I don't think you read my two caveats, the second of which stated: What evidence do you have that the Bible is not exactly as God wants it to be? No, God, "if in existence", can only be understood by you within the framework of your human comprehension. In other words, you are applying a standard of 'caring' that is based on your human emotions and your human concept of caring. Have you ever considered that maybe there is more to life than you're able to figure out? [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited June 19, 2001).]
BK, I probably came to that conclusion due to the backgrounds of the people involved in putting together the Bible. Something else that has gotten lost in all of this, that I think you've forgotten, is that I am Christian. My whole argument from the start was that I feel aspects of the Bible are untrue(though they don't lessen God's intended meaning) ------------------ [This message has been edited by tacoma park legend (edited June 19, 2001).]
Brian, Why mention "God" at all? If our human brains cannot understand anything within God's realm, then how can we even discuss him? How can we even pass on teachings? All of them are wrong, no one understands. It is a great trump card against opponents, but it also undermines religion. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
tpl, I'm leaving all the religion stuff to other people now -- I've had my fill by arguing with Jeff. I was just focusing on the history, which I felt was being misrepresented. Speaking of which, I also take exception to your characterization of the formation of the New Testament. While there were some formalization of the New Testament ultimately in the church councils and whatnot, the canon had pretty much been settled de facto before these took place. The councils didn't so much decide what the canon was as they did authenticate what was already accepted. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
Sorry about that Juan, I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to religion, so you'll have to forgive me. I'm just going on what I've read, and in all honesty, most of what I've read was probably from a biased point of view. Regarding Marcion, I may have mispoken. I believe he was responsible for putting together the Gospels, though I could be wrong about that too. If I'm wrong, please tell me, because I'm sure you know more about all of this than I do. ------------------ [This message has been edited by tacoma park legend (edited June 19, 2001).]
tacoma park legend -- you totally misinterpreted my post. I never meant to take a shot at Christianity. I simply meant to point out that while you are very willing to take shots at the historical atrocities committed by people in the name of Christ centuries ago, we don't see that kind of criticism or indictment of the Islamic religion today despite the fact there are bombings and bloodshed everyday in the Middle East in the name of Allah. In no way should that affect how you view Hakeem's religion...but in the same way, talking about events from centuries ago (like the Crusades) should not affect your view of where Christianity is today. Or at least it shouldn't be your argument against the religion as one of hypocrites. In no way was I blasting Islam. This is the free market place of ideas. I have no problem with talking theology with my Islamic friends and they seem to enjoy hearing about my beliefs and the foundations of my faith. outlaw -- i didn't choose words carefully..sorry. the faith taught by jesus is to be intensely personal, in that it's a relationship between God and man...but it's not meant to be kept secret. It seems very clear from the Bible that Christ never intended his followers to be silent about his gift. ------------------ [This message has been edited by MadMax (edited June 19, 2001).]
Rimbaud: Where do I say we can't understand anything? I said we can't understand everything. There is a difference. We understand plenty about Him; at the same time, there are still plenty of things that we don't understand. What I am saying is that those things that we don't understand do not preclude me from believing in, loving, and worshipping God. Besides, if we truly understood everything about God, and there was no room to doubt his existence and benevolence, what would skeptics like you do with your time?
Max, I apologize for that. We could go into other religions, but I look at Christianity because it's such a dominant religion and has had a major impact on Western thinking. ------------------
Kagy, If we cannot understand everything, can we understand anything? If we cannot say there are "mistakes" in the bible, because we do not know god's true intent, then how do we know his true intent with the Bible as a whole? How do we know it is not an intentional mistake? How do we know which lessons are to be followed and which are not? How do we know which side of the contradiction is valid? How do we know that all Protestants are not going to hell? ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
there's so many different versions and translations of the Bible out there, which one is the correct one anyway? ------------------
Shakespeare said it most eloquently: "There are far more things in heaven and on earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." This would be a good question for ALL of us to answer. If you take it on faith, you just do. End of story. There is nothing further to argue. I think the only thing to look at personally (and certainly not to be debated on a bulletin board) is, if this is a philosophy that is going to carry you from one life to the next, don't you owe it to yourself to explore every philosophical and religous possibility on its merits and without prejudice? If you don't know what's out there, how can you know your own truth? The more I learn, the less I really know and that just makes me wonder at it all the more. ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau
BrianKagy: I think Rimbaud was just suggesting the position that there's an ontological gap between God and man. If he truly exists on a different level, there's no possible nexus for interaction. Several Christian theologists have actually taken this up while arguing for God's temporality. I find it hard to believe that you would suggest the Bible is *completely* historically accurate. Even many Jesuit priests will acknowledge that one of Paul's letters was likely forged. Heh... this is worse than global warming though, for being unanswerable. At least there, we'll know who was right in 50 years . ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Thats why you have a brain. When Tony Gwynn goes to bat he doesn't know what pitch is being pitched or where it will be located, but with all the time and effort he has put into studing pitchers and tendancies, I'd be willing to bet that he'd have a better guess than you or me. ------------------
Brian, I consider myself to be a Christian, but my take on Christianity is significantly different from yours. From my perspective, you adhere to a constrained, limited view of Jesus, which has really only been around a little over a hundred years. My faith does not require me to believe that every word of the bible is divine, that every story is true, that every quote is accurate. Look at the Gospels. If two of Jesus' apostles can view the same event and quote Jesus differently at the sermon on the Mount, shouldn't that be a clue that not every word is entirely accurate? There are far too many Christians in this country who speak with great authority on the subject of Jesus, when in reality, they possess very little knowledge other than that which they pick up in the echo chambers of their own church. Jesus had a message. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do good to those who would use you. Don't stand up in public and crow about your faith. Don't make gifts to the poor just so you can take bows before your fellow man. Don't judge others. Forgive those who harm you. Worry about YOUR OWN behavior, not others'. Care for the sick, the poor, the infirm, and those in jail. I'm sorry, but this relatively new breed of preachers who raise money first, buy air time second, and entertain third seem to be missing the mark entirely. I cannot say I know exactly what is the truth and what is not the truth when it comes to understanding the teachings of Jesus. I can only say what I believe, and that is all you or anyone else can say. To speak so definitively, as in saying "God wants you to worship him," is to forget that the statement is merely your opinion. For example, I do not believe for one moment that God is so arrogant, self righteous, or needy that he cares who purportedly worships him or not. I choose to believe he sees how we conduct ourselves, and judges us by that. Of course, this is all just one man's opinion, and I could be wrong. ------------------ [This message has been edited by PinetreeFM60 (edited June 19, 2001).]
If Elaine can do it on Seinfeld... "Every available Isrealite in the tri-state area is drivin' pretty hard to the hoop." I certainly can. Sorry, back to the subject. ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau
I think you just made your own point! Seriously though, you are exactly right. We are raised in a society that believes in assigning value to lifestyles, beliefs, appearance and all the other impermanent aspects of living. The truth is that "this too shall pass" as with everything of this world. Passing judgement is illogical. Tower of Power said in What is Hip, "What is hip today will soon become passe." (Sorry, worshipping at the altar of funk. ). Judging also says more about the person doing the judging than it does about the person being judged. It is the hardest thing to learn, IMO. Everyday is a huge struggle for me and anyone else who tries to let go of that judgement. Here's a funny Buddhist story about detachment and judgement that applies: Two monks were walking and came upon a river. As the river's edge was a prostitute who could not swim and asked if the monks could swim her to the other side. The elder monk obliged and gladly swam her over to the other side. After a little while, the younger monk asked, "Master, why did you carry that woman across the river? You know that contact of any kind with a w**** is forbidden." The elder monk replied, "I put her down back by the river. Why are you still carrying her?" ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau
By saying that you think the Bible is the direct word of God, you are more or less saying that it is infallible, which I really just can't agree with you on. Why? Well, I've talked about it in my previous posts, but the Catholic Encylopedia even admits to creating stories that were accepted as true by the common people. They even had meetings to decide which stories were more "inspiring" in choosing which ones they put in the Bible. The early church fathers Eusebius and Marcion were the worst, and by the way, the same Marcion was responsible for putting together the first known New Testament. What you have to realize is that the Bible was written by man, therefore it is fallible. It is not Divine Mandate. I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to bring the historical part of all of this into play. ------------------ [This message has been edited by tacoma park legend (edited June 19, 2001).]
I just kind of jumped to the last page to see where the conversation had come to. I'll say now I haven't been reading and probably will continue to not read, since we've done this ocnversation a number of times already. But, I had to stop and say something when I read tpl's post (pretty much at random). I was shocked at the historical inaccuracies and just want to register my complaint. Communism: Lenin: I don't believe he even has an Jewish ancestry as you imply. He was Russian ethnically and was probably Russian Orthodox. But he renounced religion at a young age. And, if you know anything about the Russian Revolution, you'd know how hostile to religion Lenin was. He considered religion a trademark of ignorance. He was certainly an atheist. Trotsky: Was Jewish, but had similar views to Lenin on the subject of religion. he was of a breed of modern Jewish thinkers who rejected Zionism as religious garbage. Marx: Another atheist. Called religion the opiate of the people. Never made any pretense of being religious. At least Kant, whose work is also important to Communists, made mention of God in his work. Hess: Hess? Stalin: Again, an atheist, but much more antogonistic toward religion than Lenin or Trotsky. During the Revolution, Communists turned churches into museums; during Stalin's collectivization (in the 30s) they were simply defaced and vandalized. Fascism: Hitler: Hitler talked often of God. In fact, he seemed especially interested in Christ-derived mysticism. He had a strange interest in magic. But he also seemed to hate God. My guess is -- being the weirdo he was -- he was into apirituality only so far as would give him power. He certainly lacked any respect for organized religion. Referring to himself as a Christian certainly does not automatically make him one. And I think it's a jump to say that the Holocaust was a religiously inspired mission. Hitler was much more concerned with his German-ness than his religion. His voodoo stuff (like the swastika) was specifically Germanic. Likewise, his racial purification process (and the euthanasia, the persecution of homosexuals, and his treatment of women, etc) was in order to achieve a Germanic racial ideal, not a religious one. Mussolini: My knowledge of Mussolini is not as good. He was Catholic and was educated by priests (I think he was expelled after stabbing someone in the leg with a fork or something like that). From what I know of him, I think he was pretty hostile to religion as well, but I'll stick to what I know. Franco: I don't hardly know squat about Franco. I assume he was Catholic from being Spanish. He may have actually been religious from all I know. Of course, on an evil scale, he doesn't hold a candle to Hitler and Stalin. In general: Using Christian imagery or concepts in the execution of evil is not sufficient to assign culpability to the religion. Otherwise, why not blame Kant for the murders Stalin committed? Christianity is such a permeating entity and such a large political force that it would be surprising if it did not make an appearance. The crucifixion of Jesus may have been used as an excuse for the persecution of Jews but, in truth, the actual motivation for the persecution is not so historical and -- perhaps more important to the argument -- is such a poor understanding of Christianity that it can hardly be related to the religion at all. If you are going to blame Christianity for such a poor representation of its theology as that, why not blame evolutionary theory for racism or parking lots for bad traffic? ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
1) What does this have to do with me? For the last time, people: DO NOT CONDEMN THE MESSAGE FOR THE MESSENGER. It is extremely tiresome to read constant ad hominem attacks on Christianity. This is not hard to understand. Christians are not perfect; Christ is. My faith is not compromised by the fact that there are other who share in that faith and yet disobey God-- the same way my sins do not compromise the faith of others. 2) If this has been your experience with Christianity, I suggest you find a new church. It is very clearly written in the Bible that God does indeed wish for us to worship and glorify Him. I do not know of any serious Christian or Christian scholar who would debate this issue. You are characterizing God in human terms. God is not arrogant or self-righteous or needy. He created Man to glorify Him and He rejoices when we do so, according to the Bible. It is His will. I am not making this stuff up and I'm not telling you my interpretation of it. I'm telling you what the Bible, the Word of God, says about the matter. And the Bible says that God does care whether we worship Him. He loves each and every one of us and wants us to reciprocate that love. Which brings us to... So, you think Christianity is works-based and not faith-based, is that it? I think that misperception has been debunked at some length earlier in this thread. I was not aware that the Bible was intended for us to serve as merely a buffet of ideas-- believe and follow only the parts you like, disregard the rest. I do not believe that was God's intent for Man or the Bible. I want add, also, that this is MY opinion and I might be wrong. I might also be frustrated because it seems to me that I (and others) have explained our position thoroughly. I've even added two important caveats that I think make it easier to understand why I think what I think. And yet, I'm having to explain and defend the same things over and over and over again. It's frustrating. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited June 20, 2001).]
