My Problem With Christianity

[CriminalMindsRocks]

Its not following Christ's teachings. Because frankly, not many Christians actually follow Christ's teachings and most of the bullshit that comes from the religious right is because God apparently said so. Not Jesus.

Ahh, but there's where you're wrong, God & Jesus were one in the same, Jesus was God in the form of man.

Deut chapter 6 verse 4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

[CriminalMindsRocks]

I am now imagining a huge winner take all All religions involved tournament.

Buddha just bodyslammed Kali, while Christ use's his cross like a Bo, while facing off against Thor and his hammer.

And it is glorious.

And ya wanna know the best part, I know who wins

[Gravekeeper]

Ahh, but there's where you're wrong, God & Jesus were one in the same, Jesus was God in the form of man.

But that would make Jesus a bipolar raging asshole and thus not worth listening too...... -.-

[Mytical]

Just standing opposed to what Mytical is claiming. Seems like a large claim... What I find humourous about that claim however is it is suppost to be "shocking".
I'll be shocked, Mytical, if you can back that claim that Jeebus is more than a man. Burden of proof is on you.

Won't lie. I'm eager for a response.

Why would the burden be on me, somebody who is not a christian? Note, I never once claimed to be a christian, just to respect their beliefs. So why would I try to prove something I am not sure I personally believe? In fact to me, if he was 'just a man' if he did half the things claimed..it would be more impressive..not less.

[CriminalMindsRocks]

But that would make Jesus a bipolar raging asshole and thus not worth listening too...... -.-

err ok & why do you say that? You ever heard the name Godhead Trinity? That what it means, God The Father, God The Son & God The Holy Spirit

John 10:30 "I & My Father are One"

[KabeRinnaul]

And I would point you straight back to the exact same website where it immediately contracts everything good it states, God breaks near every commandment and kills practically everyone for the slightest provocation and Jesus totally backs him up.

I was just saying it was definitely in the Bible. I never said the book was in any way internally consistent. If it was, we probably wouldn't be having a discussion on what "being Christian" means in the first place.

Though strictly speaking, anyone who accepts that Jesus had the authority to speak for God (so basically anyone who accepts that Jesus is the son of God and follows his teachings) should be defaulting to Christ's teachings when his message and that of his Father (particularly the Old Testament stuff) conflict. That's the whole point of that Last Supper bit (take your pick of Matthew 26, Luke 22, or Mark 14) - that his teachings represent a new way, separate from the old laws and God's covenant with Israel.

Of course, that only covers a specific class of inconsistencies, and there's no guarantee that there would be no contradictions even in that set.

[Iseeyouthere]

snip

Apologies. I thought you were claiming that Jeebus was more than a man.

[Gravekeeper]

err ok & why do you say that? You ever heard the name Godhead Trinity? That what it means, God The Father, God The Son & God The Holy Spirit

I say that because God is, objectively speaking, a bipolar lunatic in the Bible. Also, yes I'm aware of the Holy Trinity. However, belief in the trinity is not universal to all Christians either.

I was just saying it was definitely in the Bible. I never said the book was in any way internally consistent.

And all I said was that if its in the Bible, its contradicted by the Bible itself.

Though strictly speaking, anyone who accepts that Jesus had the authority to speak for God (so basically anyone who accepts that Jesus is the son of God and follows his teachings) should be defaulting to Christ's teachings when his message and that of his Father (particularly the Old Testament stuff) conflict.

But that's putting Jesus above God and Jesus defers to God constantly while demanding total obedience to God of his followers. Jesus states himself states, several times, that his teachings are not his own, but that they come from God. Plus it opens up the issue of why is God such a dick and why is Jesus morally superior to God. Seeing as God kills everyone for practically everything and calls for unbelievers to be killed. He even calls for killing people that work on Sundays for crying out loud. Was God just having a rough patch in the Old Testament but finished his AA meetings by the New Testament? Plus Jesus gets all vengeful wrathish in latter books of the New Testament and is suppose to return from Heaven to reign utter destruction on everyone that doesn't know God and isn't obeying him.

Fact of the matter is that Jesus did not set out to create Christianity. He set out to reform Judaism. The Bible, in actuality, does not actually cover much about the life of Jesus. Only hitting a couple of the "big moments" and then covering the week up to his crucifixion. It was also compiled some odd 300 years after his death by a commitee and many other documents, including other Gospels ( Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, the Infancy Gospels of Matthew and Thomas, etc etc ) were not included or out right rejected because they didn't fit the "story" they were trying to put together. Revelations was include because it essentially seemed like a good ending. But it was considered very controversial and there was much arguing over its inclusion.

Meanwhile, Islam and Judaism, who both have much more direct from the source Holy text I might add, have a different perspective on Jesus. They both agree Jesus was a teacher and Islam hails him as a prophet just like Mohammad. Both of them reject claims of Christ's divinity. The Quran even goes so far as to say that Jesus rejected these claims himself and will straight up tell you that when he shows up on Judgement Day.

Sura 5:116 - "And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden."

It also rejects stories of his crucifixion:

Surah 4-157 - "That they said in boast, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"

( Islam teaches that Christ skipped straight to the ascension to Heaven part and was not conquered by the evil of men. )

In Islam, Jesus was a prophet sent to guide the Jews ( and is in fact mentioned more by name than Mohammad in the Quran really ) who was given a Gospel from God to teach. This is why Islam isn't too fond of the Bible. Islam considers the Bible to be tainted by human hands because of how it was composed and edited to fullfill the goals of man instead of God.

So whose right here? The two other religions with whom Jesus is also deeply intwined that say he was a teacher and/or a prophet? Or the one religion that pieced together a shambles of a book 300 years after his death based on what they thought sounded like a good story that would uphold the church? -.-

[CriminalMindsRocks]

Also, yes I'm aware of the Holy Trinity. However, belief in the trinity is not universal to all Christians either.
-.-

You're right there, those Christians who believe in the Trinity (the belief that God is 3 different people) are called Trinitarians, while those who believe God, Jesus & The Holy Spirit are one Lord are called Unitarians

I fall into the second catagory btw

[Rageaholic]

I say that because God is, objectively speaking, a bipolar lunatic in the Bible.

Yeah. When taken literally, the relationship between god and man is abusive. Despite what my opening post my imply, I wasn't raised in a fundamentalist home (Moderate Catholic). But since I was exposed to fundamentalism, I actually went through a phase when I thought that was what Christianity was about. I probably should have paid more attention at church...

But that's putting Jesus above God and Jesus defers to God constantly while demanding total obedience to God of his followers. Jesus states himself states, several times, that his teachings are not his own, but that they come from God. Plus it opens up the issue of why is God such a dick and why is Jesus morally superior to God. Seeing as God kills everyone for practically everything and calls for unbelievers to be killed. He even calls for killing people that work on Sundays for crying out loud. Was God just having a rough patch in the Old Testament but finished his AA meetings by the New Testament? Plus Jesus gets all vengeful wrathish in latter books of the New Testament and is suppose to return from Heaven to reign utter destruction on everyone that doesn't know God and isn't obeying him.

There are so many interpretations of Jesus though. You can take some Bible verses and he's talking about loving your neighbor, but then another one he talking about how not many people will find heaven. Of course, those verses have many interpretations too so it's hard to tell.

But either way, my point still stands, being punished in the afterlife for not following god in this life is a dick move on god's part.

[KabeRinnaul]

And all I said was that if its in the Bible, its contradicted by the Bible itself.

I think that statement might actually work as a general case, too.

Was God just having a rough patch in the Old Testament but finished his AA meetings by the New Testament?

Well, that should be obvious from the fact that the New Testament is about his son. Clearly, he got laid.

Or the one religion that pieced together a shambles of a book 300 years after his death based on what they thought sounded like a good story that would uphold the church? -.-

Well, for the most part the OT is the same as what was in use during the first century, aside from the Apocrypha for Catholics. Then, the Gospels seem to be pretty legitimate for the most part, except for their authorship. They were probably secondhand accounts referencing the primary sources. After that, yeah, the books get pretty shaky.

[Gravekeeper]

There are so many interpretations of Jesus though.

Yes, I'm just pointing out that technically speaking the majority of interpretations of Jesus ironically deny him being the son of God and those interpretations are from unaltered source material.

But either way, my point still stands, being punished in the afterlife for not following god in this life is a dick move on god's part.

No argument here.

Well, for the most part the OT is the same as what was in use during the first century, aside from the Apocrypha for Catholics. Then, the Gospels seem to be pretty legitimate for the most part, except for their authorship. They were probably secondhand accounts referencing the primary sources. After that, yeah, the books get pretty shaky.

The Gospels aren't though. The Gospels contradict each other. The Apostles change Jesus's words to suit themselves. They disagree over who and what Jesus was. They disagree on how the same events took place, where the events took place as well as when they took place. They even disagree on what Jesus taught and why. The Gospels are a total mess.

The Bible is, even as a theological reference, pretty piss poor because it was put together by a commitee trying to market it to an audience. No one thought to hand it to an editor for a check over.

[Mytical]

Now this is just my opinion, I am no expert by any means, but the differences in the old testament and the new actually makes sense. Things were harsh during the times of the old testament. Conditions, life, etc was hard. So tougher rules/laws/etc were needed for survival. It may seem cruel to us now, but we were not there .. and God (assuming he/she exists) knew 'tough love' was the only way that we would make it through.

Still, its not fun being the 'bad guy' all the time (ask any parent that has to constantly be the bad guy to their child, telling them no, etc)..so as time went on and things improved..god finally knew it was time to lighten the rules a little. IE humanity had gotten a bit older..and now needed a curfew past 10pm. Problem was..unlike most parents he couldn't just say "Hey kids..I'm going to try to lighten the rules a bit to see how you handle it" he had to send somebody who could act as an interpreter. Thus Jesus.

He tells Jesus the new rules, jesus passes them on, things get a bit better. The rules are not quite so harsh. Again..this is just an opinion as to why the differnce..and one that makes some sense.

[Gravekeeper]

Now this is just my opinion, I am no expert by any means, but the differences in the old testament and the new actually makes sense. Things were harsh during the times of the old testament. Conditions, life, etc was hard. So tougher rules/laws/etc were needed for survival.

...No, I mean he literally killed people practically at random at the slightest provocation. Had nothing to do with rules. Seriously, its *insanely* dark. In the Old Testament, all of the following was DEATH:

Displeasing God, acting naughty in front of God, being born Egyptian ( wholesale infancide of an entire country ), being a witch, believing in any other God except him, not worshipping him, working on Sundays, calling your mom or dad a bad name, adultry, sleeping with the daughter of a priest, taking God's name in vain, complaining that you're having a bad day, not being a virgin, speaking another god's name, making fun of bald people ( That gets you eaten by bears. Specifically children. Eaten by bears. Because God commanded it. Over a bald joke. ). And that's just the first half of the book.

Methods of execution include: Stoning, fire, smiting, torn apart by lions, torn apart by bears, torn apart by general beasts, leprosy, shitting yourself to death ( Yes, one guy is cursed to *shit himself to death* by God ), stabbing, hanging, chopping bodies into several pieces and mailing them to different parts of the country, etc etc etc.

God orders the rape of women and the murder of children and infants an almost comical number of times too. He *is* the villain of the Old Testament.

[crashhelmet]

Meanwhile, Islam and Judaism, who both have much more direct from the source Holy text I might add, have a different perspective on Jesus. They both agree Jesus was a teacher and Islam hails him as a prophet just like Mohammad. Both of them reject claims of Christ's divinity. The Quran even goes so far as to say that Jesus rejected these claims himself and will straight up tell you that when he shows up on Judgement Day.

Sura 5:116 - "And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden."

It also rejects stories of his crucifixion:

Surah 4-157 - "That they said in boast, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"

( Islam teaches that Christ skipped straight to the ascension to Heaven part and was not conquered by the evil of men. )

In Islam, Jesus was a prophet sent to guide the Jews ( and is in fact mentioned more by name than Mohammad in the Quran really ) who was given a Gospel from God to teach. This is why Islam isn't too fond of the Bible. Islam considers the Bible to be tainted by human hands because of how it was composed and edited to fullfill the goals of man instead of God.

So whose right here? The two other religions with whom Jesus is also deeply intwined that say he was a teacher and/or a prophet? Or the one religion that pieced together a shambles of a book 300 years after his death based on what they thought sounded like a good story that would uphold the church? -.-

Could this be spin?

Why provide evidence that would promote people to leave your religion to go to another? Or are we Christians the only ones possibly capable of doing that?

The Quran and Torah were written by man as well. Not rewritten as much as the Christian Bible was, but still written.

I don't read the verses about Jesus' last days as anything but a political assassination. He was taking power away from those in power and they had him silenced. It took them multiple attempts in multiple courts before they could do it, but they did it. Governments of the world still do it today.

Who's to say that the information left out or even presented in the other texts aren't politically driven too?