Viaro's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Viaro's Profile › Viaro's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 (of 85 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 10:57pm On Nov 07, 2009

Now Chris. . here are my views on the questions you had asked. They all border on just about the same concerns, but I shall take them individually:

Chrisbenogor:
3. What do you make of the story of creation in the book of genesis, many schools of thoughts are out there as to how to take genesis, some say symbolic others say otherwise.

First, I believe in Creation - and there are many questions I ask myself concerning that, which evolution or any theory in naturalism does not answer at all.

Second, I understand there are several schools of interpretations for the creation narratives in Genesis. Some take it literally, where we have a universe as young as between 6,000 - 10,000 years old; others interpret it as merely allegorical in order to accommodate discoveries that fault the 6,000-year interpretation.

However, my view is quite different. I don't know if I'm the only one within my geographic space who sees things this way, but below is a summary of my persuasions:

[list](a) God created the world and all things in them

(b) The universe is much older than 6,000 or 10,000 years

(c) Adam is not the very first being on earth - there were other beings closely in semblance to homo sapiens that predate Adam.

(d) Within Genesis itself, creation is far more older than a literal 6 days of 24hrs; and there was a much older epoch than the 6 days narratives given in the first chapter.[/list]

Like I said right from the first page, many Christians and religious people may be uncomfortable with my views - and that's okay with me. I only ask them to bear in mind that these are my views alone and do not bear a stamp of authority for anyone else. We can discuss them rather than go ballistic.

(a) Do you agree with the school of thought that say the earth is just a couple of thousand years old?

Nope; see my observation in (b) and (d) above.

(b) What is your stand on evolution, is it as a result of faith or having examined the evidence?

I'm not a fan of Darwinism and I take nothing in that respect on faith. I believe we can all think for ourselves and are free to disagree with the "establishment".

(c) If there was irrefutable evidence that man did evolve how would that affect your faith?

It would not affect my faith adversely.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 10:40pm On Nov 07, 2009

Having addressed the essential point of your argument, mazaje, there are a few questions I would like you to think through carefully. In reference to your assertion in (c) below -

(c) 'matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'

. . it is clear that such an assertion is inconsequential. You cannot make categorical statements about what people "will" and "will not" do and leave it at that, otherwise your assertion falls into what literary scholars call an "ipse dixit" (an unsupported dogmatic assertion). Indeed, there is nothing wrong with Matthew (or any other author) to have referred to himself (or herself) in the 3rd person (we already noted that Julius Caesar did this in 40 - 50s BC). But the questions I have for you are these:

[list][li]Have you personally known the author or Matthew himself in order to ascertain what they "will" and "will not" do?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Did you show any sound basis for your 'ipse dixit' statement, or you're just basing it on a personal preference without any scholarship at all?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Have you carefully considered the literary styles of writers around the time of the Gospels before asserting what you did?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Did you expose your own dogmatic statement to criticism of any literary scholarship?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Is it impossible for any author (past or contemporary) to have referred to himself in the third person?[/li][/list]

[list][li]On what basis (if any) do scholars argue that authorship of any document is impossible where the author refers to himself in the third person?[/li][/list]

[list][li]On what scholarly grounds do you argue that 'Matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'?[/li][/list]

[list][li]What do you say about clear examples of authors in early centuries and contemporary times that are well known to have referred to themselves in the 3rd person, mazaje?[/li][/list]

Those are certainly not the only questions to necessarily ask when making your own argument in this regard. But it is obvious you did not think through your assertions carefully before dogmatically parroting them. When people make the mistake you did in matters like this, they immediately resort to the weaker excuse that there is "no meaning" in these well-known literary tools of analyses that scholars employ in their researches.

Thank you for your attempts.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 10:38pm On Nov 07, 2009

Answers to your objections

The first line in yours (post #36) is easily laid to rest:

(a) 'you will see the evidence that the gospel was written by
some one else and ascribed to matthew'

You did not give any "evidence". Nada. The verses you quoted (Matt. 9:9 & 10) are not 'the evidence' but a wild unscholarly guess. Anyone reading them will see they do not say what you claimed upon them about having been written by 'someone else'; nor do they say that such a person had 'ascribed' it to Matthew.

(b) 'because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person'

This again does not present any special problems at all to establish your argument. Many authors, both in style and content, are know to have referred to themselves in either the first, second, or third person; and readers do not have any difficulty understanding who was being spoken of. You gave good examples of people whose works show those in the first person (such as Pliny, Josephus, Tacitus and Philo). That's great. But I wonder if that was chosen deliberately and conveniently to ignore other works where authors have also referred to themselves in the third person. I shall show an example of this in just a moment when I look at (c) below.

(c) 'matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'

Now this is your main contention - that Matthew could not have been the author because the writer refers to Matthew in the third person. That is not even a problem to raise any serious criticism strong enough to establish your argument. This is why:

[list](1) literary examination of any document follows the conventions of what is known as 'textual criticism'; that was why my mention of some literary criticisms in post #25 in the previous page which scholars use in studying any style of writing.

(2) some authors are known to have referred to themselves in the 3rd person, and this is a fact. When this happens, literary critics know such occurences as 'illeism' (the act of referring to oneself in the third person). If this can be shown, then it would confirm the fact that your argument was not carefully and intelligently thought through, as well would make yours inept and maladroit.

(3) Certainly, there are documented examples of 'illeism' in various genres of literary works from early centuries to contemporary times. A simple check online yields several examples, but Julius Caeser is a very good example:

[list]* Julius Caesar is considered the first and perhaps best-known illeist in his work, The Gallic War. "Commentarii de Bello Gallico (English: Commentaries on the Gallic War) is Julius Caesar's firsthand account of the Gallic Wars, written as a third-person narrative." read more from Wikipedia source.[/list][/list]

What is interesting in Julius Caesar's example is that his work was publication between 50s or 40s BC - which is not far from the period of early writers where Gospel authors would not be strangers to writing about themselves in the third person. Again, compare the period 40s - 50s BC with AD112 and you will find that Julius Caesar's illeism (the act of referring to oneself in the third person) is much older than the examples you gave!

Yes, mazaje, there are works earlier than your examples where authors have referred to themselves in the third person, and that is no problem at all for any reader who is not out on a weak campaign.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 10:32pm On Nov 07, 2009

Hallo mazaje,

I understand where you're coming from, and your arguments are not new to me. Although it is common knowledge that people often borrow other people's arguments and parrot them frequently, it's clear that most of these parroted arguments are neither intelligent nor bear any substance in them to pass for scholarship.

So, please allow me to examine your arguments from a bit scholarly perspective. 'Scholarly', not because that makes me a scholar (which I am not), but because conventional methods are helpful to expose and minimize the weaknesses in personal assertions like yours.

First, let me draw from the pointers you made, and then extrapolate what you have factually missed out.

mazaje:
Actually yout claims are false because even at that time writers used to claim ownership of their works and refer to themselves in the first person when narrating a story. . . . If you read the works of Josephus, Pliny the elder, Tacitus and Philo you will see them addressing themselves in first person in all their writings that are made available to us. . .Here is a part of Pliny's letter to Trajan(written in AD112)

I appreciate your concerns, and yes I'm familiar with the literary style of Pliny, Josephus, Tacitus and Philo. These are good examples of people who left literary works with first person references.

My question to you, mazaje is this: have you ever considered at all that it is possible that writers in earlier centuries have also referred to themselves in the third person?

You may not have ever considered that, and if that is the case, you haven't done any investigative work at all. Pardon me, for if you actually have a clue about literary criticism, you would be the first to recognize that your assertions cheat formal literary conventions. So I shall point out a few things to show how your arguments are unnecessary, inept and maladroit.

Let's go back to your initial assumptions in post #36 to remind ourselves of its essential argument, shall we? Limiting myself to your precise objections in that post, these are your basic arguments:

(a) 'you will see the evidence that the gospel was written by
some one else and ascribed to matthew'

~~ why is that so?

(b) 'because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person'

~~ how should that be a problem?

(c) 'matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'

The statements quoted in (a), (b) and (c) are your arguments taken from post #36; and the bold are mine and only put there to structure your query. What follows are my critical answers to show how untenable and deeply flawed your arguments are.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 10:28pm On Nov 07, 2009

^^^^ Hi Chris, please hang on a minute and let me address mazaje's interesting rejoinder. wink

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by viaro: 9:30pm On Nov 06, 2009

chukwudi44:
What you don't understand is that pilgrim1(viaro) is more dangerous than tonye-t.At least the criminal tonye-t has plainly come open with his position on this issue but this idiot continues to play with her own intelligence(not mine).

She will agree that compulsory tithing is unscriptural yet she kicks against people who condemn it,she would prefer that criminals ,idiots and fools who call themselves men of God like mathew Ashimolowo and creflo dollar e.t.c continues to fleece the ignorant victims of their hard earned money.She is against these campaign even when she knows that over 99.99999% of organisations that call themselves churches practise this heresy.

Nope, and no again. While I agree that tithing or any type of giving is not compulsory, I would plank idiots who go about lying through their yellow teeth just to win an anti-tithing argument. If that makes me more dangerous than anything you've come across, bless you all the more - because in my world, it doesn't matter whether you're a pro-tither or anti-tither: lying and propaganda on either side is both illiterate and demeaning, especially when they come from "Christian ministers".

I might have said 20 and 50 years in my post but I sincerely doubt this scam will survive the next 10 years with the rate of growth in the ICT sector,The failure of this scam in the developed countries like europe and the US(I know the exist in these countries but in minute proportions compared to africa) proves that these scams only thrive because of iliteracy and poverty

chukwudi, from lying to now concertedly confused. You're not sure which it is now, so that your prophecy may not fail? Is it 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? You're just guessing and keeping your fingers crossed? That's why you're a consummate fool.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 9:14pm On Nov 06, 2009

davidylan:
1. Paul was a "scholar" because that was what it took to be a leader in the jewish system of worship - endless and irrelevant study. The pharisees ended up no better for it and completely missed the purpose of Christ's coming . . . they were too busy focusing on the law.

Paul's scholarship was not what made him the great apostle he ended up being to the gentile if not the likes of Peter or James shld never have written a letter that we still cherish in the bible today.

Oh dear me, david! I had long wished better for you, but my hopes are eroding at the speed of light! What is the essence of what you're trying to argue in all this? Whatever you argue, it takes nothing away from the fact that Paul was indeed a scholar. Now if scholarship by any stretch disqualifies anybody, Paul would have had to go back and become an illiterate fisherman before Christ would look in his direction, let alone call him to be an apostle! I don't know if your style of engaging people is to suppose those you interact with are by default to be fishermen, or illiterate, or bozos. But just what have you added to the point I made other than being unnecessarily reactive?

Here is Paul's own summation of his scholarly endeavours - Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Phil 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Em, Davidylan, with all respects, please get off the high horse. I already know those verses by heart and understand them well enough. Your quoting them is appreciated, but probably because you assume you alone are aware of them! Oh dear! I don't think even in all that you can point to any verse where Paul argued for his illiteracy! None. His humility is not to be confused for illiteracy.

It took Paul years of hard study to be a pharisee . . . all it took was a spiritual encounter with Christ and 3 days with Anais (a blind man) to put him on the road to the epistles that we see today.

How long did it take Paul to be an illiterate just to qualify him for authoring those epistles?

Sorry, his scholarship had absolutely nothing to do with the epistles that he wrote.

It had everything to do with it.

Luke was a doctor true . . . but neither was Matthew, Mark or John . . . their gospels are just as good if not better.

I'm trying to steady you here, so hang on. What is the essence of your arguments, really? It may appertain to either of these 3 things:

(a) that you're determined to show illiteracy is better than scholarship?

(b) that your audience should by default please you in becoming bozos?

(c) that the above is exemplified in what you see as illiterate authors of the Bible?

If that's what you're on about, let's gee it 3 cheers:

Yay!

Yay again!

Yay-yay-yay!!

Happy now? Okay. In your world, you can argue day and night for a conversion to the stone age - I would first have to wonder why you ever went to school to obtain a Ph.D. If being a holder of any scholarship helps you to reason about the Christian faith with anyone, what then is your grouse about the scholarship of Paul and others?

Again his scholarship had NOTHING to with his writing of the gospel.

It had absolutely everything to do with them.

I'm sorry if you see my point as "reactionary" . . . i respectfully beg to disagree. And it is a symptom of the dying church that we now have christians who feel it is more important to make "peace" and be "tolerant" of those who despise the Lord and His suffering than to boldly stand for the truth of the gospel.

First, I am not responsible for your complaints. That is my own way of saying that "I respectfully beg to disagree with you". Second, as far as we can be serious as Christians, we know that the Bible we carry on our heads (rather than in our hearts) plainly tell us to FOLLOW PEACE WITH ALL MEN (Heb. 12:14), and to LIVE PEACEABLY WITH ALL MEN (Rom. 12:18). If you have another version advocating for terrorism, please let us know. What you always fail to understand is the reality that Christians can engage in healthy dialogues with non-Christians without having to please you in your campaign.

Christ was way way more reactionary . . . John the baptist was the same . . . they didnt spend time courting the praise of those who hate the bible and all it stands for.

You don't even come close to resembling them, did nobody ever tell you that before, or you just ignored them when they did? Christ did not send us out to go and either convert anyone to become illiterates, or to go converting them by hating their brown necks, or to go around eating locusts and wild honey with a courtesy of "You brood of vipers!" if it fits your ego, good on you. It doesn't fit me, it won't fit me, has never fitted me, and I'm not in a hurry to be molded that way.

If you feel it is better to prevent a riot than to come out and be bold in declaring what salvation is all about then i just wonder what sort of christians we have become in the last days.

I can be bold in declaring salvation for all men, not by spamming threads with some misplaced zeal. If that was what Chris had invited me to do here, then I would have failed in my previous posts. But he clearly showed that was not it - and we have several threads where people both discuss, debate and preach the Gospel.

The muslim or the atheist is not mindful of my own feelings when he declares his faith or faithlessness . . . we on the other hand bend over backward not to offend them . . .

I don't think that deliberately going out to offend anybody (theist or atheist) is what Christianity is about. Rather, to make that a concern at all is suspect and makes one suppose you're scared of having any one question your calcified belief system. People may not respect your feelings if your 'formula 1' speeds readily to damn them than discuss with them.

Isnt it so sad? First we removed the cross from our churches, then we took away the pulpit, now we hardly mention the name of Jesus (we just say God so everyone is happy), we covet the praise and glory of those who hate the cross . . .

Is that what you do? I'm so sad to learn about it. I think several times in my dialogue with others, I have mentioned the name of Jesus and declared that He is my Saviour and Lord. Did you miss that?

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 8:35pm On Nov 06, 2009

@mazaje, thank you for your reactions, most of which are quite unnecessary. As far as I'm concerned, you made no sensible defence of your assertions - and we could spend the rest of the many pages of this thread shouting across the fence. What I would have hoped to see is how you draw a good basis for your argument, not immaturely assert that something is irrelevant because you find it too challenging to even begin to think through it.

mazaje:
All these terms like greek literary criticisms are just baseless apologetics tactics that make no meaning and do no justice to the topic being discussed at all. . . .

There. Your assertion that it makes no meaning is roundly suggesting that you have made no meaning to your arguments. If you're going to critique a matter, one should ask how you proceed. if you just wish to assert empty arguments for your persuasions, we can understand and sympathise with that and leave you shouting alone. If, however, I am going to lay my case carefully, readers would like to see what tools of criticism I have employed before I pass anything intelligent to them. Where you failed to do that, it does not surprise me that you hastily concluded they have no meaning. That's quite poor and sad on your part.

You believe that matthew wrote the gospels based on no evidence at all but because people such as Papias, Irenaeus , Pantaenus, and Origen all attributed the gospels to him. . . .The gospel of matthew was anonymously written and was later said to be written by matthew by other people. . . .The author of the gospel did not say who he was. . .if the Papias, Irenaeus and co had decided to name the document the gospel according to andrew I know you will be here making the same case for the authorship for andrew. . . .

I drew from your own assertion of trying to cast doubts only on the basis of whether the author could never have addressed himself in the 3rd person. That is simply unintelligent and a poor reflection of the literary style of writers in that period. Your assertion was lacking any seriousness and that was why I pointed its weakness and then demonstrated my persuasion with an example within the constraints of the people you mentioned in particular - Matthew and Paul.

You have provided no evidence at all to show that paul was not referring to another person you ONLY made a claim with out any evidence at all to support your claim. . . .you are yet to provide any evidence to show that matthew wrote the gospels from the document itself. . .but you point to my evidence as baseless when you own claims are more baseless. . . .

I have provided a demonstration to fault your assertion as too presumptive and totally naive. How did I do that? By pointing out that authors in that time could refer to themselves in either the first, second or third persons. Your assertion was rather that Matthew WILL NOT do thus and thus - to which I asked if you had been with Matthew personally to know that he could never have done such! Making assertions that completely that is unethically evading literary style and content is not helpful, but you're entitled to shouting about it as much as you may.

All these are excuses apologist use to confuse people and themselves. . . .The fact remains that no body can point to the authorship of the book from the document itself and reading the document alone tells any objective reader that reads it that it was not written by the person the document claims wrote it because the person that wrote it did not state who he was and who ever wrote it wrote it in the 3rd person. . . .People later attributed the gospel to matthew, there is no where in the gospel where matthew claimed any authorship of the gospel. . . .

There was nothing confusing in what I tried to explain in my post addressing pastor AIO. Having outlined some of those well known tools of scholarly criticisms in post #25, I had come to this page to show him an example of what I meant rather than just stating it and failing to demonstrate what I meant. Nobody would be confused there except those who just want to shout their vacant assertions and consider all things confusing simply because they have no clue what they're talking about.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 8:20pm On Nov 06, 2009

huxley:
Think about this hypothetically, not more than that. Supposing we find some bones in some old cavern in Israel and it is dated and DNA-tested (etc, etc, etc) and found to be the remains of Jesus 100%. I know this is a far-feteched hypothetical scenario, but let's assume that some day, the technology were to be available to make such a conclusion. Would your belief in the ressurection remain intact?

Yes, my belief in the resurrection would not be affected by that.

Pardon me, but I was after a moral message or teaching of Jesus. Something a bit like "Humans MUST not enslave other Humans". Is it conceivable that a god came and lived with humans on this earth for about 30 years and made no such profound and universal moral message?

There is a universality in our humanity, no doubt. I have also hinted about this in stating that the knowledge and worship of God is not original with the Jewish people - which would by extension include the Jews of Jesus' day. We don't have to look far to find many similarities in the example you gave, and it is remarkable that such ideals of morality are not stand-alone prescriptions (as far as I know).

However, as far as my life is affected, I can't speak for the whole of the Christian people or any other religious group. I made that point plain earlier in my first post on this thread. Which in the same way, I pointed out that the uniqueness of the life of Christ in connection with the prophecies concerning the 'Messiah' is one example I find as unique among others.

I understand - if you were back there at the time, there is no knowing which side one would definitely have favoured. But chances are good that ALL his followers at the time must have been calling for his freedom, because they believed him to be innocent of the charges levelled against him. It makes no sense to shout for the conviction of someone you believe to be innocent.

If I have to go by the Biblical texts, I would not say that 'ALL' of His followers would have called for His freedom. First, many of His disciples abandoned Him even before he went to the Cross; then He Himself also stated that many (including His apostles) would be scattered and abandon Him; and at the time of His arrest, many who had walked with Him also called out for His crucifixion. These are all plain to see in the Gospels. Which was why I would not know which verdict to personally vote for if I were there back then.

Looking at it today, do you believe Jesus was guilty or innocent of the charges? Do you think he should have been exonerated or convicted of the charges?

Lol, huxley, I should first believe that you know what you want to argue. But be that as it may, I do not believe that He was guilty - and there are several reasons for this. Most serious among the lot of reasons is that He had to die on the Cross as One who was innocent - that is pivotal in the message that He brought. If He had died as guilty of the charges, that would have been the end of His mission and message and nothing more than a grand and interesting epic. But it didn't stop there, and that is why His message and mission lives on.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 8:07pm On Nov 06, 2009

@huxley, let me start with your last:

huxley:
2) The internal evidence from the text itself does not suggest an autobiography from the disciples.

You can see that the Gospel was not intended as an 'autobiography' (a book about your life that you write yourself). Matthew's intention was not writing about himself, so how should anyone be making it into what it is not?

Gospel scholar have know for a long time that the Gospels do not bear the names of their true authors and today hardly and bible scholars deny this, theistic and secular scholars universally agree on this point. There are several points that converge to this conclusion;

There's no need to assume that I'd be gullible to assume that any document of the Gospels had a name appended to it the way we sign our autographs to our own books. But is that in itself enough to even begin to argue about the authorship of Matthew? That scholars have said this and that has not made anything cogent in this regard, other than several efforts to reproduce the same borrowed arguments from such 'scholars'.

1) The date of redaction. The date of composition of the earliest gospel is put at after 70 AD, between 70 and 100 AD. Mark is thought to be the first gospel. Matthew is thought to be written between 90 -135 AD. If these disciples were born on or around the time of Jesus's birth, they would have been between 70 - 90 when they began their writing career. This is most unlikely - it was extremely rare for people to live to this age, never mind begin to compose such works at this age.

That again is a non starter. Unless you want to believe that almost everyone who lived in that aged must by some necessity die before 70 years of age, I don't think that argument has any substance to it. Within the documents themselves, we find several indications of people who lived beyond that bracket of age - Anna was an 84 years old prophetess (Luke 2:37).

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 6:56pm On Nov 06, 2009

Hi huxley,

Thank you for your questions; and I shall try and be as honest as can be managed.

huxley:
1) Is there anything or evidence that could convince you that Christianity (or the main claims of Christinty) is false?

I don't know if any such thing could convince me. If I knew, you would not be asking me. But that you asked is a good thing; and it would mean indeed that you already knew what the main claims of Christianity are, so that you have some evidence as such to first falsify them one and all, before asking the next necessary question, viz -

Would you change your mind if such evidence is brought forward?

The only thing that would change my mind is if I had lied to myself about the personal experience I had when I trusted Christ as my Lord and Saviour. If the person who wants to change my mind cannot undo that experience, he would not be able to change my mind.

2) Is there any message or moral teaching that was uniquely original to Christ and that continues to guide and influence people today?

This is similar to AIO's question about the intrinsic value of God's Word to me; and my answer is yes. For one, I find it unique indeed that Christ would be the only Person who fits the Biblical prophecies about the Messiah. This does not mean that there is no derivatives about the concept of a messiah; but 'the Messiah' as in Christ's case is unique both in its prophetic evaluation and the uniqueness of His life. There are many other things that people may derive from Christ as influencing their lives, no doubt about that. But for me, the examples I gave have a tremendous impact on my daily experience.

3) Had you been one of Jesus's cohorts and witness his trial, would you have voted for his freedom or for his conviction and execution?

I don't know what I would have done. If you're asking me to hazard a guess, I probably would have voted for His freedom; or again, I might most probably had voted for His condemnation. Either way, it is impossible for me to vividly cast myself back in time to know exactly what my persuasions might have been.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 6:39pm On Nov 06, 2009

@Pastor AIO,

From mazaje's answer about the authorship of Matthew, perhaps you can now see why I hinted in my reply to yours (post #25) that many people who try to criticise the Biblical documents do not exactly know how to approach their criticism. Let me exemplify:

If someone is going to draw the same conclusions as mazaje did about Matthew, the first thing that clearly comes to mind is this: what type of literary criticism has he employed to bring him to that conclusion? And even if he could point to any single type (eg., greek literary criticism and/or psychoanalytic literary criticism), what would be the results?

He makes the claim that - 'because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person', blah-blah. Does this gentleman know anything about any type of literary criticism? How does he know for a fact that Matthew 'will not write about himself in the 3rd person'? What made him draw such assertive conclusions? Did he personally meet Matthew in person to know that the same Matthew could never write about himself in the 3rd person? Why do people like to draw such brash conclusions?

It is a fact in greek literary criticism that authors could refer to themselves in either the first, second, or third persons. This is evident in the Gospels as well as the epistles of the NT. Take Paul, for instance - we know that he referred to himself in various ways including both first and third persons:

'I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, . . .
. . . such an one caught up to the third heaven.'
2 Corinthians 12:1-10

Some may read this passage and assume Paul is speaking about someone else. No, he was speaking about himself in such a manner that the reader might miss the point. That is just one example among several. In the same way, John used that literary style in the Gospel that bears his name; and the argument that Matthew's narrative being in third person cast doubts about its authorship is baseless and empty. The person who makes such assertions understands next to nothing about literary criticisms.

I just wanted to point out the basis of why I replied the way I did in post #25 to yours in mentioning the matter of literary criticism, and the above is just one example.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 6:07pm On Nov 06, 2009

Dear davidylan,

Thank you for your concerns and being honest enough to assert that you don't understand this thread. The topic may be a bit misleading ('what it takes to be a Christian'), and I saw that early enough - yet I chose to leave it as that, being very thankful that Chrisbenogor would have chosen to cleverly construct it that way. Perhaps you should have tried to see where this thread was coming from (click on link) - and you'd understand why it has gone the way it is.

In my very first post, I tried to alert the reader (especially Christians) about what is intended here. Whatever it could be, it was not a platform for preaching "salvation, faith, the cross, the Holy Spirit, even Jesus Christ Himself." Rather, Chris had categorically left a disclaimer in post#2 as to what posters and readers alike should expect -

'Before we go on I want to make an appeal to all who post on this thread,
my aim is to understand how viaro sees things and ask questions,
where I am not clear. I will try my very best to make you see that my intentions
are that and nothing more.'

He requested politely from the other thread to draw some answers from me about various issues in Christianity - and I obliged. Subsequently, very early here I stated several things:

'Yet, it is important to observe that my views and understanding may not satisfy
a whole lot of people at any stretch. . and I'd be first to nod from the onset that
there would be problems with some of the comments I'd be sharing.
However, whatever you read from me is not definitive or conclusive for the totality
of Christianity for anyone, believers and unbelievers alike.'

If the purpose of this thread was to preach "salvation, faith, the cross, the Holy Spirit, even Jesus Christ Himself", I could see the point in your protestation. But is it not possible that you complain that way because you had missed the basis of this thread from the onset?

Now, this remark is somehow funny:

davidylan:
A major problem i find among modern "christians" of today is the tendency to feel the need to sound overly scholarly when they discuss the bible. The gospels as we know it today was handed to us by tanners, fishermen and itinerant travelers who had no better than a few yrs of homeschooling at best. But these were men filled with the Holy Ghost and imbued with power to preach to the salvation of the souls of even kings and princes. No wonder our churches are now mere monuments to man's ego . . .

First, david, I'm not responsible for your declamations about the state of any monuments. Second, you are too quickly forgetting the very fact that about 50% of the New Testament were written by a very scholarly man who himself had sat at the feet of scholars - Paul, the apostle! He is one who was soundly educated and not a fisher man supposedly writing on chalk slates! Even one of the 'fishermen', Peter, on whose behalf you had argued, had himself categorically acknowledged that some of the things which Paul had written are hard to be understood - not because the latter was not communicating, but because many of us today are too scared to wake up and really come to terms with reality! Luke, again, was not an illiterate - he was an educated physician!

When Christians become too reactionary as you, davidylan, they unwittingly poison the well and leave themselves none-the-wiser. This was what I'd feared all along and made the comment that I was being careful "for the sake of other Christians and deeply religious people whose sensitivities they protect with all alacrity." I anticipated that coming out in a bit more detail about my own views would cause riots among many such folks.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 6:07pm On Nov 06, 2009

Krayola:
well, there goes the thread . . . Up in smoke. It was only a matter of time.

Krayola my man! cheesy

The thread's not smoking as yet, just enjoying some noise in certain quarters!

Krayola:
Can u please give us a few examples?

Yes, after the smoke has cleared. wink

Christianity Etc › Re: Joel Osteen: Megachurch Televangelist Pastor Without Christ?! Scandal by viaro: 4:11pm On Nov 06, 2009

I like the last pic up there.

*Tsk-tsk. . just look behind the guy and you'll see his real trade!

Oh, you don't get it, no? Look again. . he's a businessman.

_{hint: "Craft/Hobbies".}

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 3:53pm On Nov 06, 2009

So, your second observation -

Pastor AIO:
2) The Purple point. This one is centred on that phrase "derive value from it's pages".

Are you saying that the value you get out of the bible is derivative and not intrinsic to it? In other words, is the bible just what you make of it. This would suggest a creative process kinda like eisegesis when you read the bible.

Very, very good question. And my answer? Both.

The value I obtain from the Bible as regards my faith is both derivative and intrinsic. For those who might wonder what I'm about, please bear with me and let me explain.

(a) the word 'derivative' as used there implies this meaning to me -

* something which has been developed or obtained from something else

* something which is not new or original but has been developed from something else.

(b) also, 'intrinsic' as used there points me to this inference -

* something that belongs to a thing by its very nature

* anything that is valuable or interesting because of its basic nature or character,
and not because of its connection with other things

Putting both words in that context and as defined above, my answer as regards what value I obtain from the Bible is both derivative and intrinsic. Certainly, I note that many Christians (and even religious* folks) would take exception to that remark, but when we begin to make applications the fog is lifted and we gain a bit more understanding thereto.

Let me use just one example.

I do not think that the knowledge of God is original (or originated) with the Jewish people. Long before the emergence of the Jewish people, there are many, many civilizations which had known and worshipped that same God who later seemed to have been localized to the Jewish Deity. Even then, the concepts of priesthoods, covenants, redemption . . are all not original with Judaism or the Jewish people. And in so far as these things are indicated in the Bible, for me they are examples of what I mean by "derivative" value obtained in my studying the Bible for my faith and commitment.

Using the same examples as above (knowledge of God, priesthoods, covenants), I find intrinsic value as well in many passages of the Bible. This is so, in the sense that the covenants which passed unto the Jewish people are peculiarly their own - even Moses in the Pentateuch loudly acknowledges that the mosaic covenant was not given to any other nation but the Jews!

Not many Christians can easily see this; and they just take it for granted that everything they read in the Bible must be seen either through the spectacles of Judaism or their traditional denominational affiliations. Of course, as a Baptist myself, I may not agree with some of the interpretations which Baptist theologians have published on many issues - but as I said very early in this thread, my thoughts do not constitute authority for anyone else.

I hope this helps contextualises my seeming shyness in giving sound bite answers to the question of what the Bible means to me. Cheers.

_{End note:
* 'religious folks' is not used here in any pejorative sense; but rather in recognition of people of other faiths who are not Christians.}

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 3:27pm On Nov 06, 2009

Hi Pastor AIO. It's great to read your opening lines, and quite refreshing to find that someone is willing to take me for who I am. Little did I realise that my stretch of diction might make some liken me to other NL members, and I've found a lot of people with peculiarly distinct styles as well. No matter.

Now, to your very interesting observations, which will draw me out of my shell. I've been trying to be somewhat reserved (or careful) in some of my expressions, basically for the sake of other Christians and deeply religious people whose sensitivities they protect with all alacrity. Yet, let me tell a bit more -

Pastor AIO:
1) (the red point) - I think what is at stake above is the amount of subtlety you want to take into account in your critical evaluation of the bible as the word of God. It seems to me that you are saying that broadly speaking you take the bible as the word of God but when you made that evaluation you didn't consider subtle degrees of how diluted it might be or how authoritative it might be.

The idea of a diluted message only stems from the fact that something went before as its original. If one argues for the sake of translations and versions, then they may see many problems as best they wish. In order to not muddy the waters for the sake of this discussion, I felt it were better for me to leave it in the genial form of my persuasion as that it is the Word of God without adjectival qualifiers.

Stepping out of that simple persuasion, I can argue for many, many discrepancies indeed in almost all versions and translations of the Bible in any language, bar none. These discrepancies from translations and/or versions do not in any jot affect how I see the Bible as the Word of God - bearing in mind what I said in the intro of this page, that what I share are my views and not necessarily rationalizing anything for anyone, believers and unbelievers alike.

To take this even further, depending on what any critic is actually looking for, they might approach their examination and critical analyses in any number of ways that meets their determined objectives. Say, if a critic sets out to belittle the value of the Bible as God's Word, he might do so through literary criticism. But again, what type of literary criticism would he be employing from among the various types available -

* greek literary criticism?

* darwinian literary criticism?

* feminist literary criticism?

* marxist literary criticism?

* archetypal literary criticism?

* adaptationist literary criticism?

* psychoanalytic literary criticism?

After all is said and done, a holistic literary criticism would be embracing a combination of several of the examples given above (and many more). But just there is the problem - because by the time you do so, you will find your own results are contradicting every set of initial conclusions.

Now, when I said my knowledge is little in this area, it should not be taken to mean that I have by no means attempted any serious reading in any context of the Biblical texts, whether critical or composite. . I have done so between times, but that does not amount to what I would qualify as a "research". At the end of the day, it falls either way of seeing no value at all or seeing the persuasion that affirms for the critic that the Bible is God's Word.

In other words - "whether anyone wants to qualify that in one way or another with such adjectives of "undiluted", "authoritative", etc. is up to them" but your broad stroking works sufficiently well for your needs, ie. in helping you to[b] "finding meaning[/b] in my life of faith".

More or less so. As I haven't the time presently to delve a bit into the philosophy of religion and faith, I'd tersely say that the persuasion I hold was carefully weighed on the scales of meaning, such as -

- what do people mean by 'undiluted'?

- what do people mean by 'authoritative'?

- what do people mean by any other qualifier they use?

- what do people mean by anything they argue in this area?

With each person meaning something quite different from another's, I felt my discussion would be simpler if those qualifiers are left out of my persuasion as regarding the value of the Bible. Yes, I would admit already (as Chris noted earlier) that I do not take things at surface value; and in that vein, I do not accept every single line expressed in all 1,189 chapters of the English canon as "authoritative" - for me to do so, I would have to ask my enquirer just what he means by that word 'authoritative'. I hope you see what I'm trying to say?

Your second question comes up next.

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by viaro: 12:24pm On Nov 06, 2009

ttalks:
Viaro,
I see everything you've written.
You definitely will have your own opinion about what you have done; others definitely will have theirs.
At the end of the day, it is usually what people say about you and not what you say about yourself that counts in the eyes of the public.
A person that doesn't take what people say or conclude about them into consideration is walking on thin ice.

Just recall what i said earlier on as you put in more effort towards the topic at hand:
I leave it at that.

@ttalks, I don't try ever to deny anyone their privileges to have their views expressed; and I have often paid attention to what people say, whether or not they draw any reason for my replies or observations. Sometimes I don't even bother to reply some who make unhealthy remarks about me or my posts - it's natural and human.

However, when someone makes a very deliberate and misleading conclusion about my person and posts, it is necessary for me to reply in a no-nonsense manner to dispel their fears and doubts. This was why my replies have come across to you in the way they did. What? Did you expect me to just accept your misrepresentations on the basis of your idea that I might be walking on ice if "a person doesn't take what people say or conclude about them"?

Why should I take what you said or concluded about me and my posts to avoid 'walking on thin ice' when in very fact they are false? If they were not, I would not have come strongly against your comments; but that you didn't even pay attention to the examples I showed in my previous posts and discussions is alarming! It makes me wonder if my suspicions were correct that your comments were baseless, a deliberate falsehood, and quite unnecessary. I could not let you off just like that, and that was why I defended my position with examples from my previous posts!

Look, I apologise to you only for the very strong manner of my reply to yours. No ill-feelings against you beyond this point, and I'm open for amicable discussions in future, as long as we don't try to present false perceptions on people and their discussions.

Christianity Etc › Re: Of Singularities And Infinities. . Deep Sight, Welcome! by viaro(op): 12:07pm On Nov 06, 2009

Hallo folks. Good talk going on here. . and heart warming questions.

Yes, the question of 'why something instead of nothing?' is one that many people have dared to ask in one form or another. It became increasingly public when it was expressed by one of America's rock bands, Jane's Addiction, in the 1999 release, Polar Bear. But it's not only musicians that have been asking that question and seeking an answer to it and its many other queries - it has become a major scientific enquiry.

Do we know why something exists rather than nothing at all? No, most of us do not know or understand why - at least, not in the sense of why the universe even exists. But do we even know why nothing should have existed in the first place before something began to exist?

Can I stretch it a little further? Why is existence rather than non-existence?

These are questions not for the faint-hearted or the rascally. Perhaps they are questions which may not be adequately answered in the history of our humanity and intelligence. . or maybe I'm wrong! I would rather propose it is a mystery that refines the way we think about our own existence, and from there try to understand other forms of existence and realities, and also what necessary roles we are supposed to play in existence itself.

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by viaro: 11:35am On Nov 06, 2009

ttalks:
Viaro,

maybe you do not understand what i mean when i say focusing on both sides.

It is very clear that when a point comes up from the side of those who do not regard tithing as necessary in the christian faith, you readily respond with your own post.

That is a blatant lie! This is why I'm so pissed off with your arrogance!

But when Tonye-t comes up with his that point to obligatory tithing which he does every once in a while, you do not respond. As I said earlier, you initially provided some response, but later shelved it to general notes on being against mandatory tithing.

If you have not noticed, I don't spend my life arguing endlessly with someone or people when they have made up their minds about something. If, for example, someone (A) says something I don't agree with, I would point it out. But after a few efforts to do so and they are still persuaded their own way, I withdraw without straining on or being overbearing to (A). Now, that is not the end of it, because I may address the same thing in my persuasion consistently when replying others (B, C, D, etc) even though I do not flag up every single time the other person (A) says something.

What you have expected me to do is join the band wagon of shouting idiots just to make an impression on (A) and brand him out of existence simply because we don't like what he is saying. That is what I will not do. I would rather consistently maintain my position while discussing with other folks and minimise the distractions. I have frequently called out against the misadventures of unnecessary arguments, and that is why I engage others who may be tithing and yet cannot deliver when it comes to showing why they do so. Clever excuses are not the same thing as sound reasoning.

What would be recognizable as clear focus on both sides is adequate and direct responses to both sides of the arguments(Tonye-t's and those against it).

I suspected you would complain in that manner, and that was why I made a few examples in post #691 to show that you're grossly misreading me all along.

That's what i want you to understand from what i said.

That's fine; but I cannot condone deliberate misrepresentations. What you did must not be taken lightly, because anyone who may not have the patience to visit the previous pages and understand my position may take your misrepresentations as summarising my posts and style. That is simply unwise and unhealthy.

You do not need to analyse or dissect my posts; what would be appreciated is taking what i said in good stride even if it doesn't seem to go down well with you and actually show that you are doing what needs to be done.

Sorry, ttalks - I don't take lies in good strides. A good and fair critique, yes. . but an outright lie on my person and post? NO. Nada. Zilch.

Remember, actions do speak louder than words. You could say you have done this and done that. Fine! let's see it clearly; live and direct, at least from now.

Did you miss the examples I pointed out earlier? Are you for real?

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by viaro: 11:22am On Nov 06, 2009

lysaa:
whether tithing is of the new or old testament, what's there in giving a tenth of your increase to God?

I wonder!!

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by viaro: 10:43am On Nov 06, 2009

ttalks:
As regards the last point above, I realize that you are always ready to fight against inconsistencies or incomplete truths. This should be directed both ways and not one way as it has been so as to show balance or the fact that u aren't favoring one side against the other as your claims put you in the middle or the gap between the two sides.

Just to assure you that I've focused on issues BOTH WAYS rather than just one side, here are at least a few examples -

post #425 - my reply to ogajim:

Excellent observation. Precisely my point: tithing is not taught in Scripture as having anything to do with anyone's salvation - from Abraham to the end of the NT. Sadly, many people on both sides of the debate (pro-tithing and anti-tithing) have tried to use all sorts of dubious means to the same effect of cajoling people. Propaganda works both ways and should be deplored on either side.

____________________________________

post #568 - my reply to Zikkyy:

Some pro-tithing arguments are not helpful where people are made to feel "forced" to give anything - and people are actually "forced" to give in many ways and not in tithes alone. At the same time, the majority of anti-tithing arguments to altogether stop Christians from tithing is unhelpful.

Neither extremes should be encouraged

- because extremities cause far more havoc than health to our collective existences and purpose. This is why discussions of this nature ought not be too generalized as to make one set of people to be guilty for simply 'tithing'.

I just wanted to point out the fact of what you twisted and misread in my position, ttalks. You may not have done it deliberately, but then asking would have solved the problem. Please enough of all these misrepresentations. . . some of you may have found it fun at first, but not any longer. It is no wonder to me that unbelievers should mock at the display of sheer arrogance and stuporous cacophony of Christians if we go about with these misfooted duplicity of misrepresenting issues and people.

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by viaro: 10:19am On Nov 06, 2009

Dear ttalks, if your observations are anything to go by, they are a fabrication and misreading of my arguments, if not completely arrant nonsensical lies. This is not the way I like to address people, but you jumped to conclusions that are unwarranted where I could take you to task on every single line and set you straight. However, I'll just remind you of a few matters presently to correct your untrue impressions:

ttalks:
Debosky has repeatedly said you should focus on Tonye-t's claims and forget about your disagreements with him. I too have hinted that earlier on somewhere on the thread.

Oh please sit up and smell the darn coffee! Right from post #599 I focused only on debosky's post, not what he did not argue about. But since he would rather stretch my concerns to include what I don't argue on the topic, I only helped to broaden the scope of our discussion. He did not like it (I rightly guessed he would not - because his arguments are the most nonsensical that anyone can have as reasons for their tithing). If he had calmly focused on what I was concerned about, would all this apologetical nonsense on his behalf have come up in the first place?

Meanwhile, even after he complained, I listened and addressed particularly his nightmare - both about "scriptural intuition" and Abraham's 'one-off' tithes in post #625. Unless you just didn't want to pay any attention to the progress of our discussion, you would not have missed that fact. If debosky wanted to draw a good discussion, he would have done so and offered the very same thing he expected from me by concerning himself with what I discuss rather than what I do not argue endlessly about. Are you the only person visiting this thread to see that my position has nothing to do with obligatory or mandated giving in any form? Why then has debosky often resorted to that stupid idea to engage me when he understands that's not where I was coming from? What mentally misfooted drivel are you on about?

Tonye-t believes it is an obligation within the new testament to tithe. A lot of us here have disagreed with that.You also seem to disagree with the obligation issue but are not making any effort towards showing it to the OP.

Not making ANY effort, did you say? You know for a brief moment you lied there - which was probably why you came to say the direct opposite in your next line:

You tried to once but left it off; the energy u're putting into non essentials would be worth it in the essential(what Tonye-t's claims imply).

I tried several times rather than focus "once" on only Tonye-t's view point -

* post #400 - reply to debosky

* post #405 - reply to Tonye-t

* post #425 - reply to ogajim

. . and several others. I have argued this issue long in several inputs and have continued to do so as the thread progressed. It should not come as a surprise to me that you'd read just anything you want to for your convenience and come to the conclusion that I was not making "ANY" effort to argue against the idea of a mandatory tithe or mandatory giving. What did you expect - for me to burn down Nairaland to satisfy you that I have indeed made concerted effort against mandatory giving?

What irks me is when some fellow just jumps in and tries to make silly remarks to confuse my position with false assertions. If you were not sure, just ask - and I would gladly refer you to those links, rather than for you to draw silly conclusions in your ego to dress me up for pilgrim or anyone else.

Please, leave off these non essential arguments and focus on the point of the thread.

I have done that - which was why I cut my reply short to debosky. Since he is on an ego trip, grand luck to him and those who want to lick his boots.

If you don't it could imply some things:

- you believe it is obligatory even when you say it isn't.
- you would rather argue for half truths rather that the whole truth.
- you are on a campaign against people who don't tithe because they know it is not obligatory but would not campaign against those who feel it is obligatory.

Wrong.
False.
Lies.
And more lies.

As regards the last point above, I realize that you are always ready to fight against inconsistencies or incomplete truths. This should be directed both ways and not one way as it has been so as to show balance or the fact that u aren't favoring one side against the other as your claims put you in the middle or the gap between the two sides.

Are you thick or what? angry

Is it not clear to you (if you have been paying any attention) that my arguments have been directed BOTH WAYS against cheats in either camp? Why have I been making statements like i don't care two scoobies what anyone argues on this topic, as well that my resentment is against any form of false arguments on either side?

Uhm, ttalks. . I have not treated you this way before, and it's not in my style to do so. I detest folks coming forth with callous misrepresentations at me (not only mis-representing me, but twisting my arguments and position). I would promise the same no nonsense rebuttal to your reply if you come across in the same manner of deliberate falsehood.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 9:26am On Nov 06, 2009

Chrisbenogor:
Let us dwell on number 2 a bit.So are we expecting more research from you in the future or you have given up on it and want to just dwell on your faith as you see it now?

No, I have not given up studying about faiths and religions in general, and Christianity in particular. I don't know about 'research', for that word has been quite often loosely used in many circles.

Is it not difficult to stand on the fence and not qualify it,

Hehe, my answer wasn't a straddling of fences. Be that as it may, I often leave it in the simple form as given earlier, qualifying it only in terms of its canon of 66 books as distinct from those used by other Christian traditions (eg., the apocrypha of 14 books of an OT era). We encounter numerous problems when we begin to stretch my answer with qualifiers such as 'undiluted', 'authoritative', 'unadulterated', 'absolute', etc., etc., etc., because many people confuse a translation/version with a manuscript.

let us simplify it further, do you think that here and there people who wrote these books infused both their local beliefs, practices and whatever inspiration they might have gotten for these books?

Good question, but I don't have reasons to come to your conclusion as such if we don't qualify your question by a context. Certainly, while in many places the authors gave narratives, instructions and observations that portray their local cultures, that is not to mean that they passed off their own personal ideas for divine imperatives.

For instance we see the proliferation of the western culture in christianity today, like I asked david the other day, how much confidence do you have that 2500 years is not enough to have seriously distorted the "central message" in the gospel?

That's interesting, but the first thing I'd have to ask is this: 'what do you actually know for certainty to be the central message of the Gospel' before assuming it has been 'seriously distorted'? Many people like to pass off such remarks even before they understand anything about what constitutes the central message of the Gospel. However, 2500 years is more than enough to distort anything - if that is the intent of its adherents. IMO, there is no guarantee in the Bible that all Christians in every age and place would hold firm the Biblical message without distorting it - quite the opposite is evidently stated by the Biblical authors.

Furthermore how much of the gnostic gospels do you know, when making your judgment on the 66 books did you put into consideration what the intention of the people putting them together might have been?

Yes, I considered the possible intention of various canonists (not just those involved in canonizing the 66 books of the Bible). But to be honest with you, I don't know much about the Gnostic gospels. I only know of many Gnostic documents and have read them through and through; but that is not to say that I "know" what they really are in terms how their authors intended them to be interpreted.

Is it remotely possible to you that what we see and have today as christianity is not what it originally was or intended to be?

It depends on what you might mean, and there are two ways to look at it:

(a) as far as the Bible is concerned, Christianity was indeed progressive in revelation while its tenets were already established and foundational. For this reason, some of the NT epistles admonish us to not deviate from the established faith as given by the apostles. This we can find to be the collective testimony of the NT.

(b) as far as Christendom is concerned, we find so many traditions each and all vying for recognition as "the only" true identity of Biblical Christianity. In my view, it is hard to find any single tradition, denomination, or individual (mine included) who is absolutely identical to apostolic Christianity as we read today in the Bible.

Ok if you say so, I will give you a run down list just after we deal with the questions we have above. Let us remind ourselves by saying We still have rundown list A at the beginning of the next series of posts we have.

Hehe, I'll bear that in mind. grin

Hmmmmmm viaro that came across as a houdini attempt, are you saying there is no part of the bible where you read and went "eish I think this guy add small salt and pepper"

I used to think that way in my early development, but not so any more. That is not to say that I find every statement in the Bible absolutely defensible if mirrored against the conscience of the 21st century; nor would I be saying that such difficult passages are impish in their own contexts.

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by viaro: 1:07am On Nov 06, 2009

@debsoky,

May I observe this fact: that you are still not saying anything refreshing but still arguing away at issues which should long have been buried. If I had seen anything tangible that was solid to warrant a full reply, you would have read it from me. However, just a few lines to summarise:

debosky:
If I decide to give 12.5% tomorrow, will my giving still be tithes? Note I have clearly stated that 10% is only a starting point and no more.

Maybe, maybe not. We all know that "10% every month" is tithing - maybe you don't feel comfy with that word. However, there are people who have argued that 10% is not the only figure known as a tithe - some calculate about 23% (theologians as John MacArthur of 'Grace To You' ministry); anti-tithing propagandist Russell Kelly once argued it was 40% and still called it 'tithe', and he also argued from Numbers 31 that the tithe there was 0.02%. So, if you gave 12.5% tomorrow and someone begins to shout about it being a tithe, is that my headache? Nope. And I still don't see how you're strung up on this issue of a percentage right from the simple query I posted direct to you in post #599.

It is tithes, only in the sense that I give 10% of my income. I posit that you cannot 'tithe' out of a different persuasion than the one specified in it's definition as obligatory. In my view, it has EVERYTHING to do with being obligatory or freewill.

I knew that's where you've been getting it wrong. . absolutely wrong. . mega wrong! If you're forcing yourself to believe that my tithing and discussions on tithing are impossible unless it is defined as obligatory, I have nothing more to say to you. I have forever made that point clear that my tithing has absolutely nothing to do with obligations or mandates or coercion in any form. This is where you make no sense to me, and I'd have to leave you trailing off on your arguments.

Cheers.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 12:19am On Nov 06, 2009

^^^ why so? I should rather say that a few people have drawn my deepest respects, and whether you believe it or not, you were the very first!

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 12:09am On Nov 06, 2009

Lo, Chrisbenogor. .

Continuing -

Chrisbenogor:
Thanks to deep sight for giving us an insight, I really do not intend to delve into scripture passages as such because I want to make this thread as simple as possible for everyone reading.

All manner of questions welcome, and gracias to Deep Sight earlier. Indeed, simplicity would do just fine, although it might be inevitable to cite some references from the Bible if they might be necessary to explicate certain concepts.

2. On the thread about the existence of God I was amazed at mathematics skills you posses, I am pretty sure you do not accept things at face value so tell us,

What can I say but that nobody should be amazed at any presumed mathematical skills in my possession. I just love playing with numbers. . and I make many mistakes as well! grin

(a) Have you done a thorough study of christianity, its history and also the history of the bible, if so what were your findings?

Unfortunately, I have not done what qualifies as "thorough" in my study of Christianity. However, the little I understand is satisfying enough to draw my faith and commitment in its ideals. Faith, for me, is not so much the academic or mental gymnastics that many find interesting to set their whole energy upon - such would build empires of arguments where nobody lives.

(b) How do you view the bible, is it the undiluted word of God?

I believe the canon of the Bible with 66 books is the Word of God - whether anyone wants to qualify that in one way or another with such adjectives of "undiluted", "authoritative", etc. is up to them. The central message is what is of value to me in finding meaning in my life of faith and commitment to Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

(c) Are there any parts of the bible you have qualms with as regards your moral standing today?

Not really, it all depends on what is being implied for application of faith to those who seek a covenant relationship with God. If one excuses this point, then a world of problems opens up to them, where they interpret the message of the Bible in its totality as a joke. That, for me, is not how I derive value from its pages.

(d) Are there any parts where you feel the truth must have been stretched?

I have not yet come to that; and yes, many people have asked me quite pertinent questions in this regard - and where I do not know, my answer has always been that: I do not know.

Career › Re: Professional Female Drivers? by viaro: 10:11pm On Nov 05, 2009

I know this thread has seen some age! However, I wonder what Nigerians think of such an issue. How would people (both men, women, and even youngsters) react to female drivers in public spheres, such as -

* taxi drivers

* bus drivers

* heavy duty machinery

[img]http://annualreport2008.arriva.co.uk/en/corporate-responsibility/~/media/Images/A/annualreport2008/Images/kim-purcell.ashx?w=560&h=372&as=1[/img]

https://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/19309/wm/pd1398469.jpg

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 8:03pm On Nov 05, 2009

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=347900.msg4869163#msg4869163 date=1257446974]Good to see y'all fessing up to having 'dark' sides. . . .
Anyway my question for viaro isn't difficult. . .here it is : viaro, are you male or female?[/quote]Hi, Tudór. My answer as earlier.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 8:01pm On Nov 05, 2009

Deep Sight:
Surely, this shows that both John and Jesus reckoned with the idea of reincarnation?

Wwhat say you?

^^^Well, not necessarily.

It is true that neither Jesus nor John baptist categorically rejected the idea of reincarnation when approached. Yet, they did not explicitly endorse it either.

However, even there at that point we encounter a problem. The one question that crosses my mind repeatedly is this: were those who queried Jesus (Matthew 17) and John baptist (John 1:21) asking questions that suggest re-incarnation? In all probability, I deeply doubt that was the case, for the following reasons:

1. I don't know much about Jewish ideology and way of thinking in context of the 1st century; but rather than the thought of reincarnation, it's my view that they had resurrection in mind.

2. The fact that it was more a point of resurrection than of reincarnation is supported by some pointers in both the Bible and Jewish documents. A few examples:

* And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2

* Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead
Isaiah 26:19

3. Long before the era of the New Testament, we can see from those references that the Jews were at the very least aware of the concept of people rising from the dead. This, for me, does not point to the idea of reincarnation (which, in Hinduism, is the belief that after you die you can be born again as a different person, animal, or thing); rather, those references point to resurrection of some sorts, where the dead are to rise again, fully recognizable for who they were.

4. To strengthen this view, it was not only in those occasions (Matthew 17 and John 1:21) that the question was broached: there are other times when many in the audience had mistaken Jesus for either Elijah, or Jeremiah, or for one of the prophets (Matt. 16:14). However, this pointing back again and again to people in the past was not understood as reincarnation, but rather as resurrection. Particularly so is what we can understand from Herod's presumptive assertion to his servants in Matthew 14:2 -

* 'This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead;
and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.'

Or, as Mark 6:16 has it -

* 'But when Herod heard thereof, he said,
It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.'

5. From the foregoing, we can see that it was not reincarnation that we see in these examples, but rather a resurrection or a rising from the dead.

However, what about the important point you raised, viz -

Deep Sight:
Jesus simply answered "no", and John evaded the question entirely by saying " i am the voice of one crying in the desert. . ."

No, I think it's not precisely so. John did not evade the question, for his answer to that question was categorical in John 1:21 -

'And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.'

As discussed above, you can see that neither Jesus nor John baptist reckoned with reincarnation, but rather a rising from the dead (strategically a different thing from the reincarnation idea).

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 7:13pm On Nov 05, 2009

Deep Sight:
My questions for you are:

1. What do you make of the sacrifice on the cross. Redemption through that sacrifice.

A lot. It all depends on what exactly someone might like to enquire particularly in that regard. On basics, redemption is founded on blood; and the sacrifice on the Cross makes that concrete. Many times, people are far too concerned with the gory details and then lose sight of the intrinsic message of redemption in that act.

2. Are you of the view that non-christians may be saved.

Yes, and No.

Yes, because it seems to me that is what the Bible declares in many places according to the dispensation and divine economy of any group of people.

No, because a deliberate, willful rejection of God's saving grace in Christ does not automatically qualify someone for Biblical salvation. People may be offended at this, but how do they defend the idea of qualifying someone for that salvation who has deliberately and willfully scorned God's offer in that regard?

_{Okay, I should always bear in mind that I'm being questioned and not yet calling any shots!}

3. What do you make of the idea of re-incarnation.

I don't believe in re-incarnation because I don't have enough to tilt my convictions in that direction.

4. Are you kind enough to share with us your denomination (if any)

I'm a Baptist.

Christianity Etc › Re: Viaro Bares It All - His views on Religion. by viaro: 7:03pm On Nov 05, 2009

Chris, yours first. . at least I should do you the honour, as you have the credit for having mooted this thread.

Chrisbenogor:
1. Can you give us an overview of what it takes to be a christian, in your own words who is a christian?

In my own view, a Christian is one who has genuinely committed his faith and trust in Jesus Christ on the basis of His claims as we find in the Bible.

What that means to different people may come off differently in their varied contexts; but every other point that may be made is 'appendical' to that basic idea, IMO.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 (of 85 pages)