Which religious group?

[Gilbey]

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but the theological view that holds the earth in near-contempt seems to smack of Gnosticism, not to mention that it runs contrary to the overt theme in Genesis that repeatedly affirms how good creation is.

Yes it was good, not UNTIL the fall of man when he chose to disobey God in the garden that resulted in the reversal.

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Romans 8:20 - 22)

 

[Samsa]

Yes it was good, not UNTIL the fall of man when he chose to disobey God in the garden that resulted in the reversal.

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Romans 8:20 - 22)

The key phrase being "until now." Christ is called the "New Adam" - he redeemed creation. If creation was so wicked, Christ would not have become man. This is a hallmark of Gnosticism and the early Christological heresies - they could not understand how God should take the form of a man.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

You all may hearken back to the dirt/mud factor, but I like to think of us, and everything on the planet, as the result of star death.

karol

 

[Gilbey]

The key phrase being "until now." Christ is called the "New Adam" - he redeemed creation. If creation was so wicked, Christ would not have become man. This is a hallmark of Gnosticism and the early Christological heresies - they could not understand how God should take the form of a man.

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:13-14)

The curse of the Law was real. It took Christ to the cross. The inflexibility of the Law's demands is clearly seen in the fact that when Christ took the place of the law-breaker, though He himself was perfectly holy, he had to endure exactly the same penalty as any other who came under the curse of the Law. The circumstance that Christ died by hanging on the tree of Calvary emphasized the element of curse.

 

[John in Covina]

The creation still groans under the Fall and will do so until it is remade.

 

[John in Covina]

The Law can only condemn and those that place themselves under the Law must keep the whole Law every Jot and Tiddle. Here is the rub, who can keep the Law? No one. Since the Law will be judged under not only DEED but also THOUGHT and WORD, no one will be succesful in gaining their own salvation. THe Law condemns and the Gospel can Save. The Law is a mirror that shows our sin and drive us to Christ for Salvation.

 

[Samsa]

The creation still groans under the Fall and will do so until it is remade.

Right: I understand this point, and from the theological perspective don't disagree with you. That said, I still take issue with the view that holds the world in contempt. Of course, I also firmly believe "to each his own." I'm not looking to pick fights with anyone, but find some of the opinions stated here rather interesting, and am seeking to hear an elaboration on them. I have always understood the idea of "groaning under the fall" to mean concupiscence for the most part (and also the hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. that we are prey to). I have not understood it - except of course in the context of the Christological heresies - to mean a contempt of earth.

 

[John in Covina]

Right: I understand this point, and from the theological perspective don't disagree with you. That said, I still take issue with the view that holds the world in contempt. Of course, I also firmly believe "to each his own." I'm not looking to pick fights with anyone, but find some of the opinions stated here rather interesting, and am seeking to hear an elaboration on them. I have always understood the idea of "groaning under the fall" to mean concupiscence for the most part (and also the hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. that we are prey to). I have not understood it - except of course in the context of the Christological heresies - to mean a contempt of earth.

*****
I understand it that it is as the world becames Unperfect that where the Hurricanes and Earthquakes come in to play as they would not happen in the Garden, but I don't see where the contempt is coming from. I like the question, what did mosquitoes do before the Fall?

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Samsa
I have not understood it - except of course in the context of the Christological heresies - to mean a contempt of earth.

Contempt of the Creator for the Creation?

Hmmm....interesting notion.

There is much in the Bible regarding the concept of "from dust we came and to dust we shall return" as well as "all of creation cries out for redemption". Admonishment against pride and vanity is abundant as well.

Contempt of the Creator for the Created? Hmmm...

 

[Samsa]

Contempt of the Creator for the Creation?

Hmmm....interesting notion.

There is much in the Bible regarding the concept of "from dust we came and to dust we shall return" as well as "all of creation cries out for redemption". Admonishment against pride and vanity is abundant as well.

Contempt of the Creator for the Created? Hmmm...

I don't necessarily mean earth as "dirt." But the Gnostics certainly held earthly things in contempt. I think perhaps there's some mutual misunderstanding going on here.

 

[surely]

Contempt of the Creator for the Creation?
Contempt of the Creator for the Created? Hmmm...

Maybe they mean contempt of the Created for the Creator. Or perhaps contempt of the Creator for the Creator's Creations, or is that self loathing?....:eusa_doh:

 

[Benny Holiday]

The Kingdom of Heaven

Saw this movie on TV the other night. Very interesting . . . the battle of corrupt men using a guise of religious piety to either cover or justify their own greed and criminal acts (the Templar knights in the movie) versus those who believe that Muslims, Jews and Christians should live in peace in medieval Jerusalem and who follow the true ideals of the Gospels (the Hospitaler knights).

There was a great quote from one of the Hospitaler played by John Thewlis: "I put no stock in 'religion'. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of God. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is here -" points to his head, "and here -" points to his heart, "and what you decide to do every day, if you will be a good man - or not."

 

[sweetfrancaise]

So, I've been flipping through pages of this dynamic debate, on the existence of the truth and its definition. And the back-and-forth discussion is fascinating! I don't have much of a religious background, to the point that I can quote scripture--a future goal is to understand all the major texts--but I'm enjoying reading those posts that put forth new meanings and interpretations.

But I also notice many people posting the message of "live and let live." This is a message with good intentions, I know, but it has the undertones of tolerance, a word which means, to me anyway, that "we'll let you do as you please, but it still won't be right, and we still won't like it."

The solution is impossible, of course. Tolerance may be all we can ask for in today's climate. What is needed is an attitude of understanding, of knowing that your neighbor may have the same values as you, but a different interpretation of them.

For example, I do have a value of faith--in my family, in myself. I have faith in my ability to make myself happy, and those around me. I have faith in the love from my family to get me through any difficult times. I don't have faith in a god or an afterlife, but I understand the process of that faith, because it is my own as well.

Gosh, I hope that was all intelligible. And completely friendly--this just my perspective on things...as irrelevant as it may be.

 

[Bebop]

So, I've been flipping through pages of this dynamic debate, on the existence of the truth and its definition. And the back-and-forth discussion is fascinating! I don't have much of a religious background, to the point that I can quote scripture--a future goal is to understand all the major texts--but I'm enjoying reading those posts that put forth new meanings and interpretations.

But I also notice many people posting the message of "live and let live." This is a message with good intentions, I know, but it has the undertones of tolerance, a word which means, to me anyway, that "we'll let you do as you please, but it still won't be right, and we still won't like it."

The solution is impossible, of course. Tolerance may be all we can ask for in today's climate. What is needed is an attitude of understanding, of knowing that your neighbor may have the same values as you, but a different interpretation of them.

For example, I do have a value of faith--in my family, in myself. I have faith in my ability to make myself happy, and those around me. I have faith in the love from my family to get me through any difficult times. I don't have faith in a god or an afterlife, but I understand the process of that faith, because it is my own as well.

Gosh, I hope that was all intelligible. And completely friendly--this just my perspective on things...as irrelevant as it may be.

Very well said. I would just add that when speaking of "live and let live" I don't believe tolerance takes the form of "allowing" people to do as they believe. It means to have an understanding of why people believe how they do and accept that everyone is different and will deal with their life as they see fit. Sometimes we can't have tolerance. I suppose that starts another cycle of having people be tolerant of intolerance. Oh, Boy.....:eusa_doh:

 

[carter]

Tolerance is defined in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as;

1. a fair and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. any liberal, undogmatic viewpoint

It seems to me that fair, permissive, freedom from bigotry, and undogmatic all transcend the bounds implied by, "we'll let you do as you please, but it still won't be right, and we still won't like it."

This is the essential difference between, "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's an end to it." vs "I believe I'm right but I will not deny the possibility that you may be right as well."

 

[sweetfrancaise]

Tolerance is defined in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as;

1. a fair and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. any liberal, undogmatic viewpoint

It seems to me that fair, permissive, freedom from bigotry, and undogmatic all transcend the bounds implied by, "we'll let you do as you please, but it still won't be right, and we still won't like it."

This is the essential difference between, "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's an end to it." vs "I believe I'm right but I will not deny the possibility that you may be right as well."

I understand where you're coming from Carter--that was my initial reaction when I read a similar statement in the book Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah. I've realized that may be the technical definition, and the word has good intentions. But I don't think that in current society, tolerance is used in that manner. We are taught to tolerate in school, especially during this tense religious atmosphere, but I know that my perspectives aren't tolerated in the manner that Webster's enumerates, except in that others are "permissive". I am allowed to think in a different way, but no one acknowledges that the view is just as valid as their own. Tolerance has become a blanket term that still allows for negative feelings.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

I don't imagine that too many members of the human race are able to practise tolerance as it is defined in Websters.

And I know that many people drawn to religions that teach their way is the right way, the only way -- and all those others are to go directly to hell, do not pass "go" do not collect $200 -- are in those religions because they like the feeling they get that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Thus, the "convert or die" attitude.

karol

 

[Masonjar]

I wasn't able to vote, but here is my take on this topic.

I've always viewed myself as an Atheist. I explained my views and someone said I was actually a Rationalist. That's fine with me because I don't really care about labels.

But here, in a nutshell, describes my view:

My experience does not include a concept of god, because I have no experience to base that concept on.

Now, this differs from the "Hard Atheist" who flatly states "there is no god"

It even differs from the Agnostic, who states "I don't know if there's a god"

What I'm saying is.. I have no basis to form an opinion, so my world has no concept of god.

It's sort of like this: I think all people are born as "blank slates." At some point, someone tries to imprint the idea of religion and God onto these blank slates. For some of these blank slates, the idea of god sticks, it becomes a part of their life, and eventually they accept it as part of their reality. For others, the idea sticks as well, but they fight against it, even hate it. For me, the idea never stuck. So, in a sense, I'm still a "blank slate" as far as god is concerned.

Now, I love to talk about it.. I'll think up all kinds of crazy gods .. I think it's a great mental exercize to theorize and talk about the possibilities of things that lie outside the realm of our every day experiences. But as far as finding something like that to base my life on, I haven't found it. I do have hope that humans will one day evolve to a point where we can move beyond our current limitations, be they physical or mental. I just haven't seen the evidence that we're there yet.

So, for all those who've experienced their god, that's all fine and dandy. Just don't expect me to live as if your god is somehow real. Because it's no more real to me than the tooth fairy and unicorns.

-Mason

 

[Masonjar]

I'm the other "Mormon" in this poll. Not too many of us here it seems. We discourage the use of that term now-a-days. The official name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I'm not harping, just putting that out there for info. It doesn't bother me.

I'm curious, have you read any of the 7 HABITS books by Stephen Covey? From what I hear, they have their roots in LDS philosphy.. Personally, I'm a huge fan and have gotten a lot out of them over the years.

-Mason

 

[K.D. Lightner]

Masonjar -- thanks for your most interest post.

There are some books out there that propose the reason people are "hard-wired" for religion is that, in most of our human history, life has been well, mean, brutish and short -- so much so that people had to invent something of an afterlife or reward/punishment system in order to be able to tolerate even living on this planet under horrible circumstances.

In other words, it is there in our genetics in order to protect us and keep the human race breeding and surviving under the most difficult situations. And, we had to invent a morality clause in there to keep us from deciding to end it all and go to heaven to be with our chosen god rather than stickin git out and coping with the reality of life here on earth (i.e., if you end it all, you most decidely won't go to heaven).

Two books I recently read: The God Gene, which does not propose that there really is a god, only that we have a genetic disposal to religious belief in a god or gods; and The God Theory, which propose that it is illogical to disbelief in a creator of the universe.

karol