|
|
unsui
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 19:50] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, with apologies to those of the Jewish faith, I'm going to discount the Old Testament stuff as not really relevant to Christianity.
The other criticisms are largely well-founded, but seem to be aimed at the priest-led formal religion of Christianity (such as the Roman Catholic Church for most of its history) that may reflect an American bias, of course.
There is an equally long-standing Christian tradition of a spiritual/mystical personal relationship with whatever an individual perceives to be God, dating back at least to the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas (dated to either circa 50 AD, or 2nd century). Heavily suppressed by the organised Church, of course!
The fact that a number of other deeply-authoritarian regimes and organisations have undertaken systematic abuse (sometimes less physically damaging, sometimes more physically damaging) of those who did not follow the dogma perpetrated by the authorities suggests to me that it is NOT to do with Christianity as such, but to do with the tendency of authoritarians under stress to abuse their power. Examples include Maoist China, the purges of Stalin, the McCarthy era trials in the USA ... and countless other sorry episodes in human history.
Personally, my own religious inclinations emphasise the individualist / mystical approach, and I not only find no conflict between my sexuality and my Christianity , but find appreciation of diversity a positive enrichment of it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but Conder moves me not.
As most readers here will know, I'm an agnostic with pretty strong leanings toward atheism, but I'm also fascinated by religious history, and particularly the history of the Christian Church. I've read pretty widely - though by no means exhaustively - on the subject; in any event, I've read enough to realise that Conder is highly selective in his choice of references - he goes for sensation over scholarship every time.
That's not to suggest that there isn't a great deal of truth in the mix, put the presentation technique is pretty much on a par with fundamentalist fire and brimstone.
Now I don't believe in God, but taking a detatched view it's clear that the Christian Church is wedded to the concept of the right to choose between good and evil. OK, so what if the Inquisitors, the murderous Popes and the rest chose the path of evil? What if they did what they did out of greed for power and wealth, or even out of sadistic lust? What if they nominally became priests of God solely for the purpose of putting themselves in a position to realise their depraved ambitions? The point is: if Christianity acknowledges the concept of free will, it is logically impossible to assert that the evildoers were acting in God's name just because they said they were.
And then there's the Jesus bit. Conder leaps to conclusions without attempting to construct any sort of sound foundastion upon which to erect his arguments. Personally, I'm inclined to accept that Jesus (or someone later identified by that name) did exist. If that's true, no doubt he believed in God, as did every contemporary Jew, but he certainly condemned the abuses within the religious establishment of his day. Parts of his teaching seem essentially humanist, especially parables such as the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. The mere fact that the concepts they taught were so revolutionary - and so distinct from the rest of the mystic mumbo-jumbo - serves only to strengthen my view that Jesus was very probably a real person. But the Gospels were written after the event - in some cases very many years after the event. By that time a new religious movement was under way. What if the miracles, and the suggestions that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, were political embellishments grafted on to the real story? If so, that would merely be one example of a practice which has been common throughout recorded history.
Then there's the diatribe about Constantine. There's no doubt that Constantine was a consummate politician, and that his involvement with the Christian Church - particularly his presidency at the Council of Nicea - was a hugely successful political stratagem. It's also highly probable that he was not actually baptised until the time of his final illness. But, so far as I am aware, there is not a shred of evidence to support the view that he was baptised unknowingly. Mind you, neither is there any compelling evidence to show that Constantine requested baptism, but Conder has nailed his colours to a purely speculative mast. And the rubbish about the Ankh and the Labarum (the Chi-Rho symbol) is exactly that - rubbish. Religions have always assimilated symbolism from elsewhere, and maybe there was an element of assimilation here, but the Chi-Rho symbol and the fish symbol are as old as the archaeological evidence of the Christian Church. What mattered was not how the symbols originated, but what the users believed their meaning to be.
So - I don't believe in God, but if I decided to be evangelistic about it (and I don't) I would base my evangelism upon Voltaire's suggestion that if God did not exist, man would find it necessary to invent Him. That's exactly what I believe DID happen. I really don't see the value of sensational and ill-researchd debunking.
Sorry, Michael, but that's the way I feel!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
I agree with most of what you said. Man invented religion to help him with things that he couldn't fathom, such as the meaning of life and what happened after life ended. Jesus Christ likely did exist and was a special person, kinder than most, more loving than most, more generous and giving of himself than most. It is likely that Jesus referred to himself as the son of God in the belief that we are all the children of God, not that he was "the Son of God" that other later made him out to be.
The Christian religions are based upon him. But many so-called Christians, such as Fred Phelps and his followers, don't conduct themselves anything like Christ. Major religious leaders throughout time have had the goals of power and control as ambitions since without followers they would be nothing.
I don't mean to belittle the average parish priest since he is administering to people to whom religion fulfills an important need in their lives. But people like Fred Phelps give religion a bad name.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daffey44
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2004
Messages: 23
|
|
|
You say: "Well, with apologies to those of the Jewish faith, I'm going to discount the Old Testament stuff as not really relevant to Christianity."
Note that Reform Judaism in North America (U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean) supports equal civil rights -- including civil marriage -- for gays. This is per formal resolutions by both the Union for Reform Judaism (UJR, representing Reform congregations) and the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR, professional society of the rabbis). Some UJR congregations have gay rabbis or cantors, including congregations that are NOT specifically for gay congregants. In the meantime, the CCAR has developed appropriate religious commitment services to bless same-gender couples.
No, the commandments in the Torah are not perfect. Even if they were dictated by God, they were written by man. ". . . from the mouth of God to the hand of Moses" is part of a prayer said after reading a portion of the Torah. Thus, conflicting commandments do exist.
The resolution of these conflicts is in Deuteronomy 16:20: "Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." The Reform rabbis teach that, when two commandments in the Torah conflict, we should opt in favor of justice (especially since that word is repeated). Thus, when we find commandments that condemn homosexuality and also commandments that we should live in peace with our neighbors, we should reject the former and follow the latter.
It is unfortunate that some Christians insist on taking the entire Torah (their "old" testament) literally as if written by God. Then, they hypocritically pick and choose, insisting on enforcing the commandments against homosexuality while ignoring (for example) the commandments against eating pork.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
