The Bible and The Quran

[Pegg]

Are you claiming that the old testament is not relevant at all? If yes, then why is it included in the bible and used in teachings then?

a lot of the OT is a history of the Isrealite nation. Its only relevant in that it allows us to identify the Messiah, it shows us the failings of man and how God dealt with the isrealites as a nation and that helps us to understand how God feels about the bad that mankind does.

Christianity is not about following the OT...its about how to follow Christ in love and peace. Christianity shows us a better way to live and to be acceptable to God. Thats why its included in the biblical collection.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would argue that his doctrine would be more closely related to self impowerment than anything else, you should be able to respect that coming from the LHP.

I really wish you'd stop saying that Jesus has anything to do with the LHP. He doesn't.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

these were political orders they were blindly following.

You are refering to the Dark Ages when most christians couldnt even read...they had no idea that the Christian teaching was to keep separate from the world and its political goals.

Proof that they didn't know this? And that's the goal for Paul...except you know the whole you are the salt of the earth, light of the world...part.

The Dark Ages...weren't as dark as popular tv likes to make it seem. The church was doing just as much good as harm during those times.

 

[Windwalker]

You are refering to the Dark Ages when most christians couldnt even read...they had no idea that the Christian teaching was to keep separate from the world and its political goals.

Well, we must be living in the Dark Ages again then. And they can even read too now, and that doesn't stop them from trying to push their brand of religion on the rest of us through politics.

 

[Vouthon]

Personally, I feel it would benefit them to also cite references to the Vedas and Upanishads, but I think that would be a bit of a challenge for most Christians to deal with, since they've been programmed to think only their tradition has any insights into God.

Interestingly enough, this was not the case so much in early Christianity. Such a historical strain of thought does exist in Christianity, amidst more condemnatory opinions. Just consider two of the most important church fathers: St. Justin Martyr and St. Clement of Alexandria. I've quoted these passages from their authorized writings many time, yet it doesn't pain to reiterate it.

St Justin Martyr (103–165) lauded and reverenced the great Greek, pagan philosophers as genuine prophets who partook of Christ:

"...We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them..."

Of Plato Justin wrote:

"...Well done, Plato! Thou hast touched on the truth...Whence, O Plato, is that hint of the truth which thou givest?...let it not be this one man alone--Plato; but, O philosophy, hasten to produce many others also, who declare the only true God to be God, through His inspiration...For the knowledge of God, these utterances, written by those we have mentioned through the inspiration of God..."

St. Clement was even more vocal in this respect:

"...The way of truth is one. But into it, as into a perennial river, streams flow from all sides...God is the Teacher, who instructs the enlightened Christian by mysteries, and the faithful labourer by cheerful hopes, and the hard of heart with His keen corrective discipline; so that His providence is particular, public, and universal... for He is the Saviour not of these or those, but of all...Should it be said that the Greeks discovered philosophy by human wisdom, I reply, that I find the Scriptures declare all wisdom to be a divine gift...Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Sramanas among the Bactrians; and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour's birth, and came into the land of Judaea guided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sramanas, and others Brahmins...Among the Indians are those philosophers who follow the precepts of Buddha, whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours..."

- Saint Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 220), Early Catholic Church father

It was a view held by the Franciscan mystic Blessed Ramon Llull in the High Middle Ages in relation to Sufis and Muslims:

"...The Muslims have various holy men called Sufis. They offer words of love and brief exempla that inspire a person to great devotion. Their words require exposition, and thanks to the exposition the intellect rises higher, which develops it and spurs the will to devotion...If there is only one language, people [of different faiths] will understand one another, and from this understanding they will love one another and adopt from one another similar customs, which will create concord among them...Through the participation of one people with another there will be love and concord...We should love and help one another, and make it so that between us there be no difference [...] which causes us to be enemies with one another and to be at war, killing one another and falling captive to one another. And this war, death and servitude prevent us from giving the praise, reverence and honour we owe to God every day of our life...[And so] all men might be brought together, that they might have understanding, and love one another, and agree in the service of God...Let Christians who are well schooled and proficient in the Arabic language go to Tunis to demonstrate the truth of their faith and let Muslims who are well schooled come to the kingdom of Sicily to discuss their faith with Christian scholars. By acting in this way, maybe, there can be peace between Christians and Muslims, when in the whole world the situation will take effect that neither Christians want to destroy Muslims nor Muslims want to destroy Christians..."

- Blessed Ramon Llull (1232 – ca. 1315), Catholic mystic, philosopher,
logician & Franciscan missionary

The most prominent cardinal of the Catholic Church in Renaissance Europe likewise concurred:

"...Moses had described a path to God, but this path was neither taken up by everyone nor was it understood by everyone. Jesus illuminated and perfected this path; nevertheless, many even now remain unbelievers. Muhammad tried to make the same path easier, so that it might be accepted by all, even idolaters. These are the most famous of the said paths to God, although many others were presented by the wise and the prophets...Even though you acknowledge diverse religions, you all presuppose in all of this diversity the one...It is you, O God, who is being sought in various religions in various ways, and named with various names. For you remain as you are, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it, then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths..."

- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), German mystic

(continued...)

 

[Vouthon]

It was taught in the modern age by Blessed Pope John Paul II:

"...Every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God's Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions. In every authentic religious experience, the most characteristic expression is prayer. Because of the human spirit's constitutive openness to God's action of urging it to self-transcendence, we can hold that "every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person". We experienced an eloquent manifestation of this truth at the World Day of Prayer for Peace on 27 October 1986 in Assisi, and on other similar occasions of great spiritual intensity. The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. "The Spirit's presence and activity", as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, "affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions..."

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, General Audience Address, September 16, 1998, Vatican

"...You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions...From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties..."

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope

"...In preaching the gospel, Christianity first encountered Greek philosophy; but this does not mean at all that other approaches are precluded...My thoughts turn immediately to the lands of the East, so rich in religious and philosophical traditions of great antiquity. Among these lands, India has a special place. A great spiritual impulse leads Indian thought to seek an experience which would liberate the spirit from the shackles of time and space and would therefore acquire absolute value. The dynamic of this quest for liberation provides the context for great metaphysical systems. In India particularly, it is the duty of Christians now to draw from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order to enrich Christian thought..."

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, FIDES ET RATIO, 1998

By the Vatican in an official 1991 document:

"...A just appraisal of other religious traditions normally presupposes close contact with them. This implies, besides theoretical knowledge, practical experience of interreligious dialogue with the followers of these traditions...These traditions are to be approached with great sensitivity, on account of the spiritual and human values enshrined in them. They command our respect because over the centuries they have borne witness to the efforts to find answers "to those profound mysteries of the human condition" (NA 1) and have given expression to the religious experience and they continue to do so today...Making its own the vision and the terminology of some early Church Fathers, Nostra Aetate speaks of the presence in these traditions of "a ray of that Truth which enlightens all" (NA 2). Ad Gentes recognizes the presence of "seeds of the word", and points to "the riches which a generous God has distributed among the nations" (AG 11). Again, Lumen Gentium refers to the good which is "found sown" not only "in minds and hearts", but also "in the rites and customs of peoples" (LG 17)...the Council has openly acknowledged the presence of positive values not only in the religious life of individual believers of other religious traditions, but also in the religious traditions to which they belong. It attributed these values to the active presence of God through his Word, pointing also to the universal action of the Spirit: "Without doubt," Ad Gentes affirms, "the Holy Spirit was at work in the world before Christ was glorified" (No. 4)...After the Council, the Church's Magisterium, especially that of Pope John Paul II, has proceeded further in the same direction. First the Pope gives explicit recognition to the operative presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the members of other religious traditions, as when in Redemptor Hominis he speaks of their "firm belief" as being "an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body" (No. 6). In Dominum et Vivificantem, he takes a further step, affirming the universal action of the Holy Spirit in the world before the Christian dispensation, to which it was ordained, and referring to the universal action of the same Spirit today, even outside the visible body of the Church (cf. No. 53)..."

- Dialogue and Proclamation, PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE, 1991

And by his successor Benedict XVI:

"...How many ways are there to God?

As many ways as there are people. For even within the same faith each man's way is an entirely personal one. In that respect there is ultimately one way, and everyone who is on the way to God is therefore in some sense also on the way to Jesus Christ. But this does not mean that all ways are identical in terms of consciousness and will but on the contrary, the one way is so big that it becomes a personal way for each man...Unity of mankind, unity of religions, unity of Christians - we ought to search for these unities again, so that a more positive epoch may really begin...In all religions there are men of interior purity who through their [beliefs] somehow touch the great mystery and find the right way of being human...The dialogue with other religions is under way. We are, I think, all convinced that we can learn something, for example, from the mysticism of Asia and that precisely the great mystical traditions also open possibilities of encounter that are not so clearly present in positive theology...The Christian can also find the secret working of God behind them. Through the other religions God touches man and brings him onto the path. But it is always the same God, the God of Jesus Christ...It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him [...] reach salvation. This undoubtedly happens on a large scale..."

- Pope Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1997 (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger Head of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

"...God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, "does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'." Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain (I, 8).

Theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God's salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation. In this undertaking, theological research has a vast field of work under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: "The unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source" (III, 14)..."

- Dominus Iesus, declaration by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (approved John Paul II), Cardinal Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI), 2000

Christianity is such a diverse religion. Even within the Catholic Church you will find everything from xenophobic literalists to liberal, hippie, new age fairy-dust, and a lot more good sense and wisdom in between these two extremes

 

[dgirl1986]

But you originally were saying there are Christians that reject the NT. I questioned that. If they are using Jesus' words they are probably using the NT (or some of the extrabiblical early Christian texts, such as Thomas). It would be a self-defeating loop to uses Jesus' words to negate Jesus' words. Like the paradox, "I am lying now". Am I speaking the truth and that is a lie, or am I lying about lying, which is a lie, and so on.

There are christians that reject the NT completely. I didnt say it was logical lol.

 

[dgirl1986]

a lot of the OT is a history of the Isrealite nation. Its only relevant in that it allows us to identify the Messiah, it shows us the failings of man and how God dealt with the isrealites as a nation and that helps us to understand how God feels about the bad that mankind does.

Christianity is not about following the OT...its about how to follow Christ in love and peace. Christianity shows us a better way to live and to be acceptable to God. Thats why its included in the biblical collection.

Funny how christians will use a lot of the OT when arguing against morals and the such if it is about following christ...

 

[Windwalker]

There are christians that reject the NT completely. I didnt say it was logical lol.

Which ones? I'm not familiar with any.

 

[dgirl1986]

Which ones? I'm not familiar with any.

I have come across them on a christian forum that I frequent. Also been told by christians I know that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

 

[nash8]

Na, we are conditioned by the bible, but really its just another book.

Who do you speak of when you use the pronoun we? But I agree with you that the Bible is just another book, but what book isn't "just another book"?

I really wish you'd stop saying that Jesus has anything to do with the LHP. He doesn't.

I really wish you would stop saying that he doesn't.

1 Corinthians 12 NIV - Concerning Spiritual Gifts - Now about - Bible Gateway
Talks about a lot of LHP stuff in my opinion. I guess knowledge, wisdom, miraculous powers, prophecy, and distinguishing between spirits, aren't qualities of the LHP.

I'm not saying Jesus was a member of modern LHP path ideology, but LHP isn't just about being non-Christian, it's about opposing social norms, and in some cases practicing magic. And Jesus definitely had no shortage of either of those.

 

[Windwalker]

I have come across them on a christian forum that I frequent. Also been told by christians I know that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

I can see those that reject the OT (most Christians don't actually look into the OT, whereas they do the NT). But if you say you've met some who reject the NT as a whole, what do they then use? Are they exclusively using the Nag Hamadi texts? Do they self-identify as Gnostic or something?

 

[Windwalker]

Interestingly enough, this was not the case so much in early Christianity. Such a historical strain of thought does exist in Christianity, amidst more condemnatory opinions. Just consider two of the most important church fathers: St. Justin Martyr and St. Clement of Alexandria. I've quoted these passages from their authorized writings many time, yet it doesn't pain to reiterate it.

St Justin Martyr (103–165) lauded and reverenced the great Greek, pagan philosophers as genuine prophets who partook of Christ:





Of Plato Justin wrote:



St. Clement was even more vocal in this respect:



It was a view held by the Franciscan mystic Blessed Ramon Llull in the High Middle Ages in relation to Sufis and Muslims:



The most prominent cardinal of the Catholic Church in Renaissance Europe likewise concurred:



(continued...)

This is all great information and does the heart good to know that these insights exist in the main body. In practice though, in communicating with the congregations, does this message come through to them? That the deepest devoted may gain this insight themselves is truly understandable, but what of the lay person? Do they have this insight, or do they just assume everyone in others religions are just plain ignorant as they don't have their doctrines to enlighten them?

Certainly that attitude is prominent in Protestant churches, and their pastors are mainly as close to the surface religiously as their flocks are, mainly being little more than cults of personality with them at the helm. Statistically I'm sure some of these pastors must touch the deep and know better, but where is that voice there? (I'm excluding Episcopal, which is itself essentially Catholic).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I really wish you would stop saying that he doesn't.

1 Corinthians 12 NIV - Concerning Spiritual Gifts - Now about - Bible Gateway
Talks about a lot of LHP stuff in my opinion. I guess knowledge, wisdom, miraculous powers, prophecy, and distinguishing between spirits, aren't qualities of the LHP.

I'm not saying Jesus was a member of modern LHP path ideology, but LHP isn't just about being non-Christian, it's about opposing social norms, and in some cases practicing magic. And Jesus definitely had no shortage of either of those.

You're cherry picking, of course. You're ignoring all the verses when he threatens everyone who doesn't follow him with eternal torment in fire (the Jesus character is the one who introduced the concept of hell into the biblical narrative), throws petty temper tantrums when people don't agree with him and curses them, promotes end of the world nonsense, proclaims that he is the only "truth, life and the way", tell people to give up their lives and families to follow him, etc. None of that has to do with LHP precepts of individualism and free thought. Threats of "follow me or else" have nothing to do with it.

The LHP is also decidedly iconoclastic, Satanism in particular. As part of a quest for liberation, many of us seek to root out and expose the most prominent cultural idols of our place and time as a way to remove any power they may have over us, as we seek freedom of mind, heart, soul and body. Since Jesus is the biggest idol of the West, which holds millions in its thrall and equally causes millions to become subsumed into the herd of the "pie in the sky/eternal torment below for those who don't agree with us" cult that banishes critical thinking and harms many, it is quite correct to ceaselessly question and chisel away at the power this all too harmful idol has over our society. It is the same as questioning and breaking down the power that Muhammad has over millions of other "pie in the sky/eternal torment below for those who don't agree with us" cultists of a different brand. So, yes. As a Satanist, I must accuse Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad and all others of their crimes against humanity, the human spirit and the human Will. This is my duty as bestowed upon me by my Father, Who art in Hell. I am Adversary and I call into question all that hinders the growth and progress of human liberty and that which enchains our minds and spirits.

As I've said before, the Jesus character fits the personality of a megalomanical charismatic cult leader. He encouraged his followers to leave behind their old lives and families and join his roving band of apocalyptic cultists. That is destructive cult 101 - isolating your cult members from their former lives. He supposedly went around performing two-bit magic tricks to wow the gullible. That's the same as that other hack, Sai Baba. Instead of using reason and logic to win people over, you use chicanery to impress your uneducated and credulous audience. It's no wonder that Christianity was a cult of the illiterate and uneducated lower classes before they weaseled their way up the ladder of the Roman power structure and used the office of the emperor to force it on the hapless masses.

Jesus was not a "nice guy" or some great "moral teacher". Whoever put the words in his mouth included a small amount of "nice things" (most of which are just common sense or were copied from earlier figures, whereas even some of his "nice" teachings are complete self-defeating nonsense), but that doesn't override all the nastiness he spewed.

He's quite useless and the only reason that I can see as to why even people who reject Christianity cling to Jesus as an idol is emotional bondage that has been embedded into our collective psyche for the past 17 centuries or so. Jesus has been beaten into our minds by the society at large as being this ready-made savior who's a "nice", "compassionate" dude who was a freedom fighter or whatever vacuous nonsense that sounds nice to our modern sensibilities. It's a false construct and based on ignorance of what this character was purported to have said and done. It's easy to reject Christianity and Jesus on an intellectual level, but emotional bonds are harder to break. The Christian powers that be know that. It's a type of psychological warfare and so far, they've been winning. Religion preys on the weakest parts of our psyche by targeting our emotions.

Advocatus Atheist: The Imperfect and Immoral Teachings of Jesus Christ
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa014.html#12
What Would Jesus Do?
Why Jesus is immoral.

 

[Vouthon]

I have come across them on a christian forum that I frequent. Also been told by christians I know that the Old Testament is no longer relevant.

Well, they couldn't have been Catholics surely? The Old Testament dietary, judicial and ceremonial laws are not relevant after the inauguration of the New Covenant by Jesus, and the Tanakh is recognised as in a sense imperfect (on account of concession to human weakness) and incomplete, however my church regards it as being a substantial part of divine revelation: inspired directly by the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament finds its fulfilment in the New, while the New lies hidden in the Old.

When the "German Christians", a denomination in Nazi Germany, rejected the Old Testament as a result of its submission to the state sanctioned anti-Semitic ideology; the pope of that time, Pius XI, called for an encyclical to be written in German (rather than the standard Latin) called Mitt brennender Sorge (With Burning Grief). It was secretly smuggled into Germany and read from every pulpit in Catholic Churches throughout the Reich. After condemning Nazi racial theory and totalitarianism, it defended the irreplaceable dignity and incomparable beauty of the Old Testament as a work of divine revelation that was essential to Christianity:

"...The sacred books of the Old Testament are exclusively the word of God, and constitute a substantial part of his revelation; they are penetrated by a subdued light, harmonizing with the slow development of revelation, the dawn of the bright day of the redemption. As should be expected in historical and didactic books, they reflect in many particulars the imperfection, the weakness and sinfulness of man. But side by side with innumerable touches of greatness and nobleness, they also record the story of the chosen people, bearers of the Revelation and the Promise, repeatedly straying from God and turning to the world. Eyes not blinded by prejudice or passion will see in this prevarication, as reported by the Biblical history, the luminous splendor of the divine light revealing the saving plan which finally triumphs over every fault and sin. It is precisely in the twilight of this background that one perceives the striking perspective of the divine tutorship of salvation, as it warms, admonishes, strikes, raises and beautifies its elect. Nothing but ignorance and pride could blind one to the treasures hoarded in the Old Testament. Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God, blasphemes the Almighty's plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrow human thought the judge of God's designs over the history of the world: he denies his faith in the true Christ..."

- Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge (1938), On the Church and the German Reich

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html​

From the first century AD, the church has been opposed to any rejection of the Old Testament, placing it under the rubric of a heresy known as Marcionism. ​

 

[Vouthon]

This is all great information and does the heart good to know that these insights exist in the main body. In practice though, in communicating with the congregations, does this message come through to them? That the deepest devoted may gain this insight themselves is truly understandable, but what of the lay person? Do they have this insight, or do they just assume everyone in others religions are just plain ignorant as they don't have their doctrines to enlighten them?

Certainly that attitude is prominent in Protestant churches, and their pastors are mainly as close to the surface religiously as their flocks are, mainly being little more than cults of personality with them at the helm. Statistically I'm sure some of these pastors must touch the deep and know better, but where is that voice there? (I'm excluding Episcopal, which is itself essentially Catholic).

Dear brother Wind :bow:

Thank you for the reply. You ask a very good question, one of great moment actually.

Before the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, I think that the majority of lay persons would have had no knowledge of positive theological insights concerning other religions outside their established church. Some still might not although they have less justification nowadays given the ample information about it in books, on the internet, in local parishes and so forth.

During the council, this was put forward very clearly and unequivocally. It made a call for sweeping change in the relationship between Catholics and people of other faiths. One of the 16 documents produced by that great, innovative gathering of bishops was solely about dialogue with people of other faiths and appreciation for the elements of truth contained in their doctrines, teachings, precepts and ways of life. It is called Nostra Aetate. As a result of the council and pastoral work enacting its decrees at the local level, I think that this body of teaching has been widely disseminated. Whether it has sunk in is a different matter, of course but Catholics are involved in interreligious dialogue all over the world and at many levels. It even had something of a Renaissance under Pope John Paul II, a man with a particular flair for inter-religious harmony.

That does not mean that the laity will necessarily have read any of the primary documents that I have briefly lifted quotations from. They should, nonetheless, have been taught the spirit of them if their local clergy are faithfully following the guidelines set out in the council.

This is because Nostra Aetate states quite boldly:

"...Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men...

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men...

We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man's relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: "He who does not love does not know God" (1 John 4:8).

No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to "maintain good fellowship among the nations" (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven..."

- DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
[SIZE=+1]NOSTRA AETATE[/SIZE]
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-christian religions - Nostra Aetate


So if local pastors are truly doing their job properly and abiding by the Magisterial teaching of their Holy Mother Church, it behoves them to adhere to the decree issued above, nearly fifty years ago. As you know, church councils are binding, authoritative institutions - indeed the highest authority in the church, under the pope.

As for Protestant churches, I truly cannot pass judgement since I do not know their situation theologically or socially. Some Evangelicals like the pastor and missionary Billy Graham have for long been great advocates of interfaith dialogue.

 

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by psychoslice View Post
Na, we are conditioned by the bible, but really its just another book.
nash8 Who do you speak of when you use the pronoun we? But I agree with you that the Bible is just another book, but what book isn't "just another book"?

Well i think most people are conditioned, maybe even you if go through step by step in how you see the bible, if you were born in another culture, then you maybe conditioned to believe in another book, or scripture.

 

[nash8]

You're cherry picking, of course. You're ignoring all the verses when he threatens everyone who doesn't follow him with eternal torment in fire (the Jesus character is the one who introduced the concept of hell into the biblical narrative), throws petty temper tantrums when people don't agree with him and curses them, promotes end of the world nonsense, proclaims that he is the only "truth, life and the way", tell people to give up their lives and families to follow him, etc. None of that has to do with LHP precepts of individualism and free thought. Threats of "follow me or else" have nothing to do with it.

In order to get through all the dogmatic crap that has been superimposed over Jesus' real teachings you have to cherrypick in my opinion. As far as the hellfire thing, look at the context of the language in the hellfire verses vs. the parable/teaching type verses. It is easy to tell that one or the other was added in, as for which I agree there is no way to know. I just choose to think the hellfire verses were added in, it aligns much better to state controlled religious doctrine to that of a rogue rabbi.

Can you quote some verses where Jesus says if you don't follow me you'll burn in hell? And the petty temper tantrum when people don't agree with him verses. Where he promotes the end of the world. Where he says he is the ONLY truth, light, and the way.

As far as the leaving the families, it wasn't neccesarily that he said for them to leave their families, but more so not to worry about their old lives. I agree with you it is a little audacious, I never said he wasn't audacious. I don't think his philosophy was follow me or else, it was more akin to follow me and your life will change. Do not follow me and your life will most likely stay the same, the choice is yours. The culture and time period was very different at that time. You can't compare it with the life that American's live today in any way, shape, or fashion.

The LHP is also decidedly iconoclastic, Satanism in particular. As part of a quest for liberation, many of us seek to root out and expose the most prominent cultural idols of our place and time as a way to remove any power they may have over us, as we seek freedom of mind, heart, soul and body.

Totally agree. But are you really exposing them, if you are just bashing the ideals that have been attributed to them over the years by the elite and the masses, ideals they may not have even held themselves? I think exposing them would be portraying them for who they were most likely to be, and if you find the person to actually be that which has been attributed to them, and not care for it then so be it. But simply bashing the "idol" because of the representation that has been given to him that may or may not have been his own is not exposing the idol, but simply giving in to the status quo, by accepting that the idol was actually that way.

What's more LHP than presenting a logical assertation, that the main western centerpiece of the RHP was nothing more than a good ole fashion LHP adherent lol.

Since Jesus is the biggest idol of the West, which holds millions in its thrall and equally causes millions to become subsumed into the herd of the "pie in the sky/eternal torment below for those who don't agree with us" cult that banishes critical thinking and harms many, it is quite correct to ceaselessly question and chisel away at the power this all too harmful idol has over our society.

I don't blame the religion, I blame the herd. The religion, nor the man that it was based upon, cause people to join the herd. People cause people to join the herd. I totally agree that is prudent for one to criticize cults that banish critical thinking and harm many, and to question and chisel away at the power that and "idol" has over society.

That's not my point, my point is, did the idol actually possess the ideas of harming people, and suppressing ideas himself. If I started a movement tomorrow about free thought and self impowerment, and someone took it and made it a religion of oppression and control, would you accuse me being a patron for these ideals, because others used it as a tool of oppression?

It is the same as questioning and breaking down the power that Muhammad has over millions of other "pie in the sky/eternal torment below for those who don't agree with us" cultists of a different brand. So, yes. As a Satanist, I must accuse Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad and all others of their crimes against humanity, the human spirit and the human Will.

Nice accuser reference there .

But what if in all actuality, these people preached for humanity, human spirit and the human will? What if their image has been used over the years to oppress these ideas. Would you hold the person responsible for how their image was used, or would you hold the people that perverted their image responsible? Then if you accuse the person of holding these ideals, when in actuallity they didn't, does that mean that oppose the ideals they held of promoting humanity, human spirit, and human will as well?

This is my duty as bestowed upon me by my Father, Who art in Hell. I am Adversary and I call into question all that hinders the growth and progress of human liberty and that which enchains our minds and spirits.

LOL, indeed I agree that you should call it into question. But what better way to call it into question than to logically promote the idea that Jesus promoted personal growth, human liberty, and growth of mind and spirit, rather than reliance of an outside entity to provide these things for you?

 

[nash8]

As I've said before, the Jesus character fits the personality of a megalomanical charismatic cult leader. He encouraged his followers to leave behind their old lives and families and join his roving band of apocalyptic cultists.

When you say Jesus character, do you mean Yehoshua or the character that has been created over the years? All leaders can be qualified as megalomanical charismatic cult leaders in my opinion, the only difference between the lot of them is the ideals they promote.

I can't neccesarily hate on him for suggesting people leave behind their old lives. My view would be that he was telling them to leave behind lives of long hours of hard manual labor, extreme poverty, and little chance for self growth and empowerement, for a life of relative ease, plentiful food, and a high chance of self growth and empowerment. Not to mention some great parties with plenty of wine and a general good time.

That is destructive cult 101 - isolating your cult members from their former lives.

This is a horrible example I know, but if Jim Jones didn't go absolutely bat-**** crazy, his idea would have been great. The society he created was a good one in my opinion. And again, you can't compare today's times to times back then. What you can compare it to is leaving behind life in a 3rd world country for America.

He supposedly went around performing two-bit magic tricks to wow the gullible.

I dunno bout you, but raising people from the dead isn't a two-bit magic trick.

That's the same as that other hack, Sai Baba. Instead of using reason and logic to win people over, you use chicanery to impress your uneducated and credulous audience.

Have you ever tried to win a person over with reason and logic? The fact that you made that statement makes me think you haven't because if you had, you would have realized that it is an effort in fututility. Especially when your dealing with someone who is uneducated in the first place. Trying to win over someone who is illogical with logic is illogical in and of itself. Hell, even generally logical people aren't usually won over by logic and reason. People for the most part, whether uneducated or not, follow charisma not logic, otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in right now. A charismatic person can teach logical abilities to the illogical, a non-charismatic person can not in my opinion.

It's no wonder that Christianity was a cult of the illiterate and uneducated lower classes before they weaseled their way up the ladder of the Roman power structure and used the office of the emperor to force it on the hapless masses.

Yeah it had nothing to do with Jesus' generally benevelont attitude toward the poor? I don't think Christianity weaseled it's way up to the top, I think those already at the top realized that the rise of Christianity was inevitable, and rather than fight it, they chose to contort it into a religion that would better suit their needs.

Jesus was not a "nice guy" or some great "moral teacher". Whoever put the words in his mouth included a small amount of "nice things" (most of which are just common sense or were copied from earlier figures, whereas even some of his "nice" teachings are complete self-defeating nonsense), but that doesn't override all the nastiness he spewed.

Nice guys finish last, and morals are relative. What is your criteria of what the ideals he actually promoted verse the ideas that were attributed to him?

He's quite useless and the only reason that I can see as to why even people who reject Christianity cling to Jesus as an idol is emotional bondage that has been embedded into our collective psyche for the past 17 centuries or so.

I was that at one point, but now I do not view Jesus as an idol, nor do I view anyone as an idol other than my mom, but do you not view Satan as an idol? Do you view him as an idol because the things the masses attribute to him, or because of what you things you attribute to him?

Jesus has been beaten into our minds by the society at large as being this ready-made savior who's a "nice", "compassionate" dude who was a freedom fighter or whatever vacuous nonsense that sounds nice to our modern sensibilities. It's a false construct and based on ignorance of what this character was purported to have said and done.

But the question is what was he in reality? And why is what I construct him to be a false construct? What logical basis do you have for this? The key word that use in their is "purported" to have said and done.

It's easy to reject Christianity and Jesus on an intellectual level, but emotional bonds are harder to break. The Christian powers that be know that. It's a type of psychological warfare and so far, they've been winning. Religion preys on the weakest parts of our psyche by targeting our emotions.

Rejecting Christianity and Jesus are two different things in my opinion.

 

[Assad91]

I am sad to see some of the nasty generalizations of the Quran, and the assumptions of how Muslims generally intepretate the scripture. Also the attitude of "my religion is better" is pretty sad too.