Thoughts on why Christianity is fake

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by AKIron
I didn't say Christianity, I said religion.

The original context refers to the Christian 'Church'.

Anyways, Eastern beliefs, ie, Buddhism, really cannot be compared to the Western religions. Buddhism doesn't have a defined set of rules, or a deity even. While Buddhism is classed as a 'religion' in the english language, it is by no means a religion in the same context as Christianity or Islam. For example, a Buddhist could be a Christian, however Christianity precludes this.

[hblair]

Originally posted by -dead-
Which version of the bible? English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic? Before or after the Council of Nicea? Or the Council of Trent? Let's face it most Xians, indeed most people can't read the bible firsthand, because what they noramally read is a translation of a translation of a translation with a lot of editing and omissions in between each go at it, as well as the usual loss in translation. All of which makes the bible a rather tricky set of books.

Well, if you're saying the bible has been translated so much as to have lost its original meaning, well, the discovery of the dead sea scrolls kinda throws a wrench in that theory. In the first cave at qumran for example, two copies of Isaiah (which are carbon14 dated to be about 1900 years old) agreed 95% with masoretic text. The biggest differences were punctuation and mispellings.

Your implication that the bible has been watered down is not as strong as you would like it to be.

As for me I mostly use the king james version, but I also keep new king james, new international version, american standard, a few concordances, all in english, and a greek lexicon.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Vulcan
The original context refers to the Christian 'Church'.

If we're gonna get nitpicky then let me point out the original text: "Thoughts on why Christianity is fake". As I think more on this I believe I'm not really being so nitpicky. Some here have already pointed out the difference between the ideal and the human practice of that ideal.

And so my point is that Christianity is the ideal and has not caused the oppression and suffering that has been attributed to the Christian Church, which is the body of believers practicing Christianity.

Anyhow, by "religion" I meant the search for God. Without this higher ideal we would be nothing more than animals, where only the strong survive.

[Nomde]

Originally posted by AKIron
Kinda hard to imagine anything outside our realm of space and time isn't it? Of course a beginning or creation is only relevant when you're within the confines of time.

With thier debate on the above quote, I believe AkIron and Daff are closer to an understanding then anything else i've read on this thread yet.

I'll use this example as I understand it:
I was once explained about a native american's thought of color as "it emits a color". Kinda like, "that house reds", meaning the color of the house is red, it's essence. There was no word in the language which described color as the early europens knew it.

When we look at the universe around us, does it "God"? That's is, the very essence of God's spirit is all around us, everything from time, mass, & dimensions et al. We had to give it a name, and we're currently using the term "God" for this dicussion.
It is only our past and present understanding which is flawed, about that which we have given the name "God" to. Other religions have given "God" a different name, but in the end, I believe we'll all be surprized.

The essence of most religions, as I understand them, is how to lead a peaceful life. It is each individuals interpretation of how to do this which leads us throughout our lives. It is our "interpretation" which is flawed, and much work and understanding needs to be completed before we know "truth".

Sadly, many more will die in this quest, for as many people which inhabit this earth, there are "interpretations" of "peace" and "truth".

[-dead-]

Originally posted by hblair
Well, if you're saying the bible has been translated so much as to have lost its original meaning, well, the discovery of the dead sea scrolls kinda throws a wrench in that theory. In the first cave at qumran for example, two copies of Isaiah (which are carbon14 dated to be about 1900 years old) agreed 95% with masoretic text. The biggest differences were punctuation and mispellings.

That's great to hear, but that's the result of 900 years of seriously meticulous copying and no translation. Dead Sea Scrolls = Hebrew, Masorectic = Hebrew. Pulling out the similarities between two versions of the text in the same language as an example of how nothing has been lost in the translation seems rather silly to me. How is your hebrew? Mine is non existent. Also, the important bits (from the Xian point of view anyway) - the gospels - are not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Your implication that the bible has been watered down is not as strong as you would like it to be. As for me I mostly use the king james version, but I also keep new king james, new international version, american standard, a few concordances, all in english, and a greek lexicon.

I don't care if the bible is "watered down", 100% original or a cheap "made in China" copy - only the religious have to worry about that. Actually my point was that almost no one can study the xian bible firsthand, because almost no one can read the necessary ancient Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. If you're studying it in English your are by definition studying it secondhand or even third hand or fourth hand depending on the version you are using. My other implication was that there are many different versions of the bible which leads to the question - much debated - as to which version is the original or at least the best to get down to "firsthand" study with, as you put it. Furthermore some gospels were lost, and some rejected by the catholic church. Again whether they were correct in ditching the gospels or not is not really an issue that bothers me - the point is it brings in human choice and doubt - are we missing stuff or not? The bible is still a very tricky issue. Indeed one might say that "the Bible" is really just a platonic fiction - it doesn't actually exist, although the KJV Bible does. To avoid confusion and flame wars over that last sentence - "the bible" is rather like saying "the BMW car" - to be accurate, you have to clarify which bible and which BMW.

[davidpt40]

The basic gist of it is this- What kind of God would let myself or any other human burn in agony for eternity-or- If it was beyond Gods control, why wouldnt he give people overwhelming evidence of himself so that we would believe in him.

The correct answer is this- The ancient Hebrews invented a War God.  In the ten commandments, it says "Thou Shalt Have No Other GodS Before Me".  It wasn't talking about the "gods" of today (tv, cars, naked women), it was talking about other invented Gods, the Gods of the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Hittites, etc etc.

Jesus Christ has been debunked.  Even his annointing oil (which contained very high amounts of THC-drug found in marijuna).

Who would want to spend eternity with this type of God? Certainly not me.

[Siaf__csf]

The whole concept of blind faith has produced the bad things as a side-effect.

Christianity itself can not naturally be blaimed for the bad things. Islam in itself cannot be blaimed for the bad things terrorists do in its name.

But the very fact that people who lack judgement easily fall into the misconceptions the religious leaders feed them, causes all the trouble in the end. These people act as the left hand of God, and the very fact that these morons BELIEVE there's divine intervention taking place, they blindly perform the things they believe they're obligated to. They believe non-believers are the scum of the earth and deserve to die (when talking about fundamentalism.) They believe that non-believers (or even believers, but of the wrong religion) should be destroyed.

If the Mullah tells them USA is the great satan, they'll run and stab the next closest American they can find. All because they've been brainwashed by the system first to believe in something that can't be logically proved, then do something as illogical as to kill in the name of his faith.

Once you throw away the logic, what stops you from going into extremes? Nothing. Fundamentalism, as I see it, is a form of a collective insanity be it christian or muslim.

[Nomde]

Originally posted by davidpt40
The correct answer is this

Everyone has one

[Nomde]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Fundamentalism is a form of a collective insanity be it christian or muslim.

Agreed, round of drinks on me. Let's get drunk, then molest the sheep and shave the women

[StSanta]

AKIron wrote:

Kinda hard to imagine anything outside our realm of space and time isn't it? Of course a beginning or creation is only relevant when you're within the confines of time.

Well, this 'solution' to the problem of infinite regression is vulnerable to Occam's razor.

Occam's razor is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

In this case it applies the following way; one explanation is an all powerful all knowing deity with a special interest in small bipedal cabrbon based life forms on a small planet in a small solar system in a small galaxy exists outside time and space and creates time and space so he has a place to put the bipedal carbon based  life forms.

The alternative is to suggest that the thing that created the universe, whatever it is, also resided outside time and space. It has no intelligence but just is.

Much simpler, more likely. Occam's razor cuts the carbon obsessed deity away.

I find the intent of this whole thread a bit annoying. No need to bash the Christians before they're doing something that warrants it. Of course one can argue that 2000 years of opression justifies it, but I don't want to walk down that route. Leave the Christians alone as long as they leave us alone. You've given Ripsnort one of those rare threads where the intent was to bash Christianity (and rippie, that thread you posted all the links to threads started to bash Christianity was proven to be erroneous, so you should smile and drool at this one )

AFAIK, there is nothing supernatural that cannot be explained in a simpler, less complicated way without resorting to superstition.

The latter is a disease of the mind.

Hblair wrote:
Hey if I decide I want to be a special forces guy and put on a similar looking uniforn and train in a similar way, then I decide to go rob and murder 20 women and children, would you hold the "real" green berets responsible for my actions? why not? I looked and acted kinda like one, that makes me the real thing using your twisted logic.

Heya Hblair, I know the two of us can have a civil discussion on religion, as we have before.

I believe your logic has a twist of its own - taking it to its logical conclusion, you're saying that there aren't any true Christians.

Killing like that is not according with the teachings of Christ and therefore a sin. The bible says we're all sinners. If one who has sinned is not a true Christian, then there can be no true Christians.

Ok, that's reaching. How about this; according to the bible we're all sinners. Those of us that are True Christians try to live according to Christ's teachings, well knowing we're pathetic sinners, woefully inept in it, resulting in a lot of sins in our lives. But IF we live in accordance to the teachings of Christ *to the best of our abilities*, would we not then be True Christians?

It is harder for some. Some might have mental issues that result in injury, torture or death of others - despite their best efforts to live as Christ teaches. So I'd argue that intent is the key here.

You cannot simlply say 'that dude dinnae live as Christ would want him to, therefore he is not a true Christian' because, as mentioned before, then no one would be a true Christian. You have to judge intent and commitment.

Which is why it is *plausible* that true Christians, like other people, have committed horrible crimes against humanity.

It is also known that True Christians of their various times have done a lot in the name of the Lord that is not consistent with Christ's teachings. But the *interpretation of the time* suggested it was - it was somehow justified. Man with his limited intelligence failing to interpret the bible correctly. Hell, we even kill each other over that today.

Any comments, Hblair? When do you judge someone to be a true Christian?

[hblair]

Originally posted by StSanta
Heya Hblair, I know the two of us can have a civil discussion on religion, as we have before.

I believe your logic has a twist of its own - taking it to its logical conclusion, you're saying that there aren't any true Christians.

No I'm not. I'm saying that only those who follow the teachings of the bible are christians according to the bible, not according to me.

Now, who follows what the bible says? Which church does that? Well, according to the NT there is only one church, with everyone being in agreement with one another. Wow. Today we have hundreds of different denominations (or divisions, denomination is a word man came up with to describe the many splits in *the church*). But in the first century there was only one church, Christs church. The apostle Paul preached that they all be in agreement. But "churches" today are not. Yet the popular belief today is all the different denominations we have are just different "interpretations" of the scripture. This cannot be so according to the teachings of the NT. In Matthew Christ himself says that not all who call on his name will be saved, only those who do the will of the father.

For example, today you have people who "believe" in sprinkling babies in order to baptize them. This is 180 degrees off from the NT teaching of what baptism is supposed to be. Baptism is for the remission of sins according to the bible. How can a baby sin? This is something man came up with on his own in the past two thousand years.

Originally posted by StSanta
Killing like that is not according with the teachings of Christ and therefore a sin. The bible says we're all sinners. If one who has sinned is not a true Christian, then there can be no true Christians.

I don't know anybody who doesn't sin. We all do. We all have our weaknesses. the apostle paul had his. You can tell if somebodys trying to follow the "path of righteousness" or not. It shows in their works, their doctrine etc.

Originally posted by StSanta
Ok, that's reaching. How about this; according to the bible we're all sinners. Those of us that are True Christians try to live according to Christ's teachings, well knowing we're pathetic sinners, woefully inept in it, resulting in a lot of sins in our lives. But IF we live in accordance to the teachings of Christ *to the best of our abilities*, would we not then be True Christians?

I agree.

Originally posted by StSanta
It is harder for some. Some might have mental issues that result in injury, torture or death of others - despite their best efforts to live as Christ teaches. So I'd argue that intent is the key here.

Somebody who has an "issue" that causes them to torture people? You're trying to pull my leg. Either the person has fallen away (no longer saved) or he was never christian to start with. Or perhaps he has a mental issue that keeps him from hearing and understanding the word?

Originally posted by StSanta
Which is why it is *plausible* that true Christians, like other people, have committed horrible crimes against humanity.

I know of no "true christians" who could be capable of horrible crimes against humanity. A person just couldn't be that misled if he knows the scripture.

Originally posted by StSanta
It is also known that True Christians of their various times have done a lot in the name of the Lord that is not consistent with Christ's teachings. But the *interpretation of the time* suggested it was - it was somehow justified. Man with his limited intelligence failing to interpret the bible correctly. Hell, we even kill each other over that today.

as far as "interpretation of the time". There's where people get into trouble. Another way of saying that is "what i'd really like the scripture to say" or "my preacher told me this is what it means, so heck i guess it's true" It really says what it says. People like to yank things out of context to try and disprove or prove this or that.
In a letter to timothy paul tells him he must "study to show himself approved". That really says a lot.

Originally posted by StSanta
When do you judge someone to be a true Christian?

Well I'm not in a position to "judge" anybody, but if somebodys beliefs and doctrine come from somewhere other than the bible, then what are they really?

I answered these as I had time today, been busy, hope I didn't botch it up too bad.

[hblair]

Originally posted by -dead-
That's great to hear, but that's the result of 900 years of seriously meticulous copying and no translation. Dead Sea Scrolls = Hebrew, Masorectic = Hebrew. Pulling out the similarities between two versions of the text in the same language as an example of how nothing has been lost in the translation seems rather silly to me. How is your hebrew? Mine is non existent. Also, the important bits (from the Xian point of view anyway) - the gospels - are not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

yeah translation obviously wasn't the right word to use, was a lil pressed for time yesterday. But the point I was trying to make is that over many many centuries, the hand-copied book of isaiah went unchanged. I'll try to expand on this later if I don't get piled on too bad for my last reply.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by StSanta
In this case it applies the following way; one explanation is an all powerful all knowing deity with a special interest in small bipedal cabrbon based life forms on a small planet in a small solar system in a small galaxy exists outside time and space and creates time and space so he has a place to put the bipedal carbon based  life forms.

Your scenario does seem unlikely to me. However, how about an all powerful, all knowing deity creates the universe and cares about all living creatures within it, on all planets, in every galaxy, even a lowly sparrow on earth?

Regarding Occam's Razor, didn't Einstein (a pretty smart fellow) say "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler"?

[Frogm4n]

the bible has been translated so many times and changed so many times by whoever was in power its a squealing joke. give up on it. remember the telephone game you played as a kid, that is what happened to the bibble.

[Shuckins]

Can we PLEASE get away from the argument that religion is the source of more evil than any other single institution in history?  I don't believe that Hitler's SS thugs were very religious.  Neither were Mao's Chinese Communists.  Nor were Stalin's murderous goons.  Find a less idiotic argument.

Shuckins