Christianity

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Lily
 
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 11:24 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7;65233 wrote:
And of course its 'pick and mix', it's a several thousand year old document.

I'm just wondering, how can you know that you pick the right things to belive in? I thought religions were supposed to be a bit...lasting. I think I'll have to discuss this with the only christian guy I know. And I must admit, I haven't read whole the new testament, I'll get there, but the Bible is just so darn thick:listening:
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:39 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;65242 wrote:
I am very familiar with Buddhist superstitions and why you think I would exonerate it as being free from them baffles me a little.

I have tried to study as much as I could and can from many religions. Sometimes you can't absorb it all at once and often times the stuff is so remarkably silly it almost insults your intellect to be giving it your time.

That was said to make thy position clear to me, and I am glad to hear such an answer.
The thing that surprises me always is that those western intellectuals incline to regard Buddhism as "intellectual" religion. For example, both Einstein and Nietzsche called Buddhism "the religion of the future" if I am not mistaking, whereas Christianity is deemed to be out-dated. And they swallow all those superstitions, go to India or Tibet, or Thailand, become monks etc. "There is no prophet in his homeland"
And I do think that Christianity contains a lot of precious thoughts: non-resistance, chastity. I think it is unjust to ignore that.
Lily wrote:
...but the Bible is just so darn thick:listening:

... and so boring:asleep:

---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

avatar6v7;65200 wrote:
The old judaic God was about obediance more than love, a message that Christ reverses. The old testament has some wonderful, beuatiful and wise things in it, but it also has brutal, illogical and misguided things.

One thing is unclear for me: how canst thou speak of Christian love and yet justify crimes of church? The idea of thy previous posts that violence perfomed by church was an adequate reply to distortion of heresies smells a lot like utilitarianism. Is it sometimes reasonable to forget about Love? But if yes, then love is not the highest good anymore...
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 06:02 pm
@Eudaimon,
Krumple;65167 wrote:
I feel there is a new generation christian propaganda ensuing.


You are correct, my friend.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
I often hear Christians say god is love, but it is clear they have never read the bible, of if they have they completely ignore the parts where god is condemning some innocent person for the crimes of someone else. Or issuing death orders onto people for minor offenses.


Or, the third option: they do not read the text as literal historic account. For example, we can take Sodom and Gamorah: instead of reading the tale and thinking God a vindictive, aggressive deity, we understand that societies which promote sinful behavior will collapse due to their misguided lifestyle. We understand the story to be a didactic fable. This tale is especially relevant today when as we notice the rise of narcissism among the youth and wonder about the effects.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
The only way the religion gets new Christians is by indoctrinating children but it doesn't use the bible to do it, but instead it uses some one liners of half truths.


So all new Christians come to the tradition as children and all of them are taught Christianity, not from the Bible, but from falsifications of teachings?

I really doubt you can prove this.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
It is not until they get older if they have a curiosity and actually read the bible that they become atheists.


I was an atheist before I read the Bible. I read the Bible and converted to Christianity. Your explanations may hold true in some cases - I'm sure it does - but overall your explanation fails.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
So with this happening and the fact that Christianity is slowly dying


The world's largest religion is dying? That strikes me as odd. Sure, Christianity is loosing numbers in some places, but this should make perfect sense. New traditions are being introduced, old and misunderstood traditions are being better explained. Of course the most pervasive tradition will lose some members to these influences. It is completely natural. But to interpret this as the death of Christianity is quite an extreme interpretation.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
it means that we are on the threshold of a last ditch effort for Christians to maintain their religion.


With over a billion Christians, even if the tradition is dying, today's efforts are hardly last ditch. Just imagine how many centuries it would take for one billion people to leave Christianity.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
The only way it can do this is to reinvent itself and I see this starting to happen.


This has happened before, many times over. The Scholastics reinvented Christianity. Cartesian influences reinvented Christianity. The Great Schism reinvented Christianity. Constantine reinvented Christianity. Luther reinvented Christianity. Higher Criticism reinvented Christianity, as did the reactionary fundamentalism.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
Call me paranoid or retarded or an idiot but the creationist christian is a modern branch of the religion.


I'm not sure if paranoid is the right word, but your theory of future events is reminiscent of conspiracy theorizing.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
It was an uprising to confront scientific findings which painted christian thought back into backward bronze age thinking.


Actually, it was a reaction against Higher Criticism. Fundamentalism did not take on the anti-science element until a little later.

Krumple;65167 wrote:
So the revival came rejecting all science that contradicts biblical messages. The irony is they ONLY object to the science that shows their religious thought to be wrong. They NEVER object to any other science at all. How could science only be wrong when it comes to concepts that involve religion? That doesn't seem odd at all?


Oh, it is odd - it's absurd. Fundamentalism cannot hold up against scrutiny.

Krumple;65202 wrote:

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10


From Mark? I think you missed the point of what Jesus was saying. He is not criticizing Jews for not killing children, he is criticizing Jews for picking and choosing which tenets of the law to obey.

Let's get some context:

Quote:

Mark 7

Clean and Unclean

1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a]) 5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[b] 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "


Jesus was defending his disciples, not suggesting that children be killed.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 02:48 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;65238 wrote:
Actually, I have to say that, Jesus probably was not Jew. (Read Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary and History of Adoption Christianity). The other point is that he probably didn't exist at all. At least, he obviously could not be author of all what was ascribed to him.
The gospels were written in Greek, and I think they perform mixture of two traditions: Greek, philosophical, and Jewish, legalist.
I think also that Christ or those who composed gospels wanted to attract as much adherents as possible amongst Jews and they rearranged old testament therefor. It has always been very often to attribute one's own teaching to a famous person (Plato did the same).

Justin;65239 wrote:
Technically speaking, there's no proof whatsoever of Jesus' existence. Not even those who crucified him noted any such crucifixion.

Wait, I'm sorry, no proof?!?!! What the hell do you call all the various gospels? Do they not count as proof then? Here is one very simple argument for the historical accuracy of the accounts- they were written in different places across the world- indeed one christian community was founded as far away as India. And yet the central message of Christianity- that Jesus was the son of God, was crucifyed and rose from the dead is agreed upon by all of them. Obviously they all came from the same source. As for the greek philosophy two things. Yes much has been added and there is nothing wrong with that, if Christ hadn't wanted us to rreach our own conclusions and develop theology on our own he would have just given us the holy book direct from God, and like Islam christianity would be utterly bound to a stifiling message. The second point is that Jerusalem was part of the roman world, and Christ and his disciples, many of who were well educated, would have been well aware of greek philosophy.
Lily;65247 wrote:
I'm just wondering, how can you know that you pick the right things to belive in? I thought religions were supposed to be a bit...lasting. I think I'll have to discuss this with the only christian guy I know. And I must admit, I haven't read whole the new testament, I'll get there, but the Bible is just so darn thick:listening:

But Chrisitainity is lasting, and the fact that we can develop and come to greater understanding of the scripture is part of the reason for that. I didn't say the bible was pick and mix, I said the old testament was pick and mix. I think that there are clear limits to the extent to which we can interptet scripture- I personally believe in the literal truth of most of the miracles in the new testament, and I think that some in the old testament may well have been true.
Eudaimon;65257 wrote:

The thing that surprises me always is that those western intellectuals incline to regard Buddhism as "intellectual" religion. For example, both Einstein and Nietzsche called Buddhism "the religion of the future" if I am not mistaking, whereas Christianity is deemed to be out-dated. And they swallow all those superstitions, go to India or Tibet, or Thailand, become monks etc. "There is no prophet in his homeland"

Buddhist thinking sometimes borders nihilism too closely for my taste, but I do find it very appealing as a social construct.
Eudaimon;65257 wrote:

One thing is unclear for me: how canst thou speak of Christian love and yet justify crimes of church? The idea of thy previous posts that violence perfomed by church was an adequate reply to distortion of heresies smells a lot like utilitarianism. Is it sometimes reasonable to forget about Love? But if yes, then love is not the highest good anymore...

I am no utilitarian. I think that killing in any cause is wrong. However I think that sometimes it is the least of all evils. That may seem like a narrow distinction, but if you think about it a utilitarian says that if it was the best option killing would be a good whereas I see it as an evil neccesitated by a fallen world.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 03:08 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7;65344 wrote:
Wait, I'm sorry, no proof?!?!! What the hell do you call all the various gospels? Do they not count as proof then?
Stories aren't proof - they are stories. If the gospels are proof of Jesus than the Ramayama is proof of Hanumen the Monkey King and the hundred-headed demon Ravana (another story told all around the world in numerous languages and with many permutations).

All the evidence for the life of the hisotical existence of Jesus appeared some time after his death, the only near-contemporary historian who mentions him who isn't directly linked to evangelising Christianity is Josephus, and he only does so in order to explain the existence of the cult of Christianity.

Herodotus fails to mention him at all, which seems odd seeing as he wrote rather comprehensive histories of the period.

Seeing as the gospels make claims including the dead getting up and walking, and seeing as first century Palestine has been the subject of many other detailed histories, it seems rather strange that the various professional scribes and journalists active at the time completely failed to report the startling events which the gospel writers (both canonical and apocryphal) managed to write about.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 03:41 am
@Dave Allen,
Stories? Perhaps some parts are fabricated, or at the very least embellished, but even stories don't emege in a vaccum; even if you think that the events of the new testament are largely projected back, you must concede that at the very least there is somthing for it to be projected back on. Christ must be at the very least the equivalant of socrates, or would you argue that socrates didn't exist as well?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 04:05 am
@Eudaimon,
There might be something valid about viewing Socrates as an allegorical figure, though I don't think it's so important - few people live their lives based on what they believe to be the model exemplified in Socrates. A number of issues stand in his favour as a figure from history though.

He is mentioned in the memoires and histories of numerous people close to him in terms of history who aren't seeking to benefit from association or start a cult with the seeming approval of a miraculous individual (with the possible exception of Plato, who clearly did want to bask in Socrates' reflected glory). Not all Socrates' early biographers are pro-Socrates, and those who knew him personally, or were his supposed contemporaries, are also corroborated in such a manner.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Socrates was a clever and contrary person, but his story does not include claims of supernatural miracles, virgin births, multitudes of dead people walking, roman governers forgiving murderers of Romans in favour of executing disturbers of the peace, and other things that would be worthy of historical comment if true (as opposed to being mentioned only in the propaganda of those seeking to evangelise the new cult).

Philosophers tend not to be fictitious, whereas if any single religion is the one truth (or if they are all falsehoods) religious figures must be overwhelmingly fictitious (which I suppose is why you won't tackle whether or not Hanumen or Ravana are fictional).

Religions predating Christianity, which the Jewish people would have been in contact with, often contain a representative of the Gods who dies and arises again to offer some sort of salvation. Examples include (but are not limited to) Osiris of the Egyptians and Mithras of the Magi/Zoroastrians.

SOCRATES: A remarkable, but mundane, figure in history who appears in the records from numerous sources at the time of his life, not all of whom are favourable or flattering, about whom nothing more unusual is claimed than the fact that he was an early proponent of certain philosophical methods.

JESUS: An avatar of the Jewish God who, despite performing all manner of miraculous healing, acts of sedition, and necromancy, goes unmentioned in records of all contemporaries aside from those who seek to spread the word of his coming in the hope of establishing a new religion (and benefit from the profits thereof, one suspects).

In terms of Occam's Razor what is more likely - that the events of the gospels actually occured as written despite not being noticed by objective recorders of history in the area at the time, or that someone thought it might be a good idea to start a cult based on a deconstruction to Judaism to include this popular archetype that was proving a successful consolation to other local faiths?

In much the same way as Mormonism or Scientology 'work' by applying modern deconstructional ideas to older religious traditions.
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 04:35 am
@Dave Allen,
Why is it claims are made by Christians and when the going gets tough they shy away only to reemerge and make the same claims yet again.There may have been a local teacher called Jesus but he has been magnified and exaggerated totally out of his original life story.With the reaction they show we can see how the story became acceptable by the masses as fact rather than the real truth.Peters rock turned into Paul's deceit.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 08:51 am
@avatar6v7,
To be honest, there were some supernatural things attributed to Socrates (recall his daemon).
avatar6v7;65344 wrote:
I am no utilitarian. I think that killing in any cause is wrong. However I think that sometimes it is the least of all evils. That may seem like a narrow distinction, but if you think about it a utilitarian says that if it was the best option killing would be a good whereas I see it as an evil neccesitated by a fallen world.

When we choose between two evils, it means that the evil we choose is better than another. Therefore if permitest to kill under some circumstances, it means only love is not the highest good (summum bonum) for thee. Thou valuest stability, human lives or whatever more than love. Otherwise thou wouldst never say that it is right to sacrifice love for the sake of worldly thing. This is not what Christ taught.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:29 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;65374 wrote:
To be honest, there were some supernatural things attributed to Socrates (recall his daemon).

That's a totally spurious point as far as I see it. Socrates' daemon is a belief attributed to Socrates (assuming he meant "something" to mean daemon, and that he meant it to mean something other than a metaphore for conscience), not an episode of his life that is mythological in character.

Just because Socrates might have believed in something supernatural, or used supernatural metaphores in his teaching, does not mean that he himself was anything other than human does it?
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:41 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;65381 wrote:
That's a totally spurious point as far as I see it. Socrates' daemon is a belief attributed to Socrates (assuming he meant "something" to mean daemon, and that he meant it to mean something other than a metaphore for conscience), not an episode of his life that is mythological in character.

Just because Socrates might have believed in something supernatural, or used supernatural metaphores in his teaching, does not mean that he himself was anything other than human does it?

Don't try to equal Socrates' daemon to conscience as many moral philosophers tried to do. For every one who's read Plato and accounts of many other historians and philosophers, it is obvious that Socrates did experience some sort of divine intereference (or interpreted it as such) in his life. Surely not consience made him sit when he wanted to go away...
And some authors also tried to mythologised Socrates' personality as being god's prophet.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:59 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;65384 wrote:
Don't try to equal Socrates' daemon to conscience as many moral philosophers tried to do. For every one who's read Plato and accounts of many other historians and philosophers, it is obvious that Socrates did experience some sort of divine intereference (or interpreted it as such) in his life.

Sure, he interpreted his conscience as divine interference.

Quote:
Surely not consience made him sit when he wanted to go away....

Why not? It regularly makes people do or not do rather more complex and bewildering things.

Quote:
And some authors also tried to mythologised Socrates' personality as being god's prophet.

So what? Authors writing fiction regularly do loads of odd things. If an author's idea of how Socrates might have been divine, in the arena of fiction, means anything, then the Lord of the Rings is admissable as a record of history.

Which is rubbish.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:07 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;65387 wrote:
Why not? It regularly makes people do or not rather more complex things.

I thought that consience is moral overseer that makes us act in accordance with established moral standards (Super-Ego) and is not capable to forbid me to buy bananas in supermarket...
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:19 am
@Eudaimon,
That isn't the definition with which I am familiar.

I would have thought it more like a set of conscious and unconscious standards held by people in general, which may or may not have anything to do with societal morality (though it almost certainly does in my opinion).

So if, for example, you learned that bananas were not as nutritious as pears, and you based a decision not to buy bananas in favour of pears for you or your family, it might be said that you were acting with good conscience. The same might be said if you were to boycott bananas because of knowledge about unethical practices involved in their production. It wouldn't be so relevant if you were to forgo them just because you hate the taste.

As a particularly contemplative person with a deep awareness of his own ignorance Socrates may have had a more in-depth relationship with his conscience than most other people.

I may be wrong - I'm not all that interested in what exactly he was referring to - though it strikes me that his "something" seems to have more in common with conscience than not. My point is that whatever he claimed was influencing his life and world - he himself was never credited with anything more miraculous than his philosophising, people do not tend to see him as a supernatural being.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 06:25 pm
@Eudaimon,
There are several historical, contemporaneous accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. And while I don't identify myself as Christian, don't read the Bible, and don't go to Church, I still feel very much alive to Christ as an inner reality. I refuse to accept that the whole of Christendom - and that is what our civilization was called until quite recently - was founded on a fable. I just won't ever accept that, say what you will. (Biblical fundamentalism is in any case not accepted by any mainstream denominations and is a literal perversion of the truth. The fruit of a uniquely American kind of stupidity.)

On the other hand, I am not that big on believing. I think Marx was correct in saying that religion is an opiate, you can drug yourself with beliefs. If I was a practising Christian, I would be looking for a path of transformation. Actually I feel the Eastern Orthdox tradition is the only Christian faith I could practise, but it is - how to say - 'ethnically challenging' for an Anglo such as myself. But it understands the meaning and purpose of spiritual practise. It is much nearer to the Eastern traditions that Catholic or Protestantism.

And finally - don't want to sound preachy or anything - 'faith' is really where you live from. It has to have much more depth than mere opinion. You may not actually know what you have faith in until you are tested by something. It happens on a much deeper level. The problem with the Western world generally is that it has all been externalised, projected outward into institutions and the world and the structure of the universe. The more I read and practise the more I realise that only the inner meaning has any real value, and it is very elusive, precious and rare. You have to learn to be quiet and get out of the way. It takes a lot of doing (or not-doing:-).
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 07:10 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;65458 wrote:
I refuse to accept that the whole of Christendom - and that is what our civilization was called until quite recently - was founded on a fable.


This strikes me as odd - the whole of Greek civilization was founded on mythology, that of Homer just as much as Christendom was founded on the Bible. If the Greeks can do it, why not the rest of the west?

jeeprs;65458 wrote:
(Biblical fundamentalism is in any case not accepted by any mainstream denominations and is a literal perversion of the truth. The fruit of a uniquely American kind of stupidity.)


Fundamentalism is just as much a British kind of stupidity as American.

As for mainstream denominations, with some 16 million members, the Southern Baptist Convention seems rather mainstream to me.

jeeprs;65458 wrote:
[Eastern Orthodoxy] is much nearer to the Eastern traditions that Catholic or Protestantism.


In many ways, I think you are right, but I also want to point out the potential closeness of Eastern spirituality and, at least, Catholicism. Thomas Merton was a famous Catholic monk and mystic. He wrote an interpolation of the Chinese classic Chuang Tzu, and in his book Faith and Violence titled a chapter Thich Nhat Hahn is my Brother - Thich Nhat Hahn being a famous Vietnamese Buddhist monk who would later write such books as Living Buddha, Living Christ.

jeeprs;65458 wrote:
The problem with the Western world generally is that it has all been externalised, projected outward into institutions and the world and the structure of the universe. The more I read and practise the more I realise that only the inner meaning has any real value, and it is very elusive, precious and rare. You have to learn to be quiet and get out of the way. It takes a lot of doing (or not-doing:-).


Goodness! You got a good thing goin', my friend. Smile I dig your style.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:01 pm
@Eudaimon,
Sorry, didn't mean to be insulting to Americans at all, I have many US friends, colleagues, teachers, and love many things American (but not the 'dinosaurs in Genesis' lot.)

As for 'myth and fable' from modern eyes, these are simply 'untruths' but I believe (here is where i part company with most modern/secular types) that myth and fable REPRESENT great truths, truths that in some ways are truer than history. So I believe they should neither be dismissed, nor accepted, but interpreted, and there are very many shades of meaning to be discerned apart from the simple monochromes of Belief vs Atheism

---------- Post added at 02:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 PM ----------

And yes, I do certainly value and appreciate the mystical strain in Catholicism, I am a big fan of Merton, and also love Father Bede Griffiths (whom I was lucky enough to see lecture before he died.)
 
Justin
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:45 pm
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7;65344 wrote:
Wait, I'm sorry, no proof?!?!! What the hell do you call all the various gospels? Do they not count as proof then?

Actually David made a good point and to be honest with you, whether they are or they aren't is not up to me. If someone perceives them to be proof, then that's proof enough for the individual. That mere power of belief in the various proofs can actually create a compelling change in anyone, both mentally and physiologically. That's my point. We see the entire world through the autonomous eyes of what people call God. When we see things in our world it evolves us all closer to knowing. If you look out there, balanced evolution is all over the darn place and humankind doesn't know their limits but create them daily with our beliefs and perceptions. These changes and the natural course of evolution drive humankind to understanding that he or she are One with God and One with creation which is one force divided by nobody but ourselves.

Not sure why I went that direction to explain my thoughts but it brings us back to belief that what men wrote in the bible is both accurate and true, is this correct?

For me, and digging into this and reading some books and skimming through various archives and historical documents, I've found that while many of us are following the paths in our lives that another man has laid out and their beliefs are based much upon their surroundings which effect how they view this world. If yourself were raised in China, you would more than likely not agree with what you've stated above in the quote.

So, to bring this full circle, NO I do not believe there to be any proof of Jesus Christ and the Bible and this is based on personal investigation. This doesn't mean that I don't believe and/or understand much of the message that Jesus Christ brought but I think there's more to it and many of it has been confused over the years and there have been similar prophets with similar messages and lives, long before Jesus Christ. Either way, the gospels are not proof. We could go on to argue each detail it would not end until we're old an dead. LOL. So there's no arguement here, I don't buy the the bible in it's entirety but agree that there are some very good messages within it written by some enlightened people... but then again, you can find that in the Gita, Tora and many other teachings from all over the world.

If you choose to believe that, then that is a choice you make based on your understanding and your viewing through your eyes and quite possibly a lack of understanding of how it all came to be, as seen through the eyes if you were a historian or biblical scholar. Do you see where I'm trying to go with this? Depending on many things, one of us may perceive proofs where another one doesn't. OK, so we can't prove so we must have faith and believe and this will change the course of ones entire life.

I've rambled enough. Hope someone understands where I'm coming from. Smile


avatar6v7;65344 wrote:
Here is one very simple argument for the historical accuracy of the accounts- they were written in different places across the world- indeed one christian community was founded as far away as India. And yet the central message of Christianity- that Jesus was the son of God, was crucifyed and rose from the dead is agreed upon by all of them.

I'm not sure of your point because there are the same with Muslims and other religions. Christianity and Islam just happen to be the two largest. One believes in the proofs one believes in an another proof. Each fight over their beliefs, compleletely forgetting the message of either. So this above is far from what I'd perceive to be proof of a truth.

avatar6v7;65344 wrote:
As for the greek philosophy two things. Yes much has been added and there is nothing wrong with that, if Christ hadn't wanted us to rreach our own conclusions and develop theology on our own he would have just given us the holy book direct from God, and like Islam christianity would be utterly bound to a stifiling message. The second point is that Jerusalem was part of the roman world, and Christ and his disciples, many of who were well educated, would have been well aware of greek philosophy.

That's because this all started Greek. Read this: Jesus of Nazareth - It's the wiki on Jesus and I skimmed through it and there is some good links and information there that may give you a broader understanding of the life of Jesus Christ. Is it all truth, NO but if you look deep enough the truth of it all will surface.

avatar6v7;65344 wrote:
But Chrisitainity is lasting, and the fact that we can develop and come to greater understanding of the scripture is part of the reason for that. I didn't say the bible was pick and mix, I said the old testament was pick and mix. I think that there are clear limits to the extent to which we can interptet scripture- I personally believe in the literal truth of most of the miracles in the new testament, and I think that some in the old testament may well have been true.

OK. Humanity is lasting too. The funny thing is Jesus didn't send a message that we need to understand scripture at all, if indeed it's all truth. It's true that it was written. It's true people believe. It's true the message and texts have been changed and altered. It's also true that it was a man that wrote it.

Understand scripture doesn't bring anyone closer to 'God'. There's real good scripture in India and China and all over the world that is outside the bible by enlightened individuals. Don't you see, WE are the living scripture. WE write it, we live it, we exist within it, we are.

If you believe in the bible because it fits to your eye, then that's on you. It sounds to me that you've sort of picked and choosed what you'll believe inside that bible and that's fine as most of us do. To believe in it, you must believe in those who wrote it. Understand that these stories were first told of Christ and then written decades afterwards and many of the New Testemant works have been found to be written by the same individual. And then later, may have been altered by others before it first came into print. Do you believe that?

avatar6v7;65344 wrote:
Buddhist thinking sometimes borders nihilism too closely for my taste, but I do find it very appealing as a social construct.

Your taste? So it's not about Christianity or Buddhism at all, it's about your taste. Exactly, and your tastes are altered by what?.... EVERYTHING you experience in your life. In order to understand it all you have to go even deeper into the rabbit hole.

Joyce Meyer
Today, this very evening I was attending a Joyce Meyer convention in Columbus Ohio. I'm here now actually and will be attending throughout the entire weekend. She is a Christian minister and I genuinely, so far like here style but disagree with much of what she says as well. I was recently introduced to her by a neighbor and he invited me to come the convention so I did.

Needless to say, she talks about real life experiences and if I were to think of a good quality Christian so far she'd be it. She does however preach the gospel and belief and expectation. Her experiences in life brought her this far and in 20 years these beliefs will in fact change if she's not consumed with preaching the same message with no introspection.

Anyway, I'll blog about the entire weekend and so far, there is much I like about the Joyce Meyer Christianity as it differs from many other versions, as they all do.

Peace!
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 29 May, 2009 01:13 am
@Eudaimon,
Quote:
Buddhist thinking sometimes borders nihilism too closely for my taste


FYI, Buddhist doctrine formally dismisses nihilism as one of the many false ideas that entangle people. Nihilism is understood to be the idea that nothing really exists, therefore nothing has any real importance, quality, value or meaning. In Buddhism, it is the opposite of Eternalism, which is a little harder to grasp, but which (I think) means the idea that there is an eternally existing reality (kind of like most folks picture of heaven, I guess.) More here.

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

Although I should qualify that by saying, I think there is an 'eternal truth' to be found in Buddha's teaching, I don't agree with the hard-line Theravadin doctrine that 'because nothing is permanent, there is no eternal truth.' it is just that the truth is not any thing (not this, not that.) Subtle but vital point.
 
Lily
 
Reply Fri 29 May, 2009 01:42 am
@Eudaimon,
Just let me point out the humour in this discussion. What if God created the world but wasn't Jesus, and what if Jesus never even existed. And if God then came down to earth, even though I find it rather mean to let us belive wrongly for so long, what would he say?
"Hello guys, sorry I'm late. You have belived in a dude that never existed. Haha! And btw the Bible is totally wrong, just through it out the window. Or, wait, just belive in whatever you like in the Bible."
Then we would stand there, a bit ashamed. :ashamed:
Laughing
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 10:09:05