First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Christianity
Posted 9/16/12 , edited 9/16/12

JymRegal wrote:

Religion teaches people to get along with each other.
Religion is based on the teachings of a human who interprets the words of the Supreme Being.
Because religion is interpreted by humans, there is room for error.
All religions teach basically the same general theme, the difference is in the details.
There can not be one True religion, just variations of the same religion and the same God by various names.
People who claim Religions other than their own are false are just ignorant.
People who claim their religion makes them superior to other religious believers or non-believers are evil.
Modern religion has been corrupted and manipulated to allow powerful people and governments to control large groups of people.

Bottom line: All religions are a guide for people to find peace and fulfillment in their lives or to deal with disappointment and tragedy.


Actually, here's an interesting article: http://escapetoreality.org/2010/07/05/two-religions/ This is directed mainly toward Christendom.

I agree with you: religion binds (the root word of "religion" comes from the Latin word meaning, "to bind," - "religare." Isn't that interesting?). It can be oppressive and manipulative.
18112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
69 / M / Kalamzoo, Michiga...
Offline
Posted 9/16/12 , edited 9/16/12

shuyi000 wrote:


JymRegal wrote:

Religion teaches people to get along with each other.
Religion is based on the teachings of a human who interprets the words of the Supreme Being.
Because religion is interpreted by humans, there is room for error.
All religions teach basically the same general theme, the difference is in the details.
There can not be one True religion, just variations of the same religion and the same God by various names.
People who claim Religions other than their own are false are just ignorant.
People who claim their religion makes them superior to other religious believers or non-believers are evil.
Modern religion has been corrupted and manipulated to allow powerful people and governments to control large groups of people.

Bottom line: All religions are a guide for people to find peace and fulfillment in their lives or to deal with disappointment and tragedy.


By Religion I assume that you're referring to Christianity...

In that case, Christianity obviously promote the killing of anybody who doesn't believe in the Christian God... how is that a guidance to find peace?

And I gathered that you believe that those who don't have a Religion is doom to live with disappointment and tragedy, if so what is your basics of that claim?


"By Religion I assume that you're referring to Christianity..."
You assume wrong. I am referring to any religion.

"In that case, Christianity obviously promote the killing of anybody who doesn't believe in the Christian God... how is that a guidance to find peace?"
Where did you come up with that? Christianity preaches "thou shall not Kill" Killing done in the name of Any religion is a corruption of the religion by deranged and power mad people and governments.

"And I gathered that you believe that those who don't have a Religion is doom to live with disappointment and tragedy, if so what is your basics of that claim?"
No No No, you misunderstand what I said. I tried to say that one of the purposes of any religion is to give comfort and help/guidence to people who have had disappointment and tragedy in their life. For instance religion helps someone to find peace in dealing with the death of a loved one. That is NOT to say that someone who doesn't have a strong religious belief or is an athiest can't deal with disappointment and tragedy in their own way.

I was raised in a Christian society, but I do not believe in the Christian beliefs of heaven and hell and an all powerful God. I do have my own personal spiritual beliefs and I do not go around forcing them on other people.
7060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/17/12


Thank you for sharing! However, you seem to have missed my primary criticism of Christianity, which is directed towards the faith's treatment of non-Christians. I'm curious to see what you consider the fate of non-christians to be.
7060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/17/12


Perhaps you can respond to my criticism now.
18112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
69 / M / Kalamzoo, Michiga...
Offline
Posted 9/17/12 , edited 9/17/12

gstewart14 wrote:

Oh, sooo much to say. I can't let that slide without criticism for a full week :P

1. It's a teaching in most religions, but it's not always the focus. Buddhism is more focused on personal enlightenment. The implication is that you should help others to do it, but it doesn't seem to be the focus.

2. The abrahamic religions, yes. However, Hinduism doesn't exactly fit this model, and neither does the ancient Egyptian religion or the Greeks.

3. I pretty much agree with that.

4. I think there are real differences between many religions. If it's the same theme among all religions, what is that theme?

5. Ok, this is where you get into some real issues. There can't be one true religion. The true religion is that God actually manifests himself into every religion. That's a double standard buddy-there can't be one religious meta-narrative, except for yours of course.

6. "People who claim Religions other than their own are false are just ignorant." You are saying that religious exclusivism is false. Once again, you fail to recognize a double standard with your meta-narrative. You are ignorant for dismissing all religions with one clean sweep. You aren't being accepting and enlightened but a bigot by your own standards.

7. You think that people who don't follow suit with your way of thinking are evil. The implication is that you are good for not doing so. If good is morally superior to evil, then you are stating that you are better than religious exclusivists. Good is morally superior to evil, therefore you are stating that you are better than religious exclusivists. Because your views make you superior, you are evil. See how that works? You make a strong statement like that and you end up ruining the credibility of your own stance.

8. There is no entity called modern religion because it's not all unified. Perhaps certain factions are corrupt, but saying that all modern religions have been corrupted is quite simply false.

9. So they all have roughly the same function. Well, we can wrap in any type of worldview with that statement. We're able to wrap them into a singular category because of their function. This is pretty much a big nothing statement.

If anyone's up to the task, I'd like you guys to try to tear apart my beliefs. I can dish out criticism all day, but I'd love to receive some too especially from Christians. I posted them earlier in this thread. I would really appreciate it.

I think I'm being misunderstood.
1. I agree with you about Buddhism.
2. I agree
3. OK
4. The basic theme is how to get along with your fellow man, how to be a good person.
5. I didn't say I believed there was one true religion, I was referring to people who believed that their religion was the only true religion and anyone who didn't believe in their religion would go to hell.
6. Not what I meant, I was trying to say that people need to be more tolerant of other peoples beliefs, all religions have their good points
7. I said “People who claim their religion makes them superior to other religious believers or non-believers are evil.” How do you read that as “You think that people who don't follow suit with your way of thinking are evil.” We had a Congressman claim that unmarried women who took birth control were sluts. This is an example someone who believes their religious beliefs make them superior, maybe Evil is to strong a term and I withdraw it.
8. Change “All’ to “Most”, “Modern” means “Current” and by “corrupted” I mean used by powerful people and governments to control large groups of people and make them behave the way they want. I stand by that statement.
9. Yup

By the way, my problem with religion is when it tells you what to think, what to eat, what to drink, what to wear, what to read, what you can watch, what to do and when to do it, who you can love, who to shun, when to pray, how to pray. I am a good person and have taken to heart the best parts of several religions as a guide to interacting with my fellow humans. I am sorry that people have misinterpreted my comments. There are good people from all religious beliefs.

18112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
69 / M / Kalamzoo, Michiga...
Offline
Posted 9/17/12
One last thing, if you are Saved, good for you, just don't try to Save me..
In the end, arguing religion is a futile exercise.
If you believe in Heaven and Hell, fine, but you won't really know untill you are dead. I personally like to believe that Heaven and Hell exist on earth for the living. Belief is something that can't be proven, you either believe it or you don't. When I asked some born again friends why they believe in Heaven and being saved, they smiled and said "We just Do!" How do you argue with that???
Posted 9/17/12 , edited 9/17/12

gstewart14 wrote:

Thank you for sharing! However, you seem to have missed my primary criticism of Christianity, which is directed towards the faith's treatment of non-Christians. I'm curious to see what you consider the fate of non-christians to be.


Hi, gstewart! I'm going to be honest here lest I misinterpret the Bible and/or deceive anyone (and myself) with false information -

At this point in my life (and studies), I don't know the fate of non-Christians in this lifetime. Really. I say this because I don't know how the lives of these "non-Christians" will play out. Yes, they may not believe now, but I cannot say with certainty that they won't rest in Jesus Christ for the rest of their lives.

So there you have it. But, I won't leave you empty-handed. Since you're thinking about their "fate" after their deaths in this lifetime, here are resources for you:

There's a book out there called Love Wins by Rob Bell. He talks more in-depth about the new kingdom (i.e. the new heaven and new earth, the New Jerusalem) and the ultimate fate of "non-Christians." I've read it, but I don't dare paraphrase it for fear that I'll lead people astray and distort Rob's argument. So read that since you're interested. I highly recommend it (now I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but Rob will provide many more answers for you than I can).

Another resource is Witness Lee's Life-study on Revelation. Yes, his name is "Witness." He takes apart pretty much every single thing in the book of Revelation and explains it. The only caveat is that It's incredibly long. And it's written for the one who believes in Christ (which may or may not be a caveat). I'm reading it right now, and he makes some very interesting points! You can find it at: www.ministrybooks.org. #57 contains the information that really pertains to you.

Of course, these resources are not definitive or authoritative. The only written authority concerning the fate of non-Christians is the Bible, but just reading the Bible as if it were any other book, or not knowing how to read the Bible correctly (that is, through the lens of the cross), generally leads to confusion, frustration, or anger. Or all three. Which is what most people do and then experience.

I might re-visit your question again, gstewart, but this is all I have for you now. I leave you with a Bible quotation to ponder about:

"[The New Jerusalem's] gates will never be closed during the day (and there will be no night there)" (Revelation 21:25, NET; emphasis added).






13723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/17/12

JymRegal wrote:

"In that case, Christianity obviously promote the killing of anybody who doesn't believe in the Christian God... how is that a guidance to find peace?"
Where did you come up with that? Christianity preaches "thou shall not Kill" Killing done in the name of Any religion is a corruption of the religion by deranged and power mad people and governments.



Kill anyone that doesn't listen to a priest:
"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." - Deuteronomy 17:12

Kill homosexual:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." - Leviticus 20:13

Kill those that doesn't worship him:
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." - Deuteronomy 13:13-19
18112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
69 / M / Kalamzoo, Michiga...
Offline
Posted 9/18/12 , edited 9/18/12

shuyi000 wrote:


JymRegal wrote:

"In that case, Christianity obviously promote the killing of anybody who doesn't believe in the Christian God... how is that a guidance to find peace?"
Where did you come up with that? Christianity preaches "thou shall not Kill" Killing done in the name of Any religion is a corruption of the religion by deranged and power mad people and governments.



Kill anyone that doesn't listen to a priest:
"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." - Deuteronomy 17:12

Kill homosexual:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." - Leviticus 20:13

Kill those that doesn't worship him:
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." - Deuteronomy 13:13-19


This must have been written before the 10 commandments were brought down from the mountain. This is one of the issues I have with the Bible, anyone can make a justification for doing any evil deed by quoting or interpreting some phrase in the Bible. I Don't believe in that bullshit.

Out of curiosity, what is your point with this? Are you saying that Christians are a murderous religion that kills any nationality and religious group that doesn't believe as they do?

I don't care what religion you are, killing people in the name of God is so WRONG!!!

Note: I'm done with this debate!
7060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/19/12

JymRegal wrote:

I think I'm being misunderstood.

1. I agree with you about Buddhism.
2. I agree
3. OK
4. The basic theme is how to get along with your fellow man, how to be a good person.
5. I didn't say I believed there was one true religion, I was referring to people who believed that their religion was the only true religion and anyone who didn't believe in their religion would go to hell.
6. Not what I meant, I was trying to say that people need to be more tolerant of other peoples beliefs, all religions have their good points
7. I said “People who claim their religion makes them superior to other religious believers or non-believers are evil.” How do you read that as “You think that people who don't follow suit with your way of thinking are evil.” We had a Congressman claim that unmarried women who took birth control were sluts. This is an example someone who believes their religious beliefs make them superior, maybe Evil is to strong a term and I withdraw it.
8. Change “All’ to “Most”, “Modern” means “Current” and by “corrupted” I mean used by powerful people and governments to control large groups of people and make them behave the way they want. I stand by that statement.
9. Yup

By the way, my problem with religion is when it tells you what to think, what to eat, what to drink, what to wear, what to read, what you can watch, what to do and when to do it, who you can love, who to shun, when to pray, how to pray. I am a good person and have taken to heart the best parts of several religions as a guide to interacting with my fellow humans. I am sorry that people have misinterpreted my comments. There are good people from all religious beliefs.


Haha, good to see we actually agree on so much.

6. Then say it that way next time ^^ I agree with you there.
7. Your belief is that being a member of a religious/ideological group doesn't make you superior to non-believers and wrong-believers. That is the way of thinking that people must ascribe to, lest they be evil in your eyes. Does that make sense? It's horrible that the congressman said that and it's an example of a bigoted way of conducting oneself, but it's a pretty big leap to make that generalization. Perhaps a more fair criticism would be that people who hold beliefs like that are at higher risk of being a bigot? You could probably make a pretty strong argument for that.
8. The influence is mutual. If you look at a country like Iran, many policies are clearly derived from Islamic beliefs. The politician gains his/her power from the factions and holds sway over them, but he/she must also meet their demands.

It's no problem, I'm glad that you've expanded on some of your ideas! This is a philosophical discussion, after all- we read what you write, then follow it to a conclusion. You counter our conclusion by either correcting our interpretation, retracting your statement, or attacking our line of thought. The discussion has been pretty standard so far.

The internet mask can make religious discussions like this pretty ugly on all sides- you say something trying to be critical, then you read it back later and realize that you sound like a prick. It happens to everyone- people when anonymous tend to be more brutal in their criticisms. That being said, I apologize if I come across as harsh. My criticisms solely target the content of what has been said, not the people who say it.


Not exactly looking for guidance; I got it figured out for myself! Thanks for the suggestions anyways, and please do consider how you might answer the question for yourself- It's great for intellectual growth. Haha, here I am saying not to give me guidance and I turn around slamming some in your face...
18112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
69 / M / Kalamzoo, Michiga...
Offline
Posted 9/19/12

Well, that was fun :-) That was an interesting discussion. You are right, it is so easy misinterpret what people mean sometime and I am not that good at expressing myself in writing. In a verbal discussion, misunderstandings can often be corrected on the spot.
By the way, did you finish Humanity Has Declined? I thought it was a smart, funny satire, loved it. Are you om My Anime List (MAL)? It's easier to chat about anime there.
13723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/21/12

JymRegal wrote:


Out of curiosity, what is your point with this? Are you saying that Christians are a murderous religion that kills any nationality and religious group that doesn't believe as they do?


Yes
18206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Canada, Qc
Offline
Posted 9/23/12
My, my...

Just not really entering too much in everything here...

Some people seems to forget the good points of Christianity. The fact of believeing in one God. Just the fact of believing makes someone's life not meaningless but alive. Also, it wants us to help everyone, to be equal and to respect people.


shuyi000 wrote:


JymRegal wrote:


Out of curiosity, what is your point with this? Are you saying that Christians are a murderous religion that kills any nationality and religious group that doesn't believe as they do?


Yes


As for the thing about homosexuality, killing, etc. What? You want me to tell you, mister Atheist or with no religion, every Atheist or person with no religion who did bad things? We're humans. Everyone makes mistakes. Also, there's what we call PROGRESS. Europeans killed what they called "witches" before. They later saw their mistakes, apologized and never did it again. Same here. Most Christians, like priests and normal citizens are for homosexuality. AND your talking about the Christianity the HUMAN made. The Bible written by a human. Not the "real" Christianity with only God as a what to listen to. God is said to forgive everyone (and yes there are flaws about it I know don't go in the bible again) and if you're a non-believer, mostly you'll still be under His protection.

You can go on and search in books the flaws. Yes, there are flaws. Like there are flaws... EVERYWHERE \o/ The world is full of flaws ! I'm Christian and I'm for homosexuality, I don't care about who X believes into. I'm for what good the Christianity brings us. The values of life and spread happiness.
348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 9/29/12
There is a big, BIG problem with the word 'Christianity'. There are two Christianities, one that follows what Jesus said, and the other, known as Nicaean Christianity, has Jesus as a figurehead, but follows Paul of Tarsus, whose doctrines are in Acts and Epistles in the new testament.

Jesus said, you can only serve one master... Jesus is one master; Paul of Tarsus is another very popular master, as different from Jesus as night and day. Paul praises Jesus and immediately goes on to contradict Jesus. I found way over 70 direct contradictions between Jesus and Paul. It is as if Paul is the antiJesus. These are not minor; they are direct gainsaying of what Jesus says.

I discovered this a few years ago. I was not expecting anything like this. It is the classic Big Lie, that is so big that people think it could not possibly be a lie. UNLESS you read the prophecies of the prophets in the old testament, and read carefully what Jesus says. Dozens of prophecies warn against a false prophet, a wicked counselor, a foolish shepherd, the antichrist, the prince of this world, etc. But dozens of prophecies from Moses to Jesus say that humanity will be blinded until just before the end. Still dozens more, predict that the 'wisdom of the wise' will be turned into foolishness.

I made a statement that Paul contradicts Jesus at every turn while praising him for what he denies. OK, let's see if Paul is in agreement with Jesus, or if he is the antiJesus that contradicts him:

Make a list, a narrow first column for topics for doctrines; then a second column for quotes by Jesus and Paul, where Paul confirms and says the same thing as Jesus; and a third column where Paul directly contradicts what Jesus teaches. (A computer with a copy of the whole bible, with a search engine helps greatly to find key words.) There are lists that compare all sorts of things. But, have you EVER found a list that favorably compares what Paul teaches, with what Jesus teaches? I haven't. And I know why. I began to suspect Paul when I noticed Revelation 13, and the beast with the fatal head wound that was miraculously healed. JFK was wounded in the head in Dallas, but he died. But then, who else? Paul (or Saul) of Tarsus was struck by a bolt from the blue, outside of Damascus and blinded, and then taken to the house of Judas in Damascus where he was miraculously healed, and gained a huge following. The eyes are in the head; getting struck by a bolt from the blue is generally fatal. I expected to find a few things, maybe a half dozen disputes on some issues. But I was not prepared for what I found.

I made a list, just as I described. I looked for actual quotes by Jesus and by Paul. The second column remained empty. The third column filled rapidly. There were ten, twenty, fifty direct contradictions between Paul and Jesus, and they kept on coming. I am still finding more of them. Did no one notice? Did no one read the scriptures? The scriptures say that everyone will be blinded until near the end; they will look at it, and not see what it says. No one seems to have the faintest idea of what the prophecies actually say.

Jesus says, do not go to the Gentiles. Paul goes to the Gentiles.
Jesus says the Law is eternal. Paul says his 'new covenant' makes the Law obsolete and replaces it.
Jesus says the Law and Prophets is for the great in heaven. Paul says it is for liars, for those who do evil, who commit adultery, who kill, etc.
Jesus says that not one jot or stroke will ever depart from the Law. Paul says the Law is 'weak and miserable principles', and he is above the Law.
Jesus says all will be forgiven to those who offend the Son. Paul says even one thing is 'crucifying him all over again' and is not forgiven.
Jesus says they are saved by their works. Paul says works will save no one, 'lest anyone boast', but only faith saves.
Jesus says all get the same reward, from the first to the last. Paul says, 'don't you know it is a race, and only the winner gets the reward?'

This goes on and on. Paul grossly misquotes scripture and turns it into the opposite; e.g. the faith of Abraham; Yahweh called Abraham faithful because he faithfully fulfilled the Law. Paul takes this to mean that Abraham had faith and therefore did not keep the Law; not true.

Paul, quoting Habakkuk, says 'the righteous shall live by faith'. That is a gross misquote:
Habakkuk 2:4 [the vision that he is to write:] Behold, his soul which is glorified is
not honest in him, yet the just will live by his faith.
Habakkuk 2:5 And, because he violates mindlessly as if by wine, he is a proud
man who does not stay at home, but enlarges his ambitions as Sheol.
And like death he cannot be satisfied, but gathers to him all nations and
gathers to him all people.

("his faith", is the Nicaean doctrines from the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325; and later Papal decrees and Councils. By 380, the only allowed religion in the whole Roman empire was Nicaean religion, based on Paul's epistles, first published in Jerome's Vulgate new testament of 390 CE. Heretics were executed by Rome before the century was over. Compare Habakkuk 2:4-5 with Hebrews 10:38:

Hebrews 10:38 Now the just will live by faith, but if any man draw back, my
soul will have no pleasure in him.

'but if any man draw back, my soul will have no pleasure in him' — that is not in scripture. The just were forced to live by his (Paul's Nicaean) faith, or face the Inquisition. "by faith" and "by his faith" are worlds apart.

The Jesus of the gospels supported wholeheartedly the entire Law and Prophets, and said they were eternal. Paul of Tarsus derides the Law and Prophets and declares them void, and falsely claims that:
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross,

He did no such thing. He did the opposite, like every prophet. Paul, and Paul only, is against the Law. This is the tip of the iceberg. But, read and see for yourself. Jesus confirms everything the prophets said. Paul denies everything. Check it out.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/1/12

jimhsan wrote:

There is a big, BIG problem with the word 'Christianity'. There are two Christianities, one that follows what Jesus said, and the other, known as Nicaean Christianity, has Jesus as a figurehead, but follows Paul of Tarsus, whose doctrines are in Acts and Epistles in the new testament.

Jesus said, you can only serve one master... Jesus is one master; Paul of Tarsus is another very popular master, as different from Jesus as night and day. Paul praises Jesus and immediately goes on to contradict Jesus. I found way over 70 direct contradictions between Jesus and Paul. It is as if Paul is the antiJesus. These are not minor; they are direct gainsaying of what Jesus says.

I discovered this a few years ago. I was not expecting anything like this. It is the classic Big Lie, that is so big that people think it could not possibly be a lie. UNLESS you read the prophecies of the prophets in the old testament, and read carefully what Jesus says. Dozens of prophecies warn against a false prophet, a wicked counselor, a foolish shepherd, the antichrist, the prince of this world, etc. But dozens of prophecies from Moses to Jesus say that humanity will be blinded until just before the end. Still dozens more, predict that the 'wisdom of the wise' will be turned into foolishness.

I made a statement that Paul contradicts Jesus at every turn while praising him for what he denies. OK, let's see if Paul is in agreement with Jesus, or if he is the antiJesus that contradicts him:

Make a list, a narrow first column for topics for doctrines; then a second column for quotes by Jesus and Paul, where Paul confirms and says the same thing as Jesus; and a third column where Paul directly contradicts what Jesus teaches. (A computer with a copy of the whole bible, with a search engine helps greatly to find key words.) There are lists that compare all sorts of things. But, have you EVER found a list that favorably compares what Paul teaches, with what Jesus teaches? I haven't. And I know why. I began to suspect Paul when I noticed Revelation 13, and the beast with the fatal head wound that was miraculously healed. JFK was wounded in the head in Dallas, but he died. But then, who else? Paul (or Saul) of Tarsus was struck by a bolt from the blue, outside of Damascus and blinded, and then taken to the house of Judas in Damascus where he was miraculously healed, and gained a huge following. The eyes are in the head; getting struck by a bolt from the blue is generally fatal. I expected to find a few things, maybe a half dozen disputes on some issues. But I was not prepared for what I found.

I made a list, just as I described. I looked for actual quotes by Jesus and by Paul. The second column remained empty. The third column filled rapidly. There were ten, twenty, fifty direct contradictions between Paul and Jesus, and they kept on coming. I am still finding more of them. Did no one notice? Did no one read the scriptures? The scriptures say that everyone will be blinded until near the end; they will look at it, and not see what it says. No one seems to have the faintest idea of what the prophecies actually say.

Jesus says, do not go to the Gentiles. Paul goes to the Gentiles.
Jesus says the Law is eternal. Paul says his 'new covenant' makes the Law obsolete and replaces it.
Jesus says the Law and Prophets is for the great in heaven. Paul says it is for liars, for those who do evil, who commit adultery, who kill, etc.
Jesus says that not one jot or stroke will ever depart from the Law. Paul says the Law is 'weak and miserable principles', and he is above the Law.
Jesus says all will be forgiven to those who offend the Son. Paul says even one thing is 'crucifying him all over again' and is not forgiven.
Jesus says they are saved by their works. Paul says works will save no one, 'lest anyone boast', but only faith saves.
Jesus says all get the same reward, from the first to the last. Paul says, 'don't you know it is a race, and only the winner gets the reward?'

This goes on and on. Paul grossly misquotes scripture and turns it into the opposite; e.g. the faith of Abraham; Yahweh called Abraham faithful because he faithfully fulfilled the Law. Paul takes this to mean that Abraham had faith and therefore did not keep the Law; not true.

Paul, quoting Habakkuk, says 'the righteous shall live by faith'. That is a gross misquote:
Habakkuk 2:4 [the vision that he is to write:] Behold, his soul which is glorified is
not honest in him, yet the just will live by his faith.
Habakkuk 2:5 And, because he violates mindlessly as if by wine, he is a proud
man who does not stay at home, but enlarges his ambitions as Sheol.
And like death he cannot be satisfied, but gathers to him all nations and
gathers to him all people.

("his faith", is the Nicaean doctrines from the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325; and later Papal decrees and Councils. By 380, the only allowed religion in the whole Roman empire was Nicaean religion, based on Paul's epistles, first published in Jerome's Vulgate new testament of 390 CE. Heretics were executed by Rome before the century was over. Compare Habakkuk 2:4-5 with Hebrews 10:38:

Hebrews 10:38 Now the just will live by faith, but if any man draw back, my
soul will have no pleasure in him.

'but if any man draw back, my soul will have no pleasure in him' — that is not in scripture. The just were forced to live by his (Paul's Nicaean) faith, or face the Inquisition. "by faith" and "by his faith" are worlds apart.

The Jesus of the gospels supported wholeheartedly the entire Law and Prophets, and said they were eternal. Paul of Tarsus derides the Law and Prophets and declares them void, and falsely claims that:
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross,

He did no such thing. He did the opposite, like every prophet. Paul, and Paul only, is against the Law. This is the tip of the iceberg. But, read and see for yourself. Jesus confirms everything the prophets said. Paul denies everything. Check it out.


The problem is that there is two forms of irrationality, one that is taught by our teacher, the great Dimwit, and other by St. Stupidus. Dimwit taught the true form of idiocy, but this form of idiocy was perverted by St. Stupidus, who transformed it into a new form of idiocy. Dimwit taught us to support traditional stupditiy, however St. Stupidus taught a false doctrine that showed that the old form of stupidity was actually reasonable, and so proposed to abandon old stupidity in favour of newer ones, these doctrines obviously contradictory- In fact, I have made a list of contridictions between St. Stupidus and Dimwit.

For example Dimwit said :

Fallacious 3:12 Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. Surprised, Hamish said: "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".

But, St. Stupidius deride such thinking:

Epistle to the Fools 3:21 And I say unto you, what is more foolish, to exclude other fools, and deprive yourself of the chance of including more idiocy, or to mix their stupidity with our stupidity to create a even greater stupidity.

Every Cretin, from Moron to Dimwit, is for upholding the ancient custom of stupidity, only St. Stupidius was against it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.