question 4 those who follow and know the bible

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by shana, Jan 23, 2001.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,980
    Might I kindly suggest, then, that you don't bring up the subject in the first place?

    thanx much,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    "I seem to have upset someone."

    It's your alias, Tiassa. Even more disturbing for me, my little girl's name is Tessa.


    ------------------
    It's all very large.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveW Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    243
    Watch your mouth, Jehovah.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Just so there is no confusion on anyone's part, I have a three-year-old daughter whose name is Tessa. I thought that might give you a laugh.



    ------------------
    It's all very large.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,980
    Bowser--

    That actually explains a couple of things.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    IHVH--

    As the target of your most specific profanity, might I suggest that you readdress your points of argument so that such things as logic, ethic, or otherwise take precedence over such profanity.

    Otherwise, you're merely reinforcing the outward expression that you have nothing of value to say.

    --Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
     
  9. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    I'm back after an extended absence and ... for Pete's sake, Jehovah! What are you doing to my forum???? Let's try to keep the barroom talk in the barrooms, okay? Hmmm? Pleeeeeeeeeease? If I may be so bold, in one of your posts you say that sometimes you log on after a bit of imbibing of the spirits. If this is an effect of that, you might want to consider holding off until after you've logged off.

    [This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited February 05, 2001).]
     
  10. JEHOVAH Realize & announce truth. Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    Thats It! I'm done. Feel free to exalt the Dems to your delight! I'm outta here.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,980
    Don't let the door ... oh, never mind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
     
  12. AUSSIEABORIGINAL Abnormally original Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    114
    I am not looking to take sides, especially on a science forum, but does this expressed anger have anything to do with Reagans Birthday and recent injury?
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,980
    I needed to dredge up a quote from ... well, not too long ago.

    This is important to me at present in two ways. First, I have, of late, fretted over a quote I've bandied about, citing Irenaeus. In fact, I am wrong in that; the author is, in fact, Tertullian. My bad. We'll get to that in a moment.

    The second and more specific issue is that the response ties in with something I haven't been able to put words to in the right way--though don't expect that to change at this point; I'm happy to stab and slash and hack after it for a while longer.

    For much of my time here at Exosci, I have hammered almost recklessly after an idea relating to the difference between founding Christianity and what we have in the modern day. Often, when discussing the sins, tragedies, and atrocities of Christianity, I found myself defending against charges of their irrelevance by grasping after the idea of the "vessel" of Christianity. That without these hideous chapters, the gospels may not have reached us in our present, and that they would in any case have much different an impact on society. Often, when expressing my problems with "American Christianity", I am confounded by what appears to be fence-sitting between the idea of a cohesive church body and the notion of a hundreds of millions of individuals in Christ.

    Vinnie's response, cited above, gives me an open chance to draw the string and fire one more arrow at the target. Not in malice toward the institution, but in hope of striking on a concrete explanation of this shifting dichotomy I browbeat the forum with.

    While I fully accept the first part of the cited response, I must strenuously object to the latter part. While it might seem a well-timed jab, it fails in the sense that the presumption upon which he bases it is inaccurate.

    Assertion: Regardless of what we think of the Christian church-institutions, the religion and faith of Christianity as it is bestowed upon contemporary Americans (I would, in a beer-fed tavern debate, go so far as to say, "contemporary humans") is a wholly separate organism from the Christian movement directly responding to Christ.

    The formative years of the church are important. Organization and a game-plan do count for something when perpetuity is the prize. The nature of that plan determine as much about the appearance of the future phases of the plan as anything. If we look toward the early centuries of Christianity, as the church worked toward a cohesive whole, we see that Vinnie's response to Cris is a modern assumption of the Christian organism.

    * re: Irenaeus/Tertullian: It seems that the assertion that I have been attributing to Irenaeus is actually by Tertullian. Furthermore, it seems that the form in which I assert it is a modern interpretation, offered by Elaine Pagels (the bold accent is mine; italics belong to author Pagels):

    Pagels also notes Tertullian's declarations that the true Christian, "know(s) nothing ... at variance with the truth of faith." (Pagels, 164)

    These bits Pagels draws from Tertullian's Prescriptions Against Heretics, which also includes Tertullian's ironic play upon Matthew 7:7.
    And for us in the modern day, this sentiment of Tertullian ought to sound might familiar:

    And the band played on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I mean, Tertullian is only one person, but to what extent does his influence reach? The of-late maligned Irenaeus of Lyons deserves it anyway, in case anyone wondered why the Bible has only four gospels. From Pagels, page 69:
    And the following, from pg. 155:
    I would like to respond to Vinnie's response, then, with the assertion that many people who recognize the diversity of their opinions might call themselves Christian. These Christians have, however, usurped this title in defiance of it.

    thanx much,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)


    [This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 07, 2001).]
     
  14. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    tiassa,

    That was almost an anti-climax when considering the big build up. But a neat point.

    I was going to go back to some references that showed how Catholicism over the years added new qualifications to their god in order to rebuff certain criticisms. I think that omnipotence and omniscience were properties that were added sometime during the early centuries. I.e. they weren't there when Christianity began.

    But I can't quite remember where I read that.

    Assume for the moment that my suspicions are true and now if we add your observation we can see that Christianity is beginning to complete the circle.

    1. Not omnipotent.
    2. Criticisms.
    3. Omnipotence added.
    4. Temporary contentment.
    5. Oh oh, that doesn't quite work.
    6. Now some say not omnipotent.
    7. Ah ha - this is the bit I'm waiting for.

    Happy thinking.
    Cris
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,980
    Cris--

    Some scholars, Pagels and Armstrong among them (worth mentioning since I abuse both so liberally), have noted a number of revolutionary developments surrounding Chrisitanity, its advent, and its fragmentation.

    We might, historically, declare that certainly Locke, Rousseau, and others would not necessarily have arrived at their conclusions without certain aspects of the Christian heritage concerning the relationship between the state, the church, and the individual. In Christianity's Roman tale, the personalized relationship described 'twixt the worshipper and the godhead seemed somewhat (though not wholly) new. Strangely, the philosophers whose work would lend to American independence movement (which owes quite a bit to religious sentiments concerning liberty) were not saying anything new, per se. Rather, I have seen it expressed by those "some scholars" that such libertarian ideas as the European philosophers would bequeath to American minds are merely formalizations of familiar concepts existing at least since the Christians took on Rome.

    In that sense, and as regards the process you theorize, I think we see a number of conceptual similarities. Recently I joked that Christianity as an institution was about market-share. While it's not as much of a joke as I usually treat it, there is the appearance of a valid idea.

    Consider Tertullian's insistence on regula fidei. Certainly that worked to the church's political advantage, but it is difficult, in such retrospect to which you and I are accustomed, to determine exactly what spiritual advantage this gained, or how one achieves the goal of moving closer to god by blindly rejecting the parts of the message are too tough to summarize in a sound-bite. The internet itself guarantees the death of Christian regula fidei; rather, what portions of such faith still exist.

    The formal Trinity and the Nicene Creed both contain political accessions to the Holy Spirit; and the final development of these ideas was marred by political squabbling. As we see the church(es) desperately revising their presentation of God, we see it not in the learning spirit we might expect--that is, the pleasure of learning more about God's universe, as such--but as a last-minute acknowledgement of what everyone outside the church has known for years, decades, or even centuries. When I was in Catholic school, I knew teachers who rejected Copernicus and Galileo on old "church" grounds, and would proudly trump lists of scientists through history who denounced their own work on their deathbeds. It did occur to me to wonder, when the Pope acknowledged some of those persecutions of science as wrong, what those particular small-minded faithful thought. I mean, the Pope finally figured out that evolution does not present a conflict with Genesis only a couple of years ago. This late entry to the common-sense race offers mixed emotions: perhaps the churches are ready to come back to society; perhaps it's just a last-ditch market trick to counteract the wariness of potential converts who see the absurdity of a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

    I generally attribute dramatic shifts in the faith-paradigm as desperate; the seeming eleventh-hour conversion of religious ideology speaks ill of genuine sentiment. So it is, I think, with the general theology. Why is God supposed to be A-#1, honcho-God? To dispel notions that the pagan gods of early converts could beat Yahweh-god up. (My god is greater than your god. Oh yeah? Well, my God is greater than anything which can be conceived!)

    In terms of market-share, we might watch the way in which the church appeals directly to people. The poor and marginalized are Christianity's primary targets, won with quite simple promises of living improvement and the eternal rewards of faith. Where conduct and obedience are the issues among the poor, the church appeals largely to the compassion of the rich. Whether those rich respond with compassion is entirely up to the rich; it is generally enough to have that class on-board in declaration only.

    Market-share and dominion ... I suppose there has, after all, been about a two-hour break in my writing, during which time I had to accommodate my job (can you imagine!), so I'm left with a very disorganized version of what I would have offered.

    But I think those shifts in the faith paradigm are hardly genuine, and specifically designed to keep the Q-ratings from slipping.

    Too bad about losing hold of the concept; if I get it back, I'll try a more organized approach.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
     
  16. JEHOVAH Realize & announce truth. Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    I apologize for my past disruptive and blatantly vulgar statements and,

    that I would further assure to you that my "Vulgarity Restriction Collar" is now in place and,

    that it was my original intention to impress upon the atheist (infidels), the illogical rationale of a supposed civilized people, who do not believe in God, yet have no tolerance for literal curses..........

    If my "BARROOM" literalogy has caused a level of Shock, I again appologize. I did not expect the fear of words....from those who have negative Barism's to the defiliation of the very principles, which "WE" now call civility .......(tears tiassa).

    Closings..............Sir. I assure you and all (including tiassa), that I will offer no vulgarity during any future posts by me.


    ((((((((((((I WILL TYPE NO MORE 21ST CENTURY (OR EARLIER) VULGARITIES TO THOSE WHO CURSE THE IDEAs OF TRUTH AND GOODNESS)))).

    As a gentlemen,
    ............you have my word.,................................


    j
     
  17. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    Thank you. We try to keep things civil around here. The anonymimty of the internet is not carte blanche to forget the oil that keeps the gears of civilization running as smoothly as possible, i.e., courtesy.

    And now, if we may carry on, where were we?
     
  18. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    What, no group hugs?!

    ------------------
    It's all very large.
     
  19. LargeToad Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    I think the fact that I have just been laid off from my first graduate job is proof enough that there is no God.

    Thank you.

    ------------------
    God does not exist.
     
  20. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Bowser, don't be silly, haven't you read the bible! God wouldn't employ people, the bible shows that he would issue commands and punish those who disobeyed. This technique is known as slavery, which most civilized nations have outlawed. Christianity just hasn't become civilized yet.
     
  21. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Cris,

    You're a free man now? We were born in debt to others. Everyone answers to someone or something. At the very least, Death holds us all in bondage.

    LT,

    My best wishes. In my life, things come together and work themselves out [knock on wood]. I hope this is true for most others, too.

    ------------------
    It's all very large.
     
  22. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Hey LT,

    Come back when you can, I wish you the best of luck.

    I was laid off from my job in the UK in early 1996. I was immediately offered a job here in Silicon Valley for slightly more than double my old salary. What can I say, it worked out well for me.

    Take care
    Cris
     
  23. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Bowser,

    Now? When was I ever not free?

    Isn’t acquiring debt a choice? If I consider that my parents created me then I might consider I owe them my life. Is that what you mean? But on the other hand I had no choice in the matter; my creation was their choice so they owe me, if anyone owes anyone anything. Who else could I be in debt to? (Note that I do not have any financial liabilities, e.g. loans or mortgages or such, and I’m sure you didn’t mean those types of things anyway).

    I don’t see that, unless I count myself. I owe it to myself to seek truth and understanding and to enjoy life to it fullest. Other than that I don’t see that I owe anything to anyone or to anything.

    So please explain.

    I’m not sure I would agree to the term bondage, but it was generally accepted that death was inevitable. So in that sense my freedom to live was at some point going to be curtailed. But I do not agree with that view anymore. The massive progress in anti-aging research and other Transhumanism activities indicates that within a few decades death will no longer be inevitable. Death will become something that only results from an accident or murder or suicide. Life in the future will become very precious and most will take great pains to protect it. And as science and technology continue to advance then limitless life spans will become a reality.

    And so with the full expectation that I will achieve a limitless life span and with the knowledge that I am completely free to do anything I wish then religions in my view would become even more worthless and irrelevant. Although I don’t see that they have any value now.

    Cris
     

Share This Page