We're all neck-deep in Christianity... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

asaris · 11-09-2004, 11:34 AM

I'm reminded of a Machiavelli quote, which I'm going to paraphrase here (I think it's from the Prince). He wrote that the integration of church with state was dangerous because either the church or the state would end up corrupted, and probably both.

martinguerre · 11-09-2004, 07:38 PM

" which is yet another reason why it is hard to be neutral about the christian right as a political force."

Roachboy, i guess i'd just like to add that Christian tradition isn't neutral about it either. Back in the day...before the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, Christianity was a strong critique on anyone who trusted in political systems. To call Jesus "Lord" was to deny the proper title of all political authorities. As soon as you confess Christ, it's making a serious challenge to other groups that might want to claim your loyalty.

Unfortunatly, the tradition has had a long time to be domesticated by empire...and the results have been tragic. I have no doubt, given enough time and power, that the current breed of Fundies would have any problem starting a pogrom, inquisition, or old fashioned witchhunt.

props to lebell, as well. Subtle, and very true.

asaris · 11-10-2004, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

To call Jesus "Lord" was to deny the proper title of all political authorities. As soon as you confess Christ, it's making a serious challenge to other groups that might want to claim your loyalty.

This isn't really true. Romans states very clearly that the state has its authority from God.

irateplatypus · 11-10-2004, 02:13 PM

lots of good discussion... you guys haven't let me down. i've neglected my own thread a bit... so please excuse me for being a little behind in the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i object to the intolerance exhibited by "christian" politics--which have no relation to the message in the new testament in particular--not to the message about teh dignity of the poor, not to the fact that believers are abjured to not pass judgement on others less they themselves be juged---christian right politics seems to me the abandonment of any meaningful political correlate to the notion that one can and should love one's neighbor.

Christianity in the contemporary iteration has a lot to work on in this department, but i believe that the response to the Christian message will always be somewhat hostile. Christ taught that we are all sinners and that salvation is only possible through grace from the Father. Our postmodern world is especially unwelcoming to this idea: that what we do can be wrong and that someone (or something) else is out there that has the authority to tell us what is right. If we are to love our neighbors and we witness our neighbor going astray from what is right, then how much love is being given if we allow them to be destructive to themselves? It seems to me that the real debate about how to treat eachother isn't really rooted in Christianity in particular... it's in the acceptance or rejection of an absolute moral code. if there is such a thing as right and wrong... then Christian are doing the loving thing (as best as they know how) by trying to help them stay on track. if there isn't... then they (with somewhat self-gratifying motives) are simply projecting their own judgemental criteria on another. it seems that if we're to deal with these issues, we must recognize where the fundamental difference lies.

Quote:

it has been twisted around in political discourse to a message about what looks like religious imperialism--love is only extended insofar as people who do not believe insofar as they are potential converts--real differences present other problems--which you can see being played out around issues like the "war on terror" and the rationale for racism it provides, all wrapped in both the flag and the veneer of christian sensbility.

while we must recognize that every person has intrinsic value (and i believe Christianity, by and large, does that) i simply do not perceive the same implications you do on this. i think that when people disagree with how the west is dealing with islamic fundamentalism they rush to equate a fault in christian thought. it's easier to project the ideas you disagree with on a group you have much deeper differences with rather than face the possibility that people across the theological spectrum put stock in an approach that you reject... that the divide is more than a theological preference.

martinguerre · 11-10-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

This isn't really true. Romans states very clearly that the state has its authority from God.

I'm not claiming early churches were filled with anarchists. I am claiming that the early church was structured in ways to expressly repudiate the order of the day. Gal 3:28 is a counter-cultural manifesto...the instructions concerning the Love Feast in 1 Cor 11 point to a social leveling that is simply unheard of. In many places, particularly the opening of 2 Cor, Paul takes pride in the physical marks of beatings and punishments. These are deeply shameful, the marks of slavery. Paul wears them with utter pride.

All the tools that the state claims, Paul claims right back...the opening of 2 Cor is full of examples. The victory march, the title Lord, the title "soter" or savior... I think it's pretty compelling. Paul also writes about how you aren't supposed to participate in imperial cult activity...a major act of disobedience. That's 1 Cor 10.

Ps...when you know it, please include citations. I assume you're referring to the opening of Rom 13?

Which...reading it, i see your point. Paul doesn't want to subvert the idea that God is control of history. And, so long as the state doesn't expressly disagree with Jesus, you're oblidged to obey. Anti-nomism is one of Paul's banes in trying to relate the doctrine of Grace. But...as soon as Ceasar asks someone to kill, to participate in sacrifice, to stop preaching the Gospel...Paul's answer is clear. Disobey peacefully, and wear the marks not as shameful things, but badges of honor and pride.

I think it's clear where the real loyalty is...

MageB420666 · 11-10-2004, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbofish

I'm not sure if it's public or private, a friend of mine was in the states for a year as a student... Somewhere where they speak like the redneck in Simpsons

She said that alot of her friends there are choosing *Collage* after if they taught the Adam and Eve instead of the Evolution theory. This was backed up by a guy I traveled with in Eastern Europe for a week or so... You know anything about the bearing of these claims?

I know it's hypothetically a theory... But atleast there are fact that supports it... I haven't found much of evidence to support how God made humans in his self image. Again, if you have, please share

I'm athiest by the way... I was christian when I was a kid... Took a step back and evaluated my faith when I was 15... Haven't looked back since... One of the most important things I live by is not forcing my will upon others. Sorry to say, not everyone shares that belief...

As far as I know all public schools teach the Evolution Theory, but there are very many private Christian schools that teach Adam and Eve.

I think it deals with the fact that if Adam and Eve is taught in public school, it would be discriminating against students of other religions. As for people choosing colleges based on which theory they teach, I guess that would be a personal thing and vary from person to person, but it would be a really stupid reason to choose a college.

And no I don't I don't know any FACTS that support Creation, because it is based upon faith, and as far as I understand the modern C/J/I view of God, He could very well exist and have created man and the earth and everything, but done so in a way that would present FACTS to support that everything just came about through coincidence and physical laws. Many people who oppose Creationism assume that God would have just created the Universe by *blinking* it into being or something that just caused it to suddenly exist this way, they just don't think that an Eternal Being with all kinds of spare time on his hands could take a few billion years and just kinda relax and make sure that everything goes right and that all the physical laws he enacted are meshing together properly. And they also don't consider that God could have used the materials that he created as the material *stuff* of the universe to bring about the formation of the Universe as we know it today. He could have just set everything up, started it moving and let it work itself, including the creation of Life. Who can say for sure that God didn't create life by just mixing together a bunch of amino acids in a puddle and let evolution take its course?

Justsomeguy · 11-10-2004, 05:05 PM

I really dislike your description of ignorance. Not that it disagrees with most sources, but I hate it described in the same regard as most definitions. I perceive ignorance as being something you have foreknowledge of, but you make the wrong decision even though you understand it to be the wrong decision. For example, Jim has three kids. He owns a business. He could sell his business, retire, and his children would be able to invest something to better suit them. However, Jim chooses to retain the business even though he knows it will ultimately collapse.

Regarding the idea of evolution, I would tend to belief more scientific explanations of the universe if there were not so many gaps in the theories. I remember a huge gap in the big bang theory, for example when temperatures dropped from 32 billion degrees. To be honest, I haven't looked at nor care to look at this information again anytime soon. Also, while I realize not all or even many Christians would embrace a co-existant of a theory such as the big bang theory and God(even though I realize they do not contradict), I'm sure it would really help to win alot of support over.

SecretMethod70 · 11-10-2004, 05:49 PM

Actually, the majority of Christians DO support the idea that science is possibly/likely right and simply that God was behind evolution and the big bang. This is, in fact, the "official" position of the Catholic Church for one, as well as others. They're not the loud ones though, so it seems like many Christians do not believe in the possibility of evolution or big bang when, really, it's just a vocal minority.

Justsomeguy · 11-10-2004, 05:54 PM

okay. That is the catholic church though. What about christians?

ravenradiodj · 11-10-2004, 07:12 PM

Christianity IS everywhere, even in some places it shouldn't be. I graduated from a public state university in 1989, and our commencement ceremonies began with a prayer from a Protestant minister. Given that separation of church and state is supposed to be the law of the land, this shouldn't have happened, but, as a non-Christian, I see this sort of thing all the time. It's unconscious, I'm sure, but it's about as enlightened and correct as the old "flesh" colored crayons they had when I was a kid, which were, of course, Caucasian skin color. I am a Pagan minister, and trust me when I say that there are as many different kinds of Pagans as there are Christians - maybe more (after all, we were here first, lol). My personal belief system tells me that everything I do will come back to me - as most people say, "what goes around, comes around", or "you reap what you sow". So I work very hard at not negatively stereotyping Christians. I have many family members and friends whom I love dearly who are devout Christians, and I'd defend their right to their beliefs as much as I'd defend my own. I think what's needed here, and what's supposed to be the spirit of the law in this country, is tolerance. Monotheistic belief systems have a tendency to create this feeling of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" that I think followers of the Abrahamic religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims) should be on guard against. Ultimately, we all have to go on what our hearts, minds, and spirits tell us is the right path, and I believe that path is different for everyone. And yes, too many people criticize Christianity without reading the Bible. I would ask, too, how many Christians have studied the Qabbalah, LaVey, Crowley, Gardiner, the Koran, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, and any of the numerous contemporary Wiccan and Pagan authors before they adopted the commonplace beliefs that negatively stereotype all of us as either cartoonish idiots or dangerous evildoers.
________________________________________________________________________

Gimme That Old Time Religion - PAGAN FOR LIFE!

SecretMethod70 · 11-10-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justsomeguy

okay. That is the catholic church though. What about christians?

Well, Catholics ARE Christians, but anyway...

http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/Evol...SAConf2003.pdf
I have not read this. It is a 25 page paper by an assistant professor of physics at Calvin College (which I assume is Calvinist). Glancing over it, it seems to support the view that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

There is a collection of information <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2027_statements_from_religious_orga_1_26_2001.asp">here</a>. Some key points of interest regarding Christian religions:

Episcopal:

Quote:

the [1982] 67th General Convention [of the Episcopal Church] affirm[s] the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the "Creationist" movement ... [and] that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the "Creationists" into legislating any form of "balanced treatment" laws or any law requiring the teaching of "Creation-science."

Catholic:

Quote:

Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible
Pope John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1981

United Presbyterian Church of USA, 1982:

Quote:

the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature -- where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific -- is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.

Furthermore, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America states <a href="http://www.elca.org/co/faq/evolution.html">on their webpage</a> that:

Quote:

we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation.

"Historical criticism" is an understanding that the Bible must be understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written.

Presbyterian Church (USA), in a <a href="http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm">theological statement</a> from 1969 stated:

Quote:

Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory ... We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction

Furthermore, internal <a href="http://www.pcusa.org/research/monday/evolve2.htm">research</a> of Presbyterians showed that the large majority of those who do not support the co-existence of evolution and God as creator are people who are less qualified to make such evaluations in the first place, not to mention that the group with the least support for compatibility of evolution and theistic creation still had 60% of people supporting it:

Anyway, I think you get the idea

martinguerre · 11-10-2004, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justsomeguy

okay. That is the catholic church though. What about christians?

smeth already posted the hard info...so i'll just add my voice. I'm Baptist, evolutionist...and the two play very nicely together.

Justsomeguy · 11-11-2004, 10:36 AM

I don't like the colors you used for the graph.

Also, Jerry Falwell supports that evolution and creation can co-exsits. Since I could never question such an intelligent man, I tend to agree.

I think the Big Bang Theory as it stand is not plausible. I also would not be surpirsed if it received a dramatic face lift in the upcoming years. While I don't entirely agree with theory due to the gaps in information, I think it's close in explanation.

tecoyah · 11-11-2004, 10:57 AM

Big Bang is having the facelift now....as in string theory, M theory, and the inclusion of Branes in many theories. Thus the Beauty of science......we already know science is wrong, and freely admit it....that is the reason for theories.

SecretMethod70 · 11-11-2004, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justsomeguy

I don't like the colors you used for the graph.

Also, Jerry Falwell supports that evolution and creation can co-exsits. Since I could never question such an intelligent man, I tend to agree.

I think the Big Bang Theory as it stand is not plausible. I also would not be surpirsed if it received a dramatic face lift in the upcoming years. While I don't entirely agree with theory due to the gaps in information, I think it's close in explanation.

You...don't like the colors.

And, actually, Falwell rejects evolution quite strongly. He simply doesn't think it's right to fight against evolution being taught any more than he thinks it right to fight aginst strict creationism being taught.

ravenradiodj · 11-11-2004, 11:49 AM

Science offers theories to explain things for which all necessary data for a definitive conclusion are not available. They don't have the luxury of relying on faith in a laboratory experiment, and so, rather than declaim their idea as the absolute divine truth, they call it what it is, a theory. Sounds to me as if they're being specifically accurate, not "wrong". Only a bad scientist - or a preacher - would tell you he knows the absolute truth without being able to prove it and demand you take it on "faith", because he knows better than you.
As an ordained minister myself, I think the distinction is an important one.

Justsomeguy · 11-11-2004, 04:52 PM

What is this post about again?

Coppertop · 11-11-2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justsomeguy

What is this post about again?

It's about the appropriate colors to use in graphs.

Justsomeguy · 11-11-2004, 05:47 PM

What I meant to imply is that this post has gotten way off track. The original post wanted us to add to the role of Christianity in the world, the lack of knowledge many Christians have concerning their religion, and it challenged us to provide reasonable(logical) arguments against or for it. The last point of the author's post seemed to imply that many people's arguments against Christian thought is composed mostly of the same fundamentalist concepts that they attack Christianity on.

11-09-2004, 11:34 AM	#41 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I'm reminded of a Machiavelli quote, which I'm going to paraphrase here (I think it's from the Prince). He wrote that the integration of church with state was dangerous because either the church or the state would end up corrupted, and probably both. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

11-09-2004, 07:38 PM	#42 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	" which is yet another reason why it is hard to be neutral about the christian right as a political force." Roachboy, i guess i'd just like to add that Christian tradition isn't neutral about it either. Back in the day...before the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, Christianity was a strong critique on anyone who trusted in political systems. To call Jesus "Lord" was to deny the proper title of all political authorities. As soon as you confess Christ, it's making a serious challenge to other groups that might want to claim your loyalty. Unfortunatly, the tradition has had a long time to be domesticated by empire...and the results have been tragic. I have no doubt, given enough time and power, that the current breed of Fundies would have any problem starting a pogrom, inquisition, or old fashioned witchhunt. props to lebell, as well. Subtle, and very true. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

11-10-2004, 05:05 PM	#47 (permalink)
Justsomeguy Insane	I really dislike your description of ignorance. Not that it disagrees with most sources, but I hate it described in the same regard as most definitions. I perceive ignorance as being something you have foreknowledge of, but you make the wrong decision even though you understand it to be the wrong decision. For example, Jim has three kids. He owns a business. He could sell his business, retire, and his children would be able to invest something to better suit them. However, Jim chooses to retain the business even though he knows it will ultimately collapse. Regarding the idea of evolution, I would tend to belief more scientific explanations of the universe if there were not so many gaps in the theories. I remember a huge gap in the big bang theory, for example when temperatures dropped from 32 billion degrees. To be honest, I haven't looked at nor care to look at this information again anytime soon. Also, while I realize not all or even many Christians would embrace a co-existant of a theory such as the big bang theory and God(even though I realize they do not contradict), I'm sure it would really help to win alot of support over. Last edited by Justsomeguy; 11-10-2004 at 05:16 PM..

11-10-2004, 05:49 PM	#48 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Actually, the majority of Christians DO support the idea that science is possibly/likely right and simply that God was behind evolution and the big bang. This is, in fact, the "official" position of the Catholic Church for one, as well as others. They're not the loud ones though, so it seems like many Christians do not believe in the possibility of evolution or big bang when, really, it's just a vocal minority. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-11-2004, 10:57 AM	#54 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Big Bang is having the facelift now....as in string theory, M theory, and the inclusion of Branes in many theories. Thus the Beauty of science......we already know science is wrong, and freely admit it....that is the reason for theories. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-10-2004, 05:54 PM	#49 (permalink)
Justsomeguy Insane	okay. That is the catholic church though. What about christians?

11-10-2004, 07:12 PM	#50 (permalink)
ravenradiodj Crazy	Christianity IS everywhere, even in some places it shouldn't be. I graduated from a public state university in 1989, and our commencement ceremonies began with a prayer from a Protestant minister. Given that separation of church and state is supposed to be the law of the land, this shouldn't have happened, but, as a non-Christian, I see this sort of thing all the time. It's unconscious, I'm sure, but it's about as enlightened and correct as the old "flesh" colored crayons they had when I was a kid, which were, of course, Caucasian skin color. I am a Pagan minister, and trust me when I say that there are as many different kinds of Pagans as there are Christians - maybe more (after all, we were here first, lol). My personal belief system tells me that everything I do will come back to me - as most people say, "what goes around, comes around", or "you reap what you sow". So I work very hard at not negatively stereotyping Christians. I have many family members and friends whom I love dearly who are devout Christians, and I'd defend their right to their beliefs as much as I'd defend my own. I think what's needed here, and what's supposed to be the spirit of the law in this country, is tolerance. Monotheistic belief systems have a tendency to create this feeling of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" that I think followers of the Abrahamic religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims) should be on guard against. Ultimately, we all have to go on what our hearts, minds, and spirits tell us is the right path, and I believe that path is different for everyone. And yes, too many people criticize Christianity without reading the Bible. I would ask, too, how many Christians have studied the Qabbalah, LaVey, Crowley, Gardiner, the Koran, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, and any of the numerous contemporary Wiccan and Pagan authors before they adopted the commonplace beliefs that negatively stereotype all of us as either cartoonish idiots or dangerous evildoers. ________________________________________________________________________ Gimme That Old Time Religion - PAGAN FOR LIFE!

11-11-2004, 10:36 AM	#53 (permalink)
Justsomeguy Insane	I don't like the colors you used for the graph. Also, Jerry Falwell supports that evolution and creation can co-exsits. Since I could never question such an intelligent man, I tend to agree. I think the Big Bang Theory as it stand is not plausible. I also would not be surpirsed if it received a dramatic face lift in the upcoming years. While I don't entirely agree with theory due to the gaps in information, I think it's close in explanation.

11-11-2004, 11:49 AM	#56 (permalink)
ravenradiodj Crazy	Science offers theories to explain things for which all necessary data for a definitive conclusion are not available. They don't have the luxury of relying on faith in a laboratory experiment, and so, rather than declaim their idea as the absolute divine truth, they call it what it is, a theory. Sounds to me as if they're being specifically accurate, not "wrong". Only a bad scientist - or a preacher - would tell you he knows the absolute truth without being able to prove it and demand you take it on "faith", because he knows better than you. As an ordained minister myself, I think the distinction is an important one.

11-11-2004, 04:52 PM	#57 (permalink)
Justsomeguy Insane	What is this post about again?

11-11-2004, 05:47 PM	#59 (permalink)
Justsomeguy Insane	What I meant to imply is that this post has gotten way off track. The original post wanted us to add to the role of Christianity in the world, the lack of knowledge many Christians have concerning their religion, and it challenged us to provide reasonable(logical) arguments against or for it. The last point of the author's post seemed to imply that many people's arguments against Christian thought is composed mostly of the same fundamentalist concepts that they attack Christianity on.