Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 11:47 am

Poll: The problem with Christianity lies in...
This poll is closed.
Christ Himself
2.70%
1 2.70%
Christians
40.54%
15 40.54%
Both of them
56.76%
21 56.76%
Total 37 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unconventional Religion
#11
RE: Unconventional Religion
I have no problem with that Jesus guy (if he ever existed). It's just that some people seem to ignore Jesus' hippie-dippy message and use Christianity as an excuse to hate. I'm sure Jesus would be like, "WTF, people?"
Reply
#12
RE: Unconventional Religion
(July 26, 2013 at 8:24 am)Consilius Wrote: By Christianity, I mean its early followers, and not the sad imitation of the church that we see today.
I always thought it was only Protestants (and Muslims) who fantasized about romantic notions of an "early church" and how much more pure and good it was over the modern corrupt version. It's interesting to hear that Catholics also share the fantasy.

Protestants like to imagine, without much basis in fact, that Jesus established a pure church, devoid of the corruptions of Constantine and the later established Roman Catholic Church. Their justification for their split with Rome was not just that Rome was in need of reform but that the entire sect had lost its way and that the various Protestant denominations were attempting to get back to the simple, pure "early" church. Thus, they were not rebelling. Rather, they claimed to be the True Christians ™.

Muslims also use a variation on this fantasy. Jesus and his followers were preaching a return to monotheism and devotion to God in a way that was a precursor to Muhammad's teachings. Islam, they maintain, corrects the corruptions of Christianity and gets back to what Jesus was really preaching.

Mormons got into the early-church-fantasy game by also claiming that both the Protestants and Catholics had lost their way. Evidently, God just sat back an watched his followers get it completely wrong for almost 2000 years before sending an angel to set Joseph Smith straight.

But before you laugh at the Mormons, remember that the "early church" fantasy requires a belief that Jesus watched all of you get it all wrong and apparently doesn't care to correct you in any way indistinguishable from the claims of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or any other prophet who comes forward to say "God spoke to me and told me to tell you..."

Given how nostalgic and fuzzy notions of "the early church" are utilized by a wild variety of different denominations and even sects should be enough to warn us that they are based more on imagination and contrived interpretations of folklore than they are upon reliable historical data. As a matter of fact, as we look closely at what real historical data tells us of early Christianity (or, more accurately, early Christianities), we see a very different picture.

The Dubious Nature of Biblical Accounts
Christians may try to justify the nostalgia and fantasy that surrounds the fuzzy and romantic notions of "the early Church" with what is written in the NT, both the accounts of The Book of Acts and the epistles allegedly written by Paul and other early church fathers.

A skeptic who reads The Book of Acts can only wonder how anyone can take this book seriously as a historical account. Even by the standards of the other books of the Bible, it is drenched in angelic interventions, sorcery, overt miracles and even a cameo appearance by the Big Man Himself, complete with bright lights and a booming voice. One can barely turn a page without reading about some bit of woo or other. Yet, the very same god who continually rocks the world with supernatural pyrotechnics in Acts has gone quiet today now that we have the technology to both detect and record such disturbances to the natural order. Jesus promised that the faithful would be able to heal the sick and cast out demons, and indeed such things were done in Acts, and yet such a convincing demonstration can't be done today under medical peer review. Out of the billion-some-odd followers of Jesus, are there none with sufficient faith to even heal a paper-cut? Neither is there any independent historical account of the miracles of Acts, the apostasy of Saul of Tarsis or even the feats of the wandering Godman who supposedly walked the earth only a generation prior. If such miracles ever happened, we have no way of knowing about them except through Christian scripture.

The letters or epistles are barely any more reliable. Scholarship estimates that half the epistles attributed to Paul are of questionable authenticity. "Pseudo-epigraphy", a sophisticated way of saying "forgery", was a seriously problem in that day and age, particularly in religious writing. If you were an aspiring theologian and wanted to push a certain worldview or agenda, it was a common tactic to use the name of a more noted and respected church figure and "discover" the letter.

An easy example of this problem can be found when you compare the Book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke, both allegedly written by the same author. Luke's Gospel has Jesus rising up into the sky on the day of his resurrection but Acts says Jesus remained on earth 40 days before his dramatic departure into Heaven.

The Bible Wrote:Luke 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

One would think that the same author would remember such details with a bit more clarity. Such a continuity gaffe of such an important even is best explained by two different authors, or at the very least a later alteration by another author to one of these two books.

This brings me to the problem of "interpolation". Changes in scripture and other ancient writings creep in over time. Sometimes they are accidental. A scribe may accidentally change a word or misplace a sentence. This faulty copy is then copied and eventually becomes the new version. Other times, a deliberate change is introduced to further some theological or political agenda. Sometimes it's hard to say for certain whether such alterations are intended or not but what is certain is that they happen, particularly with religious writings where the agendas of the controlling clergy are so important.

Christians who like to believe that their current Bible is the original are not aware of just how much the book has changed over time. Mark chapter 16 originally ended at verse 8. Another 12 verses were later added to create a more satisfying ending. Bart Ehrman has discussed how Jesus' famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" moment in John was also a later addition.

The early church was fraught with political strife, even by the very accounts of the Bible as it exists today. Echoes of some of these struggles are found in scripture in the epistles of John. In not one but two of his three letters that have found their way into canon, John rails against the "false Christians" who preach that Jesus did not exist in the flesh (presumably the Docetic Christians). Apparently, devoted followers of Christ who lived only a generation after the time in which he walked the earth decided to ignore an obvious reality of his existence and decided he was only a spiritual apparition.

The Bible Wrote:1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2John verse 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

So what do we know?
If there was an "early church", it was crowded out by many different variations on the Christian theme. The Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Docetics and the followers of Arius to name a few each offered different ideas about who and what Jesus was and what he preached. The wild variety of early Christian theologies would make the distinctions between modern Christianity and Islam seem like petty hair splitting.

The followers of Marcion believed that Christians should ditch the OT and all things Jewish. They had nothing to do with the OT god Yahweh. He was a petty, inept god of this world. Jesus was the higher, more perfect god who came down to earth, fully formed as a man, as all other gods of the time did. Jesus, according to Marcion, had taken pity on humanity and offered a better way and certainly had no "father" nor any mortal parents like Mary. Salvation comes through keeping faith in this new god.

The Ebionites, by stark contrast, were the most Jewish of the early Christians. Jesus was a man, son of Mary and Joseph, and conceived as all other men are. At his baptism, he was adopted by God as a son and received the Holy Spirit. His sacrifice on the cross was only to fulfill all need for animal sacrificed. Salvation comes through keeping the OT laws.

The Docetics believed that the material world was evil and that the spiritual world was good. God, being spiritual and good, could not become material or flesh. This, to them, would be like a round square or a straight curve. It was a contradiction. Jesus existed only as an apparition. The word for this denomination is derived from "to seem".

The followers of Arius rejected the Trinity and maintained that Jesus was an angel, sent by God.

There are other early "heterodox" Christianities. Christian apologists do not deny they existed but try to downplay them as schismatics and heretics. Reject them as heretical all you like but it is clear that early Christians were not united in their ideas about Jesus or any other basic aspects of Christian theology.

Bottom line:
There was no one single "early Church" and any romantic notions about it are based at best on folklore.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#13
RE: Unconventional Religion
Holy fuck, DP. Did you write this for a school assignment or something? I hope you got extra credit.
Everything I needed to know about life I learned on Dagobah.
Reply
#14
RE: Unconventional Religion
And, DP, what about the early church exploiting the masses? Any evidence either way?

(July 26, 2013 at 9:28 am)genkaus Wrote:
(July 26, 2013 at 9:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Most of the world doesn't need a religion to tell them to be poor and humiliated.
Yes, it does. Without religion, they have no reason to remain poor and humiliated.
Christ said it was OK to be poor if you ARE poor. That suffering was a part of life that happens, and when it does, you should brave through it and let it pass. Not that poverty or pain should be sought out.
He didn't preach about making money because he taught that morals were of greater value. Life shouldn't be about making your life as comfortable as possible, because Christianity is not a meritocracy where you lose if your bank account isn't as large as you would like.
Reply
#15
RE: Unconventional Religion
(July 27, 2013 at 8:05 am)Consilius Wrote: And, DP, what about the early church exploiting the masses? Any evidence either way?

We need to first define what you mean by "early church" and "exploiting the masses". I've already reviewed how there was not one church but many. Also, what time period are we discussing?

If your point is to discuss the motive behind the establishment of Christianity, I haven't suggested that the original intent was to start a church that would exploit people. I personally find it more likely that the driving force behind early Christianity was a theological crisis in Judaism. The Jews were chaffing under the rule of a foreign empire. What happened to Yahweh's promise that the seed of David would rule for all time?

I have to run right now but I'll post more on this later. To give a sneak preview, it involves looking for the promised kingdom in a "higher place" and incorporating pagan influences of an intercessor-deity and a salvation message for the afterlife.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#16
RE: Unconventional Religion
(July 27, 2013 at 8:05 am)Consilius Wrote: Christ said it was OK to be poor if you ARE poor. That suffering was a part of life that happens, and when it does, you should brave through it and let it pass. Not that poverty or pain should be sought out.
He didn't preach about making money because he taught that morals were of greater value. Life shouldn't be about making your life as comfortable as possible, because Christianity is not a meritocracy where you lose if your bank account isn't as large as you would like.

Exactly what I was talking about. It's take quite a bit of mind control to convince someone that these corrupt and immoral ideas were somehow a good thing.

The sane and rational view would be: Being poor is not okay. If you are poor, work and earn money. Don't accept suffering meekly as a part of your life - fight against it, treat it as something that should not have happened and try to make it so that it does not happen again. Don't put morals before money or money before morals. Choose both, because both are needed to live a happy and healthy life. Make your life as comfortable as possible, because this is the only one you may have and it should not be spent in misery and suffering. Build a meritocracy where people get what they work for and deserve.
Reply
#17
RE: Unconventional Religion
Which comes first, money, or morals? Say a person had one to chose, as often is the case.
Reply
#18
RE: Unconventional Religion
(July 29, 2013 at 3:19 am)Consilius Wrote: Which comes first, money, or morals? Say a person had one to chose, as often is the case.

Depends on the situation. In some cases money comes first, in others morals. Which is why you should make choices such that you'd rarely have to choose.
Reply
#19
RE: Unconventional Religion
...More on the original motives behind Christianity...

Before I go into detail on what seems to me at least to be a compelling scenario behind the formation of Christian theology, it is essential to review exactly what that is and how it differs from Judaism. Christians like to imagine that their religion is the seamless fulfillment of Judaism and that Jesus was the prophesied messiah. In reality, Jesus is at odds with the OT that would be difficult to explain without relying upon pagan influences.

Jesus: Evolved Not Intelligently Designed
First, there's the fact that Jesus hardly fits the bill. The Jews were waiting for a warlord that would lead Israel to glory over her enemies, not a meek and mild hippie preaching a gospel of peace and promising universal salvation to all people who came to him. If you arrange the NT books in the order in which they were written, you can already begin to see how the Christ character evolved:

Revelation
Epistles
Gospel of Mark
Gospels of Matthew and Luke
Gospel of John

The Jesus of Revelation is the closest to what the Jews were expecting. He was a celestial warlord who leads an army to triumph over Israel's enemies. The character clearly evolved by the time we got to Mark. Christians like to imagine that this is because Jesus would first come as a lamb and later as a lion. In scripture, he was first made as a lion and later remade as a lamb. The Epistles had little to say of Jesus' trip to earth ("take and eat", a quoted reference to the pagan Eucharist is the only quotation of Christ's earthly life as found in the Epistles that I'm aware of). They were more concerned with a celestial lord that had existed from the beginning and had sacrificed himself and offered us salvation. He was brought down to earth in Mark but this bio starts with his baptism. His childhood and birth would later be fleshed out in Matthew and Luke, both working independently to expand Mark and both coming up with very different stories. These "Synoptic" Gospels depict a Jesus who is clearly separate from and subordinate to his father, a point that creates a problem for strict Jewish monotheism. Jesus would later be rewritten as God-incarnate in John's Gospel, the only one compatible with Trinitarian theology.

That last point underscores a profound problem for the new religion. Judaism is strictly monotheistic (or at least it was by the time of Christianity but I won't go into early Jewish polytheism in this post). It's god was extremely jealous and shared the spotlight with no being. Who is this upstart that wants to take center-stage? And how can he claim to be the intercessor for the divine when the Jewish OT god strictly forbade it?

Quote:Isaiah 43:10-12 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

And let's not forget the very first commandment:

Quote:Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

So the OT *forbids* us to have an intercessor.

Quote:John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So the NT *requires* us to have an intercessor.

In fact, the OT seems to require that a blasphemer like Jesus be put to death:

Quote:Deuteronomy 13:1-6 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

The Evolution of Hell and the Afterlife
So what do we need a savior for again? To save us from what again?

Hell is a word you won't find in the OT if it's properly translated. The Jews believed (and may still believe, I need to ask sometime) in Sheol, which means "the grave". A proper discussion of the evolution of the afterlife in the Bible is discussed by this YouTube video series starting here:





So where did Hell come from then?

One of the words used to describe Hell is "Gehenna", a Greek word that refers to the Valley of Hinom, just outside Jerusalem. This was the site of an ancient temple to Baal where supposedly children were sacrificed by being thrown into the fire. This valley is discussed in OT scripture:

Quote:Jeremiah 19:4-6 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.

This reference is understood by Christian apologists. Pat Robertson confirms this in his teachings on Hell.

Pat Robertson Wrote:Now, what is Hell like? Jesus said it's like Gehenna. Gehenna was the city dump outside of Jerusalem. He said the fire is never quenched and the worm does not die. It was eternal burning, a place of refuse and burning, and He used that to describe Hell.

Later Jews would shun settlement in this valley, using it as a garbage dump where refuse was burned. As a final insult to those executed criminals, their bodies would not be buried but rather thrown into this valley and burned with the rest of the refuse.

So let's review:
Gehenna is:
  • A place associated with a sadistic god
  • A place associated with a rival of the Judeo-Christian god
  • A place of torment and suffering
  • A place of fire
  • A place where the wicked would be tossed after their death

Sound familiar?

It's easy to see how this idea of Hell evolved and was incorporated into Christianity.

I have to go but will write more later as I'm able. Stay tuned...
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#20
RE: Unconventional Religion
So having reviewed how "Hell" evolved into existence, now we turn to another important distinction between Christianity and Judaism, that we need an intercessor with the divine in order to achieve salvation. As I've touched on earlier with my quotes both of the 10 Commandments and Yahweh's rant in Isaiah 43:10-12, it's clear that the Jewish god is a jealous figure who demands direct attention from his chosen people and tolerates no middle-man. So how is it that the same god fades into the background while his son takes center stage?

Modern Christians often go to the Trinity as the way out of this conundrum. Jesus can forgive sins and grant salvation because he is God-incarnate (or a part of the Triune god). To be generous, we can overlook the tautology that this creates with John 16:4, turning the phrase into "no man cometh unto me except by me."

Yet where is such a Trinity to be found in the original Synoptic Gospels, the accounts which surely must be the most accurate for their relative internal agreement ("relative" is the key qualifier here but that's another topic for another time) as well as the fact that they were the first accounts and therefore the least likely to have been altered (the more time oral tradition has before being penned, the less reliable it is). Search the Synoptic Gospels in vein for any indication that Jesus was supposed to be god incarnate. The closest Christians can come is a chapter where Matthew misquotes Isaiah 7, and even this chapter is a reference to "God (is) with us". I feel confident in adding the verb "is" because of the context of the entire chapter, where the message of Isaiah is "we will prevail over the Syrians because we have a sign that God is with us". The Syrians won that conflict. Perhaps they had iron chariots. Sorry, couldn't help that dig. Moving on...

Reading the Synoptic Gospels, it's clear that Jesus was a separate being from and completely subordinate to his father-god.

Jesus has less knowledge than his father:
Quote:Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Jesus has a separate and subordinate will to his father:
Quote:Matt 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Jesus and his father speak to each other in second person and of each other in third person:
Quote:Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son;in thee I am well pleased.

It's only in the Gospel of John that Jesus becomes the bombastic God-incarnate character:
Quote:John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

This was a doctrine that not all Christians at the time accepted (see my earlier post on the wild variety of Christianities that existed in the first few centuries). Given how it appeared in the latest of the four Gospels, it seems like Christians realized reconciling the pagan idea of a intercessor with the divine was incompatible with strict Jewish monotheism and posited the avatar concept (avatar being essentially a human suit that the gods of ancient times wore when mingling with mortals) as a solution. But then if Jesus is an avatar of Yahweh, why doesn't Jesus have the same knowledge and will of Yahweh and why doesn't he say so instead of talking to/of himself in second/third person?

Religion, like art, tends to evolve over time until it is set in stone by scripture. During the first few centuries, there was no New Testament. This new religion, being born, was prone to influences from neighboring cultures. Judea was on the cross-roads to three continents, after all, and Rome helped to tie many of these disparate cultures into one nation. Virtually no apologist denies that major Christian holidays like "Easter" and "Christmas" have heavy pagan influences.

Christians may like to think that their religion is the fulfillment of Judaism but the Jews of the time had no concept of Hell nor the need for an intercessor to the divine. A better understanding of Christianity is as the offspring of Judaism and paganism as it explains the foreign concepts to Judaism.

So why was the hybrid religion created? Tune in next time...
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)