TET: Pusheen The Envelope

[Saskisdi]

NEW THREAD!

And just when I thought I was done rolling with my eyes, some kid proves me wrong.

I was tagging the new goddamn TET thread. Geez.

[The Grim Reaper]

Is it possible to be a Christian, or claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ or what he stood for, without taking the Bible too seriously?

It depends what you mean by too seriously.

I'm a Christian anarchist, which necessitates a certain level of criticism levelled at a good deal of the Bible (notably the Pauline Epistles and most of the entire Old Testament) in favour of the sermons by Jesus, etc. Tolstoy, who was one of the prominent Christian anarchists for a time, tended to focus on the Sermon of the Mount, and derived a lot of beliefs regarding non-violence from that sermon.

That is, of course, something many Christians, and many anarchists tend to disagree with, although for purely historiographical reasons it remains an underpinning feature of Christian anarchism.

And as a Christian anarchist, I personally don't consider myself (nor do most people I know consider me) to be taking the Bible too seriously. I'm a teetotaller, but because of person and familial medical history rather than religious concerns, and other that that, I'm generally pretty liberal.

That being said, many Christians would disagree that I am truly Christian, particularly because I have iffy theological beliefs (I have sympathies towards orthodox Zoroastrianism, particularly to fill out the lack of an understanding of the divine that exists when you discount the Old Testament as being overtly politicized and edited). But I consider myself a follower of Jesus' teachings.

[Hurdegaryp]

And just when I thought I was done rolling with my eyes, some kid proves me wrong.

I was tagging the new goddamn TET thread. Geez.

It is true that this thread is less than a day old, but TET tends to get broken in rather quickly. It is safe to assume that the freshness starts to fade after a dozen pages or so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is it possible to be a Christian, or claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ or what he stood for, without taking the Bible too seriously?

Depends on what you mean by "too seriously".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is it possible to be a Christian, or claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ or what he stood for, without taking the Bible too seriously?

It depends what you mean by too seriously.

I'm a Christian anarchist, which necessitates a certain level of criticism levelled at a good deal of the Bible (notably the Pauline Epistles and most of the entire Old Testament) in favour of the sermons by Jesus, etc. Tolstoy, who was one of the prominent Christian anarchists for a time, tended to focus on the Sermon of the Mount, and derived a lot of beliefs regarding non-violence from that sermon.

That is, of course, something many Christians, and many anarchists tend to disagree with, although for purely historiographical reasons it remains an underpinning feature of Christian anarchism.

And as a Christian anarchist, I personally don't consider myself (nor do most people I know consider me) to be taking the Bible too seriously. I'm a teetotaller, but because of person and familial medical history rather than religious concerns, and other that that, I'm generally pretty liberal.

That being said, many Christians would disagree that I am truly Christian, particularly because I have iffy theological beliefs (I have sympathies towards orthodox Zoroastrianism, particularly to fill out the lack of an understanding of the divine that exists when you discount the Old Testament as being overtly politicized and edited). But I consider myself a follower of Jesus' teachings.

I'm more or less certain she means "taking the Bible at its literary word".

Only literalists do that. A majority of Christians see the bible as an interpretative work. However, the Catholic/Orthodox tradition looks at the Bible as a tool to teach the oral tradition of the church, whereas Protestants believe in sola scriptura, which is the inspired reading of the bible, which is where modern literalism comes from since, mind, literalism is a heresy for Catholics and Orthodox (heresy just means a formal error).

[The Lacedaemonians]

It depends what you mean by too seriously.

I'm a Christian anarchist, which necessitates a certain level of criticism levelled at a good deal of the Bible (notably the Pauline Epistles and most of the entire Old Testament) in favour of the sermons by Jesus, etc. Tolstoy, who was one of the prominent Christian anarchists for a time, tended to focus on the Sermon of the Mount, and derived a lot of beliefs regarding non-violence from that sermon.

That is, of course, something many Christians, and many anarchists tend to disagree with, although for purely historiographical reasons it remains an underpinning feature of Christian anarchism.

And as a Christian anarchist, I personally don't consider myself (nor do most people I know consider me) to be taking the Bible too seriously. I'm a teetotaller, but because of person and familial medical history rather than religious concerns, and other that that, I'm generally pretty liberal.

That being said, many Christians would disagree that I am truly Christian, particularly because I have iffy theological beliefs (I have sympathies towards orthodox Zoroastrianism, particularly to fill out the lack of an understanding of the divine that exists when you discount the Old Testament as being overtly politicized and edited). But I consider myself a follower of Jesus' teachings.

I think my quandary stems from the observation while reading the KJV that there's a lot of disagreeable content in some parts of the story that seem permitted, even supported by the Abrahamic God. David bought his first wife with the foreskins of 200 Philistines, and Saul was exhorted to kill even women in children in a perceived extermination of the Amalekites (Both from Samuel). Lot is revered as a righteous man of God, yet he impregnates his daughters.

This bothers me.

[Hurdegaryp]

It depends what you mean by too seriously.

I'm a Christian anarchist, which necessitates a certain level of criticism levelled at a good deal of the Bible (notably the Pauline Epistles and most of the entire Old Testament) in favour of the sermons by Jesus, etc. Tolstoy, who was one of the prominent Christian anarchists for a time, tended to focus on the Sermon of the Mount, and derived a lot of beliefs regarding non-violence from that sermon.

That is, of course, something many Christians, and many anarchists tend to disagree with, although for purely historiographical reasons it remains an underpinning feature of Christian anarchism.

And as a Christian anarchist, I personally don't consider myself (nor do most people I know consider me) to be taking the Bible too seriously. I'm a teetotaller, but because of person and familial medical history rather than religious concerns, and other that that, I'm generally pretty liberal.

That being said, many Christians would disagree that I am truly Christian, particularly because I have iffy theological beliefs (I have sympathies towards orthodox Zoroastrianism, particularly to fill out the lack of an understanding of the divine that exists when you discount the Old Testament as being overtly politicized and edited). But I consider myself a follower of Jesus' teachings.

I think my quandary stems from the observation while reading the KJV that there's a lot of disagreeable content in some parts of the story that seem permitted, even supported by the Abrahamic God. David bought his first wife with the foreskins of 200 Philistines, and Saul was exhorted to kill even women in children in a perceived extermination of the Amalekites (Both from Samuel). Lot is revered as a righteous man of God, yet he impregnates his daughters.

This bothers me.

Lot was seduced by his daughters after they got him drunk. Sometimes you have to take radical measures in order to guarantee the survival of the family name.

[The Grim Reaper]

I'm more or less certain she means "taking the Bible at its literary word".

Only literalists do that. A majority of Christians see the bible as an interpretative work. However, the Catholic/Orthodox tradition looks at the Bible as a tool to teach the oral tradition of the church, whereas Protestants believe in sola scriptura, which is the inspired reading of the bible, which is where modern literalism comes from.

Modern literalism is becoming unpopular even in more modern traditions stemming from Protestantism, slowly.

I used to go to a Pentacostal church (I ceased because of health issues), where there was active debate in the church management between older, prominent members, who were your old-fashioned literalists, and our younger membership, which included prominently a vehemently non-literalist Christian apologetic with a master's in theology, and a very active volunteer studying evolutionary microbiology.

[Saskisdi]

It depends what you mean by too seriously.

I'm a Christian anarchist, which necessitates a certain level of criticism levelled at a good deal of the Bible (notably the Pauline Epistles and most of the entire Old Testament) in favour of the sermons by Jesus, etc. Tolstoy, who was one of the prominent Christian anarchists for a time, tended to focus on the Sermon of the Mount, and derived a lot of beliefs regarding non-violence from that sermon.

That is, of course, something many Christians, and many anarchists tend to disagree with, although for purely historiographical reasons it remains an underpinning feature of Christian anarchism.

And as a Christian anarchist, I personally don't consider myself (nor do most people I know consider me) to be taking the Bible too seriously. I'm a teetotaller, but because of person and familial medical history rather than religious concerns, and other that that, I'm generally pretty liberal.

That being said, many Christians would disagree that I am truly Christian, particularly because I have iffy theological beliefs (I have sympathies towards orthodox Zoroastrianism, particularly to fill out the lack of an understanding of the divine that exists when you discount the Old Testament as being overtly politicized and edited). But I consider myself a follower of Jesus' teachings.

I'm more or less certain she means "taking the Bible at its literary word".

Only literalists do that. A majority of Christians see the bible as an interpretative work. However, the Catholic/Orthodox tradition looks at the Bible as a tool to teach the oral tradition of the church, whereas Protestants believe in sola scriptura, which is the inspired reading of the bible, which is where modern literalism comes from since, mind, literalism is a heresy for Catholics and Orthodox (heresy just means a formal error).

Yeah, taking the Bible completely literally is a horrible idea, seeing as how much of it is metaphorical.

[The Lacedaemonians]

Lot was seduced by his daughters after they got him drunk. Sometimes you have to take radical measures in order to guarantee the survival of the family name.

So does that imply that Christian morals can be bent in dire circumstances? Well sure they can at the whims of anybody, but would it be acceptable dogmatically? Are the daughters punished? Are there any hints that this act was frowned upon?

And that still doesn't deal with the matter of the foreskins. And calls for blatant genocide.

[Hurdegaryp]

I'm more or less certain she means "taking the Bible at its literary word".

Only literalists do that. A majority of Christians see the bible as an interpretative work. However, the Catholic/Orthodox tradition looks at the Bible as a tool to teach the oral tradition of the church, whereas Protestants believe in sola scriptura, which is the inspired reading of the bible, which is where modern literalism comes from.

Modern literalism is becoming unpopular even in more modern traditions stemming from Protestantism, slowly.

I used to go to a Pentacostal church (I ceased because of health issues), where there was active debate in the church management between older, prominent members, who were your old-fashioned literalists, and our younger membership, which included prominently a vehemently non-literalist Christian apologetic with a master's in theology, and a very active volunteer studying evolutionary microbiology.

The discussions they must have had! A good Protestant tradition, of course. It's why secularism developed so quickly in predominantly Protestant nations, because you can't let religious disputes get in the way of regular life and society.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think my quandary stems from the observation while reading the KJV that there's a lot of disagreeable content in some parts of the story that seem permitted, even supported by the Abrahamic God. David bought his first wife with the foreskins of 200 Philistines, and Saul was exhorted to kill even women in children in a perceived extermination of the Amalekites (Both from Samuel). Lot is revered as a righteous man of God, yet he impregnates his daughters.

This bothers me.

That is a problem which is explained by the fall of man.

A righteous man of God just means that he did more things than bad things as a human that were pleasing to God. This does not mean they did everything by the book. We know incest and murder is bad, however, the times depicted in Biblical literature in Canaan wasn't the best time ever, so there's that.

Also, Lot technically didn't impregnate them willingly, if you read Lot's story more carefully. Rather, by today's standards, his daughters pretty much raped him.

[Hurdegaryp]

Lot was seduced by his daughters after they got him drunk. Sometimes you have to take radical measures in order to guarantee the survival of the family name.

So does that imply that Christian morals can be bent in dire circumstances? Well sure they can at the whims of anybody, but would it be acceptable dogmatically? Are the daughters punished? Are there any hints that this act was frowned upon?

And that still doesn't deal with the matter of the foreskins. And calls for blatant genocide.

The Old Testament is a bit of a mess, and that is putting it mildly. Keep in mind that the Old Testament was compiled from a collection of Babylonian mythology, mutilated historical accounts and poetry over the course of centuries.

[The Lacedaemonians]

The Old Testament is a bit of a mess, and that is putting it mildly. Keep in mind that the Old Testament was compiled from a collection of Babylonian mythology, mutilated historical accounts and poetry over the course of centuries.

So why keep it? Why not just junk it?

Also, Lot technically didn't impregnate them willingly, if you read Lot's story more carefully. Rather, by today's standards, his daughters pretty much raped him.

What happened to the daughters after then? Are they punished?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Lot was seduced by his daughters after they got him drunk. Sometimes you have to take radical measures in order to guarantee the survival of the family name.

So does that imply that Christian morals can be bent in dire circumstances? Well sure they can at the whims of anybody, but would it be acceptable dogmatically? Are the daughters punished? Are there any hints that this act was frowned upon?

And that still doesn't deal with the matter of the foreskins. And calls for blatant genocide.

Well, they gave birth to who would become the Moabites and the Ammonites. Later on in the Bible it is shown they are people engaged in sinful acts and kicked out during the Israeli occupation of Canaan. So you could say he punished them, but in a low, simmering manner.

[The Lacedaemonians]

So you could say he punished them, but in a low, simmering manner.

I can sleep in peace tonight.

[The Grim Reaper]

I think my quandary stems from the observation while reading the KJV that there's a lot of disagreeable content in some parts of the story that seem permitted, even supported by the Abrahamic God. David bought his first wife with the foreskins of 200 Philistines, and Saul was exhorted to kill even women in children in a perceived extermination of the Amalekites (Both from Samuel). Lot is revered as a righteous man of God, yet he impregnates his daughters.

This bothers me.

Admittedly, my theology is by no means Nicenean, but my personal response.

Firstly, Biblical sources produce distasteful actions that were attributed to the Abrahamic God to defend indisputable acts. In some cases, this is because of translation errors. You need a theology or a history degree to discuss this in any depth, so I try not to speak like an expert on the matter - I certainly can't say if this responds to any of your comments. My theological background is particularly weak, admittedly. I don't consider this a valid rebuttal to your questions.

However, having googled the Lot story, which particularly intrigued me because it didn't seem to gel with my memory, the King James Version states that Lot was made drunk by his daughters, rather than the opposite.

Secondly, I'm non-Nicenean. The rules work differently if you reject the Council of Nicene, and are also in disagreement with everyone about everything - on this matter it's unlikely you'll find people I agree with, at least on NSG. My argument is that Abrahamism is not (or should not be) dualistic - there is no Satan as an independent pseudo-divine functionary. The Abrahamic God encompasses all, and is fundamentally 'human' - it is capable of changing its mind and developing, as a human would. Otherwise it would be impossible for something to be fully divine AND fully human, as Jesus was - divinity is a fairly big deal. I also reject the idea of temporal omnipresence - otherwise all development possible would have already been completed. Fundamentally, I'm a Christian who does not practice Christianity.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The Old Testament is a bit of a mess, and that is putting it mildly. Keep in mind that the Old Testament was compiled from a collection of Babylonian mythology, mutilated historical accounts and poetry over the course of centuries.

So why keep it? Why not just junk it?

Also, Lot technically didn't impregnate them willingly, if you read Lot's story more carefully. Rather, by today's standards, his daughters pretty much raped him.

What happened to the daughters after then? Are they punished?

We don't know if they are punished directly (as in, something befell the sisters within their lifetime) or not from a fair reading of the Bible. Nor is it something that could be read from any exegetical source. At best I can give you an answer of "I don't know" because the Bible doesn't dig further into Lot's story, only into Abraham's.

[The Grim Reaper]

Modern literalism is becoming unpopular even in more modern traditions stemming from Protestantism, slowly.

I used to go to a Pentacostal church (I ceased because of health issues), where there was active debate in the church management between older, prominent members, who were your old-fashioned literalists, and our younger membership, which included prominently a vehemently non-literalist Christian apologetic with a master's in theology, and a very active volunteer studying evolutionary microbiology.

The discussions they must have had! A good Protestant tradition, of course. It's why secularism developed so quickly in predominantly Protestant nations, because you can't let religious disputes get in the way of regular life and society.

The older member in particular was of the advanced age where no-one was really willing to debate with him, out of respect for his service. The other two were part of our church youth group, and did have very lively discussions, which I occasionally participated in.

My theological background is extremely light, though - much broader than deep. I was raised in a Buddhist household, so I don't really have the same understanding of Biblicalism that many in the West do, and I have radically different theological contexts - brought up in a Seventh-Day Adventist primary school, moved to a Catholic school whilst getting JW tutelage, and finished in an Anglican high school.

[Dyakovo]

Since I tend to read signatures, I could not help but notice that this wannabe pagan Viking is against Christians, yet he merrily makes use of the tradition of literacy introduced by those very same Christians. I guess he didn't think things through really deep, probably because his 'paganism' doesn't go much deeper than having listened to Amon Amarth.

I just don't understand why this is necessary.

It isn't, but then a lot of things aren't strictly necessary...

[Immoren]

moose and bacon pot. Going to be delish.

[Val Halla]

New college trip is being arranged. But there is a huge problem.


It's in Birmingham ;_;

[Hurdegaryp]

The Old Testament is a bit of a mess, and that is putting it mildly. Keep in mind that the Old Testament was compiled from a collection of Babylonian mythology, mutilated historical accounts and poetry over the course of centuries.

So why keep it? Why not just junk it?

Because the blood sacrifice of Jesus doesn't mean anything if you do away with the story of how sin came into this world as told by Genesis, based upon the older original Babylonian myth.

[Dyakovo]

Is it possible to be a Christian, or claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ or what he stood for, without taking the Bible too seriously?

I don't see why it wouldn't be...

[The Lacedaemonians]

moose and bacon pot. Going to be delish.

I as expecting bacon-scented/flavored cannabis. Needless to say I am disappointed.