George W.

[Seahawks]

I don't think of my religion as "right" and others as "wrong". I do judge individual beliefs as right or wrong.

 

Are you some kind of Unitarian or something?

 

As the guy was arguing last night: either you believe Jesus was the son of god or you don't. If you do believe that, you must also believe that those who do not believe it are wrong. You must believe that you have an important knowledge of the truth that they are lacking. We see nuance and variation within a given sect, but whether you are a Tibetan Buddhist or an Evangelical Christian, there are certain core beliefs that you have accept as "true," no? (I could be wrong, as I never went to divinity school, but I think that is how it works.)

Jesus does not refer to Himself in the Bible as the Son of God, but as the Son of Man.

 

And no, one who believes this does not have to believe others to be wrong about their beliefs. That's where the handy, "I don't know the ways and intentions of God" comes in handy. I do believe in Christ, but I don't believe that God necessarily came to everyone in the same guise. This isn't much of a stretch, is it? I mean, if someone is willing to believe that a person was raised from the dead and asked others to eat of His flesh, is it really that much harder to believe that maybe God sent Buddha to some folks and Shiva to others?

 

Disagree - Jesus did say he was the only way.

 

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

 

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all ..." (1 Timothy 2:5)

 

 

"There is one body and one Spirit ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4)

 

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

 

 

"I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and find pasture ... I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." (John 10:9)

 

 

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." (John 11:25)

 

 

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12)

 

 

And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:35)

 

 

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

 

 

"... whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:15-16)

 

 

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)

 

 

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

 

 

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24)

 

 

"... And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son of God does not have life." (1 John 5:11)

 

 

"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (1 John 4:14)

[mattp]

In other words, just because we see a bunch of intolerant Christians on TV doesn't mean that Christianity itself preaches intolerance.

 

Certainly that is true. We've seen a highly motivated group of conservative Christians gain an extraordinary impact on American politics for the last several years, and a substantial part of their success has been motivated by some very clear expressions of intolerance, but that certainly does not mean that to be Christian is to be intolerant.

 

And that gets back to my earlier question: how might Christian doctrine be different if it was formulated based upon today's knowledge of the world, world history, evolution, physics, etc.?

[Seahawks]

In other words, just because we see a bunch of intolerant Christians on TV doesn't mean that Christianity itself preaches intolerance.

 

Certainly that is true. We've seen a highly motivated group of conservative Christians gain an extraordinary impact on American politics for the last several years, and a substantial part of their success has been motivated by some very clear expressions of intolerance, but that certainly does not mean that to be Christian is to be intolerant.

 

It means you beleive in right and wrong and some people view that as intolerant.

[JayB]

Most religions that I am familiar with, including Christianity (which I have studied at length) prescribe loving and accepting your fellow man. Whether people chose to do so or not is up to them. But their actions should not be the explaination of the religion itself. In other words, just because we see a bunch of intolerant Christians on TV doesn't mean that Christianity itself preaches intolerance.

 

I think that one could throw a dart at Deuteronomy or pretty much any other section of the Bible and come up with a fairly effective argument to the contrary.

 

Modern secular liberal (classical) values have rendered most Christians relatively peaceful and tolerant, but the credit here goes to modernity and liberalism, rather than Christianity.

[mattp]

It means you beleive in right and wrong and some people view that as intolerant.

 

True. To deny the distribution of condoms to African villages being ravaged by AIDS is not a matter of right or wrong. The use of birth control is a sin. To assist in sin would be wrong.

 

And we shouldn't help those homo's who contract AIDS here in this country, either. Nope. My tax dollars shouldn't be spent that way.

 

God damned liberals just want to treat a disease, when we're talking about SIN!

[JayB]

Tarriffs and subsidies that prevent them from selling their goods in the US market is also helping them out quite a bit. To assist in liberalizing trade is a sin, and to sin would be wrong...

[sk]

I don't think of my religion as "right" and others as "wrong". I do judge individual beliefs as right or wrong.

 

Are you some kind of Unitarian or something?

 

As the guy was arguing last night: either you believe Jesus was the son of god or you don't. If you do believe that, you must also believe that those who do not believe it are wrong. You must believe that you have an important knowledge of the truth that they are lacking. We see nuance and variation within a given sect, but whether you are a Tibetan Buddhist or an Evangelical Christian, there are certain core beliefs that you have accept as "true," no? (I could be wrong, as I never went to divinity school, but I think that is how it works.)

Jesus does not refer to Himself in the Bible as the Son of God, but as the Son of Man.

 

And no, one who believes this does not have to believe others to be wrong about their beliefs. That's where the handy, "I don't know the ways and intentions of God" comes in handy. I do believe in Christ, but I don't believe that God necessarily came to everyone in the same guise. This isn't much of a stretch, is it? I mean, if someone is willing to believe that a person was raised from the dead and asked others to eat of His flesh, is it really that much harder to believe that maybe God sent Buddha to some folks and Shiva to others?

 

Disagree - Jesus did say he was the only way.

 

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

 

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all ..." (1 Timothy 2:5)

 

 

"There is one body and one Spirit ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4)

 

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

 

 

"I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and find pasture ... I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." (John 10:9)

 

 

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." (John 11:25)

 

 

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12)

 

 

And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:35)

 

 

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

 

 

"... whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:15-16)

 

 

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)

 

 

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

 

 

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24)

 

 

"... And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son of God does not have life." (1 John 5:11)

 

 

"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (1 John 4:14)

 

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way

Edited May 22, 2007 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer

[Seahawks]

 

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way

 

If I knew what that meant I might respond.

[RuMR]

In other words, just because we see a bunch of intolerant Christians on TV doesn't mean that Christianity itself preaches intolerance.

 

Certainly that is true. We've seen a highly motivated group of conservative Christians gain an extraordinary impact on American politics for the last several years, and a substantial part of their success has been motivated by some very clear expressions of intolerance, but that certainly does not mean that to be Christian is to be intolerant.

 

It means you beleive in right and wrong and some people view that as intolerant.

"right" and "wrong" are often perceived through a society's particular lens...

 

ie, nutball islamics feel that it is "right" to stone a young woman to death for her "wrong" act of premarital sex...

[RuMR]

It means you beleive in right and wrong and some people view that as intolerant.

 

True. To deny the distribution of condoms to African villages being ravaged by AIDS is not a matter of right or wrong. The use of birth control is a sin. To assist in sin would be wrong.

 

And we shouldn't help those homo's who contract AIDS here in this country, either. Nope. My tax dollars shouldn't be spent that way.

 

God damned liberals just want to treat a disease, when we're talking about SIN!

[sk]

 

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way

 

If I knew what that meant I might respond.

 

the biblical stories have been told and translated so many times it is like a game of telephone... who knows what Jesus REALLY said.

[Seahawks]

 

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way

 

If I knew what that meant I might respond.

 

the biblical stories have been told and translated so many times it is like a game of telephone... who knows what Jesus REALLY said.

 

Not true. It been proven that there are almost zero errors in translation. Now you could argue that the translation from Hebrew or greek to english has translation errors but original version of Greek and Hebrew has not.

[mattp]

If I'm not mistaken, Seahawks, it has been proven that large sections of the New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels and maybe more, were simply discarded because they supported the idea that individuals should trust themselves more than the Pope or whoever may be running the church. I'm not real clear on all of this, but I think it is something like that.

 

This gets us back to the earlier idea that the Christian religion (or the Moslem faith, or the Mormon Church) was fashioned by people who were a product of their times.

[selkirk]

yada yada yada ... All the major people were descended from people who didn't know that the earth was round and who thought disease was a punishment imposed by an angry god (well I'm not sure he thinks the Budda believed that last part). Further, he said, people of all persuasions carry with them the fundamental idea that they have a specially informed knowledge of what they want for our world.

 

Thus, he said, modern people are a man-made construct developed by primitive and ignorant humans from a barely early-development stage in human culture, and they drive people to place themselves above all others. They are inherently bad.

 

Hell is other people. Religion happens to be one way they justify they're "superiority over others", but it's not like any monkey has ever really needed justification for beating another monkey, if your in a bad mood a justification can always be manufactured. It just makes people feel a little more warm and fuzzy when they can believe that they are "Good" and the person they are beating with a stick is "Evil". Power mongers, zealots, and other assorted sociopaths use any vehicle to influence people at they're disposal, but the existance of the vehicle to repeat they're message or gain power in no way generates the wacko's, it just attracts them.

 

You would probably be more accurate in saying that all wars are caused by large groups of people with conflicting interests, and often precipitated by charismatic individuals with an agenda, which is likely not that one they espouse.

 

In this sense there is no difference between political party's, patriotism, religion, terrorist groups, cults, herds of apes, packs of baboons, and pods of whales.

[Seahawks]

If I'm not mistaken, Seahawks, it has been proven that large sections of the New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels and maybe more, were simply discarded because they supported the idea that individuals should trust themselves more than the Pope or whoever may be running the church. I'm not real clear on all of this, but I think it is something like that.

 

 

Never heard that. Have heard of the Apocryphal but that not the reason the were not included in the final version of the bible.

 

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

 

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to Godly inspiration.

The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the Christian church (prior to corruption from the Roman Empire).

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but also themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Seahawks

[selkirk]

 

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way

 

If I knew what that meant I might respond.

 

To read any religious text literally is a recipe for conflicting statements. Not to mention that they should always be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

And of course there were errors in translation. Haven't you ever played the game where you all sit in a circle and one person whispers "the black dog bit the policeman in blue" and by the time it gets back to you it's a dirty limerick?

 

And of course books were lost, and of course sections were intentionally left out by those compiling and distributing the text to meet their own purposes.

 

Which is why you should always go back to my first statement. Don't read any religious text literally, and always take them with a grain of salt.

[ashw_justin]

Sort of off-topic (or am I getting back on-topic?), but the fact that we have allowed organized groups of violent international criminals (otherwise known by the highly hijacked term, 'terrorist') to frame their activities in a religious context is a huge mistake. The religious confrontationalists of this country have played right into the hands of the Osama bin Laden's of the world, by helping to polarize the religious atmosphere and turn the fight into something that it shouldn't be about. I wish people would wake up and realize that this is not about religion, it is about violent freedom fighters who have never learned (or been allowed, depending who's story) to play nicely. So what if they say that they are fighting for islam. That's not the f'ing point!

[Seahawks]

 

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way

 

If I knew what that meant I might respond.

 

To read any religious text literally is a recipe for conflicting statements. Not to mention that they should always be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

And of course there were errors in translation. Haven't you ever played the game where you all sit in a circle and one person whispers "the black dog bit the policeman in blue" and by the time it gets back to you it's a dirty limerick?

 

And of course books were lost, and of course sections were intentionally left out by those compiling and distributing the text to meet their own purposes.

 

Which is why you should always go back to my first statement. Don't read any religious text literally, and always take them with a grain of salt.

 

Ever hear of the dead sea scrolls??? There weren't any errors in copying the texts.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Seahawks

[mattp]

Sort of off-topic (or am I getting back on-topic?), but the fact that we have allowed organized groups of violent international criminals (otherwise known by the highly hijacked term, 'terrorist') to frame their activities in a religious context is a huge mistake.

 

I completely agree. But that goes equally for GWB and company as it does for those we call the terrorists. Our man George described our campaign as a Crusade, and has used the "clash of civilizations" metaphor repeatedly. He's amped up the religious zealots on both sides (to the extent there are really just two sides).

 

I think our pal Selkirk might argue that a good old fashioned fascist could have / would have done the same thing. And he is right. But the religious component is certainly dangerous. Some of these guys at the very top are looking for Armageddon, for gawd's sake!

[joblo7]

spirituality rules! it cannot be mishandled,misrepresented,misunderstood.

religion is easily manipulated over the ages. religion is a way to spirituality.

god is the peak. religions ,the different routes. some 5.4 some 5.13. some more direct ,others more relax.

we all get there eventually...........

man has the capacity to better or mess up anything, including himself.

[Seahawks]

Sort of off-topic (or am I getting back on-topic?), but the fact that we have allowed organized groups of violent international criminals (otherwise known by the highly hijacked term, 'terrorist') to frame their activities in a religious context is a huge mistake.

 

I completely agree. But that goes equally for GWB and company as it does for those we call the terrorists. Our man George described our campaign as a Crusade, and has used the "clash of civilizations" metaphor repeatedly. He's amped up the religious zealots on both sides (to the extent there are really just two sides).

 

I think our pal Selkirk might argue that a good old fashioned fascist could have / would have done the same thing. And he is right. But the religious component is certainly dangerous.

 

Don't you realize they don't care if your zealous or not. They are going to take the fight to you here. They will not stop becuase we do. Do you understand this?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't think of my religion as "right" and others as "wrong". I do judge individual beliefs as right or wrong.

 

Are you some kind of Unitarian or something?

 

As the guy was arguing last night: either you believe Jesus was the son of god or you don't. If you do believe that, you must also believe that those who do not believe it are wrong. You must believe that you have an important knowledge of the truth that they are lacking. We see nuance and variation within a given sect, but whether you are a Tibetan Buddhist or an Evangelical Christian, there are certain core beliefs that you have accept as "true," no? (I could be wrong, as I never went to divinity school, but I think that is how it works.)

 

Let me rephrase - I believe what I believe and that it is "right". However, I don't look at other's beliefs and judge them as "wrong" -it's a matter of mindset, especially since I can't prove they are wrong. It's a matter of faith.

[joblo7]

seecocks is pollution!

Edited May 23, 2007 by virendra7

[selkirk]

 

seems to me the people who translated what they say was said is who says jesus said his way was the only way

 

If I knew what that meant I might respond.

 

To read any religious text literally is a recipe for conflicting statements. Not to mention that they should always be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

And of course there were errors in translation. Haven't you ever played the game where you all sit in a circle and one person whispers "the black dog bit the policeman in blue" and by the time it gets back to you it's a dirty limerick?

 

And of course books were lost, and of course sections were intentionally left out by those compiling and distributing the text to meet their own purposes.

 

Which is why you should always go back to my first statement. Don't read any religious text literally, and always take them with a grain of salt.

 

Ever hear of the dead sea scrolls??? There weren't any errors in copying the texts.

 

Nice catch

 

See the remaining points. At best our information is incomplete, at worst it's been intentionally manipulated either way reading it literally is a bad idea.

[Off_White]

Inasmuch as they are tools used to divide individuals into "us" and "them," Religion and Nationalism are the twin banes of humanity. People don't seem to lack mechanisms for deciding who is less than human and worthy of oppression and death, but Religion has been one of the more effective sorting devices and a ready path to power. Christianity, while successful, has no copyright on this sort of thing.

 

I'm okay with the part where it's a mythology that attempts to explain things people don't understand in a supernatural framework. Like I tell the missionaries when they make the trek up my long driveway, "My people believe we all came from frozen balls of sweat in the armpits of the Frost Giants, what do your people believe?" Stories and archetypes are interesting.