.

Thant is a beautiful song.  Thank you for sharing it.

Randy Travis - Three Wooden Crosses

Dropkick Murphys - Amazing Grace (Live!)

Amazing Grace Punk Rock version.

QuoteNow you, if you call yourself a Christian; if you rely on the Bible and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by his word; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the Bible the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor other religions, do you rob churches? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the nations because of you." (Romans 2:17-24, paraphrased)

Virginia and religion don't mix real well. But don't get me wrong. I do think that Jesus was probably a pretty cool guy with allot of good ideas and more educated than many of his peers. Unfortunately, he was murdered under false charges by his own people that could not accept his ideals. Then comes all the fairy tales and interpretations of those fairy tales.

Even more entertaining are all the "clean cut" and sanitize folks that promote their particular brand of Christianity to worship some-one that would be referred to as a weirdo hippy by their standards 

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 11, 2009, 09:54:38 AM
We don't know that Jesus looked or acted any more "radical" than any other Jewish male of his day. Likely he didn't.

I beg to differ.  Jesus, as presented in the scriptures, was totally radical for his day.  The religious establishment turned on him because he "receives sinners."  He hung with outcasts.  He touched them, he healed them on times when the "upstanding" folks said he shouldn't.  He went to parties.  He stood up to the self-righteous pharisees who had their own legalistic interpretation of God's will.  He had a fair amount of women among his close followers.  I could go on and on but you get the picture.  Jesus, in his earthly life, was totally radical.  He offered relationship where the self-righteous folks would not.  In so doing, he showed us what God is truly like.

It is a shame that many today have replaced the religious establishment he railed against, and supposedly in his name.  However, that number is not nearly as high as they would have you believe.  Those groups mentioned do not represent all Christians any more than flaming drag queens represent the whole of the TG population.  I still stand amazed at the ignorance and bigotry on both sides.

Kristi

Well, assuming the story is correct - and that is a large assumption - he sure caught the attention of the authorities of the time in a rather large way. But for sure Judea at that time was over-run with all sorts of sects like the Essenes or the Pharisees and he could have been affiliated with either, both, or neither.

There were several records of the teachings, some varying widely until the Council of Nicaea (C.E. 325 and 787).  We have records, several from Nag Hammadi of other gospels, including the Gospel of James, Gospel of Mary, Thomas, Peter, and Judas (which is about, and not by, Judas), as well as the 'Q' sayings.  There were also many different interpretations of these, Gnosticism, Montanism, Monarchianism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism and Pelagianism that were all deemed heresy by the Nicaean Councils.

What I've always found odd - or not - was that when I was young, a huge collection of documents (referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls) were discovered.  There was a huge movement of thinking that these documents would 'prove' the truth of Christianity, when in fact, what they have proved is how much the Jewish Bible has been subject to rewriting in many different ways. Nor, much to the chagrin of the true believers, is Jesus mentioned in any of them, though many are contemporary with the dates that Jesus was living and teaching.

Thus, the hope and promise that many Christians felt over the initial discovery were muted, first by an almost routine denial of access to Christian scholars, and secondly, by the fact that they were not saying what people wanted them to say.

All translated fragments are on the web, on the Huntington Library site I think.

Quote from: Kristi on July 11, 2009, 10:14:25 AM
I beg to differ.  Jesus, as presented in the scriptures, was totally radical for his day.  The religious establishment turned on him because he "receives sinners."  He hung with outcasts.  He touched them, he healed them on times when the "upstanding" folks said he shouldn't.  He went to parties.  He stood up to the self-righteous pharisees who had their own legalistic interpretation of God's will.  He had a fair amount of women among his close followers.  I could go on and on but you get the picture.  Jesus, in his earthly life, was totally radical.  He offered relationship where the self-righteous folks would not.  In so doing, he showed us what God is truly like.

It is a shame that many today have replaced the religious establishment he railed against, and supposedly in his name.  However, that number is not nearly as high as they would have you believe.  Those groups mentioned do not represent all Christians any more than flaming drag queens represent the whole of the TG population.  I still stand amazed at the ignorance and bigotry on both sides.

Kristi

That really wasn't the sort of thing I was referring too. Obviously what you describe is quite true. Ideologically he was surely a radical. But I dont think that, for instance, he wore his hair too long for the typical Jewish custom, or wore earrings or whatever. Things that were just different to be different rather than having some meaning behind them.

He did absolutely challenge conventional thinking in a way that would make the modern fundy type very upset. That much is certain.

Quote
We don't know that Jesus looked or acted any more "radical" than any other Jewish male of his day. Likely he didn't.

Sure he did, why else do you think he's got a Mexican first name?  "Hola, Jesus" (hey-zeus) became holy jesus.  The "unleavened bread" was just tortilla...and you can see the little pots of guacamole on the table in Da Vinci's "Last Supper"

Quote from: tekla on July 11, 2009, 10:26:57 AM
he could have been affiliated with either, both, or neither.

neither

Quote from: tekla on July 11, 2009, 10:26:57 AMThere were several records of the teachings, some varying widely until the Council of Nicaea (C.E. 325 and 787).  We have records, several from Nag Hammadi of other gospels, including the Gospel of James, Gospel of Mary, Thomas, Peter, and Judas (which is about, and not by, Judas), as well as the 'Q' sayings.  There were also many different interpretations of these, Gnosticism, Montanism, Monarchianism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism and Pelagianism that were all deemed heresy by the Nicaean Councils.

Of course those were there, and quite well known to the scholars at Nicaea.  Just because a manuscript was extant in no way makes it reliable, which is what you seem to be arguing.  Those who were much closer to the sources did not include them in the canon, and for good reason.  And by the way, you seem to think that the Q sayings are some kind of manuscript.  If you ever found such a thing you would be quite rich.  This is simply a hypothetical set of sayings that would help explain some of the similarities in the synoptic gospels.    Oh and in case anyone is interested, Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second General Council at Constantinople in 381, not at Nicaea.  Nestorius was about a century after Nicaea.  Theodosius II convened an ecumenical council at Ephesus in 449 to deal with Eutychianism, aka Monophysitism.  Pelagianism was attacked in the Council of Diospolis and condemned in 418 at the Council of Carthage. These condemnations were ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

Quote from: tekla on July 11, 2009, 10:26:57 AMWhat I've always found odd - or not - was that when I was young, a huge collection of documents (referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls) were discovered.  There was a huge movement of thinking that these documents would 'prove' the truth of Christianity, when in fact, what they have proved is how much the Jewish Bible has been subject to rewriting in many different ways. Nor, much to the chagrin of the true believers, is Jesus mentioned in any of them, though many are contemporary with the dates that Jesus was living and teaching.
Thus, the hope and promise that many Christians felt over the initial discovery were muted, first by an almost routine denial of access to Christian scholars, and secondly, by the fact that they were not saying what people wanted them to say.

Surely you must be joking.  You really think the Dead Sea Scrolls are a problem for Christians?  Why would you ever expect the writings of an ascetic community living in an isolated part of the desert, whose writings are OLD TESTAMENT, to mention Jesus?  I would find it quite amazing if they ever had.  The group,  as best we know ended its existence not long after Jesus' earthly life.  There are some writings which also would be unique to that community of a secular nature,  concerning everyday life.  And sure there are some textural variations and omissions in the texts compared to the Masoretic text, which was roughly a thousand years later.  But the amazing part is how much agreement there actually is.  I have been to see the scrolls twice in Jerusalem and once in the US, where the exhibit was not well done.  I have stood before some of the fragments and translated them and it is amazing.  For those interested in the recommended changes in the Hebrew text, as well as implications for the Christian church, this is a good link:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm

Oh and one more thing, the scrolls will soon be accessible online:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/middleeast/27scrolls.html

Kristi

Point is, there is, and were, lots of differing versions of this story, all written somewhat after the fact.  Picking and choosing - which is what the Councils - and the early church loved councils, sort of the all expense paid vacation of its day - did.  Why we would suspect that such findings were 'true' in the sense that the finding were guided by god, rather than 'politically expedient' chosen to support the more powerful groups (and in particular to attempt to stifle some of the dissent that was racking the already collapsing Roman Empire), is odd in an of itself.  There is not doubt that Constantine was after the creation of a small 'c' catholic church, and was trying to do away with what amount to a local franchise system where each bishop pretty much held total control over the teaching of that local, preferring something more centralized, with himself in pretty much total control (as he was of the first council).  Even the conversion of Constantine is the subject of much speculation, he did end the persecutions, but also promoted sun worship and kept the title of Pontifex Maximus until his death.

Even one of Constantine's greatest Christian Acts, the destruction of the Temple of Aphrodite in Jerusalem and the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is still pretty much in chaos as several religious orders occupy it and can't seem to agree on much of anything.  A ladder was not moved for over a hundred years because no one could agree on where it should be moved to.  Currently the church is occupied by three major and three minor sects (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the Syrian Orthodox orders) who have worked out an elaborate schedule of worship, though that was done under the Muslims, who for years held the keys to the church to prevent the orders from killing each other.

Though that is of little use right? Because if you could reason with religious people, there would not be any religious people in the first place, or as I've always suspected, you can't use reason and logic to dissuade people from beliefs that they did not use reason and logic to get themselves into in the first place. 

As one author writes in a passage I agree with:
If you want to reason about faith, and offer a reasoned (and reason- responsive) defense of faith as an extra category of belief worthy of special consideration, I'm eager to play. I certainly grant the existence of the phenomenon of faith; what I want to see is a reasoned ground for taking faith seriously as a way of getting to the truth, and not, say, just as a way people comfort themselves and each other (a worthy function that I do take seriously). But you must not expect me to go along with your defense of faith as a path to truth if at any point you appeal to the very dispensation you are supposedly trying to justify. Before you appeal to faith when reason has you backed into a corner, think about whether you really want to abandon reason when reason is on your side. [Daniel C. Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea]

Though it is fading.  Go to Europe and there are more tourists in the churches then faithful anymore.

My religious views are most time as ''secularized'' Christian. The basic Christian value is respect towards all humanity even current Pope and politically motivated religious right seem not to understand that. Atheism can very easily lead to situation without any values or respect towards human life.

Quote from: DarkLady on July 11, 2009, 03:07:52 PM
[...] Atheism can very easily lead to situation without any values or respect towards human life.

Rubbish.  Atheism has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.  It's nothing more nor less than the belief that god does not exist.  Period.

Mahalia Jackson - A mighty fortress is our God

Classic Gospel version of a classic hymn. A time period inseperable from Western civilization as we know it today.

Slow Train-Bob Dylan and The Grateful Dead

And, and what does that song say?

I don't care about economy, I don't care about astronomy
But it sure do bother me to see my loved ones turning into puppets,

But I haven't come the first time yet.

(we've gone from Jesus to Roman Emperors, to Dylan and Garcia to sex and now to Groucho, if not particularly ecclesiastical, at least we're eclectic.) 

Quote from: finewine on July 12, 2009, 01:35:23 AM
Well, combine the thread's christian theme and call it "The Second Coming"

That would be a great album title 

It went along fine for a while, but for everyone who feels that religion has something wonderful to offer there are others - many these post prop 8 days for sure - who feel oppressed, victimized, and demonized by it.  On top of that, there are quite a few people in here who were trained in rational science and don't just not believe, but find some of these teachings, doctrines, and items of faith to be, well, absurd.  And also, like 2 1/2 of the people listed above, Jesus himself, Groucho, and 1/2 Dylan (well, all but ten years), lots of people flat out believe and practice different religions.  Some others find the constant drumbeat of Evangelical Protestantism to be offensive to them, their heritage, and their beliefs.

People have a right to their faith, and to practice it as they feel is best, but their right to those beliefs pretty much ends at my ears, the ears of my kids who were raised Jewish, and, when you get down to it, the majority of the world who does not believe as you do.

The Constitution gives us freedom of religion, it ought also provide some measure of freedom from religion too as part of the deal.