The Central Problem with Christianity

[Diogenes]

Jesus (and Paul) thought the world was going to end soon. This is why Jesus told people to give away their possessions, and Paul taught people should not marry. Jesus spoke very specifically about the world ending in the lifetime of those he preached to. [I won't go into the verses, because it will spawn the usual verbal gymnastics about how he did not mean what he said]

Christians, for the most part, ignore the idea of not attaining wealth. They also ignore the admonition not to marry. They ignore these basic Christian teachings because they don't like them. Instead, they claim Jesus didn't really mean what he said about the end coming soon. This provides cover for getting married and accumulating wealth.

The question for debate is, "Why do most Christians marry and try to accumulate wealth despite the very clear New Testament admonitions to do the opposite?

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

__ Matthew 6:19-20

[Wootah]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

I think the quote in your dirst post defeats you.

If Jesus thought the world was ending soon there would be no time to lay up treasure in heaven either.

Also moths and rust literally take time to eat treasure.

Did you have a more relevant quote?

[oldbadger]

I know. I've been there myself. I was pretty convinced that the raising of Lazarus was a real thing because of all the incidental details. The note sent to Jesus in peraea - a tip off that it was time for Jesus to come to 'Save' Lazarus. After he's hung around two days before setting out. The set lines for Martha and Mary before Jesus says: 'Come on out' and Lazarus hops (or walks) out) with the Amazed crowd gawping.
Yes, I was convinced it was true. How did Martha know where to send the note? Because she'd known that Jesus would be at Peraea. And why did only John mention this amazing miracle? Because they saw how fishy it looked (even if nobody else did). And even Luke's apparently unrelated reference to Lazarus could fit as the resurrected Lazarus bringing a message from the beyond.

Ah...... so there are 'incidental details' that are total deceptions, and others that ring true (to me). The reason why I take notice of Jesus dismissing 'blood family' for 'follower family' is:-
1. Because that's what I have found for myself
2. It's not an incident much favoured by Christianity. The only reason that it's not been redacted is very interesting.
3. It's not a key Christian message.

But Lazarus? If there was any truth in the Lazarus story then it would have been mentioned in G-Mark; as it is, Jesus didn't even cure Lazarus of a cold.

And it still could be true. I can't rule it out. But I just have more reasons to doubt. But not all of it. I think Paul was real, thus Peter and James were real, and so maybe Jesus was real. But whether failed messiah or reforming Rabbi, it isn't the Christian Jesus, which was reformed to fit Post Pauline Greek Christianity, damning Judaism and swooning over the Faith of gentiles.

I'll go with that..... although I don't build my findings on the claims of a contract busting Jew, but rather the deposition within G-Mark (less the fiddles and stuff).

By the way....... just a question 'on the side'....you mention James. Do you think that James was the brother of Jesus (which I mistrust) or the disciple? I often ask this, and often get 'wooly' answers.

[TRANSPONDER]

I know. I've been there myself. I was pretty convinced that the raising of Lazarus was a real thing because of all the incidental details. The note sent to Jesus in peraea - a tip off that it was time for Jesus to come to 'Save' Lazarus. After he's hung around two days before setting out. The set lines for Martha and Mary before Jesus says: 'Come on out' and Lazarus hops (or walks) out) with the Amazed crowd gawping.
Yes, I was convinced it was true. How did Martha know where to send the note? Because she'd known that Jesus would be at Peraea. And why did only John mention this amazing miracle? Because they saw how fishy it looked (even if nobody else did). And even Luke's apparently unrelated reference to Lazarus could fit as the resurrected Lazarus bringing a message from the beyond.

Ah...... so there are 'incidental details' that are total deceptions, and others that ring true (to me). The reason why I take notice of Jesus dismissing 'blood family' for 'follower family' is:-
1. Because that's what I have found for myself
2. It's not an incident much favoured by Christianity. The only reason that it's not been redacted is very interesting.
3. It's not a key Christian message.

But Lazarus? If there was any truth in the Lazarus story then it would have been mentioned in G-Mark; as it is, Jesus didn't even cure Lazarus of a cold.

And it still could be true. I can't rule it out. But I just have more reasons to doubt. But not all of it. I think Paul was real, thus Peter and James were real, and so maybe Jesus was real. But whether failed messiah or reforming Rabbi, it isn't the Christian Jesus, which was reformed to fit Post Pauline Greek Christianity, damning Judaism and swooning over the Faith of gentiles.

I'll go with that..... although I don't build my findings on the claims of a contract busting Jew, but rather the deposition within G-Mark (less the fiddles and stuff).

By the way....... just a question 'on the side'....you mention James. Do you think that James was the brother of Jesus (which I mistrust) or the disciple? I often ask this, and often get 'wooly' answers.

I'm really open to either possibility - that the Lazarus story is a fabrication that doesn't appear in the synnoptics because John made it up. And yet it is tantalizing that Luke mentions a different 'Lazarus' tale in the approximate same place. Or it might be true, in which case the incidental clues of the story, like the healing of the Ruler's son, the healing of the Ruler's daughter (and the ruler of Capernaum would be same person in both ) and the healing of bar - Timaeus, woul indicate faked miracles, not real ones. Which might be an excuse for it not being in Mark - it looked fishy. Though nobody else seems to have noticed this through 2,000 years of Bible -study.

Pick whichever you like, neither make the Gospel story as written credible.

I do think James has to be a real person as I believe Paul was a real person, too. I think the Pauline designation as 'The Lord's brother' is specific to James as nobody else is ever called Jesus' brother, other than those identified as family members. And there has to be a reason he became head of the Jesus followers after Jesus. I rather distrust the 'traditional list of disciples but I tend to see James, brother of Jesus as the disciple James (the less) not the top disciple, one of the sons of Zebedee. But I have long had a suspicion that Jesus' brothers sound a lot like some of the disciples.

[pjharrison57]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

You just misunderstood everything. Jesus didn't say you couldn't be wealthy. he said it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven. Paul did not say not to marry. He said to marry rather than burn.

[otseng]

You just misunderstood everything.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without commenting about other posters. Just omit this sentence and the rest can stand on its own.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

You just misunderstood everything. Jesus didn't say you couldn't be wealthy. he said it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven. Paul did not say not to marry. He said to marry rather than burn.

So maybe that's the problem. Paul says better not to marry. But marry if otherwise it's too tough.

Give all you have to the poor and follow Jesus, but if you have a life outside the cult, the more you have (other than the bare minimum to survive and give the rest to the religion) the more you're sinning, to be blunt about it.

Just as the whole of Christianity is a perfect system for hiding the lie, the whole theology is a bait and switch scam, the whole system is perfect for chiselling you out of your birthright even without the bad reason of scoffing your pottage themselves.

I have met some very nice Christians. Some have been friends. But the system is a pyramid scheme with the perfect trick of making people identify with it so they'd rather see you dead than admit they were fooled. The central problem with Christianity is that it does not deliver, so has to keep the fast talk and bait and switch going. And because it has become a cult in America, it's like trying to talk flat earthists around.

I haven't even touched on the very real danger of the lunatics getting to run the asylum, or the flying monkeys who, unpaid, lie for Jesus. There's plenty more central problems where that came from.

[Clownboat]

Paul did not say not to marry. He said to marry rather than burn.

It's almost as if Paul lacked the knowledge that we are biological creatures who reproduce via sexul reproduction. I see no reason to take faulty advise such as marry, rather than burn in a hell no one can show exists.

We are biological creatures and we reproduce the way we reproduce. Hell concepts are numerous, but never in evidence. There is a point IMO when a person becomes to heavenly to be of much earthly good. Paul's advise would fall into this category.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Good point. Paul is also wrong about the claim that nature is a big billboard for God. It isn't Not since we now know the natural methods, it makes Nature big and awesome (though not always nice) and makes man made gods as obsolete as claiming they throw thunderbolts.

So Paul is a man of his time, and sees marriage not as a biological matter but a moral or ethical one. I won't speculate much on his dislike of the pleasures of human life but Paul is not the first person I'd go to for lifestyle advice.

[Purple Knight]

There is a point IMO when a person becomes to heavenly to be of much earthly good.

I would agree. Let's assume it's all true. That maps out a view of Heaven that's irrelevant to our biology, which is fine, but it becomes irrelevant to our lives here, which defeats its whole purpose.

If these vessels of ours do not have a way to perceive good, if good is actually fundamentally unnatural to us, then we don't know what it is and we'll never know what it is, because although God may tell us and say he speaks the truth, the Devil can say he knows too, and that the other fellow is actually the bad guy and he lies.

[TRANSPONDER]

There is a point IMO when a person becomes to heavenly to be of much earthly good.

I would agree. Let's assume it's all true. That maps out a view of Heaven that's irrelevant to our biology, which is fine, but it becomes irrelevant to our lives here, which defeats its whole purpose.

If these vessels of ours do not have a way to perceive good, if good is actually fundamentally unnatural to us, then we don't know what it is and we'll never know what it is, because although God may tell us and say he speaks the truth, the Devil can say he knows too, and that the other fellow is actually the bad guy and he lies.

Yes. That's been done, too,. More than one religious voice has found themselves saying. "...you know, it would make more sense if God was the bad Guy and Satan was the good guy." I believe the Gospel of Judas is based on this idea.