CDZ What Is the Downside to Christianity?

[Pogo]

weather----your post on christianty is childish. For a better perspective-----read the "divine" scriptural writings of other
religions and a bit more on history. In fact there are more followers of Hinduism and its offshoots (like Buddhism etc)
and of islam. I like Hindu scriptural writings----but the Koran is
is even more idiotic than is the new testament. Luke never met Jesus and did not speak his language. How does he get to "quote" him?.
Christianity did for Constantine, the Emperor of the FIRST REICH precisely what the Emperor of the third reich hoped that Nazism would do for him. Josef and Magda Goebbels were adherent catholics in a "STATE OF GRACE" --when they offed themselves and their kids
read the Bhagavad Gita for inspiration----(and the kama
sudtra just for fun)

I hadn't figured out what the OP's point was but this is a good guess --- apparently he wants to know why the NT is not "valid", whatever that means.

Whatever it does mean, the fact that decades went by before it was chronicled from distant memory, and that the Council of Nicea revised and edited it centuries later, probably in part address it.

And of course, what Jesus was executed for was treason. Rome didn't give a shit about religious hallucinations. What it cared about was threats to its own power.

So you can't find a downside to Christianity either.

One more to add to the list.

If you try actually reading the post ------- it says that I haven't figured out what your point is.

Or to put it another way, you failed to articulate it.

What in the wide world of fuck does "a downside to Christianity" mean?

 

[Weatherman2020]

weather----your post on christianty is childish. For a better perspective-----read the "divine" scriptural writings of other
religions and a bit more on history. In fact there are more followers of Hinduism and its offshoots (like Buddhism etc)
and of islam. I like Hindu scriptural writings----but the Koran is
is even more idiotic than is the new testament. Luke never met Jesus and did not speak his language. How does he get to "quote" him?.
Christianity did for Constantine, the Emperor of the FIRST REICH precisely what the Emperor of the third reich hoped that Nazism would do for him. Josef and Magda Goebbels were adherent catholics in a "STATE OF GRACE" --when they offed themselves and their kids
read the Bhagavad Gita for inspiration----(and the kama
sudtra just for fun)

I hadn't figured out what the OP's point was but this is a good guess --- apparently he wants to know why the NT is not "valid", whatever that means.

Whatever it does mean, the fact that decades went by before it was chronicled from distant memory, and that the Council of Nicea revised and edited it centuries later, probably in part address it.

And of course, what Jesus was executed for was treason. Rome didn't give a shit about religious hallucinations. What it cared about was threats to its own power.

So you can't find a downside to Christianity either.

One more to add to the list.

If you try actually reading the post ------- it says that I haven't figured out what your point is.

Or to put it another way, you failed to articulate it.

What in the wide world of fuck does "a downside to Christianity" mean?

I don't teach remedial English for the 6th grade.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

IMO, the only thing that is really "wrong" with Christianity is that the actual teachings of Jesus are sublimated to a bunch of other stuff as interpreted by Saul or else referencing the o.t.

I think the bible would be a perfectly fine document if limited to the red letters.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Paul did not create Christianity"
Am I missing something?

.

He sure has more to do with the creation of Christianity than anybody else..


O.k., so here we have Saul who was a Pharisee who persecuted Jesus' followers most intensely. Upon Jesus' death, he claims to have an epiphany where he sees Jesus risen and is suddenly converted. That is the standard Christian version that takes his account as honest and so voila' -- he becomes Paul. . Considering he was persecuting Jesus' followers, though, what if he WASN'T honest and merely co-opting the movement he hated so much by placing himself in a position of authority instead of Jesus by claiming this vision?

I mean, Jesus actually warned His followers to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and who fits that bill better than Saul?

 

[Indeependent]

"Paul did not create Christianity"
Am I missing something?

.

He sure has more to do with the creation of Christianity than anybody else..


O.k., so here we have Saul who was a Pharisee who persecuted Jesus' followers most intensely. Upon Jesus' death, he claims to have an epiphany where he sees Jesus risen and is suddenly converted. That is the standard Christian version that takes his account as honest and so voila' -- he becomes Paul. . Considering he was persecuting Jesus' followers, though, what if he WASN'T honest and merely co-opting the movement he hated so much by placing himself in a position of authority instead of Jesus by claiming this vision?

I mean, Jesus actually warned His followers to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and who fits that bill better than Saul?

Saul was not a Pharasee and never claimed to be more than zealous.
His writings are so fraught with errors it's no wonder it took 260 years and the Roman Empire for his comic books to be taken seriously.
Let me put it this way...if you went to a yeshiva for 3 years and actually studied some Tanach, The NT would make you fall on the floor laughing your guts out.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Paul did not create Christianity"
Am I missing something?

.

He sure has more to do with the creation of Christianity than anybody else..


O.k., so here we have Saul who was a Pharisee who persecuted Jesus' followers most intensely. Upon Jesus' death, he claims to have an epiphany where he sees Jesus risen and is suddenly converted. That is the standard Christian version that takes his account as honest and so voila' -- he becomes Paul. . Considering he was persecuting Jesus' followers, though, what if he WASN'T honest and merely co-opting the movement he hated so much by placing himself in a position of authority instead of Jesus by claiming this vision?

I mean, Jesus actually warned His followers to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and who fits that bill better than Saul?

Saul was not a Pharasee and never claimed to be more than zealous.
His writings are so fraught with errors it's no wonder it took 260 years and the Roman Empire for his comic books to be taken seriously.
Let me put it this way...if you went to a yeshiva for 3 years and actually studied some Tanach, The NT would make you fall on the floor laughing your guts out.

I am not Jewish and was never a yeshiva student.

My statement that Saul was a Pharisee is based upon his own claim in his letters to the Phillipean church that he was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rather than argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, however, perhaps we can merely agree on his influence on Christianity.

 

[Picaro]

Yeah, I can’t see any downside either.

There isn't one, which is why it's so widely loathed by sociopaths, deviants, and narcissists. It's self-correcting, no false teachings can survive for long, another annoying fact that makes all of the above hate it even more, on top of the fact that the orthodox theology prevailed from the very beginning and remained the core to this day, despite all the rubbish claims to the contrary, and even Roman Emperors had no say in the matter whatsoever, also despite all the wishful thinking and stupid 'logic' peddled by detractors. It is a fine piece of literature, philosophy, and human psychology, and the greatest social revolutionary paradigm and document ever produced, another reason for pseudo-intellectuals to hate it. It's only a 'downside' for all the other pagan cults, ancient and particularly the modern cults, left or right wing, who can't come remotely close to matching the standards and social benefits it sets and its tenets. Even as it is in general decline in the west, under a barrage of infantile and mindless self-indulgence, it's growing elsewhere, and eventually it revives itself, to the great distress of neurotics and psychoes everywhere.

 

[Picaro]

weather----your post on christianty is childish. For a better perspective-----read the "divine" scriptural writings of other
religions and a bit more on history. In fact there are more followers of Hinduism and its offshoots (like Buddhism etc)
and of islam. I like Hindu scriptural writings----but the Koran is
is even more idiotic than is the new testament. Luke never met Jesus and did not speak his language. How does he get to "quote" him?.
Christianity did for Constantine, the Emperor of the FIRST REICH precisely what the Emperor of the third reich hoped that Nazism would do for him. Josef and Magda Goebbels were adherent catholics in a "STATE OF GRACE" --when they offed themselves and their kids
read the Bhagavad Gita for inspiration----(and the kama
sudtra just for fun)

So you can't find a downside to Christianity so you make a childish personal attack.

One more to the long list.

The majority of Orthodox Jews are 'racial purists'; Christianity has way too many of those filthy Gentile proles in it for their tastes, which is why they spend so much effort on persecuting Xians, despite the fact is a Jewish sect. It doesn't give 'racially pure' Jews any special status like in the 'good old days', when all the good priest jobs, and most wealth, were determined by one's family genealogy. Jesus the reform rabbi came along and wrecked it all, insisting on a return to the original intent of Moses and the Torah, stripped of all the artificial, self-serving legalistic encrustations and tribalism that had mummified Judaic theology and culture by the time of Jesus's ministry; Jesus made it a catholic religion, expanding the teachings to all who would study them, removing any special status for merely being racially 'pure', a huge annoyance to the racists. Just compare the order of Jesus's teachings with the timeline of the Torah; the Jewish establishment had long forgotten why they were 'Chosen' in the first place by Malachi's time, some 300 years before Jesus ministry came along. Many of the Orthodox sects have nothing on Nazis or right wing Japanese when it comes to their belief in 'racial purity' and the inferiority of 'everybody else'.

 

[irosie91]

weather----your post on christianty is childish. For a better perspective-----read the "divine" scriptural writings of other
religions and a bit more on history. In fact there are more followers of Hinduism and its offshoots (like Buddhism etc)
and of islam. I like Hindu scriptural writings----but the Koran is
is even more idiotic than is the new testament. Luke never met Jesus and did not speak his language. How does he get to "quote" him?.
Christianity did for Constantine, the Emperor of the FIRST REICH precisely what the Emperor of the third reich hoped that Nazism would do for him. Josef and Magda Goebbels were adherent catholics in a "STATE OF GRACE" --when they offed themselves and their kids
read the Bhagavad Gita for inspiration----(and the kama
sudtra just for fun)

So you can't find a downside to Christianity so you make a childish personal attack.

One more to the long list.

The majority of Orthodox Jews are 'racial purists'; Christianity has way too many of those filthy Gentile proles in it for their tastes, which is why they spend so much effort on persecuting Xians, despite the fact is a Jewish sect. It doesn't give 'racially pure' Jews any special status like in the 'good old days', when all the good priest jobs, and most wealth, were determined by one's family genealogy. Jesus the reform rabbi came along and wrecked it all, insisting on a return to the original intent of Moses and the Torah, stripped of all the artificial, self-serving legalistic encrustations and tribalism that had mummified Judaic theology and culture by the time of Jesus's ministry; Jesus made it a catholic religion, expanding the teachings to all who would study them, removing any special status for merely being racially 'pure', a huge annoyance to the racists. Just compare the order of Jesus's teachings with the timeline of the Torah; the Jewish establishment had long forgotten why they were 'Chosen' in the first place by Malachi's time, some 300 years before Jesus ministry came along. Many of the Orthodox sects have nothing on Nazis or right wing Japanese when it comes to their belief in 'racial purity' and the inferiority of 'everybody else'.[/QUOTE

Thanks Picaro-----I lived in a Nazi enclave as a child----and read your filth and shit starting about age 8. You are a fucking Nazi dog-----murderer of babies for the glory of your FILTH. Your lies are nothing new-----they are the STENCH AND FILTH of the FIRST REICH. Poor Jesus---you have maligned an innocent Pharisee jew.

 

[alang1216]

I propose the lack of evidence of any alterer motive except that of simply believing combined with the detailing of significant personal flaws of each author and character of Scripture combined with the fulfillment of prophecies from the ages combined with the historical evidence validates the New Testament.

If I am missing something that brings the validity of the New Testament into question, state so.

The NT is a palimpsest with little validity but that is not it's strength. It is a way of bringing people together into a community with a common purpose. In that way is it no different from other such communities, religious, military, political parties, hippie communes, etc.

I'm reminded of the Mormon episode on South Park where the Mormon kid says he doesn't care if Smith made the whole thing up, he just enjoys being a Mormon.

 

[Indeependent]

"Paul did not create Christianity"
Am I missing something?

.

He sure has more to do with the creation of Christianity than anybody else..


O.k., so here we have Saul who was a Pharisee who persecuted Jesus' followers most intensely. Upon Jesus' death, he claims to have an epiphany where he sees Jesus risen and is suddenly converted. That is the standard Christian version that takes his account as honest and so voila' -- he becomes Paul. . Considering he was persecuting Jesus' followers, though, what if he WASN'T honest and merely co-opting the movement he hated so much by placing himself in a position of authority instead of Jesus by claiming this vision?

I mean, Jesus actually warned His followers to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and who fits that bill better than Saul?

Saul was not a Pharasee and never claimed to be more than zealous.
His writings are so fraught with errors it's no wonder it took 260 years and the Roman Empire for his comic books to be taken seriously.
Let me put it this way...if you went to a yeshiva for 3 years and actually studied some Tanach, The NT would make you fall on the floor laughing your guts out.

I am not Jewish and was never a yeshiva student.

My statement that Saul was a Pharisee is based upon his own claim in his letters to the Phillipean church that he was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rather than argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, however, perhaps we can merely agree on his influence on Christianity.

The RCC is not really based on the NT; it's dogma based on controlling the flock.

Protestants live more by the NT but since there's so much irreconcilable conflict in the NT, they spend all day sending each other to hell.

 

[irosie91]

"Paul did not create Christianity"
Am I missing something?

.

He sure has more to do with the creation of Christianity than anybody else..


O.k., so here we have Saul who was a Pharisee who persecuted Jesus' followers most intensely. Upon Jesus' death, he claims to have an epiphany where he sees Jesus risen and is suddenly converted. That is the standard Christian version that takes his account as honest and so voila' -- he becomes Paul. . Considering he was persecuting Jesus' followers, though, what if he WASN'T honest and merely co-opting the movement he hated so much by placing himself in a position of authority instead of Jesus by claiming this vision?

I mean, Jesus actually warned His followers to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and who fits that bill better than Saul?

Saul was not a Pharasee and never claimed to be more than zealous.
His writings are so fraught with errors it's no wonder it took 260 years and the Roman Empire for his comic books to be taken seriously.
Let me put it this way...if you went to a yeshiva for 3 years and actually studied some Tanach, The NT would make you fall on the floor laughing your guts out.

I am not Jewish and was never a yeshiva student.

My statement that Saul was a Pharisee is based upon his own claim in his letters to the Phillipean church that he was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rather than argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, however, perhaps we can merely agree on his influence on Christianity.

The RCC is not really based on the NT; it's dogma based on controlling the flock.

The RCC is based on the endless ambition of CONSTANTINE. Constantine's contribution to mankind
was the canon law upon which the NUREMBURG CODE is based and which is the legal justification for Genocide

Protestants live more by the NT but since there's so much irreconcilable conflict in the NT, they spend all day sending each other to hell.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Reading the responses it is obvious there is no valid downside to Christianity. People go off on tangents about non-Biblical things people have done, non-Biblical practices, etc, but bottom line is there is nothing negative about a person being a Christian. People who hate God will thus hate Christians. They don't attack any other religion simply because it is the one true faith.

 

[Weatherman2020]

"Paul did not create Christianity"
Am I missing something?

.

He sure has more to do with the creation of Christianity than anybody else..


O.k., so here we have Saul who was a Pharisee who persecuted Jesus' followers most intensely. Upon Jesus' death, he claims to have an epiphany where he sees Jesus risen and is suddenly converted. That is the standard Christian version that takes his account as honest and so voila' -- he becomes Paul. . Considering he was persecuting Jesus' followers, though, what if he WASN'T honest and merely co-opting the movement he hated so much by placing himself in a position of authority instead of Jesus by claiming this vision?

I mean, Jesus actually warned His followers to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and who fits that bill better than Saul?

Saul was not a Pharasee and never claimed to be more than zealous.
His writings are so fraught with errors it's no wonder it took 260 years and the Roman Empire for his comic books to be taken seriously.
Let me put it this way...if you went to a yeshiva for 3 years and actually studied some Tanach, The NT would make you fall on the floor laughing your guts out.

I am not Jewish and was never a yeshiva student.

My statement that Saul was a Pharisee is based upon his own claim in his letters to the Phillipean church that he was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rather than argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, however, perhaps we can merely agree on his influence on Christianity.

The RCC is not really based on the NT; it's dogma based on controlling the flock.

Protestants live more by the NT but since there's so much irreconcilable conflict in the NT, they spend all day sending each other to hell.

Honestly, where do you dig this dogma up? Any Christian knows that faith is Christ is all that is needed to be saved.

 

[Indeependent]

"Paul did not create Christianity"
Am I missing something?

.

He sure has more to do with the creation of Christianity than anybody else..


O.k., so here we have Saul who was a Pharisee who persecuted Jesus' followers most intensely. Upon Jesus' death, he claims to have an epiphany where he sees Jesus risen and is suddenly converted. That is the standard Christian version that takes his account as honest and so voila' -- he becomes Paul. . Considering he was persecuting Jesus' followers, though, what if he WASN'T honest and merely co-opting the movement he hated so much by placing himself in a position of authority instead of Jesus by claiming this vision?

I mean, Jesus actually warned His followers to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and who fits that bill better than Saul?

Saul was not a Pharasee and never claimed to be more than zealous.
His writings are so fraught with errors it's no wonder it took 260 years and the Roman Empire for his comic books to be taken seriously.
Let me put it this way...if you went to a yeshiva for 3 years and actually studied some Tanach, The NT would make you fall on the floor laughing your guts out.

I am not Jewish and was never a yeshiva student.

My statement that Saul was a Pharisee is based upon his own claim in his letters to the Phillipean church that he was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rather than argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, however, perhaps we can merely agree on his influence on Christianity.

The RCC is not really based on the NT; it's dogma based on controlling the flock.

Protestants live more by the NT but since there's so much irreconcilable conflict in the NT, they spend all day sending each other to hell.

Honestly, where do you dig this dogma up? Any Christian knows that faith is Christ is all that is needed to be saved.

I read the NT and some of the RCC's Dogma.
Almost everything the RCC espouses is either not in the NT or is based on "because the NT doesn't say something, it never happened."
As an example, the NT, which only has 2 verses referring to Mary, and not in a glowing manner, does not mention her death, therefore she never died.

 

[Weatherman2020]

He sure has more to do with the creation of Christianity than anybody else..


O.k., so here we have Saul who was a Pharisee who persecuted Jesus' followers most intensely. Upon Jesus' death, he claims to have an epiphany where he sees Jesus risen and is suddenly converted. That is the standard Christian version that takes his account as honest and so voila' -- he becomes Paul. . Considering he was persecuting Jesus' followers, though, what if he WASN'T honest and merely co-opting the movement he hated so much by placing himself in a position of authority instead of Jesus by claiming this vision?

I mean, Jesus actually warned His followers to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and who fits that bill better than Saul?

Saul was not a Pharasee and never claimed to be more than zealous.
His writings are so fraught with errors it's no wonder it took 260 years and the Roman Empire for his comic books to be taken seriously.
Let me put it this way...if you went to a yeshiva for 3 years and actually studied some Tanach, The NT would make you fall on the floor laughing your guts out.

I am not Jewish and was never a yeshiva student.

My statement that Saul was a Pharisee is based upon his own claim in his letters to the Phillipean church that he was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rather than argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, however, perhaps we can merely agree on his influence on Christianity.

The RCC is not really based on the NT; it's dogma based on controlling the flock.

Protestants live more by the NT but since there's so much irreconcilable conflict in the NT, they spend all day sending each other to hell.

Honestly, where do you dig this dogma up? Any Christian knows that faith is Christ is all that is needed to be saved.

I read the NT and some of the RCC's Dogma.
Almost everything the RCC espouses is either not in the NT or is based on "because the NT doesn't say something, it never happened."
As an example, the NT, which only has 2 verses referring to Mary, and not in a glowing manner, does not mention her death, therefore she never died.

My question was not concerning the RC, that is an enigma in itself. My point is while kooks do exist, no one who understands Christianity at a third grade level can say people are going to hell for this or that action.

 

[Indeependent]

Saul was not a Pharasee and never claimed to be more than zealous.
His writings are so fraught with errors it's no wonder it took 260 years and the Roman Empire for his comic books to be taken seriously.
Let me put it this way...if you went to a yeshiva for 3 years and actually studied some Tanach, The NT would make you fall on the floor laughing your guts out.

I am not Jewish and was never a yeshiva student.

My statement that Saul was a Pharisee is based upon his own claim in his letters to the Phillipean church that he was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rather than argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, however, perhaps we can merely agree on his influence on Christianity.

The RCC is not really based on the NT; it's dogma based on controlling the flock.

Protestants live more by the NT but since there's so much irreconcilable conflict in the NT, they spend all day sending each other to hell.

Honestly, where do you dig this dogma up? Any Christian knows that faith is Christ is all that is needed to be saved.

I read the NT and some of the RCC's Dogma.
Almost everything the RCC espouses is either not in the NT or is based on "because the NT doesn't say something, it never happened."
As an example, the NT, which only has 2 verses referring to Mary, and not in a glowing manner, does not mention her death, therefore she never died.

My question was not concerning the RC, that is an enigma in itself. My point is while kooks do exist, no one who understands Christianity at a third grade level can say people are going to hell for this or that action.

The NT is quite explicit in this regard...I don't see the ambiguity.
The issue has nothing to do with action, it has to do with the Calvary.

 

[irosie91]

Reading the responses it is obvious there is no valid downside to Christianity. People go off on tangents about non-Biblical things people have done, non-Biblical practices, etc, but bottom line is there is nothing negative about a person being a Christian. People who hate God will thus hate Christians. They don't attack any other religion simply because it is the one true faith.

weather-----what does criticism of Christianity have to do with
"non-biblical" things. or even "biblical things"? I have read the bible----both OT and NT. I do not see much about Christianity over the past approximately 1700 years that has
much to do with EITHER. As to "hating Christians"-----who, when and where? "hate "god" ???

 

[Weatherman2020]

Reading the responses it is obvious there is no valid downside to Christianity. People go off on tangents about non-Biblical things people have done, non-Biblical practices, etc, but bottom line is there is nothing negative about a person being a Christian. People who hate God will thus hate Christians. They don't attack any other religion simply because it is the one true faith.

weather-----what does criticism of Christianity have to do with
"non-biblical" things. or even "biblical things"? I have read the bible----both OT and NT. I do not see much about Christianity over the past approximately 1700 years that has
much to do with EITHER. As to "hating Christians"-----who, when and where? "hate "god" ???

What you obviously fail to see is that all of the criticism is not against Christianity as you believe, but actually it is criticism of people who are not following Christianity.

 

[Syriusly]

Reading the responses it is obvious there is no valid downside to Christianity. People go off on tangents about non-Biblical things people have done, non-Biblical practices, etc, but bottom line is there is nothing negative about a person being a Christian. People who hate God will thus hate Christians. They don't attack any other religion simply because it is the one true faith.

I have nothing against a person for being a Christian- of course there are many who claim to be Christians that I find to be detestable human beings.

I don't know of anyone who 'hates god'- why would anyone who believed in a some god- hate it?

As far as comparing Christianity to other religions- I don't really find any difference. I have no problem with any of you believing in whatever you want to believe in- any of the myriad brands of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism- I don't hate any of those 'gods'- just don't force me to participate.