Except that once you do that, all the people who have picked an ice cream flavor get very upset with you and try to physically force you to eat some ice cream, preferably the flavor they like.I understand what you are saying. I hope that I am not coming across as trying "to physically force you" towards my thinking. My point is really why Christians believe the way they do -- I'm not trying to force issues of what's "right" or "wrong".
No, nobody in this thread is trying physically force me to be a Christian. Few people in the real world are either. It's an analogy, and the physical forcing is metaphorical, so it's a metaphorical physicality.
Like all analogies it breaks down when poked to hard or taken too literally. It's merely meant to illustrate a philosophical problem for me, particularly in regards to the insistence of matters of faith as "fact."
|
I strongly disagree that Jesus' identity and "brand name" are more important than his message of love.
That's still not quite what I was talking about. It's not quite what I believe is the "main point", but in any case, we still disagree about it -- and that is ok (or am I wrong about that).
Here's what I am trying to get across...
I really appreciate everyone's ideas of what their idea of god is or isn't. It really helps me to understand what and how people are thinking. (And to a lesser degree, it tells me that you have actually thought about it enough to provide an answer.)
It's just that when people start telling me what I should believe, what the Bible really is telling me, or so on, it comes dangerously close to no longer being a "civil" discussion. (Mevers please understand what I am saying here.)
If I have ever done that, then I sincerely apologize. That has never been my intention.
If someone asks "Why do you believe", "What do you believe about", "How do Christians justify", and so on, I will do my best to answer the question. But I do NOT want to get into a discussion about how 'right' I am with my beliefs or how 'wrong' I may be. It has a tendency to be less "civil" and I will politely bow out.
That is the reason that I don't want to pursue this 'question' any further. But I really do not want to be party to 'mud-flinging'.
I hope that people understand what I am saying here.
I hope that people understand what I am saying here.
Understood and approved. You're a hell of a guy, Moff.
and that is ok (or am I wrong about that).
You're not wrong by a long shot, at least not by my standards. I'm the guy who's big into tolerance and "relativism." You can disagree with me all you like, and we can still have a nice discussion about why, or about some other aspect if you prefer, or about ice cream, for that matter!
It's just that when people start telling me what I should believe, what the Bible really is telling me, or so on, it comes dangerously close to no longer being a "civil" discussion.
Hope my posts didn't give you that impression. I was listing how I read it, in an effort to clarify why I didn't see the need for any great schism between Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, and everyone else. Most people choose to have a somewhat narrower view (or much narrower, in a few cases); that's totally up to them.
Sorry -- I was starting to feel a bit defensive. Just wanted to make sure that we were all still on the same page.
Started and ended on the same page, I think. You've always been free with sharing your thoughts, without claiming I should think similarly. I've tried to do the same, although I sometimes use more forceful or more snarky language than is strictly necessary--an unfortunate after-effect of all the time I spent in New York, no doubt (I'll never be a great diplomatist, I fear).
If you were a Scientologist or a satanist or a guy who worshipped rutabegas, I'd still respect your right to those beliefs, and would probably still look for ways to bridge the gap between them and mine ("Rutabega worship isn't so different from Jainism!" says Kirth Gersen, on another one of his endlessly annoying tirades about focusing on our similarities instead of our differences...).
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
(Sorry -- I was starting to feel a bit defensive. Just wanted to make sure that we were all still on the same page.)
I've always taken an interest in what people think of their respective religions and why they believe what they believe. I think you've done a fantastic job of making your opinions heard and letting everyone know that not all (insert religious order here) are the same.
I'll admit that I haven't taken an active part in this thread simply because I'm a non-theist (different from an atheist), but I would like to express my appreciation for seeing the topic handled in such a civil and professional manner.
|
|
Hope my posts didn't give you that impression. I was listing how I read it, in an effort to clarify why I didn't see the need for any great schism between Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, and everyone else. Most people choose to have a somewhat narrower view (or much narrower, in a few cases); that's totally up to them.
Then again, I haven't really explained my "narrow" view too well. (And it is probably fairly "narrow" based on what you wish Christians would be.)
You basically know what I believe. Belief here is not "fact". (Just to make this clear.) I understand what you are saying about what Jesus taught and by and large I agree with you about that. For me I really want Jesus to be more than what he taught. Otherwise he becomes no better to me than Ghandi, Mother Theresa, or even Sebastian. And for whatever reason, I do feel like he was much more than just what he taught. Before other people jump on me, I will be the first to admit that just because I 'want' something to be doesn't make it so. And maybe that is all where faith and belief come in. I guess that this is really what I am trying to get across (and maybe why atheists have such a problem with this). I want my "god" to be bigger than life -- and certainly bigger than just some dude with some pretty good ideas. If he's not, then the whole thing just kind of feels 'flat' to me -- which is probably where a lot of atheists are.
This all feels a bit preachy to me and I will try and refrain from saying much more on this. (And again, not trying to say that I am 'right' -- just trying to get others to understand where I am coming from.)
You certainly aren't but, I have a low opinion of missionary work because that often can happen. I was watching a documentary about an Inuit tribe who had had a poor hunting season and they went to another tribe for help. The other tribe had recently been visisted by Christian missionaries and many had converted includling some of the tribal leaders. They refused to help those in need unless they too agreed to convert to Christianity. It left them having to choose between starving and becoming Christians.
Except that once you do that, all the people who have picked an ice cream flavor get very upset with you and try to physically force you to eat some ice cream, preferably the flavor they like.I understand what you are saying. I hope that I am not coming across as trying "to physically force you" towards my thinking. My point is really why Christians believe the way they do -- I'm not trying to force issues of what's "right" or "wrong".
dito... I mentioned this before, but paternal instincts are intrinsically tied to being mortal, and much of the way Christians view god seems to me to be based on mortal need, desire and concerns that they have chosen to project on a divine being that would have no need of such petty concerns because of said beings divinity. Judging people, punishing people, rewarding people, all that sort of business is very mortal type stuff that to me would be well beneath the nature of omnipotent and omnisceint dvine being, and does not fit logically with my vision of what such being would truly be like.
But I am curious, forgetting Jesus for minute, why doesn't the Christian God match up with what you believe God should be?Because the Christian god requires the bible. I can't stomach a divine being that cares about my salvation but then hides said path to salvation in a book.
On top of that, I find the parental deity model to be absurd. I reject the idea that a deity cares about my decisions or how I live my life. To the extent a deity exists, I cannot comprehend what it thinks or what it wants any more than my cat can read a book, drive a car, or understand how it is that I find those little kibbles that I feed him every night. The bible claims that the deity does care, that he does have an agenda, and that said agenda is something I can comprehend sufficiently to play along. These concepts are incompatible with my idea of a deity.
At the end of the day, I don't see any religion as having a monopoly on divinity and most (if not all) of them claim as such. Religion is a tool built by man for control; it has nothing to do with any sort of divine being that I would consider worth acknowledging. It's probable that the religious texts have valuable insights, as do many books of philosophy, but to say that they contain all truths or that they are absolutely literally true strikes me as far too narrow to communicate something so grand.
dito... I mentioned this before, but paternal instincts are intrinsically tied to being mortal, and much of the way Christians view god seems to me to be based on mortal need, desire and concerns that they have chosen to project on a divine being that would have no need of such petty concerns because of said beings divinity. Judging people, punishing people, rewarding people, all that sort of business is very mortal type stuff that to me would be well beneath the nature of omnipotent and omnisceint dvine being, and does not fit logically with my vision of what such being would truly be like.
The thing with the god with all these "mortal qualities" is that people, as much as they push the whole ineffable onmipotent god we cannot understand, really don't want things to be incomprehensable. They want a god whose motives are, if not clear, at least identifiable in some human way. I'm a big fan of that Star Trek line "we all create god in our own image," and it really fits in a lot of cases. Religion is not so much about finding salvation and knowing the immortals, but explaining why things are (hence Genesis and all that). We want to know things through our religions, and the thing we want to know most is that everything is OK or fixable. Part of that is having gods we can connect with. This may not be actual qualities of god, but the purpose of religion at its core is not to acurately explain all things necessarily, but help us get through life without having a mental breakdown from the futility and ambivalence of it all.
|
|
The thing with the god with all these "mortal qualities" is that people, as much as they push the whole ineffable onmipotent god we cannot understand, really don't want things to be incomprehensable. They want a god whose motives are, if not clear, at least identifiable in some human way. I'm a big fan of that Star Trek line "we all create god in our own image," and it really fits in a lot of cases. Religion is not so much about finding salvation and knowing the immortals, but explaining why things are (hence Genesis and all that). We want to know things through our religions, and the thing we want to know most is that everything is OK or fixable. Part of that is having gods we can connect with. This may not be actual qualities of god, but the purpose of religion at its core is not to acurately explain all things necessarily, but help us get through life without having a mental breakdown from the futility and ambivalence of it all.
This is really insightful.
With or without God, there are still quite a number of things that are not "OK or fixable" from our point of view. God is not comprehensible to me.
I think that this is true for a lot of people. I have seen this a lot -- where people become Christian and then thing that God will suddenly solve all their problems or that all will miraculously be made known to them. And that just isn't the case.
I understand what you are saying about the explaining why things are. Genesis certainly does a little of that -- but for a religion, it actually does rather little of this. You have that God created the "heavens and the earth" and that's about it. What I see in the Old Testament is how difficult a time people were having focusing on God and a whole lot of history. (Actually there is a lot more, but not things that explain how or why things work the way they do.)
What Sebastian was suggesting what God is sounds to me quite a bit like the Force from Star Wars. And while I can pretty well appreciate and understand what he is saying, it still leaves me with quite a number of questions -- mostly revolving around "why". There is even less direction with that line of thought and the only reason that I can come up with as to "why" is simply as some form of cruel experiment.
In the end, you could be right that religion is basically just to "help us get through life without having a mental breakdown". But, at the same time, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing (depending on the teachings of said religion). It still looks to me like a 'win/win' situation.
What Sebastian was suggesting what God is sounds to me quite a bit like the Force from Star Wars. And while I can pretty well appreciate and understand what he is saying, it still leaves me with quite a number of questions -- mostly revolving around "why". There is even less direction with that line of thought and the only reason that I can come up with as to "why" is simply as some form of cruel experiment.
Most "why" answers involve set principles of physics: "Why is the sky blue?" (A: has to do with absorption of various wavelengths of light by atmospheric gases). Most such answers are difficult to understand unless one has the requisite background knowledge. It's seductively easy to posit a superior intelligence as providing the "whys," so that
(a) the person so doing need not know anything in order to claim to understand everything: "God did it!"(b) by this logic, no one else can ever understand anything better than the person invoking God, because an omniscient, omnipotent God whose methods are not subject to mortal comprehension is typically assumed. Ergo,
(c) the person using this logic is essentially claiming to know as much as or more than all the dedicated researchers in every field, despite having zero knowledge.
This is the danger of trying to replace science with religion: you end up in an endless cycle of perpetual ignorance. Assuming an intelligence or will behind every "why" is the first step down that road.
Granted, it's just as bad to try and replace salvation with science, but that'll have to be the subject of a different rant.
However, that isn't what I was thinking when I wrote that. I was thinking more along the lines of -- "Why create earth in the first place?" Which is a much more philosophical/religious based question that also doesn't really have an answer.
Aha, but there you're starting from a standpoint that some intelligent entity created Earth for some purpose. Which is of course very definitely philosphical. Even if I can show that the Earth accreted via gravity from various gases and planetoids ca. 4.6 Ga, you can always claim that happened for a reason-- and neither of us is contradicting the other on that point.
If, on one hand, I claim that the accretion theory denies a God, I'm committing a logical fallacy in assuming that God did not create the laws of physics. On the other hand, if one were to claim that the agency of God negates the possibility of accretion ("God just pointed His finger, and BAM, there it was, fully formed!"), they would be guilty of exactly the sort of exercise in perpetual ignorance I was talking about.
Of all questions, why? is the least pertinent. It begs the question: it assumes the larger part of its own response; to wit, that a sensible response exists.
Of all questions, why? is the least pertinent. It begs the question: it assumes the larger part of its own response; to wit, that a sensible response exists.
You reason like a senile magician--maybe one of the 21st aeon. "Why does the universe end here, and not a mile further?"
A lot of good information...However, that isn't what I was thinking when I wrote that. I was thinking more along the lines of -- "Why create earth in the first place?" Which is a much more philosophical/religious based question that also doesn't really have an answer.
Why set my pants on fire? Why do I chase cats? Why do I head-bang to polka music? Why do I eat uncooked Ramen noodles with ketchup?
Answer: because I can.
You reason like a senile magician--maybe one of the 21st aeon. "Why does the universe end here, and not a mile further?"
I redirect you to my last post.
Boy, take a break from these message boards for a week or two and suddenly you have to spend several hours of reading on one thread just to catch up!
Whew! There's alot to comment on, but let me start with this...
I strongly disagree that Jesus' identity and "brand name" are more important than his message of love. Let's look again at "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—-that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption." I look at this and I see that wisdom is in righteousness and holiness. That Christ "has become" less important as a person than as a means of transmittal of that message. That makes sense to me.
On the other hand, you might read it to mean that God has somehow transformed Christ into a lightning rod to salvation--I know that's the main point that separates Christianity from other systems--but that idea to me is silly. When Christ says "No man comes to God save through me," I take it to imply that rejecting his doctrine of love and persisting in performing evil acts won't get you anything but suffering. Most Christians take it a lot more literally, to the point of making the "love thy neighbor" stuff almost like an afterthought--"oh, yeah, you gotta do that, too, I guess. But the main thing is brand loyalty."
This struck me as very interesting and thought-provoking. My first impulse is to eagerly agree with your profound post but another part of me is a little afraid to (what exactly am I agreeing to here?). Anyway, it'll probably take me a day or two to sort this all out in my mind. My general stance is that Jesus is Lord, God's Son, and that no one can come to the Father (be saved) except through Him; but at the same time, since you've explained your point of view, I can't really find a problem with your interpretation of that scripture. In the whole debate of right and wrong, black and white, I differ from you (and many others on this thread) because I tend to interpret scripture literally and hold very firmly with the concept that, despite your earlier threads to the contrary, God is very much IMO about absolutes. The place I can must allow "wiggle room" and accept that I might be wrong is not scripture itself, which I believe IS infallible, but with my own personal interpretation of it. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to different individuals differently. None of us have the whole picture, so to speak. I'm always eager to hear about someone else's revelation (read interpretation) since it would be pure arrogance to assume mine is always the best/most accurate. Such is the case here. Thanks, Kirth, as always, for giving me something new to consider.
It's called the "Journals of Canude Rasmussen"
I'm not sure if the spelling is right. It is actually a movie not a documentary (my mistake), but based off the real journals of an explorer from Iceland (I think from Iceland).
I was watching a documentary about an Inuit tribe ...Any idea where I can find a copy of this?
And please don't think that one (especially bad) example defines all.
I suppose this is a scriptural question: What's wrong with Universalism - the belief that everyone gets into heaven? Doesn't Jesus's sacrifice absolve all our sins; why not the sin of disbelief?
|
|
I suppose this is a scriptural question: What's wrong with Universalism - the belief that everyone gets into heaven?
This is getting into the 'touchy' subjects. I don't want to tell others what is wrong with their religion.
I will see if I can do a little more of a comparison analysis later, but for now...
I just have a problem with an organization that takes what it likes from whatever source they can and calling it a 'religion'. It seems like finding actual doctrine on universalism is difficult at best. I read a printed "sermon" from a universalist church recently that was all on how wrong the Bible is -- but they didn't give any support for their arguments and in the end it felt more like a college lecture rather than on anything that had to do with doctrine or beliefs.
Here is a little bit of a related question to ask yourself -- If nothing is 'wrong' is everything 'right'?
|
|
It's called the "Journals of Canude Rasmussen"
I'm not sure if the spelling is right. It is actually a movie not a documentary (my mistake), but based off the real journals of an explorer from Iceland (I think from Iceland).
Found it --> The Journals of Knud Rasmussen.
I'll see if I can rent it and take a look at it.
I read a printed "sermon" from a universalist church...
Yes, well, the modern Universal-Unitarian Church is very different from the heresies* that created it.
What I'm asking here is why don't you believe Jesus's sacrifice absolves disbelief in said sacrifice?
*In the technical sense, not the pejorative.
|
|
What I'm asking here is why don't you believe Jesus's sacrifice absolves disbelief in said sacrifice?
I'm not sure that I do or don't believe what you are saying. Two thoughts come immediately to mind.
1) I'm not sure that 'disbelief' is a sin. This can probably be argued, but I don't feel that belief or disbelief is a sin. Therefore, Christ's death has no bearing on 'belief' or 'disbelief'.
2) Often times in the Bible, 'salvation' or 'Christ's sacrifice' is referred to as a 'gift'. I believe that everyone has the 'gift' (whether they want it or not). It ends up being their choice to accept it or not -- which again I don't feel is a 'sin'.
Most things that I looked at really point to that God wants everyone to make a choice. I don't feel that the choice itself is a 'sin' -- you could argue if it was a 'good' or 'bad' choice at your leasure.
Hope that helps.
2) Often times in the Bible, 'salvation' or 'Christ's sacrifice' is referred to as a 'gift'. I believe that everyone has the 'gift' (whether they want it or not). It ends up being their choice to accept it or not -- which again I don't feel is a 'sin'.
There's the thing, why do you have to ask for the 'gift' (as many Christian denominations say you do)? Shouldn't the 'gift' be a given (so to speak)?
the idea that believing is a choice that you can control doesn't work for me. I like the idea of the christian god and what he stands for, and I like the idea of heaven and an afterlife, but the logic of it conflicts with my brain. I can't very well just say, "well I want to believe this stuff, so now I do" because it would not be sincere. So I can't really choose to except that gift because my brain doesn't want to even if I like idea of it.
What I'm asking here is why don't you believe Jesus's sacrifice absolves disbelief in said sacrifice?I'm not sure that I do or don't believe what you are saying. Two thoughts come immediately to mind.
1) I'm not sure that 'disbelief' is a sin. This can probably be argued, but I don't feel that belief or disbelief is a sin. Therefore, Christ's death has no bearing on 'belief' or 'disbelief'.
2) Often times in the Bible, 'salvation' or 'Christ's sacrifice' is referred to as a 'gift'. I believe that everyone has the 'gift' (whether they want it or not). It ends up being their choice to accept it or not -- which again I don't feel is a 'sin'.
Most things that I looked at really point to that God wants everyone to make a choice. I don't feel that the choice itself is a 'sin' -- you could argue if it was a 'good' or 'bad' choice at your leasure.
Hope that helps.
There's some very poor theology here, based in part on a misunderstanding/miscommunication of terms.
For example, the term "belief" in Biblical thought does not mean simple intellectual assent as most contemporary people define it. Rather, while it does include that concept, it also implies confidence in, trust in, and understanding (to a degree) of the object of that belief. Thus, when someone says to you, "I believe in you," they are not simply saying, "I assent to the reality of your existence." They are saying something deeper and more profound.
So when the Bible says, "Only believe, and you shall be saved," it does not mean that one should simply agree that Christ exists or give assent to his teachings. Instead it means those things AND that one has confidence in his character and is willing to rely on Him to do what He said He would do. It means that one trusts Him to be as good as He said He is and that what He says is true.
Similarly, the term "gift" is often misunderstood. Salvation is a gift only in that it need not be paid for by the recipient - the Giver, by definition, has already done that. Also, it is not the asking that makes salvation one's own; rather it is the receipt of the gift. I can buy you something and offer it to you, but if you never take it home, unwrap it, and make it your own you haven't "received" it. Moreover the gift of salvation is not unconditional - you must believe, by the above definition.
Thus, we have the statement that salvation is free for those who will receive it in belief. To restate that, Christ has paid for the gift of salvation and offers it to all. But, He will not give it to anyone who doesn't want it. He only gives it to those who have come to want it because they have come to believe in Him as described above and therefore are willing to trust Him.
The difficulty here is that this kind of belief and trust does not come from the mere study of facts or reason. Rather, it can come only from experience - one cannot have a deep trust of someone whom one knows nothing about and has never met. Since God is not a physical person, this experience must by definition be a spiritual experience rather than a physical or merely mental one. Thus, the Bible explains, "these things are spiritually discerned."
This concept is summed up biblically in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace that we are saved through faith (and even that is not of ourselves; it is the free gift of God), and not of works lest any should boast." In other words, we are saved not by anything we have done or known, but by the simple acceptance of the gift Christ provided. The acceptance of this gift is itself enabled only by a confidence and trust in Him that is gained through an experience provided by God.
In response to this explanation, I have sometimes been asked, "Why, then, am I not saved? I know God is real, and I'm willing to ask Him for salvation if it's free. I just can't accept all the things you're telling me about Him and His teachings." This statement illustrates that the person in question is not willing to "believe" by the above definition - the person is unwilling to accept the truth about Him, has no confidence in who He is, and is not willing to trust Him or His words - and therefore cannot be saved.
In response to this further explanation is often added, "Alright, then I'm willing to accept the gift of salvation. I already know that God is real, and I generally believe that what He taught was right. Just don't expect me to live any differently than I already do." Though it might sound reasonable to some, this is a misdirection and only serves to reinforce that the speaker is unwilling to trust God and therefore does not have the requisite belief. If one believes God (by the above definition) as truly God (and therefore the ultimate authority) and if one believes in Him (has confidence in His character and nature), then one must accept that what He has said is true and necessary. Therefore, if one is unwilling to conform to His teachings (adjust their lifestyle to match what He commands) then one does not "believe" and cannot be saved.
The final retort usually issued by those who offer the two statements above is usually, "Well, that's only your interpretation. I see it differently." To which I can only reply, "Then read it and interpret it yourself." Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not as easy to misinterpret as one might think. There are a few doctrines that are debated from time to time between sects, but for the most part the book is pretty clear. If one is willing to put aside traditional beliefs, personal biases, and (often wrong) popular opinions, then most questions regarding Christianity can easily be answered by simply reading the Bible.
Yes well all that makes it even more difficult for my poor rational brain. No salvation for me.
Keep in mind that all this stuff about what he "said" is actually just words that mortal men wrote down and claimed were dictated to them by him, or that they were inspired by him when they wrote it. So before you can believe all the dogma about Jesus and Salvation you must first have to have faith that these guys actually were working directly at the behest of god in the first place. Not only that, you have to believe that the people who translated the bible did that correctly. It seems to me like there is plenty of room for mistakes along the way.
There's some very poor theology here, based in part on a misunderstanding/miscommunication of terms.
For example, the term "belief" in Biblical thought does not mean simple intellectual assent as most contemporary people define it. Rather, while it does include that concept, it also implies confidence in, trust in, and understanding (to a degree) of the object of that belief. Thus, when someone says to you, "I believe in you," they are not simply saying, "I assent to the reality of your existence." They are saying something deeper and more profound.
So when the Bible says, "Only believe, and you shall be saved," it does not mean that one should simply agree that Christ exists or give assent to his teachings. Instead it means those things AND that one has confidence in his character and is willing to rely on Him to do what He said He would do. It means that one trusts Him to be as good as He said He is and that what He says is true.
Similarly, the term "gift" is often misunderstood. Salvation is a gift only in that it need not be paid for by the recipient - the Giver, by definition, has already done that. Also, it is not the asking that makes salvation one's own; rather it is the receipt of the gift. I can buy you something and offer it to you, but if you never take it home, unwrap it, and make it your own you haven't "received" it. Moreover the gift of salvation is not unconditional - you must believe, by the above definition.
Thus, we have the statement that salvation is free for those who will receive it in belief. To restate that, Christ has paid for the gift of salvation and offers it to all. But, He will not give it to anyone who doesn't want it. He only gives it to those who have come to want it because they have come to believe in Him as described above and therefore are willing to trust Him.
The difficulty here is that this kind of belief and trust does not come from the mere study of facts or reason. Rather, it can come only from experience - one cannot have a deep trust of someone whom...
The final retort usually issued by those who offer the two statements above is usually, "Well, that's only your interpretation. I see it differently." To which I can only reply, "Then read it and interpret it yourself." Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not as easy to misinterpret as one might think. There are a few doctrines that are debated from time to time between sects, but for the most part the book is pretty clear. If one is willing to put aside traditional beliefs, personal biases, and (often wrong) popular opinions, then most questions regarding Christianity can easily be answered by simply reading the Bible.
Then why is the Bible misinterpreted so often? The actual scriptures in the bible do not shape our beliefs so much as our internal beliefs draw us to a particular scripture. Some people read the bible and go "Well, that makes perfect sense, I should look into this more," and others go "Huh? Who would believe this garbage?" Religious scriptures provide a base religion, a sort of "canon", but in reality there are six billion religions, most of which are similar to the canon. The bible is not misinterpreted so much as it doesn't always line up with someone's personal beliefs.
Keep in mind that all this stuff about what he "said" is actually just words that mortal men wrote down and claimed were dictated to them by him, or that they were inspired by him when they wrote it. So before you can believe all the dogma about Jesus and Salvation you must first have to have faith that these guys actually were working directly at the behest of god in the first place. Not only that, you have to believe that the people who translated the bible did that correctly. It seems to me like there is plenty of room for mistakes along the way.
Actually, no. The subject of biblical validity, as well as the subject of hermeneutics is one of the most exhaustively studied subjects in academia. There's much more to it than just a few guys getting together to make a new religion. However, that doesn't make it any easier to believe. Most people like to think that they form their beliefs based on facts that they have studied in depth, however this is demonstrably not true. The vast majority of people form their beliefs and opinions based on emotional responses - in other words, they choose their beliefs and opinions based on their environment. They choose to believe things because they want to believe them rather than because they must. As a practicing counselor, I deal with this phenomenon on a regular basis.
Aside from that, your statement, "So before you can believe all the dogma about Jesus and salvation you must first have to have faith that these guys actually were working directly at the behest of God..." relates directly to my previous post. One cannot believe (using the definition I described earlier) the Bible in the necessary way unless God enables it to happen. The facts written there can be easily be verified, but the type of belief necessary for salvation comes from Him. And, as I described, He does not give that belief to those who don't want it in the first place.
I agree that most people form their beliefs based on emotional responses, but that doesn't make it the ideal way to form one's beliefs. In fact I'd suggest that it is one of the worst ways. There is a reason why those people are coming for counseling.
Keep in mind that all this stuff about what he "said" is actually just words that mortal men wrote down and claimed were dictated to them by him, or that they were inspired by him when they wrote it. So before you can believe all the dogma about Jesus and Salvation you must first have to have faith that these guys actually were working directly at the behest of god in the first place. Not only that, you have to believe that the people who translated the bible did that correctly. It seems to me like there is plenty of room for mistakes along the way.Actually, no. The subject of biblical validity, as well as the subject of hermeneutics is one of the most exhaustively studied subjects in academia. There's much more to it than just a few guys getting together to make a new religion. However, that doesn't make it any easier to believe. Most people like to think that they form their beliefs based on facts that they have studied in depth, however this is demonstrably not true. The vast majority of people form their beliefs and opinions based on emotional responses - in other words, they choose their beliefs and opinions based on their environment. They choose to believe things because they want to believe them rather than because they must. As a practicing counselor, I deal with this phenomenon on a regular basis.
Aside from that, your statement, "So before you can believe all the dogma about Jesus and salvation you must first have to have faith that these guys actually were working directly at the behest of God..." relates directly to my previous post. One cannot believe (using the definition I described earlier) the Bible in the necessary way unless God enables it to happen. The facts written there can be easily be verified, but the type of belief necessary for salvation comes from Him. And, as I described, He does not give that belief to those who don't want it in the first place.
.... For me I really want Jesus to be more than what he taught. Otherwise he becomes no better to me than Ghandi, Mother Theresa, or even Sebastian....
...
May the Lord God forgive you for saying that.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
.... For me I really want Jesus to be more than what he taught. Otherwise he becomes no better to me than Ghandi, Mother Theresa, or even Sebastian....
Well I am better groomed. Seriously, that long hippy beard and loose hair. And the wearing of flip-flops all the time!??! Even down here in San Diego, where flip-flops are business casual, that'd be creepy.
(And for what it's worth, I've always been offended at the idea that Jesus is any better than I am. Not that I'm all that great, but I find the claim that he was the son of god to be somewhat offensive. He is my equal, as much as any other human on this planet ever has been or ever will be. But that's an aside, and not very funny.)
Then why is the Bible misinterpreted so often? The actual scriptures in the bible do not shape our beliefs so much as our internal beliefs draw us to a particular scripture. Some people read the bible and go "Well, that makes perfect sense, I should look into this more," and others go "Huh? Who would believe this garbage?" Religious scriptures provide a base religion, a sort of "canon", but in reality there are six billion religions, most of which are similar to the canon. The bible is not misinterpreted so much as it doesn't always line up with someone's personal beliefs.
This is correct, as far as it goes. In studying and communicating the Bible human error (whether intellectual, emotional, or what have you) is always present. This is why it is necessary for these things to be "spiritually discerned" as I mentioned in the earlier post. God Himself corrects for human error within each life He touches. This is never done perfectly, however, because each life is in itself imperfect. However, the fact that a piece of literature is often misinterpreted does not suggest that it is of necessity untrue. To suggest that is to say that just because I speak with an accent or can't spell well proves that I can't speak English. Furthermore, human foibles are the reason that some instantly understand various passages, while others do not. As earlier described, our understanding is usually predicated on what we want to believe rather than our ability to process empirical information.
The use of the word "religion" in various recent posts is also at issue here. If one defines "religion" as "a set of practices predicated on a set of beliefs or traditions", then you are completely correct. Each individual has, by necessity, his own religion. But the point that most of us who call ourselves "Christian" are trying to get across - and the point that is most commonly misunderstood - is that the Christian "religion" is not the issue. True Christianity as described in the Bible is not a mere set of practices and beliefs. Rather, it is a personal relationship that has been formed between God and a believer through a real experience.
This is, in essence, the single most divisive doctrine in any relgion. I do not say that I am a Christian because I believe the Bible, go to church, or anything else. I say that I am a Christian because in a very real way I met Christ. He is not someone I "know about", He is someone I know personally. This offends many, because (in their words), "How dare you claim to be on speaking terms with God!" With this in mind, it is no surprise to me that so many attack me for being a Christian. It is also no surprise that so many seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying - how can they when they haven't had the same experience? Most discussions of this tend to devolve into accusations of madness at best (which are easily refuted) to, at worst, more real attacks.
Therefore, we can discuss biblical validity, historical accuracy, philosophical bases, and any other number of subjects until we're blue in the face. The only real question, though, is whether or not you want to share my experience. (I'm using the term "you" in a general sense here; I'm not aiming it at anyone in particular.) If you don't believe that I had such an experience or that for other reasons the experience is not for you, then there is no reason for further discussion - you live by what you believe, and I'll live by whom I believe. If, however, you wish to understand the experience better or wish to experience it for yourself, then there is reason for further conversation.
What I truly wonder about is, why do so many feel it necessary to attack those who believe differently? Why can't we simply discuss these issues peacefully? Why is it necessary to get angry just because I insist on keeping my beliefs? I certainly don't get angry because anyone else insists on keeping theirs. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic - because of my beliefs I am often accused of being oppressive and intolerant, but in my entire life I've never met a true Christian who has attacked or oppressed another because of their beliefs. Why don't these people get angry at Communism, since Communism historically has killed and oppressed billions more than any falsely-called Christian movement? Why don't people get mad at secular humanists, since they're responsible for more deaths and oppression than any other group in the history of the world? I just don't get it. The facts of history are clear for anyone who wants to investigate, and Christians historically are one of the most harmless groups ever.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What I truly wonder about is, why do so many feel it necessary to attack those who believe differently? Why can't we simply discuss these issues peacefully? Why is it necessary to get angry just because I insist on keeping my beliefs? I certainly don't get angry because anyone else insists on keeping theirs. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic - because of my beliefs I am often accused of being oppressive and intolerant, but in my entire life I've never met a true Christian who has attacked or oppressed another because of their beliefs. Why don't these people get angry at Communism, since Communism historically has killed and oppressed billions more than any falsely-called Christian movement? Why don't people get mad at secular humanists, since they're responsible for more deaths and oppression than any other group in the history of the world? I just don't get it. The facts of history are clear for anyone who wants to investigate, and Christians historically are one of the most harmless groups ever.
Yeah, I always find it tough when people refuse to believe my one-sided "facts" too. The thing is, the secular humanists who did those things weren't practicing secular humanism correctly. If they had been, there wouldn't have been any deaths or oppression. Same for the communists. I'm sure you understand the problem, what with the people committing atrocities in the name of Christ not being true Christians and all.
So strange that we can't see eye to eye on facts where we selectively include the actors as members of our own set of beliefs (or, better yet, attribute large sets of individual acts to a single person). But, I guess that's the burden of making decisions by emotions rather than logic. We believe in things that aren't real and make up supernatural explanations for them.
(And for what it's worth, I've always been offended at the idea that Jesus is any better than I am. Not that I'm all that great, but I find the claim that he was the son of god to be somewhat offensive. He is my equal, as much as any other human on this planet ever has been or ever will be. But that's an aside, and not very funny.)
I agree totally. That Jesus was God or even God/man undermines the sacrifice he made in dying for principles. He knew his time was up and he did not skulk away.
Were he truly God he may have said to himself, "it's all over soon--I shall return to heaven and leave this flesh behind. This pain is temporal." Or even better he could wipe his pain away with another miracle.
Why don't people get mad at secular humanists, since they're responsible for more deaths and oppression than any other group in the history of the world?
For example?
Therefore, we can discuss biblical validity, historical accuracy, philosophical bases, and any other number of subjects until we're blue in the face. The only real question, though, is whether or not you want to share my experience. (I'm using the term "you" in a general sense here; I'm not aiming it at anyone in particular.) If you don't believe that I had such an experience or that for other reasons the experience is not for you, then there is no reason for further discussion - you live by what you believe, and I'll live by whom I believe. If, however, you wish to understand the experience better or wish to experience it for yourself, then there is reason for further conversation.
This is true, I connot truly understand your (general you) point of view without experiencing it personally. However, while it is possable to look at something from a limited version of someone's point of view, unless someone were to actually believe what you do they could not truly share in your experience. How, then, can we have a coherent discussion about religion among those with different beliefs? When we discuss our religions, unless we are of the same or similar beliefs and using the same text, we are not adressing interpretation of scripture, we are speaking of our passion for what we believe.
As I've said, someone becomes part of a religion because they feel it is "right" rather than any sort of rational decision. We group ourselves into Christian, Judaism, Hindu, etc. because we need to make some broad statements about the core of our beliefs without getting into details. When someone says "I am Christian", they are saying "I have heard/read the message of Jesus given in the bible, and it appeals to me emotionally, as do many other connotations of whatever denomination I happen to identify with." This is not a bad thing, it just is. Certainly when someone says "I am Christian", they are trying to make a profound statement about their beliefs, but it is also no more than "Christianity appeals to me."
I do not say that I am a Christian because I believe the Bible, go to church, or anything else. I say that I am a Christian because in a very real way I met Christ. He is not someone I "know about", He is someone I know personally. This offends many, because (in their words), "How dare you claim to be on speaking terms with God!" With this in mind, it is no surprise to me that so many attack me for being a Christian. It is also no surprise that so many seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying - how can they when they haven't had the same experience? Most discussions of this tend to devolve into accusations of madness at best (which are easily refuted) to, at worst, more real attacks.
Surely you can understand that people won't just take your word for it that God talks to you and that you know exactly what He is thinking? I'm willing to accept your assertion that it's easily proveable you're not crazy. But the thing is that we, all of us, have experinced the desire to be important, to be listened to; it's a natural human urge. When someone claims to speak for an omnipotent, omniscient being who, mysteriously, is very selective in the people He speaks to--and who apparently says different things to different people--that sets off warning bells for everyone who doesn't make the same claim. They think of all of the reasons that a person could make that claim (especially in light of the contradictions between various claimants) and the one you propose (that it's true) is, to them, seemingly less likely than many of the others: that you might WANT to, or that you might want them to think you do.
I'm not claiming God doesn't talk to you (nor that He does); I'm just trying to provide an explanation why so many people might not believe you. It's not that they're "incapable of understanding"--it's that they have weighed the evidence and apparently have seen nothing to give them reason to accept your story over the others. Many Muslims doubtless claim that God speaks to them, and tells them you're an infidel, and they marvel that you seem incapable of understanding what they're saying. You would counter they're lying, or deluded. They reply that it is you who is untruthful. Which one is a third party to believe? For many, the answer is "neither."
The place I can must allow "wiggle room" and accept that I might be wrong is not scripture itself, which I believe IS infallible, but with my own personal interpretation of it. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to different individuals differently. None of us have the whole picture, so to speak. I'm always eager to hear about someone else's revelation (read interpretation) since it would be pure arrogance to assume mine is always the best/most accurate.
As always, I admire your candor and your faith. Obviously, I've never had a problem with my interpretation of scripture--only with other people's! I guess that's true of many Christians as well. I also guess it's been clear that my real issue is with people who tell me that the whole world is obviously black and white and that if my interpretation differs from theirs, I must obviously be wrong because they know everything.
It's OK if you don't agree with my personal interpetations of passages; I enjoy talking with you either way. Because it makes me feel VERY good that you for one have the insight to accept that there's not necesarily just one "obviously" True interpretation that is apparent to everyone... because the next step from there is to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is in need of adjustment... and that latter attitude does nothing but provoke animosity, disagreement, and ultimately hatred on both sides. It takes great courage in one's beliefs to tolerate differing views, without automatically seeking to make sure that they match yours in all particulars. You and Erian and Moff obviously have that courage.
Watching people bluster about 4E makes me glad I'm possibly a Taoist.
I have faith. I don't have religion.
...He is someone I know personally. This offends many, because (in their words), "How dare you claim to be on speaking terms with God!"...
From my understanding, isn't this the basis for the Christian religion? That you have to know Christ to truly understand your repentence or something? I may be missing something, but as far as I know this is part of what people mean when they say "Christian" or "born again".
In my opinion claiming to get religion from divine connection is a purer source than a holy text. (No offense to devout readers of holy texts, I understand that all of those are believed to be the literal or close to the true word of God. Actually that seems to be to be pretty close to the divine connection.)