Who is to Blame?

[Thief]

Perhaps I was a bit crude in simply dismissing your question as irrelevant. Didn't meant to though.

I understood you to imply that Jesus wanted to know if I would stay with him. In a certain sense that is a valid consideration. It is absolutely possible for any Christian to depart from the faith. However, that does not mean Jesus will depart from the Christian.

1Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
​

Your first birth was by the seed of your earthly father. You are his son by seed. Regardless of your subsequent actions in life, you are your father's son/daughter. Nothing can change that and that seed is corruptible (you will die one of these days). You can disown your father, but his seed is still in you and you are still his son/daughter.

According to Peter, the new birth is brought about by seed also, specifically God's seed. That is precisely why a Christian is a son/daughter of God. But, unlike the corruptible seed of your earthly father, the seed God plants in a born again believer is incorruptible. That is clearly what Peter said. Now if it is truly incorruptible then there is nothing I can do to make it corruptible. God's work is certainly greater than any stupid thing I can do.

Anyway, that is what I had in mind when I said Jesus leaving me is irrelevant. Hopefully it makes some sense to you. Not that you believe it, but at least you might see where I am coming from.

we are different

having read Job...I see cause for caution

the sons of God gathered to present themselves.....
not one Son....but many

and with them came the devil

and it was God Himself making objection.....from whence comest thou?
(what are YOU doing here?)

a common perspective.....God's Favored Angel
fell from grace

therefore there is ….NO secure position in the kingdom

to walk with grace is a practice to maintain

even if you gain the right Hand of God
that can be lost

 

[BilliardsBall]

If there was such a man, he indeed can only be blamed for the weaknesses of his doctrine as well as his own moral failings, but not more.

Can I blame Him also for being regarded as God by 1/3 of the Earth (Christians) and sinless prophet/Lord of Judgment (Muslims), too?

What a failure Jesus is, to only be esteemed by 2/3 of Earth!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reading the whole thread should help you see why I said that.

It didn't.

I see where you argued that Christianity isn't based on the Bible or Jesus's teachings. I don't see where you've really made any sort of case for why we should consider Christianity blameless for its misdeeds.

Tons of info on the web if you are interested.

I'm not, really.

It seems pretty clear to me that Christianity has a long history of shameful and cruel acts. I'm willing to hear your arguments for why you think this isn't the case, but I'm not going to do a ton of research just because some random person on the internet suggests it.

I don't think you are considering all possibilities here. It seems as though you know exactly what Jesus meant and there are no other possibilities. Your mind is closed. I could be wrong, but it seems it wouldn't even matter if someone gave you alternate possibilities. Not academically astute.

Instead of personal insults, try explaining your point better.

 

[epronovost]

Can I blame Him also for being regarded as God by 1/3 of the Earth (Christians) and sinless prophet/Lord of Judgment (Muslims), too?

What a failure Jesus is, to only be esteemed by 2/3 of Earth!

He's not esteemed, he's worshiped by those people there's a capital difference between the two. I happen to think they are wrong to worship such a man and follow his teaching as if they were superior to all others. I also believe those teachings (and those of his disciples) have several glaring weaknesses that caused harm and tragedy though I don't think the doctrine alone should be blamed. Christians themselves have not always applied the doctrine consistently or have ''cherry-picked'' the doctrine to serve their personnal interests.

 

[rrobs]

I consider Paul's statements more political, and the reality is the Paul was a Hellenist Jew and influenced Greek and yes Roman thinking and philosophy. The concept of the Trinity and an incarnate God is more a Greek and Roman view of theology

Precisely! The scriptures are decidedly opposite to virtually all ancient religions in that it does not say God became man. Jesus is called the Son of God some 50 times in the NT. It is just south of insanity to think a son can be his own father. It requires a complete abandonment of logic and normal thinking.[/QUOTE]

The NT is steeped in Greek and Roman culture, language and theology and still remains culturally identified with Roman and Greek culture.

I would agree with you in the sense that Paul tells us over and over to avoid the religious practices of their culture. Why do you think the early Christians were considered nuts?

Acts 17:18,

Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him (Paul). And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.​

 

[rrobs]

we are different

having read Job...I see cause for caution

the sons of God gathered to present themselves.....
not one Son....but many

and with them came the devil

and it was God Himself making objection.....from whence comest thou?
(what are YOU doing here?)

a common perspective.....God's Favored Angel
fell from grace

therefore there is ….NO secure position in the kingdom

to walk with grace is a practice to maintain

even if you gain the right Hand of God
that can be lost

A couple of questions:
Are you reading Job from the perspective of an ancient Middle Easterner or a modern Westerner? Their world view was about 100% opposite to ours.

Are you taking the overall context of the scriptures in account when you read Job? There are many scriptures that say it is impossible for Christians to loose the right hand of God. Here's one:

Eph 4:30,

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
​

Sealed means sealed.

 

[rrobs]

It didn't.

I see where you argued that Christianity isn't based on the Bible or Jesus's teachings. I don't see where you've really made any sort of case for why we should consider Christianity blameless for its misdeeds.

I'm not, really.

It seems pretty clear to me that Christianity has a long history of shameful and cruel acts. I'm willing to hear your arguments for why you think this isn't the case, but I'm not going to do a ton of research just because some random person on the internet suggests it.

Well, I guess I should have said the Bible itself is not to blame for any misdeeds of those who decidedly go against what it says. Even a casual reading of Act reveals that the early Christians were nothing but kind to all men and woman. The early Epistles of Paul carry the same message. Clearly the Christians who committed the heinous acts in the inquisition were Christian in name only. They were as far from the truth as Cain when he killed his brother.

Instead of personal insults, try explaining your point better.

So you do have an open mind with regard to the scriptures? Excellent!

Apparently I was wrong in my assumption. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to insult you. I thought I was just stating the facts as they were and that you would be in agreement. Just because someone doesn't believe the Bible doesn't make them a worthless human being. I never meant to suggest that.

In any case, if you are open to new ideas I'd be more than glad to steer you in the right direction. I can send you some really good links that should help you get started. Just let me know.

Take care.

 

[rrobs]

Thanks for the reply. I don't see the Bible as fairy tales, and always thought there was some wisdom contained within.

I'm a writer (amateur, but still) and a history buff. Both our past and our narratives are important for our future to my mind.

My wife is a writer also. She makes a few bucks here and there, but so far as been unable to break into the "big time" of literature. She enjoys the writing and that's a good enough reason to continue. It's a really satisfying feeling to put thoughts into words.

We are are certainly, by and large, a product of the past. For the most part, all we know is what the past has taught us. It is rare that some revolutionary idea breaks with the traditions of the past. I think the scriptures are one such case.

But I don't believe in God, and I assess the Bible messaging on an individual basis, rather than as 'good' or 'bad'.

I didn't believe in God the day I was born either. In fact I was decidedly against the whole idea until my late twenties. You never know what the future holds.

I have no expectation of being saved from death. Only difference is that my expectation on what occurs is a universal one.

Well, you just might be saved from death anyway. Sure, you'll die from this present existence but God promises He'll get you up one of these days and judge you according to your actions. The Bible says He will consider what's in your heart, your intentions, your personal situation when he makes His final decision. Christians aren't the only ones who will be in paradise. The big advantage they have is that they, thanks to the work of Jesus Christ, have already passed judgment. It's a guaranteed seat as opposed to others who have to wait and hear the verdict. There are also many advantages enjoyed by Christians in this present world. But, like I said, most people are pretty decent folks and will find themselves stuck in paradise whether they expected it or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I guess I should have said the Bible itself is not to blame for any misdeeds of those who decidedly go against what it says.

... only for the misdeeds that are in line with what it says, right?

Even a casual reading of Act reveals that the early Christians were nothing but kind to all men and woman. The early Epistles of Paul carry the same message.

The Christian Bible?

Are you saying that the pervasive misogyny in the New Testament isn't actually there, or that what people label as misogyny isn't that bad?

Clearly the Christians who committed the heinous acts in the inquisition were Christian in name only. They were as far from the truth as Cain when he killed his brother.

A religion is defined by the beliefs of its adherents. What Christianity is is a function of what Christians believe and do. It's not about what is or isn't "the truth;" it's about whether the Christians who committed heinous acts in the name of Christianity were sincere.

 

[shunyadragon]

Precisely! The scriptures are decidedly opposite to virtually all ancient religions in that it does not say God became man. Jesus is called the Son of God some 50 times in the NT. It is just south of insanity to think a son can be his own father. It requires a complete abandonment of logic and normal thinking.

The title of the Son of God is common in the Old Testament without referring to the person being and actual Son of God and a God incarnate.

I would agree with you in the sense that Paul tells us over and over to avoid the religious practices of their culture. Why do you think the early Christians were considered nuts?

Acts 17:18,

Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him (Paul). And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.​

In history it was the rule to consider new religions cults and worse.

 

[epronovost]

In history it was the rule to consider new religions cults and worse.

The only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of the congregation. The smaller you are, the more likely you are to be considered a cult.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My wife is a writer also. She makes a few bucks here and there, but so far as been unable to break into the "big time" of literature. She enjoys the writing and that's a good enough reason to continue. It's a really satisfying feeling to put thoughts into words.

We are are certainly, by and large, a product of the past. For the most part, all we know is what the past has taught us. It is rare that some revolutionary idea breaks with the traditions of the past. I think the scriptures are one such case.


I didn't believe in God the day I was born either. In fact I was decidedly against the whole idea until my late twenties. You never know what the future holds.


Well, you just might be saved from death anyway. Sure, you'll die from this present existence but God promises He'll get you up one of these days and judge you according to your actions. The Bible says He will consider what's in your heart, your intentions, your personal situation when he makes His final decision. Christians aren't the only ones who will be in paradise. The big advantage they have is that they, thanks to the work of Jesus Christ, have already passed judgment. It's a guaranteed seat as opposed to others who have to wait and hear the verdict. There are also many advantages enjoyed by Christians in this present world. But, like I said, most people are pretty decent folks and will find themselves stuck in paradise whether they expected it or not.

It's a nice belief. I hope you're right, but regardless having beliefs that are more inclusive avoid issues around dehumanizing other groups, etc.

I'd have no problem with being judged based on my heart, intent and actions, tbh.

 

[rrobs]

In history it was the rule to consider new religions cults and worse.

Generally speaking, I think you are right about that. I honestly don't know that much about the Ba'hai faith, but I would guess that at some point it too was the subject of criticism by the Orthodox religions. Maybe even still going on. Is that true?

 

[rrobs]

... only for the misdeeds that are in line with what it says, right?


The Christian Bible?

Are you saying that the pervasive misogyny in the New Testament isn't actually there, or that what people label as misogyny isn't that bad?


A religion is defined by the beliefs of its adherents. What Christianity is is a function of what Christians believe and do. It's not about what is or isn't "the truth;" it's about whether the Christians who committed heinous acts in the name of Christianity were sincere.

Sincerity is no guarantee for truth.

The way I see things is that Christianity is defined by the scriptures, not by people. If people decide to go against them it doesn't matter what they call themselves. The scriptures are the scriptures. Like any other coherent writing, they say one thing and one thing only. They stand on their own. If people go against them it doesn't mean the scriptures themselves have changed.

 

[rrobs]

It's a nice belief. I hope you're right, but regardless having beliefs that are more inclusive avoid issues around dehumanizing other groups, etc.

I'd have problem with being judged based on my heart, intent and actions, tbh.

With what little I know about you (which is admittedly next to nothing) I'd bet you are a decent human being who, for the most part, has good intentions towards others.

BTW, since God will judge people by their intentions, heart, and personal situation, it answers the question of what happens to the natives in the Amazon who have never heard of Jesus. After all, what kind of God would condemn a simple, well meaning, loving individual to an eternity of suffering just because they didn't confess Jesus, someone who they never even heard of, as their lord? Not the God of the Bible I can safely say. Maybe some, or even many, Christians would say that, but they are a product of what they hear every Sunday from the pulpit, which hearing is way more often than not mixed with Greek/Roman philosophy and not the actual scriptures themselves.

 

[rrobs]

Are you saying that the pervasive misogyny in the New Testament isn't actually there, or that what people label as misogyny isn't that bad?

These days it seems misogyny is a term that is loosely applied to anyone who believes there is the least bit of difference between men and woman. It has come to the point where, for many, there is a misogynist behind every tree. Having said that, the accusation of misogyny in the Bible, so often brought up in these discussions, is a result of applying the modern Western worldview to that of an ancient Middle Eastern world.

Men in the Middle East today are labeled misogynist because their women wear a burka. Could it not be that the women are totally onboard with the idea? I Googled "woman burka attitude." If you do that, I think you will see it's not simply a clear cut case of misogyny. Many woman want to wear it. Just let 'em be.

 

[shunyadragon]

Generally speaking, I think you are right about that. I honestly don't know that much about the Ba'hai faith, but I would guess that at some point it too was the subject of criticism by the Orthodox religions. Maybe even still going on. Is that true?

The Baha'i Faith is subject to more than criticism from Islam. In some countries to be a Baha'i is punishable by death. In much of Christianity it is a cult, and it is uncomfortable among other Christians. Though it is held in great respect by many Jews particularly in Israel.

 

[shunyadragon]

The only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of the congregation. The smaller you are, the more likely you are to be considered a cult.

I do not agree, for example Islam and the LDS Church is considered a cult by many Christians.

 

[epronovost]

I do not agree, for example Islam and the LDS Church is considered a cult by many Christians.

These Christians would generally be considered idiots when it comes to this judgement of Islam whose recognised as one of the five major religions of the world by pretty much anybody who isn't some rabid lunatic. As fo the LDS Church, they are usually categorised as a sub-sect of Christianity. Cults describe only very small religious community, weirdo fanatics who admire a particular person or thing in excess or the special religious veneration of a figure or object within an already established religious faith (example: the "cult of the Virgin Mary" within Christianity).

 

[epronovost]

Though it is held in great respect by many Jews particularly in Israel.

Isn't it explained by the fact the largest temple of the Baha'i faith is in Haifa? Ultranationalist Israelian have a tendency to smile on anything that is critical of Islam in general too.