Paganism versus Christianity

[LoAmmi]

By "He", do you mean the living God?

Previous to Adam sinning, there was an event that shook all of heaven. It was the antithesis to all that God created that God Himself called "very good".

What changed it?

Oh, that's a purely Christian belief. That isn't a Jewish belief.

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
By "He", do you mean the living God?

Previous to Adam sinning, there was an event that shook all of heaven. It was the antithesis to all that God created that God Himself called "very good".

What changed it?

Oh, that's a purely Christian belief. That isn't a Jewish belief.

Was the world and all that God created, in the beginning, evil?

 

[LoAmmi]

Was the world and all that God created, in the beginning, evil?

What do we mean by evil? There was a talking snake with legs that told the humans to go against HaShem.

 

[gord44]

Thank you for providing it.

No worries. I'm not a Kaballist or do I really subscribe to the idea of an eternal creator god so there is no point in arguing for or against a specific belief I don't really have much passion about.

 

[Edmond Smith]

What is the difference between other faiths and Christianity? What is the difference between Paganism and Christianity? Why did Jesus tell us to 'treat them (those who say they are in Christ but who refuse to listen to the Church) as a heathen man?" in Matthew 18:17? If there is a way to treat heathen, how was it ? What is the difference between world religions and Christianity? James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." 1 John 2:15-19, speaks of the World and the things of the world. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." WHO IS THE ANTICHRIST.... 1 John 2:22-23 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." 2 John 1:7 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

How are Christians to treat Worldly religions or otherwise, World Religions? Are World Religions, Pagan Religions? Isn't it strange how James calls them adulteresses and adulterers? Now days, children are learning how to be adulteresses and adulterers before they reach their puberty through public schooling.

Okay, a lot of questions.
1. What is the difference between other faiths and Christianity? Christianity: What God brought for the salvation of man.
Other faiths: What man can do to save himself.

2. What is the difference between Paganism and Christianity? Christianity: What God brought for the salvation of man.
Paganism: There is no salvation for mankind, you get what you give out, karma, reincarnation.

3. Matthew 18:17: To understand this you must first keep it in Context. Jesus was preaching to believers that day. And many have come and asked him questions. He then started his message. He starts with having the faith of a child and to be humble. He then goes into that it would be better to loose a hand than for the whole body to be cast into hell. He then tells them that the Son of Man had come to save the Lost. Now we get close to what Christ was talking about. Sorry, try to keep this short but going to have to pull out the scriptures here a bit.
Now what is about to transpire here is what to do, if a brother or sister of the church are doing wrong or something sinful. and it's been noticed by people. On how to handle the situation. This falls under church discipline.

Matthew 18:15
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
(Here if someone, (remember he's talking to believers here), has done something that is sinful or hurtful to another or youself, go speak to him alone, don't announce throughout the church, no gossip, go to them or him alone. If he or they hear what you have to say and realize that something is off and don't deny you then gain a brother in the church.)

Matthew 18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
(If that person, argues or denies that he or she did anything, and you know the truth of it that he did, go back to him again, but this time take one or two more people with you to witness the conversation, to confirm what is the truth to the congregation if needs be.)

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
(Now, this person has had one person speak to him about an issue that has come up about his actions, he didn't listen, he argued (supposing). You then came back later with two more people to witness the conversation and tried to discuss the issue again, and again he argues. The third and final time is you bring it before the church. Explaining that you tried to help the person to understand that what he has done was sinful or wrong and that he should repent of what he had did. And even took witnesses with you to prove that you didn't make anything up and it wasn't personal. The witness will testify of the truth. The church at that time is to treat this person as a sinner, no longer a brother, no longer as a member of the church. He's not to have any business dealings or know of the goings on inside the church.

Sorry, got to keep In context.

4. How to treat a Heathen? With Love, compassion, humbleness, grace and mercy. Heathen just means someone separated from. A heathen to the church is someone who has turned from or has been told to leave the church. It doesn't mean to treat them in other way except on how Christ would.

5. Difference between world religions and Christianity? the easy thing to say here is: What God brought for the salvation of man: Christianity, and what man can do to save himself...is the teaching of many of the world religions....but you really should be more specific.

The rest of your statement is a jumble. Don't know what you want to know there.

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
Was the world and all that God created, in the beginning, evil?

What do we mean by evil? There was a talking snake with legs that told the humans to go against HaShem.

is this a teaching of Judaism?

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
Thank you for providing it.

No worries. I'm not a Kaballist or do I really subscribe to the idea of an eternal creator god so there is no point in arguing for or against a specific belief I don't really have much passion about.

Thank you for participating in the discussion, nevertheless.

 

[LoAmmi]

is this a teaching of Judaism?

It's just logical. If there's a creature there that tells them to go against His wishes (though I don't believe it was a snake, I believe it is the natural evil inclination within all of us) then yeah, something evil existed. I'm not actually sure if Genesis says there was no pain and such prior to the event. Just no death.

 

[LoAmmi]

Since this is so far off topic, if you'd like to continue why not post further questions here:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...daism-for-information-not-for-debate.7927772/

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
is this a teaching of Judaism?

It's just logical. If there's a creature there that tells them to go against His wishes (though I don't believe it was a snake, I believe it is the natural evil inclination within all of us) then yeah, something evil existed. I'm not actually sure if Genesis says there was no pain and such prior to the event. Just no death.

What part of Genesis is unclear on the source of evil?

Just for clarity's sake, is what is written in Genesis a part teaching in Judaism?

 

[brinny]

Since this is so far off topic, if you'd like to continue why not post further questions here:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...daism-for-information-not-for-debate.7927772/

I was responding to your comment that what is written in Genesis is not a teaching of Judaism. I was asking you specifically.

Thank you for the link, however. I will also post the question there.

In the meantime a response from you would be most appreciated.

Thank you kindly.

 

[LoAmmi]

I was responding to your comment that what is written in Genesis is not a teaching of Judaism. I was asking you specifically.

Thank you for the link, however. I will also post the question there.

In the meantime a response from you would be most appreciated.

Thank you kindly.

I posted an answer in that thread and quoted you. You can check it there.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

And that's the problem with a religion that developed over time but kept its earlier writings: you have got to deal with all these apparently strange narratives that do not quite fit the theology you ended up with.

I am pretty sure that the roots of the Genesis were similar to other Semitic creation stories: the gods create the world, place man within it, are disconcerted by his rapid reproduction and/or potential to become like them, and "put him in his place" before they're faced with a new race of immortal, godlike beings.

But then, polytheism became henotheism and then monotheism, and what was once a pantheon of very human deities became a single, omnimax entity, and all of a sudden you were faced with an unsolvable dilemma: either you end up with a bumbling god who made such a weak plan for his creation that it fell apart at the first bump in the road, and had to be almost reduced to trash within a few human generations (i.e. the Flood). Or else you end up with a rather cruel being who basically places a loaded gun in front of innocents and tells them not to go near it, knowing full well that curiosity will get the better of them. Neither of these versions is particularly appealing.

 

[brinny]

brinny said: ↑
I was responding to your comment that what is written in Genesis is not a teaching of Judaism. I was asking you specifically.

Thank you for the link, however. I will also post the question there.

In the meantime a response from you would be most appreciated.

Thank you kindly.

I posted an answer in that thread and quoted you. You can check it there.

Thank you.

Just for clarification, my responses to you were in response to your posts about the living God being the "source" of evil.

It appeared that clarification of what you meant was needed.

Thus my questions to you regarding what you posted.

Thank you kindly, and thank you for the link.

 

[LoAmmi]

And that's the problem with a religion that developed over time but kept its earlier writings: you have got to deal with all these apparently strange narratives that do not quite fit the theology you ended up with.

I am pretty sure that the roots of the Genesis were similar to other Semitic creation stories: the gods create the world, place man within it, are disconcerted by his rapid reproduction and/or potential to become like them, and "put him in his place" before they're faced with a new race of immortal, godlike beings.

But then, polytheism became henotheism and then monotheism, and what was once a pantheon of very human deities became a single, omnimax entity, and all of a sudden you were faced with an unsolvable dilemma: either you end up with a bumbling god who made such a weak plan for his creation that it fell apart at the first bump in the road, and had to be almost reduced to trash within a few human generations (i.e. the Flood). Or else you end up with a rather cruel being who basically places a loaded gun in front of innocents and tells them not to go near it, knowing full well that curiosity will get the better of them. Neither of these versions is particularly appealing.

Well, for at least a thousand years Judaism has considered the Garden of Eden to be humanities growing up event. We left our parent's house, so to speak, and went out on our own. We weren't provided everything anymore but had to fend for ourselves. As for the flood, it shows that He will not allow those loyal to Him to be completely destroyed.

Plus there are some weird creatures named and I don't know what they are and weird creatures are cool by default.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, for at least a thousand years Judaism has considered the Garden of Eden to be humanities growing up event. We left our parent's house, so to speak, and went out on our own. We weren't provided everything anymore but had to fend for ourselves. As for the flood, it shows that He will not allow those loyal to Him to be completely destroyed.

Oh yes, meta-perspectives on the story (I'm not allowed to say myth, apparently, even though that term would certainly communicate much better what kind of meaning is to be transported by it) are quite fascinating! Does it reflect ancestral memories of the unpleasant transition from the carefree life of hunter-gatherers to the back-breaking labor of agriculture? (Because the great agricultural revolution heralded a significant reduction in individual quality of life, and succeeded only on account of its ability to sustain larger population sizes.) Or is it more psychological in nature, hearkening back to the flowering of full-fledged self-awareness and the chaos ensuing from a species that was no longer primarily ruled by instinct? (The fratricide part of the story may point in that direction.)

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

And that's the problem with a religion that developed over time but kept its earlier writings: you have got to deal with all these apparently strange narratives that do not quite fit the theology you ended up with.

I am pretty sure that the roots of the Genesis were similar to other Semitic creation stories: the gods create the world, place man within it, are disconcerted by his rapid reproduction and/or potential to become like them, and "put him in his place" before they're faced with a new race of immortal, godlike beings.

But then, polytheism became henotheism and then monotheism, and what was once a pantheon of very human deities became a single, omnimax entity, and all of a sudden you were faced with an unsolvable dilemma: either you end up with a bumbling god who made such a weak plan for his creation that it fell apart at the first bump in the road, and had to be almost reduced to trash within a few human generations (i.e. the Flood). Or else you end up with a rather cruel being who basically places a loaded gun in front of innocents and tells them not to go near it, knowing full well that curiosity will get the better of them. Neither of these versions is particularly appealing.

Facepalm , except that the stories fit quite nicely , and Genesis speaks nothing of polytheism , or henotheism , also try a God of mercy who didn't force humans to serve him but allowed Adam and Eve to reject him .

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Facepalm , except that the stories fit quite nicely , and Genesis speaks nothing of polytheism , or henotheism , also try a God of mercy who didn't force humans to serve him but allowed Adam and Eve to reject him .

Early books of the Bible (chronologically as well as in terms of their position within the anthology) often reference the "sons of El" (from the Canaanite pantheon), which are erroneously retconned as angels today. Also, El (who was only much later later retconned and conflated with YHVH) totally addresses the rest of the pantheon before banishing Adam and Eve: Gen 3:22 “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Even several thousand years of retroactive continuity and theological sleight-of-hand cannot obfuscate the roots of the tale, which are deeply embedded within proto-Semitic polytheism.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No one is saying humans are perfect, but WE can improve our society. Well, at least we could if fundamentalist religions didn't hold us back so much.

I would be interested in knowing how fundamentalist religions have forced people against their will to be violent , self centered, covetous, envious, dishonest, greedy etc, ? What about fundamentalist religions made Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Napoleon et al act as they did? Additionally who would you include in your "WE" that you claim could improve our society if fundamentalist religions stepped out of the way? Perhaps some of those I mentioned earlier felt they were part of that "WE" ? Was society so much better prior to the institution of fundamentalist religions and if so why did such institutions come into being? Did humans devolve from a higher to lower form of intelligence or did some alien species , perhaps now extinct, force fundamentalist religions upon humanity to keep us subjugated? ?Is the need to find some sort of a scapegoat to blame for the ills of society so overwhelming that one is willing to stretch the boundaries of credibility beyond their limits in order to find one? Wouldn't it be so much more reasonable just to admit that humans are basically self centered and that it is that which is the cause of our problems and not the fault of any system or philosophy or group invented or formed by such self centered people.

 

[awitch]

I would be interested in knowing how fundamentalist religions have forced people against their will to be violent , self centered, covetous, envious, dishonest, greedy etc, ?

Me too, because I don't know anyone who is saying that is case.

What about fundamentalist religions made Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Napoleon et al act as they did?

In a fundamentalist political regime, the first thing to do is erase any competition; primarily religion.

Additionally who would you include in your "WE" that you claim could improve our society if fundamentalist religions stepped out of the way?

We as in humans and I'd hope religious people would contribute.

Perhaps some of those I mentioned earlier felt they were part of that "WE" ? Was society so much better prior to the institution of fundamentalist religions and if so why did such institutions come into being?

Well, in the US the Moral Majority came about because some states didn't want to desegregate. They organized politically so they could influence politics to reflect their religion.

]Did humans devolve from a higher to lower form of intelligence or did some alien species , perhaps now extinct, force fundamentalist religions upon humanity to keep us subjugated?

You know no one is suggesting that. Why are you making things up?

Is the need to find some sort of a scapegoat to blame for the ills of society so overwhelming that one is willing to stretch the boundaries of credibility beyond their limits in order to find one? Wouldn't it be so much more reasonable just to admit that humans are basically self centered and that it is that which is the cause of our problems and not the fault of any system or philosophy or group invented or formed by such self centered people.

Humans are far from perfect. There are a lot of us with limited resources and widely varying cultures so of course we're not going to get along all the time. We don't have to sit around waiting for some god to come in and wipe us out/save us when we can try to improve our world on our own. I think waiting is being lazy and self-centered.