Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Pleasure


SOIL

Recommended Posts

Since I was here last, I have seen the movie "The Nativity Story" and it really moved me. Also I listened to the audio version of "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. My faith has been helped by both. Also - I just read through a site that some of you may want to comment on (I think it will be especially interesting to anyone who may have been dragged to see that movie) Here is the link: What was the star?

I missed this little while skimming the thread.

 

I've been to that link before and it's, let's call it, interesting.

 

But here's my challenge to SOIL or any/all xians (or anyone for that matter). All the theories that what the "star" was have the star being quite a distance away. I'm going to pick a much closer object. The Moon. On any night of your own choosing (a full moon is great for this but it's your choice) follow it to a location. Any location. Just get in your car, motorcycle, or whatever and go. Use the Moon to guide you from a point A to a point B. Make it easy on yourself and choose your house as the starting point and a town ten miles away.

 

Even with the Moon being the closest object to the Earth you will get nowhere. You will just drive around. You can pick to arbitrary points and achieve your goal but using an object in space as a guide will be an exercise in futility. So no matter what people come up with for the "star" in the Nativity story unless it is supernatural, and extremely close to the ground, they will always be further away than the Moon and even more unusable as a guide between two arbitrary unknown points (the starting point in the "east" and the ending point that eventually ended up in the "west" ultimately in Bethlehem).

 

It is for this reason that much more has been added on to the story of the magi. How the signs they saw told them Israel was their destination for example. This still doesn't explain how the star came to rest over where Mary was when the magi left Jerusalem on that roughly 5 mile stroll down to Bethlehem. Again, even following the Moon from Jerusalem southward they would not have managed this feat. Something further out certainly would not have given them more accuracy. The many natural explanations also would not have disappeared only for the short time needed for the magi to go into see Herod but be available both before and after this as a guide. Only something supernatural would be this selective.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • currentchristian

    68

  • mwc

    25

  • Lycorth

    24

  • SOIL

    23

How does a real xian act? Not to mean you are putting on an act but so that you would be recognized without uttering a word about your beliefs?

 

I really do believe that a "real Christian" would hope to act as I Cor 13 defines love: being patient, kind, loving, not jealous or arrogant, etc. You know them. Frankly, I'm not a real Christian if I compare myself to these high standards. But I hope to be one some day. (I'm not being self-deprecating; just follow me in a slow check-out lane and you'll see how impatient I can be!)

 

Why is it that xians refuse to acknowledge that this is the way the system is supposed to be? Jesus pretty much says it (take just a coat and staff; worry only about today and tomorrow will take care of itself; god will provide and so on) and Acts says it. Paul's supposedly just some poor tent maker that has only what he needs. The communist lifestyle was, and is, the xian lifestyle. You're called to it by opting to be a xian. You don't become a xian and then somewhere down the road decide to sell off everything. All the apostles supposedly left their stuff then and there. That old man and woman were killed off by Peter (god) in Acts because they held back a few dollars of their property sell instead of forking it all over.

 

Because we are not walking in the spirit. Really. That's my answer. And because it simply would not work if we are not walking in the spirit!

 

Regarding the husband and wife in Acts 5. They were not taken from this life for holding back some of the money from the sell of their property. Peter said they had every right to do with their property as they pleased. They were "slain in the spirit" (literally) for lying about the amount they had sold the property for, so that they could be puffed up with their self-righteousness in being so wonderful that they gave it all back to the people of God. The text does not indicate that anyone was forced to sell their possessions. It was strictly voluntary and as a result no one in the Way was suffering in poverty.

 

Thanks, mwc, for teaching me how to use the quotes function better! I appreciate it.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Star of Bethlehem is either a fabrication or an astrological event or phenomenon, wholly unrelated to Xian mythology, which was incorporated into the Babble as a plot device. IMO, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, which religion were you before Xianity?

 

I was an atheist, I took some philosophy from buddhism. I had 0 belief in any sort of divinity.

 

 

Do you really want to play the context game? Firstly, people of the time did eat all meats. The question is who is the intended target audience for the letter and this will tell you what foods those who were to get this particular letter most likely ate. So I'll leave it to you to tell me if the people at Corinth were Jews, and ate the Jewish diet, or if they were not, and ate a wide variety of foods. Perhaps there's even that third option that says there's a mix of both.

 

So, all that aside, lets looks at the context. What Paul, not jesus as you state, is saying is that it is okay to eat whatever meat is set in front of you and it won't defile you. Why would Paul say this? If we believe Paul this would probably be because his father wasn't a Jew (which why he was a Roman) and his mother was Jewish. I'm sure he was given many such foods growing up and had no ill effects. He does place on limit on them and that is you cannot take from an offering. This is a problem since offering meals were often free for the poor (you'll see this come up many times in the early church).

 

Sadly, jesus himself, while he does say that it is not what goes into a person but what comes out that defiles him, is not speaking of the food rules because he also says that he isn't going to be changing any of the Law either...which would keep all food regulation in place. Paul and jesus are speaking of two different things.

 

Anyhow, my original point was to just basically sum up Paul's point in general. Not really to argue the passage (I thought I even alluded to that).

 

Ah you caught me ;] -I was reading out of Corinthians and I still said it was Jesus talking for some reason. What was on my mind was the saying of Jesus about what defiles you, which you caught on to. For some reason you do not see a connection between the two, but it is there. Paul (corrected myself this time) was saying this because he did not want people to offend those who did or did not eat sacrificial food by sharing their views or arguing about one way or the other. He says that the best thing to do is just eat what youre given and not even ask if it is sacrificial food or not. That way yours/their conscience is not guilty and you will not offend anybody. Which goes back to what Jesus said about how whatever goes in through the mouth does not defile you. Eating sacrificial food will not defile you, but some decide to take of it and some don't. It really dosn't matter which way you choose as long as you ask a blessing on it.

 

I'm not sure where you got the part about Paul placing a limit on offered foods, maybe you read the first half of the verse and not the second. So here is the verse you refer to. Maybe the bold piece is all that you saw when reading it.

 

1 Corinthians 10:

28"But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice,' then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience- 29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?"

 

And it seems to distress you. This can be seen like this: "I am a good person" OR "I am a bad person." Only one word is different but it casts the entire sentence, and the entire outlook of things in a different light. Saying "I am sinful" taints things.

Just because I am a sinful person does not mean I am a good or bad person. There are good and bad people in this world, and either way they all sin. Because God created me and He loves me, I should honor and love His creation. I personally do not judge myself, I know that God loves me and I am His. I have no problems with my own self esteem, however at this moment my girlfriend is going through a tough time of depression, it really hurts man.

 

No, I understood you, but I knew while writing what I said that it wasn't coming out right (although I was hoping it would). Again, you should re-read Acts. If you are truly xian then what you are saying cannot be happening. The spirit will come and you WILL act a certain way and you WILL act as a unit with other xians. This IS what is written. However, since this is also hand-waived into oblivion by the likes of Paul then Acts can simply be ignored.

 

But you never answered my question. How does a real xian act? Not to mean you are putting on an act but so that you would be recognized without uttering a word about your beliefs?

 

You are exactly right about if we are true Christians. I threw in that statement because there are many people in this world who say they are christians one day, and then the next day they are out having sex and getting drunk. Not say that as Christians we do not sin, but some people only say they are Christians for whatever reason, maybe self gratification? My point is that to be a Christian is not just acting like one. But yes, even though we are in the Spirit, we still are not perfect.

 

 

Probably a wise move on your part.

Well I really would rather you just read the gospels.

 

You need to read up on the early church. The early church rarely bothers with jesus but is simply concerned with replication of itself. Now, I'm not talking about reading a book. Just read the documents themselves. They're quite the eye opener of what these people really had on their minds.

 

I know that the early church was concerned with gathering members and spreading to other areas and getting more churches. Either way, Paul still wrote many letters, as in the Bible, that talk about common sinful behaviors and about the good news of Jesus and about loving our neighbors. If you would for me to reference these tell me in your next reply and I will; or else just check through some of Paul's letters.

 

All xians were called in the Great Commission. However, barring that, the xian lifestyle is one of communism. Acts shows that. Later documents by the church fathers also show that this is the lifestyle that xians would take. They would support themselves by getting recruits and having those recruits "cash out" and distributing the wealth back into the communist church system. Rich, pagan, patrons could also contribute to the church and in exchange for their on-going contributions have access to the resurrection via a proxy type system.

 

Why is it that xians refuse to acknowledge that this is the way the system is supposed to be? Jesus pretty much says it (take just a coat and staff; worry only about today and tomorrow will take care of itself; god will provide and so on) and Acts says it. Paul's supposedly just some poor tent maker that has only what he needs. The communist lifestyle was, and is, the xian lifestyle. You're called to it by opting to be a xian. You don't become a xian and then somewhere down the road decide to sell off everything. All the apostles supposedly left their stuff then and there. That old man and woman were killed off by Peter (god) in Acts because they held back a few dollars of their property sell instead of forking it all over.

 

The reason that xians don't do this anymore is called...rationalizing. I can serve jesus just as well if I have a nice house as opposed to living in a commune. If I have a car as opposed to sharing a donkey. If I x instead of sharing y. And why? Because it's more comfortable. You wanted to show me a xian above? Here's one way. Live the xian lifestyle instead of making excuses. You're living the pagan lifestyle and claiming to be a xian. So all I see is a pagan claiming to be a xian.

 

You see what you want to. Well no matter what you might think, God gives different gifts to everybody; we are not all called to be pastors, we are not all called to be missionaries, we are not all called to be christian school teachers. We are all called to be witnesses for Christ, and that is how we should live our lives.

 

As for the in between rambling, due to quoting errors I have to leave it out... But my comments is:

My responses are varied and I'm too tired now

 

I never claimed you were trying to start anything. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

 

mwc

 

Thank you

 

 

I really do believe that a "real Christian" would hope to act as I Cor 13 defines love: being patient, kind, loving, not jealous or arrogant, etc. You know them. Frankly, I'm not a real Christian if I compare myself to these high standards. But I hope to be one some day. (I'm not being self-deprecating; just follow me in a slow check-out lane and you'll see how impatient I can be!)

 

If you live your life through Jesus Christ you are still a Christian. Impatience is just as bad a sin as anything else, it dosn't mean you woln't be forgiven when you ask.

 

 

Because we are not walking in the spirit. Really. That's my answer. And because it simply would not work if we are not walking in the spirit!

 

Regarding the husband and wife in Acts 5. They were not taken from this life for holding back some of the money from the sell of their property. Peter said they had every right to do with their property as they pleased. They were "slain in the spirit" (literally) for lying about the amount they had sold the property for, so that they could be puffed up with their self-righteousness in being so wonderful that they gave it all back to the people of God. The text does not indicate that anyone was forced to sell their possessions. It was strictly voluntary and as a result no one in the Way was suffering in poverty.

 

To the first comment, I am not exactly sure what your stance is on your faith. Either way, we should be living in the Spirit.

 

To the second comment, you hit it right on the dot.

 

 

 

Yawn, i'm hitting the sack. Much love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, which religion were you before Xianity?

 

I was an atheist, I took some philosophy from buddhism. I had 0 belief in any sort of divinity.

 

So how do you figure you were "stuck" in a life of animal sacrifice and incense-burning to remove your sins? Buddhism doesn't promote those things, nor does Atheism.

 

I am an Atheist who also takes influence from Buddhism, and I do not believe in "sin" nor believe I must ritually murder animals or burn incense to cleanse me of wrongdoing. Either you're making a very prejudical remark (based on the usual Xian instance that a non-xian path is one of wickedness and immorality) or had a severely faulty understanding of both Atheism and Buddhism to begin with :twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do believe that a "real Christian" would hope to act as I Cor 13 defines love: being patient, kind, loving, not jealous or arrogant, etc. You know them. Frankly, I'm not a real Christian if I compare myself to these high standards. But I hope to be one some day. (I'm not being self-deprecating; just follow me in a slow check-out lane and you'll see how impatient I can be!)

I'm not surprised you mention that passage. I actually had to memorize and recite that for one of my grade school graduation ceremonies way back when (we studied this passage along for nearly one semester). Paul even ranks love as more important than faith in that passage. More importantly, he's just trying to resolve a dispute within the church. They're in-fighting about who among them has the special skills (tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.). More precisely they all want to practice the same things (lots of oracles for example). This is his way of trying to smooth those things over by saying if you practice those skills without love then what does it matter? Grow up and quit being petty because you're acting like children. So if "acting like an adult" is the same as being a "true" xian then I have to concede being a bit confused.

 

Because we are not walking in the spirit. Really. That's my answer. And because it simply would not work if we are not walking in the spirit!

The spirit is kind of fickle in the helping department. It's supposed to be sent along to embolden people but it seems to shy away fairly easily. It's kind of like it leaves when you need it the most and the reasoning is that you're doing something that is contrary to the spirit's nature and so you must not want it around but in actuality shouldn't it be helping you ward off that evil by becoming stronger in those moments of weakness? I would think so anyway.

 

Regarding the husband and wife in Acts 5. They were not taken from this life for holding back some of the money from the sell of their property. Peter said they had every right to do with their property as they pleased. They were "slain in the spirit" (literally) for lying about the amount they had sold the property for, so that they could be puffed up with their self-righteousness in being so wonderful that they gave it all back to the people of God. The text does not indicate that anyone was forced to sell their possessions. It was strictly voluntary and as a result no one in the Way was suffering in poverty.

Where does it say they were prideful (or mention anything of the sort) in that passage? They sold the property. They offered most of the money to Peter. He said to the old man that he was in control of the land and money until then so why did he then hold back some of the money. He had lied not to men but god and the guy died. They buried him without his wife even knowing. She comes around and the scene plays out again and she dies. No mention of pride but a warning that a great fear went out through the church as a result.

 

Basically, the warning is don't lie to the church because that's the same as lying to god and god might strike you down for it. They then tie this back to the giving of "offerings" to the church. That is a frightening omen to cast upon superstitious people.

 

Thanks, mwc, for teaching me how to use the quotes function better! I appreciate it.

No problem.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah you caught me ;] -I was reading out of Corinthians and I still said it was Jesus talking for some reason. What was on my mind was the saying of Jesus about what defiles you, which you caught on to. For some reason you do not see a connection between the two, but it is there. Paul (corrected myself this time) was saying this because he did not want people to offend those who did or did not eat sacrificial food by sharing their views or arguing about one way or the other. He says that the best thing to do is just eat what youre given and not even ask if it is sacrificial food or not. That way yours/their conscience is not guilty and you will not offend anybody. Which goes back to what Jesus said about how whatever goes in through the mouth does not defile you. Eating sacrificial food will not defile you, but some decide to take of it and some don't. It really dosn't matter which way you choose as long as you ask a blessing on it.

Actually, the connection between what Paul says and what jesus says is not there. The reason would be that Paul admittedly never knew any jesus beyond some vision(s). A connection can't be made between Paul's writings and the gospel text beyond some conceptual relationship (meaning the texts both share the same concept but we don't know that Paul got it from the jesus in the gospel, or the other way around, if the idea came separately to both or if a third party influenced them both).

 

I'm not sure where you got the part about Paul placing a limit on offered foods, maybe you read the first half of the verse and not the second. So here is the verse you refer to. Maybe the bold piece is all that you saw when reading it.

 

1 Corinthians 10:

28"But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice,' then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience- 29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?"

Yeah, that's the verse, but I'm not so sure I'm the one reading it incorrectly.

 

Let's try a different translation (NRSV) just to see if we can't get a little more clarification on this?

27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 (But if some one says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience' sake-- 29 I mean his conscience, not yours--do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man's scruples?

I backed up a verse too. Verse 27. A believer is invited to an unbelievers' for dinner. Feel free to eat whatever they offer you. Verse 28. If they tell you it has been offered in sacrifice then out of consideration to that person and conscience sake... Verse 29. His, your hosts, conscience, you should NOT eat that food. Why should your freedom be controlled by his principles?

 

Now, again, where am I going wrong on this? You can eat anything, except, food that has been offered in sacrifice. The KJV makes it a bit more difficult to read this but feel free to check as many translations as you like. My interpretation is the right one. Study of the early church beliefs will also back my position on this as well.

 

Just because I am a sinful person does not mean I am a good or bad person. There are good and bad people in this world, and either way they all sin. Because God created me and He loves me, I should honor and love His creation. I personally do not judge myself, I know that God loves me and I am His. I have no problems with my own self esteem, however at this moment my girlfriend is going through a tough time of depression, it really hurts man.

This is becoming far too subjective to debate any further. The point was that negative words will taint ones view negatively and positive words can do likewise. The words "sin" and "sinner" are negative words and caste a taint accordingly.

 

You are exactly right about if we are true Christians. I threw in that statement because there are many people in this world who say they are christians one day, and then the next day they are out having sex and getting drunk. Not say that as Christians we do not sin, but some people only say they are Christians for whatever reason, maybe self gratification? My point is that to be a Christian is not just acting like one. But yes, even though we are in the Spirit, we still are not perfect.

So then what would "to be in the spirit" mean? How would this relate to being a xian and how would this differentiate someone who is not a xian so that an onlooker, such as myself, could tell?

 

Xians are not perfect. Xians drink, smoke, have sex, and basically do all the things that supposed non-xians do. To an onlooker, such as myself, there is no difference. To simply have the ability to ask for forgiveness does not differentiate you in my eyes which was your initial desire...to look like a xian. I'm trying to work with you to come up with some sort of "template" for this as it were but you're fighting me every step of the way.

 

Probably a wise move on your part.

Well I really would rather you just read the gospels.

You have no idea how many times I've read the gospels. Countless at this point. So I can restate my original premise and that is that you should be quite happy that jesus suffered relatively little according to those same books.

 

I know that the early church was concerned with gathering members and spreading to other areas and getting more churches. Either way, Paul still wrote many letters, as in the Bible, that talk about common sinful behaviors and about the good news of Jesus and about loving our neighbors. If you would for me to reference these tell me in your next reply and I will; or else just check through some of Paul's letters.

Perhaps when I say "early church" you're becoming confused? The early church wasn't simply Paul. It was far more actually. You need to really expand your views a bit. You should go to something like www.earlychristianwritings.com and do some reading. If the non-orthodox materials (like the gnostics) frightens you a bit then you can choose not to read that material.

 

Paul only wrote 7 undisputed letters by the way. He spoke of a jesus very little in those letters if you actually take the time to look at them.

 

You see what you want to. Well no matter what you might think, God gives different gifts to everybody; we are not all called to be pastors, we are not all called to be missionaries, we are not all called to be christian school teachers. We are all called to be witnesses for Christ, and that is how we should live our lives.

 

As for the in between rambling, due to quoting errors I have to leave it out... But my comments is:

My responses are varied and I'm too tired now

Awww...you kinda copped out here at the end. :( Oh well. I'm not seeing what I want to see. Do yourself a favor a check that link I gave you. It will give you access to the actual documents written by the actual orthodox church (well, translations of the documents). They had a different mindset than people do today and it's not the one that you present where people are called to be teachers and missionaries and this and that. I'm sorry but that's a later development. Just like the rapture theology came around in the 1800's this theology you're speaking of didn't exist in the early church of the 1st and 2nd century.

 

Paul does speak of gifts of the spirit but he is specific in their attributes. Speaking in tongues. Prophecy. Healers. Teachers. Even Apostles (and some others). If you read more into Corinthians you'll see that he also tells them that they have too many people speaking in tongues and they need more people doing prophecy (or maybe vice-versa). He basically "custom orders" the gifts of the spirits in order to get new converts into the church. Gifts? Not really. A racket. Because if they were gifts then god would give them as needed and to whom they were needed but Paul tells them to change it up and to do things a certain way. Gifts of the spirit certainly wouldn't be ordered around like that (or distributed so incorrectly to begin with). Also, his version of toungues requires an interpretor...which makes it no more than any other "magic" oracle of the day. This also flies in the face of how it works in Acts as well.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is becoming far too subjective to debate any further. The point was that negative words will taint ones view negatively and positive words can do likewise. The words "sin" and "sinner" are negative words and caste a taint accordingly.

 

I don't like these words, either, being thrown about as they are. We need a word for "missing the mark" and for "those who miss the mark." But must these words be "sin" and "sinners"? The constant use of these words by Christians throwing them about willy-nilly is detrimental to the psyches of young people (and the not-so-young) and an oversimplification of humankind's condition. Seems to me.

 

So then what would "to be in the spirit" mean? How would this relate to being a xian and how would this differentiate someone who is not a xian so that an onlooker, such as myself, could tell?

 

Xians are not perfect. Xians drink, smoke, have sex, and basically do all the things that supposed non-xians do. To an onlooker, such as myself, there is no difference. To simply have the ability to ask for forgiveness does not differentiate you in my eyes which was your initial desire...to look like a xian. I'm trying to work with you to come up with some sort of "template" for this as it were but you're fighting me every step of the way.

 

I don't remember who said it or exactly what they said but it was something like this: "Christianity is a great religion. Too bad no one has ever tried it." I am Christian because I believe in a historical Jesus who was an Ambassador of God's dominion, and all the rest about Jesus. I want to live a life of peace within and peace without. But I do very little toward this goal, really. Very little. I keep thinking that one day I'll really, really apply the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, I Cor. 13, and love of neighbor to my lifestyle, but ... it's like the diet or exercise plans one intends to start next week! And then the week after. And then after New Year's.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, which religion were you before Xianity?

 

I was an atheist, I took some philosophy from buddhism. I had 0 belief in any sort of divinity.

 

So how do you figure you were "stuck" in a life of animal sacrifice and incense-burning to remove your sins? Buddhism doesn't promote those things, nor does Atheism.

 

I am an Atheist who also takes influence from Buddhism, and I do not believe in "sin" nor believe I must ritually murder animals or burn incense to cleanse me of wrongdoing. Either you're making a very prejudical remark (based on the usual Xian instance that a non-xian path is one of wickedness and immorality) or had a severely faulty understanding of both Atheism and Buddhism to begin with :twitch:

 

I did not say I would be sacrificing animals and burning incense because of what I used to believe. I said that if I was trying to make atonement for my sins and there was no Jesus Christ, I would have to be sacrificing. Before I was a Christian I didn't believe in any of the Bible. Therefore no need for gaining forgiveness, therefore no need for sacrificing. I must not have been clear with my post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say I would be sacrificing animals and burning incense because of what I used to believe. I said that if I was trying to make atonement for my sins and there was no Jesus Christ, I would have to be sacrificing. Before I was a Christian I didn't believe in any of the Bible. Therefore no need for gaining forgiveness, therefore no need for sacrificing. I must not have been clear with my post?

 

Definitely not clear at all; but if that's what you mean, it presents to me another problem.

 

You'd be sacrificing animals and burning incense without Jebus-belief only if you followed Orthodox Judaism. And I know that most Orthodox Jews don't even do that today. You can simply dispense with the idea that you have to kill animals and burn incense to atone for anything, and with the notion that you have "sins" to forgive in the first place. The best way to overcome mistakes is to simply learn from your errors and resolve not to commit the offense again - that's what you do anyway as a Xian, just lump all that stuff about "sin" and "atonement" on top of it.

 

Just employ Occam's Razor. You're making your worldview far too complicated and burdensome by taking on all these unecessary ideas. Believe what you will, of course, but trusting myths like this, and the foul things they promote about humanity, usually doesn't end up well for the believer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like these words, either, being thrown about as they are. We need a word for "missing the mark" and for "those who miss the mark."

 

Well, now we run into a whole new set of problems. What is the mark? Has anyone ever met the "mark"? Who defines it?

 

If we say God, then which "mark" from the bible are we to live up to? I can think of at least a hundred different ones - many of them stark contradictions. And even the great Jesus fell short on one or two.

 

And, we have another problem. Why would God knowingly make a human race who was unable to measure up? And, how did God (who supposedly knows the end from the beginning) manage to "regret" that he had made man (just before he drowned the world in a mega-scale abortion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Varok, that's a really good point you bring up. And yes, I was referring to Judaism today. It has always boggled me why they don't follow the Old Testament Laws. Certainly they should be since their messiah hasnt come. They reason they present when asked is that they do not have a Temple. In which case, they seem to be doomed without a Temple. However I believe that most Jews today are only Jewish due to heritage, most of them don't seem to know the Old Testament at all, and if they do don't follow nearly as much as they should. Anyways, I don't want to go off on another tangent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Varok, that's a really good point you bring up. And yes, I was referring to Judaism today. It has always boggled me why they don't follow the Old Testament Laws. Certainly they should be since their messiah hasnt come. They reason they present when asked is that they do not have a Temple. In which case, they seem to be doomed without a Temple. However I believe that most Jews today are only Jewish due to heritage, most of them don't seem to know the Old Testament at all, and if they do don't follow nearly as much as they should. Anyways, I don't want to go off on another tangent.

 

I agree on that, and I think that most Orthodox Jews don't follow the Torah prescripts for animal scarifice for the same reason Xians don't do as Jebus instructed and sell all they have and give it all to the poor, or when either group doesn't obey the majority of instructions found in their holy books.

 

It's illogical, makes one's life excessively complicated and difficult, and in truth has no observable impact on one's life or the world around oneself.

 

Why waste time on things that don't provide an observable benefit, or can be proven to end up doing so? For me, that was part of why I rejected not just Xianity, but any religion whose teachings would cause me to lump all sorts of extraneous stuff on my life and thus burden myself to the point where I couldn't enjoy life or reach my potential. My life was far from happy trying to live up to all sorts of precepts found in the Babble, not because I was evil and wanted to be evil, but because they were chipping away at my happiness and my mood.

 

Just some more stuff to mull over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I have to be a slacker right now due to time; I will only begin with your first reply.

 

Actually, the connection between what Paul says and what jesus says is not there. The reason would be that Paul admittedly never knew any jesus beyond some vision(s). A connection can't be made between Paul's writings and the gospel text beyond some conceptual relationship (meaning the texts both share the same concept but we don't know that Paul got it from the jesus in the gospel, or the other way around, if the idea came separately to both or if a third party influenced them both).

 

I'm not sure where you got the part about Paul placing a limit on offered foods, maybe you read the first half of the verse and not the second. So here is the verse you refer to. Maybe the bold piece is all that you saw when reading it.

 

1 Corinthians 10:

28"But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice,' then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience- 29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?"

Yeah, that's the verse, but I'm not so sure I'm the one reading it incorrectly.

 

Let's try a different translation (NRSV) just to see if we can't get a little more clarification on this?

27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 (But if some one says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience' sake-- 29 I mean his conscience, not yours--do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man's scruples?

I backed up a verse too. Verse 27. A believer is invited to an unbelievers' for dinner. Feel free to eat whatever they offer you. Verse 28. If they tell you it has been offered in sacrifice then out of consideration to that person and conscience sake... Verse 29. His, your hosts, conscience, you should NOT eat that food. Why should your freedom be controlled by his principles?

 

Now, again, where am I going wrong on this? You can eat anything, except, food that has been offered in sacrifice. The KJV makes it a bit more difficult to read this but feel free to check as many translations as you like. My interpretation is the right one. Study of the early church beliefs will also back my position on this as well.

 

Maybe you are just not being clear and we are arguing on the same side...

You stated it yourself in the quoted text. Paul says you should not eat that food, "then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience' sake-- 29 I mean his conscience, not yours--do not eat it."

 

So maybe you do agree with me and you're just coming across to me wrong. Paul says do not eat it because of the other man. Not because it is wrong to eat sacrificial food, but because your host thinks it's wrong to and you dont want to hurt his conscience. He clearly saysdo not eat it, "out of consideration," not because you should not eat sacrificial food.

 

The reason I see your side as so wrong because you keep saying "you should not eat that food" and leaving it at that. There is no command for not eating sacrificial food, Jesus says that nothing going in through your mouth can defile you. Sacrificial food goes in through the mouth, it does not come out of the heart, therefore it does not defile you. You should ask a blessing on all food.

 

So even if Paul does not realize what Jesus said, Jesus' point proves that what Paul is saying is true. Paul is just taking a specific subject and going off about it.

 

Anyway, I am off to an orientation meeting, I will finish the rest later ;]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say I would be sacrificing animals and burning incense because of what I used to believe. I said that if I was trying to make atonement for my sins and there was no Jesus Christ, I would have to be sacrificing. Before I was a Christian I didn't believe in any of the Bible. Therefore no need for gaining forgiveness, therefore no need for sacrificing. I must not have been clear with my post?

 

Definitely not clear at all; but if that's what you mean, it presents to me another problem.

 

You'd be sacrificing animals and burning incense without Jebus-belief only if you followed Orthodox Judaism. And I know that most Orthodox Jews don't even do that today. You can simply dispense with the idea that you have to kill animals and burn incense to atone for anything, and with the notion that you have "sins" to forgive in the first place. The best way to overcome mistakes is to simply learn from your errors and resolve not to commit the offense again - that's what you do anyway as a Xian, just lump all that stuff about "sin" and "atonement" on top of it.

 

Just employ Occam's Razor. You're making your worldview far too complicated and burdensome by taking on all these unecessary ideas. Believe what you will, of course, but trusting myths like this, and the foul things they promote about humanity, usually doesn't end up well for the believer.

 

Reasonable answer in many ways, but I think religion usually ends up quite well for most believers. Most are satisfied. That's why most are religious and stay religious.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like these words, either, being thrown about as they are. We need a word for "missing the mark" and for "those who miss the mark."

 

Well, now we run into a whole new set of problems. What is the mark? Has anyone ever met the "mark"? Who defines it?

 

If we say God, then which "mark" from the bible are we to live up to? I can think of at least a hundred different ones - many of them stark contradictions. And even the great Jesus fell short on one or two.

 

And, we have another problem. Why would God knowingly make a human race who was unable to measure up? And, how did God (who supposedly knows the end from the beginning) manage to "regret" that he had made man (just before he drowned the world in a mega-scale abortion)

 

I think we know when we miss the mark. I do. It's a matter of conscience. And I think the mark is different for everyone, defined by conscience. Some matters are universal: don't murder, don't steal, don't take advantage of others, be kind, courteous, patient. We could go on for days on generally agreed upon suggestions for good living.

 

Regarding your second point: If God created it, God owns it, and God can do what God pleases.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Varok, that's a really good point you bring up. And yes, I was referring to Judaism today. It has always boggled me why they don't follow the Old Testament Laws. Certainly they should be since their messiah hasnt come. They reason they present when asked is that they do not have a Temple. In which case, they seem to be doomed without a Temple. However I believe that most Jews today are only Jewish due to heritage, most of them don't seem to know the Old Testament at all, and if they do don't follow nearly as much as they should. Anyways, I don't want to go off on another tangent.

 

I agree on that, and I think that most Orthodox Jews don't follow the Torah prescripts for animal scarifice for the same reason Xians don't do as Jebus instructed and sell all they have and give it all to the poor, or when either group doesn't obey the majority of instructions found in their holy books.

 

It's illogical, makes one's life excessively complicated and difficult, and in truth has no observable impact on one's life or the world around oneself.

 

Why waste time on things that don't provide an observable benefit, or can be proven to end up doing so? For me, that was part of why I rejected not just Xianity, but any religion whose teachings would cause me to lump all sorts of extraneous stuff on my life and thus burden myself to the point where I couldn't enjoy life or reach my potential. My life was far from happy trying to live up to all sorts of precepts found in the Babble, not because I was evil and wanted to be evil, but because they were chipping away at my happiness and my mood.

 

Just some more stuff to mull over.

 

Your point about trying to live up to all those rules and regulations is a very good one. Christiainity should set one free, not pile on our backs burdens we cannot carry. That's what much of canon law and hellfire dogmatism do. They take away our liberty in Christ (speaking about the Christian) and chain us up.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasonable answer in many ways, but I think religion usually ends up quite well for most believers. Most are satisfied. That's why most are religious and stay religious.

 

Because they ignore the instructions in the Babble. I grew up in a household like that, where we were believers but didn't make a big fuss about Babble-reading or trying to adhere to all the things found in it.

 

That's certainly a better way to interpret a religion that is excessively dogmatic and rather oppressive, but it's still a dishonest interpretation. Me, I couldn't deal with the dishonesty, even if it made Xianity easier to tolerate.

 

I think we know when we miss the mark. I do. It's a matter of conscience.

 

Generally, yes - that's my point; we don't need religion to teach us morality. We're quite capable of discerning it on our own, and have been the ones who've done so, anyway.

 

Regarding your second point: If God created it, God owns it, and God can do what God pleases.

 

I disagree - God must be responsible, otherwise his treatement of whatever he's created is flawed and abusive. We must be so with the things we make (unless they are made with the intention of being destroyed), such as children, for example. But to mistreat anything on the premise that "we made it - we can do what we want with it" ultimately is irresponsible - and can be dangerous.

 

Your point about trying to live up to all those rules and regulations is a very good one. Christiainity should set one free, not pile on our backs burdens we cannot carry. That's what much of canon law and hellfire dogmatism do. They take away our liberty in Christ (speaking about the Christian) and chain us up.

 

Again, going back to my explanation about interpretationg doctrinaire religions, you're certainly viewing it in a healthy fashion, but the plain facts are, it's a dishonest interpretation. I couldn't live with it, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we know when we miss the mark. I do. It's a matter of conscience.

 

So, the mark is different for each individual?

 

Cause, I gotta tell ya. My conscience is pretty clean right now. So I suppose I can assume I have met the mark, and I don't need Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasonable answer in many ways, but I think religion usually ends up quite well for most believers. Most are satisfied. That's why most are religious and stay religious.

 

Because they ignore the instructions in the Babble. I grew up in a household like that, where we were believers but didn't make a big fuss about Babble-reading or trying to adhere to all the things found in it.

 

That's certainly a better way to interpret a religion that is excessively dogmatic and rather oppressive, but it's still a dishonest interpretation. Me, I couldn't deal with the dishonesty, even if it made Xianity easier to tolerate.

 

I think we know when we miss the mark. I do. It's a matter of conscience.

 

Generally, yes - that's my point; we don't need religion to teach us morality. We're quite capable of discerning it on our own, and have been the ones who've done so, anyway.

 

Regarding your second point: If God created it, God owns it, and God can do what God pleases.

 

I disagree - God must be responsible, otherwise his treatement of whatever he's created is flawed and abusive. We must be so with the things we make (unless they are made with the intention of being destroyed), such as children, for example. But to mistreat anything on the premise that "we made it - we can do what we want with it" ultimately is irresponsible - and can be dangerous.

 

Your point about trying to live up to all those rules and regulations is a very good one. Christiainity should set one free, not pile on our backs burdens we cannot carry. That's what much of canon law and hellfire dogmatism do. They take away our liberty in Christ (speaking about the Christian) and chain us up.

 

Again, going back to my explanation about interpretationg doctrinaire religions, you're certainly viewing it in a healthy fashion, but the plain facts are, it's a dishonest interpretation. I couldn't live with it, personally.

 

Each one must abide by the dictates (that's a harsh word, maybe) of their consciences. Of course our consciences are constructed around cultural norms (therefore, many are religious norms) so we never escape culture or religion. Seems to me it's wise to allow all sources their voice. Our consciences can be made sharper by a good movie, Shakespeare, friends, etc. Iron sharpening iron.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each one must abide by the dictates (that's a harsh word, maybe) of their consciences. Of course our consciences are constructed around cultural norms (therefore, many are religious norms) so we never escape culture or religion. Seems to me it's wise to allow all sources their voice. Our consciences can be made sharper by a good movie, Shakespeare, friends, etc. Iron sharpening iron.

 

Very true - and the instructions of Xianity are not necessary to help us come to understand morality and such things. For some, they can make it be such, but it isn't an empircal necessity, such as using one's own good sense and constantly challenging things until they prove out against all questions. Would you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we know when we miss the mark. I do. It's a matter of conscience.

 

So, the mark is different for each individual?

 

Cause, I gotta tell ya. My conscience is pretty clean right now. So I suppose I can assume I have met the mark, and I don't need Jesus.

 

Just my opinion here, but I think the mark is different for everyone and varies for each individual as time goes on. What used to be fine and dandy with me might not be so fine or so dandy now. What is fine now, might not have been ten years ago and might not be ten years from now. Other than the universal constants (don't murder, steal, etc.), that which is hitting the mark and missing hte mark are in constant flux. Seems to me.

 

Only those who are thirsty for Jesus need Jesus. If you are not thirsty, you are not thirsty. Plain and simple.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only those who are thirsty for Jesus need Jesus. If you are not thirsty, you are not thirsty. Plain and simple.

 

 

Not only am I not thirsty, I'm goddamned water-logged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each one must abide by the dictates (that's a harsh word, maybe) of their consciences. Of course our consciences are constructed around cultural norms (therefore, many are religious norms) so we never escape culture or religion. Seems to me it's wise to allow all sources their voice. Our consciences can be made sharper by a good movie, Shakespeare, friends, etc. Iron sharpening iron.

 

Very true - and the instructions of Xianity are not necessary to help us come to understand morality and such things. For some, they can make it be such, but it isn't an empircal necessity, such as using one's own good sense and constantly challenging things until they prove out against all questions. Would you agree?

 

We have in the Bible, seems to me, a record of the conclusions of corporate and individual consciences over time. That's why the mark moves so much. Allowing the words of the Bible to inform one is a good thing, just as it's wise to allow the writings of Abraham Lincoln or Gandhi or even the Marquis de Sade to inform one regarding what might be good or not-good. (Of course, the Marquis de Sade ended up in an asylum for 29 years, so one might want to read his views about morality and then wisely do the opposite.)

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only those who are thirsty for Jesus need Jesus. If you are not thirsty, you are not thirsty. Plain and simple.

 

 

Not only am I not thirsty, I'm goddamned water-logged.

 

Then dry out and find out what libation, if any, you really want/need. :grin:

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.