The motivations, degrees, or mysteries of free will, foreknowledge, or predestination are NOT part of this summary. How and Why are not the point here, but just the 'What.' The other things are good for rousing debate, while the simple definitions are more mundane.
..no need to go for ad hom.. just defining these concepts are enough of a task for a rational discussion.
You believe everything came by random chance. Life arose spontaneously, by unknown natural processes. How is that any less a 'belief' than any supernatural explanation? What is 'mud?' You are welcome to state your own beliefs, but please don't presume to state mine.
I know threads like this invariably degenerate into some kind of 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war, and that may be our fate here, too. But my purpose was to define, simply, historically, and biblically, Christianity.
Oh, the IRONY given that is exactly what you are doing! Evidence for randomness in the universe already exists. No beliefs are required to know that elements combine in predetermined ways.
Well, as far as I can tell, some of the most brilliant 'truth seekers' to ever draw breath on this planet ... guys like Hawking, Einstein, Edison, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, Turing, Dawkins, et al ... basically thought religion was bunk. Perhaps you (and other believers on here) should put down your ancient story book and pay a little more attention to their views on the subject...
Great post, DT It's the sheer arrogance of these believers that kills me. They make these FANTASTICAL statements and claims about some alleged all-powerful god ... but don't even have a speck of credible or compelling evidence to back up any of it. LOL They're truly swimming naked ... and either don't realize it, or don't care. And they wonder why some question their sanity...
I just returned what you dished out. It is not my preferred method of communication, and i pointed it out. ..nothing ironic at all, there. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
My understanding is that the only consistent belief in christianity is that someone we call Jesus Christ was the son of god. I'm not sure any of the other points are held by all christians but, of course, I am not an expert on the subject.
The various Creeds have all been, above all, a Gatekeeping tool: a means to exclude anyone who would not swear the creed. Since Christ was very clear that his Love excluded no one, the very notion of a creed is a deviation from His word.
It seems you are missing the point of this thread. I am not trying to convince you of anything, just trying to clarify WHAT constitutes orthodox Christianity. Flame wars over the superiority of individual beliefs are not topical. And though religious bigotry is a popular human pastime, I'm not really inviting an arcade for one way shots at Christianity.. though that seems to be the default in forums like this. Christianity has weathered the storm of ridicule, mocking, caricatures, lies, and phony narratives .. perhaps more than any worldview in human history.. and perhaps a thread dedicated to that end would be fun for some. But a better one would be where an apologist could shoot back.. unlike the penny arcade shots that typify these forums. You also seem to forget Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, and a great many other great scientific minds who did not hold to an atheistic, naturalistic view. And you are wrong about Einstein and Edison. They were not atheists, but believed in a spiritual dimension. I don't wonder at all, at responses like this.. they are typical anti-Christian bashes from religious intolerants.
Your questions are the ones that have vexed "Christianity" since the beginning. I tend to use Occam's Razor like an axe. Let's dump all the "tradition" as you rightly call it, and go back to what Christ Himself told us: "One Commandment is greater than all the others, 'Love God and your fellows' ". He gave no exceptions to His Commandment. No small print, no escape clauses.His sermons and parables all demonstrate inclusion: Samaritans, Romans, prostitutes, ... He clearly required us to Love all... And... He told us that following His path is the way to salvation. There is no need for anything more.
I guess from a purely historical context there are a number of issues that need to be grappled with which is the reliability and purpose of the narrative that one is reading. For example if one looks at the execution narratives of Christ they talk of meetings with Pilate and trials and discussions. The unfortunate issue is that the accounts don't agree with one another and indeed who would have been there to record them? From a historical perspective all one can really say is he was arrested, permission was given for his execution and he was crucified. was there a trial? Probably not. The Romans were crucifying Jews all the time without any great thought or need for elaborate trials; the seminal moment in Jesus' life was the crucifiction but there is no real facts attesting to it. I guess for me this is the issue in terms of historical accuracy. What followed is; the myriad stories books and narratives that followed are fascinating in terms of the development of a religion - looking at the gnostics is hard work though.
And this supposedly came from God, living in a human body, and it just seems that what JC taught man should be much more important than what other, imperfect men wrote after His death. In fact, christianity should have been based on what JC came to reveal to humanity. What did he reveal which was not accepted by the Jews? That we could all be sons of god. Which means that god could live in man, you and I, just as much as he lived in JC. This spirit of god being within man, would then change man, a rebirth of consciousness. And that is where real salvation is to be found. And this is the understanding I got when I first read the teachings of christ. I had to read them again, in order to conclude how important His teachings were. And then discovered that those teachings were set aside, and magic blood, human sacrifice, assumed the only importance. Looks just a bit fishy to me personally. Then I ask the question. If christianity has been solely based upon what christ tried to teach man, would we have seen such evil from a church that might arise from this, when compared to the church that did arise, the RCC? I just highly doubt it, for the core of the religion would have been totally different. JC taught about trees that bear good fruit, or bad, rotten, corrupted fruit. And how easy it is to discern what is a good tree and a bad tree by simply looking at its fruit. What does the fruit of the Church, the RCC appear to be historically? It is full of the upmost evil. It has so much rotten corrupt fruit. I think there is a clue here.
Orthodoxy is a curious part of christianity which to some extent was derived from Constantine, do you think that if Constantine had not become emporer there would be such a concept today?
Your understanding of the "historical" perspective of Jesus is lacking. It is not for nothing that for the first 1400 years of Christianity - the Church did not believe in Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone). Martin Luther's doctrine was called an "anathema". On the second question - "is something other than works required" - you are correct that the Catholic Church believed there was also a faith component. The problem is that the Catholic Church created a whole lot of dogma that was an anathema to Jesus. The other problem is that the actual History of Jesus - what Jesus thought - is cloudy. There are contradictions for example between Jesus and Paul. Paul did not become a Christian until years after the death of Christ, his writings tell us nothing about the life of Christ and he is not part of the Church of Jerusalem -the Church founded by the disciples after Christs death. James 2 rails against the doctrine of "Sola Fide" - calling those who believe in "Faith alone" foolish. James- brother of Jesus and leader of the Church of Jerusalem- does not say that belief in Jesus/God is required - and in particular does not say that belief that Jesus was the sacrificed to redeem our sins was required. There is a difference between 1) Jesus coming to redeem the world from sin and 2) that one must actually belief that Jesus was "Son of God and this was his mission" to enter heaven. James uses the example of demons - saying they believe in God - so what ? He also uses the example of Rehab (obviously Jesus did not exist) who was justified by her deeds. Of the Synoptic Gospels ... Matt and John rely on Mark. In both Matt and Mark we have no mention of the salvation formulation you speak of. John is written many years after Mark (90-120 AD) and it is written in a very different style. The author uses Hellenistic themes in order to appeal to a broader audience. John calls Jesus the "Logos" - mistranslated as "the word". While Logos can mean "word" in Greek - in a religious context it means something completely different. Every Greek speaking person at the time knew the "Logos" concept- The Logos was the emissary between God and Man. Jesus then revealed God's word to Man through the Holy Spirit. John 3:16 could mean - salvation through belief in the teachings of Jesus - as Jesus was personification of the Word of God. Jesus was the word of God. Go back and read the opening paragraph of the Gospel with this knowledge in mind and you will - for the first time- be able to make sense out of that paragraph. A paragraph which makes no sense if you use the term "word". Belief in Jesus is then belief in the word of God. Now the words of Jesus in Matt - when Jesus is speaking of salvation - make sense. The sermon on the Mount - the most famous of Jesus sermons- is all about how one makes it through the pearly gates. Matt 5-7. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=NIV In speaking about the commands he says "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" The concept of severity of sin. He then puts a very low bar for entrance "5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." It is no secret that Jesus did not think much of the Pharisees. The sermon goes on to talk about works works and more works... no mention of any need for faith in Jesus as the son of God. Jesus then closes out his sermon by stating some specifics about salvation. Matt 7 You recognize false prophets by their works and not their pious words (pining away - Jesus- Jesus- Jesus) Again calling out the pious zealots calling "Jesus Jesus Jesus" - only the one who does the will of the Father (which is what Jesus has described previously in his sermon - works works works) You can hear the Logos (the word of God) - and believe that Jesus is the Logos (son of God-emissary between God and man) - but it is the one's who put the words into practice that have a solid foundation. Not those who run around crying "Jesus Jesus Jesus" ... Just "believe in Jesus" and you will be saved. These are the false prophets Jesus is referring to. In Matt 25 you have the sheep and shepherds parable. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NIV Jesus is depicted as sitting on the thrown Judging those who will make it into heaven and those who will not. Those that were saved did not even know Jesus - never mind believe that Jesus was the son of God. No mention of any need to believe in that Jesus came as a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of man. Works works and more works. In fact nowhere in Mark or Matt is this stated. Jesus then goes on to send those who "know Jesus" but do not do good works to "eternal punishment". Yes one must go "through" Jesus " the path to salvation is through Jesus" to get through the pearly gates .. but the basis on which Jesus will let you is works and not because you spend your life calling "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus --- believe in Jesus". (continued)
I numbered some points in my rebuttal, so you could support your position, and then offer a rebuttal to me. You seem to be off on other tangents, and have not followed my reply. The other remarks seem even more scattered, and don't even connect to your first reply..
Christianity is based on an historical event, with eyewitnesses written records, and a specific worldview that has depended on the actual events taking place. It was not something just made up recently, to amuse or entertain people. A real person ecisted, called Jesus, and many of His words and deeds were recorded.
That is your opinion, from the perspective of a skeptic, to view these events through anti-Christian bias. That is not factual, as the creeds came about to oppose various heresies that arose in the first few centuries, and even until now. You can follow the thread of historical orthodoxy in the various creeds.. the apostles, Nicene, and even up to the reformation with the Westminster confession, which became much more elaborate and 'logical', as more heresies were refuted and exposed. These were not controlling mandates from human institutions, but a consensus of orthodoxy.. that is especially true with the Nicene Creed. Independent churches, far removed from any central control, used (and still use) the statements of faith found in these summations.
Now hopefully you now understand that your "dogma" is not congruent with Matt and Mark. If you were a Christian living up until 90-120 AD- having only the teachings of Mark and Matt to go by - you have no knowledge of any requirement for "faith" in Jesus as the son of God" or "faith in the sacrifice" to get into heaven. What then happened to all these Christians ? and all the people that lived before Jesus was born? Are they all condemned to hell ? This makes no sense. One is forced to believe in an irrational and rather nasty God. Condemning people for not knowing something they could not possibly have known. Any objective assessment of the teachings of Jesus must consider a few rather uncomfortable truths. Nothing was written about the life and teachings of Jesus while he was alive. Nothing was written down by the people that actually knew Jesus that we know of. The best we have is the Gospel of Mark - Tradition holds that Mark at least knew a disciple (Peter) and Mark was said to have been his interpreter. This was written some 30 years after the death of Jesus. (~65 AD) The Jewish Temple is destroyed around 70AD which has a huge impact on the evolution of Christianity. The next gospel comes roughly 20 years or so after Mark. The Author of Matt uses all of Mark as a source document and adds a few things. The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm Christianity is evolving and with it - Christian dogma/doctrine. The story of Jesus is "evolving". The author engages in a bit of Pious Fraud by selective omission - trying to put Jesus and disciples in a more "glorified" light. The term "fraud" is a bit strong as at the time it was perfectly acceptable to stretch the truth or embellish a bit if it served the cause of bringing people into the church .. after all - if a little embellishment helped to save a persons soul - how bad could it be. The divinity of Jesus evolves. In Mark there Jesus is deified at his baptism - as a man of 30 years. There is no "immaculate conception" - kind of an important detail to leave out. Matt also adds a genealogy to make Jesus fit in with the Jewish Messianic Tradition/prophecy. What is also added by Matt is the "smoking gun". Proof of the physical resurrection. The original version of Mark contained no stories of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death. The story ends with an empty tomb and the reader is left to wonder. The "long ending" of Mark - and there are different versions - was a later addition. (a more serious example of Pious fraud) Matt adds the "smoking gun" .. stories of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death - proof of the resurrection (no faith required ) This is somewhat problematic for a couple of reasons. First is that the writings of Paul liken to the Jesus appearance stories to his vision. Clearly Paul, and his writings are the earliest, had no knowledge of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death. The second problem is Clement ( First leader of the early Church 95-100AD). Clement does not know any of the physical resurrection stories. In his letter to the Corinthian Church he makes a case that there will be a resurrection - life after death. 1Clement 24-26 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html He talks about the changing seasons (how in winter everything dies and in spring it is resurrected) .. he talks about an Egyptian story of the Phoenix- a bird which is resurrection. At no time does he mention the Smoking Gun. Either Matt was not yet written - which is possible if we go with a later dating of 100AD.... or Matt had been written but did not yet contain any physical resurrection stories. Either way .. Clement does not know. By the time the author of John gets to writing (90-120) - going with a later date - Christianity had further evolved. The Gospel of John is very different from the first two for a number of reasons. It is written to the Church at the time and thus was directed at Pauline Christians - the group of gentile Christians (Greeks) that followed Paul - as opposed to Jewish Christians. John has a distinctly anti Jewish flavor which reflected the times. After the Jewish Revolt the Romans put crippling taxes on the Jews called the "fiscus Judaicus". The Chuch at that time was separating itself from anything Jewish - including the OT. In John we have the divinity of Jesus further elevated. Instead of being made divine at Baptism (Mark) or Birth(Matt) ... Jesus is now pre-existent with God. John is a Hellenistic Pauline Fusion work. The author is trying to reconcile the Pauline Christian doctrine with its Judeo Christian roots. This explains why we find nothing about salvation by faith in Mark/Matt - which comes primarily out of Judeo Christian thinking where in John we have an attempt to meld Pauline doctrine together with the roots of Christianity. If you believe that Jesus was truly the son of God who came as a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of humanity ... and you are a good person .. worry not ! you have both bases covered.
A book was written about him about 200 years after his death. I wouldn't suggest that it is the same thing as recording actual events and words. There is almost no mention of Jesus outside of religious texts.
It generally seems like a good summary of Christian doctrines that would be well placed in a cliff notes version of comparative religions alongside similar summaries of other faiths. That said, I can only think of how inconsistent the whole thing is with everything I have ever experienced about how the world is. Beyond that, Christianity seems to have internal inconsistencies such as the notion that a perfect being would expect his clearly imperfect creations to irrationally suspend all of the usual rational tools they use to navigate their world in order to believe something like that appreciating Jesus's sacrifice must be used as a proxy to atone for their own imperfection. It's just an insanely illogical moral system that seems to fit the norms of ancient human societies rather than a product of some perfect ruler. I'm somebody who has seen a lot of dead people, and still get bothered every single time, seeing it as an infinite tragedy before my eyes, and something terrible that awaits me and everybody I care about as well. I don't "mock" Christianity because I want to continue to be sinful, as Christians typically suggest. I'd really rather they be correct. I just can't get past the things that don't make sense about Christianity, and see no indication that there is an afterlife or god in general.
That's like you just starting to write about some dude who croaked in 1818, fmw. Can you imagine people trying to do that back in the Bronze Age? lol
Not at all. Christ's message was "Love God and one another." If one adheres to that idea, then its source cannot matter. If a person adheres to the Golden Rule, then they are His flock... even if they are unaware of the fact. Sadly, that is not the case.Much of what is today called "Christianity" was invented long after the crucifixion, and grafted onto Christ's message, sometimes to the point of crowding out Christ's actual message.
