Religion, Theology, and all that good stuff

[phil]

"Phil, that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard ..."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil, I have a few questions to ask you concerning the Bible:

Have you read the whole thing ... ??

And did you take the time to think about it ... ??

Even if you don't agree, you could ... like ... maybe ... learn something ... ??

See ! I knew right from the start it was no use
trying to have any meaningful discussion ...

[kmc]

This Iliad stuff, that you keep bringing up, Dee, is an utter crock. No offense, but the Danaans refer to the plural term for the descendants of Danaus, i.e. the Argives or Akhaians (Achaeans); a nation founded by Danaus when he fled Egypt and settled in the city of Argos to save his fifty daughters from a forced marriage to the fifty sons of his brother, Aegyptus.

I would like to know why we are so willing to twist or make up facts to support a document we are all urged to take on faith?

[kmc]

nymphofantasia said:

Now about Jesus's so called "copying" of earlier philosophies. This is a famous argument that is always presented. But in fact every single thing he taught was indeed from the old testament, which predates most of that so called philosophy. The oral tradition was there long ago, the actual writing down of the text came into being aound 1000 B.C. then the old testament was compiled after the Babylonian Captivity.

I do know that the Moabite stone dates to about 865 B.C. It is a good example of the Hebrew-Phoenician characters used at the time. Moab was the son of Lot.

It's not a matter of copying. It is a matter of crediting Jesus with philosophy that was trodden ground by the time he was born. It is not to say that what he taught loses any meaning through this acknowledgment. But Confucius and the Buddha, as well as plenty of Greek philosophers presented said thoughts centuries before the birth of Jesus.

Not copying, just timeless messages.

[kmc]

Speaking of the Bible's divinity, Harper's magazine produces, in its December issue now widely available, a fantastic dissertation on Thomas Jefferson's efforts to strip the New Testament of mystical symbolism. Wonderful reading, highly recommended.

[kmc]

An excerpt:

"To read the Gospel of Matthew or Luke is to be dazzled by one
miracle after another. In that context, the actual teachings seem
almost mundane. But to read Jefferson's version (what Beacon Press
now publishes as The Jefferson Bible) is to face a relentless demand
that we be much better people-inside and out-than most of us are.
Which leads, as Jefferson must have suspected, to this unfortunate
conclusion: the relevance of Christianity to most Americans-then and
now-has far more to do with the promise of eternal salvation from
this world than with any desire to practice the teachings of Jesus
while we are here.

But Jefferson's gospel also leads to an impressive clarification of
what those teachings are. One can make a list, and it need not be
long.

Be just; justice comes from virtue, which comes from the heart.

Treat people the way we want them to treat us.

Always work for peaceful resolutions, even to the point of returning
violence with compassion.

Consider valuable the things that have no material value.

Do not judge others.

Do not bear grudges.

Be modest and unpretentious.

Give out of true generosity, not because we expect to be repaid.
"""

"To live by Jesus' teachings would be to live virtuously as stewards
of the land; it would be to create an economy based on compassion,
cooperation and conservation; it would be be to preserve the Creation
as the Kingdom of God. Jefferson was proposing country of
countrysides. a pastorale in which we would want to live; Hamilton
was giving us a nation of factories from which we would want -
perhaps in the end need - to be saved."

"The similarities between the two gospels are remarkable, as much for
what they do not say as for what they do. Like Jefferson's gospel,
Thomas's ignores the virgin birth. Thomas's Jesus never performs a
miracle, never calls himself the Son of God, and never claims that he
will have to die for the sins of humankind. Instead he tells
parables, he issues instructions, and, most alarmingly, he locates
the kingdom of God in that one place we might
never look - right in front of us."

[Rit]

i would seriously buy that Jefferson Bible.

every instinct of that exerpt i would agree with

[Rit]

JAC, i'll explain why i took offence, and leave it at that.


you're coating all your beliefs with cast-in-iron "Divinity proofs" or whatever terminology you employ at any given moment to say that your beliefs are not disputable. I don't hesitate to attack when i see that, unlike the other posters here (who admittedly do not want to attack any person's honest faith)... i see it differently. That's just cowardice on your part... you've erected these great big canopies over your head, and your sitting underneath them, arms folded, with some kind of omnipotent look on your face

Do you listen to anything i say? I told you that i respect your faith, but i get nothing but "bad faith" from you, so i don't know why i even bother. You offer no attempt at widening your understanding, you've got some kind of death grip on a few principles, which you're afraid to let go of, for fear of the Earth collapsing immediately afterwards.

you're afraid that if you let go of them, you'll revert to either some deep depression, or some of your old anger will come back.... you want to be a good person to all the people close to you in your life at the moment.

Great. all i'm concerned about is that you're using a shiny prosthetic institutional machine to do all the talking for you. Where's the warm-blooded beating soul in you? I see only metallic surfaces, automatic responses, synthetic arguments in you. sorry if that offends you, but i've never made a habit of sugarcoating what i say before, and i don't intend to start now.

All i want to see is real wrestling with your humanity, not this plastic image of a "saved man" in front of me. You tend to rest on the principles and you go no further. Would i be this demanding of someone who was not capable of more? no.

I've read theology, i'm not out specifically to destroy your notions of god, i'm not trying to undermine you. I happen to hold faith in high regard, actually. But i also don't want to take it too far. I respect what i see as your internal demons too much for that....

....I just want to see you turn real at some point.

[JACkory]

I'm a flake, remember?

[kmc]

But I will tell you this, what do you think the state of the world would be WITHOUT Christianity or any other type of Faith? Have you ever considered the state of a nation that outlaws religion or only allows "certain" types of religion on a historical basis?

Well, without faith in something, the world would be fucked. But then, there's no reason that something can't be humanity instead of some magical man in the sky. One thing's for sure: without Christianity, we'd certainly be out of fantastic works of art. But beyond that, I see no iron clad proof that Christianity, or any other such thing, is a necessary good in this world.

[Rit]

yeah kMc, i too don't think that the institution of Christianity is necessary.

We're making too many allowances here. We're not really hammering the distinction between real faith and the dogmas that pose as faith, which are in actuality anything but. We're allowing people to get away with claiming some ridiculous things and thinking that it proves them to be Just Religious people of the world.

[Rit]

Justice is something to be worked at, and always can stray into excess
Goodness is something to be worked at, and always can stray into excess, where it undermines original intentions.

everything is a fragile concept that requires nuture, wariness, and resolute watchfulness. That's life, that's how difficult it is to be a good person. Not to arrive at the 10 commandments and do nothing more.

[Rit]

heh, Sometimes i think that those people that follow the trappings of Christianity, yet do no thinking about it on their own are the real evil in the world. or at the very least, capable of real evil. Because they know not what they do. Not fundamentally at any rate.

[Nepenthe]

kmc said:

This Iliad stuff, that you keep bringing up, Dee, is an utter crock. No offense, but the Danaans refer to the plural term for the descendants of Danaus, i.e. the Argives or Akhaians (Achaeans); a nation founded by Danaus when he fled Egypt and settled in the city of Argos to save his fifty daughters from a forced marriage to the fifty sons of his brother, Aegyptus.

I would like to know why we are so willing to twist or make up facts to support a document we are all urged to take on faith?

Actually, there are three theories about who the Danaans were. You might want to check out what time period Danaus fled Egypt. At Penn State these three theories are taught by Dr. Ann Killebrew, Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies.

From the Website:

The third theory that suggest the Danuna origins come from Canaan. The Danuna and other Sea Peoples
return to the Levant as a counter migration. While many of the Danuna, went to the Aegean and Mycenae
and became known as the Danaans. Others went to Asia Minor and some of the Sea Peoples return to the Levant. The Danuna were accepted into the confederation of the tribes of Israel called Dan (Jones 1975: 23). The Danuna were part of a confederation in the Levant with other groups of Sea People especially the Philistines. They were part of the sea battle against the Egyptians, which is depicted on the relief at Medinet Habu (Barnett 1975: 372).

The Biblical data shows that at a certain stage of its settlement the Tribe of Dan was very close to the People of the Sea. From the historical and mythological sources, it is possible to ascertain the following facts. The tribeof the Danai originated in the east, and the introduction of the alphabet to Greece is attributed to it. Its members were outstanding seamen who had special connection with sun worship. The association with the Tribe of Dan is because their was two different tribes (the Danites and the Danai) with identical names and similar characteristics which operated in the same geographical region and period or there is a link between the tribe of Dan and the tribe of Danai, and possibly a certain measure of identity (Yadin 1968: 22).

[Nepenthe]

Also in the Bible it says that "Dan stayed in ships", they were indeed seafarers.

[JACkory]

Rit, I don't like being condescended to.
That's my number one problem with you.
You are possibly the most condescending poster I have ever known.
Anyone who reads your last post to me will see ample evidence of your condescension.
I don't appreciate it and I don't think it justifies a response, seeing as how it's all based on your EXTREMELY limited perception of who I am, what I believe and why I believe it.
Yes, I do "listen to" what you say. But you have to understand that I have the same regard for what you've put out there as you do for what I've said...to use your own words:
you've done nothing but arrogantly proclaim all sorts of bullshit like you think you're making sense.
You tell me that I "speak like a child" and then you have the nerve to say that I am the arrogant one? Ho ho, that's rich. That's what offended ME...I have yet to figure out what YOU might have been offended by (other than the "Fuck you" that your arrogant condescension elicited from me).

I know how much you enjoy a good spat ("Leave then, bitch"), but that's really about all I have to say to you on this board.
If you want to watch me "wrestle with my humanity" you are invited to come on down to Oklahoma and spend a few days with me. I daresay you will come away from that visit with a radically altered perception of who I am.