The Progressive Faith in the Christian Life - Page 23

On October 04 2013 09:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the afterlife is such a distraction. there's no afterlife, get over it

questing after immortality is such a horrible blasphemy

On October 04 2013 09:52 Gofarman wrote:
making yourself look like the 'defender' of Christianity and the Bible when you are neither.)

On October 04 2013 09:47 Chocolate wrote:
I actually think that in many ways a discourse on religion (even if a little hostile) is very constructive. Religious truth is something that is impossible to arrive at fully but I think that, if you choose to at least entertain the notion that there may be something to faith after all, arguments such as this help us get closer to that truth. And getting to that truth is all important if there is an afterlife on the line.

On October 04 2013 09:52 sam!zdat wrote:
no religions are right. including atheism. all you can do is pick what you think is the best way to be wrong.



but i believe that I am! and ironman believes that God is his daddy! so how do you choose?

I'm someone who cares very much about the Western tradition. that means taking christianity seriously. the only way to take it seriously is to engage with it critically. so yes, I believe that I am defending it from those who want to destroy it by taking it literally.

edit: seriously. I study literature. my advisor thinks I'm crazy because I want to spend so much time talking about jesus. in my context it's almost professional suicide to take christianity as seriously as I do. I argue with almost everyone in my program who bashes christianity and they all think I am a strange person because of it.

On October 04 2013 10:21 koreasilver wrote:
I don't see how capitalizing proper nouns is annoying. No really, but I do kinda understand. Sometimes theology just looks like a parade of capitalized words.

On October 04 2013 11:03 sam!zdat wrote:
not as good as "the LORD"

On October 04 2013 11:03 sam!zdat wrote:
not as good as "the LORD"

On October 04 2013 14:52 sam!zdat wrote:
yes I know why 'lord' is capitalized. It's still hilarious.

the afterlife was not part of jesus' teaching. He taught that the kingdom of heaven would arrive SOON. They had to add the part about the afterlife when the original christians started dying and the KOH hadn't arrived yet. 'dont worry' they said. 'they will all be resurrected when the KOH arrives and then we will be happy together in heaven'. Jesus never taught any of that he was a jewish apocalyptic prophet (very common thing in that part of the world at the time). He also never claimed to be the son of god (ever wonder why he is the son of MAN in mark and then only the son of GOD in the later gospels? They made that up later)

the quest for immortality is a terrible blasphemy and has nothing to do with christianity. You are not going to live forever, you will die and then there will be nothing. The only question is, what now?

On October 04 2013 15:42 sam!zdat wrote:
John was written like 80 years after the death of christ. Matthew and Luke both used Mark for a source (Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels). Matthew was written for a jewish community, not gentile, and you will notice if you compare the texts that Matthew quotes Mark but edits out parts that would be offensive for Jews. The gospel of John is completely different (not a "synoptic" gospel) and was written much later and contains a much more elaborate theology highly influenced by greek philosophy. you will notice that the gospel of john begins with "in the beginning was the word." this is not a coincidence, as anybody who knows the first thing about greek philosophy will know that "word" or "logos" is a central part of that tradition. jesus himself would have known basically nothing about greek philosophy or anything about the logos or whatever. everything in John, which is the most theologically elaborate gospel, was written way later and under the influence of greek philosophy especially Plotinus. The Johannine author was also a sectarian who was totally paranoid about all people who were not part of his cult. John is interesting, but you can't trust anything that John says about the historical Jesus, it's just not a reliable source. For example, the trial of Jesus. You think the Roman overlords needed a TRIAL to crucify some annoying jewish heretic? there was no trial it's all made up. it's just an excuse for Johannine author to put elaborate theological theories in the mouth of the character "Jesus".

edit: but please, don't listen to me, go take in some actual, serious scholarship about the hebrew bible and new testament at oyc.yale.edu, under "religious studies." it's SUCH a fascinating book and deserves to be taken seriously, not fetishized. if I didn't care so passionately about ancient texts and believe that they are too valuable to be misused in the way that you misuse them, I would not be here arguing with you about it. If you actually care about this text as much as you claim to (and not just care about getting to feel you are better than everyone else because you have the TRUTH and they are going to hell, like the vain sinner that you are) go actually try to learn something about it and the people who produced it. Try to understand why it mattered to them, and try to learn something from their experience. That is the ONLY way to make it matter in the modern world, not just blindly applying it to a totally different context like some uncritical moron. It's so fucking disrespectful to the text it makes me want to scream. It's not literally true, THEY didn't think it was literally true in the way in which you conceive this notion, so stop treating it that way, it's just disrespectful and intellectually dishonest and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT.

On October 04 2013 16:24 sam!zdat wrote:
he's the guy who wrote john. all else we know about him is just inferred from the text.