Christian Beliefs [Archive]

blatantninja

July 19th, 2008, 02:38

My first one is, how do Christians today truly believe in their religion when most of it has been knowingly corrupted by the church? Most gospels have been taken out of the NT. Christians of today know that and still choose not to believe in other gospels found. How can one Gospel be considered true while others are not, especially since it's the doing of just several people who decided on it?

I addressed this in the other thread, but I think it worth a bit of a synopsis. The Canonical Gospels have survived much in their original form (at least going back to the late 1st and early 2nd century). There are issues with translation, but it's hard to find specific things that have been changed to significantly alter the meaning. Surviving manuscripts have shown that outside or translation problems, the texts have remained virtually unchanged.

As for the ones left out. Many needed to be because they don't appear to be authentic (IE not Apolistic), such as the Gospel of Judas. Others, such as perhaps the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Phillip, appear to be at least close to Apolistic, but had enough differences in content that they didn't reconcile with the four that were chosen very well.

It's like being in a courtroom. You have 12 people that have viewed the event in question. You are likely to get 12 different descriptions of what happened. Some will agree more than others. A few may be totally off the wall, but that person really did see it that way. Eventually, you have to figure out which to believe, and which to not.

It's always important to remember that the Gospel's are NOT the writings of Jesus, but rather the recollections of those that followed Him.

It is also known that early Christians tried to annihilate the other Christian sects of the time. This brought loss to a lot of old documents and old Christian movements.

True, but what you generally see is more power struggles than doctrine struggles. When Rome or Constantinople felt their authority was being questioned, they came down hard. I've always believed that Constantine was both the best and worst thing that ever happened to Christianity, though there were still things that went on before him. In the end the Church in this world is flawed because the people that run it are imperfect.

I hope some others can comment on the non-canonical Gospels on this thread. As I said in the other one, I went to read them, terrified that it would shatter my faith, and instead came out with a stronger faith. I'd be curious how others have reacted.

Pladio

July 19th, 2008, 03:46

But that's what I'm saying. If the other Gospels are different, how can you believe them ? If they all say something else, why are those four true and the others not?
And if they were written by witnesses and not Jesus himself, how do you even know that they're actually real and/or truthful in what they saw? Like I said in the other thread too, they chose the four which seemed to be the most compatible with one another, but what if the one which was actually the truth got rejected?

12 Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118528/)
This movie reflects this completely.

Corwin

July 19th, 2008, 04:04

It's late at night, I've just finished a 2 hour session of NWN online with Peter and Cm, so I'm not up to getting involved right now, but I will tomorrow. Just one quick point. Christians don't believe in a religion, or a church, they believe in a person, Jesus and strive to be like Him. Unfortunately, churches, men and especially politics have over the years hijacked many aspects and as you say, corrupted them. The Crusades, for example, weren't really religious, they were primarily political and used religion as their justification, or excuse. More when I wake up!! :)

Bartacus

July 19th, 2008, 14:47

Personally I don't know if I can consider myself a full Christian. I believe in good&evil and I also believe that there was once a man called Jezus who could inspire people to do good. The Church as an institute is way less for me then the actual faith. It's not only political abused, but also very rigid and totaly lost the feeling with western civilisation (don't know weather that's a good or an evil thing, but I certainly know that it is the reason why there are few people in church today)

JemyM

July 19th, 2008, 18:26

NO Religion bashing

Doh! I guess I am disqualified then. :(
I can be as pragmatic about Christian beliefs as I can be with other radical ideologies such as communism and nationalism. It's impossible for me to discuss any radical Utopian ideology without treating it's followers as puppets to tribal instinct and then judge them by the victims of their ideas, whoever/whatever they are.

Christianity is a death cult with a primitive execution machine as their symbol. Their totem pole is usually a wooden statue of a bloody and mutilated body which they worship with great passion and they want every young child exposed to this gory scene as possible.

They spread the idea that that life without their master is meaningless and the only goal of life is to die the right way. Nothing else (friends/family etc) really matters at the end. Then they say that there's no reason to be moral unless one submit to their totalitarian master. They also teach that there's no point in bothering with the environment or improve life etc since the world will end soon anyway.

In a gruesome ritual they practice virtual cannibalism in which they eat a cracker that they believe is their masters flesh. Many jews have been slain throughout history for this belief alone since it was believed that the jews couldn't live normally if they didn't eat Christians who ate crackers (sentenced to death after being charged with "desecration of the Eucharist").

They reject science like biology because they believe in a creation story from pagan animal-sacrificing nomads who believed that every animal on the planet lived within walking distance and that all humans come from a single person (Cain) who was also a murderer, alternatively had incest with his mother Eve.

They believe that a book that suggest "kill them" for everything from wrong clothes to wrong sexuality, is the source for western liberalism, democracy and human rights.

Nowadays they are harmless to anyone but themselves though since they lost their power to secularism. They go to church and throw protective spells at themselves (prayer) once per week. In their favorite chant they claim themselves to be broken and helpless sinners who submit to their master and ask him for forgiveness for being born. Rather depressive.

Then there are those who call themselves Christians without believing in any of this crap. They do so due to cultural pressure, not because they actually believe in it, nor have they given any thought of what the religion actually contain.

Pladio

July 19th, 2008, 19:27

Like you said JemyM, I think that maybe you should exclude yourself from this discussion, even though some points you make seem quite valid, but they're true about every single religion in the world.

I am however looking for more specific answers about Christian beliefs.

JemyM

July 19th, 2008, 19:50

I am however looking for more specific answers about Christian beliefs.

Have you ever heard someone say "Christianity for me is..." or "God for me is...". That's what personal faith is about, making up your own religion that simply share the same label as your neighbor.

There are as many doctrines as they are Christians really and they are divided by a great amount of branches. Each "Christian" is influenced by multiple belief systems as well as their own life experiences. A conservative southern baptist Christian in the south US do not have much in common with a social-democrat Lutheran Christian from Stockholm. A persons nationality, culture and political beliefs will have a strong impact on how they interpret Christianity, even more so than the bible itself!

I poked fun of some of Christianity's weird content that we normally do not see because we are too familiar with it so we never question it. Children do see the weird stuff though and they often ask all the questions that we no longer ask ourselves... like "who was Cains wife", "is there a pet heaven" and "why do we have to drink wine, cant we have a non-alcoholic beverage instead?".

Pladio

July 19th, 2008, 19:59

Corwin

July 19th, 2008, 20:57

JemyM, your diatribe did not deal with Christianity, but at a warped view of certain Catholic practices, most of which the Protestant side of Christianity does not endorse or practice. Please keep your personal dislikes for a different thread and let us discuss various 'Christian' beliefs in as neutral a manner as possible. I personally consider the Catholic use of a crucifix to be akin to pagan idolatry also, but I'm willing to discuss that issue with a Catholic in a calm and rational manner explaining my perspective while they present theirs and then allow others to draw their own personal conclusions. There is no need to denigrate someone's belief and as moderator, I will not tolerate it in future. Let's all be adult and mature as we discuss what may be sensitive issues.

Pladio

July 19th, 2008, 21:01

Corwin, you also said you had something to add :)

JemyM

July 19th, 2008, 21:04

Yes, but 'most' people have the same core beliefs. My problem is that those core beliefs have mostly been corrupted by people over the ages. I'll never find one answer, but that's not exactly what I'm looking for.

I think to be a Christian you must believe in Jesus. Of course, why would anyone build a religion who ask you to believe in something? Consider; usually you believe in something because you think it's true. If you initially believe someone, but then they tell you that you must believe them all the time, wouldn't you consider that a bit... weird... maybe they ask you to believe it because they are pulling your leg and know themselves that it ain't true? Why is trying to "believe" a greater task (and more important) than trying to follow some rules etc?

Anyway, I think that's the only thing they have in common. Many believe though that believing in Jesus is the key for not dying. You see, the creator of this world created an apple tree for some reason and then he created a man and then used his rib to create a woman (how he could conjure the man without the specific magic components I do not know). So anyway, they did what every child would do if you place a bag of candy in front of them if you tell them they cannot eat it. They eat it. So the all loving god cursed them forever, to die. Yes, death is a human curse for eating an apple, wouldn't you love to have a such understanding father? Then he threw them out of heaven down to earth. Why heaven is separated from earth and what earth was meant to do before mankind was exiled there, the story doesn't tell. Anyway, now people can actually die. A few thousand years later the creator has a human son from a virgin. It's got to be a son of god born of a virgin (like every other super hero back in ancient middleterranian sea). First he preached that the world will soon end (like so many other prophets back around the ancient middleterranian sea). When that happen, everyone will be judged, not according to their actions but according to if they believe him or not. Everyone who do not will be thrown into hell and be tortured forever if they have not submitted to the creator (who loves them). However, he made a lot of fuzz so that people in power got angry and executed him on a cross.

Then a guy named Paul come up with the brilliant idea that when he died he created a key to remove the death curse which plagued mankind since their loving creator cursed them with it. According to him, if you believe that Jesus died for your sins, then you can live forever. Sounds nice right? Now Jesus needs your help to spread his word, because even if he was the son of the creator he's dead, or undead, or something like that, and that makes it impossible for him to spread his words by himself even if he's omnipotent and loves you. Then Paul was killed as well, by the eeeevil romans, and they killed everyone else who loved Jesus since they are eeevil and hate love. But then they were converted themselves and then it was okay to kill every pagan, jew and everyone who did not have exactly the same christian beliefs as the roman emperor / pope. Now those guys were also a god since they are infused by the "holy spirit", and saying no to the "holy spirit" is actually the only sin in the whole bible that Jesus do not forgive. He can forgive everything if you ask him, genocide, masturbation, being woman, being born etc but he cannot forgive you if you deny the holy spirit. And these guys need money. Even if the creator "created" gold etc, he seemed to make sure that the church never had enough of it.

So time moved on and then people started to dig up stuff from the ancient greeks that had other ideas about humanity, like humans are valuable and all that. One humanist called Martin Luther formed "protestantism". Since this upset the church (like everything else) he had to run away. So he said that kings could be leaders of the church. This was a good idea since now he could be protected by protestant kings who kinda became the replacement for the pope. This was good, because now the king could get all the money that the church used to get. But it was okay to give away all your money to the emperor/king/pope whatever since that's what Jesus asks you to do. Who ever is rich on earth will get poor in heaven. You make yourself a favor if you give all the money you have to the king.

Then there was a French revolution etc and Europe was a mess for awhile and submitted to democracy, ended all dictatorship etc and now many Christians believe it was their work.

If I remember something more I tell you but that's some of the core beliefs.

And yeah, if you haven't read the ten commandments you want to murder and steal like all the time.

dteowner

July 19th, 2008, 21:12

I'm a little troubled that this thread specifically silences a relevant point of view. While JemyM's a little "rigorous", I don't see where his position is any less relevant, nor any less valid. It's not like there's any undeniable facts on either side of the dispute.

Pladio

July 19th, 2008, 21:25

dteowner

July 19th, 2008, 21:32

One of the best ways to gain understanding of an issue is to consider the various attacks on it. JemyM will joyously supply a cupboard-full of attacks, and it's not overly difficult to ignore the venom coating and give some deeper consideration to the realities of Christianity, which often run quite astray from the teachings. Any investigation of the subject would be woefully incomplete if the differences between "as advertised" and "as delivered" are willfully ignored.

JemyM

July 19th, 2008, 21:35

Well, I'm a bit against it, mostly because I meant this to be more of a Q&A thread than a discussion about how Christians are right or wrong in believing what they do.
I was hoping for a more Christian point of view.
I know a lot about the Christian pogroms, killings, murders, Crusades and other evil stuff that has been done.

I'm rather more interested in trying to understand the underlying beliefs.

Well, when I was still Christian I believed that the bible was a part history, part a key to afterlife. I could improve this life by communicating with God and Jesus and ask them questions and for help and if I did everything right I would be rewarded after death. I didn't know everything that they wanted but I knew that they looked down on exploiting your sexuality and they wanted you to help other people, so I did.

It was not until later I understood that my Christianity was shared by people close to me, but did not represent all christians. I was a liberal christian but a faithful one, but my faith like most swedes had more in common with socialism and humanism than with the bible. I was one edge of the spectrum with radical hategroups like KKK on the other.

Ask ten "christians" what their religion is about and you will get ten different answers.

Pladio

July 19th, 2008, 21:48

From what I know of Christians, most of them don't know the history too well. They do know what they believe. They also believe that what they believe is true.
Of course you'll get some different answers and that's what I'm asking to understand in this thread.

As dte said, just looking at one side without looking at the other is like being blind, except that I want to hear one side of a story first, before someone comes in between and says it's all wrong.

Imagine talking to someone, telling them what happened to you yesterday with your sister or something like that and then all of a sudden your sister intervenes and says you're telling it wrong. You lose not only credibility but also where you were in the story and information gets communicated wrongly this way.

Even though, I'd ask ten Christians what their religion is about and I'll get 10 different answers, they'll all tell me that Jesus is their saviour and that by believing in him they will go to heaven.

My questions still stand though and I would very much like your (JemyM's and others') point of view on my questions, but bashing the religion is just disrespectful and even when your point is valid, the disrespect will transcend the validity of it. Meaning, no one will look at your point, but more at how you presented it.

dteowner

July 19th, 2008, 22:01

I'm afraid I won't be able to bring much to the subject, to be honest. I have a difficult time with that whole advertised/delivered thing. My extreme distaste for organized religions of all colors due to the countless abuses of their various messages cause me to be a poor student of the "theory". I've had some discussions in the past that were very similar to the path you're looking for here, and many of the folks here tried their level best to help me out, but in the end I proved to be a hopeless student.

JemyM

July 19th, 2008, 22:07

but bashing the religion is just disrespectful and even when your point is valid, the disrespect will transcend the validity of it.

Making satire, poking fun of and even teasing an ideology is ok. Demanding respect for an ideology is totalitarian however. Since liberalism won the ideology conflict during the 1900 (and we now have liberal democracies all over instead of communism and dictatorships) we have a kind of natural selection on ideas. The most important component in this practice is freedom of speech and allows for good ideas to persist and bad ideas to die.

Thus, we humans improve in a rapid pace compared to just a few hundred years ago. We improve rapidly by questioning and critizising eachother, because by doing that we push ourselves to improve and thus we correct our flaws. If we blindly respect without questioning what we find is wrong, then we fool both ourselves and humankind. An opinion, no matter how radical or how wrong it sounds, is still something that benefits us. You see, a valid idea will prevail even the harshest of all criticizm, just look at evolution. Each time you question a good idea you make it stronger. Each time you ask for blind respect for a bad idea you make yourself and everyone around you weaker. Critizism is only corrosive on falsehood but never on truth.

You will also benefit if your sister comment on how you tell something, because she force you to question yourself. When you believe you know everything right you can no longer improve. It's a great reason to speak to friends, but they tell you when you are wrong when you cannot tell this by your own.

mudsling3

July 19th, 2008, 22:33

No bashing? count me out :D

blatantninja

July 19th, 2008, 23:13

But that's what I'm saying. If the other Gospels are different, how can you believe them ? If they all say something else, why are those four true and the others not?
And if they were written by witnesses and not Jesus himself, how do you even know that they're actually real and/or truthful in what they saw? Like I said in the other thread too, they chose the four which seemed to be the most compatible with one another, but what if the one which was actually the truth got rejected?

At some point you have to take a 'leap of faith.' That's true with any religion.

And like I said, I don't see the stories of the other Gospels (outside of Judas at least) to be significantly different on the important parts.

Pladio

July 19th, 2008, 23:19

Pladio

July 19th, 2008, 23:26

At some point you have to take a 'leap of faith.' That's true with any religion.

And like I said, I don't see the stories of the other Gospels (outside of Judas at least) to be significantly different on the important parts.

A leap of faith is easy for people who've been taught to believe in a certain way (especially since there is no leap to speak of anyway).

I've also read about Non-Trinitarian views. Many who believe that that view is older and thus more authentic than the Trinitarian view which has been arranged by the Council of Nicea I believe.
How did the Trinity actually come to be ?
The Holy Spirit in the OT has never actually been defined as something else than God himself. It usually was to say that God was about to do something or that his presence was there.
Jesus himself also said several times that the Father knows more than him. In one of the Apostles dreams I believe it is also said that Jesus is on God's right hand side, meaning he is below God, not part of the same.

dteowner

July 19th, 2008, 23:36

Would this be a bad time to mention that your first post and another one later in the thread specifically requested that certain people not speak? ;)

Don't let yourself get bogged down. Ask your questions. While a few of us might poke a few holes in the dogma as they come up, I don't think there will be any malice there (other than JemyM, who's a malicious godless bastard). The intent will be to enhance the discussion and not to destroy it.

(Just playin', JemyM. I find that these types of threads need the occasional injection of silliness to keep from collapsing from their own gravity. My apologies if anyone misses my intent.)

blatantninja

July 19th, 2008, 23:56

A leap of faith is easy for people who've been taught to believe in a certain way (especially since there is no leap to speak of anyway).

I've also read about Non-Trinitarian views. Many who believe that that view is older and thus more authentic than the Trinitarian view which has been arranged by the Council of Nicea I believe.
How did the Trinity actually come to be ?
The Holy Spirit in the OT has never actually been defined as something else than God himself. It usually was to say that God was about to do something or that his presence was there.
Jesus himself also said several times that the Father knows more than him. In one of the Apostles dreams I believe it is also said that Jesus is on God's right hand side, meaning he is below God, not part of the same.

The concept Trinity predates the Council of Nicea, but I believe that is more or less when it became 'official' doctrine.

I view Jesus as the physical manifestation of God in this world. So he is God, but isn't quite ALL of God. It's a tough concept, and one that I have struggled with myself.

JemyM

July 20th, 2008, 00:02

At some point you have to take a 'leap of faith.' That's true with any religion. And like I said, I don't see the stories of the other Gospels (outside of Judas at least) to be significantly different on the important parts.

On the top of my head, the ressurection is different in each one. Then one of them say that divorce is ok while another do not. The chronology before the last supper is different. In Matthew, Jesus is definitely a jew, in other's he's not. I can give you a list on the differences if you like.

JemyM

July 20th, 2008, 00:18

Yes, saying someone is wrong is good, but while someone is speaking, let him finish and then tell him of his mistakes. By not letting him speak, you will just discredit the person, making them not listen to you at all. Think about conferences where ideas are thrown. If I'd say: I think this is a good... and then you'd scream NO. You're not letting me finish, making me not want to listen to you. If you just disrespect people, your voice will only be heard through violence.
If you can't respect other people's ideas then it's not worth respecting yours, it's that simple.
Respecting, listening and agreeing are all different, but without respect you won't achieve anything else.

There's a difference between dealing with a person and dealing with a belief. An attack on a belief system is not an attack on the person. If they are discredited by clinging on to something which is attacked, then it's still not them who are attacked. The thing with Christianity and Islam is that the ideology tries really hard to make their religions seem like races or families, when they are not that different from political ideologies. This makes them feel like they are attacked when their beliefs are questioned, since they cannot tell the difference between their own identity and the belief system. This is a group instinct or a sort of tribalism that can be rather dangerous, often exploited by sects, cults and other radical groups.

And while it does not sound like it, I am very diplomatic when dealing with strangers live... I seldom debate with christians, nor do I debate with political groups if I can avoid it. I even got an Imam telling me that I am a great person, after explaining to him why Islam was not that different from any other belief...

Having studied alot of political philosophy and I can usually discuss ideas without taking positions for or against. When I am trying to be diplomatic I try to expand perspectives, making them more difficult to take side on, rather than picking a side myself and then stick with it.

Corwin

July 20th, 2008, 00:24

JemyM, your potted history of Christianity and the Bible from earlier in the thread bears almost no relationship to what is actually in the Bible. As a simple example, there is NO mention of apples and Adam and Eve were never up in Heaven. Let's discuss some serious questions while Dte interjects in his usual adroit manner. :)

blatantninja

July 20th, 2008, 01:33

On the top of my head, the ressurection is different in each one. Then one of them say that divorce is ok while another do not. The chronology before the last supper is different. In Matthew, Jesus is definitely a jew, in other's he's not. I can give you a list on the differences if you like.

There's pretty much not a single shread of truth in any of that.

Pladio

July 20th, 2008, 02:04

Then at least provide passages in the Bible then for what you're talking about because then people can discuss it instead of saying : It's true
No it's not
Yes it is
No it's not
.
.
.

Pladio

July 20th, 2008, 02:12

Would this be a bad time to mention that your first post and another one later in the thread specifically requested that certain people not speak? ;)

You're going on the hush list too ! :p

I view Jesus as the physical manifestation of God in this world. So he is God, but isn't quite ALL of God. It's a tough concept, and one that I have struggled with myself.

Actually the concept itself is quite easy to follow for me. If you follow the next line of thought.

God can do everything. So... God can create a human being who is God too. God can also make a Spirit which does stuff. All three of them are God, but they're not God himself.

Like the question : If God can do everything, can he make a rock which he cannot lift? The answer is simply yes, since God could make a rock which he could lift yet not lift at the same time.

My question is from whence did the concept come from ?
According to Jewish beliefs, when it says Rouach Hakodesh in the OT it just means the Holy Spirit or the Holy Wind, but it is just another name of God, like Shaddai, Elohim, El, Elokim, Hashem, Yehovah...

Even if Jesus is God, how did the Holy Spirit become a separate entity all of a sudden ?
Where, why and how was the Trinity born?

JemyM

July 20th, 2008, 03:04

There's pretty much not a single shread of truth in any of that.

Doh. Everyone who have a bible at home can actually place it on the table, place a notebook next to it, then write down the events after the ressurection from each of the four gospels then simply compare them. A professor on the NT, Bart D Ehrman, often asks his students to do this in class. It's a good test, because one must be blatantly ignorant to still say it's untrue that the gospels are radically different from eachother.

Many theologians have pondered this issue... and then there are those who makes fun of it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqcm7EdC9WM). To make things worse, in most modern bibles there's tiny mark in the edge of the bible right before the resurrection in Mark. The reason for this is that it was discovered that the resurrection is a later addition to Mark. In the original gospel, the resurrection story simply wasn't there. So what you have four different versions, and the one in what's known as the first gospel added by someone different than the original author.

You can make the same thing with several of the events, such as the fig tree.

blatantninja

July 21st, 2008, 16:26

Yes, there are details that are different, which is understandable as explained in the other thread, but that is not what you said in your post.

On the top of my head, the ressurection is different in each one. Then one of them say that divorce is ok while another do not. The chronology before the last supper is different. In Matthew, Jesus is definitely a jew, in other's he's not. I can give you a list on the differences if you like.

In none of the Gospels does it say that Jesus is not a Jew. I'm also not aware of any that say divorce is ok.

So how about some quotes to back up your ascertaitions?

titus

July 21st, 2008, 16:36

I am no expert in Christian beliefs but I am raised as one.
Although I am not a christian anymore. I don't know what I am. I have been someone who didn't believe in anything except what man can do itself. Since recently I became very much interested in Budhuism because it IS NOT a religion but a way of life.

just saying all that you can place what I say in the right context :)

Christianity has become the biggest belief of all. And even now I celebrate Christmas, Easter and I do enjoy the other Christian holidays wich give us free at school or work. but I do not particpate in all. I participate at easter and Christmas, but not for there real reason but just out of tradition.

I think a lot of christians are like that. there aren't that much that are real true christians anymore and go to church every sonday.

The ten commandants: well if it is true what happened there or not doesn't matter. It is true that they had a huge affect on life, even know. and you live real nice and good as you follow them. 3 of them work vertical to god and 7 of them work on human interaction (wich are the important onces.)

If you want to know more about christianity you should also know a basis of Juidism because Christianity comes of Juidism.

This is my two cents for now. If I got something in my mind I will post more.

blatantninja

July 21st, 2008, 16:58

Christianity has become the biggest belief of all. And even now I celebrate Christmas, Easter and I do enjoy the other Christian holidays wich give us free at school or work. but I do not particpate in all. I participate at easter and Christmas, but not for there real reason but just out of tradition.

I think a lot of christians are like that. there aren't that much that are real true christians anymore and go to church every sonday.

We call those C & E Christians!

Corwin

July 21st, 2008, 17:02

Yeah, Church of England!! :)

Pladio

July 21st, 2008, 17:04

I'll respond in the other thread a bit later, but about the ten commandments, they're actually different for Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and Jews...

For Jews, They're divided into 5 towards God and 5 towards the fellow man. The last two of the first five are in a common area though. They are both towards God and towards the fellow man.

Pladio

July 21st, 2008, 17:04

In Europe that is, go to Africa and they go to church every week, some even more ...

Corwin

July 21st, 2008, 17:10

The10 Commandments are interesting. The Catholics cut out the one about graven images and split the 10th into 2 parts. Unfortunately the Bible also says anyone who makes such a change is cursed!!

However, technically Christians aren't 'under' the 10 C's, but rather are supposed to follow the 2 C's (which basically incorporate the main concepts of the 10). Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbour. If we all did that, much of the ills of the world would disappear.

JemyM

July 21st, 2008, 17:30

In none of the Gospels does it say that Jesus is not a Jew.

To understand why one must know about the conflict in the early church. On one side you have the first Christians, the Jewish Christians, the Ebionites of Jerusalem that looked up to James, Jesus Brother. They used a version of Matthew. The gospel of Matthew was aimed at the Jews, it's the most Jewish gospel of the four and it goes to great length to establish Jesus as the messiah. It's also in Matthew say that the old testament law still apply, he do not do this in the other gospels. The Ebionites saw Paul as a heretic who turned a Jewish prophet into a Gentile prophet and claimed against Jesus that the old laws no longer applied.

Then there were Pauline Christians who rejected the Torah and James and took the connection with the Torah as a mistake. They used Luke as their gospel and mixed it with Greek philosophy and gnostic Christianity (trails of this can still be found in NT). This conflict between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity initiated the Christian antisemitism that is still with us today.

It was later, with Constantine and Eusebius, that both Pauls letters and the Torah was accepted into canon and they still disagree.

I'm also not aware of any that say divorce is ok.

According to Matt 5:31-32 a man can divorce a woman if she commits adultery.
According to Mark 10:2-12 a man can not divorce a woman who committed adultery.

(Not to mention how horribly discriminating Matt 5:31-32 is against women... and they say Islam is bad...)

Pladio

July 21st, 2008, 18:13

No one likes my question :(

kalniel

July 21st, 2008, 18:18

No one likes my question :(Was that this one:

Even if Jesus is God, how did the Holy Spirit become a separate entity all of a sudden ?
Where, why and how was the Trinity born?
Quite simple: It always existed.

Likewise it was always three entities in one.

titus

July 21st, 2008, 19:59

uhm reading a 'holy book' of either wich believe has to be done with a lot of care

the mentioning of JemyM is wrong. In those days women didn't had the rights they do have now so saying that Christian belief or islam is bad because of that is so beside the picture. This was already a good step forward maybe in those times.

Corwin

July 21st, 2008, 22:17

Pladio

July 21st, 2008, 23:11

Was that this one:

Quite simple: It always existed.

Likewise it was always three entities in one.

It couldn't always have existed. Jesus wasn't there before ...

Pladio

July 21st, 2008, 23:22

JM, Paul was also a Jew. Anti-semitism is not a Christian teaching and never will/should be. The Jews are still God's chosen people and have a definite place in His plan of salvation. Yes, there have been some anti-semitic 'christians', but they don't or shouldn't represent mainstream Christian belief. Any form of racism is not a part of my belief system.

Not only Paul, Jesus, and his apostles too I believe.

But until the 19th or 20th century, antisemitism was mostly Christian, from the belief of making food with Christian childrens' blood, to the inquisitions, to the Crusades, to the many pogroms ... Most of it happened from the belief that Jews were the wrongdoers of something, even the Plague was blamed on Jews...

It's true though that Christians of today have changed dramatically since then. But saying there have been 'some' is an understatement.

blatantninja

July 21st, 2008, 23:26

Yeah, Church of England!! :)

Christian and Easter! And the Catholics have them too!

blatantninja

July 21st, 2008, 23:34

To understand why one must know about the conflict in the early church. On one side you have the first Christians, the Jewish Christians, the Ebionites of Jerusalem that looked up to James, Jesus Brother. They used a version of Matthew. The gospel of Matthew was aimed at the Jews, it's the most Jewish gospel of the four and it goes to great length to establish Jesus as the messiah. It's also in Matthew say that the old testament law still apply, he do not do this in the other gospels. The Ebionites saw Paul as a heretic who turned a Jewish prophet into a Gentile prophet and claimed against Jesus that the old laws no longer applied.

Then there were Pauline Christians who rejected the Torah and James and took the connection with the Torah as a mistake. They used Luke as their gospel and mixed it with Greek philosophy and gnostic Christianity (trails of this can still be found in NT). This conflict between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity initiated the Christian antisemitism that is still with us today.

It was later, with Constantine and Eusebius, that both Pauls letters and the Torah was accepted into canon and they still disagree.

While the conflict you speak of is quite true, and the gentile Christians did try to shed the label of Jew, no where did the Paulines ever claim Jesus was not a Jew. They claimed that the Laws of Moses did not apply because of the New Covenant.

According to Matt 5:31-32 a man can divorce a woman if she commits adultery.
According to Mark 10:2-12 a man can not divorce a woman who committed adultery.

Matthew: 5:31-32-It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

That doesn't say that you can divorce, or even give any explicit endorsement of it, it makes a point about happens if you DO divorce in the case of adultery.

And yes, Mark is more to the point about divorce not being right with God.

A slight distinction, but an important one since divorce was allowed in Jewish custom.

(Not to mention how horribly discriminating Matt 5:31-32 is against women... and they say Islam is bad...)

Islam is much, much worse in the treatment of women from a doctrine stand point. I'm not familiar with anything in the NT that says you should beat your wife for disobeying you.

JemyM

July 21st, 2008, 23:59

the mentioning of JemyM is wrong. In those days women didn't had the rights they do have now so saying that Christian belief or islam is bad because of that is so beside the picture. This was already a good step forward maybe in those times.

The French Revolution was also a good step forward in those times but you do not find people preaching it like it's important for young kids to read about it. In other words, the Bible might have some merit during history class, but definitely not as a claimed "good book" or a "moral guide".

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 00:07

JM, Paul was also a Jew.

Who broke the Torah and sold out Jesus to the gentiles.

Anti-semitism is not a Christian teaching and never will/should be. The Jews are still God's chosen people and have a definite place in His plan of salvation. Yes, there have been some anti-semitic 'christians', but they don't or shouldn't represent mainstream Christian belief. Any form of racism is not a part of my belief system.

It's a sideeffect of reading the bible really. Not every Christian is antisemitic but I encounter such values among christians far more often than I would like and it's quite disturbing when I do.

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 00:21

While the conflict you speak of is quite true, and the gentile Christians did try to shed the label of Jew, no where did the Paulines ever claim Jesus was not a Jew. They claimed that the Laws of Moses did not apply because of the New Covenant.

Yes, but the point is that judaism did not matter for Paul anymore, not even the parts of judaism supported by Jesus.

Jesus was a doomsday prophet that aimed at the jews and they need to follow him to get a good position once that day come.

Pauls theology meant that Jesus sacrifice gave an opportunity to eternal life and you only need to believe he did to be saved, you did not need to be a jew nor follow jewish tradition.

Paul and Jesus are two different religions which most christians believe are one.

I will get back to the rest later, I have to sleep.

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 01:28

Except for this question : - My question is from whence did the concept come from ?
According to Jewish beliefs, when it says Rouach Hakodesh in the OT it just means the Holy Spirit or the Holy Wind, but it is just another name of God, like Shaddai, Elohim, El, Elokim, Hashem, Yehovah...

Even if Jesus is God, how did the Holy Spirit become a separate entity all of a sudden ?
Where, why and how was the Trinity born?

All of my questions have been answered.

I have another one though. Something which is quite important too.
Christians of today believe in the OT, even if there is a New Covenant a lot of stuff, like prophecies and important things are referenced back to the OT.

My problem is, the OT has been translated over translations over translations which have then been translated or corrected again. The translations aren't the same as the original...

The Masoretic text of the Bible is very different to the one which is now used by Christians around the world. Things have been translated wrongly or differently a lot, how can you use a translation of a translation for references alluding to the Trinity, or prophecies or Jesus himself ?
Doesn't it bother you that you're following a translation instead of the real thing ?

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 04:02

Not only Paul, Jesus, and his apostles too I believe.

But until the 19th or 20th century, antisemitism was mostly Christian, from the belief of making food with Christian childrens' blood, to the inquisitions, to the Crusades, to the many pogroms ... Most of it happened from the belief that Jews were the wrongdoers of something, even the Plague was blamed on Jews...

It's true though that Christians of today have changed dramatically since then. But saying there have been 'some' is an understatement.

Most Christian antisemitism stemmed from the part of the Passion story where it's the Jewish temple priests leading the angry mob demanding that Christ be crucified. Even with that though, it's a mixed bag through out history. There were some that brutally oppressed Jews and others that did not (particularly religious scholars as they recognized that interpretation of the Hebrew texts was better done by people that had been speaking it most of their lives!)

I think it is in accurate to say that most antisemitism was Christian though. When the Muslim's conquered areas, they often allowed the Christians to continued to worship, though with very still financial penalties, but forced all Jews to convert.

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 04:05

The French Revolution was also a good step forward in those times but you do not find people preaching it like it's important for young kids to read about it. In other words, the Bible might have some merit during history class, but definitely not as a claimed "good book" or a "moral guide".

Yes again, you have no clue what you are talking about. It's pretty much the definition of both.

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 04:14

Yes, but the point is that judaism did not matter for Paul anymore, not even the parts of judaism supported by Jesus.

Jesus was a doomsday prophet that aimed at the jews and they need to follow him to get a good position once that day come.

Pauls theology meant that Jesus sacrifice gave an opportunity to eternal life and you only need to believe he did to be saved, you did not need to be a jew nor follow jewish tradition.

Paul and Jesus are two different religions which most christians believe are one.

I will get back to the rest later, I have to sleep.

I fail to see how you can think they are two different religions when Paul is teaching exactly what Jesus taught. Jesus never taught adherence to the Laws of Moses, though he followed the customs.

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 04:16

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 04:38

Most Christian antisemitism stemmed from the part of the Passion story where it's the Jewish temple priests leading the angry mob demanding that Christ be crucified. Even with that though, it's a mixed bag through out history. There were some that brutally oppressed Jews and others that did not (particularly religious scholars as they recognized that interpretation of the Hebrew texts was better done by people that had been speaking it most of their lives!)

I think it is in accurate to say that most antisemitism was Christian though. When the Muslim's conquered areas, they often allowed the Christians to continued to worship, though with very still financial penalties, but forced all Jews to convert.

No, Muslims were a lot better to Jews throughout history, up until the late 1800s ...

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 04:40

Not really because when Christians use the OT these days, it is really just as a point of reference. There are some stories that are important, and reinforce things passed on from Christ, things that reference Christ, etc, but we're not looking to it for all the answers.

A lot of Christians I've talked to reference Isaiah pretty often, as well as Daniel and a few other books.

Benedict

July 22nd, 2008, 12:25

On a bit of a tangent I was reading around zoroastrianism a bit recently. I like the feature that their supreme being isn't omnipotent, which means that he's off the hook for all the pain and suffering rather than all this moving in mysterious ways shit. Never understood how you people can believe in a supreme being that's both omnipotent and benevolent with all of the shit that goes on, seems so contradictory to me.

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 12:46

I think it is in accurate to say that most antisemitism was Christian though. When the Muslim's conquered areas, they often allowed the Christians to continued to worship, though with very still financial penalties, but forced all Jews to convert.

The three Abrahamic religions have one thing in common, you shall follow no other religion is part of it's core. In the 10 commandments this is the first commandment and in Islam it's the first pillar. Even Jesus say things like "Those who are not with me are against me" and threatens to exterminate whole cities who do not submit (Matt 11:21-23). Judaism ended up as the weakest one and thus they were exterminated first, among with pagans and Christian/Muslim perspectives that was not mainstream. The slaughter of pagans and non-orthodox Christianity around Europe went on for 900 years, only to resume with the Muslims, then Christianity turned on itself, orthodox against catholic and then protestant vs catholic. In most Christian countries you hear Christian referring to their whole country as "Christian" and they claim that it's built up by "Christian values" etc, even if the country are secular democracies. They just cannot accept any other belief system. That's nothing more than a tribe defending their dominion of a geographic location while gathering resources they need to expand.

In Hinduism and Buddhism this habit is almost non-existent. Around India and Asia there are several temples that have both Hindu and Buddhist idols, even some that harbor Christian and Muslim icons, just to show tolerance and religious diversity.

Antisemitism is inspired by the Quaran and the Bible just like the scripture inspires a conflict between Christianity and Islam. The Abrahamic religions just works as an artificial racism. Their scripture urges them to be exclusive will never be able to live next to eachother. They can barely live next to themselves (Catholic vs Protestant in Ireland, Shia vs Sunni in middle-east etc).

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 12:56

I fail to see how you can think they are two different religions when Paul is teaching exactly what Jesus taught. Jesus never taught adherence to the Laws of Moses, though he followed the customs.

Paul disagree with Jesus on several topics, most importantly who Jesus ministry was aimed at. Jesus ministry was always aimed at the Jews, no one else. He send out his followers only to Jews. He first refuse to heal a woman because she's not a Jew. In the book of revelation only the 12 tribes of Israel are judged... etc. etc. It was Paul who turned to the gentiles.

He also had a whole different theory on why Jesus died. It's him who created the whole "get saved by believing in the resurrection" story. Paul think he found the key to afterlife by believing in the sacrifice, not by following Jesus like Jesus preached. Like I mentioned before, the resurrection in Mark was added in a later date and it's different in each of the four gospels. This is probably because the gospels were changed to fit the Pauline theory, not because it actually happened. Not to mention that the whole "acts" was added as late as 200bce. "Acts" support the Pauline view but was not used by the first Christians, the Ebionites.

He disagreed on the purpose of his life and keeping the Torah or not. Jesus strengthened the law and repeatedly referred to it during his ministry. He even said that those who would remove a line from it would get the lowest position in heaven. And that's what Paul did. It was he who gave up practices like kosher and circumcision.

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 13:24

Matthew: 5:31-32-It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
That doesn't say that you can divorce, or even give any explicit endorsement of it, it makes a point about happens if you DO divorce in the case of adultery.
And yes, Mark is more to the point about divorce not being right with God.
A slight distinction, but an important one since divorce was allowed in Jewish custom.

At that time, no other culture but the jews had any form of restrictions upon marriage at all, but in the jewish community there was a conflict between two Rabbi's, Hillel and Shamai. Hillel was liberal to divorce while Shamai wanted to restrict divorce unless something indecent had happened. Mark's gospel is radical and absolute, no divorce, no exceptions. "what God joins together, let no man tear asunder" and "from the beginning it was not so". Matthew had the habit of re-editing Mark into a more common jewish perspective and made sure that Shamai's point of view was fulfilled, therefore he added "marital unfaithfulness" as the exception.

As usual, Paul preaches his own idea in 1 Corinthians.

Islam is much, much worse in the treatment of women from a doctrine stand point. I'm not familiar with anything in the NT that says you should beat your wife for disobeying you.

I actually compared the Quaran and the Bible on this topic, and I have to take the position that Islam is more liberal to women and give them far better rights than the Bible. It should be noted that this is like comparing the plague and cholera, different layers of hell... im not saying Islam is something I would prefer to a modern liberal democracy.

Yes, in Islam women can be beaten by their man, it's true, but there are no laws against beating your woman and child in the bible. There are no laws against rape and pedophilia either! In fact, rape is a very common practice in the old testament and even supported by God. Jesus never abolished the death penalty for adultery when he faced a stoning. The only reason he saved that woman was to defend himself to a challenge. He did however suggest that a man who divorce his wife make her an adulteress, which is punished by death. In the old testament a woman should be killed for not screaming out when she is raped by someone else than her man.

In the bible, women are at best frozen out from the community for all sorts of reasons and treated as mindless slaves who are not allowed to speak, not allowed to teach, not allowed to ask questions. At worst they are killed for numerous petty issues.

The only reason this have been forgotten in the Christian community is that they were deeply influenced and reinterpreted by humanism in the 14-1600. When the liberal democracies won, Christianity changed so much that it can barely be recognized today from what it was only 100 years ago. The ritual of freezing out a woman who had birth was abolished in Sweden as late as the 70-80'ies.

Benedict

July 22nd, 2008, 13:49

The three Abrahamic religions have one thing in common, you shall follow no other religion is part of it's core.

Treating religions as memes and looking at them from an evolutionary standpoint, there does seem to be a powerful selection pressure in favour of that particular trait

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 14:57

No, Muslims were a lot better to Jews throughout history, up until the late 1800s ...

Not always. When the Turks conquered Constantinople, they allowed the Christians to continue to practice their faith, but forced all the Jews to convert.

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 14:58

Never understood how you people can believe in a supreme being that's both omnipotent and benevolent with all of the shit that goes on, seems so contradictory to me.

It's pretty simple. This life isn't the end all be all. In fact it is more of a test. What is important is the afterlife.

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 15:03

Even Jesus say things like "Those who are not with me are against me" and threatens to exterminate whole cities who do not submit (Matt 11:21-23).

As usual, you misquote for your own purposes:

Matthew 11:21-23 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
[NASB at Lockman] [The Lockman Foundation] [NASB at Zondervan] [Zondervan] [NASB at mp3nasb.com]

21"(A)Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, (B)Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in (C)Tyre and (D)Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in (E)sackcloth and ashes.

22"Nevertheless I say to you, (F)it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in (G)the day of judgment than for you.

23"And you, (H)Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will (I)descend to (J)Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in (K)Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.

Jesus doesn't threaten extermination. He 'threatens' damnation. Very different things.

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 15:13

Paul disagree with Jesus on several topics, most importantly who Jesus ministry was aimed at. Jesus ministry was always aimed at the Jews, no one else. He send out his followers only to Jews. He first refuse to heal a woman because she's not a Jew. In the book of revelation only the 12 tribes of Israel are judged... etc. etc. It was Paul who turned to the gentiles.

What woman do you refer to? Yes, Jesus mainly ministered to the Jews, and yes Paul expanded that message farther, but you have to start somewhere. And the Book of Revelation wasn't written by Jesus.

He also had a whole different theory on why Jesus died. It's him who created the whole "get saved by believing in the resurrection" story. Paul think he found the key to afterlife by believing in the sacrifice, not by following Jesus like Jesus preached. Like I mentioned before, the resurrection in Mark was added in a later date and it's different in each of the four gospels.

Another blatant lie. There is no proof that the the resurrection was added later. There IS a copy of Mark that is missing the resurrection, but it isn't the oldest known copy, and it is possible that it is simply an unfinished copy.

This is probably because the gospels were changed to fit the Pauline theory, not because it actually happened. Not to mention that the whole "acts" was added as late as 200bce. "Acts" support the Pauline view but was not used by the first Christians, the Ebionites.

Any proof the Gospels were changed? Didn't think so. Everything points to them being basically the same throughout time, minus translation differences. Of course "Acts" weren't 'added' until as late as 200 AD. There wasn't even an 'official' canon until the 4th century! Different Churches were using various different sets of Gospels as well as different sets of the letters of Paul and other Apocalypses, etc. The letters of Paul have been authenticated as far back as the Gospels have, so there really isn't much use in your trying to toss them out.

He disagreed on the purpose of his life and keeping the Torah or not.

He didn't disagree on the purpose of life. Jesus said many times that what was important was the next life and not this one, just as Paul does.

Jesus strengthened the law and repeatedly referred to it during his ministry. He even said that those who would remove a line from it would get the lowest position in heaven.

Not sure what you are referring to, so please provide reference and as usual, we can then show what the text actually says.

And that's what Paul did. It was he who gave up practices like kosher and circumcision.

And no one is saying other.

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 15:18

Yes, in Islam women can be beaten by their man, it's true, but there are no laws against beating your woman and child in the bible.

Now that is REALLY reaching. Apparantly it is better to say it is ok to beat your spouse than to just not mention it!

Jesus never abolished the death penalty for adultery when he faced a stoning. The only reason he saved that woman was to defend himself to a challenge.

So now you know what Jesus was thinking at the time?

He did however suggest that a man who divorce his wife make her an adulteress, which is punished by death. In the old testament a woman should be killed for not screaming out when she is raped by someone else than her man.

You really like to put your own spin on things don't you?

In the bible, women are at best frozen out from the community for all sorts of reasons and treated as mindless slaves who are not allowed to speak, not allowed to teach, not allowed to ask questions. At worst they are killed for numerous petty issues.

So where did Jesus say that women should be killed for petty issues? Or even killed at all?

The only reason this have been forgotten in the Christian community is that they were deeply influenced and reinterpreted by humanism in the 14-1600. When the liberal democracies won, Christianity changed so much that it can barely be recognized today from what it was only 100 years ago. The ritual of freezing out a woman who had birth was abolished in Sweden as late as the 70-80'ies.

Ahh yes, as usual, it is the liberals that supposedly come to the rescue of all of us!

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 15:32

Not always. When the Turks conquered Constantinople, they allowed the Christians to continue to practice their faith, but forced all the Jews to convert.

I know you re not a fan of wiki but :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey

The sultan invited Jews in ... while Jews were being expelled from Spain and Portugal or being forcefully converted before that through the Inquisition ...

blatantninja

July 22nd, 2008, 15:56

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 16:27

No I like Wiki! I just don't trust anything that isn't footnoted!

As I said, different times, different policies. During the first conquest, not the later rule described above, Jews were forced to convert. This happened in other areas as well, even in the Iberian peninsula during the Moorish invasion. It wasn't always the policy, and in many times Jews were treated quite well. Just like with Christianity, you can't point to a single policy that existed throughout history.

I have a book that talks about it (small part of it, but deals with the Crusades), I'll look it up to see the exact conquest I am talking about and who was running the Islamic army.

From what I can gather through a quick glimpse of the following :
http://books.google.com/books?id=efdCXhvgB8EC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=ottoman+conquest+of+constantinople+and+jews&source=web&ots=Kt9MtZ3dGP&sig=xIPAPz_WZizhwFxBXjOvSbEB_qM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA14,M1

Not wiki, couldn't find anything there. Both Christians and Jews were murdered as equals during the conquest.

But again, life under Islam was much, much better than under Christians for Jews.

I can give you hundreds of examples of Jews having to flee their homes from mostly Christians ... Either that or pogroms, different clothes they had to wear, and many other things like the Inquisition, Crusade slaughters...

By they way, you said you're Lutheran... Luther wrote a book called The Jews and Their Lies, I believe... More antisemitism from even a leader in Christianity...

Of course Jews have been persecuted by Muslims too, but not at all at the same rate as Christians. Christians didn't have a policy to kill Jews, but it seemed like they did.

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 16:37

As usual, you misquote for your own purposes:
Jesus doesn't threaten extermination. He 'threatens' damnation. Very different things.

Threats nonethless. Based on the kinds of threats suggested, extermination would probably be a better choice.

Corwin

July 22nd, 2008, 16:52

Yes, Luther was anti-semitic. Luther was not really the leader of the Lutheran church. From my reading, he always considered himself a Catholic, just one who disagreed with its mainline doctrine on the selling of Indulgences.

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 16:58

I didn't say leader of the Lutheran church ...

Corwin

July 22nd, 2008, 17:01

No, but it was implied. He was actually a monk.

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 17:05

I was saying a leader of Christianity, because that is what he was. He transformed the whole religion along with Calvin and a few others.

Benedict

July 22nd, 2008, 17:20

It's pretty simple. This life isn't the end all be all. In fact it is more of a test. What is important is the afterlife.

What dodgy business is going on in the afterlife that he needs all of these perfected, tested souls for anyway?

Sorry, doesn't wash with me. Things can't be easy in this life, if you don't take the shit with good grace in this life you get fucked for all eternity in the afterlife. That's the work of a benevolent being?

dteowner

July 22nd, 2008, 17:38

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 18:08

What woman do you refer to? Yes, Jesus mainly ministered to the Jews, and yes Paul expanded that message farther, but you have to start somewhere.

Matteus 15:22-28. The words of Jesus are clear. He's not there fore the gentiles, he's sent only to the lost sheep of the house of David (which means the Jews).

As a sidenote, that particular passage shows a very strong racism from Jesus followers and himself. Not exactly the kind of characters that I would introduce to my child.

And the Book of Revelation wasn't written by Jesus.

This is true. But if one wish to take BoR seriously (Martin Luther didn't), then BoR is for jews alone.

Another blatant lie. There is no proof that the the resurrection was added later. There IS a copy of Mark that is missing the resurrection, but it isn't the oldest known copy, and it is possible that it is simply an unfinished copy.

In most modern bibles this particular 'feature' is shown by a mark next to when the added part begins.

Any proof the Gospels were changed? Didn't think so.

The fact that they do not match is a good proof.

Everything points to them being basically the same throughout time, minus translation differences.

Those who are honest to themselves and actually compare the chronology can tell that the resurrection are different and obviously so. And you do not make THAT kind of errors when trying to translate it... I mean, we are talking about completely different endings, completely different people present, completely different cities, different times etc.

Of course "Acts" weren't 'added' until as late as 200 AD. There wasn't even an 'official' canon until the 4th century! Different Churches were using various different sets of Gospels as well as different sets of the letters of Paul and other Apocalypses, etc.

It is true that the official canon was not gathered until the end of the 4th century, but the stories are older. Acts were not even written until 200 AD, and it was around then the original Christians were labeled heretics. In the first century there was the Ebionites, the jewish Christians. In 200 AD there were a range of different forms of Christianity and the Ebionites and the Marcionites were at two ends of the spectrum. In other words, the importance of strengthening Pauls position was not as important in 100 AD but it was important in 200 AD. (James the brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman deals the historical revisionism in Acts).

The letters of Paul have been authenticated as far back as the Gospels have, so there really isn't much use in your trying to toss them out.

Actually, several of Pauls letters are now widely known as not written by Paul... but what I am going at is that Paul broke from the jews, not that he did not exist or write letters.

He didn't disagree on the purpose of life. Jesus said many times that what was important was the next life and not this one, just as Paul does.

Well, actually there is two different philosophies going on in the NT and they are important to recognize if one wish to understand not only how a Jewish prophecy became a gentile religion (There's a book on this called "How Jesus became Christian" by Barrie Wilson).

At one hand you have the message that the world will soon end and be replaced by a kingdom of God. Those who follow Jesus will get a good position in that kingdom. The jews never dabbled with the afterlife, their mission is to make life better on earth, not to get an extra life. If you listen well to Jesus, this is what he preaches.

At the other hand you have the message that the spirit is immortal but the body is not. At death the spirit is released from the physical body and can then escape into the afterlife. Spirits that do not believe in Jesus death and ressurection will either perish, or end up in hell (depends on which story you read).

Multiple dimensions, the spirit world etc, that's greek philosophy. The Torah was composed before the greek civilization bloomed but at the time of Jesus supposed ministry, Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles had came along, Alexander the Great had spread the greek culture over the entire middle east and there were plenty of more greek philosophers around. So here you have the addition of the realm of the dead/afterlife/heaven (Hades), the opposing God (the greek god Dionysus, often shown with goat legs and horns) etc. You also have the influence of stoic values (being in control of your liquor, your sex life etc) and greek immaterialism. Jews were always ok with owning stuff, while Jesus opposes those who are rich.

Paul is much more influenced by the greeks than he is from the jewish tradition. He actually lived in Turkey, far from James in Jerusalem. James sticked with the jewish tradition and they actually interpret things like Abraham differently. The Ebionites followed James.

There was a form of Christianity back then, the gnostics, who favored Paul. Their idea was that the spirit is trapped in a physical body that exist in an evil material plane created by an evil entity. By understanding gnosticism one can escape that body and that realm and transcend. While the gnostics were labeled heretics and their books banned (including Gospel of Thomas) there is a trace of their influence left in the bible. It's the quote "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free". This is a gnostic quote and referes to the escape from the physical form. It's present in John, that was the latest of the four gospels written.

Paul's idea about ending the curse of the flesh and get released into the afterlife fits the gnostic idea of afterlife far more than the kingdom of God idea of afterlife.

Not sure what you are referring to, so please provide reference and as usual, we can then show what the text actually says.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20 ESV)

And no one is saying other.

The judaizers that Paul complains about in Galatians are actually James and the Ebionites. The party of circumsticion is actually Jesus own brother and the church of jerusalem.

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 18:18

Now that is REALLY reaching. Apparantly it is better to say it is ok to beat your spouse than to just not mention it!

Christianity do not have a non-violence law. I think it's worth noting since buddhism and many lines of hinduism do.

So where did Jesus say that women should be killed for petty issues? Or even killed at all?

Killing women for petty issues is the old testament law. Jesus never abolished these laws even when they were carried out directly in front of him (the stoning).

Ahh yes, as usual, it is the liberals that supposedly come to the rescue of all of us!

Because if you think it's primitive and barbaric to have a law that women must be frozen out from the community for a month if they give birth to a son and more if they gave birth to a girl, then you are a bleeding heart liberal?

JemyM

July 22nd, 2008, 18:20

Sounds like excellent population control, does it not?

"Yes Mr. Peasant, your life sucks rocks, but if you keep quiet about it and keep doing what I tell you (and a generous donation would be nice!), when you die it's going to be great.

And those poor on earth will be richest in the afterlife, so you are actually doing yourself a favor if you give your money to the emperor.

kalniel

July 22nd, 2008, 19:39

It couldn't always have existed. Jesus wasn't there before ...We believe He was.

I have another one though. Something which is quite important too.
Christians of today believe in the OT, even if there is a New Covenant a lot of stuff, like prophecies and important things are referenced back to the OT.

My problem is, the OT has been translated over translations over translations which have then been translated or corrected again. The translations aren't the same as the original...

The Masoretic text of the Bible is very different to the one which is now used by Christians around the world. According to who?

Things have been translated wrongly or differently a lot, how can you use a translation of a translation for references alluding to the Trinity, or prophecies or Jesus himself ? Actually they're not - if you look at the notes you'll find most modern translations always go back to first sources rather than simply refining previous translations. Sometimes if the new version is simply an updating of language (NIRV vs NIV for example) then you don't need to do a comprehensive start over, yet they still refer back to sources to check.

So no - we are following the real thing as it were.

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 20:07

We believe He was.

How ?

According to who?

Genesis 4:7, LXX (NETS)
If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.
Genesis 4:7, Masoretic (NRSV)
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

That's not even modern translations, the Septuagint was translated in the 3rd Century or so.

* Isaiah 7:14 -- "virgin" instead of "young woman"
* Psalm 22 -- "they have pierced my hands and feet" instead of "like a lion, (they are at) my hands and feet"

So, they're different ...

Actually they're not - if you look at the notes you'll find most modern translations always go back to first sources rather than simply refining previous translations. Sometimes if the new version is simply an updating of language (NIRV vs NIV for example) then you don't need to do a comprehensive start over, yet they still refer back to sources to check.

So no - we are following the real thing as it were.

Maybe close to, but not exactly...

kalniel

July 22nd, 2008, 20:52

How ? I have no flipping idea :p The trinity, timelessness of God, forgiveness of sin and so on are just some of the things I can't begin to get my head around understanding.

That's not even modern translations, the Septuagint was translated in the 3rd Century or so.I've lost the point you're making, but those translations seem to be saying the same thing to me.

So, they're different ... Again I'm not sure of your point - the words are different but they're saying the same thing.

Maybe close to, but not exactly...OK, say you have an ancient text - do you translate it literally word for word, or do you translate it sentence for sentence? Perhaps you translated it paragraph for paragraph. Or what about translating with some knowledge of the local sayings? In Victorian England the Oxfordshire peasantry might use the phrase 'why, where be I?' to express confusion at a particular situation they've found themselves in, in modern Cornwell the same phrase is 'why, where'm I to?'. Another one might have you wanting to translate equivalent meanings as they were relevant to people at the time and now.

So this notion of an 'exact' translation is very odd, as there are several different ways in which you could go about this - as a result we've got loads of different bible versions, all of which do something slightly differently, in order that we have the choice of all of them. The bible I use (NIV) was made by over an hundred scholars, again working directly from original manuscripts, in particular it focuses on the stylistic properties of language and attempts to reflect in modern English (at the time) the style of writing as it would have been experienced by contemporaries of the original documents.

Corwin

July 22nd, 2008, 22:18

Guys, while I don't read either Greek or Hebrew, I do make use of inter-linear Bibles where the literal english word and its 'Strong's' number is printed above the original. I then use Bible dictionaries written by Greek and Hebrew scholars which outline all possible meanings and interpretations for the word as used in a particular context. While I don't expect 'amateurs' to go to as much trouble as I do with Biblical interpretation, if you're interested, it's a fascinating exercise. When I'm at home, I'm frequently happy to help people out with interpreting particular verses.

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 22:58

I have no flipping idea :p The trinity, timelessness of God, forgiveness of sin and so on are just some of the things I can't begin to get my head around understanding.

I've lost the point you're making, but those translations seem to be saying the same thing to me.

Again I'm not sure of your point - the words are different but they're saying the same thing.

OK, say you have an ancient text - do you translate it literally word for word, or do you translate it sentence for sentence? Perhaps you translated it paragraph for paragraph. Or what about translating with some knowledge of the local sayings? In Victorian England the Oxfordshire peasantry might use the phrase 'why, where be I?' to express confusion at a particular situation they've found themselves in, in modern Cornwell the same phrase is 'why, where'm I to?'. Another one might have you wanting to translate equivalent meanings as they were relevant to people at the time and now.

So this notion of an 'exact' translation is very odd, as there are several different ways in which you could go about this - as a result we've got loads of different bible versions, all of which do something slightly differently, in order that we have the choice of all of them. The bible I use (NIV) was made by over an hundred scholars, again working directly from original manuscripts, in particular it focuses on the stylistic properties of language and attempts to reflect in modern English (at the time) the style of writing as it would have been experienced by contemporaries of the original documents.

Mind reading the sentence again ? Especially about the one where they removed lion and changed young woman to virgin ...

Pladio

July 22nd, 2008, 22:59

Pladio

July 23rd, 2008, 19:52

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/

This Website will go live on July 24, 2008

Diese Webseite wird am 24. Juli 2008 freigeschaltet

Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript - the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity - is of supreme importance for the history of the book.
The Codex Sinaiticus Project

The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the entire manuscript in digital form and make it accessible to a global audience for the first time. Drawing on the expertise of leading scholars, conservators and curators, the Project gives everyone the opportunity to connect directly with this famous manuscript.
The Codex Sinaiticus Website

The first release of the Codex Sinaiticus Project website will be launched on 24 July 2008 here. The website will be substantially updated in November 2008 and in July 2009, by when the website will have been fully developed.

kalniel

July 23rd, 2008, 22:17

Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, Does that include the Dead Sea Scrolls then, which the rest of the world only started to discover in the 1940s?

zahratustra

July 23rd, 2008, 23:48

Ok I promissed myself that I will stay out of this topic as I personally find this sort of discussion pretty fruitless so let me make just 3 points:

1- you can't apply logic to religion. I.e you can't expect logical answer to a logical question when beliefs are concerned. Answer "because I believe so" is good enough for religious people but not for knowledge seekers.
2- Both Old and New Testaments are chock full of contradictions which can't be reconciled when logic or science are applyed to them.
3- No New Testament gospel (or any gospel discovered so far) was composed by a person which lived during times of Joshua and so they are second (or third, or fourth) hand sources.

Corwin

July 24th, 2008, 03:34

Please list ALL these so called contradictions for me, with precise references. I have yet to find any I can't I can't reconcile and I've taught logic for years!!

JemyM

July 24th, 2008, 15:23

Please list ALL these so called contradictions for me, with precise references. I have yet to find any I can't I can't reconcile and I've taught logic for years!!

Your wish for the bible to be consistent makes you refuse to accept when it is not. The comparision between the four gospels when it comes to the ressurection story is a simple task and it shows anyone who do it that the gospels almost do not agree on a single thing.

I believe the reason you have not made this analysis, nor read any books that go through bible inconsistencies, is that you fear it. You do not want the spell to be broken. You feel satisfied in the kind of hope that the "foolproof bible" offers you. Maybe you even think that doing so would offend God, and you do not want to do that when he's watching over your shoulder. Also, if I understand things right you have built a career on this and if you started to accept that the bible was wrong your life would begin to crumble.

But you know people say it's inconsistent, so what you do? You take on a mission through faith to solve inconsistencies by resorting in logical mindgames, much much more complex than the original authors would even be able to comprehend. Most of the "solutions" are not your own work, but created by Christian apologetics that spent their entire life solving the Gordian knots of the bible. They never accepted the simple fact that the bible is a collection of books, written in different eras, by different authors with different agendas, and it's only natural that they are inconsistent as people have different beliefs.

The way these solutions work is that if a passage seem to have a literal meaning you do not like, you "solve" the passage by interpreting it different from what it says. You believe you "solve" them by using context, but you cherrypick context based on whatever allows you to continue to believe the bible is consistent. In general, when doing so you also let some of the real context get lost, creating a puzzle that fixed some things but broke others.

When you play around with logic like that, the sentence "I own a dog", can be shown to mean "I own a cat", since "dog" is symbolic and shouldn't be taken literal since you must read "I own a dog" in context.

Im not going to copy/paste from some of the books I own. I know that's a waste of my time since you will never accept biblical problems as long as you have the ultimate wish for the bible to be foolproof. Had you wanted to start to dissect the bible critically, you would have read many such books already. Personally the book "Blessed Assurance? A Demonstration that Christian Fundamentalism is Simply False" helped to broke my spell. If you ever start to accept that the bible contains contradictions, the rest will hit you like a landslide when the illusion begins to crumble. Then you begin to understand the bible in a new way when you compare it to real history.

I made a copy of some contradictions for you, but RPGWatch do not allow a message to be 60,000 characters long, and that was actually a short list when I made a googlesearch for "biblical contradictions".

ffbj

July 24th, 2008, 16:39

JemyM

July 24th, 2008, 17:16

I heard about this little old woman in Mississippi, I think. She quit school in third grade and starting taking in laundry to help her struggling family. Throughout her life she lived a simple and frugal existence. Upon her death she left over a million dollars to the college scholarship fund. One of her few possessions was a well worn Bible, which she apparently read daily. I doubt if she struggled with interpretations of what certain passages meant. It was a guide for her quiet and saintly life. Though some may think that hers was a wasted life, little education, no career, her impact was greater than most. Most of us fritter our lives away in vain pursuits, and I include myself in that. I would like to be more like that little old woman, and if the Bible can help me, or others, come to a clearer understanding, of what is truly important in life, then it is worthwhile to read, study, and follow it's teachings.

My life was exactly like that when I was a Christian. I was poor, unemployed and clueless. I just wanted to die quickly so I could get to heaven. Faith gave me hope, that there were something there for me.

When finally I started to doubt it was like getting hit by a landslide, but then I realized that what I had done was to ask a Hebrew volcano God to do what only I could; work on the life I had, with what I had. There are no way out of it, there are no extra lives, you have to work and you have to do it on your own. Believing otherwise fools you into thinking you do not even need to try, so you don't, and things wont get any better by themselves, so you keep yourself from getting better. I started to get myself up on my feet, and now I am on a solid path towards an academic career with skills I used to ignore.

Faith is a painkiller. As long as you take it you feel mostly ok, but you never heal, you just keep the wounds open. No faith glorifies the existence of suffering as much as Christianity does. The meaningless of life and your existence is the topic of almost every prayer. People who are happy are less eager to spend time with the religion and when fear/unhappiness go up, religion goes up.

Corwin

July 24th, 2008, 18:05

JM, never try to analyse me; you have neither the ability, nor the intelligence. Your bitterness simply oozes through your every post. That's why I tend to ignore 95% of what you write.

zahratustra

July 24th, 2008, 21:54

Please list ALL these so called contradictions for me, with precise references. I have yet to find any I can't I can't reconcile and I've taught logic for years!!

You are kidding me Corwin right? And Jeremy makes an extremly important point, althrough he takes his time to make it :) : faithfull do cherrypick outrageously when reading OT and NT. Passages they like they interpret literally. Those they don't like they try to sell as "symbolic". This simply will not wash!

And now just a few questions:

1- since OT was written with only Hebrews in mind should it have any relevance to those outside of Jewish faith?

2- which god is the true god? Genocidal psychopath of OT or "god of love and forgivness" of NT?

3- why there is no shread of archeological evidence which would confirm ANY of OT stories?

Corwin

July 24th, 2008, 22:26

To answer your third question first, check out a few books. The Bible as History comes quickly to mind as it is an archaeological study of much of the actual evidence which has been discovered that supports what is in the OT.

Begging the question is poor discussion technique, as is the fallacy of limited choice. Please try to reword your second question.

The answer to your first question, is obviously Yes. One can really only understand all that is in the NT if one first has a working knowledge (at least) of the OT since much of the NT makes reference to events, or teachings in the OT.

narpet

July 24th, 2008, 22:41

3- why there is no shread of archeological evidence which would confirm ANY of OT stories?

I usually stay out of the political/religious threads... but I have to back up Corwin (and more importantly God) on this one...

Do a little research and you will find that even non-religious archeologists have found MANY instances of locations, etc that are discussed in the Old Testament. AS a matter of fact there have been many archeological finds in the last 40 years that support stories from the Bible.

Just use the good old internet... maybe try the search text "archeological proof of old testament".

I'm no expert... I just know the truth... you can think I'm a fool... that's fine with me.

dteowner

July 24th, 2008, 22:49

ffbj

July 24th, 2008, 23:26

JemyM: Thanks for sharing. I do believe that you are correct in asserting that we need to do something. We can't just lay about saying: 'I am saved, God will take care of it, it's in the hands of the Lord...etc.' Not to say that I have any answers, only that treading some paths can be a fruitless endeavor.

zahratustra

July 25th, 2008, 01:34

Ok few examples of inconsistencies coming up. Just to start the ball rolling:
1- incest is prohibited in OT (Leviticus 18:6-18) but not only some of Biblical prophets are guilty of this sin (Genesis 20:11-12) but whole humanity was born of incest?
2- is genocide moral if it was ordered by god himself? (Deut. 20:16-18)
and connected question:
3- if Bible is a Word of God why can't morality of it be applyed to modern world without extreme cherrypicking? (Exodus 21; Leviticus 25:44-46; Deut. 20:13-14; Deut. 14:21 ect, ect, ect....)
4- if God was so knowlegable and powerfull why haven't he left out germs and genetic diseases out of creation?

dteowner

July 25th, 2008, 02:29

That's more like it. Thanks, Z. While I doubt we're going to prove/disprove the whole credibility issue here, discussing specific examples should be good brain food.

zahratustra

July 25th, 2008, 03:33

Let logical contortions commence! :biggrin: (and I don't mean you dte)

JemyM

July 25th, 2008, 07:31

JM, never try to analyse me; you have neither the ability, nor the intelligence. Your bitterness simply oozes through your every post. That's why I tend to ignore 95% of what you write.

I'm not offended. To call the bible foolproof means you must already ignore about 95% of both the bible and it's critics, which means your opinion of me is just what I take for granted.

JemyM

July 25th, 2008, 07:42

To answer your third question first, check out a few books. The Bible as History comes quickly to mind as it is an archaeological study of much of the actual evidence which has been discovered that supports what is in the OT.

Or not. When Europeans and Americans started to dig in Israel they simply put every discovery in the biblical timeline while for Israel it was politically critical to prove the OT was true.

Around the 60-70'ies archeaology passed into a new paradigm in which the evidence tells the story instead of trying to fit evidence in an already existing story. As it turns out, when starting to analyze the evidence with new method, the "evidence" that previously supported OT, begun to speak against it. It started when they found that the place they thought were Jericho turned out to be an older settlement beneath ruins that were dated to 11,000 years, with the most recent being 9000 years old. That's like 8-7000 years older than the supposed events of the OT. Pretty much every geographical area that previously supported the OT have been contested in the new paradigm.

In Tel Aviv university, any academic who wish to run off finding Abraham is taken as seriously as a ghosthunter. The tale of Abraham is now widely accepted as a legend that simply couldn't be true. There are also nothing but the bible that speaks for the tale of Moses, as it turns out Kanaan was an Egyptian province at the time that Moses was supposed to be sent there. The walk through the desert have several reasons why it simply couldn't have happened. The evidence that should have been there (pottery, remains in the bottom of the sea etc) simply aren't there, and instead the evidence shows a geographical area controlled by the egyptians. The egyptians was an economical superpower at that time and had great records of everything economical. Losing the slaves, the plagues, everything that is told by the story of Moses, is not recorded at all.

Also it have turned out that the great kingdom cannot be supported by archeaology. Archeaology instead shows of an area inhabitated only by nomadic tribes up to about 1000-500ad.

JemyM

July 25th, 2008, 08:24

JemyM, perhaps you could grab a small handful of your list of inconsistencies? This avenue of discussion is pointless and dead without specifics. Without referenced bible quotes, you're not going to get any traction. Personally, I'd like to see your citations and Corwin's responses to them. Generalities like zahratustra's questions and your accusations will prompt nothing more than generalized retorts, which will teach us nothing. Let's get down to brass tacks, folks!

I except to get a similar reply like Zarathustra did... "Logical fallacy", "Evidence shows..." (when it doesn't) or simply being ignored because I have "neither intellect or ability".

Since I have already supplied this thread with several inconsistencies already I will just repeat what I already written. It's dead simple for every person with average intellect to verify this: Compare the resurrection story. It's radically different in all four gospels. Listing inconsistencies in that part alone is like trying to compare consistencies between four different novels. Instead of having some kind of frame in which you first tell the parts that are consistent after which you can then point out how details differ, the stories are so radically different that you really have to tell the story four times. Listen this short parody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqcm7EdC9WM) as it makes this point perfectly.

I have also already mentioned the fig tree and the last supper as different from eachother and I have mentioned Marks and Matthews views on divorce.

John 3:13 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, .... the Son of Man (Jesus)."
vs
2 Kings 2:11 "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
Ex. 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."
1 Tim. 6:16 "Whom no man hath seen nor can see."
vs
Gen 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Ex 24:9 "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness."
Ex 33:11 "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
Ex 33:23 "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
Amos 9:1 "I saw the LORD standing upon the altar:"

Inconsistencies that you do not even need to read the context:
* Genesis have two creation stories with different content.
* Jesus ancestry as listed in Matthew and Luke are different.

Galatians 3:12 the law is not of faith
Romans 13:23 Whatever is not of faith is sin
So is law sin? According to Romans 7:7 it's not. "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid."

In Luke 16:13 Jesus say that you can serve only one (God) and not have two masters.
In Col 3:22 "slaves obey your masters"

Matt 5:5 "The Meek shall inherit the earth."
2 Pet 3:10 The world will be destroyed when Jesus returns.

So is the OT God the only one, or one of many?

One:
Deuteronomy 4:35 "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him."
Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
Isaiah 44:8 "…Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."
Isaiah 45:5-6 "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…"
Isaiah 46:9 "…for I am God, and there is none else…"
Mark 12:32 "…for there is one God; and there is none other but he:"
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
First Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father…"

Many:
Exodus 12:12 "... against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord."
Exodus 15:11 "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?"
Exodus 18:11 "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them."
Exodus 23:32 "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods."
Numbers 33:4 "…upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments."
First Samuel 6:5 "Wherefore ye shall make images of your emerods [tumors], and images of your mice that mar the land; and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land."
Psalms 82:1-7 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. …I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."
Psalms 86:8 "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."
Psalms 97:7-9 "worship him, all ye gods… For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods."
Psalms 136:2 "O give thanks unto the God of gods..."

JemyM

July 25th, 2008, 09:20

Faith is probably the most important thing in Christianity and it's constantly promoted, in the bible and in the community.

What then is faith?

Faith does not mean believing as much as it means faithfulness. Who then are you faithful to? Well, you are faithful to God and Jesus because you have been taught that they gave so much for you. God created you, Jesus died for your sins etc. You owe them your faith.
You are faithful to your Country because you have been taught that your country was founded on Christianity, not a mix of liberalism, socialism, conservatism, humanism and democracy.
You are faithful to your community, your friends and your family because they like you try their best to keep their faith for the same reasons you do.
Questioning all this is true betrayal, and since this is all good, questioning it is evil. It's the same as spitting on the hand that feeds you.

In Christian culture, having faith is a positive trait and a boon. Pure faith is what you are expected to strive at, while you might also have to protect it. You need to stay away from "false teachings". The bible makes this very clear, it's even the first commandment. Other opinions are labeled many things within the Christian community, ranging from "devil speak" to simply "wrong". Keeping faith is about being shielded from this influence.

To aquire the much promoted trait "faith", you must be willing to agree to unbelievable things without evidence. You also must avoid any reasonable critic of Christianity. To assist you in this task, any Christian bookstore is loaded with apologetic materials that can allow you to avoid any doubt that your healthy brain tries to give you.

Most Christians are aware of what they are doing, even if they actively try to ignore it. They know that there are contradictions, at least subconsciously. But they also know that they live in a culture where everyone else seem to believe what they have so much trouble in believing. They look up to them and they know that doubt is social suicide, so they are pressured into trying their best to keep "faith". At best, if you begin to question Christianity the community begins to offer you help so that you can keep your faith, by offering you books, prayer etc. At worst, you are labeled heretic and thrown out. The Bible teaches faith as a grace, a sign of innocence and purity. In Ephesians 2:8 Faith is even considered to be a gift from God, infused by the holy spirit and who would give up a god infused power or even dare to analyse it critically? Basis is not evidence at all, but by reading the words of Christ, Romans 10:17. Faith is an "Armor", that shields against the fiery darts of Satan (Ephesians 6).

Look up John 20:24-29. The story tells how Thomas doubted in Jesus resurrection, so he said that he would only believe if he saw the nail marks on Jesus hands. Jesus shows him the nail marks, then he adds the important key: "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Despite all the "analogy of faith" and "benefit of the doubt", the doubt is there though, nagging. Doubt is a natural emotion, while Christianity is unnatural. This is frustrating, so it's common that when all else fails, the only remaining option is to lash out against those who provoke those thoughts. They can also resort to pragmatism, stating "if you respect my beliefs, I respect yours, we can agree to disagree". This is a quick escaperoute that avoids "dangerous questioning" without actually dealing with the topic. Or you can use one of the many non-supported logical fallacies such as "you cannot prove God does not exist, therefore I believe". At best, they resort to blatant denial, shutting down their ability to take in new information completely. The NT teaches you to stay ignorant and even say that ignorance is a boon, a positive trait. In Matthew 23:27 Jesus opposes the learned, in Luke 10:21 Jesus cheer for God who have blinded the wise but shown himself to the unlearned and little people. In Acts 4:13 people are even surprised that Jesus had picked followers who were both ignorant and uneducated. And when Petrus in love for his master critizised his words, Jesus called him Satan. His human thoughts are not God, but Satan.

Since the blasphemy laws have been removed, the option in a liberal environment is to demand respect and play the victim. We are urged to respect faith and Christianity, and many who do not even believe it does, and their natural compassion for others want to defend those who try to appear innocent and attacked. Christianity have long exploited the idea of martyrdom, which automaticly get their defense by those who cares for others. This is little more than manipulation. Nothing is more evident of this cultural pressure as the people who do not believe in God but believe in belief. That look up to the Christians even if they cannot believe themselves. They are culturally pushed into believing faith is a good trait that they lack and it's a "weakness".

In all this, even Christians who are educated to think critically are taken in by all this. At best they simply ignore inconsistencies by resorting to Christian apologetics, claiming that even if an explanation is unsactisfactory, "it's the best we have now". They are already committed to the religion and the more time they spent with it the more invested their life is in Christianity and the community. Here are the three primary escape routes for a well-educated and logically schooled Christian:

1. If the bible appears to contradict itself, and we don't have an answer at this time, we should suspend judgement and give it the benefit of the doubt.
2. If for whatver reason we can't answer some other challenge to faith, even if it concerns some point of science, archeology, etc., we should supsend judgement and give Christianity the benefit of the doubt.
3.When dealing with harsh images of God in the bible, or the problem of evil in life, we should suspend judgement. God's ways are not our ways.

So when an intellectual is a Christian, it all boils down to even when one admits that we simply cannot make the case, we should simply believe anyway. Pascals wager is incredibly powerful for those who lack the insight in other religions and other cultures (if you know about other religions and other cultures you know that faith is not an either or option, it's a question what religion is right or wrong when there are so many). If you can only see an either Christian or not, you can only see the alternatives eternal life or an endless torment in heaven. With that much at stake, there are no limit how far you are willing to go to protect that belief. The more you believe in Satan or hell, the more paranoid you will get and as history and even current events show, it's even enough to commit murder and genocide. And even if you do not believe in God, you may still believe that your entire society needs Christianity to work, which is also a good reason to defend it no matter the cost.

titus

July 25th, 2008, 09:36

mmm I don't want to mix in in this interesting rattle but hasn't this topic go way of what the starter asked?

JemyM

July 25th, 2008, 10:58

mmm I don't want to mix in in this interesting rattle but hasn't this topic go way of what the starter asked?

I dunno. Believing the bible is inconsistent and believing in faith are Christian beliefs. :)

zahratustra

July 26th, 2008, 02:40

Never mind the fact that nobody have ever found any traces of Exodus or identity of Biblical Pharaoh. Oh archeologists have found remains of camps of transient paleolithic hunter-gatherers but no trace of thousands of Hebrews wondering "wilderness" for years!

Pladio

July 26th, 2008, 03:22

mmm I don't want to mix in in this interesting rattle but hasn't this topic go way of what the starter asked?

No, this is quite interesting (except for the personal bashing) and it does have to do with belief... I wonder what bn and Corwin think about it ...

But Jemy, the talk about different Gods is quite logical, since other people believed in other gods, so it might just mean that that the other gods are false and that the biblical god is the one and only God ..

Prime Junta

July 26th, 2008, 09:33

I've said it before, but I think it bears saying again: IMO all this stuff about "belief" is something of a red herring. It's much more about identity. Your religion is a group you identify with, that's based on a shared set of symbols. A whole bunch of mostly ethical doctrine comes as a part of the package. It's perfectly possible to disagree vehemently with a part of, or even most of, the doctrine, while still identifying strongly with the group and the symbols.

In that sense, religious identity is no different from national, regional, ethnic, or linguistic identity -- or even an identity as a supporter of a particular football team, a subculture, or a music style. That means that picking apart inconsistencies in a religion -- or demanding strict adherence to its doctrine -- makes about as much sense as picking apart inconsistencies in Metallica lyrics, or demanding that you have to worship Satan if you want to go to a Dimmu Borgir concert.

JemyM

July 26th, 2008, 09:36

But Jemy, the talk about different Gods is quite logical, since other people believed in other gods, so it might just mean that that the other gods are false and that the biblical god is the one and only God ..

Yes, but for a later political reason, not because it was true.

The Torah have traces to several pagan religions in the area, not to mention traces to Egypt. This is not because they fled from Egypt, but because Canaan was an Egyptian province. In the Egyptian "book of the dead", chapter 125, there's a long prayer that have similarities with the 10 commandments. It gets better though.

God have two names in the Hebrew version; Yahweh and Elohim. This is not because he filed for a new name, but because the Torah reuse stories from multiple pagan religions. Elohim is the name used in Genesis, and Genesis is also the book that is pretty much exclusively inspired by other religions, where as the other books contains the name Yahweh. In Genesis, Elohim do not have much power. He must actually physically visit places and he's not all-seeing. These powers belong to Yahweh.

Elohim was the greatest god in Ugarit. Elohim was wise, strong and powerful, calm and friendly, rarely angered and happy with the happy.

Elohim had a god as wife called Athirat. In hebrew Athirat becomes Ashera. She is the mother of Canaan and give birth to 70 children (compare with 1 Mos 10 where the people of the earth comes from Noa's 70 sons). Another name that have been found for Ashera is Sinai (the snake woman) and Chawat which in hebrew means Hawat, which in English means Eve.

The most worshipped God in kanaan was Baal, (Baal is a title, it means "Lord"). His voice is of thunder and he's beneath no one but Elohim.

Jam (or Jav/Javu) was a god of chaos and death. He's the son of El. He was the king of flood and the sea. Baal and Jav fought. His name is spelled YV (compare with YHWH which is how hebrew spell God's second name). JV got more and more popular after year 1200bc. Around 500bc his name and image was even printed on coins. YHWH can be pronounced both Yahweh and Yehova.

Ugarit also had a god called abrm (Abraham) and one named Dan'il (Daniel). We also have the name Ysril (Israel). In Ugarit language this means something like "El is in control".

The first creation story (created sun, heaven, land etc) is inspired by the babylonian tale Enuma Elish. The tale of garden of eden (snake, tree etc) was inspired by Enki and Ninhursag, which also includes the tale of Cain and Abel.

As you might know, the tale of Noah is mostly copy of the tale of Utnapishtim in the babylonian legend about the flood. Reading it even explains one of the early flaws of the bible; Genesis 8:7-12. It literally say that the water is dried up, but when Noah send out the dove, the earth is filled with water again. The reason is that the biblical version send out the birds in the wrong order. Utnapishtim send out 3 birds and in the right order, so that scene makes sense in the Babylonian tale but not in genesis. But the reason for the flood, to drench the failed creation of mankind, is inspired by Atrahasis, a Babylonian tale.

During the Babylonian imprisonment the gods were assimilated into one and they borrowed traits from all of them. This simplified the religion and also connected different tribes with eachother since their different gods were now one. The work that collected many of these tales first was made around ~700bc, but our version was not made until ~400bc.

There were also politics involved, under the king called Josia who needed to gather the tribes and thus had to force them into the same religion. Borrowing stories from their own religion was a kind of propaganda.

JemyM

July 26th, 2008, 10:04

In that sense, religious identity is no different from national, regional, ethnic, or linguistic identity -- or even an identity as a supporter of a particular football team, a subculture, or a music style. That means that picking apart inconsistencies in a religion -- or demanding strict adherence to its doctrine -- makes about as much sense as picking apart inconsistencies in Metallica lyrics, or demanding that you have to worship Satan if you want to go to a Dimmu Borgir concert.

You are right that religions are indistinguishable from other similar "tribal" systems, who you are loyal to, but all of those have a line between when it's good and when it's bad.

Nationalism gathered most countries in Europe into states. Nationalism can allow for multiple subcultures and multiple people to see themselves as one. Seeing the northern countries as "one people" or "we are vikings" is a form of nationalism that managed to get the states stop killing eachother and see eachother like brothers.

In some cases, nationalism was pushed too far (nazi germany for example) and then things go sour. Chauvinistic tribal instincts can get really nasty when they are not opposed and kept in control.

In other cases, lack of nationalism can cause problems as well, since it creates segregation. Yugoslavia is a such example where nationalism failed to make people see their neighbors as the same people as themselves.

As soon as the tribal symbols are given value, people will start to demand loyalty to them. Things that are labeled "holy" and "sacred" can grow into such power that people are willing to die protecting ideas. Demanding strict adherence to what's of utmost importance is a natural human trait. A pragmatic view is something that usually comes with age and experience, while having a more radical opinion of something as foolproof is more common among teenagers. It's a difference though, if the symbol you fight for is Democracy/Freedom compared to a doctrine that excludes and discriminates people for being born in the wrong way.

When people begins to speak about orthodox beliefs, true beliefs, right beliefs, right adherence, or start to act like their symbols and whatever they worship are holier than even human life, pointing out scapegoats etc, then the belief have started to become a biological weapon, with humans as bullets. Then it's time to start dismantling it. It needs to be tamed. To make sure that humans are in control of the doctrine instead of the doctrine in control of the humans, you need to make sure that people can distance themselves from it when they need to. That's why it's important to point out inconsistencies. Only by accepting that the doctrine have good merits, but contains flaws and weaknesses can humans remain in control and use it with care.

My country is ok, but it have flaws and I think the flag is ugly and the king is pointless.
Democracy is a bad system, but it's the best we got.
The bible is a very inconsistent book with outdated beliefs and ethics.

Naked Ninja

July 26th, 2008, 14:41

I'm curious about something.

JemyM, were you Chrisitian at some point in the past? And if so, how "strongly" Christian would you say you were, I know it's a relatively subjective scale but I'm curious how you would rate yourself?

Cause I find human psychology fascinating and I've noticed this kind of thing before, in people who reject their beliefs, and I'm talking all types of beliefs here, cultural, social, religious, political.

It seems like when someone decides to reject some belief they have they often violently reject it, like they are trying to counter the emotional attachment with an equal or greater amount of negativity. It's as if they have to convince themselves that everything about their old belief system is abhorrent in order to believe they have made the right choice in leaving it.

You can see it when people leave their religion, when they experience a shift in political views, heck, when people get divorced they often seem to feel the urge to reframe every single thing about their ex, to convince themselves the other person is a hateful individual, even if they originally had traits they considered worthwhile.

You also see it in social subcultures, in goths and the like who feel so desperate to distance themselves from the mainstream that they go to the extreme to prove they are different and sneer at "normal people".

You even see it in teenagers, when they go through that distancing phase in the teen years from their parents. The need to establish themselves as individuals, to break that dependence on their parents, often drives them to reject their parents and their parents' philosophies.

It's an interesting insight into the human mind and how deeply rooted in emotion it is. Logically deciding to break from something that formerly held a strong positive emotional bond (like belief or love) doesn't seem to be enough, people often seem to need to resort to extreme amounts of negativity to achieve that break. Even when the negativity isn't particularly justified by logic or even really fair.

It's knowing this tenet of human psychology that makes this thread so interesting to me. Your agenda is so...naked. And whenever a thread on Christian belief comes up here you're there, pushing this particular, twisted view you have of Christians as hard as you can.

So I'm curious. Were you Christian? And if so, was your belief particularly strong, before? Did it get betrayed in some way? By other Christians? What led you to this crusade you have? Because it seems to go way above and beyond the usual "Har har Christianity is silly, invisible man in the sky har" pot shots that your average atheist takes. It takes quite strong emotion to fuel this kind of effort to tear something down, so there must have been some sort of trigger, I'm guessing.

Satisfy my curiosity please. :)

Corwin

July 26th, 2008, 14:44

"God have two names in the Hebrew version; Yahweh and Elohim. This is not because he filed for a new name, but because the Torah reuse stories from multiple pagan religions. Elohim is the name used in Genesis, and Genesis is also the book that is pretty much exclusively inspired by other religions, where as the other books contains the name Yahweh. In Genesis, Elohim do not have much power. He must actually physically visit places and he's not all-seeing. These powers belong to Yahweh."

JM, you are displaying TOTAL ignorance here. It's ONE God, check out the meaning of the word Elohim to start with. You may note that "In the beginning God created..." The word for God used there is Elohim. Yahweh as such doesn't appear in that form; the vowels were added later by scholars. This is a subject that requires a basic understanding of Hebrew to appreciate.

Pladio

July 26th, 2008, 16:20

JemyM : El, Elohim, YHVH, Shaddai, and many other names are all just seen as one God, whereas Ashera, Baal and several others are seen in the Bible just as Gods people worshiped but weren't allowed to, because of the fact they weren't real...

Flood stories occur even in some aboriginal tribes in Australia, I believe, doesn't mean it can't be true...

I also just checked on Bible Gateway, the Hebrew version. YHVH does appear in it, well at least once in a verse translated as :
And God, God said to the woman ...

And YHVH Elohim said to the woman

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman

That's the 4rd chapter of Genesis verse 13.

That's doing a quick scan, without reading verse for verse, so I'm sure YHVH does appear more often. If you really want me to check, I could.

Corwin : Do you have any opinions on what he said before ? (5th post from the top of page 6)

And again, the translation is not so good... You changed YHVH into Lord, because Jews don't try pronouncing YHVH, they say Adonai, which is another name for God which means Lord (Adon).

JemyM

July 26th, 2008, 16:24

So I'm curious. Were you Christian? And if so, was your belief particularly strong, before? Did it get betrayed in some way? By other Christians? What led you to this crusade you have? Because it seems to go way above and beyond the usual "Har har Christianity is silly, invisible man in the sky har" pot shots that your average atheist takes. It takes quite strong emotion to fuel this kind of effort to tear something down, so there must have been some sort of trigger, I'm guessing. Satisfy my curiosity please. :)

I believe what you just did is called the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy.

I have quite a history and I have during the recent years begun to study a range of disciplines that deals with human ideas and human behavior. I am well aware of the kind of behavior you suggest here.

I oppose values that may turn anti-democratic. My previous religion was a spiritual one and had little to do with the form of Christianity that I react to today. In fact, I did not even know about it back then. If I would have opposed my own specific form of Christianity I would have opposed superstition and "silly ideas".

I oppose several different ideologies in the same manner as I oppose Christianity here, but the other types are not discussed on this forum. I have dealt with nationalists, neo-nazis, racists, communists, muslims etc.

The form of Christianity you call "twisted" is not one I belong to, but it is one that I have encountered numerous times.

JemyM

July 26th, 2008, 16:36

JM, you are displaying TOTAL ignorance here. It's ONE God, check out the meaning of the word Elohim to start with. You may note that "In the beginning God created..." The word for God used there is Elohim. Yahweh as such doesn't appear in that form; the vowels were added later by scholars. This is a subject that requires a basic understanding of Hebrew to appreciate.

The torah is composed out of several sources. It's not only the label that the God have that is inconsistent, it's also the behavior and powers of that entity.

Pladio

July 26th, 2008, 17:47

JemyM: You forgot my post I believe...

Corwin: Do you mind watching this and letting me think you think ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OccFtEz6_rQ&feature=related

Corwin

July 26th, 2008, 18:59

Pladio, the post you mention does not line up with the literature I have on archaeology. I'm sure that as we're dealing very much with a great deal of pre-literary sources, that conflicts will occur over interpretation. Many noted archaeologists don't agree with each other on many topics. I'll have a look at the link and get back to you.

Corwin

July 26th, 2008, 19:12

Interesting. The speaker commits the heinous crime of proof-texting; quoting scriptures totally out of context. Then he begs the question, calling Christ a manifestation, which is actually what he's attempting to show. Strangely, he quotes verses which actually help illustrate the Trinity at one point, yet claims they make no sense. Funny, to me they do. What he misses, is that for Jesus to be effective in his purpose on earth, he had to 'lay aside his divinity' and become a REAL man, with all those limitations, or else his sacrifice on the cross becomes meaningless. The trinity is 3 beings, one God, not 3 manifestations. A subtle, but important difference. Hope that helps, but feel free to ask for more clarification.

Pladio

July 26th, 2008, 19:36

Yes, thank you. I made a mistake it's the post after that ...

zahratustra

July 26th, 2008, 21:35

But Jemy, the talk about different Gods is quite logical, since other people believed in other gods, so it might just mean that that the other gods are false and that the biblical god is the one and only God ..

It MIGHT also mean that god of the Bible is false and the only true one could be (for example) Tsui-Goab (Hottentot's chief deity). So the best solution would be to hedge your bets and believe in every deity there is. Trouble, of course, is that most of deities demand their sole and exclusive worship as a first step to salvation....

Korplem

July 26th, 2008, 22:04

zahratustra

July 26th, 2008, 22:05

Corwin

July 26th, 2008, 22:06

Pladio, in that particular post, the poster not only takes an extreme position, but makes unsubstantiated and outrageous statements, such as this one:

"To aquire the much promoted trait "faith", you must be willing to agree to unbelievable things without evidence. You also must avoid any reasonable critic of Christianity."

Sorry, but I can't take this tirade seiously, nor will I respond to it. What would be the point? This person isn't so much interested in dialogue as in having a good rant. I find ignoring it the best solution; I believe the common expression is don't feed the Trolls!! :)

zahratustra

July 26th, 2008, 22:16

But will you respond to my and Jeremy's post which quoted some (it's not reaslistic to ask that we quote them all!) of Biblical contradictions with precise references?

Corwin

July 26th, 2008, 23:34

I will eventually, however, right now I'm away from home, out of the country with none of my resources, or references, and in the middle of a vacation. That is not conducive to answering your items effectively.

JemyM

July 27th, 2008, 01:05

JemyM: You forgot my post I believe...

I saw your post as a comment that expanded the issue with some additional things to ponder about. I do not know what to add to it though.

Pladio

July 27th, 2008, 02:01

Oh, alright. Thanks :)

Naked Ninja

July 27th, 2008, 22:00

I believe what you just did is called the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy.

Nah, that would be completely unnecessary. It's been clear for a long time that that particular well is filled with poison already. Just trying to find out why.

@ Zahrastustra and Korplem : Sure. I never meant to imply that all lapsed Christians feel that hate. Notice that few of the atheists here go to such lengths to tear down Christians as JemyM does. Just as many people manage to get divorced without ending up loathing their ex, and many teenagers can establish independence without totally rejecting their parents. But I think it can definitely be a trigger, I've seen it enough times.

As to the Bible contradictions, while Corwin might believe the Bible to be perfect and inviolate, I don't. I'm pretty certain that there have been mistranslations, bits added or changed by people for their own, very human, desires, even bits that are plainly false. Just like any other historical document, it has undergone something of a broken telephone effect, surviving as it has so much turbulent human history.

So yeah, there might be contradictions, or silly ancient laws that got added (remembering that back in the day there wasn't such a separation of church and state, laws about infidelity could certainly have been added by by rulers who were also members of the church). Does this invalidate the Bible? No, in the same way that two different, even conflicting reports on an ancient battle doesn't mean that the battle never occurred, or that the core of those two reports is inaccurate, even if some specifics are fuzzy. The same applies even in witness reports in crime investigations, and that is given by someone who witnessed the event a few hours ago, and in the same language. 2000 years later, over many translations, the Bible has some inconsistencies? Noooooo, really? Well then, that certainly proves that it is false and invalid in it's entirety!

Sorry, the sarcasm was unnecessary, I know, but these arguments where atheists always go "but it says X here and then Y over there, explain that Mr Christian!" are just so pointless. Any familiarity with academia will reveal that academics are always arguing over different interpretations and conflicting reports about XYZ and which one is right and blah, blah, blah. Happens all the time in historical study, such is the result of combining fallible human records and centuries of separation between the reader and the actual events. Historical scholars, like religious scholars, work hard to try to get to the nuggets of truth behind the reports. You can never be 100% certain it went as you think it went, but beyond a certain point you just have to take it on...faith. ;)

dteowner

July 27th, 2008, 23:33

So your defense is to blow off any questioning and psychoanalyze the questioner? Weak. In fact, such an approach is little more than a polite version of the Inquisition. You talk real purtylike, but your faithful acceptance has no more validity than JemyM's supposedly blind denial.

zahratustra

July 28th, 2008, 00:25

NN, inconsistencies and errors are a clear sign that both OT & NT were written by people over time and, as such, have exactly the same (IMO) value as saga of Beowulf or Greek myths: while interesting I certainly wouldn't make life decision based on such documents.

BTW did you know that for observant Muslems the ONLY way to read Koran is in original Arabic? No translation was ever sanctioned or endorsed by any of Islam's spiritual authorities. Possibly to avoid translation errors and inconsitencies? Despite this Koran still manages to be inconsitent. Never mind open to different interpretations

JemyM

July 28th, 2008, 08:55

@ Zahrastustra and Korplem : Sure. I never meant to imply that all lapsed Christians feel that hate.

None of the five most famous atheists in the world right now are ex-Christians. All you are committing now is the poisoning the well fallacy as well as the ad hominem fallacy.

Notice that few of the atheists here go to such lengths to tear down Christians as JemyM does.

The only reason I have to show the bible to people is that people are giving the wrong people political power by trusting Christianity too much. There's no real reason for me to spend time with common superstition since it does not threaten me and I could really care less if single people believe things on insufficient evidence.

There are dominant movements going on, especially in USA, but also here in Sweden. These groups requires a positive or neutral perspective on Christianity to grow and they seek to reverse much of the progress that have been made since the first free democracy. We have a radical and conservative racist nationalist party here in Sweden that got so many votes recently that they might get into parlament next election. Much of their success comes from flirting with Christian perspectives.
My city are currently hosting a growing extremist group that promotes the biblical laws which most liberal christians ignore (even on the point on reversing woman rights). Not only do that group have media coverage, signs of their meeting is in all key spots all over town, which is normally just used by city affairs.

THIS is why I discuss Christianity so much at the moment. I had no reason to do so for the first five or so years after "dropping out". I even were among the defenders before 9/11.

Naked Ninja

July 28th, 2008, 11:56

So your defense is to blow off any questioning and psychoanalyze the questioner?

JemyM was asking questions? That's funny, I read it as a thinly (very thinly) veiled excuse for him to get up on his soap box and spit bile. To quote :

It's impossible for me to discuss any radical Utopian ideology without treating it's followers as puppets to tribal instinct and then judge them by the victims of their ideas, whoever/whatever they are.

Christianity is a death cult with a primitive execution machine as their symbol. Their totem pole is usually a wooden statue of a bloody and mutilated body which they worship with great passion and they want every young child exposed to this gory scene as possible.

They spread the idea that that life without their master is meaningless and the only goal of life is to die the right way. Nothing else (friends/family etc) really matters at the end. Then they say that there's no reason to be moral unless one submit to their totalitarian master. They also teach that there's no point in bothering with the environment or improve life etc since the world will end soon anyway.

This is your idea of impartial questioning? I think not. After awhile you learn the difference between someone actually asking questions and seeking a position of attack. This is the latter. Also, does this not count as psychoanalyzing Christians?

your faithful acceptance

Actually, I have a fairly balanced, logical take on both sides of the argument. I simply don't buy this "if there are inconsistencies then it must ALL be false" argument. Historical analysis doesn't work like that, religious or otherwise.

NN, inconsistencies and errors are a clear sign that both OT & NT were written by people over time and, as such, have exactly the same (IMO) value as saga of Beowulf or Greek myths

No, they have as much validity as other historical records, which also have errors and inconsistencies in them, which require analysis, sifting and some degree of educated guesswork, and which you, I and the rest of the world base our understanding of the past on. It is just as valid.

Without dedicating significant portions of our lives to the study, neither you nor I can say one way or the other how valid they are or aren't. So it's a pretty pointless debate among uneducated laymen.

BTW did you know that for observant Muslems the ONLY way to read Koran is in original Arabic? No translation was ever sanctioned or endorsed by any of Islam's spiritual authorities. Possibly to avoid translation errors and inconsitencies? Despite this Koran still manages to be inconsitent. Never mind open to different interpretations

So? You say that like this is uncommon when studying ancient historical records.

@ Jemy :

None of the five most famous atheists in the world right now are ex-Christians.

How is that relevant? I don't judge an opinion's validity by its originators fame.

All you are committing now is the poisoning the well fallacy as well as the ad hominem fallacy.

You've heard the one about people in glass houses and throwing stones, have you not? To repeat :

puppets to tribal instinct and then judge them by the victims of their ideas
...
Christianity is a death cult with a primitive execution machine as their symbol
...
They also teach that there's no point in bothering with the environment or improve life etc since the world will end soon anyway.

Poisoning the well and ad hominem you say? Come now, look in the mirror.

My city are currently hosting a growing extremist group that promotes the biblical laws which most liberal christians ignore (even on the point on reversing woman rights). Not only do that group have media coverage, signs of their meeting is in all key spots all over town, which is normally just used by city affairs.

That is certainly disturbing but you're fighting the wrong fight mate. The problem isn't Christianity, the problem is extremism, a disease that can fester in any movement or cause, political, religious, cultural. And I agree, it must be fought. But taking these pot shots at Christians isn't the way to do it, you're simply ensuring that any reasonable, moderate Christians who might otherwise sympathize with you and listen to your issues will now dismiss you, due to the excessive bile. What, you think all Christians believe in oppressing women? That's as true as saying all Muslims believe in terrorism.

You're attacking the wrong thing. The Americans launched a needless war against Iraq and did it under the banner of "defending freedom and democracy". Does this make "freedom" or "democracy" evil, just because people can use them to justify their ends? No. Attacking Christianity because some extremists are doing nasty things in your country is just as silly.

I even were among the defenders before 9/11

Before 9/11? Dude, again, don't mistake the core of the faith with the things people justify in its name, especially when those people are scared or seeking vengeance.

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 12:51

JemyM was asking questions? That's funny, I read it as a thinly (very thinly) veiled excuse for him to get up on his soap box and spit bile. To quote :

Just to chime in... yeah, JemyM -- you aren't doing your cause any good with this type of rhetoric and especially the way you're tarring everyone with the same brush. I mean sure, there are Christians like the ones you describe -- but that holds true for people of any religion... or none. Narrow-minded, blinkered fanaticism is a character trait; the ideology espoused is almost incidental. It's as idiotic to blame Christianity for idiot Christians as it is to blame, say, Karl Marx for idiot Communists, or Milton Friedman for idiot neo-liberals.

I've taken issue with you on this score before; you seemed to be working your way towards a less frothing-at-the-mouth kind of stance at one point, but you seem to have regressed lately. Or perhaps it's just this thread -- they sometimes have the side effect of getting people to dig deeper into their foxholes.

But anyway, carry on -- I'll continue to follow with interest.

dteowner

July 28th, 2008, 13:40

Funny, to me they do. What he misses, is that for Jesus to be effective in his purpose on earth, he had to 'lay aside his divinity' and become a REAL man, with all those limitations, or else his sacrifice on the cross becomes meaningless. The trinity is 3 beings, one God, not 3 manifestations. A subtle, but important difference. Hope that helps, but feel free to ask for more clarification.Caught this during a re-read. Last time I checked, REAL men don't walk on water, turn water into wine, and craft the +2 Ever-full Basket of Bagels and Bass. Either he "laid aside his divinity" or he didn't, yes?

Corwin

July 28th, 2008, 14:07

Jesus also said he did everything through the power of his father (God), not through his own ability.

dteowner

July 28th, 2008, 14:15

JemyM was asking questions? That's funny, I read it as a thinly (very thinly) veiled excuse for him to get up on his soap box and spit bile.I would refer you to posts 106 and 107 in this thread, which as far as I can tell, have gone "sans response". Just because you don't like the presentation doesn't invalidate the line of inquiry.

This is your idea of impartial questioning? I think not. After awhile you learn the difference between someone actually asking questions and seeking a position of attack. This is the latter. Also, does this not count as psychoanalyzing Christians?I don't believe I've asked anyone specifically, "So, what happened in your life that prompted you to ignore logical discussion and make a 'leap of faith'?" I haven't even trotted out the old reliable "opiate of the masses". I also wonder why "seeking a position of attack" would invalidate the line of inquiry. I didn't get much formal training like some of you logical fallacy jockeys (somewhere in Ohio, an English teacher is crying), but I'd be willing to bet there's some fancy Latin phrase for "ignoring the issue in favor of harping on the motivations of the opposition."

txa1265

July 28th, 2008, 14:27

Caught this during a re-read. Last time I checked, REAL men don't walk on water, turn water into wine, and craft the +2 Ever-full Basket of Bagels and Bass. Either he "laid aside his divinity" or he didn't, yes?

Not speaking from any expertise on either side, but the point of that was the assertion that for 30 or so years he put aside his divinity to live as a normal person before striking out for the final 3 years and then using powers to perform miracles.

dteowner

July 28th, 2008, 14:30

Jesus also said he did everything through the power of his father (God), not through his own ability.OK, so he's a conduit. Presumably, by accepting God into your life, any Joe similarly becomes a conduit for divine power. If that's the case, you'd think the combined power of prayer would grant the Leafs a decent GM by now. ;)

JemyM

July 28th, 2008, 14:37

Writing on PDA on a shaky train. Sorry for spelling.

It's as idiotic to blame Christianity for idiot Christians as it is to blame, say, Karl Marx for idiot Communists, or Milton Friedman for idiot neo-liberals.

There are no cultural pressure on having to respect such opinions, nor are there any strong reaction when one critizise them harshly. They have to push their opinions with good arguments, and fend off critzism, as it should be. It's even supported in the democratic process to challenge these beliefs and public politic debates tend to fall into childish pie-throwing contests.
We see religious criticism differently due to a culture that promotes that religion is different than political values and should be treated with outmost respect, which is why religious satire comes out as worse than the kind of rants we deal with on everyday basis.

If you are interest to discuss my statements rather than my wording, let me know.

JemyM was asking questions? That's funny, I read it as a thinly (very thinly) veiled excuse for him to get up on his soap box and spit bile. To quote :

You have'nt read the thread. My initial comment was meant to shake the common cultural illusions we are too familiar with to see through. I meant to provoke discussion, not teenage-style rebellion as you seem to suggest. This was a retorical action, not a "channelling of wounded emotions". I knew I could handle the feedback. Also everything I said is true in literal sense. Christianity have the structure of a cult and it's strongest focus on death of it's founder which now relates to how to die in the religion. The only reason we do not say "death cult" is due to political correctness. The symbol, the cross, is in fact a tool of capital punishment.

No, they have as much validity as other historical records, which also have errors and inconsistencies in them, which require analysis, sifting and some degree of educated guesswork, and which you, I and the rest of the world base our understanding of the past on. It is just as valid.
Without dedicating significant portions of our lives to the study, neither you nor I can say one way or the other how valid they are or aren't. So it's a pretty pointless debate among uneducated laymen.

I have actually dedicated my life to studies which connects to this topic.
And historical perspectives must be supported, they are not equally valid.

How is that relevant? I don't judge an opinion's validity by its originators fame.

It's relevant since it ruins your point that the more radical are so because of their past. Like I said, I did not come from the form of movement that I am fighting today, and my agenda opposes a range of movements, not just Christianity.

Poisoning the well and ad hominem you say? Come now, look in the mirror.

Each statement is based on facts. If you know how tribalism works you know that Christianity is a tribal construct. It promotes strong symbolism, a willing to die for it's cause, runs in families and even consider others in the movement "family". You hear people say "christian child", never "marxist child". Even Eusebius called it a tribe. They downscale human qualities in non followers by suggesting they have no sense of morals etc. Feel free to support your statements rather than throwing accusations.

That is certainly disturbing but you're fighting the wrong fight mate. The problem isn't Christianity, the problem is extremism, a disease that can fester in any movement or cause, political, religious, cultural.

The problem is the propaganda that the bible is harmless and good. People just might believe it's true. "Extremists" are just more honest because they try their best to follow the book that their culture promoted. They thrump liberal Christians attempts to confuse the bible with humanism, since that perspective is just cherrypicking the bible, ignoring most of the pages. So as long as liberal Christians assist to culturally promote the book as foolproof, inspired by god, or a guide to good morals, people will continue to take it literally, not daring to question it's comments. School stress criticism for a reason. Tribalism and chauvinism comes natural to humans, and such perspectives makes most teenagers to be radical and think they are "orthodox". This is weakened by school and democratic values. Questioning is a foundation of democracy, to not fall into tribal instincts which comes so natural for us. Religion is now the only case in which do not promote such safety mechanisms. It also the place that children can be divided into mini subcultures which helps to inspire "we and them" thinking, at the time which being exposed to diversity is so important.

And I agree, it must be fought. But taking these pot shots at Christians isn't the way to do it, you're simply ensuring that any reasonable, moderate Christians who might otherwise sympathize with you and listen to your issues will now dismiss you, due to the excessive bile. What, you think all Christians believe in oppressing women? People who promote the bible do the devils handiwork on that one. They do not need to have that value themselves. By not being aware of the bibles word on women, they are just innocent drones of spreading the virus. The bible is clear on woman rights. Who are a liberal Christian who try to suddenly object to the "words of God" when someone in their community starts to promote a more literal view of the book that the Christian already recognizes as THE "moral guide".

That's as true as saying all Muslims believe in terrorism.

They aren't, but they are guilty of promoting the quaran as a book written by God, and we are guilty if we promote the idea that a such statement is to be respected, or call eachother racists when we dont. I have 3 translations of the book myself and took a basic course on it's content. Islam is on some topics better than Christianity, but were more effective at keeping out other pespectives. This is why it's often more radical.

Before 9/11? Dude, again, don't mistake the core of the faith with the things people justify in its name, especially when those people are scared or seeking vengeance.

9/11 was the wake up call that made me begin analyse religion like any political ideology. My current standpoint came out of a very long process that begun back then, not directly because of it.

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 14:59

There are no cultural pressure on having to respect such opinions, nor are there any strong reaction when one critizise them harshly. They have to push their opinions with good arguments, and fend off critzism, as it should be.

That is completely untrue. Back in the 1970's, especially in the academic world, there was enormous cultural pressure to have to respect hard-core Marxism. Up until very recently -- say, until a year or two ago -- there was enormous cultural pressure in the United States, but also in many parts of Europe, to respect hard-core neo-liberalism. These pressures were at least as hard, if not harder, than the pressure to respect Christianity, Islam, or other religions. In fact, a record of vocally opposing one of these ideologies would close doors on certain careers much more effectively than a record of vocally opposing a religion.

It's even supported in the democratic process to challenge these beliefs. We see religious criticism differently due to a culture that promotes that religion is different than political values and should be treated with outmost respect, which is why religious satire comes out as worse than the kind of rants we deal with on everyday basis.

Only in your mind, JemyM.

txa1265

July 28th, 2008, 15:15

Only in your mind, JemyM.

That was my thought - living in Massachusetts during the whole 'Catholic Church Priest scandal' thing ... there was no 'utmost respect' given ... the Cardinal was chased by reporters like he was Lindsay Lohan on a bender ...

JemyM

July 28th, 2008, 16:22

That is completely untrue. Back in the 1970's, especially in the academic world, there was enormous cultural pressure to have to respect hard-core Marxism. Up until very recently -- say, until a year or two ago -- there was enormous cultural pressure in the United States, but also in many parts of Europe, to respect hard-core neo-liberalism. These pressures were at least as hard, if not harder, than the pressure to respect Christianity, Islam, or other religions. In fact, a record of vocally opposing one of these ideologies would close doors on certain careers much more effectively than a record of vocally opposing a religion.

Seventies you say. The middle of the Cold War, threatened by nuclear conflict, several European countries with unstable or no democracy and the Soviet Union / USA representing two extremes... What have happened since? Feminism, gay rights, the student revolt and flower power movements changing our views on cultural freedom, soviet gone (even though not forgotten) and the latest generation living in rampart materialism, but schooled into seeing democracy as unquestionable. Not mentioning that internet made it impossible to keep up the appearance of one view as flawless and changed the way cultures interact with eachother.
It takes a generation for new values to be taken for granted. This is not 1970. We are in the post modern era now. It's difficult for one view to dominate completely. Opposite views are not treated with respect, but the two extremes are now so blurred together that they are difficult to tell apart. The dreams about the communistic utopia started to die once people came aware of what happened behind the iron curtain. The old socialists have now more in common with political liberalism than Marxist-Leninism.

No, the way religions are treated 2008 is different than how left/right politics are treated 2008. No one asks to be treated with unquestionable respect due to political views. No one say they are "offended" by someone making satire of Marx, and no one demands the right to wear brown uniform to work.

dteowner

July 28th, 2008, 16:54

txa1265

July 28th, 2008, 17:20

Before anyone blows that statement off, I think it would be necessary to explain why, if religion and politics share the same cultural standing, cartoons of Ahmad-whatever as a terrorist are met with silence and cartoons of Mohammed are met with riots and death threats. That's not to pick on Islam, either, it was just the first obvious example that popped in my little head.

I go back to my previous statement. You can ridicule the Catholic church left, right and center - and it is done all over the place from articles to cartoons to whatever. There is no respect given. Not saying there should be, just pointing it out.

You touch Islam, and you get death threats. People don't like getting shot at or blown up, so they treat it with care.

Personally I think that race and gender get treated more 'special' than most religion.

Corwin

July 28th, 2008, 17:42

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 17:46

Seventies you say. The middle of the Cold War, threatened by nuclear conflict, several European countries with unstable or no democracy and the Soviet Union / USA representing two extremes... What have happened since? Feminism, gay rights, the student revolt and flower power movements changing our views on cultural freedom, soviet gone (even though not forgotten) and the latest generation living in rampart materialism, but schooled into seeing democracy as unquestionable. Not mentioning that internet made it impossible to keep up the appearance of one view as flawless and changed the way cultures interact with eachother.

Right -- and since the Soviet Union collapsed, neo-liberalism, or market fundamentalism, became the unassailable ideology, until the current global economic crisis anyway. I would suspect that "ecologism" will be the next in line; the circumstances are ripe for it.

JemyM

July 28th, 2008, 18:30

I go back to my previous statement. You can ridicule the Catholic church left, right and center - and it is done all over the place from articles to cartoons to whatever. There is no respect given. Not saying there should be, just pointing it out.
You touch Islam, and you get death threats. People don't like getting shot at or blown up, so they treat it with care.
Personally I think that race and gender get treated more 'special' than most religion.

Actually, the way the Catholic church is treated is different based on their amount of cultural power. I am sitting on PDA now. If I did'nt I would post some examples. PZ Myers received lots of death threats (many called him jew) after he jested about desecrating a communion cracker.

Birth traits shall be met with respect far beyond cultural groups. Women, race, neurological and physical traits out of the norm, sexuality etc. These are traits that shouldnt effect how well a person can enjoy their lives in a moern society. Religion try to be treated and considered like an equal to a race, but they are purely opinions, nothing more. Opinions can change, but you can not do anything about your genetic structure.

JemyM

July 28th, 2008, 18:45

You're probably correct, but why can't people show some respect for the beliefs of others, no matter how wrong they may believe them to be. I don't agree with either Catholicism, or Islam, but I respect the fact that many people do and I don't have the right to attack them for it. There's an old cliche which says if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. I respect people who hold and defend their beliefs; it often takes courage to do so!!

Truth is difficult to silence with words alone. Anything that can survive questioning have components of some value to us humans. The more something is questioned the more such values are polished and optimized, while unquested values become rusty and forget why it was made up in the first place. And just because you hate an opinion does not mean you hate the person.

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 18:49

Opinions can change, but you can not do anything about your genetic structure.

But that's just it -- religions aren't just, or even primarily, opinions. They're identities. Changing your identity is extremely difficult and often traumatic in the best of cases, not unlike disowning your family. In most cases it's not possible to do fully at all: even if you attempt to adopt another identity, people around you will continue to treat you, at least to a degree, as if you retained your old one. (I've seen plenty of examples of this, in cultures as different as Finland and Lebanon.)

In other words, when you're attacking a religion, you're attacking an individual's identity. That's not particularly productive, since it'll simply cause the individual to reflexively defend his identity, with no consideration for your arguments. It's also not very nice.

Challenging idiocies perpetrated in the name of religion is a completely different matter, and possible to do in a way that'll only offend people who deserve to be offended.

JemyM

July 28th, 2008, 19:10

But that's just it -- religions aren't just, or even primarily, opinions. They're identities. Changing your identity is extremely difficult and often traumatic in the best of cases, not unlike disowning your family. In most cases it's not possible to do fully at all: even if you attempt to adopt another identity, people around you will continue to treat you, at least to a degree, as if you retained your old one. (I've seen plenty of examples of this, in cultures as different as Finland and Lebanon.)

In other words, when you're attacking a religion, you're attacking an individual's identity. That's not particularly productive, since it'll simply cause the individual to reflexively defend his identity, with no consideration for your arguments. It's also not very nice.

Challenging idiocies perpetrated in the name of religion is a completely different matter, and possible to do in a way that'll only offend people who deserve to be offended.

We aren't challenging group identities to be nice. We do it because they can get lethally dangerous, both to the individual and others. There are several strong group identities that work like the ones you speak of that shouldn't be respected at all, and aren't. Most sects and cults live on building on such identities. Criminal groups and gangs too. Political radicals as well. Mao's china. Hitler's germany. Communism. Racism and nationalism too. Many promote the idea that their members are a "family", because we are genetically pushed into protecting our family giving up our lives if need be. This instinct needs a little reprogramming to support an agenda instead. And if you question you are a betrayer, spitting on the hands that feeds you. Our culture now try to push the idea of individualism, freedom and democracy to avoid these tribal instincts.

We cannot allow groups that robs individuals own identity to carry on, just because it hurts their feelings to try to stop abuse. All that leads to is that they will in turn indoctrinate the children and preserve the mental chains for yet another generation.

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 19:13

We aren't challenging group identities to be nice. We do it because they can get lethally dangerous, both to the individual and others. There are several strong identities that work like the ones you speak of that shouldn't be respected at all, and aren't. Most sects and cults live on building on such identities. Criminal groups and gangs too. Political radicals as well. Mao's china. Hitler's germany. Communism. Racism and nationalism too. Many promote the idea that their members are a "family", because we are genetically pushed into protecting our kind, giving up our lives if need be. And if you question you are a betrayer, spitting on the hands that feeds you. Our culture now try to push the idea of individualism, freedom and democracy to avoid these tribal instincts.

I agree 100%.

Now, what's the connection with Christianity again?

txa1265

July 28th, 2008, 19:26

Now, what's the connection with Christianity again?

I believe he would point to the recent rise of the 'Christian Conservative' block in American politics as one such dangerous trend ...

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 19:33

I believe he would point to the recent rise of the 'Christian Conservative' block in American politics as one such dangerous trend ...

Which falls squarely under the "idiocies perpetrated under the name of religion" heading.

What I'm taking issue with is JemyM's propensity to tar everyone with the same brush. Fanaticism is agnostic, and most people, regardless of their identity, are not fanatics. Conflating religious identity or belief with fanaticism or totalitarianism is both incorrect and counterproductive; in fact, IMO it's not too far off the mark to call that conflation, in and of itself, fanatical or totalitarian.

JemyM

July 28th, 2008, 19:45

I agree 100%.
Now, what's the connection with Christianity again?

All the components for downscaling your identity and rewriting your family is in the bible as well as common psalms, songs and rituals. Christianity uses familynames. They call eachother family, brothers and sisters. God is father. The communion ritual binds their blood and flesh. Many prayers are about them being nothing without Jesus. Last time I visited the largest official church in our city there was a whole load of songs about being saved, feeling warmth in the masters shadow, feeling alive when Jesus is near etc. The idea of original sin is to show that the individual is naturally broken and can only be healed or whole with Jesus. Asking for forgiveness is a really important thing, as well as accepting you were born a sinner. Love is used as a way to increase the bond. Believing in your self is not something which is promoted in church. You are frequently asked to try to love Jesus. Many Christians therefore feels hurt if their master is questioned.

If that is not enough, the passages for rejecting your family is in the bible, there for any sect to exploit.

Analysing the bible, faith and the purpose of different practices by using social psychology makes you see the elements of breaking down the individuals capacity of breaking free after being conditioned.

dteowner

July 28th, 2008, 19:50

I agree 100%.

Now, what's the connection with Christianity again?He has claimed several times that religion is just another dangerous form of tribalism that doesn't like to be questioned. The response so far is that he's a caustic with a vendetta and his questions about inconsistencies were largely pointless.

txa1265

July 28th, 2008, 19:51

Which falls squarely under the "idiocies perpetrated under the name of religion" heading.

Ah - I get my misunderstanding. Thanks!

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 19:58

He has claimed several times that religion is just another dangerous form of tribalism that doesn't like to be questioned. The response so far is that he's a caustic with a vendetta and his questions about inconsistencies were largely pointless.

Yup, I read the thread.

IMO he's making a couple of serious mistakes here, though.

(1) He's conflating all religion with the dangerously tribal variant of religion. Since the huge majority of religious people are not dangerously tribal, this is obviously fallacious -- and also counterproductive, since it distracts attention from the real problem, viz. dangerous tribalism.

(2) He's asserting that religion is a form of dangerous tribalism (i.e., non-rational, identity-based). However, he's choosing to attack it through argument (pointing out inconsistencies in doctrine professed by some unspecified adherents of one particular religion). If his first premise is true, i.e. that religion is non-rational, identity-based, and tribal in nature, then what possible good can it do to attempt to challenge it with reason and argument?

IOW, he *does* come across as someone with a chip on his shoulder the size of Noah's Ark -- as well as being intellectually sloppy, since the underlying premises of his argument are a fallacious generalization and a logical contradiction. That doesn't really make it possible to have a productive debate with him.

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 20:02

Analysing the bible, faith and the purpose of different practices by using social psychology makes you see the elements of breaking down the individuals capacity of breaking free after being conditioned.

I'm quite aware that there are Christian groups that function like that. Hell, I know some people who are in them now, or have managed to break free of them.

But I also know Objectivists, Communists, neo-liberals, and animal rights activists who function the same way.

IOW, the pattern you're objecting to has nothing much to do with religion per se; OTOH it has everything to do with human social psychology. You're totally barking up the wrong tree by taking "religion" or "Christianity" to task for it.

Fanaticism is the problem. The ideology is incidental. And you, JemyM, are quacking and walking an awful lot like the fanatic you're ostensibly attacking.

txa1265

July 28th, 2008, 20:19

But I also know Objectivists, Communists, neo-liberals, and animal rights activists who function the same way.

Very true - my wife an I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper based on some recent stuff we'd been hearing regarding environmental policy and education (I'm sure the neighbors thought 'aw great, now those liberals from Massachusetts are gonna stir things up!').

Anyway, the online comments section lit up pretty well, but it could best be described as looking like a turn-based combat battle with archers on either side of an entrenchment firing back and forth with no regard for anything else going on. Each side had its' own read of exactly what we were saying and most obviously never read the actual letter! It was quite a commentary on human nature ...

JemyM

July 28th, 2008, 20:58

(1) He's conflating all religion with the dangerously tribal variant of religion. Since the huge majority of religious people are not dangerously tribal, this is obviously fallacious -- and also counterproductive, since it distracts attention from the real problem, viz. dangerous tribalism.

Your mistake, like so many others, is the failure to understand that tribalism is the natural core in human psychology. It's unatural to not feel strong relationship with the tribe. Saying tribalism is the problem is stating that human beings are the problem.

Free democracies and human rights are the longest standing core values that managed to keep people from following their natural impulse of trying to defeat rather than accept eachother. Still, even the pacifist nations can see coordinated physical attacks on weaker specimens in every schoolyard. Radical views and finding identity is a natural behavior in every healthy teenager. It's also a natural part of isolated groups, which is possible to keep even in large cities.

Both the quaran and the bible rubs these natural instincts in the wrong way. Tribalism in adults is not the result of "wrong" religion, but the failure to inject values such as freedom and democracy before the individual understood that such values are incompatible with their scripture.
At best a "tamed" version can be taught directly to children, that try to reinterpret scripture by using another ideology as core, such as teching humanism with Christian passages.

(2) He's asserting that religion is a form of dangerous tribalism (i.e., non-rational, identity-based). However, he's choosing to attack it through argument (pointing out inconsistencies in doctrine professed by some unspecified adherents of one particular religion). If his first premise is true, i.e. that religion is non-rational, identity-based, and tribal in nature, then what possible good can it do to attempt to challenge it with reason and argument?

Reasoning is done to fence sitters.

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 21:34

Your mistake, like so many others, is the failure to understand that tribalism is the natural core in human psychology. It's unatural to not feel strong relationship with the tribe. Saying tribalism is the problem is stating that human beings are the problem.

Which is precisely why I'm not saying it. *Dangerous* tribalism is the problem. I maintain that religion as such is no more dangerous than any other type of tribalism. I take issue with you precisely because you conflate all religion with all forms of dangerous tribalism, whereas there are plenty of examples of dangerous non-religious tribalism, and non-dangerous religious tribalism.

Both the quaran and the bible rubs these natural instincts in the wrong way. Tribalism in adults is not the result of "wrong" religion, but the failure to inject values such as freedom and democracy before the individual understood that such values are incompatible with their scripture.

Hm. I thought you just said that tribalism is fundamental to the human experience, and as such not a problem. AFAICT now you're claiming that tribalism *is* the problem -- "a result of ... the failure to inject values such as freedom and democracy." Which is it, a problem or not a problem? You can't have it both ways.

As an aside, why do you keep spelling it "quaran?" That's just incorrect; as if I spelled Sweden "souden." It's Qur'an (or Koran, or Coran, if you prefer the less accurate but less "foreign" transliterations). And it's capitalized because it's a proper noun.

Prime Junta

July 28th, 2008, 21:36

Reasoning is done to fence sitters.

That sounds like you're preaching, not trying to have a discussion or even a debate. Again, behavior befitting a fanatic.

dteowner

July 28th, 2008, 22:23

Naked Ninja

July 28th, 2008, 22:33

I would refer you to posts 106 and 107 in this thread, which as far as I can tell, have gone "sans response". Just because you don't like the presentation doesn't invalidate the line of inquiry.

I'm rather curious what makes you think you have a right to demand answers of people you've been rude to? No seriously. Not intending that as an insult. Why do you think you can call me a tribal, weak minded idiot, slave to the "opiate of the masses", then demand an answer? In this part of the world, when someone attacks you verbally, they kind of lose the right to demand you answer the questions they asked you, since answering questions is a courtesy, not a right. This is why any real discussion generally takes place under the auspices of mutual respect and politeness, to ensure an even keel.

Secondly, like I said, I have learned when someone is really seeking to understand and discuss and when someone is simply attempting to fire attacks. In the second case you can't really expect any kind of actual attempt to understand your viewpoint when you respond, so there really isn't any point. It's just wasting your breath.

Instead I'll just point out the silliness and hypocrisy I'm seeing, because, while it is probably just as big a waste of time, it is somewhat more personally satisfying. A purely human reasoning, for sure. :D

@ Jemy :

There are no cultural pressure on having to respect such opinions, nor are there any strong reaction when one critizise them harshly.

Really? So if you were to walk up to some communist, or even a meeting of communists, and say the only reason that they think the way they do is because they are ignorant, un-thinking tribal drones who aren't as enlightened as people who think the way you, Jemy, do, you wouldn't get a reaction? Good luck walking out of there without a black eye or two! ;)

Or what about calling someone's mother a whore? Why can't I do that? Surely there shouldn't be any cultural pressure not to do that, because hey, it could be true, and if someones mother can't stand up to that criticism, well, they're not worth having emotional ties to, right?

Except people have strong emotional ties to their mothers, it's part of their identity, and calling them names is a guaranteed way to get someone's back up. Which is why we respect people's religion, in the same way we respect people's mothers, because they have strong emotional bonds to them and taking potshots is going to piss them off. You respect someone's culture, religion, family, gender, race, everything that has a strong meaning to them. Or be prepared for a less than warm reaction.

But you're more talking about political respect, aren't you? Well, I wonder, did you bother to ask any of the Christians in this thread whether they thought mixing politics and religion was a good idea? I may have missed it, but I don't think you did. I think you just assumed if you're Christian then you'd automatically fall into the "yay, Christian political party!" category?

But I don't think it's a good idea. I think mixing the two is a horrible idea. If you were interested in discussion instead of merely ranting you might have asked, might have actually discussed it. But, in your blindness, you just classify any Christian as "the enemy" and launch constant attacks. Amazingly ironic btw, you have become what you wish to fight. It's so VERY "us vs them" of you. :)

My initial comment was meant to shake the common cultural illusions we are too familiar with to see through.

No, you were "poisoning the well".

t's impossible for me to discuss any radical Utopian ideology without treating it's followers as puppets to tribal instinct and then judge them by the victims of their ideas, whoever/whatever they are.

@ dteowner : It's always wonderful to have a "civilized" conversation with someone who considers you a "puppet of tribal instinct", lol.

I have actually dedicated my life to studies which connects to this topic.

Proof required. List your profession, history and credentials. Year by year.

It's relevant since it ruins your point that the more radical are so because of their past.

So the 5 most famous atheists are famous for how radical they are? Not, like learned, eloquent and reasonable? Pity. Why is it always the ones who shout the loudest who get the most airtime, can someone tell me that?

It promotes strong symbolism, a willing to die for it's cause, runs in families and even consider others in the movement "family".

Oh no, heaven forbid I consider others part of my "family", the negative connotations abound there! Certainly, considering another Christian my brother means we are all about to oppress women and jews, any moment now!

You do realize the negative or positive connotations of "family" are dependent on the families make-up right? A mafia crime "family" is bad, your cousins who come down to visit you for the summer, not so much. A family full of good people is a strong, positive support network for the people within it, one full of bad people is bad news to all around. But it is the people, not their basic form of organization, that is good or bad. It's not the structure, it's the people who make it up.

Also, promotes symbolism? In this world of advertising media branding? Wooohooo. Can you tell me what the nike symbol is? Or Nike's motto? I bet you can...

They downscale human qualities in non followers by suggesting they have no sense of morals etc. Feel free to support your statements rather than throwing accusations.

Oh, that is easy to support. Browse back through this thread. Look for Christians stating that atheists have no/incorrect morals or intellectual sensability. I haven't seen it once. But the number of instances of you, Jemy, throwing such denigrations keeps growing the more you post.

Also, point out one instance where I, personally, said atheists have no sense of morality. If you can't find it you have simply gone ahead and classified me based on my religion instead of my individual personality, an act of bias, similar to making an assumption about the qualities or mindset of a person based on their race or gender. You have made me into "they". You have done exactly what you profess to hate, turned this into an "us vs them" thing. Tsk tsk.

Religion is now the only case in which do not promote such safety mechanisms. It also the place that children can be divided into mini subcultures which helps to inspire "we and them" thinking, at the time which being exposed to diversity is so important.

"Religion is the place where children can be divided into mini-subcultures which helps inspire "we and them" thinking"...wait, you think religion is the only or main source of that? Have you ever seen a goth, or emo, or punk? People break into us vs them over choice of music, ffs, and for children these days that's often more important to them than religion. You seriously have this naive view that religion is the last bastion left of us vs them mentality? Oh my, no matey, not even close.

By not being aware of the bibles word on women, they are just innocent drones of spreading the virus.

Drones huh? Just mindlessly following along, unquestioning, yeah, that's us all right. Thanks Jemy, your patronizing tone never gets old. Since all Christians are unquestioning drones, that must be why every Catholic blindly follows the "no contraceptives" thing. Except every Catholic I know ignores that, including my girlfriend, heh, lucky me. Must be just a fluke though, a glitch, since drones don't usually think.

What was it you said, by the way. Ah, that's it :

They downscale human qualities in non followers

"Downscale human qualities". What exactly do you classify calling Christians "drones" then? Downscaling human qualities indeed.

Who are a liberal Christian who try to suddenly object to the "words of God" when someone in their community starts to promote a more literal view of the book that the Christian already recognizes as THE "moral guide".

Because, of course, logical, rational discourse amoungst Christians is impossible, we'll all just blindly follow a few lines from the bible. How could we ever counter the bible thumpers?....except "liberal Christianity", as you call it, only got away from the bad old ways because a fair number of Christians rejected them, fought to redefine the church, embraced new ideas and challenged old practices. Get a grip guy, it's already been done. Most of us have moved on from the "they question the faith, burn them!!!" mindset of the past.

9/11 was the wake up call that made me begin analyse religion like any political ideology. My current standpoint came out of a very long process that begun back then, not directly because of it.

Except you went horribly wrong right from the start by considering it a political ideology. It isn't. But some people have turned the organised structures built around it into political institutions, to serve their own ends, sure. I think it's a bad idea too. Maybe if you'd discussed that instead of attacking right from the start we could be having an amiable discussion, seeing eye-to-eye on many points, right now.

How you believe you'll solve the "us vs them" mentality by attacking anyone who isn't like you in their mindset, I really don't know.

txa1265

July 28th, 2008, 22:37

So how would one judge what is "dangerous" and what is not,
Of course, the simplistic way is to ask - if I commit a 'sin' against your religion, your response it to:
- Pray for me
- Write a tersely worded letter
- Blow my frickin' head off and hunt down anyone related to me

:D

dteowner

July 28th, 2008, 23:12

Didn't we have a bible quote earlier to the effect that non-believers will burn eternally, a fate worse than death? This is the sort of thing I'm getting at, Mike. We've got folks going "RTFM", except you can't take some things literally and it's only natural to get minor variations from witness to witness and version 2.0 (NT) supercedes version 1.0 (OT) on most things and don't forget that version 3.0 (Qaran) is a bigger load of crap than Windows Vista and and and...

Pretty soon, it gets pretty easy to think it's all a big population control scam, or that it's no more valid than the Cosmic Purple Spaghetti Monster. Neither of those approaches is going to be overly endearing, and pretty soon you get folks getting all holier-than-thou because you have the temerity and poor manners to actually ask questions in the first place.

This is before we even touch on "abuses" of the system. Even concentrating on the "as advertised" aspects, you've got a real mash-up. Start bringing in "as delivered", and you can't even tell which way is up.

zahratustra

July 29th, 2008, 06:44

Well I asked questions without "being rude" NN but haven't got any aswers so far neither....

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 08:04

So how would one judge what is "dangerous" and what is not, particularly when most of them have some sort of "my right way or the express elevator to the overheated basement" tenet? Perhaps a good way to get a feel for who's got it right and who's got it wrong and who's gone completely nutjob would be to study inconsistencies in their teachings. That might make for some good questions, and maybe even some better answers. Sounds like a valuable post(s), doncha think?

Nah. Been there, done that, gotten into the arguments. It doesn't lead anywhere, since you're attacking something that's fundamentally emotional and irrational (an identity) with rational argument. You're trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

I think good ol' J.C. had a pretty good idea about an alternative approach, actually: "You shall know a tree by its fruit." Never mind what a tribe believes; judge it by its actions.

What's more, you're barking up the wrong tree -- Christianity or Islam, for example, aren't a single tribe; they're huge agglomerations of tribes. By far the majority of these tribes are perfectly benign. If you want to do something about the dangerous ones, you should first identify them, and only then attack them. Sorta like the war on terror, come to think of it -- you're not going to win it by walking into a mosque at random and starting to shoot. You're going to have to figure out which ones are the dangerous tribes, then work to isolate, contain, and if possible, liquidate them.

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 08:38

Which is precisely why I'm not saying it. *Dangerous* tribalism is the problem. I maintain that religion as such is no more dangerous than any other type of tribalism. I take issue with you precisely because you conflate all religion with all forms of dangerous tribalism, whereas there are plenty of examples of dangerous non-religious tribalism, and non-dangerous religious tribalism.

The bible and the Qu'ran are guidebooks or manifests for exclusive tribalism. Christianity and Islam are no more dangerous than other movements with an exclusive agenda. It just happen to be the only one that society have no safeguards against. Everyone with a normal education knows the effect of rampart communism and nationalism and treat them with instant suspicion. A person can be fired for being a racist. They cannot however, be rejected a job for having a religious view, no matter how extreme or unfit those views are, not even if it puts them into direct power over the people they discriminate against. They can in sometimes not even be fired if they discriminate on their jobs due to "religious beliefs".

The other tribes manifests are not found in every hotel drawer. They do not get time on national television. They do not get money from the government. The others rarely get elected into politics. You do not display it's most radical form in public and get away with it.

Hm. I thought you just said that tribalism is fundamental to the human experience, and as such not a problem. AFAICT now you're claiming that tribalism *is* the problem -- "a result of ... the failure to inject values such as freedom and democracy." Which is it, a problem or not a problem? You can't have it both ways.

Yeah, I have to ponder my use of words. What I meant was that these natural instincts become a problem unless trained away.

That sounds like you're preaching, not trying to have a discussion or even a debate. Again, behavior befitting a fanatic.

That would mean every politician are fanatics.

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 09:13

The bible and the Qu'ran are guidebooks or manifests for exclusive tribalism.

Is that all they are? Then how come most Christians and Muslims practice their religion in a way that has no trouble accommodating those of other faiths? Are they bad Christians or bad Muslims?

Christianity and Islam are no more dangerous than other movements with an exclusive agenda. It just happen to be the only one that society have no safeguards against.

Oh come on! Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental building-blocks of Enlightenment-based societies. That is *precisely* the safeguard you're looking for, and an extremely strong one too. The USA is the most religious such society, yet even there freedom of religion is not seriously under threat.

What that means in practice is that it's forbidden to discriminate against an individual because of religion, or lack thereof. That means that the boss in your example is liable to being sanctioned, just as if he was discriminating against someone on the basis of race.

By the way, if your program is to "train away" the tribal instinct in humanity, you're just as utopian as the good folks who set out to create Homo Sovieticus, free of greed, duplicity, and pursuit of self-interest.

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 11:37

After this post I take a break. It have taken me 4 hours to compose and post this message on PDA.

Really? So if you were to walk up to some communist, or even a meeting of communists, and say the only reason that they think the way they do is because they are ignorant, un-thinking tribal drones who aren't as enlightened as people who think the way you, Jemy, do, you wouldn't get a reaction? Good luck walking out of there without a black eye or two! ;)

You jest. The difference between verbal critizism of Religion in public compared to verbal critizism of communism cannot be compared. In the first case you can expect deaththreats, being reported to authority/law, people pulling strings to get you fired, getting a huge fine etc. The second can at best inspire a defensive letter that say you are wrong. I have plenty of examples of extreme reactions from religious people, some leading to trial and even getting compensated. But cannot remember a single complaint when a paper, tv or radio pulled anti-communist content/documentaries to not hurt/offend, nor leading to trial. Not to mention the possibility to break discrimination laws and escape trial for being member of a religion. No political ideology have that escapecard.

Or what about calling someone's mother a whore? Why can't I do that? Surely there shouldn't be any cultural pressure not to do that, because hey, it could be true, and if someones mother can't stand up to that criticism, well, they're not worth having emotional ties to, right? Except people have strong emotional ties to their mothers, it's part of their identity, and calling them names is a guaranteed way to get someone's back up.

I do not see how attacking a mother is equal to attacking an ideology that oppress/discriminate and threaten democracy/freedom/science.

Which is why we respect people's religion, in the same way we respect people's mothers, because they have strong emotional bonds to them and taking potshots is going to piss them off. You respect someone's culture, religion, family, gender, race, everything that has a strong meaning to them. Or be prepared for a less than warm reaction.

Which is dangerous due to the political content of the books. The stronger they feel for them the more dangerous they get. Like I said, I have no reason to question things that aren't dangeros, hurt and discriminate. Respecting religion and gender is a moment 22. You can as well ignore the first if you respect the second, and the first consists of 50% of the world population and cannot change who they are.

But you're more talking about political respect, aren't you? Well, I wonder, did you bother to ask any of the Christians in this thread whether they thought mixing politics and religion was a good idea? I may have missed it, but I don't think you did. I think you just assumed if you're Christian then you'd automatically fall into the "yay, Christian political party!" category?

We are discussing beliefs here, so have not had reason to. Their votes play little role though, considering it's the bible, not their opinion, that contains the political manifesto.

Proof required. List your profession, history and credentials. Year by year.

Now you are unfair. You do not need to be able to read to dedicate your life to Christianity, so why would I need credentials to have dedicated my life to know the past? I am an active student with a large library. I read books that most wouldn't consider opening on my spare time, when taking a break from studies. My interests include culture, psychology, politics, the history of ideas and aim at a career in those or related disciplines.

So the 5 most famous atheists are famous for how radical they are? Not, like learned, eloquent and reasonable? Pity. Why is it always the ones who shout the loudest who get the most airtime, can someone tell me that?

They got the same reaction that I do. You only need to make satire and then you are labeled hostile and radical. People react to critizism of religion differently. I think it is that they know they have little to support their position, but they do not wish that to be made more obvious. We usually add more emotion when we feel insecure about our position.

Oh no, heaven forbid I consider others part of my "family", the negative connotations abound there! Certainly, considering another Christian my brother means we are all about to oppress women and jews, any moment now!

I thought you knew how psychology works.

Also, promotes symbolism? In this world of advertising media branding? Wooohooo. Can you tell me what the nike symbol is? Or Nike's motto? I bet you can...

No one have cried "hate crime" when someone made satire of those symbols, nor do they worship them ritually at least once per week.

Oh, that is easy to support. Browse back through this thread. Look for Christians stating that atheists have no/incorrect morals or intellectual sensability. I haven't seen it once. But the number of instances of you, Jemy, throwing such denigrations keeps growing the more you post.

I have encountered that accusation in many places.

As a sidenote, I do not use words like "stupid", "unintelligent" or "idiot" in my vocabulary. Either you know something or you don't. Noone can know everything, but they can be told to stop trying to learn more.

"Bad morals is in the bible". That is not an insult, but a statement that is a topic in itself. It's a call for defending the position that it's not. If "you have offended my beliefs" is the only reply, the defense failed. If one spread the bible or supports it, it should be ok to analysing how good it is without "you are insulting me" cards.

Also, point out one instance where I, personally, said atheists have no sense of morality. If you can't find it you have simply gone ahead and classified me based on my religion instead of my individual personality, an act of bias, similar to making an assumption about the qualities or mindset of a person based on their race or gender. You have made me into "they". You have done exactly what you profess to hate, turned this into an "us vs them" thing. Tsk tsk.

You keep trying to mirror my accusations but when you use them without caring for my position you sound silly. It should be qute obvious to you that fighting for democracy is the direct opposite of the "we vs them" I oppose. A free democracy hosts all kind of values but demands each representative to push their view with arguments and facts, not demand for respect or threats.

"Religion is the place where children can be divided into mini-subcultures which helps inspire "we and them" thinking"...wait, you think religion is the only or main source of that?

Yes. There are no schools limited to one political agenda. We have had requests for a socialist school and a white race school, but they were not allowed. And you cannot call preschoolers "marxists" or "human secularists", but for some reason you can call them "Christian" or "Muslim" and get away with it.

Have you ever seen a goth, or emo, or punk? People break into us vs them over choice of music, ffs, and for children these days that's often more important to them than religion. You seriously have this naive view that religion is the last bastion left of us vs them mentality? Oh my, no matey, not even close.

Your examples are teenage identity groups. Teenagers picking their own identity is ok, even if become radical in religion or politics. Putting them in seggregated schools or labeling them according to their parents beliefs isn't.

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 13:48

Drones huh? Just mindlessly following along, unquestioning, yeah, that's us all right. Thanks Jemy, your patronizing tone never gets old. Since all Christians are unquestioning drones, that must be why every Catholic blindly follows the "no contraceptives" thing. Except every Catholic I know ignores that, including my girlfriend, heh, lucky me. Must be just a fluke though, a glitch, since drones don't usually think.

Can I call someone who do not take Christianity seriously a Christian because they call themselves Christian? Calling oneself Christian is both a belief and a cultural thing. I object to the religion, the doctrine, the scrpture and those who believe it fully. Not the people who tag along for social comfort and loyalty. Their fault is that they defend the true believers by making them culturally immune.

"Downscale human qualities". What exactly do you classify calling Christians "drones" then? Downscaling human qualities indeed.

Christianity is based on ideas, thoughts, beliefs. Not genetics. You cannot "dehuman" thoughts.

Because, of course, logical, rational discourse amoungst Christians is impossible, we'll all just blindly follow a few lines from the bible. How could we ever counter the bible thumpers?....except "liberal Christianity", as you call it, only got away from the bad old ways because a fair number of Christians rejected them, fought to redefine the church, embraced new ideas and challenged old practices. Get a grip guy, it's already been done. Most of us have moved on from the "they question the faith, burn them!!!" mindset of the past.

The support for that "past" mindset is in the bible, spread in million of copies, pumped out to everything from children to primitive tribes in Africa who do not know our past. "Burn witches" is not removed, you cannot edit the bible like you can upgrade an ideology.
When supported as "good", "moral", "inspired by God" it promotes ancient values to people without a warningsticker. Thus you still hear these values still. You might be immune, due to how you were exposed to the bible, but that's not a rule. The "past" mindset is alive today. I encounter it frequently. Those people are not stupid, evil etc. They just never got to learn the modern values that shield you from the bible. The situation in some areas is now so bad that your version of Christianity is treated as heretic. What room do your "corrupted" version have in an area in which it's commonly accepted that the bible is the foolproof words of God? Your "human" values have no room against a God, nor among people who truly believe.

Except you went horribly wrong right from the start by considering it a political ideology. It isn't.
But some people have turned the organised structures built around it into political institutions, to serve their own ends, sure. I think it's a bad idea too. Maybe if you'd discussed that instead of attacking right from the start we could be having an amiable discussion, seeing eye-to-eye on many points, right now.

It's both ancient social science and contains what it needs to be a politic ideology. The foundation for the structures you speak about is in the bible.

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 15:07

Is that all they are? Then how come most Christians and Muslims practice their religion in a way that has no trouble accommodating those of other faiths? Are they bad Christians or bad Muslims?

They aren't exactly using the same buildings are they? And many want their children in seggregated schools for a reason. A secular democratic state force them to keep the peace. They are not embracing eachother. At best the smart ones upkeep secular values to protect their own religion from another religion.

Oh come on! Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental building-blocks of Enlightenment-based societies. That is *precisely* the safeguard you're looking for, and an extremely strong one too. The USA is the most religious such society, yet even there freedom of religion is not seriously under threat.

Freedom of opinion and speech is the building block.
There are no "freedom of politic ideology", it's self evident that it's covered already. "Freedom of religion" is stating the obvious, like "freedom of liking blue". The existence of the law though grant unique advantages that isn't offered to any other group based on idea/opinion. I have kept myself updated on the juridical and political challenges facing this freedom. The USA situation not as stable as you suggest. Political radical Christianity have taken huge steps forward.

What that means in practice is that it's forbidden to discriminate against an individual because of religion, or lack thereof. That means that the boss in your example is liable to being sanctioned, just as if he was discriminating against someone on the basis of race.

And this is the only way you can demand legal authority to defend wrong behavior. Religions are not race. Their manifests contain vivid suggestions on politics and to limit others freedom. The way "freedom of religion" is now used to legally supress others opinions.

By the way, if your program is to "train away" the tribal instinct in humanity, you're just as utopian as the good folks who set out to create Homo Sovieticus, free of greed, duplicity, and pursuit of self-interest.

Training them away have been practiced since before you were born. If you accept free, secular democracies you are already trained. You did not think we were born with the value of those constructs in our heads? You have been exposed to democracy since childhood and read about the unwanted consequences of ignoring them. Everyone know Hitler as the boogeyman from school, so much that Godwin's law works. We are bombarded with such values in movies, books, television and media. Oppression of freedom is shown as evil. Had you been born 400 years ago you wouldn't even know what democracy and human rights means. There was no school, no library with history books. There was work, church and the king. If civilization ends with a nuclear war tomorrow, a secular free democracy would take several hundred years to establish again, if ever.

So we live in that fragile utopia already. It's not natural, but we have the capacity of keeping values that works, when we continue to teach it to children so they take it for granted. As long as their numbers are greater than the opposition they keep down the rest.

July 29th, 2008, 16:15

They aren't exactly using the same buildings are they? And many want their children in segregated schools for a reason. A secular democratic state force them to keep the peace. They are not embracing each-other. At best the smart ones upkeep secular values to protect their own religion from another religion.

I usually avoid these threads but this one statement made me laugh. You seem to be saying that because different religions have there own schools that they are purposely excluding others. That is a very illogical conclusion. Catholic schools teach catholic doctrine, Lutheran teach Lutheran and so on. But I know for a fact they will admit someone regardless of religion with the understanding that the child will be exposed to the doctrine being taught.

There are separate public bathrooms for boys and girls, but that is not societies attempt at segregation is it? Using your logic it would be.

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 16:19

They aren't exactly using the same buildings are they? And many want their children in seggregated schools for a reason. A secular democratic state force them to keep the peace. They are not embracing eachother. At best the smart ones upkeep secular values to protect their own religion from another religion.

But most don't. They have no trouble living or working with people of other faiths, or putting their children in nondenominational schools, or even schools run by another religion. You're doing them an enormous injustice by lumping them together with the ones that are genuinely causing problems.

Besides, who says they're supposed to "embrace" each other? Isn't it enough if they live and let live?

Freedom of opinion and speech is the building block.
There are no "freedom of politic ideology", it's self evident that it's covered already.

Um, no. That falls under "freedom of association." There's very clear legislation in place that defines political associations, and the rights and responsibilities involved in running or participating in them.

"Freedom of religion" is stating the obvious, like "freedom of liking blue". The existence of the law though grant unique advantages that isn't offered to any other group based on idea/opinion. I have kept myself updated on the juridical and political challenges facing this freedom.

You clearly have some more updating to do, if you believe that "freedom of political ideology" simply follows from freedom of opinion.

The USA situation not as stable as you suggest. Political radical Christianity have taken huge steps forward.

They have, and that development should be opposed. But they're still much further from turning the USA into a theocracy than you appear to believe.

Training them away have been practiced since before you were born. If you accept free, secular democracies you are already trained. You did not think we were born with the value of those constructs in our heads? You have been exposed to democracy since childhood and read about the unwanted consequences of ignoring them. Everyone know Hitler as the boogeyman from school, so much that Godwin's law works. We are bombarded with such values in movies, books, television and media. Oppression of freedom is shown as evil. Had you been born 400 years ago you wouldn't even know what democracy and human rights means. There was no school, no library with history books. There was work, church and the king. If civilization ends with a nuclear war tomorrow, a secular free democracy would take several hundred years to establish again, if ever.

So we live in that fragile utopia already. It's not natural, but we have the capacity of keeping values that works, when we continue to teach it to children so they take it for granted. As long as their numbers are greater than the opposition they keep down the rest.

You know, I'm with you 100% on this score. Which is why it's such a shame that you give advocates of secular democracy such a bad name by frothing at religion the way you're doing. Religion is not incompatible with secular democracy; in fact, secular democracy is the best guarantee of religious rights in a world of massive population movements.

Zaleukos

July 29th, 2008, 16:21

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 18:07

I usually avoid these threads but this one statement made me laugh. You seem to be saying that because different religions have there own schools that they are purposely excluding others. That is a very illogical conclusion. Catholic schools teach catholic doctrine, Lutheran teach Lutheran and so on. But I know for a fact they will admit someone regardless of religion with the understanding that the child will be exposed to the doctrine being taught.

The child is learned that they are separated from other human beings. "We are X, so we go in an X school". This is a religious apartheid. Those years are the most important years to be exposed to the world around you that is filled with diversity, not being separated from the other children of your country because of your parents ideology.

dteowner

July 29th, 2008, 18:20

Is that all they are? Then how come most Christians and Muslims practice their religion in a way that has no trouble accommodating those of other faiths? Are they bad Christians or bad Muslims?I'd say that depends on your definition of "accommodating". By "the books" as they have been presented here over various conversations, the Christians think that the Muslims are going to hell for not embracing Christ and the Muslims are labelling the Christians infidels for not getting right with Allah. I don't think that would fit in my definition of "accommodating".

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 19:11

I'd say that depends on your definition of "accommodating". By "the books" as they have been presented here over various conversations, the Christians think that the Muslims are going to hell for not embracing Christ and the Muslims are labelling the Christians infidels for not getting right with Allah. I don't think that would fit in my definition of "accommodating".

What does it matter what they believe, if they get along with each other just fine in practice? Accommodation means just that -- getting along in practice. And most Christians and Muslims somehow manage that. (AFAIK, most Christians and Muslims don't believe what you claim above, but that's really pretty irrelevant.)

zahratustra

July 29th, 2008, 19:26

What does it matter what they believe, if they get along with each other just fine in practice?
Can't agree more PJ. I don't even mind if my religiously inclined friends (CoE, Catholic and Muslim) GENTLY point out the error of my ways and offer to show me the error of my ways. It just shows concern. I balk only when faced with "repent or else" credo.

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 20:03

But most don't. They have no trouble living or working with people of other faiths, or putting their children in nondenominational schools, or even schools run by another religion. You're doing them an enormous injustice by lumping them together with the ones that are genuinely causing problems.
Besides, who says they're supposed to "embrace" each other? Isn't it enough if they live and let live?

Note this difference, because it's vital to understand my point: Religious people to me are the ones who take their religions seriously. Those who don't do the mistake of covering those who do.

The people you refer to are following cultural comfort and are more agnostic than interested in what the bible actually have to say. They have the "light" version, with the uncomfortable bits cleaned out.
THEIR fault is to treat the books as innocent and then blame people who take them seriously, calling them "wrong". They also identify themselves as they belong to the same group as the ones who do, even if their beliefs, values and opinion have more in common with humanists or those liberal in other religions. Thus they feel challenged when someone who very much agree to their values object to those who do not. They might even support people who have radically different beliefs over those with closer beliefs to them, simply because they picked a different label.

Um, no. That falls under "freedom of association." There's very clear legislation in place that defines political associations, and the rights and responsibilities involved in running or participating in them.
You clearly have some more updating to do, if you believe that "freedom of political ideology" simply follows from freedom of opinion.

Still seems like religion is covered there. Are there any laws against sipping some wine, eating cracker or bowing down towards Mecca? There's nothing in liberal religion that isn't allowed by regular laws.

Freedom of religion covers for stuff that are otherwise illegal for a reason such as gender mutilation on people too young to consent, hallal slaughter, inciting/hatecrimes, discrimination, abuse. It removes all support for escaping sects, or getting therapy from psychological terror. It allow parents to refuse medical treatment to children and keeping them from going to a normal school.

They have, and that development should be opposed. But they're still much further from turning the USA into a theocracy than you appear to believe.

There is a time in which you cannot stop the ball from rolling and we might already reached that point. The extremists are not dumb. Propaganda done properly can slowly change values into the direction you want. They already reached the president seat. The values of people now working in key positions are outright scary. A whole department dedicated to religious propaganda have been established. Have you heard how the army works? Discrimination against non-Christians is not a rarity. Christianity have been propagated through army resources. The situation down south like in Texas is a completely lost cause.

In Europe people like that wouldn't even get near any public office. You do not get that far unless you already changed public opinion.

You know, I'm with you 100% on this score. Which is why it's such a shame that you give advocates of secular democracy such a bad name by frothing at religion the way you're doing. Religion is not incompatible with secular democracy; in fact, secular democracy is the best guarantee of religious rights in a world of massive population movements.

And democracy is best for political opinions. But people who believes strongly about their cause also believe that if they could take control, people could learn to see that they are right. Orthodox religious beliefs are incompatible with a secular democracy. It just happens to be the only movement that cannot be openly challenged due to how religion is treated and must be given respect.

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 20:11

What does it matter what they believe, if they get along with each other just fine in practice? Accommodation means just that -- getting along in practice. And most Christians and Muslims somehow manage that. (AFAIK, most Christians and Muslims don't believe what you claim above, but that's really pretty irrelevant.)

In some areas most of them do. Barrack Obama covered this in a speech on religion. Usually the smaller cities are more eager to push out the ones with wrong faith. I do not believe you follow any site that sort out specific news on religious discrimination. If you do not you miss out the cultural situation in the areas where religion is strong.

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 20:16

In some areas most of them do. Barrack Obama covered this in a speech on religion. Usually the smaller cities are more eager to push out the ones with wrong faith. I do not believe you follow any site that sort out specific news on religious discrimination. If you do not you miss out the cultural situation in the areas where religion is strong.

You are aware that following such sites puts you at extreme risk of confirmation bias?

dteowner

July 29th, 2008, 20:37

What does it matter what they believe, if they get along with each other just fine in practice? Accommodation means just that -- getting along in practice. And most Christians and Muslims somehow manage that. (AFAIK, most Christians and Muslims don't believe what you claim above, but that's really pretty irrelevant.)Then we ought to toss the books in the trash, right? The title of the thread is Christian beliefs and I thought the point of the discussion was to investigate what the religion is all about. Given the plethora of interpretations for all religions, the only way to have any qualitative discussion is to go by the books. If qualitative discussion isn't the point, the thread should have been deleted long ago since it cannot possibly be more than emotional wankery.

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 20:41

You are aware that following such sites puts you at extreme risk of confirmation bias?

Yes ofcourse. I usually click the link to the source instead of reading the article on such sites. I want some kind of official media, tv, paper etc, else I ignore the article. I also ignore blogs. Credibility means much to me.

Pladio

July 29th, 2008, 20:56

dte is right in saying the thread wasn't meant to be a political discussion about religion but about the religion's beliefs.

Such as:
Is the Bible supposed to be read literally ?

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 21:57

Yes ofcourse. I usually click the link to the source instead of reading the article on such sites. I want some kind of official media, tv, paper etc, else I ignore the article. I also ignore blogs. Credibility means much to me.

That's not what confirmation bias means. The thing is that sites with an agenda cherry-pick what they publish: you get all the news that support the sites agenda, and none of the news that don't. Even if every news item is impeccably sourced, you'll get a seriously distorted picture of the whole.

Naked Ninja

July 29th, 2008, 22:01

@ Pladio : The Bible isn't "supposed" to be anything. It's a book written before and after the fact, ie after Jesus' life. He didn't say "hey, guys, the new testament will be out soon in local bookstores, be sure to check it out. Every word is true, have no doubt!" He was born, he preached, he got a following then he was killed. His guidance as to how to conduct one's faith didn't really go into reading material, he simply said "I am the way", as in his teachings and philosophy, the way he lived his life and conducted himself, is the way to an enlightened state of being.

And he often taught in parables. In other words, it wasn't the literal meaning that was the point, it was the "moral of the story" that was what he was preaching.

We really have no way of knowing which parts of the bible might have met his approval, since we haven't got a time machine to ask him. This is why most Christians treat the New Testament as the most important and fundamental, since it contains the most direct records of his actual teachings, ie the things he was supposed to be teaching people as he wondered around. This is considered the most accurate, since it is supposed to have been recorded (although there is no way to know for certain with how much accuracy) by his direct disciples, ie the dudes who were closest to him and followed him around.

This is also why many, many Christians don't take every word in the Bible as part of a unified whole, or even totally accurate. There is a significant shift in style from Jesus teachings in the New Testament from the stuff in the old testament. Eg : he taught us to turn the other cheek and love even our enemies, in the old testament it says eye for an eye, etc. A blatant contradiction.

So yes, many educated Christians, aware that the bible is simply a collection of religious texts gathered together over the years, see Jesus teachings (which is why we're called Christians, we follow Jesus teachings, not the old testament, Jesus first and foremost) as paramount. If some part of the Bible contains contradictions or doesn't seem to really fit with the teachings of Jesus, many of us believe that they must have simply been older records, corrupted by self serving priesthoods or simply made up. Just because someone says they hear voices doesn't mean all Christians automatically assume it's legit and a miracle.

Does this help you understand? And understand why I consider these arguments about Bible contradictions pretty useless? Non-Christians seem to assume Christians are slaves to The Book, that the bible is the thing that is actually divine, so if they prove it has errors they can prove that our belief in it being divine or divinely inspired is incorrect and our faith false. It isn't, its just a collection of fragmented, imperfect, records of what we believe was a visit from God's son. We analyze them, study them, debate them, just as historians do historical documents. (There is a further aspect, as Christians we believe we have a connection to God, that we can feel his guidance and intent. And when you read the Bible this guidance and intent helps you see the message it's trying to deliver, the meaning behind the literal words, in a sense. This is probably going to be the part the atheists latch onto to tear us down, but there you have it. )

And yes, some people don't hold such views, some people just take it all literally and reject any questioning, insulting anyone who doesn't believe. That type of person exists in any philosophy or movement, sadly.

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 22:08

Then we ought to toss the books in the trash, right? The title of the thread is Christian beliefs and I thought the point of the discussion was to investigate what the religion is all about. Given the plethora of interpretations for all religions, the only way to have any qualitative discussion is to go by the books. If qualitative discussion isn't the point, the thread should have been deleted long ago since it cannot possibly be more than emotional wankery.

It can be very interesting to discuss Christian beliefs. However, once you start discussing who's "right," substance goes out the window.

Second, scriptural literalism, in Christianity or other religions, is only one strand among many, and especially in Christianity it's a relatively minor strand. None of the major Christian denominations require Biblical literalism; it's confined to a few fringe groups that emerged during the past century.

IOW, "going by the books" isn't the only way to have any such discussion -- in fact, it's not even a very meaningful way to have such a discussion.

IMO it would be far more interesting to try to untangle some of the myriad strands of Christian thought; for example, Eastern and Western Christianity are very different in some significant respects; Roman Catholicism is very different in some significant respects from Protestantism, and Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Pentecostalism have enormous differences between each other. IOW, it's pretty pointless to lump them all together, since about the only thing they agree on is that the Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of humanity.

So I'd rather have a discussion to compare the piety, beliefs and practices of, say, Russian Orthodox Christians with Pentecostals, than to attempt to define "Christian" = "Biblical Literalist," and then triumphantly smash this strawman by pointing to contradictions in the Bible. Even better if we have an actual Russian Orthodox and a Pentecostal in the house. :)

Naked Ninja

July 29th, 2008, 22:16

@ PJ : I think this thread has "lost the way". The OT wanted some enlightenment about Christian views and mindset to understand his girlfriend. Debating the various traits of the schools of Christianity might interest you and Jemy, as an intellectual exercise, but I don't think it serves the man's purpose. Perhaps if you want to do that start another thread? Hopefully you can take Jemy with you, get him to stop wrenching things off track to serve his agenda.

I started to respond to Jemy, realized the pointlessness, threw away the response I'd written and answered Pladio's question instead, since he genuinely just seems to want to understand the "other side's" viewpoint. :)

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 22:28

Naked Ninja

July 29th, 2008, 22:36

Oh I know, don't worry, I wasn't saying that out of offense. :)

I just sense that this thread has gone way, waaayyyyyy off course from how the OP intended it. And I admit to having a hand there, got far too caught up in defending against Jemys attacks.

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 22:38

To chime in: IMO the biggest difference between Jewish and Christian piety is that the former puts more weight on orthopraxy ("what you do"), whereas the latter, especially the Western form, emphasizes orthodoxy -- "what you believe." The profession of the faith is a centerpiece in Christian liturgy, and it's basically an assertion that you believe a litany of things determined by your church to be of central doctrinal importance.

I Believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell; The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost: The holy Catholic Church; The Communion of Saints: The Forgiveness of sins: The Resurrection of the body: And the Life everlasting. Amen.

Now, I'm not saying that every Catholic actually accepts all of this wholesale; however, it's highly significant that it -- like its variants in other Christian churches -- are present and central in liturgy. To my understanding there's no real equivalent in Jewish liturgy, and the Muslim equivalent -- the shahada -- is pretty minimal: "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is His prophet."

This is a significant qualitative difference, and goes a long way to illustrate the differences in world-view, and the difficulties in communication, that adherents of the three Abrahamic religions often have.

Pladio

July 29th, 2008, 23:03

JemyM

July 29th, 2008, 23:07

Well written, although not as self evident as one is lead to believe. The most obvious problem is pascals wager. The bible is a very suggestive book, it can be really powerful, especially when everyone you know seem to treat it as holy. The bible is quite clear on what happens to those with the wrong view, including the very liberal one you display here. Hell is the boogeyman of all boogeymen, and a strong tool for those who like to control. Academics and atheists just happen to have strong immunity.

Patrick Henry College is a school base their education on a literal interpretation of the bible. They teach that there's a devil and a hell where those who fail to follow the rules will be tormented forever. The goal with the school is biblical law in the US, where for example homosexuality is prohibited.

In most European countries they would be considered silly and unfit any serious position in society. In US they work in the white house. They cooperate with Karl Rove, president advisor. 2 years ago he fired 9 federal judges, replacing them with Bush-supporting ones. He was called to the senate for questioning but refused to go because he was above their control.

The youth group Battle Cry recruits young people to a Christian army. Here again is God the ultimate authority and the bible unquestionable. 2 million have visited their show, 60.000 have acted as missionaries outside US and 7000 have taken their program to be new leaders.

When someone claim to be Christian, how will we know they follow NN version, and not these two examples above?

Prime Junta

July 29th, 2008, 23:15

Except, like blatantninja said in a post a while ago. People follow Paul's letters, which don't follow Jesus' teachings, but Paul's. Also that Jesus wasn't actually preaching to Gentiles, Paul was. If they're not teaching the same thing, aren't Christians supposed to adhere to Jesus' instead of Paul ?

I suspect that many would either say "damn right," or argue that in fact Paul and Jesus are teaching the same thing if you look at it the right way.

But the bigger point is that Christianity is a lot more than the Bible, just like Judaism is a lot more than the Torah. There's a huge body of tradition to draw on -- from Aristotle to St. Thomas Aquinas, Johannes Chrysostom to Soren Kierkegaard. It's enormously diverse; perhaps even more diverse than Judaism, since there are so many more Christians than Jews.

So you can get individual Christians to eplain what they believe and why, and some of those Christians will agree about some things. However, there is no general consensus on which bits of Paul should be interpreted which way: some denominations allow women as priests despite his injunction that women should shut up in church, while others don't. There is no single, accepted way to do Bible exegesis; no single, accepted doctrine. The best you can do is try to find some really rough outlines of specifically Christian piety -- such as faith in Christ as the savior of humankind, the emphasis on orthodoxy over orthopraxy, the significance of baptism, the significance of Holy Communion, and that sort of thing.

Edit: Yep, Aristotle. He was declared a Christian "by nature" by some pope or other way back when, and Aristotelian philosophy is a cornerstone of Catholic teaching even today.

Pladio

July 29th, 2008, 23:15

To chime in: IMO the biggest difference between Jewish and Christian piety is that the former puts more weight on orthopraxy ("what you do"), whereas the latter, especially the Western form, emphasizes orthodoxy -- "what you believe." The profession of the faith is a centerpiece in Christian liturgy, and it's basically an assertion that you believe a litany of things determined by your church to be of central doctrinal importance.

Now, I'm not saying that every Catholic actually accepts all of this wholesale; however, it's highly significant that it -- like its variants in other Christian churches -- are present and central in liturgy. To my understanding there's no real equivalent in Jewish liturgy, and the Muslim equivalent -- the shahada -- is pretty minimal: "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is His prophet."

This is a significant qualitative difference, and goes a long way to illustrate the differences in world-view, and the difficulties in communication, that adherents of the three Abrahamic religions often have.

Jews also hold that everyone can live a good life. Following the 7 Noahide Laws, looks a bit like your Catholic thing. However, these laws are not widely known, not even among Jews. Probably because they are meant for non-Jews.

Pladio

July 29th, 2008, 23:29

I suspect that many would either say "damn right," or argue that in fact Paul and Jesus are teaching the same thing if you look at it the right way.

But the bigger point is that Christianity is a lot more than the Bible, just like Judaism is a lot more than the Torah. There's a huge body of tradition to draw on -- from Aristotle to St. Thomas Aquinas, Johannes Chrysostom to Soren Kierkegaard. It's enormously diverse; perhaps even more diverse than Judaism, since there are so many more Christians than Jews.

So you can get individual Christians to eplain what they believe and why, and some of those Christians will agree about some things. However, there is no general consensus on which bits of Paul should be interpreted which way: some denominations allow women as priests despite his injunction that women should shut up in church, while others don't. There is no single, accepted way to do Bible exegesis; no single, accepted doctrine. The best you can do is try to find some really rough outlines of specifically Christian piety -- such as faith in Christ as the savior of humankind, the emphasis on orthodoxy over orthopraxy, the significance of baptism, the significance of Holy Communion, and that sort of thing.

Edit: Yep, Aristotle. He was declared a Christian "by nature" by some pope or other way back when, and Aristotelian philosophy is a cornerstone of Catholic teaching even today.

Judaism is a lot more than the Torah or Old Testament because of the Talmud, Gmara, Mishna and other such books.
I don't know of any such books in Christianity, but maybe there are some.
Judaism has some of the same problems as Christianity, since a lot of things are not mentioned anywhere, the rules are open for interpretation. Except that the rules for Christians are quite clear, from what I can tell, the problem is that people have to decide who's teachings they want to follow.

By just following Jesus, you need to live a good life, helping others whenever you can, turn your cheek if someone attacks you, love everyone and pray for people who don't believe while you have to believe in Jesus.
If you want to follow Paul too, you have to reject homosexuality and you don't need to keep kosher anymore and maybe some other stuff too.

I don't know if other people have added other laws too.

I'm probably going to buy a Bible with comments in September. I probably will have more questions then...

Naked Ninja

July 29th, 2008, 23:36

@ Jemy : You can't pre-judge people by their religion, any more than you can judge them by their race, creed or gender. That is simple bias, in the same way racism is.

So, to answer your question :

When someone claim to be Christian, how will we know they follow NN version, and not these two examples above?

You judge them by their works, by their words and their actions. Like everyone else. Simple enough.

My grandfather was a minister, he even had a radio spot, he NEVER believed in answering questions or opposing opinions with "just believe or suffer eternal damnation!". Christian's aren't all like that, even the really faithful, active ones, seriously, I'm sorry that your main encounters with Christians have been with that sort.

Judge them by their works. :)

zahratustra

July 29th, 2008, 23:44

Yes, thank you.

Except, like blatantninja said in a post a while ago. People follow Paul's letters, which don't follow Jesus' teachings, but Paul's. Also that Jesus wasn't actually preaching to Gentiles, Paul was. If they're not teaching the same thing, aren't Christians supposed to adhere to Jesus' instead of Paul ?

And that's exactly why I consider Christianity as a "Pauline Heresy". Of course succesfull heresy becomes a mainstream religion but there you are......

Pladio

July 30th, 2008, 01:08

Are you Christian ?

zahratustra

July 30th, 2008, 01:19

Was a Roman Catholic now an atheist.

Corwin

July 30th, 2008, 01:24

So you've never actually been a Christian!! :)

Pladio

July 30th, 2008, 01:34

Was a Roman Catholic now an atheist.

Raised Catholic, or became Catholic ?
How/Why did you stop believing ?

I hope these aren't too personal questions, so if you don't want to answer, I'll understand of course ....

txa1265

July 30th, 2008, 02:10

So you've never actually been a Christian!! :)

And you accuse JemyM of trolling ;)

Prime Junta

July 30th, 2008, 09:43

Judaism is a lot more than the Torah or Old Testament because of the Talmud, Gmara, Mishna and other such books.
I don't know of any such books in Christianity, but maybe there are some.

Most Christian denominations have at least one: the Cathechism. It describes that denomination's dogma. However, while there are commonalities, they aren't identical.

Moreover, there's a huge amount of commentary by a huge number of people, which also form the basis of the faith; again, these are recognized or weighted differently by different churches: St. Augustine's _Confessions_ and St. Thomas's _De Civitate Dei_ are considered pretty important by most major churches, for example, while Martin Luther's Augsburg Confession, _Theses_, _Cathechism_, and _Theology_ are very central to Lutheranism. These are somewhat similar to the Talmud, Gmara, and Mishna in that they're commentary on the Bible and on the faith by respected religious thinkers.

But, as stated, since Christianity is more diverse and more fragmented than Judaism, you can't find a single canon that all share. Even the Bibles are different -- some versions include books not included in others, and the "official" translations differ in significant respects as well. For example, American Biblical literalists hold that the English-language King James translation is the single, correct, divinely inspired one, the Ethiopians use a Bible that contains the book of Enoch not included in other ones, and many Protestant churches regularly revise Bible translations so that the language keeps track of current usage and stays understandable.

Judaism has some of the same problems as Christianity, since a lot of things are not mentioned anywhere, the rules are open for interpretation. Except that the rules for Christians are quite clear, from what I can tell, the problem is that people have to decide who's teachings they want to follow.

There's the rub -- the rules for Christians *aren't* clear; in fact, Christianity is a lot less about rules than Judaism (the orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy thing) -- it's about what you believe. In fact, one of the central debates within Christianity is about salvation. Protestants (in general) hold that salvation is attained purely through faith and the grace of God, whereas Catholics hold that virtuous acts are also needed. (This means less than it sounds like in practice, since these same Protestants also tend to believe that faith in God will automatically make you live a virtuous life.)

So there isn't any religious "law" for Christians to follow, in the same sense as there is for Jews or for Muslims. The place of the law is taken by sacraments -- baptism, confirmation, confession, communion, matrimony, anointing of the sick, holy orders etc. -- which are rituals to undergo, not rules to follow.

Put another way: if you were to ask a Christian what makes her a Christian, she'd probably answer something like "My faith in Jesus Christ as the savior." I suspect your answer to "what makes you a Jew?" would be qualitatively different -- not so much about something you believe; more about belonging to a community and conforming to a certain set of rules in your daily life.

By just following Jesus, you need to live a good life, helping others whenever you can, turn your cheek if someone attacks you, love everyone and pray for people who don't believe while you have to believe in Jesus.

That's more or less it, yeah. Christians also believe that Jesus dropped the requirement to keep kosher. That's what the whole New Testament (Testament = Covenant) thing is about: the Old Testament describes the covenant between God and the people of Israel, which includes Mosaic law and all of its requirements; the New Testament describes the covenant between God and everyone else, which drops those requirements.

If you want to follow Paul too, you have to reject homosexuality and you don't need to keep kosher anymore and maybe some other stuff too.

That's where it gets complicated. What you're actually "supposed" to think about Paul depends a lot on your church and even your movement within that church. Traditional Catholics, for example, are pretty strictly Pauline and consequently reject homosexuality, women as priests, divorce, and so on; more liberal churches (like most European Protestant ones) consider Paul as a secondary source -- commentary on and information about Jesus, but not an inerrant source in and of himself. Consequently you'll find Protestant churches that ordain women and bless homosexual households.

I don't know if other people have added other laws too.

I'm probably going to buy a Bible with comments in September. I probably will have more questions then...

Be aware that there are an enormous number of such Bibles, with an enormous variety of commentaries. The commentary will be in line with the cathechism of whatever church printed it; it won't be representative of what other Christians may or may not think.

I'd also suggest Karen Armstrong's _The History of God_ -- it's the best book I know that outlines the commonalities and differences between the mental landscapes of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. (Be aware, though, that there might be some upsetting things in there, depending on what theological views you hold and how deeply you hold them.)

JemyM

July 30th, 2008, 10:01

Judge them by their works. :)

I judge liberal Christians on their work; upkeeping the value of the unedited bible and promoting Jesus/God as good characters.

Do you know how idols work? If someone is promoted as perfect, it will make each person subconsciously upkeep that illusion based on their own image of what a perfect person is for them. There is a similarity in that regard between a Christian and teenager worshipping a popstar. You are strongly influenced by modern morals, so you subconsciously upkeep an idolised image of a Jesus who match your standards. Then since Jesus was good for you, you tell others that Jesus is good, rather than telling them about your standards. This will make the person you talk to create an idol of Jesus who follow THEIR standards, which might be very different from yours.

So you are helping eachother to support that the biblical characters are good. You might even take every chance to say "God is good" until you believe it.

The problem with this is that neither of God, Paul or Jesus teach waterproof morals by modern standards. Not even if you treat it with awareness that the book could have been corrupted. And when you promote your idolized image you support the bible as a backdoor for values that should be unthinkable by your standards. Furthermore, you are not consciously aware at all times that when you and another Christian announce your support for the character you might have completely different ideas of what that image contains.

In doing this you are, even if you do not know it, assisting morals unthinkable by your standards to feed and grow.

This is what I judge in liberal Christians.

And btw, this is on topic on what Christians believe and explain why it's so difficult to tell what kind of beliefs a Christian have.

We are created by our experiences. The people that we talk to, the books we read etc. What we know and feel act as a lens for new experiences. A liberal "Christian" from Stockholm will have less in common with a Conservative Christian from Texas than a liberal Muslim who lived up in Stockholm, still he will support the other Christan before the muslim.

Christianity get's dangerous when it's the ONLY source, which happens if there are too many strong believers in an area or too few alternatives. Large cities tend to have less problem since diversity there tends to be the norm and if you cannot accept other perspectives you will have problems working.

dteowner

July 30th, 2008, 13:19

Hopefully you can take Jemy with you, get him to stop wrenching things off track to serve his agenda.Your incredible condescension and clear desire to sidestep logical questioning is no less disruptive.

Naked Ninja

July 30th, 2008, 13:40

Well I apologize. Perhaps getting called a brainless tribal virus spreader from the get-go get's a guy heated, who knows?

And I tried to answer Pladio's question clearly and plainly, above, did I not? It's not from a desire to avoid logical questions that I haven't been discussing things. Rather the draw to lock sabers with Jemy because of his constant attacks simply diverts my attention. I'm only human, the urge to defend oneself is natural, is it not?

No one ever said it was easy, to turn the other cheek. ;)

dteowner

July 30th, 2008, 13:51

It can be very interesting to discuss Christian beliefs. However, once you start discussing who's "right," substance goes out the window.

Second, scriptural literalism, in Christianity or other religions, is only one strand among many, and especially in Christianity it's a relatively minor strand. None of the major Christian denominations require Biblical literalism; it's confined to a few fringe groups that emerged during the past century.

IOW, "going by the books" isn't the only way to have any such discussion -- in fact, it's not even a very meaningful way to have such a discussion.

IMO it would be far more interesting to try to untangle some of the myriad strands of Christian thought; for example, Eastern and Western Christianity are very different in some significant respects; Roman Catholicism is very different in some significant respects from Protestantism, and Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Pentecostalism have enormous differences between each other. IOW, it's pretty pointless to lump them all together, since about the only thing they agree on is that the Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of humanity.

So I'd rather have a discussion to compare the piety, beliefs and practices of, say, Russian Orthodox Christians with Pentecostals, than to attempt to define "Christian" = "Biblical Literalist," and then triumphantly smash this strawman by pointing to contradictions in the Bible. Even better if we have an actual Russian Orthodox and a Pentecostal in the house. :)The fact that you have all these different groups proves that each feels that they have it "right" and the other groups have it "wrong". You're saying that there is no real right or wrong, and that each view is equally valid. Let's just set aside for a moment that there would be no need for sects if all views are equally valid. If they aren't equally valid, then it must follow that someone's got it wrong. In the past, you've stated (as have numerous scholars) that Muslim extremists (or abortion clinic bombers, if we want to keep the point non-denominational) do not represent the broader scope of the religion. For that argument to have any merit, it must be possible to show that the extremist view/interpretation is incorrect.

So, to bring the train around, how does one go about demonstrating this improper view? Going "by the book" would seem to be the only qualitative method to demonstrate it. If we go by NN's fluffy "by their actions" criteria, then the entire examination is subjective and as such has little value. Now, if we want to drag "by their actions" as far as we can, you could say that the subjective criteria would be based on the prevailing morality of the majority. Are we really comfortable with the tyranny of the majority? Probably not. So we're back to respecting minority viewpoints because they cannot shown to be incorrect subjectively and we've thrown out the objective "by the book" option.

Sooooo, and I've finally reached the grand finale, if minority viewpoints and their adherents must be respected since we've determined that there's no way to show anything as being incorrect, then I'd say there should be a line forming to offer humble apologies to JemyM for blasting his minority viewpoint (which I hereby title "the church of militant atheism").

Naked Ninja

July 30th, 2008, 14:08

If they aren't equally valid, then it must follow that someone's got it wrong.

You're mistaking the validity of holding a belief with the validity of the belief. Each faith holds a certain view, and each is entitled to do so, even if each faith thinks the other guys have it wrong.

This is the same as politics, where you have different views, different parties. This is the same as economics and science, where there are different, opposing views. All of them can't be right, can they? But, unless you can absolutely prove them wrong (and you can't with religion any more than you can with theoretical physics or even really politics/economics) you can't say it is invalid for a person to hold to that view, anymore than you can say I have no right to belong to a political party just because you don't agree with my parties doctrine. (Unless this party clearly harms others and their rights, like the nazis)

Your mistake is thinking that a religion has to be proved right for it to be legitimate for people to hold to it's tenets. No one is asking you to respect the tenets of the faith yourself, merely to respect the choice that people have made to live by those tenets. In the same way that you don't have to be homosexual to respect another person's right to be homosexual, and they have a right to expect not to be mocked for it.

JemyM's viewpoint doesn't qualify for that respect because his view dictates that other's aren't allowed theirs. From what he says, if he had his way, squads of social workers would be breaking down your door to confiscate any religious materials in your house, like a scene from Equilibrium.

Corwin

July 30th, 2008, 14:26

The difficulty with answering questions in this thread is that they tend to get swamped and lost amidst all the diatribes.The question on literalism is interesting. The Bible is both a literal and non-literal book. Some sections are clearly meant as literal history for example, eg Numbers, while others are just as clearly non-literal, eg Song of Solomon (Songs). The problems arise when a book contains both, eg Daniel or Revelation. Put 5 Christians in a room together and I doubt any of them will agree completely with any other about Revelation. :)

dteowner

July 30th, 2008, 14:39

You're mistaking the validity of holding a belief with the validity of the belief. Each faith holds a certain view, and each is entitled to do so, even if each faith thinks the other guys have it wrong.Each of these belief systems takes the view that their structure is, in fact, the only valid belief. Therefore, it is impossible to seperate your two aspects since the structures themselves demand that the aspects are inseperable ("burn in hell", "infidel", what have you). You can't have it both ways.
But, unless you can absolutely prove them wrong (and you can't with religion any more than you can with theoretical physics or even really politics/economics) you can't say it is invalid for a person to hold to that view, anymore than you can say I have no right to belong to a political party just because you don't agree with my parties doctrine. (Unless this party clearly harms others and their rights, like the nazis)I'd be willing to bet you that for any movement/structure you choose, I could, given a bit of time and research, find a victim of it, and generally a significant number of them. Basing it on "harming others" is subjective, relativist, and pointless. Similarly, since you state that political positions cannot be proven wrong (and you'll have to forgive me a bit of hyperbole here), how can you then turn around and state that the nazis didn't have it right?
Your mistake is thinking that a religion has to be proved right for it to be legitimate for people to hold to it's tenets.If the movements themselves are willing to unequivically state that they are right ("I am the way"), how can you then deny me the opportunity to question it by questioning the adherents, whom, I would have to assume, must know more about it than me or else they couldn't accept it either.
JemyM's viewpoint doesn't qualify for that respect because his view dictates that other's aren't allowed theirs.As opposed to the repeatedly stated, "burn in hell" and "infidel"? Sounds pretty exclusionary to me.
From what he says, if he had his way, squads of social workers would be breaking down your door to confiscate any religious materials in your house, like a scene from Equilibrium.As opposed to squads of zealots knocking on my door, asking if I've accepted Christ?

Pladio

July 30th, 2008, 15:02

Judge them by their works. :)

But then is Christianity based on orthodoxy or orthopraxy as PJ states ?

Put another way: if you were to ask a Christian what makes her a Christian, she'd probably answer something like "My faith in Jesus Christ as the savior." I suspect your answer to "what makes you a Jew?" would be qualitatively different -- not so much about something you believe; more about belonging to a community and conforming to a certain set of rules in your daily life.

Judaism has become as much of an ethnicity as a religion by now. I know a lot of people who say they're Jewish just because of the history (primarily, because of the Holocaust, where even converts were killed because their grandparents were Jewish)...

If someone asked what makes me a Jew I wouldn't even be able to answer the question in a way they'd understand or even consider legitimate...

That's where it gets complicated. What you're actually "supposed" to think about Paul depends a lot on your church and even your movement within that church. Traditional Catholics, for example, are pretty strictly Pauline and consequently reject homosexuality, women as priests, divorce, and so on; more liberal churches (like most European Protestant ones) consider Paul as a secondary source -- commentary on and information about Jesus, but not an inerrant source in and of himself. Consequently you'll find Protestant churches that ordain women and bless homosexual households.

So, except for believing in Jesus, all have different rules and believe in different things...
Aren't Christians confused themselves ? I know this is confusing for me.

The difficulty with answering questions in this thread is that they tend to get swamped and lost amidst all the diatribes.The question on literalism is interesting. The Bible is both a literal and non-literal book. Some sections are clearly meant as literal history for example, eg Numbers, while others are just as clearly non-literal, eg Song of Solomon (Songs). The problems arise when a book contains both, eg Daniel or Revelation. Put 5 Christians in a room together and I doubt any of them will agree completely with any other about Revelation.

How do you know what to take literally then and what not to ?
Why is some stuff to be taken literally and some stuff isn't ?
Who chooses what's to be taken literally and what isn't ?

And, are you back with your source material ? I'm interested in what you think about the things stated before ... (I didn't forget :P)

JemyM

July 30th, 2008, 15:03

JemyM for blasting his minority viewpoint (which I hereby title "the church of militant atheism").

Sorry, but hello? "atheitm" is a person who find a single proposition unbelievable; "God".

I draw values from so many sources I lost count. Greek philosophers, political philosophers, disney characters, humanism, Star Wars, Gandhi... Or to say it simple; other humans that said things that made sense to me and my feelings. Everyone works like this. I do not doubt I have several sources to my values similar to NN.

Prime Junta

July 30th, 2008, 15:25

The fact that you have all these different groups proves that each feels that they have it "right" and the other groups have it "wrong". You're saying that there is no real right or wrong, and that each view is equally valid.

Nope. I'm saying that I'm not interested in the validity question. I prefer to treat religious belief and practice more like I treat poetry or music than I treat history or physics. It's pretty pointless to ask whether Johann Sebastian Bach is more valid than B.B. King; I think it's equally pointless to ask whether Evangelical Lutheranism is more valid than Russian Orthodoxy.

Sooooo, and I've finally reached the grand finale, if minority viewpoints and their adherents must be respected since we've determined that there's no way to show anything as being incorrect, then I'd say there should be a line forming to offer humble apologies to JemyM for blasting his minority viewpoint (which I hereby title "the church of militant atheism").

Come on, dte -- surely you can do better than the "If you're so tolerant, how come you don't tolerate intolerance?" non-question.

JemyM

July 30th, 2008, 15:26

JemyM's viewpoint doesn't qualify for that respect because his view dictates that other's aren't allowed theirs. From what he says, if he had his way, squads of social workers would be breaking down your door to confiscate any religious materials in your house, like a scene from Equilibrium.

Lets dissect this.

"Person X is not worth respect because X do not allow other opinions."
"If allowing person X to get in power, he would establish a totalitarian society."

Anyone who followed my posts know how strongly I advocate democracy and freedom, but also the right to defend those values by vocally opposing anti-democratic agendas.

You are trying to distort my perspective, poisoning the well, trashing my image.
I have no interest in book burning, that's against my core values that I already discussed here. I am however for teaching more than is taught today.

In Sweden, every child is taught the basic doctrine, symbols, beliefs and rituals of each of the five world religions. This information is highly corrosive to everyone that tries to establish one of them unique or dehumanise the rest. You do not need to silence someone when simply teaching the truth in school carry your agenda.

Corwin

July 30th, 2008, 15:32

But then is Christianity based on orthodoxy or orthopraxy as PJ states ?

...snip...

So, except for believing in Jesus, all have different rules and believe in different things...
Aren't Christians confused themselves ? I know this is confusing for me.

How do you know what to take literally then and what not to ?
Why is some stuff to be taken literally and some stuff isn't ?
Who chooses what's to be taken literally and what isn't ?

And, are you back with your source material ? I'm interested in what you think about the things stated before ... (I didn't forget :P)

No, I'm not back home till September. Strangely, the last lecture I gave before heading overseas was on this topic of determining what is literal and what is not in the Bible. It's not easy to do and you'll likely get no general agreement with some books, such as Revelation. There are guidelines which many follow such as begin with literal unless to do so would create an obvious contradictory or illogical position. However, doing this is tied in with using several other hermeneutical principles. If even top theologians tend to disagree, what hope for everyone else. For many, you have to trust your local minister or priest. I try to present a fairly logical position as I dislike any extreme position, especially those of the hyper-faith movement. If someone tries to tell you being a Christian will make you rich, or powerful, or attractive to the opposite sex, then run as fast as you can away from them. As has been stated by several people, being a Christian should be about a way of life- being like Christ as much as anything else. If you don't see Christ like qualities in a person, then doubt the authenticity of their claim to be a Christian. As I think PJ said, Look for the Fruit.

Prime Junta

July 30th, 2008, 15:47

Judaism has become as much of an ethnicity as a religion by now. I know a lot of people who say they're Jewish just because of the history (primarily, because of the Holocaust, where even converts were killed because their grandparents were Jewish)...

If someone asked what makes me a Jew I wouldn't even be able to answer the question in a way they'd understand or even consider legitimate...

Perhaps, but if you felt you had to come up with an answer, I would suspect it would include things like your ancestry, the way other Jews treat you, the way gentiles treat you, perhaps something about feeling an obligation to respect certain dietary rules, and that sort of thing. I'd also suspect that it might not include that many things related to belief in or acceptance of specific theological points. That's an important qualitative difference.

I'm not saying that orthodoxy has no place in Judaism or orthopraxy has no place in Christianity; however, I am positing that in Judaism orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy, and in Christianity it's the other way around. As far as I know, there's never been a Jewish hunt for heretics within Judaism, whereas heretic-hunts of all kinds have been central to the history of Christianity. The concept of heresy means that belief, rather than practice, is of central importance.

So, except for believing in Jesus, all have different rules and believe in different things...

Yep-o. Naturally, individual churches, movements, or sects will have larger, more coherent bodies of belief; there will also be commonalities between them -- but it's very hard to find anything much beyond that that *all* Christians would accept.

Aren't Christians confused themselves ? I know this is confusing for me.

Most aren't -- because they're members of some particular Christian community, with some particular, larger, more coherent body of theology. If you're a member of a conservative Catholic community, you will be expected to accept one set of beliefs and conform to one set of practices; if you're a member of a liberal Protestant one, or, say, a charismatic movement like the Pentecostals, you'll have a rather different set of beliefs and practices.

(This, by the way, partly explains why Corwin doesn't consider Catholics Christians at all -- their beliefs and practices are that different from his. Conversely, the Catholic church has a proud history of persecuting dissidents of all kinds as "not Christian" heretics. The history of Christianity is a history of heresies -- the original, small Christian community growing and splitting, often on points of theology that seem completely abstruse. Much blood has been spilled over the question of whether Christ's nature is fully divine, partly divine and partly human, fully divine *and* fully human, or fully human, and whether, on top of that, he has one or two wills -- human or divine. If you're interested, look up "Christology," "monophysitism," "monothelitism," and "dyophysitism." Edit: and "arianism." Belief -- orthodoxy -- again!)

How do you know what to take literally then and what not to ?
Why is some stuff to be taken literally and some stuff isn't ?
Who chooses what's to be taken literally and what isn't ?

I don't believe those questions are specific to Christianity -- they apply to Judaism just as well. Why do the Hasidim have such a different interpretation of Judaism than, say, Baruch Spinoza? Same thing. You absorb some stuff from your community, and figure out the rest by yourself and with the help of religious authorities. Sometimes, of course, you end up actually leaving the community and joining another, or none. That's what happened to me.

JemyM

July 30th, 2008, 15:48

If you don't see Christ like qualities in a person, then doubt the authenticity of their claim to be a Christian. As I think PJ said, Look for the Fruit.

What then is "christ like qualities". How are they different from being a good muslim, good catholic or good secular humanist?

When G.W.B. Quoted Jesus "those not with me are against me", is that a christ like quality?

I actually talked to a imam once who said a similar thing. He said that if something someone says sounds wrong, they are not muslim. I asked him the same question. If showing good human qualities is the norm, why dividing yourselves into subgroups? What made him different from any Christian or good willed atheist? We agreed that believing in Allah was the difference.

dteowner

July 30th, 2008, 16:03

Nope. I'm saying that I'm not interested in the validity question. I prefer to treat religious belief and practice more like I treat poetry or music than I treat history or physics. It's pretty pointless to ask whether Johann Sebastian Bach is more valid than B.B. King; I think it's equally pointless to ask whether Evangelical Lutheranism is more valid than Russian Orthodoxy.There's one very key difference, which goes beyond run-o-the-mill analogy flaws. Being a JSB adherent does not direct you to exclude/shun/damn/convert/kill adherents of BBK. We're talking about groups that claim to have a message of tolerance, love, and inclusion but simply don't. By either measure (as advertised, as delivered), religion is designed to be exclusionary and often violently so. I'm a legend in my own mind, but I can't understand how this hypocrisy in the very foundation is so hard for people to see. Similarly, I don't understand why I'm intolerant or simpleminded for not having the grace to STFU about it.

Prime Junta

July 30th, 2008, 16:22

There's one very key difference, which goes beyond run-o-the-mill analogy flaws. Being a JSB adherent does not direct you to exclude/shun/damn/convert/kill adherents of BBK.

Neither do religions.

And the analogy is better than you might think, if you look at it a bit closer -- while I haven't heard of brawls between aficionados of jazz and baroque music, when I was growing up, there was a quite a lot of actual physical fighting between aficionados of rockabilly and punk rock.

We're talking about groups that claim to have a message of tolerance, love, and inclusion but simply don't. By either measure (as advertised, as delivered), religion is designed to be exclusionary and often violently so.

Yet, as I keep repeating and you keep ignoring, the great majority of religious people manage to get along with each other just fine. Don't you think it'd be more constructive to try to encourage that sort of behavior, rather than to attack religion as a whole and thereby, by default, push the majority into the same camp with the intolerant extremists?

I'm a legend in my own mind, but I can't understand how this hypocrisy in the very foundation is so hard for people to see. Similarly, I don't understand why I'm intolerant or simpleminded for not having the grace to STFU about it.

I've never accused you of being intolerant or simpleminded about this topic. JemyM is the one showing some symptoms in that direction.

Naked Ninja

July 30th, 2008, 16:37

@ dteowner :

You can't have it both ways.

False. Within scientific study it is common to find two or more mutually exclusive theories about some subject, especially as you get to the more esoteric stuff. Since these theories are neither disprovable or provable at this time, all of the theories can exist and be known of by the scientific community. It is not invalid for a scientist to hold to a particular theory on X where his compatriot might hold an opposing view. Likewise, political or economic principles.

Now that is common in science, why do you think it cannot exist in belief systems?

Similarly, since you state that political positions cannot be proven wrong (and you'll have to forgive me a bit of hyperbole here), how can you then turn around and state that the nazis didn't have it right?

Because they infringed on other people's rights, obviously. It's not infringing your rights to say something to you like "you'll burn in hell!", any more than it is infringing your rights to call you a jerk (I'm not btw). Words aren't the same as mass genocide. And of course, any movement will have had people hurt by it's adherants. It's when the express purpose of the movement is to infringe rights that a movement should be banned, like the nazis.

This is a common principle in democracy, you're entitled to your opinions so long as they don't infringe the laws setup to protect the whole.

If the movements themselves are willing to unequivically state that they are right ("I am the way"), how can you then deny me the opportunity to question it by questioning the adherents

The problem is you are stating that either the religion is proven "correct" to your standards or I can't hold it. You can totally question anyone about it. I would fight to protect your right to do that. But you keep wanting me to prove my belief to you in order to justify my right to hold that belief for myself. Why?

As opposed to the repeatedly stated, "burn in hell" and "infidel"? Sounds pretty exclusionary to me.

Does someone saying mean words to you qualify as suppressing your right to be an atheist? Or the validity of your view? I don't believe as you do but I totally support your right to decide for yourself and live with that decision, to raise your kids based on your choice. Has Jemy offered Christians the same courtesy? No. We're a virus to be stamped out, and we must be stopped to save our own children and society in general from our corrupting influence.

As opposed to squads of zealots knocking on my door, asking if I've accepted Christ?

So a squad of zealots knocking on your door and trying to persuade you to buy into something, which you can simply close the door on, is on the same level as someone coming into your house and deciding what you can have there/teach your children ? Come on dude. I know the door to door missionaries are annoying, like salesmen annoying, I find them very annoying as well. But is that really on the same level as deciding for you what you can or cannot believe or teach your children?

Pladio

July 30th, 2008, 16:51

No, I'm not back home till September. Strangely, the last lecture I gave before heading overseas was on this topic of determining what is literal and what is not in the Bible. It's not easy to do and you'll likely get no general agreement with some books, such as Revelation. There are guidelines which many follow such as begin with literal unless to do so would create an obvious contradictory or illogical position. However, doing this is tied in with using several other hermeneutical principles. If even top theologians tend to disagree, what hope for everyone else. For many, you have to trust your local minister or priest. I try to present a fairly logical position as I dislike any extreme position, especially those of the hyper-faith movement. If someone tries to tell you being a Christian will make you rich, or powerful, or attractive to the opposite sex, then run as fast as you can away from them. As has been stated by several people, being a Christian should be about a way of life- being like Christ as much as anything else. If you don't see Christ like qualities in a person, then doubt the authenticity of their claim to be a Christian. As I think PJ said, Look for the Fruit.

So, for you it's both the practice and the belief which is important. The practice being live a good life and do good deeds ... The belief being, believing in God and Christ ... Seems a lot like the Noahide Laws ...
1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

Another question then :

If someone believes in one God and there is only one, doesn't he believe in all monotheistic religions ? Since there is only one God ...

Perhaps, but if you felt you had to come up with an answer, I would suspect it would include things like your ancestry, the way other Jews treat you, the way gentiles treat you, perhaps something about feeling an obligation to respect certain dietary rules, and that sort of thing. I'd also suspect that it might not include that many things related to belief in or acceptance of specific theological points. That's an important qualitative difference.

Except that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are tied together. If you believe in the Bible (Jewish Bible) and you are really orthodox then you're supposed to follow as many of the 613 laws to the best of your ability.

If you don't, then you're just a secular Jew who does whatever he/she wants. For example, my family and I are secular. We celebrate Shabath but we don't do it the same way Orthodox Jews do it. For us it's a weekly family reunion with a few prayers, while for orthodox Jews it's a day of complete rest, not working, no using of electrical appliances, no driving, being together with the family...

I'm not saying that orthodoxy has no place in Judaism or orthopraxy has no place in Christianity; however, I am positing that in Judaism orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy, and in Christianity it's the other way around. As far as I know, there's never been a Jewish hunt for heretics within Judaism, whereas heretic-hunts of all kinds have been central to the history of Christianity. The concept of heresy means that belief, rather than practice, is of central importance.

I don't know of any major events, but I suspect it did happen a few times.

Most aren't -- because they're members of some particular Christian community, with some particular, larger, more coherent body of theology. If you're a member of a conservative Catholic community, you will be expected to accept one set of beliefs and conform to one set of practices; if you're a member of a liberal Protestant one, or, say, a charismatic movement like the Pentecostals, you'll have a rather different set of beliefs and practices.

(This, by the way, partly explains why Corwin doesn't consider Catholics Christians at all -- their beliefs and practices are that different from his. Conversely, the Catholic church has a proud history of persecuting dissidents of all kinds as "not Christian" heretics. The history of Christianity is a history of heresies -- the original, small Christian community growing and splitting, often on points of theology that seem completely abstruse. Much blood has been spilled over the question of whether Christ's nature is fully divine, partly divine and partly human, fully divine *and* fully human, or fully human, and whether, on top of that, he has one or two wills -- human or divine. If you're interested, look up "Christology," "monophysitism," "monothelitism," and "dyophysitism." Edit: and "arianism." Belief -- orthodoxy -- again!)

So, this isn't confusing ?

I don't believe those questions are specific to Christianity -- they apply to Judaism just as well. Why do the Hasidim have such a different interpretation of Judaism than, say, Baruch Spinoza? Same thing. You absorb some stuff from your community, and figure out the rest by yourself and with the help of religious authorities. Sometimes, of course, you end up actually leaving the community and joining another, or none. That's what happened to me.

Philosophers and Theology don't ever agree I think.
I don't think anything in the Jewish Bible is meant literally, according to Jewish theologians. Or it's meant literally and not literally at the same time.

A teacher once told me that don't murder, doesn't just mean that you can't murder someone physically, it also means that you can't psychologically murder anyone neither. As in psychological abuse = murder.
I don't believe you can relate philosophers to the Bible. They'll never have the same idea.

What then is "christ like qualities". How are they different from being a good muslim, good catholic or good secular humanist?

When G.W.B. Quoted Jesus "those not with me are against me", is that a christ like quality?

Same question.

JemyM

July 30th, 2008, 17:18

I've never accused you of being intolerant or simpleminded about this topic. JemyM is the one showing some symptoms in that direction.

You have not yet adressed my objection to liberal religion, that they assist to spread and promote scripture that lay out the foundation for the intolerant kind that is actually better supported by the book. The best argument you have offered is that "most seem to not kill eachother". Do not call me intolerant and simpleminded until you managed to offer a solution to this proposed issue. You have suggested that Christians use other books. I have yet to be given a such book or seen one attached to the bible. No christian I dealt with have offered a "how to read the bible" guide.

You have said Christian cannot take over, but multiple books and articles dealing with the values of very powerful people show that they already have. Someone must have voted them there, in trust.

JemyM

July 30th, 2008, 17:35

Does someone saying mean words to you qualify as suppressing your right to be an atheist? Or the validity of your view? I don't believe as you do but I totally support your right to decide for yourself and live with that decision, to raise your kids based on your choice. Has Jemy offered Christians the same courtesy? No. We're a virus to be stamped out, and we must be stopped to save our own children and society in general from our corrupting influence.

The "you are intolerant if you do not accept intolerance" card, and I sense Goodwin's law coming soon.

No. You are seriously distorting what I said. Wether from paranoia or by sinister manipulation is not yet clear.

Prime Junta

July 30th, 2008, 17:50

If someone believes in one God and there is only one, doesn't he believe in all monotheistic religions ? Since there is only one God ...

That's actually fairly close to the mainstream Muslim position. Muslims also believe that all of them originate from a true, Abrahamic, monotheistic religion, after which Judaism and Christianity diverged; they see Mohammed not as an innovator, but as a restorer of that ancestral faith.

But, of course, each of the monotheistic religions adds stuff on top of simply "there is no god but God." Jews have the Law, Christians have the Christ, and Muslims have Mohammed and the Qur'an.

Except that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are tied together. If you believe in the Bible (Jewish Bible) and you are really orthodox then you're supposed to follow as many of the 613 laws to the best of your ability.

Certainly they are. I never meant to say that orthodoxy was non-existent in Judaism -- it's just that orthopraxy takes precedence, unlike in Christianity, where praxis is less important than doctrine.

If you don't, then you're just a secular Jew who does whatever he/she wants. For example, my family and I are secular. We celebrate Shabath but we don't do it the same way Orthodox Jews do it. For us it's a weekly family reunion with a few prayers, while for orthodox Jews it's a day of complete rest, not working, no using of electrical appliances, no driving, being together with the family...

Exactly -- what distinguishes you from Orthodox Jews is praxis: they do stuff differently than you do. Conversely, what distinguishes a (devout) Catholic from a Protestant is that the former believes that there is no salvation outside the Church, whereas the latter believes that salvation is a matter between each individual Christian and God: a theological distinction rather than a practical one.

I don't know of any major events, but I suspect it did happen a few times.

If you can dig up an example, I'd be very interested to hear of it. Even so, I rest my case -- it's certainly far less frequent than in Christianity, if it ever happened at all.

So, this isn't confusing ?

That depends on your point of view. If you're looking at Christianity from the outside, and especially if you're assuming that it forms one, coherent whole, it's insanely confusing. However, if you actually *are* a Christian, this stuff has been pretty much settled for you by whichever church you belong to. It only gets confusing if you start to question what you've been taught... but that's not peculiar to Christianity either; it's what happens when you start questioning the beliefs and practices you were brought up with, no matter where you started out.

Philosophers and Theology don't ever agree I think.
I don't think anything in the Jewish Bible is meant literally, according to Jewish theologians. Or it's meant literally and not literally at the same time.

In that case your approach would be more or less the same as most Christians' approach to the Bible. There are Jewish scriptural literalists as well, you know -- the Hasidic movement started out that way, for example.

Prime Junta

July 30th, 2008, 17:53

You have not yet adressed my objection to liberal religion, that they assist to spread and promote scripture that lay out the foundation for the intolerant kind that is actually better supported by the book. The best argument you have offered is that "most seem to not kill eachother". Do not call me intolerant and simpleminded until you managed to offer a solution to this proposed issue.

I don't have a solution because in my opinion it's not a problem. It's a non sequitur -- something you made up to justify your hostility to religion, rather than something that's actually derived from observing how the world works. The scripture they spread can certainly be used to promote intolerance, but it can equally well be used to promote tolerance. Just like Karl Marx can be used to promote social justice or violent revolution. You're doing the equivalent of attacking Eric Hobsbawm on the grounds that his Marxist view of history "lays out the foundation" for Stalin's terror state. It's a fallacy, pure and simple.

Prime Junta

July 30th, 2008, 19:07

Another thought to add to the previous: I object to JemyM's stance of conflating all theists with rigid, doctrinaire, and intolerant theists primarily on political grounds (although I also feel it's philosophically and logically untenable).

The reason is that I'm passionately in favor of a secular, democratic, non-religious state -- one that does not give primacy to any individual religion, but instead guarantees freedom of, or from, religion to one and all.

People will not easily give up their religions. JemyM's stance will win over an insignificant number of people to support a secular state, but it will antagonize every believer in every faith, regardless of their rigidity or lack thereof. In other words, it strikes a blow at the very heart of the cause he's attempting to support.

Even in our highly secularized part of the world, the majority of people declare themselves believers. If the secular state is going to survive and thrive, it's going to do so because of, not despite, them. In that, I as a non-believer am exactly in the same boat as any religious minority: I can only live my life as I want to if the same religious freedoms are guaranteed to everyone.

That's why I think it's vitally important to find common cause among the moderate majority of all people, regardless of religion, or lack thereof -- and that's why JemyM's fallacious and unjust generalization gets my hackles up so badly. Perhaps also because I went through a phase much like JemyM's about fifteen-twenty years ago.

And also because it gets my hackles up so badly, I'm going to exercise my prerogative of not continuing to discuss the topic with him. We've made our differences clear; it's unlikely that anything either of us will say will get the other to change their views, so it's better to let it drop.

dteowner

July 30th, 2008, 19:08

@NN- I believe you have misunderstood my intent, perhaps as it has blurred with your possible misunderstanding of JemyM's. I don't have a problem with you or anyone else believing as you see fit up to a point, which is when it starts to affect me. Religion is a lot like masturbation- most people do it because it makes them feel good. And I'm fine with that. OTOH, I don't particularly want to see you do it, be questioned about whether I do it, be told I'm doing it wrong, or have violence because someone wants to do it differently. I get a little creeped out by folks that get overly outgoing about it.

I suppose the root of my participation in this thread (aside from giving JemyM an unrequested and probably unwanted assist while he was getting gang-tackled) is that I'm deeply troubled by the certainty most religious folks have. They claim "knowledge" and act accordingly when all they really have is "faith". It's a strange and dangerous mistake to my eyes, false advertising. Not that I've got a problem with "faith", but it should be acknowledged for what it is and what it is not. Add in the tendency of most to frown on those of us unwilling to make that leap (frown/denounce/damn/smite/stone/burn at the stake, depending on the group and era we're talking about), and it gets pretty darn irritating.

JemyM

July 30th, 2008, 19:18

I don't have a solution because in my opinion it's not a problem. It's a non sequitur -- something you made up to justify your hostility to religion, rather than something that's actually derived from observing how the world works. The scripture they spread can certainly be used to promote intolerance, but it can equally well be used to promote tolerance. Just like Karl Marx can be used to promote social justice or violent revolution. You're doing the equivalent of attacking Eric Hobsbawm on the grounds that his Marxist view of history "lays out the foundation" for Stalin's terror state. It's a fallacy, pure and simple.

More likely you upkeep the opinion you are taught, along with the common accusations you now hurl against me, even if they are out of context. "Justify your hostility to religion" is it now.

Karl Marx was human, no one contest this fact. His theories can be reinterpreted and have been reinterpreted. We teach about him and the consequences in school. A bad analogy to use on this topic.

There are no good action that is exclusively religious, but there are bad actions that are exclusively religious. When you have a valid reason why promoting the books is ok, try again.

Corwin

July 30th, 2008, 19:31

JemyM

July 30th, 2008, 19:55

PJ; the later post was more valid.

I do not live in the situation that I must cooperate with liberal religion just to be safe. I live in a country that have already pushed religion into a small minority and school is already approaching the kind of honesty necessary to teach children the truth about religion (that there are many and they are mostly the same beneath the surface).

Keeping out racists and nationalists from public office is a more urgent struggle here, not to mention the strong communist agenda to censore schoolbooks. When dealing with local religious people I do not need to state my opinions out loud. I can discuss on a Swedish apologetics forums and face to face with muslims in school and we go on just fine.

When I poked fun of religion in my first post I posted it to Pladio. The topic had passed into a discussion about christian beliefs when you and NN ganged up on me. Now it's been a several page debate about why I am intolerant because I think the bible and Qu'ran have dangerous content that can and have inspired people, unlike videogames.

dteowner

July 30th, 2008, 21:26

Good question, Corwin. I think I'm too far gone to save at this point, short of a divine kick in the ass. Seen too much evil done in the name of organized religions of all creeds to feel comfortable putting my hat in that ring.

I'll attempt a genuine answer to your first question, though, since that might have application beyond my personal situation. I'm a born skeptic, a cynic, and an engineer. Probably a combination worthy of a pole-centered brush fire... I've got no better than passing knowledge of a variety of religions (a fair bit of which I've learned here at the Watch), and enough memory of Catholic Sunday School that I understand the movie "Dogma".

Even with such a limited overview, it's easy for me to see flaws and inconsistencies in the design: between religions, within any given religion, in the application of religion, etc. As soon as I hear people spouting certainties, the skeptic kicks in and I tend to push back. Acknowledge the holes in the foundation, make an effort to explain how you work around them, and finally be willing to admit that sometimes you've got put logic in the toilet and just go along for the ride.

As an engineer, I consider it poor design if a reasonably intelligent person can't see for themselves how the pieces go together. Occasionally, for whatever reason, you've simply got to break out the owner's manual. That's generally going to help, but sometimes the manual is out of date, or for the wrong model, or in the wrong language. Acknowledge that your manual is nothing more than "the best you've got to work with." Be willing and able to address problems in your manual (and you know they're in there). And if you're going to put your nuts on the anvil and state that your manual is better than some other, you'd better bring a laundry list of factual documentation to back that claim up or someone's going to introduce you to a hammer, followed by peanut butter.

The cynic's the real bitch to work around. It's fairly obvious that a whole lot of Very Bad Things are done in the name of, or justified by, religion. With the incredible variety of religions, interpretations, and bastardizations, it should really come as no surprise that many viewpoints end up in direct opposition. You've got a system that relies on a certain level of "suspension of disbelief" and a measurable amount of unsupportable acceptance. That's OK, but it's also an excellent vehicle for abuse. The old saying is that it takes 10 good experiences to offset 1 bad experience. I'd say history has put religion pretty deep in the hole. Perhaps that's the biggest leap of faith--it's not determining that you picked the "correct" system so much as that you didn't pick the "wrong" system.

It's very difficult to be an educated shopper. Product information is a bit sketchy. A significant portion of the vendors are shysters. Buyer's remorse has got to be rampant. I guess I just don't like my odds, so I'm not willing to spend my(spiritual/emotional) currency.

Prime Junta

July 30th, 2008, 21:32

Dte, let me ask you a question for a change. What would you accept as being knowledge, rather than faith, even though ALL religions have some form of faith at their core. Is there ANY way you could be convinced short of a direct intervention by God which some people claim to have had!!

(If I may...)

That's an interesting question. I think the obvious followup would be, "convinced of what?"

For example, I can easily think of things that would convince me that the universe was intelligently designed. Carl Sagan included one in his novel "Contact" -- in it, it turned out that if you calculated the value of pi far enough, you'd run into a stretch where if you converted it to base-11 and put it into a matrix, the digits would form a picture of a circle.

On the other hand, if you were to ask if there's anything at all, short of a direct intervention from God to rearrange my brain, that would convince me that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I'm afraid the answer is "Sorry, but I can't think of anything."

Finally, if you were to ask me if there's anything that would convince me to become a Christian (again), I can think of some things. However, my take on Christianity would probably be pretty radically different from yours: I would treat it as something that's mystical and metaphorical; something to be experienced and lived rather than defined and distilled into a set of propositions to be accepted or rejected.

Put another way, I can accept and appreciate the metaphysical meaning, truth, and beauty of the Resurrection, but I don't think I could bring myself to believe that a physical, corporeal Christ arose from the dead after three days, high-fived his buddies, and eventually ascended to Heaven.

Corwin

July 31st, 2008, 00:52

Several people have quoted Jesus as saying that if you're not for us, you're against us. Could I please ask those people to turn their attention to Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50.

Dte, I actually agree with a great deal of what you wrote. The main place I have a major problem with is referencing the people who do things "In the NAME of a particular religion"!! I have as many issues with that as you do. I abhor people getting up and spewing out bile, racism, hate, etc, etc in the name of some religion, including mine. Sorry, but I don't accept those people, nor their beliefs. I ask myself this question:- would Jesus (who in my beliefs voluntarily died for ALL people) say those things, or do those things!!

zahratustra

July 31st, 2008, 21:17

As an engineer, I consider it poor design if a reasonably intelligent person can't see for themselves how the pieces go together.
I am not an engineer but one of the proofs of evolution comes from engineer's point of view. Creationists tend to descibe anathomy (both human and animal) as "perfectly designed" while it is anything but! Just as an example: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci%20081107.pdf

Naked Ninja

August 1st, 2008, 09:17

@ dteowner : Thanks for clarifying your position, and honestly I have no problem with that whatsoever, I understand where you're coming from, believe me, it isn't as easy to have faith as you think. Many Christians do a lot of soul searching and questioning, we're not all just unthinkingly latching onto the Bible without any analysis. We struggle with some of the same problems you do, reconciling our beliefs with modern scientific knowledge and the Church's history of unsavory behavior.

@ zahratustra : yep, agreed. I am also an engineer (software engineer that is ;) ), and I totally agree. I find the evidence for evolution overwhelming, and see the creation story as more of a metaphor.

If you think about it logically, imagine you had to explain the creation of the world to people who have no idea of cellular biology? How exactly would you do it? They just don't have even the basis needed to really understand it. The best you could do would be explain in a metaphorical fashion.

And just so people don't think I don't understand the annoyance of having to deal with unquestioning-type of Christians, a little story...

When I was in high school, I played Dungeons & Dragons a lot. I mean everyday. We'd play in the courtyard, sometimes a teacher would walk past and stop and listen/watch. You could see they were trying to "get it".

Anyway, in Matric (final year of highschool), each student got a visit with the school councilor to talk about your life, aspirations and other "stuff", I dunno how they thought a single session would make any difference to anyone but it was probably the best they could do.

Anyway, so I get called up for my session with the councilor, a young, intelligent woman. We talk a little bit and then she steers the conversation to my D&D playing. And before I know it she is warning about getting too "into it" and attempting to summon evil spirits. Lol. I kinda nodded, too bemused to really say anything. Afterward my friends and I had a good snicker about it. For all my love of fantasy and the fact that I generally always play the mage in games, I don't actually believe in magic spells or summoning evil spirits (I think that "demons" are, for the most part, more the darker impulses of mankind than scaly red monsters). I never encountered this nonsense from my mother, a ministers daughter, so it was all very amusing to me.

And when the missionary types used to come to our door (many of them young Americans come to Africa to save us unenlightened savages), my step-dad (an atheist) would respond with "No thanks, I've already read that book, he dies in the end". Which shut them up and sent them packing right quickly, lol. :D

JemyM

August 1st, 2008, 11:00

I was a Christian at the time I started to play the Swedish fantasygame Dragons & Demons (which was basically Dungeons & Dragons using the BRP system more famous from Call of Cthulhu). We had the same discussion here; that roleplaying games makes you worship the devil etc. Releasing the RPG "KULT" in this era became the suicide of the largest Swedish RPG-maker, because when they did their products was removed from all toystores in the country. This was practically a witchhunt. Suddenly you could no longer speak about your hobby in public.

Needless to say; most of the roleplayers I interacted with was atheists already and rather harsh in their opinions about church, aggrevated by this conflict. I kept silent, but in this era I started to understand that the Christian majority was out of touch with reality and could get away with doing claims that had no substance nor truth in them. Add to that the discussion about homosexuality and female priests and I started to think that evil itself had corrupted the Christian church. What they upheld as "morals" seemed to twist the very concept of being nice to eachother, forgiveness and understanding.

Thing is, at this time I had a faith very similar to the one that NN described. It was my faith in Jesus as a GOOD person that forced me to leave the other Christians behind. This was not rejecting MY community, no, I was never a part of a sect or cult with "twisted beliefs". I rejected the vocal Christianity that appeared in newsmedia, in papers and on television.

I also had the understanding that the Bible is an old book that could have been twisted by so many middle hands who wanted to use God's words for their own agenda. Instead I faced God directly and tried to act based on what I thought he would like. This was easy, because my values seemed to be consistent with my views of God (like wow!).

Still, I rejected atheists for attacking good people. Why did they attack people who just tried to be nice when they dedicated their lives to be good? I rejected devil worshippers as crazy and Islam as evil and wrong.

Eventually my attachment to Christianity begun to fade. I do not know exactly when I gave God his last chance to help me fix my life, but then I let go. Then I was removed from religion for a couple of years.

When 9/11 happened though, it inspired me to go to the roots of a few of the problems that I had pondered about when I was a Christian. This included the question "Who was Lilith", a question I got from Vampire: The Masquerade. When I started to enquire the whole Christian history, a whole new world history begun to form inside my head. At first I was seriously pissed. I was angry at everyone who contributed believing the Bible had any relation to truth. My interest really pushed me into spending far more time with history than what normal people did. I started to pour through books, listen on audio lessons about early church history and I started to get in contact with others who did the same and gave me more to read.

I was surprised, to say the least, just how much we knew compared to what I was told by other Christians, then I was surprised by how little other Christians knew. So far I was annoyed with Christians not knowing at all what they dedicated their lives to. This was not enough to really make me active in rejecting it though. No, that started when I started to understand that the Christians who I once saw "misguided and corrupted by evil", actually had better support by the bible than I did. I started to discover passages in the bible that I somehow missed when I was a Christian and many Christians I talked to also missed but those radical "corrupted evil" Christians knew very well. Initially I now called myself an "atheist".

At that era I ended up back in school and I started to take lessons in subjects related to human history, philosophy and psychology. When I started to understand cognitive psychology, the history of ideas and culture, the way thoughts spread within a geographical area etc it started to become even more clear about how this could be. I also due to studies of philosophy rejected the word "atheist", which felt like an absolutely meaningless label and I understood that there was no reason for me to call Islam or any set of ideas for that matter "evil". I understood Islam as a religion with both positive and negative components and just like Christianity it twists the lens of the ones who are influenced by it. The good parts in Islam is even in some ways better than Christianity, while others are worse.

I have also begin to understand how cultural subgroups works. Members of a cultural group tend to have a belief similar to what's expected by their community rather than carefully examining the truth themselves, this might make their positions very inconsistent with reality. They might also not agree that they are in fact influenced by other perspectives than the one they cling on to.

The perspective on homosexuality is an example how Christian culture works.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuals, and little about women, but he did say that the old testament apply.
Paul said homosexuals are wrong, women should shut up, but that the old testament does not apply.
The Old Testament say homosexuality should be condemned by death, but it also say that if a man see her woman naked within a month after childbirth, both he and his woman should be exterminated.

Now many Christians are prepared to say that homosexuality is a sin, then they try to explain what to do about it. Conservatives might go with prohibiting homosexuality, some say that hate the sin but not the sinner, some say that God forgives sin, some say that homosexuality is God's work and who are we to question that?

All of these positions are based on how they are influenced by 2ndary ideologies. None of them considers that regardless what position you take, to be consistent you must also accept the other rule (Jesus states the OT apply, Paulus say that women should shut up and the OT say that couples who see eachother naked after having a child should be exterminated).

All of this while the rest of the world have moved on, spending more time with issues with economy or environment than what two individuals find and love eachother and recognizing that condemning love is actually clichée evil.

Naked Ninja

August 1st, 2008, 13:21

Releasing the RPG "KULT" in this era became the suicide of the largest Swedish RPG-maker, because when they did their products was removed from all toystores in the country. This was practically a witchhunt. Suddenly you could no longer speak about your hobby in public.

Yeah, that sucks. >:( I can understand your anger and rejection of them.

Still, I rejected atheists for attacking good people. Why did they attack people who just tried to be nice when they dedicated their lives to be good? I rejected devil worshippers as crazy and Islam as evil and wrong.

But that isn't everyone though. I don't reject atheists. One of my best friends is one, as is my step father. My oldest friend is of a sort of offshoot hindu religion, I forget the name, but basically it says this reality is hell and if you don't follow the path you will always be trapped here, reincarnated. I was his best man at his wedding. Moderate muslims are fine. Devil worshipers... emo kids looking for attention, for the most part, if you ask me. Kids going for shock value, lol :lol:

I understood Islam as a religion with both positive and negative components and just like Christianity it twists the lens of the ones who are influenced by it.

EVERY philosophy has negatives and positives and shapes the holder's world view. All of them. The problem is not holding a philosophy, it's your ability to tolerate other people having theirs. It's when one of these philosophies, whether Christianity, Islam, Communism or American Patriotism, feels like it can force their philosophy on others. The trick is for all of us to be more tolerant of each other.

The perspective on homosexuality is an example how Christian culture works.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuals, and little about women, but he did say that the old testament apply.
Paul said homosexuals are wrong, women should shut up, but that the old testament does not apply.
The Old Testament say homosexuality should be condemned by death, but it also say that if a man see her woman naked within a month after childbirth, both he and his woman should be exterminated.

There is a few flaws in that example :

A) You have no idea what the old testament looked like when Jesus was referring to it. Were those rules about homosexuality in it when he referred to it? Is it the same document we are talking about, two thousand years later?

B) You have no idea whether Jesus actually said that. Like the rest of the Bible, you can't take it at face value, you need to cross check to see if it seems likely. Does that fit with the other things Jesus preached? Does murdering someone for a mistake match with the man who preached turning the other cheek, forgiveness and loving your enemies?

It's a simple principle. The Bible has been through times when the Church that "preserved" it was a very unpleasant, power hungry institution. They call them the Dark Ages for a reason. You have to use some analysis, have to think "hey, this seems a bit out of place, I wonder...". Otherwise you have no way of knowing that you aren't reading something added to support a human institution's desire to suppress X.

JemyM

August 1st, 2008, 16:25

EVERY philosophy has negatives and positives and shapes the holder's world view. All of them. The problem is not holding a philosophy, it's your ability to tolerate other people having theirs. It's when one of these philosophies, whether Christianity, Islam, Communism or American Patriotism, feels like it can force their philosophy on others. The trick is for all of us to be more tolerant of each other.

I think I have discovered something. The key is not to try to decide which view is best for you. The best is to try to learn as many of them as possible. Having done that for awhile, I seem to have found a component in most religions and political perspectives which reflects who we are, and finding those gems require you to understand new philosophies.

My current perspective is something of a humanism blended with hinduism. I see in every human being a part of me. Understanding that every person is your family is an insight given to me by Gandhi, Martin Luther and Malcolm X. (Yes, each one of them found a deeper relationship among humankind in their religion, but the inspiration for them were Gandhi). The ethics that falls closest to me is the buddhist wheel. I am a nonviolent, pacifistic, antimaterialistic person already. I also have the asian perspective on death, meaning that I have nothing to fear by going back to where I came from; nothing. But by giving my life to others, my life lives on in them.

Beyond exposing myself to all religions I have learned key points in conservatism and liberalism that made me give up my socialism. I have understood that there's a core in every political ideology (keeping what's been tested, freedom, justice, equality etc) and if you just pick one you skip the rest. As a Swedish socialist I used to think that liberalism was an enemy, a value that I was given by my parents. These days I recognize no less than four different liberalist perspectives of which I even sympathise with their core points, even though I am something of a democratic conservative.

In forums all over I have been called a muslim, blueblood, communist, fundamentalist Christian (Yes! Recently even!), racist, enemy of Sweden etc by people so locked up on their perspective that even though I fully understand and accept their perspective, my understanding of the others cause me to become their enemy.

If "tolerance" means to not asking for death, imprisonment and silencing people because of their ideas, then I am as tolerant as I can be. In every person there is a story about being human, and that story is contributing to who we are, and we can learn something from listening to it, regardless how insignificant or gruesome that story might seem. When I see someone silenced, sent to prison or killed for their opinions, I see a tragic loss executed by enemy to mankind.

If "tolerance" means to never question ideas/perspectives in an open debate, making satire of them, poking fun of eachothers beliefs, then I am intolerant, because I see this also as a failure to let mankind be the judge if a perspective is good for us or not. There's a practice known as dialectics; finding the truth through talk, because mankind is the ruler of all things and the truth is in us, as long as we are allowed to speak we can let as many humans as possible be with us in the task of finding the truth. Questioning eachother is corrosive to ideas, but true ideas that have something out of value to human beings do not rust away; they get sharper and more polished. Freedom of speech is established to support this purpose; to act as a judge who keep up the rules in a "survival of the fittest" deathmatch for ideas. We now have a whole pile of dead ideas on the scrapheap of history; witchburnings, communism, nazism, slavery... Now we just need to help eachother to keep scavengers out of that scrapheap. Everytime someone rise their hands and say "Communism?" today, most of us know why it's a bad idea, even if it at first sounds tempting.

My distinction between people an their ideas can be stated in a Christian saying; dislike the sin, not the sinner.

Note; If you think my term "deathmatch of ideas" sounds hostile, consider this: Your Christian perspective is a sharpened and polished one. You wouldn't have that perspective if Christianity hadn't been strongly questioned. You know that if you would start to speak openly about the darker corners of the bible you would be pretty much committing social suicide. All ideologies that is in the position of a tactical retreat think twice about pushing for more radical agendas. What more is there to ask for?

There is a few flaws in that example :
A) You have no idea what the old testament looked like when Jesus was referring to it. Were those rules about homosexuality in it when he referred to it? Is it the same document we are talking about, two thousand years later?

Our oldest copies of the "Old Testament" (or at least the pieces) are actually remarkable intact. There is ofcourse the debate if the world "homosexual" actually is a mistranslation of another word that is translated to altar boy, gigolo, male prostitute etc. There's also a liberal interpretion of Paul's letters that actually make it a sin to not be homosexual if you were born one. Needless to say; when your average Christian comment on homosexuality they speak from the perspective common in their community, they rarely speak about all possible perspectives offered by a bible scholar.

B) You have no idea whether Jesus actually said that. Like the rest of the Bible, you can't take it at face value, you need to cross check to see if it seems likely. Does that fit with the other things Jesus preached? Does murdering someone for a mistake match with the man who preached turning the other cheek, forgiveness and loving your enemies?

Yes. At three places that I know of, Jesus suggest killing someone. According to Joh 15:6 you should gather and burn apostates. In Matthew 18:6 you should drench people who manage to convince someone to leave his group and in Matthew 15:4 the punishment for breaking the commandment of "honor your parents" is death. Naturally these perspectives can be interpreted in multiple ways, so one have to judge them like a weight on a scale... how much do we have to suggest Jesus did not suggest death here?
In the passage where he saves a woman from being stoned (Joh 8:7), he do not object to the practice of stoning someone to death even though he had the chance. In Luke 22:36 he tells his followers to buy swords. In one famous passage he say that he havn't came for peace but with a sword (Matthew 10.33-36). In another he say he wish to set the world on fire and wish it already burned.

In many of Jesus tales that he used to show hi point of view, the stories often contain injustice and gruesome violence that Jesus seem to have no objection against. Matthew 18 seem to suggest nothing wrong with a wife and kid sold to slavery, in Matthew 20:16 it seems to be fair to be payed as much for 1 hour as for a whole day. In Matthew 22:1-14 people are killed for not going to a kings sons wedding, a whole village is burned down because two of it's citiziens were murderers, one who came is tossed out, bound, in the darkness, for not coming with the right clothes. The point with that story is that "many are called but few are chosen". Matthew 21 is really gory. In Luke 19:11-27 we have another unfair story, which even ends with slaughtering people who objected to a kings rule.

Did Jesus turn the other cheek? Forgive? Love his enemies? Well, in numerous passages he strongly condemns his opposition, calling them all sorts of words (like in Matthew 23:33, Matthew 12:34). Even though Jesus have a few things to say about the Pharisees, if he was preaching non-hostility and forgiveness, then he should have shown by better example, not by spending most of his ministry condemning. At a few places he even condemns his followers for questioning him or failing to do what he said they could do (Matthew 17:17, Matthew 16:23).

All things considered, the idea that Jesus actually preached "turn the other cheek", "forgiveness" and "loving your enemies" is a difficult position to hold if you use the entire story, not only those which are commonly cherrypicked to support that point of view.

It's a simple principle. The Bible has been through times when the Church that "preserved" it was a very unpleasant, power hungry institution. They call them the Dark Ages for a reason. You have to use some analysis, have to think "hey, this seems a bit out of place, I wonder...". Otherwise you have no way of knowing that you aren't reading something added to support a human institution's desire to suppress X.

This is actually what I do. Although I have read a few books dealing with the dark side of the bible. Whenever someone makes a sermon and use the bible, they often pick good parts supporting the story. I have listened to some that did the other way. If you wish to judge the bible you have to accept a few things; like it's age, it's political agenda in that time and that the interpretion of the bible have changed along with the moral zeitgeist in the society. What we read in the bible today is different from what could be read 100 years ago; both from a positive and a negative perspective.