the right religion

[Triumphant_Loser]

That is anything but a certain prophecy conclusion. It is the only prophecy I know of where I find no satisfaction in any alternate interpretation so far but not one that allows the type of condemnation you claim. I have no idea at this time what interpretation is correct but the one you hold is the worst of them all. There are thousands of prophecies that are not as confusing and have clear fulfillment. However prophecy was not even the issue. What Christ taught was. It was what it was, not even whether it was good, bad, right, or wrong.

Well... If a book contains so much as one failed prophecy, can it really be said to be a completely "trustworthy" and "infallible" book? A "thousand fulfilled prophecies" do not take away from the fact that there are still many failed prophecies in this so-called "divinely inspired" book as well. I respect the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth... It is just the fact that some of his prophecies have obviously failed, and because of that, I cannot accept him as the messiah... or as any "divine" being of any kind. He was just a regular human being... Just like the rest of us.

 

[metis]

I have never seen a more exclusive message twisted so much, in order to make it PC before. I guess it is a sign of the times. Please see my response above to what you responded to. Did Jesus say he came to bring a Teddy bear or a sword?

Sorry, but you simply are taking Jesus out of the given context of time and place and making interpretations that so many theologians recognize as being faulty. You are failing to see Jesus as a Jew working in the Jewish context within the given conditions of his day. Plus literalistic interpretations will almost always get one into trouble since it's a failure to recognize that all scripture is subjective.

Therefore, it's really your approach that tends to "twist" the reality of what probably happened, much like how you "twist" science around by claiming that "macro-evolution" cannot occur or that the concept of "infinity" is impossible.

Fortunately, more and more Christians have abandoned the myopic approach of "Christians only", thus realizing that people in other faiths can be moral and probably pleasing to God, much like the current Pope just stated a short while ago. It makes not one iota of sense, imo, why God would condemn those who honestly believe in God and try to do what's right.

 

[metis]

Well... If a book contains so much as one failed prophecy, can it really be said to be a completely "trustworthy" and "infallible" book? A "thousand fulfilled prophecies" do not take away from the fact that there are still many failed prophecies in this so-called "divinely inspired" book as well. I respect the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth... It is just the fact that some of his prophecies have obviously failed, and because of that, I cannot accept him as the messiah... or as any "divine" being of any kind. He was just a regular human being... Just like the rest of us.

What I find "interesting" is that there are so many like 1robin who take the more literalistic approach, until they run across something like what you focus on above, and then they suddenly they change their tune.

 

[Nakosis]

Jesus is where Christianity gets it's claims.

Yeah, that's unfortunate. It's not that Christians are good honest folks that will treat their fellowman fairly. It is not a message of the importance of love, compassion and forgiveness towards one's fellow man. These are the thing I think about when I read the story of Jesus.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

It was his comments that originally taught exclusivity, not a pope's. In fact the words attributed to Christ are among the most exclusive in the whole bible. Now if your wanting to be PC so much, that it determines your reality, please do so without inventing another Christ that disagrees with the biblical one.

The exclusivity I see is that of forgiveness and leaving final judgement in God's hands, not mine. To forgive our parents, our fellowman and ourselves for our trespasses. For we were born ignorant of the truth and the light.

I think Christians found they could not lived up to these expectations and so created a doctrine that salvation could be achieve through faith instead of action.

I'm not afraid of being judge for who I am. Whereas you would have God judge the life of another in your place. And this, makes you worthy? (or gives you undeserved credit to get you into heaven...)

You seek the truth of Jesus in the Bible perhaps because you cannot find his truth inside yourself.

I will not judge you for your beliefs, but that does not mean it doesn't sadden me.

 

[1robin]

Well... If a book contains so much as one failed prophecy, can it really be said to be a completely "trustworthy" and "infallible" book? A "thousand fulfilled prophecies" do not take away from the fact that there are still many failed prophecies in this so-called "divinely inspired" book as well. I respect the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth... It is just the fact that some of his prophecies have obviously failed, and because of that, I cannot accept him as the messiah... or as any "divine" being of any kind. He was just a regular human being... Just like the rest of us.

Well who claimed that? The bible is well known to have scribal and other errors. However even according to the critics like Ehrman they account for less than 5% of the whole. Plus being they are all virtually known and are indicated in all versions of the bible, there exists no problem at all.

My claims there are a thousand accurate prophecies was not an admission there are many failed ones. My comments were given in the context of explaining why general reliability being assumed is justifiable. I know of many unclear prophecies but none that have been shown to be wrong (once slight scribal errors are accounted for). You supplied the only really questionable prophecy I know of in an apparent attempt to condemn the whole. This is unjustifiable. Almost certainly the claimed flaws in that prophecy lie with interpretation, not accuracy.

Jesus was not a human like the rest of us. You and I have not changed the world more than any historical figure to have ever existed. Even the granted historical claims about Christ do not add up to him even being an extraordinary human being but something much greater.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

In the future, most people will be able to pursue religious truth without idolizing Perfect Heroes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jesus himself, whether or not he did exist, didn't change the world. If he did live, no one else but his followers took any notice of him or bothered to write anything about him during his lifetime. Even his followers didn't write anything about him during his alleged lifetime. Hell, even this magnificent Jesus, god in the flesh, didn't bother writing anything (is god illiterate?).

No, it was his zealous followers a few centuries after the fact who went out and changed the world. They committed cultural genocide in their zeal to convert millions to Christ in the last two millenia, wiping out civilizations as they spread the "word of god".

Robin, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. You've been spewing the same junk for months on end here. Whose mind have you changed? If you're trying to defend your religion, you're obviously failing at it.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

What I find "interesting" is that there are so many like 1robin who take the more literalistic approach, until they run across something like what you focus on above, and then they suddenly they change their tune.

Everything is considered to be "literal" by them... Until they run into problems, that is... Then all of a sudden, it "was a metaphor the entire time."

 

[Ouroboros]

What I find "interesting" is that there are so many like 1robin who take the more literalistic approach, until they run across something like what you focus on above, and then they suddenly they change their tune.

Yup.

I remember when I was Christian, there was one Bible passage that bugged me because our church interpreted half of the verse literally and the other half figuratively. It just never made sense.

 

[metis]

Yup.

I remember when I was Christian, there was one Bible passage that bugged me because our church interpreted half of the verse literally and the other half figuratively. It just never made sense.

Reminds me of a joke:

A new rabbi was conducting services for the first time at his new synagogue, and when he got to the Sh'ma, which is the basis of our faith, half the congregation stood, the other half sat down, and then they yelled at each other to either stand up or sit down. The rabbi didn't know what to do, so he just waited until the end of the service to talk to some people about what the tradition actually was, but nobody seemed to know for certain.

One of the elders told the rabbi that old Jacob probably would know but he's in a nursing home. So, lacking any better sense of direction, the rabbi went there.

He met old Jacob, and then asked him this: "Listen, during the service, some people sat down and told others to sit as well, but some others stood up and told the others to do that! They said you'd probably know, so can I ask you, what was the original tradition?"

Jacob answer "Yep, that's the original tradition alright!".

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but you simply are taking Jesus out of the given context of time and place and making interpretations that so many theologians recognize as being faulty. You are failing to see Jesus as a Jew working in the Jewish context within the given conditions of his day. Plus literalistic interpretations will almost always get one into trouble since it's a failure to recognize that all scripture is subjective.

My interpretations were formed in a vacuum. However they are almost universally the same as orthodox protestant interpretation and agree with 90% of Catholic orthodox doctrine. I have no idea who these "many" theologians you refer to are but the ones who agree with my interpretation outnumber them many many times over.

Therefore, it's really your approach that tends to "twist" the reality of what probably happened, much like how you "twist" science around by claiming that "macro-evolution" cannot occur or that the concept of "infinity" is impossible.

Find a single statement I have ever made that stated "macro-evolution could not have happened". The rest of that paragraph is no more justifiable that that claim is. I have a scientific degree and work in science, It is from that field that most conclude natural infinities are impossible. However that one is easy for you to prove me wrong: Simply produce a natural infinity.

Fortunately, more and more Christians have abandoned the myopic approach of "Christians only", thus realizing that people in other faiths can be moral and probably pleasing to God, much like the current Pope just stated a short while ago. It makes not one iota of sense, imo, why God would condemn those who honestly believe in God and try to do what's right.

That is absurd. The exact same exclusive creeds are still in use today as hundreds of years ago. There has been some movement to remove the this denomination only view point, but even that is a modern minority. Not one major denomination has altered anything in this context doctrinal wise. Even biblical scholarship is consistent. The Chicago statement of faith for example exhibits the exact same view of infallibility and inspiration as Christianity has held for over a thousand years. The bible is virtually identical so the theology it's self has not changed.

So much for modern Christianity changing lets look at your understanding of the concept of exclusivity it's self. Your thinking is all backwards.

1. You seem to equate exclusivity it's self with fault. Is 2 + 2 = 4 wrong because it is unfair to all the other integers? Truth in general is exclusive. It rules out more in general that it includes. Truth pares down.
2. Any God representing truth would be exclusive. He would not for instance claim 2 + 2 = anything.
3. Is God unfair for claiming that the truth we invent is not true? His approval system is not small because it is exclusive. It is in fact infinitely broad. It does not care about race, intelligence, sex, color, anything beyond simply admitting truth. His methodology is not restrictive. You cannot suggest that a rebellious race can invent a thousand false ways to heaven and God is mean because he does not validate them.
4. The idea that God separates people into two groups. Those that accept truth and those that deny it is consistent with the nature of truth. Truth mandates only two categories. True and false. You cannot condemn truth because it does not include falsehood. Anyone and any God who represents truth would be necessity be exclusive.
5. Let's look at your alternative. You suggest there are many paths to God. I have to assume you mean that many religions are equally valid. However these theological systems are mutually exclusive in general. The only thing we can know about mutually exclusive claims to truth is that only one can be true. If you have a God in mind who validates mutually exclusive claims to truth he is not a rational being. Your God apparently buried scraps of contradictory truth in mountains of man made garbage. I submit any rational and just God would provide one clear revelation that would not be discriminatory or play favorites. This is what I have. It is our fault not his that we have chosen mutually exclusive untruths to substitute for exclusive doctrine. Any God that would bend to our dysfunction and justify rebellion against truth is not God.

So much for equating exclusivity with either irrationality, unfairness, or wrong. The exact opposite is the case.

 

[1robin]

What I find "interesting" is that there are so many like 1robin who take the more literalistic approach, until they run across something like what you focus on above, and then they suddenly they change their tune.

Take the approach that theistic scholarship does. Literal where literalism is justified by exegesis and hermeneutics, and symbolic where it is justified, and a claim to I have no idea in the few areas where it is unclear. BTW you are doing the exact same thing. Your just doing it in the exact opposite direction, of established doctrine.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, that's unfortunate. It's not that Christians are good honest folks that will treat their fellowman fairly. It is not a message of the importance of love, compassion and forgiveness towards one's fellow man. These are the thing I think about when I read the story of Jesus.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

I would have others supply me with their best efforts at unvarnished truth and reason. That it be justified and backed up by evidence and in this context, scripture. That is exactly what I am doing.


It is Christ not me who made the most exclusive claims possible. I am simply supplying them. It is also extremely intellectually dishonest to claim that a Christian supplying Christ's words about exclusivity in a discussion about exclusivity is not interested in the more generalized ideas of justice, love, peace, citizenship, etc.... That is a liberal tactic not an argument. Traditional orthodox Christians have been exclusive for 2000 years, they have also been one of if not the most generous demographics on earth. Let's quit the tactics and concentrate on doctrine and evidence if you will.

The exclusivity I see is that of forgiveness and leaving final judgement in God's hands, not mine. To forgive our parents, our fellowman and ourselves for our trespasses. For we were born ignorant of the truth and the light.

My claims have all been directly from God. I did not claim that Jesus is the only name under heaven by which men may be saved, or that only he is the way the truth in the life. I got this directly from God. I have left it completely in his hands and have only reflected what he claimed.

I think Christians found they could not lived up to these expectations and so created a doctrine that salvation could be achieve through faith instead of action.

So you can merit heaven by being perfect but we are arrogantly wrong. Weird idea. Please exactly what criteria it is you meet that makes it so you deserve heaven.

I'm not afraid of being judge for who I am. Whereas you would have God judge the life of another in your place. And this, makes you worthy? (or gives you undeserved credit to get you into heaven...)

This was too incoherent to comment on.

You seek the truth of Jesus in the Bible perhaps because you cannot find his truth inside yourself.

Your the one who has decided you can get to heaven on your on. I am the one who is dependent on Christ, I am the one who admits that his words are correct and I am a sinner and God is perfect, I am the one who makes Christ an absolute necessity and requires him to be living in my heart by virtue of a born again experience. Your view is the one the renders him a accessory to your great accomplishment. I think it is my view and that of orthodox Christianity that knows and correctly judges Christ.

I will not judge you for your beliefs, but that does not mean it doesn't sadden me.

Don't know what this is.

 

[Ouroboros]

Jacob answer "Yep, that's the original tradition alright!".

LOL! I have to tell that to some of my jewish friends.

 

[metis]

If we put Jesus into a more Jewish context, including how we traditionally thought and wrote, things become probably more clearer and more logical. For one example, if anyone walked around saying or implying he was God, that would have been met with unbelievable disdain. But didn't he perform miracles, some may ask? But the belief that both good and bad people could also perform miracles can be found in both the Tanakh and "N.T.", so that really doesn't prove much of anything one way or another.

How about Jesus was "the final sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin"? Well, if we take that literally, let me ask this question: which "part" of Jesus was the actual sacrifice, his humanness or his supposed divinity? If one believes it's his humanness, then I'll have to remind them that human sacrifices were never allowed in Judaism and are certainly not ordained in Torah. If it's Jesus supposed divinity, then the question becomes how can God be sacrificed to God? Therefore, it one takes it literally, it simply doesn't add up.

So, what was being said? To me, what we see is a relatively typical Jewish approach of drawing parallels between events in symbolic fashion. Essentially, since "the Way" found itself being unwelcome at both the Temple and many or most synagogues after a while, the view could rather easily evolve to have Jesus' death be the "final sacrifice", thus no more need to offer sacrifices at the Temple. And to an extent, there is a parallel that can be established with that approach with Jesus' death and even his strongest supporters running away. IOW, his death overcomes their weakness, which is what Temple sacrifices did. See the parallel?

The Temple sacrifices were only for corporate sins, not personal ones, therefore the belief could arise that Jesus' death pretty much cleansed and authenticated this new Jewish movement-- sort of an "anointing" of sorts.

Am I certain that what I just wrote is absolutely the right way of looking at this? Of course not, largely because we can never be absolutely certain what the authors had in mind. Jews, both then and now, tend not to declare that only one interpretation must be correct. Undoubtedly each of us try our best to make sense of what we read, but I think it's extremely important to try and picture these events in the context of events and Judaism 2000 years ago and not through modern western eyes.

shalom

 

[metis]

My interpretations were formed in a vacuum. However they are almost universally the same as orthodox protestant interpretation and agree with 90% of Catholic orthodox doctrine. I have no idea who these "many" theologians you refer to are but the ones who agree with my interpretation outnumber them many many times over.

Find a single statement I have ever made that stated "macro-evolution could not have happened". The rest of that paragraph is no more justifiable that that claim is. I have a scientific degree and work in science, It is from that field that most conclude natural infinities are impossible. However that one is easy for you to prove me wrong: Simply produce a natural infinity.

That is absurd. The exact same exclusive creeds are still in use today as hundreds of years ago. There has been some movement to remove the this denomination only view point, but even that is a modern minority. Not one major denomination has altered anything in this context doctrinal wise. Even biblical scholarship is consistent. The Chicago statement of faith for example exhibits the exact same view of infallibility and inspiration as Christianity has held for over a thousand years. The bible is virtually identical so the theology it's self has not changed.

So much for modern Christianity changing lets look at your understanding of the concept of exclusivity it's self. Your thinking is all backwards.

1. You seem to equate exclusivity it's self with fault. Is 2 + 2 = 4 wrong because it is unfair to all the other integers? Truth in general is exclusive. It rules out more in general that it includes. Truth pares down.
2. Any God representing truth would be exclusive. He would not for instance claim 2 + 2 = anything.
3. Is God unfair for claiming that the truth we invent is not true? His approval system is not small because it is exclusive. It is in fact infinitely broad. It does not care about race, intelligence, sex, color, anything beyond simply admitting truth. His methodology is not restrictive. You cannot suggest that a rebellious race can invent a thousand false ways to heaven and God is mean because he does not validate them.
4. The idea that God separates people into two groups. Those that accept truth and those that deny it is consistent with the nature of truth. Truth mandates only two categories. True and false. You cannot condemn truth because it does not include falsehood. Anyone and any God who represents truth would be necessity be exclusive.
5. Let's look at your alternative. You suggest there are many paths to God. I have to assume you mean that many religions are equally valid. However these theological systems are mutually exclusive in general. The only thing we can know about mutually exclusive claims to truth is that only one can be true. If you have a God in mind who validates mutually exclusive claims to truth he is not a rational being. Your God apparently buried scraps of contradictory truth in mountains of man made garbage. I submit any rational and just God would provide one clear revelation that would not be discriminatory or play favorites. This is what I have. It is our fault not his that we have chosen mutually exclusive untruths to substitute for exclusive doctrine. Any God that would bend to our dysfunction and justify rebellion against truth is not God.

So much for equating exclusivity with either irrationality, unfairness, or wrong. The exact opposite is the case.

There's simply so much nonsense, distortions, and at least one out-and-out lie (the macro-evolution part that we discussed several weeks ago of which you claimed there was no evidence for-- people can check the archives of your posts on evolution if they feel I may be lying), and it would take me way too long a time to respond to the above. You continually fabricate proofs and expect everyone to just swallow them. Your "science" is at least somewhat of a joke, as so many here have noticed and commented on, and some aspects of your theology just simply don't add up.

For a very different and sensible Christian approach, imo, take a look at much of the fine scholarship that one can find with many of the Anglican and Catholic theologians for starters. Their general approach is not to interpret scripture from a predetermined paradigm, but instead to deal with it objectively, which sometimes gets them into trouble with their own church.
However what I find with you and most Protestant fundamentalists is to use a literalistic approach and then cherry-pick the scriptures to cite support. That's not biblical "scholarship".

As an anthropologist, now retired, we well know that one must study any group within the context of time, experiences, and culture. To not do so can very easily lead to false conclusions. Nor is it proper to try and distort theology or science whereas things are presented as "proof" when in reality they're not. "Opinion" is not synonymous with "fact", and yet you continually elevate your opinions as if they were facts. Any theologian or scientist worth their salt well knows that this simply cannot be done and still remain credible.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I just noticed theres over 4500 posts in this thread. I assume after all that, consensus must have been reached regarding the right religion.

So, what is it?

 

[metis]

I just noticed theres over 4500 posts in this thread. I assume after all that, consensus must have been reached regarding the right religion.

So, what is it?

I dunno. Maybe we should be debating which is/are the wrong religion(s)? :run:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I just noticed theres over 4500 posts in this thread. I assume after all that, consensus must have been reached regarding the right religion.

So, what is it?

Mine.

I keep telling everyone that, but I think there are some hardened hearts out there.

 

[metis]

Find a single statement I have ever made that stated "macro-evolution could not have happened"...

After reviewing what you had written above, along with my inappropriate response, I apologize for misinterpreting what you had said. I read the above as having you saying that "macro-evolution" could not have happened. However, instead you had stated in previous discussions that you believed there was insufficient evidence to accept "macro-evolution" as a scientific fact or axiom. Even though I disagree with that conclusion, nevertheless you didn't close the door on its possibility, therefore I was wrong in stating you had.

I'm very sorry I misread it and reacted the way I did, so please accept my apology. After this post, I will edit out my inappropriate remarks as I was quite angry, which I shouldn't have been because I was the one who was in error.

shalom


Oops, I just realized I can't edit the message I sent Friday. Sorry.