|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2001 : 21:03:52 [Permalink]
|
Slater
I see that Gnosticism has now crept into the discussion. It's important to note that Gnostic forms of Christianity were as popular , if not more popular than 'orthodox' Christianity prior to 325 AD. It's my understanding that the Gnostics had a very different take on the Hebrew Bible than any Christian or Jew then or now.
As for Constantine. I doubt very much that he and his buddies developed any theology. My assertion is that they "cherry-picked" the texts that suited their political agenda (ie. uniting diverse people under one empire, and increasing interest in civic duty among the citizenry). The New Testament texts chosen all had a decidedly Apocalyptic world view. This world view, with it's emphasis on good vs evil (us vs "them") and visions of a final victory of good over evil, would motivate the citizens to obedience to the state. That is the state, being the earthly protector of "good".
These same world views are what drives Fundamentalists to blind obedience to their god - the Bible itself.
BTW I am a Catholic-turned-Agnostic with still a spot in my heart for the Church. This means that I would love to believe but can't.
|
 |
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 05:18:45 [Permalink]
|
[Quote]Slater:
Should I ignore the largest, the oldest and the only (with the exception of Eastern Orthodoxy) version of Christianity with any valid claims of authority? For what? Protestantism, an iffy reinterpretation of the bible by Luther, that has been around for only five hundred years and discount the Catholics who have been with us for eighteen hundred? You've got to be kidding.
You follow the bible and the RCs don't? Funny, when I ask my Jesuit Priest friends they have a different take on the situation.
I, wouldn't you have guessed it, have a third take.
Oh, I can't keep my mouth shut over this one.
As I am currently a fundamentalist Christian, I believe scripture to be inerrant and that anything disagreeing with it cannot be God's word. (Oh, by the way, don't bother bringing up supposed contradictions in the main bible hoping I have time to respond to them right now, because I don't.) While I do not consider myself to be Protestant or Roman Catholic, I do consider those two branches to belong to my religion. I am a Catholic. I follow the basic ideas that the Jesus of the bible supposedly fulfilled.
In defense of Luther, he became a fundamentalist as he studied the bible more and more. It wasn't until his fundamentalist beliefs began to clash with Rome over certain traditions and dogma that he was forced into a new institution. Though in the Roman Catholic Church's past, there were many fundamentalist members that it's leadership had no problems with whatsoever. Thomas Aquinas (I think I spelled that right) for instance, could be credited as one of the RCC's founders, and his views were not that different from Luther's.
My point is that the bible is what drives Christianity and is at its core. Extra writings and traditions can be nice to have on the side, but fundamentalists should not hold them up to the same level as God's word, nor should they split Christendom over these inconsequential items or ideas. Early Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants and their churches have all had their good sides and bad, I am pretty sure that I do as well, but I cannot see how a person can or should ignore one part of the true Christianity over another because of this. It is the bible that has the only valid claims to authority; anything else is simply man, institution, or false enterprise based religion as far as I am concerned.
It is especially important to pay attention to the thousands of years of Roman Catholicism, and its dominance of Christianity. Long before Protestant theologians came along with their interpretations, brilliant Roman Catholic theologians had already covered most of those same ideas. The Roman Catholic history has had its downsides as well, and if you ask me, present Christians need to be mindful of them, just as we remain mindful of Protestant mistakes.
JohnPaul, as for your trying to pit one side against another over dogma, just keep in mind that their are liberal Christians in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. I am sure that you can find a liberal Jesuit, but I am equally sure that one could find a fundamentalist (or at least conservative) Jesuit as well.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!!
Edited by - Tiptup on 06/01/2001 15:38:48 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 08:32:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My point is that the bible is what drives Christianity and is at its core. Extra writings and traditions can be nice to have on the side, but fundamentalists should not hold them up to the same level as God's word, nor should they split Christendom over these inconsequential items or ideas.
So is it your belief that God guided the Council of Nicea and purposefully had them discard all the books that had up until that time been included as His word? Why would He have let the books be included in the first place? Are the books that are in the Catholic bible today all the Word of God? Or are the KJV bibles of the Protestants the only "true" Word of God?
If He had just written the damn thing himself... sheesh!
[He as in God, not He as in He.  ]
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/01/2001 08:33:54 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 11:15:13 [Permalink]
|
What about the true Christians....you know....the Mormons? How do they fit in?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 16:02:38 [Permalink]
|
Martin Luther and Saint Thomas Aquinas were Christian Fundamentalists?!
LOL Tiptup, do you make this stuff up yourself or is somebody feeding you these lines?
The Christian Fundamentalism we all know and love traces it's beginnings all the way back to 1915 in Illinois. A good case can be made that it is strongly based on the "traveling tent shows" that were in the plains states in the late 1800's. (Mentioned as the off season occupation of petty thieves and scoundrels in Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain)
If seniority counts for anything both the Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses have it beat.
Luther reinterpreted the bible from a version that made the Borgias (who had one of their own as Pope) the richest family in the world to one making the Hapsburgs (his employers) the richest family in the world. He also got to sleep with one of the nuns who he had the hots for. These sordid facts make that business seem a little less than sacred and a little more than profane.
Aquinas was a hard liner, but you have to remember that the American Christian Fundamentalist view of the bible is a unique one. Catholics don't view it as a book with proto-magical powers. They see it more as the set of instructions that came with the religion. They are interesting these instructions but the important thing is the religion.
Saint Augustine in his monumental work The City of God spells out the Catholic view. He says that it would be "madness" (his word not mine) to accept a completely literal interpretation of what the bible says. And they made that guy a Saint.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him
Edited by - slater on 06/01/2001 16:06:22 |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 17:16:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokyodreamer:
So is it your belief that God guided the Council of Nicea and purposefully had them discard all the books that had up until that time been included as His word? Why would He have let the books be included in the first place?
I believe God guides all of history. He (as in God, not He) will ensure that whatever he wants to happen happens. As for which books are true, unfortunately many of the books that were destroyed by the council of Nicea cannot be studied anymore, so there is no way for me to discern if they are parts of the true word. Those books that have been recovered are obviously Gnostic.
Gnostics believed that everyone and everything is God, and that Jesus was just more in tune with his Goddess than the rest of us (or something like that). Not to mention the different Gnostic books all widely contradict with the each other and the current bible. Some believed Jesus was a real person while others believed he was only spiritual. On this basis alone I would be inclined to reject those books.
I also find that the historical evidence is far stronger supporting the cannon that came from the council of Nicea than what would support the Gnostic books. This is a much longer topic and hopefully I'll try to get into it soon. But to make it short, many early Christians did not consider Gnostic books to be part of the bible, and this was the Christianity that Constantine was converted to (whether out of true belief or thirst for power). As far as many early Christians were concerned, Constantine's choices were correct.
The many people that were willing to be martyred over their belief in Jesus Christ suddenly went along with Rome their enemy. Sure they had to compromise a number of their beliefs, but these were only secondary and Constantine was getting the main parts right. Plus they got to keep the books they considered to be sacred. To no longer be persecuted and to get power of their own to exact revenge on their enemies and destroy those who disagreed with them was very enticing. Many the Roman Christian persecutions were just following the example of previous government leaderships.
Anyhow I certainly wouldn't have destroyed the Gnostic books though. If people want to study them or even follow them, I see no reason not to allow this. After all, there isn't much difference between modern liberal Christianity and those old Gnostic beliefs. |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 17:45:37 [Permalink]
|
Slater:
Martin Luther and Saint Thomas Aquinas were Christian Fundamentalists?!
LOL Tiptup, do you make this stuff up yourself or is somebody feeding you these lines?
Of course I come up with this stuff myself. Why? Are you spoon fed everything that you think?
I believe Luther and Aquinas were fundamentalists in the way that I mean the term. If you believe fundamentalist to mean certain wacko sects of Christianity then perhaps you can help me find a better term.
While your at it, can you tell me what a fundamentalist Jew is? I know of a number of Jews who call themselves this and are certainly not members of any Christian groups.
Luther reinterpreted the bible from a version that made the Borgias (who had one of their own as Pope) the richest family in the world to one making the Hapsburgs (his employers) the richest family in the world. He also got to sleep with one of the nuns who he had the hots for. These sordid facts make that business seem a little less than sacred and a little more than profane.
Luther's version of the bible wasn't that different from standard versions. Also I do not see how a man wanting to marry a woman he fell in love with as being sordid. Imagine, an atheist who thinks wanting to have sex is wrong!
Aquinas was a hard liner, but you have to remember that the American Christian Fundamentalist view of the bible is a unique one. Catholics don't view it as a book with proto-magical powers. They see it more as the set of instructions that came with the religion. They are interesting these instructions but the important thing is the religion.
Sure each persons view of the bible is different from everyone else's, this is precisely why Roman Catholicism is not contained within a single voice. There are RCs who hold the bible more sacred, and others who hold Church tradition and leadership more sacred. Overall the modern RCC is what you say it is, but it was not always so.
Saint Augustine in his monumental work The City of God spells out the Catholic view. He says that it would be "madness" (his word not mine) to accept a completely literal interpretation of what the bible says. And they made that guy a Saint.
I agree. I do not see how someone could take the entire bible literally either. The bible would be a strange book indeed if the symbolic language is taken as it is. My definition of a fundamentalist is someone who tries to discover the intent of the biblical authors. If the intent was a literal account or symbolic poetry, then I will try to take it as such. As a fundamentalist Christian (as I mean it), I believe the original form of the bible to be infallible, even though my interpretations of specific texts and versions of the bible might be incorrect. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2001 : 16:06:27 [Permalink]
|
Good news Tiptup. Both Duane Gish and Philip Johnson have announced their retirements, that's 2 job openings you can now apply for.
Gnostics believed that everyone and everything is God, and that Jesus was just more in tune with his Goddess than the rest of us (or something like that). Not to mention the different Gnostic books all widely contradict with the each other and the current bible. Some believed Jesus was a real person while others believed he was only spiritual. On this basis alone I would be inclined to reject those books.
Shhhh, do you hear that noise? That's Joseph Campbell turning over in his grave.
I also find that the historical evidence is far stronger supporting the cannon that came from the council of Nicea than what would support the Gnostic books.
Okay, I'm calling you on that one.
One, you don't actually know what the so called Gnostics believed.
Two, you don't know what the historical evidence is, so you have no way to compare Orthodox Christianity with it. And you certainly are unequipped to compare Gnosticism with either Orthodoxy or history.
There are no historical records of either Jesus or his Apostles.
The only events that occur in the NT that do have historical records are Baptism in the River Jordan and the Sermon on the mount.
Baptism was a Mithric initiation rite that was dedicated to the Persian demi-god (called a yazatas) "John." It would have been attended mostly by Roman troops and merchants from surrounding countries. NEVER BY JEWS.
The Sermon on the Mount is completely historical. The sermon, the loaves, the fish, the Lords Prayer (except for the 2 words "Our Father") all absolutely historical. That is an accurate description of the Mass of Mithra, common to all of Zoroasterianism. They held it every Sunday rain or shine. Sunday is the Sabbath to them because Mithra is the Sol Invictus, unlike the Jews who hold their Sabbath a day earlier. The Roman Legions stationed in Israel would have attended these services regularly. Jews wouldn't have gone anywhere near them.
You would think that when the Romans crucified a person and darkness covered the land, earthquakes split the Veil of the Great Temple and the dead got out of their graves and strolled around the shopping district of downtown Jerusalem, that someone would have noticed. Such inattention to detail was not usual among the Romans or the Jews. Strange that they should have missed it--if it actually happened.
… many early Christians did not consider Gnostic books to be part of the bible, and this was the Christianity that Constantine was converted to (whether out of true belief or thirst for power). As far as many early Christians were concerned, Constantine's choices were correct.
Constantine never converted to Christianity himself, although his mom and his wife did. As for what many early Christians thought may I remind you that this debate is about facts and not public opinion.
Plus they got to keep the books they considered to be sacred.
They got to keep less than half of them.
Many the Roman Christian persecutions were just following the example of previous government leaderships.
Yes, exactly, and quite in keeping with Christian tenants--although diametrically opposed to the Humanistic Christianity of the twenty-first century.
Of course I come up with this stuff (Luther & Aquinas) myself. Why? Are you spoon fed everything that you think?
If by "spoon fed" you mean: in disciplines in which I am not personally an expert do I rely on the research of others whose scholarship I trust instead of spouting out the first fantasy that enters my mind: then yes. I'm spoon-fed.
I believe Luther and Aquinas were fundamentalists in the way that I mean the term. If you believe fundamentalist to mean certain wacko sects of Christianity then perhaps you can help me find a better term.
If you are going to, once again, assign your personal definitions |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 02:17:21 [Permalink]
|
broven: Gen 8:21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
Now what was that about children knowing right from wrong?...according to this, the human heart is evil.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 12:14:28 [Permalink]
|
Hi Tiptup,
You said...
"My definition of a fundamentalist is someone who tries to discover the intent of the biblical authors"
That's all very laudible, but you are trying to uncover the the author's intent from an ENGLISH translation of the Bible, aren't you? You know, that Ango-Saxon-Germanic-Franco composite language that didn't crystalize into it's present form until the mid 16th century. What I find so fascinating about the Fundamentalist viewpoint is the insistence on the inerrancy of the Bible with the implied assumptions that the translators...
1) Were in total agreement with their translations. There was no dissent or question. All disputes were resolved PERFECTLY.
2) Were completely free from all political overtones, court intrigues, bribes, scandals and other overt / covert influences.
3) Endeavored to stay true to the Hebrew and Greek texts (none of which were the originals, BTW) with no attempt to "imprint" their personal styles, prejudices, or other pre-dispositions on the manuscripts.
4) That the final manuscript as delivered to the publisher was faithfully typeset and printed EXACTLY as written.
5) That their work was so complete and error-free that there was no need for any kind of follow-up revisions.
And will you condemn all those who disagree with the words translated by imperfect persons you don't know or whose names you cannot recite?
Does your edition of the Bible include the Apocrypha? What God inspired mandate included it in the original KJV translation, only to have the whole thing dropped out of subsequent editions? Or were the Catholics the fools to hold on to it?
Does the word "politics" figure in to any of the Bible translations from the original Hebrew and Greek? Not necessarily a bad thing, but that's how humans operate when they become groupies.
To ascribe "inerrancy" through fallible human translators is to assign to them the status of Gods. And that is patently absurd.
Kindest Regards,
(:raig
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 14:24:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To ascribe "inerrancy" through fallible human translators is to assign to them the status of Gods. And that is patently absurd.
Kindest Regards,
(:raig
But if the god had a message for you, why give it in a language that he knows you don't understand?
As I see it, it can mean one of two things.
1: Whoever wrote it didn't know that you don't speak Aramaic or poor Greek or Hebrew. And if he doesn't know he can't be god 'cause god knows everything.
Or 2: Whoever wrote it is mentally defective. Example: Say I wanted to warn you that you had a piece of spinach from the salad you ate at lunch stuck to your front tooth. I tell you about it in my best Aztec already knowing that you don't speak Aztec. You would rightly think that I was a nut case.
Either 1 or 2 leaves you with an author who isn't the god he claims he is.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 13:51:24 [Permalink]
|
My goodness, look at this site. There's dust everywhere. The URL is covered in cobwebs and there are signs of mildew on page two.
So is that it then? Is the debate over?
Then I think I'll close with a poem from Shelly, if you don't mind. This might be the very one that got his young freethinking ass kicked out of Oxford.
I was an infant when my mother went
To see an atheist burned. She took me there.
The dark-robed priests were met around the pile;
The multitude was gazing silently;
And as the culprit passed with dauntless mien,
Tempered disdain in his unaltering eye,
Mixed with a quiet smile, shone calmly forth;
The thirsty fire crept round his manly limbs;
His resolute eyes were scorched to blindness soon;
His death-pang rent my heart! the insensate mob
Uttered a cry of triumph, and I wept.
"Weep not, child!" cried my mother, "for that man
Has said, 'There is no God.'"
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley, from "Queen Mab: A Philosophical Poem" VII (1813)
------------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 14:22:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
"Who's brain was it?"
"Abby-something, I believe."
"Abby-something."
"Yes, I think that was it...Abby...Normal!"
"Abby Normal."
"Yes, that was it, Abby Normal!"
"Are you telling me that I put an abnormal brain into an 8 foot tall, 53 inch wide... GORILLA!?!?!"
"Sedagive! Give him a sedagive!"
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 22:12:16 [Permalink]
|
It seems to me that the people who have always done the evil in this world have been religious. They have destroyed each other throughout recorded history and in their sacred books have recorded other (probably mythical) dasterdly deeds.
Communism (and other totalitarian states) were like religions in that one was ordered to believe in them or suffer the consequences. Look at what happened to the scientists in the USSR who disagreed with Lysenko. To the Gulag with them!
Now, I am not one to blame anybody who has not at anytime during his/her life done anything which physically hurt others. Mentally, people should be able to consider the source and resist letting it bother them to the point where retaliation is the result.
However, it is much better to have no religion at all, so that you do not have that history of rape and murder in the background of your beliefs.
ljbrs
If the Creators of the Inquisition had known better, they would have done better!
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 22:12:36 [Permalink]
|
It seems to me that the people who have always done the evil in this world have been religious. They have destroyed each other throughout recorded history and in their sacred books have recorded other (probably mythical) dasterdly deeds.
Communism (and other totalitarian states) were like religions in that one was ordered to believe in them or suffer the consequences. Look at what happened to the scientists in the USSR who disagreed with Lysenko. To the Gulag with them!
Now, I am not one to blame anybody who has not at anytime during his/her life done anything which physically hurt others. Mentally, people should be able to consider the source and resist letting it bother them to the point where retaliation is the result.
However, it is much better to have no religion at all, so that you do not have that history of rape and murder in the background of your beliefs.
ljbrs
If the Creators of the Inquisition had known better, they would have done better!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
