Modern christianity is false

[Logic]

I agree, but that doesn't necisarilly mean its true. This isnt a new concept, especially not to the forum.

[FreeFaller]

quote:Originally posted by Logic

I agree, but that doesn't necisarilly mean its true. This isnt a new concept, especially not to the forum.

no i know but that is what i like to believe. and i know it is not new to the forum i have seen it many places. i just wanted to get it into my own words and opinions. and i have seen it in so many places why cant there be one post of this instead, i have found posts similar in the "how does your religion or you feel about homosexuality"
and ..well mainly in there.

[exothen]

I don't agree, except for the part of how a person who is "dark," always depressed, came to the conclusion that Christianity is a joke.

[shedt]

I am a happy positive person and I have come to the same conclusion, as well as many others.

It seems when people are not taught that certain things are absolute truth from the time of thier birth, that they have a more open mind to other beliefs.

There are many differences in translations, versions and different types of Christians, one always believing its way is the proper way...

but....
I would try not to dwell on it though FreeFaller. Try to learn the truth for yourself, see how you can grow. Be open to all sorts of different beliefs. You don't want to fall in a rut and close yourself off to other things.

I would say try not to focus on the things that can hinder you. and don't worry about trying to change or convert others. most people when they are open up to learning new things will figure out for themselves. you don't have to limit yourself, and "God" (for me) is more then we can know right now.. for me, we are all just a part of God, to me God is just everything... Did God create everything ?

or maybe God helped in the formation of itself/everything, but is not seperate from itself ?

[jilola]

The people who translated the bible didn't hate Jesus. It's more than likely that they were in complete agreement. The guy had a point, a clue and more thann a whiff of what's what. But.

In the past the church was pretty much the strongest influence on the secular society, a political force in and unto itself. The church could excommunicate people, making their lives impossible to live in the society, condemn them to eternal oblivion no matter what their trespass might have been as long as it was deemed to shake the churche's authority. Can anyone spell propaganda? Coercion?
They chose to change a bit here and a bit there to maintain and strenghten their influence. Nothing to do with faith, belief or even truth. Just plain old politics and personal gain, I'm afraid.

But I'm cynical as far as any organized religion is concerned. They all have a bit of the truth and all turn their back to the whole of the same.

2cents & L&L
Jouni

[onefromsomewhereelse]

Unfortunately, the church (which means individuals) is composed of sinners saved by grace, but still able to sin in the current state.  This means there are a lot of bad ones, and a lot of good ones.  Keep looking for the good ones and don't dwell on the bad ones.
We pray for you.

[FreeFaller]

I put this here than in the topic below "Modern Christianity is a lie"
because the views area little different.

OK my friend and i were talking, and well she is a very dark person not like "goth" but like always in a depressed mood. anyway we were talking and came to the conclusion that modern christianity is a joke.

the bible was written long ago in another language. It was probably copied by people who hated jesus and changed a few things in the bible. very imprtant things could be missing such as pages, maybe even another chapter. and when translated meanings are changed, and not everything is translated correctly. then when it is translated people make different verions.

the church lies to you(ill talk more about his in another post)
and tells you god hates things(ill go more in depth in another post)
now it may seem like i am going back on what i just said but. god hates nothing, in the bible it says he loves everything and everyone even his enemy satin. so yes i believe some of the bible is correct such as the example i just used but i believe alot is missing.

over the years the true meaning of christ/life/has been lost. people mainly churches are putting words into god's mouth.

does anyone agree?? i can talk more but thats the basics.

[NickJW]

indeed, it is a joke. Why does it cost 300$ to get back into the church if you've been banned? What does money have to do with anything?      

[Telos]

If Christianity were a joke, God would want it to be a funny one.

And it is kind of funny.

[exothen]

indeed, it is a joke. Why does it cost 300$ to get back into the church if you've been banned?

Where did you ever get this idea from?

[Tom]

Anyone who feels that modern Christianity is not a good option has plenty of choices to select from. Christianity is not the only world religion and many of the others have common beliefs with it. It is possible to stay close to Christianity or to go far from it in a new direction. Also, if you find that none of them are helpful or that it is taking too long to explore them all, it is very helpful to start by writing down everything you think, feel, value, believe in, etc. Then by comparing the things you wrote down with the results you are getting in your life you will see how honest you have been with yourself. When what you wrote down matches the results you are getting in your life, you are ready to start picking and choosing the beliefs you want to keep, get rid of, or add to your collection.

[exothen]

Nothing like picking and choosing what one wants to believe with no regard as to whether it is true or not. That is a very dangerous approach.

[Tom]

People select their beliefs all of the time. Usually, it is as a lump sum with no line item veto. Usually, it is not done consciously. Acting in the full light of consciousness is a safety mechanism. If a new belief does not work, it can be eliminated. If an old belief which has been removed was more important than it seemed then it can be added back in. The only thing I'm suggesting to avoid in the process is stagnation. People are always growing but they do not tend to let their beliefs grow with them in the same way. It is like a square peg becoming a round peg and trying to stay in the old square opening. It does not mean that the square opening is false or bad in some way; it just isn't the right one to be in for a peg which has turned round.

[no_leaf_clover]

Nothing like picking and choosing what one wants to believe with no regard as to whether it is true or not. That is a very dangerous approach.

What irony!

Also.. if a belief can be proven, that doesn't make it much of a belief, does it? Or at least about as much as I believe the sky is blue. The only religion I can think of that has any evidence of anything going for it is Scientology, but I don't hold its values in high esteem. :/

[karnautrahl]

Nothing like picking and choosing what one wants to believe with no regard as to whether it is true or not. That is a very dangerous approach

Someone started it. In fact many someones did. Having religion full stop is probably a result of it. Exothen, you might be a little too certain of your own path perhaps?

I of course am guilty of nearly the opposite perhaps, I am too certain in my heart that no religion is for me to accept and believe either. Though I will accept the idea that many have common truths here and there that are relevent, too many have too many silly extras IMHO, including irrelevent rules and suchlike.
Simple ethics should be simple without hellfire and fear.  I could say more but hell I talk too much as it is

[Isiah]

The only religion I can think of that has any evidence of anything going for it is Scientology,

ha ha! you've got to be joking?


Anyway,
the bible is composed of two parts, the old testament and new testament. The old testament is around 4000 years old, and is the Jewish Torah, originally written in Hebrew. The new testament is around 2000 years old, and originally written in Greek. It is not that hard to see whether things were taken out or put in  into the old testament, because all we have to do is look at the original Hebrew text, and like-wise, the original Greek text for the new testament. The bible was first translated into English as the KJV (king Jame's version) and it has been revised into all sorts of different editions, but all of this is done by bible societies. Before this, scripture was translated into different languages by monks and other Christian scholars. No one who hated Jesus got to translate or review the bible.
Anyway, think of it this way: if God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, and all animals, humans, plants, angels, EVERYTHING, do you really think that he would just let his word become lost in translation and revision?

[Beth]

Dear Isiah,

It is not that hard to see whether things were taken out or put in  into the old testament, because all we have to do is look at the original Hebrew text, and like-wise, the original Greek text for the new testament.

Unfortunately, the originals no longer exist...We may never know what the actual originals contained.

Anyway, think of it this way: if God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, and all animals, humans, plants, angels, EVERYTHING, do you really think that he would just let his word become lost in translation and revision?

Sure, the power of God is omnipotent.  And...Divine Order can sometimes be very shocking...

Peace,
Beth

[Isiah]

Unfortunately, the originals no longer exist...We may never know what the actual originals contained.

It's a myth. The Hebrew Torah is still very much if not exactly the same as it has always been. The Greek new testament, likewise.
As already said, if God created the universe in 6 days, would he let his word become obscured and totally distorted?

[Gandalf]

It's a myth. The Hebrew Torah is still very much if not exactly the same as it has always been. The Greek new testament, likewise.
As already said, if God created the universe in 6 days, would he let his word become obscured and totally distorted?


The torah was first written around the 8th-7th century BC (and not before!) as that was when a good enough writing system was developed to record it (according to *unbiased* Israeli scholars); but it is naive to believe that the religion of Judaism didn't continue to go through significant developments for a long while after that. For example, it is clear that the religious dualism aspect, that the world was split into opposing forces of light and darkness, did not appear till c500BC onwards when the Jews picked up many ideas while in Babylon.. It was only around 300BC that an actual personification of this evil force 'Satan' was developed. Also it was from Babylon that the jews first developed  a detailed concept of an afterlife, before which, the jews vision of the after-world was not significantly different from the common 'hades' like model common at that time. The Jews first picked up the concept of a hereditary priesthood from their stay in Babylon, as well as carrying back the germs of many mystery traditions that would flower later into the Zohar and Jewish mysticism in general.

With regards to the new testament, it is correct that the four 'gospels' are indeed substantially the same as they were originally written down (dating from the late 1st to early 2nd century and NOT by the original 'disciples' themselves). However, the problem is that there were *myriads* of written stories doing the rounds as the myth of the god-man Jesus spread around after the mid-first century ad. Some were purely concerned with a mystical savior, stories which would later inform the 'gnostic' tradition, while other people made attempts to write a more historical version, trying to place this savior in a real historical time and place... it was the 'historical' jesus who eventually won out and became accepted.. Even then, there were still many versions and a process of narrowing down had to take place in order to select the few which gelled most consistently and with minimum contradictions... hence the 4 gospels.. Unfortunately, this process was not 100% successful as there are still many contradictions between the four which causes problems in interpretations... cf Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which uses bits of one and ignores aspects of others (not to mention using completely extra-gospel work!).

Now it may be that there was in actual fact a miracle worker and Christ (savior) in Judea at this time... in fact there were loads of them at this time, but was there really a real Jeshua Bar Joseph? possible, although the actual evidence is slim.. For the development of Christianity, it didn't actually matter if there really WAS such a man, by the end of the 1st century it was generally accepted as historical fact by Christians, despite glaring inaccuracies like there was no town of Nazareth in the 1c ad!
The rest as they say really is history!

Doug

[chohan]

the bible is composed of two parts, the old testament and new testament. The old testament is around 4000 years old, and is the Jewish Torah...  

Hello Isiah. You mean the Jewish Tanakh, correct? Which includes the Torah, the five books of Moses.

Doug, I agree with your authorship dates and I don't wish to highjack the thread, just wanted to call attention to the Babylonian and Sumerian accounts of the creation and flood. Some of the Sumerian clay cylinders are 4000 years old, much older that the Hebrew accounts and imo seem to add much light upon the schizophrenic behaviour of the Israelite god especially in reference to the flood.

The Sumerian account of the creation of mankind is the one I found quite telling:

"Oh my son, rise from your bed, from your... work what is wise, fashion servants of the gods.

Oh my mother, the creature whose name you uttered, it exist, Bind upon it the image of the gods; mix the heart of clay that is over the abyss, The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay, You, you do bring the limbs into existence; NINMAH will work with you, the goddesses(of birth)
will stand by you at your fashioning; O my mother, decree it's fate, NINMAH will bind upon it the image of the gods, It is man."

Also that Sumerian play on words:

"My brother (Enki), what hurts you?
My rib hurts me.  
To the goddess Nin-ti (`Lady of the Rib')
I (Ninhursag) have given birth for you."

The word for "rib" in Sumerian is "ti" which happens also to be the Sumerian verb "to make live."  So the Mesopotamian author of the myth is employing a pun to equate the "Lady of the Rib" (Ninti) with the "Lady Who Makes Live" (Ninti)

The Hebrew author(s) in Genesis didn't catch the pun, there is no similarity between the Hebrew word for "rib" (tsalah) and "to make live" (hayah).
I would love to hear Beth's view on the Sumerian accounts but it seems to me as a Hebrew I could say, "Yes, retelling but telling the way it really was."

Of course as a Sumerian I might reply, "Plagiarism, pure and simple."

cheers,
cho

[Gandalf]

Chohan_

Absolutly: The Torah or 'old testement' is quite obviously a retelling of old sumerian myths but re-structured and re-interpreted for a new 'hebrew' age, and details of many of the major stories can be quite easily traced to the earlier Sumerian stories.

For this reason it is almost possible to get away with the Hebrews statement that 'their tradition is as it was 4000 years ago' and so on. But what is obvious from a secular-historical perspective that the Hebrews inherited these old myths and adapted them for their own purposes. This makes sense as the semitic tribes (of which the Hebrews were just one branch of) took over the old Sumerian kingdoms and inherited much of the old Sumerian culture, so it would be very suprising for the semitic inheritors NOT to inherit earlier sumerian traditions!

For this reason i do like the Torah/OT as these Hebrew scholars really did a service as this work is such a valuable compendium of old Sumerian myths, which are really the heritage of all the mesopotamian peoples.

And you are right that you can have it both ways with no real problems... if you are an orthodox believer you can say 'ah, but the Hebrew retelling is god telling us how it really was' and for the rest of us, we can see past the later re-interpretation and enjoy the ancient mesopotamian tales in all their glory. Coupled with the epic of Gilgamesh it makes great reading!

Doug

[manpickle]

YEs they put words in God's mouth

[andonitxo]

The people who translated the bible didn't hate Jesus. It's more than likely that they were in complete agreement. The guy had a point, a clue and more thann a whiff of what's what. But.
Jouni

Mmmmm, weren't the Essenes the ones who translated the bible from aramaic to hebrew?. What I read about it: hebrew people's political power was very suspicious of Essenes because of their spiritualism and innovative ideas. It seems they were really advanced on healing (via fasting) and other mystic techniques to achieve God's light. Even more, they lived apart of the rest of people, deep into the dessert, living a totally humble life.

They were so wise that even hebrews had to commend them the work to translate the bible. Essenes, for sure, did know what is going to occur, so they did translate the bible, indeed, but encoding its knowledge in some kind of messy parable-like style which was absolutely dificult to understand, even now (specially if you take it literally).

Finally they were massacred by the Sanedrin's command and the only vestige we have at present from them are the famous Death Sea's rolls.

I haven't never been able to understand anything from bible till I read about cabalah and christian cabalism, which gives us valuables keys to comprehend a bit more this rigmarole.

That's why buddhism, yoga, even hinduism are more clear in their writings. Surely, the elevated ones who wrote them wanted to get to people in a really direct way.

[MindFreak]

There is no doubt that the Old Testament is a retelling of old sumerian myths. This is one reason why I could never believe christianity because it was changed from polytheistic to monotheistic. I cant understand how a christian can still justify their belief in one god based on the bible when it is nothing more than a monotheistic version of older polytheistic myths.
(no offense to any christians)

[Gandalf]

But like I was saying you can have it both ways. The believers can view the OT as god's rendition of these ancient events as *they really occured* so there's no problem. They view the older myths as a distorted version which god has straightened out for people to read.. so there's no problem.
As for the rest of us who obviously don't believe that, we can see through the later hebrew reinterpretation/additions and enjoy the ancient mesopotanian stories in all their glory.

Remember that the semitic peoples, of which the hebrews were but one tribe, along with arabs and others people under the 'semitic' grouping, they conqured the older sumerian civilisation over the course of the 2nd millenium bc and inherited many of the mesopotamian traditions and culture.. civilising them to a great extent. the Hebrews, among other peoples, later incorporated many of the ancient myths into their own culture.. which was later preserved in the OT.

The jewish compilers have still done us a great service by preserving these old myths and it doesnt take much work to seperate the hebrew alterations out from the older stories underneath. In many cases you can simply transplant 'God' for 'the gods' for example, some sections really are that similar. Without the OT our other sources are very limited, the epic of Gilgamesh is our only other big source for mesopotamian myths. so armed with a critical eye for the OT and the epic of gilgamesh you have a very good resource for the creation myths and epic tales of ancient Mesopotamia and its peoples.

Doug