Re: Did Jesus ask Judas to betray him?

by **ziggy** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:45 am

I believe people reject Christianity for emotional reasons as much as anything else (having met some pretty ridiculous figures yourself, Zig, calling themselves Christians, influences you clearly to this day) and a great many people just don't want Christianity to be true.

And people adopt "Christian" Gospel and doctrines for at least equally emotional reasons.

And a great many people just didn't or don't want certain scientific discoveries to be true- i.e.: a heliocentric solar system, evolution of species. or "truths" deduced by human minds observing natural events.

by Aaron on Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:03 am

Personally Frank if the simple fact that the earth we're found to not be the center of either the universe or the solar system and one lost their faith, I would question how strong their faith was to begin with. But that's just me.

by **ziggy** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:19 am

Personally Frank if the simple fact that the earth we're found to not be the center of either the universe or the solar system and one lost their faith, I would question how strong their faith was to begin with.

Galileo did not lose his "faith" over his heliocentric proclamations. But he did lose his freedom- and almost lost his life- to the church authorities over it. The church authorities did not want heliocentricism- or other celestial theories not approved by the church- to be true.

I would question how strong their faith was to begin with.

Then the "faith" of the church authorities of the Galileo era must have been mighty weak.

by Aaron on Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:51 am

Galileo Galilei (15 February 1564 – January 1642)

Enough said.

by **ziggy** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:08 am

No, not quite.

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.

Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

by Aaron on Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:27 am

Yeah, I saw on CNN the the other night where Pope Benedict was going to place Al Gore under house arrest for hearsy...

Or maybe it was Rod Parsley???

Rolling Eyes

by SamCogar on Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:55 pm

Hipparchus, who lived in Greece during the second century B.C., was perhaps the world's first great astronomer. He calculated, within six and a half minutes, the length of a year. He figured out that Earth's axis wobbles as it spins. For his star catalog, completed in 129 B.C., he devised a coordinate system to plot each star's location and a scale to rank the brightness. Astronomers still use this magnitude scale today.

by **SheikBen** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:20 pm

ziggy wrote:No, not quite.

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.

Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

While I do not support the Catholic Inquisition, Galileo was not ultimately ordered under arrest "merely" for heliocentrism and in fact went out of his way to pick a fight with a person in high places. I'm not saying for one second that this justifies his house arrest, but there's much more to the story.

by **Stephanie** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:54 pm

Michael,

Part of the "rest of the story" is the demand for control and authority over the lives of individuals that organized religion has always demanded in varying degrees over the "faithful".

by **SheikBen** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:08 pm

Stephanie wrote:Michael,

Part of the "rest of the story" is the demand for control and authority over the lives of individuals that organized religion has always demanded in varying degrees over the "faithful".

The Catholic church in the middle ages? Sure. The Catholic church in 2008? Really, beyond "pocketbook authority," as far as I can tell by such Catholic luminaries as Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy, not a hell of a lot of "demand for control and authority" is going on. I would wish that more were "demanded," but it really isn't.

Remember that I have no reason to defend the Catholics of 1500 or 1960 or 2008. I feel the Roman Church has done a great deal of social good; nevertheless, I do not attend a Catholic church nor will I be raising my children in the Catholic faith.

In my own experience, my pastors challenge me to live Biblically, which if I didn't find to be darn good advice I would not be at the church. I hear very little from the pulpit about what society should be doing differently, and far more about what we as Christians should be doing better/more Biblically. To that extent, I suppose, my own organized religion wishes to have authority, but itself submits to the authority of the Scriptures. There is still a great deal of diversity within my church, from political persuasion to views on the end times. There are differing opinions on the death penalty, the war, and social welfare programs. What unites us is our common hope in Jesus Christ, and that hope found not as infants coerced but as adults who willingly chose to embrace this hope. Unlike the Catholics, no one's parents can make then evangelicals by baptizing them as infants.

by **SheikBen** on Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:42 am

ziggy wrote:
I believe people reject Christianity for emotional reasons as much as anything else (having met some pretty ridiculous figures yourself, Zig, calling themselves Christians, influences you clearly to this day) and a great many people just don't want Christianity to be true.

And people adopt "Christian" Gospel and doctrines for at least equally emotional reasons.

And a great many people just didn't or don't want certain scientific discoveries to be true- i.e.: a heliocentric solar system, evolution of species. or "truths" deduced by human minds observing natural events.

That's fair. I don't doubt that people adopt organized religion for a whole host of reasons other than they necessarily believing that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to die for our sins. I am well aware of people who get caught up in emotions at church services and then, when life gets difficult (or too easy), they stop believing (if they ever really did). Jesus talks about seed that is thrown among the path and is surrounded by weeds, representing the deceitfulness of riches and the worries of life. I worry about people who come forward at altar calls because someone has convinced them if they just overcome their fear of crowds (while not saying as much explicitly) they will be saved.

Your point about people not wanting certain scientific discoveries to be true is also fair. Truth is beyond our preferences, whether in the scientific or the sacred.

by SFCraig on Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:14 am

"Hey I'm a normal guy, but....

I believe the Bible is literally true. I don't however, place much importance on it".

That was from an old "Cracked Mazagine" I loved.

In any case, I'm in a weird position. I was the President of the Theological Honor Society when I earned my 2nd BA in Theology. I went to Grad School for a somewhat Theological PHD (Didn't finish).

I taught CCD and High School Religious Studies (for money, Academic). I just finished my 3rd year as President of the Parish Council at my Church.

And I say the Bible is full of nonsense. I say it was men who decided what went into the Canon. I say it's full of complete inconsistencies that one must do cartwheels to rationalize.

I'd also wager that virtually all members of every religion are members of the same religion they were born into. Lucky for us to be such good Christians when surrounded by other Christians!

Lucky for the Buddhist monk who happened to be born into a Buddhist family!

by shermangeneral on Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:06 am

Well Craig do you agree with my earlier posts re the two "Greatest Commandments"?

And do you agree that if Jesus had to choose between Democrats and Republicans he would be a Democrat?

by **ziggy** on Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:35 pm

shermangeneral wrote:Well Craig do you agree with my earlier posts re the two "Greatest Commandments"?

And do you agree that if Jesus had to choose between Democrats and Republicans he would be a Democrat?

Sherm, I am confused. You often complain that the Republicans "hi-jack Jesus". Yet it seems to me that when you try to turn Jesus into a 21st century partisan Democrat that you are doing the same thing. If Jesus was/is anything like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Manchin, Jay Rockefeller or Gaston Caperton, then I don't want anything to do with him.

by SFCraig on Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:51 pm

shermangeneral wrote:Well Craig do you agree with my earlier posts re the two "Greatest Commandments"?

And do you agree that if Jesus had to choose between Democrats and Republicans he would be a Democrat?

No, he'd be a Republican. The GOP tells me so!

He'd favor tax cuts for the wealthy (the money will get to the poor better that way). He'd also favor rushed trials for Death penalty cases (His case cost Rome a fortune!).

And he would build a wall to keep out those pesky Samaritans!

Laughing