Pleasure

[QuinnTheEskimo]

The point of this story is not that in order for salvation you must sell all your possessions and follow Jesus, infact since Jesus is dead this would not even be relevant, as there is no Jesus to follow around.

 

Since Jebus is dead, then why bother following anything he said, then? If you can discard one thing he instructed, why not discard it all? Why do away with one thing that Jebus said, just because it's hard?

 

That's why I couldn't remain a Xian. It requires you to lump all this unecessary bullshit onto your life, all with the premise of eternal happiness, like some sort of spiritual vampirism, or perhaps analogous to the promise of eternal life Sauron gave to the nine kings of Men who were to become the enslaved Nazgul.

 

Doing things like that always ends up robbing a person of happiness in life by orienting life towards working for some "hereafter" rather than making the best of the world we are in. That's part of how Xianity is anti-pleasure, as much as there are very real passages wherein Xians are encouraged to give up all worldly items and pleasures, all for the sake of a god who refuses to appear to a single person today.

 

That, and Jebus also said the law will not pass away, nor that he came to do away with the law, so all that inane crap about blended fibers and not shaving and so forth is still valid, you know.

 

Think about it - how can a religion with all those implications also be friendly to the pursuit of earthly pleasure and fulfillment? When it's examined on its face and interpreted according to the plain text of its holy books, it clearly doesn't.

 

Jesus, in physical man being, told the guy to follow him around, physically. Since there is no physical man form of Jesus walking around, how do you suppose we walk around following one?

 

When people say follow Jesus, it means follow what Jesus says, not actually follow on foot a man named Jesus.

 

Don't take my words and twist them, maybe I just wasn't clear.

[currentchristian]

The Bible in like our wonderful U.S. Constitution: Open to many interpretations. That's a strength, from my perspective. The Bible should be a living, breathing, evolving document, as our Constitution is.

 

You're right - it should be, but because it's mythology, not literal history or reality. Hence, it's open for interpretation. And that's definitely better than being literalistic about it.

 

But that's not the message of the Babble. When you read it, you're confronted with a story about someone who is portrayed as having actually existed, having interacted with real historical figures in real historical places, and having done deeds that actual, living people have seen. Also, the mission and message of this person is portrayed as being about a real, literal choice people have (between eternal pleasure or pain) that will affect a reality they will genuinely experience.

 

No matter the sect, any Xian denomination that teaches the traditional view of Xianity teaches what I've stated above. It was the one consistency I saw in all my sect-hopping of yore. And any plain reading of the Babble, without trying to run metaphorical circles around oneself, conveys this.

 

It's clear implication is as I've stated above, and taking that literally has been the ruin of many individuals and many civilizations. Certainly not conducive to pleasure or any sort of natrual happiness.

 

I must dissent on this one. Embracing the Jesus of the gospels as a historical character who actually lived, died and was resurrected is, for me, profoundly beautiful, hopeful, wonderful. It is inspiring and life-affirming. I am happy to believe that Jesus overcame death. This is good news!

 

It's fine by me, however, if others want to believe what they believe, whatever that is. I would never say that denying the historical reality of Jesus is "not conducive to pleasure or any sort of natural happiness" or the "ruin of many individuals and many civilizations," as you wrote about believing in a historical Jesus. Why not live, and let live? Why not wish everyone well, not matter their belief?

 

That said, allowing one's understanding of God/Jesus/Bible to evolve, expand, change, grow, etc. is a very good thing. Allowing oneself to find metaphor and allegory as well as history and truth is great by me.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

HanSolo! I'm quite familiar with Bishop Spong, but have read only two of his books. One was Living in Sin? I don't remember what the other one was, but I know it wasn't Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

I read the the "Why Christians..." and I also read another book I can't remember.

 

It was part of helping me free myself from the bondage of religion, not saying it was the cause, but it did help me see my (then) religion in a different light.

 

Those who want to follow Spong's views are fine with me, but he goes to far for my taste, denying even a literal resurrection of Jesus, for example.

You see, that's the problem with this "flexible-interpretation" view. Since you decided here that JSS doesn't have the "right" interpretation, while (I assume) you feel that you do. And without a guideline any opinion is valid, but with a guideline, who is to decide and what criteria makes the guideline the correct one?

 

I realized a while back that Christianity has been and is always changing. It is good and bad, but it sure is one of the reasons why that religion still is alive. Without the changes to fit into current culture it would soon be written of as a fringe cult (a la Phelps).

 

The problem with this constant change is that no one can with certainty say that their view is the correct one, since 5 or 10 years from now your view can be considered heretic.

 

I think it's healthy that we have so many sects of Christianity. Each person can affiliate or not with one or another or none as their intellect/mind/conscience/spirit/whatever leads them.

So how do you reconcile this with the words of Jesus to the disciples when he said that the world would know you are from God when you are united?

(I don't have the exact quote or verse right now, but I could look it up for you.)

 

No one ever said it would be easy. You make good points. Let's see. I rarely say that anyone is "wrong" or that anyone is "right." I really don't use these descriptors often. I would not say Spong is "right" about Jesus -- or "wrong." What he believes simply is not what I believe. I leave it at that. Now, clearly, either Jesus lived or he didn't. Either he was dead and rose again or he did not. Someone is indeed right and someone is indeed wrong. But, I'll leave that to a future revelation in which I expect a literal Jesus to set the record straight with "the rest of the story."

 

It is understandable that you would mention some of the words from Jesus' last prayer: That they may be one as you and I are one, that the world may know that you sent me.

 

Oneness can be achieved without goose-stepping arm-in-arm on every point. When we know as we are now known and when the "smudgy mirror" is removed, then we'll be one. Until then, we can work toward ecumenical understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of each other regardless of views. But diversity of thought is a good things. Seems to me.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

This one? (from John 16)

 

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

COMPLETE UNITY!!

 

Bwahahaha!

 

Another prayer foiled by free will! Rats!

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Maybe the "tri-unity" idea is spreading over to the "unity" of theology as well, but it becomes n-unity, poly-unity or plura-unity or whatever one would call it?

 

-edit-

 

Ah, plurality is the word, just couldn't find it in my scattered brain.

 

So, should the Bible then be fixed through this new revelation? Is this part of the dynamic document algorithm that we have concluded Christianity uses for its interpretations? So the verse should now say something like:

 

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be of different opinions, Father, not as you are in me and I am in you. May they also not be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be divided, not as we are one: 23 I will not be in them but you in me. May they be brought to complete confusion and conflict to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

 

Sumtin' like that.

 

Unity of place ("in Christ") can be achieved apart from unity of doctrine. Still, it is sad in some ways that there have been so many schisms. Absolutely, it is sad and terrible when there are religious wars. It's a legacy of our humanity, our glorious humanity.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

Well, unfortunately, there are differences among christians that are a little deeper than doctrinal squabbles. Remember, CC - we were christians once.

 

We know that most fundamentalists believe that Roman Catholics are bound for hell. As well as openly rebellious homosexuals (even christian ones)

 

We know that Baptists think that Pentecostals are being deceived by Satan. And Pentecostals know that liberal congregations have abandoned the truth to follow a lie.

 

We know that christians condemn mormons to hell. And mormons condemn Seventh Day Adventists to hell. And all of them condemn Jehovah's Witnesses to hell.

 

And, there is no sign in hell that they are doing anything but getting further and further apart.

 

Quite some influence, this indwelling of the holy spirit.

[Lycorth]

I must dissent on this one. Embracing the Jesus of the gospels as a historical character who actually lived, died and was resurrected is, for me, profoundly beautiful, hopeful, wonderful. It is inspiring and life-affirming. I am happy to believe that Jesus overcame death. This is good news!

 

Your dissent doesn't disprove centuries of human tradition that teaches otherwise. You may believe one way, but the majority of Xians, alive now and alive in ages past, believed precisely as I described.

 

Your personal beliefs are your own, exclusively. General Xian tradition is quite another, savvy?

 

It's fine by me, however, if others want to believe what they believe, whatever that is. I would never say that denying the historical reality of Jesus is "not conducive to pleasure or any sort of natural happiness" or the "ruin of many individuals and many civilizations," as you wrote about believing in a historical Jesus. Why not live, and let live? Why not wish everyone well, not matter their belief?

 

I do - my hatred for Xianity and my desire to see it stamped out and destroyed utterly has no bearing on how I feel towards the believers themselves.

 

I wouldn't be against Xianity if I didn't want the best for Xians, religiously.

 

That said, allowing one's understanding of God/Jesus/Bible to evolve, expand, change, grow, etc. is a very good thing. Allowing oneself to find metaphor and allegory as well as history and truth is great by me.

 

But if history and metaphor contradict themselves, what then? Believe as you will, despite the facts, or alter your opinions to conform to them?

 

I was faced with that question a few years ago, when I had to decide between my fantasy version of Jebus as opposed to the actual depictions of him according to the Babble. For most of us, it always comes down to that.

[Ouroboros]

I rarely say that anyone is "wrong" or that anyone is "right." I really don't use these descriptors often.

Heck, you kind of sound like me! But it sure is fun to tell people they're wrong and wait for the reaction. It sounds like a relativistic view of Christianity.

 

Oneness can be achieved without goose-stepping arm-in-arm on every point. When we know as we are now known and when the "smudgy mirror" is removed, then we'll be one. Until then, we can work toward ecumenical understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of each other regardless of views. But diversity of thought is a good things. Seems to me.

It has been a dream for Christianity for the last 2000 years, all since inception, and yet it seems less feasible now than ever. The Mormons seem to be quite united, maybe that's the true religion?

[Ouroboros]

Another prayer foiled by free will! Rats!

Does rats have free will? Does the Devil?

[Lycorth]

More like "Another prayer foiled by reality."

[currentchristian]

Well, unfortunately, there are differences among christians that are a little deeper than doctrinal squabbles. Remember, CC - we were christians once.

 

We know that most fundamentalists believe that Roman Catholics are bound for hell. As well as openly rebellious homosexuals (even christian ones)

 

We know that Baptists think that Pentecostals are being deceived by Satan. And Pentecostals know that liberal congregations have abandoned the truth to follow a lie.

 

We know that christians condemn mormons to hell. And mormons condemn Seventh Day Adventists to hell. And all of them condemn Jehovah's Witnesses to hell.

 

And, there is no sign in hell that they are doing anything but getting further and further apart.

 

Quite some influence, this indwelling of the holy spirit.

 

You are right. And so we all need to chill out. Embrace what is true (for you) and let others embrace what is true for them. We need no more holy wars waged by theists or atheists or Americans or communists or whomever.

 

Happily, I have witnessed in my life a great surge toward ecumenism. There is much chilling out in American Christianity. Of course, there are fringe groups still, but most Baptists and Pentecostals and even Catholics get along these days. We are making progress!

 

Now, if we can get the Christians and the Jews and the Muslims and the Atheists to get along. The Kingdom will have arrived, for sure.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

Every single one of these points says that you should not eat it because when somebody points out that it is sacrificial food, that means that person has something against it. As to not offend him by eating food that goes against this man, you should refrain. Every single one of those says it. You are completely blind, and I think you just woln't admit it at this point. This is complete and total stubborness.

What?

 

So, I buy some food to serve to you. We sit down to a meal. As we sit down I tell you "Oh yeah, this meat was offered for sacrifice to Jupiter. Enjoy." Now, you refuse to eat this same meat because I have something against this meat? I bought the meat knowing it was sacrificial meat. How could I have something against it? In addition, since sacrificial meat was extremely common, and cheap, why would pagans have something against it? There is no "offense" of any sort happening here. Why you keep trying to head down that path is beyond me.

 

The whole idea of offending someone is not even part of the argument. It's one of power. The power of idols. If you partake of sacrificial food then you grant that god power. Someone who sees you eating of that food might get the wrong idea and it could cause them to "fall away" if they do not have strong faith.

 

It's better to refrain from behavior this altogether than to risk someone like this seeing you eat this food. However, if you're unaware that this food is from a sacrifice then how could you be held accountable? Once you are made aware you should refrain, not because you will offend this person, but because you could, let's say, confuse this person. Why? Because you're eating from food offered to another god. In essence saying "this other god is real." That's a mixed message to someone who doesn't understand that god A is fake but god B is the real one. So you should refrain from known sacrificial foods. Perhaps the word "conscience" is tripping you up? It seems to be since that seems to imply an offense to you. Maybe replace it with the word "good." Refrain from sacrificial foods for the good of the other person...not for your own good...but for theirs.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

I do - my hatred for Xianity and my desire to see it stamped out and destroyed utterly has no bearing on how I feel towards the believers themselves.

 

So hate the sin and love the sinner?

 

In all sincerety, this is what comes to mind.

 

Should someone ever be in power with your views, we can expect many Christians to die as s/he attempts to cleanse the world of Christianity. It will be a bloodbath. Are you sure you really want to see Christianity utterly destroyed if that means the death of millions of Christians?

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

It has been a dream for Christianity for the last 2000 years, all since inception, and yet it seems less feasible now than ever. The Mormons seem to be quite united, maybe that's the true religion?

 

I disagree. There is more ecumenism now than ever before. Even here in Irish Catholic Massachusetts (remember the Irish Catholics took power from the Congregational Yankees about 75 years ago), we have had a Mormon governor for the past four years and that Mormon governor is now running for president.

 

Let's see if we can get over our anti-Mormon bias and elect one to the White House? Of course, we may have to get over our anti-woman bias and elect Senator Clinton (right now, I'm rooting for her), or our anti-Black bias and elect Senator Obama (I'm rooting for him as Clinton's Veep).

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

More like "Another prayer foiled by reality."

 

Yep.

 

Reality = Free will. Whether we are theists or atheists, free will seems an established state of humankind, and that free will creates reality.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

In one sense, each person has a right to edit the scripture. Remember Elizabeth Cady Stanton's The Woman's Bible ? T. Jefferson literally took scissors to the Bible to cut out what he didn't like.

Ignoring copyright law everyone can do this to anything. Does this make every document a living document?

 

The canon is set. But why are we all beholden to the decisions made 1700 years ago? In my view, we are wise to respect the views of those who established the canon; we are wise to seek to understand their choices; and we are wise to cautiously disagree after much study and learning.

Can't you see you pretty much contradicted yourself in your first two sentences? The canon is set/why are we beholden to decisions made 1700 years ago?

 

Why is it that you're willing to abide by the canon but not the doctrine? What's the difference? Why can one change and grow but not the other?

 

For example. If I remove the Revelation of John and replace it with the Revelation of Peter (as I've pointed out in other threads this was almost the book that went in) we do away with some crazy end times beliefs but not only that an eternal punishment system just vanishes. Now the god of the bible eventually has mercy on those being punished and allows them freedom. This is the type of ending one would expect.

 

So by altering the canon I alter the doctrine absolutely. By altering the doctrine alone I am just "interpreting" things to suit my views. The former has a chance of unifying (if you can get people to accept the new canon of course) the latter hasn't unified anything so far.

 

You mention in another post that you believe in a progressive revelation. How can that ever be integrated into modern belief systems if the canon cannot be altered? Would a third testament be required? Who and what authority could do such a thing?

 

But we are allowed to disagree all we want. Remember Martin Luther called James "an epistle of straw."

True, we are allowed to disagree all we want, but to what end? What purpose does this debate serve if the canon is closed? More sects could be created based on dogmatic differences but that's about it. More diversity is counter to what the bible itself preaches and so, in reality, is a bad thing if it doesn't ultimately lead to unity. A one world church is the ultimate end goal...and this goal is one that is to be met prior to any returning god-man.

 

Marting Luther said a lot of things. However, what he said didn't stop James from being included in the Protestant bible. The other books didn't make the revision on the KJV but they were initially in there. Someone altered the canon even though it was closed (an example of "it can be done").

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Can't you see you pretty much contradicted yourself in your first two sentences? The canon is set/why are we beholden to decisions made 1700 years ago?

 

Why is it that you're willing to abide by the canon but not the doctrine? What's the difference? Why can one change and grow but not the other?

 

For example. If I remove the Revelation of John and replace it with the Revelation of Peter (as I've pointed out in other threads this was almost the book that went in) we do away with some crazy end times beliefs but not only that an eternal punishment system just vanishes. Now the god of the bible eventually has mercy on those being punished and allows them freedom. This is the type of ending one would expect.

 

So by altering the canon I alter the doctrine absolutely. By altering the doctrine alone I am just "interpreting" things to suit my views. The former has a chance of unifying (if you can get people to accept the new canon of course) the latter hasn't unified anything so far.

 

You mention in another post that you believe in a progressive revelation. How can that ever be integrated into modern belief systems if the canon cannot be altered? Would a third testament be required? Who and what authority could do such a thing?

 

Great questions. I have few answers.

 

I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my first paragraph. I am not saying that wearebeholden to the canon. I'm asking why do so many think we are? I have respect for the canon and I'm not a true believer in the Da Vinci Code, by any means. But I allow more flexibility for myself in making use of the Bible.

 

The problems you rightly state are rife with things such as a Third Testament. I think we have such things, actually (at least believed to be such by many). Here are some examples: A Course in Miracles, Conversations with God, Book of Mormon, etc. I neither believe in nor disbelieve in these other testaments.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Marting Luther said a lot of things. However, what he said didn't stop James from being included in the Protestant bible. The other books didn't make the revision on the KJV but they were initially in there. Someone altered the canon even though it was closed (an example of "it can be done").

 

mwc

 

Yes, he did, and some were very nasty. But...that's another post.

 

In my view what we need to get away from (we=Christians) is a view that God Almightly Himself handed the KJV translation of the Bible to the Apostle Paul and that's it, forever, subject closed! This is the view of Muslims regarding the Qur'an, by the way.

 

The writings of the early Christians are so much more than a closed book. They are living, viable, breathing documents. We can look at them critically, without fear. That's my point and it's made not to ex-Christians, but to Christians.

 

Christians: Be not afraid to question!

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

Great questions. I have few answers.

Thanks. Unfortunately questions always come easier than answers.

 

I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my first paragraph. I am not saying that wearebeholden to the canon. I'm asking why do so many think we are? I have respect for the canon and I'm not a true believer in the Da Vinci Code, by any means. But I allow more flexibility for myself in making use of the Bible.

Are you willing to add/remove any books of the bible? If so, why? If not, why not? You're obviously willing to interpret the doctrine so questions in relation to that are not important (meaning you're not a literalist like most fundiegelical types). I've just noticed in my dealings with you that you seem to take the Protestant bible to be, let's say absolute and authoritative, while ignoring, say, the Catholic bible and its extra books. The extra books are "nice" but certainly not authoritative.

 

The problems you rightly state are rife with things such as a Third Testament. I think we have such things, actually (at least believed to be such by many). Here are some examples: A Course in Miracles, Conversations with God, Book of Mormon, etc. I neither believe in nor disbelieve in these other testaments.

Right. I was going to mention the BoM as an example but decided not to. If a third testament were to ever be added, via progressive revelation, on who's authority could it be added to the bible? How could this ever get done?

 

The Constitution at least has a process for doing things like this but the bible does not. There is no amendment ratification concept for the bible or governing authority. Maybe the "church" which was supposed to have been a singular unit but that's not true today nor has it ever been.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Great questions. I have few answers.

Thanks. Unfortunately questions always come easier than answers.

 

I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my first paragraph. I am not saying that wearebeholden to the canon. I'm asking why do so many think we are? I have respect for the canon and I'm not a true believer in the Da Vinci Code, by any means. But I allow more flexibility for myself in making use of the Bible.

Are you willing to add/remove any books of the bible? If so, why? If not, why not? You're obviously willing to interpret the doctrine so questions in relation to that are not important (meaning you're not a literalist like most fundiegelical types). I've just noticed in my dealings with you that you seem to take the Protestant bible to be, let's say absolute and authoritative, while ignoring, say, the Catholic bible and its extra books. The extra books are "nice" but certainly not authoritative.

 

The problems you rightly state are rife with things such as a Third Testament. I think we have such things, actually (at least believed to be such by many). Here are some examples: A Course in Miracles, Conversations with God, Book of Mormon, etc. I neither believe in nor disbelieve in these other testaments.

Right. I was going to mention the BoM as an example but decided not to. If a third testament were to ever be added, via progressive revelation, on who's authority could it be added to the bible? How could this ever get done?

 

The Constitution at least has a process for doing things like this but the bible does not. There is no amendment ratification concept for the bible or governing authority. Maybe the "church" which was supposed to have been a singular unit but that's not true today nor has it ever been.

 

mwc

 

Excellent questions, again. No authoritative answers from me!

 

The study Bible I have used for the past ten years happens to be a Catholic Bible. The most recent study Bible I have (used for the class I just completed on the English Bible) is the NRSV (Oxford, 3rd edition), which also contains the apocryphal writings. I just received from my good friend amazon.com a book that contains all the gospels, canonical and otherwise: The Complete Gospels, it's called. and I just ordered a Jewish Study Bible, too, (also Oxford, a scholar's edition) for one of the two classes I am taking this spring.

 

There is no authority established for adding to or taking from the canon. I think that's a done deal, in terms of an "authorized" revisiting of the canon. Each of us, however, has our own little canon. I bet not one Christian in 1000 has ever read Leviticus, for example, thereby in fact excluding that writing from their canon.

 

It's not easy to change the Constitution, either. Only been done 27 times in 220 years! The act of writing something down is a conservative move. It's sets "in stone" what is believed at the time of the writing. We do not easily revisit such things. It took a four-year, bloody Civil War for the U.S. to revisit the slavery issue, for example. And then another 100 years to revisit equality for Americans descended from slaves. MLK JR. used to say, "The arc of the moral universe is long," meaning that it was looooooooooong, but that, "it bends toward justice."

 

Of course the Catholic Church's view is that Christ relegated his authority to the apostles who have in turn passed that authority to the RCC and, therefore, the RCC could "loose" or "bind" a canon. That's fine for Catholics, but doesn't help out other "brands" of Christians.

 

No answers here, as you can see.

 

-CC in MA

[QuinnTheEskimo]

What?

 

So, I buy some food to serve to you. We sit down to a meal. As we sit down I tell you "Oh yeah, this meat was offered for sacrifice to Jupiter. Enjoy." Now, you refuse to eat this same meat because I have something against this meat? I bought the meat knowing it was sacrificial meat. How could I have something against it? In addition, since sacrificial meat was extremely common, and cheap, why would pagans have something against it? There is no "offense" of any sort happening here. Why you keep trying to head down that path is beyond me.

 

The whole idea of offending someone is not even part of the argument. It's one of power. The power of idols. If you partake of sacrificial food then you grant that god power. Someone who sees you eating of that food might get the wrong idea and it could cause them to "fall away" if they do not have strong faith.

 

It's better to refrain from behavior this altogether than to risk someone like this seeing you eat this food. However, if you're unaware that this food is from a sacrifice then how could you be held accountable? Once you are made aware you should refrain, not because you will offend this person, but because you could, let's say, confuse this person. Why? Because you're eating from food offered to another god. In essence saying "this other god is real." That's a mixed message to someone who doesn't understand that god A is fake but god B is the real one. So you should refrain from known sacrificial foods. Perhaps the word "conscience" is tripping you up? It seems to be since that seems to imply an offense to you. Maybe replace it with the word "good." Refrain from sacrificial foods for the good of the other person...not for your own good...but for theirs.

 

mwc

 

27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

 

I see where you are getting hung up. In this verse, the case that we have is not the same as the next verse. In this case, there is a man, who has any sort of food, it may be sacrificial, it may not be, but you are to eat whatever it is without question. It is permitted.

 

28But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake[d]—

 

So lets say you were invited to dinner at an unbelievers house, guy #1, he also invited a another guy, guy #2. So you go to sit down, and guy #1, the host, puts out a feast of food. Guy #2 sees it and says about one portion of food, this is sacrificial food! Why would guy #2 bother with telling you this if it did not bother him? In order for you not to offend guy #2, you should not partake of that food. This is because "No man should make another man stumble," even if you do not mind eating sacrificial food. This partains to all things, not just sacrificial food. This passage was not a statement to command you about food, it was a statement to command you about loving one's neighbor.

 

I'll give you a more up to date example. Say you are at a bar with a friend, and he tells you that he takes offense to alcohol. For his sake, not yours, you should not drink alcohol. This would offend him. You would not drink it not because you think it is wrong, but because he does.

 

When Jesus came and said whatever goes in through the mouth does not defile you, he abolished the law in the old testament which commands them not to eat sacrificial food. Although many people, such as James, still believed that they shouldn't eat sacrificial food, it was not a law. You could either choose to eat it or not, either way it would not defile you.

 

Sacrificial food was commonly sold in the marketplace during that period of time, it was cheap and abundant. Many people bought it, and most of the time nobody would know the difference.

 

Hopefully I have cleared this up. I see where you are coming from, though i'm not sure why.

[Lycorth]

Reality = Free will. Whether we are theists or atheists, free will seems an established state of humankind, and that free will creates reality.

 

Free will doesn't create reality. Perhaps one's own personal reality, but not the objective reality of the world around us. I can desire, for example, that the sky be green, but the objective reality of it is that the sky is blue. My free will to wish it to be green creates nothing.

 

When I say that we had another prayer foiled by reality, I naturally meant that the reality of the matter is that prayers don't get answered, because God does not exist.

[mwc]

Hopefully I have cleared this up. I see where you are coming from, though i'm not sure why.

Then I'll show you why. We've been discussing just one part, the last part, of a bigger whole. Since you mentioned "context" in a previous post I held back to see if you would do it again here but you didn't so I'll do it now.

 

This discussion on sacrificial food basically starts back in 1 Corinthians 8:

4 So, then, as to the question of taking food offered to images, we are certain that an image is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For though there are those who have the name of gods, in heaven or on earth, as there are a number of gods and a number of lords, 6 There is for us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we are for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we have our being through him.

 

7 Still, all men have not that knowledge: but some, being used till now to the image, are conscious that they are taking food which has been offered to the image; and because they are not strong in the faith, their minds are troubled. 8 But God's approval of us is not based on the food we take: if we do not take it we are no worse for it; and if we take it we are no better. 9 But take care that this power of yours does not give cause for trouble to the feeble. 10 For if a man sees you, who have knowledge, taking food as a guest in the house of an image, will it not give him, if he is feeble, the idea that he may take food offered to images? 11 And so, through your knowledge, you are the cause of destruction to your brother, for whom Christ underwent death. 12 And in this way, doing evil to the brothers, and causing trouble to those whose faith is feeble, you are sinning against Christ. 13 For this reason, if food is a cause of trouble to my brother, I will give up taking meat for ever, so that I may not be a cause of trouble to my brother.

I was trying to highlight a few things and screwed it up a bit (I lost my train of thought). I'm sure you can read it alright though (or just go look it up yourself since this is more of the chapter...this is from the Bible in Basic English translation).

 

Anyhow, this is the start of the the discussion that he basically ends in a couple of chapters. The end point is what we've be discussing...essentially on its own merit but seeing how that's not taking us anywhere it's time to include the rest to see why Paul wrote it in the first place.

 

As can now be seen from this text, Paul mentions that idols have a certain power over the "weak." Eating food sacrificed to them essentially confuses those weak people. In order to prevent doing this you should refrain from eating sacrificial foods. As I said before, not because there is any "offense" but for the "good" of that other person. The same would be true at a common gathering. Once it is known that sacrificial meat is being served you should refrain for the "good" of the others. Eating that meat would essentially validate and empower their god(s) and that is not a "good" thing to do.

 

mwc

[mwc]

The study Bible I have used for the past ten years happens to be a Catholic Bible. The most recent study Bible I have (used for the class I just completed on the English Bible) is the NRSV (Oxford, 3rd edition), which also contains the apocryphal writings. I just received from my good friend amazon.com a book that contains all the gospels, canonical and otherwise: The Complete Gospels, it's called. and I just ordered a Jewish Study Bible, too, (also Oxford, a scholar's edition) for one of the two classes I am taking this spring.

This is a good thing, I think, if you bother to read them (and it seems you do). I know others that have such things and they just sit. It also matters on whether those "other" books are integrated into your belief system or if they're just interesting extras.

 

There is no authority established for adding to or taking from the canon. I think that's a done deal, in terms of an "authorized" revisiting of the canon. Each of us, however, has our own little canon. I bet not one Christian in 1000 has ever read Leviticus, for example, thereby in fact excluding that writing from their canon.

Now, how can something be a "done deal" if there's no authority to govern it? Keep in mind the first bibles that we're aware of seem to have had things like the Shepherd of Hermas in them. Of course that book isn't in any bible I'm aware of today (it might be but I'm not aware of it). Things changed because some "authority" changed it. In the case of the bible the term "authority" is an extremely difficult word to pin down...and even more so today I think.

 

It's not easy to change the Constitution, either. Only been done 27 times in 220 years! The act of writing something down is a conservative move. It's sets "in stone" what is believed at the time of the writing. We do not easily revisit such things.

True, but at least there is an authority and there is a process. In addition the founders defined an alternate process if this one breaks entirely and that is another rebellion.

 

Of course the Catholic Church's view is that Christ relegated his authority to the apostles who have in turn passed that authority to the RCC and, therefore, the RCC could "loose" or "bind" a canon. That's fine for Catholics, but doesn't help out other "brands" of Christians.

Right. The RCC is the only true authority that the "church" has even really known (some would disagree like the Greek Orthodox and maybe the Ethiopians but by and large). Once things splintered then the door was opened for anyone to make their own bible or not. To do what they wanted. Yet by and large they adhered to many of the RCC's decisions while at the same time calling the RCC "evil." Strange.

 

It seems to me that if jesus had perfect foresight that he would have setup a system but he did not. This could lead us to believe he did not want a bible nor a system at all (since I'm being kind and allowing for a human jesus with special powers ).

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

The study Bible I have used for the past ten years happens to be a Catholic Bible. The most recent study Bible I have (used for the class I just completed on the English Bible) is the NRSV (Oxford, 3rd edition), which also contains the apocryphal writings. I just received from my good friend amazon.com a book that contains all the gospels, canonical and otherwise: The Complete Gospels, it's called. and I just ordered a Jewish Study Bible, too, (also Oxford, a scholar's edition) for one of the two classes I am taking this spring.

This is a good thing, I think, if you bother to read them (and it seems you do). I know others that have such things and they just sit. It also matters on whether those "other" books are integrated into your belief system or if they're just interesting extras.

 

I've read most of the Apocraphal writings, most of the Book of Mormon, most of the Qur'an, all of the Dhammapada (Buddhism) and the Bhagavad-Gita (Hindu). I love reading these writings.

 

There is no authority established for adding to or taking from the canon. I think that's a done deal, in terms of an "authorized" revisiting of the canon. Each of us, however, has our own little canon. I bet not one Christian in 1000 has ever read Leviticus, for example, thereby in fact excluding that writing from their canon.

Now, how can something be a "done deal" if there's no authority to govern it? Keep in mind the first bibles that we're aware of seem to have had things like the Shepherd of Hermas in them. Of course that book isn't in any bible I'm aware of today (it might be but I'm not aware of it). Things changed because some "authority" changed it. In the case of the bible the term "authority" is an extremely difficult word to pin down...and even more so today I think.

It's a done deal in the popular mind. Most have no idea where the Bible came from, how it was organized, determined, etc. Just as most have no idea the history of our 220-year-old Constitution. I've read that, too, several times. Most Americans have no idea what is says, just as most Christians have little understanding of the Bible.

 

 

It seems to me that if jesus had perfect foresight that he would have setup a system but he did not. This could lead us to believe he did not want a bible nor a system at all (since I'm being kind and allowing for a human jesus with special powers ).

mwc

 

Either there is no God or God likes to see what we do with things. My choice is the latter, of course. I'd not like a God who dictates everything to us. I rather enjoy the freedom to be stupid and even the freedom to modify and evolve religions!

 

Hey, mwc, how do you like all these quotes. You taught me well.

 

-CC in MA