Azaran on 4/10/2011 at 03:46
Some of the points of dogma can be refuted simply by reading the Bible itself. The teachings of Christ are so radically different than those in the Old Testament because Christianity was not the logical successor of Judaism (like the churches claim). The early gnostics noted the inconsistencies between the Old and New testaments and came to the conclusion that they couldn't possibly have originated from the same God.
And while I'm at it, I'll demonstrate that hell probably doesn't exist. Christianity holds hell as God's punishment for non believers. However, if that were true, there would be an emphasis on hell in the old testament as well, which is not the case. Divine punishment in the Old Testament is carried out here on earth. Read the notorious 28th chapter of Deuteronomy (where God lists all the curses he'll inflict on those who transgress his laws) and all the curses are inflicted during one's earthly existence. Same thing with God's blessings. There's practically no mention of a blessed afterlife before the latter prophets.
fett on 4/10/2011 at 05:30
Azaran - I don't really agree with any of that. His teachings weren't "radically different." They were absolutely in agreement with inter-testamental theology as developed by the Pharisees, and like the Pauline letters, simply a practical application of that theology - arrived at by very intelligent, systematic, and historically informed interpretive method (in fact, it's the method most Semitic/Arabic ancient textual scholars still use today).
I think this is another popular but ill-informed view - that there is no hell in OT theology and such. If you take the Christian view (or even just a neutral/historical view), the OT and NT were intended for entirely different audiences with closely related cultures (Semitic vs. Hellenistic). The purpose of the various OT sections are radically different from the purpose of the NT. Contradicting instructions were given in both places because they were for different people at different times - and that is pretty much spelled out very clearly within the writing itself, so long as we're reading the whole thing and not pulling passages out of their context (as would be the case for ANY written record, religious or historical). Which means in part, there was no reason for the OT authors to go into detail about the afterlife, hell, heaven, etc. But other writings - especially those of the early Essenes (the DSS/Quamran guys) show that these doctrines were well developed and commented on before the OT was formally cannonized, and possibly before the Babylonia exile in 486 B.C. Hell, punishment, etc. are doctrines firmly rooted in OT theology. They are only more noticeable in the NT because they are expounded upon and because the NT itself is much smaller in volume than the OT.
Disclaimer: I always feel like such an asshole in these threads. I don't mean to call anyone out or be a douche (well, a little). But, like politics and economics, religious theology is one of those subjects where everyone thinks they're an expert, but usually they're repeating mis-information passed down through lazy professor types or bong circles and it really grates on me. The theology and social effects of the Bible are damaging enough in themselves and should be attacked outright. Getting bogged down in trying to dis-prove its consistency or call the existence of its authors/characters into doubt only muddies the waters and obscures those real problems with its revered status in modern society. It also won't fly with people who know better. Given the modern atheist movement, many Christians are starting to.
Forever420 on 4/10/2011 at 07:18
Quote Posted by Queue
Please die -- and confirm whether or not Heaven exists.
U already doomed 2 hell, Jeezus lover. You're going to, cuz im pretty shure that at least one other christianity of sect says you will cuz o' being different from them.
Xorak on 4/10/2011 at 08:15
The stupid thing about what Forever420 says, is that the period following Jesus was the only time that the 'common' people stood up in peaceful protest and changed the whole damn system. Those three hundred years should be looked on as the pinnacle of what humanity can achieve.
Those early followers truly did make miraculous sacrifices for the greater good. They can't be blamed for the institution the church later became. Too me, those people should be a constant reminder of what we we should be doing right now. Because it's sad that we're instead gleefully going down this road of shit, up to our eyebrows in this slurry of Walmart-flavored diarrhea.
To me, the most unfortunate thing about atheism (even if atheism might be correct), is that by ignoring God, Jesus' message and teachings are also happily ignored. But Jesus was a pretty darn cool cat. And I'm a personal fan.
Azaran on 4/10/2011 at 09:17
Quote Posted by Xorak
The stupid thing about what Forever420 says, is that the period following Jesus was the only time that the 'common' people stood up in peaceful protest and changed the whole damn system. Those three hundred years should be looked on as the pinnacle of what humanity can achieve.
Those early followers truly did make miraculous sacrifices for the greater good. They can't be blamed for the institution the church later became. Too me, those people should be a constant reminder of what we we should be doing right now. Because it's sad that we're instead gleefully going down this road of shit, up to our eyebrows in this slurry of Walmart-flavored diarrhea.
As soon as the council of Nicea took place in 325, all was lost. The Church had political power and began to restrict the rights of Pagans, Jews, and "heretics". Interestingly enough, the roman persecutions against Christians from about 60-305 AD didn't make more than 1000-2000 victims according to modern estimates (qv. Rodney Stark: "The Rise of Christianity" pg. 164). However, after the council of Nicea what was to be dogma and what was heretical was often determined by violence: small differences over scriptural interpretation were enough to justify massacres and book burnings. Many more Christians died at the hands of other christians than in all the persecutions:
"
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)
Azaran on 4/10/2011 at 09:23
Fett, there are a lot more discrepancies as well. I don't have time just now, but I'll come back later with a few more things I wanted to address.
EDIT: I always saw the Pauline letters and the gospel of John more directed toward hellenistic & roman audiences, while the other gospels were primarily addressed to the Jews ("I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew 15:24)
fett on 4/10/2011 at 17:18
Right, but I should emphasize purpose over audience. The OT was primarily focused on preserving the nation of Israel as a political and national entity. The NT was focused on establishing a universal Church to carry out the mission of the Messiah that came from that political and national entity. Further, the OT is more concerned with Israel's actions in the physical world as it pertained to their preservation and example, whereas the NT is more concerned with the individual. You can see why hell or the afterlife would only feature as a peripheral issue in the OT, while deserving frequent mention in the NT. But the doctrine didn't come out of a vacuum during the NT period.
I'm not horribly interested in addressing a laundry list of discrepancies. I only addressed that one because it commonly comes up in discussions about how the texts have been changed over the centuries, or how the two "testaments" contain myriad theological contradictions. Most of these discrepancies are purposeful or owed to contextual issues like the one I detailed above. But they do very little to diminish the actual veracity of the text or its theological framework in the long run.
Muzman on 4/10/2011 at 17:26
Quote Posted by Forever420
U already doomed 2 hell, Jeezus lover. You're going to, cuz im pretty shure that at least one other christianity of sect says you will cuz o' being different from them.
Shouldn't there be a video above this comment or something?
Queue on 4/10/2011 at 18:25
Quote Posted by Forever420
... inane mangling of the English language ...
Let me clarify-- Please slip in a puddle of AIDS, and die; thus proving God exists and smiles upon the rest of us.
Xorak on 4/10/2011 at 21:49
Quote Posted by Azaran
As soon as the council of Nicea took place in 325, all was lost. The Church had political power and began to restrict the rights of Pagans, Jews, and "heretics".
Yeah, although the part just before that where the emperor Constantine first declared himself a Christian--basically legalizing Christianity--and stylized himself as God's chosen emperor marked the beginning of the end for what it once was.
Ironically, the Christians fell for one of the most paganistic ideas of them all, that the ruler was the human form of a God, only they were too ecstatic for legalization of their religion and most ignored what was really happening. Although some were aware of the danger of this, they too were ironically called heathens. And so it began.
