-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Buttons* said:
:ignore:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
robtex said:
I was raised in the Christian church, so I had no choice at first.
Now I like the message of redemption in Christianity, so I chose it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Buttons* said:.... i wasnt looking for a debate, i seriously wanted to know what you had to say.... you dont have to be rude to me.....
I was joking... sorry to make you frown... I wasn't trying to be rude. When I think of an intelligent response, I'll post it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Buttons* said:
They are not Christian teachings because they are not complimentary of the NT nor traditional Christianity.
I do not appreciate the attempt of some scholars to place more value on late Gnostic texts than the NT and the church fathers.
As a said before to the question:
Buttons* said:what's wrong with Gnostic texts?
Angellous said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
robtex said:
I haven't gotten that far yet, LOL.
I think that the doctrine of original sin is related to the Greek idea that the first sin happened with an improper relationship to food. That is, humans followed their animal desires (an passions) and not reason. The Greco-Romans also believed that the salvation of humanity happens by sharing food properly. The philosophers did teach that humans have animal nature (passions) and human nature (reason). Redemption is in humility and living by reason. The animals aren't aware of God and fellowship, not being able to look up from their food. Humans can look up from their food to God and to fellow man - having right relationships with both.
Original sin and redemption then is a parallel to these ideas - it creates in humans a pre-disposition to follow the animal nature (which is in Aristotle). We are thus pre-disposed to follow our sin nature and have to train ourselves to live on a higher plane. Thus Christianity simply adds myth and spiritualizes the process.
Footnotes:
Cicero and the New Testament
Aristotle and Romans 7
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28885&page=7 post # 66
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Greco-Roman Idea of Original Sin
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.12d. LCL, Gulick.
for primitive men, who, of course, did not have abundant food, would fall upon it as soon as it appeared, and forcibly snatch and wrest it from those who had it, so that in the midst of this disorder bloodshed would actually occur. So it was, probably, that the word atasthalia (wickedness) came into use, because it was amid festivity (thalia) that men first sinned against eachother
Plutarch
But where each guest has his own private portion, companionship perishes. This is true where there is not equal distribution; for not the possession of ones own, but the taking of anothers and the greed for what is common to all began injustice and strife;this the laws hold in check by limiting and moderating private rights, and their very name they owe to their office and power of equitable distribution in regard to what is common to all.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.12d. LCL, Gulick.
for primitive men, who, of course, did not have abundant food, would fall upon it as soon as it appeared, and forcibly snatch and wrest it from those who had it, so that in the midst of this disorder bloodshed would actually occur. So it was, probably, that the word atasthalia (wickedness) came into use, because it was amid festivity (thalia) that men first sinned against eachother
Plutarch
But where each guest has his own private portion, companionship perishes. This is true where there is not equal distribution; for not the possession of ones own, but the taking of anothers and the greed for what is common to all began injustice and strife;this the laws hold in check by limiting and moderating private rights, and their very name they owe to their office and power of equitable distribution in regard to what is common to all.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If a babe dies before he had a chance to be baptized, does he go to hell?
NO! See 1 Cor 7
You've stated that faith is from God, so do you believe in predestination over free will?
Nope.
Do you feel that Paul's misogynistic and anti-semetic statements are opposed to Jesus's teachings?
No. I don't read Paul as being misogynistic or anti-semetic. For one thing, I don't accept the Pastorals as Pauline, IMO it is anachronistic to refer to Paul as misogynistic anyway. Also, he's not nearly as hard on women as Plato or a few other philosophers are.
I read the Gospels as an affimation of Paul's theology as they came later than Paul and affirm rather than deny his claims.
NO! See 1 Cor 7
You've stated that faith is from God, so do you believe in predestination over free will?
Nope.
Do you feel that Paul's misogynistic and anti-semetic statements are opposed to Jesus's teachings?
No. I don't read Paul as being misogynistic or anti-semetic. For one thing, I don't accept the Pastorals as Pauline, IMO it is anachronistic to refer to Paul as misogynistic anyway. Also, he's not nearly as hard on women as Plato or a few other philosophers are.
I read the Gospels as an affimation of Paul's theology as they came later than Paul and affirm rather than deny his claims.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
kevmicsmi said:
I'm sorry that I overlooked this question...
There's really no way to quantitatively know if the miracles actually happened. I lean toward no, but I'd like to think that they did actually occur.:162:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Do you believe water baptism to be an integral part of salvation?
Absolutely not. Water baptism is simply an outward expression or symbol of an action of the Holy Spirit. See Colassians 3.
What do you think Jesus would have thought of the death penalty? For or Against?
I cannot presume to put words in Jesus' mouth.
The Johannine community remembers Jesus as being against stoning a woman for adultry. This would make Jesus against the death penalty.
This can be read in conflict with Jesus' prescription for soldiers not to complain about their pay. He didn't tell soldiers not to kill. Therefore, I think that since Jesus apparently condones some killing, he would condone the death penalty.
A parallel silence is found from the cross. He did not condemn the soldiers for crucifying the criminals, but instead the criminals said that they deserve it - and this is preserved by whoever wrote the Gospels in Jesus' name or memory.
Absolutely not. Water baptism is simply an outward expression or symbol of an action of the Holy Spirit. See Colassians 3.
What do you think Jesus would have thought of the death penalty? For or Against?
I cannot presume to put words in Jesus' mouth.
The Johannine community remembers Jesus as being against stoning a woman for adultry. This would make Jesus against the death penalty.
This can be read in conflict with Jesus' prescription for soldiers not to complain about their pay. He didn't tell soldiers not to kill. Therefore, I think that since Jesus apparently condones some killing, he would condone the death penalty.
A parallel silence is found from the cross. He did not condemn the soldiers for crucifying the criminals, but instead the criminals said that they deserve it - and this is preserved by whoever wrote the Gospels in Jesus' name or memory.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Buttercup said:
Personally, I actually do believe in the physical bodily resurrection of Christ, but I affirm other Christian brothers and sisters who believe in the Christ of faith.
I believe in his other miracles only inasmuch as I cannot demonstrate that they serve the purposes of the church, and there aren't many that don't. In fact, I can't think of one...
For example, the feeding of the five thousand is a legend rooted in the institution of the Lord's Supper.
The healing of the man with dropsy in Luke 14 is a disease of insatiable appetite right before a meal and teaches moderation at meals - it is designed to regulate Christian eating.
The list goes on and on...
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I guess I arbitrarily pick miracles that make me feel warm and fuzzy. It's more intellectually responsible to reject them all.
But what the hell. *sips beer*
*gets animated and waves beer around*
I reserve the right to be inconsistent! :149: I mean, we're leaving all rationality and sanity behind us when we affirm the resurrection - hell, even the existence of God.
There's going to be unsolvable paradoxes, and we have to hope against hope that some form of a loving God is out there, and may He have mercy on us all!
But what the hell. *sips beer*
*gets animated and waves beer around*
I reserve the right to be inconsistent! :149: I mean, we're leaving all rationality and sanity behind us when we affirm the resurrection - hell, even the existence of God.
There's going to be unsolvable paradoxes, and we have to hope against hope that some form of a loving God is out there, and may He have mercy on us all!
ΩRôghênΩ
Disciple of Light
Why did The Christ die for us