Who is to Blame?

[rrobs]

I
Would Christianity have spread as much as it did without adapting certain aspects of their cultures?

Probably not. I think the church slowly became more interested in enriching their own coffers than the lives of the people. If allowing people to join the ranks along with their Pagan ideas would result in more donations, then by all means let them bring their ideas. It's the love of money that ultimately causes our problems. Not the money itself, but the love of that money.

 

[rrobs]

not that I cherry pick quotations as a practice.....however

the questions I posed....I believe ARE relevant
and pending in that day of reckoning

as for proximity (or relationship)
you are with each other.....or not

Perhaps I was a bit crude in simply dismissing your question as irrelevant. Didn't meant to though.

I understood you to imply that Jesus wanted to know if I would stay with him. In a certain sense that is a valid consideration. It is absolutely possible for any Christian to depart from the faith. However, that does not mean Jesus will depart from the Christian.

1Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
​

Your first birth was by the seed of your earthly father. You are his son by seed. Regardless of your subsequent actions in life, you are your father's son/daughter. Nothing can change that and that seed is corruptible (you will die one of these days). You can disown your father, but his seed is still in you and you are still his son/daughter.

According to Peter, the new birth is brought about by seed also, specifically God's seed. That is precisely why a Christian is a son/daughter of God. But, unlike the corruptible seed of your earthly father, the seed God plants in a born again believer is incorruptible. That is clearly what Peter said. Now if it is truly incorruptible then there is nothing I can do to make it corruptible. God's work is certainly greater than any stupid thing I can do.

Anyway, that is what I had in mind when I said Jesus leaving me is irrelevant. Hopefully it makes some sense to you. Not that you believe it, but at least you might see where I am coming from.

 

[rrobs]

If there was such a man, he indeed can only be blamed for the weaknesses of his doctrine as well as his own moral failings, but not more.

Interesting point. Any specifics on Jesus' immorality?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Throughout history there have been an untold number of atrocities supposedly committed by those who hold to the scriptures (Bible). Christianity is considered by many to be the worse thing that could have ever existed. But is Christianity really to blame?

Since the end of the first century Christianity is much more aligned with Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology than with the Bible. The trinity, immortal soul, eternity in the ether, are but a few of the doctrines held by Orthodox Christianity. But these doctrines come straight out of the Greek and Egyptian cultures and have no direct evidence in the scriptures themselves.

And?

How do we get from "Christianity has been influenced by prior belief systems and cultures" to "Christianity has nothing to do with the acts perpetrated in its name?"

Would it not therefore be more appropriate to blame Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology for the above mentioned atrocities?

I have no idea what influence "Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology" have had on Christianity, but blame isn't a zero-sum thing.

Can you imagine Jesus being party to the inquisition?

Some Jesuses, sure.

"Blessed are the peacemakers" Jesus? Probably not.

"Wither and die, fig tree, because you didn't give me figs!" Jesus? Maybe.

"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away" Jesus? Absolutely.

 

[rrobs]

If I blame anyone, I blame God. For He created the world with so many mean Christians on top of it.

The world God created was radically different than the one we currently inhabit. God intended for humans to live a life of perfect ease. He was not His intention for humans to kill or otherwise mistreat each other. What happened then?

Part of God's manifestation of love towards mankind was giving them free will. He didn't make robots or force them to love Him. He gave them the option. The second chapter of Genesis tells us that God was very forthright in warning them what would happen to them it they broke the one simple rule He gave them. Of course, they broke that one simple rule and everything God said would happen to them actually happened. God immediately set about with plan "B" to get man back to the original existence He meant for them to have. That of course was Jesus who is the subject of the entire Bible.

God gave Christians (allegedly) Card Blanche.
Lucky them.

Not really. Christians will be held accountable for their actions. The Bible speaks of rewards that each believer will enjoy for eternity based on their behavior. They will be saved regardless, but their status in the new earth will be determined by how they lived their life.

 

[rrobs]

And?

How do we get from "Christianity has been influenced by prior belief systems and cultures" to "Christianity has nothing to do with the acts perpetrated in its name?"

Reading the whole thread should help you see why I said that.

I have no idea what influence "Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology" have had on Christianity.

Tons of info on the web if you are interested.

Some Jesuses, sure.

"Blessed are the peacemakers" Jesus? Probably not.

"Wither and die, fig tree, because you didn't give me figs!" Jesus? Maybe.

"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away" Jesus? Absolutely.

I don't think you are considering all possibilities here. It seems as though you know exactly what Jesus meant and there are no other possibilities. Your mind is closed. I could be wrong, but it seems it wouldn't even matter if someone gave you alternate possibilities. Not academically astute.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm sorry to hear you and your children were so grossly mistreated. It sounds like a hellish ordeal. Perhaps the "Christians" who tried to kill you and your children were wolves in sheep clothing. I guarantee that had I been around then I would have had something to say to those who did that.

Thanks but words dont influence terrorists and hooligans

No problem there as far as it goes. But there is a huge problem when they don't understand the proper place of the two testaments. Testaments are contracts between specific parties. If one is not a party to a contract, the things in that contract have no bearing on them whatsoever.

If one is taught the contents of those contracts and takes heed of their education it has a huge bearing on them.

I think it a cop out to make Christianity a part of the OT. Christianity didn't begin until the day of Pentecost. This is part of the problem I mentioned above about people not making the proper distinction between the two testaments. I'm not party to Tom Brady's multi-million dollar contract with the New England Patriots. That's why I'm not filthy rich. How stupid would it be if I went out and charged up my credit cards to the max and beyond because I thought I was party to Tom's contract?

The OT was certainly valid between God and Israel in the days before Jesus, but things changed rather radically when Jesus died and rose from the dead. The Christian contract with God is much different that that between Him and Israel. This is just basic lawyer stuff.

So remove the OT from the bible reducing it by 85%, ditch the OT, stop teaching it to people. As it is part of the christian bible then it becomes part of christian teaching.

Of course I share what I learn with peers and we talk about it

Published?

You are absolutely correct. Greek philosophy had no influence on the Jews of the OT. However that doesn't negate the fact that they did have a huge influence on early Christian thought.

Actually Rome had far more influence

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Throughout history there have been an untold number of atrocities supposedly committed by those who hold to the scriptures (Bible). Christianity is considered by many to be the worse thing that could have ever existed. But is Christianity really to blame?

Since the end of the first century Christianity is much more aligned with Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology than with the Bible. The trinity, immortal soul, eternity in the ether, are but a few of the doctrines held by Orthodox Christianity. But these doctrines come straight out of the Greek and Egyptian cultures and have no direct evidence in the scriptures themselves.

Would it not therefore be more appropriate to blame Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology for the above mentioned atrocities? Can you imagine Jesus being party to the inquisition?

Being "to blame" and being "blamed" are two different things. White males (and also Christians) are blamed for slavery. Did some of them participate in slavery? Yes, for both groups. Did some of abolish slavery? Yes, for both groups.

Generally, people looking around for someone to blame are like the kid who at the last cookie from the jar. They spend all day trying to find someone to pin it on, but everyone knows it had to be them.

Here's the thing. About 90% of the most bloody wars had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars? | HuffPost

Should we start blaming atheists, then, because they are not religious? Or do you think now might not be the best time to be blaming people?

 

[Vee]

Throughout history there have been an untold number of atrocities supposedly committed by those who hold to the scriptures (Bible). Christianity is considered by many to be the worse thing that could have ever existed. But is Christianity really to blame?

Since the end of the first century Christianity is much more aligned with Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology than with the Bible. The trinity, immortal soul, eternity in the ether, are but a few of the doctrines held by Orthodox Christianity. But these doctrines come straight out of the Greek and Egyptian cultures and have no direct evidence in the scriptures themselves.

Would it not therefore be more appropriate to blame Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology for the above mentioned atrocities? Can you imagine Jesus being party to the inquisition?

People are responsible for their actions independently of what excuse they use to justify them. Throughout history, time and again religions have used the Bible and other books that are considered holly to justify heinous acts that resulted in more power and wealth for those religions, and pain and suffering for the people.
That didn't happen because of what the Bible says. They made whatever interpretation was convenient to them so they could use that as a reason to justify the horrible things they were doing. How else would they have collected the funds to build the big cathedrals and have priests live like kings?

 

[epronovost]

Interesting point. Any specifics on Jesus' immorality?

The man was a puritanical zealots and "cultish" leader who requested from his followers that they considered him as higher and more important then their friends and family. He had a certain fetish for self mortification. His views on sexuality (but also most other earthly pleasures) are extremely puritanical and require a level of control and denial that is orwellian. His ascetical lifestyle and harsh punishment for breaking it made him deny humans their own humanity, throwing away violence and hate at the same time than pleasure and joy in an effort to create a "pure spirtitual being". I consider his obsession for purity and self mortification as immoral.

 

[rrobs]

Being "to blame" and being "blamed" are two different things. White males (and also Christians) are blamed for slavery. Did some of them participate in slavery? Yes, for both groups. Did some of abolish slavery? Yes, for both groups.

Generally, people looking around for someone to blame are like the kid who at the last cookie from the jar. They spend all day trying to find someone to pin it on, but everyone knows it had to be them.

Here's the thing. About 90% of the most bloody wars had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars? | HuffPost

Should we start blaming atheists, then, because they are not religious? Or do you think now might not be the best time to be blaming people?

It would appear that, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, philosophy, etc., a certain number of people will commit acts of violence. At least that is born out by thousands of years of recorded history. To lay the blame on a particular credo is not the way to go. It's a human problem.

 

[rrobs]

People are responsible for their actions independently of what excuse they use to justify them. Throughout history, time and again religions have used the Bible and other books that are considered holly to justify heinous acts that resulted in more power and wealth for those religions, and pain and suffering for the people.
That didn't happen because of what the Bible says. They made whatever interpretation was convenient to them so they could use that as a reason to justify the horrible things they were doing. How else would they have collected the funds to build the big cathedrals and have priests live like kings?

Well said! Jesus told us to love. People either believe that or they don't. God gave us free will and He told us how to live a good life. If someone chooses to ignore that, the consequences are on them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are right about what you said. However, the actions of people are largely influenced by the culture in which they live. Throughout history, Western culture has been way more influenced by the Greek/Roman/Egyptian religious ideas than that of the scriptures. I think it fairly obvious that the Greeks and Romans, on the whole, had little value for human life. We are, and have been, way more like them than like Jesus.

Well...
You're suggesting that humans are more like other humans than they are God?

Sure. I agree.

Jesus represents an ideal (regardless of your literal belief in him as the son of God) whilst people are people.

 

[rrobs]

The man was a puritanical zealots and "cultish" leader who requested from his followers that they considered him as higher and more important then their friends and family. He had a certain fetish for self mortification. His views on sexuality (but also most other earthly pleasures) are extremely puritanical and require a level of control and denial that is orwellian. His ascetical lifestyle and harsh punishment for breaking it made him deny humans their own humanity, throwing away violence and hate at the same time than pleasure and joy in an effort to create a "pure spirtitual being". I consider his obsession for purity and self mortification as immoral.

I can see how those that share that view would blame Christianity for the world's woes. The guy should have been crucified way before he lived to the age of 30!

 

[epronovost]

I can see how those that share that view would blame Christianity for the world's woes.

I don't blame Christianity for the world's woes. I blame Christianity for its woes for it has undeniably produced some because of its own doctrine.

 

[rrobs]

I don't blame Christianity for the world's woes. I blame Christianity for its woes for it has undeniably produced some because of its own doctrine.

Clearly the woes are caused by somebody's doctrine. The question is, who's doctrine? There is absolutely nothing in the NT that sanctions the atrocities committed by people. As I've said, it is a doctrine of love. There are just too many places in the NT that support that claim. Furthermore, there is no need to "interpret" the verses that tell us to love one another.

John 13:34,

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
​

It would take some epic word twisting to make this verse say anything other than we should love each other.

Romans 13:10,

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.
​

Like John, I don't see how this verse can be taken as meaning anything other love does not allow for ill treatment to others.

You are right about Christians developing their own doctrine. That is exactly what I averred n the OP. The doctrine they came up with is much closer to the doctrine of the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions. Most of what is spewed from pulpits across the world every Sunday actually has little to do with actual scripture. Not all, but enough to perpetuate the evil people tend to commit against their fellow human beings.

If people, Christian or not, simply followed the directives God gave in John and Romans, we would be in a much different society than the one we live in now.

 

[rrobs]

Well...
You're suggesting that humans are more like other humans than they are God?

Sure. I agree.

Jesus represents an ideal (regardless of your literal belief in him as the son of God) whilst people are people.

That pretty well sums it up. Yes, Jesus does represent the ideal. According to the scriptures he never once disobeyed his Father. Can't say that about anybody else who has ever lived.

Treat the scriptures as a fairy tale if you will, but at least you should have the fairy tale straight.

Rom 5:17,

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
​

According to the story (fairy tale if you prefer), by one man (Adam), death passed upon all. But it is equally true that by one man's (Jesus) obedience, life is once again made available. In short, the fairy tale plainly says that no man/woman is saved from death by their own efforts. It is by the effort put forth by the man Jesus Christ that we are promised a resurrection from death and a life in a new earth that Jesus will set up when he returns, not as a lamb led to slaughter, but as King of Kings and Lord or Lords.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Probably not. I think the church slowly became more interested in enriching their own coffers than the lives of the people. If allowing people to join the ranks along with their Pagan ideas would result in more donations, then by all means let them bring their ideas. It's the love of money that ultimately causes our problems. Not the money itself, but the love of that money.

Can't disagree there!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That pretty well sums it up. Yes, Jesus does represent the ideal. According to the scriptures he never once disobeyed his Father. Can't say that about anybody else who has ever lived.

Treat the scriptures as a fairy tale if you will, but at least you should have the fairy tale straight.

Rom 5:17,

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
​

According to the story (fairy tale if you prefer), by one man (Adam), death passed upon all. But it is equally true that by one man's (Jesus) obedience, life is once again made available. In short, the fairy tale plainly says that no man/woman is saved from death by their own efforts. It is by the effort put forth by the man Jesus Christ that we are promised a resurrection from death and a life in a new earth that Jesus will set up when he returns, not as a lamb led to slaughter, but as King of Kings and Lord or Lords.

Thanks for the reply. I don't see the Bible as fairy tales, and always thought there was some wisdom contained within.

I'm a writer (amateur, but still) and a history buff. Both our past and our narratives are important for our future to my mind.

But I don't believe in God, and I assess the Bible messaging on an individual basis, rather than as 'good' or 'bad'.

I have no expectation of being saved from death. Only difference is that my expectation on what occurs is a universal one.

 

[shunyadragon]

First of all, There are many times where Paul explicitly warned against getting tangled up with the Greek and Roman religious influence. I'm not sure why you think he advanced the idea.

I consider Paul's statements more political, and the reality is the Paul was a Hellenist Jew and influenced Greek and yes Roman thinking and philosophy. The concept of the Trinity and an incarnate God is more a Greek and Roman view of theology.

Our culture is absolutely influenced by the Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. We are largely products of Plato's ideas. The events of their day demonstrate a decided lack of value for human life. The idea certainly didn't come out of the NT scriptures. Much of the NT specifically warns the believer to avoid the doctrine of these cultures.

The bold is a very human issue throughout history, and not a question or whether it is Roman, Greek, Hebrew nor Egyptian belief and influence.

The NT is steeped in Greek and Roman culture, language and theology and still remains culturally identified with Roman and Greek culture.