Southern California - Socal Suburbs...The Dream is Over???

I'd add that I run in a pretty diverse circle of friends and colleagues. They run the gamut. I also attended a Christian high school, and have read -- even studied -- the Bible. I have a lot of respect for Christ's teachings. However, one thing I've learned is that some of the most Christ-like people don't call themselves Christians, and vice versa. Also, from what I know of Christ's teachings and life, I'm not sure he'd be a Republican, at least currently. I mean, around here, Jimmy Carter would be mocked and derided as a "Socialist" simply because he likes to build houses for less-fortunate people.

I’m right there with you re: a diverse (and large, if I might add) circle of friends and influences. (Disclaimer: I recognize that 1955 will not be interested in my take on anything because of who he perceives I am, so this is not directed to you sir.)

{dons philosopher’s cap**

Speaking from a philosophical perspective, JC is probably my favorite ethicist. I’m a big fan of what philosophers call “virtue ethics”, as opposed to, for example, “deontological” or “consequentialist” theories --- as typically discussed in a watered-down fashion in introductory classes. Very roughly speaking, a virtue ethicist claims that the right action is that which emulates "virtues". The emphasis in on “character”. For example, most of us agree (let’s hope) that “honesty” is a virtue worth pursuing, and so engaging in honest transactions is good. (Wow: that’s incredibly simplistic, but hopefully y’all get the point.) What makes our actions “right” is that we act in the pursuit of virtues. Early versions of this perspective in the West include Plato and Aristotle, and continue today in different, though interesting, forms.

JC certainly espoused pursuit of virtue --- character --- as a deciding feature of right actions. What I enjoy is his, shall we say, common sense approach to explanations of right actions. He has no need for lofty theories to teach that acting like a good person is to act compassionately, honestly, faithfully, respectfully, etc. And his teachings are rife with examples of doing so --- parables, stories, revelations, or what-have-you.

If I might put words into your mouth mateo --- and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong --- what I think you’re reacting to is that we often see, including in this thread, actions, writings, ideas, and so forth that do not espouse virtues like compassion or respect, yet at the same time, we often hear an invocation of JC to justify those actions. For those of us who take JC’s teachings to be fundamentally moral / ethical, it’s hard to grasp how this all squares up. An example that puzzles me: insofar as acting respectfully promotes virtue, it is odd to see any follower of JC resist environmentalism. At root, environmentalism is about respecting God’s creation --- not just dumping on it as we selfishly see fit. Now, of course, we can dig out passages here and there to suggest that we have “dominion” of this and that. Fine. But to my point: the big book is, fundamentally, about morality, and so acting consistent with godly virtues trumps apparent permission to NOT do so.

And this brings us back to the OP’s point: the issue that kicked off this whole discussion was environmentalism --- not evolution or particle physics, both of which are simply riveting in their own rights, but are red herrings here. From my simple perspective, I look west at sunset and I see filth covering God’s creation. I recognize that things like cars pump out filth like it’s their job. So do factories and power plants and so on. For me, the right action is the action that promotes virtues like respect --- especially for the Earth that we are lucky to live upon --- and what can I do to respect Creation and get right with whatever Creator I choose to believe in? Quit dumping on it.

{removes philosopher’s cap, waits for lengthy rebuttal that ignores the point while emphasizing that I’m a flaming “liberal” and therefore to be ignored**

Regarding "context" -- I often wonder how people decide which parts of the Bible to follow, and which, when read literally, are deemed "out of context." I mean, I assume that if it's the literal word of God then it should be followed as such. But then there are potentially annoying things like keeping a kosher kitchen, not touching the skin of a dead pig, and not working on the sabbath (by the way, the KJV of the Bible says in no uncertain terms that violators of the sabbath should be put to death -- see Exodus 35:2).

But the not working on the sabbath rule is an obvious one. How about not wearing garments of mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)?

I don't mean to be a smart-***** here, and I absolutely respect people's right to believe and worship as they see fit. But, for better or worse, you either follow literally or you don't. Assuming you don't, how do you decide what's to be followed and what's not? If your reason is that some of it no longer applies (because we're in a different historical context or whatever), couldn't you make the same argument about homosexuality and other things that are expressly forbidden?

I'd add that I run in a pretty diverse circle of friends and colleagues. They run the gamut. I also attended a Christian high school, and have read -- even studied -- the Bible. I have a lot of respect for Christ's teachings. However, one thing I've learned is that some of the most Christ-like people don't call themselves Christians, and vice versa. Also, from what I know of Christ's teachings and life, I'm not sure he'd be a Republican, at least currently. I mean, around here, Jimmy Carter would be mocked and derided as a "Socialist" simply because he likes to build houses for less-fortunate people.

Maybe Ralph is just counting on Exodus 21:7 for his retirement. Just curious Mate, what do you think a good price will be for selling your daughter into slavery? :innocent:

excruciatingly...this is how it's spelled. If need be, I can explain how to use spell though. And what does Planck have to do with anything? You of course don't have an answer to my question, so of you just dismiss the question...right?

Try again.

Wrong. Look up "Planck time." It goes some way toward explaining why your question doesn't make sense. Mine was a serious answer.

Or you could just say "Where'd the matter come from? Where'd the matter come from?" and assume since you're able to string those words together, they actually mean something.

And those who can't construct sentences probably shouldn't pretend to be spelling cops.

Look, before this gets even stupider, let me clarify something: I don't think faith is silly, I don't think Christians are idiots, I don't think atheists are superior, and I don't think science has answers to things it doesn't have answers to.

I do think your grip on the arguments you're trying to make is very weak. You're no Plantinga--and I don't think much of his arguments, either. And you apparently can't tell when someone's trying to engage on your own terms.

Faith is not reason. I respect both, but I think you'd do better sticking with faith.

I don't mean to be a smart-***** here, and I absolutely respect people's right to believe and worship as they see fit. But, for better or worse, you either follow literally or you don't.


What is literal? How can you read anything literally? How can you read anything outside of your own perspective and culture? Would a wealthy middle aged white male living in Mahattan read the Scriptures (or anything, for that matter) and interpret it the same way an 13 year old poor Chinese girl living in rural China? What is literal? Is it attempting to figure out what the original author intended when it was written? We don't know who wrote half of the books of the Bible. When you take into account textual and redactional criticism, we see the Scriptures may even have been deliberately and accidentally tampered with. So how can we know the original intent of the author for sure Because we have copies of copies of copies of copies, which author/copier's intent do we see as literal? The first, the 2nd, the 3000th?

Or, let's assume we can read the Scriptures literally, and impossibly leave behind your upbringing, intepretations, and biases at the door. Let's take a closer look at the Gospels. Which one is perfectly historical? There are obviously a lot of discrepancies between the four. Take the baptism of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels for instance. Which one is perfectly historical? Did the Father say "You are my son..." or did he say "This is my son..." How can both be historical? Or how about the Beatitudes in Luke and Matthew. Are "the poor in spirit" (more spiritualized) blessed, or are "the poor" (presumably economically) blessed?

Does lack of historicity mean lack of truth?

The best you can do with any text is to interpret it within the context of your own culture. There is no such thing as literal readings. As humans, we cannot transmit information perfectly clearly. Everything we say or write will be interpreted differently by different people. That's why we have arguments. That is the limits of our language, individualisms, and written texts, especially really old copies of copies of copies of copies of manuscripts where peer criticisms and reviews were not yet even invented, let alone utilized. All human language is a very poor form of communication.

I think a Wikibible would be awesome! Let everyone modify and update it as they see fit.

I have a few passages I'd love to take a crack at. I'd divvy up the 10 commandments into the 3 commandments and 7 suggestions.

I think a Wikibible would be awesome! Let everyone modify and update it as they see fit.

I have a few passages I'd love to take a crack at. I'd divvy up the 10 commandments into the 3 commandments and 7 suggestions.
Oh My God, that's brilliant.

Ah, dangit.

Don't worry. Taking the Lord's name in vain is now only a suggestion.

What is literal? How can you read anything literally? How can you read anything outside of your own perspective and culture? Would a wealthy middle aged white male living in Mahattan read the Scriptures (or anything, for that matter) and interpret it the same way an 13 year old poor Chinese girl living in rural China? What is literal? Is it attempting to figure out what the original author intended when it was written? We don't know who wrote half of the books of the Bible. When you take into account textual and redactional criticism, we see the Scriptures may even have been deliberately and accidentally tampered with. So how can we know the original intent of the author for sure Because we have copies of copies of copies of copies, which author/copier's intent do we see as literal? The first, the 2nd, the 3000th?

Or, let's assume we can read the Scriptures literally, and impossibly leave behind your upbringing, intepretations, and biases at the door. Let's take a closer look at the Gospels. Which one is perfectly historical? There are obviously a lot of discrepancies between the four. Take the baptism of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels for instance. Which one is perfectly historical? Did the Father say "You are my son..." or did he say "This is my son..." How can both be historical? Or how about the Beatitudes in Luke and Matthew. Are "the poor in spirit" (more spiritualized) blessed, or are "the poor" (presumably economically) blessed?

Does lack of historicity mean lack of truth?

The best you can do with any text is to interpret it within the context of your own culture. There is no such thing as literal readings. As humans, we cannot transmit information perfectly clearly. Everything we say or write will be interpreted differently by different people. That's why we have arguments. That is the limits of our language, individualisms, and written texts, especially really old copies of copies of copies of copies of manuscripts where peer criticisms and reviews were not yet even invented, let alone utilized. All human language is a very poor form of communication.

I agree completely. I wasn't advocating a literal reading. I've found that those who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible are most often Christians. They are the ones to shun historical or cultural relativism, not me.

And, my point is that they often argue that some issues (e.g., homosexuality) are completely unambiguous in the Bible, however; other issues that seem equally cut-and-dried based on reading the relevant verses (e.g., putting someone to death for not following the sabbath) are either ignored or danced around.

So there's more to church than ogling the women and napping? Interesting.

Don't worry. Taking the Lord's name in vain is now only a suggestion.
Sweet.

BTW, I really, really, really want your bike.

Ah, dangit.

One shouldn't take the word "literal" too literally. Human language is a poor form of communication when you try to box it in too tightly.

Apparently, the dream is continuing in the suburbs. A hazy, disconnected and illogical dream.

I do however have a question related to the off-topic portion of this conversation.

Why do conservatives feel aligned to Christianity? According to some, he was a nothing more than a homeless hippie type heretic Jew. Sounds like a liberal. The conservative, status quo, gubment types didn't like him spreading the socialist rhetoric ramblings. What gives?

Sweet.

BTW, I really, really, really want your bike.

Ah, dangit.

Uh...I'm pretty sure that one is, "Though shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE." not bike.

Doofus.

I identify myself as a follower of Jesus Christ. In fact, I have a degree at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, and work vocationally at a church (albeit, part-time). But I would probably not be considered conservative to those on the political right. Ethically, I believe God is green; social justice issues are much more important than abortion or gay marriage issues; and don't necessarily agree with 1955's evangelical methods, but he is free to say what he wishes.

Most importantly, I wholeheartedly want to continue honest and delicate dialogue with those that think differently than myself. I believe this is the only way to come to a deeper understanding of differing faiths and belief systems without alienation and accusations.

It's dangerous to associate Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) with one political agenda, because it simply is not true. There are Christian Democrats and Christian Republicans. Neither are right or wrong.

Thus, it is dangerous to associate Jesus' teachings with socialism or liberalism, because, again that simply is not true. Jesus challenged the staunch legalism of the Torah-abiding leaders of the synagogue, but he didn't go much further than that in the socio-political world. He still advocated for the poor, sick, the orphan, and the widow (as the Torah does). He told his followers to pay taxes, and he didn't break any Roman laws. He wasn't necessarily peaceful either: ever hear of his angry tantrum at the synagogue? Perhaps you are thinking about the Jesus portrayed in the gospel of John (much of which, according to the Jesus seminars would be considered unhistorical), which is an alien to the Jesus portrayed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Have you taken the time to actually read through the gospels, or are you making these sweeping generalizations from 3rd party sources?

Uh...I'm pretty sure that one is, "Though shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE." not bike.

Doofus.

The complete Deuteronomistic law says:

'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.'

Donkey = bike is today's terms. Doh!

As generalizing commentary is more popular than substantiated fact based debate, I will opt to choose the path more chosen as it is less frustrating. You can have your facts and whatnot. It really won't change anything, as Jesus has proven.

A Democrat/Liberal/Socialist/Communist/Hippie as a Christian is how it seems it should be. But a Republican/Conservative should be more like Agnostic.

The complete Deuteronomistic law says:

'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.'

Donkey = bike is today's terms. Doh!
donkey / wife / servant / bike... same diff. OH!!!!!

The complete Deuteronomistic law says:

'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.'

Donkey = bike is today's terms. Doh!

Uh...I was just using it as an opportunity to poke fun at James. Thanks for the buzz-kill though :)

Uh...I was just using it as an opportunity to poke fun at James. Thanks for the buzz-kill though :)
You basturd... I'm gonna kill you!

Ah, dangit.

You and how many Romans?

Bring on the monsoon season thunderstorms!

You and how many Romans?
They're not Roman. They're Vietnamese... And they are baaaaaad motha' humpers.

Uncle