Is Christianity simplistic, ritualistic, and oppresive?

[DanieltheDragon]

#I personally find Islam simplistic, ritualistic and being very familiar with its internal workings oppressive and entirely unappealing

The above from a separate thread tried to highlight a reason for disbelieving Islam. How does this not apply to Christianity?

[Divine Insight]

You are misunderstanding - and most people do misunderstand - which makes myself as being the odd one here.

Exactly. Every theist has convinced themselves that they are the "odd one out" and everyone else has no clue. Perhaps you should meditate on that idea for a while?

So you are correct that religion is not needed or required - but religion can help - and most people do not do it whether they have religion or not.

Of far more importance to Christianity, Jesus is the one who wouldn't be needed.

I would declare that majority rule does matter when it holds people down.

That's fine, but the authors of the Gospels hardly constitute "Majority Rule".

To see our self as a sinner is not the same as seeing our actions as sins or as sinning, because our self is not our actions, so the true or Gospel meaning of repentance means to change our self and then let our actions follow.

But that's ridiculous. For one thing the overwhelming majority of regrets I have in life I did not do (or fail to do) because of malicious intent. In hindsight I can see that I did them due to lack of maturity and experience.

Moreover, if I am now looking back on those things thinking that I wish I had never done them (or failed to do what I now think I should have done) then clearly the *I* that I am now is NOT a sinner! The *I* that I am now would be the person who has come to the realization that things I have done in the past where not so wise.

In fact, I'm not even sure if it qualifies as calling them "sins". The very reason being that they weren't evil deeds done with malicious intent. In fact, I can't recall having ever done anything that could be said to have been done with malicious intent. I don't even play practical jokes on people, much less do something to seriously harm them.

So if malicious intent is required to sin, then I absolutely question whether I have ever actually "sinned" (by that definition of sin)

Almost everything I have ever done that I would consider to have been "bad" was done from ignorance and lack of maturity or experience.

The real kind (or Gospel kind) of repentance might include feeling regret or remorse but it is meant to mean so much more, as in we are to have the regret and remorse about our self, and then to make a determination to stop our self from any more of the wrongdoing and seek to improve our self.

There is no way that I am going to "regret" or "remorse" over the fact that I was once immature and lacking in experience. In fact, when I do start to kick myself for things I've done (or failed to do) in the past, I need to quickly stop kicking myself and acknowledge the fact that back when I did those things, or failed to do them, I was indeed immature and lacking in experience. So blaming myself is absurd in any case.

This idea that we are the person we were when we were immature and inexperienced is nonsense. We change with maturity and experience and therefore become a different person (i.e. a more mature and experienced person). Blaming yourself for what you did before you gained experience and matured is nonsense.

Repentance must also mean to make amends for the past wrongs, because regret and remorse is nothing without some real action to make amends for the past wrong, and when repentance is done correctly then we literally and factually change the past for the better. The future can not be changed but the past is wide open to real change, and that is one of the biggest miracles that the Father gives to humanity, and that miracle is called repentance - the kind of repentance which corrects the past.

Many of the things that I feel remorse over would simply require an apology to other people who might have been adversely affected. This includes apologizing to myself. Of course, there's nothing to apologize for because as I just stated above, the things I did in the past were done due to lack of maturity and experience, NOT due to malicious intent.

On a personal note I consider many of the things I've done in the past to be undesirable and not good (i.e. sins by that definition). I've kicked myself for having done them, and have vowed to to better in the future. That's basically "repentance". Ironically many of the things I feel this way about wouldn't even qualify as "sins" based on the Bible. They are simply things that I wish I would have done differently. None the less there still exists a judgment of them on my part as well as true repentance (i.e. an acknowledgement and true sorrow that I had done them). In fact, many of my regrets or "repentance" have to do with things I never did, rather than things I actually did that I felt were wrong.

Judging anything as "good or bad" is the poisoned knowledge of Genesis 2:17, and it is not the correct way for judging sin.

Ok, let's say I accept this. In that case, I can no longer say whether I have "sinned" in the past or not until you give me a firm criteria for what constitutes as "sin".

Perhaps the things I regret in life were not even sins at all. I can believe that.

Wishing we had done things differently is not repentance = making amends for what we did in the past is the repentance. See Genesis 6:6-7

Well, at this point we need to define precisely what constitute a "sin" before I can figure out what "amends" I would need to make.

Having regrets is normal and natural and so regrets are not the aggressive choice in the real or the Gospel kind repentance.

Fine. But at this point you will need to define precisely what constitutes a sin, as well as precisely what would constitute making amends for those specific sins.

Also, if we are making amends for the sins we have committed then why do we need Jesus? The Jews could have made amends for the sins they committed before Jesus was ever born.

So this doesn't lead toward helping Christianity anyway.

The thing you miss about "salvation" is that Jesus told about a salvation based on the repentance from sin here on earth in this lifetime and not that nonsense of salvation after death.

The real Gospel of Jesus Christ was about salvation through repentance in this evil world in this lifetime and not after death.

But let's face it, this is NOT what the Gospels claim about Jesus Christ at all. To the contrary, they have Christ promising everlasting punishment or offering eternal life.

That is confusing the Bible and the Gospel with Christianity when most of Christianity does not truly align with the Bible or the Gospel.

This is nonsense. Christianity is a religion that is based upon the Christian Gospels and the Christian New Testament.

All you are doing is trying to invent your own personal theological scheme and then erroneously labeling that theology as "Christianity" with no authority to steal that label.

The claims of Christianity about Jesus are mostly just nonsense.

And from whence do you obtain the authority to make that serious charge against Christianity?

Did you personally ever meet Jesus? If not, then how could you know what is true or false about Jesus? All we know about Jesus come from the Christian Gospels.

There are everlasting punishments and rightly so, but there is no everlasting punishing as in continuous punishing forever - certainly not.

And by what authority to you make this proclamation?

Mark 13:6 " For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. "

Yes they are saying that Jesus is the Christ - and then deceive the entire world.

So you chose to not claim to be the Christ and just deceive the entire world anyway in Jesus' name?

Finally,

If our repentance is the key, then what do we need a "Sacrifical Lamb" for?

If our own repentance is how we earn our salvation then we are the ones who are earning our own salvation through our own repentance.

The "Christianity" that you seem to be suggesting would be extremely unorthodox, even with respect to what the authors of the Gospels had to say about it.

In fact, we wouldn't need Jesus at all. You can repent your sins without Jesus in the manner that you have suggested.

This is correct except you need to separate this truth from the nonsense of orthodox Christianity.

The "sacrificial lamb" is an insult to us, as the "sacrificial lamb" is for sinners, and so when we truly and accurately repent then we stop needing the "sacrificial lamb" and we become independent.

It is a horrible disgrace to humanity that Jesus suffers the cross as the "sacrificial lamb" and it is not a reason to rejoice and it is not a doctrine to embrace.

We humans need to repent of the "sacrificial lamb" and the reason humanity still needs the "sacrificial lamb" is because we do not yet repent.

And by what authority do you preach this Christian heresy?

Philippians 2:12 "... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Why would you need to work out your salvation with fear and trembling?

If you are working out your salvation you should be doing it with joy and the peace of mind that you are indeed working out your own salvation.

So the quote in Philippians doesn't match up with your theological ideas anyway.

Yes I am unorthodox, but I am not unorthodox to the correct teachings of the scriptures.

If I had a dollar for every person I met who claimed to hold the correct teachings of the Christian Scriptures I would be as rich as Donald Trump.

And to be clear, every single one of those people made different claims about what the correct teachings of the scriptures supposedly are. So clearly the vast majority of them were necessarily misguided and wrong.

A wise man once said, "Befriend those who seek the truth, and run from those who claim to have it."

[JP Cusick]

Exactly. Every theist has convinced themselves that they are the "odd one out" and everyone else has no clue. Perhaps you should meditate on that idea for a while?

I never find that, and I always find the exact opposite, and I spend a lot of my time searching.

Every Theist has some group or Church that they align with and most Theist find it as an insult for their self to be the odd one out.

I say you are just making up a counter argument here based on nothing real.

It would be just wonderful in my world to find any other Theist (or Christian) who truly did stand alone outside of any group or church.

You stand far deeper into the clicks then I.

Of far more importance to Christianity, Jesus is the one who wouldn't be needed.

If the world or people or Christians were truly doing right then Jesus would not be needed - but the exact opposite is true, that the world does wrong and people do wrong and Christians do wrong and so thereby Jesus is desperately needed to save this ignorant world and everyone in it.

Jesus tells people to repent and then He would not be needed to pay any more for our sins.

As like a parent watching over their immature children, in that when the children do grow up and start living as mature adults - then the parents can relax - and humanity has not matured.

... the overwhelming majority of regrets I have in life I did not do (or fail to do) because of malicious intent.

I do not know where you get the idea of "malicious intent" as a requirement.

I suspect that is just more hang-over from some Christian roots of yours.

When I discovered myself to be a sinner at 25 then I never had any malicious intent in my ignorance or my sins, and the point was that I myself was the problem without any evil intentions.

Malicious intent is legal terminology for criminal prosecution, but it is not a part of the Gospel.

So if malicious intent is required to sin, then I absolutely question whether I have ever actually "sinned" (by that definition of sin)

Again - malicious intent is not a requirement.

And truly malicious intent is so far below sin that it would never ever cross my perspective or intention.

Sin means = falling short and missing the mark - as like in shooting a bow and arrow - we fall short or miss the mark.

To have malicious intent means that person is not even shooting at the target.

When done correctly then sin is a very proactive concept where we judge our self as to whether I miss the mark and do I fall short, and my own judgment is my own conscience.

People who are lost and confused or misguided do not really sin at all, because they are not even shooting at the target.

Almost everything I have ever done that I would consider to have been "bad" was done from ignorance and lack of maturity or experience.

Again - Judging anything as "good or as bad" is the old poisoned knowledge of Genesis 2:17, and it is not the correct way for judging sin.

Just FYI.

This idea that we are the person we were when we were immature and inexperienced is nonsense. We change with maturity and experience and therefore become a different person (i.e. a more mature and experienced person). Blaming yourself for what you did before you gained experience and matured is nonsense.

Taking our own responsibility for our past is not the same as blaming our self for the past.

Seeing our self as a sinner is always applied to the present here-and-now and that continues onward and it is never stuck in the past.

You viewing it as in the past only means that you missed the point, and you keep missing opportunities.

Ironically many of the things I feel this way about wouldn't even qualify as "sins" based on the Bible.

The real question is if they qualify as "sins" based on your own judgment?

The Bible is not an instrument to condemn anyone.

We have to learn how to correctly judge our self, so you say it was not a sin to you then that is the judgment.

Also, if we are making amends for the sins we have committed then why do we need Jesus? The Jews could have made amends for the sins they committed before Jesus was ever born.

That is the point and purpose of repentance - then we no longer need Jesus as a sacrifice or as an intermediary and then Jesus becomes our brother instead of being our Master or Shepherd.

Before Jesus then yes any person could have become the Savior including any Jewish person but no one ever did.

There was a chance for David or Solomon or others to be the Savior but every one fell short and missed the mark until Jesus came along and Jesus fulfilled the law and Jesus broke the curse.

And from whence do you obtain the authority to make that serious charge against Christianity?

Truth.

Truth is the ultimate power and authority.

Did you personally ever meet Jesus? If not, then how could you know what is true or false about Jesus? All we know about Jesus come from the Christian Gospels.

Yes we know Jesus from the Gospels.

Of course we can know Jesus better when we do as He says and we put His principles into our own life then that gives us far greater insight than just reading the Gospel.

Mark 13:6 " For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. "

Yes they are saying that Jesus is the Christ - and then deceive the entire world.

So you chose to not claim to be the Christ and just deceive the entire world anyway in Jesus' name?

That is misreading the text.

It is not saying that people will call their self as the Christ.

Where it say = "I am the Christ" - it is saying that people will declare Jesus as the Christ as they deceive many.

And by what authority do you preach this Christian heresy?

Truth.

Truth is the ultimate power and authority.

Philippians 2:12 "... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Why would you need to work out your salvation with fear and trembling?

If you are working out your salvation you should be doing it with joy and the peace of mind that you are indeed working out your own salvation.

You see it that way because you are looking at it from the sidelines.

If you ever truly recognize that everything is in thy self and that we must do our own salvation and start truly repenting then the realities become much more clear and compelling.

Jesus and the Gospel did not come to bring joy or peace, as Jesus brought the cross and sacrifice for us to follow.

If I had a dollar for every person I met who claimed to hold the correct teachings of the Christian Scriptures I would be as rich as Donald Trump.

And to be clear, every single one of those people made different claims about what the correct teachings of the scriptures supposedly are. So clearly the vast majority of them were necessarily misguided and wrong.

But just like Donald Trump you failed to heed the truth as it was told to you.

Every time some one claimed to know the truth then I took note and I judged what they said as to who was correct and who was not.

A wise man once said, "Befriend those who seek the truth, and run from those who claim to have it."

Jesus tells me to run from no one and run from nothing, and it is important to understand that the Gospels do not just teach right from wrong as it teaches people to have virtue and honor and courage in the face of evil.

The Gospels tells us to love our enemies.

[liamconnor]

#I personally find Islam simplistic, ritualistic and being very familiar with its internal workings oppressive and entirely unappealing

The above from a separate thread tried to highlight a reason for disbelieving Islam. How does this not apply to Christianity?

I agree with bjs, the question (whether open ended are not) is obviously slanted. But I suppose we are all guilty of this at one time or another.

Can we distinguish betweeen Christianity as a body of tenets and Christianity as a body of people?

For instance, one could accuse Christianity of violence (e.g., the crusades) but that would apply to Christians, less than to Christianity. One could say Christianity is highly ritualistic; but the degree to which this is true will change as one moves from the R.C.C to, say, a southern baptist church.

I simply do not find Christianity oppressive; but then, I can't say I find Islam oppressive, since I have never practiced it.

[JP Cusick]

And from whence do you obtain the authority to make that serious charge against Christianity?

A person needs to learn how to trust their self and trust their own judgment and the only way to do that is by being truthful, and that means being truthful in every way, and it means actively living the truth, and not passive nor just in the mind.

This is how my authority comes from the truth because I am capable of judging truth.

Higher virtue and power do not come to any person as in magic - it only comes from sincere effort through determined devotion.

No person can have the authority when they do not make the required efforts.

[DanieltheDragon]

Got two people confused

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

So Christianity is an extremely simple religion. Just confess that you are unworthy of God and accept Jesus as your scapegoat, and you'll be saved by grace. There is no other way to achieve salvation in this religion.

Nothing could be simpler.

I know that Christians are going to see this as being extremely negative since I'm referring to accepting Jesus as their scapegoat, rather than their "Lord and Savior". But the wording doesn't change much. Just replace "scapegoat" with "Lord and Savior" and you still have a religion that is simple as one, two, three. And men can't do anything to warrant their own salvation anyway. So changing the words doesn't help much.

I think at least it is important for the sake of honesty not to conflate the two aspects of the one act.

According to the story/belief, Jesus was the son of the father and the father is this particular idea of GOD.

Thus, in relation to the father, the son was the scapegoat but in relation to the believer, the son is the lord and savior because of that.

Being simplistic, the understanding is that human beings are incapable of saving themselves and thus it was required that in order for them to be saved, they needed a worthy sacrifice.

The question is 'saved from what?' and 'saved to what?' which simplistically answered is 'saved from eternal damnation' and 'saved to continue existing in a place that is not eternal damnation.'

Eternal damnation is not acceptable concept to a modern mind, and most Christians I know don't appear to be motivated in being saved from that but in being saved to the other.

There are always exceptions of course - Jehovah's Witness beliefs, for example...but therein the complexity arises and things are not as simple as they might appear.

I am aware that Christendom - even as presented in the new testament, is not as simple as one might claim.

[bluethread]

If I may, I would like to point out that Yeshua is not the "scapegoat", He is the Pesach. This is important because the symbolism does not match. Azazel(the scapegoat) is associated with Yom Kipper. There are two goats, one is the sacrificial goat and it's blood is both taken into the holy of Holies and placed upon Azazel, who is driven off into the wilderness, never to be seen again. If you can explain how Azazel applies to Yeshua, I'd be glad to hear it. Otherwise. it might be better to refer to Yeshua as the sacrificial lamb instead.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

Pesach is a passover property that did not involve sacrifice, unless you consider the murder of so many animals and men a sacrifice. Which you might.

A terrible invocation of an analogy.

As opposed to the sacrifice of Jesus, or as folks are now calling it:
"Jesus gave up his weekend for your sins."

When you put it like that, doesn't it make you wonder why he didn't give up a weekend sooner? It seems his charity far deceeds even my own!

[William]

If I may, I would like to point out that Yeshua is not the "scapegoat", He is the Pesach. This is important because the symbolism does not match. Azazel(the scapegoat) is associated with Yom Kipper. There are two goats, one is the sacrificial goat and it's blood is both taken into the holy of Holies and placed upon Azazel, who is driven off into the wilderness, never to be seen again. If you can explain how Azazel applies to Yeshua, I'd be glad to hear it. Otherwise. it might be better to refer to Yeshua as the sacrificial lamb instead.

I think this exemplifies my point that things cannot be simplified intentionally for the sake of criticism, because the criticism itself comes from a place of ignorance.

However, be that it may, that the sacrificial goat is different from the sacrificial lamb, the underlying point is that this particular idea of GOD required the sacrifice, ostentatiously, because humans could not be saved any other way.

Removing the belief in an actual place of eternal damnation (and accompanying torment) from the mix, we are left with the idea of being saved TO rather than FROM something.

Rather like how we save data. That data we allow to be deleted is of no particular use. That data we wish to save, has a use.

Thus the concept of resurrection...ones "I AM" = data of experience as a self conscious being, is uplifted to the 'mainframe' (overall collective consciousness aka 'GOD') and becomes integral to that. Some "I Am's" don't make the final cut...or more to the point, Don't continue to experience anything further because nothing they did (the data) and thus could do, will add anything useful to the overall data which is the I AM both at the individual level and the collective.

The 'sacrifice' was more a thing to prompt the individual I AM in jeopardy of being deleted, to think seriously about being saved, rather than doing anything serious which put the data of experience which was the I AM of Jesus into any threat of being lost. I get the impression from the story that Jesus was saved despite the sacrifice.

The metaphors I am using are are form of simplification which I think is appropriate in regard to the story. The complications derive from the historical diversity of Christendom which has created smoke and mirrors of a political motivation/intent/manipulation - for all intent and purpose - the actions of those who will not be saved because their collective agenda was not aligned to the collective consciousness and ITS agenda.