Problem with Christianity

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

"something that cannot be limited or embodied in story form", and then you proceed to limit it or embody it in story form. I was under the impression you wanted people to handle this philosophically.

So I take it you ignored the context in which that statement was said? And are now trying to use that statement out of context in order to prove your ridiculous point?

Let me restate the context in which it was said: Jesus as a historical man who appeared on earth as God incarnate. This story, without any philosophical explication, is the type of "story" that I reject. It is a story without it being understood as a story. It therefore becomes childish nonsense. When the statement "God is good because Jesus died for our sins" becomes somehow sensible.

However, I completely accept the story form nature of existence. I just reject the naivete and exceptionalism that the majority of Christians attach to the Jesus narrative.

All of this is food for your thought. It's obvious that people have different tastes in food. You can call reality what you wish, and others will call it something different.

Indeed, I agree. It's a conclusion that is not easy to stomach for a lot of people, but that's just how things are; each of us has the right to choose how we interpret the facts. And none of us can claim "logical" coherency. It's arbitrary. It's feelings.

My emotions incline my intellect in a different direction from yours. I do not in the least bit understand yours, and like you would feel about me, I am tempted to dismiss your philosophy as pathologically pessimistic and strange. But can I prove that? No. It's funny, though how we still nevertheless try to.

reply to post by arpgme


That's the natural intuition.

We humans can't help but see patterns and generalize from those patterns. The father is the prototype for genesis and the mother is the womb where the concept takes form.

Hence, why most cultures saw God as the "father" and nature as the "mother". The same principle or pattern is then overlayed on the cosmos; the sun is like the sperm, and the moon is like the womb; the sun "gives" the light which the moon (womb) reflects as white light.

reply to post by Astrocyte

So I take it you ignored the context in which that statement was said? And are now trying to use that statement out of context in order to prove your ridiculous point?

Let me restate the context in which it was said: Jesus as a historical man who appeared on earth as God incarnate. This story, without any philosophical explication, is the type of "story" that I reject. It is a story without it being understood as a story. It therefore becomes childish nonsense. When the statement "God is good because Jesus died for our sins" becomes somehow sensible.

However, I completely accept the story form nature of existence. I just reject the naivete and exceptionalism that the majority of Christians attach to the Jesus narrative.

No I read the whole piece and retained the context. But I'm still very confused how your "story" differs at all from that devised by other men, and that "surely, there must come a time where mankind maturely understands God as a reality". You mentioned it is "philosophically incoherent" to take such stories as literal, and then proceed to offer your own. If I take your god metaphorically, I still have no clue what you are attempting to be philosophical about, rendering yours just as incoherent, and just as ridiculous, as anyone else's.

Indeed, I agree. It's a conclusion that is not easy to stomach for a lot of people, but that's just how things are; each of us has the right to choose how we interpret the facts. And none of us can claim "logical" coherency. It's arbitrary. It's feelings.

My emotions incline my intellect in a different direction from yours. I do not in the least bit understand yours, and like you would feel about me, I am tempted to dismiss your philosophy as pathologically pessimistic and strange. But can I prove that? No. It's funny, though how we still nevertheless try to.

Is it that you don't understand how one might question the ideas set before him by others? Tell me how that is pessimistic and not intuitive. I have yet to provide any philosophy, yet you seem to malign it for some reason, and resort to a typical ad hominem. I find that utterly strange until I realize that you are merely justifying your own philosophy by setting up your walls, and in the process, putting your fingers into your ears to avoid any criticism. That is not philosophy, that is theology.

Ive read that the bible is actually a parody of the sun. The "son" of god "rises" everyday. Hours is really Horus rearranged. Santa is Satan. All classic Christian examples in reality have pagan, Egyptian, and satanic roots.

reply to post by Astrocyte

For me, the whole spiel about God incarnating into a man and dying for our sins is just philosophically incoherent - if it's taken literally, that is.

That is one version which you could pick up from televangelists who are Dispensationalists (you wouldn't necessarily know that they are because they try to pretend that they are normal Christians).
Normal Christians believe in the Trinity, where the person of the godhead who we normally think of as God, is not the same person who came to earth as Jesus. That person was God's son.
The New Testament, which Christian theology is based on, says nothing about Jesus dying to pay for sins.
Jesus is our example of the goodness of God, and how we should be to be righteous, and our leader as to being resurrected from the dead.

reply to post by winofiend

. . . The part about omnipotence.

Where it is alleged, he has the power to create. Really quickly too, it seems. Where he could, you know, create a new reality. Start again, start over . . .

I would say, "No".
The idea of "omnipotence" comes from a couple instances in the New Testament of the Greek word, Pantocrator, where the literal meaning is "ruler of all". Christians go from that to "omnipotence" which does not actually fit the usage, since there was no such concept until it came out of the Medieval Latin church.

The whole Jesus is God concept is simply a trump card... and actually has no real backing from the book that Christians believe is Gods word.

Tell that to Jesus, who accepted a ton of worship, which for a jew would have been blasphemy and idolatry. You can find him being worshipped in all the Gospels not just the book of John. He spoke in a lot of parables, to keep his identity hid and commanded a demon to keep it's mouth shut about who he was.

Also tell that to the prophet Isaiah, whom John the Baptist the last of the OT prophets, confirms.

Isaiah 6

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said:


“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!”

4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.

5 So I said:


“Woe is me, for I am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The Lord of hosts.”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth with it, and said:


“Behold, this has touched your lips;
Your iniquity is taken away,
And your sin purged.”

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:


“Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”

Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people:


‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’


10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”

11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?”

And He answered:


“Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,
The houses are without a man,
The land is utterly desolate,
12 The Lord has removed men far away,
And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
13 But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.”


John 12:35-41

35 Then Jesus said to them, “A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.

Who Has Believed Our Report?

37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:


“Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:


40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.

God became flesh was a idea created by John... Never once uttered by Jesus... or even implied

Again not true. In the OT Jesus is referred to as "the Holy One of Israel". You need to read virtually all of the book of Isaiah. The entire book of Revelation is revealing who he is and that book is consistent with Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Micah, Zechariah and Jesus himself.

Isaiah 45:11-13

11 Thus says the Lord,
The Holy One of Israel, and his Maker:
“Ask Me of things to come concerning My sons;
And concerning the work of My hands, you command Me.
12 I have made the earth,
And created man on it.
I—My hands—stretched out the heavens,
And all their host I have commanded.
13 I have raised him up in righteousness,
And I will direct all his ways;
He shall build My city
And let My exiles go free,
Not for price nor reward,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

Isaiah 54:5

5 For your Maker is your husband,
The Lord of hosts is His name;
And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel;
He is called the God of the whole earth.

In the Hebrew "Lord" - IEUE or Yahweh/Yehweh Strong's H3068.

Mark 1:23-24

23 Now there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, 24 saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!

Only one who can kill a demon or fallen angel is...yup. God.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Great way to put it. The spirit (God) IS life, which is why Jesus said he was "the truth, the way, and the life". He was describing all of us, not just himself. We are all the life.

Incorrect. Jesus said "I AM" not "We are". He was speaking about his way, his life, his truth. Setting himself as a living example of how to live.

To be "baptized" with water and spirit is to be born out of your mother's amniotic fluid (water) with life (spirit). We have all already been "born again" and "saved" and we already have eternal life by default because that is the way of the universe.

Again incorrect. Jesus explains this to Nicodemus that it's not about being born of a woman or re-entering the womb. Being baptized by water symbolizes the death and washing away of your old self. The gift of The Holy Spirit is the breath of life, the portion of Living Spirit breathed into us we receive for our part in Christ.

We are God incarnate, only religion has skewed the meaning of God to lead people away from themselves.

I want to see you raise the dead and walk on water by your own power. I'll bet the deed to my house, my truck and give you my life savings if you can do that. I'll pm you my address so you can come on over, i live by a river but you have to dig up your own corpse while i watch.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You didn't cite verses where Jesus accepted worship, neither did you cite verses where Jesus called himself God.

John 15
15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Do friends worship friends? No, they consider each other equals, and Jesus thought no different of his apostles. This verse proves without a doubt that Jesus didn't require worship.

Funny that Jesus never mentions the teachings of Paul. You'd think if Jesus had told his apostles everything he knew, the message Paul preached would have been included in Mark, which was based on Peter's own memory.

If you're trying to prove Jesus was God, at least use his own words to back up your claim.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Incorrect. Jesus said "I AM" not "We are". He was speaking about his way, his life, his truth. Setting himself as a living example of how to live.

Yes, his teachings were the truth and the life, not his death on the cross. Death is not life, so a man's death cannot give life to others. The idea is ridiculous.

Guess what, I AM as well. You do not understand Jesus' message, you have been blinded.

Again incorrect. Jesus explains this to Nicodemus that it's not about being born of a woman or re-entering the womb. Being baptized by water symbolizes the death and washing away of your old self. The gift of The Holy Spirit is the breath of life, the portion of Living Spirit breathed into us we receive for our part in Christ.

Jesus never rebuked Nicodemus' statement, he only reiterated on it. To be born is to be born of water and spirit. Water is the amniotic fluid of the womb and the spirit is consciousness or life itself.

Again, you do not understand what Jesus was saying.

I want to see you raise the dead and walk on water by your own power. I'll bet the deed to my house, my truck and give you my life savings if you can do that. I'll pm you my address so you can come on over, i live by a river but you have to dig up your own corpse while i watch.

Jesus never rose from the dead, walked on water, or raised others from the dead. Those were embellishments interpolated by later authors to make Jesus seem greater or better than yourself.

Look up Dionysian imitatio, it's a literary method invented 100 years before Jesus which uses imitation to "improve" earlier works. It uses a form of rhetoric which is meant to persuade audiences. Seems as though you have been persuaded pretty well by it.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Thus says the Lord,
The Holy One of Israel, and his Maker:
. . . . . . . . . . . .
I know who You are—the Holy One of God!

The first verse, from Isaiah, is about literal Israel, meaning the person, Jacob.
So, The Lord is the holy one and maker of Jacob.

The second verse is talking about the anointed of God, something very different.

There is no way that you can take those two verses as meaning the same person in both.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


What does any of this have to do with my criticism of Christianity?

I notice that you seem incapable to discuss the topic at hand, invariably getting sidetracked by your desire to discuss your pseudo-scientific theories.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

But I'm still very confused how your "story" differs at all from that devised by other men, and that "surely, there must come a time where mankind maturely understands God as a reality".

My "story" is general. All human lives are stories; and as I said, I am PHILOSOPHIZING this interpretation. I do not pretend (and this should score points with you) that my interpretation is the only plausible interpretation.

Conversely, the Christian narrative of Jesus sets up Jesus as THE story; the end. It is infallible; it is the archetype. It is taken absolutely literally.

Now, as an allegory, it could make a lot of sense.

Is it that you don't understand how one might question the ideas set before him by others?

My interpretation is my interpretation. It's a bit low-brow of you to think that I'm merely parroting an orthodox viewpoint - especially when there is absolutely nothing orthodox about my opinion.

In any case, people are always at risk of being coaxed into views that aren't theirs; an atheist parent indoctrinates it's child into atheism; is that any different from a religious person exposing his child to religion? Most kids who are exposed to a particular view tend to retain that view throughout life; our brains were primed to prefer a particular interpretation, ascribing a particular value, with a range of emotional quality (be it awe, faith, skepticism, doubt, etc).

Tell me how that is pessimistic and not intuitive.

I merely said it clashes with my perspective. For you, it may feel intuitive.

I have yet to provide any philosophy, yet you seem to malign it for some reason, and resort to a typical ad hominem.

Well, judging by your responses thus far, I have been able to make a few inferences.

That is not philosophy, that is theology.

And philosophy precedes theology. Theology has to be philosophically justified.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

What does any of this have to do with my criticism of Christianity?

I notice that you seem incapable to discuss the topic at hand, invariably getting sidetracked by your desire to discuss your pseudo-scientific theories.

edit on 20-8-2013 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)

You said this: "Surely, there must come a time where mankind maturely understands God as a reality, something that cannot be limited or embodied in story form as undertaking special missions for a specific group."

I showed you that the time has come. I showed you something that cannot be limited or embodied in a story form. By showing you the root of the story from physics (Something we CAN understand), the mirrored version in scripture can be seen as a parallel to the theories we see in the shadows. God is indescribable, yet His word is a description. If you could take the time to read it apart from your bias against, you might see that I have given you a ring of keys to open doors. The reason you are locked in a box is simple. I refuse to tell you why again. It is still there, waiting for you to collapse the wave function yourself.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

I showed you that the time has come. I showed you something that cannot be limited or embodied in a story form.

Listen, I know all about Hebrew/Kabbalah/Gematria, and I know it can be "fun" to play around with those things, but it's not logically defensible. It's inherently circular. There are so many assumptions that frankly you have seemed to have forgotten about. For instance, you assume that the Hebrew language is somehow the lingua franca of the universe. But did you know that Hindus claim the same thing about Sanskrit? That Muslims claim the same thing about Arabic? Who's right, who's wrong?

I was obsessed a few years back with Kabbalistic gematria. I was impressed by the correlations between words, such as Echad = 13 = Ahava. And 13 represents the unification of the 12 lines of a cube. Interesting, no doubt. The ancient Hebrews, like so many other cultures, clearly regarded the formation of language as a scientific discipline. Words were not taken lightly; they should reflect the things they describe in some philosophical or archetypal way; we see this in a word like Kelev - dog, which also means K'lev, "like the heart". Observe a dog and you can rightly deduce that dogs are an apt representation for human emotions.

That being said, Koine Greek has it's mystical/metaphysical patterns, Muslims permute Arabic words with an equal alacrity to Kabbalists, and easterners treat Sanskrit words as perfect vocal frequencies of the energy forms they describe. So again, who's right? Given that Hebrew wasn't actually transmitted with the ten commandments (as some talmudic traditions claim) and isn't the first example of a written language we have (cuneiform), and seemed to have been largely influenced by pagan cultures (Hebrew is after all a derivative of Phoenician), it becomes increasingly difficult trying to explain what it is were analyzing when were playing around with Hebrew words.

I think the Hebrew language was consciously devised by scribes/priests/mystics who wished to impress their philosophy of life into sacred texts; as such, Hebrew is far more archetypal than Aramaic, for example. Recent scholarship has the 5 books of Moses as being composed sometime around the 1000 BCE, possibly following a real exodus-like event (poetically embellished, most likely); the psalms, Samuel, judges, etc, following shortly after. The final Hebrew books, Ezra, etc, were probably written in 400 BCE, and the entire Hebrew scripture was redacted at the same time.

So, keep in mind that the books we have are probably the product of historical redaction of various traditions, compiled by Hebrew priests and ammalgated into one large corpus - which was later on called the TaNaKh, or Biblos (book).

All this should help clarify my argument of all the assumptions you're making when you use Hebrew as a template which you try to correlate concepts in physics to. I too have read Aryeh Kaplan; I know all about how the 4 basic physical forces - strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity correspond to the 4 letters of the tetragrammaton. Have you read anything from Yitchak Gonsburgh? I have respect for the man, but he is so far out in left field with his theories; sometimes, our faith can really undo our reason. And his example shows just how true that is.

The reason you are locked in a box is simple. I refuse to tell you why again. It is still there, waiting for you to collapse the wave function yourself.

It's you who has boxed yourself in. Do you realize there are a few other theorists out there coming from different traditions permuting different languages making similar claims to yours? Does this not beg the question?

Before you trash a whole beleife system why don't you read the whole book before passing judgment on it.

reply to post by guitarplayer


Have you done the same? Read the entire bible from cover to cover? Be honest with yourself.

reply to post by Astrocyte


God exists and God is good. This statement can be supported by the fact that we exist and are capable of experiencing joy. If God was malevolent, we would all be existing in a state of pure and inescapable eternal suffering on all levels. This is not the case. God created Adam and Eve without sin. They chose to sin and genetically passed the ability to sin to us throught the male. At some point after your birth, you have chosen to sin. That was your choice and my choice, not God's. There are elements of truth in all religions, but an incomplete truth is as usefull and as dangerous as a lie. If God cares, He would give us the full and unadulterated truth in a comprehensive manor....and thats just what He did. He promised that He would incarnate as the king of Israel and the Lamb of God and remove the penalty of sin, and He did. Jesus was uniquely born of a virgin to avoid inhereting the sin nature and paid for our sins on the cross. He taught us that accepting that truth would give us eternal life, then He taught us how to grow up by following His virtue. Christianity stands out from all religion. All other religions, from Islam to Buddhism teach that heaven depends on your work...nirvana depends on your gruelling attempt at enlightenment, learn the gnosis and get into the most exclusive ring of heaven...Its the same tired old story behind a different mask. Like the Democrats and Republicans, its all a decoy. Christianity is different: your works are useless, Christ's work is acceptable. Accept His work in place of yours as a gift, and inheret eternal life. Only His innocent blood could pay for our sins. Christianity is unique in world of assimilation. Christianity is bold in the face of mediocer psuedo-enlightenment. Christianity is the liberator in a slavey market of religion. Christ is the truth, and if you know the truth, you will be free. The gospels are straitforward and consistant with the Old Testament, and all these pretty esoteric words you throw around in an attempt to explain your version of Jesus' messsage, mean nothing.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest


If sin is passed from the male genes, then why was Eve the first to take a bite of the fruit? What makes females free of sin?

Didn't Eve have a father? If so, wouldn't that still mean she inherited original sin? If not and you believe in the immaculate conception, why could god do it for her but no one else? If he could conceive her without the ability to sin then he could have easily done it for everyone else.

If there are this many loop holes you have to jump through to justify your belief, it probably isn't true. Just sayin'.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

If sin is passed from the male genes, then why was Eve the first to take a bite of the fruit? What makes females free of sin?

Didn't Eve have a father? If so, wouldn't that still mean she inherited original sin? If not and you believe in the immaculate conception, why could god do it for her but no one else? If he could conceive her without the ability to sin then he could have easily done it for everyone else.

If there are this many loop holes you have to jump through to justify your belief, it probably isn't true. Just sayin'.

There are no loop holes. Im giving you the mechanics. Eve was tempted, Adam's sin was greater as he ate the fruit without being tempted. Eve was by no means without sin. Her curse was painful child birth. Adam's cures was to pass the gene, so anyone with a human father recieved the sin nature. Eve was genetically engineered from Adam's rib. Adam's genes where molecularly formed from the elements of the earth. Only Christ was born without sin, because only one sinless sacrafice was needed. Jesus created use before His incarnation, so He personally fixed what we screwed up.