What are Christian principles and values? Do they actually exist?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I’m not certain what you mean. If you’re saying you accept a sort of foundation through faith, leading to questioning the form of that foundation, I would agree. But I would go further; even foundations need to be questioned, not only in terms of specifics but whether they actually work at all. A foundation of my beliefs is athiesm, but i’m willing to go further than just a questioning of the structure of that athiesm. Considering whether a god or gods exist is still important, even if that would mean i’m entirely wrong about everything. Quite likely I am.
[/QUOTE]

It’s hard to explain. The foundation isn’t a specific belief unless you’d consider the worthiness of the truth to be a belief. {I suppose it is} Seeking truth requires that we examine ourselves to make sure we are being true to our own beliefs and and what our personal experiences have led us to. It also requires that we examine our motives and what we value and why we value it. The cool thing IMO is that two people can have quite different ideas about what is true and still be on the correct path as long as they are both being as true to themselves as they can be. So, rejecting all versions of God you’ve encountered and being an atheist can be equally “being true to yourself” as belief in God in some form.
Being true to ourselves also means being aware and honest about the difference between what we know, and what we believe.

Maybe what I’m trying to say is that it’s not so much a foundational belief as a foundational desire. It’s fine to question and hold to the healthy possibility that some of our key beliefs will change in the process of seeking. The process itself and being active in it, is what is worthwhile.
One example, I tend to believe some part of my consciousness, my spirit will survive my physical death but I realize that may not be true. It doesn’t really matter because whether it is or isn’t doesn’t affect the process that occurs daily in the middle of each experience.

I agree. While I think we can never be certain we’re right, we have to go with what we think is so (keeping questioning, of course). I would hope that if there is any deity up there, if they’re good they’re taking that into account (if they’re bad, we’re screwed, but hey, we’re screwed either way so it doesn’t matter ;)).

Ahhhh but for me the beauty is that it’s ultimately not about finding the right beliefs according to any man made labels. It is about being true to ourselves and making truth and/seeking the truth the thing we value most. We hold onto certain illusions for all sorts of reasons. Seeking the approval of others comes into play a lot. I don’t see some deity as observing and judging us in the traditional sense although the metaphor has been useful in the past. It seems more likely to me that we create our own consequences by the choices we make. Some may be unconscious choices but we can with effort and desire, become more conscious. Making better choices and realizing we must take full responsibility for our choices. That’s the truth we often try to avoid and can’t.

I understand what you mean. Even being open to others is potentially problematic, because if you’re confronted with the same ideas over and over again, they’re going to look better than they maybe are. So yeah, I think you’re right in that deferring even to people who appear more knowledgable than us can be risky. Like you say, there is a point at which we need to be willing to sort of be certain in the face of others without actually being too certain. I’m not really sure where that line is drawn, though.

The thing to remember is however we allow ourselves to be influenced and motivated by others we still have to take complete responsibility for those choices.
So, I know I’m not above being influenced by a nice lady with a really pretty smile but whatever goofy thing I might do because of that smile is my own choice and I must take the consequences. If someone is heavily influenced by their culture or a religious leader or their parents, that too is their choice. Being certain without being too certain means claiming your right to go forward based on what *you *believe or even suspect is true, regardless of others. Willing to be mistaken but knowing that going forward will help us learn and is the correct thing to do. There is no waiting for someone else to tell us what is right. We have to learn to use and trust our own inner voice. somehow.
I’d add that I also think that not all people are ready for this. It can be a natural part of the process to trust leaders to a large degree while developing our own judgment. where that line is drawn is also a good question.

Actually, I tend to believe that if there is a true faith, it could be constrained by a religion, just based on the idea that a good deity would be understanding of what we’re like and so give us something that we can understand. But that’s a possibility that I think because of our nature of adding things I don’t believe is likely to come about.

I’ve thought about this. I tend to be pretty independent but it’s occurred to me that we are more effective being part of a group and that often requires more compromise. I also tend to believe that the cycle we see in personal growth is also how societies and even mankind in general grows. Meaning that Jesus taught us certain things but there’s no reason to think he would be the last significant teacher to appear. Individuals surrender preconceived notions and graduate to the next level when they are ready. Maybe mature is the correct term. The same with people as a whole. even with all our problems we see society moving ahead as we abolish slavery, work toward equal rights etc. I think spiritual teaching can be the same as concepts are rethought and new concepts presented for consideration.
Personally I’m a fan of the Bahai faith which sprang from the Iran /Iraq area in the 1830s and also the Course in Miracles which began in the US in the late 60s early 70s. We don’t have to embrace every concept and teaching as God’s will to find something of value in them.

Looking at the common thread as you’ve done seems to me to be a very good way of trying to get at what isn’t the man-made stuff.

I found that aside from doctrine and ritual there are certain basic values that remain somewhat constant. The similarities between the teachings of Buddha and Jesus really stood out for me. My theory is that sincere people seeking the truth are bound to come of the same conclusions even if those conclusions are filtered through their culture and personal views.

I would say that if a good god exists, then I think your way of how the universe works seems a pretty decent one. I don’t believe your premise, but if I accepted it, I’d probably go with your conclusions, too.

It works for me for the time being and I hope it also helps me make a positive contribution to those around me. It takes a lot of different tools to build a good house. We don’t all have to use the same one even if we have similar goals in building something useful and good. We can still share in the satisfaction of building something together.

[ITR_champion]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I take this to be an opinion statement. On what basis or what experience do you make a statement like this. I find this to be completely non factual and without evidence.
[/quote]

I base it on the current state of the world and on many centuries of human history. I see that Christian civilization is and always has been different from societies that had no Christian influence, or almost none. Indeed the statement is so obvious that I can’t really think of any way to prove it. Does anyone doubt that the United States, Britain, France, Australia, and Mexico are different from Lebanon, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and China? Do they not have different governments, different economies, different laws, different schools, different family structures, difference philosophies, different priorities? Does anyone doubt that religion has a big influence on these things?

Look at the principles of what Jesus taught and what Buddha taught relating to how we live in the world and relate to each other. They teach almost identical principles and values.

This is a common misconception among those who have no idea what either man taught. In fact, it’s hard to think of any pair of great thinkers more different than those two. For instance, Jesus believed that the entirety of existence was one Kingdom ruled by God, unchanging, eternal. Guatama (who was the most famous one known as Buddha, but not the only one) believed that the cosmos were in constant change and turmoil.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I base it on the current state of the world and on many centuries of human history. I see that Christian civilization is and always has been different from societies that had no Christian influence, or almost none. Indeed the statement is so obvious that I can’t really think of any way to prove it. Does anyone doubt that the United States, Britain, France, Australia, and Mexico are different from Lebanon, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and China? Do they not have different governments, different economies, different laws, different schools, different family structures, difference philosophies, different priorities? Does anyone doubt that religion has a big influence on these things?
[/quote]
The “United States, Britain, France, Australia, and Mexico” are all descended from a Western European culture, one that destroyed and replaced it’s competition, in the case of the US, Australia and Mexico. That’s why they are similar, not because Christianity has enlightened them, unless you consider genocide enlightened. The main influence Christianity has had on them is to make them incredibly aggressive, ruthless, brutal, tyrannical and intolerant; their moral and cultural progress has largely consisted of rejecting those particular “Christian values”.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I base it on the current state of the world and on many centuries of human history. I see that Christian civilization is and always has been different from societies that had no Christian influence, or almost none. Indeed the statement is so obvious that I can’t really think of any way to prove it. Does anyone doubt that the United States, Britain, France, Australia, and Mexico are different from Lebanon, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and China? Do they not have different governments, different economies, different laws, different schools, different family structures, difference philosophies, different priorities? Does anyone doubt that religion has a big influence on these things?

[/QUOTE]

Sorry. This is not good enough for GD on the SDMB. I’m not asking you to prove it. I’m asking for some credible examples and evidence that Christian values and principles are somehow superior to the values and principles of other religions and philosophies for giving your response to my OP that seems to be the claim you are making. Not just different …but superior.

My guess is it seems obvious to you because you assume it to be true without any real historical study to verify or challenge it. I’m not much of a historian myself so perhaps other dopers with more historical knowledge will chime in. What I’ve read and gathered from a cursory reading including centuries of human history is that Christian nations made contributions but also committed some heinous immoral crimes. Let’s look at a few other great civilizations that were non Christian and see if they made any significant contributions.

China, India, Japan, the nations of the Middle east that were Persia. China has been mainly Buddhist since the first century. They contributed a few things such as
the compass, gunpowder, papermaking, and printing. Physical contributions I know but they have a long and illustrious civilization with several philosophies and religions that have affected mankind. What about the Christian nations you mentioned is inherently historically superior to China from a values point of view.

Islam has also made great contributions and there have been great Muslim civilizations
from wikki

During the Islamic Golden Age, usually dated from the 8th century to the 13th century,[1] engineers, scholars and traders of the Islamic world contributed enormously to the arts, economics, industry, literature, navigation, philosophy, sciences, and technology, both by preserving and building upon earlier traditions and by adding many inventions and innovations of their own.[2] Muslim philosophers and poets, artists and scientists, and princes and laborers, created a unique culture that has influenced societies on every continent.

and

During this period the Muslim world became the unrivaled intellectual center for science, philosophy, medicine and education as the Abbasids championed the cause of knowledge and established a “House of Wisdom” in Baghdad; where both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars sought to translate and gather all the world’s knowledge into Arabic.[3] Many classic works of antiquity that would otherwise have been lost were translated into Arabic and later in turn translated into Turkish, Persian, Hebrew and Latin.[3] During this period the Muslim world was a cauldron of cultures which collected, synthesized and advanced the works collected from the Chinese, Persian, Egyptian, North African, Greek, Spanish, Sicilian and Byzantine civilizations

Religious freedom, though limited, helped create cross-cultural networks by attracting Muslim, Christian and Jewish intellectuals and thereby helped spawn the greatest period of philosophical creativity in the Middle Ages during the 12th and 13th centuries

Certainly India has an ancient civilization that has made a significant contribution with a variety of religions. Eastern philosophies have had a large influence on American thought.

It is certainly far from obvious that Christian values and principles as exhibited and practiced by Christian nations are superior. It will take more than an assumption that it is obvious to make any reasonable argument.

This is a common misconception among those who have no idea what either man taught. In fact, it’s hard to think of any pair of great thinkers more different than those two. For instance, Jesus believed that the entirety of existence was one Kingdom ruled by God, unchanging, eternal. Guatama (who was the most famous one known as Buddha, but not the only one) believed that the cosmos were in constant change and turmoil.

Wow! You might want to actually read what I wrote before making this kind of statement and insinuating I don’t know what I’m talking about. The example you gave has nothing to do with the statement I made. I said specifically

Look at the principles of what Jesus taught and what Buddha taught relating to how we live in the world and relate to each other. They teach almost identical principles and values.

{bolding mine} we’re talking about principles and values and principles right?

Others have studied this very thing and written books on the subject such as
Jesus and Buddha as Brothers
and
Jesus and Buddha the parallel sayings
I own both these books. The Parallel sayings compare Buddhist writings and values with the words of Jesus from the NT side by side and let me say, your off hand dismissal of my statement doesn’t hold up to a real examination. I’d say this is another area where you haven’t really done the research.

[Polycarp]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The “United States, Britain, France, Australia, and Mexico” are all descended from a Western European culture, one that destroyed and replaced it’s competition, in the case of the US, Australia and Mexico. That’s why they are similar, not because Christianity has enlightened them, unless you consider genocide enlightened. The main influence Christianity has had on them is to make them incredibly aggressive, ruthless, brutal, tyrannical and intolerant; their moral and cultural progress has largely consisted of rejecting those particular “Christian values”.
[/QUOTE]

You know, I had a fairly good rant started disagreeing with you, vehemently.

On second thought, I don’t think it’s appropriate. We’re both looking at the subject with our Simonian pugilist-filters on. (“Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.”) A few propositions I think we can agree on:

1. Jesus seems to have been focused on what he thought was proper worship of God, to start with, but more significantly, its expression in proper treatment of one’s fellow man. Whatever you may think about his God-ideas, the interpersonal ethics he taught seem to be very much in tune with what you seem to espouse.

2. Starting with Peter and Paul and in a largely unbroken line down to Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Ratsiger, et al., what Liberal has called “religion politicians” have used the tools of social manipulation to press human beings into a social structure that claims to be following Christ, but is actually in large part the espousal of certain social norms as allegedly God-given and hence evil to break.

3. Throughout history, there have been reformers who have focused on the idea of proper behavior towards one’s fellow man. They have by and large been termed heretical by the entrenched religious bureaucracy.

4. Genocide, ruthlessness, and tyranny are not something that is reported to have been taught or looked on with favor by Jesus. But they do seem to characterize a lot of those who claim to be His followers, down through history.

Is there some common ground in the above, Der Trihs?

Cosmosdan, an interesting commentary on Eastern religions. I don’t suppose that you have taken into account that it’s only since about 1960 that any concepts from Eastern philosophy and religion have taken any hold on Western culture. I can, personally, remember seeing the change happening.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Polycarp]

Cosmosdan, an interesting commentary on Eastern religions. I don’t suppose that you have taken into account that it’s only since about 1960 that any concepts from Eastern philosophy and religion have taken any hold on Western culture. I can, personally, remember seeing the change happening.
[/QUOTE]

So do I “Be Here Now” by Babba Ram Dass I still have a copy.

If we’re considering hundreds of years of human history that is very recent event. I’d be interested in your view on the larger point.

ITR maintains that the terms Christian values and principles are important or unique because it is somehow obvious that Christian societies develop differently {in some superior way} than other societies. My take on it is that each great society has had it’s moments of glory and it’s moments of shame because of the human element. The core values and principles may have had some cultural differences but remain pretty much the same from religion to religion culture to culture. Adding the descriptor Christian to values and principles doesn’t really specify anything.

[Polycarp]

Baba Ram Dass, please. Bubba Ram Dass was an Transcendental Meditator from Alabama, the only person ever to depict Buddha in a wifebeater and jeans with a belt buckle showing the Stars and Bars.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Baba Ram Dass, please. Bubba Ram Dass was an Transcendental Meditator from Alabama, the only person ever to depict Buddha in a wifebeater and jeans with a belt buckle showing the Stars and Bars.
[/QUOTE]

Who, after hanging out and taking LSD with Timothy Leary at Harvard, traveled to India and studied with the gurus there which seriously changed his outlook. Then he came back to the US and shared what he had learned with other westerners. Like him or not he did bring eastern thought to many Americans.

Are we talking about the same person? My guy is Dr. Richard Alpert of Jewish descent born in Mass

ohhhhhhh I missed the big smiley, you’re joking ain’t ya??
Regardless, any thoughts on the other?

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Before Jesus, man was instructed to follow the law of Moses, this is the standard man would have to reach to be sinless, this was what man aspired to (be worthy on their own w/o God, or to be their own ‘god’), but something impossible with man (except for Jesus). Jesus did change the rules, we are now under grace of God not the law of Moses.
[/quote]
That’s what I thought.

For organized religion I’d agree, but if you go deeper I think you will see the oneness with the Father, how the whole Bible agrees and resonates with a common message - that of Love beyond comprehension.

To be honest, i’m afraid I don’t see that in the whole of the Bible. As for the common message of love; yes, i’d agree that if you asked Christians whether love was important, pretty much all of them would say it was. But love of what, for who, and in what situations? People have very different ideas of the consequences of this, and I would say different views on homosexuality, or the death penalty, and so on don’t just imply a difference in those less foundational views but a difference in the actual belief in the type of love in the first place.

On the contrary, I would say that saying “all Christians believe in Love” isn’t deep, but a somewhat more shallow interpretation of what they believe. It’s like saying “all Americans believe in democracy”; sure most probably do, but what they think democracy should entail is very different.

I don’t believe that this would be allowed, though I can’t think of a iron clad scripture right now, but seek and you shall find comes to mind, if all are dead you can not find them.

Fair enough. It was just a side question, really; I can’t picture God letting all his believers die, anyway.

Yes it arguably happened with King David IIRC
In OT times Satan was not yet condemned so demons were not necessarily evil, so the need for God’s indwelling as His Spirit was perhaps not needed.

Also I suspect that the Holy Spirit may temp indwell a non-believer for God’s purpose in NT times, but I don’t know this.

Is it possible then that a nonbeliever today could have the Holy Spirit indwelling temporarily, and so gain the ability to discern God’s will and the differences in holy and demonic influence?

Better get yourself a God then

Any particular recommendations, god-wise?

May I suggest a simple prayer when your ready:

God, most high, I do not know you but desire to know you. Please make Yourself real to me, lead me to You and show me the way. Also God most high please prevent any false ‘gods’ from deceiving me along the way. So be it, Amen

If you feel like you can I’d add ‘in Jesus’ name I pray’ right before So be it, Amen but at this stage I don’t think it would be needed for you as Jesus is God.

I gave it a go (actually, I gave it two goes, since I didn’t feel the first was sincere enough). No burning bushes as of yet, but it has been a bit chilly today.

[Polycarp]

Alpert was in fact an interesting person, whom I gave very short shrift at the time and haven’t read much of anything by, since. Something I ought to cure – but life is short. Nonetheless, I’m making the point that the Sixties were effectively when U.S. culture noticed there was anything east of the River Jordan culturally.

BTW, unprovoked political snark that will hopefully amuse all: Liberal Christians have been praying fervently for a burning Bush ever since December 2000!

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
You know, I had a fairly good rant started disagreeing with you, vehemently.

On second thought, I don’t think it’s appropriate. We’re both looking at the subject with our Simonian pugilist-filters on. (“Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.”) A few propositions I think we can agree on:

1. Jesus seems to have been focused on what he thought was proper worship of God, to start with, but more significantly, its expression in proper treatment of one’s fellow man. Whatever you may think about his God-ideas, the interpersonal ethics he taught seem to be very much in tune with what you seem to espouse.

2. Starting with Peter and Paul and in a largely unbroken line down to Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Ratsiger, et al., what Liberal has called “religion politicians” have used the tools of social manipulation to press human beings into a social structure that claims to be following Christ, but is actually in large part the espousal of certain social norms as allegedly God-given and hence evil to break.

3. Throughout history, there have been reformers who have focused on the idea of proper behavior towards one’s fellow man. They have by and large been termed heretical by the entrenched religious bureaucracy.

4. Genocide, ruthlessness, and tyranny are not something that is reported to have been taught or looked on with favor by Jesus. But they do seem to characterize a lot of those who claim to be His followers, down through history.

Is there some common ground in the above, Der Trihs?
[/QUOTE]
Some.

1. : I think you sugar coat Jesus a bit here; “I come not to bring peace but a sword” and his saying that slaves should obey their masters ( don’t recall the exact quote ), for example. He was a man of 2000 or so years ago, with the attitudes that implies. And by my standards, calling for people to follow a religion - especially a monotheism, with the intolerance that implies - is an unethical thing in itself.

And at any rate, what we actually have of him are repeatedly translated recordings of oral histories set down by people with an agenda, and repeatedly edited and translated by more people with agendas. So we can’t really tell what he taught, or was really like.

2 : To a degree I agree with you. But I also believe that they were serving Christianity quite well, no matter how well or badly they served Christ. In my view, Jesus and other religious founders are nearly irrelevant, because once begun religions take on a pseudo-life of their own. Regardless of what Jesus wanted, the basic philosophical structure he left behind would inevitably have turned into the bloodthirsty conversion-and-tyranny machine that it did.

The “religious politicians” were more parasites on a much large organism than the source of Christianity’s depredations. They were promoted into the positions they held and their orders were obeyed because they were the sort of people who would give the orders they did. That’s why I constantly harp on the evil of religion and not the evil of religious leaders. Oh, they deserve blame as well - if no one had been willing to do evil in Christianity’s name, no evil would have been done, after all - but in my opinion the driving force beind most of Christianity’s evil has been Christianity itself. Which has behaved in such an inhuman way precisely because it’s not human.

3 : Agreed.

4 : Agreed, more or less; I think that Jesus wasn’t as nice as you do. However, his followers do think he was that nice, and it hasn’t stopped them from doing any number of nasty things.

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=RT]
To be honest, i’m afraid I don’t see that in the whole of the Bible.
[/QUOTE]

To be honest I didn’t either until rather recently. It’s something that comes in time. God will allow the complete message to come into your heart - that of unconditional love.

On the contrary, I would say that saying “all Christians believe in Love” isn’t deep, but a somewhat more shallow interpretation of what they believe.

Don’t take the persons word for if they are Christians, do it by the fruit of the Spirit.

Is it possible then that a nonbeliever today could have the Holy Spirit indwelling temporarily, and so gain the ability to discern God’s will and the differences in holy and demonic influence?

I believe so, sometimes to allow someone who is in satanic bondage to ‘see’ what is actually going on, giving that person a chance to turn his life around.

People have very different ideas of the consequences of this, and I would say different views on homosexuality, or the death penalty, and so on don’t just imply a difference in those less foundational views but a difference in the actual belief in the type of love in the first place.

Try not to go with political categories. Try to look at the love of God. What is the solution for the sinner, to stop him from sinning, or having them come to God - which one is the loving solution? This is Christ centric (which I have been trying to avoid since you are ‘God shopping’ at this time), but even if a person never sinned again that would not save them - only the forgiveness of God through the blood of Jesus can do that. Letting the homosexual know that Jesus wants you to come to God through Him and not criticizing the act of homosexuality to me is the way that Jesus wants us to be.

Any particular recommendations, god-wise?

I’ve met a few, only one I found leads to freedom and life, the rest lead to bondage and destruction. I highly recommend my Lord Jesus.

I gave it a go (actually, I gave it two goes, since I didn’t feel the first was sincere enough). No burning bushes as of yet, but it has been a bit chilly today

OK I tried to make it a overall prayer not going to anything but the one true God. My suggestion now. Accept that you will get help leading to freedom and light. You may find people that are expressing overwhelming love & help (don’t confuse for lust), going way beyond normal limits. This is the love of God - Follow it where ever it leads. You may be distrusting of their motives, as someone radiating this love we naturally seem to distrust, and some will be false and expose themselves as such in time. Follow the true light of God. But also don’t become ‘stuck’ either, look for new sources of light and love as your journey continues.

I believe God has placed the entrance of the Kingdom of God inside His believers - it has been my experience.

Don’t be afraid to pray that every morning, God does not mind repetition (He requests it), don’t be afraid to ask questions either.