Are Christian narrow-minded?

[Dor]

How do you know that jesus did say he is "I am"?. All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE.

Throughout most of the history of the church, the Gospel of John was believed to have been written by Jesus' disciple. A majority of theologians today believe that it was written by a group of authors. There is also speculation that much of the gospel was written by a single, unknown writer, and that a second, later individual reworked the text in order to make it conform to contemporary church teaching. Because of its theological principles and the emphasis on "Jesus as the Son of God", it rapidly became the favorite gospel.

Yeah and it could have been written by George Jetson and sent back in time too.....more hogwash.

 

[Ciel]

Quote; faithfulservant;

Ciel.. I was not trying to offend you with my box analogy..it seems to me you are sensitive about your words being accepted as some sort of divine truth or mystical understanding of what spirituality should be.

Faithfulservant, do you remember the question here? This way is so narrow there is not even the smallest possibility of openess. If I return this quote to you, would it offend?

The box analogy corresponded to humour, are you able to laugh at yourself, as you laugh at others. Maybe divine humour is out of the question, but do you see how you ridicule anothers expression of God.

 

[lunamoth]

I choose to accept what I've learned, or I choose to not accept.

....

When all is said and done my friend, I have absolutely nothing to lose, by believing in a God of such kindness, magnitude, and confidence as the one who calls Himself Jesus of Nazareth. I have nothing to lose by trying to live by His example. And I have nothing to lose by believing in a Savior such as one Jesus professes himself to be. So it is all good.

v/r

Q

Well said, Q.

lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

How do you know that jesus did say he is "I am"?. All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE.

Throughout most of the history of the church, the Gospel of John was believed to have been written by Jesus' disciple. A majority of theologians today believe that it was written by a group of authors. There is also speculation that much of the gospel was written by a single, unknown writer, and that a second, later individual reworked the text in order to make it conform to contemporary church teaching. Because of its theological principles and the emphasis on "Jesus as the Son of God", it rapidly became the favorite gospel.

My opinion is that the original version of what we now know of as the "Gospel of John" was originally written by Cerinthus and then reworked by Iraeneus to conform more with orthodoxy and to respond to the Gospel of Thomas.

I highly reccomend Elaine Pagels' "Beyond Belief" on the subject of the Gospel of John and its relationship to early "gnostics."

 

[9Harmony]

...but thought I'd add my thoughts to the thread before I take off for the weekend

I haven't thought this through much, but I'm just pondering over whether all these statments of being the 'One Way' as 9Harmony mentioned - firstly, if they are actually all the 'One Way' (equal or the same?), or that they recognise the 'One Spirit' - but secondly that also they were talking about themselves in the context in which they lived and taught? Meaning they were the most 'Divinely enlightened' of their time and environment, and so were advising others to only follow them, rather than other false/ unreliable (or whatever) other sources that were around them. But actually, now that I've written that down it doesn't sound quite right, it sounds too similar to 'come to our church, not others, we are the closest to God'...

Hmm... don't know if that makes too much sense...

Hi Wellspring! and everyone!


imho i don't think they were actually talking about themselves personally. I am thinking more along the lines that as the Voice of God for the day in which they appeared, that essentially the teachings they espoused were the teachings of God for their day. So as such yes, they are stating that they hold the key for that age. Through them we are allowed a glimpse of God's majesty. If we heed their teachings and truly try to live by them, we enhance our own spiritual development.

But if we actually research each of these religions we note that each also foretold of One to come after them, so they all acknowledged that they would eventually pass the torch to another enlightened soul.

Also, each of these messengers states things that are often taken to mean they are saying that they are God Himself, yet it this were true, why then do they also makes claims about their lowliness.

The only explanation for these discrepancies (imho) is that these pure souls have 2 stations simultaneously. At times they teach us about God in their humble human station, at other times they speak with the Voice of the Authority of God Himself, (though imho God is not and will never be human, these special souls were conduits for God to reveal Himself to us through their words and actions).

I can see how people derive the concept of exclusiveness within each of these religions. But I think that comes from picking and choosing verses to focus on without looking at the whole. If these messengers really are from God as their followers believe, then we must look at the whole of their teachings. Picking one verse and then proclaiming this is what they meant, when looking at it in conjunction with another verse from the same book that appears to contradict the first should give people reason to pause and reflect. Instead of ignoring the whole we should rather look at the whole and say "ok, how can this mesh, God does not lie, there must be truth enshrined in each verse, how can we reconcile the two?" and therein lies the truth.

I believe that God's message has always been one. That he will continue to educate us through these divine messengers, but we, fallible human beings that we are, have placed these boxes around our prophets, the exclusivism that we see is manmade. We fail to realize that they are not separate, but rather continuing stages of the whole.

God has never left us alone.

of course this is all simply my opinion.

 

[Quahom1]

Far from a pretty box, Faithful Servant.

Looking through the eyes of reality, there is at present in New Orleans, hell on earth. So I pose another question. If all those who are outside the main stream of Christianity, the sinners of the world, as they have been known, if all the sinners face hell and destruction, could you with the sensitivity of a mother, as the Divine is both mother and father to this earth, could you with all the care and love in your heart, bear to see even sinners thrown into the hell of the inferno before your eyes in New Orleans?

Is there not a need for the rational in this life.

If God created all, then also God created choice.

I know I have often been mistaken for a dreamer, yet the rational and the reality is of the greatest importance, as is real human sentiment in the real world.

New Orleans is not hell on earth. It is a community in need (which is coming to it in full force as I write). And it is not the only part of this Gulf coast in trouble. Rather that thinking of New Orleans and the Gulf coast as a lost cause, and the United States government as a failure, perhaps it would be more apt to look at this as a rallying point, and the people of this country to realize that the fallacy of instant gratification, has been taken too far, for too long, and now we are beginning to come to our senses.

As for sinners. Name one human alive that hasn't commited a wrong...

Enough said.

A Mother/Father Divine nature, cannot stop the child from learning the hard way, particularly if that "child" is as obstinate as mankind. In effect, you answer your own question...

Mom/Dad can only hope for the best, and provide assistance when it is accepted...

My thoughts.

v/r

Q

 

[Faithfulservant]

Quote; faithfulservant;

Ciel.. I was not trying to offend you with my box analogy..it seems to me you are sensitive about your words being accepted as some sort of divine truth or mystical understanding of what spirituality should be.

Faithfulservant, do you remember the question here? This way is so narrow there is not even the smallest possibility of openess. If I return this quote to you, would it offend?

The box analogy corresponded to humour, are you able to laugh at yourself, as you laugh at others. Maybe divine humour is out of the question, but do you see how you ridicule anothers expression of God.

I wasnt being humorous though.. This is my take on your belief system.. It has no substance for ME. I am entitled to have an opinion am I not? I think the narrow mindedness can be redirected back at you because you are very upset that I cannot open my mind to your universal thought process on what God should be. This universal enlightenment stuff is not reality for me because I dont see my God in your divine mother and father.. I happen to also know that my God is regularly ridiculed and I know that His shoulders are wide enough to handle it so I am not offended.. Im even used to being ridiculed because of my beliefs and I am not offended because I know what the bible says about that also.. and I praise God for it everytime it happens.

Im concerned at how personal you are taking a post from someone that you dont know.. on a comparative religion forum who doesnt know you.. Im guessing there are deeper issues here.. of which I am sorry. Might I suggest that you not take this forum that seriously? I have done the same on occasion and found that taking a break and refocusing on God helps me.

Im sorry but I cannot allow you to make me out to be this insensitive monster because I post my beliefs.. We are all allowed to have our own differing beliefs on this board thats what makes it what it is..

 

[Ciel]

My, it's hot in here. At this point I leave you people to your own inferno.

 

[Quahom1]

My, it's hot in here. At this point I leave you people to your own inferno.

Sorry you feel that way. That was not the intent.

 

[Dor]

In his rebuttal of Autolycus, Theophilos of Antioch c. 181 attributed the Gospel of John to John, by whom he no doubt meant the apostle John, the son of Zebedee.( Autol. 2. 22)
Irenaeus (130-c. 200) identifies John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Gospel of John.
Eusebius quotes two passages from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (Adv. Haer. 2. 22. 5; 3. 3. 4) to prove that John, the disciple of the Lord, resided in Ephesus after Paul's death. Ireneaus says that John was a true witness (ma,rtuj alhqh,j) of the apostolic tradition there; Eusebius identifies the John to whom Irenaeus refers as John the apostle and evangelist, the disciple whom Jesus loved (H.E. 3. 23. 3).
The source for Irenaeus knowledge of the origins of the Gospel of John seems to be Polycarp (69-155), whom Irenaeus knew in his youth and who knew the apostles, including John. Polycarp is a bridge between the generation of the apostles and that of Irenaeus: Eusebius quotes from a letter that Irenaeus wrote to Florinus; in which he states that he used to listen to Polycarp speak about what the apostles did and said, including John (H.E. 5. 20. 4-8)
As quoted by Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria (150-c.215) wrote in his Hypotyposeis, "But that John last of all, conscious of the outward (lit. "bodily") facts that had been set forth in the gospels was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel" (H.E. 6.14.7).

There have been other theories proposed regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John. As already mentioned, some attribute it to John the elder, allegedly a contemporary with John the apostle in Ephesus. J.N. Sanders argues that Lazarus wrote the fourth gospel ("Those Whom Jesus Loved" NTS 1 [1954/55]: 29-41). Pierson Parker claims that the evidence points to John Mark as the author ("John and John Mark," JBL 79 [1960]: 97-110). Oscar Cullmann argues that the author was an eyewitness, but not a Palestinian/orthodox Jew; rather he was a heterodox Jew with affinities with and sympathies for the Samaritans (The Johannine Circle). Rudolf Bultmann ignores all the internal and external evidence completely, arguing that the original author was a converted gnostic whose work was then later re-worked to make it more orthodox by the addition of sacramental and eschatological themes. Recently, M. Hengel has argued that the author was an otherwise unknown first-century Palestinian Jew named John, but not John the son of Zebedee.

You can take the majority of the theologians of today and their opinion I will stick with the opinions of the people that were a tad closer to it and all the internal evidence that points to John writing it.

 

[Faithfulservant]

lol I think Ive just been told to go to hell..

seriously ciel I meant no offense I apologize if it came across that way but this thread was antagonistic from the get go with just the title.. I see a thread with this title and I think.. here we go again.. someone has to take another shot.. and I jump right in feet first.. in my mouth.. You honestly cannot judge a person fairly from text and I do not like the idea of someone misunderstanding me. If you cant accept my apology then thats ok as well.. Im just going to mosey on back to Christianity..

 

[Bandit]

so i guess christians are not the only ones who tell people to go to he-double toothpicks.

i think all too often it is the other way around. people dont accept christians & exclude them from being a valid belief. i accept others for there beliefs but i do not always feel the same from others with a different belief.

others cant see there own closed mindedness. everyone expects christians to give up there beliefs in Jesus & the bible. it aint gonna happen so that puts me in the narrow path too.

beliefs are not all the same, everyone can be close minded- that is just the way it is.

i think i will close my mind to this & enjoy the 3 day weekend.
peace in the wonderful name of Jesus.

 

[Dor]

so i guess christians are not the only ones who tell people to go to he-double toothpicks.

i think all too often it is the other way around. people dont accept christians & exclude them from being a valid belief. i accept others for there beliefs but i do not always feel the same from others with a different belief.

others cant see there own closed mindedness. everyone expects christians to give up there beliefs in Jesus & the bible. it aint gonna happen so that puts me in the narrow path too.

beliefs are not all the same, everyone can be close minded- that is just the way it is.

i think i will close my mind to this & enjoy the 3 day weekend.
peace in the wonderful name of Jesus.

Mat 5:11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely,for my sake.
Joh 15:20Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Well Bandit we were warned .

 

[InLove]

Hi--Peace to All Here--

Well, I probably should read back through this whole thread, but I honestly do not know how I can do that every time I want to reply...call me irresponsible, I suppose--

Are Christians narrow-minded? Hmmm...reminds me of another thread here in CR entitled "Are Athiests Shallow?"

I do not believe that true Athiests are shallow, and I do not believe that true Christians are narrow-minded.

It takes a lot of thought for one to be a true Athiest.

As for the true Christian? It may be a narrow path we walk, but that does not mean that the true Christian mind is narrow. No, not at all....

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Cobber]

Cobber.. Its very difficult to discuss the bible with someone who wont accept its validity.. .

Faithfulservant - I suppose this comment then supports the initial thread. I take a liberal view on the intepretations of the bible, the validity isnt important but rather the message. It is difficult to discuss the bible with someone who will only accept that their interpretation is the correct one.

 

[Faithfulservant]

True But Im not setting out to prove to anyone its inerrancy. I dont feel that need.. we were discussing its message and you were saying its not valid text ..so at what point do we say enough.. I will discuss its message as long as someone doesnt tell me that certain parts arent valid. Ive been there many times and Its not worth the frustration and headache to me. Its that never ending circle of he said she said.. We wont get anywhere.

Sorry but I dont think that makes me narrow minded.. I just believe in something differently than you do and Im finished posting here because I believe this is an attack on my faith and I respect Brian and the moderators to much to allow it to get ugly.. So have fun with this discussion.

 

[Dor]

Are Christians narrow minded....well I believe alot of us are narrow minded about the message. Of course part of that reason is we have 90% of all religions and 90% of all the christ conscience type "christians" that all they want to do is tell us we are full of crap and destroy the Bible and anything having to do with the real Jesus...Of course to them they are not being narrow minded it is simply cause we are so narrow minded they have to do away with it.

 

[Dondi]

seriously ciel I meant no offense I apologize if it came across that way but this thread was antagonistic from the get go with just the title.. I see a thread with this title and I think.. here we go again.. someone has to take another shot.. and I jump right in feet first.. in my mouth.. You honestly cannot judge a person fairly from text and I do not like the idea of someone misunderstanding me. If you cant accept my apology then thats ok as well.. Im just going to mosey on back to Christianity..

Holy Schmoley! Did this thread become volatile or what?

Honestly, it wasn't my intent to start an antagonistic thread, though I should have known better. I am a Christian myself who in the past has been through the wringer for hanging onto a stern belief in Christ by those who think I'm too narrow-minded for believing Jesus is the only Way. I wanted to get a feel of how people of other faiths in this forum view Christians in that regard. Well, it does feel rather hot in here now. I come to the conclusion that the answer is YES, in the area of soteriology.

On the hand, in the area of helping and loving our fellow man in need, Christians are fairly open-minded. Many good charitable organizations were started by Christians. And for many communities, it is an ongoing process. Not to say that other religions aren't charitable, also. I think that all religions teach us to love one another. For Christians, that part of that love means getting people to Christ for the salvation of their souls. The terror in an eternal hell drives them to reach out to people they normally wouldn't care about, the joys of heaven drives them to share the relationship they have begun in Christ, the love, mercy, and forgiveness they have received from Him. Such love is but a taste of eternity with God. For without God, there is no heaven.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Bultmann's argument is much more compelling to me and better supported than the "appeal to authority" approach - especially given the track record of the authorities appealed to (Iraeneus and Eusebius).

The internal evidence strongly supports Bultmann's theory that the so-called "Gospel of John" is a modified Gnostic work.

 

[Quahom1]

Bultmann's argument is much more compelling to me and better supported than the "appeal to authority" approach - especially given the track record of the authorities appealed to (Iraeneus and Eusebius).

The internal evidence strongly supports Bultmann's theory that the so-called "Gospel of John" is a modified Gnostic work.

Perhaps it is. Variety, after all, is the spice of life.

But it does not detract from the original message of hope meant for man. In fact, the writings emphasise hope. And that was the original purpose.

v/r

Q