— If somebody rejects Jesus, he condemns himself with his own words.—
What does it mean to “reject” Jesus? I don’t even believe in Jesus: but does that mean I “reject” him? Maybe when I have good reason to believe what Christians believe I’ll have a chance to accept or reject whatever Jesus is doing or wants, but until then, it seems sort of misleading to speak of me “rejecting” him.
I see your point, Apos. What most people who use the term seem to mean by it is refusing to commit yourself to Him when they tell you about Him. The quality of the witness to who He is strikes me as highly significant here. In the shoes of the gay contingent here, and assuming little or no previous exposure to the Christian message, the content of the witness from the self-proclaimed “Bible-believing Christians” is not such as to make me at all interested in getting to know Him. (Sorry, guys, but that’s my honest evaluation of your witnessing efforts to date.)
Personally, my experience of Him is such that I find Him someone I would follow anywhere. But the only way to communicate that to you would seem to be by living out what He said to do, and proving to you by my own actions that the guy who inspired me to be the sort of person you might approve of is somebody you ought to get to know. (“Preach the Gospel without ceasing. When necessary, use words.” – Francis of Assisi)
Bottom line on the claim as I understand it, then, is that if you don’t “accept” Him – by which is meant, take Him as your personal Lord and Savior through a willed choice or a conversion experience – then you have “rejected” Him. And hence presumably deserve what you will get.
I trust you can see that I do not agree with the greater part of this stance.
I don’t think anyone here has really “rejected Jesus”. Most of the people of the SDMB follow the “do unto others” rule, and are pretty good to others. That’s doing what Jesus told everyone to do, so they’re not “rejecting him”, per se.
But Jesus said the first great commandment (we all know the second by heart) was to love God - which is hard to do if you don’t believe God exists.
True. But I personally believe that ties in with the whole, “whatever you do to the least of my people, you do to me.”
So, therefore, by loving your fellow man, you ARE loving God.
Of course, that’s just my view. That doesn’t mean I think that atheists are really believing in God. It just means that I believe that God is a part of everything, and thus, by loving one another, we’re serving God.
**Guinastasia wrote:
I don’t think anyone here has really “rejected Jesus”. Most of the people of the SDMB follow the “do unto others” rule, and are pretty good to others. That’s doing what Jesus told everyone to do, so they’re not “rejecting him”, per se.**
I have! Sorry, but if the J/C/I god won’t give straight answers to simple questions, then he’s not a god worth following.
Okay, here’s another question (not to go and hijack anything). Say you believe that Jesus was a really good guy who had a caring and fair way of looking at life. He’s not the ONLY person who has ever felt this way. There are plenty of good people on this Earth who can make the same claims (not too many are claiming to be God’s son, but if you don’t believe there is a christian god, it’s irrelevant). Why do we have to concentrate all this worship on a guy who is dead, when there are plenty of people in today’s world who do great things (and have adapted their approach to modern life). I personally think Jimmy Carter is a great person who has lead an exemplary life. Then there’s Ghandi and MLK and plenty of others whose example should be followed. Why narrow your admiration to just one guy?
I agree, EchoKitty. For those who don’t believe that Jesus is God (and right now, I’m not sure of my feelings on this myself!), he would be just another good guy.
I’m just stating that’s how I look at things, or how I would explain it.
Oh, c’mon, now, Freyr! You will have to admit that the answer that He gave you, or at least your interpretation of it, was unquestionably a straight one! 
::: ducks and runs :::
It seems to me that if we have such a problem with the bible being misinterpreted, and many of the believers don’t take it literally, why include it in your religion at all? Can’t you simply live by the ten commandments and drop the book of tales altogether? I see why H4E needs the bible, as that is what she actually worships. But for the Polycarp Crew ™, wouldn’t it make more sense to stop quoting selectively from the bible and kick it into “current” gear, applying the basics of your religion in the language of the here and now?
I’d like to, er, echo Echokitty’s question, in the slim hope that someone will be able to provide a cogent reply.
I suppose one possible scenario is that if one removes the Bible, the whole religion collapses. Metaphorically, and perhaps not-so-metaphorically, the Bible is the keystone.
Even if you slim it down to the 10 Commandments, one is still being selective about picking-and-choosing what parts of the Bible to believe and what parts to ignore. Selective to the extreme actually.
Should we love one another? Of course. It is a good way to live ones life. This is what I espoused back when I was a hippie in the 1960s… and that had nothing to do with religion.
I can’t recall whether this is commanded or merely a tradition. You can change your interpretation of the words. But each word, each letter, must remain unchanged.
Should you change the words-
You assert that your interpretation is better thany any one else’s.
You assume that you understand all the words, and that you can change this part without affecting other parts unintentionally.
You've decided that sure the Torah has survived in this exact form for a few millenia. But your version is better.
And
You rob future generations of the chance to find their own interpretation.
Considering the emphasis Judaism places on instructing your children, the last would seem to be the greatest reason.Maybe that’s what irritates me about religion. You get all hung up in the traditions and lore, and not enough emphasis is put on your earthly actions (hence, H4E’s inability to relate to the here-and-now).
I believe Polycarp practices the essence of his religion. He quotes scripture to illustrate his understanding of his religion, but, I believe that if “da book” was removed from the planet (or if his pastor said they would not use it anymore), I think he would be the same good guy we all know and love.
I don’t think the religion would collapse without the bible. On the contrary, I think christian followers would look at the essence of their belief and act accordingly, as they wouldn’t have the confusion inherent in The Book Of Vague Suggestions.
I’ll admit my ignorance here and ask…
Does every organized religion have a written Book Of Vague Suggestions? (as Echokitty so creatively named it)
And do they all have a similar level of controversy regarding its contents? For example, do Mormons argue about the meaning of certain selections from the Book of Mormon?
Echo Kitty, as one of the “Polycarp crew”, that’s exactly what I try to do – make my actions reflect my beliefs to the point where I shouldn’t have to tell anyone I’m a Christian. If someone asks a question about a point of scripture or about why Christians do something, I’ll answer to the best of my ability, but I’m not an expert on the Bible although I’ve become a lot more knowledgable by participating in this forum. If my actions don’t reflect my faith, then I’m no more than an actress reciting words in a play.
CJ
These questions are actually what caused me to leave my liberal protestant church.
It was a loving, accepting church. Just the kind where I felt at home. There was a heavy emphasis on tolerance, and none on condemnation. Gays were actively encouraged to be active members.
But I found hypocracy there. It was in theory a Christian church. Yet the members (including the minister) just chose which parts of the Bible they liked.
I felt really uncomfortable on hearing a sermon on “The Two Faces of Paul.” This basically said Paul speaks with two voices: one is sacred and inspired by God; the other is Paul’s own sinful and prejudiced vioce. How to tell the difference? Basically if you agree with what he says, it must be God talking. If it offends your modern sensibilities, it must be Big Bad Paul.
It all just seemed too convenient.
At least the Fundamentalists are consistent (usually). In my experience liberal Christian churches want to have it both ways. We accept the part of the Bible that we agree with as the Holy Scripture. But all that ugly Hell stuff, we’ll either ignore it or claim that it was written by fallable humans.
I quit going to that church and haven’t started going to any new one. I’m not sure of my religious status now. Just a theist I guess.
I don’t know if all religions have a Book of Vague Suggestions, but I think the major religions follow one. Hence, the Muslim confusion on what they are to do with non-believers and the violence some Muslims read into it. I think Jews (correct me if I’m wrong, Zev) also have degrees of “interpretation”, if you will. The Hesitic (sp?) Jews interpret (and live) differently than most of the Jews I know.
Actually, The Book of Vague Suggestions makes much more sense to me than the Book of Absolute Hardcore Scripture. I don’t know about you, but think unless a religion is alive, it is bound to die out.
Us Unitarian Universalists don’t have the ten commandments - we have the ten suggestions.
(“The last time I heard ‘Jesus Christ’ in a Unitarian church was when the janitor fell down the stairs.” - Mark Russell)
Esprix
Autz-(Keep in mind that this is the correct forum for witnessing. So)- For me it isn’t a matter of picking out the sections I like. I have let God into my daily life and had personal experiences of Him. If a passage does not reflect God as I’ve felt him, I assume that it is not truly His will. Think of Cryrano. Roxanne thinks that (Whathisname-the shlub with the small nose) has written all that poetry. But when he actually tries to woo her with his own skills, its a pale imitation.
EchoKitty-It’s usually spelled Hasidic, or Chasidic. Jews fall into 3 groups. Orthodox Jews follow all 613 commandments, don’t so much as turn on a lamp on the Sabbath, keep 2 sets of dishes(actually 4-they need a dairy and a meat set to use for Passover) and hold services entirely in Hebrew. The 2 big Orthodox groups that come to mind are the Hasidim and the Lubavitcher. Zev can explain the difference between the two far better than I. Conservative Jews have the most diversity-some are nearly Orthodox but disagree over the position of women, some are nearly Reform but allow no unkosher food in the house. Conservative Jews-hold services in Hebrew and English, usually have just one set of dishes, usually don’t have payes(sp? Those sidecurls you see on Jewish men. “Thou shalt not round the corners of thy head.”) or wear a yarmulke full time. Reform Jews have the official position that Judaism shouldn’t get in the way of daily life or keep Jews seperated from society. Reform services are largely in English, most of the 613 commandments are discarded, keeping kosher isn’t a big concern.
Many Orthodox groups don’t consider the other two groups to be Jews at all. Many Conservative Jews hold the same opinion of Reform Jews. Reform Jews generally respond that this is snobbish, that Judaism has no central authority, and that the Jewish people have enough problems without arguing with each other.
Recently, a fourth group has appeared. Reconstructionist Judaism(as I understand it. I could be mistaken)-holds that Jewish *culture* is the important thing. Raise your kids with gefilte fish and Yiddish lullabyes and they'll feel Jewish and turn to studying Judaism on their own. Having met many folks who attended Solomon Shecter(a private Jewish school), speak fluent Hebrew, but don't really care about their religion, I think that the Reconstructionists may be on to something.Thanks, Doc. Very enlightening. And it supports my argument in that there are so many ways to look at one religion. I find it confusing and divisive at best. And frustrating! I wouldn’t look forward to being a parent who had to explain why “we” believed one way to be better than the other, even though they’re both based on the same basic building blocks.