It seems to me that the old testament is ignored by many Christians and organised Christianity.

The old testament is full of examples of racism,violent murders,rape,slavery,homophobia etc all justified by the Abrahamic God.

What's that all about?

It's not a personal attack on genuinely decent people who happen to have been brought up in this religion by their parents obviously.

I think it's a bit of a leap between the op and the thread title tbh hs
perhaps the contents of the OT are why 'christians' ignore it? Or maybe it's cos christ doesn't get a shout out in it
I do find it strange though. Christ being the way to their god and that god's character being revealed in the OT.
Plagues, pestilence etc. Seems to be a vengeful fucker eh. And if he/she/it were the one true god, would not everything be it's creation? Including those deemed worthy of smiting by it?
Oh fuck it. Organised religion is bullshit. That's my tuppence.

The Old Testament and the New Testament both confirm and contradict each other.

e.g.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Never been overturned

An Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth

More or less overturned by this

Sermon on the mount

Both delivered on mountains. you notice

The vengeful God's law was described as "incomplete"

All of us seek justice and hence the first but from the context of justice is mercy and forgiveness.

And to accept that sometimes injustice can be good.

Tough stuff but I am not here as a Xtian apologist

But I am willing to counter fundies because they distort what they claim to represent.

BTW many priests were killed in concentration camps

Nazism and Xtianity are incompatible as Hitker concluded himself.

I don't get how the son of god can overturn tge word of god, mikey.
If god is god surely it's word would be final and not open to ammendment.

It comes down to communication: Moses communicated the 10 commandments and most of them are pretty much common sense.

However, even he found that when he turned away the folks started to worship gold and statues (c.f. Wall street)

Jesus was ultimately necessary as the personal agent because the abstract just does not fit with us.

I have no idea whether that was just a heroic man or an a an avatar of the universe itself and even that dichotomy is faulty considering the latter.

Perhaps both and neither.

It is called a mystery not in the Agatha Christie sense, but in the profound and emotional sense that all is i not revealed due to my own failure to be open to the universe. I am still dwelling on myself.

Hard and tough stuff and I would gladly get into it but I really really do not want to be an evangelist.

I just want to get along with my atheist and agnostic friends.

Can you understand that?

Yeah i get it and commend it.
I hope you dont think i wish to press you on it. Its just one of those paradoxes that seem strewn across religious texts and i cant help but question it.
Thats not to say i demand you answer it

Not at all and I appreciate your question.

It comes down to two episodes of encountering God

We have a terrible tendency to interpret God as we wish Him to be.

The NT is all about how we have used God to be cruel to each other.

Could you expand on the last paragraph please, mikey?
I think it would be interesting and also helpful.

I think it all comes down to symbolism, personally.

For example, you and I have collectively agreed that the jumble of words and letters I type on the screen have a meaning (most of the time). They don't inherently mean anything to someone who has never experienced them before, but to most alive today, we get the general gist.

Most religious texts were written a very long time ago, some of the events written about may even predate 'language' as we have come to understand it. For that reason, meanings can change over time and people can interpret text in many different ways. Certainly, metaphors may have been employed quite heavily to convey a meaning or 'teaching'. You also have to bear in mind that just as we all roughly understand the meaning of what I have typed here, many people were never taught such meanings (as in what a word or letter is supposed to 'symbolise') to begin with, so would have been told what the texts contained, second hand, through the filtering mechanism of another person.

Language changes, as we collectively agree it should, meanings get lost and translations sometimes go awry.

A good example might be "turn the other cheek". You might interpret this quite literally and decide that it is telling you that if you are wronged, you should simply ignore it and take whatever comes your way. On the other hand (and more probable, if I were to hazard a guess) you could interpret it as saying if you hurt or offend someone else, you're actually only hurting yourself as universally speaking, we're all the same stuff. So, when someone does something that displeases you, try and remember this before you start with the vengeance and smiting n shit. K?

See? It's easily done. It could well be that "turn the other cheek" perfectly and succintly conveyed that meaning to the people that read it all those many years ago and that it is interpreted slightly differently by our eyes.

Re the op. I don't quite get the link of the title either, but that's probably just because I choose not to.

Great post abs. Even the texts have been rewritten countless times. Often for self centred ends. There is no way that anyone can 'prove' that the texts tally with christ's words or actions as a result. We are left with our own interpretation of what we are presented with. Or. The interpretations handed out in the pulpit.
There is way too much room for abuse in such a scenario so imho the only way to christ or any other archetypal consciousness is the inward way. It can not be acheived by following the lead of a vicar/priest/rabbi etc.

dubmeup wrote:


...and, I think 'we're' just beginning to get that, btw.

As within, so without.

EDIT: However...I completely get how when you hear someone convey something that makes you buzz your tits off (spritually speaking), you might become very eager to get it down on paper and share it around. As you point out though...there are dangers inherent in that, despite the best intentions in the world. And I've no doubt in mind whatsoever, that all major religions and religious texts started out with exactly those intentions.

I think it basically boils down to the fact that religious text is the word of man, not God

andyh wrote:
Basically, that. And the fact that we assume a being that is capable of creating at least 7 billion individual souls, and a universe vaster than our senses can imagine, thinks like a human being.

It's also worth pointing out that we have had distinctively different thought patterns and modes of thinking throughout the ages.

andyh wrote:
Agreed. And also possibly because of our apparent need to seperate the two.

dubmeup wrote:
Certainly.

There is a deep seated sorrow amongst the monks and sisters that I talked to.

There is a lot of talk of vengeful God and yet the cruelty is by human hands and not all of them are Xtianian or even religious,

The NT is a story of continuous suffering and charity and that means it does not fit with the "We are number one fuck you" ideal of the US.

Almost all of its authors walked into torture and death believing that their cruel end would mean something.

There is no, as the OT promised, victory in terms of military victory.

That is not really what God offers.

Empires come and go, just like earthly victories

If God actually wrote anything, itd be the laws of physics IMHO

That to me is a profound view, andy.
The laws of physics are not yet understood though.
Such as the second law of thermodynamics. Which was written by man. It only works in an isolated system, which man now knows, doesn't exist.
Therefore the laws of physics we have are not god given laws. They are ham fisted attempts at understanding.

That said. You are correct. There are laws of physics and they're everywhere in this universal expression. Man just doesnt get the mind of god yet.

I do use the word god, figuratively.

I think another important question would be who is the jehovah of the bible....it is a God that has killed at least 2 million in the bible alone not inlcuding the supposed flood,

the bible is full of horrors and the satan they speak of as we know has been written by those who have been bloodlines of control for thousands upon thousands of years...even the masons calendars state that anno lucis began almost six thousand years ago, as the early masons added 4000 to their calendar and the scottish rite add 3760, which makes this year 5774 AL [anno lucis] ,which puts it right in the centre of Egypt in my opinion...

Which makes you wonder knowing that those who worship lucifer are known for reversing everything i.e peace = war, light =dark etc, to hide everything, so who they would see and portray as a satan could be in my opinion something positive, as they detest anything that would stop them doing what they are doing, and instead they would then have people worshipping their "god" instead under the guise of the creator, which would certainly explain the brutality of him,

Also the in-breeding from abraham downwards [he was with sarah his half-sister, and is why so many of the in-bred women from that line were barren] it is exactly as those bloodlines still do to this day [which is imho the bloodline of 'their' god Lucifer...the sang raal royal blood...the grail], and joseph married his niece who was born from her mother being raped, and somehow as a "commoner" ended up being 2nd in command in egypt ??? Imhotep [ apparently the first stone pyramid builder...wouldn't those who work with stone like him ??] is also claimed to have been Joseph....along with some who say Akhenaten

But that aside it bears all the hallmarks of those bloodlines who still do everything to maintain their power today [this is certainly not reptilians i speak of btw ] and all roads seem to lead back to Egypt concerning the bible for me, but thats another subject, but it does require some level of cognitive dissonance to accept that such a brutal institution as the church could be following the word of god...

i think it is 'their' god and they put those good morals in at a time nobody would have accepted it any other way, and ensures those who follow that religion comply, and the brutal way of killing the symbolic son of god who stood for goodness in the bible, is telling enough...

Would the creator take over 2000 years to put that right if he was the power-hungry unforgiving god who put Job through so much suffering just to prove is obedience to him, for satan ....? this quote from the bible says a lot to me, as it mentions our brethren, and clearly the satan they speak of is someone who highlighted what they were doing, im sure there is a masonic bible being used not by chance as i see it.

Revelation 12:10: “For the accuser of our brethren is cast down [out of Heaven], which accused them before our GOD day and night.”

Anyway just wanted to put another perspective on this....as somewhere in all we each learn and discuss is the truth.....

N.B imhotep is who i meant , here is a link showing the similarities between him and josephs apparent life recorded in the bible....

www.s8int.com/joseph.html

A very interesting perspecive, gp.
It would seem based on observation that the churches are more akin to satanic than anything else to me.
The churches have done the exact opposite of creating heaven on earth. Like you say, tis flipped.

andyh wrote:
Maybe this existence is just one idea of 'God'.

Digest that if you will.