Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc: Religion

[Raasyvibe]

^ It's a mish mash of different stories by different people.

So did God, or did he not, commit mass genocide by flooding the planet?

If God punishes someone, it's for the right reason. In the case of Noah they were wicked people who didn't deserve to live. How true the story is, is another topic....

This is the essence of the point I've been trying to make to Tromps... Even though there are ways to interpret the bible to have a "good" message and there are certainly people that do; in its base form the bible is very confusing/contradictory/ambiguous leading to the average person misunderstanding it and allowing the powerful to use it to manipulate people.

You're correct, it's a very hard book to understand. One very easy to misinterpret, even a lot of Christians I know have misunderstood it. I still find myself in disagreement with other christians over it's meaning.

However, with some thought, confirring and research I've always managed to see sense of it. The gospels also, are pretty clear in describing what God wants from us.

 

[rickolasnice]

If God punishes someone, it's for the right reason. In the case of Noah they were wicked people who didn't deserve to live. How true the story is, is another topic....

..

Oh right, faith. Sorry but no.. That's bullshit. If a man come to you tomorrow, claiming to have spoken to God, saying God is not happy with the way America is going and handed you a list of high profile people within the government that God wanted killed.. would you think he was crazy, wrong or would you join the fight?

What a ridiculous scenario. I already said most Christians are against capital punishment. God would not justify us killing someone unless our life was at direct threat. The Church is strongly against killing anyone for even the most horrible reasons.

..?

(In fairness to Tromps.. You may not agree with raas? In which case I'd like to hear your answer to the post: Did God, or did he not, commit mass genocide by (somehow?) flooding the planet? / Did he do what the OT says he did?)

 

[Shrooms00087]

You're missing the point of redemption. The whole text carries the weight of death and thereby birth facilitating redemption. To take it factually in my view is being blind

 

[casualuser]

You're correct, it's a very hard book to understand. One very easy to misinterpret, even a lot of Christians I know have misunderstood it. I still find myself in disagreement with other christians over it's meaning.

However, with some thought, confirring and research I've always managed to see sense of it. The gospels also, are pretty clear in describing what God wants from us.

Indeed the gospels are a bit more clear but there are still quite a few contradictions though mainly about the times and places of different events leaving the overall themes fairly consistent.

My main quarrel lies with the fact that, in general, all parts of the bible are equally respected, making it even easier to misunderstand or in extreme cases a more powerful tool for manipulation... If Jesus renounced the old rules, why not just take out the whole old testament and make it more of a reference text for further reading while holding only the teachings of Jesus to the highest regard? Furthermore, shouldn't that be the primary function of the church, not instruction or interpretation but deciding which sections of doctrine best reflect the message Jesus was trying to bring?

 

[Shrooms00087]

Indeed the gospels are a bit more clear but there are still quite a few contradictions though mainly about the times and places of different events leaving the overall themes fairly consistent.

My main quarrel lies with the fact that, in general, all parts of the bible are equally respected, making it even easier to misunderstand or in extreme cases a more powerful tool for manipulation... If Jesus renounced the old rules, why not just take out the whole old testament and make it more of a reference text for further reading while holding only the teachings of Jesus to the highest regard? Furthermore, shouldn't that be the primary function of the church, not instruction or interpretation but deciding which sections of doctrine best reflect the message Jesus was trying to bring?

He didn't renounce all of the old rules. He and the Father are both one. He redeemed man through his crucifixion thereby negating original sin.
This:

deciding which sections of doctrine best reflect the message Jesus

Equals this:

instruction [and] interpretation

 

[rickolasnice]

.....

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

 

[Shrooms00087]

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

This sentence:

rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God

Disrupts and breaks apart this sentence:

there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation

So it should be read similar to:
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."

Without this break it would make people like Augistine superfluous.

 

[casualuser]

He didn't renounce all of the old rules. He and the Father are both one. He redeemed man through his crucifixion thereby negating original sin.

That may be true, I'm probably not as well studied in the specifics as you are. Though I would disagree that deciding which parts of the bible are most important to follow is the same as instruction and interpretation. I meant it as merely labeling the best examples while leaving it up to the individual to read, interpret, and decide how one should incorporate them within their own life and actions.

On the crucifixion and original sin, when I was part of the Christian faith I was always taught that Jesus gave us the means to be forgiven for our earthly sins and he died to free the souls of the people in the past that were trapped in hell because they were not able to be forgiven. But original sin wasn't forgiven which was why people needed to be baptized.

 

[Shrooms00087]

That may be true, I'm probably not as well studied in the specifics as you are. Though I would disagree that deciding which parts of the bible are most important to follow is the same as instruction and interpretation. I meant it as merely labeling the best examples while leaving it up to the individual to read, interpret, and decide how one should incorporate them within their own life and actions.

On the crucifixion and original sin, when I was part of the Christian faith I was always taught that Jesus gave us the means to be forgiven for our earthly sins and he died to free the souls of the people in the past that were trapped in hell because they were not able to be forgiven. But original sin wasn't forgiven which was why people needed to be baptized.

"Best examples" is a discretion by which you employ to use as instruction.

I'm atheist so all the various rites are lost with me. I view the bible from a distance and only care about the parts of it which ease my curiosity. Original sin kind of sets up the base for determinism. Christ being crucified was releasing determinism through the determinant factors. Which carries another argument did Christ willfully go to the cross or was it his fate? Personally (even though Nietzsche probably didn't mean this interpretation) I think the story showed His love of fate (amor fati) which drove His will and ultimately lead him to the cross. Man having killed God then accepted the responsibility of obtaining free will, *because when Christ departed he left the Word. Augustine for instance was a pessimist and believed that man could not escape their original sin despite Christ's sacrifice.

For me God descended, conquered the temptations, died. Went to hell, conquered, and ascended as Spirit again. I'm more of an optimist when reading the Bible, the story is of free will which depends on casual determinism. A constant cycle of descending, ascending, accepting/conquering, and then death, to be born again.

If you're really interested about this issue I can suggest none better than Joseph Campbell. Some other suggestions on the subject of theology/philosophy is Augustine, Huxley, Kierkegaard, Zizek, Chesterton, and Jung. Those have been fun to read/listen to.

Most people are drawn away from the Bible due to its various rules which have historical conditions which contrast our own. Like its anti-homosexual stance which no longer should apply or its hostility towards other religions. Back then when you're spreading the religion through long stretches of land and you're setting up small communities you usually want your listeners to bare children and grow the community/influence. Today this has no bearing and the rule can be thrown out of the reading entirely. As well of the other issues in the Bible with respect to its barbarism (Deuteronomy). The Bible is at its best when read from a distance

 

[Jabberwocky]

 

[casualuser]

I suppose to a degree yes, as any alteration to the original could be considered an interpretation. The core of my point was that it would be better to make any interpretations more of a consensus than just having a single person i.e. preacher hand our their personal interpretations as objective truths...

I like the way you framed the story of the crucifixion, though free will and causal determinism are hardly compatible as far as my understanding goes. I've read most of those authors with Chesterton being the exception and only very little of Zizek but I'll add them to my list.

The bible is best used to keep a fire going, there are far better texts that demonstrate the same morals that the bible attempts to.

 

[Shrooms00087]

They're usually not compatible but we're considered to have free will in theology
Well I'm not saying the bible is the best book, heh

 

[P A]

If Jesus wanted to provide a clever/intellectual/logically-consistent story, he would have abandoned the world, and started writing a book in his room providing us "all the intellectual cleverness which we are so found of" ... but he did the exact opposite, he rolled up his sleeves and lived a life in the concrete world -- a rather unique one.

Sans lame 'miracles' [i.e., magic tricks?], the purported Jesus of Nazareth was basically a wandering, fanatical cult leader. Hardly unique by my reading, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

Sans lame 'miracles' [i.e., magic tricks?], the purported Jesus of Nazareth was basically a wandering, fanatical cult leader. Hardly unique by my reading, but maybe I'm missing something.

Given the lack of any evidence for existence, and the vast body of contradictory accounts of his life, I think of him more as a folk hero. Actually, given some of the Gospel accounts (e.g. Thomas vs John*), he's more a puppet used to expound the author's theology.

As far as uniqueness goes, it's a pretty standard mystic shtick. Honestly, Paul's epistles are more interesting.

*For those unfamiliar

 

[Psyduck]

Ok, I will fine-tune my high-jacked version of Christianity.

I don't even consider Christ to be a unique "particular" historical person, I consider the Christ-figure to be a "universal" (I know you know, just putting a link for completeness). The uniqueness (read: superiority) of the Universal Christ, in my opinion, lies in His attributes (compassion, agape, forgiveness, suffering,...) which every human being can participate in. They make a human being what he truly is, in essence. To believe in Christ is, then, to imitate-in-actus these attributes rather than study his book or argue over the historical existence of Christ...

Of course, one can propose different moral "standards" (by abusing Darwinism, using the ocassional Nietzsche quote, or referring to some pop-psychology) and explain away human behaviour in terms of selfishness, will to power, struggle-for-life, mirror-neurons, etc. But basic 'common sense' tells us that the above attributes are "preferrrable," or more stronger, they are the "right, best, most perfect" attributes.

This is all intuitive understanding. I don't have a coherent theoretical position on this. But to finish off (my deformed version of Christianity): I was not referring to the historical particular Christ. The stories about resurrection and all the miracles I find plain silly too... but the Incarnated Universal Christ is the in-dwelling here-and-now-only living Spirit. I haven't checked with Christian theology, but my basic intuition might overlap with the whole theory of the Trinity. But once again, this theoria is irrelevant for any religiousity, only praxis matters in this case. The figure of Christ was not a philosopher, speculative metaphysician or string-theorist living in the abstract world, he was first of all living a Life in the concrete world.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

^FWIW, I'm a big fan of the New Testament as a mystic document. I just disagree with the view of Christian exceptionalism.

 

[Shrooms00087]

@Psy
Yeah Nietzsche's hard-lining is pretty pretentious. Nietzsche's Will To Power doesn't really apply in the Christian text, because He suffered the Passion and went to the cross. Nietzsche resembles the Christ figure to an "idiot" for not "choosing life". All of which condenses down to his political/economical ideology which is definitely not that of an egalitarian. Which renders Neitzsche's views on the matter fairly moot. I recently read a transcript of a Jungian class where they discussed "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", where they basically debated his sanity.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Nietzsche_s_Zarathustra.html?id=igc64p-RsmQC

 

[P A]

Ok, I will fine-tune my high-jacked version of Christianity.

I don't even consider Christ to be a unique "particular" historical person, I consider the Christ-figure to be a "universal" (I know you know, just putting a link for completeness). The uniqueness (read: superiority) of the Universal Christ, in my opinion, lies in His attributes (compassion, agape, forgiveness, suffering,...) which every human being can participate in. They make a human being what he truly is, in essence. To believe in Christ is, then, to imitate-in-actus these attributes rather than study his book or argue over the historical existence of Christ...

This is all intuitive understanding. I don't have a coherent theoretical position on this. But to finish off (my deformed version of Christianity): I was not referring to the historical particular Christ. The stories about resurrection and all the miracles I find plain silly too... but the Incarnated Universal Christ is the in-dwelling here-and-now-only living Spirit. I haven't checked with Christian theology, but my basic intuition might overlap with the whole theory of the Trinity. But once again, this theoria is irrelevant for any religiousity, only praxis matters in this case. The figure of Christ was not a philosopher, speculative metaphysician or string-theorist living in the abstract world, he was first of all living a Life in the concrete world.

In my experience, this rendition (micro-denomination?) of Christianity's basic tenets is quite popular among the more intellectually inclined. I've heard various iterations of this 'Platonic Christ' thing before, and I guess I don't have any particular comment to offer on the subject. It's certainly an interesting idea, and perfectly harmless, inasmuch as it contains no uncompromising truth claims and carries a low probability of inducing fanatical devotion.

 

[casualuser]

Ok, I will fine-tune my high-jacked version of Christianity.

I don't even consider Christ to be a unique "particular" historical person, I consider the Christ-figure to be a "universal" (I know you know, just putting a link for completeness). The uniqueness (read: superiority) of the Universal Christ, in my opinion, lies in His attributes (compassion, agape, forgiveness, suffering,...) which every human being can participate in. They make a human being what he truly is, in essence. To believe in Christ is, then, to imitate-in-actus these attributes rather than study his book or argue over the historical existence of Christ...

Indeed, that is very similar to the way I viewed Christianity when I considered myself a member and I would agree with P A that is is a very benign form.

Of course, one can propose different moral "standards" (by abusing Darwinism, using the ocassional Nietzsche quote, or referring to some pop-psychology) and explain away human behaviour in terms of selfishness, will to power, struggle-for-life, mirror-neurons, etc. But basic 'common sense' tells us that the above attributes are "preferrrable," or more stronger, they are the "right, best, most perfect" attributes.

If only that basic common sense you speak of were actually common or even slightly so.

This is all intuitive understanding. I don't have a coherent theoretical position on this. But to finish off (my deformed version of Christianity): I was not referring to the historical particular Christ. The stories about resurrection and all the miracles I find plain silly too... but the Incarnated Universal Christ is the in-dwelling here-and-now-only living Spirit. I haven't checked with Christian theology, but my basic intuition might overlap with the whole theory of the Trinity. But once again, this theoria is irrelevant for any religiousity, only praxis matters in this case. The figure of Christ was not a philosopher, speculative metaphysician or string-theorist living in the abstract world, he was first of all living a Life in the concrete world.

My main objection lies in use of universals, as I see them as impossible(especially so in the religious context). Even if your Christ truly has such universals, it is impossible to know them. For regardless of the method used to communicate them, any inherent objectivity(universality) those attributes may have is instantly lost upon reception as the individuals perception will have altered them from the original. It is certainly possible to perceive those attributes relatively close to their universal forms, though I believe such perception is quite rare. I argue it is extremely difficult for the average person to do so, because of the massive rage in and sheer volume of said perceptions of those (possible)universals. Which in turn makes it a poor foundation for forming a moral guide.

 

[Tromps]

Which carries another argument did Christ willfully go to the cross or was it his fate?

Nietzsche resembles the Christ figure to an "idiot" for not "choosing life".

This Below , Jesus Christ willfully entered into his passion and chose eternal life , hardly an 'idiot' which is a strong offensive word when we are talking about religion. Nietzsche, or you, should show some respect

A good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.