These replies are getting long
!
Honestly, since I'm not an expert on Jewish tradition, I couldn't say all of them, but the big one that I am aware of is the dietary restrictions. The new covenant does replace the OT, but at the same time Jesus observed many of the old traditions still. Like anything in religion, there is no simple answer!
So, you believe in Paul's letters then ? You're not eating Kosher and you're not observing the traditions of the OT ?
What about the Sabbath ? Traditional Holidays (Passover, Chanouka, New Year, Day of Atonement,...) Tsdakah (Charity, I think got transformed to Church tithe) ?
Paul probably did the most in spreading the Gospel outside of the middle east. He and Peter were known to have fought over many things in the direction of the Church, including the dietary restrictions.
If the arguments started as early as then on what's supposed to be true ? How can the ideas of today's churches actually be true if they're all different? How do you know Jesus' idea wasn't just to show everyone that they were sinning and that they should come back to their origins ? Jesus was a student of a rabbi back then and what he preached wasn't much different than what Hillel his mentor did. I know Jesus said: "I am", which can mean that he is God, but he also says that only the Father knows some stuff and that he is underneath the Father. How do you know he is God ?
If this is too much, tell me. My head just has lots of questions.
Interesting question. I don't think anyone (well most anyone) would choose to be gay, even my gay friends have told me that! Whether it is by divine design, chemical reaction, or some form of birth defect, I don't know. I think some people are more predisposed to it than others and in some people environment can play an influence.
That said, I think there is a very distinct difference between being gay and engaging in homosexual activities. You are what you are. You can't help the desires that come to you naturally, but you do have a choice on how you act on them. Regardless of what desire we are talking about, I think that is what defines us individually. We all have desires that whether through personal belief or social convention are considered 'wrong.' What is important is how we act on them.
There's a big difference though. Knowing murdering is wrong or knowing not having sex before marriage is wrong, is not the same as telling you that you are wrong. Not that you answered one question wrong, but that you're built wrong. Acting on a false desire (gay men marrying women or gay women marrying men) may lead to a very sad life for the couple but also for the children. You might be going to heaven if you don't do anything else wrong, but you'd be living in hell now.
As a Christian, I do believe that the Christian story is The Truth, and any time I can help someone else to come to that belief is a great day. However, I am respectful of other people's beliefs. They have the right to believe as they choose, and I will not only respect that, but defend it as well.
Isn't it the duty of Christians to pass on the word of Christ ?
Wouldn't it go against your beliefs if you don't show other people the way of Truth ?
As I see it, until I might get a clearer picture, I see everyone choosing what path their Christianity is, but I'll talk about that a bit later.
Also, since you don't like statistics and I understand your view on gay marriages, most of that is ok, except for ...
Is it calling a marriage that bothers you ? Or is it the contract ?
Most of these can be attributed more to cultural differences than religious ones. Look at Islam or Hindu's, or even Jews. All have had periods where one group has persecuted another for various reasons, often using religious difference simply as a guise.
Yes, but Christians are one of the only ones who've persecuted people of the same faith...
Islam converted by force. Jews conquered by force. I don't know much about Hindus.
Have you read them all? I have (well, maybe not all, but all the ones that have been translated and published). I was scared shitless that reading some of the non canonical Gospels would shake the core of my beliefs.
There are only a handful, that even back then, they felt were truly Apolistic (IE written by someone that had actually known Jesus). Some were known to have been written (not just written down, but new works) well after the death of Jesus and most of his disciples. Take the Gospel of Judas for instance.
What I found though was that while I understand the reasons many were left out (For instance Thomas IIRC, while interesting, is just a list of sayings of Jesus, most of which don't make sense without context), overall they strengthened my faith. A lot. Because there was nothing that hugely different in them. Sure the Gnostic ones focus more on self-awareness and less on the crucifixion and resurrection, but they all still are fundamentally about the same thing, turning away from sin and becoming one with God. Whether that is through blind acceptance of Christ's sacrifice or through self-awareness, I don't see much different. The journey is different, but the destination is the same.
No, I haven't, but reading things on my own, will just lead to an extra interpretation and I believe the same documents have enough interpretations already.
You mention that gospels were written after Jesus' death. According to what I've read, all of them were. The originals might have not, but the latest found were at least 30 years or so after Jesus' death. Also, the gospel of Judas, which is the only one I really know about, from National Geographic, tells a completely different tale. Still, even if they all told about the same tale, why were they left out? Are some apostles more important than others? If so, by whose account ? Every gospel tells about the same story, but they do change in tone, in strength and have different choices of words sometimes.
The gospels of the gnostics are also completely different, not even talking about Jesus' death and resurrection. Isn't that what's so important about Jesus, that he died for humanity's sins and then resurrected?
And I would expect that Christ would show more than one path to that ultimate salvation. Even if you only read the canonical Gospels, he was a master of crafting his message to his audience, so that who ever he was speaking to could understand the end message. That's one reason why there are inconsistencies. Again, the destination is the same.
But the canonical Gospels weren't written by him. They were written by mere humans like you and me. I want you to try something, I even did once. Watch a movie and pay close attention to all the details about how everything happened. Next day write things they said down. Things important to you. Tell me how much of it you get right ?
Now translate that into a document of massive importance, where every word matters. Imagine this with the Bible. Tell me what you think about this...
I think if you really examine it, you'll find that the core beliefs are all much the same. There are some outliers, but fundamentally they all believe one thing: That only through acceptance of Christ as your savior will you achieve salvation. As my pastor once said "The rest is just fluff designed to get you there."
So the belief in Jesus is the only thing that matters in Christianity ?
Is this different than any other major religion? The Jews killed large amounts of non-believers in the OT. The Romans (Pagan) brutally persecuted the Christians for hundreds of years. The Muslims persecuted the Christians in territories they conquered. Don't confuse the actions of the Church members with the religion itself. People have always been able to use religion (of any form) to commit unspeakable acts.
I already said, it's mostly the Christian on Christian persecution that bothers me, even though I don't condone violence at all.
Of course the people and the religion aren't the same. There is the problem that Christianity doesn't agree with itself though. As witnessed by the problems now and the many other splits in it.
You have to find your own faith, but this is true with any religion. If you were evaluating Judaism, would it bother you that there are Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, etc.? Or Islam that there are Sunni and Shite? Or the various different forms of Paganism?
Yes it would. I have trouble with most organized religions of today, since the more I read about it the more I see they've all been corrupted. Different forms of paganism can't really bother me, since I have no idea about them.
Islam's Sunni,Shia and other forms are actually still much closer together than let's say the Orthodox church and the Anglican Church.
Also, Judaism is split Ashkenazim and Seferadim. But like Islam, until more recently with the Reformed Jews, was much closer to each other than Christianity's churches.
Like I said above though, it all bothers me. And talking about others isn't an excuse for one's own religion. Since we're currently evaluating Christianity, this bothers me about Christianity, since it is split about so many issues.
