What does it mean to be a Christian? [Archive] - BudoSeek! Martial Arts Community Forums

AllanJGAnderson

11-11-2006, 21:23

So I go to church every Sunday, sometimes thumb through the Bible. I think that Jesus was a real man, who lived and died for the sins of mankind. I don't believe the Bible word for word, because of all the different interprutations of all the many words it contains, and I think most of the old testemate is parable, which means I don't think God created the world in 6 days and what have you, but the verses still have excelent value in teaching us life lessons. I respect and love God more than I fear him, and I don't think all non-Christians go to hell.

That is me, I don't consider myself to be an excellent Christian, but I try. So what do you all think it means to be a Christian? Is taking sacrament enough? Do you have to follo Leviticus? Or is it baptism? What do you think?

Dennis Monk

11-11-2006, 21:27

What does it mean to be a Christian?
To be Christlike. Plain and simple, we all far short of this.

Cliff Hargrave

11-11-2006, 21:40

elder999

11-11-2006, 21:55

To be Christlike. Plain and simple, we all far short of this.

Well said.

LUKE 10:27 NKJ So he answered and said, " `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and `your neighbor as yourself.' "

Tony Dismukes

11-11-2006, 22:06

I hope you don't mind the input of a (somewhat informed) outsider. I'm not a Christian, but I've spent a fair amount of time studying Christianity, attending Church, reading the Bible, and hanging out with various flavors of Christians.

I've seen a lot of variety in what self-professed Christians believe to be central to their religion. Some of these beliefs I find admirable, others I find morally repugnant.

Dennis's answer is one of my favorites. I know a few individuals who I consider to embody most of what was remarkable about Jesus's life and teachings. They're humble, kind, generous, loving, peaceful, forgiving and honest. Their religion is a light for their lives, but not a cudgel to beat others with. If most followers of Christianity or any other religion resembled these folks, I'd be doing some serious investigation into what made that religion so special.

On the other hand, I see other folks for whom the idea just seems to be on the "right team." They seem to think that as long as they invoke Jesus's name they can be arrogant, hateful, cruel, and hypocritical, because they're wearing Jesus's gang colors and he's got their back.

I tend to think those people have fundamentally missed the point.

jjaje

11-11-2006, 22:10

Allan, I believe the common Christian view of "What does it mean to be a Christian" is that a person realizes that they sin and fall short of God's perfection. That the only atonement for this is through Jesus.

However, to speak on another point...

I don't believe the Bible word for word, because of all the different interprutations of all the many words it contains, and I think most of the old testemate is parable, which means I don't think God created the world in 6 days and what have you...

Remember the Bible is written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). Everything else is a translation. However the Jewish had their own way of transmitting the information from generation to generation. What amazes historians is how consistent the writings are over the years. The significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is not what they say, but that suddenly new data appears, thousands of years older then the oldest data on record, and it was incredibly consistent with the data on record. This effectively proves the validity of the transmission method of the OT across many generations in the Jewish culture. Nothing else has the same amount of authentication; no other culture has the same amount of validity in transferring information. Which is why I don’t really believe in a “traditional martial arts” because you can’t prove the validity of the information transfer across generations, so one can really argue what is tradition? But I digress here.

Most translations have been scrutinized by literally thousands if not millions of people, and are probabbly the best thing available for those that can not read Greek or Hebrew.

However, generally it was Jesus who taught using Parables (a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle), there really aren’t many (or any) in the OT. Perhaps one could argue hyperbole, but not parables.

Lame Leopard

11-11-2006, 23:06

Here are my core beliefs about being a Christian:

1) Adhere to the core beliefs of the Nicene Creed.
2) Allow a great deal of latitude beyond this.
3) Loving my neighbor as myself.
4) Following Christ to the best of my ability.
5) Telling others about Him and also meeting their physical and emotional needs.
6) Walking the warrior path for Christ. This has to be done firmly and with love.
7) Praying, reading the Bible, and listening to His voice.
8) Repenting of sins
9) Being the best apologist for faith in Christ that I can be.
10) Listening to others who doubt. I was one of them for much of my life.
11) Realizing that souls are at stake. Working hard not to be a "stumbling block" to others, both Christian and non Christian.
12) Realizing that others have some good philosophical beliefs, but salvation only comes through the blood of Jesus.

I struggle most in the area of forgiveness. I really do treat people well and with a great deal of respect. Once someone does me wrong, I want to get even real bad. That is my biggest weakness as a Christian.

David Craik

11-12-2006, 13:54

I used to be a Christian, and I like Dennis' answer. All will fall short, but if a person were to strive to follow Christ's example as much as they can, I don't believe a Christian (or anyone else) can go wrong there. Weirdly enough, a lot of wise men have also taught the same thing as Christ. There must be something to it...

Abbax8

11-12-2006, 14:35

Aaron beat me to it. Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is commentary.

Peace

Dennis

Maro

11-12-2006, 17:53

6) Walking the warrior path for Christ. This has to be done firmly and with love.

Like Tony, I've been associated with many denominations via my parents beliefs. Pentecostal, Baptist, Born again etc. Not one of them talks about fighting for God. Where does this come from?

The Credo of Christianity is to turn the other cheek.

Musubi Dojo

11-12-2006, 20:03

To be Christlike. Plain and simple, we all far short of this.

That's most refreshing answer I've heard in a long time. Thank you.

c

Cliff Hargrave

11-12-2006, 20:15

I split the thread drift off to it's own thread.

David Craik

11-12-2006, 20:16

You beat me to it.

:offtopic:

Lame Leopard

11-12-2006, 20:57

Like Tony, I've been associated with many denominations via my parents beliefs. Pentecostal, Baptist, Born again etc. Not one of them talks about fighting for God. Where does this come from?

The Credo of Christianity is to turn the other cheek.

Reference and prayerfully consider II Corinthians 10:3,4 and Ephesians 6:9-18.

Lame Leopard

11-12-2006, 21:10

Reference and prayerfully consider II Corinthians 10:3,4 and Ephesians 6:9-18.

By the way, Luke 22:36 allows for self defense, but does not allow for speading the Gospel via violence.

If anyone does not desire to look up these verses, I will post the full texts.

Maro

11-12-2006, 21:43

By the way, Luke 22:36 allows for self defense, but does not allow for speading the Gospel via violence.

If anyone does not desire to look up these verses, I will post the full texts.

I have no need as I'm not a Christian. But I forget that some are literalists. Do you also Stone people? :confused:

Lame Leopard

11-12-2006, 22:11

I have no need as I'm not a Christian. But I forget that some are literalists. Do you also Stone people? :confused:

Not in the last couple of weeks.

The idea that fundamentalists are literalists is not always true. I don't know any Christians who believe that the Seven Headed Beast that rises out of the sea in the book of Revelation is to be taken literally.

I also don't believe that God owns the cattle on a 1000 hills. I think it is more like 2002 hills.

When the Bible says that God covers us with His wings, I don't think it means that he is a big quail in the sky.

Cliff Hargrave

11-12-2006, 22:17

I have no need as I'm not a Christian. But I forget that some are literalists. Do you also Stone people? :confused:

Christians do not stone people. Since you are not a Christian I guess you wouldn't know that. If you get curious try John 8:1-11

David Craik

11-12-2006, 22:32

Which contradicts the OT (Deuteronomy..I think in Leviticus too). I wonder why an omniscient and perfect being would find it neccessary to change His mind?

elder999

11-12-2006, 22:35

Which contradicts the OT (Deuteronomy..I think in Leviticus too). I wonder why an omniscient and perfect being would find it neccessary to change His mind?

You wanna really cook your noodle, you should reread about your namesake.:laugh:

Cliff Hargrave

11-12-2006, 22:38

Which contradicts the OT (Deuteronomy..I think in Leviticus too). I wonder why an omniscient and perfect being would find it neccessary to change His mind?

He didn't change his mind, it was in the plan from the beginning.

David Craik

11-13-2006, 08:27

Ramirez

11-13-2006, 09:52

Which contradicts the OT (Deuteronomy..I think in Leviticus too). I wonder why an omniscient and perfect being would find it neccessary to change His mind?

Here is a paradox - if God is omniscient, he already knows the future, but if he is omnipotent he can change anything at will including the future , so how can he also be omniscient?

Musubi Dojo

11-13-2006, 10:00

I wonder why if OT law was bad, why it was made in the first place. So the plan was a few thousand years of brutal intolerance, only to be wiped away with the coming of Christ. Strange and mysterious ways, indeed.

Matt 17-18: 17 Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.

Since heaven and earth have not yet passed away, surely we can still stone people...

:e-bricks:

Ah the problem of Evil...Why would an omnipotent deity create beings he was knowingly going burn in hell forever. If he knew this was their fate before he created them then free will sort of goes out the window along with benevolence.

As for stoning folks...well I have a long list if you have some free time and stones. :wink2:

Not to mock religion here. I was baptized in the United Church, spent my childhood attending a Penecostal Church and was an officer in one of their youth programs. I believe in God but question everything anyone insists in the absolute truth.

I believe that religion should be more action than words.

I look at Christ as the example, NOT the free ride so many people tout as salvation.

Cheers
c

STORMCROW34

11-13-2006, 12:23

I believe that religion should be more action than words.

I look at Christ as the example, NOT the free ride so many people tout as salvation.

I agree completely here. And although I'm no expert on the life of Christ or religion in general, my basic understanding is that this is the message He was trying to convey. He was rebelling against, and publicly challenging the prevalent dogma in that place and time...and from what I understand, that is why he was crucified.

Musubi Dojo

11-13-2006, 12:32

I agree completely here. And although I'm no expert on the life of Christ or religion in general, my basic understanding is that this is the message He was trying to convey. He was rebelling against, and publicly challenging the prevalent dogma in that place and time...and from what I understand, that is why he was crucified.

He was crucifed for his politics if historical accounts are to be believed. Screwing with the money lenders is always bad for your health. :wink2:

Erik

11-13-2006, 13:19

I wonder why if OT law was bad, why it was made in the first place. So the plan was a few thousand years of brutal intolerance, only to be wiped away with the coming of Christ. Strange and mysterious ways, indeed.
My belief is that the OT law was a start and that humanity was ready for the next level.

Even if God knows the end result, humanity may still need to go through the process, growing, changing, and so on.

We may know that the rat will get to the end of the maze and find the cheese, but in order to train the rat, we still need to go through the process of navigating the maze, if that makes any sense.

Erik

11-13-2006, 13:21

I've seen a lot of variety in what self-professed Christians believe to be central to their religion. Some of these beliefs I find admirable, others I find morally repugnant.

Dennis's answer is one of my favorites. I know a few individuals who I consider to embody most of what was remarkable about Jesus's life and teachings. They're humble, kind, generous, loving, peaceful, forgiving and honest. Their religion is a light for their lives, but not a cudgel to beat others with. If most followers of Christianity or any other religion resembled these folks, I'd be doing some serious investigation into what made that religion so special.

On the other hand, I see other folks for whom the idea just seems to be on the "right team." They seem to think that as long as they invoke Jesus's name they can be arrogant, hateful, cruel, and hypocritical, because they're wearing Jesus's gang colors and he's got their back.

I tend to think those people have fundamentally missed the point.
That's one of the best writings I've yet read - ever.

Dead-on, Tony.

Ramirez

11-13-2006, 13:40

Even if God knows the end result, humanity may still need to go through the process, growing, changing, and so on.

I thought you were made perfect Erik :up: .

heretic888

11-13-2006, 13:54

Aaron beat me to it. Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is commentary.

Not to be rude, Dennis, but I find it amusing that somebody is paraphrasing Rabbi Hillel as a summary of Christian belief.

He was crucifed for his politics if historical accounts are to be believed. Screwing with the money lenders is always bad for your health. :wink2:

If one has a very loose conception of "historical accounts", perhaps.

Laterz.

Ramirez

11-13-2006, 14:00

If one has a very loose conception of "historical accounts", perhaps.

Laterz.

Good point, considering Christ was crucified it means the Romans executed him,
if it had been the "money lenders" (and I am certain Chris didn't mean it in any anti-semitic way), then he would have been stoned to death.

When Christianity became the state religion of Rome , a little retro-conning of history was probably done to absolve the Romans of any responsibility in the death of their own saviour.

Erik

11-13-2006, 14:01

I thought you were made perfect Erik :up: .
No way. Not I.

Ashida Kim, perhaps.

Musubi Dojo

11-13-2006, 14:17

If one has a very loose conception of "historical accounts", perhaps.

Laterz.

I have a fairly loose conception of everything. :p

My understanding was that Jesus was formidable religious leader, gaining popularity and becoming a threat the established government of the time. Hence he was excecuted. I can't remember all the details. Unfortunately I have moderate memory problems. I'm also too lazy to go and look everything up.

The money lenders thing was a joke and I didn't even consider an anti-semitic angle. I wouldn't have typed if I did.

So..give us the details Trent.. :D

Cheers
C

Musubi Dojo

11-13-2006, 14:21

No way. Not I.

Ashida Kim, perhaps.

Ashida Kim, no......ELVIS, yes.

Abbax8

11-13-2006, 14:36

I believe that religion should be more action than words.

I look at Christ as the example, NOT the free ride so many people tout as salvation.

Cheers
c

Preach the Gospel always, sometimes use words.

St. Francis of Assisi

Peace

Dennis

heretic888

11-13-2006, 14:37

So..give us the details Trent.. :D

I don't know the details. But, I can give you my personal opinions and theories, based on the research and studying I have done about the subject.

There is no reliable historical documentation of a "Jesus of Nazareth" or any such figure associated with Christianity. There are a few Christian forgeries (such as the Testimonius Flavius) in Josephus (circa 95 CE), but even if we accept these as basically authentic, Josephus still wrote far too late to be considered a primary source (he wasn't even born until after Jesus was supposedly crucified). There are a few disputable references to "Jesus" in early second century (circa 110 to 120 CE) writers like Tacitus, Suetonius, or Pliny the Elder, but all they really tell us is there were Christians by then and that they worshipped a god named Jesus.

The major problem with the historicity of Jesus is that the farther back in history we go, the less biographical and the more theological he becomes. One of the general assumptions of scholars asserting the historicity of Jesus is that he was a man who later became divinized by his followers. The evidence does not allow for this, however, in that the biographical details we find in the Gospels are not only absent in earlier works (such as Paul's letters) but are often thoroughly contradicted. The earliest layer of The Jesus Story seems to be mythology and theology, not a human teacher or wisdom worker.

We also have little reason to put much faith in the biographical details given to us by the Gospel accounts. The authors of these texts clearly had never set foot in what was then Judea, given their laughable ignorance of the region's geography and Jewish law. They also don't seem to have been able to read and write Hebrew, given they have Jesus quoting the Septugaint to "rebuke" learned Jewish rabbis. There is also clear historical absurdities, such as the Jews having a "tradition" where they release a prisoner every Passover, having the census of Quirinus take place during Herod's reign, having a universal rule where lay Jews are expected to wash their hands before every meal (in the first century, this "rule" only applied to rabbis), and a general confusion of who was alive when.

That anybody is trying to derive anything resembling a biography from these narratives is a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

So, if you were to ask me what it means to be a Christian, my answer would be I don't know. "Christianity" is a social construction that has constantly changed and evolved throughout history. I suspect the Christians of today won't resemble the Christians of the next century, just as they don't resemble the Christians of the preceding centuries.

In summation, I don't believe in "intelligent design" -- when it comes to biology or to social institutions like religion. Things evolved.

Laterz.

STORMCROW34

11-13-2006, 14:45

Musubi Dojo

11-13-2006, 14:46

Preach the Gospel always, sometimes use words.

St. Francis of Assisi

Peace

Dennis

Thanks Dennis! :D

c

Musubi Dojo

11-13-2006, 14:50

"The money lenders thing was a joke and I didn't even consider an anti-semitic angle. I wouldn't have typed if I did."

I was under the impression that you were referencing the biblical "money changers" that frequented Herod's temple in Jerusalem that were confronted and admonished by Jesus.

That's what I was refering to. A "Don't mess with the money man" sort of thing. I was thinking about modern day loan sharks who take your legs as collateral. But it was meant as a joke, my understanding was that Jesus was killed over his politics as far as anyone can tell.

Cheers
c

Musubi Dojo

11-13-2006, 14:53

I don't know the details. But, I can give you my personal opinions and theories, based on the research and studying I have done about the subject.

There is no reliable historical documentation of a "Jesus of Nazareth" or any such figure associated with Christianity. There are a few Christian forgeries (such as the Testimonius Flavius) in Josephus (circa 95 CE), but even if we accept these as basically authentic, Josephus still wrote far too late to be considered a primary source (he wasn't even born until after Jesus was supposedly crucified). There are a few disputable references to "Jesus" in early second century (circa 110 to 120 CE) writers like Tacitus, Suetonius, or Pliny the Elder, but all they really tell us is there were Christians by then and that they worshipped a god named Jesus.

The major problem with the historicity of Jesus is that the farther back in history we go, the less biographical and the more theological he becomes. One of the general assumptions of scholars asserting the historicity of Jesus is that he was a man who later became divinized by his followers. The evidence does not allow for this, however, in that the biographical details we find in the Gospels are not only absent in earlier works (such as Paul's letters) but are often thoroughly contradicted. The earliest layer of The Jesus Story seems to be mythology and theology, not a human teacher or wisdom worker.

We also have little reason to put much faith in the biographical details given to us by the Gospel accounts. The authors of these texts clearly had never set foot in what was then Judea, given their laughable ignorance of the region's geography and Jewish law. They also don't seem to have been able to read and write Hebrew, given they have Jesus quoting the Septugaint to "rebuke" learned Jewish rabbis. There is also clear historical absurdities, such as the Jews having a "tradition" where they release a prisoner every Passover, having the census of Quirinus take place during Herod's reign, having a universal rule where lay Jews are expected to wash their hands before every meal (in the first century, this "rule" only applied to rabbis), and a general confusion of who was alive when.

That anybody is trying to derive anything resembling a biography from these narratives is a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

So, if you were to ask me what it means to be a Christian, my answer would be I don't know. "Christianity" is a social construction that has constantly changed and evolved throughout history. I suspect the Christians of today won't resemble the Christians of the next century, just as they don't resemble the Christians of the preceding centuries.

In summation, I don't believe in "intelligent design" -- when it comes to biology or to social institutions like religion. Things evolved.

Laterz.

I imagine you weren't a lot of fun at Sunday school.....

Thanks Trent. :p

c

heretic888

11-13-2006, 15:14

I imagine you weren't a lot of fun at Sunday school.....

Oh, I had fun in Sunday school back when I was a Baptist. ;)

But, like a lot of Christians, I was so dedicated to my faith that I wanted to learn as much as possible about it. The more I read, the more I studied, the more I researched.... the more I learned that the infallibilism of Bible and of received Christian tradition was a big fat steaming red herring.

To this day, I am not an atheist. However, neither am I a sectarian "Christian". I am much more interested in universalist and cross-cultural conceptions of religious truth than I am in the creeds and doctrines of one particularly violent institution.

Laterz.

heretic888

11-13-2006, 15:20

That's what I was refering to. A "Don't mess with the money man" sort of thing. I was thinking about modern day loan sharks who take your legs as collateral. But it was meant as a joke, my understanding was that Jesus was killed over his politics as far as anyone can tell.

If one accepts that Jesus actually lived and one accepts that the Biblical narrative gives a moderately accurate account of his life (both very huge assumptions)....

Then, the "official" reason Jesus was put to death was because he proclaimed to be the Son of God. It had little to do with politics, given that the Biblical Jesus' politics were not at all in conflict with Roman authority ("give unto Caesar what is his").

The Jesus-as-activist theory is one of the reasons I don't buy into a Historical Jesus. As Rober Price has pointed out, the Historical Jesus of any writer always seems to look dangerously close to the writer's values and ideals. That is why notions of Jesus as a liberal Jewish activist became so popular during the 1950's to 1970's. It fit in perfectly with the political and social milieu.

There is, of course, no real historical evidence Jesus was an activist as opposed to a conformist. It is just an a priori assumption.

Laterz.

Musubi Dojo

11-13-2006, 15:32

If one accepts that Jesus actually lived and one accepts that the Biblical narrative gives a moderately accurate account of his life (both very huge assumptions)....

Then, the "official" reason Jesus was put to death was because he proclaimed to be the Son of God. It had little to do with politics, given that the Biblical Jesus' politics were not at all in conflict with Roman authority ("give unto Caesar what is his").

The Jesus-as-activist theory is one of the reasons I don't buy into a Historical Jesus. As Rober Price has pointed out, the Historical Jesus of any writer always seems to look dangerously close to the writer's values and ideals. That is why notions of Jesus as a liberal Jewish activist became so popular during the 1950's to 1970's. It fit in perfectly with the political and social milieu.

There is, of course, no real historical evidence Jesus was an activist as opposed to a conformist. It is just an a priori assumption.

Laterz.

If Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God (and people were believing him and following him) I think he would be a considerable threat to the Roman Authorities. Crucifying him would have been one way of discouraging his message....

Jesus by biblical accounts was an activist was he not? Healing people, preaching love, passing out the fish and the loaves...etc...

Cheers
c

Erik

11-13-2006, 15:39

I may be wrong, but this is my understanding.

I think the idea was that Jesus was an activist against the local "authorities" (Jewish priesthood) who was, at the time, under a lot of pressure as their authority had been co-opted by the Romans, who were the occupying power at the time.

Remember there were several players then and there:
1) Occupying Romans
2) Local Jewish political leaders (run by priests)
3) Locals mad at the Roman occupiers
4) Locals mad at the Jewish political leaders as they were sometimes seen as goign along with the Roman occupation. They had a tough position - a little like Vichy France in WWII.
5) Lots and lots and lots of normal, generic Jewish (and non-Jewish) locals who had nothing to do with getting Jesus in trouble (so let's do away with the lame idea that "the Jews crucified Christ" as it's simply not the case.)

In any case, Jesus went against the Jewish leaders and their authority, which upset them. Remember, they were priests and lawyers combined and they were the ones who ruled the Jewish state.

They wanted to put down this upstart but, under Roman occupation, did not have the right to sentence someone to death. In order to do so, they (Jewish authorities) lobbied the Romans to put Jesus to death. They convinced Pilate who was ostensibly indifferent but wanted to keep the area stable and avoid riots and uprisings. So, after trying to gauge the political wind at the time (first doing the request of the subordinate local authorities by arresting Jesus, then checking with the population if they wanted him freed and if they'd riot if Jesus were executed - they picked Barabas or whatever his name was, after being manipulated by the priests).

Then, he executed Jesus.

That's my understanding.

heretic888

11-13-2006, 15:40

If Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God (and people were believing him and following him) I think he would be a considerable threat to the Roman Authorities.

Nah. There lots of guys claiming to be a son of some god at the time (albeit, not in Jewish culture). Jesus would have hardly been anything special to the Empire.

However, if we are still going by the Biblical account again, it was Jewish Authorities that arrested him, tried him, and called for his execution. Pontius Pilate is depicted as "washing his hands" of the matter.

]Crucifying him would have been one way of discouraging his message....

That depends on what the message was. "Render Unto Caesar" is hardly rebellious.

Jesus by biblical accounts was an activist was he not? Healing people, preaching love, passing out the fish and the loaves...etc...

The Biblical Jesus was not a political activist. He says absolutely nothing at all about rejecting or rebelling against Roman rule. He even tacitly accepted slavery, as did the other Biblical authors.

Jesus the Political Activist, just like all varieties of the Historical Jesus, is simply a social construction.

Laterz.

Erik

11-13-2006, 15:53

The Biblical Jesus was not a political activist. He says absolutely nothing at all about rejecting or rebelling against Roman rule. He even tacitly accepted slavery, as did the other Biblical authors.
Jesus was undermining the authority of the local power by disagreeing with their laws, rules, etc. (eye for an eye becoming turn the other cheek, etc., but there's a lot more). That's where he was an activist.

By undermining the moral authority of the priests he was also undermining their political power. Make sense?

He was not rebelling against the occupying Roman power.

David Craik

11-13-2006, 16:53

If Tacitus is to be believed, there were scores of prophets preaching along the same vein as Jesus at the time, all across the Roman Empire - messiahs were nothing new to them.

David Craik

11-13-2006, 17:00

My belief is that the OT law was a start and that humanity was ready for the next level. Even if God knows the end result, humanity may still need to go through the process, growing, changing, and so on..

Why? Why was humanity not made to "be ready for the next level" in the first place? Did God, a perfect and all-powerful being, create something flawed? Or would this have deprived Him of the justification of murder, infanticide, and rape (Numbers, Leviticus, Judges, 2 Samuel)?

Erik

11-13-2006, 17:07

The best answer I can come up with, David, is that if life is a journey then it must encompass change. Change causes stress (by definition - by my definition) and stress is a form of pain, so pain is to be expected during this journey of change.

That's not a biblical quote, that's just my theory. It's the best I can do.

You ask a good question.

David Craik

11-13-2006, 17:17

Dunno, I reckon if I was both perfect and omnicient, and had unlimited power I would have taken pity on my poor hapless creations and not made them so they had to receive the most horrendous and despicable fates as meted out in the OT. Stephen King at his best couldn't have come up with so horrible and evil an account.

It's not like many these people were guilty of terrible crimes either. Steadying an ark and children making fun of an old man calling him "old bald head"?

But on the other hand we have folks like Lot, who commits the most abominable acts like incest and is later described as "just", and "righteous".

Erik

11-13-2006, 17:25

Remember when you were a kid? Or a junior E.M? Remember the punishments and frustrations you faced, thought were miserable and horrible and life couldn't get worse? (I am thinking of one particular night at Camp Pendleton freezing my butt off, hallucinating from lack of sleep, ill, and laying in some dirt mixed with my own puke all the while with a clear line of sight to a Burger King that I KNEW was serving nice, warm food...)

Yet you made it and when you look back you (I would imagine) realize that though it did suck, it wasn't the end of the world, there was a lot more you could endure, you grew from the experience (hopefully), and life moves on.

And it sure could have been worse though you didn't realize it at the time, right? (Reference being a kid on that one.)

All the suffering in the history of the world was pretty darned bad, no disagreement there, but in a cosmic/biblical/spiritual scale, it could well be nothing. If that's true, then what humanity has had to endure is only a percentage of what could be possible. That may be acceptable misery in the grand scheme of things.

I don't know the answer to this one. I'm just speculating. We won't know while we're here, alive, and doing our thing as mortal human beings.

David Craik

11-13-2006, 17:38

However, Erik, for many of the people described in the OT it was the end of the world. I can cite accounts by the score, straight from the Bible, that show this wasn't on the same scale as a caring father giving a little spanking to his children to guide them on a better path, or giving people "trials" that they may become stronger. A helluva lot worse things than vomiting within sight of a Burger King.

By conservative estimate, because many are not named and some references are vague, Almighty God killed at least 2,270,365 people in the Bible. Now that's one hell of a bunch of stress and change! Surely these folk should not have been made in the first place, or perhaps could have been made differently? By way of comparison, Satan killed a whopping 10, though some of these were with God's help or by His command.

An all-powerful and omniscient being should have no need to inflict misery. Nothing occurs without His knowledge, say-so and without His creation, by definition. There is no "free will" when God, by His omniscience, knows precisely what you will do and when you will do it, even before you are born.

I don't think we'll ever know, because it's a load of nonsense.

"I kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh." - Deuteronomy 32:39-42

Oddly enough though, given the Almighty's representation in the Bible of little more than an incredibly powerful, vengeful child throwing a tantrum, the OT works pretty well as an object lesson to any that would disobey Him.

Lame Leopard

11-13-2006, 18:02

Preach the Gospel always, sometimes use words.

St. Francis of Assisi

Peace

Dennis

Thank you for bringing this great truth into this thread. We try to follow our Lord and Master to the best of our abilities and ask Him to help us. We try to walk the walk in addition to the talking part.

heretic888

11-13-2006, 18:52

That's not a biblical quote, that's just my theory. It's the best I can do.

Well, my personal theory is that most of the stuff in the Old Testament never happened in the first place.

Rather than this elaborate plan a hypothetical personal deity (my conception of the divine is more along the lines of Paul Tillich's Ground of Being) has for mankind, I think it much more likely that human beings' conception of "God" changed as their culture and social institutions evolved. The deity had to change to endorse the new social mores and values, since the Jewish people were no longer pillaging and ransacking the indigenous people of Israel.

The move from a God of Power to a God of Peace within Jewish religious thought (as you can plainly see by comparing the beginning of the Torah to the end of the Torah) can be seen as correlating with the Jewish nation's transition from a conquering people to a conquered people. It may even be that the conquering stage of Jewish history may have been an artifact constructed by the priesthood after the Babylonian Captivity (which was when the Torah was actually written), to account for the "proud" beginnings of their people as ruling the land. This suspicion seems likely, given there is little evidence for Old Testament events like a mass exodus from Egypt or a vast Davidic empire.

Rather than suggesting God has this complex multi-step program for creatures that he apparently made flawed in the first place, I think it a more parsimonious suggestion that people simply changed their ideas of God to fit the new cultural environment they found themselves in.

Laterz.

Abbax8

11-13-2006, 19:30

If Tacitus is to be believed, there were scores of prophets preaching along the same vein as Jesus at the time, all across the Roman Empire - messiahs were nothing new to them.

David is absolutely correct about many messiahs appearing in Jerusalem at the time. The interesting thing to me is it is only Jesus that started a movement that is still alive and well 2000 years later.

Peace

Dennis

heretic888

11-13-2006, 19:37

David is absolutely correct about many messiahs appearing in Jerusalem at the time. The interesting thing to me is it is only Jesus that started a movement that is still alive and well 2000 years later.

That's not necessarily anything to be proud of.

Emperor Constantine had a lot to do with that. If it wasn't for him and his successors, Christianity would have met the same fate as Mithraism.

Laterz.

Abbax8

11-13-2006, 19:58

Well I respectfully disagree. It is something to consider.

Peace

Dennis

heretic888

11-13-2006, 20:06

Well I respectfully disagree. It is something to consider.

Christianity flourished because it was spread by the point of the sword.

Mithraism was just as popular and widespread as Christianity. The difference between the two is it was not made into a state religion and laws were not passed banning Roman citizens from practicing any other faith but it.

You can thank Constantine for all that, of course.

Laterz.

Ramirez

11-13-2006, 20:35

I believe the idea of Jesus as divine was propagated by Saul of Tarsus, well after the generally accepted date of his crucifixtion.

heretic888

11-13-2006, 20:52

I believe the idea of Jesus as divine was propagated by Saul of Tarsus, well after the generally accepted date of his crucifixtion.

This would be a difficult claim to substantiate, given that at least some of the Pauline epistles are the earliest documentation we have for Christian thinking. Furthermore, Paul argues vociferously with other Christian leaders in his letters, but not once is it over the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such a debate is not even alluded to.

Paul's letters are generally dated between 55 and 65 CE by most scholars. This still puts them decades before the canonical Gospels, which are dated between 85 CE (Mark) to roughly 110 CE (John).

Whatever form Christianity may have taken before Paul is speculation and guesswork.

Laterz.

AllanJGAnderson

11-13-2006, 21:10

Well I respectfully disagree. It is something to consider.

Peace

Dennis
I that'd be the most Christian way to handle the situation. :bow:

Abbax8

11-14-2006, 15:51

First isn't Mithraism a myth. I've heard of it, never really studied it but have seen posts on the net that it is just made up.

Yes I know Constantine converted and established it as a state religion. Then the empire fell. It was sacked and the conquerors decided to convert. Pretty amazing. Then there was the rise of Islam which almost took over the whole western world, Christianity survived. It then survived for 1000 plus more years through wars, plagues, etc. Something an emperor did around 300 A.D. cannot explain all that. But a roman emperor who was supposedly a god converting is pretty big news as well, even if did it for worldly reasons, who is to say?

Peace

Dennis

heretic888

11-14-2006, 16:07

First isn't Mithraism a myth.

No.

I've heard of it, never really studied it but have seen posts on the net that it is just made up.

Anyone seriously suggesting to you that Mithraism as a religious movement did not exist contemporaneous with Christianity in the Roman Empire is, quite simply, lying to you.

Yes I know Constantine converted and established it as a state religion. Then the empire fell. It was sacked and the conquerors decided to convert. Pretty amazing.

Not really. From Wikipedia's entry on the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire):

The end of the Roman Empire is traditionally placed on 4 September 476, when the Western Roman Empire fell to Germanic invaders, although the major power centre of the Empire had by then transferred to the Eastern Roman Empire. Known to modern-day historians as the Byzantine Empire, it maintained Roman legal and cultural traditions within a distinctly Christian form for another thousand years until it finally succumbed to the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453.

Then there was the rise of Islam which almost took over the whole western world, Christianity survived. It then survived for 1000 plus more years through wars, plagues, etc.

Please see above.

Something an emperor did around 300 A.D. cannot explain all that.

Christianity survived via the Byzantine Empire and the nations that the Western Empire had colonized before it fell. There is nothing miraculous or unusual about that.

But a roman emperor who was supposedly a god converting is pretty big news as well, even if did it for worldly reasons, who is to say?

Constantine did indeed convert to Christianity for "worldly" reasons, as he quickly used it to consolidate his power in the Empire. It should also be pointed out that Constantine had much of his family murdered shortly after his conversion.

Laterz.

AllanJGAnderson

11-14-2006, 16:14

It should also be pointed out that Constantine had much of his family murdered shortly after his conversion.

And this should be pointed out why?

heretic888

11-14-2006, 16:24

And this should be pointed out why?

It demonstrates the underlying pattern of Constantine's psychology. Namely, a rabid thirst for power and dominance. This also ties into his conversion to proto-Orthodox Christianity, which was admittedly far more intolerant and exclusivist than other religious movements of the time.

Laterz.

David Craik

11-14-2006, 16:35

Cliff Hargrave

11-14-2006, 16:38

There is alot of conflicting information on Constantine, one being that he didn't convert until his deathbed and did so with a Bishop that followed Arius.

I believe his move to end the persecution of Christians had more to do with his own consolidation of power.

heretic888

11-14-2006, 16:45

Some of Christianity's early success can also be attributed to the shrewdness of the Church by adoption of pagan dates and trappings to appease or be more palatable to the 'heathen masses', and things like the recasting of Pan as Satan. The Catholic church had a truly masterful PR campaign.

Well, to be perfectly honest, the entire concept of Christianity is little more than Pagan "trappings" with a Jewish theological guise.

The dying and resurrecting Godman whom the believer communes with to acquire Eternal Life had been a staple of Western culture since the rise of Osirism. This is why Church fathers like Justin Martyr invented absurd arguments (known as "diabolical mimicry") that the Devil knew Jesus was coming, so he perfectly replicated the things he would say and do so as to trick us all in advance. The more logical and parsimonious argument, of course, is that the early Christian culled their mythology from longstanding Pagan tradition.

Laterz.

heretic888

11-14-2006, 16:46

I believe his move to end the persecution of Christians had more to do with his own consolidation of power.

Exactly. Politics and religion go hand in hand, after all.

Laterz.

Patrick Hayes

11-15-2006, 00:42

But a roman emperor who was supposedly a god converting is pretty big news as well, even if did it for worldly reasons, who is to say?

Although Constantine was deified in the Roman religion after his death, he was not worshipped as a god during his lifetime, and after about 180 CE, the Roman practice of deifying various emperors and imperial family members had become a formality only, very similar to using the titles "Caesar" and "Augustus" to denote the position of emperor. So although Constantine was nominally a "god" after his death, this would have had very little weight in and of itself regarding his decision to convert to Christianity.
Also, although hisotrical accounts do differ, the most credible account is that Constantine was baptised late in life, by the Arian bishop of either Nicomedia or Cappadocia, and would therefore be considered a heretic.

BD2021

12-14-2006, 01:26

I know this is an older thread, but if theres anyone still interested in the main topic the answer I beleive is as follows:

"We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

It should be noted that the word "catholic" here doesnt refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but rather to the sense of "worldwide" or "universal".

As to whether or not you believe this is really a matter of personal faith, but this is the core belief(s) of christianity. If you can say that you agree with all of this then you will live your life in a manner befitting it, and will be therefore living a Christian Life or 1 that resembles the ideals of "Christ".

TicTac

12-14-2006, 21:04

Eliz

12-15-2006, 00:36

Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is commentary.

Peace

Dennis

Well said. Actions speak louder than words.

jasonwalker

12-15-2006, 07:42

Amen brother!

GeeBee

12-15-2006, 07:44

Have we forgotten that it's a matter of faith.

Faith is a matter of belief.

Thinking about believing...

In Christianity we talk about believing in Jesus. We say that we are
saved by believing in Him (Jesus Christ).

Think for a moment. What is belief?

I think "belief" is a state of being. Such as in the old
motivational mantra: "Be - Do - Have". Here's an example. If
you want to find a wife, first you must "be" someone that someone
would want to marry. Then you must "do" the things that will
attract the type of mate you are seeking. Finally if it's God's
will you will "have" the mate that you desired.

"Now" requires no thought. You are simply in the now, when you practice
being in the present. Now is the only point in time that requires zero thought.
You do not think about now, it is simply happening to you. You must think
about the future and the past. When you pray you are connecting to God
in the "now".

I think you claim the Lord's salvation when you conceive in your mind
and hold the thought of being a Christian. It is a "state" of
"being". You are practicing being a Christian "now". Paul said
"pray without ceasing", he is saying hold this state. I think when
you are praying you are in the now with the Lord. We do not pray in the
past or the future.

An example:
I believe that I am a sailor. I know that I can sail a boat. I have
this confidence. I like to tell people about sailing. I like to wear
sailing clothes and buy sailing gear. In fact I am proud that I have
these skills. I would tell you that I "AM" a sailor. It is part on
my being, part of my state. Therefore, I am holding in my mind the
state of being a sailor. Being a sailor affects how I spend my time,
choosing to sail vs. another pursuit. It affects how I spend my money.
I relate to other people differently if I know that they to are
sailors, it give them an "in" with me and I know that I have
received the same. Being a sailor is a way of life. Being a Christian
is THE WAY of life. I think my point will be driven home further if you
read this example again and change out the word sailor for the word
Christian.

Since John 3:16 is specific about salvation; "For God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him
shall have eternal life." I'm not preaching here! I am humbly
speaking truth. I think as Christians we should have a very clear
understanding of why we believe what we believe.

It's matter of faith.

heretic888

12-25-2006, 13:38

As to whether or not you believe this is really a matter of personal faith, but this is the core belief(s) of christianity.

Since the middle of the fourth century, anyway.

If you can say that you agree with all of this then you will live your life in a manner befitting it, and will be therefore living a Christian Life or 1 that resembles the ideals of "Christ".

No, there is a decided difference between beliefs and actions. One does not assure the other.

Laterz.

heretic888

12-25-2006, 14:01

What struck me as odd is that we all let heritic888 get away with saying that there is no historical evidence of "Jesus of Naz." in the same discussion that he quotes the Bible. That little book, half of which is pretty much about nothing but "Jesus of Naz.". Yeah I'm talking about one of the worlds oldest and definatly the most well read History books of all time - the Bible.

The Bible is a "history book" in the same way that the Chronicles of Narnia are "non-fiction". For a historical review of the Old Testament, I would highly suggest Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaelogy's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. For a historical review of the New Testament, I would recommend both G. A. Wells' Who Was Jesus? and Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament?.

To give but one brief example of what I'm talking about, the town for which you abbreviated "Naz", is regarded as the historical hometown of Jesus, namely Nazareth. The problem is that archaeological excavations of this town have revealed that it wasn't even inhabited by humans until the second century CE. That, added to the fact that the town isn't mentioned by Jewish sources until the third century CE, simply attest to the fact that we are not dealing with history here.

The Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, is littered with such anachronisms and discontinuities that compromise any value it may have as a record of historical events. Historical context, perhaps. Historical events, no.

Latertz.