The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Too bad people get so hung up on gathering in a certain building at a certain time of the day and day of the week and that's something more important than other times of the day and days of the week. As the guy in Fiddler on the Roof says "Tradition!".

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Too bad people get so hung up on gathering in a certain building at a certain time of the day and day of the week and that's something more important than other times of the day and days of the week. As the guy in Fiddler on the Roof says "Tradition!".

Though as we have discussed before, there is something to be said for the fellowship of actually all being in one place at one time for one purpose. Prayers offered up on Wednesday afternoons are no less effective than Sunday mornings (spoiler: they are each exactly zero effective), but spreading people all through the week dissipates the companionship of the service. And, of course, having a mandatory time and place does make you interrupt what you're doing, which is a part of devotion, rather than fitting it around your busy TV schedule.

Were I religious, I think I would want the structure and "annoyance" of a set service time and place, because it contributes to short-circuiting the mundane life and forcing one to contemplate the divine.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Though as we have discussed before, there is something to be said for the fellowship of actually all being in one place at one time for one purpose. Prayers offered up on Wednesday afternoons are no less effective than Sunday mornings (spoiler: they are each exactly zero effective), but spreading people all through the week dissipates the companionship of the service. And, of course, having a mandatory time and place does make you interrupt what you're doing, which is a part of devotion, rather than fitting it around your busy TV schedule.

Were I religious, I think I would want the structure and "annoyance" of a set service time and place, because it contributes to short-circuiting the mundane life and forcing one to contemplate the divine.

Yes, we agree that getting together for fellowship is a good thing. It can be helpful for people to have set times/places where they'll get together, but fundamentally if you are into what you believe and enjoy it, you aren't going to be fitting it around the TV schedule, the TV schedule will fit around it. Agreed that doing something sunday morning is not inherently more effective than any other time of the week, though we don't agree on its "effectiveness" (though "effectiveness" isn't a term I'd use, as it is too focused on what the end result is and not on the process itself).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Yes, we agree that getting together for fellowship is a good thing. It can be helpful for people to have set times/places where they'll get together, but fundamentally if you are into what you believe and enjoy it, you aren't going to be fitting it around the TV schedule, the TV schedule will fit around it. Agreed that doing something sunday morning is not inherently more effective than any other time of the week, though we don't agree on its "effectiveness" (though "effectiveness" isn't a term I'd use, as it is too focused on what the end result is and not on the process itself).

It comes down to whether religion is, at least in part, inherently social. I was struck recently reading Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of the "feast of fools." The author thinks the ordinary understanding of inverting the normal master/slave relations (the king is a peasant, the fool is a king, men and women exchange dress, etc...) was really secondary to the real emotional impact of carnival. In carnival, he thinks, individuality melts into a single communal voice and mind, and people, as much as they ever can, "lose themselves." This has a lot of echoes in the Bacchanal and other early forms of public worship that are the precursor of public religious observance. Early religion is not a personal relationship with the divine -- in fact it's the opposite: Agamemnon must sacrifice Iphigenia in a public ritual -- that's the stripping away of the personal for the communal will, not just anybody's, but the king's who under normal earthly circumstances has the broadest range of personal will. Jesus' sacrifice is likewise, although it takes it to the highest possible level -- not just a king but a god. I'm convinced that the idea of quiet, personal contemplation is the later imposition of the Greek Platonic philosophic temperament on Jesus' original, eastern community expression. And even so, the history of Christianity is a sort of class division between elites with a fragile, Apollonian, private contemplation of an intellectual God and the masses with the raucous, Dionysian, communal worship of a physical God.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

It comes down to whether religion is, at least in part, inherently social. I was struck recently reading Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of the "feast of fools." The author thinks the ordinary understanding of inverting the normal master/slave relations (the king is a peasant, the fool is a king, men and women exchange dress, etc...) was really secondary to the real emotional impact of carnival. In carnival, he thinks, individuality melts into a single communal voice and mind, and people, as much as they ever can, "lose themselves." This has a lot of echoes in the Bacchanal and other early forms of public worship that are the precursor of public religious observance. Early religion is not a personal relationship with the divine -- in fact it's the opposite: Agamemnon must sacrifice Iphigenia in a public ritual -- that's the stripping away of the personal for the communal will, not just anybody's, but the king's who under normal earthly circumstances has the broadest range of personal will. Jesus' sacrifice is likewise, although it takes it to the highest possible level -- not just a king but a god. I'm convinced that the idea of quiet, personal contemplation is the later imposition of the Greek Platonic philosophic temperament on Jesus' original, eastern community expression. And even so, the history of Christianity is a sort of class division between elites with a fragile, Apollonian, private contemplation of an intellectual God and the masses with the raucous, Dionysian, communal worship of a physical God.

I'll leave you to your discussion of Greek religion and such. Doesn't sound remotely like anything I've read or heard about the history of Christianity, and I've read a lot on it over the years. My experience is that healthy Christian experiences have both personal/individual aspects and communal aspects, and in no way is one sacrificed or the lesser because of the other.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I'll leave you to your discussion of Greek religion and such. Doesn't sound remotely like anything I've read or heard about the history of Christianity, and I've read a lot on it over the years. My experience is that healthy Christian experiences have both personal/individual aspects and communal aspects, and in no way is one sacrificed or the lesser because of the other.

While not wrong, that is irrelevant. There's a point at which I've gotta give up. Sounds like you've reached it to. For whatever reason, this is one topic on which neither of us appears capable of understanding a lick of what the other is saying.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I honestly cannot understand how one can think simply singing some songs, doing some reading, and listening can be enough to appease an all knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent being.

It doesn't. Nothing we can do will appease God, hence the need for a Savior. It's a chance to say thanks or ask for help in an organized manner, though one can thank him and ask for help anytime any place we want.

Google "opportunity cost" and then get back to me once you understand that concept.

LOL, you are such a serious type. You must have one hard time figuring out where to eat lunch.....and then what to eat!

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

It doesn't. Nothing we can do will appease God, hence the need for a Savior.

"When I was back there in seminary school..."

 

[burd]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

"When I was back there in seminary school..."

This is the end, my only friend, the end
It hurts to set you free
But you'll never follow me
The end of laughter and soft lies
The end of nights we tried to die
This is the end

The Lizard King

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Google "opportunity cost" and then get back to me once you understand that concept.

Sure - he's decided his time is worth Sunday church, because even if there isn't a God, he hedged his bet anyway and got something positive out of the experience. You and I, not believing in an afterlife, have decided other pursuits most likely have a better payoff. Perception of risk can be subjective.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Sure - he's decided his time is worth Sunday church, because even if there isn't a God, he hedged his bet anyway and got something positive out of the experience. You and I, not believing in an afterlife, have decided other pursuits most likely have a better payoff. Perception of risk can be subjective.

Well said. We all pursue different things with our time and energy, based on our own considerations of what has value or not.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Sure - he's decided his time is worth Sunday church, because even if there isn't a God, he hedged his bet anyway and got something positive out of the experience. You and I, not believing in an afterlife, have decided other pursuits most likely have a better payoff. Perception of risk can be subjective.

Real Christians don't go to church to fulfill a deal to get to heaven. A main reason they go is because its a great experience and makes the choice of church important to many of us. A person like Lynah would likely go and not have a positive or even neutral experience...but a negative experience regardless. Folks like that shouldn't go to church...and if they want to dabble in Chrisianity, find different means to do so.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I'll have to do some digging on that, I do not know. What I can say is whether Paul "advanced" it, or Jesus said it and it was recorded in the Gospels, it's all the word of God, so I'm not sure, at least to me, that it matters what earthly being said or recorded it. It's all equal according to the Bible itself.

I guess we may be different Christians then (nothing wrong with that). You hold the Bible as the ultimate authority...I Jesus.

 

[unofan]

Real Christians don't go to church to fulfill a deal to get to heaven. A main reason they go is because its a great experience and makes the choice of church important to many of us.

So the majority of practicing Catholics aren't "real" Christians then, since most only go because they're told from an early age that it's a sin not to? (Insert your own joke here about no Catholic being Christian since they're all idolterers).

Pretty soon the list of "real" Christians based on your qualifiers is going to be limited to you. I'm betting you've got one somewhere that would disqualify the Pope.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I guess we may be different Christians then (nothing wrong with that). You hold the Bible as the ultimate authority...I Jesus.

Those two (Bible and Jesus) should not be an either/or proposition.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So the majority of practicing Catholics aren't "real" Christians then, since most only go because they're told from an early age that it's a sin not to? (Insert your own joke here about no Catholic being Christian since they're all idolterers).

Pretty soon the list of "real" Christians based on your qualifiers is going to be limited to you. I'm betting you've got one somewhere that would disqualify the Pope.

Having been raised Catholic before I rejected all the pomp and circumstance, I think this is rather extreme. In my experience, to say that "most" Catholics only go to Mass out of fear for punishment in the afterlife is very 1950s. There are a lot of people who call themselves Catholic, but don't go to Mass every Sunday. In today's world, these folks don't consider it a mortal sin.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So the majority of practicing Catholics aren't "real" Christians then, since most only go because they're told from an early age that it's a sin not to? (Insert your own joke here about no Catholic being Christian since they're all idolterers).

Pretty soon the list of "real" Christians based on your qualifiers is going to be limited to you. I'm betting you've got one somewhere that would disqualify the Pope.

Not exactly what I said...I said real Christians don't go to church only to fulfill a deal to get them to heaven. I don't imagine children go to fulfill that deal...I'm guessing they go because their parents want them to. I also think its a factual statement to say that many do go because of the great experience it gives them.

I am of the belief that folks that stray far from primary Jesus positions aren't real Christians. I don't know that a simple belief of God's existence will get you into heaven, if you have no respect for Jesus or the Word. But I freely admit that's my own definition...and maybe that of wiki. Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Christos, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Māšîăḥ, meaning "the anointed one", together with the Latin suffixes -ian and -itas) is an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.

Those two (Bible and Jesus) should not be an either/or proposition.

Agreed. But there are 10s of thousands of positions in the Bible. Maybe someone can be great at all of them. I have yet to meet them. So whether Christians like to think so or not, everyone prioritizes on what to actually take from it. I happen to think this prioritization is one of the most critical factors in determining one's faith. Sometimes the priorities are based on what someone tells them it should be (a paster), but its usually based on their likes/dislikes, political pov or other personal bias. I knowingly prioritize so I can focus on what's most constructive...and in doing so, base it on if it comes directly from Jesus (God). I believe that when Jesus came to the earth, he did so to set the record straight. So when I see folks who call themselves Christians who don't represent well (Westboro and others) its crystal clear that they are using some other part of the Bible. Hence I have a conclusion that trying to focus on satisfying the whole Bible can cause some to be misled...while focusing on satisfying Jesus just can't.

IMHO

 

[The Rube]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Not exactly what I said...I said real Christians don't go to church only to fulfill a deal to get them to heaven. I don't imagine children go to fulfill that deal...I'm guessing they go because their parents want them to. I also think its a factual statement to say that many do go because of the great experience it gives them.

I am of the belief that folks that stray far from primary Jesus positions aren't real Christians. I don't know that a simple belief of God's existence will get you into heaven, if you have no respect for Jesus or the Word. But I freely admit that's my own definition...and maybe that of wiki. Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Christos, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Māšîăḥ, meaning "the anointed one", together with the Latin suffixes -ian and -itas) is an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.

I don't believe in organized church. Period. To me, religion is very personal. It's a "deal" (for lack of better word) between the person and his/her God. Church MAY be involved, sure, but it's not required. You and your God set your own terms. *shrug* just my two cents.

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

One thing that I either don't like, or can't understand about church is this notion of doubt being bad. "You doubt this? You're plagued by demons!"

Thomas gets a bad rap, or, as Paul Tillich wrote, "doubt is not the opposite of faith, it is an element of faith."

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

One thing that I either don't like, or can't understand about church is this notion of doubt being bad. "You doubt this? You're plagued by demons!"

Thomas gets a bad rap.

Doubt = plagued by Demons? That's some twisted thinking there.

Thomas was just an imperfect human like us, I don't hold his doubt against him. We all struggle with different things. Thomas is a Saint compared to Peter, who denied him 3 times. Peter also did other things that basically p/o'ed Jesus. It must have been mind blowing to follow Jesus, there was so much coming at the Disciples, so much to process. These guys weren't even trained Jewish Clergy.