Religious Rant/Questions of a Christian of his own branch

[Fight!]

Frankly, I've always seen God as a cruel bastard, but everywhere I turn people are calling him benevolent and the best thing ever. But why is this so? Jesus was the kind one. While it could be said (be it accurate or inaccurate) they are the same person, they have seperate consciences, otherwise Jesus wouldn't exactly pray to God now would he?

And I don't exactly consider Jesus dying on the cross such a big deal. Anyone could die for someone knowing that they would live on. What I view him as kind for is him becoming human in the first place. God on the other hand, did little but cruel things (in comparison) doing such things as banishing a nation to the desert and having bears devour children (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2kg/2.html)

Next on my list: What makes something worthy of being compiled with the culmination of religious works known as the Bible? There were plenty of writings that could've been added to the bible that weren't (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_..._Bible_created)

I am also skeptical of whether or not the Holy Spirit ispart of the trinity or just used to describe God's spirit, but it's possible I was just incapable of finding the verses indicating it's seperation from God. Anyone got any say on this?

[cfmonkey45]

Frankly, I've always seen God as a cruel bastard, but everywhere I turn people are calling him benevolent and the best thing ever. But why is this so? Jesus was the kind one. While it could be said (be it accurate or inaccurate) they are the same person, they have seperate consciences, otherwise Jesus wouldn't exactly pray to God now would he?

And I don't exactly consider Jesus dying on the cross such a big deal. Anyone could die for someone knowing that they would live on. What I view him as kind for is him becoming human in the first place. God on the other hand, did little but cruel things (in comparison) doing such things as banishing a nation to the desert and having bears devour children (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2kg/2.html)

Next on my list: What makes something worthy of being compiled with the culmination of religious works known as the Bible? There were plenty of writings that could've been added to the bible that weren't (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_..._Bible_created)

I am also skeptical of whether or not the Holy Spirit ispart of the trinity or just used to describe God's spirit, but it's possible I was just incapable of finding the verses indicating it's seperation from God. Anyone got any say on this?

Firstly, I wouldn't use the skeptics annotated bible as a source. It's interesting and thought provoking, but they go in it with the mindset to prove the bible wrong, and, consequently, they find contradictions where there might not be any. That's not saying that there aren't any, just that some of them are the literal interpretations of idioms and asides.


What I find interesting is that the Jewish people seem to think highest of God, which I find strange, since they lack Jesus who is overwhelmingly who most people identify with. Everyone except the Jews say that Jesus was phenomenal, but God is a prick/cruel/wrong. Jews say more or less the opposite.


Secondly, regarding the Bible, there were numerous books considered for inclusion within the canon. The canon itself wasn't even contemplated until after Marcion tried to create a heretical one. The New Testament is basically a collection of epistles, letters, and evangelical tracts, with a few theological treatises thrown in. Protestants are typically the only ones to have the audacity to use it alone (Sola Scriptura). I've found some interesting interpretations of in Eastern Christianity.

Apart from that. You're exactly in your observations, although we could discourse for hours on end about the philosophy and ethics behind it.

[Fiyenyaa]

Firstly, I wouldn't use the skeptics annotated bible as a source. It's interesting and thought provoking, but they go in it with the mindset to prove the bible wrong, and, consequently, they find contradictions where there might not be any. That's not saying that there aren't any, just that some of them are the literal interpretations of idioms and asides.

You wouldn't want to use a source that might disagree with you, would you?
People should be commended for challenging their beliefs.

What I find interesting is that the Jewish people seem to think highest of God, which I find strange, since they lack Jesus who is overwhelmingly who most people identify with. Everyone except the Jews say that Jesus was phenomenal, but God is a prick/cruel/wrong. Jews say more or less the opposite.

Probably because the God of the Jews chose the Hebrews to be his chosen people, and everyone else is screwed.

[cfmonkey45]

You wouldn't want to use a source that might disagree with you, would you?
People should be commended for challenging their beliefs.

Here's what I said:

Firstly, I wouldn't use the skeptics annotated bible as a source. It's interesting and thought provoking, but they go in it with the mindset to prove the bible wrong, and, consequently, they find contradictions where there might not be any. That's not saying that there aren't any, just that some of them are the literal interpretations of idioms and asides.

I'm not saying that's its "blasphemous," or whatever, to question the Bible. I'm saying not only is it healthy, even requisite, to question and examine parts of the Bible, it's also important to do it correctly. A bunch of untrained skeptics casually reading through a text like this are bound to make errors, even more so when they're reading it from an English translation without any background in the history or language of the object of study.

Probably because the God of the Jews chose the Hebrews to be his chosen people,

That's what I think too.

and everyone else is screwed.

We're not screwed, we're just whatever. According to the Talmud, we can still have a place in the world to come if we follow the Seven Laws of Noah (sexual morality, don't murder/steal, eat properly, don't blaspheme/worship idols).

[Scorch]

A bunch of untrained skeptics casually reading through a text like this are bound to make errors, even more so when they're reading it from an English translation without any background in the history or language of the object of study.

Yes and no. While I agree that some parts of the Bible, as with any ancient sources, are subject to intricacies and complexities of language and context in order to be fully understood, it does not take any formal training to be able to easily find both scientific and historical flaws in the Bible as well as logical flaws in the internal logic of the Bible and whilst there will inevitably be misunderstandings in the more complex issues, many of them require simply a rational, critical mind as opposed to formal training, as it were.

We're not screwed, we're just whatever. According to the Talmud, we can still have a place in the world to come if we follow the Seven Laws of Noah (sexual morality, don't murder/steal, eat properly, don't blaspheme/worship idols).

The early Christian church decided that these laws were constraints and extremely difficult for everyone to follow and Jesus freed them from such laws (despite him saying otherwise), which then begs the question as to why they would believe God would lay down laws to the rest of the people who indeed were just whatever from which anyone would need to be 'freed'. It honestly sounds a bit sadistic, to be honest.

This is what I mean; it takes simply a rational mind and an openness to consider the logic outside of a preconceived idea of Biblical infallibility.

[Fiyenyaa]

I'm not saying that's its "blasphemous," or whatever, to question the Bible. I'm saying not only is it healthy, even requisite, to question and examine parts of the Bible, it's also important to do it correctly. A bunch of untrained skeptics casually reading through a text like this are bound to make errors, even more so when they're reading it from an English translation without any background in the history or language of the object of study.

Does that not mean that any in-depth study of scripture in a language other than it's original is inherently flawed, then?

[cfmonkey45]

Yes and no. While I agree that some parts of the Bible, as with any ancient sources, are subject to intricacies and complexities of language and context in order to be fully understood, it does not take any formal training to be able to easily find both scientific and historical flaws in the Bible as well as logical flaws in the internal logic of the Bible and whilst there will inevitably be misunderstandings in the more complex issues, many of them require simply a rational, critical mind as opposed to formal training, as it were.

Perhaps I didn't word it clear enough, but yeah, that's what I said.

Does that not mean that any in-depth study of scripture in a language other than it's original is inherently flawed, then?

Not entirely, see above.

The early Christian church decided that these laws were constraints and extremely difficult for everyone to follow and Jesus freed them from such laws (despite him saying otherwise), which then begs the question as to why they would believe God would lay down laws to the rest of the people who indeed were just whatever from which anyone would need to be 'freed'. It honestly sounds a bit sadistic, to be honest.

Actually, no. The laws Christians are required to follow, laid out in Acts 15, acknowledge the Seven Noahide Laws, the laws by which, according to the Talmud, God judged the world as being "exceedingly sinful" in the time of Noah.

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and homosexual acts.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: Set up a governing body of law (eg Courts)

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

By worshiping God according to their faith (i.e. by being Christian), following the commandments set by Jesus, and by following the agreements settled by the Council of Jerusalem, they are fulfilling all Seven Laws. Only Jews have to follow the 613 Laws; Gentiles (i.e. virtually all of Christianity, save for Jews for Jesus, I guess) don't, and never, had to.

[Banana Jelly]

Frankly, I've always seen God as a cruel bastard, but everywhere I turn people are calling him benevolent and the best thing ever. But why is this so? Jesus was the kind one. While it could be said (be it accurate or inaccurate) they are the same person, they have seperate consciences, otherwise Jesus wouldn't exactly pray to God now would he?

And I don't exactly consider Jesus dying on the cross such a big deal. Anyone could die for someone knowing that they would live on. What I view him as kind for is him becoming human in the first place. God on the other hand, did little but cruel things (in comparison) doing such things as banishing a nation to the desert and having bears devour children (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2kg/2.html)

Next on my list: What makes something worthy of being compiled with the culmination of religious works known as the Bible? There were plenty of writings that could've been added to the bible that weren't (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_..._Bible_created)

I am also skeptical of whether or not the Holy Spirit ispart of the trinity or just used to describe God's spirit, but it's possible I was just incapable of finding the verses indicating it's seperation from God. Anyone got any say on this?

Lol, you are not a christian. You just disprespected god

[Monarchist]

nicoisbest, if you consider it not-very-important that Jesus died on the Cross for humanity, then you're not a Christian. There is no going any further than that point. It's rather disingenuous of you to title your thread "Questions of a Christian of his own branch" when you deny the central tenet of Christianity. I am not dismissing you and your own beliefs, but they simply aren't Christian.

[Scorch]

Actually, no. The laws Christians are required to follow, laid out in Acts 15, acknowledge the Seven Noahide Laws, the laws by which, according to the Talmud, God judged the world as being "exceedingly sinful" in the time of Noah.

I think the important thing to note here, then, is that the Gospels and the other books are not theologically consistent. The gospels contradict many of the other books, the other books tend to contradict each other and even the gospels themselves are not consistent upon many aspects of Jesus, his life, death, birth, teachings and such. "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void." (Luke 16:17) and Jesus is speaking there directly, and as a Jew.

So like I say, there are inconsistencies, however most of the theological development on this point took place after the death of Jesus and parts of it contradicts his own teachings.

[basics]

The two Laws, Moses and natural in the word of God set out that none can abide in them and therefore are all condemned to die. This is fundamental to understand. It is the starting point of all humanity. By natural or Moses that Law states that the price of sin is death and has been since the fall of man.

At that fall God prophesised of a coming "seed" who would contest with the serpent for men and any that were then accounted as being righteous before God, meaning perfect before God, were those that God called even then, by revealing His Son, the "seed" to them so that they believed.

In one sense they were not Jews and in the other they were part of the Israel of God according to the promises given to Abraham, to his sons and their offspring. Yet we find even then the pattern continues in that not all as Paul says were true Jews circumcised in the heart, rather ones circumcised in the flesh.

Those that were of the first were brought to knowledge by the same method, the same calling, the same revealing, that them before Jewery came about, and the same method that all others now find since the "seed" has come and gone. All are accounted as being righteous before God, the Law and its natural partner finding nothing in them to condemn any more.

So how did that all come about? The "seed" Jesus Christ put Himself on a cross to die as the substitute for everyone that the Father gave Him. That is the first thing to know. The Father gave Him them on account covering all those from the beginning of the world until its end. That is why they are called the elect of God.

As substitute, He took the part of each one of the elect that were under Law condemned to die for their sin, taking their sin on Himself to satisfy the same Law that no more could it find sin on them. So when the Father looked down on that cross He didn't see Jesus, He saw us and on us He poured out His wrath. The accounting was being paid in full at Calvary.

Now only those that have had the experience of regeneration know what that means. They know that they paid through Jesus Christ the price of their sin and never can they forget it. To them the Law was nailed to that wood through their Saviour, yet for others the Law remains intact and immutable. That is what Jesus Christ means to them.

But just like them before Jesus, all those of the elect yet to be born, even some still living today, will be called by God in the same fashion and method at and when their time for regeneration comes. And to prove that the promises are for all creeds and kinds we are reminded that Abraham himself was not a Jew when his own regeneration took place.

Now the detractors will never understand this. How can they, never having experienced the wonderful workings of God? Their answer is to mouth out mere spittle of abuse thinking their wisdom is greater than that experienced, but not believed, by them that have. They are on the outside looking in yet seeing nothing.

Religion does not make a Christian. Only God can justify and in doing so it is a personal experience between the recipient and Himself. And when it happens if it happens, one knows that their life has changed, will never be the same again. My dear wife always says that if there is no change there is no regeneration and that is so true.

That the Lord Jesus Christ, in accordance to the Gospel, has saved, does save and will save is beyond doubt to them that He has done so. And the important thing there is that that is not the end of the matter. In the words of another it is the end of the beginning for we live by the power of God on this planet that no-one else experiences until the day He calls us out of it.

[Scorch]

So God instrumented the brutal murder of an innocent victim and "poured out his wrath" on a scapegoat in a barbaric form of human sacrifice because he loves us so much that he wants to offer us the option of blindly following his every whim instead of suffering eternal death and torture?

Interesting ...

[basics]

" So God instrumented the brutal murder of an innocent victim and "poured out his wrath" on a scapegoat....."

Scorch,

That is the wonderful Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is written, that He was the Lamb of God sacrificed before the making of the worlds in accordance to what was ordained in the heavens by the Godhead. It is also written that you would find that offensive, the stumbling block on which to perish. Don't like the idea that God Himself should die that any get saved? Why?

[Scorch]

That is the wonderful Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is written, that He was the Lamb of God sacrificed before the making of the worlds in accordance to what was ordained in the heavens by the Godhead. It is also written that you would find that offensive, the stumbling block on which to perish. Don't like the idea that God Himself should die that any get saved? Why?

I dislike and am grossly insulted by the fact that anyone would claim that an innocent human being was excruciatingly tortured to death to make up for something that is God's fault in the first place. It is a disgusting scapegoat, essentially a human sacrifice, and conveniently frees you of any responsibility.

[Monarchist]

I dislike and am grossly insulted by the fact that anyone would claim that an innocent human being was excruciatingly tortured to death to make up for something that is God's fault in the first place. It is a disgusting scapegoat, essentially a human sacrifice, and conveniently frees you of any responsibility.

Yes; that always rather bothered me, I must say. Why should God create us in the beginning with both the potentiality to sin and yet also the free will to do so, and then punish us if we do so? In this case, it is entirely God's doing that we are sinful, and it is also His doing that we are more wired towards sin than not. Why would He punish us for doing that which is hard-wired into our beings by Him? That question is precisely why I believe in a good and loving, but firm and strong God who isn't so hypocritical. You cannot say that the God of Original Sin and Biblical Hell is consistent or perfect, but is more human than divine.

Those things listed above are why I believe in the One God, separate from trinities and blessed mothers and such things. That does not mean I have disrespect for my beloved Christian or Jewish brethren, of course, nor even of my Islamic brethren, for we all still believe in something more; alone, that fact does no one harm. Further, I do believe in miracles, in God's active working in the world, in His steering of our lives to a certain extent, and in a Hell. With regards to Hell: I do think it is a temporary place of holding for only the most palpably evil people, and that they are banished to annihilation after their "terms are up", as it were. God is far too benevolent to let His own lab rats drown forever and ever because of a drug He gave them. He would be more like Satan if that is the case. Even Hitler does not deserve an eternity of torture, though I'd give him a good, long, round figure if I were God.

[Scorch]

Those things listed above are why I believe in the One God, separate from trinities and blessed mothers and things. I do believe in miracles, in God's active working in the world, in His steering of our lives to a certain extent, and in a Hell. With regards to Hell: I do think it is a temporary place of holding for only the most palpably evil people, and that they are banished to annihilation after their "terms are up", as it were. God is far too benevolent to let His own lab rats drown forever and ever because of a drug He gave them. He would be more like Satan if that is the case. Even Hitler does not deserve an eternity of torture, though I'd give him a good, long, round figure if I were God.

Honestly I'd venture to say that you are more leaning towards a more deistic world-view than religious, in a sense.

[Monarchist]

Honestly I'd venture to say that you are more leaning towards a more deistic world-view than religious, in a sense.

Religions tend to be iffy, in my opinion. As men, we are all corrupt and fallen in some way or another. We cannot be trusted too much with big religious institutions, or else immorality is the result. Still, I do believe in a good religious institution with logic and sensibility in it; this is why I revere Thomas Aquinas, despite being a member of the gigantic Catholic Church in the midst of the Crusades.

I do dislike deists because they say God does not work in the world or care about our world. Deism seems to hold that God is simply the watchmaker who sits up above the clouds; even the stars. The God of Deism made the Universe as a little experiment in the Beginning, and then sat back to observe. Some deists appear to believe that God created many different versions of Cosmos, and is letting them all play out to different laws. There are so many bizarre little deviations and allowances in Deism that I cannot fathom ever believing in it. My belief is unshakably in a God who takes people when they must go (no matter the age), judges us all perfectly and with finality, and who smiles upon us for thanking Him at the end of the day. It's a silly corruption of theism that erupted from the scientist-revering Enlightenment, as far as I am concerned.

Even if I were to lean toward Deism, I would go no further than that. For me, God is palpable like a stomach ache or a penile erection; they are mere examples, for good or worse. There is nothing more obvious and self-evident, in my mind, than a Lord of us all. He, I believe, is where we get our strong connotations of fatherhood. No deist silliness about denying miracles and God's love here, I'm afraid.

[Scorch]

Ah, but I dislike deists because they say God does not work in the world or care about our world. Deism seems to hold that God is simply the watchmaker who sits up above the clouds; even the stars. The God of Deism made the Universe as a little experiment in the Beginning, and then sat back to observe. Some deists appear to believe that God created many different versions of Cosmos, and is letting them all play out to different laws. There are so many bizarre little deviations and allowances in Deism that I cannot fathom ever believing in it. My belief is unshakably in a God who takes people when they must go (no matter the age), judges us all perfectly and with finality, and who smiles upon us for thanking Him at the end of the day.

Fair enough, but I'd say your stance hardly makes you a Christian, to be honest. Perhaps you never said that you were, but that was the implication I got. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

Even if I were to lean toward Deism, I would go no further than that. For me, God is palpable like a stomach ache or a penile erection; they are mere examples, for good or worse. There is nothing more obvious and self-evident, in my mind, than a Lord of us all. He, I believe, is where we get our strong connotations of fatherhood. No deist silliness about denying miracles and God's love here, I'm afraid.

I disagree that any of that is self-evident and would point out that what you describe as our "strong connotations of fatherhood" is a very biologically and naturally explainable phenomenon.

[Monarchist]

Nonsense though it may be, I do admit openly to cherry-picking the good bits and absorbing them into my philosophy. Two of the most important beliefs I have in my whole life come from the Bible, and I am thankful for them. They are easily explicable, if you do wish to know what they are, but they are immaterial to the holiness of the book itself.

[Scorch]

Nonsense though it may be, I do admit openly to cherry-picking the good bits and absorbing them into my philosophy. Two of the most important beliefs I have in my whole life come from the Bible, and I am thankful for them. They are easily explicable, if you do wish to know what they are, but they are immaterial to the holiness of the book itself.

Well that is rather a different matter as you don't profess the infallibility of that book, so there is no hypocrisy involved in absorbing the arguments that you like.