| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2007 03:02:25 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And you jumped to a little bit of a conclusion that I think that there isn't more good than bad; not at all true, I just bemoan all the lives that have been lost and all the havoc we have wreaked,in the name of what we know to be good through intolerance and fear. |
Yeah, no questions asked, it is horrible. I think that, not you, but a lot of people DO use this as a reason that they shut themselves off from learning more about a particular faith, without realizing that the good is more or realizing that our human weaknesses do not somehow "invalidate" a religion. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:03:47 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
passionate beliefs that give you hope and just a good enough reason to wake up tomorrow with a smile just knowing that you are alive! |
Well gosh. What an awesome reminder to listen to and cultivate the joy in life instead of focusing on the negative. :-)
It's something I know but do need to be reminded of for sure. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:09:19 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
passionate beliefs that give you hope and just a good enough reason to wake up tomorrow with a smile just knowing that you are alive! |
Well gosh. What an awesome reminder to listen to and cultivate the joy in life instead of focusing on the negative. :-)
It's something I know but do need to be reminded of for sure. |
I think I read that in the Team Suck handbook! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:21:02 AM · #79 |
.
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 02:54:18. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:31:51 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And you jumped to a little bit of a conclusion that I think that there isn't more good than bad; not at all true, I just bemoan all the lives that have been lost and all the havoc we have wreaked,in the name of what we know to be good through intolerance and fear. |
My bad. :) The assumption was based on the part where you indicated that God was disappointed in us as a result of the things that were done in His name. For what it's worth, I believe God views us as individuals, not collectively, so to me it would be inaccurate to say He is disappointed with "us" - especially since I have been a perfect angel! :P
I'm done. This time for real. :)
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 05:01:25 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by nemesise1977:
No attack felt :) I actually have read these befor and there is a great deal of infrences made in them and the translation agrguements ect seem to much to be an excuse to keep in line. I may be wron but I accept Christ as the Son of God and my savior and the Holy Spirit as being from God and worship him so think no matter what I am not so far off base that He would condem me for beliving in Him and the teachings of his Son as I understand them. |
heh, if it doesn't matter, why take the effort to make the denial of it?
I guess for me, the clencher is that the Sanhedrin ultimately tried, convicted, and crucified Jesus for claiming to be God. They apparently inferred the same things into his speech that I infer now. When Jesus said I AM, to them, they tore their clothes to hear it. Seems an extreme reaction if they didn't actually think he was saying that he was THE "I AM"
Good night guys, and thanks for the lively discussion. Later. :-) |
An interesting idea. Would this not therefore mean that the Sanhedrin were correct then? After all, every time they talked to Jesus, their motives were pure right? Oh and they had a flawless grasp on on the essence of truth too right?
I have always read that account with the Sandhedrin putting on a huge pretense to try to whip everyone up into a furor with which they could delude them to thinking that Jesus was worth killing.
That's the first time I've ever seen anyone side with the Sanhedrin. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 05:12:35 AM · #82 |
With regard to the nature of the trinity - this is useful on the hsitorical side if not the theological side
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 05:23:22 AM · #83 |
There is a particularly good entry in wikipedia on Jesus. It explores him in religious and historical contexts. In section 4.1, it explains succinctly the multitude of different ways in which the trinity is understood by different sects, both presently and at various times in the past. The mainstream views of the nature of Jesus were theologically articulated and refined by a series of seven ecumenical councils between 325 and 681.
So to answer the OP, there is no straightforward answer. The various explanations for the trinity are all different and often exclusive. Mainstream views are the product of 4th to 7th century thinking.
I guess that the rub (as it may be perceived by non-Christians at least) is that if you are a Christian and it turns out that Christianity is the one true religion, you'd better hope that your particular sect is the right analysis, or you may find that your method of worship represents a sin (false gods, more than one god or idolatry)!
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:33:29 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The kings were coming from the Orient, which is east of Bethlehem/Jerusalem/Israel. So, they would have to be travelling West to get there . |
"Bethlehem/Jerusalem/Israel" is in the Orient. However, they were still traveling west because Persia (also part of the Orient) was east of Jerusalem. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:52:38 AM · #85 |
You raise some difficult questions which show the conflicts within the Christian religion. I believe that the reason why they say Jesus rose within 3 days is because they consider Good Friday to be the first day. Of course, this particular time frame is set by the Christian church, so though we celebrate the rising on Sunday and the death on Good Friday, it most likely does not reflect the true timing. Remember, much of what we have in Christianity was a bit messed with by the church.
As to monotheism, I think that in my prayers, Jesus is the route to the father, God. Our main prayers do not mention Jesus. The Lord's prayer is the perfect example.
I will come back to this thread later. Have to go to work now. Haven't read it, but I will definitely read it tonight. Thanks for your questions. I look forward to more discussions.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 06:54:04. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 09:14:47 AM · #86 |
Perhaps another compelling inference that God/Jesus/Spirit are ONE and not really many is in the New Testament reference in Revelation "I am the Alpha and the Omega"
//www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=alpha+and+omega&qs_version=31
God refers to Himself with this name.
Then Jesus refers to Himself with this name.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 09:14:59. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 09:31:57 AM · #87 |
So as you can see from this. Christianity is a lot of different beliefs centered on a belief in God the father, Jesus Christ his son and the Holy Ghost. Many religions use different scripture to backup their understanding. If God and Christ were two finite different beings why would Christ pray to himself using a different name. Why would the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove appear at Christs Baptism and then a voice proclaim that He, God was happy at Christs Baptism. It would be easier to ask what Catholics believe, and Baptists, and Methodists, and Mormons, and ........ The basics are the same the individual concepts all differ. I for one believe in three separate individual beings, God the Father and Jesus with bodies and the Holy Ghost as a spirit that can touch and dwell in all of us. I do not believe that Christ was talking and praying to himself but to his Father. The "one" docrine I believe is based on one voice, one direction, one goal, one desire for all to return to them.
So the real basic of Christianity. Christ never did anything for himself, always for others. If we do unto others as Christ taught, we are indeed living a "Christ like life". So many people have been prosecuted over religion, millions of lives lost in religeous wars, both Christian and non-Christian. To prosecute, kill or harm in the name of any religion is just evil.
I would hope we all respect each others beliefs and live better lives thereby enriching those around us.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 09:34:00. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 09:37:51 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Christ never did anything for himself, always for others. If we do unto others as Christ taught, we are indeed living a "Christ like life". So many people have been prosecuted over religion, millions of lives lost in religeous wars, both Christian and non-Christian. To prosecute, kill or harm in the name of any religion is just evil. |
Exemplified by this quote (which I would echo) from Gandhi
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 09:38:28.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 09:45:26 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
As for the question of whether Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same God, I'm guessing we do. A book called "Job: A Comedy of Justice" by Robert Heinlein explores this humorously.
|
Our pastor recently spoke on this issue about whether Christians, Islams, Mormans, etc all worship the same God, and I think he explained it really well. There is a difference. The basic tenament of Chrisitanity is that the one true God became man to offer eternal life to all men (whether they be islam, budhist, or whatever) by paying for man's sins thru his death on the cross. All any man has to do is receive it. Unless the God that Islam, Budhists, New Age, or other religions serve believe that he became man in the person of Jesus, it is a very different God.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:10:54 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by karmat:
The kings were coming from the Orient, which is east of Bethlehem/Jerusalem/Israel. So, they would have to be travelling West to get there . |
"Bethlehem/Jerusalem/Israel" is in the Orient. However, they were still traveling west because Persia (also part of the Orient) was east of Jerusalem. |
Okay, so then was the star a physical object hovering somewhere in the atmosphere? Because something at the distance of a real star wouldn't appear in different parts of the sky to observers in different places on the earth. Even the moon, which is incredibly close compared to the stars appears in the same spot all over the planet at any given time; it's not east to some and west to others.
I know this is a minor point compared to the other questions I asked. :)
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:17:49 AM · #91 |
"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
In fact, and I'm certain that the more erudite Christians here will already know this, the trinity is not unique to Christianity. It may have roots in the holy Egyptian trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, and thousands of years before Jesus, the tri-murti of Hinduism existed, of Brahma the father, Vishnu the incarnate, and Shiva the holy spirit, to be certainly traceable to no later than about 500BC.
Like all conquerors, the early cult of Christianity had to adapt and appease to survive, once it had overthrown the established religion. In its pagan surroundings, Christianity morphed into a kind of pagan/semitic blend, with its Hebrew roots, its unmistakable reflection of "sky father" and sun-god worship, and its establishment of holy days overtop important pagan events like the winter solstice and the vernal equinox. Additionally, having almost been overcome by the cult of Mithras, Christianity was forced to adopt many of its pagan tenets, like the concept of the messianic "good shepherd", baptism, and ressurection on the vernal equinox. There is really nothing new under the unconquerable sun. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:22:40 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Even the moon, which is incredibly close compared to the stars appears in the same spot all over the planet at any given time; it's not east to some and west to others. |
I don't believe that's correct. I'm pretty sure the moon is at different places to different people. Right now, for instance, it may be totally invisible to Australians, while Canadians see it to the east and Europeans see it to the west.
Not that this is critical to this discussion, but I think this is in error.
Standard Disclaimer - not attacking anything about your statement, just trying to protect correct information |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:25:36 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by karmat:
The kings were coming from the Orient, which is east of Bethlehem/Jerusalem/Israel. So, they would have to be travelling West to get there . |
"Bethlehem/Jerusalem/Israel" is in the Orient. However, they were still traveling west because Persia (also part of the Orient) was east of Jerusalem. |
Okay, so then was the star a physical object hovering somewhere in the atmosphere? Because something at the distance of a real star wouldn't appear in different parts of the sky to observers in different places on the earth. Even the moon, which is incredibly close compared to the stars appears in the same spot all over the planet at any given time; it's not east to some and west to others.
I know this is a minor point compared to the other questions I asked. :) |
I don't think I'm following, but I haven't exactly woken up yet, either.
If the "star" (and most of the stuff I have read says it was probaly a *comet* or *something* that wasn't necessarily permanent, but was different enough to attract the attention of these men, who may have very well been students of astronomy) was over Bethlehem, and these guys were coming from India, China, etc., wouldn't it appear in the west for them. But, because the mid-East is still considered the East, it was considered an Eastern Star?
(and as soon as I get the kiddies settled, I'll try to look at exact references to make sure I'm using the right terms.) |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:30:39 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Okay, so then was the star a physical object hovering somewhere in the atmosphere? Because something at the distance of a real star wouldn't appear in different parts of the sky to observers in different places on the earth. Even the moon, which is incredibly close compared to the stars appears in the same spot all over the planet at any given time; it's not east to some and west to others.
I know this is a minor point compared to the other questions I asked. :) |
The Earth's rotation would lead to differences in perspective. One side sees the moon setting in the west and the other rising in the east. I did watch a History Channel documentary on Jesus/Christmas a number of years ago, although my recollection is very hazy, they went through a number of possible interpretations of the Star of Bethlehem with some thinking it was a nova or comet that appeared in a particular section of sky for a period of time. My vote would be for creative writing though. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:32:09 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Even the moon, which is incredibly close compared to the stars appears in the same spot all over the planet at any given time; it's not east to some and west to others. |
I don't believe that's correct. I'm pretty sure the moon is at different places to different people. Right now, for instance, it may be totally invisible to Australians, while Canadians see it to the east and Europeans see it to the west.
Not that this is critical to this discussion, but I think this is in error.
Standard Disclaimer - not attacking anything about your statement, just trying to protect correct information |
Laugh. You're right. 100%. :) Bad example on my part!
It's still true for stars. I mean, astronomers use the slight differences across the diameter of our orbit to figure out how far away the stars are, so across a few hundred miles in one night isn't going to make a visible difference.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:36:50 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by karmat:
If the "star" (and most of the stuff I have read says it was probaly a *comet* or *something* that wasn't necessarily permanent, but was different enough to attract the attention of these men, who may have very well been students of astronomy) was over Bethlehem, and these guys were coming from India, China, etc., wouldn't it appear in the west for them. But, because the mid-East is still considered the East, it was considered an Eastern Star? |
Stars are so far away that you won't be able to detect a difference in their location within one night.
I went and found a reference. If you look up to measure the position of the closest star and do it again 6 months later, totally on the other side of the sun, it'll have shifted against the background stars less than 1 degree:
Compared to the distance across our orbit, moving a few hundred miles is tiny, so the shift in even the nearest star would be some tiny fraction of one degree. You wouldn't be able to see it.
Now, that's not taking into account rotation of the Earth. I suppose if the observer saw the star in the east at one point in the day, and the kings saw it hours later, it could've moved to the west because the planet spun under it.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 10:38:25.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:41:33 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Louis:
"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
In fact, and I'm certain that the more erudite Christians here will already know this, the trinity is not unique to Christianity. It may have roots in the holy Egyptian trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, and thousands of years before Jesus, the tri-murti of Hinduism existed, of Brahma the father, Vishnu the incarnate, and Shiva the holy spirit, to be certainly traceable to no later than about 500BC.
|
Or perhaps the more erudite secularists could concede that perhaps all those religions that believe in a trinity of some sort actually formed that idea based on the concept of a triune God as presented many hundreds of years before Jesus. The concept of Trinity is not unique to the New Testament and the coming of Jesus. It's well founded in earlier Scriptures.
For fair turnabout, if we're going to include quotes from a science fiction author in a discussion about religious matters, perhaps we should remember his other writings and just "consider the source." In other words, his opinion means absolutely nothing to me. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:43:59 AM · #98 |
| But, if it wasn't an actual "star" as we know it, ie -- lightyears away, but rather a slow moving comet, etc. wouldn't the "effect" be different? |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:48:21 AM · #99 |
Louis, I appreciate everything you say: I am a creature that loves symbolism, the ancient religions and fitting jigsaw puzzles together. There was a time when I would have swallowed all this lovely theory and been content. But when it comes to it, a PERSONAL, real experience in Christianity cannot be put into words. All the great (and lesser) religions can argue the basis and origins of their faith. And since my God is omnipotent it makes sense that there are common roots in many of the world's religions...since "in the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:1-4)
BUT as a Christian the real experience is very personal, and for every Christian in this world there will be a different account and a different definition of the experience. The Christian God seeks relationship and those that find peace in Christianity, do so, because they have found a relationship with God (on whatever level that is).
Speaking for me only (which is all I can do)- my prayers are to God. Some pray to Christ or Jesus. In worship, I sing/play music to and about all three of the Trinity..they become interchangeable entities. I have had a real experience of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, and so many answers to prayer and small miracles.For me my Christian God is real, a living force, and about Relationship. In my family there are 2 Buddhists, a Jew, an Agnostic and several Christians.
Religion is separate from Spirituality. Religion is about theory,theology,semantics and doctrine. Spirituality moves beyond that to the powerful experiences that make that religion true and real.
The Trinity exists - as I see it - so that we can draw on the specific character of each as the need arises: sometimes I have need of the Father as God, a comfort, a patient omnipotent power. Sometimes I have need of Jesus/ the Christ who walked among us and experienced our pain and our joy. Sometimes I have need of the force and the presence of the Spirit (I tend to think on the Spirit in a more esoteric light) through whom God's presence is felt.
It's all personal.
But Peace and Peace and Peace to you everywhere!
Originally posted by Louis:
"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
In fact, and I'm certain that the more erudite Christians here will already know this, the trinity is not unique to Christianity. It may have roots in the holy Egyptian trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, and thousands of years before Jesus, the tri-murti of Hinduism existed, of Brahma the father, Vishnu the incarnate, and Shiva the holy spirit, to be certainly traceable to no later than about 500BC.
Like all conquerors, the early cult of Christianity had to adapt and appease to survive, once it had overthrown the established religion. In its pagan surroundings, Christianity morphed into a kind of pagan/semitic blend, with its Hebrew roots, its unmistakable reflection of "sky father" and sun-god worship, and its establishment of holy days overtop important pagan events like the winter solstice and the vernal equinox. Additionally, having almost been overcome by the cult of Mithras, Christianity was forced to adopt many of its pagan tenets, like the concept of the messianic "good shepherd", baptism, and ressurection on the vernal equinox. There is really nothing new under the unconquerable sun. |
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:52:44 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by karmat:
But, if it wasn't an actual "star" as we know it, ie -- lightyears away, but rather a slow moving comet, etc. wouldn't the "effect" be different? |
Ah, good point. Sure it could. I mean, as Nards made me realize, the sun is certainly in a different part of the sky across the planet at the same time. It'd make sense that something within the solar system would, too.
Thanks! :)
|
|
