Christianity in your mind's eye

[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:

Take mainstream Catholic teaching, remove Mary, mother of God stuff, remove Papal authority. That's my working assumption of what Christianity is

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'?

[William]

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.

On the contrary. it is in a collection of books which say's that God is Spirit, and has mention of things such as fruit which are used in analogies to do with Spiritual practices.

Not sure which religion you are getting your info from, but one is best to check it out before passing it on as legitimate...

[brunumb]

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.

On the contrary. it is in a collection of books which say's that God is Spirit, and has mention of things such as fruit which are used in analogies to do with Spiritual practices.

Not sure which religion you are getting your info from, but one is best to check it out before passing it on as legitimate...

And despite all that 'be fruitful' simply means produce lots of fruit. Perhaps you could add up the letter values and double check that for us.

[cms]

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.

Brunumb, what kind of fruit do you think they were supposed to produce?
Apparently, Adam and Eve weren't very fruitful, neither were the people in Noah's day. Many in Israel couldn't seem to get the job done either. Isaiah 5: "He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes." "Every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

[brunumb]

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.

Brunumb, what kind of fruit do you think they were supposed to produce?
Apparently, Adam and Eve weren't very fruitful, neither were the people in Noah's day. Many in Israel couldn't seem to get the job done either. Isaiah 5: "He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes." "Every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

Huh? People! Produce lots of people! Adam and Eve were to multiply, that is, produce people, not grapes. Good grief.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #92]

And despite all that 'be fruitful' simply means produce lots of fruit.

It surely does if one is talking to fruit trees.

Perhaps you could add up the letter values and double check that for us.

Sure. Which words strings do you suggest.

You do know that you can do this for yourself , right?

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #94]

Huh? People! Produce lots of people! Adam and Eve were to multiply, that is, produce people, not grapes. Good grief.

I think in this case, 'grapes' is short for "Great Apes".

You're welcome...

[historia]

If you are using the term 'Christianity' in a way that runs completely contrary to the Encyclopedia Britannica, then other people are going to find your idiosyncratic description confusing. That doesn't facilitate better discussion on a forum like this.

If Encyclopedia Britannica already answered the question (even in a general sense), then why are we having the debate?

Because some people on this site take a different approach. Instead of looking at Christianity from an historical point of view, they picture Christianity purely through the lens of their own person experiences or an idealized conception of what they want it to be.

But I get your point, and if this is a debate about religion, in the sense of the various social institutions proliferating throughout history and grouped under the banner 'Christian', then by all means.

That is, indeed, the whole point of the thread. Some here have tried to make this a discussion about who is a 'true' Christian or what is 'true' Christianity, but that idea is wholly foreign to the questions posed in the OP.

But we need to separate out those institutions from the most original articulations of the church (/body of Christ). As idiosyncratic as it may be, they are the best approximation we have for the teachings of Jesus Christ

If folks here were engaging in a thorough historical analysis of the primitive Christian community -- say, along the line of present-day historical Jesus research -- to recover what the movement was like in the early part of the first century, I could better appreciate this point.

But they aren't. All I see is a few people cherry-picking some sayings of Jesus out of the New Testament, treating those as platitudes, and then declaring that to be 'Christianity'.

and therefore what the Christian church ought to be

I simply don't share your assumption that the earliest expression of Christianity is what the Christian Church 'ought' to be today. That may be an easy assumption for a Baptist or Christian restorationist to make, but, frankly, I find that whole approach deeply misguided.

[theophile]

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.

At the very least, the law was designed for a sinful humanity. We are under the law because we are slaves to sin. It was a corrective. Just like love is. To bring us back to God and to grace.

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'm aligned with this general trajectory. Love remains a tricky concept for me -- a spiraling logic around the mantra 'love life' and what word(s) to emphasize there and if it even matters. Put otherwise, while love may be the means, I don't think it is the end, which would be a state of grace.

And we can debate the 613 and Jesus' hostility towards them. He does say that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. That's why I like suggesting a deconstructive (versus hostile) attitude. He renders the law inactive - not by destroying it but by loosening / opening it up to its true intention - be it love or grace - so that it can be fulfilled. (Which I know you agreed with already, so I don't think we're far off here.)

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?'

Not really. More food for thought and something that gets me thinking (back to that spiral logic I mentioned). To your other questions:

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.

If there is any attachment whatsoever to what is withheld, then yes, I think there is a problem. It means we haven't entered into the more radical economy of the kingdom where everything is freely given (and grace abounds).

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?

I don't know if money has a place in the kingdom. It's a system of exchange, which is the exact opposite of what it means to be under grace. And while I'm not an economist, I believe even our money/exchange-based economy requires flow. The only reason (IMO) we store up cash is to safeguard the future (mostly our own future). In the radical economy of the kingdom I think the idea would be to let it all flow to where it's needed now. No holding it in a bank account for the future, including future investments we want to make.

I see your suggestion giving us an excuse to hold back and amass. It's an easy road back to sin (and being under the law) versus the path to grace.

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?

The law doesn't command every cent be handed over, does it? I would think of it more as grace needing every cent to flow freely, so that there can be grace for all who need it.

A genuine relationship with The Creator, is worth so much more than a relationship with a religious artifact, wouldn't you agree?

Sure. But that doesn't mean an artifact can't be our best access to God (while idolatry is always possible, so too is the iconic).

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.

100%. Hence we need to invest it all today and save nothing for tomorrow.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to historia in post #97]

That is, indeed, the whole point of the thread. Some here have tried to make this a discussion about who is a 'true' Christian or what is 'true' Christianity, but that idea is wholly foreign to the questions posed in the OP.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you, but isn't that what you are doing (with regard to the bold and underlined), when you say that we should be picturing the RCC or Eastern Orthodox when we think of "Christianity"? You have outlined your reasons for why you think we should be doing this, but isn't that what others have done as well for what they think is "Christianity"?

**

"Christianity" (the religion, not the faith in Christ), is the whole thing... the whole kit and kaboodle. Every sect, new or old. They are all a part of the religion that calls itself "Christianity". That doesn't make ANY of it true (there is no such thing as the 'true religion'; all religion contains a mixture of truth and lies, iron and clay; there is only the One who is the Truth, who has the words of eternal life and to whom we are to come, and to listen).




Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #98]

Sure. But that doesn't mean an artifact can't be our best access to God (while idolatry is always possible, so too is the iconic).

Let us not idolize something by referring to it as such.

Rather, it is one of many ways in which 'access to God' is potentially achieved.

Hence we need to invest it all today and save nothing for tomorrow.

That may be true re eating daily, but in terms of long-term investment in a Creation which is unfolding, it is untrue.

There are extinct tribes of humans who are extinct because they either did not invest in their future or simply were unable to do so because of some natural circumstance which prevented them from doing so.