When You Think About It In Layman's Terms

reply to post by Psych3d3licPsych3

All are quotes from the old testament, Jesus said “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) After he fulfilled the old testament the old laws don't apply. His death brought on a new way of living.

Sooo, from the old testament to the new, god changed his mind? He went from a murderous freak (perfect god) to a meek and mild savior (a new and improved perfect god?)?

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by qualm91
there is no denying that the Bible has definitely turned into a Christian text.

I don't know what that means, to be honest.

It means that the whole bible is the Christian bible. If the old testament wasn't part of the Christian bible, then why is it in there?

Originally posted by micmerci
If Jesus didn't exist, what on earth were all of the disciples and early Christian martyrs dying for? Or did they not exist as well?

Would you die for something that you were not 100% certain about?

Could you name 1 direct disciple of Christ, with genuine historical references? That might be a little difficult.

It is unlikely that Christ was a particular historical person. It's a shame this subject is traditionally so biased by scholars who also double as devout believers, beginning with acceptance of fact.

You are arguing a logical fallacy. People martyr themselves for all types of reasons and it doesn't prove anything, other than belief.

Judaism

1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees recount numerous martyrdoms suffered by Jews resisting Hellenizing (adoption of Greek ideas or customs of a Hellenistic civilization) by their Seleucid overlords

Hinduism

Despite the promotion of ahimsa (non-violence) within Sanatana Dharma, there is also the concept of righteous (dharma), where violence is used as a last resort after all other means have failed.

Buddhism

Self-immolation is tolerated by some elements of Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism, and it has been practiced for many centuries, especially in India, for various reasons, including Sati, political protest, devotion, and renouncement.

Self-immolation refers to setting oneself on fire, often as a form of protest or for the purposes of martyrdom.

Islam

In Arabic, a martyr is termed shaheed

Sikkism

Martyrdom (called shahadat in Punjabi) is a fundamental concept in Sikhism and represents an important institution of the faith. The Sikh Gurus and Sikh with and after them are the biggest examples of martyrs.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by micmerci
If Jesus Christ never existed then that only makes Christianity more spectacular and miraculous

Not really. It makes it mythology. You don't think other people believed in the reality of their religious figures, at one time?

In the society in which it is told, a myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by micmerci
What I am saying is that most people who spout out "Jesus never existed" never think it all the way through. You say how difficult is it to create apostles? But see it doesn't stop there. You would have to create the Roman emperors like Nero and Diocletian who persecuted these people as well. Where does it stop? How many characters need to be made up to support the fictionalization of Jesus?

It's called "period fiction". Not uncommon at all, especially where religion is concerned as made popular by Euhemerus. There is no genuine evidence that Christ existed. There are many consistencies with other mythology.

Basically, you are correct. I had this discussion with my room-mates the other day when they asked me what my values were, and I explained to them that I assess the situation and make the best decision based on what is healthy or not. I asked their values, they said "The Ten Commandments"

So I asked them what they were, they didn't know, then had them look them up. Notice that the first four all have to do with respecting God...

My remark was "Four? He wasted four on that? Four!? He only had ten! TEN! Ten Commandments to tell people how to live a healthy life! It's hard enough explaining that in ten sentences, let alone six."

It is a complicated issue. Also a way of control because it doesn't let people explore the world outside, so if they do ever venture away, they are going to have trouble adapting and have to return home.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by qualm91
there is no denying that the Bible has definitely turned into a Christian text.

I don't know what that means, to be honest.

It means that the whole bible is the Christian bible. If the old testament wasn't part of the Christian bible, then why is it in there?

Because Christians were Jews until that point. It's a part of the same story.
Eye for an Eye may sound fair (and I think it is), but it obviously led nowhere thanks to the grudge, which history shows.
Jesus was according to some, the expected savior, God sacrificed his own son and just told us to forgive each other and all will be good. Thus a new chapter was born. Those who believe[d] it, would follow what God said.

In other words, the old testament is there because it belongs there. They are however not instructions for Christians how to live after the death of Jesus.

reply to post by qualm91

"And he said 'Hagar, Sarai’s slave girl, where have you come from and where are you going?' She answered, 'I’m running away from Sarai, my mistress.' The angel of the Lord said to her, 'Go back to your mistress and submit to ill treatment at her hands.' " -Genesis 16:8 So, not only is God condoning slavery, but he is saying that it is perfectly fine to beat your slaves. But we're all equal in his eyes? I think not.

Context. Slavery in early civilizations...consider it. It wasn't really what we know of as "slavery". There were actually regulations for owning and the treatment of slaves. Notably, in ancient Israel slaves were more commonly "volunteers" that would "sell" themselves into slavery because they just couldn't take care of their own basic needs. As far as Sarai and Hagar, you might think about rereading Genesis 16. There was a damaged relationship between Sarai, Hagar, and Abram, for obvious reasons. So much so, that Hagar ended up running away, which she knew was forbidden as she was still a slave. Now, again, why was Hagar a slave? I'll leave that one open...if you don't know by now then you haven't been reading....Anyways, Hagar was more than likely thinking to herself something along the lines of -"Oh wow, what did I do....how am I going to survive? What will happen to my child?" AND THEN...We have the angel of the Lord appear and basically tells her "hey little lady, buck up! You have duties to fulfill and running from your problems most certainly does not fix them!" -great lesson in perseverance and humility if you ask me....

“ 'Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.' ” -Genesis 19:8 Go ahead and rape my daughters, Lot says, but please don't hurt these men. And God condones this? Is this the loving God that you all worship?

Interesting to note, in early civilizations HOSPITALITY was considered the greatest of virtues. So much so, that Lot may have taken it very seriously. I see his actions being very consistent with early traditions not only because of the importance placed upon hospitality, but also considering the fact that in those early civilizations, children were considered possessions. That's just the way that it was. At that time, it was perfectly legal and within his "rights" to hand his daughters over if he saw fit, and apparently he did. However, within the actual text, we find no mention of whether Lot's actions were appropriate or "righteous".

"Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, 'Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!' So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." -Kings 2:23 The Lord has no problem killing children for calling someone bald, obviously. Doesn't that seem a bit harsh? Would YOU be okay with your children being murdered for calling someone bald?

Taken in context, we don't exactly know how old these "youths" are. In fact, the Hebrew text neurim qetannim which was rendered "youths" could be better understood as "young men". The same
neurim qetannim is used to describe Isaac as a young man, 18-20'ish....and also used to describe Joseph in Genesis 37 when he was 17 years old. With this in mind, I do not think these are "children". I believe these to be young men. Now, I'd have to check the hebrew for the term "mauled" because I'm not quite sure, but I'm relatively certain if it were a term related to mortal wounds or death, then most interpretations would have used a fairly common word such as "killed"....Mauled in this case, as I understand it, simply means "attacked", most certainly not "murdered" as you put it....And finally, these FORTY TWO(or more, we only know that 42 were attacked)!!! young men that were slandering Elisha (1 MAN!) well...what were their intentions? Surely their intentions weren't innocent.

Let me ask you...How would you react if you were mourning the loss of someone dear to you, as is the case with Elisha, and 42+ young men were belittling you and calling you names, and basically telling you to die along with that one that you had so deeply cared for...? What might you think of their intentions? How might you defend yourself?

No offense taken. I hope this may clear up some confusion.
Best Regards,
A2D

Was talking to a friend about this tonight, before I even saw this thread lol.

Religion is an empires tool to gain power and convert populations. It's definitely brainwashing, do this or you won't go to heaven. Really? Sound a little familiar to 'do this and get 72 virgins?' It probably helps keep some people ignorant too. They will use God as the reason behind things that they don't understand and use it as an excuse to never get the facts =p not all, but some!

Originally posted by oniraug
Was talking to a friend about this tonight, before I even saw this thread lol.

Religion is an empires tool to gain power and convert populations. It's definitely brainwashing, do this or you won't go to heaven. Really? Sound a little familiar to 'do this and get 72 virgins?' It probably helps keep some people ignorant too. They will use God as the reason behind things that they don't understand and use it as an excuse to never get the facts =p not all, but some!

edit on 22-5-2013 by oniraug because: (no reason given)

I will humbly disagree with that statement, oni.

As evidenced by the natural "parenting" of religious texts, religion is a guideline or recipe to not only understanding and accepting duty and responsibility, but also a recipe for a meaningful and happy existence. Granted, religious texts CAN, HAVE, and WILL be exploited to implement control, but that is most certainly not the intention. The key is to understand how man can and will manipulate anything/everything meant for a specific purpose to better fit his own personal agenda.

Given that religion is in fact pre-historic (having existed before recorded history) we have literally zero way(barring one of the greatest discoveries of mankind) of knowing any who why or whats about the earliest religions formed. We can't determine who formed the earliest religion. Thus we can't determine why.

A2D

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Could you name 1 direct disciple of Christ, with genuine historical references? That might be a little difficult.

That depends on what you hold as genuine. I can argue the same preconceived notions that you did. Why are Greek and Roman historical writings taken as valid while Jewish records are considered myth? The Jewish birth records were extremely accurate.

So, can I prove Jesus or a disciple existed? No Can you prove Nero did?

Given that religion is in fact pre-historic (having existed before recorded history) we have literally zero way(barring one of the greatest discoveries of mankind) of knowing any who why or whats about the earliest religions formed. We can't determine who formed the earliest religion. Thus we can't determine why.

A2D

In recent history we did observe isolated tribes, that basically started a religion from scratch, in just a couple of years. In the war over the pacific, isolated people saw planes flying in the sky, dropping supplies for their troops.
Some of the stuff ended up in the hands of these people, who never ever seen anything like it before and on top of that, these birds even dropped all sorts of things they could use.

When the war ended, the planes didn't return. When we visited these islands some time after, they found people that build replica's of the planes they've seen. They concluded that only some sort of god could be the best explanation, and started to worship their new god accordingly.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Unless you have the specific event that you're speaking about we don't know for sure what their motives were for crafting these replicas. For all we know, they were simply recognizing the planes existence as much as a neanderthal that drew a picture of a wild animal on the wall of a cave was.....Unless you're going to tell me the neanderthal was "worshipping" a wild beast....

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I really can't remember the names of the islands, exact dates or even when I learned about it.

However, WW 2 and Isolated tribes on pacific islands, should get you started. Google is your friend.

I'm sorry. I'm just lazy. I do remember it was part of a documentary.

Two things about god that I found a bit suspect:

1) he absolutely LOVES gold.

2) he's super keen on frequent blood sacrifice and the smell of huge piles of burning flesh.

What???

That doesn't sound right to me. Something doesn't add up.

reply to post by honested3


I certainly don't mind that you answered with more scriptures and I truly appreciate your attitude about the matter. I definitely have respect for those who instead of getting angry simply think about it and join in the discussion.

reply to post by windword


I have always believed that the soul is energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that would explain why the soul is eternal. It would also account for moments such as when you wake up in a foul mood you tend to have a foul day because you're attracting that type of energy to yourself.

reply to post by micmerci


Sorry, that was my bad. I should have delved further into why I chose this particular forum. The conspiracy of it that I was getting at is that religion in and of itself is a conspiracy. A mind-controlling technique that has been around for ages.

reply to post by jiggerj


THAT, my good sir, is the answer I have been searching for, haha. It says in the Bible that God's law is eternal. So why do people discount what he did and say, "Well, it's a new day and age, things are different now." No, things are not different at all. We have always and will always be human beings and that's all there is to it. Why have the rules changed just because more time has past?

reply to post by windword

I once tried to astral-project myself to Uranus. It was really, really far! When I got close, there was so much chaotic electricity and lighten bolts, I snapped back home, lickety split!

My dreams took me to Jupiter once. I was in the clouds which were huge. Stuff was stinging me in the wind which I figured to be methane and ammonia ice. I looked up and up and way above the orange and red clouds was layer upon layer of white cirrus blazing across the sky. At the time I only knew this couldn't be earth.

The closet thing I have seen that even remotely looks like the kind of super cells I saw there was this...


Sand blasted by ammonia ice. Good thing it was only a dream.

reply to post by jiggerj

It means that the whole bible is the Christian bible. If the old testament wasn't part of the Christian bible, then why is it in there?

Because some people that lived a long time ago who thought the world was at the center of the Universe (and flat) put it there?

Originally posted by micmerci
That depends on what you hold as genuine.

Not forgery, interpolation, or religious text. Contemporary writer would be good, thanks.

I can argue the same preconceived notions that you did.

You have no choice but to argue this way, because of what you cannot do (ie. find any genuine historical sources for christ).

Why are Greek and Roman historical writings taken as valid while Jewish records are considered myth?

Which ones? The ones about Zeus, Romulus etc? They are obviously as mythical as Jesus.

The Jewish birth records were extremely accurate.

Good. Got one for Jesus?

So, can I prove Jesus or a disciple existed? No Can you prove Nero did?

Robin Hood might have been a better comparison. Perhaps even John Frum (although Frum is almost certainly based on a real person). Yet of all of the people you could have picked and possibly had a point.....you pick a Roman Emperor? Are you serious.....Nero?

reply to post by micmerci

I certainly wouldn't die for someone I had never seen...

That is the test of true selflessness, isn't it though? Like the Good Samaritan. Helping a total stranger at your own risk. Whit out concern for the consequences.

I want that guy on my team. I can trust him.