Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 204 (251986)
10-15-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ringo
10-15-2005 1:10 PM


Re: Random thoughts on the law
It's really that simple.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 10-15-2005 1:10 PM ringo has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 204 (251987)
10-15-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ringo
10-15-2005 1:10 PM


unsupported assumptions
Hi, Ringo.
There is also a third assumption that modern evangelicals make: that their 21st century notions of ethics, based as they are on the liberal democratic ideals of the Enlightenment, also exemplify this absolute morality. That is why they have to explain the "problems" presented by, for an example that you are engaged on another thread, how it is that a just god could send bears out to kill a bunch of kids. That is only a "moral conundrum" for contemporary evangelicals -- to the writers of the Old Testament and their intended audience such an action, in the context in which it occurred, would have been perfectly just according to their standards of morality (involving respect for elders) and would not have presented any problems whatsoever. This is another point that I have tried to make on another thread (concerning the first Passover and the killing of the innocent Egyptian first born).
But this issue may be off-topic for this thread. I am hoping that the interesting question of why we should automatically ascribe "perfect morality" to God is relevant, but maybe we are wondering off topic here as well.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 10-15-2005 1:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 10-15-2005 1:31 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 63 of 204 (251988)
10-15-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Chiroptera
10-15-2005 1:22 PM


Re: unsupported assumptions
Chiroptera writes:
I am hoping that the interesting question of why we should automatically ascribe "perfect morality" to God is relevant....
It's relevant to what I've been saying, anyway.
The only morality which is useful is morality from our own point of view - because it's the only point of view that we have.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 1:22 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 1:53 PM ringo has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 204 (251990)
10-15-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ringo
10-15-2005 1:31 PM


Re: unsupported assumptions
What is interesting, Ringo, that if one actually reads the Old Testament, one is left with the feeling that the writers themselves viewed Yahweh as a fallible moral actor, little different than a human king. Sure, one must revere and respect him, especially since he is usually pretty good, and that means also that one simply must put up with his foibles and mistakes.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 10-15-2005 1:31 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 2:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 65 of 204 (251993)
10-15-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Chiroptera
10-15-2005 1:53 PM


Re: unsupported assumptions
quite.
nowhere does the old testament suggest that god is perfect. simply that he is deserving of worship. why? the whole entire basis of judaism is "i am the lord thy god who brought you out of egypt". he is powerful enough to have provided for their escape and thus their future as a people. that is why they must worship him; because without him they would not exist. in genesis, the suggestion is that the characteristics of god are all knowledge and eternal life. this says nothing of righteousness. the old testament speaks of people being 'perfect' as being men of faith such as moses (even though his faith failed) and david and so forth who depended on god to provide for them. this has nothing to do with the great sins many of them perpetrated, it has to do with their faith and how recklessly they pursued their god and a joyous relationship with him (as david's dancing in his skivies).
i would suggest that pauline christianity focusses FAR too greatly on the rules to the detriment of the joy of faith. perhaps god is not the panultimate being who created the universe and everything in it, maybe he's just some really cool guy who way long time go achieved knowledge of all things and eternal life. maybe he's a different kind of creature. whatever. immaterial. if he exists, then he should be enjoyed, not viewed as a catholic school teacher waiting to smack you with a ruler everytime you look like you might be thinking the wrong thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 1:53 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 10-15-2005 2:21 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 3:31 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 204 (251994)
10-15-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by macaroniandcheese
10-15-2005 2:15 PM


Pauline?
Paul was not Jesus.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 2:15 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 3:10 PM jar has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 67 of 204 (252000)
10-15-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
10-15-2005 2:21 PM


Re: Pauline?
no. but paul is viewed as the founder of the church.
jesus didn't discuss a whole great number of rules... certainly not on the scale of paul. jesus demonstrated love. paul does not. neither does his church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 10-15-2005 2:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 10-15-2005 3:23 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 68 of 204 (252005)
10-15-2005 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by macaroniandcheese
10-15-2005 3:10 PM


Re: Pauline?
Paul was building a franchise. He was a great Spin doctor, more than willing to play fast and loose with the facts to help the concession. He was a Carny Barker, "Step right up and see the two headed woman".
His job was to get them in the tent.
He was also very wrong about much that he preached. There were many parts of the Christian message he never quite got. For example, he always expected the end of the world within HIS lifetime and that clouded and colored much of his preaching. His view on woman, marriage and kids are a good example of being colored by the short term view.
He was also at heart a converted Rabbinical Jew, a fanatic then, a fanatic after. He could never view the whole spectrum as did Jesus, rather his vision was limited to black and white, Paul's way or the highway.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 3:10 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 3:32 PM jar has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 204 (252010)
10-15-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by macaroniandcheese
10-15-2005 2:15 PM


pagan innovations
Thanks for your comments, brennakimi. I always appreciate when someone takes what I wanted to say and says it better, even adding some good points along the way.
quote:
nowhere does the old testament suggest that god is perfect.
The idea a single perfect creator is a pagan Greek idea (the Greeks having been very concerned with the concept of "perfection") that somehow got grafted onto Christianity. I'm not sure whether this was due to Paul (reportedly a well-educated natural-born Roman citizen, and therefore presumably very familiar with Greco-Roman culture), or whether it was part of the indigenous evolution of pre-Christian Judaism under the influence of post-Alexander Hellenistic civilization.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 2:15 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2005 3:34 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 70 of 204 (252011)
10-15-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
10-15-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Pauline?
precisely. but my point is that the church never got past paul. i'm suggesting that that is exactly what you have to do in order to see that it's about loving god and enjoying him not following a bunch of rules made up by a self-depracating, misogynistic gay man who could never accept that fanaticism isn't cool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 10-15-2005 3:23 PM jar has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 71 of 204 (252013)
10-15-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chiroptera
10-15-2005 3:31 PM


Re: pagan innovations
i try.
yeah. the greeks were way too interested in two things. perfection and buttsex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2005 3:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 72 of 204 (252036)
10-15-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
10-12-2005 6:30 PM


Re: knowing how to do the right thing is often much harder
I would like to say that I find myself standing in between jar's and holmes' thoughts.
I may be wrong, but like jar I think people get a little too hung up with The Law aspect of the Scriptures. However, I don't believe that Christ dumped the Law. I think he fulfilled it for us.
I admit that many seem to make the Law into a sole issue of morality. While I do think that morality is covered in the Law, what many seem to forget is that the Law's focus also appears to be the resolving of the separation of the Jewish people's culture until the coming of Christ.
In this sense, at least as far as I understand it, when Christ came, he fulfilled the Law not so much so that Christians were no longer considered guilty when they sinned. Rather, through Christ, the Gentiles could now enter into the fold and believe alongide the Jews.
What I mean by this is that through Christ the Gentile's were now considered Israelites and co-heirs to salvation. Whereas formerly one had to be strictly an Israelite in order to preserve the seed of the Messiah, now, since the Messiah had come, the walls of division were forever broken.
The end result of this, as far as I understand, is that the rules and regulations which were specifically targetting the preservation of the Jewish identity no longer held together. As such, if I'm understanding this correctly, Jesus now exclusively held out the way to enter into the kingdom -- whereas formerly it was strongly associated with the Israelites.
In short, Christ appears to have brought in the Gentiles by fulfilling their Jewish identity for them. For example, a Jewish male may still choose to be circumcized if they chose to carry on tradition. However, this aspect of the Law appears to be fulfilled by Christ and no longer necessary for proper worship. In fact, a Gentile appears to have not had the requirement of The Law whereby they needed to be circumcized in order to belong to God's chosen people. Since Christ was circumcized, he fulfilled that aspect of the Law for them -- and all people who wanted to enter from then on in.
Although there are many other things that I would like to note as a Catholic (such as my belief of the transformation of the covenants into sacraments), speaking from my own Christian perspective, that's generally how I see it anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 10-12-2005 6:30 PM Silent H has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 73 of 204 (252050)
10-15-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
10-12-2005 6:30 PM


Laws and Judgements
quote:
It seems inconsistent with the fact that he clearly dumped the Mosaic Laws, and expressed quite consistently that everyone should not be judging each other. Saying spirit rather than letter of law, still allows people to judge one another... even if one has concern for the individual. Indeed concern for others is sometimes used to back up judgements (for your own good!).
Could you share with me where you feel Jesus dumped the laws and that others should not be judging others. I have a good idea, but I would like to know where you see it specifically. I think I can show you that he didn't.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 10-12-2005 6:30 PM Silent H has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 74 of 204 (252331)
10-17-2005 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ringo
10-15-2005 12:06 PM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Ringo writes:
Yes, I am assuming for the purpose of this discussion that both Jesus and Paul were quoted accurately. What Jesus said trumps what Paul said every time.
When I refer to translators, etc., I am referring to the letter of the law and how words can be changed by multiple copyings, etc.
A fair assumption. Now in assuming that is there not another assumption that must automatically follow (purely for the purposes of discussion)? The only way that Jesus words can be considered accurate is that God inspired the writers to ensure this would happen. After all, there is no record of scribes recording everything Jesus said (and even if there were, these people could have made mistakes). Furthermore, two of the Gospels are written by people who weren't quoting Jesus from first hand experience.
God inspiring the writers so as to ensure no error would mean Paul was as inspired as any recorder of Jesus' words. Would it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 10-15-2005 12:06 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Funkaloyd, posted 10-17-2005 8:33 AM iano has replied
 Message 77 by jar, posted 10-17-2005 10:21 AM iano has replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 204 (252351)
10-17-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by iano
10-17-2005 5:40 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
iano writes:
The only way that Jesus words can be considered accurate is that God inspired the writers to ensure this would happen.
I don't think that this is the case (it depends how accurate "accurate" is), but even if we assume that God insured that Jesus was quoted accurately, there's still no reason to assume that God "inspired" all of the Gospels (especially as there are differences between them). Nor do we need to assume that he inspired all of the authors whose works are included in the New Testament (e.g. Paul), or the members of the various synods that determined what was to be included in the Bible.
Think of it this way: if tomorrow thousands of Christian leaders the world over decided to include the Book of Mormon in the Bible, would you automatically believe that Joseph Smith was inspired by God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 5:40 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 10-17-2005 9:00 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024