which branch of Christianity do you indicate? for surely, the pastor's role will definitely be selective towards their audience. They choose a particular audience, they have particular teachings — they are a particular group.
I think possibly, the stereotypical religion is reflected by their believed distinction. The one that creates wars and disagreement, but hey, that's all religions right? I mean ironically, their self distinction conveys bigotry and superficial elitism, they are disagreeing with what people think; they are inadvertently showing they are a religion.
Reply to James Statter In my opinion, Christianity is a group of religions. To call Christianity a single religion is to assume that everyone who calls themselves a Christian follows the same doctrine, rituals and traditions, but this is not the case.
I adhere to what I consider to be the basic tenet of Christianity - to follow the teachings and example of Jesus (as I understand them) - and yet I associate myself with no particular religion in membership, practice or belief system. Most Christians would disagree that I follow Christianity at all, and would reject most of what I currently believe about God, Jesus, heaven or the bible - I also fully expect these beliefs to continue to change and evolve throughout my life experiences and learning.
I am aware that some Christian pastors would prefer to distance themselves from the range of religious doctrines and traditions that claim the banner of Christianity, in order to promote a more personal, genuine or progressive interaction with the teachings and examples of Jesus.
Terrapin StationMarch 30, 2019 at 11:17#2705820 likes
It's like claiming that no one is a hipster, no one is an SJW, etc.
It seems to me that a religion is a very archaic belief in an outmoded view of the universe, centring on a Fifth-Century tyrant in the sky who is so utterly non-ok that He requires constant praise to build Him up, whereas what Jesus seems to be talking about is an early version of socialism, with a much more mature emotional back-up than is usual. Fair play, Jesus came from a society with a very powerful religious bias, so he talks in those terms, but, basically, I'd argue that we don't feel the need to get worked up about Socrates's daemon but do need to 'translate' what Jesus says into current terms.
I do not know what these pastors have in mind, but it might be something along the lines that a religion is a set of beliefs and practices. Christianity is not a set of beliefs and practices but an earth changing, soul changing event. Beliefs and practices are of human origin, the coming of the Messiah is of divine origin.
i guess this a question directed at Christians. If you've heard alot of sermons you might know what i'm talking about. I believe religion is another word for a system of theological beliefs.
Actually thats pretty much how i feel about it. I think many christian pastors in america and possibly elsewhere are so lazy to put actual relevant content in their message that they just call everything they don't like the term religion. i dont think it would hurt the christian church if more pastors got a second job. That may be unbibilical but i believe we live in desparate times.
unenlightenedMarch 30, 2019 at 17:49#2707640 likes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
schopenhauer1March 30, 2019 at 17:53#2707660 likes
Actually thats pretty much how i feel about it. I think many christian pastors in america and possibly elsewhere are so lazy to put actual relevant content in their message that they just call everything they don't like the term religion. i dont think it would hurt the christian church if more pastors got a second job. That may be unbibilical but i believe we live in desparate times.
If it is a totalizing way of living that is supposed to come from a deity or "His" representatives, then it is a religion. This particular religion mainly stems from the rhetorical gyrations of 1st century (snake oil) salesman named Paul, schooled in Greek rhetoric and somehow convincing to some Greco-Roman communities based around the Mediterranean. You talk to Jesus' brother James, you would simply get a sub-sect of messianic, Second Temple Judaism. Much different than the Pauline variety.
James StatterMarch 30, 2019 at 17:57#2707670 likes
In order for you to prove that or for me to prove that i think you are wrong we would both have to read many books and do several years of study. In my opinion the writings of Paul very finely compliment what Jesus wrote. I believe Jesus came across as rational and i also believe Paul came across as rational. The old testament has things to say also that would both agree with what was said about Jesus in the new testament and as well what Paul said.
schopenhauer1March 30, 2019 at 18:01#2707700 likes
I believe Jesus came across as rational and i also believe Paul came across as rational. The old testament has things to say also that would both agree with what was said about Jesus in the new testament and as well what Paul said.
Yeah, I was just trying to say a quick statement. But, I think it is pretty clear from reading Acts, Galatians, and noting what the Ebionites said of Paul to put him in a certain light that was sort of hidden or reworked to make him seem like part of the original "gang". James didn't seem to trust him and James was universally considered the head of the group based in Jerusalem. The Ebionites or "Jewish Christians" were said to have a tradition where Paul was considered a liar and subversive to original "Way". Acts seems to indicate that the Jamesian group didn't defend the Hellenizer faction too much, and certainly seemed to not respect Paul, making him perform a nazarite ritual to prove loyalty to the Law.
James StatterMarch 30, 2019 at 21:34#2708590 likes
"Yeah, I was just trying to say a quick statement. But, I think it is pretty clear from reading Acts, Galatians, and noting what the Ebionites said of Paul to put him in a certain light that was sort of hidden or reworked to make him seem like part of the original "gang". James didn't seem to trust him and James was universally considered the head of the group based in Jerusalem. The Ebionites or "Jewish Christians" were said to have a tradition where Paul was considered a liar and subversive to original "Way". Acts seems to indicate that the Jamesian group didn't defend the Hellenizer faction too much, and certainly seemed to not respect Paul, making him perform a nazarite ritual to prove loyalty to the Law. "
This would be hard to prove on a forum like this. This is the job for a historian and i don't have the type of schedule to become an historian. Ofcourse following the logic i just said some one would have to ask why i'm a christian. When Paul says grace is by faith by argument is if you got saved today and Jesus thought you might lose your salvation in 10 years i believe Jesus would kill me, you or whoever today. I do not believe the book of James nor Paul's letters contradict each other.
schopenhauer1March 30, 2019 at 21:46#2708670 likes
Reply to James Statter
That's ok, I don't necessarily want to delve into this, but I have read a lot on this subject and understand the major historiographies of this subject. Much of Biblical/New Testament and Jewish/Christian historical scholarship focuses very much on the influence of Paul and the original nature of the Jesus Movement versus what it evolved into over time.
The gist of it is that you have to understand the Gospels in context of Second Temple Judaism (Dead Sea Scroll sect, Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, definitions of messiah, Enochic Judaism, the Maccabean revolt/Hasmonean dynasty, Herod/Herod's sons, Roman indirect and direct rule, Zealots/Sicarii, the Temple and its importance, the politics of Rome in Judea, the Mediterranean world in general, etc. etc. To take the writings only at face value is to do bad history, but makes for good religion.
VagabondSpectreMarch 30, 2019 at 22:04#2708740 likes
they just call everything they don't like the term religion
Why don't they just call it paganism, heathenism, satanism, or whatever the fuck they dislike?
I still don't get what your thread is about. I like threads about religion, but I can't make out where this one is supposed to be going.
"religion" in its most elevated meaning includes pretty much everything the church does, EXCEPT building management, secular concert sponsorship, and the like. In my opinion a lot of churches come closer to being real estate operations than religions, because they are stuck with these old big bldgs. that take so much maintenance. I mean, on whom could we unload some of these barns?
I am a Lutheran church member by convenience and preference (this one is close and does nice liturgy), even though I have descended (or ascended, depending on how you look at it) to disbelief in the creedal aspects of the church. Virgin birth? Come now. Really!
The church does well when its members feed the hungry, care for the sick, bind up the wounds of the beaten, give water to the thirsty, and house the homeless, etc. But most churches are pretty unenthusiastic about that part. A local disreputable church sent visitors to the sex offender facility in outstate. That is the sort of thing reputable churches should notice and follow suite.
The church I attend thinks it is performing heroically by preparing a meal for a homeless shelter 6 times a year, but they'd be horrified if a bunch of these homeless riff raff showed up in church on Sunday! l'horreur! l'horreur!
James StatterMarch 31, 2019 at 10:44#2710660 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank
"I still don't get what your thread is about. I like threads about religion, but I can't make out where this one is supposed to be going."
i don't know why its such a mystery so i'll put it more plainly and maybe you'll understand this time.
I dont like some churches.
James StatterMarch 31, 2019 at 10:48#2710670 likes
It is because the majority of religions is based on a list of rules.
In the wesleyan version of christianity. It is focused on a relationship with God. We realize it is technically a religion but they say it not one to get past the stereotype that comes with it.
In order for you to prove that or for me to prove that i think you are wrong we would both have to read many books and do several years of study. In my opinion the writings of Paul very finely compliment what Jesus wrote. I believe Jesus came across as rational and i also believe Paul came across as rational. The old testament has things to say also that would both agree with what was said about Jesus in the new testament and as well what Paul said.
Neither Jesus nor Paul would have referred to the Hebrew Bible as the old testament. If we look at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount it is clear that he wished to fulfill the Law not abolish it. It was central to his teaching, although his interpretation differed from the Pharisees. Paul, however, contrary to Jesus, declares the Law is not necessary. I don't think the difference can be any clearer.
We really have no idea what Jesus might have said and what was filtered and altered by the followers of Paul. What we do know, according to Paul, is that Jesus' disciples were in fundamental disagreement with him regarding the importance of the Law.
One other thing should be pointed out. There were a variety of gospels that were censored and destroyed by the early Church Fathers. Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon.
Neither Jesus nor Paul would have referred to the Hebrew Bible as the old testament. If we look at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount it is clear that he wished to fulfill the Law not abolish it. It was central to his teaching, although his interpretation differed from the Pharisees. Paul, however, contrary to Jesus, declares the Law is not necessary. I don't think the difference can be any clearer.
We really have no idea what Jesus might have said and what was filtered and altered by the followers of Paul. What we do know, according to Paul, is that Jesus' disciples were in fundamental disagreement with him regarding the importance of the Law.
One other thing should be pointed out. There were a variety of gospels that were censored and destroyed by the early Church Fathers. Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon.
Okay...in the other thread I was not able to understand what you were saying or why you were saying it.
Here, I not only understand...I agree totally and emphatically.
I've done several papers on both Acts and Galatians that support your position here.
Well on that we can agree, as long as we don't have to agree on the list of unlikable churches. I never met a church that had nothing unlikeable about it.
Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon.
The early church had a lot to do with creating its official canon. The official canon didn't exist first, followed by the church. The very earliest 'Christian' churches were involved in producing the texts that we fret over. Some of them were later ruled heretical, other canonical.
There is The Gap we have to mind: Jesus didn't have secretaries writing down what he said, or cameramen recording what he did. He appeared on the scene, was active for a few years; he accumulated some followers, and then he died. He appeared in a dynamic matrix of Jewish / Roman culture. The literate Paul came along and picked up the loose pieces and ran with it. Then he died. Then the generation that might have heard Jesus died. And the next generation too, and so on. Various people in various places formed an early religious practice that over the years developed into what we call The Church.
But there are critical gaps between Jesus, the twelve, Paul, and The Church which we can't track closely. We can only track it some. But the earliest church took the strands of the record (passed on by recounting stories) and made executive decisions about what would be kept and what would not be kept. We don't have the minutes of those editing sessions.
So, we are always speculating. What we have is the religion that was created AFTER Jesus, the twelve, their friends, Paul, and so forth. And the church creating process continued on for a long time.
James StatterApril 01, 2019 at 01:15#2713480 likes
James StatterApril 01, 2019 at 01:49#2713560 likes
I hear it on alot of sermons whether they are here in the area i live (Maryland) or online on youtube. Maybe i'm deluded. I guess you could google it if you are interested.
Reply to James Statter This is TOTALLY beside the point, but I just finished a pretty good book about the history of Baltimore: Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City by Antero Pietila.
It's one of several that I've been reading about Chicago, Detroit, the role of the FHA in segregation, and so on. Nothing unusual about Baltimore in race relations -- it's pretty much doing what most other American cities have done. I found it interesting partly because I knew nothing about its history.
Then of course there is H. L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore and John Waters, the scourge of Baltimore.
James StatterApril 01, 2019 at 19:08#2715150 likes
Reply to James Statter
What am I supposed to look up?
Pastors who say they are not religious?
Maybe you could link to one thing that you would like to challenge.
James StatterApril 02, 2019 at 18:57#2719040 likes
But the earliest church took the strands of the record (passed on by recounting stories) and made executive decisions about what would be kept and what would not be kept. We don't have the minutes of those editing sessions.
We should not assume that these stories were intended to be historical records. The practice of chreia, found in compositional textbooks used to teach writing and rhetoric, called Progymnasmata were standard pedagogical exercises that school students at that time learned. A chreia is defined as: a brief statement or action that is aptly attributed to some person. Something that is "aptly attributed" is not something the person actually said or did but shows us something about that person. These rhetorical practices influenced the writing of the gospels (see David B. Gowler's article in "The Historical Jesus in Context").
As to "minutes of those editing sessions" we have the writings of Irenaeus, including "Against Heresies", which rejects gospels influenced by Gnosticism. He appealed to the "rule of faith" which he described as:
…this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race…
Gospels that supported these beliefs were included and those that did not were rejected as heretical.
We should not overlook the importance of inspiration, but this cuts both ways. Literally the indwelling of spirit, inspiration was considered the word of God, the Holy Spirit, except, of course, when the inspired writing did not fit the criteria set out in the orthodoxy of the rule of faith.
The gospel of Mark was problematic because it originally ended with the empty tomb. No story of resurrection. The solution was to add a new ending.
yeah i didn't watch the video. Your right it was a stupid topic for a discussion.
James StatterApril 03, 2019 at 01:30#2720430 likes
Until i do further research or come to the complete realization of the following opinion or fact that pastors do not typically say religion is bad. yes i agree this was a bad topic for a discussion. If i am allowed in the future i will post future topics.
Reply to James Statter
Whoa, I did not say it was stupid. I don't happen to agree with this pastor's rhetoric although I understand what is intended by its use.
Do you have a view of the religious that you are interested in expressing or challenging?
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 03, 2019 at 18:18#2722830 likes
I adhere to what I consider to be the basic tenet of Christianity - to follow the teachings and example of Jesus (as I understand them)
I don’t do worship, of idols or otherwise, and I don’t interpret from the bible that Jesus is ‘the son of God’, nor do I interpret ‘God’ as literally described or defined by human beings in politically, ideologically or culturally motivated texts. If you think he taught or did any of that, then I don’t think you’ve read the bible for your own understanding, without a predetermined agenda.
The words of the bible are words of human beings who lived thousands of years ago, interpreting real spiritual experience and then using those words as tools to further certain ends. What I understand to be ‘God’ is not a god at all.
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 04, 2019 at 13:51#2725610 likes
Reply to Gnostic Christian Bishop I have followed the biblical narrative as a journey in developing awareness of God, and it has led me to interact with God in a different way than the majority interpret as ‘Christian’. That doesn’t mean I ignore the bible at all - on the contrary.
I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus, and I’m quite familiar with Bishop Spong, thank you. Progressive Christianity is a faith community in which I feel most at home.
James StatterApril 05, 2019 at 00:22#2727480 likes
Why do christian pastors feel the need to say christianity is not a religion?
Oddly, it's at once what all religious folk should claim and the very height of hypocrisy.
If something is known to be true then it's not a belief, it's just the way things are, so in that way a religion may not be a religion. The problem is twofold however, firstly, if you know something then you can explain it. No one can explain the vagaries in religious beliefs. A religious authority may claim that such things are beyond human comprehension and therefore cannot be explained. That doesn't negate the fact that they still don't know.
Secondly, if you know something is true then you'll behave accordingly. For example, if you knew with certainty that if you followed the law you'd literally receive a heavenly reward, and it was impossible to avoid the most severe punishment conceivable for any transgression, you'd follow the law. In truth, the heaven/hell polarization is neither realistic or particularly motivating.
It's not that religious people don't value truth, it's that they value solidarity with a group, a group who shares their values and goals, more than they value truth. When someone says that they're "a religious person," to me that means that they value solidarity with a particular group more than they value truth. It's not a declaration of virtue. The solidarity that they value could be expressed in rather unvirtuous ways.
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 05, 2019 at 21:12#2729660 likes
I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus,
You break the law of the excluded middle.
You cannot both believe Jesus to be a historical and literal being and his not being a literal and real being.
Perhaps you made a grammatical error.
Regards
DL
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 05, 2019 at 21:14#2729670 likes
It's not that religious people don't value truth, it's that they value solidarity with a group, a group who shares their values and goals, more than they value truth
That is the crux of the matter.
Religions are created to take advantage of our normal tribal instincts and fellowship needs.
I am a Christian in that I believe Christ was enlightened and was a truly moral person. I do not take the Bible to be the infallible “Word of God”. It’s stories are indeed myths with lessons to be learned. Some are good myths. Some are just asinine.
I believe in a higher consciousness that created the universe, and this is what I call “God”. I cannot fathom how inanimate matter collects itself and organizes itself so that it can become self-aware without some kind of divine guidance. I have yet to hear a convincing argument how this would be possible as an accident of nature. We are all “gods” in that we are all conscious, and I believe consciousness is of a spiritual nature, being so unexplainable and mysterious. It seems to me our consciousness was purposefully created by a higher consciousness. I find this to be an abductive inference for the existence of God’s consciousness. I find it to be a better inference than that matter accidentally collected and organized itself into conscious beings.
Edit: I posted this in the wrong thread, but it’s probably fine here, too.
James StatterApril 05, 2019 at 21:37#2729740 likes
I believe if a woman gets married the man will get nothing out of the marriage if the woman doesn't take a slightly lower position than the man. Most marriages end in divorce because people in our day don't understand this. Yes i do believe a married woman should submit on some level to her husband.
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 05, 2019 at 21:54#2729840 likes
if you read all of 1 Timothy chapter 2 that is in regards to inside the Church and women can teach other women in the church as well as children. I don't have a problem with that verse when you read the whole book of 1st Timothy. Nice picture that you put along with that verse. (sarcasm)
That quote was intended for someone else i think you misread the title of that post because i was talking to someone else.
i think homosexuality is a sin just like pornography and the sports illustrated swimsuit addition is a sin so yes i guess that would make it homophobic. Alot of women would agree with me on that.
Personally i have no problem with women being in charge but that being said i do not believe women should have the same pay if they don't do the same work. If they do the same work they should get paid more or the same as men. Also in blue collar jobs women very often get away with a lot of things that men do not get away with. I've been wrong before though.
James StatterApril 05, 2019 at 22:46#2729910 likes
Gnostic Christian Bishop i'm guessing you are either 30 or older and there is little to no chance you'll ever be a normal christian so i'm probably wasting my time talking to you with any urgency or you are 20 something and perhaps some one somewhere will change your mind about something. I guess i'll do a search on gnosticism and discover its like some new age religion.
Nope your wrong. Discussing philosophy is a form of evangelism and no i could care less if he believes 1+1 = 4 or if 1+1 = 10. I'm not trying to evangelise anyone.
James StatterApril 05, 2019 at 23:00#2729950 likes
Sins, like crimes, generally have a victim. Right?
Who is the victim in a gay relationship?
I also take it that you would be against gay marriages.
Why are you putting sex above love and would prevent two loving people from forming a life long loving relationship?
Who are you and your ilk to prevent loving relationships?
Regards
DL
James StatterApril 05, 2019 at 23:11#2730040 likes
Gnostic Christian Bishop i'm guessing you are either 30 or older and there is little to no chance you'll ever be a normal christian
Much older, but you are correct in that I will never have the poor morals that normal Christians have.
There is no way that I would go into intellectual and moral dissonance and idol worship a genocidal son murdering prick of a god not join a homophobic and misogynous religion.
Reply to Gnostic Christian Bishop Or perhaps you read it wrong. Show me where I’ve described belief in a ‘literal and historical Jesus’, because I don’t see it.
if you read all of 1 Timothy chapter 2 that is in regards to inside the Church and women can teach other women in the church as well as children. I don't have a problem with that verse when you read the whole book of 1st Timothy. Nice picture that you put along with that verse. (sarcasm)
If you read all of Timothy and understand it in context, you would recognise that the letters were written not as public letters to a congregation, but as private letters from one human leader of the church to another, a younger mentee. Most of what is written in them is an expression of personal preference or personal interpretation of scripture to support the way the author thinks a church community could be organised within the particular culture and historical period. They address issues of governance and political structure, and suggest rules and regulations to solve specific problems occurring in these communities. What is interpreted today as misogyny and oppression was an attempt by its leaders to bring order and control to communities where women (particularly widows) initially had more autonomy than they would have enjoyed in either Jewish or Greek society, causing fear and complaints by others within the community who were unaccustomed to, and likely threatened by, this behaviour.
That these letters were selected in the canon reflect the fears and motivations of leaders in the early Catholic Church. Whatever ‘truth’ they reveal is more about human thought and behaviour than about ‘God’, in my opinion. They’re not a guide to behaviour, but rather show how quickly fear can distort the way we interact. There is little in these two letters that reflect the teachings of Jesus.
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 06, 2019 at 14:52#2731600 likes
There is little in these two letters that reflect the teachings of Jesus.
I agree.
Regards
DL
whollyrollingApril 06, 2019 at 15:22#2731690 likes
A problem I see throughout this discussion and in the original post is that people are going to say whatever they feel like saying about a given religion, and as a result, there are as many impressions of a given religion as there are followers of that religion. Saying that a religion isn't a religion doesn't make it so. I think that denying religiosity helps fulfill a selfish desire to conform an omnipotent being to an individual's whims. It also gives freedom for groups or individuals to cherry pick beliefs and values from antiquated texts much of the content of which is antisocial and doesn't at all conform to modern living.
Saying that a religion isn't a religion doesn't make it so. I think that denying religiosity helps fulfill a selfish desire to conform an omnipotent being to an individual's whims. It also gives freedom for groups or individuals to cherry pick beliefs and values from antiquated texts much of the content of which is antisocial and doesn't at all conform to modern living.
Your first statement still assumes that the ‘Christianity’ to which this particular pastor is referring must be a ‘religion’, and therefore fulfill all the expectations you have as to what a ‘religion’ is. He said that ‘Christianity’ was not a religion, not that ‘a religion’ was not a religion.
You then assume that an omnipotent being exists whose properties are not up for debate. You also seem to be suggesting that there is only one way to interpret any text for all time, so if one disagrees with this literal interpretation, then they must reject the text outright.
whollyrollingApril 07, 2019 at 05:57#2734520 likes
The word "Christianity" is a name for a religion--if you're too stupid to understand this, then there's no point talking to you. I made no assumption that any omnipotent being exists. I said people want one that conforms to their whims. Nothing was assumed or implied.
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 07, 2019 at 13:58#2735740 likes
Not all christian denominations have used inquisitions. The new testament says that there would be "bad" people that will creep into the congregations of the church. I believe there are decent christians just as there are decent Gnostics.
whollyrollingApril 07, 2019 at 14:48#2736150 likes
It's alright, just people tend to highlight others' names and then misquote them badly, so I wanted to ensure I wasn't being affiliated with Gnostic here's commentary when he takes seven words out of context and attempts to apply his own context to them.
christian2017April 07, 2019 at 15:06#2736240 likes
I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus...
I only asked you to re-read what I wrote. If anyone is being uncouth...
I’m not convinced Jesus, Socrates, Buddha or Robin Hood were actual, historical people. They might have been, but I don’t think there is conclusive evidence either way. I understand Jesus to be a literary character written about in the 1st century AD - anything more than that is speculation. That doesn’t mean that what that character was reported to have said has no merit.
Perhaps you and I may have more beliefs in common than you realise, but I’m not going to continue this conversation if you insist on being rude. I do wonder, however, what the word ‘Christian’ in Gnostic Christian Bishop means to you...
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 08, 2019 at 12:27#2741690 likes
We can chat more when you recognize what you said in what I quoted, while denying that you wrote that you believe in a literal Jesus. If you do not have the couth to recant, on a spelling or grammar error, we have nothing to say to each other.
Regards
DL
christian2017April 08, 2019 at 14:26#2742020 likes
"Decent people to not contribute or belong to a homophobic and misogynous church. The decent people will find a moral church.
What compels you to stay in an immoral religion?"
I don't think its immoral. There are alot of christian charities and organizations that help people. Whether Christianity is the best religion is whole other topic which i'm not going to get into right now. I don't believe i'm equiped to answer whether Christianity is the best religion because i could be wrong among other things.
I would say I believe in the literary Jesus...
— Possibility
We can chat more when you recognize what you said in what I quoted, while denying that you wrote that you believe in a literal Jesus. If you do not have the couth to recant, on a spelling or grammar error, we have nothing to say to each other.
I give up.
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 08, 2019 at 17:47#2742810 likes
I don't think its immoral. There are alot of christian charities and organizations that help people.
So you are willing to ignore all the inquisitions and ongoing discrimination caused by their misogyny and homophobias for a few self-serving charities. Ok.
Regards
DL
christian2017April 08, 2019 at 22:36#2744340 likes
"So you are willing to ignore all the inquisitions and ongoing discrimination caused by their misogyny and homophobias for a few self-serving charities. Ok."
I wouldn't phrase it like that. Would you agree that Joseph Stalin was an atheist bigot who murdered millions of people for the cause of preserving Soviet Russia?
christian2017April 08, 2019 at 22:40#2744370 likes
you do understand Gnostic Christianity started out accept to some degree the divinity of Jesus, right?
Please explain to me what your particular denomination of Gnostic Christianity believes. You say you don't believe in the super natural.
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 09, 2019 at 22:16#2748590 likes
Would you agree that Joseph Stalin was an atheist bigot who murdered millions of people for the cause of preserving Soviet Russia?
Stalin can kill but cannot cure. He killed because he thought he had to for some reason.
Yahweh can kill as well as cure yet choses to kill. From a moral standpoint, Yahweh is a much more immoral entity.
Strange that you wish to make a moral equivalency between a genocidal human and your genocidal god when god is supposed to be the best word and last word in moral, and ethical behavior.
Regards
DL
Gnostic Christian BishopApril 10, 2019 at 11:36#2750060 likes
you do understand Gnostic Christianity started out accept to some degree the divinity of Jesus, right?
Please explain to me what your particular denomination of Gnostic Christianity believes. You say you don't believe in the super natural.
We, like Karaite Jews and Buddhists, are a good man ideology. Not a good supernatural god ideology. Jesus was not considered divine in the way you would describe divine.
Comments (94)
I think possibly, the stereotypical religion is reflected by their believed distinction. The one that creates wars and disagreement, but hey, that's all religions right? I mean ironically, their self distinction conveys bigotry and superficial elitism, they are disagreeing with what people think; they are inadvertently showing they are a religion.
I adhere to what I consider to be the basic tenet of Christianity - to follow the teachings and example of Jesus (as I understand them) - and yet I associate myself with no particular religion in membership, practice or belief system. Most Christians would disagree that I follow Christianity at all, and would reject most of what I currently believe about God, Jesus, heaven or the bible - I also fully expect these beliefs to continue to change and evolve throughout my life experiences and learning.
I am aware that some Christian pastors would prefer to distance themselves from the range of religious doctrines and traditions that claim the banner of Christianity, in order to promote a more personal, genuine or progressive interaction with the teachings and examples of Jesus.
i guess this a question directed at Christians. If you've heard alot of sermons you might know what i'm talking about. I believe religion is another word for a system of theological beliefs.
Christianity is a religion. Has "religion" become such a bad term that some pastors don't like it? Weird. What do they think they are doing?
Actually thats pretty much how i feel about it. I think many christian pastors in america and possibly elsewhere are so lazy to put actual relevant content in their message that they just call everything they don't like the term religion. i dont think it would hurt the christian church if more pastors got a second job. That may be unbibilical but i believe we live in desparate times.
If it is a totalizing way of living that is supposed to come from a deity or "His" representatives, then it is a religion. This particular religion mainly stems from the rhetorical gyrations of 1st century (snake oil) salesman named Paul, schooled in Greek rhetoric and somehow convincing to some Greco-Roman communities based around the Mediterranean. You talk to Jesus' brother James, you would simply get a sub-sect of messianic, Second Temple Judaism. Much different than the Pauline variety.
In order for you to prove that or for me to prove that i think you are wrong we would both have to read many books and do several years of study. In my opinion the writings of Paul very finely compliment what Jesus wrote. I believe Jesus came across as rational and i also believe Paul came across as rational. The old testament has things to say also that would both agree with what was said about Jesus in the new testament and as well what Paul said.
Yeah, I was just trying to say a quick statement. But, I think it is pretty clear from reading Acts, Galatians, and noting what the Ebionites said of Paul to put him in a certain light that was sort of hidden or reworked to make him seem like part of the original "gang". James didn't seem to trust him and James was universally considered the head of the group based in Jerusalem. The Ebionites or "Jewish Christians" were said to have a tradition where Paul was considered a liar and subversive to original "Way". Acts seems to indicate that the Jamesian group didn't defend the Hellenizer faction too much, and certainly seemed to not respect Paul, making him perform a nazarite ritual to prove loyalty to the Law.
"Yeah, I was just trying to say a quick statement. But, I think it is pretty clear from reading Acts, Galatians, and noting what the Ebionites said of Paul to put him in a certain light that was sort of hidden or reworked to make him seem like part of the original "gang". James didn't seem to trust him and James was universally considered the head of the group based in Jerusalem. The Ebionites or "Jewish Christians" were said to have a tradition where Paul was considered a liar and subversive to original "Way". Acts seems to indicate that the Jamesian group didn't defend the Hellenizer faction too much, and certainly seemed to not respect Paul, making him perform a nazarite ritual to prove loyalty to the Law. "
This would be hard to prove on a forum like this. This is the job for a historian and i don't have the type of schedule to become an historian. Ofcourse following the logic i just said some one would have to ask why i'm a christian. When Paul says grace is by faith by argument is if you got saved today and Jesus thought you might lose your salvation in 10 years i believe Jesus would kill me, you or whoever today. I do not believe the book of James nor Paul's letters contradict each other.
That's ok, I don't necessarily want to delve into this, but I have read a lot on this subject and understand the major historiographies of this subject. Much of Biblical/New Testament and Jewish/Christian historical scholarship focuses very much on the influence of Paul and the original nature of the Jesus Movement versus what it evolved into over time.
The gist of it is that you have to understand the Gospels in context of Second Temple Judaism (Dead Sea Scroll sect, Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, definitions of messiah, Enochic Judaism, the Maccabean revolt/Hasmonean dynasty, Herod/Herod's sons, Roman indirect and direct rule, Zealots/Sicarii, the Temple and its importance, the politics of Rome in Judea, the Mediterranean world in general, etc. etc. To take the writings only at face value is to do bad history, but makes for good religion.
Why would anyone say it? Because they wan't to frame it as factual truth probably. It's a reactionary position brought on by science-envy.
Why don't they just call it paganism, heathenism, satanism, or whatever the fuck they dislike?
I still don't get what your thread is about. I like threads about religion, but I can't make out where this one is supposed to be going.
"religion" in its most elevated meaning includes pretty much everything the church does, EXCEPT building management, secular concert sponsorship, and the like. In my opinion a lot of churches come closer to being real estate operations than religions, because they are stuck with these old big bldgs. that take so much maintenance. I mean, on whom could we unload some of these barns?
I am a Lutheran church member by convenience and preference (this one is close and does nice liturgy), even though I have descended (or ascended, depending on how you look at it) to disbelief in the creedal aspects of the church. Virgin birth? Come now. Really!
The church does well when its members feed the hungry, care for the sick, bind up the wounds of the beaten, give water to the thirsty, and house the homeless, etc. But most churches are pretty unenthusiastic about that part. A local disreputable church sent visitors to the sex offender facility in outstate. That is the sort of thing reputable churches should notice and follow suite.
The church I attend thinks it is performing heroically by preparing a meal for a homeless shelter 6 times a year, but they'd be horrified if a bunch of these homeless riff raff showed up in church on Sunday! l'horreur! l'horreur!
"I still don't get what your thread is about. I like threads about religion, but I can't make out where this one is supposed to be going."
i don't know why its such a mystery so i'll put it more plainly and maybe you'll understand this time.
I dont like some churches.
"Why would anyone say it? Because they wan't to frame it as factual truth probably. It's a reactionary position brought on by science-envy. "
Without pulling up 100s of sermons there is no way for me to prove that. You are correct.
In the wesleyan version of christianity. It is focused on a relationship with God. We realize it is technically a religion but they say it not one to get past the stereotype that comes with it.
Context always matters.
Neither Jesus nor Paul would have referred to the Hebrew Bible as the old testament. If we look at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount it is clear that he wished to fulfill the Law not abolish it. It was central to his teaching, although his interpretation differed from the Pharisees. Paul, however, contrary to Jesus, declares the Law is not necessary. I don't think the difference can be any clearer.
We really have no idea what Jesus might have said and what was filtered and altered by the followers of Paul. What we do know, according to Paul, is that Jesus' disciples were in fundamental disagreement with him regarding the importance of the Law.
One other thing should be pointed out. There were a variety of gospels that were censored and destroyed by the early Church Fathers. Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon.
Okay...in the other thread I was not able to understand what you were saying or why you were saying it.
Here, I not only understand...I agree totally and emphatically.
I've done several papers on both Acts and Galatians that support your position here.
Well on that we can agree, as long as we don't have to agree on the list of unlikable churches. I never met a church that had nothing unlikeable about it.
Quoting Fooloso4
The early church had a lot to do with creating its official canon. The official canon didn't exist first, followed by the church. The very earliest 'Christian' churches were involved in producing the texts that we fret over. Some of them were later ruled heretical, other canonical.
There is The Gap we have to mind: Jesus didn't have secretaries writing down what he said, or cameramen recording what he did. He appeared on the scene, was active for a few years; he accumulated some followers, and then he died. He appeared in a dynamic matrix of Jewish / Roman culture. The literate Paul came along and picked up the loose pieces and ran with it. Then he died. Then the generation that might have heard Jesus died. And the next generation too, and so on. Various people in various places formed an early religious practice that over the years developed into what we call The Church.
But there are critical gaps between Jesus, the twelve, Paul, and The Church which we can't track closely. We can only track it some. But the earliest church took the strands of the record (passed on by recounting stories) and made executive decisions about what would be kept and what would not be kept. We don't have the minutes of those editing sessions.
So, we are always speculating. What we have is the religion that was created AFTER Jesus, the twelve, their friends, Paul, and so forth. And the church creating process continued on for a long time.
That was well said. I really wish i had a good argument against that.
Who is saying it is not a religion?
I don't get it.
It's one of several that I've been reading about Chicago, Detroit, the role of the FHA in segregation, and so on. Nothing unusual about Baltimore in race relations -- it's pretty much doing what most other American cities have done. I found it interesting partly because I knew nothing about its history.
Then of course there is H. L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore and John Waters, the scourge of Baltimore.
My next pay check i'll look it up on amazon
whatever
What am I supposed to look up?
Pastors who say they are not religious?
Maybe you could link to one thing that you would like to challenge.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sermon+on+danger+of+religion+%2b+youtube&&view=detail&mid=47F3149EDF2B0F41663247F3149EDF2B0F416632&&FORM=VRDGAR
this is just one of many. Google "sermon on religion" + youtube or "sermon on danger of religion" + youtue on google or bing.
I'm not convinced you tried to do a search yourself.
We should not assume that these stories were intended to be historical records. The practice of chreia, found in compositional textbooks used to teach writing and rhetoric, called Progymnasmata were standard pedagogical exercises that school students at that time learned. A chreia is defined as: a brief statement or action that is aptly attributed to some person. Something that is "aptly attributed" is not something the person actually said or did but shows us something about that person. These rhetorical practices influenced the writing of the gospels (see David B. Gowler's article in "The Historical Jesus in Context").
As to "minutes of those editing sessions" we have the writings of Irenaeus, including "Against Heresies", which rejects gospels influenced by Gnosticism. He appealed to the "rule of faith" which he described as:
Gospels that supported these beliefs were included and those that did not were rejected as heretical.
We should not overlook the importance of inspiration, but this cuts both ways. Literally the indwelling of spirit, inspiration was considered the word of God, the Holy Spirit, except, of course, when the inspired writing did not fit the criteria set out in the orthodoxy of the rule of faith.
The gospel of Mark was problematic because it originally ended with the empty tomb. No story of resurrection. The solution was to add a new ending.
This pastor is speaking rhetorically in regards to the use of the word "religion" in order to express a religious thought.
yeah i didn't watch the video. Your right it was a stupid topic for a discussion.
Whoa, I did not say it was stupid. I don't happen to agree with this pastor's rhetoric although I understand what is intended by its use.
Do you have a view of the religious that you are interested in expressing or challenging?
That would include the idol worship of a genocidal son murdering god. Right?
Is that not a turn off for you from a moral POV?
Regards
DL
Quoting Possibility
I don’t do worship, of idols or otherwise, and I don’t interpret from the bible that Jesus is ‘the son of God’, nor do I interpret ‘God’ as literally described or defined by human beings in politically, ideologically or culturally motivated texts. If you think he taught or did any of that, then I don’t think you’ve read the bible for your own understanding, without a predetermined agenda.
The words of the bible are words of human beings who lived thousands of years ago, interpreting real spiritual experience and then using those words as tools to further certain ends. What I understand to be ‘God’ is not a god at all.
IOW, you have created your own god, without looking at, or not accepting, the biblical narrative.
Why then do you call yourself a Christian?
You say you do not read the bible literally, but must if you are to believe in a literal Jesus.
This might interest you.
Jesus for the non religious - Retired bishop John Spong on religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUmKEH9jnu8
Regards
DL
I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus, and I’m quite familiar with Bishop Spong, thank you. Progressive Christianity is a faith community in which I feel most at home.
I consider my self a christian and i blame money hungry pastors with an over simplified message on the dying Christian church. Thats my personal view.
Oddly, it's at once what all religious folk should claim and the very height of hypocrisy.
If something is known to be true then it's not a belief, it's just the way things are, so in that way a religion may not be a religion. The problem is twofold however, firstly, if you know something then you can explain it. No one can explain the vagaries in religious beliefs. A religious authority may claim that such things are beyond human comprehension and therefore cannot be explained. That doesn't negate the fact that they still don't know.
Secondly, if you know something is true then you'll behave accordingly. For example, if you knew with certainty that if you followed the law you'd literally receive a heavenly reward, and it was impossible to avoid the most severe punishment conceivable for any transgression, you'd follow the law. In truth, the heaven/hell polarization is neither realistic or particularly motivating.
It's not that religious people don't value truth, it's that they value solidarity with a group, a group who shares their values and goals, more than they value truth. When someone says that they're "a religious person," to me that means that they value solidarity with a particular group more than they value truth. It's not a declaration of virtue. The solidarity that they value could be expressed in rather unvirtuous ways.
You break the law of the excluded middle.
You cannot both believe Jesus to be a historical and literal being and his not being a literal and real being.
Perhaps you made a grammatical error.
Regards
DL
What compels you to be a Christian and follow a genocidal son murdering god and his homophobic and misogynous religion?
Regards
DL
That is the crux of the matter.
Religions are created to take advantage of our normal tribal instincts and fellowship needs.
Regards
DL
I believe in a higher consciousness that created the universe, and this is what I call “God”. I cannot fathom how inanimate matter collects itself and organizes itself so that it can become self-aware without some kind of divine guidance. I have yet to hear a convincing argument how this would be possible as an accident of nature. We are all “gods” in that we are all conscious, and I believe consciousness is of a spiritual nature, being so unexplainable and mysterious. It seems to me our consciousness was purposefully created by a higher consciousness. I find this to be an abductive inference for the existence of God’s consciousness. I find it to be a better inference than that matter accidentally collected and organized itself into conscious beings.
Edit: I posted this in the wrong thread, but it’s probably fine here, too.
I attempted to answer some of this question elsewhere but how is the God of the Bible misogynistic?
I believe if a woman gets married the man will get nothing out of the marriage if the woman doesn't take a slightly lower position than the man. Most marriages end in divorce because people in our day don't understand this. Yes i do believe a married woman should submit on some level to her husband.
I answered at the other location and hope you reply there.
Regards
DL
For one, he forgot that men need women to reproduce when he created Adam without his rib woman.
I do not think I said god was misogynous. I often say that Christianity is as well as being homophobic.
Their misogyny is plainly seen in Gen 3 when god says--- he shall rule over you, as well as in the
Regards
DL
if you read all of 1 Timothy chapter 2 that is in regards to inside the Church and women can teach other women in the church as well as children. I don't have a problem with that verse when you read the whole book of 1st Timothy. Nice picture that you put along with that verse. (sarcasm)
That quote was intended for someone else i think you misread the title of that post because i was talking to someone else.
i think homosexuality is a sin just like pornography and the sports illustrated swimsuit addition is a sin so yes i guess that would make it homophobic. Alot of women would agree with me on that.
Personally i have no problem with women being in charge but that being said i do not believe women should have the same pay if they don't do the same work. If they do the same work they should get paid more or the same as men. Also in blue collar jobs women very often get away with a lot of things that men do not get away with. I've been wrong before though.
That sounds like you are trying to convert him rather than having a friendly discussion. Evangelism isn’t allowed here.
Nope your wrong. Discussing philosophy is a form of evangelism and no i could care less if he believes 1+1 = 4 or if 1+1 = 10. I'm not trying to evangelise anyone.
Maybe. It depends on your intentions.
Nope because most people are more likely to tell others how it is than to listen to the advice of others.
No No No No.
Hee-haw! Hee-haw!
No its shenoo
Sins, like crimes, generally have a victim. Right?
Who is the victim in a gay relationship?
I also take it that you would be against gay marriages.
Why are you putting sex above love and would prevent two loving people from forming a life long loving relationship?
Who are you and your ilk to prevent loving relationships?
Regards
DL
your right.
Much older, but you are correct in that I will never have the poor morals that normal Christians have.
There is no way that I would go into intellectual and moral dissonance and idol worship a genocidal son murdering prick of a god not join a homophobic and misogynous religion.
Quoting James Statter
More like the new age religions have seen the wisdom in our ideology and are moving towards it.
You say new age as if that were a bad thing.
I see it as good as they do not look for a genocidal prick of a god like your god to emulate.
Regards
DL
blah blah blah
I do not know what you are referring to.
Regards
DL
Thanks for showing you are under the age of maturity.
Regards
DL
If you read all of Timothy and understand it in context, you would recognise that the letters were written not as public letters to a congregation, but as private letters from one human leader of the church to another, a younger mentee. Most of what is written in them is an expression of personal preference or personal interpretation of scripture to support the way the author thinks a church community could be organised within the particular culture and historical period. They address issues of governance and political structure, and suggest rules and regulations to solve specific problems occurring in these communities. What is interpreted today as misogyny and oppression was an attempt by its leaders to bring order and control to communities where women (particularly widows) initially had more autonomy than they would have enjoyed in either Jewish or Greek society, causing fear and complaints by others within the community who were unaccustomed to, and likely threatened by, this behaviour.
That these letters were selected in the canon reflect the fears and motivations of leaders in the early Catholic Church. Whatever ‘truth’ they reveal is more about human thought and behaviour than about ‘God’, in my opinion. They’re not a guide to behaviour, but rather show how quickly fear can distort the way we interact. There is little in these two letters that reflect the teachings of Jesus.
From your post above.
" I would say I believe in the literary Jesus,"
I questioned you on it but you did not reply.
Regards
DL
I agree.
Regards
DL
Are you confusing ‘literal’ with ‘literary’?
Your first statement still assumes that the ‘Christianity’ to which this particular pastor is referring must be a ‘religion’, and therefore fulfill all the expectations you have as to what a ‘religion’ is. He said that ‘Christianity’ was not a religion, not that ‘a religion’ was not a religion.
You then assume that an omnipotent being exists whose properties are not up for debate. You also seem to be suggesting that there is only one way to interpret any text for all time, so if one disagrees with this literal interpretation, then they must reject the text outright.
The word "Christianity" is a name for a religion--if you're too stupid to understand this, then there's no point talking to you. I made no assumption that any omnipotent being exists. I said people want one that conforms to their whims. Nothing was assumed or implied.
Indeed. Like the religions that use inquisitions and jihads and are presently homophobic and misogynous like Christianity and Islam.
Regards
DL
Is that the word you used? No. So no.
Thanks for showing your lack of couth.
Regards
DL
Not all christian denominations have used inquisitions. The new testament says that there would be "bad" people that will creep into the congregations of the church. I believe there are decent christians just as there are decent Gnostics.
Why did you group me into that comment? It has nothing to do with me.
i clicked the wrong button i'm sorry. I haven't fully figured out the way this website is set up yet.
It's alright, just people tend to highlight others' names and then misquote them badly, so I wanted to ensure I wasn't being affiliated with Gnostic here's commentary when he takes seven words out of context and attempts to apply his own context to them.
ok. Yeah thats not the first time i hit the wrong button.
Quoting Possibility
I only asked you to re-read what I wrote. If anyone is being uncouth...
I’m not convinced Jesus, Socrates, Buddha or Robin Hood were actual, historical people. They might have been, but I don’t think there is conclusive evidence either way. I understand Jesus to be a literary character written about in the 1st century AD - anything more than that is speculation. That doesn’t mean that what that character was reported to have said has no merit.
Perhaps you and I may have more beliefs in common than you realise, but I’m not going to continue this conversation if you insist on being rude. I do wonder, however, what the word ‘Christian’ in Gnostic Christian Bishop means to you...
Decent people to not contribute or belong to a homophobic and misogynous church. The decent people will find a moral church.
What compels you to stay in an immoral religion?
Regards.
DL
We can chat more when you recognize what you said in what I quoted, while denying that you wrote that you believe in a literal Jesus. If you do not have the couth to recant, on a spelling or grammar error, we have nothing to say to each other.
Regards
DL
"Decent people to not contribute or belong to a homophobic and misogynous church. The decent people will find a moral church.
What compels you to stay in an immoral religion?"
I don't think its immoral. There are alot of christian charities and organizations that help people. Whether Christianity is the best religion is whole other topic which i'm not going to get into right now. I don't believe i'm equiped to answer whether Christianity is the best religion because i could be wrong among other things.
I give up.
So you are willing to ignore all the inquisitions and ongoing discrimination caused by their misogyny and homophobias for a few self-serving charities. Ok.
Regards
DL
"So you are willing to ignore all the inquisitions and ongoing discrimination caused by their misogyny and homophobias for a few self-serving charities. Ok."
I wouldn't phrase it like that. Would you agree that Joseph Stalin was an atheist bigot who murdered millions of people for the cause of preserving Soviet Russia?
you do understand Gnostic Christianity started out accept to some degree the divinity of Jesus, right?
Please explain to me what your particular denomination of Gnostic Christianity believes. You say you don't believe in the super natural.
Perhaps not but I see that you do not refute that the evil is not cancelled out. There is hope for your moral sense yet.
Quoting christian2017
Stalin can kill but cannot cure. He killed because he thought he had to for some reason.
Yahweh can kill as well as cure yet choses to kill. From a moral standpoint, Yahweh is a much more immoral entity.
Strange that you wish to make a moral equivalency between a genocidal human and your genocidal god when god is supposed to be the best word and last word in moral, and ethical behavior.
Regards
DL
We, like Karaite Jews and Buddhists, are a good man ideology. Not a good supernatural god ideology. Jesus was not considered divine in the way you would describe divine.
This link speaks to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D
Regards
DL