seebs

Sorry, missed that one.

I do not believe that any human is authoritative. I believe that many, even most, people have good insights. Thus, I'll study with, or debate with, nearly anyone, and I feel that doing so gives me the best chance of finding the truth.

Christianity means, roughly, the Nicene Creed. I figure everything past that is subject to debate and study. I tend to consider the Bible as a *whole* to be a very good guide to moral issues - but only once you have sorted out which parts were written in which ways, and what they mean, and you've compared the apparently contradictory bits and sorted out which ones mean what.

In the end, 90% of the time, I fall back on "Love God, and love thy neighbor" as the core moral teaching; this does not appear to lead me far astray.

Kosh

<falling back into the character of my namesake...>

[Musical tones]
Arrogant

[ more musical tones]
[/b]Foolish[/b]

Bree

How do you know your entire community is Christian? Being a Christian is more about going to church - just because your community members go to church and do Godly works does not mean they are Godly. What about what goes on in their heads? In their homes, where you don't see them?


Also - what about being the light of the world? The salt of the earth? Sounds like we've got a selfish Christian on our hands - she wants to keep God's salvation from everyone else!

seebs

Heh.

*whosh* *chime* *click*

Yes.

*whirr* *chime*

Mostly, bored with the "attacks on my faith", as a genre. It's dull. It's exactly the same lack of interest or relevance you experience when someone runs up to you and says "Have you got a personal relationship with Jesus?!". It's stupid for exactly the same reasons.

My theory was always that, having seen how Vorlons react to "What do you want", that I know why they made the planet-busters in the first place; it was for the elder race that used to ask "Can I help who's next?".

Paul5204

Alli:

I have not had the time to read all the posts, so someone may have already answered your question, but here goes. First, as archeological discoveries/finds have made rather plain, Genesis 1 takes the form of an ancient near eastern "covenant" document, as in God's covenant with humanity. Now note that God calls to the light, day, to the darkness, night, etc. The purpose of these reports is to establish God's ownership of these things. After all, in most instances, we only name things that we own.

Now, consider the report of God giving that man and woman DOMINION over the animals. Which is reported at Genesis 1. Now consider that at Genesis 2 the report is that God brought the animals to the man TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL TO THEM. So, God's bringing these animals to the man to see what he would call to them is His giving the man [and hence all humanity] DOMINION over them.

Now, let me ask you a question, does Genesis 2 report that decay and death existed in the universe before that first man's proverbial fall from grace?

The answer is, yes, it does. The text reports that YHWH commanded the man, saying, From every tree of the garden, eating, you may eat, but from the tree of knowing tov [good] and ra' [bad], not you shall eat from it, for in the day of your eating from it, dying, you will die. Just one question, if there was no decay and death at that time, just how would that first man know what God meant by death/dying? Ooops. Would a just God punish the man for disobeying the command when that part about death, which is the stated penalty for violation of the command, was gibberish/ incomprehensible to the man? Hardly. American law certainly does not do so, as a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons why we do not execute children and the mentally ill.

So there was decay and death prior to take man's fall, hence that need for the tree of life to be in the midst of the garden.

Another question, does the Torah teach the doctrine of repentance? According to the Jewish Publication Society's Torah Commentary, no, it does not. However, since some have posted re Leviticus, perhaps our friends at the JPS might wish to read Leviticus 4, since as rather plainly stated therein, if Mr. X stole that candy and did not know that it was wrong [ra'] at the time, but later found out that it was, upon gaining this new insight, Mr. X would have to repent and offer sacrifice.

So guess what? That man, did not know tov and ra' before he ate. But after he ate, he knew tov and ra'. Thus, time to repent. No surprise, then, the report of Someone coming to visit him in the garden. And what does he do? Instead of repenting, he blames God. And not the woman. If the man was simply blaming the woman, all he need say, is, the woman gave to me and I ate. But he instead said, The woman YOU gave to me, she gave, and I ate. So it is your fault God. Ooops. Wrong answer.

Now, for one more lesson in the Torah, note that the man said, The woman you GAVE, she GAVE me, and I ate. The root Hebrew word for GAVE is here in both instances, natan. Is the woman a piece of fruit? To be given to him just as she gave him the fruit? Ooops.

Now, going back to what I wrote earlier, note the contrast between God's bringing the animals to the man and God's bringing the woman to the man. The animals: And out of the ground YHWH God formed every beast of the field, etc., AND BROUGHT THEM TO THE MAN TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL TO THEM. The woman: And God brought her to the man. AND NOTHING ABOUT GOD SEEING WHAT HE WOULD CALL TO HER. As related, the act of naming implies ownership, but the woman is not owned by the man, she is his equal. Hence God not bringing her to the man to see what he would call to her.

That he did call to her, speaks volumes about his state of mind. The first and quintessential slavemaster. But he was supposed to work the garden, which made him a servant of YHWH. And not a slavemaster.

Oh, and since Yeshua is supposed to be the second/last Adam, no surprise that report in Mark: You see how those seeming to rule the nations, lording it over them, and their great ones exercise authority, but it shall not be so among you...the greatest among you will be SERVANT of ALL. No surprise also, that since last time God walked in his garden, he was there to have that man repent, that we find the New Testament report that just prior to God taking the flesh to again walk in his garden, that someone [the Baptist] came first preaching a gospel of repentance.

Anyway, I am outta here for now, time to go home. And I would wager a hefty sum that you never heard this before. Which ought to come as no surprise, since as that other Paul told those with him just before he made his last fateful trip to Jerusalem: I know that after we are gone, grievous wolves will enter the fold, and they will not spare the flock. But thankfully, as the Tanakh teaches, that One always preserves a remnant.

Perchance

Hi seebs:

I did ask two questions which were not meant to be sarcastic, but which I was interested in your opinions on:

1. Why do you think of "love God" as a moral commandment rather than a religious one? (I can see the moral sense of "love thy neighbor," but "love God" seems to be about religious observance to me).

2. What, in your opinion, is the proper context for Biblical quotes?

Thanks again.

-Perchance.

seebs

That's an excellent question! For the answer to make sense, you have to include the whole set of Christian assumptions about God; if God were just some big invisible guy, it would, indeed, be a religious commandment, and not a moral one.

God is the creator of things; thus, loving God implies respect for creation. Loving God means you have to take time to smell the roses, or enjoy a beautiful sunset.

Secondly, God is the Christian definition of goodness and love, so loving God implies being actively concerned about virtue, not just pursuing it in your spare time.

There's other aspects to this, but basically, I see that as much as a question of the *implications* as a question of being faithful to a particular invisible unicorn.

Note also that it's "with all your heart, soul, and mind". I believe this implies not only devotion, but a willingness to challenge your beliefs so they grow stronger and clearer. Without this injunction, you could remain pretty petty and still maybe claim you were "loving your neighbor", just not very good at it... but no, you're not just expected to live up to the moral standards you understand, but to *improve* those moral standards.

The whole rest of the Bible, any other writings of Christians, or philosophers or moralists, that you can find, common sense, history (especially the history of the times and places when parts were written), and above all, common sense.

I'm not an "inerrant word-for-word Bible" person. I believe that God's message requires substantial study and consideration to understand.

A couple of examples:

Leviticus is, at this point, purely historical. I think, in general, the only rules people still point to on the grounds that they're in Leviticus is rules that would be no inconvenience for a vast majority of middle-class Americans. However, there's a number of NT quotes to support the belief that, in fact, those laws are not such a big deal now.

Genesis is a myth, but I think it's probably allegory; there is information in there to be had. I don't know exactly what it means, frankly.

Sodom: A good example of using the rest of the Bible. A careful read through the Bible shows that Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Christ all talked at least briefly about Sodom's sins. Not one of them mentioned gay sex in the process, clearly showing that the "popular" understanding is just plain wrong.

1 Corinthians: This is the famous "women shouldn't speak in the church" section. Someone pointed out that 1 Corinthians is directly self-contradictory in a way unusual even for religious texts... but that it suddenly makes *PERFECT* sense if you try the theory that Paul was *quoting* some of the time. With this interpretation, you find that several "key" passages are, in fact, things someone else had taught, which Paul then demolished quite carefully.

Etcetera, etcetera.

Most importantly, I think, the proper context is one of relative humility. A casual study of the world reveals that many, many, people have beliefs about what the Bible says which are contradictory; logic suggests that many of them are wrong.

When unsure, err in the direction of kindness and compassion. If you fail to condemn a sinful behavior, the world continues mostly unharmed, and you may lead someone to Christianity. (I, of course, think this is a good thing.) If you condemn a harmless behavior, you are making the world a much worse place.

Toto

I don't mean to attack your faith. I don't think there is any use to such attacks, but you are on a board where people like to talk about the underpinnings of their belief or lack thereof.

So . . . the Nicene Creed says things about virgin birth, trinity, Jesus died for our sins ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of God, one holy church, baptism for the forgiveness of sins, etc. (The whole thing is <a href="http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creed.nicene.txt" target="_blank">here</a>.) I don't think "Love God and love thy neighbor" is anywhere in there - in fact, I think that phrase comes from a Jew, and with some minor editing, could be Buddhist or Unitarian.

So why be a Christian? What role does the virgin birth play, or baptism for remission of sins, or God speaking through the prophets?

seebs

That's the background that explains why you should trust this guy's judgement.

I don't believe Christianity because of the moral system; I believe the moral system because I believe in Christianity. Before I converted, my moral system was quite a bit harsher. I still find it very hard *not* to get angry at people all the time; I'm not a well-tempered person. (My natural temper sounds more natural on me, but is harder to modulate.)

The forgiveness of sins is a doctrine that, among other things, encourages us to admit that we're wrong. It also explains, theologically, how it is possible for us to frequently act in ways contrary to God's will, without being rejected by Him.

The virgin birth and other "miraculous" stuff is, so far as I can tell, generally understood to be what makes this particular guy so interesting, and supports the belief that He was divine, rather than merely inspired.

For what it's worth, I was some kind of monotheist for a number of years before I eventually concluded that the Christian version was the one I found most consistent overall.

Toto

Interesting.

You say you think Jesus was divine, but you have already rejected his economic views, so obviously you don't think he was infallible.

I'm still interested in how you got to Christianity. Did you try Islam and reject it? Consider Judaism? Unitarian-Universalism? Bahai? Goddess worship?