Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Naut on Religion...XIV
Krisles
Sorry, I realized suddenly that I had not addressed the other set of questions, regarding the source of my interest in this area. It certainly wasn't caused by any profound existential event. Basically I guess it's a question of intellectual curiosity, which sort of comes with my territory...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 17, 2007 at 1:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Nautikos
Thanks, Krisles. Regarding the 'This world' - 'Other world' dichotomy, it may be coming across more strongly than I had intended. The problem stems in part from the fact that a short post necessarily requires sacrificing the proper shading that would leave the distinction less stark. What I have in mind here is really an 'other-worldliness' that is definitely more pronounced than anything that came before, but is not absolute, of course...
Regarding the 'tribal' thing - again, very astute observation, but I shall be getting back to that shortly...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Another excellent installment. My only disagreement would be with your interpretation of the "My kingdom....", and there we are in complete diagreement.......the disagreement being as to how it relates to the importance of
this world.....but, neither of us can really get into the head of the speaker....... so....we shall just have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, with TAPS, I am always so impressed with your knowledge....and, always wonder, how did you come to study all this? And, why? Was there always disbelief....and you studied for debate......or was there belief that turned into disbelief with the study? My cats' curiousity always rubs off. Anyway, do you ever find that with all the various denominations of Christians, there is not room for almost a
little tribal/custom feel? (Fundamentalists vs Catholics, for example)
posted by
Krisles
on November 16, 2007 at 7:39 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
Thanks for the compliment. I admit, I know nothing about the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is beyond knowing as I understand it. You can't know the Holy Sprit, you can only believe in it, and I don't.
And I agree with you on what you say in your second paragraph. But while true, it does not conform to the original message, but emerged only much later. The classical work on this issue is by Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. I think you'd find it interesting. Max Weber is interesting anyway, but I won't go there...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 16, 2007 at 5:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Enigmatic
Well, it's complicated. I don't actually see it as 'weak' in that sense, although I reject the 'turn-the-other-cheek' doctrine as well! And most Christians, though they may pay lip service to it, do in fact not practice it, and rarely have...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 16, 2007 at 2:10 PM
| link to this | reply
rich
Thanks!
posted by
Nautikos
on November 16, 2007 at 2:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Naut.. I have a different impression of what Christ meant..
OTA, of course, different interpretations abound! It's really a matter of emphasis: taking into account the doctrine of man's 'fallen' state (by no means accepted by all Christians; no less a man than Teihard de Chardin refused to accept it, and ended up in China as a result!) and a host of other indicators, in principle at least, if not in practice, appear to suggest a 'built-in' preference for the 'next' world over this one...
posted by
Nautikos
on November 16, 2007 at 2:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
You are such a learned person in this field and you express your knowledge in a way that one cannot dispute what you set forth. Its all there, exactly as I have found it to be in my studies. But, In sharing your historical, scientific and sociological facts, you leave one factor out of the equation--that of the Holy Spirit. That is understandable from your point of view, but to everyone who has experienced his magnetic touch and surrendered to it, there is no turning back.
There is one point in your post that I see differently. I find that Christians do not negate this present world. On the whole, they work harder, give more, pray longer and commit more wholly to making this world a better place in which to live. Looking forward to living in eternity with their Heavenly Father gives them impetus to do that, to care for his creation in this present time.
posted by
TAPS.
on November 15, 2007 at 6:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Yes, even though R. Wagner was a despicable anti-semite, I think he was right in his opinion about Christianity being a weak religion - turn the other cheek, love your enemy - screw that! 
posted by
Enigmatic68
on November 13, 2007 at 3:19 PM
| link to this | reply
nautikos
godd post. Thanks for sharing
posted by
richinstore
on November 13, 2007 at 7:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut.. I have a different impression of what Christ meant..
You wrote....“My kingdom is not of this world” means that this world is fundamentally irrelevant, that the important world is the next one! "
I see the world He describes as not of this world.. but the key is perspective. We see things as the world does. Christ sees things as God does. The timing of the kingdoms is irrelevant. He was called "Teacher" by His followers because he teaches about his kingdom.. His world.. and His Reality. A reality that exists for Love and only Love.
Christ taught that if a man looked upon a woman with lust he had commited adultry, if he felt hatred toward his brother , he had committed murder. Not an easy path by any means...
~Peace, OTA
posted by
Blue_feathers
on November 13, 2007 at 6:28 AM
| link to this | reply