Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   jar - On Christianity
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 307 (345122)
08-30-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by iano
08-30-2006 5:23 PM


Q1: Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth existed?
I think such a person existed, and over the years legends grew up about him.
Q2: If yes to Q1, do you believe that what he is reported as having said was in fact said by him (more or less)
I see no reason not to.
Q3: If yes to Q2, do you believe that what he said is true. And if not why not (briefly)
He said a lot of things. Obviously, the religious part of his thought I disagree with. He strikes me when I read the Gospels as highly intelligent.
ABE: As regards his moral ideas, this notion of turning the other cheek doesn't set well with me.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 5:23 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by robinrohan, posted 08-30-2006 6:00 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 157 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 6:42 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 307 (345134)
08-30-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by robinrohan
08-30-2006 5:35 PM


iano
Iano, I would like to have your views on Ringo's idea that New Testament concepts must be modernized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by robinrohan, posted 08-30-2006 5:35 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 6:15 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 307 (345169)
08-30-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
08-30-2006 5:05 PM


Re: The Lens of Time
What was written in the Bible was written from the perspective of 1st century traditions and practices. But Christianity ought to be timeless.
It ought to be for us as much as it was for Jesus' contemporaries. So of course we have to "modernize" it so that it WILL make sense to us.
I'm talking about concepts not practices. Now one of the concepts that is central in the NT is this notion of propitiation to God. It is, of course, an ancient idea, a Pagan idea, but very much alive in the 1st century. It is also a central idea of Christianity down through the ages. Jesus dies as propitiation for our sins. This is very different from little details about living such as when to use our oxen.
Jar eliminates that essential concept and subsititutes instead as one of his modernizations an idea that is not in the NT. This is the notion that we must learn to love ourselves. There is certainly talk in the NT about the fact that we do love ourselves, but it's not seen as some merit or something that we must learn to do. It's just taken as a granted fact about human nature.
So what Jar has done is not modernize but pervert the ideas in the New Testament.
I'm not criticizing here Jar's ideas per se--I'm just saying that they are not Biblical and so he ought not to be claiming that they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 5:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 7:03 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 307 (345179)
08-30-2006 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by iano
08-30-2006 6:42 PM


You've read CS's conundrum I'm sure. So which of his options do you plump for? Insane/liar/truth ...or other
He was deluded.
That's what makes the story so tragic.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 6:42 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 7:05 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 08-30-2006 9:58 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 307 (345183)
08-30-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by ringo
08-30-2006 7:03 PM


Re: The Lens of Time
Who are you addressing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 7:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 7:06 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 169 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 7:10 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 307 (345188)
08-30-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by iano
08-30-2006 7:05 PM


88.95

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 7:05 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 7:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 307 (345192)
08-30-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by ringo
08-30-2006 7:03 PM


Re: The Lens of Time
Sure, Jesus' contemporaries knew more about their own culture and traditions than we do.
But we're talking about Jesus' philosophy.
Screw the concepts.
A philosophy generally contains concepts. The concepts provide the reasons for the practices.
But your posts and robin's posts don't ring true (to me and to some others around here) as coming from people who love themselves.
I can't speak for iano but loving myself comes very easily to me. I've always loved myself, and I always will. But it's not a merit, nor is it something I "learned." It just came naturally. The Biblical writers are right about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 7:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 7:23 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 173 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 7:26 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 307 (345213)
08-30-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
08-30-2006 7:23 PM


Re: The Lens of Time
As I said, that's not the way you come across.
I don't see why.
One problem I've noticed, however, is that some people--not myself, of course--love themselves a bit too much, which makes them unlovable to others. One must be judicious in one's self-love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 7:23 PM ringo has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 307 (345216)
08-30-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by iano
08-30-2006 7:26 PM


Re: The Lens of Time
If you cannot find one instance of Jesus loving himself (hint: "it's like looking for a needle in a stack of needles") how much would you knock off your "he was deluded" score. 10? 20?
"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head."
Due to his self-love, Jesus wanted a bed for the night.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by iano, posted 08-30-2006 7:26 PM iano has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 307 (345294)
08-30-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by kuresu
08-30-2006 10:20 PM


how many people still agree with hitler?
NOt many. Hitler is not a very good example.
ABE: The Buddha would be better.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by kuresu, posted 08-30-2006 10:20 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by kuresu, posted 08-30-2006 11:44 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 307 (345298)
08-30-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
08-30-2006 9:58 PM


And how do you account for the apparent sanity and realism of so many who follow Him? You quote some of them with appreciation, such as Samuel Johnson, Jonathan Edwards, William Law, Pascal. And in fact all of these believed in the whole supernatural package.
These writers never talk about the person of Jesus. What attracts me is that they talk very realistically about the nature of life as it is lived by us--very different from the modern sentimental sensibility, as evidenced by the posters on this forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 08-30-2006 9:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 08-30-2006 11:50 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 08-30-2006 11:54 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 307 (345302)
08-30-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by kuresu
08-30-2006 11:44 PM


explain the american nazis.
A fringe group? Really now . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by kuresu, posted 08-30-2006 11:44 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by kuresu, posted 08-31-2006 12:04 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 307 (345305)
08-30-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
08-30-2006 11:50 PM


That's a cop-out answer. They are all total believers in Jesus, the Deluded One according to you.
I was telling you what attracted me to these writers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 08-30-2006 11:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 08-31-2006 12:05 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 307 (345313)
08-31-2006 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
08-30-2006 11:54 PM


The question is how you account for how these orthodox traditional believers in the deluded Christ talk so much more realistically than those who have the modern sentimental sensibility.
Probably because they are not modern. There were nihilistic writers as well. Shakespeare was technically a member of the Church of England, but he was a nihilist at heart. And there's Hemingway who portrayed life realistically at times, and he only flirted with the Catholic church once because one time it seem to cure his impotence.
In the 60s the world, contrary to popular belief, grew sentimental, and it's been on a campaign ever since to wipe out rational nihilism and make us all public-spirited.
It's a cultural rather than religious matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 08-30-2006 11:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 08-31-2006 12:22 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 307 (345317)
08-31-2006 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
08-31-2006 12:22 AM


No it's not a cultural matter. These guys, certainly Pascal, Edwards and Law are minute-by-minute totally sold-out followers of the supernatural Jesus Christ, and if you read much of them you won't be able to avoid this about them. Shakespeare was at best a nominal Christian and Hemingway's flirting with religion is a ridiculous comparison.
You were asking me why I admired the writings of these devout Christians, and I was explaining to you that the reason I admired their writings was for the same reason I admired the writings of others in the past who were a far cry from devout Christians.
So it's not that they were Christians--it was that they had a view of the world that had some meat in it, not just candy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 08-31-2006 12:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 08-31-2006 12:35 AM robinrohan has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024