the spectrum of christianity

[bishop]

the diverse perspectives amongst self-proclaimed christians has been on my mind lately. i've wondered what, exactly, determines if someone's a christian or not. especially in light of those who seem to be holier than thou.



myself, i believe that christ died for our sins and that adherence to his core lessons holds the key to our own salvation. forgiveness, honesty, compassion, fairness, nonviolence, etc...

that said, there is a lot in the dogma that i completely reject. first, i do not believe in the book of genesis - i firmly believe in evolution. i do, however, believe that god did create the universe.

second, i do not believe in the holy trinity - i firmly believe that jesus was conceived naturally by sperm and egg. moreover, jesus had brothers and sisters borne by sperm and egg, and this water's down the holy trinity argument. i believe that christ was a man called upon by god, not the human embodiment or son (in the literal sense) of god. he was a very special man unlike all but a few (buddha, st. peter, etc...), and a man that represented the best in humanity.

i also don't believe that moses parted any seas, or jesus walked on water.. likewise, i don't think buddha disappeared/vanished into nirvana or other supernatural tales told in any other religion. those ring of ridiculous superstitious fairy tales to my ears, and don't add any spiritual value. also, biblical stories rooted in historical norms don't provide any value either - such as stoning women, damning gays to hell, etc..

because of these justified criticisms with the bible, i don't believe that the entire bible is truly the word of god, as many "true believers" allege. the bible was not made to confirm man-made concepts/dogmas/norms.. or, at least the new testament wasn't - or should not have been.

the authors and their various tales cause me to question the bible in its entirety... not to mention that nobody knows who wrote the first 5 books, and a handful of people wrote the vast majority of the new testament. some of the known authors seem to have spent their careers writing several various books. it isn't possible that they could have interjected a couple words here and there solely to justify their own, personal, views?

then there's the revelation to john... the most controversial book in all christiandom.. some, namely the evangelicals, are infatuated by this book as they almost eagerly await the second coming/rapture/apocalypse.. other evangelicals promote christian fundamentalism, perhaps in hopes that it will prevent the apocalypse. the orthodox church doesn't include this book in their readings and the catholic church once didn't want to include it - for fear of abusing/misinterpreting it. in fact, earlier christians DID abuse the book, became infatuated with its story/prophecy and lost sight of jesus's message. i can only wonder about the number of times that christians rallied around the revelation to john as they awaited the end of the world - only to be disappointed when nothing happened. if there is an end to the world, it will come about by man's own doing, not god's.



and so, while i believe in jesus, his message and his sacrifice, there is A LOT that i don't believe and can't accept. and, i also look at other major religious figures and believe that their teachings have real worth, even though they weren't christian. yet, i do consider myself to be a christian.

the point of this spiel is this - are there any faith-related requirements are there in order to be accepted as a christian? and if so, what are they?

[Flip Jackson]

I guess the most informal requirement to be accepted as Christian is to be willing to say that you actions reflect on Christ and His teachings.

Many people may say that you have to be baptized to formally be a Chrstian, since that is the symbolic way of taking Christ's name on you, hence making you "Christian." I think many people who haven't been baptized act more Christian than many that have.

You have quite a unique take on Christianity. Most people with views similar to yours would tend to be agnostic or non-denominational. Interesting way of seeing things

I tend to see things from the Bible more literally than you do, but less literally when compared to most Christians. There is a lot about "holy tradition" and the like that came from old Catholocism that doesn't sit with me well, and I am starting to see a lot of symbols in the Biblical stories that make me wonder what was meant to be literal and what wasn't.

[Starboy]

As an atheist I can't say what constitutes a "true" Christian. As far as I am concerned if they call themselves a Christian then *poof* they are a Christian. Christians may finagle and argue like lawyers what is allowed or required or is bogus or can be ignored but as far as I can tell they all have as much basis or lack thereof for one view verses another. In the final analysis the only being that can make that determination of "true" Christianhood is god. That is assuming that there is a god and that such god gives a rats ass who is or is not a "true" Christian.

Starboy

[bishop]

thanks for the reply flip...

about agnostics... agnostics are generally noncommittal about the idea of an all-powerful god/entity. of course there are variations of agnosticism. the only agnostic-esque beliefs that i do have is that no human can truly understand god - yet i firmly believe that god is real. and, i don't believe that attempting to understand god is a worthwhile endeavor. we can, however, understand jesus and understand his lessons. even jesus did not understand god. in matthew 27:46, he asks god why he has been forsaken. if jesus couldn't understand god, then none of us can - and that need not be an agnostic belief, but rather, a rational interpretation of jesus's story.


i believe his lessons and sacrifice lead us to salvation, but regardless of that, they are good lessons to live by - if everyone followed his message the world would be a utopia.

with baptism and other religious rituals... i happen to believe they are largely worthless. in my case, i was raised catholic and was baptized before i could even walk/speak.. just having some water poured on one's head doesn't make someone a christian - there are many self-proclaimed atheists who've been baptized.

and for my criticism of the bible... the only lessons i give value to are those relavent to jesus's teachings. the entire old testament could be discarded as far as i'm concerned, and there are many parts of the new testament that are equally useless. i'll give some examples of why i don't believe that the bible completely represents the word of god.. i'll use the most unacceptable examples to prove my point..

"…If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21. "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10. "…women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..." 1 Corinthians 14:34

chapter 19 of genesis includes some hot incest where Lot has drunken sex with both of his daughters.

chapter 19 of judges includes a gang rape of a concubine who is then murdered, cut up into 12 pieces and sent to the coasts of israel...

etc....


now, if the bible truly is the word/command of god, then we are all damned - at least those who treat women like fellow human beings. i look at these verses as being historical vestiges of the stone age, rather than anything commanded by god. plus, jesus showed mercy to mary magdalene - to the contrary of the aforementioned verses... (and mary was an active follower of jesus and considered as the 13th apostle by some)


my rejection of god/jesus/the holy spirit being one and the same can be supported by john 20:17:

Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.

if jesus was the same as god, then he would not have said "my God".

i can also look at jesus's teachings and find examples of tolerance and freedom of thought. while other authors in the bible readily condemn homosexuals, adulterers, etc, jesus says in luke 12:57: why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? he says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality, yet other christians readily condemn it - using the same books from the bible as the ones that say women should be stoned to death. i don't know how to judge homosexuals. i think the act is pretty disguisting, but do i believe that they're doomed to hell? jesus definitely wasn't a fan of injustice or hypocrisy, as many christians today seem to be. the only way to prevent the formation of unjust/hypocritical views in christianity, imo, is to focus solely on jesus's teachings. he is the messiah, and none other. he took a woman prostitute into his fold - when the bible says that she should be stoned to death.

[Son of Belial]

I never understood this view. I'm not saying you feel this way, but so many people have similar views. They admit most of the Bible is nonsense, they make up new ideas to make parts make sense, cut parts out, add parts in, and so on. Yet they have the arrogance to claim that they have the only right way. It simply doesn't make sense. If you're going to pick out the good parts and discard the rest, there are plenty of other books out there with more good and less bad to discard. Indeed, much of Jesus' teachings came from older sources. I've seen some in ancient Egyptian texts.

[bishop]

i definitely cut parts out, but i don't add parts in. at least i am consistent in the sense that i focus solely on jesus's teachings and don't pay credence to third party statements. when i come across parts that are noncommittal, i generally prefer to approach the issue with tolerance and compassion.

heh, and of course i would believe my views are correct. or more accurately, that they are the best interpretation. of course, that only applies to me and my own views. everyone is entitled to their own perspective - and a condition of the human ego generally holds that we tend to believe our own views to be better than another's.. that said, i'm definitely not one to try to preach or impose my views on others. i tend to think that indoctrination is not the way to accept christ.. i was raised catholic and did not believe (or at least i tried persuading myself), but as time passed, i chose to accept my faith.

[Starboy]

Quote by: bishop heh, and of course i would believe my views are correct. or more accurately, that they are the best interpretation. of course, that only applies to me and my own views.

This point of view is completly consistent with the contention that god is not about anything that exists but simply reflects the wishes and hopes of the person. It you want to see god go look in the mirror.

Starboy

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: bishop myself, i believe that christ died for our sins and that adherence to his core lessons holds the key to our own salvation. forgiveness, honesty, compassion, fairness, nonviolence, etc...

Christ didn't die for your sins. He died because the Romans wanted him dead. Either way the guy was going to be nailed to a cross. We already knew what forgiveness, honesty, compassion, fairness, etc. were before and after the death of Jesus. I don't see how he was such a revolutionary force for these concepts. There were no teachings of Jesus that weren't already known besides the ones that said God was great and such.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Christ didn't die for your sins. He died because the Romans wanted him dead. Either way the guy was going to be nailed to a cross. We already knew what forgiveness, honesty, compassion, fairness, etc. were before and after the death of Jesus. I don't see how he was such a revolutionary force for these concepts. There were no teachings of Jesus that weren't already known besides the ones that said God was great and such.

I think it was more that the jews wanted him dead...
Anyways, I think he still had some revolutionairy teachings. Love you enemy... is that found in many other religions? Bless those that hurt you.. turn the other cheek......

[bishop]

atheists.. thanks for your comments, but they don't have anything to do with the question asked at the start of the thread. this IS NOT a debate about whether/not god exists.

Quote by: lettherebe I think it was more that the jews wanted him dead... Anyways, I think he still had some revolutionairy teachings. Love you enemy... is that found in many other religions? Bless those that hurt you.. turn the other cheek......

unlike a lot of people who professed good things, jesus really did live them. even when faced with torture and a brutal death, he did not give up on his faith.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe I think it was more that the jews wanted him dead... Anyways, I think he still had some revolutionairy teachings. Love you enemy... is that found in many other religions? Bless those that hurt you.. turn the other cheek......

Hah. Love your enemy. Ok, Jesus said it. but does that mean the mass believers followed it? No. We are not that civilized. For 1500 years the Roman Catholic Church persecuted, burned, and murdered thousands over heresies. I would consider them "enemies" of the church. Does it make him much of a great person to proclaim things that we can not reach? Sir Thomas More created a hyptothetical Utopia, better than what Jesus had taught, and yet I don't see as much recognition for him.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Hah. Love your enemy. Ok, Jesus said it. but does that mean the mass believers followed it? No. We are not that civilized. For 1500 years the Roman Catholic Church persecuted, burned, and murdered thousands over heresies. I would consider them "enemies" of the church. Does it make him much of a great person to proclaim things that we can not reach? Sir Thomas More created a hyptothetical Utopia, better than what Jesus had taught, and yet I don't see as much recognition for him.

To proclaim things we cannot reach? Who is "we"? I think some have reached the level of his teachings, and others have come very close. I have only known one personally who i think embodied the ideals Jesus taught, but he was an incredible person. I can honestly say I loved him, and he loved everyone as well.
Beside, you were basically saying Jesus taught nothing new. I do not think that is correct. Whether these ideals are commonly lived ideals is of no consequence to this particular argument.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe To proclaim things we cannot reach? Who is "we"? I think some have reached the level of his teachings, and others have come very close. I have only known one personally who i think embodied the ideals Jesus taught, but he was an incredible person. I can honestly say I loved him, and he loved everyone as well. Beside, you were basically saying Jesus taught nothing new. I do not think that is correct. Whether these ideals are commonly lived ideals is of no consequence to this particular argument.

Why? You are explaining his significance and I am saying there is nothing significant about him. He didn't show us any cures, he didn't give us any technology, and he never sacrificed himself for our sins. He was murdered. He did not teach us peace, or how to love, or why we love in the first place. I don't see why people love this guy.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Why? You are explaining his significance and I am saying there is nothing significant about him. He didn't show us any cures, he didn't give us any technology, and he never sacrificed himself for our sins. He was murdered. He did not teach us peace, or how to love, or why we love in the first place. I don't see why people love this guy.

Maybe people would not love him if he never sacrificed himself for our sins, but some believe otherwise. I think the fact that many of his disciples were willing to die for his name is a testimony to the miracles and reserection that they witnessed. Why else would they die for a known lie? Besides, He did teach amazing things. Things not often followed, but something new, powerful, and loving regardless.

[RickSp]

Quote by: LetThereBe I think it was more that the jews wanted him dead... Anyways, I think he still had some revolutionairy teachings. Love you enemy... is that found in many other religions? Bless those that hurt you.. turn the other cheek......

As Jesus was a Jew and his followers were Jews any statement that the Jews wanted Jesus dead doesn't make much sense. Blame the Pharisees if you want, but they were a relatively small sect as most Jews of the period were not aligned with either the Pharisees, the Sadducess or the Essenses. Blaming the "Jews" for murdering "the Christ" is straight out of medieval anti-Semitism.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Maybe people would not love him if he never sacrificed himself for our sins, but some believe otherwise. I think the fact that many of his disciples were willing to die for his name is a testimony to the miracles and reserection that they witnessed. Why else would they die for a known lie? Besides, He did teach amazing things. Things not often followed, but something new, powerful, and loving regardless.

How can they believe otherwise if they also belief the Romans nailed him to a cross? The Romans did not agree with Jesus in that he should die for our sins. They just killed him, and now people want to believe he died for them, like any other cool martyr out there. Those disciple guys were prettty crazy IMO, and like any crazy cult out there, they proclaim their beliefs out loud despite its unorthodoxy. They thought, or wanted to think, Jesus was special. He was also their friend. Jesus promised eternal heaven and happiness, too. I mean, if in 1692 the Salem Witchhunt was going on and people actually believed that harmless little girls were witches, then hang 19 of them, I'm sure that 1500 years before that a dozen men would go crazy over one of their friends who claimed to be a prophet and claimed to perform miracles. Heaven was a huge bonus, that is the reason for the constant determination to spread Jesus' teachings. So eternal bliss could be his.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 How can they believe otherwise if they also belief the Romans nailed him to a cross? The Romans did not agree with Jesus in that he should die for our sins. They just killed him, and now people want to believe he died for them, like any other cool martyr out there. Those disciple guys were prettty crazy IMO, and like any crazy cult out there, they proclaim their beliefs out loud despite its unorthodoxy. They thought, or wanted to think, Jesus was special. He was also their friend. Jesus promised eternal heaven and happiness, too. I mean, if in 1692 the Salem Witchhunt was going on and people actually believed that harmless little girls were witches, then hang 19 of them, I'm sure that 1500 years before that a dozen men would go crazy over one of their friends who claimed to be a prophet and claimed to perform miracles. Heaven was a huge bonus, that is the reason for the constant determination to spread Jesus' teachings. So eternal bliss could be his.

So you believe the disciples were willing to die and be tortured for a guy they liked, but still knew was a sham?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: RickSp As Jesus was a Jew and his followers were Jews any statement that the Jews wanted Jesus dead doesn't make much sense. Blame the Pharisees if you want, but they were a relatively small sect as most Jews of the period were not aligned with either the Pharisees, the Sadducess or the Essenses. Blaming the "Jews" for murdering "the Christ" is straight out of medieval anti-Semitism.

Please, do not misunderstand me. I do not blame the Jews for the death of Christ as either a race or as a religion. It was the leaders in the synagogues who convinced the people against Jesus. Regardless, the people chose to release a known murderer rather than the blasphemer that they saw Christ to be.

[Starboy]

The historical situation was more complicated than that. Yes Jesus was a Jew and yes his followers were Jews and yes his persecutors were Jews as well. You see Jesus challenged the temple system. By baptizing people he offered free cleansing of sin. Collection money for sacrifice and offerings to cleanse sin in the temple was a major source of income for the Jewish state. So from their point of view Jesus was screwing with tax collection and thus a problem for the state. This by the way was the same reason they killed John the Baptist from whom Jesus got his following. The Romans didn't really care all that much but since the Jews in high places were complaining about Jesus and it was causing civil unrest the Romans as occupiers agreed with the Jewish authorities that Jesus was a trouble maker and did what Romans did with trouble makers. Now of course at the time there were any number of Jewish trouble makers and the Jews in general were pains in the ass for the Romans. They became so troublesome that at one point about 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus they massacred most of the Jews in Jerusalem, looted and destroyed the temple and then pursued the Jewish rebellion to Masada where the rebels killed themselves just before the Romans were to attack after spending the good part of a year constructing a giant ramp up the side of the mountain on which perched the sanctuary of the rebels.

At this time the Jews were in general disarray and fled Israel to spread across the globe. The Jewish sect of Jesus followers had a parting of the ways from traditional Jews and two new religions were born, Orthodox Judaism and Christianity.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/voices/voices4b.html

Starboy

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe So you believe the disciples were willing to die and be tortured for a guy they liked, but still knew was a sham?

Hmm...They didn't really know he was a sham. They didn't want him not to be a sham. So they convinced themselves he wasn't.