Sorry i'm so late with all the posts here, have been away on a grand fishing trip with the boys (that's a lie, my laptop has had a fault)
Raas_2012: 1) "The Christian Canon is more about Apostolic Authority.': Says the Catholic Church. In reality is is about State Authority. Constantine wasn't even a Christian but recognised that having Christianity become the State Religion would serve to unite a rapidly fracturing empire. It is the same with the Qur'an in Islam, it represents the views of the state and not the faith. Islam had a distinct advantage in that canonisation took place much earlier than it had in Christianity, and, literacy was almost nil amongst Arabs. Even into the late Umayyad Era scribes were almost universally Christian slaves. The Jewish Canon on the other hand was constructed to meet the narrow views of a small group of theologians. It took place just after the end of the Bar Kochba Rebellion and so it represents a view that seriously downplays the huge ethno-nationalist component of the religion.
Hey, Rachamim. It's nice to see some detailed posts on the thread, which you have clearly thought about and looked into. Though I clearly oppose your viewpoint, it's nice to see you come out with facts and research.
Now let's tear it apart
...
Constantine wasn't even a Christian but recognised that having Christianity become the State Religion would serve to unite a rapidly fracturing empire
This is nothing more than a conjectural theory. Infact it goes against what is historically recorded.
Constantine wasn't a Christian when he became emperor. True. But because of a religious experience he turned to Christiannity, and it inspired him to make Christiannity the state religion. The religious experience - the story goes that Constantine had a vision of the words "in hoc signo vinces" upon the symbol of Christianity, a cross, that led him to promise to follow the Christian religion if victory were granted.
Now it may be that constantine is a liar, and made the story up to justify making Christiannity the state religion. But that is just a theory. There is no way of proving how genuine his religious experience was.
Whether God was working through the emperor to make Christiannity a more prominent religion on the world, or whether constantine is a damn liar, is, like most religious experiences - unprovable - and ones perception on the matter, is going to be influenced by whether they believe in God or not.
rachamim said:
IV) 'The meaning of Matthew 10:35-36 is that Jesus will divide righteous from unrighteous.': It could be. It can also be Jesus warning followers that choosing to follow him might cause families to break up, considering that he was only speaking to Jews. However, that verse is basically taken verbatim from the Book of Micah (7:5-6), and can be found paraphrased as well in Isaiah 9:14 in the Jewish Canon and 2 places in the Jewish Apocrypha, I Enoch, 56:7 and 100:1-2). In this context it is entirely about the immediate precursor of the Messianic Advent. In other words, just before the Messiah appears families will be split into Believers and Unbelievers. As try as they might the early Christian Theologians couldn't get around some very uncomfortable facts ("facts" according to Christianity). Jesus was a Jew and Judaism, try as they might to humanise it for Western tastes, is an extremely violent faith, especially during the lifetime of Jesus (IF he existed).
I don't think anyone will argue that Jesus aroused violence. Have you ever seen "the passion of Christ"? But it was the innocent nature, and respect for the truth which clashed with mans vile, sinful nature that caused violence to errupt.
Matthew 26:51-52 said:
With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
It seems jesus and his followers were always the victims on violence, never the instigators. If you're trying to tell me that scripture says christians were instigators of violence, then you have a very warped and misinformed understanding of the bible.
shambles said:
Also, haven't forgotten your uberpost, Raas. Will reply properly soon. Is a bit lengthy though so am working up to it
Well it's been over a month now.
It's the third time in this thread you have stated "i'll get back to specifics later" (or words to that effect) and not bothered when I respond to your posts. Though I agree these posts are time-consuming, and you are under no obligation to reply. It seems very hypocritical to say
shambles said:
"All of y'all believers really. You've answered maybe two or three questions of mine out of several dozen so far. The "easy" ones, naturally
)
The post was big, but most of it were quotes and pictures! Let me break it down for you, into 3 easy questions...
1) From your posts, you seem to be unaware of all the good that comes from religion (stating "art is the only good thing to come from christiannity, seems a little ignorant), and judge the entire religion on a few spiritual abusers (You denigrated the entire religion of Bhuddism because of a minority of abusers). Would you say it is fair to assess your perception towards religion as biassed in a negative respect?
2) considering I quoted at least 5 questions answered, would it be fair to say that your statement: I'm "only answering 2 or 3 easy questions", is an example of a biassed perception against Christians?
3) You claim that scripture supports the idea that you are going to hell because you deny the holy spirit. I say this is not neccessarily true, and scripture actually shows someone turning to God in their last hours before death. With the possibility of personal progression inspired by life experience ahead of you,
would you accept it is more correct to say that scripture does not support the idea you are condemned, it just speaks of the possibility.
pinkpaver said:
It's weird when you get guided by a force/ instinct. I ended up in a prayer group today. I wasm't forced or coerced or anything. Story is I have a few ailments . I've been meaning to go the docs for months. Been off work all week and really should have gone on monday, but I am a bit lazy. So I slept in a bit today again and thought I wouldn't get an appt. till the arvo. At 10 am I had an uncontrollable urge to walk down to the docs to check if there was an appt. free. There was - with a real doc too! (normally they give you a stoody doc) So , i took the appt, for 10. 50. I waited till 11.30 to be seen. While waiting i realised that my bank had gone overdrawn and i have an account that isn't meant to go over drawn. I panicked at the thought of there being 30 days worth of over drawn charges to be applied just as my 1st wages of the year went in. So after the docs I popped into the bank. The bank where quite helpful and reduced the damage on my account to under £10 so unauthorised charges did not apply. ( I went from almost floods of tears to joy in a nano sec- and still think banks are a bit twatty- I have another account that does not let me go overdrawn at all at all so does not charge for returned dds)
I left the bank with joy in my heart and set off in the direction of my home. My parish church and bank are almost next door. I looked into the car park and saw a couple of cars. (normally tis all locked up, i like to pass thru and light candles but never can)
I skipped down the path and entered to find a sort of mass without the consecration thing going on. There were only 6 people there, they told me they were having a prayer afterwards and I was welcome to stay. So I did. It was quite nice really. I just watched the candle burning and made rays come out of it. Honestly, it was quite nice. I'm going to do it like a muslim from now on and do me prayers and church visiting on a friday. (I work sat night n sunday morning)
Which brings me onto another point. I really still don't like religious rammers or damners whatever their faith or lack thereof. The arrogance of the Iam right does annoy me.
I love that Phil Collins song. I've been talking to Jesus. I do like the idea that a nun brought up today that you will only get a cross that you can carry. You won't get anything thrown at you that you can't cope with. I like those metaphors.
I'm not too confused. since the death of my uncle I do believe that a bit of faith is good for those who want it to be good for them
tis a private thing. I know I'm not following religion in the way that the religious leaders want it to be followed (the evangelical spread the good word stuff) coz that's the bit I'm uncomfortable with. I'll spread good, and use metaphors and parables to people to give them comfort n that but no way am I saying "thou shalt blah blah" or "your religion is shite, mine is right" (even if I think it is. (actually, I might if some one is spouting out n out shite)
I also love the way that so many names do come from the old book. I love translating names. Transfigure or disfigure? That is the wuestion.
(I do go on....watched that magdelane laundry film yesterday too. That is certainly the bad side of religion. some twisted bitches end up nuns alright)
Thought this was a really nice post, because it was very honest. Unlike many others which just seem more concerned with taking a side, rather than addressing the truth (Perhaps im as guilty of that as anyone else)
I agree that religious (as you termed it) "rammers and damners" are a nuisance. Whether it's a street preacher, a street pastor or a jehova knocking at your door... I think religion loses all credibility when people try asserting it onto others. I think one should come to religion, for their own reasons.
Which brings me to...
Shambles said:
Or, for the religious folk amongst us, to give them a chance to maybe save a soul. Bit of a longshot admittedly.
Please guys, don't think I come on here trying to save souls. The theology is all a bit of fun. And very useful, I was talking about these issues with an atheist friend recently and had so much to say thanks to the fact i'd already done my homework and rehearsed it all online.
I believe for one to take scripture and religious theology seriously, (ie - not refute everything you're told, but try to make sense and take meaning from it) it takes a
change inside of that person. That change may never happen, and if it does - it usually comes from life experience. Simply, God himself may be the inaugurator of that change. Someone who didn't believe in God would then percieve that "change" as a delusion.
Now, considering the fact that i'm only posting here to avoid pending coursework. I feel it's getting a little beyond my scope to try changing lives. But, at best, i do hope to give Christiannity a bit more credibility, because it is a religion that I feel is very much misunderstood and misrepresented.
You seem to be suggesting that the collation of the canon in 331AD was a rushed job under the direction of a fearsome Roman Emperor. 
