Religion: What it means to you

I obsess over religion. First, I'm a Lutheran, Missouri Synod, for those of you who know what that means. I take religion very seriously and, quite honestly, look down on those who don't take the matter seriously. As such, I respect staunch atheists who've studied theologies and rejected them more than, say, casual, church-a-week Christians. I find that the ignorance of what religion means is dooming far more people than the situation calls for, and that society's misunderstand of theology is pathetic and embarrassing. I've truly studied religion since I was 14, and have consumed a little under 200 large books on Christian history and thinking since. I tend to not be kind to beligerent debaters who have no right to be so, which I shouldn't do.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

JackyBoy, I don't want to start a debate here, but I'd enjoy hearing a 1-post summation of your thoughts on this book review: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html .

There's nowhere I can't reach.

As I stated, I did not mean to start a debate. I'm merely interested in reading people's perspectives. So, despite chomping at the bit to do so (theology's uselessness strikes me as the most agregious offense), I'll merely nod and thank those who posted for doing so.

Thank you, all. *raps FallDragon and LordsSword on the knuckles* Come, now.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Paper Crane, I apologize. I feel like this is my fault.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I just finally finished my read of the Book Of Concord. It's all that I can do to avoid a rambling, 4-post summary right now.

I was speaking idiomatically.

...For the record, "The 10 Commandments" are not laws to be followed by Christians. They and the rest of the Old Covenant laws are Hebrew-specific.

That will be the extent of my debating in this topic.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Rereading this topic, the relationship between political liberalism or conservatism and religious individualism or orthodoxy jumps out at me. LordsSword, political conservative or liberal?

FELIPE NO

"So if I encountered a witch should I let her live (Exodus 20:13) or kill her (Exodus 22:18)?"

Duo and magic, please, drop any pretense to being theological scholars. If you haven't the basic knowledge of the Old and New Covenants (something, mind you, that a 3rd grade Vacation Bible School attendee could describe at length), you should probably take a less hostile and haughty tone.

kinky, even within the Old Covenant Israeli society, I see no contradiction at all. Whatever your ill-considered opinion on the difference between "murder" and "divinely-ordered execution" may be, they are clearly different concepts.

Duo, I'd like to heard this explained: "I think the Christian concept of "God" in and of itself is a contradiction."

(By the way, I've lost any inhibition at taking this line, since the topic creator doesn't mind how blatantly off-topic it all is.)

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Throughout those Hebrews' attempts to clear their promised land from other tribes', Jehovah (as you know) ordered the decimation of their rivals. It is never suggested that this is morally or metaphysically improper. When they overstep their bounds, however, Jehovah had, on more than 1 occasion, introducted blight to the people.

Most amazing jew boots

Are...are you serious, magic? We're speaking of a period thousands of years before Jesus' birth. Archaeological digs and anthropological analysis had attributed child sacrifice, ritualistic orgies, and organized duels for kingship to some of the conquered civilizations. I don't think that a ancient Yalta was really an option, eh?

*smacks forehead* Actually, don't respond. I'm going to abandon this topic and merely urge those in it to gain a bit of theological understanding before accepting or rejecting any religion.

How ya doing, buddy?

Good gawd, people. Why, when discussing theology, do all of you suddenly become huge proponents of subjectivity in study? Do you all act this irritatingly when considering non-religious history? When you read a novel about which the author has expressed his/her thoughts, do you reject all sense and educated discussion regarding themes, intent, and narrative because "there's no way that I can REALLY know!"

I get it; you're goading Lord's Sword. That doesn't mean that you need to act silly about whether or not educated opinions have merit over uneducated ones. As with any other subject, vagueness exists, but most can be inferred from those who have dedicated their lives to the matter.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Isn't this usually the case in religious discussion, on or off the internets?

You must not be speaking with the correct people. Of course, if your surroundings are filled with people that have, say, JackyBoy's depth of theological understanding, I can understand your feelings of resignation.

Still, some people in the topic (on both sides) know the subject they're debating. Surely, you have some respect for them?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

That also wasn't the first time humans were given rules to live by.

But, if I remember correctly, while Moses was in the mountain, receiving the 15--oops, I mean, 10 commandments, the people of "Israel" had resorted to erecting golden idols and continuous debauchery. Suddenly, when Moses came down to them and read the commandments they felt shame and were all like "ok, sounds fair" and *poof* by some form of slut magic they were all well-behaved, non-pork eating, sabbath observing people, again.

That's...that's not even right. The Old and New Testament both verify the same principles of Law and Love that both the Old and New Covenants portray. Both make it clear (and one could argue that it extends further back) that Abram's agreement made Jehovah's (lowercase "l") law on Earth faith in, love for, and obedience to God far before Moses. Even if your previous statement was correct, you should know that the Israelites, Hebrew or otherwise, were mostly bad, faithless people (as most folk are, in general) who constantly trespassed their bounds. Unless you were being facetious (in which case I apologize), you and I both could assume that, within the Bible's framework, the majority of them will go to hell.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Prayer is supposed to be a demonstration of faith. I dunno why or when people started thinking God was some kind of genie who grants wishes for brownie points.

Post-Resurrection Jews in Jerusalem or the Christian-pagan Constantine. Take your pick.

How ya doing, buddy?

RainMan and Sassafrass, this is just a reminder not to be too overzealous about your knowledge of the Bible, religious history, and Christian theology. It makes you look as silly as I do when I try to grasp dynamics.

That being said, continue to contribute worthwhile sentiments in other areas, since (although I don't have the time here to contribute) I'm really enjoying everyone hashing out their differences. Thanks. Also, my apologies to Lord'sSword, who, despite not being my theological doppelganger, I feel like I should be aiding.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Don't mistake me for a Christian. I was just tossing back to him what he tossed at me. I am not zealous or anything. I don't really have much to be zealous in.

Oh, yeah. I know. I was just insisting on you arguing on your own terms. Opening up the intertextual can of worms is something that irritates me even when very knowledgeable people do it, and it's something that (you'll admit, so I'm not just patronizing) you're weaker regarding.

Originally Posted by RainMan

You have a good point though I am merely making general statements indicating how problems arise in the berth of a document which was constructed over the course of thousands of years.

No document is perfect and that someone should look at the bible as flawlessly constructed and therefore refuse to think outside of the document, perplexes me a great deal. I think I am zealous. Its definitely not a strong point but I still stand by my previous statements.

Yes, but if we're aiming at the discovery of truth here and Lord'sSword has found his in a conservative (however much that may be), closed reading of the text, I feel like you're just being unnecessarily specific and harsh here without being productive. Maybe it's throwing off the topic? I don't know. That's how it strikes me, no offense.

Oh, and Lord'sSword, I'm on your side. Don't get me wrong, I'm a theological conservative.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

If you're looking for specific comments, I'd refer you to the numerous posts disregarding the Old Covenant-New Covenant concept, the most recent of which is on the last page. Also, though it was painting with a broad brush on my part, it seems that most people who throw out some of the criticisms that you used are weaker on such matters than I'd prefer.

Again, that's no genuine jab against you, since you clearly have some grasp of the text, whatever your actual verdict may be on its truth. That's all.

Jam it back in, in the dark.