Ye Religion Thread

[Acer]

Turns out May 21st this year is a Saturday, so we're planning to invite some friends over for an Armageddon BBQ party!

Forget Armageddon.

The day you exhale your last breath will be your absolute end OR your judgement day.

[quadz]

Turns out May 21st this year is a Saturday, so we're planning to invite some friends over for an Armageddon BBQ party!

Forget Armageddon.

Hey now, any excuse for a BBQ!     

[QuakeDuke]

I see several motivations for the professing Christian to desire to know the day and hour of judgement.

1. See, I told you so. (for those who correctly predict it)
2. The desire to know a "secret" revelation.
3. The desire to be a member of a club of "insiders". (I'm included, I'm special; you are not.)
4. The intent to have some kind of power over others.
5. Knowing the date is far enough in the future that their mortal life will be over before the judgement and they can look forward to resurrection.
6. As members of the insiders they can look upon and feel superior to others who don't hold the same ideas and "knowledge".

It would seem (to me at least) though, that all the above motives really would have no place in Christianity. But, what do I know?

QD

[QwazyWabbit]

I see several motivations for the professing Christian to desire to know the day and hour of judgement.

1. See, I told you so. (for those who correctly predict it)
2. The desire to know a "secret" revelation.
3. The desire to be a member of a club of "insiders". (I'm included, I'm special; you are not.)
4. The intent to have some kind of power over others.
5. Knowing the date is far enough in the future that their mortal life will be over before the judgement and they can look forward to resurrection.
6. As members of the insiders they can look upon and feel superior to others who don't hold the same ideas and "knowledge".

It would seem (to me at least) though, that all the above motives really would have no place in Christianity. But, what do I know?

QD

I agree. However, the Christianity of the Catholic and Protestant churches, and a little bit of "chosen people" would have it otherwise. One is not "saved" unless one believes and one cannot partake of the self-righteousness of salvation without professing it loudly. The have become the Pharasees who do things for the public recognition rather than because they have their true faith in their hearts. This was the only thing that made Christ violently angry, and rightly so.

[|iR|Focalor]

Your view might be somewhat skewed or inaccurate.

At the time that the New Testament was written, "Christians" were regularly persecuted in the Roman empire. At one point, Jesus says, "He who will not confess me before men, I will not confess him before the Father." I'm not sure how this is supposed to be "good" for a person since it basically commands martyrdom and death. I suppose 100% loyalty and faith is the lesson in it? Furthermore, I have to wonder if this was supposed to imply that Peter would never get into heaven. Although after Jesus' ascension, he became the most famous of the 12 disciples to spread the gospel of Jesus.

The "professing it loudly", I don't recall any part putting it quite the way that you imply. I assume you're referencing a command to go and spread the word of God to the people, not necessarily stand on a podium in the town square and say, "LOOK! I'M A CHRISTIAN! I'M SPECIAL AND YOU'RE DOO DOO!"

The Pharisees gaudy public performances was not what made Christ violently angry. To my knowledge, the Holy Bible never explicitly states Jesus was ever violently "angry" with anyone, although it's certainly implied that he was angry when he threw the money changers tables over in Herod's Temple upon seeing that they were making the temple a "house of merchandise."

[QwazyWabbit]

I refer to Matthew 23, immediately after he upended the money changers he entered the temple and confronted the Pharisees about their hyprocrisy, preaching against them in public. I believe it was all in the same day if I read it correctly. His words were violent in their confrontation. As his words could whither a tree, I suppose you could say he did violence to the Pharisees and Saducees.

The early church is not the current church and they have declined over time to become entrenched and hypocritical just as the Pharisees were. The chuch no longer has the gospel in mind, they are more concerned with the accumulation and maintenance of wealth and the protection of pedophile priests. (I am not Catholic and wasn't raised in the Catholic church.) Over history they were concerned with secular power and control over the kings of Europe.

I suppose Peter got his reward in heaven for dying on the cross as a martyr. This made up for the denial. But then that was part of the plan as much as Judas' betrayal.

Today's true Christian is rare. A true Christian lives by simple precepts: Matthew 22:37-40 and the Golden Rule which is the practically the same in all the religions. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

I prefer the way Confucius put it: "Don't do to someone that which you don't want done to you."

It's the only law that ever made any sense.

As for the money changers and the temple, I think the translations I preferred had it as "den of robbers". Matt 21:13 KJV and RSV.

[|iR|Focalor]

My own views on religion not withstanding, I still hate to lump "Christians" and "the church" together.

[QuakeDuke]

I've always felt that one lesson people should take to heart is: "if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him."

QD

[quadz]

I've always felt that one lesson people should take to heart is: "if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him."

I hope I don't seem too petty, but my reaction to this was something like the following:

On what basis, and/or by what authority is this deemed a 'lesson' ?

It seems to reject 'knowing' while at the same time smuggling in a few presumptive 'knowns', like:

  - It is known (or assumed) there is a god to love
  - It is known (or assumed) there is a god who is desirous of such love
  - It is known (or presumed) that loving a god produces a worthwhile result

Further, from my vantage point it seems clear that whether or not any god truly exists, a belief in god, coupled with the attempt to embrace that idea of god with love, will produce a psychological effect.

But, in my opinion, there are very likely ways to achieve a comparable psychological effect, without believing anything on insufficient evidence.

So I wonder if an alternate lesson people might take to heart, could be: tend to be suspicious of anyone railing against knowingness while simultaneously making an exception for knowledge of god.




Regards,

quadz

[|iR|Focalor]

I've always felt that one lesson people should take to heart is: "if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him."

QD

I know that I love beer... and lots of it helps me to not know what happened the night before.

[The Dreaming Dragon]

You all want to know what happens when you die? I'll tell you...

There is darkness at first...and silence. Then you begin slowly drifting and you see a point of light...

You go faster and faster,and that point grows...until you slow down to gracefully land in the presence of God.


He throws a cream pie in your face-SPLAT! And as you turn away from Him,dripping goop and bits of crust,you look into the Camera for the first time...

And then...they roll the Credits......

[QuakeDuke]

I've always felt that one lesson people should take to heart is: "if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him."

I hope I don't seem too petty, but my reaction to this was something like the following:

On what basis, and/or by what authority is this deemed a 'lesson' ?

It seems to reject 'knowing' while at the same time smuggling in a few presumptive 'knowns', like:

  - It is known (or assumed) there is a god to love
  - It is known (or assumed) there is a god who is desirous of such love
  - It is known (or presumed) that loving a god produces a worthwhile result

Further, from my vantage point it seems clear that whether or not any god truly exists, a belief in god, coupled with the attempt to embrace that idea of god with love, will produce a psychological effect.
But, in my opinion, there are very likely ways to achieve a comparable psychological effect, without believing anything on insufficient evidence.
So I wonder if an alternate lesson people might take to heart, could be: tend to be suspicious of anyone railing against knowingness while simultaneously making an exception for knowledge of god.

Regards,
quadz

I'll try to put it another way - First part:  Anyone who thinks they know anything should always have in the uppermost part of their consciousness they really don't know anything yet as they ought to know. What part of that statement would any good scientist would argue with? Realization we don't know anything as we ought to know is what drives us to reach isn't it?

Second part: Those who truly know God [by whatever name you wish to call God], tend to be more accepting of others and less violent than others. The problem is one you find all throughout history - there are always those who claim to be that aren't - claim to know that don't - and it is those who produce the "violent" religions found in the world. Haven't most of those who have taught us through the ages to be accepting of one another, to turn the other cheek, to be non-violent been (the real deal) religious people?

On what basis, and/or by what authority is this deemed a 'lesson' ? -  I might ask on what basis, and/or by what authority is this NOT deemed a 'lesson'?

QD

[quadz]

I'll try to put it another way - First part:  Anyone who thinks they know anything should always have in the uppermost part of their consciousness they really don't know anything yet as they ought to know. What part of that statement would any good scientist would argue with? Realization we don't know anything as we ought to know is what drives us to reach isn't it?

Indeed, I found myself in agreement with the first part. 

Second part: Those who truly know God [by whatever name you wish to call God]

My objection was to this apparent sleight of hand in the second part.

1. Avoid the pretense of knowledge.  2. Presume knowledge of god.

, tend to be more accepting of others and less violent than others. The problem is one you find all throughout history - there are always those who claim to be that aren't - claim to know that don't - and it is those who produce the "violent" religions found in the world. Haven't most of those who have taught us through the ages to be accepting of one another, to turn the other cheek, to be non-violent been (the real deal) religious people?

I think I have a sense of the kind of people you're referring to.  On the other hand, if we take the set of all people, religious and irreligious, we'll find some subset of them tend to be more accepting of others and less violent than others. 

If we want to say the religious portion of that subset acts the way they do because they 'truly know god', I guess we can say that, but we haven't explained the irriligous portion of that subset that also acts similarly.  As such, I'd be inclined to suspect some other common aspect of human nature we're overlooking or papering over with the 'knowing god' explanation?

On what basis, and/or by what authority is this deemed a 'lesson' ? -  I might ask on what basis, and/or by what authority is this NOT deemed a 'lesson'?

I can't cite an authority, but I question the validity of the lesson on the basis of its apparently inherent logical contridiction (sleight of hand) noted above.


Regards,

quadz

[QuakeDuke]

My objection was to this apparent sleight of hand in the second part.
1. Avoid the pretense of knowledge.  2. Presume knowledge of god.

Which, perhaps, is postulating [without basis?] a motive on the part of the speaker having an intent to deceive?  Taking the statements as they are - without ascribing a possible motive, what do you think?

, tend to be more accepting of others and less violent than others. The problem is one you find all throughout history - there are always those who claim to be that aren't - claim to know that don't - and it is those who produce the "violent" religions found in the world. Haven't most of those who have taught us through the ages to be accepting of one another, to turn the other cheek, to be non-violent been (the real deal) religious people?

I think I have a sense of the kind of people you're referring to.  On the other hand, if we take the set of all people, religious and irreligious, we'll find some subset of them tend to be more accepting of others and less violent than others. 

If we want to say the religious portion of that subset acts the way they do because they 'truly know god', I guess we can say that, but we haven't explained the irriligous portion of that subset that also acts similarly.  As such, I'd be inclined to suspect some other common aspect of human nature we're overlooking or papering over with the 'knowing god' explanation?

I've always believed (and taught) that all people of all races and nations have an inherent morality that is basically non-violent and accepting - without that basis it would be hard to form families and societies. That there are individuals (even groups of individuals) who for some reason either do not have or choose not to follow that morality is where the need for families and society to form rules (laws?) to attempt to protect those who are more accepting and non-violent from those who aren't arises. 

I still believe all the great religious teachers over the ages who "truly" know god (by this I mean practiced the precepts they taught - not just mouthed the words) were largely known by their adherence to their faith.

I can't cite an authority, but I question the validity of the lesson on the basis of its apparently inherent logical contridiction (sleight of hand) noted above.
Regards,
quadz

If there is no motive to deceive is there a contradiction in the two statements?

QD

[kindone]

Yahweh? No way!