Originally posted by BadwaterMaybe it has a bearing on its status as Revealed Truth. It also has a bearing on the view that we can account for religion by means of social history. And it has a bearing on the attutides of Christians towards other belief systems.
Christianity has borrowed many beliefs and practices from other religions. One either accepts this fact or doesn't. It has no bearing on the value of what one might or might not perceive as spiritual truth.
Originally posted by finneganYet the most irritating brand of Christian are those insisting on the literal truth of the Bible and notably those advocating creationism based on Genesis.
The New Testament is only a part of the Bible and I was commenting on the Bible. So if I debated with you the story of Noah and the Flood, you would apparently snort that this is not part of the New Testament. Yet the most irritating brand of Christian are those insisting on the literal truth of the Bible and notably those advocating creationism based on G ...[text shortened]... c Church's role.
You cannot expect serious debate on your terms because you are cheating.
Yet the most irritating brand of nay-sayers are those who are insistent that we pay attention to their emotional reactions simply on the basis of the same. Who gives two hoots about what you find irritating, really?
You've done zero for your stated mission, nothing more than taking a contrary stance and acting as though it is the default position. Why? Well, because you're irritated by those who accept the Bible, of course!
There's no candy in the piñata that you're laboring to hit.
Originally posted by finnegan=========================
The New Testament is only a part of the Bible and I was commenting on the Bible. So if I debated with you the story of Noah and the Flood, you would apparently snort that this is not part of the New Testament. Yet the most irritating brand of Christian are those insisting on the literal truth of the Bible and notably those advocating creationism based on G c Church's role.
You cannot expect serious debate on your terms because you are cheating.
The New Testament is only a part of the Bible and I was commenting on the Bible.
=========================
By the title of the thread "An Old Story" and the first couple of posts, I assumed you were talking about the Gospel story in the New Testament.
===================================
So if I debated with you the story of Noah and the Flood, you would apparently snort that this is not part of the New Testament.
===============================
Well, I'd probably find something to snort about. This Forum could use a fresh group of grumpy Christians. I've been here too long.
Seriously, depending on how it is put I look for snortworthy aspects of the argument.
Just because many cultures the world over have a tale about a great flood with various embellishments not in accord with Genesis, is not too impressive to me. I think that in the collective memory of mankind there is the recollection of an event. And its account spread across the globe and was modified to become useful to developing cultures.
My suspicion is that the Bible's account is the one we all need to know about. But it does not surprise me that after the flood the story spread far and wide and underwent various local embellishments. So now we collect these stories and some say "See? The Genesis flood of Noah was a rehash of other mythology".
That is not the interpretation I give to the existence of many flood accounts.
=========================
Yet the most irritating brand of Christian are those insisting on the literal truth of the Bible and notably those advocating creationism based on Genesis. So for my purposes I am not sure why I have to agree to your restrictions and without an explanation I decline (but I have explained why).
===================================
Leave me room to be irritating for other reasons, please.
Not all Bible thumpers are Young Earth Creationists.
=================================
I also accept that many Christians disagree with Roman Catholics but I regret to advise you that the category "Christian" incorporates Roman Catholics
================================
Don't jump to conclusions that I do not realize that there are millions of my Christian brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic System.
I am not a PROTESTant. And to one degree or another practically all the PROTESTant denominations carried over at least some errors of the RCC.
==============================
and it would be absurd to consider and debate the history of Christianity without accepting the dominance of the Catholic Church in Western Europe for over a thousand years. Also for many issues, notably the argument of science and religion, it would be illiterate to ignore the Catholic Church's role.
===============================
I agree of course.
But back to "The Old Story". You can write about whatever you like. For me, I will be paying attention to the story as is told in the Bible. For example, the story of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
I don't include all things in the vast realm of Christiandom as a cultural enfluence "the Old Story". I am interested in the document the New Testament. What was actually written ? That is what informs my faith.
I think some people labor to convince themselves that Jesus is not unique. It is an attempt to render Him trivial so that His claims do not have to be taken seriously.
One of the Fathers then unfurled a banner showing an oil painting of Mary, (according to the New Testament) the mother of Jesus. In Engelhardt’s account, “The Indians had scarcely seen the picture when they at once threw down their arms, and their two chiefs ran up to lay their necklaces at the feet of the beautiful Queen.”
...Tongva Indians may have thought was a rendering of their own female spirit Chukit who, impregnated by lightning, bore a male child they, too, regarded as “the Son of God.” In this case the Tongva people may have thought the Spaniards shared their knowledge of Chukit and considered it a friendly gesture.
http://www.habitatauthority.org/pdf/native_american_history.pdf
Originally posted by jaywillSo now we collect these stories and some say "See? The Genesis flood of Noah was a rehash of other mythology".
[b]=========================
The New Testament is only a part of the Bible and I was commenting on the Bible.
=========================
By the title of the thread "An Old Story" and the first couple of posts, I assumed you were talking about the Gospel story in the New Testament.
===================================
So if I deb empt to render Him trivial so that His claims do not have to be taken seriously.
Well it is. The Sumerian flood story is very similar to the Biblical account in Genesis, yet the Sumerian story pre-dates the Biblical account by at least 1000yrs. So it would seem the Genesis flood of Noah is a rehash of other mythology.
"I think some people labor to convince themselves that Jesus is not unique. It is an attempt to render Him trivial so that His claims do not have to be taken seriously."
Well you know what, I think - and many others agree - that Jesus was a first in many ways and his message would have most unusual and desirable effects in the event that someone took them up. He happens to have delivered his message without questioning fundamentally his own religion and culture and it seems very hard to separate his acceptance of that religion from the novel values he promoted. Of course, St Paul seems to have initiated the process of inventing Christianity as a new and distinct religion (unlike Jesus who does not seem to have done anything of the kind) and thereby hangs a long tale.
By analogy, I happen to think that Buddha discovered and promoted a wholly new and distinct set of ideas (not the same as Jesus obviously) and that he took the view that he did not have to waste his time demolishing the existing religious beliefs in order to promote them. For this reason, it is possible - and it is done - to separate Buddha from religion and to be an Atheist Buddhist.
Finally, and for similar reasons, I think it is possible to argue against religion and theism without vandalizing history and treating all thinkers prior to Newton (an alchemist of course) as being utter idiots. They are the shoulders from which we have been enabled to see further. We have found powerful uses for mathematics - but mathematics was developed for use in astrology.
However, none of the above removes both the conviction that we have no longer any valid excuse for holding to religious beliefs and also the fear that religion - and especially the upsurge in fundamentalist religion in the USA more than anywhere else - is now a harmful and destructive force in our world.
As a minimum it is time to agree upon secular values - not atheistic values in particular, but values that can apply across religious and sectarian divides.
Originally posted by Proper Knob================================
So now we collect these stories and some say "See? The Genesis flood of Noah was a rehash of other mythology".
Well it is. The Sumerian flood story is very similar to the Biblical account in Genesis, yet the Sumerian story pre-dates the Biblical account by at least 1000yrs. So it would seem the Genesis flood of Noah is a rehash of other mythology.
Well it is. The Sumerian flood story is very similar to the Biblical account in Genesis, yet the Sumerian story pre-dates the Biblical account by at least 1000yrs. So it would seem the Genesis flood of Noah is a rehash of other mythology.
====================================
Why do you think the earlier writing of the Sumerian tale necessarily has to mean the writing of Genesis is a rehash of it ?
That does not have to follow. A latter writing of Genesis does not have to prove earlier written traditions were the liturature from which Genesis was derived.
It is quite possible that the latter document is more accurate than an earlier tradition cirulating in Sumeria.
Originally posted by finnegan===================================
"I think some people labor to convince themselves that Jesus is not unique. It is an attempt to render Him trivial so that His claims do not have to be taken seriously."
Well you know what, I think - and many others agree - that Jesus was a first in many ways and his message would have most unusual and desirable effects in the event that someone took the ...[text shortened]... eistic values in particular, but values that can apply across religious and sectarian divides.
Well you know what, I think - and many others agree - that Jesus was a first in many ways and his message would have most unusual and desirable effects in the event that someone took them up.
====================================
From the first century many have "taken up" His message of being Son of God, dying and resurrecting from the dead. And many gave their lives to their experience of His presence in the face of unbelievable persecution.
The Christian faith, for all intents and purposes, should have been wiped out centries ago.
=================================
He happens to have delivered his message without questioning fundamentally his own religion and culture
=================================
Jesus did not "question" the Judaism from which He sprang ? That is nonsense. He was verses religion. And the ongoing and mounting tension led to His arrest and execution.
I think He continues to be verses religion. He certainly has been in the Christian circles that I move in. He still gets the last word among us in spite of our attempts to box Him up.
===============================
and it seems very hard to separate his acceptance of that religion from the novel values he promoted.
==================================
It seems that you do not read the New Testament. These are the kinds of incorrect statements made by someone more familiar with skeptical Christian refuting liturature rather than with the New Testament itself.
The Bible has a funny effect on some people. The less they read it the more they fancy themselves an expert on it.
======================================
Of course, St Paul seems to have initiated the process of inventing Christianity as a new and distinct religion (unlike Jesus who does not seem to have done anything of the kind) and thereby hangs a long tale.
======================================
If that is the case could you please specify three major tenets of the Christian faith invented by Paul but not taught by Jesus?
Drawing from the speeches of Paul in the book of Acts and his 13 or so epistles, it should be easy for you to identify three major concepts Paul invented which we will be unable to find taught earlier or by Jesus ?
What are they ?
=============================
By analogy, I happen to think that Buddha discovered and promoted a wholly new and distinct set of ideas (not the same as Jesus obviously) and that he took the view that he did not have to waste his time demolishing the existing religious beliefs in order to promote them. For this reason, it is possible - and it is done - to separate Buddha from religion and to be an Atheist Buddhist.
==============================
Buddhism is very interesting. And I am not here to knock your belief in Buddhism. But I have never met the Buddha. Jesus I have met.
"Judas, not Isacariot, said to Him, Lord, and whar has happened that You are about to manifest Yourself to us and not to the world?
Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (JOhn 14:22,23)
I have experienced the Triune God bringing the living Son of God into my innermost being. Christ came to make an abode with me. I would testify that He transformed Himself into a form in which He can be received by men and women - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Jesus is available today. I mean today.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by finneganI think that, in part, some of this is the driving force in the interfaith community.
...
However, none of the above removes both the conviction that we have no longer any valid excuse for holding to religious beliefs and also the fear that religion - and especially the upsurge in fundamentalist religion in the USA more than anywhere else - is now a harmful and destructive force in our world.
As a minimum it is time to agree upon secula ...[text shortened]... theistic values in particular, but values that can apply across religious and sectarian divides.
Originally posted by finnegan====================================
"I think some people labor to convince themselves that Jesus is not unique. It is an attempt to render Him trivial so that His claims do not have to be taken seriously."
Well you know what, I think - and many others agree - that Jesus was a first in many ways and his message would have most unusual and desirable effects in the event that someone took the ...[text shortened]... eistic values in particular, but values that can apply across religious and sectarian divides.
Finally, and for similar reasons, I think it is possible to argue against religion and theism without vandalizing history and treating all thinkers prior to Newton (an alchemist of course) as being utter idiots. They are the shoulders from which we have been enabled to see further. We have found powerful uses for mathematics - but mathematics was developed for use in astrology.
However, none of the above removes both the conviction that we have no longer any valid excuse for holding to religious beliefs and also the fear that religion - and especially the upsurge in fundamentalist religion in the USA more than anywhere else - is now a harmful and destructive force in our world.
As a minimum it is time to agree upon secular values - not atheistic values in particular, but values that can apply across religious and sectarian divides.
=======================================
You have covered a wide field of things. So far I gather that you are interested in Atheism and Buddhism, believe that Bible and particularly the Gospels to be rehashed prior mythology. You have a great regard for Newton and Mathematics and Astrology.
Have you found out why you are here ? Do you know why you exist ?
Thanks Jay, it's a fair thing to argue over this.
I would have to do homework to debate St Paul which I will not do now: he is so obnoxious to my mind but I appreciate why he may matter to you. My point does not seem terribly distant from your own in a weird way - which is that Christian religion traveled a long way from the initial teachings of Jesus. That point survives even if we exonerate St Paul. Maybe we could pin the blame on Thomas Aquinas? Because the problem of a Church that begins to gain wide acceptance is it picks up all sorts of additional baggage. How, for example, to deal with the apparently excellent discoveries of the Greeks? One solution is to try and reconcile Reason with Faith. A brave thing to try and the formula was not unhelpful to civilization because the alternative was to utterly bury the Greek writings and that nearly happened. In the long run though it became too great a problem for religion alas. As Reason reduces God to a "God of the Gaps" and the available gaps narrow so alarmingly I quite see why some people want to revert to the good old days and wish these problems away.
Regarding Jesus, I think my point was not clear. He certainly is linked with claims about being God and maybe now is not the time to enter a debate about the Trinity. He certainly said in the New Testament that he had not come to do away with the teachings of the Jewish faith but to bring them to fruition - he was surely positioning himself within and not outside the Jewish (prophetic) tradition. And I always thought it was agreed that St Paul widened his appeal to non Jews - for example with regard to circumcision, thank heavens!. I regret that none of this inspires me - it is tedious.
But he had radical new ideas - about the importance of charity for example, about respect for the underdog in society, about the difficulties of wealth (a bit socialist for most Americans I fear), about the need for religion to change people internally and not just externally - not just for show. The very idea of a God that is prepared to be humiliated was a novelty - not a marvelous, powerful, conquer the earth God. And of course, very different to the God of the Old Testament - which fascinates me too - can you believe in both? Can you follow both? I wonder why so many Christians try to reconcile the Old Testament with the New!
So I can appreciate your desire to revert to a pre-Christian faith based on the New Testament but it is a bit confusing to call it Christian. It is all very well to decree that you can believe what you want (a civil liberty) but quite another to try to claim for your own sect or minority the rights to a name that is claimed by so many others and over so many centuries.
Originally posted by Badwater=============================
No belief or lack of belief provides an answer to these questions.
No belief or lack of belief provides an answer to these questions.
============================
I find in the Bible plausible explanations of these things. And they are not esoteric elite knowledge. It is plainly expressed for all to see.
For example, Genesis 1:27 tells us what God had in mind when He created man. That speaks to the open reader of the purpose for man's existence. Anyone can see it.
"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness and let him have dominion ..." (See Genesis 1:26)
Just from this simple passage we can hone in on two significant words - image and dominion.
God created man that man would in some way express God, manifest God, reflect God, or reveal God Himself.
Secondly, this created man is assigned a kind of deputy authority over the creation of God. He is to look like God and reign over God's creation on behalf of God - image and dominion.
It is not secretive knowledge for an elite. It is written for all mankind to see that we were created to express God and have dominion on behalf of God.
This is not a statement that all has gone well with the plan. But it is a statement on the purpose for which man was created.
Now, Badwater, why don't we let finnigan answer for his or herself ?
Originally posted by jaywillWhat a fascinating question. One answer was supplied by the great psychotherapist Victor E Frankl and set out in his brilliant book "Man's Search For Meaning." He was able to test his theory and its validity for himself as a Jewish inmate of a Nazi concentration camp, which lends it formidable credibility. We each give our own life its purpose. We should choose wisely.
====================================
Finally, and for similar reasons, I think it is possible to argue against religion and theism without vandalizing history and treating all thinkers prior to Newton (an alchemist of course) as being utter idiots. They are the shoulders from which we have been enabled to see further. We have found powerful uses f thematics and Astrology.
Have you found out why you are here ? Do you know why you exist ?
The Christian idea that the cosmos exists to serve the needs of a particular species on a tiny planet whizzing about an insignificant star in a not terribly pivotal section of a not especially impressive galaxy (let alone the tiny tribe of Jews attached to the margins of several successive empires, Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, Greek, Turkish, British, American) is not quite good enough to fire my imagination.
Originally posted by finnegan==I would have to do homework to debate St Paul which I will not do now: he is so obnoxious to my mind but I appreciate why he may matter to you. My point does not seem terribly distant from your own in a weird way - which is that Christian religion traveled a long way from the initial teachings of Jesus. That point survives even if we exonerate St Paul. Maybe we could pin the blame on Thomas Aquinas? Because the problem of a Church that begins to gain wide acceptance is it picks up all sorts of additional baggage. How, for example, to deal with the apparently excellent discoveries of the Greeks? One solution is to try and reconcile Reason with Faith. A brave thing to try and the formula was not unhelpful to civilization because the alternative was to utterly bury the Greek writings and that nearly happened. In the long run though it became too great a problem for religion alas. As Reason reduces God to a "God of the Gaps" and the available gaps narrow so alarmingly I quite see why some people want to revert to the good old days and wish these problems away.
Thanks Jay, it's a fair thing to argue over this.
I would have to do homework to debate St Paul which I will not do now: he is so obnoxious to my mind but I appreciate why he may matter to you. My point does not seem terribly distant from your own in a weird way - which is that Christian religion traveled a long way from the initial teachings of Jesus. r minority the rights to a name that is claimed by so many others and over so many centuries.
Regarding Jesus, I think my point was not clear. He certainly is linked with claims about being God and maybe now is not the time to enter a debate about the Trinity. He certainly said in the New Testament that he had not come to do away with the teachings of the Jewish faith but to bring them to fruition - he was surely positioning himself within and not outside the Jewish (prophetic) tradition. And I always thought it was agreed that St Paul widened his appeal to non Jews - for example with regard to circumcision, thank heavens!. I regret that none of this inspires me - it is tedious.
==================================
What makes God not real to you is nothing this complicated. It is your sins that have caused a separation between you and the enjoyment of God.
Once you come to Jesus the problem of the sins is solved and there is no problem for you to commune with God and have fellowship with God.
It is your sins which has caused the insulation. It is not that you don't know enough about Thomas Aquinas. It is not that you need to know more church history, Roman politics, quantum physics, astrology, or even the history of the NT canon. It is nothing this interesting that interfers with you knowing God intimately and sweetly.
It is your sins that have caused the barrier interfering with your ability to commune with the Father. Jesus deals with the problem of your sins, the obstacle is removed, the real guilt is really lovingly forgiven and righteously forgotten. And you can begin to enjoy God, not as religion but as a living Person.
You need the blood of Jesus to cleanse your sins away. The barrier between you and God is real guilt for what you said and what you did before God.
Don't be deceived to make the matter overly sophisticated and complicated then it needs to be.