Original Sin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Judaism does not have a concept of Original Sin that mankind inherited from
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Babies are born free of sin, and become
sinful through fleshy desires and rebellion against God, in opposition to
mainstream Christianity's view that one is born sinful and only through faith
in Jesus and being 'born again' and asking Jesus for forgiveness can one be
cleansed of sin. However, the concept of Original Sin did not appear in
Christianity until the 4th Century AD, when St Augustine of Hippo, the Bishop
of Hippo Regius, created it through his own interpretation of the Bible, basing
this notion on 2nd Century anti-Gnostic teachings. The concept of original sin
was one of the factors that held down the power of women in the early church
and even today, as woman are in some sense believed to be blamed for the fall
of mankind from grace, and giving 'ancestral sin' to their children. The story
of Jezebel, the proud Queen who refused to give up her own culture and religion
in her new surroundings, much like Christian rulers would not give up their own
religion and impose it on others, but who was thought of as an example of the
'evil' of women, is also a contributary factor to misogyny and sexism in
Christianity.
Even if one was to assume that Original Sin WAS Christian from the beginning,
but was not understood properly prior to the 4th Century AD, then to what
extent were Jews then free of sin before the coming of Christ, but then by
default sinful until they believed in him after his ministry? Were the
teachings of the Torah on this wrong? The Scriptures were the teachings that
Jesus himself studied and followed prior to his ministry. Jews argue that
Genesis does not actually state that Adam and Eve were sinful, but first
mentions 'sin' in conjunction with Cain and Abel. Adam and Eve stated as being
thrown out of the Garden of Eden because Eve listened to the speaking Serpent
and tasted fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and God did not
want Adam and Eve to taste fruit from the Tree of Live and receive Immortality.
Thus it could be argued that humanity experiences mortality and physical death
as it is the intended natural cycle of life that God intended and that he never
intended for humankind to be physically immortal. However this is a matter of
debate as Genesis refers to extended life spans of early man, and the fact that
God was not pleased with Adam and Eve for disobeying his instructions. Was this
then 'sin'?
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation05.html
Christians believe that man is born into sin, and that Jesus came to save
mankind from damnation, rather than comdemn people to (eternal) damnation. From
the Father comes the Final Judgement.
John 5:24: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Christians believe in the concept of being born into sin and condemnation, and
the purpose of Jesus was/is to save mankind from condemnation, and not to
condemn him. The Father performs the Final Judgement.
John 5:24: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
What does the evangelical/born-again Christian concept of being 'saved'
actually mean. Is it a single decision or event in one's life that 'guarantees'
that one will go to heaven regardless of how one behaves in the rest of one's
days? The way many Christians use it does instill a somewhat false belief in
this regard, like it's in the past tense.
Does being saved to mean escape condemnation? Or does it mean to actually go to
heaven? The latter meaning is unlikely. However, to be saved in the Christian
sense may mean that one may enjoy some fruits early on but that as one grows in
one's faith one can enjoy many other fruits of one's relationship with Jesus.
In romans 10:9 the word save is a greek word, "sozo." It means to
save, "keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction one (from
injury or peril); to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering
from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health, to preserve one who is in
danger of destruction, to save or rescue.
To save could therefore mean to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic
judgment or to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the
Messianic deliverance.
The word saved is often used in a single sense rather than in the above usages,
but after one has embraced God, one's spiritual wellbeing is up to the
individual and his ongoing relationship with God.
Opposition to Human Sacrifices
After Abraham, God was clearly opposed to human sacrifices to God. Yet
God gave his son Jesus to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind. Did this
action then cleanse mankind of its sins (and original sin) only if they
believed in Jesus? To what extent was God breaking his own rules?
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation01.html
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation02.html
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation05.html
Genesis: Creationism and Evolution
The historical relationship of science and religion, specifically
Christianity, has been rocky in places, with the Catholic Church suppressing
and persecuting early scientists that challenged the authority of the Church.
Natural events were thought of simply as the Will of God. Over time, the
scientific perspective has more and more formulated our society and its
technology. It should however be noted that not all religions have dismissed
Science that challenged their cosmological view. Indeed, Islamic scholars and
scientists were at the cutting edge of scientific development before the
Enlightenment.
One may view Genesis (or other parts of the Bible) as being literal truth. Or
indeed as a spiritual understanding of the creation of the universe applied to
historical concepts of 'physics' and 'astonomy', i.e. a human interpretation of
divine truth and inspiration. i.e. the Bible is not the same as the Koran which
is believed to be the literal word of God as spoken to Mohammed, observed
orally until the death of Mohammed, but after which time was recorded by
scribes. The Bible is clearly not an all or nothing book. It is a collection of
many different books written by different people in different cultural
surroundings, for different reasons. There is not one single mode of
interpretation that applies to all books equally, one has to take each book on
its own merits, and indeed each verse on its own merits even, understanding its
context, to arrive at sensible interpretation. All or nothing arguments are outmoded
and inappropriate in my opinion.
Perhaps if Genesis had been written today, then it would be very different, but
still convey a similar spirit and meaning. For example, would it include a
description of the Big Bang or Super String Theory, i.e. the creation of the
universe and not just the Earth, by God?
Many theoretical physicists have no explanation why a singularity should
suddenly explode and many cite it as evidence that there must have been some
form of divine intervention, including Professor Stephen Hawking himself.
Modern physicists marvel at the exact relationship between the fundamental
forces, as any minor deviation would have meant that life could never have
existed anywhere in the universe. M-Theory may provide an explanation of the
big bang in terms of colliding membranes. However, it cannot be proven yet.
If one regards the laws of physics, and cause and effect on a large scale and
also quantum level as being the mechanics of God, then every action and result
is the will of God on some level (God being in all things and in those that
choose to accept and feel God's spirit and without ego.) One could then argue
that separation from God, in worry, anger, depression and other negative
emotions, thus attracts a negative consequence and this is the will of God in
some sense; as opposed to the 'wrath of God'.
Clearly the understanding of science in this manner is a case of accepting
scientific discoveries and theories, and using faith as an add on, to explain
the unexplained that physics often creates. Physics is unable to explain why,
and the further it progresses, the more unanswered questions it raises. To
adherents of this view, including Vatican astronomers, they do not reject any
scientific discoveries, but are actually seeking to advance knowledge of
science and astronomy. They do not regard Genesis as literal truth, but as an
allegory as described above, with the spirit of God in it. As Genesis is not a
fundamental tenet of the Christian church, then they feel comfortable with
accepting the scientific explanation of the creation and age of the Universe
with no problems at all. However, if one day science was to disprove the
existence of Jesus, then this might present a problem. This is not likely. The
Bible as a religious and spiritual work can be viewed as never dating over
1000s of years, not being a scientific work, whereas science books and papers
go out of date in a matter of years.
Of course, not all scientists have any spiritual belief, and from a strictly
scientific perspective, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
However there is not hard data to go on for scientists, and thus the idea
cannot be discounted but is not a theory in progress.
Most (Western) Christians would concede that the creation story is an allegory
or a metaphor based on Jewish traditions and not perhaps the literal word of
God. However, there are Christians that reject any scientific theory that
provides a conflict with the Bible, and indeed may adapt/distort/reinterpret
contemporary scientific evidence to make it fit in with the Bible story, even
if this means ignoring a huge amount of data from geological dating etc. Even
if one does not believe in God one can view Genesis as a piece of beautiful
poetry and worth reading on its own merits.
Those of an atheistic disposition who dismiss Genesis as outmoded myth, perhaps
underestimate the importance of storytelling and myth. Human beings have been
telling stories for as long as language has existed. We understand ourselves
and see insights into the human condition through storytelling and myths, and
the tales of the actions of others. Atheists who reject any story or myth of
creation may consider themselves as being educated and rational, but the vast
majority still enjoy escapism and myths, in the form of novels, television and
cinema. Is it rational to watch a low quality soap opera for many years and on
some level the brain considers it to be 'real'? Clearly there is a human need
for such abstractions or fantasies. Does this make a spiritual person less
rational?
What Genesis does do however is quite new from the pre-existing Jewish pagan
religions of the time. Other pagan and monotheistic religions that predate
Judaism view creation as something that was born out of conflict between
opposing forces or rival deities. Genesis describes acts of creation not as
dramatic explosive results of spiritual conflict but as serene, calm and
deliberate acts of a single creative force. There is no conflict.
Would a modern version of Genesis (if written today) use the concept of
Darwinist evolution or not? There are many Christian evolutionists, so it is
not just a debate between atheist scientists, creationists and 'intelligent
design' proponents. The fossil record is used by some Christians to justify
creationism, to the extent that Christian museums exist today featuring Homo
Sapiens together with dinosaurs - despite the fact that no human/proto-human
remains are found in the same geological period as dinosaurs and large
reptiles. Literalists who believe Genesis to the letter do not always have the
same sense of following every letter in the Bible, as often key teachings of
Jesus, such as forgiveness and turning the other cheek, are ignored when it
suits, for example, when it concerns the death penalty, engaging in warfare and
in matters of foreign policy. So it is a form of selective 'fundamentalism'.
Science does not have to be at odds with spirituality, but in fact both should
enhance each other, and should be simply different ways of expressing the same
thing (on a Quantum level).
The UK movement known as the 'Sea of Faith' is a network of religious
individuals who believe wholeheartedly in science. They acknowledge that the
idea of creation in Genesis is an allegory, and that God might not exist, and
that Jesus probably existed but may not have been a supernatural figure or had
a resurrection. Strangely some with these views are practising bishops and
priests! However, their open mindedness in their beliefs, perhaps largely
Agnostic, favouring science and psychology over religion, does not stop them
practising their religion personally and in the service of others. This is
justified by the logic that rather than reject their faith and practice, they
choose to embody it as it answers many spiritual questions and provides a
valuable method of developing positive relationships with others, cultivating
happiness and stillness, taming the ego and providing a positive social fabric
and guidance for society. The Bible is viewed as a narrative of describing
human nature and a better way to live, and which may or may not be the literal
word of God. Clearly this perspective is non-dogmatic in its approach, but is a
personal view of faith or a personal Agnostic view of faith. Whilst this
clearly only has a minority membership with the UK Churches, it is still
significant and growing. There are many ways of viewing faith, and the concept
that there is a default clash with science is not correct. There can be, but
equally there does not have to be.
www.sofn.org.uk/sof/index.html
Whilst Western Christianity, particularly Catholicism, stifled the growth of
science for many centuries, it did slowly adapt to embrace scientific enquiry
and not view it as a threat. When Darwin first presented his theory, it started
a religious argument that has ensued to this day. Many contemporary Christians
at the time were concerned about the comparison with monkeys and the literal
interpretation of Genesis, and later on when Darwin was used as a rationale for
atheism and a divergence from Christian morality, they were understandably
concerned that survival of the fittest would replace helping the poor and
needy. Indeed, the excesses of this philosophy can be seen in its
misapplication in Eugenics and indeed Nazi Germany's policies. Clearly there was
good reason to be concerned about the excesses of Neo-Darwinism and applying
Darwin's theories outside of it's actual scientific 'home'. Creationism, some
might argue, is the application of religious beliefs and ideas into domains
where it does not belong either, and is not a true reflection of religion or
spiritual belief. Unfortunately, many atheists point at creationism to dismiss
all religion as being unscientific, much as some anti-Darwinists point to
Nazism to dismiss all of Darwin's ideas, which is not fair either. It should be
remembered that Darwinism does not necessarily have to conflict with religion,
although it clearly can for Creationists and those who take religious texts
completely literally in their entirety. Darwinism and the Theory of Natural
Selection, like any scientific theory, is true as far as it goes and we can
measure it today - on the whole, although that is now in question following the
latest studies in genetics - but it is by no means a complete theory. It is a
part theory, explaining only a small part of the overall empirical picture. It
is the theory of the how, but does not tell us 'why'. Religion can be used to
explain the why as plausibly as atheism and chaos theory can. Atheism in this
sense is not proven by Darwin. And neither is Religion. What meaning one
chooses to associate is down to personal choice and interpretation.
Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament and Antisemitism
Christians acknowledge that God sent Jesus to preach a different message
than was evident in the less forgiving and vengeful (on occasion) God of the
Old Testament, and that over time, God came to want to reach humankind (and not
just the Jews) in a slightly different way. One could debate as to why God
wasn't like this from the beginning. One way of interpreting this is clearly to
separate the aspects of God into two separate Gods, as the Gnostics have done.
Another way is to completely reject the Old Testament as being false or
confused religion and not embodying the true spirit of God. Another is to
regard the Old Testament as really being a collection of books describing
Jewish religious history, traditions and 'myths' with less global application
than the New Testament. Or one could view the struggle Jesus had with the
Jewish religious establishment as evidence that the Jewish religion had slowly
become corrupted (no fault of the Old Testament or Torah itself), and that
there is no real inconsistency between the Old and New Testaments, but the New
Testament is merely adding an additional layer on top of spiritual
understanding and way of coming to God. One could take the view that much of
the New Testament as largely irrelevant or lesser in importance, and just stick
to reading the four canonical gospels, as anything that the apostles said or
did would be of secondary importance to the word and actions of Jesus.
At the time of Jesus ministry, his audience had only had sight of the
Scriptures, or the Old Testament and other books of the Torah. Jesus was
teaching a slightly different message about the spirit of God. In some sense,
before the arrival of Jesus, it was 'enough' to just believe in God to 'go to
heaven'. However, after Jesus ministry and death on the cross, his message was
on the whole if one believes the canonical gospels, that one had to believe
that Jesus was Lord. How can one reconcile these two different positions based
on a difference of say 50 years? Clearly if Jesus was the son of God, and one
believed in God, then there would be no reason not to believe in him. Does this
mean that those Jews who continue to follow Judaism are then considered 'hard
of heart' and not worthy of going to heaven? Does this mean that God should
have communicated the commandments differently to Moses and his message
differently to Abraham and Isaiah? Or was it because of the way the message
from God from the prophets adopted by the Jewish people had changed over the
subsequent years?
To what extent was Jesus preaching to the Jews and simply fulfilling Jewish
prophecies from the Scriptures? To what extent was his story 'sexed up' so that
he would fulfil these predictions and prophecies to the letter and fullest
extent, to appeal to the Jews more? To what extent was his message Universal
and the history of the Jewish people and Israel irrelevant? Jesus, being a Jew
and following the Scriptures, preached a message to mankind which was not
strictly based on the Scriptures or tied to the Scriptures - to what extent should
those who follow the word and spirit of Jesus actually pay attention to those
same Jewish customs and Scriptures?
Jesus was fully versed in the Torah and Scriptures and indeed so were his
Jewish audience and followers. The Kabbalah did not become part of the Torah until
much later, probably the 13th Century AD. The Bible has explicit mention of
evil of the occult, and if the Kabbalah did represent the secret, esoteric
knowledge given by God to both Adam and Moses, then Jesus would no doubt have
been aware of it, being God, and would have communicated this in his teachings,
assuming this was something that was valuable and congruent with a belief in
God and in Jesus, and that it had disappeared from Hebew texts of the time.
Many view the early teachings of Jesus as a refinement of Judaism, being that
Jesus was well versed in the Scriptures (i.e. Torah) and used to teach from the
Scriptures in Synagogues himself as a youth. Has the Jewish component of Jesus
been lost? History and the NT show us that Paul's vision of Christianity became
increasingly dismissive of the Jews, who were not worthy of the Kingdom of
Heaven unless they accepted Jesus as the Son of God. Paul became increasingly
dismissive of the Torah or OT and associated books. This general attitude
prevailed within the early orthodox (Catholic) church.
Further demonisation of Jews perhaps occurred because of the perception of
Judas, the Jew - his name sounding a bit like 'Jew-das', being the Christ
killer, and his image being portrayed in religious art as having increasingly
Jewish features; Jesus becoming more classically 'white European' or Gentile in
his appearance; and the story of the death of Jesus 'at the hands of the Jews'
rather than Pontius Pilate; has resulted in a huge amount of anti-semitism over
the last 2000 years. Jews were demonised in Christian art as being the enemy of
Christianity. In England, stories of cannibalism of Christian babies by Jews
was spread resulting in incidents of mass executions of Jews. Some perhaps
regard this as being insecurity of the offspring religion of it's parent
religion, a form of Oedipus complex.
Rome made its first Jewish Ghetto in 1555 at the bequest of the Roman Catholic
Pope, as it was felt that Jews and Christians living in harmony was
undesirable, as the Christians might become 'tainted' somehow. This lasted
until 1870 when it was finally abolished. The Vatican did not make an official
statement about Jews not being 'Christ killers' until 1965!
Martin Luther's 'One the Jews and their Lies' (1543) was arguably anti-semitic
in content, although to regard it as a precursor to Nazism would be highly
anachronistic and misuse of hindsight. It was one book of many, and his main
focus was on the nature of salvation. Some scholars view Luther's influence as
limited and the Nazi party's use of his work as highly opportunistic. In any
case, the Nazis in general were not interested in religion and indeed
persecuted Christianity as it promoted the idea of universal brotherhood. Some
Nazis were indeed Christians and perhaps they cited this book of Luther to
justify what they already believed and acted upon. It is of course no reason to
dismiss Luther's ideas about salvation, as indeed the vast majority of priests,
scholars, intellectuals, politicians and so on were predominantly ethnocentric
and racist to some degree up until some time in the early or middle of the 20th
Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
A critical view of Martin Luther and his anti-semitism can be found at the link
below. Indeed, Hitler regarded Luther as one of Germany's great reformers -
which sounds rather like an opportunistic use of his name, as Hitler perhaps
wanted to associate himself with 'household Germanic names'.
www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
Of course, the holocaust of WWII was not a Christian instigated programme, but
it is clear that Aryan Christianity in Germany at the time had some influence
on Adolf Hitler's own ideas, amongst a whole host of philosophical and Germanic
mythological influences. However the holocaust affected not just Jews but also
Christians, non-desirables, political prisoners and non-ethnic Germans. There
are various incidences of the Vatican turning a blind eye to the Nazis and
assisting them (discussed elsewhere on this site), and also certain Catholic
populations assisting the Nazis, for example, the Croatians, that creates
further friction between Catholics and Jews. The fact that the current Pope was
once a (forced) member of the Hitler Youth has of course opened old wounds, but
whether this is of any actual consequence is another matter.
Will the Jewish people regard Jesus to be one of the finest teachers and
prophets of Judaism? Will Christians come to recognise Judaism and attribute it
with its just significance and part in Christianity? And understand
Christianity through Judaism? This might occur if the NT was not comprised
mainly of texts by Paul and did not perhaps overemphasise Jesus' divinity, but
more his teachings. One could view that modern Christianity as having its
Jewish origins and Jewish practices, that Christ would have himself performed
and been involved with, removed, to leave certain simple aspects remaining such
as Baptism and the Resurrection/Forgiveness of man's sins formula remaining.
Were John the Baptist and Jesus inspired by the Essenes, the Jewish sect that
practiced regular ritual washing. Are these practices in fact a reflection of
Christianity as a special Galilean Jewish sect, rather than being a completely
new religion? Jesus was said to be the fulfillment of prophecy and the King of
the Jews, to enhance and refine the Jewish religion and bring one's
relationship with God back to the living and everyday existence rather than
something one waited for after one was dead and the hypocrisies and showiness
of contemporary Judaism of the time. Some Jews argue the concept of the
'messiah' of the OT was not necessarily of a Son of God, but a Son of Man,
someone who would show the path to God and to liberate the Jewish people from
Roman rule and bring truth and justice to Israel. Like a religious and military
figure, a true King in that sense. Some Jews regard Jesus as being a failed
messiah, in that he did not deliver in the physical world, but promised the
Jews and everyone salvation after death, and in a sense during one's life
through a full relationship with God; but that his physical messianic role was
never fully realised. Christians argue that the second coming will result in
the fulfillment of prophecy, which is either true or a convenient way of
explaining around the fact that Jesus 'got himself killed' and 'failed'. Was
Jesus then really resurrected? Is it possible for Jews to accept Jesus as their
greatest teacher - and if so, what must be changed or adapted from the modern
Christian account of who Jesus was and what he said?An examination of some of
the Jewish sects and early Christian sects as above sheds some light on this,
but we are still far from an easy answer or reconciliation between the two
religions.
To what extent were they just a product of Jesus' humanity and his geographical
location and the social traditions and culture in which he existed? If Jesus
did not follow the Scriptures to the letter but more in their true spirit, were
they not best communicated to the Jewish people in their Scriptural format?
To what extent are those followers of other religions, that embody a similar
spirit to that of Jesus, but not quite the same, and who perhaps only recognise
Jesus as a prophet, are they 'wrong' or at 'sin'? And to what extent do
religions embody and deviate from the Universal Truth about God, and to what
extent to they embrace it? Do they embrace it 'enough'? With the rise of
atheism, secularism, individualism and hyper-capitalism, and the parallel rise
in 'fundamentalism' of different faiths, are we likely to see any other
prophets? And if we do, would anyone recognise them or give them any
credibility? Followers of various religions are often quick to proclaim a
figure a prophet or even an incarnation of God (e.g. Hindus proclaiming a
deformed baby with two faces to be an incarnation of God) on a minimal sound
basis.
Whilst virtually all Christians follow the teachings of Jesus in the Bible in
terms of the need to pray and the need for fellowship, the vast majority of
Christians do not fast and lack any kind of physical discipline. There has been
a huge embracing of consumerism within Christianity, even if many Christians
claim this is not the case, and a corresponding lack of respect for the body
and physical discipline, and the spiritual discipline which comes from this.
This is partly a case of selectively reading the Bible. Fasting was common
amongst early Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting#Christianity
Some modern 'fringe' branches of Christianity have incorporated holistic ideas
about health and looking after the physical body into their overall theology,
for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). Is this
considered a 'reintroduction' of such ideas into Christianity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church
It is a shame that Christian denominations tend to focus on their differences
and what they do not like about each other, or live in insular worlds where
other denominations do not exist - as if their version of theology and the
teachings of Jesus as the only true path; rather than focus on Jesus' teachings
and his positive message. Many atheists who regard Jesus as just a wise teacher
who was 'hijacked' by religious zealots might become much more interested in
the teachings if the focus was here rather than on the 'formula of Jesus' - the
idea that the Bible clearly states he said he was the son of God and there is
no possibility that he was just a wise teacher. During Religious Education
classes at school, a number of other students and I were genuinely interested
in Jesus, but the teacher insisted this could not be so, presumably to try to
bring in people to the faith with his written 'proof', but all it did was to
turn everyone offand lose interest entirely. Is this a wise way to preach the
message of Jesus?
Is a literal belief in the Christian 'Formula' necessary? That of God giving
his only Son to be sacrificed so that the sins of man could be forgiven; and
that in order to achieve this he had to die on the cross and be resurrected?
And to taste eternal life, one must believe in this formula and accept Jesus as
one's saviour, and one has a guaranteed seat in Heaven when one dies; rather
than really try to understand the very deep sayings of Jesus and try to apply
them to the complex situations and ethnical dilemmas of merdern living? Is the
exact nature of the formula so important to 'faith' or to feeling God? At the
time of writing, I acknowledge Jesus as a wise teacher, a source of
illumination and being from God, but does not worship Jesus directly - but more
prays to God and 'vibes' with Jesus. I believe in the Trinity as much as I am
agnostic about the Trinity. Perhaps this is a Gnostic interpretation.
To search on individual words or phrases in the Bible or individual books, one
may use various on-line Bibles. Here is the search page for the on line KJV:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w
I concede that there are issues with some of the wording in places in the OT.
There was indeed politics and culture seeping into the Bible at various times
when the books were being written. If we look at things historically, everyone
of every religious faith, pagan or otherwise, was butchering people for varying
reasons. It is easy to impose our hypocritical, pro-human rights, modern,
selfish, consumer culture onto culture of the past and criticize it, but values
were very different. People went to gladiator fights! Now we have similar
urges, but we repress them, and we are not honest with ourselves, and it comes
out in nationalist conflicts, road rage, bullying in the workplace, yob
culture, watching violent films and TV shows, listening to 'gangster' rap music
or 'death metal', drug culture and racial hatred etc. I personally have an
issue with the people the OT says to put to death. Just because one or more
defining books of a religion has a few issues or contradictions doesn't
necessarily mean that it is bad or everything in it is wrong, as you can
appreciate. It depends on the individual what he chooses to believe and apply
to his own life. Books are written and edited by men, and men are imperfect
after all, whether they were divinely inspired or not. Politics and culture
always have an effect on some level. We need to be conscious of this before
passing judgement.
Some critical views of the Old Testament can be found at the links below.
www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm
www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
Comments
Displaying 0 of 0 comments ( View all | Add Comment )