Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ouch!
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2006 - 04:13pm PT
|
"No other God in the history of the world"
That strikes me as an odd thing to say.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2006 - 04:17pm PT
|
"If you "get" the parable, please explain the Christian analogy"
I'll take a stab at it. I think it's where Little Bo Peep finally gets her sheep back.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2006 - 04:18pm PT
|
George Burns?
|
|
wootles
climber
Gamma Quadrant
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2006 - 09:15pm PT
|
MikeL wrote:
"Posting someone else's writing as support for your own views is an attempt to make them your views.
If those ideas are something that you believe in, then own up to them and say so. The idea is to develop your thinking here. If not, then what's the point? Write your ideas. . . you, yourself.
Dialogue means putting yourself out there, and it makes a person vulnerable. Anyone can present a list of citations or quotations and say that's what they think. It's not.
I apologise for not having the patience about cutting and pasting diatribes, missives, entire articles, or a thesis and then saying, "See there!"
MikeL"
Gosh Mike, I assumed from the title of this thread that it was going to be satirical. I didn't realize I was expected to post a dissertation on spirituality.
I don’t expect everyone to share the same sense of humor or the same spiritual views. I merely figured I had found something that was in line with the theme of this thread and thought I would share it.
Perhaps it’s time you flip them tablets over and take a gander at the 11th commandment: Thou shall not take thyself too serious.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2006 - 09:46pm PT
|
He wrote: "Gosh Mike, I assumed from the title of this thread that it was going to be satirical. I didn't realize I was expected to post a dissertation on spirituality."
You're not getting a dissertation on spirituality, but on religion. The two are not mutually exclusive, but are often not remotely the same.
JL
|
|
wootles
climber
Gamma Quadrant
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2006 - 10:20pm PT
|
Largo wrote:
"You're not getting a dissertation on spirituality, but on religion. The two are not mutually exclusive, but are often not remotely the same."
Check. Couldn't agree more.
|
|
peaks2paddles
Mountain climber
Avon, Co
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 01:37am PT
|
Why do people start these forums that are negative and have no real purpose other than to draw out those who do believe and try to beat them down? Are you so miserable that you have to pick on someones beliefs? What do you believe? You don't have enough of a conviction in anything worth standing up for, yet you'll put down people, people who at least are strong enough to believe in something and stand up for it. While fundementalist christians may not represent God in a positive manner do you live such a great life that you can judge others?????
|
|
smidogg
Trad climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2006 - 06:44pm PT
|
Peaks2Paddles
I started this forum for fun. I like watching people debate the topics of religeon. I also like seeing how flimsy the arguments tend to be on the side of Christians.
Am I miserable? Only when I hear about how Christian Conservatives are trying to weasel their beliefs into my life through the political process. Othen than that life is good...thanks for asking.
You say
"You don't have enough of a conviction in anything worth standing up for"
Well I have plenty of conviction, among many other things, to stand up to people who try and tell me that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in their Cosmic Debris.
And as far as judging people. I felt that this post was an accurate representation of my interactions with people of the Conservative Christian persuasion. Which in general is pretty funny and give me a chance to be an as#@&%e.
Obviously this struck a cord with you so my post must hold a semblence of truth in your life eh? Give to Jerry Falwell lately? Thanks for being the ultimate end of my intended purpose. It was really fun to set a little fire and watch it burn on this site from afar. I will be sure to post another similar topic in due time.
Love
Smitty
|
|
Brian in SLC
Social climber
Salt Lake City, UT
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 07:22pm PT
|
More Air asked: My question is... What do you anti-Christian folks do to help your fellow man?
Join the Access Fund?
Ha ha.
Cheers,
Brian in SLC
(ps, lets go climbing!)
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 07:24pm PT
|
God moves in mysterious ways. Who are we to fathom his purpose? He has a way of turning around the "bad" for the "good". [ref. Romans 8:28] There is a purpose for this thread. A few are listening. I will answer some questions specific to me later.
Hey, you damn Christians! Explain the damn parable, will ya? [Thus sparing me the bother]
Sheesh.
|
|
smidogg
Trad climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2006 - 07:26pm PT
|
Really? I thought I gave a point by point explanation to the points made in the post directed at me.
Like I said I was not putting down Fundamentalist Christians, I was posting because this list rang a bell with me as far as my experience with them. HOwever when someone faces an inconvenient truth about their beliefs, they will often take offense. As seems to be the case here.
As far as being closed minded, that would not be a good way to describe me. I am open to almost anything. I have friends of all faiths (christian, jewish, catholic, satanist, buddist, hindu, etc) and respect them as they respect mine. However when a group of people have made it thier mission in life to limit my experiences because of their faith, then I will feel free to scrutinize. Even more sore when they try to inject their religeon into the laws of this country.
And yeah I can be an as#@&%e sometimes, I can't help it I'm from NY.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 07:29pm PT
|
An interesting thing about attacking others from the vantage of "science" is the utter absurdity of trying to figure out life by only trying to measure it, and then saying anything that I can't put a ruler on bears no true facts and therefore cannot be "real." The irony here is that the attack itself is motivated by things you cannot measure and which are not "caused" by your genetics, your DNA, or "matter" large or small.
Most of these discussions are basically platforms for people to say "I'm right and you're wrong and ignorant and/or you are spiritually bankrupt."
How is any of this really making life any better or more meaningful for anyone? People say they start these threads for fun then frenght their drift with snide rebuffs and vainty.
For all of those out there who have no religious beliefs or any spiritual wherewithal, why don't you come right out and tell us what life is all about without defaulting into some candy-ass, woe-is-me, faux corrageous nihilistic shuck and jive.
JL
|
|
wootles
climber
Gamma Quadrant
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 07:37pm PT
|
You mean this thread didn't happen by chance???? It was actually......... 'intelligent design'??
sorry, couldn't hold that one back.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 08:43pm PT
|
Here's a question about the "Ultimate Sacrifice" by the god who was willing to die.
If he knew he was God's son and was headed to Heaven, then how was it really all that much of a sacrifice? [compared to various martyrs]
Or else was Jesus not so sure about his destination?
If his followers and he personally witnessed the deeds in the New Testament, then they weren't taking anything based on faith,
they were using empirical scientific evidence, which is not presently available.
|
|
Mountain Man
Trad climber
Outer space
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 11:08pm PT
|
Liberals making fun of Christians. Yawn. What else is new?
"Liberals deny that we are moral beings in God's image...they deny Christian belief in man's immoral soul.
After all, this is a country in which taxpayers are forced to subsidize 'artistic' exhibits of aborted fetuses, crucifixes in urine and gay pornography. Meanwhile it's unconstitutional to display a Nativity scene at Christmas or the Ten Commandments on government property."
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 11:19pm PT
|
Largo,
I spent a full hour going over your last post and when I hit the send button, it had signed me out and "poof" it was gone.
Too busy now to do it again. I'll do it in the morning if I get up early.
|
|
bachar
Trad climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 11:33pm PT
|
“A man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting.”
?
|
|
MikeL
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006 - 11:57pm PT
|
Hey, Wootles, it ain’t no dissertation, believe me.
If the fundamentalist Christians are making people’s life hell on earth, why aren’t we seeing that behavior here on ST? My personal observations are that they don’t seem to be initiating the baiting and trolling.
People can’t know where they’re going unless they know where they’re at; and they can’t know where they’re at unless they know where they’ve been. It may surprise some readers that the foundations of Western Civilization come primarily from the Greeks, the Romans, and the Hebrews. Christianity has been molded by each of those cultures, but it has brought its own unique ideas, too—many of which are espoused on ST every day.
If you favor the ideas of full equality, compassion, universality, a lack of hierarchy, and universal benevolence, then you should bow to that guy from Nazareth, for he brought those ideas to the party.
If you like a balance in the rule of law, organization, practicality, political institutions, communal ethics, stability, and prosperity, then you owe a nod to the Romans.
If you like ideas of excellence and competition, a commitment to individual freedom, and systematic reason, then you owe a big thank-you to the Greeks. (BTW, the Greek word for excellence and competition is “arete,” although the accent is on the first syllable.)
If you like ideas of compassion and righteousness and the almost impossible of idea of creating something from nothing, then you are an intellectual decendant of the Hebrews.
All these cultures have rich heritages and pedigrees that are important and define who we are and how we got here. We got here from fruitful oppositions and tensions among these different cultural ideas and values.
When people poo-poo Christians or their beliefs, they might as well be making slurs at their own families. It’s silly. Every time someone complains about the problem of caring for the sick, the lack of compassion, the need for more universal equality among all men, the offense of even thinking poorly of one another, they are using Christian values and beliefs that Jesus Christ introduced.
You don’t have to be a believer to see the immense impact that Christianity has had on our cultures and our lives all over the world. You can take that insight to the level of faith, if you want, but it’s more than enough for me to simply recognize its intellectual force alone.
MikeL
|
|
bachar
Trad climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2006 - 12:10am PT
|
Q: "Where are you from?"
A: "Same place as you."
 Werner Braun
|
|
mingleefu
climber
Champaign, IL --> Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2006 - 12:40am PT
|
I don't post much, but when I do it tends to get lengthy...so I'll do my best to adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle, and keep it to the point, while addressing a number of comments.
Largo writes, "You're not getting a dissertation on spirituality, but on religion. The two are not mutually exclusive, but are often not remotely the same."
This is the foremost thought in the thread so far. "Religion" is something that often is scorned by both Christian and non-Christian alike. Non-Christians abhor "Religion" because they observe it and believe it to be a contrived conspiracy as a means to control the world, the means of which is often understood to be politics. Christians detest "Religion" because it has come to be widely conceptualized as the practice of rituals, etc. without mindfulness of spiritual ramifications. I cannot think of any Christians who would use the word "Religious" to describe him/herself because the connotation is rather insulting by ignoring the spiritual process on the whole.
Most of the anti-Christian arguments in this thread consider the "What" that is found in Religion (Law, practices, evangelism, etc) while prima facie denying the plausibility of Christians' sincere belief in the "Why" of Spirituality (Love, Peace, etc). Please keep this in mind.
About PTPP's parable: The problem with the parable, as LEB points out, is the daughter's arrogance. To assume, "It's okay to disobey God because God will in forgive me," is misunderstanding of Repentance. To repent a sin is to stop habitually committing that sin. Through repentance comes forgiveness. Perhaps the parable might be better told with the daughter ashamed for disobeying the law?
It's no matter. The "substitutionary form of payment" referred to by PTPP is theologically layed out in the Bible as follows (which may or may not be the Help that MikeL requested). God creates the world and the humans in it, who are supposed to obey Him because He desires communion with them. They disobey him from the get-go which distances them from Him. Therefore, it is annually required that the High Priest (The Religious/Spiritual leader of the God's people) enter the centermost place of the temple--a place where noone is allowed to enter & even the High Priest may only enter on this one day--to submit a sacrifice. This occasion is commemorated in Judaism to this day as Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. "Atonement" is best explained as one thing being substituted for another. The cost of sin is death. The atonement for the people is an animal. Flash-foward to the time of Jesus, remembering that Christianity was born out of this heritage. Succinctly stated, out of Love, Jesus served as the final Atonement for anyone who would accept it so that we may live with Him for eternity. Because Jesus was flawless his death serves to replace our death.
Someone might reply, "But that doesn't work because everyone still dies." Yes, however the death that we believe we will not suffer is that of eternal torment in a place of suffering (Hell).
LEB's response to the parable, "What has this child learned? How has this child grown based on her experience?"
The Child learned that the Father does not want her to distance herself from him through disobedience. She has grown by acknowledging that the Father loves her, and realizes that it is truly better to not disobey. Keep in mind that Jesus dies for everyone, but not everyone will accept the gift. This is akin to the daughter not learning or growing from the experience and continuing to distance herself from the Father. (Again, this is not a perfect parable, though I won't feign to construct my own.)
to PTPP- Though the context for the word "agape" refers to a Godly and perfect love, it is exegetically fallacy to accept the word itself to mean that Godly love. "Agape" (so-called "Godly love") and "Phileo" (so-called "brotherly love") are actually used relatively interchangeably in the GNT. Do a word study of the two if you like, or just trust me. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Following PTPP's response to #4, Christianity is also unique in that it is the only religion where the initiator on Earth also claimed to be God incarnate.
Dirtineye writes "OK, so maybe you won't deny them [other gods], but they ain't no good, according to your big boss, who is a little bit insecure, it woudl seem."
Jealousy of humans can be born of insecurity, yes. In fact, the two terms are often wrapped up in each other as we used them. But in this case "jealous" simply means "Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity" (as in dictionary.com's 5th definition). That insecurity is not part of God's nature.
About the letter to Dr. Laura, as quoted by wootles. It is said that "A text without a context is a pretext." Folks sometimes like to misquote the Bible out of context as a form of mockery, ignoring the surrounding narrative of God's love for, and resulting care of, his people. This is merely a case of that. Life goes on.
LEB writes, "How can someone i.e. Jesus "pay" for the sins of another person. We are all held accountable for our own actions and "sins" in a karmic sense. Jesus may have taught (and likely practiced) some very beneficial concepts but I fail to see how he could "pay" for our sins via "dying for us." "
What you (LEB) deny here actually works within Christian doctrine. If Jesus was God incarnate, he CAN pay for the sins of other people. Of course, denying the protasis (as you obviously do) negates the apodasis. But that negation is dependant on the condition of Jesus' divinity. It works if he was, but not if he wasn't. This is based on creed which can't be argued without getting into apologetics and epistemology, and I believe this is the forum for neither. Denying the entire belief system is one thing, but you can't plausibly deny a part of it and then wonder why other parts no longer hold up.
Jay writes, "Isn’t such a God worth getting to know a little more about? Just because you have a bone to pick with his followers doesn’t reduce the magnitude of this fact."
Bravo! It is seldom understood by non-Christians that Christians are at best an imperfect representation of God's potential since every believer is fallible and each is in a different stage of learning to live like Christ, a point worth repeating. Look for God in men and you may be dissappointed. Look for God in God, and you might be impressed.
Splater inquires, "Here's a question about the "Ultimate Sacrifice" by the god who was willing to die.
"If he knew he was God's son and was headed to Heaven, then how was it really all that much of a sacrifice? [compared to various martyrs]
Or else was Jesus not so sure about his destination?"
First, it is a relatively futile to attempt an argument as to the degree of magnitude of the sacrifice. So I won't. "Ultimate Sacrifice" is not a term in the Bible, though it might be considered "Ultimate" from our point of view as we gratefully understand it to be spectacular and undeserved.
How, then, is it a sacrifice if Jesus had foreknowledge of the final destination, you ask? First, I submit that it has little difference from the sacrifices of the martyrs. They also were confident in their salvation (albeit by faith, and not on the merit of actually being God). I would explain by comparison to someone who goes to the doctor to get a shot for health (vaccination, etc) but maintains a fear of needles. Though the ends might be desired, the means can be a scary and painful process (another example: Childbirth). Being human, Jesus was susceptible to the entire spectrum of agonizing pain that would have been felt by any other human going through the process. In fact, we know from the accounts that he didn't want to go through the experience (he prayed, "Take this cup from me"), but evidently believed enough to go through with the means. Another rough example might be an occupation: I personally do not like working and dread going to work, but I still do because I know that the money I get in the end is worth it. Hope that helps.
Splater continues, "...If his followers and he personally witnessed the deeds in the New Testament, then they weren't taking anything based on faith, they were using empirical scientific evidence, which is not presently available."
True, they didn't need faith to believe in those miracles (deeds) because they actually saw them occur. However, they would have had to have faith with respect to the meaning of those miracles. Acknowledging that those miracles were signs pointing to Jesus being who he said he was required faith. I wouldn't suggest these things be submitted as "empirical scientific evidence" since the rules of scientific process require that the process be able to be duplicated. It might be a semantic issue, but what Jesus' followers witnessed would be best identified in scientific terms as "theoretical". Belief in these theories would be faith as would belief in those stories recorded and passed on by those observers.
I'll wrap this up with the following. I once saw a TV show where a cocaine addict's friends arranged for an intervention. The addict responded to the situation with heated anger and frustration. Feeling betrayed and abandoned, the addict stormed out of the building. Later, after some consideration, the addict was interviewed. He said that he realized that it's a sign of a serious problem when friends and loved ones approach to intervene and you react in anger and lash out.
If you do not believe in the things I just wrote about, so be it. But there is no sense in responding to it in anger or ridicule. Minimally, quell any malcontent and consider its source in effort to become a better person. Moreover, feel free to contact any of the people who have identified themselves as Christians for more.
Comments and thoughtful discussion is welcomed.
Andy T., Seminary student.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!