The Key to Christianity

[Craig]

As most Christians will probably tell you, the Bible is a complex book. There's a lot of different teachings and ideas found within it, not to mention genealogies, history, and all manner of other things. I suspect that many Christians, at some point or another, feel a bit overwhelmed by the Bible. As anyone who has attended Bible study groups can tell you, there's an awful lot to know about the Bible, and a whole bunch of teachings to keep track of in your daily life. In short, there's a lot to remember.

The good news however is that there is one message that is more important than all others in the Bible. It is the key to Christianity, if you will. This passage is but five verses long, but in it, you find not only the key to living as God wants you to, but also the path to salvation.

In Matthew, Jesus is asked a question by a lawyer of the Pharisees, who wants to know what the greatest commandment is. Jesus replies to him:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

This passage may appear to be simple, but it is the single most important passage in the Bible. In it, Jesus tells us that the path to salvation lies first with loving God completely. Not only is this the most important commandment, but as other Scripture reveals, it is a necessary prerequisite in order for us to fulfill the second commandment. The second commandment is the one that should govern our interactions with all other people. Jesus goes on to clarify that by "neighbour", he isn't just referring to the people who live next door to you, but rather to all individuals other than yourself. More important is the understanding that by loving your neighbour, you are fulfilling the law (the Old Testament law, i.e. the Ten Commandments). This is because love, as Jesus speaks of it, for another person means that you will follow the commandments, not because you have to or because you were told to, but because you love the person. You honour your parents because you love them. You do not steal out of love for others. You do not commit adultery, either in the flesh or in your heart, because you love the other person. Love fulfills the law.

Many people cite John 3:16 as their favourite passage, because it tells of God's love for the world and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ so that we would not die. But Matthew 22:37-40 is far more important. John 3:16 tells you that Jesus died for your sins. Matthew 22:37-40 gives you the two most important commandments in the entire Bible for you to live by. It is these two commandments that tell you the "how" of following God. They are the key to the Christian faith.

[serenity]

It is certainly profound, and mind-boggling in both its simplicity and simultaneous difficulty.

How many people "love their neighbors"?

[Atticus]

I would note that He volunteered the second rule having only been asked for the first. "And the second is like it," He says.

[serenity]

Ah well, it's totally ignored anyway...in fact, people tend to be quite hostile to the idea outside of abstract platitudes.

[Atticus]

Not totally ignored. Just because they don't get a lot of press....

And no one rises to great wealth or power by loving his neighbor.

Reminds me of a couple of lines from a poem by Kipling:

"On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)"

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm

[serenity]

Not totally ignored. Just because they don't get a lot of press....

Right. "Mostly" is more accurate then.

[Dangerrmouse]

"it is a custom more honour'd in the breach than the observance."

W.Shakespeare

[mataj]

As most Christians will probably tell you, the Bible is a complex book.No ****:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown (Gen 6:1-4):rolleyes:

[steveksux]

It is certainly profound, and mind-boggling in both its simplicity and simultaneous difficulty.

How many people "love their neighbors"?More than get caught in flagrante delicto....

Randy

[NetxMan]

"love you neighbors." Why is that so vulgar to some of you? I find that odd.

[Atticus]

Who said it was vulgar? It's just that, as others have pointed out, the real "love" is practiced so little that pointing out another meaning for "love" reveals the gap between theory and practice.

[::Major_Baker::]

Who said it was vulgar? It's just that, as others have pointed out, the real "love" is practiced so little that pointing out another meaning for "love" reveals the gap between theory and practice.

The real love? Do you mean the love cited in the bible?

[Atticus]

The real love? Do you mean the love cited in the bible?Yes. In Greek there are five word for "love," none of which quite mean "making love" (though eros is close). I'm not sure if the Greek term here is agape or phileos but it surely isn't eros.

There's a whole linguistic argument about how differences in the construction of concepts through words create confusion--both in the concepts we think with and in translating from one language to another.

EDIT: As it turns out, the term is a form of agape, specifically agapeseis
1) of persons 1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly 2) of things 2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thinghttp://www.greekbible.com/index.php

[::Major_Baker::]

Agape, not sure about that:
Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love.
Maybe you could think this way about your god, I suppose. but your neighbor?
Creepy.


Phileos is more af a humanized brotherly love, perghaps this is what the Christians hope to strive for when loving their neighbors, etc.

eros, we just don't really speak of that.

[lawman]

No ****:

(Gen 6:1-4):rolleyes:
Indeed. If that passages isn't a holdover from some proto-Jewish polytheistic belief system, I'm a newt.

[Atticus]

Agape, not sure about that:
Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love.
Maybe you could think this way about your god, I suppose. but your neighbor?
Creepy.
The idea is "unconditional love." Positive regard not determined by the behavior of the one loved.

In any case, that's the word He used--or is quoted as using.

Just as the meaning of the verb changes when the object changes (from objects to persons), perhaps it also changes with the subject (God vs. humans).

[::Major_Baker::]

The idea is "unconditional love." Positive regard not determined by the behavior of the one loved.

In any case, that's the word He used--or is quoted as using.

Just as the meaning of the verb changes when the object changes (from objects to persons), perhaps it also changes with the subject (God vs. humans).

Don't you mean conditional love?
Based on the condition that you think and act in a certain way?

[Atticus]

Don't you mean conditional love?
Based on the condition that you think and act in a certain way?No, not at all. If you mean God's love for humans, it's not conditional. God's love is universal and equal for everyone. That doesn't mean He can't be angry at the same time, of course, but the Bible promises that His steadfast love endures forever.

[Craig]

"it is a custom more honour'd in the breach than the observance."

W.Shakespeare

Remember too that some of Jesus' parables within the Bible speak specifically of the good Christians, those who strive to following the teachings, and the bad Christians, those who assume their salvation is guaranteed and continue to live their lives as they did prior to being saved.

[::Major_Baker::]

No, not at all. If you mean God's love for humans, it's not conditional. God's love is universal and equal for everyone. That doesn't mean He can't be angry at the same time, of course, but the Bible promises that His steadfast love endures forever.

What about the punishment part--if one doesn't believe?
An odd way of expressing love to condemn someone to eternal pain...

[Atticus]

What about the punishment part--if one doesn't believe?
An odd way of expressing love to condemn someone to eternal pain...It's an interesting thing, this idea called hell. It's quite a nebulous concept through 3/4 of the Bible. The Old Testament doesn't really describe what happens after death. You go somewhere, but there's little sense of reward or punishment, really; mostly, the Old Testament says about existence after death, "we don't know, God knows."

In the New Testament, books called the Good News talk far more about life and the hope of being near to God than they do about the alternative. And while there are passages about Hell in the Bible, they are far outweighed by promises of abundant life.

The really ghastly descriptions of hell in Western literature come from people like Milton, and the Qu'uran is quite a bit more graphic about the fires of hell.

Mostly, as I understand it, God is the source of all love in the world, and hell is simply a place where love is absent. I'd say that's punishment enough, but experience shows that some people would rather

have lots and lots of money
or maintain a lifelong grudge,
or manipulate people for their own gain and pleasure,
or give up hope and give in to dispair,
or put themselves always first,
or serve only their bodily appetites
or have any number of other silly human faults

than receive and give love.

But the New Testament is much more about forgiveness, kindness, and empathy than about punishments. Perhaps that's because I'm not a big fan of Paul, and I often see a disconnection in .... tone .... between Jesus and Paul. Paul's dictums seem out of character for a follower of one who ate with publicans and prostitutes.

[Craig]

Mostly, as I understand it, God is the source of all love in the world, and hell is simply a place where love is absent.

This isn't exactly consistent with what the Bible says Atticus, as I'm sure you must know. The New Testament gives a few descriptions of Hell:

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Revelation 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

Mark 9:44-48: "Where their worm dieth not..."

Revelation 14:11: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm

[Atticus]

This isn't exactly consistent with what the Bible says Atticus, as I'm sure you must know. The New Testament gives a few descriptions of Hell:

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Revelation 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

Mark 9:44-48: "Where their worm dieth not..."

Revelation 14:11: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htmI didn't say there were no descriptions of hell--I said they were few and less important than other things. Also, note that two of your more graphic selections are from Revelation--probably the least historically authoritative book in the NT. Also, knowing that the area in which these books were written was a desert, metaphors of heat, fire, and "brimstone" make a lot of sense. Just so, the Koran's description of paradise is filled with water and coolness.

Understanding that the Bible is a piece of literature (filled with poetic metaphor, not the precise description of travelogue), I don't think the passages you've provided here disprove my notion that hell is the absence of God. All these are elaborate descriptions of the place where God is not.

[whatever]

It's an interesting thing, this idea called hell. It's quite a nebulous concept through 3/4 of the Bible. The Old Testament doesn't really describe what happens after death. You go somewhere, but there's little sense of reward or punishment, really; mostly, the Old Testament says about existence after death, "we don't know, God knows."

In the New Testament, books called the Good News talk far more about life and the hope of being near to God than they do about the alternative. And while there are passages about Hell in the Bible, they are far outweighed by promises of abundant life.

The really ghastly descriptions of hell in Western literature come from people like Milton, and the Qu'uran is quite a bit more graphic about the fires of hell.

Mostly, as I understand it, God is the source of all love in the world, and hell is simply a place where love is absent. I'd say that's punishment enough, but experience shows that some people would rather

have lots and lots of money
or maintain a lifelong grudge,
or manipulate people for their own gain and pleasure,
or give up hope and give in to dispair,
or put themselves always first,
or serve only their bodily appetites
or have any number of other silly human faults

than receive and give love.

But the New Testament is much more about forgiveness, kindness, and empathy than about punishments. Perhaps that's because I'm not a big fan of Paul, and I often see a disconnection in .... tone .... between Jesus and Paul. Paul's dictums seem out of character for a follower of one who ate with publicans and prostitutes.

Doesn't that prove that God's love is not unconditional?

If Heaven is opened only to those who believe, then god's love is conditional on you believing in him. It seems so illogical to claim otherwise.

[Atticus]

Doesn't that prove that God's love is not unconditional?

If Heaven is opened only to those who believe, then god's love is conditional on you believing in him. It seems so illogical to claim otherwise.Why? If people run away from God, you might expect him to chase them a bit, and He does. It's not that Heaven is opened only to those who believe in some narrow idea (at least, that's not my reading). People choose other priorities, that's all.

He says "I stand at the door and knock." You have to open the door. If God just struck you on the head and dragged you into Heaven by your hair, how would you feel about that?

Think of it this way--have you ever been disappointed in love? Have you ever loved someone only for them to reject you? Did their rejection discount your love?

[whatever]

Why? If people run away from God, you might expect him to chase them a bit, and He does. It's not that Heaven is opened only to those who believe in some narrow idea (at least, that's not my reading). People choose other priorities, that's all.

He says "I stand at the door and knock." You have to open the door. If God just struck you on the head and dragged you into Heaven by your hair, how would you feel about that?

Think of it this way--have you ever been disappointed in love? Have you ever loved someone only for them to reject you? Did their rejection discount your love?

Then my understanding of Christianity and yours are quite different. I've thought that the basic tenet of Christianity is that you have to believe in Christ (God's son) for your sins to be washed away, and be allowed (emphasis here) into heaven. The condition is set by god. He decides whether we go into his house or not based on whether we believe in him or not. If God's love is unconditional, whether we believe in him or not shouldn't matter. To use your example, even if that person do not know of me or my love, if I truly care for them unconditionally I'll still do my best to make their life easier.

[Atticus]

Then my understanding of Christianity and yours are quite different. I've thought that the basic tenet of Christianity is that you have to believe in Christ (God's son) for your sins to be washed away, and be allowed (emphasis here) into heaven. The condition is set by god. He decides whether we go into his house or not based on whether we believe in him or not. If God's love is unconditional, whether we believe in him or not shouldn't matter. To use your example, even if that person do not know of me or my love, if I truly care for them unconditionally I'll still do my best to make their life easier.Christianity involves a much larger set of ideas than you give it credit for. There are myriad interpretations of the scriptures, not just one. This vision of God as some tyrant is pretty awful really, and I wouldn't want to go to his heaven anyway.

I think we should look more closely at what Jesus Himself said rather than worry about all those who came after him and tried to reinterpret his words. Going back to the OP, Jesus didn't make "believe on me" his first commandment--his prime directive was to love God above all and your neighbor as yourself-->and all other rules would follow from these two.

And I would take exception to one word in what you say above--you say "I'll still do my best to make their life easier." I'm not sure how wise that is. There are some pretty obnoxious, petty, selfish people with easy lives--I'm not sure that ease is such a great advantage. To make their life BETTER, that makes more sense. And it's hard to tell, in the moment, what constitutes "better." I've wanted a great many things in my life, but in many cases my life is better because I didn't get them.

To explain further--think about how different the mind of God must be from our own. God sees everything, knows everything, understands everything. We, on the other hand, see only what we experience and are stuck in our own (by our very nature) selfish perspectives. That means God knows not only the pain we feel but the pain we give to others. If someone hurts me, the tendency is for me to blame them and feel hard-hearted toward them. But God knows not only my pain, but understands also whatever impelled the person who hurt me to do what they did. Pretty soon, I expect, blame becomes difficult to assess. With that much information, what makes for lives to be "better" must be a complex thing.

God wants us to love and forgive and suffer wrongs rather than give them. None of that is easy. It is, however, better.

[serenity]

And I would take exception to one word in what you say above--you say "I'll still do my best to make their life easier." I'm not sure how wise that is. There are some pretty obnoxious, petty, selfish people with easy lives--I'm not sure that ease is such a great advantage. To make their life BETTER, that makes more sense. And it's hard to tell, in the moment, what constitutes "better." I've wanted a great many things in my life, but in many cases my life is better because I didn't get them.

My grandmother (who was the shining star of my family) was a devout woman, and she used to say, “God didn’t make us to be happy. He made us to be great.” (I don’t know if that was originally hers or not.) I’m not a believer, but I always liked that.

[whatever]

Christianity involves a much larger set of ideas than you give it credit for. There are myriad interpretations of the scriptures, not just one. This vision of God as some tyrant is pretty awful really, and I wouldn't want to go to his heaven anyway.

I think we should look more closely at what Jesus Himself said rather than worry about all those who came after him and tried to reinterpret his words. Going back to the OP, Jesus didn't make "believe on me" his first commandment--his prime directive was to love God above all and your neighbor as yourself-->and all other rules would follow from these two.

And I would take exception to one word in what you say above--you say "I'll still do my best to make their life easier." I'm not sure how wise that is. There are some pretty obnoxious, petty, selfish people with easy lives--I'm not sure that ease is such a great advantage. To make their life BETTER, that makes more sense. And it's hard to tell, in the moment, what constitutes "better." I've wanted a great many things in my life, but in many cases my life is better because I didn't get them.

To explain further--think about how different the mind of God must be from our own. God sees everything, knows everything, understands everything. We, on the other hand, see only what we experience and are stuck in our own (by our very nature) selfish perspectives. That means God knows not only the pain we feel but the pain we give to others. If someone hurts me, the tendency is for me to blame them and feel hard-hearted toward them. But God knows not only my pain, but understands also whatever impelled the person who hurt me to do what they did. Pretty soon, I expect, blame becomes difficult to assess. With that much information, what makes for lives to be "better" must be a complex thing.

God wants us to love and forgive and suffer wrongs rather than give them. None of that is easy. It is, however, better.

With regard to Christian God, I think we are talking at a tangent to each other. Honestly, sometimes I think you are more spiritual than a mainstream Christian. And that's a compliment.

I still maintain though that if god loves everyone "unconditionally", it shouldn't matter what he knows or thinks or how we act, he would still welcome us into his house. Would you lock your door against your kid if s/he had commited murder? I know I wouldn't.

With regards to the other point: well sometimes love aren't always wise. I try to question what love really is, and from my observations, when you love a person, you try to ease their life, solve the little everyday things. That's the most basic expression of love, and the one that counts most (at least for me). Maybe "better" is all encompassing, but in real life that concept tend to get complicated because "better" is so subjective.

[Atticus]

With regard to Christian God, I think we are talking at a tangent to each other. Honestly, sometimes I think you are more spiritual than a mainstream Christian. And that's a compliment.I simply think you mistake me for a particular kind of American evangelical. The fact is, the protestant churches referred to as "mainline" have been losing ground for a while. That's unfortunate. You're referring to "get out of jail free" Christianity, to which I don't subscribe. Christianity has a two-thousand year tradition, with many tangents. This particular moment in history in this particular culture might not be the best representation of "mainstream" Christianity. We have a culture obsessed with wealth and oblivious to its priviledge. I know someone who will tell you he is a "Bible believing Christian" but when you mention that 20% of the world's population lives on less thatn $1 a day, he says "that's because we're rich" with a shrug. Sad, if you ask me.I still maintain though that if god loves everyone "unconditionally", it shouldn't matter what he knows or thinks or how we act, he would still welcome us into his house. Would you lock your door against your kid if s/he had commited murder? I know I wouldn't.And I say he doesn't lock that door, but he does insist on confession and repentance. The door is open and you can walk in any time you want. I wouldn't lock my door againt my kid if she were a murderer--but if she didn't at least say "I'm sorry" and started breaking all the dishes and ripping up the furniture, I might have to exclude her just to keep the house intact. If people don't go to heaven, it's because they've chosen something else.
With regards to the other point: well sometimes love aren't always wise. I try to question what love really is, and from my observations, when you love a person, you try to ease their life, solve the little everyday things. That's the most basic expression of love, and the one that counts most (at least for me). Maybe "better" is all encompassing, but in real life that concept tend to get complicated because "better" is so subjective.But you're confusing the love you feel for another adult--maybe romantic love?--with another kind. If I spend all my energy making my child's life as easy as possible, I'll end up with a child who can't take care of herself, feels entitled to an easy life, and walks all over me. God let's us suffer because without suffering we can't empathize with the suffering of others. The central act in the life of Christ was suffering on behalf of someone else, and He calls us to be Christ-like.

Do you really think a religion should just say "you shouldn't suffer" or should it say "you're suffering has a purpose, let me help you understand it?"

And I'm not really even qualified to talk about suffering: I'm a middle-class American, white, male, well-educated, a little overweight. I own a home, have a job I love, a family that's rewarding, and I live in a great country where "middle-class" means a standard of living above 1% of 1% of the human population today (let's not even talk about the millenia when being a king still meant ****ting in a hole). If I didn't think God loved me, I'd be a huge, ungrateful prick.

[SpringRain]

The key to Christianity is simple <<Mod Edit - Offensive Generalization>>

[Craig]

I didn't say there were no descriptions of hell--I said they were few and less important than other things. Also, note that two of your more graphic selections are from Revelation--probably the least historically authoritative book in the NT. Also, knowing that the area in which these books were written was a desert, metaphors of heat, fire, and "brimstone" make a lot of sense. Just so, the Koran's description of paradise is filled with water and coolness.

Understanding that the Bible is a piece of literature (filled with poetic metaphor, not the precise description of travelogue), I don't think the passages you've provided here disprove my notion that hell is the absence of God. All these are elaborate descriptions of the place where God is not.

I do realize that Revelation is one of the most suspect books of the New Testament. However, the same also holds true for the Gospel According to John, and it's one of the four central gospels covering the narrative of Jesus' life and ministry. So I'm not sure how critical we can be of it as a text unless we're prepared to throw out other significant parts of the New Testament as well.

The other thing which was raised in another thread, (and which, to my knowledge, you never answered) was a question of how do you sort through which sections of the Bible you interpret literally, and which sections you do not? In some cases, the answer is fairly obvious. Even conservative Christians would agree with the statement that Jesus' parables are meant to be understood metaphorically. However, what do you do for other parts of the New Testament which are not so unambiguously written as metaphor? What standard or criterion do you use to evaluate those parts you believe are metaphoric, and those which are not?

As Richard Dawkins points out, whatever criteria you employ will be subjective, which means that you end up picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you take literally, and which parts you don't. To put it another way, you're not really reading and following the Bible; you're reading it according to how you want to read it, and not based upon what it actually says. Considering that the Bible is pretty unambiguous about the fact that this should not be done, I'm wondering how you resolve this in your own mind.

[Atticus]

I do realize that Revelation is one of the most suspect books of the New Testament. However, the same also holds true for the Gospel According to John, and it's one of the four central gospels covering the narrative of Jesus' life and ministry. So I'm not sure how critical we can be of it as a text unless we're prepared to throw out other significant parts of the New Testament as well.I would read most of John as an elaborate metaphor (just look at the first line). The other three are "synoptic" and have been much better analyzed for their related textual histories.
The other thing which was raised in another thread, (and which, to my knowledge, you never answered) was a question of how do you sort through which sections of the Bible you interpret literally, and which sections you do not? In some cases, the answer is fairly obvious. Even conservative Christians would agree with the statement that Jesus' parables are meant to be understood metaphorically. However, what do you do for other parts of the New Testament which are not so unambiguously written as metaphor? What standard or criterion do you use to evaluate those parts you believe are metaphoric, and those which are not?

As Richard Dawkins points out, whatever criteria you employ will be subjective, which means that you end up picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you take literally, and which parts you don't. To put it another way, you're not really reading and following the Bible; you're reading it according to how you want to read it, and not based upon what it actually says. Considering that the Bible is pretty unambiguous about the fact that this should not be done, I'm wondering how you resolve this in your own mind.Well, let's start with the fact that the subjectivity you mention is true not just of the Bible but of all texts--in fact of all language. You were an English major, Craig, so I don't have to tell you that every text can be read multiple ways and that there's no such thing as an objective reading. I know some people are not comfortable with ambiguity when it comes to scripture, but my education in language tells me there is no other way.

To really answer your question with any accuracy, we'd have to talk about a particular passage. In general, though, I hope my reading is informed by a historical-critical understanding. That is, we should want to know all we can about the original context--about the writer and his constructed audience, about the culture in which the text was supposed to appear, and so forth. Again, my education as a Christian tells me the Bible should be read critically, just like any other book.

Beyond that, I don't really expect scriptures to give me very detailed information. It's literature, not a technical manual. I think the gospels give us a good sense of the character of Jesus, and I'm distrustful of anything that seems to violate what He would likely have said. That's why I look at Paul's letters VERY critically. I think Paul is speaking for himself in many cases, and he's ALWAYS writing a letter to a specific audience in a specific moment--which means generalizing from his letters too broadly is a bit dangerous in my view.

That's just an example, but I would have to use the same skills to determine the difference between the "metaphorical" and the "literal" (both slippery terms, since all language is essentially metaphorical) as I do with any other text.

And I know many (perhaps most) people will find what I'm about to say just wacky, but Christians have a conception of a Holy Spirit that can lead them to a proper understanding in their particular moment. Were you and I to sit and look at a passage and get different meanings from it, I would chalk that up to our different needs at that moment and credit the Holy Spirit for providing us different understandings.

Think of Romanticism's notion of the imagination as a powerful, inspirational force that gives us intuition. You ask me what the Bible means in a particular passage. I say to you, when Keats writes "'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'," what does he mean? It's a powerful passage and many critics have provided readings. Which one is "right?" You know the answer is ambiguous. So is scripture. But still Keats's words are powerful and can mean something rather special to an individual reader at a particular moment (as well as fitting into a general philosophy of aesthetics, the line's meaning in relationship to the extended metaphor about mutability in the rest of the poem, etc). I think the Bible works the same way.

Don't tell me you never read a passage of literature that struck you in a special way, from which you took a meaning that was an entirely personal construction, one that you wouldn't have bothered sharing with a professor or writing a paper about but that was YOURS, special to you and applicable to your own life. Where did that inspiration come from?

[whatever]

And I say he doesn't lock that door, but he does insist on confession and repentance. The door is open and you can walk in any time you want. I wouldn't lock my door againt my kid if she were a murderer--but if she didn't at least say "I'm sorry" and started breaking all the dishes and ripping up the furniture, I might have to exclude her just to keep the house intact. If people don't go to heaven, it's because they've chosen something else.

Ah, you see that's the condition I'm talking about. I know of mothers who will still help their kids even when they are complete *******s, it's a stupid kind of love, but it's unconditional. :shrug:

Again you turn the heaven thing onto its head. God sets the rule, not us. Rules are conditions. Act a certain way, you get a certain thing. It's just illogical to say otherwise.


But you're confusing the love you feel for another adult--maybe romantic love?--with another kind. [color=green]nah, I'm not exactly the romantic kind, can't say I even believe in the concept of "the one" and "falling in/out of love"[/green] If I spend all my energy making my child's life as easy as possible, I'll end up with a child who can't take care of herself, feels entitled to an easy life, and walks all over me.

True. So you balance what they want with what you want. In real life people tend to engage in an unconcious bartering. You act in a certain way to me and I'll act in a certain way to you: show you more affaction, more commitment, more trust etc.

I wasn't saying that's all you should do when you love a person, but the most basic element you should feel when you really love a person, I think, is concerns for their well being. When you think about your kid, don't you think about how she goes on at school, whether she makes friends, whether she eats well or sleeps well, or if she has a problem, what can you do to help, even if she did something wrong, wouldn't you try to mitigate the cosequences she'll have to bear? Those are the kind of thoughts I have for my family and close friends, and it makes me warm and fuzzy inside ( :) ) when their actions indicate that they have thought the same about me. But that's just my personal view.





God let's us suffer because without suffering we can't empathize with the suffering of others. The central act in the life of Christ was suffering on behalf of someone else, and He calls us to be Christ-like.

Do you really think a religion should just say "you shouldn't suffer" or should it say "you're suffering has a purpose, let me help you understand it?"

And I'm not really even qualified to talk about suffering: I'm a middle-class American, white, male, well-educated, a little overweight. I own a home, have a job I love, a family that's rewarding, and I live in a great country where "middle-class" means a standard of living above 1% of 1% of the human population today (let's not even talk about the millenia when being a king still meant ****ting in a hole). If I didn't think God loved me, I'd be a huge, ungrateful prick.

Sorry, but you took my own personal interpretation of what love is a bit too far. I didn't say that I think that god or you would think of love the way I do, but the point is this: however you choose to manifest your love, if you love another person unconditionally, it shouldn't matter how that person act or think or feel, you'll still act in the same manner. Otherwise, that love is conditional on how they act or think or feel. Simple as that.

[Atticus]

Ah, you see that's the condition I'm talking about. I know of mothers who will still help their kids even when they are complete *******s, it's a stupid kind of love, but it's unconditional. :shrug:So you're upset with my conception of God because He isn't stupid? Look, even if I turn in my murdering son to the police, that doesn't mean I stop loving him. You appear to think that love means having to do what the other person wants, no matter what. That's crap. Love means doing what is in that person's best interest, and often we don't know what's in our best interest.
Again you turn the heaven thing onto its head. God sets the rule, not us. Rules are conditions. Act a certain way, you get a certain thing. It's just illogical to say otherwise.Again, you're blaming God for not being a weak-kneed idiot. Remember, He's got more than one child. Do you let one child destroy what another has just because you love him? (See, story of the Prodigal Son.) No. You say God is creating some unreasonable conditions for His love. Not at all. He's acting in his children's best interest.
True. So you balance what they want with what you want. In real life people tend to engage in an unconcious bartering. You act in a certain way to me and I'll act in a certain way to you: show you more affaction, more commitment, more trust etc. You are anthropromorphizing God. This isn't about a negotiation between equals. We're talking about an all-seeing, all-powerful God and an incredibly limited human--a totally different situation.

I wasn't saying that's all you should do when you love a person, but the most basic element you should feel when you really love a person, I think, is concerns for their well being. When you think about your kid, don't you think about how she goes on at school, whether she makes friends, whether she eats well or sleeps well, or if she has a problem, what can you do to help, even if she did something wrong, wouldn't you try to mitigate the cosequences she'll have to bear? Those are the kind of thoughts I have for my family and close friends, and it makes me warm and fuzzy inside ( :) ) when their actions indicate that they have thought the same about me. But that's just my personal view.I'm quite certain God is concerned about all these things, but again, your view and mine are quite limited. We can't see how the trouble someone must overcome one day will help them deal with what comes the next day, or year, or decade. People have to grow and they don't grow when everything is just peachy. Pretending that God should just be some candy machine--pull the handle, get a goodie--because He doesn't love you if He doesn't throw roses on your path just seems selfish to me.
Sorry, but you took my own personal interpretation of what love is a bit too far. I didn't say that I think that god or you would think of love the way I do, but the point is this: however you choose to manifest your love, if you love another person unconditionally, it shouldn't matter how that person act or think or feel, you'll still act in the same manner. Otherwise, that love is conditional on how they act or think or feel. Simple as that.Now I'm confused. In what way do you think God changes based on people's behavior?

Here's an analogy--let's say you love me and I'm about to take rat poison. I don't understand the danger, I just want that rat poison and I'll have it. I find your interference in my taking rat poison highly offensive and claim you don't love me if you put that rat poison on a high shelf. Should you let me have the poison in order to show your love?

Now go back to what I wrote in post #21. All those things--selfishness, unforgiveness, greed, pride--they're all rat poison. God wants us to have every good thing, but we don't know what's good, so we whine because our undeveloped selves think we know what's best.

The thing is, we can still take the poison if we want. But then we'll be dead and he can't do anything about it. Because, according to the Bible, that's the alternative to Heaven. It isn't so much fire and brimstone as simply death--a death we choose for ourselves. And don't say "God could save you anyway if He wanted to," because He gave us free will. If we want to take rat poison and die, that's our choice.

[Atticus]

[QUOTE=Atticus;1038719]So you're upset with my conception of God because He isn't stupid? Look, even if I turn in my murdering son to the police, that doesn't mean I stop loving him. You appear to think that love means having to do what the other person wants, no matter what. That's crap. Love means doing what is in that person's best interest, and often we don't know what's in our best interest.
Again, you're blaming God for not being a weak-kneed idiot. Remember, He's got more than one child. Do you let one child destroy what another has just because you love him? (See, story of the Prodigal Son.) No. You say God is creating some unreasonable conditions for His love. Not at all. He's acting in his children's best interest.
You are anthropromorphizing God. This isn't about a negotiation between equals. We're talking about an all-seeing, all-powerful God and an incredibly limited human--a totally different situation.

I'm quite certain God is concerned about all these things, but again, your view and mine are quite limited. We can't see how the trouble someone must overcome one day will help them deal with what comes the next day, or year, or decade. People have to grow and they don't grow when everything is just peachy. Pretending that God should just be some candy machine--pull the handle, get a goodie--because He doesn't love you if He doesn't throw roses on your path just seems selfish to me.
Now I'm confused. In what way do you think God changes based on people's behavior?

Here's an analogy--let's say you love me and I'm about to take rat poison. I don't understand the danger, I just want that rat poison and I'll have it. I find your interference in my taking rat poison highly offensive and claim you don't love me if you put that rat poison on a high shelf. Should you let me have the poison in order to show your love?

Now go back to what I wrote in post #21. All those things--selfishness, unforgiveness, greed, pride--they're all rat poison. God wants us to have every good thing, but we don't know what's good, so we whine because our undeveloped selves think we know what's best.

The thing is, we can still take the poison if we want. But then we'll be dead and He can't do anything about it. Because, according to the Bible, that's the alternative to Heaven. It isn't so much fire and brimstone as simply death--a death we choose for ourselves. And don't say "He can save you anyway" because we have free will and can choose death if we want.

[whatever]

So you're upset with my conception of God because He isn't stupid? Look, even if I turn in my murdering son to the police, that doesn't mean I stop loving him. You appear to think that love means having to do what the other person wants, no matter what. That's crap. Love means doing what is in that person's best interest, and often we don't know what's in our best interest.

Again, you're blaming God for not being a weak-kneed idiot. Remember, He's got more than one child. Do you let one child destroy what another has just because you love him? (See, story of the Prodigal Son.) No. You say God is creating some unreasonable conditions for His love. Not at all. He's acting in his children's best interest.

1. I'm not upset about anything. Did my posts somehow give you that impression? Well, it wasn't intended.


2.I didn't say anything about reasonable or unreasonable. I only said that god set conditions on his love, and thus his acceptance of people into heaven, or leave them in hell (as per my understanding of how some Christians interprete their Bibles, and how I myself interprete it). All I'm doing is refuting the claim that God's love is unconditional, because even from what you've said so far, I see conditions after conditions. I never comment that setting conditions is a good or a bad thing. Don't read too much that's not there.

3. I'm not blaming anybody, or god himself, I'm just pointing out a claim I find to be illogical.

4. The next two points have nothing to do with god or religion. Just trying to clarify how I interprete love VS how you interprete it.

Now I'm confused. In what way do you think God changes based on people's behavior?

Here's an analogy--let's say you love me and I'm about to take rat poison. I don't understand the danger, I just want that rat poison and I'll have it. I find your interference in my taking rat poison highly offensive and claim you don't love me if you put that rat poison on a high shelf. Should you let me have the poison in order to show your love?

Now go back to what I wrote in post #21. All those things--selfishness, unforgiveness, greed, pride--they're all rat poison. God wants us to have every good thing, but we don't know what's good, so we whine because our undeveloped selves think we know what's best.

If you read my post again, maybe you'll see that this has little to do with what I was trying to say.


The thing is, we can still take the poison if we want. But then we'll be dead and he can't do anything about it. Because, according to the Bible, that's the alternative to Heaven. It isn't so much fire and brimstone as simply death--a death we choose for ourselves. And don't say "God could save you anyway if He wanted to," because He gave us free will. If we want to take rat poison and die, that's our choice

I know what you are trying to say but you are doing reverse psychology in my view. Just because I find it illogical to believe in god when I live, doesn't mean that I don't want to go to heaven after I die, if it turns out that there's a heaven. The way you make it: Not wanting to go to heaven is a logical result of not believing in God, i.e. If I can't believe in god then I must not want to go to heaven, should there be a heaven. And that's just not true. They are two seperate things.

Once we get that clear, here's the thing we differ: God is supposed to be all powerful, God decides who go to heaven, the conditions for going to heaven are believing in God and his son, and repent from our sins. If you, as I do, see God's acceptance of people into heaven (purely his decision) as a sign of his love (and I find it ironic to think that you can love somebody and let them just disappear or suffer in hell) then God's love has conditions attached to it. That's it.

[Craig]

I would read most of John as an elaborate metaphor (just look at the first line). The other three are "synoptic" and have been much better analyzed for their related textual histories.
Well, let's start with the fact that the subjectivity you mention is true not just of the Bible but of all texts--in fact of all language. You were an English major, Craig, so I don't have to tell you that every text can be read multiple ways and that there's no such thing as an objective reading. I know some people are not comfortable with ambiguity when it comes to scripture, but my education in language tells me there is no other way.

To really answer your question with any accuracy, we'd have to talk about a particular passage. In general, though, I hope my reading is informed by a historical-critical understanding. That is, we should want to know all we can about the original context--about the writer and his constructed audience, about the culture in which the text was supposed to appear, and so forth. Again, my education as a Christian tells me the Bible should be read critically, just like any other book.

That's just an example, but I would have to use the same skills to determine the difference between the "metaphorical" and the "literal" (both slippery terms, since all language is essentially metaphorical) as I do with any other text.

And I know many (perhaps most) people will find what I'm about to say just wacky, but Christians have a conception of a Holy Spirit that can lead them to a proper understanding in their particular moment. Were you and I to sit and look at a passage and get different meanings from it, I would chalk that up to our different needs at that moment and credit the Holy Spirit for providing us different understandings.


Don't tell me you never read a passage of literature that struck you in a special way, from which you took a meaning that was an entirely personal construction, one that you wouldn't have bothered sharing with a professor or writing a paper about but that was YOURS, special to you and applicable to your own life. Where did that inspiration come from?

Atticus,

As an English Major I am of course aware of the possibility of examining the Bible from a metaphorical, literary, and historical perspective. The problem I see however is that if we follow this through to the farthest extent possible, we find our literary analysis at conflict with the belief that Jesus is the saviour of humanity, and that Christianity has truth value. From a historical perspective, we have to examine the fact that of the fifty or so known gospels, only four of them actually became canon, one of which (John) was still considered heretical by many early Christians. We have to consider that the Christianity that we have today is Pauline Christianity, and that there were other forms such as the Gnostics who were eliminated and whose teachings were suppressed. We have to consider that the creation of the Bible was as much an editorial process as it was a process of composing texts, and that there were many opportunities to harmonize the Gospels, or more importantly, the Old and New Testament.

From a literary perspective, we have to consider that Jesus shares traits with figures from mythology, a point I've raised before in other threads. We have to also examine Jesus as a literary construct, a figure established based upon the life of a man, but raised to the status of God incarnate, a performer of miracles, and the prophesized saviour of mankind. We have to look at the possibility that the various gospels are derivative of one another and possibly another earlier work, which compromises them as being the unique perspectives of several of Jesus' apostles. There are probably other things that I haven't thought of yet, but these give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

In short, if we pursue these to the fullest possible extent, our faith that Christianty is anything more than just another human religion, the product of men, and not a divine God, will begin to unravel. There is an internal conflict and tension between literary and historical analysis of the Bible versus trying to interpret it more literally but still within the context it was written, which cannot be ignored. We can ignore this tension and try to sweep it under the rug, or not really consider its full implications, but even so it remains. At what point then is the dividing line between what we accept as literary, and what we accept as "literal" truth? And if there is no real dividing line between the two, why call ourselves Christians if we're truly interpreting the Bible as a literary text, rather than as a holy book?

Regarding your final question, I can't think of any instances off-hand that were like this. I've had interpretations and ideas about a text that were my own, but I don't recall any that I did not share with my professors, either in conversation or essay form, because they only had a particular meaning for me. This leads me to your final question, to which I can only say "I don't know", since I'm not sure I've had such an interpretation.

[Atticus]

And if there is no real dividing line between the two, why call ourselves Christians if we're truly interpreting the Bible as a literary text, rather than as a holy book?What's the difference? :flowers:

[Craig]

I think you know. ;)

[Atticus]

No, actually, I'm not. That was a serious question, really. If you mean "holy writ" in the sense of some transcendent (and perfectly clear) literal word of God, then everything in my education about language says the concept is nutty. But I don't think that's what it means. For more, see "Holy Spirit" comments above.

[Craig]

No, actually, I'm not. That was a serious question, really. If you mean "holy writ" in the sense of some transcendent (and perfectly clear) literal word of God, then everything in my education about language says the concept is nutty. But I don't think that's what it means. For more, see "Holy Spirit" comments above.

What I mean is that if we interpret the Bible as a literary text alone, which is the logical course if we truly pursue it from a historical and literary perspective unflinchingly with full understanding of the implication of doing so, we cease to treat it as a holy book, and it becomes just another text with no more reality attached to it than Romeo and Juliet, Robinson Crusoe, Heart of Darkness, or any other work of fiction.

Sorry for that horrendous run-on sentence.

[Atticus]

What I mean is that if we interpret the Bible as a literary text alone, which is the logical course if we truly pursue it from a historical and literary perspective unflinchingly with full understanding of the implication of doing so, we cease to treat it as a holy book, and it becomes just another text with no more reality attached to it than Romeo and Juliet, Robinson Crusoe, Heart of Darkness, or any other work of fiction.

Sorry for that horrendous run-on sentence.Sorry, too much black-and-white thinking going on there for me. Is there no space between "fiction" and "holy writ?" There are many different kinds of texts, and they demand different kinds of readings.

[Craig]

Sorry, too much black-and-white thinking going on there for me. Is there no space between "fiction" and "holy writ?" There are many different kinds of texts, and they demand different kinds of readings.

There is space between the two Atticus, but only if we do not push the competing perspectives (literary/historical and holy writ) to their logical limits. Again, if you go with half measures on either of them, then sure, you could be left with an ambiguous space between fiction and holy writ. But if you pursue either one unflinchingly, then no, there isn't space between the two.

It's a bit like how Jack London was a professed social darwinist and socialist at the same time- there's an inherent tension between the two ideologies which renders them incompatable if pushed to their limits.

[Atticus]

There is space between the two Atticus, but only if we do not push the competing perspectives (literary/historical and holy writ) to their logical limits. Again, if you go with half measures on either of them, then sure, you could be left with an ambiguous space between fiction and holy writ. But if you pursue either one unflinchingly, then no, there isn't space between the two.

It's a bit like how Jack London was a professed social darwinist and socialist at the same time- there's an inherent tension between the two ideologies which renders them incompatable if pushed to their limits.Is there a reason to "push the limits?" "Where one thing stands, another thing will stand beside it."

Can incompatible ideas occupy the same intellectual space. Surely, and they do all the time. It's our limited (and, frankly Western) capacity for understanding that insists we push one out in favor of another.

[Craig]

Is there a reason to "push the limits?" "Where one thing stands, another thing will stand beside it."

Can incompatible ideas occupy the same intellectual space. Surely, and they do all the time. It's our limited (and, frankly Western) capacity for understanding that insists we push one out in favor of another.

Atticus,

I can understand your sentiments on this subject, since Western philosophy, along with much of our thought, is a product of what might most aptly be termed "polarity". And polarity, which in this case is the notion of dividing things into dichotomous categories, can lead to simplification of reality, not to mention what one philosopher referred to as a "sharpening" of reality, which thereby distorts complexity. But in this case, it's not tenable that both of these things can exist and stand side by side at the same time.

My thesis from before is that an unflinchingly historicoliterary approach to the Bible is incompatable with approaching the Bible as Holy Writ, a revelation of the divine will of God. As I've outlined before, the more one researches and investigates the Bible from the former perspective, the more evidence we are left with which suggests that the Bible is a product of men, perhaps one of the most profound and important books ever written, but nevertheless a book of men and not of God. The latter perspective involves belief that the Bible is more than just the words of men. Though the exact beliefs of those who treat the Bible as Holy Writ may vary, they must necessarily involve the belief in a deity which can be termed "God", and a belief in Jesus Christ as a saviour of humanity.

Essentially then, the implication of your position of both of these things standing side by side is that the Bible is the product of men alone, and also simaltaneously the product of God. More specifically in the context of this thread, the implication is that Jesus can be nothing more than a literary construct, and yet while being nothing more than a literary construct he can also be the divine figure of the Bible and the saviour of humanity. You can't have it both ways. If the Jesus of the Bible is nothing more than a myth made up by men, he cannot also be the Son of God and everything that this entails.

One can always elect to take a way around this, which is to assert that the Jesus of the Bible is indeed a literary myth, one that was fabricated around the life of a real man whose actions were most certainly powerful and inspiring. But this is hardly a way out of the problem. Jesus as a divine and human figure is central to the beliefs of Christianity. He's the lynch-pin of the Christian faith, so to speak. And if you demote Jesus to the status of being nothing more than a man, you quite literally take the "Christ" out of "Christian". One has no good reason to worship him as a Messiah and Son of God if he's just a mortal man no different from anyone else.

I contend then that these two approaches cannot stand side by side. At some point, you have to say "I believe that Jesus/the Bible is a divine work" or "I believe that Jesus/the Bible is a literary creation that does not correspond with an objective reality". And this means that you can only pursue the two opposing approaches so far. I stand by my assertion that the only way to maintain the perspective that the Bible is both a historicoliterary creation and an expression of God is to remain in the ambiguous space I described which is a product of pushing neither perspective to its absolute limits.

[Atticus]

Craig,

While I respect your perspective, I don't agree. The whole notion of the Bible (or any other text) as Holy Writ (inerrant, largely literal, with windowpane clarity) simply flies in the face of what we know about language. Language is by its nature metaphorical (all of it, not just those elements we call literary or poetic) and the process of both creating and interpreting language is intelligent guesswork. The notion that any text can be transcendentally "accurate" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

On the other hand, reducing it to the level of a novel also quite clearly misunderstands its nature as a text. Once we call something fiction, we devalue its ability to transmit some transcendent truth--it becomes the vision of an individual.

I reject both the idea that the Bible was either "written by God" in the sense that it was somehow dictated to a mindless writing hand (the fundamental claim of the Qu'uran, by the way), or that it was exclusively the construction of a human mind (or several minds). Rather--and our poster Izdaari has written to this point well, I think--it is a human construction inspired by God. It is transcendentally true without being historically accurate. Just as it was written with divine guidance but by a human hand, so it can be read with divine guidance. Prayer and Bible reading are complementary activities.

This won't make sense to someone who wants the truth (or the Truth) to be obvious, forceful, and undeniable. If you want God to beat you into submission (as John Donne pleads in "Batter My Heart, Three-Personed God"), you'll have to find a different one The God of the New Testament isn't a God of force; He has to be invited in--"I stand at the door and knock." He has to be sought.

The Bible is a mystical text, and it can reveal different truths to different people (and different truths to the same person at different times). That makes it neither "Holy Writ" nor literature. Again, to make an ANALOGY (and only that) to literary criticism, you know that some theories are more productive with some texts than with others. New Criticism is a great way to approach modernist poetry, but it makes the finest language poem look like crap. A critic of American Realism will completely devalue magical realism as confusing and contradictory. My sense is that you are looking at the Bible and daring it to mean something; that won't do. Mysticism is like that.

In our discussions long ago (with the dearly departed nogoodname) did you prefer the Enlightenment or Romanticism? Despite my avatar, I think Blake had a better take on the textual nature of the New Testament than did Swift.

You're clearly a resistant reader. The whole point of post-modern criticism is resistance, and it can say some interesting things about a text. But with scripture you need to play the believing game before you play the doubting game and then decide which one is more satisfying. By the way, I'd put the Bhagavad-Gita and other texts in the same category. They should be read neither as history nor as fiction. Rather, we should expect to find multiple, complex meanings that speak profoundly the the important questions of living. Read lightly rather than stringently, looking for personal moments of enlightenment and broad outlines, even two scriptures as different as the Bible and the Gita are not incompatible.

[lawman]

Wow. This turned into a really interesting thread when I wasn't paying attention. Allow me to do a little catching up...

The other thing which was raised in another thread, (and which, to my knowledge, you never answered) was a question of how do you sort through which sections of the Bible you interpret literally, and which sections you do not?...
To put it another way, you're not really reading and following the Bible; you're reading it according to how you want to read it, and not based upon what it actually says. Considering that the Bible is pretty unambiguous about the fact that this should not be done, I'm wondering how you resolve this in your own mind.
Quite so. Unless, of course, you start by deciding that the part instructing you to take it all literally is not to be taken literally; after that you have no further problem. :)

(Sorry if that seems glib; obviously this is a serious intellectual problem for any number of evangelicals, more's the pity. But honestly, it's a pretty simple solution...)

The real question that arises here, as a necessary consequence, is -- once you've determined that some parts need not be taken literally, what reason(s) are you left with for taking any parts literally?

Of course, you touched on this, and the thread goes on to explore it...
...I don't have to tell you that every text can be read multiple ways and that there's no such thing as an objective reading. I know some people are not comfortable with ambiguity when it comes to scripture, but my education in language tells me there is no other way.

...In general, though, I hope my reading is informed by a historical-critical understanding. That is, we should want to know all we can about the original context--about the writer and his constructed audience, about the culture in which the text was supposed to appear, and so forth. Again, my education as a Christian tells me the Bible should be read critically, just like any other book.

Beyond that, I don't really expect scriptures to give me very detailed information. It's literature, not a technical manual. I think the gospels give us a good sense of the character of Jesus, and I'm distrustful of anything that seems to violate what He would likely have said. That's why I look at Paul's letters VERY critically...
I have no problem with the concept of an overdetermined text, although you have to admit there's a difference between seeking meaning in a text from a single author, and seeking it in a text composed by multiple (mostly anonymous) authors and editors, in multiple languages, across multiple centuries.

Which is why I actually agree with pretty much everything you wrote here, Atticus -- I approach the Bible very much with an historical-critical sensibility, because there's really no other intellectually honest way to do it.

But that doesn't really explain why you'd chalk up to divine inspiration what you would consider (for any other text) just a matter of personal subjective interpretation -- and it still leaves the question I posed above, to which Craig returns, with an admirably cogent post...
...The problem I see however is that if we follow this through to the farthest extent possible, we find our literary analysis at conflict with the belief that Jesus is the saviour of humanity, and that Christianity has truth value.

...In short, if we pursue these to the fullest possible extent, our faith that Christianty is anything more than just another human religion, the product of men, and not a divine God, will begin to unravel... At what point then is the dividing line between what we accept as literary, and what we accept as "literal" truth? And if there is no real dividing line between the two, why call ourselves Christians if we're truly interpreting the Bible as a literary text, rather than as a holy book?
Craig, this was a superb post, even though I condensed it unmercifully, and I thank you for sparing me the effort of having to write something similar and probably inferior. (BTW, did I ever mention that you have a really cool avatar, too? :D )

The only part with which I'd take issue (and upon which Atticus seizes) is that you must pursue a critical reading "to the farthest extent possible" for this question to emerge. On the contrary, I think it appears almost immediately; it's front-and-center.

(continued...)

[lawman]

Meanwhile, there's the parallel discussion of the nature of God's love, also interesting:
...You say God is creating some unreasonable conditions for His love. Not at all. He's acting in his children's best interest.
Actually, as Whatever points out, he's not talking at all about unreasonable conditions. Many of the conditions you discuss are quite reasonable and defensible. That doesn't change the fact, however, that they are still conditions -- and thus that the love under discussion is not, by definition, unconditional. This problem is serious enough to have plagued theologians for centuries; indeed, it's what provoked Augustine to dream up the concept of Limbo, for the express purpose of keeping unbaptized infants and pre-Christian patriarchs out of Hell.

You are anthropromorphizing God. This isn't about a negotiation between equals. We're talking about an all-seeing, all-powerful God and an incredibly limited human--a totally different situation.
But God is decidely anthropomorphic in many parts of the Bible -- especially the early parts of the Old Testament. He's not only jealous and vengeful, he proudly proclaims himself to be so. It was precisely the need to move beyond that characterization that prompted the act of philosophical re-focusing Craig mentioned in the OP, and I'm sure a similar motivation underlies much of your historical-critical reading. To acknowledge that, however, is once again to compel the question... why continue to accept the concept of an "all-seeing, all-powerful God" at all at this point?

And don't say "God could save you anyway if He wanted to," because He gave us free will. If we want to take rat poison and die, that's our choice.
Actually, per Genesis, God didn't so much "give" humanity free will as pose dire warnings against it, and then impose punishments to the Nth generation for daring to exercise it. He really doesn't seem to value independent human choice very much. If he did, he'd certainly make it easier for anyone capable of an historical-critical reading of the Bible to find actual, empirical reasons to choose to believe in him, rather than insisting (as a condition of salvation) that we take him on faith. You say he "knocks on the door"; I don't see that at all.

Which brings us back, again, to that recurring question... once one subjects the truth claims of Christianity to a critical reading, why continue to take any of it at face value? Where do you draw that line?
Can incompatible ideas occupy the same intellectual space. Surely, and they do all the time. It's our limited (and, frankly Western) capacity for understanding that insists we push one out in favor of another.
I think you're talking about distinctions of degree here rather than of kind. "Incompatible" is a notion that can sometimes be reconciled... a person can be old in one sense and young in another, beautiful in one sense and ugly in another. "Logically contradictory," on the other hand, leaves far less wiggle room in one's intellectual space.

What Craig's talking about here, as I read it, is that the Bible makes certain truth claims that (unlike other ambiguous or symbolic passages) are meant to be taken literally. Now, as modern readers, we can still choose to read them metaphorically... but we can't do that and still take them literally at the same time. It's one or the other.

Many of these truth claims are, perhaps, incidental to the "core" of Christianity (I again refer to the OP). One can read the Bible as a profound and enlightening literary work, even as a serious Christian, without having to accept them. However, some truth claims aren't so optional: as Craig notes,
...Though the exact beliefs of those who treat the Bible as Holy Writ may vary, they must necessarily involve the belief in a deity which can be termed "God", and a belief in Jesus Christ as a saviour of humanity.

...One has no good reason to worship him as a Messiah and Son of God if he's just a mortal man no different from anyone else.
I would go further, in fact, and submit that all issues of Jesus aside, the degree of "wiggle room" between metaphor and literalism that one can carve out of the Bible is just not enough space, period, for the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God to be literally true.

(one more to come...)

[lawman]

While I respect your perspective, I don't agree... The notion that any text can be transcendentally "accurate" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.Nobody's saying the text as a whole has to be "accurate" in that sense; just that there are certain central claims which one must accept as accurate, no matter how critically one interprets the rest, in order to remain a believing Christian in any meaningful sense. Thus: why do so? Why not submit those claims to the same scrutiny as the rest of the text?

I reject both the idea that the Bible was either "written by God"... or that it was exclusively the construction of a human mind (or several minds). Rather--and our poster Izdaari has written to this point well, I think--it is a human construction inspired by God. It is transcendentally true without being historically accurate...

The Bible is a mystical text, and it can reveal different truths to different people (and different truths to the same person at different times)...

By the way, I'd put the Bhagavad-Gita and other texts in the same category. They should be read neither as history nor as fiction. Rather, we should expect to find multiple, complex meanings that speak profoundly the the important questions of living. Read lightly rather than stringently, looking for personal moments of enlightenment and broad outlines, even two scriptures as different as the Bible and the Gita are not incompatible.
Fine. Most of that is perfectly fair... except that you're privileging the Bible in a way you're not privileging the Gita, by accepting not only such insight or enlightenment as it may offer about the human condition, but also its internal claim that there is, in fact, a "God" who inspired it. Mystical and complex though the Gita may be, I'm fairly sure you don't doubt that it was the construction of human minds.

You're clearly a resistant reader. The whole point of post-modern criticism is resistance, and it can say some interesting things about a text. But with scripture you need to play the believing game before you play the doubting game and then decide which one is more satisfying.
Can't do that.

I'm a rationalist and a skeptic by nature -- as is Craig, it appears (and you as well, I suspect, except in this particular area where you've chosen to make exceptions). In Meyers-Briggs terms, I'm an INTJ. Even framing things as a "game," the notion of choosing to believe in a truth claim before submitting it to a process of doubt and analysis is profoundly counterintuitive to me, and is definitely not an act in which I could find satisfaction.

[Atticus]

Can't do that.

I'm a rationalist and a skeptic by nature -- as is Craig, it appears (and you as well, I suspect, except in this particular area where you've chosen to make exceptions). In Meyers-Briggs terms, I'm an INTJ. Even framing things as a "game," the notion of choosing to believe in a truth claim before submitting it to a process of doubt and analysis is profoundly unterintuitive to me, and is definitely not an act in which I could find satisfaction.A perfectly reasonable response to make--once. But this is the root point you make in just about every post in this forum. Why it gives you no satisfaction to participate in what I've called a believing game but it gives you some satisfaction to comment in the negative on the beliefs of others is to me a mystery--one I'm not interested in discovering, so please don't take that as a question. Rather, I'd simply point out that when I find a tray of food I don't care for at the smorgasboard, I leave it alone and move on. I'd consider standing next to it and expounding on my distaste for it to all the passersby a waste of time.

The only other response I care to make is to this:
Fine. Most of that is perfectly fair... except that you're privileging the Bible in a way you're not privileging the Gita, by accepting not only such insight or enlightenment as it may offer about the human condition, but also its internal claim that there is, in fact, a "God" who inspired it. Mystical and complex though the Gita may be, I'm fairly sure you don't doubt that it was the construction of human minds.I don't think you what I'm privileging or how. You certainly have not heard my thoughts on the content or construction of the Gita, so you shouldn't be fairly sure of anything.

Anyway, I'm happy to answer open questions from someone who appears interested in hearing the answers. I have no interest in discussing topics like this with someone who finds them so....distasteful.

[Lumpen Prole]

While we're on the subject I should point out that the categorical imperative was derived because it is completely unconditional. All other imperatives we have are hypothetical and therefore conditional.

[lawman]

A perfectly reasonable response to make--once. But this is the root point you make in just about every post in this forum. Why it gives you no satisfaction to participate in what I've called a believing game but it gives you some satisfaction to comment in the negative on the beliefs of others is to me a mystery--one I'm not interested in discovering, so please don't take that as a question. Rather, I'd simply point out that when I find a tray of food I don't care for at the smorgasboard, I leave it alone and move on. I'd consider standing next to it and expounding on my distaste for it to all the passersby a waste of time.
Well, please don't take this answer as a personal affront to your disinterest... but it's not as simple as that, and I hope other readers at least might find the exploration of the reasons to be worthwhile. If we were talking merely about my own personal choice, a strictly private matter, just like what to have for lunch, then of course I'd just "move on" -- my attitude about such things is generally "live and let live" in a libertarian sense.

But as much as I'd like it to be so, religion isn't just a personal matter. It's a powerful cultural force, something that impinges upon all of our lives and the world within which we live them every bit as much as any political issue we discuss on these boards. It's something that, as JD3 has noted, many Americans hold even more deeply than their politics, a set of beliefs that many (not you, I stipulate, but many) dedicate themselves to "expounding" to others and upon which they base serious judgments about their fellow citizens. It's important enough to have its own discussion category set aside on sites like this, to be a multi-billion dollar (tax-free) industry, to be the subject of debate of several recent best-selling books, to be asserted by many as an essential characteristic of not just personal identity but of our national identity.

When such a phenemenon -- one that explicitly defies rationality, mind you -- so powerfully defines the world around you, just leaving it alone really isn't an option. It doesn't leave me alone.

Anyway, I'm happy to answer open questions from someone who appears interested in hearing the answers. I have no interest in discussing topics like this with someone who finds them so....distasteful.
Your continued disinterest in having a thoughtful and civil discussion on an important topic simply because we happen to disagree about it is puzzling to me.

[heel31ok]

Key to Christianity is "In Him."

Key to Bible is "covenant".

[DrWho]

Not totally ignored. Just because they don't get a lot of press....

And no one rises to great wealth or power by loving his neighbor.

Reminds me of a couple of lines from a poem by Kipling:

"On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)"

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm


Perhaps with the exception of the man Jesus and his very powerful influence on the world. I would expect that any person who practiced His love this completely would be equally influential. Some who may have come close in some ways: Mother Theresa and Ghandi.

[DrWho]

The idea is "unconditional love." Positive regard not determined by the behavior of the one loved.

In any case, that's the word He used--or is quoted as using.

Just as the meaning of the verb changes when the object changes (from objects to persons), perhaps it also changes with the subject (God vs. humans).


Excuse me for joining late; I just joined this forum.

I am not so sure about the "unconditional" aspect of it but I do know that He will always give everyone what they need for salvation. Just because they have been given exactly what they need for salvation does not mean that they will accept it. I know this sounds unconditional but I have always heard that there is a moment when the ability to accept this salvation ends - at death. Does God then cease to provide the means of salvation after death and is it then conditional?

I tend to think of unconditional love as a secular psychological idea and prefer to base my beliefs on actual scripture.

(paraphrased) For God so loved the world that while they were yet sinners...

Clearly here He loved the sinners even before they believed. Belief is not a condition for love.

BTW, Atticus it is a pleasure to see your posts. On the other forum where I post attitudes and faith like yours are rare.

[DrWho]

The other thing which was raised in another thread, (and which, to my knowledge, you never answered) was a question of how do you sort through which sections of the Bible you interpret literally, and which sections you do not? In some cases, the answer is fairly obvious. Even conservative Christians would agree with the statement that Jesus' parables are meant to be understood metaphorically. However, what do you do for other parts of the New Testament which are not so unambiguously written as metaphor? What standard or criterion do you use to evaluate those parts you believe are metaphoric, and those which are not?

As Richard Dawkins points out, whatever criteria you employ will be subjective, which means that you end up picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you take literally, and which parts you don't. To put it another way, you're not really reading and following the Bible; you're reading it according to how you want to read it, and not based upon what it actually says. Considering that the Bible is pretty unambiguous about the fact that this should not be done, I'm wondering how you resolve this in your own mind.

Richard Dawkins sees the data of the world and interprets it the way he does. Some of the data is clear and some is ambiguous so he still needs to apply some standards and interpretive analysis. If using your brain to understand either the world or the Bible is a bad thing then we are all guilty. But I do not think that the need to interpret the data of the world or the Bible means that we are automatically seeing it only the way we want to. Scientists and theologians alike can be honest enough to see what is there without seeing only what they want.

[DrWho]

[QUOTE=whatever;1038712]
Again you turn the heaven thing onto its head. God sets the rule, not us. Rules are conditions. Act a certain way, you get a certain thing. It's just illogical to say otherwise.


IMHO, salvation is conditional on faith, but God's love for us is offered before we have faith.

All the world has been designed to show you everything you need to believe and be saved.


The only question I have is for those who have died and are out of the presence of God, Does he love them?

If he does then is salvation still possible or is His love merely a source of grief for God?

[DrWho]

The real question that arises here, as a necessary consequence, is -- once you've determined that some parts need not be taken literally, what reason(s) are you left with for taking any parts literally?


When you hear hoof-beats look for horses not zebras.

[SpringRain]

Why? If people run away from God, you might expect him to chase them a bit, and He does. It's not that Heaven is opened only to those who believe in some narrow idea (at least, that's not my reading). People choose other priorities, that's all.

He says "I stand at the door and knock." You have to open the door. If God just struck you on the head and dragged you into Heaven by your hair, how would you feel about that?

Think of it this way--have you ever been disappointed in love? Have you ever loved someone only for them to reject you? Did their rejection discount your love?

I know this question wasn't directed to me; but my response is so clear and quick; I must respond.

To the idea above, "Think of it this way. . . ." My response is

Yes, their rejection did discount my love; but I am only human. He is supposed to be a God and a mighty powerful one; so why is he so sensitive to my worthless opinion.

[SpringRain]

Excuse me for joining late; I just joined this forum.

I am not so sure about the "unconditional" aspect of it but I do know that He will always give everyone what they need for salvation. Just because they have been given exactly what they need for salvation does not mean that they will accept it. I know this sounds unconditional but I have always heard that there is a moment when the ability to accept this salvation ends - at death. Does God then cease to provide the means of salvation after death and is it then conditional?

I tend to think of unconditional love as a secular psychological idea and prefer to base my beliefs on actual scripture.

(paraphrased) For God so loved the world that while they were yet sinners...

Clearly here He loved the sinners even before they believed. Belief is not a condition for love.

BTW, Atticus it is a pleasure to see your posts. On the other forum where I post attitudes and faith like yours are rare.

So you're saying god's unconditional love is a coupon with an expiration date?
Well said, but it doesn't inspire me to see the values that I think a god should have. Makes him seem pretty petty and human.

[DrWho]

So you're saying god's unconditional love is a coupon with an expiration date?
Well said, but it doesn't inspire me to see the values that I think a god should have. Makes him seem pretty petty and human.

Actually no. I'm asking the question.

Once I have the answer I am sure it will be satisfying as all the other problematic questions have proven to be. Anyone can spin it to be crass and make God look bad but I prefer to find out what the truth is whether it is palatable or not.

We don't get to decide what God should be like anymore than we get to decide a million other things that are out of our control.

Is there an expiration date and is it totally logical and understandable?

[SpringRain]

Actually no. I'm asking the question.

Once I have the answer I am sure it will be satisfying as all the other problematic questions have proven to be. Anyone can spin it to be crass and make God look bad but I prefer to find out what the truth is whether it is palatable or not.

We don't get to decide what God should be like anymore than we get to decide a million other things that are out of our control.

Actually I think the reality is that humans are the only ones to decide what god should be like since we invent for our own purposes.


Is there an expiration date and is it totally logical and understandable?

No, it doesn't make sense to me at all. Particularly having been raised in the TX bible belt where Missionary baptists say that Southern baptists are actually devil worshippers; and they explain this rationale by pointing out that when Walmart (in this analogy = God) found a winning equation; all others copied it to steal away the "faithful". But only Walmart was Walmart.

With this in mind; one might reasonably conclude that any god worth worshipping would understand how it is confusing to know if one had "chosen" the right religion and might think it would be best to be judged/deemed worthy by our ability to be humane, kind, and caring; rather than behaving however one want's and then being "saved" just cuz they say the now believe in some intangible BS.

In your ideas; I who have helped many, harmed few if any, would be ejected from heaven; but a murderer who was deemed unworthy of living in our realm and therefore executed; would go to heaven if he "repents" by getting on bended knee. I think the whole christian BS seems to do more to justify sinning rather than preventing it.

[DrWho]

Actually I think the reality is that humans are the only ones to decide what god should be like since we invent for our own purposes.



No, it doesn't make sense to me at all. Particularly having been raised in the TX bible belt where Missionary baptists say that Southern baptists are actually devil worshippers; and they explain this rationale by pointing out that when Walmart (in this analogy = God) found a winning equation; all others copied it to steal away the "faithful". But only Walmart was Walmart.

With this in mind; one might reasonably conclude that any god worth worshipping would understand how it is confusing to know if one had "chosen" the right religion and might think it would be best to be judged/deemed worthy by our ability to be humane, kind, and caring; rather than behaving however one want's and then being "saved" just cuz they say the now believe in some intangible BS.

In your ideas; I who have helped many, harmed few if any, would be ejected from heaven; but a murderer who was deemed unworthy of living in our realm and therefore executed; would go to heaven if he "repents" by getting on bended knee. I think the whole christian BS seems to do more to justify sinning rather than preventing it.

If heaven were dependent on some standard of goodness then there would be people who were incapable of being good enough and you would be complaining that they were excluded by some arbitrary standard. There would also be no going back once one has crossed the line.

Repentance is not the criteria for salvation faith is. And faith is something that includes everyone. This is the most inclusive criteria possible.

Sin is never justified by the possibility of forgiveness. If you repent and then continue to do wrong it wasn't much of a repentence was it? God will not be fooled so easily.

[SpringRain]

I notice that in responding to the comments of others; I never actually responded to the intent of the OP.

I have "'studied" many religions from afar. No actual participation. Raised by an atheist mother who over ranked the slightly religious father. So no connection to religion as a youth.

I do believe Christianity has two "keys" with rather basic details. I base my opinion less on the opinions of churches or their leaders; and more considering how a character in a book, named Jesus, lived and made choices. From that aspect I believe the New Testament indicates that a character named Jesus wanted us to embrace;
1. It is okay to die; God loves you, therefore you may and shouldn't be afraid to die for a "good" cause because the righteous will be rewarded in heaven.

2. It is never okay to kill for a good cause, or to cause any other harm for a good cause. God only can judge individuals or groups, and men who try to, are disrespecting God's will.

Since Christians are the #1 group trying to avoid heaven by artificially/medically "correcting" God's potential invitations to heaven,
and since Christians are some of the worse for victimizing and penalizing others who do not share their beliefs through out history. . . I just don't see Christians being very christian-like.

[cpwill]

The only question I have is for those who have died and are out of the presence of God, Does he love them?

If he does then is salvation still possible or is His love merely a source of grief for God?

:) my father is a methodist minister. when people ask him this (and other questions concerning who-is-saved-and-who-isnt') he likes to respond "You know, I'm not on that Committee, but ain't it great what God does for us here in this life?."

[SpringRain]

:) my father is a methodist minister. when people ask him this (and other questions concerning who-is-saved-and-who-isnt') he likes to respond "You know, I'm not on that Committee, but ain't it great what God does for us here in this life?."

Answer = NO, it isn't great for most of us, believers or not, in this life. I point to this forum and the 100's of other similar ones where debates, rants, and dissatisfactions rule the conversations.

[cpwill]

From that aspect I believe the New Testament indicates that a character named Jesus wanted us to embrace;
1. It is okay to die; God loves you, therefore you may and shouldn't be afraid to die for a "good" cause because the righteous will be rewarded in heaven.

2. It is never okay to kill for a good cause, or to cause any other harm for a good cause. God only can judge individuals or groups, and men who try to, are disrespecting God's will.

Since Christians are the #1 group trying to avoid heaven by artificially/medically "correcting" God's potential invitations to heaven,
and since Christians are some of the worse for victimizing and penalizing others who do not share their beliefs through out history. . . I just don't see Christians being very christian-like.

hmmm... i could see #1 as being definitely a tenant (although not the most important among them.), but i don't see where violence in a good cause is forbidden by the bible at all. i see where its' unjust use is definitely wrong, and i see where Jesus discusses the consequences for those who utilize it (those who live by the sword die by the sword); but the Jesus i know, for example, surely would never tell me that i am wrong to (say) go to war with Nazi Germany to force a cessation of her depridations.

that being said, of course christians aren't always very christian-like. that is, in fact, one of the central assumptions of christianity :-p

[SpringRain]

hmmm... i could see #1 as being definitely a tenant (although not the most important among them.), but i don't see where violence in a good cause is forbidden by the bible at all. i see where its' unjust use is definitely wrong, and i see where Jesus discusses the consequences for those who utilize it (those who live by the sword die by the sword); but the Jesus i know, for example, surely would never tell me that i am wrong to (say) go to war with Nazi Germany to force a cessation of her depridations.

that being said, of course christians aren't always very christian-like. that is, in fact, one of the central assumptions of christianity :-p

The bible may not forbid it; but the actions of Jesus indicate it is wrong. For example he never harmed anyone in the temple, never harmed those that were harming others, never even harmed Judas whom he knew to be a betrayer but instead loved him (heck he didn't even change his plans that day so as to avoid being caught that day) and chose to die for his cause and become embraced in God's love. He indicates by his behaviour that the Old Testament is wrong and that the "Christian" way vs. "Jewish" way is to believe to the point of embracing the love and righteousness of God's way without trying to dominate it.

[cpwill]

Answer = NO, it isn't great for most of us, believers or not, in this life.

:-/ if that is the case, my friend, i would suggest to you that you are not experiencing Him.

I point to this forum and the 100's of other similar ones where debates, rants, and dissatisfactions rule the conversations.

:lol: then take comfort, discussion, debate, and even ranting here can be as instructive as any other means of communication in helping us to improve our faith and lives. :) but i think what you are really trying to point to is the notion that humanity is fallen ;).

[cpwill]

So you're saying god's unconditional love is a coupon with an expiration date?

nope, rather a love that is so pure that in fact it will take the ultimate insult of rejection by it's own children.

[SpringRain]

:-/ if that is the case, my friend, i would suggest to you that you are not experiencing Him.



:lol: then take comfort, discussion, debate, and even ranting here can be as instructive as any other means of communication in helping us to improve our faith and lives. :) but i think what you are really trying to point to is the notion that humanity is fallen ;).

No, I'm trying to point out that no matter the religion or lack thereof; too many people worldwide are completely disenfranchised and untended.

in regards to "you are not experiencing Him." You may go back and check all of my posts; I do not suffer from this though I have had a very difficult life. I actually do believe that the ideals taught by the behaviour of a character named Jesus in a book called the New Testament are worthy of emulation. Hence the reason I have been beaten hundreds of times for refusing to back down when faced by "evil"; but have never attacked to get someone else to alter their ways/beliefs. (In this I do mean physically, since some folks might believe that stating my opinions about god & religion could be "attacking.")

[cpwill]

The bible may not forbid it; but the actions of Jesus indicate it is wrong. For example he never harmed anyone in the temple,

:p throwing tables and pursuing people with a bullwhip?

as for the Old Testament, don't forget that Jesus also says that He comes not to overturn the law, but to fufill the law; the Old Testament is not to be thrown out.

that being said, pacifism is a fully legitimate belief; and one can definitely make a case for it within Christianity (one can do the same for fasting, or for lifelong celibacy), i simply don't find where it's in any way some kind of requirement. Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies, not to allow them to victimize whomever they choose.

[cpwill]

No, I'm trying to point out that no matter the religion or lack thereof; too many people worldwide are completely disenfranchised and untended.

and i'll absolutely agree with you in that, but it doesn't mean at all that for those who are living a life of faith (and for those who are not) God does not do great things :)

In regards to "you are not experiencing Him." You may go back and check all of my posts; I do not suffer from this though I have had a very difficult life. I actually do believe that the ideals taught by the behaviour of a character named Jesus in a book called the New Testament are worthy of emulation.

hm. there is a definite difference between believing that Jesus is worthy of emulation and having a relationship with Christ, however, if you are living a life of faith in Him then i can only :D and say it's always wonderful to meet a brother.

Hence the reason I have been beaten hundreds of times for refusing to back down when faced by "evil"

:shock: what country do you live in that you would be beaten hundreds of times for your belief system.

but have never attacked to get someone else to alter their ways/beliefs. (In this I do mean physically, since some folks might believe that stating my opinions about god & religion could be "attacking.")

well then in this we differ. if someone's belief system involves victimizing others (for example, Wahhabi Islam appears to have driven car bombs into an obsure kurdish sect recently) then i have no problem interferring in their practice of that belief system; even if it requires that i pick up a sword to do so.

[SpringRain]

:p throwing tables and pursuing people with a bullwhip?

as for the Old Testament, don't forget that Jesus also says that He comes not to overturn the law, but to fufill the law; the Old Testament is not to be thrown out.

that being said, pacifism is a fully legitimate belief; and one can definitely make a case for it within Christianity (one can do the same for fasting, or for lifelong celibacy), i simply don't find where it's in any way some kind of requirement. Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies, not to allow them to victimize whomever they choose.

Again I will repeat, I care not what some author claims Jesus said; but instead focus on the actions and reactions of his character. Even in the temple; his primary focus of attack was not people but their wares. He did want to change perceptions and be provocative; but he didn't nor does he indicate that anyone should harm the merchants other than to quit being seduced by material things.

I'm not a pacifist in that I instigate a lot of turmoil. I just don't hit back when I'm being beaten. I am told by those that have beaten me that the fact that I won't back down but also won't fight back has left an unforgettable shame in their memories that have made them gentler with most everyone especially their families.

Well, okay I am going to have to backtrack; I have been known to become physically agressive when my children were threatened. I actually used to carry a concealed weapon just to protect them. Now that they are grown and gone; I don't even own a gun anymore. Of course when grandchildren are born and begin being in my care; I will probably carry again with the same intent.

[cpwill]

Again I will repeat, I care not what some author claims Jesus said

um, the Gospels are sort of considered authoritative. :)

but instead focus on the actions and reactions of his character.

but how else would you know, other than through the New Testament?

Even in the temple; his primary focus of attack was not people but their wares.

hm; i would say more he seemed upset by their disrespect, their turning of a Holy Gift into a small-minded criminality.

I'm not a pacifist in that I instigate a lot of turmoil. I just don't hit back when I'm being beaten. I am told by those that have beaten me that the fact that I won't back down but also won't fight back has left an unforgettable shame in their memories that have made them gentler with most everyone especially their families.

:) then congradulations on having that work exactly as nonviolent protest is supposed to, but where the heck are you? :p

Well, okay I am going to have to backtrack; I have been known to become physically agressive when my children were threatened. I actually used to carry a concealed weapon just to protect them. Now that they are grown and gone; I don't even own a gun anymore. Of course when grandchildren are born and begin being in my care; I will probably carry again with the same intent.

fair enough.

[SpringRain]

What do you mean where the heck am I? Like what State or where am I regarding religion?

[cpwill]

state; i'm suprised that anyone in the US (for example) could be beaten "hundreds of times" for their beliefs. a few times, certainly, it's possible, but hundreds? wow, what community are you in and what beliefs are you espousing?

[SpringRain]

The new testament may be authoritative to you; but to me it is more like a docu-drama. What I notice about docu-dramas is that the actions portrayed are usually pretty darn close to accurate; but the dialogs are "guessed at" based on the brush by which the producers/directors choose the paint the character/person involved.

Again, I never said the character Jesus never lost his temper, I said he never harmed anyone or instigated others to harm anyone.

[SpringRain]

state; i'm suprised that anyone in the US (for example) could be beaten "hundreds of times" for their beliefs. a few times, certainly, it's possible, but hundreds? wow, what community are you in and what beliefs are you espousing?

I live in ID, raised in TX. Never said I was beaten for my beliefs as in religious beliefs. Just because I won't be intimidated into doing pretty much anything. It started before I was two years old and refused to be intimidated by my father and the story goes that he was thrown out of the family for throwing me across the room into a wall (BTW I was born dead and had open heart surgery at age 4 so it wasn't like I was healthy or hearty for such treatment). Then as my older brother grew up he realized two things, one was that everyone seemed to beat me a get away with it, and two that "love" means beating the crap out of and trying to humilate someone; so naturally he began to follow suit. Eventually I chose similar men as partners, got over that though. Now I just seem to be in the right place at the right time to catch a fist when trying to break up a fight; or refusing to "obey" an annoyed man whom I didn't even know when he told me to shut up; things like that. As I said above, in no way do I consider myself a victim as I am aware that all I have ever had to do is "submit" in order to not be beaten.

I consider myself a Timex; I can take a beatin' and keep on tickin'. And I am ever so proud of the fact that so many men can't get the image of their beating a little ol' gal (roughly 5'4" and a mere 96# soaking wet) out of their heads and that it makes a difference in the level of abuse they heap on their loved ones.

[DrWho]

I notice that in responding to the comments of others; I never actually responded to the intent of the OP.

I have "'studied" many religions from afar. No actual participation. Raised by an atheist mother who over ranked the slightly religious father. So no connection to religion as a youth.

I do believe Christianity has two "keys" with rather basic details. I base my opinion less on the opinions of churches or their leaders; and more considering how a character in a book, named Jesus, lived and made choices. From that aspect I believe the New Testament indicates that a character named Jesus wanted us to embrace;
1. It is okay to die; God loves you, therefore you may and shouldn't be afraid to die for a "good" cause because the righteous will be rewarded in heaven.

2. It is never okay to kill for a good cause, or to cause any other harm for a good cause. God only can judge individuals or groups, and men who try to, are disrespecting God's will.

Since Christians are the #1 group trying to avoid heaven by artificially/medically "correcting" God's potential invitations to heaven,
and since Christians are some of the worse for victimizing and penalizing others who do not share their beliefs through out history. . . I just don't see Christians being very christian-like.

Since self-identified Christians represent 80% of the U.S. population just about any quality you can name will be demonstrated primarily by self-identified Christians.

Who makes up most of the prison population - Christians
Who makes up most of the big donators to charity - Christians
Who makes up most of the white people in this country - Christians
Who makes up most of the black people in this country - Christians

This is a sampling error.

Still, I agree with you very much that very few exemplify the teachings of Christ. The fact that His followers do not measure up does not change the value of what He had to say.

[DrWho]

Again I will repeat, I care not what some author claims Jesus said; but instead focus on the actions and reactions of his character. Even in the temple; his primary focus of attack was not people but their wares. He did want to change perceptions and be provocative; but he didn't nor does he indicate that anyone should harm the merchants other than to quit being seduced by material things.



Wasn't it the same authors who described his whipping people as his turning tables over?

Wasn't it the same authors who described Peter as carrying a sword thoughout the 3 yr ministry without being told to get rid of it?

wasn't it the same authors who quoted jesus as telling his followers to arm themselves (presumably to defend against robbers)when they went to spread the word?

[SpringRain]

Since self-identified Christians represent 80% of the U.S. population just about any quality you can name will be demonstrated primarily by self-identified Christians.

Who makes up most of the prison population - Christians
Who makes up most of the big donators to charity - Christians
Who makes up most of the white people in this country - Christians
Who makes up most of the black people in this country - Christians

This is a sampling error.

Still, I agree with you very much that very few exemplify the teachings of Christ. The fact that His followers do not measure up does not change the value of what He had to say.

Well I have already said that "Jesus" the character in a book called the New Testament is a provocative character and that his behaviours deserve emulation. But I will never get on bended knee to worship a storybook character or the Gods that character recognizes.

I also find Haplo & Alfred in the Death Gate Series to be quite provocative and worthy of emulation; but I don't worship them or their Gods.

[SpringRain]

Wasn't it the same authors who described his whipping people as his turning tables over?

Wasn't it the same authors who described Peter as carrying a sword thoughout the 3 yr ministry without being told to get rid of it?

wasn't it the same authors who quoted jesus as telling his followers to arm themselves (presumably to defend against robbers)when they went to spread the word?

Perhaps, however whipping people to move them out of the way isn't killing them. There are so many uses for swords; one doesn't have to assume it was for killing anyone; and lastly "arming" themselves could mean arming themselves with courage, strength, and faith