Why I cannot be Christian simplified

Yep.. the found an old shore line and some ships from Byzantium period.

The Black Sea breech coincides with the expansion of technologies and agriculture into Europe.

 

It would be before the Byzantium period,
Before recorded history, or we would have an actual record of it.

 

I completely agree with everything you said... except your assertion that all these things are requisite of being 'Christian.' They are in fact denominational positions. There are many denominations within Chritianity that believe few or none of your objections, and none (tiko) that believe in them all (perhaps Catholicism?). You could dissavow all these positions and still find a plethora of ideological peers across broader Christianity.

I am a Christian. I do not believe any of these objections disqualify anyone from the salvation offered by Christ.

 

Well then I admire that. My question though would be what exactly is your position when there is something objectionable in the Bible? Do you try to find a hidden context? Do you begrudgingly acknowledge not all scripture is inspired by God?

Basically how do you defend/explain scriptures?

 

.

First of all, the Old Testament is not Christianity. The birth, life and sacrifice of Jesus represented a sea-change in the God-Human relationship. God, who used to be Law-Giver, became Forgiver. My pursuit of answers has led me to the belief that this was in the interest of the continued progression of Humanity. Whatever our purpose is, we required God's guidance and supervision for a time, and then we grew to a point where we require his absence for further advancement. I liken it to a teenager growing up and moving out. Up to a point, children require the structure and the support of their parents. But eventually, all children must become adults in order to reach their full potential, and this requires of the parents a lack of supervision and support. The Old Testament was the 'house rules' of Humanity's childhood. The New Testament is Humanity out on its own. Whether we 'fly or fry' is now up to us because its simply not possible for us to reach our full potential while 'under God's wing.' Our path is our choice now.

Much of what you object to is Old Testament Laws. I believe they were the ethical and moral atmosphere meant to guide us in the development of our own code. Slavery is the easiest example. God told us to not abuse our slaves. We abolished slavery because slavery itself is abuse. I think its better that we abhore slavery because we've chosen to do so rather than because God said so. We know why its bad and we choose to not do it. We grew.

Homosexuality is like playing with the stove. We punish children for playing with the stove because the stove can quite severely hurt them. The homosexual lifestyle is more prone to drug addiction, depression, mental illness and general unhappiness than is the heterosexual lifestyle. I believe this is because its somewhat more hedonistic than heterosexual lifestyles, as it cannot lead to procreation, and in psychological terms, activities that are not creative are more likely to be less fulfilling. But we don't (shouldn't) punish adults for endangering themselves, and I don't believe its a sin against God to be homosexual. There are plenty of homosexuals who are happy, healthy, productive (in a plethora of other ways), good people, and I believe they are so at least in part because of the metaphysical warning culturally ingrained into us by the laws of the Old Testament that admonished homosexuality. There is, if nothing else, a spiritual roadsign on the homosexual path of life that reads 'beware, this road is more treacherous than others. Travel with caution.' And I believe there should be, as any who must travel that road deserve warning.

I don't believe spirituality and science are mutually exclusive at all. For example, I see evolution as the physical description of the progression of life in the physical world. The creation story is the spiritual description of it from the spiritual perspective. I believe humans are essentially multidimensional beings. Our bodies exist in this reality. Our spirits exist in another. Our minds are a nexus between the two. I fully expect at some point in the future that we will develop the technology to explore other dimensions, including but not necessarily limited to the spiritual 'realm.' For now, God and the spirit are 'magical', but only because any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I believe that someday in the distant future, if we continue to advance as God intended and reach our full potential, God and the spirit and Heaven and everything else mystical will be seen as technological instead, at least from the perspective that 'natural' laws could literally be anything in other dimensions or realities.

I don't believe salvation will be denied to anyone. I base this on the one or two lines of scripture where Jesus 'went to preach to the imprisoned' during his 3 days 'dead' after being crucified. This could mean a great many things... but it seems most likely to me that Jesus preached to the dead. I believe each of us will have the opportunity to 'hear' directly from Jesus Himself the reality of our situation, and be invited to make a fully informed and conscious decision regarding the acceptance of Salvation.

I do believe that some may reject Salvation. There are people on this planet that seem to thrive on suffering and decay and nastiness. I don't see any reason to reject the possibility that a soul could be ruined. One who enjoys suffering and death couldn't possibly enjoy an eternity in God's presence (Biblically described as love, joy, contentment). A fair and just God would provide an alternative for even those twisted souls to choose to not be subjected to an eternity of their version of torment.

Ultimately, I believe Biblical scripture is meant to be personally interpreted. All matters spiritual are, after all, between each individual and God and no one else. We can (and should) discuss our revelations with eachother, as that is one of the important means that we use to gain new perspectives and ideas, but ultimately, its all about what makes the most sense to the reason and the spirit that God gave you.

 

The old testament is the Christian God. He did and said all that stuff. Killing babies. Wiping out a planet.

Hard to just forgive and forget

 

You didnt have time to read all of that before responding.

Which begs the question: what is your purpose in doing so?

 

I don't see how this is somehow any big revelation. Babies die all the time for health reasons. The (general) Christian perspective is that everything that happens is allowed by God.

Now if you try to translate that over into "God did it so it's okay if I do it", that's where you run into a problem.

 

The Tigress and Euphrates are essential a flood plain and it is actually part of what makes that area so fertile. Flooding there was a regular occurrence and therefore did not achieve the same magnitude.

The evidence of a fresh water lake with people living and farming in the area under the Black Sea makes it a much better option IMO.

https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/noahs-not-so-big-flood

 

Einstein was NOT an expert on religion and he remarks on the subject were personal reflections.

What is abundantly clear is that Einstein considered Science to be the path of genuine knowledge and that religion should abandon it's primitive myths and embrace scientific knowledge.

 

Ballard's original claims were exaggerated but the subsequent science using whole bivalves indicates that there was most definitely a significant flood in the area covering a great deal of fertile farm land.

 

No God of mine murders babies to make a point

 

In other words, you can't believe in God because if there were a God that means he allows babies to die, along with all sorts of other people who have medical conditions.

 

If the Old Testament is not Christianity, who is Jesus? Where do the prophecies come from that makes him what he is? Where does sin come from? What about the creation? Moses is mentioned almost as much in the New Testament as the Old who is he then? Sure if you want to have a personal relationship with god fine by me, but without the Old Testament that is not Christianity!

 

Periodically they had heavy floods in Iraq caused from spring snowmelt and spring rains .. That's what formed the delta below Basra.

Ziusudra was a king of Sumer who hauled beer, grain and livestock down river on barges.

https://eden-saga.com/en/sumer-mythology-enki-enlil-atrahasis-arch-a-sumerian-noah.html

excerpt:


Atrahasis is the original version of the biblical myth, as the Sumerian version is much clearer than its Hebrew copy. We feel like the Bible writers have copied a story without understanding the real meaning. The Sumerian tablets were detailing the stages of reproductive science, the Hebrews saw there only fanciful legends.

At that time, no Nobel Prize among those brave Hebrews. They were all goatherds and leaders of donkeys. How could they understand the technology of the former gods?

They reacted like the gods had wished: with admiration, submission, devotion, commitment, and a lot of sweating.

The Babylonians made them work like donkeys. But they have also taught them to read and write. (during the Babylonian exile)

As soon as they could, Hebrews returned home, or almost home: among Philistines, ie the ancestors of Palestinians, taking drafts of a book which will be a best-selling book for twenty-five centuries: the Bible.

 

Many of the epic Bible stories begin with the slaughter of babies.

 

Theism is better in your opinion? look what theists do... Preachers molesting children in a church and the church covering it up?

 

Maybe there'd be a better word, but I thought my addition of "no matter how well deserved" made that distinction moot.

 

The Old Testament is Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, and the Messiah prophesized in Judaism. The followers of Jesus are the followers of the Jewish Messiah.

Jesus did not make the Old Testament untrue. He made it anachronistic. Its still valuable as history, precedent and as an insight into the God-Human relationship. But that relationship was fundamentally altered by Jesus the Messiah.

 

That was why Darwin became an Atheist.

 

The messiah expected in the OT was an anointed warrior king like David who would vanquish the enemies of the Jews.

 

I wasn't aware Darwin became an atheist.

(that was a bit sarcastically rhetorical, if I need to point it out)

 

As a devout Jew there is no way that Jesus would ever have called himself the 'son of god'
because that was blasphemy that carried the death penalty.

James, the brother of Jesus,called Paul/Saul the 'man of the lie' because he spread that blasphemy about Jesus after his death. Also worth noting that Paul/Saul was a Roman agent charged with the destruction of the Jewish state and what better way to undermine it than to set up a false "messiah" and accuse the Jews of killing him?

 

Darwin, like most scholars of his age, was a Christian. He based the concept of evolution on the work of a friend of his who was a Reverend and who wrote a book about competition in free market capitalism where only those businesses that adapted to changing market conditions survived while others failed. However when Darwin's daughter suffered a long and painful illness that ultimately killed her he could no longer reconcile the pablum about a 'loving god' with what he had personally experienced hence his rejection of Christianity and adoption of Atheism.

 

I find that an odd take. There wasn't really any Jewish state.