Jump to content
Kasanova King

The Religion/Spirituality Thread

Recommended Posts

Since religion and spirituality are brought up regularly in many threads, I think it would be beneficial to hold discussions regarding religion and spirituality here.  Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon's quote:

(Im not trying to shut this down, but I think we'd both agree that we are quickly drifting outside of US politics at this point?  Im sure youll wanna respond, as is fair.  But we should probably try and wind this scripture exploration down?)

No. "He lot his temper" is not what we would teach our grade school sunday school kids.  Many doctrines wouldn't.  And Catholicism in fact tends to highlight the sinless nature of Christ - why Catholic laity often question why Jesus required baptism and the big focus on the holiness of Mary as he needed to be born free from the sin of Adam and Eve: of a Virgin.  Im not saying you or anyone would necessarily believe that but it is a common current in the Catholicism.  (I find it all interesting and useful).

Much of what we all take for granted as Christian Teachings are heavily based on the actions of Christ, not only his words. And many of his words were prompted only by followers asking him to explain his actions.  The standard way to approach this area of Christiology is to ask questions like:  Did Jesus express regret?  No.  Did he put in forethought to his action?  Yes.  Was Jesus given a chance to renounce his actions? Yes, by Pilate, as a chance to save Jesus' life.  He refused to.  So one would conclude that the actions Jesus planned, carried out and stood by would be as much as a teaching as any other action.  Secondly we'd ask how the authors of the non-Gospel New Testament responded to it? Nothing negative said about it. Whereas that act (depending on the Harmonization of the Gospels) directly lead to his arrest when those who once loved him turned on him following this. Those who remained following him are the ones who were down with it.  They are the very first Christians. Thirdly one would look into tradition; tradition has embraced Christ as the Prince of Peace.

As an interesting aside:  This debate about property modification (an old one with lots of activity on the subject in 1965, 1970, 1995, 2008) really is centred on the idea of whether or not movement(s) should embrace a Diversity Of Tactics.  This meaning can Quakers (pacifists) and Anti Racist Action (community self defence) work together for their shared goals?  Can they do what they feel called to and what they believe is just an useful and still work together despite differences?  I raise this because the term Diversity of Tactics is nothing more than a secularization of the St Paul Principle which cites the Pauline teaching that he articulates in a few places including Romans 14:14-23.  The Quakers and ARA have done some amazing work together.

 

I completely disagree that "Lost His temper" is not something we would teach children at Sunday school.  As a matter of fact, it's exactly what is taught and should be taught to children.  "Losing your temper" in within itself is not always a sin.  It's a human reaction and it demonstrates the human side of Jesus.  Jesus was and is free of sin.  Jesus was/is God in human form.  So when in human form, He also demonstrated human characteristics.  One of them was yes, that he lost his temper from time to time.  The market was only one of several occasions where Jesus seemingly "lost his temper".  That is not a sin.  

Now my question was, when did Jesus state that destroying property is not violence...as you have claimed?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Soon's quote:

(Im not trying to shut this down, but I think we'd both agree that we are quickly drifting outside of US politics at this point?  Im sure youll wanna respond, as is fair.  But we should probably try and wind this scripture exploration down?)

No. "He lot his temper" is not what we would teach our grade school sunday school kids.  Many doctrines wouldn't.  And Catholicism in fact tends to highlight the sinless nature of Christ - why Catholic laity often question why Jesus required baptism and the big focus on the holiness of Mary as he needed to be born free from the sin of Adam and Eve: of a Virgin.  Im not saying you or anyone would necessarily believe that but it is a common current in the Catholicism.  (I find it all interesting and useful).

Much of what we all take for granted as Christian Teachings are heavily based on the actions of Christ, not only his words. And many of his words were prompted only by followers asking him to explain his actions.  The standard way to approach this area of Christiology is to ask questions like:  Did Jesus express regret?  No.  Did he put in forethought to his action?  Yes.  Was Jesus given a chance to renounce his actions? Yes, by Pilate, as a chance to save Jesus' life.  He refused to.  So one would conclude that the actions Jesus planned, carried out and stood by would be as much as a teaching as any other action.  Secondly we'd ask how the authors of the non-Gospel New Testament responded to it? Nothing negative said about it. Whereas that act (depending on the Harmonization of the Gospels) directly lead to his arrest when those who once loved him turned on him following this. Those who remained following him are the ones who were down with it.  They are the very first Christians. Thirdly one would look into tradition; tradition has embraced Christ as the Prince of Peace.

As an interesting aside:  This debate about property modification (an old one with lots of activity on the subject in 1965, 1970, 1995, 2008) really is centred on the idea of whether or not movement(s) should embrace a Diversity Of Tactics.  This meaning can Quakers (pacifists) and Anti Racist Action (community self defence) work together for their shared goals?  Can they do what they feel called to and what they believe is just an useful and still work together despite differences?  I raise this because the term Diversity of Tactics is nothing more than a secularization of the St Paul Principle which cites the Pauline teaching that he articulates in a few places including Romans 14:14-23.  The Quakers and ARA have done some amazing work together.

 

I completely disagree that "Lost His temper" is not something we would teach children at Sunday school.  As a matter of fact, it's exactly what is taught and should be taught to children.  "Losing your temper" in within itself is not always a sin.  It's a human reaction and it demonstrates the human side of Jesus.  Jesus was and is free of sin.  Jesus was/is God in human form.  So when in human form, He also demonstrated human characteristics.  One of them was yes, that he lost his temper from time to time.  The market was only one of several occasions where Jesus seemingly "lost his temper".  That is not a sin.  

Now my question was, when did Jesus state that destroying property is not violence...as you have claimed?

 

 

 

 

Sorry but you cant disagree that we dont teach that.  We literally dont teach that! 

Im all for the faith you've developed through out life, but do find it regrettable that you were taught that.  And surprised as the Catholics prefer a sinless Christ, generally.

If this were a loss of temper (its not). The loss of temper would indeed be considered sinful.  In the Christ-centric notion that even thinking a bad thought about some one is murder. Said by Jesus this way in Matthew 5 (NRSV):

 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire.

Or by Pauls standards, Jesus couldnt be in ministry if this were an angry and misguided act.  And you claim there are a few such events, even:

The saying is sure:[a] whoever aspires to the office of bishop[b] desires a noble task. Now a bishop[c] must be above reproach, married only once,[d] temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.

 

Oh yes! The duality of Christ is an incredibly interesting mystery!

I wish you wouldve responded to more of the points I made.  

I made a sincere effort to explain how your question would be understood through exegesis and in Christiology.   What do you think of my response to this?

 

(side note: I reserve the right to take time in responding to this thread)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all cobblers. That is all. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

Sorry but you cant disagree that we dont teach that.  We literally dont teach that! 

Im all for the faith you've developed through out life, but do find it regrettable that you were taught that.  And surprised as the Catholics prefer a sinless Christ, generally.

If this were a loss of temper (its not). The loss of temper would indeed be considered sinful.  In the Christ-centric notion that even thinking a bad thought about some one is murder. Said by Jesus this way in Matthew 5 (NRSV):

 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire.

Or by Pauls standards, Jesus couldnt be in ministry if this were an angry and misguided act.  And you claim there are a few such events, even:

The saying is sure:[a] whoever aspires to the office of bishop[b] desires a noble task. Now a bishop[c] must be above reproach, married only once,[d] temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.

 

Oh yes! The duality of Christ is an incredibly interesting mystery!

I wish you wouldve responded to more of the points I made.  

I made a sincere effort to explain how your question would be understood through exegesis and in Christiology.   What do you think of my response to this?

 

(side note: I reserve the right to take time in responding to this thread)

 

I'll get to your points once you respond to my question...that is being asked for the 3rd or 4th time now....

When did Jesus say that destroying property was not violence?  All you referred to was the incident at the market.  Has nothing to do with the fact that destroying property is (not) violence.  Whether all violence is a sin is a completely different debate...which you seem to be deflecting to...over and over again.

 

 

 

Edited by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was raised Catholic. I haven't "quit" the church so to speak, I've just found in the last year that I disagree with their views on a lot of things, namely sexual related stuff. Sex is a very private and personal thing and the church, or anyone for that matter, has no right to meddle in stuff like that. I also went to Catholic school throughout my entire childhood and now that I'm getting out into the world, I'm starting to see that all the stuff the Church said was bad for us (pre-marital sex, questioning your beliefs, being non-religious) isn't bad at all, it's part of being human

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Oldest Goat said:

Oh good, you've started a crazy conspiracy thread. :lol:

Nah...the really "crazy conspiracy" ...even if you don't believe in an Abrahamic religion....is to believe that there are no higher powers/beings in a nearly infinite universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Nah...the really "crazy conspiracy" ...even if you don't believe in an Abrahamic religion....is to believe that there are no higher powers/beings in a nearly infinite universe. 

I do think there is some kind of universal/higher power thing. Was just being a jerk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, soon said:

Sorry but you cant disagree that we dont teach that.  We literally dont teach that! 

Im all for the faith you've developed through out life, but do find it regrettable that you were taught that.  And surprised as the Catholics prefer a sinless Christ, generally.

If this were a loss of temper (its not). The loss of temper would indeed be considered sinful.  In the Christ-centric notion that even thinking a bad thought about some one is murder. Said by Jesus this way in Matthew 5 (NRSV):

 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire.

Or by Pauls standards, Jesus couldnt be in ministry if this were an angry and misguided act.  And you claim there are a few such events, even:

The saying is sure:[a] whoever aspires to the office of bishop[b] desires a noble task. Now a bishop[c] must be above reproach, married only once,[d] temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.

 

Oh yes! The duality of Christ is an incredibly interesting mystery!

I wish you wouldve responded to more of the points I made.  

I made a sincere effort to explain how your question would be understood through exegesis and in Christiology.   What do you think of my response to this?

 

(side note: I reserve the right to take time in responding to this thread)

 

Anyway, while you gather your notes in reference to my previous question, I'll answer yours.

 

Jesus losing His temper was not a sin.  It was an act of righteous indignation....I'm sure you've heard the term before, yes?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read a lot about Islam during the last couple of weeks and it's a very interesting religion. I can relate more to it than to other religions for example

Edited by Sosso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were religious I'd be Buddhist. But I think signing up for a religion is at best arbitrary and at worst horrifically damaging.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sosso said:

I've read a lot about Islam during the last couple of weeks and it's a very interesting religion. I can relate more to it than to Christianity for example

That's cool. But you still have to suppress rationality and believe in some supernatural creature that rules the world, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That's cool. But you still have to suppress rationality and believe in some supernatural creature that rules the world, right?

I think it's a bit worthy to say that I consider myself as a atheist and that my studies about Islam will not lead me into converting.

I'm sorry if my first post was misleading.

 

Edited by Sosso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sosso said:

I think it's a bit worthy to say that I consider myself as a atheist and that my studies about Islam will not lead me into converting.

I'm sorry if my first post was misleading.

No, don't be sorry. I didn't think you would jump ship, so to speak.

My point is, and this has nothing to do with you, I just used your post to ease into it, is that you can dress up a theology any way you want it, you still have to commit intellectual suicide to embrace that religion as long as it depends upon a belief in gods. And if there is any aspect of a religion you find attractive, like humanism, empathy, charity, mindfullness, and there are! - then those aspects can be adopted and made yours without taking on board the ugliness of believing in things for which we have no evidence. 

  • Like 3
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, don't be sorry. I didn't think you would jump ship, so to speak.

My point is, and this has nothing to do with you, I just used your post to ease into it, is that you can dress up a theology any way you want it, you still have to commit intellectual suicide to embrace that religion as long as it depends upon a belief in gods. And if there is any aspect of a religion you find attractive, like humanism, empathy, charity, mindfullness, and there are! - then those aspects can be adopted and made yours without taking on board the ugliness of believing in things for which we have no evidence. 

Pretty much this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gibson_Guy87 said:

I was raised Catholic. I haven't "quit" the church so to speak, I've just found in the last year that I disagree with their views on a lot of things, namely sexual related stuff. Sex is a very private and personal thing and the church, or anyone for that matter, has no right to meddle in stuff like that. I also went to Catholic school throughout my entire childhood and now that I'm getting out into the world, I'm starting to see that all the stuff the Church said was bad for us (pre-marital sex, questioning your beliefs, being non-religious) isn't bad at all, it's part of being human

You know I found out this division among Catholics and Christian religions in general. In different places they have different policies. There are churches who welcome gays, divorce people, women who had had abortions, etc. The Church of England is open and progressive, still divorce is an issue. What I'm saying is not everything is black and white. But I heard from active Christians that many things depend of the kind of Bishop or priest in a particular area. I only go to church if I'm invited to a weeding. And I personally believe that when it comes to religions there is way too much mithology than truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Padme said:

You know I found out this division among Catholics and Christian religions in general. In different places they have different policies. There are churches who welcome gays, divorce people, women who had had abortions, etc. The Church of England is open and progressive, still divorce is an issue. What I'm saying is not everything is black and white. But I heard from active Christians that many things depend of the kind of Bishop or priest in a particular area. I only go to church if I'm invited to a weeding. And I personally believe that when it comes to religions there is way too much mithology than truth

Here's the thing about christian Churches: they are inherently socially conservative. They have to be, they uphold scripture which contain written rules that are constant, not flexible. It's dogmatic, not progressive. But here's another thing about Churches: if they don't have followers they die out. So Churches who don't evolve to reflect society in general, will be trivialized and die out as weird sects. Only those Churches that adapt will survive. That's why Churches tend to reflect the society inwhich they are embedded, only lagging a bit behind as they struggle with the dilemma of abandoning dogmas and embracing change. Churches in England are fairly open and progressive, as you say, because that's how England society is. Churches in Norway, even more so. While Churches in backwards Alabama are like something out of old times, because that is a socially conservative, repulsive region. So if you want a progressive Church, go to a progressive country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Here's the thing about christian Churches: they are inherently socially conservative. They have to be, they uphold scripture which contain written rules that are constant, not flexible. It's dogmatic, not progressive. But here's another thing about Churches: if they don't have followers they die out. So Churches who don't evolve to reflect society in general, will be trivialized and die out as weird sects. Only those Churches that adapt will survive. That's why Churches tend to reflect the society inwhich they are embedded, only lagging a bit behind as they struggle with the dilemma of abandoning dogmas and embracing change. Churches in England are fairly open and progressive, as you say, because that's how England society is. Churches in Norway, even more so. While Churches in backwards Alabama are like something out of old times, because that is a socially conservative, repulsive region. So if you want a progressive Church, go to a progressive country.

Nah.  First of all, Christ was not dogmatic as a Jew nor in Christianity.  Christ taught celibacy and single life as the ideal. But Christ himself was flexible and also encouraged marriage.  So, churches have never been inflexible or dogmatic - they are centred in family despite Christ rising a higher ideal.  Church exists as a gathering of sinners organizing themselves to be 'good enough for the Spirit to flow through'

Alabama was the location you choose to demonstrate the repulsive fringe of Christianity?  Churches, in Alabama preached on and trained those active in the Civil Rights movement.  Their reading of scripture is what lead them to be engaged in economics, which uncovered a great injustice.  The early church identified as an Oikonomia, greek for 'household management' - the root for the modern "economy."  So this was a common current since day one.  These Alabama churches, who stayed true to the letter of Christs teachings were anything but socially conservative.  They literally achieved progress in the USA.  That is being progressive.  The constant truth of Christ produced progress in the USA.

Churches arent meant to reflect society.  The church is an unrecognizable entity to the world.  The world will place its own words on it as recognition brings comfort, but it is a wholey "other" entity that has as little use for society as society has for the church.

 

 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Here's the thing about christian Churches: they are inherently socially conservative. They have to be, they uphold scripture which contain written rules that are constant, not flexible. It's dogmatic, not progressive. But here's another thing about Churches: if they don't have followers they die out. So Churches who don't evolve to reflect society in general, will be trivialized and die out as weird sects. Only those Churches that adapt will survive. That's why Churches tend to reflect the society inwhich they are embedded, only lagging a bit behind as they struggle with the dilemma of abandoning dogmas and embracing change. Churches in England are fairly open and progressive, as you say, because that's how England society is. Churches in Norway, even more so. While Churches in backwards Alabama are like something out of old times, because that is a socially conservative, repulsive region. So if you want a progressive Church, go to a progressive country.

Your views on Christian Churches, especially Catholicism as being "non flexible" are archaic, dated stereotypes.  The Catholic Church has maintained a similar level of progression as Western society has over the past 50-75 years or so...and even more so now with (likely)  the most progressive Pope in Catholic Church history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Padme said:

The Church of England is open and progressive, still divorce is an issue. 

Which is ridiculous because the only reason that the Church of England even exists is because Henry the 8th wanted to get a divorce and couldn't under the Catholic Church. It's all absolute fucking nonsense. 

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The Catholic Church has maintained a similar level of progression as Western society has over the past 50-75 years or so...and even more so now with (likely)  the most progressive Pope in Catholic Church history. 

#falsepope #McCoy #Feminism :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Which is ridiculous because the only reason that the Church of England even exists is because Henry the 8th wanted to get a divorce and couldn't under the Catholic Church. It's all absolute fucking nonsense. 

Not really. The Church of England has existed continuously, Christianity having been lost when the legions departed, since Augustine of Canterbury's Gregorian mission c. 597 AD. The Church of England, which merely means the state-church of England, is not synonymous with the 'reformed' Anglican church which began during the reign of Henry VIII: it also describes England's church when she was aligned with Western Christendom.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For any looking to explore Early Christianity and Pauls writings, I offer this wonderful video series by the amazing scholar, Harvard Divinity's Laura Nasrallah.  This is the first in a series of stand alone talks on aspects of the subject, mostly how its studied.  Its incredibly accessible and very engaging.  Videos range from 2-9 minutes, averaging  5min.  Theres also an intro video, but thought to just jump in for this clip:

 

 

This link should hopefully connect to the play list.  Take note that some videos are out of order so you can click the proper one in sequence.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLI-z6BIH2vY6EPn7mFVG6JH0NNFBp6jDv

 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

No, don't be sorry. I didn't think you would jump ship, so to speak.

My point is, and this has nothing to do with you, I just used your post to ease into it, is that you can dress up a theology any way you want it, you still have to commit intellectual suicide to embrace that religion as long as it depends upon a belief in gods. And if there is any aspect of a religion you find attractive, like humanism, empathy, charity, mindfullness, and there are! - then those aspects can be adopted and made yours without taking on board the ugliness of believing in things for which we have no evidence. 

One of the most progressive things has to be the Zakat. That's one of the Five Pillars of Islam. The zakat promotes a more equitable redistribution of wealth and fosters a sense of solidarity amongst members of the community.

Edited by Sosso
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

Nah.  First of all, Christ was not dogmatic as a Jew nor in Christianity.  Christ taught celibacy and single life as the ideal. But Christ himself was flexible and also encouraged marriage.  So, churches have never been inflexible or dogmatic - they are centred in family despite Christ rising a higher ideal.  Church exists as a gathering of sinners organizing themselves to be 'good enough for the Spirit to flow through'

Jesus was progressive, yes, for his time, but that doesn't mean that Churches are. They adhere to scripture, which is dogmatic. Hence Churches tend to be socially conservative institutions, compared to the societies inwhich they exist. Societies moves on, Churches follow reluctantly. 

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

Your views on Christian Churches, especially Catholicism as being "non flexible" are archaic, dated stereotypes.  The Catholic Church has maintained a similar level of progression as Western society has over the past 50-75 years or so...and even more so now with (likely)  the most progressive Pope in Catholic Church history. 

They are lagging behind. Just as I explained. Just look at the Catholic Churches views on abortion, equality, gay rights, etc, always a few steps after the society in general. Which was exactly my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×