Inauguration Benediction Concludes in JESUS NAME!

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Guest, Jan 20, 2005.

Loading...
  1. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    How can we distinguish between true and false gods? What reliable methods enable us to distinguish between true and false religious doctrines? How are divine revelations recognized, and distinguished from acts of non-divine supernatural agents or from simple human credulity?

    Despite Degreeinfo's participants claiming enough religion degrees and ordinations to choke a mule, everybody avoids those kind of issues like the plague.

    Yet they argue about religion incessantly. They insist that their own doctrines, revelations and methodological approaches be the presuppositions of all discussion. They presume to make their own beliefs normative for those who don't share them. And they dismiss other people's beliefs and perspectives as not only false, but irrelevant.

    I wonder if the genesis of this whole political-religion argument isn't found in precisely that kind of attitude.
     
  2. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Re: Carl_Reginstein says "Jesus Schmeezus"?

    Suppose that a super being appears from out of the sky, displays powers totally beyond human experience, and sets about stomping humanity into the dust and seizing control.

    What would the proper response be?

    Should we respond like the humans did in 'Independence Day'? Should we attempt to resist as best as we are able?

    Or should we fall on our knees and worship the super being as a god?

    How DOES one tell the difference between gods and super space aliens?

    The philosophical-theological point here is that transcendence comes in different grades, and not all of them are divine. But because they all transcend human experience, there doesn't seem to be any way to distinguish among them.

    This question isn't simply academic. Real life mistakes do occur. On the island of Tanna in Vanuatu, there's still a small religion that worships a savior named 'John Frum'. Frum apparently was an American supply sargeant in World War II who appeared from out of the sky and provided the people with all kinds of unheard-of wonders. Today the Tannese know much more about the outside world, but the religious myth has survived, with Frum being transformed into a miraculous super-human being who now resides beneath their island volcano, set to reemerge at the end of time (soon). So the thing has become sort of a millenarian cult, much as Christianity seems to have done in its early days after Jesus' death.
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Via the consistent and constant course of Judeo-Christian history, archeology, and the human equation.
     
  4. dcv

    dcv New Member

    Pair that with a magic 8-ball and you can be doubly sure.
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I must humbly disagree, Bill. It is the issue of the name of Jesus, at least indirectly, that produced subsequent responses. Me Again is correct in that prayer is not opposed by most if it is generic, but when the name of Jesus is evoked it becomes very offensive to many.

    For example, few would find the following prayer offensive: Higher Power, if you do indeed exist, we petition you for favor, blessing, prosperity and peace. However, when a prayer addresses a specific being (e.g., the God of the Bible) and concludes with, "in the name of Jesus Christ," it is perceived by many as intolerant and exclusive. Yet, this is exactly how the Bible instructs Christians to pray.

    Why did I find a Christian clergyman referring to Jesus in a prayer noteworthy to justify an entire thread? Basically, because so many Christian clergymen are under pressure--at least in the public arena--to pray politically correct, non-offensive generic prayers. IMO, Pastor Kirbyjohn Caldwell is to be commended for refusing to bow to the god of political correctness.
     
  6. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Actually, I think Jimmy Clifton may have something there.

    It seems to me that any religion or religious belief that requires acceptence of direct revelation is bound to be bogus. I just don't buy that God speaks directly to humans or, for that matter, that God has ever, or will ever, suspend the natural order in answer to a prayer. In this, Jimmy and I certainly disagree and I imagine even my good friend Uncle Janko will suffer some heartburn at my insistance on the primacy of human reason and observation (also known as "modernism")

    However, that is NOT to say that humans have no history of religious expression, expression, moreover, that seems to be prompted in some relatively consistant way to many, many many many people throughout essentially ALL of human existence.

    It seems to me that the age, relative universality, and relative consistency of this expression argues for SOMETHING beyond ourselves, or more precisely, MYself.

    Now if a superstition or religious belief or practice is radically at variance with this common and historic expression, it needs to be looked at very suspiciously. If, for example, some guru tells me that by suicide I can join the Eternal on an approaching comet, this teaching departs so much from the general human expression of religiosity that it rings too false for acceptance.

    Remember, the phrase "still small voice" is translated by some scholars as "fine silence". THAT'S the expression I accept and believe.
     
  7. dcv

    dcv New Member

    Is this to suggest that Vishnu is somehow at variance with common and historic expression? If not, how exactly does JC "have something here?"
     
  8. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    This is THE question. I don't know.

    To draw a bow at a venture, I'd suggest that one should look for the commonalities to the various religious expressions. I would look at spiritual practices, rules for ethical behavior, and such rather than concern myself with the actual "theology" or the naming of gods.

    I do not have anything like the necessary background to undertake that sort of analysis but I do know that there are those who are capable of it.

    I think it would require the sort of enquiry Thomas Merton carried out. It's going to require subjective experience rather than mere description, I suspect. Unfortunately, such an enquiry requires an unusually open mind; not the most common charactoristic of religiously committed people!

    For all I know, at some level and in some way, Vishnu and Jesus might look a lot alike. As I say, I myself don't know and really don't know how to go about finding out.
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    For one thing there is no historical evidence Vishnu existed. Outside of Hinduism, he is not even recognized in any shape, form, or fashion, save of course offshoots of Hinduism, unless I have forgotten something.

    Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is a recognied entity in faiths other than Christianity and is a historic figure validated in numerous writings (Christian and non-Christian alike) during the past 2,000 years.

    Can you name even one figure of history who has impacted it so remarkably as Jesus Christ?
     
  10. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Your comments are, indeed, thought provoking -- and in the world of academia, they are relevant questions. Academia insists upon empirical studies to support our conclusions or, if we're not going to have empirical evidence that can be reproduced, then academia at least expects volumes upon volumes of qualitative research to support our anecdotal conclusions. Having said that...

    I do not have a college education in religious studies, so my interpretation of religious topics is based upon my personal experiences and my studies of the scriptures as a layman. So what follows is a layman's analysis of what you wrote. :eek:

    It must be noted that the bible clearly says that God chose the simple things of our present world to confound the wise of this world. God found pleasure in giving salvation, through preaching, to those who might believe in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. But it is foolishness to the wise of this world. They see no empirical evidence to support the notion that salvation can only be found in Christ -- and in Him alone. Thus, we are perceived as being fools for Christ for believing, by faith, in His everlasting gospel and in His promise to return in power and in glory to seize control of the earth. :eek:
     
  11. dcv

    dcv New Member

    There is presumably none to prove the existence of the big JC's dad either. Does it follow that the god of the old testament is a false god?

    To think that failure to appear as a human in some account of history discredits a god suggests a limitation in your thought and imagination - it says nothing whatsoever of Vishnu.

    You are utterly constrained within your paradigm. It's really rather disturbing to behold.
     
  12. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    That's kinda what I meant when I suggested that open mindedness is not a defining charactoristic of religiously committed people.

    BTW, I am not by ANY means satisfied that Jesus existed. Talmud certainly refers, if only sarcastically and in a sort of code, to CHRISTIANS. It never discusses an historic Jesus. Mishnah seems in general to paint a pretty complete picture of Jewish life and custom during the Second Temple period. But no Jesus.

    On the other hand, I don't claim to be an historian nor an anthropologist.
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Nothing paradigmatic about it.
     
  14. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    The day is coming when openness will abound. When the Lord Jesus Christ appears in the clouds of heaven, it will be a very open event, for all to behold, but it will be too late for many. Today is the day of salvation. Trust in Christ today. When you're all alone, talk to Him and ask Him to come into your heart. Salvation is exclusively between you and Jesus. :)

    There is coming a day when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. That is the particular belief that pisses many people off. And whenever the name of Jesus is mentioned, that particular scripture resonates in the minds of many, which is one reason, amongst many reasons, why His name is so controversial. :eek:
     
  15. dcv

    dcv New Member

    If it will be too late for many (how ominous :eek: ), then openness won't really abound, now will it?

    Unless by openness you allude to the open gates of hell, down which poor dcv is slipping... to burn for eternity with a righteous flame.

    I am simply atwitter at the prospect. :)
     
  16. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Calm yourself, me again. Your statement is nothing us Jews (like, say, Jesus?) haven't heard before and haven't rejected before.

    I suppose that your repetition of this formula (that you received from another HUMAN, understand) satisfies the Christian charge to preach to all nations. Okay. You preached. Now kindly shake the dust from your feet and leave us to our undoubtedly predestined fate.
     
  17. Rich Hartel

    Rich Hartel New Member

    Of course people react when they hear the name of Jesus, for it is the name above all names, and it is the "only" name by which all men and women can be saved.

    And alot of people don't like hearing that, for all those other so called famous names like, Muhamed, Allah, Buddha, etc..., don't seem to get the same response, do they?

    Geee, I wonder why?:confused: :D

    Rich Hartel

    A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)
     
  18. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Mit brennender Sorge...

    Sometimes people brandish their Christianity like a weapon. I do not think this is what St Paul had in mind when he called the Gospel a stumblingblock and a scandal.

    I also don't think hell is very funny.

    But I know for damn sure that running one's theology through the filter of a presidential inauguration is not only unscriptural and unpatristic; it's just dumb. And acting as though the only folks who revere the name of Christ are the folks who vote the correct way--the churchly left did this in the sixties, the religious right does it now (different time, same whoring after false gods)--is simply unspeakable.

    And I wish somebody could explain to the stupid Carpathian why folks spend more time posting about politics, fun though it admittedly is, than they do about distance education.

    Regustedly yours*,

    Janko the Mad Priest

    *Sorry. I meant "your's." Mustn't be "elitest," mustn't, mustn't.
     
  19. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Uncle,

    You know, I wonder if you ever read C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity". One of the points the author makes is that folks must not preach "Chrisitanity and..." It seems to this Jew that you are very good at keeping to the POINT.
     

Share This Page