What is “Christianity?”

[ShoutGrace]

What is “Christianity?” How do you define Christianity? How do you think it would best be defined?

I think that this is rather complicated because the word “define” can be used different ways. Some might think of Christianity as an oppressive dogma, others might view it as “truth.” I think that these are more manifestations or interpretations of what I'm trying to get at. That kind of definition is fine, but moreover, I want to know what you think Christianity is, perhaps ideally, what makes one a ‘Christian,’ etc.

I bring this up because it is commonly cited that Hitler either A.) Was a Christian, or B.) “Believed in Christianity.” At the moment I will plainly say that I think these two statements contradict his actions, and the beliefs of the Nazi party as a whole. Robinhood3000 mentioned that the Christianity Hitler “believed in” wasn’t very “benevolent.” It is commonly believed that the Christian God is "omnibenevolent." Do you think that ‘Christianity’ (on paper) is necessarily benevolent?

Kind of convoluted, but I just woke up. Any thoughts?

[Shadowsarin]

Erm, I'm no expert on this by a long shot, but I guess Christianity is a religion that merges parts of Jewdaism(sp?) with the teachings of Jesus. That would be my definition, and it could easily be wrong.

As for Hitler, off the top of my head he was raised as a Roman Catholic but he rejected it for a Darwinist line of thought. I think in the end he believed in something of a mix between the two. Something about there being several races that were there to battle it out and the Aryan race being the race chosen by some kind of higher power to be the best. Thats off the top of my head though.

Hmm, Christianity on paper is very hard to analise because there are so many different schools of thought in it. I can't remember most of them and the ones I do know I don't know alltogether much about. I guess I disagree with Traditionalist Catholocism(sp?) on sexuality grounds and any other schools that are similer. Apart from that, I just don't know enough.

Hmm, I'm interested to see what some people will say here. Methinks I have a good chance to learn quite a bit from this threat.

[Whifflingpin]

"Kind of convoluted"

I'll unravel a bit and confuse a bit more. I expect I’ll upset a few, so if you are a Christian, a Jew, a Moslem, a scientist, a fascist or a democrat, I advise you not to read this post. Please note, however, that I am not implying approval or otherwise of those views or people I’m describing, nor am I intending to insult anyone. That’s far too pretentious a preamble – but I know what a touchy lot of readers there are out there.

*** *** ***

The teachings of Jesus are important to most Christians, but, to be a Christian, it is necessary to believe that Jesus is more than a teacher, and more even than a prophet. The defining element of Christianity is a belief in Jesus as the Christ - the reconciler of God to mankind - the redeemer of mankind.

It is probably not possible to be a good Christian without following the teachings of Jesus, but, by that token, there are so few good Christians that they do not figure much in most people's perception of Christianity. Jesus advised a quiet simplicity in worship, but the majority of Christians use elaborate ritual. Jesus advised against the amassing of wealth, but most Christians pursue such wealth as they can, and give away just such tokens as the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned. Jesus embraced martyrdom, but most Christians would return two blows for every one received. This is not to say that Christians are worse than non-Christians, only that they are, on the whole, very poor followers of Christ. If you want to be a good Christian then a) believe in Jesus as the saviour of mankind, b) follow his teaching, without making excuses.


*** *** *** *** ***

As to whether Hitler was a Christian - nominally he was. More to the point, his power base was Catholic Bavaria - his followers were very largely ordinary Christians. (So, of course, were many of his opponents, even within Germany.) His closest political allies were the leaders of Italy and Spain, both predominantly Roman Catholic countries.

Shoutgrace casually refers to "beliefs of the Nazi party as a whole." The beliefs of the National Socialist party were no less complicated than the beliefs of Christianity. There was a large socialist element in National Socialism - a belief that the state should be for the benefit of all classes of people, especially the less well off. Politically and economically, Germany had collapsed in the years following the Great War, and the National Socialist government restored the country to economic soundness and political stability.

Many political leaders, from earliest times up to and including the present, have united their people, and consolidated their own leadership, by finding a scapegoat, internally, or an enemy externally.
As a war leader, Hitler was merely following in the footsteps of Ramses, Alexander, Timur, Napoleon, Chaka etc. As a persecutor of political opponents, Hitler had many predecessors, and successors, no less oppressive.


Only as racists, perhaps, did the Nazis exceed other regimes of modern times. They combined the doctrine of racial purity, as found in Ezra, with a scientific doctrine of Darwin and the Catholic church's doctrine that the whole Jewish race was guilty of deicide. Nothing in that was unique to them, only the combination and the thoroughness with which they sought to implement their beliefs.

How Christian were they? Obviously, their doctrine owed nothing to the Christ of the Gospels, but equally obviously they were carrying out policies that Christians had followed for centuries. Jews had frequently been persecuted by Christians for as long as Christians had the power to do so. Ghettos, proscriptions, pogroms - all were intermittent features of Christian societies. Where active persecution was not present, there was often a tacit prejudice against Jews.

So, it could be argued that the Nazis were no different in belief from the majority of their Christian predecessors. The extremity of their behaviour, however, brought about a revulsion and a change, such that we now find it difficult to see or admit that they were only taking to a logical extreme the common attitudes of Christendom.


*** *** *** ***

Is Christianity necessarily benevolent? I suppose Jesus is, his followers not. I’ve argued in other threads recently that, within the Old Testament, there is a portrayal of God as a tribal war leader, not in the least benevolent. This portrait is easily seized on by members of those religions that have their basis in the Old Testament. Jihad, Crusade, Holy War are, historically, features of the behaviour of the followers of the God of Abraham, the Lord of Hosts. Conversion by the sword has been a normal practice of those religions.

It seems obvious from a reading of the Gospels that the teaching and example of Jesus is utterly opposed to oppression or violent political action. It is equally obvious from a reading of history that oppression and violent political action have been embraced by Jesus’ followers as readily as by any other section of humanity.


.

[Mseif]

you picked a large topic here and a very controversial one at that but I think I may have some to say.

First of all let's look at people. The fact that Jesus' teachings would be taken and used for worshipped exactly as it was taught would be a miracle in itself because of man's natural thought and urges and passions for various things such as greed or power and after they gain it to keep it. Like the Catholic inquisition it rooted out the church's enemies so that it can remain aloof. All this power mongering would initiate new rites that regular men would create to enhance their presence as men of God and that none should for fear of death, torture and excommunication. I beleive excommunication is a perfect example of past church corruptness, I mean to give man the power to deny another paradise is not something i see a true follower of christ would do.

Current Christianity was more created out of people who craved power than the actual teachings of Christ, but this doesnt mean the are totally out of whack. Some things they follow are good, yet others are just there for the benefit of the church.

OK i should stop here because i know i make hardly any sense as i am scattered in my mind (wee crazy if you ask me) so if you ask a specific questions on christianity i should be able to help you

[Pendragon]

Simple as I can with one verse: Philippians 1:27 "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mid striving together for the faith of the gospel." Live what you preach.:)

[Redzeppelin]

The teachings of Jesus are important to most Christians, but, to be a Christian, it is necessary to believe that Jesus is more than a teacher, and more even than a prophet. The defining element of Christianity is a belief in Jesus as the Christ - the reconciler of God to mankind - the redeemer of mankind.

Well said, my friend.


Is Christianity necessarily benevolent? I suppose Jesus is, his followers not. I’ve argued in other threads recently that, within the Old Testament, there is a portrayal of God as a tribal war leader, not in the least benevolent...It seems obvious from a reading of the Gospels that the teaching and example of Jesus is utterly opposed to oppression or violent political action. It is equally obvious from a reading of history that oppression and violent political action have been embraced by Jesus’ followers as readily as by any other section of humanity.

Also well said - but not as condemnatory as many who espouse such a view might be lead to believe. One error, I believe, is the idea that Christianity exists in a vacuume; it does not. Belief in God necessitates a belief in Satan - a being engaged in relentless attack on the creation of God as his way of "attacking" God (because direct assault - as portrayed in Paradise Lost - is not an option). That Christians are capable of perverting the message of the Gospels confirms the nature of this battle. I think one would be hard pressed to find any world-wide religious movement of consequence that does not have a percentage of believers who distort the original message.

As far as the Old Testament God - well, I think sometimes our difficulty with God is based on the idea that His dictionary is the same one we use (i.e. we define "bad" a certain way - but does He define it similarly?). I'm not sure His published dictionary would necessarily jive with ours.

[Orionsbelt]

The simple answer to this question seems to me to be that Christ is a metaphor for what you as an individual can become. A Christian would be one who adopts this metaphor as a life guide. Anything else seems to me to be an un-necessary complication.

[alhara]

correct me if i'm wrong but i think definitions should be simple. wouldn't christianity be a belif in the techings of christ. I would think this would have something to do with the bible. but so long as you think it was said by christ and you believe in it i would think at least that belif could be called a christain one

[Redzeppelin]

correct me if i'm wrong but i think definitions should be simple. wouldn't christianity be a belif in the techings of christ.

Technically, you're correct. But "belief" in something is different than living it. There are plenty of people out there who "believe" in Christ's teachings but don't follow them in their own lives at all - and that sort of incongruity would, in my opinion, invalidate the person as representing Christianity.

[Virgil]

Technically, you're correct. But "belief" in something is different than living it. There are plenty of people out there who "believe" in Christ's teachings but don't follow them in their own lives at all - and that sort of incongruity would, in my opinion, invalidate the person as representing Christianity.

Well, that seems a little strict. I don't believe any person can completely live as Christ dictates. I know I can't. I can't even come close. But I do consider myself a Christian.

[mtpspur]

I claim to be a Christian but I assure you my life often contradicts the 'perceptions' people have of what a Christian is. I admit to any that care (and there is really no reason why you should) that I am a GREAT sinner in the eyes of God (and to those that know certain secrets) and yet the Lord Christ (for reasons known only to Him) HAS pity on me and saved me IN my sins and has been spending roughly the past 30 years making me over to conform to His image. None of which is a credit to my accomplishiments but are by His grace. This to me is a simple picture of what Christianity is--a memorial of God's grace to UNDESERVING sinners.

[Redzeppelin]

Well, that seems a little strict. I don't believe any person can completely live as Christ dictates. I know I can't. I can't even come close. But I do consider myself a Christian.

Fair enough. I suppose I can redeem myself by pointing to the adverb phrase "at all" to modify my verb "follow." I meant to say that there is little at all in their lives that would suggest that they are Christians beyond their profession (usually verbal - which reminds me of St. Francis: "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words") of that identity. If I took my definition as you have, then yep, I'm in bad, bad shape too. I was thinking of "Christianity" in the most Pharisaic sense.

[Pendragon]

Fair enough. I suppose I can redeem myself by pointing to the adverb phrase "at all" to modify my verb "follow." I meant to say that there is little at all in their lives that would suggest that they are Christians beyond their profession (usually verbal - which reminds me of St. Francis: "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words") of that identity. If I took my definition as you have, then yep, I'm in bad, bad shape too. I was thinking of "Christianity" in the most Pharisaic sense.And please remember the Pharisee and the Publican (Tax-collector) praying at the temple in Christ's parable. All the Publican would say was "God be merciful to me, a sinner." Yet Jesus said he went down to his house justified rather than the other who bragged about how good he was. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive them." Jude 1:24-25 "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling and to present [you] faultless befor the pressence of his glory with exceeding joy,

To the only wise God our Savior, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

Let Him do the work in us! :angel:

[Redzeppelin]

Let Him do the work in us! :angel:

Amen.

I suppose I should clarify that I'm a big fan of the book of James in the New Testament and that I think (to spout an oft pulpit-conveyed thought) that "Christian" should ve a verb, not an adjective. My focus on behavior is a direct criticism to people who claim the title "Christian" but do the opposite (sense the reference to the Pharisees, the religious "models" of Christ's day).

[Wintermute]

To me Christianity, like all other religions, is a human construct which is used to dampen our [natural] fear of death. However, being agnostic, I could be wrong.

[Pendragon]

This was last night's text on a Christian Attitude:

Philippians 2:1-5

"If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

"Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love. being of on accord, of one mind.

"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves

"Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus."

Humility, not braggarts make good Christians... :)

[Redzeppelin]

To me Christianity, like all other religions, is a human construct which is used to dampen our [natural] fear of death. However, being agnostic, I could be wrong.

I would this idea more palatable if Christianity made one's life easier - but much of what it expects from a believer goes counter to human nature. I wonder why anyone would construct a system that made life more difficult so that its terminal objective (heaven) made death less frightening. If I were going to create a system to lessen the fear of death, I'd have heaven, but I'd probably make life here a whole lot easier than Christianity does! :)

[Orionsbelt]

Well, I think it’s a little more complicated. :thumbs_up Here are some of my own thoughts. I expressed this idea on another thread; the whole religious experience comes down, more or less, to attempt to deal with the uncontrollable through a kind of magic. This includes death but can also mean healing, raises, more rain etc. Instead of drawing magic animal on the cave wall, we make promises and negotiate exchanges for favorable outcomes. It’s a kind of war against failing hope.

The medium for negotiation are those things that we think will be valuable to the deity /deities. Pick one. In order to address a deity you must understand two things. You must understand your relationship to he/she/it/them. You must understand the acceptable medium for negotiations. You can be a sort of fellow creature, or less powerful and human like, or you can address the impersonal and mysterious. You can trade, good works, personal pain, food, prayers and whatever else is available in your particular system of trade. These relationships are what are taught to us as children. It is a necessary human function to bring children into psychological alignment with these thoughts in some fashion. It gives rise to hope, soothes anger, and develops patience.

Having said this, now on to easy systems of living. Somewhere back in the way- back some people had developed other notions of “spiritual” and its relationship to us. There is a school of thought, ascetics that feel as though “spiritual and material” are somehow separate. Logically then to be more “spiritual” you must be less “earthly”, “material”, “physical”, or whatever. So it evolved that living in the dessert and eating locust or walking around with a begging bowl became one’s personal quest to be more spiritual. If you accept the premise, (I don’t) then this kind of behavior is logical. A million varieties for how exactly to accomplish this end have developed. The most advance, I think, is the Mahayana Buddhist system but I am no expert. John the Baptist lived another.

I think that this negative outlook on life and your relation to the “spiritual” has resulted in lots of very twisted notions. In essence, the evolution is first you are separate from god who is all spiritual. You have a body. Then, you are dirty but there is hope if you live well as defined by this rather large collection of magic spells. Finally, in my opinion the worst, the evolution of the notion of original sin. Instead of being on a personal quest for what is spiritual, now you are poop from the womb. Hence you need beat yourself up for your entire life and someone else to “save” you. The whole notion is awful. If you read carefully, it is my opinion that Jesus Christ was teaching against these kinds of ideas.

It seems to me that his story is an allegory for positive living that ended rather badly. I don't think the message was I'm here to save you. It was I'm here to show you how to save yourself. He wasn't saving us from God. He was saving us from ourselves. :D

[Redzeppelin]

You can trade, good works, personal pain, food, prayers and whatever else is available in your particular system of trade.

I do remember reading the particular post you are referring to. You are clearly a sharp thinker, and I am aware of the ideas you are laying out - but those ideas still suggest that we "created" these religious systems. You're still saying that religious systems are our attempt to deal with the "uncontrollable" - you're just naming it "magic" instead. My post still stands: why create a system (I'm speaking specifically of Christianity here) that demands more out of someone than non-belief? Christianity demands a responsibility towards one's fellow man that is at odds with human nature. Why would a person/culture create such a belief system? That question you have not answered.


Having said this, now on to easy systems of living. Somewhere back in the way- back some people had developed other notions of “spiritual” and its relationship to us. There is a school of thought, ascetics that feel as though “spiritual and material” are somehow separate. Logically then to be more “spiritual” you must be less “earthly”, “material”, “physical”, or whatever. So it evolved that living in the dessert and eating locust or walking around with a begging bowl became one’s personal quest to be more spiritual.

But you have not explained why these "way-back people" decided that mortification of the body was a positive thing? Why create something like that? I think it makes more sense that this idea is a distortion of what the Bible teaches - but if the Bible is a human-created attempt to deal with the "uncontrollable" - well, again, why write it like that? My comments about the difficulty of living the Christian life have nothing to do with asceticism - they have to do with the requirements in terms of our relationships to others - "love your enemies" "do good to those that hurt you" "take care of the poor" "take only what is fair" "the greates love one can show is to lay down his life for another" "the greatest must serve the least" (these are paraphrases). What you're talking about is a believer's self-styled suffering. I'm talking about our day to day lives.


Finally, in my opinion the worst, the evolution of the notion of original sin. Instead of being on a personal quest for what is spiritual, now you are poop from the womb. Hence you need beat yourself up for your entire life and someone else to “save” you. The whole notion is awful. If you read carefully, it is my opinion that Jesus Christ was teaching against these kinds of ideas.

"Original sin" does not imply that we are worthless - that idea comes from outdated medieval theology; what is does imply is that human beings are born into a state of sinfulness. Christians acknowledge this, but they also acknowledge that we are so valuable to God that He was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to rescue us from the consequences of our sins.


It seems to me that his story is an allegory for positive living that ended rather badly. I don't think the message was I'm here to save you. It was I'm here to show you how to save yourself. He wasn't saving us from God. He was saving us from ourselves. :D

You're right - Christ did not come here to "save" us from God - He came to save us from the consequences of sin - because sin separates one from God and we - because of original sin - were in need of that rescuing. As far as the idea of Christ's life being "an allegory for positive living that ended rather badly" - that depends on what you think His mission here was supposed to be. In terms of who's doing the "saving":

Matt 1:21 "And she [Mary] shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call him Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Matt 18:11 "For the Son of Man [Jesus] is come to save that which was lost."

The whole point of Christ's incarnation was that we are incapable of "saving" ourselves.

[Orionsbelt]

My post still stands: why create a system (I'm speaking specifically of Christianity here) that demands more out of someone than non-belief?

:thumbs_up I agree that adhering to system of practices (Christian or otherwise) makes demands. Maybe more of the individual or maybe less. Certainly Judaism did not require John the Baptist to live in the dessert. He chose this himself.

I do not agree that it is contrary to human nature. Self discipline and the ability to temper your spirit or will has always been respected by people. It is the test. Native American Sioux in the sun dance ritual clipped themselves to the sun dance pole through the chest skin. The Yogi’s in India held poses for days on end with no food or drink. There is also the Olympic in ancient Greece. So I think it is natural to test and demonstrate strength and resolve. In the old martial arts stories the quest for the ultimate contest ends with the successful warrior, having won dozens of fights, facing a mirror. The goal is different the test is the same.


But you have not explained why these "way-back people" decided that mortification of the body was a positive thing? Why create something like that?

In the spiritual world, what is the test? :idea: Is it your ability to let go of the prized goat? Alms to the poor? How do you measure the progress of your quest into the infinite divine? The manner depends on your system.



My comments about the difficulty of living the Christian life have nothing to do with asceticism - they have to do with the requirements in terms of our relationships to others.


So the goal is compassion. Like the Buddha who returned to teach. The test is….


He was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to rescue us from the consequences of our sins…..


I hope you don’t take offence. None is intended. I have trouble with the whole sin thing. This seems to me to be the proper attitude for a peasant, interested in preserving his head, when confronting the all powerful war lord. For me this kind of alignment with the divine is not something that I choose to accept. I have trouble with the fact that by virtue of my birth. I am now held in contempt by some all powerful being who would like me to beg for mercy? In my mind, doesn’t he have some galaxy to fix or something? I would prefer to remain lost, incapable, and stumble along with my fellow travelers and let them be the judge, come what may. I don’t want to go to heaven. I don’t even know what that means. You see I have never really left this planet. I would rather stay here and fish. Perhaps I could find some sub-standard job rattling chains at people or something. :D LOL

[Whifflingpin]

"doesn’t he have some galaxy to fix or something? "

Yes he does, and he wants your help to fix it, OK?

If you see yourself rattling chains, well, there are plenty of people in chains so get off your bum and go rattle a few!

[Heather_1816]

I wonder why anyone would construct a system that made life more difficult so that its terminal objective (heaven) made death less frightening. If I were going to create a system to lessen the fear of death, I'd have heaven, but I'd probably make life here a whole lot easier than Christianity does! :)

I understand where you're coming from but it's worth it. I know following the ways of Christianity can make life more difficult than it already is but isn't it worth a little more difficulty to try and make the world more loving and peaceful? Is it wrong to put in a little more effort to make yourself a better person? You ask any Christian and they'll say it is worth it.

You're right, Christianity does make life more difficult but for the sake of making the world a better place. :)

[Redzeppelin]

: I do not agree that it is contrary to human nature. Self discipline and the ability to temper your spirit or will has always been respected by people...So I think it is natural to test and demonstrate strength and resolve. In the old martial arts stories the quest for the ultimate contest ends with the successful warrior, having won dozens of fights, facing a mirror. The goal is different the test is the same.

Right: but these examples simply demonstrate the power of the Will to overcome our nature (which is generally to flee pain and toil). Not everybody chooses to test themselves. Christianity requires it.


In the spiritual world, what is the test? :idea: Is it your ability to let go of the prized goat? Alms to the poor? How do you measure the progress of your quest into the infinite divine? The manner depends on your system.

The "test" is obedience - the same one it was for Adam & Eve in the beginning. Do I trust God enough to do as He asks?


I hope you don’t take offence. None is intended. I have trouble with the whole sin thing. This seems to me to be the proper attitude for a peasant, interested in preserving his head, when confronting the all powerful war lord. For me this kind of alignment with the divine is not something that I choose to accept. I have trouble with the fact that by virtue of my birth. I am now held in contempt by some all powerful being who would like me to beg for mercy? In my mind, doesn’t he have some galaxy to fix or something? I would prefer to remain lost, incapable, and stumble along with my fellow travelers and let them be the judge, come what may. I don’t want to go to heaven. I don’t even know what that means. You see I have never really left this planet. I would rather stay here and fish. Perhaps I could find some sub-standard job rattling chains at people or something. :D LOL


No offense taken. You are a balanced and respectful arguer (I wish I could say the same for everybody I've run across in these forums...;) ). The view of God you are presenting is reasonable only if we assume His law to be random and do not acknowledge that He is the creator of all. When you were a child, your father deserved your respect because he "created" you and it was through him you were supported and nurtured into an independent being. When he told you at age 5 to not stick the knife into the light socket, his word (hopefully) was enough because you acknowledged his authority over you - authority in terms of both power and knowledge. God is the same, on an infinitely grander scale. He created all there is, so He is qualified to tell us how reality "works" - whether we wish to agree or not. "Sin" is living outside of the character of God. The consequence of living outside of God's boundaries is death - not because He created it that way, but because that's how it works: sin is contrary to God's character. Because God is ultimate reality and the sole source of life in the universe, choosing to live a life of sin is like choosing to separate yourself from the force that sustains your life - like air. But God's mercy means that He allows you to continue living despite the choice that will, ultimately, lead to death - not just physical, but spiritual as well. He does not require us to "beg for mercy" - once we realize our need for His presence in our lives, we do that automatically. He doesn't want grovelling - He wants us to demonstrate our love through obedience.

Sorry for the mini-sermon.

[Orionsbelt]

The consequence of living outside of God's boundaries is death - not because He created it that way, but because that's how it works:

No problem. I have never been very obedient. So who made it that way such that god has no say in the matter? Is this a Gnostic belief?:p

[Redzeppelin]

No problem. I have never been very obedient. So who made it that way such that god has no say in the matter? Is this a Gnostic belief?:p


OK - inaccurate terminology. It is not that God has "no say in the matter." What I'm trying to address is the non-believer's idea that God is random in His law and decisions. "Sin" is that which is inconsistent with the character of God - because He is an actual personality - no just a blind "life force" of some sort; He experiences joy, anger, sorrow, jealousy. He does not ask for obedience simply because it pleases Him - He asks for it because without it, you separate yourself from the source of all life in the universe. For Him to override that is to be inconsistent with His character. Assume you were arrested and could afford to hire the greatest attorney in the world - would you follow his advice? Would you "obey" his directions? I assume you would. Why? Because you recognize his authority in the area of law and your freedom depends upon it. God is the authority on "right" and "wrong" - not because they are random ideas, but because they are manifestations of His character and that which is opposite His character. If He tells us "X is bad for you, don't do it" then for us to ignore that is to ignore the absolute authority on right/wrong. If you assume God is just random in His requirments, then I suppose it's fairly easy to look at what He asks and dismiss it. But seriously, how bad a shape would the world be in if we did follow - for instance - the 10 commandments? Don't tell me about the unrealistic nature of the requests - if one accepts that God designed humans and human nature, one assumes the designer is well aware of the abilities/capabilities of His creation.

[Yelena]

REDZEPPELIN: "Sin" is that which is inconsistent with the character of God - because He is an actual personality - no just a blind "life force" of some sort; He experiences joy, anger, sorrow, jealousy."

Do you actually believe that God is a personality? I always thought that he's some kind of an energy....

[Redzeppelin]

Do you actually believe that God is a personality? I always thought that he's some kind of an energy....


The Bible speaks of God being angry, jealous, happy, fierce, joyful, merciful, compassionate and - most of all - loving. The primary metaphor made about the kind of relationship He wishes to have with us is marriage - where we are the bride and He the bridegroom. If you've experienced marriage, I think you'd agree that the feelings and excitement involved in that relationship resembles nothing like an energy force. As well, Gensis says we were created in God's image - I don't think that means physically, but in our emotional, creative capacities.

[Pendragon]

Man was first made as a spirit-- that is the image of God. Latter the spirit was placed in a body made from the earth, as were the animals. Genesis 1:26-27 Genesis 2:7, 19-25.

St. John 4:24 "God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth".

You don't have to agree with me. That is just how I read what is written in the Bible in black and white.

[fisherofmen]

Man was first made as a spirit-- that is the image of God. Latter the spirit was placed in a body made from the earth, as were the animals. Genesis 1:26-27 Genesis 2:7, 19-25.

St. John 4:24 "God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth".

You don't have to agree with me. That is just how I read what is written in the Bible in black and white.
Man was made in the image of God... but I don't know if I would say that^^^. Genesis 1 is the creation story, then genesis 2 goes back and deals with more specifics pertaining to the creation story. (*races off to re-read genesis*)

Jesus was God on earth. While I don't view God in a human body, I feel that the characteristics Jesus displayed on earth are characteristics that we could apply to God - caring for the poor and downtrodden, etc. God made man in his image, however any man we compare him to is false, as all men are imperfect... except that Jesus was perfect, so perhaps we could compare the characteristics he expressed to God? (after all they were one and the same - John 1.1)

Apologies for that being excessively redundant and perhaps incomprehensible, but its only monday and I'm ready for the weekend. Good night :)

[Orionsbelt]

When you were a child, your father deserved your respect because he "created" you and it was through him you were supported and nurtured into an independent being. When he told you at age 5 to not stick the knife into the light socket, his word (hopefully) was enough because you acknowledged his authority over you - authority in terms of both power and knowledge. God is the same, on an infinitely grander scale. He created all there is, so He is qualified to tell us how reality "works" - whether we wish to agree or not. "Sin" is living outside of the character of God.


When is the child grown and able to decide for himself? or is this parent unable to let go? As an adult, I'm OK with any consequences from my free choice. god must be OK with this choice. To retaliate would be a sin. Faith bound in the fear of being forever atomized in body and spirit is not faith. It is fear. I'd rather dance on the face of the sun.

[Gallantry]

I felt like coming back to browse this forum, mainly because I started reading William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experiences". This reminded me of Mono here on the forum who, as I recall, put the book down as an important read in some thread. So anyways, browsing this thread, a couple of things to note:

"So who made it that way such that god has no say in the matter? Is this a Gnostic belief?" -Orionsbelt

1. The idea that there are conditions placed upon sheer existence is not a radical or extreme idea. The first time I recall encountering it in writing was in one of C.S. Lewis' works. He says this concerning God's omnipotence : " His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God." -C.S. Lewis

This point of view supports that there can be, and are, conditions upon which God acts simply because he must. Not because someone or something is making him, but because, as Redzepplin stated, that is the way things are.
Prior to Lewis, Augustine made a statement which represents a similar train of thought; that God can not do something that would make him not God.
"For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." - St. Augustine

"When is the child grown and able to decide for himself? or is this parent unable to let go? As an adult, I'm OK with any consequences from my free choice. god must be OK with this choice. To retaliate would be a sin. Faith bound in the fear of being forever atomized in body and spirit is not faith. It is fear. I'd rather dance on the face of the sun." - Orionsbelt

It seems very plausible that you can decide for yourself after you die. Considering that this realm of belief includes an afterlife and a spiritual realm. It also matches up with Biblical scripture which states that in the spiritual realm Satan chose to rebel against God, as did the angels who fell into demon-hood. This life could easily be considered a growing and learning phase. That is the way I look at it.

And, to address the topic of people's actions and so forth in direct bearing with Christianity I will also give my two cents. Several things first:

1) Under Christian belief Jesus Christ lived a life without sin.
2) Christians are supposed to be followers of Jesus Christ.
3) Under Christian belief all people are sinners.

Obviously there is a paradox between the three. All people are sinners, Jesus lived a life without sin, and Christians(sinners) must follow Christ. Therefore, one can not say that someone is not a Christian merely because they have sinned. But, I think it is accurate to say that one is a Christian when one believes in the teachings of Jesus. The difference in knowing and believing being action. People who honestly believe act on their beliefs. For different purposes we can use William James' criteria:
" I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohammedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct. These experiences we can only find in individuals for whom religion exists not as a dull habit, but as an acute fever rather." -William James

I think it is fair to say that these people that James speaks of are true believers, who though sinned, treated their belief "not as a dull habit, but as an acute fever".

[Redzeppelin]

When is the child grown and able to decide for himself? or is this parent unable to let go? As an adult, I'm OK with any consequences from my free choice. god must be OK with this choice. To retaliate would be a sin. Faith bound in the fear of being forever atomized in body and spirit is not faith. It is fear. I'd rather dance on the face of the sun.

The question is, "When does sticking a knife in a live socket NOT hurt you?" You're talking about personal responsibility - I'm talking about logical consequences. Just because you're "OK" with the consequences of your choices does not mean your choices are "OK," appropriate, or beneficial. You should be frightened of sticking a knife into a power socket; you should be frightened of having unprotected sex with someone you're not married to; you should be frightened of becoming addicted to some substance or behavior - what's this dismissal of fear? Fear of consequences is a civilizing agent for young and old alike. The faith isn't based in fear; the choices we make in terms of what we avoid may be based in fear (in terms of the consequences) but obedience should be because of love. When one realizes what exactly God has graciously saved one from, obedience is the natural result. Your children obey you partly out of "fear" (which might more accurately be termed "respect") but also out of love (and respect is interwoven with love).

God is "OK" with you exercising your freewill to reject His law because He desires obedience via love, not fear. But, since He has made clear that the only way to save your life is to live consistently within the boundaries that define His character, to choose otherwise is a slow-motion form of suicide. We were created to breath air - you can deny yourself air if you wish, but you will die. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, God created us to "run" on HIM. Substitutes may "work" for a while, but eventually we will break down. If God is the source of all life, to decide to reject the source of life is to reject life itself. God did not "decide" that people would die if they rejected Him - that is simply the consequence of living in rebellion to the laws that exist because moral law is a reflection of God's character. God cannot alter His character to where sin is acceptable because sin is opposite to God's character.

[Orionsbelt]

I have read Willian James. Enjoy


This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God:

I think that is the very point that I was trying to make. Sorry it wasn't very clear.

So I guess my notion of the whole thing is that the Christian message is a bit more "Hellanized" that the traditional Hebrew thought. I have two sons. I often know when they are going to do something stupid. Sometimes I let them. It is good for them to stuble around a bit. Sometimes I will point out a pitfall sometimes I will wait to see if they see it for themselves. Always I am behind them. So I understand this notion that is being presented. My opinion is that the message really is more "be all you can be" kind of thing.

I agree that we are here to learn. Although I don't think the Christian notion will let me decide after death. I think it's demon fodder from the git go. This also seems to me to be a wasteful notion. OK you get ??? period of years then everything is fixed for eternity. This is silly to me. It seems contrary to the rest of nature.

[Gallantry]

It seems contrary to the rest of nature.

Be so kind as to elaborate.

[Orionsbelt]

Well, no (can’t use the word living) active, engaged thing ever stays the same. It grows and changes, ages, and dies, etc. There is this idea of the afterlife that is never fully explained. You just kind of hang out in a good or bad neighborhood waiting till the end of time. - The point being? Continuance for its own sake? Like a stone on mars. I'd think I'd rather not. At least in the east I get to come back as gad fly or some other annoying creature. The whole notion of "release" in the eastern systems strikes me the same way. Why would I want to be released anyway? I'm not sure I'd know how to dress. I guess I want to know in all of these ideas. What's wrong with with you have now. (aside from the usual various and sundry whines and complaints)

[Gallantry]

I agree, what is wrong with what we have now? However, although there are many people that don't see enough of the good things in life, I don't think these religions that present ideas such as "release" in some of the eastern religions and the afterlife in the traditional western religion are creating their religion with the intent of fixing what is wrong. It is a matter of belief which is a total tangent that belongs in a different thread.

[poem2poes]

I didn't read everything in this thread, and I am sorry I am getting to it rather late, but the original question was, "What is Christianity?"

My answer:

A Christian is one who believes in the Pauline version of the Jew, Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah. He is at once Man and God on Earth. He is considered the Son of God.

Christians believe that the only way to the Father (God) is through the Son. Therefore they address their prayers to Jesus, typically, and not God.

First and foremost, Christians believe that Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection mean that anyone who accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior will automatically have eternal life, no matter whether they are sinners or not.


Jesus was God on earth. While I don't view God in a human body, I feel that the characteristics Jesus displayed on earth are characteristics that we could apply to God - caring for the poor and downtrodden, etc. God made man in his image, however any man we compare him to is false, as all men are imperfect... except that Jesus was perfect, so perhaps we could compare the characteristics he expressed to God? (after all they were one and the same - John 1.1)



If one compares Jesus to God and says that Jesus was God on Earth, then that creates a great disconnect with the notion that Christians must strive to act like Jesus or follow His teachings in order to be a Christian. They do not. The message is: Jesus was perfect. He was God. You are a sinner and will always be sinners. God doesn't expect you to be like Him, only accept Him.

Accept the miracle of the resurrection as the forgiveness of sins and the life everlasting. Pray to God through Christ.

And you will be saved.

It's got nothing to do with following the teachings of Jesus, the Jew. That's what a good Jew would do. A Jew would try to follow the commandments. Jesus gave commandments: "Love your neighbor as yourself." and "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind and soul." were the two greatest. And they are profoundly Jewish in character.

A Christian, as distinct from a Jew, feels he's got (sorry if this offends anyone, but so I see it) a free pass to Heaven, no matter what he/she does, or whether or not they lead a righteous life.

So, for a Christian, following Jesus' teachings is potentially a very ancillary thing. You can do it or not, as the moment dictates. Your soul is still saved.

[subterranean]

This is not mine, this is Habermas', the German philosopher:

Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [from which to derive these]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter"

Suppose it'd spark new discussion. :)

And as for me, Christianity refers to the qualitiy and character based on Christ's teachings. Sure as Virg's said, that's sound strict but I personally think that's what it should be (no excuses, like Whiff have said) as that's what stated in the scripture (spiritual transformation to be like Christ).

[Virgil]

This is not mine, this is Habermas', the German philosopher:


Suppose it'd spark new discussion. :)

And as for me, Christianity refers to the qualitiy and character based on Christ's teachings. Sure as Virg's said, that's sound strict but I personally think that's what it should be (no excuses, like Whiff have said) as that's what stated in the scripture (spiritual transformation to be like Christ).

Hey Subby. I haven't seen you around lately. What I was referring to as strict was RedZep's comment that not only do you have to believe in Christ's teachings but you have to be able to follow them to be a Christian. Now I believe but I can't perfectly follow. I would guess unless one gives up all their worldly possesions including money then you can't follow his teachings. I am a mere mortal. So I think I'm a Christian because I beleive but to kick me out because I'm imperfect does seem strict. That was my point.

[subterranean]

Agree with you there, Uncie Virg!. However, I think sometimes we (or I) use the mere mortal excuse for our (my) repeating flaws. Zep might put it to the extreme, but though we can't do it in one go, that's how it should be (as James said faith without act is nothing). Sorry for not making myself perfectly clear.

Hope you're doing fine :wave:

[Redzeppelin]

Hey there - I think I've been a bit misunderstood. I don't think God expects anything out of us but our best effort. Perfection is what we're shooting for, but we (and God) know very well that our best efforts will be imperfect at best. Christ didn't ask that we give up possessions and money to follow Him - I think you're thinking of the episode with the rich young ruler. Christ asked him to give all his possessions and money away because Christ knew that these things were "gods" to the rich young ruler (who hought that his keeping the commandments [good behavior] was sufficient), and Christ asks that we forsake the other "gods" in our lives if we wish to follow Him. If money and possessions aren't "gods" in your life, He probably wouldn't ask for them.

My point (which I tried to make clear earlier) is that being a Christian must be more than just saying "I'm a Christian": it should mean that that identity shows in your behavior. A wise coach once said: If you're good, you won't have to tell people you're good - they'll be telling you. I think - in the spirit of the book of James - that our Christianity should show itself in our day to day behavior. If you're a Christian, I think people should see something different about you. That's all I was trying to say

[Theshizznigg]

I thought of something absolutely brilliant to say here......

[Triskele]

according to hauwerwas christianity should not be a state religion bur rather an existence of the mind in acceptance of the abiguity and confusion of life.

[Gallantry]

I didn't read everything in this thread, and I am sorry I am getting to it rather late, but the original question was, "What is Christianity?"

My answer:

A Christian is one who believes in the Pauline version of the Jew, Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah. He is at once Man and God on Earth. He is considered the Son of God.

Christians believe that the only way to the Father (God) is through the Son. Therefore they address their prayers to Jesus, typically, and not God.

First and foremost, Christians believe that Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection mean that anyone who accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior will automatically have eternal life, no matter whether they are sinners or not.



If one compares Jesus to God and says that Jesus was God on Earth, then that creates a great disconnect with the notion that Christians must strive to act like Jesus or follow His teachings in order to be a Christian. They do not. The message is: Jesus was perfect. He was God. You are a sinner and will always be sinners. God doesn't expect you to be like Him, only accept Him.

Accept the miracle of the resurrection as the forgiveness of sins and the life everlasting. Pray to God through Christ.

And you will be saved.

It's got nothing to do with following the teachings of Jesus, the Jew. That's what a good Jew would do. A Jew would try to follow the commandments. Jesus gave commandments: "Love your neighbor as yourself." and "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind and soul." were the two greatest. And they are profoundly Jewish in character.

A Christian, as distinct from a Jew, feels he's got (sorry if this offends anyone, but so I see it) a free pass to Heaven, no matter what he/she does, or whether or not they lead a righteous life.

So, for a Christian, following Jesus' teachings is potentially a very ancillary thing. You can do it or not, as the moment dictates. Your soul is still saved.

If you read much of what Paul wrote you would know that this isn't how a Christian view is supposed to be. While you still may be saved, the life of the Christian is not revolved around salvation from Hell, that is a plus, but the gist of the existence of the Christian is a relationship with God. I believe Paul addresses this in Romans, can't recall off the top of my head and its 2 a.m. so I'm going to sleep, but I thought I would throw that out there.

[Redzeppelin]

You are saved by Grace: yes. But your works do count - you will be judged for the content of your behavior here on earth. The failure to live like Jesus may not cost you salvation, but we're not free to do as we wish. We are encouraged to emulate Jesus - and one would logically assume that - if God is living in one's heart, that one would naturally be inclined to emulate Jesus (with varying levels of success, since sin/temptation never goes away).

[Domer121]

I agree with you^

[Redzeppelin]

Thanks.

Ultimately, I think being a Christian as a way to view the world and my place in it, as well as my duty as a person. Why there is such hostility towards Christianity seems kind of odd to me - as if we're still fighting the Crusades or enacting the Inquisition or something.

[hyperborean]

No, people sometime don't like others that find meaning through myths. Most Christians put down science, which is absurd.

[Redzeppelin]

No, people sometime don't like others that find meaning through myths. Most Christians put down science, which is absurd.

A great many Christians find meaning through myth. Secondly, your second sentence is another example of sweeping generalization. Unless you have valid numbers to back up such statements, they come across as just your opinion. "Putting science down" is not the same as questioning its ultimate veracity. A Christian would be foolish to dismiss out-of-hand all that science has accomplished and learned.

[hyperborean]

Of course you are not going to find a poll on the internet stating "As a Christian is science all that important to you?". During my real world, life experience, I've spoken with many Christians that dismiss science. Some think that all scientists are atheists and they are out to debunk god's existence. If I speak further then I would be forced to go into politics and I can't do that.

They "generally" value religion over scientific exploration.

[Redzeppelin]

Of course you are not going to find a poll on the internet stating "As a Christian is science all that important to you?". During my real world, life experience, I've spoken with many Christians that dismiss science. Some think that all scientists are atheists and they are out to debunk god's existence. If I speak further then I would be forced to go into politics and I can't do that.

They "generally" value religion over scientific exploration.

That's fine. But there is a difference between "valuing" religion over science and putting science down or "dismissing" it. That's the only discrimination I was trying to make.

[Redzeppelin]

To continue:

Christianity is the acknowledgement that there is more to this world than meets the eye; that reality cannot simply be measured by material means; that "good" and "evil" have objective meanings; that a life of service is the only meaningful life; that the worship of self is actually the very definition of what it means to be in Hell.

[billyjack]

To continue:

Christianity is the acknowledgement that there is more to this world than meets the eye; that reality cannot simply be measured by material means; that "good" and "evil" have objective meanings; that a life of service is the only meaningful life; that the worship of self is actually the very definition of what it means to be in Hell.

i'm shocked to see it written that "good and evil" have objective meanings. i'm assuming by objective you mean standing the test of time? the concepts good and evil are words. and to quote nietzche, "words are pockets into which now this and now that has been put." what was once good is now bad, and vice versa. these concepts change from generation to generation. for example, it was once seen as weakness or a blunder to have remorse about one's actions. but christianity came in and said its neccessary to feel remorse because by acting outside the mores of the christian value system, you are indebting yourself to god. to get yourself out of debt is to feel bad about it. thereby, christianity created a new meaning for good (acting in accordance with their mores) and bad (acting outside their mores). before christianity it was just the opposite. so where lies the objectivity?

furthermore, who is it we're supposed to live our lives in service to? who is it that is so far above me that i must be indenchared to him and service him? in a democracy all people are equal. are you saying someone's more equal than someone else?

if you mean the worship of self as hell, than i assume you mean the self that lies in our bags of skin. cause the self i consider each and everyone of us to be is the entire universe. there can't be anything wrong with worshipping a sense of self that encompasses the whole universe can there? is it crazy to think that i am god and so is everyone and everything else? didn't jesus say the same thing. i think he meant what i am trying to say! its the dogmatic interpretation that got the idea mixed up. jesus was right on!


what meets the eye is existence. spinoza said, "by perfection, i understand existence." isn't god the deification of perfection? then god must be existence. so what is christianity acknowledging when it acknowledges more than meets the eye, ie. more than existence. is it saying that there is something besides god, and it then acknowledges this? i'm confused, so you are worshipping what is not god? please, clear this up for me.

[hyperborean]

I'm really glad you joined the forums, billyjack. :)

[billyjack]

I'm really glad you joined the forums, billyjack. :)

my sacrasm detector is off the charts or else its broken. if the latter, sorry for the former remark

[Redzeppelin]

i'm shocked to see it written that "good and evil" have objective meanings. i'm assuming by objective you mean standing the test of time? the concepts good and evil are words. and to quote nietzche, "words are pockets into which now this and now that has been put." what was once good is now bad, and vice versa. these concepts change from generation to generation.

No. "Good" and "evil" are not just words, and they are not simply dependent upon culture or collective agreement or whatever. There are things that are clearly right and wrong in this world, and there are things that are clearly good and evil. You cannot argue them out of existence via moral relativism. Some things do change over time, but evil and good ought not be so flexible.


for example, it was once seen as weakness or a blunder to have remorse about one's actions. but christianity came in and said its neccessary to feel remorse because by acting outside the mores of the christian value system, you are indebting yourself to god. to get yourself out of debt is to feel bad about it. thereby, christianity created a new meaning for good (acting in accordance with their mores) and bad (acting outside their mores). before christianity it was just the opposite. so where lies the objectivity?

Christianity does not exist because the world needed a "new" moral system. It exists because people were in need of the gift of salvation Jesus Christ had to offer. Please don't expect me to believe that people didn't feel remorseful for doing something wrong until Christ showed up - neither He nor Paul told believers "you're supposed to feel remorse for doing something bad" - people naturally experience guilt when they do something wrong.


furthermore, who is it we're supposed to live our lives in service to? who is it that is so far above me that i must be indenchared to him and service him? in a democracy all people are equal. are you saying someone's more equal than someone else?

People who live only for themselves are generally unhappy. According to Christ, we are to serve others. If the Son of God did not see Himself above washing the feet of His disciples, then we can all do likewise.


if you mean the worship of self as hell, than i assume you mean the self that lies in our bags of skin. cause the self i consider each and everyone of us to be is the entire universe. there can't be anything wrong with worshipping a sense of self that encompasses the whole universe can there? is it crazy to think that i am god and so is everyone and everything else? didn't jesus say the same thing. i think he meant what i am trying to say! its the dogmatic interpretation that got the idea mixed up. jesus was right on!

You and I are not the "universe" - sorry. You and I are individuals, created in the image of God. Jesus claimed to be God because He was God - you claiming so lacks the same authority because He rose from the dead. I'm pretty doubtful you can manage that one (along with the other miracles).



what meets the eye is existence. spinoza said, "by perfection, i understand existence." isn't god the deification of perfection? then god must be existence. so what is christianity acknowledging when it acknowledges more than meets the eye, ie. more than existence. is it saying that there is something besides god, and it then acknowledges this? i'm confused, so you are worshipping what is not god? please, clear this up for me.

I don't know how to clear this up for you because your usage of language I find confusing. God is not the "deification of perfection." He is perfection, period. To say there is more than meets the eye is to say that behind the physical reality of this world is a spiritual world - one that has a large influence on the contents of the physical world.

[bhekti]

I am a christian and here's my attempt to answer the question 'what is christianity?' Mmmmh, I am not proud of the result, but it's really the first thing that came in my mind.

What is Christianity?

A living deconstruction of life.
A history.
A controversy.
An interpretation.
A perversion.
A scandal.
A laughing stock.
A man giving up.
An insanity.
A dead end.
A suicide.
On-going reformations.
Deaths.
A man saying no.
A man saying yes.
Realization of a dangerous moment.
A challenge.
A war.
A stupidity.
A difficulty.
Hardships.
A loneliness.
A story.
Prophets and whores.
Saints and sinners.
A confusion.
Accusations.
A signifiance.
A choice.
A decision.
A walk-on.

[littlewing53]

wow, as a christian i thought christianity is about spiritual rebirth and having a relationship with jesus christ...

[Bookworm4Him]

correct me if i'm wrong but i think definitions should be simple. wouldn't christianity be a belif in the techings of christ. I would think this would have something to do with the bible. but so long as you think it was said by christ and you believe in it i would think at least that belif could be called a christain one

One thing, as Red stated a little bit, is that it isn't only a belief in Christ, but following Him. The word Christian, in the Greek (I'm pretty sure) means "Little Christ" The implies action as well as belief; discipleship.
That doesn't mean that as soon as you mess up, you're not a Christian, though. As humans, we make mistakes. That is why Christ came in the first place, because we weren't perfect. But I believe a good definition of a Christian is "one who follows the example of Christ." Realize that that includes the Bible, God, the Trinity, and everything else, because Jesus knew those to be true.
One last comment is that I don't in any way believe Hitler to have been a Christian. He may have believed his brutal killing to have been a religious affair, but if he was a Christian, one, he would know that was the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches, and two, he would know that the Jews were God's chosen race, and wouldn't try to exterminate them. But another discussion for another time. :thumbs_up

[Bookworm4Him]

To me Christianity, like all other religions, is a human construct which is used to dampen our [natural] fear of death. However, being agnostic, I could be wrong.

Hello Wintermute, me again! ;) I am going to use a line you used to welcome me, on my very first post!
To me Atheism, like other secular religions, is a human construct which is used to dampen our [sinful] fear of judgement, sin, and realization that we are not all powerful.

"Same question, no?"
lol

[Dante Wodehouse]

who is it that is so far above me that i must be indenchared to him and service him? in a democracy all people are equal. are you saying someone's more equal than someone else?

Democracy is not the perfect form of government. It is the best on Earth, because then humans will not corrupt the positions like Stalin and Zedong did with communism and every monarchy came to a fall because there were more bad kings than good. No one ever said Heaven was a democracy. It is an absolute monarchy. And yes, God is so far above you that you should be indentured to Him. If you accept him as your creator, you cannot logically think that you are even close to on an even level with Him.

[billyjack]

Democracy is not the perfect form of government. It is the best on Earth, because then humans will not corrupt the positions like Stalin and Zedong did with communism and every monarchy came to a fall because there were more bad kings than good. No one ever said Heaven was a democracy. It is an absolute monarchy. And yes, God is so far above you that you should be indentured to Him. If you accept him as your creator, you cannot logically think that you are even close to on an even level with Him.

ok. there you go. i don't accept myself as something created. i wasnt put on earth by something or some god, i am of the earth and so are you. just as the ocean waves, and a tree leaves, the universe (or to be more specific, earth) peoples. there is no need to explain our existence with supernatural explanations.

and did you say heaven is an absolute monarchy? to put it in the words of obi wan kanobi, "only syths deal in absolutes." syths are evil by the way. heaven sounds scary.

[Bookworm4Him]

I agree that we are here to learn. Although I don't think the Christian notion will let me decide after death. I think it's demon fodder from the git go. This also seems to me to be a wasteful notion. OK you get ??? period of years then everything is fixed for eternity. This is silly to me. It seems contrary to the rest of nature.

But think about it. Which is stranger; the idea that what we do here on earth decides what we do in eternity, or the idea that we do whatever we want here on earth and then just die and lie there forever and ever and ever and ever... Everything has consequences, why should the question of eternity be an different?

[Bookworm4Him]

Thanks.

Ultimately, I think being a Christian as a way to view the world and my place in it, as well as my duty as a person. Why there is such hostility towards Christianity seems kind of odd to me - as if we're still fighting the Crusades or enacting the Inquisition or something.

Well, this was predicted in the Bible, you know that. I'm just glad I won't be here for the end times.

[Bookworm4Him]

No, people sometime don't like others that find meaning through myths. Most Christians put down science, which is absurd.

Give a point that "proves" evolution. Let's see what we all can come up with. You have "science", we have "myth" We'll argue science, and Lord-willing, we can still prove the Bible.

[billyjack]

Give a point that "proves" evolution. Let's see what we all can come up with. You have "science", we have "myth" We'll argue science, and Lord-willing, we can still prove the Bible.

okay, the appendix. no function, except as an evolutionary relic that has stuck around without a purpose for a long time. kind of like agent smith sticking around the matrix after he should have chosen deletion.

mythos needs logos and vice versa.

[billyjack]

But think about it. Which is stranger; the idea that what we do here on earth decides what we do in eternity, or the idea that we do whatever we want here on earth and then just die and lie there forever and ever and ever and ever... Everything has consequences, why should the question of eternity be an different?

everything does not have consequences! i'd quote nietzche but my copy of will to power isnt handy. cause and effect are made up. they exist only in the world of seperations and dualing of contraries. its impossible to say what caused something. the mind cannot grasp the enormity that would go into such a problem. being aware of something implies being unaware of everything else. so how can cause and effect banter take this "everything else" into consideration? it can't. cause and effect exist in language. language is not the way of the world. its a representation of hte world.

we dont jsut die and lie there forever. flesh becomes nutrients and nutrients soil and soil plants and plants become people. so once "its" over, "its" really just beginning.

[Bookworm4Him]

i'm shocked to see it written that "good and evil" have objective meanings. i'm assuming by objective you mean standing the test of time? the concepts good and evil are words. and to quote nietzche, "words are pockets into which now this and now that has been put." what was once good is now bad, and vice versa. these concepts change from generation to generation. for example, it was once seen as weakness or a blunder to have remorse about one's actions. but christianity came in and said its neccessary to feel remorse because by acting outside the mores of the christian value system, you are indebting yourself to god. to get yourself out of debt is to feel bad about it. thereby, christianity created a new meaning for good (acting in accordance with their mores) and bad (acting outside their mores). before christianity it was just the opposite. so where lies the objectivity?

Good and bad are steadily the same. Some things change, such as how many wives are allowed, etc, but good and evil overall haven't. They aren't just words, they're ideas; concepts not just letters put together. When in the history of the world do people take pride in betraying their friends? When has it been accepted to walk right into a person's home, steal something, and then kill them? When has it been alright to kidnap someone's baby, cut off their limbs one by one, and laugh as they cry and bleed to death? As for what is good, certain ideas are universally recognized as right. People who share are admired, those who are humble are applauded. Those who take care of others are loved back. When has that been bad? I could go on and on, but simply: there is right, and there is wrong; good exists, as well as evil.

"furthermore, who is it we're supposed to live our lives in service to? who is it that is so far above me that i must be indenchared to him and service him?"

How about the being that created you. Would you consider Him worth of worship?
"in a democracy all people are equal. are you saying someone's more equal than someone else?"
Well, I have a lot to say about everyone being equal, but that is a totally different discussion. Don't get me started on that. And its not more equal, think of it like a king, or a President. Don't they deserve more respect than others?

"if you mean the worship of self as hell, than i assume you mean the self that lies in our bags of skin. cause the self i consider each and everyone of us to be is the entire universe. there can't be anything wrong with worshipping a sense of self that encompasses the whole universe can there? is it crazy to think that i am god and so is everyone and everything else? didn't jesus say the same thing. i think he meant what i am trying to say! its the dogmatic interpretation that got the idea mixed up. jesus was right on!"
yes, but when Jesus claimed to be God, there's just one difference. He was, you're not. If you are claiming Jesus' statements are credible, then maybe you should take it in context. I could take anything, and make it say what I wanted. I could take your arguement so far, and show that you are claiming to be an alien :alien: Anything can be twisted.

what meets the eye is existence. spinoza said, "by perfection, i understand existence." isn't god the deification of perfection? then god must be existence. so what is christianity acknowledging when it acknowledges more than meets the eye, ie. more than existence. is it saying that there is something besides god, and it then acknowledges this? i'm confused, so you are worshipping what is not god? please, clear this up for me.[/QUOTE]


Your arguement would be true, except for the fact that your first premise is wrong. "There is more than meets the eye." Can you see the wind? Can you see oxygen? How about energy? No. you can see the effects of it. " If your arguement was true, than reality would be wacked. Nothing would exist for a blind person, snow would not exist for Californianers, not would heat exist for Eskimos.
Sorry I talk a lot, a have so many ideas running around in my head. If it seems a little confusing, then ask for clarification. :thumbs_up

[Bookworm4Him]

everything does not have consequences! i'd quote nietzche but my copy of will to power isnt handy. cause and effect are made up. they exist only in the world of seperations and dualing of contraries. its impossible to say what caused something. the mind cannot grasp the enormity that would go into such a problem. being aware of something implies being unaware of everything else. so how can cause and effect banter take this "everything else" into consideration? it can't. cause and effect exist in language. language is not the way of the world. its a representation of hte world.

If I smacked you right now, what would you do? There's a cause, and what's your effect? It could be different, based on whether you're angry, patient, or unconcious from it. But you're gonna do something. If I do poorly on a test, I get a bad grade. If you drop a pebble in a pond, it will cause ripples. If you kill someone, the law is going to come after you. What do you mean cause and effect isn't real?
"we dont jsut die and lie there forever. flesh becomes nutrients and nutrients soil and soil plants and plants become people. so once "its" over, "its" really just beginning."
sorry, I forgot that becoming grass seed or dirt was a worthy cause, better than going to Heaven.
:)

[Redzeppelin]

everything does not have consequences! i'd quote nietzche but my copy of will to power isnt handy. cause and effect are made up. they exist only in the world of seperations and dualing of contraries.

Here's where I struggle a bit: you and I live in a real world, full of real things and real people; that we can abstract our thinking doesn't change the fact that we still have to negotiate the real world. Sometimes I wonder if the German philosophers remember that. Cause-effect is demonstratable in the real world. Granted, there are times when the relationship between the two isn't always clear - especially in terms of which was the cause and which was the effect. But to relegate those terms into a mere convention of language is little more than metaphysical sleight-of-hand. They exist.


its impossible to say what caused something. the mind cannot grasp the enormity that would go into such a problem.

Difficult sometimes, yes: impossible sometimes? Sure. Inherently impossible? Not so. There are ways to make at least a reasonable speculation.


being aware of something implies being unaware of everything else. so how can cause and effect banter take this "everything else" into consideration? it can't. cause and effect exist in language. language is not the way of the world. its a representation of hte world.

But we can limit our field of consideration in order to make some sort of determination because we cannot simply sit in paralysis and say "I don't know - it's all too big to grasp." Language does represent things of this world - and the words "cause-effect" reflect a real relationship in the real world.

[billyjack]

When in the history of the world do people take pride in betraying their friends? When has it been accepted to walk right into a person's home, steal something, and then kill them? When has it been alright to kidnap someone's baby, cut off their limbs one by one, and laugh as they cry and bleed to death? As for what is good, certain ideas are universally recognized as right. People who share are admired, those who are humble are applauded. Those who take care of others are loved back. When has that been bad? I could go on and on, but simply: there is right, and there is wrong; good exists, as well as evil.



How about the being that created you. Would you consider Him worth of worship?



yes, but when Jesus claimed to be God, there's just one difference. He was, you're not.



Your arguement would be true, except for the fact that your first premise is wrong. "There is more than meets the eye." Can you see the wind? Can you see oxygen? How about energy? No. you can see the effects of it. " If your arguement was true, than reality would be wacked. Nothing would exist for a blind person, snow would not exist for Californianers, not would heat exist for Eskimos.
thumbs_up

the definitions of absolute good and absolute evils are disturbing, but engaging. i'll refute one of your "goods" and one "evil" to show the concepts as relative ideas.

betraying friends: what if your friend has committed treason? i might betray him then. what if my friends are becoming too evangalistic-- i would betray them by not converting. betrayal, like other ideas of bad, can be a good thing.

taking care of others: in times when this meant slowing down the nomadic lifestyle to keep up with big game, this would have been a "bad". you would be risking the entire tribe for one person--a no-no.

the being that created me? i've said this before. i wasn't created by a being, i am of the earth, so are you. to quote allan watts, "the ocean waves, a tree leaves, and the earth peoples."

me not being a god is your opinion man. people probably told jesus that too, they did didnt they. my idea of god and yours are different. mine is natural, yours supernatural.

more than meets the eye: "eye" means senses in general--not just sight.. senses for me include thought and experience. i feel wind, i experience energy (before you refute this, know that animals experience changes in polarity of energy--that is how they're the first to know of a storm), and californians and eskimos think snow and heat, respectively.

[billyjack]

If I smacked you right now, what would you do? There's a cause, and what's your effect? It could be different, based on whether you're angry, patient, or unconcious from it. But you're gonna do something. If I do poorly on a test, I get a bad grade. If you drop a pebble in a pond, it will cause ripples. If you kill someone, the law is going to come after you. What do you mean cause and effect isn't real?
"we dont jsut die and lie there forever. flesh becomes nutrients and nutrients soil and soil plants and plants become people. so once "its" over, "its" really just beginning."
sorry, I forgot that becoming grass seed or dirt was a worthy cause, better than going to Heaven.
:)

so you smack me, in this case with words. tell me what caused it. you'd have to go back your "creation" in order to explain everything leading up to the smack. cause and effect work within a system of thought and in sense, since that system of thought is how we live, cause and effect work or make sense in reality. but if conventional thought is looked at from a fresh perspective, we'd see that thought is a net we throw out to catch the world. this net will catch some fish (reality) but a lot slips through it too. so goes with cause and effect...it works but leaves a lot out. i'm not saying that the opinion that cause and effect are reality is wrong. i'm just calling it an opinion, not an absolute.

cause and effect is real in the true world. but, to quote somebody who's name escapes me right now, "truth only exist in logic." in reality, cause and effect are so blurry they're the same event.

i'd rather spend my time in reality, the natural world, what is...than spend my "eternity" in what is not, what is an idea, an unproven. head in the clouds and feet on the ground, says matisyahu. and so goes with death as well.

[amanda_isabel]

What is “Christianity?” How do you define Christianity? How do you think it would best be defined?

I think that this is rather complicated because the word “define” can be used different ways. Some might think of Christianity as an oppressive dogma, others might view it as “truth.” I think that these are more manifestations or interpretations of what I'm trying to get at. That kind of definition is fine, but moreover, I want to know what you think Christianity is, perhaps ideally, what makes one a ‘Christian,’ etc.

I bring this up because it is commonly cited that Hitler either A.) Was a Christian, or B.) “Believed in Christianity.” At the moment I will plainly say that I think these two statements contradict his actions, and the beliefs of the Nazi party as a whole. Robinhood3000 mentioned that the Christianity Hitler “believed in” wasn’t very “benevolent.” It is commonly believed that the Christian God is "omnibenevolent." Do you think that ‘Christianity’ (on paper) is necessarily benevolent?

Kind of convoluted, but I just woke up. Any thoughts?

not really sure how to answer.. um... like i said in the 'what is religion' thread, i think Christianity, just like every other religion, is a lifestyle.

Christianity in itself is very broad. some would even say Chrisitanity is most of religion-for the monotheistic part, anyway- because followers worship Christianity's God in many dfferent ways and have about a thousand names for Him.

i do think that Christianity is benevolent, but then again aren't all groups of religion (forgive me, i can't find the term) centered on becoming a better person? isn't the prescription for becoming a better person typically benevolence, and philanthropy? aren't followers of religion victims of the benevolence of their brethren as well?

i don't know about Hitler, though. i didn't know it was a common citation that he was a Christian. what i was taught is that he was an extreme nationalist and racist, but nothing really about his religion. i would agree with him believing in Christianity. what other reason could he have for attempting to eradicate the jews? wasn't it that he thought the german race should be above all-especially the jews, who were said to be especially linked with Christ? population could be a factor, although i guess he could have contented himself with the thought that an 'inferior' race was multiplying. then again, maybe the fear that because of population, an 'inferior' race would rise to meet the germans... but i think he had to have some deepr connection.

forgive me if i'm not maing sense, i'm in an internet cafe and the guy next to me is smoking.. (cough, cough)

[Laurette]

the definitions of absolute good and absolute evils are disturbing, but engaging.
.....

the being that created me? i've said this before. i wasn't created by a being, i am of the earth, so are you. to quote allan watts, "the ocean waves, a tree leaves, and the earth peoples."


First off, those definitions of absolute good and evil. I kind of liked the sith quote you gave earlier. It explains everything as I believe it to be on earth... or concerning creatures. Among us, nothing is absolute - or at least, taking things here to be absolute is evil, because it's overly simplistic and dangerous. But I do believe that there exist a pure essence of Good and Evil, distinguishable, just like cause and effect are two distinguishable ideas. They're defined as specific and different ideas.

Situations and objects consist of different elements. If you were ticked off and then threw your friend with a coconut, a series of cause and effect can be seen. You being ticked caused you to throw a coconut, which in turn probably caused your friend to smack you. In relation to you being ticked off, throwing the coconut was the effect, which was, in turn, the cause for your friend smacking you. So yeah, the one is the other, but saying that it's impossible to distinguish the idea of cause from effect is simplistic and it misses the point. There are elements of both in all of those actions, but when we isolate the incidents, like Redzeppelin said, it's possible to analyse and understand some of it.

You're right to say that things are relative, but that implies that definitions for absolute ideas exist, because how else can you relate two things? Cause and effect exist as separate elements, because we use the idea of both to relate actions. Good and Evil exist as separate elements, because we use the idea to relate things.

That brings me to your Allan Watts quote. I think the progression of time is relevant. Obviously, trees haven't leaved for ever and ever. They weren't there, and now they are. Whether you believe in the Big Bang or the 7 day creation or whatever else, most people would agree that trees didn't always leave. Everything that has a beginning has an end, of course, at least as it relates to all things natural. And yet, there is this illusion of permanence or cyclic movement about earth that seems to suggest that some Thing isn't bound or dependant on time. We measure time from the moment earth started to exist. Let's assume the Big Bang happened, and things started to exist from there. What stops us from wondering what happened before then? It's a simple mathematical question. Billions of years ago... plus one? So maths seems to suggest infinity and permanence. That's something absolute, isn't it? There's nothing relative about infinity.

So in the process of relating things to other things, at some point you realise that it's all done to the backdrop of infinity - or the absolute.

And from there it's not much of a stretch to believe in a God that is absolutely Good.

[billyjack]

Among us, nothing is absolute - But I do believe that there exist a pure essence of Good and Evil, distinguishable, just like cause and effect are two distinguishable ideas. They're defined as specific and different ideas.

You being ticked caused you to throw a coconut, which in turn probably caused your friend to smack you. In relation to you being ticked off, throwing the coconut was the effect, which was, in turn, the cause for your friend smacking you. So yeah, the one is the other, but saying that it's impossible to distinguish the idea of cause from effect is simplistic and it misses the point.

You're right to say that things are relative, but that implies that definitions for absolute ideas exist, because how else can you relate two things? Cause and effect exist as separate elements, because we use the idea of both to relate actions. Good and Evil exist as separate elements, because we use the idea to relate things.

That brings me to your Allan Watts quote. I think the progression of time is relevant. Obviously, trees haven't leaved for ever and ever. They weren't there, and now they are. Whether you believe in the Big Bang or the 7 day creation or whatever else, most people would agree that trees didn't always leave. Everything that has a beginning has an end, of course, at least as it relates to all things natural. And yet, there is this illusion of permanence or cyclic movement about earth that seems to suggest that some Thing isn't bound or dependant on time. We measure time from the moment earth started to exist. Let's assume the Big Bang happened, and things started to exist from there. What stops us from wondering what happened before then? It's a simple mathematical question. Billions of years ago... plus one? So maths seems to suggest infinity and permanence. That's something absolute, isn't it? There's nothing relative about infinity.
.


1) saying there are no absolutes, and then saying there are pure essences of things is fallicious. its saying -A=A. because the pure essence of something is absolutely that something.

2) cause and effect is a law, newtons law i think. but laws exist within systems. systems arent universal, they're relative. for example, the USA sees the cause of 911 as islamic fanatisism. islamic fanatics see the cause of 911 as christian evangalism or something of that sort. same event, differing opinions of causes. we fail to see that causes and effects or goods and evils arent objective/absolute things because we don't think outside the systems which these "absolutes" exist within. but knowing that we experience through a "system" is the first step to seeing cause and effect or absolutes as "ideality and not reality."

3) i dont buy into creation or a beginning or any ideas reaking of religion or scientific method for that matter. the universe has always been becoming. its a continual renewal and exhaustion of energies. something get energized, another thing loses energy. i don't need science or religion to tell me this. i look around and this is what i see.

4)math is a system. ifinity is an idea within this system. infinity must be relative within this system to finites? how else would we know "forever" if we didnt know "for 85 years?"

[Laurette]

saying there are no absolutes, and then saying there are pure essences of things is fallicious. its saying -A=A. because the pure essence of something is absolutely that something.
But I never said there aren't absolutes. I think there are, but natural objects and situations contain only elements of them. The idea of absolute Good does not wholly consume any one thing on earth, but I simply believe that it exists in God. I really don't mind that you believe differently, but surely, if you're entitled to look around and see "a continual renewal and exhaustion of energies", I'm entitled to look around and see the world as objects containing elements of absolute ideas.

My opinion cannot disprove yours (and vice versa), because they're simply different ways of seeing things.

I don't disagree with anything you said about how things relate, and that laws and systems have been thought up by humans. The point I'm trying to make is that I believe that these laws and systems capture something of the world around them, and that's why they're so accurate for describing events in the world. I believe cause and effect existed before someone gave it a name, just like infinity existed before mathematicians came to that conclusion. I'm not trying to back this up with any logic other than that I believe it - it just feels logical to me. If it doesn't feel logical to you, that's completely fine, because what you believe doesn't feel right for me, in turn. :)

In terms of what this has to do with what Christianity is - yeah, you would have to believe in absolutes, but that doesn't necessarily translate to fanaticism or unrelenting dogma. If selfless love is the ultimate Good then there are no black and white lines. It's still an absolute though, because there is, in my opinion, no element of evil in it.

[billyjack]

. I really don't mind that you believe differently, but surely, if you're entitled to look around and see "a continual renewal and exhaustion of energies", I'm entitled to look around and see the world as objects containing elements of absolute ideas.



The point I'm trying to make is that I believe that these laws and systems capture something of the world around them, and that's why they're so accurate for describing events in the world. I believe cause and effect existed before someone gave it a name, just like infinity existed before mathematicians came to that conclusion.
it.

1) the continual renewal and exhaustion of energies is a complicated way of saying the way things are. waves crest and eb, the moon waxes and wanes, hunger is sated and another's hunger isnt' quenched. this is the way of things--"the cirlce of life," says Mufasa. no idea is needed to see it, only to express it. but you can't just look at something and think "ah, yes, yes ,yes--that there is contained within some absolute good." mine isnt belief, its faith because its experienced without the need for abstract thought to make sense of it. faith is trust. yours might be belief, belief is wishing. my view--reality, yours--ideality.

2)these laws and systems capture the world around them, this is true. but they capture like a net captures. a net only catches big clumsy apparent things. the rest goes through, unseen, unnoticed. but what is caught can then be understood, communicated, focused on. this is fine, but a ton of things are at the same time going unnoticed, unfocused on, forgotten. . .(like the connection and oneness of everything)

cause and effect only exist within our system of time. the linear system of time. the linear system is not the only system, just as there are many kinds of nets to catch a fish. but, nets were created, they have not always been. so how can you say that cause and effect has always been. . .bc really, cause and effect are just one square of a massive net we've created to see the world through and make it understandable.

[HannibalBarca]

Christianity is a fearful servant and a horrible master-what used to be an outlaw religion and is now just another thing that all people ignore in one way or another.

[littlewing53]

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

[Redzeppelin]

Christianity is a fearful servant and a horrible master-what used to be an outlaw religion and is now just another thing that all people ignore in one way or another.

"All people"? And your statistics came from where? Or might you be exaggerating (an argumentative fallacy)?