asaris

filtherton -- the only problem I have with your definition of being a Christian is that it's not very useful. It's probably true that the important thing is a desire to follow Jesus. But it's hard to tell if a given individual is following Jesus, so often it just ends up meaning "Someone I like" (or dislike, depending on what you think of people who follow Jesus). If I'm being careful, I tend to like to use 'Christian' to mean 'someone who believes in the Apostle's Creed'. It's broad enough to encompass all the Christian denominations, yet exclude belief systems I tend to think different enough to not count (based on my intuition).

On this note, and of most relevance to this thread, are the things this doesn't require you believe. It probably doesn't require you believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven or that non-Christians are going to hell. It doesn't require a belief in hell, or any belief in the afterlife in the conventional sense. (All it says about the afterlife is "I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.")

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Ourcrazymodern?

My rat's ass is going straight to hell if it's available.
Religion is philosophy.
Religious logic? I think not.

I can't believe a discussion about Xianity, even trying to divide it against itself, turned so acrimonious.

"And Jesus wept"

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

filtherton

asaris, i agree that my definition of christianity doesn't really provide much along the lines of usefulness, but that's kind of the point. Christianity is a pretty general term, which is one reason that discussions about it tend to become problematic; everyone has a different idea concerning the specifics of what it means to be a christian. But there is such diversity in christian thought, that the only real common thread is a belief in christ. If you'll pardon the pun, the devil is in the details. Anyone who would speak on behalf of all christians about any subject aside from the most general of them, is speaking in error- even the apostle's creed is different from denomination to denomination, though the basic idea is pretty constant.

abaya

The same thought occurred to me earlier in this thread, but I avoided posting it because I don't know enough about Greek Orthodox, Coptic Christians, and the like. Do they also use the Creed?
Interesting interpretation. So what would be the motivation for converting in the first place, then? And how to convince other people that they should sign up for the precepts espoused by the Creed? If Jesus isn't the only way to heaven, and if hell doesn't exist, then why take Christianity more seriously than any other belief system on offer?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Baraka_Guru

What? The Dalai Lama is going to hell?! Where's the justice in that?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

abaya

There is no justice in it. That's one of the reasons Christianity stopped making sense to me, personally. I would ask all these questions about this case and that case (children dying before accepting Christ, people living in the Amazon who had not heard of Christ, people who had heard of him but still rejected him, etc)... and the only answer I would get were that "It's a mystery. Leave it to God's will and have faith. MEANWHILE--get out there and keep witnessing, funding missionaries, saving the lost, etc. And yeah, sorry to tell you this, but anyone who does not pray the salvation prayer and ask Jesus into their life, is gonna go to hell. Including your devout Thai Buddhist grandma who has lived a better Christian life than most people you know... sorry, it's a harsh truth.."

In the end, I could see that there were no two ways around it. I either believed in hell, or I didn't. I either believed that I needed to accept Jesus' death and resurrection as a necessity for me to be saved, or I didn't. I either believed that everyone else around me who had NOT prayed the salvation prayer was going to hell, or they weren't. I chose to stop believing in all those things. This was not the kind of faith system I wanted to be a part of anymore.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

tecoyah

Well...to be quite frank. If indeed the Dalai is going to hell, and Pat Robertson is going to Heaven I have absolutely no problem going to the Hot Spot.

In my opinion Christianity would be well served to blow off the Centuries of interpreted Dogma, and focus on the basic concepts referred to by the man they claim to follow. Indeed it is a philosophy at the root as are all religions, but it has been so heavily corrupted by the hundreds of interpretations and power shuffles that the actual basis of Moral teachings seems lost.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

asaris

Abaya -- the Eastern Orthodox use the creed. I don't know about Coptics or the other smaller eastern sects, but from what I know about them, even if they don't use the creed, they wouldn't disagree with anything in it.

I happen to believe that hell exists (or perhaps will exists some time in the future). As far as reason to try and convert people -- if you're a bit more easy going about the whole thing, you still have reason, but you're likely to be less of an asshole about it. So here's what I think. Obviously, I think this is all compatible with Christianity, but not all of it is what Christians have traditionally believed.

What do we, as Christians, know? We know that Christ is the only way to salvation. We don't know if an explicit belief in Christ is required. We don't know if people get one last chance after they die. We don't know what happens to those who never hear the gospel. We know that, if you hear the gospel and believe you will be saved; that's why there's still motivation to convert, even if we're agnostic about what happens to everyone else.

I tend to be pretty strict about my 'afterlife agnosticism'. Not only do I believe what I listed above, but I also believe that many 'Christians' will be unpleasantly surprised at the final judgment. So I don't know who will be in heaven. I don't know if I'll go to heaven. I don't know if Hitler or Mother Theresa is in heaven. I certainly don't know whether the Dalai Lama is in heaven or not.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

roachboy

i cant tell any more if we are discussing a definition of the term "christianity" or criteria for determining membership in a group that might call itself "christian"--these arent the same.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

There's no hell in buddhism, why do people go buddhist? Why is the coercion aspect so important to you?

Ourcrazymodern?

So here we are...

Jesus is probably very unhappy, as are all of his brethren. Why disagree over such a happy (sad, sad, sad, sad) happy message?

IT'S JUST US HERE, PEOPLE!

This god-or-not crap has been going on for more millenia than this jesus-or-not crap has.

The sooner we stop projecting ourselves, the better.

((You've been very kind, but please don't edit me when I only add a period.)

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Baraka_Guru

Good point. I'm inclined to believe we are discussing the latter for the most part.




On the topic of hell, one of the more interesting conversations on religion I've had involved me (as a born and raised atheist) and a friend of mine (who's Jewish). Having been exposed to the Christian aspect of morality for the most part, I was curious to know what the Jews believe. I expressed my discontent surrounding the Christian belief that I was hellbound because I didn't believe in God and that I viewed Jesus as merely a philosopher.

What he told me was interesting. It was comforting to know (according to the Jewish view) that I won't be going to hell, because it doesn't exist. Instead, I will be confronted by God, who will enlighten me on my ignorance before I take my seat beside Him. This is what all of us will go through. The Jewish beliefs tend to make more sense to me in general.

My friend's view of Jesus was interesting as well. He looked at the view of Jesus as the prophet with some disdain: "He didn't even fulfill the prophecies!" he exclaimed. He discredited the status of Jesus based on the texts upon which the Christian faith is built. Interesting. This is why the Jews are still waiting. So, I asked him this: Regardless, are the teachings of Jesus of any worth in and of themselves? His answer was yes. But he pointed out that the teachings of Jesus aren't necessarily unique in terms of the ends they promote. They are unique in delivery and context. This is something I have already thought about. There are many parallels between belief systems in terms of a common morality. For example, compare and contrast the core moral teachings of Christ and of Buddha and you will have some interesting findings. Inject dogma, metaphor, etc. into the picture, and it then gets a little blurred.


Baraka_Guru's conclusion:

Jesus... philosopher.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

for quite a while, i was taken with liberation theology because it seemed to me closer to the teachings of jesus than anything else i had encountered floating outward from the planet organized xtianity for a very long time. naturally, john paul 2 thought it a pinko threat and authorized its suppression. no doubt the socio-economic elites were happy to see it go: the nerve of people who see in the gospels a message concerning the dignity of the poor, the importance of compassion and self-organization as an extension of it, of autonomy personal, economic, political.

the suppression of liberation theology was one of those moments of theater in which the truth of the matter is revealed: given the choice between operating as a mechanism for the enforcement of social discipline and actually enacting something of the radical aspects of the gospels, catholicism chose the former.

i prefer theology to its absence because if anything about the notion of transcendence is accurate, then it is obvious that what appears in the biblical texts is not transparent----and so any notion that it can be "taken literally" seems to me idiotic. but i've always had a kind of perverse fascination with evangelical shortwave radio stations like hcjb and sometimes like to imagine a group of people in the upper amazon who live according to the norms of evangelical radio broadcasts and so dress and act like donna reed figuring that it is only secondarily the acceptance of the word jesus that gets you somewhere--mostly it's about american cultural imperialism, and the sooner you buckle, the sooner you get where you're going.

the coercive dimension of xtianity seems all about these social control functions. hell is where you go if you dissent and the existing order, because it exists, is rational because there is a god who ordains all and so whaddya complaining about?
a radically uneven distribution of wealth? shut up. read ephesians and meditate of the organic division of labor and shut the fuck up with your complaints about the lack of social justice or anything remotely like it.
you want heaven?
do what i tell you.
and shut up.

jesus was an interesting character and the political implications of the gospels are still pretty radical--but it seems obvious to me that there is a serious divide which separates that message from organized christianity in general. so to my mind at least, the only coherent relation to jesus is to see him as one of a long line of social critics/philosophers who have attempted to fashion a vision of a more equitable world only to find what they said absorbed into the kind of world they wanted to replace. it simply turns out that it has been christianity itself that has played a central role in this absorption process.


from this viewpoint, it makes no difference at all whether folk who subscribe to one or another version of christianity say is or is not christian.
well, from most viewpoints, that makes no difference.
the rules that apply to believers apply only to them. they make no larger game, there is no reason to pretend otherwise. so they talk to and for themselves.

more generally (again) nietzsche was right.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

abaya

Well, "buddhism" could mean a lot of things. If we are talking about why people in a lot of Asian countries "go Buddhist," it's because it's 100% embedded in their culture. Most people don't really have a choice... nor do they want one (Asia has always been a difficult place for Christian missionaries to win converts). And those Buddhists (at least, the Theravada branch) espouse a very strict idea of reincarnation/nirvana, etc.

But if we're talking about why so many Westerners are "going Buddhist" these days, my opinion is that they're more drawn to the philosophy of the system, and perhaps even to the idea that there IS no hell. Also, frankly, I think it's an exotic fad... but that's another thread.

Well, in my Christian "training" (as stated above, it was Lutheran/Baptist/Methodist with a dash of Episcopalian and Catholic exploration--but all tinged with evangelicalism, to be sure), the idea of "saving people" from eternal separation from God (hell) was a big deal. It was central, in fact. Everything we were taught focused on imitating Christ, being a "witness" for Christ, spreading the Gospel, not doing anything that would cause our "brothers and sisters in Christ" (oh, what a term) to "stumble," praying for the "lost" (those who had not yet accepted Jesus), etc etc.

So in my (perhaps limited) experience of Christianity, the "coercion" factor was huge. Except we did not see it as "coercion," but as helping people escape eternal suffering... go figure. Looking back on that time of my life as a Christian, I don't know how I managed to justify this perspective to myself for so long... but I really thought I was helping people at the time.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

filtherton

abaya, i understand that your experience might be in agreement with the experiences of a lot of christians, but mine were very different. Hell was a metaphor. No efforts were made to convert other folks- it was a live and let live type of thing- perhaps it was post-modern christianity. It sounds more like baraka's friend's jewish beliefs than anything.

And yeah, i agree, when people choose to become buddhist it seems to be because they like the philosophy. It's not that far off from basic idea in the op of this thread; becoming christian because you like the philosophical aspects.

It's interesting, but i guess not entirely unexpected, how much the threat of eternal damnation can affect a particular perspective. For instance, when i compare the hell-less christianity i had in my upbringing to the helly christianity other folks had it makes sense that their post-partum reactions to it would be stronger. Honestly, i could see myself going to church once in a while, even though i don't really believe in any of the fantastical parts of it, because i think it's interesting that even ignoring completely the spiritual aspects, that jesus fellow had some good things to say.

DaveOrion

Tec I agree, but when you get right down to it Christianity & Capitalism don't seem to mix well at all. A point I've tried to illustrate in previous posts. Modern day Christians, for the most part, have very little in common with Christians of the first century. I seldom see people who love their enemies, turn the other cheek, pray & give in secret, and so on.........

The idea of hell, in my view, is a life full of guilt and/or shame, combined with all the other things that leave us with something less than a clean conscience. The concept of forgiveness for past acts & with that obtaining a fresh start is psychologically quite valid, which is exactly what being 'born again' is.......

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Ourcrazymodern?

Ah, man!

I was only born once and now anticipate only death.

Should I fear?

What?

Philosophy questions and thinks while religion thinks it knows and doesn't question.

It's certainly been a powerful perversion of our potential.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

SecretMethod70

I generally agree with both filtherton and roachboy. My experiences with Christianity have been much like filtherton's, and roachboy's assertion that taking the bible literally is idiotic is the very reason why. When I was a child, Hell was a place, but as I got older it was understood as a metaphor for separation from God. When I was a child, Heaven was a place, but as I got older it was understood as a metaphor for unification with God. Whatever God is. And so the Bible says the only way to the father is through Jesus...through his what? Through saying words, "I believe in Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior," or through his teachings? If through his teachings - which I find to be the more compelling argument - then what about similar teachings? Seems to me that since most people didn't know about those similar teachings where Jesus was, it makes sense to focus on his own (assuming Jesus even knew about them). Speaking of assumptions, that's assuming he even actually said that. That statement is from the gospel of John, which creates an entirely different characterization of Jesus from the other 3 gospels. John's Jesus is self-assured and in total control...far different from the characterization that Jesus gets in Mark. John was also probably written after the other 3 gospels, and certainly written for a different audience. It is likely that that is simply the kind of thing John's audience needed to hear from Jesus. Mark, on the other hand, was written around the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple, and you can see it in his characterization of Jesus. Jesus isn't powerful like in John...he is serene, and a victim...and Mark ends with no resurrection (it was added in later).

And what's this salvation prayer? Maybe it's just an evangelical thing, but I've never heard of it during my Catholic upbringing, and certainly not as any sort of requirement. I also asked onodrim, who was raised in a conservative Lutheran home - but also not evangelical - if she knew anything about it, and she had never heard of it. This brings me to what I think is ultimately the most important point regarding your (abaya's) views on Christianity and what is required to be Christian. You list off all these denominations that you participated in, but list requirements such as the salvation prayer and evangelism as a common thread throughout. It is for reasons like this that I think evangelicalism actually supersedes any other denomination, because evangelicalism is a particular method of thought which informs all other beliefs. Take out the evangelicalism, and any one of those denominations can be entirely different. In short, despite participating in these denominations, I would classify your Christian experience as being only one denomination: evangelical.

Based on how many different forms of already accepted Christianity are out there, not to mention the people who call themselves Christian who may not be accepted as such by others, I find no compelling argument that one must believe in Hell - or much else for that matter - in order to follow the teachings of Jesus, and therefore be "Christian."

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Ustwo

If there is no hell, and Jesus was tempted by Satan, how does that all mesh?

Just what is Satan in this mix?

So I do a quick google for the new testament and hell and get....

Mind you I'm not going to fact check any of this, but I'm pretty sure its not a metaphor for the separation from god. My guess is that interpretation was a more modern one in an attempt to make the silliness and cruelty of a god who you condemn you to torture for eternity seem less ridiculous.

So no I think to a Christian, provided they believe in the new testament, hell is a real place with real physical suffering. Not the vague separation from god but pure pain.

I think many rabbis would not agree. The thing about Judisim is that there is no one set 'way'. Some claim there is in fact a hell, others that there is not.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Infinite_Loser

You, essentially, condemn yourself to a life of eternal suffering. Follow the rules or be punished. Seems self-explanatory to me. Anywho, I just thought I'd add that in for no real reason... >_>

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ustwo

Will there be pie?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

It seems that some may already be in hell, what a life.......

(Dave looks around and has yet to see a true Christian.......)

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

abaya

Well, I did say that my whole experience was tinged with evangelicalism, so yes, I could agree with you on that. But let me give you a more detailed timeline of my "exploration" (this should be a good review for myself, too--have never laid it out clearly before), in case this helps with understanding where I came from:

--Icelandic grandfather was an old-school Scandinavian (Lutheran) priest, so I was baptized as a baby under that influence (even though my mom was Buddhist)... and in the Lutheran church, this would be enough to "mark" me for God's purposes.

--Attended some Catholic Sunday School off and on as a kid, with my lapsed Catholic step-dad... picked up basic Bible stories there.

--Age 13-14 = Confirmation time for Lutherans, and my (Buddhist) mom decided to enroll me in confirmation classes (though I had never attended a Lutheran church previously, or any church really, since I was 5-6 years old)--so I went and learned about Lutheran doctrine there, and was very interested in being confirmed. But I did not really attend the Lutheran church much after that ceremony.

--Age 14, around the same time as Confirmation, I started attending a basically evangelical (non-denominational) youth group through my high school, and was involved with that for 3 years.

--Via that high-school youth group, I started going to another church (associated with the General Baptist Conference--not Southern Baptists) and attending THEIR youth group, and was very involved with that church for about 5 years... heavy evangelical influence here as well. I was baptized again at age 16, since the Baptists did not believe the Lutherans' baptism counted for much (not being old enough to declare one's faith).

--Attended an evangelical university, under the auspices of the Free Methodist Church (we were big into the Wesleyan tradition), where I was fairly inundated with *their* evangelical influence for 4 years. Took a mission trip to Thailand after my sophomore year to "teach English," among other things.

--Attended Catholic Mass (not taking the Eucharist) regularly with a friend who was going through the RCIA classes to become a Catholic... in fact, it was weird, about 5 of my friends (unrelated to each other) independently became Catholic after college, and I nearly followed them into it. I really respected Catholic scholarship at the time, and had done most of my late-college spiritual inquiry along Catholic lines. Thomas Merton's writings had a huge impact on me at the time.

--Attended a Presbyterian church for a couple of years after college, as it seemed a good combination of everything that had influenced me up until then. The pastor was a whip-smart guy who was incredible well-read and avoided the gimmicky style that I had come to resent in the Baptist church... but, in the end, even he could not convince me to stay in the fold. I was already on my way out.

Well, SM, here's the thing... in all the churches I attended (evangelical influence or not), there was certainly a standard of being a member, or not being a member. Not just anyone could walk into any of those churches and become a member... I mean, sure, people could come and attend mass/services as much as they wanted, but to actually become part of the church, one had to sit down and talk with the priest/pastor, discuss doctrine, go to classes, etc... there were always "standards" of some kind (even in "non-denominational" churches).

And I do believe that if someone said to the priest/pastor that they didn't truly believe that "Christ died on the cross to save me from my sins, and he rose again, that I might rise again," that they would not be allowed to join the church. I mean, following the teachings of Christ is one thing... but if one truly does not believe that historically, this person was crucified *for a divine reason* and *rose again from the dead*, then how can one be a Christian?

That is the *center* of any Christian denomination, as far as I know... Christ dying on the cross and rising again... saving us from our sins, yes, but also by default, from <hell>... whatever that may be. Metaphor or real place (I was also taught the "eternal separation from God" thing, later on)... but it is ever-present in Christian doctrine, across denominations.

I mean, what do we need Jesus for, if we have no need for redemption? Isn't he just then another humanist philosopher, and there is no need to subscribe to any particular doctrine of his, but just to say "that's nice, I'd like to imitate that"? But that's not enough for most churches, I'd say.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

tiger777

I don't see how people can classify themselves as something when they pick and choose things out of the religion or philosophy. And that act in itself, picking and choosing is disagreeing with at least a part of that doctrine. In my opinion to be a true believer in any entire philosophy or any religion requires being a COMPLETE sheep with no thought or opinion of your own. Or completely ignoring anything that you believe to be wrong about that doctrine and accepting that doctrine as complete truth and completely believing in it, which very few people on this earth truly do regarding any doctrine. Why is this? Because nobody or nothing has the answers. We all must decide what we think is right or feel is right in my opinion there isn't one true follower of any religion or philosophy on this whole entire board and if you say or think you are, you're lying (I say this board because you all are intelligent and inquisitive, you are discussing and considering other ideas after all). Simply telling yourself this book is holy and the word of truth or saying I'm a Buddhist isn't going to fly because you're all phonies. It could be true that you believe in some Christian principles or Buddhist principles, but the amount of people who truly believe everything inside of any doctrine with more than a few ideas in this world can probably be counted on one hand, and they're all likely very crazy. So in case you're wondering why it's so hard to define what a true Christian is, is because no one truly is a Christian, they just believe in some Christian principles.

As for the thing about metaphorical and literal, for those who say God meant it to be metaphorical I say to you, if God is truly all knowing he knows the masses aren't smart enough to see metaphors. For those who says it's literal I say to you, God is wrong and cruel. The bible is to each of us how we interpret it, there is no secret answer much like anything else.

The biggest problem I have with religions and belief systems of any sort, is the fact that some of them try to coerce their followers to pressure others into converting into their belief system. I think this is terrible, just awful. The people who try to do that make the biggest mistake, they see others only for their differences exclusively, rather than the similarities as well. Live and let be please. How can we truly love one another or say we believe in equality until we stop trying to fucking judge or force our beliefs onto other people? How about we look at another person and see human, how about we think as ourselves as a human? Accept each other for who they are and form an opinion about them based on their character, not some dumb word or some principle that truly cannot possibly sum up the millions of intricacies that encompasses a human being. As for those who say they are a part of a religion or any belief system, I respect all those thousands of beliefs you have and opinions, but I don't respect your belief. Your belief isn't you, your belief's are.

abaya

Agreed. This was why I could no longer call myself a Christian. I was picking and choosing whatever I liked, throwing away what I did not like... it became disrespectful of the very few people I know who adhere very strongly to Christian belief and behavior, regardless of what it "costs" them.

I wouldn't say "no one" is truly a Christian. I know that I'm not one, certainly. But I do know a handful of people (and I don't think they are "crazy") who walk the walk, not just talk the talk. And to me, they ARE truly Christian, because they take their faith very seriously. It is not a cultural thing, not a social thing... it is THEIR LIFE. They are not hypocrites, but they are also not extremists. And I can respect that, much more than people who claim to be Christian but are unwilling to make all the lifestyle sacrifices that are required to truly imitate Christ.

Word. You've summarized perhaps the biggest reason I walked away from it all... the moral superiority factor.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Ustwo

If being a good Christian means being a homeless, childless, vagabond giving away bibles as he wanders around aimlessly, I'm happy I no longer consider myself a Christian.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

Ustwo, You assume I was refering to you, I really wasnt......

BTW, I suppose you could consider Jesus a homeless, childless, vagabond, who wandered and preached the Good News. If He had any Bibles I'm sure he would have given them away......


Between George W. Bush, who claims to be a Christian, and the man in the story, who seems to be a true Christian???

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Ustwo

Actually I didn't, but I found your story more pathetically sad then the inspiring tale it was intended to be. A very young man works on setting up a tent for a revival, and gets so moved he spends his life as a bum, for 14 years, spreading the word. It seems like a mental illness to me, and thats not even approaching it as an atheist.

Yes, he was, good for him.

Every president has 'blood' on their hands, with men dying at their orders, and they all 'claimed' to be Christians. If everyone in the country acted like our vagabond friend, we would no longer exist as a nation, and be someones political bitch (who's would just depend on when this conversion to vagabond Christiandom happened).

This does highlight a thought I've had for a long time though. Christianity taken literally, makes you a good loser, but still a loser. The feeling you get is you should be embarrassed about your strengths. Luckily for us in the West, it wasn't really taken seriously, I'd much rather be a member of the conquerors than the conquered.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

abaya

C'mon, don'tcha wanna be a loser for Jesus? (I am sure someone has said this to me before... we were all very proud of being "Jesus Freaks," thank you DC Talk).

Yeah, this has always bugged me, too. Technically, you aren't supposed to be embarrassed by your strengths, but are supposed to "give them up to God" for his glory and use, etc. Basically, one is called to abnegate oneself for the glory of God, and in so doing, receive your "true self" as a child of God. I went with it for a long time, but then, like everything else, it stopped making sense, and I hardly even recognized what was my core self anymore.

Religion is a hell of a drug.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

DaveOrion

I didn't intend it to be anything more than a just a story. Different people will take it different ways.

We agree, wow.......

Once again you assume way to much. Everybody wont have the same calling.

Yes Indeed, God forbid we ever give up out barbaric ways and live in peace.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Ustwo

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

abaya

Hey, aren't sheep vegetarians, anyway?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

DaveOrion

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." - Jesus Christ


Gospel of Matthew 5:3-10

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

abaya

Dave, what does all that mean to you, personally?

How does it affect your daily decisions?

What does "righteousness" mean to you?

/sincerely interested.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

roachboy

i dont have much use for christianity in general, but this is just stupid.

it shows no knowledge of either the traditions associated with christianity or of the social geography of the various strands in anything like real time.
what it seems to me like is a half-baked attempt to say that it is a good thing that no=one follows the message of the gospels, because doing so would make the accumulation of cash and commodities into a problem and we dont want that o no we dont want that. because if you think that way, you end up here:


which is a location deep in the heart of a jungle on one-dimensional stereotypes that i dont think is accessible for most folk, unless there is some procedure for paying admission and going on rides inside of ustwo's skull.
because it is only there that anyone can imagine that tradition that includes augustine, aquinas, william of ockham, pascal---one that kant leaned on, that hegel leaned on--one that includes a huge range and economic and/or social geographies--can be reduced to the above.

i dont quite understand how it follows from dismissing a religion (with good reason to my mind) that one can just say anything one wants, no matter how ridiculous.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Jinn

I like this. I'm stealing it.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

filtherton

I always find it kind of odd when anyone coming from a contemporary christian perspective claims that you can't "pick and choose" when it comes to religion. I mean, it makes sense i light of the fact that they're most likely coming from moderately repressive religious belief structure- they almost have to have this perspective, why else would they willingly expose themselves to such drivel unless it was the only true way to salvation?

The interesting part is that a cursory examination of religious history is all it would take to reveal to these folks that their particular form of christianity is the result of picking and choosing as well. Unless their particular denomination predated the reformation and hasn't changed since- which is pretty unlikely.

It's this odd phenomena of people whose religious beliefs are based on arbitrary interpretations of religious media who scoff and raise their noses at other folks whose religious beliefs are based on different arbitrary interpretations of the same religious media based on the fact that the people who don't think like them are basing their religious beliefs on arbitrary interpretations of religious media; it betrays a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Especially because differences in religious perspective most likely aren't a simple matter of picking and choosing, they often result from looking critically at the information and trying to make sense of it and coming to a different conclusion than someone else. Anyone who thinks christianity is necessarily a rigid, unchanging thing should stop talking only to fundamentalists about it. There are plenty of christians who accept the existence of jesus, but go it alone as far as reading and interpreting particular religious texts and it's only natural that they should come to different conclusions based on what they've experienced. I have a hard time understanding how this is such a difficult thing to comprehend, other than to modify an old saying; it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his eternal salvation or his smug sense of self righteousness require that he not understand it.

abaya

Your post is a bit vague; I can't tell if you are replying to my post, or to someone else who mentioned picking and choosing, or just people in general?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

SecretMethod70

You're generally correct, but you say it like it's a bad thing. Just because an idea is older doesn't make it better, or worse. Interpretations change over time, and this is where historical studies play a huge role in theology - and why I think any theology that doesn't work hard to take what we know of history into account is not one worth paying attention to.

Let's start with Satan. Just what is he? Well, first of all, "Satan" has many names in the bible, particularly in the old testament. Early Judaism was pantheistic and a lot of the personae that are now mixed in as different names for "Satan," such as Beelzebub or Ba'al, were actually the gods of their enemies. This was at a time when the Hebrew people believed not only in their god, but in the gods of others as well, and as a people constantly put down upon by others, it was important to assert that their god was more powerful than all the others. Eventually, Judaism become monotheistic and all these personae got mixed together as one source of evil. So what is Satan? Well, if you take out the other personae, he's pretty much what you see in Job. Which isn't a very good answer in and of itself, because in Job he essentially works for god. His name means "the accuser" and he is presented as one of the heavenly beings. He's essentially god's district attorney. So, either god and Satan can time travel (a not unreasonable assumption for metaphysical beings, but an assumption nonetheless, not to mention it creates a bit of a feedback loop ), or Satan is not the "serpent" - and, indeed, the bible never says that the serpent and Satan are one-in-the-same. It is an assumption made by most Christians. The point is, when you actually look at it, with historical context and with careful consideration of the meaning of the words used, it is difficult to find any one thread of evil throughout the old testament. Satan, as we know of the concept, is really a new testament construct. No doubt that the majority of people at the time believed in the concept of Satan as an actual person, but that doesn't mean the concept can't change as times change. More on this in my response to abaya....

There's no question about it: different Christian denominations have standards regarding what they consider Christian. That is yet more support for the idea that there is no solid rule though. For one thing, are Catholics not Christian because some Protestants say they aren't? Where is the Great Christian Council on Standards that decides what these standards are? In the absence of such a council, we must go with what all Christian denominations have in common. Which would seem to indicate that you're correct in stating, at the very least, that to be Christian one must believe that Jesus was a) divine, b) crucified and c) rose from the dead to redeem humanity.

It would seem that way, but it wouldn't be true.

We seem, in general, to be fans of saying "this is a new interpretation, so it is less valid" (see UsTwo's criticism of the concept of Hell as a state of being rather than place). The problem is, Jesus as divine is also in a way a new interpretation, and as I mentioned earlier, so is Jesus as being resurrected. I've always found it very interesting that the most amazing and important part of the entire Jesus story was left out of the earliest gospel. If Jesus was resurrected, and if that resurrection is at the core of all Christianity, why in the world would Mark leave it out? It simply makes no sense. And was Jesus divine? Was he the son of god? Was he god? Well, that's something that Christians debated about for centuries. Not to mention that if we accept the Jewish roots of Christianity, the messiah is not to be divine, but a person. Sure, there was a "winning" team that makes up the majority of Christianity today, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were right. And, more importantly, it certainly means that we can't use the argument that worshiping/following Jesus in a non-divine manner is a "new" interpretation or somehow less Christian. Just like Catholics don't fall under some Protestant "standards" for Christianity, these other Christians simply don't fall under the standards of the dominant group.

That so many people today call themselves Christian who hold beliefs most official Christian denominations wouldn't accept is not particularly new. Christianity has always been extremely varied, and perhaps even moreso early on when compared to now. At least now, we don't have Christians who believe that the Hebrew god is essentially a malevolent creator god (the demiurge) along with all the other very different beliefs of Gnostic Christians.

So...what is a Christian? I think the answer lies in the word itself. Christ simply means "The Anointed One." I'll start out with one assumption: to be Christian one must be referring, in some way, to Jesus. That's based entirely on the simple fact that people understand "Christian" to relate to Jesus, but the word doesn't actually require it. So, Jesus is anointed, and perhaps we can even mix being a messiah in there. What being a messiah means on the other hand is subject to interpretation. Clearly, Christians are not totally beholden to the Jewish concept of messiah, since the majority consider Jesus to be divine. In short, to be Christian, it seems to me that one must simply believe the teachings of Jesus are an important part of leading a better life and being redeemed from....something. One must not necessarily believe that that redemption is from original sin, nor must one believe that Jesus is the only anointed one whose teachings are important in such an endeavor.

Religion is and always has been heavily influenced by culture. In fact, it's probably more accurate to state that religion is an extension of culture. This is why there are so many variations of so many religions...Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, even the beliefs of ancient Greeks and Romans. I read an article recently in What is Enlightenment? magazine called "The Death of the Mythic God." It made a point which I have thought myself for some time (though obviously in less educated terms than the former Catholic monk being interviewed), that we are currently in a transition period thanks to our greater scientific understanding, from understanding god as a person somewhere to a new understanding of god. This transition started quite some time ago as religious people like the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin worked to resolve what he saw as a paleontologist (evidence of evolution) with the religious teachings of his time. He was initially shunned, but over time he has become more and more respected, if not for his specific methods of resolution then for having the courage to work towards such a resolution. It will likely take hundreds of years before the "mythic god" is in humanity's spiritual past...but it is coming. Most of us are hard-wired for some sort of spirituality, but we're not hard-wired to ignore reality in order to appease those spiritual beliefs.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Ustwo

You know whats more stupid? Not following a thread based on what I was responding to, which was Dave's little story as the 'only' Christian. Try reading it on context instead of doing your usual.

Oh and I have reported your post, maybe a moderator can fix it.

SecretMethod70 - I suppose what worries me a bit in this would be as our collective vision of god 'evolves' are we just forming a new version to keep us happy with modern sensibilities? The concept of an evolving god doesn't sit well with me, nor does our concept that we are gaining a greater understanding as time progresses. The first makes god a fuzzy being that has been around forever yet changes his stances in only a hundred years. The second allows for people to change god to what they feel it should be.

Back when I was young enough that I was still stuck going to church now and then, but old enough that I was an atheist for a while a priest said something I agreed with, and always felt was true. His sermon was that you couldn't pick and choose from your religion, either you had faith or you didn't and when you start to pick and choose based on what you like and dislike you are no longer following the religion. To me this always seemed self evident.

So if the new testament talks about fire and brimstone, pretty clearly, and someone says 'its a metaphor for being separated from god' I might LIKE his idea better, but we are talking about the apostles here, not the gospel of John Doe 19:73.

I know this one is firmly in the opinion realm, but thats just my thought on it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.