| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2007 12:59:14 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Anyway, the second command is known as The Golden Rule. |
aka "do unto others as you would have others do unto you"
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 12:59:30 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, the second command is known as The Golden Rule. |
never heard it referred to as that. a bit of wikipediaing shows that its called the golden rule in philosophy, more so than in any particular religious context, so maybe that's why. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:00:17 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by Flash:
aka "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" |
or perhaps more globally, 'do unto others as they would have you do unto them' |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:08:18 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A) We are sinners.
B) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
C) Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of God
D) His death paid an atoning price for mankinds sin.
E) Those who receive/accept this gift will have salvation. |
OK, so either... being born is a capital crime, 100% of humans (Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.) are evil enough to warrant death, or we're to be put to death for someone else's crime (Adam & Eve). But wait, that's not all... rather than punish the actual offenders (getting kicked out of Eden, disease, labor pains and all that wasn't atonement enough for the crime of listening to a talking snake when you have no concept of deceit), atonement comes in the form of allowing someone else to die who didn't actually commit the crime. Not just anyone, mind you, but the son of a god (whose miracles apparently didn't make headlines until several decades after his death). On top of that, it's not really atonement since we're all still considered sinners and remain sentenced to death anyway (we used to be immortal). Fortunately, everything will work out in a secret dimension after we die, but only IF we've heard of and believe a story communicated by the very people whose influence and livelihood depends upon having people believe. Wow, that's some message! If there's any miracle in this world, it's that people in the 21st century can accept such a premise as reality. :-/ |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:18:00 PM · #480 |
| Without going into theories and allegories and fables and belief systems, would it be fair to say that being nice to your fellow beings is a good thing? I worry a bit that being good to each other is secondary - I'd think it would be a primary factor in a relationship with any God. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:24:03 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You will note Jesus felt our relationship with God was primary and our relationship with each other was secondary. Anyway, the second command is known as The Golden Rule. |
There's only one way to know what "God says" our relationship is, and "Do unto others primarily according to varying interpretations of articles written by unknown authors chosen for inclusion in a book 1500 years ago" isn't quite the Golden Rule I'm familiar with. It's unsettling that such a concept overrides the more familiar, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:25:06 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
would it be fair to say that being nice to your fellow beings is a good thing? I worry a bit that being good to each other is secondary |
An unqualified YES to both. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:34:40 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You will note Jesus felt our relationship with God was primary and our relationship with each other was secondary. Anyway, the second command is known as The Golden Rule. |
There's only one way to know what "God says" our relationship is, and "Do unto others primarily according to varying interpretations of articles written by unknown authors chosen for inclusion in a book 1500 years ago" isn't quite the Golden Rule I'm familiar with. It's unsettling that such a concept overrides the more familiar, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." |
I'm really confused about this. This IS the golden rule you are familiar with. I don't know why you are implying that it's bad because it came out of the bible when the idea, if it has a secular origin, is a good idea.
The book says "Love your neighbor as yourself". How is this any more subject to interpretation than your own version?
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:37:03 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A) We are sinners.
B) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
C) Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of God
D) His death paid an atoning price for mankinds sin.
E) Those who receive/accept this gift will have salvation. |
OK, so either... being born is a capital crime, 100% of humans (Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.) are evil enough to warrant death, or we're to be put to death for someone else's crime (Adam & Eve). But wait, that's not all... rather than punish the actual offenders (getting kicked out of Eden, disease, labor pains and all that wasn't atonement enough for the crime of listening to a talking snake when you have no concept of deceit), atonement comes in the form of allowing someone else to die who didn't actually commit the crime. Not just anyone, mind you, but the son of a god (whose miracles apparently didn't make headlines until several decades after his death). On top of that, it's not really atonement since we're all still considered sinners and remain sentenced to death anyway (we used to be immortal). Fortunately, everything will work out in a secret dimension after we die, but only IF we've heard of and believe a story communicated by the very people whose influence and livelihood depends upon having people believe. Wow, that's some message! If there's any miracle in this world, it's that people in the 21st century can accept such a premise as reality. :-/ |
Hey, you asked. Am I surprised you disagree and are able to phrase it in a derogatory way that makes me look like I believe in something a common-sense two year old would know is foolishness? No. I can do the same to you. Does it matter?
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:50:20 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
OK, so either... being born is a capital crime, 100% of humans (Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.) are evil enough to warrant death, or we're to be put to death for someone else's crime (Adam & Eve). But wait, that's not all... rather than punish the actual offenders (getting kicked out of Eden, disease, labor pains and all that wasn't atonement enough for the crime of listening to a talking snake when you have no concept of deceit), atonement comes in the form of allowing someone else to die who didn't actually commit the crime. Not just anyone, mind you, but the son of a god (whose miracles apparently didn't make headlines until several decades after his death). On top of that, it's not really atonement since we're all still considered sinners and remain sentenced to death anyway (we used to be immortal). Fortunately, everything will work out in a secret dimension after we die, but only IF we've heard of and believe a story communicated by the very people whose influence and livelihood depends upon having people believe. Wow, that's some message! If there's any miracle in this world, it's that people in the 21st century can accept such a premise as reality. :-/ |
Am I surprised you disagree and are able to phrase it in a derogatory way that makes me look like I believe in something a common-sense two year old would know is foolishness? No. |
I'm not surprised either.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:51:57 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A) We are sinners.
B) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
C) Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of God
D) His death paid an atoning price for mankinds sin.
E) Those who receive/accept this gift will have salvation.
|
Are you advocating original sin as a genuine precept that underpins all of Christianity?
I'm not sure it is churchwide, as I know plenty of people who are Christian but really don't believe that all people will go to hell if they don't know about and believe in JC.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:56:14 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A) We are sinners.
B) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
C) Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of God
D) His death paid an atoning price for mankinds sin.
E) Those who receive/accept this gift will have salvation.
|
Are you advocating original sin as a genuine precept that underpins all of Christianity?
I'm not sure it is churchwide, as I know plenty of people who are Christian but really don't believe that all people will go to hell if they don't know about and believe in JC. |
No, I'm not. Especially if you are using the term "Original Sin" in a specific, definitional way. I'm saying we all sin. I'm not speculating on the mode or origin of such sin. That may vary from denomination to denomination.
As far as Christians who don't believe that all people will go to hell if they don't believe in Christ, I'd ask if their church espoused the same belief? I'm sure people have lots of pet beliefs that they hold to that have no foundation in their religion. In other words I'm not sure you can discount a core belief by finding one guy who claims to believe something different.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 14:00:35.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:59:19 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A) We are sinners.
B) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
C) Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of God
D) His death paid an atoning price for mankinds sin.
E) Those who receive/accept this gift will have salvation. |
OK, so either... being born is a capital crime, 100% of humans (Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.) are evil enough to warrant death, or we're to be put to death for someone else's crime (Adam & Eve).That is correct But wait, that's not all... rather than punish the actual offenders (getting kicked out of Eden, disease, labor pains and all that wasn't atonement enough for the crime of listening to a talking snake when you have no concept of deceit), atonement comes in the form of allowing someone else to die who didn't actually commit the crime. That is correct Not just anyone, mind you, but the son of a god (whose miracles apparently didn't make headlines until several decades after his death).The only one worthy of the price required On top of that, it's not really atonement since we're all still considered sinners and remain sentenced to death anyway (we used to be immortal). Not true. You only remain condemned if you refuse Christ, which you do Fortunately, everything will work out in a secret dimension after we die, but only IF we've heard of and believe a story communicated by the very people whose influence and livelihood depends upon having people believe. Partially true. One does need to choose Wow, that's some message! If there's any miracle in this world, it's that people in the 21st century can accept such a premise as reality. Your opinion - which to me is not worth much, based on your style of address:-/ |
I inserted in my responses in BOLD at the end of your sentences.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:59:43 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A) We are sinners.
B) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
C) Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of God
D) His death paid an atoning price for mankinds sin.
E) Those who receive/accept this gift will have salvation. |
OK, so either... being born is a capital crime, 100% of humans (Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.) are evil enough to warrant death, or we're to be put to death for someone else's crime (Adam & Eve). But wait, that's not all... rather than punish the actual offenders (getting kicked out of Eden, disease, labor pains and all that wasn't atonement enough for the crime of listening to a talking snake when you have no concept of deceit), atonement comes in the form of allowing someone else to die who didn't actually commit the crime. Not just anyone, mind you, but the son of a god (whose miracles apparently didn't make headlines until several decades after his death). On top of that, it's not really atonement since we're all still considered sinners and remain sentenced to death anyway (we used to be immortal). Fortunately, everything will work out in a secret dimension after we die, but only IF we've heard of and believe a story communicated by the very people whose influence and livelihood depends upon having people believe. Wow, that's some message! If there's any miracle in this world, it's that people in the 21st century can accept such a premise as reality. :-/ |
Hey, you asked. Am I surprised you disagree and are able to phrase it in a derogatory way that makes me look like I believe in something a common-sense two year old would know is foolishness? No. I can do the same to you. Does it matter? |
I don't want to speak for anyone, but perhaps his problem is essentially one that comes from this (which I believe Deb also picked up on):
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You will note Jesus felt our relationship with God was primary and our relationship with each other was secondary. |
It's certainly a problem for me. Whether you like it or not, this notion is patently offensive. Your (universal your, not you your) ideology is more important than your relationship with other human beings, which conjures up all kinds of evil-smelling potential scenarios.
This also brings to mind one other idea I hear much of, and which truly baffles and offends me: that one's god is more important, and loved more, than one's spouse. Aside from the obvious logistical impossibilities of such an idea, this is such an abstract and alien notion that it really requires a mind-bending stretch to believe that anyone would actually want to behave this way. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:04:41 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't want to speak for anyone, but perhaps his problem is essentially one that comes from this (which I believe Deb also picked up on):
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You will note Jesus felt our relationship with God was primary and our relationship with each other was secondary. |
It's certainly a problem for me. Whether you like it or not, this notion is patently offensive. Your (universal your, not you your) ideology is more important than your relationship with other human beings, which conjures up all kinds of evil-smelling potential scenarios.
This also brings to mind one other idea I hear much of, and which truly baffles and offends me: that one's god is more important, and loved more, than one's spouse. Aside from the obvious logistical impossibilities of such an idea, this is such an abstract and alien notion that it really requires a mind-bending stretch to believe that anyone would actually want to behave this way. |
I understand why you believe this because you feel that our existence here on earth is all there is. Can you understand that if I believe I am not meant for this world, that this world is the proving ground, or the chrysalis for an existence that will last an eternity, that paying attention to that is more important than my life here?
Do note that "secondary" does not mean "unimportant". I sense the people with a beef seem to equate those two words. Our relationship with God is paramount, but our relationship with others is clearly important.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 14:05:57.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:05:16 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A) We are sinners.
B) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
C) Jesus Christ was the divine incarnation of God
D) His death paid an atoning price for mankinds sin.
E) Those who receive/accept this gift will have salvation. |
OK, so either... being born is a capital crime, 100% of humans (Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.) are evil enough to warrant death, or we're to be put to death for someone else's crime (Adam & Eve). But wait, that's not all... rather than punish the actual offenders (getting kicked out of Eden, disease, labor pains and all that wasn't atonement enough for the crime of listening to a talking snake when you have no concept of deceit), atonement comes in the form of allowing someone else to die who didn't actually commit the crime. Not just anyone, mind you, but the son of a god (whose miracles apparently didn't make headlines until several decades after his death). On top of that, it's not really atonement since we're all still considered sinners and remain sentenced to death anyway (we used to be immortal). Fortunately, everything will work out in a secret dimension after we die, but only IF we've heard of and believe a story communicated by the very people whose influence and livelihood depends upon having people believe. Wow, that's some message! If there's any miracle in this world, it's that people in the 21st century can accept such a premise as reality. :-/ |
You asked for an example of "core" christian beliefs, which were supplied by the Dr. Either you agree that these are "core" beliefs or you do not. If you do not, then please state WHY you do not think these are "core" christian beliefs. Your attack on the beliefs should only occur AFTER you agree that they are the core beliefs. THEN, we can argue the merits of them.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:08:54 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Your (universal your, not you your) ideology is more important than your relationship with other human beings, which conjures up all kinds of evil-smelling potential scenarios. |
Interesting you can envision this scenario - yet are dumbfounded by the concept of government mandated residence size.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:10:58 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I understand why you believe this because you feel that our existence here on earth is all there is. Can you understand that if I believe I am not meant for this world, that this world is the proving ground, or the chrysalis for an existence that will last an eternity, that paying attention to that is more important than my life here? |
I understand it, but that doesn't mean I think it's rational. ;-) I don't really have a beef, so long as one's beliefs aren't forced on anyone else either through the state or through an organized effort at prosyletizing, and I don't equate secondary with unimportant simply because I don't think a normal human being is capable of tolerating suffering of any kind, and will do whatever s/he can to alleviate it. So, placing one's ideology above one's relationship with other people, no matter how close the margin, seems like a refutation or denial of some kind. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:12:16 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as Christians who don't believe that all people will go to hell if they don't believe in Christ, I'd ask if their church espoused the same belief? I'm sure people have lots of pet beliefs that they hold to that have no foundation in their religion. In other words I'm not sure you can discount a core belief by finding one guy who claims to believe something different. |
Like the pet belief that it is okay to wear clothes made from more than one type of fibre and to eat shellfish? Or the pet belief that JC said that the OT was no longer applicable? Or the pet belief that these are not core beliefs?
Surely the church has no more ability to correctly interpret a holy book than any other person?
I think that there is an obvious and natural odiousness around the belief that all people will be damned other than the lucky few in history who have been exposed to Christianity. It creates a very distasteful sense of moral superiority that is rarely warranted.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:12:56 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Your (universal your, not you your) ideology is more important than your relationship with other human beings, which conjures up all kinds of evil-smelling potential scenarios. |
Interesting you can envision this scenario - yet are dumbfounded by the concept of government mandated residence size. |
Way to derail the conversation, but I'll just point out that you have a remarkable knack for thinking for other people and inventing opinions that others haven't stated anywhere. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:17:16 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as Christians who don't believe that all people will go to hell if they don't believe in Christ, I'd ask if their church espoused the same belief? I'm sure people have lots of pet beliefs that they hold to that have no foundation in their religion. In other words I'm not sure you can discount a core belief by finding one guy who claims to believe something different. |
Like the pet belief that it is okay to wear clothes made from more than one type of fibre and to eat shellfish? Or the pet belief that JC said that the OT was no longer applicable? Or the pet belief that these are not core beliefs?
Surely the church has no more ability to correctly interpret a holy book than any other person?
I think that there is an obvious and natural odiousness around the belief that all people will be damned other than the lucky few in history who have been exposed to Christianity. It creates a very distasteful sense of moral superiority that is rarely warranted. |
Why am I being killed here? Shannon asked what we thought were common beliefs to all mainstream Christian churches. I responded. Did I include kosher laws or old testament law? No. Why are we bringing it up then?
I simply attempted to boil Christianity down to the lowest common denominator. I think I came pretty close. If you polled a large # of Christians from different churches I believe you would get a large majority agreeing.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:21:28 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why am I being killed here? |
Pssst... check the thread title.... ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 14:21:41. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:21:40 PM · #498 |
Originally posted by Louis:
So, placing one's ideology above one's relationship with other people, no matter how close the margin, seems like a refutation or denial of some kind. |
Sez you. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:22:17 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Surely the church has no more ability to correctly interpret a holy book than any other person?
I think that there is an obvious and natural odiousness around the belief that all people will be damned other than the lucky few in history who have been exposed to Christianity. It creates a very distasteful sense of moral superiority that is rarely warranted. |
This is a mis-characterization. "The Church" was in the beginning the Apostles/disciples. They had the directive to share the news. "The Church" became the "catholic" church, which has morphed (or to use a more thread applicable term) "evolved" into what we have today.
There is no moral superiority (of disciples) in Christ's teachings. In fact the opposite is true. Your criticism is with man, not Christ.
edit for clarification
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 14:24:31.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:31:48 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why am I being killed here? |
Dr.
I don't mind being killed here. It the least I can do, after what Christ did for me.
|
|
