Nonesense. The Sermon on the Mount was only addressed to a few thousand people, at most. I know I wasn’t there, so I don’t have to cut off the hand I whack off with. Whee! Being a Christian is easy!
I think it’s pretty easy to mock any religion, philosophy, ideology, or principle with nothing more than standard rhetorical devices. What’s difficult, I think, is making sense of them in some way that is meaningful to us in our pursuit of what we treasure most. I could easily be a materialist and still value edification. It just so happens that I find Christianity to be, among the philosophies that I have examined, the best way for me personally to define and identify that which I value.
I think that I recognize Christianity in different forms from a variety of people. The example of Tris, given by **Poly ** (who is also a good example, along with **Siege ** and others), is of the live-the-faith variety. But I see the same aesthetical principles in people who do not label themselves as Christian at all, like Gaudere, John Mace, SentientMeat, and Sophistry and Illusion. These are people who edifiy others, and qualify thereby for the definition that I attach to goodness: moral edification. By and large, they leave people feeling better about themselves than they did before interacting.
I don’t think that Christianity requires passivity, or self-sacrifice, or any particular ethic. I find no conflict between being the Prince of Peace and bringing a sword, on account of the fact that it is the nature of aesthetical choices that people will disagree; the sword is not for hacking bodies, but for delineating boundaries — for cutting through the crap and separating those who value goodness form those who don’t. And again, I believe that the label, no matter how insistently defended, makes no difference. A Buddhist or Muslim or atheist can be as Godly or more so than a Christian.
I think a person may deny Christ and still be Christlike simply by virtue of denying the Christ he knows to be a monster — the Christ presented to him by politically minded religious leaders who use Him in the pursuit of personal wealth and power. Who can blame the gay man who rejects Jesus when he is told that Jesus does not love him? I realize that this can come across as “if only you understood, you’d believe,” but that’s not what I mean. What I mean is that you understand perfectly, and it is perfectly reasonable that you do not believe.
I do feel like sometimes that hard atheists come across more as believers who hate God than as non-believers. But having worn those shoes, I can understand (though I can no longer remember) the sentiment that believers have used their various gods to wreak havoc and do the very opposite of edification, moral or otherwise. They’ve destroyed lives and cultures, and have fought wars as though Christ, Muhammad, or What-Have-You were the team captain, and they were on the good team. They may have even had good intentions, reasoning that they were ridding the world of some evil or other, which pretty much brings us back to the aesthetical choice I mentioned before.
I think it’s fair to use Jesus’ own description of His disciples in measuring who is living the life of a Christian; that is, people who love. And again, I define love as the facilitation of goodness, where goodness is an aesthetic — something of value — that edifies morally. Thus, two men in love with one another, who edify one another and those around them, are more Christian in the pure sense than the men and women who condemn them for being who they are. Love as an emotion is irrelevant. One need not be a doormat to be loving, and in fact, it is often the case that love is best expressed by resistance or interference.
At any rate, I do not fancy myself to be among those who live their lives as Christ commands. I know how to describe what I believe, but I am too quick to tear down rather than edify. And yet, I long for goodness. I love it. I value it, and I pray that when I confront it unfiltered by my physical senses, I will be drawn to it and not push away. Whether it is my unmedicated brain that makes me so spiritually immature or my unmitigated spirit remains to be seen. But I know that I always regret when I harm someone. I derive no joy from it. I’ve hurt so many people’s feelings just on this board alone that were I someone else, I would likely scoff at my daring to label myself Christian.
But inside, I yearn to love and be loved. Maybe my examinations of Christ’s teachings are too much intellectual and not enough heartfelt. I don’t know. All I know is that nothing quite so quiets my internal passionate wrecklessness than the kind expression of love from someone “out there”, outside my own mind. Forgiveness, it seems to me, heals the forgiver. But when people like **EddyTeddyFreddy ** have made peace with me, despite my having hurled insults at them like a demon on a rampage, I know that I’ve seen Christ, and a healing has taken place. Within me.
That was a beautiful post, Liberal. I don’t agree with almost any of it, but at least you can explain your views pretty eloquently.
Personally, I think it’s a lot more simple than all that. Christians just simply don’t know their own faith, and their religious discipline is much weaker than their human desires. Wherever the two conflict, Christians nearly always seem to pick “what I want/think” over “what Jesus told me to do”.
Christians scramble to explain how Jesus didn’t REALLY mean that they’re not supposed to go to war or accumulate wealth, because they want to reconcile their own sense of right and wrong with what Jesus taught. Instead of changing their own belief and living contrary to their own desires, they try to change what Jesus said to fit their agenda.
It’s hard for me to understand how anyone could want to be a part of that. If you’re going to believe and do whatever you want anyway, why bother with all the fuss of trying to prove that Jesus wouldn’t have disapproved?
No, Mosier, that was a beautiful post.
In general, most people are hopelessly ignorant of the bible. I wouldn’t expect it of atheists.
Among many Christians, however, actually knowing what the bible says-----except in the most casual, benign way------is simply not necessary.
It seems clear to me that secular humanism is the true religion of many Christians.
By applying their own sensibilities—and as long as they are sincere and demonstrate the type of Love Christ advocated—they can remain indifferent (and often downright hostile) to the totality (read: balanced and comprehensive) of Christ’s teachings. (as well as the NT/bible as whole.)
Bingo.
“…their own sense of right and wrong…” sums it up nicely.
To be fair, some secular humanists dressed up as Christians are not ignorant of what the bible has to say. For them, a virtual cottage industry serves them in changing “…what Jesus said to fit their agenda…”
The clear and unambiguous language on homosexuality doesn’t suit your [humanist] sensibilities? (as one example) That’s ok. I have a “scholar” whose written a book with rank, wild, speculation that suggests that those were about idolatry, or prostitution. Or maybe we can create a division between Christ and Paul. Better yet, we’ll label him a misogynist and a repressed homosexual. Maybe a line item veto. That way we can pick and choose what we’ll believe.
Again and again the bible is assailed by Christians in order to validate a belief and/or practice that the bible clearly condemns.
I think they’re sincere, but misguided. I also think that many people (most people, actually) have an innate desire to understand the human experience in a meaningful way. (a “why are we here?”, or, “what’s the purpose of life?” kind of way)
A belief in God satisfies this desire and makes sense of the world we live in. Living the life of a doe eyed sheep herder is another matter entirely. A humanist based form of Christianity is the best of both worlds.
I can enjoy the love and rich tradition of Christianity, while ignoring much of what the bible actually says.
My vote: since you can make any argument you want about “Christians” if you also get to decide what the definition of “Christian” is, the only meaningful discussion about Christians as a group is the discussion of people who identify themselves as Christian.
And even that discussion is meaningless when those who self-identify as Christians can disagree widely on what is required to be faithful to Christ’s ideals. Effectively, the term “Christian” has no meaning whatsoever.
Not true in my opinion.
A counterfeit version of the original doesn’t invalidate the legitimacy of the original. I make no claim that any of this stuff is true, just simply that if Christ was real, and his credentials valid, than the presence of “false-Christs” doesn’t invalidate the real Christ.
In fact, both Christ and Paul anticipated that frauds would arrive, and counseled against being misled.
Oh I agree, I was differentiating between people who call themselves Christians, and Jesus himself. Mahatma Gandhi said it best:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Is this trolling, or do you sincerely believe it? Because the overwhelming majority of Christians belong to faith traditions that do not subscribe to your definition.
I believe it. If I have been misinformed, show me how it is possible that most christians **do not ** hold the gospels to be the word of god. Or did you misunderstand me?
It’s interesting that you have changed your statement from “the entire Christian religion” to “most Christians” as soon as you were challenged.
That said, you can count the ELCA out of your understanding:
I was just responding when **Poly ** said "the overwhelming majority of Christians " which is consistent with my reply about “most Christians”, which is equivalent.
In other news, bear found shi**ing in woods. News at 11…
Now that we have Fear Itself’s “most Christians”, I’d be interested in the policy statements of the largest Christian groups.
Last I can remember there was a round 1 to 1.2 billion “Christians” worldwide, (someone feel free to correct this) with the RCC making up something north of 60% of that number. (pls correct this if it is not true)
If this is so, the **Catholics **must be on board if Polycarp’s statement that the overwhelming majority of Christians don’t hold the view Fear Itself ascribes to them hold water. (bolding Polycarp’s)
Okay, fair enough.
Catholic Bishops warn against literal interpretations of the Bible
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing…
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation.
Woops, sorry. Guess I picked the not-statistically-significant branch of Christianity to join.
No, you cherry picked your cite, and one that is probably not representative of the majority of the group you spoke for.
He was the founder of so-called “radical theology”. Speaking for himself, he has said that he didn’t know whether he was Christian. But he didn’t think he was an atheist, since he postulated that God had once lived. Most logics, in analyzing his claims, would attach the term “temporal”. That said, there have been many people of other religions — and of no religion at all — who have admired the teachings of Jesus divorced from issues of theology.
That link is interesting.
But it has me thinking a bit about Mosier’s point. [as I perceive it] Even if all the major Christian religions held the views espoused by ECLA et al-------enough that Polycarp’s statement *“…the overwhelming majority of Christians…” *were accurate, would it make a difference to the point he appears to be making?
In other words, he’s laying siege to Christianity as an institution, saying that the flavor of Christianity practiced today is in contrast (and contradiction) to the teachings of Christ. (and the Christianity practiced by his contemporary followers)
In other, other words, would it matter if all Christian religions held to the Just War Doctrine (as one example) if that doctrine was in conflict with the teachings of Christ?
If that’s true—and he’s held up in his posts in this thread war, the death penalty, homosexuality, evangelizing/ proselytizing , Love, charity, pacifism, (and a few more)-----as Christian/biblical principles that modern Christianity isn’t following, than we’re asking the wrong questions.
In other, other, other words, the contrast we should be making isn’t between factions of modern Christianity----for even if there were unanimity among Christian factions we’d only be making his case for him, to wit, Christians are not following Christ----; rather IMV the questions should be:
-
Does modern Christianity in general follow the teachings of Christ?
(and specifically does any specific Christian faith follow it ?) -
If Christianity does not, why not?
(and what is the basis for any deviation?)
In the end, popularity, or prevalence isn’t a compelling argument for changing what Christ/ the bible taught.