| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2007 02:12:50 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's an interesting statement from the bishop. I wonder if he means it in a slightly different way.
The true, strong meaning of "agnostic" in a theological sense is that God is "unknownable". There is no information to support or deny his existence be it scientific, philosophical, or revelation. I speculate (and this is pure speculation) that he may have meant it only in the scientific realm. That is, he may feel there is philosophical or revelation evidence to be had which allows him to believe in God, but agrees that science is not the realm to prove His existence. If he truly believes there is no avenue for learning about God, then I'd think he is quite the wrong man for his position. |
Well as he resigned about the same time, I think he meant it in the more literal sense, that in his 67 years of life and time as a Bishop, he hasn't seen or experienced anything to convince him that God exists. He's currently being derided as a heretic. There's quite a few British ministers who are atheists or agnostic too. E.g., from a few years ago.
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 14:18:00.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 02:21:59 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How does Matthew's source's pet theory jive with these? |
Speculatively, it's perfectly possible that the texts you refer to were written as a sort of addenda to the understood meaning of the law. All that is being suggested is that history is as important as interpretation in any understanding of the current role of religion and belief in people's lives - I'd say extremely important. (And I really see no need to deride his input as "pet theory".) |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 02:22:31 PM · #153 |
Hey all,
Gain, great discussion. I'm concerned, though, that a few recent posts seem to be straying just slightly off-topic. So far, this discussion has been about understanding certain concepts as they exist in the Christian faith. Some more recent posts seem to have strayed from that, and into a discussion of the "correctness" of those beliefs.
When posting, keep in mind that the original poster was seeking to understand certain concepts as they are understood in mainstream Christianity. I encourage everyone to keep that in mind when posting. Whether those beliefs are "correct" is beyond the scope of this discussion, though it would certainly be acceptable to start a new thread for that purpose.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 02:23:20 PM · #154 |
Not sure what this post has to do with the original questions re. the Trinity or the star of Bethlehem...? But in terms of him "coming out" - well that's part of his journey and the reasons why he became a priest which we can only guess at... People are pained, fragile and complicated. His story is his story hey? We all (Christian or otherwise) walk this life and question our lives,faith,realities... nothing is OR SHOULD be unwavering. Faith, conviction, belief - they all waver. Sometimes we're so sure of ourselves and WHAM like that it will be tested. Christ himself was tested and came to the point of wishing that it were possible for the cup to pass by Him, so that he would not have to go through the crucifixion...
and that brings me back to the original post...the Trinity exists to provide us with the Christ who suffered as we do, who understands our battles...
Originally posted by kiwinick:
And just as you have considered and explained that, how about this.
The bishop of auckland, the right reverend Richard Randerson has come out of the closet and declared himself an athiest. |
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 02:30:07 PM · #155 |
I'm no expert on Jewish law, but I'm pretty sure that the Convenant we're taught about meant that Jews agreed to behave in certain ways. It would hardly be a great example to set to not kill other Jews and not steal from other Jews by but feel free to do anything you please to non-Jews.
That's the real meaning of "Chosen People:" we commit to behave ourselves and obey a set of moral rules. Unfortunately, that term has been misunderstood badly through the ages to mean that Jews think themselves better than anyone else.
I'll also point out that a central theme in Judaism is Tikkun Olam, meaning to heal the world. We do that by physical acts, like planting trees, and by spiritual and moral acts, like setting a good example by helping others.
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 14:32:37.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 02:37:11 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Hey all,
Gain, great discussion. I'm concerned, though, that a few recent posts seem to be straying just slightly off-topic. So far, this discussion has been about understanding certain concepts as they exist in the Christian faith. Some more recent posts seem to have strayed from that, and into a discussion of the "correctness" of those beliefs.
When posting, keep in mind that the original poster was seeking to understand certain concepts as they are understood in mainstream Christianity. I encourage everyone to keep that in mind when posting. Whether those beliefs are "correct" is beyond the scope of this discussion, though it would certainly be acceptable to start a new thread for that purpose.
~Terry |
Curious, why would the correctness or not of the concepts be somehow off limits when discussing the concepts themselves ? Isn't that rather the point if the question is to be answered in anything approaching a meaningful or intelligent way ? Given that 'Christianity' isn't a single faith it seems perfectly reasonable to discuss the wide variety of different opinions available on the matter. Which 'mainstream' of Christianity would that be, for example ? Anglican, Protestant, Calvinistic, Catholic, American fundamentalist, American evangelical, Lutheran, Baptist or agnostic/atheistic Christianity, which appears to be mainstream in New Zealand ? ;)
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 14:40:10.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 02:42:16 PM · #157 |
Because the OP asked about specific topics , not whether or not those topics were *correct.*
There are dozens of other threads where "correctness" can be debated. Up until now, this wasn't one of them, and it made it kind of unique and gave some others who aren't quite so apt to join the others the freedom to share and learn without fear of being critiqued and the hassle of having to "prove" every sentence they chose to type. This was more of a "share your knowledg, experience, opinion" type thread and not a "i'm going to show you how intelligent I am because I can pull out hundreds of souces that prove I'm right" type of thread. There is a difference, and there is a place for both.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 02:47:31 PM · #158 |
Speaking as the guy who posed the question, my idea for the thread was a bunch of people saying "here's my understanding" as opposed to "here's my understanding and also here's why yours is wrong."
And I've LOVED hearing so many answers. :)
I mean, every Christian who's posted and I disagree on a pretty key theological point. But that's not what this thread is about.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 02:52:24 PM · #159 |
| I hope it hasn't been too contentious... personally I love these sorts of threads, fraught though they may be with pitfalls, and I enjoy hearing opinions and counter-opinions discussed largely rationally on a topic as delicate as this. There's nothing I enjoy reading about more and perhaps responding to than people's ideas about what they believe, and how it affects not just themselves but others. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 06:31:33 PM · #160 |
I just have to say one more thing about the star in the East. It is a common belief among Christians that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, either written by apostles or scribes who had spoken to the apostles.
Well, then, think a moment, who was the eyewitness who saw the birth of Jesus? Mary herself, I suppose. But who was the eyewitness who heard what Herod said to the magi? My point is, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about the details of the Nativity. At best, it was hearsay.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 09:11:25 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I just have to say one more thing about the star in the East. It is a common belief among Christians that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, either written by apostles or scribes who had spoken to the apostles.
Well, then, think a moment, who was the eyewitness who saw the birth of Jesus? Mary herself, I suppose. But who was the eyewitness who heard what Herod said to the magi? My point is, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about the details of the Nativity. At best, it was hearsay. |
Couldn't it be Mary as well? I'm sure after you travel for who knows how long on those camels, you are gonna spend at least more than a few hours at your destination. They probably got to gabbing. I guess you are right though that that would technically be hearsay... |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 10:08:08 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I just have to say one more thing about the star in the East. It is a common belief among Christians that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, either written by apostles or scribes who had spoken to the apostles.
Well, then, think a moment, who was the eyewitness who saw the birth of Jesus? Mary herself, I suppose. But who was the eyewitness who heard what Herod said to the magi? My point is, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about the details of the Nativity. At best, it was hearsay. |
Couldn't it be Mary as well? I'm sure after you travel for who knows how long on those camels, you are gonna spend at least more than a few hours at your destination. They probably got to gabbing. I guess you are right though that that would technically be hearsay... |
If it was anything like when I interviewed my great aunts, then one minute the star will be in the east, the next it'll be in the west, the first magus brought frankincense, or was it the second magus named Frank bringing incense? ;)
You gotta have faith!! ;)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 10:10:27 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We're talking about a friggin' virgin birth people! Either accept the whole story as evidence of the power of God, or dismiss it in entirety as a nice story. |
Yes, but even that whole virgin birth has been a subject of debate for as long as I can remember.
So what is a person now supposed to believe 2000 years later?
That's why I work from the faith and beliefs that I have and developed over the years.
I can't honestly say what the root of them is......I got nothing from my childhood, I didn't marry a devout person with fervid ideals that were then imbued into mine.
If anything, our views differ slightly and we've discussed religion maybe a half dozen times in the 28 years we've been together.
I'm a reasonably logical, well educated, well read person who is naturally inquisitive and at least in my mind, open-minded enough that I'd like to hear your theories and ideas because I just don't know.
And I just don't buy it that because someone has studied the bible, and memorized it, that they are any better of a human being or more knowledgeable as to what God's will for me in this life is.
For all the people who've got it knocked and want to tell me how to live 'cause you've got it all figured out, I have one question.....
What if you're wrong?
I have my own faith and beliefs, it just happens to coincide with being the best and most decent person I can to, and with, my fellow man. I know what my idea of God, faith, and spirituality is, and the way I see it, as long as I practice to the best of my ability to genuinely be that man, even if I'm wrong, I will have done right by this life.
So I don't get mired in details or question my faith in the slightest any more. I live to the best of my ability, try and always do the next right thing, and offer my hand to you in help and friendship assuming that you are a good and decent person, too.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 10:23:13 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I got taught comparative religion at school and most of the things discussed in this thread are fairly common concepts. Most religions have the same general concepts, moralities and ideas. That and they are all subject to shifting interpretation based on the current moral climate (e.g., views on slavery, homosexuality, women's rights etc). Like snowflakes, they are all uniquely different, just like all the others. That and each is completely convinced that they are right and all the others are wrong. |
That's part of the problem with being "taught" religion. You're being handed someone else's theories and being asked to accept them without question.
That's kinda wrong.
That'd be like taking a photography class and having some guy say Canon makes the best cameras.
Now anyone that knows anything knows that this is bunk......Nikon makes the best cameras!......8>)
And a really good photographer can take great pictures with either one and either of the manufacturers could come up with a dozen people to support their side of that debate in a heartbeat.
If you're really a student of theology, religion, the bible, the koran, the talmud, whatever......you cannot be convinced that you're right and the others are wrong because that really does go against the grain of true spirituality and the love of man as a true practice.
I know the more I discover about other religions since I have gotten secure and comfortable with where my faith and beliefs take me.
With what I see as grace in my life for the way that I live, and *my* perception of what divine intervention has done for my dumb ass, the more I want to know what you have to say.
I have no idea whether or not I have it figured out. I know what I have to live by, and I am comfortable and secure with it, so it works.
So that should make it right for me.
As to what you should do? I would never in a million years presume to tell you because I have no right to do so.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 10:41:13 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you're really a student of theology, religion, the bible, the koran, the talmud, whatever......you cannot be convinced that you're right and the others are wrong because that really does go against the grain of true spirituality and the love of man as a true practice. |
Do you believe that anyone who does not believe that is wrong? Because that would mean that you are exclusionist yourself.
The all-comer theorists are immediately debunked by logic because you can't be accepting of the exclusionists if your supposedly all-inclusive, since being all-inclusive actually inherently excludes them.
Fact is, there is either one truth, or no truth to be found. We can all debate and realize that there is a possibility that we are wrong, but saying I must inclusive of every belief/theory to be fair is unfair to my belief in one truth.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 10:52:41 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you're really a student of theology, religion, the bible, the koran, the talmud, whatever......you cannot be convinced that you're right and the others are wrong because that really does go against the grain of true spirituality and the love of man as a true practice. |
Nah...I think you're subscribing to relativism which I believe to be fundamentally flawed.
I believe suicide is wrong. I also believe murder & rape are wrong. Nope, not going to accept someone who says otherwise simply because a group of people believe that is true spirituality and love.
Some would feel that it is anyone's right to commit suicide and no one has the right to intervene. Where as I believe it is my duty to intervene in such case.
So how do you reconcile that? People want it all to be the same so they do not have to choose or make a decision. But this isn't about Coke or Pepsi.
Now I do not believe in ever forcing someone to make a choice. But there is no way that I'll agree that all choices are the same. It's a beautiful concept in theory, much like pacifism. Oh, I wanted to be a pacifist...I just faced a reality which proved to me that it was not a feasible option in my life. Now in Gandhi's it might have been. But Gandhi wasn't short either. ;)
That said, I believe that pacifism is a noble endeavor. A noble concept. I look forward to the day when pacifism is irrelevant because there are no aggressors to be pacific toward.
:)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:22:07 PM · #167 |
| My religion teaches me that certain things people believe and certain things people do are indeed wrong. But it also teaches me to love others as I love myself, and that everybody sins and everybody is equal. I would never look down on somebody for not being a Christian. If I shared my beliefs I wouldn't shove a pamphlet in their hand and push stuff down their throats - I would just *share*. I could condemn murder and rape without feeling as though I am more worthy than those who committed them. I can eagerly learn about somebody else's religion without criticising them. I feel badly that other people give non-relativism a bad name by equating not being relativistic with not being compassionate or understanding, and it saddens me that many people have been hurt by condemnation of the sinner along with the sin. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:37:15 PM · #168 |
Okay, I must say this is a very interesting thread, and I most say at this point I do believe in "God" how I define "God" may be a bit different than most...I define God as the life giving force in nature...as for the monothiestic nature of christianity, On this point have to disagree, to me any entity that is "supernatural" ie an angel or "Devil" is a god by definition, Satan is eternal, correct? the ex-right hand of god? I am not saying he should be worshipped but....still by how we (myself at least) define a "god" he would qualify, he is (as do the angels) an entity that isn't mortal and has the power to change the natural course of events in human relations or actions in those people that are weakminded or impressionable, so to say that Christianity is monotheistic to me is incorrect...the holy trinity debate aside.
I have another basic dispute with traditional Christianty...why are most of the Christian holidays based on Pagan festivals and holidays?? these predate Christianity by (in some cases) thousands of years? The Yule celebration for example, with it's mistletoe and the burning of the Yule log predate Christ by a good 2-3000 years...and of course there is also the mayday celebration, and easter, yeah Easter, the spring celebration of life with it's colored eggs and bunnys, both a Pagan symbol of rebirth and life. I was raised in a Seventh day adventist atomsphere so may that explain some of this...I don't mean to offend anyone but I am curious what everyone thinks....
|
|
|
|
02/03/2007 12:56:14 AM · #169 |
| The monothiestic stuff you just mentioned is totally interesting. I'd never heard it put quite like that. Theistic refers to a god and even though other beings are eternal or not like humans they still aren't equal to God. Angels (and demons and Satan, as they are fallen angels) are supernatural yet still created by God. Nothing created God and nothing can limit his power (whereas the angels exist and operate only because God lets them). That is why I regard God and not his angels as worthy of worship, and consider myself monotheistic. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 01:58:55 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by jackal9:
Okay, I must say this is a very interesting thread, and I most say at this point I do believe in "God" how I define "God" may be a bit different than most...I define God as the life giving force in nature...as for the monothiestic nature of christianity, On this point have to disagree, to me any entity that is "supernatural" ie an angel or "Devil" is a god by definition, Satan is eternal, correct? the ex-right hand of god? I am not saying he should be worshipped but....still by how we (myself at least) define a "god" he would qualify, he is (as do the angels) an entity that isn't mortal and has the power to change the natural course of events in human relations or actions in those people that are weakminded or impressionable, so to say that Christianity is monotheistic to me is incorrect...the holy trinity debate aside.
I have another basic dispute with traditional Christianty...why are most of the Christian holidays based on Pagan festivals and holidays?? these predate Christianity by (in some cases) thousands of years? The Yule celebration for example, with it's mistletoe and the burning of the Yule log predate Christ by a good 2-3000 years...and of course there is also the mayday celebration, and easter, yeah Easter, the spring celebration of life with it's colored eggs and bunnys, both a Pagan symbol of rebirth and life. I was raised in a Seventh day adventist atomsphere so may that explain some of this...I don't mean to offend anyone but I am curious what everyone thinks.... |
Ok these are both pretty easy really. Accoring to Christianity we humans are all imbued with an eternal spirit that will never die, so we to are eternal beings like angels and God (except we have a starting point and I don't think God does) but we are not God nor are angels ect because he is the one sourse of everything, without him nothing else exist, eternal life is not a good Measure of God. And further more in the 10 commandments God instructed "I am the Lord your God and you sall worship no gods Before me" which sould make the others false gods or Other gods but not the one all Powerful God.
As for the hoildays, you are right most of Christian holidays are adaptations of pagen ones. The reason is simple though...to convert the pagens. The early church had a tough sell with somme pagen faiths so they adopted pagen holidays and put a christian twist on them in order to make pagen folloowers more comfortable, others wre brout in by pagens who became christians and wanted to keep their traditions alive to so they brought their holidays in and they spread to other areas. End result the Pagens and the early church blended familiar things to help convert the pagens. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 03:17:17 PM · #171 |
I just noticed this thread so forgive me if this has been posted. A few answers to some questions.
Good Friday and Easter Sunday, the days and the dates, are rather arbitrary. The First Council of Nicea decided that the resurrection of Jesus be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox. Jesus didn't necessarily die on 'good' Friday or rise on 'easter' Sunday. At that time (when Jesus died), the Hebrew calendar was in use, which is lunar and solar based, rather than just solar based.
Also, The Council of Nicea made the decision going forward regarding the Trinity. At the time, there were opposing beliefs and, well, church leaders fought a lot about it. When christianity first started out,t here were many different sects. Each one believed they were the 'right' sect and demanded that people follow their rule (much like today). The trinity was either 1 'being,' 3 'beings,' or a combination of the two depending on your sect. The Council of Nicea passed the Nicean Creed which required all sects to follow the single entity trinity - the father and the son are of the same substance and are co-eternal.
Oh, and Jesus was not a Capricorn.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt. I'm in the middle of writing a paper on the influence of the invasion by the Vandals (Arians)influenced Augustine's late religious thought and those questions tie in somehow... :) The above statements are very brief synopses of the real events, which would (and do) fill countless books. Look it up if you want more... ;) |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 05:13:02 PM · #172 |
Most religious festivals are not Christian, but Pagan. Early Christians tied their festivals into Pagan festivals to attract non-believers into their churches. By tying festivals from Christianity to Pagan festivals, they could ensure full 'churches' in the hope to convert heathens.
Most churches have been built on either Pagan worship sites or burial sites. That way, Christian priests could rely on 'Pagan' or Heathens to attend because these were their religious sites.
In UK and Europe, this was a common practice for the conversion of Pagans/Heathens. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 05:47:55 PM · #173 |
| Also by making the festivals of the church at the same time as the pagan festivals, you couldn't do both. |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 05:51:59 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by davyaldy:
Also by making the festivals of the church at the same time as the pagan festivals, you couldn't do both. |
Or, you could do both! That way you get all those heathen into your church and can convert the savages! |
|
|
|
02/03/2007 06:52:40 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
Most religious festivals are not Christian, but Pagan. Early Christians tied their festivals into Pagan festivals to attract non-believers into their churches. By tying festivals from Christianity to Pagan festivals, they could ensure full 'churches' in the hope to convert heathens.
Most churches have been built on either Pagan worship sites or burial sites. That way, Christian priests could rely on 'Pagan' or Heathens to attend because these were their religious sites.
In UK and Europe, this was a common practice for the conversion of Pagans/Heathens. |
That's one version. The other is that in order to celebrate their Christian beliefs without being persecuted or killed, they established their celebration on the same Pagan days. This way they could have their own celebration and would not standout and be so visible. It was a way to blend in and not be killed as being Christian. |
|
