The Bible

i have a song...

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
All are precious in His sight,
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

 

Max,

I was going off of a fictional movie.

As far as others being "less reliable" I am not really sure how to respond. There were many different groups floating around with their own interpretations of Jesus, God, etc...This goes bck to around year 40, even. Many of these groups have continually had followers of some sort - who believe they are following "truth."

The soon to be Catholic Church did not choose the more broad (and much closer to Protestantism - some actually are near identicle to later incarnates - the ones about Jesus being symbolically "within" each of us are a little more extreme than others) interpretations because it did not fit with their agenda - it is not an issue of a conspiracy, it was simply understood as practicle. they were acting in their best interest, just as they did during the Counter-Reformation.

So, in my opinion, they are no less reliable than any in the NT...as far as the history of Christian thought goes.

I just don't really understand your definition of reliable - as in authorship, accuracy, or spiritual doctrine?

 

Yeah I remember that now. Thanks. But what exactly was the church covering up? Did someone find the actual writing of Thomas, and thats what the church was covering up?

Also what is the difference between Catholics and Protestants? How many major denominations are there in Christianity?

 

I can answer this...at least with my opinions.

No, I have not found anything better...but you know what? Is there anything better? I mean absolute and proven? Not something that you need "faith" to believe in but something that someone can say...you know what, this is how things are...deal with it. Of course there isn't. I truly believe that as human being with all our reasoning and great comprehension skills we still can't understand that we aren't as great and immortal as we think(I mean wish) we are. I don't think we have an immortal spirit. But many people believe they do. They believe that everything they work for and everything they do righteous and accomplish will pay off in someone way and in the end everything will have a resolution...a happy ending. I don't believe anyone can comprehend(including myself) the absence of our own consciousness...you know the moment our brain ceases to function in everyway and never fires another signal again. It is very sad to think about for me...but I refuse to try to romantisize that fact by thinking, in the end I am truly immortal and will live forever... and additionally I will have all the answers to all my questions in the kingdom of...(insert religion of choice here). It sounds too fairy-taleish...I guess I don't have the ability to believe in something that can't be proven true, but can be proven false in more than one instance.

Why do we have to believe in something? Does it make us a better person? Or does it let us belong and/or feel good? If you say yes to any of these questions I can show you a person who believes but isn't as good a person or is as mentally fit and comfortable as I am.

Bottom line: Regardless of what we believe or who we pray to, we will end up living and dying the same as the last million people before us and the billions after us, the only difference is what happens inbetween.

Sorry if I offended anyone, these are just my honest thoughts...

 

Anyone interested in reading the Gospel of St. Thomas can easily find it via a simple Internet search. After Stigmata was done on TV, I read it myself and was not surprised that the Church banned it.

Isabel,

I was raised Episcopalian but became an atheist about midway through college. Have I found anything that adequately answers all my questions? No, and I don't expect to. I personally believe that the meaning of life is mostly controlled by the individual. So I would rather spend my time making the best of my (and others') mortal world than worrying whether I was on the right path to some form of utopian afterlife.

That doesn't mean I find religion useless. It's probably the best way to organize people into a cohesive positive force and I know that it has helped my own family through crises. But assuming that one is not a true Christian (or follower of any religion) unless they adhere to the spiritual aspects, I simply am not convinced that any one religion will make me a better person.

 

Ninja...

I'm not a Christian. You know this. But your attitude in this thread and your conduct towards Christians here is out of line. You made your point. You don't agree. Move along.

Everyone here has a right to his/her opinions. We all have to respect that. Making a mockery of someone's beliefs will not only get you flamed but make you look like an ass. Simple enough.

 

The Aztecs had faith that human sacrifices gave some type of life force to their Gods. Your particular faith is based on the existence of an all powerful being that has created everything in existence. You can substantiate that about as much as the Aztecs could substantiate the value of human sacrifices. In five thousand years people may indeed look down upon our religions much like we look down on past religions.

 

MadMax, as a devout atheist, who can't fathom what it takes to be able to become a believer... let me assure you that I respect your opinions. It's at this time though, that I have to ask a favor:

be patient with Ninja. He's frustrated. I think he and I probably have a lot in common. I see the fang in his words and I concede that at some point every one of those sentences has gone through my head. Actually, worse things have probably gone through my head. I had a ton of contempt for religion growing up, some of which I still have to shake off from time to time.

But then again, I grew up constantly afraid that I was going to go to hell because I couldn't see the invisible friend everyone else could see. As an adolescent I was afraid that I was going to go to hell because I, personally, invented masturbation.

The south is a lot about repression and fear and guilt and several bad things. Some of us shake that stuff off, and if we can do away with what we perceive as self deceit, we go through phases as atheists... periodic anger towards what we see as a world of naive people, punctuated by periodic spiritual highs (where very adaptive, again ioho, self deceit trys to normalize the individual).

In the past few years I've tailored my contempt by reminding myself that my grandfather, who taught me about numerous ills of the church and the weaknesses of the Bible (if you remember he had a PhD in Theology), still could maintain a relationship with God. I love my grandfather; I think he was wrong, but I love my grandfather... and out of respect for him I try to be open minded towards others and their faith. However, it has taken a while for me to fine tune that anger (probably correlated w/ decreases in testosterone levels as I become ollllld like Behad).

Anyway, be patient with Ninja. I think he has to get it out. Fortunately Ninja's concerns have been more eloquently posed by Timing. I hope you see those questions as honest concerns with the notion of faith. Obviously noone here is going to change an other person's perspective on the most intimate of issues... but it is helpful to at least see the other side's concerns.

 

That was you?!?!? I'd like to thank you for that! I'd shake your hand but you're probably using it, huh?

 

LOL!

ps, love the signature. I roll on the floor every time I read it; may I ask what the story is behind it?

 

Achebe - I originally had the dictionary definitions of the words "conservative" and "liberal" as my signature. A fellow (conservative) poster took offense at the obvious political bias of those two definitions (not realizing they were from the dictionary). There was a heated discussion and, long story short, I changed my signature.

You can view the debacle here if you're interested: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37336

 

I'd like to add my .02. (as always, just my perception, that makes me sing)

Anyway, a little personal history first and I'll try to be brief. Mom is a Shintoist, Dad was hearded by the back side of an iron skillet to the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Mom wanted to become westernized and Dad swore he'll never force his kids to go to church. So, I grew up without religion. (an actual blessing if you ask me).

Time jump to the 80s. I wanted to believe but found nothing to believe in. Nothing made sense...and I covered the whole gambit including the sciences-physics to be exact. In the end, again, to me, everything I read was pure opinion...someone elses.

So it was faith that I had to accept first, and second, faith in what?

Time jump to '91. I was introduced first to a blue book called A Course In Miracles that taught God is purely a loving being and every one of us was going home. (this is a bone of contention for everybody). And it also suggested that we have the capacity to be just as loving as God and taught how one can attain this.

Cool. I now have faith in God, but what about evolution which I seriously believe in? How can anyone not. It's all around us. Heck, we as human are constantly in a evolutionary flux. Freedom of Choice (the Gift) = Change = Evolution. Life w/o Change = Stagnation = a flat world.

I then was introduced to a book that beautifully marrys God and Evolution. That book is called The Urantia Book...yet another blue book, but about 10 lbs heavier.

It's divided into four parts: The Central and Superuniverses (Heaven), The Local Universe (the birth of ours), The History of Urantia (Earth), and The Life and Teaching of Jesus (which also explains His missing years).

Now there is not a soul on this planet will change my beliefs, or make me route for another team besides the Rockets.

To make it simple...and I need simplicity in my life, God is Love is Creativity is Change is Energy is Nature...is All.

I'm happy. I'm singing. Life has never been better.

RR

ps. I've done no justice with the short explanation of the teachings of either books. True, these books are not for everybody, but if one is seriously looking, I do suggest them.

pss. To answer one of your questions, we are here to remember who we really are and that is a perfect child of God. We remember by being love, loving and loved. And miracles? Well, anytime you take a fearful act or thought and turn them into a loving act or thought. That is a miracle!

 

do you want me to beat ninja poo up? cause i will do it

no panties? YOU FREAK!!!

 

I'm sorry. I guess I was out of line. It's jsut that I know so many "Christians" who drink and smoke weed, are obsessed with material things, curse, have premarital sex, peep pornos, then praise Christ and his teachings. It kind of turns me off to the faith.

I have many DEVOUT Christian friends, we always talk about religion, and this is usually my attitude. Maybe being so young makes us not as sensitive to different views.

I didn't mean to mock Christianity...I probably should've been more tactful. I'll stop talking now.

 

Ninja,

I can assure you that you're not the only one who has ever become disgusted with hypocritical Christians. I'm a Christian, and I become disgusted all the time with inconsistencies between what people say they believe and what they practice. I'm disgusted with my own inconsistencies. How does that old saying go? "It's not that Christianity has been tried and failed; it's that people have failed to really try it." Something like that. I believe there's some truth to that statement.

I get frustrated with "blind faith" all the time. I don't believe "blind faith" is "biblical faith," contrary to what is often stated. Just because the person who says that hasn't thought through it, doesn't mean that I haven't. Faith may be the conviction of things unseen, but I don't believe that means the conviction of things without evidence.

Achebe mentioned his frustrations a moment ago. I understand where he's coming from, because I get the same way--from the other side of the issue. When I see thousands upon thousands of people parroting what they've heard others (including their professors) say like they've personally done all the research themselves, it drives me crazy. When I see people dismiss Christianity with arguments that are no deeper than the water in my bathtub, I want to pull my hair out. (You know it must be serious then, because I'm in full blown hair conservation mode. ) When I see people point to moths that change colors as proof of the fact that humans ultimately came from organisms with one cell, I shake my head. And I tell what gets the grand prize in my thinking: I remember reading about the response of scientist to questions about men coming from apes. His response was that men didn't come from apes; rather, men and apes have a common ancestor. Well, what in the world was that common ancestor if it wasn't basically an ape?

On a side note: One of the underlying differences I've seen in this thread has to do with whether or not truth is relative, dependent on the time, place and person. I don't believe resolving that question would solve all other problems, but I do believe it would get people on the same page to do so. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, Jeff and Mrs. JB (and others) believe that truth is relative, it's subjective. Their comments seem to say as much, unless I've misread. I, on the other hand, believe truth is objective. I believe things are either true or they're not, in math, morality and religion. I suspect that according to their view, it's okay for Jesus to be the truth for you, but not necessarily for others. In my view, he is the way, the truth, and the life, or he is not. I don't believe in the middle ground, just a good man with a few helpful things to say Jesus. I believe the old expression is true: He's either liar, lunatic, or Lord. When I look at the claims he made, the only thing I can conclude is that he was either lying, delusional, or exactly right.

 

TraJ: Let me just sum up what I do think when it comes to spirituality so there isn't any confusion. I do believe that Jesus was "of God" but I do not believe in the exclusivity of his message or that path. I don't consider truth to be realitive in this instance. I see Jesus as one part of a much bigger truth that we don't fully understand. He tapped into that truth just as Ghandi, Mohammed, Buddha and many others have. You can call it "truth" or "spirit" or "God" or whatever. For me, it is the same thing.

Jesus' message was specific to his people at a very unique time in history. Ghandi's message was synthesized for his people during a struggle for independence. All spiritual leaders taylored their message for their time and place. It was the truth translated so that those who had the benefit of hearing it first hand (and those who would hear it second, third or one-hundreth hand) could understand it in the context of their lives at that point in time. It is the very reason Jesus used parables - they were easy to understand and had a message.

Taoists believe that we are all part of God, that it is impossible to be separate. They make the comparison to water saying that it always, eventually, ends up back in the ocean. No matter what form it takes or where it is contained, eventually it with either run off or evaporate and make its way back to the ocean. Such as we are in relation to God - part of the whole just in a different vessel.

In my view, this is the ultimate truth, not the message by which the truth is delivered - i.e. the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavad Gita, etc.

In the case of morality, I do view that there are truths and absolutes there as well, but they extend beyond laws and rules. I believe in compassion for all living things. I believe in non-violence. I believe in doing unto others. These are all universal and apply across a wide variety of disciplines. For me, it is not that my morality is relative to the situation but rather that it extends BEYOND that situation to look at the bigger picture, not just the law or rule as it is applied to a specific moment in time.

I hear the concept of "moral relativism" thrown around, but I don't understand. For me, it isn't a question of how you apply a specific dogmatic rule to a situation. Rather, it is how you apply a universal truth like "love one another" to a situation. For me, those bigger rules supercede all the other more specific one's that can often be narrowed to a time and place in history.

Sometimes it is hard to sort out what to do about those universal concepts. There are times when I honestly just have to say, "I don't know" and make my best guess. I just try to use the models these teachers have set down as my guide.

I hope that explains it without being too confusing. I just don't want people to think that my life is driven by some sort of random concepts that I apply at my whim. It's not. It's really the opposite of that.

 

I didn't mean to imply what you said in the last paragraph. I hope you didn't think so.

I do have some thoughts on your post, but it's really late. I've already been to bed once tonight, and I think I'm getting ready to go back. I did, however, want to take just a moment to point out that I didn't mean that I believe you live your life based on whim. Even though I've never met you, I can see that just from reading your posts.

 

Wow, that was a great thread that I had missed. What a bunch of useless arguing.

I especially likes that BK mentioned dialectics - a concept of historical progression made popular by Hegel - was some kind of liberal authoritatian thing. Hmm...

That one goes up there with his lumping of Trotsky and Lenin as the same and authoritarian.