# Christian spirituality and theology thread



## science

I don't mean to be snarky at all, but while reading through the atheism thread, I thought this might be valued. If we have a quorum of Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. it would be very interesting to see similar threads devoted to their traditions!

I think I'll start with a fairly ecumenical quote from a Russian, Saint Theophan the Recluse (this is from _The Art of Prayer_, a compilation by Igumen Chariton of Valamo, my edition is translated by E. Kadloubovsky and E. M. Palmer):



> May the Lord give you the blessing of a strong desire to stand inwardly before God. Seek and you will find. _Seek God_: such is the unalterable rule for all spiritual advancement. Nothing comes without effort. The help of God is always ready and always near, but it is only given to those who seek and work, and only to those seekers who, after putting all their own powers to the test, then cry out with their heart: Lord, help us. So long as you hold on to even a little hope of achieving something by your own powers, the Lord does not interfere. It is as though He says: 'You hope to succeed by yourself--Very well, go on trying! But however long you try you will achieve nothing.' May the Lord give you a contrite spirit, a humble and contrite heart.


----------



## science

You know what, I enjoyed that so much, I'm going to do another one.

This one from a Catholic, Saint Anselm, probably most well known for his clever "ontological proof" of God's existence in the _Proslogion_, where this prayer comes from. I'll only post the opening lines, a self-exhortation in preparation for contemplation:



> Come now, insignificant mortal. Leave behind your concerns for a little while, and retreat for a short time from your restless thoughts. Cast off your burdens and cares; set aside your labor and toil. Just for a little while make room for God and rest a while in him. "Enter into the chamber" of your mind, shut out everything but God and whatever helps you to seek him, and seek him "behind closed doors." Speak now, my whole heart: say to God, "I seek your face; your face, Lord, do I seek."


----------



## science

As Christian things seem to go best in 3s, here is a Protestant quote, from a 19th-century English Quaker, Caroline Stephen. I'm getting it in Paulist Press's _Quaker Spirituality_, p. 252.



> The word "prayer" may, it is true, be used in the restricted sense of making requests; but in that case let it be distinctly understood and kept in mind that it is but a part--the lowest and least essential part--of worship or communion with God. It is of prayer in the larger sense--not request, but communion--that we may rightly and wisely speak as the very breath of our spiritual life, as the power by which life is transfigured; as that to which all things are possible.... Surely we may with reverence say that, in a true and a deep sense, God himself is the answer to prayer.


----------



## Moraviac

Nice quotes, all three of them.


----------



## Chris

Moraviac said:


> Nice quotes, all three of them.


'Nice' they may be but I am not optimistic of their practicability. There may be a few people here and there who seek a communion with God, but as someone has said, in general people search for God like burglars search for policemen.


----------



## science

I hope they're practical for you at least.


----------



## science

I wish I could remember the name of the preacher who gave this sermon, but he was another Russian.

He told his congregation something like, "Some of you are out there 6 days a week, being drunk, gambling, chasing women - and then you come in here to church on Sundays. You live like animals."

Then he said, "Others are constantly fasting, wearing out your rosaries, prostrating yourselves in prayer for hours on end, thinking with pride about how much better you are than those others. You live like demons."


----------



## science

Makes me think of this:



> Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I was thinking recently, it was kind of inevitable that humanity would need a "middle man" to explain how something came from nothing.

We can't explain the reason for the existence of matter. Would it really matter if there was no matter? Would there be time without matter?

I don't know the answer, nobody does yet. There may well be a god (although no evidence has been presented for one), but if there wasn't, how did all this come into being?

Every culture has worshiped deities at some time or another and ours is no different. We have an innate need to work out why and how everything got here. It's a question that is like the itch you can't scratch (unless you have a theoretical third party to scratch it for you!).

That's why I think it's completely natural to turn to spirituality as a way of answering these questions. Me, I haven't been baptized so if the words of four random desert tribesmen are true then I'm heading for the flames!


----------



## tdc

Edward Elgar said:


> Me, I haven't been baptized so if the words of four random desert tribesmen are true then I'm heading for the flames!


Thats just nonsense. You are not headed for any flames. In my opinion the hell the bible refers to is a metaphor for where we currently are. It is here that we can decide by our own free will to choose a higher purpose based on love and compassion. There are many different paths - religious and non to this kind of awakening/enlightenment. I think the worst thing that can happen to a person is they end up repeating a lot of lifetimes in this type of existence - which still isn't all bad as there are a lot of incredibly valuable lessons and insights that can be learned here that are very important, and everyone eventually gets to heaven.

Reincarnation was initially talked about in the bible as well. Most modern christians have an incomplete view of Christ's message as many important books were taken out of the Bible at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.


----------



## science

I wonder - what does "hell" mean to you? 

Is it a place of punitive torture where the unsaved or unbaptized are locked against their will? 

Is it a place you can never get out of once you're there?


----------



## Chris

science said:


> I wonder - what does "hell" mean to you?
> 
> Is it a place of punitive torture where the unsaved or unbaptized are locked against their will?
> 
> Is it a place you can never get out of once you're there?


You are right in surmising there is no exit from hell. As to what hell is like, I doubt it is possible to picture, but the Bible provides some insights. It is a place where sin is punished, but in a way that is so absolutely and precisely just that even the lost in hell are unable to say a word against what is happening to them. This is the meaning of the parable about the man at the wedding without a wedding garment in Matthew 22:1-14. When the interloper is confronted he is, metaphorically, *speechless*. Another thing strongly implied is that in hell the conscience, which can torment people even in this life, is unleashed in all its ferocity. But whatever happens in hell, it is strictly just.


----------



## science

Can you give some more scriptural references for those conclusions? I'm not aware of any scripture that requires Christians to believe that "there is no exit from hell," or of the verses that suggest that "conscience... is unleashed in all its ferocity."


----------



## mmsbls

Chris said:


> You are right in surmising there is no exit from hell. As to what hell is like, I doubt it is possible to picture, but the Bible provides some insights. It is a place where sin is punished, but in a way that is so absolutely and precisely just that even the lost in hell are unable to say a word against what is happening to them. This is the meaning of the parable about the man at the wedding without a wedding garment in Matthew 22:1-14. When the interloper is confronted he is, metaphorically, *speechless*. Another thing strongly implied is that in hell the conscience, which can torment people even in this life, is unleashed in all its ferocity. But whatever happens in hell, it is strictly just.


Hell has been described in many ways, and undoubtedly people have differing views of exactly what it is. I have never heard any description of hell that is not very unpleasant - most involve mental or physical pain (e.g. an conscience unleashed in all its fury). I also have always heard God described in terms of God's love for all people. What I find impossible to believe is that there is a being who truly loves another being but is willing to consign that being to an eternity of mental or physical pain. Either hell does not exist as a permanent destination for anyone, or God does not love all humans. I could never subject my son or daughter to anything remotely like hell, and presumably God is supposed to love people at least as much as I love my children.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> Can you give some more scriptural references for those conclusions? I'm not aware of any scripture that requires Christians to believe that "there is no exit from hell," or of the verses that suggest that "conscience... is unleashed in all its ferocity."


There are passages in OT and NT that state that hell is unending, e.g. Daniel 12:2

'Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt'.

and Mark 9:47-48

'It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched"'.

In the second reference the internal quote is taken from the last verse in Isaiah where it describes the battlefield corpses of those who have made war with God. Their already-putrefying bodies are to be burned. In the NT usage the undying worm is generally taken to refer to the tormenting conscience of the damned in hell. It is not stated as such but that is how commentators generally understand it and it is hard to disagree. James 1:15 suggest that the torments of hell are very directly related to the sins committed in this life ('Sin, when it is full grown, gives birth to death') and a worm that will not die is a fitting metaphor for an internal accuser that gives no peace. Only a fortnight ago a man in UK was convicted of a murder he had committed more than 20 years ago. The case had been closed for decades but such was the power of conscience gnawing inside him that he walked into a police station and confessed everything.


----------



## Sid James

Related to this topic (but from a non-religious source, if I may add it?) are the now classic and immortal words of* John Lennon*, in his hit song "Imagine" ...

Imagine there's no Heaven 
It's easy if you try 
No hell below us 
Above us only sky 
Imagine all the people 
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries 
It isn't hard to do 
Nothing to kill or die for 
And no religion too 
Imagine all the people 
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer 
But I'm not the only one 
I hope someday you'll join us 
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions 
I wonder if you can 
No need for greed or hunger 
A brotherhood of man 
Imagine all the people 
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer 
But I'm not the only one 
I hope someday you'll join us 
And the world will live as one


----------



## Almaviva

Andre said:


> Related to this topic (but from a non-religious source, if I may add it?) are the now classic and immortal words of* John Lennon*, in his hit song "Imagine" ...
> 
> Imagine there's no Heaven
> It's easy if you try
> No hell below us
> Above us only sky
> Imagine all the people
> Living for today
> 
> Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too
> Imagine all the people
> Living life in peace
> 
> You may say that I'm a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will be as one
> 
> Imagine no possessions
> I wonder if you can
> No need for greed or hunger
> A brotherhood of man
> Imagine all the people
> Sharing all the world
> 
> You may say that I'm a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will live as one


John Lennon got killed... it doesn't bode well for his optimistic words.
I'm very pessimistic regarding the future of humankind.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> There are passages in OT and NT that state that hell is unending, e.g. Daniel 12:2
> 
> 'Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt'.
> 
> and Mark 9:47-48
> 
> 'It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched"'.
> 
> In the second reference the internal quote is taken from the last verse in Isaiah where it describes the battlefield corpses of those who have made war with God. Their already-putrefying bodies are to be burned. In the NT usage the undying worm is generally taken to refer to the tormenting conscience of the damned in hell. It is not stated as such but that is how commentators generally understand it and it is hard to disagree. James 1:15 suggest that the torments of hell are very directly related to the sins committed in this life ('Sin, when it is full grown, gives birth to death') and a worm that will not die is a fitting metaphor for an internal accuser that gives no peace. Only a fortnight ago a man in UK was convicted of a murder he had committed more than 20 years ago. The case had been closed for decades but such was the power of conscience gnawing inside him that he walked into a police station and confessed everything.


My view of the character of God is different than yours, so we see "hell" differently.

I just finished reading The Inferno, and you're actually fairly similar to Dante (though I can't tell how serious he was).


----------



## Ravellian

I'm interested in knowing what some believers' ideas of 'Heaven' are. I find it extremely hard to picture, myself.


----------



## science

That's a good question too!


----------



## Chris

Ravellian said:


> I'm interested in knowing what some believers' ideas of 'Heaven' are. I find it extremely hard to picture, myself.


Heaven is described in the book of Revelation in rich symbolic language. Chapter 4 portrays heaven as it is now, with God enthroned on a sea of crystal, symbolising his imperturbable rule. He is surrounded by creatures, representing creation, who worship him continually. It is not a literal picture but intended to show God's absolute supremacy over all creation and events. Chapters 21 and 22 are even more glorious. They show heaven's final state in which God's redeemed people are resurrected to an endless life, free of sin and suffering, in which they perpetually worship and serve God and Christ. As with chapter 4 this section abounds with metaphorical language (including symbolic use of numbers) portraying the secure and blissful condition of the redeemed.


----------



## david johnson

lennon has nothing to offer with his words. his 'dream' is empty. the song is pretty, though.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> Heaven is described in the book of Revelation in rich symbolic language. Chapter 4 portrays heaven as it is now, with God enthroned on a sea of crystal, symbolising his imperturbable rule. He is surrounded by creatures, representing creation, who worship him continually. It is not a literal picture but intended to show God's absolute supremacy over all creation and events. Chapters 21 and 22 are even more glorious. They show heaven's final state in which God's redeemed people are resurrected to an endless life, free of sin and suffering, in which they perpetually worship and serve God and Christ. As with chapter 4 this section abounds with metaphorical language (including symbolic use of numbers) portraying the secure and blissful condition of the redeemed.


I've often thought that the idea of heaven as an eternal liturgy probably appeals to some people more than others.

It is certainly one way of thinking about the old idea that hell and heaven are the same place!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> Heaven is described in the *book of Revelation in rich symbolic language*. Chapter 4 portrays heaven as it is now, with God enthroned on a sea of crystal, symbolising his imperturbable rule. He is surrounded by creatures, representing creation, who worship him continually. It is not a literal picture but intended to show God's absolute supremacy over all creation and events. Chapters 21 and 22 are even more glorious. They show heaven's final state in which God's redeemed people are resurrected to an endless life, free of sin and suffering, in which they perpetually worship and serve God and Christ. As with chapter 4 this section abounds with metaphorical language (including symbolic use of numbers) portraying the secure and blissful condition of the redeemed.


Rich symbolic language indeed, even Sir Isaac Newton wasted his best later years trying to make some sense out of it but alas, to no use.


----------



## starthrower

Endless life? I get bored if I have more than three days off work. Can't I just go to sleep when my time comes?


----------



## Couchie

Chris said:


> Heaven is described in the book of Revelation in rich symbolic language. Chapter 4 portrays heaven as it is now, with God enthroned on a sea of crystal, symbolising his imperturbable rule. He is surrounded by creatures, representing creation, who worship him continually. It is not a literal picture but intended to show God's absolute supremacy over all creation and events. Chapters 21 and 22 are even more glorious. They show heaven's final state in which God's redeemed people are resurrected to an endless life, free of sin and suffering, in which they perpetually worship and serve God and Christ. As with chapter 4 this section abounds with metaphorical language (including symbolic use of numbers) portraying the secure and blissful condition of the redeemed.


So heaven is purely symbolic?


----------



## Chris

Couchie said:


> So heaven is purely symbolic?


No, the pictorialisation of heaven is only a small part of Revelation. The whole book is intended to portray the undering causes and realities that lie behind human history, and God's overarching purposes. Revelation presents this in a repeated series of tableux, each using using different heiroglyphs and figures because the whole drama is too abundant, if that's the word, for one single scene. The reason for the symbolism is to make the book applicable to any age in history. 
Thus, for example, the white horseman going out to conquer, followed later by red, black and pale horses (the four horsemen of the apocalypse) picture the gospel going into the world (white horse), then, following its rejection, judgment coming upon the world in the shape of war, famine and death respectively. Commentators have deduced that interpretation, by the way, by looking for parallels in the Old Testament, not by wild guesswork. If all interpreters were to keep to this principle we would have less confusion.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> No, the pictorialisation of heaven is only a small part of Revelation. The whole book is intended to portray the undering causes and realities that lie behind human history, and God's overarching purposes. Revelation presents this in a repeated series of tableux, each using using different heiroglyphs and figures because the whole drama is too abundant, if that's the word, for one single scene. The reason for the symbolism is to make the book applicable to any age in history.
> 
> Thus, for example, the white horseman going out to conquer, followed later by red, black and pale horses (the four horsemen of the apocalypse) picture the gospel going into the world (white horse), then, following its rejection, judgment coming upon the world in the shape of war, famine and death respectively. Commentators have deduced that interpretation, by the way, by looking for parallels in the Old Testament, not by wild guesswork. If all interpreters were to keep to this principle we would have less confusion.


Applicable to any age in history indeed, for its symbolism and ambiguity are open to any interpretation of a somewhat creative mind first willing to submit to its drivel.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Applicable to any age in history indeed, for its symbolism and ambiguity are open to any interpretation of a somewhat creative mind first willing to submit to its drivel.


Drivel? Dear me! It is true that weird and wonderful interpretations have been woven from Revelation, but there is, as I said in the post, a way to keep your feet on the ground. That is to base your interpretation on the OT parallels that are as clear as daylight. If you do this, the book makes sense and you do not end up with a 'da Vinci code'.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> Drivel? Dear me! It is true that weird and wonderful interpretations have been woven from Revelation, but there is, as I said in the post, a way to keep your feet on the ground. That is to base your interpretation on the OT parallels that are as clear as daylight. If you do this, the book makes sense and you do not end up with a 'da Vinci code'.


Based on the OT? Why is it that only, but not all, Christians would do that as a basis for Revelation interpretation? Why does Judaism not do the same? Unfortunately, when fragmented groups of the same branding choose to avoid the same hymn sheet, despite beings members of the same choir, it really doesn't make a consistent performance.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Based on the OT? Why is it that only, but not all, Christians would do that as a basis for Revelation interpretation? Why does Judaism not do the same? Unfortunately, when fragmented groups of the same branding choose to avoid the same hymn sheet, despite beings members of the same choir, it really doesn't make a consistent performance.


Lamentably you are right. I have read some wacky stuff on Revelation. The list of candidates for the identity of 'the antichrist', for example, includes Napoleon, Hitler, Enver Hoxha, Martin Luther, Henry Kissenger and innumerable others. But there is a sober tradition within evangelicalism which has provided a legacy of commentaries on Revelation which make sense of the symbolism and have not proposed lurid prognostications of bizarre events yet to occur (like compulsory barcodes to be attached to everyone's heads). I can't do anything about the confusion round about though.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> Lamentably you are right. I have read some wacky stuff on Revelation. The list of candidates for the identity of 'the antichrist', for example, includes Napoleon, Hitler, Enver Hoxha, Martin Luther, Henry Kissenger and innumerable others. But there is a sober tradition within evangelicalism which has provided a legacy of commentaries on Revelation which make sense of the symbolism and have not proposed lurid prognostications of bizarre events yet to occur (like compulsory barcodes to be attached to everyone's heads). I can't do anything about the confusion round about though.


But if a document as monumental and as profound as it purports to be does contain spurious elements, which even you admitted that it contains "wacky stuff", then why is there continued appraisal and belief of its apparent merit on the rest? Inconsistency even amongst its very supportive readers!


----------



## nickgray

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But if a document as monumental and as profound as it purports to be does contain spurious elements, which even you admitted that it contains "wacky stuff", then why is there continued appraisal and belief of its apparent merit on the rest?


Because these people are not interested in logic or reason. Really, the more I think about religion, the answer to the "why?" question becomes simpler and simpler. Now, the interesting part is: why these people are not interested in logic and reason? They have enough logic and reason to go with their day-to-day life, but when it comes to their ideas on cosmology, reason together with logic take a hike. A long, long hike to a land far, far away. It's kinda interesting.


----------



## science

nickgray said:


> Because these people are not interested in logic or reason. Really, the more I think about religion, the answer to the "why?" question becomes simpler and simpler. Now, the interesting part is: why these people are not interested in logic and reason? They have enough logic and reason to go with their day-to-day life, but when it comes to their ideas on cosmology, reason together with logic take a hike. A long, long hike to a land far, far away. It's kinda interesting.


The scholar who, in my opinion anyway, has come closest to explaining religion is Scott Atran. In his theory, religion must involve counter-intuitive assertions (ie beliefs that we subconsciously know probably aren't true) because commitment to them, or to the beings or forces or whatever that they describe, stands for commitment to the group.

A French scholar named Durkheim had a similar theory, but he didn't explain why the objects of worship had to be "supernatural."

My own theory is that there is a personality-variable involving how intellectually one approaches religion; people who approach religion primarily as an intellectual project ("a search for truth" in our culture) tend to become skeptical of their local religion at least, finding either a more intellectual tradition or just becoming something like apostates. But most people do not approach it so intellectually: it appears to be ordinarily protected from the kind of skepticism that most non-religious counter-intuitive claims would be subject to. As Atran would say, we probably evolved the ability to do this in order to be religious, which we needed in order to form highly cohesive groups larger than could be maintained by kin selection or tit-for-tat calculation (both of which we also do). I'm really only modifying his theory by adding an element of individual personality difference in order to account for occasional skepticism.

I think another personality variable is how easily a person has experiences of trance, possession, ecstasy and so on. Some people essentially have a talent for that kind of thing, and they tend to be very religious. I think these are two different variables, so that for instance it is possible to be highly intellectual and highly subject to religious experience: these guys would tend to be theologians; all the other combinations are possible as well. (My opinion.)

Finally, I think that situation has a lot to do with it: if a person is in a situation where religious practice increases her status in her community, she will tend to be religious, but if a person is in a situation where the religious community is taking advantage of her (from her own subconscious point-of-view, and not from an outsider's point of view), then she will tend to develop skepticism - not necessarily toward religion in general, but to her local community.

Another less psychological example of how situation matters is if a person has been surrounded by people who genuinely believe in something that you or I would call irrational, she might genuinely believe it is rational, trusting her religious community more than distant people she's never met like scientists. This was my situation during my childhood. I really believed that fundamentalist Christianity, creationism, pre-millenialism, pre-tribulationism, was the most rational worldview. That changed in college when I started studying the history of Christianity - but that was an opportunity that I had that most people in my community didn't have.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Based on the OT? Why is it that only, but not all, Christians would do that as a basis for Revelation interpretation? Why does Judaism not do the same? Unfortunately, when fragmented groups of the same branding choose to avoid the same hymn sheet, despite beings members of the same choir, it really doesn't make a consistent performance.


Actually, you have to look to the OT to understand much of Revelation, but not for what you are assuming here. The book was written by a person that was raised in the Jewish faith and the Jewish culture, raised with a Jewish education, which would have been steeped heavily in the teachings and writings of the OT. As such, much of the symbolism, including the heavy use of numbers, is based on Jewish symbolism and numerology. And keep in mind that the original audience was probably mostly people who also had a religious/cultural Jewish upbringing, or at least were somewhat familiar with the OT. So much of what seems confusing for us probably was not quite as much for people raised with that literary tradition.

Think of it like trying to read Dickens with no knowledge of what London was like in the period in which he wrote. Gaining an understanding of the culture and the history of that time can bring a greater understanding of some of the things that Dickens writes. So to understand the symbolism employed in Revelation, it pays to learn of the nature of that symbolism, and a lot of that can come from the OT.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Actually, you have to look to the OT to understand much of Revelation, but not for what you are assuming here. The book was written by a person that was raised in the Jewish faith and the Jewish culture, raised with a Jewish education, which would have been steeped heavily in the teachings and writings of the OT. As such, much of the symbolism, including the heavy use of numbers, is based on Jewish symbolism and numerology. And keep in mind that the original audience was probably mostly people who also had a religious/cultural Jewish upbringing, or at least were somewhat familiar with the OT. So much of what seems confusing for us probably was not quite as much for people raised with that literary tradition.
> 
> Think of it like trying to read Dickens with no knowledge of what London was like in the period in which he wrote. Gaining an understanding of the culture and the history of that time can bring a greater understanding of some of the things that Dickens writes. So to understand the symbolism employed in Revelation, it pays to learn of the nature of that symbolism, and a lot of that can come from the OT.


I wonder if you could give some concrete examples? From what I've heard, the author of it probably read the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible, and his numerological schemes (ie 666 = the emperor Nero) were based on Greek and Latin rather than on Hebrew culture or language.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But if a document as monumental and as profound as it purports to be does contain spurious elements, which even you admitted that it contains "wacky stuff", then why is there continued appraisal and belief of its apparent merit on the rest? Inconsistency even amongst its very supportive readers!


I don't mean the book of Revelation contains spurious elements, I mean people with overheated imaginations have come up with wacky interpretations of it


----------



## Chris

science said:


> I wonder if you could give some concrete examples? From what I've heard, the author of it probably read the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible, and his numerological schemes (ie 666 = the emperor Nero) were based on Greek and Latin rather than on Hebrew culture or language.


I'll have a go, but this is severely condensed. I will take the example you give (666) which comes at the end of chapter 13 which deals with the beast out of the sea and the beast out of the earth.

We must start with the number 12. In Revelation 12 stands for the redeemed people of God, taken from the 12 patriarchs and the 12 apostles. In chapter 4 these are combined into the 24 elders surrounding the throne, picturing the combined worship of the OT and NT churches.

As with other symbolic numbers, 12 is often compounded for intensification, e.g. the number of the redeemed in chapter 14 is 144,000 and chapter 21 describes the Holy City (= the people of God) as a perfect cube 12,000 stadia each side with walls 144 cubits thick.

6 is the *broken* 12 and stands for the opposite, that is, sinful man opposed to God. It is first seen in OT in Goliath, the huge man who defies God and his people. Goliath in his stand against David (himself a type of Christ) represents earthly power opposed to God. Goliath's height was *6* cubits and a span. A fellow Philistine, who also taunted Israel, has *6* fingers on each hand and *6* toes on each foot.

Now to Revelation 13. The imagery is taken from Daniel, primarily chapter 7 but also chapter 3. Daniel 7:1-7 describes four beasts representing the four empires from Babylon to Rome inclusive (Right up Saul's street, this bit!). Note in passing that one of the beasts has four heads, and it is easy to see that the beast out of the sea in Revelation 13, with its seven heads, is a conglomeration of all four. It symbolises worldly power opposed to God, particularly in the way that worldly power seeks to impose pagan worship on God's people.

We now go to Daniel chapter 3, where Nebuchadnezzar has created a statue in honour of himself and is forcing everyone, most importantly including the godly Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, to bow down to it. Nebuchadnezzar's inspiration for the statue came from a dream he had, interpreted by Daniel, in which the four empires represented by the beasts appear in a different form, with Nebuchadnezzar as a head of gold.

The dimensions of the statue are *60* cubits high by *6* cubits broad, i.e. a step up from the single 6's of Goliath and his godless compatriot. In Revelation 13, the number *666* given to the beast is a further intensification.


----------



## science

I think all that could've come from the Septuagint.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> I think all that could've come from the Septuagint.


Agreed. John (Revelation's author) could have used Septuagint or Latin translations of OT, or the Hebrew itself. Revelation's numerology is not dependent on looking for numbers hidden in Hebrew letters or anything like that.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Look at this video in the news. It's pretty amazing.

Ancient "Christian" Books Found


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> I'll have a go, but this is severely condensed. I will take the example you give (666) which comes at the end of chapter 13 which deals with the beast out of the sea and the beast out of the earth.
> 
> We must start with the number 12. In Revelation 12 stands for the redeemed people of God, taken from the 12 patriarchs and the 12 apostles. In chapter 4 these are combined into the 24 elders surrounding the throne, picturing the combined worship of the OT and NT churches.
> 
> As with other symbolic numbers, 12 is often compounded for intensification, e.g. the number of the redeemed in chapter 14 is 144,000 and chapter 21 describes the Holy City (= the people of God) as a perfect cube 12,000 stadia each side with walls 144 cubits thick.
> 
> 6 is the *broken* 12 and stands for the opposite, that is, sinful man opposed to God. It is first seen in OT in Goliath, the huge man who defies God and his people. Goliath in his stand against David (himself a type of Christ) represents earthly power opposed to God. Goliath's height was *6* cubits and a span. A fellow Philistine, who also taunted Israel, has *6* fingers on each hand and *6* toes on each foot.
> 
> Now to Revelation 13. The imagery is taken from Daniel, primarily chapter 7 but also chapter 3. Daniel 7:1-7 describes four beasts representing the four empires from Babylon to Rome inclusive (Right up Saul's street, this bit!). Note in passing that one of the beasts has four heads, and it is easy to see that the beast out of the sea in Revelation 13, with its seven heads, is a conglomeration of all four. It symbolises worldly power opposed to God, particularly in the way that worldly power seeks to impose pagan worship on God's people.
> 
> We now go to Daniel chapter 3, where Nebuchadnezzar has created a statue in honour of himself and is forcing everyone, most importantly including the godly Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, to bow down to it. Nebuchadnezzar's inspiration for the statue came from a dream he had, interpreted by Daniel, in which the four empires represented by the beasts appear in a different form, with Nebuchadnezzar as a head of gold.
> 
> The dimensions of the statue are *60* cubits high by *6* cubits broad, i.e. a step up from the single 6's of Goliath and his godless compatriot. In Revelation 13, the number *666* given to the beast is a further intensification.


Nice code breaking effort. So, who is or who was represented by 666? Undisputedly, please.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nice code breaking effort. So, who is or who was represented by 666? Undisputedly, please.


I will do my best to put it beyond dispute but not today. A clue though...it's not any one particular person.


----------



## science

I heard a pretty convincing argument that it was Nero, but I didn't memorize it....


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

science said:


> I heard a pretty convincing argument that it was Nero, but I didn't memorize it....


Nero was a real bully alright. He hated all the early Jews, who were the early Christians, and it seemed _Revelation_ was cobbled together around the end of the first century or towards it. Nero killed himself 9 June 68 - a few 6 and inverted 9, all looking like 666. :lol: But seriously, it appears the book was written for a Jewish readership at that time with a central message of avoiding the ways of the Romans, and whoever else that were considered un-Godly, and of course, enduring it all when they were persecuted because God was with them. The goolbledygook was essentially for them.

The thing is, the book has been rejected by Jews since they, either intentionally at some point in time, or it faded in time with irrelevance. Its original readership thought it so. But folks two thousand years later might think differently, Jewish or not.

But I actually think 666 was a relative of mine who was born in June of 1966. She was a real nasty one.


----------



## science

Anyway, let's look (if you don't mind) at one of the straightforward passages of Revelation, chapter 2: 1-5:



> Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.


The beginning, "he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks" is clear from the end of chapter 1, where we see that it is Jesus, who says he was alive and is now dead. The 7 stars and 7 candlesticks represent 7 churches that John is writing to (as was also explained in chapter 1). One of those churches is at Ephesus, which evidently has an angel! That's the background.

Most Christians interpret the instructions to the churches, such as this to Ephesus, as potentially instructions to themselves. So when he says that he knows that they have worked hard for him, potentially this refers to any Christians who have worked hard. But then he says they have lost their first love. This used to be nearly a cliche in Evangelical circles, quoted often as a warning. It's interesting, he says to remember what they used to be and repent and go back to it, go back to doing the good works that they did before. (Note that they seem to be in great shape doctrinally, so it's not their faith that is lacking, but their works.)

I think this is something a lot of Christians can relate to - a message and a challenge of some urgency. There isn't necessarily much reason to worry about what the third horseman or fifth bowl or the two prophets or the bronze insects or the 144,000 saints represent - but there is some urgency in getting back to the fundamental work of being Christian: caring for widows and orphans, visiting the sick and imprisoned, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, making peace, being meek, purifying thoughts, loving enemies, and so on.

Probably a good lesson for some of us! I know it is a bit of a rebuke to me personally.


----------



## science

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nero was a real bully alright. He hated all the early Jews, who were the early Christians, and it seemed _Revelation_ was cobbled together around the end of the first century or towards it. Nero killed himself 9 June 68 - a few 6 and inverted 9, all looking like 666. :lol: But seriously, it appears the book was written for a Jewish readership at that time with a central message of avoiding the ways of the Romans, and whoever else that were considered un-Godly, and of course, enduring it all when they were persecuted because God was with them. The goolbledygook was essentially for them.
> 
> The thing is, the book has been rejected by Jews since they, either intentionally at some point in time, or it faded in time with irrelevance. Its original readership thought it so. But folks two thousand years later might think differently, Jewish or not.
> 
> But I actually think 666 was a relative of mine who was born in June of 1966. She was a real nasty one.


That's funny.

I know this is unbelievable, but it's true: when I was in high school, there was a guy in the phonebook whose house number was 666, his phone number included 666, and his last name was Fry.

Anyway, the wikipedia article has a very brief (too brief for me to understand actually) explanation of the number 666's relation to Nero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

science said:


> That's funny.
> 
> I know this is unbelievable, but it's true: when I was in high school, there was a guy in the phonebook whose house number was 666, his phone number included 666, and his last name was Fry.
> 
> Anyway, the wikipedia article has a very brief (too brief for me to understand actually) explanation of the number 666's relation to Nero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast


I have read/heard/watched similar ideas. My favourite in that link was the suggestion that the Pope is the antichrist, as per _Vicarius Filii Dei_ (Roman, Vicar - Representative of the Son of God), summing up perfectly to 666 using gematria, and using the letter "v" instead of "u". :lol:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Can anybody here confirm if _Vicarius Filii Dei_ appears on the Pope's crown/mitre?


----------



## science

Jeremy Taylor:

That man does certainly belong to God, who, 1. I believe, and is baptized into all the articles of the Christian faith, and studies to improve his knowledge in the matters of God, so as may best make him to live a holy life. 2. He that, in obedience to Christ, worships God diligently, frequently, and constantly, with natural religion; that is, of prayer, praises, and thanksgiving. 3. He that takes all opportunities to remember Christ’s death by a frequent sacrament, (as it can be had,) or else by inward acts of understanding, will, and memory (which is the spiritual communion,) supplies the want of the external rite. 4. He that lives chastely; 5. And is merciful; 6. And despises the world, using it as a man, but never suffering it to rifle a duty; 7. And is just in his dealing, and diligent in his calling. 8. He that is humble in his spirit; 9. And obedient to government; 10. And content in his fortune and employment. 11. He that does his duty because he loves God; 12. And especially if, after all this, he be afflicted, and patient, or prepared to suffer affliction for the cause of God: the man that hath these twelve signs of grace and predestination, does as certainly belong to God, and is his son, as surely as he is his creature.


----------



## Potiphera

tdc said:


> Thats just nonsense. You are not headed for any flames. In my opinion the hell the bible refers to is a metaphor for where we currently are. It is here that we can decide by our own free will to choose a higher purpose based on love and compassion. There are many different paths - religious and non to this kind of awakening/enlightenment. I think the worst thing that can happen to a person is they end up repeating a lot of lifetimes in this type of existence - which still isn't all bad as there are a lot of incredibly valuable lessons and insights that can be learned here that are very important, and everyone eventually gets to heaven.
> 
> Reincarnation was initially talked about in the bible as well. Most modern christians have an incomplete view of Christ's message as many important books were taken out of the Bible at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.


Can you tell me which books were removed please? are you referring to the non-canonical books? 
Where does it mention reincarnation in the bible?

Thanks .


----------



## science

I will move some posts here just in case anyone wants to continue the discussion in the other thread. Here is the beginning of a discussion that was de-railing that thread.



Chris said:


> One of the glories of the Bible is the variety of form and style found throughout its 66 books. Esther does indeed contain no explicit mention of God. God is in it nonetheless. First of all, the book is nothing to do with either Babylon or myths. It is a history book set in the reign of the Medo-Persian King Xerxes, well after the disappearance of the Babylonian empire. It fits perfectly with the rest of the Bible because its most obvious theme is the attempt by the world to destroy the Jewish nation (through the wicked Haman) and the Jews' subsequent deliverance. This goes right back to God's prophecy to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15
> 
> *I will put emnity between you [the serpent; Satan] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.*
> 
> Thus Satan knew that man's salvation, and consequently his own destruction, would be born of Eve's godly offspring (as opposed to Cain's worldly offspring). Satan knows he must destroy that child. This is the secret spiritual impetus behind such events as Pharaoh ordering all the Jewish baby boys to be thrown into the Nile, and Herod's massacre of the boys aged under two in Bethlehem. The historical principal is set out pictorially in Revelation 12: 1_f_
> 
> *A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.*
> 
> The identity of the male child should be obvious.
> 
> Esther fits in with this great theme. Haman uses his huge influence in the Persian court to persuade Xerxes to authorise the annihilation of the entire Jewish race. But the real spiritual motivation (unknown to Haman) was Satan's attempt to prevent the birth of the prophecied Saviour. The salvation of the Jews in Esther comes through a series of remarkable coincidences, such as Xerxes being unable to sleep, calling for the chronicles to be read, and discovering the worthy conduct of Esther's uncle Mordecai and the subsequent discomfiture of Haman. This is why God is not mentioned. The lesson for God's persecuted people in all ages is that God is working in providence on their behalf even when he cannot be perceived.


Here is another one, very relevant to the current thread:



Lukecash12 said:


> I'm a nondenominational Evangelical Christian. I don't want to tell the Doc what he is for him, although him and I had a discussion a while back that made me passionate about studying his church, and come to think of it I'd like to chat with him again.
> 
> These are my beliefs:
> 
> I believe in *The* Triune God, as spelled out hermeneutically to me in the scriptures, and elucidated by the Athanasian Creed.
> 
> I believe in *The* God who is Tri-Omni.
> 
> I believe the scriptures are inspired. Relative to that belief, I do not believe they must be "scientifically or historically accurate" (although they're heavily historically accurate, especially when compared to other Near Eastern cuneiform documents and historical annals), because their genre is not scientific or historical (aside from Kings, Chronicles, Judges, and the Pentateuch starting with the patriarchal narratives). It's a basic literary requirement to understand what genre you are reading when you are reading something, so genre is on the top of my hermeneutical and exegetical checklist. Because I exegete passages and practice hermeneutics most often with genre in mind (as well as ever other literary element that I know of), I do not see any trouble in believing that macro evolution and big bang cosmology are true theories. The book of Genesis is, to me, obviously oral tradition, because of it's literary qualities and because it uses the linguistics of several different authors. It is my professional appraisal that Moses compiled the oral traditions of his people into the book of Genesis, and because the creation account was a popular genre amongst the Near Easterners of that time period, I see it as a set of theological statements- not a scientific account.
> 
> I do believe that the scriptures are infallible, because it is my expert appraisal that none of the current manuscript issues actually affect doctrine. This is considered a basically inscrutable appraisal by biblical scholars, secular and religious alike.
> 
> I believe that women can be ministers. Christians debate over whether or not Paul meant for Christians everywhere to keep the women from teaching and speaking in church. My position was not come to lightly, and I've thought of writing an article on it.
> 
> I believe in a biblical soteriology (perspective on salvation) that simply weens out sincerity, and nothing else. Moreover, I believe that older order Christians and Reformation Christians have the same soteriology, but they express it differently and equivocate James and Paul differently. I've argued that they are basically misinformed of both relevant pieces of NT literature, and have seen intellectual giants such as Father Pacwa and Walter Martin nearly come to agreement on this issue, so I don't think the two are so far from each other if the foremost experts of that time (the 80's) could agree on so much.
> 
> I do not believe in an Apostolic Authority, or See, where doctrine is ordinated by deacons, priests, bishops, arch-bishops, and popes. Neither do I believe that the Pope, or anyone claiming Apostolic Authority, can make a proclamation ex cathedra (before the council and with their support) that is always infallible. Ex cathedra statements have even contradicted themselves, so supposing that they are infallible is a non sequitur.
> 
> I believe in the practice of Apologetics, as supported by Peter in 1st Peter, and as supported by the Apologetics practiced by Paul in Acts and his epistles, and Peter in Acts (on the day of Pentecost). It has been my experience, that there must be a basic agreement with and understanding of Christianity, as well as acceptable reasons for the target individual to believe in it, in order to develop a Christian.
> 
> I decidedly do not believe in proselytizing those from other denominations, and merely make my faith and apologetics visible and available to non-Christians around me. It has been my experience, and it has been my understanding of the Bible, that I cannot effectively bring someone to Christ by having discourse with them with a parental tone. My faith, rationality, and unique regard for other people is and has been enough to encourage people to discuss mature themes with me, and even opened them up when I said that I would like to share Christianity with them. My studies, articles, and seminary credentials can be helpful when it comes to skeptical people, who maybe would like to disparage me, but my confidence and education is capable of winning them over from time to time, and my well practiced lines of conversation and rationalization can be helpful to other people disposed not to be Christians.
> 
> P.S. If you have any other questions, I am comfortable answering them. Also, you may be interested to know that I pastor a small church with a dozen members.


Here is a response to Chris's post:



science said:


> Most of this is irrelevant. Esther is Ishtar, Mordecai is Marduk, and so on. It's an exciting story. The lesson you draw from it came from your head (or better, your tradition's head), not the text itself.


Here is Chris's response:



Chris said:


> As I have not said what my sources are you are a little hasty attributing my interpretions to 'your tradition's head'. But let that pass. I will make another attempt to explain the relevance of my (extremely condensed) thoughts on Esther to your original comments.
> 
> Attempts to attribute the books of the Bible to neighbouring foreign cultures go back at least two or three centuries. One of the counterarguments is to look for themes in the books which point to the overall unity of the Bible and firmly cement the constituent books into the biblical canon. And there is no grander theme than Redemption in Christ, which runs like a golden thread from Genesis to Revelation. I do not say the references will be explicit. Remember Jesus spoke in parable, heiroglyph and metaphor with the deliberate intent of hiding truths from unbelieving hearts while revealing them to the faithful. I have heard the book of Exodus dismissed as a creation of ancient Jewish political leaders, written for the purpose of unifying the tribes. But when I read about the Passover, how the male lamb without blemish was sacrificed, and how its blood saved God's people from the hand of the Angel of Death, I think of Christ and his atoning sacrifice. I do not know what modern unbelief has made of the book of Job. But when Job cries out 'I know that my Redeemer lives and that one day he will stand upon the earth' I can only see Christ. The remarkable Messianic Psalms point to a King infinitely greater than King David. None of these things are explicitly 'in the text itself' (to use your expression), because like the meanings of Jesus' parables some things have to be spiritually discerned.


Here is my response to Chris:



science said:


> I find theological interpretations of the Bible interesting for what they reveal about the tradition that makes them, but when I actually want to understand the text itself I try to free myself of later centuries' interpretations and figure out what it would have meant in the communities that originally produced, transmitted, and edited it.
> 
> This is something we should do with any text - not only the Bible, but Homer, Plato, Shakespeare, Lao Tzu, the Vedas: all present issues like this. To be intellectually consistent, we have to approach each text with the same tools and the same methods. It is interesting to know what later generations made of Plato's _Timaeus_ as it is to know what later generations made of Genesis, but we cannot let the later generations shout down the communities that produced the text.


Here is another post, which picked up where that one left off, and really brings us to the center of this thread's concern:



science said:


> Speaking from an Orthodox Christian point of view, as I once could
> 
> A problem for Evangelical Christians is that for all their emphasis on faith, in intellectual matters they are in fact epistemological foundationalists. Intellectually, that is, they put their faith in the Bible rather than in God, treating it analogously to a set of axioms from which a theological geometry can be derived. So there is an emphasis on hermeneutics, the essentially secular process by which legitimate propositions (doctrines) can be derived from the axioms, rather than on seeking divine guidance: foundationalism is inherently secular, inherently incompatible with faith. The paradox is clearest when we meet apologists trying to prove their faith.
> 
> A faith-based theology, by contrast, does not have a problem distinguishing between the original meaning of a Biblical text and later interpretations, because it can admit that God might have spoken through the later communities as well as the original one. Although this perspective strips us of any supposedly infallible method of evaluating doctrines, it also requires us to place much greater emphasis on prayer and grace than on hermeneutics. The floor is swept out from under us, now we live by faith rather than foundation. Theology will now be more analogous to history than to mathematics, but ultimately it will be prayer rather than any secular discipline.
> 
> I realize that the Christians here by-and-large will reject this, not only because it comes from an atheist swine like me who cannot possibly have the slightest insight into anything and does not even deserve to have his posts read charitably, but also because it requires a very challenging rethinking, reorienting of their perspective. Nevertheless, once in a great while a difference is made.


Here is a response to the latter post, by Lukecash:



Lukecash12 said:


> It's interesting that you say that, when journals like this abound:
> 
> http://www.stthomas.edu/CathStudies/logos/
> http://www.anselm.edu/Institutes-Ce...aint-Anselm-Journal/Archives/Author-Index.htm
> http://www.stthomas.edu/CathStudies/logos/
> http://www.ecclsoc.org/eccltoday.html
> http://www.orthodox-theology.com/
> 
> Older order Christians endorse rationalism as well, and great intellectuals like Father Pacwa (member of the Jesuits) have practiced Orthodox Apologetics. There are tons of professors with doctorates from the Orthodox groups, not just priests and bishops.


To my response:



science said:


> I don't see the relation between my post and your response.


Lukecash wrote:



Lukecash12 said:


> Orthodox Christians use Apostolic Authority, their hermeneutics, their extra books (called the deuterocanon), and their tradition, to interpret the scriptures the way they do. An older order Christian uses just as much rationalization, and epistemic foundationalism (the axioms of Apostolic Authority and doxological tradition), to make doctrinal statements.
> 
> The newest and latest interpretations of the Catholic Church are only it's naming of several Apocryphal books as deuterocanon (just like the Eastern Orthodox), and it's renouncing the practice of penance indulgences (both of these new declarations having been made by the Council of Trent). _The Vatican II statements were nothing but recap and confirmation, especially when it comes to ex cathedra infallibility._ Aside from that, the Catholic Church, and most other Orthodox churches, hold firmly to the OT, the NT, and the Creeds.
> 
> Also, you've yet to point out why Evangelical epistemic reasoning happens to be illogical, or un-christian. Epistemics and hermeneutics are classified as practices of thinking logically. Thus, to tell someone that they ought not to think logically of the Bible and Christianity as a whole, is a statement whose inescapable logical consequence is that you are inviting that person to err. Something that we have faith in, and something that is heavily evident to us, can be complementary. Consider people like Aquinas, whose faith must have made up for a lot of uncertainties. Christians do not have Cartesian proof, no straight Boolean logic proposition that equates to every doctrinal belief of Christians being true.


I responded:



science said:


> You're mixing up "logic" and "foundationalism" unnecessarily. I didn't say or imply that Christians shouldn't use logic.
> 
> Also, you're mixing up Catholic and Orthodox in a really confusing and unhelpful way. It is interesting and maybe even relevant to note that some conservative Catholics also have a foundationalist epistemology, using Papal authority as their foundation. But Trent and Vatican II and so on has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.
> 
> The Orthodox have nothing comparable. Not Apostolic succession, because the fact is that all of the Patriarchies have at some point been occupied by a heretic. Not just councils, for councils refute each other on various points, and so on. And then even the statements of the Ecumenical Councils, such as the creeds, have to be interpreted in the same way that the Bible has to. There is no secular method of doing all of this. You can say that God is the foundation, and that's true enough, but there is no secular way of figuring out what God's opinion is. That is why the Orthodox say that theology is prayer.
> 
> Evangelical Christians are not supposed to believe anything that they cannot derive from a "literal" reading of the Bible. If you can't derive it by simple logic from Biblical axioms, you are not supposed to believe it. The only thing that receives acceptance by faith is the Bible (and the Canon) itself.


And that is where we stand.

It needs to be clear that this thread is not for atheist vs. Christian debate, but to discuss Christian theology and spirituality. As long as we stay on that topic and stay civil, we should be able to avoid the wrath of the mods.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

The pope isn't the antichrist, but he's obviously some sort of vampire or sith lord.


----------



## Lukecash12

regressivetransphobe said:


> The pope isn't the antichrist, but he's obviously some sort of vampire or sith lord.


It offends me and humors me at the same time! Great job. I'm a great friend of the Catholic Church, because of the Jesuits, but that one was pretty decent.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I guess it's only fair that some non-Christians would come on a Christian thread to stir up trouble if Christians do that to Atheist/agnostic threads.

:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva

In my opinion classical music is more interesting than religion as a topic of conversation.
There are so many religion-specific web sites out there, I wonder why you guys experience this strong need to discuss religion in Talk Classical.


----------



## Lukecash12

Almaviva said:


> In my opinion classical music is more interesting than religion as a topic of conversation.
> There are so many religion-specific web sites out there, I wonder why you guys experience this strong need to discuss religion in Talk Classical.


My best explanation: We have some interest in religion (whether it be the practice, refutation, or simple opine on it), and have the urge to discuss it when it seems like something we could discuss.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> In my opinion classical music is more interesting than religion as a topic of conversation.
> There are so many religion-specific web sites out there, I wonder why you guys experience this strong need to discuss religion in Talk Classical.


Yeah. And very 'spirited' === _'discussions'_ at rec.music.clasical.recordings in the past. This thread brings back non-fond memories. Why not take your theistic theories to PMs, guys?

:angel::angel::angel:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Hilltroll72 said:


> Why not take your theistic theories to PMs, guys?
> 
> :angel::angel::angel:


I second those angels too.


----------



## science

If we're not allowed to discuss religion, why not just put that in the Terms of Service? I would put in politics as well.


----------



## Almaviva

Yes, this site has a Social Group feature. Click on "Community" then on "Group."

You guys are welcome to start a social group to discuss religion.

This thing reminds me of a similar site that had a rule saying "this site is for discussion of music. DISCUSS MUSIC!!!"

I know that these topics are not forbidden in the Community Forum area. But they often lead to fights, locked threads, and penalties.

Why don't you guys start social groups to gather the people who love to discuss religion, and leave the rest of the site free of these controversial topics?


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> If we're not allowed to discuss religion, why not just put that in the Terms of Service? I would put in politics as well.


It's allowed. But why not do it by social group or PMs? It's always the same members. I can guarantee to you that the VAST majority of Talk Classical members are not interested in these discussions. People join this site to discuss music. We do provide an area for non-musical topics, but when it's just a handful of people interested in one specific topic, maybe you guys should just start a social group for it.


----------



## science

And on further reflection I will retract this too. 

Sorry folks.


----------



## science

Retracted.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> It's allowed. But why not do it by social group or PMs? It's always the same members. I can guarantee to you that the VAST majority of Talk Classical members are not interested in these discussions. People join this site to discuss music. We do provide an area for non-musical topics, but when it's just a handful of people interested in one specific topic, maybe you guys should just start a social group for it.


I understand all of this, and for the most part agree with it. But I do have a few comments to add (I know, shocking, isn't it, that DrMike has an opinion on an issue).

1. While these political/religious threads do have a propensity to get locked down, in looking back through the community forum for the last 9 pages, it doesn't seem that they make up the majority of locked threads - at least the permanently locked threads. I know some only get temporary locks. What about the guitarist thread? Or the one complaining about people being dismissive of one's classical music experience? People can get just as heated over other irrelevant topics.

2. The social groups are a fine idea that nobody uses. If I want a good, spirited debate, I'm not going to go off where nobody is going to check in. And PM's? I have received ruder messages in PMs than I ever have in the open forum. The higher the level of anonymity and concealment, the less guarded people are with what they say.

3. I still don't get people who come into these threads only to complain of their existence. With the exception of the mods, nobody else HAS to read these. As has been stated before - if you don't like the topic, don't read the thread.

4. And finally, why do these discussions pop up? Because we basically have a group of people who enjoy discussing weightier matters - and politics and theology definitely come under that description. We get a feel for what people are like, and think they might be worthwhile discussion/debate partners on a given topic. People like to discuss/debate/argue things. Hell, some of the biggest political debates I've ever heard have taken place at family reunions and barbershops - not exactly what one would think of as ideal places for debating such things. I suppose we could just talk about the game, or the weather, but sometimes you just want to discuss something more controversial.

I have participated in forums that have banned all religious and political discussions. It ended up keeping things less heated (although not completely - people on another forum laughed at me when I told them of heated debates on here as to whether Bach keyboard works should be played on a piano or a harpsichord). But it also got more boring. I think there is no coincidence in the fact that most forums, regardless of the topic, have some variation of the Community Forum, where members can discuss anything else unrelated to the theme of the forum. And given the nature of people, I think it is just an inevitable thing that if you start a forum, regardless of the topic, you will get these kinds of threads. Its the inevitable outcome of greater freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the U.S. also has the less desirable sides - pornography, hate speech, flag burning, etc. But the benefits outweigh the downsides, so we tolerate them.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Almaviva said:


> Why don't you guys start social groups to gather the people who love to discuss religion, and leave the rest of the site free of these controversial topics?


Group hath been created.


----------



## Ukko

These damnfool debates on religion&politics are completely pointless. No opinions have or ever will be changed. I suggest you guys wait until dark, and then go out and howl at the moon. There may be some results there.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> These damnfool debates on religion&politics are completely pointless. No opinions have or ever will be changed. I suggest you guys wait until dark, and then go out and howl at the moon. There may be some results there.


And yet you take the time to post on here on how pointless they are? What is more pointless - engaging in debates over topics that are interesting and important to you, or posting about the pointlessness of such things?


----------



## Almaviva

^ See?
Even the debate about whether this is all pointless or not is getting heated.

These threads are headaches for the moderation team. That's why we'd be pretty happy if you guys just joined a discussion group. Anyway, like I said, it's not forbidden - it's just tiresome. This said, also consider the following:

Debating these things in a social group would serve the exact same function of an open thread *if* what you guys get from these threads is the love for a genuine discussion (meaning, you guys are interested in each others' positions on this matter and want to exchange views).

If the point is to convince or convert others, *then* you need visibility. If the point is truly to have an informative debate, a social group does it just as well, even though it isn't very visible. By now you all know who usually participates of this kind of thread, and whoever wants to discuss a new religious topic in a group should just PM those users and invite them to join the group, or remind them of another topic of discussion just started within the group.

The idea that groups wouldn't be enough for the handful of folks interested in discussing religion makes me somewhat question what exactly you guys want with these discussions.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> And yet you take the time to post on here on how pointless they are? What is more pointless - engaging in debates over topics that are interesting and important to you, or posting about the pointlessness of such things?


I'm retired. I got the time to point out damnfoolihness; part of my obligation as a humanist. Looks like you got the time to complain about me having the time. How does that work?


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'm retired. I got the time to point out damnfoolihness; part of my obligation as a humanist. Looks like you got the time to complain about me having the time. How does that work?


Well, I, for one, would not mind seeing these debates move forward.

But I guess the pertinent question here is what exactly should we discuss in the Community Forum? How sophisticated we consider ourselves?

I don't mean to criticize the myriad discussions on the forum. But I would like to make the following observation: while religious and political threads can frequently get very heated, and are frequently not even remotely related to the topic of classical music, there are often very good discussions that occur in them. In general, only a small minority of participants who can't mind their manners will derail them. It isn't like there is nothing of value in them. In contrast, we have other threads (and I am using this as an example, and not meaning to pick on you, Alma), like the "Loveliest Soprano" thread, which, while admittedly somewhat related to classical music, is quite frequently just an opportunity to post pictures of beautiful women and ogle various body parts. Simply because those women happen to be employed in the realm of classical music, it is deemed relevant in a classical music forum. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that that thread has about as much in common with a classical music forum as Playboy's Girls of the SEC has to do with discussions of higher education in the Southeast.

So what should be the use for the Community Forum? We saw the large number of personal question threads pop up. There is the occasional light-hearted thread. And then there are the weightier matters. Is it that some people simply don't want religion and politics discussed here, or is it that we don't want heated arguments that lead some to violate the TOS? Because I have seen that happen just as easily over ridiculous things like preferring modern to period instruments. I have seen people hectored for giving their opinions when others felt they weren't knowledgeable enough in a given classical topic to express their views. Hell, I've seen threads locked down over discussions of the musicality of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Or whether or not the helicopter quartet is worthwhile.

I'm going to participate in the religious discussion group, because I LIKE discussing religion. And maybe I'll start a political discussion group, because I LIKE discussing politics. I think it is only natural that when people find others with some common interests, they enjoy discussing other things that are important to them. I'm not trying to convert anybody here (although converts are welcome). But I think that the reason we get to the point that we do nothing but shout at each other is because nobody takes the time anymore to have a sincere discussion - they just shout down anything they don't believe, and think that there is no point in exploring other views and opinions. It is sad when this type of discourse is shouted down.


----------



## Ukko

Your post (of Sid-like length, BTW) calls for a Bronx Cheer in response. Unfortunately, none of the representations I have seen do justice to that sublime creation. BTW organized religion _*is*_ politics, as you know - but maybe need to be reminded.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your post (of Sid-like length, BTW) calls for a Bronx Cheer in response. Unfortunately, none of the representations I have seen do justice to that sublime creation.* BTW organized religion is politics, as you know - but maybe need to be reminded*.


I would submit that this type of comment has more to do with religion threads being shutdown - made by someone who doesn't like religious discussions, but yet is still very frequently found in them. My question to you would be why you would think such a comment would be necessary in a religion thread, and what point you are trying to make, other than trying to irk someone like myself?


----------



## graaf

DrMike said:


> I would submit that this type of comment has more to do with religion threads being shutdown - made by someone who doesn't like religious discussions, but yet is still very frequently found in them. My question to you would be why you would think such a comment would be necessary in a religion thread, and what point you are trying to make, other than trying to irk someone like myself?


It is amazing how people think that just because they are easily offended that no one should offend them. I couldn't not care less how much Jewish and/or Muslim people are offended when I say that genital mutilation of babies (circumcision of newborns) is barbarian and unethical - I will repeat that all the time, because it is unethical and barbarian to do such a thing to a newborn baby. Many Christians were incredibly offended when they heard that Earth is not flat, and guess what - in a long run, it is a good thing people repeatedly offended them by promoting theories of Galileo, Copernicus, etc... Today, Richard Dawkins is offending them by saying that there is no such thing as "Christian child", "Muslim child", etc, and it might happen to be a very good thing - sparing children of indoctrination, that is.

edit: The point of my post is not "just to irk" - it is to show that sometimes, when we attack unethical behaviour, we are bound to irk someone.


----------



## Guest

graaf said:


> It is amazing how people think that just because they are easily offended that no one should offend them. I couldn't not care less how much Jewish and/or Muslim people are offended when I say that genital mutilation of babies (circumcision of newborns) is barbarian and unethical - I will repeat that all the time, because it is unethical and barbarian to do such a thing to a newborn baby. Many Christians were incredibly offended when they heard that Earth is not flat, and guess what - in a long run, it is a good thing people repeatedly offended them by promoting theories of Galileo, Copernicus, etc... Today, Richard Dawkins is offending them by saying that there is no such thing as "Christian child", "Muslim child", etc, and it might happen to be a very good thing - sparing children of indoctrination, that is.
> 
> edit: The point of my post is not "just to irk" - it is to show that sometimes, when we attack unethical behaviour, we are bound to irk someone.


I have nothing wrong with criticism. But you missed my point.

Alma has been making the point that religious and political threads often end up in arguments with people getting upset and then having to get shut down. Hilltroll doesn't think that the religious threads should be on here. And then he makes a post that has no value whatsoever but to annoy those who are religious. There was no other value to the comment - it was meant to be provocative, not thoughtful. If he wanted it to be thoughtful, he could have explained what he meant. So somebody who doesn't like these religious threads and how they end up in argument makes a statement that has a high probability of doing just that.

Furthermore, this is not a free speech forum. What we say here is subject to the TOS. If we say something that violates the TOS, it can be removed. This is moderated speech. Not a criticism - that is just what it is. You may object to circumcision. You may object to flat earthers. You may love Richard Dawkins. Good for you. Feel free to voice those opinions. Nobody has ever said you can't. The point is, though, that there is a way to voice opinions without being annoying and disrespectful - and that is the rule here in this forum. Say what you want, as long as you remain respectful of others and don't engage in ad hominems.

I personally don't care if you say something that irks another, so long as I am allowed to respond in kind. The problem is that saying things that are formulated to provoke angry responses from others is counterproductive in this forum. And being provocative just for the sake of poking a stick in someone's eye is really not useful in serious discussions.


----------



## science

Anyway, we have our groups now, so let's stop this here and take it there. I need the mods to do favors for me now and then, so let's get on their good sides.


----------

