How did the message of the New Testament get so far off track?

[omega minimo]

It's so similar to the other -- all the other -- core messages of world religions... and so fundamental to the lessons of human experience, at what point do some or any of these belief systems acknowledge their common message?

[Betty Karlson]

1. It started going really wrong in the 3rd/ 4th century.

That's when MEN started to re-interpret the message to exclude women, rather than include them, like Jesus had done. In fact, even Paul may have been moderately pro-emancipation of women, but was later deliberately misunderstood.

From then on, there was a precedent for suppressing the minorities that Jesus had sought to emancipate. It's like the demise of the Republican Party (1860 - 1960), only on a much larger scale.

[kywildcat]

4. Yes! Thank you for this reply

I had a theology professor, years ago who spoke of the extermination of women throughout europe. Christians accused women of being witches and ungodly. It wasn't until they realized that they needed women to reproduce, and their populations were threatened that they stopped the exterminations. He estimated hundreds of thousands of women were exterminated on orders of church leaders.

[Betty Karlson]

29. Indeed. On that same note:

Of course, there were men being burned alive as well, accused of witchcraft. But as always, the socially most vulnerable group suffered the most.

The whole ungodly/ witch accusation was, by the way, also a reaction to the new knowledge. By harrassing the last vestiges of pre-Christian midwifery, hetero-masculinity sought to oppose the ascend of science that contradicted established "wisdom". It was a battle of prestige, fought by means of human sacrifices.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. Politics...

And yes, I agree - a great bunch of politically motivated men.

I'm afraid that's part of our human condition - the urge to make ourselves superior and then cement that position at any cost.

[Warpy]

104. Don't forget the other part

and that was the part that first made the new sect palatable to poor Romans and later made itself useful to Rome's patricians. Then it was totally co opted by the Empire, the residue of which we can see today in the Vatican's insistence that it's still the First Estate, immune from mere civil law, and is the final authority that can never be challenged.

The greatest missed opportunity for Christians all over the globe is that Henry VIII's break with the domination of Rome didn't spread to other parts of Europe. Yes, old Henry was no prize and substituting himself as head of the church instead of the Pope was a miracle of self serving gamesmanship, but churches in other countries might have grown and developed into something besides pedophile front groups had they broken with Rome and become more subject to civil law.

Christianity went terribly wrong not only because of its deep seated gynophobia, but also because it became the new force of Empire in Europe. Once those things had happened, the heart and soul were totally ripped out of it and it became Empire's servant, not its moral check.

[old mark]

2. People, politics and money got involved and created a top heavy

control structure that replaced a simple, personal style of living.

I used to be a christian, but I thought better of it.

mark

[LARED]

3. So I understand your question---

what message of the New Testament got off track?

[skepticscott]

5. There are a lot of messages

in the New Testament, and many of them can be interpreted in more than one way, and the Old Testament also has a lot of messages, which the NT does not override. It's not so much a matter of there being one particular message that got "off track", as it is that people have chosen to emphasize some messages over others, in a way that "liberal" and "progressive" Christians happen to disagree with.

[trotsky]

6. When you can get more than two Christians to agree on exactly WHAT...

"the message of the New Testament" is, then you can start worrying about how this message got "off track."

[omega minimo]

8. Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you

The Golden Rule. The common message in all world religions.

[skepticscott]

9. That's ONE message, one that you happen to like

but hardly the only one in the NT, unless you think that most of that document is just a waste of parchment, and your interpretation of it outweighs every that of everyone else who takes other messages from it as well.

[omega minimo]

10. No, it is the message, in various forms, repeated in the New Testament and elsewhere

fundamental to Christ's teachings.

[TZ]

31. Have you read the OLD Testament?

You won't find the golden rule in there, I assure you.

[omega minimo]

35. That's why the OP is stated as it is

[ChadwickHenryWard]

76. Reciprocity is the "merest moral truism"

according to Chomsky. We should not be surprised that it exists in many places. If a system of morality is to be logical, it has to include reciprocity - the same rules must apply to everybody (barring some logical reason why different rules must apply in different situations.) However, most religious systems of morality are not, strictly speaking, logical, and thus include plenty of other ideas that contradict in some way the "Golden Rule." Further, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say that it is the "core" of most religions. It may be present in most of them, but that does not mean that it is the most important concept within them. As I said, it should be the principle on which the rest of the moral system is based, but that doesn't mean it always is.

And I don't know what you mean when you say the New Testament has got "off track."

[trotsky]

12. So not only do you claim that is "the" message of the New Testament...

you think it's the main point of EVERY religion, huh?
:rofl:

Oh yeah, I forgot. You live in a world where you can magically make things happen just by stating them. The same world George W. Bush thought he lived in. LOL

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

13. +10. n/t

[rd_kent]

7. It started right away, when men realized they could use the "words of god" to control people.

The factual history of modern christianity, with constantine, proves the point. Religion is and always has been, about control.

[CrispyQ]

62. That's it in a nutshell.

They also teach that suffering is good for your character & your payment for being a good little sufferer will come in a later life, so don't despair in this one. A nice little fairy tale to keep the people in their proper place.

I wonder how many religious leaders actually believe in God?

[Igel]

11. How?

Because people didn't like what it demanded of them and denied them and decided to interpret it in in conformity with their own traditions.

That's continued right down to today and is reflected in changes as to what some think the core message of Xianity is.

Those that want a strong figurehead church get one. Those that want a diffuse, ego-centric religion get one. Those that want a religion that makes no demands of them but demands of others get one. Those who want to boil it down to pithy maxims get theirs.

Most people deny most of the messages. Some deny fewer. It's highly likely, IMHO, that nobody fails to deny any.

IMO, the "core message" that you see is at least #2.

[omega minimo]

16. I wonder where the goal of being Christlike fits into the equation.....

[ZombieHorde]

14. The message in the New Testament is completely irrelevant to Christianity.

Christians, as well as other monothesists, worship their own world view.

If Jesus Christ says something which matches the worshiped world view then the quote is literal, if Jesus Christ says something which does not matched the worshiped world view then the quote is figurative or no longer applies.

Matthew 5 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 5 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 8 18When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake. 19Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."
20Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

21Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."

22But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

[omega minimo]

17. Not all Christians think alike.

"The message in the New Testament is completely irrelevant to Christianity" is not a true statement.

[darkstar3]

18. Your topic sentence answers the question in your OP. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

22. The message of the New Testament exists in the mind of the New Testament observer.

For example:

Matthew 5 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

I would interpret the above passage to mean physical domestic abuse is not grounds for divorce in the opinion of Jesus Christ. Other people may feel my interpretation is inaccurate.

How can a person objectively determine the true intent of Matthew 5:31 or any other Biblical passage?

Additionally, why do liberals believe Jesus Christ was/is a liberal while conservatives believe Jesus Christ was/is a conservative?

[omega minimo]

19. The thoughtful answers are interesting. The badgering is boring bullshit.

Is it possible to have a discussion with more of the former and none of the latter?

[darkstar3]

20. In one of the groups, perhaps. n/t

[trotsky]

21. If you just wanted to hear people agree with you,

you should have posted to a group. It's unfortunate that you are so hostile toward disagreement.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. It got tangled up in the politics of the late Roman Empire

That's the short answer.

I'm currently in the third year (church history) of a four-year Episcopal course for lay people, and we just spent about five sessions on the series of controversies that various emperors and local government types used to their advantage.

[marginlized]

24. You need a religion to have empathy? n/t

[omega minimo]

25. You need to drop your projections

"....and so fundamental to the lessons of human experience..."

[darkstar3]

26. Your quote is a false premise.

How can a book be "fundamental to the lessons of human experience" when so much of the world's population has never read it and has no need to do so?

[trotsky]

27. Somehow along the way...

the perfectly secular and rational sentiment of "can't we all just get along" got co-opted by various religions and turned into some kind of idea that they pioneered and we'd all better be grateful for them.

[darkstar3]

28. That does seem to be the point he's trying to make.

I don't think he realizes that his golden rule graphic proves that religion is unnecessary for morality.

[TZ]

32. The message of religion has always been an ultimately selfish one

"If you do so and so, then you get your reward". Its never EVER been about helping others or do unto others. Its about saving one's soul. People do charitable works for brownie points to go to heaven.
I much prefer the honesty of people who say they just want to help people and don't expect a reward. Religion is all about the carrot and the stick.

[Jim__]

33. Isn't "survival of the fittest" an ultimately selfish system?

And, if it is, does that make it wrong?

Simply stated, "survival of the fittest" tells me to have children with as many women as I can. How to implement that command, of course, is not so simple. If I rape women, other people in the society may kill me. So, the message of society, the message of group living, is the same as the religious message. Follow the rules, or suffer punishment. Rules and punishment are necessary for social living. You can believe in the honesty of people who say they just want to help people and don't expect a reward, but it's difficult to prove that they're telling the truth, e.g. to an extremely empathetic person, watching someone else suffer presumably can be a form of personal suffering and aiding that person can be a form of relief. Religious people can, of course, make the same claim about helping other people just to help them.

It's quite possible that all of our "good" acts, supposedly altruistic acts, are really, ultimately, selfish.

[trotsky]

34. I think you miss the point.

Religion sets itself up to be so much more.

[TZ]

36. If you subscribe to the "Selfish Gene" theory yes.

But I tend not to. Human behavior is much more flexible than that. Its a complex of both environmental influences and genetic influences. However you cannot hide the fact that religion is about selfishness at the core level-and it doesn't even try to hide it. Its spelled out..do behavior a,b,c go to heaven. Do behavior d,e,f go to hell. What you are talking about is at best unconcious level behavior.

[Jim__]

38. But if altruistic behavior confers a survival advantage in humans, ...

... anything that encourages (even seemingly) altruistic behavior, adds to the chances for survival.


Of course I agree that human behavior is complex. But out of this complex behavior, my understanding is that the rule is still, survival of the fittest. Also, based on my reading, religion is universal - across groups, not individuals - across all human societies. This clearly implies religion may be advantageous. If religion encourages altruistic behavior, and altruistic behavior confers a survival advantage, that could be a part of the survival advantage that religion confers.

While you may prefer actual altruism, apparent altruism may be just as advantageous for survival.

[omega minimo]

41. What are "actual altruism" and "apparent altruism"?

[Jim__]

42. "Actual altruism" meaning acting purely for someone else's benefit.

"Apparent altruism" meaning action that benefits someone else; but is actually done for your own selfish interest; e.g. acting in the other person's interest because you think you will be rewarded.

[omega minimo]

43. Altruism -- unqualified -- is The Golden Rule

Your definitions are mere words. The experience of acting on these concepts is much deeper and not simplistic at all.

[Jim__]

45. All language could be classified as "mere words."

But then, your claims about the Golden Rule are also "mere words." That doesn't really get us anywhere.

I agree that in the quest for survival, "apparent altruism" and "actual altruism" probably have the same effect. However, I think that in the interest of survival, there is a limit to the benefits of altruism. If you are only concerned with helping others, you may not survive to have children. If all altruistic people behaved this way, then the species would probably lose its altruistic attributes, and develop in a different way - maybe more along the path of, say, oragutangs.

I believe that even altruism, or the Golden Rule, has to be practised with some moderation.

[omega minimo]

46. It "doesn't really get us anywhere" unless you try it

It sounds like you are talking about altruism in the abstract, rather than from experience. Experience would shed more light on how -- and if -- "altruism" contributes to survival.

It was the book on Hiroshiima/Nagasaki that got me thinking about this question.



Charles Pellagrino Last Train From Hiroshima


BOOKS OF THE TIMES
After Atom Bombs’ Shock, the Real Horrors Began Unfolding
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/books/20garner.html

THE LAST TRAIN FROM HIROSHIMA
The Survivors Look Back
By Charles Pellegrino



Some survivors of this and other tragedies practice forgiveness, in hope that future evils may be prevented.

[Jim__]

49. We all practice altruism - to one extent or another.

It's innate - sure, there are sociopaths who aren't altruistic, but they are a pathological exception.

Forgivenes is probably a component of altruism, but it's not the same thing. Forgiveness also benefits the person doing the forgiving - long-term anger is toxic.

I don't believe that practicing forgiveness is sufficient to prevent future Hiroshimas. Along with believing that humanity is innately altruistic, I also believe that we are innately warlike - altruism largely being within group, war outside the group. Given my belief that we are warlike; and that we have nuclear weapons, there is a high risk of future Hiroshimas. If we accept the reality of our predicament, we may not be able to avoid future wars, but we may be able to take measures to avoid totally catastrophic wars. That is one of the most important things for us to be working on now.

[omega minimo]

56. They are the same thing in the spirit of this OP and the book

Your post exactly proves my point that you responded to, in the abstract; without the experience of those who practice, who believe -- against all the calculations you might make -- that it is the way, that it is effective. They practice and prove this in a way that you hold at arms distance and doubt.

[Jim__]

58. My posts are no more abstract than your posts.

And to claim that altruism and forgiveness are the same thing is just a misuse of language.

[omega minimo]

60. If you practiced what you are talking about

you would understand better.

[TZ]

73. *snort*

I think you need to take your own advice. Particularly when it comes to civility.

[Silent3]

44. It's important to remember that evolution doesn't have intentions.

There is no intention for altruistic behavior to increase survival, it just so happens that a complex of behaviors including altruism have, in the past, tended to increase the odds of human survival, thus, to the extent such behaviors are genetic, they've been passed along.

Some portion of current human altruism might also be due to memetic, not genetic, evolution, in that societies that teach altruism may have tended to survive better than those that don't, meaning some human altruism may be a cultural rather than genetic inheritance.

Evolution has given us brains so complex that each of us is individually capable of making decisions that have no bearing on individual survival, and may even run counter to it. The most obvious counter-survival choice one can make is suicide. One can also choose to live a celibate life, or a sexually active life where one avoids actual reproduction.

One thing we can do is see our own altruism as an abstract concept, rather than merely act upon it instinctually. Some of us clearly have developed a concept of "the common good" that goes well beyond preserving our individual genetic heritage, although there is still an obvious tendency to act on altruism more often for close family members.

Some clearly non-advantageous behaviors, from a genetic evolution standpoint, have persisted for a long time across many cultures, like suicide and celibacy, so the fact that a behavior persists and is fairly universal isn't in and of itself enough to show that the specific behavior confers a survival advantage. Some behaviors might merely be part of a "package deal", hard to separate from a larger complex of behaviors that are advantageous, not detrimental enough in and of themselves to cause the whole complex to lose out in the evolutionary struggle.

Further, species continue to evolve because environmental conditions don't stand still. That which was once advantageous won't necessarily remain advantageous in the future.

I see religion as a likely candidate for one of these last two categories -- tolerated side effect and/or ill-adapted legacy. And even if it still remains on the whole advantageous if you're goal is to increase your odds of passing on your genes, we fortunately have the evolved side-effect option of not having to personally care about genetic survival for our individual selves.

[omega minimo]

40. What kind of

sick sexist shit are you smoing? :wow:

[TZ]

50. where do you get that that post is sexist?

:wtf:

[trotsky]

52. Did you forget who you're responding to?

THEY RAPED THE MOON, YOU KNOW.

[TZ]

54. LOL.

No I didn't. I was just curious if for once she could at least TRY to back up her bullshit.

[trotsky]

55. That's sexist.

You should say horseshit. A horse is gender-neutral. A bull is male.

[omega minimo]

63. UB

Here's the answer to your question, which you can see for yourself. This caveman version of reality is based on -- and reflects -- some severe ignorance.

"Simply stated, "survival of the fittest" tells me to have children with as many women as I can. How to implement that command, of course, is not so simple. If I rape women, other people in the society may kill me. "


"I was just curious if for once she could at least TRY to back up her bullshit."

As for you "TZ" despite all your viciousness toward me, despite what I know and could say to hurt you (which I never have), you might have noticed that I have been starting fresh with you here and attempting some actual discussion, if you are capable of it.

Which you have just proven that you aren't.

You can tell the other Ignoreds that they can piss up a rope and spit in the wind, all their vitriol and and venomous self hatred projected at others, but the magic button makes them invisible to their target and quite clear to other readers.

[darkstar3]

64. Feel better now?

:nopity::eyes:

[omega minimo]

65. for the civility-challenged

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7623624

[trotsky]

66. Says the person with the uncivil deleted post!

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

67. More than one in this thread, actually.

Why must they project so much?

[rd_kent]

68. THATS ripe! How many of YOUR posts have been deleted for uncivility? Hypocrite.

[TZ]

72. So Evolution is sexist?

Tell me have you ever BOTHERED to actually figure out what the fuck evolution actually is? Because this is one of the biggest pieces of complete BUNK I have ever seen. Yes, the genetic drive to spread ones genes is sexism..:sarcasm:
Give me a fucking break.
I've been trying to actually discuss this topic with you. You haven't refuted any of my points really. Just said NO YOUR WRONG cause I said so! And made some silly childism baseless accusations again. Which IS your modus operandi. You are perhaps the most unpleasant poster on this entire board. Especially when someone points out the many many MANY holes in your arguments.

And yeah, as long as you post nasty bullshit, I'm going to call you on it.

[Jim__]

37. delete - responded in the wrong place.

[omega minimo]

39. That's your perception

A proof of the OP question about far off track the message of the New Testament -- and Christlike behavior -- has gone.

The concepts resemble Buddhism and are reflected in all world religions, regarding the fundamentals of human experience. Much more subtle than carrot and stick.

[TZ]

51. Karma is THE ULTIMATE carrot and stick selfishness

Do good now or pay for it later...:rofl:
I'm so tired of people believing Buddism is a superior religion. Its not. At its heart it shares quite a few concepts with other religion.
I'm not saying all religion is "evil" per se. But its definitely selfish. I respect people a lot more for doing good just cause they care than because they believe it will get them some kind of reward in the future.

[omega minimo]

61. That's not Karma

No one said Buddhism is superior

"At its heart it shares quite a few concepts with other religion." That point is in the OP and thread.

"I'm not saying all religion is "evil" per se. But its definitely selfish."

That's your perception. Maybe you need to examine what you mean by "Self."

"I respect people a lot more for doing good just cause they care than because they believe it will get them some kind of reward in the future."

That's your projection. That's not an understanding of the OP question, Golden Rule concept or the book mentioned here -- really fascinating -- about Hiroshima and 9/11 survivors.

[TZ]

71. You asked about a message from the Bible going off track

And I'm telling you, that it hasn't. The message has stayed the same..its about saving ones soul. The INTERPRETATION of that message has changed. Some intrepret it to justify their bigotry. Some use it to do good works. But it all comes down to the same thing. Self interest.

[LiberalFighter]

47. It was created by men and it was run by men. As all religions.

Men defined as humans.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

48. There are many different messages in the NT.

It's a hodgepodge of historical stuff, fiction, ancient myths, stories that were edited for political purposes by men who wanted to keep women and slaves inferior, and they wanted to gain political power at the Council of Nicaea.

If you think the message of the NT is the Sermon on the Mount, that is just one.

Jesus supposedly advocated all the hateful mass murders and senseless violence of the OT, if you believe the stuff was really said by Jesus, who is not historically certain to have lived.

The message of christianity is unique: All persons are sinful because their parents had sex; all persons are sinful because Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and therefore women are the cause of sin; the only way to remove this sin is to accept substitutionary atonement in the form of Jesus; the only way to eternal life is christianity; the only true religion is christianity.

Christianity posits a false problem (original sin) and provides a unnecessary answer(accepting Jesus in substitutionary atonement) to a false problem.

If you don't believe the pernicious and hateful doctrine of original sin, then the whole religion falls apart.

[moobu2]

53. Exactly, especialy your last comment

You have to believe the talking snake convinced Eve, who God formed from one of Adams ribs, to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (original sin) is literally true, in order for Jesus to have even been necessary. If the talking snake is poetic metaphor for something else, then all of it is.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. It took me years to distill it down to that.

A false solution to a false problem.

I wondered why I got depressed when I went to church. I had to walk away when I had thoughts of killing myself after hearing all that crap about how sinful we all are, from the pulpit.

My real mistake was taking all that stupid hateful abusive doctrine seriously in the first place.

I stay away from it and people who promulgate it now. Have for quite a few years. I am much happier as a result.

[omega minimo]

57. Perhaps the recognition of the message of the New Testament has fallen out of fashion

given the hatred so many have for Christians now, the popullar simplistic breakdown as you have conveyed it.

So you and other may not have heard it referred to as the message of the New Testament -- however, that's what it is. That was Christ's message and embodiment as human, no matter what else has surrounded it.

It's a radical notion.

[darkstar3]

59. But that particular message

packaged into the NT was unoriginal, and in fact had been around for thousands of years in other philosophies, belief systems, and simple behavioral and societal models.

To give credit to Jesus or the NT for this message is to ignore much of history.

[jdp349]

69. It's like watching the culmination of a near 2000 year old game of telephone

[Deep13]

74. The central message of any successful religion is, "Believe and obey."

The reason so many religions share "core messages" is because they are basic human values and not religious ones. Nevertheless, most of them also stand for some pretty immoral and unethical things.

[omega minimo]

75. You have sandwiched what the OP was attempting to bring to discussion

between two big fat slabs of religion bashing.

"...they are basic human values.."

[Deep13]

77. He asked a legitimate question and I gave an honest answer.

Christianity never went off track because its true values are those of most religions. It seeks to create a need (as advertisers put it) by convincing people they are sinners and damned without that religion. Part of creating that need is convincing people that the humanitarian values we all have somehow come from their god. Ergo, Christianity is right on track.

I'm only telling the truth as I see it based on the facts and without the sentimentality that believers have. If you view that as religion-basing, well, I didn't make religion what it is.

[omega minimo]

78. I asked the OP question and I reflected your reply. It was not an accusation. It is what you did.

I don't care if you call it religion bashing or not -- call it a knee jerk reaction. My comment reflects the fact that you got the concept and the real question of the OP -- but quickly couched it in terms that prevent discussion of more positive aspects:

"It's so similar to the other -- all the other -- core messages of world religions... and so fundamental to the lessons of human experience, at what point do some or any of these belief systems acknowledge their common message?"

I would not try to sway people from their own POV and beliefs... it does seem though, that this OP, thread and potential discussion have been swamped by knee jerk reactions and questionable assumptions. Coming into this thread to hate religion, misses the point and kills the potential discussion, about the ideals embedded within all the mess that some here complain about.

The most virulent here attacking Christianity may have had horrible experiences and associations -- NOT EVERYONE DID. Some of the stories in the thread sound pretty awful. But those posters cannot reasonably project their particular experience onto every one else.

I don't agree with your version of it either. "It seeks to create a need (as advertisers put it) by convincing people they are sinners and damned without that religion." Not every Christian denomination is Hellfire and Brimstone like the Catholics and the Fundies, so your statement is too broad.

[Deep13]

79. With respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

My views are based on my evaluation of the evidence. This isn't about me or my experience, it's about the facts. Your charge of being reflexive or biased is an attempt to change the subject.

My own personal religious experience in the past was positive. I genuinely liked my liberal church, the rector there and the other parishioners. The church paid part of my tuition. I genuinely enjoyed the singing and ceremony and thought it would be great to have a December wedding with O, Come All Ye Faithful as the wedding march. The only negative experience I had related to my mother's husband's dealings with A.A. Even so, like most liberal Christians, I presumed to assume that his Christianity was the wrong kind. The only real worry it caused me was the fear that I might have offended the Holy Ghost in some way by thought word or deed and that I would go to hell with no chance of redemption, because that's what Jesus said in the New Testament.

Ultimately, I had to stop going to church because it became uncomfortable when I realized that there is no god. Of course none of this is relevant to the veracity of my claims. Whether I found religion lovely and uplifting or whether I was raped by a priest (I wasn't) has no bearing on the merits of religion. You see, I was always aware that there is a fundamental conflict between scientific fact and religious dogma. I became aware that everything we knew about the universe was explained by purely naturalistic processes. The final nail in the coffin was when I really understood how evolution works.

Natural genetic mutation is, by definition, random. This has been verified in laboratory experiments. Nothing that is random is directed by divine or any other control. The selection process for these changes is, to put it bluntly, is that the environment kills them off unless they are among a tiny minority of mutations that actually improves odds of survival. (Seems pretty wasteful for a divine creator.) It is solely environmental conditions that determine what lives and what goes on the trash heap of prehistory. This process could not work as observed if there were ANY purposeful control behind it. Any we know that the start of life was simply a matter of odds. With chemical reactions occurring everywhere on the hot, young Earth, it was inevitable that self-replicating molecules would happen by chance. Once they did, natural selection took over. To put all this in a nutshell, since god has no part in the creation or direction of life, he cannot be a god in any common sense of that word.

And once I realized that, a whole lot of other assumptions were suddenly untenable and I discover more as time goes on. I am not evangelizing for atheism. This is a religion and theology discussion forum and I am merely discussing the subject with those who are interested. I have no special duty to shut up or to lie just because others don't like my conclusions. I absolutely reject the groundless claim that there is something immoral about challenging ideas about religion. Every other kind of idea is open for reasonable criticism. For some reason we pretend religion is off limits. Well, I take that as an admission that religious ideas are indefensible in the rhetorical meaning of that word. Besides, there are compelling practical reasons to promote secularism at the expense of religion. Those examples are too numerous and obvious to need repeating here.

Ultimately, I care about the truth. Not my truth or your truth or some commentator's truth, but the objective, verifiable facts. The idea that religion might be good for something is not even an argument for, let alone proof of, the truth of its foundational beliefs. The idea that we should spread lies or remain silent when they are told because it might do some marginal good is contemptible and unworthy of a free society. A thousand hands in prayer do less good than one pair working.

As far as what kind of Christianity ought to be considered in these discussions, I submit that you have no better reason for believing in the liberal version than the Fundies do for theirs. Indeed they seem the more devote for taking their beliefs at face value. By the way, nice slam on Catholics. A majority of them vote D. you know.

Ultimately, the basic premise of all surviving varieties of Christianity is this the following. Humans are sinful and require salvation to be saved from sin, despite the fact that god made us this way. God saw this and became a person in the form of the son of god. That person healed a very few sick people, performed a few local miracles and gave some rather vague and morally dubious instructions to those in earshot. He then offered himself as a kind of blood sacrifice to repay humanity's sinfulness. After murdering the son of god, people somehow became less guilty rather than more guilty. A day and a half later he came back to life (which somewhat negates the sacrifice) and will someday decide who gets into heaven. In some versions, the Jews are blamed for his preplanned death.

This is not window dressing here, but the fundamental, bedrock premise of Christianity. If you don't believe this, I submit you are not a Christian. And it is this that I find objectionable. By allowing JC's suffering to be the cure for humanity's "sinfulness" Christianity makes a virtue out of suffering and especially the suffering of others. This is the root of so much suffering and pain in our world that it is difficult to overestimate the damage it has caused. It produces a culture where people are expected to suffer and to do so willingly.

So, it is not a reflexive response based on a bad experience or whatever. I came to this point after decades of reflection and examination. Indeed, before I could even start that examination, I had to get away from the fear that even asking these questions would anger god. Once I did, the whole facade was gone. And I respectfully submit that the fact that you cannot believe that anyone would knowing turn his back on your point of view commits the sin of pride and reveals the limits of your apprehension.

I am not anti-Christian (noun) or anti-Jew, anti-Hindu (noun) or anti-Muslim. Obviously, I would have no friends if I were. I am, however, against those schools of thought just as they are all against each other. (Face it, either JC is the savior of the world or he isn't. You can't all be right.) And I feel I have a duty to the truth to be truthful when asked, as the OP and subsequent posters here have done.

[omega minimo]

81. With respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

If you did you would comprehend while reading that post, where I was referring to you AND WHERE I WASN'T instead of make it all about YOU and then turn around this stupid statement on me: "Your charge of being reflexive or biased is an attempt to change the subject."

FUCK THAT SHIT FUCK THESE GAMES.

Thank you for sharing.

The fact remains, you got the point, you sandwiched it b/w what you and most here want to make the point, which is not the point of the OP.

Oh well.

Check out the book if you get a chance. Fascinating story and outcome. It might even make you want to talk to someone about the concept in the OP.

:thumbsup:

[Deep13]

92. It's funny to be accused of egocentrism...

...from people who think they have a personal connection to eternity simply because they believe it.

[omega minimo]

95. That post

is about as full of stupid shit as it can possibly get. Enuff.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

84. thank you for expanding on what I said, very eloquently.

I've had xtians here argue with me and say "No, I'm a Christian but I don't believe in Original Sin".

WRONG. Starting premise = original sin. secondary premise = substitutionary atonement. conclusion = salvation through substitutionary atonement. If no original sin, no substitutionary atonement needed, and therefore no salvation needed either.

[omega minimo]

86. How do you presume to tell other people what they believe?

[Deep13]

88. This is actually what Fundies find so troubling about evolution.

Without an original couple to commit an original sin, there really is no justification for their rigid beliefs.

[omega minimo]

85. The Unknown

"I became aware that everything we knew about the universe was explained by purely naturalistic processes."

* I don't believe that everything we know about the universe has been explained. There is much we don't know.

"To put all this in a nutshell, since god has no part in the creation or direction of life, he cannot be a god in any common sense of that word."

* This is one indication that you are still fighting what you claim not to believe in: an image of what god is or is not. A bogeyman, a strawman. Who says that's what god is?

* Who says god is not something vaster, that does in fact have part in the creation or direction of life, in ways that we cannot fathom?

* You and others are still battling Yahweh, the cartoon God that you claim not to believe in. As Siddhartha said, about carrying the beautiful woman across the river, to his aroused/alarmed monk pal: I set that down long ago. Why are you still carrying it?

"A thousand hands in prayer do less good than one pair working."

* You have no proof of this. I respect the monks and devotees who believe otherwise and occupy themselves in meditation for the benefit of all.

"By the way, nice slam on Catholics. A majority of them vote D. you know."

* It wasn't a slam, it's the Church's presentation of the faith. It's not a secret.

"It produces a culture where people are expected to suffer and to do so willingly."

* Everyone suffers. If a Christ or Buddha offers them guidance to bring love and peace into their (and our) lives, what's wrong with that?

"And I respectfully submit that the fact that you cannot believe that anyone would knowing turn his back on your point of view commits the sin of pride and reveals the limits of your apprehension."

* This doesn't seem to make sense and reflects a severe misunderstanding of whatever you think I said. Maybe you will reread whatever it was... I have no idea what you think it was.

"I am, however, against those schools of thought just as they are all against each other. (Face it, either JC is the savior of the world or he isn't. You can't all be right.)"

* Are they all against each other? What right do you have to be to be "against those schools of thought"? Aside from your opinion, do you take it upon yourself to judge others for what THEY believe?

"And I feel I have a duty to the truth to be truthful when asked, as the OP and subsequent posters here have done."

* The truth is that you and many non-believers are still battling with what you claim you don't believe in. If it ("He") doesn't exist, there's no need to do more than follow your own beliefs, rather than continue to rail against forms and images of "God" that aren't what you believe. They are not what God is. The trappings -- especially if you don't believe in them -- are not what (ever) God is.

* I don't know what God is. I don't fight that. I accept it. I don't fight dogma that I don't believe in or tell others what or how or if to believe. I put down that cartoon image of God long ago. It took a while longer to realize there might be something else that "God" is.

It is Unknown, it is natural and it has not been explained.

[Deep13]

87. A lack of evidence does not get you to "maybe"...

...it gets you to zero.

No one has any evidence that any kind of a god exists. Ergo, there is no basis for assuming there might be one. God does not win by default.

[omega minimo]

90. Again you are fighting with your imagery of what you claim not to believe in....

What is "any kind of god"? A super being? An entity? A personality? Anthropomorphized strawman?

I don't "assume" anything. Neither do many others, including Buddhists, who emphasize a scientific approach to their views.

There is no "lack of evidence" of something that is beyond our physical form and "bag of skin" attitudes. Some people respect their own and others experience of this and some people block it out of their own awareness and want to irrationally dictate that others do the same.

[Deep13]

91. You are arguming the limits of human apprehension.

How can you conclude that there may be some kind of god beyond our understanding when by definition such a being is beyond our ability to understand it.

I am well aware that you do not believe in a bearded man in the sky. That whole argument is a distraction from the fact that what you do image existing is just as unreasonable. I'm not doubting that people have religious experieinces. I only submit that those experiences do not prove anything. There is no evidence that supernature exists. Frankly, the suggestion that some people through their experience have a special, personal understanding of the ultimate meaning of the universe strikes me as childish solipsism. There are far better explanations available for these subjective experieinces that do not require us to assume anything without adequate evidence.

First of all, the term "god" means something specific. It is an entity that exists outside of nature, but is free to intervene in it. Such beings had a hand in creating the universe, establishing morality and ethics, controlling large scale natural occurances and somehow care about what the primates of this dust speck do with their lives. Beings that are removed from these things, whatever else they are, are not gods. I am not taking an artificially narrow view of the subject. I am just not willing to let theisits dodge the issues by selectively definining their gods to avoid any critical examination. Any god that might exist would have left his fingerprints everywhere. So far, none have been found.

"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens.

I dispute that Buddism is scientific, though it is not necessarily theistic.

[omega minimo]

93. You are blinded by your assumptions

You are proving my point repeatedly that you are fighting what you claim not to believe in. You didn't read my comments with a mind open enough to question your own rigid terminology -- and now you want to set it up as a strawman for me, not just yourself.

And you have no idea what I believe. " That whole argument is a distraction from the fact that what you do image existing is just as unreasonable." And you have no right to judge others, esp. when you don't know what you're talking about.

"I dispute that Buddism is scientific, though it is not necessarily theistic."

You can take that up with the Dalai Lama, next time you see him.

You don't understand what I am saying because you are arguming from the limits of your own apprehension. You wouldn't open your mind to read my words, but continue to project your assumptions on me.

Thank you for trying, though. :hi:

[darkstar3]

94. Could you BE more condescending and trite? n/t

[Deep13]

89. "It wasn't a slam, it's the Church's presentation of the faith. It's not a secret."

Fair enough. I apologize for jumping to a conclusion.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Wait, what? "Not every Christian denomination is Hellfire and Brimstone like the Catholics" ?

Not every Christian denomination is Hellfire and Brimstone like the Catholics and the Fundies

:wow:

I thought you wanted criticism of spiritual beliefs banned on DU, surely you're not dissing catholics and/or fundies?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

97. I have yet to see a Christian denom that does not believe in original sin and sub. atonement.

I have lots of xtians on DU tell me that they are xtians and in the next line, say they don't believe in original sin and substitutionary atonement, and also that xtianity is the only true religion.

Excuse me, those doctrines are the definition of Christianity. I think they just want to weasel out of the severe, heartless judgment those doctrines result in.

Does this mean that test tube babies are without sin? I would think that would be true since they were not formed by sexual intercourse.

[darkstar3]

98. +10

:applause:

[JerseygirlCT]

80. I think many do acknowledge that common message

So I'm confused by your question.

[omega minimo]

82. The OP used the words "at what point?" Maybe the question is where/when/how/much?

Besides the poster, that is, :hi:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

99. There are LOTS of messages in the New Testament.

Not just one.

I have posted some of the ones that Christians choose to ignore, preferring to believe that everything Jesus is quoted as saying was about being a good person.......WRONG!!

[RagAss]

100. When one lie is replaced by another lie, what has suffered?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

101. It's pretty hilarious, the knots xtians get into.

I've been accused of telling xtians what they believe, in this thread...and what they believe is in THEIR creeds and doctrines, NOT mine.

They MUST cherry pick because the Bible is a total wreckage of history, borrowed myth from older civilizations, fable, propaganda, justifications for political power over people, philosophy and LOTS of wrong ideas and superstitious thinking. And absolutely NO scientific thinking.

Anybody who thinks the bible is literally true is accepting the impossible. So you are in favor of symbolic cannibalism of your god, sacrificing animals (bulls, doves, sheep, etc.) on altars, magical thinking (If I eat the literally transformed body of my god, it will make me holy)? That's like thinking that if you eat tiger meat you will be strong like a tiger.

You think the earth is flat, the earth is 6000 years old, the sun goes around the earth, it's OK to condemn people to hell for various irrational reasons....because Jesus said so himself , affirming the irrational psychopathic behavior of people and gods in the OT??? You believe the sun was actually stopped during a battle, which would fry the earth into a cinder if it didn't spin? You think it's OK to kill your son if he disobeys you?

[patrice]

102. How? People underestimate the power of their own biology. Old hateful impulses get

generalized through various kinds of associations and re-labled with socially acceptable things like "Spirit", "Inspiration", "Truth" . . . . and socially reinforced/rewarded by the Money-Changers in the Temple.

The human mind is a house of mirrors and instead of admitting that "we" tell ourselves pretty lies, suck our various pacifiers, and wait . . .

for someone who isn't coming.

[RagAss]

103. Money. Any more questions?

[greyl]

105. It didn't.

It's central "revelation", shared by other salvationist religions, is that there is One Right Way to Live.
What would you expect?