This is not an attack on Christianity neither is it an attack on Christians. I would however like to know what your take on this is. Now that I have that out of the way let me get to it;
For the past few years I have met these “new testament Christians” who believe that your place in “heaven” is guaranteed by simple belief in Jesus Christ as the savior regardless of your conduct on earth, as I understand it. I have been brought up in a Christian community and these were not the teachings back then. The bible was the bible. Belief in the bible meant that it was total belief on the whole book. I do not recall being told that, “You know what, do not pay much attention to the Old Testament”. I have come to this conclusion, two things must have occurred; 1. My teachers misinterpreted the bible 2. Society has managed to carefully curve the bible teachings to conform to what it wants to do regardless of the consequences it might have faced if those same actions were punished according to the rules of the Old Testament. I asked a Christian friend a hypothetical the other day; whether she believes she would go to heaven if she killed 100 people? She said yes, because she believes in Christ as her savior.
So, since the Old Testament has been abandoned that means that these New Testament Christians are no longer bound by things like the 10 commandments. Am sure there are some who might say that’s not how it is. Okay, maybe not but my question is this, if you still choose to be bound by rules like the 10 commandments and not other parts of the old testament what scale are you using to filter which parts of the old testament to believe in and which ones to leave out?
It leads me to now wonder, how a reasonable healthy individual can completely trust the gospels which were written between 30-60 years after Jesus Christ supposedly died. Plus, since the word can be changed does that mean that one day if “Jesus” decides to come back there might be a “new new testament?”
This has become a law of sorts and we all know how laws work; they have to be flexible and adaptable to societies’ needs otherwise laws that oppress people and their liberties are either changed or done away with. Which leaves another question begging; who is qualified to change or nullify this law?
The Pope came out publicly a few months back saying that not believing in God does not mean one will not go to heaven, a statement which most disregarded. I remember some of the prominent religious leaders who disagreed with the POPE on this which I compare to being in a race but not wanting to conform to the rules of that race. What do I mean? For example, if the POPE comes out and says something like that and you honestly don’t agree with his position shouldn’t that at least make you pause and start asking questions, start looking at things from a different angle? How does a reasonable human being lower his or her standard of proof and completely trust words which were codified from verbal hearsay from people who might have heard juiced up stories in the first place. But then it hit me most of the people with such blind faith are the same that rushed to invest in scams like adfast.
“When a person internalizes a mental schema so thoroughly, and has become conditioned to it for so long, it becomes an intergral part of their personality. So to attack the belief is to, literally, attack the person…” Rollo Tomassi