Disproving Christianity

[Kaere]

Can we avoid the preaching please and start showing some respect to one another?

Originally Posted by psychoslice

Yep, tell you the truth I would like to hit their heads together, they both don't hold the truth, they should wake up to themselves.

Based on what? You obviously have no appreciation or understanding of biblical exegesis. Granted, the topic is written in a provocative and perhaps insulting way for people who do not wish to or even conceive of a prove or disprove argument concerning a matter of faith.

For Jews, the idea of contradiction via commentary is part of the tradition. I personally would never attack another faith. In fact my book views each faith as containing a piece of the puzzle which together provide the true total picture.

It is important though if one particular faith is built upon another one, that we work to clarify what should be foundational and what may be either irrelevant or a clear distortion. That's where I see value in this discussion.

Christianity is centered around the Jesus Christ. It is impossible to have a discussion about Christianity without Jesus/Yeshuah not being part of the discussion.

The last thing I would ever do is to claim a patent on the Truth. At the same time, I will seek to share my perspective concerning the source materials used to build religious institutional constructs - especially if there have been agendas in play to slant things one way or another for whatever purposes.

[Honza]

Originally Posted by Kaere

Can we avoid the preaching please and start showing some respect to one another?

Sorry Kaere. Will do.

The Bible’s lack of Hebrew vowels creates an indeterminacy in pronunciation and sense that leaves it open to a multiplicity of interpretative possibilities. The mid-thirteenth century Kabbalist, R. Jacob ben Sheshet of Gerona, wrote ‘it is a well-known thing that each and every word of the Torah will change [its significance] in accordance with the change of its vocalization though its consonants will not be changed.’ A slightly later, anonymous Kabbalist, expanded upon R. Jacob’s notion in writing that ‘the vowel [system] is the form of, and is soul to, the consonants…and if we should vocalize the scroll of the Torah [i.e. insert vowels] it would receive a limit and measure, like the hyle [primordial undifferentiated matter] that receives a peculiar form’ thus limiting the Torah to a single interpretation. Thus the prohibition against vocalizing [adding vowels to] the Torah scroll guarantees a hermeneutic freedom permitting unlimited interpretations of the scriptural text. Any particular vocalization or interpretation, grants form to the hyle, and thereby makes the reader a cocreator, with god, of the Torah, and ultimately, of the world. According to R. Bahya ben Asher ‘The scroll of
the Torah is written without vowels, in order to enable man to interpret it however he wishes…as the consonants without vowels bear several interpretations…

- Moshe Idel

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by sbjazzman

Based on what? You obviously have no appreciation or understanding of biblical exegesis. Granted, the topic is written in a provocative and perhaps insulting way for people who do not wish to or even conceive of a prove or disprove argument concerning a matter of faith.

For Jews, the idea of contradiction via commentary is part of the tradition. I personally would never attack another faith. In fact my book views each faith as containing a piece of the puzzle which together provide the true total picture.

It is important though if one particular faith is built upon another one, that we work to clarify what should be foundational and what may be either irrelevant or a clear distortion. That's where I see value in this discussion.

Christianity is centered around the Jesus Christ. It is impossible to have a discussion about Christianity without Jesus/Yeshuah not being part of the discussion.

The last thing I would ever do is to claim a patent on the Truth. At the same time, I will seek to share my perspective concerning the source materials used to build religious institutional constructs - especially if there have been agendas in play to slant things one way or another for whatever purposes.

Based on thousands of years, no good can come from religion, on the surface it can look all pretty, but underneath its full of self righteousness. I am not talking about the people of any religion, I am talking about the belief systems, big difference.

[Honza]

Originally Posted by psychoslice

Based on thousands of years, no good can come from religion, on the surface it can look all pretty, but underneath its full of self righteousness. I am not talking about the people of any religion, I am talking about the belief systems, big difference.

But Robert, In the far east people have been practicing I AM for thousands of years with no better results than those who are religious.

No belief system vs belief system is not the way to go about it.

Trying to have no belief system so that one is free of self righteousness is nigh on impossible.

Beliefs are intrinsic to people.

Originally Posted by psychoslice

Based on thousands of years, no good can come from religion, on the surface it can look all pretty, but underneath its full of self righteousness. I am not talking about the people of any religion, I am talking about the belief systems, big difference.

Perhaps but man has a longing for meaning in life. Without mythology and religion, how to do you propose that this particular need is satisfied?

Also, while I agree that the belief systems of the major religions seem in many ways to be at odds with each other, is it not a worthy exercise to find common ground and to get underneath the surface and deal with the substance?

[Honza]

Originally Posted by sbjazzman

Perhaps but man has a longing for meaning in life. Without mythology and religion, how to do you propose that this particular need is satisfied?

Also, while I agree that the belief systems of the major religions seem in many ways to be at odds with each other, is it not a worthy exercise to find common ground and to get underneath the surface and deal with the substance?

Exactly. Not only that, as people develop they start to accept other belief systems as plausible and their understanding and awareness grows.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Honza

But Robert, In the far east people have been practicing I AM for thousands of years with no better results than those who are religious.

No belief system vs belief system is not the way to go about it.

Trying to have no belief system so that one is free of self righteousness is nigh on impossible.

Beliefs are intrinsic to people.

Hi Honza, yes I meant all, religions, beliefs have always got man into trouble, no matter what belief that may be.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by sbjazzman

Perhaps but man has a longing for meaning in life. Without mythology and religion, how to do you propose that this particular need is satisfied?

Also, while I agree that the belief systems of the major religions seem in many ways to be at odds with each other, is it not a worthy exercise to find common ground and to get underneath the surface and deal with the substance?

As you said, a need to be satisfied, and this is the problem, where there are needs to be satisfied, there is always going to be trouble.