Rus' link: "True Religion and Jesus" - DEBATE

[Linna Heartbooger]

Here's the link that's up for discussion.

roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/01/12/why-i-love-true-religion-because-i-love-jesus/

It's a counter to that popular video cybrweez posted, which is a counter to modern church-based hypocrisy masquerading as "Christianity."

This is a rusmeister-enabled thread.
(i.e. he is entierly welcome on this thread if he has the time and inclination.)
There will probably be vigorous debate.
Deeply-held beliefs will probably be assumed to be "fair game" and questioned and attacked in a variety of manners.
People may not always feel listened-to.
I strongly discourage people from speaking in patronizing ways when you notice you're doing it and can rephrase your wording.
(Even if "the other guy" is doing it, too.)

[Linna Heartbooger]

What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion?

Well, I’d ask what exactly you mean by “religion.”

That is a great counter.

But it brings up something I think is a valid question:
Which meaning is the 'real' meaning of the word?
The precise one originally intended?
Or the "practical" one that people are actually using and understanding the word to mean?

We could discuss the question "What does the word 'religion' mean?"
But - and perhaps here you would say that I'm being 'corrupted' by postmodernism, rus - I think it's also useful to ask the PERSON who I'm DIALOGUING WITH, "What's your definition of 'religion'?"
Because I like to be understood.
(yeahhh, I'm gonna give you a bit of the fight you want, I think, rus.)

That said, I do appreciate that guy's point about the original Latin. If it means some variety of "reconnection"... that's truly lovely.

[Orlion]

What if I told you, Jesus came to abolish religion?

Well, I’d ask what exactly you mean by “religion.”

This highlights what I view as a problem with videos like what Weez posted and various other such arguments. I call it the logical fallacy a Jesus. The idea is that some religious outlook is wrong because "it isn't what Jesus really meant." In this case, the guy claims that Jesus, someone who seems to have taken upon him a sort of religious office (a rabbi of sorts), was actually attempting to abolish the very tools he was using to "show people the Father." So we get a bunch of problems.

1) We get people claiming Jesus taught what they want him to have taught, this is usually to get around some problem in their thought (in this case: I want to be spiritual but don't want to attend organized church. I wouldn't have to if Jesus was trying to abolish organized religion. Ergo, Jesus came to abolish religion... Heckler: And failed big time!)

2) Who is anyone to say, "Jesus meant this or that when he said' Benditos son...'?" Let's face it, Jesus is not around to hold a Q & A session, all we have are alleged records of his alleged sayings. How can anyone say anything with absolute certainty? (Rus might say that a in-depth study that clergy of the organized religions this guy belittles would impart authority... or at least some authority. I'd say though it wouldn't impart absolute authority, it'd be more authoritative than what this random person whom I assume hasn't even put in a fraction of the study clergy and trained priests put in has).

Ultimately, there does seem to be at least some agreement among biblical scholars on the meanings of the sayings of Jesus and what the author of said sayings meant. If one does not feel comfortable with or like or disagree with said sayings, I believe the logical outcome is that they don't feel comfortable with or like or disagree with the teachings of Jesus. This attempt to create a new fantasy* surrounding the Jesus story just so they can still feel like they're Christians is just... silly to me.


*I know how that sounds, but I'm not making any statement in this post about the veracity of the Jesus story as presented in the New Testament, merely that the fiction of 'what Jesus meant' is being created where there was none in the person's mind before.

[deer of the dawn]

Let's agree to keep the focus Linna intended, not get lost in the historicity/accuracy of the New Testament report. It is clear from even a first reading of the NT that Jesus spent significant time making strong statements regarding hypocrisy, especially among religious leaders.

To be fair to "Spoken Word", it is clear that he was setting up a dichotomy between "religion" and "faith". The definition he apparently has is that "Religion" is human-centered, pious activity, intended to please Deity through human effort and by ordering life according to rules, regulations, and rituals. Jesus clearly taught that outward conformity is not sufficient for a renewed heart, which is what God is interested in.

That is what the video intended to get across as its message, and it is, after all, a sound-bite-- intended to get attention and stimulate a thought-- and not a dissertation or doctrinal statement.

I also like that he brought its application to politics in. I am sick of being pegged politically as something I'm not. I'm not sure who Jesus would have voted for!

[Orlion]

Let's agree to keep the focus Linna intended, not get lost in the historicity/accuracy of the New Testament report. It is clear from even a first reading of the NT that Jesus spent significant time making strong statements regarding hypocrisy, especially among religious leaders.

I thought I kept to a bare minimum of this. To clarify: how can one claim to follow Jesus if they discount a lot of what he said?

Edit: If these posts would be better in the 'Spoken Words' thread, I'd have no problem with them being moved.

[SerScot]

Didn't Christ say "I come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it."?

[Orlion]

Didn't Christ say "I come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it."?

One of many things he said that appear to be in support of the 'religion' the SW guy says he was trying to abolish. The article Rus posted has another example, where he tells his followers to obey the Pharisees.

[Vraith]

I don't know...it seems to me the critic is playing ticky-tack games with the first while knowing full well what the point was.
I mean, so religion originally meant "to reconnect" or whatever.
Sinister originally meant "to the left/left side." Now it means other things, too [and has for a long time]
Other meanings attach, that doesn't mean they're "wrong." Now, I'm a big fan of etymology and meanings and the morphability, and also of precision/conciseness sometimes.

But it is completely obvious that the original is addressing the power/structural uses and abuses of religion...ironically the defense that religion means reconnect is part of the problem he's addressing because it is abused to disconnect people.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Orlion- I'm actually more concerned about people watching the video than the guy doing the video. I think his intentions are like deer says - using the language to set up that dichotomy.

But I think the guy's intended audience is mostly... disillusioned "good kids / church kids" (of any age) who know the church lingo. He's trying to PUNCH through their defenses - the defenses they've built up by "being so good" that all of a sudden... they "don't need God anymore." (and yet, are miserable for some reason!)

But the video is being promoted to a much wider audience and will probably often be used by people other than the guy who made it to justify things like what you were describing. (below)

(in this case: I want to be spiritual but don't want to attend organized church. I wouldn't have to if Jesus was trying to abolish organized religion. Ergo, Jesus came to abolish religion... Heckler: And failed big time!)

That heckler... he sounds like my dad!

Jesus clearly taught that outward conformity is not sufficient for a renewed heart, which is what God is interested in.

So that could bring up the question... how are we supposed to deal with that problem without getting lost in worrying about what we're doing? (or not doing!)

Let's agree to keep the focus Linna intended, not get lost in the historicity/accuracy of the New Testament report. It is clear from even a first reading of the NT that Jesus spent significant time making strong statements regarding hypocrisy, especially among religious leaders.

I thought I kept to a bare minimum of this. To clarify: how can one claim to follow Jesus if they discount a lot of what he said?

I'd actually gotten the same impression as deer at first, reading your post.
Then I saw what you'd said at the end. (and I was like "wait, this is Orlion.")
Now I'm thinking you were mostly just trying to make sure that we know YOU personally aren't assuming factual accuracy of the Gospels.
(but shall we act as though we assume reasonable accuracy for purposes of being able to have a discussion?)

SerScot- Welllll... that is probably one of the quotes MOST relevant to this discussion!! I think He even says it in the context of defending Himself from accusations of such!

But it is completely obvious that the original is addressing the power/structural uses and abuses of religion...ironically the defense that religion means reconnect is part of the problem he's addressing because it is abused to disconnect people.

HUGE point... if what you're dealing with is REALLY this important, than the abuse of it is MORE significant (and deadly).

[Fist and Faith]

My impression is that Bethke has recently become disillusioned by whichever organized religion/church he had been brought up in, and is reacting against it. That specific institution is probably all he had in mind when he wrote that poem. (Reading some of the comments, Fr. Andrew says that's not the case. "But if you take a look at his website and his fan page on Facebook, it’s clear that this man is a professional. He has submitted his work to the public in order to get his particular message across and also to promote himself as a professional speaker.")

Anyway, it sounds like that. Very shallow, about just one particular set of rules that he now rejects. Fr. Andrew did a great job responding to it. I didn't read it all, since he was spot on with the parts I did read.

[Orlion]

Let's agree to keep the focus Linna intended, not get lost in the historicity/accuracy of the New Testament report. It is clear from even a first reading of the NT that Jesus spent significant time making strong statements regarding hypocrisy, especially among religious leaders.

I thought I kept to a bare minimum of this. To clarify: how can one claim to follow Jesus if they discount a lot of what he said?

I'd actually gotten the same impression as deer at first, reading your post.
Then I saw what you'd said at the end. (and I was like "wait, this is Orlion.")
Now I'm thinking you were mostly just trying to make sure that we know YOU personally aren't assuming factual accuracy of the Gospels.
(but shall we act as though we assume reasonable accuracy for purposes of being able to have a discussion?)

Close. I'm assuming you guys would (quite understandably) read that in my response. Frankly, I don't care, and I don't think 'factual accuracy' or 'historicity' or whatever is important to this conversation (such topics should be reserved for droll conversations at cocktail parties along with whether Homer wrote the Iliad, etc). I'm mostly concerned with how what these people say/argue sync up with what is actually recorded and regarded as canon. In this aspect, Fr. Damick clearly bases his arguments (the ones that can be, anyway) on scripture... or rather, it syncs up with New Testament accounts of what Jesus said (that last bit is an Orlionism, like me refering to God as 'it'... just let it go ). Bethke, on the other hand, doesn't really argue much that does sync up with New Testament accounts... he actually makes up quite a bit (Republicans? Really?). Ultimately, I agree with Fist that Bethke's response to whatever irks him is shallow and would also add that it's mostly an emotional response to whatever practices whatever church in whatever State of the US.

So I agree mostly with Fr. Damick (even if there are some disagreements on particulars). The kid is espousing a response/criticism on a very narrow, very misunderstood concept of organized Christianity. The proof is in the observation that what I do see about Bethke's "poem" that seems to sync with Jesus' teachings is a principal belief in most if not all Christian denominations, including the bible-thumping, Republican-voting Evangelists he presumably disapproves of.

[Cybrweez]

I think the video is to regular church attenders, American evangelical church attenders, and yea, probably towards younger crowd. Its not surprising if you're not a part of that crowd, you don't get some of what he's saying (ie, the Republicans bit). Not much different than reading anything from a culture you're not a part of and not getting some of the subtleties.

[rusmeister]

Dear Linna,
I really appreciate your offering me this opportunity.

But what I said in this thread kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21276
remains in force. Those who read what I said and understand it might appreciate why I am not willing to return to posting here.

There is an essential problem in a forum when the governing philosophy and one that challenges it contradict each other; sooner or later the challenging philosophy must run afoul of the predominant one, no matter how civil and polite. That's what I see, whatever anyone says to the contrary.

Those that want to actually find out more about the view that I accept - for I did not make it, it would be much more accurate to say that it made me - are welcome here:
www.christianforums.com/f145/
There is a sub-forum called "St Justin's" www.christianforums.com/f827/ specifically for debate and challenge of the Orthodox worldview, and so no need to humiliate individual members by telling them they may only post in arbitrary threads, and it is expected that people will disagree with the Orthodox view. Any question may be posted, as long as it is honest and in good faith, any objection that is not mean-spirited may be brought. Anyway, you can find me there under the same name. If anyone ever does post there and wants my input, send me a pm so I know you're there.

To Watchers in general, hail! And may God richly bless you even if you don't believe in Him (yet)!

[Linna Heartbooger]

Close. I'm assuming you guys would (quite understandably) read that in my response. Frankly, I don't care, and I don't think 'factual accuracy' or 'historicity' or whatever is important to this conversation (such topics should be reserved for droll conversations at cocktail parties along with whether Homer wrote the Iliad, etc). I'm mostly concerned with how what these people say/argue sync up with what is actually recorded and regarded as canon.

Orlion- Ahh, of course. That makes perfect sense. I was more just writing "what I would mean" than trying to listen to you and figure out what you were saying...

(that last bit is an Orlionism, like me refering to God as 'it'... just let it go ).

Haha... Well, plenty of people reduce God to an "it" and don't realize they're doing it!

The proof is in the observation that what I do see about Bethke's "poem" that seems to sync with Jesus' teachings is a principal belief in most if not all Christian denominations, including the bible-thumping, Republican-voting Evangelists he presumably disapproves of.

I'm curious what that is... I can guess.. but I'm likely to get it wrong in some aspect. Sorry for taking so bloody long to respond. (Meh.)

[Linna Heartbooger]

Dear Linna,
I really appreciate your offering me this opportunity.

Thanks.

But what I said in this thread kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21276
remains in force. Those who read what I said and understand it might appreciate why I am not willing to return to posting here.

I'm sorry. Sometimes things just really don't work.

I think your time, energy, and how much of your heart you put out before others is your own and very valuable. Peace.

[Fist and Faith]

Dear Linna,
I really appreciate your offering me this opportunity.

But what I said in this thread kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21276
remains in force. Those who read what I said and understand it might appreciate why I am not willing to return to posting here.

There is an essential problem in a forum when the governing philosophy and one that challenges it contradict each other; sooner or later the challenging philosophy must run afoul of the predominant one, no matter how civil and polite. That's what I see, whatever anyone says to the contrary.

Those that want to actually find out more about the view that I accept - for I did not make it, it would be much more accurate to say that it made me - are welcome here:
www.christianforums.com/f145/
There is a sub-forum called "St Justin's" www.christianforums.com/f827/ specifically for debate and challenge of the Orthodox worldview, and so no need to humiliate individual members by telling them they may only post in arbitrary threads, and it is expected that people will disagree with the Orthodox view. Any question may be posted, as long as it is honest and in good faith, any objection that is not mean-spirited may be brought. Anyway, you can find me there under the same name. If anyone ever does post there and wants my input, send me a pm so I know you're there.

To Watchers in general, hail! And may God richly bless you even if you don't believe in Him (yet)!

The problem is not that you disagree with anyone. It would not be a problem if you disagreed with everyone. The problem is that you will not let people who disagree with you have a discussion about their beliefs without you. I saw someone get chastised at that Lewis site for politely disagreeing with Lewis. Now you say that other site has a forum for debate. So you understand what we're objecting to. You just don't want to give that kind of courtesy at a site that is not built around beliefs that are close to your own.

[Orlion]

The proof is in the observation that what I do see about Bethke's "poem" that seems to sync with Jesus' teachings is a principal belief in most if not all Christian denominations, including the bible-thumping, Republican-voting Evangelists he presumably disapproves of.

I'm curious what that is... I can guess.. but I'm likely to get it wrong in some aspect. Sorry for taking so bloody long to respond. (Meh.)

Sheesh, I don't remember... and I really don't want to watch his video again... not like this

What I will say is that when he isn't talking out of his *, whatever he says that 'makes sense' or makes him 'a true Christian' is what many Christian denominations believe.

Something like that. I'm tired out by so much chemistry... the scientific kind, not the awesome kind.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Sheesh, I don't remember... and I really don't want to watch his video again... not like this

oh right... darn time frame..

Something like that. I'm tired out by so much chemistry... the scientific kind, not the awesome kind.

class or job in some chem lab? or lab class? here I got totally off-topic...