but is evidence of a Protestant church dealing with these issues, in the context of ecumenical reconciliation.

Obviously, this thread has nothing to do with the propriety of directing prayers to Mary, a real sore point with many Protestants. The issue here is, oddly, a simple historical question: did this specific woman keep perfectly the Covenant?

If she did, then how she managed that isn't Paul's problem. His problem is that he said that nobody could. Grace is God's gift, not Paul's, so he really cannot say that other people besides Mary and Jesus couldn't keep the Covenant.

And, as I mentioned, if you were having this exchange with an observant Jew, then you would be discussing other Jews of whom it is believed, whether on Biblical or other authority, that they are perfect in the required sense.

Originally posted by Illumin Not I
Maybe I wasn't clear, I mean the 2 halves, the 2 scenes of the Bible. I mean the one that is based on G-d and the one that is based on Jesus.

The 2 Testaments of the Bible.

Testament means "covenant". And that is precisely what they detail. the first covenant God had with mankind, and His 2nd covenant with mankind which we are currently in as of right now. Even in the OT book of Jeremiah there is a prophecy that God will complete the old covenant and a new one will come.

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Jeremiah 31:31-34

[edit on 4-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by eight bits
Oh, dear. We seem to have fallen Below.

lols. I always notice because the emoticons are goofier below.

Catholic belief (so it's one that I'm not sure I'm keen on) is that Mary was born without Original Sin. For some reason, until a year or so ago, I had always associated the term "Immaculate Conception" with Jesus' birth, but it's actually about Mary. So she had divine grace in her that Paul lacked, and which allowed her to stay in line with the Law.

Being more Protestant than Catholic, I'm not sure how comfortable I am on that, as the whole of Mariology is murky water for me, but I guess it would explain how she'd be able to manage.

Yes, well, Mariology is complicated.

The churches I mentioned (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Eastern Rite Catholic, maybe some others, too) believe that Mary was born free of the macula of original sin. However, the Eastern Orthodox believe that everybody is born free of the macula. No special grace for Mary on that score; it's a Roman thing.

The issue in my post, however, was actual sin, determined by her own personal behavior. These churches believe that she committed no actual sin, either. Since she was Jewish, that would mean she kept the Covenant rigorously.

The legislation I mentioned in Acts would not have "released" her from the Covenant. She wasn't Gentile. So, the doctrine must be that she kept the Covenant law perfectly for her entire life.

Among Protestants, the largest "single" denomination is the Anglican Communion. Like the Churches already mentioned, they retain a doctrine of the Theotokos, a special role for Mary. Because of the diversity of views within the Communion, there is not a dogma about her lack of actual sin, but it is something that I think some Anglicans accept.

Personally, I've always viewed the Anglican Church as more of a non-Papal Catholic offshoot than true Protestantism, their adoption of Mariology being a prime piece of evidence for it. Others view them as Protestant. You say potato, I say potato. That doesn't work as well in writing as speech, does it?

My own church, Methodism, came out of the Anglican Church, just as the Anglican came out of the Catholic Church, being Henry's "Church of England and I'll marry who I damn well please" schism. As a result, there's a fair amount of commonality between Methodist and Catholic procedures, probably why I'm at home both places.

Anyhoo, as to Mary, you're right, the early church struggled with how the Law still needed to be minded, in light of the events surrounding Christ, but generally accepted that if you were Jewish, and you were Christian, you were still Jewish and needed to be right with the Law. The struggles between Paul and Peter were outwardly about the Gentiles, but Paul's perspective was taken to be rather threatening for the Jew. A Jew without the Law was... what? A Jew no longer.

It wasn't for a couple of hundred years that the Jewish Christians kind of fell away, and only at that time (I suspect) because the church declared it heresy. So you had these guys accepting of Christ, and yet still trying to uphold the Law. Which is where Paul's comments come to play, because he comes to the conclusion that they are wrong, and he's so very opposed to salvation through works, which is what the Law required.

Obviously, this thread has nothing to do with the propriety of directing prayers to Mary, a real sore point with many Protestants. The issue here is, oddly, a simple historical question: did this specific woman keep perfectly the Covenant?

If she did, then how she managed that isn't Paul's problem. His problem is that he said that nobody could. Grace is God's gift, not Paul's, so he really cannot say that other people besides Mary and Jesus couldn't keep the Covenant.

Actually, I think that a more poignant question would be "Did she need to keep perfectly the Covenant?" Whether she did or not probably has no bearing if the answer to that is "no".

If Mariology was important to me, I would likely answer "Yes, she needed to. Yes, she did. She was able to do the impossible (see below) because, through Immaculate Conception, she had a different grace within her that allowed her to stay on the straight and narrow all the way." But, since Mariology is not a key component of my faith, I would answer "No, she didn't need to."

As for Paul's statement, I wonder if he's just being practical here, pointing out that the Law had become something that pushed people away from God, an onerous burden that was serving a negative purpose. One could observe the Law, but with Christ it was no longer necessary.

Simply put, the ceremonial law was ended with Christ's death. The moral law remains and will remain forever. Or put another way, the way you approach the Father in worship and prayer et cetra was ended with the death of Jesus, for now he is the way to the Father. But, the moral law, how we act towards other people or sin against fellow mankind will never be done away with. You still cannot murder someone, you still cannot commit adultery or covet you neighbor's stuff et cetra.

Actually, I think that a more poignant question would be "Did she need to keep perfectly the Covenant?" Whether she did or not probably has no bearing if the answer to that is "no".

If Mariology was important to me, I would likely answer "Yes, she needed to.

Yes, I agree. She was a Jewess. I can easily imagine that she took that seriously, and that she would strive to conform with the law. All her life.

I also think she may have taken her son's advice, rather than tilt with Paul, whom she may never have met nor read, about how a Jew should conform with the law.

I think Jesus was saying that it isn't the letter, it's the spirit. And with all respect for Paul's practicality in discussing the difficulty he had in following the letter, I think Jesus' point may have been that following the spirit might be as "difficult," or more dififcult.

But, that's what he expected people to do, and what he did himself. I won't quibble about "perfectly."

I suspect you and I don't agree about that, and in the end, who cares what an agnostic thinks Jesus meant?

But finding our way back to topic, if the OP thinks the letter of the Old Testament law is "harsh," and if Jesus really was asking people to conform with the spirit of law, then the "two Bibles" thing falls into place.

The Old Testament was the undergraduate major. The New Testament is the graduate work. God didn't necessarily change, he was just bringing his people along at a pace they could keep up.

At least that's what I'd argue if I were a Christian apologist.

And no, I don't think Mohammed and Joseph Smith were post-docs .

And for the OP:

Apart from apologetics, I don't see how a perfect being could fail to learn from a fundamentally new experience.

Henry V managed to learn something walking among his troops as soldier rather than king. God does more than that, and learns less? I don't think so.

Unless by perfect you mean dead. I sense that that isn't the theists' claim .

Originally posted by Illumin Not I
Maybe I wasn't clear, I mean the 2 halves, the 2 scenes of the Bible. I mean the one that is based on G-d and the one that is based on Jesus.

The 2 Testaments of the Bible.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c5e9dffb5a8.gif[/atsimg]

the bible starts out with a tale involving a tree called "the knowledge of good and evil." perhaps that's the synopsis of the story of OT and NT combined?

you've got to know both to be "as a god." maybe that's the whole secret, right there.

Originally posted by adjensen

Who says that he changed his approach? God established the Law for the Jewish people. Started out pretty simple -- "hey, here's ten things. Don't do them." Next thing you know, those ten things have turned into hundreds of things, a religious hierarchy and complications that exclude, rather than include. The more complicated things become, the less inclined people are to try and follow them, so you have all those references to the "stiff necks" of the Jews.

The Law was perfect, people goofed it up. Not only that, but the day was coming when the Temple in Jerusalem was going bye-bye, and that would mean the end of reconciliation through the Law as Jews knew it.

Jesus came as the fulfillment of the Law. He brought it back to its original simplicity and gave us the means to reconcile ourselves to God. For a Christian, the Old Testament is the testimony of Christ's divinity, but the Law has no bearing on us. We can eat shellfish, dance with women, have door jams without things written on them, all sorts of stuff that a Jewish adherent to the Law still needs to do, because the Law is still there.

Of course, we've gone and done the same thing to Christianity that the Jews did, needlessly complicate it with doctrine, opinions and the like. But it's still reasonably simple if you get to the root of Christ's message, which was "Love God, and love everyone else."

Do that, and you're golden, regardless of what you eat.

WHat proof do you have for the original law having a more simplistic form? It was handed down by god! A lot of the law came from Moses besides the Big 10 and it was given to him by god.

If you cannot believe what Moses said beyond the Big 10 then what makes the Big 10 any more relevant?

Jesus agreed with the law of the Torah to the point of condoning children to die for disobedience ( Matthew 15.4 - 7 , Mark 7.9) and beating of slaves (Luke 12:47). So to say Jesus didn't agree or consider most Jewish law to be from god and condone its punishments is absurd. It is new age thought based on cherry-picking scripture and extraneous interpretation.

Jesus condoning Jewish Law:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)


(Matthew 5:27)( Jesus says you should gouge your eye out and live blind for looking with lust)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

“...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

And it is not up for interpretation so says Jesus and your Bible! So sad !

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

reply to post by adjensen


Oh yeah and in the othere thread you state "The church IS Christianity!" is just wrong on so many levels.

It is like saying Buddhism is the temple , or the government is the White House. Really funny joke!

Originally posted by IamBoon
WHat proof do you have for the original law having a more simplistic form? It was handed down by god! A lot of the law came from Moses besides the Big 10 and it was given to him by god.

If you cannot believe what Moses said beyond the Big 10 then what makes the Big 10 any more relevant?

Jesus agreed with the law of the Torah to the point of condoning children to die for disobedience ( Matthew 15.4 - 7 , Mark 7.9) and beating of slaves (Luke 12:47). So to say Jesus didn't agree or consider most Jewish law to be from god and condone its punishments is absurd. It is new age thought based on cherry-picking scripture and extraneous interpretation.

Jesus condoning Jewish Law:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)


(Matthew 5:27)( Jesus says you should gouge your eye out and live blind for looking with lust)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

“...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

And it is not up for interpretation so says Jesus and your Bible! So sad !

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

And we have yet another thread where Boon displays his inability to read. Or read, yet fail to comprehend.

Christ did not come to change, eliminate or add to the Jewish Law, he came to fulfill it. Read the thread, and you'll see that I wrote that. If you are Jewish, the Law is still there for you to be reconciled to God with.

You are not a Christian, you do not understand Christian theology, and you just embarrass yourself trying to demonstrate that you do.

And what I said elsewhere was that the Church holds the Christian doctrine. If you wish to believe things that are not supported (or in the case we discussed earlier, has been absolutely rejected,) you are welcome to do so, but that means that you are not a Christian.

You also seem to have a difficulty in understanding the difference between the Church, and a church. One is an institution, one is a building. Not the same thing.

You sadi Jesus brought it back to its original simplicity.

You are failing to read and I DO understand a lot of Christian thought. I was one for 18 years being an Altar boy and CCD teacher.

I am asking what simplicity did he bring it to when he condoned the whole of the law along with its punishments? Then I cite examples found in the Bible.

You think that interpretation of these things brings truth out of them , but it is only your truth. What is stated is stated and interpretation means nothing as it is abstract.

And why do you think stating that I am not a Christian is insulting and how does that mean I have no knowledge on the faith? Weird.

Also what "Church" is the Christian Doctrine? There are so many.... The Christian Doctrine is just the belief that Jesus was the son of god and he speaks truth and is the way. What else do you need to believe to be Christian? Nothing! Do not speak to me about doctrine or Christian belief when you are so holed up in one viewpoint.

And to argue versus the Bible based on interpretation? The BIble is not to be interpreted. How many verses should I quote that says that? IN all honesty to follow the way of jesus you would have to believe in many things that you wouldn't dare admit.

Do you think children should die because of disobedience?
Do you believe in slavery ?
Do you believe in beating those slaves?
Do you believe people committing adultery should be stoned?
Do you believe those who look at another lustfully should have their eyes gouged?

I could go on and on , but the fact remains is that whatever church doctrine you possess at this moment is not faithful to the original doctrine. To argue that point would be to argue against the BIble and Jesus .

THat is unchristian.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by IamBoon]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by IamBoon]

Originally posted by IamBoon
You sadi Jesus brought it back to its original simplicity.

You are failing to read and I DO understand a lot of Christian thought. I was one for 18 years being an Altar boy and CCD teacher.

I am asking what simplicity did he bring it to when he condoned the whole of the law along with its punishments? Then I cite examples found in the Bible.

You think that interpretation of these things brings truth out of them , but it is only your truth. What is stated is stated and interpretation means nothing as it is abstract.

And why do you think stating that I am not a Christian is insulting and how does that mean I have no knowledge on the faith? Weird.

Also what "Church" is the Christian Doctrine? There are so many.... The Christian Doctrine is just the belief that Jesus was the son of god and he speaks truth and is the way. What else do you need to believe to be Christian? Nothing! Do not speak to me about doctrine or Christian belief when you are so holed up in one viewpoint.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by IamBoon]

Yes, Christ did simplify it. See the passage in Luke.

He did not say that he was sweeping away the Law, he said he was fulfilling it.

If you were a teacher, I would have been rather unhappy to be your student, as you faith to grasp basic concepts of Christianity. However, I rather doubt that you were a teacher.

I am not insulting you by saying that you are not a Christian, I am saying that you are unqualified to explain the faith, because you do not understand it. In the same way, I am unqualified to explain quantum mechanics, because I am not a physicist.

There are key doctrines which are integral to the Christian faith. There are also beliefs that have been rejected as being heresy. If you reject one of the key doctrines, or you support heresy, you are not a Christian. If you were a CCD teacher, you would have known this, because it's a basic foundation of faith. Not just Christianity, all faiths.

ALl you have to do to be Christian is have faith that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior. THat doesn't constitute having any knowledge of the faith and since I was a christian and a CCD teacher (BIble School for youths) then I do know the faith. ( Our Lady of Grace Church Highland, IN 46322 they may have records of my tenure , Anthony Poremba)

Assuming you have to be of a faith to understand it is absurd as I understand it far more than most that are of the faith.

You see I study it, a lot , and what I see is taht new age Christianity has about as much to so with the Bible or what Jesus Christ stood for as milking cows does to cooking hamburgers.

ANd you still do not answer any of my questions as usual , and they are important ones to anyone who wishes to claim "knowledge" of the Christian faith.
Failing to answer those just shows how scared you might be to even admitting it could be true that "innocent Jesus" could've condoned all those horrible things. It is true however .


[edit on 4-8-2010 by IamBoon]