Microblog Memes

It's spelled "indigenous," FYI. The accent is on "`di-" and you don't make an "ee" sound after the "n"; it just goes straight to "nus."

I find Abrahamic religious teachings to be very exclusionary (hey if you beleive what we beleive we’ll let you into heaven) Almost like a country club of sorts.

So true. Thinking about it, Christian missionaries' main job is less to sell Jesus, but more to sell FOMO.

Like a timeshare salesperson, they're not gonna talk much about the maintenance fees required (such as treating each other the way Jesus said to.) They're also not gonna talk about how so many of the other share-owners are insufferable to be around and regularly break the agreed-upon rules. Oh, but they will hype up how, for the low, low price of asking Jesus for forgiveness and getting baptized, you, too, could reserve yourself an eternal home in Paradise!

In the sense that the supernatural claims and many historical accounts made by biblical authors have no basis in reality, of course you're right. That doesn't mean there's no value in the academic study of the Bible. If you have no interest you can dismiss the whole lot as nonsense, but there's a lot of insight (and by insight I'm not talking about capital T Truth about the nature of reality) about the development of thought in Europe and the Near East to be gleaned from the Bible.

And slavery. Don't forget the slavery.

God shouuld have realized this when He chose His Favourite People.

Not exactly. In fact, this is a gross oversimplification. The New Testament contradicts itself and plenty of mainstream Christian beliefs. Different NT authors have drastically different views of OT law, ranging from the view that the OT law should still be upheld (Matt 5:17 where Jesus says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."), to completely rejecting the old covenant (Hebrews 8:13 "In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear."), and a range of nuanced views in-between. You can torture the text to reconcile to make it fit a particular view, but that's not an honest way of reading a text.

Also, wholesale rejecting the OT on the basis that the new covenant supercedes the old is incredibly problematic. I can understand saying that in the case of a contradiction between OT and NT you would go with the latter (although even that is an issue), but if you reject the OT, you're missing out on essential developments in Israelite and Jewish history, thought and literature which is essential to understand the NT. It's bad enough as it is that the tradition of mystical literature which so heavily influenced post-exilic Jewish and early Christian thought is overlooked. The last thing people who want to understand the NT need to do is throw out the OT.

If i remember correctly (it's been a while), then the Bible becomes a lot more coherent if you throw out the old testament, and keep to the new testament only

You mean the one that starts with four tellings of the same story, that contradict each other heavily ?

The sermon on the Mount and specifically Matthew 5:18 I think or something like that explicitly says that nothing from the law has been removed or invalidated by Jesus.

This is a common sentiment in American Christianity but it doesn't really seem to be backed up by the text.

Jesus himself says that he didn't come to abolish the old laws, but to fulfill them.

The whole book is worthless.

Misquote or not, it's a worthwhile one. I'm not religious in the least, but always thought the ideal of love your neighbor was a pretty good one. Even if they make noise after late hours and annoy you for reasons not just cause they are from a different culture.

Also yes I'm sure there are many quotes in the Bible that say otherwise but I think the idea of Christianity and new testament sort of surpassed many of those quotes. Not that many consider that, and I'm sure there's new testament quotes that go against it but I'll be honest I only was taught it in elementary and a bit middle school.

We need to get along if we have so many people around, is the idea I imagine. Not that they could imagine the cities of today.

Also Buddha's teachings are quite nice too. They have their issues, don't let their issues cause you distress but be helpful if you're able to. Least that's what I took of his teachings, also a good philosophy, least I think so. I did listen to a lot of Buddhist sermons and perhaps took some of them wrong but he appeared to be more live and let live, help others if they would like it, if not then no worries. If only all religions were similar to that.

I believe Buddha was merely quoting Hastur.