Jamie_B Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Also as far as public prayer, I think you might be taking that more literal than its meant to be, he is basically saying dont do it for show which is what those he was chastising were doing it for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345515507' post='1149035'] The definition Ive been taught comes from Matthew 18:20 - [b][color=#001320][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."[/background][/font][/color][/b] [background=rgb(249, 253, 255)][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][color=#001320]That is what Ive been taught church is when I took that new testament class I referred to earlier. Which makes sense with the first church being the disciples, as there was no formal building for them to meet in that time. [/color][/font][/background] [/quote] I really don't see how that means this is a church.. Jesus seemed to talk a lot about people getting together and sharing faith.. He didn't really say anything about "clergy", or getting together to recite prayers together (except to say you [i]shouldn't[/i]).. The very fact that someone was made a "Pope" after he died seems to fly in the face of what you pointed out earlier.. That Jesus never tried to control the "church". To try and invoke the "Vicar of Christ" upon a mortal man seems an affront to what he stood for.. I think Jesus is awesome.. "The Church", not so much. (BTW, seeing as the thread has been derailed, and renamed, we might as well have at it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1345515941' post='1149042'] I really don't see how that means this is a church.. Jesus seemed to talk a lot about people getting together and sharing faith.. He didn't really say anything about "clergy", or getting together to recite prayers together (except to say you [i]shouldn't[/i]).. The very fact that someone was made a "Pope" after he died seems to fly in the face of what you pointed out earlier.. That Jesus never tried to control the "church". To try and invoke the "Vicar of Christ" upon a mortal man seems an affront to what he stood for.. I think Jesus is awesome.. "The Church", not so much. (BTW, seeing as the thread has been derailed, and renamed, we might as well have at it.) [/quote] ugh I really dont desire a theological discussion because they never end well, suffice to say I dont agree with your definitions or you mine, nor do I think you have the interpretation of public prayer correct in its entire context within that verse, reading the whole thing shows hes talking about doing things for show, when he talks about fasting in the same manner suffice to say the definition of church I give isnt something that is all that out there, as I said the early Christians didnt even have buildings in which they formally met This is just the first paragraph of this article. but notice one of the definitions it gives... [color=#444444][font=Verdana, Tahoma, Ariel, sans-serif][size=3]“What is a church?” Now that seems like a easy question, the sort of question one might answer in an simple sentence or two. “A church is a building in which Christians meet for worship,” is one obvious possibility. [/size][/font][/color][color=#ff0000][font=Verdana, Tahoma, Ariel, sans-serif][size=3]“A church is a group of Christians who gather for religious purposes” is another[/size][/font][/color][color=#444444][font=Verdana, Tahoma, Ariel, sans-serif][size=3]. A critic might says, “A church is a club for insiders and hypocrites.” These quick answers don’t take us very far if we want to understand truly what a church ought to be.[/size][/font][/color] [url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/what-is-a-church/"]http://www.patheos.c...at-is-a-church/[/url] As far as peter being the first pope Im not following you why you think thats being controlling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345516868' post='1149055'] ugh I really dont desire a theological discussion because they never end well, suffice to say I dont agree with your definitions or you mine, nor do I think you have the interpretation of public prayer correct in its entire context within that verse, reading the whole thing shows hes talking about doing things for show, when he talks about fasting in the same manner suffice to say the definition of church I give isnt something that is all that out there, as I said the early Christians didnt even have buildings in which they formally met This is just the first paragraph of this article. but notice one of the definitions it gives... [color=#444444][font=Verdana, Tahoma, Ariel, sans-serif][size=3]“What is a church?” Now that seems like a easy question, the sort of question one might answer in an simple sentence or two. “A church is a building in which Christians meet for worship,” is one obvious possibility. [/size][/font][/color][color=#ff0000][font=Verdana, Tahoma, Ariel, sans-serif][size=3]“A church is a group of Christians who gather for religious purposes” is another[/size][/font][/color][color=#444444][font=Verdana, Tahoma, Ariel, sans-serif][size=3]. A critic might says, “A church is a club for insiders and hypocrites.” These quick answers don’t take us very far if we want to understand truly what a church ought to be.[/size][/font][/color] [url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/what-is-a-church/"]http://www.patheos.c...at-is-a-church/[/url] As far as peter being the first pope Im not following you why you think thats being controlling. [/quote] You can argue differently but I think many people go to church for exactly the reason Jesus spoke of.. To let everyone know how devout they are. On top of it, they recite prayers without knowing the meaning of the words the are saying.. And are led by a [i]man[/i] who pretty much tells them what to think about scripture. I have read the bible numerous times, and my favorite part is the Sermon on the Mount.. "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.[sup] 6[/sup]But you, [b]when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place[/b]; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. [sup]7[/sup][b]And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do[/b]. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1345517422' post='1149060'] You can argue differently but I think many people go to church for exactly the reason Jesus spoke of.. To let everyone know how devout they are. On top of it, they recite prayers without knowing the meaning of the words the are saying.. And are led by a [i]man[/i] who pretty much tells them what to think about scripture. I have read the bible numerous times, and my favorite part is the Sermon on the Mount.. "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.[sup] 6[/sup]But you, [b]when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place[/b]; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. [sup]7[/sup][b]And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do[/b]. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. [/quote] Actually Im not going to disagree with you about the first part, there are absolutely those people in the church, that do it to show how devout they are. In fact I will take this further and say thats exactly what the verse you are referencing is talking about, dont do it for show. Its not saying dont do it at all. I think your interpreting that too literally. Dont make me reference CARM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345517846' post='1149061'] Actually Im not going to disagree with you about the first part, there are absolutely those people in the church, that do it to show how devout they are. In fact I will take this further and say thats exactly what the verse you are referencing is talking about, dont do it for show. Its not saying dont do it at all. I think your interpreting that too literally. Dont make me reference CARM [/quote] I don't have a problem with "Church", but I think it should just be about fellowship, and exploring Christ together, sharing in the company of others and continuing "the works".. But I believe that the verse from the sermon is very specific.. He doesn't just address praying insincerely, but goes on to specifically state that you should do it in private. He doesn't just say "Don't pray so that others see you pray" he says "go into your room and lock your door". Seems very specific. Also in light that there is no teaching from Christ instructing people to go to church leads me to believe that assembling together to "worship" and have a man tell you what the bible means is not at all what he was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Did Jamie change the title? It's [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_olde"]misspelled[/url]. "Ye Olde Religion Thread" please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I got nuthin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1345509729' post='1148971'] I read that as "i will hlep your wife, if you let me" and for a second I thought you were getting kinky. Okay, sheesh...a tl;dr for you: Be New Testament, not Old Testament. [/quote] True. Too many "Christians" are trying to blend the Old Covenent with Moses, and the New Covenent given to us by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ was about love, compassion and concern for your fellow man. Christ was the bridge to God above the law, because few if any, were able to follow the law completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1345519322' post='1149068'] I don't have a problem with "Church", but I think it should just be about fellowship, and exploring Christ together, sharing in the company of others and continuing "the works".. But I believe that the verse from the sermon is very specific.. He doesn't just address praying insincerely, but goes on to specifically state that you should do it in private. He doesn't just say "Don't pray so that others see you pray" he says "go into your room and lock your door". Seems very specific. Also in light that there is no teaching from Christ instructing people to go to church leads me to believe that assembling together to "worship" and have a man tell you what the bible means is not at all what he was looking for. [/quote] Were just going to have to agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345555317' post='1149132'] Were just going to have to agree to disagree [/quote] Of course.. It's just a "belief" after all.. It doesn't have to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 yeah not biting on that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Ok here, this covers what I am talking about. [url="http://www.learnthebible.org/public-prayer.html"]http://www.learnthebible.org/public-prayer.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1345508318' post='1148939'] A variety of thoughts, FWIW: Folks are shaped and conditioned by their upbringing. That means both good and bad, as well as conscious and subconscious influences. Some of that baggage is a light burden and a joy to carry; some of it is unpleasant nastiness. This is true for everyone and yet the specific circumstances are unique for each individual. What is the purpose of life? Why bother? Just as there is a tendency in news reporting to focus on the "bad" while often glossing over the "good," a similar tendency often affects our behavior. I think it is worthwhile to spend a little extra effort to identify and celebrate that which we find good in our lives. Profound love, the kind of love that celebrates and is not merely a form of "property relations" between two people (which signifies a dominant/subdominant relationship) is generally the kind of love which two people share about some outside, external elements of life. A shared appreciation for those things which are "outside of one's skin" can be a binding force which endures and makes it possible to ride out the rough times. The monotheisms tend to describe this concept of love as [i]agape[/i] (in the ancient Greek) or as [i]charitas[/i] (in its Latin form.) The three major western religions have done a great service to mankind by devoting a lot of thought to this kind of love and in trying to illuminate ways to put this kind of love into social action. I'm sure this is true of other religions, too, but I don't know much about them. In any case, we have a lot of shared history and traditions of how this kind of love makes a difference in the world, be it between two people or larger sections of a society and culture. We are in tough times right now. One can argue that we are always in tough times, especially from the perspective of a person who might feel isolated or unduly burdened with stress and difficulties. One can't ignore these perceptions and sometimes our cups runneth over in bad ways. As a general rule, it seems to me that the more constricted one feels--the shorter the horizon of our individual human landscape--the more challenging certain external obstacles can seem. We all reach out to connect with the "real world." Humans aren't described as social beings for no reason. Our contentment, our "value," our reasons for being are intimately bound with those externalities which influence our life. It behooves us to be aware of the ugliness in the world so we can be prepared to cope with it; but I also believe that it is our very nature to strive for Good, according to our lights. We often make the latter an afterthought in our day-to-day existence and thus stuff gets out of balance, making the bad even worse--at least in our own minds. A little side note now: One of my pet peeves over the past decade is how the wonderful, transitive concept of [i]freedom[/i] has been turned into a mere noun--a thing, a base object. One notices this most particularly when one hears talk about our [i]freedoms[/i], plural. To me, it is another sign of the banalization of society. The concept of freedom is truly liberating, not merely because it suggests possibility, but because it is only bound by the laws of the universe. To explore freedom is to challenge convention in lawful ways. It is a [i]creative force[/i] which considers the lawfulness of the universe and seeks to elaborate our understanding of that lawfulness, or to even bring into being new, more fully realized aspects of that lawfulness in ways which make life more livable. It is a truly beautiful notion. To delimit the idea of freedom into some kind of numerable accountant's ledger is disheartening, at least to me. "One potato, two potatoes, three potatoes, four. Five freedoms, six freedoms, seven freedoms, more." When one thinks about creativity and the lawfulness of the universe, one thinks of science. But one also thinks of more than science, too. From whence [i]Beauty[/i]? What is it about the universe which makes Beauty itself a part of it? Art seeks beauty; music seeks beauty; and yes, even religion and spirituality seeks beauty. Life. Seeks. Beauty. Because it must. The universe [i]demands[/i] it. But isn't all this lawfulness stuff confining? Doesn't it constrain us, keep us from doing whatever we damn well please? It can seem that way, especially if one views the universe as some sort of reified thingyness--just a master list of Do's and Don't's. But science, and by science I mean a well-defined body of knowledge, isn't merely a numeration of "the things we know." Science is a framework, a toolbox, a wonderful basket which holds all kinds of treasures which we humans can thrust our hands into to discover all kinds of new things. Science is creative. Religion, at its best, is also a well-defined body of knowledge. The traditions built up over thousands and thousands of years of human endeavor are distilled, clarified, and both received by, as well as offered to, the rest of humanity, as a blessing. In this sense, religion is creative, too. The banal versions of science and religion have gotten the same kind of treatment that the concept of freedom has. Whether it be through a reduction to crass empirical materialism in the case of science or a specified "god-given" list of proscriptions and prohibitions in the case of religion, the ultimate outcome of each is to limit that which is best about our character as humans--our ability to be truly creative, motivated by a profound idea of Love. The universe is Love. Each person has to fit themselves into a world they had no choice in creating. You were not a causal factor before you were born. And yet, and isn't this terrific and wonderful, during the time you are walking on this planet, you do have the freedom to be a causal influence of what comes after you are gone. Expand one's horizon; chart the uncharted; [i]try[/i] to love and [i]know[/i] why it is [i]good[/i] to [i]love.[/i] That's freedom. [/quote] Nice post. I've long been hung up on the word Beauty. I suspect your definition is broad and more encompassing than I can iterate but I still can't shake the sense that it is merely a human phenomenon. If Beauty is intertwined with Creation, how was this manifest 65 mya when T-rex was roaming the plains in search of prey or 500 mya when the animal kingdom was radiating through the world? I just can't see how Beauty exists if no one is there to interpret it. From there it seems to me Humans are necessary for the equation and I just can't believe that our minuscule existence and ability to "enjoy" things at the tail end of a 7 billion year natural journey factors into ultimate truths about the world. How does Beauty factor into the world of bacteria who enjoy a 3 billion year head start on existence, out number us by unfathomable proportions, and enjoy an adaptive harmony with their environment far beyond what we can possibly attain. How can any universal truth exist without applying to the universe's champion organism? I don't doubt your explanations of Beauty being a powerful force to move humanity, just that Beauty ultimately matters to universal knowledge in the way physics does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Good questions, Squirrel. Is (what we humans call) Beauty an integral element in the composition of the universe? Or is it merely a human convention we use to describe that which we find aesthetically pleasing? I would argue for the former. An aside: Back in the late 70s/early 80s, the environmentalist movement was not fully mainstream, but it was making headway from a fringe cultural phenomenon and into more commonplace discussions. Also at that time was the deliberate take-down of our space exploration efforts--partly as an anti-science/back to nature ideology and partly because of what was generally described as "moon versus ghetto" economics (arguments which were similar to "guns versus butter" arguments in economics; i.e. "we can't pay for all this.") The Cold War was still in full bloom and that affected dialogue, too. In this time, one occasionally encountered a specific claim which kind of boggles the mind. It went like this: What right do humans have to explore outer space? Isn't it hubris to do so? Can't you see that going out into space is a form of Imperialism? The rejoinder I heard, and used on occasion myself, was quite basic: "Aren't we already in space? Third planet away from the Sun? Why doesn't that count as being in space?" Also, implicit in such arguments were contentions about whether or not the human species were part of the universe, generated by the universe, an expression of the universe. A corollary of this line of thinking, as crazy as it seems, was via a tendency to consider humans as somehow "outside" of the scheme of the universe--that humanity was some kind of interloper mostly fucking nature up. Nowadays, this whole anti-space/hubris/imperialism argument seems absurd. But take my word for it, the discussion was earnest at the time. Relics of such arguments remain today. What I want to draw attention towards is the implicit aspect I just mentioned: Aren't humans part of the universe, too? And if so, are we not also subject to the lawful character of the universe as well? And, if that is so, then what is the proper place/role/evolutionary slot which situates our species? Because, surely something we can agree upon is this: The universe isn't done with its work yet--the fat lady hasn't sung her final tune. There is more to come and what it is over the long-term of millions of years is something which we, as humans, don't have much inkling of. At best we can make some crude guesses. Now, as to how Beauty figures into all this depends, I suppose, on how one defines Beauty. Tons of books and philosophizing have been done on this through the ages, but roughly speaking, doesn't it have to do with elegance in form and function? So, your examples--T-Rex and bacteria--as specifications of the universe as the universe elaborates itself--did/do they not had/have an elegant form? Was not their function an integral part of the operation of the universe? In the case of bacteria, would it be reasonable to say that unless higher forms of life had these critters doing their thing in the wide variety of intestines across species, that our bodies would not function as they should? We've covered similar territory before, and if I had to guess, I'd suggest that part of the question for you is how Beauty fits into your particular methodological view of how the universe has developed over time. That would take us back to the "purposive-or-not, what about teleology" discussion we had some time ago. Take the realm of mere physics. Even though physics, in itself, cannot provide a good explanation for higher forms of existence such as life in general, or a specific kind of life form--that which is self-reflexive and self-conscious--that represents an even higher plane of "participation" in existence, can one assert that there is Beauty involved? Does Beauty require an observer for Beauty, itself, to exist? Before there was life, was there not form? Was there not function? Why, after all, do we find certain patterns in the physics realm that seem to be thematic? Take physical manifestations of "phi" for example. We find approximations of the golden mean in both the large and the small, from spiral galaxies to sea shells. Was this ratio present in the universe before Fibonnaci elaborated it, before even the ancient Greeks used it in architecture? Or take another example: Why is it that the sphere is the most efficient geometrical form in the universe, one repeatedly found throughout various manifestations in the physical world? Was it not the most efficient form even before humans came along and described it as that form which encloses the most area with the shortest perimeter? Are these not elegant? And if elegant, then why not Beautiful? And Beautiful prior to humanity? I'll close by suggesting that one of my problems with current reductivist/evolutionist/atheist thought is that it seems to desire that the universe be random and without purpose. In a manner of speaking, I think it a crude attempt to remove "mystery" from the universe. Yet, without mystery, would there be motives for doing fundamental science? And, without mystery, would there be motives for theological explorations into that which is physically ineffable? Beauty certainly [i]seems[/i] to matter to humans more than it matters to lower forms of life. Part of that is due to the universe, itself. After all, we are elaborations of the universe, too. As a Platonist, I would argue for some form of what is known as the "great chain of being." But I don't think one has to adopt my particular preferences in thinking in order to discover and acknowledge that what we call Beauty describes at least parts of the form and function of the universe, in and of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1345567940' post='1149213'] [/quote] You make the assumption animals don't have a perception of beauty, and perhaps as well that bacteria are aware of their surroundings at all in more than a basic biochemical interaction. Can there be a pereception of beauty if there is no perception? Stating that perception of beauty is wholly human concept makes a broad assumption about non humans.. Perhaps Homer is as well by declaring it universal.. However [i]if I am [/i]going to make an assumption, i think it is at least equally as likely that any sentient being would perceive beauty in some fashion or another.. Or perhaps all these statements use too wide a brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 BTW, my original post was an attempt to provide some food for thought to Ryan. Stuff he could ruminate on that is not merely restricted to the area of religion. Hence, the emphasis on Love and on Beauty, as these concepts are not purely theological. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1345594454' post='1149372'] You make the assumption animals don't have a perception of beauty, and perhaps as well that bacteria are aware of their surroundings at all in more than a basic biochemical interaction. Can there be a pereception of beauty if there is no perception? Stating that perception of beauty is wholly human concept makes a broad assumption about non humans.. Perhaps Homer is as well by declaring it universal.. However [i]if I am [/i]going to make an assumption, i think it is at least equally as likely that any sentient being would perceive beauty in some fashion or another.. Or perhaps all these statements use too wide a brush. [/quote] Good points. I should clarify what I meant by "universal" in this context. I mean it not so much that it can be found in every particular that exists within the universe, but that as a "high principle" it is ever present in the ordering of the universe. Similar to the concept of Justice. Not necessarily always applied in action, but always available to be drawn upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345565142' post='1149197'] Ok here, this covers what I am talking about. [url="http://www.learnthebible.org/public-prayer.html"]http://www.learntheb...lic-prayer.html[/url] [/quote] Thanks for biting. I am only interested in having a friendly theological debate.. And I meant what I said about belief and rationality, it wasn't meant as a slam so much as a tease... And you won't find me crapping on the teachings of Jesus... am not trying so much to challenge your beliefs as I am to more completely understand my own. I am very fascinated with the teaching handed down by Jesus. Here is the problem I have with the explaination on that website.. First they talk about occurrences of public prayer in the old testament. I have made my feelings known on that particular book, and my confusion as to why Christianity continues to cling to the bits and pieces of it that it finds useful. What came after the death of Jesus, within the newly founded "church" is precisely my point of contention in this discussion. I confine my understanding of the teachings of Christianity to what was said by Jesus to the best of my ability to discern, and try to separate that which was laid down by men before and after his death. In all my searching for an answer on this topic there is only 1 instance of Jesus addressing the concept of public prayer, here he quite precisely states prayer is something that should be done in private. The 2 instances of Jesus supposedly engaging in "public prayer" seem dubious to me, In the instance of the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus is [i]clearly[/i] making a fully premeditated public demonstration for the purpose of proving his divinity. He delays his trip to see his friend for the distinct purpose of this demonstration. His prayer to God during the event is there as a statement of what he is doing, as a part of the demonstration. In the example of Jesus praying with 3 of his disciples shortly before he is arrested, it's made quite clear that Jesus moves a distance away from his disciples while praying (privately). And while we are given the contents of his prayer, it's doubtful that the account of the prayer come from the disciples since they are asleep while he prays. There is a good deal of emphasis in modern Christianity on church attendance, and public prayer. I would venture to say even more emphasis than in continuing the good works of Jesus.. If these things were so important, why were they not expressly explained by Jesus in his new covenant? If you believe he came to teach us how to live in accordance with God's wishes, why is the only direct statement on the subject to say "don't do it that way"? I am further confused by the way the Church was established. With some sort of chain of command with a virtual "King of Christendom" who is the self proclaimed "vicar of Christ", who seems to interpose themselves between the people and God. Why didn't Jesus see the need to establish this kind of organization? Why did it only happen after he died? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 I'm not sure if I'm skimming over your thought here or if your skimming over what the article said, but the notion that public prayer is only in the OT, isnt the case, as said in the 2nd paragraph (and following) about it from the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345602360' post='1149492'] I'm not sure if I'm skimming over your thought here or if your skimming over what the article said, but the notion that public prayer is only in the OT, isnt the case, as said in the 2nd paragraph (and following) about it from the article. [/quote] I addressed it all.. Maybe read my post again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Ignoring the part about Paul saying Amen, for the purposes of solely talking about Jesus, (though can one separate him from his disciples? interesting thought). In the case of the prayer that he did to go along with raising Lazarus from the dead, is the prayer itself proving his divinity? I mean he is bringing a guy back from the dead, I'd think that would be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345602878' post='1149503'] Ignoring the part about Paul saying Amen, for the purposes of solely talking about Jesus, [b](though can one separate him from his disciples? interesting thought)[/b]. In the case of the prayer that he did to go along with raising Lazarus from the dead, is the prayer itself proving his divinity? I mean he is bringing a guy back from the dead, I'd think that would be enough. [/quote] Yes, I think we can.. Jesus was betrayed by at least one.. We don't have to get to into it if you don't like.. But while I like Paul, I have serious issues with Peter (which Paul seems to as well later on). I don't care if someone has been "beautified", they are still mortal men, and thus subject to their failings. I think the act of raising someone from the dead is a bit more than gathering together to be lead in prayer.. Jesus made a demonstration of his divinity, he is thanking God for all to hear so they know for whom Jesus represents.. He commits the act in the name of God and bringing his truth.. He want's all who is witnessing it to know just who's will made it so.. Not Jesus's, but God's. Jesus brought everyone to see a miracle of God, not to be led in prayer.. Viewing this with an open mind, I find it hard to correlate it to led, public prayer. To my knowledge there is no mention of Jesus ever doing it, or instructing it to be so, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1345594425' post='1149371'] [/quote] I suppose in this sense I've been focused on the description itself and not the object of description. Lots to chew on, much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enon Bengal Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1345596413' post='1149392'] Thanks for biting. I am only interested in having a friendly theological debate.. And I meant what I said about belief and rationality, it wasn't meant as a slam so much as a tease... And you won't find me crapping on the teachings of Jesus... am not trying so much to challenge your beliefs as I am to more completely understand my own. I am very fascinated with the teaching handed down by Jesus. Here is the problem I have with the explaination on that website.. First they talk about occurrences of public prayer in the old testament. I have made my feelings known on that particular book, and my confusion as to why Christianity continues to cling to the bits and pieces of it that it finds useful. What came after the death of Jesus, within the newly founded "church" is precisely my point of contention in this discussion. I confine my understanding of the teachings of Christianity to what was said by Jesus to the best of my ability to discern, and try to separate that which was laid down by men before and after his death. In all my searching for an answer on this topic there is only 1 instance of Jesus addressing the concept of public prayer, here he quite precisely states prayer is something that should be done in private. The 2 instances of Jesus supposedly engaging in "public prayer" seem dubious to me, In the instance of the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus is [i]clearly[/i] making a fully premeditated public demonstration for the purpose of proving his divinity. He delays his trip to see his friend for the distinct purpose of this demonstration. His prayer to God during the event is there as a statement of what he is doing, as a part of the demonstration. In the example of Jesus praying with 3 of his disciples shortly before he is arrested, it's made quite clear that Jesus moves a distance away from his disciples while praying (privately). And while we are given the contents of his prayer, it's doubtful that the account of the prayer come from the disciples since they are asleep while he prays. There is a good deal of emphasis in modern Christianity on church attendance, and public prayer. I would venture to say even more emphasis than in continuing the good works of Jesus.. If these things were so important, why were they not expressly explained by Jesus in his new covenant? If you believe he came to teach us how to live in accordance with God's wishes, why is the only direct statement on the subject to say "don't do it that way"? I am further confused by the way the Church was established. [b]With some sort of chain of command with a virtual "King of Christendom" who is the self proclaimed "vicar of Christ", who seems to interpose themselves between the people and God.[/b] Why didn't Jesus see the need to establish this kind of organization? Why did it only happen after he died? [/quote] And there you have the fundamental difference between Protestants and Catholics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.