Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?

[marduk1507]

About Judas though. I like the idea that his betrayal was unavoidable as a piece of a much bigger picture. It makes me wonder that if this God wouldn't have been more lenient on him (lots of purgatory time?) because without the betrayal, what means would Christ have to die for our sins? (Obviously an unanswerable question, but still interesting). Did Judas have any idea he was damned from the start? (I haven't read the bible, so I really don't know). How could a person live knowing that kind of fate? I generally don't believe in destiny (moments in time sometimes seem too perfect to me to not be destined, but that might be the romantic in me talking ), especially because I enjoy my free will very much.

Yes, this topic is very interesting, and thanks for kicking it off a lot better than above. I cant for the life of me remember the names, but I know Ive read at least one really good book and seen a great film about Judas Iscariot and his part in the whole story. It was based on the idea that only Judas realised the true greatness of Christ and his ideas, and that he knew that they could prevail only if Christ would become a martyr. Exactly - how could a person live knowing that kind of fate? - but how do you know he really knew? Or to put it differently, how could he do it if he knew? What probably struck me most about Mags post was that it was as if he had no idea of the transcendent (but Ive realised it only now). But it happens to us everyday, doesnt it? We do what we know is not exactly ok, but we do it anyway. Is it some spiritual or psychological laziness? Maybe this was what Christ was for Judas. Christ was beyond him. He knew he was going to betray him, he knew it was wrong, and yet he did it. Why? Because he had no free will? "Hes weak with evil" says one of the lines in Loverman from Nick Cave, and I really like that image.

 

[Siren]

Regarding the Old vs. New Testament debate: as a Christian i was never taught the Old Testament extensively, except for some characteristic stories in Religion class at school or by parents, which was mostly informative and general knowledge kind of teaching, and maybe even introductory to my religious teaching. I was always under the impression that, while the God referred to in the Old Testament, New Testament and even the Quran is the one and the same, Old Testament equals Judaism and New Testament equals Christianity. Christianity accepts the Old Testament as divinely inspired (not written by God, we're not ridiculous), but doesn't pay that much attention to it.

Many good morals do come from Jesus. But he wasn't exactly a model citizen either. He was constantly rebellious, braking the sabbath, defying the Rabbis, defying his family.

I'm sorry, but my idea of a model citizen is NOT one who is a sheep, always abiding by the letter of law, who is obedient and submissive and always does what is expected to or told.
My model citizen is one with a personality and mind of his own, who can tell right from wrong, sticks with what he thinks is right and stands up to defend his ideas.

About Judas though. I like the idea that his betrayal was unavoidable as a piece of a much bigger picture. It makes me wonder that if this God wouldn't have been more lenient on him (lots of purgatory time?) because without the betrayal, what means would Christ have to die for our sins? (Obviously an unanswerable question, but still interesting). Did Judas have any idea he was damned from the start? (I haven't read the bible, so I really don't know). How could a person live knowing that kind of fate?

I don't think he knew his fate. He probably didn't fully realise what he was doing. And how can we know what he got in the end? Are we sure he got convicted in Hell? I believe in the end he did regret it, since he went back to return the money and hanged himself, which means he could end up being forgiven.
On the other hand, i like the idea marduk just presented, that he of all knew what was needed and had the guts to do it.

 

[DisplayofCharacter]

I don't think he knew his fate. He probably didn't fully realise what he was doing. And how can we know what he got in the end? Are we sure he got convicted in Hell? I believe in the end he did regret it, since he went back to return the money and hanged himself, which means he could end up being forgiven.
On the other hand, i like the idea marduk just presented, that he of all knew what was needed and had the guts to do it.

Isn't suicide a cardinal sin? In that instance he would almost certainly go to hell?

I like Marduk's idea a lot too, simply because I find the interpersonal aspects of the bible a lot more interesting than all the intimidation/fire and brimstone. I am not a Christian, but I am fascinated by Jesus, simply because I wonder who he really was and what he was like. What kind of a man could touch so many, many lives, innumerable lives over two millennia, and be so relevant when life now would be inconceivable to those who wrote the bible or participated in its events? I enjoy looking at him from a humanistic and psychological point of view, because (and someone else said this before me, but I can't remember whom. if you can, please let me know) Jesus lived the most successful life of any human being.

Back to Judas. Personally, I have no opinion on whether or not he knew what he was going to do. I just find who he is almost as interesting as Jesus. I understand he was one of Jesus' most vehement supporters (?). Deceit makes a good story.

 

[MagSec4]

hyena: I see, and it's alright. But the other thing was, I wanted you to explain what you said (what I quoted from you) not why you hadn't debated
And where exactly will you be on your visit?


Siren, marduk: What I said about the New Testament (Judas, Jesus, etc.) isn't a black-and-white attack. I simply posed some possible arguments because I felt challenged by marduk into using things from the New Testament

In fact, Siren, I personally agree with you too. Hell, I'd love to drink with Jesus if I had the chance. I'd come up during the Sabbath.. whistle from the shadows, and Jesus would sneak out of the temple so we could go together to a nice hill. I'd whip out two shot-glasses and a gallon of water from my backpack, and say: "Jesus, do your thing" We'd sit around a nice mini table (snuck out of his carpenter father's workshop), and we'd have ourselves some of the best conversation I could claim to have had in a very long time. And before long, he'd be stumbling and swirlbanging his long-haired head to Zyklon's "Ways of the World" (I also carried a stereo system in my backpack).


EDIT:
rahvin: Woah, when did you start using capitals?

Who are you to say that?

A man with an opinion. An opinion drawn from statistical consideration, as based on my first line (earlier in the paragraph) which basically said most people these days would not deem most ideas of torture, retribution, and scapegoats, most of the time.

 

[rahvin]

EDIT:
rahvin: Woah, when did you start using capitals?

Apparently after you left. Was it the shock? We'll never know.

In hindsight, it's just that the more I write semi-official stuff over the Internet, the less it pays off to keep two standards, one for this board and another for basically everywhere else and e-mails. I guess I've got used to it.

 

[hyena]

@mags: not sure yet whether i'll make the trip, because my back is getting worse by the minute, but i should be in chicago 11-18 and in boston 18-dec 5th.

 

[marduk1507]

Siren, marduk: What I said about the New Testament (Judas, Jesus, etc.) isn't a black-and-white attack. I simply posed some possible arguments because I felt challenged by marduk into using things from the New Testament

Id like to get one thing straight. I hope my replies didnt insult you, as I said to rahvin, I was only teasing you, because your reply seemed to me like a lecture to a half-witted person (sorry, but that was my impression). You said in your previous posts that there was plenty of evidence and information for everyone to grab and lead a life without any fairy-tales about God etc. (Im paraphrasing). Well, as far I know, the physicists managed to get as far as the level where the tiniest grains of matter are "visible". The problem is, these thingies sometimes behave like waves and sometimes like particles. Basically, what probably lies at the bottom of all things is energy. What is this energy? We dont know. What we know though is that there are people who can heal others just by placing their hands on the sore spot. One such person healed me, when the mighty doctors knew shit about what was wrong with me, and were only stuffing me with more and more meds. That person was deeply religious and didnt want any money for the treatment. This is not the experience that brought me to christianity, but still, how can you explain that?

Theres also this: http://home.att.net/~numericana/arms/bohr.htm

 

[rahvin]

Id like to get one thing straight. I hope my replies didnt insult you, as I said to rahvin, I was only teasing you, because your reply seemed to me like a lecture to a half-witted person (sorry, but that was my impression).

For the record, I wasn't really thinking you were being too aggressive, marduk. I was making fun of the "decent guy" remark, if anything.

Let's go back to loving each other as much as we love ourselves, like God or a figment of our imagination commands!

 

[Txsxhx]

I CAN'T READ SO MANY WORDS!! MAD LOLZ!!

 

[marduk1507]

For the record, I wasn't really thinking you were being too aggressive, marduk. I was making fun of the "decent guy" remark, if anything.

I know, but maybe Mag was.

Let's go back to loving each other as much as we love ourselves, like God or a figment of our imagination commands!

Now that I look at it, it sounds like from plintus. THAT aspect of it is new to me!

 

[Siren]

Siren, marduk: What I said about the New Testament (Judas, Jesus, etc.) isn't a black-and-white attack. I simply posed some possible arguments because I felt challenged by marduk into using things from the New Testament

I don't like getting into arguments about these things, mainly because i don't want to convince anyone of anything. But, since you seem in a mood for debate, i'll reply to one of those things you said, just for the sake of it.

The New Testament, while a big improvement on the horrors of the Old, is still not exactly a fountain of good morals or the key to a happy outlook of life.
First of all, it's all drenched in the idea of original sin, which basically comes from a character from a very long time ago, that you have absolutely nothing to do with, who saw a piece of fruit and ate it. God warned them not to eat from it, but hey (maybe he just forgot, or thought it wasn't that big of a deal) Well it turns out that it was the cosmically most horrible thing in the world and they were made to suffer, work for their food, ..God even threw in "childbirth pain" there as a bonus. And not only that, but it has since been passed down along the line of men in the semen, and we all shall suffer for it. Is that not ridiculous in many different levels?

First of all that's still Old Testament you're talking about. I'm sure you know that's a symbolic story, probably a story made up for uneducated people some thousands of years back, who kept wondering why we have to suffer in this life. And on to the good part...

But wait, a lot of you do agree that the Old Testament and specific stories, like that of Adam and Eve are only symbolic!, and not literal. So God/Jesus is going to have himself tortured and executed in such an impressive and passionate manner, by the hand of other men, as punishment for a symbolic sin commited by a non-existent individual?

Who ever said he got tortured and killed for that specific sin? For a former Christian you don't seem to be very well versed in this. My understanding is that it happened for the forgiving of *all* sins, most of which by the way are commited by humans and are not at all imaginary.

Did it ever cross your mind that the original sin that is passed down to all men and women myth might just be an indirect way to say that no human is perfect?




edit:

Isn't suicide a cardinal sin? In that instance he would almost certainly go to hell?

Yeah, that's what i hear as well, but i personally don't think God or whoever else is up there would be as closed-minded as people want him to be.

 

[Dark_Silence]

Yeah, that's what i hear as well, but i personally don't think God or whoever else is up there would be as closed-minded as people want him to be.

I dont believe in god, but if he existed, i also think that he wouldnt be so strict. Thats why i find a lot of "rules" of the catholic church somehow stupid.
Like non baptized children going to hell. Why would the fact that you are not baptized automatically send you to hell? its not like you did something bad because your parents didnt want to baptize you, or later, if you decide not to get baptized.
There are lots of other "rules" that i think, make absolutely no sense (like the view on contraception) but it wasnt the point here so i wont start arguing about it.

 

[DisplayofCharacter]

edit:
Yeah, that's what i hear as well, but i personally don't think God or whoever else is up there would be as closed-minded as people want him to be.

Not my point of view, just the churches. Personally, I don't God is closed-minded at all. How could a God be? If one exists, and it is omniscient, how could it discriminate on any basis, as every human is unique? I think upon that basis that God is very accepting.

 

[Siren]

@Dark Silence: I totally agree with you. I think the problem starts when people try to impose on other people their arbitrary interpretation of God's will.

 

[hyena]

I dont believe in god, but if he existed, i also think that he wouldnt be so strict. Thats why i find a lot of "rules" of the catholic church somehow stupid.
Like non baptized children going to hell. Why would the fact that you are not baptized automatically send you to hell? its not like you did something bad because your parents didnt want to baptize you, or later, if you decide not to get baptized.
There are lots of other "rules" that i think, make absolutely no sense (like the view on contraception) but it wasnt the point here so i wont start arguing about it.

the rule about the unbaptized is old and does not apply any longer.

the story about contraception is more about a complex anthropological view that would not be internally consistent otherwise. i don't agree with it, but i see where it comes from.

 

[ian.de]

I don't understand how people determine which sentences in the bible are made up and which are truly Gods words? It's almost incredible how people can partition their brains to just dismiss things like this.

So, you don't think Jesus ACTUALLY created wine from water, that was just a story made up for simple folk to drive home the fact that Jesus is a God and he has special powers? If almost everything in the bible is symbolic or embellished then how does anything else written in the book hold any validity?

This is what stopped me from pursuing my faith any further. No one I could talk to in my University Faith Groups, churches, friends, or family could give me one good reason why they pick and choose what is literal and what is made up in the bible. They often justified it because of emotional reasons, (I like the idea of heaven, life is too beautiful to be an accident, jesus was a great guy and he died for my sins because I'm special). That's nonsense to me.

I bring up things written in the book that is the basis of your religious beliefs and they are too embarrassing for you to justify logically. So you write these ideas off as "symbolic" and explain they were written for our teaching.

Why can't Jesus be symbolic too? What if he wasn't a real person, or what if the fables written about him aren't completely true? Then what? Christianity is still a valid/reality based belief system even though it's entire basis is imaginary fairy tales about people who never existed? How does this make sense?

 

[hyena]

@ian.de: jesus existed, that's an historical fact. there's plenty of literature on that.
as for what is true and what isn't, i think it cannot be established in three lines. there's way too much literature on that.

 

[Siren]

I don't understand how people determine which sentences in the bible are made up and which are truly Gods words?

To me that's easy. What Jesus said is God's word (keep in mind he often spoke in parables). Sometimes you have to try and see the true meaning behind words.

 

[rahvin]

I don't understand how people determine which sentences in the bible are made up and which are truly Gods words? It's almost incredible how people can partition their brains to just dismiss things like this.

I have no extensive knowledge of the Bible besides what is commonly read and interpreted, but I'm not sure what's puzzling you here. Many books of various kind contain both a story and a meaning that is different from the story itself. It's usually understood that stories are more or less fictionalized renditions of events, which in turn may contain a message. Most Christians believe what matters in the Bible is its message, and the stories serve as examples that are not to be taken literally.

For instance, I could write a novel about World War II exposing some of the most heinous war crimes ever committed by talking about a fictional family of Jews who go through the horror of a concentration camp and barely make it out alive. While the narration is fictional, many aspects of the story - most of all its plausibility - are not. Thus a work of invention may have value besides the literal sense of the events portrayed.

Even more specifically:

If almost everything in the bible is symbolic or embellished then how does anything else written in the book hold any validity?

A number of famous painters devoted their art to symbolism, to a higher or lesser degree.



Would you say the message of this painting is less valid because the tigers and the woman were never there in the physical world?

Why can't Jesus be symbolic too? What if he wasn't a real person, or what if the fables written about him aren't completely true?

Apparently there's historical evidence of his existence. Certainly not so of his more... extravagant characteristics, though.

 

[ian.de]

To me that's easy. What Jesus said is God's word (keep in mind he often spoke in parables). Sometimes you have to try and see the true meaning behind words.

ahh interpretation, how convenient

What Jesus said? Did Jesus write anything that's in the bible? The words written in the bible are a subjective third person account of events that supposedly happened decades before. So we have some old old old guys writing a story about what they think they remember some guy saying to them many years before? Hows that for a primary source.