Some Christian myths and lies debunked

[Zostrianos]

Fundies beware. Here are a few common myths, misconceptions and historical untruths that are actively preached by Christians (especially fundies), some of which were even considered fact in scholarly circles until a few decades ago.
I tried to put quotes and references whenever possible.

1- Christ will return again

Jesus actually said the Second Coming would take place in his disciples' lifetime:
“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”. (Matthew 24:30-32, 34)


This verse (the most embarrassing verse in the whole Bible according to many) was twisted and reinterpreted by the Church to make it mean "the human era shall not pass" or "the people of Israel", etc., to hide Jesus' failed prophecy (and to explain why no Second Coming actually took place in the 1st centuries).
Unfortunately for the Church, the original Greek word for "generation" in the NT manuscripts means exactly that, i.e. a few decades or a human lifetime.

2- Jesus was the Messiah, and his advent was predicted in the Old Testament

Again, incorrect. The messiah prophesied by the Old Testament does not correspond to Jesus:
"What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists." (The Jewish View of Jesus, from About.com)

3- Christians were brutally persecuted by Roman emperors

The Church exaggerated the extent of persecution against Christians (and the number of victims). There were only 2 major periods of persecution against Christians, the first under Nero, and the second and most intense under Diocletian. According to Rodney Stark: "The Rise of Christianity" pg. 164: "The total number of Christians martyred by the Romans was probably fewer than a thousand”. 1000 dead in 200 years. Compare that to the 25,000 Christians killed in the first 2 centuries of the Christian empire by other Christians over doctrinal disputes. Persecution of Christians was sporadic, and not driven by religious motives (the Roman empire was usually tolerant of all religious views), but by the exclusive nature of Christianity which was intolerant of other religions, and thus seen as dangerous to the stability of the empire.
Also, many of the Christian “martyrs” who are venerated by the Church were not victims, but fanatics who deliberately provoked the authorities by attacking Pagan temples, and publicly insulting the emperors, knowing full well that they would be executed. Here is an shocking account of the kind of “martyrdom” that usually took place; this particular example is from Persia in the 5th century, where Christians suffered persecution – this persecution was in fact provoked by fanatical Christians themselves:


“Our next example takes us outside the Roman Empire entirely, to Persia, where in 419 or 420 a series of Christian attacks on Magian fire-temples provoked the Sasanian government to a savage persecution of Christians, which in turn led to war between the two empires in 421– 422.The incidents that provoked the persecution are described in Persian Christian martyr acts preserved in Syriac, and in a corresponding account in Theodoret. The initial response of the Persian king was surprisingly lenient. Hearing that bishop Abda of Hormizd-Ardashir, or one of his priests, had destroyed a temple, he sent for him, complained “in moderate language,” and ordered him to rebuild the temple—in short, exactly the way the Roman authorities had initially handled the Callinicum incident. When the ascetic Narsai was arrested for destroying a temple, the king even offered to drop the matter if Narsai would simply deny that he had done the deed. Abda refused to rebuild the temple, and Narsai refused to renounce his action. For their stubbornness, both were executed. At this point the king exhausted his patience and launched a general persecution against the church” (There is no crime for those who have Christ, 196).

When Christians eventually took power, they were the ones who began furiously persecuting others, Pagans, Jews, Heretics, while claiming to be the victims. Practically all the violence that took place in the post-Nicaea period by non-Christians against Christians was retaliatory – people defending themselves against Christian attacks and provocation.

4- When the Roman Empire became Christian, most people happily converted to Christianity

Destruction of temples and synagogues, exile, terror, and murder: that’s how the Roman Empire converted to Christianity. As soon as Christian emperors were in power, they began progressively stripping non-Christians of their rights, destroying temples, and persecuting those who didn’t accept the authority of the Church:


“Government, too, at the urging of the bishops weighed in with threats, and more than threats, of fines, confiscation, exile, imprisonment, flogging, torture, beheading, and crucifixion. What more could be imagined? Nothing. The extremes of conceivable pressure were brought to bear. Thus over the course of many centuries, compliance was eventually secured and the empire made Christian in truth.” (Ramsay Macmullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth centuries, 72).

They also actively persecuted other Christians. Massacres, mob violence and book burnings of “heretical” and pagan literature became common place. Christians routinely attacked and killed each other over differences of opinion about church doctrine or scriptural interpretation. They killed each other over topics like what percentage of Christ was divine and what was human.


“Our sources for the two and a quarter centuries following Nicaea allow a very rough count of the victims of credal differences: not less than twenty five thousand deaths. A great many, but still only a small minority, were clergy; the rest, participants in crowds...All those who died met their end irregularly as targets of fury, not of legal action. Of bishops who died for their faith while in the custody of the secular powers, the examples can be counted on the fingers of one hand.” (R. Macmullen "Voting about God in early church councils", p 56)

Progressively they destroyed Pagan culture, and brought the Western world into the Dark Ages, promoting hatred of knowledge:
“These views have Augustine as their most authoritative proponent. For him, inquiry of any sort we would call science is a target for ridicule. The Greeks, silly men, lavished their time and effort on the identifying of the elements in nature, etc. But 'to the infinite number of points regarding such matters as they have discovered, or think they have discovered, a Christian will pay no mind" No need to know how nature works, for such pretended knowledge is irrelevant to blessedness....'Augustine will go back a stage further and argue that all events (ultimately) depend upon the will of God' Why bother with books and philosophy? - Macmullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, pg 88

Book burnings, lies, fraud: once Christians had political power in their hands, they could rewrite history however they pleased:


“Non Christian writings came in for this same treatment, that is, destruction in great bonfires at the center of the town square. Copyists were discouraged from replacing them by the threat of having their hands cut off. Together with the destruction of unwanted books, unwanted fact itself might disappear even in those books that were not destroyed, because of their partisan reporting. The father of ecclesiatical history, Eusebius, in a particularly serious aside, disclaimed the telling of the whole truth. Rather, he proposed to limit his account to 'what may be of profit'. His example found favor among successors, by whom all sorts of details were bent out of shape or passed over, events were entirely suppressed, church councils deliberately forgotten, until in recent times even the wrong saint and pope might vanish from the record or almost" (Macmullen, pg 4)


__________________________________________________ _________


I hope you all find this useful if you ever find yourself arguing with a fundie. I'll try and post more stuff as I research it.

[DeBon]

1- Christ will return again

Jesus actually said the Second Coming would take place in his disciples' lifetime:
“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”. (Matthew 24:30-32, 34)


This verse (the most embarrassing verse in the whole Bible according to many) was twisted and reinterpreted by the Church to make it mean "the human era shall not pass" or "the people of Israel", etc., to hide Jesus' failed prophecy (and to explain why no Second Coming actually took place in the 1st centuries).
Unfortunately for the Church, the original Greek word for "generation" in the NT manuscripts means exactly that, i.e. a few decades or a human lifetime.


I'm about to sound quite ignorant, but is there a version of the Bible that has this unedited? Or any source, please? I would greatly appreciate it...

[Zostrianos]

Here you go:
niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/24.htm
There's some info here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tribulation

Some also say Jesus was referring to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans, and not to some remote age

[Property Is Robbery]

Why are you trying to start an "intellectual" circle jerk? It's not like anywhere on here is going to disagree with you.

Just curious.

[Zostrianos]

I'm not the first one to have done this on this forum. I just hadn't seen these particular points addressed yet. I'm not looking to start a debate, simply to share info.

[Optiow]

Aye, the Christian conversion of Rome was a bloody period. Pagans were slaughtered, heretic temples looted, schools of philosophy banned and all because one emperor decided to become a Christian.

But unless arguing with an idiotic fundie, I don't think you should be preaching this to every Christian you meet. After all, we don't like idiots blabbing to us about the Gulags...

[Zostrianos]

In this age where Christian fundamentalism is again rearing its ugly head, I think it's especially important to divulge and share these things.

[Zostrianos]

3- Christians were brutally persecuted by Roman emperors


Found something interesting relating to this:

Among dozens of specific cases of Christians listed by our sources as “martyred” under Julian, it seems that the majority were actually killed by pagan mobs or by the secular authorities in retaliation for their provocative attacks against paganism—smashing idols, destroying temples, disrupting rituals. This fact is not only admitted but even celebrated by Christian sources, who without exception refer to the slain Christians as martyrs. In some cases, as at Merum, the Christian assailants seem to have planned their attack in the full expectation and hope of being killed for it, and thus attaining the crown of martyrdom.

(There is no crime for those who have Christ, 93)

[La Comédie Noire]

This is all pretty uncontroversial.

[Dave B]

Merging the prophecy of the second coming quote with Christian fundies etc.

There is supposed to be prophetic stuff in the old testament that something really interesting was going to happened when Israel became independent or a state again or whatever.

It is probably there, and in tradition; but don’t consult me on it, you are best asking the fundie rapturist about it.

Mixed in with the second coming quote is the fig tree putting forward it leaves etc.

The fig tree was used as a metaphor for the ‘Jewish’ state.

So the argument is that the ‘original’ prophecy got a bit scrambled and was meant to say that the second coming would occur within a generation of the ‘fig tree putting forward it leaves’ ie the formation of the state of Israel.

It has in its favour not alot except theoretical consistency and continuity from old testament prophecies.

Christians don’t like the idea of anything in the gospels being scrambled of course so tend not to touch it.

It is possible I suppose that it was changed around deliberately, or just invented like perhaps the rest of it, in order to keep moral up in difficult times.

But it is intriguing as to why you would include in a book of absolute truth a prophecy that never happened unless it was written whilst it still could.



It is an entertaining change from the more usual kind of stuff.

[ComradeMan]

Well I don't know about "fundies" but generally "fundies" of any type do have a tendency to be unreasonable and fundamentalist otherwise they would not really be fundies. However to allude to some kind of Christianity-wide conspiracy that deliberately promulgates "lies" and "falsehoods" is intellectually dishonest.

1- Christ will return again Jesus actually said the Second Coming would take place in his disciples' lifetime: (Matthew 24:30-32, 34)

The trouble with this is that there are at least half-a-dozen interpretations based on NT Greek- and the translation is not necessarily "all these things be fulfilled" but rather "these things will begin to take place". It used the NT Greek ingressive aorist tense which is difficult to translate into modern English but generally, as the name suggests, indicated when something will start to happen. This is also found in the other Synoptic Gospels and follows with Matthew 24:4-8 in which the "birth pangs" figuratively indicate the beginning of the process that will lead to the Second Coming. The problem is not with the use of the word "generation" but rather with the final part.

2- Jesus was the Messiah, and his advent was predicted in the Old Testament....

There is no "Jewish" consensus view of Jesus to start with. Views are as wideranging as the very polemic anti-Jesus views of some more ancient writers running through to indifference and finishing with those who would accept Jesus as Massiah and yet remain (in their eyes at least) Jewish. Let us not forget that there was little consensus amongst early Christians, who were basically a sect of Judaism, on the nature of Jesus or "messiah-ness". Within Judaism itself (modern) there is also no consensus on the nature of the Messiah with views ranging from the idea of one man, the anointed king etc in Orthodox Judaism to a more impersonal idea of a messiah in Reform Judaism- there are of course Messianic Jews too. It should be noted that whilst Islam denies the supernatural claims about Jesus and/or his being son of God, Islam still recognises Jesus as the messiah. Without wishing to get into pages of theological debate that fundamentally depend on interpretation of scripture and personal conviction, the whole problem of whether or not Jesus was/could have been the "Messiah" is open to debate.

3- Christians were brutally persecuted by Roman emperors

Well, I didn't think it was a case of who got persecuted the most to be honest. Certainly the deaths of the Christians in the arena and so on were pretty damn despicable and cruel- one was too many. ;) It is impossible for us to know exactly how many Christians ended up being killed but let us not forget that persecution does not just mean being killed- on that basis one might argue that Holocaust survivors should not be counted as those who were persecuted. Modern scholarship posits a figure of between 3-3500 victims of the Diocletianic persecution- I can find no estimates for the earlier "grand persecution" under Nero although non-Christian writers do not really hold back in describing the grim details.

No doubt the early church did exaggerate numbers- but then the witch trial numbers are also exaggerated and certainly up until the modern period no doubt persecutions that leaves such scars in the memory of a people do become exaggerated and so on. It still doesn't change the fact of what did happen and how appalling it was. Even some pagan Roman writers expressed their distaste at the treatment of the Christians, notably Marcus Aurelius.

The tit-for-tat representations of intolerance are always deplorable but in what way and by what means are these representative of all Christians in the Roman period and even if so how would that justify what happened to many?

When the formerly pagan Roman Emperor Constantine I declared Christianity the religion of the empire, followed by his son Constantius II, the persecution of pagans began. But let's face it- this was the crumbling Roman Empire of the 4th century that had only just managed to survive the crises of the 3rd century with constant power-play, bickering and political rivalry and warfare. Nevertheless the Church has recognised this and in 1965 Pope Paul VI issued Dignitatis Humanae in which the church admitted its failures and called for religious tolerance.

4- When the Roman Empire became Christian, most people happily converted to Christianity

see above- but basically during the Roman Empire it was good to do what the emperor did. ;) (as long as he remained emperor). It's not like the pagan Roman Empire had exactly been a fountain of tolerance and enlightenment to be honest.

[Zostrianos]

Well I don't know about "fundies" but generally "fundies" of any type do have a tendency to be unreasonable and fundamentalist otherwise they would not really be fundies. However to allude to some kind of Christianity-wide conspiracy that deliberately promulgates "lies" and "falsehoods" is intellectually dishonest.


Western scholarship suffered from Christian bias until a few decades ago, and academic objectivity was rarely adhered to. Just pick up any book on religious history prior to the 1960’s. It was a standard practice to affirm the superiority and infallibility of Christianity over other religious movements – other creeds were more often than not referred to as “barbaric”, “savage”, “monstrous” “decadent”, etc... E.g. the famous scholar Franz Cumont (1868-1947) in his book on Oriental Religions refers to Hinduism as a “monstrous idolatry”, and depicts the Pagan Roman Empire as a chaotic mass of superstition, immorality and savagery, until the Church took power and miraculously saved it. These views were the norm until the middle of the 20th century and persist to this day: in my high school classes on religion (a little over a decade ago) the course went into great details about the persecution of Christians under Pagan Rome, but stopped at Constantine. Essentially, we were taught that Christianity was brutally persecuted, and one day Constantine came along, and everyone lived happily ever after.






The trouble with this is that there are at least half-a-dozen interpretations based on NT Greek- and the translation is not necessarily "all these things be fulfilled" but rather "these things will begin to take place". It used the NT Greek ingressive aorist tense which is difficult to translate into modern English but generally, as the name suggests, indicated when something will start to happen. This is also found in the other Synoptic Gospels and follows with Matthew 24:4-8 in which the "birth pangs" figuratively indicate the beginning of the process that will lead to the Second Coming. The problem is not with the use of the word "generation" but rather with the final part.


I read elsewhere that Jesus’ message was meant for Israel only, and this is proven by gospel inconsistencies; I’ll have to find the exact reference where I read this, but some scholars have pointed to Matthew 10, where Jesus instructs his disciples “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel..” Elsewhere (e.g. Matthew 28) Jesus gives different instructions, telling his disciples to go out to all nations. Some scholars believe the latter instruction is a later interpolation.

Also the very definition of the Kingdom of God in the Gospels is inconsistent. Sometimes it seems to refer to a future event, but other passages indicate that it refers to something that is present in everyone: “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17: 20, 21)


No doubt the early church did exaggerate numbers- but then the witch trial numbers are also exaggerated and certainly up until the modern period no doubt persecutions that leaves such scars in the memory of a people do become exaggerated and so on. It still doesn't change the fact of what did happen and how appalling it was. Even some pagan Roman writers expressed their distaste at the treatment of the Christians, notably Marcus Aurelius. The tit-for-tat representations of intolerance are always deplorable but in what way and by what means are these representative of all Christians in the Roman period and even if so how would that justify what happened to many?

Nothing would justify any type of persecution, but the extent of the exaggeration that took place by Christian writers is noteworthy. The persecutions that began under Decius (250), peaked under Diocletian, and finally ended with Constantine’s ascent around 305 are the only persecutions inflicted on Christians according to some scholars (q.v. Pierre Chuvin, A chronicle of the last Pagans, 17). The definition of “persecution” that the Church used was very different than its usual meaning. I already posted this elsewhere, but here it is again as it is very relevant:

“Persecution, which loomed so large in Christian historical imagination, need not always have been literal. Even under the Christian empire, some claimed to suffer it simply because they were forced to tolerate the continued existence of pagans and heretics. This “repressive tolerance,” as Herbert Marcuse might have characterized it, seemed to some as little more than a subtler form of persecution—for certainly it was not right, they thought, that truth be forced to live on equal terms with falsehood. Christianity, in some ways, retained the habits of thought of a persecuted minority even into the era of its dominance."

- Michael Gaddis, There is no crime for those who have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire, 6

This perverted definition of “persecution” is the same one modern fundies use whenever equal rights are given to atheists, gays, non-christians, etc….




When the formerly pagan Roman Emperor Constantine I declared Christianity the religion of the empire, followed by his son Constantius II, the persecution of pagans began. But let's face it- this was the crumbling Roman Empire of the 4th century that had only just managed to survive the crises of the 3rd century with constant power-play, bickering and political rivalry and warfare. Nevertheless the Church has recognised this and in 1965 Pope Paul VI issued Dignitatis Humanae in which the church admitted its failures and called for religious tolerance. ….see above- but basically during the Roman Empire it was good to do what the emperor did. ](as long as he remained emperor). It's not like the pagan Roman Empire had exactly been a fountain of tolerance and enlightenment to be honest.

The late empire was economically and politically decadent, but from a religious and philosophical standpoint it reached a peak of richness, pluralism, and variety never seen before (until Christianity took absolute power). And overall it was tolerant of most ideas and faiths – the cult of the Emperor was present, but it was more of a formality than anything else. Countless philosophical and religious movements and schools multiplied all over the empire (especially in Egypt, Greece and Asia Minor) – the triumph of Christianity put an end to all this pluralism.



And I firmly believe the only reason the Church began to preach tolerance in the 20th century is because it started losing its flocks to atheism or other religions, and could no longer use the law to enforce conformity.

[ComradeMan]

Western scholarship suffered from Christian bias until a few decades ago, and academic objectivity was rarely adhered to. Just pick up any book on religious history prior to the 1960’s....

Not all Western Scholars did that at all. In fact it was Western Scholarship that was responsible for the writing down of Sanskrit and the subsequent linguistic discoveries that were made. Within Western Scholarship the Orientalists were quite favourable and interested towards all things eastern,

Monumental works on the Roman Empire, drawing from the revitalised classical ideas of the Renaissance held up the Greco-Roman civilisation to be an apex of European/Western culture. Edward Gibbon certainly viewed Christianity quite negatively and attributed the fall of the Roman Empire in part to Christianity- so much so that his works were attacked by Christians. Gibbon's work became one of the "canonincal" works, despite criticism, on the Roman Empire in the English speaking world.


I read elsewhere that Jesus’ message was meant for Israel only, and this is proven by gospel inconsistencies...

Matthew 15:23-28 may indicate that Jesus changes his direction when the Canaanite woman pleads with him. Why? One interpretation is that Jesus gives the woman what she would have expected at the time from a Jew but then because she shows faith he does indeed heal her daughter and shows that it is this faith that counts and not whether someone be a gentile or not.

There is also the interesting dialogue in John 4 with the Samaritan woman who is initially hostile towards Jesus as a Jew- again this reflects more the social dynamics of the time- all the more surprising in the sense that the Samaritans and Jews were more or less "denominations" of the same basic religion.

However in Genesis 12:3 we find the phrase "and in you [Abraham] all the families of the earth will be blessed" that hints at a prophecy concerning the non-Jews. This business of the "lost sheep of Israel" is not really controversial.

Jesus was a Jew and so were his apostles, they were Jews born under the Law and it was of course the Jews who were expecting the messiah, not the gentiles. Throughout the Old Testament/Tanakh and indeed in modern forms of Judaism we find the notion that the relationship between God and the Jewish people revealed through the Torah, i.e. the Jewish people are commanded to follow the Law of Torah is exclusive to the Jewish people however this does not mean that God ignores or does not have a relationship with the other nations or that the Jewish people are free from rebuke. We have to remember that at the end of the day the Old Testament/Tanakh is a Jewish "book" with a Jewish viewpoint.


We should exercise caution with the phrase the "lost sheep" because it does not imply that all the Jews were lost either. It is also interesting to note that this largely Galillean movement talks of Israel and not Judah- which would have had serious connotations at the time.

In Matthew 3:7-9 we find Jesus attacking the Pharisees and Saducees, the most "respected" men of the time and calling them a "brood of vipers" to which he adds that just because they are descended from Abraham doesn't mean they are righteous. The "stones" are the gentiles from whom God may raise the sons of Abraham. Anyway, the destruction of the barriers between Jews and non-Jews is stated in Ephesians 2:14 with allusions to Isaiah 57:19. It is interesting to note that the first "Christians" considered themselves Jews and remonstrated with Peter (a Jew) for eating with the gentiles and spreading the word amongst them in Caesaria. The Jew versus gentile thing is evident and cannot be denied but of course we need to remember that in the eyes of Jesus and the Apostles etc "Torah righteousness" and coming back to "true" Judaism was what they were about. Let us again also not forget that in the Old Testaments/Tanakh we have the story of Jonah who is sent to the gentiles and God interacts with non-Jews and Jews alike.


Also the very definition of the Kingdom of God in the Gospels is inconsistent. Sometimes it seems to refer to a future event, but other passages indicate that it refers to something that is present in everyone...(Luke 17: 20, 21)

I don't see what the problem is here- it's not an either/or situation but rather outward and inward which would correspond to the idea of omnipresence.

[Zostrianos]

Monumental works on the Roman Empire, drawing from the revitalised classical ideas of the Renaissance held up the Greco-Roman civilisation to be an apex of European/Western culture. Edward Gibbon certainly viewed Christianity quite negatively and attributed the fall of the Roman Empire in part to Christianity- so much so that his works were attacked by Christians. Gibbon's work became one of the "canonincal" works, despite criticism, on the Roman Empire in the English speaking world.


Gibbon was the only one I knew of who actually presented a fairer picture of history. And in many ways he was right, the imposition of Christianity contributed to the fall of the empire. This actually reminds me of something I wanted to bring up, another half truth I was taught in school. Until I actually looked it up for myself, I had been taught that the Roman empire had fallen to Pagan barbarian tribes, when in reality most of the tribes were Christians. Not only that, the invasions were often aided by Christian monks who helped the invaders. When the visigoth Alaric invaded Greece in 395, he had Christian monks in his ranks who happily set out to destroy the remaining sanctuaries at Eleusis (which were still used by Pagans); for this see especially Eunapius' Lives of the Philosophers.

The intellectual decline during the late 4th-early 5th century was a direct result of imperial policies against non-Christian religions and of the Church's virulent war against heretical movements, whereby book burnings and cultural destruction became commonplace. Additionally, the Church often condemned classical philosophy as dangerous, and even intellectual inquiry was discouraged; the faithful were encouraged to embrace simplicity and to use their minds only if it served to glorify the Church:

"Chrysostom, just like earlier bishops, vaunts the wisdom of the believing unlearned over the unbelieving learned; ridicules and rejects Plato and the other great names of the philosophic pantheon, just as Constantine had done; dismisses their teachings as mere cobwebs; and in the end approves only "rustics and ordinary folk." His is the cast of mind prevailing in the Byzantine world to come." (Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, 89)

[Zostrianos]

The trouble with this is that there are at least half-a-dozen interpretations based on NT Greek- and the translation is not necessarily "all these things be fulfilled" but rather "these things will begin to take place". It used the NT Greek ingressive aorist tense which is difficult to translate into modern English but generally, as the name suggests, indicated when something will start to happen. This is also found in the other Synoptic Gospels and follows with Matthew 24:4-8 in which the "birth pangs" figuratively indicate the beginning of the process that will lead to the Second Coming. The problem is not with the use of the word "generation" but rather with the final part.


I found another reference that seems to confirm that Jesus was indeed talking about something that was to come in his lifetime. In Mark 9:1 he says: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

[ComradeMan]

Gibbon was the only one I knew of who actually presented a fairer picture of history. And in many ways he was right, the imposition of Christianity contributed to the fall of the empire. This actually reminds me of something I wanted to bring up, another half truth I was taught in school. Until I actually looked it up for myself, I had been taught that the Roman empire had fallen to Pagan barbarian tribes, when in reality most of the tribes were Christians. Not only that, the invasions were often aided by Christian monks who helped the invaders. When the visigoth Alaric invaded Greece in 395, he had Christian monks in his ranks who happily set out to destroy the remaining sanctuaries at Eleusis (which were still used by Pagans); for this see especially Eunapius' Lives of the Philosophers...

The Roman Empire had already been in crisis since the 3rd century. Endless soap-operas of factional fighting and generals rising to be emperors etc had left the internal structure of the empire weakened. It could be argued that Constantine's decision to adopt Christianity "officially" was a last desperate attempt to impose a unity which had long since dissipated- indeed his miraculous transformation all part of a civil war against Maxentius.

There are a whole host of reasons put forward for the decline of the empire and Gibbon's theory of Christianity leading then to the germanisisation of the Roman military is not without its modern critics. Plagues from the late 2nd century had already weakened the socio-economic structure, the increasing use of mercernaries (Germanic) who were then integrated into the lower levels of Roman society also altered the "traditional" Roman view of Roman society. "Romans" began to form an "aristocratic" minority and by the period of Late Antiquity great divides existed between those where considered to be bona fide Romans and those who were not.

You mention Alaric? Alaric had been trained since being a relatively young boy in the Roman Army along with his troops. Indeed, even the great general Flavius Stilicho was of mixed Vandal and Roman origins and this may have contributed to his assassination- ironically he was the last general to hold off the "barbarians" under Alaric (twice) until forming an alliance with Alaric. Alaric's people were already established in Moesia, a Roman province in the balkans, and it seems that after serving Rome loyally Alaric was left disillusioned by Rome as he was not promoted to generalship. What finally provoked Alaric's fatal assault on Rome was the inherent racism of sections of Roman society towards the germanic peoples within the empire that had led to their wholescale massacre in the streets (the foederati). The refugees of these massacres naturally fled to Alaric. Alaric's earlier invasion of Greece had more to do with securing a military commander's position from the Eastern Empire than anything else.

The late conflicts with the "barbarians" were more about race/ethnicity and land than religion coupled with the disastrous policies of two inept emperors, Honorius and Arcadius (east/west). Alaric had no intention of destroying the Roman Empire at all- he wanted territory but, and this is the big but, he wanted an "official" Roman command of the imperial army, as Stilico had had before him! Honorius would not listen and history took its course.

There is of course another theory that doesn't see the fall of the Roman Empire as some horrendous collapse but more of an inevitable transformation that led to the Medieval period.

Whatever the origins, they are complex and the traditional ideas of hordes of savage "barbarians" are largely due, in my opinion, to 19th century romanticists (most of whom were classicists too). The idea of Romanised "germans" who spoke Latin, were trained in the Roman military way of fighting and who were mostly Christians is not the idea most people seem to have.


I found another reference that seems to confirm that Jesus was indeed talking about something that was to come in his lifetime. In Mark 9:1 he says: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

This is an interesting passage and we have to be careful with the chronology of events in the Gospel of Mark. Nevertheless, arguably this passage comes before the transfiguration of Christ- Peter, James and John witness this on the mountain when Moses and Elijah also appear and a voice from Heaven confirms the transfiguration. In that context we could undestand the passage as literal. In a wider Christian sense the Kingdom of God come's with power at the Resurrection of Christ which of course is central to Christian doctrine.

[Nox]

The biggest Christian myth/lie is that God created the Universe :laugh:

[Zostrianos]

Another point I wanted to address here is biblical morality. As most of us know, the Old Testament portrays God as a genocidal murderer, and the laws of the Torah reflect this (q.v. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm)

Now, the Church explains these laws as necessary in the context of ancient Israel's progress, and claims that Jesus was sent to abolish them and bring new laws. However, Jesus himself contradicted this position in Matthew 5:17:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".

Fundamentalist Christians say that the entire Bible is divinely inspired, but yet they cherry pick the laws and commandments they like, and reject the others. For instance, fundies are very vocal about OT laws against homosexuality, which God condemned as an abomination and for which he decreed capital punishment. But they turn a blind eye to other perceived offences in the same books that also merit the death penalty according to God:

-Working on the Sabbath
-Disobeying or insulting one's parents
-Extra marital sex
-Worshipping other Gods
-Not being a virgin on your wedding night (women only)
-Not screaming loud enough if you're being raped (again, women only)
etc........

[Revolution starts with U]

To be fair, you're only supposed to kill the woman if she didn't scream loud enough in a city while she was being raped :thumbdown:

[Dave B]

I think that the old testament is mostly a disgusting and reprehensible book.

And that most liberal and even sexual liberated lefties, who have little problem with children being exposed, even at an early age to functional sexuality, have little understanding of what is contained in it.

Consider me a stuffy conservative if you like but there is a kind of beauty in the sexual naivety and uncorrupted innocence of children.

The last thing you would want them to read is the dysfunctional sexual depravity in the old testament.

It really is a top shelf book, and should not be left around where they can find it eg.

Lot and His Daughters


30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2019&version=NIV


There are obviously issues here concerning creditability, for some, regarding alcohol induced erectile dysfunction that may result in some dismissing the story as unworthy of serious consideration.

I actually also think that the Pauline material is full of crap as well.

But ironically is there that much stuff that is really obnoxious, in what is ‘supposed’ to matter ‘after all’, in the gospel stuff.


Eg on loose women John 8


.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208&version=NIV

[Zostrianos]

I actually also think that the Pauline material is full of crap as well.


In fact, a lot of the corruption that took over the Church and turned into the monstrosity it became, is attributable to the Pauline books of the New Testament (in addition to the OT material). Homophobia, sexism, rabid intolerance, etc. are all prominent features of Paul's writings that are practically absent from the Gospels. I firmly believe that Paul's continuation of Jesus' teaching is illegitimate and often contradicts Jesus' tenets as recorded in the gospels.
The inferiority of women in the Church and their exclusion from priesthood is usually justified by Paul's teachings in 1 Timothy 2:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The Pauline book of Acts (Acts 19) also set a precedent for the cultural destruction and book burning that characterized organized Christianity:

When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor. Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas. In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul demonstrates his virulent intolerance against non Christians:

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

And countless times he curses and condemns Christians who disagree with him, saying that they will go to hell.

So, like Thomas Jefferson once said, I also believe Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

PS: Paul also held that the Second Coming was imminent and would happen soon...and he was wrong

[Zostrianos]

Another topic I want to address, which is central to the Church, is Hell. Now, obviously I can't disprove the existence of Hell, but I will demonstrate that the idea of eternal punishment for non-belief\faith (or rejection of a belief) in Christ is not only abominable, but completely illogical.
I will use an analogy I've seen used by many thinkers to refute the idea of a Hell.

1. Mr A. is a good hearted, uncommonly generous individual, who gives to the poor and volunteers at homeless shelters, helps his fellow man in any way he can, and is selfless in almost everything he does. He also avoids conflicts and never succumbs to anger, but tries to settle any disagreement with others through compromise.
Unfortunately, Mr A. will suffer eternal damnation after his death. Why? Well he grew up as a Christian, but eventually he began to look into other religions and movements, and eventually abandoned Christianity altogether and became an atheist.

2. Mr B. became involved with street gangs in his early teens, and from then on embarked on a life of crime, beginning with robbery and assault, and eventually he became a serial murderer and rapist, attacking and killing over 100 women before he was finally arrested.
Mr B. however, will be rewarded after death and sent to Heaven. You see, after having been in jail for a few years, Mr B. was diagnosed with incurable cancer and began to express remorse for his crimes, fearing what would happen after death. He therefore turned to Christianity for forgiveness; he got in touch with the prison's chaplain who put him through the various sacraments, and thereby expiated his crimes before God, thus ensuring a blessed afterlife.

Now, having read this, who do you think deserves Heaven most? If you answered Mr. A, like any rational person would, then you would agree that the Christian idea of Hell and damnation is a monstrosity that, were it true, could only be the work of an evil, diabolical deity.
Now, many Christians will retort with the idea of Satan: if someone rejects God, he immediately falls into the hands of Satan, who will seize his soul after death, and take him to Hell. The problem is that God, being all powerful, could decide to save the person's soul anyway, but yet he does not. Additionally, the very idea of Satan as the enemy of God is largely a Christian innovation: in the Old Testament, Satan is only mentioned a small handful of times, and only in the book of Job is he an active protagonist distinct from God; however, he is rather portrayed as a mischievous agent of God, rather than the Adversary. Additionally, according to the OT, the origin of evil is God, not Satan:
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live (Deuteronomy 30:19)

An even more interesting passage is Chronicles 21:1, which says that "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel." What's funny about this, is that this account is also given in the older Second Book of Samuel 24:1, which states: "Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

So one text mentions Satan, the other YHWH.......

Also, there is almost no doctrine of the afterlife in the OT, and barely any mention of a Hell outside the later prophets: sinners are usually punished on earth by God, or killed; in the OT the souls of the dead end up in Sheol, an abyss of darkness, regardless of their obedience to God. The emphasis on Hell as a place of eternal punishment was a New Testament innovation, which disproves any logical continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
Now, Jewish mysticism did retain the idea of Hell as Gehenna, a place where the dead endure suffering and burning; however, it is not a place of damnation, but rather a sort of purgatory where all souls end up temporarily and gradually purify themselves of earthly sins.
Eternal damnation is therefore illogical and improbable.

[ComradeMan]

....

Having looked at your examples we need to analyse them through what the religions in question have to say on the matter. This is not to say you have to believe this but rather what their position is.

Firstly, in "traditional" Christianity, good acts alone are not enough to get into Heaven and often the doctrine of original sin is brought into the argument. Now the Bible in its entirety does not really deal with atheists as such because, presumably of the times in which it was compiled, however an atheist de facto rejects G-d and in a Chrisitian sense rejects Christ and this would be seen as sin enough. On the other hand seeing as the atheist by definition does not believe in any of this anyway it could be argued, albeit cynically, what does it matter to atheists? :confused:

In the example of the bad person who has repented, this does not as far as I understand exclude them from judgement and repentence must be sincere, i.e. true repentence and not just an "insurance" policy repentence on a person's deathbed.

The other problem is with "Hell"- there is no exact definition of Hell and the idea that souls will be annihilated forever applies only to those whose wickedness and unrepentence merited it.

Nevertheless from a purely Christian point of view, and is found in John 14:6 it's quite clear- there is no salvation other than through Christ.

Now, moving to the Tanakh/Old Testament- the idea of the afterlife or "Olam-Ha-Ba" is firmly rooted in Judaism. In Daniel 12:2 we find:
"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. " The belief in some kind of life after death is also, in my opinion at least, confirmed by the episode of the witch of Endor, 1 Samuel:28 in which Samuel spirit is raised from the dead at the behest of Saul- despite this being considered sinful and wrong from a Biblical point of view.

[Dave B]

Well thanks to the above poster on the Jefferson thing that was really interesting and something I did not know about eg as below just googled.

Which while I don’t have to go along with all of it, it is historically interesting;


Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture".[34] He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", [35] and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" describing Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications".[35] He also described the Book of Revelation to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".[36]

From his careful study of the Bible, Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God.[37] While living in the White House, Jefferson began to piece together his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved.

This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.[6]


In 1803 Jefferson composed a syllabus of the comparative merits of Christianity. He let only a few see it, including Benjamin Rush in 1803 and William Short in 1820. When Rush died in 1813, Jefferson asked the family to return the document to him. In the syllabus, Jefferson outlines what he considers to be some of the advantages of Jesus' teachings. In the 1820 letter to Short, he makes it clear that he disagrees with some of those teachings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

I had been under the impression that Strauss's Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined) was an original break but it now looks like it was a follow on from a notable from material from the other side of the pond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Strauss


Straus led to Feuerbach who inspired Marx and it was Feuerbach really who invented the idea that ideology or superstructure was a product, mirror image or reflection of material conditions.


Turning Hegel on his head.

Modern christians are followers of the distortion of early christianity or in other words another religion Paulinism.

Which bears the same relation to its original as Leninism does to Marxism.

[Zostrianos]

Firstly, in "traditional" Christianity, good acts alone are not enough to get into Heaven and often the doctrine of original sin is brought into the argument. Now the Bible in its entirety does not really deal with atheists as such because, presumably of the times in which it was compiled, however an atheist de facto rejects G-d and in a Chrisitian sense rejects Christ and this would be seen as sin enough. On the other hand seeing as the atheist by definition does not believe in any of this anyway it could be argued, albeit cynically, what does it matter to atheists? :confused:

I should have been clearer in my example: I only used atheism, but the same would apply if a person converts to a non Christian religion. If I'm not mistaken, most Churches have a clause that says that non Christians and atheists will also go to Heaven, provided they were never acquainted with Christianity or introduced to it and thus never had a chance to reject it. Which proves that in Christian dogma God can indeed save anyone he wills, but he chooses not to save those who won't subscribe to the Church. This brings up another dilemma: what if a Christian converted to another religion, because he was fed up with the corruption of organized Christianity? Or what if he became an atheist because his researches convinced him that God does not exist? Would they still pay the ultimate price? THis is another reason I think the whole "there's no salvation outside of Christ" doctrine is illogical.



In the example of the bad person who has repented, this does not as far as I understand exclude them from judgement and repentence must be sincere, i.e. true repentence and not just an "insurance" policy repentence on a person's deathbed.

That doesn't change the immorality of that concept in my view. A person who has done nothing but evil for most of their life, and one day repents (howbeit sincerely) and converts to Christianity, has a greater chance of a heavenly afterlife than a truly good person, who lived an irreproachable life, but who made the fatal choice of converting from Christianity to another religion, or becoming an atheist.



Nevertheless from a purely Christian point of view, and is found in John 14:6 it's quite clear- there is no salvation other than through Christ.

The famous quote I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me, is considered non-original by many secular scholars. The fact that it occurs only in John (the most recent of the synoptic gospels and the most radically distinct) points to it possibly being a later accretion by early Christian scribes.
In Jesus Interrupted, Bart Ehrman comments extensively on the differences between John and the other Gospels, including Jesus' "I am" sayings:

The difference between Mark and John is not only that Jesus speaks about himself in John and identifies himself as divine but also that Jesus does not teach what he teaches in Mark, about the coming kingdom of God. The idea that there would be a future kingdom on earth in which God would rule supreme and all the
forces of evil would be destroyed is no part of Jesus’ proclamation in John. Instead he teaches that people need to have eternal life, in heaven above, by achieving a heavenly birth (3:3–5). That’s what the “kingdom of God” means in John, the very few times it occurs: it means life in heaven, above, with God—not a new heaven and new earth down here below. Faith in Jesus is what gives eternal life. Those who believe in Jesus will live with God forever; those who do not will be condemned (3:36) [... ] In Mark, Jesus predicts that the end will come right away, during his own generation, while his disciples are still alive (Mark 9:1; 13:30). By the time John was written, probably from 90 to 95 CE, that earlier generation had died out and most if not all the disciples were already dead. That is, they died before the coming of the kingdom. What does one do with the teaching about an eternal kingdom here on earth if it never comes? One reinterprets the teaching. The way John reinterprets it is by altering the basic conceptualization. (pgs 80, 81)





Now, moving to the Tanakh/Old Testament- the idea of the afterlife or "Olam-Ha-Ba" is firmly rooted in Judaism. In Daniel 12:2 we find:
"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. " The belief in some kind of life after death is also, in my opinion at least, confirmed by the episode of the witch of Endor, 1 Samuel:28 in which Samuel spirit is raised from the dead at the behest of Saul- despite this being considered sinful and wrong from a Biblical point of view.

The book of Daniel is what I meant when I mentioned the later prophets. You will note however that it is one of the few references to an afterlife in the Old Testament. The fact that out of the 46 OT books, there are only a couple of passing references to a possible afterlife (but many more references to a permanent death or sleep) shows that this doctrine was not original but arose quite late, and was overemphasized in the NT. Again, I see this as a lack of doctrinal continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and proof that Christianity is not the logical successor of OT religion, but a different movement with a different view of God. Even the Gnostics realized this, when they theorized that the NT God could not possibly be the same deity as that of the OT.
Now, as for the Witch of Endor episode, I once read an interpretation of it that once you're dead you're in a state of sleep or unconsciousness in Sheol, but the soul can potentially be reawakened out of its rest, like someone waking from sleep.

[Zostrianos]

Well thanks to the above poster on the Jefferson thing that was really interesting and something I did not know about eg as below just googled.................
Modern christians are followers of the distortion of early christianity or in other words another religion Paulinism.


What I find most amazing about the early American founders was that they were nearly all liberal deists, who loathed religious fundamentalism....and yet modern US fundies scream again and again that America was founded by Christian theocrats, when the exact opposite is true.
I know US right wing fundies are stubborn idiots, but still, they could maybe pick up a real book once in a while, instead of just reading the Bible and watching Faux News :thumbdown:

[PhoenixAsh]

Well I don't know about "fundies" but generally "fundies" of any type do have a tendency to be unreasonable and fundamentalist otherwise they would not really be fundies. However to allude to some kind of Christianity-wide conspiracy that deliberately promulgates "lies" and "falsehoods" is intellectually dishonest.


I think that there is no conspiracy...a conspiracy implies it is hidden...obfuscated...in fact it is pretty much in the open. The intent of Christianity is to spread which is evident from the so called missonary commands.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

And I made a huge post here about how the Christian Church and its popes knowingly lied, obfuscated, cheated and otherwise committed unforgivable sins based around the doctrine and management of the Church. So those lies are pretty much also part of historic documentation.

That mixed with rapid adoptation of heretical symbolism and customs and the churches own violations of Gods word (such as icon worship etc.)...well...

[ComradeMan]

I should have been clearer in my example: I only used atheism, but the same would apply if a person converts to a non Christian religion. If I'm not mistaken, most Churches have a clause that says that non Christians and atheists will also go to Heaven, provided they were never acquainted with Christianity or introduced to it and thus never had a chance to reject it. Which proves that in Christian dogma God can indeed save anyone he wills, but he chooses not to save those who won't subscribe to the Church.

I think the teaching is that to those whom the Word has been given then the rejection thereof is seen as a rejection of the faith. To those whom the Word has not been given this does not apply. Remember that at the time the early-Christians were pitting themselves against ritualistic temple style forms of worship which basically gave people the idea that sacrificing an animal or just carrying out the correct ritual was what was enough to qualify as a good act.


This brings up another dilemma: what if a Christian converted to another religion, because he was fed up with the corruption of organized Christianity? Or what if he became an atheist because his researches convinced him that God does not exist? Would they still pay the ultimate price?

Well then from Christianity's point of view he would have rejected Christ so....


That doesn't change the immorality of that concept in my view. A person who has done nothing but evil for most of their life, and one day repents (howbeit sincerely) and converts to Christianity, has a greater chance of a heavenly afterlife than a truly good person, who lived an irreproachable life, but who made the fatal choice of converting from Christianity to another religion, or becoming an atheist.

Well like I said, I wasn't arguing a position- just trying to describe it. However repentence does not mean someone will not be judged accordingly but rather they will be forgiven. From a Christian point of view, no one is irreproachable anyway.


The famous quote I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me, is considered non-original by many secular scholars. The fact that it occurs only in John (the most recent of the synoptic gospels and the most radically distinct) points to it possibly being a later accretion by early Christian scribes.
In Jesus Interrupted, Bart Ehrman comments extensively on the differences between John and the other Gospels, including Jesus' "I am" sayings:

Well to be honest that's a different subject really. If we are going to talk of the traditional churches and their positions then we need to analyse the scripture that they accept regardless of whether or not there may have been additions or later interpolations.


The book of Daniel is what I meant when I mentioned the later prophets. You will note however that it is one of the few references to an afterlife in the Old Testament. The fact that out of the 46 OT books, there are only a couple of passing references to a possible afterlife (but many more references to a permanent death or sleep) shows that this doctrine was not original but arose quite late, and was overemphasized in the NT. Again, I see this as a lack of doctrinal continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and proof that Christianity is not the logical successor of OT religion, but a different movement with a different view of God. Even the Gnostics realized this, when they theorized that the NT God could not possibly be the same deity as that of the OT.

Well there's a lot to discuss there really.

Isaiah 26:19 "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead."

Job 19:25 "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see G-d:"

Psalm 49:15 "But G-d will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah."

1 Samuel 2:6 "The LORD kills, and makes alive: he brings down to the grave, and brings up."

The idea of resurrection, an immortal soul and thus life-after-death are central to Judaism, independent of Christian interpretations of the scriptures. The Sadducees had rejected this idea but the Pharisees and other groups did not. In whatever case the a belief in resurrection is as Jewish as it is Christian in an Abrahamic sense. It is one of the 13 principles of Maimonides and is expressed in the Elohai Neshamah and the Shemoneh 'Esreh and in the Burial Kaddish. Remember too that the Old Testament/Tanakh is not the only source of Jewish theology and up until the destruction of the Temple by the Romans there was also the Oral Torah, which was forbidden to be written but did indeed later come to be written.


Now, as for the Witch of Endor episode, I once read an interpretation of it that once you're dead you're in a state of sleep or unconsciousness in Sheol, but the soul can potentially be reawakened out of its rest, like someone waking from sleep.

Well this would be the idea of sleep until the resurrection.

[Zostrianos]

Well there's a lot to discuss there really.
Isaiah 26:19 "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead."

Job 19:25 "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see G-d:"
Psalm 49:15 "But G-d will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah."
1 Samuel 2:6 "The LORD kills, and makes alive: he brings down to the grave, and brings up."

The idea of resurrection, an immortal soul and thus life-after-death are central to Judaism, independent of Christian interpretations of the scriptures. The Sadducees had rejected this idea but the Pharisees and other groups did not. In whatever case the a belief in resurrection is as Jewish as it is Christian in an Abrahamic sense. It is one of the 13 principles of Maimonides and is expressed in the Elohai Neshamah and the Shemoneh 'Esreh and in the Burial Kaddish. Remember too that the Old Testament/Tanakh is not the only source of Jewish theology and up until the destruction of the Temple by the Romans there was also the Oral Torah, which was forbidden to be written but did indeed later come to be written.


All those passages in the OT appear to be more of a longing or hope that there will be an afterlife or resurrection, rather than a fixed doctrine. Eventually this hope became accepted as a reality, and by NT times had become an accepted doctrine. This is also supported by the fact that in the OT, God interferes directly in human affairs and seems very preoccupied with the earthly life and progression of Israel and its generations - the emphasis is very much on hope for future generations here on earth, and the blessings bestowed on one's offspring and descendants. Later, however, this gradually diminished and by NT times God no longer acts directly on the earth, and the doctrine of a resurrection and afterlife becomes central.

[Zealot]

Heaven: A mythical land full of sinners forgiven by god.
Hell: A mythical land full of innocent non-believers and a few criminals.

I feel sorry for Christians, it's going to be quite lonely up there. I'll be able to have a few beers with Marx and some other comrades while we toast marshmallows on the flames of hell. Really, hell is going to have an abundance of intellectuals so i don't see the big deal about getting into heaven.

[Nox]

How about debunking the greatest Christian lie: The existence of a God.

[ComradeMan]

All those passages in the OT appear to be more of a longing or hope that there will be an afterlife or resurrection, rather than a fixed doctrine. Eventually this hope became accepted as a reality, and by NT times had become an accepted doctrine. This is also supported by the fact that in the OT, God interferes directly in human affairs and seems very preoccupied with the earthly life and progression of Israel and its generations - the emphasis is very much on hope for future generations here on earth, and the blessings bestowed on one's offspring and descendants. Later, however, this gradually diminished and by NT times God no longer acts directly on the earth, and the doctrine of a resurrection and afterlife becomes central.

Forgive me here if I am not following what your point is. Are you arguing that a belief in some kind of resurrection/afterlife is not "authentic"? It's a difficult subject because we have some "overlapping magisteria" in terms of Judaism(s) and Christianity so as far as the Old Testament/Tanakh is concerned I have been concentrating on the Judaic interpretations and limiting them to the "canonical" works (one might to other works such as Enoch etc but we'll leave them to the side for now).

I would disagree from a religious point-of-view that those passages can be discounted as a mere hope or longing, hope and longing they were but not just that.

In the "oldest" parts of canonical scriptures a great importance is given to the correct burial of the dead (Genesis 23:4–19; Genesis 50:4–14, Genesis 50:22–26; Joshua 24:32; 1 Samuel 31:12–13; 2 Samuel 21:12–14). The horror of the idea of not being buried correctly and left for the dogs and the vultures and crows is found throughout the early scriptures, for example the fates that befell Jeroboam, Ahab and Jezebel (Deuteronomy 28:25–26;1 Kings 14:11; 1 Kings 21:24 (1 Kings 21:23; 2 Kings 9:33–37). In the narrative of Tobit we find that this man was virtuous aboveall because of his burial of the dead at great personal risk. Why? Not only to avoid the defilement of the (sacred) land, not only (perhaps) for more pragmatic reasons of hygiene, but also for the sake of the dead- onward into the rabbinical period one of the most important duties is to make sure a person has a correct burial, not only Jew but gentile and not only the pious but also the criminal.

Further to the Witch of Endor, we also find plenty of references to ghosts/spirit mediums and necromancers- condemnded usually as detestable- interestingly the narrative does not invalidate what they do as false but condemns it as wicked.

At least three resurrections are to be found in the Tanakh/Old Testament. In 1 Kings 17:17-24 the Prophet Elijah raises the widow's son from death and in 2 Kings 4:8-37 the Prophet again resurrects the son of the Shunammite who is clearly described as dead and also the more curious example in 2 Kings 13:20-21 in which the body of a criminal is thrown into Elijah's tomb and comes back to life on touching the mortal remains of the Prophet. In Ecclesiastes. 12:7 we find "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to G-d who gave it"- this implies that the spirit/soul returns to the immortal G-d and therefore is not mortal.

Although there were undoubtedly different schools of thought by the time of the New Testament period I don't think that you can argue that no evidence of life-after-death and resurrection exists in the scriptures upon which at least the Essene and Pharisaic schools of Judaism built their core tenets.

[Zostrianos]

The OT references to the afterlife are comparatively few, and like I had said previously my main point was to demonstrate that there is a marked contrast between the Old and New Testaments particularly in this regard. You will notice that in the OT, Divine punishment is mostly meted out on earth, through various calamities; furthermore, in the notorious 28th chapter of Deuteronomy, where God lists the curses he will inflict on his subjects should they violate his tenets, there is no mention of further suffering or punishment after death (which is a central tenet of the NT): all the punishments and curses are inflicted during one's earthly life.

[Dave B]

If you believe the JC miraculous healing stories of course; this would have been a point of intense irritation to the organised Judiac religion of the time.

It was thought then that sickness, illness, various deformities, as well as economic bad luck etc were a punishment from the old testament God.

Perhaps as a result of the sins of their fathers etc

Exodus 20;5 - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

Deuteronomy 5:9 - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

exodus 34;6-7 - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

Therefore to cure these people in the name of god was blasphemous and a challenge to that ideology, doing it on the sabbath was just rubbing it in.

[To say nothing about telling people that the rich had a snowballs chance in hell of making it into heaven etc.]

There was a sort reinvention of the old organised Judiac religion idea, that original christianity opposed, with the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation, grace and the predestined elect and non elect etc.

Which was one way of letting the ruling class off from personal responsibility to others and the rest of society.

Completely heretical of course as the Gospel stuff makes it abundantly that you have to be good or at least repent at the very last moment.

[Dave B]

The same idea of the sins of their fathers entered into modern Christianity as a justification for slavery with ‘Curse of Ham;’ from Genesis 9;20




European biblical scholars of the Middle Ages supported the view that the "sons of Ham" or Hamites were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins. Though early arguments to this effect were sporadic, they became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries.[82]

The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of a ready supply of African labour.

In the parts of Africa where Christianity flourished in the early days, while it was still illegal in Rome, this idea never took hold, and its interpretation of scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#Proslavery

[RadioRaheem84]

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".



Jesus was trying to claim that he himself was the fulfillment of the law. The whole of the Old Testament, according to Christians, was to bring about the Christ. In other words, the genocide, the walking in the desert for 40 years, the Kings, the Creation of Israel, the law, etc. was all so that one day a lowly carpenter would die on the cross to save humanity from hell.

I don't know why it's so hard for a lot of Marxists and leftists to just take the Bible for what it is and what Christians have been saying. If you read the book straightforward you can see for yourself just what it's trying to say.

[Zostrianos]

Another common assertion by apologists is that God is against human sacrifice. True, a few times in the Torah YHWH specifically forbids human sacrifice, which was apparently practiced by some of Israel's neighbours, but it appears that it was only immoral if it was done to other Gods than YHWH. Other Biblical accounts do indicate that God does indeed approve of human sacrifice, and even commands it specifically. There are many examples, but here's just a few of the most damning ones.

1- In Deuteronomy 13, God gives these chilling instructions:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

2- In 2 Kings 23, King Josiah slaughters pagan priests and burns them on their own altars:

Just as he had done at Bethel, Josiah removed and defiled all the shrines at the high places that the kings of Israel had built in the towns of Samaria that had provoked the Lord to anger.Josiah slaughtered all the priests of those high places on the altars and burned human bones on them.

3- In Leviticus 27, we have this commandment:

“‘But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the Lord—whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death. "

4- In Judges 11, we have the famous story of Jephtah, who sacrificed his own daughter to God:

Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

“My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

“You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

Many Jewish and Christian exegetes claimed that he didn't actually sacrifice her, but merely consecrated her to God, and some interpreted the vow as actually reading "will be the Lord’s, or I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering". The verse is ambiguous enough to allow either interpretation, but even the Catholic Encyclopedia, which normally sides with biblical inerrancy, admits that the sacrifice probably took place:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08333b.htm

Further reading and examples:
http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm
http://www.usbible.com/Sacrifice/sacrifice_israel.htm

[ComradeMan]

Another common assertion by apologists is that God is against human sacrifice. True, a few times in the Torah YHWH specifically forbids human sacrifice, which was apparently practiced by some of Israel's neighbours, but it appears that it was only immoral if it was done to other Gods than YHWH. Other Biblical accounts do indicate that God does indeed approve of human sacrifice, and even commands it specifically. There are many examples, but here's just a few of the most damning ones.

The narrative of Abraham and the binding of Isaac explains why this is basically nonsense.

Deuteronomy 13: this is not human sacrifice. The town and it's plunder are the sacrifice. The Israelites would not and could not have offered what would have been a "defiled" and "unclean" sacrifice from their point of view.

2 Kings 23, King Josiah slaughters pagan priests and burns them on their own altars: Usually the accusation was that the pagan priests were guilty of human sacrifices, see Moloch. Now, the priests being burnt on their own altars is more of a divine "karmic" punishment. It is not a sacrifice to the G-d of Israel.

Leviticus 27: If you actually read the whole of Leviticus 27 you'll see why it isn't really connected to human sacrifice at all. The devotion to the Lord is dealt with in terms of persons in monetary valued. See also Pidyon HaBen- the redemption of the first born. See also Exodus 13:1, Exodus 13:13; Numbers 18:15-16; Leviticus 27:1

Judges 11, we have the famous story of Jephtah, who sacrificed his own daughter to God: Many Jewish and Christian exegetes claimed that he didn't actually sacrifice her, but merely consecrated her to God, and some interpreted the vow as actually reading "will be the Lord’s, or I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering". The verse is ambiguous enough to allow either interpretation, but even the Catholic Encyclopedia, which normally sides with biblical inerrancy, admits that the sacrifice probably took place:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08333b.htm

:rolleyes: Only if you ignore Judges 11:39 "At the end of those two months she came back to her father. He did to her what he had vowed, and she never had a husband. So the custom began in Israel". It's a problematical passage and some early Rabbins and Josephus did take the view that she was sacrificed however it seems unlikely given that human sacrifices/burnt offerings are absolutely forbidden- Deuteronomy 12:31, Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:1-5.

[Dave B]

Actually this stuff about reconciling the old testament god, who was a complete fascist shit lets face it, with the cuddly, nice and not so bad after all JC version goes back to the beginnings of Christianity itself.

The first ‘christian’ heresy was in fact that; ie Marcionism circa AD 140, even though he liked Paul!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

The theological and philosophical gibberish isn’t important as the general idea.

Which was that the new religion had to make or accept an intellectual and clear irreconcilable, intrinsic and contradictory break between the old vindictive shit of the OT and the philosophy of love, compassion and mercy of the new one.


...

[ComradeMan]

[SIZE=3]Actually this stuff about reconciling the old testament god, who was a complete fascist shit lets face it, with the cuddly, nice and not so bad after all JC version goes back to the beginnings of Christianity itself...

There is no difference, fundamentally, in the G-d of either "testament". Obviously later Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity disagree on a lot of other things, but on this matter they don't- the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (as quoted in Acts 3:13). Furthermore Muslims also recognise that Allah is this same G-d. Arguments about the nature, the Trinity, the revelation, prophets and messiahs wouldn't be an issue if they were arguing about different gods, but they aren't. In fact the Arabic word "All-h" is just a word that means "G-d" and non-Muslim speakers of Arabic, namely Arabic speaking Jews and Christians, freely use the word "All-h" when speaking of G-d- related to the Aramaic word ʼ'El-ha" which is probably the word that Jesus used.

[Dave B]

I wasn’t actually making any kind of technical argument about there being several God’s; and the Islamic God being a ‘materially’ different one from the Judiac one, and again, or the christian one etc etc.

It is true enough I believe that the Muslims think that their god is the same one as the Christian one and that Mohamed (blessed be his name) just had the last word on the matter and that Islam is the final, complete evolution and full revelation of the will of god etc etc.

JC for them as I understand it was just another in a long line of worthy prophets and Islam, is even for them, rooted in at least some of the Judaic old testament material blah blah.

And obviously it would be outrageous for most Christians to even contemplate that the old testament god was in anyway lets say different, to JC’s dad.

There are in fact multifaceted approaches to this ie the theological, the historical (of ideas and theology itself), the materialist and the psychoanalytical one.

The birth of Marxist historical materialism did actually originate in an analysis of Christianity by Feuerbach in his book Essence of Christianity, which Karl thought was brilliant as indeed it is, even though it is a heavy read.

Feuerbach apart from turning Hegel on its head turned christianity on its head by arguing that God didn’t make man in his own image but rather ‘man’ made god in his own image.

And that ‘man’ attributed or imparted qualities or a ‘personality’ to their god that were a reflection of qualities and ‘personality’ that were admired and valued at that particular historical epoch.

And that each individual’s God, or the way they perceive god, is the personification and idealisation of what they ‘value’ and admire in themselves or in others.

Now obviously people are not quite free to choose their own religion or version of God and often inherit it as part of their cultural heritage and ideology etc.

But clearly people like Rambo, Richard Nixon and Ian Paisley wouldn’t be comfortable as orthodox quakers for instance ; and if they found themselves in that position would tend to attempt adjust their religious position to fit their own state of mind, abandon it or find another.

People thus cut their religious cloth according to the position they find themselves in, which can be an economically material one as well as one of ‘personality’.

And that religion is therefore as a mirror image of people’s state of mind which is itself a ‘superstructural’ product of a material economic ‘base’ blah blah.

And that religion as the effect of a cause is interesting in itself as a subject, as after all science is all about understanding and formalising causes from effects.

Feuerbach went further than that as can be seen in Karl’s pre 1845 ‘species being’ and ‘human essence’ stuff.

Feuerbach believed that humans were naturally and innately co-operative and communistic with a social instinct etc and that they valued those qualities in themselves as part of their natural personality.

And that the ‘early christians’ personified and projected those innate and ‘species being’ communistic qualities and values onto their new testament god.

Stirner trashed the idea of altruism as something antithetical to materialism that for him had to be rooted in material self interest.

Materialism WAS self interest and egotism.

It wasn’t until Darwin 50 years later, with his decent of man, that that the social instinct was made ‘material’ as a non egotistical innate ‘impulse’ and theoretical possibility.

The other ‘complementary’ idea that early christianity was the religious and metaphysical expression or reflection of communistic workers state of mind became resurgent with Kautsky’s work.

Roman Judea and its environs was perhaps coincidentally it appears a place were agricultural wage labour first started to appear due to various legalistic changes following on from its incorporation into the roman empire in 6AD.

In fact the concept of ‘wages’ appear in the gospel documents frequently.

Of course ‘Saint’ Paul, the modern christian, quickly set the new religion back on to a track to one that was more accommodating to the obedient rule of the world by a set of rich slave owning bastards.