Reponse to "Why I Love Jesus But Hate Religion"

qrrgprgua

Don't know how many of you have see the video do the rounds on facebook..

Anyway here is an interesting response to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dqnfz4y8uA

theg81der

What a load of crap! Can`t believe anyone would say Jesus would support the catholic church. They only represent evil - "the devil got into the child and tempted the priest" these feckers can burn in hell.

pandabrian

The rabid atheist, Christopher Hitchens R.I.P, in debate with the foremost Christian apologist Prof. William Lane Craig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

The Quadratic Equation

Jesus IS religion.

Dudess

Jesus was a liberal, tolerant hippy - plenty of the Christian right would ironically despise someone like him today.

pandabrian

And the debate between Sam Harris and Prof. Craig:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

The Quadratic Equation

Dudess wrote: »

Jesus was a liberal, tolerant hippy - plenty of the Christian right would ironically despise someone like him today.

If you read the gospels, you'll see Jesus was very unliberal and intolerant of many things, and I'm a left wing democratic socialist.

irishh_bob

Dudess wrote: »

Jesus was a liberal, tolerant hippy - plenty of the Christian right would ironically despise someone like him today.

thats right , jesus was without question left wing but from watching american tv , you would think he was a republican voting capitalist pig

pandabrian

I'm sure modern concepts of left-wing etc would be discussed in Jesus' day..*ahem*

Onesimus

This is the best response I've seen to it so far.

It is by Catholic apologist and author Jimmy Akins.

philologos

There was a pretty good post on The Gospel Coalition yesterday about it. I think the thrust and sentiment of the video is correct, but I think it is mistaken in some areas. Jesus didn't hate religion, he hated religious hypocrisy of the type that is still with us.

I think ritualism is a huge problem in that it means that we do things without often appreciating why we do them. We need to put more emphasis on the Bible before ritual or tradition.

The Quadratic Equation

Sounds more like the cunning Satan hates religion.

qrrgprgua

philologos wrote: »

There was a pretty good post on The Gospel Coalition yesterday about it. I think the thrust and sentiment of the video is correct, but I think it is mistaken in some areas. Jesus didn't hate religion, he hated religious hypocrisy of the type that is still with us.

I think ritualism is a huge problem in that it means that we do things without often appreciating why we do them. We need to put more emphasis on the Bible before ritual or tradition.

I think we need to deepen our understand of all aspects... Ritual, Tradition, Bible. Didn't Christ give use some important rituals to follow? ... Do this in memory of me....

It was precisely the cloudiness of ritualism that lead Vatican 2 to bring in the vernacular Mass, so that everyone could fully understand all the mass without having to know Latin. There was nothing wrong with the ritual of the mass in Latin, but as you say people went to mass maybe without appreciating all its meaning.

philologos

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I think we need to deepen our understand of all aspects... Ritual, Tradition, Bible. Didn't Christ give use some important rituals to follow? ... Do this in memory of me....

All tradition and ritual must be Biblically based. Acknowledging Jesus wholeheartedly in life is better than a mere set of traditions to follow. Jesus deals with tradition quite well in the Gospel of Mark for example:

Mark 7:5-8 wrote:

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

qrrgprgua wrote: »

It was precisely the cloudiness of ritualism that lead Vatican 2 to bring in the vernacular Mass, so that everyone could fully understand all the mass without having to know Latin. There was nothing wrong with the ritual of the mass in Latin, but as you say people went to mass maybe without appreciating all its meaning.

As far as I'm concerned that it is a positive development, but Christians of all denominations need to be vigilant.

qrrgprgua

philologos wrote: »

All tradition and ritual must be Biblically based.

Why? Sure "Sola Scriptura" as a concept is not found in the bible itself.

Its like taking the diary of your Grandfather whom you never met, not matter how detailed the diary it will only show certain aspect of the person, While your Father might have other stories or Memories of your Grandfather that are not in his diaries, Does that make what you father saw any less real?

The bible is extremely important for all Christians, its is part of the Faith we have inherited, but it was never written and compiled as the only sole source of faith.

The Mass takes much from the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom which took form from the early Rituals that the grew from the Apostles. At the same time as the Bible was written there were already sacred rituals be practised by Christians.

If you want to take the bible as your only path to Jesus and reject tradition (in its true sense) and ritual then you have lost in my opinion a vital source of understanding of history of Christianity.


Even the Protestants who take the Bible a one stop shop don't all agree on its interpretation.

The Quadratic Equation

philologos wrote: »

All tradition and ritual must be Biblically based

Do you mean like making the sign of the cross ? or do you mean perhaps the 16th century German invented tradition of sola scriptura using a 16th century German heavily edited version of God's book, or perhaps the other 'tradition' of Henry the VIII wanting himself to be head of his own version of religion so he could commit adultery, and marry/divorce as much as he wished ?

philologos

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Do you mean like making the sign of he cross ? or do you mean perhaps the 16th century German invented tradition of sola scriptura using a 16th century German heavily edited version of God's book, or perhaps the other 'tradition' of Henry the VIII wanting himself to be head of his own version of religion so he could commit adultery, and marry/divorce as much as he wished ?

This is for the Protestant / Catholic megathread.

I could go and refute your clearly inaccurate views about the beginnings of Anglicanism, but I won't.

My point was that I can't trust traditions over the Bible. The Bible provides a clear and consistent account of God's revelation to man. If other testimony extends, or contradicts the Bible there is no way I can determine that this is accurate.

The Quadratic Equation

philologos wrote: »

This is for the Protestant / Catholic megathread.

I could go and refute your clearly inaccurate views about the beginnings of Anglicanism, but I won't.

My point was that I can't trust traditions over the Bible. The Bible provides a clear and consistent account of God's revelation to man. If other testimony extends, or contradicts the Bible there is no way I can determine that this is accurate.

Then why did you bring it up here ?

Just one snag, the 'bible' was also handed down as word of mouth oral tradition.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." - 1 Cor 11:2

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

I prefer to take my lead from the earliest Christians, rather that 16th Century invented and edited apostate cults with vested intrests.

philologos

I brought placing vain traditions / ritualism over God's word up because it is a key issue, and much of the reason why videos like this are made. Traditions which glorify God's word are inherently good, traditions which add to God's word rather than being based on it, are vain.

You mention "traditions taught by us". What are those, and who are "us"? Us in that passage are the Apostles, traditions taught by us are the teachings that Paul and the Apostles taught to the new Christian communities. All of which are accounted for in the New Testament.

Likewise with 1 Corinthians.

As for John 21, that doesn't refer to extra-Biblical writing, that simply means that there was more that John didn't write.

The Quadratic Equation

Satan is clever enough to make religion a dirty word if people want to fall for that.

philologos

Read above. I don't believe "religion" is a dirty word. I think the video is wrong. At the same time I know why it was made, it was made due to the judgmentalism, vain traditions, and self-righteousness which unfortunately exists in our churches, and which unfortunately undermines God's word.

The Quadratic Equation

ALL churches and also ALL walks of life. That's humanity for you.

philologos

Where did I say I wasn't referring to all churches?

kjw47

Dudess wrote: »

Jesus was a liberal, tolerant hippy - plenty of the Christian right would ironically despise someone like him today.

You are mistaken about Jesus being a hippy--- it was a sin for a man born of the tribe of Judah to have long hair-- So it is only in false religions that they make pics of Jesus with long hair, because they portray him as a sinner in those pics--I am positive Jesus is not happy about that. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that those religions do not know Jesus.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

Jesus was a liberal, tolerant hippy - plenty of the Christian right would ironically despise someone like him today.

I don't believe He was a hippy, and much of what he said insulted others. The truth that Jesus preached offended on a regular basis. He taught that we have a profound problem of sin, and that we need to be saved from eternal condemnation. Jesus' point on earth was to bring people on earth to Him, in order that their relationship with God might be restored. Jesus changed everything. Claiming that he was merely liberal, or merely conservative would miss the point.

The point is, that God loved each and everyone of us so much that He sent the Lord Jesus into the world to rescue us from our sin and to transform our very beings forever. If we abandon that area of consideration whether we are conservative or liberal, the point of Jesus is null and void. The decision irrespective of the red-herrings we cast on the Gospel is that Jesus came to save us. The question is are we ready to accept it and be transformed by Him to glorify God forever?

HamletOrHecuba

philologos wrote: »

I think ritualism is a huge problem in that it means that we do things without often appreciating why we do them. We need to put more emphasis on the Bible before ritual or tradition.

The problem with that is the Bible is tradition and that we are physical beings as well as spiritual beings so a physical element to worship is inescapable, humans being the fallen creatures that they are ritual can easily slip into into a magical understanding but the alternatives to it are what in terms of corporate worship? They are probably more dangerous.

Also tradition is a pretty broad term, what exactly do you mean by it?

philologos

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The problem with that is the Bible is tradition and that we are physical beings as well as spiritual beings so a physical element to worship is inescapable, humans being the fallen creatures that they are ritual can easily slip into into a magical understanding but the alternatives to it are what in terms of corporate worship? They are probably more dangerous.

Also tradition is a pretty broad term, what exactly do you mean by it?

I have no issue with worship. Worship is right towards God given what He has done for each and every one of us (if we are willing to accept it). Worship, however, must be consistent with what has been revealed to us Biblically.

I don't believe that the Bible is tradition in its entirety. Even if it does contain traditions, these are firmly based on Biblical teaching rather than anything else. First and foremost though, the Bible concerns God's amazing story to mankind.

Finally, what I mean by tradition is man-instituted religion which contradicts Biblical teaching. That's what Christians need to root out of their churches as far as I can tell.

HamletOrHecuba

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that the Bible is tradition in its entirety. Even if it does contain traditions, these are firmly based on Biblical teaching rather than anything else. First and foremost though, the Bible concerns God's amazing story to mankind.

Finally, what I mean by tradition is man-instituted religion which contradicts Biblical teaching. That's what Christians need to root out of their churches as far as I can tell.

How is the Bible not tradition? It has been handed down to us in its current form.

Your definition of tradition is far from what most people mean when they use that word.

Man instituted religion that contradicts the Word of God is a problem though.

The vast majority of Reformed Churches for instance allow for divorce for reasons other than adultery, and allow for re-marriage; according to teachings of the Lord though in the Gospel these "re-married" people are fornicators and so according to St Paul we shouldnt even eat with them. Here have a clear example of people putting their own tradition in the place of God's teaching is a frighteningly radical manner. Can you think of any others?

philologos

Firstly. I was referring to vain traditions. Much tradition is fruitful and valuable. Those traditions are Biblically based.

As for the rest of your post, it's not referring to positions that I hold so I best leave em' there.