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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
One doesn't have to believe in ancient myths to feel that those myths have been distorted beyond what they intended to portray.
For those of you who are Christian, this is a thought provoking article from a professor of theology. I found it interesting, and even though it obviously does not deal with my spirituality, it deals with the spirituality of many on this board.
One doesn't have to believe in ancient myths to feel that those myths have been distorted beyond what they intended to portray.
For those of you who are Christian, this is a thought provoking article from a professor of theology. I found it interesting, and even though it obviously does not deal with my spirituality, it deals with the spirituality of many on this board.
One doesn't have to believe in ancient myths to feel that those myths have been distorted beyond what they intended to portray.
For those of you who are Christian, this is a thought provoking article from a professor of theology. I found it interesting, and even though it obviously does not deal with my spirituality, it deals with the spirituality of many on this board.
It doesn't surprise me that this guy is a prof at Fuller Seminary. Fuller really has kind of gone off the deep end in recent years.
Having said that, I get what the author is saying, but I find it sad that people seem to want to take the focus off of the really important thing -- the Gospel. That God was born as a baby to redeem his people. Instead of focusing on that, this guy is making the same error as the televangelist that draws the conclusion that Jesus died for our pocketbooks (albeit this guy seems to want for more noble results).
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
It doesn't surprise me that this guy is a prof at Fuller Seminary. Fuller really has kind of gone off the deep end in recent years.
Having said that, I get what the author is saying, but I find it sad that people seem to want to take the focus off of the really important thing -- the Gospel. That God was born as a baby to redeem his people. Instead of focusing on that, this guy is making the same error as the televangelist that draws the conclusion that Jesus died for our pocketbooks (albeit this guy seems to want for more noble results).
Interesting observations, Vizio. I would have thought you would have concurred with much of what he said.
What areas do you feel doesn't fit with your perception? One can certainly see some liberal / social justice perspectives from the author, but is that not a legitimate interpretation of the Christ message?
Interesting observations, Vizio. I would have thought you would have concurred with much of what he said.
What areas do you feel doesn't fit with your perception? One can certainly see some liberal / social justice perspectives from the author, but is that not a legitimate interpretation of the Christ message?
I think we can tend to focus too much on the here and now instead of the eternal aspect of the Gospel. The Gospel is that we are at peace with God -- that he forgives those that trust Christ. The social Gospel, as well as the money-grubbing televangelist can tend to focus on the niceties of life to the detriment of the soul. So people can be fat, happy, and comfortable, but on their way to hell.
Don't get me wrong--we DO need to care for the poor and needy, but that is not the sole focus of why Jesus came.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I think we can tend to focus too much on the here and now instead of the eternal aspect of the Gospel. The Gospel is that we are at peace with God -- that he forgives those that trust Christ. The social Gospel, as well as the money-grubbing televangelist can tend to focus on the niceties of life to the detriment of the soul. So people can be fat, happy, and comfortable, but on their way to hell.
Don't get me wrong--we DO need to care for the poor and needy, but that is not the sole focus of why Jesus came.
From a Christian perspective (obviously not one I share), is it not better to focus on the entire message given by the Christ story, as opposed to concentrating on the redemption part? Granted, that is a central part of the story, but only part of it. The Jesus portayed in the Gospels would certainly not fit in well with many American conservatives of today. Perhaps the redemption message would, but the social messages certainly don't.
Do you not feel that was part of the author's thrust?
I think the author gives kind of a one-dimensional, one-size-fits-all of how "everybody" seems to present Christmas. That hasn't been my experience, I've seen and heard tons of different ways of presenting this story and surely have not heard an overwhelming sanitation of the less seemly aspects of the story. In fact if anything they're highlighted, for whatever reason. Drama, building the story, setting the background, proving the story's importance or whatever the case may be.
I think the idea behind this article was really interesting and could have been dug into a bit deeper (just found it really so superficial) and presented so much better, and much more intriguingly. But then who the hell am I to say. As I said, good concept, IMO.
ETA: BTW...I did see a Jesus story (was about his entire life, so not "a Christmas story" per se, at least not exclusively) that had quite a bit of added dialog for Elizabeth and Zecheriah's love, and infertility issues (the author proposed a similar storyline should be written/presented). I can't remember what it was called but that lady with the gravelly voice from Ice Castles was in it - she was Elizabeth. So again, the author could have done a bit more homework here but I do think it's an interesting idea for an article and would have loved to see more suggestions on "digging deeper" ideas surrounding the Christmas story.
I've also seen a fair share of Joseph's conflict (believing he was expected to marry some wh*re who had gotten pregnant) and maybe one too many presentations of a grunting, straining, unrealistically gigantic Mary with ungainly spread legs on a mule, LOL. (Though I have to say I can relate...except for the mule part...that wasn't in our birth plan.)
From a Christian perspective (obviously not one I share), is it not better to focus on the entire message given by the Christ story, as opposed to concentrating on the redemption part? Granted, that is a central part of the story, but only part of it.
I didn't get that he was focusing on ALL of it in that article---but was instead focusing on the here and now. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, or I'm responding to the general message communicated by most liberal theologians.
Quote:
The Jesus portayed in the Gospels would certainly not fit in well with many American conservatives of today. Perhaps the redemption message would, but the social messages certainly don't.
I would disagree with you. I don't think it's fair to suggest that only the liberals want to care for the poor. It's instead a question of whether we Conservatives want to give our money to the government to do it, or if we want to do it ourselves or through private organizations.
I didn't get that he was focusing on ALL of it in that article---but was instead focusing on the here and now. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, or I'm responding to the general message communicated by most liberal theologians.
I would disagree with you. I don't think it's fair to suggest that only the liberals want to care for the poor. It's instead a question of whether we Conservatives want to give our money to the government to do it, or if we want to do it ourselves or through private organizations.
I suppose it had to go here...
Re: the underlined...I think it IS fair to suggest conservatives don't want to care for the poor since, when no such "government" programs existed, people starved and their kids dropped dead. (Not that that was down to conservatives alone, obviously, but since the issue is apparently that "libs" just adore handing over our money for the government to do whatever with, v. conservatives who don't...)
Not that nobody starves any more nor that no children die, but let's face it, "doing so through private organizations" would appear to be a dodge for, "You can't make me do it, and I don't feel like doing it, but I can look pretty giving by SAYING I'm doing it."
Otherwise pretty much everybody would be eating. Right? And seeing a doctor. Stuff like that.
Unfortunately conservatives often give themselves away with their ongoing nasty slurs against groups (sight unseen) about what "deadbeats" the poor are, all sitting around following a stealing spree drinking and smoking cigarettes bought with government money while churning out child after child in order to "get more government money".
Kinda gives away the disgust a certain faction has for the less fortunate and certainly doesn't seem to say "...therefore, I'm going to go GIVE those people some money!"
So, nope. Self-motivated giving on the part of conservatives = overwhelming fail. Government it is, guys, sorry.
Okay, carry on...
...and merry Christmas.
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.
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.
