Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 06:05 pm
So many denominations, so many doctrines, beliefs and arguements over translation.

The bible is an ink blot, in that it is massively interpretable and call me crazy, but I believe that is entirely by design. Look at how Jesus taught, he taught by way of drawing out the heart of his listeners, rather than the intellect, he made them reason for themselves what was right. Jesus took the law of moses made up of 300 practical laws, and replaced it with a very malleable and undefined law, to love God, and love your neighbour. The interpretation of that law told the hearts of the receiver. Has much changed? the bible does the same.

So many interpretations? you're darned right there is, after all, for whatever life path that you want to follow, there is a denomination that will interpret Gods will for you, allowing you to live life as you please.

When it comes down to it, if you look at the principles set out in the scriptures, they can only be mistranslated if you try so very hard, most religions merely excersise their right to ignore them.

Even if you get all of the details wrong about Jesus, God, armagheddon etc, if you practice the principles you learn, I would imagine God would be quite proud, however with too much emphasis on details and doctrinations, doesnt that suggest we are missing the point? Most people's issues with many religions are it's intrinsic hypocrysies, and often entirely unchristian ways of life.

Ghandi wrote:
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ

Is belief really all that is needed to be saved? If we all lived purely by the principles in the bible, rather than fighting over the detail, would we not be living the utopian dream?

I imagine with our current batch of christians it is highly unlikely
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,362 • Replies: 2
No top replies

Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 06:47 pm
Interesting article on one aspect of this

Their approach challenges the "strict church thesis" of earlier sociologists of religion, which argued that conservative, hard-line suppliers of religion (fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals) thrive, while lenient ones (liberals, progressives) decline. On the contrary, these five profiles suggest that the key to success is not theological or political strictness but effective marketing. Indeed, part of what allows these evangelical innovators to be so successful is that they find ways to "overtly avoid (yet subtly address)" potentially controversial issues among their constituents, Lee and Sinitiere write. One of the big take-aways from their research is that the evangelical movement is, they say, "far more elastic, far more complex, and far more contradictory than what popular accounts reveal."

A hallmark of American evangelicalism, at least since the 1940s, has been its ready willingness to adapt its theological content to new media technologies and popular trends in the entertainment industry. Implicit in that openness is an evangelical counterdeclaration to Marshall McLuhan's: The medium is not the message; the message, or the Word, transcends whatever media are used to convey it. But in the long run, is the constant evangelical adaptation of the Word unwittingly proving McLuhan right? I think so. That is partly why we find so little coherence within and among the various groups and movements and productions that pass as evangelical.

Indeed, it's impossible to imagine the likes of Osteen or Warren or Jakes without the teams of creators, editors, and marketers who publish them beyond their home churches, in books and on the radio, television, and Internet. It is not too much to say that their media producers actually create and sustain them as pop-culture icons. Their relationships with their publishers in the production of both medium and message are not unlike those of pop-music stars with their labels. Lady Gaga has Universal Music and Max Lucado has Thomas Nelson.

quite a few books referenced in the article that I want to track down
0 Replies
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 03:22 am
Here is my take on these questions...

Is belief really all that is needed to be saved?

Depends on how you personally feel...I personally feel it is all we need to be saved...But you should strive to do more than that, and learn to become prudent in every circumstance...

Scripture backs this up at the end of Revelations, and says that the objective is to become prudent in every circumstance...So yes, If you have belief, or "faith" than you will be able to discern between right and wrong choices, all the time...

And scripture also says do not fight over insignificant scoff lings...

If we all lived purely by the principles in the bible, rather than fighting over the detail, would we not be living the utopian dream?

Yes we would be...

I imagine with our current batch of christians it is highly unlikely

That's is part of the problem, With original sin, and people reasoning in their hearts what is right or creates differences, and differences, when unbalanced, or out of control, because people are sinners leads to fights, and scoff lings etc...

So no, it probably would never co-exist till we reach Heaven...But yes if it was possible, and we all did it we would be in a utopian society...that is exactly what and how it is stated to be in Heaven...

And one of the reasons why Heaven is Heaven...For we put the original sin out, and earthly desires, and reasoning of our own hearts out...and are in it for the fellowship of unity...

0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » Details are insignificant
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/08/2022 at 07:16:06