The description in the first post is what seperates the Christian religion from say, Islam. The difference is what events people think took place in history. We're not talking about religion as a whole, we're talking about one set of beliefs unique to Christianity. I'll answer any other points tonight.
Christianity in a nutshell
by serotonin_wraith 105 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
frankiespeakin
The Pharmacratic Inquisition 2007 - DVD( a Gnostic media presentation)
-
Narkissos
The description in the first post is what seperates the Christian religion from say, Islam.The difference is what events people think took place in history.
Nonsense. Most of it happens to be common to both, and it would take only a few modifications and additions to make a "specific" parody of moslem beliefs.
We're not talking about religion as a whole, we're talking about one set of beliefs unique to Christianity.
If you have no clue what "religion" and "belief" are about and why they are there in the first place, you are in a poor position to judge what stories serves them best. Historical accuracy (or verisimilitude) may not be what matters most in that particular case. A bit like judging a musician by his (or her) hairstyle because you're deaf or not interested in music.
-
Sirona
When Jesus was asked what the 2 greatest commandments were he said "Love your God with you whole heart, mind and soul and strength' and "love your nieghbor as yourself" on these two the Laws and the Prophets hang. (Mark 12:29-31)
So basically the entire bible hinges on these two things. And interpreting scripture is not one of them.
That is great. This means that I'm doing all I need to do. I love my god(s) with all my heart and my neighbour as myself.
My gods are not Yahweh or Jesus, but it doesn't appear to matter.
Sirona
-
serotonin_wraith
I'm going to concede a point. Shock horror! But regarding Christianity being reliant on the Bible or not, I think some good points have been made by Carl and Lovelylil. Christianity did exist before the Bible was properly compiled. So I'll admit I jumped the gun there.
But I do feel Christianity was still based on the storiesnow found in the Bible. Whether they were written down or passed orally, it's the stories themselves that set the foundation for the Christian beliefs. If 'God guided evolution' is to be believed, they were being passed on for many thousands of years before Moses wrote them down.
And if that isn't impressive enough, the first humans (with an 's' because there wasn't an original couple- one man and one woman) hadn't even developed language!
http://www.jrmooneyham.com/lostcv1.html
Lovelylil, you're right when you say you haven't been trying to convert me. I apologize for my mistake. On the topic of not being reliant on the Bible for your Christian beliefs... you're quoting Jesus. As far as I'm aware, the only place we can find the words of Jesus are IN the Bible.
Narkissos:
Most of it happens to be common to both, and it would take only a few modifications and additions to make a "specific" parody of moslem beliefs.
I agree there are similarties. But they aren't similar enough, otherwise there wouldn't be two different religions. You're right when you say it would be easy to state what Muslims believe and make it look silly.
This thread isn't talking about religion as such, it's talking about events that Christians think took place in the past.
If the conversation was specifically about Jehovah's Witnesses, there could be a philisophical discussion on where religion comes from, how it shapes our lives and effects society etc etc, but we could also just state what they actually believe. E.g. They believe Jesus set up his kingdom invisibly in 1914, that a few elderly men in New York are being guided by God - and learning things like God prefers people don't have oral sex and God doesn't mind people having blood fractions now, and that most humans on the planet will be killed any day because they didn't join up to their religion. Religion can be an interesting subject without being afraid to state just how ridiculous JW beliefs are. It's the same with mainstream Christian beliefs.
Christians are seeing it as a parody too, yet it IS what they believe. People such as Lovelylil may not be reliant on those beliefs, but they still believe they happened. That's all that's being said.
-
lovelylil
seratonin,
Thanks for your reply. I just want to point out that in the conversations between you and I, I really did not quote much scripture. I changed that when startingover accussed me of trying to seperate my Christian faith totally from the Bible and he thought that was obsured. So I obliged him and used more scripture.
I feel although to an extent, any faith including Christianity relies on their Holy Books, in the case of Christianity, it is more about obeying the two basic commands of loving God and your nieghbor than it is about understanding all scripture or being able to quote it to others.
Of course, many Christian faiths, including JW's will tell you otherwise. They put all the importance on scripture understanding and disregard the laws of love and mercy altogether. For me personally it doesn't matter if I am correct in all my scripture understanding as long as I show Love and mercy, I am focusing on the more important issues. Lilly
-
Narkissos
Hi sw,
It seems unavoidable to me that criticism of a particular religion doesn't have the same meaning, or weight, depending on your commitment (or lack thereof) to this religion, to another one or to religion in general.
To venture yet another comparison: the sentence "British cricket is dumb" doesn't have the same meaning, or weight, from a professional cricket player, an American baseball player, a team sports reporter or somebody completely uninterested in sports.
On the specific issue of "events that Christians think took place in the past," I think (and to an extent this discussion confirms) that there are many possible ways to relate to a cherished narrative. "History" in the modern Western sense gradually emerged as distinct and antithetic to other narrative categories such as "myth," "legend" and "tale". When weread ancient narratives we cannot help separating them, but by doing so we create clear-cut but artificial frontiers in a textual continuum which obscure it as much as they clarify it. The ancient reader/hearer could easily make his way smoothly through a narrative comprised of a military battle ("history" to us, whether true or false), a miracle ("legend" to us) and a happening on the mountain of gods ("myth" to us). Does that mean that he put all "events" on the same plane? I guess not. But the shift from one narrative "level" to another was mostly implicit. Reading such texts intelligently with modern eyes requires, paradoxically, both the use and the suspension of criticism. It is not an easy thing to do, and being constantly met with the question "come on, do you really believe that?" doesn't make it any easier imho.
-
Leolaia
Narkissos....It is interesting to compare premodern writers like Palaephatus who endeavored to write alternative narratives that simultaneously (1) discredited a given myth as implausible and a distortion of "real" events, (2) maintained the myth as at least containing some element of truth (as opposed to simply writing off the myth as a pure invention). There are modern examples of this kind of rationalist thinking, such as among those who strive to develop some naturalistic explanation for the burning bush, or the parting of the "Red Sea", or the resurrection of Jesus. It reflects an interesting tension that "old stories" find themselves in when the intellectual climate changes.
Anyway, I really recommend Palaephatus as entertaining reading...betcha didn't know that the centaurs were really just horsemen viewed hazily through the smoke of a burning city by those who never saw a man on a horse before!
-
serotonin_wraith
Hello Narkissos,
To use another comparison, talking about things that are backed up by zero evidence or proof: There may be groups of people who believe in faries, other groups that believe in pixies, other groups that believe in gnomes. I think fairy belief is silly. If I was in a society that believed in faries, I would still think it was silly. I may not know much about gnome belief, but I don't need to know a lot to see it as being just as silly. Any belief in something there is no good reason to believe in is equally as silly, or smart, depending on whether one believes in these things or not.
As an outsider, my views hold a certain weight. But if a fairy believer spoke about their faith, would it hold more? It's possible it could hold less, as it wouldn't be an impartial view, but words from a deluded individual backing up their delusional beliefs. A fairy believer may say the pixie believers are deluded, and the other way round. I tend to think the only people who could see things objectively would be those who aren't a part of any group that believes in things 'on faith', whether that's fairies, pixies, gnomes, Allah, Krishna or Yahweh.
I think you're right when you talk about events being interpreted as myths, legends or actual events. If the original post had spoken about Samson's hair, or the worldwide flood, or the talking donkey, I think it would have been easy to see that Christians can interpret these things very differently- metaphorically, as historical events, etc. But with the events that were mentioned, I do think all of them are believed by Christians to have really took place in the past.
-
Narkissos
Following on Leolaia's post, one very interesting, entertaining and short read I would recommend (again) is Paul Veyne's Did the Greek Really Believe in their Myths? -- where the development of critical historiography, paired with a new surge of (often comical) critical naïveté as exemplified by Palaephatus, is remarkably described.
And, no offence meant to serotonin wraith, I could hardly find more naive and gullible an expression of self-confidence than:
If I was in a society that believed in faries, I would still think it was silly.
I for one have no idea what "I" would be or think in another cultural and educational context which would make "me" someone entirely different... What I know is that my judgement is dependent on a very specific chain of collective and individual developments... and from where I stand sw's "I" which can be transferred from one society, one history, one particular set of beliefs, to another and keep his judgement intact sounds like a highly delusive myth.