Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Fun with Religion; attn.: Ronnie
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: Fun with Religion; attn.: Ronnie Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Apr 29th, 2003 03:00 PM
mburbank Do you think Paul's statement about the authority of leaders coming from God covers the Romans execution of Jesus?
Apr 29th, 2003 02:29 PM
Sethomas That was the point. Many Jews refused the option of Roman citizenship, but Paul did not. His idolatry of his governmental leaders got him killed in a nice way, but killed nevertheless.
Apr 29th, 2003 09:04 AM
El Blanco
Quote:
You know what all this ass-kissing served for Paul? He got off with a decapitation, unlike the crucified Peter.
Actually, Paul was decapitated because he was a Roman citizen, unlike Peter. His parents bought citizenship when he was a child. The only way to execute a citizen of Rome was decapitation.
Apr 29th, 2003 01:27 AM
Sethomas I neglected this thread for a while because I was bored with it, but now that Ronnie's active again I thought I'd revitalize it.

Now, if Jesus wished any true social reform, how do you consider the foremost authority on scripture, Paul, saying the below in his letter to the Romans. Chapter and verse, its Romans 13:1-7 but I'm only going to post an excerpt.

'Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.'


I think it's important to mind the fact that St. Paul was not an extension of Christ himself. Personally I put little trust in Paul, because his work was extremely culturally subjective, and linguistic experts have concluded several times over that many excerpts of his epistles were added by later authors. This passage is utter shite though. You know what all this ass-kissing served for Paul? He got off with a decapitation, unlike the crucified Peter. Back to Jesus, threatening to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days about as blatant as the Son of God could come to demanding social reform. Jesus came here to change things around. He was mostly concerned with spirituality, but given the old Hebrew culture sociality was implicitly involved. Consider the OT punishment for adultery... capital punishment, an appendage of the state. If Jesus wanted to reform the spirit, he had to eventually reform society. Simple as that. The culmination of a world taught to refuse the self and follow in the footsteps of Christ could only logically involve social reform in which the lucky provided for the unfortunate.

Christ repeats the same themes in many of His sayings.

Yeah, but the Widow's Mite story was unique in its message, and related concepts worked into the story don't defile the fact that the story makes clear allusions to the concept of progressive taxing. I'm not saying that it's completely without merit to note that the rich were giving alms in a more public fashion, but the greatest point of the story was to respect the heart in which a gift is made, and that much is expected from those to whom much has been given. It's all in there. You call the elephant hairy and I'll call it grey.

Romans 14:23 "Whatever is not of faith, is sin."

I wonder where the literalists stand on this one.

Jesus made a call for his followers to renounce materialism and to devote their lives to the betterment of the less fortunate, "for what you do to the least of my people, you do unto Me." The Old Testament was big on elitism, from concepts like the Jews being God's Chosen People, to the exclusivity of the priestly castes, to the banishment of the leppars and handicapped. On the contrary, Jesus ushered in a new idea of religious community. The rich man goes to Hell while Lazareth dines in paradise. The wolf will be guest of the lamb. All the vineyard workers are rewarded the same pay for different work. He wanted to resolve the petty rivalries between the tribes. For Christ to think of society as being inconsequential to his mission would water down the gospel to a preachy revision of the Old Testament. Christ didn't want to fix the old community of God, he wanted to tear it down and build an altogether better one. THE RECONFIGURATION OF SOCIETY WAS INTEGRAL TO HIS MISSION. What kind of society, though? One in which the rich give freely to the poor, a society in which time, talent, and treasure is expected to be used frugally and generously. The parallels this has to socialism, in my sight, are obvious.
Apr 17th, 2003 11:38 PM
AChimp
Quote:
I'm Catholic, and I didn't know that.
You didn't read the fine print. :P
Apr 17th, 2003 10:35 PM
VinceZeb Sethomas, I am not saying that people should not help their fellow man, but don't FORCE them to. God doesnt FORCE us to worship and believe in Him. We choose to. But if people worry too much about possesions and forget about God, then that is seperating themselves from God and the Church.
Apr 16th, 2003 02:30 PM
mburbank So, Vince, when you say

"if you steal and waste your talents and leech off people, that is not doing what God allows us to do."

What you mean is

"Those who steal, waste their talents and use others without returning anything are ignoring the gifts God gave them".

The construction "If you... that is not doing..." Is confusing because by introducing a negative in the second clause, you destroy the paralell. Any two clause sentence beginning with "If you" should be follwed by a second clause beginning "Then you", or, in my construction and even simpler "Those who" follwed by "Are".

Allowing implies permission to use, not giving. God gives us free will. He allows us to sin.

"Maybe you should learn to read."

I did, in first grade. You should learn to write.
Apr 16th, 2003 02:10 PM
The_Rorschach ". . .Jesus had to biff against the market itself yet cried out for social reform, it's fair to say that he was a socialist. . ."

Alright, I see alot of assumption, and no proof behind them. I'm willing to cite scripture on my end, you need to be just as ready if this conversation is going to have any relevence. Now, if Jesus wished any true social reform, how do you consider the foremost authority on scripture, Paul, saying the below in his letter to the Romans. Chapter and verse, its Romans 13:1-7 but I'm only going to post an excerpt.

'Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.'

"There is no ground to call him a communist, because that would over-extend his words."

My intent was not to set up a strawman, I think my above post shows I attacked the context of the scriptures used, not the impossibility of communism.

"So what Jesus did was say that taxes are due to Caesar because the Jewish people were in debt to him in regards to the works."

Alright, I see what you're saying, and admittedly it was not a perspective I'd considered previously - but I don't see any confliction between your view and mine. They kind of seem to coincide. Yeah Paul talks about paying taxes, and the OT speaks of the importance in repaying debts, but I don't think that was the exclusive point being made.

Consider Matthew 6:25-34. This is where Christ is speaking on the issue of getting caught up in work and aquiring possessions, He cites the birds and flowers which want for neither food nor clothes and He ends it saying, put first the Kingdom of God and your needs shall be met. Seek the spiritual, not the physical. Its the same theme as rendering to Ceaser. He's saying the money doesn't matter, pay your taxes, and worry only about your relationship with God. He's fairly consistant.

"And your reaction to the Widow's Mite is only partially correct because the NT speaks elsewhere of "not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing" enough, so it would be overkill to make a whole story demonstrating it."

Right, well, even though I'm sure your judgement on the topic of repetition rivals God, forgive my dissention. Matthew 6:1-4 is the scripture line you're thinking of, and uh yeah, it pretty much backs up what I'm saying as far as I can see. Christ repeats the same themes in many of His sayings. In how many ways does He say put God first, and how many times? How many ways does He illustrate forgiveness is the virtue to embrace, and how many times?

"Obviously the widow gave just as publicly, though not so haughtily, as everyone else lest the observation would have passed unactualized."

The rich who offer are never described as haughty. Actually, if you read the text, Christ and his Disciples were observing those whom made donatives. Sure, the offering was public in as much as it was out in the open, but the rich were not donating for the profit of the Temple, they were donating so they could be seen donating, and therefore seen as pillars of the community and religious men. The widow gave out of her love for God. Now, hold tight, time for a little more repetition:

Romans 14:23 "Whatever is not of faith, is sin."

"How this equates to progressive taxing should be obvious."

An unstated case can not be discounted or contended. Afraid you'll still have to elaborate if you want comments from the peanut gallery.
Apr 16th, 2003 01:34 PM
Sethomas I'm Catholic, and I didn't know that.

Vince, people can generally cut themselves off from society if their "free will" beckons so. Just like if you don't believe in helping your fellow man, you seperate yourself from the Church Militant and condemn yourself to Hell. A socialist Jesus wouldn't undermine free will, it would just assume that you want to help yourself by helping others.
Apr 16th, 2003 01:24 PM
AChimp Vince, you're Catholic, so you should know that everyone gets into Heaven regardless of what they do.
Apr 16th, 2003 12:48 PM
VinceZeb God allows us to have free will. So thus all our talents come from God, becuase he allows us to have them. Maybe you should learn to read.
Apr 16th, 2003 12:09 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
Can you please use the word 'allows' correctly?
I was kind of under the impression that God gave us "free will" and retribution for sins came later. Under Vince's theory; however, it seems that we're "allowed" one wrong move and ... ZAP!! ... FIRE AND BRIMSTONE ... THUNDERBOLTS AND LIGHTNING ... What color is the sky in your world Vince?
Apr 16th, 2003 12:05 PM
mburbank Can you please use the word 'allows' correctly?
Apr 16th, 2003 11:44 AM
VinceZeb No, Kevin. I don't believe that God looks more favorably on people who are rich, but if you steal and waste your talents and leech off people, that is not doing what God allows us to do.
Apr 16th, 2003 11:43 AM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanette
each help out the less fortuante untill they can get on their feet.
To what status? Does God only love those who have a certain median income and a car????

I think Jeanette is more on the money with this. Wealth could very easily be viewed as a "worldly" pleasure, much like sex and drugs. All of these things distract you from your true relationship with God, and thus stand often in opposition with God.
Doesn't anyone click on my links around here? ... I swear ... all day slaving over a hot PC ... and for what?
Apr 16th, 2003 11:40 AM
Vibecrewangel
God

When it comes down to it, we're really nothing more than God's middle child anyway.
Apr 16th, 2003 11:34 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
The problem with associating Jesus Christ with socalism is pretty basic: Forced vs Voluntary. Govt forces people to be socalists while in a Christian society,
There is no, and never has been a truly Christian society/government. If any government were to ever exist, it would legislate and enforce its doctrine. Liberal stances on things, and open freedoms, would ultimately spell suicide for the state (look at the clashes between secularism and non-secularism in Israel).

A REAL "Christian" society probably would force you to do things, period.

Quote:
each help out the less fortuante untill they can get on their feet.
To what status? Does God only love those who have a certain median income and a car????

I think Jeanette is more on the money with this. Wealth could very easily be viewed as a "worldly" pleasure, much like sex and drugs. All of these things distract you from your true relationship with God, and thus stand often in opposition with God.
Apr 16th, 2003 11:27 AM
VinceZeb The problem with associating Jesus Christ with socalism is pretty basic: Forced vs Voluntary. Govt forces people to be socalists while in a Christian society, each help out the less fortuante untill they can get on their feet. But you don't pander to those who DO NOT want to help themselves. They must suffer the conquences.

I was always taught never to rely on anyone for anything, especially the goverment.
Apr 16th, 2003 10:38 AM
kellychaos I think that this excerpt from the Compensation essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson explains my views better than I can:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Waldo Emerson

The fallacy lay in the immense concession, that the bad are successful; that justice is not done now. The blindness of the preacher consisted in deferring to the base estimate of the market of what constitutes a manly success, instead of confronting and convicting the world from the truth; announcing the presence of the soul; the omnipotence of the will: and so establishing the standard of good and ill, of success and falsehood.
Link To Complete Essay
Apr 16th, 2003 10:08 AM
mburbank I don't subscribe to this opinion at all, but here's a bit of wisdom I learned at my father's knee.

"God's fundamental message is the same in all religions: Kill everybody else."
Apr 16th, 2003 12:38 AM
Sethomas Communism is so impossible that in practice it has been basically an amalgamation of exaggerated socialism and dictatorship, as seen in most historic examples. In Das Kapital Marx strongly criticizes socialists for not doing enough. The prime difference is that at the end of the day, socialism is powered by the market whereas communism churns with labor itself. Since Jesus had to biff against the market itself yet cried out for social reform, it's fair to say that he was a socialist. There is no ground to call him a communist, because that would over-extend his words.

On the issue of taxes, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. If he were to have said that the Jews should pay tax, he could be accused of subordinating Israel to pagan idolatry in which Caesar was a demigod to whom taxes were offerings. Had he sided with the popular belief that the Jews, the Pharisees would have reported him to Pilate as an insurrectionist. So what Jesus did was say that taxes are due to Caesar because the Jewish people were in debt to him in regards to the works. So while much of what I said agrees with what you said, He was not dismissing the issue as "immaterial". Taxes are a method of relieving public debts, and debts should be honored.

And your reaction to the Widow's Mite is only partially correct because the NT speaks elsewhere of "not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing" enough, so it would be overkill to make a whole story demonstrating it. The main point was that the few cents from a woman who should be on the receiving end of charity was greater than the gold donated by the wealthy because of the spirit in which they were given. Obviously the widow gave just as publicly, though not so haughtily, as everyone else lest the observation would have passed unactualized. How this equates to progressive taxing should be obvious.

Yes, Jesus advocated love for all men. My point was that he was rather explicit in some points of how to achieve it.

A truly Christian theocracy has never happened, though the duality of Church and State in the high middle ages is due more credit than most people give it.

Obviously, as Kevin pointed out, abortion and murder would be prohibited because they infringe upon the rights of another life, but a true Christian theocracy would allow for sin itself to happen. The thing is, even sins such as lust and avarice are scorned for their eventual effects on society.[/i]
Apr 15th, 2003 10:22 PM
The_Rorschach I'm on a smoke break between classes, Ocean 201 starts up in a moment, but I wanted to address something most ricki tick.

"Ror, it doesn't suit you to put words in my mouth."

That wasn't my intent, I'll hope you'll grant me the benefit of the doubt on this one. I've never understood the difference between communism and socialism, at least not enough to seperate the two, and so I read your words accordingly.

"Consider the implications of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's."

I say consider the times. There was great unrest on the topic of taxation, it was a foreign concept to the Jews which was only implemtented when once they had fallen to Rome. Tax Collectors, like Thomas (I hope I'm remembering the right disciple here), were scorned and when the Pharisees cornered Christ on the topic, they were hoping to trick him into proclaiming one way or the other. If He spoke against taxes, they would have reason to report him against the authorities as a subversive, if he spoke for them, he would lose the love of the people who themselves despised taxes. His answer, in short, was that it was immaterial. All that mattered was a man's soul, for when he died, that is all he would have. It wasn't the first time He made such a point either.

"Consider the widow's mite."

Actually that parable was illustrating the difference between true faith, and public faith. The sacrifice they made, in this case monetary, was unimportant, and Christ was trying to show that if a man's heart was not right, it did not matter how much they gave. The rich man, as you will recall, gave a PUBLIC donation, and his reward was the acknowledgement he recieved was the admiration of his fellow men. The widow gave privately, for she sought only to serve God, and it was that which God approved of. Not the sacrifice in question.

"Jesus was not a comunist, and implying that I had thought so by your hyperbolic speech is just too cheap of a shot."

You said He could be seen as a propositioning socialism, and obviously I misunderstood. You have my apologies. I simply didn't understand what I had read.

"Jesus simply advocated a redistribution of wealth."

He advocated love for all men, and love foremost for the creator of all men, God.
Apr 15th, 2003 10:20 PM
KevinTheOmnivore Are you saying that Christ wouldn't want a government which emulates his values to crack down on say prostitution such as we do, or even abortion??

Christ certainly wasn't a democrat. You have two freedoms, to sin or not to sin. You're given this freedom, and those who choose the latter will be saved. No representatives, no free elections, pretty straight forward.

I think you missed my point, too. The Taliban at least made a public showing of their crackdown on Heroin because...why? Was it because heroin is bad for people and they were concerned for the well being of their public?? I highly doubt it, considering they hung women and shot people at sporting events routinely. They cracked down on it cuz heroin is immoral, it's a drug, it's escapism, and it's a distraction from a Muslim's relationship with Allah.

Would a state claiming to be a Christian theocracy be any different? Would it not legislate and enforce its dogma???
Apr 15th, 2003 10:14 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
This doesn't mean Christ would be a Leftist, which is what I fear many of you on the "Right" feel is being insinuated. This doesn't take a genius. Look at any of the theocratic governments throughout history, as well as in the present. Do they differ that much from a system that is highly centralized?? How "free" was the market in Afghanistan? What did the Taliban (though hypocritical they were) do to the farms that grew the poppi for Heroin?? Why did they do this???
Simply because theocratic governments did certain things doesn't mean that Christ would, or that he would want a government that did.
Quote:
The rich should aid the poor. Simple as that.
I believe that the above citations would indicate that Christ did not approve of being rich, period.
Apr 15th, 2003 09:59 PM
KevinTheOmnivore I still hold that C.S. Lewis put it best, when addressing what a "Christian" society might look like:

"If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, 'advanced', but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned-- perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing."

Christ most certainly was egalitarian, and throughout much of the Bible, you see ones willingness to depart with their riches as a common theme in the Bible, with Job as one example, and the scripture from Matthew that Jeanette cited.

This doesn't mean Christ would be a Leftist, which is what I fear many of you on the "Right" feel is being insinuated. This doesn't take a genius. Look at any of the theocratic governments throughout history, as well as in the present. Do they differ that much from a system that is highly centralized?? How "free" was the market in Afghanistan? What did the Taliban (though hypocritical they were) do to the farms that grew the poppi for Heroin?? Why did they do this???
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.