Posted by Adam on January 29, 2000, at 0:35:33
In reply to Re: Religion and Idiocy, posted by dj on January 28, 2000, at 22:35:42
I guess it's exactly these sorts of exchanges that turn me off
to "religion" (along with various other difficulties not relevant
to this discussion). Dogma. Invective. I honestly can't say
when I witness such discussions (which I find myself in also, from
time to time, much to my own chagrin once I've calmed down)
that this is religious or spiritual behavior as it was meant to
be or not.I was raised Catholic as well. I stopped being Catholic at age 14,
during the confirmation process, mostly to piss my father off, who
spoke out of both sides of his mouth when it came to Christian
practices, and thus was a poor role model for both the faithful and
the agnostic alike. When I got older I started to actually think
about it, in the context of the secular study of world religions.What I came away with, in regards to Jesus, was that (and this is,
of course, an academic, not spiritual view) he grew to become an
apocalyptic prophet who sought to reform Judaism in a radical manner
and thus save as many as he could from their imminent fate: the Hell
of Fire. This meant making a sincere effort to follow both the letter
and the spirit of the Law, the latter more so than the former. This
also meant accepting a serious burden: That you must, as he was
prepared to do, take up your own cross and follow him down a straight
and narrow path leading to the End of all things and a new beginning.
Anything worldly that encumbered this journey was to be dispensed with,
be it your money, your livestock, your own eyes if they betrayed you.
A uniquely passivist stance made a great deal of sense, as the might
Rome would never be overthrown without God's intervention. He may
have seen his own death as a necessary event or hallmark leading to
the final battle.Paul's exegesis of the Jesus movement saw the role of Jesus as Christ
not so much as a Davidic priest-king but a spiritual intercessor and
the absolutely essential agent of salvation. The hopelessness of
humanity, the indelible taint of original sin could never be cured
without Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. What was expected of his
followers, as far as Paul was concerned, was total and utter faith in
Jesus's message (as interpreted by Paul, who felt Jesus spoke to him
directly) and unquestioning belief in Jesus as the risen Lord. The
implication is that God does love us, but he also gives us a choice,
to follow with absolute faith or not, with dire consequences for those
who choose the latter. Goodness without Christ is utter vanity, and
for those who have heard the message and still do not believe, it is
no refuge from Gehenna.John's Apocalypse not withstanding (hardly a comforting message for the
naysayers or the halfhearted), Paul has essentially the final word on
the matter of Jesus' message. After that the cannon was sealed (there is,
of course, in the New Testament's organization, not a chronological but
conceptual order).Jesus' message, in his own words and in interpretation, is one of love
indeed, but it's tough love. Of course it's everyone's right to interpret
the Scriptures for themselves and find their own message, and that can
mean picking and choosing which parts are Truth, fact, allegory,
symbol, or lie. I've no clue how to do that, and gave up a long time
ago even trying. I do feel there's no explicit provision for such
interpretation in the New Testament, and thus no real guide except one's
own convictions or perhaps spiritual experiences.I am not prepared, and I'm not sure anyone else should be here, to say that
+ is "wrong". His or her words, though strident, aren't at variance with
the core beliefs of the Christian faith, as far as I an see. Paul himself
got hopping mad at members of some of the early churches for what he saw as
their deviance from or misinterpretations of the essential beliefs (being
quite confident of his own position of authority, and not afraid to remind
others of it.)Who is right? Who is wrong? Is Christianity really a big tent? Who can
say? It's too bad it has to be fought over. But perhaps a real aspect of
being a devoted follower of Christ is the willingness to engage in such
battles, so long as they are fought with the sincere hope not of imposing
a viewpoint but of saving a life. That's what Jesus did, after all, and he
was willing to get nailed to a tree rather than sit still and let people
burn. I don't accept Christian evangelism today any more than I did many
years ago, but I tolerate it with politeness now rather than sarcasm as I
did in the past. I think it's because I know that sincere evangelists aren't
trying to hurt me, they're really trying to do me a big, big favor.
> FYI, the Pope recently announced that hell is not a place, just an idea, kinda like Nirvana. Same crap, different pile.
>
> All books are written by men, interpreting their narrow slice of the universe. Yours is narrower than most because you revel in your dogmatic beliefs. I believe Christianity has just as much to offer
>
> > "Don't lay your holier than thou crap on me."
> >
> > What is it that you are doing? Christians beleive that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Your books are mens ideas. I choose to get my information as close to the source as I can. The Bible's translation is known to be accurate because of the comparison of numerous documents. There are no doubt plenty of people more intelligent than me who are going to end up in Hell. I am not following them there.
poster:Adam
thread:19818
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000128/msgs/19955.html