Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Skyrunner]

Hard questions like "Does Jesus mean animal sacrifice is invalid, or just is an unneeded method?" should be asked not to a normal believer, but to a theolgy student. I think that they discuss topics like that in-depth during class.

[Frumple]

Gah, no. Everything asked to a theology student is rightfully asked to any believer of the theology in question, and at some point (preferably quite early in their existence as a believer) said believer should be asking the same questions. Not understanding your own dogma is just... bad. Part of the whole point of religious belief (qua spirituality, anyway... qua social organization may be a different situation...) is to further your understanding of that belief system, not just sit on something some critter at a pulpit spewed out. If you're not engaging your belief system whole heartedly, pretty much every single major religious figure, from what I understand, blatantly says you're doing it wrong.

Lay worshipers tend to get some easement in regards to ethical code, but that doesn't really extend to understanding of their holy text and/or dogma.

[Skyrunner]

But the truth is many people just don't care to think, like LB said.
Theologians not only picked that road because they wanted tothink deeper, they also probably have considered that question and have an answer in their mind somewhere.
And some theologians are ready to discuss as logically as they can
Whether or not it's right or wrong, it's a truth. :/ 

[LordBucket]

Hard questions like "Does Jesus mean animal sacrifice is invalid, or just is an unneeded method?" should be asked
not to a normal believer, but to a theolgy student. I think that they discuss topics like that in-depth during class.

Ok, but there are a lot of questions like this that obviously come up. Look at the OP. He asked "what does Jesus dying have to do with people sinning?" That's something that probably any Christian would claim is a fundamental, basic premise of the faith, but it's nevertheless something that the "average believer" probably wouldn't be able to explain in detail because the answer involves blood atonement and sacrifice and things that they probably aren't that familiar with.

For example, personally, when I was introduced to Christianity, I was in elementary school and a friend was trying to explain to me that I needed to accept Jesus in order to be saved. To which my obvious question was "...umm...saved from what?" And he explained that I needed to be saved from sin. I'd never heard of sin. I simply had no context with which to view anything he was saying in any way that made the slightest bit of sense. And I suspect that probably a lot of other non-Christians encounter something similar when they talk to "the average Christian" too.

Which results in threads like this one, where non-Christians are trying to get answers to some very basic things, that "the average Christian" is sometimes unable to explain. The basic assumptions are too different.

[scriver]

How is this going to get anywhere if only positive-takes are allowed? Maybe it should be rephrased as to make it more of a personal-view-on-the-book, but I think his opinion does have a place here.

@

No offense, but I find it interesting that you scorn "BS-Catholics" for their nonobservance, yet clearly cherry-pick yourself  on regards of what to believe and not-to-believe, not only of the Bible, but of the Catechism as well. Don't you think that attitude is, well, kind of sanctimonious?

I see your point. What I was meaning, in regards to BS-Catholics was the kind that are in it just to impress someone, or take without giving in return, rather than to enlighten themselves, and help others along the road (basically, pulling off a George Costanza, where he converted so he can be with someone; but doesn't commit to the religion. He had cheat sheets with him FFS.). We should be helping each other out regardless, not obstructing progress. You can BS people, but you can't BS God (I think an omnipresent/omnipotent being is smarter than that).

Like I mentioned before, I tend to contradict myself at times, but that happens with everyone, regardless. I just don't like how people pick things just to 'be on a team' rather than based on their beliefs or moral code. And I know I tend to get flak for this, but although I look like I cherry-pick things, I am still sticking to the word as it has been preached, but keeping an open mind as time goes on. It bothers me how rigid religion and observations of faith and etc. have become as of late. If God was able to change His ways between Testaments, then why can't religions and people?

That's my outlook on it, at least. It may clash with others, but at times, I don't even recognize my own religion anymore with all the crap that's been going on these days. I feel in my spirit, somehow, that I'm going in the right direction, and should just continue going with the flow (like my main message: I seek not to convert; just to provide understanding). As long as I remain true to myself, and am doing the right thing, that's what matters more than my religious label. I may eventually lose my title as a Catholic over time, but I do believe God would still be cool with it, and be a rather forgiving guy. In a sense, I sorta evolved my belief of God into a more context-sensitive being that understands your intents, compared to your actions and the results of them, and judges you accordingly. Kinda like the Father we have been taught Him to be. By context, it makes more sense. It also feels more universal, regardless of religion (if we're all calling to the same God, but with different names) in it's operation.

EDIT:
Did I just respond to my own post?

EDIT EDIT:
Nevermind, I think it was a botched quoting on Poo's part. Fixed it; I think.

[LordBucket]

Everything asked to a theology student is rightfully asked to any believer of the theology in question, and at some point (preferably
quite early in their existence as a believer) said believer should be asking the same questions. Not understanding your own dogma is just... bad.

...it's not necessary to understand electricity to know how to use a light switch. And probably most people who use light switches would have a difficult time explaining in detail how they work to someone who'd lived without any experience with electricity. It's just not necessary to have that deeper understanding to get the use from a light switch that they want.

Religion can be similar. If an individual believes that if they do X they'll go to heaven...they might be happy with just doing X without any deeper understanding of how or why.

Part of the whole point of religious belief (qua spirituality, anyway... qua social organization may be a different situation...)
is to further your understanding of that belief system, not just sit on something some critter at a pulpit spewed out.

...I would guess that most Christians would disagree with this. I think they would say the "the point of Christianity" is to be saved. The more pious might say that the point is "to relate to God in the manner that He intended." Whichever answer they give, understanding the details is not necessarily very important. Sort of like having a deeper understanding of electricity is not necessary to turn on a light switch in order to have light. The point of flipping a light switch is to have there be light. Understanding is neither necessary, nor is it "the point."

You or I, as a non-believer might require a deeper understanding. But I don't think it's completely fair to object to their casual acceptance of an answer that works for them without taking the time and energy to find out more. And this is the source of a great deal of misunderstanding and miscommunication between believers and non-believers. The believer can simply say "yeah, just turn on the light switch and you'll have light. That's all you need to do." or "Yeah, just accept Jesus as your savior, and you'll be saved. That's all you need to do." And lots of people are able to give simple answers like that with neither the ability to explain further or the desire to be able to.

[Itnetlolor]

Quote-Stack

I figure I'm just going to end up digging myself deeper if I press on. I'm going to end my posting in this topic.

EDIT:
I hope my views/contributions hasn't adversely affected anyone's views on me too much. Last thing I want to do is rub anyone the wrong way (or too badly, if it happened anyway). I like it here.

[Nadaka]

Hard questions like "Does Jesus mean animal sacrifice is invalid, or just is an unneeded method?" should be asked not to a normal believer, but to a theolgy student. I think that they discuss topics like that in-depth during class.

In the bible Jesus was really objecting to the monetization and ideal of perfection that grew to surround sacrifice in Jerusalem, and had little else to say about it. Christian tradition holds that his sacrifice was the last one that was required. But the bible itself is non-specific on that.

[scriver]

How is this going to get anywhere if only positive-takes are allowed? Maybe it should be rephrased as to make it more of a personal-view-on-the-book, but I think his opinion does have a place here.

@

No offense, but I find it interesting that you scorn "BS-Catholics" for their nonobservance, yet clearly cherry-pick yourself  on regards of what to believe and not-to-believe, not only of the Bible, but of the Catechism as well. Don't you think that attitude is, well, kind of sanctimonious?

I see your point. What I was meaning, in regards to BS-Catholics was the kind that are in it just to impress someone, or take without giving in return, rather than to enlighten themselves, and help others along the road (basically, pulling off a George Costanza, where he converted so he can be with someone; but doesn't commit to the religion. He had cheat sheets with him FFS.). We should be helping each other out regardless, not obstructing progress. You can BS people, but you can't BS God (I think an omnipresent/omnipotent being is smarter than that).

Like I mentioned before, I tend to contradict myself at times, but that happens with everyone, regardless. I just don't like how people pick things just to 'be on a team' rather than based on their beliefs or moral code. And I know I tend to get flak for this, but although I look like I cherry-pick things, I am still sticking to the word as it has been preached, but keeping an open mind as time goes on. It bothers me how rigid religion and observations of faith and etc. have become as of late. If God was able to change His ways between Testaments, then why can't religions and people?

That's my outlook on it, at least. It may clash with others, but at times, I don't even recognize my own religion anymore with all the crap that's been going on these days. I feel in my spirit, somehow, that I'm going in the right direction, and should just continue going with the flow (like my main message: I seek not to convert; just to provide understanding). As long as I remain true to myself, and am doing the right thing, that's what matters more than my religious label. I may eventually lose my title as a Catholic over time, but I do believe God would still be cool with it, and be a rather forgiving guy. In a sense, I sorta evolved my belief of God into a more context-sensitive being that understands your intents, compared to your actions and the results of them, and judges you accordingly. Kinda like the Father we have been taught Him to be. By context, it makes more sense. It also feels more universal, regardless of religion (if we're all calling to the same God, but with different names) in it's operation.

EDIT:
Did I just respond to my own post?

EDIT EDIT:
Nevermind, I think it was a botched quoting on Poo's part. Fixed it; I think.

Itnetlolor, I believe you just won the thread by saying that "sometimes I contradict myself" while arguing with your own post

[Itnetlolor]

How is this going to get anywhere if only positive-takes are allowed? Maybe it should be rephrased as to make it more of a personal-view-on-the-book, but I think his opinion does have a place here.

@

No offense, but I find it interesting that you scorn "BS-Catholics" for their nonobservance, yet clearly cherry-pick yourself  on regards of what to believe and not-to-believe, not only of the Bible, but of the Catechism as well. Don't you think that attitude is, well, kind of sanctimonious?

EDIT:
Did I just respond to my own post?

EDIT EDIT:
Nevermind, I think it was a botched quoting on Poo's part. Fixed it; I think.

Itnetlolor, I believe you just won the thread by saying that "sometimes I contradict myself" while arguing with your own post

Although I do accept the 'award' for such an epic fail, to clarify things, I think wires were crossed upon reading it initially, and I mis-interpreted it as his opinion with botched quoting, accidentally merging his response labeling it as my statement, and not a summarized/re-take/edit on my other post. Kinda why I ended up responding to it. I've made those mistakes before where I had quoting take on such an odd appearance where my response took the place of someone else's post in a quote pyramid/stack. Plus, the phrasing was so different from mine, I think my confusion is rather justified.

And with that loaded post out of the way (forcing me to contradict my earlier post (I see what you did there)), NOW I'm out for good (this time, for reasons as to not make an even greater ass of myself anymore than I already have). Reread that quoting (un-edited the quote stack, but trimmed the post for convenience), and what I posted in response, and I think you can spot where I got confused, and ended up responding to myself unintentionally. Oddly enough, it actually doesn't sound too different from how I think sometimes (even though it was just an edit), so it registered as normal (my brain tends to do this kind of weird stuff all the time, to the point I stopped caring about it). I guess I tend to argue with myself a bit much (I don't have many other people I can talk with at equal-level), leading to some interesting personal, intellectual, and sometimes spiritual developments over time (basically, communicating with myself as if I were tripping out 24/7; or splitting my personality intentionally to get perspective on topics from multiple angles, and using my split personalities like a makeshift research team, or a barbershop quartet); but that's for another thread based on psychological oddities people have, and ought to not derail this with.

BTW something like this happens every once in a while, post-wise. Notice I forget to include the other end of the BBCode to wrap it up. Things get zany especially when you have quote stacks/pyramids, and mis-quotings tend to be abound; like what I mistook earlier.

EDIT:
For what it's worth, I nabbing that as a new sig for my rosters.

[Grek]

I think the argument "God hurts people in the Bible, do not believe in God" is really misguided. I mean, you wouldn't tell people to go around disbelieving in the ebola virus just because it goes around hurting people, would you? Refusing to believe in ebola isn't going to make it stop existing or make you immune to catching it - it's just going to make you refuse to seek medical attention and make you miserable if you ever catch ebola. Conversely, believing in the magical power of your 1947 pennies to give you free icecream on demand when rubbed is not going to imbue your pocket change with any actual powers, icecream-related or otherwise. It's just going to make you look dumb when you try to rub it and wish for free icecream.

If God exists and is good, you want to believe in God. If God exists and is evil, you still want to believe on God. If God does not exist, you want to not believe in God. Always desire that your beliefs be modelled after the truth, whatever that truth may be, no matter how much it upsets you. You can always deal with the truth since you are always dealing with it already, whether you know it or not.

[Nadaka]

I think the argument "God hurts people in the Bible, do not believe in God" is really misguided. I mean, you wouldn't tell people to go around disbelieving in the ebola virus just because it goes around hurting people, would you? Refusing to believe in ebola isn't going to make it stop existing or make you immune to catching it - it's just going to make you refuse to seek medical attention and make you miserable if you ever catch ebola. Conversely, believing in the magical power of your 1947 pennies to give you free icecream on demand when rubbed is not going to imbue your pocket change with any actual powers, icecream-related or otherwise. It's just going to make you look dumb when you try to rub it and wish for free icecream.

If God exists and is good, you want to believe in God. If God exists and is evil, you still want to believe on God. If God does not exist, you want to not believe in God. Always desire that your beliefs be modelled after the truth, whatever that truth may be, no matter how much it upsets you. You can always deal with the truth since you are always dealing with it already, whether you know it or not.

I did not make the argument that you should not believe in god because god is bad. The argument that I made is that if you worship an evil god, honor and praise an evil god, aspire to become more like an evil god, or unquestioningly obey an evil god then you can not be a good person. The god of Abraham, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Muslims is explicitly evil as described in their own holy scripture. I have personally experienced that evil infecting human minds and driving them (and my past self) to believe and do terrible things.

The reason to not believe in gods, magic and superstitions in general is an entirely different argument.

[Mongol13524]

PTF

[Grek]

I did not make the argument that you should not believe in god because god is bad. The argument that I made is that if you worship an evil god, honor and praise an evil god, aspire to become more like an evil god, or unquestioningly obey an evil god then you can not be a good person. The god of Abraham, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Muslims is explicitly evil as described in their own holy scripture. I have personally experienced that evil infecting human minds and driving them (and my past self) to believe and do terrible things.

The reason to not believe in gods, magic and superstitions in general is an entirely different argument.

... at least according to some ethical systems. Dentology, for example, would agree with that conclusion. Evil is evil even if a god tells you to do it, even if you actually will go to hell for real if you refuse, even if the consequences are bad. Virtue ethics would also agree. If a god commands you to do something that is unVirtueous, then you're still ungood for doing it and thus evil.

But some ethical systems, including utilitarianism do not judge you to be evil for doing dentologically bad things as long as there is a greater good served. Worshiping an evil, malign god is acceptable as long as A] worship makes the evil god less likely to do evil things and B] there's no way to defeat or contain the god of evil (at least not one with a sufficently high chance of working).

[TSTwizby]

Wow, that escalated quickly. I'll take these responses as implying that the third of my guesses was correct. Interesting read all through, though it seems to be succumbing to the usual arguments.