I saw this on the CNN website, and personally, as a Christian aware of the history of us being fed to lions and the cost of what it means to be a Christian in other countries even today, I found it a little alarming. Religion is still well and strong in my neck of the woods, but apparently not so much in other places. Or, does CNN just attract atheists and anti-religious people?
Anyway, check out the website and the comments left by readers on it and let me know what you think. I tried to tell my son the other day Christianity wasn't in danger of fading away, and his response was pretty much, "You mean like those who followed Egyptian gods or Apollo?" So, does anyone know of a religion that has been around continuously longer than Christianity? Yeah, I know I could do the research myself, and probably will. Anyway, that's for another post. I'm interested to know what your response is to the people who commented on CNN's story. Do you think that's typical of what's going on in the USA, the same as it's always been, or a backlash against religion in light of recent world events?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/23/faith.reader.feedback/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Longer than Christianity, but still exist?
Buddhism
Hinduism
Zoroastrism
Judahism
Paganism
To mention just a few.
Religion has alway been under attack. That is one of history's driving forces. People have always been killed and conquered because of religion, but it is always by another religion and is almost always for economic reasons.
But what many Americans see as attacking their religion is no more than something or someone stepping on their mores and norms. It is more a territorial/biological imperative being attacked than a assault on the spirit and they can't tell the difference.
Doc's list is a good, to which I would add Chinese animism, also known as Toaism, "the Way".
Yes, oh yes Taoism. Also add Shintoism, Confucianism, and Jainism. There are probably more that we haven't thought of. Off to wickedthepedia to see what's there.
You know, I just can't get my hackles up over the idea of "religion" under attack,. I mean, I don't want any legitimate social institution to be under "attack."
I think the question is too broad. I "attack" what I perceive as wrong about the Christian Right all the time. But the Christian Right rocks on. The liberal Christian tradition I have chosen to adhere to nowadays has been under "attack" by biblical literalists and fundamentalists for 100-plus years. The old "once-saved-always-saved" idea has been at odds with those who believe God lets his people "fall away," with eternal security advocates in the middle who, if pressed, believe that believers can willingly turn away.
And that's just within traditional Christianity.
I don't care. Not to sound snippy! But so what? Twas always thus.
BTW: Here's my redneck doctrine on salvation:
If you want to be saved, you're saved. Because even the desire itself is a divine spark, without which no human can commune with God, and the desire, by definition, is both an acknowledgment that one is in need and an expression of willingness to accept help. (Slim, think about that. A corrolary to this is my budding idea that the message of the Gospel, rather than "Repent and be saved" is "You're saved! Now go and sin no more." Of course "working out" one's salavation, that is, meditation and learning all the ramifications, takes the rest of one's life.")
If you don't want to be saved, then you're not. Simple as that. God does not force God's self on anyone. The lack of desire reveals lack of the mystical, and perhaps mythical, and, I admit, possibly merely rhetorical, divine spark. And if you don't want to be saved, and you're not saved, you don't care.
Those, who in Baptist-speak, are "under conviction" are in the very birth canal, if you will, of being born again. I think they all make it. Being "under conviction," itself, is the work of God, and what God starts, I believe God finishes -- and now I've come full circle!
Eternal security of the believer can't be based on belief, even if that means "trust" rather than "acknowledge intellectually" (which it does), for we all doubt, which means none who believe can "fall way."
I admit the question of whether a believer can willingly turn from the faith is an open one, to me. I don't know.
I may make part of the above a post at my joint.
Checking the web,I was reminded that some pre-Christian religions are those that you are "biologically born" into.
I would call them "Ethnic Only Religions".
1. Judaism is the prime example.
2. Romani (Gypsies) is another good example. Romani as a religion began in India as the worship of Kali. Thus it would be a branch off of Hinduism (plus maybe local beliefs). It, like all religions, has evolved.
3. Maybe not to be seen as a "world" religion but I'll include Yazdanism which the Yazidi practice because they have been in the news lately. Yazdanism is an old (pre-c.e.) offshoot of Zoroasterism. They are the Religious group in NW Iraq that the Sunni truck bombers have been blowing away recently.(now that is Religion under Attack!) Now part of the Kurdish tribes, the Yazidi beleive they were born of Adam not Eve, before Eve was made. All other humans came from Eve.
So you can only be born into Yazdanism. The Sunni think they worship Satan.
ER, since you brought this up, I'm just curious to know if you have a specific Bible verse in mind when you say this..
"If you want to be saved, you're saved. Because even the desire itself is a divine spark, without which no human can commune with God, and the desire, by definition, is both an acknowledgment that one is in need and an expression of willingness to accept help."
Re,drlobojo: "Religion has alway been under attack."
Yes, of course, you're right. It has been. Sometimes I let the media hype to a story point me in the wrong direction. That, plus, I'm pretty sheltered living where I do when it comes to by beliefs.
Is there any argument out there that claims Christianty started before Abraham? I mean, did all the people before Abraham have no knowledge of the one, true God, and I'm not talking about how they can see God in the beauty of a flower, I mean how does Christianity explain that?
Dang, I've got to get to work. I'll catch up with everyone tomorrow.
Seeker: No.
Seeker said:
"Is there any argument out there that claims Christianty started before Abraham? I mean, did all the people before Abraham have no knowledge of the one, true God, and I'm not talking about how they can see God in the beauty of a flower, I mean how does Christianity explain that?"
There are many elaborate attempts to explain away this "problem". Some say for example when Jesus decended into Hell during that three day weekend excursion after Golgatha that he brought knowledge of his salvation to all those who came before.
But let me refer to something I read recently that may impact on your thoughts about this.
In reading the history of the American Indian tribe the Ojibway written in 1852 by a college educated Ojibway, the son of a White trader and an Ojibway woman, I encountered this :
The Ojibway believed in a great oversoul and creator, who is so great and powerful and good that he is unapproachable and can not be known. That is why the Ojibway used others, such as the spirits of the lakes and forest and animals to speak to this greater being on their behalf.
This concept is not unique just to the Ojibway or to North America.
Seeker, for documents go to :
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg
Probably Psalms. To find sentiments reflective of what I said. Maybe not. I'm not real big on hanging the ideas I have on specific Bible verses; you can justify about anything by selecting the right verses.
Alert: I retract my want-to-divine-spark remark, not because I don't think it's true, but because it's not worded very well. What I mean by "saved" is more than, well, "saved." It's the old salvation-as-fire-insurance thing again. I don't mean just "saved.' I mean, if someone wants to commune with God, have a covenant relationship with God, or describe it however you want, I think the want-to is the first inkling. If there is no want-to, then no amount of preaching, teaching or anything, matters.
And -- and this is the real benefit of these kinds of discussions -- my concern that my words might be misunderstood had me up at 4:30 this morning, flipping through the epistles. To hear Paul tell it, there's really no way around the two-step of 1. Trust and 2., Confess.
Now, Paul said "confess with your mouth," and I'm sure in his time and place that was critical. Nowadays, I would think that any public acknowledgement of a relationship with God through Christ would be sufficient. But I could be wrong.
ER staying up a chunk of the night thinking about your theology is good for the soul, but not maybe so good for the corpreal.
There you go. Back to the Basics. Saved, what does that mean? Salvation, from what are we seeking salvation? To what are we being saved? By whom? Why?
The variety of answers within Christianity is amazing.
"Salvation", was that a Jewish or Greek concept? Is it Paul's or Jesus's or Peter's idea?
Sorry, got carried away.
There will be a essay exam on this next Tuesday, bring your bluebooks and an an ink pen. Results will count for one third of your final grade.
Well, I am of the school that thinks that what we know of what Jesus said and did is more important than what we know of what others said about him.
Jesus showed us The Way to be saved, which, really, was more along the lines of a correction than a revelation:
Love God and love love neighbor as yourself. Empty yourself of yourself for God and others. Etc.
Which the religious leaders of his time had forgotten. At least that's what I read.
James seems to have gotten it best. Peter clung to his Judaism until the bitter end. Paul started a religion.
Could it be that the biggest hoodwink in Christian history is that the best-documented and most authentic writings of the early church that we have now were by the apostle farthest removed from the Lord himself?
Paul was busy creating an institution. Makes sense that the institution, at the councils several hundred years later, would consider his writings to be most authentic.
But are they actually closest in time and experience to what Jesus said and did?
ER are you saying that "Saved" only equals "eternal life". That's the question asked twice in Luke (10:15 & 18;18). "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
And Jesus replied, "...love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself."
And then...:"In Luke 18, Jesus responds to the same question, this time from the man we know as the rich young ruler, by quoting the second table of the Decalogue, forbidding adultery, murder, theft, and false witness, and mandating honor towards parents. His questioner says that he has kept these commandments, and Jesus proceeds to call on him to "sell all … and distribute to the poor." Jesus assures him, "You will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." The "extremely rich" ruler won't do this, and Jesus goes on to teach his disciples about how hard it is for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of God." (from David Gushee, Christianty Today 03/06/07)
Is "eternal life" the sum of what being "Saved" means. Where is the "Cross" in what Jesus said? Did he say more?
Y'all are making my head hurt. But in a good way. I think. Let me start with this..
Re, ER: "I'm not real big on hanging the ideas I have on specific Bible verses; you can justify about anything by selecting the right verses."
Then where are you getting your ideas? I mean, I know you're right about people taking verses out of context and using them to justify whatever they want, but doesn't that just mean they need to study their Bible a little more? It doesn't mean the Bible isn't valid, just that we need to be diligent in studying it for ourselves.
Re, Drlobojo: "The variety of answers within Christianity is amazing.
"Salvation", was that a Jewish or Greek concept? Is it Paul's or Jesus's or Peter's idea?"
I'm actually reading something about this now. Maybe I'll have a decent answer for you in a day or two.
Re,Dr.lobojo: "Where is the "Cross" in what Jesus said? Did he say more?"
He said more. I think the two examples you gave are examples of Jesus reaching out to people to where they were at spiritually. If he had told them he was going to die on the cross for their sins and be resurrected on the third day, it may have been too much for them all at once. If, however, the rich guy had given up everything and followed him, I'm sure those things would later have been revealed to him.
Re,ER: "Well, I am of the school that thinks that what we know of what Jesus said and did is more important than what we know of what others said about him."
Well, it depends on who the "others" are that you're talking about. If you mean the preacher down the road, I might agree with you. Is that what you mean?
Re, ER: "Could it be that the biggest hoodwink in Christian history is that the best-documented and most authentic writings of the early church that we have now were by the apostle farthest removed from the Lord himself?"
Dang it, have you been talking to my boy? Just how far removed from the Lord was Paul anyway? I don't think we can dismiss Paul quite that easily. Did he say anything that contradicted theologically what the other apostles said?
If you read "Acts" you will see that Paul was at odds with the Apostles at Jerusalem who had actually known Jesus, on many issues. Remember that "Acts" was probably written by a follower of Paul and still the conflict comes through.
My ideas are synthesized from my experiences with life, and Grace, and many sources, including the Bible, but usually the gist of something, not the exacting Scriptural detail.
Re, "doesn't that just mean they need to study their Bible a little more?" Everybody "picks and chooses" what to emphasize from the Bible. Lefties tend to lean on the Sermon on the Mount/Plain; righties tend to lean on the O.T., in my opinion.
Re, "If you mean the preacher down the road, I might agree with you. Is that what you mean?" Well, that, but I also mean within Scripture itself. The Bible is not the monolith suggested by the colloquial "Word of God." The writings have varying levels of authenticity, for one thing, and different reasons. The Gospel writers, for example, were not writing to report, or to explain, but to persuade. The epistles are snapshots of ongoing discussions; we don't have all the letters written by Paul, or Peter, or anyone, and we don't have any letters that the churches, or their leaders wrote to them. Revelation should have been dumped fromn the Canon during the Reformation, like Luther wanted.
Re, Paul: He never knew Jesus of Nazareth. He only knew the Risen Christ. Two almost distinct views of who Jesus is. Christologies vary over the centuries.
I've been trying to do more reading about Paul. I'm reading so many different books at the same time now, I'm getting confused about where I read something. I'm going to have to slow down and stick to just one book. Anyway, in defense of Paul, he may not have known Jesus before the resurrection, but he was still of that generation. As Drlobojo pointed out, he did have contact with the other apostles and even had some doctrinal things to hash out with them. He wasn't that far removed from events and he was talking to guys who had walked with Jesus and been there during his death and resurrection.
However, I think the issues they were trying to work out dealt mostly with how to reach the Gentiles, whether they had to be circumcised, etc., not over salvation itself. But I could be wrong about that, because I'm still trying to read up on Paul.
ER, I have trouble letting go of the idea that the Bible isn't the authoritative source for our faith. And I don't mean to discount your personal experiences and insights, at all. Maybe I don't trust my own "still,small voice" enough, but I need that Bible to go back to for guidance. I also need to learn a lot more about it's history and authors!
One more thought on this thread. Very few elements in any "religion" or "theology" or belief system are totally original. We build on the ruins of old. In that sense you might say that many religions go way far back in time, and in a sense have never cease to exist even though they have not carried a continuious name.
To recognize that religion has certain continuities and at the same time has evolved does not invalidate it unless you are a die hard enerrentist, in which case you're doomed to frustration and disappointment sooner or latter cause "relgion" is a human activity (which of course an enerrentist doesn't believe) and humans make errors. Except me and ER and sometime he comes real close.
Dyslexia!
I actually looked up "inerrantist" for the spelling and got it wrong anyway.
That's why it generally takes me two or three tries at these blessed "word verifications"
Sigh. I never, ever said that the Bible isn't the authoritative source for our faith.
It is all of these things:
having authority or ascendancy or influence; "an important official"; "the captain's authoritative manner"
of recognized authority or excellence; "the definitive work on Greece"; "classical methods of navigation"
sanctioned by established authority; "an authoritative communique"; "the authorized biography"
It is NOT, however, without error or contradiction, which anybody who actually reads it can see. As a guide -- even as THE guide -- it's great. As a "blueprint" or anything like that, it is not.
Bible reading is a dangerous thing. I mean who is the authorative reader anyway? Look at poor King Henry the VIII for example. In order to get a male heir he created a whole new Church in order to be able to divorce one woman so that he could breed with another and another and another and so forth. So he makes his own Church and then makes an English version of the Bible to go with it because other wise the word of God in Latin smells of the Church he just outlawed and then Lord Cromwell makes sure that the Bibles are distributed all over the place and replace the Latin ones and everybody gets to have one and read God's word in their own language which they couldn't do before and low and behold they start to "interpret" what the Bible is saying without the assistance of an authoritive official and what they think it really means becomes strange and this causes a whole lot of trouble for the King cause he wants it to go they way he wants it to go and all these people have all these conflicting ideas. This all only takes seven years start to finish. So he can't get all the Bibles back but he makes a law limiting the reading of the Bible to Nobility and Clergy who are under his thumb and thus attempts to squelch all this thinking and interpretation that he started by giving people a English Language Bible to read in the first place. But Dang the Cat is out of the bag.
All because he wanted a male heir.
Now we don't know what the authoritive meaning of the authoritive source is because we don't have any authorities telling us what it means unless....or maybe we do, but why don't they agree?.
Post a Comment