Christianity, as a philosophy and not a religion
 

I am a secular woman and I adhere to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Does this seem unusual? I believe that my views would be the same even if Jesus never existed. I was raised in a secular household, so Christian views weren't pushed on me in any way, though I have studied the religion off and on since I was 11. There are many figures in history that are similar to Jesus: Gandhi, Buddha, etc. Basically, those people who put others above themselves. It is an admirable trait and a very rare one at that.

Unfortunately, Jesus' teachings have been twisted by millions throughout history. I wonder if he realized what an impact he would have on the world. I also am conflicted as to whether or not he truly claimed to be God, or that his Apostles misinterpreted him. Either way, I think his teachings are important for us to learn and keep close at heart.

I agree, His teachings have been twisted and downright raped to one degree or another. His Kingdom, which is not an earthly kingdom, was turned into an organized religion, and corrupted in order to control the masses.

Funny how people still look for God in a church made of wood & stone, they seem to forget where the only real church is........

^Oh, boy. I'd love to hear the rationalization behind this one.

*Grabs a bucket of popcorn*

...I'm guessing you've never heard of the sect of Nazarene, huh?

Hows the popcorn Loser??? And hows the weather down in Lake Mary??? :)

um...which teachings?
i assume that you split the gospels off from the epistles...

what does it mean for you to follow them?

And how does it differ from any other vaguely humanistic philosophy? It's always seemed to me that what makes Jesus' teachings unique are those things that characterize the religion -- sin and grace. Most of the other teachings you could probably learn just as well from Deepak Chopra.

....except Jesus doesn't try to confuse things by bringing in quantum physics.

that's how you can tell jesus and deepak chopra apart, baraka.

Yes, without a firm belief in those (and their impact on your eternal soul--another concept that you have to believe in), Christianity doesn't have anything on other religions. You have to believe in a need for personal redemption--not just in the here and now, but in a very real afterlife--in order to have a need for Jesus.

For me, once I stopped believing in hell, it was all over. Slippery slope, all that jazz. Sure, I was still able to get behind the idea of redemption in the here and now, sin being that which we do to hurt ourselves and each other, grace as in the undeserved forgiveness and acceptance of ourselves and each other after enduring those hurts--but I could no longer make sense of how these principles would apply to an afterlife, as a way of "gatekeeping" some eternal place of glory vs. punishment/separation from God.

So I ceased being able to believe in that kind of sin and grace, and there was no choice but to stop calling myself a Christian. It would not be fair to those who do subscribe to, believe in, and truly live by those principles. I have no patience for hypocrisy in religious individuals, least of all myself. It's all or nothing, to me. There is no room for half-assedness in my understanding of faith.

Humanism as we know it today didn't exist until fairly recently. Jesus of Nazareth preached nearly two millennia ago. Existing in a time and place where ritualism without spirituality as the norm and preaching something entirely different — that deserves some approval. The teachings I adhere to are the ones from the Gospels, not the Epistles (mostly), like you figured. I do consider myself a secular humanist today, in case anyone's curious. It's funny how so many conservatives act like Humanism is Satanism somehow... but that's for another topic.

I would say that many evangelicals consider secular humanism to be "not of the Lord," etc. I don't know if they would go so far as to call it Satanism, but with evangelicalism (and indeed, with most branches of Christianity, if you get down to brass tacks), anything that is NOT inclusive of Jesus Christ is inherently wrong and subject to error. This is due to the whole business of Jesus being "the way, the truth, and the life... no one comes to the Father except through me"... pretty blatant there, there's no way to be redeemed and have eternal life UNLESS you become a Christian. So by that logic, secular humanism (different from Christian Humanism, something I was very interested in for a long time) was a slippery slope away from Jesus, which always means "towards hell." There's no way of getting around that, in the gospels or otherwise.

The thing that I can't get about Christianity is that basically, unless you're explicitly Christian (e.g. have done the salvation prayer, asked Jesus for forgiveness, yadda yadda), YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. No two ways around it. I have never been able to forgive Christianity for this fact, I suppose. Even if you are the most tolerant, open-minded Christian in the world, as long as you know that I have NOT said the salvation prayer, you are going to believe (at some gut level) that I am going to hell. I find that extremely disturbing, now that I have left the fold. What a way to live and interact with your fellow man!

^I don't see why you find it disturbing unless you believe you're going to hell, otherwise you wouldn't care. With that being said, I'm not familiar with too many religions in which you're not subjected to eternal damnation unless you convert. It's not just a "Christian" thing. Who knew? Obviously not you :D

Let me clarify: I don't find the idea of hell disturbing, because indeed, I don't give a rat's ass about it.

What I find disturbing is that when an evangelical Christian interacts with me, the primary thought in their mind (in one way or another) is that "here is an unsaved person," or that I have "rejected my salvation," that I am somehow "wretched," "corrupt," etc. in their minds. It doesn't matter what else I am capable of, or what is going on in my life, etc... all that matters is whether or not they can relate to me (or not) as a fellow person going to heaven. I find it extremely annoying. I much prefer to simply interact as two humans, both doing the best we can, regardless of where we believe we're going (or not) after we die. But Christians are compelled to *worry* about where other people are going when they die. I wish they wouldn't bother, frankly.
I did not say that it was "just" a Christian thing. I, specifically, used to be a Christian, and I walked away from Christianity. If I had formerly been a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or something else, then I would have been walking away from those religions. As it is, I have issues with pretty much all religions, so no, I don't see it is as "just a Christian" thing. But it is the only religion that I have summarily rejected, and it is the topic of this thread, so that is why I couched my post in those terms.

And since you asked, with Buddhism there is no "eternal damnation," and there isn't really even a "conversion." You either live it, or you don't. If I was forced to choose another belief system, I would have to go with that one. Not the pop-culture one that is served up in, say, Theravada Buddhism, however... (which I'm most familiar with from Thai culture), but something more adherent to doctrine.

By the way, what's up with the demeaning attitude here? I'd appreciate it if you toned it down a bit.

I don't know why Infinite_Loser is acting like a jerk here, but I did notice it, Abaya. Loser: Please don't try to make this forum a crappy one where all we have are trolls and flames. There are plenty of those already. BTW, opposite of what you think, you're coming off as the ignorant one here.

He's know for an abrasive style, but as long as he stays in line and discussion continues it's allowed, even if just barely. We keep an eye on people who are known to toe the line and smack them when they try to cross it.

If anyone violates a rule, or you think they did but aren't sure, please report the post and/or PM a moderator. If anyone has problems with another member, we're happy to work with you to resolve them.

Infinite_Loser: I would appreciate if you would tone it down some and consider how you come across to other members. This isn't the first time people have mentioned that your posts are condescending and demeaning.

There are a lot of christians who don't believe in eternal damnation. There are also a lot of christians who are essentially secular.

I think that begs the question of where we cross the line from considering a diluted version of Christianity and where you're dealing with a belief structure that can't really be considered Christian. I won't venture an opinion - I'm now far enough outside of the issue that I can't really comment on it. But surely there's a line somewhere?

I think that where Christianity as a religion and Christianity as a philosophy breaks with one another is how each looks at hell. I think the religiously minded will tend to take the view that our failing to live like Jesus Christ will end in hell, and that is something to fear. The philosophically minded will instead look at the teachings of Jesus and think, "Why would breaking from the teachings of Jesus place us in a state akin to hell? What is it about this morality that is pure and good? What is it about everything else that is impure and evil?" It is like Buddhism, where misery arises out of our straying off the righteous path.

Well, i would imagine the line is drawn depending on how rigidly one clings to one's own sense of dogma. I think that the idea that there is only one way to be a true christian is fairly ridiculous. For it to hold water there would need to be some way for a particular sect to make reasonable claim to being the only true christian sect, a claim which isn't really credible, since even under the umbrella of major denominational classifications there can be a pretty wide spread in terms of belief. The only reason people claim that their way is the one true way is because that's what they think their god wants them to believe, which, you know, doesn't make it true.

It's kind of like if i were to claim that you can only be a true football fan if you acknowledge that walter payton was the best running back in the history of league. Who the fuck am i to define what it means to be a football fan?

Oh, but you will ;) As my grandmother always says, sometimes some people get too big for their britches (a.k.a, you think you know more than you actually do).

Let's see... How can I put this in a delicate manner... It really doesn't matter what you find as annoying. One of the underlying premise of almost any belief system-- Philosophical, social and/or political-- Is to garner as many adherents as possible (I know I've said this before but it gets ignored every single time). You choose not to follow the teachings of Christ, so as far as Christianity is concerned you're wrong and need to be converted. Whether you're a "good" person or not is pretty irrelevent.

Phew... That was a close one, seeing as how I said "all" and/or any other word resembling as much. Ya' know, I'm not the smartest person in the world (Hah! Who am I kidding? Yes, I am) I could have almost sworn-- Almost-- That I said, and I quote, "I'm not familiar with too many religions in which you're not subjected to eternal damnation unless you convert". Yes, yes. I know all about Buddhism, hence what caused me to make my initial statement. I'm not understanding why you seem to love focusing on bits and pieces of what I write out while ignoring the rest. It's, mildly put, annoying >_>

I have no attitude. I'm, as we Southern black folk tend to say, telling it like it is. But if you want me to cop an attitude, then I can :thumbsup:

So does this mean I could start a new brand of atheism which worships Jesus as the son of God and still have it be branded as a true form of as atheism? I'm just wondering because it appears to me this is what you're saying.

Filtherton: can it really be completely relative?

I ask because I have recently heard claims and rejections of the idea that Mormonism is a flavor of Christianity. To me, that seems to be stretching things a bit - I mean, at some point a group could claim to fall under the umbrella, but a reasonable analysis would disagree.

MrSelfDestruct: do you recommend completely ignoring people like Loser, or should we go ahead and trash his poorly-conceived arguments?

Well, you see, those are fighting words. As they say, talk is cheap. If you believe you can then, by all means, go ahead and try to trash my "Poorly-conceived arguments", as you want to call them.

:thumbsup:

No. Regardless of what i'm saying, the definition of atheism still implies a lack of a belief in a diety. The term christianity implies a belief in and following of jesus. That's it, despite what your pastor told you. It doens't mean you have to hate homosexuals, it doesn't mean that interracial marriages are an abomination, it just means that you place a high priority on the worship of the jesus. You can pretend that you're following the only "true" form of christianity, but you'd be full of shit in doing so.


It's completely relative. There are many folks who call themselves christian who would no doubt disagree, but they really have no basis for their disagreement that isn't completely circular. There is no consensus on the "correct" details concerning proper christian belief and there is no objective definition, hence the many different sects that exist. All the baptists and the ucc folk really have in common is that they both believe in christ, but claiming that only one is "truly"
christian isn't really all that compelling because any such claim would necessarily be based on matters of opinion.

Certainly most christians don't think that their christianity isn't the true one, but that should be pretty obvious; why would they? But, if pat robertson can be a good christian, being the greedy, bigoted anti-jesus that he was, well, that doesn't really point of any sort of meaningful definition of christianity, beyond the fact that he professed a belief in and a following of jesus the son of god.

IL argues, like one Stephen Colbert's media personality, from the gut with, to be fair to him, a generally acceptable level (if sometimes of controversial origin) background knowledge to back up what he's saying. If you choose to engage him head on, you're basically going to be arguing for the sake of argument as he's not going to change his mind and he's unlikely to change yours.

It is was it is. If it bothers you to argue for the sake of argument, you might choose to not worry about it, as you see fit.

I think you're a little confused on the point I was making. Regardless of what the definition of atheism says, you've implied that I can be an atheist and still accept the Jesus as the son of God. Never mind the fact that the two are contradictory, admitting to being an atheist is enough to make me an atheist. At least this seems to be the stance you've taken with Christianity. Christian literally means follower of Christ and his teachings, not the worship of Christ. Therefore, if you're not following the teaching of Christ it would stand to reason that you're not a Christian.

*Shrugs*

Or does that mean I can start a new brand of Islam which doesn't adhere to the teaching of Muhammad? lol

Care to explain yourself?

Can we be clear on the fact that this thread is not really about Infinite_Loser?

I argue for the basis of spreading truth, including to the person I am arguing against. I am open-minded; please don't lump me in with someone like that.

If this is accepted truth....then in my opinion there truly are....no Christians.

No, the point you were making was a bit confused.

No, i didn't actually imply that you can be an atheist and still accept jesus as the son of god. The fact that you think this seems to be the stance i've taken on christianity means that you don't understand the stance i've taken on christianity.

Never the less, for you to claim that
doesn't really mean all that much in the context of the current discussion, since there are a whole lot of completely divergent, yet essentially reasonable ways to follow christ and his teachings.

But, i guess you're one of those folks who thinks that there is only one correct way to "follow" christ and his teachings, which means that you're one of those folks who is wrong. But let me guess, the way that you interpret the teachings of christ is the correct one, and anyone who interprets them differently is wrong, right? So what's your denomination and when was the last time it changed its mind about something jesus-y?

You should start a new brand of christianity that allows interracial marriage.

Isn't there really only one way to be a Christian, in the trans-denominational, core-doctrine sense of the word... to accept Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven as historical fact, and to believe that these actions (Jesus' blood covering your sins, etc) will give you eternal life?

I guess I don't see a whole lot of room to argue with Jesus saying "the only way to the Father is through Me," but maybe I missed something in all my years as an evangelical/Lutheran/Baptist/dabbling Catholic.

Regardless of what someone calls themselves (based on the way they were raised, their dominant culture, etc), anyone who does not believe 100% in the absolute foundation of Christianity cannot, as I see it, be a Christian. Including myself.

I'm surprised no one disagreed with this earlier. It's the biggest assumption you're making, and understandably so - it is at the core of defending your world view.

If you want to critically analyze your beliefs, you should start here. Why do you believe that humanism "as we know it" didn't exist until "fairly recently". This sounds a bit like double-speak, as "as we know it" cannot be defined; we don't have the same knowledge, and "fairly recently" is similarly undefined - is recently 10 years, 50 years, 100 years?

I tend to believe that contemporary humanism is identical to the humanism expressed by cavemen forming civil society, as it is a simple philosophy. Don't do what you don't want done to you, and act altruistically because it serves to benefit the society (and consequently you, if everyone follows it).

The only benefit that Jesus of Nazareth or similar spiritual leaders provided (presuming you don't believe in their divinity) is having it written down. I earnestly believe that humanism predates Christianity, but neither of us can say this conclusively.

That's why I don't understand why Jesus is different for you than any other leader. If we believe the Gospels are truly what Jesus said, then the only thing he has over any other secular humanist is that he has a book written about it. That's not impressive enough for me to 'follow' him as you do.

I recommend at least reading what people have to say. If you choose to ignore what another member says because you consider replying to be "feeding the trolls," that's your prerogative. If you choose to reply in a way that points us toward the truth or highlights important parts of the discussion, you are contributing to the marketplace of ideas and advancing the community.

The only person that comes even close to the truth....IMO. This may be an example of a true Christian....if you've read the New Testament you'll understand why......

I sat, with two friends, in the picture window of a quaint restaurant just off the corner of the town-square. The food and the company were both especially good that day. As we talked, my attention was drawn outside, across the street. There, walking into town was a man, who appeared to be carrying all his worldly goods on his back. He was carrying a well-worn sign that read, "I will work for food."
My heart sank. I brought him to the attention of my friends and noticed that others around us had stopped eating to focus on him. Heads moved in a mixture of sadness and disbelief.
We continued with our meal, but his image lingered in my mind. We finished our meal and went our separate ways. I had errands to do and quickly set out to accomplish them. I glanced toward the town square, looking somewhat halfheartedly for the strange visitor. I was fearful, knowing that seeing him again would call some response. I drove through town and saw nothing of him. I made some purchases at a store and got back in my car.
Deep within me, the Spirit of God kept speaking to me: "Don't go back to the office until you've at least driven once more around the square."
Then with some hesitancy, I headed back into town. As I turned the square's third corner, I saw him. He was standing on the steps of the store front church, going through his sack. I stopped and looked; feeling both compelled to speak to him, yet wanting to drive on.
The empty parking space on the corner seemed to be a sign from God: an invitation to park. I pulled in, got out and approached the town's newest visitor.
"Looking for the pastor?" I asked.
"Not really," he replied, "just resting."
"Have you eaten today?"
"Oh, I ate something early this morning."
"Would you like to have lunch with me?"
"Do you have some work I could do for you?"
"No work," I replied. "I commute here to work from the city, but I would like to take you to lunch."
"Sure," he replied with a smile.
As he began to gather his things, I asked some surface questions. Where you headed?"
"St. Louis." "Where are you from?" "Oh, all over; mostly Florida." "How long you been walking?"
"Fourteen years," came the reply.
I knew I had met someone unusual. We sat across from each other in the same restaurant I had left earlier.
His face was weathered slightly beyond his 38 years. His eyes were dark yet clear, and he spoke with an eloquence and articulation that was startling.
He removed his jacket to reveal a bright red T-shirt that said, "Jesus is The Never Ending Story."
Then Daniel's story began to unfold. He had seen rough times early in life. He'd made some wrong choices and reaped the consequences.
Fourteen years earlier, while backpacking across the country, he had stopped on the beach in Daytona.
He tried to hire on with some men who we're putting up a large tent and some equipment. A concert, he thought.
He was hired, but the tent would not house a concert but revival services, and in those services he saw life more clearly.
He gave his life over to God "Nothing's been the same since," he said, "I felt the Lord telling me to keep walking, and so I did, some 14 years now."
"Ever think of stopping?" I asked.
"Oh, once in a while, when it seems to get the best of me. But God has given me this calling. I give out Bibles. That's what's in my sack. I work to buy food and Bibles, and I give them out when His Spirit leads."
I sat amazed. My homeless friend was not homeless. He was on a mission and lived this way by choice.
The question burned inside for a moment and then I asked: "What's it like?" "What?"
"To walk into a town carrying all your things on your back and to show your sign."
"Oh, it was humiliating at first. People would stare and make comments.
Once someone tossed a piece of half-eaten bread and made a gesture that certainly didn't make me feel welcome. But then it became humbling to realize that God was using me to touch lives and change people's concepts of other folks like me."
My concept was changing, too. We finished our dessert and gathered his things. Just outside the door, he paused. He turned to me and said,
"Come Ye blessed of my Father and inherit the kingdom I've prepared for you.
For when I was hungry you gave me food, when I was thirsty you gave me drink, a stranger and you took me in."
I felt as if we were on holy ground "Could you use another Bible?" I asked.
He said he preferred a certain translation. It traveled well and was not too heavy. It was also his personal favorite. "I've read through it 14 times," he said.
"I'm not sure we've got one of those, but let's stop by our church and see."
I was able to find my new friend a Bible that would do well, and he seemed very grateful.
"Where are you headed from here?" I asked.
"Well, I found this little map on the back of this amusement park coupon."
"Are you hoping to hire on there for a while?"
"No, I just figure I should go there. I figure someone under that star right there needs a Bible, so that's where I'm going next."
He smiled, and the warmth of his spirit radiated the sincerity of his mission.
I drove him back to the town-square where we'd met two hours earlier, and as we drove, it started raining. We parked and unloaded his things.
"Would you sign my autograph book?" he asked. "I like to keep messages from folks I meet."
I wrote in his little book that his commitment to his calling had
touched my life. I encouraged him to stay strong. And I left him with a verse of scripture from Jeremiah,
"I know the plans I have for you, declared the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you; plans to give you a future and a hope"
"Thanks, man," he said. "I know we just met and we're really just strangers, but I love you."
"I know," I said, "I love you, too." "The Lord is good!"
"Yes, He is. How long has it been since someone hugged you?" I asked.
"A long time," he replied.
And so on the busy street corner in the drizzling rain, my new friend and I embraced, and I felt deep inside that I had been changed.
He put his things on his back, smiled his winning smile and said, "See you in the New Jerusalem."
"I'll be there!" was my reply.
He began his journey again. He headed away with his sign dangling from his bedroll and pack of Bibles.
He stopped, turned and said, "When you see something that makes you think of me, will you pray for me?"
"You bet," I shouted back, "God bless." "God bless." And that was the last I saw of him.
Late that evening as I left my office, the wind blew strong. The cold front had settled hard upon the town.
I bundled up and hurried to my car. As I sat back and reached for the emergency brake,
I saw them...a pair of well-worn brown work gloves neatly laid over the length of the handle.
I picked them up and thought of my friend and wondered if his hands would stay warm that night without them.
Then I remembered his words: "If you see something that makes you think of me, will you pray for me?"
Today his gloves lie on my desk in my office. They help me to see the world and its people in a new way, and they help me remember
those two hours with my unique friend and to pray for his ministry. "See you in the New Jerusalem," he said.
Yes, Daniel, I know I will...

I agree with you here, except for your seeming implication that Jesus saying "the only way to the Father is through Me" ncessarily implies the existence of hell.

I think arguments arise when certain folks, for whatever reason, have a difficult time coming to grips with the fact that the word "christian" is a great deal more general than they had previously thought, that they don't have a monopoly on the word.

No, I'm one of those folks who realize that someone isn't a Christian simply because they deem themselves as much. Really, your entire argument boils down to "Who am I to tell someone they're not a Christian?", which is completely faulty. As stated earlier, following that line of thinking I can start a new brand of atheism which acknowledges the existence of a grand diety and you would have to accept it as a logical extension of atheism. As ubertuber said to you earlier, at some point in time an examination of a particular group versus it's parent religion-- In this case Christianity-- Would lead you to believe you're dealing with a bastardized version of Christianity.

Basically, it's like this: Anything which goes contrary to the teachings of Christ is, by definition, not Christian. Any group which rejects the teachings of Christ is also, by deinition, not Christian. It's no simpler to understand than that.

That'd only be necessary if, you know, there was some sort of law inside of Christianity forbidding interracial marriage. Just saying because, well, you know... :)

I suppose I take this as a given, based on previous years spent in the faith. I no longer believe that hell exists, but to be a Christian, I think you pretty much HAVE to believe in hell... why else would you see a need to "accept Jesus?" So we agree, then.

I'm saying that all it takes to be a christian is the desire to follow jesus. You seem to think that i'm saying that all it takes to be a christian is calling oneself a christian.

No, you don't understand what i'm saying. Trying to create a theistic form of atheism is silly and has nothing to do with what i am saying.

Look, let's say that element x is a member of group X because element x satisfies the necessary conditions required for membership in X. If element x does not satisfy the necessary conditions for membership in X, then x is not in X. Not believing in a diety is a necessary condition for being an atheist, it's actually how atheism is defined. All that i'm saying is that the only necessary condition required for a person (element x) to be a member of christianity (group X) is that the person satisfy the necessary condition (a belief in and following of jesus motherfucking christ). Your analogy wouldn't be useless if i were trying to say that there were no necessary conditions for membership into the christian club. That this isn't what i'm saying should have been obvious from the get-go, since i've mentioned it in practically every post i've made in this thread.

Maybe, except that christianity is actually constantly changing, even the literal interpretationist manifestations of it. What denomination are you IL? Did your denomination exist exactly as it does now before the reformation? If not, why would you think that your denomination would pass uber's test? lol

Depending on how literally you interpret the curse of ham, which, i guess would depend on how "real" you keep it as a christian, many nonwhite folks are decendants of canaan, whose skin was darkened and whose future as a slave was sealed when he had the nerve to walk in on his dad while his dad was naked, either that or he fucked his mom, it depends on how you want to interpret it. But that's just what some members of the "parent religion" thought.

That makes sense if you think the only appealing thing about accepting jesus is avoiding eternal damnation.

Ok, I'll break my previous post down so all will understand.....

Matthew 6:24-33, similar to Luke 12: 20-32

How many Christians actually live in this manner??? Not many in this country, planning for the future is a way of life.....
Matthew 19:16-23, similar to, Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25.

On average most Americans would be considered rich by worldly standards.....How many Christians would sell every thing they own and give it to the poor???

Matthew 5:43-48)

How many Christians actually do this???....or this....

Matthew 6:14-15

I could go on but I wont....finally...
Matthew 5:13-16

How many Christians do this???.....none on this board, myself included. So I'm with Tec, all seem to fall short of being true Christians......

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.")

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"

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.......

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.

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."

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.

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... >_>

Will there be pie?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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. :shakehead:

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.:rolleyes:

Hey, aren't sheep vegetarians, anyway? ;)

"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

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

How does it affect your daily decisions?

What does "righteousness" mean to you?

/sincerely interested.

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.

I like this. I'm stealing it.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).