Why stay a Christian?

There is a parable:
"Two men went up to the temple to pray... "
Luke 18:10-14

Worth considering.

Thomas
Thinking about it, considering it. I notice a similarity to the parable of the prodigal son and also Luke 7:47 "...He who is forgiven little, loves little..."

I think of guilt as both a destructive and a useful process, like a fever or chemotherapy. It isn't the best way to kill a cold, and it is best used as a last resort.
 
Hi Dream —
I think of guilt as both a destructive and a useful process, like a fever or chemotherapy. It isn't the best way to kill a cold, and it is best used as a last resort.
I agree, the point is not to indulge in guilt, but get on with putting things right.
Another aspect of it is sitting in judgement upon others.

Thomas
 
....the point is not to indulge in guilt, but get on with putting things right.
Another aspect of it is sitting in judgement upon others.
If a person has done something harmful to another, then yes, they need to do something about that, but why should one set to work to put right the idea that they are a sinner by their very nature.....an idea which is patently false and is by design, intended to create a culture with an underlying concept of guilt.
Particularly when the offered remedy provides no relief.
Small wonder we see legal dramas in an overabundance, both in the media and in real life....people cannot help but be caught up in the whole "crime and punishment " craze.

Really, there are better ways to live and to build a civilization.
 
...an idea which is patently false ...
According to your paradigm, not according to any absolute benchmark, so you're entitled to your views, as are others.

Please allow the possibility that you might not be infallibly right, or even if you believe you are, they have the option to exercise their freedom not to follow you.

Thomas
 
On reading the gospels..
THERE is so much that is strange, improbable, unintelligible, and even contradictory in what professes to be Christ's teaching that people do not know how to understand it.

It is very differently understood by different people. Some say redemption is the all-important matter. Others say the all-important thing is grace, obtainable through the sacraments.

Others, again, say that submission to the Church is what is really essential. But the Churches themselves disagree, and interpret the teaching variously. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son ; that the Pope is infallible, and that salvation is obtainable chiefly through works. The Lutheran Church does not accept this, and considers that faith is what is chiefly needed for salvation. The Orthodox Russo-Greek Church considers that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only, and that both works and faith are necessary to salvation.

And the Anglican and other Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, not to mention hundreds of other Churches, interpret Christ's teaching each in its own way.

Young men, and men of the people, doubting the truth of the Church-teaching in which they have been brought up, often come to me and ask what my teaching is, and how I understand Christ's teaching ? Such questions always grieve, and even shock me.

Christ, who the Churches say was God, came on earth to reveal divine truth to men, for their guidance in life. A man even a plain, stupid man if he wants to give people guidance of importance to them, will manage to impart it so that they can make out what he means. And is it possible that God, having come on earth especially to save people, was not able to say what He wanted to say clearly enough to prevent people from misinterpreting His words, and from disagreeing with one another about them ?

This could not be so if Christ were God ; nor even if Christ were not God, but merely a great teacher, is it possible that He failed to express Himself clearly. For a great teacher is great, just because he is able to express the truth so that it can neither be hidden nor obscured, but is as plain as daylight.

In either case, therefore, the Gospels which transmit Christ's teaching must contain truth. And, indeed, the truth is there for all who will read the Gospels with a sincere wish to know the truth, without prejudice, and, above all, without supposing that the Gospels contain some special sort of wisdom beyond human reason.

That is how I read the Gospels, and I found in them truth plain enough for little children to understand, as, indeed, the Gospels themselves say. So that when I am asked what my teaching consists in, and how I understand Christ's teaching, I reply : I have no teaching, but I understand Christ's teaching as it is explained in the Gospels. If I have written books about Christ's teaching, I have done so only to show the falseness of the interpretations given by the commentators on the Gospels.
To understand Christ's real teaching the chief thing is not to interpret the Gospels, but to understand them as they are written. And, therefore, to the question how Christ's teaching should be understood, I reply : If you wish to understand it, read the Gospels. Read them putting aside all foregone conclusions ; read with the sole desire to understand what is said there. But just because the Gospels are holy books, read them considerately, reasonably, and with discernment, and not at haphazard or mechanically, as if all the words were of equal weight.

To understand any book one must choose out the parts that are quite clear, dividing them from what is obscure or confused. And from what is clear we must form our idea of the drift and spirit of the whole work. Then, on the basis of what we have understood, we may proceed to make out what is confused or not quite intelligible. That is how we read all kinds of books. And it is particularly necessary thus to read the Gospels, which have passed through such a multiplicity of compilations, translations, and transcriptions, and were composed, eighteen centuries ago, by men who were not highly educated, and were superstitious.

Therefore, in order to understand the Gospels, we must first of all separate what is quite simple and intelligible from what is confused and unintelligible, and afterward read this clear and intelligible part several times over, trying fully to assimilate it.

Then, helped by the comprehension of the general meaning, we can try to explain to ourselves the drift of the parts which seemed involved and obscure. That was how I read the Gospels, and the meaning of Christ's teachings became so clear to me that it was impossible to have any doubts about it. And I advise every one who wishes to understand the true meaning of Christ's teaching to follow the same plan.

Let each man when reading the Gospels select all that seems to him quite plain, clear, and comprehensible, and let him score it on the margin, say with a blue pencil, and then, taking the marked passages first, let him separate Christ's words from those of the Evangelists by marking Christ's words a second time with, say, a red pencil. Then let him read over these doubly scored passages several times. Only after he has thoroughly assimilated these, let him again read the other words attributed to Christ, which he did not understand when he first read them, and let him score, in red, those that have become plain to him. Let him leave un- scored such words of Christ as remain quite unintelligible, and also unintelligible words by the writers of the Gospels. The passages marked in red will supply the reader with the essence of Christ's teaching. They will give what all men need, and what Christ therefore said, in a way which all can understand. The places marked only in blue will give what the authors of the Gospels said that is intelligible.

Very likely in selecting what is, from what is not, fully comprehensible, people will not all mark the same passages. What is comprehensible to me may seem obscure to another. But all will certainly agree in what is most important, and there are things which will be found quite intelligible to every one.
It is just this just what is fully comprehensible to all men that constitutes the essence of Christ's teaching
 
THERE is so much that is strange, improbable, unintelligible, and even contradictory in what professes to be Christ's teaching that people do not know how to understand it.
Well that's an opinion, I suppose.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son;
Correct.

that the Pope is infallible,
No, that's a common assumption and an error. Someone ought to check his facts.

and that salvation is obtainable chiefly through works.
Wrong again. That's a two out of three failure rate with easy stuff, no wonder he finds Scripture 'unintelligible'.

And is it possible that God, having come on earth especially to save people, was not able to say what He wanted to say clearly enough to prevent people from misinterpreting His words, and from disagreeing with one another about them ?
Does this guy not know the simple message of Scripture? (Here's a clue: Shema Israel, John 13:34 ... )

And yes, of course it's possible, indeed probable, if if God chooses to leave His creature free in its own mind to accept or deny the offer ... in fact Christ knew that, and said so, Matthew 18:7 ... it's quite clear, and this guy would be wise to read it, and ask someone to explain it if he doesn't understand it, because it certainly applies in his case.

and, above all, without supposing that the Gospels contain some special sort of wisdom beyond human reason.
Ah, the grand assumption: I don't understand it, ergo it must be beyond human reason. If I don't agree with your understanding, you therefore must be wrong.

what is fully comprehensible to all men that constitutes the essence of Christ's teaching
Utterly, utterly flakey.

Thomas
 
According to your paradigm, not according to any absolute benchmark, so you're entitled to your views, as are others.

Please allow the possibility that you might not be infallibly right, or even if you believe you are, they have the option to exercise their freedom not to follow you.

Thomas
I have never suggested otherwise.
If people think that by believing in one of the heaven and hell religions and by doing the prescribed right thing they can wind up in an eternal heaven and avoid an eternal hell, then they are totally free to believe that if they wish.
Just as I am free to believe that anyone who wishes to believe such things needs their heads examined.
But that is my opinion and I voice it to perhaps spare a few naive ones who are taken in by such religions.
 
According to your paradigm, not according to any absolute benchmark, so you're entitled to your views, as are others.

Please allow the possibility that you might not be infallibly right, or even if you believe you are, they have the option to exercise their freedom not to follow you.

Thomas
Namaste Thomas,

And I think that is what needs to be clear to so many. It all paradigm, views, opinions, thoughts, beliefs....

None of us truly know anything....and it is a shame we try to convince others we do.
 
Wil,

You said,

"None of us truly know anything....and it is a shame we try to convince others we do."

--> It is said a wise man is humble. I am glad that you agree.
 
None of us truly know anything....and it is a shame we try to convince others we do.
Well that's just my point ... this author would have been better off not publishing. It's a case of 'sowing tares among the wheat', to employ a biblical metaphor.

Whilst we must all acknowledge the difference between faith and knowledge, between subjective and objective data ... the errors I have highlighted above are of the order of objective knowledge, not matters of faith, and in that sense are not 'excusable', because they could have been checked and verified, and if someone is instructing others, as this person assumes to do, then they should have been, that's the least obligation upon the teacher, but they weren't.

With regard to the red pencil/blue pencil process, that's a fundamentally flawed methodology — it's just plain bad science.

Thomas
 
Well that's just my point ... this author would have been better off not publishing. It's a case of 'sowing tares among the wheat', to employ a biblical metaphor.
Heck between preachers, popes and prophets there are plenty of people writing and publishing and speaking as if they know what will happen in the hereafter and perfectly willing to tell others.

It is amongst all these writings that we find our beliefs. I'm enjoying reading Tolstoy's thoughts right now, just as I have Thay's or Paramahansa's or Gurdjieff and Ouspensky's...

What I Believe (Tolstoy) - Wikisource

Correspondence between Tolstoy and Gandhi - Wikisource
 
Heck between preachers, popes and prophets there are plenty of people writing and publishing and speaking as if they know what will happen in the hereafter and perfectly willing to tell others.
And so we must practice discernment ... which is all that I was doing.

Thomas
 
Back
Top