It's occured to me...

[rtwngAvngr]

And these wide disparities in interpretation show just how unfit religion is to serve as the foundation of a society. Rather than consider the real needs, in this world, of the indviduals who make up such a society, it is the whims of a capricious deity that are considered...any real consequences to real people are considered irrelevant in that the moral payoff lies in some imagined, fanciful afterlife.

The moral tenets of any religion may serve as guides to moral behavior, but not as absolute, inviolable laws.

Actually most of the tenets of modern conservatism revolve around simple observation of the effect of economic and social policy on society. Too much tax stifles economic growth; too much coddling breeds indolence.

 

[5stringJeff]

The moral tenets of any religion may serve as guides to moral behavior, but not as absolute, inviolable laws.

I missed this statement last time, but this brings up a couple of questions:

1. Would you say that the moral tenets of all religions - including Buddhism - are only guides? If not, what makes Buddhism's tenets superior?

2. If so, then why follow any religion at all? Why not just mix-and-match religious guidance to your personal philosophy?

 

[Bullypulpit]

I missed this statement last time, but this brings up a couple of questions:

1. Would you say that the moral tenets of all religions - including Buddhism - are only guides? If not, what makes Buddhism's tenets superior?

2. If so, then why follow any religion at all? Why not just mix-and-match religious guidance to your personal philosophy?

The tenets of all the world's religions , including Buddhism, serve only as guides for moral behaviour. As for those of Buddhism, they are not superior, just different, in that they are rooted in their consequences to this life...in this world.

And indeed, it truly doesn't matter what religious, or not, ethical system one follows so long as it does not advocate the harm of oneself, another, or both and so long as its practitioners do not advocate such. So long as that systems provides you the tools you need to live peacefully and comfortably with yourself and others, then by all means, have at it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Actually most of the tenets of modern conservatism revolve around simple observation of the effect of economic and social policy on society. Too much tax stifles economic growth; too much coddling breeds indolence.

Unfortunately, however, it is still rooted in the worn-out, hackneyed tenet of John Stewart Mills..."The greatest good for the greates number...". This permits the sacrifice of any minority upon the altar of the "greatest good" for the majority. Change it to "The reates good for all..." and you've got a viable paradigm which isn't built upon the backs of any minority which happens to get in the way.

 

[Hobbit]

Unfortunately, however, it is still rooted in the worn-out, hackneyed tenet of John Stewart Mills..."The greatest good for the greates number...". This permits the sacrifice of any minority upon the altar of the "greatest good" for the majority. Change it to "The reates good for all..." and you've got a viable paradigm which isn't built upon the backs of any minority which happens to get in the way.

I still fail to see why people claim the GOP oppresses minorities. Minorities can make it in a capitalistic system the same as everyone else (especially with things like minority scholarships), unless, of course, you believe the same as Big D in that minorities are genetically inferior and incapable of succeeding in our society, and I KNOW you don't believe that.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I still fail to see why people claim the GOP oppresses minorities. Minorities can make it in a capitalistic system the same as everyone else (especially with things like minority scholarships), unless, of course, you believe the same as Big D in that minorities are genetically inferior and incapable of succeeding in our society, and I KNOW you don't believe that.

Oh you nasty person...to associate me with that ambulatory dungheap.

Anyone can make it in a capitalistic system...so long as there is a level playing field. As it stands now, Dubbyuh's policies are leaving more children behind than ever, and our innner city schools which serve large minority populations are crumbling. It is only the rare inner city school district that can rise above the mire of current educational policy.

Scrap the standardized tests...give the schools the money they need to keep the class sizes small...provide our kids with a solid foundation in the skills they need to make it in the world and keep college tuition affordable for everyone. And then we'll see a real blossoming of our nation and economy.

Uregulated capitalism presupposes a rational society, and we just don't have that now...or for the foreseeable future.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Unfortunately, however, it is still rooted in the worn-out, hackneyed tenet of John Stewart Mills..."The greatest good for the greates number...". This permits the sacrifice of any minority upon the altar of the "greatest good" for the majority.

Which is why a constutional republic with specific protections placed at the individual level is the perfect form of government.

Change it to "The reates good for all..." and you've got a viable paradigm which isn't built upon the backs of any minority which happens to get in the way.

Ideally, capitalism is accompanied by the aforementioned protections on individual rights, and some safeguards against monopolistic market conditions. Your "the sky is falling" rhetoric is ridiculous, unwarranted and illogical.

 

[5stringJeff]

The tenets of all the world's religions , including Buddhism, serve only as guides for moral behaviour. As for those of Buddhism, they are not superior, just different, in that they are rooted in their consequences to this life...in this world.

And indeed, it truly doesn't matter what religious, or not, ethical system one follows so long as it does not advocate the harm of oneself, another, or both and so long as its practitioners do not advocate such. So long as that systems provides you the tools you need to live peacefully and comfortably with yourself and others, then by all means, have at it.

Bully, thanks for the honest answer. Next question: if one values religion only for its ethical tenets, why bother with religion at all? After all, there are many atheists who have their own moral codes for life on Earth. Why involve anything regarding spirtualism or gods when you can just have morals?

 

[ajwps]

You have to remember what falls under the misused term "Christian".

Like any other word origin or definition, it would be implied that a Chirstian is one who follows Christ.

Mormons are "Christian". They have distorted truth by creating their own books and follow a theology completely different and "superceding" Christ.

Jehova witnesses are "Christian" but also do not follow Christ, but the Watchtower Society which has taken the role of Christ.

The catholic church has done a similar power structure move with the pope as the JWs with the Watchtower society.

Old Testament WAS of God, yet unless one follows and believes in New Testament, they cannot be Christian as the New Testament is ALL ABOUT Christ and the new covenant.

Lastly, most who are claiming to be Christian miss an important detail in regard to Old Testament:
Old Testament was a covenant with the Jews.
New Testament is where Christ has come to fulfil the Old Testament and replace it with a new one where GENTILES and Jews now have a salvation plan as he has paid a debt for all mankind. No more is Old Testament law to be law. While it is commanded the COMMANDMENTS be followed, it is no longer necessary for salvation, and all of the cleansig ritualistic practices have been abolished.

SO, i am in agreement with Bully....(ouch) and Kathianne. It is clear most who claim "Christianity" have no clue what they are talking about.

It just makes a feel good label where man can attempt to reach God on man's terms instead of letting God reach man on God's terms.

NewGuy what you are apparently talking about is what is now commonly called Replacement theology. Where Christ replaced the G-d of the Old Testament convenant with the Hebrews to the replacement of a sacrificial act of a god's son to be crucified in order to save mankind by eliminating that pesky original covenant between God and the Hebrew people. The following article should be of interest to this discussion.

A Refutation of Replacement Theology

Read through 1 Peter 1. Looks pretty Christian, huh? Exactly what does that really mean though? Most Christians have been taught as though the Old Testament is Jewish and the New Testament is Christian. There's a sharp dividing line between what's Christian and what's Jewish. In the beginning of the church, the dividing line was not so sharp however, because the early Christian church was Jewish.

Not only do most churches fail to recognize the Jewishness of the gospel, and the Jewishness of the new Testament, but some churches even teach that Jews no longer have a place in God's plan of salvation. Their theology is that before Christ, the Jews were God's chosen people; after Christ, the church replaced them.

Read 1 Peter 2:1-10. Verses 9 and 10 read, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

These verses are often used to support something called "Replacement Theology". Replacement theology is the belief that the church has replaced Israel in God's plan of salvation. It's the belief that Israel is no longer God's chosen people, because the church now is. It's the belief that God is no longer with Israel, because they rejected Christ as their messiah.

However, if we look back at verses 1:1 - 2, then ahead to verse 2:12, we can see that Peter was writing primarily to messianic Jews. First compare various translations of 1 Peter 1:1 - 1.

1 Peter 1:1-2 KJV

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers (gentiles) scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1 Peter 2:12

12 Having your conversation honest among the (non Jewish) Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

 

[Shazbot]

The following article should be of interest to this discussion.

I like that article a lot, ajwps...very true. The problem is that so many simply latch onto the NT and ignore the OT and all the promises, covenants, and prophecies which God made concerning His chosen people. The fact is that the Church, as opposed to what many may think, did not replace the Chosen People of God. The early church, rather, consisted of that very Chosen People. However, with the sacrifice of Christ, made for all mankind, the gentiles suddenly became eligible to be adopted into the House of Israel and become part of the Chosen People. Further, the Jews today continue to be God's Chosen People, and are receiving many long-promised blessings, such as their restoration to the land of Israel.

-Douglas

 

[Shazbot]

...That many who claim to be Christians seem to be following the teachings found in the Old Testament, which is essentially Jewish Cannon and Law.

What needs to be understood is that Christianity was not a replacement, but rather an extension to true Judaism. A study of the Old Testament actually shows many prophecies that Christ was to come and establish the new covenant.

An interesting thing to note, is that it stands to reason that those who lived before Moses (Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc) actually lived by a form of the Gospel as we know it today (don't worry, there is nothing I know of to back this up, but it seems reasonable to me ). The covenant which God made with the children of Israel (the Law of Moses) was actually given to the people due to their disobedience and lack of diligence. They weren't ready to live by a higher spiritual order, so God gave them a law of rituals and very specific do's and don'ts.

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

What needs to be understood is that Christianity was not a replacement, but rather an extension to true Judaism. A study of the Old Testament actually shows many prophecies that Christ was to come and establish the new covenant.

An interesting thing to note, is that it stands to reason that those who lived before Moses (Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc) actually lived by a form of the Gospel as we know it today (don't worry, there is nothing I know of to back this up, but it seems reasonable to me ). The covenant which God made with the children of Israel (the Law of Moses) was actually given to the people due to their disobedience and lack of diligence. They weren't ready to live by a higher spiritual order, so God gave them a law of rituals and very specific do's and don'ts.
-Douglas

Christianty was no more of an extension of true Judaism than Mormonism is an extension of true Christianity. The original Torah was given by G-d. Not by mistake or because G-d wasted His time giving His laws to all mankind. G-d doesn't continue making new religions or bibles for He is G-d. The Creator does not change His word given to mankind.

Douglas you are truly an amazing guy. You haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about as expressed in your own true statement, "there is nothing I know of to back this up but it seems reasonsable to me."

The covenant which God made with the children of Israel (the Law of Moses) was actually given to the people due to their disobedience and lack of diligence. They weren't ready to live by a higher spiritual order, so God gave them a law of rituals and very specific do's and don'ts.

What you seem to be saying is that G-d made an everlasting covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the Jewish people because they agreed to accept the yoke of his commandments to live a life of justice, mercy, charity and walking in His path of righteousness. From time to time some of the Jewish people turned their face away from G-d and they were punished over and over again for their disobedience and sometimes for abandoning their everlasting contract with the Creator of the universe.

You say that the Jewish people weren't ready to live by a higher spiritual order. But in fact they were ready and refused to accept a human self willing sacrifice for any salvation from their own actions and sins.

Free-will, given by G-d to man is not Free-dom to sin with a promise to salvation in the Faith of a crucified man-god.

The difference between Judaism and Christianity.

Christianity is a religion of creed and Judaism is a religion of deed.

St. Paul said that deeds (good ones) are dead and that the only way to salvation is the creed (faith) in a god who willingly comes to earth to commit suicide on a cross.

Not a new or original idea or religion. There were many earlier pagan faiths just like Christianity before Jesus was a sperm in the womb of Mary.

 

[Shazbot]

Christianty was no more of an extension of true Judaism than Mormonism is an extension of true Christianity. The original Torah was given by G-d. Not by mistake or because G-d wasted His time giving His laws to all mankind. G-d doesn't continue making new religions or bibles for He is G-d. The Creator does not change His word given to mankind.

Hey, are you knocking my religion?

Douglas you are truly an amazing guy. You haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about as expressed in your own true statement, "there is nothing I know of to back this up but it seems reasonsable to me."

Hehe. I knew that was a tricky statement I made. What I mean is that it is strictly my own speculation. There is no scripture that I know of that says, "Noah had the Gospel of Christ." However, it is a reasonable speculation based on what is not in the bible.

You say that the Jewish people weren't ready to live by a higher spiritual order. But in fact they were ready and refused to accept a human self willing sacrifice for any salvation from their own actions and sins.

A core concept of Christianity is the necessity of Christ and His sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins to occur. God has taught that no imperfect thing can be with Him. Unfortunately, sin has the effect of making us imperfect...shall we say, spiritually dirty. Every action must irrevocably have its consequence. Disobedience to God requires punishment on some level, to satisfy the demands of justice. For God to simply say, "Ok, I forgive you, don't worry about it," without any other consequence would do nothing but rob the law of justice, and that cannot happen, since God is a just God. What Christ did, is by a means uncomprehensible to our mortal selves, is take upon Himself the consequences for all the sins of all mankind. Something that no mortal could do without dying. So intense was the experience, the NT records that Christ sweat great drops of blood. I don't know if you've ever done that, but I sure haven't. I'm sure it's got to require quite the strain. Thus, God can have mercy on us, through the merit of Christ's love - His sacrifice was voluntary. He teaches us that our sins can be washed away in His love, if we but keep the commandments and do our best. If we do what we can, then God can be merciful - the law of justice already being satisfied. If we do not what we can, and rather throw our arms in the air and say "I accept Jesus, now let's start partying!" then to what purpose was Christ's sacrifice? Free salvation? I don't think so. Thus, a person with such an attitude cannot hope for the full mercy of God.

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

Hey, are you knocking my religion?

Not at all... Just posing my religion's originality not being another replacement theology.

Hehe. I knew that was a tricky statement I made. What I mean is that it is strictly my own speculation. There is no scripture that I know of that says, "Noah had the Gospel of Christ." However, it is a reasonable speculation based on what is not in the bible.

What is faith but a kind of betting or speculation after all? It should be, “I bet that my Redeemer liveth.”

ATTRIBUTION: Samuel Butler (1835–1902)

A core concept of Christianity is the necessity of Christ and His sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins to occur. God has taught that no imperfect thing can be with Him. Unfortunately, sin has the effect of making us imperfect...shall we say, spiritually dirty. Every action must irrevocably have its consequence. Disobedience to God requires punishment on some level, to satisfy the demands of justice. For God to simply say, "Ok, I forgive you, don't worry about it," without any other consequence would do nothing but rob the law of justice, and that cannot happen, since God is a just God. What Christ did, is by a means uncomprehensible to our mortal selves, is take upon Himself the consequences for all the sins of all mankind. Something that no mortal could do without dying. So intense was the experience, the NT records that Christ sweat great drops of blood. I don't know if you've ever done that, but I sure haven't. I'm sure it's got to require quite the strain. Thus, God can have mercy on us, through the merit of Christ's love - His sacrifice was voluntary. He teaches us that our sins can be washed away in His love, if we but keep the commandments and do our best. If we do what we can, then God can be merciful - the law of justice already being satisfied. If we do not what we can, and rather throw our arms in the air and say "I accept Jesus, now let's start partying!" then to what purpose was Christ's sacrifice? Free salvation? I don't think so. Thus, a person with such an attitude cannot hope for the full mercy of God.
-Douglas

I do not question your belief in Christ and his salvation theology. But the metal of men are tested in the forge of sin, will, pain, elation, depression, struggle and LIFE....

Our life of choices are what I consider makes men and women stronger rather than remaining victims of an inherited flaw rather than going through an existence through the forge of FREE WILL which makes men out of sinners.

 

[Shazbot]

I do not question your belief in Christ and his salvation theology. But the metal of men are tested in the forge of sin, will, pain, elation, depression, struggle and LIFE....

Our life of choices are what I consider makes men and women stronger rather than remaining victims of an inherited flaw rather than going through an existence through the forge of FREE WILL which makes men out of sinners.

Agreed.