[PUG] Christiantiy

[Satya]

And who are these biblical scholars, your argument basicly amounts to because they say so or they say say otherwise.

You realize as much about my argument but don't realize as much about your belief system?

but realy I don't want to debate this any farther.

Tis okay. I get a bit cut throat in PUG threads.

 

[Kavalan]

I feel compelled to add to this thread and will hopefully tonight if not tomorrow with a pretty lengthy bit on my issue with Christianity. Yes all my issues actually fall under one umbrella and is not exclusive to Christianity and is at fault with most major religions and the atheists alike.

To give an example what do Richard Dawkins and the Holy See have in common?

I want to smack them and tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up.

 

[just me]

I am up to my neck in helping sick and elderly people right now that I love. I should like to rejoin this thread later. Can we throw Islam into the mix when I return?



The hatred is so evident it stinks.

 

[Shai Gar]

Instead of ripping this thread to pieces, Jester and I are working on something that might alleviate religious threads in here a little bit.

Once that's done, there won't be any more need for these pug threads, and if people wish to discuss their religion as it affects their lives they can as pax. I'm retired staff so that's not an admin notice, it's a hint at what's coming notice.

Arguments about religion and attacking peoples religions would then no longer be decent discussion here. Bear in mind that there have been extremely peaceful discussions on religion here without the pax tag, those that discuss religion in their churches and offline communities as a side product.

again, hinting, not admin notice.

 

[Barnabas]

You realize as much about my argument but don't realize as much about your belief system?

I feel that if I respond to this it would be me trying to get the last word in and that would be stupid so I'll leave it at this.

 

[peter]

First the earliest Gospel recorded was Matthew, it was written around 60 AD in Hebrew.

I think the first gospel is now thought to have been Mark, which may have been written as early as AD50-ish. It has the roughest, most immediate style and lacks the narrative embellishment of Mathew and Luke.

 

[Jana]

You are letting your own judgements on what you feel is correct get in the way, which is really not much better then extremely religious folks.

Very true

 

[randomsomeone]

Many historical accounts are written 100 years or more after the life of the subject in question. These often take advantage of additional sources and documentation, and place events into a greater context and understanding. That some Gospels were written earlier or later seems little real obstacle to me (assuming they were coming from, or heavily connected to, primary sources).

The idea of greatest importance in generating the new Testament was an enormous instinct to retain connection to the Apostles who were considered eyewitnesses, and yes, this included Paul who was included among the Apostles. There were all kinds of documents/versions floating about, but adherance to what was received from the Apostles was paramount. Putting yourself in the shoes of these early communities helps the whole thing to make some sense. What would you have done?

 

[Barnabas]

I think the first gospel is now thought to have been Mark, which may have been written as early as AD50-ish. It has the roughest, most immediate style and lacks the narrative embellishment of Mathew and Luke.

I don't neccessrily agree with the that age for Mark, however I can give a better discriptive on why each Gospel has been recorded in the style it was.

Matthew - Matthew is known as the Jewish Gospel, mainly because it written to a Jewish-Christian audience. That is why the Gospel starts with the geneology of Christ and has the tetragre rammaton of DVD which is David with out the vowels as early hebrew has no Vowels and modern Hebrew only has vowel markers. You'll also note that in Matthew's Gospel
the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" is a fairly common phrase, this is because Jewish tradition thought that saying God's name YHWH(pronounced possibly Yahweh) was inherently sinful because it was seen as taking his name in vain. This and other bits shows that the style the Gospel of Matthew was catered to it's audience so that the could better understand it. Matthew was first recorded for the purpose of being used as a teaching tool, so that while he Apostles where away other preachers would have a reference to use to keep themselves from forming false teachings.


Mark - Mark is the Roman Gospel, it along with Luke are the two gospels that weren't recorded by an Apostle. However John Mark was a disciple of Peter and so this Gospel could be also dubbed the gospel of Peter. Unlike Matthew the Gospel of Mark was not made as a tool to be used to help preachers. The purpose the Gospel was recorded for was to record the sermons that the Apostle Peter gave. That is why this Gospel is shorter then it's companions, it doesn't record the actual life of Christ but instead his teachings. It also reflects Peter's audience, as he was preaching to roman gentiles there would be no point in bringing up jewish traditions as it would make no sense to his audience. In doing thus the Gospel is stripped to it's basics which makes it an excellent first Gospel to read through for new believers as one does not need a background in Jewish history and tradition to fully understand it.


Luke- Luke like Mark is a Gospel not recorded by an Apostle but instead the apprentice of an Apostle. In this case the Apostle is Paul. Unlike any other Gospel, Luke was commisioned to create his Gospel. Also unlike the previous Gospels, it was not directed at a particular audience or recorded recorded sermons of an Apostle. Luke is a Gospel of history, it was recorded for the pirpose to give an accurate account of the life of Chirst and his Apostles. Luke is also a book that is connected directly to another which is unlike the other Gospels. Luke is immediatley followed up with Acts as a continuation of the history of the Church and it's followers(most specifically Peter an Paul). Luke while not as easy to read as Mark is the most comprehensive of the three synoptic(meaning Matt, Mark, Luke) Gospels and is easier to read then Matthew, along with it's follow up in Acts it may be the best book for any first time reader of the Bible.


John - John is the last of the four Gospels to be recorded and was recoded by the oldest and youngest Apostle. John is unlike most of the other Gosples in it's nature. It wasn't recorded with the same intentions of the synoptics, and it's writter was already aware of the existence of Gospels prior to writting his own. John was recorded to combat the enchroaching claims that Christ was only a man. It was also recorded to help fill the gaps left in other Gospels. Becasue of this John is written in a completley different format then the other Gospels, this gospel stresses symbolism and the divinity of Christ. It is often a favorite of NF types to read becuase of it's style but it should be stressed that john needs to be read with the prior Gospels read as that was that was the idea in which Johns audience would have read his Gospel.

 

[jlynnr]

My framework for viewing God is currently this:
God is infinite and outside of time; humans are finite and within time.
God's most fundamental aspect of His Being is that He IS. He exists. One can describe that existence using terms like "love"..."justice"..."righteousness"....but these all describe the fundamental, unified, IS-ness of God.

And from those two fundamental pieces (I don't want to call undue importance to myself by calling them Truths, because after all I am one of those finite human people) follow these conclusions:
Since God is outside of time, events and such being a part of "God's plan" don't really make sense.
Because God is infinite, He can "afford" (this is a bad word for what I'm trying to say) to love each person infinitely. Infinity divided into pieces - each piece is still infinite. (and, yeah, different sizes of infinity and all that.)
There are some things about God that cannot be understood. This is logical, because finite humanity cannot understand infinite God. This is where you just have to step out and TRUST. This sounds lame and dumb and will make all the scientific minds go nuts. But, as far as I've experienced, it's TRUE.

There are things about Christianity that I understand with my head...but that I still don't really GET. The crucifixion is one of those.

I hope some of that made sense.

Edit: Possibly this will help clarify some of my views? And emphasize that this is NOT an easy thing.
"Men's curiosity searches past and future
And clings to that dimension. But to apprehend
The point of intersection of the timeless
With time, is an occupation for the saint—
No occupation either, but something given
And taken, in a lifetime's death in love,
Ardour and selflessness and self-surrender.
For most of us, there is only the unattended
Moment, the moment in and out of time,
The distraction fit, lost in a shaft of sunlight,
The wild thyme unseen, or the winter lightning
Or the waterfall, or music heard so deeply
That it is not heard at all, but you are the music
While the music lasts. These are only hints and guesses,
Hints followed by guesses; and the rest
Is prayer, observance, discipline, thought and action.
The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is Incarnation."
-- T.S. Eliot — "Dry Salvages"

 

[Barnabas]

Hey thanks for contributing, sorry that you caught the discussion a little late though. This thread has pretty much shut down

 

[jlynnr]

Hey thanks for contributing, sorry that you caught the discussion a little late though. This thread has pretty much shut down

I was hoping to come at the topic from a slightly different angle more than contributing to the current discussion - different points of view and all that.

 

[kyo]

My framework for viewing God is currently this:
God is infinite and outside of time; humans are finite and within time.
God's most fundamental aspect of His Being is that He IS. He exists. One can describe that existence using terms like "love"..."justice"..."righteousness"....but these all describe the fundamental, unified, IS-ness of God.

And from those two fundamental pieces (I don't want to call undue importance to myself by calling them Truths, because after all I am one of those finite human people) follow these conclusions:
Since God is outside of time, events and such being a part of "God's plan" don't really make sense.
Because God is infinite, He can "afford" (this is a bad word for what I'm trying to say) to love each person infinitely. Infinity divided into pieces - each piece is still infinite. (and, yeah, different sizes of infinity and all that.)
There are some things about God that cannot be understood. This is logical, because finite humanity cannot understand infinite God. This is where you just have to step out and TRUST. This sounds lame and dumb and will make all the scientific minds go nuts. But, as far as I've experienced, it's TRUE.

There are things about Christianity that I understand with my head...but that I still don't really GET. The crucifixion is one of those.

I hope some of that made sense.

Edit: Possibly this will help clarify some of my views? And emphasize that this is NOT an easy thing.
"Men's curiosity searches past and future
And clings to that dimension. But to apprehend
The point of intersection of the timeless
With time, is an occupation for the saint

 

[jlynnr]

God did not create the human to be limited in time. It came with the sin. Sin results in death. The end of human life. This of course can only happen within time. But humans was not intended to be finite in time.

Just my first thought when reading your post

Yes - I heard the Garden of Eden explained like this once: "God would have given Adam and Eve everything they needed if they had just walked in the garden with him. But instead they wanted the fast and easy way out, immediate knowledge - and so they ate the apple." Best conversation I've ever overheard in my life.

Thanks for putting it in that way - made some things click that hadn't before.

 

[kyo]

Yes - I heard the Garden of Eden explained like this once: "God would have given Adam and Eve everything they needed if they had just walked in the garden with him. But instead they wanted the fast and easy way out, immediate knowledge - and so they ate the apple." Best conversation I've ever overheard in my life.

Thanks for putting it in that way - made some things click that hadn't before.

Dunno if you are being sarcastic?

But I think I agree with you on most parts and just wanted to note that life as we know it is not the way God created it.

 

[just me]

I taught a children's class on the Garden of Eden once for a friend out of town on business. Studied really hard and presented it in a manner worth sharing, I think. Everyone wants to blame Eve, as she was beguiled by the serpent. She tricked Adam. They both ran and hid themselves when they heard the voice of God because they knew they were naked. How does one present this to children, keep their attention, and keep them from starting to judge people? Hmmm.

Showed up with fruits cut into pieces in baggies. Brought paper plates and plastic forks: napkins and such. Passed out the plates, forks, and napkins as I was reading about it. Brought out the fruits in plain sight from inside a brown paper bag. Kept reading. Told them they could not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(the fruit still in the brown bag), but could have anything else. As the story was nearing the end, I noticed how many eyes were affixed on that brown bag. It was then they understood how difficult temptations could be. Thus, the flaming sword protecting the tree of life.

I see things differently than most I have encountered in this life. I think it best for each person to learn how much each person strives to learn. The internet should not make things so simple. We climb a ladder usually one step at a time. If I were to ask intercession for those that believe differently than I believe, do I truly love my neighbor as myself then? I surely need not ask intercession for those that do not need it.

The parable of working in the field for a penny is a tough pill to swallow, but might apply to all of us at some point.

 

[jlynnr]

Dunno if you are being sarcastic?

But I think I agree with you on most parts and just wanted to note that life as we know it is not the way God created it.

no sarcasm intended, I legit appreciated your point

 

[acd]

This may be a stupid question.. but, if God created animals with mates already, why would he only need to create one man at first.. then create a woman when Adam is lonely?

The whole account just seems too anthropomorphised of a culture that already valued men over women.

And it doesn't seem ridiculous that God would create temptation for mankind in the first place, then blame mankind for eating the forbidden fruit when God already knew that mankind would give into temptation anyways?

 

[just me]

Did God create temptation, or did someone or something see what was being done and think he/she/it could be like God?

Was the account of the creation of man and woman explained for us to understand better, or was it explained so we would ask more questions?

 

[soulseeker]

Can't we all just love each other?