nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Double post.
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
but Christ didn't say that.
you're taking an English translation of very, very old books written by True Believers years and years after his death.
how can you put so much literalist faith into a set of words of dubious veracity?
what is so threatening about a faith that sees the message of Jesus (or Muhammad) as a broad indicator of how we should treat others, of what the divine might be, and not as a literally "true" account that includes an elaborate theology that explains everything?
Irvine511 said:
but Christ didn't say that.
you're taking an English translation of very, very old books written by True Believers years and years after his death.
how can you put so much literalist faith into a set of words of dubious veracity?
what is so threatening about a faith that sees the message of Jesus (or Muhammad) as a broad indicator of how we should treat others, of what the divine might be, and not as a literally "true" account that includes an elaborate theology that explains everything?
coemgen said:
How do you know he didn't say that?
coemgen said:Languages can be translated, you know.
coemgen said:Yes, but there's still very early copies of the gospels around. I saw parts of the oldest surviving copies of one of them in Ireland myself. Scholars have much to work with. Plus, the number of copies of the gospel dating to within a generation of Christ are staggering compared to the number of copies floating around for other historical documents and biographies. Something important must've happened.
Irvine511 said:
and we know how much can, and is, lost in translation. especially when it's a 2nd hand account.
and the absence of inflection, and pitch, and context, and circumstance, and emphasis ...
remember playing Telephone as a child?
coemgen said:Also, what about this verse in Matthew. He recorded Christ being "the way, the truth and the life" as well.
Matthew 7: 21-23
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
You mean Chinese whispers as a child, an illustration of differences in language and terms right there.Irvine511 said:
and we know how much can, and is, lost in translation. especially when it's a 2nd hand account.
and the absence of inflection, and pitch, and context, and circumstance, and emphasis ...
remember playing Telephone as a child?
coemgen said:And again, if you sent your son to die so someone could spend eternity in heaven, would you allow them to take a different way?
I wouldn't. It would negate my son's sacrifice. Why did Jesus die then?
Dreadsox said:
Jesus died like many other champions of the excluded, the marginalized, the downtrodden.
I can think of quite a few.
Why did they have to die?
This is about forgiveness...And the billions who do the will of the father by caring for the poor, feeding them, clothing them be they muslim, hindu, ect....because it was the RIGHT thing to do...
Why would God create them to damn them to hell? Just to stand before him and say I accept Christ? Sorry, the verse you quoted indeed points out that just accepting Christ and walking around town in his name is not enough.
nightninja56 said:
the Will of the Father is to accept His Son into our hearts...to paraphrase, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one gets to the Father except through me"
nightninja56 said:
the Will of the Father is to accept His Son into our hearts...to paraphrase, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one gets to the Father except through me"
Irvine511 said:
you would.
why don't you just plant a Union Jack in the ground and claim the land for the Queen while you're at it?
what we're getting at is a lack of respect for other faiths and the lack of self-awareness -- perhaps there are people out there who are every bit as strong in their religion as you are, and for perfectly valid reasons, they view your religion as invalid as you view theirs.
just who are you to tell them otherwise? where do you derive your authority to wag your finger and tell them that, silly Hindus, you're all damned to hell?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
And this is exactly why we should be careful of making statements such as this:
Quote:
I believe that all Muslims are wrong, and will not be going to Heaven
coemgen said:I think the will of the father starts with accepting Christ as your Lord, though. That's what it says, too. It's throughout the NT.
And again, if you sent your son to die so someone could spend eternity in heaven, would you allow them to take a different way?
I wouldn't. It would negate my son's sacrifice. Why did Jesus die then?
maycocksean said:
Someone actually said this?!?
maycocksean said:
Someone actually said this?!?
maycocksean said:
Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong or disrespectful to be a missionary or to try to spread your faith to other parts of the world?
Missionary activity has long been a part of many faiths (after all, how would Buddhism have gotten to East Asia? Even today there are Buddhist sects that promote prosyletyzing. Just so we're clear that it's not just the Christians with the "converting" bug). I think that any believer in a free society would expect allowance for a free exchange of ideas and for respectful attempts to share your beliefs with others.
I mean there are places where missionary activity is prohibited. But they also tend to be places that are totalitarian in nature.
Not that there isn't such a thing as "bad" or "unacceptable" missionary activity. There certainly is. Barbara Kingsolver's excellent novel "The Poisonwood Bible" gives a brilliant example of the sort of missionary activity that is totally reprehensible.
Forgive me if I take a little humbrage here, as I'm a missionary myself.
AussieU2fanman said:Acutually the first book of the new testament has been dated to be written at least 55 years after the death of Christ at best. However, it doesn't matter because the new testament is divinely inspired, inerrant and is the word of God because somebody with self proclaimed authority deems it to be so.
maycocksean said:
Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong or disrespectful to be a missionary or to try to spread your faith to other parts of the world?
Missionary activity has long been a part of many faiths (after all, how would Buddhism have gotten to East Asia? Even today there are Buddhist sects that promote prosyletyzing. Just so we're clear that it's not just the Christians with the "converting" bug). I think that any believer in a free society would expect allowance for a free exchange of ideas and for respectful attempts to share your beliefs with others.
I mean there are places where missionary activity is prohibited. But they also tend to be places that are totalitarian in nature.
Not that there isn't such a thing as "bad" or "unacceptable" missionary activity. There certainly is. Barbara Kingsolver's excellent novel "The Poisonwood Bible" gives a brilliant example of the sort of missionary activity that is totally reprehensible.
Forgive me if I take a little humbrage here, as I'm a missionary myself.
dazzlingamy said:
See here is my idea with this. I don't think religion should be promoted or subltely "pushed" onto people. I think religion should be something people look for, or find.
I don't like the religion care charities who go into countries and give aid ALONG with religious paraphanalia. These people are desperate, starving people. They don't need their minds toyed with ideas that are not accpeted by a lot of people in the world, or swayed by kind people saying 'we're not giving you this food, the love of god is giving you this food' and guilt trip them into something.
I understand why there are missionaries, but surely, you would want people to come from their own curiosity into your faith rather then have to push push push it on people until they bend to the ideas (which is how i see it, im sure others see it differently)
Anyway, just a thought as i was reading
Irvine511 said:
i don't think it takes too much to agree that much of missionary history coincides with colonialist history. religion being one of many justifications that white people used to subjugate the unwashed brown masses across the globe.
Irvine511 said:
as for contemporary missionary work -- yes, in some senses, i do have a problem with it. if you are in a country doing good humanitarian work because you feel as if your religion asks to you do so, that's one thing; if you share your religion in a respectful manner as part of a larger conversation about yourself, that's one thing; however, to show up and resolve to convert the masses to Christ (which, as history has shown us, makes them easier to govern) out of a mixture of contempt and guilt, that's something else entirely.