europe, the fall to islam?

[sitetutor]

Originally Posted by G10

Dude, how many times do I have to point out that those Old Testament laws were put to rest when Jesus died and were overridden.

hey man, you are destroying the only argument that Ferre has in regards to that topic. Be easy on him.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

Dude, how many times do I have to point out that those Old Testament laws were put to rest when Jesus died and were overridden.

Dude, how many times do I have to point out that the bible-jesus told his 'sheep' to obey the laws of his father, if the 'old' testament was put to rest, it would not even be part of the new testament anymore, but it is still there for exactly that reason, in order for 'the sheep' to read what 'the lord' demands from them.

Funny how most christians read their own bible so damn selectively.

[sitetutor]

When people applied the punishments of the Old Law, Jesus interfered each time.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by sitetutor

When people applied the punishments of the Old Law, Jesus interfered each time.

Which shows how contradictive that whole book is, there are many more contradictions than just that.

Besides, many Abrahamic religions obey the old testament and do not recognize the new one.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Dude, how many times do I have to point out that the bible-jesus told his 'sheep' to obey the laws of his father, if the 'old' testament was put to rest, it would not even be part of the new testament anymore, but it is still there for exactly that reason, in order for 'the sheep' to read what 'the lord' demands from them.

Funny how most christians read their own bible so damn selectively.

The old testament was left to show the Davidical lineage leading up to Jesus as you will notice how many times people are blessed in it and told that through their seed, the chosen one will come about.

It also serves as a history book and explains how things came about (whether people except them or not).

Also, the old testament serves as a prophecy of the events that happened in the new testament and also as a book that environment we live in.

For example, the old testament tells us that the earth is a circular shape, it also claims that the earth is hanging upon nothing (and that was 3500 years ago), it also explains about sanitation and getting rid of bodily waste in a proper manner over a thousand years ago and up until not too long ago, some countries were still tipping bodily waste into the streets.

So yes, it still does serve some puropose up to today but as I said earlier, the laws were put to rest when Jesus died.

btw - I am not a Christian

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Funny how most christians read their own bible so damn selectively.

Feel free to point out how I am doing this here

[Ferre]

So where does that leave jesus' statement that one has to obey god-his-father? Or is that something to ignore? And when you can ignore one thing he supposedly said, doesn't that make the book look as something you can pick anything you like from, and ignore those points that you don't like? And when selective picking is allowed, what does that do to the other statements about the word of god being law? And when it's all cool to ignore the old man, why bother reading the book in the first place?

Not to mention the fact that there are more different christian sects than there are chapters in that book, all using the same book with different interpretations.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

So where does that leave jesus' statement that one has to obey god-his-father? Or is that something to ignore? And when you can ignore one thing he supposedly said, doesn't that make the book look as something you can pick anything you like from, and ignore those points that you don't like? And when selective picking is allowed, what does that do to the other statements about the word of god being law? And when it's all cool to ignore the old man, why bother reading the book in the first place?

Not to mention the fact that there are more different christian sects than there are chapters in that book, all using the same book with different interpretations.

Ok, lets try this another way.

It was already fortold in the old testament that a new covenant was going to be made - Jeremiah 31:31 (you could read up to verse 34 if you wanted)

Who was going to make the new covenant in years to come?

(Matthew 26:2 - for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.

(Luke 22:20) Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.

(Hebrews 8:8 onwards - for he does find fault with the people when he says: “‘Look! There are days coming,’ says the Lord, ‘and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;

This is scattered in a lot more places than I have just listed in the new testament but we would be turning this thread into a bible discussion at this rate if we carried on

You are right about the christian sects, yes, there are a few and I can't help but feel that a lot of then haven't quite grasped it but hey, who am I?

[Ferre]

Funny how, when it is all as clear as you say, there are millions of people who interpretate it totally different, not to mention the ancestors of those who wrote it, who don't agree with the new testament and that new beginning at all, and for whom the old testament is still law.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Funny how, when it is all as clear as you say, there are millions of people who interpretate it totally different,

LOL!

Ferre, you have to remember that there are millions of people that CLAIM, to understand the bible and follow it but that same million still go to war. Hell, there are even priests who pray for their soldiers safety whilst they go out and kill other men and maybe even women and children.

Do they understand the book and if they do, why do they still claim that they are christians when they send soldiers out to kill?

This is why president Bush made me laugh with his "Mission from God" comment. Basically, the guy is breaking all the main laws in the book, including lying to the people and he claims that he has been told to do it.

Originally Posted by Ferre

not to mention the ancestors of those who wrote it, who don't agree with the new testament and that new beginning at all, and for whom the old testament is still law.

I can see that, but then again, we must realise that he was handed over to Pontius Pilate to be killed by a certain people in the new testament so by accepting the new testament, they would also have to accept this act also.

[Ferre]

I think this makes it clear that even prominent representatives of the bible-believing community do not grasp what's written in there, according to those who believe that they do understand. Leaves us the question which version of interpretation is 'the right one', and it's also clear that they ALL believe that their version of interpretation is the 'right one'.

The best example is how the (original) Abrahamic religion became devided and seperated into three other religions in the past, the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions, and after that first major seperation they started to splinter up in numerous other splinter groups, all claiming that they have a 'better understanding' of the very same scriptures than the others.

It's like making hundreds of totally different movies, all from the same movie script.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

I think this makes it clear that even prominent representatives of the bible-believing community do not grasp what's written in there, according to those who believe that they do understand. Leaves us the question which version of interpretation is 'the right one', and it's also clear that they ALL believe that their version of interpretation is the 'right one'.

Agreed, there are a lot of interpretations of the book and it can be difficult for one to get a grasp on what seems like the closest to it's original writings.

The reason I read and studied it and books around it for a while because of your point that many people try to twist it according to suite them, but I thought what if one tries to read it and not twist it to suite a specific faith, where would this lead?

The answer I found was similar to what you had pointed out that most faiths follow a 'selective reading' principle as there are verses in there that if they explained to their followers, would go against their very teachings.

It is a pretty straightforward though you can find versions that haven't changed since it's earliest found writings and even it's later ones such as the dead sea scrolls.

My original point here was just to show how the old laws were put to rest by a new covenant which was even explained that was going to happen in the old testament.

If you feel that I have misinterpreted this according to what you see, then I am sure you will point this out to me

[rourkey]

I have watched the program about Dead Sea scrolls, and saw the historic evidence about most of the stuff being left out of the New Testament. I've also read a lot about different sects of Christianity where followers do not believe in Trinity, or Jesus being son of God, Jesus being Crucified and/or even Jesus suffering during Crucifiction etc.

These all point out to one thing, at the time various religious books were written, based on the Old Testament, they served a good purpose in terms of helping the poor and bringing law and order to masses of people who were often ruled by tyrants or oppressors. They also helped people act in a more charitable way towards each other.

No doubt they were great then, but in the 21st century, majority of people living in affluent societies do not really give a toss! Just in case no one has noticed, the poorer or oppressed a nation is, the more religious its people are. Because religion and faith makes them more resiliant in the environment they live. It does not matter if you are talking about the Roman Catholics in South America, the Muslims in Chechenya or Middle East, or the Hindus in India, it is always the same story - someone is using the religion for financial or political gain.

In the affluent societies of the West and the developed countries of the East, nowadays the religion has become more of a label or a faith to support (but not practice). Like supporting a football team, they have their fanatics. Hence it has developed into an excuse for many to wage a war, so as to prove "mine is bigger than yours" and impose their own political and economic views. Some oppose such "economic" and "political" wars using equally fanatic (if not more) recruits to start a terrorist war.

Who is right? How the hell would I know! Everyone believes they are right in their own faith or way. I personally think probably neither is right. As long as there are people led like "sheep" because of their faith and social structure, there will always be useless wars killing hundreds of thousands, and terrorists giving the excuse to war wagers.

I say get rid of all the religions, let people start seeing through the clutter they create and the true reasons behind wars. That will end national and religious fanaticism and hatred, as well as the wars they helped create. But who will do that? Not the very rulers, who have been promoting these flawed ideas in the first place for hundreds of years because it suits their purpose. So now we are back to square one - it is a vicious circle...

[G10]

Originally Posted by rourkey

I say get rid of all the religions, let people start seeing through the clutter they create and the true reasons behind wars. That will end national and religious fanaticism and hatred, as well as the wars they helped create.

What, you mean oil and greed?

Wars nowadays are fought of because of greed and religion is just an excuse they use to try to justify it.

Though I must admit, if you read the Koran, I can see your viewpoint.

[nigelaxis]

I don't suppose anybody saw the series in the UK that examined whether the world would be a better place without religion?

It seemed that the gist was 'tolerance' and if everybody could tollerate people who could think diferently then religion would be great, but whenever any religion preaches intolerence then it creates pain and suffering. It seemed in the end the reporter ended with a negative against religion due to general rejection of tolerance towards other religions.

I am happy to say that I have friends of many different nations, backgrounds and religions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Chinese, Budhist, etc.) and all of these people are completely tolerant of each others beliefs and cultures. They all shun any person who is not tollerant and I do not beleive any of them would turn their back on me because of what a minister of their religion had said.

So........may I suggest that whatever religion you are, why not try to preach a little extra tolerance. Afterall 'you reap what you sow'.

[G10]

Agreed dude

It's not always religion either as a lot of countries were (and still are) horrid to other races just because of their colour.

[rourkey]

I am an atheist and have many friends from muslim and christian following. I have no problems with that and have a lot of respect for those who have faith and practise their religion for the good of people around them and/or to better themselves in the society they live in. That is a good thing as long as no one tries to force their own beliefs on others - because it will provide them with the means to rule over them.

As for G10's reply, yes it could be starting a war to stop oil being sold for Euros instead of dollars, it could be starting a war to get rid of a leader who does not serve your own country's economic or political interests, it could be starting a war against one's own people by using religion as an excuse to resign to their faith (rather than rebel against a tyrant). It had been used many times to "divide and rule" occupants of a country.

So, religion really does have some very many evil uses in the hands of wrong people. History shows that the use in this manner has dominated the world (to this day). As a pre-condition of new democracy, I say all compulsury religious studies are banned in EU and any country of the developed world, as well as in those who wish to trade with them. Anyone who wishes to take up religious studies as an optional choice or as own area of interest should be allowed to do so, and have complete freedom of faith. Nationalising all Church, Mosque or any other religion's assets should be a priority and would put a stop to their political influences.