Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

[unofan]

5mn's religion boils down to "don't be a d-ck."

That is far superior to any other religious doctrine I've ever heard.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but you don't need a religion to not be a dick; that's just a philosophy or outlook on life. Religion, to me, implies a belief in the supernatural, and it's extremely interesting how he gets there from a selective reading of the Bible.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

I'm not disagreeing with that, but you don't need a religion to not be a dick; that's just a philosophy or outlook on life. Religion, to me, implies a belief in the supernatural, and it's extremely interesting how he gets there from a selective reading of the Bible.

I think I can get to where 5mn is but still obey your definition of religion and hold to Biblical literalism.

1. God is supernatural.
2. God says the Bible is inerrant and authoritative.
3. The Bible says don't be a dick.

Therefore:
Don't be a dick.

Analogy

1. The People are sovereign.
2. The People said the Constitution is inerrant and authoritative.
3. The Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Therefore:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

In general:

1. Axiom of absolute authority a priori
2. Conjecture of delegated instrument a posteriori
3. Proposition p by delegated instrument

Therefore:
p

I believe 5mn would likely refer to statement 2 as a proposition, but since the proof of the validity of scripture is in scripture I have never understood how this could be true. On the other hand it doesn't do justice to the Christian argument to call statement 2 another axiom, so I split the difference.

[unofan]

I've been stating my position over and over.

The Word is what matters: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Beyond that Jesus' Word clearly states what's important and what's not out of the OT. The Ten Commandments is important and 'eye for an eye' is wrong. Jesus says so.

But since the entire Bible is the Word, why would God need to send Jesus to clarify anything? Surely God would not make mistakes.

Every statement you make includes reverence for the church...mine for Jesus/God. In my lifetime, I have never, ever heard anyone give the Catholic church so much credit for Christianity - by putting it in front of Jesus/the Word and as author of the Bible. The Second Commandment says “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the LORD your God will not tolerate your affection for any other gods." As a Christian, I would not hold reverence for the church itself as you do...as per the Second Commandment, your position is heresy.

No, I'm a heretic because I don't believe in God. My putting stock in the Church when it comes to answering questions of faith is because the Church founded what we now know as Christianity. The Church traces its roots back to Peter, the first Pope, and the other disciples. It has been answering these sorts of questions for literally 2 millennia.

And while (for believers) God is the author of the Bible since it is His Word, the Church is certainly the original editor, picking and choosing which books to include, which to discard, and which to teach from the pulpit. Until Gutenberg invented the printing press, the Church was the sole protector of the Bible. You're kidding yourself if you don't think changes were made over the 1400 years until that happened.

and in putting your 'taking the church' over a simple statement from God that nets out what matters to Him...its clear your taking the OT over the New.

No, I'm taking the whole over the part. OT God and NT God are one and the same. And calling it a simple statement is hilarious, considering that we're going on 2000 years now and people continue to disagree.

I have no qualms with your belief in an OT God...or should I say disbelief. But that's not God...Jesus is quite clear on that.

Jesus was quite clear that he is the Son of that God, so yes, he is that God.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

But since the entire Bible is the Word, why would God need to send Jesus to clarify anything? Surely God would not make mistakes.

The OT is the original contract with the Jews. The NT is the expansion of that contract to everyone.

The OT is the original Constitution. The NT is the Amendments.

The Constitution was not "mistaken." It was amended, not corrected. The Constitution is amended to reflect the change in the people of the United States. It is mapping concepts like rights and freedoms to those people and it changes over time as those people change. Likewise, God's original contract with the people of Israel fit their times. With the coming of Jesus certain things changed (for one thing, all men past and future were forgiven their sins if they entered into fellowship with Christ). Therefore God needed a few Amendments to flesh out the details.

Note that God never changed, in the same way that freedom didn't change and rights didn't change. What changed was the fit of those abstract ideas to the reality of human life.

Which is why we can eat pork now, but not own human beings.

When we finally amend the 2nd amendment we will not be saying that the original 2nd amendment was "wrong." We will be saying the Founders' recognition that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State does not imply a personal right to semi-automatics, in the same way it doesn't imply a personal right to missile launchers.

[unofan]

The OT is the original contract with the Jews. The NT is the expansion of that contract to everyone.

The OT is the original Constitution. The NT is the Amendments.

The Constitution was not "mistaken." It was amended, not corrected. The Constitution is amended to reflect the change in the people of the United States. It is mapping concepts like rights and freedoms to those people and it changes over time as those people change. Likewise, God's original contract with the people of Israel fit their times. With the coming of Jesus certain things changed (for one thing, all men past and future were forgiven their sins if they entered into fellowship with Christ). Therefore God needed a few Amendments to flesh out the details.

Note that God never changed, in the same way that freedom didn't change and rights didn't change. What changed was the fit of those abstract ideas to the reality of human life.

Which is why we can eat pork now, but not own human beings.

When we finally amend the 2nd amendment we will not be saying that the original 2nd amendment was "wrong." We will be saying the Founders' recognition that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State does not imply a personal right to semi-automatics, in the same way it doesn't imply a personal right to missile launchers.

The 21st doesn't inherently say the 18th was wrong? Well, that's one spin.

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

You are free to believe what you want. But don't expect it to go unquestioned, especially when you deviate from the established norms that have been around since long before your great great great great great great great great great grandfather was just a gleam in his daddy's eyes.

I just tend to find it extremely suspect when contradictions within the Bible are brushed aside with the wave of a hand that that part isn't literal, only these other parts that I agree with are to be taken literally.

The casual brush off of the Catholic Church is amusing, too, considering without it, Jesus would've just been seen as another Jew wrongfully convicted by the Romans.

Being a history buff and not haveing been brought up with the Catholic version of history I can't say I agree with that part. The Catholic Church, proper, came later, when The Nicene conference happened because Alex the Great made everyone sit down to agree about things like the books of the Bible, etc (paraphrased but as far as I remember fairly accurate). Before that there were lots of little churches, all with their own version of the Scripture or take on what was the most important part, 4 different Popes (The Catholics somehow forget the other 3) in the 4 areas. The Roman Pope came to the fore when the Hordes came out of the East and he negotiated for the safety of Rome. The other Popes weren't as challenged so never became as powerful. Read a really fascinating- and extremely dry- book- Heresies of the Early Christian Church that disected the history. I think it might have been someone's thesis or something. It looked at all of that.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

The 21st doesn't inherently say the 18th was wrong? Well, that's one spin.

That's a special, and unique, case.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

So what about the Old Testament?

I may be wrong...but what I've seen is that every OT 'story' has a message that goes beyond the literal words on the page. God created the world in 7 days...which really can be construed as God is all powerful and we owe Him a lot. If really nearly 100% of those OT stories have messages behind them, I find it quite likely that the message behind the story is what matters - as a result, the OT is all just parable. Would a passage make it in and be passed down for thousands of years if there was no real meaning behind it (i.e., the world was created in 7 days, period)? Seems very unlikely. And Jesus teaching showed that He used parables extensively and its quite likely the purpose of Him doing so in person sheds light on the nature of the OT. So the OT is a list of learning parables - good. Do we keep them, chuck them or 'cherry pick' them?

As I've claimed, I believe God tells what to do with the OT directly in the form of Jesus. He resets the relationship by emphasizing those important parts of the OT, the parts that are wrong and the parts that are less important. That 'eye for an eye' stuff is bs. The constitutional amendment process is a pretty good analogy - yet, I think it goes almost a step beyond that. Its more of an clarification/translation of the OT.

In the end, I'm beginning to think of the Old Testament as the 'How' and the New Testament as the 'What'. The OT is full of stories that outlines how it should kinda function - with stories of people living thousands of years ago with their norms and practices as examples. The NT sets the priorities and determines what matters.

Learned something here - thanks for helping to clarify that.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

I think I can get to where 5mn is but still obey your definition of religion and hold to Biblical literalism.

1. God is supernatural.
2. God says the Bible is inerrant and authoritative.
3. The Bible says don't be a dick.

Therefore:
Don't be a dick.

If love your neighbor means don't be a dick...then yes, don't be a dick.

I believe 5mn would likely refer to statement 2 as a proposition, but since the proof of the validity of scripture is in scripture I have never understood how this could be true.

You don't come to any of this by saying source x says its authoritative...and so I must believe. If so, I would be a Rush L fanatic. For me, the Bible saying its authoritative has had no sway over me. You come to a belief through the nature of that content. You read, you absorb and you decide this is what its all about. You become a Christian (or name your faith) by saying this is important enough to me to make a commitment to its nature - in this case 'doing better for others'. The platform of the Bible helps reinforce that commitment.

Listen I know believing in a guy sitting in a cloud who controls everything seems outlandish. I consult regularly for Fortune 500 and my ultimate role is fact based decision making. So I'm not oblivious to reality. But John said it best, God is Love. I'm just committed to making a positive difference and there's no question that joining the team helps me improve in that.

[joecct]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Remember, Christianity falls apart if
(a) Christ didn't rise from the dead, and
(b) Didn't ascend into heaven.

Wasn't Alexander the Great born BEFORE Christ?

There were various "versions" of what Christianity meant and the nature of Christ in those early days. The Council of Nicea settled those issues and gave us the Nicene Creed, which is a pretty good definition of what it means to be Catholic/Christian.

The big issue for Holy Mother Church was the embracement of temporal power. Uh uh. While it may seem nice to live like a prince, that ain't what Christ intended. You're supposed to be shepherds, not lords. The occasional hob nob with the common folk don't make you a shepherd, not with your flocks be devastated by the wolves, some of which are in sheep's clothing, or worse, shepherds.

Also, you don't accept the Queen's shilling. I don't care if the State is giving away millions and a share of that is mighty tasty. Once you start sucking on the government teat, you're tied to that government and you will compromise yourself to keep the $$ coming.

Now that I’ve stopped ranting , I've come to believe that Catholicism is a series of inconvenient truths. If you follow Her teachings, you're not going to be popular. The tree may bend, but it will never submit to the wind. Submitting will cause the tree to uproot and die.

We now return you to your local programming.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

The main thrust of the Council of Nicea was to reject and stamp out Christian-flavored Gnosticism, in particular Manichaeism.

[St. Clown]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Remember, Christianity falls apart if
(a) Christ didn't rise from the dead, and
(b) Didn't ascend into heaven.

Wasn't Alexander the Great born BEFORE Christ?

He rose from the dead to accomplish one last thing.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

He rose from the dead to accomplish one last thing.

He had one job.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

The main thrust of the Council of Nicea was to reject and stamp out Christian-flavored Gnosticism, in particular Manichaeism.

Nicea was about Arianism. Arianism is (making a very long and interesting story short) the idea of God and Jesus being separate entities -- that, for instance, prior to the Annunciation (when God gives His divine load to Mary), Jesus does not exist. The Powers That Be, at Nicea, made the doctrine of hypostasis mandatory: God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one being. They branded Arianism as tritheistic heresy and made every Catholic school kid's life hell forever.

Manicheanism is the doctrine that there are rival supernatural essences of good and evil, sometimes in the same bipolar God, sometimes in a pairing of a good God (typically the mind) and a bad God (the body). The Church nixed that and said there is no essence of evil, it is just distance from God. So, God is heat. There is no cold, only absence of heat. But Christianity still has leftover bits of it like the Devil and their creepy sexual neuroticism. It's really all just a bad batch of brown Neo-Platonic acid.

Get me, maw, I'm a theology scholar!

That period is fascinating.

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Remember, Christianity falls apart if
(a) Christ didn't rise from the dead, and
(b) Didn't ascend into heaven.

Wasn't Alexander the Great born BEFORE Christ?

There were various "versions" of what Christianity meant and the nature of Christ in those early days. The Council of Nicea settled those issues and gave us the Nicene Creed, which is a pretty good definition of what it means to be Catholic/Christian.

The big issue for Holy Mother Church was the embracement of temporal power. Uh uh. While it may seem nice to live like a prince, that ain't what Christ intended. You're supposed to be shepherds, not lords. The occasional hob nob with the common folk don't make you a shepherd, not with your flocks be devastated by the wolves, some of which are in sheep's clothing, or worse, shepherds.

Also, you don't accept the Queen's shilling. I don't care if the State is giving away millions and a share of that is mighty tasty. Once you start sucking on the government teat, you're tied to that government and you will compromise yourself to keep the $$ coming.

Now that I’ve stopped ranting , I've come to believe that Catholicism is a series of inconvenient truths. If you follow Her teachings, you're not going to be popular. The tree may bend, but it will never submit to the wind. Submitting will cause the tree to uproot and die.

We now return you to your local programming.

Oops meant Constantine. Had a brain cramp.

The main thrust of the Council of Nicea was to reject and stamp out Christian-flavored Gnosticism, in particular Manichaeism.

Until Nicea from what I remember there was an argument re whether the most important thing was either that Christ rose as the most important part or what he did when he was alive.