 |
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:33
|
|
Frigging blood atonement. Okay, with the disclaimer that this is only the Orthodox Christian perspective as best I understand it:
Nobody "had" to die for our sins. God is the ultimate authority, source of all virtue ("every good and perfect thing is from above and comes down from him, the father of lights"-James), and there is no higher law of prices to be paid before there can be forgiveness. That doesn't even chime with scripture. By that reasoning, the prodigal son should have worked off his debt, and the servant in the parable would still owe ten thousand talents. Divine forgiveness, when granted, is absolute.
Christ's death as the new Passover Lamb was, as I believe monkspider said earlier, an act of guidance, not just a quick get-us-off-the-hook thing. Christ meant it when he said, "take up your cross and follow me." If we want to redeem the fallen portion of our nature, which we inherited from Adam (note that we inherited his predilection, NOT his guilt), we must be willing to follow the way he took, and give up all vice and spite, and all the world if need be. I have to go to class soon, but I'll continue this later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
molly:
Glad you let the skeptics do your thinking for you. 
Can you tell me what those terms mean? What time would each of these correspond to in our terms?
Secondly, can you tell me if the Jews reckon time in the same way as the Romans? |
Gee, Benny baby, what’s the matter, can’t attack the argument, have to go for me instead?
Second time too, after the ‘chimpanzee-Australian’ comparison. Not very kerrisstian of you, is it? Or rather, perhaps it is....
What problem might I have with two accounts of a crucifixion of someone alleged to be the paramount leader and begetter of a world spanning religion, by two of his followers, that state different times for the crucifixion?
How many Passovers did the Jews have in a year?
One?
Two?
Fifty three?
Now if such an event as the crucifixion happened on a particular feast day, such as the Passover, and if there were alleged eyewitnesses who were Jewish or brought up in the Jewish faith, might not such a convergence of a high holy day and a crucifixion be more likely to stick in the mind, than if say, it happened on a random Tuesday at 11.30 in the morning?
I note you make reference to C.S. Lewis’s works. Allow him to dictate much of your thinking? Allow those dead sheepherders to do much of your thinking?
Blind faith is I think your affliction, not mine.
The ‘Sceptics’ Annotated Bible’ is a useful reference tool, like a dictionary, thesaurus or encyclopaedia.
It comes in handy when one wants to get past all those ‘Abishags begat Baba Louies unto the third generation, yea,’ and when people such as you claim that the synoptic gospels have a great deal of factual inerrancyor that their contradictions can be explained away without a tremendous amount of wishful thinking.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Molly, the Gospels were not written at the same time. John was written much later than the rest, in an essentially Roman civilisation. It makes little sense for him to write the time, in any other way than the Romans reckoned time.
This is not the case for the Synoptics, who wrote their Gospels quite earlier, around 55-60 AD. They used the Jewish reckoning of time, in accordance with the community in Judea.
I care not so much about the success of Paul, but rather the whys. Why would he convert in the first place. Why would the Christians accept him? |
The dates for John's gospel aren't fixed in stone- the dates I've seen range from 65 a.d. to 100 a.d. .
I'm sorry but this implies so much wishful thinking on your part- one of the alleged eyewitnesses, a Jew, (the closest to their leader) decides to write his account using the variation of Roman time that is out of synch with the Jewish calculation (you'll note that many Jews and Romans used the same calculation, as I stated) because it suddenly became a more 'Roman' civiliization.
The same civilization that had a shared calculation of time with the Jews? Who were at the time of the 'crucifixion' living in the Roman Empire? Under Roman law, and with a Roman governor.
The cultural milieu was Judaeo-Hellenistic-Roman- and remarkably accommodating of religious sects, unlike say the Zoroastrian priesthood in the Sassanid Empire, who were so antagonistic to Manichaeism, it flourished more in the Roman Empire and not in its Iranian homeland.
Why would Paul convert? Why does anyone? Why reject?
Why would the Christians accept him? Why do people believe Oral Roberts? Or Jerry Falwell? Or the Reverend Moon?
Because they're saps, is the short answer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Japher:
Think about it for a minute.
Both Moslems and Christians accept that the Romans nailed Christ to a cross. Where they differ, is that the Moslems insist Christ somehow survived. Now, I ask you, how is it possible for Christ to come off that cross alive, when the Romans want to kill Christ?
|
This is not true. According to Quran, Christ was not crucified in the first place. Accordingly, a likeness of him suffered that fate. 'God had ascended him to Him'. The difference on the matter is total, and challenges the whole idea of Christ's sacrifice. Christ is no superhuman, but a messenger, bringing the essence of the same message as that of Moses and all prophets before him. Man is warned not to imagine partners to God.
This is another theme that I'm really intrigued about Christianity. Why would I ever be responsible for the sins of someone that lived before me? That's against the very grain of basic logic.
What would you feel if the FBI showed up at your door and said your grandpa robbed a bank 100 years ago but was never caught, so now that they have traced his lineage, you have to do prison time of say, 20 years, for the crimes of your grandpa? Why is this an outrageous assertion, and why not I or you being 'guilty' of some sin that we had no part in? I find the idea of the Original Sin rather unholy in this respect, totally at contradiction with the glory of creation of the universe.
Islam asserts individual responsibility. Your life is a test for you, your actions and decisions in life define who you are. Your sins and good deeds belong to you. If you ask for forgiveness, you ask it from God, say from your heart, which is transparent to God, that you are sorry and pledge never to do it again. God knows your sincerity. You need no interlocutors, no intermediaries. Noone comes in between you and your Creator. God is not a guy with a long white beard sitting in the sky (I don't mean Christians think so, just to make the analogy more striking) but he's all around, he’s omnipresent in this universe and other universes that we don’t know of yet. He does not look upon Man with feudal hieararchies of lordship.
As for Trinity, it really is dumbfounding. What do you mean by Son of God? The biological descendant of God? God is above reproduction, or having an offspring in that respect. If you mean God loved Jesus just like a father loves his son, this makes more sense. But what about Jesus was God, or that he was Godly but accepted to be reduced to be a human? So what was he before? A co-God? How can you be God and Man at the same time? What kind of a limited conception of God is that?
And what about the Holy Spirit? Why would God need HS to do things? Need is a sign of imperfection, which is incompatible with the concept of God. Or else God chooses to do things through HS, in which case HS is a tool and hence not a creator...
As for the Bible, Christianity suffered 3 centuries of persecution, during which there emerged hundreds of versions of the Bible, and when things calmed down enough for Christians, the Holy Council that convened to sort things out were dumbstruck by the volume of different bibles in circulation, and through best of their efforts they could reduce the number only down to 4, which are still at contradiction with each other on some accounts. Only that shows that the Bible was surely interfered with. That selection process is bound to be subjective, and the data the chosen Bibles provide was bound to be inconclusive, so what emerged as Christianity today is general principles accepted through what is thought to be the message of God. Early Christian debate about the nature of Christ is a testament to this. Those who believed Jesus was human and those that thought he was God, or those that believed he was both believed in their points of view as fervently as the other groups believed in theirs. Only through imposition of one version over the rest, and its packaging as dogma provided some coherence.
On Muhammad's propethood. Propethood is not associated with Jews, despite the fact that many of the most prominent prophets were Semitic. All societies in history in their existence were sent a messenger, whether of minor significance or not. Muhammed's propethood is not based on his continuing the line of Jewish prophets, but that he was chosen by God to reveal the final message. That's the only criterion.
Comparatively, although you may reject the whole Islamic philosophy or religion in general, the case remains that Islam has much more internal consistency, and suffers none of the dogmatic question marks that has intrigued Christians for ages.
Having said all this, my intention is not offending anybody, and if anybody is offended by any of remarks, my apologies in advance. I should further say that whatever the dogmatic differences between Islam and Christianity, I respect the latter for all the good it represents in the world and peace it brings to the hearts of more than a billion people 
Please correct any of my comments here if you think I'm speaking from misconceptions about Christianity, that would be a good opportunity to stand corrected
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I see. Not really a fair comparison though. All the books they had, they just had to put them together and decide which ones were canonical and which were not. The Q'uran simply burned all books that did not agree with the official version. |
You are wrong first the official Christian Church went around the Roman Empire murbering all people who didnot follow the official beilf of the Official Christian church, the official Christian Church sent alot of time trying to put down vary Heresy during the late Roman Empire allway thought the late middle age. Let name afew the Adoptionist Heresy, Albigensian Heresy,Arianisn (Contantine 1 support Arianism was than possible follower),Bogomil Heresy, Brethren of the Free Spirit, Cathar Heresy, Donatist Heresy,False Apostles, Manicheanist Heresy, Cathars, Bogomils, Aibigensians, Monophysite Heresy, Nestorian Heresy, Waldensians. Let not forget The Holy Office of the Inquisition who tourted and murber alots of people in cold blood.
If I print than book that doesnot follow the Authour of the Book the way he want it to appear he can go to than court and get than court order ordering those copy
destory. Than Islam Court declare those books inaccurate and order then destory. No hidden cath of these book appear yet. Islam have over 16 major sect
that get along with each other pretty well. All of these heresy was put down very burtal by the Church inclureing the rapeing of woman and childern.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I see. Not really a fair comparison though. All the books they had, they just had to put them together and decide which ones were canonical and which were not. The Q'uran simply burned all books that did not agree with the official version. |
What provided for the unchanged nature of Quran was that as soon as Mohammed was revealed a part of Quran by God, dozens of disciples memorised it and put it down into writing. From that point on, they constantly checked and rechecked their memorisations with each other.
When finally there was a final effort to put the Quran into a single book, the same procedure was going on for years. So if there was any versions they burned, those were at variance with the Quran as was known through this process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
When the Protant revolt start in Europe it split the once
unitif Western Roman Catholate Church into many peices that didnot talk to each other for a long time, the only time talk was to hurled insults at each other, some protant call the Pope at that time than anti-Christ and the Catholate called the Protant leaders anti-Chirst.
They didnot really start to talk to each other untril 1960's. Whele the Islamic world have is split alot early in the beginning it never was as hostle as the Protant and Catholate split that took part in the 1400's and it was never as bitter as the Christian breaking up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
When the Protant revolt start in Europe it split the once
unitif Western Roman Catholate Church into many peices that didnot talk to each other for a long time, the only time they talk was to hurled insults at each other, some protant call the Pope at that time than anti-Christ and the Catholate called the Protant leaders anti-Chirst.
They didnot really start to talk to each other untril 1960's. Whele the Islamic world have is split alot early in the beginning it never was as hostle as the Protant and Catholate split that took part in the 1400's and it was never as bitter as the Christian breaking up. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
quote:
Whele the Islamic world have is split alot early in the beginning it never was as hostle as the Protant and Catholate split that took part in the 1400's and it was never as bitter as the Christian breaking up. |
Hmm, I suspect many Shia and Sufi might not agree, let alone B'hai (who do aknowledge the Allah as the prophet, making them heretics and properly subject to persecution as per the Koran).
Plus, Islam works differently. Instead look at the number of Imam's who have started another fundamentalist furor, the history of Spain is a good starter. After the conquest by Islam, it was more or less tolerant (though non-Moslem's had to accept second class citizenship that also marginalized them economically, they had to pay higher taxes). After another group of Moslems, still technically Sunni I believe, came and conquered the original conquerors, it became a rather unpleasant place for any non-Moslem to live.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
You have to realise that Islam never had the centralized clerical organization that Christianity had. Historically in Islam the military/political leadership of a country were also the religious leadership. Originally Islam grew as a single united religious empire, but that state did not last very long. In a way, the political splits in the early islam community were also religious splits. The first major schism is today perserved in the continued existence of the Sunni and Shiite sects, but even these sects did not maintain their unity intact for long. Thus each new Islamic state that became a seperate entity represents both a political and a religious conflict. if you consider this, then Islam has indeed suffered recurring break ups, most of which were indeed quite bitter and bloody.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
my problem with Christianity (aside from the illogical and irrational philosophical implications) is mostly with the hypocrisy of it's followers... and also the arrogance that some Christians display. Take Mel Gibson for example. He really believes God inspired him to make that Passions movie... he also said "God was with us during production". I'm sorry, but with millions starving, dying of disease, war, etc... I find the notion that God is on the set with some pampered dope movie star to be offensive. It illustrates the ignorant and arrogant view that some Christians have. Also, when athletes point to the sky when they accomplish something (score a touchdown, hit a home run, etc...). It's like saying God wanted them to win and others to lose. 
Most of my complaints are with some Christians, not the religion itself. The religion itself has inherent flaws and was obvious the creation of human beings. The fact that people try to portray their religion as "the word or will of God" is offensive to me.
oh, and also, all the wars and stuff done in God's name... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Remember one thing. The Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Sunni, Shia, et al are RELIGIONS. Mans' nterptation of the divine. Mysticism and Spirituality often get lost in the translation,and it can be argued that the Gnostic Books of the Bible and the early Church heirarchy represented this tension very well. The Sufi and Sunni represent a similiar conflict within Islam. In a conflict between sprituality versus organization and hierarchy the latter usually win out, it's the very nature of how conflicts work. Then a new wave of Spirituality and Mysticism will occur as the religion wanders further and further away from it's most truly fundamental roots. All religions of the Old Book have the cycle, I'm not as familiar with the Hindu's and Buddists. So one can be very spiritual with out being religious, and vice versa.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
my problem with Christianity (aside from the illogical and irrational philosophical implications) is mostly with the hypocrisy of it's followers... and also the arrogance that some Christians display. Take Mel Gibson for example. He really believes God inspired him to make that Passions movie... he also said "God was with us during production". I'm sorry, but with millions starving, dying of disease, war, etc... I find the notion that God is on the set with some pampered dope movie star to be offensive. It illustrates the ignorant and arrogant view that some Christians have. Also, when athletes point to the sky when they accomplish something (score a touchdown, hit a home run, etc...). It's like saying God wanted them to win and others to lose.
Most of my complaints are with some Christians, not the religion itself. The religion itself has inherent flaws and was obvious the creation of human beings. The fact that people try to portray their religion as "the word or will of God" is offensive to me.
oh, and also, all the wars and stuff done in God's name... |
Well, if you want to believe that creating you was a big mistake then go right ahead. I for my part will continue to pray for you in the hopes that some day you may regain your self-esteem. 
With regards to Mel Gibson, how do you know that Mr. Gibson hasn't done a lot for world hunger? Is it possible that people inspired by his movie will go out and give more of themselves to help allieviate world suffering? After all, that is a part of the religion. What have you done for the world's needy? Anything? How's about we go and start a poll and ask the 'poly crowd whether they're Christians or not and whether they regularily set aside something for the poor, and how much they set aside? Which side do you think will win?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
Can someone explain -
What was the point of the whole Jesus being Crucified thing? I know Jesus supposedly died for our sins, but
- How does one suffer in order to earn forgiveness for another for that other's sin? Aren't individuals responsible for their own sins? And if they are not responsible, how can they be held accountable in the first place?
- God is all powerful, why not just forgive people? What does God suffering really add to the whole forgiveness equation?
I don't get it. |
Jesus came down to Earth to change the relationship between God and people, in part by sharing the pain and suffering of human existence, in part by teaching and healing, and in part by establishing a new church to provide continual guidance. As Ben pointed out, prior to Jesus's appearence Jews made sacrices in order to atone for sins. Christ's sacrifice made an end to that ritual, no longer could a person pay back God for sins / crimes. Christ showed the world that God was not a tyrant or an unbending taskmaster, but instead that He understood our predicament and that He loved us to the point of making a sacrifice for us. Christ's death is the paramount example of the saying: "No greater love hath any man for another than he shall lay down his life."
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-01-2004 15:47
|