(OT) Tomorrow's Earth Day and.....

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:02 pm

Lorenzo wrote:
According to the scriptures, you can have it both ways.

You're suggesting that the Deity may be androgynous?

I think androgynous refers to a state of being that isn't really male or female, having both qualities would be different. I really think the Deity/Deities is/are really unconcerned with what people think their genetalia look like, though. There are more pressing issues.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:02 pm

Yes, also that humanity had turned away from God,
and God, acting from great sacrificial love,
became incarnate in a man so as to reach out to us.
Especially he descended in to the depths of
human alienation from God, went to the
lowest place a man could go, a humiliating and agonizing
death by crucifixion (people mocking him, spitting
on him) so that through his death and resurrection
he could draw us all--no matter how alienated,
despised, depraved-- back to him.
So I think perhaps the most important
moment in the crucifixion was the terrifying
cry from the cross: 'Father, why hast thou
forsaken me!' God had descended as deeply
into human alienation from God as he could possibly
go. Hence the next utterance: 'It is accomplished.'

All the major religions are at least in part
a response to the problem of suffering.
It's hard to find a more moving response
than this. Sooner or later you
will find yourself on the cross.
In the depths of agony and
despair there is extraordinary meaning,
hope, and new life--in this world or
the next.

Something like this has been the
close to the core of Christian belief
for thousands of years, it's biblical,
and to me it's the doctrine
of Christianity that's most interesting
and meaningful. I suppose that
at some point everybody who considers
himself/herself to be a Christian
needs to engage it--that is,
grapple with it (just as everybody
who considers herself to be a Buddhist
at some time needs to engage
the core teaching of classical Buddhism,
which isn't the same thing as
accepting it.) Of course it matters
considerably less who is or isn't
a Christian or what one must
believe to be one, etc.

As to God's gender, he's a daddy god,
not a mommy god. It's a matter of personality.
Female gods were typically earth gods,
fertility gods--and they tend to be
pretty bloodthirsty, in fact.
Sky gods were male e.g. Indra
in India, warlike, and concerned
about justice and laying down
the law. The God of the
Torah is one of those. Best

cowtime · Post by **cowtime** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:45 pm

Cranberry wrote:
I really don't see why it's so hard to define "Christianity". It's simple.
A christian believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of the one true God, sent to earth to pay the ultimate price for our sins, that he was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead , and is still alive in heaven.
With all due respect cowtime (and I really mean that), says who? And what gives them the right to say that I'm not Christian because I don't follow those exact beliefs?

Question 1-Says who?

I think God says so through His Word.)

Question 2- I don't know who "them" are.

or why they say anything.

I was just stating my understanding of- what is a Christian- and the basic core beliefs of all Christians,as I understand them, regardless of denomination.
I am a Christian, but will not judge another, I can only speak for myself.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:55 pm

*vomits*

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:57 pm

Cranberry wrote:*vomits*

Opposed to the notion that Christian orthodoxy exists?

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:00 pm

edit - Actually I changed my mind to I don't know. Each time this boat rides around I hop on, which is really stupid considering I don't even know where it'll take me. Gotta learn to stop doing that.

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:30 pm

cowtime wrote:Josephus is not the last word. There are historical documents pointing to his having existed. In fact , (if I am remembering this correctly) C.S. Lewis was one famous critic, who became a convert after he set out to write a book debunking Christianity. The evidence persuaded him.

BUT- The Christian is blessed by belief without proof- faith. Jesus said those who have seen and believed are blessed, but those who have not seen , and believe, are even more blessed.

That's it...you've got it right.

"Blind Faith" = "not seen" Jn. 20 & Heb.11.
Blind faith = gullible. The story is great, but really, it takes more than a story. I'd like to see the evidence Lewis saw. Saul (Paul) apparently had none, and finally blurts it out, "Faith...is the evidence." Really? His faith is his evidence? That wouldn't work in any court in this country, except maybe maybe L.A.

Edit note: I changed nothing, just experimenting to see if a person can edit a year later without the post automatically saying so, like apparently creanberry has done here.

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:56 pm

Redwolf wrote:The beans I couldn't do without are Bush's Chili Beans...mmmm! We didn't have them here when I first left California for North Carolina, and I discovered and fell in love with them in Durham. I was glad to see that California had discovered them by the time I got back...I was worried I'd have to have them shipped in by the case!

Redwolf

I've been thinking about this all week since you mentioned it, and finally tonight, I pulled out some of Bush's Non-Fat Vegetarian Baked Beans. And...remembering the cornbread thread, combined the two. That was a treat!

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Thu May 01, 2003 2:05 am

Cranberry wrote:With all due respect cowtime (and I really mean that), says who? And what gives them the right to say that I'm not Christian because I don't follow those exact beliefs?

That's silly, Cranberry (IMHO, of course). You can of course use the term "Christianity" in any way you like, but if your use differs significantly from everyone else's, it becomes meaningless. Sort of like me insisting on calling my flutes "trumpets", and cracking down on people who point out that in fact trumpets are a differend kind of instrument altogether.

Anyway, here's what Merriam-Webster's online dictionary has to say on the subject:

Merriam-Webster wrote: Main Entry: Chris·tian·i·ty
Pronunciation: "kris-chE-'a-n&-tE, "krish-, -'cha-n&-, "kris-tE-'a-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Thu May 01, 2003 2:09 am

jim stone wrote:As to God's gender, he's a daddy god,
not a mommy god.

That's wonderful, Jim!

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Thu May 01, 2003 7:22 am

Thanks!

About orthodox Christianity, I once thought
it was silly, but the more I've learned about
it the less silly it seems. Also you get people
like Augustine and Aquinas explaining it,
who are wonderful. To me Christianity
is at its most interesting there.

In my experience, the people who
blast this sort of thing know the
least about it. Definitely rewards
study. Best

TelegramSam · Post by **TelegramSam** » Thu May 01, 2003 8:18 am

jim stone wrote: As to God's gender, he's a daddy god,
not a mommy god. It's a matter of personality.
Female gods were typically earth gods,
fertility gods--and they tend to be
pretty bloodthirsty, in fact.
Sky gods were male e.g. Indra
in India, warlike, and concerned
about justice and laying down
the law. The God of the
Torah is one of those. Best

"one of those"??? I don't believe any of "those" gods exist (no offence intended to those who do), therefore why should I think that they have any reflection or bearing on the nature of the one God? God is what God is, and I don't think any mortal has the brains to fully comprehend even the basics about the true nature of God. Gender as it exists on Earth may very well be nothing like anything existing outside of this corporeal world.
As far as "laying down the law" and "justice" goes, is God not merciful as well? It seems to me that God has dealt with the world much differently since the coming of Christ than in the old testament, and doesn't fit your "Indra" character much anymore (and never *really* did).

Whatever. This argument started out as a tongue-in-cheek thing before you went and got all serious about it.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Thu May 01, 2003 10:27 am

Camille Paglia wrote extensively on the differences between female goddess earthiness "cthonian" versus male God etherealness "apollonian" and the manifestations via religious practices and belief systems. Ties in with the change from hunger-gatherer to agricultural activities. Pretty good stuff.

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Thu May 01, 2003 10:52 am

jim stone wrote: About orthodox Christianity, I once thought
it was silly, but the more I've learned about
it the less silly it seems. Also you get people
like Augustine and Aquinas explaining it,
who are wonderful. To me Christianity
is at its most interesting there.

"Orthodox" can mean just about anything in christian history. James, and the original diciples, never got a chance to establish a tradition according to the savior they knew, because of Saul. Paul stepped in, changed a lot of the beliefs, and established a newer, better form of christianity that we know today. What we have today was tailored for Gentiles. The original form of christianity died long ago, perhaps before the term was even invented.

And, God forbid we repeat any of the "orthodoxisms" of the Dark ages. I be one for overthrowing "the church" during Medieval France, and casting the pope into prison.

Ridseard · Post by **Ridseard** » Thu May 01, 2003 10:58 am

I just want to point out that orthodox Christianity, as defined by cowtime in her paraphrase of the Apostles Creed, is based on the New Testament writings of Paul. Jesus' teachings were were more concerned with morality than theology, although they had a mystical element (the notion of union with God).

I think it is legitimate to apply the term "Christian" to anyone who attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus, regardless of their attitude toward Pauline theology (although this usage is by no means orthodox).

EDIT. Lorenzo beat me to it while I was composing the above post.