First Weekend of March 2010, Christian Experiment?

[Sniffles]

Abiding by such a tradition contradicts any notion of individual conscience.

You from realise it's from the Bible(that "primative" document as you call it) and Christianity that the concept of "conscience" originates from?

Here's a dramatic take on one famous example of that concept in practice, with Sir Thomas More:
[youtube="TZuc_fdMe64"]A matter of conscience[/youtube]

 

[cafe]

Disheartening for me, as a (for lack of a better term) disenfranchised evangelical, is the absorption of neo-con values and the lack of compassion that often goes along with it.

I think that the do-goodering that has been an inherent part of Christianity for most of its history is one of the best things we have to offer society, especially in these difficult times. If we could do it with a little more love and a little less ulterior motives and judgment it would be snazzy.

 

[Ginkgo]

You from realise it's from the Bible(that "primative" document as you call it) and Christianity that the concept of "conscience" originates from?

Entertaining and heartfelt, but your video alludes to the conscience being that of God, not necessarily the Bible. Now, if society were to observe such strict conscience of the Bible, then we may find slavery to be acceptable (ages old argument, I know), we may find that we should stone our children if they are to dishonor us, and we may find many other gruesome things along the path of religious retribution and the grinding guilt of "sins" committed.

Now, since your argument is one of origin, seeing as that somehow dictates the essence of human conscience - historicity and psychology aside - we should observe the Old Testament Law, correct? The Old Testament is the origin, and therefore we should find moral refuge in it?

 

[Sniffles]

Entertaining and heartfelt, but your video alludes to the conscience being that of God, not necessarily the Bible.

Sir Thomas More invokes the God of the Bible, and the verses in the Bible when Christ confers authority unto St. Peter.

Now, if society were to observe such strict conscience of the Bible, then we may find slavery to be acceptable (ages old argument, I know), we may find that we should stone our children if they are to dishonor us, and we may find many other gruesome things along the path of religious retribution and the grinding guilt of "sins" committed.

Now, since your argument is one of origin, seeing as that somehow dictates the essence of human conscience - historicity and psychology aside - we should observe the Old Testament Law, correct? The Old Testament is the origin, and therefore we should find moral refuge in it?

No not necessarily since we Christians are now governed by the New Convenant, not the Old Convenant. And slavery is a settled issues for the most part, since Christendom was the first civilization to abolish it. So you're not going to get far with that argument.

 

[ajblaise]

No not necessarily since we Christians are now governed by the New Convenant, not the Old Convenant.

Depends on the Christian denomination, you know that. They don't all agree about how Biblical law applies today.

 

[Sniffles]

Depends on the Christian denomination, you know that.

Yes of course I know that. Now run along, we're trying to have a discussion here, and your one-liners aren't much contribution.

 

[ajblaise]

Yes of course I know that. Now run along, we're trying to have a discussion here, and your one-liners aren't much contribution.

Well, don't say wrong things that you know aren't true.

Like "we Christians are now governed by the New Convenant, not the Old Convenant".

Just be consistent. Other than consistently wrong.

 

[Sniffles]

Well, don't say wrong things that you know aren't true.

Cute.

Like "we Christians are now governed by the New Convenant, not the Old Convenant".

Christs saids so himself in the Bible.

So once again run along boy.

 

[Ginkgo]

No not necessarily since we Christians are now governed by the New Convenant, not the Old Convenant. And slavery is a settled issues for the most part, since Christendom was the first civilization to abolish it. So you're not going to get far with that argument.

Exactly. So we see that God and his commandments are revolutionary and ambiguous, just like men. We also see that he is inconsistent, just like men. It is impossible not to anthropomorphize God because he did, after all, walk around in the Garden of Eden on two feet. Most importantly, he was written by men to control other men on the most subconscious level, as the parent subconsciously scolds the child. But just like a parent, God is fallible; for his son undid him! So, should we be Christ-like and undo our parents?

 

[Sniffles]

Exactly. So we see that God and his commandments are revolutionary and ambiguous, just like men. We also see that he is inconsistent, just like men. It is impossible not to anthropomorphize God because he did, after all, walk around in the Garden of Eden on two feet. Most importantly, he was written by men to control other men on the most subconscious level, as the parent subconsciously scolds the child. But just like a parent, God is fallible; for his son undid him! So, should we be Christ-like and undo our parents?

This sounds like the kind of Gnostic "death of God" type thinking Voegelin talked about.

 

[Ginkgo]

This sounds like the kind of Gnostic "death of God" type thinking Voegelin talked about.

If you were trying to lead me away from the dark side, you probably shouldn't have referred me to him.

 

[Sniffles]

Well I actually have no intention of keeping you away from Voegelin's work, although here's a fair warning about reading him:

"Mastering Voegelin's thought can be difficult. He is erudite and assumes the reader is more or less familiar with the material, or at least has a grasp of history, philosophy, theology, psychology, and sociology. A reading knowledge of Latin, Greek, and modern European languages helps. One can only read Voegelin with understanding if one reads more than a few others as well. Moreover, Voegelin often felt compelled to introduce new technical terms or employ old terms in new ways. A further difficulty stems from the restorative nature of his work which requires the conventionally schooled student to approach his topics in a fresh way—especially difficult for that poorly nourished individual deprived of a religious foundation."

VoegelinView Eric Voegelin Biographical Sketch

 

[Ginkgo]

Well I actually have no intention of keeping you away from Voegelin's work, although here's a fair warning about reading him:

VoegelinView Eric Voegelin Biographical Sketch

Cool. Thank you sir. Hopefully I won't have too much trouble with it.

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread. Carry on. :hi:

 

[Sniffles]

No you haven't derailed it, no more than anybody else has. This is what I was talking about:

The aim of parousiatic gnosticism is to destroy the order of being, which is experienced as defective and unjust, and through man's creative power to replace it with a perfect and just order. Now, however the order of being may be understood - as a world dominated by cosmic-divine powers in the civilizations of the Near and Far East, or as a creation of a world-transcendent God in Judaeo-Christian symbolism, or as an essential order of being in philosophical contemplation - it remains something that is given, that is not under man's control. In order, therefore, that the attempt to create a new world may seem to make sense, the givenness of the order of being must be obliterated; the order of being must be interpreted, rather, as essentially under man's control. And taking control of being further requires that the the transcendent origin of being be obliterated: it requires the decapitation of being - the muder of God.

The murder of God is committed speculatively by explaining divine being as the work of man...Man should stop creating gods because this sets absurd limits to his will and action; and he should realize that the gods he has already created have in fact been created by him...There may be no being or image of being that might make human will and thought appear finite..In order to appear the unlimited master of being, man must so delimit being that limitations are no longer evident. And why must this magic act be performed? The answer is: "If there were gods, how could I endure not being a god! Therefore, there are no gods."

It does not suffice, therefore, to replace the old world of God with a new world of man: the world of God itself must have been a world of man, and God a work of man which can therefore be destroyed if it prevents man from reigning over the order of being. The murder of God must be made retroactive speculatively...The murder of God, then, is of the very essence of the gnostic re-creation of the order of being.

Eric Voegelin, Science, Politics and Gnosticism pg. 35-36;37

 

[ChildoftheProphets]

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread. Carry on. :hi:

No you haven't derailed it, no more than anybody else has.

Lol, you guys make me laugh. I have a feeling I might make a new thead tomorrow to put things back on the right track (and then just use this one to answer Lark's question about organic Christianity).

 

[Ivy]

Well, don't say wrong things that you know aren't true.

Like "we Christians are now governed by the New Convenant, not the Old Convenant".

Just be consistent. Other than consistently wrong.

Most Christian denominations do believe that. The only ones I can think of that don't are the messianics and the seventh day adventists.

 

[Ginkgo]

No you haven't derailed it, no more than anybody else has. This is what I was talking about:



Eric Voegelin, Science, Politics and Gnosticism pg. 35-36;37

I'm thinking that this is where society is generally headed. It also reminds me of Victor and his raving about man being God (subliminal as they are). This is something I've thought about, as the creativity of man is finite in nature, but gnosticism encourages unlimited creativity, which would essentially br Creation itself, thus switching the roll of man and God.

However, man speculates that Creation was an occurrence of spontaneous events dictated by chance, which is also a conjecture made by man, thus denoting the Creation of existence to man. Right?

Where does Deism come in to this? Would Deism be a step on the gradual ladder towards gnosticism?

 

[Lark]

Lol, you guys make me laugh. I have a feeling I might make a new thead tomorrow to put things back on the right track (and then just use this one to answer Lark's question about organic Christianity).

Nawh, I'm not going to bother posting about it anymore, I've made my point and others disagree. That's fine. I'm not going to derail the thread.

 

[ajblaise]

Christs saids so himself in the Bible.

That's the thing about books, they're open to interpretation. You have your own interpretation.

Christ also contradicted himself a few times in the Bible. Or rather, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did.

 

[ajblaise]

Most Christian denominations do believe that. The only ones I can think of that don't are the messianics and the seventh day adventists.

Fundamentalists? Evangelicals and Protestants?

A lot view both the New and Old Testament as infallible and historically accurate, right?

And what about when Jesus said these things about the OT's authority:

5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

- New International Version