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?

[bjs]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to start by asking a question in the negative (how does this not…). This is especially true since you have not established any way that it does apply to Christianity. Start there. Can you show how this does apply to Christianity?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to start by asking a question in the negative (how does this not…). This is especially true since you have not established any way that it does apply to Christianity. Start there. Can you show how this does apply to Christianity?

It's open ended on purpose. Given the diverse nature of Christianity it would be prudent not to be specific as each sect and individual has an idea of what does and does not apply to their beliefs. Moreover this might not apply. Hence the question.

Is Christianity devoid of ritualistic, oppressive behavior?

Is Christianity a simplistic religion?

If Islam is the title bearer opreaive simplistic ritualistic religions, given they share many attributes and behaviors to Christians the same criticism should apply no?

[bjs]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to start by asking a question in the negative (how does this not…). This is especially true since you have not established any way that it does apply to Christianity. Start there. Can you show how this does apply to Christianity?

It's open ended on purpose. Given the diverse nature of Christianity it would be prudent not to be specific as each sect and individual has an idea of what does and does not apply to their beliefs. Moreover this might not apply. Hence the question.

Very well.

Is Christianity devoid of ritualistic, oppressive behavior?

Devoid? Of course not. No group of people as large as Christianity could possibly be devoid of such common human attitudes. However, much of Christian teaching is focused on avoiding ritualistic or oppressive behavior.

The Author of the faith gave this big visual lesson about washing feet, and at another time said something like “Whoever wants to be great among you must be a servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve…� This seems as far away from oppressive as possible.

Is Christianity a simplistic religion?

No. It is clearly complex. To be fair, I think that Islam is complex as well.

If Islam is the title bearer opreaive simplistic ritualistic religions, given they share many attributes and behaviors to Christians the same criticism should apply no?

Christianity and Islam do have certain similarities. If Islam is indeed oppressive and ritualistic (and I must grant that it at least leans more that way), then this would be an example of how they are different and a valid reason for choosing one instead of the other.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by bjs]

The Author of the faith gave this big visual lesson about washing feet, and at another time said something like “Whoever wants to be great among you must be a servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve…� This seems as far away from oppressive as possible.

I'll grant it preaches humility for sure but how is commanding your followers to be slaves and servants not oppresive?
Oppresive
adjective
unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, especially on a minority or other subordinate group.

The washing of feat verse preaches that one must suffer constraint and hardship to be in favor of God ?

[JP Cusick]

#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?

The religion of Islam is very similar to the real Christianity of Jesus the Christ.

It is just not like the later versions of Christianity.

What other people call oppressive is really self discipline based on high moral standards - which is unappealing to those who rebel and disobey.

I myself say the God sent Islam (early 7th century) after Christianity had turned away so then Islam would be the counter measure from God for wayward Christianity.

[Divine Insight]

Is Christianity a simplistic religion?

Christianity is extremely simplistic. It's as simple as one, two, three:

1. All men have been proclaimed to be sinners and have fallen short of the Glory of God.

2. No man is capable of doing anything to merit his own salvation.

3. Every man must confess to being unworthy of God and accept Jesus as his scapegoat.

Period.

A religion can hardly get much simpler.

Keep in mind that there is nothing any man can do to earn his own salvation. So any arguments from Christian theists that try to claim that it's far more complicated than this and that men need to do anything at all other than accept Jesus as their scapegoat must necessarily fail.

If men could do anything to merit their own salvation they wouldn't need Jesus as their scapegoat.

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.

[JP Cusick]

Christianity is extremely simplistic. It's as simple as one, two, three:

1. All men have been proclaimed to be sinners and have fallen short of the Glory of God.

2. No man is capable of doing anything to merit his own salvation.

3. Every man must confess to being unworthy of God and accept Jesus as his scapegoat.

Period.

A religion can hardly get much simpler.

Keep in mind that there is nothing any man can do to earn his own salvation. So any arguments from Christian theists that try to claim that it's far more complicated than this and that men need to do anything at all other than accept Jesus as their scapegoat must necessarily fail.

If men could do anything to merit their own salvation they wouldn't need Jesus as their scapegoat.

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.

This does explain why you reject Christ when you view the religion in such a negative way.

You are projecting the Christian concept of salvation after death which is indeed very simplistic because it is nearly a worthless and irrelevant doctrine.

The concept of self scrutiny in seeing one-self as a sinner and then repent thereof - is a great blessing which most people fail to ever do the repentance.

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.

To be saved from ignorance, saved from cruelty and violence, saved from addiction and perversions, and to be saved from our self is the greatest salvation of all salvations.

Christianity does mislead people in the nonsense of going to Heaven after death, and that is what you are rejecting in your quoted words above.

The Apostle Paul used different terminology about being a "Christrian" in Acts 26:

"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

... that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."
Link = Acts 26:13-29

The religion of Islam knows this simple basic reality that our life is here-and-now and we must embrace justice and truth immediately - and not to seek it after death.

Christianity would become wise if it embraced the simple knowledge of God from its sister religion of Islam.

[Divine Insight]

The concept of self scrutiny in seeing one-self as a sinner and then repent thereof - is a great blessing which most people fail to ever do the repentance.

But we don't need religion for that. Secularists have recognized the value in realizing that your past actions were not good and that by recognizing this one can improve their future actions. In fact, in this sense "repentance" is nothing more than realizing and acknowledging that you could have (and should have) done better in the past.

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.

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's hardly a doctrine that suggests its just talking about dealing with these things from a secular worldview.

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.

But the idea that any mortal man can earn his own salvation is rejected by Christianity. So it doesn't add up.

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.

[JP Cusick]

The concept of self scrutiny in seeing one-self as a sinner and then repent thereof - is a great blessing which most people fail to ever do the repentance.

But we don't need religion for that. Secularists have recognized the value in realizing that your past actions were not good and that by recognizing this one can improve their future actions. In fact, in this sense "repentance" is nothing more than realizing and acknowledging that you could have (and should have) done better in the past.

You are misunderstanding - and most people do misunderstand - which makes myself as being the odd one here - but none of the truth is decided by vote or by majority rule - Thank God.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

The claims of Christianity about Jesus are mostly just nonsense.

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

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.

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.

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

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