|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why Dogma?
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see. The fact is other than anecdotal evidence there is no way to determine absolutely whether the events we're discussing actually occurred physically. Any'historical' record depends on hearsay so ultimately can only be a matter of faith. I refer again to my signature.
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I said quote:
In its nature, liturgy is a bridge from the cosmos to the divine.
Nicely poetic. It leads one to contemplate how the cosmos and infinite intertwine.
[ 29. January 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see.
I knew you'd say that - it's true because you say so. Go for it!
Actually, I have it on good authority that my namesake, quetzalcoatl, is very like Christ, and dies and rises, in time-honoured fashion. So I give you the quetzalcoatl-Christ archetypal time-lord!
[ 29. January 2013, 15:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I wasn't discussing points (a) or (b) at all, merely pointing out that #1 and #3 are logically indistinguishable.
And, among Vulcans, you would have a point. Among humans, not so much...
Yes, curse me for thinking God's rational creatures, on a board dedicated to rational discussion, should be rational.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, curse me for thinking God's rational creatures, on a board dedicated to rational discussion, should be rational.
That's one idea of what we're doing here. Here's another.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
On seeing the thread title "why dogma ?" my initial answer was "because children go through a stage when they need to be given a definitive framework". That as they mature towards adulthood they will first rebel against and then reach some sort of accommodation with...
Not setting out to upset anyone - it's a genuine psychological insight."
[ 29. January 2013, 15:31: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
On seeing the thread title "why dogma ?" my initial answer was "because children go through a stage when they need to be given a definitive framework". That as they mature towards adulthood they will first rebel against and then reach some sort of accommodation with...
Not setting out to upset anyone - it's a genuine psychological insight."
I thought that was one of the most pertinent posts on the thread. Kids (and fundamentalists?) need black and white. You can't 'mature' into a more subtle, questioning place without going through a monochrome phase first.
But I do get what mousethief was saying. In reality, there's little difference between "This is right" and "This is right, and (not this) is wrong", apart from perhaps a politeness in the way you phrase it.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Correction to my above post - not only was Christ very like quetzalcoatl, there seems little doubt also that he was a leading astrologer.
Consider this: he picked twelve disciples, to mirror the signs of the zodiac; his sign was the fish, Pisces; remember the 3 wise men, they were in fact, also astrologers; the star of Bethlehem is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, obviously; the morning star mentioned in Revelation refers to Venus; notice how Jesus refers to the 'coming age', a well-known astrological reference; and of course, his birth is celebrated at the winter solstice.
This is all so obvious, that all are convinced!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see.
If it's obvious, it will be very easy for you to demonstrate by reference to specific examples. Please do so.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And, among Vulcans, you would have a point. Among humans, not so much...
Yes, curse me for thinking God's rational creatures, on a board dedicated to rational discussion, should be rational.
Blackbeard's post that kicked off this tangent was attempting to characterise attitudes that are not perhaps perfectly rational, at least according to some conceptions of what perfect rationality is.
We are using natural language, and natural language as Wittgenstein for one pointed out, is used for a large number of purposes. Many of those purposes are not governed by logic at the surface or literal level. In fact, if an utterance is at face value illogical that's often a hint that it's not to be taken at face value.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see. The fact is other than anecdotal evidence there is no way to determine absolutely whether the events we're discussing actually occurred physically. Any'historical' record depends on hearsay so ultimately can only be a matter of faith. I refer again to my signature.
It isn't pretty "obvious". I pointed that the agricultural elements in pagan myths are completely absent in the Christian narrative. Jesus did not die in the winter and rise in the spring so he is no Adonis.
Again, I don't know of any modern New Testament scholar, which includes many non-Christians who have no bias in favor of Christianity who takes the "mythic parallels" argument seriously.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Correction to my above post - not only was Christ very like quetzalcoatl, there seems little doubt also that he was a leading astrologer.
Consider this: he picked twelve disciples, to mirror the signs of the zodiac; his sign was the fish, Pisces; remember the 3 wise men, they were in fact, also astrologers; the star of Bethlehem is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, obviously; the morning star mentioned in Revelation refers to Venus; notice how Jesus refers to the 'coming age', a well-known astrological reference; and of course, his birth is celebrated at the winter solstice.
This is all so obvious, that all are convinced!
I believe I sense a bit of sarcasm, Quetzalcoatl.
I think your example of the relationship between the date decided on for the birth of Christ and the ancient pagan solstice celebration reinforces my position and weakens yours. a wiki search will take you there.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see.
If it's obvious, it will be very easy for you to demonstrate by reference to specific examples. Please do so.
Well to start with virgin birth: there's the Hindu story of Krishna, The Buddha was believed to born of a Virgin, in Egypt we have Horus born of the virgin Isis. Reanimation claims include Osiris (Egypt), Adonis (Greece), Jammus (Mesopotamia) just for starters.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
While I'm finding this exchange great fun and I thank all of you for participating it seems to me important to point out nothing's written in stone, there are no absolutes,imo, and I would once again refer you all to my signature.
There can be no winners or losers in a discussion such as this for the simple reason those of us on either side of the debate will not relinquish our positions; there is no possible proof to be had either way. That being said there certainly is value in exercising one's mental faculties.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Ok I'm trusting wiki, but a page on such key characters you'd expect be vaguely corrected.
Horus , wiki puts as being after having sex with a golden replacement for her dead husbands missing parts.
On the whole I'd say the differences are more significant. It's interesting that there's a special birth but style totally different, it's taking liberties to call it virgin birth for a start.
Buddha (Siddhartha), has his mother married. Wiki doesn't suggest virgin birth. Although does have signs of destiny (mothers dream). I don't know about other Buddha's or whether there's a significant subset.
There clearly are some similarities in emotions, I'm not sure I'd use one as evidence of construction, and definitely not of common origin.
Krishna on the other hand does bare more similarities. Though some notable differences too.
[ 29. January 2013, 21:24: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I think your example of the relationship between the date decided on for the birth of Christ and the ancient pagan solstice celebration reinforces my position and weakens yours. a wiki search will take you there.
A proper wiki search will tell you that the earliest record of the pagan solstice celebration is after the earliest record of the birth of Christ. So it would appear that the pagans copied the solstice celebration from the Christians rather than the other way around.
It was believed by the early church that Jesus was crucified on the same date that he was conceived. It was thought that Good Friday in the relevant year was the twenty-fifth of March. Therefore, they thought Jesus' birthday must have been the twenty-fifth of December. Now if the early Church had been copying a pagan celebration, it's a bit of a coincidence that the calculation worked out so pat.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that the ancient world believed that great men would die on their conception date. I'm not sure that it was only a Jewish idea. But didn't Jews also believe that the date of creation was 25 March?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The biggest difference is that with many of these myths, we are clearly dealing with stories with a "Once Upon a Time" aspect. C.S. Lewis famously criticized people who insisted that the Bible is an allegory by arguing that such critics had no idea what allegory meant as a literary genre.
With the Jesus story, you are dealing with a relatively shorter span of time between the events described and when they were written down. If the Resurrection was plucked out from pagan myths, then it would immediately be rejected by people who could still remember Jesus of Nazareth.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The other thing that strikes me is that these 'dying and rising gods' stories, tend to deJudaize Jesus. That is, they seem to be saying that the Jesus narrative is built up from pagan sources, when surely it is saturated in Jewish imagery, rhetoric, ideas, and stories. Thus the idea of a messiah - is Jewish; the notion of a son of God - is Jewish; the notion of son of man - is Jewish. You can also argue that the Jesus story would become a huge shock to Judaism, but not as a pagan force. After all, very early Christianity was a Jewish sect.
[ 29. January 2013, 23:22: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The idea of an eschatological resurrection was near and dear to most Jews of Jesus' day. It was the proposition that someone had already been resurrected that would have been surprising.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But I do get what mousethief was saying. In reality, there's little difference between "This is right" and "This is right, and (not this) is wrong", apart from perhaps a politeness in the way you phrase it. [/QB]
At the level of individual belief, yes.
But I think what we're talking about here is communal belief - whether a community decides to adopt a corporate position on some particular question, and then what happens when that agreed communal belief is questioned and thought about and discussed by individual members of the community.
To say that a community believes a proposition is making an analogy between individual belief and this corporate acceptance - an analogy which is not perfect.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Correction to my above post - not only was Christ very like quetzalcoatl, there seems little doubt also that he was a leading astrologer.
Consider this: he picked twelve disciples, to mirror the signs of the zodiac; his sign was the fish, Pisces; remember the 3 wise men, they were in fact, also astrologers; the star of Bethlehem is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, obviously; the morning star mentioned in Revelation refers to Venus; notice how Jesus refers to the 'coming age', a well-known astrological reference; and of course, his birth is celebrated at the winter solstice.
This is all so obvious, that all are convinced!
I believe I sense a bit of sarcasm, Quetzalcoatl.
I think your example of the relationship between the date decided on for the birth of Christ and the ancient pagan solstice celebration reinforces my position and weakens yours. a wiki search will take you there.
Yes, it is sarcastic, but it also has a point. It's fairly easy to make these assertions, Jesus is like Horus/Mithras, Jesus is an astrologer, but to do the hard work of actually demonstrating it, is something else. This is what scholars of comparative mythology and comparative religions do.
Alternatively, you can google 'dying and rising gods', and you find a ton of websites, many cranky and kooky, New Age stuff, astrotheology, and curiously, quite a lot of atheists - all busy making assertions which they don't demonstrate. Don't knock them - they're having fun.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Actually, I have to correct the above post, arguing that Jesus was an astrologer. No, it's obvious when you think about it, that Jesus was a Buddhist. Consider this - we know that Buddhist missionaries travelled widely, and probably reached the Med, and Jerusalem. Thus, Jesus would probably have heard Buddhists preach in the market place. What a thrill that must have been for the young boy!
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, when we look at phrases like 'consider the lilies of the field, how they grow, they toil not, neither do they spin', who can doubt the Buddhist influence here? No doubt you have heard of the famous flower sermon by the Buddha, where he held up a flower in silence?
Now, come on, there is obviously a connection here. There we are, job done. QED. Oh, here's a nice website, just to add flavour.
http://www.thezensite.com/non_Zen/Was_Jesus_Buddhist.html
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
There can be no winners or losers in a discussion such as this for the simple reason those of us on either side of the debate will not relinquish our positions; there is no possible proof to be had either way.
True ![[Smile]](smile.gif) but you just never know! One of these days that definitive piece of information might be found one way or the other!
quote:
That being said there certainly is value in exercising one's mental faculties.
Definitely agree.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
While I'm finding this exchange great fun and I thank all of you for participating it seems to me important to point out nothing's written in stone, there are no absolutes,imo, and I would once again refer you all to my signature.
There can be no winners or losers in a discussion such as this for the simple reason those of us on either side of the debate will not relinquish our positions; there is no possible proof to be had either way. That being said there certainly is value in exercising one's mental faculties.
Theology and Biblical studies are academic disciplines, so while there are no "winners" or "losers", there are better and worse arguments.
If course, I can't convince you that God exists, or that miracles occur. But the argument you present that the Christian church simply borrowed from other pagan sources is not a theological argument but a historical one, and thus can be debated on grounds that do not rely purely on "faith."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Alternatively, you can google 'dying and rising gods',
That's actually not a bad page. Talks about the failings of the whole parallelism debate. Reductionism being the strongest one IMO.
So what if there are similarities between the Jesus story and other ancient stories?
Does that mean the Jesus story is not true because it is not unique?
Is only uniqueness true then?
Raises interesting philosophical questions don't you think?
If we want to go with uniqueness, (in terms of the dying and rising) I understood the Judeo Christian concept of resurrection to be unique in that it was a BODILY resurrection. And that ALL would one day be bodily raised in the general resurrection.
Such is the idea of scholars like NT Wright and Christopher Bryan.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
What the whole issue of multiple resurrections and virgin births suggests to me is early cosmologies were closely tied to neolithic agri-cultural developments: the annual death and resurrection associated with vegetative life cycles. The concept was ritualized; pantheistic beliefs evolved into goddess worship-the female principle being particularly significant in terms of fertility/moon cycles.
Over millennia this paradigm becomes so ingrained in the human intellect it attaches itself to any and all thought related to things beyond this world and that includes Christianity.
So, as Kierkegaard so aptly suggests: take the leap into faith in the absurdity of infinite truth; there is no other answer to our existential dilemma.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
What the whole issue of multiple resurrections and virgin births suggests to me is early cosmologies were closely tied to neolithic agri-cultural developments: the annual death and resurrection associated with vegetative life cycles. The concept was ritualized; pantheistic beliefs evolved into goddess worship-the female principle being particularly significant in terms of fertility/moon cycles.
Over millennia this paradigm becomes so ingrained in the human intellect it attaches itself to any and all thought related to things beyond this world and that includes Christianity.
So, as Kierkegaard so aptly suggests: take the leap into faith in the absurdity of infinite truth; there is no other answer to our existential dilemma.
Since you are reducing the infinite to a mere part of human experience, it doesn't seem to me that you understand Kierkegaard very well.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
What the whole issue of multiple resurrections and virgin births suggests to me is early cosmologies were closely tied to neolithic agri-cultural developments: the annual death and resurrection associated with vegetative life cycles. The concept was ritualized; pantheistic beliefs evolved into goddess worship-the female principle being particularly significant in terms of fertility/moon cycles.
Over millennia this paradigm becomes so ingrained in the human intellect it attaches itself to any and all thought related to things beyond this world and that includes Christianity.
So, as Kierkegaard so aptly suggests: take the leap into faith in the absurdity of infinite truth; there is no other answer to our existential dilemma.
Although you haven't as yet, as far as I can see, demonstrated that there are multiple resurrections and virgin births, have you?
The rest of your post is similar - assertion after assertion. Show, don't tell.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
What the whole issue of multiple resurrections and virgin births suggests to me is early cosmologies were closely tied to neolithic agri-cultural developments: the annual death and resurrection associated with vegetative life cycles. The concept was ritualized; pantheistic beliefs evolved into goddess worship-the female principle being particularly significant in terms of fertility/moon cycles.
Over millennia this paradigm becomes so ingrained in the human intellect it attaches itself to any and all thought related to things beyond this world and that includes Christianity.
Except of course that the example we are looking at here comes from Judaism, which had no such tradition. Indeed it celebrated the cycle of the seasons liturgically but entirely separated from such considerations.
Anyway, how is ingraining itself in the human psyche supposed to work in a culture that doesn't have any regard for it? It posits a sort of Lamarckian inheritance which nobody has ever found. Nor are they likely to.
quote:
So, as Kierkegaard so aptly suggests: take the leap into faith in the absurdity of infinite truth; there is no other answer to our existential dilemma.
I don't have an existential dilemma. Everyone was supposed to have one of those in the mid-20th century. We outgrew the need.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
It's pretty obvious to me the similarities are there for all to see.
If it's obvious, it will be very easy for you to demonstrate by reference to specific examples. Please do so.
Well to start with virgin birth: there's the Hindu story of Krishna, The Buddha was believed to born of a Virgin, in Egypt we have Horus born of the virgin Isis. Reanimation claims include Osiris (Egypt), Adonis (Greece), Jammus (Mesopotamia) just for starters.
If we are going to dismiss the stories about Jesus life because they supposedly appear on other god´s biographies, then why should we focus on Jesus teaching then? Of course the teachings have value in itself, but they aren´t unique either. That are many ancient wise men who teached similar things to Jesus´ moral teachings. Why make any Jesus reference, then? If christians no longer believe in Jesus´ story, then they should cease to be christians instead of focusing on Jesus teachings... Of course they can still love, forgive, do good, help the poor, etc, when they´re no longer christian, but none of those things are specifically christian.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
I don't have an existential dilemma. Everyone was supposed to have one of those in the mid-20th century. We outgrew the need.
Well, that's what Christianity is about isn't it. The bottom line of Christian faith is, imo, overcoming the fear of ultimate demise.
Quetzalcoatl: It's pretty clear assertions are coming from both sides of the aisle. Where are your proofs? If you tell me the NT I suggest the ultimate configuration of those writings was done according to an agenda: the Gnostic exclusions change the story quite a bit. I believe it'd be pretty easy to balance scholarship in favor of the Jesus story with research offering legitimate questions.
[ 30. January 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: KHANDS ]
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
If we are going to dismiss the stories about Jesus life because they supposedly appear on other god´s biographies, then why should we focus on Jesus teaching then? Of course the teachings have value in itself, but they aren´t unique either. That are many ancient wise men who teached similar things to Jesus´ moral teachings. Why make any Jesus reference, then? If christians no longer believe in Jesus´ story, then they should cease to be christians instead of focusing on Jesus teachings... Of course they can still love, forgive, do good, help the poor, etc, when they´re no longer christian, but none of those things are specifically christian. [/QB]
I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:
I don't have an existential dilemma. Everyone was supposed to have one of those in the mid-20th century. We outgrew the need.
Well, that's what Christianity is about isn't it. The bottom line of Christian faith is, imo, overcoming the fear of ultimate demise.
Christian faith as the overcoming of the fear of death is mercenary, doing what you are paid to do. Christianity is about the freedom to freely respond to Love. quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
...the Gnostic exclusions...
You started out well, KHANDS. I appreciated your willingness to engage with heartfelt questions. But, with "the Gnostic exclusions" you pretty much lay your cards face up on the table. And, there is not much to see.
Edited to add: quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me.
Knock yourself out. But, until you stop using dogma as a perjorative, you stand in the drafty arena of the Sociology of Religion, and there isn't much possibility of finding Truth.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Well, that's what Christianity is about isn't it. The bottom line of Christian faith is, imo, overcoming the fear of ultimate demise.
If it troubles some people then I imagine they would draw solace from it. It doesn't concern me in that sort of existential way. If I am wrong then I will simply never know about it. What's to worry about?
The problem though with your lists is that they lack judgemental criteria and a sense to which you have considered alternative explanations. A raft of single-sided correlations is just that. They need some sense of pro- and con-. Without that the only possible thing you will demonstrate is Confirmation Bias. All you can ever see is either agreement or something that doesn't address the issue. We all tend to do this of course, but some awareness of how you have screened it out would be needed to be convincing.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:
If we are going to dismiss the stories about Jesus life because they supposedly appear on other god´s biographies, then why should we focus on Jesus teaching then? Of course the teachings have value in itself, but they aren´t unique either. That are many ancient wise men who teached similar things to Jesus´ moral teachings. Why make any Jesus reference, then? If christians no longer believe in Jesus´ story, then they should cease to be christians instead of focusing on Jesus teachings... Of course they can still love, forgive, do good, help the poor, etc, when they´re no longer christian, but none of those things are specifically christian.
I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me. [/QB]
But which of Christ´s moral teachings you follow are specifically christian, and not shared with other faiths and secular traditions?
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Christian faith as the overcoming of the fear of death is mercenary, doing what you are paid to do. Christianity is about the freedom to freely respond to Love.[/quote]
the freedom to freely respond to love transcends Christian engagement. Seeking a favorable after-life or avoiding extinction is at the bottom of most religious pursuits, imo.
...the Gnostic exclusions...[/QUOTE]You started out well, KHANDS. I appreciated your willingness to engage with heartfelt questions. But, with "the Gnostic exclusions" you pretty much lay your cards face up on the table. And, there is not much to see.
Please explain.
Edited to add: quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me.
Knock yourself out. But, until you stop using dogma as a perjorative, you stand in the drafty arena of the Sociology of Religion, and there isn't much possibility of finding Truth. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Truth with a capital T? Nice idea but absolutes are imaginary.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Nice idea but absolutes are imaginary.
Oh, Lord. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Nice idea but absolutes are imaginary.
Oh, Lord.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
the freedom to freely respond to love transcends Christian engagement. Seeking a favorable after-life or avoiding extinction is at the bottom of most religious pursuits, imo.
Only if you've been raised in a church with bad theology.
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
Truth with a capital T? Nice idea but absolutes are imaginary.
Are you absolutely sure about that? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:
quote:
...the Gnostic exclusions...
You started out well, KHANDS. I appreciated your willingness to engage with heartfelt questions. But, with "the Gnostic exclusions" you pretty much lay your cards face up on the table. And, there is not much to see.
Please explain.
You've basically just revealed that you either haven't read any remotely rigorous book on the construction of the NT canon, or else you didn't take it in. There are a couple of fairly minor books that hang around the edge of the canon, but if you think that the NT's meaning be substantially changed by including other books that ever had a hope in hell of making it in there, you're in Dan Brown land.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
zach 82, mousethief:
ok. I should have said I don't believe absolutes exist. Rather all truths are relative to time, place and thought.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
I think some of you are over-reacting. There's legitimate reason to question the make-up of the NT.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
Extra-biblical texts exist, there's no doubt about that. But to bring the NT canon into question they would have to be 1: widely accepted in the early Church period and 2: about as old as the canonical texts. None of the known extra-biblical texts, at least not the ones that differ significantly from the canonical texts, fulfill those criteria. Certainly the Nag Hamadi library doesn't. The Dan Brown version of the Church shouting down dissent and crushing its works from the NT is simply false.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
quote:
If we are going to dismiss the stories about Jesus life because they supposedly appear on other god´s biographies, then why should we focus on Jesus teaching then? Of course the teachings have value in itself, but they aren´t unique either. That are many ancient wise men who teached similar things to Jesus´ moral teachings. Why make any Jesus reference, then? If christians no longer believe in Jesus´ story, then they should cease to be christians instead of focusing on Jesus teachings... Of course they can still love, forgive, do good, help the poor, etc, when they´re no longer christian, but none of those things are specifically christian.
I don't see why one can't call oneself a Christian and only follow the teachings of Christ without the dogmatic trappings. Sounds like the way to go to me. [/QB]
You mean the teachings of Christ in the Gospel of John where Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58)
Or the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics, where he claimed to forgive sins without reference to the Temple, an implicit claim to divinity.
Or, how about where Jesus accepted Peter's confession that He is the Christ, the anointed one of God?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
zach 82, mousethief:
ok. I should have said I don't believe absolutes exist. Rather all truths are relative to time, place and thought.
It's pretty much the same thing. PASS.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The Jesus story no doubt was interpreted in different ways to different cultures. It is true that Christians in their attempt to spread the gospel used stories and myths from the cultures in which they were ministering to help make sense of the Jesus story. For some theologians, this strengthened, not weakened the Christian story. Christ was seen as the fulfillment of all wisdom, both pagan and Jewish. If one understands Christ as the Logos, the principle of divine wisdom present at all times and places, then these stories could be evidence for the common longing of the Logos.
But the basic proclamation of Christ's resurrection is radical that it doesn't make sense why the Christians would borrow it from anyone else. The Christian claim is that the crucified Jesus in fact defeated death. Such a claim would have been scoffed by pagans as ridiculous. Classical myth praised heroes, superhuman people and demi-gods who was supreme in strength and power. Jesus was no pagan hero, he died senselessly on the cross. The gods did not raise victims from the dead, only the great Heracles, ascended to Mount Olympus.
The pagans would have scoffed at the Christian claim of resurrection.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
You mean the teachings of Christ in the Gospel of John where Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58)
Or the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics, where he claimed to forgive sins without reference to the Temple, an implicit claim to divinity.
Or, how about where Jesus accepted Peter's confession that He is the Christ, the anointed one of God?
Thanks for playing, Anglican Brat; but, Ya got only one out of three here (I yam what I yam!). Without giving an inch to KHANDS, your first is the only hit. quote:
Larry W. Hurtado. How on Earth did Jesus Become a God: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotions to Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
Frank J. Matera. New Testament Christology. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999).
are two possible references to help you fix these errors.
The ability to forgive sins is not an implicit claim to divinity. The ability to to forgive sins could have been delegated.
Being the Christ is decisively NOT a claim to divinity. The Jews generally believed that the Messiah would not be God.
quote:
without any actual verbs of his own, KHANDS quotes:
...a link to some shit from Elaine Pagels which he really doesn't understand...
Ya gotta up your game KHANDS; people are losing interest.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
The bottom line of Christian faith is, imo, overcoming the fear of ultimate demise.
I'd have thought it was about loving your neighbour and living in the kingdom of justice and peace.
Of course, if you think the gnostics were right, then it's understandable that you'd think it's all about overcoming your fear of your ultimate demise, and that the loving your neighbour bit is a Pauline corruption.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Reading KHANDS is strangely nostalgic for me, as I used to read all this mythicist/New Age/astrotheological/anti-theist stuff on the interwobbles.
Jesus is like Horus; the Church suppressed the jolly gnostics, and their gospels; the origin of religion lies in the fear of death, and delusional consolations; let's follow the Golden Rule.
Yawn. Think Dan Brown.
[ 31. January 2013, 09:02: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
