-
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!
Realistic Christian
- Thread starter Halcyon
- Start date
The choice of background color is attrocious. Oh wait, you wanted comments on the content...
The site is subtly condemning of what it presents as atheists who refer to themselves as Christian --comdemning all who fit its self-description by referring to them as atheists rather than Christians based on nothing more than their silence about their concept of god. So it purports to give them a concept of god (perhaps with the intention that if they have none, they can hold this one?).
In a similar fallacious manner, the author's ideas equate literacy with understanding, belief in a creator with our own ability to create, and Nature with Reality. It presents a theory about the history and evolution of the god concept with a certainty that reveals itself as strong opinion on the low value that the Image of God can (or should) hold. "G*D" is reduced to being a symbol of reality, nothing more (and if we already have reality, what do we need a symbol for again?).
Basically, it outlines all the things I found wrong with the idea that god and nature were one, back when I entertained that idea, but presents them as if they were a good thing, and then tries to squeeze that idea into the Christianity model. I don't think it fits well: what is it these Realistic Christians are being saved from? (salvation)
The site is subtly condemning of what it presents as atheists who refer to themselves as Christian --comdemning all who fit its self-description by referring to them as atheists rather than Christians based on nothing more than their silence about their concept of god. So it purports to give them a concept of god (perhaps with the intention that if they have none, they can hold this one?).
In a similar fallacious manner, the author's ideas equate literacy with understanding, belief in a creator with our own ability to create, and Nature with Reality. It presents a theory about the history and evolution of the god concept with a certainty that reveals itself as strong opinion on the low value that the Image of God can (or should) hold. "G*D" is reduced to being a symbol of reality, nothing more (and if we already have reality, what do we need a symbol for again?).
Basically, it outlines all the things I found wrong with the idea that god and nature were one, back when I entertained that idea, but presents them as if they were a good thing, and then tries to squeeze that idea into the Christianity model. I don't think it fits well: what is it these Realistic Christians are being saved from? (salvation)
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Halcyon said:
Why does he start with the assumption that the Canonical Gospels record actual information about an historical Jesus?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Halcyon said:
Then how does he separate the "metaphorical" parts from the "historical"/"realistic" parts?
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Very common Gnostic movement representation of Christ. It usually doesn't get very far as history has shown.
You can either have a Davinici Code attitude and say "the Church suppressed it because they are afraid of the truth" or have a more historical perspective "the Church opened up the dialogue arena to all ideologies and had a Council about it and resolved the issue". As my title shows what direction I took.
People tend to forget about Councils and how they were held. Perhaps they are unaware that the very people who held certain positions were invited to the Councils and allowed to make their case. Sometimes even plenty of bishops and priests supported a false ideology. Yet, something always came out of a Council.
You can either have a Davinici Code attitude and say "the Church suppressed it because they are afraid of the truth" or have a more historical perspective "the Church opened up the dialogue arena to all ideologies and had a Council about it and resolved the issue". As my title shows what direction I took.
People tend to forget about Councils and how they were held. Perhaps they are unaware that the very people who held certain positions were invited to the Councils and allowed to make their case. Sometimes even plenty of bishops and priests supported a false ideology. Yet, something always came out of a Council.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
I don't know, i didn't write it, just looking for opinions.doppelgänger said:
Really? :sarcastic It's not like any Gnostic concept of Christ i've ever come across - if anything we tend to play down Christ's humanity and link to Judaism.Victor said:
To me it seems more like something i'd expect from the Jesus Seminar.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
That was my impression, too. It's the speculatory "what is the real Jesus of history hidden in the scriptures" approach of a Robert Price or John Dominic Crossan. Not really gnostic though.Halcyon said:
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
We = gnostics.Victor said:
I apologise, i honestly didn't think :sarcastic was a negative face, i always thought of it as confused/quizzical.
If you wouldn't mind though, could you expand on why you think it's a common Gnostic depiction of Jesus?
There was something else in your post i would like to discuss, but i'll start a debate thread about that.
I read the description of Jesus. I think the desription in general, and the literal interpretation it employs of Jesus' words in particular, fails to address the teachings that he offered. Furthermore, taking them as spoken history instead of commentary is a bit frightening, but that's just me. As Doppleganger pointed out, it fails to separate the literal from the nonliteral metaphor, or even recognize the metaphor at all. It doesn't seem a very gnostic approach to Jesus at all.Halcyon said:
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Halcyon said:We = gnostics.
I apologise, i honestly didn't think :sarcastic was a negative face, i always thought of it as confused/quizzical.
If you wouldn't mind though, could you expand on why you think it's a common Gnostic depiction of Jesus?
There was something else in your post i would like to discuss, but i'll start a debate thread about that.
Actually the apology should come from me. When I opened up your link I usually have a good 6 or more windows open and immediately start to do research on a article/topic. In the chaos I must have opened the wrong window (thinking it was your link) and it was actually an article from one of my search results.
I should have caught on when I read that Willamena found the background color attrocious and mine was just white.
Sorry about that. Continue on....
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
It's not a Gnostic approach, i just came across it and was interested in general Christian opinion on it.Willamena said:
Lol, no problem. Did you have any comments you wanted to give on the actual site i posted?Victor said:Actually the apology should come from me. When I opened up your link I usually have a good 6 or more windows open and immediately start to do research on a article/topic. In the chaos I must have opened the wrong window (thinking it was your link) and it was actually an article from one of my search results.
I should have caught on when I read that Willamena found the background color attrocious and mine was just white.
Sorry about that. Continue on....