What was the Motive of Christianity?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Logarock


What a coincidence, other religions and mythologies also trace themselves back to the beginning of "the foundations of history". But such claims are made in their holy texts. Which, more often then not, and not surprisingly, disagree with actual history.

Thats fine but it certainly doesn't put christianity/Hebrews at some historical disadvantage as being Johnny come lately.

As far as actual historical agreement archeology has demonstrated Mesopotamia as having the oldest known royal tombs, oldest know line. This is consistent with what several tribal/historical/religious histories have to say about the world after the great flood. The historical distributions of tribes, their histories, relationships ect are also consistent with otherwise demonstrated histories of the area.

originally posted by: [post=19377540]SuperFrog

Now you jumping to Jesus, who did not write bible and for whom you don't even have any proof if he existed, or if he was capable of miracles as stated in bible that was written at least 200 hundred years after his death. Gap between those 2 events tells you how much is reliable instructional book, and that is where you get instructions that are way opposite from what you believe Jesus would do...

....

This 200 year gap idea, often tossed around, is a bunch of bunk, propaganda and flat out BS. It was designed and invented for the use you have demonstrated. Anyone that has really taken the time to look into it understands that there is much less evidence for the 200 years idea than there is for the 1st century AD compositions.

You are an example of a person that makes themselves out as an authority but are really lacking in basic intellectual honesty on the issue.

a reply to: Logarock

Apart from you denial, care to provide evidence when book 6 and rest where written?!

First 5 books are copy paste from torah, and this one was copy/paste from earlier religions... but really, even bible scholars agree in timeline of bible... or do they? I really like to learn... show me proof...

a reply to: SuperFrog


Na. Its really time for you to start backing up your many positions. Open a thread about the debate on when the gospels were written. Prove the 200 year later fraud.

a reply to: DiddyMcCoy

, the teachings of religion is a philosophy for societies,.

No the goal of Christianity is a theocracy, ruled by mediating human/godmen. He died because he was a threat to the ruling classes.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The function of religion is theocracy, the teachings are moral and ethics cause of human instints. They nature of it is worshiping the Rh - genome, what Jesus taught was the foundation for any society to work without religion. Idealism seldom survies the first chapter.

originally posted by: DiddyMcCoy
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The function of religion is theocracy, the teachings are moral and ethics cause of human instints. They nature of it is worshiping the Rh - genome, what Jesus taught was the foundation for any society to work without religion. Idealism seldom survies the first chapter.

Sure.. If you are willing to make extensive apologies for a jealous, misodgenous, racist and vicious god, whom condones and encourages among other ethics like genocide, murder, rape, torture and infanticide... Sounds legit to me.

a reply to: flyingfish

Called human instincs, i dont blame religion i would say, the more human, the more animal. The excuse you as a human use is religion. Religion practises moral and ethics, human practises instincts. Religion as it is today practises instincts not spirituality, just look into society and you can see instincts as a human in its prime. Therefore religion is dogmatic today and not theocratic.

a reply to: cooperton

Simply put, it was to promote "God's Kingdom"

Luke 8:1 talking about Jesus

Shortly afterward he traveled from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with him,

The same one the prophet Daniel talked about in Daniel 2:44

“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever,

The bible is consistent in the point of God's Kingdom, which we are still waiting to take full control of this earth.
Christendom and it's followers some how thought through the centuries they would accelerate or force this event, and that has caused a lot of problems and ill will towards it's leadership and institutions. They were wrong in voice and actions, that doesn't mean the bible is wrong, there is a difference.

Theocracy directly from heaven has never been done before, it's always had a human intermediary, thus the failures in both religious leadership and secular governments. Even the nation of Israel under it's Kings had a number of epic fails during that epoch.

Religion in general was definitely a form of control. But not the control you mention. It is a construct to make humans feel and therefore act like they are something better than any other animal on Earth. It is a failed attempt at forcing man to be better than a beast and so unnatural that it has failed. We are all no better than any other animal and just because we believe we are...doesn't make it so. Trying to do so has screwed us up so badly that here we are now with all our problems that shouldn't have even existed.

If we had stayed in the woods, lived humbly and off the land, we may actually have ended up closer to God (if you believe in God...I don't) than what we have become. If anything...we are evil beyond animals and went in the opposite direction. We see ourselves as being above them, when actually...we are below.

a reply to: Dr1Akula

He claimed that the apostle Paul may have deliberately propagated christianity as a subversive religion (a "psychological warfare weapon") within the Roman empire as a form of covert revenge for the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

This is why christianity was created imo ... makes perfect geopolitical sense. Love thy neighborhood was not exactly what the apostles circle had in mind. Their root religion hated Pagans as nothing else;

The timing doesn't quite work out. During Paul's time there was no expectation that Jerusalem would be destroyed. That came as a shock.

A likely scenario in my mind would be that Messianic Cults existed within the Roman Empire based upon writings such as Psalms of Solomon. The expectation being that once Herod had eliminated the Hasmonean dynasty, then a king from the Davidic line would arise to put down Herodean line. Then the Davidic king would extend his rule from Jerusalem and Rome would become a vassal of Jerusalem.

Paul came along to the cults announcing the name of the Davidic King, and that the kingdom was spiritual rather than physical. Paul did not expect that Jerusalem would be destroyed. But Paul did expect that many Gentile citizens of Roman Empire would join the Messianic cult, thus the spiritual Jerusalem Empire. The results would be the same. Subversion of Greco/Roman morality, philosophy, history, scientific enquiry etc.

a reply to: Bybyots Unless there gay or working a Sunday, then you must kill mwahaha.

a reply to: Anubis259

I think you're confusing yahweh with Jesus. Jesus never said to kill gay people or those who work on Sunday.

a reply to: Gothmog

Jesus was absolutely an anti-tyrant.

His stance on usury makes this clear:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold [sacrificial] doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves -Book of Matthew chapter 21 verses 12,13

a reply to: CynicalSinningSaint

originally posted by: CynicalSinningSaint
a reply to: Gothmog

Jesus was absolutely an anti-tyrant.

Absolutely. If everyone loved their neighbour as themselves, there would be understanding and respect, not tyranny.

a reply to: arpgme

The old testament seems to uphold tyrannical, hegemonic structures. The New Testament, though, obviously warns us about dealing with a bloodthirsty, xenophobic group of usurpers known as the synagogue of Satan, "which say they are Jews, and are not" according to this Christian text.

a reply to: flyingfish

Why are evolution and creation seen as mutually exclusive. Seriously, like it's not a tough dichotomy to reconcile! You just need the mental fortitude to accept that creation, even in a base, fundamental form, could have precluded evolution as the biological process that gave way to today's extant organisms.

Just think! if we are indeed in a "holographic universe" as many astronomers and physicists have begun to postulate, than who created the prerequisite information field.

A random confluence of energy waves would not give rise to this level of complexity without a few fundamental rules. Claiming that you know for certain that there is no cardinal creative force in the universe makes you as ignorant as they come.

a reply to: CynicalSinningSaint

Why are evolution and creation seen as mutually exclusive. Seriously, like it's not a tough dichotomy to reconcile!

Evolution is the comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life, not it's origins. And as such there is no need or requirement for the insertion of 'creation'.

Creation in its typical context seeks to replace evolution as the supernatural explanation for how all the different forms of life appeared on earth and so is seen as the (hilarious)antithesis of evolution.

a reply to: CynicalSinningSaint

A random confluence of energy waves would not give rise to this level of complexity without a few fundamental rules.

Agreed..

Claiming that you know for certain that there is no cardinal creative force in the universe makes you as ignorant as they come.

Albert Einstein once quipped that the most powerful force in the Universe was compound interest... Seriously though, I've never claimed such a thing! However I'm not sure what it is your talking about, are you referencing the four fundamental forces of nature, or your favorite flavor of deity? If your claiming there is some OZ behind the forces of nature, well then I would have to say there is no evidence of this OZ. Throughout history as we learn new things about the nature of the universe we find a natural explanation. Sorry, an OZ has not yet been detected.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton

Simply put, it was to promote "God's Kingdom"

Luke 8:1 talking about Jesus

Shortly afterward he traveled from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with him,

The same one the prophet Daniel talked about in Daniel 2:44

“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever,

The bible is consistent in the point of God's Kingdom, which we are still waiting to take full control of this earth.
Christendom and it's followers some how thought through the centuries they would accelerate or force this event, and that has caused a lot of problems and ill will towards it's leadership and institutions. They were wrong in voice and actions, that doesn't mean the bible is wrong, there is a difference.

Theocracy directly from heaven has never been done before, it's always had a human intermediary, thus the failures in both religious leadership and secular governments. Even the nation of Israel under it's Kings had a number of epic fails during that epoch.

Your going to be wating a long time, the Book of Daniel was written in Palestine in the mid-second century BC by an author who expected god to set up his everlasting kingdom in his own near future, Daniel is just one of the many failed prophets.
If the evangelical interpretation were correct, the Roman Empire was to be the last world empire before Jesus second coming, but all four empires were important to the author of Daniel because they controlled Judah and Jerusalem.
In the real world the Islamic and Ottoman Empires falsified Daniel's prophecy because they succeeded Rome and likewise occupied Judah and Jerusalem. In fact, they were much larger and lasted far longer than the Babylonian Empire of Daniel's prophecy.

originally posted by: seagull
Motive?

Who knows. I certainly don't. Anything anyone says is mere conjecture.

So here goes...

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ.

Obviously, since there are so many branches of Christianity, there's some disagreement on those teachings, or what they mean.

why didn't the son of god ever write down anything in his own handwriting?....seems curious that you have to rely on people 80 to 90 years after his death. are they missing notes?...could Jesus write?..was there no one present at the time taking a form of ancient dictation?...and if you were the son of god, why is your life only covered from birth to approx. age of 31, 32, 33?....did he ever go any other place?