Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A solid look at religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bluto Blutarsky
    replied
    Originally posted by Shinobi_Osiris
    kool stuff. one of my favorite subjects. now to wait for the first bible-groping fanatic to make an assinine statement

    I'll take a shot, I'll even use bible logic.

    god spelled backwards is dog,

    the opposite of a dog is a cat.

    Therefore god must be a cat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jekyll
    replied
    Originally posted by Cullion
    One time I was given lunchtime detention at catholic primary school for suggesting that god and jesus were like a kind of santa claus story for adults to make them behave.
    Have an imaginary +rep to make up for all the coal you must have got in your christmas stocking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cullion
    replied
    One time I was given lunchtime detention at catholic primary school for suggesting that god and jesus were like a kind of santa claus story for adults to make them behave.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jekyll
    replied
    Originally posted by Cullion
    Not quite as much sense as saying 'I'm not sure', but people in authority, or those who seek it, aren't given to that.
    I still believe that religion was invented as a way to stop those pesky kids asking "Why?" all the time.

    Because, that big guy with the beard up in the sky made it so.....OK?!?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cullion
    replied
    Originally posted by Jekyll
    To my mind, these are two side of the same coin, religion obviously offered a path to explain the unknown through the use of personalities. If you don't know why something happens it makes sense to credit it to the wims of something.
    Not quite as much sense as saying 'I'm not sure', but people in authority, or those who seek it, aren't given to that.

    Leave a comment:


  • PO9
    replied
    Originally posted by haughty
    Possibly. However, speculation isn't really evidence in and of itself. I've never seen any indication that the early Church (1st & 2nd centuries) went beyond simple excommunications.

    Some things we'll never know.
    Yes, but we do know extra passages added to NT documents like the ending of Mark, the trinitarian emphasis in 1 John, so why wouldn't they destroy the works of their early 'heretical' opponents? There was a mass book burning of Arius's works after Nicea, Cyril led a mob against the Library of Alexandria and burned books. Paul's own writings are a deliberate inversion of messianic judaism theology to make it more palatable to non-jews and to undermine the anti-Roman Jewish population. Speculation is not so far fetched.



    Clement's works have been revered for as long as they've existed, albeit to varying degrees. I wouldn't call that a divergence from canon.
    But it is inconsistent within that particular tradition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jekyll
    replied
    Originally posted by haughty
    The chief engine for such beliefs has not been identified, but I highly doubt it's some instinctive tendency for abstract personification. It seems more likely that religion and spirituality came primarily from primitive attempts to explain the unknown.
    To my mind, these are two side of the same coin, religion obviously offered a path to explain the unknown through the use of personalities. If you don't know why something happens it makes sense to credit it to the wims of something.

    Leave a comment:


  • haughty
    replied
    Originally posted by PO9
    Yes, I meant the Christian Traditions series by Pelikan.

    Or their absence could indicate they were intentionally destroyed. Christians have engaged in that behavior quite frequently in history. I also tend to suspect many of the church "fathers" actively engaged in hiding Christianities roots in Messianic Judaism, much as Paul (and the writers in his name/tradition) did.
    Possibly. However, speculation isn't really evidence in and of itself. I've never seen any indication that the early Church (1st & 2nd centuries) went beyond simple excommunications.

    Some things we'll never know.

    In the Pauline tradition Clement was read as scripture, a few other contemporaries of his were read as scripture as well.
    Clement's works have been revered for as long as they've existed, albeit to varying degrees. I wouldn't call that a divergence from canon.

    Leave a comment:


  • bushi_no_ki
    replied
    1900 years later, and we still can't agree on who supported what book in the Biblical canon. That's exactly my problem with Christianity as a whole. People put too much store in a book that they can't even completely prove the origins of and use that book to monger fear and hatred.

    Leave a comment:


  • PO9
    replied
    Yes, I meant the Christian Traditions series by Pelikan.

    That's true, but we really can't be sure how widespread those alternate sources were at their height. That few survived seems to indicate they were not part of the mainstream.
    Or their absence could indicate they were intentionally destroyed. Christians have engaged in that behavior quite frequently in history. I also tend to suspect many of the church "fathers" actively engaged in hiding Christianities roots in Messianic Judaism, much as Paul (and the writers in his name/tradition) did.

    However, I admit we don't have exact data on this. It is possible what we now call "mainstream" was a minority in the first century. I have seen no convincing evidence to that effect, though.
    Coming up with numbers is hard indeed, especially since the 'official' NT accounts conflates Messianic Judaism with Pauline Christianity.

    I'm not sure where you're getting this. Do you mean Marcion? If I'm not mistaken, even he used mostly canonical sources. He wasn't in line with the traditional church fathers, though, so I wouldn't look to his writings for this matter. If not Marcion, who? I don't recall any classical Church Fathers treating anything outside today's canon as authoritative.
    In the Pauline tradition Clement was read as scripture, a few other contemporaries of his were read as scripture as well. Not too mention 2 Peter, Revelation and a few other NT epistles not being accepted until late.

    Leave a comment:


  • haughty
    replied
    Originally posted by PO9
    I've read most of those, primary sources in translation that is. You might also like www.ccel.org/Fathers2 . You might also like Pelikan's history of doctrine if you haven't red it yet.
    I have not. Is that one of his Christian Traditions volumes? I can't seem to find anything called "History of Doctrine" on Google. In any case, let me know. It's been a while since I've read anything on this subject, and I should probably keep up with it.

    True, but the church 'fathers' represent only one side of the story. Unfortunately, the writings of their chief opponents didn't survive, well except in redacted form in the 'fathers' writings.
    That's true, but we really can't be sure how widespread those alternate sources were at their height. That few survived seems to indicate they were not part of the mainstream.

    However, I admit we don't have exact data on this. It is possible what we now call "mainstream" was a minority in the first century. I have seen no convincing evidence to that effect, though.

    Furthermore, there were other books within their particular tardition that were cited as authoritative but didn't make it into the later 'official' canon. So I disagree with your idea of general consensus circa 110CE.
    I'm not sure where you're getting this. Do you mean Marcion? If I'm not mistaken, even he used mostly canonical sources. He wasn't in line with the traditional church fathers, though, so I wouldn't look to his writings for this matter. If not Marcion, who? I don't recall any classical Church Fathers treating anything outside today's canon as authoritative.

    Leave a comment:


  • PO9
    replied
    I've read most of those, primary sources in translation that is. You might also like www.ccel.org/Fathers2 . You might also like Pelikan's history of doctrine if you haven't red it yet.

    However, nearly every book of the NT had been cited as authoritative by early church fathers between 90-110 CE.
    True, but the church 'fathers' represent only one side of the story. Unfortunately, the writings of their chief opponents didn't survive, well except in redacted form in the 'fathers' writings. Furthermore, there were other books within their particular tardition that were cited as authoritative but didn't make it into the later 'official' canon. So I disagree with your idea of general consensus circa 110CE.

    Leave a comment:


  • haughty
    replied
    Originally posted by PO9
    Which is why there's no mention of 4 "official" gospels until 60 years later by Iraneus.
    Irenaeus was the first to talk directly about it, sure. In one of his epistles he talks about the beauty of the "four-fold gospel"--or something to that effect (it's been a while since I read that particular text). However, nearly every book of the NT had been cited as authoritative by early church fathers between 90-110 CE.

    The only general consensus occurred after Christianity became the Roman State religion and had the authority to drive out and persecute rival sects.
    By "general consensus" I didn't mean to imply that everyone in the Church agreed completely. Even today, there are sects of Christianity that use so-called "apocryphal" works like the Thomas Gospel (which by the way is not directly opposed to mainstream Christianity) and Maccabees volumes. Some have veered off so obtusely that most Protestant and Catholic denominations call them heresy (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, eg.) However, mainstream Christianity has been around since the first century. The canon, much as we know it today, has been in use at least since 110 CE.

    The internet has some great resources for this kind of stuff. You can check out earlychristianwritings.com or ntcanon.org for some quick reference info. If you want a firmer background, I suggest Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History of the Church (it's really not as boring as it sounds!) and The Making of the New Testament by Arthur Patzia, Ph.D. (this one's a quicker read).

    Leave a comment:


  • PO9
    replied
    Originally posted by haughty
    But I don't like to let lie misconceptions about Christianity that so frequently get passed around as truth. The Bible was not hand-picked by anyone, or any council. Each denomination chooses which "books" they consider "inspired," often by voting, but the general consensus has been around at least since c. 110 CE.
    Which is why there's no mention of 4 "official" gospels until 60 years later by Iraneus. The only general consensus occurred after Christianity became the Roman State religion and had the authority to drive out and persecute rival sects.

    Leave a comment:


  • haughty
    replied
    I'm not Christian, and so I naturally don't believe the Bible was divinely inspired. However, there's always a chance I'm wrong. But I don't like to let lie misconceptions about Christianity that so frequently get passed around as truth. The Bible was not hand-picked by anyone, or any council. Each denomination chooses which "books" they consider "inspired," often by voting, but the general consensus has been around at least since c. 110 CE.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X