Hey all! I am new to this forum. I used to be a very active member of another Atheist forum..that is until they allowed Christians to be moderators (I kid you not).
I love to sit around and ponder the obvious.............
I have often noticed a phenomenon among my Christian Pals when discussing religion...that they know little of the OT and when presented with its facts (atrocities) they scoff it off and start blathering about a "New Covenant" and how JC changed everything.
They are so smitten with JC that they put little or no emphasis on the big G-man.
They forget that JC is nothing but the Taxi Driver to Heaven.....so you can spend eternity with GOD. JC is the method. But then you throw in a heaping dose of Trinity Speak and it muddies the water...and somehow at the end of the Trinity Algebra.....the answer is oddly...ALL JESUS! So the pissed off Jesus (Trinity god of the OT) is NOT the same as the NT Hippy Jesus.
This is all part of the whacked out reasoning of the Christian mind.
Think about the name at the core...its CHRISTIANITY not GODianity. It’s all about JC...it’s like a huge crush on an invisible friend...its...THE CULT OF CHRIST.
I do believe there were early Christians in the 1st century that believed that JC had NOTHING to do with the Jewish God. That seems to be where Christianity today has quietly worked its self to.
Am I alone in my observations?
Welcome to A/N - as far as I know, there are no undercover christians in our ranks... yet...
I agree with almost all of your post, until you get to this point:
"I do believe there were early Christians in the 1st century that believed that JC had NOTHING to do with the Jewish God. That seems to be where Christianity today has quietly worked its self to."
How would you defend this statement? Which of the purported historical writings of the early christian church indicate that Jesus wasn't still recognized as a mechanism to get to God?
Bart Ehrman speaks of this sect of early Christianity in one of his "Great Lecture" episodes.
It was a small group of early Christians who could not reconcile the OT god and JC.
I will pay closer attention next time I hear him speak of them. They believe JC was ALL you needed.
Bart says it was the Marcionites, followers of the second century teacher Marcion.
Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God, and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.
Very interesting - historicity of the christian church isn't one of the topics I spend much time investigating, so this came as quite a surprise to me, but what a fascinating find this was.
When the Jerusalem church admonished Paul for "preaching to the gentiles", it had nothing to do with his conversion of the non-Jewish Greeks and Romans. Their concerns were the fact that Paul was retelling the story of Jesus in a format that the Greeks and Romans were comfortable with (conditioned to). The popular form of Greco-Roman belief systems was the "mystery cults" an idea that was blasphemous to Jewish religion and contrary to their culture.. Christianity should, more accurately, be called Paulism .
But then it's all bullshit - that there are underlying levels of bullshit is not surprising.
PAULISM is EXACTLY what it is Jim. Jesus was ONLY speaking to Jews and he was abundantly clear about it too. It was Paul that took JC's message and blurred the lines.
And because Paul blurred the lines of early Christianity it was also Paul who was refured to as "the AntiChrist" that was already among them in the last book of the Christian Bible. No great mysteries and powers here, no nukes and modern warfare, no "beam me up, Scotty" from Jesus, but just a lot of imaginary writings of some deluded soul that was warning everyone that Paul was deluding them all even more. The poor guy simply wanted to set the record straight and modern fundamentalists didn't see it this way, made a doctrine and wrote many books, and they have been laughing their way to the bank ever since.
Just thought I would set the record straight.
In general, christian ideals make no sense to me. Truthfully, I think people would be better off to believe in Santa Claus instead of some guy that enjoys seeing his followers suffer.. They're both imaginary but at least Santa brings joy and not diseases, war, natural disasters, etc to teach people a lesson.
Santa is demonstrably better in many other ways as well! A few highlights from The Hiking Humanist's list "10 Reasons Santa Is Better Than God":
1. Santa doesn’t care if you believe in him or not. He’s not that insecure.
6. No one has ever killed, waged war, interfered with school curriculum, attacked science, or interfered with laws and government in Santa’s name. Nor has anyone used Santa as an excuse for bigotry against minority groups. You don’t see any “Santa hates fags” signs around, do you?
8. Santa does not demand brutal human sacrifice on a cross. He’d just appreciate some milk and cookies. And maybe some carrots for the reindeer. Torture? He’ll pass. Oh, and he doesn’t want any of your money, either.
9. NORAD tracks Santa every year. That’s just awesome.
You can also get your picture taken with Santa in stores. God has yet to pose with me or my dog.
10. Although neither god nor Santa are real, no one judges your character for not believing in Santa.
(Read the whole piece by JulieWasHere)
Thanks for sharing JulieWasHere! Great thoughts. I encourage you to read the whole piece.
No, Denicio, you are not alone. Although religious history is interesting, and I have read many books and authors paying attention to who said what, when and why. There are so many versions of religions and of all the versions, and many that we have never seen and never will because they have been destroyed by opposition or by age. It all adds up us to individuals hearing a religious story that resonates in their minds, bodies and emotions, and they choose to follow this or that version.
I sometimes imagine what kind of a philosophy of life and a perception of the universe will produce the kind of environment where every living thing on Earth has a place because of the evolutionary processes that create critters to fill all the niches. We need scavengers, just as we need humanitarians. I don't know why we need mosquitos, or aphids and I do my best to wipe them off the face of the Earth.
We need a healthy water cycle and all the processes that go along with making it so.
We need a healthy nitrogen cycle.
We need a healthy soil cycle.
All of these processes have been impacted by human activity. If we believe Earth is created for humans to dominate and control, we soil our own nests. If we believe Earth and all its networks work together to create balance in each process, then humans will take care of, protect and make decisions based on what is good for the Earth.