U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2011, 02:26 PM
 
34,944 posts, read 9,030,391 times
Reputation: 4818

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstborn888 View Post
"Those who have ears to hear" would seem to contradict your assertion. (Possibly, I'm not saying it does for sure).
Yes, they are.
No one can require someone to believe something. Believing comes from a person's personal conviction. How can you "require" that?
As a whole - you are correct. That's why people like Bishop Spong are on the scene to balance the equation.
As someone who doesn't believe that Catholicism has much (if anything) to do with the Spirit of Christ, I will not argue with the point.
If it doesn't tell you anything, then how can I protest that it doesn't? I will (and can) not.
That's an educated assumption on your part, a belief.
EVERYTHING has it's own problems.
It has relevance because people give it relevance.
They are ideas. Literalists create the bogus-ness.
there is bogus-ness in the literal interpretations.

It has validity insomuch as it has contributed to modern society. Need I remind you that the vast majority of North Americans heard the concept of "Whatsoever you would have men do unto you - do also to them" from a bible verse quoting Jesus? You may say - "others said it first" but how would that negate the bible's relevance?
I read the bible as brief glimpses into a beyond which already exists as a reality in my heart. If taken for what it is - a collection of books which reveal the thoughts of man about God and a progression of ideas from 4000 BC to 0070 AD, then it is harmless and even helpful.

AISI

In the hands of fundies, it's a disaster.
There's a lot here. I'll just say that the gospels make particular claims and, unless one takes it all to be methaphorical, then there are certain things a God expects from us, and that's what it says, not me.

In passing, on the universe, no -one really knows. Those who say they know through faith have no evidence to back that up. I know, because I have seen the arguments, at length. Science has some answers but by no means all and wouldn't claim to have all.

That's by the way. The real point is that, if one doesn't buy the Bible literally, then why buy it at all?

While there is some milage in pointing out that it is a collection of ideas in which we may find something useful, that's well enough. But, then I find some problem in going to just that book rather than Lao - Tse, Voltaire, the Avestas or Popol Vuh for no reason that I can see than that one book was rammed down your throat from birth.

I suppose it is not all that harmless in suggesting that it contains some ideas we could well put into practice, but I also find a lot more in the tripitakas.

I suppose what I'm saying is, by all means extract what seems to be good ideas from the books - and then leave the books on the shelf. Their value is done. The ideas should then be given consideration, not just taken on trust because of some ideas of reverence about the source. In basis, none of those Bible - derived ideas are entitled to any special consideration.

If it's just the comfy feeling one gets in reading a good book, the LOR gets my vote over the Bible, any time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2011, 04:29 AM
 
Location: Texas
4,346 posts, read 5,578,866 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
There's a lot here. I'll just say that the gospels make particular claims and, unless one takes it all to be methaphorical, then there are certain things a God expects from us, and that's what it says, not me.

In passing, on the universe, no -one really knows. Those who say they know through faith have no evidence to back that up. I know, because I have seen the arguments, at length. Science has some answers but by no means all and wouldn't claim to have all.

That's by the way. The real point is that, if one doesn't buy the Bible literally, then why buy it at all?

While there is some milage in pointing out that it is a collection of ideas in which we may find something useful, that's well enough. But, then I find some problem in going to just that book rather than Lao - Tse, Voltaire, the Avestas or Popol Vuh for no reason that I can see than that one book was rammed down your throat from birth.

I suppose it is not all that harmless in suggesting that it contains some ideas we could well put into practice, but I also find a lot more in the tripitakas.

I suppose what I'm saying is, by all means extract what seems to be good ideas from the books - and then leave the books on the shelf. Their value is done. The ideas should then be given consideration, not just taken on trust because of some ideas of reverence about the source. In basis, none of those Bible - derived ideas are entitled to any special consideration.

If it's just the comfy feeling one gets in reading a good book, the LOR gets my vote over the Bible, any time.
The forced bible thing comes from fear of damnation. That is (to me) the chief flaw of mainstream (and even most side-stream) Christianity. "Comply or die" is no reason to do anything except through basic animal survival instinct, which is as far from true spirituality as one can get AISI.

But like I said before - my understanding of it all puts me in a curious position. Even atheists know that what I propose isn't really Christianity at all, or certainly not at all "normal" Christianity.

For instance, I believe that when you act with empathy or with what is termed "agape" (Corinthians 13 type) love then you are manifesting Christ - no matter what you believe. Now why did I need Cor. 13 to tell me what real love was? I have no idea - but it just put into words what I had already experienced. I meditated on every word, one at a time for months. But this was only after I had a "rebirth" experience, as before that it seemed like everything in the bible just frustrated me or made me mad.
Especially when my girlfriend got saved (YIKES!!! Now we couldn't have sex unless we were married? What the hell was that? )

Yet after rebirth (long after I lost the girl for being a heathen ) I WAS a universalist - and always believed that God's wrath was a perception from man's perspective, NOT actually coming from the person of God - but from man's perceived shortcomings and guilt (through conscience or whatever) and that it was all a part of what we all experience in the valley of the shadow of death (limited physical existence).

So when I read all the anger rants and constant frustration that God seemed to exhibit toward Israel - I instinctively knew it wasn't literally consistent with an omniscient benevolent being who created and made possible all that is. So yes - I read between the lines and from a mystical viewpoint it all made sense to me. What's really taking place behind the scenes is the lost inner sheep trying to find it's way back to the beginning.

For what it's worth - I'm a panENtheist, which in some ways is very contrary to mainstream doctrine even though there are a few VERY panENtheistic verses in the bible.

Anyway - I'm rambling but since this thread is about alternative styles of Christianity I thought I'd elaborate a bit. Hope it makes some sense.

One day I'll probably put my whole "testimony" up for discussion as I am not afraid to have it picked apart, as I do that my own self. There are a couple of absolutely (from my perspective) impossible miracles that took place early on which got me started into a "belief in the supernatural" mode, even as a skeptic, and believe me - I AM a major skeptic, look through some of my posts. I don't believe anything just because someone says it. The depth superstition displayed in the bulk of Christianity... well... amazes me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 06:02 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,464,894 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I wish you would get your facts straight.

You are pleased to say that "He put an interval between Himself and them" and 'he parted from them' is somehow different.

Also the explanation of just going up the hill into a cloud is a not very convincing attempt I found in some book to rationalise the passage. As I said. That's not what I claim at all.

If you are going to make a meaningful contribution at least be honest and accurate.

No, apologies. I see what you mean.

The end of Luke is he blessed them and parted from them and they returned. That is, as I said above, no different from a reading as 'he put an interval between himself and them'. There is no real suggestion of being caught up to heaven in a cloud or anything else and, if you are translation tinkering with 'interval between' to suggest there is, I must retract my apology.
To those too lazy to look into their Bibles you might appear to be correct about the Lukan account. But if we actually look you will be shown to be misrepresenting the Lucan account:

Luk 24:51 And it occurred as He is blessing them, He put an interval
between Himself and them, and He was carried up into heaven."


Where does the account in Luke state as you suggest that "The end of Luke is He blessed them and parted from then and they returned"?
  • Yes, they returned to Jerusalem but only after they witnessed Him carried into Heaven.
  • It shows they saw Him being carried into heaven
You wrote above is suggestive that they didn't even see him carried into heaven but that He just separated from His disciples and that was that.


Quote:
Acts, though goes on with a good bit of chat about the work of the apostles and the lifting up, a cloud taking him out of sight and gazing into heaven when an angel stops by and asks stooge - like what they are all staring at. I wasn't trying to prove anything by using "interval between" as opposed to "separated".

All that doesn't appear in Luke. I just said that it seems a bit of a change. Some additional material. Also I see it as a description of a miraculous event and do not buy any glib rationalisation of Jesus strolling off into the mist and I don't suppose you do, either.
Maybe you are just going by memory and didn't really care to read Luke as opposed to the Acts account? Or maybe you just are parroting someone else and failed to prove if they were wrong before posting what you did?

That's great though that you see it as a miraculous event! After all, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ has changed the world. Without it Christianity is just another religion like all other religions of the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top