Someone help me here. Does Jesus (according to the NT) base his life / philosophy on the OT / Pentateuch.

Jesus was a Jew. The only bible that exists to Judaism is the Old Testament. He does in fact not base his life on the Old Testament, as evidenced by his very teachings that God is a loving God. Throughout the Old Testament, the general sentiment (again, for over 3,000 years) was that God is to be feared, you should be ashamed of existing (Yay Original Sin!) and if you are somehow communicated with by God, you do what you're told.

Posted By: cmseagle

Posted By: Rot Bottom

How does 10 years of some hippie spreading beliefs through a group of a double-handful of people preaching balance against the (at least 600 individually named) people and 3,000 years of the Old Testament? I tend to believe the Old Testament more literally, as it claims to be a documentation of history, against the New Testament, as it is merely a few peoples' views in a very short period of time? Which has more weight and strength behind it's statements, as the two books are in obvious contradiction?

How do the actions of some Hindu monk named Gandhi completely change the worlds view on how to resolve conflict? (note that Ghandi's and Jesus' teaching are similiar, action through nonviolence.)

Ghandi effected the human psyche by his peaceful resistance. However, he also slept with 12 year old girls and boys, supposedly fathered more than 25 children by as many women, and survived financially by taking money from his poorest followers. Further, there have been many allegations that Ghandi's followers used violence with extreme prejudice against Indians who would not involve themselves in peaceful resistance to the British.

Also, Ghandi did not so much change the way people resolve conflicts, or else we have war or even personal violence.

One more fact for you - You called Ghandi a Hindu monk? He was a British-educated lawyer.

However, Jesus did supposedly change the entire definition of God and His actions. A huge difference, and a seemingly impossible one.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

ex. - "The Devil's not really a person, but more of a negative energy", when it's stated quite clearly that Satan, the Dragon, Leviathan, is Lucifer. A being. A self-cognizant being, created by God in His image.

Yeah, because telling ancient peoples 3000 years ago, who had believed in anthropomorphic Gods that Satan isn't actually of person would have gone over SO well. (/sarcasm)

Posted By: Rot Bottom

ex. - "Who cares if they call Him Allah?" Exodus 20:2-3 clearly states "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no God before me." Deuteronomy I believe 5:7 repeats this nearly verbatim.

Note that God does not state that you shall not call him by other names. I believe his name is Yahweh, but I also believe that is irrelevant.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

ex. - "God didn't really speak to those people." Sorry what? The Bible clearly states repeatedly "And the Lord Spoke:" and "This is the Word of God".

If by speak, you mean a voice from the clouds, yeah, God probably didn't speak to them. But if by speak, you mean a communication/vision/idea that came into their heads, then yeah, God probably spoke to them.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

How exactly do you decide which parts of the bible are made up, or allegory, and which parts are truth? If the only basis of faith the bible has is that it's the word of an infallible god, and the bible is the only source of knowledge you have about this infallible god, how can you decry, deny, or limit the truth of any part of it?

You decide that by examining the writer's timeframe, their culture, and the things that influence them. Then, we can see how these things apply to our culture.

I have to go now, I'll finish my response in a bit.

Posted By: Trance

f you can't answer yes to those, why not? When your eternal soul hangs in the balance, how can you have not taken that small bit of initiative to find out the truth?

Have you read every holy scripture and book that claims to determine your afterlife? I know I haven't.
What makes one more credible than another? We can't base it solely on popularity, because this can be wrong a lot of the time (eg: flat world)
You can't make judgments on the entire ocean by studying one fish, nor can you do the same with religion.

Aside from my cathecism (I'll address that in a moment), I've read the Koran in two different translation (German and English), I studied the Bhagavadgita with a friend's family two nights a week for 3 years in my early teens, I've read dozens of treatises on Atheism as well as Gnosticism, Paganism, and delved deeply into ancient Nordic, Greek and Roman religions (which are all surprisingly similar). Further, I'm an ordained minister of an independent church and a member of the Church of Satan. I spent a summer reading books by Scott Cunningham, arguably the most educated and prolific of Wiccan authors. Also, I've studied the Dao, in many different interpretations.

Also, I've read the writings of many spiritual authors, including Paolo Coehlo, Sylvia Brown, Deepak Chopra, Maharishi Mahresh, and literally hundreds of others including basically everything the Dalai Lama has ever had printed (mostly because he's a fraud. Know thy enemy)

I'm 26 (nearly 27) now, and picked up my first "spiritual" or religious book at 8 years old. I've attended at least 20 different kinds of "churches", had about 20 or so specific individuals who I would consider teachers along my way, and I don't believe I'll ever stop learning or growing spiritually until I die (PUN INTENDED!). However, even though I feel I am always learning and never going to really be done growing spiritually, I do feel I am far along the path, having gathered knowledge for the past 18 or 19 years on a fairly regular basis.

Posted By: cmseagle

but they, to my knowledge, have never really flip-flopped around about what the Bible means.

Seriously? I suggest to you to get an education. History is rife with the Church (the various Churches) altering their policy on what is and is not right and moral, and what will or will not end up with you burning in eternity. If you went to your own religious leader, priest, bishop, cardinal or pope, and offered $10,000,000 backed by gold to guarantee your entry to heaven, you would probably be excommunicated. However, 400 years ago or so, you would have been guaranteed a position at the right hand of God's throne (just a few seats over from Jesus). Also, if you were any sort of land-owning nobility during that particular time frame, you would have a right to have sex, on the altar, with a newly married woman. The priests would have blushed a bit, but applauding you for doing the Lord's Work.

Some subjects which the Catholic church has changed it's opinions on: slavery, value of various humans based on race, serfdom, the value of a female's life, the role of females in the world, the glory you gain by killing a Muslim in cold blood (the opinion on which is slowly changing back to what it was 700 years ago), the concept of livestock owned by a sectarian or non-sectarian ruler being more valuable than an untitled human being... and much more. Once more, read your bible, study history, study the role of Christianity in the world, and you'll see the proof is right there.

Posted By: cmseagle

Posted By: Rot Bottom

other parts to be universal truths (typically those concepts requiring the strongest leap of faith).

Other than the resurrection, I cannot think of any examples of this off the top of my head, could you supply an example?

A very brief list:
Lazarus, curing of the blind and the lame, walking on water, parting of the Red Sea, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Joshua at the walls of Jericho, human lives that lasted 10-12 generations, the Tower of Babel, water to wine (I saw Penn and Teller do it, Live!).

Posted By: cmseagle

To you Rot Bottom, I recommend that you check out the[del]Catechism of the Catholic Church,[/del]CliffNotes to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That should give you a better understanding to what exactly we believe.

I spent over 3 years as a Catechuman (directly preceded by 2 years studying with my Grandfather and three priests he studied with- one of whom was Bishop Imesch, unfortunately one of many Catholic clergymen accused of raping young boys), and finally was accepted into the Catholic Church as an adult on Easter Sunday, 1995. I received my Baptism, Confirmation and first Eucharist, all that day. I'd say I have a solid understanding of the religion, especially considering the 5+ years I've been studying the bible as an enemy of Yahweh.

Posted By: cmseagle

Jesus did not change the definition of God, he restated the idea that God is kind to his followers and basically good people. God simply seems different because it was written ~800 years after the first Old Testament writings, in a totally different culture.

Try ~3,000 years. Before Jesus there was no statement that God is kind. God was vicious and brutal to his enemies, using humans in some instances, but miraculous power in most, as the agent of his brutality. The common theme of the OT is very much: "God will fuck your world up if you disobey him! Follow the rules, sheep!".

Posted By: Trance

Posted By: Rot Bottom

ex. - "Who cares if they call Him Allah?" Exodus 20:2-3 clearly states "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no God before me." Deuteronomy I believe 5:7 repeats this nearly verbatim.

That statement you made has no relevance as to what they can call God, just what they perceive him to be.

Posted By: cmseagle

Posted By: Rot Bottom

ex. - "Who cares if they call Him Allah?" Exodus 20:2-3 clearly states "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no God before me." Deuteronomy I believe 5:7 repeats this nearly verbatim.

Note that God does not state that you shall not call him by other names. I believe his name is Yahweh, but I also believe that is irrelevant.

I'm fairly certain that all of the most educated and thoroughly respected (even by non-believers!) of all Bible theologians agree that the important part here is I. I am the Lord, your God. A particular identity. Yahweh would not come down to one group of people and say "I am all there is was and ever shall be! My name is Yahweh!", and to another group of people come down and say "I am the Lord, the Master, you shall succumb to my will! My name is Allah!", and come to yet another group of people and say "I am the great Serpent that leads the sun and the moon upon my back, you will call me Katzlcoatl!"

Posted By: Rot Bottom

and finally was accepted into the Catholic Church as an adult on Easter Sunday, 1995.

Hmm...

Posted By: Rot Bottom

I'm 26 (nearly 27)

I'm not the best at Math, but you were accepted as an adult at 14?

Posted By: Paulustrious

thirteen for a Jewish boy

Hmm...

Does that make sense?

Posted By: Rot Bottom

I'd say I have a solid understanding of the religion, especially considering the 5+ years I've been studying the bible as an enemy of Yahweh.

It is very difficult to objectively analyze a source when you already have pre-conceived notions.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

Try ~3,000 years. Before Jesus there was no statement that God is kind. God was vicious and brutal to his enemies, using humans in some instances, but miraculous power in most, as the agent of his brutality. The common theme of the OT is very much: "God will fuck your world up if you disobey him! Follow the rules, sheep!".

Posted By: cmseagle

You must also consider the mentality of the people at that time. "Oh, that worked out well, it must have been God's will." or "Oh, that didn't go so well, God must have not wanted it to happen." Or to put it in context. "Oh, slaughtering all those people went well, God must have wanted it." or "That attack didn't go well, we must have sinned." God did not necessarily tell them to slaughter all those people.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

Ever read the Book of Job? You should.

I believe it has been made clear that I have read the Bible, and I do believe that Trance has a pretty good grasp on the material.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

I know, referencing the wiki is bad but here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_martyrs_of_the_Roman_era
... is a list of the documented Christian martyrs from 0-400 CE

Yes, the Imperial Rome was indeed an asshole to Christians.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

And here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_martyrs_of_the_Medieval_era
... is a list of documented Christian martyrs from 400-1600 CE

God does not make his followers superhuman or invulnerable. Those people died for what they believed, I tend to admire that.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

Iam the Lord, your God. A particular identity. Yahweh would not come down to one group of people and say "I am all there is was and ever shall be! My name is Yahweh!"

Like I said previously, I highly doubt God came down from the clouds and told the biblical writers that his name is Yahweh. I'm sure you know from your biblical studies that Yahweh translates into I Am. Does this not sound like a more symbolic name than an actual name?

Posted By: Trance

Posted By: Paulustrious

thirteen for a Jewishboy

Hmm...

Does that make sense?

I think he was saying that Jewish boys are accepted as adults at their Barmitzvah, which happens at age 13.

woah there, I said that God didn't defy the laws of nature, not that he wasn't responsible. Just because fire didn't rain from the sky, it doesn't mean God did not cause the volcano to erupt, or the tectonic plates to shift. They are not miracles because they happened, but because of their timing.

Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that we were the ONLY ones who were religious, I was just saying that we three are.

Posted By: [Expletive Deleted]

Posted By: cmseagle

I'd argue that Trance, Rot Bottom, and myself are all religious.

[/p]

I'd say I'm religious, just not religiously argumentative.

Same here - I've just learned (the hard way) that arguing about religion, especially in a non-face-to-face setting, is not generally a good thing.

Posted By: Paulustrious

I disagree with you, Athene. How do you support that position?

That's not an argument. It's just a series of contradictions.

I did too!

You are not arguing with me as you are required to do under the terms of the agreement when I paid my money.

I sense there's some sort of drug dealing going on between these two.

I think you've hit it on the head.

No you don't

I would argue that point.

I believe I just did.

You are all getting away from the main point that there is only one who never puts a celestial foot wrong.

That's only because it's permanently lodged in you mouth.

I believe that we all live in a world that is constructed by our assumptions, prejudices, preexisting beliefs. These are all filters through which we observe the world, shaping it into something we are capable of understanding. And our observations -- however biased they may be -- are pieced together to create the notions of reality in which we operate. So insomuch as we have variations in our worldviews and opinions -- let's say those are friendlier words for all those things I said at first -- we live and function in different worlds. Or rather, different conceptions of the same reality.

Could we free ourselves from all of these things that color our perception? I doubt it. Have I? Hardly. And in the little world I've painted inside my head, I find it difficult to believe that one person could escape themselves to find absolute truth outside of the reality of their own construction. But I'll leave the door open. Perhaps you feel that religion itself is the quest to escape all this mumbojumbo I just talked about... to leave behind the shadows on our cave walls and stumble out into the light.

I understand what you are saying, and yes, everyone's view of reality is shaped by their own experiences, and is completely unique to one's self. I can never *completely* understand the way you understand the world to work, just as you could never *completely* understand how I percieve reality. (Some days I wonder if I can even fully comprehend my own assumptions!) I would think that it would be impossible to fully free ourselves from these personal ways to see things. However, I think that we can have meaningful relations anyways. We can have similar experiences (though never the same), and we can agree to hold to a similar belief system. As far as I'm concerned, any form of explaning reality is indeed a belief system. Even the "purely scientific" person requires some level of belief (I won't go into that now, but feel free to ask if that seems unfounded).

For me, my belief system, being a follower of God and of Christ, gives me a purpose and a standard with which to live my life. I do believe in God's inherent and absolute goodness; it is His character that gives me a standard of excellence that, though I can never completely achieve as a human, I can always move towards. It is not as important that I am attempting to gain what cannot be gotten, but rather that I am facing in the right direction. And I believe that, because God is good, He created me for a *reason*, not just by random chance, giving me inherent worth and a sense of true meaning.

I don't believe that the Bible should be used to argue, but I believe that it can be used to learn from. Any textbook or novel would have a reason to be written, which at the same time excludes it from being used for other purposes. You could try and learn the names of capital cities around the world from a Math textbook, but you wouldn't get very far, and even then you'd be frustrated to try and pull out information that may or may not be what the author intended for you to learn. I believe the Bible gives the story of God, of His long-lasting relationship with us. It gives the basis for belief and tells of the character of God. The Old Testament is the story of God's original design (as stated in Genesis in the account of creation), the tarnishing of this design (through the entering of sin) and the Old Covenenant between Himself and His chosen people, the Israelites. The New Testament is God's New Covenant with all people, through the life work, death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.

I understand that this is simply my "belief". I have "faith" that it is the truth, and yes, I personally believe it to be an absolute truth. I'm not saying it's all peachy and easy and happy, but that I believe it to be true. My life has given me reason to believe that it is true, despite apparent "evidence" against it. I would say that, yes, my beliefs could be considered "unreasonable". But perhaps much of belief is unreasonable, unable to be proven or backed up by complete understanding or reasoning. That it does require faith, although not blind faith as to say that it should be accepted as true without examination.

I hope that my discussion of my beliefs has not been overtly offensive to anyone. That is not my intent. Yet at the same time I understand that it *can* be offensive, because it's not completely acceptable these days to assert any belief as "exclusive truth". I hope that I might be able to simply state and discuss what I believe. I do not mean to be argumentive, as in I will try not to simply "prove I'm right and you're wrong". Yet I will back up my beliefs if directly challenged, if only for myself. I do not claim to have all the answers, and therefore there are some questions that perhaps I can't answer. I would hope that any discussion would lean towards being more civil disagreements as opposed to simply bashing each other. Yet I realize this is the choice of whoever wishes to respond, and therefore I cannot force you to act any which way.

Again, I hope this has been helpful to at least understand myself better, and the beliefs which I hold. I understand there are many stereotypes for Christians, some of which may be true, but many that are not true, at least of myself. From what I have read, cmseagle has similar beliefs, but I don't know that I would necessarily agree with everything (they) have said. I will try to respond respectfully to any comments.