Christian Discussion II: We are an Advent people

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 1:12 PM, Astromech said:

@Lany Freelove Cassandra

I think you generally have it right. Your first point is where many Christian denominations vary. And that variation would center on your use of "literal" Some of the early Christian heresies we discussed a few pages back (Nestorianism, Arianism) centered around the relation of God and Jesus. Catholics, believing in the Trinity, hold God and Jesus are one and the same. Protestant denominations disagree, generally speaking. Another point on which denominations disagree is the character of the Eucharist: i.e., is it the literal body and blood of Christ or just symbolic. Just another example of differences among denominations.

Your second point is correct as is your third. I wouldn't say the third is what primarily makes one Christian because the Easter story and God's Kingdom are a large part of Christ's teachings. However, it is how we emulate Christ and follow those teachings. All three are important to Christianity and your first point, as stated above,  is where you get many of the divisions in Christianity(in addition to the characteristics of the Eucharist).

 

 

 

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 2:27 PM, Rorshach said:

Others have already answered @Lany Freelove Cassandra, but I’ll give a short answer as well. 

1) Yes. And no. The essence of Trinity is not easy to define. In one way, they are all aspects of God, that is they are all God. In another way, they are separate. What is taugth in Lutheran seminars is that Jesus was God and man - fully. Confused? So, I think, are everyone.

2) Yes. 

3) Yes. The simple form, I believe, is the two major commandments: Love God, and love your neighbour like yourself. 

 

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 2:57 PM, Ormond said:

It's not common among people I go to church with either, and I'm a mainline Presbyterian, not a member of an Orthodox church like Scot.

You seem to be stereotyping Christianity by just listening to the loudest and most "conservative" voices. 

As for Lany Cassandra's third point -- I would modify that one to say Christians should TRY to emulate Jesus. I think most Christians realize that is an impossible standard to live up to and one shouldn't condemn oneself for failing, but it should be the standard by which one measures one's actions. 

Thank you all for your well thought out answers.

eta: I got 14/15 on the quiz...didn't know what the 1st great awakening was so I guessed wrong

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^ I got 13 of 15 on that poll, guessed incorrectly on the "Bread and Wine" question and the "Great Awakening" question. Not bad for an agnostic I suppose, but I enjoy the subject of comparitive religions.

[Yukle]

On 11/18/2017 at 3:57 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I've never told anyone "my faith is the only path to heaven".  I do not know the mind of God.  It bothers me enormously when people say "my faith is the only path to heaven".  

I can't remember who it was, possibly Thomas Aquinas (except lots of stuff is attributed to him, even when he didn't say it, although he did say a lot), but s/he said that the Holy Spirit is felt by all. The manifestation of other religious or spiritual beliefs are different interpretations of the same spirit.

I know I've done a terrible job of paraphrasing that. Or remembering who said it.  

[Dr. Pepper]

On 11/17/2017 at 11:45 AM, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

I’m glad this thread has been necromanced.  I was thinking about religion the other day (and politics) and with all the different sects of Christianity, is there a core list of beliefs/values that they share? While I wasn’t raised in any one church I had a lot of exposure to several different ones including Catholic, Mormon, and several various Protestants, so I have an idea of what I believe the core beliefs/values are, I just don’t know if practicing Christians agree with me.

1)      Jesus Christ is the literal son of God

2)      That Jesus died for our sins, and made it possible for man to enter heaven (Easter story)

3)      The followers of Jesus should live their lives as he did

It’s the 3rd one I am wondering about. Is this a belief among all Christians? Am I mis-remembering it? I admit 90% of the time I went to church was just to accompany friends, so I can’t say I was paying all that much attention, but somehow this has always been in my mind.  To me it was first and foremost what made a person a Christian.  This view has been reinforced by incidents like people hugging me and telling me I was a good Christian for doing a good deed.

You hear stuff like “this is a Christian Nation” all the time, and I can’t help but wonder what it means to be a Christian, and is it something different for those of different sects.

I’m also aware that there is a lot more to it than these 3 simple things, but if there are others that everyone agrees with, I’d like to add them to my list.

If #3 is agreed as part of the core belief, what are the things Jesus did that should be emulated?

When I think of Jesus, what comes to mind are things like kindness, sympathy, mercy, forgiveness, non-judgmental, teaching (the word of God) and helping those in need (whether it’s food or healing or whatever). There are probably more, but like I said, I’ve never really studied it, these are just my outsider’s observations.

(full disclosure: with this as my view of what it means to be a Christian, what I was actually thinking about was how those views were or were not compatible with certain political views. I'm not going to use this against anyone I just like knowing things and thinking about them (total daily commute is nearly 1.5 hrs). (ok, I will totally call people hypocrites in my mind, I'm rather judgmental like that)

I think @Tywin et al.'s Telephone comparison is quite apt when it comes to point #3.  The story changes as it's repeating or translated, but beyond that it also changes as it's interpreted by those reading it because culture and language influences how we understand things and so on and so forth.  It's why you can have some christians who spend their lives helping the poor and less fortunate and fighting for equality and then you have other christians who go all 'fuck everyone who needs a helping hand.' 

[Rorshach]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I think @Tywin et al.'s Telephone comparison is quite apt when it comes to point #3.  The story changes as it's repeating or translated, but beyond that it also changes as it's interpreted by those reading it because culture and language influences how we understand things and so on and so forth.  It's why you can have some christians who spend their lives helping the poor and less fortunate and fighting for equality and then you have other christians who go all 'fuck everyone who needs a helping hand.' 

I’m not going to defend the American right here. Far be it from me to do so.

But as to the Telephone comparasion - no. There’s no way that message is lost in translation - it’s there in every Bible we know. In every translation ever. The question isn’t whether it’s lost from the text, but why people choose to disregard what amounts to the central teaching of the central person in their religion.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

I’m not going to defend the American right here. Far be it from me to do so.

But as to the Telephone comparasion - no. There’s no way that message is lost in translation - it’s there in every Bible we know. In every translation ever. The question isn’t whether it’s lost from the text, but why people choose to disregard what amounts to the central teaching of the central person in their religion.

Sorry, this is just wrong.  I can pull of three different English translations of the bible and the same verse will be written in three different ways.  You'll find this is even truer when you begin to look at translations in different languages.  

People will interpret things differently.  Period.  This is a verifiable fact.

[Rorshach]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sorry, this is just wrong.  I can pull of three different English translations of the bible and the same verse will be written in three different ways.  You'll find this is even truer when you begin to look at translations in different languages.  

People will interpret things differently.  Period.  This is a verifiable fact.

And in every one of these, the sentences in question will not be difficult to understand. 

Sure, people will interpret things differently. But what you do in arguing that is moving the goal posts. And you’ve moved them where I put them down in what you responded to. 

Basically, people will interpret differently. And there are issues in translating. Your problem in the argument you’re making isn’t found there. It is with claiming that on this basis, we can trace doctrine - or more spesifically, the «I’ve got mine»-doctrine which seems to be prevalent in some American churches. But we can’t find that issue in translation. There’s no basis - in any Bible - for an interpretation that says «fuck everyone else». And we know this, because we know what’s in earlier translations, what’s in the original text (well, to a certain degree, but it is the best preserved text we’ve got from that far back, and it is amazingly well preserved) and what’s in the other translations. 

We also know the issues with translations. Still doesn’t help the point you tried to make in your first post.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Rorshach said:

And in every one of these, the sentences in question will not be difficult to understand. 

Sure, people will interpret things differently. But what you do in arguing that is moving the goal posts. And you’ve moved them where I put them down in what you responded to. 

Basically, people will interpret differently. And there are issues in translating. Your problem in the argument you’re making isn’t found there. It is with claiming that on this basis, we can trace doctrine - or more spesifically, the «I’ve got mine»-doctrine which seems to be prevalent in some American churches. But we can’t find that issue in translation. There’s no basis - in any Bible - for an interpretation that says «fuck everyone else». And we know this, because we know what’s in earlier translations, what’s in the original text (well, to a certain degree, but it is the best preserved text we’ve got from that far back, and it is amazingly well preserved) and what’s in the other translations. 

We also know the issues with translations. Still doesn’t help the point you tried to make in your first post.

Um, it was exactly the point I made in my post.  I literally said there are differences in translation and interpretation and, thus, the story.  

You might think there is no basis for an interpretation that says "fuck everyone else", but all that says about you is that you don't think there is another interpretation.  You think what you heard at the point in your telephone game is correct.  Clearly there are other interpretations.  We wouldn't have today's Republicans if there weren't.  They have built an entire political ideology based on interpreting their christian religion as 'fuck everyone else'.  

[Rorshach]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Um, it was exactly the point I made in my post.  I literally said there are differences in translation and interpretation and, thus, the story.  

You might think there is no basis for an interpretation that says "fuck everyone else", but all that says about you is that you don't think there is another interpretation.  You think what you heard at the point in your telephone game is correct.  Clearly there are other interpretations.  We wouldn't have today's Republicans if there weren't.  They have built an entire political ideology based on interpreting their christian religion as 'fuck everyone else'.  

You’re not defending your point here. You’re asserting it.

What you need - and yes, I say need, because I do know something about this more than just «my end of the Telephone» (that assertion is wrong as far as it goes - you should have inferred that from my master’s degree) - is to show the translation differences that lead to the doctrine you claim. 

I’m going to hold you to that. Same as I asked Tywin to give examples, I’m going to task you with the same. Put up the evidence to back your assertion here.

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

You’re not defending your point here. You’re asserting it.

What you need - and yes, I say need, because I do know something about this more than just «my end of the Telephone» (that assertion is wrong as far as it goes - you should have inferred that from my master’s degree) - is to show the translation differences that lead to the doctrine you claim. 

I’m going to hold you to that. Same as I asked Tywin to give examples, I’m going to task you with the same. Put up the evidence to back your assertion here.

You're "master's degree" is completely unimpressive, sorry, especially based on the posts you've made in this thread.  

What exactly is it you are looking for?  Are you confused that different translations will be written differently?  Are you unaware that different denominations will interpret these texts different?  Are you unfamiliar with Republican policy?  I mean, am I supposed to start with the Big Bang for you or do you have a general basis of knowledge from which you can draw to understand that interpretations are different and that what you think is right isn't what others of your group might think is right?  Did you get your master's degree from a game of telephone?

We'll probably need to continue this conversation in the Non-believers thread as further discussion would violate the disclaimer that says no discussing belief, which is what you are trying to argue.

[Rorshach]

I may be phrasing things badly, because so far you aren’t close to answering what I asked for. You haven’t even understood the question I’m asking, which is why I’ll try to rephrase. It is also possible that I’ve misinterpreted you.

You made the claim:

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I think @Tywin et al.'s Telephone comparison is quite apt when it comes to point #3.  The story changes as it's repeating or translated, but beyond that it also changes as it's interpreted by those reading it because culture and language influences how we understand things and so on and so forth.  It's why you can have some christians who spend their lives helping the poor and less fortunate and fighting for equality and then you have other christians who go all 'fuck everyone who needs a helping hand.' 

I read this as a claim that you can defend the American right on the basis of a changing story. Or, more spesifically, a changing Bible story. I interpreted your next post

 

44 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sorry, this is just wrong.  I can pull of three different English translations of the bible and the same verse will be written in three different ways. 

as meaning that it was indeed the Bible translations you referred to. To this I replied that

 

35 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

And in every one of these, the sentences in question will not be difficult to understand. 

What I meant is that I really don’t think you can find textual evidence for a «fuck everyone else»-interpretation. 

You replied

30 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Um, it was exactly the point I made in my post.  I literally said there are differences in translation and interpretation and, thus, the story.  

You might think there is no basis for an interpretation that says "fuck everyone else", but all that says about you is that you don't think there is another interpretation.  You think what you heard at the point in your telephone game is correct.  Clearly there are other interpretations.  We wouldn't have today's Republicans if there weren't.  They have built an entire political ideology based on interpreting their christian religion as 'fuck everyone else'.  

and it is at this point I want you to provide evidence that a «fuck everyone else»-interpretation is found in the Bible. You reel off a list which doesn’t at all answer that question - but you do go in ad-hom mode. As I see no need for the last detail there, I’m trying here to rephrase and show what I find remiss in your argument - textual evidence that supports the «fuck everyone else»-position.

As I started off saying, I’m not going to defend that position. And there is no biblical evidence for such a position. So what you are railing against isn’t a changing text on the basis of Telephone, but someone disregarding the text in favour of what they want to see. 

These are vastly different issues, and conflating them helps no-one. If you still think they’re the same, I would like you to be more spesific than what you have been so far. You need to back up the claim that the text itself backs up the «fuck everyone else»-position.

[Yukle]

7 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sorry, this is just wrong.  I can pull of three different English translations of the bible and the same verse will be written in three different ways.  You'll find this is even truer when you begin to look at translations in different languages.  

People will interpret things differently.  Period.  This is a verifiable fact.

Yes, I'm Christian, and I agree with this. Not only do I agree with it, but I think it's essential. I've often found that, no matter what the topic is, anybody who claims to know everything should be treated with caution. After all, the smartest people in the world tend to be humble about how little they've realised that they know.

If you didn't reinterpret scriptures, then you'd be left with a pretty useless series of documents discussion how to manage social orders and cultures that have long been obsolete.

For all of that, though, I do think that there is a "correct" version of what humanity should be doing, according to scriptures. I just don't know what it is, but I do my best to have a guess and live it as best as I can.

That said, I tend not to discuss this much with people at all, as it's not really a conversation starter.  

[MisterOJ]

I've been really bummed out since the school shooting on Wednesday (which comes right on the heels of the one here in Kentucky that is only a couple counties to the west of where I live.) So, I'm trying  to focus on something good today.

My oldest daughter, Emily, is going through confirmation classes right now at church. They're normally on Wednesday, but since it  was Ash Wednesday, this week's class was pushed back to last night. She was hesitant about the classes at first, because she knew it would take her outside of her comfort zone, which (from what I gather) isn't hard to do for a 13 year old girl.

When I picked her up from church last night, she was really excited to talk to me about what she learned. First words out of her mouth to me were, "I really like that class. I'm glad I'm doing it and I can't wait for next week."

Last night's main topic was what we believe as Presbyterians. The history of our church, what makes us different. She's endured a little teasing at school because she doesn't go to a Baptist church. But she said last night that she's glad we go to the church that we do. When she started confirmation, she asked me if she had to join the church at the end of the class. I assured her that she didn't. It was completely up to her. She holds no reservations now. I really couldn't be more proud of her than I am today. She's a pretty great kid and it feels good to know that I have done something right when it comes to raising her.

[Ormond]

3 hours ago, MisterOJ said:

My oldest daughter, Emily, is going through confirmation classes right now at church. They're normally on Wednesday, but since it  was Ash Wednesday, this week's class was pushed back to last night. She was hesitant about the classes at first, because she knew it would take her outside of her comfort zone, which (from what I gather) isn't hard to do for a 13 year old girl.

When I picked her up from church last night, she was really excited to talk to me about what she learned. First words out of her mouth to me were, "I really like that class. I'm glad I'm doing it and I can't wait for next week."

Last night's main topic was what we believe as Presbyterians. The history of our church, what makes us different. She's endured a little teasing at school because she doesn't go to a Baptist church. But she said last night that she's glad we go to the church that we do. When she started confirmation, she asked me if she had to join the church at the end of the class. I assured her that she didn't. It was completely up to her. She holds no reservations now. I really couldn't be more proud of her than I am today. She's a pretty great kid and it feels good to know that I have done something right when it comes to raising her.

Congratulations to you and your daughter! 

Ah, the difference between times and places -- back when I was a child in a suburb of Buffalo, NY, I was teased for being a Presbyterian instead of a Roman Catholic.  

[MisterOJ]

35 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Congratulations to you and your daughter! 

Ah, the difference between times and places -- back when I was a child in a suburb of Buffalo, NY, I was teased for being a Presbyterian instead of a Roman Catholic.  

Thanks, Ormond.

And yeah, the American Bible Belt can be a funny place. This week, after our Ash Wednesday service, we went out to eat at Captain D's, because... you know, fish. Emily was self conscious about walking in with the ashes on her forehead, but I assured here that there would probably be other folks in there, eating fish, with ashes on there head too. There wasn't. And one of the employees even came up to our table and asked, "What is that on your face?" So, yeah... I may have been wrong about that one.

[The Mance]

re: interdenominational strife…

 

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. 

I said, "Don't do it!" 

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"

He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

 

I said,

”Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

 

 

[Astromech]

Congratulations, MisterOJ.

Do Presbyterians choose Confirmation names?  I never chose one for my Catholic Confirmation and I regret that decision now.

[Ormond]

6 hours ago, Astromech said:

Congratulations, MisterOJ.

Do Presbyterians choose Confirmation names?  I never chose one for my Catholic Confirmation and I regret that decision now.

No, since there is no belief in patron saints in Presbyterianism, there is no such thing as a "Confirmation name" in our tradition.

[Astromech]

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

No, since there is no belief in patron saints in Presbyterianism, there is no such thing as a "Confirmation name" in our tradition.

Thanks, Ormond.

[Yukle]

On 2/18/2018 at 0:43 AM, The Mance said:

 

I said,

  Reveal hidden contents

”Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

 

 

How terrible am I that this made me literally lol?