NationStates Jolt Archive

so, after reading through several different threads, and combining that with my studies, and tossing in my sleep deprived state, I felt I should make a post on this forum.

After reading various different doctrines of the 'Christian' faith, and reading through various sections of the Bible, and talking to some Jewish teachers, I've come to conclude that most 'Christians' are either cannot read, or feel that they don't need to read any of their religious texts.

In the Bible it states very clearly that the laws of Moses were meant for the people that were saved from slavery from Egypt, mainly the Hebrews, later kept true to the Jewish people. The Jewish people follow the understanding that the laws of Moses are for the Jews, and that Gentiles may choose to follow them if they like, but aren't required to. They feel that all that is needed of the Gentiles is to follow the laws of Noah, since they feel everyone came from Noah and his children.

The Christian bible teaches us that Jesus came first to the Jews, and then to the 'dogs' And he taught the Jews to follow the Torah, and that he wasn't coming to remove any covenant, but to add a new one. His message to the Gentile was that of only faith. Not the laws of the old testament.

Then, after his death, and the others take over, you find that they limit the rules that effect the Gentile believers. They are to love God and their fellow man, they are to eat non-bloody meat, they are to eat not of a torn limb of an animal, and they are to be sexually moral, that and of course have faith that Jesus will forgive them.

Now, it seems that every 'Christian' stance that is controversial and causes arguements and fights and so forth, comes from the Old Testament, and they claim that if anyone doesn't accept their rules, then they aren't strict enough, and are aiming for hell.

Yet its obvious that they don't read half of whats in the Bible, like don't give titles among belivers, like Father, Priest, reverand, or Pastor, or even teacher.

I think the phrase that Jesus used suits well enough.
"Hypocrits, you acknowledge me with your mouths, your worship is useless to me, because you teach man made laws as if they are holy doctrine."

So, in the oddest of ways, one could support that a vegen pagan would be the closest follower of the Way, then most hard core "Christians"

Your words and your logic, not mine. GOD bless!

Your words and your logic, not mine. GOD bless!
well, yes, my words and my logic, and I would hope no one else really uses the same exact logic that i do, because I don't always comprehend how or why it works the way it does.

I personally don't really think any organize religion ever follows its true starts, because someone along the lines uses it as a personal power trip rather then the intent in which it was started.

I find it odd that people are responding to the poll, but no one has really stated in their own words what they feel about the post itself.

"odd said the duck"

I agree, but I'm not going to go on in length about why I agree. I'll simply say that these things happen when you take an original concept and over the centuries people use it to suit their own purposes until the concept becomes a twisted shadow of its former self.

I feel those people that are voting for not agreeable at all, are just proving my point even more. They will disagree, but they won't say anything about it. They won't share their viewpoints on it, or how they feel that I am wrong.

If I'm wrong, show me how I am, if i missed something, then I will acknowledge it, and if i feel that it doesn't change my statements, I'll explain how I feel they don't alter it.

I agree, but I'm not going to go on in length about why I agree. I'll simply say that these things happen when you take an original concept and over the centuries people use it to suit their own purposes until the concept becomes a twisted shadow of its former self.

I completely agree. people seem to always seek the power out of everything, its all about personal gain, even in teachings that speak against it.

"Love your neighbor as yourself." - Jesus

If you do that, you'll be fine in any religion.

However, although most stances made by churches are hypocritical, its because any association has political power if they use it. And its a persons duty to guide their country the way they see best.

The reason why Christianity is so "hypocritical" you might say is because the believers of Christianity also brought with them, when they joined the faith, pagan practices. Saints are like spirits, epitomizing things such as "protection," "health," etc. Among other things. But, since religions, like everything else, are always evolving, contradictions can happen. We must accept it.

And as far as Christians being unread? No, not at all, it depends on how you look at it. Athesists would say that the Bible is a bunch of bloody rubbish, a devote Christian say its all literally true, and then there's people like me who just look for the meaning in the parabels and stories. The Church had an oral history before everything was written down, and thus exaggerations will occur.

As far as the 10 Commandments, they were not "man-made" laws, per se, as they were given to Moses from God. Other odd Jewish laws, yes, in general they were not divine, and were there just as tradition. But since Chrisitianity has its roots in Judaism, and the 10 Commandments don't contradict the "golden rule" (above, top) its okay to have.

My two cents, take it for what its worth.

I completely agree. people seem to always seek the power out of everything, its all about personal gain, even in teachings that speak against it.

One of the oddest things to me is how a life of poverty and simplicity is never considered when Churches are involved. Have you seen the gold in those places? What exactly do they need donations for?

I feel those people that are voting for not agreeable at all, are just proving my point even more. They will disagree, but they won't say anything about it. They won't share their viewpoints on it, or how they feel that I am wrong.

If I'm wrong, show me how I am, if i missed something, then I will acknowledge it, and if i feel that it doesn't change my statements, I'll explain how I feel they don't alter it.
Well, I find your musings very agreeable. But I don't know if they are correct. I hope they are though. That would make me at least 50% more Christian that fundies trying to prevent homos from getting married. A very compelling thought :)

.....

As far as the 10 Commandments, they were not "man-made" laws, per se, as they were given to Moses from God. Other odd Jewish laws, yes, in general they were not divine, and were there just as tradition. But since Chrisitianity has its roots in Judaism, and the 10 Commandments don't contradict the "golden rule" (above, top) its okay to have.

My two cents, take it for what its worth.

I feel that the 10 commandments are very suitable for the Christian teachings, and I will admit, I ommitted that from my statement above. Jesus did teach to keep the commandments written on your heart. Although he did state that the punishment for breaking them was already paid, and that redemption came through love and faith alone, and not deeds good nor bad.

One of the oddest things to me is how a life of poverty and simplicity is never considered when Churches are involved. Have you seen the gold in those places? What exactly do they need donations for?


I feel that church buildings are very much against the biblical teachings. I was talking to an older retired person that was fired from being a janitor at a church because they couldn't afford to keep him on, but only after they spent 1.4 million on remodeling their building....kinda off base there i feel.

another pet peeve is 'tax-exempt' I do believe that jesus said to pay taxes. "give onto caesar that which is caesars.'

Although he did state that the punishment for breaking them was already paid, and that redemption came through love and faith alone, and not deeds good nor bad.
Well, one could argue that "love" is technically a good deed, but I don't wanna argue right now. Its true though, that's the official Catholic stance. However, in most Protestant churches (I would say all, but I dunno) you don't have to do "good deeds" but its encouraged, due to the lack of purgatory and not being able to pray your way out of hell. :p

Well, one could argue that "love" is technically a good deed, but I don't wanna argue right now. Its true though, that's the official Catholic stance. However, in most Protestant churches (I would say all, but I dunno) you don't have to do "good deeds" but its encouraged, due to the lack of purgatory and not being able to pray your way out of hell. :p

well, it is taught that by following the teachings that have been given believers, they will do good deeds because they themselves are following the divine will. The deeds themselves aren't anything, i do believe that in revelations it talks about good deeds being like 'unclean rags' at God's feet.

I feel that the 10 commandments are very suitable for the Christian teachings, and I will admit, I ommitted that from my statement above. Jesus did teach to keep the commandments written on your heart. Although he did state that the punishment for breaking them was already paid, and that redemption came through love and faith alone, and not deeds good nor bad.


Refer to Peter 2 please!

I feel that church buildings are very much against the biblical teachings. I was talking to an older retired person that was fired from being a janitor at a church because they couldn't afford to keep him on, but only after they spent 1.4 million on remodeling their building....kinda off base there i feel.

another pet peeve is 'tax-exempt' I do believe that jesus said to pay taxes. "give onto caesar that which is caesars.'

Churches do not belong to Caesar, therefore being tax-exempt is justifiable.

Refer to Peter 2 please!
would that be 1st peter or 2nd peter?

I see in 1st peter that its saying that christians should do good deeds for the sake of example, to show that they are the good they say they are. but nothing about needing it for salvation.

I also see in 2nd peter that it warns against false teachers and prophets that will introduce false teachings and bring about a destruction. it also goes on to say that God knows how to destroy the wicked and save the godly.

Churches do not belong to Caesar, therefore being tax-exempt is justifiable.
actually what he was referring to was the money. They asked him if they should pay taxes or not, and he asked what was printed on the money, and they said caesar, and so he told them to pay the taxes, because it was not the churches money, but the church of the government.

Refer to Peter 2 please!

Beloved, I urge you as aliens and sojourners to keep away from worldly desires that wage war against the soul.

I can see making a church of stone, but the rest of the lavishness that churches utilise goes above and beyond.

these poll numbers are staying pretty evenly balanced out. I was figureing either a bunch of people would support it, or a bunch of people would deny it, but its kinda kewl to see that its mixed like it is. i've always loved a good debate, now, I wonder when its going to get here. ;)

these poll numbers are staying pretty evenly balanced out. I was figureing either a bunch of people would support it, or a bunch of people would deny it, but its kinda kewl to see that its mixed like it is. i've always loved a good debate, now, I wonder when its going to get here. ;)


True faith requires no debate!

True faith requires no debate!

I think from the teachings of the Bible, debate was one of the biggest things that Jesus and his students did. Its the best way to spread an idea, even if the person doesn't believe in what you say, if you make a strong arguement, then it will be acknowledge as such, and will be debated by others.

I'm not here to change anyone's faith, I'm here to share mine, and am asking if people have a differnt point of view then mine, please share. I think that people should share their faith more often, though not aggressivly like many mistakenly do.

edit: And I feel that when it comes to what a religious book does or does not say, it is fair game to debate it.

Now, it seems that every 'christian' stance that is controversial and causes arguements and fights and so forth, comes from the Old Testament, and they claim that if anyone doesn't accept their rules, then they aren't strict enough, and are aiming for hell.

Yet its obvious that they don't read half of whats in the bible, like don't give titles among belivers, like Father, Priest, reverand, or Pastor, or even teacher.
Close, but you're missing something.

Old Testament scripture gives no allusion to a Hell or extra-planar Kingdom of Heaven. That's tagged on at the end by a few people interpreting Jesus's statements on being Thrown into the Fire (which is an allusion itself to the "Pagan rituals" of its time throwing human sacrifices into the pits of Gehenna along with their own refuse). And yet almost every manic proponent of the Old Testament spouts all of this Infernal Afterlife stuff too.

Christians aren't blind to either the old or new Testaments. They, like everyone else, take what they want from them in support of their world view. In the case of some in the west, this view is "I'm fine doing bugger all as long as I preach", or even "I want to do something; this book says here I can, so I will".

This is in part something innate within Christianity: The Necessity of Personal Revelation and Interpretation. Anyone's Christian faith can be twisted to suit their own interests due to its nature as dependant on one's own "spiritual encounter". But I wouldn't go so far as to say Christianity are the blind believers; Christianity is merely a multicoloured world view being looked at by colour-blind individuals.

...Old Testament scripture gives no allusion to a Hell or extra-planar Kingdom of Heaven. That's tagged on at the end by a few people interpreting Jesus's statements on being Thrown into the Fire (which is an allusion itself to the "Pagan rituals" of its time throwing human sacrifices into the pits of Gehenna along with their own refuse). And yet almost every manic proponent of the Old Testament spouts all of this Infernal Afterlife stuff too.....

The only real reference to an afterlife that the Old Testament talks about would be the great desert known as the Land of the Dead, or sheol. Its where everyone goes, regardless of anything else. The only seperations you get there is that the decendants of Abraham are taken to a different section of it then others.

I think people too often take the "thrown into the fire" stuff out of context. It says that they are consumed, and that means, in my understanding, they are gone and no more. Its kinda like the jewish thought that only the rightous will be resurected, and that all others just are no longer.

well, I'm pretty certain that I'll be heading offline soon, so I felt like giving my final comment for the night on this.

the numbers stayed for the most part fairly devided. The majority felt some agreement or more with what i had to say.

I would have liked more counter points, but I guess I can't be too picky, lol. At least it didn't turn into a flame fest.

I thank all those that perticipated in the thread.

Now, it seems that every 'christian' stance that is controversial and causes arguements and fights and so forth, comes from the Old Testament...

Of course colored by the thological concerns and doctrines of how particular groups view the Old Testatment and its relationship with the New...

DISPENSATIONAL: Tends to view things in line with differentiated dispensations through time. And God operating differently at different times for different people. Dispensationalism is found heavily through most of Evangelical Christianity shared equally by both liberal and conservative views. Views Israel and the Church as totally seperate entities living under seperate dispensations, wherein God operated differently with the people.

REPLACEMENT: Tends to view the Church as the "New Israel", applies all covanental promises and requirements upon "ISrael" to the Church, negating any saving grace upon the "wicked" Israel of the flesh. Not as widespread, tends to be limited to some Campbelite groups, The Fundamentalist (Political) Groups, as well as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists.

COVENENTAL: Views Israel and the Church as the SAME entity. One by flesh, and one by Spirit, united under two interoperable covenants... The second being the fulfillment of the first. Considers, however, operations in each covenant to be of equal purpose... [The old looks forward, the new looks back], each centering upon the Cross, applying the same saving Grace to saints from either covenental sphere. Held in total by Churches stemming from the Swiss Reformation [European Continental Reformed and Scottish Presbyterianism], and in part by many others [including Roman Catholicism, The Orthdox Church, Independant Reformed, and Messianic Judaism].

Evangelical Dispensationalism tends to be the most vocalized viewpoint... Though Covenentalism is again becomming heavily accepted (given the revitalization of the Catholic and Reformed faiths in recent years)... Because of this disparity, listening to the general thoughts of christians, who may hold one of these views or the other, confusion as to what is being conveyed [without first understanding the source of their view under these categories], can create a confusion as to what is actually being presented by the person. When a person holding a covenental view begins speaking of the Law, the Church, Christianity and Israel; they are effectively speaking a "different language" (given different definitions for the words), than someone presenting things from a dispensational viewpoint. EDIT: And fundamentalists tend to be extreme legalists (as later posts point out), due to their belief of the replacement of the Church with Israel.

Not a bad post, but it would be respectful to capitalize the word Jew as well as Christian. On the content of your post, I agree completely. Having been told by several Christians that I don't follow God's laws correctly as set out in their Old Testament, I find that, myself a practicing Jew, I can only come to your same conclusion: people don't read. If they did, maybe they would understand what the Bible tells them as a whole rather than picking out an individual line to justify whatever actions they want to take. Oh well...

Not a bad post, but it would be respectful to capitalize the word Jew as well as Christian. On the content of your post, I agree completely. Having been told by several Christians that I don't follow God's laws correctly as set out in their Old Testament, I find that, myself a practicing Jew, I can only come to your same conclusion: people don't read. If they did, maybe they would understand what the Bible tells them as a whole rather than picking out an individual line to justify whatever actions they want to take. Oh well...


I have found it very frustraiting to debate with many 'christians' due to the one line useage concept. I even had a person tell me that you have to be able to "read between the lines"

I do appologize for not capitalizing the word Jew previously, it was merely a typographical issue rather then anything else, and I will be fixing it after I finishing posting this comment.

I have found that many practiceing Jews are more laid back and willingly to talk then many other faiths. My father is a grounds keeper for an Orthadox Synagog. Very kewl people, and nice too. They Rabbi 'lent' me $250 to set up a phone because I couldn't afford the deposit and he wanted to help me out.

I also like how the Jewish faith tends to be more theological when it comes to the bible, rather then just word for word what it means. That way you understand not only the words, but the intentions behind the words.

most 'Christians' are either cannot read, or feel that they don't need to read any of their religious texts.

In the Bible it states very clearly that the laws of Moses were meant for the people that were saved from slavery from Egypt,

His message to the Gentile was that of only faith. Not the laws of the old testament.

Then, after his death, and the others take over, you find that they limit the rules that effect the Gentile believers. They are to love God and their fellow man, they are to eat non-bloody meat, they are to eat not of a torn limb of an animal, and they are to be sexually moral, that and of course have faith that Jesus will forgive them.

Now, it seems that every 'Christian' stance that is controversial and causes arguements and fights and so forth, comes from the Old Testament, and they claim that if anyone doesn't accept their rules, then they aren't strict enough, and are aiming for hell.

Yet its obvious that they don't read half of whats in the Bible,

I think the phrase that Jesus used suits well enough.
"Hypocrits, you acknowledge me with your mouths, your worship is useless to me, because you teach man made laws as if they are holy doctrine."

So, in the oddest of ways, one could support that a vegen pagan would be the closest follower of the Way, then most hard core "Christians"
I cut your post down so it wouuldn't take too much space.

Many Christians read but don't comprehend because tradition has become such a part of the religion. Such as Jesus being killed on Friday, when a study shows he was killed on Wednesday. Or that a Christian can have only one wife, when only a bishop is limited to one wife. That is minor when compared to the traditions of belief. Many ministers repeat what they have been told without any proof. Jesus said people would hear him without understanding. That is also true of those that read without thinking.

The Bible states very clearly that the OT laws were originally a teaching tool. But the laws became more important than the message they were teaching. Such as the eating laws. The people were to eat those animals that lived a life that was comparable to the life a believer was to live, and avoid those animals that lived a life the believer was to avoid. Example: You could eat chicken because it lived on seed, not harming others to live. You could not eat a hawk because it killed and lived on the suffering f others to live. The OT laws had their place as teaching tools and still would, but the action became more important than the meaning. The same thing has happened with NT rulings. Traditional actions have become more important than the original teachings of those actions. They have become a meaningless gong.

The Pharasees and Saducees may have died out in the original form but are alive and happy in the "conservative Christian" movement. Jesus said that the religious conservatives had killed every prophet and they would kill him also. They continue to kill him every day. They make it too hard to believe, just as they did at the time of Jesus. Christianity is the simplest of religions. Love God, Love Everyone.....Nothing else is needed. And that love need not have the word "Christian attached to it. Jesus was the creator "in the beginning". The NT says that if you can see nature and see there was a creator you have seen God no matter the name you give him.

So coould a "nonChristian" be closer to God than a "born again"? Yes! Jesus said that the Roman soldier was a man of greater faith than any in Israel. It is a matter of Love not rules.

While on the Bible I've always had a big problem with it.

Firstly most Christians claim "don't take it literally, it was written by man the book has stories and metaphors". They dismiss the things which are proven impossible such as adam and eve, Noah's Ark and all those other parts.

They then find parts they agree with a good example was Jesus quote "Treat neighbours like yourself" and think religion is great. But if you really wanted someone to tell you how to live a good life, read Aristotle or atleast someone who gives practical information. Rather than a set of inflexible rules (mostly either innatly obvious or relivant to a different society and time period) that are expected to be broken since everyone sins.

I find it odd how America is so religious. Yet they hate powerful (even if elected) governments and have and would die to keep its countrys liberties.

I myself am Covenental... And the legalism of Fundamentalist Replacement theology, and antinomianism of Dispensational theology are a stain upon understanding and perpetuating the message of love which is conveyed in both great Covenants of God. The dispensationlist wants to tell us that God is only concerned with law to Israel, and love to the Church; the Replacementalist wants to tell us that the law only matters, and that God has rejected Israel...

It stems from this, why I think that Covenentalism is making a slow comeback... And slowly gaining more of a vocal position...

God known His children (Israel and the Church); and though he may allow them to wander from time to time, He ever seeks their restoration to the covenental blessings.