Christian Discussion II: We are an Advent people

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I ask myself that frequently.  Yes, I believe that God exists. 

And that’s all well and good, but I’d argue that you’re asking yourself the wrong question.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And that’s all well and good, but I’d argue that you’re asking yourself the wrong question.

If God exists does God care about God's creations?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If God exists does God care about God's creations?

That’s an interesting question to consider and debate, but it’s still not the first question you should ask yourself.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s an interesting question to consider and debate, but it’s still not the first question you should ask yourself.

What question do you have in mind as I clearly am not thinking of it.

[Astromech]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s not truly possible here though, since those of us who would actually make you question yourself are essentially handcuffed by the disclaimer.

As to your debate about god’s omnipotence, it’s answered fairly early in the Old Testament. And the answer is no, he’s not.

But you’re asking the wrong question.

What I wrote earlier in this thread concerning possible brothers of Jesus applies here as well. People will find proof for or against a position when reading the Bible. It is the same here with God's omnipotence.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What question do you have in mind as I clearly am not thinking of it.

How did this text come to be? And then all the questions that are associated with that line of thinking. I feel like that;s really important to do be for you digest the meat of the text.

4 hours ago, Astromech said:

What I wrote earlier in this thread concerning possible brothers of Jesus applies here as well. People will find proof for or against a position when reading the Bible. It is the same here with God's omnipotence.

That is true for most debates about the Bible, but I don't think it is here. At least not in the complete sense of the word. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tywin,

The Bible was assembled by the first Millennium Church based upon Apostolic tradition.  That's not in contention.

[Astromech]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How did this text come to be? And then all the questions that are associated with that line of thinking. I feel like that;s really important to do be for you digest the meat of the text.

That is true for most debates about the Bible, but I don't think it is here. At least not in the complete sense of the word. 

Exegesis

And what passage exactly are your referring to?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

The Bible was assembled by the first Millennium Church based upon Apostolic tradition.  That's not in contention.

Did I ever say that it was? And that's just one of many points in time. That's where my skepticism comes from. Have you ever played a child's game called Telephone? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did I ever say that it was? And that's just one of many points in time. That's where my skepticism comes from. Have you ever played a child's game called Telephone? 

I take your point which is why looking to the orginal greek for the New Testament and earlier languages (via things like the dead sea scrolls) is important.

[Rorshach]

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did I ever say that it was? And that's just one of many points in time. That's where my skepticism comes from. Have you ever played a child's game called Telephone? 

Generally speaking, when talking about societies that didn’t have a written language, that analogy is wrong. 

It is superficially a good point, as we all know how fast something deteriorates when whispered among children, and we all know that memory distorts things for us as well - but we live in a society built on written sources, where actually remembering stuff isn’t at a premium. 

Sure, it’s an important point to note, but it has been noted, and there are not all that many known problems accociated with it - certainly nothing to expect Telephone to be a good analogy. 

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Rorshach said:

It is superficially a good point, as we all know how fast something deteriorates when whispered among children, and we all know that memory distorts things for us as well - but we live in a society built on written sources, where actually remembering stuff isn’t at a premium.

When did written sources appear though?
 

Quote

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/are-biblical-stories-just-retellings-ancient-mythological-accounts-00448
It has long been suggested that stories in the Bible are retellings of far more ancient accounts. For example, Wood (2003) has drawn attention to the fact that there are remarkable similarities between the Sumerian King List and accounts in Genesis, from descriptions of the great flood, to the eight rulers who reigned before the flood, and decreasing longevity of people after the flood.  Dennis MacDonald, professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, has conducted extensive research into both the New Testament and ancient mythology and has also found remarkable similarities between stories in the Bible and the myths and legends of ancient civilizations.  The implication of course is that it suggesets that the Gospels are retellings of ancient stories.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

When did written sources appear though?
 

 

Given that Genesis explicitly says Abraham came from Mesopotamia that makes sense.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Generally speaking, when talking about societies that didn’t have a written language, that analogy is wrong. 

It is superficially a good point, as we all know how fast something deteriorates when whispered among children, and we all know that memory distorts things for us as well - but we live in a society built on written sources, where actually remembering stuff isn’t at a premium. 

Sure, it’s an important point to note, but it has been noted, and there are not all that many known problems accociated with it - certainly nothing to expect Telephone to be a good analogy. 

I'm sorry, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Rorshach]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

When did written sources appear though?
 

 

Different for different places and times. 

IIRC, the Old Testament is written somewhere between 900 and 600 BC. And the mythical history in Genesis 1-12 is largely found in earlier texts as well, believed to be derived from other religions in the neighbourhood.

[Rorshach]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm sorry, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Okay.

I read the US politics thread, and you are a thoughtful person who argues your position there. 

As such, this answer leaves ... everything to be desired. You have no way of knowing, but I have studied religion a couple of years, and I have a master’s degree in history. Therefore, I find that you come across .... 

Poorly.

You may have good points, and knowledge beyond my own. Thus far, however, you have not shown it. Please do.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Okay.

I read the US politics thread, and you are a thoughtful person who argues your position there. 

As such, this answer leaves ... everything to be desired. You have no way of knowing, but I have studied religion a couple of years, and I have a master’s degree in history. Therefore, I find that you come across .... 

Poorly.

You may have good points, and knowledge beyond my own. Thus far, however, you have not shown it. Please do.

That’s because I take politics very seriously while finding religion to be kind of silly (note that I’m not singling out Christianity). It troubles me that people take it so seriously. That said, I’m being dismissive because you were, and it should be rather obvious why my Telephone analogy is apt. Many of the stories in the Bible are word of mouth, and much like a fish story they change with time. Many of these stories also predate the Bible by a significant amount of time, and you can trace how they changed over time. I would think you’d know this given that your area of expertise is history.

Speaking specifically about Christianity, I would have a lot more respect for it if Jesus was treated more like Confucius. If you haven’t already done so, I’d encourage you to check out the Jefferson Bible. It’s a much more rational interpretation of Christ’s message.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s because I take politics very seriously while finding religion to be kind of silly (note that I’m not singling out Christianity). It troubles me that people take it so seriously. That said, I’m being dismissive because you were, and it should be rather obvious why my Telephone analogy is apt. Many of the stories in the Bible are word of mouth, and much like a fish story they change with time. Many of these stories also predate the Bible by a significant amount of time, and you can trace how they changed over time. I would think you’d know this given that your area of expertise is history.

Speaking specifically about Christianity, I would have a lot more respect for it if Jesus was treated more like Confucius. If you haven’t already done so, I’d encourage you to check out the Jefferson Bible. It’s a much more rational interpretation of Christ’s message.  

If Christianity treated Christ like Confusious it wouldn't be Christianity but something else completely different.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

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)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If Christianity treated Christ like Confusious it wouldn't be Christianity but something else completely different.

And I think it would be better. Most people would be down with the moral teachings of Jesus. But when it turns into “My religion is the only path to heaven, if you don’t believe it then you can’t be a moral person, and oh by the way, you’re going to burn in hell forever” you lose so many people and you make your religion and your god small. Now I’m aware that isn’t how you view Christianity, but so many people do and it’s belittling if not bigoted towards those who don’t believe in it. And sadly that world view is still probably more socially acceptable than mine, which is to argue that we really don’t if there is or isn’t a god or gods, so don’t get so worked up over it.