Poster- Christianity inherently abusive

[AVENues]

What if most things we do aren't even remotely sins. Can't the ever loving god JUST forgive us for what HE considers to be our sins and leave his son just ... be?!

[OkToBeTakei]

Quick reply. At work :(

Even if you look at the interpretation of just a few people on this forum and see the vast differences. Multiply that by millions, billions, a large, huge proportion of whom are not Christian. Remove faith and then indoctrination. Talk factually, with historical accuracy, an age old argument.

If we are able to intellectually separate evolution from creationism, then why even try to argue that the writings of men are anything other than a metaphor. Every civilisation had a code by which they defined humanity and how it progressed. Greek gods? Norse gods? Egyptian mythology? Right up to say Mormons. A way in which to live as human beings by a code of right and wrong and with a prize for the 'good' at the end.

Pick your book or your god essentially the message is always the same.

I have never understood why the bible in some way supersedes any other writings by any other bunch of blokes.

[formergothardite]

I will answer as best I can from an Orthodox perspective (one that is still learning and makes mistakes).

The Orthodox understanding of the crucifixion is NOT the same as the Protestant one. It was not some judicial process where Jesus was being *punished* for our sins. Christ died on the cross and then went to hell to destroy DEATH. The troparion we sing on Pascha and for weeks afterwards is "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." I remember reading a piece by Frederica Mathewes-Green once, where she was trying to explain to an Orthodox bishop from another country the Protestant understanding of the crucifixion, and he was horrified and said "They actually believe that?!?"

I have asked many Orthodox priests if people who never heard of Christ are in hell, and the answer is always no. Orthodoxy is much more open to leaving things as mysteries we perhaps don't fully understand, and is not obsessed with explaining and analyzing everything down to the last jot and tittle.

Edited to add: this understanding of the crucifixion was the universally accepted one in the Church for a thousand years. Only after the Great Schism in 1066 and then the Protestant Reformation 500 years later did the meanings begin to be changed. People forget that all during the Middle Ages when Catholicism was predominant in Europe, and after all the fallout and splitting of the Reformation, Orthodoxy was always still just chugging along in the East, unchanged.

And another thing - from the Orthodox perspective the Bible was NEVER meant to be pulled out of the entirety of the Church (scripture, tradition, worship) and used by itself. Sola Scriptura makes no logical sense from an Orthodox point of view.

That was sort of like what I was taught. We are all sinners and the wages of sin is death. But because Jesus died he conquered death(there is some song with those lines that we used to sing) and even though we are sinners, we can have everlasting life because Jesus overcame death. BUT if you are exposed to Jesus and reject him then it is like rejecting a free gift and you get punished by no longer having everlasting life. It was kind of iffy if people who never heard of Jesus would go to heaven because they were never given the gift of Jesus so they couldn't have really rejected him.

[Savoring Samsara]

What is the core truth that the Bible is built around? - I know you weren't talking to me. But I love, love that question.

No. One. Knows.

I've seen the movie, Book of Eli... he made it through the desert just to carry the one bible left and deliver it in the new civilization. So that the bullshit will happen all over again.

Asking "What is the core truth of the Bible?" is about as useful as asking "What is the core truth of the Norton Anthology of English Literature?" The Bible is a collection of many different genres of writing from many different time periods - history, biography, letters, poetry, opinion pieces, mythology, allegory, a "how to" manual on Running Your Own Fertility Cult for Dummies. Expecting all of it to mesh perfectly or reflect the same understanding of society or viewpoint of the world is like trying to derive the same perspective on truth and human nature from reading Chaucer, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Dylan Thomas, and Anglo-Saxon penis riddles*. (That's my viewpoint on it as a non-Christian theist who still finds some truth and usefulness in certain aspects of the Bible. The view of an actual Christian will surely vary.)

Also, it's worth pointing out that Biblical literalism is actually a quite recent phenomenon in theology, comparatively speaking. Hell, Saint Augustine argued that the Book of Genesis was not meant to be taken literally - yet another way that someone from 1700 years ago had a leg up on fundies. :lol:

* Enjoy some yourself here (Anglo-Saxon riddles, that is, not penises): public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/medieval/riddles.html

[formergothardite]

Asking "What is the core truth of the Bible?" is about as useful as asking "What is the core truth of the Norton Anthology of English Literature?" The Bible is a collection of many different genres of writing from many different time periods - history, biography, letters, poetry, opinion pieces, mythology, allegory, a "how to" manual on Running Your Own Fertility Cult for Dummies. Expecting all of it to mesh perfectly or reflect the same understanding of society or viewpoint of the world is like trying to derive the same perspective on truth and human nature from reading Chaucer, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Dylan Thomas, and Anglo-Saxon penis riddles*. (That's my viewpoint on it as a non-Christian theist who still finds some truth and usefulness in certain aspects of the Bible. The view of an actual Christian will surely vary.)

Also, it's worth pointing out that Biblical literalism is actually a quite recent phenomenon in theology, comparatively speaking. Hell, Saint Augustine argued that the Book of Genesis was not meant to be taken literally - yet another way that someone from 1700 years ago had a leg up on fundies. :lol:

* Enjoy some yourself here (Anglo-Saxon riddles, that is, not penises): public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/medieval/riddles.html

I think the only reason she asked is because another poster said that the Bible is built around one core truth.

[maybeizfundie]

Because the biblical gawd just *loves* him some good torture and sacrifices. Asked Abraham to kill Isac, telling him, lol bro, JK last minute. Flooded the Earth. Tortured the family of Job just to show off to Saytn. He raided entire cities (Sodoma and Gomorrha) before someone asks, oh what cities? He sent all kinds of shitty things to make Egyptian inhabitants miserable. Then, surprise surprise, holy ass almighty had taken their firstborns! Adviced a man to fornicate with a servant - that's fucking RAPE because I doubt she was attracted to 90yo Senior Citizen who just so happened to be the boss, and after Sarah had gotten pregnant at age 1111leventy, he told "dad" to get rid of the "bastard child" (HATE that word) and send them to the desert. WTF dude?

Your feelings are yours, of course, but there is a lot of inaccuracy in what you're claiming, which if you ever use those things as arguments trying to persuade people to drop God is going to make it kind of difficult to do so.

[Sobeknofret]

I think the only reason she asked is because another poster said that the Bible is built around one core truth.

Perhaps I should have said core truths, plural. I think "love your neighbor as yourself," is a big one, not to mention a hard one to actually live out. But then again, I'm a Quaker, and trying to love our neighbors/social justice is a big one for us. Sometimes I go really wide of the mark, and screw up in some ways that make me ashamed just thinking about them. If there is a single core truth, I don't know what it is, and I may never know. All I can do is keep studying and thinking, trying to get there as best I can.

PS: FormerGothardite, may I pm you? I can explain what I think about Jesus et. al. a little better, and keep my own personal beliefs out of the discussion :)

[2xx1xy1JD]

Also, it's worth pointing out that Biblical literalism is actually a quite recent phenomenon in theology, comparatively speaking. Hell, Saint Augustine argued that the Book of Genesis was not meant to be taken literally - yet another way that someone from 1700 years ago had a leg up on fundies. :lol:

Exactly.

Mythology, epic tales, parables - oral traditions to convey messages are common throughout the world. It was a form of communication that would have been understood, without the need to be so 100% literal.

2,000 years ago, we know that there were debates between Pharisees (no, the word is not a slur, look up the real meaning) and Sadducees over interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, and the approach that eventually won out in the Jewish world was the one that did NOT favor a literal interpretation based on plain meaning. [in all likelihood, Jesus was probably closer to the Pharisees than any other group, because many of the teachings are similar and because you don't tend to get upset and call someone a hypocrite unless you had been close to them and believed in them. The Pharisees places more emphasis on rabbis and the Oral Law (Talmud), which was a vast oral tradition elaborating on rules, expanding on Biblical stories with mystical explanations, capturing intense long-winded debates between the ancient scholars, etc. Since Christianity broke from Judaism prior to the Oral Law being written down, however, and since the Pharisees were demonized by Christians, this whole interpretative tradition of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) - which would have been known to Jesus - was lost in the Christian world.]

We also know that there is a mystical tradition (Kabbalah) dating back to at least the Middle Ages, and possibly much earlier as an oral tradition. Aspects were adopted by the non-Jewish world. If you try to make sense of any of it without thinking "it's a metaphor", you feel like your head is going to explode. [Did an academic paper on Lurianic Kabbalah in university, and felt like banging my head against the wall until this finally clicked in, but it did make it easier to understand Hasidic movements like Chabad and New Age movements like Jewish Renewal, and even phrases like "tikkun olam" in Reform Judaism.]

[formergothardite]

Perhaps I should have said core truths, plural. I think "love your neighbor as yourself," is a big one, not to mention a hard one to actually live out. But then again, I'm a Quaker, and trying to love our neighbors/social justice is a big one for us. Sometimes I go really wide of the mark, and screw up in some ways that make me ashamed just thinking about them. If there is a single core truth, I don't know what it is, and I may never know. All I can do is keep studying and thinking, trying to get there as best I can.

PS: FormerGothardite, may I pm you? I can explain what I think about Jesus et. al. a little better, and keep my own personal beliefs out of the discussion :)

Sure you can pm me. For me parts of the Bible are built around love your neighbor, but then you have parts of the OT where God is all, go kill those people because you don't want them as neighbors.

[Arete]

I will answer as best I can from an Orthodox perspective (one that is still learning and makes mistakes).

The Orthodox understanding of the crucifixion is NOT the same as the Protestant one. It was not some judicial process where Jesus was being *punished* for our sins. Christ died on the cross and then went to hell to destroy DEATH. The troparion we sing on Pascha and for weeks afterwards is "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." I remember reading a piece by Frederica Mathewes-Green once, where she was trying to explain to an Orthodox bishop from another country the Protestant understanding of the crucifixion, and he was horrified and said "They actually believe that?!?"

I have asked many Orthodox priests if people who never heard of Christ are in hell, and the answer is always no. Orthodoxy is much more open to leaving things as mysteries we perhaps don't fully understand, and is not obsessed with explaining and analyzing everything down to the last jot and tittle.

Edited to add: this understanding of the crucifixion was the universally accepted one in the Church for a thousand years. Only after the Great Schism in 1066 and then the Protestant Reformation 500 years later did the meanings begin to be changed. People forget that all during the Middle Ages when Catholicism was predominant in Europe, and after all the fallout and splitting of the Reformation, Orthodoxy was always still just chugging along in the East, unchanged.

And another thing - from the Orthodox perspective the Bible was NEVER meant to be pulled out of the entirety of the Church (scripture, tradition, worship) and used by itself. Sola Scriptura makes no logical sense from an Orthodox point of view.

QFT.

Jesus didn't die to pay a blood atonement for our sins, that is just considered gross in the Orthodox world. He died to show us that death was not the end, and by doing this radically transforms the meaning of life and death for believers. Don't fear, it's a journey, God is with you. That is the point of Jesus, at least for me. The evangelicals can take the concept of God needing to shed human blood to assuage his anger and stick it where the sun don't shine. :disgust:

I have asked Orthodox priests if people who have heard of Jesus and did not believe are in hell. One said "no" unequivically, the other said humans just can't know who is or is not in hell, and should only be concerned with their own salvation.

[Arete]

I'm asking sincerely, since I am still trying to wrap my brain around non-literal Christians. In light of the statement above, how do you interpret Mark 16:16, Luke 13:3, John 8:24, John 3:16-17, Romans 6:23 and 2Thessalonians 1:8?

I have to go look up the specific citations, and then I'll answer as best I can how I look at them as part of the whole.

[zcccrv]

See, that makes no sense to me. They say: we don't know what happens after you die yet somehow we do know that concerning yourself with salvation will make a difference. Those two are contradictory, no?

Or do they claim to know who goes in heaven but are uncertain about who goes to hell (is there a third option)?

[Arete]

When an Orthodox talks about concerning themselves with their own salvation, it means that they concern themselves with their own relationship with God, and no one else's relationship with God. Salvation is not a "one off" event in Orthodox theology. You have a relationship with the divine, and the ultimate goal is a concept called theosis, to become one with God after death. God doesn't need you sticking your nose into his business with other people, whether believers or atheists.

The Orthodox view of what happens after death is that you achieve theosis or you don't. It is unknown if not achieving theosis is permanent or not. What you can't have while you are alive is absolute surety of who is and is not achieving theosis.

[France Nolan]

I think there are a lot more non-literal Christians than people think. I attended a Catholic college and was required to take Catholic theology courses taught by nuns. The Sisters never insisted on a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, they discouraged it. As one of the Sisters said, "God did not change, our understanding of Him changed". The understanding of God changed even as the Bible was being written and translated. Genesis contains two creation accounts. The differences are attributed to the the Priestly and the Jahwist authors. Each author (or group of authors) had reasons for telling the creation story the way they did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahwist

The same applies to the Gospels,. Each Gospel portrays Jesus differently, and each Gospel has a different emphasis. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are "synoptic" Gospels. In Mark Jesus appears mostly as a "normal" man. In Matthew Jesus is the king/Messiah (here we have the linking of Jesus to the House of David) and an emphasis on Old Testament Judaism. Matthew was addressed to the Jews in an attempt to gain Jewish converts. Luke portrays Jesus as primarily concerned with the poor, and was probably written for a Gentile audience. There is significant overlap among these Gospels.

John on the other hand portrays Jesus as divine and is the most abstract of the Gospels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

[zcccrv]

What you can't have while you are alive is absolute surety of who is and is not achieving theosis.

But you must have a higher degree of certainty that you yourself, through having a relationship with God, will achieve it. Why would you otherwise even engage? So you may think it is likely for you but there is no way of telling for the others. If I'm understanding correctly, that's kind of a very exclusive, one-person club.

[OkToBeTakei]

But you must have a higher degree of certainty that you yourself, through having a relationship with God, will achieve it. Why would you otherwise even engage? So you may think it is likely for you but there is no way of telling for the others. If I'm understanding correctly, that's kind of a very exclusive, one-person club.

NAH.

I think you are totally reading this incorrectly. It is not a selfish I'm ok Jack I'm on my way. It is a do not be concerned what others are doing, be busy doing it yourself.

I read it as do not be concerned with judging how others behave. That is their own concern, their own path. Mind your own.

Something the dear fundies need to learn.

[danvillebelle]

But you must have a higher degree of certainty that you yourself, through having a relationship with God, will achieve it. Why would you otherwise even engage? So you may think it is likely for you but there is no way of telling for the others. If I'm understanding correctly, that's kind of a very exclusive, one-person club.

[danvillebelle]

NAH.

I think you are totally reading this incorrectly. It is not a selfish I'm ok Jack I'm on my way. It is a do not be concerned what others are doing, be busy doing it yourself.

I read it as do not be concerned with judging how others behave. That is their own concern, their own path. Mind your own.

Something the dear fundies need to learn.

EGGZACTLY. As a wise Orthodox monk I know of said, "Weed your own garden."

[Sobeknofret]

The Orthodox view of what happens after death is that you achieve theosis or you don't. It is unknown if not achieving theosis is permanent or not. What you can't have while you are alive is absolute surety of who is and is not achieving theosis.

I have more in common with Orthodox beliefs than I thought. I believe much the same thing. My own denomination (Quaker) believes this, and furthermore, it's not our job to try and decide who is "saved" and who is not, but to treat everybody with the same grace regardless.

[Sobeknofret]

We otherwise engage because it is not about getting to heaven. Jesus said the Kingdom is within us, *now*. It's here. When people live with faith, love and charity, serving others and loving their neighbors, that is the Kingdom. I try my best to live as an Orthodox Christian now because it is the path that leads me closest to God (in my experience) and it brings me joy and peace. As the previous poster said, salvation is an entirely different ball of wax in Orthodoxy. It's not "I accepted Jesus, I'm saved and now I'm going to heaven." It is a continual process that does not end until the day we die.

I believe that heaven is very real and I certainly hope that is where I end up. I have NO IDEA who else is there. Actually, if Gandhi's not there, I'm going to be a little ticked off. ;)

Said with more elegance and better than I could have. Thank you for this.

[OkToBeTakei]

I have more in common with Orthodox beliefs than I thought. I believe much the same thing. My own denomination (Quaker) believes this, and furthermore, it's not our job to try and decide who is "saved" and who is not, but to treat everybody with the same grace regardless.

I'm just a person with no great faith. But the bolded is my desire.

[Arete]

What OKTBT and Danvillebelle said. It's not about an exclusive club, since you can't be sure if you are going to achieve the goal of theosis.

As Danvillebelle has heard, "Weed your own garden."

As I have heard, "Mind your own business."

As Sobeknofret beautifully articulates: Treat everyone with the same grace regardless.

[zcccrv]

NAH.

I think you are totally reading this incorrectly. It is not a selfish I'm ok Jack I'm on my way. It is a do not be concerned what others are doing, be busy doing it yourself.

I read it as do not be concerned with judging how others behave. That is their own concern, their own path. Mind your own.

Something the dear fundies need to learn.

I dunno. I think that judging how others behave is 1. a way to get a clearer picture about current norms in society (what was acceptable before may not be acceptable now; things change, sometimes rapidly so and we all pretty much judge each other's agility of mind) and 2. a stage in the process of understanding why others behave the way they do which usually leads to minding your own business in the end. How does living your life by the everlasting principle of kindness do squat for answering so many burning social justice questions that arise every day and are multifaceted so that distinguishing right from wrong requires viewing them from very different perspectives at the same time? I think that sometimes it's more kind to judge than not to judge.

I believe that heaven is very real and I certainly hope that is where I end up. I have NO IDEA who else is there. Actually, if Gandhi's not there, I'm going to be a little ticked off.

That does entail that not everyone will get to go to heaven. Or is there a possibility that Hitler will also be there? If you presume that not everyone gets to go then you also should have an inkling as to who these people may be.

[OkToBeTakei]

I dunno. I think that judging how others behave is 1. a way to get a clearer picture about current norms in society (what was acceptable before may not be acceptable now; things change, sometimes rapidly so and we all pretty much judge each other's agility of mind) and 2. a stage in the process of understanding why others behave the way they do which usually leads to minding your own business in the end. How does living your life by the everlasting principle of kindness do squat for answering so many burning social justice questions that arise every day and are multifaceted so that distinguishing right from wrong requires viewing them from very different perspectives at the same time? I think that sometimes it's more kind to judge than not to judge.

That does entail that not everyone will get to go to heaven. Or is there a possibility that Hitler will also be there? If you presume that not everyone gets to go then you also should have an inkling as to who these people may be.

I don't judge. Well I try not to to. I would understand your first statement more if you said study. No I never think it is kind to judge than not to judge, can you maybe explain that? It makes no sense in relation to this discussion.

Again to the last part. You are either misinterpreting either deliberately or naively. Primarily it was a light end to an enlightening post. The poster never claimed to know who would be in heaven. Just that she believed it was there. 'NO IDEA who else is there.' How did you interpret that as 'an inkling as to who these people may be?'

[zcccrv]

I don't judge. Well I try not to to. I would understand your first statement more if you said study. No I never think it is kind to judge than not to judge, can you maybe explain that? It makes no sense in relation to this discussion.

Again to the last part. You are either misinterpreting either deliberately or naively. Primarily it was a light end to an enlightening post. The poster never claimed to know who would be in heaven. Just that she believed it was there. 'NO IDEA who else is there.' How did you interpret that as 'an inkling as to who these people may be?'

It's nice that you don't judge. I do. When I realize that I do I try to study, use my empathy and understand the person better, which most of the time makes me stop judging. Until I do it again in a different situation/with a different person.

I never said that she should have an inkling as to who the people IN heaven are. What I said was: That does entail that not everyone will get to go to heaven. Or is there a possibility that Hitler will also be there? If you presume that not everyone gets to go then you also should have an inkling as to who these people may be. "these people" meaning the people who DON'T get to go. That is IF she presumes that not everyone gets to go. I'm just curious.