Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:51 pm**

peter wrote:...rather HE would have wanted no more or less than that we be kind to our fellow man...

But really... WHO does that?

To never let ill motives drive our treatment of others?
To never see others as sources of something useful to ME to take from, rather than precious humans to treat with dignity?
To always speak forthrightly when we're questioned about something that's within our responsibility?

Hashi- hmmm, "invalidated" and "entire" both seem WAY too strong... how can One fulfill something if invalidating it?

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:07 pm**

I chose strong words because of the entirety of the situation. It is akin to turning 18 and either getting your own apartment or going off to college. Yes, you are still the same person but now all the rules which formerly governed your life via your parents no longer apply. You may eat whatever you wish, stay up as late as you want, do what you want, go where you want, and so and so forth without having to answer to anyone.

I suppose "invalidating" is the incorrect word, though. Perhaps "nullified" would be a better choice.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:48 pm**

"Are you really a christian or muslim or hindu?"

What does it matter? It's all lies anyway.

Honestly, I just have never understood saying "so and so is not a Christian because of this." Since religion is based on faith, the only way I can see someone not being some faith-based label is if they are truly wrong about the label, such as in this example:
"I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body
,and life everlasting. Amen"

...and then considers himself a Buddhist, yet doesn't believe in reincarnation, nirvana, or other basic tenets. Just sayin'.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:22 am**

Linna Heartlistener wrote:
peter wrote:...rather HE would have wanted no more or less than that we be kind to our fellow man...
But really... WHO does that?

To never let ill motives drive our treatment of others?
To never see others as sources of something useful to ME to take from, rather than precious humans to treat with dignity?
To always speak forthrightly when we're questioned about something that's within our responsibility?

Well....I do [at least to the best of my ability. Isn't that all that can be asked?]

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:44 pm**

Cagliostro wrote: the only way I can see someone not being some faith-based label is if they are truly wrong about the label

Or they could be lying.
But yea, for the most part that's the only way that works.
Because it isn't the kind of thing that is decidable from the outside.

Every decidable form of the question becomes "Are you demonstrably following the rules established by some interpretation?"
That works pretty well, as a practical matter, in the general outline covering the largest segments of followers.
But becomes a problem at the extremes.

A Catholic [or other sect member] who opposes abortion is obviously** a "real Christian" from the outside.
But is he or she a "real Christian" if they start planting bombs and killing people? Things start getting complicated. [some might say no, some might say yes, but has sinned and should be punished, some might say yes, but he's insane...other possibilities, too]

Is he or she a "real Christian" to him/herself? No outsider can possibly know...until mind-reading becomes a real thing.

I tend to think the folk in the mass center probably are if they say they are.
And those at the extremes...they're liars and/or power-seekers and/or mentally ill/damaged.
I don't KNOW either of those. I'm far more sure of the second, though.
[[partly due to the sheer weight and volume of contradictions/distortions required in interpreting to arrive at the conclusions/decisions they do]]

**completely ignoring: is being anti-abortion inherently part of being Christian? On what basis?...but there's plenty of argument on that in other threads, no need to make it the topic here

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:09 pm**

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:^ What Orlion said.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ invalidated the entire Old Testament, which was a combination of history and rule upon rule that the Hebrews were supposed to follow in order to be "good enough" to enter the Temple and be in the presence of God. The point of the Old Testament was that mere humans can never be "good enough" on our own.

I've never heard that Jesus "invalidated" (or any other similar term) the OT.
Jesus was Jewish and preached and followed everything from the Old Testament.

It always seemed odd to me that Christians know little and follow nothing (Jewish) that Jesus did every day of his life.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:30 pm**

High Lord Tolkien wrote:
It always seemed odd to me that Christians know little and follow nothing (Jewish) that Jesus did every day of his life.

I have a good friend, born and raised quite fundamentalist, who did a lot of thinking and research and eventually joined a church whose beliefs/practices are very much orthodox Jewish except for those things explicitly altered in the New Testament.
If I were going to be Christian, that would seem to me the most valid path.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:40 pm**

High Lord Tolkien wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:^ What Orlion said.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ invalidated the entire Old Testament, which was a combination of history and rule upon rule that the Hebrews were supposed to follow in order to be "good enough" to enter the Temple and be in the presence of God. The point of the Old Testament was that mere humans can never be "good enough" on our own.

I've never heard that Jesus "invalidated" (or any other similar term) the OT.
Jesus was Jewish and preached and followed everything from the Old Testament.

You've never heard it asserted that the New Testament invalidates plenty of the Old Testament?

The God of the OT is a jealous God, and a vengeful one, and quite often a petty one - He really isn't portrayed as a particularly nice guy. The whole Job thing wasn't too much fun, was it - God effectively screwing Job over to make a point. Nor was tricking Abraham into thinking he was about to sacrifice his son. There are loads of other examples. There's no real forgiveness nor any value ascribed to repenting in the OT. It couldn't be more different in the NT.

As to Jesus himself specifically rewriting some of the erstwhile rules, compare and contrast "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek". There could hardly be more of a U-turn.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:04 pm**

TheFallen wrote:
High Lord Tolkien wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:^ What Orlion said.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ invalidated the entire Old Testament, which was a combination of history and rule upon rule that the Hebrews were supposed to follow in order to be "good enough" to enter the Temple and be in the presence of God. The point of the Old Testament was that mere humans can never be "good enough" on our own.

I've never heard that Jesus "invalidated" (or any other similar term) the OT.
Jesus was Jewish and preached and followed everything from the Old Testament.
You've never heard it asserted that the New Testament invalidates plenty of the Old Testament?

The God of the OT is a jealous God, and a vengeful one, and quite often a petty one - He really isn't portrayed as a particularly nice guy. The whole Job thing wasn't too much fun, was it - God effectively screwing Job over to make a point. Nor was tricking Abraham into thinking he was about to sacrifice his son. There are loads of other examples. There's no real forgiveness nor any value ascribed to repenting in the OT. It couldn't be more different in the NT.

As to Jesus himself specifically rewriting some of the erstwhile rules, compare and contrast "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek". There could hardly be more of a U-turn.

So why is the OT quoted so much in Christian churches?

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:04 pm**

Vraith wrote:But is he or she a "real Christian" if they start planting bombs and killing people? Things start getting complicated. [some might say no, some might say yes, but has sinned and should be punished, some might say yes, but he's insane...other possibilities, too.

I vote for "yes, but insane."

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:11 pm**

High Lord Tolkien wrote:So why is the OT quoted so much in Christian churches?

Don't ask me... marketing, I expect.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:09 pm**

High Lord Tolkien wrote: So why is the OT quoted so much in Christian churches?

That is how churches have been preaching their messages for nearly two millennia. It isn't likely to change any time soon.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:06 pm**

Cambo wrote:Bit American-centric to assume that represents the overall mainstream, Ananda, but we'll run with it.

It doesn't really matter if a majority of Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God. Your question was whether those who don't can still be considered Christian. My answer is yes, for reasons that have nothing to do with majority rule or scripture. In my mind, someone belongs to a particular religion because they believe in that particular version of the divine. A Christian is someone who believes Jesus was the Son of God, he died for our sins and was resurrected.

Are you coming from more of an institutional argument? Religion as an authority? I don't quite have a grasp on why these people (who believe in God but not all of the Bible) wouldn't be considered Christians.

Sorry it took so long time to reply: been busy, sick and so.

Sorry, that was the first statistics I saw in english. I know the americans tend to be more extremist leaning than the rest of the western style countries, just the first thingie that came up. Where I live, I think it is 46% who are no religion.

My coming from thingie is on a personal level. Like, why do people associate with an organisation that they don't actually follow the rules for? I guess it is because of social pressure (both overt and subtle e.g. peer pressure and just being born in a culture where the myths are accepted and embraced and ubiquitous around you from birth) and the fact that people like to belong to groups.

To give two examples.

One, I know a girl who says she is buddhist often. I think she says this because she likes yoga courses at the gym. Once, I tried to talk to her about the four noble truths, the eight fold path t.ex. and she had never heard of any of these things. But, she says she is a buddhist to anyone and everyone. I think she likes some idea of it or something, but she doesn't really know anything about it.

Another person I know doesn't follow any religious practices at all, but he says he is christian. I doubt he ever read the bible*. I think he says it because it is expected that he say that from how he grew up.

I think there is a difference between spirituality and religion. One is a feeling that is trying to make sense of internalised feelings, experiences and so. The other is a set of dogma and rules to govern the chosen portion of spirituality.

So, this is a personal choice question, not me trying to disprove someone is whatever. Why do people who do not follow the ruleset of a particular dogma claim it? Why not just say they believe in something, but put no name there? I think that it is rather obvious that someone born into a hindu area and family will tend to be hindu. Likewise with christians, muslims and so. It is arbitrary by birth location which ruleset and myths were socialised into you.

I guess I am wondering why people are joiners even when they don't really believe in the ruleset they are joining. Still not sure this does make sense, but whatever!

*people mentioning that there is some post bible version of christianity would be heretics in the past and without the bible, there would be no christianity because the myths need a source.

Posted: **Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:50 am**

Ananda wrote:I think there is a difference between spirituality and religion. One is a feeling that is trying to make sense of internalised feelings, experiences and so. The other is a set of dogma and rules to govern the chosen portion of spirituality.

Precisely.

Ananda wrote:I guess I am wondering why people are joiners even when they don't really believe in the ruleset they are joining.

I think in a lot of cases, they're not so much joiners as their parents "joined" them as kids, and they've never really thought about changing it.

The whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing was instituted not just because farm families grew their own field hands and the infant mortality rate was appallingly high; it was also a way for the church to increase its membership.

People whose families are churchgoers grow up thinking of church as part of the life of their family -- like the family home, or the annual vacation, or the Christmas roast. It's almost more tradition than it is religious belief. It feels right. And so they may consider "Christian" (or whatever) as part of their identity, regardless of whether they still believe in the tenets of their parents' denomination.

And questioning those tenets can have a profound psychological effect. If you have always defined yourself as X, it can be disturbing to begin thinking of yourself as Y, or as -X. Some folks would rather be comfortable in their thinking than do the work to root out the cognitive dissonances in their thought patterns.

As someone who was not raised in a particular church, I find it fascinating to watch this sort of thing play out.

Posted: **Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:13 pm**

peter wrote:
To never let ill motives drive our treatment of others?
To never see others as sources of something useful to ME to take from, rather than precious humans to treat with dignity?
To always speak forthrightly when we're questioned about something that's within our responsibility?
Well....I do [at least to the best of my ability. Isn't that all that can be asked?]

The Judge of all hearts would not be an impartial judge if He lets me or you - or anyone else - off for extenuating circumstances.
What would He say to those we harmed?

And He would be inadequate for such a task of judging if He does not know the secrets of all human hearts.

TheFallen wrote:There's no real forgiveness nor any value ascribed to repenting in the OT.

No; that's not correct.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I chose strong words because of the entirety of the situation. It is akin to turning 18 and either getting your own apartment or going off to college. Yes, you are still the same person but now all the rules which formerly governed your life via your parents no longer apply...

Good metaphor...

Nullifying rather than invalidating... okay, yeah. It is more like laws not applying to a person once he is dead.

Police officer: "Sir, you are not permitted to loiter here after 6pm. You'll have to move along."
Bystander: "Excuse me officer, but I couldn't help but notice that the person you're reprimanding is dead. I don't believe that regulation applies to him anymore."