durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,469
- 19,164
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not ok with murdering people, thats all.You are still referring to the innocent right? Are you saying the death penalty is deliberately design to kill innocent people? Justice and freedom has a heavy price tag.
How so? Jesus also said He came not to bring peace, but a sword. What are we to do with the sword? We are to KIll the enemies of Jesus.Wow, you really worship an entirely different Jesus from the Jesus I worship.
No.According to the NT, did Jesus ever say anything that would be completely contradictory to what you just said?
I grew up in another Church. but I decided to join the established Church where the priests are descendants of St. Peter.I'm calling Poe. You don't sound like any Anglican I ever met.
Since 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, Jesus has ruled the world through His followers. Jesus does not kill anyone. His followers do.The sword belongs to Jesus. Not to us.
have it your way.....Since 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, Jesus has ruled the world through His followers. Jesus does not kill anyone. His followers do.
You are still referring to the innocent right? Are you saying the death penalty is deliberately design to kill innocent people? Justice and freedom has a heavy price tag.
An enemy of Jesus is anyone who threatens or attacks Christians. They must be killed.
As the earth's only superpower, we police the earth. Our weapons bring hell and death to the enemies of Jesus.
What's your problem? We are clearly commanded to kill the enemies of Jesus, and that's what the US does. The point is, Jesus is OK with the death penalty.
How so? Jesus also said He came not to bring peace, but a sword. What are we to do with the sword? We are to KIll the enemies of Jesus.
Since 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, Jesus has ruled the world through His followers. Jesus does not kill anyone. His followers do.
I gave you scripture that says I'm right and you are wrong. Christians rule the world and sometimes have to do some killing. I did my share of killing the enemies of Jesus in the Viet Nam war.I feel so sorry for you...you're thinking that WE need to decide who lives and who dies, in the name of Jesus? That's wrong!
I ain't gonna kill no one. It's not my place. I have spent far more time alive, training to save lives than I ever will in taking them. It's not my place. And those of you that feel it is your place to decide who lives or who dies based on religion, you need some serious mental help.
Welcome to America, where Freedom of Religion ain't just for Christians.
I gave you scripture that says I'm right and you are wrong. Christians rule the world and sometimes have to do some killing. I did my share of killing the enemies of Jesus in the Viet Nam war.
Ironically, that parable would, arguably, make the least religious nations on the earth (Scandinavia) the most christian ones.
Scandinavia is heavily culturally Christian, and Christians still come out as the majority in censuses. Just very few Scandinavians take religion that serious any more is all.
Christians come out ahead in censuses in large part because of the cultural heritage. Furthermore, other countries have longer and far more deeply engrained christian culture and heritages than Scandinavia
Not ironically at all, IMO.
As Supreme wisely notes, Scandinavia or at least the Nordics, are still very heavily culturally Christian. Scandinavian/Nordic Christianity, imo, is often underestimated -- i.e. tends to be heavily personal, coupled with our non-talkative culture, at least here in Japanese-like "keeping social face" Finland -- especially when compared to more "showy" or "social/talkative" Christianity type of nations. Since you're a Norwegian yourself, obviously, here it's not just an interpretation and cultural barrier question.
I'm still a bit undecided and unsure how to call our Nordic societies re: religion though. "Cultural Christian" (pro-Christian heritage but no personal Jesus) became a tainted term when Breivik used that term to describe his beliefs. The Archbishop Emeritus of Canterbury recently introduced the term "post-Christian", but that doesn't sound quite right either. And of course, we the Nordic countries (or "Scandinavian" in popular parlance) are the same yet individual nevertheless. Denmark is not Norway is not Iceland is not Finland is not Sweden, yet we all have our common Lutheran heritage and our Nordic welfare state model and our common Nordic mind, sensibilities, attitudes, values. Hard to pinpoint yet whatever those are, I think we all *know* they are something we Nordics seem to share and agree on, something that sets "us" vs "them" the rest of the world, do you agree, TheReasoner?
I think that when it comes to the parable of Matthew 25, no other nations in the world comes closer than the Nordic Five. And I also do believe it has to do with those mysterious Lutheran ethics, considering that Finland, for examply, was part of the Orthodox Russian Empire for a century yet still managed to retain that certain something Nordic at heart, never becoming like other Russian next-door-neighbour states.
Before our first class Nordic "cradle-to-grave" welfare states that makes us # ones in the world in any and all categories of good life possible, we had the Lutheran Church-states doing the same job. From my Christian POV, before we had the Nordic welfare state model, we had the Lutheran Church basically doing the ground work: basic education, literacy, health care and health education, agri education, small loans, empowerment of women and moms, poor houses, pensions, raising general awareness.
Now, I realize that the (Lutheran) Church does not have a monopoly of morals. I think it is very much a chicken/egg question, looking at it from the POV of Finland's history; Norway has her own history, of course. We now know that there was never a point of history where the land of the Finns, Swedish or Russian, was "Christian" in a sense that almost 100% of the folks had "personal Jesus". Now as in "back then" (a.k.a. "the good old times"), it seemed to be more of matter of "cultural Christianity", if that makes sense. Folks went to the established church because they were expected to, as a certain number of church attendance was mandatory: too many AWOLS would elicit a "fire & brimstones" kind of public humiliation. No marriage license, for example, which for the young men, especially, was pretty harsh.
The reason why many opted to drop out, however, back then was the same as it remains today: they were too busy to attend a public ritual. People had personal faith, a yarning for spirituality, yet the rather rigid (not to mention) mandatory state church rituals, especially in the harvest time when it become a guestion of concrete food vs. spiritual food (i.e. attend the mandatory church service half a day's travel away or stay and harvest your crop so your family doesn't starve come winter), did not appeal to people. Yet a farmer could go into the woods or fells and have a chat with God, it just did not register as established religion.
In a way, I think our Nordic societys still have that same old "woodsman spirituality". Come Christmas, Easter, All Saints' Day, our churches -- even the 1000+ seat grand cathedrals -- are packed, standing room only. On ordinary summer Sundays, however, Finns head to the woods and their cabins on the lakes, to have a chat with their Maker, if they so choose.
Yet here in Finland, 90% of kids choose to participate in the confirmation training & camps. The majority still want Church wedding and baptism for their children. Not to mention Christian fiunerals for themselves after it's over. We teach religion at school. Our conscription army employs Christian chaplains. Our National Parliament starts and ends it semester with a Christian church service, as do our schools. A friday morning prayer service is still the norm not only in our public schools but in many workplaces as well (including mine). We can't have a military parade or Independence Day without "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God". We can't end our schools semesters without "Hosanna" and "Suvivirsi" Summer Hymn.
Sure, they are part of our national Christian cultural heritage, but at the same time, they are also something more. As a Christian, I'd say "soul"; an atheist might say "national soul".
At the end of the day (and my long post), what do we have under the bottom line? Whether it is our (Personal Jesus) soul or our (Christian Cultural) National Soul, does it really matter?
I mean, does it really matter and has it ever?
The good ethics, if you will, are there, whether they arise from Jesus or from liberal humanism-something-whatever, as long as we Christians, "post/cultural-Christians" and conscience objectors/non-Christians together "do no harm" but respect every single one of our neighbour's dignity. I personally am more willing to work with a non-Christian who shares my values of unconditional human dignity than with an aggressive, intolerant Christian extremists with exclusive views of our common, shared, and inalienable human dignity.
Well, yes and no. Partly, I agree, partly no.
Generally, the rule of a thumb seems to be that the richer (materialistically the country) the less there is personal Jesus. Although I'm a Lutheran, I'm willing to admit that the Catholic-majority churches in second/third-world countries fare better in this, especially the Latin American as well as the Protestant-majority African countries such as Namibia and Ethiopia. They are where we were 150 years ago.
I don't know what's your personal experience with the token (at least) statistically "more Christian" industrialised liberal western democractic coutries like the United States of America. Mine is that in the US, "Christianity" is a) a political "must" regardless of "personal Jesus" or lack thereof, b) a similar societal "must" nevermind the possible lack of "personal Jesus" c) and therefore, very much an emperor's new clothes thing: a public self-delusion where everyone believes the others are more "pious" and therefore they must be very loud about their beliefs for appearance's sake. Now, the vast majority of the (US) congregation I got invited as a guest felt honestly delighted of the opportunity to offer me the token Lutheran their hospitality, yet a couple of them flat out asked about our financial situation and ability to contribute, with $$$-pictures in their eyes. Left really a bad taste in our mouth, being seen as nothing but a lucrative $$$, $$$-milk cows.
I want to stress this: that is not what our Lord Jesus Christ stand for. Just no. Thankfully, these were a minority.
You (TheReasoner) say/claim that Christianity is just another man-made religion with no basis in a divinity or spiritual reality. Jesus may have been real, and his teachings (Not Paul's) are quite good.
As a Christian, an inadequate follower of Jesus Christ, I say that Jesus Christ was all that and his teaching were good, really good. The problem is with us mainstream, avarage Christians: we fall short every step of the way. The very reason why we need our Jesus, after all. We have this Gold Standard, most of us even have our Good Intentions, but we fail, over and over again. But we try, and try, and try. We try being better persons every single day. I know I do. And I think that's still better than throwing your hands up, giving into to the lowest common denominator and just giving the finger at yours neighbours.
Anyways, I think your post was a very interesting read.
We have our Lutheran heritage, yes. We also have our pagan heritage, which you later note, is also very strong once you think about it. This does not mean we can attribute the social boons our culture has created with either as a source, at least not a sole source. I am not a sociologist, but from what little I know of our cultural history many of the factors which built up our society to what it is came from the fairly areligious left side of the political spectrum. Sure, plenty also came from christian believers. But virtually any religious belief may have instilled the same compassion. This is not an argument for christianity's validity. Even if it had been the sole undisputed reason why our cultures have advanced to where they are this would not validate the belief as anything more than morally sound.Not ironically at all, IMO.
As Supreme wisely notes, Scandinavia or at least the Nordics, are still very heavily culturally Christian. Scandinavian/Nordic Christianity, imo, is often underestimated -- i.e. tends to be heavily personal, coupled with our non-talkative culture, at least here in Japanese-like "keeping social face" Finland -- especially when compared to more "showy" or "social/talkative" Christianity type of nations. Since you're a Norwegian yourself, obviously, here it's not just an interpretation and cultural barrier question.
I'm still a bit undecided and unsure how to call our Nordic societies re: religion though. "Cultural Christian" (pro-Christian heritage but no personal Jesus) became a tainted term when Breivik used that term to describe his beliefs. The Archbishop Emeritus of Canterbury recently introduced the term "post-Christian", but that doesn't sound quite right either. And of course, we the Nordic countries (or "Scandinavian" in popular parlance) are the same yet individual nevertheless. Denmark is not Norway is not Iceland is not Finland is not Sweden, yet we all have our common Lutheran heritage and our Nordic welfare state model and our common Nordic mind, sensibilities, attitudes, values. Hard to pinpoint yet whatever those are, I think we all *know* they are something we Nordics seem to share and agree on, something that sets "us" vs "them" the rest of the world, do you agree, TheReasoner?
Yes, in Norway too the majority are members of the church. I am, I am even active. But I am most certainly not a christian, not anymore.I think that when it comes to the parable of Matthew 25, no other nations in the world comes closer than the Nordic Five. And I also do believe it has to do with those mysterious Lutheran ethics, considering that Finland, for examply, was part of the Orthodox Russian Empire for a century yet still managed to retain that certain something Nordic at heart, never becoming like other Russian next-door-neighbour states.
Before our first class Nordic "cradle-to-grave" welfare states that makes us # ones in the world in any and all categories of good life possible, we had the Lutheran Church-states doing the same job. From my Christian POV, before we had the Nordic welfare state model, we had the Lutheran Church basically doing the ground work: basic education, literacy, health care and health education, agri education, small loans, empowerment of women and moms, poor houses, pensions, raising general awareness.
Now, I realize that the (Lutheran) Church does not have a monopoly of morals. I think it is very much a chicken/egg question, looking at it from the POV of Finland's history; Norway has her own history, of course. We now know that there was never a point of history where the land of the Finns, Swedish or Russian, was "Christian" in a sense that almost 100% of the folks had "personal Jesus". Now as in "back then" (a.k.a. "the good old times"), it seemed to be more of matter of "cultural Christianity", if that makes sense. Folks went to the established church because they were expected to, as a certain number of church attendance was mandatory: too many AWOLS would elicit a "fire & brimstones" kind of public humiliation. No marriage license, for example, which for the young men, especially, was pretty harsh.
The reason why many opted to drop out, however, back then was the same as it remains today: they were too busy to attend a public ritual. People had personal faith, a yarning for spirituality, yet the rather rigid (not to mention) mandatory state church rituals, especially in the harvest time when it become a guestion of concrete food vs. spiritual food (i.e. attend the mandatory church service half a day's travel away or stay and harvest your crop so your family doesn't starve come winter), did not appeal to people. Yet a farmer could go into the woods or fells and have a chat with God, it just did not register as established religion.
In a way, I think our Nordic societys still have that same old "woodsman spirituality". Come Christmas, Easter, All Saints' Day, our churches -- even the 1000+ seat grand cathedrals -- are packed, standing room only. On ordinary summer Sundays, however, Finns head to the woods and their cabins on the lakes, to have a chat with their Maker, if they so choose.
Yet here in Finland, 90% of kids choose to participate in the confirmation training & camps. The majority still want Church wedding and baptism for their children. Not to mention Christian fiunerals for themselves after it's over. We teach religion at school. Our conscription army employs Christian chaplains. Our National Parliament starts and ends it semester with a Christian church service, as do our schools. A friday morning prayer service is still the norm not only in our public schools but in many workplaces as well (including mine). We can't have a military parade or Independence Day without "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God". We can't end our schools semesters without "Hosanna" and "Suvivirsi" Summer Hymn.
I would say that it does. Truth matters, it is never good to embrace untruth as it can lead to serious repercussions down the line. I realize this in itself is a slippery slope fallacy, but I do find Kant's imperative approach to be sound in this regard. As an ideal approach I do think it might benefit us all to minimize ignorance, bias and superstition.Sure, they are part of our national Christian cultural heritage, but at the same time, they are also something more. As a Christian, I'd say "soul"; an atheist might say "national soul".
At the end of the day (and my long post), what do we have under the bottom line? Whether it is our (Personal Jesus) soul or our (Christian Cultural) National Soul, does it really matter?
I mean, does it really matter and has it ever?
The good ethics, if you will, are there, whether they arise from Jesus or from liberal humanism-something-whatever, as long as we Christians, "post/cultural-Christians" and conscience objectors/non-Christians together "do no harm" but respect every single one of our neighbour's dignity. I personally am more willing to work with a non-Christian who shares my values of unconditional human dignity than with an aggressive, intolerant Christian extremists with exclusive views of our common, shared, and inalienable human dignity.
Well, yes and no. Partly, I agree, partly no.
Generally, the rule of a thumb seems to be that the richer (materialistically the country) the less there is personal Jesus. Although I'm a Lutheran, I'm willing to admit that the Catholic-majority churches in second/third-world countries fare better in this, especially the Latin American as well as the Protestant-majority African countries such as Namibia and Ethiopia. They are where we were 150 years ago.
Yees, people say they are a minority, but is that accurate? Do you have hard numbers or is this your personal belief?I don't know what's your personal experience with the token (at least) statistically "more Christian" industrialised liberal western democractic coutries like the United States of America. Mine is that in the US, "Christianity" is a) a political "must" regardless of "personal Jesus" or lack thereof, b) a similar societal "must" nevermind the possible lack of "personal Jesus" c) and therefore, very much an emperor's new clothes thing: a public self-delusion where everyone believes the others are more "pious" and therefore they must be very loud about their beliefs for appearance's sake. Now, the vast majority of the (US) congregation I got invited as a guest felt honestly delighted of the opportunity to offer me the token Lutheran their hospitality, yet a couple of them flat out asked about our financial situation and ability to contribute, with $$$-pictures in their eyes. Left really a bad taste in our mouth, being seen as nothing but a lucrative $$$, $$$-milk cows.
I want to stress this: that is not what our Lord Jesus Christ stand for. Just no. Thankfully, these were a minority.
Nope. I say I consider that the most likely nature of christianity. Prove it is true and I will spin on a dime.You (TheReasoner) say/claim that Christianity is just another man-made religion with no basis in a divinity or spiritual reality. Jesus may have been real, and his teachings (Not Paul's) are quite good.
The same is the case with many others. Buddha for example. Also, I am not so sure the whole "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" is good.As a Christian, an inadequate follower of Jesus Christ, I say that Jesus Christ was all that and his teaching were good, really good.
The problem is with us mainstream, avarage Christians: we fall short every step of the way. The very reason why we need our Jesus, after all. We have this Gold Standard, most of us even have our Good Intentions, but we fail, over and over again.
Yes, it is. But others try too. I try, I do not really know many who do not. Christian or otherwise. I do not see that being a point in christianity's favor, this is a human trait more than anything else. We try. Mostly.But we try, and try, and try. We try being better persons every single day. I know I do. And I think that's still better than throwing your hands up, giving into to the lowest common denominator and just giving the finger at yours neighbours.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?