|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 6, 2007 22:10:13 GMT -4
There were a lot of theological diversity among the early Christians. Some Christians believed there were two gods - of wrath in the Old Testament and of love and mercy in the New Testament. Gnostics thought there were twelve gods. Others said 30 or 365. All these groups thought of themselves as Christian and followed Jesus. Since there was no "New Testament" as such at the time, each group thought of their own gospels, acts, epistles and apocalypses as truth. The Roman Catholics emerged as the most influential because it had the most converts and decided what books to put in the canon of scripture. You could say that the Bible changed drastically over the last 1700 years or didn't. It depends on how important each individual word means. The King James Version has lots of parts which are translated from Erasmus's edition which is based on one of the worst manuscripts available. Faulty Greek equals faulty English. And ONE word interpreted or translated differently can mean major differences to a believer. For instance if you believe that the greek word TEKTON means carpenter, then well, you believe that Jesus was a carpenter. But the word is closer to construction worker than carpenter. That isn't that big of a difference. But... If you believe that all the references to "brother" in the New Testament actually meant "cousin" (as Roman Catholics do) then it leads you to a different direction. For instance the Holy Virgin Mary is no longer so "Holy" or a "Virgin". RC's believe that Mary was chaste ALL her life, so therefore Jesus couldn't have had sisters or brothers at all. (Tell that to his brother James!). In some manuscripts Jesus was given wine while on the cross, in others vinagar. In St. Paul's writings in the oldest manuscripts there were woman who had prominent roles in the early church...but later they were turned into men! Junia becomes Junias (a man's name)...the line "along with a large number of prominent women" becomes "along with a large number of wives of prominent men". Woman's role in church history would be a lot different if not for the changes some scribes made. Scribes could make very basic mistakes, for example if two lines ended with the same words, he could omit a line because when his eye went back to the page he skipped a line. This mistake is called periblepsis (eye skip) occasioned by homeoeoteleuton (same endings. Some scribes misread the word "Spirit" (PNEUMA) as "drink". These words have nothing in common, "drunk of one Spirit" is not the same as "drunk of one drink". In some texts of Mark Jesus is either "angry" or "compassionate" depending on the scribe. To some a lot of this would be minor, but to others who believe in a literal translation it can have a major impact on their life and how they view the world. The King James Version is generally considered the most poetic and beautiful bible in the English language, but NOT the most accurate.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 7, 2007 0:25:02 GMT -4
I think I've worked out a major difference, here. A lot of "Christians" use their belief that the behaviour is sinful (which I don't believe) to discriminate against the people. That's not okay, and if your church says it is, you're not following Jesus that well.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 7, 2007 12:53:53 GMT -4
Also note that some of the stronger admonitions (most notably, I think, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"--in better translations, it's "poisoner") are in the Old Testament. The Scottish Kirk of the time was just as firm about the Old Testament as the new. While "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" would have made a big difference a few centuries ago I don't think it has much impact on the modern Christian, most of whom don't go around burning witches these days. You knew who I was talking about didn't you? I agree. Since at least the death of the apostles there has been no one Christian viewpoint. However, there are many things most Christians generally agree on, and this body of common agreement could be viewed as "the Christian viewpoint". One thing most Christian sects agree on is the applicability of the Old Testament and Mosaic Law to Christians, because it is fairly clear in Paul's writings. Matthew 5:17-18 "¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. " That is the first passage I thought of relating to Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses, but there are a few others. He followed it up with what are essentially revisions to the law - don't just aviod kiling your enemies, but forgive them, divorce only for fornication, turn the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye, etc. Yes, I'm well aware of the Jewish attitude towards the Samaritans at the time. It adds another layer of emphasis to the parable about those who should have known better (the Pharasee and Levite) being shown up by someone the Jewish audience would never expect to act correctly (a Samaritan). You mean he never says anything against it in the Bible as we have it today. The Bible isn't the sum total of everything Jesus said or did. The book of John recognizes this: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." Therefore it's a bit risky to say "Jesus didn't say anything about topic x" and view it as an intentional omission. Paul does condemn homosexual behavior in his epistles. As he is considered an apostle that's good enough for most Christians. Actually we do. There are no marriages perfomed in heaven in LDS theology. No baptisms either. That is why vicarious baptisms and sealings are perfomed in LDS temples on Earth - because those who have passed beyond the veil can no longer perform them.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jun 7, 2007 13:16:24 GMT -4
Is your question one of fact? That is, what are the effects of religion against some unspecified alternative? Or is it one of opinion? That is, assuming we agree on what the effects of religion relative to the unspecified alternative are, are those effects good or bad?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 7, 2007 13:47:55 GMT -4
I would say opinion more than fact. What prompted the thread was an opinion piece I read that included some criteria for judging whether a political candidate's religion should be considered when considering voting for the candidate.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 7, 2007 13:55:45 GMT -4
Well, if a candidate puts his/her religion into the manifesto or election publicity material, I do take it into account.
And vote for someone else*.
I'm electing someone to deal with the concerns of this world.
*Just as well I don't live in the USA: I'd be almost entirely disenfranchised ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 7, 2007 15:32:06 GMT -4
The point of the opinion piece was basically to ignore theology (because the theology of any religion seems strange to outsiders) and the history of a religion (because all religions have skeletons in their closets) and look instead at whether it's followers generally do good or ill today. If a candidate's religion is not generally a negative influence on a candidate or those around him or her then it is religious bigotry to reject the candidate solely because of his or her religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 7, 2007 16:33:41 GMT -4
While "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" would have made a big difference a few centuries ago I don't think it has much impact on the modern Christian, most of whom don't go around burning witches these days. No. They just discriminate against us. I hate that argument so very much. So very, very much. Yes, I did; it's still wrong. Sloppy thinking, I'm afraid. No, they don't. Some do. The Catholics, which are the largest Christian sect not just in the US but in the world, believe that, while they don't have to abide by Kosher restrictions or circumcision, large aspects of Mosaic law still apply. Also consider how many people go on about Old Testament laws when they're babbling on about how Jesus hates gay people. (I'm not using the vile insult that actually appears on their damned signs.) It is either disingenuous or ignorant to claim that Christians don't believe in Old Testament teachings, given how bloody many of them quote the Old Testament when it suits their opinions. Yeah, and how many Christians can you name who cite "eye for an eye" when it comes to the death penalty, including some who use it to trump "turn the other cheek"? I can name about a ton, if pressed. I will note, however, that Jesus was primarily concerned about love, not about law. Jesus spent His time with prostitutes and tax collectors. Jesus said you should spend your time doing good works and do your praying in private. Jesus said you shouldn't go on about your faith, that your acts should be your sign. However, the current trend is to trumpet your faith from the mountaintops and to Hell with doing good works. Indeed yes. However, the current belief seems to be that anyone who does any good at all is a good Samaritan, and it simply isn't true. Not in a strict sense. It's even more of the lack of Biblical understanding of so-called Christians. My good friend Heather, who was raised Pagan, knows more about the Bible than some fundamentalist Christians with whom she worked. I've probably read more of the Bible than they, and I know I know more about it. I know. The Church threw out a lot of texts it didn't like some 1700 years ago, including many that supported equality of women in the Church, something directly opposite to what Paul said but which came from the mouth of Jesus Himself. We're uncovering those texts these days, and they show exactly how far just about every sect of Christianity--including, it should be noted, your own--has changed from the true faith of Jesus. Of the vocal Christian politicians, who does unto the least of these? That's a pretty clear misinterpretation. Jesus very clearly states, presuming the translation's accurate, which neither you nor I can know for sure, that there is no marriage. Not no marriage services, though he assuredly says that, too. No marriage.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 7, 2007 17:17:12 GMT -4
Well if they do then they are wrong to do so. I have met quite a few wiccans and have no problem with them. Sloppy or no, it is farily common practice around my community to refer to him as just "Christ" in some contexts, and it works for me. We all know who we are talking about and we don't feel it's disrespectful in the proper context. Technically speaking, "God" is a title rather than a proper name, but very few people refer to Him (or her) as "the God". That's not what I claimed. In fact, I made exactly your point to PhantomWolf a few posts ago - that Christians still generally put a lot of stock in the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments. What I claimed is that the general Christian view is that Christians are not subject to the Law of Moses because it was fulfilled in Christ's sacrifice, and I still feel this is largely correct. It may not be understood by the typical lay member, but the stated theology of most Christian sects includes it. I agree with much of what you are saying. Jesus spoke often against the hypocrits of his day who were overly concerned with the proper interpreation of the law, and certainly many people today trumpet their good works much too loudly. However I don't believe that Jesus intended for all religious acts to be strictly private. He was, I feel, more concerned that all religious acts be honestly heartfelt and performed without concern for reward. And he specifically sent followers out to preach his teachings and baptize during his lifetime. I also feel that he did feel obedience to the law was important - he just didn't take it to the extremes that his most vocal critics did. You have pointed out that many biblical scholars doubt that the stated authors of the Biblical books are the actual authors. Perhaps you meant "allegedly came from the mouth of Jesus himself"? Some of those rejected writings may be authentic, many may not be. I'm not about to argue against the idea that most modern Christian sects bear little resemblance to 1st century Christianity - that was something Jesus himself told Joseph Smith. I will say that I have seen many studies of recent discoveries that point out how close Mormonism is to the "primitive" Christianity depicted in many of these writings in its theology. The problem, of course, is that the authenticity of these writings cannot be positively confirmed or denied 1700 years after the fact. I agree. Christian politicians should generally act more Christian. I'm not sure if this is the proper place to fully dissect the passage in question. Perhaps on another thread?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 7, 2007 18:38:29 GMT -4
If a candidate's religion is not generally a negative influence on a candidate or those around him or her then it is religious bigotry to reject the candidate solely because of his or her religious beliefs. I'm quite sure I've voted for candidates of many different religious beliefs. They were, however, sensible enough to realise that in a secular democracy their religion was their business and their business alone. By incorporating their religion into an election platform, candidates are effectively declaring that said religion should be viewed as an asset, or positive qualification for the post sought. I disagree and vote accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jun 8, 2007 0:28:31 GMT -4
If a candidate's religion is not generally a negative influence on a candidate or those around him or her then it is religious bigotry to reject the candidate solely because of his or her religious beliefs. I'm quite sure I've voted for candidates of many different religious beliefs. They were, however, sensible enough to realise that in a secular democracy their religion was their business and their business alone. By incorporating their religion into an election platform, candidates are effectively declaring that said religion should be viewed as an asset, or positive qualification for the post sought. I disagree and vote accordingly. I agree. Professing to be a strong believer in a religion - any religion - is an automatic vote-killer for me.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 8, 2007 5:57:21 GMT -4
You're going to make me get out my Bible and quote the Sermon on the Mount at you, aren't you, Jason?
Here is my official opinion on the Bible, in case you're interested. And remember I've read an awful lot of it, more than most people. I also went to some nine years of Catholic Sunday school and was an altar server (something American churches do over the Vatican's objections because, well, they can't get enough boys to do the job; teenage boys would prefer to be playing sports, I imagine). I've read a lot of books on Biblical history, and while I haven't gone looking for older texts (especially because my Greek and Latin are very bad), I have read a fair amount about them.
So. All that said.
The Bible is not and cannot be seen as infallible. Leaving aside translation/transcription errors, which are another issue entirely, we simply don't know who the original authors are, when the original books were written, and what the original authors' relation to Jesus was. When pressed, however, my primary interest is in words alleged to have been spoken by Jesus, or God in the Old Testament. (God is both a title and a psuedonym, in my opinion.) The words of any other person, including the narrator, take a distant second to that. The more books--and, naturally, the more translations--something is in, the more likely I am to accept it as accurate. As in, I'm more inclined to trust a phrase that shows up in, say, both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Thomas than one that only shows up in one or the other.
I do not, therefore, take any written word as a literal word of God. At best, it was copied once by humans, who are known to be fallible and often pretty lousy copyists. In a more practical sense, no one knows how many errors have crept in, though current scholarship works at restoring the books to the best version we can manage based on comparison among the many texts.
I find it utter hypocrisy to declare a God of Love then say "as long as you love whom and in the way we tell you." In my opinion, love is love. If it's between consenting adults, I don't care much, as long as no one's getting hurt. Going to war because your God of Love told you to is also hypocrisy. If God loves humans, God loves all humans. This is my belief, and it frankly stuns me how many people disagree with me about that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 8, 2007 15:11:03 GMT -4
You're going to make me get out my Bible and quote the Sermon on the Mount at you, aren't you, Jason? Not unless you want to. I agree. I agree that from the text itself we cannot determine these things. A sensible attitude. I agree. The books with fewer copiests between the original and the final manuscript we have today are likely more accurate. I agree. Without divine aid or a time machine we will never be able to say with any absolute surety that we have an original text or what does and doesn't belong. We can only say some bits are more or less likely than others to have been original. I agree that God loves everyone. So, I guess we agree on much more than we disagree.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 9, 2007 1:37:30 GMT -4
No, Jason, we don't.
You see, the Goddess I worship sees sex as a sacrament, not a sin. It's never anything to be ashamed of if no one gets hurt and everyone consents (and is able to; sex with children or people under your control cannot truly give consent). Healthy pleasures are a gift. My relationship with Graham is invalid in your eyes because we're not married and don't know when/if we will be. You don't generally say it, because you know it makes me angry, but it's how you feel.
The Goddess I worship sees it as the duty of those best suited to the job, be they male or female, to be spiritual leaders; we are all equal in Her eyes. She has never wanted us to discriminate against others based on sex, colour, sexual preference, or belief system. She also wants us to learn from our mistakes, not cover them up.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 9, 2007 2:43:10 GMT -4
I've been out of this thread for a while and after this posting I'm not likely to be back, mostly because of how frustrating I find it.
To be honest, 80% of what Gillianren says I agree with. There is so much hypocrisy and unchristian behaviour in many of the churches today that most of them simply are not Christian under what the Bible shows us a Christian is. They call themselves Christian, but they simply aren't, they go to church on Sunday, claim to be a Christian and then behave in bigoted and evil ways the rest of the week. They are today's Sadducees and Pharisees and I am more then positive that if Jesus was on Earth today he'd be the first to condemn their actions, just as he did those of his day.
This is why I get frustrated on this sort of board. When I talk about what Christianity is, I talk about the Christianity I know, the one I read when I read the NT. The One I have studied and learned about and worked out by getting deeply into the writings, and that Christianity is nothing like what is seen as Mainstream Christianity. Don't talk to me about what Catholics believe. Apologies to Jason here, but to me, Catholics are members of a Cult just the same as Mormons. They add extra things in to Biblically taught faith. They add extra writings that have dubious authority and they have a head of a church that is not Jesus.
As a result of the differences between what I see as Christianity and what others see when they look at the MSC, I get frustrated when people refuse to address my arguments from the view I have made them and instead go off on "But other people who claim to be Christians do..." As far as I am concerned, a Christian is shown by actions and a person standing with a sign that says God Hates anyone is NOT a Christian, but rather a hypocrite and a fraud in sheep's clothing.
Let me illustrate it this way. Hypothetically if there was a group of people who called themselves a Coven and claimed to be Wiccan, but then went and sacrificed pets, had naked orgies complete with major drug usage in an effort to reach the heights of spiritual awareness of the Earth Mother, and went about cursing or hexing anyone that annoyed them, would you like to have your understanding of Wicca linked to their behaviour? I know it'd really annoy my gf something chronic (yes that is how anti-Wicca I am, my gf is one.) Yet that is EXACTLY what I face time and time again. If a moron who claims to be a Christian blows up an abortion clinic then it reflects on Christianity and I get the "But how can you follow a religion that has a God that demands that sort of thing?" thrown at me. The idea that the moron was a mental case who did it out of delusion doesn't seem to cross their mind. Strangely the same people that use that sort of incident don't seem to understand why atheists shouldn't be tarred by Stalin's actions in the name of humanism and communism during the 1940's and 50s. (Of course they shouldn't, but then neither should Christians be tarred with the actions of one person either.)
However, having said that… back to my original post. I am still against those people whom are doing anything outside of the rules of a church having a part in the leadership of that church. I am sure than not one person here would have a problem with a church "discriminating" in such a way against a active paedophile (in fact I'd lay good odds they would be demanding it,) or a drug addict, or a fraudster, or an adulterer. I would imagine that most people here would be standing up to shout about Hypocrisy should such a person be in a Church pulpit preaching the Christian message. What we are seeing here is that because those things are unacceptable in general society they are seen as wrong for a Church Leader, whereas because Homosexuality is now acceptable in general society it should be accepted in the Church, even though the Bible states multiple times (and yes it is condemned in the New Testament, not just the Old) is something that should not be found in the Church. This is wrong. The Church should not change to reflect what society thinks. If the Church does whatever society thinks is okay, then what difference is there between the Church and the World? Why should God change his mind on what is okay and what is not all based on what people think? Besides, much of the societies in the days of NT were far more permissive than we are today. When was the last 1,000 person orgy you heard about? Who are we to tell God that we know better then Him?
Does this mean that Christians should discriminate against people outside the Church? NO!!! And just in case you didn't get that I'll repeat it again. NO!!!
Christians have no mandate to demand that people outside the Church follow the rules of the Bible. Yes they are told to tell people there is a better way, but if people don't want to listen, don't want to follow, then the Christian has done all they have too and to attempt to force Christian values onto anyone else, or to treat them in any way differently than they would a Christian is totally utterly and completely unchristian, and anyone doing so is a hypocrite, a fraud, and, as far as I am concerned, not a Christian at all.
So this is my last word on it. As far as inside the Church goes, I have no problems with people not being allowed to have a leadership role because of their inability to follow the rules God set for the Church, which ever of those rules it is they are breaking. I have no problems with a person being censured over their behaviour in the Church is they are breaking the rules, and I have no problem with a person being removed from the Church for failure to follow the rules. I do have a problem with people not in the Church demanding that the rules be changed. I do have a problem with men thinking they know better than God on which rules should be followed. I do have a problem with people claiming God told them to do something that is in opposition to the Gods rules. And I do have a problem with people who claim to follow the rules and then blatantly don't.
I also have no problem with a company failing to promote people, or even sacking them for failure to obey their rules. If it is good enough for a business to discriminate against people based on the rules that the business imposes, then why can't the Church? Why can't the Church decide that a person that won't follow the rules set up for the Church shouldn't be allowed to teach those rules to and instruct people on how to follow those rules? Isn't having someone blatantly breaking the very rules they are telling everyone else to obey just a tad hypocritical? Isn't having a leadership that picks and chooses what rules they will obey or not just a licence to the rest of the Church to do exactly the same? If so, then isn't that telling God you know better than him? And if so, what's the point of following a God when you know everything better than Him? There simply isn't one is there.
|
|