); I'm just trying to say why I may sound dismissive or flippant. I'm happy to discuss / answer questions, though, as I've told folks on this board before. Again, apologies if I sound kinda jerk-ish - it's why I hesitate to join in until I see something way off.
Good stuff.I'm a deist because that's as far as science can take me. I think everything after the Big Bang happened according to natural law. Where the original ball of matter came from and what happened before that? Who knows, and I allow for the possibility of there being a higher being/society that created it. I don't believe in divine intervention or anything like that. Watchmaker God stuff. I've felt this way since my teens but discovered the name for it while in a college history class and it clicked into place as an actual thing.
The thing that separates me from Atheists is that I allow for the possibility of God, and I don't care who knows I'm a deist and I only bring it up in this context. *jab*
There is more I'll say later but I want this passage to stand on its own.
This is where I am as well, right up to the JC part. I would posit that man created JCs divinity to create a religion, not the other way around. It seems like the Occams Razor answer to me which parlays into how one would interpret the First Council of Nicaea. The differences of opinion about this paragraph highlights the fork where you and I part ways.Where I'm at now is the possibility that God created the universe via BB (Catholic profession of says has a great line that says "through Him all things were made" which very well could translate to Watchmaker - He went 'bam!' and look what happened, and did send JC at a specific point in time when needed). This might reconcile the non-religious science with the religious creationism.I'm a deist because that's as far as science can take me. I think everything after the Big Bang happened according to natural law. Where the original ball of matter came from and what happened before that? Who knows, and I allow for the possibility of there being a higher being/society that created it. I don't believe in divine intervention or anything like that. Watchmaker God stuff. I've felt this way since my teens but discovered the name for it while in a college history class and it clicked into place as an actual thing.
The thing that separates me from Atheists is that I allow for the possibility of God, and I don't care who knows I'm a deist and I only bring it up in this context. *jab*
There is more I'll say later but I want this passage to stand on its own.
Maybe a couple examples of what you're thinking would help, perhaps some specific passages or more abstracted ideas, because OT has loads of stuff about laws of man, what God said, what was allowed/not allowed, etc.So do the writings in the old testament have any bearing, in your opinion, on today's idea of morality?
Went to Grove City College (pretty frickin' conservative, but good education) for religion & history, then went to seminary with a focus on history... and will be going for another degree in Christian history, focusing on East Asian stuff (particularly Korea). I really enjoy scrutinizing & critically looking at history / religious thought.Where did you go? When I went to SVC I minored in RS just out of personal interest. I looked at a dual Law/Divinity program at Duquense for a second, until I realized what it was.
Ok, good take. I disagree on the man-created notion of JC's divinity because I believe in all of the chronicaling of what JC actually said (He was very clear about who he was, His relation to God, and what it meant to believe in Him) and what happened to him - that he was indeed crucified, in fact died and was buried, and rose as predicted.This is where I am as well, right up to the JC part. I would posit that man created JCs divinity to create a religion, not the other way around. It seems like the Occams Razor answer to me which parlays into how one would interpret the First Council of Nicaea. The differences of opinion about this paragraph highlights the fork where you and I part ways.Where I'm at now is the possibility that God created the universe via BB (Catholic profession of says has a great line that says "through Him all things were made" which very well could translate to Watchmaker - He went 'bam!' and look what happened, and did send JC at a specific point in time when needed). This might reconcile the non-religious science with the religious creationism.I'm a deist because that's as far as science can take me. I think everything after the Big Bang happened according to natural law. Where the original ball of matter came from and what happened before that? Who knows, and I allow for the possibility of there being a higher being/society that created it. I don't believe in divine intervention or anything like that. Watchmaker God stuff. I've felt this way since my teens but discovered the name for it while in a college history class and it clicked into place as an actual thing.
The thing that separates me from Atheists is that I allow for the possibility of God, and I don't care who knows I'm a deist and I only bring it up in this context. *jab*
There is more I'll say later but I want this passage to stand on its own.
Good get on that line, though. I never thought of it that way. Have the Catholics been on to something all along?
I suppose a lot of it has to do with homosexuality, what you can and cannot eat, what you can an cannot wear, etc. Mostly Leviticus. I think there is a lot of hatred toward homosexuals (obviously only from some) that is backed by the old testament, however many of the laws in that same book are simply brushed off. I recall growing up in the Catholic church being told numerous times that you cannot pick and choose the parts of the bible you believe. It's all or nothing. I think there are more and more progressive Christians that recognize that go against that idea and stick mostly to the new testament.Maybe a couple examples of what you're thinking would help, perhaps some specific passages or more abstracted ideas, because OT has loads of stuff about laws of man, what God said, what was allowed/not allowed, etc.So do the writings in the old testament have any bearing, in your opinion, on today's idea of morality?
I think that's the nature of c2i's legit question, though, so fair game.It's low hanging fruit to pick the odd/archaic stuff out of the OT so I'll let it pass.
*slips on wool/linen mixed shirt, walks away*
A girl I dated went to Grove City and enjoyed it. Honestly, your degree path sounds like Heaven (hah) from a pure interest standpoint, something I'd do if I had a thousand lives to live. I really think understanding religion is a precursor to understanding other cultures and is extremely valuable. I'm really glad I got to meet and work with Muslims in Afghanistan because it has shaped my picture of that faith in a good way, even living the hell first hand of what the bad people are doing to exploit it.Went to Grove City College (pretty frickin' conservative, but good education) for religion & history, then went to seminary with a focus on history... and will be going for another degree in Christian history, focusing on East Asian stuff (particularly Korea). I really enjoy scrutinizing & critically looking at history / religious thought.Where did you go? When I went to SVC I minored in RS just out of personal interest. I looked at a dual Law/Divinity program at Duquense for a second, until I realized what it was.
Though I'm somewhat conservative in my beliefs/approach, Grove City'd view me as liberal, I'd bet.
St. Vincent's got a pretty campus; I liked it.
Yeah, going to Korea did that for me as well (in dealing with Buddhists instead of Muslims), even with discussing stuff with Korean Christians - a completely different background gives new insight. And the degree path's fun except for it not giving me much option besides teaching or being a pastor (which the latter, I don't want to do, haha). In terms of studying, though, wouldn't trade it for the world.A girl I dated went to Grove City and enjoyed it. Honestly, your degree path sounds like Heaven (hah) from a pure interest standpoint, something I'd do if I had a thousand lives to live. I really think understanding religion is a precursor to understanding other cultures and is extremely valuable. I'm really glad I got to meet and work with Muslims in Afghanistan because it has shaped my picture of that faith in a good way, even living the hell first hand of what the bad people are doing to exploit it.Went to Grove City College (pretty frickin' conservative, but good education) for religion & history, then went to seminary with a focus on history... and will be going for another degree in Christian history, focusing on East Asian stuff (particularly Korea). I really enjoy scrutinizing & critically looking at history / religious thought.Where did you go? When I went to SVC I minored in RS just out of personal interest. I looked at a dual Law/Divinity program at Duquense for a second, until I realized what it was.
Though I'm somewhat conservative in my beliefs/approach, Grove City'd view me as liberal, I'd bet.
St. Vincent's got a pretty campus; I liked it.
I'm shocked about how little is written about JC by contemporary authors. Even the Gospels were written long after his death:
So, in total respect I ask this, and will not snark regardless of the response: do you think that some/a lot/maybe all of what was written about JC (OT/NT, including quotes attributed to him and written by others), is a grand farce?
Most researchers place the date of Jesus’ death at Passover time around the year 30.
The earliest New Testament books, the letters written by Paul, were composed in the decade of the 50s.
In the mid-60s, James, Peter, and Paul are all killed. Peter and Paul likely perished during the persecution of the church in Rome by Nero. The deaths of these important church leaders likely encouraged the writing down of narratives about Jesus.
In the year 70, Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, effectively ending a Jewish revolt against the Empire that had begun four years earlier.
Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/c21online ... spels.html
So true vis-a-vis OT vs. NT.I suppose a lot of it has to do with homosexuality, what you can and cannot eat, what you can an cannot wear, etc. Mostly Leviticus. I think there is a lot of hatred toward homosexuals (obviously only from some) that is backed by the old testament, however many of the laws in that same book are simply brushed off. I recall growing up in the Catholic church being told numerous times that you cannot pick and choose the parts of the bible you believe. It's all or nothing. I think there are more and more progressive Christians that recognize that go against that idea and stick mostly to the new testament.Maybe a couple examples of what you're thinking would help, perhaps some specific passages or more abstracted ideas, because OT has loads of stuff about laws of man, what God said, what was allowed/not allowed, etc.So do the writings in the old testament have any bearing, in your opinion, on today's idea of morality?
To me, reading through the old testament I see an angry, jealous, vindictive God, and reading through the new testament I see a loving accepting God. The differences are very striking.
) think a central function of any species is to preserve itself and to do so must propagate. For humans, and I think most species, this means male/female generation, therefore true homosexuality, as in being wired or positioned to reject inter-gender coupling, is counter-productive to species propagation and, resolved, 'wrong.'A few.Honest question: is there a specific reason for Christians to not keep a kosher diet?
I should probably stay out of this.Great to create this thread. Well done, sir.I'm interested in what people have faith have to say on "choice" relating to the matter. There's definitely no choice in the matter for me (and Mr. anti free will Kraftster would probably agree with me, in general terms
I have to assume that it is the same for those who *are* religious? They can't be any other way?
Looking for a quick clarification on what you mean by "choice relating to the matter"...as in, like, what I choose to believe (all/some/none)?
Long after in modern times is very different from long after in earlier times. I'm also not convinced by the arguments for dating the gospels later, unless you would date a hypothetical source like Q to be much earlier. It's based on stuff like "surely the writers wrote it after 70 due to the inability for a person to predict the destruction of the temple in 70 AD" and stuff.I'm shocked about how little is written about JC by contemporary authors. Even the Gospels were written long after his death:
Most researchers place the date of Jesus’ death at Passover time around the year 30.
The earliest New Testament books, the letters written by Paul, were composed in the decade of the 50s.
In the mid-60s, James, Peter, and Paul are all killed. Peter and Paul likely perished during the persecution of the church in Rome by Nero. The deaths of these important church leaders likely encouraged the writing down of narratives about Jesus.
In the year 70, Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, effectively ending a Jewish revolt against the Empire that had begun four years earlier.
Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/c21online ... spels.html
Given how information was handled back then a few decades is too much of a gap for me. As the dogma built over the millenia there are too many cooks in the kitchen. As a person with historical research training I just can't buy into documents that are not based on any actual primary source material. I guess you might call that 'faith' but for me it isn't enough. I'm not seeking Salvation, though, so it doesn't phase me.
I don't think it's a farce as I think the Church had good intentions in its infancy. But then it grew into the Vatican that brought us the Crusades and collected the worlds riches while encouraging its followers to breed themselves into squalor.
No snark intended on my side either, there are just certain positions that can't be prettied up without it losing the message.
PBP's here!I should probably stay out of this.
Long after in modern times is very different from long after in earlier times. I'm also not convinced by the arguments for dating the gospels later, unless you would date a hypothetical source like Q to be much earlier. It's based on stuff like "surely the writers wrote it after 70 due to the inability for a person to predict the destruction of the temple in 70 AD" and stuff.I'm shocked about how little is written about JC by contemporary authors. Even the Gospels were written long after his death:
So, in total respect I ask this, and will not snark regardless of the response: do you think that some/a lot/maybe all of what was written about JC (OT/NT, including quotes attributed to him and written by others), is a grand farce?
Most researchers place the date of Jesus’ death at Passover time around the year 30.
The earliest New Testament books, the letters written by Paul, were composed in the decade of the 50s.
In the mid-60s, James, Peter, and Paul are all killed. Peter and Paul likely perished during the persecution of the church in Rome by Nero. The deaths of these important church leaders likely encouraged the writing down of narratives about Jesus.
In the year 70, Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, effectively ending a Jewish revolt against the Empire that had begun four years earlier.
Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/c21online ... spels.html
Given how information was handled back then a few decades is too much of a gap for me. As the dogma built over the millenia there are too many cooks in the kitchen. As a person with historical research training I just can't buy into documents that are not based on any actual primary source material. I guess you might call that 'faith' but for me it isn't enough. I'm not seeking Salvation, though, so it doesn't phase me.
I don't think it's a farce as I think the Church had good intentions in its infancy. But then it grew into the Vatican that brought us the Crusades and collected the worlds riches while encouraging its followers to breed themselves into squalor.
No snark intended on my side either, there are just certain positions that can't be prettied up without it losing the message.
Well his public ministry didn't begin until he was 30. Jesus's purpose was not to focus on those years quietly working away in Joseph's workshop building tables, etc, but on the three years of his teaching time. If that makes sense.The canon is a tangent to this discussion about primary source material irt JC. That's fine, and interesting, but it needs to be noted that we're talking about different things.
What gets me is how can someone so influential to the western world have no history from the age of 13(ish) to 30(ish)? It's just not enough to pass the sniff test to a guy like me.
Users browsing this forum: nocera and 70 guests
