Questioning the Old Testament, Demiurge, Counsels, etc

Okay, so any smart person approaching Christianity for the first time is going to do so, in a sense, in a scientific manner sort of like an Objectivist and look at it from every angle, every possibility, and most importantly will look at every version of Christianity as well. On top of this, everything is questioned.

So when look at the Biblical Cannon, I see that some books, Gospel of Thomas (Even though it predates most other NT Texts, Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of Peter, and a bunch of others were not included. So then one would ask; Why?

The Various Counsels, i.e. Nicaea, etc. These were counsels made of church bishops all under the order of an Emperor. Which means, there is a wide range of political influence going on, swaying, bias, and as we all know what comes with politics is corruption.

sk yourself about these Bishops. Were they all Christ-like? We hardly see Saints who reach Christ-likeness during these times besides some/all? of the Disciples and a few standouts here and there in History. For all we know, these Bishops could've just been people who benefited from positions of power and were put there via corruption, bribery, etc

1800 Bishops attended, if not more. Emperor has his own agenda. There's a popularity contest among different countries that has to do with different gospels, different versions of Christianity, some believed in reincarnation, others were mystical in nature, and so on.

Once you start digging, you find some interesting things. For example, in many places, Apocalypse of Peter was more popular than Revelations of John. However the Counsel looking at Apocalypse of Peter sees that towards the end, Jesus is walking with Peter and tells him, (paraphrased) "Psssst, Peter, between me and you I will tell you something. In the end, we will rescue and pull everyone out of Hell and reunite back with God. Which sounds about right cause Paul says in NT that one day all will be reconciled.

So that's just the counsel right. Now we get into looking at OT and the Nature of the World and these bodies, and many things don't add up"

A. World is Filled with injustice, suffering, death

B. The designs of body are limited, sick, short life, dumb/unconsciousness and we are heading to a place where designs of these bodies via genetics and understanding the human genome, will soon be in our hands to change the design of the body.

C. We're literally not from here, and were we are from as pure consciousness, is a million time better than these limited bodies and dumb/unconscious brains. I remember pre-existing prior to the body and I was no sinner then.

D. Some people remember being forced to incarnate into bodies against their own will. I found 3 others who have remembered there own pre-existence and being forced against their will to be here. I will post 2 of their memories here:

1. I am fortunate in remembering an inbetween life and the time of reincarnation for that lifetime. I refused to incarnate into that particular lifetime and I was then taken to, what I can only describe as a ‘processing place’ and then being forcibly put into a foetus.

2. I remember it too! I remember from regular dreams of being on a grassy hillside just resting and drinking in the peace and tranquility when suddenly I was ushered away to a portal device. I was terrified I was going to be “spagettied” which is my only word for defining it. Next thing I was in a tightly confined yet peaceful place and just when I felt comfortable and safe, a pulsing and pressuring rhythm began and I would wake up sweating and gasping to breathe.

E. The design of earth, especially nature, is cruel and disgusting. Bugs and animals are basically destroying each other to survive, dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. If you watch certain bugs and how they plant eggs in other living bugs, the babies are then born and eat the living creature, killing it to survive, is something that Stephen King couldn't even come up with in nay of his books.

F. So too, humans are, underneath the surface, barbaric beast-like animals and is just our modern society with its comforts that just barely keeps that at bay. However, we are 1 revolution (take away food, tv, utilities) and you will see morals go out the window and people turn into fighting beasts. Don't want to wait til then? Just watch world news and you will see the beast come out via killers, child molesters, rapes, wars, genocide, pillage, etc. Its self evident even today

OT god's nature:

Says if Adam/Eve eat of tree of Knowledge, they will surely die, but they don't die, they just get kicked out of garden.

Regrets creating mankind and causes the flood, but an omniscient God who knows the outcome of every move he makes would know ahead of time that if he created man, he would eventually regret and would have to flood, therefore wouldn't create man in the first place.

Is a Jealous god: Jealousy = Insecurity and Obsession. Someone who is that best at something, see Michael Jordan, isn't jealous of anyone else because they know they are the best. Its a very weak human emotion of someone who has low self esteem and personality defects. For example, I am not jealous of anyone or anything where I currently am in my life, I just never let myself stoop that low. Or if you ever had a jealous Girlfriend or knew someone who is super jealous, its just such a negative and weak trait and you don't want to be around that person. If he is Only God, then he has nothing to be jealous about and knows that people will worship idols because they are unconscious.

Worshipping idols: Today. the majority of the world worships money, fame, tv, themselves, and its worse than it ever was as far as idolatry, and yet this being isn't pouring out his wrath.

Wrath vs Love. You can't be both, especially when it comes to your children. We see all the time people who do wrong like kill, rape, molest, and the parents of those people who do these terrible things, still Love them, forgive them, and aren't wrathful towards them. Sure they might not agree with their actions, but there is no wrath. For the most part, underneath it all, there is still unconditional Love. So how much more unconditional love would there be in a Loving God?

The need for Animal Sacrifice is ridiculous: If I sinned back then in OT times, it doesn't make sense that killing an innocent animal, one who had absolutely nothing to do with any sins, would have to die to cover my sins, sins that were done because I was created a sinner in the first place. A bit of a paradox here. Furthermore, if you look at other religions from other cultures, some native tribes (US, Mexico, Australia), taois, buddhism, dzogchen, greek philosophies, etc....they have a need to sacrifice innocent animals as its not a universal thing.

Religion (exoteric) blinds you. It tells you this is how it is and don't question it and don't go within to know thyself. Religion is a hierarchical system, like corporations, like governments, and 99.9999% of those at the top of these hierarchical systems are themselves unenlightened/unawakened.

OT makes you feel guilty for being born, cause your a sinner and you will never be good enough. It creates this schism in your own personality, this huge guilt trip. Yet god made you a sinner and you yourself, not having a freewill say as to whether or not you even want to exist in the first place, have to hang your shoulders low because you are a

I'll add that God (at least OT God) is morally bankrupt as well.

He is detestable. A typical bully. Yes I said it!

Like you said there was an agenda.

The Gnostics had great stories of Jesus laughing and being human.

That did not fit the scare the snip out of you agenda of the Counsel.

a reply to: dominicus

Regrets creating mankind and causes the flood, but an omniscient God who knows the outcome of every move he makes would know ahead of time that if he created man, he would eventually regret and would have to flood, therefore wouldn't create man in the first place.

Nice interest post, but the problem I have is "God" knowing what each and every human bring will do once born, simply isn't true. You stated "Regrets creating" and if you read (Genesis 6:6) "The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

So, as far as human beings go, "God" doesn't know what they will do once born, however, "God" DOES know how and what things will happen before they do.

And far as going ahead and creating humans, "God" needs 'replacements' in heaven for the Fallen Angels. "God's" 1st mistake was letting the wrong beings into heaven who were suppose to be close to "God" and love "God"...won't happen again.

I have no problem with "God" making mistakes, we can all observe "God's" creation doing so as well, on a daily basis.

Umm. I think you need to focus. You are treating obvious myths and stabs at reality in the same essay in the same way. You have some interesting ideas, but they get lost in your many asides. If you want to talk about reincarnation, talk about reincarnation. If you want to talk about myths like Adam & Eve, go ahead. If you want to analyze what happened at the Council of Nicea, stick to that theme. Right now your essay reads like you stuck everything you think you know about Christianity into a blender and mixed it all up.

Your essay is a cut above a typical Internet post and BECAUSE OF THIS you need to clean up your grammar and spelling. It's embarrassing and makes you look like an unschooled kid. I know, I know: Grammar Nazi and all that, but with an essay this comprehensive and lengthy you are, I presume, trying to make some sort of point, and these sorts of mistakes get in your way of doing that.

Now: Let's hear about your reincarnation story and how you are sure you are remembering reality. Start from the beginning and proceed step by step, showing your work. It's pretty interesting and I'd like to hear more.

a reply to: dominicus


After being a denominational Christian for over 20 years, I've gone out of it.

It took a lot to break free from the mind programming.


I still believe in the "spiritual realm" because there is a powerful spiritual being who keeps watch of me, follows me around and protects me. She is not the same as the bloodthirsty god of the OT, rather the opposite. I have far too many paranormal/supernatural experiences which includes other witnesses to deny these things.

I still believe that we must do everything to help improve the lives of every person, not just my neighbors or my colleagues but also to people thousands of miles away, to the homeless, orphans, widows, and also to improve the lives of animals as well, and try to restore the Earth to its pristine natural state.

I believe that religion is not required for salvation. If you really care for the welfare of others as your own, including the poorest in the world, you will will be carried on to the next stage of the existence our universe.

a reply to: dominicus

Actually my post got caught off. There's more to it here:

OT makes you feel guilty for being born, cause your a sinner and you will never be good enough. It creates this schism in your own personality, this huge guilt trip. Yet god made you a sinner and you yourself, not having a freewill say as to whether or not you even want to exist in the first place, have to hang your shoulders low because you are a worthless guilty sinner and need to keep coming to this hierarchical system of religion for any hope where they keep tugging on your personality strings.

Now moving on to the NT: Let's look at Jesus and what he taught, from an entirely different perspective:

Beattitudes: For example: "If your heart is pure, you shall see God." This sentence, is universal and timeless and applies to everyone from past, present, future. Anyone who purifies their heart, regardless of religion or nonreligion, will see God. This has nothing to do with being a Christian, because he's preaching to Jews anyway.

Him being the only way: He preaching to Jews, who think the OT is the only way. He snaps, and tells them that he is the only way, so that he can get through to them and break their hypnosis with the old ways which dont work, don't lead to enlightenment/union.

Jesus had to wrap his teachings in OT terminology, because he knew a Jew wouldn't just outright leave and dismiss their own heritage/culture to follow him, but if he intertwines his teachings with OT, then he might win some over. This happens in many cultures where a new teaching takes over an old religion. The new has to integrate some of the old or else people won't switch. Happened in Greece, happened in Tibet (Buddhism + Bon + Dzogchen), happened with Natives (santeria and others).....that's just how it goes. But many times, the New has really nothing to do at all with the Old.

So what do you say?

a reply to: dominicus

I say that the bible, as well as the texts left out of it, are all hearsay and therefore the claims in all of it are not to be trusted without backing objective evidence.

originally posted by: schuyler
Umm. I think you need to focus. You are treating obvious myths and stabs at reality in the same essay in the same way. You have some interesting ideas, but they get lost in your many asides. If you want to talk about reincarnation, talk about reincarnation. If you want to talk about myths like Adam & Eve, go ahead. If you want to analyze what happened at the Council of Nicea, stick to that theme. Right now your essay reads like you stuck everything you think you know about Christianity into a blender and mixed it all up.

Your essay is a cut above a typical Internet post and BECAUSE OF THIS you need to clean up your grammar and spelling. It's embarrassing and makes you look like an unschooled kid. I know, I know: Grammar Nazi and all that, but with an essay this comprehensive and lengthy you are, I presume, trying to make some sort of point, and these sorts of mistakes get in your way of doing that.

Now: Let's hear about your reincarnation story and how you are sure you are remembering reality. Start from the beginning and proceed step by step, showing your work. It's pretty interesting and I'd like to hear more.

If a Genius has an unkept beard and that beard bothers you, does that mean you can't listen to anything he has to say? If a man speaks with an accent, does that mean you don't take him serious? If its a black woman who's discussing the philosophy of life, do you also have biased against her and her style of talking and formulating ideas?

So what if its a bit unrefined and all over the place. I'm posting thoughts, ideas, questions and its basically copied and saved from a journal post I had saved that was for my eyes only, and decided to share here. Sure its all over the place because I'm taking a number of things as possible evidence of what reality might be and that includes NDE's, all religions, memeories of pre-bodily existence, philosophies from all walks of life (greek, taoist, buddhist, native, pagan, etc) and looking at this from all possible angles.

If you can't read a book, because the cover is red and you don't like that color, well then that's just your problem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dominicus

I say that the bible, as well as the texts left out of it, are all hearsay and therefore the claims in all of it are not to be trusted without backing objective evidence.

Prove that its hearsay other than just saying that it is. Where's your proof

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Like you said there was an agenda.

The Gnostics had great stories of Jesus laughing and being human.

That did not fit the scare the snip out of you agenda of the Counsel.

Technically that isn't true.... read the apocalypse of Peter

Are you afraid of Hell?

a reply to: dominicus

It is definitely healthy and constructive to put thorough research behind your beliefs. For example, if you don't understand why God of the OT commanded entire cities/villages/camps to be put to death you might think he was a "bully". Nitpicking certain details of a phrase or verse in the OT, while intellectually stimulating, should not take precedence over the Redemption story the Bible is based on.

a reply to: dominicus

Oh please. If you can't tell that the bible is hearsay then I don't know what to say. It is literally the written accounts of what other people have done. THAT is hearsay. Also called subjective evidence.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: dominicus

It is definitely healthy and constructive to put thorough research behind your beliefs. For example, if you don't understand why God of the OT commanded entire cities/villages/camps to be put to death you might think he was a "bully". Nitpicking certain details of a phrase or verse in the OT, while intellectually stimulating, should not take precedence over the Redemption story the Bible is based on.

Oh do tell. Why DID he put entire cities/villages/camps to death other than him not being a bully? I was under the impression that god is supposed to be omnipotent, so it makes me wonder why he had to use indiscriminate methods to kill off large swaths of people instead of selectively killing them with say a disease that only targets the people who defied him or something.

Of course I'm also wondering (like the OP brought up about jealousy), why does a god need to feel wrath and anger anyways? Isn't that another human flaw?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dominicus

Oh please. If you can't tell that the bible is hearsay then I don't know what to say. It is literally the written accounts of what other people have done. THAT is hearsay. Also called subjective evidence.

Okay, I can write an account that I just read your post and this is what it said.......... and then print it, and give it to another person to read, and it is true that I did: A. Read your Post. B. That you said "______(fill in blank)" and that C. Both are true.

And it would not be hearsay, it would be true.

a reply to: dominicus

No, it would still be hearsay, but the hearsay would just be true. You are making a false equivalence fallacy, just because it is hearsay doesn't mean it is false. That's why I said the claims in the bible are not to be trusted without backing objective evidence. If you can prove that they happened then I'll believe the claims in the bible.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: dominicus

It is definitely healthy and constructive to put thorough research behind your beliefs. For example, if you don't understand why God of the OT commanded entire cities/villages/camps to be put to death you might think he was a "bully". Nitpicking certain details of a phrase or verse in the OT, while intellectually stimulating, should not take precedence over the Redemption story the Bible is based on.

You're basically saying, since Bible is ultimately about redemption, that we shouldn't question and nitpick. Why not. A God of Love isn't going to destroy cities of people he created to be sinners and be the way they are.

If we were created to be Consciously aware of all of our decision, with a direct connection to God knowing what his will is. and with a body that doesn't have such strong Lustfull Animalistic pulls over our Consciousness, then we would be living in a Utopian Spiritual society. We could have very well been created that way, but we werent

a reply to: jjkenobi

As you can see from my sig I've got a whole thread on the morality of God. By all means take a look at it then kindly explain to me how God isn't a bully!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dominicus

No, it would still be hearsay, but the hearsay would just be true. You are making a false equivalence fallacy, just because it is hearsay doesn't mean it is false. That's why I said the claims in the bible are not to be trusted without backing objective evidence. If you can prove that they happened then I'll believe the claims in the bible.

So ultimately as an objectivist, you should neither believe or disbelieve, but be open to any possibility. By the way, just playing devil's advocate to any and all replies, as an objectivist would

a reply to: dominicus

That's why I put the caveat at the end. I am open to believing it as true, as long as you produce the evidence that it is. Until then, I am also well aware of human nature and that puts doubts on all unverified claims. You pointed it out in the OP by calling the credibility of the Bishops at the Council of Nicea. Well that's why I don't believe anything in the bible without objective evidence.