Christianity in your mind's eye

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2597
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #1

Post by historia »

Christianity is one of the world's largest and most diverse religious traditions.

And yet, for brevity's sake, it's convenient to make reference to 'Christianity' or 'Christians' on this forum without having to reel off a litany of qualifiers about which particular churches, beliefs, and practices we are describing. But do we all have the same thing in mind when we do this?

Consider these comments from a couple of our friendly neighborhood atheists:
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:38 am
Take mainstream Catholic teaching, remove Mary, mother of God stuff, remove Papal authority. That's my working assumption of what Christianity is
Difflugia wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:44 am
As far as I'm concerned, anyone that says they're Christian is Christian, but pretending that the Catholics are anything but the standard for orthodoxy is chutzpah.
Questions for debate:

When making reference to 'Christianity' in general terms, should we all have in mind Roman Catholicism (or something close to that)?

Is that, in fact, the expression of Christianity you have in your mind when you personally use the term 'Christianity'?

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #81

Post by theophile »

Tcg wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:06 pm
theophile wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:10 pm
Tcg wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 3:47 pm
theophile wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 3:33 pm Many will say they are Christian, but I think those numbers would quickly dwindle once put to any real test.
Nah, it's astonishingly easy to be a Christian. All one has to do is follow what they believe to be the teachings of Jesus Christ. It matters not what they conclude to be the teachings of Jesus as a consensus on this matter has never been reached. It is so easy to be a Christian that there are roughly 2.5 billion of them. So much for the narrow gate. It's the widest gate in the world.


Tcg
I wonder, if I was to consider the full population who believes they know what science says, would we not get to the same result?... Let's cut through all the crap that's out there. Even in this domain, while there is a lot of crap, there are also professional academics, a historical dialectic (call it progress or not), and rules that should be followed. Like, primary sources should be prioritized. Interpretations should be checked against original source language. Interpretations should not have inner conflicts. Interpretations with the highest explanatory power should be preferred...

I'm not saying it will eliminate all variation and produce a winner, but it will eliminate a lot of the crap.
I have no idea how any of this addresses my reply. Perhaps it wasn't meant to. I addressed Christianity. You didn't.


Tcg
Well, there wasn't much to reply to :)

If you want a more direct response:

You made an argument from consensus, as if consensus is a requirement (says who).
You assumed that membership in a church is all that it takes (says who).

In terms of my prior response, I thought that using science as an analogy may help. i.e., Science has a similar pattern to it: there is a lack of consensus and wide range of belief amongst those who believe they know it. But science also has a professional core, which still lacks consensus (that being somewhat the point, right?). And this professional core, or more precisely its results, is what we're really talking about when we talk about 'science'.

i.e., we aren't talking about the uncritical mass out there who claims to know it but is only spouting garbage about it.

So why do we not use the same standard here? There is a professional academic core that studies biblical theology, Christian religions, etc. They follow rules (like peer review). There isn't consensus but it's far less of a mess than your glib response makes out where basically anyone can believe what they want.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #82

Post by theophile »

cms wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:00 am
theophile wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 3:33 pm . I avoid doing because it's too hard!
Theophile, I think William is correct in asking if you are interpreting biblical Jesus correctly regarding the lofty position he expects one to be at.
Matthew 19:23
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

What exactly am I misinterpreting here?

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #83

Post by theophile »

William wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:14 pm
I may be oversimplifying your point here, but sure, I can 100% put more meat on the bones of what it means to be in the Spirit. I've purposefully avoided that to keep posts simple and more on point. Does it mean "One Love"? Maybe. I tend to think that this is Jesus' way of simplifying the law, but that a Christian is no longer under the law but grace. Hence I don't love it as an answer.
You don't understand it as an appropriate answer?

Have you thought about flipping it on its head and viewing the answer as one which does not require an individual reach for the unattainable but rather for the possible to perform/act/do?

It seems to me that by placing an unreachable standard onto 'being a true Christian" one is defeated already...unless one is special and blessed with the perfection necessary to get to and maintain such a position.

But are you interpreting biblical Jesus correctly regarding this lofty position he 'expects' one to be at?
I'm focusing on the words written down. I don't like 'love' as the answer because I don't think it captures what Jesus is really saying. Or, more precisely, I think he's saying two things, and we have to tread carefully.

On the one hand, he is saying that the law can be boiled down to just one: love. He says this for those who want to stick with the law (or in the context of his answer, for those who want to know which law is greatest). But again, Christians are no longer under the law. They are under grace. So this is Jesus' way of making it easier for them, and loosening the strictures of the law to make more room in it for grace. But it's still the law, which is my point.

We see this emphasized in Matthew 19, in Jesus' teaching about the rich man. The rich man already follows the law perfectly! (Including, presumably, the greatest commandment - love). But Jesus is explicit: this is still not enough for him to enter into the kingdom. To do so, to truly live under grace, he needs to give away all that he has and go follow Jesus.

It's not a personal struggle I have or anything like that. It's just the words written down...
William wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:14 pm
(Per the implied reference to Matthew 19 above, the rich man who Jesus makes the comment about keeps all the laws - his problem, and the real challenge, is taking the next step and living under grace.)
His problem is that he cannot see logic in practicing Philanthropies as Jesus quickly reveals this particular rich mans aversion to such practice...the rich man may be genuine in his religious practices but if those practices do not reflect goodness back into the community he is enriched by, then those practices are of no value to either the rich man or the community. Lose/lose.
It's not a matter of giving to charity and what you say here. It's a matter of giving everything to charity, leaving your life behind, and following Jesus. (That's what Jesus says, anyways.)
William wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:14 pm
To be clear, I'm not using other people's hypocrisy to avoid doing. I avoid doing because it's too hard!
What is hard about Love?
Well, if we want to focus on love, it's not natural for us to help a stranger, let alone an enemy. So at the very least, need to overcome that. Good Samaritan story makes that point, as does much anecdotal evidence from life.
William wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:14 pm
Many will say they are Christian, but I think those numbers would quickly dwindle once put to any real test.
We don't have to say we are 'this' or 'that' in order to put practice to Love.

That is the truth.
I agree. One of my points from the beginning is that the true mark of a Christian cuts across such divides. An atheist may be more worthy of the name than, say, a card-carrying Catholic.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #84

Post by William »

[Replying to theophile in post #83]
I'm focusing on the words written down. I don't like 'love' as the answer because I don't think it captures what Jesus is really saying. Or, more precisely, I think he's saying two things, and we have to tread carefully.
Okay...
We see this emphasized in Matthew 19, in Jesus' teaching about the rich man. The rich man already follows the law perfectly! (Including, presumably, the greatest commandment - love). But Jesus is explicit: this is still not enough for him to enter into the kingdom. To do so, to truly live under grace, he needs to give away all that he has and go follow Jesus.

It's not a personal struggle I have or anything like that. It's just the words written down...
Words written down are one thing.
Interpretation of words written down are another.

As I pointed out, the story of the rich pious man revealed the mans inner attitude which did not align with his outer pious actions - thus presumption we might have re the mans outward actions based upon what we observe the man doing, is incorrect.
It is safer to presume from the story that the man did not operate sufficiently with love - either for his God or for his fellow human beings.

The man made a claim. He 'did all the things required of him' but biblical Jesus saw through the pretense and got to the point.
It's not a matter of giving to charity and what you say here. It's a matter of giving everything to charity, leaving your life behind, and following Jesus. (That's what Jesus says, anyways.)
Yes - this is because of the time and place. The start of a movement.

In today's world centuries on, it would be impractical of a rich man to give his riches away to the poor and become poor himself. That is a bad investment which will not solve anything.
Rather, it would be more practical to invest a good deal of the wealth into the community while retaining some of that wealth in order to be able to continue practicing Philanthropy.
It has been and continues to be a problem when people take something specifically intended for the individual [in this case the rich man in the story] and attempt to apply that as something everyone should do, because biblical Jesus commanded it that way.

A world full of poor people does not solve the worlds problems.

Also - it adds a judgement against those today who do practice Philanthropy - being thought of as not worthy of The Fathers Kingdom because they kept some of their wealth instead of giving every last penny away. They are thought of as unworthy and therefore their giving as inconsequential/in vain/pointless.
What is hard about Love?
Well, if we want to focus on love, it's not natural for us to help a stranger, let alone an enemy. So at the very least, need to overcome that. Good Samaritan story makes that point, as does much anecdotal evidence from life.
So are we to allow ourselves to remain 'naturally selfish' in regard to 'strangers' or do what is humanly possible by rising above that mundane aspect of nature?

For we do know that love of non-strangers is possible, therefore it is potentially possible to use the same love extended to strangers.

Of course, we have to be aware that there are those who look to take advantage of such folk - so love also has to do with something which is not gullible and which is able to decern.

This is where being under the law branches off into religion.

One is given 10 laws - these are layered upon and become 613 laws...Whereas Jesus simplified what the 10 laws signified - essentially taking the opposite approach that religion takes.
The 10 became 2 and the two are really only the one, for if the one law was adhered to, "Love for God" would translate into every aspect of the individuals life.
I agree. One of my points from the beginning is that the true mark of a Christian cuts across such divides. An atheist may be more worthy of the name than, say, a card-carrying Catholic.
From my own experiences with non-theists - because they do not have any regard for the fairy-tale of God, I think that unlikely.

I do have friends who are not religious, and might even call themselves 'atheists' but their loving actions - I suspect - are provoked by an unconscious connection with the invisible reality oft referred to as 'God' by theists...I hear it in their language as they speak theistic-based ideas without fully realizing/acknowledging that this is what they are doing.

They do this because they have an aversion to religiosity which they regard as fake and shallow, and equate 'God' alongside that, so avoid thinking their own goodness is perhaps prompted by some invisible but real entity which could be referred to as 'God'.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #85

Post by theophile »

William wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:32 am As I pointed out, the story of the rich pious man revealed the mans inner attitude which did not align with his outer pious actions - thus presumption we might have re the mans outward actions based upon what we observe the man doing, is incorrect.
It is safer to presume from the story that the man did not operate sufficiently with love - either for his God or for his fellow human beings.
I understand. Perhaps our debate would be better focused around the question: is living according to love the same as living under grace?

It may very well be. Like I said, I do think Jesus uses love to open the law up to grace. To deconstruct it almost, or to open it up to its true intention.

Also, you could have stopped me in my tracks with Paul's ode to love in 1 Corinthians 13: "If I give all I possess to the poor...but have not love, I gain nothing."

Not necessarily a shut case, but an interesting verse (and chapter) to add to the conversation.
William wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:32 am
It's not a matter of giving to charity and what you say here. It's a matter of giving everything to charity, leaving your life behind, and following Jesus. (That's what Jesus says, anyways.)
Yes - this is because of the time and place. The start of a movement.

In today's world centuries on, it would be impractical of a rich man to give his riches away to the poor and become poor himself. That is a bad investment which will not solve anything.
Rather, it would be more practical to invest a good deal of the wealth into the community while retaining some of that wealth in order to be able to continue practicing Philanthropy.
It has been and continues to be a problem when people take something specifically intended for the individual [in this case the rich man in the story] and attempt to apply that as something everyone should do, because biblical Jesus commanded it that way.

A world full of poor people does not solve the worlds problems.
This has completely left interpretation behind and entered the realm of fabrication :)

Any scriptures to back it up?

I tend to think that there is a far more subversive and radical 'economy' at play in the Kingdom than you lay out here (which I take to be some sort of beneficent capitalism). One that requires a radical trust in the world (/God) to provide.

I see no trust in this view.
William wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:32 am
What is hard about Love?
Well, if we want to focus on love, it's not natural for us to help a stranger, let alone an enemy. So at the very least, need to overcome that. Good Samaritan story makes that point, as does much anecdotal evidence from life.
So are we to allow ourselves to remain 'naturally selfish' in regard to 'strangers' or do what is humanly possible by rising above that mundane aspect of nature?
The question was what is hard about love, not whether we should pursue it nonetheless. Again, just because I personally fall short, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #86

Post by William »

[Replying to theophile in post #85]
I understand. Perhaps our debate would be better focused around the question: is living according to love the same as living under grace?
It is in terms of the law, if indeed the law was originally designed to teach humans how to love.

Given that the 10 became the 613 - and historical Jesus entering the scene where {I assume] the 613 were in operation as religious inserts biblical Jesus fosters a type of hostility for religious practices based upon those inserts...as if humans have interpreted the 10 with their own faulty reasoning.

Biblical Jesus sets the record straight - by saying not only are the 613 off the mark regarding an individuals relationship with The Father, but the 10 which triggered the invention of the 613 need to be reduced to the 3,2,1.

Which is strongly suggestive of we having to see things the other way - and it is by grace that this is accomplished...because grace lifts the otherwise impossible burden which religiosity has imposed upon the individual seeking sustained connection/communion with The Creator.
I do think Jesus uses love to open the law up to grace. To deconstruct it almost, or to open it up to its true intention.
I agree.
Also, you could have stopped me in my tracks with Paul's ode to love in 1 Corinthians 13: "If I give all I possess to the poor...but have not love, I gain nothing."
Does Paul's saying 'stop you in your tracks?'

Can Paul's saying be seen in the practice of modern day Philanthropy? Or would he have a problem with the rich NOT giving away every cent and becoming poor.
Is it possible that genuine giving while keeping oneself rich enough in money to be able to continue the practice throughout ones lifetime, is in keeping with grace and love?
Is such a person practicing this kind of giving because they are not under the law which would command every last cent must be handed over?
This has completely left interpretation behind and entered the realm of fabrication :)

Any scriptures to back it up?
Such a question as you have asked, is a sign that one is still under the law. "The Law" in this case, is the religiosity invoking the belief that all scripture must be taken literally [in this case - what biblical Jesus said to one individual] and forcing through the law - that all people are expected to do the same, because "Jesus commanded it" of one person - or 12 people - or thousands of people at the beginning of the movement.

I see that my interpretation is not 'under the law' in regard to that argument you present but that does not mean I am incorrect.

Scripture itself isn't about law but grace. In that, it inspires those under grace to renounce religiosity in order to experience a genuine relationship with The Father.

A genuine relationship with The Creator, is worth so much more than a relationship with a religious artifact, wouldn't you agree?
I tend to think that there is a far more subversive and radical 'economy' at play in the Kingdom than you lay out here (which I take to be some sort of beneficent capitalism). One that requires a radical trust in the world (/God) to provide.

I see no trust in this view.
My tendency is to see the potential for human beings to build the Kingdom of God on the planet, using what devices we have in order to do so.
My preference is to see this potential become a reality rather than have to witness Jesus' return 'in all his glory' and get about commanding humans to build said Kingdom [or however he would go about it] because - even given it may be better than letting human beings become extinct at their own hand - it would clearly show that humanity failed to realize its own potential and didn't mature enough to be able to do it for themselves.

Meantime, since Jesus hasn't returned yet, there is work to do for those who want to do it. Not trusting that view, means the work won't get done by those not trusting that view.

Balancing out the options available [even if they are in recognition of human potential] seems the wiser move, under the current circumstances.

Importantly - invest in the doing now rather than the faith in later - better to be caught investing in The Kingdom here on Earth if/when Jesus returns, than to be under the law which prevents one from doing.

Isn't that part of your complaint? There is not enough 'doing' going on?
So why point to the scriptures and imply that the scriptures themselves do not condone any actual doing of the sort of doing I am shining a light on?
So are we to allow ourselves to remain 'naturally selfish' in regard to 'strangers' or do what is humanly possible by rising above that mundane aspect of nature?
The question was what is hard about love, not whether we should pursue it nonetheless. Again, just because I personally fall short, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
That is encouraging to read. For a moment there I was under the impression that you felt that since it was in your too hard basket, that it must have to be the same for everyone.

Even so, I would encourage you to meditate upon the idea that what is being asked of us all, is not as complex and out of reach as you appear to believe.

260
The Wholeness Navigator
Is Love that hard to know?
A riddle wrapped up in an enigma

[SOURCE]

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2137 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #87

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to historia in post #1]

Image

Here's one attempt to diagram the complexity that is Christianity. Once again, we see that there is no unified Christianity. In reality, there never has been one.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #88

Post by theophile »

Tcg wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:33 pm [Replying to historia in post #1]

Once again, we see that there is no unified Christianity. In reality, there never has been one.


Tcg
You may have missed it. It's right at the top of your diagram. So we should stop messing about with all the stuff below and focus there, or the closest we have to it: the gospels, epistles, and other books of the NT.

cms

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #89

Post by cms »

theophile wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 am We see this emphasized in Matthew 19, in Jesus' teaching about the rich man. The rich man already follows the law perfectly! (Including, presumably, the greatest commandment - love). But Jesus is explicit: this is still not enough for him to enter into the kingdom. To do so, to truly live under grace, he needs to give away all that he has and go follow Jesus.
Theophile, If I remember correctly, there are 3 accounts to the story. If you read carefully, Jesus doesn't mention all of the Ten Commandments. He leaves some out. So while the rich man admits to keeping these ( I think 6), he doesn't admit to keeping all. Covetousness isn't mentioned, nor is the first, "You shall have no other gods before Me. Money seemed to be the rich man's god. I'm not trying to get technical about it. I'm just pointing out that there might be something to it.
theophile wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 am On the one hand, he is saying that the law can be boiled down to just one: love. He says this for those who want to stick with the law (or in the context of his answer, for those who want to know which law is greatest). But again, Christians are no longer under the law. They are under grace. So this is Jesus' way of making it easier for them, and loosening the strictures of the law to make more room in it for grace. But it's still the law, which is my point.
The original covenant as was given to Moses was the Ten Commandments, nothing more. And as you mentioned, these can be boiled down to one. " Love does no harm to your neighbor ( or yourself). And "If you don't love your brother ( which includes the stranger) then the love of God is not in you."
We are still in keeping with the Law ( the Ten boiled down to one). The one law also contains grace because love of others as self requires forgiveness and mercy.


Christians are still under the still under this Law, yet we aren't because as the NT says, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, mercy, kindness etc.etc., against such things there is no law.

This all brings us back to the beginning, in which God gives the very first commandment. Be fruitful, meaning produce good fruit, that of the Spirit which God gave to man when he breathed into him the breath of life.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

Re: Christianity in your mind's eye

Post #90

Post by brunumb »

cms wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:51 pm Be fruitful, meaning produce good fruit, that of the Spirit which God gave to man when he breathed into him the breath of life.
Be fruitful simply means produce lots of fruit. There is nothing in that that says the fruit must be good or that any spirit is involved.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply