seebs

Which economic views did I reject? Is there anything to clearly distinguish between a view about an economic practice in a given time and place, and underlying principles of economics?

I tend to consider economics to be one of the fields (like biology) that the Bible isn't *about*.

The only economic system really proposed in the Bible is "everyone eats free, courtesy of God", and it didn't last.

It's hard to describe, and I don't remember all of the details. I settled on monotheism fairly early; Goddess-worship was never an option, because I don't believe in attaching human concepts of gender to anything worthy of worship. I have some UU friends, but UU isn't a belief system, it's a rejection of dogma. I might hang out with UU's, but I couldn't call it a "belief". And yes, I considered other monotheist religions, and concluded that, of the ones I've seen, Christianity fits my understanding of the world best. Essentially, it came down to the "was Christ for real?" question, and, given the set of premises, it seemed likely that He was.

I don't buy the "extraordinary claims" argument; when talking about things which are otherwise flatly impossible, I don't have a good way to evaluate "probability", so I'm generally agnostic on them until I find evidence one way or another, but I don't keep a very high standard of proof for anything unless it *contradicts* other theories, or I have an explanation that strikes me as "much better". Having accepted monotheism, I adjusted my burden of proof rules for things related to it.

NOGO

What exactly in Christianity fits your understanding of this world?

Do you believer that God requires blood to forgive sins as we are told in Hebrews 9 and as Jesus said himself at the last supper?

You have not answered my earlier question about why did Jesus not mention that he was here for all of humanity to fix a problem that occured way back in Genesis? Why does he in fact state his mission as follows:

Mt 15:24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

seebs

Yes, no, or maybe, depending on how literal one wishes to be, and whether we're talking about people's opinions.

I don't think the question is well-considered. In other places in the various Gospels, the universal relevance is made clear; essentially, anyone who wants is now allowed to be "part of Israel" for purposes of the new covenant.

Perchance

Aw, stop. You're making me blush. .

Indeed. That's one of the questions I had. If someone stands outside Christianity, it really is impossible for this commandment to make any sense, other than as a commandment for a particular kind of religious worship. And if someone is of a different theistic belief system, then one could say "worship Eris" and have it make as much sense.

Now that is interesting. I've heard a lot more people insist that God is transcendant than immanent.

Hmmm. Thanks for letting me know what you think. You've given me something to chew on. I suppose my main point of difference with this is highly personal- I don't think I could ever give my whole "heart and soul and mind" over to any one thing. Although sometimes I think I'm searching for a belief system to hang my certainty on, my mind continually tumbles and attacks even the most convincing ideas, either because of conflicting ideas that make as much sense which I read somewhere else or because I come up with problems with them, if not answers.

Again, thanks for letting me know what you think. I feel I understand your point of view better now. Still have to depart on a couple of points- partially because I think the entire thing is best treated as mythology, and partially because I think humility is not nearly as good as it has been praised- but it's interesting.

Thanks again.

-Perchance.

Slex

Seebs, I am really curious to know how you can consider Genesis to be a myth and still be a Christian. Obviously, there are NT passages which imply that Jesus takes it literally:

Matthew
"24:37
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
24:38
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
24:39
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

Luke 11:51
"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which..."
Matthew 23:35
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abelunto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."

Peter takes it literally:
1 Peter 3:20
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

2 Peter
"2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2:6
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2:7
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked..."

If you think that Jesus and Peter are wrong about earthly matters, then how can you trust them on heavenly matters? Especially Jesus, because if he is divine (the Son of God), he is supposed to know more than my teachers in Biology and History.

And, of course, Paul - coining the doctrine of Christianity - sin and attonement:
Romans:
"5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
5:16
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
5:17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Obviously Paul means that regardless of how righteous life one leads s/he cannot overcome death (the consequence of the Original sin, which was commited by one man). Only Jesus can do this and that's why he is sacrificed. And if there is no Adam, no Original sin, then this sacrifice is completely meaningless.

Opera Nut

I have some UU friends, but UU isn't a belief system, it's a rejection of dogma. I might hang out with UU's, but I couldn't call it a "belief".
-----------
WRONG. Wrong. WRONG. Found this in the new hymnbook:

"WE, THE MEMBER CONGREGATIONS OF THE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, COVENANT TO AFFIRM AND PROMOTE:

"The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

"THE LIVING TRADITION WE SHARE DRAWS FROM MANY SOURCES:

"Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renwal of the spirit and an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;
Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

"Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support."

Statement of Principles found in Singing the Living Tradition, Copyright 1993 by the Unitarian Universalist Association, Beacon Press, Boston. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

seebs

Jesus speaks in parables. Jesus does not necessarily talk about science much. Referring to Genesis refers to a thing that his listeners are aware of and have heard.

Anyway, it's really easy. Go look up the Nicene Creed. Do you see anything about literal understanding of scripture? I don't.

seebs

Oh, sure, there's some basic principles... but they're vague and well-meaning enough that you can get just about any belief system. My UU friend is an agnostic; he has friends ranging from monotheists to polytheists to very aggressive atheists who go to the same church.

seebs

Pretty much. So, the best way to understand that one is to ask Christians what they think it means. I think it means that it is important to seek joy in life. Make snowballs. Have pets. Watch sunsets and meteor showers.


Oh, I think He's transcendant... But, at the same time, if you have a friend who is an artist, wouldn't you say that showing your respect and love for your friend implies *looking at the art*?

Only if the invisible unicorn serves as a definition of goodness.

Me too! This is why I make sure to remind people of the "and mind" thing. I do not believe in a God who expects blind obedience of me. It would be inconsistent with my belief that I am as He meant me to be. As my faith has become stronger, I've become more committed to truth - including questioning my beliefs, and trying to work through the "complicated" issues whenever possible.

QUOTE]<strong>
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.
</strong>
Again, thanks for letting me know what you think. I feel I understand your point of view better now. Still have to depart on a couple of points- partially because I think the entire thing is best treated as mythology, and partially because I think humility is not nearly as good as it has been praised- but it's interesting.
[/QUOTE]

Treating the whole thing as mythology is certainly a reasonable and rational response.

I think humility is much, much, better than people make it out to be. Not *false* humility - but a recognition that we are all, consistently, fallible. I think people tend to get caught up in the multiple different meanings of humility and pride.

Humility is the virtue that lets you take it well when someone corrects you. Pride is what makes you stick to your guns on an obviously false statement just because you said it.

Slex

Of course scriptures are not to be taken literally. I don't take them literally, too. However what is to be taken literally and what is not I decide on the basis of naturalism. And what is you criteria? Wishful thinking I suppose? I bet you don't believe in a literal Hell for example. And also the passages that contradict with science. And OT atrocities. Or the passages that speak of predetermination? Are my guesses correct?
Note this:
Matthew 24:37
"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be".
Luke 17:26
"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man".

I personally have never seen a parable that ends in the middle of the sentence. I don't know if you believe in the Second coming. If you believe, how do you decide that Noah's flood is not literal, but the Second coming is. If Noah's flood is not literal, so shall also be the Second coming. Jesus obviously believes in his Second coming, and believes it literally. And knowing that his audience took Noah's flood literally (you'll find it really difficult to convince me that his contemproaries considered it just a myth), he used so shall also be to assure them in his literal Second coming.

Things are even more complicated with Paul, which you have omitted to address in you reply. His claim that sin (and through it death) came into the world through only one person (Adam) are so interweaved with the claims that they can go away through only one man (Jesus Christ), that you cannot separate them from one another and label the first one as not literal and the second as literal. And if you are a true christian you must take it literally in Jesus Christ.