Christianity is very interesting to study

Post Reply New Topic

After all, despite what most say, I do not consider Christianity to be one of the Abrahamic Faiths. After all, unlike Judaism and Islam, which are Arahamic Faiths, the Gospels preach being kind even to those who are cruel to oneself. There is much talk about forgiveness in the Gospels, about turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies. Personally, I have always found such ideas eerily like Buddhist doctrines of all things. Roman Catholicism, in particular, is filled with Pagan ideas. Besides, how does one actually reconcile the idea of The Trinity with Monotheism? After all, are there three Gods or simply one God?

Jews and Muslims, for their part, reject the concept of the Trinity for precisely this reason. Besides, I have always found it most interesting, that many of the top ranking officials of the Fascist movement were born into the Roman Catholic faith. Anti-Semites torment us about this and that Bolshevik being born into the Jewish faith, but it is simply just as interesting, to me anyway, that many Fascists were born into the Roman Catholic faith. Makes one really wonder about Roman Catholicism!

I should see if I can study the events around the first Century of the Christian Era. That would be a really neat idea. Still, without Christianity, there never would have been the conception of The Code of Chivalry, so that could be said in its favor. I think that Religion might be my new Favorite Topic.

An astute observation, invisible to many. Whenever I hear the term Judeo-Christian it gets my hackles up, as it does for many a Jew.

Let’s be clear: Far from “sharing” one tradition, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from marrying Christians, setting foot inside a Christian church—and we can’t even drink from an open bottle of kosher wine that has been used by a Christian. We reject the Christian idea of salvation, we abhor Christian divine teachings on every subject, and we are repulsed and outraged by incessant attempts by Christian missionaries to bring us into their fold.

It is particularly disturbing when Klinghoffer makes statements which reveal his complete assumption of elements of New Testament Pauline ideology, for instance, the requirement that wives submit to their husband’s authority. There is no mandate on precisely how a woman should behave with her husband—Jews expect the happy couple to work it out for themselves. Also, while divorce may be a tragedy, and God cries, it is in no way banned—in Judaism, that is. The story in Christianity, and Klinghoffer’s “Judeo-Christian Biblical America,” is different.

Incidentally, we have more in common with Muslims than we do with Christians; Jewish law permits Jews to enter a mosque… but not a church.

To insist that we have some kind of bond with religious Christians because of similar core values, is to propagate a terrible lie. Christians who base their views on what they call the Old Testament, don’t view Mosaic law as an abiding legal text. The Church has abolished Torah law as part of its attempt to abolish the very idea of Jewish nationhood.

Jews and Christians differ on every single fundamental principle—even on the meaning of core Scriptural texts. More crucially, Christians rely on the Old Testament for legal delineation; whereas Jews rely solely upon our rabbinic tradition. We never, ever turn to our Bible for legal guidance, only to our rabbinic literature. To suggest that our Sages had anything at all in common with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Carter or Pat Robertson is a slap in the face of 2500 years of scholarship.

“Judeo-Christian” is as valid a concept as happy-joylessness, or tall dwarves. Klinghoffer’s yearnings for this repugnant “ideal” is a deviant phenomenon without a trace of commonality in traditional Jewish thought, ancient or modern.



The go-to parallel is one of water. Water can exist in more than one state - solid, liquid, gas or whatever new state the boys in the lab cook up next week. Whatever state it is in, it is still water.



It's many things, not just the trinity but I have noticed how Muslims arguing with Christians put particular focus on the Trinity. Every single Muslim seems to attend a mandatory night class called "Why Christianity is Dumb" and the Trinity is always the first lesson on the first night.

A big reason, perhaps the biggest reason that the peoples of the day rejected Christianity (many of the arguments in the Bible are on this front) was it's teaching that Earthly, material rewards were absolutely NOT rewards for piety, which conflicted with the belief of the day, particular those who were rich and powerful. There are elements of this in Islam too, the early conquests were the rewards of faith and later failures and retreats must therefore be the opposite. In Christianity, those who have nothing are the ones closest to and most deserving of Divine salvation. It's the last thing those with temporal power want to hear.

An interesting aside, there might be a modern parallel with Scientology. I have heard it tells its most famous members that their wealth and status is due to whatever the Scientology equivalent of piety is. Perhaps that is why it is so popular among a certain crowd.

Is this thread about Christianity or about Christ's teachings?

They are not always the same.

Both are very interesting to study.

Why wouldn't Christianity be an "Abrahamic faith"? It derives from the Old Testament, which had Yahweh as the paramount "God," and Abraham as the person who spread this "new faith" all through the Canaanite regions.

Jesus, himself, was a Jew, albeit a renegade one. He used the Old Testament as an essential guide. There is a strong link, to say the least, between the Old and New Testaments.

Islam is also an "Abrahamic faith." In simple terms, one of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is the fact that Jesus Christ is merely a major prophet, rather than the "Son of God." Not even Mohammed is the "Son of God." He is merely a "messenger."

Well, in my view, and I know almost nobody agrees with me, but as far as I am concerned Christianity, Roman Catholicism in particular, is a Pagan faith. The whole Bible is a joke. Reading The Old Testament, one would have expected that once the Messiah came, he would tell the Jews of the time to violently seek revenge against Greco-Roman Civilization, and even overthrow the Roman Empire. Instead, there is the Punchline: the Messiah came and preached to the Jews to turn the other cheek, and forgive the Romans. He even said some nice things about the Romans too.

Not exactly how a Hollywood Script writer would write it. The stuff about loving one's enemies is actually Buddhist, or at any rate reminiscent of it. Moreover, despite what the Televangelists babble, America was not founded on the Christian faith. In truth, the Founding Fathers were Deists and Freemasons, if anything. Ponder the irony of that. Besides, I am an Evolutionist myself. How about you?

There are "pagan" elements to virtually every supposedly "non-pagan" religion known to Earth. That's just the way the ball bounces.

The Reformation, for example, was a reaction to what Martin Luther, et al, saw as the "paganism," the worship of idols, as practiced by Roman Catholics.

I agree with you there. Besides, however much Gnostics and Jews disagree, neither believe that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. I find it intriguing, though, how modern Televangelists endeavor to squirm out of things by denying that Hitler and the rest of the Nazis were their fellow Christians. Make no mistake, I am no fan of the Nazis by any means. Still, as much as I hate Hitler, I firmly believe that Hitler firmly believed himself to be a Christian. Joseph Stalin, Europe's other most infamous tyrant, also was born into the Christian faith.

They say Hitler was a Pagan. And since Roman Catholicism, the faith he was born into was mostly Pagan, in a sense they are right. Still, I doubt Televangelists were ever that friendly with Catholics in any event. Personally, I think I may be a Deist. After all, Christianity is more than a bit too anti-Jewish for my taste!

Christ's "Sermon On The Mount" should be the basis for the doctrine of every Christian sect, in my honest opinion.

Martin Luther is an interesting case. Today, we associate him with anti-Semitism. But, he thought to bring Jews into his own fold by appealing to their resentments towards Roman Catholic anti-Semitism. Only after they decided to stay Jewish, did Luther throw his temper tantrum, in the form of the book, The Jews And Their Lies!

It's too bad----Martin Luther had a great mind.

Yeah the Nazis and Christianity had a complicated relationship. While the old canard that Nazism is Christianity Gone Wild like a teenager on spring break is not true, the Nazis certainly used Christianity for its own ends and were allied with it to an extent - much of their rhetoric was about saving Christianity from the Bolsheviks (Atheists gone wild?). Many Christians who supported the Nazis knew all too well what the Soviets were doing to Christians and Christianity, there were communists openly marching in the streets promising a similar revolution in Germany and the Nazis promised to save them from it. Once the Nazis were in power though, there was a distinct effort (though not in the same way the Soviets went about it) to suppress Christianity, especially in youth. They paid lip service to God but absolutely wanted it subservient to Nazi ideology.

The Nazis, it would seem, when they realized the Pope would not play ball, decided to invent their own version of Christianity.

The Nazis actually invented their own "religion," based on some vaguely "Aryan" mysticism.

And where does the term "Aryan" come from? Answer me that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan