Here it is, another one of Fei-on's threads about Christianity.
I'd first like to say that I'm not against Jesus or his teachings. I find them to be a good guide for living a happy life.
My beef lies with the organized relgion that is Christianity.
You see, Christianity's primary holy book is the Bible, most notably, the New Testament, which is a compilation of shaky texts written by authors that may/may not have existed, with a lot more bias than Penn and Teller.
For example, even today, a lot of higher ups in various branches of Christianity are disputing the credibilty of several NT epistles. They're not even sure if a few of them were actually written by Paul!
Furthermore, Jesus Christ, or Y'shua Benyosef, as his name actually is said, he was an important man with a huge following. Do you really believe that only 4 accounts of his life were recorded? And if not, then would the other accounts have corroborated the accounts we have in the Bible? Did the four authors of the gospels even know Jesus, or were those 4 of the many, many accounts that were penned after his death by people that didn't know him based on accounts provided by his followers?
Y'shua's followers believed he was an important guy, so they obviously are going to embelish his accomplishments. Several accounts of Y'shua's life that didn't match the four in the NT were destroyed, and others were hidden away so that no one would ever find them.
But we've found a few of them!!
We found the Gospel of Thomas, an actual disciple of Y'shua, who knew him personally and hung out with him everyday.
This gospel describes Y'shua as a frail and flawed human. In one instance, he is arguing with a boy on a rooftop as to whether or not he was G*d. Y'shua pushed the boy off the roof, killing him, went down from the roof, ressurected him, and then said, "See, I told you I was G*d."
Not a very divine G*dly picture we see of the Messiah there.
There are other accounts as well, but I won't get into them now.
And there's another point. The word "Messiah", or "Meshiach", as it's said in Hebrew, is abused. It doesn't mean g*d, the son of G*d, or any kind of divnity. The Messiah was supposed to come and change things up. He was supposed to free them from Rome and return the old Kingdom of Israel. At the time of Y'shua's life, the Jews were a tortured, miserable people. They needed someone to come along and overthrow Rome. When this guy appeared with some revolutionary ideas, they hoped this would be the guy.
You may note that when Y'shua stands before the Council of Pharisees, one asks him, "Are you the Messiah?", and Y'shua simply replies, "It is you who say that I am."
This makes me think that perhaps he never meant to say that he was. Maybe it was a label that the Jews placed on him out of dispair and desire for a leader. Maybe he was saying, "Look guys, I never said I was. That was what you all wanted me to be."
Another interesting point is that of Barabbas, the "murderer". He was imprisoned by whom? Rome, of course, which meant he killed a Roman. My guess is that Barabbas was a revolutionary who was trying to revolt, and was imprisoned as a murderer. When the people gave Y'shua away to die, and asked for Barabbas to be released, it's probably because Barabbas was more likely to be their Messiah, since he actually killed Romans and made an effort. It's not likely that the Jews demanded that Barabbas be released if he was walking around raping and murdering other Jews. And if he were, he probably wouldn't have been in a Roman Prison because the Romans themselves went around raping and murdering Jews.
So maybe all that stuff I just wrote is BS. Maybe. Maybe the New Testament is/was G*d inspired and is the real deal.
But let's consider this. About 300 years after Y'shua died, a group of guys in Rome who knew little about him as a person decided which book would be used to establish a canon of his teachings, and the teachings of his followers, like Saul, who for no reason at all suddenly becomes Paul.
Do you think these guys were doing what "G*d" wanted them to? Or what Caesar wanted them to... Christianity encourages turning the other cheek, not revolting against Caesar. So when Christianity is spread throughout Rome, a wave of pacifism engulfs a lot of people, strengthening Caesar's grip on the people.
Ahh, the Romans. They killed Simon Peter for being a Christian, and now he's revered as being the first pope of the Roman Catholic Chuch!
The Romans didn't stop there! Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs sometime to read how many millions of innocent protestant folk were brutally and inhumanly murdered at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. One stunning account vividly depicts a 10 year old girl who is arrested, raped, and then rotisseried. Another account is about a "handsome young woman" named Martha Constantine. She was raped, then the soldiers cut off her breasts, and allowed her to simply bleed to death. They fried her breasts up and then served them as a meal.
Also, compare the names of the Roman Catholic Saints to the names of Roman Pagan ***s. It seems to me that they took Roman Paganism, and mixed it with Christianity to form Roman Catholicism. Classy.
But let's disregard that bit. Maybe the New Testament established at that point was G*d inspired and Holy and Perfect.
Then a few hundred years later, a guy named Martin Luther decides that they're not okay, and removes a few more books from the Bible, establishing the canonical Protestant Bible, which is what you'll find a church these days.
So then a few hundred years later, a guy named King James decides that it's high time that Englishmen read the Bible in English. He commisions that translation of the King James Bible, which is still widely used today. But here's an interesting thing. In the New Testament of a KJV Bible, or any subsequen version, you'll find the book of "James", which is named after King James!!! He changed the name from "Ya'kov (Jacob)" to "James" so he could get his dirty fingerprints on Christianity's holy book!
G*d would be pleased, I'd say.
Any of you ever research Gnostic Christianity? It was very prevalent around the middle east shortly after Christ's death. However, it was a more practical down-to-earth Christianity that followed the valuble lessons that Y'shua taught, rather than the stupid hopes of those who followed him. But, Gnostic Christianity didn't thrive because it didn't have the celstial appeal of the dominant sect of Christianity.
Maybe G*d is real the way the Christians belive. I can't say for sure, but if I were G*d, I'd be mighty upset that so many people just assumed that their Bibles were pure and holy. I mean, G*d did give us the gift of reasoning, did he not? And so many Christians choose not to utilize it. It's the most remarkable gift that G*d has given us, and most Christians will never use it at all. They'll just assume that their pastor is credible and that the Bible isn't torn and rewritten by various people...
Y'shua told a parable about a man who was only given one talent. The man was afraid of losing his only talent, so instead of investing and multiplying it, he buried it.
If you Christians are right, that means that G*d created us. And when he did, he gave each and everyone of us a tremendous talent. Don't bury it; invest and multiply it. Don't be afraid to question G*d, or your pastor or anyone else in the church. You have the power to question things, an ability that Bible claims is unique to humans. Use this mighty gift and seek out the truth.
...
Having said that, bring on the criticism!!!!
I don't think it's debatable that there was a lot of politicking and power struggles over early Christianity. I also don't think it's debatable that there was a careful selection by victorious factions in what became canon and thus got perpetuated, what was massively spun and distorted, and what was simply strenuously suppressed and discredited.
The counterargument that's usually made is that these other texts are less numerous and later dated, but surely this actually proves the argument. Some might be the ravings of madmen and fringe cults, but surely not ALL. The fact that there's less records of many of the "apocryphal" texts, far from illustrating their inaccuracy or irrelevance, pretty much directly reflects the fact that people back then tried to make sure these records didn't survive and get perpetuated.
*shrug*
I agree with you 100%, Arwon.
A Christian would say that G*d had a hand in on the various revisions of the Bible, and claim that it is still "Holy" because of that.
I think that if humans have free-will, G*d couldn't have had a hand in on it because he's not allowed to intervene in the free-will of humans. Obviously, these men weren't voluntarily surrendering their bodies as vessels for the Lord's work, therefore, it's logical to assume that their motives were not "G*d's" motives.
I like the clever way you took stuff that people already knew and rephrased it. BRILLIANT
there are major flaws in every religion. The difference is finding a way to accept them and process them while still having faith if one is so inclined. I'm pretty sure we'd all be atheist anarchists who'd never leave the house. It's a matter of common sense, faith, and moderating ones zeal. But keep on your crusade against Christianity. It's kinda cute, and frankly, I view it like I view ultra-annoying zealots of conservatism, marxism, liberalism, technology, christianity, judaism, pop culture, gossip, revolution, che ****ing guevarra, Islam, etc etc etc. I'll read em, skim for stuff I don't know already (which there rarely is with people spouting off about such things) and take them with a grain of salt and a spoonful of the realization that it's the work of people with (who knows why) an agenda, the desire to butt into and change the things other people hold sacred, and too much time on their hands while not taking into account they're not really saying anything profound, and it'd be interesting to see them go up against someone with the letters P.h.D after their name.
and for the record, I know more people who think life is pointless simply because they are going to DIE, not because Jesus will come back some day.
BJ, I totally support that. You're completely right. I could come up with some stupid retort and try to debate what it was that I was saying, but I'd rather just be straightforward and say that we'll agree to disagree.
I know there are those who will never be convinced that what I'm saying is true. I understand that, too. They need to believe the way they do. Without it, they'd have nothing to look forward to. They feel like they don't have the strength or power themselves, so they ask G*d to give it to them. In reality, the strength is coming from within, and they just credit it to G*d, even though it was their own doing. But they feel better believing that some guy is up there and that he's looking out for them, no matter what.
Some people need that. I don't. And I'm trying to help other realize how to find strength from within rather than relying on "G*d". The first step to that is accepting that it's your responsibility and that you can't just ask G*d to do it for you.
The people who are set in their ways won't be swayed by anything I say because, well, they're set in their ways. And that's fine. I just wish they'd be a little more open-minded and realize that Jesus might not come back as soon as they hope.
If people choose to be Christian, that's fine. But you're gonna have to do it based on faith. Don't try to find evidence because it's not there. And don't claim to others that it's definitely and absolutely true because you only believe based on faith, not evidence. Therefore, if it is true, it's the least likely of scenarios. So that blessed assurance is actually self-delusion. You trick yourself into believing this stuff because you want it to be true, so badly.
That's fine with me, though. The world will move on, as it always does. I won't be here by that time, but I'm glad to know that it's coming, either way.
Whats the bible's view on eating animals?
Depends if you're Jewish.
[quote=Fei-on]Obviously, these men weren't voluntarily surrendering their bodies as vessels for the Lord's work, therefore, it's logical to assume that their motives were not "G*d's" motives.
Some pastors(and other "regular people," too) do pray for the Holy Spirit to speak through them. That's what speaking in tongues is all about. So the people were just regular people who recieved a kind of enlightenment and wrote down the words. They all wanted to, or that's what everyone's told. It makes sense to me. /shrug
That bit about Christains disregarding the Old Testament's covenants about eating and all that:
Jesus himself said that the old ways weren't needed anymore(since he was about to die, fulfill the prophecy, thus forming the new covenant which didn't include those laws). Yeah, that's basically it.
As for the texts that aren't in the Bible right now, I'd love to see them all. I wish they were more readily available, though, as the only extras I've ever gotten my hands on are the two books that are in the Catholic Bible that aren't in the Presbyterian one. I didn't even have time to read those thoroughly.:( I plan on hunting down books sometime that give me those other texts.
Way too much for me to even think about reading. Anyway, keep that in mind that I didn't read this. I don't find relegion of any importance. I guess I am very confused on the matter. My family is mainly Protestant. I don't even think about religion though. I think it's a bit stupid to pray to some almighty being that may not even exist.
man I love pork