Fine, lets examine the this Old Testament God who you find so repulsive:
God created man and put him in the Garden of Eden- which was a paradise in which there was no death. This was the original intent for mankind .
Man used his free will to screw that amazingly good thing up, violated God’s commandment about eating the fruit, and had to be exiled, which set off a whole chain reaction of effects. One being that sin and death were brought into the world, which was not part of what was intended for mankind in creation.
God didn’t bring sin and death into the world, man did.
Incorrect about the origin of sin. "God" is pretty explicit about the origination of sin.
Genesis 1:1 -
"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."
Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Proverbs 16:4
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Lamentations 3:37-38
"Who is he that can speak, and it happens, when the Lord command it not?
Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not both evil and good?"
It is often poorly attempted by Christian scholars to deduce that God did not create sin. They try to state that Sin is the absence of holiness, and that although the Bible in both Testaments states clearly, and plainly that God created all things, that sin is a construct of Satan, who again, is a creation of God. There are whole legions of "Christian experts" dismissing the definition of "evil" by assuming the secondary interpretation of the word , and avoiding all other shining examples where the Hebrew word for Evil, "Rah", is used in its pure form as to describe the contrast of Gods purported creation. That is to say, "evil" as in the opposite of good.
To state that God created all, then to dismiss "Evil" as not tangible and therefore not a creation, is creative underhanded engineering on behalf of backpedaling Christian scholars. You cannot state that God created all things, then state there were things he did not create. This is the core problem with Christianity in its selectiveness of concepts and ideas with which to embrace.
God, as the creator of all things per the Bible, must have also created the opposites of purity and holiness. Without these things, there is no contrast. You either believe God created all things, or you believe God is limited not only in power, but in control. The Bible is clear that God created all things, to include the void in which he existed, prior to the Earths purported creation. If God created all things, then he created every intangible thing we also know and recognize.
This would include concepts, ideologies, perceptions, emotions, temptations, transgressions, and righteousness.
Indeed, Satan was the favorite of all the Angels (More favoritism by an Onnipotent, Omniscient being...), and at that point, of all of Gods creation. Even if you were to try to say that Satan invented Sin, you would be dismissign that God creates all things, and for Satan to introduce Sin, God had to create it first.
Indeed, the presence of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden alone is the sole example necessary to exhibit Gods foreknowledge and absolute creation of the contrast of light and dark, and of good and evil.
Then mankind continued to screw things up by forgetting all about God, performing volatile and wicked acts that eventually got so heinous that God had to put the handful of righteous people still in existence on a boat and hit the ‘reset’ button with a worldwide flood
Now civilization as we know it is restarted with good people who spread and multiply, and mankind eventually goes right back to the same volatile and heinous acts that caused the flood in the first place.
The flood is the greatest example of omniscient fallacy. It is stated that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present. It is stated that he knows all that will come to pass before it comes to pass.
So the greatest example of fallacy in an all-knowing, future seeing God, is the wanton genocidal destruction of nearly all of humanity save those who cater to his enormous, celestial ego. His insatiable hunger for worship and praise. He states that humanity is "not as it should be", and expresses sorrow and regret for the state of humanity. Anybody with half a brain would realize the questionable nature of an omniscient, omnipotent being who knows everything that will ever happen ever, expressing sorrow for one of his actions. Omniscient, perfect, infallible beings don't have a need for a whiteboard and a big eraser. This is just simple, factual reality,
unless God revels in the drowning of his purported children.
It is also whimsical to note that this Biblical tale parallels, as in coincides with tons of other historical tales of a flood, most of which all have their own version of "Noah" and his "Ark". That is to say, specifically, that "Noahs Ark" is actually written after, or simultaneously, with other recorded works noting of a flood and a "divine one", a "chosen man of purity".
Examples of archaeological findings pointing to a global flood are present everywhere, and as a matter of geological record, it is likely that at the end of the pleistocene age, glaciers melted causing a severe elevation in sea levels.
Every religion has a record of the flood and its own version of "Noah". Here let me point them out:
Sumer: The god Enki warns Ziusudra that he intends to destroy mankind, and orders him to build a boat. The flood lasts for 7 days. Ziusadra lives and repopulates the planet.
Babylon: The "Epic of Gilgamesh" involves "Utnapishtim", archaeologically speaking, the character Noah is based off of.
***Note: Both the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts predate the Christian writings of the "great deluge". This is a matter agreed upon by an overwhelming percentage of Biblical and Cultrual archaeologists, even considering Atrahasis (Sumerian origin).***
This leaves over
598 other religious accounts of a great deluge, some of which predate Hebrew recordings on the topic.
This means that the Christian take on the flood is 0.1667% of the total possiblities of what occurred during the great deluge. That's pretty staggering.
So now God finds a man named Abraham, who is righteous, and tests him to see if he’s willing to give up his son for the love of God (remember, later, God does give up HIS Son for the love of man). Abraham passes the test, God spares his son because he really didn’t want the innocent boy harmed.
#1. An omniscient being "finds" no one.
#2. An omniscient being already knows Abrahams heart completely, and doesn't need to threaten to kill his firstborn to determine Abrahams faith.
An implication to the ulterior directly specifies that the Judaic God is not omniscient.
He makes a covenant with Abraham that can be passed down through his descendents. That is why the Hebrews are called ‘Gods people’ throughout the Old Testament, because they are the only ones actually keeping faith with the covenant God made with man.
An omniscient being makes "covenants" with mortal beings on a far inferior plane. Gotcha.
Then, said "omniscient being" declares that only the "Hebrews" are "Gods people. Naturally, a Hebrew was pushing this particular portion of the Biblical take on ancient Sumerian and Babylonian accounts of creation. This would empower a specific genetic lineage to be the sole "chosen ones." No other religious account limits themselves as the sole people of "God". This is a rather elitist, power hungry act of an individual looking to assert power through divinity. Indeed, this "chosen" mentality pervades through Catholicism to this day.
It is amazingly convenient, amongst of a population of a few hundred million, to state that no other person on Earth, provided the opportunity, was a "person of God", but the Hebrews. The Bible is assessing, in the Old Testament, that every single person not of Hebrew descent, was a sinner, spiting God.
Mathematically speaking, this is exceedingly improbable. Yet, the Bible, certainly written by Hebrews during the writing of the Torah, specifies that the certain authors are the "chosen people of God".
What crass self-anointment.
God didn’t exclude the rest of mankind. Mankind turned their back on God, yet again. This theme of disregarding God’s commandments and then being shocked that there are negative consequences runs throughout the Old Testament.
Wrong. God explicitly outlines that out of millions of people alive at the time, only the Hebrews were capable of devoutness. He likewise did not order mass warning, nor did he engage in missionary tactics a'la the New Testament.
Then, as an omniscient being who sees all and knows all, he is "saddened" by the progress of mankind, a clear and direct implication that he does not see all and know all as implied, as sorrow is avoidable.
I challenge you to find another religious account of the flood and creation wherein said religious recordings express that only people of their lineage are "Gods people". Good luck on this quest.
It is an elitist position of self-anointment engaged in by the authors of the Hebrew bible. The Hebrews.
Figure that one out.
Now, apparently you read the Old Testament and say to yourself “Oh man, this God fellow was a *****, look at all the bad stuff that happened!” and completely omit that it was man’s rebellion against God that a) took us out of the paradise he had originally put us in b) introduced death and sin into the world and c) makes in necessary for God’s wrath to come down and vanquish the evil that man has created.
Said "rebellion of man" is recorded strictly by Hebrews as a consequence of not being "Hebrew".
Things that make you say "Hrmmm..."
Consider also that the "paradise" he purportedly put man in, included the concept of free will, and the potential for sin. Satan, another construct of the Hebrew God, as part of his created being, introduces pre-created Sin. Sin, the absence of something, is the contrast necessary to show the presence of something. Absence, much like anything else created, is a necessity of creation by a God who claims to have created everything.
Knowing the fallibility and sequence of events that would unfold far before they did, it is well within Gods power to repeat the sequence until the desired results are achieved.
Instead if recreating the product from the original mold until the product is satisfactory, God allows the population to explode over an extensive period of time, supposedly spit in his face, then he, again, has to use his gigantic whiteboard to fix a problem with his creation.
Fallibility in a purportedly infallible deity.
Logic is the cure for religious piece-meal pragmaticism.
I have no doubt that I haven’t changed your mind about any of this in the least, as your mind has already been made up, but your idea that Christians think that God is evil, and somehow simply ignore this fact by focusing on Jesus, is wrong. God isn’t evil, mankind is simply wicked. Despite our flaws he continued to love mankind and eventually gave up his son in order to pay for the rest of our sins.
I never stated, a single time, that Christians as a blanket think the "God" of the Old Testament is evil. That is your own interjection, and possibly preparation for a straw-man argument.
The reality is that most Christian sermons
do focus on the New Testament, as the Old Testament God is excessively violent, graphic, cruel, and wicked in its application of divine power and decision making. As you have repeatedly, compulsively stated, you, and other "modern" liberal Christians, believe that the New Testament directly affects the acts of the Judaic God and his repugnant nature in the Old Testament. The New Testament is used as relief for the egregious acts of the God of the old.
What we have is another example of convenient relief through explanation and explanatory creativity that most Christians who are even remotely learned about the topic of the Old Testament engage in. Its steeped in partiality and vigilant in its resolve to absolve.
As demonstrated by myself and the various students of archaeological truth before me, even early Christians saw the disparity between the callous, wicked, vile and repugnant acts of the Judaic God in the Old Testament as early as the inception of Christianity itself.
This fallacy between the books is not a new concept or topic of discussion.
Christians must repeatedly portray man prior to the flood as the wickedest of all creatures in order to justify the express ordering of God to rape women, murder friends and family while they sleep, and to kill pure infants with no knowledge of God whatsoever for the non-compliance of a full grown, adult king.
Dead babies, killing them is Gods way of saying "DO WHAT I SAY!".
Remember that when you think of dead babies. That's an important lesson.
I dunno. Maybe calling God a racist murdering bigot makes you more comfortable in your own beliefs. If that’s what your take-away from the Bible was, I really don’t know what to say, other than you read the story, but didn’t understand the message. The OT isn’t about God’s wrath, it’s about God’s love for mankind and the struggle of people to eventually get back to the paradise that he had planned for us
Which is then fulfilled in the New Testament.
The Old Testament is indeed about Gods wrath. It is about demonstrating his power and fury, and the consequences for disobeying him (He kills infants, orders you to rape your enemies, and kill your friends while they sleep. That'll show ya!). It is establishing the "Awe factor", and declaring his all-powerful nature.
This is expounded upon in every book of the Old Testament. It speaks quit literally in contradictive terms. Expressing the love and forgiving nature of God, whilst simultaneously displaying his intolerance and jealousy.
Jealousy is an interesting claim of being when applied against an omniscient being by the way. That is a whole other, very pertinent, but extensive topic in and of itself.
The parable of the sower (Matt 13:3) and the parable of the weeds (Matt 13:24) make it pretty clear what Jesus’s stance was. The wheat is the good people, the weeds are the bad people. Should we pull the weeds? No, because it would ruin the wheat as well. Instead wait until harvest time (judgment day) and the wheat and weeds can be pulled together. The wheat will be saved, the weeds will be destroyed. It is explained again in Matt 13:37-44, Mark 4:13, and again without the parable in Matt 25:31-34.
This is a stunning realization by an Omniscient being that he can simply separate the good from the bad on Judgement Day.
I wonder if he could have done this prior to killing millions of people with a worldwide deluge, and simply commanded that you "go forth unto the world, and preach to all the people" about Gods purported magnificence.
So no, killing sinners is no longer a responsibility of man. Instead let them go on living in sin if they chose, and at the end times God will separate the sinners from the righteous. This theme is re-iterated again in Rev 22:11 which states “Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."
Christians are also told not to judge other sinners harshly, as we are sinners ourselves. (Luke 6:37)
Add in the “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:42) and the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” decision in John 8:7
So there is your relief for why we don’t have to kill people for breaking God’s law. God is going to separate us out by his own judgment at the end times. Until then those sinners have time to repent.
Through all of this you fail to see the contrast between the wickedness of God in the Old Testament in contrast to his exceeding patience and acceptance in the New. Many of the practices the Christian man-god engaged in were done far prior to his crucifixion. He had not yet paid "the price" to atone for the "sins of mankind", but his conduct was in direct contrast to that of the Old Testament God. If one believes in the Holy trinity then they accept as a matter of fact that Jesus was merely the physical embodiment of God on the mortal plane. The flesh of God.
The story of Jesus Christ is one of thousands of stories accounting a man-god atoning for humanity. Religion it seems was kind of a pop-fair thing during ancient times. Many religions, including Christianity, have similar stories. A large portion of which draw from Sumerian and Babylonian religions.
Indeed in the
Tablets of Maklu it is noted, specifically, that water was used for spiritual purification. In ancient Egypt newborn baptism was common. All of these prior to Chrsitianity as well as Judaism.
Again, these are accounts of ritual engaged in by Christians as a divine, holy, Christian/Judaic God derived act, that were merely stolen conveniently from other religions preceding it.
As to the stories of other man-gods, there a many. As you should well know, it is well accepted that Christ died in approximately 77ad. The story of Attis goes as far back, historically, as 1200BCE. There is no doubt that the tale of Jesus Christ and his man-god status, as well as his martyrdom, are not unique in any way.
Call it whatever you want. The New Testament scriptures and the teachings of Jesus make it perfectly clear that we aren’t supposed to kill people for sinning, otherwise we’d all be dead.
I’ll leave the hatred and murder to the ‘hardcore’ Baptists at Westboro
While Westboro seems extremist in their approach, and I loathe them far more than any moderate, they are in fact doing what should be done by being conservative Christians, and taking the word of God literally.
Again, the New Testament shows itself to be a stark contrast to the wicked, vile, cruel creature that is the Old Testament God
prior to Jesus death. The easy way to understand this is God has a serious case of multigenerational bipolar disorder.
Is the entire Bible and its message invalid because the 1st century church adopted pagan traditions in order to spread the faith? No. The message of salvation in the Bible remains intact, regardless of whether or not Christians decorate fir trees in December or not. The celebration in Christianity remains focusing on the celebration of their savior, his death and rebirth.
When you are raised, directed, and even read in the Bible itself that it is the "Perfect word of God" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Matthew 5:18), you realize that you are living a lie once the omissions come out. You have said yourself that the Bible is "God Breathed", but then simultaneously admit to error in the Bible.
In what way is the Bible "Perfect" if it isn't, you know, perfect?
You will undoubtedly try to convey that the imperfect book is a perfect message of salvation, which we know cannot be true whatsoever, because the book is imperfect.
Attis was a Greek character who was the son of Zeus and who’s mother was impregnated by a fruit. He was a sex maniac who the gods decided to punish by castrating him. He later died under a tree. In some versions of the story flowers grew under the tree, in other versions his body was kept from decomposing via a spell cast by Zeus.
Are there similarities that can be drawn? Barely, and it is an extremely far cry from one being an ‘exact recreation’ of the other.
And the date of Christmas and Easter has already been addressed.
"Jesus was a lowly carpenter born of a whore who was impregnated by celestial sperm who hung out with a bunch of sausage that followed him around his whole life. His "Father" was a butcher of whole societies and the cause of weeping mothers everywhere as he killed infants to prove a point. Jesus purported space-daddy made him a zombie after three days of being dead and brought him back to life. He struck the Dogma "Buddy-Jesus" pose as he ascended into heavenland. Some forms of Judeo-Christianity have slightly varying stories of his life, but they vary from denomination to denomination."
See, I can denigrating about the description of history as well, but I don't have to be. As to your history, do you even bother reading everything? Again, I'm not going to hold your hand, but these are things that are absolutely well known truths,
or, very well substantiated hypothesis from archaeological digs in regards to Attis:
-The
Hilaria, the celebration of Attis resurrection was worshipped on March 25th.
-The Pine Tree (HAPPY HOLIDAYS EVERYBODY!), was a well accepted symbol of Attis. It is a true parallel to Jesus cross.
-The winter solstice of
many religions was worshipped on or about December 25th. Instead of Jesus actual birthday, which should be extremely important if he is the son of the one true God, was conveniently shifted to meet Roman schedules of previous religious festivities.
-Harari refers to Attis from archaeological writings specifically about him, noting that he was specifically "
crucified upon a tree".
-Attis resurrection was said to occur after 3 days.
-Attis resurrection brought "salvation"
Interestingly, Dr. Tryggve Mettinger, a professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of Lund admits clearly in his research that the worship of Attis is centuries older than Christianity, and that is is likely the influence for Christian mythology came from the much older religion. (
http://www.truthbeknown.com/attis.html)
Mithraism surfaced around the 2nd century AD. Jews and other pagan religions were using water as a source of purification long before them, and even John the Baptist was active in the 1st century. As you noted the Mithraism version of this involved slaughtering a bull and having it’s blood spray down upon a person. The purpose of this ceremony is presumption at best, seeing as how the Mithraic Cults were a Greek mystery cult and kept no written records. What we know of them comes mostly from pottery and engravings, much like the other mystery cults of the time (Cult of Hercules, Helen, etc)
The Christian baptism is a completely different ceremony devoid of blood or bulls in which a person is submerged in water. It draws mostly from the Judaic tradition of enveloping converts in water in order to purify them and be reborn under the laws of Moses.
You are correct in that Mithraism is one of the more historically elusive religions of the world.
The Christian baptism ceremony is only different in methodology, and not purpose.
I could go into Minoan history as well, but you know what has really been acquiesced here by you is the fact that baptism has existed prior to Judaism, and that it is nothing new in Christianity. I'm fine with that. It demonstrates a lack of originality when referencing practices of the Christian faith.
There are a LOT of religions that use water as some form of purification or symbolism. It’s elemental, it has natural purifying properties. Simply because pagans use it doesn’t somehow bar Christians from drawing upon their Judaic roots and the teachings of John the Baptist and using it as well.
The point is that the Judaic roots are in fact themselves thievery of ancient pagan ritual.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Christians are supposed to keep the values of the Old Testament, as it lays out the laws that we are supposed to be living. Christ didn’t take that away, he simply took away the death penalty that was attached to it by giving himself up. Without the OT and an understanding of Judaic Law the NT becomes useless.
Even if we made believe that Gods actions in the Old Testament were now somehow "dismissable" or "absolved", I have some other interesting tidbits for you to follow, as your God commands it. It is, likewise, a collection of lawful orders given by God that you must obey, that couldn't fall into the whimsical pretext of "Jesus died for us and now we don't have to murder our friends, families, unbelievers, or watch him murder infants for really no good reason...", there are still other laws, clear as day that you must abide by.
Here they are:
-Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of cattle - (Leviticus 19:19)
-Don't have a variety of crops on the same field - (Leviticus 19:19)
-Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric - (Leviticus 19:19) *I guarantee we are ALL sinners in this case*
-Don't cut your hair or shave. EVER. - (Leviticus 19:27)
-If a man has sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle, they are to be separated from society - (Leviticus 20:18)
None of these have to do with removing the celestial right of death upon humanity you infer God has because his little one didn't atone for our sins yet. All of these should be strictly adhered by even by
your standards.
I'm betting if it doesn't have to do with crops or cattle, as I am guessing you are not a farmer, you have broken every other one of these absolute, God demanded and commanded laws.
Ignoring the Old Testament values is what produces the “Oh everything is permissible” attitude (which is decried against in both Old and New Testaments).
I want to see every Christian walking down the street, forever, in a display of their devoutness, wear only cotton shirts with no other fabrics used. Same for pants.
I want to see Christians adhere to the word of God as they claim it should be. Let's see that long hair on top and on the face and uh, everywhere else k?
If a Christian man ever has intercourse with his wife during her period, I want them to disappear into the wilderness and never return.
C'mon now let's show how serious about Christ you guys really are!
I mean, as the deer panteth for the water, so your soul longeth after the Christian God and his commandments yes?
And I’ll wager that your ‘hardcore’ friend who embraces the OT likely isn’t going around serial killing homosexuals, which is what you’ve constantly argued any real ‘hardcore’ Christian should do…
Ah see this is where reading comes in handy. I stated very clearly that he is still selective about what he pursues. Please go back and read that.
As to acknowledgement of Old Testament law, yes. He believes very much in "Gods divine law".
God requires no absolution as the evil in the world was brought on by man’s sin. Jesus died to take on the sins of mankind. Pink unicorns and fairies need not apply.
God created everything. He even says so per the book he claims to have written. The imperfect one that is uh, the perfect word of God. This includes concepts, ideas, perceptions, and everything that encompasses life.
Sin is an act of repugnance made by God to contrast what he determines to be "Holy". One cannot claim divine creation over everything without acknowledging this as fact.
Well have a fantastic day. I’m sure you’ve got a lot of Christian hating and religion bashing to go about, so I won’t keep you….
I don't proactively engage in fights I know most Christians can't win. It's unfair, petty, and a waste of time to hear "God is great hurp da durp" when they can't answer rationally.
The thing setting me off in this thread is the calm acceptance and absolution for this judges actions by those who purport to be believers in Christianity.
This makes sense when you can justify your faith by dismissing the barbaric acts of your purported God as he perpetuated them on mankind. if a man can dismiss an all knowing deity for killing infants to teach an adult a lesson, and as some representative act of his "all encompassing love", then he can justify beating the everloving sh*t out of his children the same way.
Not hard to understand that moral disconnect whatsoever.
Also, I like your utter silence in reply to the case of Pauline Christianity vs Marcionism.
I'm guessing my "education" still makes me durp on the subject.
Let me know when you're done studying it. We'll have a chat, just like I did with the last Professor in my advanced World Cultures class. He doesn't work there anymore by the way. Something about an infantile fit in the classroom in front of the dean who he was unaware was watching when one of his students asked him to stop proselytizing about "Gods greatness" in the middle of a secular class and he refused to do so.
Good times!
