[quote]Well, other than perhaps the constant references to "God" by our president and numerous politicians.<hr></blockquote>
!
[quote]And swearing on a bible in court. Oh, and the Pledge of Allegiance.<hr></blockquote>
Oooops! I also forgot the insistence of some judges to post plaques bearing the 10 Commandments in their courtrooms, (Texas comes to mind, again). I wonder how many times the 6th Commandment has been trashed in those courtrooms by imposing death sentences?
You forget the money part belle. God is on our money.
If native americans got away with not being Christians, I can get away with not being a Christian.
Even though I've been baptized. Pray/meditate in the Samantha Jones style every now and then. Still, I don't go to church. I don't feel the need. And my praying isn't to "the lord".
And what's up with that Pat Roberts club? Those guys give Christians a bad name. They even have that one middle eastern guy on there who claims to be healing people - but has been documented and proven to do nothing but take people's money while giving nothing in return.
I don't think there is a little man in the clouds. I probably won't ever face a 'judgement day'. However, I hope I will have lived a good life by the time I die. If that isn't good enough then so be it. There must have been many Christians in the days of slavery who went to hell, no?
And I still don't understand how war gives people an 'out' to the thou shall not kill commandment.
Not enough direct answers in the bible for me to go around telling people they should subscribe to Christianity - and when I was younger I actually wanted to be a preacher for a while. But the more I learned, the more superstitious it seemed - although I'm pretty sure some of it is based on fact/reality. Considering the Bible has been translated numerous times, to fit different agendas, over the ages I think it's a decent religion. Just not something to fret too much about.
So long as a person follows the golden rule I think they'll be ok.
Most references to God by the US goverment were developed in the 50's as part of anti-communist agenda.
Moving on, I noticed that nonhuman mentioned Buddhism. If you take the time to study it, which perhaps you have, you might notice that it shares an awful lot with Christianity. It almost seems to me that Jesus could be considered enlightened, perhaps even the enlightened one. Of course, I'm familiar with Indian Buddhism and not Zen, but I'd image the two are similar.
Beyond that I don't quite grasp your "blame-shifting" argument. In Christianity one can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean that there will be no consequences.
<strong>Moving on, I noticed that nonhuman mentioned Buddhism. If you take the time to study it, which perhaps you have, you might notice that it shares an awful lot with Christianity. It almost seems to me that Jesus could be considered enlightened, perhaps even the enlightened one. Of course, I'm familiar with Indian Buddhism and not Zen, but I'd image the two are similar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The most appealing thing to me about Zen Buddhism is that it stresses individuality and self-determination / -discovery.
[quote]<strong>Beyond that I don't quite grasp your "blame-shifting" argument. In Christianity one can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean that there will be no consequences.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Blame-shifting isn't really what I meant, I was originally going to say something different, but changed my mind and I forgot to change that one line. My point was just that I won't support any organization that claims to have the authority to dictate one's morality. Also that anyone who would give up that right, I don't think can be trusted with the responsibility of leadership of any sort, and certainly should not be allowed into a position of leadership.
Blame-shifting isn't really what I meant, I was originally going to say something different, but changed my mind and I forgot to change that one line. My point was just that I won't support any organization that claims to have the authority to dictate one's morality. Also that anyone who would give up that right, I don't think can be trusted with the responsibility of leadership of any sort, and certainly should not be allowed into a position of leadership.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is fairly interesting, and I think it's not the pursuit of Buddhism, but aside from that it's purely illogical. If my measure of morality makes it acceptable for me to rob a bank or kill people, then is that OK? The Ten Commandments of Christianity do indeed provide a set of guidelines with which to gauge morals, but aside from the ones directly related to God, there's not too much to gripe about unless you're a thief, murderer, etc. The Buddhist ascension is not set in stone, but it is generally fairly objective, and in order to be enlightened one has to realize that it's not of benefit to burden the lives of others or to be untruthful. So even Buddhism has a fairly objective set of rules, they are just not presented in a canonical form, probably since Buddhism itself isn't really a religion.
As for leadership, I don't know where you live, but in America the court exists primarily to straighten out cases of untruthfulness. Since we're not all perfect it is a necessary institution and it should exist in some form or another. Aside from that straightforward criminal activity, I'm free to do whatever I'd like. As for the Institution of the Church, I don't think they do anything to punish criminals these days. I don't think they dicate anyone's morality either. The only places I know of where institutions dicate morality are places with socialist and/or fascist governments.
Lastly, we don't wear gold chains and winter clothes all year round. Where are you from? You strike me as British.
Blame-shifting isn't really what I meant, I was originally going to say something different, but changed my mind and I forgot to change that one line. My point was just that I won't support any organization that claims to have the authority to dictate one's morality. Also that anyone who would give up that right, I don't think can be trusted with the responsibility of leadership of any sort, and certainly should not be allowed into a position of leadership.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't mean to pile on, but this is a real sticking point with me. The fact is, the Church does not (or should not) dictate anyone's morality. One of the obligations a Christian has is to be constantly plotting on your own the proper moral path through every situation you encounter in life - true morality is developed from within, not imposed from without.
To correct Splinemodel (above) the Ten Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Christians have only Two Commandments: (1) To love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and (2) To love your neighbor as yourself. Those are the two principles by which we are to live our lives: evaluating every thought and action based on what will show love for God and/or love of others. We sin when we make bad judgements with respect to those commandments. To paraphrase Jesus, "All of the Law is embodied in those two principles."
Now, the problem is that for nearly all of us, living by those two rules and constantly evaluating everything we do is hard. We don't like to do it. So many Christians (and Christian denominations) have taken the "easy" way out and resorted to Legalism by trying to work out all the "right moves" in advance. Long lists of "dos" and "don'ts" appear, so that we don't have to actually ponder the meaning of our actions. The unfortunate result is a complete negation of Jesus' message - that He came to free us from the Law completely - not just replace the old Jewish Law with a new Christian Law (and I'm not dissing Judaism here - the Torah is indeed sacred; it's just not Christian). God would write the Law on our hearts instead (via those two commandments above) so we could remain flexible through life and constantly live to help others.
So, I agree with many of the others above. As a Christian, I am also pained by the legalistic, "Holier than Thou" Christians. They do not represent the real ideals of Christianity, and it saddens me to see that so many nonChristians are using them as models for all Christians.
Thanks for the backup there. I was more or less trying to say that, though I'm wasn't quite sure how to phrase it, or how to present it without exposing the fact that I don't know enough about the subject.
<strong>To correct Splinemodel (above) the Ten Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Christians have only Two Commandments: (1) To love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and (2) To love your neighbor as yourself. Those are the two principles by which we are to live our lives: evaluating every thought and action based on what will show love for God and/or love of others. We sin when we make bad judgements with respect to those commandments. To paraphrase Jesus, "All of the Law is embodied in those two principles."</strong><hr></blockquote>
While technically true (and correct me if I've misinterpreted), the connotation that you seem to be making is that the 10 commandments do not apply to Christians. It is true that Christians are no longer under the law (in a certain sense), but that does not in any way mean that they may disregard it. Morality is still absolute, but the point made both in the Gospels and the Pauline writings is that with the presence of the Spirit the Law is an anachronism, as the Law lives within the believer. It is not up to the believer to decide right and wrong for himself, but for him to remain sensitive to the Spirit so that the Law flows from within as a natural obedience to God, instead of from without. Jesus did not say that there were only two commandments, but simply that those two were the greatest commandments, and from these all others were derived. That by no means frees us from the commandments of the Law.
The freedom from the Law mentioned in Paul's writings was not a freedom from its dictates, but freedom from its judgements. Jesus Himself made it clear that the law is firm, and that the unrighteous will be judged by the law. Christians who have accepted the atonement are free from the judgement of the Law, but are not free to ignore it in favor of their own morality.
<strong>I'm pretty sure the commandment about the sabbath does not apply to Christians.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the strictest sense of resting on Saturday only, I suppose not. But there is no reason to reject the point of the commandment which is to work for six days and rest on the seventh. Most Christians have shifted it to Sunday due to early expulsion from the Jewish sabbath services, but the commandment to set aside a day as holy still holds. Jesus challenged the overzealous and hypocritical religious leaders of the time who would see a man die rather than help him on the sabbath (ignoring the spirit of the Law and resting completely on its word), but neither Christ nor Paul advocated the abolition of the sabbath remembrance.
Wow! Good stuff being posted here by Fluffy and Splinemodel.
Fluffy, I agree (maybe even with your whole argument, Is that a first? ) As you mentioned, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, and that not even one pen stroke of it would dissapear before teh Judgement day. As you asserted we are not under the law, but we should still do our best to abide by it. I really can't think of much to add right now without going line by line so I will just read the posts again and see if anything stands out.
As a Christian, I don't have to abide by the 10 Commandments? That's news to me. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
I think I oversimplified. What I wrote made sense to me because I filled in a lot of gaps mentally, but I can see it isn't terribly accurate as written. My apologies.
My point is that if we follow those two commandments, we will naturally follow the others. The Law is really about righteous living and how to do it. By Jesus' day, the Mosaic Law had become so voluminous and onerous it was not a blessing but a curse for many. The Pharisees and others used their intimate knowledge of the Law to set themselves up as superior to others who didn't know the minute details, or simply couldn't keep them for practical reasons. So rather than being a tool to bring us closer to God, it had become a weapon one class of people was using against another.
Jesus' point was that He wanted us to go beyond the letter of the Law to the spirit behind it. In other words, I don't keep a Sabbath because the Ten Commandments tells me to - I do so because that is a way to show my love for God. I do not kill, or steal, or dishonor my parents because that would not be showing love for my neighbor. I am not judged by breaking the Law - I am judged by not loving God or neighbors.
Any set of instructions for righteous living is going to be inherently limited. New situations are always cropping up that no one has thought of before. The Sabbath is a prime example. Christians chose to celebrate Resurrection Day (Sunday) which gradually became their Sabbath, although the Law says it is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. We are still within the spirit of the Law by setting aside a day for rest, family, and prayer, although we are breaking the letter of the Law. Jesus himself broke the Law by healing on the Sabbath. It was one of the charges brought against him at His trial. His point was that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. There was a higher good attainable by going beyond the strict dictates of the Law.
That is where we must wrestle with our own morality - where is the greater good? There is a certain amount of moral relativism built into Christianity, like it or not - Jesus' healing on the Sabbath being a prime example. I cannot judge whether your actions are sinful or not. That is God's job, not mine. Whether something you do is sinful is entirely between you and God. What's right for me may not be right for you. My job is to simply love you, no matter what, and try to follow God's will in my life to the best of my ability.
Comments
!
[quote]And swearing on a bible in court. Oh, and the Pledge of Allegiance.<hr></blockquote>
Oooops! I also forgot the insistence of some judges to post plaques bearing the 10 Commandments in their courtrooms, (Texas comes to mind, again). I wonder how many times the 6th Commandment has been trashed in those courtrooms by imposing death sentences?
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
If native americans got away with not being Christians, I can get away with not being a Christian.
Even though I've been baptized. Pray/meditate in the Samantha Jones style every now and then. Still, I don't go to church. I don't feel the need. And my praying isn't to "the lord".
And what's up with that Pat Roberts club? Those guys give Christians a bad name. They even have that one middle eastern guy on there who claims to be healing people - but has been documented and proven to do nothing but take people's money while giving nothing in return.
I don't think there is a little man in the clouds. I probably won't ever face a 'judgement day'. However, I hope I will have lived a good life by the time I die. If that isn't good enough then so be it. There must have been many Christians in the days of slavery who went to hell, no?
And I still don't understand how war gives people an 'out' to the thou shall not kill commandment.
Not enough direct answers in the bible for me to go around telling people they should subscribe to Christianity - and when I was younger I actually wanted to be a preacher for a while. But the more I learned, the more superstitious it seemed - although I'm pretty sure some of it is based on fact/reality. Considering the Bible has been translated numerous times, to fit different agendas, over the ages I think it's a decent religion. Just not something to fret too much about.
So long as a person follows the golden rule I think they'll be ok.
<strong>You forget the money part belle. God is on our money.
That's just how scary this gets... I paid for my sandwiches just moments before posting above and it didn't even occur to me.
Moving on, I noticed that nonhuman mentioned Buddhism. If you take the time to study it, which perhaps you have, you might notice that it shares an awful lot with Christianity. It almost seems to me that Jesus could be considered enlightened, perhaps even the enlightened one. Of course, I'm familiar with Indian Buddhism and not Zen, but I'd image the two are similar.
Beyond that I don't quite grasp your "blame-shifting" argument. In Christianity one can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean that there will be no consequences.
<strong>Moving on, I noticed that nonhuman mentioned Buddhism. If you take the time to study it, which perhaps you have, you might notice that it shares an awful lot with Christianity. It almost seems to me that Jesus could be considered enlightened, perhaps even the enlightened one. Of course, I'm familiar with Indian Buddhism and not Zen, but I'd image the two are similar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The most appealing thing to me about Zen Buddhism is that it stresses individuality and self-determination / -discovery.
[quote]<strong>Beyond that I don't quite grasp your "blame-shifting" argument. In Christianity one can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean that there will be no consequences.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Blame-shifting isn't really what I meant, I was originally going to say something different, but changed my mind and I forgot to change that one line. My point was just that I won't support any organization that claims to have the authority to dictate one's morality. Also that anyone who would give up that right, I don't think can be trusted with the responsibility of leadership of any sort, and certainly should not be allowed into a position of leadership.
<strong>
Blame-shifting isn't really what I meant, I was originally going to say something different, but changed my mind and I forgot to change that one line. My point was just that I won't support any organization that claims to have the authority to dictate one's morality. Also that anyone who would give up that right, I don't think can be trusted with the responsibility of leadership of any sort, and certainly should not be allowed into a position of leadership.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is fairly interesting, and I think it's not the pursuit of Buddhism, but aside from that it's purely illogical. If my measure of morality makes it acceptable for me to rob a bank or kill people, then is that OK? The Ten Commandments of Christianity do indeed provide a set of guidelines with which to gauge morals, but aside from the ones directly related to God, there's not too much to gripe about unless you're a thief, murderer, etc. The Buddhist ascension is not set in stone, but it is generally fairly objective, and in order to be enlightened one has to realize that it's not of benefit to burden the lives of others or to be untruthful. So even Buddhism has a fairly objective set of rules, they are just not presented in a canonical form, probably since Buddhism itself isn't really a religion.
As for leadership, I don't know where you live, but in America the court exists primarily to straighten out cases of untruthfulness. Since we're not all perfect it is a necessary institution and it should exist in some form or another. Aside from that straightforward criminal activity, I'm free to do whatever I'd like. As for the Institution of the Church, I don't think they do anything to punish criminals these days. I don't think they dicate anyone's morality either. The only places I know of where institutions dicate morality are places with socialist and/or fascist governments.
Lastly, we don't wear gold chains and winter clothes all year round. Where are you from? You strike me as British.
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
<strong>
Blame-shifting isn't really what I meant, I was originally going to say something different, but changed my mind and I forgot to change that one line. My point was just that I won't support any organization that claims to have the authority to dictate one's morality. Also that anyone who would give up that right, I don't think can be trusted with the responsibility of leadership of any sort, and certainly should not be allowed into a position of leadership.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't mean to pile on, but this is a real sticking point with me. The fact is, the Church does not (or should not) dictate anyone's morality. One of the obligations a Christian has is to be constantly plotting on your own the proper moral path through every situation you encounter in life - true morality is developed from within, not imposed from without.
To correct Splinemodel (above) the Ten Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Christians have only Two Commandments: (1) To love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and (2) To love your neighbor as yourself. Those are the two principles by which we are to live our lives: evaluating every thought and action based on what will show love for God and/or love of others. We sin when we make bad judgements with respect to those commandments. To paraphrase Jesus, "All of the Law is embodied in those two principles."
Now, the problem is that for nearly all of us, living by those two rules and constantly evaluating everything we do is hard. We don't like to do it. So many Christians (and Christian denominations) have taken the "easy" way out and resorted to Legalism by trying to work out all the "right moves" in advance. Long lists of "dos" and "don'ts" appear, so that we don't have to actually ponder the meaning of our actions. The unfortunate result is a complete negation of Jesus' message - that He came to free us from the Law completely - not just replace the old Jewish Law with a new Christian Law (and I'm not dissing Judaism here - the Torah is indeed sacred; it's just not Christian). God would write the Law on our hearts instead (via those two commandments above) so we could remain flexible through life and constantly live to help others.
So, I agree with many of the others above. As a Christian, I am also pained by the legalistic, "Holier than Thou" Christians. They do not represent the real ideals of Christianity, and it saddens me to see that so many nonChristians are using them as models for all Christians.
<strong>To correct Splinemodel (above) the Ten Commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish. Christians have only Two Commandments: (1) To love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and (2) To love your neighbor as yourself. Those are the two principles by which we are to live our lives: evaluating every thought and action based on what will show love for God and/or love of others. We sin when we make bad judgements with respect to those commandments. To paraphrase Jesus, "All of the Law is embodied in those two principles."</strong><hr></blockquote>
While technically true (and correct me if I've misinterpreted), the connotation that you seem to be making is that the 10 commandments do not apply to Christians. It is true that Christians are no longer under the law (in a certain sense), but that does not in any way mean that they may disregard it. Morality is still absolute, but the point made both in the Gospels and the Pauline writings is that with the presence of the Spirit the Law is an anachronism, as the Law lives within the believer. It is not up to the believer to decide right and wrong for himself, but for him to remain sensitive to the Spirit so that the Law flows from within as a natural obedience to God, instead of from without. Jesus did not say that there were only two commandments, but simply that those two were the greatest commandments, and from these all others were derived. That by no means frees us from the commandments of the Law.
The freedom from the Law mentioned in Paul's writings was not a freedom from its dictates, but freedom from its judgements. Jesus Himself made it clear that the law is firm, and that the unrighteous will be judged by the law. Christians who have accepted the atonement are free from the judgement of the Law, but are not free to ignore it in favor of their own morality.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning?
<strong>I'm pretty sure the commandment about the sabbath does not apply to Christians.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the strictest sense of resting on Saturday only, I suppose not. But there is no reason to reject the point of the commandment which is to work for six days and rest on the seventh. Most Christians have shifted it to Sunday due to early expulsion from the Jewish sabbath services, but the commandment to set aside a day as holy still holds. Jesus challenged the overzealous and hypocritical religious leaders of the time who would see a man die rather than help him on the sabbath (ignoring the spirit of the Law and resting completely on its word), but neither Christ nor Paul advocated the abolition of the sabbath remembrance.
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
Fluffy, I agree (maybe even with your whole argument, Is that a first?
<strong>Fluffy, I agree (maybe even with your whole argument, Is that a first?
My point is that if we follow those two commandments, we will naturally follow the others. The Law is really about righteous living and how to do it. By Jesus' day, the Mosaic Law had become so voluminous and onerous it was not a blessing but a curse for many. The Pharisees and others used their intimate knowledge of the Law to set themselves up as superior to others who didn't know the minute details, or simply couldn't keep them for practical reasons. So rather than being a tool to bring us closer to God, it had become a weapon one class of people was using against another.
Jesus' point was that He wanted us to go beyond the letter of the Law to the spirit behind it. In other words, I don't keep a Sabbath because the Ten Commandments tells me to - I do so because that is a way to show my love for God. I do not kill, or steal, or dishonor my parents because that would not be showing love for my neighbor. I am not judged by breaking the Law - I am judged by not loving God or neighbors.
Any set of instructions for righteous living is going to be inherently limited. New situations are always cropping up that no one has thought of before. The Sabbath is a prime example. Christians chose to celebrate Resurrection Day (Sunday) which gradually became their Sabbath, although the Law says it is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. We are still within the spirit of the Law by setting aside a day for rest, family, and prayer, although we are breaking the letter of the Law. Jesus himself broke the Law by healing on the Sabbath. It was one of the charges brought against him at His trial. His point was that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. There was a higher good attainable by going beyond the strict dictates of the Law.
That is where we must wrestle with our own morality - where is the greater good? There is a certain amount of moral relativism built into Christianity, like it or not - Jesus' healing on the Sabbath being a prime example. I cannot judge whether your actions are sinful or not. That is God's job, not mine. Whether something you do is sinful is entirely between you and God. What's right for me may not be right for you. My job is to simply love you, no matter what, and try to follow God's will in my life to the best of my ability.