But why the need to continue calling oneself a Christian, then? Given your definition, anyone who respected Jesus for his teachings, and who believes that the "human condition" exists (and that we cannot save ourselves from it), could call themselves a Christian. A Muslim could do that, an atheist, a Buddhist, a humanist, anyone basically... and thus the label becomes relative to the point of absurdity. One might as well not call oneself anything, if that's the perspective one has... because then it's not really about Jesus anymore. It's about creating something to fit one's desire to continue being called a "Christian."

But you might say, SM, that this is what all people of any religion do, anywhere. Perhaps that's the case, after all. (Then, I might have to agree with you.) :)

The anthropologist in me would call it a "cultural construct." :) And up until maybe 4 years ago, I still held a flame for Christianity, saying that I wasn't ready to consider it a cultural construct... [C.S. Lewis and his "one true myth" kept me going for a while] but now, yes, I believe that is what it is. (And cultural constructs certainly have their adaptive value for human survival... so I'm not saying that it's inherently a bad thing.)

Sidenote: I have to say that the stuff I read by Teilhard de Chardin (as recommended by Thomas Merton in some of his books) kicked ass. I still very much admire the Jesuits for their intellectual pursuit of faith... I found it so refreshing after so much time with people who didn't dare think to too hard or in-depth about what they believed.

Yep, neither one sat well with me, either. This was the point I was coming to, when I started to lose my faith. It essentially indicates that God was/is constructed by humanity, not the other way around... and if that were true, then I wanted nothing to do with that kind of god. Way too fucking postmodern.

Looks like we're on the same page here, Ustwo. You're making more sense. :oogle: :)

That's exactly what I was about ready to respond with :) To add onto that, the human animal is designed to classify. We're just...built that way. So, we like to classify ourselves as well. We also like to be a part of something. So, someone may not fall under the most common description of Christian, but they may also feel it is one of the closest descriptions of their own belief. So, they call themselves Christian.

Merton and Teilhard de Chardin are two of my favorite Christian thinkers.

I actually don't disagree with most of this, except the part of having a problem with it. I think god is both created and not created by humanity. Any particular concept of god is certainly created by humanity IMO, but I think we create god in an attempt to describe things that we feel but don't necessarily understand. To be overly descriptive, I think god is probably closely related to attempting to describe a biologically inherent sense of morality. This is why I take issue with the idea of a mythic god - of a person - but I don't see a problem with the concept of god in general. We use metaphors all the time, and I see no problem with using the god metaphor as well.

I think, overall, we probably agree more than we disagree...it's just that I have less of a problem merging the conclusions with some sort of post-modern spirituality.

Well, this is a very anthropological, culturally relative point of view... and from that point of view, I agree with it whole-heartedly. This is why I don't judge people necessarily for being religious, as I'm aware of the function that religion has for adaptation and evolution of the human species.

But personally, I judged myself for continuing to *want* to believe in something that I had (after so much seeking) unquestionably concluded was no more than a cultural construct... and that therefore, if I continued to call myself a "Christian," I would only be clinging on to a security blanket. Which may be enough for some people, but for my brain/sanity, it wasn't. I guess I'm not one for placebo effects... including a post-modern understanding of religion.

Most likely that's the issue, yes. :)

Well, it's only a placebo effect if you don't teach other people that it is what it is. I have no interest in understanding god to be a constructed metaphor but not teaching that to others. I suppose I think religion should be seen as a grand parable, not just by those teaching it, but by those following it. It's the same as me liking Buddhist teachings but not believing in karma or reincarnation in any metaphysical sense.

Yes, but that's asking a lot from your average human; I see you (as well as myself) as being in a far more privileged position (whether we chose it or not), where you don't *really* need a comforting set of rules, assuringly strict rituals, the soothing nature of repetition, abandonment of self... just to stay sane enough to feed your family. Most people cannot put their whole faith in something which they know is truly just a story, not when they need to trust that story in order to cope with the stress of day-to-day life.

It's like what I say about Walmart... I can afford to not shop there, to have those kinds of "ideals," because I have the means to shop elsewhere, pick and choose what I want, seeing Walmart for what it is. Most people don't have that kind of privilege... they just need a place to shop that won't break their budget. I suppose that's how I've come to see religion.

On a slightly different note, I forgot to mention Simone Weil as a Christian thinker that I respected very much (still do). Some quotes from Gravity and Grace that seem applicable here... (I had forgotten how much I loved Weil; my apologies if I ramble too much here).

Did I say that????? Hmmmmm, lets see.....

I often use words like "may", "possibly", or "might", simply because most things are open to individual interpretation.

However, as previously stated, the man in the story did live much closer to the way Jesus & the first century Christians did, than any modern day Christians do. The fact that you consider this man delusional isn't surprising either, most atheists consider anyone who believes in God or Christ to be delusional.

...What? This almost seems like it belongs in the inane analogy thread, 'cuz I ain't seeing what possible point you were trying to make here.

Yes, it was vague, sorry about that. I'm not sure if the shoe fits, but if it does...

Xmas is nice.

I think the problem is not 'picking and choosing', where that picking and choosing is a matter of principled interpretation. Very few Christians shun pork, and most don't require women to have long hair. But they don't simply say "Well, I just don't like that command." They have reasons for interpreting the scripture the way they do. But there are Christian who do pick and choose in a more capricious way -- who will ignore something simply because they don't like it. And that seems more problematic to me.

HMm really? I find it hard that you would be able to pick and choose, it is the word of God is it not? If you really believe in God how could you basically say he's wrong and still believe he is this truly reightous and all knowing holy creator, perhaps I am missing something.

I see, so you follow the Old & New Testament, every word??? I hope you don't have any stubborn, rebellious children.......

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

The Bible is the word of men, who were inspired by God......

Now thats religion I can agree with :thumbsup:

"Something ain't right here, its like short hair on a pretty girl."

i would like to take a moment and express my disdain for the expression

"pick and choose"

which is like saying "mass genocide" or "boeuf bourginon in a wine sauce"
and which is a kind of meme, i think, which i only encounter in conversations like this one.
i dont see how the claim that "you cant pick and choose" is any different from making claims about who is and is not "really christian"--the expression leans on membership rules and is not binding on anyone who does not also consider him or herself a member of the group. so those who are christians do not get to control how those who are not interact with biblical texts and this because outside your particular group, the rules you live by are arbitrary.

which i think is the same point dave is making above, phrased differently.

Yes Indeed, I often give examples, post stories or whatever just to try to get people to think, or see their reaction.......

Clarification request. Do you mean that the opinions of ex-Christians re: doctrine no longer have validity once they have left the fold?

no..quite the contrary.
what i meant was that the claim from those who identify as christian that "you cant pick and choose" means nothing except for others who identify as christian. there is no monopoly on interpretation of the texts. believers do not get to impose one.

Okay, thanks. I just can't remember when any of the self-identifying Christians on this thread used that term... it was mostly used by the critics/exes, such as myself. I must have missed something?...

I agree with you on both counts. There are important differences between picking and choosing and evaluating the information and coming to different conclusions than someone else. That being said, if your evaluation process is faulty, you won't necessarily come to very consistent conclusions.


Hmm really. You are missing something. What does "saying god is wrong" have to do with it? Religious thought rarely just appears fully formed, in fact it probably never does- it happens when people attempt to interpret the things that they find spiritually significant. When person A comes to a different conclusion than person B in the interpretation of, say, the bible, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with god, or thinking that god is wrong. It's just person A and person B seeing things differently. The idea that there is an infallible interpretation of the bible is purely a human one, as far as i've seen, if there is a god, he hasn't published the annotated version yet.

Once again, I find this argument to be quite problematic because it allows anyone to believe anything they want and still claim it as Christianity (Or whatever religion you follow).

Well, looking at the history of Christianity (how the biblical canon was formed, how the creeds were developed, etc), one could say that this is exactly what happened. I don't expect you to agree, but if you read the history, it's a lot more problematic in itself than most modern Christians would like to think.

Nevermind, abaya said it better.

True Dat.....I'd love to borrow her thought processes for a while.......:)

Thread Intermission

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jQcNiD0Z3MU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jQcNiD0Z3MU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

What is that? I haven't heard of it.

holy smokes, i went to church as a kid, but this terminology has me flumoxed. what is an epistle? (I know it is Latin (?) for letter, is that close?) and how does it differ from a gospel (which is as far as I understand a preaching, and a chapter in the Bible).

The epistles and gospels are both only found in the New Testament. Epistles are the books of the New Testament that were originally written as "letters," usually to various new churches (most often by Paul; these are called the Pauline Epistles, including the General Electric Power Company--better known as Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Corinthians). :D The gospels are specifically 4 books in the New Testament, written about the life of Jesus. These are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Hope that helps. :)

It does! It does!!

And I thought I was well read. harumph.

We fly when we want,
And ground ourselves out, if not.
It all might work out.

The well-read nonsense
we call our sacred scripture
has failed us, and will.

Hi,
I was lurking around and I found this thread and thought that, as a Christian, I might be able to shed some light on a few things. I haven't read all the threads, so I'll just respond to the ones that stuck out.


The difference between Jesus and saints like Gandhi is that Jesus claimed to be God. I don't really know much about the other religions, but from what I do know, there were only two other historical "saint" figures who claimed to be God: Krishna and Buddha; Krishna explicitly and Buddha implicitly. And, if you believe the reports, the three religious figures usually featured in Near Death Experiences are Jesus, Buddha and Krishna.


Christianity isn't opposed to the values of Humanism, but to the humanists' idea that these values can be brought to life by the means of human will. In Christianity we see everything good coming by God's will.


I don't really see that as something supported by the Bible. I think you're misunderstanding the whole Heaven/Hell concept. Here's my take:

Hell is death. If you look to the ancient religions (ie. Greek/Roman Paganism, Judaism) there was no concept of Heaven or Hell, it was just unconditional Hell. And Hell (Sheol, Hades) wasn't really a place of torture, just a dark, shadowy existence. Hell is death, and life was of course preferable.

And still in Christianity there is no Heaven or Hell when our bodies shut down and we die, however there is has another level of life to consider: the spiritual life. God told Adam and Eve that they would die when they would die as soon as they ate from the Tree of Wisdom, but didn't they live for much, much longer? biologically they did, but spiritually they died on the spot. In a sense, they were were in Hell because Hell is death.

And, here's the beauty of Christ's message:

I am the Son of God, I am God, and I share in the Eternal Life. I am the Light that shines within mankind, the light can save you from the dark, shadowy existence of Hell. If you believe in my name, you will not only receive the life lost (because I will be born within you) but you will be called a Sons of God and become rightful heirs to God's Kingdom of Heaven.

That's basically the whole message of Christianity right there: Christ can be born within you. It's explained many ways - "born again", "born from above", "resurrected", "the second coming", "awakening" (it might not even be too much of a stretch to say "enlightenment" like the Buddhists, knowing that Christ is the Light) - but the message remains the same.

Yes it can be interrupted that way. As well several religion are quite similar when it comes to what the main person do. Although the revelations of John say something different about heaven and hell. Plus the new heaven or something (gotta have a look in the bible again before making any more comment about that). I guess that sounds right, when you see it that way (as second life can be account as the holy spirit that enters you body). Although I would of thought that when you die, you either transcend to either heaven or hell, depending on your actions on earth. As they mention in the bible that Jesus went to heaven after he transcend death itself and that he has open the gates for those who wish to go to heaven or something like that. But I could be wrong as I'm still reading the whole bible again after reading it several years ago when I was a kid.

The several who made this up must have been extremely provocative, intelligent people, to cause intelligent people to be "talking" about it, CENTURIES LATER.

Christianity as a belief system - not Philosophy
 

There seems to me to be some difference between belief systems and philosophy. It all starts (I think) as philosophy but then evolves into a belief system. I think that Christianity is too specific to be considered philosophy because it tries to tell people what to believe rather than telling people what to think. Some of the posters to this thread are obviously Christians who don't need to be told what to believe. They have derived their own beliefs from the teachings of Christ. That's different than having a bunch of beliefs crammed into your head as divine fact from an army of well-meaning Sunday school teachers who don't know the difference between an Epistle and a Gospel. (no offense the previous poster. I didn't know the difference either. :)) But Christ's messages gets lost in such rigorous indoctrination.

Jesus came to me;
Shared some, um, philosophy,
And then came later.