Topic: Christian BS - page 10. (Read 12748 times)
I've always wondered how Christians come to terms with books or sections lost, censored, and/or banned by early Catholics. The Bible's known to be incomplete, so how can someone take a leadership role of moral authority if the moral authority comes from an incomplete ruleset?
Look up the Gnostic texts, it's a whole new series that the Christians had tried to get rid of
It's hard enough keeping the Word pure when translating into different languages. We are blessed that God guided a lot of honest scholars to keep all that "junk" from being added to the Scriptures.
The best part is when they "translate" things so it looks like "Oh, gay people don't get stoned under Biblical law. The Hebrew word was 'fondled'"
Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if
religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.
-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.
We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.
Actually, we only keep the moral rules from the OT. religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.
-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.
We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.
In our beliefs Jesus made a new covenant on the cross, so the OT is... outdated.
But, Jesus isn't God and the Bible/your law is supposed to be God's word. I don't get it, I don't know of any scripture that says you should listen to the NT over the OT, or to listen to Jesus' law. And, since he made a new covenant, wouldn't you be disobeying the old covenant, too?
What if, since there's not publishing date of the Bible, the NT was published before the OT?
The Old Testament of the Bible was written over a period of about 1,100 years, roughly between 1,500 and 400 B.C. Jewish traditions and the writings of the church fathers of old confirm this. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain parts of Bible books that were placed there as early as 400 B.C.
Jesus, Himself, says that He is God, the Son of God, in the New Testament. Jesus' close disciples state the same, and others have understood it as well. Traditionally, the church says the same, way back near its beginnings.
The Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament. The thread of the Messiah, Jesus, runs throughout the OT, right from the beginning. Believe in God according to the New Testament. Confirm your faith by the writings of the Old.
The Books of Moses - the first 5 books of the Bible - were/contained a covenant between God and the people of Israel. The people of Israel broke this covenant over and over. The evidence of this is in the rest of the Old Testament.
The New Testament is the new covenant between God and man, since people would not keep the old covenant. The new covenant (NT) exists in the body of the God/man, Jesus Christ. In this way (combining God and man in Jesus), and for His own purposes, God forced the covenant to be kept by man, even though individual people will not do it. It was done in the body of Jesus by the perfect life that He lived before God, and by His innocent suffering and death, and resurrection to everlasting life.
I've always wondered how Christians come to terms with books or sections lost, censored, and/or banned by early Catholics. The Bible's known to be incomplete, so how can someone take a leadership role of moral authority if the moral authority comes from an incomplete ruleset?
Look up the Gnostic texts, it's a whole new series that the Christians had tried to get rid of
It's hard enough keeping the Word pure when translating into different languages. We are blessed that God guided a lot of honest scholars to keep all that "junk" from being added to the Scriptures.
I've always wondered how Christians come to terms with books or sections lost, censored, and/or banned by early Catholics. The Bible's known to be incomplete, so how can someone take a leadership role of moral authority if the moral authority comes from an incomplete ruleset?
Look up the Gnostic texts, it's a whole new series that the Christians had tried to get rid of
^Baha'i?
the true religion of Islam and the Koran and religious enhance previous books, in the Qur'an, it is mentioned that as a complement religion and book in advance then derive the Islamic religion and the Koran as a guide to human life, hopefully we can all take a lesson from all of these events ... 
What I got out of it recently was that He died so that no one else would have to necessarily die like He did for Man to change the lives around us in as meaningful a way as He was written to do, i.e. because He died(/lived)for us, we too now know how to be/live/die like Jesus. I haven't read the Book of John yet but I was told that Jesus's true mission is explained therein.
The final answers are in the Revelation. But watch out! It is literal and figurative mixed. You have to watch for the hints when it is changing from one to the other.
The simple jist of the Revelation is, this universe is going to be destroyed in a lake of fire. All evil will be destroyed therein, as well. While it doesn't say it at all clearly, the lake of fire is God "melting" down everything in this universe so that He can get His "energy" back out of it.
There will be a new Heavens and a new Earth. No evil will be allowed to enter. The saved will be there with God forever, in joy and glory.
All the rest of the Bible has to do with the method to get to the new Heavens and the new Earth. There are examples of how people and circumstances will try to hinder you. There are examples of how you can bring other people to be saved so that you stand a chance of receiving "extra" glory in the new Place. God's Spirit actually comes into your heart more firmly as you study the Bible.
What I got out of it recently was that He died so that no one else would have to necessarily die like He did for Man to change the lives around us in as meaningful a way as He was written to do, i.e. because He died(/lived)for us, we too now know how to be/live/die like Jesus. I haven't read the Book of John yet but I was told that Jesus's true mission is explained therein.
Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if
religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.
-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.
We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.
Actually, we only keep the moral rules from the OT. religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.
-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.
We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.
In our beliefs Jesus made a new covenant on the cross, so the OT is... outdated.
But, Jesus isn't God and the Bible/your law is supposed to be God's word. I don't get it, I don't know of any scripture that says you should listen to the NT over the OT, or to listen to Jesus' law. And, since he made a new covenant, wouldn't you be disobeying the old covenant, too?
What if, since there's not publishing date of the Bible, the NT was published before the OT?
Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if
religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.
-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.
We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.
Actually, we only keep the moral rules from the OT. religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.
-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.
We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.
In our beliefs Jesus made a new covenant on the cross, so the OT is... outdated.
But, Jesus isn't God and the Bible/your law is supposed to be God's word. I don't get it, I don't know of any scripture that says you should listen to the NT over the OT, or to listen to Jesus' law. And, since he made a new covenant, wouldn't you be disobeying the old covenant, too?
What if, since there's not publishing date of the Bible, the NT was published before the OT?
Look at the profound thoughts of Lethn in all their glory. Next think you know he'll be walking on water, while simultaneously turning it to wine.
Fortunately, unlike Jesus, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can ignore the laws of physics.
To quote Aesop Rock, you've got alot of nerve.
Look at the profound thoughts of Lethn in all their glory. Next think you know he'll be walking on water, while simultaneously turning it to wine.
Fortunately, unlike Jesus, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can ignore the laws of physics.
Look at the profound thoughts of Lethn in all their glory. Next think you know he'll be walking on water, while simultaneously turning it to wine.
The thing I don't get is, why some Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously when you bring up the errors (Such as rules for when you're able to rape, diet, etc.) of the Bible. The New Testament obviously has many, too, but most people poke over those. When questioned about the Old Testament, some will brush it off and say, "That's why it's old."
I thought God wanted all of his word taken seriously?
----
Anyway, guy's right:
That's basically saying that things that were written into the bible were considered moral by the people they were written, even if they were "inspired by god." But with time, we as people realized ourselves that those things are not actually moral, despite the bible and "god" telling us they are. So if we can figure out what's more moral than what god tells us, and are rejecting his version of morality already, then why do we need god?
We of course wouldn't kill a family and the last person left would become our slave. In those days, they thought it was of course moral.
I thought God wanted all of his word taken seriously?
----
Anyway, guy's right:
Anyone who follows the Bible literally is an idiot because you have cultural relativism into play. All of those teachings while relevant in the respective society that was taught in, should not be viewed literally in contemporary society.
That's basically saying that things that were written into the bible were considered moral by the people they were written, even if they were "inspired by god." But with time, we as people realized ourselves that those things are not actually moral, despite the bible and "god" telling us they are. So if we can figure out what's more moral than what god tells us, and are rejecting his version of morality already, then why do we need god?
We of course wouldn't kill a family and the last person left would become our slave. In those days, they thought it was of course moral.
Why is that a paradox? Or rather, what is the paradox?
I suppose it's only a paradox if you consider it a paradox. I myself as a young sapling always wondered why we exist.
this is an interesting link I went to when spurred by your question:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-paradox-of-existence.119/
Why is that a paradox? Or rather, what is the paradox?
Jump to: