You Need to define what Counts as abortion back then, and what’s considered abortion today. A lot of US fundies consider the “after-pill” as abortion, despite it not medically being abortion. Many argue against condoms with the same reasons as against abortions (a relative new development (see here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/ how translations of the Bible were changed to reflect a Change in attitude).
Back in the times of OT and Jesus, not many reliable abortifacients were known, and there were no pregnancy tests, either. So by the time the mother noticed, and tried to Abort, the Embryo would already be far along. In many societies of that time (and medical development) a Baby could be “aborted” immediately after birth, too. And if there was any medical Problem during pregnancy, a safe abortion was not really an Option at all, since every surgery had the risk of death from infection.
Today’s medical practice makes both prevention of pregnancy in the first place and legal abortion, when necessary, much safer for the mother than previous methods. Today, most Christians no longer believe that a women without children has been punished by God, or that it’s the duty of every woman to give birth because she might bear Messiah. We already have billions of People on this earth; a lot of Christians recognize that responsible parenting means limiting the amount of mouths to feed, clothe and educate. A lot of Christians recognize that if medically or emotionally the mother’s life is in danger through pregnancy, then abortion is the lesser evil than letting both die.
Actually, if you read beyond the four evangelions (which never Claim to contain all the words of Jesus) into the History of Apostles and the letters, you see that the very new Church struggled quite a lot with the Problem of having a visionary Idealist calling for repentance and how to apply that to real life. (I’ve heard that’s a criticism that several Jewish Rabbis have made against Jesus: his teachings and commandements are so otherwordly that they cannot be applied in this world, meaning People fail all the time, whereas the Jewish Rabbis usually tried to make rules that People could actually Keep.)
It’s interesting to speculate that if conversion to Judaism first stayed as requirment, because Jeschua was a Jew and didn’t want a new church, how Christianity would have stayed a minor sub-sect of Judaism instead of developing into a Group big enough to become important for a Roman emperor to woo.
I don’t sense that you’re going to be much swayed by a quote-off, for most of your other points (i.e. the things I did not quote from your post). I would agree that any position can be argued using the Bible, and it’s really up to others to run the various arguments through a complete read of the work (not accepting the quote as given, outside of the context it is in) to decide which arguer has a stronger argument.
But as regards your statement above, I have to say that this is a silly argument. God has mandated that people cut parts off their bodies, go to war, execute people, change their diet, provided a full legal system, etc. and yet he is unable to mandate things like, oh say, gender equality? How is that just one step too far for a guy who can drown the Earth in water if you piss him off to be able to convince his followers to swallow? How did “Chop pieces off of your willy” rank as a far more essential rule to lay out before “All humans are created equally before me.” Or, to move into the New Testament, how did “Though shall not put a market in front of the Temple” rank higher?
Okay, starting back at the opening post and the technical reason for the thread, what the OP is actually asking, isn’t accurately reflected in the title question. What is actually asked in the body of the opening text is, “Does the Christian Hierarchy Really Believe in MY PERSONAL version of what Christianity is about?”
Pretty much all the rest of the complicated posts in reaction, are either alternate versions of the same mistake, or excessively detailed arguments about someone else’s version.
One small point: there IS no “Historical Jesus” to refer back to for confirmation of anything. There are only second and third person writings by people who claim to know. That means that even the earliest writings, are themselves the personal INTERPRETATION of what Jesus was about, and not actual statements of fact.
But back to the opening poster’s personal idea of what the most important core belief is, that Christianity isn’t Christianity unless it’s focused around direct and unthinking worship of Jesus. Even THAT requires that the OP be the one in charge of deciding exactly who is, and who is not proving that they worship accurately.
That’s the problem with all such interpreted religion.
Finally, even if we start by blindly accepting that one particular translation of the supposed sayings of Jesus are entirely accurate, the one that the OP focuses on ( the " “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” passage), there are no details provided as to HOW that “through” works. The OP clearly wants the exact METHOD of following that idea, to consist of all Christians actively pushing any non-Christians to knuckle under. But there’s nothing to support that idea, in the existing faithfully accepted texts.
Yes, but it requires more than just having heard of him and refusing to believe. It’s knowing that god died for your sins, etc… and still deciding to reject him.
But if you’re aware of him, as in some preacher told you about him but you didn’t give a shit because you’re hindouist/atheist/whatever, you aren’t necessarily doomed.
Basically you need to already have faith for this rejection to guarantee a warm place in hell. And not just lose this faith, but stubbornly reject god despite still believing in him. Which probably doesn’t apply to many people. Essentially, that would be what Satan supposedly did.
Nope. If you don’t believe in Jesus, you aren’t Cristian. But it’s not necessary to be Christian to be saved. As I said, the RCC doesn’t presume to know who isn’t saved (although somehow it presumes to know who is : see beatification, etc…)
That’s indeed the current Catholic doctrine.
[QUOTE= RCC Cathechism]
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
[/QUOTE]
Emphasis on current. It used to be that “anybody who doesn’t believe the exact Dogmas the RCC teaches (which includes all protestants, and possibly the orthodox) is a heretic and will go to hell.”
Praying five times a day might be an evidence of zelotry, but you first have to make the assumption that Muslims actually pray five times a day. Those I know don’t. In fact, I’m not convinced they pray even once a week. Of course, I’m not living in a predominantly Muslim country, but I somehow doubt that the overall %age of Muslims actually praying 5 times/day is that high.
Depends on what Tradition of Interpretation you are following. Those who follow the “KJV only” Tradition don’t even bother to think of the Problems reading a translated Version of the holy text, and how each Translation is an Interpretation, or that the text is over 2000 years old and belongs into a different culture. Shakespeare Plays, who wrote in English, usually have and added booklet explaining what some words meant back then, or the context of beliefs in his Age, and that’s only a few centuries ago.
Most critical Bible scholars therefore are interested in researching and finding out the context of Biblical Society, to put things into context.
Only People who don’t are about context, and wilfully disregard culture and Age and how much societies Change, will Claim that the text can applied without any changes to a completly different Society.
Most modern Protestant Groups however went through a gradual Evolution over the centuries as the Society they lived in recognized that certain things that used to praised (killing your enemies to take their land, their cattle and their women as slaves!) or considered normal (Slavery, women as second-class citizens) were not ok, and Churches changed their Interpretation into “That was normal then, but we know better know and don’t do that any longer”.
The Bible never outright condemns slavery. The OT accepts slavery as normal. The OT has the famous Philemon letter, which was used as Argument for slavery for centuries by US Churches, because if Paul / God was against slavery, he would have said explicity so at this opportunity - although anybody without preconceived notions reading that Comes to the conclusion that while Paul didn’t call to abolish that System overnight, he makes it very clear that Christians should set their slaves free, and he’s coming over to check up on it! He could order Philemon to set Onesimus free, but considers it better for Philemon’s Soul to do so voluntarily, so that’s why he’s giving him the Chance to do the right Thing. (Paul also never mentions why Onesimus ran away: was Onesimus a lazy bugger and Philemon a good master, or was Philemon cruel and Onesimus rightful? Paul doesn’t care.). http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/11/the-book-of-philemon-does-not-defend-slavery/
And yet, today only the fringest of fringe Group Christians Claim that God is in favour of slavery, when it was Mainstream theology a few centuries ago. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/07/09/whatever-happened-to-the-clobber-texts-for-slavery-unlearning-the-lies-contd/
So there are a lot of things that a truly all-knowing, all-merciful God could have written into his holy texts. The usual Explanation is that (unlike the Quran) the Bible was never dictated word for word. Some prophets heard a voice - which is made explicit with certain phrases - and a lot is just told without saying how much was filtered through the minds of the People who wrote the stories down. Maybe God was sitting on his throne, calling down, and ripping out his White beard in Frustration over how the People in this primitve Society were getting every Thing wrong because they couldn’t wrap their heads around it. We don’t know, it’s never said.
The way the reasoning went in a 10th grade class where the Father barely had to do any speaking was, “are you saying that God can’t save anybody who died before He himself did? Abraham and David and all those prophets, they’re in Hell because of being born too early, really?”
“Eh, uh… Huh. Oh. I guess that wouldn’t make a lot of sense, right.”
I understand the official version includes more Latin, but that’s about the gist of it. Add more subtlety along the lines of “it’s not the same thing to not know than to reject” and a leavening of “don’t tell God how to do His job”.
I’ve heard that the practical reason for Mohammed instituting the “Five times a day” rule was because in the friggin hot desert, having regular breaks is a good idea to prevent Exhaustion.
Anyway, one of the five pillars of Islam is daily prayer Five Pillars of Islam - Wikipedia, whereas Christianity has no commonly-agreed on pillars. And given that the prayers, along with the movements, are formalized, I doubt that most of those muslims who perform are more zealous than those millions of old ladies who go to Sunday Service because “that’s what done” and live normal lifes the rest of their week.
Yes, because I don’t read the Bible by cherry-picking quotes. I use some quotes to illustrate a theme that repeats, but as (Lutheran Protestant) I believe I’m called onto using my mind to read intelligently and decide for myself where my conscience is; and today, with over a 100 years of critical Bible study, reading what scholars have found out to better understand the context.
While it’s true that there’s a spectrum in Christianity about how much value should be given to tradition, ranging from the Catholics (a lot) to the Lutherans (very little), this is the first time I’ve come across anyone who puts tradition ahead of scripture. I think every major branch of Christianity give the scriptures primary authority and see other sources like tradition as something which supplement the scriptures.
And let’s not isolate Jesus too much from God. Paradoxical as it can sometimes be, Christians believe Jesus is God. Which means Jesus/God spoke through Exodus just as much as he did through the Gospels.
I did wonder about that, whether most Muslims actually do pray five times a day. It’s one of those things that you see and take as read when in fact it may not be true at all.
I am very comfortable with it. Christain and religious scholars agree with me and disagree with you.
In any case, stoning and other means of capital punishment were common and not cruel in that day, all the way thru 18th century Europe.
But after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Christians had a New Covenant, freeing them from OT law. So, Christians, since Ad33 or so, no longer have to stone.
Your entire argument is specious and based upon general ignorance of Christian theology and Morality.
Seriously? The one Gospel that’s least interested in Facts and all about theology and spirituality is what you call first Hand?
Gospel of John - Wikipedia
That’s aside from the question of when it was written, if an eyewitness could still have been alive.
People back then not only didn’t understand “eyewitness” or first Hand accounts as we do today after scientific Revolution and method. They also were not writing Police reports or giving evidence at Trial. They were writing pamphlets to convince People that this guy called Jeschua from Nazareth was really awesome, here’s what he did and said. There was no Intention of objectivity.
Abraham and David and all those prophets, they’re in Hell because of being born too early, really?”