Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Alan Burns on November 16, 2015, 10:55:50 AM
-
I just came across this interesting and thought provoking article showing a Christian view of the Paris attacks:
The Paris Attacks: The Consequence of Goodness Without Truth
Why are the so-called Christian countries so spineless in the face of the Muslim terror?
Because for over fifty years we have gradually come to value goodness without truth.
What I mean by this is that we have become complacent about our Christian faith. We have drifted into either lax unbelief, hedonistic agnosticism and finally outright atheism.
In abandoning our religion we have abandoned truth, believing that it is possible–and even preferable–to be good without religion. We have concluded that the weakest and most shallow forms of goodness are the only kind there are, and have taken from the Christian religion the easiest, laziest and most sloppy aspects and rejected all the rest.
We have smashed and grabbed the Christian store and taken all the shiniest and most worthless trinkets thinking they were all there was on offer, and we have re-made our own atheistic humanistic religion out of the pickings.
Western Christian liberals have therefore promoted something which they think they have salvaged from Christianity, but it is as much like real Christianity as a paste diamond is to the real gemstone.
Their religion has become one of bland tolerance. They mistake political correctness for charity, shallow optimism for hope and an ideology for faith.
As a result they have opened their borders to every kind of horror, refusing to the end to believe that such horrors from hell really do exist. They have opened their own borders to Islamic extremists who have stated openly that they wish to destroy everything Christian and take over their country and turn it into an Islamic state.
Blind as the fundamentalists they deplore, the liberals’ ideology is a counterfeit form of faith which forbids them to castigate, exclude or expel anyone and refuses to acknowledge that they have such a thing as an enemy.
Their shallow optimism is their substitute for hope and this blinds them to the fact that their birth rate is below the replacement level, that their culture is doomed and their country about to collapse.
Their tolerant political correctness is their artificial form of charity which is spineless and gutless and has nothing to offer except more bland tolerance and acceptance of everything and everyone. These people would probably tolerate and grant “rights” to a serial killer who entered their home.
The Paris attacks should be a wake up call.
True goodness can never be separated from Truth, and Christian truth is never soft, weak or spineless.
Christian goodness is always combined with uncompromising Truth. It is always courageous, true and bold. It answers violence with defiant love. It understands that a there is such a thing as evil, and allows that when all other attempts at peace fail, then irrational rage and violence must be met with a reply of rational, planned and measured justice.
-
What thoughts does it provoke for you, Alan?
-
What thoughts does it provoke for you, Alan?
To me it is a stark reminder that we need a saviour to deliver us from the evils of this world.
Jesus conquered evil with defiant love - not with retaliation or revenge.
-
To me it is a stark reminder that we need a saviour to deliver us from the evils of this world.
What's with this "we" business? You might; I don't.
-
What thoughts does it provoke for you, Alan?
To me it is a stark reminder that we need a saviour to deliver us from the evils of this world.
Jesus conquered evil with defiant love - not with retaliation or revenge.
so you disagree with what appears to be the central position of the article?
-
The article seems only interesting in the amount of obfuscation it goes to, to hide what appears to be a cry to close borders, bomb muzzies, and create a theocracy where we don't tolerate anything non Christian. My provoked thought is why Alan would find such a neo-con view interesting.
-
What thoughts does it provoke for you, Alan?
To me it is a stark reminder that we need a saviour to deliver us from the evils of this world.
Jesus conquered evil with defiant love - not with retaliation or revenge.
I like the sentiment - we have a better culture than theirs, and we lose something if we resort to their tactics.
It does also, though, make me wonder who on Earth thinks that France is in any way a 'Christian' country?
O.
-
Well, I've listened to the OP once and certainly don't intend to listen to it again. I just hope that the article referred to is not read by too many impressionable young people.
-
I just came across this interesting and thought provoking article showing a Christian view of the Paris attacks:
The Paris Attacks: The Consequence of Goodness Without Truth
Why are the so-called Christian countries so spineless in the face of the Muslim terror?
Because for over fifty years we have gradually come to value goodness without truth.
What I mean by this is that we have become complacent about our Christian faith. We have drifted into either lax unbelief, hedonistic agnosticism and finally outright atheism.
In abandoning our religion we have abandoned truth, believing that it is possible–and even preferable–to be good without religion. We have concluded that the weakest and most shallow forms of goodness are the only kind there are, and have taken from the Christian religion the easiest, laziest and most sloppy aspects and rejected all the rest.
We have smashed and grabbed the Christian store and taken all the shiniest and most worthless trinkets thinking they were all there was on offer, and we have re-made our own atheistic humanistic religion out of the pickings.
Western Christian liberals have therefore promoted something which they think they have salvaged from Christianity, but it is as much like real Christianity as a paste diamond is to the real gemstone.
Their religion has become one of bland tolerance. They mistake political correctness for charity, shallow optimism for hope and an ideology for faith.
As a result they have opened their borders to every kind of horror, refusing to the end to believe that such horrors from hell really do exist. They have opened their own borders to Islamic extremists who have stated openly that they wish to destroy everything Christian and take over their country and turn it into an Islamic state.
Blind as the fundamentalists they deplore, the liberals’ ideology is a counterfeit form of faith which forbids them to castigate, exclude or expel anyone and refuses to acknowledge that they have such a thing as an enemy.
Their shallow optimism is their substitute for hope and this blinds them to the fact that their birth rate is below the replacement level, that their culture is doomed and their country about to collapse.
Their tolerant political correctness is their artificial form of charity which is spineless and gutless and has nothing to offer except more bland tolerance and acceptance of everything and everyone. These people would probably tolerate and grant “rights” to a serial killer who entered their home.
The Paris attacks should be a wake up call.
True goodness can never be separated from Truth, and Christian truth is never soft, weak or spineless.
Christian goodness is always combined with uncompromising Truth. It is always courageous, true and bold. It answers violence with defiant love. It understands that a there is such a thing as evil, and allows that when all other attempts at peace fail, then irrational rage and violence must be met with a reply of rational, planned and measured justice.
The geezer that wrote that is on the money.
-
What thoughts does it provoke for you, Alan?
To me it is a stark reminder that we need a saviour to deliver us from the evils of this world.
Jesus conquered evil with defiant love - not with retaliation or revenge.
so you disagree with what appears to be the central position of the article?
If you read the last paragraph of the article, it fully concurs with my stated view.
-
But the article says nothing about Jesus coming back and doing anything. The clear implication is some form of action on behalf of the Christians without any direct messiah involvement. As stated, I reAd it as bombing people (which if true makes the entirety of the article a bit of a nonsense since we, the so-called integrative liberals have been doing a shitload of that).
-
I am interested that both ad_o and Alan B seem to agree with the article. I have already covered my reading of what it says, I would be interested if they could outline any difference they have with that reading.
-
Dear Alan,
planned and measured justice.
What would that be?
Western Christian liberals have therefore promoted something which they think they have salvaged from Christianity, but it is as much like real Christianity as a paste diamond is to the real gemstone.
Yes I suppose I am a Western Christian liberal still searching for the real gemstone, still searching for real Christianity, in the minute silence today I prayed for the relatives of all victims of this atrocity, God seemed so far away ( not Jesus, yes you will tell me Jesus is God, next question!! ) but your OP reminds me ( like so many Christian posts ) of Mathew 7.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Alan,
planned and measured justice.
What would that be?
Some answers in a follow up article by the same author:
Paris Attacks: How Should One Respond?
One of the things which secular Westerners find so mind blowing about Islamic terrorist attacks is the irrationality of the evil.
We cannot understand a religion that drives young men to such mindless barbarism.
We don’t have the tools in our toolbox. We simply cannot understand their culture, their mentality, their religion or their reasoning.
In our materialistic, pleasantly hedonistic, tolerant lifestyle we cannot comprehend a worldview that demands such utter self sacrifice, murder of innocents and wanton destruction.
Even those who no longer believe are the products of two thousand years of Christian culture and the development of a Christian worldview. Even if we are not religious we believe in goodness, forgiveness, kindness and self control. We believe in honesty, rationality and the ability to compromise and live together. We believe in beauty, innocence, purity and the pursuit of genuine love. Even if we are hypocrites and failures we believe in these things and view the world in this way.
We can’t imagine what it is like to follow a religion that demands the kidnapping and torture of children and the slaughter of innocents.
When faced with the carnage what do we do?
First, I think we naturally do what humans do. We cry out for an answer and yearn for revenge. We want to retaliate. We want to wipe these scum from the face of the earth. We want to meet rage with rage and seek vengeance.
However, as Christians we step up to stand with the victims in grief, compassion and prayer. We hold them in our silence, incomprehension and hope somehow that our support and solidarity will help them see a way through the mindless dark.
Then we step back from the lust for revenge. Justice and self defence are justified, but the cycle of revenge and bloodshed becomes endless.
Despite the murder and mayhem we insist that the love of Christ is stronger. Barbarism has been defeated by Christianity many times in the past, but Christianity has not defeated barbarism through violence, but through the gradual, painstaking heroism of mission. Think of St Francis who wanted to meet the Sultan and share the faith with him in enthusiasm and love. Think of the early Christians who countered the barbaric tribes of Europe by their example of community, civilization and true Christian love. Think of the countless missionaries who went into barbaric lands and faced death, torture and incredible hardships to live with the enemy and simply radiate from their lives a different way of living. Think of the martyrs who were slain by the barbarians–who were then converted by their innocence, their courage and their noble faith.
This is the Christian response, for each one of us to live faithfully and courageously as little Christs–showing the power and the glory of courageous Christianity which can overcome all evil.
-
It isn't only Christians who stand with the victims and who don't seek violent revenge. But you know it's pointless to talk about resolving this with religion, surely?
-
Interesting that the author wants the right to be a missionary to other countries but wants to stop Islam from being touted here.
And as ever cherry picking of history ignoring the conquests done by so called Christian nations and the barbarism to other forms of Christian sects. BTW there is nothing in the follow up post which touches on an explanation of what planned and measured justice or takes into account that the murdering thugs in Paris, Beirut and Bagdad thought they were indulging in planned and measured justice.
-
We are not, in the Western World, the product of religious refinement. We have arrived where we are by consistently shedding the trappings of superstitious nonsense as more information became available. Yes, there are some things that various religions supported that we have maintained, but because they have validity that religion recognised and used, not because we owe religion for them.
Religion gives us these barbarians slaying people in the streets for not accepting their version of a non-existent comfort blanket. Religion didn't give us law, it appropriated it and we've secularised it and taken it back. Religion didn't give us the Golden Rule, though some variants of it pretend to its throne in varying degrees.
Christianity was the Crusades, was the Dark Ages. Modern society in the Western World is the Englightenment and the Ages of Reason, Industry and Information eroding that nonsense - Christianity is no different to what we're seeing from Islam, it's just different names.
We will not defeat this by being 'little Jesuses', but by being rational, sensible, human beings - by realising our own paths, by accepting responsibility for our own actions, by refusing to accede to the sensibilities of bronze age tribes.
We will get through this by educating people, not indoctrinating them, by demonstrating reason and a better way of life, not by demonstrating superstition and a different set of prejudices.
I appreciate that the guy is talking about loving thy neighbour and turning the other cheek, but those sentiments don't need Jesus to deliver them, they stand on their own merits. By dragging Christianity into it you just turn it into a competition between two different manifestly wrong pieces of nonsense, one of which we've already rendered virtually eradicated - let's not breathe life into now.
O.
-
Dear Alan,
Yes, some answers
We can’t imagine what it is like to follow a religion that demands the kidnapping and torture of children and the slaughter of innocents.
That sentence makes me uneasy, if, if the perpetrators of these atrocities are following a religion ( Islam ) then they have perverted it beyond all comprehension.
First, I think we naturally do what humans do. We cry out for an answer and yearn for revenge. We want to retaliate. We want to wipe these scum from the face of the earth. We want to meet rage with rage and seek vengeance.
Right now, as I type this I am struggling to see where I point the finger of vengeance, the terrorists, the USA, Britain, CoS, CoE, The Vatican, so much we could have done, how different it could have been if we had stepped away from our greed, how different it could have been if the true Christian had extended the hand of friendship towards our Muslim cousins/brothers/sisters, there was a brief moment ( seems a long time ago now ) when there was a cry of The Cresent and the Cross are as one.
However, as Christians we step up to stand with the victims in grief, compassion and prayer. We hold them in our silence, incomprehension and hope somehow that our support and solidarity will help them see a way through the mindless dark.
Not enough.
Think of St Francis who wanted to meet the Sultan and share the faith with him in enthusiasm and love.
Yes St Francis is the more we need, St Francis gave up everything, world leaders should think a little more like that man.
Some answers Alan but then nobody has all the answers.
Gonnagle.
-
That sentence makes me uneasy, if, if the perpetrators of these atrocities are following a religion ( Islam ) then they have perverted it beyond all comprehension.
Why is their version a perversion, but the version that tends towards decency regardless of deities is somehow right? How do you decide which is the perversion in the absence of anything definitive? There are just versions you like and versions you don't like.
Some answers Alan but then nobody has all the answers.
Religion has all the answers for all the people, but none of them are right or wrong, they're just answers. Unfortunately, religion also asks more, harder, bloodier questions, and those questions don't add anything at all.
What the world needs is fewer reasons to segregate and divide and ostracise people, fewer reasons to point someone out as 'different' - even if everything else bad is stripped from it, religion still does that for no discernible benefit.
O.
-
What thoughts does it provoke for you, Alan?
To me it is a stark reminder that we need a saviour to deliver us from the evils of this world.
Jesus conquered evil with defiant love - not with retaliation or revenge.
Then get him to stop these bloody terrorists - TOMORROW for preference!
He can't or won't or he already would have!
-
That sentence makes me uneasy, if, if the perpetrators of these atrocities are following a religion ( Islam ) then they have perverted it beyond all comprehension.
All they need do is look to the founder of their relugion, Gonners. It's in the very DNA of Islam. Islam is the problem. In another act f complete madness we're letting hundreds of thousands of adherents of that religion into Europe.
-
Just to note that there is quite a lot of god supported kidnapping, raping, and killing of children in the OT and certainly William Lane Craig and to an extent the other Alan on here can imagine what it is like to follow such a religion.
-
That sentence makes me uneasy, if, if the perpetrators of these atrocities are following a religion ( Islam ) then they have perverted it beyond all comprehension.
All they need do is look to the founder of their relugion, Gonners. It's in the very DNA of Islam. Islam is the problem. In another act f complete madness we're letting hundreds of thousands of adherents of that religion into Europe.
We already have hundreds of thousands of adherents to a violent religion in Europe - Christians. That we've largely tamed them shows that it's possible - we just need to seep that secular, rational, equitable, civilised cutlure out into their world. Let's stop building up their martyr complex by sending bombs and start sending wireless routers and DVDs, food parcels and books, ideas and concepts.
O.
-
Since the OT is in the 'DNA' of your religion, ad_o, and since the god in that supports mass slaughter including children, then I would suggest your post is arguing you are a dangerous person liable to kill innocents.
-
Indeed it's only 70 years ago since a predominantly Christian nation decided not to tolerate another religion (amazingly enough also based on this influential god chappie) and that was a triumph of love.
-
That sentence makes me uneasy, if, if the perpetrators of these atrocities are following a religion ( Islam ) then they have perverted it beyond all comprehension.
All they need do is look to the founder of their relugion, Gonners. It's in the very DNA of Islam. Islam is the problem. In another act f complete madness we're letting hundreds of thousands of adherents of that religion into Europe.
We already have hundreds of thousands of adherents to a violent religion in Europe - Christians. That we've largely tamed them shows that it's possible - we just need to seep that secular, rational, equitable, civilised cutlure out into their world. Let's stop building up their martyr complex by sending bombs and start sending wireless routers and DVDs, food parcels and books, ideas and concepts.
O.
Where did Christ command us to kill anyone?
-
If he didn't change a tittle of the law then, the thou shalt not suffer a witch to live is one of JC's as is are the various slaughters in the OT carried out in the name of his co-member of the divine triumvirate.
-
Where did Christ command us to kill anyone?
I've no idea, why don't you ask the hundreds of thousands of Christians throughout history who have seen fit to kill people for their religion?
Don't tell me, they're the wrong kind of Christians...
O.
-
Dear ad,
All they need do is look to the founder of their relugion, Gonners. It's in the very DNA of Islam. Islam is the problem. In another act f complete madness we're letting hundreds of thousands of adherents of that religion into Europe.
This is not what I know about Islam ( which is very little ) but I do remember something about if you take a life you are killing God, something like that!! and from reading Armstrong Islam in the beginning was a very tolerant religion, anyway I don't think the problem is just Islam.
But then Outrider could be right, just my version :( :(
Gonnagle.
-
We can’t imagine what it is like to follow a religion that demands the kidnapping and torture of children and the slaughter of innocents.
That sentence makes me uneasy, if, if the perpetrators of these atrocities are following a religion ( Islam ) then they have perverted it beyond all comprehension.
There are many devout, peace loving Muslims, but what makes me feel uneasy is that the extremists can vindicate some of their actions by looking at the founder of their religion who used violence to spread the faith, and claimed that victory in battle was a sign to justify the cause.
Jesus on the other hand submitted to violence in order to offer salvation to all mankind.
-
That would be Jesus submitting to the violence to pacify the other part of the divine triumvirate who had thought it necessary for someone disobeying them, and then not being satisfied with killing almost the entirety of the Human race and instructing people to slaughter children and even animals and indicating that raping prisoners of war was ok?
-
Jesus on the other hand submitted to violence in order to offer salvation to all mankind.
... when he wasn't fashioning his own weapons with which to visit violence upon others, anyway.
-
Dear Alan,
There are many devout, peace loving Muslims, but what makes me feel uneasy is that the extremists can vindicate some of their actions by looking at the founder of their religion who used violence to spread the faith, and claimed that victory in battle was a sign to justify the cause.
Jesus on the other hand submitted to violence in order to offer salvation to all mankind.
Correction, there are millions of devout peace loving Muslims.
Sorry Alan but I will never debate Mohammed versus Jesus.
A Holy war, no such thing >:( >:(
Gonnagle.
-
That sentence makes me uneasy, if, if the perpetrators of these atrocities are following a religion ( Islam ) then they have perverted it beyond all comprehension.
There are many devout, peace loving Muslims, but what makes me feel uneasy is that the extremists can vindicate some of their actions by looking at the founder of their religion who used violence to spread the faith, and claimed that victory in battle was a sign to justify the cause.
Jesus on the other hand submitted to violence in order to offer salvation to all mankind.
And your God in the Old Testament sent plagues, slew the firstborn of an entire nation, rained fire and brimstone on entire cities... Islam has its peacemakers, Christianity has it's psychopaths. Religions can be all things to all men, that's why they're such a problem.
O.
-
And your God in the Old Testament sent plagues, slew the firstborn of an entire nation, rained fire and brimstone on entire cities... Islam has its peacemakers, Christianity has it's psychopaths. Religions can be all things to all men, that's why they're such a problem.
O...
Quoting the OT is no argument, since is wrong, and thus irrelevant.
-
A Holy war, no such thing >:( >:(
As a Christian I agree there should be no such thing as a holy war.
But the Koran indicates that to die in a holy war is a guaranteed way to get to heaven, which is why the extremists find it so easy to recruit suicide bombers.
-
And your God in the Old Testament sent plagues, slew the firstborn of an entire nation, rained fire and brimstone on entire cities... Islam has its peacemakers, Christianity has it's psychopaths. Religions can be all things to all men, that's why they're such a problem.
O.
Quoting the OT is no argument, since is wrong, and thus irrelevant.
That is your personal view and not the view of Ad_o who was being replied to here, so your reply is what is irrelevant.
-
As a Christian I agree there should be no such thing as a holy war.
But the Koran indicates that to die in a holy war is a guaranteed way to get to heaven, which is why the extremists find it so easy to recruit suicide bombers.
And of course, if they all really believed that, they would all blow themselves up! The evil men behind all this simply use that as a way of manipulating others to do their will.
-
Quoting the OT is no argument, since is wrong, and thus irrelevant.
That would be the Old Testament that your precious Jesus of the New Testament reinforced, right? Jesus is wrong on that bit, but right on everything else...
O.
-
And of course, if they all really believed that, they would all blow themselves up! The evil men behind all this simply use that as a way of manipulating others to do their will.
Why? (Some) Christians believe innocent babies go straight to heaven but they don't instantly kill them to guarantee that will happen.
O.
-
That would be the Old Testament that your precious Jesus of the New Testament reinforced, right? Jesus is wrong on that bit, but right on everything else...
O.
Quite wrong, as you would know if you knew the NT. I have pointed this out so often: Jesus came with a new message of love and forgiveness: "new wine for old," as He said. So He was right on that, and everything else.
-
Quite wrong, as you would know if you knew the NT. I have pointed this out so often: Jesus came with a new message of love and forgiveness: "new wine for old," as He said. So He was right on that, and everything else.
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" - Matthew 5:18-19
I think, from this, Jesus might have been a fan of the original vintage...
O.
-
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" - Matthew 5:18-19
I think, from this, Jesus might have been a fan of the original vintage...
O.
Is there something in Matthew about coming with a sword to set a man against his father, daughter against mother etc.
-
I just came across this interesting and thought provoking article showing a Christian view of the Paris attacks:
The Paris Attacks: The Consequence of Goodness Without Truth
Why are the so-called Christian countries so spineless in the face of the Muslim terror?
Because for over fifty years we have gradually come to value goodness without truth.
What I mean by this is that we have become complacent about our Christian faith. We have drifted into either lax unbelief, hedonistic agnosticism and finally outright atheism.
In abandoning our religion we have abandoned truth, believing that it is possible–and even preferable–to be good without religion. We have concluded that the weakest and most shallow forms of goodness are the only kind there are, and have taken from the Christian religion the easiest, laziest and most sloppy aspects and rejected all the rest.
We have smashed and grabbed the Christian store and taken all the shiniest and most worthless trinkets thinking they were all there was on offer, and we have re-made our own atheistic humanistic religion out of the pickings.
Western Christian liberals have therefore promoted something which they think they have salvaged from Christianity, but it is as much like real Christianity as a paste diamond is to the real gemstone.
Their religion has become one of bland tolerance. They mistake political correctness for charity, shallow optimism for hope and an ideology for faith.
As a result they have opened their borders to every kind of horror, refusing to the end to believe that such horrors from hell really do exist. They have opened their own borders to Islamic extremists who have stated openly that they wish to destroy everything Christian and take over their country and turn it into an Islamic state.
Blind as the fundamentalists they deplore, the liberals’ ideology is a counterfeit form of faith which forbids them to castigate, exclude or expel anyone and refuses to acknowledge that they have such a thing as an enemy.
Their shallow optimism is their substitute for hope and this blinds them to the fact that their birth rate is below the replacement level, that their culture is doomed and their country about to collapse.
Their tolerant political correctness is their artificial form of charity which is spineless and gutless and has nothing to offer except more bland tolerance and acceptance of everything and everyone. These people would probably tolerate and grant “rights” to a serial killer who entered their home.
The Paris attacks should be a wake up call.
True goodness can never be separated from Truth, and Christian truth is never soft, weak or spineless.
Christian goodness is always combined with uncompromising Truth. It is always courageous, true and bold. It answers violence with defiant love. It understands that a there is such a thing as evil, and allows that when all other attempts at peace fail, then irrational rage and violence must be met with a reply of rational, planned and measured justice.
Like the majority of your posts Alan, go and see somebody, take a lot of counselling, it'll need be held over a number of years, even then? Your post is made up of a whole lot of potty rambling.
No doubt you're one of those weirdos that think, at least the Paris dead are in a far better place now! Yuk.
It's not like this belief of yours is based on even the slightest bit of credible evidence that would be worthy of debate.
ippy
-
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" - Matthew 5:18-19
I think, from this, Jesus might have been a fan of the original vintage...
O.
I refer you to my comment about actually knowing the NT, rather than simply googling bits to suit you. Your quote is from Matthew, a strongly Jewish, orthodox, writer, whose aim was to present to Jews a version of Jesus that would fit their needs: it is called midrash.
-
Is there something in Matthew about coming with a sword to set a man against his father, daughter against mother etc.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
O.
-
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
O.
That's the very fellow.
Not a very nice sentiment is it?
No doubt the Christians here can put the required 'spin' on it so that it says something nice.
Perhaps something about kittens and puppies I would think.
-
I refer you to my comment about actually knowing the NT, rather than simply googling bits to suit you. Your quote is from Matthew, a strongly Jewish, orthodox, writer, whose aim was to present to Jews a version of Jesus that would fit their needs: it is called midrash.
So we can presume that because you don't like that bit it's been adjusted by the author to suit his or her own agenda - how, then, do you know which bits are genuinely Jesus? There isn't a Gospel according to Jesus, it's all at least (and that's incredibly optimistic) second hand, and more likely third or fourth, before the editing and the translation.
You have no idea which bits are actually Jesus, if any of them, you just know which bits you like and which bits you think you can ignore. Don't get me wrong, I prefer your version, but there's no more justification for it than any other.
O.
-
That's the very fellow.
Not a very nice sentiment is it?
No doubt the Christians here can put the required 'spin' on it so that it says something nice.
Perhaps something about kittens and puppies I would think.
I think you and Outrider need to look at some Biblical commentary, and start by looking up midrash.
-
So we can presume that because you don't like that bit it's been adjusted by the author to suit his or her own agenda - how, then, do you know which bits are genuinely Jesus? There isn't a Gospel according to Jesus, it's all at least (and that's incredibly optimistic) second hand, and more likely third or fourth, before the editing and the translation.
You have no idea which bits are actually Jesus, if any of them, you just know which bits you like and which bits you think you can ignore. Don't get me wrong, I prefer your version, but there's no more justification for it than any other.
O.
A great deal of scholarship has been given over to what you say. I think before you merely label it all with your own, slanted, meaning, you should acquaint yourself with some objective analysis.
-
A great deal of scholarship has been given over to what you say. I think before you merely label it all with your own, slanted, meaning, you should acquaint yourself with some objective analysis.
What analysis can be done on text said to be the words of Jesus.
In actual fact, you cannot know if ANY words in the bible were uttered by someone called Jesus.
It is not even known who wrote the gospels.
-
I think you and Outrider need to look at some Biblical commentary, and start by looking up midrash.
Why? Either you can arbitrarily decide some bits don't fit the narrative you want and presume that the author overwrote the original intent with this own, or you can't.
Unless you've got a methodology for determining which bits to take literally and which to think are metaphoric or edited that doesn't involve 'which bits don't fit with the hippy image of Jesus we want to portray' then it's just post-hoc rationalisation to fit your own view rather than the text. If you do have a method, by all means let us know what it is.
Midrash is Judaism's tortured attempts to try to reconcile the Old Testament God with reality, it's the Jewish version of Christian Apologetics, and it's equally as baseless. It starts from the position 'I don't like that literal interpretation' and wanders off on a path of wish-fulfillment to try to neuter that particular passage.
O.
-
Would that be the type of objective analysis which that nearly split the whole of Christianity over an iota?
The study of meaning and intention is not an objective one.
-
A great deal of scholarship has been given over to what you say. I think before you merely label it all with your own, slanted, meaning, you should acquaint yourself with some objective analysis.
Why is the believers scholarship 'objective analysis', but mine is 'slanted'? Is there a method to identify which sections should be considered metaphoric or edited, or not? I've never heard of one, despite many years of asking and reading. It's all, ultimately, 'Well Jesus can't really have meant that, that's horrid'. It speaks well of their intentions, but it says nothing of their methodology.
It's a testament to humanity that people recognise that nastiness and try to address it, but it's also testament to human credulity that they torture logic to do it rather than just accepting that the whole concept of Jesus is baseless in the first place.
O.
-
Why? Either you can arbitrarily decide some bits don't fit the narrative you want and presume that the author overwrote the original intent with this own, or you can't.
Unless you've got a methodology for determining which bits to take literally and which to think are metaphoric or edited that doesn't involve 'which bits don't fit with the hippy image of Jesus we want to portray' then it's just post-hoc rationalisation to fit your own view rather than the text. If you do have a method, by all means let us know what it is.
Midrash is Judaism's tortured attempts to try to reconcile the Old Testament God with reality, it's the Jewish version of Christian Apologetics, and it's equally as baseless. It starts from the position 'I don't like that literal interpretation' and wanders off on a path of wish-fulfillment to try to neuter that particular passage.
O.
Let's get it straight: I am not deciding anything: I am following accepted scholarly accounts, which I have studied over the years. It is nothing to do with wish-fulfilment, that is an immature judgement.
-
Let's get it straight: I am not deciding anything: I am following accepted scholarly accounts, which I have studied over the years. It is nothing to do with wish-fulfilment, that is an immature judgement.
Is it? Then you'll be able to explain the 'scholarly' method by which a decision is made on which bits are 'genuine Jesus' and which bits are people putting words in his mouth, surely?
O.
-
Is it? Then you'll be able to explain the 'scholarly' method by which a decision is made on which bits are 'genuine Jesus' and which bits are people putting words in his mouth, surely?
O.
Good grief! Whole books have been written about it. I'm afraid I still have to suggest you do little, or lot, more researching.
-
Whole books have been written about the problems of ascertaining any such thing as objective meaning. I take it you have read them all and you have reading for rejecting them. BA?
-
Good grief! Whole books have been written about it. I'm afraid I still have to suggest you do little, or lot, more researching.
I've read some - not all, by any stretch. I've spoken with people that accept the idea. Neither what I've read nor the people I've asked have explained that methodology. I don't particularly want examples, I just want to know how you decide which bits are 'true' and which bits aren't.
O.
-
Whole books have been written about the problems of ascertaining any such thing as objective meaning. I take it you have read them all and you have reading for rejecting them. BA?
Don't be silly! What I can say is that I have studied the subject for many years, and as a reasonably intelligent person, I have come to my conclusions. I very much doubt you have put as much work in, and when you have done so, your views, if still the same, might carry more weight.
-
You've put a lot of study into the problem of meaning in language? Given you think there is a set of objective meanings that can be assigned the way you are punting here then I find that unlikely.
I have no idea how much time and effort you have put on, just as you have no idea how much I might have put in, but I suggest that it is better to make arguments and have discussions rather than make boasting comments about the amount of perspiration you might have wiped away. Apart from anything else, one should not mistake effort for achievement.
-
You've put a lot of study into the problem of meaning in language? Given you think there is a set of objective meanings that can be assigned the way you are punting here then I find that unlikely.
I have no idea how much time and effort you have put on, just as you have no idea how much I might have put in, but I suggest that it is better to make arguments and have discussions rather than make boasting comments about the amount of perspiration you might have wiped away. Apart from anything else, one should not mistake effort for achievement.
BA has for a long time made that word "Midrash" count for rather a lot. It's a useful way of sanctioning the exclusion of most of the Jewish-inclined sayings attributed to Jesus. Needless to say it reflects a deeply ingrained bias on the part of the scholars in question who adopt this approach.
It also goes without saying that a large number of distinguished scholars adopt an almost contrary approach, and emphasise the essential Jewishness of the historical Jesus. Schweitzer was very much in this camp, but the more modern proponents of the Jewish Jesus are figures such as Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman etc. (and just in case someone starts to pipe up; yes, I've read them :) )
There are quite a number of other takes on Jesus, as I'm sure you know: the Jesus Seminar approach, typified by John Dominic Crossan takes a very different view to the above. And there's also the 'Jesus the Magician'* approach. I'm sure all these differing scholars think they're being as objective as possible.
*The most notorious book adopting this approach was the work of Morton Smith, published in 1978 (this one I haven't read). There was a prolific poster on the old BBC site who was convinced that this take on Jesus was the correct one, and had written a university thesis on it, apparently.
-
Midrash is Judaism's tortured attempts to try to reconcile the Old Testament God with reality, it's the Jewish version of Christian Apologetics, and it's equally as baseless. It starts from the position 'I don't like that literal interpretation' and wanders off on a path of wish-fulfillment to try to neuter that particular passage.
O.
A bit harsh, but probably true enough.
-
You've put a lot of study into the problem of meaning in language? Given you think there is a set of objective meanings that can be assigned the way you are punting here then I find that unlikely.
I have no idea how much time and effort you have put on, just as you have no idea how much I might have put in, but I suggest that it is better to make arguments and have discussions rather than make boasting comments about the amount of perspiration you might have wiped away. Apart from anything else, one should not mistake effort for achievement....
I'm not boasting, just pointing out that I have studied Christianity in detail, over a long period. Many of the views expressed here, by atheists, are not well-informed, nor properly thought out or reinforced by study. I have argued over many aspects over the years, with people of differing views. I am not confining myself to prejudiced ideas, and unwilling to concede anything to other interpretations, not open to reasonable argument. I have radically changed my views over OT theology, over the years, and met much criticism: views which I once held myself. It is never too late to adjust. I'm not suggesting I am the be-all and end-all as far as Christianity is concerned; but I have a more widespread background, on it, than most atheists, whose views here are redolent of a lack of knowledge. That may sound superior, but I believe it is the truth of it.
-
I'm not boasting, just pointing out that I have studied Christianity in detail, over a long period. Many of the views expressed here, by atheists, are not well-informed, nor properly thought out or reinforced by study. I have argued over many aspects over the years, with people of differing views. I am not confining myself to prejudiced ideas, and unwilling to concede anything to other interpretations, not open to reasonable argument. I have radically changed my views over OT theology, over the years, and met much criticism: views which I once held myself. It is never too late to adjust.
Your study of Christianity has, I believe you have previously stated, led you to teaching Divinity I think it was, excuse me if I have that wrong,
This would suggest, to me anyway, that your study was extremely biased toward obtaining employment in your chosen field.
-
BA has for a long time made that word "Midrash" count for rather a lot. It's a useful way of sanctioning the exclusion of most of the Jewish-inclined sayings attributed to Jesus. Needless to say it reflects a deeply ingrained bias on the part of the scholars in question who adopt this approach.
It also goes without saying that a large number of distinguished scholars adopt an almost contrary approach, and emphasise the essential Jewishness of the historical Jesus. Schweitzer was very much in this camp, but the more modern proponents of the Jewish Jesus are figures such as Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman etc. (and just in case someone starts to pipe up; yes, I've read them :) )
There are quite a number of other takes on Jesus, as I'm sure you know: the Jesus Seminar approach, typified by John Dominic Crossan takes a very different view to the above. And there's also the 'Jesus the Magician'* approach. I'm sure all these differing scholars think they're being as objective as possible.
*The most notorious book adopting this approach was the work of Morton Smith, published in 1978 (this one I haven't read). There was a prolific poster on the old BBC site who was convinced that this take on Jesus was the correct one, and had written a university thesis on it, apparently.
Matthew, as a "good" Jew used midrash to attempt to reconcile the life and sayings of Jesus with his own OT teaching and beliefs. Matthew was in no sense attempting to sanction any sayings of Jesus: quite the contrary: he was attempting to reconcile what Jesus said with mainstream Judaism, which He was often at variance with, in order to make Him acceptable to the Jewish community, which had rejected Him.
-
I'm not boasting, just pointing out that I have studied Christianity in detail, over a long period. Many of the views expressed here, by atheists, are not well-informed, nor properly thought out or reinforced by study. I have argued over many aspects over the years, with people of differing views. I am not confining myself to prejudiced ideas, and unwilling to concede anything to other interpretations, not open to reasonable argument. I have radically changed my views over OT theology, over the years, and met much criticism: views which I once held myself. It is never too late to adjust. I'm not suggesting I am the be-all and end-all as far as Christianity is concerned; but I have a more widespread background, on it, than most atheists, whose views here are redolent of a lack of knowledge. That may sound superior, but I believe it is the truth of it.
And I'm talking about studying meaning in linguistics,I find your expression on that not thought out, or well informed, or reinforced by study. The same for much of your philosophical positions BUT I can't just assert that that is true because of opinion of you, or my study into it. I have to make the case based on what you say and what I argue against it. The amount or indeed lack of time you or I may have spent studying it is not relevant to whether we are right or wrong.
-
I'm not boasting, just pointing out that I have studied Christianity in detail, over a long period. Many of the views expressed here, by atheists, are not well-informed, nor properly thought out or reinforced by study. I have argued over many aspects over the years, with people of differing views. I am not confining myself to prejudiced ideas, and unwilling to concede anything to other interpretations, not open to reasonable argument. I have radically changed my views over OT theology, over the years, and met much criticism: views which I once held myself. It is never too late to adjust. I'm not suggesting I am the be-all and end-all as far as Christianity is concerned; but I have a more widespread background, on it, than most atheists, whose views here are redolent of a lack of knowledge. That may sound superior, but I believe it is the truth of it.
As it stands, that's great, you should find the question relatively easy, then. Unfortunately, rather than answering it and making an argument you appear to be resorting to an attempt at an argument from authority. I can quite accept that you've studied - did you study how to choose which are the 'right' and 'wrong' bits? How do you experts choose?
O.
-
Your study of Christianity has, I believe you have previously stated, led you to teaching Divinity I think it was, excuse me if I have that wrong,
This would suggest, to me anyway, that your study was extremely biased toward obtaining employment in your chosen field.
I was a primary teacher and taught RE and history and games as my main subjects, though of course you had to turn your hand to other aspects. But, fortunately, in my day employment was not difficult to find.
-
I was a primary teacher and taught RE and history and games as my main subjects, though of course you had to turn your hand to other aspects. But, fortunately, in my day employment was not difficult to find.
. . . and this means what, precisely?
-
. . . and this means what, precisely?
It means that my chosen subjects were not chosen in order to assure employment, as it was not a problem finding a post. If anything, as now, my biggest advantage was being a male, as male primary teachers were scarce, as they are now.
-
It means that my chosen subjects were not chosen in order to assure employment, as it was not a problem finding a post. If anything, as now, my biggest advantage was being a male, as male primary teachers were scarce, as they are now.
Can you describe the methodology whereby you take texts from the bible run it through the method and determine what is literally true, and what can be in ignored?
That is the question being posed to you, and the amountof study you have done by s not relevant.
Either you have a method or you don't.
Which is it?
-
BA has for a long time made that word "Midrash" count for rather a lot. It's a useful way of sanctioning the exclusion of most of the Jewish-inclined sayings attributed to Jesus. Needless to say it reflects a deeply ingrained bias on the part of the scholars in question who adopt this approach.
It also goes without saying that a large number of distinguished scholars adopt an almost contrary approach, and emphasise the essential Jewishness of the historical Jesus. Schweitzer was very much in this camp, but the more modern proponents of the Jewish Jesus are figures such as Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman etc. (and just in case someone starts to pipe up; yes, I've read them :) )
There are quite a number of other takes on Jesus, as I'm sure you know: the Jesus Seminar approach, typified by John Dominic Crossan takes a very different view to the above. And there's also the 'Jesus the Magician'* approach. I'm sure all these differing scholars think they're being as objective as possible.
*The most notorious book adopting this approach was the work of Morton Smith, published in 1978 (this one I haven't read). There was a prolific poster on the old BBC site who was convinced that this take on Jesus was the correct one, and had written a university thesis on it, apparently.
With both Vermes and Sanders, there is at least superficial credibility about their views on Jesus' role as a very Jewish teacher and prophet, imbued, as they contend, in purely OT thinking. Their views are at face value, attractive; but the consensus seems to be that they are mistaken in regarding Jesus as a purely Jewish leader. There is one particular quote from Jesus, which neither of them suitably explains away:
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Also, if He was referring to Gentiles when he said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold", then he must have already by that time put aside the idea that he "was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel ," if He ever thought that.
One point worth mentioning, is that both these eminent Biblical scholars had no problem with the historicity, and indeed the divinity of Jesus. Perhaps some of the resident atheists here might benefit from a look at their work.
-
The historicity of Jesus is not accepted by historians.
That's why it's not taught in history.
-
The historicity of Jesus is not accepted by historians.
That's why it's not taught in history.
Nonsense!
-
Dear ad,
This is not what I know about Islam ( which is very little ) but I do remember something about if you take a life you are killing God, something like that!! and from reading Armstrong Islam in the beginning was a very tolerant religion, anyway I don't think the problem is just Islam.
But then Outrider could be right, just my version :( :(
Gonnagle.
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
That should be a start.
-
The historicity of Jesus is not accepted by historians.
That's why it's not taught in history.
Nonsense. The vast majority of scholars regard Jesus' historicity as fact. As to your comment on the teaching of it, you are speaking from ignorance.
-
Nonsense!
Can you find a university where Jesus is taught in a History course?
You must know that Jesus is not an historical figure.
-
Nonsense. The vast majority of scholars regard Jesus' historicity as fact. As to your comment on the teaching of it, you are speaking from ignorance.
Instead of throwing insults, just find a university teaching Jesus in a History course.
If you cannot then you are just wrong.
-
I refer you to my comment about actually knowing the NT, rather than simply googling bits to suit you. Your quote is from Matthew, a strongly Jewish, orthodox, writer, whose aim was to present to Jews a version of Jesus that would fit their needs: it is called midrash.
So we have discarded the Old Testament. Now we have jettisoned one of the four gospels.
Rather than doing this piece meal, why not tell us which verses have the seal of your approval?
-
Instead of throwing insults, just find a university teaching Jesus in a History course.
If you cannot then you are just wrong.
I am talking of Divinity teaching.
I am not insulting you, just telling you that you're wrong, unless you are actually a theological expert, rather than a casual critic.
-
Good grief! Whole books have been written about it. I'm afraid I still have to suggest you do little, or lot, more researching.
I tend to think that, if somebody can't articulate their reasons for accepting or rejecting an idea, they don't really understand them or they don't want to admit them.
-
So we have discarded the Old Testament. Now we have jettisoned one of the four gospels.
Rather than doing this piece meal, why not tell us which verses have the seal of your approval?
I have not discarded one of the four Gospels: I merely read it with a critical eye: a method I would have thought you would agree with.
-
I am talking of Divinity teaching.
I am not insulting you, unless you are actually a theological expert, rather than a casual critic.
I am talking about History. Jesus is NOT taught in history and is NOT accepted as a historical figure.
These are just facts.
Why would you disagree?
-
I have not discarded one of the four Gospels: I merely read it with a critical eye: a method I would have thought you would agree with.
A critical eye is not a method.
This will NOT ensure that different people using the method will arrive at the same answer.
-
I am talking about History. Jesus is NOT taught in history and is NOT accepted as a historical figure.
These are just facts.
Why would you disagree?
I am talking about RE in the National Curriculum, where Jesus is most certainly taught as a historical person Read it and learn. I have done it all my teaching life. What do you base your remark on?
-
I am talking about RE in the National Curriculum, where Jesus is most certainly taught as a historical person Read it and learn. I have done it all my teaching life. What do you base your remark on?
You are talking about religious education, and of course that IS the place to teach about Jesus.
That does NOT make Jesus a historical figure and that is why it is not taught in a proper subject like history
Jesus is NOT an accepted historical figure.
That just is the way it is. You may not like it but that is the truth.
-
You are talking about religious education, and of course that IS the place to teach about Jesus.
That does NOT make Jesus a historical figure and that is why it is not taught in a proper subject like history
Jesus is NOT an accepted historical figure.
That just is the way it is. You may not like it but that is the truth.
You are totally wrong. I think you should do some serious reading and try to get a non-biased view of the subject.
But, again, I am off now. Good night.
-
You are talking about religious education, and of course that IS the place to teach about Jesus.
That does NOT make Jesus a historical figure and that is why it is not taught in a proper subject like history
Jesus is NOT an accepted historical figure.
That just is the way it is. You may not like it but that is the truth.
[/quote
You are totally wrong. I think you should do some serious reading and try to get a non-biased view of the subject.
But, again, I am off now. Good night.
Show that I am wrong by citing a university has history course covering Jesus.
Religious courses do NOT count!
-
Since the OT is in the 'DNA' of your religion, ad_o, and since the god in that supports mass slaughter including children, then I would suggest your post is arguing you are a dangerous person liable to kill innocents.
When I first heard of this 'caliphate' and Islamic State my thoughts were that they seem to be copying the Israelites in their conquest of Canaan.
-
I have not discarded one of the four Gospels: I merely read it with a critical eye: a method I would have thought you would agree with.
But how is your critical eye any better than the eye of those who disagree with you?
-
But how is your critical eye any better than the eye of those who disagree with you?
If you, or anyone, disagrees, then articulate the reasons why, rather than the usual blanket rebuttal.
-
If you ,or anyone, disagrees, then articulate the reasons why, rather than the usual blanket rebuttal.
But you are putting forward your reasons for accepting or rejecting certain text.
As far as I can see, there is no method you just accept the bits you like, and discard what you don't.
The problem is, that if someone else makes a different choice, you have no method to distinguish if one of you is correct.
It then just becomes opinion.
-
But you are putting forward your reasons for accepting or rejecting certain text.
As far as I can see, there is no method you just accept the bits you like, and discard what you don't.
The problem is, that if someone else makes a different choice, you have no method to distinguish if one of you is correct.
It then just becomes opinion.
I have already said this: pay attention! I base my views on my study, and what seems to me to be the correct view.
-
If you ,or anyone, disagrees, then articulate the reasons why, rather than the usual blanket rebuttal.
What I'm seeing, BA, is that you want to believe in a kind, loving, universal God who doesn't do bad stuff. So you've followed the theological paths of those who want to believe as you do to select the parts of the Bible and church doctrine that fit with that, and discard those that don't.
The only problem with that approach is when you try to call it 'the truth'.
-
What I'm seeing, BA, is that you want to believe in a kind, loving, universal God who doesn't do bad stuff. So you've followed the theological paths of those who want to believe as you do to select the parts of the Bible and church doctrine that fit with that, and discard those that don't.
The only
Jesus can't be both loving and a saviour to all, and at the same time one who casts people into a fiery furnace: He instructed us to forgive, as He does. So, it seems a pretty clear choice wart to accept.
-
Jesus is NOT an accepted historical figure.
That is an interesting question. I think, even the mythicists accept that theirs is a minority position. However, that does not make them wrong.
The question hinges on what you mean by "Jesus". The Jesus of the gospels is quite clearly not historical, even if you excise all the supernatural elements. However, there is some evidence that there was a founder of Christianity and weak evidence that he was eventually executed, but that doesn't matter, because the Romans were executing people left right and centre - it's not particularly extraordinary. The question is whether this "minimal" Jesus still counts as Jesus.
-
What I'm seeing, BA, is that you want to believe in a kind, loving, universal God who doesn't do bad stuff. So you've followed the theological paths of those who want to believe as you do to select the parts of the Bible and church doctrine that fit with that, and discard those that don't.
The only
Jesus can't be both loving and a saviour to all, and at the same time one who casts people into a fiery furnace: He instructed us to forgive, as He does. So, it seems a pretty clear choice wart to accept.
In which case it would appear that you are discarding Jesus' own words.
-
In which case it would appear that you are discarding Jesus' own words.
No: the words of a Gospel writer, with an agenda. It simply does not make any kind of sense to accept the main message of Jesus - one of love and forgiveness - with the idea of a vengeful Being. The two concepts are irreconcilable.
-
I have already said this: pay attention! I base my views on my study, and what seems to me to be the correct view.
Yes, and as was then pointed out that isn't a useful argument. You are being asked for the methodology, not certificates on your wall.
-
No: the words of a Gospel writer, with an agenda. It simply does not make any kind of sense to accept the main message of Jesus - one of love and forgiveness - with the idea of a vengeful Being. The two concepts are irreconcilable.
This is entirely circular - you are Basing what you reject on what is the main message but what you define as the main message is what you use to reject things.
-
Yes, and as was then pointed out that isn't a useful argument. You are being asked for the methodology, not certificates on your wall.
On what else can I base my views?
-
No: the words of a Gospel writer, with an agenda. It simply does not make any kind of sense to accept the main message of Jesus - one of love and forgiveness - with the idea of a vengeful Being. The two concepts are irreconcilable.
You're absolutely right, it doesn't. From a religious point of view, as a Christian, you accept that the words of Jesus are correct, the depiction of a caring, kind, all-loving incarnation of God. That's fine.
As a scholar, presumably, you have to approach the text from a neutral point of view, surely. You have to have a reason - not a preconception or a desire - to think that the depiction of Jesus is a more accurate reflection than the depiction of the Old Testament deity.
What scholarly method do you use to determine 'this section is true' or 'this section has been corrupted/twisted/repurposed', without resorting to 'Jesus has to be kind, so therefore...'
O.
-
On what else can I base my views?
No one is asking you to base your views on anything else. The information that you have is exactly what you need to base it on. But simply stating you are right because you are Basing your views on what you have studied negates any possibility of discussion. It is also not an argument to say that you have studied something. You have to lay out why you think you are right and show your reasoning. Simply saying I have reasoned is of no imoact.
-
You're absolutely right, it doesn't. From a religious point of view, as a Christian, you accept that the words of Jesus are correct, the depiction of a caring, kind, all-loving incarnation of God. That's fine.
As a scholar, presumably, you have to approach the text from a neutral point of view, surely. You have to have a reason - not a preconception or a desire - to think that the depiction of Jesus is a more accurate reflection than the depiction of the Old Testament deity.
What scholarly method do you use to determine 'this section is true' or 'this section has been corrupted/twisted/repurposed', without resorting to 'Jesus has to be kind, so therefore...'
O.
What's wrong with resorting to "Jesus is, kind, etc" ? It I accept Him as loving and forgiving, then it is logical, and complete sense to discard the "fire and brimstone bit."
-
What's wrong with resorting to "Jesus is, kind, etc" ? It I accept Him as loving and forgiving, then it is logical, and complete sense to discard the "fire and brimstone bit."
As a religious viewpoint, nothing. As a scholar, it's bias, simple as that. Surely with all your vast teaching experience of critical analysis you knew that?
Critical analysis involves questioning each step, not wading in with preconceptions and looking for selected passages to confirm that bias and discarding passages because they don't - that's not critical analysis, it's Christian apologetics. That's a field of enquiry, certainly, but it's a field with declared preconceptions.
O.
-
What's wrong with resorting to "Jesus is, kind, etc" ? It I accept Him as loving and forgiving, then it is logical, and complete sense to discard the "fire and brimstone bit."
From your faith position it's perfectly acceptable. But what you accept or prefer to believe doesn't make you right and other Christians wrong.
-
From your faith position it's perfectly acceptable. But what you accept or prefer to believe doesn't make you right and other Christians wrong.
Any Christian who regards Jesus as anything other than loving and forgiving is wrong. Not a particularly controversial view.
-
Yes, but if you talk to Hope for example, he says it is loving for God to punish transgression and for Jesus to warn of that.
-
I have already said this: pay attention! I base my views on my study, and what seems to me to be the correct view.
But that is NOT a method, it is just opinion.
Others can base things on their studies and come to a different conclusion.
A method would not allow this to happen. A method would home in on one answer.
-
Any Christian who regards Jesus as anything other than loving and forgiving is wrong. Not a particularly controversial view.
That's your take on Christianity. Other Christian groups differ, individuals within Christian groups differ. There are Christians who believe Jesus/God will condemn homosexuals to hell for eternity, for instance, entirely in keeping with their conceptualisation of God.
The point of analysing the New and Old Testaments is to find out what is the truth, if any, in there. If you go in with a preconception that 'Jesus is kind' all you do is find those scriptural elements that confirm your preconception - that's not a method for determining truth, that's cherry-picking.
O.
-
There's nothing at all wrong with cherry-picking from scripture to support a particular belief based on how one experiences faith. It's only an issue when someone wants to make that true-for-them true-for-me also, particularly if they then seek to judge me for not believing as they do.
-
Just where does BA's concept of Jesus as a subject of historical vesus religious study have any connection whatsoever to what happened in Paris?
I know that I am demonstrating my terminal ignorance here but . . .
-
I'm guessing that we got here so somehow from the 'little Christs' comment in the rather alarming article in Alan's OP.
-
Quoting the OT is no argument, since is wrong, and thus irrelevant.
Ah, here you go, Owlswing.
-
There's nothing at all wrong with cherry-picking from scripture to support a particular belief based on how one experiences faith. It's only an issue when someone wants to make that true-for-them true-for-me also, particularly if they then seek to judge me for not believing as they do.
I agree.
-
What's wrong with resorting to "Jesus is, kind, etc" ? It I accept Him as loving and forgiving, then it is logical, and complete sense to discard the "fire and brimstone bit."
What do you make of this, BA? "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." Matthew 12:31
-
Ah, here you go, Owlswing.
Unfortunately the source of the quote causes me to reject it out of hand.
-
What do you make of this, BA? "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." Matthew 12:31
As I have explained, 750 times, last night being the latest... well look at my posts for yesterday: I can't be repeating myself again.