Relativism in Christianity - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-17-2004, 11:31 AM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Commands and codes of laws were givento other people around the world. Every culture has its codes and laws and culture. Maybe there is a commonality in the revelation of these.
Given to? Or made?

Are you forwarding a natural law position?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 11:32 AM   #77
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


If you think he was put to death for other reasons than the threat he presented to those in power in the temple, then we have a serious difference as to what was going on .
Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life. The crucifixion was the means by which His death came about, which is why I say, WE all killed Christ, not just His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin Council.

But if you honestly think that Jesus was telling His deciples that He is the way, truth and life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him is in reference to the temple and not about a personal relationship with God, then yes we are coming at if from two entirely different perspectives.
__________________

__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 11:35 AM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


You're welcome.
Am I missing something? You never answered my request for clarification...
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 11:38 AM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life. The crucifixion was the means by which His death came about, which is why I say, WE all killed Christ, not just His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin Council.

But if you honestly think that Jesus was telling His deciples that He is the way, truth and life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him is in reference to the temple and not about a personal relationship with God, then yes we are coming at if from two entirely different perspectives.
Up until today, I felt that our debates were plesant. I am pretty much through.

There is the spiritual aspect of the Christ story, and there is the historical fact that they never would have put him to death were he not threat to the phsical world in which we live.

I will concede that one verse for the sake of peace here the verse you are clinging to was not about the temple. Never claimed it did, my argument had to do with a more global view of the reality of the physical, rather than the spiritual.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 11:44 AM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Given to? Or made?

Are you forwarding a natural law position?
Depends....

To the person whose culture the law came from it is given.
To the person looking at the other culture it is not.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 11:50 AM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic
It is a fairly simple concept. Sorry you are having difficulty understanding it. Maybe it is how I have put it forth?

Carrie
Sorry, I missed this explination.

It must be to difficult for me like finding posts.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 11:58 AM   #82
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 11:14 PM
This Spong guy is really interesting. I've only read a couple of random quotes of his, and the back of one of his books (can't remember which one), so the stuff quoted in this thread is by far the most I've ever heard from him.

He seems to be very sharp, and seems to have worked hard to take a fresh look at how we think about and talk about God.

What baffles me is that he has any interest in Christianity. Again this only based on what I've seen quoted in this thread. He makes it quite clear that Bible is drenched in theism, which he fully rejects. Thus, I don't see how the bible is of any significant use to him in his search to understand God. Thus, I don't understand why a man named Jesus of Nazareth (whose words and actions are recorded in the entirely theistic bible) would be central to his understanding of God. Spong even refers to himself as a "disciple" of this man who we only know through a theistic book. The very words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, contradict many of Spong's theses. For example:

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.[/Q]

I like this one.
When Jesus prayed, he addressed God as "our father" (thus a theistic deity), and made a request for that him to act in human history in a particular way (give us our daily bread today). Granted, Jesus may not have actually said this, or any of the many other statements attributed to him in which he speaks of God as a heavenly power relating to human beings as a parent relates to a child. Theistic writers of Hebrew decent may have chosen to attribute those statements to Jesus to further validate their theistic understanding of God. But that is what we know of Jesus of Nazareth.

So why does Spong think Jesus reveals anything of God to us? I understand that he sees God in other humans, but how can he trust the biblical account that shows him God in Jesus of Nazareth?

Am I rambling? It's just that I'm very interested in some of what Spong says, such as:
Quote:
Jesus lived so fully that he revealed the Source of Life. He loved so completely that he revealed the Source of Love. He was so completely true to his own being in the way he lived out his own humanity that people saw in him the very Ground of all Being.
But I don't understand how Spong has any sense for how Jesus lived, or how Jesus loved, or how true he was, since our knowledge of his life comes through the theistic interpretation of the bibilical authors.

thoughts?
__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 12:04 PM   #83
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
AS for Baptism, I completely disagree with any notion that man has anything at all do do with the power of the sacrament.

I have reasons for questioning about Baptism, because if you believe that the power of Baptism comes from God then you might believe as I do, that God is not here for one select group of people. God chose to create humanity. God chose us.

How does this relate to this thread? I asked questions about God the creator. God chose to create everything, including people who are not Jewish or Christian. While they may not be a part of the Christian/Jewish tradition, they are still Gods people, and no act of rejection of God can change that. God does not abandon. Much like Baptism, God has the power, not man.
Being baptized in water a very powerful experience, and the power of God is evident in that act, that is for certain. The fact that a believer is showing an act of obedience to the God they now know and love is an example of that Power. That God touched a person's heart with the Truth and they responded by accpeting it is an example of that Power. These are examples of the power of transformation, which is the true power of baptism - the baptism of the Spirit. This occurs the moment someone accepts Christ as their savoir. That Baptism has nothing at all to do with man. That is 100% God all the way.

Do you think that person HAS to be baptized in water in order to be saved?
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 12:07 PM   #84
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Am I missing something? You never answered my request for clarification...
Huh?? How many ways can I clarify what I am saying? I have stated twice, no three times now, what baptism is. What am I missing?
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 12:09 PM   #85
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Sorry, I missed this explination.

It must be to difficult for me like finding posts.
Huh? again ... sorry...

I was asking you if the manner in which I was wording what I was saying was unclear.....
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 12:14 PM   #86
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Up until today, I felt that our debates were plesant. I am pretty much through.

There is the spiritual aspect of the Christ story, and there is the historical fact that they never would have put him to death were he not threat to the phsical world in which we live.

I will concede that one verse for the sake of peace here the verse you are clinging to was not about the temple. Never claimed it did, my argument had to do with a more global view of the reality of the physical, rather than the spiritual.
How was my reply not pleasant?

At any rate, the global view of reality is very much wrapped up in the spiritual view. That is why what Jesus said to his disciples transcends borders and time, which is why I will continue clinging to it.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 03:29 PM   #87
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life.
See this in not what Dreadsox asked. This is the spiritual side of the story, but it's not why he was put to death. You are still seeing this only through the Biblical aspect to which you were taught.

This whole thread has lost sight of what the true intent was.

No one has shown me the "relativism" in Christianity today. You show a few views of one person, but no one has shown me how churches today are "straying".

And to the people claiming such you aren't seeing the irony to which your church experience is different than those before you. I mean this thread has gone on for several pages and no one has shown anything relative to the original intent of the thread.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 03:57 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:14 PM


I think there are plenty of posts that demonstrate that Scriptural interpretive methods can and do lead to a relativist approach in Christianity.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 04:57 PM   #89
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


See this in not what Dreadsox asked. This is the spiritual side of the story, but it's not why he was put to death. You are still seeing this only through the Biblical aspect to which you were taught.

This whole thread has lost sight of what the true intent was.

No one has shown me the "relativism" in Christianity today. You show a few views of one person, but no one has shown me how churches today are "straying".

And to the people claiming such you aren't seeing the irony to which your church experience is different than those before you. I mean this thread has gone on for several pages and no one has shown anything relative to the original intent of the thread.
Ok I noticed when you quoted that BVS you cut out the remainder of the statment. This is it as i orginally phrased it....

"Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life. The crucifixion was the means by which His death came about, which is why I say, WE all killed Christ, not just His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin Council."

In that statement I address both the spiritual side of the crucifixion as well as the historical side. The Sanhedrin Counil were those who called for the crucifixion of Christ. Jesus was a threat to these people because He was saying He was everything that prophecy foretold. These people weren't keen on it because they wanted a real king, a politcal figure of this world to do their bidding against Rome. Jesus did not fit their ideal of what/who Messiah was and that is what led to His being killed. That is the historical aspect of it (the one I was taught and have read about as well.)

Jesus had to be killed, that was the entire point of His even coming to earth in the first place. To imply that He would not have been killed if He would have kept His mouth shut in regards to Jewish law is nonsense. Had he kept His mouth shut and just said a bunch of neat things to inspire people, He would not have been Messiah, He would have been Siddhartha Gautama, et al.

The reason this even came up, was because of my reference to Jesus stating that He is the way, the truth and the life in my response to someone else in a different post. The point I was making was that Jesus did not say He is A way or A truth or A life, you can get to the Father by me if you chose but there are many other opitions. He said THE and NO ONE but BY ME. Dreadsox went on to say that, that is not what Jesus was referring to. He said that it was to do with following Jewish tradition and the law and made reference to something about reclaiming the temple. So that is how it got sidetracked.

How is this an example of realitivism? Many churches and Christians are going against that very statement Jesus made. I see evidence of that here in this forum for starters. Some people that I talk to offline hold this view. Some people in my church hold this view. It is realitivism at its core. To say that you can say Jesus is just one viable means by which one can be enlightened or know God or live a good life then that is saying the Truth of Christ is only relative to those who believe it. That goes against everything Christ taught. If that isn't realitivism what is it?

Take care,

Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 05:29 PM   #90
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


Ok I noticed when you quoted that BVS you cut out the remainder of the statment. This is it as i orginally phrased it....

"Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life. The crucifixion was the means by which His death came about, which is why I say, WE all killed Christ, not just His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin Council."

In that statement I address both the spiritual side of the crucifixion as well as the historical side. The Sanhedrin Counil were those who called for the crucifixion of Christ. Jesus was a threat to these people because He was saying He was everything that prophecy foretold. These people weren't keen on it because they wanted a real king, a politcal figure of this world to do their bidding against Rome. Jesus did not fit their ideal of what/who Messiah was and that is what led to His being killed. That is the historical aspect of it (the one I was taught and have read about as well.)

Jesus had to be killed, that was the entire point of His even coming to earth in the first place. To imply that He would not have been killed if He would have kept His mouth shut in regards to Jewish law is nonsense. Had he kept His mouth shut and just said a bunch of neat things to inspire people, He would not have been Messiah, He would have been Siddhartha Gautama, et al.

The reason this even came up, was because of my reference to Jesus stating that He is the way, the truth and the life in my response to someone else in a different post. The point I was making was that Jesus did not say He is A way or A truth or A life, you can get to the Father by me if you chose but there are many other opitions. He said THE and NO ONE but BY ME. Dreadsox went on to say that, that is not what Jesus was referring to. He said that it was to do with following Jewish tradition and the law and made reference to something about reclaiming the temple. So that is how it got sidetracked.

How is this an example of realitivism? Many churches and Christians are going against that very statement Jesus made. I see evidence of that here in this forum for starters. Some people that I talk to offline hold this view. Some people in my church hold this view. It is realitivism at its core. To say that you can say Jesus is just one viable means by which one can be enlightened or know God or live a good life then that is saying the Truth of Christ is only relative to those who believe it. That goes against everything Christ taught. If that isn't realitivism what is it?

Take care,

Carrie
Thank you for being clearer on why Christ was killed, but I didn't need the history lesson of why this got sidetracked. I understood that part.

See you are still quoting only a few individuals. You are not showing me how Churches are doing so. This is the distinction I wanted you to make. You started this by saying relitivism in Christianity in the very broad sense, but now you are just showing a few individuals insight. You still haven't showed me any examples in the very broad sense.

Now having said that let me ask you something. This is something I ask everyone who brings this exact piece of scripture up and yet no one has given me an answer that works. Two things. One; if he is the only way, what about those that by geography or whatever never even heard of Christ? And two; he say through me, now Christ has already died for our sins, he has taken the burden of the world's sins. Now what does through me mean? Does it mean we have to have a personal relationship with Christ? Or has the path been layed? For example black people today don't neccasarily need to know Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks to benefit from the sacrifice they made.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com