Christians can't stand the biblical God

[Wertbag]

Christians will say that God is first in their lives and they give themselves to His will and yet the modern image of God is nothing like the biblical version. The war god of the OT had no qualms about crushing his enemies, striking down those who annoy him, setting capital punishment laws, codifying slavery, cursing those against Him, demanding animal sacrifice, restricting womens rights and killing those who stood in His way. The bible talks of His followers being "God fearing" and as history shows they had no problem carrying out horrific acts of violence in His name.

 

Jump to the modern era and we have this hippy all-loving, all-good turn the other cheek, equality loving, God of all people. The difference is jarring. You have modern Christians saying we are all made in Gods image so are all of equal value, while OT God is giving laws to kill witches, homosexuals and disobedient children, while leading armies with instructions to wipe out every living thing in the cities they conquered. 

 

This leaves apologists in the position of trying to reinterpret the bible to match modern morality, having to either deny slavery, genocide and hate crimes or justify such things as actually good.  It wasn't slavery, it was all indentured servitude (ignoring the verses about beating your slaves, they being purchased or given as inherited property etc). They weren't killing innocent people but demon worshipping baby killers (ignoring the fact the Christians murdered the babies too).

Its a thin veneer of civility over ancient violent peoples beliefs. The hypocritical view of Muslim groups like the Taliban, while ignoring that their own side held identical views a few centuries ago. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

That inconsistancy between the OT and NT god was one of the first things I noticed as a young adult. 

[TABA]

Nobody can truly stand the biblical god because the biblical god cannot exist, given the contradictions in the nature of god as presented in various part of the scripture, both between the testaments and within each one. Everybody who believes in this god has to make choices, whether they admit it or not.  You can only truly believe in some subset of the scriptures.  Either the vengeful god who encourages rape and slavery, or the god who urges believers to turn the other cheek.  Either the god who requires only the simple faith of a child or the one who spits out of his mouth those who are insufficiently zealous.   And on and on.  
 

No longer having to determine which teachings are essential to avoid eternal damnation, and which were only tailored to their long-ago era, that is one of the great benefits of no longer being Christian.  

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Heck, these days they seem to prefer the 10 commandments over the sermon on the mount. Jesus isn't a corporate leader in a business suit, so all of that "sell all you have and give to the poor and then come follow me" is revolting to them. "Take up your cross and follow me" is WAY too painful, so how about another monument to the 10 commandments or Noah's ark? 

[walterpthefirst]

30 minutes ago, Fuego said:

Heck, these days they seem to prefer the 10 commandments over the sermon on the mount. Jesus isn't a corporate leader in a business suit, so all of that "sell all you have and give to the poor and then come follow me" is revolting to them. "Take up your cross and follow me" is WAY too painful, so how about another monument to the 10 commandments or Noah's ark? 

 

Would there be any point reminding these 'Christians' that they are under the New Covenant of Jesus's blood and not under the Old Covenant of the Law of Moses?

 

Probably not.

 

 

They just don't want to hear that under the New Covenant they are to forgive their enemies and pray for them.

 

They won't turn the other cheek as per the New Covenant but are happy to take an eye for an eye, as per the Old one.

 

Not wanting to be peacemakers, how under the Old Covenant can they be called Sons of God?

 

If they won't give mercy to others as per the New Covenant, how can they possibly receive mercy from god under the Old one?

 

 

They call themselves Christians but there's not much of Christ to be found in their lives.

 

 

 

 

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I was heartened to talk with my brother-in-law who is a fundamentalist, but an actual believer. He rejects the notion of politics bringing in the kingdom of god, and rejects the malice he sees so commonly from the nationalists. If you're going to believe, do it well. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Not wanting to be peacemakers, how under the Old Covenant can they be called Sons of God?

 

Hey!  War and conflict is more profitable for the corporations who supply the war industry.  And they just happen to be the ones funding the christian nationalist.

[older]

On 3/10/2024 at 8:16 PM, Weezer said:

Hey!  War and conflict is more profitable for the corporations who supply the war industry.  And they just happen to be the ones funding the christian nationalist.

  

A quote I can't find the source for:

"War brings profits to the merchants, glory to the generals, and death to the privates."

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, older said:

  

A quote I can't find the source for:

"War brings profits to the merchants, glory to the generals, and death to the privates."

HOW TRUE!  All paid for by our taxes. 

[Ushiromiya_Battler]

Damn, this is an excellent point/thread. The MaGAts (I Call the MAGA people MAGAts/Maggots because they're no better then fly larva that eat crap but I am getting off subject.. forgive me for the tangent.) have a very perverted view of God, Jesus and Christianity in general. Especially because these people support a dumbass like Trump...who is the FARTHEST thing from Christian/Christ Like as you can get. But MAGAtz are sheep and don't think for themselves.

 

So no, they don't believe in God except a gun toying, racist, discriminatory fascist supporting "God." They use God as an excuse to spread their bigotry and hatred, pass book bans in schools (I have more to say about this in my own up coming thread soon and it's related to my newly converted Catholic dad because he said something stupid today), passing bigoted legislation (restricting LGBTQ+ rights/etc), etc, etc. 

 

Oh and let us not forget "religious liberty." This is where they become the most hypocritical of all. They say they want "religious freedom" yet they want to use said "religious freedom" acts to restrict women's rights, the rights of minorities/LGBTQ+ people, and many that do not align with their so called "Christian values."

 

So they just want freedom to use Christianity to discriminate and be above the law...whereas TRUE religious liberty is letting people believe and practice their faith however they want and not using said religion to discriminate... But that's in an idea world that sadly isn't this one. 

 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Forgive my language but these hypocritical people bug me to put it nicely. 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

8 hours ago, Ushiromiya_Battler said:

So they just want freedom to use Christianity to discriminate and be above the law...whereas TRUE religious liberty is letting people believe and practice their faith however they want and not using said religion to discriminate... But that's in an idea world that sadly isn't this one. 

 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Forgive my language but these hypocritical people bug me to put it nicely. 

That IS putting it nicely. I understand your frustration. Me too.

 

TED talks should be so lucky. 

[pantheory]

On 2/22/2024 at 11:03 AM, Wertbag said:

Christians will say that God is first in their lives and they give themselves to His will and yet the modern image of God is nothing like the biblical version. The war god of the OT had no qualms about crushing his enemies, striking down those who annoy him, setting capital punishment laws, codifying slavery, cursing those against Him, demanding animal sacrifice, restricting womens rights and killing those who stood in His way. The bible talks of His followers being "God fearing" and as history shows they had no problem carrying out horrific acts of violence in His name.

 

Jump to the modern era and we have this hippy all-loving, all-good turn the other cheek, equality loving, God of all people. The difference is jarring. You have modern Christians saying we are all made in Gods image so are all of equal value, while OT God is giving laws to kill witches, homosexuals and disobedient children, while leading armies with instructions to wipe out every living thing in the cities they conquered. 

 

This leaves apologists in the position of trying to reinterpret the bible to match modern morality, having to either deny slavery, genocide and hate crimes or justify such things as actually good.  It wasn't slavery, it was all indentured servitude (ignoring the verses about beating your slaves, they being purchased or given as inherited property etc). They weren't killing innocent people but demon worshipping baby killers (ignoring the fact the Christians murdered the babies too).

Its a thin veneer of civility over ancient violent peoples beliefs. The hypocritical view of Muslim groups like the Taliban, while ignoring that their own side held identical views a few centuries ago. 

 

I think that Jesus of the Bible would approve of communism, but not the dictatorial versions of it that exist today. His so-called Turn-the-other-cheek sentiment was certainly not the Old Testament version of behavior or religion. I also don't think biblical Jesus would have approved of any of the world governments today, If not a teacher or preacher, I think he could be on welfare in our society, or maybe even in a mental institution.

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I think that Jesus of the Bible would approve of communism, but not the dictatorial versions of it that exist today. His so-called Turn-the-other-cheek sentiment was certainly not the Old Testament version of behavior or religion. I also don't think biblical Jesus would have approved of any of the world governments today, If not a teacher or preacher, I think he could be on welfare in our society, or maybe even in a mental institution.

 

 

These examples of how the early church handled money and property sound like socialism to me.

 

Acts 2 : 42 - 47.

 

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 

43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 

45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 

46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 

47 praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

 

 

Acts 4 : 32 - 35

 

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 

33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 

34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 

35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

 

 

Instead of living in this fully-committed way many modern day Christians practice tithing, which is derived from the Law of Moses in the Old Testament.  Well, doing that is biblical, isn't it?  So that means god must be pleased, right?

 

WRONG!

 

Once again the awkward question that present day Christians don't want to answer is...  Which covenant are they under? 

 

If they are Christians then they are under the New Covenant of Jesus' blood and not under the Old Covenant of the Law.   To return to anything of the Law is to reject the New Covenant in favour of the Old.  It's either/or.  It's not mix and match according to taste.  It's one or the other, not both.  You are either saved from your sins by the Blood or condemned of your sins by the Law.

 

So, given the likes of the Prosperity Gospel and Mike Murdoch's money-minded ministry, I'll let Jesus have the last word on Christians and their money.

 

Matthew 6 : 24

 

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

I think that Jesus of the Bible would approve of communism, but not the dictatorial versions of it that exist today. His so-called Turn-the-other-cheek sentiment was certainly not the Old Testament version of behavior or religion.

I think it would have worked had it not been corrupted by power/money. Those forms of social engineering(?) collapsed because of the concentration of that power to the top, enough to have all the say in the population's lives, the nation's resources, financial markets and everything else, in my opinion. And as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

26 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

These examples of how the early church handled money and property sound like socialism to me.

 

Acts 2 : 42 - 47.

 

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 

43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 

45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 

46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 

47 praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

 

 

Acts 4 : 32 - 35

 

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 

33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 

34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 

35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

 

 

Instead of living in this fully-committed way many modern day Christians practice tithing, which is derived from the Law of Moses in the Old Testament.  Well, doing that is biblical, isn't it?  So that means god must be pleased, right?

 

WRONG!

 

Once again the awkward question that present day Christians don't want to answer is...  Which covenant are they under? 

 

If they are Christians then they are under the New Covenant of Jesus' blood and not under the Old Covenant of the Law.   To return to anything of the Law is to reject the New Covenant in favour of the Old.  It's either/or.  It's not mix and match according to taste.  It's one or the other, not both.  You are either saved from your sins by the Blood or condemned of your sins by the Law.

 

So, given the likes of the Prosperity Gospel and Mike Murdoch's money-minded ministry, I'll let Jesus have the last word on Christians and their money.

 

Matthew 6 : 24

 

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Well done Walter! This is a nice expansion of your earlier point. 

And since we're at it.....

Another thread discussing these disparities between the 'old' god and the 'god' of the new testament brought this early christian history to my attention. Hierophant mentioned Marcion, a 2nd century  christian influencer (for lack of a better word, since it looks like a bunch of people were competing to get in on the growing hierarchy). This is all before Constantine in 325. Apparently the christians were duking it out from the beginning, as Weezer says "nit pickin' and hair splittin'. 

 

Here's a quote from the article Hierophant has on the thread, from the New World Encyclopedia. 

 

Marcion of Sinope (ca. 110-160 C.E.) was a Christian theologian who was excommunicated by the early church at Rome as a heretic; Nevertheless, his teachings were influential during the second century, and a few centuries after, thus forming a counter-point to emerging orthodoxy. Marcion played a significant role in the development of textual Christianity by forcing the various churches to debate the nature of the biblical canon and to delineate its contents

 

So if any of you learned gentlemen would enlighten me about the earliest christian history we know of I would definitely appreciate it. New threads highly welcome as well as any newcomer's comments! 

 

[TABA]

14 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

So if any of you learned gentlemen would enlighten me about the earliest christian history we know of I would definitely appreciate it.

Since no learned gentleman has stepped forward, you’ll have to settle for me for now.   I do know that the very early history of Christianity is a complicated story of competing beliefs, about the nature of the New Testament god - whether he was the same as the Old Testament god - and the nature of Jesus - to what extent he was divine and/or human.  Very basic doctrines that the churches would like us to believe were never in dispute.  There were numerous Gospels, apostolic letters and even Apocalypses that were claimed to be divinely-inspired scripture, some of which made it into the Bible and some of which did not make the cut.  It was all rather chaotic and points to the very human origins of the Christian religion.  
 

Bart Ehrman has written a lot on the early decades and centuries of Christianity and I highly recommend his books.  You can get much of his material free on his YouTube channel and audio podcast, “Misquoting Jesus”.  This Wikipedia article covers this early phase of Christianity and looks like a good place to start…

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology#

 

 

[pantheory]

18 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

I think it would have worked had it not been corrupted by power/money. Those forms of social engineering(?) collapsed because of the concentration of that power to the top, enough to have all the say in the population's lives, the nation's resources, financial markets and everything else, in my opinion. And as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

 

 

It's true that all forms of government are corrupted by power struggles and money. But IMO communism and socialism alone do not work well for a big society. Why? Because the necessary incentives to work your very hardest and be extremely creative are not there.

 

For example, I was in Cuba during the late 90's when Americans were not allowed to go there. I came in from Mexico, it wasn't hard and no one was paid off. As an American, I flew in from Mexico to Cuba on a Russian passenger airplane.

 

In Cuba twice a month ,there were very long lines of people on welfare, generally everyone, doctors and ditch diggers etc. I was told

they all got the same allotted paycheck (money). All who worked legally worked for the state. The difference was that the doctor had a  state owned car for himself, and a state provided apartment for himself and family etc. Otherwise the paychecks to everyone were the same. Yes, the state provides free education. but only  the very best students can become a doctor or high-level professional  -- who goes to school 6 years longer than those who do not and can't become a high-ranked professional. And then your paycheck is the same as the girl who sells pencils on the corner. For this reason the bribe system and black-market economy is very strong and "healthy." The reason is, IMHO, that communism does not work on a large scale.

 

I've been to both China and Russia. More than half of their economy at both the local and government levels seem to be capitalistic and socialistic in form. Today capitalism is deeply entrenched within their governments. That's why their systems now works IMHO. Most of Europe and Asia have socialist forms of government with capitalism mixed in, Nearly all governments today allow private and personal property. Without this feature any large governmental system will eventually break down IMO. Human nature generally will not allow or follow a system of government that does not allow for private property -- and the incentives needed to work very very hard to make ones life better.

[Ushiromiya_Battler]

On 3/31/2024 at 11:40 PM, moxieflux66 said:

That IS putting it nicely. I understand your frustration. Me too.

 

TED talks should be so lucky. 

Oh thank you...I appreciate you taking the time to say that. l could have been a lot more nastier in that initial post but I try to be civil to a degree where I can and think about what I say. That being said...

 

╭─────── ☁︎ ☪︎☁︎───────╮

 

Me when having to deal with fake ass Christians or dealing with my dad talking about "his faith" or hearing my brother going on about biblical crap: 

 

I have been wanting to write some kind post talking about this and my complicated feelings toward Christianity and the Bible and whatnot. This past easter was a very complicated one for me.

 

My dad got confirmed as a Catholic...(I'm happy for him since that is his choice) however I noticed he has becoming a bit more... judgemental than usual...he's always been judgmental since he kinda has that narcissistic personality type and he has (kind of) mellowed out over the years...but I diguress. 

 

Anyway I noticed my dad just leaning way more into the bullshit of the Bible and the Catholic view point on Jesus and such. When I attended the Saturday night Easter vigil and Easter service on Sunday, I couldn't help but feel... uncomfortable.... especially when everyone said certain "prayers/words" together like they're a hive mind (like the Borg from Star Trek) and it just...sent a chill down my spine. 

 

I'm not judging these people. I'm just merely making a record of my observations....I also was creeped out and went quiet when they said they "prayed for elected officials that uphold religious freedom" and something about drawing on the power of the church/"God", or something to that effect.

 

And me being a stealth trans guy in my father's Catholic Church and knowing what kind of "religious freedom" they mean (basically using their "religion" as an excuse to discriminate and make themselves above the law and not the religious freedom for people to believe however the hell they want to.) I'm thinking (and maybe this is a stretch but maybe not) that the people in my dad's church probably want Christian Nationalism in the United States.

 

Basically some Hand Maiden's Tale type shit (women,/minorities being treated as second class citizens as one example, wanting to return to the "good old days" and wanting to take away the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, etc. Alot of these and similar things are outlined in their Project 2025 manifesto. Point is, this shit is bad and the people pushing this fascist shit don't actually believe in Jesus or God but use God as a way to install fear into people.)...

Yeah just...No...fuck that shit. 

 

Especially with that whole Project 2025 being a thing and the thing they want to enact if Trump happens to win another term as president...(which I don't understand why he is still allowed to run, given he's commited heinous crimes, money problems, dodging taxes, hush money to p0rn stars, and who knows what the fuck else) but yet his MAGAt base keeps supporting him. (I can't tell you how many "fuck Biden flags I've seen...well it's just been one ina neighborhood that isn't far from where I live but still ...it gives me the fucking creeps..) 

 

In conclusion, I don't think these people actually believe in what Jesus or God actually stand for. I'm not calling myself a devout believer because I'm not. I even side with atheist points once in awhile...So yeah Christianity/My dad's church creeps me yeh fuck out. he told me I could get confirmed as a Catholic but that was a huge red flag for me. and I don't want to be apart of something that wouldn't tolerate me being trans....yeah hard no on that. 

 

This Easter was hard for me...it was very uncomfortable...again happy for my dad becoming Catholic... but yet I have many reservations about it... mostly like I felt an uncomfortable energy around him and his house..I don't know if that makes sense...but maybe it does...I just hope he doesn't revert to misgendering/deadnaming me. 

 

That's all I wanted to say for now. Thanks for reading. 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

7 hours ago, TABA said:

Since no learned gentleman has stepped forward, you’ll have to settle for me for now

Well TABA, I had you in mind as one of the Learned so you will do very nicely. Thank you! 

 

This topic definitely warrants its own thread if anyone should be so bold. Since the oranges of it are so mysterious!

 

7 hours ago, TABA said:

Very basic doctrines that the churches would like us to believe were never in dispute.

This is sort of what I want to get at. This is the assumption that christians today operate under, trying to pretend it was always so seamlessly 'inspired' by god, when in fact, in as little as 100 years there were too many cults with too many differing beliefs that the central headquarters, the Church of Rome was gathering opinions in order to form a consensus about Jesus, right? The Church was new, a prototype, and didn't really have much that was universally agreed upon. 

 

Of course since all of this is new to me I will absolutely watch (finally) Bart's videos. I usually can't sit still during a whole movie and/or fall asleep during it (as old folks tend to do) but do you have a preferred episode in mind or should I start at the beginning?  

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

It's true that all forms of government are corrupted by power struggles and money. But IMO communism and socialism alone do not work well for a big society. Why? Because the necessary incentives to work your very hardest and be extremely creative are not there.

 

I believe my mentor argued the same thing, i.e. it's just not 'human nature' to work a government that way. I believe it would take an overhaul of the system that would remove disincentives to working. And there are many in addition to the human nature argument, mainly having to do with human behavior. Again I think that warrants its own thread. 

Any takers? 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Everything I've seen so far seems to indicate that what Marcion claimed, that the OT god and NT god were different gods. This got him excommunicated from the proto-church in Rome. That was 140ish, correct? What was going on BEFORE that? 

 

If the movement itself was 'given birth' would it have been at the ascension, with the admonition to spread the gospel? Were there 11 disciples to do that (given Judas removed himself from the gang)? If 11 men went out to spread the good news, not even having writing from the Master to go on, what happened? 

 

Please someone tell me how all these books came about that had to be included or excluded in the canon to begin with. In 100 years, a lot can happen. 

 

 

[pantheory]

17 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

Everything I've seen so far seems to indicate that what Marcion claimed, that the OT god and NT god were different gods. This got him excommunicated from the proto-church in Rome. That was 140ish, correct? What was going on BEFORE that? 

 

If the movement itself was 'given birth' would it have been at the ascension, with the admonition to spread the gospel? Were there 11 disciples to do that (given Judas removed himself from the gang)? If 11 men went out to spread the good news, not even having writing from the Master to go on, what happened? 

 

Please someone tell me how all these books came about that had to be included or excluded in the canon to begin with. In 100 years, a lot can happen. 

 

 

 

The story goes that Nero tortured Christians in the Colosseum, The fact is that Nero didn't even know what a christian was other than another kind of Jew. Nero was fed up with the Jews in Israel and Judah and prejudiced against them practicing their religion in Rome, about 68 AD. They were rebelling in Israel and Judah and costing Nero a lot of money, soldiers etc. Most of the Jews in Rome were smart enough to denounce their religion in public if questioned, but many Christians did not, many of which were not converted Jews. That was the cause of the execution of many of them.

 

There is no acknowledged evidence for any of the disciples spreading the word. Supposed writings of the time involved Paul and James, the supposed brother of Jesus. And the written gospels were not known before the 3rd century, although 'the word' (stories) were verbally spreading. There are some references to Peter, but none of the supposed writings during the lifetime of a supposed Jesus exist today or have been acknowledged as original. An excellent biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman considered an atheist, has argued for the existence of a Jesus-like person, separate from his miracles and resurrection.  Others who he debated questioned the real existence of a single Christlike person, miracles and resurrection aside.

 

I don't think there was a basis other than consistency, and non-contradiction, and maybe politics that played a role in what was finally included in the Cannon. The Catholics believe it happened in the 4th century, but many believe it was never set until the 11th or 12th century, and even then there was much opposition and contrary thinking to the Cannon of the time. Not until the invention of the printing press, 1430's,  was it necessary to come to a consensus agreement about the cannon.

 

If it wasn't for the mother of Constantine,  a poor woman at her birth, Christianity might be no more than a footnote in history today.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

57 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Their is no acknowledged evidence for any of the disciples spreading the word

This is what I found on worldhistory.org concerning early christianity: 

 

 Many Jews did not believe that Jesus was the expected Messiah, but to the surprise of these apostles (messengers), Gentiles (pagans) wanted to join the movement. This unexpected occurrence raised questions of inclusion: should these pagans become Jews first, entailing circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance? At a meeting in Jerusalem (ca. 49 CE, The Apostolic Council), it was decided that pagans could join without becoming Jews. However, they had to observe some Jewish principles such as draining blood from meat, sexual morality, and the cessation of all idolatry (Acts 15). By the end of the 1st century, these Gentile-Christians dominated the Christianoi (“the followers of the Christ”).

 

Sounds to me like they were just looking for enough recruits to get the 'new' religion off the ground! But don't you think it's sort of odd his own disciples didn't spread the lord's word themselves? Or at least there's no record of it??? Sure, maybe they weren't literate enough to write anything but wouldn't it be important enough to transcribe Jesus's words to SOMEONE who could? 

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

I don't think there was a basis other than consistency, and non-contradiction

Is that why it took hundreds of years (and counting), to try to make it consistent and non-contradictory? The bible's history just gets more and more distorted....

 

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

If it wasn't for the mother of Constantine,  a poor woman at her birth, Christianity might be no more than a footnote in history today.

You know what they say about who's standing behind every great man, right? 

[pantheory]

"You know what they say about who's standing behind every great man, right? "

 

That idea is now a little old-school. Woman can make it on their own all the way to the top, even to President, and don't have to have a man. True, in house chores, strength and wars, men are naturally stronger, but women no longer need men IMO, and visa versa. Most just want them as companions, sexual and otherwise.

 

Sticking with my quote above, IMHO if it wasn't for Constantine I don't think Christianity would exist today in any form. Also Mohammad, as a "profit" of the future," copied the ideas of  Christianity, so the Muslim religion might not exist either. Since most people are generally ignorant IMO, there would still be religions today, but I believe they would be different ones. 

 

btw, nice posting above   I learned from it  

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

That idea is now a little old-school. Woman can make it on their own all the way to the top, even to President, and don't have to have a man. True, in house chores, strength and wars, men are naturally stronger, but women no longer need men IMO, and visa versa. Most just want them as companions, sexual and otherwise.

I wasn't at all suggesting that women can't stand on their own (now) or even before (Queen Elizabeth I of England?). Perhaps our mothers, grandmothers and more distant relatives are a metaphorical 'standing behind'. Standing before might have been a better term. 

 

Better? 

 

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

Sticking with my quote above, IMHO if it wasn't for Constantine I don't think Christianity would exist today in any form. Also Mohammad, as a "profit" of the future," copied the ideas of  Christianity, so the Muslim religion might not exist either. Since most people are generally ignorant IMO, there would still be religions today, but I believe they would be different ones. 

My opinion is that once the Roman government surrounding the year 140 CE realized this xtian sect was too enduring to rub out, they made a Devil's Bargain and appropriated it for the sake of order and manipulation. Historical digging already suggests to me that at the time of Jesus, a lot of political hubbub and unrest was going on and there were 'several' apocalyptic cults circulating from the tension between Jews and Romans. These cults meant to rally support to call on God (Jewish god) to strike their enemies (Rome) down and it was getting to the point of insurrection (sound familiar?).  

So to appease the masses, a composite of all the religions were thrown into the bargain, what appears to be a buffet of everything for everybody. 

But I'm not done researching yet.