'Religion' what is it?

[Ryzel]

I am all for restarting old topics. Especially old topics where I have had no say as yet.

I have not read all the stuff in the old thread yet, but I thought I should give an opinion if nothing else.

Currently I am of the opinion that religion is not just one thing. It is many things, all at once, and probably cannot be easily explained in a few sentences. I see many things that are wrong with most religions, some times those things are the same and some times they are not. I also see many things that are right with most religions and those are also sometimes different. Basically I see religion as a kind of theory that people use to explain some of the things that they cannot themselves explain.

Personally I have no use for any religions that I know of today, mostly because the things that are good with them are not good enough for me to put up with the things that are wrong with them.

[Worm of Despite]

Told myself I wouldn’t get into a discussion, but to hell with it (pun intended)!

When I was a Christian, I went to church so much and heard so much preaching . . .and that compounded with being young and vulnerable to every word an adult said . . .made me have a true fear of going to hell just about every day. I'd kept questioning everything I did--every step I made. The fact I have an inborn perfectionist personality/way about myself/psychology didn't help either; I tried to be the perfect Christian, and it only made me feel like I was putting myself under a moral microscope 24/7--made me feel like I was a dirty sinner everyday, every hour, every second. I could never get over that bump, so I dropped all religion in my life. Now things are a LOT easier; so No, Paul McCartney, I won't "Carry That Weight". Geez, I sound like I'm waxing on to some psychiatrist!

But the fact is I don't need religion to "show me the way" or "help me along". I never did--I just didn't know it when I was a kid. I sure as heck don't need it to tell me "*Pat pat* You're a good boy!" I'm not a dog, needing assurance.

"I've grown up. I don't believe in father figures any more, like God, Kennedy or Hitler. I'm no longer searching for a guru. I'm no longer searching for anything. There is no search. There's nothing. This is it."

[caamora]

I am a christian. Not a bible-beater, but I try to live a life pleasing to God.
I am not a theologian, but I wish I were. However, referring to what Lord Foul posted, I have heard many religious leaders say that to understand the bible, you need to understand the Hebrew language it was written in and the Hebrew meanings therein. Anyway, I was raised Roman Catholic. Basically, that meant that not matter what I did, I was going to hell. I was never taught the grace of God, nor his forgiveness. Catholism taught the bible in symbolism and metaphores. As a child, this made no sense to me. As an adult, I re-read the bible and took it at face value. It suddenly made sense! Religion however, did give me knowledge of the Bible that I would not have had otherwise. I am familiar with the stories and the teachings of the Bible. If I had not had religion, I would not understand God at all. However, understand - religion is not what will make me walk on water or move a mountain. FAITH - that is what will do it!

I was close to abandoning God. I felt that no religion could guide me better than I could guide myself. I felt that my interpretations of the Bible were just as good as any priest could offer and I didn't subscribe to any church because I believed that they were all just after my money. It took a long conversation with my sister to convince me otherwise. She sent me a book called In the Grip of Grace by Max Lucado and New Believer's Bible (Greg Laurie General Editor). These two books made a huge difference in the way I saw the world. I realized that I was heading down the wrong path, but quickly! Religion did not do this for me - faith did.

(Am I testifying? Oh no!)

Anyway, what I wanted to say, Lord Foul, was that much of the Old Testament is hebrew folklore and history. These are stories that have been told by the Hebrews for centuries before the bible was written- back when people told stories rather than writing them down.

...the Bible is sort of a melting pot of past legends and some history. I told him that there have been past flood stories -- long before the bible.

You are right, in a sense about the past flood stories. They were around before the bible was written but the flood story in the bible is the same flood story the Hebrews told which we know as Noah's Ark.

The saddest thing I think in this world today is that many people have chosen to believe in things like astrology.[/b]

[Ryzel]

So is the Ritual of Desecration the Land's flood story

[caamora]

Very possibly!

[Worm of Despite]

However, referring to what Lord Foul posted, I have heard many religious leaders say that to understand the bible, you need to understand the Hebrew language it was written in and the Hebrew meanings therein.[/b]

True. Some say that Judas was never a traitor and that the translation was simply screwed up so bad as to make him look like one. Jesus merely meant for Judas to go fetch the Roman soldier. He didn't actually say, "one of you will betray me". Something like, "one of you will turn me in" or whatnot. Then he whispered to Judas to do the deed. No treason there methinks.

Oh, and what's wrong with astrology? Is it another science vs. religion thing? Not sure what you meant by that--it's wrong to study the universe or it's wrong to believe the universe effects us--or both? I think I may be confusing the word "astrology" for "astronomy". What's the difference between the two?

[Fist and Faith]

Hearthcoal,

I read the thread at the link you gave in the first post of this thread. Based on that, you won't find anybody who is more "from the other side of the issue" than me. You and I don't agree on anything! And I've never known anyone who thinks about this stuff more than I do. So ask away!

Maybe some basics?
I'm an atheist. Technically, I guess an agnostic, since I'm not convinced either way, and don't think we can know. There are things that prevent me from rejecting the possibility of the existence of a creator, but they don't convince me. But I call myself an atheist because I'm not aware of any evidence for any particular creator, nor that the creator - if, indeed, there is one - has any particular plan for, or expectations of, us. So nothing I do, say, or think is for any sort of religious reasons.

Like you, I have no desire to change anybody's mind. If anybody finds happiness in their beliefs, I'm happy for them. As long as nobody tries to hurt me, I have no reason to bother them. But I still find discussions on religion very fun. After all, religion is among the most pervasive and powerful aspects of humankind. That, by itself, fascinates me.

[Hearthcoal]

... the folks at KevinsWatch were neat people, but I am still impressed by your responses to my last post.

(And, no, Sky – the fact that you have "have thought lots about 'religion,' 'the meaning of religion,' 'god and the universe' ... and usually have a lot to say" does not make you obnoxious....You're obnoxious anyway -- truly, I am only teasing - I couldn't resist).

So many ideas, so little time, so little server space...here goes:

I think that it is very important to get some clarification around the meaning of religion. It's a word that means different things to different people. There seems to be some uncertainty about where the English word for religion comes from.

I found two possible sources:

1. Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back; date: 13th century.

2. French, from Latin religio; cf religens pios, revering the gods, Gr. alegien to heed, have care.

I prefer the second definition, myself, but my favorite definition is from the Epistle of James where it states that "pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." It's hard to disagree with the first portion of this statement. As for the second, it can be understood as "staying true to one's convictions.

James' statement is similar to Jesus' assertion. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

When I hear stories, like Foul's, about "Ugly Christians" (Anyone remember a book called The Ugly American), I recognize that although they may consider themselves Christians and may say they believe the Bible (even believe it literally), they are deceiving themselves.

Practicing the kind of religion that Jesus teaches and that James writes about has nothing to do with demanding that everyone else believes a certain way or with scaring people into hell or with guilting them into a lifestyle that someone or some institution teaches is appropriate.

When confronted by "Ugly Christians," I think that you and I should immediately realize that they are either sincere, but very confused about what it means to practice Christianity or they aren't real Christians at all.

Jesus taught a parable recorded in the Gospel of Matthew (chapter 21, starting verse 28 ) that tells of a man with two sons. The man asks each son to work in the vineyard for the day. One son says, "I will" but doesn't. The other son says, "No way," but then regrets what he said and goes to work in the field. Jesus then asks the questions, "Which of the two sons did the will of his father?"

Later in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus tells the Apostles that as they "are going" they are to make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them all that he had taught them.

Becoming a Christian is a matter of inner transformation (made possible by the work of Jesus and brought about by the Holy Spirit). That inner transformation is then is manifested in behavioral transformation. Regrettably, many Christians forget the first part and think they can make the second part happen by forcing "converts" to fit a certain behavioral mold. Arrrggghhhh!!!

- Hearthcoal

BTW - Fist & Faith, how do you avoid falling into nihilism? When I contemplate what it would be like for me to face my life without my belief in God, I can see myself going right down that path. But obviously all the atheists/agnostics are not out there "ending it all" in deep despair, so do you handle it?

[Fist and Faith]

It may seem odd to have an atheist give a definition of Christianity, but here's mine: One who follows Christ.

Of course, this leads to arguments of what he meant when he said such-and-such, as well as of whether the Bible is an accurate record in the first place. But anyway...

I don't know how some people come up with their rules for ruling out others. I worked with a woman who says you are not a Christian if you do not believe, among other things, in the Trinity. If you don't think God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being, you aren't a Christian. Is that part of Jesus' teachings???

Hearthcoal, your thoughts about people who only think themselves to be Christians are difficult to argue against. After all, Jesus' way of teaching was faaaaaaar removed from their scare tactics. And I'm not aware of him saying to beat or kill those who don't do things a particular way. Still, aren't they merely sinners? Most Christians I've talked to say that nobody is capable of not sinning. So are these folks not to be considered Christians because their particular sins are less acceptable?

Or is the problem that they don't repent and confess, as a murderer who is considered a Christian did?

Like I said, who I think should be called a Christian isn't particularly important. Just throwing out thoughts that I've had over the years.

BTW - Fist & Faith, how do you avoid falling into nihilism? When I contemplate what it would be like for me to face my life without my belief in God, I can see myself going right down that path. But obviously all the atheists/agnostics are not out there "ending it all" in deep despair, so do you handle it?

My wife's answer to you is; because life's beautiful. That's easy enough. Why would I be depressed with all the glory around me? Good example - my 4 yo daughter is sitting next to me right this second, eating Frosted Flakes. Looking at the computer screen, she suddenly said, "Bunny smiley face!" (4 bunny smiley faces because she's 4)

But I know it's not always as easy as that, so I'll go in other directions, and say that it just doesn't come up. You know what I mean? I don't know why. I could understand someone being a bit unsettled by the thought that they are in a random existence, with no objective guideposts, with oblivion at the end of the road. But I'm not one of them. I'll occasionally have a brief moment, maybe on average of once every few months, when I get a strong feeling of the fact that I'll one day simply be.....gone. It's brief, like the way deja vu hits you, then it's gone.

(Even if it did depress the heck out of me, wishing things to be other than they are is not evidence that they are, so I still wouldn't believe any religion. But I guess that's another discussion.)

Fact is, I find my beliefs preferrable to the beliefs of some religions. (Other religions I don't have problems with, even if I have no reason to believe that they are true.) Strange as it seems to some (my brother almost has his degree to be a pastor, and my next-door neighbor already is one), I don't feel anything missing. I think religion is an important and fascinating topic, and I've looked into it a whole lot in my life. This mainly means reading books on many religions, but also talking to whoever will talk to me. Co-workers, people knocking on my door, whatever. (I even had a Jehovah's Witness come over every Sunday for a couple months, so I could learn what they believe.) Of course, living in the US means that the overwhelming majority of these people are Christians, so my personal-contact education isn't as well-rounded as I'd like it to be. But most of my reading has been about other religions, so maybe it balances out.

And after all's been said and done, I've found answers that I'm happy with, and accepted some mysteries as unanswerable. And I'll leave you with this quote, from TPTP, about the meaning of my life:

"And if there is no Creator? Or if the creation is untended?"

"Then who is there to reproach us? We provide the meaning of our own lives. If we serve the Land purely to the furthest limit of our abilities, what more can we ask ourselves?"

[Worm of Despite]

Damn skippy. Happy bunny smiley face.

But, it's simply that Christians go, "I don't see how you can live like that." And the agnostics think the same about the Christians, I'm sure. That's the rub! No need to complicate things: it's all said right there, by saying, "I don't see"--so stop there! If you can't see through that person’s eye, then you've lost the key to understanding. And that's one of the problems with today's world: we accept what others show us, we deny what is opposite. It's like with politics. Tell a redneck that this politician doesn't approve of guns, and he'll say, "Well I won't vote for him!" Ever notice how said redneck bases his decision on just the ONE issue, just the ONE stance? That politician has dozens of other issues--"But no, he don't believe in guns! He's a commy!" That's the result of looking at something with one eye. Be like Bran--go get a third eye or something, and then the world changes--you see more!

[I'm Murrin]

...I started to tell him how the bible is sort of a melting pot of past legends and some history. I told him there have been past flood stories--long before the bible. I further said something--not sure exactly what--but I had heard from my English Lit teacher about the thing about Adam and Eve and Company as sort of a metaphor or whatnot. I was telling the guy, "You shouldn't pay attention to the actual events and take them to faith, because they're very much fable and myth--you should pay attention to the message/moral of the stories--not the exact details."...

I'm an atheist myself, and I agree with this view on the bible. I don't feel like I'm ready to join in this discussion just yet, but I'll quote myself from another forum I used to visit (A lot of stuff in here, most of it opinion, so if you are Christian don't take it the wrong way):

I, personally, believe that the bible is like a film with the claim 'based on real events'. The main point is that Jesus was a man who travelled around the israel/palestine region, teaching people his views on how to be better people, and get into heaven (Jesus was a very devout jew). He gained a lot of followers who really believed in his ideas and views.

This is where some of my personal opinion comes in...
This is just speculation. Jesus claimed in the trial at the end of his life that he believed himself to be the son of God. Maybe he did believe this. If he did, it is possible that he was brought to believe this because of the great number of people who believed in him (Note - at this stage he was famous, and no doubt there were rumours going around of him performing miraculous tasks, as the human races once again shows their need for something great to believe in). It is also possible he did not believe his own statement. He was an intelligent man, and he knew that the people putting him on trial wanted to get rid of him. He possibly knew that there was no way he could be let free, so decided to give them what they wanted - For the first time in the three years people had known him, he claimed he was the messiah.

Okay, now back to my point. Over the years it took before the apostles wrote their pieces of what later became the New Testament, the rumours that were around in his life spread with his teachings. first-hand witnesses passed away and left in their place people brought up with the belief in Jesus as their Christ. Rumour becomes legend, and when the apostles (at times ranging from 50 to 300 years after Jesus' death) collected together all the stories and teachings, they put together a story that had al the rumours as fact. No-one knows anything about Jesus before the age of 30, and yet a story is included of his parents and his birth - based on the real events of King Herod's rule.
A rumour without any discouraging evidence can be a powerful thing - It spreads (in this case even further and faster with the travels of the disciples), it grows, rumour becomes myth, myth becomes legend, legend becomes fact.


And then there are the conversions. How do you turn nations of pagans whose gods appear in human form and commit sins (in the christians eyes)? You relate the stories of your god to their own. The Greeks, for example, were known to be doubting their gods, because they believed that they weren't as god-like as they should be. Along come the christian missionaries, with a tale of a god who is good, and kind, and forgives sins, and tales of a son of god and a human woman (a demi-god, if you will - familiar territory for the greek (and Roman) culture.).

And so stories are created, altered, and spread, becoming further and further from the facts around which they were originally based. Thus, the New Testament was created, not from personal accounts of Jesus' life, but from legends, and myths.

[[Syl]]

Anybody who has looked around the Hangar will know that Fist and I see eye to eye (ish) on a lot of things.

I could stretch some definitions to their breaking point and say I'm a Christian, but it would be a very misleading statement. I could say I'm a follower of Zen (not Buddhist), but that would be like saying I'm a follower of Mathematics. For me, Atheism is too narrow-minded and Agnosticism is too wishy-washy. The best I can offer is "Zen Solipsist."

According to the Belief-o-matic I'm a Universal Unitarian.

[Worm of Despite]

Well, Sylv, so many versions of the afterlife and so many different gods and religions--and each one says they're the ONE, they're the TRUTH. If that's the case, then only one can be right, only one can be the truth. I don't think atheism is narrow-minded--I think it's as dead-set in its beliefs as any other system of belief is--which, in atheism's case, is no belief. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Santa.

Maybe all I just said is over-simplistic.

But, I just like the path of science, cause science is reality--science is the only way that actually SHOWS you proof, shows you facts, shows you REASONS and lets you KNOW, instead of BELIEVE. Knowledge is more powerful than belief. And the best thing about science? It doesn’t ask you to believe in it or not; it doesn’t say, “Hey, if you form your own opinions about me, you got to hell.”

I mean, what if throughout school your teachers went by belief instead of knowledge? "Gee, Johnny," your teacher would say, "I believe that answer's correct." "Are you sure, teacher?! What if it's that one instead?" "Well, Johnny, just have faith, is all I can say."

I’d like to believe there were magic times in the ancient days, where men were swallowed by whales and saved, and people walked on water, and then all of a sudden it just STOPPED. I’d like to, just like most parents like to tell their kids about Santa, like to give contrived, convoluted answers when their child says, “Mom, where do babies come from?” The Bible does the same thing, but, unlike parents, it never tells us the truth when we’re older. But that’s okay, I don’t need it to, at my old age.

[caamora]

I believe that you can learn many things from other religions and beliefs - even athiesim. I find it hard to be tolerant of christians who act in very rigid and unchristian ways! Being a christian, I try to keep an open mind to others' beliefs and try not to be too judgemental.

Science today is a wonderful thing. Just remember that science is also based on theory. What one scientist concludes another scientist may refute. It happens all the time. So, do not make the mistake of thinking that science is infallible. Just like religion, science has its different schools of thought!

I will give you an example. Please bear with me if I don't make sense. I was watching a program on the History Channel about the theory of evolution.

Scientists discovered the remains of a woman's body that was millions of years old. They called her "Lucy." Scientists felt they could prove that every creature on earth could have their evolution traced. Every creature except man. Lucy was an enigma because they could not find ANY evolutionary tree tracing to her. These scientists were perplexed and upset with the idea that man was SPECIAL AND UNIQUE to nature. Without any evolutionary branches, this indeed made man different. Where all other creatures had evolutionary paths that looked like family trees, man had just a single strand. They could not accept this.

A few years later, a skull was discovered which was about 1,000 years different in age to Lucy. After measuring the skulls of both discoveries, the scientists concluded that the second skull was different and therefore, an evolutionary branch-off from Lucy. Therfore, man HAD evolved.

Now, the problem I had with this is the measuring of the skulls. The difference in measurements of the facial structure were minute. I had to rewind repeatedly to try and see a difference - a difference which I could not detect (The rewinding was made possible by TiVo ). I felt as if they could have taken my skull and measured it against anyone else who is now living and say "oh - one evolved from another!" This was NOT irrefutable proof! The skulls were found in two different parts of the world. Isn't it just possible that the people looked differently? It's not as if the cranium sizes were different as to suggest a larger and smaller brain. The measurements were of the cheekbones ONLY! How many people do you know who have either large or small cheekbones? It would be like measuring my face with Sophia Loren's! She has very prominent features. I don't! All of the science was inconclusive at best! From what I saw, man is still SPECIAL AND UNIQUE.

Granted, I am not a scientist. But it did not take a scientist to see that they had pre-conceptions of what they wanted to find. These scientists were not opened to any other idea. Their only desire was to find proof that man had evolved.

But, even if that wasn't the case, it is our duty to question these things. Science is not proof. There is always someone who will look at scientific evidence and call it something different.

I am not saying that science is untrue or false. I am just saying that we need to keep our eyes and ears open and question these things.

By the way, I am a christian, but I also believe in evolution.

[Fist and Faith]

Sylvanus,
I agree about atheism being somewhat narrow-minded. It is, after all, a declaration that there is NO creator. Since it is logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something for which there is no evidence, the statement can only be based on a belief that is not much different from religious belief. Assuming as fact something that cannot be proven will only cloud judgement, pushing the observer's conclusions in some directions and away from others.

But I think agnosticism has definitions other than the "I can't make up my mind" way that I assume you're thinking of. I guess in the long run it mean that no decision has been made. But I think "No definite answer is possible" fits that bill, and yet it is a conclusion.

caamora,
I didn't see that show you're talking about, and I don't know much detail about any of this, so I can't be at all specific about the problems you have with it. Right off the bat, though, they are not capable of dating things that are millions of years old to within a thousand years. The various methods of dating things aren't nearly that precise.

And I've never heard of using skull features as a method of dating!!! That's nuts. Anybody ever heard of this? It doesn't even make any sense. To date a fossil based solely on physical features would require that we know what changes to expect, and at what intervals. We have no way of predicting either.

As for the family tree of humanity, it does, indeed, have branches. For example, Neanderthals and Cromagnons were cousins. They had a common ancestor. But the Neanderthals eventually died out. They just couldn't survive with the changes the world was going through. But the Cromagnon survived, and the process of evolution continued, resulting in us.

Lots of the skulls that they find are mysteries. They can only guess at several possibilities. A skull that dates to somewhere between the common ancestor of the Neanderthal and Cromagnon, and the death of the Neanderthal, might be the ancestor of one or the other, or it might be yet another evolutionary line that failed (like the Neanderthal) - a cousin to both.

From what I saw, man is still SPECIAL AND UNIQUE.

Agreed!:)

[[Syl]]

Hmm, wishy-washy was definately the wrong term to use... agnostics do generally have a firm conviction that the existance of any god figure is unknowable, but I disagree to a point. The ultimate truth is knowable in that it must pervade and effect everything (even if that truth is nothing, then it's a zero-effect (GREAT movie btw, tho completely unrelated) relationship... [the universe was made from nothing, but sometimes the nothing shows through... some zen master... form in void/void in form]), including one's own self. I would argue that these effects are noticable if you know how or bother to look for them (basis for I Ching, I believe). The effects are not the thing, though, and that's where it gets debatable for me... where I draw the solipsism from.

[Hearthcoal]

...this morning, (should never have peeked at the forum), but I just have to throw out a couple of responses.

1. To Fist & Faith:

I agree completely that a Christian is a follower of Christ. But as a follower of Christ myself, I would take that definition one step further and say that to be a follower of Christ there must be an inner transformation that is brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit that sooner or later manifests itself in outward ways. (Note: "inner" is not to be confused with "instant".) It is the inner transformation that give a person the ability to truly follow Christ.

Jesus taught that when he physically departed Earth, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, would come (Gospel of John, chapters 14-17, aka "The Upper Room Discourse). One of his jobs (if you will) would be to guide the followers of Christ "into all truth." "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance all that I have told you."

In these same chapters, Jesus tells the disciples that anyone who loves him will keep his commandments and anyone who does not keep his commandments does not love him. When Jesus spoke of "keeping" or "not keeping" he was talking about living a lifestyle consistent with his teaching. He also says that his followers are to "love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command."

Regarding the so-called "Ugly Christian," I would say that based on (but not limited to) what Jesus taught here in the Gospel of John that the UC is not practicing what Jesus taught. This is what I meant in my earlier post, when I said that:

When I hear stories, like Foul's, about "Ugly Christians" (Anyone remember a book called The Ugly American), I recognize that although they may consider themselves Christians and may say they believe the Bible (even believe it literally), they are deceiving themselves.

When confronted by "Ugly Christians," I think that you and I should immediately realize that they are either sincere, but very confused about what it means to practice Christianity or they aren't real Christians at all.

I would say that my assessment allows for the possibility that they are simply sinning, like you (F&F) said in your response.

I find it sad that most people know so little about what they themselves believe, regardless of whether they claim to believe the teachings of Jesus or Gandhi or Buddhism or science. Instead of concentrating on what they personally believe and truly trying to live up to that standard, they turn on others and pick at them for faults in their belief systems.

I find it interesting that Jesus, to the best of my knowledge, never "slammed" anyone for what they believed. Instead, he consistently preached against hypocrisy and those who claim to believe one thing but practice another.

2. To Foul:

I am going to include a rather lengthy quote from C.S. Lewis, because I would like to know how you (and anyone who wants to) would respond to it:

Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He as always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time...this man, since He was a Jew...meant [by God] a Being outside the world who had made it [the world] and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

One part of the claim tends to slip past us...the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. What should we make of a man, himself unrobbed...who announced that he forgave you for...stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people who their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended by those offenses. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regards as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.

Yet...even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit...Christ says the He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of his sayings.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

(I have edited this slightly just for the sake of length. You can read the whole thing for yourself if you are wondering what I "dotted" out. Mere Christianity, Book II, Chapter 3 The Shocking Alternative.)

- Hearthcoal

[I'm Murrin]

I watched an extremely interesting documentary on Discovery Civilisation the other day, about a split in the Jesus church shortly after his death - The church in these times was run by James (Jesus' brother, eldest of four) and Paul (A Turk who had never met Jesus, but believed that the 'spiritual' jesus communicated with him) - the two men believed very different things about Jesus, and eventually their disagreements resulted in Christianity (The Pauline movement) being formed, and the original Jesus movement vanishing.
Now to the point - this documentary was about how the other movement viewed Jesus, and the truth about Jesus' life. Pauline teachings (the very stuff that makes up the new testament today) were based on personal beliefs of the followers, not actual fact - the truth is, Jesus had a father, he wasn't born in Bethlehem, he was supported by the Jewish leaders, and Pontius Pilate was a ruthless tyrant who would never have offered to pardon a man condemned to death.
It also shed some light on a few misconceptions - the word Messiah (Greek word is Christ) is not a term for the son of God or a holy saviour - it is a term referring to royalty, specifically to the man who would lead the Jews out of their oppression by the Romans.
Also - Jesus himself didn't believe the stuff people say today - he was taught by John the Baptist, and from that he carried on John's teachings - that the Kingdom of God on Earth would arrive within his own lifetime, and he should prepare the way.


*Reads through again* Damn, sorry about that - I have a tendancy to rant a little when I get on these subjects...

[Worm of Despite]

Didn't have time to read all the replies, but I agree with Fist and Faith:

I agree about atheism being somewhat narrow-minded. It is, after all, a declaration that there is NO creator. Since it is logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something for which there is no evidence, the statement can only be based on a belief that is not much different from religious belief.

Exactly! If atheism is narrow-minded in its declaration of NO creator, then religion is just as narrow-minded in its declaration OF a creator.

edit:

Okay, back! Hearth, I read the C.S. Lewis thing, but I've got different feelings than Mr. Narnia does, I'm sure you know!! But oh well, I'm not going to post them just yet. I wrote up my views and a decent argument/reply to what Lewis said, but I don't want to post it just yet, because I wanna add more fuel to our little friendly flame (you know, to think of it, this thread really is a flame, but it's the first friendly one! Like friendly fire in war!) Heh, okay, sorry, but here's something I wrote two days ago and didn't get around to post. Munch on it if ya want, and later I'll post what I've written concerning the Head Pooba of the Inklings or whatever he was!
~


You know, it all begins with belief, as far as religion is concerned. First of all, the question is why do you believe your religion is right? Because the Bible told you so? Because you were raised in a household that told you so? Because you were told you’d go to hell if you didn’t believe in it?

Think for a minute: how many Christians you think there’d be RIGHT NOW if, in the beginning, the Bible had been much different--different, as to where it said: “Hey, if you don’t want to believe in us, that’s fine.”

How many God-fearing Christians would there be on this earth if they knew it wouldn’t effect their afterlives if they didn’t accept Christianity? How many would there be if there were no fears of hell, compared to Christianity as it is now, WITH fear of hell? No answer needed--you can imagine! Christianity would have never made it past its days as a Jewish sect, I’d bet, if they suddenly started spouting, "Salvation with no strings attached! 100% guaranteed--no threat of hell, thus no obligations! We don’t even WANT YOUR MONEY!” Good bye, Mr. Christianity. With money and hell, the two driving forces gone . . .geez, just imagine where it would be now! Nowhere! But, come on, admit it; more than “some” Christians have worse reasons for believing in God than football fans have for loving one team over another. “Because I was born in Tennessee, I say “Go Titans!”

[Worm of Despite]

Don't want to swamp the above post anymore, so I'm going to make a new reply. My gooses, I hate saying too much, but I gotta add this!!

This is not the C.S. Lewis reply, but it does sorta tap it a bit.

I feel that people think it's really something special--really a diamond in the rough--for Jesus to have thought he was the son of God and to have said things in the manner he said them. But aren't many Christians in the same state of mind as Jesus was, in a strange sense? Think about it: they are good people--loving people--and all Christians think, I'm sure, that they're in danger of possibly going to hell, however remote the chance.

Many Christians are the most scrupulous, valiant soldiers of their holy faith, and I'm sure just as their zealous fanaticism drives them, they must recognize the gas behind their driving force: the feeling like the floor below them is only held up by the will of God--that they're close to damnation, and they're inherently damnable creatures, and they're only here because God wills them to be! I mean, isn't that "crazy", if you want to call what Jesus thought crazy? I'm bad at articulating this point, so just look at it as simply as I can stress it:

Jesus thought he was the son of God. A good person thinks he might go to hell. Do you see how it's possible for us to think something just as radical as Jesus did?