Now I am not religious in anyway, I also don't believe in the bible at all. But I do think that it is useful, that is because of the lessons it can teach you. There are many themes and morals you can learn like "Not to steal", or "Don't harm another human". I am just saying it is good to live your life by some of the things and universal meanings that comes from it. Do you agree?
The Bible Is Useful, Even For Athiests
The Bible has given me a lot of inspiration in terms of writing and ideas. Although, in all honesty, most religions all revolve around the themes of being good, charitable, and fair, so I'm not actually very surprised. But it's also a good idea for social studies, as it's interesting as to see the progression and evolution of religion and social structures.
Yeah, it gives you a good idea on what literature was like at the time. I can see why it is very useful in history and literature classes.
| Cephalic_Carnage wrote: |
| Now I am not religious in anyway, I also don't believe in the bible at all. But I do think that it is useful, that is because of the lessons it can teach you. There are many themes and morals you can learn like "Not to steal", or "Don't harm another human". I am just saying it is good to live your life by some of the things and universal meanings that comes from it. Do you agree? |
No.
When the bible's moral lessons are good, they are trite and obvious. A dribbling idiot with even a barely functioning sense of empathy knows that it's wrong to steal and harm others, as does an intelligent person with absolutely no empathy at all. And there are hundreds of other religions and hundreds of non-religious philosophies that all arrive at the same conclusion - only better because they're more clear about it, faster because they don't beat around the bush with fairy tales before actually getting to it and smarter because they actually explore deeper implications of it than the bible does. Not to mention that they come up with a lot of better reasons to be good than "do it or die".
However, the bible's moral lessons are not universally good. In fact, many moral lessons of the bible are very, very bad. Some are even horrendous. i wouldn't want to live in a country that really followed all of the moral imperatives outlined in the bible. It would be just as bad as living under sharia, or worse.
What most modern Christians, Muslims and Jews do with regards to the bible moral code is they selectively pick and choose which laws to follow. "Do not steal"; good, so they follow that one. "Step by step instructions on how to rape and torture a prisoner of war"; not so good, so they give that part a miss. "Murder is wrong"; good, so that's a lesson they keep. "Kill non-virgin brides"; problematic, so they ditch that.
But here's the thing. Modern Christians, Muslims and Jews must use some standard when they pick and choose which bible laws to follow. That standard is what tells them things like that slavery is wrong, despite the bible's endorsement of it. It's what guides them to say that this commandment is a good moral lesson (#7)... and that one is not (#2). It's like a moral filter that they use to select from bible morality:
| Code: |
| What the bible says ─(overruled by)→ modern moral filter ─(to produce)→ final moral code. |
So... why not use that filter as the moral code and forget the bible altogether?
| Code: |
| modern moral filter ─(to produce)→ final moral code. |
If you're just going to use that filter to make the final decision on morality, why do you even need the bible?
Now, that doesn't mean that the bible's not useful. It's a fantastic study of ancient culture, and it's rich in metaphor and inventiveness. And of course, the study of the way that different people interpret the bible gives fascinating insight into their psyches. It is like a rosetta stone for several ancient languages. And if you compare the tanakh, the new testament and the quran, you get an interesting contrast between the way three wildly different cultures interpreted the same religious base. Also, understanding the bible is key to understanding a lot of history, and it's key to understanding a lot of art and literature.
So yes, the bible is very, very useful.
But as a moral rulebook? No way. -_-
| Cephalic_Carnage wrote: |
| Now I am not religious in anyway, I also don't believe in the bible at all. But I do think that it is useful, that is because of the lessons it can teach you. There are many themes and morals you can learn like "Not to steal", or "Don't harm another human". I am just saying it is good to live your life by some of the things and universal meanings that comes from it. Do you agree? |
I'd agree with indi here. The basic ideas of respecting others, not killing, etc seem to go without saying. One question to ask yourself, why do you need someone else's ideas to live by? I think many of our problems as a race of animals comes from not being able to think for ourselves.
M
| Indi wrote: | ||||||
No. When the bible's moral lessons are good, they are trite and obvious. A dribbling idiot with even a barely functioning sense of empathy knows that it's wrong to steal and harm others, as does an intelligent person with absolutely no empathy at all. And there are hundreds of other religions and hundreds of non-religious philosophies that all arrive at the same conclusion - only better because they're more clear about it, faster because they don't beat around the bush with fairy tales before actually getting to it and smarter because they actually explore deeper implications of it than the bible does. Not to mention that they come up with a lot of better reasons to be good than "do it or die". However, the bible's moral lessons are not universally good. In fact, many moral lessons of the bible are very, very bad. Some are even horrendous. i wouldn't want to live in a country that really followed all of the moral imperatives outlined in the bible. It would be just as bad as living under sharia, or worse. What most modern Christians, Muslims and Jews do with regards to the bible moral code is they selectively pick and choose which laws to follow. "Do not steal"; good, so they follow that one. "Step by step instructions on how to rape and torture a prisoner of war"; not so good, so they give that part a miss. "Murder is wrong"; good, so that's a lesson they keep. "Kill non-virgin brides"; problematic, so they ditch that. But here's the thing. Modern Christians, Muslims and Jews must use some standard when they pick and choose which bible laws to follow. That standard is what tells them things like that slavery is wrong, despite the bible's endorsement of it. It's what guides them to say that this commandment is a good moral lesson (#7)... and that one is not (#2). It's like a moral filter that they use to select from bible morality:
So... why not use that filter as the moral code and forget the bible altogether?
If you're just going to use that filter to make the final decision on morality, why do you even need the bible? Now, that doesn't mean that the bible's not useful. It's a fantastic study of ancient culture, and it's rich in metaphor and inventiveness. And of course, the study of the way that different people interpret the bible gives fascinating insight into their psyches. It is like a rosetta stone for several ancient languages. And if you compare the tanakh, the new testament and the quran, you get an interesting contrast between the way three wildly different cultures interpreted the same religious base. Also, understanding the bible is key to understanding a lot of history, and it's key to understanding a lot of art and literature. So yes, the bible is very, very useful. But as a moral rulebook? No way. -_- |
First of all, if there was a voting option for well written posts your would get the highest grade
Secondly I have to agree. Sure the bible has a lot of good stuff in it... but only if you interpret it in a good way.
A lot of religions are pretty much based on the same thing, but they have just interpreted it in the way they find it most usefull for "their people" or even more often in the way they can achieve most power.
A very good example is recently I got a paper from "jehovas whittnesses". They refered to some bible texts and interpreted it in a quite sick way, saying they were the ttrue religion, and all others were just filthy fakes.
I think it´s just sad to see how people (ab)use the bible... they just interpret it in their own way to manipulate others.
This discussion could go on forever and ever... But just to take an example, the swedish church were the ones who made the witch hunts possible in sweden....
Personally I dont beleave in any religion... there´s a lot of good things with religion, I´m sure... But it´s scary how easy it can be abused just for power and politics.
This is just my personal oppinion, and not intended to insult anyone. If it puts some more fuel on this discussion it´s appreciated though
Regards
I agree with indi, most of the things.. including the ten commandments in bible, anybody who have common sense would know what is right and what is wrong. And bible is not the only source for advices, all the relegious books comes to the same conclusion of living a good life in different ways. and I guess the difference between relegions is the traditions of relegions, the escence has always been the same.
| Quote: |
| When the bible's moral lessons are good, they are trite and obvious. A dribbling idiot with even a barely functioning sense of empathy knows that it's wrong to steal and harm others, as does an intelligent person with absolutely no empathy at all. And there are hundreds of other religions and hundreds of non-religious philosophies that all arrive at the same conclusion - only better because they're more clear about it, faster because they don't beat around the bush with fairy tales before actually getting to it and smarter because they actually explore deeper implications of it than the bible does. Not to mention that they come up with a lot of better reasons to be good than "do it or die".
However, the bible's moral lessons are not universally good. In fact, many moral lessons of the bible are very, very bad. Some are even horrendous. i wouldn't want to live in a country that really followed all of the moral imperatives outlined in the bible. It would be just as bad as living under sharia, or worse. |
So, it seems that these things are so engrained into us as people that we all can agree that murder, steeling and disrespecting others all are bad things. Also the things we all know to be good like being curtious and respectful towards one anther are all good things. It is obvious that we have this knowlege of what is right and what is wrong wired inside us. The laws of the land set forth by our governments are there only to reinforce the rightness and wrongness of our actions. And it is wrong things that have negitive consequences.
So with that said, when a person comments an obvious crime like steal or kill something, why is that this person becomes afraid of being caught? Why is that people try to live in "good" ways to avoid going to jail? These are natural fears.
These are fundamental principles which the Bible does indeed teach. Bad things have negative consequences and good things make life better. THe BIble teaches these things because there are still some people out there who do need to hear these things (often over and over again as they just don't get it). The BIble, like other religous/historical books, serves as a writting record for these moral teachings just as for the same reason our laws are writting down, simply because some people still need it for their own sake.
| Quote: |
| Now, that doesn't mean that the bible's not useful. It's a fantastic study of ancient culture, and it's rich in metaphor and inventiveness. And of course, the study of the way that different people interpret the bible gives fascinating insight into their psyches. It is like a rosetta stone for several ancient languages. And if you compare ... |
This I'll agree with. There are indeed some interesting paralells between various accounts of historical documents.
And by the way, Chistianity is not an ala carte "religion" when it comes the Bible. It's "take all of it" or "leave all of it." And those other organized "religions" (mormans and jahova witness') take the Bible's teachings out of context and contort it's it's teaches and beliefs.
______________________________
Love God, love people, drink coffee.
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
In order to tell the differance between a lie and the truth, one must study and know the truth well enough to know where the lie faults.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
|
And by the way, Chistianity is not an ala carte "religion" when it comes the Bible. It's "take all of it" or "leave all of it." And those other organized "religions" (mormans and jahova witness') take the Bible's teachings out of context and contort it's it's teaches and beliefs. |
I´d say they all take it "out of context", but with the difference of how severe they do it.
It´s after all just a matter of how you interpret the texts.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| So, it seems that these things are so engrained into us as people that we all can agree that murder, steeling and disrespecting others all are bad things. Also the things we all know to be good like being curtious and respectful towards one anther are all good things. It is obvious that we have this knowlege of what is right and what is wrong wired inside us. The laws of the land set forth by our governments are there only to reinforce the rightness and wrongness of our actions. And it is wrong things that have negitive consequences.
So with that said, when a person comments an obvious crime like steal or kill something, why is that this person becomes afraid of being caught? Why is that people try to live in "good" ways to avoid going to jail? These are natural fears. |
Er, what's your point? If all of what you wrote is true then you're saying that the bible is completely useless.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| These are fundamental principles which the Bible does indeed teach. Bad things have negative consequences and good things make life better. THe BIble teaches these things because there are still some people out there who do need to hear these things (often over and over again as they just don't get it). |
The bible teaches that good behaviour leads to good consequences and bad behaviour leads to bad consequences? >.< Pavlov taught that to dogs - without using the bible. That's hardly a deep or fundamental lesson. The village idiot knows more than that about moral behaviour.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| The BIble, like other religous/historical books, serves as a writting record for these moral teachings just as for the same reason our laws are writting down, simply because some people still need it for their own sake. |
That makes no sense. >.<
If the bible were clear, and it's moral lessons were concise and obvious, sure, i could buy your argument. But it's not. The bible is vague and contradictory, and often doesn't differentiate between moral instructions and religious ones. Hell, the major Judaistic religions can't even agree on what the ten commandments are.
Even worse, the bible's moral lessons aren't all good. Some are very, very bad.
What that means is that if someone wants to use the bible in order to determine what is moral, they first have to decode it, then interpret it, then select which parts to follow and which not to follow.
How can someone who is too stupid to follow the laws of the land do all that? I mean, assuming you had someone who was unable to make their own moral conclusions, and - as you say - doesn't "get" the secular laws of the place they live in... how could such a person who fails all of that then be expected to properly and correctly interpret the bible and come up with a cohesive moral code that is acceptible in the modern world?
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| And by the way, Chistianity is not an ala carte "religion" when it comes the Bible. It's "take all of it" or "leave all of it." And those other organized "religions" (mormans and jahova witness') take the Bible's teachings out of context and contort it's it's teaches and beliefs. |
Yeah? Stoned any virgins recently? Because that's a rule in the bible.
Seen anyone working on a Sunday (or Saturday, as you choose)? Let them live? Then you're not following the rules of the bible.
And now you're going to tell me "Christians follow the new testament, which negates the old". Fine. Good.
The ten commandments are in the old testament.
So you have a problem. As you say, it's take all of it, or leave all of it. If you take all of it, then you include the really nasty stuff that no modern society would tolerate, such as taking women prisoners of war as sex slaves. Is any Christian prepared to do that?
No?
Then the only alternative is to leave all of it.
*shrug* That's your own standard there. All i'm saying is that there are good laws and bad laws in the bible. i don't imagine anyone could dispute that. No sane Christian/Muslim/Jew/Rastafari/whatever can seriously stand up and say that the rule to murder women who are not virgins when they marry is a good law. And no sane non-Christian/Muslim/etc. can say that "do not murder" is a bad law. Thus there are good laws and bad laws in the bible.
Given that, that means that you have to pick and choose which laws to follow. You have to decide which laws are good (don't murder, don't steal) and which are bad (women are property, death if you work on the sabbath). To do that, you have to use something that is not in the bible, because the bible doesn't differentiate between good laws and bad laws. It just gives laws, good and bad. You need something else, something not in the bible, to choose which is which.
And whatever it is that you use to make that choice, that is really where your moral code is. Not in the bible.
i know people who believe in the bible get hung up on this, because they are conditioned to believe that the bible must not be questioned, and that it is the ultimate and absolute authority for all of our moral knowledge. So let me try and take the bible out of the picture and use neutral terms to explain it.
Imagine that there was a television show that showcased new musical groups. Sometimes they have groups that go on to be big stars. Other times... not so much.
What determines whether a group is a big star or not is where they stand on the billboard chart. Sometimes bands on that show climb way up the billboard chart. Sometimes, they don't even get on it. Sometimes, bands that didn't even play on that show become hit bands.
So now, someone comes and asks you, "is band X a hit band?" Where do you look for that info? Do you check to see if they played on the show? Or do you check the billboard list?
Obviously, the only logical answer is that you check the billboard list. If they played on that show, they may be a hit band, or they may not. They may be a hit band and never have played on that show. So when it comes time to determine which bands are big, it makes no sense to look at the show. The real source for that information is elsewhere - the billboard list.
The same with the bible (show). Some laws (bands) in the bible (show) are good (hits). Some are bad. Some good laws (hit bands) aren't even in the bible (show) - nowhere does the bible say that slavery is wrong. So what determines which are good laws (hit bands) and which aren't? The fact that they're in the bible (on the show)? No. It's something else (the billboard list, in the case of the example). Whatever that something else is, THAT is the real source of your moral code. Not the bible.
| Indi wrote: |
|
... [blah blah blah] ... i know people who believe in the bible get hung up on this, because they are conditioned to believe that the bible must not be questioned, and that it is the ultimate and absolute authority for all of our moral knowledge. So let me try and take the bible out of the picture and use neutral terms to explain it. Imagine that there was a television show that showcased new musical groups. Sometimes they have groups that go on to be big stars. Other times... not so much. What determines whether a group is a big star or not is where they stand on the billboard chart. Sometimes bands on that show climb way up the billboard chart. Sometimes, they don't even get on it. Sometimes, bands that didn't even play on that show become hit bands. .... |
I was saying that the Bible already has such codes/laws written down for people follow and referance to. Compared to all the accumulated knowleged of today, the Bible's teaches seem elementry. But that doesn't make it useless. The bad things mentioned in there do have context (such as time and place).
I think you missed my point.
| socialoutcast wrote: | ||
I was saying that the Bible already has such codes/laws written down for people follow and referance to. Compared to all the accumulated knowleged of today, the Bible's teaches seem elementry. But that doesn't make it useless. The bad things mentioned in there do have context (such as time and place). I think you missed my point. |
i think you missed my point, because i already answered all of the questions you asked.
Read more carefully. The answers are all there. i have repeated them twice, as well as giving you an example to illustrate. The points you make in response do not make sense, as has already been explained.
I don't think so, Indi. I read your post at least twice, to make since of what you are trying to say, and you anwered no questions. Just assorted commentary from the peanut gallary is all that's there.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| I don't think so, Indi. I read your post at least twice, to make since of what you are trying to say, and you anwered no questions. Just assorted commentary from the peanut gallary is all that's there. |
i can't give you any more of a clear answer than i have already given twice. i even included an illustration. If you can't understand it, get someone else to explain it to you. Maybe they can put it clearer than i can.
But if you have no interest in understanding it, then don't bother asking me to explain it.
Some themes in the Bible were acceptable then, not now. So saying "Stoned a virgin lately" today has no effect whatsoever, and the fact that it is not acceptable today has nothing to do with not following the Bible, it has to do with the moderation of our society, and the laws that we live under today. There are a lot of factors. What Indi seems to overlook is the theme of forgiveness and repentance in the New Testament, the most followed part of the Bible, but appears to be stuck in the Old Testament - which, in my opinion, is used for the history and background up until the New Testament.
| Indi wrote: | ||
i can't give you any more of a clear answer than i have already given twice. i even included an illustration. If you can't understand it, get someone else to explain it to you. Maybe they can put it clearer than i can. But if you have no interest in understanding it, then don't bother asking me to explain it. |
Well, all I have left to say on this here is I understand your illistration, but how your connecting your illistration to what I was saying is what is unclear.
| Quote: |
| So, it seems that these things are so engrained into us as people that we all can agree that murder, steeling and disrespecting others all are bad things. Also the things we all know to be good like being curtious and respectful towards one anther are all good things. It is obvious that we have this knowlege of what is right and what is wrong wired inside us. The laws of the land set forth by our governments are there only to reinforce the rightness and wrongness of our actions. And it is wrong things that have negitive consequences. |
In short, my point here is that this moral code is written down for us to referance to and base a standard of rule and law so that we have no excuss for our bad actions. Even the village idiot has no excusses for their actions. 'Nuff said on that.
But Soulfire is right ...
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Some themes in the Bible were acceptable then, not now. So saying "Stoned a virgin lately" today has no effect whatsoever, |
Also a good point brought out by Soulfire is the a major theme of forgiveness and repentance which is found throughout the Bible. We repent our wrong doings and grace is bestowed apon us at the will of the governing authority (legal forgiveness/freedom) or God (personal forgiveness/freedom). We cannot save ourselves from condemantion, it takes someone else who has the power to forgive, a judge, the president, a king, or God. Knowing this is what gives me freedom to live without fear or guilt. I know that when I mess up with someone, or even the law, I can say to them sorry (repentance) and the burden rests on them to forgive (exonerate) me at their discretion (mercy). As far as consequences go, there is a cost to messing up. You have to pay a fine, do some extra work, or get a spanking.
In life, someone has to pay this price for there to be justice. And for the theme of as forgiveness stated throughout the Bible this someone was Jesus.
_____________________________
Love God, love people, drink coffee
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Some themes in the Bible were acceptable then, not now. So saying "Stoned a virgin lately" today has no effect whatsoever, and the fact that it is not acceptable today has nothing to do with not following the Bible, it has to do with the moderation of our society, and the laws that we live under today. There are a lot of factors. What Indi seems to overlook is the theme of forgiveness and repentance in the New Testament, the most followed part of the Bible, but appears to be stuck in the Old Testament - which, in my opinion, is used for the history and background up until the New Testament. |
So you would not, then, subscribe to my view that the two are completely separate works for different audiences and with different goals ?
The Hebrew Bible (OT) is clearly aimed at a different audience to the NT and was constructed from around 1000BC up to the time of the Dead Sea scrolls (circa 100BC). The NT, on the other hand, was constructed between about 30AD and about 200AD. There is, therefore a time difference of between 4 and about 40 generations between the two parts of Christian scripture. That is a huge sociological and theological gulf to fill...
Now, as for history and background...hmm. Yes, it is certainly that for those of the Jewish faith I agree.
It is, of course, essentially the story of Exodus and the founding of the Jewish homeland - the story of the creation of a nation is another way of putting it. The problem is, of course, that this has very little to do with the average Christian.
Another problem is that the OT also contains a lot of practical writings obviously designed to lay down the laws and norms for the Jewish people. This is different from the 'sacred text' type of scripture and was intended as a more practical guide to daily living - which is how it was used by the people at the time. The 'Wisdom writings' and some of the 'Prophets' books for example, are clearly aimed at instruction and guidance for the Jewish faithful whereas the Pentateuch is more of a historical story telling to give a sense of commonality.
Then, of course, there is the biggie - the completely different nature of 'God' between the Jealous, cruel, murderous and even vindictive character of Yaweh/Jehova that we meet in the OT, and the redemptive, loving, forgiving, gentle character we meet in the NT.
Theological attempts to reconcile the two always strike me as examples of Jesuitical wriggling which are inevitably logically unpersuasive.
If one takes the works at face value, of course, the differences are not only understandable but perhaps even inevitable. The two works were written by, and written for, hugely different audiences and have different aims and objectives. They were also editorially controlled by very different authorities in very different ways and even used in a different manner.
Right from my early youth, this struck me as self evident and beyond reasonable question. It was largely the refusal of my early Catholic instructors to consider, much less concede, this obvious point that first sparked my sense of doubt and questioning about the institution of Christianity and it's core doctrines.
In closing I'll post a chronology of the OT and NT which, I think, emphasises the point I've made and brings the historical, social and thematic dialectic between the two parts of Christian scripture into sharper focus.
As far as I am concerned, the two works are almost entirely unrelated, certainly inconsistent and, I believe, mutually incompatible in style, content and message.
I won't go into the problems of authentcation, editing and selection and the rest because that is another story...the central point is that OT and NT cannot be reconciled in any convincing way - Yahweh and Jesus are two different ideas of Divinity.
This basiuc doctrinal problem has forced the Churches into a series of theological manouvres, logical hair-splitting and, I think, plain silly invention, to try and reconcile the two. Thus we get the Trinity, Transubstantiation, and a host of other gibberish, simply in order to save the appearance and maintain the myth....
The Jesuits became specialists in this form of apologia, as I know from my earlier years debating with them, and, although one can admire the quality and tenacity of their logic chopping, it is, to me, symptomatic of a deeper problem at the heart of the Christian dogma.
Chronology of the OT
http://camres.frih.net/resources/religion/OTchronology
Chronology of the NT
http://camres.frih.net/resources/religion/NTchronology
Regards
Chris[/url]
I am a believer in the Bible, and subscribe to a lot of your beliefs. I brought that up at a Bible Study once, and came to the conclusion that after God had sent Jesus, more people believed, which pleased God - thus the transformation from the wrathful to forgiving God.
But I can't tell you for sure. That's the problem. I can't really prove anything, I could twist your arm, sure, but it's faith inside that you must have. And one day, it will be fact. One day, we will see for sure. But I won't get the short end of the stick there.
But I can't tell you for sure. That's the problem. I can't really prove anything, I could twist your arm, sure, but it's faith inside that you must have. And one day, it will be fact. One day, we will see for sure. But I won't get the short end of the stick there.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| I am a believer in the Bible, and subscribe to a lot of your beliefs. I brought that up at a Bible Study once, and came to the conclusion that after God had sent Jesus, more people believed, which pleased God - thus the transformation from the wrathful to forgiving God.
But I can't tell you for sure. That's the problem. I can't really prove anything, I could twist your arm, sure, but it's faith inside that you must have. And one day, it will be fact. One day, we will see for sure. But I won't get the short end of the stick there. |
All well and good (and a common Christian 'get out' clause) but that surely calls into question the organisations of faith which have foistered the dogma on believers and cannot now justify or explain their previous certainties and unshakable convictions on such matters.
I would also question whether Jesus resulted in more believers in the timescale we are discussing. The NT was completed by 200AD and large parts of it well before. The Romans did not embrace Christianity until Constantine in 312AD.....
Well, I do not think that I can prove the Bible or God to any satisfaction. But I want to say this. I believe in the Christian faith, (protestant not Catholic as they have differing theologies), because I choose to just as other people choose not to. Nobody or no organization or agency coerces me into believing what to believe about the Bible. This is why protestants have seperated from the Catholic church.
Here is a an interesting artical about the history of the church:
http://www.victorious.org/chur40.htm
The part about Martin Luther is what I think is interesting
I suggest you do some reading about Martin Luther to understand where protestant christianity and catholic christianity differ.
Actually, the romans haven't embrassed Christianity, but Constantine only legalized Christainity.
_____________________________
Love God, love people, drink coffee
www.souloutcast.co.nr
Last edited by socialoutcast on Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Here is a an interesting artical about the history of the church:
http://www.victorious.org/chur40.htm
The part about Martin Luther is what I think is interesting
I suggest you do some reading about Martin Luther to understand where protestant christianity and catholic christianity differ.
| Quote: |
|
The Romans did not embrace Christianity until Constantine in 312AD..... |
_____________________________
Love God, love people, drink coffee
www.souloutcast.co.nr
Last edited by socialoutcast on Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:59 am; edited 1 time in total
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Then, of course, there is the biggie - the completely different nature of 'God' between the Jealous, cruel, murderous and even vindictive character of Yaweh/Jehova that we meet in the OT, and the redemptive, loving, forgiving, gentle character we meet in the NT.
Theological attempts to reconcile the two always strike me as examples of Jesuitical wriggling which are inevitably logically unpersuasive. If one takes the works at face value, of course, the differences are not only understandable but perhaps even inevitable. The two works were written by, and written for, hugely different audiences and have different aims and objectives. They were also editorially controlled by very different authorities in very different ways and even used in a different manner. |
If you want an example of the connection between the wrathful God of the O.T. and the seemingly more loving God of the N.T. read Isaiah (yes all of it, a source more credible than simply citing a single passage and claiming that it represents a major part of the Bible). Isaiah shows both a wrathful and jealous God, who relates the special treatment His people were given, and how they still managed to mess things up and punishes his people. Yet it also shows a God who is merciful, and will (despite their grievous errors) restore them to their former glory, and will provide a Messiah to lead them.
As far as a connection between the Old Testament religion and the New Testament religion, that is something that (I personally believe, you don't have to agree) the Catholic church missed; the difference between salvation through works, and salvation by grace. The O.T. Law (the rules and regulations that the Judaic followers were supposed to follow) was salvation by works, they earned their salvation. The N.T. followers gain (not earn) their salvation through grace. Jesus did not establish a new religion, he fulfilled the Law and took our punishment, and gives grace to those that are drawn to him. The Law was not given that we could earn salvation through works, it was given to illustrate that we can't earn salvation because we cannot truly follow the Law.
*Disclaimer: this is the Christianity that I believe, I provide this to explain why I believe it, not so that you can get angry and gain a few more ulcers. If you can calmly explain what you believe without simply saying what you don't believe, I am more than willing to listen.
Ditto. Well said.
*1* This is the good news of the Gospel. God knows that we as humans have a fallible nature and that we will screw up and not be able to live out the every letter of the law. So in order for us to be saved from our legal short-commings, God offers grace to ANYONE who believes in His son Jesus who paid the price with His life on the cross so that we don't have to. We do not deserve God's grace.
*2* If you see God as a wrathful god then it would be easy to question why would He bestow such grace on wicked people. If you see God as a loving god, then it would be much easier to accept God's free gracious gift of salvation.
*1* This is what I believe/accept to be true about God. I am not trying to force anyone into believing this doctrine, but rather sharing with others what I know of the love of God from my personnal studies of the Bible.
*2* Whatever you believe/accept is ultimately your choice. I am not telling you this IS the way it is, but only disspelling misconception that people have about the real Christainity.
______________________________
Love God, love people, drink coffee.
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
"If you really want to learn more about God, don't ask athiests."
| Montressor wrote: |
| The N.T. followers gain (not earn) their salvation through grace. Jesus did not establish a new religion, he fulfilled the Law and took our punishment, and gives grace to those that are drawn to him. The Law was not given that we could earn salvation through works, it was given to illustrate that we can't earn salvation because we cannot truly follow the Law. |
*1* This is the good news of the Gospel. God knows that we as humans have a fallible nature and that we will screw up and not be able to live out the every letter of the law. So in order for us to be saved from our legal short-commings, God offers grace to ANYONE who believes in His son Jesus who paid the price with His life on the cross so that we don't have to. We do not deserve God's grace.
*2* If you see God as a wrathful god then it would be easy to question why would He bestow such grace on wicked people. If you see God as a loving god, then it would be much easier to accept God's free gracious gift of salvation.
*1* This is what I believe/accept to be true about God. I am not trying to force anyone into believing this doctrine, but rather sharing with others what I know of the love of God from my personnal studies of the Bible.
*2* Whatever you believe/accept is ultimately your choice. I am not telling you this IS the way it is, but only disspelling misconception that people have about the real Christainity.
______________________________
Love God, love people, drink coffee.
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
"If you really want to learn more about God, don't ask athiests."
| Cephalic_Carnage wrote: |
| Now I am not religious in anyway, I also don't believe in the bible at all. But I do think that it is useful, that is because of the lessons it can teach you. There are many themes and morals you can learn like "Not to steal", or "Don't harm another human". I am just saying it is good to live your life by some of the things and universal meanings that comes from it. Do you agree? |
If you're not religious and don't believe in the Bible at all why the hell would you make a post asking others to believe in it. What kind of self contradicting ideals are you preaching?
Does the Bible say anything that the Gita, Koran, Avesta, Talmud etc doesn't? So if you don't believe in the Bible then how come you're advocating it instead of one of these?
If you believe we need a Book to tell us about right/wrong you are mistaken.
| indi wrote: |
| Pavlov taught that to dogs |
Actually, he taught them to salavate at the sound of a bell.
To understand history and current events, in which christianity plays a pretty big part, the bible is very very useful. As for moral guidance, the NT is of some use. though most of it is common sense stuff that any half wit could see, if you wouldn't like it done to you, DON'T DO IT.
| Mannix wrote: |
| As for moral guidance, the NT is of some use. though most of it is common sense stuff that any half wit could see, if you wouldn't like it done to you, DON'T DO IT. |
Actually, the N.T. (as I see it) mainly teaches humility, not do good. If you believe that Christianity is a religion of doing good so you can get into heaven, I'm afraid you've missed the point altogether. One cannot accept the gift of grace without admitting that you couldn't gain it any other way (the first point of Calvinism). It's this humility that leads the true Christian to do good, because their new nature no longer desires to pursue the carnal desires of the old nature; they realize that their old habits were not beneficial and are grateful to a savior who accomplished what they couldn't. Unfortunately this process of gaining a new nature and rejecting the old one is continual, one that lasts till death. Christians must continually be reminded of the humility of their position (not the extent of their humility), not strive to build up their pride by doing good deeds and taking credit for them.
Also, I personally find it rather amazing that people are so willing to denounce the Bible and claim that it is no different than other holy books, when it is the basis for our Judeo-Christian culture that has lead to the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in the West. It's somewhat ironic that you can make jokes about Jesus because of the philosophies that his religion fostered, but can't poke fun at Mohammad because of the restrictions of his, and yet you say
| ainieas wrote: |
| Does the Bible say anything that the Gita, Koran, Avesta, Talmud etc doesn't? |
Interestingly enough
| anieas wrote: |
| If you believe we need a Book to tell us about right/wrong you are mistaken. |
fits right in with Christian theology and the concept of a conscience. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world (nonbelievers) of their sin, in other words, make them unhappy for doing bad things. And Jesus even said of his disciples, "'I tell you,' he replied, 'if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.'" (Luke 19:40) In essence, whether or not you try to conceal it, the truth is evident to every human, and therefore every person is without excuse; we are all accountable for our actions. So yes, even according to our own religion, we don't need a written book to tell us this, but having one makes it considerably easier.
| Mannix wrote: |
| As for moral guidance, the NT is of some use. though most of it is common sense stuff that any half wit could see, if you wouldn't like it done to you, DON'T DO IT. |
Actually, the N.T. (as I see it) mainly teaches humility, not do good. If you believe that Christianity is a religion of doing good so you can get into heaven, I'm afraid you've missed the point altogether. One cannot accept the gift of grace without admitting that you couldn't gain it any other way (the first point of Calvinism). It's this humility that leads the true Christian to do good, because their new nature no longer desires to pursue the carnal desires of the old nature; they realize that their old habits were not beneficial and are grateful to a savior who accomplished what they couldn't. Unfortunately this process of gaining a new nature and rejecting the old one is continual, one that lasts till death. Christians must continually be reminded of the humility of their position (not the extent of their humility), not strive to build up their pride by doing good deeds and taking credit for them.
Also, I personally find it rather amazing that people are so willing to denounce the Bible and claim that it is no different than other holy books, when it is the basis for our Judeo-Christian culture that has lead to the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in the West. It's somewhat ironic that you can make jokes about Jesus because of the philosophies that his religion fostered, but can't poke fun at Mohammad because of the restrictions of his, and yet you say
| ainieas wrote: |
| Does the Bible say anything that the Gita, Koran, Avesta, Talmud etc doesn't? |
Interestingly enough
| anieas wrote: |
| If you believe we need a Book to tell us about right/wrong you are mistaken. |
fits right in with Christian theology and the concept of a conscience. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world (nonbelievers) of their sin, in other words, make them unhappy for doing bad things. And Jesus even said of his disciples, "'I tell you,' he replied, 'if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.'" (Luke 19:40) In essence, whether or not you try to conceal it, the truth is evident to every human, and therefore every person is without excuse; we are all accountable for our actions. So yes, even according to our own religion, we don't need a written book to tell us this, but having one makes it considerably easier.
| Montressor wrote: | ||
|
Also, I personally find it rather amazing that people are so willing to denounce the Bible and claim that it is no different than other holy books, when it is the basis for our Judeo-Christian culture that has lead to the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in the West. It's somewhat ironic that you can make jokes about Jesus because of the philosophies that his religion fostered, but can't poke fun at Mohammad because of the restrictions of his, and yet you say
|
Is insisting that the bible is like other holy books the same as denouncing it ? Surely not. The current liberties we enjoy can be argued to owe much to the decline in power of established religion rather than the reverse....
Regards
Chris
| Montressor wrote: |
| I personally find it rather amazing that people are so willing to denounce the Bible and claim that it is no different than other holy books, when it is the basis for our Judeo-Christian culture that has lead to the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in the West. |
The bible didn't lead to the freedom we have today. If you look at the history you could even say that it lead to oppression. Just look at tall the people that have been killed in the name of Jesus, the crusades, inquisition, the genocide in the Americas. But there were many other factors that caused those things (power (seeking it and keeping it) fundamentalism, bigotry ignorants and so on.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| The bible didn't lead to the freedom we have today. If you look at the history you could even say that it lead to oppression. Just look at tall the people that have been killed in the name of Jesus, the crusades, inquisition, the genocide in the Americas. But there were many other factors that caused those things (power (seeking it and keeping it) fundamentalism, bigotry ignorants and so on. |
Yes, the Bible has been used by fundamentalists, bigots and such like to justify their actions, but so has every other influential book in existence whether philosophical, scientific, historical, or even a light hearted children's book. And since I admire you Conspirator, I hereby post this in your name, therefore you must approve of it. And since you approve of it, any person displeased by it must disapprove of you.
Judeo-Christian culture is not perfect, nor is every action that has been taken with "Biblical" interpretation for justification. People have taken many thoughts and ideas from the Bible and used them for evil, just as many of the freedoms we enjoy today had a basis in how certain people took ideas and thoughts they obtained through reading the Bible. Look at all the people killed in the name of science, of humanity, of a master race... people aren't perfect, we continually seek power and always seek to abuse the power we already have. Simply saying that people justified their actions based on a book does not mean that the book is responsible for their actions, they are still accountable for their choices.
| Montressor wrote: |
| just as many of the freedoms we enjoy today had a basis in how certain people took ideas and thoughts they obtained through reading the Bible. |
No. Those ideals didn't come from the bible. Those idles come out as a result of oppression, religious and political, they do not have a source in the bible.
And I quote
Either they were wrong, and they did not derive any of their opinions from the Bible and religious teachings, or their opinions had some basis in their religion. The first is absolutely false since one can never remove your ideas from who you are, and your religion/belief system is a major part of who you are. Therefore their opinions were at least partially formed from the writings of others concerning Christianity and government and from their own studies of the Bible as well.
| United States Declaration of Independence wrote: |
| When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. |
Either they were wrong, and they did not derive any of their opinions from the Bible and religious teachings, or their opinions had some basis in their religion. The first is absolutely false since one can never remove your ideas from who you are, and your religion/belief system is a major part of who you are. Therefore their opinions were at least partially formed from the writings of others concerning Christianity and government and from their own studies of the Bible as well.
| Montressor wrote: | ||
And I quote
Either they were wrong, and they did not derive any of their opinions from the Bible and religious teachings, or their opinions had some basis in their religion. The first is absolutely false since one can never remove your ideas from who you are, and your religion/belief system is a major part of who you are. Therefore their opinions were at least partially formed from the writings of others concerning Christianity and government and from their own studies of the Bible as well. |
What you not getting these ideas didn't come from the bible. Theres allot of Ideas that didn't come from the bible yet are part of people beliefs, even religious beliefs.
 |