Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions
- Thread starter Mycernius
- Start date
strongvoicesforward
I'm back.
- Messages
- 1,290
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- The primordial soup
Oh, yes. Thomas Paine, the heretic of The American Revolution. His works are just great!
I`ve read that and his works on the Bible, The Age of Reason.
"Daddy pays all" is what this passage is talking about. How does that encourage justice or responsibility? A child does a crime, gets thrown in Jail and down comes rich influential papa to pay everything and set everything straight.
Justice has not been served. Justice is to be served upon the transgressor -- not to be forgiven by the owner of the Jail who is awakened to the cries of his son and hence he goes down to free him. Meanwhile, the lady raped and killed on the street is told she will be compensated for her wrong later -- if only after balancing all the things she may have done to bring on the attack or other bad things she did during her life prior.
It is a perverted sense of Justice -- this "Daddy pays all doctrine," and it encourages more irresponsibility because Daddy will always come and bail little Johnny out at the last minute.
The battle cry of Thomas Paine -- REASON!
I`ve read that and his works on the Bible, The Age of Reason.
"Daddy pays all" is what this passage is talking about. How does that encourage justice or responsibility? A child does a crime, gets thrown in Jail and down comes rich influential papa to pay everything and set everything straight.
Justice has not been served. Justice is to be served upon the transgressor -- not to be forgiven by the owner of the Jail who is awakened to the cries of his son and hence he goes down to free him. Meanwhile, the lady raped and killed on the street is told she will be compensated for her wrong later -- if only after balancing all the things she may have done to bring on the attack or other bad things she did during her life prior.
It is a perverted sense of Justice -- this "Daddy pays all doctrine," and it encourages more irresponsibility because Daddy will always come and bail little Johnny out at the last minute.
The battle cry of Thomas Paine -- REASON!
Revenant
No Longer a Member
Something I've wondered, is if evolution is true, and the story of Adam and Eve was completely symbolic, then that would mean that the passage that says, 'the penalty of sin is death' would have to be referring to a spiritual death, for physical suffering and death were already present as attested to by the dinosaurs.
So which spiritual death would make more sense?
People making a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad, us vs them, and thus creating dualisms where none existed before, or in gaining self-awareness, people understood that they were causing another unnecessary suffering, but went ahead and did so anyways?
So which spiritual death would make more sense?
People making a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad, us vs them, and thus creating dualisms where none existed before, or in gaining self-awareness, people understood that they were causing another unnecessary suffering, but went ahead and did so anyways?
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
I have taken this from sabros sans new thread Basic Christianity, and bought them here as I feel this is a better thread in which to discuss some of these points.
The one that made me decide to pursue it further was inerrancy of the scripture. Not so much on whether it is right or wrong, but on the idea of whose scripture? There are books that are in the Catholic Bible that the reformationists decided were non-canonical and removed them. This is the Bible that protestant faiths and similar use (I say similar, because some consider JWs, Mormons and other 'cult' faiths not to be true Christians). Even the Catholic Bible does not include all the scriptures and gospels that are supposed to be from God. They kept books from the final print as they considered them non-canonical. If they wanted the Bibkle to be totally inerrant and true surely these books should have been left in? To say that the modern Bible is inerrant is a misconception as it is not a complete book.sabro said:
Well, I must say that I am, in some old fashioned, lover-of-nostalgia way happy to see this thread resurrected from page two. I agree that the matter of discussing them here may be better, in that sabro's new thread is more for identification and explanation of the several points, rather than discussion or 'debate' on them. Nevertheless, in simply echoing what I, and sabro also (among others too, I'm sure) have said, it would be good to stick to facts as much as possible--in the detail that demands attention to establish a matter as being a good 'fact' candidate. I really hope this can be maintained.
What you're saying there Mycernius is a matter to look into deeply, because, as I have quoted some before, some major players among those who do this work, have pointed out that we cannot give favor to one or another set of writings that were there in the second century, even, so neither this group nor that group, but all are possibles to choose from.
What you're saying there Mycernius is a matter to look into deeply, because, as I have quoted some before, some major players among those who do this work, have pointed out that we cannot give favor to one or another set of writings that were there in the second century, even, so neither this group nor that group, but all are possibles to choose from.
I remain optomistic that the angels of our better natures will win out and intelligent discussion will take place here.
As for inerrancy, this concept is covered in this Wikipedia article quite well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy. In the United States we tend to take the Bible and inerrancy quite literally. But other protestant groups have a broader definition for what inerrancy means.
As for inerrancy, this concept is covered in this Wikipedia article quite well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy. In the United States we tend to take the Bible and inerrancy quite literally. But other protestant groups have a broader definition for what inerrancy means.
Three things.
I wanted to bring this to the top again, because, I do believe, it is somewhat of a standard (more so in the sense of 'flag').
and, because the matter of where I have been coming from in my 'Biblical Texts' thread as regards 'error' can (and should, I believe) be stated herein and kept for reference.
and, to show the gratitude that I still have for those who helped me work my way into discussion here on the forum, esp. in regards this field of research.
May the thread weave on throughout the fiber of our lives !!:beer:
I wanted to bring this to the top again, because, I do believe, it is somewhat of a standard (more so in the sense of 'flag').
and, because the matter of where I have been coming from in my 'Biblical Texts' thread as regards 'error' can (and should, I believe) be stated herein and kept for reference.
and, to show the gratitude that I still have for those who helped me work my way into discussion here on the forum, esp. in regards this field of research.
May the thread weave on throughout the fiber of our lives !!:beer:
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 85
- Points
- 0
Here's a thought. How should Christians behave? My mum expects Christians to be exemplary in their behaviour. Whenever she hears that a Christian has done something even slightly improper, such as getting drunk at a party, or even having an expensive haircut (!), she says "Shame on him, Christians shouldn't behave that way!". But my friend Grace, who is a Christian, occasionally gets raucously drunk and likes expensive haircuts. She says that as long as she tries to live as Jesus taught, god will forgive the occasional indiscretion.
An interesting thought indeed. But before that...I must admit (and I don't know if it was just recent, but I didn't notice it until just now, that your sweet, pure rabbit, Tsuyoiko, for some reason appears to be behind bars. I wish for its freedom, as before...
And now the interesting thought. The problem here I would say, is that of not only interpretation, but one also of lack of information.
How can any one who is a Christian, by whatever definition they may have of that abstract concept, show, in no uncertain terms that what it means to be a Christian to them is undeniable to a neutral third party? If in the majority of cases, such cannot be shown to a degree to satisfy that third party, then that beholder of 'being Christian' lacks the position to assert any absoluteness.
Well, as sabro has so often pointed out, we would find ourselves in a circle of 'it is because it is to me' argumentations, and thus the compromising conclusion would surely be, 'what is to me, is to me, and what is to you, is to you, and that settles it.'
The problem I have been trying to hammer out, ever so slowly, is that no one living today, can say just what that paradigm had been to the very first Christians, and on top of that, the only source we have is the collected written and artistic works left behind by the 'later-than-first-Christians'. AND, as Mycernius and you, Tsuyoiko, have pointed out, both directly and indirectly, that includes more than just what has been bundled together in that book called 'The Bible'.
Thus, as I have posted here before, the greatest misconception in Christianity, from as far back as the Dark Ages, is that we can know from that collected books of works called the Bible alone.
And now the interesting thought. The problem here I would say, is that of not only interpretation, but one also of lack of information.
How can any one who is a Christian, by whatever definition they may have of that abstract concept, show, in no uncertain terms that what it means to be a Christian to them is undeniable to a neutral third party? If in the majority of cases, such cannot be shown to a degree to satisfy that third party, then that beholder of 'being Christian' lacks the position to assert any absoluteness.
Well, as sabro has so often pointed out, we would find ourselves in a circle of 'it is because it is to me' argumentations, and thus the compromising conclusion would surely be, 'what is to me, is to me, and what is to you, is to you, and that settles it.'
The problem I have been trying to hammer out, ever so slowly, is that no one living today, can say just what that paradigm had been to the very first Christians, and on top of that, the only source we have is the collected written and artistic works left behind by the 'later-than-first-Christians'. AND, as Mycernius and you, Tsuyoiko, have pointed out, both directly and indirectly, that includes more than just what has been bundled together in that book called 'The Bible'.
Thus, as I have posted here before, the greatest misconception in Christianity, from as far back as the Dark Ages, is that we can know from that collected books of works called the Bible alone.
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 85
- Points
- 0
I know, he looks like a lab rabbit doesn't he? But before you call the RSPCA on me, I can assure you of his freedom! He has a nice, big two-storey hutch. Here he is on the top floor, which has bars to prevent him from falling out! But the bottom storey is open so he can run freeMars Man said:
(but not too free :blush: )Mars, I don't know if this task can be done... What it means to be a Christian is to have an encounter with the living creator of the universe. To know with certainty and connection your significant role in creation. To feel forgiven, accepted and loved. To know your purpose and feel comfort and safety. Whether or not that can be shown to any degree of satisfaction to that third party depends on that third part. I suppose to some it is utterly obvious and to other nonsensical.Mars Man said:
A good post there sabro san. For now, I'll just say yes, that seems to be right (for now) and is the intention behind the opening, "How can..."
I would yet say that we should take a look at the various inderstandings, where they appear to have more or most likely come from, and twists or additions in the conceptualizing of them has occured through the passage of time since whatever original impetus had given birth to them.
And of course that is a tedious-like process, but it is an adventure as well. I hope to hear some new input on this in the near future as well. I do believe we can have a good, mannerly discussion of this in some degree of detail, and am really looking forward to it !!
I would yet say that we should take a look at the various inderstandings, where they appear to have more or most likely come from, and twists or additions in the conceptualizing of them has occured through the passage of time since whatever original impetus had given birth to them.
And of course that is a tedious-like process, but it is an adventure as well. I hope to hear some new input on this in the near future as well. I do believe we can have a good, mannerly discussion of this in some degree of detail, and am really looking forward to it !!
Certainly sounds like a noble pursuit.
The ineffable, sublime effect of conversion-- "salvation" as understood by Christians is something that is indescribable due to it's nature. Putting it into words reduces the impact and really fails to give it a just description. That's why you end up with so many metaphors such as being born again, water to a thirsty man, food that never leaves you hungry... It doesn't work well to keep throwing the same tired ones around, but coming up with new ones is difficult.
The ineffable, sublime effect of conversion-- "salvation" as understood by Christians is something that is indescribable due to it's nature. Putting it into words reduces the impact and really fails to give it a just description. That's why you end up with so many metaphors such as being born again, water to a thirsty man, food that never leaves you hungry... It doesn't work well to keep throwing the same tired ones around, but coming up with new ones is difficult.
PsychoticNess
Kage Bunshin no Jutsu
Tsuyoiko said:
I guess on this topic I'll add my 2 cents. Christian's are people too. Christians are supposed to live a life of Jesus, but by no means should we put them on a pedastal. Everyone is human, everyone screws up. You've done it, they've done it, I've done it; we all mess up. Just because someone's "Christian" doesn't mean they have no right to screw up. Don't get me wrong, as a Christian, I try my hardest not to sin, but inevitably it happens. The thing I just need to remember is not to give up. God forgave us already for it. My post seems sort of misconstrued, but what I am saying is we all mess up. Just because someone's Christian doesn't make them any less prone to do so.
Revenant
No Longer a Member
That seemed unclear to me, as some parts of the Bible instruct Christians to think on pure and noble things, to clothe oneself with compassion, and to give thanks to God in everything, and yet in others, that these are changes that will automatically occur when one gets closer to Jesus.
It also refers to them as the fruits of the spirit. Faith come before works. First you believe and then you do. You don't do "good" to earn your way into heaven, but rather as a natural expression of who you have become. Perhaps efforts at doing good are misguided when serving God allows one simply to be good... or perhaps there is some conscious effort involved... or...
Tsuyoiko said:
I greatly appreciate the input given here. And it's nice to see you posting here PsychoticNess san ! I would like to deal with the foundation of this question, in order to support my earlier statement regarding it.
In chronological order, we can understand that the answer would definitely have been different before the reformation. How different would it have been to a leader in the area of Rome, as compared to a leader living in the area of Alexandria, Egypt around the year 120, would yet be another thing. There appears to have been some stabs taken at that question, none of which, we'd have to admit, can claim absoluteness-really, who can say? These facts are part of the reason why the matter of how a Christian should behave is 'enwoven' into the particular paradigm of what a Christian is to any particular person or group.
The religious experience, it can quite conclusively be shown, is universal in nature and is not the direct product of any particular belief system--regardless of the few various and different tools by which it is communicated. Therefore, it seems to be demanded that we look at those 'tools' in trying to understand what is done with them; it may well be good to test the very tool itself.
In a more specific manner, some examples:
The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. (hereafter WS) is the organization which runs the Jehovah's Witnesses. The governing body of WS teaches that a true Christian would not celebrate birthdays. The two main points on the tool list is as follows--
1. Both of the only two directly related birthday scenes presented in the Bible, Gen 40:18~22; 41:13; Mt 14:6~11 (see Mr 6:21~28), envolved pagans who behead someone; in the latter case, John the Baptist. A definite negativeness. Hosea 7:5 in either a birthday scene or the accession to the throne of an apostate Israeli king. The language of Job 1:4 does not render itself to birthday celebrations very easily at all.
2. The Bible is supposed to be a book given by "God" and since it does not give such pagan practices a good light, and yet should be guidline for a Christian's way of life, yardstick for right and wrong, birthdays are not for Christian's to practice. (I left out all the proof texts here, but will provide them for those who would like to see them too)
This thread has been viewed 10032 times.