Religion

[angryrobot]

this thread originally began in the Mad Men thread at this post

http://aspecialthing.com/forum/showt...4587#post14587

While I think religion is used by the powerful to control people, I don't necessarily think it's created by them. Are you saying that Jesus was a powerful man in ancient times?

And, I would argue, at least for christianity's sake, that the poor are the elevated ones, not the rich and powerful. They christians (on TV) in America just have it wrong.

EDIT: Yeah, and Dan's right - this isn't the thread, although I'm fascinated with the direction.

Jesus was a Jew, and as I recall he wasn't too fond of the business of Judaism. I can find no passage where he advocates that his teaching should become a formal religion.

I'm pretty sure the religious poor in this country get the shaft. They would be much better served if they revolted against the power that keeps them down but their religion brainwashes them to respect authority. An authority that keeps them in their service.

[nathansmart]

Jesus was a Jew, and as I recall he wasn't too fond of the business of Judaism. I can find no passage where he advocates that his teaching should become a formal religion.

No, but he certainly made claims about who he was. He says, "Take up and follow me" which is clear in what he wanted people to do. It doesn't matter if you call that a religion or not, he was still someone who had followers (and still does obviously).

And he wasn't just railing against Jewish corruption, he claimed to be the son of God. I guess you can say that Christianity is really just Judaism where the messiah has come back, but either way he turned it on its head.

I'm pretty sure the religious poor in this country get the shaft. They would be much better served if they revolted against the power that keeps them down but their religion brainwashes them to respect authority. An authority that keeps them in their service.

I agree - all the poor in this country get the SHAFT. And I don't know where you get this submission to authority business. Sure, there is talk of respecting leadership but not blindly. And we are called to stand up against social injustice (poverty, inadequate health care, Darfur, etc.). The Christian Right might not see it that way, but it's definitely written out for all to see.

[Big Box Of Money]

This won't end well.

[nathansmart]

It won't end, period.

But, it can continue cordially.

[crlygrl]

Is this where we come to talk about beer?

Because I'm a big Miller Light fan, myself.

[Keith Whitener]

Keep in mind, the Gospels were written about 40 years after Jesus died. Later the New Testament was collected by priests who had a lot to gain from the message they conveyed. Furthermore, no one knows who the Gospels were written by since it does not say, "This Gospel is written by John." That was ascribed later. It's likey written by someone who was not those people and collected from an oral tradition. Oral traditions often include a lot of exaggeration and added stuff. Look at the idea of Souls. That's clearly a Platonic sort of idea and who was an educated Greek? Paul. Who was the first theologists? Boom!

It is believed by some that Jesus was simply a religious leader/apocalyptic (this is why he aligned himself with John the Baptist) and that he was executed because Pilate didn't want to deal with an uprisings. Why follow the Romans if the end times are coming?

[nathansmart]

Well, we can go back and forth on who actually wrote them, when they were written, what they had to gain, etc., but then all historical accounts are called into question. I am comfortable with the current, mainstream consensus on these issues (for now at least). I mean, if you have evidence you can cite that will show me otherwise, that isn't just another set of educated guesses (which is what I'm going on, I fully admit that), then I'm all ears. Heck, I'm all ears for anything. It's all interesting.

Also, what did the priests have to gain from the books they selected (besides tithing, which is really an Old Testament thing, but it's mentioned in the NT)? Just curious.

[Famous Police Dog]

It's like I can get off spiritually with the sunlight through trees.

[Keith Whitener]

Priests remain in power. Churches ruled Europe for a very long time.

This lecture series from Bart. D. Ephrem talks a lot about it.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Courses-...1581350&sr=8-9

They might have it at a library near you if you're interested.

It covers a lot of the material in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyp...581350&sr=8-11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Just because it is the consensus doesn't mean it ought to be. I think the reason it is so accepted is because people never even question or doubt. Faith isn't really worth much if it's never triumphed over doubt.

[rabbitandox]

I don't know where you get this submission to authority business. Sure, there is talk of respecting leadership but not blindly.

Regardless of whether the canons specifically call for it, there are many people who grant religion a lot of authority, are there not?

I would argue that the urge to grant authority has nothing to do with religion and has everything to do with maturity. I know plenty of atheists who are perfectly willing to submit to the "authority" of science and accepted social norms. And I know plenty of devout who think of God as a wise old man with some great ideas.

Well, we can go back and forth on who actually wrote them, when they were written, what they had to gain, etc., but then all historical accounts are called into question. I am comfortable with the current, mainstream consensus on these issues (for now at least).

I'm curious, because I haven't been to church in 15 years and most of my experiences with religion have been academic, what is the mainstream consensus? I imagine it's something like "'Matthew' was written by Matthew. Who's Matthew? The dude who wrote 'Matthew,' duh."

(And are you sure that "historical account" is the best name for some of these books? Numbers, Chronicles, Kings, I will grant you. Those are historical accounts. The narration is dry and detached. But Genesis, John, Revelation? These books are interesting and full of emotion and metaphor. That's not how people write history, it's how they write novels.)

[Jenny]

this thread originally began in the Mad Men thread at this post

http://aspecialthing.com/forum/showt...4587#post14587



Jesus was a Jew, and as I recall he wasn't too fond of the business of Judaism. I can find no passage where he advocates that his teaching should become a formal religion.

I'm pretty sure the religious poor in this country get the shaft. They would be much better served if they revolted against the power that keeps them down but their religion brainwashes them to respect authority. An authority that keeps them in their service.

So in a sense, you think religion is the opiate of the masses?

[Keith Whitener]

So in a sense, you think religion is the opiate of the masses?

Does that only apply to Judaism and Christianity? Could you say the same, for example, about Taoism or Buddhism?

[Sarah]

I'm against it.

[Meen Bellpeppers]

So in a sense, you think religion is the opiate of the masses?

Opiate of the masses?

That's catchy, can I quote you on that?

[CaptainBreakfast]

Does that only apply to Judaism and Christianity? Could you say the same, for example, about Taoism or Buddhism?

You can. Nothing's stopping you, but Taoism and Buddhism are not religions in the same sense of Christianity or Judaism. We like to think they are, but they more accurately described as ways of life. Eastern Religions, for the most part, are not religions but cultures and practices. You'd be scarce to find someone in China who does Tai-Chi who says that they're a Taoist.

It would be like saying that painting or comedy is a religion.

[yumitree]

Is this where we come to talk about beer?

Because I'm a big Miller Light fan, myself.

you have deeply offended me and my religious beliefs*.

*beerianity

[Meen Bellpeppers]

I don't believe in any one religion, but I do believe that this thread is Armageddon.

[Keith Whitener]

I don't believe in any one religion, but I do believe that this thread is Armageddon.

\m/ Let's make it a rockalypse! \m/

[nathansmart]

Priests remain in power. Churches ruled Europe for a very long time.

I'm not sure what's in the New Testament that helps priests to stay in power. That all seems like politics to me. The crusades aren't exactly biblical.

This lecture series from Bart. D. Ephrem talks a lot about it.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Courses-...1581350&sr=8-9

They might have it at a library near you if you're interested.

It covers a lot of the material in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyp...581350&sr=8-11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Obviously, I haven't read the book because I'm still sitting at work but looking through the comments and the description I get a picture. I was trying to figure out what you meant by 'merely an apocalyptic prophet' and I get it now. I don't necessarily agree because I don't think Jesus literally meant "soon," so much as he meant, "be ready." He talked in parables and used symbolism so much, it's hard to take any of it literally, except for when he clearly made declarations about things, and not in story-form.

Here's a comment on Amazon (the place where the world's leading religion scholars come to comment on books and appliances):

Ehrman is missing something in this book by looking at Jesus the Nazarene from a wholly historical perspective. There is not enough to work with to form a proper image of Jesus in the manner Ehrman. Ehrman bases a lot of his assertions on the synoptic gospels, but the only things that these can accurately be said to demonstrate are the views of the communities that existed twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Example: Ehrman points out that the first words of Jesus in the Marcan gospel include "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Obviously Christ was an apocalyptic prophet? All Ehrman has proven through this, however, is that the community that developed thought they were living in the last days of the world. Not a surprise, as this has been a belief held by many groups throughout history, before and after the time of Jesus.

There are a million different opinions on these issues, and you have to pick and choose right? You've chosen Ehrman.

Just because it is the consensus doesn't mean it ought to be. I think the reason it is so accepted is because people never even question or doubt. Faith isn't really worth much if it's never triumphed over doubt.

Of course, I agree 100%. That's why I even have these conversations - to find out new things. I've changed my opinion on a million things regarding my beliefs (evolution for instance). But, the opposite isn't true either (that a consensus means it's not true). When I say consensus, by the way, I don't mean what my parents and pastor taught me. I'm talking about religious scholars; people who work at this stuff.

Regardless of whether the canons specifically call for it, there are many people who grant religion a lot of authority, are there not?

But that's their business. If they want to think that the pope can do no wrong, they can. If they don't want to, they choose another denomination.

I would argue that the urge to grant authority has nothing to do with religion and has everything to do with maturity. I know plenty of atheists who are perfectly willing to submit to the "authority" of science and accepted social norms. And I know plenty of devout who think of God as a wise old man with some great ideas.

But you act like it's something bad to submit to authority on these issues. There's a difference between slave/master and mentor/mentee. That's how I look at say, the pastor of my church. I generally trust his opinion on things (except on the Flight of the Conchords TV show) but mostly because he's shown to be wise when it comes to life decisions (that he's made for himself). It's the same respect I give to anyone who's conduct I trust. He may be my pastor but he's not "the finisher."

I agree that people shouldn't blindly submit to authority. But I think it's okay to recognize leadership and take advice from those you trust. And I think it's okay to disagree, which I've done plenty of times.

I'm curious, because I haven't been to church in 15 years and most of my experiences with religion have been academic, what is the mainstream consensus? I imagine it's something like "'Matthew' was written by Matthew. Who's Matthew? The dude who wrote 'Matthew,' duh."

Here's one take on it:

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

That seems to be a mainstream take on it.

(And are you sure that "historical account" is the best name for some of these books? Numbers, Chronicles, Kings, I will grant you. Those are historical accounts. The narration is dry and detached. But Genesis, John, Revelation? These books are interesting and full of emotion and metaphor. That's not how people write history, it's how they write novels.)

I agree - when I said historical account I was thinking of those books and not any of the poetic stuff in there like Genesis and Revelation.

[FF Woodycooks]

Jesus was a Jew, and as I recall he wasn't too fond of the business of Judaism. I can find no passage where he advocates that his teaching should become a formal religion.

I don't think there's ever been a religious founder or prophet or whatever you would like to call them that has advocated this, aside from maybe cult leaders. Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, they've all considered themselves reformers (of Judaism, of monotheism, and of Hinduism, respectively). Nathansmart, Jesus rarely if ever claims in direct quotation to be the son of God, as far as I know (but I haven't done any bible stuff in a long time), and it's already been brought up that what IS in there was attributed to Jesus long after his death.

Also, I'm a religion major and it sucks how I can't talk about the one thing I know anything about on the internet because it just makes people mad!