Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya
Technically the Old Testament doesn't really matter that much to Christianity anyway, Jesus was quite the rebel in his day and I dunno if you know this, he kinda pissed off Jewish leaders at the time by basically saying its okay to break religious law, literalism doesn't matter so much, all that matters is being a good person. I hear he got in some pretty hot water as a result.
There's a lot of interpretations with the Bible and a shit ton of contradictions, indeed, but if no one nit picked there wouldn't be so many denominations and there would be such thing as Christian theology. Religion evolves, as you can see in the Old Testament, such as changing their minds about the nature of God, and from the Old to New Testament there's a huge shift in thinking about the nature of Satan. He's not that bad of a guy in the Old Testament. What was happening was the author's idea of God and religion were changing over time, it wasn't written overnight by one guy, its a collaboration of different people's views on the divine over a very long period of time. If you let religion act fluidly, its people are much easier to get along with and they are far more open minded. Its when literalism and fanaticism come into play, when we say things must not change, thats when we have a problem.
And Jesus was a pretty mellow, pacifist guy, there's inconsistencies between the gospels because they were again, by different authors remembering the stories differently. What we can glean though was that he was very different from other messiahs (there were many throughout the ages) because he practice nonviolence, spoke out against religious hypocrisy and was kind and loving to those who the temple would shun, like lepers and prostitutes and gentiles. A Gandhi type character before his time. Christianity from the start rejected a lot of the Old Testament, the basis was that it wasn't the best way anymore, there's a better way. The Christianity Jesus probably had in mind was a pretty peaceful religion, and then Christians like Paul fucked it all up again and turned it into something worse than what he was protesting. The further back you go and look at different historical accounts there's going to be more and more arguments over what really happened, and this is what scholars, historians and theologists, do, they try to figure out the fact from the commentary of the writers.
And I'm not arguing there's not a shit ton of inconsistencies, but some of those need to be read in context, such as:
Abraham had two sons; one by a bonds-maid, the other by a free woman.
- Galatians 4:22
By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac... his only begotten son.
- Hebrews 11:17
Since Ishmael was born of Sarah's handmaid, not Sarah, when Isaac was born he wasn't considered important anymore, even though he was born first, so yeah Isaac would be his only official son. Poor Ishmael didn't count anymore.
|
Actually, I wasn't referring to Jesus' character. However, I will say that I don't think he was divine. Also, I don't think it's an entirely fair argument that was presented, but out of that list, I'm sure there is some VERY concrete contradictions that at least leaves many with egg on their face.
This is the word of God, Saya, as MOST Christians will put it. I didn't say that it was, but they did. The problem is, if God is the parameters of perfection, then God shouldn't have to change his mind... ever. The idea of perfection is something that is inarguable, unchanging, and well... perfect.
Sure, we can say that Christianity can use whatever mental gymnastics they want to make sure their religion is relevant today, but to be so bold as to change the very word of your god pretty much makes you about as relevant as pagans. And if it isn't exactly the word of God, then what business do they have listening to a bunch of assholes like Paul?