FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-06-2008, 09:18 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default off topic posts split from superiority of Christian ethics

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
That kind of explanation for the Pauline context does not require metaphorical Christ-language to be comprehensible, and can be found in all letters of the Pauline corpus, whether commonly accepted, disputed or rejected. The very phrase "in Christ" is the subject of many a journal article and monograph because it is frequently interjected (in various configurations) into otherwise perfectly comprehensible sentences in the Pauline corpus. Exactly how does "in Christ" make it "clear" that Paul "does not approve of slave ownership"?
You have a good point here in that if essence precedes existence the metaphorical must be found in the rethorical to be conceived first and later emerge in reality where it has 'being,' which then is where beauty is the persuading force of fruitfull rethoric . . . and of course is where Eris finds a home in being.
Chili is offline  
Old 12-06-2008, 05:53 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

I think you too quickly grant "Paul" the rhetorical genius to have thrown such golden apples into the grand wedding of faith, so as to create great warfare between the house of Abraham and the children of the good god.

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
That kind of explanation for the Pauline context does not require metaphorical Christ-language to be comprehensible, and can be found in all letters of the Pauline corpus, whether commonly accepted, disputed or rejected. The very phrase "in Christ" is the subject of many a journal article and monograph because it is frequently interjected (in various configurations) into otherwise perfectly comprehensible sentences in the Pauline corpus. Exactly how does "in Christ" make it "clear" that Paul "does not approve of slave ownership"?
You have a good point here in that if essence precedes existence the metaphorical must be found in the rethorical to be conceived first and later emerge in reality where it has 'being,' which then is where beauty is the persuading force of fruitfull rethoric . . . and of course is where Eris finds a home in being.
DCHindley is offline  
Old 12-07-2008, 10:54 AM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
I think you too quickly grant "Paul" the rhetorical genius to have thrown such golden apples into the grand wedding of faith, so as to create great warfare between the house of Abraham and the children of the good god.

DCH
. . . but I do not see it that way at all and will always admire and even defend
Judaism as the religion that has no equal, and on which even the mighty Catholic church is just a grafted branch in testamony to the wisdom of their ancients. There just is no argument there because for us to come full circle with our testamony that makes us worthy to be the salt of the earth we must freely be humbled to come full circle in their Genesis. So here now a grafted branch is like being a Jew by adoption.
Chili is offline  
Old 12-07-2008, 10:58 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
STARK
Equally alien to paganism was the notion that because God loves humanity, Christians cannot please God unless they love one another

SOME RANDOM CHRISTIAN
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?

CARR
Why was it a 'revolutionary idea' to greet your brothers?
Because it hurts to be phoney?
Chili is offline  
Old 12-07-2008, 11:36 AM   #5
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
I will always admire and even defend
Judaism as the religion that has no equal, and on which even the mighty Catholic church is just a grafted branch in testamony to the wisdom of their ancients.
Why doesn't Judaism have an equal? What is mighty about the historically corrupt Roman Catholic church? Perhaps you are joking. Surely you are not an Orthodox Jew, or a conservative Roman Catholic. Perhaps you like the myths, metaphors, and fairy tails of Judaism and Roman Catholocism better than you like the myths, metaphors, and fairy tails of other religions.

What about Deism? In my opinion, Deism makes a lot more sense than Judaism and Roman Catholicism do.

Just out of curiosity, do you care what people believe? If you have children, what are their worldviews? Did you try to influence them? If so, what did you tell them? What do you believe that parents should teach their children about religion? Do you believe that agnosticism is a rational worldview? What best describes your worldview? If you wish, you can answer those questions by starting a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 12-07-2008, 12:02 PM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
Why doesn't Judaism have an equal? What is mighty about the historically corrupt Roman Catholic church? Perhaps you are joking. Surely you are not an Orthodox Jew, or a conservative Roman Catholic. Perhaps you like the myths, metaphors, and fairy tails of Judaism and Roman Catholocism better than you like the myths, metaphors, and fairy tails of other religions.
Because there is only one top and that is exactly where the wisdom if Judaism is at. It is kind of like being on top of the Eifeltower wondering how people can get lost down below.
Quote:

What about Deism? In my opinion, Deism makes a lot more sense than Judaism and Roman Catholicism do.
I would say to 'spit it it' out if it makes sense to many.
Quote:

Just out of curiosity, do you care what people believe? If you have children, what are their worldviews?
I do not care what others believe and once again would never ask anyone to believe me. That which you call a worldview we call philosophy to include the wisdom of heaven above.
Chili is offline  
Old 12-07-2008, 03:55 PM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
Hmmm,

Not sure what you were saying then.

Maybe I am like the pot calling the kettle black, but have you ever tried, you know, actually saying anything plainly?

Naaaaah! Too wild!
I am reluctant to that because as soon as I mention the word Catholic I get shipped to the basement but the fact is that Catholics are not Christian in the same way as Jews are not Christian and I hold that Christianity is the abomination that ran away with the brother of Jesus by the second Paul who was preaching the other Gospel by which also America is infested today.

They are twins like in heaven and hell as is shown in Matthew and Luke wherefore Jesus came to show us why and how Matthew was wrong and he showed us in Luke what was right and how to do it right (for my part leave Jesus out of it because he was just the natural way to heaven once one is conceived from above).

In John 6:66 he identifies them as those who parted company with Jesus who had offered 'them' food from heaven that is only accaptable to those who are called by the father (which makes faith a gift of God restricted to those he had 'created' himself = just oposite to reading second hand bible passages).
Quote:

Now that *other* "Paul" who added the Christ language to those letters didn't like Jews at all, as if they as a people somehow betrayed him and his kind. He and his posse had a completely new and transformed view of Jesus's significance, no longer a Jewish messiah but a heavenly redeemer. Together, they hijacked the old Paulines and refashioned them into something new by adding the Christ language. It was a marketing move, I suppose, and seemed to have worked.
No, just call it the fire of hell that also drives the Jesus worshipers today who with all good intentions do not know what they are doing but only know that they are doing something that works well for them = just opposite to the narrow gate.
Quote:

Because I also think the original author didn't appear to know a thing about Jesus, like him I get a lot of modern push-back from those who just cannot disassociate Jesus from Paul. The need to rationalize the Jewish message of the old Paul with the anti-Jewish redeemer message of the new Paul has created the modern *rhetorical genius* Paul.
To this I say that once you are pregnant (as in 'called from above') it is easier to have a baby than not have one and we sure do not need and evangelist do a premature delivery on us that leaves us stranded on earth like an eagle without wings, and that is exactly what the second Paul was about in a Billy Graham fashion (I hope you can see why they squack so much).

Mark was also a rethorical genius who hasn't got a clue about spirutual things but is just throwing bricks in the right direction and he learned that from the Jews.
Chili is offline  
Old 12-08-2008, 06:42 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 666
Default

when humanity was a little child, they needed rules so that they would behave.

but now when humanity has grown up to a teenager, they no longer need rules, and they want to rebel against their parents (the gods, the religions, the uncool).
Lucis is offline  
Old 12-08-2008, 07:25 PM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucis View Post
when humanity was a little child, they needed rules so that they would behave.

but now when humanity has grown up to a teenager, they no longer need rules, and they want to rebel against their parents (the gods, the religions, the uncool).
Teenager? I would say that by the looks of our fertilite rate we are getting old pretty fast . . . and don't even know why, as if we never grew up!
Chili is offline  
Old 12-09-2008, 09:17 AM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
Quite serious.

Christ theology is the jewel in the crown of Christian thinking, and thus epitpomizes what makes it superior. As a result, if Christ language is in the Paulines, then by gum it HAS to be the key to understanding them. It is how I originally approached them as a teen reading the NT for the first time. Yet I could not really make sense of it all - lines of reasoning that seemed to go here, then suddenly switch direction and go there, and never, it seemed at first, really going anywhere. I could really understand the frustration of the author of 2 Peter 3:15-16, but also shared his optimism that there had to be something of value there.

That is how religious Fundamentalism is born that immitates Christ instead of being a Christ for Christ's sake, which already has been demonstrated in this tread by Sheshbassar.

The difference is why Mark is strikingly beautifull but flat in a Christ-Jesus kind of way as opposed to Jesus-Christ after love has been crowned queen of heaven and earth by the isolated elect (I see evidence of this in Paris where the Notre Dame is isolated on Isle the la Cite (next to the Conciergerie) to be compared with de Madeleine next or close to L'Opera there merely making melodies among the faithfull.
Chili is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:30 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.