135 replies to this topic

[arunma]

So I figured it was time for another religion topic.

Anyway, a lot of liberal non-Christians (and a few Christians) who are pro-Jesus but anti-Christians believe that we Christians have a misinformed understanding of our own religion. I've heard all manners of claims from certain people, including Hindus, Buddhists, and even liberal Christians. Some say that Jesus taught us to respect and tolerate the beliefs of others (rather than just the people themselves, as per the Christian view). Others say that according to the Bible, non-Christians don't really go to hell.

I don't know if any of you guys are here. But I hope so, because I intended for this thread to be more of a challenge to you. I'd like to issue a challenge to all non-Christians who hold unorthodox views on the Bible, so that I can do my best to refute them.

And don't go and ignore this thread, because it's the first religion thread in awhile.

[Korhend]

I'm gonna stopo you for a minute there arunma. Before you label these all "Liberal christians", catholic missionaries have been preaching this for centuries. However, it is much more difficult to follow the way of god without understanding the bible. To use their analogy, you can grow a crop on a small plot of land, but not as much on a large plot of land. You can still reap a bountiful crop on that small land, through careful care for the fields.
All religions have reached at least some connection with god. After all, god is universal. Why would only middle easteners be able to understand god. God is present in all things and other religions form by sort of figuring it out on its own.

[Nevermind]

I'm gonna say that my main problem with Christianity is the separation into denominations. People will always interpret the Bible differently from others, so why not just stick with one general community.

[Octorok]

Dude, they are in one community: Christianity. denominations are just there so that people can practice their religion with people that do it the same way. Otherwise religion would be complete chaos. Arguments would constantly come up, and eventually the religion would collapse on itself. I can already think of one big argument that would pop up: when do people get baptised? Do we go with the Baptist belief that you should be baptised as an adult, or the Lutheran belief that you should be baptised as an infant? And if you hate denominational churches so much, why don't you just go to a non-denominational church?





(800th post! Yay!)

[Fyxe]

The problem with denominations is that they lead people to think as a mob rather than think for themselves. There's no reason why there should be arguements if there were no demoninations, in fact there would probably be less than there are now, because people would accept there's different interpretations rather than ganging together in groups to tell each other they're wrong all the time.

As a non-Christian, I always thought it was blatantly OBVIOUS that Jesus taught tolerance, and that many Christians just completely forget that and act completely prejudgist against anyone who doesn't agree with their world view.

Also, the Bible has been translated so many times it's crazy, many of the original meanings have actually been lost. Also, it was written in a time where the world was very different. It's funny how some Christians preach that homosexuality is bad, ignoring all the female oppression and acceptance of slavery in the Old Testament.

I'm pro-Jesus, I'm not particularly pro-organised religion, however.

[Armeggadon]

i have to agree with fyxe on this one... in the bible jesus does try to teach toleration to people and their beliefs. churches have become so broken down that the original essentials have been entirely forgotten and replaced with modern views that fit the churches needs. if the entire christian community, or even any of the denominations for that matter, came together there would be mass hysteria because each indivdual church teaches the bible and tells you how to believe in jesus differently.... if you don't believe me then try going to another church... each church tries to put its own spin on things

[Goose]

I have an interesting view point on this. I'm Catholic but recently i have been going to a new age church, with rock music and such. I thought they'd try to challange my beliefs, but they basically think the same way I do about things, just have different ways of bringing their point across. This isn't just a small gap, this is a gap between the Prodestant and Catholic churches, and basically they think the same, apart from Eucharist.

So if we did become one religion, LIKE WE WERE ORIGAINALLY, I dont think there would be too much of a gap, as long as people didn't bag other peoples way of spreading the message of God.

[Armeggadon]

yes but unfortunately they would. there are still people out there who believe that their god is the only one no matter what anyone else says (even if someone believes in the same god just a different way)

its sad that people can't get along with something so universal as religion

[arunma]

All right, this is the sort of turnout I hoped for!

I'm gonna stopo you for a minute there arunma. Before you label these all "Liberal christians", catholic missionaries have been preaching this for centuries.

Well Korhend, I do respect the Catholic Church, but I think that the post-Vatican II has become a rather liberal denomination. I'm not sure that Catholic missionaries have been preaching salvation for non-Christians. After all, your own catechism proclaims extra ecclasium nulla salus.

Also, the Bible has been translated so many times it's crazy, many of the original meanings have actually been lost.

But the number of times it has been translated is irrelevant, because we've still got the original Greek. The final books of the New Testament were written in 90-95 AD by Saint John, and the oldest surviving manuscript (which contains a small portion of St. John chapter 18) is dated to 125 AD. The manuscript is commonly known to scholars as p 52 (p stands for papyrus). From 200 AD, scholars possess the Bodmer p 66 manuscript, which contains most of St. John, and the Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46, which contains Saint Paul's epistles and the epistle to the Hebrews. From 225 AD, we have the Bodmer p75 manuscript, which contains the Gospels according to St. Luke and St. John. Perhaps two of the most complete manuscripts we have are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, from 350 AD. Vaticanus contains an almost complete New Testament, and Sinaiticus contains the whole New Testament, and the vast majority of the Old Testament.

As far as ancient documents go, this is remarkable. So translations are irrelevant. Every translation can be made straight from the Greek.

i have to agree with fyxe on this one... in the bible jesus does try to teach toleration to people and their beliefs

Jesus didn't teach mere tolerance for other people, he taught love for them, which includes tolerance. As for peoples' beliefs, that's another story. Jesus certainly didn't teach us to tolerate the beliefs of others. Do you have a Scripture reference supporting this claim?

yes but unfortunately they would. there are still people out there who believe that their god is the only one no matter what anyone else says (even if someone believes in the same god just a different way)

its sad that people can't get along with something so universal as religion

But why should we get along? We're talking about ideas, not warfare. Certainly people should "get along" by not committing acts of physical violence against each other. And certainly, religion should never lead to violence or hatred. For example, Khuffie is a Muslim, and I'm a Christian. Our religions disagree on quite a bit, but we can maintain that disagreement and get along just fine.

Why should we always agree on intellectual matters? If scientists agreed upon all things, we'd still think the earth was flat today, because no one would have bothered to dissent. Besides that, all the religions of the world contradict each other. They can't all be right. We can't simply ignore this. And more importantly, it isn't what Jesus really taught. Jesus taught this:

"For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." (St. Matthew 10:35-38)

Does that sound like tolerance for others' beliefs?

[Armeggadon]

Our religions disagree on quite a bit, but we can maintain that disagreement and get along just fine

getting along and agreeing are two entirely different things... i don't agree with a lot of things my friends do but i get along with them fine... i'm saying that even though people disagree some people woudl rather fight with other people that believe in something else than even try to get along with them (the "religious" crusades ring a bell anyone?)

Why should we always agree on intellectual matters?

again in my opinion everyone agreeing on the same thing would possibly be the end of the world. everyone shoudl have their different opinions and ideas but being able to tolerate those ideas is something that the bible teaches... nowhere does the bible state that everyone shoudl think alike which is what you are saying it says. if it doesn't teach toleration then it is saying that we should punish those who think differently...

"For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." (St. Matthew 10:35-38)

the entire quote is:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it (Matthew 10:34-39)

with the entirety of the quote it can be interpreted that the lord shall set a family aginst itself and if it loves itself more than the lord then it will not be worthy of the lord. theres nothing to tolerate in this because its the same family and nothing different. theres nothing to be tolerated amongst equals

[Chikara Nadir]

That last quote (by arunma and Arm) was actually the subject of our main gospel lesson and sermon today.

I'm Christian, and go to a Lutheran church, but I strongly believe there are just...some things that don't jive.

~Trying to only mention the good stuff. As noticeable in that part of the gospel, Jesus knew this was gonna be a hard battle, not a peaceful hippy parade for the history of Christianity. Some churches won't say that- they'll just try to preach about the happy things. Some churches are the opposite- they only mention how we're going to hell if we don't believe.

~ Only mentioning what fits your personal feelings. Pretty much like the above thing, but more personal, not necessarily just based on what your pastor/reverand/priest prefers to teach. I always mention this one- Paul believed that homosexuality and women who left their heads uncovered were both evil. Yet one is now accepted totally in our society, and the other is vilified. Why do we try so hard to defend certain things in the Bible, yet entirely ignore the presence of those that we consider uncomfortable? (For that matter- why vilify the shrouds and veils of other societies who are closely connected to the same social history as Christianity?)

~ Love the Jews but hate the Muslims. Heh, sometimes that's even more of a social thing for the United States, it feels like (by that I mean our support of Israel and dislike of Palestine in the last 50 years). But then there were all those Crusades...Meh, we're all children of Abraham, and we need to remember that (the story of the slavewoman Habar was actually another thing told in church today...Father's Day, after all.).

~ Fair-weather Christians. That gospel of Jesus you gave is right on the money. There are still too many people who will put a dollar in the offering plate on occasion, dress prim and proper for Sunday, and not give a crap about it the rest of the week. Being Christian does NOT mean "believe in Jesus and you get a free Pass Go card".

If anything, we should be setting an example by learning and following all (or at least as many as we can get our hands on) of the lessons from the New AND Old Testaments. The original Christians were Jews first, after all. We tend to pretend that nothing existed before the book of Matthew, except for a couple ditzes named Adam and Eve, a guy with a big boat and lots of animals, and some random man who left Egypt and carried around some big rocks with words on 'em. We also need to stick with our faith at all times, because Jesus didn't much like people who went halfway.

And yeah...it does sometimes bother me that there are so many denominations- just because it seems like that means there are that many people who can't agree on what the Bible says, or what from it to teach. But as there is no real way of curing that, tolerance does seem pretty important. Who are we (any of us) to say our way of worshipping is the entirely correct one, and that everyone else is wrong? Whether you be Methodist/Episcopalian/Lutheran, Catholic, Latter-day Saint, 7th Day Adventist, Christian Scientist, Baptist, 'Non-Denominational', or whatever- the point to what we're worshipping is the same. We need to spend less time saying "I'm better than thou" and more time saying "I want to better understand the Good Word".

....yeah. XP

[Octorok]

The problem with denominations is that they lead people to think as a mob rather than think for themselves. There's no reason why there should be arguements if there were no demoninations, in fact there would probably be less than there are now, because people would accept there's different interpretations rather than ganging together in groups to tell each other they're wrong all the time.

As a non-Christian, I always thought it was blatantly OBVIOUS that Jesus taught tolerance, and that many Christians just completely forget that and act completely prejudgist against anyone who doesn't agree with their world view.

Also, the Bible has been translated so many times it's crazy, many of the original meanings have actually been lost. Also, it was written in a time where the world was very different. It's funny how some Christians preach that homosexuality is bad, ignoring all the female oppression and acceptance of slavery in the Old Testament.

I'm pro-Jesus, I'm not particularly pro-organised religion, however.

Fyxe, how do you know all this if you aren't even a Christian? I am a Lutheran, and my church has never challenged the beliefs of another denomination, in fact we frequently work with them on all sorts of religious stuff. I'm sure there would be more arguments if there weere no denominations, because as it is, there are few arguments. In fact, the separation into denomination IS the acceptance of different people having different interepretations of the Bible.

It is true that Jesus did teach tolerance, and Christians who believe otherwise are in error, and are probably only usng religion as a way to justify their hate.

And recent surveys have revealed that most Christians that are against the Church accepting homosexuality are over the age of 40, and live in areas where racial intolerance is common, let alone homophobic beliefs.

You also mentioned something about oppression of women and slavery in the Old Testament. But Christians rarely follow to the letter the teachngs of the Old Testament, we follow Jesus Christ, who did not beat women, own slaves, or bash gays.

[Korhend]

I have an interesting view point on this. I'm Catholic but recently i have been going to a new age church, with rock music and such.

Our catholic church has that too.

So if we did become one religion, LIKE WE WERE ORIGAINALLY, I dont think there would be too much of a gap, as long as people didn't bag other peoples way of spreading the message of God.

If we were all like we were originally, we'd all be Catholic.

[Fyxe]

But the number of times it has been translated is irrelevant, because we've still got the original Greek.  The final books of the New Testament were written in 90-95 AD by Saint John, and the oldest surviving manuscript (which contains a small portion of St. John chapter 18) is dated to 125 AD.  The manuscript is commonly known to scholars as p 52 (p stands for papyrus).  From 200 AD, scholars possess the Bodmer p 66 manuscript, which contains most of St. John, and the Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46, which contains Saint Paul's epistles and the epistle to the Hebrews.  From 225 AD, we have the Bodmer p75 manuscript, which contains the Gospels according to St. Luke and St. John.  Perhaps two of the most complete manuscripts we have are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, from 350 AD.  Vaticanus contains an almost complete New Testament, and Sinaiticus contains the whole New Testament, and the vast majority of the Old Testament.

But how many people can read Greek and thus get all the little bits that simply cannot ever be translated accurately? After all, the translations go wonky with the very early stuff... God was the word and the word was God isn't actually completely accurate, if I remember correctly.

But yes, my point was that even if the Bible was 'infallable', despite being written by the hands of men and blatantly contradicting itself on many, many occasions, the versions we read are not the original, although I understand they get as close as they can.

[Alakhriveion]

I think that the post-Vatican II has become a rather liberal denomination.

For the record, we ARE talking about the God-Hates-Fags, People-Allergic-to-Wafers-go-to-Hell, Vatican, right?

[Goose]

[QUOTE=Korhend]Our catholic church has that too.

My youth leader and I are trying to start that up for our church, because at the moment there are no young peope going, and in 20 years, all the old people that go will be dead. Our aim is to get young people going to church,, by playing music that they might just listen to, and having priests give sermons that arent as boring as shit.

Thats why I've been going to different churches, to see how they manage to do it.

[arunma]

i'm saying that even though people disagree some people woudl rather fight with other people that believe in something else than even try to get along with them (the "religious" crusades ring a bell anyone?)

But as I said earlier, it's possible to disagree without crusading the dissenter.

everyone shoudl have their different opinions and ideas but being able to tolerate those ideas is something that the bible teaches...

Can you quote Jesus or the apostles as teaching this?

nowhere does the bible state that everyone shoudl think alike which is what you are saying it says.

Yes it does. Philippians 2:2 says, "complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind." Now, there are certain issues on which we can disagree. These issues include drinking, gambling, certain Scriptural interpretations, the Apocrypha, apostolic succession, baptism, etc. But there are certain issues, such as the Resurrection and the sovereignty of Christ, on which we must agree.

with the entirety of the quote it can be interpreted that the lord shall set a family aginst itself and if it loves itself more than the lord then it will not be worthy of the lord. theres nothing to tolerate in this because its the same family and nothing different. theres nothing to be tolerated amongst equals

I'm afraid you're taking Jesus too literally, and out of context with the rest of the Bible. Most post-Gospel families mentioned in the Bible were exclusively Christian. The traditional interpretation of this verse is that Jesus' mention of families refers not merely to families, but to the entire world. The fact that most New Testament families were of one mind supports this interpretation.

If we were all like we were originally, we'd all be Catholic.

Wait...wouldn't we be Eastern Orthodox? After all, they claim that it was you guys who split off from them.

Relax Korhend, I'm more or less messing with you.

For the record, we ARE talking about the God-Hates-Fags, People-Allergic-to-Wafers-go-to-Hell, Vatican, right?

Good point. Unfortunately, the Second Vatican Council did some great things, and that makes it hard for me to criticize it. My problem is that while it did much good, it also damaged the church's theology. Belief in such things as salvation for non-Christians isn't very Biblical.

[Korhend]

Wait...wouldn't we be Eastern Orthodox? After all, they claim that it was you guys who split off from them.

We split them off, but more or less one of them. Perhaps the term "We'd all be Papists" might be more accurate.

[Nevermind]

Octorok, I was baptised as Uniting. And then I started going to a Lutheran church. I was told that if I was to participate in communion, I had to be rebaptised as Lutheran. How is that not a challenge to another denomination? A few years later I went to the Church of Christ, in which the beliefs of Catholics and Lutherans were both used as examples for misinterpretation. Again, I see a challenge.

Theoretically, there would be no chaos if there were no denominations. If people were able to think for themselves, interpret it themselves, maybe perhaps get a little guidance from someone else in order to further ponder their own beliefs, it would all be fine as long as said people could simply say, in reference to another's beliefs, "Fair enough, that is what you believe. But this is what I believe, and this is how I interpreted it."

The problem here lies in the people themselves. We are all too stubborn, too ignorant, and every one of us loves to be right, so that is where the chaos would come in.

And just because Fyxe is not part of a denomination does not make her less knowledgable of these things. In fact, she probably has more of a clear view than you do, because you belong to one of said denominations, whereas hers is an outside, ie. neutral, view.

[Korhend]

Yes but because we disagree with other people veiw is why we need denominations. I believe a priest is only a priest if he is one under the Pope, because the Catholic Church is an unbroken chain leading directly to Jesus.
Now if one lacked a denomination, how could I be sure I have the proper priest to deal with. I'd hate to go to the same church for years only to find out that according to my belief, he's not a priest.

[Chikara Nadir]

Octorok, I was baptised as Uniting. And then I started going to a Lutheran church. I was told that if I was to participate in communion, I had to be rebaptised as Lutheran. How is that not a challenge to another denomination? A few years later I went to the Church of Christ, in which the beliefs of Catholics and Lutherans were both used as examples for misinterpretation. Again, I see a challenge.

Woah. The ways of the church in Australia sound..NOTHING like the one I go to (Evangelical Lutheran, if it makes a difference). Mine is pretty much the same as Octo's- we strive to reinvent ourselves constantly: not that we want to be 'hip' and all that junk, but our pastor always has us reevaluating ourselves, making sure that we understand tolerance, love, and the necessity of just...doing the best we can. In my pastor's sermons, she (yes, she- and we all love having a woman) tends to repeat a few very important things. She wants us to understand that being a Christian means showing what we are to the community- through giving to the needy, volunteering our time, being kind/caring in all situations. She also has tried to help us better understand the diversity of our community- and we love to stay connected with the Methodist, Episcopalian, and Catholic churches nearby, besides the other type of Lutheran church in town.

We welcome in anyone, express joy whenever we have guests of any faith, and invited children to our Vacation Bible School program this last week- to show them Jesus without expecting anything in return, or ever expecting to see most of them ever again. In fact, one of the biggest reasons we even started going to this church was because...they never bashed any other denominations or religions. And I've never seen someone in the church question to what denomination anyone was baptised- or whether they'd been baptised at all (though it's one of those things that we just kinda....assume most people in the church have had done).



As for priests...I just wish the poor guys could marry. They used to be allowed to in the past, correct? And the twelve disciples were never considered less faithful for having families. It seems....unfair to be forced to live the same way as a monk, but to be constantly exposed to the temptations of the world instead of living in a monestary. Meh, that's not too big a fight for me, though- I would like to see female priests allowed. In the beginning Christians DID practice secretly in the homes of women, aye?

[Nevermind]

Yes but because we disagree with other people veiw is why we need denominations. I believe a priest is only a priest if he is one under the Pope, because the Catholic Church is an unbroken chain leading directly to Jesus.
Now if one lacked a denomination, how could I be sure I have the proper priest to deal with. I'd hate to go to the same church for years only to find out that according to my belief, he's not a priest.

I guess that's where Catholicism differs. I gotta admit, I got no solution, because pretty much most others believe that you don't need that chain as a link to Jesus because you have a direct link yourself.

[Fyxe]

Korhend's just unwittingly pointed out the primary problem of denominations. Under his version of Catholicism, only Catholic priests are 'worthy' of his time, because they are somehow connected to Jesus via the Pope. Conveniently ignoring all the crap that's occured in history surrounding Popes and their behavior, contradictory in terms that it is with Jesus' ideals of love and tolerance.

Now, whether he intends it or not, this is a direct challenge to the other denominations, and he is effectively saying 'Catholicism is superior, we are closer to Jesus, and your priests are not worthy'.

Denominations are generally split into two camps, just like politics. Left wing and right wing. Except that people use these camps to hide themselves and become part of a larger group. They may not agree on everything, in fact you may get some fairly liberal-minded Catholics sharing company with completely over the top evangelical GOD HATES GAYS type people. And there's your problem. These denominations become only as influencial as the loudest people, and these tend to be the nutcases. And with a big group of people to hide behind, the nutcases can say and think whatever the hell they want, preach intolerance, and generally misinterpret everything and delude themselves into thinking they're right.

You also mentioned something about oppression of women and slavery in the Old Testament. But Christians rarely follow to the letter the teachngs of the Old Testament, we follow Jesus Christ, who did not beat women, own slaves, or bash gays.

It would be lovely if the world worked that way, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, it doesn't, and many so-called Christians use the Old Testament to back up their inbred hatred of homosexuality, of black people, even sometimes of their right to shoot fleeing criminals in the back or something like that.
And you may not call these people true Christians, but they're there, your fellows in your denominations, ranting and raving to the outside world that stem cell research is bad, homosexuality is bad, war is ok because you're bombing the scary blasphemous bearded people, etc.

[Goose]

However, for every nutcase, there are 500 good people. Dont judge us all by one nutcase.

[Fyxe]

Actually, I think that's wishful thinking. There's a *frighting* number of nutcases and idiots in the world, and, I don't want to make too much of a generalisation but, overall, the sort of person who can become involved in organised religion is the sort of person who can be easily influenced. Many of them like to feel part of a group.

Think about all those people who go to Republican party rallies singing endless praise to Bush as if he were the second coming, or all the insanely devoted Michael Jackson fans who waste their lives fighting for the rights of one very very messed up person.

These people are all around us, and religion is by no means any exception to this.

Oh, and unfortunately, the sort of Christians who speak for other Christians often tend to be the more... Right-wing evangelical variety. The Vatican, for instance.

[Nevermind]

The "holier than thou" theme maybe? Confession - big beef of mine. What's stopping me from inviting people into my home and forgiving their sins for them? Because I do not have a black collar on I am not devoted to God? Says who?


I'd just like to ask, if there is nothing wrong with denominations, then what is it that makes you not want to call yourself a Lutheran, for example?

[Korhend]

Korhend's just unwittingly pointed out the primary problem of denominations. Under his version of Catholicism, only Catholic priests are 'worthy' of his time, because they are somehow connected to Jesus via the Pope. Conveniently ignoring all the crap that's occured in history surrounding Popes and their behavior, contradictory in terms that it is with Jesus' ideals of love and tolerance.

Yet you're conviniently forgetting the fact of Apostolic Succesion, which is the only thing that allows someone to transubstantiate holy wafers. Thus its impossible for a non-catholic priest to hold a mass in our teaching.

[Nevermind]

My oh so humble opinion? If your heart and head are in the right place, you can transubstantiate anything let alone the holy biskies. It's commitment and the faith and the belief and such, not the role you play. But, Korhend, are you saying that you are unworthy to take a holy wafer and use it in good faith, to take in the body of Christ for yourself?

[Korhend]

Pretty much, yeah. I haven't taken part in the unbroken chain from Christ to Saint Peter down.

[Goose]

Fyxe

Generalisations are helpful to make a point, I agree, yet its a completely unfounded point. I could say that All English people are gits, it helps me to make a point, yet its completely bloody false.

Also, we dont have left wing/ right wing in Australia. All we have is Labour (Blue collar), Liberal (White Collar), National (Farmers), Greens (Hippies) and One Nation (Racists)

Please dont assmue that Australians are inferior, because we are anything but.