that is a very good question (BTW - I always like your posts) the bible is holy, in that it is inspired by a holy God, a revealing of a holy God- holy meaning a person/being divine in moral perfection and character. the contemporary analogue for a holy bible would be the life of Jesus and those who truly model Him. so assuming the bible is not holy then the contemporary analogue would be those who claim to model the bible living un-holy examples. (did I just make a circle? )
This is always a source of irritation for me. Especially with fundamentalists who like to spout the "literal" interpretation nonsense. If those people did even a modicum of research they'd realize that christianity as we know it today is an amalgamation of an intense series of controversies, debates, riots, and flat-out bloody censorship as to what the "doctrine" really is, and what it means. More importantly, much of that doctine is (amusingly) derived from pagan beliefs in an effort to appeal to the general public at the time. The point is that there is no such thing as a literal interpretation, or a perfectly correct dogma. To act as though one knows the veractiy of these doctrines to be 100% accurate is the height of misguided arrogance. More importantly, this arrogance is a manifestation of the wide distance between jesus' teachings and the commonly held "principles" of many modern "christians". But I digress.
These things I believe: Jesus is the only begotten Son and earthly manifestation of God. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and rose again in three days. By developing a relationship with Jesus and doing God's will, you will live a better life, and you will be rewarded in the next life. The Bible is the best guide available on how to do God's will. All the rest is less important, and I either don't have a belief, or I'm willing to compromise.
i'm sorry but your attempt to deflect the points raised in the poster (which i did not make) didn't quite do the job. Some or all of those apply in varying degrees to all practicing Christians. I know this because I myself am a Christian, I've been to lots of churches and I've lived in many areas of the U.S., so I know I'm not just getting a fundie Christian viewpoint. Essentially these 10 points are a pretty thorough grilling; why don't you try responding to some of them? Allow me - point 10 Code: 15 It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. 16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, "Ah! I am warm; I see the fire." 17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, "Save me; you are my god." 18 They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand. Isaiah 44:15-18 several times in the bible all other gods besides YHWH are decried as false, illusory, man-made. I'd like to see you find an allegorical meaning for that in lieu of interpreting it literally. point 9 Granted, most christians don't find a problem with evolution. point 8 this is where things get interesting; since the council of nicea where the head honcho christians gathered and essentially picked which writings were to be included in the bible. basically, in classical jewish belief, trinity god would be a heresy. somehow (probably because of paul) things got twisted into a trinity where there is no basis for it in classical jewish theology. point 7 i believe the key to this point of contention is a double standard being raised; if god can command the israelites to destroy whole nations to be considered holy and righteous, why can't muslim extremists bomb civilians in order to be considered holy and righteous? point 6 yeah, i don't think most christians laugh at it...but they do make a judgement that it's untrue based on a perception that the belief system is ridiculous. this one's just pointing out that a similar argument could be raised against christianity. point 5 this one is referring to young-earth creationism. ignore it if you don't know what that is. point 4 i agree that this is a weak point. point 3 You must not have read Acts. point 2 That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Google "confirmation bias". It's also kind of circular logic. You attribute the failure of prayer to not having enough faith, or not being the will of God. Instead have you considered that prayer, in fact, is not a magical instant messaging service to heaven? Yet any prayer that does "work" is automatically attributed to God being kind/merciful/good and not coincidence. Objectively, there is definitely a possibility that fulfilled prayer could be just that - coincidence. point 1 thanks, i didn't come up with it.
bash people?!?! try kill people ala the crusades. and it's not just christian religions, you can add the jews and muslims as well. those are the obvious religions but really since there has been religion there has been religious wars. you should be happy they only want to bash you and not kill you. i don't know the numbers, don't want to , but hundreds of millions if not billions have died because of the crusades, ww2, muslims conquests, spanish colonization of all americas, etc...
to be fair, many "religious wars," especially in medieval europe, are more about political gain than actual religious fervor. religious justification was just a tool used to sway the masses. that doesn't make it right, nor does it vindicate the religion, but on the other hand it does place a good portion of responsibility on the organization of the religions (the catholic church). history showed that every human organization of any power or size is easily manipulated into doing morally questionable things.
A lot of people do a lot of different things. Tearing people apart isn't reserved for any particular creed or color or nationality. It seems to be a human thing.
no question. there's a church in new york whose logo reads, "RELIGION KILLS." i am having a hard time understanding why you list WWII as a religious war, though. certainly there were people of varying faith backgrounds involved...but i don't see it as a struggle by or for religious authority. I'd also point out progressivism gave us Stalin and the Gulags, eugenics and Auschwitz. Anything can be corrupted, it seems.
i'd hesitate to use that brush to paint all religions. maybe the practice of dogma/doctrine is at its core political, but of course it would depend on which belief system you're espousing. i'm not fond of the idea that religion was some crazy social engineering experiment concocted by cavemen.
Well, yeah, I'd expect members of religion to not find that thought terribly comfortable, but... there it is.
But all religions have been shaped by men and politics, and usually for their own political gain. Throughout history people fight over who is more right, in their interpetations, in their beliefs, and in their dogma. Religion is purely political, IMO. DD
i didn't say christianity wasn't political. i accept that and think it to be true (which is why i don't go to church anymore). i just said that i'd hesitate to characterize all religions that way.
Fair enough, can you name one religion that has not been shaped by politics, either current or past? DD
Of course they do...........just like "a lot" of Muslims strap explosives to their chest and blow themselves up in public markets.
Let's take first century Christians. Let's take what we understand of Christianity and what the people who claimed to belive in the risen Christ did about it before the Council at Nicea. We have people literally thrown to the lions. We have people believing in something that equals a death sentence. We have commentary from non-believers of the day of how different they were in the way they treated other people to their own detriment...that, for example, they refused to run from plague-infected towns like everyone else, instead choosing to stay at their own risk and care for the sick. There is little, from a worldly perspective, that looks like gain. We have James writing that true religion was taking care of orphans and widows. I'm completely with you that Christianity...as an organized religion...was ultimately shaped further by people with different ends. But that's not what I'm interested in. It's not what I'm seeking. I know lots of believers who give of themselves profusely...with no thought of gain. Who have literally turned out their wealth for others...or who have given their lives to taking care of other people in response to Christ. In trying to bring heaven to earth. So when I read posts like the first...and I read posts that seek to bottle this up like me and others who believe are after some personal political aim in that...or that we've all just been duped by collectivism...i find it not only mildly offensive, but also completely out of touch with the reality i understand. Something that goes literally to the heart of who I am. I was watching 30 days the other night...and there was a lesbian pastor meeting with the featured person in the story who was a homophobe. He talked about his problems with homosexuality and she responded that his statements cut her to the core...they literally hit who she was. That's what we're talking about here. For many of you, it's easy to be flippant about faith. I don't feel like I have that luxury...that's who I am. I can joke about it, and I'm never offended at what some might see as offensive (like taking down Ten Commandments monuments in courthouses or being pissed off at a great movie like "Dogma")....but my faith is central to the way I am. Just trying to give some perspective.
No; however, it is not my burden of proof. Your claim is that all religion is political, it is your job to prove that to be true. My ignorance of the political or apolitical backdrop of many religions does not mean that they are de facto political.
