Here is a interesting thought

[LostLocke]

I fully accept all analogies about Christianity to the Matrix.

Of course you have to realize, I was one of the few who thought the Matrix was an incredibly boring movie, not in the least bit thought provoking, and was really nothing but a marketing vehicle to test out the then new CGI effects.

So yes, Christianity to me is quite a bit like the Matrix.

[Drich]

Drich,

Interesting that you should identify the prodigal son story as not really fitting in with Christian traditional interpretation. I did much the same thing, but I came up with a rather different story.

I desperately want this not to be a long post so I will be as brief as possible.

Several years ago I read Mark's gospel for reasons that do not really matter now. This took a whole lot longer than I had expected and I ended up with a large amount of cross-referencing to the other gospels along the way. In the end I read the whole of Mark, 70 odd % of Matthew and chunks of Luke - very little John.

That is like taking a look of 1/4 of a 'build your own air plane' kit and starting on that project thinking you have a complete understanding of that particular kit. Even if you grew up in and around 'air planes' all your life, you still won't know how to put together that particualr kit together without completely reading the manual.

If one were to build his own airplane out of a kit without first reading the instructions and understanding them. He will be doomed to making critical errors. Even if it looks like it should on the outside, there is no way for him to connect all of the avionics internally. There are very few Howard Hughes' in the word who can build a plane out of scrap and make it fly, and even so Howard did not build planes on his own.

I came to the conclusion that Christianity made no sense whatsoever. This depressed me no-end. About 2 billion people call themselves Christian and, having read what I had, I couldn't see a single reason as to why.

It's probably because they not only read what you read the kept going, and then followed up with putting what they read into practice. Thus collecting what God has promised those who will do as He asks.

It took me a long time to come up with any version of Xtianity that even could make sense. Once I did I felt rather better but it differed from the more traditional Xtian message I knew of.

Maybe that is why you can not believe. Because you like so many like you who have gone on before, know deep down that no matter how you slice it your 'version' of Christian. It begins and ends with you. Meaning there can not be a God if you stick to your line of reasoning/understanding of the bible.

This looks like a fine opportunity to share that with you now:

Xtianity is based on both the OT and the NT.

The OT is, essentially, the Jewish text.

For the NT to make any sense the OT had to be correct at the time.

Jesus comes to offer a new covenant to the Jews - who had already received a covenant of their own through Abraham.

Abraham's covenant was essentially a rather dodgy real estate deal and a promise. The promise was - follow the rules and your descendants will continue. This is an agreement without end. It is a contract (covenant in biblical speak). Even God cannot unilaterally change its terms (or his word means nothing).

Do you not see the problem with your line of reasoning in this block of text?
Your Right! God can not change the rules of the covenant mid journey for no reason or His word would mean nothing.. So who repersents the other side of the covenant? and you should ask did they keep their end of the deal?

So when Jesus comes to offer a new covenant he is saying to the Jews (only the Jews at this stage): Look at this new deal - its better than the existing one (personal salvation and so on) - why not switch?

If you would have read the Gospels one message would have rang out to you eventually. They Weren't Keeping Their End Of The Deal! Look at how Jesus Rips into the Pharisees, scribes and makers of the law over and over and over and over again.
"Woe to you pharisees and makers of the law you Hypocrites!"
Is a phrase Christ Himself said against the religious LEARDERS of Judaism many many different times. These men repersented the cream of that religious crop, and Jesus found fault after fault after fault with them, what they taught, and how they taught it. In short they were not keeping their end of the covenant. Thus the need for a new one.

Some do. Some don't. Those that don't, however, have to still be covered by the existing covenant (Abraham's) by definition.

Those who did See and accepted the authority Christ, (Authority weilded, through the miricals He did in the Name of the Father. Meaning they understood God the Father would not bless and support Christ doing things like this in God the Father's name, if He were not sent by the Father.) Accepted what Christ said. Which in short was, The current system/covenant is broken, and He set up a non-works/attonement based covenant.

Those who did not convert, held fast to their works and their own understanding of righteousness, but to do this they had to dismiss Christ and all that He had done. So the said it is by Satan He did those miricals. In turn Christ Identified that whole hard hearted condition that had them deny the works of the Holy Spirit as Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. (The unforgivable sin.) Which is why it is said that is the only sin that can not be forgiven. (Because one must have a hard heart against God The Holy Spirit, fore He is the personage of God that Speaks and communicates the reality of salvation to us.)

Therefore, once Jesus dies (and establishes the new covenant by doing so) we have 2 valid covenants with God - the Jewish covenant and the brand new one with Christ.

Actually no. As Christ Points out in Mat 5 it is not possiable for any man even a true blood Jew to up hold the complete law as per the old covenant.

Jews follow the old one and Christians, once Christ himself has died, can follow the new one. Both, in the logic of the framework, have to be correct for Christianity to be correct.

Maybe this would be the logical conclusions for works based christianity, but biblical christianity does not work that way.

In Biblical Christianity Christ undergirds the OT, and takes it to it completeion, in that not only it is wrong to murder it is wrong to do so/hate in your mind for as He explains the sin of hate that has a man take another man's life, is the same. He makes another example of adultry, and looking at women lustfully. It is with this in Mind that the bible says we can not keep the Law as God intends for us to Keep, which makes every man a sinner. Which in turn points to the need for attonment. Not the attonement of sheep and blood of other animals, but the pure blood only God can offer...

If we can have 2.......we could have more.

Not if you understand the nature of the two. Not to mention Only God Himself can offer a covenant.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Islam was a third, valid, covenant.

Again does not match the criteria of the first two, covenants. For 'Mo-Ham' himself does not claim to be God, but just a prophet, who received a revelation from an 'angel.' Of which I have no doubt. the only thing that I question, was the angel was from God? Because He is not the only one with angels.
Same for joey smith.

Were this the case then one would expect the second covenant to mention the possibility, although in an abstract way.

That's the thing, Mo-Hams 'covenant' does not continue anything Christ did. It userps it. Mo-Ham basically takes back all of the freedom Christianity offers and puts the believers of Mo-Ham in the same type of self righteous bondage Christ railed against the Pharisees for. To believe in Islam is to outright deny what Christ Lived and died for. In essence Mo-Ham tried to set up a gentile version of Judaism.

For me the story of the Prodigal Son is that mention:

The father is God.
The father's servants are probably the Jews.
The elder Son is Jesus.
The younger son - the Johny come lately to the party, is Mohamed.

Islam supposedly descend from Ishmael. That puts them "in da house"
Ishmael's descendants wander off only to come back later.

When the younger son returns he does so expecting that he can only do it through becoming a servant in the house (rejoining the Jews). When he returns, however, the father (God) rushes out to greet and welcome him. Note how he bypasses the older son, Jesus. Jesus is actually rather pissed off about the whole thing. When he complains to the father it is explained to him that the younger son's inheritance in no way diminishes his own. Everyone can get a place in heaven if they are on one of the 3 paths.

Neat, but you run into the same problem the traditional interpertation has. It does not jive with the other two parables of 'lost things/people.' All three must work together or the point of telling three stories with interlocking points is lost. All three point to repentance and How Heaven is effected when what was lost is found. Where your interpertation can not work is all three point to the necessity of a sinner repenting. Islam is not about attonement for sin it is about a works based righteousness and thus would conflict with the other two parable Christ taught.

Never the less it was a 'neat' take on the story.

The above explanation, for me, was the best I could come up with that could actually stand. It does mean, however, that there are several paths to God and one is not necessarily better than the other.

But again Christ says, that the only path through to the Father is through Him. Does that mean a specific brand of Christianity? No of course not, Does it mean Christianity in General? Not Necessarily. Can it mean one can worship another God in another religion? Absolutly not. What did Christ Mean?
I mean He alone will judge who is and is not worthy based on our lives and intentions. It really does not make a difference on what you call yourself for Christ in the end will judge who is worthy and who is not, who has taken advantage of all that has been offered and who has buried their gifts into the ground.

It makes the idea of one group attacking another ludicrous - which means a whole lot of history is the story of how wrong man gets it sometimes.

Agreed. Because not wish to worship the God of the bible.
Those who do will and those who do not will create something suitable, that is why I do not try and 'convert' muslims.

I would be interested in your reaction but please note - this is not actually my belief - merely an academic exercise to try to make sense of any of it, starting from the premise of God.

Noted.

[Cyberman]

This thread is stretching the words "interesting" and "thought" into farce territory.

[Drich]

Which ones specifically?

The ones you wrote. Look, I'm sick of spoonfeeding you guys. It's ok for you to be as vague as you like, that's being all mystical and deep. But the instant, the actual moment, someone makes a comment on it that doesn't lick your arse, your brain immediately bluescreens and suddenly you need book, chapter and verse. It's obtuse in the extreme and monumentally annoying, which of course is presumably the intention as a stalling tactic. Do what you want me to do; go back to the start and read what you wrote for yourself. I am not my brother's keeper. I'm most definitely not yours.

So... the words i wrote, compare to which words Joseph Smith wrote?

He wrote a bunch, and even if your not my keeper you are your own, so man up and stand behind your own words. You said what I wrote sound like what Joseph wrote, so one more time, tell me which words of HIS are you refering?

---

This thread is stretching the words "interesting" and "thought" into farce territory.

Then You should feel quite at home Stimy.

[Cyberman]

Thank you, I do. I'd like to ask, however, that you please don't spell my username that way - or if you really must, then double-m it. The way you wrote it makes it look at first blush like "Slimy" and that's one thing of which I can rarely be accused. Sadly.

[Cyberman]

So... the words i wrote, compare to which words Joseph Smith wrote?

He wrote a bunch, and even if your not my keeper you are your own, so man up and stand behind your own words. You said what I wrote sound like what Joseph wrote, so one more time, tell me which words of HIS are you refering?

None of my words ever once mentioned Joseph Smith, so naturally I never compared your words to his.

As for "man up"; not being Catholic, my own personal bread is buttered elsewhere. (Yes I know - it's almost as though I'm deliberately misunderstanding for 'comic' effect, isn't it?)

[Drich]

So... the words i wrote, compare to which words Joseph Smith wrote?

He wrote a bunch, and even if your not my keeper you are your own, so man up and stand behind your own words. You said what I wrote sound like what Joseph wrote, so one more time, tell me which words of HIS are you refering?

None of my words ever once mentioned Joseph Smith, so naturally I never compared your words to his.

As for "man up"; not being Catholic, my own personal bread is buttered elsewhere. (Yes I know - it's almost as though I'm deliberately misunderstanding for 'comic' effect, isn't it?)

ok,_____________ (fill in the blank with whatever version of your screen name you like) I see my error, and I retract my statement about Joseph Smith and substitute it with L.Ron Hubbard.

LRH wrote alot of stuff, what words of his are you reminded of when you read my work?

[freedomfromforum]

What if..

Every Soul on this planet elected to be here. what if we begged and pleaded to be here for.... YADA YADA YADA....

______________________________________________________

What if...

The Flying Spaghetti Monster.....(fill in the blank)

Your question proposes fantasy.... NEXT!

[Tonus]

My question is what if 'we' are those fallen?

And what if we... CAN'T GET UP???

[Cyberman]

ok,_____________ (fill in the blank with whatever version of your screen name you like) I see my error, and I retract my statement about Joseph Smith and substitute it with L.Ron Hubbard.

Accepted. Graciously. As for preferred name, anything other than what you wrote - and about which I commented, not particularly seriously - would be fine, thank you. I don't know why this should be such heavy weather for you, I honestly don't.

LRH wrote alot of stuff, what words of his are you reminded of when you read my work?

I genuinely have no interest anymore. Hubbard wanted to get rich from selling tenth-rate sci fi as religious crap; I made an observation that you seemed to me to be doing something similar... though "work" is stronging it more than somewhat, if we're all honest with ourselves. I was forgetting quite how literally-minded my audience can be.