The Lord Loves us and longs for us to accept and acknowledge Him...
Why? For no other reason than He created us out of love! A father looks to his child and wants only the same thing, love...
The Lord gave us free-will. Not just to do as we please, but to accept the Truth or deny Him...
People want to live as they please, without someone passing judgment. Just look at the Liberal Left in this country (if it feels good, it's okay, you're not hurting anybody!)...
Don't you just love religion and politics! ;-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'm perfectly tolerant of any reasonable discussion of religion and politics. So long as there's no mention of gourds, for I will not tolerate it.
First off... clarification. Your lord. Not my lord. I worship that elephant-headed thingie. Respect the tusks.
"Ganesh?"
"Gesundheit."
Choosing The lord seems to smugly discount all the other gods/interpretations on the block. Perhaps you can offer a biblical quote that backs up the one god notion, but it would be a self serving quote from a book that was, in part, trying to out-recruit other religions, so that particular lesson won't actually move me.
Given your somewhat scattered approach, I'm sincerely not sure if you are having a conversation with me. If you're not then I'm making an ass out of myself, but that's alright, it will only be the millionth time. The zealous allegiance to capping certain letters when we're sitting here in 2008 doesn't make the points themselves holy and true. It's just a form, like limericks and haiku. I get that talking that way brings you some measure of bliss, but it's harder to interpret your actual points in a direct manner. I know priests and rabbis personally and they just write to me like I'm writing now. We're not sitting on pews waiting for a Paizo poster to preach The Word to us, we're on a public forum talking about religion and religious matters, and everyone here is quite bright and capable of understanding at least three moves ahead in a game of chess. Readily repeating rote righteous recitations of the One and True God is neither civil for a civil religious discussion, nor is it all that informational. Perhaps we could drop the austerity and have a meeting of the minds. I'm not trying to badger you. I really want to know what you're thinking.
I found your passing judgements thought either unfinished or unclear. I know you're passing a couple, what with the mention of those arrogant people who don't thank god for their new jobs and those sheep humping worshippers of Pan on the liberal left (of course I'm overstating for comic effect--my apologies). But really, how did you manage to slam liberals in this particular conversation? Do you actually know any liberals? Really? Do you think good people spring up from only one religion, philosophy, or geographical area? Are folks from New York inherently evil, or do they just learn it from their demonic parents? ;)
Rather than just criticize style, let me offer my personal take on something you brought up. It's hard for me to see the logic in giving people freewill so that they can fail to believe something that they will then be eternally punished for not believing. That looks like a retrowritten mindgame. A little too much in our image, if you will. Matter of fact, that looks like something a man would create to control another man's mind in order to fast track past a rational discussion on the merits of faith. I just kind of get the feeling that there's a lot of mortal pork in these otherwise highly spiritual and ethical bills.
|
Wow, that was a mouth full...
Let me try and tackle this...
Perhaps you can offer a biblical quote that backs up the one god notion
Well, in Genesis, he did state that he created the universe and everything in it...
but it would be a self serving quote from a book that was, in part, trying to out-recruit other religions, so that particular lesson won't actually move me.
Not to be snarky, but, then why'd you ask?
The zealous allegiance to capping certain letters when we're sitting here in 2008 doesn't make the points themselves holy and true.
No, but it certain hold reverence. The fact that it is 2008 does not mean that somehow we are beyond such things...
I found your passing judgments thought either unfinished or unclear.
Perhaps I was unclear. We as Christians, should only hold those who have heard the word and turned away accountable...
how did you manage to slam liberals in this particular conversation? Do you actually know any liberals? Really?
Yes I do know a few libs. And they want to have... Nevermind, I edited my comments to keep the thread on topic...
It was only an example, I didn't REALLY mean to bring politics into this...
It's hard for me to see the logic in giving people freewill...
That is where faith comes into the equation...
we don't know why god did or does things...
Did your parents ever tell you "no, because I said so?"
Just because it is 2008 and we think we're awesome and cool, does not mean we are. Think back to when you were 16, chances are, you thought you knew everything and that your parents just didn't get it...
Well, in gods eyes, we are still young and full of ourselves. He will reveal his plan when he does, we just have to sit and be patient...
A little faith never killed anyone (aside from those that died BECAUSE of their faith perhaps, but that's another topic entirely)...
Besides, if I am wrong, what have I lost? But if I am right, it's the non-believer that has lost everything...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Fair enouogh, brother. I think this is a place to make those greater points rather than take on the language of preaching. I knew you had things you wanted to say that weren't so tied to verse and I thank you for taking the time to say them.
|
The Lord Loves us and longs for us to accept and acknowledge Him... Why? For no other reason than He created us out of love! A father looks to his child and wants only the same thing, love... The Lord gave us free-will. Not just to do as we please, but to accept the Truth or deny Him...
The first part is something that continuously bothers me, as I've elucidated in previous posts: it presumes a mantle of human emotion on a supreme being--while I agree with Moff Rimmer that early man (and many of us today) would be unable to relate to God in any other way than to anthropomorphize Him, it tends to invalidate the Christian conpcept for people like me. (but I still attended Mass today)
[Now my thoughts on Free Will from a Judæo-Christian perspective (and I find that many other religions more fully support the concept than Christianity or Ioudaïsmos)]
The Lord gave us free-will. Not just to do as we please, but to accept the Truth or deny Him...
Except that we didn't really have free will until we broke the rules in Eden, which it's safe to assume we wouldn't have done without the prodding of a certain Subversive we all love to hate.
I'll preempt now and continue; God told Adam, "Don't mess with the Tree." But the fact that Adam had the ability to choose whether or not to eat the Fruit doesn't completely imply free will.
Free will requires that the individual have a understanding of consequences and an ability to compare and contrast (to weigh the consequences and make an intellectual--as opposed to instinctual--decision based on the available choices). This simply wasn't possible until after they ate from the Tree.
When did the test begin? At the moment of Creation? At the creation of the angels? The creation of Lucifer? The placement of Adam in the Garden? The decision by God to have the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden? The moment God told Adam, "Don't mess with the Tree..."?
The omnipotent God I believe must exist, by definition, would have known not merely the Schrödinger answers to all pasts, presents and futures, but the Dark Tower answer as well; and would have known the answer before the question. From this perspective, there's simply no such thing as Free Will--it's an insoluble paradox: if God is omnipotent (which I say He is, otherwise he's just superhuman), then God, for example, knew who would accept the Truth and who would deny Him before they were even subatomic attractors, and this knowledge completely invalidates any individual's access to Free Will.
Just look at Judas--you think he had a choice?
If you aren't a believer, well, that's between you and the Lord... But to say the Bible is just a nice book with some clever stories that are nothing more than "guidelines"... Well, again, I guess that's between you and the Lord... Call me a misguided Bible-Thumper if you want, but I know where I'm going in the end :-)
The New Testament said we'll be surprised who gets there, and who doesn't. Guidelines are often needed. It's hard to build a nuclear power plant, or even a house, without some kind of plan. It's even harder to get through all of life without one. So far be it for me to denigrate them for that. But if you REALLY believe that a man can ignore those guidelines, and smugly go straight to heaven just for spouting catch-phrases, and that he can do all the evil he wants along the way... well, maybe "those liberals" aren't all that bad, I think. Let's just say that, again, I disagree with that interpretation.
|
|
But if you REALLY believe that a man can ignore those guidelines, and smugly go straight to heaven just for spouting catch-phrases, and that he can do all the evil he wants along the way...
Acceptance is only the beginning... When someone comes to accept Christ, then typically they WANT to serve him (by following his teachings). But one still has to accept the Gospel (because when those that came to him professing that they follow his teachings yet failed to acknowledge him, he said to them, "I never knew you").
Now lets run with the person that accepts the gospel, but then runs around and does evil...
That person (like everyone else) will face God, and the question will be asked; "What did you do with my son?"
A person can sit there and believe in their own higher standard all they want. But it's still faith, faith in themselves perhaps, but still faith that they are correct (not pointing any fingers)...
I choose to place my faith in something higher than myself, that's all...
-That One Digitalelf-
I choose to place my faith in something higher than myself, that's all...
So... Tommy Chong is god? You, sir, have blown my mind.
|
It's hard for me to see the logic in giving people freewill so that they can fail to believe something that they will then be eternally punished for not believing. That looks like a retrowritten mindgame. A little too much in our image, if you will. Matter of fact, that looks like something a man would create to control another man's mind in order to fast track past a rational discussion on the merits of faith.
A couple of thoughts...
Is it truly free will if you cannot choose contrary to what is desired? Andrew Turner suggested that free will happened after the event in the Garden of Eden. No. They had the ability to choose good or bad. "They chose poorly."
The other thing is -- why do we seem to focus on the negative? Why is it always "eternal punishment in the fiery pits of hell" rather than "eternal glory and rewards in heaven"? Really more rhetorical than anything.
|
|
The omnipotent God I believe must exist, by definition, would have known not merely the Schrödinger answers to all pasts, presents and futures, but the Dark Tower answer as well; and would have known the answer before the question. From this perspective, there's simply no such thing as Free Will--it's an insoluble paradox: if God is omnipotent (which I say He is, otherwise he's just superhuman), then God, for example, knew who would accept the Truth and who would deny Him before they were even subatomic attractors, and this knowledge completely invalidates any individual's access to Free Will.
Just look at Judas--you think he had a choice?
So I hadn't fully read your post until now.
So you are saying that knowledge of what the outcome will be eliminates the possibility of "free will" on the subject?
I feel like I understand what you are saying. Still not sure where I stand on the subject. Being a control freak, I really don't like the idea that I have absolutely no control over my actions. Saying that God knows ahead of time what I will do at any given moment is one thing. Saying that God is causing me to behave/act/or what have you is something else entirely.
It's hard for me to see the logic in giving people freewill so that they can fail to believe something that they will then be eternally punished for not believing. That looks like a retrowritten mindgame. A little too much in our image, if you will. Matter of fact, that looks like something a man would create to control another man's mind in order to fast track past a rational discussion on the merits of faith.A couple of thoughts...
Is it truly free will if you cannot choose contrary to what is desired? Andrew Turner suggested that free will happened after the event in the Garden of Eden. No. They had the ability to choose good or bad. "They chose poorly."
The other thing is -- why do we seem to focus on the negative? Why is it always "eternal punishment in the fiery pits of hell" rather than "eternal glory and rewards in heaven"? Really more rhetorical than anything.
For those who do not already know, and in the interest of letting you know where I'm coming from, I am an atheist enchanted with learning more about what people believe specifically. As easily as one angry atheist can make everyone in church think that we're all bitter and angry (oh so untrue), I too suffered generalizations about religious folk, and had no idea that some of your were or were not biblical literalists, some of you did or did not believe in evolution... and the divisions only go on from there. I came to respect how completely vast the religious universe was, and as I would soon see, how people's specific understanding of god was as different as snowflakes. I'm not as afraid of being judged since you've been nice enough to not judge me here, and I hope that you as well do not feel judged because an unbeliever is in the house. This thread's demand for tolerance, forgiveness and enlightenment make it palpably divine. I was recommending this thread to a friend of mine just last night.
On to the Moff's questions:
Much of what God is allegedly saying in places seems like a bit of human game play, where the universe as I view it doesn't actually play games.
"Why did all those people die?! Why why why?!"
"Er... because they were on the bridge when it went down, and it went down because of a loss of structural intergrity?"
I don't look to fill in blanks I don't think actually exist. The idea that God went Zilla on people on a bridge because he needed accountants and children in heaven doesn't begin to make sense, nor is that the kind of God I'd want to meet. What happens if he hears my lovely singing voice? SPLAT! Lightning. Yep. One more crooner in the heavenly choir belting Journey songs.
I just don't see divinity playing with people's heads. It's just not... beautiful enough. Forces of creation are beautiful and simple without trying to be, as can be, strangely, forces of destruction, thus we can't take our eyes off either. Telling people what not to do is the job of people, just as a mother cat nips her kitten when it does something exceedingly stupid.
To say why focus on hell and focus on heaven instead confuses me. What happens if you don't go to heaven? The alternatives are all negative yet essential to understanding the process of going to heaven, so any overview of this scheme will include both negative and positive aspects, and I was merely using hell to form an argument because people choose to avoid pain much more strongly than they choose to embrace reward. I suppose I could have said it the other way around, but it was just a momentary choice, and all roads lead to the same result, human behavior control.
Do this and good things...
Do that and bad things...
Why? Cuz God said.
Uh oh. Tell me about how to avoid those bad things again?
I knew a kid named Joshua out on Cape Cod when I was a kid. Joshua was, like many children, a bit of a liar/storyteller when it served his interests. But his older sister Carol Lee taught me a trick. I learned that no matter what kind of web of BS he wove, I could rip it down in one second by asking, "Do you swear to God?"
He would get a frightened look on his face and then come instantly clean, without even thinking of minimizing his lie or mitigating the fallout. I wish I could do that to everyone. Forcing people to be good is fun. :) No really, no snide point there. It was REALLY fun.
Thank you for reading thus far. If you jumped ahead to the end, don't feel like you tricked me and got thanked for it or you will most certainly go to heck.
|
|
I love discussing this stuff with you. You have a very interesting perspective on things and force me to look at things differently.
"Why did all those people die?! Why why why?!"
First of all, I really don't know. The short answer is "because". But that usually isn't good enough for most of us. The way I see it either a) the question is wrong (sometimes the first step in figuring out the answer is to make sure that we are asking the right questions), b) the answer is far to complicated for our puny little minds to understand (or something like that) or c) there really isn't an answer.
I just don't see divinity playing with people's heads. It's just not... beautiful enough. Forces of creation are beautiful and simple without trying to be, as can be, strangely, forces of destruction, thus we can't take our eyes off either. Telling people what not to do is the job of people, just as a mother cat nips her kitten when it does something exceedingly stupid.
I think that I am a little confused by this. Is God a "force of nature"? And I guess I feel like telling people what to do or what not to do is the job of whoever (or whatever) is making the rules. So, assuming that God exists, I guess that I'd like some indication as to what the "rules" are -- which, unfortunately, boils down to a list of "to dos" and "not to dos".
To say why focus on hell and focus on heaven instead confuses me.
Let me try and put it a different way. When I taught mathematics, I had students that would put a great deal of time and effort into calculating the absolute minimum amount that they would have to do to get a (barely) passing grade. If they had put the same amount of effort into the class to begin with, they wouldn't have had to worry about it. There really is a difference -- I think that people should be trying to get into heaven rather than trying to avoid hell. People seem to be focused on "well, how bad is Hell really?" and similar ideas. The truth is that there is really very little written about Heaven or Hell. And most of what is written is most likely symbolic rather than literal. Pretty much all that we can really be certain of is -- Hell = bad, Heaven = good (or something like that). Avoiding the "bad" does not necessarily equate to getting the "good".
(And Steve Perry hits notes that I can only dream of.)
First off, it's important that I state clearly that I cannot hit Steve Perry's upper register. I can sing everything up to his choruses and then it frazzles into a well meaning but utterly flacid falsetto.
I love discussing this stuff with you. You have a very interesting perspective on things and force me to look at things differently.
Thank you, sir. :) You too, are an eye opener.
"Why did all those people die?! Why why why?!"
First of all, I really don't know. The short answer is "because". But that usually isn't good enough for most of us. The way I see it either a) the question is wrong (sometimes the first step in figuring out the answer is to make sure that we are asking the right questions), b) the answer is far to complicated for our puny little minds to understand (or something like that) or c) there really isn't an answer.
I'll go along with all of that if we can add d) "perhaps it had something to do with the structural integrity of a steel structure exposed to corrosion and stress" to the list of possibilities.
I think that I am a little confused by this. Is God a "force of nature"? And I guess I feel like telling people what to do or what not to do is the job of whoever (or whatever) is making the rules. So, assuming that God exists, I guess that I'd like some indication as to what the "rules" are -- which, unfortunately, boils down to a list of "to dos" and "not to dos".
I guess I find it hard to imagine the concept of something creating us, that never talks to us directly, without imaginging it as more of a force of nature. There's more nature out there than sentient beings, and so it's easier for me to imagine a creation force than a guy in a chair flipping through the New Yorker shaking his head at yet another homosexual reference.
"Me damn," he says, "Why do they keep doing that to each other? I so would never do that." <G>
I don't intuit a supreme moralist. Nature is harsh and plays by harsh rules. Civilization and it's law are what tamed it. Whether those laws threatened death, imprisonment, torture, damnation... it's all a force greater than a single ego telling that ego, "Fly right or else." Much of religious teaching strikes me as a humbling of self. Same thing in the armed forces. People who think a lot of themself and don't consider other people can really make a mess of things.
To say why focus on hell and focus on heaven instead confuses me.Let me try and put it a different way. When I taught mathematics, I had students that would put a great deal of time and effort into calculating the absolute minimum amount that they would have to do to get a (barely) passing grade. If they had put the same amount of effort into the class to begin with, they wouldn't have had to worry about it. There really is a difference -- I think that people should be trying to get into heaven rather than trying to avoid hell. People seem to be focused on "well, how bad is Hell really?" and...
That's very interesting. For me, as a non-believer, it was just a choice of the moment -- I guess the one I thought had greater oomph to make the point. I don't think about heaven and hell. I think that when I die, I'm gone. So, until then, I just do my best to enjoy life and bring joy while doing as little harm as possible, which is hard when you're a big idiot, but I do try. As I've said before, my mother, and people acting as my adult role models, did an all right job.
You might be surprised to learn that I'm against 'pre-marital sex'. "Hey, why are we bringing MARRIAGE into this, baby?! I thought we were just two ships..."
;) I jest. Deep and loving commitment is the only language I speak. Certainly not engrish.
What if you've never heard of/been exposed to the bible?You're pretty screwed, socially speaking.
Other than that, I'M STAYING AWAY FROM THIS THREAD.
I've been in religious discussions that have gotten quite violent, and I've resolved to stay away from them.
That's my two cp,
-Mr. ShinyAs far as understand the new testament, Jesus died for our sins. Thereby he redeemed all the sins that came before him and he redeems all the sins of those who follow his way who were born after him. So, no problem at all.
|
|
...Is it truly free will if you cannot choose contrary to what is desired? Andrew Turner suggested that free will happened after the event in the Garden of Eden. No. They had the ability to choose good or bad. "They chose poorly."...
No, it's not. Free Will requires that both
1) multiple choices with multiple outcomes and branches and sequels are possible,
and
2) the individual (exercising Free Will) possesses the capability to intellectually process choices, and weight and analyze consequences
If, however, the individual's decisions are predetermined in order to force a sequence of events (as with Judas, or Lucifer and his 33.3% of Heaven), then Free Will does not exist; while #2 is present, #1 is not--no matter what choice I think I make, God has chosen for me in order to fulfill His plan--Judas (I think he is the best example) had to betray Christ, or the Crucifixion couldn't have happened; the Crucifixion had to happen in order to fulfill God's plan.
[My thoughts as to whether or not they had Free Will at creation or after eating the Fruit:]
God told Adam and Eve to leave the Tree alone. Adam and Eve are, essentially, children with no experience of 'the bad.' Without a negative experience there is no frame of reference to process a positive experience.
Without any comprehension of good and evil (or, let's say, the difference between good decisions and poor decisions), Eve needed a push in order to make a bad decision--while she might have accidentally done a thing, she couldn't have willfully done a thing without outside help--she didn't have the intellectual capacity to commit a wrong; Adam was tricked into eating the Fruit, so he is completely out of the decision cycle and will simply suffer the consequences.
After eating the Fruit, they both have an epiphanic understanding of right and wrong, good and evil--they now have the ability to exercise Free Will because they now are able to intellectually process both good and bad decisions.
Howdy...my wife and I got back in from Kenya Sunday night, but the 26 hours of straight travel (Nairobi-->Amsterdam-->Atlanta-->Birmingham with 3-5 hour lay overs in Amsterdam and Atlanta) coupled with hoping back across 8 time zones has had me wiped out for the last few days. I'm catching up now, and as always theres some good stuff in here.
I wanted to make one simple comment..there are no rules (i.e. the Law) to Christianity as I now see it. Christianity is evolution of oneself due to relationship with God. All the "rules" people often think of as being necessary to be a Christian are, rather, the results of this evolution. Christ "fulfilled the Law" so to speak, giving us the ability to directly emulate the very nature of God (through an indwelling or cohabitation of the soul with the Holy Spirit of God). I do note that our emulation is meager at best and only grows with exercise. As an example, I do not lie because I am becoming each day more like God, who speaks only truth. Not lying doesn't make me more like God. Too many folks have this backward, and have so for centuries, because humans like the easiness provided by a structured set of rules versus the difficulty of the simple command to love God, others, and self.
Mention was also made of God being so separate from humanity that we do not interact. I have to disagree with that from personal experience...and yes, you guys can now officially label me as a whacko... ;^)
God does speak to us, but we are often too busy and self-absorbed to hear. God does work miracles, but we often ignore them because they aren't the miracles we want. I have personally experienced both in my life--during a car wreck that as best all the experts could tell should have killed me yet I came away without a scratch. I know, I know...emotion-induced hysteria could have prompted hallucinatory reactions, etc., etc. Say what you want, I heard the voice of God, and God saved my life.
My car had flipped off a cliff and as I was watching the ground rapidly approaching the windshield I thought I'd better close my eyes to keep from getting glass in them--we think the weirdest things sometimes...Anyway, logic kicked in a few seconds after that as I could hear the crunch of the metal and cracking glass. I thought to myself, "Well, that's it. I'm dead." I then heard a voice, as clear as anything, say, "No, you are not dead. You have work to do." When I opened my eyes, I was standing on top of the cliff looking down at the bottom of the car. The top had been crushed all the way down, such that there was no way out of the vehicle. That was 17 years ago and the funny thing (to me) is that even with this miracle, I have not lead the perfect Christian life. I have no more understanding of why I was saved that day than of why other friends have died tragically in freak accidents. But I do believe I've still got work to do.
Oh, and for The Jade, I'm very glad you felt like you could recommend someone to this thread...I am very proud that it has lasted so long and generated so much fruitful discussion without devloving into the typical flame wars...perhaps I should start a "Civil 4E Discussion" thread... :^O
I wanted to make one simple comment..there are no rules (i.e. the Law) to Christianity as I now see it.
So I do not have to accept Jesus Christ to be Christian?
I wanted to make one simple comment..there are no rules (i.e. the Law) to Christianity as I now see it.So I do not have to accept Jesus Christ to be Christian?
I would ask first what you think it means "to be a Christian" in your question?
Sorry for the pause there...had to leave work...
What I mean by that, is that to be Christian means to be like Christ. It is difficult to be like Christ without accepting Christ. But accepting Christ is not a Law--it's the reestablishment of a relationship.
So, I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by "accept Jesus Christ" as well.
Let’s go with “accept that I must reestablish a relationship with a guy I never met who has been dead for some 2,000 years.”
Let’s go with “accept that I must reestablish a relationship with a guy I never met who has been dead for some 2,000 years.”
So your full question would be "So I do not have to accept that I must reestablish a relationship with a guy I never met who has been dead for some 2,000 years to be Christian?"
Assuming that is correct, then no, you cannot be a Christian based on that criteria, at least not by any accepted definition of Christianity of which I'm aware. As a Christian, I would tell you that (1) I know Christ, (2) he is not dead, and (3) I am indeed reestablishing a relationship with him as well as God. You are stating that Christ is dead. Christ stated that he would die, but then rise and live again. I'm not sure why you'd want to be a Christian (a person that is like Christ) if you believe that Christ was a liar?
I do not want to be a Christian. You said there were no rules to being a Christian. I am simply pointing out, as far as I can tell, there are some very fundamental principles…or as some crazy people might say it, “rules”…required to be a Christian.
Despite not wanting to be like Christ, I am not really a sandals kind of guy, I concede that some of the things he preached have merit. It is a sad thing that many of those preachings completely miss a large portion of individuals who call themselves Christians.
I am not calling Jesus a liar. For one, I was not there. I do not know that he actually said he would live again. For all I know, he did rise. I do not believe that he rose, that he was the messiah or a large portion of the bible. I have not experienced anything that convinces me the bible is the word of god. To me, lack of proof is not proof. It simply seems more logical to me that the bible was created by men for their own agendas and is the greatest propaganda effort ever.
I do not want to be a Christian. You said there were no rules to being a Christian. I am simply pointing out, as far as I can tell, there are some very fundamental principles…or as some crazy people might say it, “rules”…required to be a Christian.
My claim is that this is an illusion/misunderstanding--there are no rules that you can follow to "get in" as a Christian. Rather, ones behavior is molded after becoming a Christian. God invites you into a relationship, you accept that invitation, and your actions from that point forward are shaped by that relationship. Adherence to rules, any rules at all, in order to be reconciled to God is actually impossible according to generally accepted Christian scripture.
It's a "cart before the horse" issue--most people think "if I proclaim Christ and love everybody as much as I can (which could mean not lying, stealing, cheating, lusting, etc.), then I'll be a Christian."
I've tried that path, and I've found it lacking. I now see it as "I am a person in relationship with God through Christ, and I am being changed each day to be more loving."
I "comply" with the rules by nature, due to spiritual transformation. Adherence to the rules does not bring about that transformation.
Despite not wanting to be like Christ, I am not really a sandals kind of guy, I concede that some of the things he preached have merit. It is a sad thing that many of those preachings completely miss a large portion of individuals who call themselves Christians.
I agree whole-heartedly that too many folks miss the point...
I am not calling Jesus a liar. For one, I was not there. I do not know that he actually said he would live again. For all I know, he did rise. I do not believe that he rose, that he was the messiah or a large portion of the bible. I have not experienced anything that convinces me the bible is the word of god. To me, lack of proof is not proof. It simply seems more logical to me that the bible was created by men for their own agendas and is the greatest propaganda effort ever.
I definitely concede your right to believe as you do--Christianity is a not a logical thing in most cases. I can no more "prove" Christianity than we can say for certain how the universe was created or how life began. I would note, however, that the historicity of Jesus as at least the leader of a sect and instigator of problems for both the Jewish and Roman authorities is fairly well established. If Christianity is indeed a world-wide, centuries old conspiracy, it's a darn good one!
I must have really misread the N.T. Again, I took Christ's message to be that, because the Buddha's Eightfold Noble Path is in many ways comparable to the main points in the Sermon on the Mount, and because that's the way to God, that by Christ's standards I was on the right path, just with a different name. "I am the Way" I took to mean, "here's the deal, folks!" and "through me" I therefore took to mean "through my message." So I had no problem whatsoever with the guy.
Then people bring in personal relationships and name proclamations, which seemingly leaves me and my ilk out in the cold, and makes me think, "You know, a God who is that jealous of name recognition isn't one that I'd like to follow." Oh, well. Following Martin Luther's example, I'll read the Testaments for myself, and make my own judgements regarding them. Isn't that a good use of reason and free will?
snipped for space
Adherence to rules, any rules at all, in order to be reconciled to God is actually impossible according to generally accepted Christian scripture.
Ah! I think I understand now. Just to make sure, let me try in my own words. One is not a Christian but acting like a Christian when one does as Jesus did.
As far as the historical accuracy of Jesus in the New Testament, I always like to think of him as a Jewish James Dean. I think he was a rebel rouser and got the Roman’s (and probably to a greater extent, the Jew’s) panties in a bunch. I do not think he did this by just preaching peace, love and harmony. I think more was going on.
I am disinclined to take the apostle’s accounts at face value. They were, after all, rabid fanbois.
I imagine Jesus would feel much the same way about people who use Leviticus as 'proof' that homosexuality is a sin.
Yep. He was stirring up the pot. Too bad he's not around to do it again.
|
|
I must have really misread the N.T. Again, I took Christ's message to be that, because the Buddha's Eightfold Noble Path is in many ways comparable to the main points in the Sermon on the Mount, and because that's the way to God, that by Christ's standards I was on the right path, just with a different name. "I am the Way" I took to mean, "here's the deal, folks!" and "through me" I therefore took to mean "through my message." So I had no problem whatsoever with the guy.
Then people bring in personal relationships and name proclamations, which seemingly leaves me and my ilk out in the cold, and makes me think, "You know, a God who is that jealous of name recognition isn't one that I'd like to follow." Oh, well. Following Martin Luther's example, I'll read the Testaments for myself, and make my own judgements regarding them. Isn't that a good use of reason and free will?
I was really thinking hard on this. I still want to address more later, but here are a few thoughts for now...
The Sermon on the Mount -- while it has a lot of really good points to it, I'm not sure that it has a whole lot to do with the main points of salvation or Christianity.
I also don't know about the "God who is that jealous of name recognition..." The concept seems to me to revolve more around the idea of "sin" and the forgiveness (or lack thereof) of sin. The idea is that we have all messed up (at least once) in our lives. Following the Sermon on the Mount doesn't really change that fact. So what does?
|
|
I imagine Jesus would feel much the same way about people who use Leviticus as 'proof' that homosexuality is a sin.
Yep. He was stirring up the pot. Too bad he's not around to do it again.
I think that it is interesting that the only people (I believe) that Jesus condemned were people that were in the habit of condemning others.
|
|
One is not a Christian but acting like a Christian when one does as Jesus did.
Wasn't it Ghandi who said something like "I'd be Christian if it weren't for Christians"?
The Bible really seems to indicate that if you are a Christian, if you follow Jesus' teachings, blah, blah, blah... that it will show in good and positive ways.
I don't know that there is a lot of support for the opposite -- that if your life is showing good and positive stuff then you are a Christian and follow Jesus' teachings, etc. I'm not saying that it isn't necessarily true, but just saying that they are two very different statements and not the same thing.
I could draw a Venn diagram, except that it's a bit difficult here. In theory (as near as I can figure out) you have a large circle (group) of all "good and positive" people in it (or people who "act like a Christian" if you prefer). Within that circle is another smaller circle of people who are Christians.
Unfortunately I feel that there are FAR too many people who claim that they are "Christian" and yet they wouldn't even make it into the "good and positive" group at all.
O.k. I am confused again. What defines the subsection of “good and positive” as “Christian”? Let's ignore the people who only claim to be Christian for the purpose of this question.
The Sermon on the Mount -- while it has a lot of really good points to it, I'm not sure that it has a whole lot to do with the main points of salvation or Christianity.
I guess that depends on interpretation. If one defines "being Christian" as "following the teachings of Christ," I'd say the Sermon pretty much hit all the main points of salvation and Christianity. On the other hand, if the definition of "being Christian" hinges on following this other stuff that other people have interpreted from their readings -- in other words, all the stuff that the connotation of "Christian" carries with it today -- well, then I guess as far as the Sermon goes, a person could take it or leave it.
The concept seems to me to revolve more around the idea of "sin" and the forgiveness (or lack thereof) of sin. The idea is that we have all messed up (at least once) in our lives. Following the Sermon on the Mount doesn't really change that fact. So what does?
Maybe following the teachings of the Sermon shows a willingness to atone for those sins, to do the right thing, to relinquish evil and walk in the path of righteousness? Again, this is just my personal reading of the New Testament. No churches agree with me, to the best of my knowledge. Not many people agree with me -- maybe none. But, again, we're supposedly given the gift of reason, and the burden of free will. I've chosen to use them, and that seems to lead me to see things differently. Am I wrong? Probably (or, actually, definitely, by most "Christians"' reconing). But that's OK by me.
|
|
O.k. I am confused again. What defines the subsection of “good and positive” as “Christian”? Let's ignore the people who only claim to be Christian for the purpose of this question.
While I know what it is for me, I also feel like the answer to that question almost requires me to make a "judgement call" that I am really not qualified to make. I guess that at a basic level it comes down to the "lip service" that Kirth is referring to. That's not really the truth of it but it may be the easiest way to explain it.
(Ok, I've been sitting here for most of an hour trying to figure out the best way to answer this...)
Let's try Sunday School 101 --
John chapter 3. We have Nicodemus -- a high level religious leader -- coming to Jesus, really with a desire to understand what is going on because he just doesn't get it but knows that he just doesn't get it. It's at this point that Jesus starts talking about being "born again" and such which just ends up confusing him further. Then Jesus eventually talks about something that he has a strong understanding of which (ironically) we really don't because we tend to skip that part of the passage and because we Westerners haven't been brought up with a lot of the Jewish traditions and stories and so on. He says "just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness..." For him, he knew exactly what Jesus was talking about and all the ramifications of that story. The short end of it was that (if the Old Testament is to be believed at all about this) the Israelites left Egypt and were headed to the "Promised Land" but were stuck out in the wilderness for quite a long time. To add insult to injury, after the Israelites had marched across the desert endured all kinds of hardship and what have you, the entire camp (thousands of people) get infested by a plague of poisonous vipers. They plead to Moses who basically goes to God and God instructs him to create this bronze serpent and to put it on a pole on a hill so that it is in plain sight of the entire camp. Moses then tells everyone that if they ever get bitten by a snake that all they have to do is to look at the bronze serpent and they will not die from the snake bite. As simple as that was to do, there were still people that refused to do it and they died. Now Jesus is saying that in a similar fashion, people are "dying". The answer to this is not logical. It doesn't necessarily make "sense". But as near as I can tell, all you have to do is focus on Jesus.
Ok, that was really preachy. But you did ask. So really, the way that I see it -- Is the person ("Christian") in question focusing on Jesus or not? Are they focusing on the sin? Are they focusing on what people are or are not doing? Or are they focusing on what Jesus told them to do? Where is the person's focus really at? If they are focusing on the sin (whatever the current "crusade" might be) then they are not focusing on Jesus and I question how much "good" they can truly do. If they are focusing on Jesus then they are doing good things. That's not to say that people can't do good things without focusing on Jesus. And I guess that as far as "lip service" goes -- it kind of goes back to admittance into heaven and so on. John 3 goes on to say that God did not send Jesus to condemn the world but to give people a means of salvation. It is probably safe to say that none of us is perfect. So what business do we have being in a perfect place? We don't. There's no "judgement" involved -- we just have absolutely no right to be where it is truly perfect. Yet God still created a "loop-hole" to allow people in where they truly don't belong. "Lip service" feels like it has to do with people going through the motions. I don't see that as Biblical at all nor what I feel Christianity should be about. The Pharisees did a lot of "lip service" and Jesus mocked and judged them all throughout the gospels.
Ok -- I've preached enough. Maybe Erian can fill in the holes, but hopefully I answered your question -- at least from my point of view.
|
|
Maybe following the teachings of the Sermon shows a willingness to atone for those sins, to do the right thing, to relinquish evil and walk in the path of righteousness? Again, this is just my personal reading of the New Testament.
I love your points of view. I have to reread the Sermon on the Mount. It's been a while since I've taken a really good look at it.
But the Sermon on the Mount is actually a small portion of all his teachings. And I guess that I feel like some people want to take that section and igore the rest of what he said.
As for what you said --
Walk in the path of righteousness -- yeah, I can see that.
Do the right thing -- I can see that too.
Relinquish evil -- "relinquish" is an interesting word here. At first I had in mind more along the lines of "abolish" which I don't see as much of as people might expect, but I can see "relinquish".
Atone for those sins -- I don't see as much of this as you might expect. There is some atonement, but that doesn't seem to be one of the teachings of Jesus. If anything, it seems to me that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the atonement of sins.
I'll try and take another look at the Sermon over the next couple of days -- it's only like 20 pages of high level theology...
;-)
There is some atonement, but that doesn't seem to be one of the teachings of Jesus. If anything, it seems to me that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the atonement of sins.
Again, that's where my interpretation differs from the main. I see Jesus' "through me" as meaning "through the example I am providing, and the message I'm giving." So atonement isn't through his literal blood on the cross, but by one's own willingness to go to the same ends for the sake of mercy, compassion, and love.
See, I've had to read Genesis (and the rest of the O.T.) figuratively, in order to allow for an old earth and evolution as seen in the fossil record. No problem there -- let a "day" be as much time as God needs, and assume evolution was His trick to get things into the state He wanted them -- and everything falls into place rather nicely. When I extend the same favor to the N.T. -- a more figurative reading, I see Jesus' "me" as being poetic license for what he represents (a way of living), as opposed to being literally what he supposedly is (God, come to magically save us because our actions are meaningless). It puts responsibility back on each of us; one can't just yell "praise Jesus!" and declare oneself to be born-again to be "saved;" rather, one has to walk the walk, to really demonstrate an acceptance and understanding of the right way to live, instead of engaging in the continued working of evil through ignorance, or weakness, or sloth, or plain malice.
It's been a while since I've read it, but IIRC most of his other teachings and parables can easily be read to follow this logic.
|
|
Again, that's where my interpretation differs from the main. I see Jesus' "through me" as meaning "through the example I am providing, and the message I'm giving."
I can kind of see what you are saying, but with regards to the atonement, if we are to follow his example -- what did he atone for? What example of this did he provide for us to follow?
And, when it seems like it would make sense to bring it up, Jesus doesn't say to atone. He doesn't even say to follow his example. More often than not he says to change from this point forward. He says things like "go and sin no more". Again, during these times, it would have made sense for him to say "go back, make right what you messed up, and then follow me" but he didn't. And I also don't know that he ever gave us an example of his to follow as far as atonement is concerned.
Just to clarify things -- I think that "atonement" is a good idea for everyone to do. There are also a good number of examples in the Bible of people atoning for past deeds and it was a positive thing. All that I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to be a teaching of Jesus nor an example that he presented for us to follow.
|
|
...When I extend the same favor to the N.T. -- a more figurative reading, I see Jesus' "me" as being poetic license for what he represents (a way of living), as opposed to being literally what he supposedly is (God, come to magically save us because our actions are meaningless).
Disagree.
It puts responsibility back on each of us; one can't just yell "praise Jesus!" and declare oneself to be born-again to be "saved;" rather, one has to walk the walk, to really demonstrate an acceptance and understanding of the right way to live, instead of engaging in the continued working of evil through ignorance, or weakness, or sloth, or plain malice.
Agree -- actually agree rather strongly. I think that Erian has pretty much said the same thing above. I think that we have a lot more responsiblity than people feel we should take on.
Here's the thing from my point of view. At the start, you give two extreme points of view as though they are the only options. Either --
a) The entire New Testament (or at least the gospels) are entirely symbolic or poetic liscense and very little (any?) should be viewed as factual, real or true or
b) Jesus was the absolute most powerful wizard known to mankind sent to make our lives so easy to live that we no longer need to do anything for ourselves.
I really think that the truth of things is somewhere in the middle. I don't think that every word that came out of Jesus' mouth was a riddle. Nor do I think that by calling "Jesus" will people no longer be accountable for their actions and that their lives will be a bowl of peaches.
There's more I want to say on this, but my thoughts are going fairly sporatic right now. I'll try and touch on this more later.
And, when it seems like it would make sense to bring it up, Jesus doesn't say to atone. He doesn't even say to follow his example. More often than not he says to change from this point forward. He says things like "go and sin no more". Again, during these times, it would have made sense for him to say "go back, make right what you messed up, and then follow me" but he didn't. And I also don't know that he ever gave us an example of his to follow as far as atonement is concerned.
I used the term sloppily; sorry for the confusion. I don't mean "atone" as in "make up for specific past misdeeds," but in a more general "do the right thing here on out." You know, like, "I understand now why I was foolish, and let my life from now on bear testament to that."
I understand totally what you mean about extreme endpoints. The problem is, in the "gray areas" in between, we all draw the line in different places, based on our own understanding. I draw mine a bit further to the "figurative" side than you do, is all.
I was listening to some Christian music this weekend. I am sure there is plenty of creative liscence in the songs as well as a broad cross section of what being Christian means, but it seemed to me that some of the songs came dangerously close to breaking the first commandment.
I have been to church a few times in the past six months and it seemed to me that it was all about Jesus. What every happened to god? You could bring up the holy trinity argument. But then why did he have to die on the cross to forgive us for our sins? That just makes no sense to me.
Moff Rimmer’s explanation of John 3 sounds dangerously close to idol worship to me to.
Thanks for picking up the ball and running with it, Moff. I find it interesting that you went the route of Jesus's encounter with Nicodemus as that's exactly what I was thinking on over the weekend. As noted, I definitely agree we as people have much more personal responsibility for our actions and decisions than many Christians would like to assume. I also agree that much of the difficulty of defining Christianity lies in the grey areas of the scripture.
I am not, as is likely evident from some of my theological positions, a biblical literalist--meaning I do consider some portions of the scripture to be figurative in nature. The filter, for me, in trying to discern Truth (and I do believe in ultimate Truth for those that haven't followed this thread in its entirety--a topic for another discussion perhaps) is most certainly that of seeing how the scripture interacts with the overall reconciliation occurring between God and humanity. If one does not accept that we are separate from God and thus in need of reconciliation, then my filter isn't going to work so well for that person's understanding.
However, it seems clear to me in reading the entirety of the Gospels that Christ was not simply focused on giving advice for right living and loving everyone unconditionally--he spoke of a spiritual rebirth as Moff noted. He notes quite readily that in the Kingdom of God, there will be a separation of those that are known to God and those that are not, and that this separation will likely surprise many people (likely the Pharisees and Sadducees of his day, and the Christians of ours). He forcibly ejected people from the church for disrespecting God. He condemned even his own disciples when they tried to force him along a path to physical/temporal success or safety that was counter to his sacrifice for atonement. And he very much identified, through the constant use of Judaic symbols and language, his sacrifice with that of the sin offering that yearly reconciled the Hebrew people to God. He notes that through this sacrifice those that follow him (taking up their cross) become not just blessed servants, but equal brothers and sisters to him.
The Sermon on the Mount is a critical item of Christ's ministry, as it was one of the first times he begins descrbing the Kingdom of God, but it annot be taken as the summation of his ministry. The later parts of his life, wherein he begins revealing that all who have heard him so far have only limited understanding as they lack the Spirit of God, are critical in considering the overall purpose of Christianity. It is from this portion of his life that I derive my purpose as being more than just "living right" and also that there is something more than my own abilities--an indwelling of the Spirit of God--that is necessary to truly live in this reconciled life that focuses on bringing the Kingdom of God to this world here and now.
I was listening to some Christian music this weekend. I am sure there is plenty of creative liscence in the songs as well as a broad cross section of what being Christian means, but it seemed to me that some of the songs came dangerously close to breaking the first commandment.
I have been to church a few times in the past six months and it seemed to me that it was all about Jesus. What every happened to god? You could bring up the holy trinity argument. But then why did he have to die on the cross to forgive us for our sins? That just makes no sense to me.
Moff Rimmer’s explanation of John 3 sounds dangerously close to idol worship to me to.
Could you expound more upon your concerns? I'd like to discuss further but such would be difficult without more information.
The songs and praise within the church seemed to be elevating Jesus to godhood above god.
|
|
Moff Rimmer’s explanation of John 3 sounds dangerously close to idol worship to me to.
I agree and thought much the same long ago. Again, there is a lot that we have lost because we can't fully appreciate because we lack the language and cultural references.
There is a fine line, but there is a line. Think of it this way. God told them that they needed to look the "enemy" right in the eye and know exactly what it was that God was saving them from.
In a similar way, we are in essence looking the "enemy" -- sin -- right in the eye when we think about Jesus dying on the cross. We know exactly what it is that God (or Jesus) is saving us from.
I'm sure that there is a lot more to the story, but I hope that this at least helps.
The songs and praise within the church seemed to be elevating Jesus to godhood above god.
Hmm, I can see how that might occur, though again without some specifics I can't really comment too much. Given the general acceptance of Trinity theology in Christianity, equating God and Jesus can indeed be common in imagery, music, etc. Depending on the exact issue, I may or may not take your side. For example, I have had conversations with folks that do focus solely on Jesus, as they see him as loving and accepting versus the wrathful God of the Old Testament. This is very concerning to me, as it invalidates the words of Jesus himself in praising God. The only way one can elevate Jesus above God is to ignore parts of Jesus's own words as recorded in the Gospels.
The Sermon on the Mount is a critical item of Christ's ministry, as it was one of the first times he begins descrbing the Kingdom of God, but it annot be taken as the summation of his ministry. The later parts of his life, wherein he begins revealing that all who have heard him so far have only limited understanding as they lack the Spirit of God, are critical in considering the overall purpose of Christianity.
Thanks! I'll go back and re-read the later parts. Is there a particular translation/version you'd recommend for this?
The Sermon on the Mount is a critical item of Christ's ministry, as it was one of the first times he begins describing the Kingdom of God, but it cannot be taken as the summation of his ministry. The later parts of his life, wherein he begins revealing that all who have heard him so far have only limited understanding as they lack the Spirit of God, are critical in considering the overall purpose of Christianity.Thanks! I'll go back and re-read the later parts. Is there a particular translation/version you'd recommend for this?
I've found the New Living Translation to be very clear in most cases, though at times the New International Version more closely approximates what I'd expect from the Greek*. The disciples' inability to understand the deeper meaning of Jesus's words carries throughout the latter parts of all four Gospels, while Luke perhaps based communicates the connection with the Holy Spirit, as this is a theme the author continues into the Acts of the Apostles. Really reading through the Luke and Acts altogether for me gives the best picture of the transformation of early church from a scattered group of confused followers to an international movement.
* And that'll get me branded right there...I don't use the King James Version! ;^)
Thanks, Erian. I'll check out the NIV first.
Makes me nostalgic for the Sutras, which are so plain it's hard to figure how to translate them differently, and give so many clarifications that it's easy to tell when they're being figurative and when they really mean things literally:
"Buddha said: Subhuti, all the Bodhisattva-Heroes should discipline their thoughts as follows: All living creatures of whatever class, born from eggs, from wombs, from moisture, or by transformation whether with form or without form, whether in a state of thinking or exempt from thought-necessity, or wholly beyond all thought realms -- all these are caused by Me to attain Unbounded Liberation Nirvana. Yet when vast, uncountable, immeasurable numbers of beings have thus been liberated, verily no being has been liberated. Why is this, Subhuti? It is because no Bodhisattva who is a real Bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality."
Hmmmm, that explains why some people say Buddhism is the atheist’s religion.
Hmmmm, that explains why some people say Buddhism is the atheist’s religion.
There's no conflict between Buddhism and any other religion I can think of -- so long as you're willing to interpet the other guys' scriptures figuratively, as I do (on the Japanese census forms, many people mark themselves as Buddhist AND Shinto, for example) -- nor is there any conflict between Buddhism and atheism. That's because the truths that the Buddha outlined don't concern themselves with whose God is the "right" one, or even if there is a God (or a multitude of them, for that matter).
EDIT: Indeed, taken far enough, the clear implications are that the idea of a "God" is a distraction.
Wouldn’t you have to accept that you are part of god and god is part of you? Or am I misunderstanding that? Everything is everything.
Wouldn’t you have to accept that you are part of god and god is part of you? Or am I misunderstanding that? Everything is everything.
See edit. Properly, you don't have to "accept" any such statement of relationship, because interbeing implies that relationships are mere labels.