"Religion" might not be so bad if it was (actually, wholly) based on a Godly foundation.
But so much of "religion" and also denominations are based on not being like somebody else.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Paul
It seems like many churches, etc [similar functions] put nearly (or more?!) emphasis on what Paul says in the NT than what Jesus said. I understand that he is interpreting much of what Jesus said and elaborating and helping out the various churches, but isn't a lot of what he said basically his opinion (which given, is noteworthy, but still opinion)?
Also, I understand that we can learn from what he told the churches, but could it not be compared to things that were directed to Jews versus Gentiles? I know that [some people have] talked about the significance of what (promises, laws, etc) is directed to which group of people (or in some cases to both). Would Paul's letters to the churches be like that, most significant to those churches whom it was directed who were having specific issues and not so much so towards everyone else because they have separate issues and not the same things that were going on?
I am just confused why it often seems that soo much emphasis is put on Paul's letters when they were directed to a very specific group of people.
Thoughts, please?
additionally: My questioning wasn't trying to discredit Paul at all. Just question whether some things should be kept in more of a historical context. One example being women to be silent in church. From my understanding, it likely had more to do with what was going on in Corinth at the time than that women in general should not speak in church.
But it occurred to me that some things that he says may not need to be applied to so many situations...
Also, I understand that we can learn from what he told the churches, but could it not be compared to things that were directed to Jews versus Gentiles? I know that [some people have] talked about the significance of what (promises, laws, etc) is directed to which group of people (or in some cases to both). Would Paul's letters to the churches be like that, most significant to those churches whom it was directed who were having specific issues and not so much so towards everyone else because they have separate issues and not the same things that were going on?
I am just confused why it often seems that soo much emphasis is put on Paul's letters when they were directed to a very specific group of people.
Thoughts, please?
additionally: My questioning wasn't trying to discredit Paul at all. Just question whether some things should be kept in more of a historical context. One example being women to be silent in church. From my understanding, it likely had more to do with what was going on in Corinth at the time than that women in general should not speak in church.
But it occurred to me that some things that he says may not need to be applied to so many situations...
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Religion in a Vacuum
Thoughts.
Many people think they can understand something like religion from within a vacuum consisting of only what they believe.
Isn't that like taking something completely out of context and basing it's truth simply on the single statement itself?
Not to cause confusion, I firmly believe that Jesus/Yeshua is the messiah to the Jewish nation and the other nations/goyim/gentiles are able to be grafted in. etc., etc., etc.
BUT 'Modern Christianity' that claims that it is true simply "because it is true" strikes me as a logical fallacy (see "begging the question").
I know, I know, people say just have faith. I don't buy it though. Yes, have faith. But not as a founding reason to believe.
Thoughts?
Many people think they can understand something like religion from within a vacuum consisting of only what they believe.
Isn't that like taking something completely out of context and basing it's truth simply on the single statement itself?
Not to cause confusion, I firmly believe that Jesus/Yeshua is the messiah to the Jewish nation and the other nations/goyim/gentiles are able to be grafted in. etc., etc., etc.
BUT 'Modern Christianity' that claims that it is true simply "because it is true" strikes me as a logical fallacy (see "begging the question").
I know, I know, people say just have faith. I don't buy it though. Yes, have faith. But not as a founding reason to believe.
Thoughts?
