• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Why Christianity is a false religion

There are a lot of different Christianities and they have varying views on many of these things. Prior to about 50 years ago Protestants hated Catholics. And some Protestant groups vehemently hated other Protestant groups. Or are we talking about generic born again US-style Pentecostal Christianity?
 
Gormur said:
To start off, according to Christianity: if you believe in God and his commandments you're a good person. You don't need to believe that a human was the son of G-d or whatever. If you do then you're (just) a Christian. Basically it's pure idolatrous, ignorance

I get frustrated when people I know won't see the truth, you know like at least enough to admit their moral double standards. It's lonely to see the truth and live it by myself but at least I know what's going on and I know what I believe and why

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

All religions are equally false.
 
✿Dai₷y✿ said:
How come Sarah didn't get included in the whole killing Isaac test like Moses did then, is she chopped liver or something?
Click to expand...
This might help out. I'm not good at explaining everything.
To understand the binding of Isaac we have to realize that much of the Torah, Genesis in particular, is a polemic against worldviews the Torah considers pagan, inhuman and wrong. One institution to which Genesis is opposed is the ancient family as described by Fustel de Coulanges in The Ancient City (1864)5 and recently restated by Larry Siedentop in Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.6

Before He had power of life and death over his wife and children the emergence of the first cities and civilizations, the fundamental social and religious unit was the family. As Coulanges puts it, in ancient times there was an intrinsic connection between three things: the domestic religion, the family and the right of property. Each family had its own gods, among them the spirits of dead ancestors, from whom it sought protection and to whom it offered sacrifices. The authority of the head of the family, the paterfamilias, was absolute. He had power of life and death over his wife and children. Authority invariably passed, on the death of the father, to his firstborn son. Meanwhile, as long as the father lived, children had the status of property rather than persons in their own right. This idea persisted even beyond the biblical era in the Roman law principle of patria potestas.

The Torah is opposed to every element of this worldview. As anthropologist Mary Douglas notes, one of the most striking features of the Torah is that it includes no sacrifices to dead ancestors.7 Seeking the spirits of the dead is explicitly forbidden.

Equally noteworthy is the fact that in the early narratives succession does not pass to the firstborn: not to Ishmael but Isaac, not to Esau but Jacob, not to the tribe of Reuben but to Levi (priesthood) and Judah (kingship), not to Aaron but to Moses.

The principle to which the entire story of Isaac, from birth to binding, is opposed is the idea that a child is the property of the father. First, Isaac’s birth is miraculous. Sarah is already post-menopausal when she conceives. In this respect the Isaac story is parallel to that of the birth of Samuel to Hannah, like Sarah also unable naturally to conceive. That is why, when he is born Hannah says, “I prayed for this child, and the Lord has granted me what I asked of him. So now I give him to the Lord. For his whole life he will be given over to the Lord.” This passage is the key to understanding the message from heaven telling Abraham to stop: “Now I know that you fear G‑d, because you have not withheld from Me your son, your only son” (the statement appears twice, in Genesis 22:12 and 16). The test was not whether Abraham would sacrifice his son but whether he would give him over to G‑d.

The same principle recurs in the book of Exodus. First, Moses’ survival is semi-miraculous since he was born at a time when Pharaoh had decreed that every male Israelite child should be killed. Secondly, during the tenth plague, when every firstborn Egyptian child died, the Israelite firstborn were miraculously saved. “Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to Me, whether human or animal.” The firstborn were originally designated to serve G‑d as priests, but lost this role after the sin of the golden calf. Nonetheless, a memory of this original role still persists in the ceremony of pidyon ha-ben, redemption of a firstborn son.

What G‑d was doing when he asked Abraham to offer up his son was not requesting a child sacrifice but something quite different. He wanted Abraham to renounce ownership of his son. He wanted to establish as a non-negotiable principle of Jewish law that children are not the property of their parents.

That is why three of the four matriarchs found themselves unable to conceive other than by a miracle. The Torah wants us to know that the children they bore were the children of G‑d rather than the natural outcome of a biological process. Eventually, the entire nation of Israel would be called the children of G‑d. A related idea is conveyed by the fact that G‑d chose as his spokesperson Moses who was “not a man of words.” He was a stammerer. Moses became G‑d’s spokesman because people knew that the words he spoke were not his own but those placed in his mouth by G‑d.

The clearest evidence for this interpretation is given at the birth of the very first human child. When she first gives birth, Eve says: “With the help of the Lord I have acquired [kaniti] a man.” That child, whose name comes from the verb “to acquire,” was Cain who became the first murderer. If you seek to own your children, your children may rebel into violence.

If the analysis of Fustel de Colanges and Larry Siedentop is correct, it follows that something fundamental was at stake. As long as parents believed they owned their children, the concept of the individual could not yet be born. The fundamental unit was the family. The Torah represents the birth of the individual as the central figure in the moral life. Because children – all children – belong to G‑d, parenthood is not ownership but guardianship. As soon as they reach the age of maturity (traditionally, twelve for girls, thirteen for boys) children become independent moral agents with their own dignity and freedom.8

Sigmund Freud famously had something to say about this too. He held that a fundamental driver of human identity9 is the Oedipus Complex, the conflict between fathers and sons as exemplified in Aeschylus’ tragedy. By creating moral space between fathers and sons, Judaism offers a non-tragic resolution to this tension. If Freud had taken his psychology from the Torah rather than from Greek myth, he might have arrived at a more hopeful view of the human condition.

Slavery had not yet been abolished
Why then did G‑d say to Abraham about Isaac: “Offer him up as a burnt offering”? So as to make clear to all future generations that the reason Jews condemn child sacrifice is not because they lack the courage to do so. Abraham is the proof that they do not lack the courage. The reason they do not do so is because G‑d is the G‑d of life, not death. In Judaism, as the laws of purity and the rite of the Red Heifer show, death is not sacred. Death defiles.

The Torah is revolutionary not only in relation to society but also in relation to the family. To be sure, the Torah’s revolution was not fully completed in the course of the biblical age. Slavery had not yet been abolished. The rights of women had not yet been fully actualized. But the birth of the individual – the integrity of each of us as a moral agent in our own right – was one of the great moral revolutions in history.
Click to expand...
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/arti...h/Does-Judaism-Believe-in-Human-Sacrifice.htm
 
Atelier3 said:
There are a lot of different Christianities and they have varying views on many of these things. Prior to about 50 years ago Protestants hated Catholics. And some Protestant groups vehemently hated other Protestant groups. Or are we talking about generic born again US-style Pentecostal Christianity?
Click to expand...
Well I'm basically saying that Christianity is a three-legged table. Its foundation is Judaism but it lacks a solid structure
 
Gormur said:
From what I remember, Christians were almost exclusively Romans who were living in Israel during the occupation. Jesus seemed like a pretty average prophet who performed miracles. He wasn't the only one and rabbis performed exorcisms and raised the dead. It's just not talked about as much
Click to expand...

At the time of Christ, Judaea was a Roman possession. However, the first Christians were all Jews. As noted, there were other messianic figures in this period and even amongst the early Christians there were very many different views about theological matters: including regarding the divinity of Christ. Even then it was considered that Jesus may have referred to himself as the Son of God in a metaphorical way.

The Romans persecuted Christians for several centuries. At some points in the first 2 centuries it was officially proscribed on pain of death. However in (I think) 337 AD the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and gave state protection to Christians after which they began to flourish.

The major precepts of Christianity were then laid down in the First Nicean Council which extinguished many different Christian sects and connected Christian practice to Roman practices on top of the lingering Jewish practices it also retained.
 
Atelier3 said:
At the time of Christ, Judaea was a Roman possession. However, the first Christians were all Jews. As noted, there were other messianic figures in this period and even amongst the early Christians there were very many different views about theological matters: including regarding the divinity of Christ. Even then it was considered that Jesus may have referred to himself as the Son of God in a metaphorical way.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of the early gentile Christians but I know they weren't the first ones to follow the way. I guess I wasn't sure how to word it since early Christianity wasn't even considered a religion at that point. Thanks for explaining the history
 
Atelier3 said:
There are a lot of different Christianities and they have varying views on many of these things. Prior to about 50 years ago Protestants hated Catholics. And some Protestant groups vehemently hated other Protestant groups. Or are we talking about generic born again US-style Pentecostal Christianity?
Click to expand...
It could be said, you will know Christians by their hate.

Will the real Christians please stand up.

Regards
DL
 
birdup.snaildown said:
He didn't trick people any more than Biden or Obama did.
Click to expand...
Have you seen any Dem hold his nose publicly to vote for their candidate

Check the media and see many Reps hold theirs in front of the cameras when saying they did not like Trump but would vote their party line regardless.

Party before country shows what Reps are all about.

As a Canadian, I have no horse in your political race, and that leads to honest criticism.

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
It could be said, you will know Christians by their hate.

Will the real Christians please stand up.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
I am not a Christian apologist but I do recognise that on their Catholic version they do an impressive job building and running hospitals and schools that provide services to people not looked after properly by the state.

I have observed this phenomenon in many countries.
 
Atelier3 said:
The major precepts of Christianity were then laid down in the First Nicean Council which extinguished many different Christian
Click to expand...
Extinguished!

Is that really a good word to denote the many mass murders the inquisitions used?

Were the Jews just extinguished by Hitler?

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
Extinguished!

Is that really a good word to denote the many mass murders the inquisitions used?

Were the Jews just extinguished by Hitler?

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
At this stage in the history of the Church they were doctrinal debates. Mostly what was extinguished was thought not people. Burning heretics came centuries later. It took the Church several hundred years to work out what it actually believed and then spread those beliefs to its members spanning the length and breadth of the former Roman Empire.
 
Atelier3 said:
I am not a Christian apologist but I do recognise that on their Catholic version they do an impressive job building and running hospitals and schools that provide services to people not looked after properly by the state.

I have observed this phenomenon in many countries.
Click to expand...

Indeed. All with funding and using the property that was stolen by the inquisitions from those they mass murdered.

Fun fact.
Peters Cathedral was paid for by Temple Prostitutes paying indulgences to Rome.

Given that non-believers have been paying for the tax downfall created by religions exemptions and perks, you might recognize that atheists contributed to what you would give a homophobic and misogynous religion that has victimized those groups forever.

Our garbage religions do a lot more harm than good.

It is foolish to think that no hospitals etc. would have been constructed in atheist countries, which, BTW, are statistically a lot more peaceful and law abiding than religious nations.

Just a quick look at the U. S. stats will show the truth of this.

Regards
DL
 
Atelier3 said:
then spread those beliefs to its members spanning the length and breadth of the former Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
Yes, by mass murder and inquisitions.

Let's all promote Christianity, mass murder, homophobia and misogyny.

That is the right thing to do. Right?

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
Indeed. All with funding and using the property that was stolen by the inquisitions from those they mass murdered.

Fun fact.
Peters Cathedral was paid for by Temple Prostitutes paying indulgences to Rome.

Given that non-believers have been paying for the tax downfall created by religions exemptions and perks, you might recognize that atheists contributed to what you would give a homophobic and misogynous religion that has victimized those groups forever.

Our garbage religions do a lot more harm than good.

It is foolish to think that no hospitals etc. would have been constructed in atheist countries, which, BTW, are statistically a lot more peaceful and law abiding than religious nations.

Just a quick look at the U. S. stats will show the truth of this.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree that the Church has been the agent of great evil at different points in its 2000 year history.

However, repentlessly painting it with a black brush is to use history selectively. Apart from anything else the Church created the philosophical and intellectual climate that led to universal human rights and (classical) liberalism.

It generated many of the forces that ultimately turned against it. You should take a look at the book “Dominion” by Tom Holland who lays out this intellectual history.
 
Gnostic Bishop

All religions were created by man, including Buddhism and Gnostic Christianity. Why would they be diffferent, just because you agree with their doctrines?

All organized religions are based on what man knows or thinks he knows, then formulated into doctrines.

The universe is far too subtle for that. Maybe it would help if you gave others the freedom to believe whatever they want, you are no man's task master.

We can have discussions here, but let's make it plain. These are just expressions of our personal belief. No one here, including myself, knows the absolute truth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top