Christian Faith

[Politesse]

You know who proselytized? Jesus did. You know who was a Jew? Jesus was.

???

Jesus was definitely a Jew, but at what point did he try to convince anyone else to be a Jew?

 

[steve_bank]

Oh, back to the German idealists, securely.

He certainly wasn't a systematic philosopher, and there are of course those who insist he isn't a "he" at all but a collection of scattered wisdom sayings united vaguely under an archetypal wandering teacher figure. But I find insight in the stories, and they are the canon I know best. We could have a conversation about the things I find most interesting, but I don't think wisdom teachings flourish in the context of an apologetic argument. If you have to listen to something, it is valueless.

My point to you from them other thread that saying one is Christian has no meaning. Muslims have the Five Pillars Of Islam and clear social directives in the Koran. Buddhist hive the 8 Fold Path and a set of basic living requirements. For Jews the Torah is not central, there are side historical writings and traditions that define social behavior.

If you give credence to the gospels Christianity is based on the story of the resurrection and JC's promise of eternal life. Beyond that there is little in the gospels that present any coherent philosophy.

I had a thread on what is a Christian.


JC was a Jewish rabbi he invented nothing new. A rabbi has shown up on TV with his shtick the Jewish Jesus calling Christians to realize they are really Jews. As a Catholic baby I was circumcised....

You identify as a Christian. When you criticized some of us for attacking religion without understanding the traditions my response to you was what is a Christian in your eyes? What is a Christian without the tradition of faith?

Personally, I don't think it makes much sense to tell someone who thinks they are a Christian that they are mistaken, nor a Buddhist, Taoist, etc. It leads you into absurdities, trying to make social identity a question for objective rubrics. If you want something like that for Christianity, there are certain creeds and rubrics you might choose from, but embracing them implies taking sides in ancient wars foolish in their time and now long dead except for the traditions they inspired. Jesus himself recommended discerning right and wrong by the real fruit it bears in the world rather than literal interpretation of some silly law. A situational, not deontological, moralist.

When I said that it was foolish to attack, say, Jews for being proselytizers, I meant that anyone who has so much as browsed their Wikipedia page knows that isn't a common activity in that tradition. I'm not telling anyone who is or is not a Jew.

On a personal level I am not out to tell anyone what to believe. In western civilization within civil law it is up to you.

You attacked some of us for not understanding religious tradition.

My response was asking you simply why you identify as a Christian. Some Christians I knew will give very specific responses. Others who sell identify have no specific reason. It seems to make them feel good to say they are a Christian. One person I knew said he accepts Jesus as lord and therefore he I saved, meaning going to heaven. No particular religious practice.

Then there is the American black Christianity that evolved out slavery and white Christianity. Church gatherings can be a celebration of life and community. The music of the 50s-60s in large part evolvd out of black gosplel music. It influenced Elvis. If you know what you are listening to Elvis was a gospel singer. Aretha Franklin was pure gospek.

So, what does it mean for you to identify as Christian?

 

[steve_bank]

To me it is clear JC was a rabbi, he was called that in the gospels. He spoke in temple, referred to the prophets, and reinforced Mosaic Law.

He attacked the corrupt Jewish power elite. The Temple was corrupt. Undoubtedly there was Roman skimming of profits and political corruption between the Je3ish powers and Romans. Bribes and the like, influence peddling. In today's parlance the Temple was a big corporation of the day.

Her was calling Jews back to the old values or face destruction, at the hands of Rome. Historically he would have been one of many itinerant rabbis. Some were militant ending in the Roman siege of Masada and the destruction of the temple. Some were crooks and con artists who used the messianic prophesy for profit. If there was an historical Jesus he was not important enough to be recorded by Rome. One of many rabble rousers.

To understand Jesus of the gospels you have to understand the geopolitics of the day. Look at the region today. A hotbed of ethnic nationalism and religious conflict. That can give you an idea. As a rough analogy juxtapose Rome with modern Israel and Israel of the gospels with the Palestinians of today. Arafat was a militant Palestinian nationalist, and as was shown after he dies he made a lot of money in the cause.

So, JC was a Jew who did not reject Judaism. He preached it. Western Christianity is a complete fabrication starting with the theology of the early RCC and continuing with the multiple offshoots post Reformation.

 

[Politesse]

Personally, I don't think it makes much sense to tell someone who thinks they are a Christian that they are mistaken, nor a Buddhist, Taoist, etc. It leads you into absurdities, trying to make social identity a question for objective rubrics. If you want something like that for Christianity, there are certain creeds and rubrics you might choose from, but embracing them implies taking sides in ancient wars foolish in their time and now long dead except for the traditions they inspired. Jesus himself recommended discerning right and wrong by the real fruit it bears in the world rather than literal interpretation of some silly law. A situational, not deontological, moralist.

When I said that it was foolish to attack, say, Jews for being proselytizers, I meant that anyone who has so much as browsed their Wikipedia page knows that isn't a common activity in that tradition. I'm not telling anyone who is or is not a Jew.

On a personal level I am not out to tell anyone what to believe. In western civilization within civil law it is up to you.

You attacked some of us for not understanding religious tradition.

My response was asking you simply why you identify as a Christian. Some Christians I knew will give very specific responses. Others who sell identify have no specific reason. It seems to make them feel good to say they are a Christian. One person I knew said he accepts Jesus as lord and therefore he I saved, meaning going to heaven. No particular religious practice.

Then there is the American black Christianity that evolved out slavery and white Christianity. Church gatherings can be a celebration of life and community. The music of the 50s-60s in large part evolvd out of black gosplel music. It influenced Elvis. If you know what you are listening to Elvis was a gospel singer. Aretha Franklin was pure gospek.

So, what does it mean for you to identify as Christian?

It's the tradition I feel closest to and know the most about, having been raised in it, and later on very nearly ordained to it but for some lucky happenstance and a few wise words from a trusted friend. I tend to "think in Christian" when looking at spiritual issues, at least before checking myself. I do not value exclusivism or orthodoxy, but I do admire Jesus as a person, and find great value in many of his reported sayings, in particular his social optimism and his advice on discernment and the avoidance of hypocrisy. I also deeply respect the work of many Christian writers who followed, especially Evagrios, Gregory of Nyssa, and Teresa of Avila.

I like black culture also, and used to worship at a Catholic church in Oakland with one hell of a gospel choir. I've been drifting from church to church since I last moved, though my partner and I have become especially friendly with a tiny Gnostic house church across the Dumbarton in San Jose.

I am a practicing Pagan as well, and believe in honoring all of my families' gods in ritual, such as I know about them. But I am normally agnostic about belief. Religion is mostly community to me, and beliefs are only one component of that, though I do think it is valuable to be open-minded.

 

[Politesse]

I disagree that I "attacked" anyone, by the way, but I do apologize if my perhaps overly frank manner felt like an attack. I do think it is appropriate, in a discussion forum, to call out inaccuracies, and fair to criticize lack of knowledge if and when someone claims authoritative knowledge they do not actually possess. What one knows or doesn't know is up to them; no one can study everything. But what you put in print as though true in a public sphere is fair game for critique at that point.

 

[southernhybrid]

I have never understood why some of my atheist friends and acquaintances don't like liberal versions of religion. I wish we were more like the abolitionists. Both liberal Christians and atheists united for a common cause. Liberal theists aren't dogmatic. They often just enjoy the powerful myths of their religious ideologies, but they tend to use their beliefs as a force for good. They don't preach or judge atheists, and most are open minded. Why do some of us judge them?

Telling a Christian what he/she has to belief is like telling a Democrat which values they must hold. Both groups are very diverse with many different views. I don't see a thing wrong with that, but then I love diversity of thought and culture when it comes to humans. Maybe I should clarify that by saying that I love diverse groups as long as they aren't harmful or judgmental towards those outside of the group. Btw, I've even known a couple of atheist Christians that enjoyed their church communities, but also enjoyed hanging out with other atheists when they had the opportunity.

 

[Rhea]

You know who proselytized? Jesus did. You know who was a Jew? Jesus was.

???

Jesus was definitely a Jew, but at what point did he try to convince anyone else to be a Jew?

He tried to convince Jews to be his kind of Jew.
He said his message to anyone who would show up, not just in temples. He hung out among the non-jews and he elevated the non-jewish Samaritan as a proper recipient of his type of judaism.

His whole schtick was proselytizing his version of Judaism to anyone who would listen.
IN the O.T., Jews "proselytized" by just murdering people. So there's that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, since Jesus was a Jew, when he asked people to follow him, he was asking them to become Jewish. It's like when a Mormon knocks on your door and asks you to join the Mormon church, he's asking you to become a Mormon. That's pretty much the most basic definition of proselytizing.

 

[Gun Nut]

If Christianity weren't under constant attack, we wouldn't have to defend ourselves on playing fields we otherwise avoid.

 

[DBT]

I disagree that I "attacked" anyone, by the way, but I do apologize if my perhaps overly frank manner felt like an attack. I do think it is appropriate, in a discussion forum, to call out inaccuracies, and fair to criticize lack of knowledge if and when someone claims authoritative knowledge they do not actually possess. What one knows or doesn't know is up to them; no one can study everything. But what you put in print as though true in a public sphere is fair game for critique at that point.

Each poster may feel that it is the other who has 'inaccuracies' Depending on the evidence, one or the other may be right, or it may be that one or the other are arguing with an inaccurate set of claims, each one earnestly trying to set the other straight. Or, depending on the evidence, both sides may be wrong,

 

[steve_bank]

I disagree that I "attacked" anyone, by the way, but I do apologize if my perhaps overly frank manner felt like an attack. I do think it is appropriate, in a discussion forum, to call out inaccuracies, and fair to criticize lack of knowledge if and when someone claims authoritative knowledge they do not actually possess. What one knows or doesn't know is up to them; no one can study everything. But what you put in print as though true in a public sphere is fair game for critique at that point.

Why on Earth would I be unset or bothered by anything you or anyone says on the forum? No apology is needed.

I asked you a question in the context of your criticism, pure and simple.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You know who proselytized? Jesus did. You know whho was a Jew? Jesus was.

He was not the Messiah. He was a very naughty boy

- - - Updated - - -

If Christianity weren't under constant attack, we wouldn't have to defend ourselves on playing fields we otherwise avoid.

Who's attacking Christianity? Pointing out theological inconsistencies in a religion is not attacking it. It's just a conversation. Its just healthy no matter what you believe. And as Kierkegaard pointed out, a Christian who doesn't question their beliefs is hardly a real Christian.

Attacking Christianity would require an army. The stuff that Stalin did. Just having a conversation does not a war make

 

[Opoponax]

If Christianity weren't under constant attack, we wouldn't have to defend ourselves on playing fields we otherwise avoid.

How do you perceive Christianity as being "under constant attack"?

 

[southernhybrid]

If Christianity weren't under constant attack, we wouldn't have to defend ourselves on playing fields we otherwise avoid.

Are you serious? Try being an atheist in the Bible Belt, if you think Christianity is under attack. In my small city, there are at least 47 churches. Christian terminology is so deeply ingrained in the culture here, that I sometimes use culturally derived Christian expressions myself. So, all I can say to all you persecuted Christians is bless your hearts.

Btw, I have plenty of Christian friends but some of them only know that I'm not religious, because if I were to us the A word, it might freak them out too much. The best ones know I'm an atheist. We never discuss religion because it's not relevant to our friendships. I respect them as people and they respect me.

Now back to the discussion about Christian faith.

 

[Rhea]

If Christianity weren't under constant attack, we wouldn't have to defend ourselves on playing fields we otherwise avoid.

I, too, would really like to know about any attack on Christianity, let alone a constant one.
Were you being actually serious? I assumed it was a sarcastic joke. It's not?

Yes, please enumerate some of the "constant attacks" on the religion that has signs in all our courtrooms, a federal holiday, tax exempt status and a church on every corner?

Otherwise, as SoHy so aptly puts it, "Bless your little heart."

 

[DBT]

I think that some Christians take the mere act of questioning faith as an attack on faith and Christianity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that some Christians take the mere act of questioning faith as an attack on faith and Christianity.

It's an emotional identity thing.

I should be sufficiently mature to understand and accept that not everyone likes the same things I like. If I take offense when someone doesn't share my preferences the problem is mine, not theirs.

 

[Gun Nut]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.
It is dishonest to cry about claims that "Science proves God" when they are made in response to Science claiming that they have "disproved God".

It's like a bully crying about being punched in the face after punching someone in their face for not giving them their lunch money.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There's nothing at all wrong with using science to prove God. What's wrong is using bad science to do it.

If God went through all the trouble of creating science, I'd expect he'd insist on people engaging in a proper methodology when using it to demonstrate his existence. Anything else would just be rude and insulting to the man and he tends to burn folks in Hell for that sort of thing.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.
It is dishonest to cry about claims that "Science proves God" when they are made in response to Science claiming that they have "disproved God".

We don't "cry" about them. We just expose them for the crock of un- (anti-?) scientific bullcrap that they are. If you want to claim "science", you have to actually DO science.