Christianity: Alternative Viewpoints

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The people who believed this...they were rooted out and killed during the Middle Ages weren't they?

I think trying to reconcile Old and New Testament gets really hairy because you can see that they're two very different Gods.

Old Testament God would never send his only son to die for our sins, Old Testament God would realize he'd screwed up again and would make another flood.

The earliest Christians were Jews, and they had no problem accepting the old testament; they had accepted it already before Jesus came around. But when Gentiles were converted, they had no background in the old testament and often dismissed it as a completely different pagan religion unrelated to Christianity. You can see Faustus in that book I posted arguing extensively that the old testament prophets are no more related to Christ than the oracle of Delphi is. This was the "kind" view. The not so kind view was that the old testament God was a brutal demon trying to bend mankind to his rule, and that the purpose of Christ was actually to free us from him and his laws. For as it says in "On the Origin of the World":

He said, "It is I who am God, and there is no other one that exists apart from me." And when he said this, he sinned against all the immortal beings who give answer. And they laid it to his charge. Then when Pistis saw the impiety of the chief ruler, she was filled with anger. She was invisible. She said, "You are mistaken, Samael," (that is, "blind god"😉. "There is an immortal man of light who has been in existence before you, and who will appear among your modelled forms; he will trample you to scorn, just as potter's clay is pounded.

For the followers of this brand, Christ's goal is no less than the complete destruction of the world and the old testament God, and the liberation of humanity from him (if they have the knowledge to be delivered).

The idea that the Old testament God is virtuous was dismissed by virtue of his self given title "jealous God". For as it says in the Secret Book of John:

And when he saw the creation which surrounds him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?

A legitimate enough complaint, imo. I always thought that the Old Testament God seemed petty and jealous, and its comforting to know that almost half of the early church agreed with me. What defines a Christian? If it is believing in the modern Bible, then you would have a hard time finding any Christians in the early church; it is a world apart.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A legitimate enough complaint, imo. I always thought that the Old Testament God seemed petty and jealous, and its comforting to know that almost half of the early church agreed with me. What defines a Christian? If it is believing in the modern Bible, then you would have a hard time finding any Christians in the early church; it is a world apart.

It is difficult for me to see that interpretation of "jealous God" as legit, even from early Christians.

Jealously, in it's use, has just as much relevancy as "zealous".

In addition, people distinguish "unrighteous" versus "righteous" jealously. Jealousy and envy are two completely different concepts in those original works. Jealousy is not always bad.

It could also be a figure of speech that really represents God's desires for his children to not go down vain paths of worship against gods that do not exist. (The actual reason).

He could also want it to be quite clear that giving other non-existent gods "glory" is Him conceding that they are real. That would make him a liar by indirect admission.

Next, their's the jealousness of something that belongs to you and then their's jealousness of something that doesn't belong to you.

Finally, Jealousness may simply be a human term that most people can understand. The real interpretation could be much more lengthy of what God intended. It could be like, "You'll be sad to know that these vain idols of yours took you further from My grace and you will regret that for Eternity because not only do you not realize that you have an eternal desire for My grace, but you are My life and glory as well and I love you more than creation I made for you."

Translation: uh... basically, God is jealous of you worshiping non existent things.

I don't really see those as legitimate either. If that's what God meant, why wouldn't he just say that? That rewording of yours is only one (long) sentence; smaller than many of God's commandments.

In the gnostic view, Jehovah is not really the source of humanity, so it would be case two: jealousy of something that doesn't belong to you. Again, i'm an atheist. I don't believe in Jehovah, and I don't believe in Yaldabaoth. But in comparing the two as if they were true, I don't think the old testament gives a good lesson there regardless. If God wants people to abandon false Gods, he shouldn't be petty and make it a punishable offense-he should just explain the correct view and leave it up to people. That's the way I see it at least.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really see those as legitimate either. If that's what God meant, why wouldn't he just say that? That rewording of yours is only one (long) sentence; smaller than many of God's commandments.

In the gnostic view, Jehovah is not really the source of humanity, so it would be case two: jealousy of something that doesn't belong to you. Again, i'm an atheist. I don't believe in Jehovah, and I don't believe in Yaldabaoth. But in comparing the two as if they were true, I don't think the old testament gives a good lesson there regardless. If God wants people to abandon false Gods, he shouldn't be petty and make it a punishable offense-he should just explain the correct view and leave it up to people. That's the way I see it at least.

I see the argument of "jealousy? God is childish and evil" as a false dilemma. One created by the gnostics with the idea of multiple gods being players.

Also, in the ideas of punishment, the punishment is the people punishing themselves, not God. The punishment is themselves damning their progression or it could the torturous thoughts from a perfect memory of the things you have done.

Unless of course you consider the Jews getting God Smacked (literally) for their badness.

Some interpretations have God only giving knowledge of stuff, never directly interfering (othodox Jews...from what I read).

The Mana? No idea how that fits into the orthodox view that God never directly interferes. Parting the red sea?
No idea either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see the argument of "jealousy? God is childish and evil" as a false dilemma. One created by the gnostics with the idea of multiple gods being players.

Also, in the ideas of punishment, the punishment is the people punishing themselves, not God. The punishment is themselves damning their progression or it could the torturous thoughts from a perfect memory of the things you have done.

Unless of course you consider the Jews getting God Smacked (literally) for their badness.

Some interpretations have God only giving knowledge of stuff, never directly interfering (othodox Jews...from what I read).

The Mana? No idea how that fits into the orthodox view that God never directly interferes. Parting the red sea?
No idea either.

As well, I would argue there is not "multiple Gods" in gnosticism. Yaldabaoth is hardly worthy of the title God since any wise human is more divine than he is. Aeons are like archangels (bad analogy; they are more like the amesha spenta of Zoroastrianism). At any rate there is only one supreme God.

I could believe that punishment idea if I saw any evidence that non-christians are actually less spiritually progressed. I don't really see that bearing out except in the accounts of the bible itself. And in the bible there are many instances (flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, tower of babel etc) where this punishment actually does take the form of literal violent retribution. In this case, it is hardly the people punishing themselves. All of these actions are easy to understand if they are actions of a tyrant. I believe there was a thread recently where a guy was questioning the moral behind the tower story and I agree.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was hardly created by the gnostics (you can see the exact same point in that Mark Twain book I posted and he'd never read any gnostic books; for that matter, I thought the same thing myself long before i'd read gnostic apocrypha.) Ever since that "jealous" line was first committed to writing, people have been arguing about it.

As well, I would argue there is not "multiple Gods" in gnosticism. Yaldabaoth is hardly worthy of the title God since any wise human is more divine than he is. Aeons are like archangels (bad analogy; they are more like the amesha spenta of Zoroastrianism). At any rate there is only one supreme God.

Like I said, I see that as a false dilemma and it literally did not come around as official doctrine until the gnostics. And, no, that jealous line hasn't been argued about until post-Jesus.

I believe you're referring to Marcion's interpretation but he's not quite Gnostic.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I could believe that punishment idea if I saw any evidence that non-christians are actually less spiritually progressed.

That makes no sense. No one group has "spiritual" progression over the other. Hell, I'd argue that Buddhists (hardcore ones) are more spiritually progressed than any other religious group.

My understanding: 99% of this life is simply mastering it and being good or goodness' sake...not because you get benefits from it. The theological details work themselves out in the next life .

Only hardcore (and possibly self-righteous) Christian holy rollers demand that you "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" in order to make any progress in this life. That's bollocks as their very own bible disagrees with them. Even an atheist can make large amounts of spiritual progression, well beyond that of a "faithful" Evangelical Christian, in this life (assuming there is a next life with a benevolent God on the other side).

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really see that bearing out except in the accounts of the bible itself. And in the bible there are many instances (flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, tower of babel etc) where this punishment actually does take the form of literal violent retribution. In this case, it is hardly the people punishing themselves. All of these actions are easy to understand if they are actions of a tyrant. I believe there was a thread recently where a guy was questioning the moral behind the tower story and I agree.

Again, those natural events may have been "designed" before the universe even existed (according to those Orthodox Jews I mentioned earlier) and God would told them about them before they occurred.

The Great Flood is another example: I think as the "scriptures" or holy writ got transferred and passed along, it was exaggerated (no good evidence of a global event). Most likely, it was a localized flooding event (decent evidence for this). But, again, had those around "Noah" (or whomever the story is naming at that moment) listened, they would have been saved. The event would have occurred regardless of any actions taken before, during, or after because it was designed to happen long before the universe existed.

Tower of Babel is almost assuredly complete allegory. It could have simply been the "confounding" of a tribe's relationship with God and it was a metaphor for the group of people having an explosion of theology (language is the symbol of the relationship with God, in that allegory) all at once. Similar to Noah's flooding event, it most likely was just a small group of people that gradually progressed to "DAH WHOLE WIRLD!" lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
Like I said, I see that as a false dilemma and it literally did not come around as official doctrine until the gnostics. And, no, that jealous line hasn't been argued about until post-Jesus.

I believe you're referring to Marcion's interpretation but he's not quite Gnostic.

I have never read Marcion, I am drawing those concepts from the various Neg Hammadi gospels, particularly the Secret Book of John. It is definitely gnostic and I don't see why you call it multiple Gods. There is one God and a descending series of powerful supernatural entities. As there is in regular Christianity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That makes no sense. No one group has "spiritual" progression over the other. Hell, I'd argue that Buddhists (hardcore ones) are more spiritually progressed than any other religious group.

My understanding: 99% of this life is simply mastering it and being good or goodness' sake...not because you get benefits from it. The theological details work themselves out in the next life .

Only hardcore (and possibly self-righteous) Christian holy rollers demand that you "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" in order to make any progress in this life. That's bollocks as their very own bible disagrees with them. Even an atheist can make large amounts of spiritual progression, well beyond that of a "faithful" Evangelical Christian, in this life (assuming there is a next life with a benevolent God on the other side).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, those natural events may have been "designed" before the universe even existed (according to those Orthodox Jews I mentioned earlier) and God would told them about them before they occurred.

The Great Flood is another example: I think as the "scriptures" or holy writ got transferred and passed along, it was exaggerated (no good evidence of a global event). Most likely, it was a localized flooding event (decent evidence for this). But, again, had those around "Noah" (or whomever the story is naming at that moment) listened, they would have been saved. The event would have occurred regardless of any actions taken before, during, or after because it was designed to happen long before the universe existed.

Tower of Babel is almost assuredly complete allegory. It could have simply been the "confounding" of a tribe's relationship with God and it was a metaphor for the group of people having an explosion of theology (language is the symbol of the relationship with God, in that allegory) all at once. Similar to Noah's flooding event, it most likely was just a small group of people that gradually progressed to "DAH WHOLE WIRLD!" lol

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well admittedly, I can't find a direct citation for someone arguing about this before 1 AD, it is argued about in the Babylonian Talmud which shows that Jews of antiquity who had no belief in Jesus grappled with this issue themselves. I can see no reason to attribute Christians alone to this argument. It is as much a problem for Jews as it is for Christians.

I have never read Marcion, I am drawing those concepts from the various Neg Hammadi gospels, particularly the Secret Book of John. It is definitely gnostic and I don't see why you call it multiple Gods. There is one God and a descending series of powerful supernatural entities. As there is in regular Christianity.

I don't find any arguments before early Christianity about the "jealous God" stuff. That's mostly because it is a "lost in translation" argument and makes no sense as it transformed intellectually and literally.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you just said, that if we worship another God before him, then we are punishing ourselves by damning our progression.

And I just implicitly stated that that only accounts for 1%.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So I really don't understand your line of thought here.

I don't know why: I made it very clear. I'm not even mincing words as I often do.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If you can spiritually progress just by being good for goodness sake, then why does it matter what god you hold before him?

Because, in the end, most of the "gods" are all different interpretations of the same one HOWEVER, these "Gods" are not necessarily a Creators at all. Idolatry and "obsessions" also work as "gods before me".

But, as I stated, there's that 1% that could make a major difference for you in the next life. You have all the less to learn.

Edit - Think about it. From my perspective, mastering your emotions and vices in this life is pretty much 99% of the "gospel". It's the same in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well. All the other precepts and rites are almost superfluous to progressing as a spiritual/eternal being. As a Mormon, I believe all of the theology specifics and rites can be easily taught/done in the next life. Just the same as any other Christian, I also believe that people are judged (they judge themselves, actually) based on what they did with the moral knowledge they had.

For instance, if you truly and honestly believe that not kneeling 34 times towards the east, first thing in the morning, is a horrible sacrilege, then you have committed a sin EVEN THOUGH your neighbor doesn't believe in it. This fits much better with "we will judge ourselves" than "you must do these rites perfectly or be damned!"

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well if you don't think the old testament actually describes the interference of God but is just an exaggerated supernatural depiction of normal floods and earthquakes etc, I would agree with you. But I wouldn't exactly say there are any lessons to be learned beyond "don't build your tower unless its quake-proof".

Sort of. I don't even deem it supernatural. If it was designed before the universe began, it's perfectly natural because the supernatural event already occurred (however, I do not hold that same exact position as the Orthodox Jews concerning this. I still think God does interfere, but subtly.)

The lessons are actually "repent, don't ignore prophets that tell you to repent, and stop being such scumbags".

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't find any arguments before early Christianity about the "jealous God" stuff. That's mostly because it is a "lost in translation" argument and makes no sense as it transformed intellectually and literally.

Additionally, even if we make a "good" vs "bad" jealousy distinction, I would argue the actions portrayed in the bible put it in the latter category.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I just implicitly stated that that only accounts for 1%.

I don't know why: I made it very clear. I'm not even mincing words as I often do.

Because, in the end, most of the "gods" are all different interpretations of the same one HOWEVER, these "Gods" are not necessarily a Creators at all. Idolatry and "obsessions" also work as "gods before me".

But, as I stated, there's that 1% that could make a major difference for you in the next life. You have all the less to learn.

Edit - Think about it. From my perspective, mastering your emotions and vices in this life is pretty much 99% of the "gospel". It's the same in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well. All the other precepts and rites are almost superfluous to progressing as a spiritual/eternal being. As a Mormon, I believe all of the theology specifics and rites can be easily taught/done in the next life. Just the same as any other Christian, I also believe that people are judged (they judge themselves, actually) based on what they did with the moral knowledge they had.

For instance, if you truly and honestly believe that not kneeling 34 times towards the east, first thing in the morning, is a horrible sacrilege, then you have committed a sin EVEN THOUGH your neighbor doesn't believe in it. This fits much better with "we will judge ourselves" than "you must do these rites perfectly or be damned!"

And if we are talking about "don't eat shellfish", any God who would grade on that kind of thing is indeed a tyrant. It is too bad the Jews didn't get this kind of message and could have saved themselves so much trouble. I mean you talk about the 34 kneels as absurd; but this isn't something they dreamt up. The bible would claim these rules were presented by God himself. In which case I can't see the motive for instilling such absurd rules in their heads, that they are judging themselves based on them even though much looser personal rules could have been fine if they hadn't heard of these stricter ones.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sort of. I don't even deem it supernatural. If it was designed before the universe began, it's perfectly natural because the supernatural event already occurred (however, I do not hold that same exact position as the Orthodox Jews concerning this. I still think God does interfere, but subtly.)

The lessons are actually "repent, don't ignore prophets that tell you to repent, and stop being such scumbags".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wait, so now you are saying it was to punish sinners? I thought it was designed from the beginning of time? If so, he sounds worse now than he ever did. If he planned the whole world so that flood could punish sinners, then how is he giving people a chance to repent? His whole set up depended on them NOT doing that.

Nope.

It rains on the righteous and the wicked.

In other words, those events would have happened regardless of who was there. God warned them all the same...sinner or saint.

The Good left...because they listened to the warning. In fact, the "good" tried to persuade those to leave.

Also, no, the "flood" event was local, at the very best. It become "global" as stories were orally transmitted (imo). God was like, "YO! Thought I'd drop a line because you are a really nice guy to those around you. There's a really bad flood that's about to happen. Do x and y and don't forget to tell everyone around you to get ready and behave."

Think of it more like this: trillions of events were pre-planned before the universe's creation. Various sentient life will act according to their will. God will give warnings for some nasty stuff and His spiritual offspring can choose to listen or not listen. Those that listen benefit either physically or spiritually...sometimes both. Those events will happen regardless of what they do. What about the "earthquake" in the middle of nowhere? No one cares about those.

Question: Why didn't we see that with the Haitian Earth Quake?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why you are somehow associating this with Christians. Hebrew-literate non-Christians also discussed this. For instance this Talmud passage discusses it. Now the logic in this passage baffles me but at any rate it is evidence of it being discussed in a Hebrew-only, non-christian context. So there was no "lost in translation" here.

Additionally, even if we make a "good" vs "bad" jealousy distinction, I would argue the actions portrayed in the bible put it in the latter category.

That looks like a discussion very similar to the "apologetics" I already presented.

Additionally, what is the date?

And, obviously, I disagree with the latter category. I see more of a twist on what actually took place and what God's actual words were. I'm a Mormon, remember? I see the bible, especially the old testament, as flawed due to passing through too many hands.

Originally posted by King Kandy
but the Old Testament to me portrays exactly that "you must do these rites" attitude. Even for the new testament I disagree that many of the ethical precepts are good to follow. For instance I think the attitude on divorce is very backward. So if that is the kind of vice-mastering we are talking about I would call it a bad thing.

A lot of the old testament "rites" were archaic, barbaric, and just fitting for the people. The story of the poisonous snakes and looking at the statue come to mind. If something were proven to be 100% effective, no matter how silly, would you not do it?

Yet, they didn't.

I'm not justifying that God made darn good rules. He didn't. I honestly don't think that God handed down most of those rules.

And, the attitude toward divorce...

Do you have anything specific? I'm curious?

Additionally, Mormons believe that the gospel is living. Meaning, what would be appropriate for a different age is not appropriate now.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And if we are talking about "don't eat shellfish", any God who would grade on that kind of thing is indeed a tyrant. It is too bad the Jews didn't get this kind of message and could have saved themselves so much trouble. I mean you talk about the 34 kneels as absurd; but this isn't something they dreamt up. The bible would claim these rules were presented by God himself. In which case I can't see the motive for instilling such absurd rules in their heads, that they are judging themselves based on them even though much looser personal rules could have been fine if they hadn't heard of these stricter ones.

But, you see, those rules were "right" to them. Violations were bad to them. So if they truly believed it, then they would sin by violating them.

Like I said, sin is more of a state of mind rather than specific x.

I don't know how that applies to a person that thinks killing is righteous (cue the city of Jericho). Some Christians argue (not me) that we are all born with the light of Christ and know right from wrong at a base level.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nope.

It rains on the righteous and the wicked.

In other words, those events would have happened regardless of who was there. God warned them all the same...sinner or saint.

The Good left...because they listened to the warning. In fact, the "good" tried to persuade those to leave.

Also, no, the "flood" event was local, at the very best. It become "global" as stories were orally transmitted (imo). God was like, "YO! Thought I'd drop a line because you are a really nice guy to those around you. There's a really bad flood that's about to happen. Do x and y and don't forget to tell everyone around you to get ready and behave."

Think of it more like this: trillions of events were pre-planned before the universe's creation. Various sentient life will act according to their will. God will give warnings for some nasty stuff and His spiritual offspring can choose to listen or not listen. Those that listen benefit either physically or spiritually...sometimes both. Those events will happen regardless of what they do. What about the "earthquake" in the middle of nowhere? No one cares about those.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Question: Why didn't we see that with the Haitian Earth Quake?

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you are saying that God planned natural phenomena, but not the actions of organisms? And that the earthquake was not intended to kill sinners, but, it was kind of appropriated for that purpose when God warned people? That's a interesting personal take on it. I still think this is a bad scenario because God is selectively warning people (like you said with Haiti).

He made a path for sentient life (around human level). He can't force them to choose but he can make a strong case for why they should do certain things.

I believe I already covered that. Some of his creations do not have the intellectual capacity to "listen" to his warnings. The Christians believe a couple of things: those lesser beings are saved through Christ's grace (not to be mean, but the same applies for children and the mentally handicap/ill) OR the animals do not have eternal souls.

I do NOT believe the latter. I think animals have souls...just not human-level souls. Some Mormons think that even bacteria/viruses have souls...or they are just pinches of one major soul: Earth/Gaia. Yes, Mormons belief the Earth has a soul.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because God doesn't exist?

It was mildly a trick question. They were warned by experts that mumbo- jumbo could occur (not all "prophets" have to be holy men...common sense and science).

The Mormon apostles and prophets had (they haven't preached it in about a year now, however...I wonder what's up?) preached for years about the necessity to get proper food storage and water to last for at least 3 months. Some Haitian Mormons listened and did so but most of them saw their supplies quickly depleted as they shared (or were pillaged by) with those around them.

The Mormons also built their churches to withstand the quake after careful prayer and preparation (all 9 church buildings were just fine). They sheltered all they could there shortly after the quake. "The Utah-based faith is sheltering about 5,000 Haitians, most of whom are not Mormons, at nine LDS chapels in the area, none of which was damaged in the quake."

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14249810

A skeptic would say, "Well, Mormons used common sense: don't build weak buildings in an earthquake prone area". I agree: that's one way to look at it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That looks like a discussion very similar to the "apologetics" I already presented.

Additionally, what is the date?

And, obviously, I disagree with the latter category. I see more of a twist on what actually took place and what God's actual words were. I'm a Mormon, remember? I see the bible, especially the old testament, as flawed due to passing through too many hands.

Well this thread is about alternative interpretations, so this is the place to be open to that. In terms of mental reconstructions of what it really was like, I think the gnostic interpretation still sends a better message. Both of these seem way better than a literal interpretation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A lot of the old testament "rites" were archaic, barbaric, and just fitting for the people. The story of the poisonous snakes and looking at the statue come to mind. If something were proven to be 100% effective, no matter how silly, would you not do it?

Yet, they didn't.

This is another "Yaldabaoth" moment in the mainstream interpretation to me. He sent the snakes because the people were complaining, to poison them and then make them use his treatment. It comes off as bullying to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not justifying that God made darn good rules. He didn't. I honestly don't think that God handed down most of those rules.

And, the attitude toward divorce...

Do you have anything specific? I'm curious?

As far as divorce, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-12, for examples.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, you see, those rules were "right" to them. Violations were bad to them. So if they truly believed it, then they would sin by violating them.

Like I said, sin is more of a state of mind rather than specific x.

I don't know how that applies to a person that thinks killing is righteous (cue the city of Jericho). Some Christians argue (not me) that we are all born with the light of Christ and know right from wrong at a base level.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Circa 200 AD (apparently quoting an older tradition; the Talmud is considered oral law).

Well this thread is about alternative interpretations, so this is the place to be open to that. In terms of mental reconstructions of what it really was like, I think the gnostic interpretation still sends a better message. Both of these seem way better than a literal interpretation.

That was my point: the arguments started popping up after Christ due to the early Christians. In the beginning, the early Christians were Jews and Gentiles. How I was taught this particular portion of theology: it was not a problem before Christ because it was in slightly different language that did not interpret to mean a vice but rather a want for His children to pursue things of righteousness rather than non-existent gods and dead-end obsessions.

Yeah, some Christian Anti-Mormons thing that Mormons are the new-age Gnostics. That does not bother me so much as I see these theological teachings as a bit more fluid than some "direct interpreters" take it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is one more reason why I find the bible impossible to believe. Any idiot would do that in the context of having seen so many miracles.

This is another "Yaldabaoth" moment in the mainstream interpretation to me. He sent the snakes because the people were complaining, to poison them and then make them use his treatment. It comes off as bullying to me.

I do not think the story changed much from the original but I always thought it was utterly stupid that some of the wandering Jews were too prideful to just go look at something and be cured. That was supposed to be the moral of the story.

And, I do see the Yaldabaoth interpretation as making more sense, now that you put it that way. However, I see it this way:

How I think it really went down:

Jews wandered into an area that a lot of poisonous desert snakes were gathered (mating season? Happens. Saw some scary sh*t on Discovery where thousands of snakes converged in one general are for an orgy...in the desert). Snakes start biting them because it's mating season and they are walking all over their house. Moses gets a magical statue from God that can cure them (maybe it was an inhaled antidote? No idea how it worked). Due to being in a desert, they die quickly because they are already starved and dehydrated. Some people hear from others that the statue works but they refuse to believe something so silly works (I would try anything if I were about 24 hours away from death from a poisonous bite, especially if I lived among such a superstitious tribe).

How it was said to have gone down:

God sent poisonous snakes into the camp to weed out the unfaithful and prideful Jews because he was filtering out the bad ones because they were to become his eventual parents/family in a thousand or so years. The statue was imbued with God's power and those that looked upon it were supernaturally cured of all snake bite symptoms. It worked perfectly as a trial to weed out the unfaithful and overly prideful.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It seems like you would almost have to think that to not consider Jehovah laughable. Those rules could only be the result of an evil god, or humans themselves.

Makes sense. Some of the older Mormons hold that God had to use those strict rules because of how immature and unfaithful they were (some Mormons think that because we have a belief that the closer to the end of times it gets, the older and more righteous the souls (it's an average, not all encompassing) were before coming here to Earth.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
As far as divorce, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-12, for examples.

Luke 16:18

It means (as told in the old Testament) that if a man gets divorced explicitly to marry someone else, he's committing adultery. To put it in modern terms, a dude has a raging boner for a certain chick. His wife is not that hot...so he divorces her for no reason other than he wants to bone the other hot chick. So as to not come under condemnation from his peers, he makes sure to divorce the "hag" and marries the hottie.

I believe this, as well. A marriage is sacred. Just because you "play by the rules" doesn't mean you've committed sin in your heart. There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. As it goes, the spirit of the Law is what Jesus brought in his ministry.

Mark 10: 2-10

Same as above.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I understood what you were saying. But they never would have believed such a thing if God hadn't revealed it to them (assuming the rules are from God--if not, then what you say makes sense even though I don't agree). So if God did reveal it to them, it was like some kind of sick joke to put that in their heads when really other forms of devotion would have been fine.

Yes, I agree. I talked about that as well. Society dictates a lot of what we deem as right and wrong.

And, like I stated before, some Christians believe that the Jews needed those harsh laws to act as a purifier and a conditioner.

However, we all know how the purification turned out: the Jews became quite self-righteous by the time Jesus came around. They wore these beads on their cloaks that had a bead for every good deed that they did. Those that were considered "really righteous" had lots of beads. How self-righteous is that?

Of course, I'm not supposed to judge.

Another thought: what if God weeded out his people, like that, in such a way as to prepare them to become the self-righteous people that they were by the time he was born? It is said that only those contemporary Jews would have crucified their own savior (not antisemitism). Meaning, God had prepared a way for his entire plan to work since the very beginning and the Jews were actually performing the work of righteousness by persecuting and demanding the life of the Savior.

But wait? They were actually doing righteous by killing the apostles and Jesus? Yup. 🙂

So I guess that really pisses Mel Gibson off because he never thought about the "Jesus killing Jews" as actually being the tools of righteousness. 🙂

My personal opinion: I consider the Jews of that time as having a very important role to play. They saw Jesus as blasphemer and a sorcerer. In their eyes, they were doing very righteous works. Assuming the Jesus was the Christ, the Jews will die, go to to the spirit world, see the error in their ways, but will not come under condemnation for doing what they genuinely saw as righteousness. This all goes back to my thoughts about "you're only sinning if you truly think you're sinning".

King Kandy,

Re. Cathars. If you're claim is that these are Christians, then I'd have to say that's a rather pure attempt at history. They certainly stem from a Christian culture and adhere to "some" Christian beliefs but then again, so does Islam. The basic 'problem' with identifying Cathars as Christians is comes down to their dualism. You wouldn't have to push very far to get a Cathar to say that the world was evil, or rather, the created order is evil. Anything material is to be rejected and despised, especially sex; as sex brings about new material life which might procreate itself. As a consequence of their uberanti-materialism Cathars adopted very stict poverty lifestyles, and this is perhaps laudable according to many concepts of Virtue. I would certainly say a simple life is a good thing. However their reasons for doing it were not just a basic detachment from material goods but a rejection of materials as evil which therefore makes their lifestyle slightly worrying. Of course, the most worrying practice of the Cathars was to starve themselves to death. Eating, as it was both the ingesting of a material and it prolonged life, was evil, therefore in order to become "Perfect" the Cathars had to fast until death and their souls were freed from their material prison. The body. The problem this has for Christians is first it rejects out and out the incarnation of the Son. Cathars could not accept the incarnation and therefore their theology of redemption was utterly flawed from orthodox Christian eyes. Cathars also believed in two Creators. One who created the spiritual world "God" and the other who created the material world "the Devil". I am sure why you can see the problem with that for Christians. For non-Christians it is slightly problematic too. For one thing it renders science as evil. Studying the created order to a Cathar is essentially entering into dialogue with the devil. "Ironically, I feel like this interpretation of christianity is much more sensible and moral than the conventional interpretation..." Do you really believe that its more sensible and moral? I mean, you actually think sexual intercourse is immoral? You think eating is immoral? You think shopping is immoral? Heh, who knows. Maybe you are right.

Re. Gnosticism. Which form of Gnostic thinking do you find so coherent? Might I recommend to you Irenaeus of Lyon's "Against the Heresies"? You can find it online... Do you actually think that it would be better if Gnosticism had become the dominant form of Christianity? You are aware that nearly every Gnostic sects chief doctrine was the concept of "Secret Knowledge". Only certain select people would ever have access to the true Gospel and attain the fullest experience of heaven? Maybe you like that sort of thing, but the reason the Gnostics were defeated in arguments is mostly because their philosophical arguments at the time, and now, didn't make much sense or have any actual application...

Regarding the New Testament apocrypha. The earliest complete list of New Testament texts we have comes from the aforementioned Irenaeus of Lyons, c.180AD. We have many gloss' from the Gospels and letters from Church Fathers like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch and their successors. I think then, it is impossible for you to claim that "Today's bible is a world apart from what the earliest christians experienced." I mean, I don't think there's a living historian or biblical scholar who would make such a claim. The reason therefore for rejecting the New Testament apocrypha is simple; the early Church did not appear to use it and they never told anyone about them if they did.... Also, most of them are were not written from within the Christian communities or even from within the first two centuries.

With regards to lil_bitchiness' comments. That's not really an accurate rendering of history and not one that I think many Orthodox patriarchs or Catholic leaders would subscribe too. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Church jointly trace their leadership back to the Apostles and the "East-West" division, one between the Patriarch of the West, the bishop of Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs was there long before the Great Schism and they were all still in communion with each other. The reason the Orthodox Church has shown so much reluctance to change is because of their belief that they cannot change without the accent of the Church catholic. That is to say, there can never be a church council unless the bishop of Rome is there. Also, the "filioque" is clearly theologically correct. so bleh! lol. You would do well to note King Kandy, that on none of the issues you have raised so far would any Eastern Orthodox believer from any period in history agree with you. On the fundamentals you have mentioned so far, they are as Catholic as the Pope.

I don't see how someone can regard the Manichean God as "God" when his powers are limited, this is really sort of, you know, not God by the usual definition anyway...

Anyway, that's enough for now I think...

Oh, the first blowjob joke in history I've ever read was one by Tertullian relating to whether or not Christians were cannibals. (You have to be aware Aristotelian biology to get it...

I'm aware I've not really said much specifically about issues... but you do seem to have spent a lot of time bigging up anything that isn't Catholic, perhaps for that reason... maybe as the discussion goes on my points will be more direct to what you are saying...

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
God and Jesus are the same. Just wanted to point that out,.

I'm pretty sure they're not. Didn't even Jesus say that somewhere in the Bible?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm pretty sure they're not. Didn't even Jesus say that somewhere in the Bible?

Well, it depends on what level you want to talk about "same". The word the Orthodox and Catholics use is "consubstantial", that is to say the Father and the Son are of the same being, they are the same type of thing. However indeed within the Godhead the Son is begotten of the Father, that is so say their is a relationship between them...

There are several scriptural texts we could throw about if you want... However, I'm not sure that is going to get us very far, you might want to read some of the literature surrounding the Council of Nicaea, google Alexander of Alexandria and I imagine some likes to his and Arius' works will emerge. A good basis for all this sort of discussion would come from J.N.D Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines".

The key question is: if Jesus' Death and Resurrection are what caused the redemption of mankind then how could he be anything but God. For only God, who is spotless, without sin and the one offended, could become the pure sacrifice and, if you like, armour to protect and redeem mankind. As one poet it put it, "To Man's wounds, only God's wounds can speak. But no God has wounds, but ours alone."

There's lots of interesting material there to discuss, but it does require one to go a bit beyond rather crass attempts at exegesis.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm pretty sure they're not. Didn't even Jesus say that somewhere in the Bible?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think there's lots of contradictions, but what I do remember is that Jesus defended himself from accusations of blasphemy in John 10😖omething by pointing to one of the Psalms which has God (or maybe Melchizedek if the Dead Sea Scrolls are to be believed) identifying some vague body as 'gods'.

He described himself as the angelic Son of Man. Which is why he was accused of blasphemy, for calling himself God.