I thought gnosticism, as in roughly the metaphysic in question, was around before Christianity, but some Christians then associated Christ with an aeon in gnostic mythology and so on. That is, I thought there was general accord that though Christian gnosticism was came about when you describe, gnosticism in general predated Christianity.
eta: not arguing, asking for clarification
I’m certainly willing to admit I might be wrong about the level of consensus and at what date that may have coalesced. But for me that’s more of a pedantic issue than one of substance. My whole reason for raising the issue relates to the fact that we really have no way of knowing what Jesus taught or what he expected from his followers. There is absolutely no doubt that none of the canonized gospels were written until well after 70AD and most probably after 100-150AD. I think 100AD is the earliest date given for Mark. So we are well into the second and third generations of followers. Textual analysis of the bible has a long history and things such as common sources like Q are pretty much beyond doubt.
All we can be certain of are a certain subset of Jesus’ saying and if you read these, especially in the context of something like the Gospel of Thomas, these are cryptic at best.
Beyond this, we have the various epistles. But the problem in each case is that like any literary work, each author has his own ax to grind. Take for example Paul’s penchant for laying out rules for the various churches while in other places we are advised to be guided by the spirit. It’s hard to have it both ways unless you are going to have one form of guidance trump the other.
So what we are left with is little more than questions. Even if we know what Jesus may have said, we certainly have no way knowing what he meant. We can only see hazily through the clouded lenses of what others saw and believe they understood.
Actually, to the specific point I replied, I am exactly correct.
In terms of whether we have the actual words or thoughts of Jesus, I already agreed with you in my first post and I have no intention of insisting that the church “has it right” either now or in the fourth, (or second or first), centuries.
My only point was that, since this is the Straight Dope, I would prefer that incorrect information not be promulgated.
There are two common tropes that occur among two separate groups, currently.
There is one group of biblical literalists who insist that the New Testament was written and closed relatively soon after the period in which Jesus lived, claiming that all the letters attributed to Paul were written before his death around 60, that the Revelation of John was written in response to the persecution of Nero in the same approximate period, that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, etc. They are wrong.
There is a second group of people who promote the idea that the canon was “created” in the fourth century, (sometimes attributing it to the Council of Nicaea or even later, sometimes attributing it to Constantine). The evidence, however, indicates that what we would consider a mainstream form of Christianity had already begun to collect those books that are part of the current New Testament well before 200, with some differences of opinion, but a growing unanimity of acceptance over the next 200 years.
I do not argue that anyone is bound to accept the current canon or that there are no flaws in its selection. I simply note that in the interest of accuracy, neither of the erroneous tropes should be allowed to go unchallenged.
Where are you getting this stuff? Do you hacve a citation? Mark was probably written around 70. Matthew and Luke were written in the next 20 years, (with both borrowing from Mark and either both borrowing from Q or one borrowing from Q and the other borrowing from the first). Both were completed before 90, (as was the Acts of the Apostles by the author of Luke). John was originally written around 90, or so, with a redaction or a later edition being created sometime after 100, (but nowhere near as late as 150).
Again, to your point that we have no eyewitness testimony to the words of Jesus, I would never contradict you, but in the interest of The Straight Dope, we ought to at least get some basic facts straight, here.
It is not a mortal sin.
“for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: . . . a sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. . . grave matter: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor your parents . . . gravity of sins is more or less great; murder is graver than theft . . . sins against parents are graver than those against strangers . . .”
#1857-1858, Catechism of the Catholic Church, English translation copyright 1994.
Also you can always repent on your deathbed.
those people were telling you stories, probably ones they believed to be true, sadly.
I consider myself a practicing Catholic. I have little respect for the current Pope, the College of Cardinals and quite a few bishops. I don’t buy most of the sexual sins named by the Catholic church, such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality. I think priests should marry and women should be ordained and pedophile priests prosecuted and fired, ideally with real fire.
How do I justify my Catholicism? I don’t bother. If I was looking for a religion that agreed with all my own beliefs I wouldn’t even be able to be UU. I believe in the foundational tenets of Christianity (Nicene Creed), I enjoy being utterly politically incorrect, and I love my parish. Also, I feel closer to God there. That’s all I need.
I was a fundamentalist Christian throughout my teens, completely fell away from all of it (and didn’t know for sure what to call myself) until several years ago when I tried to reconnect somehow, going to a Methodist church. That never felt honest and now I’m unreservedly an agnostic.
All that said, my main problem (although I’ve felt the same way about much else expressed here) is with the eternal concept of hell. I mean, I think the greatest love in the world must be as a parent for a child and that’s how God is seen to us, at least in my humble opinion. And as said parent, you discipline and punish your child to correct their behavior. Even if your kid did something truly heinous, you probably wouldn’t banish them forever.
That’s what an earthly parent would do. How much greater is God that he shouldn’t do something like that? So, what exactly is the point of eternal damnation? There’s no chance of proving yourself lesson learned and changing your behavior. There seems no reason to it except revenge. I just can’t reconcile that, unless it’s a man-made convention only to mete out the justice we don’t see in one’s natural life.
Actually, that pretty much sums up my belief in the bible in general now. I don’t think my version of God has much to do with it.
What would you think of annihilationism-ie God simply casting the souls of the unsaved to oblivion rather than punishing them consciously in Hell forever?
By being Christian? Quite rebellious and shocking, I’m sure.
Actually, I have no problem with that whatsoever, because that seems like more of a rational and natural consequence of non-belief. But punishment of the torturous variety? That smacks of wanting revenge because your lack of belief was out of spite. But I can’t imagine that’s true.
One doesn’t disbelieve in Santa Claus, being able to fly when they jump off the top of their house, or angels dancing on the heads of pins to show somebody up. You don’t believe because those things don’t make logical sense to you, so there’s nothing to punish. You simply don’t believe.
Therefore, I’m not seeing why God would take that personally and then go so far as to cast you into eternal hellfire when you couldn’t be convinced he exists. There are people alive today who don’t think Odin ever existed and no one bats an eyelash or cares. Our belief in God (at least the Christian Judeo version), mostly depends on how we were raised and where / when we lived. So easily, future generations could feel the same way we do about Odin. Should they burn because of their circumstances? Should we if the one true, real supreme being is Odin?
It just makes no sense to me anymore. If I was born in, say, China, I’d be more concerned with Buddhism and yet, for the most part, Christians here in the US aren’t the least bit worried about possibly offending Buddha in the afterlife. Go figure.
But back to your question… although I think that would be an okay trade off for non-belief, I still think that’s less than stellar of a deity that’s omnipotent. If I continue the comparison between God and parents, I still feel casting out and disowning your child forever is the wrong thing to do. And I certainly expect more from God than I do any human.
Why would God, ever omnicient, create a soul that he’s just going to destroy?
And destroy them not for being evil and vile, but for merely not believing in him? Or maybe believing in him as a general concept, but not in any dogmatic way.
OK, so maybe those folks get a second chance to learn the lessons that the other ones who took to so easily. Maybe God reveals himself personally to these doubters so that there is no question that he exists, and all the believers can point and laugh and say, “WE TOLD YOU SO!!!”
So why wouldn’t he just do this in the first place? Just to make perfectly reasonable, well-intentioned people feel foolish? That ain’t love. That’s being playing games and being an ass.
That’s because that is not how Buddhism works.
This mindset I find truly baffling.
You don’t support the leadership, disagree with fairly major beliefs officially held by the church yet still belong to it. I was raised Catholic and the reasons you state, and others, are why I left the church and religion completely.
I have such contempt for the church (not individual members) that I’d like to see the rotten organization disappear. I’d personally feel like a hypocrite if I attended mass, church related events, socialized with believers and the priests all the while having opposing beliefs.
Believe it or not, I actually knew that when I was posting, but I’m so lame with the analogies that I was too lazy to try to come up with something different and figured (hoped!) the underlying point would be obvious enough it’d still be okay.
I should’ve know those meddling kids would get me!
:shakes fist:
Arguing the accuracy of details is not the same as defending the divinity of what was ultimately made “official”
What impressed me about studying the early church was the fact that it was so fragmented and there was so much disagreement about who Jesus was and what his teachings actually meant. There were lots of writings considered inspired, but there were also guidelines as to what eventually became canon. There a great book titled “Lost Scriptures” by scholar Bart Erhman about that. It does show that modern Christianity was created by men long after Jesus supposedly walked and taught.
I talked to a Christian Saturday night who confessed that he didn’t really believe the whole Rapture thing even though the church he attended taught it as doctrine.
What was interesting to me was his conclusion that, “it really doesn’t matter” whether it’s true or not. As a former Christian that’s the conclusion I eventually came to about most Christian doctrine.
Jesus and other religious icons teach us about personal growth, the development of the inner person, and how to live with others in a way that benifits all.
The other mythology , heaven, hell, Jesus rising from the dead, It just doesn’t matter if it’s true.
I used to believe this, when I was still going around calling myself a Christian despite my total disregard for the dogma. Then gradually it dawned on me that I was just deluding myself.
The truth is that it does matter if it’s true. If a guy who promoted himself as a expert oncologist was found to be a high school dropout who had never even attended college let alone medical school, why in the hell should anyone put any credence into his advice about cancer therapy? Especially in the absence of hard evidence showing that his advice was sound? If someone’s claim to fame and expertise totally rests upon lies and myth, then their opinions should be treated likewise.
That isn’t to say that Jesus didn’t have good ideas. A lot of what’s attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is moving to me. But I’ve read self-help books that I’ve found equally inspirational, if not more so. Fiction too.
For those of you having trouble reconciling an all-powerful loving God to 1)eternal punishment in hell or 2) complete annihilation, universalism is a minority but legitimately orthodox tradition of Christian belief. That is, the belief that all people are eventually saved in this life or the next. Love Wins by Rob Bell is a decent, very easy to read introduction to this doctrine. In fact he starts off in the first chapter talking about Gandhi if I remember correctly.
It is if you live where I live and have the political beliefs I have. Not kidding. All my friends & family were utterly mystified/horrified when I converted.
Glad you don’t feel like a hypocrite, that’s a bad feeling. You might be surprised how many Catholics are like me, though.
Catholic here. I have a problem with transubstantiation. Look, just because you take some wafers and wine and say some words, they actually become the body and blood of Jesus? Sorry, but if you put it under a microscope, you aren’t going to see any human/divine cells. The incarnation of Jesus I have no problem with, but the perpetual virginity of Mary I don’t buy. I don’t believe in original sin, we all sin but the idea that we have a rap sheet as soon as we emerge from the womb is silly. Finally, I don’t believe in hell. If I’m a loving God, I open up the doors of heaven to everybody.