Christianity and the charade of human life

[Saltmeister]

blearyeyed:

The question that keeps coming up is how Christianity is supposed to work as a religion. Pretty much every problem people may have with Christianity automatically prompts this question -- how does Christianity actually work?

Consider the ideas of free will and predestination. The New Testament on which Christianity is based doesn't even mention free will or predestination. Missionaries and apologists made up the doctrine on free will and predestination as a strategy for either defending Christianity or persuading people that Christianity is right for them.

I used to read inter-religious debates between Christianity and other religions and the way Christians (not Christianity) promoted or defended Christianity. The strategy was most often to construct a straw man of the target religion and then to make one for Christianity. The straw man of Christianity defeated the straw man of the other religion and that was the reason why Christianity was right for you.

I started to believe that there was a good reason to blame Christians (which includes me) for the objections they were receiving. I felt that many of the criticisms of what people called "Christianity" were reasonable criticisms. But Christianity wasn't the problem. It was the way people "set up" Christianity as a straw man and the people setting up Christianity as a straw man were Christians themselves.

Christianity wasn't what it was cracked up to be. I decided that I needed to get away from this straw man and think "outside the box." Christianity was much bigger than this box in which I was thinking. So much of what I regarded as Christianity was just in-grained attitudes, ideas and behaviours.

The reason why free will and predestination became part of "Christianity" was because of missionary activity and apologetics. If the Trinity was really a core and fundamental part of Christianity, there would have been no Arian heresy in the third or fourth century. Trinitarianism simply became more dominant. The idea of Jesus being God has always been an interpretation of the opening passage in the Gospel of John, which drew from Philo of Alexandria. Philo of Alexandria didn't say anyone was God, but rather thought about how God emanated into the world and through people. The Gospel of John could be interpreted that way, and nobody has said we can't. The New Testament does not have a manual for its own interpretation. It doesn't teach us hermeneutics.

Without study or research, however, I would not be able to form good arguments to back up the views I expressed above. By looking into the history of these ideas, we can determine whether they are really fundamental to Christianity. I think we will find that many of these ideas were responses to earlier "issues," "problems" and "questions," but for some reason, people forgot that it was just a "reaction" to something and said no, this is Christianity.

My concern is that it if it takes that much study to even begin to understand what Christianity is REALLY about, then I would say 90% of people who call themselves Christians only understand it at a much shallower level and operate on the premise I stated above.

If that is the case, then every Christian who goes to Sunday services must be wasting their time. Personally I have gone almost every Sunday of my life and my idea of Christianity is still very much the "straw man" argument I presented.

In fact, many Christians--even Pastors--probably should stop calling themselves Christians, for they are horribly misrepresenting what it must really be.

That begs the question again -- how is Christianity supposed to work? Well, here's my theory/view:

Asking how Christianity is supposed to work is not the same as asking whether certain beliefs are right or wrong. It may be more important to think about how Christianity works than deciding whether something is "right belief" or "wrong belief." I think when you start doing more study and research on Christianity, whether it's reading the NT or the history of Christianity you might decide that it really doesn't matter as much whether something is a "right belief" or "wrong belief."

Christianity's value was never in being "right" or "rational." Christianity's value is in its "inspirational" and "up-lifting" character. The idea of God not condemning you because someone died for your sins is a very comforting idea. But it doesn't make sense does it?

If it needs to make sense, you have missed the point. It's not a matter of being "right or wrong." It's a matter of "perspective."

Paul himself said "the Gospel is nonsense to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles." Was this just mindless, sensationalist propaganda or did Paul have a point? Again, the social/political/historical context gives us a clue. Paul was a Pharisee. Pharisees, contrary to the depiction we have of them in the New Testament, were not all dogmatic, arrogant and self-righteous. I think the truth is, they were simply the intellectuals and scholars of Judaism. Judaism continues to be a very intellectual tradition.

Jesus sent Paul as a missionary to the Greeks and Romans. He didn't send Peter. I think there's a good reason for that. Paul was smarter than Peter. Peter would never have said "the Gospel is nonsense to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles" because he wasn't smart enough to think on that level. Peter didn't know it was "nonsense." What Peter believed made sense to him.

But Jesus also said to Peter "you are Peter, on this Rock I will build my church." The difference between Peter and Paul is important. Peter was not an educated person. Although many Christians follow the teachings of Paul, they have the character of Peter. The Catholic Church asserts that it means Peter was Pope, but I think the real reason is that Jesus wanted the church to be founded on something simple.

Consider this:
1) Paul knew it was nonsense.
2) He taught us nonsense.

That sounds unethical, right? If you knowingly teach someone nonsense you're misleading them. But here's a possible justification.

3) We trust Paul.
4) We know we're stupid (for argument's sake), but
5) because Paul explained it to us in terms we could understand (simple terms), we trust that he is right.
6) Perhaps at a higher level it's nonsense, but because Paul knows best (because he's a Pharisee, he's smart), we trust that he is right.

The reason why Christians fall for the trap of creating straw men that at a higher level of thinking don't actually make sense is because the leaders of early Christianity told us to follow something simple. Peter taught simple concepts. Paul told us it was nonsense, but he also told us that it didn't matter because God accepts us even though we're stupid.

But I don't believe it's un-Christian to try to be rational and intellectual, to educate ourselves and make sense of things. If you are capable of "knowing better," you have a right to "educate yourself." There is a strong anti-intellectual culture in Christianity which is one of my major gripes with mainstream Christianity. But sometimes this is all for the best. Christianity was always supposed to be "dumbed down."

So . . . blearyeyed, you're right. It probably doesn't make sense. But it makes sense to some people, and that's the important thing.

Those of us who are smart enough to "educate ourselves" will make sense of it in a different way -- which means that you ultimately don't have to be "right" anyway. It's how you make sense of it that matters.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Saltmeister —

The question that keeps coming up is how Christianity is supposed to work as a religion. Pretty much every problem people may have with Christianity automatically prompts this question -- how does Christianity actually work?

Simple. Love God, and love one's neighbour.

Consider the ideas of free will and predestination. The New Testament on which Christianity is based doesn't even mention free will or predestination. Missionaries and apologists made up the doctrine on free will and predestination as a strategy for either defending Christianity or persuading people that Christianity is right for them.

The question of free will/predestination was a talking point in Rome around the mid fourth-century, with lots of people promoting different kinds of asceticism for different reasons. The New Testament mentions both free will and predestination, just not under those headings, but where the question of theodicy is concerned, it's bound to arise.

There were a lot of rich people in Rome, and a lot of 'spiritual directors' ready to take their money off them. All sorts of ascetic and other doctrines were being promoted and the ideals of asceticism always appeals to the rich (the those who have). Pelagius, for example, a promoter of the ascendancy of the free will, had a well-to-do circle of Roman ladies. Not that his ideas were entirely wrong, nor Augustine, his opponent, entirely right.

The reason why free will and predestination became part of "Christianity" was because of missionary activity and apologetics.

I would say it was theological ... and pastoral. The basic Christian position is that everyone is predestined for paradise, if they choose to take up the calling of that destiny.

If the Trinity was really a core and fundamental part of Christianity, there would have been no Arian heresy in the third or fourth century.

I disagree. The doctrine of the Trinity was core and fundamental, but the understanding of the nature of the relation of the Three Persons gave rise to the Arian controversy, as Arius' teaching was not the orthodox teaching of the day.

Trinitarianism simply became more dominant.

Again, that assumes that Arius was not teaching a form of trinitarianism — he was. His basic premise was Christ's divinity was a created divinity, a demigod.

The New Testament does not have a manual for its own interpretation. It doesn't teach us hermeneutics.

Yes it does, it's just not spelled oput as a philosophical document.

Asking how Christianity is supposed to work is not the same as asking whether certain beliefs are right or wrong.

I rather think it is. Belief in the wrong thing is belief in vain. Nor can someone believe in something, and not believe in it at the same time. I think the idea that it does not matter what you believe in is a modern and relative view — that the fact that I exist is more important than what I believe, and that I'm justified in what I believe, simply because I believe it.

The idea of God not condemning you because someone died for your sins is a very comforting idea. But it doesn't make sense does it?

Yes it does.

Paul himself said "the Gospel is nonsense to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles." Was this just mindless, sensationalist propaganda or did Paul have a point? Again, the social/political/historical context gives us a clue. Paul was a Pharisee.

Paul was a Pharisee who underwent a profound transformative experience, as a result of which hew ceased to be a Pharisee. He was an intellectual, and he was combative (as he was as a Pharisee), but his outlook changed dramatically. To base a philosophy on his pharisaism is to ignore the experience, and his experience underpins everything he's talking about.

Jesus sent Paul as a missionary to the Greeks and Romans. He didn't send Peter.

He sent Peter to Cornelius.

Consider this:
1) Paul knew it was nonsense.

A nonsense woprth dying for? A nonsense an intellectual Jew would abandon God and throw his life away on?

2) He taught us nonsense.

Did he? A lot of people have made a lot of sense of what Paul taught. There's no possibility that, by assuming certain axioms that Paul's own account would tend to dispute, you haven't got the point?

Would you trust a doctor who said "I'm not going to bother explaining what's wrong with you, you'd never understand, so I'm going to give you a bit of nonsense instead."

But here's a possible justification.
3) We trust Paul.

Why, if it's nonsense? Why would anyone trust nonsense from the outset?

4) We know we're stupid (for argument's sake), but

That's not what Paul says. By the same reasoning, Jesus Himself could have taught a lot of nonsense ... so the whole of Christianity is a nonsense.

5) because Paul explained it to us in terms we could understand (simple terms), we trust that he is right.

You mean we make sense of what is nonsense? I think you're confounding yourself with your own argument, surely?

6) Perhaps at a higher level it's nonsense, but because Paul knows best (because he's a Pharisee, he's smart), we trust that he is right.[/quote]
I fail to see how an intellectual can argue to his own satisfaction that teaching an easy-to-accept lie is better than teaching a harder-to-understand truth.

And perhaps, at a higher level, what appears to be nonsense is, in fact, true, which is closer to the Pauline message.

Hebraism is a mythos hermeneutic. Hellenism is a logos hermeneutic ... both have aspects of the truth. Christ unifies that truth at a higher level. Paul saw that neither hermeneutic was sufficient in itself to explain Christ:
"For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Corinthians 1:21-25

Peter taught simple concepts. Paul told us it was nonsense, but he also told us that it didn't matter because God accepts us even though we're stupid.

If that were true, then Christ's mission would be pointless in the first place.

But I don't believe it's un-Christian to try to be rational and intellectual, to educate ourselves and make sense of things.

Where, for the love of God, did you ever get the impression that it was?

There is a strong anti-intellectual culture in Christianity which is one of my major gripes with mainstream Christianity.

Really? Depends which brand of Christianity you're talking about. Not RC, that's for sure, where Catholic intellectuals rub shoulders with some of the brightest minds that have ever walked the planet.

There is fundamentalism, I'll grant you, but that's in the nature of man. Take creationism, which is an utter nonsense. But aren't you 'straw manning' Mainstream Christianity now?

But sometimes this is all for the best. Christianity was always supposed to be "dumbed down."

It was never dumb, but it is always simple. It's us who make it difficult, because of pride.

So . . . blearyeyed, you're right. It probably doesn't make sense. But it makes sense to some people, and that's the important thing.

If it can make sense to some, it can make sense to all.

Those of us who are smart enough to "educate ourselves" will make sense of it in a different way -- which means that you ultimately don't have to be "right" anyway. It's how you make sense of it that matters.

Ah, the ultimate straw man refutation ... Christians are stupid, Christians don't question, they aren't smart enough to 'educate themselves' ... I think this post borders on the fundamental approach to dialogue?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Hi Saltmeister —

Simple. Love God, and love one's neighbour.

You know Thomas, this is truly it.

I don't think we as Christians should debate anything or do anything, if 1. we don't have that down and 2. it defies that in anyway.

No arguments amongst denominations or religions.

No worrying about whether or not someone believes Jesus to be their saviour.

No picking up of guns, or using negative words or actions.

Love.

Live, go to work, and everywhere, anywhere only exhibit love.


these two I give to you....

(of course we know they are OT thoughts and traditions)

but until we can count to two...

everytime...

forget whether they were baptized or christened correctly, forget whether they cross themselves left to right or right to left or praise Allah or honor the nymphs...

just love.


Ok, I'm ready for the flood of reasons we Christians do not wish to follow Jesus....

 

[Saltmeister]

Simple. Love God, and love one's neighbour.

If that were true, then there is no need for theology. Yet, further down, you say the Trinity is fundamental. Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

The question of free will/predestination was a talking point in Rome around the mid fourth-century, with lots of people promoting different kinds of asceticism for different reasons. The New Testament mentions both free will and predestination, just not under those headings, but where the question of theodicy is concerned, it's bound to arise.

I was talking about the modern Protestant and Evangelical view of free will and predestination.

I disagree. The doctrine of the Trinity was core and fundamental, but the understanding of the nature of the relation of the Three Persons gave rise to the Arian controversy, as Arius' teaching was not the orthodox teaching of the day.

I do not believe it is fundamental, that Jesus, Paul, Peter, James and John actually taught that God was a Trinity. If that were true, why did they not tell us? Everything fundamental must be mentioned.

Both Trinitarianism and Arianism are probably both "biblical." You can find passages to support both. The real problem, however is that both put an emphasis on theology and this is the problem critics of Christianity highlight, that Christianity puts too much emphasis on theology. My view is that it is not Christianity, but Christians who put too much emphasis on theology.

You said before it was as simple as loving your neighbour. What did this have to do with loving your neighbour? Why claim a trinue or Arian God, then?

I don't care if it was the "orthodox" teaching of the day. I don't actually trust so-called "orthodox" teaching. The Orthodox Church declared the Nazarenes to be heretics and the Nazarenes were descendants of the original followers of Jesus. They misunderstood the Nazarene tradition, so obviously they got that wrong. Do you really think the "Gentile" church was in a better position than the "Jewish" church to decide what was or wasn't Christianity? This shows that the orthodox church was fallible.

Again, that assumes that Arius was not teaching a form of trinitarianism — he was. His basic premise was Christ's divinity was a created divinity, a demigod.

Let's not get technical shall we? You know I am talking about a co-equal Trinity.

Yes it does, it's just not spelled oput as a philosophical document.

Where? I'm not talking about whatever documents you may regard as "authoritative" in the Catholic Church like the catechism as I am not Catholic. I'm just talking about the NT Canon and the NT does not teach hermeneutics. If it did, Christians would learn the critical thinking required to avoid the emergence of so many denominations. That's why we're an undisciplined rabble that keeps getting enslaved by straw men.

I rather think it is. Belief in the wrong thing is belief in vain. I think the idea that it does not matter what you believe in is a modern and relative view — that the fact that I exist is more important than what I believe, and that I'm justified in what I believe, simply because I believe it.

People arguing and fighting over "right" and "wrong" is the reason why Christianity is so divisive. What confounds the problem is when these conflicts are over straw men. If people could only see the big picture, the sociological, political picture, they would realise they are fighting over the wrong ideas. This wasn't what Jesus wanted. So yes, it shouldn't be about "right" or "wrong." That is why I said it is more important to consider how things work.

You're thinking in philosophical and theological terms again!!!! I am thinking in social and political terms. What I see is a divided community. Which is better, a divided church with in-fighting and bickering or a church where people accept each other's differences? All for one, one for all? We either all go to heaven or all go down together.

He sent Peter to Cornelius.

Peter's mission was different. That was my point. Peter did not write the Pauline epistles. He could not.

A nonsense woprth dying for? A nonsense an intellectual Jew would abandon God and throw his life away on?

It was nonsense according to Pharisaic tradition. But even outside of that tradition, there are abundant critics of the idea of someone needing to die for our sins in the modern world -- Westerners, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Beyond a certain level, it does not make sense. Paul knows it doesn't and it's not supposed to make sense beyond a certain level. It makes sense to the simple-minded and that is what matters.

I fail to see how an intellectual can argue to his own satisfaction that teaching an easy-to-accept lie is better than teaching a harder-to-understand truth.

Paul's explanations were never supposed to make sense beyond a certain level because Christianity was probably never supposed to be a permanent religion/tradition, but a temporary one. Why does he speak of the two olive trees and one being grafted into the other? If the two olive trees represent Judaism and Christianity, then one of them is the temporary tradition. For much of the last 2,000 years, Christians have regarded themselves as the "spiritual Israel." Christians thought their tradition would replace Judaism.

But in Romans 11:20, Paul says "do not be arrogant" to the Gentiles because in Romans 11:18 he says "you do not support the root, but the root supports you." Most Christians are Gentiles. Obviously the roots are the Jewish people. But which segment of the Jewish people? All of them or just the Nazarenes? Guess what? Some time between 300-500 AD the orthodox church declared the Nazarenes heretics and by the time Constantine came to power, probably had them eliminated/killed. This was the respect the orthodox Christians had for their roots!!!

Tracts
NAZARENE ISRAEL: THE ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC FAITH

The Nazarenes can't possibly be our roots now because they've been wiped out. But for Paul's words to make sense, some other group has to be our root, and it would have to be the Pharisaic tradition, preserved in Judaism.

Paul expresses his belief in Galatians that Judaism is the temporary tradition, but he could actually be wrong. The words of Paul are not the same as words of God. Paul had some great ideas. He was a Pharisee, a smart guy. Jesus picked the right person, but the right man can also make mistakes or not know certain things.

Paul went to Jerusalem to try to convince a number of different people to accept the Nazarene sect as a legitimate group. The Spirit warned him not to go. He met nothing but opposition. What Paul probably misunderstood was that God had plans for the Pharisaic tradition (later Rabbinic Judaism) that he didn't understand. Out of the four Jewish groups in Second Temple Judaism -- Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees and Zealots -- only the Pharisees' tradition survives. All four groups rejected the Nazerene sect, yet Pharisaism survives. Why is that?

If Jews were simply supposed to be bound by the Law as it says in Galatians, waiting for the Gospel, why preserve the Pharisaic tradition? Paul could be wrong here. It could actually be the other way round -- it could be us Christians being bound by our tradition until the Pharisaic tradition matures. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it wasn't the right season.

And perhaps, at a higher level, what appears to be nonsense is, in fact, true, which is closer to the Pauline message.

The truth may be that Christianity is a temporary religion that does not need to make complete sense because like Paul says in Romans 11:18, "you do not support the roots, but the roots support you."

Christ unifies that truth at a higher level. Paul saw that neither hermeneutic was sufficient in itself to explain Christ

But maybe it's not the kind of unity we think it is.

If that were true, then Christ's mission would be pointless in the first place.

I think you missed the point I was making and are taking the word "nonsense" a bit too literally. Paul taught us a simplified ideology because we were unlikely to understand Pharisaic tradition. And why Pharisaism? Because of Romans 11:18. Nonsense from the perspective of the Pharisees.

Where, for the love of God, did you ever get the impression that it was?

It's a very common attitude among Protestants and Evangelicals. You must take it for granted because you're Catholic.

There is fundamentalism, I'll grant you, but that's in the nature of man. Take creationism, which is an utter nonsense. But aren't you 'straw manning' Mainstream Christianity now?

Sometimes, when I say "mainstream Christianity," I am referring to Evangelicals. But it may include all of established Christianity (including Catholicism), which I would now like to call "Hellenistic Christianity." Haven't most of us adopted the Greek ideas in Christianity?

Don't get the wrong impression. This isn't about making Christianity more "Judaic" even if certain aspects of it must be viewed through that "lens." It's about becoming more Abrahamic.

If it can make sense to some, it can make sense to all.

No, because everyone thinks on a different level. It's the difference between a plumber and a scientist/engineer.

 

[wil]

Take creationism, which is an utter nonsense.

No you take it!

But seriously...wouldn't those words have been blasphemy for about 1500 years?

Were not people killled over saying less?

 

[peaceandkarma]

I like Jesuses actions he took in life, I don't believe the various Churches apply the same actions to others. Jesus healed a Romans servant. How many Christain organisations would do the same?

 

[Faithfulservant]

The thing God most commanded us in the bible is "fear not". All your doubts sound like so much fear to me. If you ask for wisdom He promises to grant it freely.. so ask Him. If you have doubts ask Him. His word is His known will for us.. His people so its concerning to me that your doubts lie with it. I wonder actually how often you prayerfully meditate on it? Do you ask for discernment?

Thomas (biblical) was a doubter and Jesus showed him His hands which had been pierced.. If Jesus had to prove who he was face to face... why would he do less for someone who hasnt seen Him? Just because He said blessed are those who believe without seeing doesnt mean He wont prove Himself to someone who is lacking faith. Hes pretty good about smacking people upside the head with a miracle or two for His glory.

-FS

 

[Saltmeister]

I like Jesuses actions he took in life, I don't believe the various Churches apply the same actions to others. Jesus healed a Romans servant. How many Christain organisations would do the same?

The majority of today's Christians are not followers of Jesus, but followers of other Christians.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Bumper sticker: "Religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich."

Religion is a cultural blueprint. Religion facilitates ceremonial-ism, which is a mechanism for conferring status. Religion provides a sense of order and control, and substitutes for the glaring lack of just compensation for good and evil deeds. Indeed, the morality derived from a particular adaptation of any religio-cultural system functions as much as a cover for the "necessary evil" inherent in that system as it serves as an absolute deterrent to evil. IOW, the primary function of morality is to establish a threshold for what evil is permissible. Religion enables transference of the fear of loss of identity at death. Religion is designed to foster subservience, squelch individuality, and create a mythos of the nobility of sacrifice. There's a reason why the military employs chaplains.

Christianity is particularly well suited to predatory capitalism and colonialist adventurism. It preaches a gospel of feudalist pacifism for the poor, while its derived morality effectively covers for the excesses of the rich and powerful. It's theology is utterly nonsensical. It is a gilded anachronism founded in ignorance and pro generated on the bafflement of bullsh**. But it works great if you don't think about it too much.

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

Bumper sticker: "Religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich."

Religion is a cultural blueprint. Religion facilitates ceremonial-ism, which is a mechanism for conferring status. Religion provides a sense of order and control, and substitutes for the glaring lack of just compensation for good and evil deeds. Indeed, the morality derived from a particular adaptation of any religio-cultural system functions as much as a cover for the "necessary evil" inherent in that system as it serves as an absolute deterrent to evil. IOW, the primary function of morality is to establish a threshold for what evil is permissible. Religion enables transference of the fear of loss of identity at death. Religion is designed to foster subservience, squelch individuality, and create a mythos of the nobility of sacrifice. There's a reason why the military employs chaplains.

Sounds like Confucianism!

Christianity is particularly well suited to predatory capitalism and colonialist adventurism. It preaches a gospel of feudalist pacifism for the poor, while its derived morality effectively covers for the excesses of the rich and powerful. It's theology is utterly nonsensical. It is a gilded anachronism founded in ignorance and pro generated on the bafflement of bullsh**. But it works great if you don't think about it too much.

Chris

What about what Jesus said about "You cannot serve both God and money?"

 

[Amergin]

Bumper sticker: "Religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich."

Religion is a cultural blueprint. Religion facilitates ceremonial-ism, which is a mechanism for conferring status. Religion provides a sense of order and control, and substitutes for the glaring lack of just compensation for good and evil deeds. Indeed, the morality derived from a particular adaptation of any religio-cultural system functions as much as a cover for the "necessary evil" inherent in that system as it serves as an absolute deterrent to evil. IOW, the primary function of morality is to establish a threshold for what evil is permissible. Religion enables transference of the fear of loss of identity at death. Religion is designed to foster subservience, squelch individuality, and create a mythos of the nobility of sacrifice. There's a reason why the military employs chaplains.

Christianity is particularly well suited to predatory capitalism and colonialist adventurism. It preaches a gospel of feudalist pacifism for the poor, while its derived morality effectively covers for the excesses of the rich and powerful. It's theology is utterly nonsensical. It is a gilded anachronism founded in ignorance and pro generated on the bafflement of bullsh**. But it works great if you don't think about it too much.

Chris

Spot on, mate. This is the best post on this discussion so far. Five star rating in my opinion..

Amergin

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What about what Jesus said about "You cannot serve both God and money?"

Not talking about Jesus, talking about what the institution of religion actually does.

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

Not talking about Jesus, talking about what the institution of religion actually does.

Chris

Gotcha.

 

[Dream]

Chris, hold on a minute. Sometimes the things that God didn't come through on for us is enough to make us shut down partially and go wonky. That is part of the problem with your conclusions. (The other part is that you make assumptions.) Perhaps you are upset. It is frustrating that God won't let you do certain things, stuck in your head like he is. At the same time he won't do what you beg him to do, fix your problems. Your ankles are tied, or you'd kick somebody's ass. I think you are not detached enough to make pronouncements about the universe and morality. I think you are venting.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Chris, hold on a minute. Sometimes the things that God didn't come through on for us is enough to make us shut down partially and go wonky. That is part of the problem with your conclusions. (The other part is that you make assumptions.) Perhaps you are upset. It is frustrating that God won't let you do certain things, stuck in your head like he is. At the same time he won't do what you beg him to do, fix your problems. Your ankles are tied, or you'd kick somebody's ass. I think you are not detached enough to make pronouncements about the universe and morality. I think you are venting.

Sometimes I just feel like saying what I'm thinking. Think about what religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as a cultural, institutional force, does, and has done. When missionaries were a vital component of colonial expansion, what were they there to do? Bring the love of God and Jesus to the natives, or something more? I'm not talking about God, whatever that is, I'm talking about how religion actually works.

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

Sometimes I just feel like saying what I'm thinking. Think about what religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as a cultural, institutional force, does, and has done. When missionaries were a vital component of colonial expansion, what were they there to do? Bring the love of God and Jesus to the natives, or something more? I'm not talking about God, whatever that is, I'm talking about how religion actually works.

Chris

I'd say it highlights the dangers of centralization--makes corruption and manipulation easier by those who want to manipulate collectives for their own ends.

 

[wil]

Sometimes I just feel like saying what I'm thinking. Think about what religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as a cultural, institutional force, does, and has done. When missionaries were a vital component of colonial expansion, what were they there to do? Bring the love of God and Jesus to the natives, or something more? I'm not talking about God, whatever that is, I'm talking about how religion actually works.

Chris

Religion was once about the law. It was about an invisible arbitor one you couldn't question or fight against that saw everything. Then once civilisations and gov'ts took that roll it became about keeping the power that it once had, now through land ownership, wealth and numbers. Today it seems more about social comfort, it is comfortable to be amongst folks that think like you, it feeds your ego to convince others that your thought is right and get them to join your parade. And the books that are written well, that have stood the test of time, have all the above components in scriptures that can be pulled out and utilized with a new interpretation for the current paradigm.

 

[Dream]

Sometimes I just feel like saying what I'm thinking. Think about what religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as a cultural, institutional force, does, and has done. When missionaries were a vital component of colonial expansion, what were they there to do? Bring the love of God and Jesus to the natives, or something more? I'm not talking about God, whatever that is, I'm talking about how religion actually works.

You bring up the central question, which is what should we do? Knowing what happened, what shall we do about it? You said that the primary function of morality was or has become merely to establish a threshold for what evil is permissible. Here is a little information I got off of adherents.com about Werner Heisenberg and what he said about it, plus extra:

For him "the spiritual pattern of the community [connection between good, beautiful, and true] we call the religion of the community"-it includes culture with or without a god. Religion, he believed, is the foundation of ethics, ethics the prescription of life; it concerns ideals, not norms. It is also the foundation of trust. Faith requires trust; we must believe in-not just about. "If I have found faith, it means I have decided to do something and am willing to stake my life on it." Heisenberg believed one cannot live by distinguishing sharply between knowledge and faith

Werner Heisenberg was once asked by Wolfgang Pauli if he believed in a personal God. This was his reply: "Can you, or anyone else, reach the central order of things, or events, whose existence seems beyond doubt, as directly as you can reach the soul of another human being? I am using the term 'soul' quite deliberately so as not to be misunderstood. If you would put the question like that, the answer is yes."...

Nice little poem by Keats:

When I have fears that I may cease to be
Before my pen has glean'd my teeming brain,
Before high-piled books, in charactery,
Hold like rich garners the full ripen'd grain;
When I behold, upon the night's starr'd face,
Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance,
And think that I may never live to trace
Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance;
And when I feel, fair creature of an hour,
That I shall never look upon thee more,
Never have relish in the faery power Of unreflecting love;
--then on the shore Of the wide world I stand alone, and think
Till love and fame to nothingness do sink.

 

[stuntpickle]

Blearyeyed,

I must admit I am somewhat reluctant to attempt an answer to your question because it seems to be not so much a question as it does a sort of passive-aggressive accusation, and so I risk playing the part of a bore who actually answers a question that the questioner never intended to have answered. Yet I am strangely compelled to answer nonetheless.

Oh, and I will, by the way, free of charge, reveal to you the secret of life at the end of this post.

First, I have no doubt you have, in fact, heard that human lives according to Christian doctrine represent a sort of moral test administered by some celestial schoolmarm who ultimately grades her pupils and then dispenses slaps with her ruler depending on the respective pupils’ performance. This sort of idea is typical of what I like to call McTheology, which is particular to certain strains of American Christianity, and I say this, in good conscience, as something of an American Christian, myself, though those same Christians are likely to consider me more of a heretic. But I can’t help wondering if you, before working yourself into an obvious tizzy, stopped to consider whether there might be any other options. As it stands, you seem to simply to be flogging a convenient strawman for the purpose of ridiculing Christianity. Of course, I could be entirely wrong, in which case I sincerely apologize.

John Keats, a Romantic poet par excellence, took issue in one of his private letters with the phrase “vale of tears.” This phrase has been used traditionally to refer to the preponderance of sorrow humans are likely to experience in their earthly lives. Although this concept is bound to be difficult for someone reared in the sappy, crude traditions of American sentimentalism, brimming with romantic comedies and Hallmark platitudes, I assure you that it was once an entirely conventional notion; being “happy” was not always thought to be the default state of existence. Keats, however, preferred the phrase “vale of soul-making.”

Before continuing, I have to address a problem central to this discussion. Ask yourself: how would you demonstrate a principle or reveal a fact to someone who is not only unaware of the principle or fact, but incapable of that awareness? I have lately encountered an alarming number of persons who, though being moderately educated, find, when reading, that it is sufficient to have made a literal deciphering of the text. Is it surprising then that our modern discussions of, say, the book of Genesis largely concern whether there was, in fact, a talking snake or a tree adorned with magic apples (or quinces) or in precisely how many literal days it took Yahweh to hammer out the universe on his cosmological workbench? Invariably, these discussions miss the entire point of the book, which seems to unavoidably be as profound an examination of human self-awareness as has ever been penned. I take it for granted that you understand the very modern distinction made about humanity: that, among all animals, we are alone in the awareness of our deaths. This is precisely one of the many essential and essentially beautiful points the writers of Genesis are making.

You seem to take it for granted that hell can only be a literal furnace in which persons are literally burned for all eternity. I assume you are unaware this notion is not the uniform opinion of all Christians. The position of, for example, the Greek Orthodox Church is that hell is a metaphor for the tormenting regret one will feel in God’s presence after having rejected him. And so even according to the false dichotomy you present, the choice isn’t necessarily between God and eternal punishment, but between God and not God, the latter naturally entailing, as opposed to being imposed by God, a metaphorical hell.

But back to Keats.

Consider for a moment that you are a deity all alone in an infinite blank. You get a little lonely, so you decide to make yourself some companions. If you are a supremely powerful and knowledgeable deity, I think you would, first, encounter the problem of making creatures that are more than advanced marionettes, which would result from structural moral prohibitions (a world in which murder was physically impossible) or a design requiring the creatures are made to any moral specifications. But more importantly, you would want a companion with awareness sufficient to supply actual “companionship.” Imagine that you, as this supreme deity, are subjected to an eternity of baby-sitting the average internet-addled adolescent who speaks in cliches and catch-phrases. That certainly wouldn’t qualify as adequate companionship in my book. You would want, I think, a companion who is capable of discerning all the possible intellectual and moral choices--not meticulously aware of every possible choice, mind you, but capable of some basic awareness. You would, I think, have to instruct your companions in the extremes of good and evil, horror and beauty. And here we encounter the difference between a child’s understanding of death and adult’s. Although any child can academically grasp the notion of death, only time and experience are adequate to instruct him fully. I think an average person spends the first part of his life learning what exactly life entails and the last part learning what its negation entails. A *person* is, ideally, taught by exquisitely minute degrees that he will be deprived of everything he has ever even slightly cherished and that all our seemingly enduring human institutions are illusory, as is the whole of human cultural continuity, and this person should begin to see himself unburdened by linear time so that the boasts of his youth are juxtaposed with the failures of his adulthood, and ideally he will begin to understand that a knowledge of good and evil necessarily entails a capacity for both, and even worse, that he has, himself, consciously committed any number of evil acts himself because when, surveying the whole of human freedom, he was selfish and mean and generally careless with others not because God made him that way, but because God allowed him to choose. And at this point this person will, ideally, regret any number of things, which is to say he will become an actual “person” equipped with all the sensitivities that entails. The ordeal, you see, isn’t to allow God to cull a few moral exemplars from the whole host of humanity, but rather the only conceivable means by which personhood is achieved. It isn’t a test, but creation itself.

The meaning of life is person-generation or, as Keats put it “soul-making.”

 

[Dream]

Man-made rules maybe ... but the will of God is a constant.


Ooh, steady! One can say doing the right thing is not always easy, nor does it necessarily get the result you'd like, but it is never not the right thing to do ... and doing the wrong thing is never right.

But there is always 'the human margin' and as Wil and I have discussed elsewhere, far from being 'a grey area', it's the most colourful bit!

God bless,

Thomas

I had to go back through and I missed a whole lotta posts but went back and found yours Thomas. Yes, I meant doing the right thing is not always easy and does not always give the results we'd like, not that it is wrong to do right. Good that you pointed it out.

But back to Keats.

Hi! I'm glad somebody knows all about Keats, because I merely thought the poem was cool and pertinent. Its one of the most famous and well known. Now you've got me pulling up the man's bio.