Christianity beyond the bible

Mormons would be a better example, Christians built on top of the Jewish religion and the Sun God religion (Son God), Jews built on top of the religions before it as well

 

here's some more Christiany for you to ignore and discount.. https://choiceclips.whatfinger.com/...er-having-dreams-and-visions-of-jesus-christ/

 

Rather interesting viewpoint. Are skull and crossbones a death threat, an obedience test, a morality test, or simply a warning not to drink poison.

Hmm, I would go with the last one which you didn't bother listing. Are you saying that the Bible needs to be modified or replaced if someone comes up with an odd interpretation as to what is happening so that it is personally offensive to them? Wouldn't it be easier to dismiss the unlikely and strange interpretation.

Some take this very, very literally as I suppose you do. If you want to take it literally, it was likely a flying snake - hence the curse that it would have to crawl in the dirt.

That being said, this passage is far more mythological than most other parts of the Bible. What really happens here is a type of Pandora's box. Adam lets evil loose in the world. Toilsome or painful pregnancy can be read very literally or it can also be taken figuratively. When evil enters the world, every new invention or advance results in pain and toil. Nuclear power and weapons, dynamite for creation and mine, dynamite for destruction and murder. Bronze for better tools and bronze for weapons.

Toilsome labor still exists even with plenty of food. Why? The result of evil being in the world.

So the question reappears - Why use an interpretation you don't like when another one fits so easily?

Most people who call themselves Christian have never read Not-a-St. Augustine. That's where original sin comes from - A guy who wrote about it 3 centuries after the last books of the Bible were written. Now due to various historical reasons and the Papacy, this idea became rather popular but not because it made any sense within a Biblical context.

Not-a-St. Augustine unusual believe was that sperm transferred the evil to the next generation. It's a rather insane belief found nowhere in the Bible. So once again, should we get rid of Bible passages or the insane interpretations of Bible passages?

Everybody dies - even atheists believe this. The question is not whether we deserve to die but rather whether we deserve to live.

Once again, why interpret passages in a way which doesn't make sense?

The idea of the blood sacrifice you're describing primarily starts Anselm of Canterbury - a thousand years after the last book of the Bible was written. Anselm was trying to fix the common problem of finding a way to fit Classical Theism into the Bible.

Jesus repeats repeatedly that God will honor those who honor his son. That's the salvation right there.

Why not just take out the bad interpretations?

There's no genocide in the Bible unless you're trying to argue the "flood"is mass murder and used the wrong word? What can I say. Some get upset when God punishes evil and at the same time gets upset when he doesn't.

In Abraham's case, the demand was for faith - not blood sacrifice.

Lot's wife wanted to return to Sodom and Gomorrah and suffered their fate. Some believe this to be a mythological story rather than a literal one.

Do you believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were morally right?

You're definitely adding your own interpretive flair here. Is the Bible immoral or is it that you want it to be immoral?

There's a lot of pent-up hate in your post. Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs are the books which deal with questions such as why do bad things happen to good people. Think of something like the Holocaust. Was everyone who died in the Holocaust evil? While Job may seem unfair, isn't the Holocaust unfair? Was Job a real person and did everyone really speak in poetry back then? Perhaps the story was at least in part fictional to explore and struggle with questions as to why unfair things like the Holocaust happen?

An interesting story but you're wrong about the Bible saying God made them have conflict. You made up that one yourself.

I would say that God wanted humans to spread across the Earth instead of sticking to one place. The text doesn't indicate that he disliked cooperation. Do you think we should all gather in one place on the Earth and leave the rest of the planet uninhabited?

You really have to read that more carefully. For the first 5 plagues, Pharaoh hardens his own heart. And once again, previously you were horrified at slavery, but then when God punishes slavers, you get upset.

Really? You haven't pointed anything out to me, yet.

Interesting view of Jesus.

You haven't pointed out any nasty values which the Bible teaches yet - mostly you've just pointed out nasty interpretations.

In my opinion, your posts do not actually indicate someone who has read the Bible himself. Mostly, you're covering stuff which might be discussed in an MSM documentary.

 

The Bible is as you say only if taken entirely literally. I don't. To me, some of it is literal, some alegorical and some only for historical context (and some missing, imo).

I don't see any benefit in 'doing away with it.' Instead I think people should stop letting other people tell them what it means and read and interpret it for themselves.

 

Depends on who put it there. A warning is a threat if the person doing the "warning" is also the one posing the danger.

A mugger "warns" you he will shoot you if you don't give him your wallet. That's a threat.

I don't take it at all. And I was careful above to note that different believers take it different ways, as is true for all of the Bible, some far more disturbingly the others. Many, in fact I said and still say most Christians today are not aware of and/or don't take literally or seriously much of the Bible, which is a very good thing.

Except that isn't what it says. It isn't a story about evil coming into the world. It is a story about knowledge of good and evil coming to humans. It explicitly has God ordering Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, thus not becoming moral agents. Again, it is entirely about obedience to authority, here being God, but most likely meant to prod people to obey those claiming to speak for God (ie, the King or clergy).

Two reasons. First, because what you wrote does not fit at all, and goes directly against the text. And second, because the literal and plain reading doesn't disappear just because you try to contort and twist it into a more benign understanding. You pass this text onto future generations, and they have the text, believed to be holy and easily and plainly read some new very nasty "values".

You can twist and turn all you want, but the Christ concept remains in the Bible. Even if you jettison hell, original sin, and whatever else you want to, salvation requires something to be saved from. And the death and suffering of Jesus (rather than say doing good deeds) is claimed to be the only way to make it happen. Or if you don't want to even read it that way, then the "honoring of his son" as you put it (rather than being a good person). That is morally bankrupt on so many levels.

There is plenty of genocide in the Bible. Noah's flood is written to have murdered every human on earth except for Noah and his family (not to mention nearly all non-human animals). And Moses is instructed by God to whipe out many tribes, including the children.

A plain reding of the story has God demanding he kill his son, and then sawapping out the son for an animal (still blood sacrifice) at the last minute. It is similar to a mob boss demanding you shoot your brother, only to reveal the gun isn't loaded when you pull the trigger. It is yet another example of the Bible pushing obedience to power over morality.

A moral ending to this story would have Abraham standing up and refusing to kill his son, and God then saying he passed the test for putting morality over obedience.

So what? It is still stupid. It has God turning her into salt just because she looked where she was told not to. That is what the text actually says.

Do you mean the story or the people in the cities? The story has Lot sending his daughters out to be raped (to protect angels). It also claims every single person in these cities was pure evil (without giving many specifics on how it why) which is awfully hard to believe. God declares entire cities if people to all be wicked then instead of redeeming or lightening their hearts, murders them all. Apparently this God only hardens hearts.

No, I am not. Each of those is explicitly condoned in the bible. If you have read it then you know this.

So are other immoral things, like that adulterers, and people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. Some of these can be waived off as the "old covenant", so maybe God changed his mind, but it is still God initially demanding it.

No, not really. And such a claim if used as an adhom won't make what I have said untrue. Not sure if that was your intent or not.

Because God wants to show off? A plain reading of Job is God screwing him over intentionally and gloating about how obedient he is regardless of what God does to him.

Yes, the Holocaust was unfair. Are you likening God to Hitler?

I am not convinced that many if any of the characters in the Bible were real people, including Jesus. But that is irrelevant.

Because "the Lord works in mysterious ways"? Or because God likes to screw over innocent people to show off? Because that is what Job actually says.

Fair enough. It doesn't say "made then have conflict". It says causes them confusion. They were cooperating to build a tower and God didn't want that so made them unable to understand each other. Maybe God felt threatened or something. Who knows? But on a plain reading, it was a dick move regardless.

And then God doesn't want Pharoah to be good so he hardens Pharoahs heart, and Pharoah isn't the only one God does this to for Moses. Again, God is written to harden hearts, when he could just as easily have been written to soften them.

God condones slavery. The reason he didn't want these people enslaved is because they are his "chosen people". He has "chosen people" who he kills for - how messed up is that? And of course being God, he had the power to prevent the entire enslavement scenario from the get go, and actually takes an active role in keeping it going via hardening the Pharoah's heart.

I have pointed out plenty. And there is plenty more. You just don't acknowledge it.

 

Fake News:

From the prophet Isaiah 8th century BC: Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

A born child, that is known as the everlasting father, is derived from the Jewish prophets.

You do realize that while "Son" and "Sun" are homophones in English that they aren't in Greek?

 

that the only part of that you disagree with, guess the parts you snipped you agreed with then?

 

I've invited you to discuss this claim of yours:

The concept of God the Son pre-existed the incarnation in the Jewish faith by many centuries. The prophet Isaiah is a major force in Judiasm, and he had this to say about it, in part

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

A born child, that is known as the everlasting father, is derived from the Jewish prophets.

You do realize that while "Son" and "Sun" are homophones in English that they aren't in Greek?

 

the reality is, the Jewish religion was built on previous religions and so was Christianity

many Christian Churches are even built on Pagan religious locations

 

Christianity started as a Jewish sect, no one disputes that. You also claimed that "Christianity was built on top of the Sun God."

And despite giving you several opportunities to present evidence for your claim, you have not done so. That's your choice of course, good day.

 

the old is often built on top of the old

Jesus was not a God at first, he latter became the Son God

 

The Christian view of God is as the Self-Existent One, not an entity that once was something lesser and then became something greater.

 

God sure changed between part one and part two of the story, didn't he?

and now we are finding some of the missing stories, saying Jesus was not even Crucified, someone was crucified in his place

 

So anyone who make rat poison and puts a warning label on it is threatening to murder anyone who reads it?

God does not threaten to kill Adam and Eve. And he doesn't kill them.

So, priests raping their altar boys is a very good thing?

I'm not contorting or twisting - you are. In fact, it's pretty clear you haven't even bothered to read it yourself. You can't find out everything from documentaries. You should read it yourself.

Really? God declares everything is good. Then the fruit is eaten. Evil appears. How do you square that circle?

Genesis 3:1-5 NLT
The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the LORD God had made. One day he asked the woman, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?”

[2] “Of course we may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,” the woman replied. [3] “It’s only the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God said, ‘You must not eat it or even touch it; if you do, you will die.’”

[4] “You won’t die!” the serpent replied to the woman. [5] “God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.”

You are literally taking the Serpent's position.

Are you claiming people don't die and don't do bad things? If you're right, then yes, there is definitely no need for any salvation.

Your sentence is messed up because of the tense you are using. Not even the Papists believe that Jesus needs to die again.

Do continue.

None of that is genocide. If so, the U.S. attacks on Japan was genocide. Stalin's war on Germany was genocide. You can twist the definition to something to the point it has no meaning. Classic doublethink.

Nope. That's not a plain reading of it whatsoever. Like I said, you need to read the text yourself and not rely on documentaries. The story about Abraham is about faith and trust in God.

Why did she look?

Actually, if people show the slightest inclination to want to soften their hearts, God will not only soften their hearts, but replace them if necessary.

No they aren't stated with your particular flair.

I have stated a number of times that you should read the Bible and not base your knowledge off of documentaries.

Why do you think this is immoral?

Not even close to a plain reading. A 3rd grader could read it with better reading comprehension.

How many times a day do you see God showing off? Do you go to an art gallery, look up in the sky and see the message "My art is better." written in the clouds?

One has to be disjointed from reality to believe any part of the Bible is about God showing off.

Satan to Hitler. Ancient peoples saw that injustice and evil things were happening around the world. Job was asking God why he was allowing bad stuff to happen.

The Holocaust happened. If God exists, why did he let it happen just like he let Satan happen to Job? If God doesn't exist, then humans are just evil pricks and there is nothing we can do except suffer and die. Eventually, our Sun will burn out and everyone will die.

Are the Mexicans who come to this country and refuse to speak English dicks?

Or does anyone who doesn't learn Esperanto a dick?

People speak lots of different languages. So, either God confused the languages to cause everyone to spread across the planet, or as you put it, human beings are natural dicks.

Well, for starters, there is slavery. Even today. You are more likely to not be a slave if you currently live in a Christian country. The same can't be said of states with atheism as their official religion.

You have a strange believe that killing for your own people is wrong in all circumstances. That seems a bit silly and naive. Should the U.S. have stopped fighting NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan?

You consider this to be immoral but I do not.

What I have determined is that you really oppose the whole concept of God period. No amount of rewriting the Bible to support your rather broken and perverted morality would allow the concept of a God to exist. Since God is the subject of the Bible, your OP is simply wrong, misleading, and possibly a lie. If you understood them, you wouldn't even let the Beatitudes exist much less Jesus.

The alternative you support is to dump all the blame on humans. That makes humans evil pricks whom you seem to want to convince of following a morality which will help you.

 

Christianity views God as an infinite being progressively revealed to finite humans. In the view of the finite being gaining in understanding, every increase in revelation is going to involve gaining the knowledge of something they were previously unaware of.

That looks like an attempt to explain away the empty tomb and the post resurrection appearances of the risen Christ.

 

I've always enjoyed the idea (gnostic Chrsitian?) that it isn't the same God in the two books. It definitely makes a lot more sense that way.

 

Bob, your contortions above support my point. You twist the story to make it less offensive to modern moral values, likely because you are a better person that the writer of the text. Most modern Christians are not as morally backwards as the writers of the bible were. Most modern Christians either outright ignore the horrid parts of the bible, or twist and contort to extreme levels, trying to make them fit modern moral values.

Even if so, so what? They are there. They are endorsed by the Bible. You are told how to properly beat a slave, what is acceptable and what is going too far. You are told who you can take as slaves, and who is off limits. Sure, that may be better than outright saying you can take anybody as a slave for any reason and do whatever you want to them, and it may even be an improvement over what came before, but it is still an explicit thumbs up to slavery. The other points I noted above also are in there. And no amount of flowery language will make them moral. It is never moral to punish a woman for being raped. It is never moral to kill someone for working on a particular day or for being a "witch".

Which again makes my point, since the bible condones slavery. Many Christians don't know that, because they've never read it. They are better than the text.

I find it morally revolting that God has "chosen people" or "his own people" to begin with. A moral God would not engage in base human tribalism and have his team who he kills for at the expense of the others who he also created but he deems not his team, even going so far as to "harden their hearts" so his people can feel somewhat morally justified in slaughtering every single one of them.

And yes, hunting down and killing every single one of the people in another tribe is genocide. Had the USA hunted down every Japanese person, or caused a flood with the intent to do so, yes, that would have been genocide, even if they spared one or two families with a particular bloodline they wanted to continue.

The US is overpowered, but the US is not an all powerful God. God is claimed to have created all of these things and people, set everything in motion, known exactly what would happen before he did, and is claimed to be able to harden (and you say soften) hearts. Yet, he prefers to guide his people on rampaging genocidal slaughters, flood the entire earth killing all but one family, etc. It says a lot about that particular concept of God. Another God concept may actually be about peace, love, etc. Like the Hippy Jesus concept (instead of the Christ concept).

I'm starting to see that we have very different concepts of morality. It is quite unfortunate. Mine is based on empathy and fairness. Yours appears to be based on obedience to power.

No, I don't. I can envision a very positive concept of God. A hippy Jesus preaching peace and love. A God who isn't petty and jealous, and is above any sort of tribalism, and rewards people based on being good people, instead of worship of him, "sacrifices" for "salvation", or even believing he exists. I can envision an equivalent to the ten commandments that aren't half about obedience to power. I can imagine a wonderful God who is like a good father, rather than like an abusive one.

Some of that is already there in the Jesus character. His sermon on the mount is a good example. Something can be worked around that, as better moral values are attached to a new version of the book, and the nastiness is jettisoned.

 

explains why Mormons say he was alive I guess

 

they would have preferred it that way now, but at the time they were trying to end the Jewish religion that everyone believed, it was easier to covert people if they thought it was a part 2 of their current religion

the Jewish religion back in biblical times was nothing like it is now

 

Some people have never read their favorite ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale. They get all of their religion from silly Hollywood movies and prosperity preachers at megachurches. Heck, they don't even know what the real Ten Commandments are. They like the fake ones from Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5.

 

You are right bout the Adam & Eve story being about obedience. It is a First Commandment story. It is also repeated later with the King of Tyre being in the Garden of Eden and getting kicked out. His sin was that he collaborated with a foreign ruler.

The Jesus character was a sacrificial lamb, like the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. In the end the Jesus character becomes a tyrannical dictator who rule with an iron rod. He goes on to kill all life and destroys the planet. He is not a nice guy.

 

Contortions are all on your side.

Your post has endorsed permanent slavery of debtors including credit card holders. Not only that, but Jolly Penguin's post has just endorsed the murder of anyone who owes a debt to someone else. The post has also endorsed false accusations of rape whenever it happens and especially when the accuser is caught. According to Jolly Penguin's post, such false accusations of rape should be applauded. Finally, Jolly Penguin's post has endorsed con artists. If anyone can steal someone else's money with deceit, that's fine.

Now some might say I added my own flair to what Jolly wrote, but as Jolly says, "They are there."

It is never ok to murder someone because they owe you money.

Now, if you want to continue with reality instead of making stuff up, be specific in your accusations.

The Bible doesn't condone slavery. Anyone who reads the entire thing knows that.

You find it morally revolting that God would bless the whole world.

Ok.

More twisting and doublethink.

Not in the Bible.

Not in the Bible.

You God concept is that of a non-existent God. Hippy Jesus doesn't exist in the Bible either. So, you are left with having to explain who or what your God and Jesus are. When presented with having to provide answers yourself, you clam up and refuse to give specifics.

Yours seems to be based on conceitedness.

Mark 12:29-30 NLT
[29] Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: 'Listen, O Israel! The LORD our God is the one and only LORD. [30] And you must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.'

Yes. Faith in God is the most moral thing to do.

But you have no specifics

Sorta like the anti-Jesus.

Good of course being defined by you. I believe the Kim's have already beat you to it.

I doubt even a tenth of what Jesus said there would make it into your version, unadulterated.

 

Have you read the Book Of Mormon?

 

Not much of it, no.

 

It is.

It is.

The Bible does not praise nor condone either of those things...

They don't have to... Good and bad are both a part of this world, due to sin.

I'd say that many Christians don't really know what the Bible says, let alone non-Christians...

The Bible can't be "done away with". Its words will always be preserved.

Yes.

No. (& what is "the current bible"?)

The Bible very firmly warns against adding to and/or subtracting from God's word (in both the NT and the OT).

No.