»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Christianity - a question
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Christianity - a question |
|
|
j0n4th4n Member
since 2003-03-11
Posts 94 |
No Christian has ever been able (or has even attempted) to answer this question for me. In the past I was arrogant enough to think it was because I was the only person who had thought of it, and the only person able to understand it. This is stupid, but I still have to say, this question is never properly bothered about and consequently, addressed. Ok, it's this: the Christian Gospel says that I (and everybody else) is 'bad', and cannot reach God by his own efforts. So God provided a way for us, through Jesus Christ. Essentially I have no problem with this. The problem comes when I am asked to regard this as mercy. Because how can it be mercy, on God's part, if we are not able to reach God by any other means? I would go further and say, how can we be regarded as 'bad', if its 'in our nature'? Then it's natural. It makes me furious the way Christians don't even think about this. I mean, they mention the doctrine, but go no further than thinking, 'We are bad. We need God'. That's where my problem is - in the word 'need'. If we need God, how can He be morally justified in doing anything other than saving us? Ok, you might say, 'We need but don't deserve'. But thinking about it closely, that 'not deserving' is the need itself - God needs to make up for (but not make us deserve) our lack of deserving. Can somebody help me? How can I regard God's actions through Jesus Christ as merciful (because if I were a Christian, I would have to do so)? I have thought of one way, but I'd be interested to hear your ideas first. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 j0n4th4n - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Mercy essentially means being offered or given that which is unmerited or undeserved. In that sense, even if we are unable to reach God by any other means than his grace, the gift may be such that it is very much beyond the estimation of our own worthiness. I don't see how our helplessness detracts from the mercy of God's giving. Our helplessness/ depravity does heighten the need for such mercy, but doesn't primarily change what mercy IS. Let me return the question to you ... if we could get to God another way, and we weren't quite as helpless, how would salvation through Christ be therefore any more merciful? quote: "nature" can be used in different ways. It can describe what is properly part of our makeup, as the color of your eyes might be called "natural". Or it can be used for something that is an aspect or quality of your very being ... your fundamental make-up whether good or bad, proper or improper. It is this second sense of the word that Christians use to describe the "sinful nature". Think of it in this way, I could describe the vindictive and angry tendencies of my neighbor, Bill, by saying that "it's just his nature". I'm not saying that this is the exact equivalence or parallel of what Christian doctrine means by the sinful nature, but it is used here in a similar sense. quote: It would be that simple if it were merely a state of need. But our need for mercy, is admixed with moral implications. Yes, we inherited our "sin nature". But this sin nature is also described as something willfully and eagerly partaken of, by each individual. The fall was in the beginning, but it is also in the present. Our will, and secret desires are very much connected with original sin. It's much more complicated than the example of you inheriting, let's say, blue eyes. There is also the idea of human solidarity in scripture ... that we each chose with Adam (the archetypal representative of the human race) to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And that it is vain to imagine that we wouldn't also have fallen ... We are merely the "members" of Adam in a way. Adam can actually be renedered as "everyman" in the Hebrew. So if we each "like sheep have gone astray" as the scripture describes the self life ... the life of sin, then our need is also the need for reconciliation and forgiveness. In which case, if God were wholly about justice and not about showing mercy, he would in no way be obligated to offer or provide for our salvation. And the manner in which he did it, only underscores how merciful God was/ is. quote: I agree. quote: But God doesn't "need" in the same way we need. He needs to offer salvation as the crown and perfection of his love, not as to make-up for a deficiency in his own character. As I said God would have no moral flaw in not saving us. But since he did choose to save us, by bearing our sins upon himself ... he has far exceeded being just and fair. He has moved on into the excellence of offering and giving love, when we were the most unloveable. Loving us while "we were yet enemies". Hope some of that helps. Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Guilt and Dogma 101. Not meant as derision, but it's hard not to whince at the sight of them. I know religion is an ultra-sensitive topic and I don't intend to undermine beliefs, I simply question dogma as one would political platforms. So Stephanos, I hope you don't take offense with what I consider a matter of semantics. Were we discussing politics I'd call that response partisan propaganda or spin doctoring. Like calling a war a police action, occupation a liberation, that definition of mercy seems to me subjugation. As the focus of the thread is on the Christian belief system then that's what I must offer my opinion on, not as an attack on you or your beliefs, just an attack on dogmaticism that claims christianity as the only path. Judaism was the ONE path handed down from God to man, but it later birthed Christianity. If he allowed/accomodated/sanctioned a second path how can one confidently claim that others have not will not open? Were Sumerian, Egyptian, and Grecian beliefs not also paths? Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, are these people not currently on paths? All of them with their own sacred laws passed from god to man and in defense to christians, many with the similar and arrogant assertion of being the only way to god. But again the topic is on Christianity's assertion and so I offer my views. One of the final straws that lead me to turn from christianity, came during a baptism. In his sermon the priest claimed that the child, because of original sin, was a deliquent and no better than an animal in the eyes of God. That is, until he his concecrated by the holy water. I almost laughed aloud but was subdued by a pinch and stare by a girlfriend who heard me start. The assumption that the path of christianity alone negates the flaws inherent in man, or is the only way to the godhead, is incredibly disturbing. It undermines all humanity. And I couldn't/can't believe in, or find anything merciful or loving about a God that views his creation with such contempt. In my humble opinion it's not the path but the essence of the man that leads him to god and i'd rather believe in a god who can respect that, and respect me regardless of the path. |
||
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
Raph: Check this out. http://www.kobe-c.ac.jp/~watanabe/blake/allrel.htm My favourite answer to the "why are there other religions?" problem. Hope it helps. "God becomes as we are that we may be as he is." ~William Blake |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Thanks Brian, the poet/bard replaced by religion and doctrine. All religions, mythologies eminate from the same universal archetypes. Anybody studying religions and mythologies can plainly see the 'cross pollination'. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
In the beginning the same people, Pagans, barbarians, heathens, witches, warriors, those people preached against by religion-perfectionists, founded the Feast of Spirit, crowned its goblets, entertained its bounty; all of this was in one hall, that of Nature, for back then there was not any strict segregation between Nature and Spirit, and Science and Religion (before they were named); Nature and Spirit were interwoven, therefore Science and Religion were too. One might become, it seemed, as natural and scientific through Spiritual and religions things, as spiritual through Natural and scientific things. Any seemed a path and part of the other. Men partook of the feast thus, spiritual naturalists, and natural spiritualists. Nature had Spirit, and Spirit had Nature. Until the new guest and the name of Religion came. The Religion was not pleased with the Nature; though it loved very much the Spirit. It decided that such a Spirit must come from a seperate Hall, a heavenly Headquarters for it might never believe that the center is such a base place as this. Religion now gathered influence and force and moved as much of the Feast of Spirit indoors as it seemed possible; as it seemed to give him a sense of being out of Nature's hall and into a specialized detachment where he may nurture better relationships with Headquarters, the seperate hall where Spirit must come from and go to. All men now are supposed go to that House and be indoors in order to find Spirit, and be the more influenced because those manmade structuralisms are the only path to Headquarters. Nature now is a corpse, and naturalists are corpse lovers. All the spirit must be inddoors and in books and special structuralism. If you don't go indoors, you are corpselover. Into these Houses of Perfectionism, the feast of Spirit was scattered and taken out of the Hall of Nature, for men cloy themselves in all things, and thereafter become perfectionists wishing for More and More. The same thing happened with Nature. Naturalists became and become detached too and perfectionists in their own way as Scientists, often making nature out to be absolute on its own, taking it out of spirit, and enforcing the idea that spirit only comes from a "seperate" place in Man's mind, just as Spiritualists became and become detached as Religionists from the natural often making Spirit as an absolute on its own, taking it out of nature, and enforcing the idea that spirit only comes from that detached hall and Headquarters that are above and beyond man's mind and all nature. Such ideals leave little sacredness "outdoors." For both Religionists and Scientists have forced EVERYTHING spiritual "indoors" and forced it to be attributed always to something Beyond, or to the habits of the human Mind; so now when we go "outdoors" there is no more ceremony, no sacredness, no stateliness, no special respect; all we do find is the world, the flaws of flesh and temporariness of elemental combinations. We no more see native spirit interwoven anymore; for Religionists and Scientists have decided it is all only native to their special "Centers" For these it is all beyond and for those it is all in the head. So acknowledging the goodness in Nature and Spirit, but also the illnesses, man wishes the spiritual goodness to be housed seperatly from the illnesses of nature. And no men should be treated wrong for wishing that or believing in it; but I believe that men shall face the truth that there may be no such absolute segregation of things and that spiritual goodness increase may only be conjunction with natural increase and goodness. I believe Spirit shall always have Nature, and Nature shall always have Spirit. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-09-2004 03:45 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Aenimal: quote: Not exactly. It was the GOD of Judaism who was the right path. It's not as if God ever sanctioned a different deity or something radically at variance with the Old Testament, when Christianity was formed. In fact the Old Testament in many ways pre-figured Christ, and couched prophecy which confirmed that for the green shoot of Christianity to spring from the Judaic Stump was the most natural thing in the world to have happened. Christianity was a fulfillment of the Jewish religion. All of these other religions you mentioned were not given through God at all. Many of them do not even recognize any god, as Buddhism is primarily an atheistic philosophy and discipline, and can hardly be called a religion. The ones that do recognize deities, recognize such differing and contradictory ideas of who God is, that they are not reconcilable to each other, much less Christianity and Judaism. Please don't misunderstand me... I am NOT saying that these religions are devoid of truth. I'm just saying that their more fundamental elements are not compatible. My point is, if God truly gave a progressive revelation (which is the Jewish and Christian claim) then there would naturally be a great deal of coherent uniformity and continuity between parts. A god who gives revelations which are fundamentally incompatible in any way, and diametrically opposed, would be a confused god indeed. That's why, as Ravi Zacharias says, "It's more logical to say that all religions are wrong, than to say that all religions are right". quote: The truth of religous claims should be judged by the actions of religious practitioners? When do we get to go and look at the datum of the Old and New Testament, and say "That's different" ... "That's not right". I would share your shock at this misguided statement. This priest was theologically defunct ... if you are correctly relating the story. Men being worth no more than animals is not a concept taught by the Bible ... sin notwithstanding. That's more in line with ultra-liberal environmentalism and the worship of Mother Earth. quote: That's one way to look at it ... on the dark and cynical side of things. Many however find everthing merciful and loving about a God who views his creation with such love and passion that he chose to redeem it, to empty himself and subject himself to death. quote: Actually the "essence" of a man determines what kind of paths he will take. So why do you demand of God what you are even above doing yourself ... You certainly do not respect all paths, or all people regardless of the paths they take. I've heard you express disapproval and disgust many times on these boards. (that's not always a bad thing to express). Why should God be any different than you in that regard? Why should God tolerate all, when you really don't feel that way yourself? Of course many people want to be able to make judgements, but won't admit that God has any right to do so with his own creation. quote: BTW, I notice and (genuinely) appreciate the restraint of tone. We can cordially disagee and agree can't we? Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: I'd have to diagree, it wasn't the GOD of Judaism but the LAWS of Judaism that were the path to the God. I'd also argue against christianity as we know it being natural at all let alone 'the most natural thing in the world.' From the hand of Saul of Tarsus to it's concessions to Roman audiences there is little evidence of a 'natural' progression. While it holds similarities, Christianity and it's rituals are enough of a variance from Judaism to be included with the other examples. I'd also argue, and billions of Jews would agree, that the fulfillment of Judaism has yet to arrive. quote: Ah, but you say sin notwithstanding, which I assume agrees that those who are sinful are no better than beasts. If so, in christian thinking, an unbaptized child, has the original sin hanging over his head. Therefore the priest's comments were in accordance. A sin is a sin. And if god can hold men in contempt than a child as well. quote: I'm neither dark nor cynical in this regard, I simply don't follow the same belief. Yours works on the assumption of Christ being the manifestation of God on earth, something I, and a myriad of other religions, do not believe in. A merciful God would accept the uniqueness and indivulaity of his creation and allow more than one path. quote: Mine is generally one of compassion, kindness and love. Sounds essentially christian does it not? Yet I've strayed from the christian path. It also sounds like a number of other religions because, in essence, they all teach the same principles. But none of these are my paths because I don't believe there's a need for a particular 'system' of belief. Especially considering systems are created and manipulated by men, corrupted and convoluted through history. My path is a direct one, me to God. If he can't accept that, then where lies the mercy? quote: I've often called God of the bible petty, vindictive and jealous so I'm not disagreeing with you that he has the right or the wont. But as an omniescent and all merciful God one would think he would be ABOVE the petty emotions of his lowly creations. We are created in his likeness correct? If men can be open-minded and accepting of change I'd like to assume a diety capable of the same. quote: Certainly, written words lack the tone and humour of the spoken so that my words may seem more biting or caustic then they are. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote:Why would you assume that, Raph? quote:I think the Bible clearly teaches that God's disposition towards us is anything but contemptuous. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: You are incorrect regarding Buddhism, it has a rich 'mythology' containing dieties, demons and saints. The Dalai Lama is the Buddha spirit(god) incarnate much as your Christ is your God incarnate. Actually your description is quite complimentary, it's a credit to buddhism that it evolved enough to let go much of the myth and focus on the message. As for the other religions, again I disagree, Sumerian beliefs and knowledge were handed down from the Annunaki to humans, Egyptian belief and word from Thoth. Denise: I assumed it because the statement: "..sin notwithstanding" seemed to suggest a seperation and that the sinful were viewed as such. quote: Depends, for example a comment like; "I am sorry I have made them" in Noah's Ark could be considered contemptous. The expelling and curse upon Adam and Eve for a first time offence seems hardly forgiving or merciful in my opinion. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Raph, you make so much sense, it makes my brain feel good.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
That is true if God is supposed to conduct court as Mankind does nowadays. Where, Adam and Eve shall only be slapped on their wrist and let to go forget about their God, and what Obedience and Fear are, and for all their knowledge of good and evil, soon listen to the same snake again. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Essorant, it's not about the punishment for their disobedience, the act called for stern action, but that particular action is overkill. If you commit a similar offense against a parent's wishes than surely punishment is demanded and expected, within reasonable boundaries. A loving parent would not demand deportation, or extend that punishment or guilt upon generations of others. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
One of the biggest mistakes a loving parent can make, Raph, is to say one thing and then do another. "If you do that, the consequences will be this." Changing the rules isn't merciful, it's just lying. That's as true for kids as it is for mankind. As to the generations of others, it always amazes that people have no problem latching onto their parent's bank account, but feel no obligation to assume their liabilities. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I agree with you Ron, and as I mentioned punishment was rightfully deserved but the punishment did not suit the crime. Let me pose a question regarding a young child's development? Is it wrong to assume that a parent's job is to instill concepts as right and wrong and then enforce those concepts with rules and punishments? Surely children should obey, but unless they are taught and learn the difference, what do they know of consequence? Consider that Adam and Eve are the very first beings and that they are completely void of knowledge. As such, consider how naive and impressionable they would be, is it any wonder they were swayed? They haven't been taught wrong/right or to avoid the counsel of strange talking serpents, nor do they understand consequence. Considering these things, and Adam and Eve as young impressionable children, isn't there room for leeway at the beginning of all things? |
||
|
j0n4th4n Member
since 2003-03-11
Posts 94 |
I'm glad to have caused such a lively debate. Unfortunately I am really busy at the moment with exams, so I can't join in. Everyone who answered - thanks! |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: This assumes and imperfect or "sliding scale" standard - something that I think would be inconsistent with a "perfect" God. To the Christian, that perfect moral standard was met in the Christ's life and the "leeway" as you put is God's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. You could just as easily substitute "grace" with "leeway" and say that, through faith, we are saved by God's leeway. Honestly, I might agree with you that God applied His standard unfairly against Adam and Eve if He had not been willing to live up to that perfect standard Himself. To live it and then offer to die as our substitute provides more than enough reason for me to respond to God with gratitude. Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Adam and Eve were not children though, and were not void of Knowledge; they knew God, and they knew Obedience and Fear to follow; and yet they chose not to follow those, and ate of the only tree they were forbidden not to. That was not the snake that made their choice not to follow their God, Obedience and Fear; that was not the snake that chose to take of that and eat: the only they were forbidden not to. Through bible-lore the message is unambiguous: you follow or you fall. Adam and Eve were more evolved than I think most readers acknowledge; they should avoid the snake, as they were not unequipped with which they knew better, in God, Obedience and Fear. The tree seemed good to Eve after the snake spoke to her; so even though Eve knew not good and evil, there was a sensing and seeming of good and evil; and yet it should seem better to listen to a snake, when she knew how to listen to God, and knew clearly God's will, as the book shows? They are punished for sinning not being sinners. They were not sinners. They supposedly lived for hundreds of years and that seems to be the only sin they ever committed. Therefore, the generations are not sinners inherintly, they are "sinners" only when they choose to sin, as Eve and Adam did, but against even more than Adam and Eve had and knew when they sinned: a knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve faced such consequences for not following, without that knowledge of Good and evil, now we shall face the consequences for not following with the knowledge of good and evil. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-17-2004 03:07 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Essorant, I didn't say they were physically children, but being the first, only just created, they were childlike and innocent. Where is it written they had any level of knowledge, let alone obedience and fear to follow, when they couldn't even grasp nudity? Indeed the trouble begins with bad choices on their part, heeding the serpent and not god, just as children still naively get into cars and take candy from strangers. It wasn't malice or an act of betrayal to god, but a simple naive mistake. I disagree with your assumption that we are not sinners inherently, at least in christian thought. The ritual of baptism, the essential introduction into christianity, is a cleansing of the original sin passed from generation to generation. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Where is it written they had any level of knowledge, let alone obedience and fear to follow, when they couldn't even grasp nudity? " I think it is suggested that they fully and maturely knew what God forbade them not do and why it was forbidden Even as naked as they were. But they had very much more hair back then so it didn't make as much of a difference. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Again I disagree Essorant, I think there are more allusions to naivety or innocence, than of and knowledge or understanding. Mention of self awareness and fear come only after the apple is consumed and the exile. Hairy? Impossible, haven't you seen the paintings they were a perfect glamour couple. Grins |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I disagree with your assumption that we are not sinners inherently, at least in christian thought. The ritual of baptism, the essential introduction into christianity, is a cleansing of the original sin passed from generation to generation." No, That is the consequence and corruption of sin, not we being sinners because sin is our original nature. It is a corruption of our original nature, the ill conditions that the next generation inherits, in the influences of which, they shall be as likely, if not more to sin. To me the cleansing is a token to the protection of one from the wrong conditions that the world has brought upon itself and upon people: that of sin, that makes us more likely to sin. In that sense the term "inherently" is correct. But I don't think mean we are sinners, at least not originally. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-17-2004 11:19 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Again I disagree Essorant, I think there are more allusions to naivety or innocence, than of and knowledge or understanding. Mention of self awareness and fear come only after the apple is consumed and the exile. " In a general sense and in respect to the world, that is true; but in respect to one tree, I think they were maturally knowledgeable of what was forbidden! [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-18-2004 12:01 AM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
What was forbidden, a very basic understanding of God's rule yes. But what it meant or of its consequence, I still think not. This is the very first human mistake. I think a good parent(and what is god but the ultimate parent)should be understanding with the first mistake, a lesson learned for the child and a suitable punishment to remind them consequences of doing it again. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Who is to say that isn't exactly what is happening? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Raph: quote: There is truth in what you say. But a half of a truth, is still only part of the picture. The restrospective aspect of the New Testament tells us (in so many words) that the typical Jewish response to the Law was an inappropriate reliance upon externals, a tendency of treating God as if he were a debtor, and a general feeling of self righteousness and superiority. They kept rules, but forgot about what the rules were really about. Here's something that many people are not clear about, when it comes to the Old Testament. The rules always were secondary to relationship. It always was supposed to lead to a greater revelation than just "try harder". That's why in addition to Paul telling us that the law was "a schoolmaster" to lead to the Messiah, we also have much foreshadowing, and mixtures of something deeper than the law tucked right there in the words of Old Testament prophets. Such as ... "I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6) and "With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:6-8) and "You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it. You do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Psalm 51:16,17) Such passages suggest to me that the most insightful Jews understood that the Law (expressed by words like "sacrifice", "burnt offerings", "oil", "rams", etc...) was nothing in itself. It was rather right heart in relationship with God. quote: I never suggested that Christianity is essentially the same as Judaism. It is radically different in many ways .. which is why it didn't turn out to be just another jewish sect. But that doesn't mean that the "natural progression" isn't there. Just like, having never seen it, you could hardly guess or anticipate a tree coming from a seed. quote: I guess it depends upon which view you hold, as to what the Jewish religion actually was. Was it a man-made world view, culture, and way of life? Or was it a revelation given to a group of people from God himself? In other words, is there any objectivity to it, or is it all subjective? Does it stand upon it's own, or is it defined by the Jew who claimed it was defined in Heaven? If you hold the first view, then I guess ultimately the Old Testament means what the Jew says it means, and therefore must be fulfilled according to his liking. If the latter view is held, (Which is what the Jews themselves actually claim) there is at least the possibility of misinterpretation ... even that "billions of Jews" might have gotten it wrong. quote: Your assumption is one which is unnecessary ... even unsupported by the Bible. It's too simplistic. To me, your reasoning goes like this ... "God tells us that sin may ultimately ruin us .. therefore he hates us as if we were already ruined and beyond redemption". You might reply that the Bible does teach that we are already "ruined", that sin has made our righteousness "as fithly rags", and that the Church has always taught human depravity alongside the doctrine of original sin. And you are right, in a sense. If left to our own devices, the fatal wound of the fall would invariably result in irreversible ruin (hell). But what God tells us about our own vantage point, he denies from his own. The Christian view is that Christ loved us "while we were yet sinners" and "at enmity with God", enough to die for us and bring us into a new standing with him. Now in light of that, how can you say that God thinks we're no better than animals? If that's the case, he thinks very highly of such "animals", enough to give the life of his son. quote: Okay, there may be some truth in what the priest said ... though very poorly expressed in my opinion (then again, all I have to go on is what you say ... but if you quote this priest like you quote the Bible, I may be missing something) . For God sees this child's life, not within the confines of time, in freeze-frames, but as a whole. Transcending time, he knows who this child will be when he or she grows up. So this child, having yet committed no wrong, is still in the same general predicament as all of us ... as one who will end up sinning, willfully and eagerly, and therefore apart from the Grace of God, is destined for ruin. But it is the very grace of God which has declared that "God so loved the world", even this very child, "that he gave his only begotten son". Does that sound like God deems this child no better than a beast? Hardly. Half of the truth always ends up being wrong, because it is only half the truth. Mercy still triumphs over Judgement. quote: You must mean by "allow more than one path", that God should make all paths the same. But they are different paths, with exclusive and contradictory claims. That's like asking God to let A = non-A, just becuase we want him to. And the path of Christianity has nothing to do with God not liking diversity. Diversity is still allowed. quote: They all teach the same morals. I agree. I recognize common truth in all religions. But to say that morality is the "essential" teaching of all religions, is to misunderstand them. Really you seem to be saying not so much about these varying religions, but that, to you, morality is the most important aspect of them all. But foundationally, why is morality so important to you? quote: Who is God? You've denied the need for such cumbersome things as dogma and doctrine. Since you value morality, and claim a direct link to God, I'm assuming that your God must have a high moral standard, and must value things like "compassion, kindness, and love". So tell me in more definite terms, is God moral, amoral, or immoral? Let's pretend that I'm interested in getting to know more about your God ... help me understand him. Does your God accept as equally valuable any path, even one of abject immorality? Wouldn't he have to do so in order to be "merciful", according to your definition of mercy? You obviously hold a standard that says that morality is better than immorality. Does your God hold that same standard? quote: He may be above our emotions, but he is certainly not below them. Moral indifference is usually a contemptible thing in most cultures. Are your moral views about the necessity of compassion and love also "petty"? Remember that in praising love, you are automatically rebuking hatred. In elevating compassion, you are at the same time chiding any lack of it. I guess for God to be above such "pettiness", he would have to be for love and hatred, an advocate of compassion and cruelty? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-18-2004 06:41 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: First of all, the Genesis story is doubtless a synopsis, and puts the events in a simple parabolic form. But rather than insisting upon how vulnerable they were, weak, and unprepared, and all of that ... what about the fact that they were in daily communion with God, in an unfallen state? Such a privileged state of affairs would render them only more accountable in my opinion. The contrast of sin and holiness must have been great. Even the scripture doesn't seem to be ambiguous when God said "Do not eat. For the day you eat of it you shall surely die". Those in the dark, often stumble with some measure of excuse, but those in perfect light have to choose their stumbling. I once saw a T-Shirt which read "Lead me not into temptation. I can find it well enough on my own." If any quote could be used as evidence of divine treason it would be that one. I'm just not so sure that the "punishment doesn't fit the crime" complaint is all that valid when it comes to what happened in the Garden of Eden. It was the same complaint that was given in the Garden after the sin was found out... it's "the woman you gave me". In other words, "It was something in your providence, God, that was defective. I won't consider my own willful transgression. You didn't set me up right." Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Didn't some bugs and birds and beasts probably eat of that tree before Adam and Eve? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: I completely agree(deep breaths..it happens)except, (oh you saw it coming) that I would also apply this line of thinking towards Christians as well. One set of rules replaced for a new set and billions of followers who've forgotten their meaning and too often have an air of superiority and self righteousness. Which is my problem with many Christians, (or arrogant pundits of other religions for that matter) how quickly one can dissect other religions and philosophies to justify their own. Nietzche once wrote of christian scholars : They advance their conjectures as blandly as dogmas and are hardly ever perplexed by the exegis of a Biblical verse. Again and again they say " I am right for it is written," and the interpretation that follows is of such impudent arbitrariness that a phililogist is either stopped in his tracks, torn between anger and laughter, and keeps asking himself: Is it possible? Is this honest? Is it even decent? No it is not. His words are harsh but this is the kind of thinking I've argued against. quote: The reason it didn't turn out to be another jewish sect was it's Romanization/paganization. It's partly because of this that I argued against a 'natural' progression. It's an offshoot, no doubt, with its bizzare history and deviation from it's roots (not just the OT but Pauline thought from Jesus' teachings), makes it seem more a product then a progression. quote: Again Stephanos, I agree with this logic, but again it applies to Christianity. Through critical thought and historical evidence scholars have shown that there is at least a possibility of misinterpretation within Christianity. quote: Then why not eliminate the ritual of baptism as a cleansing of original sin? Why is it the sin or a need for cleansing still mentioned if we have earned a new standing with God? quote: I'm not entirely sure if I've been complimented or insulted. I've never misquoted the bible, if that's the assertion, while you may argue my interpretation of the words I think I've clearly shown I am a student of Christianity and theological study. Whether you agree with my opinions or not. As for the priest, it's an accurate quote, one doesn't forget a comment like that. quote: Can you not see a fault or 'air of superiority' in thinking that? What's to say that's not exactly what Christianity is? That Pauline thought is a great example of everything you just said? That in their failure to adhere and fulfill the Law of Judaism, he and his followers abandoned it for a new ideal instead, one that would suit their lifestyles? quote: I never said that morality is the 'sole' teaching of all religions, morality was mentioned but I spoke of principles, all religions while the words vary, teach similar principles that will lead adherents to the godhead. [QUOTE]Who is God? You've denied the need for such cumbersome things as dogma and doctrine. Since you value morality, and claim a direct link to God, I'm assuming that your God must have a high moral standard, and must value things like "compassion, kindness, and love". So tell me in more definite terms, is God moral, amoral, or immoral? Let's pretend that I'm interested in getting to know more about your God ... help me understand him.[QUOTE] Stephanos, I never claimed a direct link or any desert visions. I said the path I've chosen is a direct one I haven't claimed it as the RIGHT one. Listen I don't know everything about you, and were you to offer your life story it would not capture your true essence or make me understand you completely. In that respect the Bible, Kuran,Upanishad, and various other sacred texts and religions cannot reveal the Godhead. Spirituality isn't be taught, it's felt. I'm moral because I respect my fellow man to the best of my ability. I'm not perfect, nor am I trying to be, my life is about finding balance. I can't tell you what myGod is because it is undefinable. The closest I can come is to say that it is one of balance. The universe is full of opposing forces and it's in balance that harmony is created. There is no such thing as perfection. Humans, gods and universe alike. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I see the same thing. And sadly, even what (or who) is right and true, can be misfollowed. But that is certainly not true of all. There are saints in this world whose light makes me feel ashamed of my own. quote: Isn't it apparant that Nietzsche was bent on discrediting the Christian religion, and not really concerned with accuracy in that regard? He was trying to demolish an ideology that he disagreed with, because it denied him the absolute autonomy that he craved for, and wrote about in "The New Morality" and other writings. So, this quote, like others is very vague and doesn't hit anything in particular. You can't just lump all biblical scholars together in one group and then criticize them based upon philology ... especially if you don't even bother to mention their mistakes or errors in any detail. Nietszche. as a rhetorician, was wise not to get too specific with his tirades. Is this honest? Is this even decent? quote: So Pauline thought is at odds with Jesus' teachings? I've heard this line of argument before, and I personally think it's unsubstantiated. Can you provide some specific examples? Then we can talk about it. quote: I know there IS much misinterpretation within Christendom. Even Jesus seemed to predict that such would be the case. quote: The biblical teaching is not that water baptism (a symbol of an internal truth) cleanses us from sin, but that apprehension of Christ by faith does. It is believing Christ that gives cleansing and forgiveness. Baptism is a rite or sacrament given to express by an outward picture, an inward reality of regeneration. Just like a marriage ceremony outwardly demostrates an inward commitment. We could talk about the scriptures, but I honestly think that if any ecclesiastical organization teaches baptism as a means to forgiveness, they are erring scripturally. Though I will not go so far as to say that Baptism is not important, for it was commanded by Jesus and the apostles, as a means of publicly professing faith. Even though Christ has provided the way unto the Father ... that path must be entered upon and traversed. It's not an automatic process. There may be money in the bank, but I'm still required to believe that there is, to pick up a pen, and write a check ... or it doesn't benefit me. quote: then I say the priest was not expressing the truth ... and that he was expressing an idea which is really foreign and incongruous with Christianity. I believe I can sustain that quite easily from the Bible. quote: Historically Paul was an exemplary Jew ... a Pharisee of Pharisees. Failure to adhere to the Law could never have been the reason Paul left Judaism. Where do you get that idea from? Give me something besides conjecture. As much as the Jewish converts to Christianity were persecuted, you say that they took on this new thing to "suit their lifestyles"? I honestly can't see how this can be logically believed. It is not disputed historically (even among unbelieving biblical scholars) that the early Christians risked life and limb and suffered tremendous persecution in order to identify with the Christian Church. The only way such things as the above can be believed, is to say that the records of the scriptures themselves contain little historical truth, but much that is purely invented for political reasons ... and then to believe modern recontructions of the history (because there is no other alternative history written, by which to reconstruct Pauline and early Christian history). The method in a nutshell: The scriptures (a priori) can't be true. But since we have no other history which would concretely refute what the New Testament says, we are confident that we as 19th and 20th century naturalistic scholars can reconstruct what must have happened. Look beyond the "Jesus Seminar" method of scholarship and you might be surprised. Stephen. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I disagree with regards to Nietzche seeking absolute autonomy, it that were the case it would have served him well to discredit all religion. However in The Antichrist he praises Buddism, and offers an interesting comparison between it and Christianity. His words are harsh, no doubt. And while I quoted them I applied it to a manner of thinking rather than simply to Christian scholars, in fact there are many I enjoy reading. It's the manner of thinking that applies logic and reasons in arguing against other faiths but fails to apply the same critical analysis to their own with which i share a distaste. I'd respond to the rest of your comment, but haven't the energy? What could I say or propose that you wouldn't view as conjecture, entrenched in faith? The fact of the matter is it's ALL conjecture because there are no definite answers. However, Christianity, unlike most religions, is recent enough to be pitted against historical fact, it's roots and development heavily documented. It's under this scrutiny that Christianity fails me where other religions might fail you. If it works for you by all means. I have no motive against you or your beliefs. Maybe I'll come back to this and share with you why the more one delves into Saul the more doubts and suspicions arise. But for now I'll take my leave as religion is the last thing I want to think of today. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Nietzsche Praising Buddhism speaks very little on the autonomy issue ... since Buddhism has nothing to do with a personal transcendent God. It is essentially a non-theistic religion. And taking Nietzsche as whole, it is obvious that his main theme was "breaking the chains" of the archaic idea that we must submit to the will of a personal God who determines what is right and wrong for us. If this was not his main theme, it was surely one of the more prominent ones. quote: I too share this distaste. quote: If what you believe is based upon good reasons to believe it, then why hesitate to bring it forth. Don't shy away now that we've begun to speak of particulars ... particulars will determine if our positions can stand or not. And I'll listen to what you say, and try to be open and honest, and respond. If what you say is solid, then my responses should appear as weak and doubtful or in need of revision, and vice versa. I'll put the question back to you as a friendly challenge ... "What could you say or propose that I SHOULDN"T view as conjecture ... whether or not I do"? quote: So, you've shifted positions. You just stated (in not so many words) that you feel further discussion is futile since I will (against reason) percieve what you say as "conjecture" rather than reasonably founded. Now you're saying that it IS all conjecture and that no view is reasonably founded. Come on, don't go there. That's really not what you believe is it? In my opinion, that's the easy way out of responsible argumentation. quote: Good. You capitulated back to my way of viewing things ... that it's not all so nebulous and beyond knowing. Now just bring forth some specifics, instead of a general comment that cannot possibly be refuted, and we might get somewhere. If it's documented, let's hear your complaints. I too have examined the history of Christianity and find it more than plausible ... I'm genuinely interested in what you find to be so doubtful and why. quote: No problem. I'll be patient. Stephen. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
jOn4th4n - you said, "It makes me furious the way Christians don't even think about this. I mean, they mention the doctrine, but go no further than thinking, 'We are bad. We need God'. That's where my problem is - in the word 'need'. If we need God, how can He be morally justified in doing anything other than saving us?" I was moved to post here. With due respect to all opiners above for their various beliefs, which for them I am sure are valid in their own ways....I would like to offer something for you to consider. The Holy Bible says man was created in the image of God. I believe that is true. Christianity also teaches God is omnipresent and omnipotent. If you take that truth and accept it, then imagine Almighty God in the form of a huge body (because we can't imagine what God really is) and that we are each the smallest most minute atom in that body -- now this is just an anology -- then with that in mind, we all make up the body of God, all living things, all created things. Now if we could imagine that God is the blood, the brain, and the nervous system providing the rest of the body with what it needs -- then maybe we start to get a picture. Also, if you take that one step further... white blood cells fighting off infection; e.g., the good versus the bad, then I think you'll begin to see what I'm getting at. I think we try to put God into an image of what we, in our limited perceptons, can comprehend, when, indeed, we will never be able to do that. We would self-combust if we got close to the answer, I think. So, if we are created in his/her/its (I'll use his because its common usage) image and that image is not really that of a man, rather, that etheral soul we cannot yet comprehend -- that is what I think contains the spark which connects us to God. I think in Christianity, Jesus was our gift for that period of humanity to re-awaken our divine sparks -- to help open a door for us to be able to feel the nerve impulses from God running through us again (anaology here again). For me, Jesus Christ was a man so surrendered to receiving these impulses that he was a true window to God and a gift for us to reconnect through his teaching. Because the Bible teaches he was the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last -- I also believe he was everything in between. In other words, I believe this Christ window has been provided to us throughout the history of mankind to help us reconnect -- I believe it came to all cultures and in all different kinds of religion. How can we make Christ so small as to limit him to the historical Jesus? If you were to really read (I mean with surrendered eyes) what the Bible reports were His words, they have layers of meaning. The more you read in that way, the more you see (with different eyes) that Jesus never claimed to be God but he was God in that he reflected the nature of God because he was truly and completely surrended to God's will. I call myself a Christain because that is my first language of spiritual understanding. I am not a theologean, not a philosopher, and not skilled in these types of debates. I just know that there is a master mind to it all and that our hearts will never be filled until we are walking in tune with the All that is All. Would it help to tell you I had what is called an "after-death" experience? Sorry, I ran on so much. Above all, I guess, is that I think churches teach us what we can understand when we are young and have gotten so bogged down in doctrines that the truth just gets burried. Somewhere in the teachings in the New Testament, you'll find words, I think it's I Corinthians 13 ....something like...."When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." My heritage is that of being a Quaker although I have gone to all types of protestant churches throughout my life and have studied the doctrines of Catholicism and other religions, too. When I was young, I was taught that there was no intercessor between me and my God. I see Jesus, the Christ, as my salvation because sometimes, I have trouble finding my way back to God and the Christ, the Holy Spirit, opens a door for me. The way I read the scriptures, Jesus addresses this himself and refused to be called God, he only spoke of God as his Father, as Christains do in the Lord's prayer. Though I believe because he was so surrendered to the impulses and fullness of his Father that what came out of him did indeed appear to be God. Does this make any sense? A question I always struggled with despite my strong beliefs is that of the virgin birth -- but I got my answer to that, as well. First, there are reflections of self-reproduction throughout nature, even in the animal kingdom. Second, I received a vision of Mary being polinated like a flower by invisible forces (angelic host). Now, I question no longer. You have your own searching....what a wonderful quest you are on....and I am sure that if you truely seek, you will find, no matter what religion "speaks" to you. [This message has been edited by iliana (06-13-2004 12:50 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
