A Confused Believing Agnostic

[Open_Minded]

I have to jump in since I've kind of been hanging on the edges for awhile... I agree and like your word choice that it is horrid that American's could be so... dumb. I remember one time about 10 years ago I was speaking to some woman and in the conversation I made some passing reference to Jesus having been a Jew, and she went crazy and said, "Are you trying to tell me my God is a Jew!" I was utterly dumfounded. I wasn't talking about God, and yes Jesus was in fact Jewish according to the Bible. She later when home and asked her Aunt who "knew all this stuff" and in fact was corrected by her. Based on this experience, I can see people being this ignorant, even if it seems so unfathomable to me.

 

Yes... it really is horrid. More than once, in teaching Sunday school, I've intentionally asked the kids to describe Jesus, what nationality was he, what color was his skin, his eyes, hair, etc.... invariably we come up with a tall, thin, white skinned European male It's always a surprise to them that he was probably closer to an Arab in resemblence than a northern European

 

On the subject of creating God in our own image.... Reading the variant rendering of the Lord's Prayer above was nice. I liked it better than the origial. But I'm curious if strictly as an exercise, someone were to take the multiple ways of translating words, and apply a mindset of a negative worldview, what kind of image of Jesus would come out? I'm not meaning to suggest anything negative, but rather as an illustration of how much of our own personality goes into making our understanding of Jesus, and how far people might be able to make Jesus something very foreign to any common understanding?

 

Just a passing post as I continue my considerations of all our previous conversations OM. I'm still here.

 

Ah.... Antlerman.... we're circling right back around to our conversation on subjective and objective knowing. I agree with you completely. That is why it is so important to study all of history (not just Jesus) from multiple perspectives.

 

I do look forward to continuing our conversation... . just let me know when you're ready

[NotBlinded]

I wonder if they have that Aramaic bible in English! Oh...I just found it. Cool.

 

OK... link us to the Aramaic bible in English. Thanks in advance.

Well...I'm really still looking because that one didn't say what I wanted it to say! hehe

 

Now this link is more like it! THE ARAMAIC BOOK LIST

[SkepticOfBible]

Hello... everyone... I'm taking (OM seems to be included) as an invitation to jump in here.

I am sorry, I did not wanted to address it at you specifically.

 

 

Pritishd... I respect your indepth knowledge of Biblical text,

 

Nah I am no OT scholar, I just know the parts that are relevant for discussion

 

What came out of that discussion (I thought) was that our own world view played into the way we approach the Bible. The details that you revel in are important to you because of your exposure to extreme fundamentalism and literalism. I, on the other hand, had never been exposed to those extremes

 

Well the easiest way to expose yourself to fundamentalist view is to go to the website, and I also recommend hearing debates btw theist and atheist

 

I NEVER considered the Bible as proof text for my beliefs.

 

I know that. But I remember in my PM I sent you a link about that inerrancy issue. I sort of agree with the fundamentalist viewpoint about comparing the bible to a witness in a court.

 

This conversation seems like that to me. I think the chances are that both Robert and Amanda do not feel as if the Bible is "proof text" of their whole belief system. They may not feel as though it is foundational to their belief system, either.

I can't really say how they feel about the bible as their foundation of their belief, but Amanda certainly argues from it.

 

And if this is so... then why have this discussion... the chances are very high that they are in overall agreement with you?

 

I am sorry, but I was not aiming it at Amanda or you specifically. Freak I got sidetracked. Nevertheless I believe Robert did a hear a viewpoint which he has never heard before, and I personally felt that he was making the common chrisitian assertions which are incorrect. That has come from not reading the bible.

[Open_Minded]

I am sorry, but I was aiming it at Amanda or you specifically. Freak I got sidetracked. Nevertheless I believe Robert did a hear a viewpoint which he has never heard before, and I personally felt that he was making the common chrisitian assertions which are incorrect. That has come from not reading the bible.

 

Pritish, don't appologize.

 

1st - it is SO important for all of us to remember how many conflicts and inaccuracies there are in the Bible. Your knowledge of this keeps me humble - in this regard. I'm sure it does the same for others. Without people like you who can pay so much attention to that kind of detail, we'd still be in the dark ages as far as Biblical scholarship goes.

 

2nd - the only thing I was wondering about - given the fact that it is easy to get caught in a circluar discussion like we had in Silly Putty - is that maybe it would be best to ask straight out - at the beginning of the conversation - whether a person uses the Bible as "proof text" or as the "foundation" for their belief system

 

And you are right, Robert, is new to this site and questioning much of his belief system, he needs the information. Feel free to continue, but if he doesn't consider the Bible his "foundation" or "proof text" then you move to the position of helping him gather as much information as he needs to read things in context. And this is where we all want to go.

 

Sorry if I sounded too short with you. As I said, I admire your indepth knowledge of these things, I really do

[Amanda]

Hi Pritishd!

 

I wouldn't be surprise if you were an attorney! You give me too much homework Pritishd. Too much to respond to with any focus... for me. I am going to try to respond to some of it. As I've said to Serenity, maybe Jesus didn't represent such a specific Jewish background. I've always believed he came from an eclectic background, and just not as bad as the 'Christians' make him out to be.

 

If Jesus completely agreed with the OT, why would there even be a NT?

 

Amanda, please tell me who defines what goes in the NT?

You answer a question with a question my friend?

All I am saying that OT says nothing about laws being going away, and Jesus sort of agreed with that.

 

It is Paul who is saying you don't need the law. This is the same Paul who never met Jesus, and who declared himself the greatest of prophets. He even had the audacity to tell the other apostles that they were wrong in the their interpretation about what Jesus said.

Laws are not as important as their purpose and intention. It seems Plato's influence of reason would be a good thing.

 

Sure, Jesus does not come to do away with the law, but to do away with the literal interpretation of these laws,

 

Please show me verses of Jesus, where he says the above? And where does it say in the OT, that the messiah will do away the literal interpretation of the law?

 

Jesus did this by healing a man on the sabbath, also prompting to save your oxen from the ditch on the sabbath too. Paul later articulated it:

Ro 7:6

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

That is why the Pharisees were called hypocrites! Jesus begged for compassion in understanding and honoring the good intention of these laws!

 

So the Pharisees were hypocrites, and Jesus was not?

 

If he is begging for compassion, then why does he say the following

 

Matt 5:18-19

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

 

The above clearly implies that Jesus was telling his followers to use the role model of the standard of Pharisees when it comes to following the law. He declares them as righteous and is encouraging people to obey the very laws that the pharisees to follow if they want to enter heaven. Show me verses where Jesus explicitly said the laws need not be followed literally.

Intent and purpose of these laws, instead of literal interpretation! WHY is the law, is more important than the words on the paper. These Pharisees broke these 3 basic tennants of the teachings of Christ... 1. be humble, no one is better or less than another... NO ONE. 2. Meek, have strength under a gentle nature, velvet steel. 3. to lead is to serve, have a servant's disposition.

 

Matthew 23:12, Matthew 5:5, Galatians 5:13

 

The Law was Paul's competition as it hindered his efforts to gain converts to his new religion. Gentiles had little interest or use for all of Yahweh's complicated laws. Of course, a rational person can see that Paul directly contradicted what Jesus stated in Matt 5:18-19 but that matters little to zealous Christians like you.

Pritishd, I'm not too zealous about anything. I don't care if you feel that the worst person in the world is Jesus and his disciples! If you think Paul and his ilk were just cultivating a conspiracy to herd people into a deceptive direction and their intentions were totally narcissistic... that's fine with me... I like you anyway, even if we don't agree on anything!

It's easy to take a situation and take two sentences of its recorded account and claim its barbaric, heathen nature. That's easy. Of course the other person has to look it up, research its context, research the original manuscript from which it was translated, research the social climate of the time, to debate a more true picture of the remark.

 

So it's ok for NT writers to quote things out of context(like Paul and the author Mattew/Hebrew) and twist them to serve their theological agenda, but it's not right for Skeptics to do that. Talk about double standard

 

Which verse have I quoted out of context?

No, that's not what I'm saying Pritishd. I have no idea if you've taken them out of context or not... and I don't think you would have done so purposely. I'm just saying that you give soooooo many examples, and your posts are so long, that it takes only a few minutes to list these verses, but hours and hours to research them adequately. If this were my job, I'd say "ok". However, I don't care enough about the subject to spend hours and hours responding to one post... from anyone! That's just me.

 

And then when you post numerous... it makes it too overwhelming to even consider. Certainly NOT easy. You are a very intellectual and knowledgeable person, yet it's hard for me (not so smart) to encompass your extended depth of your view in one of your post.

 

I am sorry, I didn't understand what you said?Are you saying that my post are too complicated for you or for Robert?

 

For me!

 

Amanda we already have been through this for 100 times, and I have given the same arguements. Yet till this date you haven't rebutted me with a single scripture from the OT which proves your various assertions.You yet to show me that the nature of the law was gonna change after the coming of the messiah.

 

Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. I think I must have hyperlinked a considerable no of sites, which proves my statement.

OK, I'll default on that. Maybe he isn't the Jewish Messiah. IDK. It isn't important to me, and I haven't spent much time in that area.

 

Most of us here (OM seems to be included) agree that current "traditional Christians" are lost from reality. They're deluded with ideas of being the elite, the authority for the morals and way of life we are to live... just like the religous right in the time of Jesus. Nothing's changed.

 

And now after 2000 years, you have finally figured it out the whole issue? How is your postion any different from any other fundamentalist christian?

 

You too are ignoring what the text actually says and also ignoring many verses which comes in the way of theological understanding, just like the fundamentalist.

Pritishd, I just was interested in getting to know and understand your way of thinking. I apologize if I got you upset about something. It really isn't that important to me... and maybe I should of never taken an interest in you about this. Ghandi even said he liked Christ, but he didn't like our Christians. I like Buddha, Hindu, Suffis, Tao, Zen, Atheist, Science, Philosophers, Shamanism, Wicca, Druids, and have read the Satanic Bible too and it was pretty good. I wish I knew more about these other perspectives. I don't claim to know everything about these OT and NT teachings. I just happen to find some insights there that are beneficial to me. Maybe you think I should apologize for that? It is NOT the only way, if it is a way at all, and if one can find peace and joy while being respectful to all life... I'm impressed with however you got there. I think Christians have given Jesus a bad name, and I understand how people would want a sanctuary from these often horrendously insulting group with seemingly very little compassion. I appreciate very much how most have tolerated me here, and I don't want to push it... because my views are not that important. Friendships are more important than these beliefs, to me, I'll definitely say that!

I understand why you find present Christians disgusting. We agree there. Jesus, nor his disciples were "Christians".

 

No, I don't find all christian disgusting. I do however disagree with their ideas.

 

I see inconsistancy in their analysis of the bible, they choose to follow certain laws which they like from the OT, and when skeptics like me tell them ask them why they are not following the other laws from the same book, they say "Jesus did away with the law". In the real world this is called having a Double standard

 

But at the end of the day they are people, and people can be easily be mistaken in their analysis, just as I could be. The difference is that I am admitting that my position is fallible, however christian do not extend the same to me and others.

I'm very glad to read this Pritishd. FWIW, I have changed my views immensely from being on this site! I try to be as open minded as I can. I have read again about your ideas, and I don't know if I understand them more clearly than I did. However, that isn't really all that imperative... I'm sure I'll be reading many more of your posts. Much of your interests are in a different area than mine. You seem to be quite intellectual, and seem quite emphatic about some issues... I was just trying to take interest in your assertions... and no way come to challenge you!

 

Wow, it won't allow any more quote functions now!

 

Amanda's prior post = IMHO, Jesus was a Buddhist more than anything, although he did include many other spiritual teachings.

......

So maybe these initial teachings is not an extension of the Jews, but of the Buddhist... that the Gentiles hijacked, and used for selfish purposes. Nothing against all Gentiles, as I and my family are that too

 

Pritishd response= Where is your historical proof of your assertion? Do you know of any buddist monastry that existed in the area during the time of Jesus and Paul? Buddhism did not spread to the west, it spread to the East?

 

Amanda's answer now = Pritishd, I just want you to know that I'm really only interested in a friendly discussion with you. You know, exchange some ideas, present new perspectives... but I'm certainly NOT here to convert you to my ideas, that has NEVER been my intentions. I don't care how you believe... that's fine!

 

I do think that Jesus spent an extended period of time with the Buddhist. I see a lot of it in his teachings as I interpret it to be. You may not agree. Fine, many don't. However, there is also a very controversial book out about Jesus having lived there too. One site about this can be found here . It also goes on to suggest that after Jesus was crucified, he went to Kashmir... where he died at around 80 years old. I don't think Jesus raised from the dead, I don't think he died according to today's standards. That's IMO.

 

Pritishd from prior post= There are numerous anti semitic verses in the NT, and I am sure you are aware of them

 

Amanda's answer= I know there are many people that see them that way. I respect your perspective, yet how can the NT be antisemetic when it was written by semites, about a semite, mostly to semites? Do ya' think they practiced and worshiped self-hatred? Of course, many people got that same idea of an anti-semetic tone... namely Hitler... who may have been part Jew too! IMHO, there is no anti-semitism.

 

Pritishd, I think that the OT was written by people that had just come out of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, and about 9,000 years ago... a wheat mutated to make it possible for sowing and reaping more consistently. This made it possible for stable life rather than only nomadic. New stable civilizations now faced new issues, and the OT tried to address them the best they could. Were they totally right? No. Was it a start? yes. Having abundant wheat, food source, allowed them to ponder philisophical questions too. It was the 'cradle' of civilization, and we're growing... I hope... and with growth comes new issues and revisions. IMO, FWIW, there was nothing magical, it was all very natural.

 

I hope we can have friendly discussions. As I've said, nothings more important than that!

[SkepticOfBible]

Pritishd Thank you for your links. I have read them and they are an eye opener. I cannot hope to counter everything in them without a great deal of searching but I really don't want to counter them. I am not here to argue against all and sundry FOR Christianity, the reason i am here is because I have DISbelief in some areas of Christianity and am trying to work through my doubts and see where i end up.

 

That's a great attitude.

 

One of the good ways to removing doubt would to go and research the various viewpoint on the net(skeptical, mormon, catholic, protestant) on the issue on christianity. The more you listen the more learn.

 

I also recommend to you to join christian forums also, just be fair, and share your concerns there also.

 

Here is a link page which has list to a comprehensive and wide viewpoint

 

http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/links.htm

 

Plus here are some audio debates between atheist and theist

 

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyw...entiresite=true

 

Personally I recommend to you, two excellent debates

 

Gastrich vs Barker

 

Gastrich vs Krueger

 

You said

Exo 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death

And you gave an example of from the OT.

 

Are you upholding this law today and saying that anyone who works on a Sabbath (Saturday) MUST be stoned to death?

If you don't then what is that Law for and how do you uphold it?

 

First of all I would like to point it is not I saying that people shall be put to death for working on the Sabbath, it is the God of the OT/Jesus who saying who is saying so.

 

The short answer is no. I am not upholding this law. I am not Jewish nor am I christian.

 

My point was that there is an inconsistancy in the way christian apply the OT laws, which I pointed out.

 

Even you did the same. You said that the law was only the 10 commandments, and i said that even if you want to consider the 10 commandemts as the law, then it that case christian are not even following the 10 commandments, where it says that you observe the sabbath. Then you said "well , it doesn't matter when you do it".

 

But that is not so. The Sabbath was observed on a Saturday. Any Jewish/Christian site will tell you that

 

Catholic Encyclopedia - Sabbath

 

The seventh day of the week among the Hebrews, the day being counted from sunset to sunset, that is, from Friday evening to Saturday evening.

 

Well, you observe literally all the other ones, but why do you (and other fundamentalists) start flip flopping about this one.

 

So the question is why did the Sabbath change from a Satuday to a Sunday? Let's look at that again

St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5). The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day. (See SUNDAY.)

 

So first of all we see a man(Paul) not God who comes alongs and says "well the Sabbath doesn't matter anymore". So once again we have a good contradiction in the bible regarding god's absolute morals.

 

Secondly one would expect "aboslute" word of god influences the culture that they are going into, not the other way round.

 

Ironically we see that christians are changing the rules about the sabbath according to the customs and conviences of Gentile Converts(mostly followers of mithraism). This is exactly the sort of things that OT God told them not to do

 

Lev 20:23,26

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nations, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

 

 

Jer 10:2-5

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

 

These actions by modern day and earlyChristians laugh in the face of the instructions God gave in the Old Testament.

 

It's astounding how Christians will ignore what the Bible tells them when it conflicts with what they want to do.(BTW if you read carefully the above clearly prohits the celebration of christmas)

 

These same religious chameleons then proclaim and advertise to the world that they want to "serve God."

I suppose this goes for the animal sacrifice laws as well. I cannot relate but would be willing to learn and would be grateful of clarification ..

 

I think I addressed that with my response to Amanda

 

I respect your views. Any of my questions are not personal - i really hope they do not come across that way

 

Nope, and if you have any questions, you can PM me anytime

 

PS

 

Another great link for you

 

No True Christian

[thunderbolt]

I wonder if they have that Aramaic bible in English! Oh...I just found it. Cool.

 

OK... link us to the Aramaic bible in English. Thanks in advance.

Here is a link to the Aramiac Bible. Click

 

The non purchased version only contains some chapters. I am not sure if it's legal or not, but shoot me a private mail then I will mail you my login info for the full version.

[SkepticOfBible]

Hi Pritishd!

 

I wouldn't be surprise if you were an attorney!

 

Nope, I am just a simple 3d character animators, who is working for a christian animation studio. My head boss is a leading evangelist of this country and most of my coworkers are fundamentalist christians. Luckily they are not Americans, so they are bit different here.

 

If Jesus completely agreed with the OT, why would there even be a NT?

 

Amanda, please tell me who defines what goes in the NT?

You answer a question with a question my friend?

 

Well my answer is the same as SN.

 

All I am saying that OT says nothing about laws being going away, and Jesus sort of agreed with that.

 

It is Paul who is saying you don't need the law. This is the same Paul who never met Jesus, and who declared himself the greatest of prophets. He even had the audacity to tell the other apostles that they were wrong in the their interpretation about what Jesus said.

Laws are not as important as their purpose and intention.

 

But it doesn't mean you go ahead and break those laws.

 

Sure, Jesus does not come to do away with the law, but to do away with the literal interpretation of these laws,

 

Please show me verses of Jesus, where he says the above? And where does it say in the OT, that the messiah will do away the literal interpretation of the law?

 

Ro 7:6

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

 

Once again you are quoting Paul as if he is some sort of a prophet or expert on the OT.

 

And you never answered my second part of the question

 

Intent and purpose of these laws, instead of literal interpretation! WHY is the law, is more important than the words on the paper.

 

Where is it saying that in the verse in question?

 

These Pharisees broke these 3 basic tennants of the teachings of Christ... 1. be humble, no one is better or less than another... NO ONE. 2. Meek, have strength under a gentle nature, velvet steel. 3. to lead is to serve, have a servant's disposition.

 

Why should Pharisees give any credence to teachings of Christ, when he was a clear hypocrate himself. He certainly did not follow two of his teaching specifically no 1 and 2.

 

On one hand he condemns pharisees for not following the Tanach, and then on the other hand he will break the same laws.

 

A good example of his condemnation on the part of the pharisees for not implementing the whole testament law about the excecution of rebellious children. matt 15:4-9

 

And somehow this Jesus seems to be anti divorce too.

 

If you think Paul and his ilk were just cultivating a conspiracy to herd people into a deceptive direction and their intentions were totally narcissistic..

 

Well Paul was definately expecting a big reward. He even admitted he operated from expediency. He changed himself into whatever form helped him sell a story to potential converts,.

 

As Paul writes:

1 Cor 9:20-27

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

 

Another example of Paul expecting a reward:

2 Tim 4:8

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Clearly, Paul had no problem assuming any form which would help gain converts to his cause, and gaining converts meant Paul would receive a prize, even if it meant he had to lie for it.

 

Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. I think I must have hyperlinked a considerable no of sites, which proves my statement.

 

OK, I'll default on that. Maybe he isn't the Jewish Messiah. IDK. It isn't important to me, and I haven't spent much time in that area.

 

Well it certainly is important to many christian and also potentially for Robert.

 

Ghandi even said he liked Christ, but he didn't like our christians.

 

I am sure Gandhi never read the bible. He would puked if he read the OT.

 

Pritishd from prior post= There are numerous anti semitic verses in the NT, and I am sure you are aware of them

 

Amanda's answer= I know there are many people that see them that way. I respect your perspective, yet how can the NT be antisemetic when it was written by semites, about a semite, mostly to semites?

 

They were certainly not. We do know that most of the writings were directed to appease the Gentiles rather than Jews. As I have shown many times, the NT theology contradicts the OT.

 

For starters OT doesn't contain any of the following

 

1)baptism by water

2)Concept of Hell and Heaven as place where Souls will go in the afterlife.

3)The concept of the devil as pure evil and God being purely good.

4)The acceptance of sacrifice of divine/human being.

 

However the pagan/gentile religion were full of this, so they had no problem accomodating the new religion to their own, just like it is easy for a Hindu to accept jesus as God and still remain a hindu.

 

Do ya' think they practiced and worshiped self-hatred?

 

If you look at acts, the Jews are certainly potrayed as meddle makers and openly vilified

 

http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/Acts13.htm

[SkepticOfBible]

I am sorry for the last post. It seems messy.

[Ziggy]

pritishd I wonder if i can ask you a few more questions on where you stand? I was going to send you a personal message but then i thought maybe there are others who have the same questions. Hope you don't mind

I admit i thought you were Jewish (that fact that you are not makes no difference of course). It wasn't the links and verses showing the NT was contradictory to the OT - It was the fact that you seemed to me to hold a strong view that the OT laws etc were actually correct and these were one of your beliefs. Do you understand my confusion - ie There were two parts to my understanding of your views and links. A - to show the NT was inconsistent and that Christian beliefs were too.

B - To Show positively that the OT was correct

 

Now you have said that you are not Jewish and do not believe in the OT laws.

 

So I think I have picked you up wrong so i wonder if you can clarify what you do believe - if anything? If that is not too personal of course .. in which case case just ignore me but i am interested.

 

I did join a Christian forum also but its frustrating because they don't let you post to most of the forums unless you are totally Christian. The few you can post to you can only update until you have 100 posts ... Seems like they are trying to keep nonchristians out.

 

Anyway maybe will try your links

Thanks

[Lycorth]

I find the illogicality of the Jesus story to be one of the Bible's biggest contradictions, as pritish was touching on above. Basically, where was Jesus when this happened and that happened? Moreover, where was Jesus when Adam and Eve sinned and brought death into the world through sin? Wasn't Jesus supposed to come and erase all that? So why wait thousands of years from the sin of Adam and Eve to come to earth and give us the "good news" and all that? Why didn't Jesus get his ass down here on the double and die right then and there to save us all?

 

Or better yet, why did Jesus even have to come anyway? Couldn't Biblegodzilla just snap his fingers and offer humanity forgiveness if they will just believe in him? Why all the hullabaloo and virgin births and miracles and spiritual red tape? I mean, isn't sending Jesus down here to do what Biblegodzilla could do from heaven like going to New York by way of China (as my father would say)?

 

Or even better still, why even create a being who an all-knowing god knows will become a devil which will tempt humanity and lead them into sin and cause all this mess in the first place? Or, why just not be rid of the devil the moment he started his rebellion? Isn't Biblegodzilla strong enough to do that? If so, then why play games by letting such a evil being run amok and endanger the souls of his "precious" creations?

 

Overall, the Bible's biggest contradiction is it's main story. A god who does not destroy a supremely dangerous being, then makes humanity and lets said being tempt and ruin untold billions of them, then go through a complicated and easily disbelieved process of coming to earth in human form to undergo a homemade ritual to free humanity from this being without ridding us of this evil devil. The Bible is it's own contradiction.

[Antlerman]

Overall, the Bible's biggest contradiction is it's main story. A god who does not destroy a supremely dangerous being, then makes humanity and lets said being tempt and ruin untold billions of them, then go through a complicated and easily disbelieved process of coming to earth in human form to undergo a homemade ritual to free humanity from this being without ridding us of this evil devil. The Bible is it's own contradiction.

This all so very true, and entertaining to watch the literalists try to make a cohesive story arch to make it all work together as a single truth. Entertaining, to watch the heights of mental gymnastics people are willing to go to in order to make it fit what they preconceived it should be!

 

If they were to just stand back from it, and accept it as a bunch of cave paintings of a bunch of different cave artists, that got chiseled out, thrown into a big pile, then puzzle pieced together by a bunch of idiot priests trying to make a system to use for controlling others... then the overarching story now makes solid sense!

[Lycorth]

That's what Xianity is, after all. It's not about peace on earth, it's not about showing us foolish mortals how to have peace and prosperity in our lives, it's not about anything other than the beliefs of the fanatics who followed and deified this Jesus of Nazareth person. It's about everything I said, including the odious concept that if you don't become Jesus' biggest fan you will burn eternally as punishment.

 

The Bible is its own contradtiction, and when rationally examined, Xianity is its own worst enemy. I wonder how many have dumped Xianity because they studied it? I know I am one of those folks.

[SkepticOfBible]

pritishd I wonder if i can ask you a few more questions on where you stand? I was going to send you a personal message but then i thought maybe there are others who have the same questions. Hope you don't mind

 

Off course not.

 

I admit i thought you were Jewish (that fact that you are not makes no difference of course). It wasn't the links and verses showing the NT was contradictory to the OT -

.......

Do you understand my confusion - ie There were two parts to my understanding of your views and links.

A - to show the NT was inconsistent and that Christian beliefs were too.

 

Or more precisely that theology of the NT is inconsistant with the theology of OT. Hopefully over the course of time I will be able to show you that. Off course if I do make a mistake do tell me about it.

 

B - To Show positively that the OT was correct

 

No and I am sorry if I ever gave you that impression

 

Actually if you look at what I saying, it is the fundie christian who is making that claim.

 

On a personal level I also do not think that OT laws are perfect, and when I read the details of these laws, I just cannot believe such laws can come from a compassionate and just god.

 

The above site was the first skeptical site I saw. It shows all the absurd laws and attrocities of the bible in a very humorous way

 

Now you have said that you are not Jewish and do not believe in the OT laws.

 

http://www.noreligion.ca/readEssay.php?eid=1

 

So I think I have picked you up wrong so i wonder if you can clarify what you do believe - if anything?

 

Now that’s sort of thing I am still figuring out. I prefer to call myself an agnostic who more agrees with Deism/Panentheism philosphy of God.

However I consider myself a atheist when it comes to the major religion in the world, just like you are athestic attitude towards other religion

 

I did join a Christian forum also but its frustrating because they don't let you post to most of the forums unless you are totally Christian. The few you can post to you can only update until you have 100 posts ... Seems like they are trying to keep nonchristians out.

 

I think they do have a section specially designed for skeptics and non-believers. Perhaps you can pose your question. And while you are there, please do check out the FAQ of the other sects of christianity like Catholic and Angilican

[Ziggy]

Hey Notblindedbythelight / OM...

Was one of you going to start a thread relating to Bible translation issues?

 

If so i am interested ..

 

Now that’s sort of thing I am still figuring out. I prefer to call myself an agnostic who more agrees with Deism/Panentheism philosphy of God. However I consider myself a atheist when it comes to the major religion in the world, just like you are athestic attitude towards other religion

 

Hmm pritishd we are not too far apart then although I know you consider me Christian. If I was on a Christian forum some of them certainly would seriously doubt my christianity due to my disbelief in many of the Christian fundamentals

 

Not sure what you mean by an Athesitic attitude to other religions. You mean I don't believe what they believe is true at all but i have some beliefs in Christianity?

 

If that is the case then its not really true.

I believe there is some spiritual truth in the bible that is as real and relevent today as it always has been. What exactly that is I'm not sure but its not open ONLY to Christians. I do believe that IF there is a God then as long as someone thinks about / prays to that God in the right way inside themselves then it does not matter whether they call that God Allah, Buddha, God or Jimmy - Its the same thing.

 

So whatever doubts I have towards other religions i have with Christianity but I feel there is some common basic truths in all (or most) that are NOT rule based - either OT or NT

[Ouroboros]

Robert, this is how I saw when I deconverted (and still see it, if there is a supernatural entity) that "all religions are wrong, but all religions are right."

 

And what I mean is that if there is a God, then all religions have some truth in them about God, but in the same token, none of them have the full or single truth about God.

[Open_Minded]

Hey Notblindedbythelight / OM...

Was one of you going to start a thread relating to Bible translation issues?

 

If so i am interested ..

 

Hello Robert....

 

I've thought about your invitation all morning

 

If I were going to start a thread, it wouldn't just be about interpretation issues. The earliest writings about Jesus were in Greek, but he spoke Aramaic. There are some very early gospels in Aramaic as well. That is one issue.

 

But, for me, the bigger issue is a multi-layered understanding of Jesus. Within our group - because of interfaith discussions - I have become aware of many different understandings of Jesus. This is what I am pursuing in my own learning right now.

 

For instance - Neil Douglas-Klotz who interpreted the Lord's Prayer from the Aramaic Gospels is one example. Neil was born Christian, with heavy exposure to Judiasm. He now considers himself Sufi (the mystic offshot of Islam). When we study the work of Neil Douglas-Klotz we are getting a cross-cultural exposure to Jesus, specifically an understanding that is compatable not only with Christianity, but also with Sufism and even a bit of Jewish wisdom.

 

I've also become aware - because of interfaith dialog - of writings about Jesus by Hindu masters. The one master that comes to mind is Paramahansa Yogananda. He wrote a book titled He is a contemporary writer - dying in the middle 1900s.

 

THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST: The Resurrection of the Christ Within You

A revelatory commentary on the original teachings of Jesus

 

One member of our group was raised Christian, but has studied Hinduism extensively. He tells us that there are many parallels between Hinduism and Christianity. Hinduism is a much older religion (I believe it's the oldest documented religion in the world). There is evidence of much borrowing on the part of early Christians from Hindu traditions. This interests me. Why did the followers of Jesus borrow from a neighboring religion, how did this impact the early interpretation of Jesus Christ????

 

I do believe Jesus was an actual person. But one needs to separate - as far as is possible - fact from tradition in reading the gospels. Asking why were the earliest stories of Jesus written the way they were is very valid. It tells us much about the way the earliest followers of Jesus saw him.

 

Another layer that would be interesting to study is the understanding of Jesus through the Gnostic Gospels and other Gnostic Writings. I've done some studying on this, but there is much more to do. What little studying I've done has convinced me that early Christianity was very diverse and that there were those who did not view the cross in a literal way.

 

Then there are the writings about Jesus from world religions such as the Baha'i tradition. How do they view him and why do the view him the way they do. The more recent writings about Jesus from other traditions - add to the layering. The Baha'i tradition is a very new world religion - but I've enjoyed what writings I've read from them - about Jesus. It adds another dimension to the picture, that's all.

 

I guess what I'm saying Robert, is that this area of study is so new to me, I'm afraid I couldn't knowledgeably participate in a threaded discussion around these issues. Give me a few months to get my head around some of this stuff, then maybe I'll feel in a better position to have the discussion

[SkepticOfBible]

Hmm pritishd we are not too far apart then although I know you consider me Christian. If I was on a Christian forum some of them certainly would seriously doubt my christianity due to my disbelief in many of the Christian fundamentals

Don't get intimidated by the so called "christian fundamentals". There is no such thing. As you will notice in your future interaction Christian Fundamentals" change from christian to christian. They can't even get their core basics down even after 2000 years. Two links which illustrate that.

 

 

Dueling Christians

Two Path - Honest Bible Study

 

Not sure what you mean by an Athesitic attitude to other religions. You mean I don't believe what they believe is true at all but i have some beliefs in Christianity?If that is the case then its not really true.....then it does not matter whether they call that God Allah, Buddha, God or Jimmy - Its the same thing.

 

But never the less you will draw the line somewhere. I am pretty sure you don't believe in scientology

 

Please don't get offended, but I see a lot of my older self in you. It seems that you confuse pluralism vs tolerance. It is only when I indirectly interacted with christians that I understood the difference.

 

Pluralism vs Tolerance

 

The Myth of Tolerance - Not All Views Are Equal

 

I don't believe in pluralism but I do believe in tolerance.

 

However I must warn you that the bible is not tolerant of religion. That is one continues message throughout the bible. In the OT if you had the wrong belief, you would be killed in this life

In the NT it's even worse, because if you have the wrong belief you will be tortured forever for having the wrong belief.

 

I believe there is some spiritual truth in the bible that is as real and relevent today as it always has been.

 

I agree with, but the so called "spiritual truth" is not limited to just the bible.

And don't forget what one consider spiritual truth is considered false by another. So to certain spiritual truth are quite subjective.

 

What exactly that is I'm not sure but its not open ONLY to Christians. I do believe that IF there is a God then as long as someone thinks about / prays to that God in the right way inside themselves

 

What is the right way to pray? Who defines that?

 

Did you notice the major reason why religion conflict with each other is because each of the followers think that they have the right /only true way to pray?

 

 

I've also become aware - because of interfaith dialog - of writings

about Jesus by Hindu masters. The one master that comes to mind is

Paramahansa Yogananda. He wrote a book titled He is a contemporary

writer - dying in the middle 1900s.

 

THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST: The Resurrection of the Christ Within You

A revelatory commentary on the original teachings of Jesus

 

One member of our group was raised Christian, but has studied Hinduism

extensively. He tells us that there are many parallels between

Hinduism and Christianity. Hinduism is a much older religion (I

believe it's the oldest documented religion in the world). There is

evidence of much borrowing on the part of early Christians from Hindu

traditions. This interests me.

 

I would say that Early Christians did not borrow their theology from Hindus, because as former hindu I can say that the theology of hinduism and christianity is quite different.

 

I mean off course you will find similarity between the two, but that can be said of any two religion.

 

I would rather go ahead and say that christianity is mix of judaism and a bit mixed Greek(Pagan?) religion or whatever it was called at that time. It is greek religion you will find the concept of hades/hell and the concept of a devil, and the concept of everlasting life.

 

Why did the followers of Jesus borrow

from a neighboring religion, how did this impact the early

interpretation of Jesus Christ????

 

Well off course they are gonna borrow it from the competiting. They were packaging the product for the market.

 

The gentiles were not interested in the various complicated jewish laws. Paul just got rid of the law, so that it was easier for them to convert to christianity. You can see Paul debating over the circumsicion with the other apostle which is just one of the eg of the Jewish complicated.

 

The sabbath is another good example where the christianity was adapted to accomodate the needs of the local market.

 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/theology_paul.htm

 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/paul_problem.htm

 

 

I do believe Jesus was an actual person. But one needs to separate -

as far as is possible - fact from tradition in reading the gospels.

Asking why were the earliest stories of Jesus written the way they

were is very valid. It tells us much about the way the earliest

followers of Jesus saw him.

 

Another layer that would be interesting to study is the understanding

of Jesus through the Gnostic Gospels and other Gnostic Writings. I've

done some studying on this, but there is much more to do. What little

studying I've done has convinced me that early Christianity was very

diverse and that there were those who did not view the cross in a

literal way.

 

Yup that's true. Some of them are kind of wierd and some of them are funny. One of the most funniest one is the Gospel of Phillip. There is this verse there which says that that Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth and loved her more than all the disciples.

 

"...the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended... They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us? the Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as I love her?"

- Gospel of Phillip

 

There you guys. Jesus gone wild. Woohoo.

 

Jokes apart, many of the other "heretical" Gospel deny the resurruction

 

 

Then there are the writings about Jesus from world religions such as

the Baha'i tradition. How do they view him and why do the view him the

way they do. The more recent writings about Jesus from other

traditions - add to the layering. The Baha'i tradition is a very new

world religion - but I've enjoyed what writings I've read from them -

about Jesus. It adds another dimension to the picture, that's all.

 

I am not too impressed with the Baha'i religion. They do the same thing that christianity and Islam does, eg they take many verses out of context and try to manufacture prophecies out of them, and then say that only their leader could have done this.

 

In other words the Baha'i religion stinks of revisionism

 

They also tend to ignore other stipulation that are required that are required so that they are considered to be fulfilled.

 

baha'i Prophecy

 

So in my books they are also a example of false religion, because they are using decepted methods to lure their converts

[Ziggy]

I guess what I'm saying Robert, is that this area of study is so new to me, I'm afraid I couldn't knowledgeably participate in a threaded discussion around these issues. Give me a few months to get my head around some of this stuff, then maybe I'll feel in a better position to have the discussion

 

No problem OM! Will look forward to it

Part of the reason i asked is that our church has started a discussion group about issues that cannot be raised in Church because they are too contentious. The first one is next week and is about Bible translation and the reasons behind why we cannot take everything in the bible literally.

I was hoping to get some fuel for the fire!

[Open_Minded]

I would say that Early Christians did not borrow their theology from Hindus, because as former hindu I can say that the theology of hinduism and christianity is quite different.

 

I mean off course you will find similarity between the two, but that can be said of any two religion.

 

I would rather go ahead and say that christianity is mix of judaism and a bit mixed Greek(Pagan?) religion or whatever it was called at that time. It is greek religion you will find the concept of hades/hell and the concept of a devil, and the concept of everlasting life.

 

Hello Pritshd.... I agree. I was just making broad statements about things that would be interesting to discuss. Specifically in regards to the links between the Christian story and Hinduism I was referring to the links between the stories of Jesus and Krishna.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm

If the events in Jesus' life that appear to come from Krishna were eliminated as invalid, then most of the key Christian beliefs about Jesus would have to be abandoned: his virgin birth, incarnation, sinless life, crucifixion, descent into Hell, resurrection, ascension to heaven. Criteria for salvation, belief in the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible, the inspiration of the authors of the Bible by God, etc. would also have to be rejected.

 

Of course all this has been debated for years... it would be interesting to delve deeper and see how people come to these conclusions.

 

Why did the followers of Jesus borrow from a neighboring religion, how did this impact the early interpretation of Jesus Christ????

 

Well off course they are gonna borrow it from the competiting. They were packaging the product for the market.

 

The gentiles were not interested in the various complicated jewish laws. Paul just got rid of the law, so that it was easier for them to convert to christianity. You can see Paul debating over the circumsicion with the other apostle which is just one of the eg of the Jewish complicated.

 

The sabbath is another good example where the christianity was adapted to accomodate the needs of the local market.

 

Yes, this is true. But - on a deeper level - what did the earliest followers of Jesus experience that they felt the need to borrow, or "package" the product? Why did a tradition of such stories even develop? The earliest story tellers must have experienced something to feel a need to borrow from the different traditions.....

 

Pritishd ... these are rhetorical questions right now. I don't know that it's really possible to find an answer. They are more mussings on my part than a search to find concrete answers. I mean - it's not possible to find out the concrete facts surrounding the conception of Christianity. If Jesus lived... he left us no writings of his own. His followers lived in a culture that routinely built supernatural stories around their leaders, both political and spiritual. So... we are left with what grew out of that culture. Do you know what I mean

 

I think that's why I like the gnostic writings so much... they remind me that early Christianity was not uniform, or as simple as the literalists would have us believe

 

When all is said and done... I've learned that sometimes the answers are the questions Sometimes we can't always have the concrete answers and we are left with some provocative questions.... and that is OK

[Open_Minded]

No problem OM! Will look forward to it

 

Part of the reason i asked is that our church has started a discussion group about issues that cannot be raised in Church because they are too contentious. The first one is next week and is about Bible translation and the reasons behind why we cannot take everything in the bible literally.

I was hoping to get some fuel for the fire!

 

Ahh... I'm sure Pritishd is giving you lots of ammunition More than I could at any rate

 

In regards to your discussion group. Congratulations... just starting a group like this is a big step.

 

The meditation group I'm in, started meeting in the spring of 2001. It took some time, but by the spring of 2004 our congregation accepted us enough to make room for a meditative/interfaith service.

 

If enough Christians (all over the world) start these types of small groups in mainstream Christian communities, then over time we will have our own impact on the maturation of Christianity.

[Ziggy]

Please don't get offended, but I see a lot of my older self in you. It seems that you confuse pluralism vs tolerance. It is only when I indirectly interacted with christians that I understood the difference.

 

I'm really impressed now .. are you saying you can see me in your FUTURE self!

sorry I did understand what you meant

 

The pluralism / Tolerance thing is interesting.

I don't believe all religions are right so i don't think I am pluralist I am tolerant because i see all people as Humans irrespective of the religion or lack of and don't think they are damned because of their differences.

I also need to see everyone in the same way - they all have the same hopes and aspirations and spiritual opportunities as me.

 

 

 

OM - regarding this dicussion group I'll let you know how it goes. Its on the 5th Feb. Its basically Christian but I'll be looking for areas they are not honestly dealing with! I don't think i could hit them with all pritishd's documents at once But some of them will come in handy

[SkepticOfBible]

OM - regarding this dicussion group I'll let you know how it goes. Its on the 5th Feb. Its basically Christian but I'll be looking for areas they are not honestly dealing with! I don't think i could hit them with all pritishd's documents at once But some of them will come in handy

 

Please, could you do me a favour? Could you atleast mention about the history of the canon and ask them which is the right ones?

 

I think I have given you links on that.

 

PS: Make sure you listen to those internet debate. They will give tons of material to talk about.

[Ziggy]

Please, could you do me a favour? Could you atleast mention about the history of the canon and ask them which is the right ones?

 

hi Pritishd If the history of the canon is is relevant to people today discussing translation / literacy issue of the bible can you repost the link or tell me which one you are referring to ? Thanks

[SkepticOfBible]

hi Pritishd If the history of the canon is is relevant to people today discussing translation / literacy issue of the bible can you repost the link or tell me which one you are referring to ? Thanks

 

Sure,

 

Different Biblical Canons of the World

Books of The Different Bible

Who Decided What Went In The Bible

Textual Intergrity of The Bible

Biblical Canon of The World

 

And here some more interesting links

 

How we got the Bible

An interesting debate between Catholic and Protestant. The Catholics seem to have a upper hand here. I like to see protestant christians responds to some of the questions catholics ask in this blog

 

Mary Worship

Just illustrates how two christian who claim to be filled with the holy spirit can't even agree on the interpration of the same book.

 

Dueling Christians

A debate between a Trinitian and a Non trinitian about whether god is a trinity or not. The following quote from the above page

 

Christians have had almost 2,000 years to get this fundamental issue straight and they just can't do it, despite having the guidance of the "Holy Spirit" which they claim to be filled with