The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[DieselDaisy]

Also do not forget the earliest Church in Rome was basically a radical movement, and underground cult which had remarkably egalitarian ethos, liberating Roman women and transcending Rome's stringent class structure. It was also critical of Roman licentious such as gluttony and gladiatorial games. There was even something radical in the way they operated sub rosa, and came to be persecuted as martyrs. 

[soon]

9 hours 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 other religions for example

I find sections of the Q'uran to be engaging reads and appreciate the larger libraries desire for reason and rationality.  Nice to have a canonized Abrahamic text on Mary too.  I read Maryam during advent.

 

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, soon said:

I agree that we would politically locate Jesus as progressive or even a radical.  He was killed for the charge of insurrection even.  But more of what Id hoped to say is that the Church is in the world but not of it.  They dont speak the language of the world. Churches that move with the world can even fall into apostasy.  A church promoting judgement and exclusion due to right wing ideals may have fallen into apostasy for instance.  I get the sense that you may be speaking mostly to apostate churches (of which there are many).

The example I gave of the Progressive impact that to-the-letter-scripture-adherence had on the US wasnt to say that Christianity exists in that political mode, but that following scripture is not by definition socially conservative as youd asserted. The impact of Civil Rights Movement was most unwelcome by southern US society and establishment.  Just as Christ invaded history in the flesh once, his Way - which is neither left nor right politically - invaded the march of society in the US simply by the church living in the moment, being true to itself and following scripture.

As long as scripture remains constant, and it does, then Churches following scripture will be conservative and opposed to change (unless that change is in the direction of scripture, that is). Any change away from scripture, like gay rights, equality, abolishment of slavery, abortion, would be a threat and be met with resistance.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loath religions who change their views over time so as to not be too contrary to society.  I find it loathsome on an intellectual basis (have they no integrity?) but also because if religions weren't adapting they would quickly become trivialized as archaic sects without meaning to modern humans, and eventually, and gloriously, die out. And we'd be better off without them. 

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

In terms of Gay Rights, the Pope has recently said "Who are we to judge them" or something along those lines...if you don't think that's progress, then you don't understand the meaning of progress.

Have I said Churches aren't progressing their views? No, I am saying the exact opposite. They ARE progressing their views (because they have to otherwise they'd lose to many adherents), and they typically due it after society has already moved in that direction. 

[soon]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

As long as scripture remains constant, and it does, then Churches following scripture will be conservative and opposed to change (unless that change is in the direction of scripture, that is). Any change away from scripture, like gay rights, equality, abolishment of slavery, abortion, would be a threat and be met with resistance.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loath religions who change their views over time so as to not be too contrary to society.  I find it loathsome on an intellectual basis (have they no integrity?) but also because if religions weren't adapting they would quickly become trivialized as archaic sects without meaning to modern humans, and eventually, and gloriously, die out. And we'd be better off without them. 

You havent demonstrated that "Churches following scripture will be conservative and opposed to change."  Especially in light of the Civil Rights Movement example Ive given.  You've made the common mistake of taking a few generalized, popular concerns about Protestant Liberalism and a few about Conservative Christianity and expected that I would happily take on the failures (or perceived failures) as my own truth.  I do not.  You're choosing to believe that Constantine represents Christianity; Its willfully embracing a straw man.

What does Jesus say about gay rights?  In fact what weight does Jesus, Scripture or Christian Tradition place on the worlds concept of "Rights" themselves?  The Early Church organized itself according to the Good News, not "rights."

Jesus preached equality and acted on it, on every page of the Gospels.  He said "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed." (Luke 4:18)  

You believe the Christian Scripture is pro-slavery?  See Luke 4:18.  Some people get confused by Pauls use of the language (one of the reasons why I posted a primer on how to study Paul) but check out his letter to Philemon (hint: remember that even Paul can be sarcastic). The Churches who ran the Under Ground Rail Road and who work to free enslaved fisherman and sex trafficking victims today arent confused about it. 

Again, there are apostate churches engaged in Worldliness, but Christianity doesnt seek to make or revoke laws.  The Chuch is entirely other.  Christ was offered to rule all the Kingdoms and he rejected this.

We believe scripture is living - not a constant.  The Living Word.  Its alive due to the illumination of the Counsellor (What Christ actually referred to the "Holy Spirit" as).  This ongoing revelation happens through slow and steady academic analysis as well as the spiritual lives of all laity.  Whats constant is the truth of Christ and the grace of the God revealed in Christ.

It may well be that you and I agree that the world wold be better with out apostate churches, but I will not agree that those poor souls represent the Church, Christianity, Scripture nor Tradition.  

The world cannot measure or appreciate the "meaning" of Christ.  So the world cannot say if and when Christianity would presumably become "...archaic sects without meaning to modern humans..."

(NRSV is the translation of the Bible that I would recommend)

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

You havent demonstrated that "Churches following scripture will be conservative and opposed to change."  Especially in light of the Civil Rights Movement example Ive given.  You've made the common mistake of taking a few generalized, popular concerns about Protestant Liberalism and a few about Conservative Christianity and expected that I would happily take on the failures (or perceived failures) as my own truth.  I do not.  You're choosing to believe that Constantine represents Christianity; Its willfully embracing a straw man.

What does Jesus say about gay rights?  In fact what weight does Jesus, Scripture or Christian Tradition place on the worlds concept of "Rights" themselves?  The Early Church organized itself according to the Good News, not "rights."

Jesus preached equality and acted on it, on every page of the Gospels.  He said "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed." (Luke 4:18)  

You believe the Christian Scripture is pro-slavery?  See Luke 4:18.  Some people get confused by Pauls use of the language (one of the reasons why I posted a primer on how to study Paul) but check out his letter to Philemon (hint: remember that even Paul can be sarcastic). The Churches who ran the Under Ground Rail Road and who work to free enslaved fisherman and sex trafficking victims today arent confused about it. 

Again, there are apostate churches engaged in Worldliness, but Christianity doesnt seek to make or revoke laws.  The Chuch is entirely other.  Christ was offered to rule all the Kingdoms and he rejected this.

We believe scripture is living - not a constant.  The Living Word.  Its alive due to the illumination of the Counsellor (What Christ actually referred to the "Holy Spirit" as).  This ongoing revelation happens through slow and steady academic analysis as well as the spiritual lives of all laity.  Whats constant is the truth of Christ and the grace of the God revealed in Christ.

It may well be that you and I agree that the world wold be better with out apostate churches, but I will not agree that those poor souls represent the Church, Christianity, Scripture nor Tradition.  

The world cannot measure or appreciate the "meaning" of Christ.  So the world cannot say if and when Christianity would presumably become "...archaic sects without meaning to modern humans..."

(NRSV is the translation of the Bible that I would recommend)

Scripture is more than the words of Jesus. Scripture is the entire bible. And looking at the totality of the bible, not just selected cherry-picked verses, it comes off as VERY socially conservative compared to modern societies. Of course, society back in pre-history WAS socially backwards compared to today so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. In general, the bible is anti-equality, pro-slavery, anti-gay, etc. And any Church that adheres to scripture would necessarily also be socially conservative, and hence be an impediment to social progress. 

 

[Ace Nova]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Scripture is more than the words of Jesus. Scripture is the entire bible. And looking at the totality of the bible, not just selected cherry-picked verses, it comes off as VERY socially conservative compared to modern societies. Of course, society back in pre-history WAS socially backwards compared to today so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. In general, the bible is anti-equality, pro-slavery, anti-gay, etc. And any Church that adheres to scripture would necessarily also be socially conservative, and hence be an impediment to social progress. 

 

Out of curiosity have you studied or even read the Bible...or at least the majority of it?  

[soon]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Scripture is more than the words of Jesus. Scripture is the entire bible. And looking at the totality of the bible, not just selected cherry-picked verses, it comes off as VERY socially conservative compared to modern societies. Of course, society back in pre-history WAS socially backwards compared to today so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. In general, the bible is anti-equality, pro-slavery, anti-gay, etc. And any Church that adheres to scripture would necessarily also be socially conservative, and hence be an impediment to social progress. 

 

You are making the mistake that all Scripture is law and that Christ isnt the centre of Christianity.  For one its called the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament."

The New Testament is Christianity and Christ is the measure for Christianity.  If you have issues with the Old Testament then you ought to take that up with those adhering to the teachings.

You are cherry picking.  I sit with the entire work, day in and day out.  The Bible is not generally those things.

You cant just repeat these lines in the face of all Im putting forward

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

You are making the mistake that all Scripture is law and that Christ isnt the centre of Christianity.  For one its called the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament."

The New Testament is Christianity and Christ is the measure for Christianity.  If you have issues with the Old Testament then you ought to take that up with those adhering to the teachings.

You are cherry picking.  I sit with the entire work, day in and day out.  The Bible is not generally those things.

You cant just repeat these lines in the face of all Im putting forward

Scripture is scripture. Some denominations will put more emphasis on some parts of scripture, true, but I am talking about scripture, not their emphases.

Where have I cherry-picked? Looking at the entire scripture, i.e. the entire bible without weights, so not just whatever you might find important in your peculiar practise of christianity, there is an overwhelming amount of verses against gay rights and there is an overwhelming amount of verses supporting slavery, as two quick examples. 

I would argue that the very fact that you object to me including verses from the Old Testament supports my point: Your christianity has evolved to down-play the importance of this part of scripture, and instead focus on parts that are less socially repulsive. Thank you.

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Out of curiosity have you studied or even read the Bible...or at least the majority of it?  

I have read the whole thing. My favorite part is the gospels. Can't get enough of Jesus dying for my sins.

[Ace Nova]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Scripture is scripture. Some denominations will put more emphasis on some parts of scripture, true, but I am talking about scripture, not their emphases.

Where have I cherry-picked? Looking at the entire scripture, i.e. the entire bible without weights, so not just whatever you might find important in your peculiar practise of christianity, there is an overwhelming amount of verses against gay rights and there is an overwhelming amount of verses supporting slavery, as two quick examples. 

I would argue that the very fact that you object to me including verses from the Old Testament supports my point: Your christianity has evolved to down-play the importance of this part of scripture, and instead focus on parts that are less socially repulsive. Thank you.

I have read the whole thing. My favorite part is the gospels. Can't get enough of Jesus dying for my sins.

If that's the case, how can you accuse soon of cherry picking verses when you are cherry picking and ignoring some of the most important messages of the Bible? 

Mark 12:30-31New International Version (NIV)

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a]

 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

As quoted, the most important commandment for Christians is  love and equality.  

Edited January 10, 2018 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

If that's the case, how can you accuse soon of cherry picking verses when you are cherry picking and ignoring some of the most important messages of the Bible? 

Mark 12:30-31New International Version (NIV)

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a]

 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

As quoted, the most important commandment for Christians is  love and equality.  

Yeah, then you have an overwhelming amount of verses going against those. So which ones are you going to put an emphasis on? But I am not coming into this discussion with any such emphases, I don't belong to a denomination (thank god!) who have said that some parts are more important than others. I look at the totality of the bible, of scripture, and then a verse that says you should love everybody is killed off by numerous verses that say you should kill gays. That's how it is. And that is my point. Denominations have evolved to focus on some parts of the bible, and overlook/reject/downplay others -- because otherwise they'd die out as society developed and they became more and more contrary.

[Ace Nova]

36 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, then you have an overwhelming amount of verses going against those. So which ones are you going to put an emphasis on? But I am not coming into this discussion with any such emphases, I don't belong to a denomination (thank god!) who have said that some parts are more important than others. I look at the totality of the bible, of scripture, and then a verse that says you should love everybody is killed off by numerous verses that say you should kill gays. That's how it is. And that is my point. Denominations have evolved to focus on some parts of the bible, and overlook/reject/downplay others -- because otherwise they'd die out as society developed and they became more and more contrary.

No, not so.  "There is no commandment greater than these".  Meaning those two commandments trump all previous commandments/laws.  Hence why it's called "The New Testament".

Most of what you are referring to are the Laws of Moses from the Old Testament.  Here's a brief explanation of the Old vs New:

The Law of Moses was given to point people's minds forward to Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah-to-come. Once he did come, the Law's purpose was fulfilled, and it became obsolete. It was not destroyed, but superseded by a higher law, the law of the Gospel.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3733/does-the-new-testament-override-the-old-testament

 

 

[Ace Nova]

5 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

The crucifixion is not graceful or good. If God and the Devil etc is real, then I think the Devil is tricking people into worshiping the violent murder of God's son/an innocent man. Aside from the fact that people should take responsibility for their own actions/sins. How the fuck is torturing him, nailing him to wood and killing him anything other than ugly, violent and evil? Please explain your reasoning @soon@Kasanova King

If you guys were there at the time, just standing there at the cross watching as he died in agony, what would you say? Would you do anything?
 

 

Christians worship God.  Jesus is the Christ who is God in human form.  The act of crucifixion is not something we "worship".  It's everything you said...and even worse since it was done to Jesus, who we worship.  The miracle is the Resurrection of Christ and the sacrifice He made for mankind. 

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

So it's the resurrection you admire, not the crucifixion, which you admit is just ridiculous violence?

The crucifixion was part of the sacrifice but no, the act of crucifixion is not something we "worship".  

This is what Catholics believe:

We believe in one God, 
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen. 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
of one Being with the Father. 

Through him all things were made. 

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man. 

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried. 

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son. 

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets. 

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. 

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. 

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

 

 

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Something else about it that I hate is the idea we are all born into sin. If anyone looks at a cute little chubby cheeked baby and thinks it's full of sin - sorry, but that's fucked up. Also, Jesus did not die for my sins, no one has/will and I would never want that.

The people running the Catholic church rape children and/or cover that up. So, if God and the Devil are real then surely the Devil is in your Church?

Babies aren't "full of sin".  They are born with "Original Sin"...which stems from Mankind's betrayal of God in the Garden of Eden.  They are cleansed of Original Sin when they are baptized. 

Evil can permeate all things...and yes, evil has permeated the Catholic Church.  Priests are people as well and some unfortunately fell to Satan's grasp.  I'm relatively certain it was an extremely small minority so saying the "people that run the Catholic Church rape children and cover it up" is a broad and inaccurate, prejudicial generalization...since 99% of the people who run the Catholic Church never raped anyone... nor did they cover it up. 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

99%? Where are you getting your statistics? It's a proven fact that the Church systematically protects its rapists. The hierarchy is corrupted. That's what I care about, that's what bothers me. I am very aware most Catholics like you aren't rapists, but I don't have an issue with them...so who cares? The Church uses all the normal people that follow it as a human shield. "We may rape kids and cover it up and do all kinds of fucked up shit...but can you please give a round of applause for all the good normal people following us, folks!?"

You're right, it's probably much higher than 99%.  There's approximately 420,000 Catholic priests in the world...then add amount of Brothers, Deacons, etc..that number is easily over 1 million...meaning that 99% would be 990,000.  Meaning that 10,000 Priests, Brothers, Deacons etc would be rapists....so you're right....I GUARANTEE there are not 10,000 rapists within the Catholic Church. 

The Pope has pledged a "zero tolerance" policy against them. 

"Pope Francis has branded sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests a “monstrosity” and pledged action against perpetrators and bishops who protected them."

“We will counter those priests who betrayed their calling with the most strenuous measures. This also applies to the bishops and cardinals who protected these priests – as happened repeatedly in the past,” he wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/17/pope-francis-sexual-abuse-priests-absolute-monstrosity-terrible-sin

 

The Catholic Church is not perfect and no one, not even the Pope, makes that claim.  It has its faults and hopefully within time, the evil within it is rooted out. 

I will say that it is, by far,  the most charitable organization in the world....and no other organization comes close. 

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

No, not so.  "There is no commandment greater than these".  Meaning those two commandments trump all previous commandments/laws.  Hence why it's called "The New Testament".

Most of what you are referring to are the Laws of Moses from the Old Testament.  Here's a brief explanation of the Old vs New:

The Law of Moses was given to point people's minds forward to Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah-to-come. Once he did come, the Law's purpose was fulfilled, and it became obsolete. It was not destroyed, but superseded by a higher law, the law of the Gospel.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3733/does-the-new-testament-override-the-old-testament

There is no reason to believe that "thy neighbor" in this example includes Eduardo the fabulous gay neighbor upstairs. Don't get me wrong, I am grateful that you focus on this particular bible verse and interpret it as a blanket statement about every kind of neighbor you may have, but it is very naive to think it was intended that way. Still, even if you interpret it as some all-encompassing statement of love -- which I like! -- it still stands against numerous statements of hate and ugliness found in the bible. You still have to choose that this particular stand-alone verse is more important than the onslaught of hate and unfriendliness found elsewhere in scripture. Which again brings me to my point: it all comes down to interpretation and a choice of which parts to adopt. And this again is heavily influenced by societal direction. Society moves, christianity reluctantly follows. 

[SoulMonster]

35 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Babies aren't "full of sin".  They are born with "Original Sin"...which stems from Mankind's betrayal of God in the Garden of Eden.  They are cleansed of Original Sin when they are baptized. 

What if they die before they are baptized, which happens regularly. Does that mean they have to suffer eternally in hell because of something Adam did? 

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I will say that it is, by far,  the most charitable organization in the world....and no other organization comes close. 

What?? Even more charitable than the Red Cross? Or Doctors without Borders? Or UNICEF? Or WWF? Or any other non-profit organization that is 100 % set up to be a charitable organization that has philantrophy as its only objective? 

Edited January 10, 2018 by SoulMonster

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Too little too late. Not good enough. They need to answer to man's law.

They have massive hoards of wealth and don't pay taxes. Give a lot - take even more. Also, I object to them having a vast secret library which they don't allow humanity access to. Who the fuck do they think they are?

You've read one too many Dan Brown novels...lol.  Access to the Vatican Archives (which is what I'm guessing you're referring to) has been opened to scholars and journalists for years now.  Of course they need to be qualified to have access since it's not just a "library" It contains (literally) ancient and historic books and documents that are priceless.  But no, there's not some crazy "conspiracy to hide the truth from the people"...lol.

They don't "give and take more"....that's another ridiculous myth.  Most Catholic lay people pledge oaths of poverty.  And even the ones that don't, live relatively simple lives.  

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What?? Even more charitable than the Red Cross? Or Doctors without Borders? Or UNICEF? Or WWF? Or any other non-profit organization that is 100 % set up to be a charitable organization that has philantrophy as its only objective? 

Yes. 

[Ace Nova]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There is no reason to believe that "thy neighbor" in this example includes Eduardo the fabulous gay neighbor upstairs. Don't get me wrong, I am grateful that you focus on this particular bible verse and interpret it as a blanket statement about every kind of neighbor you may have, but it is very naive to think it was intended that way. Still, even if you interpret it as some all-encompassing statement of love -- which I like! -- it still stands against numerous statements of hate and ugliness found in the bible. You still have to choose that this particular stand-alone verse is more important than the onslaught of hate and unfriendliness found elsewhere in scripture. Which again brings me to my point: it all comes down to interpretation and a choice of which parts to adopt. And this again is heavily influenced by societal direction. Society moves, christianity reluctantly follows. 

Wrong again.  I choose to use that verse because it's stated as the MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT.  It's pretty simple, really.

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Yes. 

Okay...? I interpret "the most charitable organization" as the one who takes the highest amount of its proceeds and donates to charitable causes. How do you define it? And The chatholic church is not at all a "lean organization" in that sense. Any of these would be better: https://www.forbes.com/top-charities/#6c14ce1976ab

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Okay...? I interpret "the most charitable organization" as the one who takes the highest amount of its proceeds and donates to charitable causes. How do you define it? And The chatholic church is not at all a "lean organization" in that sense. Any of these would be better: https://www.forbes.com/top-charities/#6c14ce1976ab

Most charitable means gives the most to charity.  

If we go by your standards, then I can claim to be the most charitable organization in the world if I give everything I make away to charity.  That's pure nonsense. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Wrong again.  I choose to use that verse because it's stated as the MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT.  It's pretty simple, really.

But it is still a choice you make. Others may argue that a blanket statement like that is less important than a highly explicit verse saying clearly that homosexuals should be killed. Which is AGAIN my point: you have decided to focus on some parts of the bible - not because they make more sense -- but because it allows you to be in tune with society. If we go back hundred years or so, christians would argue that the "clearly" that verse was not intended to encompass gays, because they could point to a dozen bible verses that explicitly state that homosexuality is an abomination. They would laugh if you were to say that your verse somehow negates theirs. The reason why all of the verses that condemn homosexuality now have fallen out of favour, while verses like the one you point to suddenly become popular, is due to a need for the church to evolve with the times. There are no intellectual reasoning behind this shift in reality. It is all due to self-preservation.

[Ace Nova]

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

No. Access is limited to a few scholars and they are only allowed to examine books with explicit permission and the scholars have to know the name of the book they want to request to examine. So, ya know, that kind of heavily restricts things when it's a private/secret library lol.

In this day and age they could very easily make digital copies of everything they have. They don't want to do that because they're pricks who get off on power and control.

Oh I agree they should make digital copies.   I'd love to read and see some of those historic books and documents.  I'm sure in time with enough demand, they will.