Many of the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Bible predate the Jesus myth by five centuries and more, including the Sermon on the Mount. I studied the Bible when I was younger. That is what led to me losing my faith and studying science and philosophy instead. Darwin had the answers I was seeking in the bible, and philosophers exhibit better moral reasoning than anything found in the Bible or Koran.It was hearing the Sermon on the Mount in church when I was a teenager that convinced me Christianity was crap. The parents of my girlfriend at the time were going through a bitter divorce and in the sermon Christ condemns divorce. I heard that, and knowing that there was no way her parents could resolve their differences (her dad was a bitter psycho), along with Christ saying that anyone who looked at another person with lustful thoughts would be condemned to hell, realized that anyone who would say such a thing had absolutely zero understanding of human nature. (The fact that the church had no problem with divorce also told me that the folks in charge didn't buy it, either, also contributed to my realization.)
The roots of the inquisition began with the Council of Nicea convened by Constantine to sort out the doctrinal differences Among the various bishops who espoused their own views of the divinity of Jesus, and to establish a standard dogma for xtianity. Constantine merely presided over the Council in 325 CE and let the bishops sort it out. Thus began the "heresies" of the Arians and ManIcheans and many others to follow. This in no way had a link to Roman law.The Council of Nicea was convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine. It had nothing to do with any form of legal system. If Christianity is to mean anything it must have a set of teachings, otherwise anyone can call anything "Christianity." So the Bishops, the individual church leaders, met together to settle matters of Christian doctrine and determine what Christians believe based on the teachings handed down from the Apostles. A legal system is the codification of laws set for all citizens to follow and used by judges to enforce those laws and determine punishment. Christianity has no earthly legal system--it has no set of laws--and it has no authority that presides over anyone--no judges. The Catholic Church traditionally didn't claim authority over anyone who was not a Christian, but when men decided they needed to enforce certain beliefs and codified a law to do so, they used the inquisitorial system of law as opposed to the adversarial system, and that was based on ancient Roman law. It was not a model that had any basis in Christian teaching. There is a big leap between determining Christian doctrine at the Council at Nicea, and the later use of an inquisitional from of law to judge church heretics. The Spanish Inquisition went beyond the church. That was done by the Monarchs who had returned to power in Spain after defeating the Muslim conquerors of their land. They were sending out of their realm Muslims and the Jews who supported them--not all Jews. The Inquisitions have no basis in Christian teaching. Christianity is a different covenant from the Mosaic Law, so no, there is nothing punishable by death, there is no earthly authority given the power to judge and condemn anyone. You will not find that in the Christian Scriptures. It is true that the only King of the Christian Church is Christ himself, and only he has the authority to judge--that being given to him by God. The worst a Christian Church can do to anyone is stop having fellowship with them if they will not repent of sin. If they repent, they are to be welcomed back. From the Christian Scriptures: "Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?" Those who organized and perpetrated the Catholic Inquisitions against other Christians and if they involved non-Christians will face the only Lawgiver and Judge in the end.
Closing abortion clinics (by law) is a religious position which is being implemented in several states. Fortunately it is already protected by Federal Law and every one of those state laws will be struck down by the SCOTUS.
Look at Utah and its religiously restrictive laws. Religion is pervasive in our society and many state laws are not secular in nature.
Even insurance companies have a (legal) clause that “acts of God” are exempt from insurance liability.
“In God we trust” is on our currency. We open Congress with a prayer. And today especially one cannot get elected to public office if you are a known atheist. Just look at the hate speech against Obama calling him a Muslim, or Communist (atheist). In fact religion is used in politics everywhere, either to endorse or condemn.
Religious laws and practices not being promoted and enforced (in certain states) is a false statement. How many constitutional amendments with religious implications have been introduced? The term " under God" did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance but was added later at the insistence of religious people. By definition that would make an atheist unable to become a citizen if he/she refused to recite it verbatim.
I see your view of Christians but if they do become Christ-like, they would denounce their own religion as it is based on human sacrifice and the notion that it is somehow just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. If Jesus returned, Christian is the last label he would take.You are right that in Christianity the penalty for sin is death and Jesus, being a righteous man, took that penalty for the sins of the guilty. In Christianity that's called love. "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." The best part came when death couldn't hold him because of his righteousness and he defeated death's hold for all mankind. But hey, if you'd rather face justice for your sins than to accept his gift of forgiveness, that's your choice and no one has the right to stand in your way.
I see your view of Christians but if they do become Christ-like, they would denounce their own religion as it is based on human sacrifice and the notion that it is somehow just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. If Jesus returned, Christian is the last label he would take.You are right that in Christianity the penalty for sin is death and Jesus, being a righteous man, took that penalty for the sins of the guilty. In Christianity that's called love. "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." The best part came when death couldn't hold him because of his righteousness and he defeated death's hold for all mankind. But hey, if you'd rather face justice for your sins than to accept his gift of forgiveness, that's your choice and no one has the right to stand in your way. Jesus (if he indeed existed) is physically dead. Only his memory survives as a dubious example of "tough love". Apparently God was ok with this as "He gave his only begotten son". Now there is a lot of love. Don't give up your own life, but just send your son to die. Oh, how easy life becomes when you "just believe". All will be forgiven and you will be saved for eternity. At least atheists are stuck with their guilt and regrets. This is how one learns morals, not being able find absolution from committed atrocities. Lily, with respect, I would urge you to read the "Skeptics Annotated Bible" to get an idea of "confounded language" in all 3 Abrahamic religions. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
The Council of Nicea was convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine. It had nothing to do with any form of legal system. If Christianity is to mean anything it must have a set of teachings, otherwise anyone can call anything “Christianity." So the Bishops, the individual church leaders, met together to settle matters of Christian doctrine and determine what Christians believe based on the teachings handed down from the Apostles. A legal system is the codification of laws set for all citizens to follow and used by judges to enforce those laws and determine punishment. Christianity has no earthly legal system—it has no set of laws—and it has no authority that presides over anyone—no judges.No where did I mention in my post that the Council of Nicea established any legal system to punish heresy. I did state that the heresies were clearly defined there, thus setting the stage for the inquisition to begin. As I said, it wasn't until 1542 that an OFFICIAL council was established by the Catholic Church to prosecute heretics for religious crimes against the church. For some reason you want to completely divorce xtian doctrine from the very institution that promoted it and formed the dogma that later led to the deaths of thousands who disagreed with the established doctrine as it evolved from the Council until the Inquisition was officially banned. Xtianity had no Earthly legal system? How about the church courts set up all over Europe during the Middle Ages and not just for heresy trials. These courts could try any legal case from murder to divorce under a legal code called Canon law. Some aspects of canon law survive today. these courts may mirror Roman Law but their power derives from mother church supposedly established by the disciple Peter, thus linking it to a biblical personage and founder of the xtian church, at least in Rome. James formed the original church in Jerusalem. Cap't Jack
Why do Christians not promote their law?Christians don't have a law. The idea in Christianity is that when a man is made righteous through faith in Christ, meaning his heart is changed to know what is right and do it, then he has no need for a law. Christianity promotes love. When you love God and love your brother, neighbor and even your enemy, then you will do what is right by them. It is my understanding that the inquisitorial system used by the Catholic Church was based on ancient Roman law. If it's true that Christians have no law, why are they at the forefront of the political process every time a law is proposed that goes against one of the tenets of their religion? Why do we have restrictive abortion laws? Why are Christians getting involved in whether Intelligent Design or creationism can be taught in public schools? Why is there an outcry from Christians who don't want sex education in the schools? Why is there political pressure from Christians when condoms were to be handed out in schools? Why was there political pressure from Christian groups when states wanted to require HPV injections for girls? There are many political issues where Christians and Christian groups try to force their religious views on everyone. Sometimes they succeed, often to the detriment of society as a whole. If, as you say here, Christians have no need for a law, why do they get involved as a voting bloc to either support or go against certain laws? Christians push their political agendas constantly.
The Catholic Church traditionally didn’t claim authority over anyone who was not a Christian, but when men decided they needed to enforce certain beliefs and codified a law to do so, they used the inquisitorial system of law as opposed to the adversarial system, and that was based on ancient Roman law. It was not a model that had any basis in Christian teaching. There is a big leap between determining Christian doctrine at the Council at Nicea, and the later use of an inquisitional from of law to judge church heretics. The Spanish Inquisition went beyond the church. That was done by the Monarchs who had returned to power in Spain after defeating the Muslim conquerors of their land. They were sending out of their realm Muslims and the Jews who supported them—not all Jews. The Inquisitions have no basis in Christian teaching. Christianity is a different covenant from the Mosaic Law, so no, there is nothing punishable by death, there is no earthly authority given the power to judge and condemn anyone. You will not find that in the Christian Scriptures.So we just sweep the persecution of the Jews under the rug and pretend it didn't happen? They obviously weren't xtian. once again you attempt to divide xtian doctrine as the basis of the inquisition from those evil monarchs who ruled by "divine Right" as sanctioned by god's representative on Earth? Not possible. And both court systems operated simultaneously, one pagan and one religious. And there is no leap here; the link is an unbroken chain from determining what is heresy and what would become accepted doctrine derived from three hundred years of mistranslations and oral traditions. And once again you obviously misread my original post as I specifically stated that the inquisition began in the 11th Century and NOT with Torquemada in Spain after the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. Xtianity as no link to Mosiac Law? Hmm, what to do with that quote from Matthew 5: 18-19 about keeping the law, or Luke 16:17 concerning Heaven and Earth to pass than "one tittle of the LAW to fail" or Ecclesiastes 12:13 "fear god and keep his Commandments". Sounds like a link to Mosiac Law to me. Or how about Jesus' supposed quote that he came to fulfill the law? I'm sure that you could find some biblical quote to refute them. The bible is after all self contradictory. Cap't Jack
It was hearing the Sermon on the Mount in church when I was a teenager that convinced me Christianity was crap. The parents of my girlfriend at the time were going through a bitter divorce and in the sermon Christ condemns divorce. I heard that, and knowing that there was no way her parents could resolve their differences (her dad was a bitter psycho), along with Christ saying that anyone who looked at another person with lustful thoughts would be condemned to hell, realized that anyone who would say such a thing had absolutely zero understanding of human nature. (The fact that the church had no problem with divorce also told me that the folks in charge didn't buy it, either, also contributed to my realization.)Out of curiosity I looked up the Sermon on the Mount because I haven't read the entire speech in decades. I love this part:
the universe itself shall pass away, before the smallest detail of God's law revealed in Scripture comes to be out of dateWell, Del Rio must have frozen over, because most Christians consider slavery immoral despite the Bible's laws on how to treat slaves.
Lily, with respect, I would urge you to read the "Skeptics Annotated Bible" to get an idea of "confounded language" in all 3 Abrahamic religions. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Okay, I went to the web site. You didn't specify anything, so I started in Romans 1. They mostly asked questions which I had no problem answering. Then I came to this: (2:11) "There is no respect of persons with God." Does God respect anyone? Perhaps another translation will clarify: Rom 2:11 "For God does not show favoritism." I suggest that the individual who is trying to critique the bible on this web site try an easier translation than that written in King James English. He also seems to have a difficult time trying to figure out if salvation is by faith or works. Seriously, this is basic stuff that he doesn't understand. What makes you think he has any ability to understand those things which are more complex? Is there anything specific you would like an answer to? Do you see anything that looks like Christianity set up a legal system with earthly judges and punishments? Perhaps it isn't the bible that is confounded. Perhaps the reader on this site lacks understanding.
Do you see anything that looks like Christianity set up a legal system with earthly judges and punishments?You want to talk about earthly judges and punishments? I'd like you to address the history of the early Christian church. See my post at #9] in this thread. In addition to answering your criticism of my biblical knowledge I added a reference to early Christians fighting each other over theological differences and the winners writing what became modern Christian theology. Those winners were, by modern standards, murderers.
It was hearing the Sermon on the Mount in church when I was a teenager that convinced me Christianity was crap. The parents of my girlfriend at the time were going through a bitter divorce and in the sermon Christ condemns divorce. I heard that, and knowing that there was no way her parents could resolve their differences (her dad was a bitter psycho), along with Christ saying that anyone who looked at another person with lustful thoughts would be condemned to hell, realized that anyone who would say such a thing had absolutely zero understanding of human nature. (The fact that the church had no problem with divorce also told me that the folks in charge didn't buy it, either, also contributed to my realization.)Out of curiosity I looked up the Sermon on the Mount because I haven't read the entire speech in decades. I love this part:
the universe itself shall pass away, before the smallest detail of God's law revealed in Scripture comes to be out of dateWell, Del Rio must have frozen over, because most Christians consider slavery immoral despite the Bible's laws on how to treat slaves. A lot of them didn't when when slavery was about to be ended. They used the bible to support continuing slavery. They were very adamant and self-righteous about it. Lois
Quite true, Lois. I believe most KKK members were good Christians.
Quite true, Lois. I believe most KKK members were good Christians.Its a requirement to be a member of the Klan that you're a Christian in addition to being WASP. And while their numbers aren't what they once were, they are, sadly, still around.
Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? Some Muslim communities run with Sharia law. Other nations with a high Muslim population promote Sharia. It would seem from this phenomenon that Muslim law can be used to run a society as it does so in a few countries. I know of no country that uses Christian or biblical law and have not heard of any Christian effort to have their law accepted in their nation. This indicates that either Muslims are more religious than Christians, or Christians know that their laws would never be accepted as the law of the land. Meanwhile, the vast majority of nations have rejected both sets of religious laws for a more secular approach to law and governance. Briefly --- Which of these three sets of laws do you think are superior and why? Regards DLChristians have pushed governments to pass laws that support Christian values for millennia, and continue to do so to this day. They are simply not as blatant as Muslims, mostly because Christian influence is mainly in democracies. Christians know they can't demand that Christian law be the law of the land because a democratic population would not support it. So they try to influence voting blocs and individual legislative representatives. They have been successful in countries with established religions. People call for Islamic law in dictatorships where the will of the people carries no weight. Lois You are correct in that democratic nations will only suffer so much religious nonsense. One small glitch that I will not argue here is that all the democracies you see, I call oligarchies. There are no democracies. There likely never was such a thing. Regards DL You may be right, but there is some influence by the people and that does serve to keep religion from having undue influence on the government. Not perfect, but better than nothing.
Quite true, Lois. I believe most KKK members were good Christians.In reality the KKK was started by the Democrat Party after the Civil War and targeted Republicans, both black and white. Over three thousand blacks were lynched, while over one thousand white Republicans were lynched by this creation of the Democrat Party for political reasons. They are credited with opposing and eventually ending the efforts of the Radical Republicans that were calling for equal rights for black, including the right to vote. Because of their efforts, equal rights for blacks had to wait for decades. And please don't tell me today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans. That always makes me laugh.
If it's true that Christians have no law, why are they at the forefront of the political process every time a law is proposed that goes against one of the tenets of their religion? Why do we have restrictive abortion laws? Why are Christians getting involved in whether Intelligent Design or creationism can be taught in public schools? Why is there an outcry from Christians who don't want sex education in the schools? Why is there political pressure from Christians when condoms were to be handed out in schools? Why was there political pressure from Christian groups when states wanted to require HPV injections for girls? There are many political issues where Christians and Christian groups try to force their religious views on everyone. Sometimes they succeed, often to the detriment of society as a whole. If, as you say here, Christians have no need for a law, why do they get involved as a voting bloc to either support or go against certain laws? Christians push their political agendas constantly.Christians are citizens of this country and have the right according to the secular law of the US to take part in the political process and influence the laws we all live by. They have the right to vote in people who represent them at all levels of government--just like everyone else. Atheists aren't the only ones with rights in this country, and they aren't the only ones who have the right to push their agendas and influence laws. They do seem to be most vocal in trying to take away the rights of those they disagree with, as if no one else has a right to vote and have an opinion. Why are atheists so dictatorial? Why can't they allow others to have an opinion and exercise their right to vote? This is not based on Christian law of any kind. This is because of the secular law we live by in the US put into place by a majority Christian society.
Quite true, Lois. I believe most KKK members were good Christians.Yes, they were. Very good Christians, indeed. Lois
Quite true, Lois. I believe most KKK members were good Christians.In reality the KKK was started by the Democrat Party after the Civil War and targeted Republicans, both black and white. Over three thousand blacks were lynched, while over one thousand white Republicans were lynched by this creation of the Democrat Party for political reasons. They are credited with opposing and eventually ending the efforts of the Radical Republicans that were calling for equal rights for black, including the right to vote. Because of their efforts, equal rights for blacks had to wait for decades. And please don't tell me today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans. That always makes me laugh. It had nothing to do with giving blacks the vote. Voying rights were not even considered when slavery was ended. The reason Southerners joined the Democratic Party was only because they coukdn't bear the thought of being Republicans after Lincoln ended slavery. Even Republicans ofteday did not callfor equal rights for Blacks. What makes me laugh is your understanding of history. Lois
All religions which espouse a "Kingdom of Heaven" are incompatible with democracy to begin with. "I believe in Democracy but my god is my King"? Odd.If no theology has a democratic heaven then you are right. Are all the religions with a human type God tyrannies? Regards DL You cannot have democracy in a kingdom, it's a kingdom, with a supreme divine ruler who can send you to hell if you've not been good, in His (as translated by priests) eyes. No, I am speaking of the Abrahamic religions/ Those are tyrannies. A good thing they do not rule. Regards DL