Problem with 1) it took him 30 years to become a perfect human being. He is god. How can we expect to become perfect in 80?
Problem with 2)it couldn’t have become organized that largely or that quickly. Paul wrote his epistles to churches all over the Diasporia…
never mentions the life and times of christ which happened 10 years earlier.
never mentions the disciples of christ.
There’s not mere contraversies… there are contradictions.
what’s intriguing is that “the problem of evil” only has to be explained in christianity. YHWH, commands satan to harrass job, so we know that he is behind “evil”.
The real issue with evil from a secular standpoint is that it’s subjective.
well, if you change the original message by using philosophy, you’ve merely created an additional branch of christianity. Luther used the philosophy of the time to shore up catholocism, and it created his branch of the church named after him.
If one uses philosophy to expose religious flaws, it’s not Q.E.D., it still requires proper debate and discussion.
I really don't know what you're driving at here Scythe, except to say that I don't think he was imperfect for the first 30 years of his life. I see no indication of that.
How large? How quickly? Was Paul writing to imaginary friends? I’ve never heard this accusation before.
So you say. And what would it matter if there were? Jesus didn't die and rise from the dead on the third day and so on, because there's some trivial discrepencies between Matthew and Mark? Again, these discrepencies, perhaps contradictions needed answers because lots of people were thinking about them. Since the Bible isn't adding new passages to itself over time, we have no choice but to use secular philosophy to come to some conclusion.
The Problem of Evil actually has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here, but yeah, those things are interesting.
Luther is a completely different case- his changes are well documented, and the group he changed from still exists itself- we're talking about the kind of change that would divorce Christianity- all Christianity- from the message of Christ. I don't think this happened, and I don't think the evidence that it has outweighs the evidence for a traditional understanding. That errant sects have sprung up over time it's inevitable, I suppose.
"If there are gods, how could I not hope to be one?'–Nietzsche.
What is the precedent set by an absolute? That it’s a carrot in front of the horse? That we can be that? For us bumbling humans an absolute seems to be some unreachable pinnacle that shames our attempts to reach it. Thus we must be corrupt, so absolutism believes. Our struggles for self-realization are seen as sins. The two-edged sword of religion is that it would deny our created goodness in order to humble us for receiving some plan of salvation. Milton’s “fortunate fall”! See Matthew Fox’s “Original Blessings”. Absolutes contradict what we are with what we “should” be. How morality sullies ideas, Nietzche notes; but he wrote of a morality of abstraction from the human condition, of the death of the God of absolute certainties, of the reification and deification of human desires.
ok what is it with you and thinking that Jesus was literally condemning people to hell? he never told one person in the Bible that they were going to hell, one-way ticket, no turning back or anything. all He did was point out what needed changing, warning that that path would lead them to hell, BEFORE the judgement came. He was being merciful, if anything. just think about what He came to do - to die a brutal death, all for THEM! if anything, He was providing a way to get to heaven than condemning peoples to hell. you are horribly mistaken. please see that.
c.t.,
Scholars are still debating dates about who wrote what when. The latest estimate is that Mark is older than Paul.
Anyone who reads the N.T. can see the schism between blessings and condemnations in the teachings of Jesus. That everyone can be saved by a harrowing of hell is an apocraphal and gnostic assumption.
Yes, “Christ” is a Greek name. The original N.T. was translated into koine Greek, then into Latin (by Jerome). Jesus spoke Aramaic. Who inspires translations? And what is in a name?
Do you understand what belief in absolutes entails for humans? If not, you have no right to be critical of Nietzsche.
Have you no problems with Milton’s revisions of mythology? T. S. Eliot did.
ok I’m assuming you know what “christLIKE” means. He never asked us to be exactly like Him, but to follow His example. we can never be exactly like Him, and that’s where grace comes in.
as for John baptizing the Pharisees, there is no contradiction there. Matthew says they came with the Saducees for baptism, then in Luke it says they rejected it. Matthew says nothing to the contrary - it simply says they came for it. also, John, when speaking, makes no reference to just the Pharisees, and his talk about baptism means the ones he IS baptizing - the Saducees. no contradiction.
in Luke, did you read verse 17? it’s saying the same thing as in Matthew regarding the Law. all He meant is that the Law was alone until Jesus came, who fulfilled it, which by the way He ALSO said.
Mark 16:16 doesn’t say just faith. it mentions belief AND baptism. kinda obvious there (duh). and in Matthew, all He says is one condition in order to be saved - it’s not exclusive.
MT 3:10 mentions no specific group
same for Matthew 7:13-14, 19, 10:14-15
MT 10:28 isn’t even condemning
MT 11 - notice that He already visited those, and they rejected Him. He’s telling them what will happen unless they change. that should be given. God always warns a city before He demolishes it (mostly many years before He would)
MT 13 - same as first few - no specific group - just promise at end of time
Two small problems with your reasoning- Jesus was the perfect model for humanity. He wasn’t perfect (in His humanity) in the way that God was. For example, He wasn’t all powerful, He apparently wasn’t immortal, so on and so forth. Second, I think it’s been pretty well admitted right from the start (New Testament) that no human is ever going to become perfect like Christ in this life.
that’s a bit interesting that you think that. He was all-powerful, He just knew His job, and yes He was immortal - it’s called resurrection. I agree with your second point.
Christian thinker? To many this is an oxymoron. “Who by thinking can add an inch to his structure.” This is back to item 3. on Kierkegaard. K. expressed his idea that reason is mental whereas faith is experiential in his “Panagyric on Abraham”. I still think this is a false take because reason is also experience and most bifurcations of reason and experience tend to produce false dichotomies. Ask any fundamentalist today about reason. What you usually get from them is their idea that experience of Godspells is in no need of reason or that faith is reasonable by virtue of its unreason. Kierkegaard solved nothing. “Come, let us reason together!”
As for the other premises, love is not worship. Greekizing Christianity diluted its orginal power. Historical Christianity is not Christian. These are not opinions as my own take and noboby else’s. They are experience as fact that does not betray reason, which is an integral part of the human psyche.
In their youth both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche visited brothels. N got syphilis; K didn’t. A fundamentalistic attitude would note that N got what he deserved because the sex disease is punishment for inappropriate use of sex. See Falwell on AIDS. But why didn’t K get it? Was he chosen?
I guess in some ways, yes and no. As Christians, we reason that there is a God through experience and through normal observations (ie nature, etc). We see God as an experiential, reasonable being. But that’s our ideas, no need to contrast them, save that for other forums. Anyway, back to the main idea. However, experiences aren’t always what they seem - like in Angels and Demons (do I need to explain here? not sure if you read it). Also, reason isn’t always determined by past events in our lives, but rather through simple knowledge and/or common sense.
C.T.,
Thank you for good ideas. My take on this is that our common sense has a prehistory. From that I take seriously the advice of Santana (sp.?) about what is not learned from history will be repeated. I see the angels and devils as, not always opposing, but as elemental conditions in my psyche. From them I can create, evolve, grow. On this see Carl Jung, Rollo May, etc.
c.t.,
I’ve not read the book you refer to “Angels and Demons.” Let me know what it says. My post above considers angels and demons from a psychological perspective. I just read that Rilke, on wondering whether to contine psychotherapy, said, “If all my demons are expelled, maybe my angels will fly away, too.”
Not too many centuries ago the word demon did not have a negative connotation. It meant, more or less, the creative energy in you that can force its way through your and society’s complacency. The serpent of Eden, in middle eastern mythologies, symbolized learning or knowing. The Book of Enoch and the Faust Legend center on that interpretation. In Christian mythology the sepent becomes Satan, the adversary.