Jesus Hates Religion

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by yolland

What to you is most discussion-worthy about it?

I was thinking more about the fact that it's gone uber-viral, with over 15M views in less than a week. True, it might be "inside baseball," but I'm always fascinated any time Jesus invades the pop culture.

I'm kind of amused by some of the drive-by comments regarding the historicity of the Gospels/church. There was indeed a Christian church in the Bible, though it was nowhere near as organized and hierarchical then as it became -- more a band of isolated communities spreading Good News from person to person and village to village, with the disciples in Jerusalem forming an initial theological council (the first of which was held in roughly 49 AD). Both the term "Christian" -- which in the Greek literally meant "little Christs" -- and the "church" -- Greek ecclessia -- date within years of Jesus' death and resurrection, and within years of those initial communities forming, Paul was already writing letters stressing freedom from religion. Which makes me think that we've not come all that far from where we started...

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I'm kind of amused by some of the drive-by comments

How was anything drive-by?

[nathan1977]

^

"There was no Christian Church in the Bible."

Perhaps BVS meant "Christian Church" in the uber-hierarchical Catholic sense, but this comment doesn't line up with the reality was that there was a church in the Bible -- lots of them, in fact. Paul spent a lot of time writing to and visiting with them, and the early followers of Christ spent a lot of time trying to sort out what corresponded with Jesus' teachings and what didn't. (The gnostic heresy was in full bloom almost immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection.)

And as far as what Jesus said/didn't say (your comment asserted that the church fathers "attribut(ed) quotes to Jesus that he most likely never said"), there's a great deal of evidence -- even among liberal scholars such as the Jesus seminar -- for the historical record of Jesus' words and deeds.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

^

"There was no Christian Church in the Bible."

Perhaps BVS meant "Christian Church" in the uber-hierarchical Catholic sense, but this comment doesn't line up with the reality was that there was a church in the Bible -- lots of them, in fact. Paul spent a lot of time writing to and visiting with them, and the early followers of Christ spent a lot of time trying to sort out what corresponded with Jesus' teachings and what didn't. (The gnostic heresy was in full bloom almost immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection.)

Is it not also historically accurate that by and large the early followers considered themselves to be Jews (later leaning towards some hybrid of Christian Jews) until the destruction of the temple, which was some 4 decades after the death of Christ?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

^

"There was no Christian Church in the Bible."

Perhaps BVS meant "Christian Church" in the uber-hierarchical Catholic sense, but this comment doesn't line up with the reality was that there was a church in the Bible -- lots of them, in fact. Paul spent a lot of time writing to and visiting with them, and the early followers of Christ spent a lot of time trying to sort out what corresponded with Jesus' teachings and what didn't. (The gnostic heresy was in full bloom almost immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection.)

And as far as what Jesus said/didn't say (your comment asserted that the church fathers "attribut(ed) quotes to Jesus that he most likely never said"), there's a great deal of evidence -- even among liberal scholars such as the Jesus seminar -- for the historical record of Jesus' words and deeds.

Oh Ok. I just thought it was unfair to say they were driveby comments as I usually think of those as something along the lines of "lol fags" and nothing else. Semantic though. And I admit my historical knowledge of that time period is kinda murky. I'll have to bone up. Even though I rag on religion a lot, I'm glad it exists to some extent, because I find the history, architecture, art, etc to be fascinating/beautiful

[BVS]

Originally Posted by anitram

Is it not also historically accurate that by and large the early followers considered themselves to be Jews (later leaning towards some hybrid of Christian Jews) until the destruction of the temple, which was some 4 decades after the death of Christ?

This is what I was referring to...

[maycocksean]

I saw that video on Facebook. Found it interesting. I didn't realize it had gone viral (though I should have known when five or so of my friends all posted it).

It wasn't quite as earth-shattering as the guy in the video seemed to think it was. It was a supposedly radical refutation of the religion, but was actually pretty tame and stuck to the basic assumptions and theology of the Christendom.

Which in my mind isn't necessarily bad, since I happen to be okay with being a Christian and being involved with my church. Still it wasn't as radical push-the-envelope as I think it was intended to be.

I think it's considered "cool" to be anti-religion but pro-Jesus, but I also think it's kind of tired. Maybe it's because I'm naturally more religious than spiritual? I don't know. I believe in church--maybe not the hierarchical (sp) Church--but the church in the sense of a community of believers. Christianity has always been a social religion, and I don't think it's well served when Christians swear off the church in favor of going off to be "spiritual" by themselves somewhere.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I think it's considered "cool" to be anti-religion but pro-Jesus, but I also think it's kind of tired. Maybe it's because I'm naturally more religious than spiritual? I don't know. I believe in church--maybe not the hierarchical (sp) Church--but the church in the sense of a community of believers. Christianity has always been a social religion, and I don't think it's well served when Christians swear off the church in favor of going off to be "spiritual" by themselves somewhere.

I don't know about anyone else, but I was never big on church from a young age simply because, for some reason, when I'd stand with everyone else and recite prayers and hymns and such, or hold hands, or do other things of that sort, that stuff would always sound fine coming out of other people's mouths, the actions fine from others, but when I said/did it, I always felt weird. Either because I was too young to really understand what exactly I was saying or doing and why, or because I just never cared for having to recite the same things at the same time as everyone else and all that...I'm not sure. I'm personally much more comfortable doing any religious things I wish to do in my own way on my own time. And I suspect this may be how some other people feel, too.

Course, then again, I haven't really considered myself a Christian for some time now, and you're referring to people who would call themselves Christians, so...

I have absolutely no problem with people going to church, though, if they so wish. I fully understand the whole idea of wanting to gather with other people to share your thoughts and beliefs and come together for comfort or friendship and to praise whomever you worship together and all that sort of thing. If I could find a church I felt comfortable enough to be in, that didn't subscribe to ritual so much, I'd actually like to check it out.

[financeguy]

What does Satan think of religion, I wonder?

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

Is it not also historically accurate that by and large the early followers considered themselves to be Jews (later leaning towards some hybrid of Christian Jews) until the destruction of the temple, which was some 4 decades after the death of Christ?

This was probably true for Jewish believers in Jesus, but Christianity had spread to Gentiles in Antioch by ~44AD, which is where "followers of the Way" (another early term for believers in Jesus) first began to be called Christians (at least according to the Acts account). There is evidence that by the late 50s, the term "Christian" was well known to Roman officials -- certainly by 58, when Paul was brought to Rome for his first trial.

The early church struggled with divisions along ethnic lines. Since the early followers were Jewish, there was a belief that -- since Jesus Himself was a devout Jew -- Jewish rites still needed to be upheld, particularly circumcision as a sign of submission to the law of Moses. This view was even upheld by Peter. Paul, himself a devout Jew, took a decidedly different view, with the belief that Jesus completed the law, thus allowing new followers in Jesus to live under grace, not under a fulfilled and completed law of Moses. You can see the early church founders struggling to work out this concept of justification by faith and grace, not by rigid adherence to the law -- a principle lived out by Jesus Himself.

Again, how far we have(n't) come.

[anitram]

The early Christians also did not join the Jewish revolt against the pagan Roman state, as they firmly believed that Jesus was going to return like a thief in the night (ie. at any time, not thousands of years later). They were preparing their hearts for the arrival of the kingdom and they most certainly did not believe, in the early days, that they had to overtake the state or that it was necessary or desirable for the state to be a Christian one. Instead, they were focused inwardly.

Again, how far we haven't come.

[yolland]

It doesn't seem to me this young man's discontents are much analogous to the deeply fraught conflicts over fundamental doctrine (eschatology, soteriology etc.) that characterized early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism. He's talking about something far more mundane and insidious--the steady drip-drip-drip of petty corruptions, hypocrisies and 'sins of omission' and the corrosive effect they can have on a community's morale and especially on its young people. It's not that he's disagreeing with the people he's criticizing on core doctrinal issues (as Sean pointed out), rather he's charging them with failing to live up to their own professed beliefs. I realize it's common rhetorical practice in Christianity to analogize these things, but from the outside at least that can sometimes read rather strange--it seems to trivialize the enormity of Paul et al.'s achievement in articulating a distinct new theology in a time of great cultural and intellectual ferment and turmoil, while at the same time distorting and overstating the nature of the differences between would-be whistleblowers and their communities.

[deep]

i did not want to start a new thread so I will just put this here

Black wedding banned by Baptist church

because with religion, it is okay and legal to discriminate (hate)

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by deep

i did not want to start a new thread so I will just put this here

Black wedding banned by Baptist church

because with religion, it is okay and legal to discriminate (hate)

Wow.

But based on what I read in the article, it doesn't sound like a church/religion problem but local racism. Meaning, in some areas in the South, racism is still alive and well.

[Irvine511]

Guys, it's just their belief, ok? Why do we all have to think in exactly the same way? Some tolerance for diversity and the marketplace of ideas would be appreciated by people who demand the same.

[corianderstem]

Pretty much.

[yolland]

The current head of the denomination is black; wonder what he'll have to say about this.

What an appalling lack of leadership from that pastor, to disagree in the press with this "small minority" of congregants, yet give in and move the ceremony to another church. So what if they do "vote you out" (though I find that hard to believe if it's a small minority)? Your moral leadership's not worth much if you're not willing to stand up to that, in which case why are you a pastor at all. And if it's not a small minority then maybe that's not a congregation you want to be serving.