Your Questions on Christianity Answered

reply to post by ShakeNBake


And you don't read that as meaning simply "venus" or "the morning star"? And, again, in the Old Testament, where does it equate Lucifer with Satan?

As for the Revelation of John, that's a tricky one, to say the least. It was written by a guy who was watching the destruction, or had watched the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and was writing a protest against Roman oppression. The Dragon is the persecutor, Rome. It's handy to call the dragon all of the worst characters in the bible and equate them if you're trying to use it as a means to vilify. Of course, one would need to suspend faith in order to read the books in their historical context.

Originally posted by SorensDespair
reply to post by ShakeNBake

 

Of course, one would need to suspend faith in order to read the books in their historical context.

Amen to that brother

Originally posted by SorensDespair
reply to post by ShakeNBake

 

And you don't read that as meaning simply "venus" or "the morning star"? And, again, in the Old Testament, where does it equate Lucifer with Satan?

As for the Revelation of John, that's a tricky one, to say the least. It was written by a guy who was watching the destruction, or had watched the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and was writing a protest against Roman oppression. The Dragon is the persecutor, Rome. It's handy to call the dragon all of the worst characters in the bible and equate them if you're trying to use it as a means to vilify. Of course, one would need to suspend faith in order to read the books in their historical context.

The Bible doesnt say it means "Venus". The Revelation of John is refurring to the future, which we are in now, and hasnt come to pass yet. Not the past.

reply to post by ShakeNBake


Actually, he was referring to the past in what's known as a prophesy ex eventu. That's when someone writes a story, places themselves in the past, claims they're seeing the future, and tells the story of something that has already happened. Another example is the book of Daniel, which tells the story of the Babylonian exile.

You can also see it in the gospels with regards to Jesus's prediction of the destruction of the Jewish temple. The books were written decades after the destruction of the temple in 70CE, and they used the event as further evidence of Jesus's divinity.

lmao
you should include a disclaimer in your op "answers may not be good answers"
go back to my questions and try again

reply to post by ShakeNBake


KJV is always tricky. Try reading the ASV, NRSV or almost any other translation other than KJV.

Originally posted by SorensDespair
"Gnostic" is a term recently assigned to many different types of Christianity, like Valentinians, Thomasines, Sethians, etc. It would be like equating Snake Handlers and Unitarians just because they're not Catholic.

For the second part, there were groups who agreed with the canon, but were deemed heretics because of variations on interpretation of the scripture, like Donatism, Palagianism and Arianism. I guess my question has more to do with the larger context of the religion. As Christianity started, it was a religion of martyrs. They were persecuted, just as Christ was. They were outcasts who thrived on not being part of the mainstream, which is what defined Christianity. They sacrificed their bodies, as Christ did, in order to be more like Christ.

As Christianity became the primary religion of the Mediterranean, Christians could no longer sacrifice themselves to an oppressive power as Christ did, so they took on other means of bodily sacrifice in order to become more like Christ without being persecuted. Early ascetics, for example, were famous for self abuse, such as living in caves, chaining themselves to rocks, wrapping sharp reeds around their bodies or extreme fasting to the point of near death in order to reach the level of the perfect Christian.

Because many of these movements were halted before they were allowed to gain full steam, many of the earliest philosophical concepts of Christianity died off. Do you think that the Arians or the Palagians had acceptable ideas of Christianity, or was the Church right in deeming them heretical, knowing full well that if these branches had been allowed to continue, modern Christianity might have a very different form than it does today?
(Keeping in mind that if these concepts were allowed to thrive in their time, the Protestant Reformation might have never been necessary)

I don't have a lot of information at hand about the movements you're speaking about but from what you've described, I can honestly say that I don't feel as though these movements were anything to be excited about. I don't think depraving oneself is beneficial in any manner. However, as far as the church deeming them heretics, I don't necessarily disagree but I don't agree either. The church deemed them heretics because their beliefs were "heretical" to their own...or rather, different than their own. After all, heretic does mean a dissenter from an established religious dogma. I don't disagree that they are heretics, because by definition, they are. However, I don't think it appropriate to ostracize them for their differences either.

If we examine the scriptures, it all boils down to love. If you love your neighbor as you love yourself, then you would obviously treat them accordingly.

Here's one thing I'd like to add which would have made a huge difference in those times had the early church really examined what it means. There are various verses in the scriptures that speak of judgment and/or passing judgment on one another. In most, if not all, of these texts, like Zechariah 3:7, the text is often not as understood as it should be.

Zechariah 3:7 says

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by."

Now, notice this...the text reads judge MY house and shalt keep MY courts...
This implies that Christians are to judge and keep the order of their own religion. This does not give them the ability to impose judgment on those outside of their own dogma. The early church, and even modern day churches, failed to recognise this.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Thank you A2D, your last comment was great, it implies that there is others outside of the court of the christian god
"Now, notice this...the text reads judge MY house and shalt keep MY courts...
This implies that Christians are to judge and keep the order of their own religion. This does not give them the ability to impose judgment on those outside of their own dogma. The early church, and even modern day churches, failed to recognise this."

This might make it easier for a few to accept that they will meet others that dont need to be converted. as they are from outside the court of the Christian church.
thank you for your answers the last few days. its been wonderful debating theolgy.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Why should we believe the bible? How can we assure the accuracy of its metaphysical claims when it got so much wrong about the physical world?

Because the bible wasn't written as a scientific textbook, it cannot be logically expected to be one.

When the bible does touch on scientific matters though, most are relatively accurate to say the least. In some cases, the text clearly reflects the misunderstandings of the people. This is to be expected. In some text, God gives the direct words to use, in other texts, the writers receive visions. This results in the writers describing what they saw in their best possible manner. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes there are inconsistencies.

Imagine Moses trying to describe a modern 747. The terms that he uses might be appropriate for his time, but that doesn't mean that when we view his description that we will understand what he is describing. It may sound like something completely different to us.

Consider carefully...1) the culture in which the description was made 2) the time in which the description was made 3) the context in which the description is made(literal or figurative) and 4) language barriers and/or translative issues

A2D

Originally posted by aboutface
My issue is slavery. I know Christ spoke of returning a slave to his master. Why would he not have used the occasion to say that slavery is wrong and spell it out in that way?

Remember that the bible is pointing the way to soul-salvation, not societal-reformation. But..to answer the question....

The bible does seem to allow for slavery, however it's important to note what types. The bible sets guidelines on how slavery should be handled and rules for treating ones slaves. It sets up a moral code of conduct, if you will, for slavery. It's also important to note the kinds of slavery we're talking about here. In those days, it wasn't at all uncommon for someone to sell themself as a slave in order to meet their needs, or have them met by their slave-owner. When someone couldn't pay their debt, they gave themself up for slavery in order to pay that debt.

Also, it's important to note that the bible does condemn racial-slavery. The Hebrews were enslaved against their will in Egypt. God wasn't happy with that situation at all. This clearly demonstrates his attitude towards racial-slavery.

You see, slavery against ones will is condemned. Slavery at will is acceptable, but with certain terms and conditions.

A2D

Originally posted by templar knight
You don't have to scratch the surface very hard to really come up with some obvious but very hard questions:

- God gave his only Son Jesus to save Humans.

---> Why could God only have one son? I thought he was omnipotent
---> Why could God not be able to make a daughter?
---> Why should we feel any sympathy for God as He knew [omniscient] that he would have to do this.

Don't understand how you think that means God can only have one son. It means He only had one son. Just becuase a 90 year old man dies and leaves a sole heir, doesn't mean he couldnt' have had more than one son. It just means he only had one.

Again, see the above. He can, but He didn't.

You shouldn't feel sympathy. God doesn't ask for your sympathy. God asks for you to understand what He has done out of love for you. He gave His one perfect son, so that you and all the rest of us(His imperfect children) can come back to His loving embrace. (See: the prodigal son)

A2D

Originally posted by templar knight
Let's play at being God

If rats were the most evil creatures in the universe, even though they are working by our design [God], is it fair that we exterminate every living rat - young, old, but save just one family of rats because they do as we tell them.

Add to that the killing of every other living animal barring 2 [aka Noah's Ark]; this is multi genocide and yet this is the God that the Christians praises. Common sense and good standards tell me this God is a deranged psychopath

Let's take a more subtle approach.

Let's say you hire a crew to build you a house. Some of your crew jacks around while a select few work hard trying to get the job done as you have planned. You warn those that want to mess around on the job that their position will be terminated. After several warnings, the crew remains disobedient. Is it inappropriate to dismiss them? After all, you're the one giving them their paycheck....right?

A2D

Originally posted by amaster
Please explain why "god" would create a world full of "his children" with the intentions of testing thier faith in him by constant oposition in the hopes that they prove thier love for him through unending devotion? I don't know about you, but I would NEVER treat my children like that. I mean, if love, devotion and obediance is what he wants, then why were the angels not enough to stroke his ego? Instead, he had to create us, his toy.

He didn't create us with the intentions of constantly testing our faith. Think of the reasons that you would want to have a child. These are the same reasons that God had His children.

He created us for His pleasure. This doesn't mean that we're toys, but it means that God is a creative being and it gives Him pleasure to create. It also means that God is a personal being and it gives Him pleasure to have relationships.

The angels serve a different purpose. They are God's messengers and servants. We are His joy.

A2D

Originally posted by amaster
Can you please explain why various christian traditions bear striking similarities to traditions of ancient pagan religions (i.e. Yule/Christmas, Beltane/Easter, Jesus/Ra/Mithra, etc.)

Why did "god" wait so long to bring salvation to Earth?

What are we being "saved' from?

And where has he been for the last 2000 years?

Oh, and why do people insist on bringing Lucifer into this? (Thank you Milton for that horrible missinterpritation)

edit on 4/19/2011 by amaster because: (no reason given)

1) discussed already, see the event at the Tower of Babel
2) God never waited. Salvation was there from day one.
3)We are being saved from our total depravity. We are being saved from pain and suffering. We are being saved from sin, to be blunt.
4)Where He has always been - right there waiting for you to speak with Him.

A2D

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Any credible scholar would admit there is no evidence confirming the existence of Jesus outside of the bible. Josephus' mention is widely used as evidence though credible scholars recognize that portion of his writings as most likely a forgery.

I don't see any names. I asked for a name of a credible scholar that denies Yeshua bar Yosef walked the earth as a man.

and here's a little exercise for you...just to put things into perspective.

To ask whether or not the great Carthaginian general Hannibal every actually existed might seem rather pointless. An exercise for a student learning about the nature of historical evidence perhaps but not something any serious scholar would waste time on. But maybe we should not be too hasty in acquiescing with the opinion of establishment historians (in other words, there's a plot by academics stifling debate).

In fact, although there is plenty of writing about Hannibal, none of it is contemporary and there is no archaeological evidence for him at all (not surprising given the Romans razed the city from whence he came). Furthermore he is not mentioned in any Carthaginian sources - incredible given he was supposed to be their greatest leader (there are no Carthaginian sources as the Romans burnt their city down)! We find when we actually try to pin him down he tends to recede further into the mists of time. His exploits, such as leading elephants over the Alps, are clearly legendary (the sceptic pretends to be incredulous but seems happy to buy his own amazing theory) and it is not hard to find a motive for the creation of this colourful character by Roman writers (as long we can invent a motive for fabrication we can assume that fabrication exists).

Rome and Carthage were great trading rivals in the Western Mediterranean and it did not take them long to come to blows. Rome signed a peace treaty but, under the leadership of the elder Cato desperately wanted to rid itself permanently of the competition. (this is actually true and so helps to hide when we slip into fantasy) They needed an excuse and the idea they came up with was brilliant. Like all ancient civilisations, the Romans rewrote history as it suited them to demonstrate their own prowess. (a useful and exaggerated generalisation) Consequently we should not be surprised to find that they invented a great enemy from Carthage to demonstrate the threat still existed and justify a further war to wipe them out.

The author of the fiction was Cato himself (we need someone to point the finger at and note how there is no distinction made between the background material above and theorising here) who we know wrote the earliest Roman History (true as well, actually). But it was intended simply as a justification for a further war with Carthage. It contained the details of Hannibal's alleged campaigns against the Romans including victories on Italian soil (it might well do but Cato's history has conveniently not survived). Cato brilliantly combined the truth with his own anti-Carthaginian propaganda with the intention of goading Rome into another wholly unjustified war with the old enemy (give the fabricator lots of credit for his invention). Once the war was over and Carthage razed to the ground, the Romans were able to ensure that only their version of history survived (this is important as it enables all other sources to be declared forgeries).

Therefore the myth of the great Carthaginian war leader became fact and later Roman historians like the notoriously unreliable Livy (we have to denigrate counter sources) simply assumed Cato's fabrications were true (because the ancients were stupid and simply could not do any research themselves).

source

A2D

Originally posted by HenryPatrick
How is it that the worlds largest religion sprung up around an imaginary person?

Excellent question.

The answer is: It is completely illogical to contend that it is based on an imaginary person. How quickly christianity spread is one thing, how wide is another. Both suggest that it is not based on an imaginary person. Also, those who died due to persecution, such as the early disciples and later martyrs, would not have done so if they were being killed for the sake of a lie.

A2D

Originally posted by SorensDespair

I think I have to disagree with you here, on a few points.
Point The First) At no point in Genesis is the serpent in the garden referred to as Lucifer. If it were, and it was put there to test humans, then there would be no need to punish the serpent for doing its job. It tells the reader that A) obey God, or be punished, or B) obey god and be punished.

Right. I was referring to the beliefs of Judaism in which the adversary, serpent, Lucifer, Satan, whatever you want to call him is doing his job and testing humans. He is not punished for doing his job. Remember, I was referring to Judaism, not modern christianity. He wasn't cast down to earth. He wasn't condemned. None of that happens in Judaism, Satan is simply "a necessary evil" so to speak.

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree Here's the whole pickle...The bible was written by men, inspired by God, for the use of men to understand to the best of their ability God's laws and supra-nature. The fact that it has been USED to control men, does not man that it was CREATED IN ORDER TO control men.

Well then, you agree it has been used to control men time and time again and don't you mean inspired by Caesar?

Question time. True or false
The ten commandments is used to promote war, slavery, taxation and border expansion.
Constantine used the early Christians to create his empire because their were willing to matyr themselves.
The Bible is made up of different books, all which are made up, as it was written long after Jesus of Nazareth died therefore it can't be "the Words of G-d."
-Naeem

Originally posted by ShakeNBake

Originally posted by amaster

Originally posted by ShakeNBake

Originally posted by amaster
Please explain why "god" would create a world full of "his children" with the intentions of testing thier faith in him by constant oposition in the hopes that they prove thier love for him through unending devotion? I don't know about you, but I would NEVER treat my children like that. I mean, if love, devotion and obediance is what he wants, then why were the angels not enough to stroke his ego? Instead, he had to create us, his toy.

Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan. They ate from the tree which God told them not to. That is why our faith is tested. If Adam and Eve never bit the apple, we would be genetically perfect, and the world would be perfect.

And God created Satan to temp people. So from the very start, God knew the outcome.

Would you give you child a knife to play with? No, because you know he or she would cut themselves.

Satan or Lucifer was an angel. He had free will and he chose to rebel against God. Lucifer was his best angel until he rebelled. Know the facts before you post.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I was born and raised catholic, spent 12 years of indoctonation in the catholic education system and have spent countless hours of independant study on the history and theology of christianity. And in EVERY instance it is mentioned that Angels and Archangels have NO FREE WILL!!! They can only act on Gods Command. Read the temptation of Job by Satan and you will clearly see that he cannot act freely. Satan (as his name implies) was God's Accuser. He was the angel in charge of deliberatly temping mankind to prove their love and faithfulness to God. Since angels can only act on gods word, then only god could make Satan rebel. So, excuse me, but know YOUR facts friend!!

Regarless of that, You still failed to answer my question. Why would god create a place, fill it with his children, and deliberatly temp them. God made the Angels perfect, he could have made you perfect, but instead, he chose to make you failable, and set the world in opposition to you.

Perform an experiment for me. Take two children, and place them in a room full of every toy imaginable. Then, in the middle of the room, place two fully loaded and cocked shotguns. Tell the kids they can play with anything they want, but they cannot touch the shotguns. Then, place in the room with them, a talking puppy dog, with a cunning tounge to temp the children towards those forbidden shotguns. How long do you think it will take? Oh, and then punish every child born after them for what they did.

You're god has one sick sense of humor.

Originally posted by SorensDespair

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
Satan or Lucifer was an angel. He had free will and he chose to rebel against God. Lucifer was his best angel until he rebelled. Know the facts before you post.

A few points:
1) If I remember correctly, not a single canonical text, Jewish or Christian (outside of the Ethiopic, but I doubt you're Ethiopian Orthodox) names Lucifer as the devil.
2) Reference to fallen angels exists in the Book of the Watchers, which is in 1 Enoch, which was removed from the canon because it had an origin story that contradicted Genesis. So, if you use Genesis as a source, you can't use the Book of the Watchers as a source.
3) But even then, he's not referred to as Lucifer or Satan, but Samael. The only Christian sources that refer to Samael are 'gnostic' sources, who put him in league with Ialtaboath, the demiurge who created the Earth in Genesis and created the forms of Adam and Eve. But, in those texts, the serpent (again, not referred to as Lucifer) is the only creature who told the truth and was on the side of humanity.

So, what was that about facts?

edit on 19-4-2011 by SorensDespair because: Forgot a close parenthesis and my OCD kicked in.

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Another point to add to that. There is no montion in the bible of Satan ever leading a rebelion of angels against god. The Fall of Satan, and the Casting Out of the Watchers (or Grigori) was two seperate occasions often thrown into one, mostly thanks to Miton.