Tercel

1. The fact that the Bible quotes JC as saying it, doesn't mean JC said it.
2. He could have really said it and still been wrong.
3. Even assuming JC said it and that he was right. What does it mean?
Taken literally it could be interpreted as a comment about the copies of the OT. A Jot and a Tittle are tiny bits of Hebrew writing. Does this mean that all copies of the Hebrew OT will be perfect copies? Newsflash: They ain't.
Taken metaphorically it could be interpreted as saying one or more of:
a. the OT is Inerrant
b. God's commands are unchanging
c. Christians should obey the laws of the OT
d. True Morality will never change
etc.
Which one is JC refering to, or did he mean something different again?


You can't derive entire doctrines based on one verse alone. This is another reason I object to the fundamentalists.

Tercel

Yet only by ignoring evidence can that sort of picture be gained. Jesus and the NT writers clearly advocate that people obey their leaders (eg Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's etc) and that leaders are good (eg The ruler is God's servant carrying out His will and therefore should be obeyed etc). The only leaders Jesus ever attacks are the Pharisees on the grounds that they fail on the love and compassion fronts, and the Saducees on the grounds that their doctrine is wrong.

Hell is something I am unsure about.
The NT doesn't have much specifically on the subject, and it obviously was not a universal teaching in the early church as St Origen (c200 AD) strongly objected to Tertullian's idea of a firey Hell and seemed to think everyone would be saved (Satan included), and I am not aware of any Christian creed prior to the 5th Century that makes mention of the subject (and the 5th Century one is the Athanasian creed which condemns everlastingly those who don't have an orthodox belief in the Trinity (!!!) or believe a few other things as outlined in the Creed, yet also says -rather contradictingly- that the everlasting fire is for "they that have done evil").
What Hell is and who goes there, I don't know, that's up to God.

By not forcing others to act how they wanted. If I life my life in an exemplary way, then hopefully others will notice it, ask me about it and want to change themselves too. If I try to get laws passed forcing others to live the way I think is moral then I'm neither respecting their views nor caring about what they want. It's their choice, not mine. The early Christians dedicated their lives to loving fellowship and charity. The accounts we have show that the Christians took in orphans and widows, raised babies that had been left to die, helped travellers and gave money freely to those in need. They didn't try to force others to do the same, but others, seeing their examples were motivated to follow it.
"What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world." -James 1:27
And that's exactly what the Christians in the first few centuries did.

Then don't tell them that your way is better. Let them see by your example and let them judge for themselves.

It has been alleged that Christianities rapid spread must have been God's doing. But I think that when you look at Christianities message and the way the early Christians lived it that therein lies the answer to the question. The Romans irregularly excuted Christians for their faith. What inspired people to become Christians despite knowing this risk, what did people see in the matyrs that made them stop and think?

Paul had his own prejudices and opinions, I think we can easily recognise those for what they are.

The cut-off point was most probably the legalisation of Christianity and its subsequent transition from a grass-roots movement to a state religion. Prior to Constantine's Edict of Milan (313AD) the fact that Christianity was illegal and that professing Christians might be killed served to ensure that only those people who were actually dedicated to Christianity and what it meant would become Christians. The legalisation and subsequent adoption as the State-Religion of the Roman empire served to cause anyone and everyone (especially those wanting to do the fashionable thing) to adopt Christianity and the subsequent merger of the Religion with Political power served to shred any chance left. Because of the splitting of the Roman empire we eventually got the Catholic vs Orthodox schism. And in the Crusades the Catholic armies sacked the Orthodox capital of Constantinople killing priests, raping nuns etc.
The Catholic hierarchal structure (unlike the more democratic Orthodox) meant the Catholics began adding all sorts of beliefs to their traditional doctrines, finally escalating in the Protestant Reformation which was a right shambles and succeeded in doing little else than dividing the Church into numerous factions and getting a few unfortunates a burning at the stake. Meanwhile the Orthodox Chruch has spent it's time getting persecuted by Muslims (the historic Orthodox capital of Constantinopole now being the Muslim Istanbul), the Catholics, and more recently the USSR, which is in some ways good because its continued persecution has kept it going like the early Christian Church, save of course that its numbers are now so low that it has virtually no weight and it is all but unknown in the West.

However, I think the future of the Christian Church is at least moderately bright. The Ecumenical movement of the 20th Century has been pretty sucessful, and the Church has nearly lost all political power.
The only challenge I see now is American Protestant Fundamentalism which not only wants to put historical Christian doctrine through the wringer of their absurd take on the Bible as "God's Word" and their adoption of Luther's silly Sola Scriptura combined with 19th Century literalism, but wants to boot anyone who disagrees as "not a real Christian" and wants to impose its views on Creationism, Morality, and anything and everything else it thinks of through political power, and perhaps most importantly: has changed the primary goal of Christianity from the unselfish and charitiable "love thy neighbour" to the self-serving feel-good "Personal-Relationship-With-God".
No doubt the Devil's having a great laugh at it all...

It's when I see people here saying they're no longer a Christian because no matter how hard they tried they could get God to "talk" to them that I just want to puke... why on earth are the Fundies teaching such complete and utter crap?!?

And why is it that religious stupidity seems to always originate in America? Do you guys have a monopoly on idiocy or something?

~sigh~ Anyway, perhaps you can understand a bit further why I don't like Fundamentalism. That it's so blatently wrong is merely the cherry on the icing.

Agreed. However it's inevitable that in general people who want power will be attracted to positions of political power, and it's inevitable that some of the will be corrupt. Some level of corruption is an accepted part of politics. Corruption in the Church is bad. Hence you want to keep the Church away from political power because otherwise ambitious self-serving people worm their way into positions of power and before you know it the Church is utterly wrecked.

Perhaps. To the person who lives a good moral life in love for others, but honestly isn't convinced that Christianity is true, I would say: "Well done", so I believe would God. However there are plenty of people around who though having no objections to Christianity, or even believing in the truth of the basics, that simply aren't prepared to commit to it as it would involve changing how they live their lives and they like them the way they are.

I don't see service as equivalent to worship at all. To me service is obedience and worship is glorifying something because its nature is considered as worthy of such.

You can't help what you like and what you don't like. However, yes, you are still called to do things you don't like. But you should focus on the strengths you have: what are you good at and like and how can this be used to help others. At the same time, perhaps you weaknesses are something that should be worked on.

Which is exactly what I would oppose. Laws don't make people better people. Only people can do that, and the only people they can do it to is themselves and those who are prepared to follow their example.

Hehe

It's because we use "love" to mean some different things. Charitable love as I am meaning only wants the best for the other person. By definition the person in your example did not have such love. Perhaps the kind of love he had was an emotional attachment, say he killed her out of jealousy that she didn't love him back in the same way as was going out with someone else. Did he kill her out of "love". Well, yes in a way, but those who say "that's not love" are right too. It's a completely different type of love - a selfish one. He had his interests and his feelings in mind when he acted, not hers. Due to a deficiency of our language (Classical Greek had 4-7 (depending who you talk to) different words that translate as "love" btw) we describe two completely different things by the same word.

Urgh. You're exporting it too: Fundamentalism in my country (New Zealand) had increased by a small percentage too, last stats I heard.

Perhaps you'd like to join me in prayer: that God might keep that day from ever occuring.

Tercel

Perchance

Yes, I've heard that before. But then how does one distinguish between obedience that is good and/or lawful (I don't think obedience is truly a virtue unless chosen, by the way), and obedience that is ridiculous?

One could say, "Oh, well, if a government is acting wrongly, that means God isn't with the government, and the people should rebel." But who's deciding who acts wrongly? The people could have problems that could be solved by less violent means than an overthrow of the government. The people could have a grudge against the government for no good reason (as I saw a lot of Republicans with during Clinton's reign, and as I see a lot of Democrats with now). Jesus, or any leader that advocates any political movement, could easily have been lying or mistaken. Besides, "on the grounds that their doctrine is mistaken" makes me put my hands over my eyes. Doctrine is not, IMO, that important.

The fact that it EXISTS AT ALL (at least if you believe Christian doctrine) is what I have a problem with.

I've heard some people define hell as separation from God, others with fire and brimstone, still others as a mix. It is still deep and long-lasting (if not eternal) torture for finite sins. I wouldn't recommend that even a man who had murdered five dozen children be put in a lake of fire and tormented, or exiled from "the only being that truly loves him." Execution, yes, but that is finite.

And yet Christians, a lot of them, cling to this idea. Why? I would say that a normal human desire to see our enemies suffer has become twisted here, and built into religious doctrine. Not only do we get to see them suffer, we get to see them suffer forever, and we get to cry tears of pity from the moral high ground.

No, thank you.

Agreed. If someone chooses to ask, then that's their choice (or problem ).

But most Christians don't do this. They hand out pamphlets, and/or indoctrinate their children very young with Christianity. They tell people who don't ask. They tell people who are too young to fight back or decide for themselves what they believe or have not yet been exposed to other beliefs. They sometimes wield hell (in whatever form) or the idea of disappointing God as weapons to "bring people to Christ."

The day that all Christians live good lives (and not just good lives according to the Bible, but lives that everyone can agree are good) in silence, and only tell those who ask, is the day that I look forward to.

Agreed.

I am not sure why you consider "the early Christians" to be perfect. They were human, correct? (Unless you have a theory that Jesus returned numerous times, of course, or something like that). Subject to the same desires and changes of will as humans have shown generally. I highly doubt that all of them did this, and I highly doubt that only Christians did this.

And of course "the acccounts we have show..." The winners write the history books. Why would they write down things that made them look bad?

Along with other things, like destroying pagan temples and telling people they were worshipping the wrong gods. I do count that as imposing your beliefs.

Again, this would be fine if people did it. Most don't.

Besides, if the only reason a person is living "an exemplary life" is in order to charm others into converting to their religion- well, that is despicable and morally wrong in itself. IMO, of course.

I never alleged that. I think Christianity's rapid spread was by the sword. After they became established enough, they conquered and killed those who wouldn't convert, and absorbed those who would.

Besides, some estimates I've read say that only about 60 martyrs were killed in Rome. The legend has been greatly exaggerated. (I'll try to find the source of the estimate for you). The Christians killed far, far more when they began their spread.

Besides, even if thousands of martyrs were tortured and killed, that means nothing. "Number of people killed" means almost nothing, unless you want to count the sheer atrocity level. People die for false ideas as easily as for true ones.

The legend that Nero lit his garden with burning Christians is not true, by the way. In case you were wondering.

Then why do some Christians get upset when Jesus's prejudices and opinions get pointed out? It was only his opinion that he was the Son of God, after all.

Yes, Christians have been committing atrocities against others, even those of their own faith, for a long time. But that doesn't mean that it started when the Church became legalized. I still don't understand why you think the early Christians were absolutely perfect and saintly, and the Church after that decadent and corrupt.


"Its continued persecution has kept it going like the early Christian Church..."

Tercel, um, you're scaring me here. I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting you; I apologize in advance if I am. But this is what I'm hearing:

"It's good that people are hurting, hating, and harming Christians! That makes the Church more like the 'pure and good' early Church! Ideas are being saved! Yeah!"

Ideas are more important than people? People should be sacrificed to principles?

Again, if that's not what you're saying, I apologize. If it is...

Please excuse me while I vomit in a corner.

I think fundamentalism is scary, too, but I see no reason to believe that it's more "wrong" than any other branch of Christianity- just more visible, more easy to hate, and perhaps more personally dangerous to me.

I have no reason to think that any other branch of Christianity "winning my soul" is more right, just because they speak more softly and smile more.

And the Devil has probably been laughing his ass off since the Reformation, if he exists.

Oh, no, believe me. I've been down to Mexico several times, and hearing people talk about Chinese, Russians, and Americans there, most of which was complete and utter crap, convinced me that other countries do have their share of idiots.

America just gets blamed for it more often, and the whole "politically correct" mentality, combined with a need to apologize for past crimes even though apologies aren't any good, makes us bow our heads and mumble, "'S our fault."

Again, while I dislike and fear fundamentalism, I don't think that it's more "wrong" than other branches of the faith.

I'd agree, but my motion is protection of the state rather than the Church. Let a whole bunch of people who believe God exists and who have spent their whole lives contemplating theological matters into power, and the government is quickly wrecked.

If he exists.

Sorry, couldn't resist .

I could just as easily say there are a whole lot of people who don't want to open their eyes and realize that we don't have supernatural help in times of stress, or eternal life, and we should just get used to it.

Insisting that people don't want to live like Christians because Christianity is for the morally superior person and just too hard for the "common folk" is an argument that can be done with any religion, or even humanism. Just substitute the name.

Besides, how are you going to prove that living as a Christian is "harder" than living with the realization that when I die, that's it?


Oh, glorification. Very well. I worship beauty and poetry.

Would you accept that?


I don't see a skeptical mind that questions common ideals as a "weakness."

Besides, what I like doing most is writing fantasy (72 novels done so far) and poetry (over 1600 poems so far). People keep telling me they will never help anyeone, especially since a lot of them are fantasy and I get all worked up over problems, theological and otherwise, on other worlds. So I don't think I'm going to be using this to help others.

I would agree with this, but add that I think everyone should make a reasoned choice, not just follow blindly.

Thanks for the laugh on the rocks thing, by the way .

It depends. For example, if someone who is wounded or critically ill asks another to help them die, sincerely wanting to commit suicide but not able to, and the other person helps them die, I would say that that is deep love. But then, I believe in the right to die.

I do think the English language is deficient in some emotional terms. At the same time, I don't think that people should start insisting that "he didn't love her." They can't know his heart. They can't know her heart, for that matter. They can only know what it looks like to them. They can explain their judgment (something they almost never do), but they cannot insist that he follow their rules.

Well, there's fundamentalism in Islamic countries, too, that has nothing to do with American Christianity. I think fundamentalism is its own religious movement, irrespective of either faith or country.

You're, um, kidding, right Tercel? (Not about praying, I belive you'd do that, but about me joining you).

God hasn't had a whole hell of a lot to say about the matter so far. I think it would be more useful to pray (if one must talk to air) that HUMANS in America and other places wise up and start stopping such things before they can spread.

-Perchance.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Tercel

Hey Perchance,
Sorry for the delay in replying but I got distracted by real life and some interesting looking threads.

Ultimately everyone's got to come to their own decision on this. My own thoughts would be that obedience is good if it is not contrary to any other moral commands.

My belief on the nature of Hell is, as I have recently discovered, the same as the Eastern Orthodox teaching on the subject.
The following is an extract from a speech given in 1980 by an Orthodox theologian. I feel it perfectly represents my thoughts on the nature of God and the issue of Hell. Not that I can agree entirely with his gross generalisations of the doctrines of the West (Catholics + Protestants) since I am a liberal protestant and agree with him against what he decribes as the "God of the West".
Sorry for the length, but I thought it summed up my position on the issue perfectly. Plus you might what to note that this is the Orthodox Church's position on the issue to. The firey hell of punishment view is thus limited to Catholics and conservative Protestants.

So do I, but unfortunately I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

I wasn't wondering, but I have heard it mentioned a couple of times recently, so you've got my attention. How do we know it's false?

I don't think the early Christians were absolutely perfect, but by and large what we know of their lives gives us something to aspire to. In the same way I don't think the later Church was totally decadent and corrupt: I was doing some gross generalising.
But in general the Church has historically paid a high price for being associated with political power: I'd like to learn from the lessons of history, but some other Christians today don't seem to know their history.

Hardly. Reducing corruption in the Church is a side-effect of persecution, I'm simply noting a good side effect.
But I doubt I view persecution of Christians in quite the same way you do, and you would no doubt want to vomit anyway at my position which is best summed up by:
"Who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you should suffer for doing what is right, how happy you are! Do not be afraid of anyone and do not worry. But have reverence for Christ in your hearts, and honour him as Lord. Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you, but do it with gentleness and respect. Keep your conscience clear, so that when when you are insulted, those who speak evil of your good conduct as followers of Christ will be ashamed of what they say. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if this should be God's will, than for doing evil....
Rather be glad that you are sharing Christ's sufferings, so that you may be full of joy when his glory is revealed. Happy are you if you are insulted because you are Christ's followers; this means that the glorious Spirit, the Spirit of God, is resting on you. If any of you suffers, it must not be because he is a murderer or a thief or a criminal or meddles in other people's affairs. However, if you suffer because you are a Christian, don't be ashamed of it, but thank God that you bear Christ's name." 1 Peter 3:13-17; 4:13-16

That is a rather large number of writings! The most prolific fantasy writer I'm aware of is Terry Prachett at about 30 novels AFAIK: clearly I haven't come across your writings.

Of course: you're not a Christian.

Tercel

Kosh

Ah I see. God is actually more like a gameshow host.

(note highlighted Freudian Slip)

Perchance

S'okay. I am glad that you're replying; in the past, some threads have been abandoned by the theist in question and never returned to .

And my own thought would be that obedience is severely subject to question. Why does someone else want you to obey them? Is it for the good of others (under which I would put some laws?) Is it because they have a bigger stick? Is it because they want power?

A lot of obedience seems to fall under the last two categories. I don't think obedience is a default position, at least not for me; doubt and choice are.


I did read what you posted; I apologize for not quoting the whole thing, but I didn't want the post to be overriden with quotes, and I assume you know it, anyway.

I would say that this sermon makes the logical error of assuming that people must regard God with either love or hatred- the same error that some Christians make when thinking that non-believers really do know that God exists, they just don't want to worship him because of moral decadence or some such silly reason.

I don't think that God exists. I think it might be possible, but as matters stand I have no proof for the positive, and more proof for the negative (or, at least, proof that if a deity does exist, it is not by any means either omnibenevolent or amenable to showing itself). I am what seems to be termed an "atheist agnostic"- mental uncertainty, but in practical day-to-day life I live as if God doesn't exist without hedging my bets.

I don't think that somewhere inside I believe that God exists, and that I hate him, and that I am going to hell for that. I don't think hell exists. I do believe that the idea of Hell exists in the minds of some disturbed people, and is sometimes wielded as a whip to bring the 'strayed' back into line. The statement you posted, while intriguing, commits the usual fallacy of allowing no shades of gray. "You're with us or against us."

The people who sit in the middle and yawn with utter indifference at God (if he exists) are the ones eliminated by this statement. I'm interested in the effects of religious ideas on people, and since it's a mindset I don't understand and wasn't raised with myself, fascinated at the efforts of trying to comprehend it. But I'm utterly indifferent as to deity. I think this might be true even if I was offered conclusive proof that a god of some kind existed.


Oh, darn it.

I had read it on a webpage that I lost. I'll do my best to find it for you. To sum it up: there doesn't seem to have been nearly as much persecution of Christians in the early Roman Empire as people had thought, and nothing that dramatic. The legend of Nero lighting his gardens with burning Christians was put in the same pile as the legend that he fiddled while Rome burned. I do remember that the fiddle legend was disproved because the fiddle hadn't been invented yet.

I'll get back to you.

I think we can at least agree on that. And perhaps "what we know of the lives" of the early Christians does "give us something to aspire to." I was just disagreeing that all of them were perfect, or that disgusting things didn't happen, and didn't make their way into the history books for obvious reasons.

You're right. I don't think that suffering is ennobling or happens for a purpose. To borrow Darwin's phrase from his Autobiography, the world is "meaningless suffering." We might give meaning to suffering by saying things like "the mouse dies to feed the owl and keep the cycle of life going" or some such statement, but I don't think it has any meaning in and of itself.

Therefore, suffering is something to be pitied, and it may sometimes achieve a purpose by moving others with guilt or inspiration. But I don't think that someone who suffers and dies without changing a thing has accomplished anything, other than the loss of a life that his or her loved ones will mourn.

That's because they're not published yet. I do have the first chapters of most of them up on my website and linked off this page <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/anadrel/novel.html" target="_blank">here</a> if you're interested in looking at them.

Some of my poetry is also on the same website, <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/anadrel/poetrylist.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Some of them are irreligious, so you might not want to look at those .

[quibble mode]

Not only Christians pray. Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and as far as I know quite a few other theists do as well.

[/end quibble mode]

But I'm glad that at least you understand why I'm not joining you in prayer.

-Perchance.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Perchance

Hi Tercel,

Looking around, I found a <a href="http://www.frontiernet.net/~kissel/tlc-r/bk2e-3wl.htm" target="_blank">webpage</a> detailing part of the history of the Jewish Diaspora. It has this paragraph included:

It looks as though Nero did persecute the Christians. But the burning story doesn't seem to be as well-established as the ideas of Christians being fed to lions, and when I looked at Christian webpages on the idea, I found three variations of the story: that Nero lit the gates of Rome with burning Christians, that he lit his garden, and that he lit the "roads of Rome" with "thousands of burning Christians." Here are some examples:


<a href="http://www.oakchapel.com/Sermon/narrow.htm" target="_blank">One story</a>

<a href="http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/03-03-02AM_LessonsFromtheLAMarathon.html" target="_blank">Another Story</a>

<a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007eJp" target="_blank">Another Story</a>

Such variations are typical of folk tales and urban legends. If Christians don't agree on the circumstances of the legends themselves, I think this does make it suspicious.

But, as I said in a previous post, one has to believe that suffering can have meaning or "value" to acknowledge more than that the persecutions happened. How do you judge how much people suffer? By how grotesque it is? By how many are persecuted?

I'm not sure what the standards are. And at least in terms of numbers, it seems as though Christians have been on the comfy end of the burning stake (to steal a pagan phrase) more often than not.

This isn't to deny that Christians suffered. Just that I find it hard to take the accounts at face value when they vary so much, and that probably extensive reading in the field is necessary before I can accept any one account.

-Perchance.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Tercel

Perchance,
You said that you are indifferent to God's existence, which I can accept. I think the point being made is that once you were certain of God's existence and fully understood his immense love, then there would be only the two possible responses.

Okay I've done an extremely quick bit of research on this. It looks like:
1. Nero didn't fiddle while Rome burned: he was playing a lyre.
2. The burning Christians seems to be coming from Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived c55-117AD. With regard to the fire in 64AD during which Nero supposedly fiddled:
Why on earth have you written so much and not had it published?
Although, at least your readers won't have to wait years for the next installment in the series... unlike say... Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series!

Perchance

Oh, all right. From the wording of the statement, it seemed as though the speaker were certain everyone on Earth knew that God existed, "deep down in their hearts" so to speak, and that those who didn't pay homage to him/her/it were doing so out of hatred.

And I must admit, the mere knowledge that a being who loved me existed, even if it were "perfect knnowledge," would have to be combined with the following to earn worship and homage from me:

-A being that did not violate my own moral code (love wouldn't necessarily mean this) or could logically prove it was more moral.
-A being that didn't demand silly things for no reason, like the blood sacrifices in the OT.
-A being that could either provide new, supernatural explanations that made sense for the scientific laws that seemed to contravene its existence, or actually acted in accord with scientific laws.
-A being that did not favor one gender over the other.
-A being that would not send me to eternal torment for a finite crime.

Yes, I'm stubborn and hard to please . But all those things would be necessary, I think, since they're all wound up with my skepticism about the existence of gods. A mere sensation of overpowering love would not be enough, since that could have many explanations (such as a hallucination, trickery of some kind, electrodes in the brain, and drugs, to name just a few).

I have "perfectionist's disease." To quote Orson Scott Card:

"While you are writing something, you have to be simultaneously convinced that this is the best book ever written and that it is the greatest piece of crap ever written."

I'm too much over on the "crap" side, I think. However, I'm working on getting what I think my best one ready to submit, so I might have a chance at publication.

And I know what you mean about RJ. There were other reasons I quit reading him finally, but the main one was that by the time the next book came out, I would have had to read through about 3000 pages all over again just to have some idea of what was going on!

Right now, it's George R. R. Martin who's testing my patience, with A Song of Ice and Fire. At least that series isn't so wildly long yet that I'm forgetting what happens in between books.

-Perchance.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

ManM

Heh, I stopped reading Wheel of Time for the same reason. I figure I'll just wait until he gets done with it before I start again.