Jump to content

Judaism, Islam And Christianity Are Public Enemy No.1!


Recommended Posts

I recently posted these reasons for doing away with current religions on my blog at http://www.writingup.com/blog/gnosisquest I would like to know what the people here think of these observations.

 

1. These three cults, hereafter known as JIC knowingly lie to their followers in order to preserve the fellowships.

2. These cults condemn those who do not share in their beliefs, yet the leaders of the cults are fully aware of the fact that they are deceiving humanity.

3. These leaders attempt to discourage an honest look at facts through clamoring that their follower’s sensitivity may be injured.

4. The fact is that it is known that to brandish humanity as sinners from the time we are born makes people sinners. This action undermines social morals and ethics, yet do not make these calloused individuals mend their ways.

5. The leaders of these cults knowingly covers up the fact that the earliest part of the Bible is based on Sumerian/Babylonian legends, the age of the oldest patriarchs reflect the worship of the Moon God.

6. The Noah legend has been known to be a slightly altered version of the Sumerian/Babylonian flood myth for centuries; disregarding these facts show disrespect for humanity and disregard for basic knowledge.

7. Abraham is the originator of all three of these cults, yet it is well known that Abraham could not have been a real person. Abraham supposedly lived 2000 BCE, yet all legends surrounding him come from the last millennium BCE. Unwillingness to disclose such facts reflect an unwillingness to improve society.

8. Moses and Exodus is impossibility; the Moses legend is an alteration of Egyptian legends. This dishonesty creates an illusion among the public that the Church has an authority which it does not have.

9. Circumcision means restraint, this is known by all religious leaders, yet they insist on molestation of infants through the removal of the foreskin. The Islamic cult takes this a step further in removing the female clitoris. This is to condone the destruction or inhibition of the sexual experience for all its members clearly indicating the folly of the cult.

10. Other Biblical books such as Daniel are known to be a falsification of Babylonian history having to do with the Babylonian King Nabonidus. This is another false manuscript which is not corrected by the leaders of the Church.

11. The Church leaders are fully aware of the fact that no Israelite writings exist from prior to the third Century BCE. This does not distract their insistence that material written 3000 years earlier was influenced by the Israelites.

12. Blatant lies among the Church leaders showing complete disrespect for honesty and ethics are continuously demonstrated. One example of which is the “great Isaiah Scroll”. Church leaders have on numerous occasions stated that if we desire to know what this scroll (1QIsa) states we should read the Bible. The fact is that by employing 1QIsa, copied about 125 BCE, and 4QIsa from about 60CE a window into the composition of the Bible is afforded us. We clearly see how verses were added and content changed, the leaders stating that to know 1QIsa we should read the Biblical version clearly knew this, yet they blatantly mislead and lie.

13. No person ever lived which could be identified with Jesus; this is clearly known by today’s Church as among other pieces of evidence, no such person was mentioned among scrolls from as late as 60 CE.

14. In spite of the knowledge about Jesus the Church insist on the Virgin birth, and other absurd supernatural phenomena such as the resurrection.

15. No real evidence exist of a true “Christian” cult until after Emperor Constantine of 314 CE, yet the Church pretend to have divine knowledge.

16. Cited leaders such as St. Irenaeus as is evident by “Adversus Heresies” Book II, Chapter 7 verse 20 was of one of the many Gnostic persuasions. Here he also identifies St. Paul as a Gnostic.

17. While these are but very few of the examples possible it should now be clear to everyone that the three religions are public enemy no. I. Raising any Child as a Christian or Muslim must be recognized to be child molestation on a psychic level and has to be curtailed.

18. Lies and deceptions are what make the world a barbaric society. Remove these and the superstitions will fall by the wayside and a better society can evolve.

 

Best Rasmus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose we could do away with JIC. But I feel that is dealing with the symptoms and not the cause. Human beings would just find something else to divide themselves up with. The problem is within each one of us....we all treasure "my" opinion or belief and attack "others" who differ. What we need is a change in consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely correct in that it is difficult to get through to brainwashed people Metroplex.

 

If we were to relegate JIC to about the status of seven years of bad luck from breaking a mirror it would be a change in consciousness.

 

Since the only beings ever observed which could possibly be supernatural are humans acknowledging that would be another change in consciousness.

 

There will never be a change unless we do something and discrediting these cults has to be the first step as they attempt to prevent any positive change through their current mandate.

 

Best Rasmus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have every right to your views! And since this is a forum for the "ex-christian" and I am not an ex-christian perhaps I should not even be here. I certainly do not have any desire to do anything on this forum other than engage intellectually with some very sharp intellects and there are many of them here. I want to grow in my understanding of the positions of everyone on this forum. I want to have my views sharpened and clarified. I want to have conversation.

 

But please do not read my "challenge" to your 18 theses in this manifesto if you do not wish to do so. I really mean that. You have a right to these views, but some of them seemed a little insupportable to me. My responses, should you want to read them, are italicized following your original wording.

 

1. These three cults, hereafter known as JIC knowingly lie to their followers in order to preserve the fellowships.

 

This thesis might be correct if the word "knowingly" were removed. I don't think anyone is knowingly lying to anyone.

 

2. These cults condemn those who do not share in their beliefs, yet the leaders of the cults are fully aware of the fact that they are deceiving humanity.

 

Judaism condemns no one. It is quite a "liberal" religion. Try to convert to Judaism and you'll see how hard they make that for a non-Jew. There is a wide range of thought in these three religions about "outsiders," but it certainly cannot be said that that "these three cults condemn" as a blanket statement.

 

3. These leaders attempt to discourage an honest look at facts through clamoring that their follower’s sensitivity may be injured.

 

I don't see this, either. There is closed-mindedness among many religious persons, but no more or less than I see in any other group, including non-religous persons.

 

4. The fact is that it is known that to brandish humanity as sinners from the time we are born makes people sinners. This action undermines social morals and ethics, yet do not make these calloused individuals mend their ways.

 

I agree that the "you are an evil sinner" mantra is untrue, unwise and unhealthy. There is something "amiss" in our species, as anyone can tell, but making children feel unclean and dirty is unwise, unhealthy, and -- as you allude to -- counterproductive.

 

5. The leaders of these cults knowingly covers up the fact that the earliest part of the Bible is based on Sumerian/Babylonian legends, the age of the oldest patriarchs reflect the worship of the Moon God.

 

What you write may be true, but no one "knowingly covers up" anything. Some believe one thing; others believe another. That's the way our species is -- very eclectic.

 

6. The Noah legend has been known to be a slightly altered version of the Sumerian/Babylonian flood myth for centuries; disregarding these facts show disrespect for humanity and disregard for basic knowledge.

 

It has been surmised by many scholars that this is the case about the Noah legend. But surely there is room to believe what one chooses about this legendary character.

 

7. Abraham is the originator of all three of these cults, yet it is well known that Abraham could not have been a real person. Abraham supposedly lived 2000 BCE, yet all legends surrounding him come from the last millennium BCE. Unwillingness to disclose such facts reflect an unwillingness to improve society.

 

There is nothing being held from anyone. Some believe that the book of Genesis, beginning with the appearance of Abraham in the 12th chapter, becomes more "literally true." You cannot force others to believe or not believe what you believe or don't believe.

 

8. Moses and Exodus is impossibility; the Moses legend is an alteration of Egyptian legends. This dishonesty creates an illusion among the public that the Church has an authority which it does not have.

 

Again, there's room for other views. No one has the CNN tapes of this time in which an alleged Moses led an alleged exodus from an alleged enslavement of the alleged Israelites in Egypt. I don't understand why anyone would believe that everyone should believe precisely as they do on this or any other matter.

 

9. Circumcision means restraint, this is known by all religious leaders, yet they insist on molestation of infants through the removal of the foreskin. The Islamic cult takes this a step further in removing the female clitoris. This is to condone the destruction or inhibition of the sexual experience for all its members clearly indicating the folly of the cult.

 

Female circumcision (genital mutilation, as some call it)is not an Islamic custom and is not mentioned in the Jewish, Christian or Muslim scriptures. Its practice may date as far back as Pharaonic Egypt.

 

10. Other Biblical books such as Daniel are known to be a falsification of Babylonian history having to do with the Babylonian King Nabonidus. This is another false manuscript which is not corrected by the leaders of the Church.

 

Daniel may not have been a literal person and so on, but there's room for debate, and everyone must make up his or her mind about the authenticity of Daniel and its meaning or lack thereof in their own lives.

 

11. The Church leaders are fully aware of the fact that no Israelite writings exist from prior to the third Century BCE. This does not distract their insistence that material written 3000 years earlier was influenced by the Israelites.

 

I don't quite get the meaning of this point.

 

12. Blatant lies among the Church leaders showing complete disrespect for honesty and ethics are continuously demonstrated. One example of which is the “great Isaiah Scroll”. Church leaders have on numerous occasions stated that if we desire to know what this scroll (1QIsa) states we should read the Bible. The fact is that by employing 1QIsa, copied about 125 BCE, and 4QIsa from about 60CE a window into the composition of the Bible is afforded us. We clearly see how verses were added and content changed, the leaders stating that to know 1QIsa we should read the Biblical version clearly knew this, yet they blatantly mislead and lie.

 

I don't see any evidence of anyone blatantly misleading or lying to anyone.

 

13. No person ever lived which could be identified with Jesus; this is clearly known by today’s Church as among other pieces of evidence, no such person was mentioned among scrolls from as late as 60 CE.

 

This may be true, but this is not the view of "today's Church." You may insist on your truth that "no person ever lived which could be identified with Jesus," but others may also insist on their right to believe their truth. This is as it should be.

 

14. In spite of the knowledge about Jesus the Church insist on the Virgin birth, and other absurd supernatural phenomena such as the resurrection.

 

The virgin conception is easy to believe as we have this every day in our modern world by means of IVF. The resurrection is a wonderful hope for all humanity, so what's the trouble if it is believed in? What harm does it do?

 

15. No real evidence exist of a true “Christian” cult until after Emperor Constantine of 314 CE, yet the Church pretend to have divine knowledge.

 

?

 

16. Cited leaders such as St. Irenaeus as is evident by “Adversus Heresies” Book II, Chapter 7 verse 20 was of one of the many Gnostic persuasions. Here he also identifies St. Paul as a Gnostic.

 

Nothing wrong with being Gnostic. That's a very fine and reasonable choice to make.

 

17. While these are but very few of the examples possible it should now be clear to everyone that the three religions are public enemy no. I. Raising any Child as a Christian or Muslim must be recognized to be child molestation on a psychic level and has to be curtailed.

 

I could nominate many other things as public enemy number 1: poverty, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, disease, war, greed, violence, drugs, etc., etc, etc.

 

18. Lies and deceptions are what make the world a barbaric society. Remove these and the superstitions will fall by the wayside and a better society can evolve.

 

Lies are not good things. Decpetion is not a good thing. We agree. But one person's lie is another person's holy writ. One person's deception is another person's obvious truth.

 

This is why in the U.S. we have as one of our cornerstone's the right to freedom of religion. And this is why Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

 

Very respectfully submitted as rebuttal to your points,

 

CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currentchristian; your challenges to my 18 theses are quite amusing, do you really feel someon e would be swayed by your alleged rebuttal?

 

1. These three cults, hereafter known as JIC knowingly lie to their followers in order to preserve the fellowships.

 

This thesis might be correct if the word "knowingly" were removed. I don't think anyone is knowingly lying to anyone.

 

There is not a single person that can study ancient history and believe that the Bible is an accurate record of ancient history. Leaders of all three cults mentioned fail to mention this to their members which are a lie of omission. Other lies such as claims regarding what "God" desires from someone who states no person can understand the mind of God is an obvious lie. There are numerous examples of how these lies are perpetrated but the false teaching that everything concurs with the Biblical account is the most absurd.

 

2. These cults condemn those who do not share in their beliefs, yet the leaders of the cults are fully aware of the fact that they are deceiving humanity.

 

Judaism condemns no one. It is quite a "liberal" religion. Try to convert to Judaism and you'll see how hard they make that for a non-Jew. There is a wide range of thought in these three religions about "outsiders," but it certainly cannot be said that that "these three cults condemn" as a blanket statement.

 

Yes, I can say that these cults condemn outsiders as a blanket statement and I have also been condemned by those of the Judaic faith for my observations. (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source

con·demn /kənˈdɛm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-dem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object)

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.)

 

3. These leaders attempt to discourage an honest look at facts through clamoring that their follower’s sensitivity may be injured.

 

I don't see this, either. There is closed-mindedness among many religious persons, but no more or less than I see in any other group, including non-religous persons.

 

This is a complete avoidance of the problem; I never said that biases, excuses and justifications only are to be found among the JIC cults. With the amount of influence these cults have on the human condition today no excuse exist for these groups not announcing all facts and all possible discrepancies regarding their cult's dogma!

 

4. The fact is that it is known that to brandish humanity as sinners from the time we are born makes people sinners. This action undermines social morals and ethics, yet do not make these calloused individuals mend their ways.

 

I agree that the "you are an evil sinner" mantra is untrue, unwise and unhealthy. There is something "amiss" in our species, as anyone can tell, but making children feel unclean and dirty is unwise, unhealthy, and -- as you allude to -- counterproductive.

 

Thank you

 

5. The leaders of these cults knowingly covers up the fact that the earliest part of the Bible is based on Sumerian/Babylonian legends, the age of the oldest patriarchs reflect the worship of the Moon God.

 

What you write may be true, but no one "knowingly covers up" anything. Some believe one thing; others believe another. That's the way our species is -- very eclectic.

 

Are you saying that there were no religious organizations which threatened bookstores when "History Begins in Sumer" was published in 1947 by S. N. Kramer? Are you saying that religious schools teach their students about these other interpretations? You may refer to it as being eclectic; irresponsible is however the correct word. (Responsible individuals and organizations do not have the need for justifying their actions based on the failures of others).

 

6. The Noah legend has been known to be a slightly altered version of the Sumerian/Babylonian flood myth for centuries; disregarding these facts show disrespect for humanity and disregard for basic knowledge.

 

It has been surmised by many scholars that this is the case about the Noah legend. But surely there is room to believe what one chooses about this legendary character.

 

No; there is no room to choose! What would you call an organization which do not furnish all it's members with all pertinent information regarding basic assumptions of the organizations dogma? You are leading people by the nose, feeding them obsolete and incomplete data and expect others to respect you.

 

 

7. Abraham is the originator of all three of these cults, yet it is well known that Abraham could not have been a real person. Abraham supposedly lived 2000 BCE, yet all legends surrounding him come from the last millennium BCE. Unwillingness to disclose such facts reflect an unwillingness to improve society.

 

There is nothing being held from anyone. Some believe that the book of Genesis, beginning with the appearance of Abraham in the 12th chapter, becomes more "literally true." You cannot force others to believe or not believe what you believe or don't believe.

 

You do not disclose the facts regarding the ancient society in which people such as Abraham lived. This means that people do not have the ability to look at evidence and come to their own conclusions. (The "Church" was the only organization known which attempted to force people to believe something; either you believed or you died!)

 

8. Moses and Exodus is impossibility; the Moses legend is an alteration of Egyptian legends. This dishonesty creates an illusion among the public that the Church has an authority which it does not have.

 

Again, there's room for other views. No one has the CNN tapes of this time in which an alleged Moses led an alleged exodus from an alleged enslavement of the alleged Israelites in Egypt. I don't understand why anyone would believe that everyone should believe precisely as they do on this or any other matter.

 

You are presenting a laughingly inadequate refutation. How about addressing the Biblical premise that 600 000 soldiers with their families escaped Egypt, traversed the Sinai for forty years without leaving a trace for starters?

 

9. Circumcision means restraint, this is known by all religious leaders, yet they insist on molestation of infants through the removal of the foreskin. The Islamic cult takes this a step further in removing the female clitoris. This is to condone the destruction or inhibition of the sexual experience for all its members clearly indicating the folly of the cult.

 

Female circumcision (genital mutilation, as some call it)is not an Islamic custom and is not mentioned in the Jewish, Christian or Muslim scriptures. Its practice may date as far back as Pharaonic Egypt.

 

So what are you trying to state? These cults with their alleged supernatural founder have their followers behave in a most primitive fashion. You also mislead in your reply, the Egyptians apparantly circumcised their soldiers due to the unsanitary conditions encountered in war, never the females. I stated that the word was wrongly translated which you did not address at all.

 

10. Other Biblical books such as Daniel are known to be a falsification of Babylonian history having to do with the Babylonian King Nabonidus. This is another false manuscript which is not corrected by the leaders of the Church.

 

Daniel may not have been a literal person and so on, but there's room for debate, and everyone must make up his or her mind about the authenticity of Daniel and its meaning or lack thereof in their own lives.

 

How about addressing the real issue? Daniel reflects Balthazar, son of Nabonidus who lost Babylon to the Persians because he pissed off Marduk by reinstating the worship of the Moon God. Everything in Daniel reflects this historic occurrence, yet there are religionists from the pulpit that employ it to their purpose without educating their congregation about the real significance.

 

11. The Church leaders are fully aware of the fact that no Israelite writings exist from prior to the third Century BCE. This does not distract their insistence that material written 3000 years earlier was influenced by the Israelites.

 

I don't quite get the meaning of this point.

 

No Israelite writings exist from prior to the third century BCE. The material reflected in the Bible which in cases are thousands of years older is obviously the original material and not the other way around.

 

12. Blatant lies among the Church leaders showing complete disrespect for honesty and ethics are continuously demonstrated. One example of which is the “great Isaiah Scroll”. Church leaders have on numerous occasions stated that if we desire to know what this scroll (1QIsa) states we should read the Bible. The fact is that by employing 1QIsa, copied about 125 BCE, and 4QIsa from about 60CE a window into the composition of the Bible is afforded us. We clearly see how verses were added and content changed, the leaders stating that to know 1QIsa we should read the Biblical version clearly knew this, yet they blatantly mislead and lie.

 

I don't see any evidence of anyone blatantly misleading or lying to anyone.

 

I don't suppose that you read any of the books regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls published prior to the release of the Biblical material?

 

13. No person ever lived which could be identified with Jesus; this is clearly known by today’s Church as among other pieces of evidence, no such person was mentioned among scrolls from as late as 60 CE.

 

This may be true, but this is not the view of "today's Church." You may insist on your truth that "no person ever lived which could be identified with Jesus," but others may also insist on their right to believe their truth. This is as it should be.

 

Today's church insists that the person Jesus actually lived. Since there is no extra biblical evidence that this is so the Church has to inform it's congregation of this fact prior to the "Nativity" scene or these people are spreading lies.

 

14. In spite of the knowledge about Jesus the Church insist on the Virgin birth, and other absurd supernatural phenomena such as the resurrection.

 

The virgin conception is easy to believe as we have this every day in our modern world by means of IVF. The resurrection is a wonderful hope for all humanity, so what's the trouble if it is believed in? What harm does it do?

 

The harm is that you are misleading people, making them follow an imaginary reality which deter from studies of our true nature.

 

15. No real evidence exist of a true “Christian” cult until after Emperor Constantine of 314 CE, yet the Church pretend to have divine knowledge.

 

?

 

The Church pretends their information or "Bible" is "the word of God".

 

16. Cited leaders such as St. Irenaeus as is evident by “Adversus Heresies” Book II, Chapter 7 verse 20 was of one of the many Gnostic persuasions. Here he also identifies St. Paul as a Gnostic.

 

Nothing wrong with being Gnostic. That's a very fine and reasonable choice to make.

 

Correct you are; and if we were still following the Gnostic teachings the world and society would be an entirely different place today spiritually. Alas; after the edict by Pope Innocent III in 1208 CE these noble students of knowledge were all wiped out.

 

17. While these are but very few of the examples possible it should now be clear to everyone that the three religions are public enemy no. I. Raising any Child as a Christian or Muslim must be recognized to be child molestation on a psychic level and has to be curtailed.

 

I could nominate many other things as public enemy number 1: poverty, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, disease, war, greed, violence, drugs, etc., etc, etc.

 

All right, yet also answer me why these calamities which you mentioned are most prevalent in societies where the religious community is the most powerful!

 

18. Lies and deceptions are what make the world a barbaric society. Remove these and the superstitions will fall by the wayside and a better society can evolve.

 

Lies are not good things. Decpetion is not a good thing. We agree. But one person's lie is another person's holy writ. One person's deception is another person's obvious truth.

 

One person’s garbled logic will however always look garbled and inadequate.

 

This is why in the U.S. we have as one of our cornerstone's the right to freedom of religion. And this is why Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

 

Very respectfully submitted as rebuttal to your points,

 

CC in MA

 

CC, I would like to thank you for your rebuttal; I'm sure that I'm not the only person here whose lack of faith is strengthened by your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CC, I would like to thank you for your rebuttal; I'm sure that I'm not the only person here whose lack of faith is strengthened by your logic.

 

I'm always happy to help out. :Doh:

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gnosisquest-

These cults condemn those who do not share in their beliefs, yet the leaders of the cults are fully aware of the fact that they are deceiving humanity.

 

Incorrect. Judaism is not so bad once you come to know of it.

 

Judaism and Christianity –The Twain Shall Never Meet

 

According to Judaism, more than one "path to G-d" exists, perhaps with the Jewish path being the most difficult. All righteous people, Jew and Gentile alike, have a place in the world to come. The Covenant of the Rainbow, which G-d made with Noah and his descendants, affirms this (Gen 9:1-17), and the righteousness of Noah is acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible:

 

Genesis 6:9 - These are the generations of Noah, Noah was a righteous man he was perfect in his generations; Noah walked with G-d.

 

Ezekiel acknowledges Noah's righteousness along with that of Job, two Gentiles, and Daniel, a Jew:

Ezekiel 14:12-14 – (12) Then the word of the L-rd came, saying: (13) "Son of man, if a land sins against Me by trespassing grievously, I shall stretch forth My hand upon it and break its staff of bread, and I shall send famine upon it and cut off from it [both] man and beast. (14) And if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would save themselves with their righteousness," says the L-rd G-d. [see also the verses immediately following this passage, vs. 15-20, in which this message is repeated.]

 

One manifestation of this perspective is the fact that Judaism does not proselytize among the Gentiles. According to Judaism, Gentiles who follow the Seven Laws of Noah[7] are known as Righteous Gentiles, or Bnei Noah, and they have a place in the world to come.

 

 

Jewish law tells his followers to try a convince a potential convert atleast 3 times to NOT to join Judaism. Quite the opposite of Islam and Christianity

Gnosisquest-

The fact is that it is known that to brandish humanity as sinners from the time we are born makes people sinners.

 

Incorrect again about Judaism

 

From the same article

 

The Christian doctrine of "Original Sin" is anathematic to Judaism and contrary to the teachings of the Hebrew Bible. According to Judaism, mankind enters the world with "Original Purity", free of sin and with a pure soul – everyone starts with a "clean slate". Human beings are endowed with two impulses from birth, the good inclination[8] (yetzer ha'tov) and the evil inclination[9] (yetzer ha'ra). According to the Hebrew Bible, it is only in a person's youth, when he or she has learned the rudiments of right and wrong and the basics of good and evil, that the evil inclination starts to "act up" and, at times, overpowers the good inclination:

 

...............

Among these components the atonement process, acts of kindness (charity) are deemed the most important, since Judaism is a religion based on deeds, with particular emphasis on charity.

....................

 

In sharp contrast to Christianity, Judaism embraces the path provided in the Hebrew Bible for achieving righteousness. It is up to people to make the choice.

 

With regards to the historical veracity of the bible, here is what one orthodox Jew had to say

 

http://p069.ezboard.com/fmessiahtruthfrm12...=41&stop=44

 

The Hebrew Bible, with the Torah as its foundation, creates the framework of what is commonly called "the Jewish way of life". Our entire Hebrew Bible was not written to revolve around a single central figure which, if ever proven to be fictional, would bring down the entire "house of cards". So, even if some of the "details" or "accounts" appear ambiguous, unlikely, or even fictional, this doesn't have an impact on the framework itself.

 

Yes, I can say that these cults condemn outsiders as a blanket statement and I have also been condemned by those of the Judaic faith for my observations.

 

That depends on how you behaved with them. If you are gonna behave with them like the way Christians do ie balantly making assertions and not even listen to the otherside, then offcourse you would be kicked out.

 

I wouldn't want anybody to come to my and tell me in my face that I my love to my wife is not real,

 

As far as the Jews are concerned - they follow two principles with regards to Gentiles

 

1)Live and let live, ie the Jew has his own spiritual path and you have have your

2)Take and leave it, ie they will share everything they have about their religion, and if you don't believe in what they believe, as far as they are concerned they do not care.

 

Here is my discussion with regards to the Exodus account

 

No; there is no room to choose! What would you call an organization which do not furnish all it's members with all pertinent information regarding basic assumptions of the organizations dogma? You are leading people by the nose, feeding them obsolete and incomplete data and expect others to respect you.

The information is all out in the open and there is nothing to hide. People are only lead by their nose, when they willingly want it to be.

 

The harm is that you are misleading people, making them follow an imaginary reality which deter from studies of our true nature.

Sooooo......just because some forms of religion are cults doesn't mean they all are.

 

You forget their is also a socialogical aspect to religion, such as fellowship, purpose in one's life and community. In fact for every testimony you find about religion ruining ones life, you will find another one which saved their life from destruction. To me that is a good reason to join a religion

 

Check out the following articles

 

Advice from a Agnostic Baptist Minister

 

even the atheist who rebutted the above article does not disagree with some of the core points of the article

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...stminister.html

 

The usefulness of a belief is an important criteria in favor of that belief. It is proper to argue that particular religious beliefs should be encouraged because they serve a practical purpose in people's lives. However, beliefs do not have to be religious to serve a practical purpose and religious beliefs that serve a practical purpose can also have practical drawbacks. And religious beliefs tend to be complex, large packages that are in some sense understood to be an indivisible. It is thus over-simplistic and one-sided to argue that religious beliefs should not be subject to challenge or dissent because such beliefs have some benefit.

 

There was once a excellent article on ex-christian.net, which sort of detailed at what point would you actually become a ex-christian. I don't have that link

 

Remember if religion is a product, then it comes with "buyer beware", sometimes in other people lies you may find the "truth"

 

Lies and deceptions are what make the world a barbaric society. Remove these and the superstitions will fall by the wayside and a better society can evolve.

It seems like Christian you too search for a Eutopia, however I doubt it that religion in general would ever be removed. It would always emerge and repackage itself as different forms, or perhaps more dangerous forms, like the Communist countries.

 

Perhaps we do have religious gene, due to the fact we have some form of irrationality ingrained in us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. Judaism is not so bad once you come to know of it.

 

Right, J is not as inhibiting to humanity as the IC cults, yet it is based on flawed history, lies and deceptions. The IC cults are the offspring of J, yet looking at the ethics of J whenever the deity sent them out to war makes it imperative that such a deity not be revered.

 

 

No; there is no room to choose! What would you call an organization which do not furnish all it's members with all pertinent information regarding basic assumptions of the organizations dogma? You are leading people by the nose, feeding them obsolete and incomplete data and expect others to respect you.

 

The information is all out in the open and there is nothing to hide. People are only lead by their nose, when they willingly want it to be.

 

The information is available to those who are willing to transgress the advice of their I&C advice, I do not know what the Judaic position is but have it from my Israelite friend that the Pentateuch was written 3500 years ago. He is also an educated person, yet when I offer to show him some books such as: "Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient times" By Prof Redford he conveniently does not get the chance. The same applies to several other books, yet I do not know whether he neglects to look at facts because of personal fears of what he will discover or because the Judaic leaders wish him to stay away. The Christian and Islamic Church do not make material pertaining to ancient history readily available for their sheep. (Check my material on Exodus at; http://www.gnosisquest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12 )

 

You forget their is also a socialogical aspect to religion, such as fellowship, purpose in one's life and community. In fact for every testimony you find about religion ruining ones life, you will find another one which saved their life from destruction. To me that is a good reason to join a religion

 

I fully approve of people joining together in fellowships. The benefits are enormous and the lack felt by people who feel they stand outside society is devastating. All I am concerned about is the sort of society. There are positive as well as negative social orders hence the benefits of these organizations are also either positive or negative.

 

C, with it's insistence that humanity are evil/sinners is a negative society. The fact C depicts them as a loving society is also a lie. There is no love in a God which sentences everyone that does not follow ambiguous rules to be damned. Booth I and C have demonstrated throughout history the folly of their fellowships through the millions of innocent lives they have snuffed without semblance of remorse.

 

 

Lies and deceptions are what make the world a barbaric society. Remove these and the superstitions will fall by the wayside and a better society can evolve.

 

It seems like Christian you too search for a Eutopia, however I doubt it that religion in general would ever be removed. It would always emerge and repackage itself as different forms, or perhaps more dangerous forms, like the Communist countries.

 

There is not really any desire on my part to remove religions; all I desire is that no person be permitted to lie from the pulpit. No Biblical assertion can or should be spoken of as actually having happened for there is no evidence that any of it is correct. All churches should make all their followers aware of the fact that the evidence would indicate that there is no sound basis to any of the Biblical material and take it from there.

Doing so would bring honesty and ethics back to society and would encourage instead of discourage research.

 

 

Best Rasmus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not really any desire on my part to remove religions; all I desire is that no person be permitted to lie from the pulpit. No Biblical assertion can or should be spoken of as actually having happened for there is no evidence that any of it is correct. All churches should make all their followers aware of the fact that the evidence would indicate that there is no sound basis to any of the Biblical material and take it from there.

Doing so would bring honesty and ethics back to society and would encourage instead of discourage research.

 

Best Rasmus

 

Who will police our churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious centers to verify that everyone is living up to your standards? What shall we do about the "free speech" and "free religion" clauses of our Bill of Rights? This view, I must say, smacks of totalitarian dictatorship to me, something one might find in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, and no free thinker would support that, right?

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm always happy to help out. :Doh:

 

-CC in MA

 

I suggest we agree that there should be a plaque posted at the entrance of every meeting locale (church) of the JIC cults stating "Be cautious as to what you take seriously; all of the material from which today's sermon is culled may be based on fiction!"

 

 

Best Rasmus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C, with it's insistence that humanity are evil/sinners is a negative society. The fact C depicts them as a loving society is also a lie. There is no love in a God which sentences everyone that does not follow ambiguous rules to be damned. Booth I and C have demonstrated throughout history the folly of their fellowships through the millions of innocent lives they have snuffed without semblance of remorse.

 

I am not seeking to be argumentative, I just want to point out that this seems to me a blanket condemnation, unwarranted by the evidence. Terrible crimes against humanity have been commited in the name of God, in the name of Jesus, in the name of Allah, in the name of Muhammad, and in the name of Atheism, Nationalism, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, etc. We are all equally capable of terrible crimes. This is why, seems to me, the Prime Directive should be "you shall not murder." If everyone would just accept that minimal moral value, we'd be so very much better off.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Who will police our churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious centers to verify that everyone is living up to your standards? What shall we do about the "free speech" and "free religion" clauses of our Bill of Rights? This view, I must say, smacks of totalitarian dictatorship to me, something one might find in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, and no free thinker would support that, right?

 

-CC in MA

 

See my above post; all that is needed is a plaque in every meeting locale and church which states: "Be cautious as to what you take seriously; all of the material from which today's message is culled may be based on fiction!"

 

Best Rasmus

 

 

I am not seeking to be argumentative, I just want to point out that this seems to me a blanket condemnation, unwarranted by the evidence. Terrible crimes against humanity have been commited in the name of God, in the name of Jesus, in the name of Allah, in the name of Muhammad, and in the name of Atheism, Nationalism, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, etc. We are all equally capable of terrible crimes. This is why, seems to me, the Prime Directive should be "you shall not murder." If everyone would just accept that minimal moral value, we'd be so very much better off.

 

-CC in MA

 

How about admitting that when you employ the crimes of others to justify your own your ethics and morals are seriously flawed!

 

How about we start basing life on what we know instead of the fiction passed down through religious fanatics that deem to have the only "True" revelation when none of them really has anything which can be verified!

 

Best Rasmus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not seeking to be argumentative, I just want to point out that this seems to me a blanket condemnation, unwarranted by the evidence. Terrible crimes against humanity have been commited in the name of God, in the name of Jesus, in the name of Allah, in the name of Muhammad, and in the name of Atheism, Nationalism, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, etc. We are all equally capable of terrible crimes. This is why, seems to me, the Prime Directive should be "you shall not murder." If everyone would just accept that minimal moral value, we'd be so very much better off.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

CC I agree with you in part. I don't think that it is up to the state to place plaques in churches similar to the warnings placed on packs of cigarettes. However, as you point out, a lot of bad things have been done in the names of isms as well as religions. Ideologies held close to the heart in the form of dogma are never a good thing IMO.

 

Let me propose this though, would you say that it is fair that overtly religious parents are not restrained one iota in the indoctrination of their children? Let me rephrase this. Is it in a child's best interest to not be exposed to all available facts? Is it right for parents to indoctrinate their children and refuse them exposure to reason?

 

I spent too many miserable years in fear of hell because I was indoctrinated and then kept from the facts until I was finaly exposed to the realities of life through studies at the University. What would be wrong with teaching young children how to reason? Teaching them peer reviewed history? Teaching them peer reviewed science? Offering them alternative views on philosophy?

 

Parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids in the dark. I argue let the kids have all the facts and then let them choose for themselves. No laws need to be changed. No oppressive measures need to be taken. Just teach the kids what we already know and let them sort out the rest. Otherwise we are willfully withholding important life tools from them in order to protect our own superstitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest we agree that there should be a plaque posted at the entrance of every meeting locale (church) of the JIC cults stating "Be cautious as to what you take seriously; all of the material from which today's sermon is culled may be based on fiction!"

 

Best Rasmus

 

If an institution refuses to comply, what becomes of them?

 

-CC in MA

 

How about we start basing life on what we know instead of the fiction passed down through religious fanatics that deem to have the only "True" revelation when none of them really has anything which can be verified!

 

Best Rasmus

 

I agree that we absolutely do not want to base our morality on the views of religions fanatics. I'd expand that, however, to include political fanatics and atheist fanatics ... and ... fanatics of all kinds. Fanaticism is very dangerous. That why, seems to me, we all need to constantly stay on guard against our own tendencies toward fanaticism (and we all have them!).

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My responses, should you want to read them, are italicized following your original wording.

I thought for sure you would say something like, "and these responses will disappear upon refresh." Too much Mission Impossible as a kid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not really any desire on my part to remove religions; all I desire is that no person be permitted to lie from the pulpit. No Biblical assertion can or should be spoken of as actually having happened for there is no evidence that any of it is correct. All churches should make all their followers aware of the fact that the evidence would indicate that there is no sound basis to any of the Biblical material and take it from there.

Doing so would bring honesty and ethics back to society and would encourage instead of discourage research.

 

Best Rasmus

 

Who will police our churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious centers to verify that everyone is living up to your standards? What shall we do about the "free speech" and "free religion" clauses of our Bill of Rights? This view, I must say, smacks of totalitarian dictatorship to me, something one might find in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, and no free thinker would support that, right?

 

-CC in MA

I think it should be a required entry in the bible. Maybe as a preface to address the historicity of the bible in comparison to other myths of the time. This way an informed decision could be made. As it stands now, it's silence on these matters is very deceitful, IMO. Wasn't there a conversation about silence somewhere around here? :) It doesn't give the reader the information they need. Why?

 

Does free speech mean that you ethically have the right to be silent on the matter when you know better? I can see many churches not knowing better, but there is someone, somewhere that needs to tell it like it is so the uninformed won't be mislead by ignorance that is being played on by someone else.

 

They could just give some comparisons such as the Gilgamesh flood vs the Noah flood and let people choose from there. How good is an uninformed decision unless one is trying to sway the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be a required entry in the bible. Maybe as a preface to address the historicity of the bible in comparison to other myths of the time. This way an informed decision could be made. As it stands now, it's silence on these matters is very deceitful, IMO. Wasn't there a conversation about silence somewhere around here? :) It doesn't give the reader the information they need. Why?

 

Does free speech mean that you ethically have the right to be silent on the matter when you know better? I can see many churches not knowing better, but there is someone, somewhere that needs to tell it like it is so the uninformed won't be mislead by ignorance that is being played on by someone else.

 

They could just give some comparisons such as the Gilgamesh flood vs the Noah flood and let people choose from there. How good is an uninformed decision unless one is trying to sway the other?

 

Exactly, a wonderful suggestion; let us protect our children by permitting no Bibles to be published without the preamble: "The material found in this book may all be fiction!"

 

Comparisons alone are not enough without the complete story. If the different tales are compared with the originals the time of writing of the different books must also be disclosed. The simple preamble in front of all Bible's would be enough to remove the greatest sting from the fanatics.

 

 

Best Rasmus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CC I agree with you in part. I don't think that it is up to the state to place plaques in churches similar to the warnings placed on packs of cigarettes. However, as you point out, a lot of bad things have been done in the names of isms as well as religions. Ideologies held close to the heart in the form of dogma are never a good thing IMO.

 

Let me propose this though, would you say that it is fair that overtly religious parents are not restrained one iota in the indoctrination of their children? Let me rephrase this. Is it in a child's best interest to not be exposed to all available facts? Is it right for parents to indoctrinate their children and refuse them exposure to reason?

 

I spent too many miserable years in fear of hell because I was indoctrinated and then kept from the facts until I was finaly exposed to the realities of life through studies at the University. What would be wrong with teaching young children how to reason? Teaching them peer reviewed history? Teaching them peer reviewed science? Offering them alternative views on philosophy?

 

Parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids in the dark. I argue let the kids have all the facts and then let them choose for themselves. No laws need to be changed. No oppressive measures need to be taken. Just teach the kids what we already know and let them sort out the rest. Otherwise we are willfully withholding important life tools from them in order to protect our own superstitions.

 

I'm not a parent and anytime I give my sister, who is a parent, my views on parenting she tells me that until I have kids my views mean little! :HaHa: But here goes.

 

Children should be raised in liberty, allowed to think and grow and learn and become who they are to be. I agree with you. I do not not attend any church, but if I were a parent I absolutely would not attend a church that, for example, taught that homosexuals are less than anyone else; or a church that taught hellfire; or a church that taught an exclusivist message; or a church that was intolerant in any way. There is healthy and unhealthy religion, in my view. I would want my children exposed to that which is healthy.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would want my children exposed to that which is healthy.

 

Then you can throw Christianity out the window, it's far from healthy. I doubt you'll find the things you mentioned in any church or congregation of Christians - unless of course a new movement is formed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would want my children exposed to that which is healthy.

 

Then you can throw Christianity out the window, it's far from healthy. I doubt you'll find the things you mentioned in any church or congregation of Christians - unless of course a new movement is formed.

 

Happily, you can. There are many "liberal" Christian movements to choose from, especially in the New England area. No need at all to throw the whole baby out.

 

Not that I'm interested in aligning myself with any group. I'm just not a joiner.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would want my children exposed to that which is healthy.

 

Then you can throw Christianity out the window, it's far from healthy. I doubt you'll find the things you mentioned in any church or congregation of Christians - unless of course a new movement is formed.

 

Happily, you can. There are many "liberal" Christian movements to choose from, especially in the New England area. No need at all to throw the whole baby out.

 

Not that I'm interested in aligning myself with any group. I'm just not a joiner.

 

-CC in MA

 

Lucky then for the U.S. There's no such thing here in Oz as far as I'm aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, J is not as inhibiting to humanity as the IC cults, yet it is based on flawed history, lies and deceptions. The IC cults are the offspring of J, yet looking at the ethics of J whenever the deity sent them out to war makes it imperative that such a deity not be revered.

 

You do make a good point, however you assume that Jews interpretate their scripture in the same way as fundamentalist do, ie sola scriptura.

 

A good example would their interpretation of the exodus account where the Egyptions are being drowned in the red sea/sea of reeds. In the Talmud it is said that when this happened, the angels all sang with joy. Then God asked the angels "Why are you singing?", to which angels replied "God, your chosen people are saved". Then God replied back and said "But the Egyptions are my children too". When I read this I was very touched by this.To respect and empathise for the the enemy like the way Jews in this case is something admirable. This thought is even reflected today. On the Jewish forum, one of them pointed out the thoughts of their Rabbi on the recent conflict

 

"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill theirs"

 

Contrast this with any fundamentalist Christian sermon on the same passage

 

But I am not justifying the words of Genocide in their books. However when I realise that a lot of it was just propaganda and that it was written from a human perpective, then it doesn't sound too bad. Remember the Jewish scripture were written by the Jews and for the Jews. Christianity have just hijacked their scripture and dumped it on the world.

 

The information is available to those who are willing to transgress the advice of their I&C advice, I do not know what the Judaic position is but have it from my Israelite friend that the Pentateuch was written 3500 years ago. He is also an educated person, yet when I offer to show him some books such as: "Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient times" By Prof Redford he conveniently does not get the chance The same applies to several other books, yet I do not know whether he neglects to look at facts because of personal fears of what he will discover or because the Judaic leaders wish him to stay away.

 

Or perhaps he doesn't really care. Some are more interested in seeking the truth in their scripture rather than wondering if it is divine or not. Like I said before, the Jews don't percieve their scripture as a historical book or scientific treatise, nor are they interested in you to believe in it. The Jews have never made a claim to others about their scriptures, so I don't see why you should hassle them, in other words why do you wish to bother someone who is minding his own business.

 

On a personal level, I would only interfere in someone's spiritual matter, if I am close to that person and that he is entering a unhealthy cultic environment. However Judaism does not have restrictive environment as fundamentalist do.

 

Btw, check out this article by a Isreali website.

 

King David and Jerusalem: Myth and Reality

 

So it's not true that all Jews don't see their scripture as copy of other religions. Just like Christianity, there are different flavours of Judaism. Like many Christians they too employ method of Biblical critism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

 

I fully approve of people joining together in fellowships. The benefits are enormous and the lack felt by people who feel they stand outside society is devastating. All I am concerned about is the sort of society. There are positive as well as negative social orders hence the benefits of these organizations are also either positive or negative.

 

Ok, the same can be said for any human institution, not just religion, eg the army. And what about non-religious groups such as Greenpeace or animal rights group. Some of them are as wacky as the fundamentalist are.

 

The problems does not come from a particular belief, but rather the zealot nature that some people have towards that belief, be it christianity, Islam or environmental issue. The exclusivionist position also add fuel to the fire.

 

C, with it's insistence that humanity are evil/sinners is a negative society
.

 

However Judaism does not. So you were essentially throwing the baby with bath water

 

The fact C depicts them as a loving society is also a lie. There is no love in a God which sentences everyone that does not follow ambiguous rules to be damned.

 

I would further go ahead and say that whay you are describing is fundamentalist Christianity. Not Christianity is general. There are several sect in Christianity who do not believe in this way. A good example are the universalist.

 

http://bible-truths.com/

 

Even modern catholism is doing a rethinking of it former beliefs

 

Salvation for Non-Christians Explainedhttp://biblia.com/theology/similarities.htm#favoritism Can a Jew go to Heaven?... a Muslim, an Indian, a Hindu?...an Atheist?:

 

Salvation according to the RCC

 

Both I and C have demonstrated throughout history the folly of their fellowships through the millions of innocent lives they have snuffed without semblance of remorse.

 

Well ok, but there are people within these institution who realise that and will try to prevent these things from happening again. How many christians are out there who say that the Holocaust was good thing - Very few. Compare that attitude with the pre-holocaust era.

 

There is not really any desire on my part to remove religions; all I desire is that no person be permitted to lie from the pulpit. No Biblical assertion can or should be spoken of as actually having happened for there is no evidence that any of it is correct. All churches should make all their followers aware of the fact that the evidence would indicate that there is no sound basis to any of the Biblical material and take it from there. Doing so would bring honesty and ethics back to society and would encourage instead of discourage research.

 

Once again you are making a generalisation that every Christian/Jewish sect out there percieve their scripture as actual historical fact or take a literal interpretation. The reality is that they don't. So if that is not their position, then on what ground do oppose them.

 

The catholics, which represent 50% of Christiandom, don't view their scripture as historical accurate, rather as useful resource. A good example is their view on the deluge

 

Noah's Ark - Catholic Forum

 

Deluge

 

google groups - debate about the Deautrocanical Books

 

Google Groups

 

Is anything more fabulous or hard to believe than God becoming man? Or perhaps a man rising from the dead? Also the Bible that you accept has Moses being buried in a couple of places... The bible is not a history book.

 

Like Jews, Catholics strive to percieve their theology through rationality, logic and reason. In fact whether you realise or not, they are on the forefront of promoting evolution as a scientific fact and oppose Christian creationism in the same passion that atheists do.

 

Back to your point about "all I desire is that no person be permitted to lie from the pulpit"

 

If that is the case, then perhaps you should write to you local Television to not to put ads on their TV which say exaggerated truths all the time. If some one buys into the "lies" of religion, then how much responsiblity is there on the part of the believer?

 

When you state that All churches should make all their followers aware of the fact that the evidence, I see this as violation of their religious freedom, since you imposing your view on how they should run their religion. If you are going to target religion like this, then you might as well do the same for your government or any other human insitition. It is upto to the individual to be careful of what they accept, and investigate the matter more

 

You are aware do know that Christianity and Islam are not the only ones who are create "lies" and sell them to their followers. Did you ever look at scientology?

 

http://xenu.net/

 

So why did you not include scientology in your critique, when they are doing the same?And how about other religions such as paganism or hinduism?

 

Not every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu etc, is out there to hassle their fellow person with their beliefs. The world is chaotic place and many of them use religion as a vehicle to just make their life easier, and that is sometimes all they want from religion. If they are not bothering me with their beliefs, I don't bother them. It could not get any more simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, J is not as inhibiting to humanity as the IC cults, yet it is based on flawed history, lies and deceptions. The IC cults are the offspring of J, yet looking at the ethics of J whenever the deity sent them out to war makes it imperative that such a deity not be revered.

 

You do make a good point, however you assume that Jews interpretate their scripture in the same way as fundamentalist do, ie sola scriptura.

 

A good example would their interpretation of the exodus account where the Egyptions are being drowned in the red sea/sea of reeds. In the Talmud it is said that when this happened, the angels all sang with joy. Then God asked the angels "Why are you singing?", to which angels replied "God, your chosen people are saved". Then God replied back and said "But the Egyptions are my children too". When I read this I was very touched by this.To respect and empathise for the the enemy like the way Jews in this case is something admirable. This thought is even reflected today. On the Jewish forum, one of them pointed out the thoughts of their Rabbi on the recent conflict

 

"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill theirs"

 

Contrast this with any fundamentalist Christian sermon on the same passage

 

But I am not justifying the words of Genocide in their books. However when I realise that a lot of it was just propaganda and that it was written from a human perpective, then it doesn't sound too bad. Remember the Jewish scripture were written by the Jews and for the Jews. Christianity have just hijacked their scripture and dumped it on the world.

 

The information is available to those who are willing to transgress the advice of their I&C advice, I do not know what the Judaic position is but have it from my Israelite friend that the Pentateuch was written 3500 years ago. He is also an educated person, yet when I offer to show him some books such as: "Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient times" By Prof Redford he conveniently does not get the chance The same applies to several other books, yet I do not know whether he neglects to look at facts because of personal fears of what he will discover or because the Judaic leaders wish him to stay away.

 

Or perhaps he doesn't really care. Some are more interested in seeking the truth in their scripture rather than wondering if it is divine or not. Like I said before, the Jews don't percieve their scripture as a historical book or scientific treatise, nor are they interested in you to believe in it. The Jews have never made a claim to others about their scriptures, so I don't see why you should hassle them, in other words why do you wish to bother someone who is minding his own business.

 

On a personal level, I would only interfere in someone's spiritual matter, if I am close to that person and that he is entering a unhealthy cultic environment. However Judaism does not have restrictive environment as fundamentalist do.

 

Btw, check out this article by a Isreali website.

 

King David and Jerusalem: Myth and Reality

 

So it's not true that all Jews don't see their scripture as copy of other religions. Just like Christianity, there are different flavours of Judaism. Like many Christians they too employ method of Biblical critism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

 

I fully approve of people joining together in fellowships. The benefits are enormous and the lack felt by people who feel they stand outside society is devastating. All I am concerned about is the sort of society. There are positive as well as negative social orders hence the benefits of these organizations are also either positive or negative.

 

Ok, the same can be said for any human institution, not just religion, eg the army. And what about non-religious groups such as Greenpeace or animal rights group. Some of them are as wacky as the fundamentalist are.

 

The problems does not come from a particular belief, but rather the zealot nature that some people have towards that belief, be it christianity, Islam or environmental issue. The exclusivionist position also add fuel to the fire.

 

C, with it's insistence that humanity are evil/sinners is a negative society
.

 

However Judaism does not. So you were essentially throwing the baby with bath water

 

The fact C depicts them as a loving society is also a lie. There is no love in a God which sentences everyone that does not follow ambiguous rules to be damned.

 

I would further go ahead and say that whay you are describing is fundamentalist Christianity. Not Christianity is general. There are several sect in Christianity who do not believe in this way. A good example are the universalist.

 

http://bible-truths.com/

 

Even modern catholism is doing a rethinking of it former beliefs

 

Salvation for Non-Christians Explainedhttp://biblia.com/theology/similarities.htm#favoritism Can a Jew go to Heaven?... a Muslim, an Indian, a Hindu?...an Atheist?:

 

Salvation according to the RCC

 

Both I and C have demonstrated throughout history the folly of their fellowships through the millions of innocent lives they have snuffed without semblance of remorse.

 

Well ok, but there are people within these institution who realise that and will try to prevent these things from happening again. How many christians are out there who say that the Holocaust was good thing - Very few. Compare that attitude with the pre-holocaust era.

 

There is not really any desire on my part to remove religions; all I desire is that no person be permitted to lie from the pulpit. No Biblical assertion can or should be spoken of as actually having happened for there is no evidence that any of it is correct. All churches should make all their followers aware of the fact that the evidence would indicate that there is no sound basis to any of the Biblical material and take it from there. Doing so would bring honesty and ethics back to society and would encourage instead of discourage research.

 

Once again you are making a generalisation that every Christian/Jewish sect out there percieve their scripture as actual historical fact or take a literal interpretation. The reality is that they don't. So if that is not their position, then on what ground do oppose them.

 

The catholics, which represent 50% of Christiandom, don't view their scripture as historical accurate, rather as useful resource. A good example is their view on the deluge

 

Noah's Ark - Catholic Forum

 

Deluge

 

google groups - debate about the Deautrocanical Books

 

Google Groups

 

Is anything more fabulous or hard to believe than God becoming man? Or perhaps a man rising from the dead? Also the Bible that you accept has Moses being buried in a couple of places... The bible is not a history book.

 

Like Jews, Catholics strive to percieve their theology through rationality, logic and reason. In fact whether you realise or not, they are on the forefront of promoting evolution as a scientific fact and oppose Christian creationism in the same passion that atheists do.

 

Back to your point about "all I desire is that no person be permitted to lie from the pulpit"

 

If that is the case, then perhaps you should write to you local Television to not to put ads on their TV which say exaggerated truths all the time. If some one buys into the "lies" of religion, then how much responsiblity is there on the part of the believer?

 

When you state that All churches should make all their followers aware of the fact that the evidence, I see this as violation of their religious freedom, since you imposing your view on how they should run their religion. If you are going to target religion like this, then you might as well do the same for your government or any other human insitition. It is upto to the individual to be careful of what they accept, and investigate the matter more

 

You are aware do know that Christianity and Islam are not the only ones who are create "lies" and sell them to their followers. Did you ever look at scientology?

 

http://xenu.net/

 

So why did you not include scientology in your critique, when they are doing the same?And how about other religions such as paganism or hinduism?

 

Not every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu etc, is out there to hassle their fellow person with their beliefs. The world is chaotic place and many of them use religion as a vehicle to just make their life easier, and that is sometimes all they want from religion. If they are not bothering me with their beliefs, I don't bother them. It could not get any more simpler.

 

The preceding is very well thought out, well argued, and well documented. SkipticOfBible's last paragraph is the jewel in the crown.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happily, you can. There are many "liberal" Christian movements to choose from, especially in the New England area. No need at all to throw the whole baby out.

 

Not that I'm interested in aligning myself with any group.

 

 

I don't mean to be antagonistic, so read this as an honest question and not rhetoric. What indeed is the baby that somehow got mixed in with the bath water of fundementalist Christianity?

 

I have indeed chucked the whole shebang and I have no regrets. What is my life now missing that a more liberal view on Christianity could somehow provide me?

 

Honestly, I just don't see what it has to offer. Any possible good that you can parse from scripture can be found in a more pure and logical form in other writings. Moreover, I can assess just using my own sense of rationality and common sense a more just sense of right and wrong than the basic tenets that Jesus taught. What indeed is there to salvage?

 

Children should be raised in liberty, allowed to think and grow and learn and become who they are to be. I agree with you. I do not not attend any church, but if I were a parent I absolutely would not attend a church that, for example, taught that homosexuals are less than anyone else; or a church that taught hellfire; or a church that taught an exclusivist message; or a church that was intolerant in any way. There is healthy and unhealthy religion, in my view. I would want my children exposed to that which is healthy.

 

-CC in MA

 

Certainly, I can see that from your writing. But, what about the fundy parents who give their children no choice? Do you find problematic my proposition to educate children in the necessary logic, history, and science that would give them the tools to counter their own parent's indoctrination? It's a radical proposition, I know, but I think it only fair to the children who otherwise are at their parent's mercy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.