da da - i skimmed the rick richards thread. it plays very fast and loose with historical truth....with verifiable things, like the beatitudes found among the dead sea scrolls...that's simply not true. there is something close to it, for sure. but the essenes were not at all about forgive your enemy...they were about calling on God to make quick work of their political enemies. what Jesus said in the beatitudes is quite different in that respect. that there would be parallels should not be surprising...obviously Jesus was a Jew...greatly influenced by all sorts of Jesus teachings. and in one point, he used a direct quote from a Greek play to make a point. of course, there were theaters near where he lived that told ancient stories where he would have learned those.
You say religious as if it's a bad thing. Is that how you see it? Believe me, I can distinguish between all those things. What I'm pointing out here is that you appear to be saying that religion, faith, doctrine and original teachings are all flawed because someone tampered with one thing a while back. That IS what you're trying to say isn't it?
the fact that christianity has a name is political. words are political, no escaping that. i agree 666,666,666,666,666% with that demon lib rhad. religion is man (singular) and god, after that, straight politics, no chaser.
Ten Commandments: Moral imperatives given by God? How many of these are actually followed in the US? How many broken every week by nearly everyone? We're a "Christian Nation", but it certainly seems like we're damned. Jealous God is jealous.
Every religion provides reliable belief systems, behavior guides, and life rules that, if followed properly, produce folks who are ethical, honest, tolerant, forgiving of human nature, and a whole lot of other "good stuff." Regardless of denomination. In my opinion, at their core, this is why religion exists. For example, why is there a ban on eating pork? Because 2,000 years ago, without refrigeration, eating pork could kill you. It is the distortions of religion, used politically, or for personal gain, or for revenge, or for justification of all manner of "bad stuff" that feeds the disdain for religion. For me, it is not "what" you believe that is as important as "how" you believe it and act upon it in your life.
Not necessarily. Wow. That's quite the stretch from what I actually said. Did you read my posts? The issue is human involvement. Religion (and let's be careful about the definition - religion in this case is the human construct associated with an established particular belief) is flawed due to the inherently political aspirations of men. Does this mean it is evil? No - but it can be inasmuch as people insulate themselves within the church's teachings instead of relying on faith, introspection, and their own spiritual understanding. Religion self propogates a collectivist identity that is fed by ego, and accordingly, political machinations. Doctrine is flawed as it is a direct byproduct of religion. Is all doctine bad? No. But it's a human constuct and is therefore tainted. It should be questioned, not held with a zealous vehemence like the majority of religions tend to do. Again, it's the ego manifesting itself collectively - "we're better because we have these doctrines". Faith is never flawed, inasmuch as it's singular. Forced faith is not faith, and forcing faith upon someone betrays one's insecurity (a byproduct of collectivism, and another motivation for the human construct of religion). Original teachings can be flawed. But that's spurious and regards accuracy. You say the Qu'ran is almost 100% accurate. I'd say that's pure hypothesis. How do you know the transcriber did not alter the original words of Muhammed? The bible is a mishmash of translations and documents and censorship. Hindu writings are likewise all over the map. We could argue about this all day, but it's totally irrelevant unless you are the type to believe a book is infallible. (The christian doctine of original sin would appear to indicate that the bible cannot be perfect, but I digress) It's the message that matters. The original message is not flawed, provided one is capable of releasing ego and embracing it. Amazingly, hinduism, christianity, buddhism, and islam all have a very similar end results of the message. Of course, you may disagree. That's fine with me. And maybe I can learn from the disagreement. But when this disagreement becomes persecution - the rules change and I detest you immensely. Once again, amazingly the original messages are almost never parceled in judgement. It takes collectivism, insecurity, and ego to achieve this political stratification of "us" and "them". Jesus never saw that. Neither did Buddha. Or Vishnu. Or (perhaps) Allah. That's why I find religion (my definition) flawed. It supplants divine wisdom* with another reason to parse people into poorly framed categories. These categories breed condescension, bigotry, and eventually hatred. *divince wisdom being a different topic, suffice to say that I don't think said wisdom intended social stratification and persecution.
CASE CLOSED..... And you are WAY underestimating his warlord tendencies...the guy was a conqueror. DD
Well to be honest, the OP pic was more of a tongue-in-cheek joke, which raises several valid concerns through its humor. I do think that Paul is overemphasized in the scriptures. I take a very long look at the words of a man who never met Jesus yet claims to have been converted on the road to Damascus, yet whose words are used as a basis for an acknowledgedly corrupt organization (the catholic church). It's said that you will know someone by the fruit of their work [paraphrased]; if the catholic church is any indication I believe that Paul's teachings were a failure. Not to say that they're without merit; only that they're too much relied upon. [Before converting] the guy was the equivalent of a lawyer; a phony self-righteous dude who was basically the antithesis of what Jesus preached. Yet it's dogma in plenty of denominations. Honestly I don't really care either way. The fact is that the way that God acted in the old testament can be seen as the pouting of a willful child who hasn't gotten what he wanted, and therefore throws a tantrum. Hardly. I didn't make the OP picture; I merely posted it as the entry point for a discussion that I thought would make an interesting diversion from the glut of politics talk. I believe what the point was was the fact that people believe in televangelists and such who do such things as speaking in tongues while rolling around on the ground. I think that's rather tricky. What does it mean to "pray earnestly/truthfully"? You're saying that only "real prayers" make it to God; yet the only objective criteria you select for what "real prayers" consist of are the ones which are answered. Again, this can be, at least partially, attributed to confirmation bias. As I said, I do consider myself a Christian although I do not go to church. I am not trying to tear down Christianity, only point out weaknesses that must be accounted for. A healthy dose of skepticism is something that all Christians should have. The apostles regularly fell into questioning over Jesus' true nature or intent.
Everyone who is member of a political movement must have political motivations for every action or thought process, amirite? I mean these guys are like political machines and it's everything they think about day and night. Obviously being a member of a political party makes you a zombie that only cares about getting more power over your fellow men.
madmax, thankyou for saying everything im thinking - thus saving me from having to type it. kudos to you my good man.
I am really glad you did this. I would much rather talk about Christianity than politics. Please email me I would really like to get to know you. Thanks
What about humble and lowly sinners who believe Jesus was just a nice - if slightly deluded - guy? People who strive to live their lives as properly as they can, adhering to moral standards set by contemporary society? The Bible's stand on this issue is unequivocal.. any Christians have a different interpretation? I don't know many who do. If they do, it's either lacking in certainty or clarity. And what makes them the authority on biblical interpretation anyway? I understand true Christians see their faith as a purely personal thing, but if you believe my lack of belief is wrong then it's not quite so personal any more, is it
The mistake is seeing Christianity as merely a personal faith. The hope it points to derives from Jewish roots and is nothing short than the remaking of the world and all creation. About literally joining heaven and earth. A physical reality. It's not about disembodied formless souls flying up to be with Jesus after you sign your name on the line or check the Jesus box. All that is Platonic. First century Jews, Jesus included, would have little context for that. The church in the West has sold all this for a while, I know...but that's not what Jesus is pointing to...truthfully it's leant itself to gnostic dualism where all of creation is deemed to be bad and where the "faithful" are all just waiting on the next ship out to get away from it. That's not at all what the early church was talking about. In fact, it's what it was seeking to avoid. Read "Surprised by Hope" by N.T. Wright.
OK, it's not personal. What happens to the humble and lowly sinners who don't believe? More importantly.. are they, according to Christ-followers, doing wrong? It's a simple question I pose to all my Christian friends: Will I or will I not get owned after death? And the truth, frankly, is that any answer other than "We can't possibly know" is inaccurate
I don't know. The word Hell in the New Testament is translated from the word Gehanna. Gehanna was an awful place when Jesus was walking the world. It was where refuse was taken...it was in a valley where the Jews abandoned God and begin to sacrifice their own children to gods. This is what Jesus was contrasting the Kingdom of God to...oh, and by the way, he kept insisting the Kingdom of God was right here, right now "on earth as it is in heaven"...in some points he said it was inside you. The Jews of the day following Jesus were looking for a fight with the Romans. A war. Led by a Messiah. And Jesus is saying, unless you repent of establishing God's plan on your terms, you're going to get torched by the Romans...and they will turn Jersusalem into Gehanna. Likewise, hell as you're talking about isn't a major topic among the letters that comprise the Bible. It doesn't get one mention in Acts, for instance. Will there be judgment?? Yes, I believe and hope there will. And you want it. Because if you entertain any notion that God might exist than you sure as hell (or gehanna) don't want him to be ok with Rwanda, Darfur, the Holocaust, pedophilia, abuse, enslavement of the weak, etc. There is evil in this world, and the hope is that it will be smashed away. Though, like the Jews calling for a war against their oppressors, I don't know if "smashed away" means something far less violent than it sounds. But if you say you believe in the God of the Bible then you say you believe that He is completely sold out for setting the world right...so anything that distorts that needs to go, and it's far beyond me to say what that will look like....though it doesn't raise pictures in my mind of what you're talking about. Ultimately you reflect what you worship, and we all worship something. To the extent that something becomes dehumanizing, I'd argue that's a pretty sure path to Gehanna (though not in the rocky caves/fire/brimstone visions you're thinking of --- at least as far as I understand it, which is to say very little! If anyone tells you they know a lot about "hell" from the Bible, they're lying). The only thing we really have similar to this Greek/Roman vision of hell that has been built up is in the only parable he tells about anyone going to hell...and it's a rich man who ignored the poor man that sat outside his home. He finds no mercy because he wasn't merciful. He's parched and there is no relief. Was this a literal account of what we're supposed to understand hell to be?? I personally don't think so, but I don't know, either. We're all sinners. Every one of us. We've all fallen short of God. But this notion that Jesus spends tons of time talking about his personal relationship with you and spinning in infinity on a cloud playing a harp with you forever is not what the hope is. He doesn't do a lot of talking about "in or out" theology. He was busy ushering in a new era. We talk at my church of partnering with God for the redemption of the world...not to have you walk the aisle with your hands raised saying yes to Jesus (though I certainly don't think that's a bad thing if it's sincere)...but rather joining in bringing heaven to earth...in meeting needs...in seeking justice for the poor...in elevating people. From cover to cover, these seem to be the issues primarily on the heart of God.
Seriously, Dada, did you even read that Nicean article you posted from wikipedia? Your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that there was no early church, Constantine formed the church and Christianity as a tool to control the masses, created the Bible, and did so using myths and legends from local cultures. I might address some holes in your argument, and again, forgive me if that is not your argument. 1. Where did all of these bishops, of whom we have accounts of their lives as Bishops before the council (Bishop Alexander, Bishop Eustathius, etc.) come from? Where did there Christianity come from? 2. Why were they arguing about the Arian heresy? Did Constantine create a heresy for some nefarious purpose? 3. Ever heard of the Didache? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache 4. How do you explain such well documented histories such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church, which extensively shows an active church pre-Nicean Council. 5. I could keep going but I think I've pointed out the flaws in the above argument. If my characterization of your arguments is unfair or incorrect, please let me know as I'd be happy to continue the discussion. Thanks.
What is wrong with this idea? The first sentence from Aristotle's Politics: "Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good." I think we should want our states and communities to aim at the highest good?
Nice post. Still, as I mentioned, I've either gotten answers without certainty or clarity.. and in this case, if one can't be certain Revelation isn't meant to be taken literally, that skepticism should be applied to the rest of the New Testament.. including Jesus' claim to divinity itself I guess what I'm saying is: Whether one takes the Bible literally or metaphorically, his approach should be consistent throughout the book or it will hold no credibility to a rational mind But then again faith has always been independent of rationality, so I don't know what I'm arguing about here.. oh well
