Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

So Elfhelm, what do you think of my comments about judging? I think that's an excellent topic for this thread.

(We should prob. move the strictly homosexual stuff to the gay/les/bi thread or the homosexual marriage thread.)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Even Eusebius calls him the brother of Jesus. And the Pseudo-Clementine documents are addressed to James with the same appelation. But when the church needed to syncretize the virgin birth myths of paganism, the word "brother" was redefined to mean anything other than what the word brother means.

1)The Virgin Birth is foretold in the Book of Isaiah; hence, though there may be parallels to pagan myths, it cannot be considered to be solely pagan, as it has its roots in the same religion Christianity is rooted in.

2) The Virgin Birth is found in the Canonical works, which are very old; thus, by your logic, it seems that

3) The word "brother" was used to mean other things long before that. Abraham says that Sarah is his sister, and she his brother, though strictly they are only half-siblings. The word "brother" is used throughout the story of Joseph, even though only Benjamin is his full brother. In Matthew 18, "brother" is used in three different verses in what seems to be a universal meaning, along the lines of "who is my neighbour?" In the next chapter, Christ says, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." I assume this does not mean if you leave two brothers for His sake, your mother and father will have two hundred more sons. Rather, the word is being used in a figurative sense. In Matthew 23:8, Christ says "you are all brothers": again, figurative. The list goes on, but you get the idea. Note also Mark 3:33-34: " 33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. 34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.""

But I mself actually get the idea of a non-priestly religion from Jesus' own acts and words. I will enumerate the specific passages if you wish, but I will ask you to accept that I am not trying to tell you to think differently, that you are certainly right in studying and deciding things based on your own studies.

I would be very interested in hearing those passages; and yes, I do accept that you are not telling me to believe differently (even if what I do believe in is a false perversion ). I would still be very interested in which passages exactly lead you to a belief in a non-priestly religion.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

"But what remains is astonishing: some fifty-two texts from the early centuries of the Christian era--including a collection of early Christian gospels, previously unknown." - Elaine Pagels

Sorry, guess I underestimated

Yes, and I am sure you will love this scholarly approach to assessing her work.

Let me know.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/dossier/view.cfm?id=34

[Elfhelm]

Why on Earth would I even bother reading this woman in the first place? I can tell from the blurb that she's one of those people who thinks a thought then bends everything to proving it. I'm sure it's of interest only to people who want to believe her major premise, or who want to argue against it. For me it would be a waste of time. I'll stick with the texts themselves.

edit: I read it. It's a well-written response. It's silly to go off on one tangent arguing that Iranaeus was seeking control whe in fact it can be much more easily proven that Marcion was actually trying to use money to gain that control over the orthodoxy. And Marcion wouldn't even admit any other gospel than his particular version of Luke and Acts.

[Elfhelm]

I just figured out why inked keeps harping on Pagels. Because she's quoted in The DaVinci Code. A dubious source for a dubious book. They're made for each other.

But I do, in fact, have an issue with the Church's take on Mary Magdalen. The early Church fathers held that there were three different women named Maria, not one as depicted in Gregory "the Great's" Homily 33. I do think it was awfully convenient to conflate the three women then cast all the sins of Eve on her and on all women. But perhaps there are those who would prefer to turn a blind eye to the Church's history of miscogyny. What misogyny? We revere women, just like the Muslims, by keeping them barefoot and pregnant.

[Rían]

Hey people - any comments on my post #535 about judging? I'd love to hear some thoughts!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I just figured out why inked keeps harping on Pagels. Because she's quoted in The DaVinci Code. A dubious source for a dubious book. They're made for each other.

But I do, in fact, have an issue with the Church's take on Mary Magdalen. The early Church fathers held that there were three different women named Maria, not one as depicted in Gregory "the Great's" Homily 33. I do think it was awfully convenient to conflate the three women then cast all the sins of Eve on her and on all women. But perhaps there are those who would prefer to turn a blind eye to the Church's history of miscogyny. What misogyny? We revere women, just like the Muslims, by keeping them barefoot and pregnant.

Pregnant? Paul advised people to maintain celibacy. He didn't say marriage was at all bad, but he advised celibacy so that people could devote themselves wholly to God, rather than partly to a spouse.

Barefoot?

There were some restrictions on women in the Bible, but not very oppressive. It says to respect and submit to the husband, but then it also tells the husband to love his wife and be willing to die a horrible death for her if need be. Those instructions are bound together and work together.

Then there also was a restriction that said they weren't to talk in church, but that could easily be referring simply to gossiping or distracting chatter. Women often are more communicative than men are, so such an instruction that refers specifically to them may have been well placed.

Women were very well treated in the Christianity.

[Rían]

I agree.

(I'm barefoot right now, but it's by my own choice I love being barefoot!)

[Elfhelm]

Rabbit-trail, of course, and one I sent you down. My apology.

But the point is what Gregory "the Great" did in Homily 33.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

You have never been insulted and derided to the extent that young men who seem slightly effeminate have been insulted! Your religion says it is OK to do this. You may think you are getting all lovey-dovey by supposedly loving the sinner but hating the sin, but the fact remains...

We are abused and you are not. Please stop trying to coopt the victim status. When did the gays burn Christians at the stake, eh? Doesn't this belong on that thread?

1) I've yet to read in the bible "thou shalt insult people who disagree with you."


2) Burning people, or otherwise killing them for whatever reason was most definitely not confined to christianity. Were the Communists christians?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Undoubtedly. They did kill large numbers of people, after all.

[Lief Erikson]

[Lief Erikson]

Here's an article relevant to the judgment issue RÃ*an was talking about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5015552.stm

The article shows an example of people judging the people rather than the act. These 75 "Christians" openly hate homosexuals. There is a major difference between them with their waving of derogative signs, insulting bereaved families at funerals, and people who love homosexuals, holding friendships with them even as they believe they are involved in self-destructive behavior. There is a difference between those who attack others and those who seek to help them understand that their behavior is self-destructive so that they will cease to destroy themselves out of genuine caring for the other people. That desire to help is good, whether they are incorrect about this being a sin or not.

If you believe that using computers is evil, then you might out of love try to convince me to stop using computers, and that would be an act of love if you did it in a respectful and kind way. On the other hand, if you believed that using computers is evil and started attacking me as an evil person for using computers, that would be judging. That is what Jesus would have us stop, but gently trying to lead people to a better way and helping people to change from wrong behavior out of love was a course of action he approved of and practiced himself all the time.

[Butterbeer]

... helping people to change from wrong behavior out of love ...

Deciding or labelling it "wrong" IS a judgement.
No two ways around the matter.

You merely add a preferential moral filter to the distinction.

best BB
(Wotcha Lief btw! )

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Rabbit-trail, of course, and one I sent you down. My apology.

But the point is what Gregory "the Great" did in Homily 33.

Perhaps GtG was having a bad day and made a hasty sermon that conformed to the spirit of the age rather than maintaining the Jewish entitlement of women as the early Church seems to have done and extended. GtG would not be the first preacher to do so. Of course, if that is what happened, the sermon got prexerved because G became GtG! Ah, the vagaries of history!

Yet we do say that God acts in them (or some of us so believe!).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

best BB
(Wotcha Lief btw! )

Good to see you again too, BB .

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Deciding or labelling it "wrong" IS a judgement.
No two ways around the matter.

It's judging an act rather than judging a person, however. That's a different and (in my view ) completely acceptable form of judgment. It's the same moral judgment that leads people out of love of others to fight Hitler or to fight in Iraq (many of our people there do truly want to help the Iraqi people). It's the same judgment that leads a parent to spank a child for a wrong action, while still loving the child as a person and not condemning the child as a person. Without rules, "judgments," our society would collapse into anarchy. We judge some things to be wrong and others to be right. We have to make moral judgments in life, or we'll end up with the dangerous view that "anything goes," and will embrace anarchy and horrendous corruption of character.

Here's one example of what I mean about judgment. I have several times heard Christians pray for the spiritual transformation of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein, praying that they shall come to know God and find salvation for their souls. At the same time, they have nothing but hatred for these people's actions. They judge the evil actions for what they are: evil, but they do not condemn the people, but rather pray for them.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

Yet we do say that God acts in them (or some of us so believe!).

So all the Greek fathers were wrong for hundreds of years because God acted through Gregory to turn one of Jesus' disciples into a whore? God was acted through him to set the record straight? Before then everyone was wrong to think there were three different Mariams? They were wrong to think that Mary Magdalen was "pure", when in fact she was a wretch from whom Jesus cast out seven devils and who wore scarlet and annointed him with perfumes that she used to use in her sultry nighttime business?

I think Gregory was wrong to do this. Before him we had examples of good women like Mary and Martha, and the converted priestess from Magdala. After him we just had tainted women who are the source of all sin. Very sad. Just one more reason I say the Church has perverted Jesus' teachings.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

1) I've yet to read in the bible "thou shalt insult people who disagree with you."


2) Burning people, or otherwise killing them for whatever reason was most definitely not confined to christianity. Were the Communists christians?

1) I didn't say it did.

2) Does that make it OK?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Deciding or labelling it "wrong" IS a judgement.

Do you think it's wrong to do that?

If so, you just made a judgement yourself

It's my judgement that this would be a great topic for discussion!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you think it's wrong to do that?

If so, you just made a judgement yourself

It's my judgement that this would be a great topic for discussion!

And round and round it goes! It's called merry-go-round rhetoric, and it leads NOWHERE!