religious

[osymandus]

The reason we had the children baptised as any Christian will tell you is that until they are able to form their own opinion enough to wish to be confirmed, then you have full responsibility for their spiritual well being. Traditionally, you need to have been baptised to gain entry into Heaven and obviously a baby cannot speak for themselves so the baby is baptised to protect them. This service should be witnessed and affirmed by the child's God parents who stand in lieu of the parents in case of their death.

This is the age old reason that people rushed to have sick babies baptised in hospital as they didn't want their babies to be denied access to Heaven.

A boo point for Christianity there , no other relgion requires a baptism ceremoney for the innocent or those who cannot talk or decide for themselves . In all forms of "magical" practice that is esstianly regarded as "black" magick your performing a rite on a an unwilling participent .

Mind you no other religion has original sin ;) (and neither did Christianity originally), after Dantes inferno was published the Church decided all innocnets not baptised went to the 9th (lowest ) level , its only in the last hundred years they changed that to purgatory (that now no longer exisits)

 

[A Century United]

A boo point for Christianity there , no other relgion requires a baptism ceremoney for the innocent or those who cannot talk or decide for themselves . In all forms of "magical" practice that is esstianly regarded as "black" magick your performing a rite on a an unwilling participent .

Mind you no other religion has original sin ;) (and neither did Christianity originally), after Dantes inferno was published the Church decided all innocnets not baptised went to the 9th (lowest ) level , its only in the last hundred years they changed that to purgatory (that now no longer exisits)

Christianity doesn't "require" infant baptism - there is certainly no call for it in the Bible. That is a choice made by some churches within the Christian Tradition, others choose only adult baptism. But how is a baby an "unwilling" participant? It is neither willing nor unwilling, and as you don't believe in Baptism it is obviously just an empty ritual, so why worry about it? It isn't a tatoo, or male or female circumcision which it might be argued shouldn't be carried out on children. (Female circumcision absolutely shouldn't but that's an argument for a different day). And if you are going to ban infant baptism, you had better ban all "naming ceremonies" for babies for exactly the same reason, there can be no logical difference.

How has Christianity not had original sin originally? Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament. Start of the Old Testament has the story of Adam and Eve being evicted from the Garden of Eden because of their sin - sin of Adam, original sinner/sin and Christians believe that we are all sinners because of Adam's original sin.

What parts of the Catholic Church decided about purgatory, etc isn't relevant either. You can't base a criticism about the whole Christian faith on what one part of it believes or believed. Every faith or religion has strong disagreements within it about how that faith is practiced.

 

[osymandus]

Christianity doesn't "require" infant baptism - there is certainly no call for it in the Bible. That is a choice made by some churches within the Christian Tradition, others choose only adult baptism. But how is a baby an "unwilling" participant? It is neither willing nor unwilling, and as you don't believe in Baptism it is obviously just an empty ritual, so why worry about it? It isn't a tatoo, or male or female circumcision which it might be argued shouldn't be carried out on children. (Female circumcision absolutely shouldn't but that's an argument for a different day). And if you are going to ban infant baptism, you had better ban all "naming ceremonies" for babies for exactly the same reason, there can be no logical difference.



How has Christianity not had original sin originally? Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament. Start of the Old Testament has the story of Adam and Eve being evicted from the Garden of Eden because of their sin - sin of Adam, original sinner/sin and Christians believe that we are all sinners because of Adam's original sin.

What parts of the Catholic Church decided about purgatory, etc isn't relevant either. You can't base a criticism about the whole Christian faith on what one part of it believes or believed. Every faith or religion has strong disagreements within it about how that faith is practiced.

Exactlly no bible presedent , however there was requirements for it by the early church and they set the precedent , you could only know salvation via christ by baptism into his grace. Im not critising the whole Christian faith .

It is unwilling if it has not given its consent. And i dont have blind faith in Baptism differnet thing , i do know that when rituals are performed they do leave a mark , as i myself am baptised into a gnostic faith (i work with ritauls if you recall) it can be a tatoo and it can leave a mark.

Indeed the affirmation was there however the transcreation of Adam and Eve was theres alone to bare , not passed on to their children . Original sin occured to bind people to a concept of salvation , a working away towards a removal of "mark" that only salvation could provide . And of course i agree if the different intreptations , and thats brilliant . But the ruling diosysis of the last 2000 years was not so open , nor willing to reinterpuret scripiture if it did not meet with an "offical" approval.

What parts of the Catholic Church decided about purgatory, etc isn't relevant either.

Well acutually it is as it forms a large basisi of what happens to you after death , the salavation part , what your working towards .

Did you kno w that Hell only aqquired its firey persona from Dantes Inferno, and that before that it was ice cold (like the Greek underworld or Hel from Norse thta its based on )

The dualistist morality was also aquired from zoroastrism good evil (that includeds Jewdism (its not really that old))

 

[Harold Bishop Killer]

After reading all 18 pages of this (my eyes are now read raw and seeing spots!) I think this is possibly the most thought provoking threads ever on SZ. (Ok havent read every single one ever written on here but of the ones I have over the years it is).

I think there is some very good, well written arguements here.

I fully agree with OBL in the thought that it should be 'each to their own'. As for me as youngester I attended Boys Brigade (anyone else attended?) its like the christian scouts. Anyway for about 4 years I attended church and sunday school and was quite a believer into God and all his teachings. Of course the saturday football games helped too! Anyway over time you get more opinionated and as you get older you get more cynical - why does this happen, what caused this and for me I started questioning the messages of God and what he stood for. But where as I have lost some faith in God I still believe there is a great being. Something we strive for through life to obtain.

And as a side thing - Jesus, Son of God. I am sypetical whether he was the son of god. But I do believe that there was a man called Jesus who was a preacher and died on a cross but I believe the miracles and such have arisen from a game of chinese whispers over years and most of these never occured.

I do sometimes wonder what the world would be like without relegion and beliefs? A quieter one for starters I reckon.

But as OBL has said - each to their own.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I do sometimes wonder what the world would be like without relegion and beliefs? A quieter one for starters I reckon.

"If god didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him": Voltaire

Also;

"I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays": Henry Youngman. :D

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Which is exactly why Henry VIII made his confession (or indicated his agreement to it in any case) on his death bed in the traditional RC way!

Ah, that's a different story, Kay - about the fact that Henry VIII, the Fidei Defensor (the Defender of the Roman Catholic Faith, a title which oddly English monarchs still use to this day) was the unlikeliest author of the Reformation from the point of view of personal convictions. Henry was a dyed-in-the-wool Roman Catholic, and had no desire to split from Rome.

Indeed, if it hadn't been for Catherine of Aragon's Uncle - Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor (rougly equivalent to a modern-day King of Germany) - then Henry may have had the win-win of divorcing Catherine (via a Papal Bull dissolving the marriage, which Cardinal Wolesey was in the process of getting him) and remaining Catholic.

Catherine was having none of it, however, and complained to her Uncle Charlie that she didn't want a divorce or to end up in a nunnery. Charles promptly pulled European rank by telling the Pope in no uncertain terms that he couldn't issue the Papal Bull dissolving the marriage, and Wolesey headed home a broken man (he died pretty shortly thereafter).

Henry was furious and despairing (especially as he was itching to tuck into Ms. Boleyn by this stage), but found an unlikely ally in Thomas Cromwell. He persuaded Henry, against Henry's personal convictions, that Henry could break with Rome, dump Catherine, tuck into Boleyn in the hope of getting a male heir, and dissolve the monasteries (which were, obviosuly, Catholic institutions). The last part was key - dissolving the monasteries would rid Henry of a powerful potential dissenting voice, and also enable him to get his hands on an enormous sum of money (over £2m - which is many billions in today's money) which Henry wanted in order to wage war in France - something Henry longed to do as he craved status in Europe as one of the "big boys" (when sadly, at the time, we weren't). And of course, it was a win for Cromwell, as a Protestant...

And that's how we broke with Rome. Not becuase Henry wanted to do so on a personal basis, but because it was financially expedient, and it also meant that he could plough into a different young lady whom he hoped would bring him a male heir (Boleyn didn't, sadly; it wasn't until he bumped her off and got together with Jane Seymour that Henry was given the male heir he craved). So, his "re-conversion" on his deathbed wasn't in the least unexpected.

Bit of a diverson there - sorry! But I do love a good bit of Tudor politics... ahh, I loved my History A-Level.

:)

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

The Bible contradicts itself at every turn. The God of Love that murders millions of people in Sodom & Gommorah?

Ah, that's the Old Testament again. Personally, I don't think I'm being terribly impious when I discount the vast majority of the Old Testament as being one or two interesting stories, but fundamentally, bunkum. It's the New Testament which has the teachings of Christ in it - and it's that which is, essentially, the bedrock of Christianity.

Personally, I've always felt that an "eye for an eye" - very much a Jewish concept - is bollox. I'll go with Jesus's "turn the other cheek". "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", as someone (Dalai Lama?) said. God of Love is very much an NT concept, MK.

The only thing I'd take from the OT is the Ten Commandments (which remain a fundamentally decent code for life and morality) and the Psalms (which are wonderful and inspirational, and help me to order my life and my faith when I think about them). Rest of the OT... meh.

Matt

 

[Song of the South Upper]

I respect another's right to worship as long as it is within the law and not a "false idol".

Under the 10 Commandments, any god other than the christian god is a "false god". And it doe confuse me when people hold up the 10 commandments as being a good guide to living life. Obviously, honouring your mother and father, not killing people or coveting their ***, fine. But four of them are about honouring god, not about living with your fellow man. And the punishment for breaking these commandments? Death. Which seems a tad extreme for taking the lord's name in vain...

And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

[A Century United]

Ah, that's the Old Testament again. Personally, I don't think I'm being terribly impious when I discount the vast majority of the Old Testament as being one or two interesting stories, but fundamentally, bunkum. It's the New Testament which has the teachings of Christ in it - and it's that which is, essentially, the bedrock of Christianity.

Personally, I've always felt that an "eye for an eye" - very much a Jewish concept - is bollox. I'll go with Jesus's "turn the other cheek". "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", as someone (Dalai Lama?) said. God of Love is very much an NT concept, MK.

The only thing I'd take from the OT is the Ten Commandments (which remain a fundamentally decent code for life and morality) and the Psalms (which are wonderful and inspirational, and help me to order my life and my faith when I think about them). Rest of the OT... meh.

Matt

I think you are being a bit unfair on the OT there Matt. For a start, Jesus affirmed it's authority by quoting from it and using it in arguements.

Secondly, large parts of it "pre-configure" Christ, especially in Isiah where there are an astonishing number of predictions about the coming Messiah, which Christ fulfilled in his life.

Thirdly, Jesus himself said that he didn't come to abolish the Law but add to it. He did then go on to say that the point of the Law was not to give Man a hard time, but to show that Man couldn't attain eternal life by just trying to live a good life, because it was beyond anyone to keep all the laws and thus to "earn" salvation, therefore we need Jesus to intercede for us.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I think you are being a bit unfair on the OT there Matt. For a start, Jesus affirmed it's authority by quoting from it and using it in arguements.

Secondly, large parts of it "pre-configure" Christ, especially in Isiah where there are an astonishing number of predictions about the coming Messiah, which Christ fulfilled in his life.

Fair point. Any bits of the OT which Jesus quotes are, in true lawyer-speak, "incorporated by reference" into the NT...

:cool:

 

[Firestorm]

Under the 10 Commandments, any god other than the christian god is a "false god". And it doe confuse me when people hold up the 10 commandments as being a good guide to living life. Obviously, honouring your mother and father, not killing people or coveting their ***, fine. But four of them are about honouring god, not about living with your fellow man. And the punishment for breaking these commandments? Death. Which seems a tad extreme for taking the lord's name in vain...

Technically the God refered to in the 10 Commandments (and thus the Old Testament) was not a Christian God, as "Christianity" came after the New Testament.

Presumably as Jesus was Jewish (Not half-Jewish) one can assume that God was Jewish also, therefore God followed a different religion to the one his son was telling people to spread the word about...

 

[Song of the South Upper]

Technically the God refered to in the 10 Commandments (and thus the Old Testament) was not a Christian God, as "Christianity" came after the New Testament.

Presumably as Jesus was Jewish (Not half-Jewish) one can assume that God was Jewish also, therefore God followed a different religion to the one his son was telling people to spread the word about...

Ah but if God is omniscient then he would have known Christianity would be around at some point.

Will that do?

 

[Firestorm]

Ah but if God is omniscient then he would have known Christianity would be around at some point.

Will that do?

Logic just doesn't work with religion does it ?

I mean, we all say we are decended from Adam and Eve, don't we. yet there is the Flood mentioned in the OT which killed everything except those on the Ark, but you don't hear anyone say we are all descended from Noah.

 

[osymandus]

Ah, that's the Old Testament again. Personally, I don't think I'm being terribly impious when I discount the vast majority of the Old Testament as being one or two interesting stories, but fundamentally, bunkum. It's the New Testament which has the teachings of Christ in it - and it's that which is, essentially, the bedrock of Christianity.

Personally, I've always felt that an "eye for an eye" - very much a Jewish concept - is bollox. I'll go with Jesus's "turn the other cheek". "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", as someone (Dalai Lama?) said. God of Love is very much an NT concept, MK.

The only thing I'd take from the OT is the Ten Commandments (which remain a fundamentally decent code for life and morality) and the Psalms (which are wonderful and inspirational, and help me to order my life and my faith when I think about them). Rest of the OT... meh.

Matt

Mr Ghandhi said that MTS , however i disagree . TO murder is to take the life of another wantanly and with prejudice. To defend yousrlf or strike back in defence is another (theres aslo a refernce that the thouh shalt not kill is a varition of a Hindu concept of you should not kill too many tigers (its a vauge refernce and ill have to look it up ), i.e more to do with balance and relevant action and relevant time. Again in Ghandis case his passafism worked in the protest , his inability to defend or prevent his own death led to fair greater death and upleasentness for his followers.

Also far differnet era , totoms of gods at the time (and the Ark of the covanat was used in this manner) were used as banners for wars and battles

 

[osymandus]

Logic just doesn't work with religion does it ?

I mean, we all say we are decended from Adam and Eve, don't we. yet there is the Flood mentioned in the OT which killed everything except those on the Ark, but you don't hear anyone say we are all descended from Noah.

Well killed everything except marine life , amphians and water fowl (at a guess). It was designed to wash away the nephalim , who were giants created by an order of Angels who bred with humans ;)

 

[Mad Cyril]

If the bible was that good someone would have made a film about it.

That's the way I see it anyway.

 

[osymandus]

If the bible was that good someone would have made a film about it.

That's the way I see it anyway.

They did , its called The Matrix ;)

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Technically the God refered to in the 10 Commandments (and thus the Old Testament) was not a Christian God, as "Christianity" came after the New Testament.

Presumably as Jesus was Jewish (Not half-Jewish) one can assume that God was Jewish also, therefore God followed a different religion to the one his son was telling people to spread the word about...

Presumably Marx wasn't Marxist either, as that term hadn't been coined at the time he wrote Das Kapital.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

If the bible was that good someone would have made a film about it.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Have you not seen Life of Brian?

 

[osymandus]

Presumably Marx wasn't Marxist either, as that term hadn't been coined at the time he wrote Das Kapital.

Technicaly yes, or did he ever name his own philosphy ?