No, I can’t. I see little bibilical support that shows that certain commandments were time sensitive, and others were for all time. Anything else seems like the worst kind of retconning.
From the cathecism of the Roman Catholic Church:
In other words, the church rejects a literal-only reading of scripture.
So, in other words, you are supporting my interpretation that the claimCatholicism and Christianity. They aren’t interchangeable. is in fact wrong? 
Other people? Heck, it’s complicated enough for me to figure my own Christianity out.
Besides, if I organized a march against some of the more annoying factions of my self-proclaimed bretheren, they might take it as a sign that they’re doing the right thing, 'cause obviously they’re being “persecuted” for their faith. :rolleyes:
I’m speaking of the Christian denomination which I know best.
The catholic church may (or may not) reject literal-only interpretation. There are plenty of splinter groups who believe the bible, word for word, condemnation for condemnation. The fact that catholics believe in the virgin birth and other equally far-fetched ideas leads me to think there is no possible way the casual reader can determine which passages are intended as truth and which are just thrown in for dramatic effect.
You’re correct in saying that Christians cherry-pick. That’s the basis for the different Christian denominations – some place more emphasis on certain scriptures, some less. Individual churches within the denomination will also “cherry-pick” to a certain extent regarding the denomination’s overall philosophy, and of course that continues at the personal level.
The difference here, though, is that usually this “cherry-picking” occurs after much thought, discussion, meditation and interpretation by the person/group doing so. That is a marked contrast to seeing a few news reports and forming an opinion of millions upon millions of people based off that.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying you see the bad-scale things Christianity does-- say, from a political perspective. You see some good things on the small scale, but you’d prefer to see that as people helping people, not as a result of any religious belief. If that’s the case, this is sort of a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation, isn’t it? I can mention the food program my church administers to the needy, and the ESL classes and Spanish classes we’ve set up, and the numerous families who have been helped out of financial crises, but that would simply be lumped under the “people helping people” section and not the “religion doing good things” section.
That mentality is one of the reasons it’s difficult to remove the entrenched conservative leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many of the liberal and moderate Southern Baptists have left and formed their own associations, leaving a larger percentage of conservatives relative to the other groups.
Do one thing for me: Find a quote from Jesus in the Bible regarding homosexuality. Since the entire Christian faith is based on His life and ministry, that’s what I focus on. My yardstick on homosexuality is simple: Maybe it’s a sin. Maybe it’s not. I don’t know. Even if it is, my understanding of Jesus’ teachings leads me to believe that such a sin is no worse than any sin I have committed or will commit. In other words, homosexuals, even if they are considered sinners by God, are no worse than I am and shouldn’t be treated any differently. How that would make me “less of a Christian” in your eyes is baffling to me.
Scott_plaid: I’m not sure what you’re claiming regarding the Virgin Mary. Her title is based upon her being a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived, not after. One would naturally assume that, being husband and wife, Joseph and Mary would enjoy marital relations. If I’m stepping on Catholic theology here, somebody correct me.
Regarding the poisoner/death sentence scenario: Jesus specifically said he came to create a new covenant with God’s people. The old covenant, with its myriad rules and regulations, was no longer binding. Jesus told us to forgive multiple times
On the “vegan” comment: Paul was writing to Timothy and cautioning him to be on his guard regarding spirits and demons. Some of those spirits and demons would tell people not to marry and to abstain from certain foods (the word “meat” is a rough translation) AS A WAY TO GAIN SALVATION. Paul wasn’t saying that vegetarians/vegans are devil spawn. He was saying that those who teach ways to eternal salvation other than accepting Jesus were misled by spirits and demons.
If you’re still willing and content to simply lump all Christians (“you have a connection, it’s called being a Christian”) into the same theological, moral, doctrinal and political group despite what’s already been discussed in this thread and elsewhere, you’re being intentionally ignorant.
Exactly. When you are a member of a group that is supporting evil agendas, you are helping to advance those evil agendas, if only passively, if only tacitly.
Good point, and I’m further guessing that this was the result of the Western encounter with Eastern aestheticism, perhaps Hinduism, gaining adherents in the Middle East.
I am claiming that regardless of biblical support, an outspoken majority of chritians believe that mary was a virgin for life, and that the verse I quoted dismisses that idea.
So god showed up, said, “here are commandments for all of time,” then showed up a bit latter, and said “Whoops, never mind, these are the real deal, not the old one.” ::Yawn:: Jesus’ own words, in a handy Lego format contradict you.
I see the claim that devils will temp people to because vegans using misc lies, but nothing about SALVATION
Yadda,yaddda, I still don’t see how, since no one has answered any of my points re: I can hold christians responsible for future bad deeds of christianity, except to say “I can’t.”
See, I don’t base it simply on a few new reports. I base it on the christians I know. Christians I’ve known all my life. I see no reason why every christian can’t follow the bible, as written, to the letter. They choose to be christians, and they choose to ignore parts of the bible that don’t suit them. Does a particular faction of christianity tell the parishoners, “Incidently, please disregard chapter blah, blah, blah, as we really don’t want to think of christians as the cold-hearted bastards they are in this paragraph.”? Of course not. They tell you to live by the bible. It is up to each person to decide what makes them a good person and what doesn’t. It’s the same process us heathens go through, but we do it independent of a book that not only contradicts itself, but apparently has about a thousand pages too many, if all you really need to know is “love your neighbor.”
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying you see the bad-scale things Christianity does-- say, from a political perspective. You see some good things on the small scale, but you’d prefer to see that as people helping people, not as a result of any religious belief. If that’s the case, this is sort of a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation, isn’t it? I can mention the food program my church administers to the needy, and the ESL classes and Spanish classes we’ve set up, and the numerous families who have been helped out of financial crises, but that would simply be lumped under the “people helping people” section and not the “religion doing good things” section.
That mentality is one of the reasons it’s difficult to remove the entrenched conservative leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many of the liberal and moderate Southern Baptists have left and formed their own associations, leaving a larger percentage of conservatives relative to the other groups.
Do one thing for me: Find a quote from Jesus in the Bible regarding homosexuality. Since the entire Christian faith is based on His life and ministry, that’s what I focus on. My yardstick on homosexuality is simple: Maybe it’s a sin. Maybe it’s not. I don’t know. Even if it is, my understanding of Jesus’ teachings leads me to believe that such a sin is no worse than any sin I have committed or will commit. In other words, homosexuals, even if they are considered sinners by God, are no worse than I am and shouldn’t be treated any differently. How that would make me “less of a Christian” in your eyes is baffling to me.
Scott_plaid: I’m not sure what you’re claiming regarding the Virgin Mary. Her title is based upon her being a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived, not after. One would naturally assume that, being husband and wife, Joseph and Mary would enjoy marital relations. If I’m stepping on Catholic theology here, somebody correct me.
Regarding the poisoner/death sentence scenario: Jesus specifically said he came to create a new covenant with God’s people. The old covenant, with its myriad rules and regulations, was no longer binding. Jesus told us to forgive multiple times
On the “vegan” comment: Paul was writing to Timothy and cautioning him to be on his guard regarding spirits and demons. Some of those spirits and demons would tell people not to marry and to abstain from certain foods (the word “meat” is a rough translation) AS A WAY TO GAIN SALVATION. Paul wasn’t saying that vegetarians/vegans are devil spawn. He was saying that those who teach ways to eternal salvation other than accepting Jesus were misled by spirits and demons.
If you’re still willing and content to simply lump all Christians (“you have a connection, it’s called being a Christian”) into the same theological, moral, doctrinal and political group despite what’s already been discussed in this thread and elsewhere, you’re being intentionally ignorant.
[/QUOTE]
Does it? I really don’t care one way or the other, but as others have said, the brothers of Jesus may be from an earlier marriage of Joseph. And it was common in the time and place to call one’s half-brother simply a brother.
Let’s agree that the Roman Catholic Church is the leading proponent of the doctrine of perpetual virginity. You’re making the erroneous assumption that the RCC relies only on scripture as its sources of authority. But it doesn’t. Scripture is one leg of a tripod, the others being the authority of the church itself through revelation, and the authority of the faithful, i.e., the people. They act as sort of checks and balances on each other.
The RCC does not claim it gets its doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary from scripture.
If you’re hoping to advance the case that Christians rely only on the authority of scripture, and that the scripture must be read only literally, you’ve certainly got the RCC portion of Christianity wrong.
Damn. I hit send instead of preview. I want to address the second part of Sauron’s post directed at me.
"Do one thing for me: Find a quote from Jesus in the Bible regarding homosexuality. Since the entire Christian faith is based on His life and ministry, that’s what I focus on. My yardstick on homosexuality is simple: Maybe it’s a sin. Maybe it’s not. I don’t know. Even if it is, my understanding of Jesus’ teachings leads me to believe that such a sin is no worse than any sin I have committed or will commit. In other words, homosexuals, even if they are considered sinners by God, are no worse than I am and shouldn’t be treated any differently. How that would make me “less of a Christian” in your eyes is baffling to me. "
First, I don’t quote scripture. I am going by the gazillion or so posts that people have provided over the years, as well as the millions of discussions in other aspects of my life about “thou shalt not lay with a man…” or whatever. That’s fine if you don’t cotton to that portion of the bible. But how do you know what percentage of the bible you can ignore before you have to give back your Christian Card? And then what good is the bible? How do you determine what god really meant and what is crap? Tell me how a person is supposed to know which kind of christian you are. If it’s in the book, I have to assume christians abide by it. All of it. If you don’t, you’ll have to tell me where the dividing line is. Because it’s all very unclear to me.
Your first mistake.
If you live in the state of XXX, I have to assume you agree with every single law and act of that state. All of it. If you don’t, you’ll have to tell me where the dividing line is. Otherwise I will assume by your continued presence in that state, and your continued paying of taxes and voting in that state, you tacitly support every single thing about your state. Otherwise you would move.
Kalhoun and Scott_plaid, by the same argument then, assuming you’re both native-born American citizens, I can lump you in with the same people who tortured Iraqi prisoners and who beat me up because I was an immigrant. You’re an American. Why don’t you speak up about it?
As a matter of fact, I do speak up about how the Fundamentalists and the more bigotted Christians do not represent me and my views. I do it here and other places. I also support and have sometimes started projects which do things such as feeding the hungry or giving school supplies to kids who can’t afford them. The thing is, there is a specific injunction against drawing attention to ourselves while doing it. I’ll give you a cite when I get home, but I believe it’s somewhere in Matthew 6. Fine, the Pat Robertsons, etc. draw attention to themselves while doing things I regard as wrong. That doesn’t allow me to do what I believe Christ instructed me not to do.
I do agree with you whole-heartedly, though, that we moderate and liberal Christians do need to speak louder to counter the Fundamentalists. My church is already doing that, locally and nationally. Hopefully, by doing so, we’ll motivate others to follow suit.
CJ
Although I do vote against laws I disagree with, and I do occasionally write my congressman to make my views heard, I can hardly agree that the two are comparable. Christianity is faith-based. Government is based in the here and now. It relies to a large extent on public opinion, whereas certain forms of christianity have indelible rules and regulations, largely based on biblical scripture. I find this to be a weak defense.
I do speak up against the reprehensible things our country does, and I know you are the same with your faith. All I’m saying is that MY reality, and the reality of many, is that we are being forced to live our secular lives based on evil religious doctrine that has insinuated itself into our government. I resent the use of the word “sanctity” anywhere outside a church. I am pissed off that the church considers half it’s parishoners to be unworthy of leadership because they’re women. I think the Pope should have been de-throned because of his response to the child molestation scandal. I am apalled that with as much homosexuality as there is in the church, that they still outwardly speak against it. I’m amazed that public schools bus kids to church on my dime. I’m horrified that a faithful woman can’t choose to go on birth control. I’m infuriated that religion is calling the shots with regard to gay marriage, in the sense that even the unfaithful are forbidden to marry within their sex. I’m just sick of it.
You can be a good person (the presumed goal of your faith) and leave the rest behind. You don’t have to be a christian when being a good person can be achieved without all the bad baggage christianity drags around. You can start a food pantry, buy supplies for kids, help sick people, be a friend to a shut-in, raise money for the needy, build homes for the underprivledged, and all the rest. And you won’t be associated with the same bunch of people who are hell bent on murdering abortionists.
I realize most of my rant is aimed at the catholic church, but it carries through, to a degree, to all denominations. I cannot help but assume that most christians believe at least some of these things, at least until I get to know them better.
Couple of points:
- God didn’t say “These are the commandments for all time.”
- He didn’t come back and say “Whoops, never mind.”
- If you examine the two Laws Jesus said we should follow (love God, love your neighbor), you’ll see that they are actually an encapsulation of the Ten Commandments. In other words, it’s a simpler way of saying the Ten Commandments still apply.
- Jesus Himself broke some of the Levitical laws, in an effort to show people that works-based salvation was a thing of the past, and faith-based salvation was the new Law of the Land, eternal-life-wise.
Again, context is key here, as it is with so many lessons in the Bible. Paul was writing to Timothy, who had been sent as a pastor and preacher for the church at Ephesus. Paul had spent time with the Ephesians. After he left, there wasn’t a strong leader for the church, and various factions within the church began adding “requirements” for worship. Dunno if one of the factions specifically was promoting abstaining from marriage or eating certain foods; it may have been that Paul had just heard of such things, and was warning Timothy to be on the lookout for that. There was also a heated debate going on regarding circumcision – many Jewish converts to Christianity claimed you still had to be circumcised to become a Christian. Paul was telling Timothy, in essence, “Stick to the original message, and don’t let minutiae distract you or others.”
I’m fairly certain this has been addressed, but still – you’re free to hold all Christians responsible for the future bad deeds of Christianity. I’m not sure how that’ll matter, but there you go.
Jesus gave us the example by which to lead our lives. Having said that, it is humanly impossible to lead the kind of life He did. We fail, sometimes spectacularly. Every day I have multiple opportunities to help people, and I don’t always follow through. Doesn’t mean I can’t try to do better.
You’re asking me to explain something that Biblical scholars have debated for 2,000 years. I’m eminently unqualified to answer these questions with any sort of authority. However, I’ll give it a shot, based on my own personal views.
I consider the Old Testament (the first 3/5 of the Bible) to be basically a history lesson. “Here’s what happened, here’s why it happened.” The New Testament, when Jesus makes His appearance, is the meat of the matter for me. He’s the one the faith is named for, after all. It’s important to understand the context of the society He was working in/addressing, and for that reason the Old Testament is necessary. But Christians who refer to it as a source for rules and judgements against others (such as the homosexuality debate, for example) are wrong, in my opinion. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, to my knowledge. But he did say that everybody was a sinner, and nobody could lay claim to earning a spot in Heaven – it was a gift.
As far as giving back your “Christian Card,” that’s another debatable topic. Many believe that once you become a Christian, you’re a Christian forever – your “membership” can’t be revoked. Others think you can intentionally disassociate yourself from God and lose your salvation. I honestly don’t know the answer to that. However, I can tell you that in order to be a Christian, all you have to do is believe Jesus died for your sins, sincerely repent of your sins and ask Him to lead your life. Everything else – the church you attend (if you decide to go to a church), the way you worship Him, the people you associate with – is window-dressing.
On preview, I agree with you that moving toward a theocracy is not what is best for our country. It’s one thing to have a President who has a personal relationship with God – I think that’s a good thing. It’s something else entirely when that President and others in the government attempt to legislate their beliefs. This country was founded on an attitude of religious tolerance and a hands-off approach regarding religion and the State.
Not “the church” and certainly not my church. Remember, I’m Episcopalian. The priest who performed the mass which brought me out of near catatonia years ago and my current priest are both women. Believe me, I’m no fan of the Catholic church earlier. I had a chance to convert many years ago when I was madly in love with and engaged to a Catholic man. I told him I wouldn’t because, while I’m a reasonable Episcopalian, I’d make a lousy Catholic. I agree with pretty much everything you said, except possibly busing kids to church-schools and I suspect that if I gave it some serious thought, I’d come to agree with you on that, too.
To be honest, a theocracy terrifies me, too. It’s not just that I’m in favor of birth control being readily accessible, abortion being legal, and both topics being none of the government’s damn business. It’s not even that one of my closest friends and one of the finest people I know is a Wiccan. It’s that I’ve also seen religion used to bludgeon those of us who are different into conforming or destroy us and I’ve seen it used to destroy free, independent thinking.
I was lucky. The Episcopal church in my small town, one which you will never read about in the newspapers, or so I hope, gave a weird, lonely kid a place to belong and taught her a theology which depicted Christ as one who hung out with the lonely, outcast, and too damned weird to fit in anywhere. It gave me hope when I really didn’t have any. My parents were emotionally abusive to a degree which shocks friends of mine. My school was worse. Church was the only place I could go and not be called “useless”, “worthless”, a “waste”, etc. I’m pretty sure if I’d gone to any other church in town, I wouldn’t have had even that. If I’d survived, something I won’t give you long odds on, I’d be right there with you and Scott_plaid denouncing the evils and hypocrisies of Christianity. Odds are, though, I’d be long dead of suicide induced by sever clinical depression. That’s one of the main reasons I fight so hard against the Fundamentalists and the bigots and the people who say “You must be just like one of us or you’re a hell-bound sinner.” That’s not going to happen and, if I am indeed hell-bound, at least I’m going in good company. I’ll bring the marshmallows. That’s one reason I have to stay within my church and my faith – to make sure the next kid who comes along who’s too lonely, too worthless, and too damn weird to fit in anywhere has somewhere where he or she can. Damn it, I won’t shut up, even though you tell me too, even though the Fundamentalists tell me too, even though my own parents would be happier if I did. Christianity, specifically Anglicanism, gave me a place to go when no one else would. Yes, I know too many, maybe even most churches won’t. Maybe if they had, a kid in Montana wouldn’t have fallen in with white supremacists and shot up a school a few weeks ago. I will, by the way, be speaking out within my denomination about that. I wish I had a better way to carry the message further.
I appreciate the compliment that I’d probably be a good person even if I weren’t a Christian. The thing is, Christianity provides things that I don’t have a reasonable substitute for. There’s a pot of flowers sitting on a stool near me as I speak. They were sent to me a week ago by the rector my church; I’d gone back to my hometown for Easter Sunday and, despite the fact that I go to a rather large church, they’d missed me. For someone who’s used to being overlooked and dismissed, that’s a very pleasant surprise. I was in Dayton over the weekend and, as I approached the hotel, I passed an Episcopal church. It was rather nice knowing I could walk in, a stranger, and be welcomed. I have wonderful friends and a change to sing truly beautiful, intricate choral music. Now, I admit that, in my case, the local branch of the SCA could supply that last, but, frankly, the local SCAdians are a lot more pretentious than the local Episcopalians. Then again, the local SCAdians are apparently an abberation. It also give me an organized, concrete way to do good. I can basically multiply my own efforts to do good or help multiply the efforts of others, and not feel like a complete fool for wanting to do so. I’m a do-gooder at heart. Even at my age, I still genuinely want to change the world and make it better. I know a lot of people scoff at that and consider it a waste of time. After all, what can one person do? Not much, maybe, but I still can’t help but believe that enough people working together can do something and even my attempts, even when they fail, are still better than nothing.
Excuse me. I suspect I’m rambling.
CJ