Religion vs. Religion

[Southtown]

1) Test of faith!

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm

And one for non-denom Christianity: admit yer sh*t stinks! HAHA

[Southtown]

Keep thinking, keep posting.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

K. Jewish prophesies concerning the Messiah written hundreds of years prior by differing authors... resurrected and glorified Psalm 16:10-11; utterances mirrored, hands and feet pierced Psalm 22:1,6-8,14-16; later ascension to heaven Psalm 68:18; given vinegar to drink Psalm 69:21; gifts from kings (wisemen) Psalm 72:10-11; the MVP (cornerstone) being rejected Psalm 118:22-23 (Isaiah 28:16); virgin mother Isaiah 7:14; from Galilee Isaiah 9:1-7; heals lame, sick, and blind Isaiah 35:5-6; flogging and derision Isaiah 50:5-6; wrongfully condemned intercessor Isaiah 52:13-53:12; 7+62 weeks (literally "sevens", denotes calendar change in ) or 483 (69 * 7) years from command to rebuild the temple (457 B.C.) to the Messiah (27 A.D.) Daniel 9:24-26; born in Bethlehem (the littlest of two by that name) Micah 5:2; riding on a colt Zechariah 9:9; betrayed for 30 peices of silver Zechariah 11:12-13; Disciples abandon Messiah at crucifixion Zechariah 13:7. (source: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml)

 

And attested by non-Christian historical records:

“

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...." (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.)

 

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."

 

Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.

 

Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."

 

This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.”

—

http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html#3

 

. . .

 

Comments from Dr. William Lane Craig, delivered to a college audience in December, 2001: “

From the pages of the Jewish historian Josephus we learn that Jesus was executed by Roman authority under Pontius Pilate by means of crucifixion. And according to Tacitus, the Roman historian, he also names Pontius Pilate as the one responsible for Jesus' execution by crucifixion. According to both Josephus and a Syrian writer, Mara Bar-Serapion, the Jewish authorities participated in the events leading up to Jesus' execution, and they justified this as a proper undertaking against a heretic. So in extra biblical sources, Jewish and Roman, we have evidence for the trial of Jesus, the involvement of both the Jewish authorities as well as the Roman authorities, the mode of his execution, namely by crucifixion. And these facts are fixed so firmly as an anchor point in history no historical scholar, no historian denies these. On the contrary, they are so firmly fixed they actually become a criterion of authenticity.”

—

http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html

footnote #4

 

Islam considers him a prophet for example, but he is not the son of God. Jews agree he existed and he may well have said all these things, but he was an egotistical rabble-rouser, and he was not necessarily crazy. So the either-or interpretation you give here is only accepted by a few.

In the context of MEL555's link, the lady was claiming to show this through the NT scripture. So non-NT believers would not apply, of course. And why would consent dictate anything?

 

With controlled equanimity that ofttimes betrays your views by accident!

What does that mean? Can you give me an example?

 

There are a wide variety of views among the Christians here, and I don't think its hard to see the differences in both approach and form, and the discussion of those differences is the point in this thread, which it seems by this statement you are denying.

I am not. I am simply trying to compare each scenario (when supplied) to the bible, since that is the supposed source of each and every variation. Anything stemming from original Christianity that does not comply with scripture was either added later or contorted, intentionally or otherwise.

 

As a simple and concrete example, if you inspect some of the posts on the site there those that would disagree with your opinion that Catholics are Christians.

I have not stated that opinion. You must have me confused. I am adamantly against the Catholic Church doctrine because it is not biblical. It is a culmination of Christianity, Greek mythology, and Emperor deism orchestrated by Constantine. Ironically, the name "Catholic" represents this theological blending quite well. And I find it sad that they represent mainstream Christianity on the big screen because they have a certain visual identifiability.

 

But to clear the air, institutions are not people. While the teachings are unbiblical, the members can be saved in spite of Catholicism because God knows their hearts, and I do not. It's always tricky to voice dissent against a teaching without being called judgmental.

 

You want me to admit that I might be wrong about Jesus being Savior, and I simply don't believe that.

I have no desire to do so and that is not the point. The point is how you *interact* with those who do. So while you say:

However, I will not deride you (or anyone else) for disagreeing with me. And I am perfectly willing to walk interested people through my beliefs, and discuss any part of them.

This avoids the critical issue here of how the *differences* influence your world-view. Many religions contain teachings that "unbelievers" will not receive the same benefits of "believers", yet these religions in many cases come with lists of "exceptions" to handle the most egregious cases of "unfairness" that this causes, for example some Christian faiths support the notion that an exception is made for all people who died before Christ, and they will be allowed into the kingdom of heaven anyway because they couldn't do anything about being born too soon. This is an example of a faith attempting to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "good" being treated as "evil" because it does not have the right beliefs.

Because that's what some believe does not mean that's what the bible teaches. I address your example below.

 

I pulled this quote because its another example of bias being drapped in unbiased clothing: you're making an assumption that there has to be a "case" against Jesus, when to many, he may well have been a magician and con artist like Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swagart.

If one doesn't need a reason for not believing the testimony of Christ, then they aren't even considering the possibilty, and are themselves the biased ones. I myself, however, have reasons for believing, though, that I am willing to have scrutinized on its own merit, instead of taking the authoritative approach.

 

To some, its the sociological effect of being persecuted--as the Jews were by Christians for most of the past 2000 years from intermittent Pogroms, to Passion Play-like slander, to the Holocaust--and leaving an easy and natural opinion that any religion that has caused so much personal pain and death could possibly have been led by "the Messiah." Its obvious: its not that there has to be a theological reconning...

I don't know how to repeat this so you will understand. People keep referencing the "Church" as doing bad things in the past. My faith is not in a church, nor do my beliefs come directly from the mouth of a "superior" preacher. I believe the bible only and discern the beliefs of others (Christian and non-) by it. I don't even go to church, mainly because I am able both to read the damn book and interpret it myself.

 

To keep saying that the "Church" has done all these bad things does not impress me. How can an ideal be berated by critiquing those who don't adhere to it? If anything, the continued warfare of ALL mankind testifies to the bible's ACCURACY. That everyone is a SINNER in need of FORGIVENESS, and that the "righteous believers" are not those who are "good" but are the "repentant" and humble of heart. Of course, if we weren't judging the standard by the failed attempts to reach it, we'd be free to discuss these REAL theological intricacies such as the salvation of those who haven't heard of Jesus or God for that matter. (Romans 2:14-15; 1 John 4:16)

 

Until then, Cheers.

[Buffy]

...I am simply trying to compare each scenario (when supplied) to the bible, since that is the supposed source of each and every variation. Anything stemming from original Christianity that does not comply with scripture was either added later or contorted, intentionally or otherwise.

This is your approach, and I'm pretty sure I've got it. A critical difference between your approach and most others is that you do not rely on any external church or authority for interpretation of the scriptures. What you very clearly imply is that your own interpretation is the only one you consider to be the "truth", and while you do--I think correctly--state that all should go through this process themselves (a very scientific approach if you ask me!), this is *exactly* the issue you are avoiding: This approach still begs the question posed by this whole thread: how do you reconcile *your* interpretations from *someone elses*, given they have taken the exact approach you advocate? Yes, you can engage in debates with people citing various scriptural references, but how can you ever resolve this without at some point coming to the conclusion that the other person is wrong? And how do you justify the view that some interpretations which you consider invalid would lead to--in your interpretation--that person not "properly accepting Christ" and therefore be subject to the negative consequences thereof? You either *are* accepting the fact that *your* interpretation could be wrong, and thus that person is "accepting Christ", or *your* interpretation is the *only* one that can be had. Which is it? Or is it both in different cases and if so, how do you reconcile the inconsistency? As an example:

As a simple and concrete example, if you inspect some of the posts on the site there those that would disagree with your opinion that Catholics are Christians.

I have not stated that opinion. You must have me confused. I am adamantly against the Catholic Church doctrine because it is not biblical. It is a culmination of Christianity, Greek mythology, and Emperor deism...But to clear the air, institutions are not people. While the teachings are unbiblical, the members can be saved in spite of Catholicism because God knows their hearts, and I do not.

I never mentioned the church, but it was obviously necessary for you to bring it in to avoid the issue, but I meant "Catholics" not the church. As you say "only God knows their hearts," but how do you reconcile, when you get into a theological discussion with a Catholic, who *not* because the priest told them, but through their own honest Biblical scholarship, still afirm Catholic beliefs that are among those that you find incorrect, that they still might "pass judgement by God". I am not talking about continuing to debate them, I'm talking about once you've reached the point of disagreement: Do you honestly believe that because their beliefs do not align with your own scholarship that they will not pass or will they?

 

To broaden the debate to Judaism:

If one doesn't need a reason for not believing the testimony of Christ, then they aren't even considering the possibilty, and are themselves the biased ones.

You seem to be utterly dismissive of the very quotes you give in your post about the contemporaneous views of Jesus's movement, as well seeming to say that those who may well have *justified* bias against Christianity "get what they deserve." Do you honestly believe that Jews who have lived their entire lives persecuted by so called "Christians" have a reason--or what you seem to imply an *obligation* if they expect to be saved--to consider that "maybe Christ might be their savior?"

I don't know how to repeat this so you will understand. People keep referencing the "Church" as doing bad things in the past. My faith is not in a church, nor do my beliefs come directly from the mouth of a "superior" preacher.

I find your approach very noble and is extremely refreshing, but I don't know how to repeat this so you will understand: I'm *not* asking to debate specific theological points as to which is more correct. I'm asking you to consider what happens when two reasonable people who have done their own scholarship come to different conclusions, how do those people reconcile the fact that these differences exist and what are the consequences? Is it possible for both to be right? If one is wrong, how do you justify the negative consequences of the other belief given that the other equally pious and good person (a *specific person* not a "church"), is serious and possibly unjustified?

 

For a non-biblical source of context for this, my suggested reading is Melville's "Billy Budd".

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Yes, you can engage in debates with people citing various scriptural references, but how can you ever resolve this without at some point coming to the conclusion that the other person is wrong? And how do you justify the view that some interpretations which you consider invalid would lead to--in your interpretation--that person not "properly accepting Christ" and therefore be subject to the negative consequences thereof?

. . .

Do you honestly believe that because their beliefs do not align with your own scholarship that they will not pass or will they?

. . .

I'm asking you to consider what happens when two reasonable people who have done their own scholarship come to different conclusions, how do those people reconcile the fact that these differences exist and what are the consequences? Is it possible for both to be right?

In short, yes. It is possible for both to be right... in the sight of God. The essence of salvation by faith is that you don't have to be perfect. God is interested in sincerity. God is interested in the heart. And He is the only one who can know the reasons in a person's heart, anyway. (Proverbs 24:12) This is another reason why I'm conviced in the Gospel, because that sounds like a fair deal to me.

 

One can only imagine where God will draw the line. I try not to think like that, and I think people who do are setting themselves up to be judged. (Romans 2:1) Some people can go to church, give charity, and still not have a kind heart or pure motives. While non-church-goers, or even non-Christians, can be going about life with a heart that pleases God somehow. Who knows? Nobody. Only God. (Matthew 7:21)

 

My goal is to interpret and debate scripture and history so that misconceptions don't cloud the judgment of those trying to truly understand the situation. I guess I go wrong in assuming everyone gives a sh*t.

[Buffy]

In short, yes. It is possible for both to be right... ... God is interested in sincerity. God is interested in the heart. And He is the only one who can know the reasons in a person's heart, anyway....One can only imagine where God will draw the line. I try not to think like that, and I think people who do are setting themselves up to be judged.

Well, amen to that! Why do you suppose that those that scream the loudest seem to be the most judgemental? Have you tried to decypher their motives and justifications for what they do?

My goal is to interpret and debate scripture and history so that misconceptions don't cloud the judgment of those trying to truly understand the situation. I guess I go wrong in assuming everyone gives a sh*t.

I think I go a bit farther than you in thinking that the vast majority of people--whatevery their religious beliefs--don't want to think about this stuff: not that they don't give a ****, but that they just don't have the time or energy or desire to analyze the foundations of their religious beliefs. For most, religion is something they *don't* have to think about that gives their life direction and purpose and helps answer the unanswerable. Unfortunately I'm not sure these people get as much out of their religious beliefs as you do.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

I'm glad we can agree. :lol: You're alright. :)

 

The same could be said for science. One doesn't need an understanding of general relativity to use the navigation system in their suv's. And, they shouldn't be expected to really. If they use it with a sincere heart *snicker* the Lord will guide them.

 

In my view, it's the commandment of God NOT to treat each other like subordinates. Kind of ironic that that would also be the biggest problem of those claiming to be inline with His will...

[geokker]

In my view, it's the commandment of God NOT to treat each other like subordinates.

 

This is the core problem. If a religion is gospel, by the very definition, it cannot be independently interpreted, and when it is - conflict.

[Southtown]

This is the core problem. If a religion is gospel, by the very definition, it cannot be independently interpreted, and when it is - conflict.

All interpretation is subjective, even though the subject matter may not be. People are imperfect. All we can do is attempt to assist people in accurate discernment (assuming they're looking for truth and not excuses for a precognitive perception.)

 

And conflict will only be a problem when we determine that some people aren't worth their salt if they have a different interpretation. If God is all-knowing, He can judge us by our sincerity of intention rather than the rightness of our actions. Doing wrong should not be punishable unless it is intentional.

 

I'm the same way with my kids (2 & 4). When they do something wrong, I try to explain it in little people words real nice and positive-like. After repeating myself for a while, though, when I'm sure they know better, I start taking their toys away and sending them to their rooms and stuff. It's not ignorance that's malicious, it's defiance.

 

In the adult world, though, defiance has a place. Anytime unfairness or injustice is dealt to anybody by someone else, one would be considered heroic to fight its source and right the situation. If the government is oppressive, or whatever, one would be justified in rebelling. But if the authority is fair and just, then rebellion would be stupid.

 

If there is a God, He has given us incredibly well-adapted and self sustaining physiology, He has given us an entire planet filled with more types of life and elements than we can count, and He's given us the whole cosmos as a sheer beauty to behold and contemplate. This would qualify as kind and gentle in my opinion. (Not to mention the free salvation part...)

 

In sumnation, defiant rebellion is only reasonable against injustice or oppression or any of the other threats to world peace and human unity. And intentional defiance against a just God would be stupid.

[geokker]

If I fervently believe in my personal interpretation of God - a giant gay traffic warden - and my neighbour has interpreted the bible as having described him as a small, anatomically fantastical fashion dolly, we're in for some friction when I ask for a loan of his hedge trimmer at the weekend. My point is that if life and death laws are laid down to be interpreted subjectively, distorted with retelling and time, date with diminished relevance, people will disagree with violence. This is further compounded with different faith systems.

 

"My God will kick the *** off your God!"

[Southtown]

Who's the better person: a murder who is deeply sorry and regrets his actions everyday, or a non-murder who just goes through life wanting to snuff everone who pisses him off?

[Southtown]

What I'm saying is, no religion is not subjective, nor morality. You're right goekker. But, before a person can even begin to come to the correct interpretation, they have to first give a sh*t. And giving a sh*t implies sincerity. That's probably why God is more concerned with sincerity, because regardless of the state of one's moral or religious ineptitude, He can work with someone who gives a sh*t.

 

(That one's for u Al.)

[Skippy]

To some, it's the sociological effect of being persecuted--as the Jews were by Christians for most of the past 2000 years from intermittent Pogroms, to Passion Play-like slander, to the Holocaust--and leaving an easy and natural opinion that any religion that has caused so much personal pain and death could possibly have been led by "the Messiah." Its obvious: its not that there has to be a theological reconning...

Cheers,

Buffy

"Passion Play slander"??????? How can telling the story which is written in the Gospels be considered slanderous? Jews admit that Jesus lived, you even say as much. They also will admit to putting Him to death for blasphemy or "rabble rousing" I think is how you put it. As long as the play shows Jews killing Jesus for those things, where's the slander?

 

Hitler may have been in a Catholic church as a child, but he was no Christian...in fact his followers were "encouraged" to be anti-religious. It would be better to point to the Crusades and some of the wrongs those men did...but then again, it has already been pointed out that man is imperfect, sinful - can't blame that on Jesus.

 

Salute

Skippy

[Buffy]

"Passion Play slander"??????? How can telling the story which is written in the Gospels be considered slanderous? Jews admit that Jesus lived, you even say as much. They also will admit to putting Him to death for blasphemy or "rabble rousing" I think is how you put it. As long as the play shows Jews killing Jesus for those things, where's the slander?

Heh, heh. See what I mean? See how you down play all this into "its just the facts" when in fact that its easy to interpret the gospels, and in fact infer from the way that the Roman's ruled, that in fact the Jews *probably did not* "kill" Jesus. The Romans typically exercised complete control over all aspects of law and order in the territories they conquered, and while Jewish leaders definitely did have some influence, the Roman rulers would have been horrified at *any* rebellous movement by someone who claimed to be God. Its pretty clear from many interpreters--both theologians and historians--that it was Pontius Pilate who ordered Jesus crucified. Even Mel Gibson kept this issue muddled. So yes, the traditional Passion Play is in fact quite slanderous, and quite different today from what it was originally.

Hitler may have been in a Catholic church as a child, but he was no Christian...in fact his followers were "encouraged" to be anti-religious. It would be better to point to the Crusades and some of the wrongs those men did...

Its interesting that you seem to see the Holocaust and the Crusades as the only things that Jews have to "complain" about. Jews have been persecuted since the rise of Christianity: for over 1500 years. They have been segregated in ghettos, gone through intermittent Pogroms, and been subjected to all sorts of vile anti-semitism.

but then again, it has already been pointed out that man is imperfect, sinful - can't blame that on Jesus.

Sounds like you're saying that the Jews should just stop being prejudiced: well, maybe so, but can you blame them? Hatred of Jews has been intense and very long lived, and is now under attack again by many in this country who are saying things like "this is a Christian nation." In fact what's really interesting however, is that this sort of "victimology" that--while being a whipping boy of conservatives for ages ("blacks should stop seeing themselves as victims and stop asking for affirmative action: its bad for them") has become one of the primary positions of certain Christian leaders who are now calling prohibitions against organized prayer in school is "persecution against Christians". In any case, this sort of blaming the victim, which is only a shade or two short of saying "the Jews deserved it" should really be embarrasing to anyone who thinks about it much.

 

At any rate, thank you for providing some excellent examples of what this thread is all about: conflict between beliefs that do not seem to be reconcilable. Many who hold views that you have enunciated here use those views as an excuse to say that Jews will not enter the kingdom of heaven because they caused the death of Jesus. How can that belief be reconciled with the existence of religiously pious Jews? There are very few who have Southtown's belief that there is no way of knowing the "actual" truth and only God can judge. What so many believe in it seems gets tied up in theological knots like this one.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

One would do well not to put their faith in institutions or organizations. Indeed, such congregations are not prerequisite for one to commune with an omniscient being. The seperate religions of the "One True God" and any successive denominations only manage to hang "dirty laundry" of conflict outside for the world to see. Oddly, and one would suspect providently, this allows any passing observer to peer into the situation free of bias since no one church owns the bible or the interpretations thereof. Kind of like stretching a sheet, requiring many people on opposing sides, pulls all wrinkles taught.

[geokker]

Religions are irreconcilable. Faith may not be however, as people go apostastic by the day (and with increasing frequency imo). It's the institutions that scare me. Here's an example of how dumb religious institutionalization can be:

 

I believe in a God called Zaphod. I believe I am one of his chosen people. I believe people worshipping false prophets are evil, heretical and will and should be punished. My religion requires me to carry a 10" hunting knife at all times. I've written down Zaphods word and am a minister of Zaphodism.

 

Now, if I am stopped in the street and arrested, I am a victim of religious intolerance. If someone in the street preaches that Jews are the chosen people, I'll be offended - not only does their God not exist, but it is proof that Jews are the enemy of my God. If I preach that all those who oppose the will of Zaphod will be punished, I'm offensive.

 

How bone-headed is this? Proof? Zaphond exists - End Of.

[Dundasbro]

Wahoo hunting knife!!! Where do i sign up???:)

[Southtown]

In short, yes. It is possible for both to be right... in the sight of God. The essence of salvation by faith is that you don't have to be perfect. God is interested in sincerity. God is interested in the heart. And He is the only one who can know the reasons in a person's heart, anyway. (Proverbs 24:12) This is another reason why I'm conviced in the Gospel, because that sounds like a fair deal to me.

 

One can only imagine where God will draw the line. I try not to think like that, and I think people who do are setting themselves up to be judged. (Romans 2:1) Some people can go to church, give charity, and still not have a kind heart or pure motives. While non-church-goers, or even non-Christians, can be going about life with a heart that pleases God somehow. Who knows? Nobody. Only God. (Matthew 7:21)

. . .

...much like an innocent passion for science would be more commendable than an arrogant proficiency of.