The religious right or left?

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: the Church itself is a conservative institution

Is it? Not in communist eastern Europe. Not in China. Not in Singapore. Not in Nazi Germany. The underground churches were, and are radical.
[/QUOTE]Yes, but I wasn't talking about those places, was I? I was talking from my own personal experience which I had living in Slovenia and living in Sweden. Both the Catholic Church in Europe (and not to mention the Slovene part of it...) and the Church of Sweden (Protestants) are both very conservative. So, sorry, but my experience of the Church (as an institution) is what it is. I haven't been to China or to Singapore. I just spoke from my personal experience.

Or maybe we just have different ideas of what "conservative" means? I think it means that you are reluctant to change, and that fits nicely with the Churches I know, and the parties that "represent" them.

[Timber Loftis]

Does conservative truly mean "reluctant to change?" Been here before. Lemme quote myself from another thread:
___________________________________________
So, by "conservative" you guys mean keeping things the way they are, right? No newfangled religions, sexual preferences, or places to pierce.

No big new development -- keeping the land the way it's been, and such, right?

No big changing of borders or taking over of countries or upsetting of the international system, right?

No changing the constitution and our system of government, no lessening of our freedom to speak, right?

Certainly, not giving the state MORE power, right?

Well, count me in. Conservation being the way to go, a conservative I am. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
______________________________________________
Seems these days the conservatives can't figure out which way they want it. Only thing they seem to agree on is they like to treat the wealthy well.

[ 10-27-2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: the Church itself is a conservative institution

Is it? Not in communist eastern Europe. Not in China. Not in Singapore. Not in Nazi Germany. The underground churches were, and are radical.
[/QUOTE]Yes, but I wasn't talking about those places, was I? I was talking from my own personal experience which I had living in Slovenia and living in Sweden. Both the Catholic Church in Europe (and not to mention the Slovene part of it...) and the Church of Sweden (Protestants) are both very conservative. So, sorry, but my experience of the Church (as an institution) is what it is. I haven't been to China or to Singapore. I just spoke from my personal experience.

Or maybe we just have different ideas of what "conservative" means? I think it means that you are reluctant to change, and that fits nicely with the Churches I know, and the parties that "represent" them. [/QUOTE]"The Church" is more than just the Roman Catholic Church or even archaic European Protestantism. While Lutheranism started with much gusto and verve in Deutschland, it is now pretty staid unfortunately. "The Church" has alive parts and dying parts. Exciting parts and boring parts. Where it is growing and alive, it's generally countercultural. Where it is dying and shrinking it's generally conservative.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: I did not intend insult in my language, I was simply seeking to use accurate descriptive language. Calling a spade a spade. If you're offended I'm sorry.

What place is it of yours to comment in the first place? You are free to your own opinions, even if they maybe belittling towards others and incorrect. I want to know what gives you the right to espouse those opinions about me publicly? I have a hunch, but I will keep that to myself.

Did I comment on your *personal* practice of religion? No, I simply put forth the idea that you don't speak for ***everyone*** who calls themselves a Christian, if not for the sake of being exact, than to avoid misleading generalizations.

Save your sorriness, I'm not offended. Why am I not offended? I do have a hunch like, I mentioned previously, it is more of a hunch based on past experience rather than a purely intuitive hunch. Considering this hunch maybe perceived as derisive of you, I will withhold from publicly sharing it. Anyway, Why should I waste my energy being offended if my hunch is correct?

If my hunch is wrong, then your were just incorrect by basically making judgment about my spiritual life while lacking alot of information needed to accurately make one. Calling a diamond a spade while looking at the back of the card. Why should I find your being wrong about me, offensive?

Oh, and I have read the Bible, a few times to be exact. In my opinion, it is a very contrary & inconsistent book with regards to ethical lessons and the guidance it contains for spiritual illumination is veiled by it's sheer volume and heavy interpretive restrictions.
Just my opinion, of course. This is no secret if you recall the 'contradictions in religion' thread a while back. I explored some, but not all, of my thoughts on the bible with regards to these opinions.


You ask why are we even getting into to this, well I have no answer to that. I do know that having said my peace, and of course giving you ammo for a rebuttal, I am now hereby getting out of this.

Cheers [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]1. You didn't answer my question. What is your ancient source work? So that I can see for myself, the consistency of your faith with it's predecessors and with the intended actions you are aiming for. You know mine and can read it for yourself.
2. The bible is not a book, it is a collection of books written by numerous authors. Which books in particular did you find contrary? Which authors didn't you agree with?
3. Inconsistencies and contradictions only appear at a surface level reading, not in depth understanding or complete perspective. I answered all the alleged contradictions you once posted. There are none.
4. You comment on my person practice of my faith all the time.
5. What place is it of mine? The same place it is of yours to comment on my faith on a forum. Which as I've said, you have done repeatedly.
6. It is what it is. If you take bits and pieces of various faiths - that are themselves complete worldviews with cause and effect mapped out - if you take these bits and pieces out of context and assemble a new faith, it is just that. A new amalgamation of an assortment of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that if that floats your boat, but it doesn't make it an ancient religion. Simply calling a spade a spade.

Isn't that the value in discussion? Coming across different perspectives?

7. I wasn't speaking for everyone who is a Christian, I was speaking about what the bible says. The bible being the barometer for Christian belief and action.
8. The interpretative element means that inidivduals can apply the lessons to a specific area of their life. Only last night, I read a book, a book of prophecy from the old testament. (I normally avoid the books of prophecy.) It spoke to very specific things that have been happening in my life. Unbelieveable specific considering it was written to Jews 2000 plus years ago. It subsequently healed some things in my life, and gave me a new hope. Filled me with hope and love and wonderment.

[Timber Loftis]

Boy, we're lucky Maelakin took his sig down so we could end religious offensiveness on Ironworks.

[Maelakin]

Yorick,

After reading your last response, I was left with some linger questions that I would appreciate your clarification on.

Are you implying that “ancient source work” is required in order to have consistency within ones faith, and if they do not have documentation to provide, the faith becomes invalidated?

Put aside your personal beliefs in the Bible for a minute, and try to understand that most of the world believes the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of short stories. In addition, those stories are so vague as to leave immense room for interpretation. As such, when you use the Bible as a form of documentation, many people immediately invalidate your comments. Using a collection of works that many believe to be fiction (and there is no dispute to this claim unless you rely upon a blind faith) does not substantiate your claim either. Documentation implies that the work contains fact, so you cannot in all seriousness use the Bible, in a multi-religious discussion, as a source for that documentation.

Your comment pertaining to surface level reading of this book is inaccurate. One can indeed read the Bible while performing an in depth interpretation and still find inconsistencies. Because the bible is based upon a personal perspective, the message contained within can and will change from person to person. Surely you can realize this as a fact.

Edit: Forgot my header. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 10-27-2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Maelakin ]

[Timber Loftis]

[img]graemlins/doh.gif[/img] Now you done it. Can of worms on the way.
*runs for General Discussions*

[pritchke]

The bible like many ancient scriptures is just water for those who wish to drink. Some of it is sweet, and some of it is bitter, and there are many inconsistencies especially between old and new. However after drinking from its grail, it boils down to how you feel in your heart and how you wish to treat other people. Take from it what you can and try to improve yourself, and find other works to drink from to discover your true faith, which in the end is what is in your heart. If you prefer to take things from different faith then I see nothing wrong with this as most have a lot of good things to offer especially when it comes to treating others, and your surroundings.

If one is offended by something one says about their religion it is often due to that persons insecurity in their beliefs. Because in the end it should not really matter what someone else thinks.

[ 10-27-2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Maelakin]

Originally posted by pritchke: If one is offended by something one says about their religion it is often due to that persons insecurity in their beliefs. Because in the end it should not really matter what someone else thinks.

I completely agree with you on this point. I didn't want to bring it up though because I'm sure some people will look at this statement as a challenge of their faith.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: Yorick, After reading your last response, I was left with some linger questions that I would appreciate your clarification on. 1. Are you implying that ancient source work is required in order to have consistency within ones faith, and if they do not have documentation to provide, the faith becomes invalidated? 2. Put aside your personal beliefs in the Bible for a minute, and try to understand that most of the world believes the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of short stories. In addition, those stories are so vague as to leave immense room for interpretation. As such, when you use the Bible as a form of documentation, many people immediately invalidate your comments. Using a collection of works that many believe to be fiction (and there is no dispute to this claim unless you rely upon a blind faith) does not substantiate your claim either. Documentation implies that the work contains fact, so you cannot in all seriousness use the Bible, in a multi-religious discussion, as a source for that documentation. 3. Your comment pertaining to surface level reading of this book is inaccurate. One can indeed read the Bible while performing an in depth interpretation and still find inconsistencies. Because the bible is based upon a personal perspective, the message contained within can and will change from person to person. Surely you can realize this as a fact. Edit: Forgot my header. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Maelakin,

1. Of course not. However, if you are claiming a faith "has roots older than the bible and contains guidance for enlightenment and spiritual illumination with certain clarity that one could only hope the bible had." then proof needs to be displayed.

2. Actually you are incorrect. The bible is a collection of works and is the most validated work in existence. To claim the bible is fiction is to ignore the entire process of collating and evaluating historical writing. The works of Tacitus and Herodutus have far less copies dating further away from the time of writing. Some "generally accepted works" are based on one or two manuscripts dating hundreds of years after the events.

The bible has 25,000? (or another ridiculously high figure) manuscripts dating to only 50 years after the events.

Truth in writing should not, and is not assessed on how true the work appears, but how substanciated the facts are, how trustworthy the author is. What method was used in gathering the data. Otherwise one only accepts what one already knows, and knowledge does not increase.

Herodous is known as "the father of lies" for his reliance on hearsay and public rumors as historical fact.

So, in regard to the HISTORICAL books of the bible, you are incorrect. Additionally tens of thousands of archaelogical sites have been found in the middle east that co-relate to biblical accounts. Only recently I posted of another archaelogical finding mentioned in the account of Judean King Hezekiah’s defiance of Assyria.

Then, you have the poetry, the prophecy, the songs, the philosophy and wisdom. Then you have letters. Letters specifically written to new churches.

In regard to the life-coaching element the letters and wisdom books contain, the truth is constantly assessed each day by each believer. I am constantly testing and assessing the truth of the bible in my daily application of it's recommendations and wisdom. I regularly find, when I ignore it, my life goes awry, and when I believe it and adjust my actions accordingly it works.

So, you can't simply dismiss the bible as a book of short stories, when this is plainly a ludicrous and incorrect assessment of what the bible is, whether you agree with it's theological proclaimations or not.

Jesus of Nazareth existed. He is the most famous and influential individual ever known. You can choose to believe the tales of those who lived with him for years and walked away convinced he was God (anyone who lives with me for a few days is convinced I am NOT god... ) or you can dismiss their conviction and belief, and reject their conclusions. However, trying to suggest he is a fictional character flies in the face of historical certainty.

I do not follow Buddha or Muhammad or Baha'u'llah, but I certainly don't try and say they never existed. That would be extremely stupid of me.

3. Again you are incorrect. The whole work needs to be known in order to
see the relevence of individual and seemingly contradictory stories. The practice of NOT doing so, is what has created various cults and lunatic fringes, who grasp an isolated concept and don't bother with the global picture.

Eastern wisdom also uses parallel thinking, rather than exclusively sequencial or preclusive thinking.

One example is that the bible quite clearly says we are saved by Grace, not works, yet in another section it says faith without works is dead.

Neither contradicts. They exist together. When the broader concept of "Grace not works" is viewed, we see that works are EVIDENCE of salvation, not NECESSARY for salvation. works are also necessary to INCREASE faith, as the acts one does indeed increases faith, as we grow it to achieve what we need to achieve.

If you need to jump over something, you need a certain amount of faith, or confidence to do it. If you do it, the next time you have stronger certainty based on the precedented success. The action increased the faith.

Now.. a person who picks up the bible and ignores the reality of grace, and starts on the works teaching, ends up becoming what we call "legalistic" and may even form a religious behaviour-based cult as a result.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and (Name of City) Church of Christ, and others are examples of this.

I mentioned the interpretive element to the bible, and it's necessity in continuing a personal relationship with God. However it is within core parameters of commonality one can clearly.

[ 10-27-2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]