Religion...

Remove all ads!

I'm...not sure if that was a reference to my claiming to be nihilistic, or if it was an honest question as to verify whether I am a family man or a maniacal killer.
If it is the former, please be kind enough to elaborate.

 

Thus far, this thread has done fairly well, considering its delicate nature. Just a friendly reminder that the mods are watching here...

 

I am fairly sure what our dear Svytoslav is trying to say with his statement about Jesus not being jewish is that the Messiah, saviour of man and the Son of God can not have been [offensive material deleted] Jewish. Just doesnt add up in his ideology.

Joacqin, if you have questions, PM me (your mailbox is full) - CtR.

[ March 04, 2006, 03:01: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

1) To the posters in this thread in general: "Jew" and "Jewish" are commonly spelled with capital "J".

2) @Joacqin: I recognize that you were trying to be funny with that "filthy, big-nosed, money grubbing" comment, but you missed. Badly.

 

I wasnt trying to be funny, I was illustrating how Svytoslav view the world. Which isnt funny in any way shape or form.

 

Felnoid, saying that you should rename the thread Sparring over Jesus bringings up an interesting point about religion: It simultaniously untites and diveides. Because religion is so personal, so intimate, and such a basic part of someone who believes, issues pertaining to it invoke extemely strong emotions in those involved. What I mean to say is that someone who is devoutly religious had to believe that they are right, because to believe that others might be right too would call in to question their own beliefs. The debating over Jesus in this forum is an example of this. This dividedes, then, people who do not share religious beliefs, and the number of branches of protestant churches stand testimony to the immense variety of beliefs of just one particular section of just one religion holds. Granted, those who share a common faith and common beliefs also share a strong and wonderful sense of unity and brotherhood, but the protestant churches also illuminate how quickly views can change and unity lost. I would consider this, then, a pitfall of religion (though some religions escape this pitfall by being especially tolerant-such as the Wiccans who believe that every religion is its own unique path to the same divine force).

 

Thank you, I'm glad someone brought that up. As for the rest of this, warnings will be forthcoming, regardless.

 

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand that triangle business. If Jesus is actually God AND a Ghost as well (or some wacky 1/3 hybrid of each), what was the point of Mary and Joseph? I thought Mary was his mother??

 

HB:
Well, first of all, you have to understand that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three different entities, kinda, almost like your fingers are different entities, but they are all parts of your hand. Jesus was God as a man, not a ghost. As for the point of Mary and Joseph, Jesus had to love a human life, be tempted as humans are, and that meant to whole package. Childhood and parents are a regular part of (most) people's lives.

DeepFae:
Though religion can divide if the differences are too extreme, such as Christain versus Muslim, the vast majority of protestant denominations have no problem working together. Just because I believe that communion is a symbolic ceremony and someone else believes the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ doesn't mean we can't clean up a park together, mentor to children together, raise money and bring food to the poor together. My church (baptist) is actively engaged with an evangelical church, a presbetyrian (sorry if I misspelled) church, and about a dozen other churchs and denominations in the area. We work great together, and some of our most stirring theological discussions come from our interactions with these other denominations. It really makes you work out your faith, really decide on what you believe and why. We also don't begrudge the other denominations any 'converts' from our church, nor do they begrudge us any from theirs. As far as we're concerned, we're all Christians saved by grace, and what church you attend or what service you prefer doesn't change that.

 

NOG: I suppose saying that religious differences between different protestant denominations was an overstatement. My mistake. However, its pretty undeniable that religious differences, say between Muslims and Christians, or Muslims and Muslims, have and do cause unnecesary strife. My question is how does one remedy this, how does someone who believes that their religion is absolutelty right cope with someone else who believes that *their* religion is absolutely right? I mean obviously the violence could be kept in check if people exercised willpower over their violent impulses, but how could two clashing religions maintain harmony?

 

I've yet to meet someone who DOESN'T think their religion is absolutely right.

If I ever did meet someone who felt that their religion was maybe, kinda, sorta the right religion and the way to live a good life and, ultimately, achieve salvation, I'd have zero respect for him.

I've never understood this notion that religious folks shouldn't go around saying "I'm right and therefore, you're wrong." You expect a Hindu to say to a meat-eater "oh go right on eating meat cuz, like, that's your view on things and, like, I totally respect that, dude." Gimme a break.

 

But, of course, those who DO act this way are called fundamentalist and extremist, aren't they? So there's no way to win, really; Either you're a wuss or a whackjob.

 

@Aldeth:

Liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, democracy... it all rests on assumptions. You can argue about some systems working and some not working, but you actually have similar concerns in religions. Here you have piety, prudence, temperance, humility. There you have equality, equity, freedoms, the rule of the law. All are abstract concepts. People follow their political leaders often without less criticism than they do their religious leaders. Then what about all the law professors who tell you what's good or not? Or the prophecies and golden ways of economists? There is dogma, there are saints, sometimes there is inquisition. In turn, religions aren't always oh so abstract and removed. Sometimes there's a lot of sober outlook and even practicism in religious teaching, while some politicians preach about Platonic ideas to put it lightly.

And don't let me get started on the commercial religion...

@halfogremagi:

Yes, that's even more unnatural and out of place. The moment people stop believing in God, they can start believing in anything. Heck, the more secular things become, the more people start believing in "alternative medicine", have shamanic hanky panky when they get ill, arrange their rooms according to some feng-shui energy flows, go to bioenergotherapists, believe in horoscopes, read Tarot... If you don't believe in God because it's too irrational and you think religion is man-made, then how the heck can you believe in horoscopes that some literature drop-out writes for a magazine after a beer or five? There is no God, there is science... and you still go to the Gypsy or Chinese future teller? Yeah. Tragicomical.

And you're right in the rest of what you say.

And you really don't want me to get started on the commercial religion...

@NOG:

Yes, Jesus was a rabbi.

Yes, and by sheer logic, it's not like everyone can be right if opinions don't coincide and there should be no wondering and no bitterness about it. It's not like human rights include being right and affirmed in whatever one believes. That's the secular state principle taken too far.

@Others: If you want to draw upon Corinthians, start with Chapter 13 of the first epistle. Chapter 5 of Ephesians for Paul's family policies. Especially the wife-husband relations.

@NOG:

Monophysites, like Coptic Christians, believe in just one nature, divine. Antitrinitarians believe Jesus to be human only.

@Nakia: Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians at all?

@Harbourboy:

One could think about a belief that He was the son of God but just a human Himself. Or that the Son of God appellation was symbolic. That kind of thing. There are such beliefs. But they mostly fall out of the borders of Christanity, coming up with generally bizarre doctrines.

@Others, re antisemitism:

It is a fact that Jesus existed and was crucified in Jerusalem. Antisemitism is wrong, but suppressing facts in the name of anti-antisemitism would be worse. Fact is, Jesus didn't die so we could have a justification to oppress His own people, but it wouldn't be fair to blame it on Romans or to deny that He was murdered. It would be a bit like calling concentration camps "Polish death camps".

@Others, re the Orthodox Church:

Don't know what we look like in the Orthodox view, but in the light of Catholic theology, Orthodox sacraments are valid (except remarriage after divorce when the first spouse lives) and they are true Christians, with apostholic succession and all. We recognise their saints, too.

@NOG: The nature of the Trinity or once saved always saved isn't really a minor issue because it touches the most important things.

@Iago:

How so? It's Rome not because of Imperial capital but because of Petrine succession.

@Hacken Slash:

I would to see a couple of Catholic and Orthodox bishops saying the mass together... preferably the Pope and the Phanar (Patriarch of Constantinople) one day... They still can't cross-minister (without converting, that is) unless it's urgent need. Ah, and Orthodox priests can't marry after being ordained. If our priests is defrocked, he can sometimes be allowed to marry, but I don't know if this works for defrocked Orthodox priests.

As for Rites, well... Rites have different ways of celebration, different focal saints and perhaps different priorities in some matters (a mindset thing, I guess), but the dogma stays the same. So if we were to unite, some theological controversies would have to be cleared up, such as the origin of the Holy Ghost, eschatology (how one is saved, especially the problem of apokasthasis, i.e. if all people will eventually be saved).

Oh, by the way, my crucifix is actually a Greek-shaped (square) one bought in an Orthodox country, with the Iesous Christos nika motto initials.

 

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian; ie: followers of Christ. They study the Bible extensively and are very intellectual in their approach to it. As to the name Jehovah's Witnesses that is the English translation. Even the name Yawah is problamatic. Rally could tell us better about that. God has a name and it is used in the Old Testament/Torah but since the vowels weren't written we can't be sure what it was.

One thing I feel that is being forgotten here is that we are dealing with a translation of the original documents. For instance the word Hell is not a Jewish word. It is a translation of several different words. When something is translated there are times when the translators have to decide on the best word. Unfortunately the word used may not be a perfect expression of the orignal meaning.

 

@Deepfae:
Ideally, we could reach a state where the disagreeing parties could sit down, afte carefully studying the other's texts and beliefs, and calmly discuss the issues. I've done this many times with Muslims and Atheists. Sometimes it leads to a conversion to the other's beliefs, if you are convinced of them, usually it leads to a greater understanding and respect, and I have never seen it lead to anything but a calming of tensions. Of course, to do this, you have to get both parties to leave behind their prejudices, preconceptions, and defensiveness, which is VERY hard.

@Sir Fink & Mediocre Man:
Those who act violently, or misrepresent their faith to convince others to act with him/her, are extremists and should be qualified as such. Those who call simple, faithful believers such titles usually do it in a baseless attempt to discredit them because they can't find any real basis to do so. In either case, don't let what others call you affect your own approach.

@Aldeth:
There is plenty of absolute truth in religion, or at least claims of fact, which are either absolutely true or absolutely false. The abstract ideas you see in religion are mainly developments there of. Also, just because something is an abstract, doesn't mean it can't be true or false, it just makes it harder to prove. Example: either God is eternal and has neither beginning nor end, or He's finite/semi-finite and has at least one of the two. This is an absolute. One HAS to be true, assuming the truth that God is real, which is another abstract absolute.

@Chevalier:
I was calling those things minor because they don't interfere with the basic belief that Christ is the Son of God, who died for our sins, and that faith in Him is the only way to be saved. That is the major issue of Christianity, everything else is a development from that.

@Nakia:
Don't the Jehovah's witnesses have other texts, too, aside from the 'commonly accepted' Bible (either the protestant Bible or the Apocryphal {Catholic} Bible)? I know the Mormans have other teachings that are quite different from biblical teachings, but I'm not sure about the Jehovah's Witnesses.
As for Yahweh, you're absolutely correct. The original Hebrew written language didn't have any vowels, they just wrote the consonants and assumed the reader could figure it out. Not a problem for a simple language. Later on, they placed their vowels underneath and between the consonants, kind of like correcting texts, but since the Name of God was never meant to be spoken, they left it YHWH. The name actually means 'I AM' and comes from Moses' encounter with the burning bush. This name was so holy that the Jews came up with another name to be spoken, Adonai, which basically means Lord. This went on for hundreds of years, then Jews started writing their vowel-points in (c. 200 B.C.), and the scribes were so used to using Adonai, that they put the vowel-points for Adonai with the consonants of YHWH. Somewhere around the beginning of the 1800s, germanic biblical scholars saw these and pronounced them with the german pronunciation, making Jehovah.
As for hell in old testament, again, Nakia is right on. The old testament uses Sheol and Gehenna, or the Valley of Hinnon. Sheol is the afterlife in general (lit. the grave) and has nothing to do with judgement. Gehenna is an actual place, a trash dump outside of Jerusalem that burned continuously for hundreds, maybe a thousand or more, years. Around 200 B.C., the idea of judgement in the afterlife came in, and Gehenna became a symbol for punishment.
You can thank my dad for many of the details on this.
The more you know ...

 

As far as I know Jehovah's Witnesses have no other sacred scripture than the Bible. In fact it is my understanding that they believe the Bible should not be added to or detracted from. They do have a publishing house and produce a lot of literature but again as far as I know it is all based on the Bible. They have translated the Bible and I have a copy. It says the same thing that my King James version does but in more modern language.

Actual the King James Bible had translation errors which I believe have been corrected by the more modern translations.

 

It's funny that such a huge number of people are worshipping a being who no longer even has a name, due to loss in translation and loss or alteration of documents. makes you wonder how much else has been left out.
I can remember from some newspaper cutting or other that Judaism, at the beginning, did not believe in what we now call Heaven and Hell, but instead claimed that there was a single underworld where all dead souls went to rest.
Can anyone with the knowledge affirm or deny this?

 

The god of the Hebrews (and the Bible) is named YHWH. Hebrew priests used to utter it once a year in the temple but their exact pronunciation has been lost over the last 2,000 years or so.

The name comes from the time Moses met YHWH and asked "what should I call you?" and God answered "I am what I am" or "I am that I am" (Popeye?? Who knew?). So Moses took to calling him "He Is" and the name stuck.

In Hebrew, YHWH isn't pronounced anything like "Jehovah" or "Yehovah" so I'm really not sure where that comes from. Just a poor understanding of Hebrew I suppose. Either way, it's not even really a name.

In the King James and many other English Bibles, where-ever you see "LORD" is where "YHWH" is written in the original Hebrew. English translators translated that as "LORD" (all caps). There was a modern English translation a few years back which returned all the "lords" to "YHWH."

 

The Romanian Orthodox Church teaches and puts an accent on the fact that Jesus was a true human "born not made" not baerly human

[ March 05, 2006, 14:54: Message edited by: Incarnate ]

 

Rallymamma,

It was nothing particular. It was just that Susipaisti completely changed the argument, to hint at something I suppose it was totally uncalled for. My claim on Jesus not being of any particular ethnicity, as much as it is a religious/spiritual belief, certainly is something I hold as true, but I hardly think it could "hurt" anyone.
As to whom murdered Jesus, I think his murder was the result of several different historical events, that led to his crucifixion and consequent death. In the whole process, there were Romans AND jews involved, so I can safely say both were responsable for His death. So no, the jews did not murder Jesus, but they played a huge part in the whole thing. In sum, it was the Romans who crucified Him, but on the demand of whom?
-------------------------------------------------

Aldeth,

That's a nice question that you make, because I think this is an important thing to be considered. I was expecting that you would totally frown upon tradition, which you didn't, but regardless let me tell you the importance of tradition to things in general - but also specifically to this particular Church-related discussion.
The problem is usually that people - the ones who despise tradition of course - take tradition as a mere word, devoid of proper justification and meaning. But that is a grave mistake, because tradition is much more than that, and if it was not, we would not be discussing it in the first place.
Let me tell you why, using our discussion as example.
Both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic one are built upon heavy tradition. But is that all? They are both traditional and that should say it all? Of course not. However, the fact both exist for over a millennium, means that for centuries after centuries there has been a continuous process of thinking and rethinking upon doctrine; the brightest minds gave their share of contribution to the role of the Church, to it's doctrine, to it's instiution, to it's structure etc and etc. People like Saint Thomas Aquino and Saint Agustine for the Catholics; or Saint Seraphim of Sarov and Saint Sergii Radonezhsky for the Orthodox. Those people were nothing other than genius. They were great philosophers, and it is these kind of people who shaped both of our Churches what they are today.
Furthermore, more than anything, our Churches have experience, have lived through a lot, and during both hardships and periods of flourishing, they were there, and all that helped to forge what we are today.
Now, you think just the average John Doe, who probably isn't even smarter than the guy next door - albeit much more cunning obviously - who decides to start his own "Church", deserves the same respect and credibility than two long withstanding traditional Churches? Do you think this blessed creature has finally found the answers, the ultimate truth, that the brighest of our own Churches have been looking for, for centuries uncounted? This guy, to whom the light came and revealed the path, is either so smart - I use the word loosely, because of course the word "smart" is an understatement to such individual - that he could see through centuries of rethinked doctrine, performed by some of the biggest philosophers of all times; through centuries of natural and continuos development; through centuries of hard earned experience; or then he was just chosen by God, and I certainly don't believe they were.
How much arrogance must one possess, to think himself alone, can finally reveal the ultimate truth we have been searching for milleania? The most complicated aspect of someone deciding to open his own branch of "Christianity", is that he is proposing himself to re think and re define, the hard work of several many philosophers - all of whom were certainly much smarter than both you or me, or anyone around here for the matter, and certainly a thousand times more than these founders. To give new answers to questions which took centuries to be concluded - and some still aren't! That, pal, is just impossible.
That's why I say all these branches have ZERO credibility, and just a laughing stock.
Edmund Burke has a nice work on English language on the importance of tradition. It was written in response to the French Revolution. It is a good reading.
PS: I don't want to insist on those questions, because out of experience, they just led to flame between Christians, but in regards to Orthodox time frame and History, just read Iago's post. Oh, by the way, it was in 988, but you are taking your lessons just fine
-------------------------------------------------

Hacken Slash,

You are somewhat right, but in Russia there are serious issues with the growing attempt of the Bishop of Rome trying to advance in Russian territory. It is the official position of the ROC that Catholic Churches might be built and celebrated in Russia, to satisfy the spiritual need of some Christian minorities - such as Poles - but it is NOT welcome any attempt to convert Russians to the romance camp, as it is not unusual to see. Unia of Brest was bad enough.
But yes, I see some development in the relationship, and it is certainly a positive thing.
--------------------------------------------------

Oh, it would be nice if someone who thinks me saying "I don't care" for how non-Christians view something through a Christian prism - something which is quite logical - to be some serious board vioation, to actually take some action when someone puts word into my mouth and define my own world view for myself. Or when someone calls me an homossexual each time I disagree with his horny prefference on women. But I suppose not caring for someone's else opinion is much graver than these.