Christianity

[Locke]

On a brief note I would like to say that my aim with this thread is not to offend anyone in any way shape or form. If possible I'd like for anyone posting to not attack any person or their beliefs directly, only express educated opinions or beliefs with no hatred behind them. Please, try and get along on this thread, and if you don't have something serious to toss in, don't post here. Please. Also, try to keep an open mind. It helps foster thought.

I'd like to look at Christianity, mostly because it's the only religion that I am quite familiar with. - There are many different sects preaching tolerance and love of one another, yet in the past there were bloody wars causing widespread death to the other. Why couldn't they just have sat down and had a debate.

That's what I'd like to toss out for starters, but feel free to toss out coments (serious ones) or queries about Christianity in this thread, and hopefully we can get a good discussion going.

[Geosgaeno]

I'd like to look at Christianity, mostly because it's the only religion that I am quite familiar with. - There are many different sects preaching tolerance and love of one another, yet in the past there were bloody wars causing widespread death to the other. Why couldn't they just have sat down and had a debate.
well Christianity is made up from a variety of denominations for example Roman Catholics, The Baptists, Methodists and so on, and way back in the old times i would think that all these denominations wanted theirs to be the biggest and best denomination and so they would fight to try and do this, sounds silly because they are Christians who wouldnt want death and/or violence. Well thats what i believe would have happened but i cannot be certain and i am probably wrong???

[baron]

actually I think Locke was refering to stuff like the holy wars of the 11th-14th centuries. normally against the muslims. Personally I think the whole exercise was pointless, but then when has war (yes even holy ones) have a point.

[Astrolounge]

Well, up untill only a short time ago, Catholics and Prodestants still shot each other on sight, and I think they still might in some places.

[Lord Draud]

i find all reliegions a pointless wast of time, if you need to be told whats right and wrong ( and thats all they are good for) then you need more help then what god can give you

[Geosgaeno]

Well, up untill only a short time ago, Catholics and Prodestants still shot each other on sight, and I think they still might in some places.
i think this still happens in certain areas of Northern Island?

[Astrolounge]

Iceland or Ireland?
Or somewhere else entirely?

[Geosgaeno]

damn spelt it wrong, its supposed to be Northern Ireland, well that has ended any confusion i hope.

[jetblue]

I heard someone call it Irishland the other day.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

There was never a conflict in the sematic religions. The reason there were disputes was the "appearance of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) predicted in the Torah and the Bible". The wars that you talk about, Locke, are between the Arabs and the Romans. When the muslims started spreading in the area. There were some major religions at that time, which included Judaism, Christianity and Idol Worship (not to be confused with Buddaism), and none of these wars were against or amongst the sematic religions. Judaism had a hard time, when they saw the predicted Prophet showing up on the wrong side (according to their history).

The reason that there exist differences between all the religions cannot be determined easily. No religion in the world had anything negative preached in it. The main difference is in the Concept of God & his revelations. Christianity has changed alot from the time it was revealed. The Bible can't be called the original form of its true revealed self, according to history. The reason was its late writing, way after the death of the Christ-Jesus (PBUH).

I would like to discuss this topic in a very friendly manner too. So, lets talk about this!

[jetblue]

Yeah the bibles are'nt the same. When I was a kid my dads library had lots of old bibles that were huge and smelly and full of chapters that werent in modern bibles. But they were illustrated with colorful pictures so it got my intrest. I remember the pictures felt like ridges on a finger print.
I learned later that the old bible was just about cut in half by the byzantine emperor (not sure wich one)over a thousand years ago and many chapters were removed and the new bible was also adopted by rome and the pope.
Some churches still use the chapters that were cut out. I guess up to a few hundred years ago. Depending on wich chapters they wanted to keep in.



I remember my dad selling many of his books and the bibles for drug and drinking money to these guys that would come to the house. I wish I could of hidden one.

[Lord Draud]

i still have yet to believe realy that we opened this can of worms, i am just timeing to see how long it takes for some fringe fanactic to come on erhe and spread the hate

[Geosgaeno]

its one of those potential argument threads isnt it, im staying away.

P.S. sorry for not writing on topic just thenhttp://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Galthol]

I remember my dad selling many of his books and the bibles for drug and drinking money to these guys that would come to the house. I wish I could of hidden one.Jet, that is possible one of the saddest tales I have ever heard. You have my deepest and sincersest condolences. May what ever dieties or powers you belive in guide those books back to you your hands.

[Astrolounge]

I believe in god, but I don't trust the bible as far as I can throw it.
If you ever played "Broken Telephone" as a kid, then you know why I don't think it could possibly be correct of itself.

[TheDragonKnight]

hear hear, and during the game your only speaking one language, imagine if everyone in the circle each sopke two languages the language of the person on their left and right, and you were hopping languages each time as well?

now lets add in the publishers, bibles that take a very ahrsh view of homosexuality sell better than the more moderate ones, now what do you think gets published more as a result?

[Pezito]

Very interesting posts here ; I think Astrolounge's remark about the "broken telephone" game (here we call it "arab telephone", I don't know why ^^) is quite relevant.

To me, the problem doesn't come from religion but from those who have a use for religion : men (I mean humans, sorry ladies ;) ). As most, if not all, religions point out, men are fallible and make mistakes ; as such, a faithful transmission of God's words is impossible. Each iteration of the cycle will distort what's supposed to be the Truth, each writer will have an influence on the text, each evolution in language and culture will lead to more interpretations that might differ from the original meaning... All this leading to religion being as moldable as any other aspect of our society and ways of life - it just evolves accordingly to our current views or needs.

So when people go at war, as sad as it is, I think religion isn't really the root of evil because if it wasn't for religion, it would be for another supposedly self-righteous motive. Life itself is a fight, from micro-organisms to vegetables to animals to humans ; you can fight for food, territory, sex, defense, even a virus can push you to fight (rabies)...

The problem with religion is that it touches the very heart of anything a person can believe in ; it comprises your own understanding of people, life, and the universe... Quite a hot topic, especially when someone wants to prove you're all wrong and everything around you is NOT the way you thought it was. :) And unfortunately, people with power know that religion is an effective tool to control the masses. Most of the time you don't need to do much - just push them in the direction you know will give the best results ; then it's all a matter of power and politics. Which doesn't mean it's all the leaders' fault ! They can't change people's mind, do they ? All they want is to gain more trust and power from the people (it's sort of their job :p ), and to achieve that they only need to make the choices and say the words that best fit the people's opinion at a given time. So, I think people affect their leaders' decisions because the leaders want to please the people and get more benefit in the process ; and then, the leaders affect the people back by pushing them in that direction, by giving a voice and a power to the general opinion, by representing them.

So as long as some people disagree with some others, as long as a conflict is possible and either side has something to win in the process, any matter can be the firestarter. Most of the time it is religion, but when religion is not involved, people always find something - philosophy, race, demographic differences, unemployment, fear of the unknown (like... weapons of mass destruction ;) ), historic resentment... The important thing not being that everyone goes at war for the same reasons, just that they all agree on going to war.

Oops, old habits... I always write too much (I mean this isn't even about Christianity anymore :emlaugh: ) ! My last comment : "a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy". :p Which is why so often, debating and compromises aren't enough to calm down each side's anger !

All right am I totally off-topic ?... XD

[Astrolounge]

Very interesting posts here ; I think Astrolounge's remark about the "broken telephone" game (here we call it "arab telephone", I don't know why ^^) is quite relevant.
Have you ever used one there? Then you know your answer...

Anyway... I do not belive that religion spreads good, nor does it spread evil, or neutrality...
Mostly it gives some people hope in their lives, and causes some of the largest clusterfuck's in the history of the world.

[TheDragonKnight]

fun fact: humans have spent more time killing eachoter in holy wars or "in the name of god" than all other conflict combined

(though the jews would tell you ww2 should be included in that im not including it as a religeous conflict)

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

Most of the religions that people believe in today are just to let them believe in what they can't understand. Hope is there, I agree. For a religion, it is necessary to give the people following it, a way to live their lives. So that it forms a complete system and not just puppets that keep bowing their heads in front of their God.

[jetblue]

Im surprised that a new religion hasnt sprouted yet. I think the planet is due.
Mabey some messiah type doing heelings in the name of a water god or all of the sudden a new god appears in the stars or something beckoning man to space.
What this planet is really due is a goddess.
To many masculine gods already. Can you imagine some guy torching himself in the name of the twin virgin goddess. And all new type of sayings like "May the suffering goddess be your light" and stuff like that.
That would be cool.

[Lord Draud]

...erm well i worship Velsharoon does that count?

[oneforthelord]

Hi.

Actually I think the only religion in the world that comprises both spirituality and government is Islam. Cos if you're a muslim you're supposed to desire a Muslim government.

Earlier on there was someone talking about how the bible got cut in half from it's original size and another person talking about the bible not being accurate because some books were written hundreds of years after Christ's death. Now, I think both are talking about the apocryphal books of the bible, but one is referring to the Old Testament and another the New Testament.

The books that were taken out of the Old Testament were taken out by the early church fathers, not an emperor, if I remember correctly. These are known as the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament (figures :P). They include the Apocalypse of Adam, the book of Enoch, and 1st and 2nd Maccabees. No one knows now why they were taken out, the reason is lost in time no matter what speculation there may be. Yet what we know is that even Martin Luther called them 'profitable reading', and the earliest church fathers (Peter, John, Jude, etc) read them as part of the Holy Scriptures. These are actually historical writings as well as prophecy and literature.

The New Testament books that were written hundreds of years after Christ's death and resurrection are not recognized by the Christian church as valid writings. Reason being, as already stated, that they were written too long after those who had witnessed Jesus' life had already died. If I am not mistaken, they were written around AD 300, definitely long enough to develop legendary characteristics. These books, when compared to the Epistles and the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), were written waaaay too long after (the first epistle was written around 50 AD, the first gospel 57 AD if I am not mistaken). These Apocryphal books include the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. These books were taken out were condemned as heresy by the Orthodox church. They actually form the foundation of Gnostic Christianity. Don't confuse it with Christianity, Gnosticism teaches radically different things from mainstream Christianity.

[oneforthelord]

Hey jetblue, if you searched a bit you'd find that a lot of ancient civilisations had plenty of goddess figures. Even now there's some sort of religion that venerates Gaia and other female deities.

[Locke]

I'd recomend checking out a book called "The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus" Compiled by Marvin Meyer. It's got the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary in it.

On a side note I'm quite pleased that there hasn't been any fanatical "This is what I believe, it's correct, nothing you say that even slightly goes against my views could be correct, your wrong" postings. Keep up the good work guys. :D

[oneforthelord]

Continuing on my previous post...

The Old Testament (OT) Apocrypha flow with the rest of the OT, as in the type of writing and prophecy matches what is found in the rest of the OT as a whole. Thus, even if the OT Apocrypha were added to the current books of the OT, they would not conflict with each other. The New Testament (NT) Apocrypha however do not flow with the rest of the current NT. They have conflicting claims and are not in sync with the OT. Thus, if the NT Apocrypha were to be added to the current books of the NT, you would have a lot of trouble reading them because they claim very different things to be the facts. Besides that, the NT Apocrypha also conflicts with the current books of the OT. I am unsure if it conflicts with the OT Apocrypha, but I have a feeling it does.

[BAMAToNE]

On the topic of Christianity, I wrote this (http://bamatone.livejournal.com/192958.html) a few months ago. (There are some interesting comments in that LJ thread.) I wish DarkFant was still around to toss his thoughts in.

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

If you've walked near the Ferg or Student Services the past week or so, then you've noticed at least one of the fundamentalist Christians preaching fire and brimstone to anyone who will stop and listen. Actually, they're preaching hate. And actually, they preach it whether or not anyone stops and listens.

If anyone reading this is not familar with Brother Micah, here is some background (http://www.cw.ua.edu/news/2008/03/12/News/Warm-Weather.Ushers.In.Free.Speech-3264728.shtml). According to Micah, everyone is going to Hell. Except for him, of course. I once heard Micah say that he can sin, he just doesn't. (As he casts stones upon people he's never met.)

A second preacher showed up yesterday. I haven't heard anything he's said, but there are at least two people accompanying him holding large signs. One of the signs said, "Homo sex is a threat to national security." After the initial chuckling subsided, I just shook my head and continued walking.

Add this to the news of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting Lauren Burk's funeral in Auburn (http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/protesters_picketers_gather_at_burks_funeral/7684/), and Christianity is having a pretty bad couple of weeks. (Cheers to the Auburn community for not lying down (http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/au_students_take_a_stand_against_phelps_protest/7732/).)

One of the many unfortunate reactions of the traveling fundamentalist preachers is all the anti-Christian Richard Dawkins "scientists" coming out of the woodwork to attack Christianity and religion in general. Chalked in large, bright font outside the steps to Student Services is, "What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"

If theology is not a valid subject for higher learning, then neither is art history or music. They are all subjective ideas and forms of expression. I will be the first to admit that I'm not much of an art fan. But I'm not campaigning for its removal as a subject of study. Some people "get it," and some don't, much like religion and theology. Richard Dawkins is just as much a hatemonger as Micah Armstrong. They just wear different clothes and preach from different sides of the pulpit.

Christianity is not about hating gays. It's not about who is going to Hell and who isn't. It's not even about who will make it to Heaven and who won't. It is simply love.

"If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.' -- 1 John 4:20-21

And if anything else is confusing, know this:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." -- Matthew 22:36-40

And anyone who tries to distort this message is nothing but a ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Charon]

Not touching this with an infinitely long pole. Not a fan of either Christianity or Richard Dawkins. ¬¬
*slopes off*

[Kilu]

Well, zealots of anything pretty much suck, and usually ruin the name of the whatever they preach in the name of. I don't mind, as long as they don't affect me by doing so.

I'm not a religious person, eventhough religion is a mandatory subject in school, and lots of the songs we sing at lower grades are based on religion, or are entirely religious songs. And even so, religious upbringing is pretty much an unknown concept in Finland (as far as I know, I don't claim to have researched it at all), so sometimes I find it very hard to understand, what's the big deal? Why do people get so worked up about religion? Why does it matter if presidential candidates are religious?

It used to be that religion was the basis of good and evil, and morality grew from that. But that was then, this is now. I don't need a large book to tell me what is right and what is wrong. All about religions importance is just too much.