Jump to content

Your Understanding of Christianity?


A. Sterling

Recommended Posts

Just now, Dreamsexual said:

Yeah, I hate it when anyone does that, lol :)

 

Especially charity collectors (chuggers).  But I probably shouldn't judge the concept of 'charity' too harshly because of those guys, annoying as they are :)

I rather hit them with a very dense piece of bamboo or a frying pan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A. Sterling said:

So, an open ended question. I was just curious about people's interpretations of Christianity or the impression they get from or about it in general, in practice, and in theory. (No right answer, no strings attached, just curious... I find that people get suspicious about religion questions.) 

Like others have mentioned, Christianity IS a very broad topic...

 

I've mentioned it a bit here before, but I used to be a Christian. Don't think I mentioned what kind, tho...

 

Even though I'm no longer a Christian, I do enjoy a good discussion about religious and spiritual matters. 😁 

 

I don't get suspicious about religious questions, though I do sometimes feel a little uncomfortable at times with organized religion. Sadly, I had a very bad experience at my old church, and I ended up leaving as a teenager, mostly because of my sexual orientation and gender identity. 😢 

 

Hmm, not sure what else to say here... From my past experiences with Christianity, my impression of it isn't pretty, that's for sure. I'm not saying it's all bad, but there are definitely some bad stuff that just can't be ignored... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 3:16 PM, Just Dani said:

I'm not saying it's all bad, but there are definitely some bad stuff that just can't be ignored... 

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Christianity is a very old and very "evolved" religion: Over 2000 years though it has drifted and branched. 

 

Some of Jesus's teachings were great - its one of the first religions to teach peace and love, and to oppose vengeance. 

 

It also contains some very strange things, especially for Catholics who I think practice the oldest version.  Ritual cannibalism is very odd.  Don't get me started on Revelations. 

 

I think Christianity served as a unifying (not the same as good!) force in Europe after the dark ages.  I think it helped cause European culture to become dominant (again not necessarily good)  around the world after the Renaissance.   It has strongly affected world history for good and bad. 

 

In the end though I have the same issue with it that I have with all the Abrahamic religions: God seems to be completely evil as evidenced by his behavior in the Old testament.  Jesus seems to have been a good man, but I cannot see how a peace loving person like Jesus could tolerate the actions of his father.  Jesus has far more in common with Lucifer, who generally chose to help man, than he does with Jehova. Perhaps a second revolt of the angels is called for. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 4:20 PM, uhtred said:

God seems to be completely evil as evidenced by his behavior in the Old testament

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is this desire that crosses all  Christian denominational lines of wanting to go back to simpler times, of the days of the early church.  When people were full of love for one another, there was no poor among them and they held things in common and they spent their time doing good works.  (The book of ACTS). That's one of the reasons there are so many denominations.  A group of believers gets together because they interpret this particular scripture a certain way,  and soon more join in,  it becomes popular, the group become top heavy and bureaucratic and hierarchical and before you know it, there's a scandal in the ranks. Some become disenchanted and leave altogether, another group breaks away and starts over with their version of going back to the simpler times and a new denomination is born. (or they form a breakaway group in the same denomination. I've lost count of how many different kinds of Baptists there are!) 

 

I think the people who 'want to go back' are the true Christians. I hesitate to use that term because of the whole 'no true Scotsman' thing but you see them in almost every denomination, working at the homeless shelter and the soup kitchen, talking to the addicts and the sex workers, being Jesus. You don't 'see' them or 'hear' about them all that much because the scandalmongers and the shouters get all the attention.  Thing is, they don't want the attention.  These people also accept the fact that if they go back to the good old days, it will involve persecution which will come mostly from fellow believers because the more 'like Jesus' you become, the less certain groups within Christianity don't like it.

 

During my time as a Christian, I've encountered the quiet people who do their good works in anonymity and the people who commit acts of scandal or use their position of power to commit abuse. I think I've pretty much seen it all.  It's a large religion, filled with all kinds of different personalities (as was the early church) so when one person says "This is what I believe about the church. It's terrible and full of poison' they're telling the truth, but the other person who has seen none of that and says 'Its full of selfless good people doing good things' they're telling the truth as well.  I don't feel the need to tear down or prop up either argument. It can be either a horrible place full of strange teachings or a good place where other people find peace. It is what it is.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, as this is what I've seen particularly in younger generations. What I wonder is if the decline of spirituality has led to new negatives stigmas for those who do believe in some theology? I've often found many people lash out at those who label themselves by a given religion and they often lash out at those people on the basis of a given religion historically pressuring or lashing out at them. Does that make sense? I mean, what I think I see, is biases against most religions on the basis of them being religions and therefore assumed to be unscientific or childish or a number of other adjectives. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, uhtred said:

In the end though I have the same issue with it that I have with all the Abrahamic religions: God seems to be completely evil as evidenced by his behavior in the Old testament.  Jesus seems to have been a good man, but I cannot see how a peace loving person like Jesus could tolerate the actions of his father.  Jesus has far more in common with Lucifer, who generally chose to help man, than he does with Jehova. Perhaps a second revolt of the angels is called for. 

I find this interpretation vastly interesting. Can you expound upon it more, with examples and stuff?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dreamsexual said:

That's a pretty controversial and complex point too.  Again, there's no single version of Jesus, there's multiple Jesus' in the NT.  And many (all?) are problematic by modern Western standards on at least some issue.

Could you explain this more?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 5:48 PM, A. Sterling said:

Could you explain this more

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

As to problematic elements of Jesus, we can see (depending upon which portrayal we're using) that he endorsed, to at least some degree, the OT (from animal sacrifice to the Noahic Flood); that he had quite strict Jewish sexual ethics many might now reject; that he saw God as a judge capable of sentencing unbelievers or bad characters to 'hell'; that he considered himself divine; that he thought the Jews were special; that he endorsed total pacifism; that he encouraged adherence to himself beyond even familial live and duty; and many more things.  Any good anti-theist website will provide a list of the moral failings of Christ :)

But these are not logically problematic within the arguments of the text itself, just problematic in the context of modern "Western" morals which have enough variance of their own. In the context of American societal ethics most of those things are ethically questionable. In anthropological assessment I might imagine viewing these statements as being intrinsically moral failing might be ethnocentric and different moral failings would be identified depending on where you are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:04 PM, A. Sterling said:

But these are not logically problematic within the arguments of the text itself, just problematic in the context of modern "Western" morals

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EasternMagic said:

Does it matter? It's all symbolical, a fable that represents a philosophy. That kind of questions are really just missing the point.

I'm not sure that it doesn't matter because a lot of people do believe that they are true stories, so in order to converse with them you must withhold your own assumptions and reason using theirs to a degree. Of course, the reverse is also true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:14 PM, EasternMagic said:

Does it matter

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dreamsexual said:

The difficulty (as I see it) is that the OT doesn't really present a single, unified version of 'God'.  YHWH/God is presented in a variety of conflicting and problematic ways throughout the various books of the OT (and the NT to a much lesser degree).  The character of God is sometimes kind and generous, but at many other times barbaric, cruel and violent. 

 

I don't think there's such a thing as 'the OT portrayal of God', rather there's multiple portrayals of God (assuming they are referring to the same God, which is a problematic notion to begin with).

 

That's a pretty controversial and complex point too.  Again, there's no single version of Jesus, there's multiple Jesus' in the NT.  And many (all?) are problematic by modern Western standards on at least some issue.

The Old Testament seems to portray god as vengeful and destructive. He demands a willingness for human sacrifice, though he doesn't let it be carried through. He kills huge numbers of innocents, or supports the killing of innocents in many cases.  Are there old testament scenes where he is portrayed differently?

 

At the same time I don't see anything particularly negative in the actions of Jesus - though I may be forgetting some event . What were you thinking of as negative. (I'm talking about Jesus himself, not people like Paul ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreamsexual said:

Absolutely.  That is what I was referring to when saying Jesus was problematic.  :). Though, of course, if you think 'your' morality logical/reasonable and that Jesus doesn't match that, then you will think the text has a logical/reasonable ethical issue :)

Yes, exactly, okay I'm tracking with you. So how do people with different moral presumptions debate reasonably with each other? I would imagine one must start by questioning their moral assumptions, "checking one's premises" as it were. (Sorry I love that quote, "check your premises".)

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, A. Sterling said:

I find this interpretation vastly interesting. Can you expound upon it more, with examples and stuff?

The God of the old testament seems by his actions and words to be, well... evil.  

 

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

 

He kills the firstborn of Egypt, including children. Supports the destruction of Jericho. Directly destroys Sodom Gomorrah - which presumably contained children.  Kills Job's innocent wife and children just to make a point, and the flood....     The Old Testament is full of Jehovah acting in ways that are deeply, unarguable evil by any standards that I can imagine. 

 

In contrast, what does Lucifer really do that is evil? He brings knowledge to Adam and Eve.  Offers to rescue Christ from the cross.   He starts a philosophical argument with God about Job's loyalty, but it is God who murders innocents to prove his point.  I see Lucifer as related to the Greek Prometheus,  who tried to help and raise-up mankind, but who was punished by vengeful gods who wanted to keep man in his place. 

 

I don't see a lot of evil from Jesus.  He is about forgiving, not vengeance.  I can see Jesus as attempting to *protect* mankind *from* god. Is he really telling us to worship god because he is *good* or is he trying to tell us how to behave to avoid being harmed by a wrathful god?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EasternMagic said:

 

I'd say Jesus is something between Satan and old Testament God. Satan is Chaos, old Testament God is oppressive authority. He represents the same as Marduk in the Enuma Elish: the Hero who who follows his own path without joining the forces of chaos.

 

How did Lucifer choose to help man?

 

Does it matter? It's all symbolical, a fable that represents a philosophy. That kind of questions are really just missing the point.

 

Satan tried to bring knowledge to man. He is helping man to get out from under the control of an evil god. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

As has been hinted at by another poster before, it is worth distinguishing Christians (people of many varities and behaviours) from Christianity (the religion/ideology).

 

It might also be worth thinking about Christianity as various Christianities - the variance is so wide as to make the far ends virtually different religions, if it wasn't for a shared history and the shared acknowledgement of Jesus, theism and the Bible in some manner.

 

 

I know many good Christians.  There are of course also bad ones.  From what I can see a persons religion is not related to whether they are a good or bad person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:19 PM, uhtred said:

The Old Testament seems to portray god as vengeful and destructive. He demands a willingness for human sacrifice, though he doesn't let it be carried through. He kills huge numbers of innocents, or supports the killing of innocents in many cases.  Are there old testament scenes where he is portrayed differently?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:19 PM, A. Sterling said:

So how do people with different moral presumptions debate reasonably with each other? 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EasternMagic said:

Sure, but that doesn't mean his intentions were good, or to liberate mankind. Maybe he was just seeking to feed on the resentment of those who felt oppressed by a tyranical God. This isn't to say he didn't try to bring knowledge to mankind, he did, but there's more to the pursuit of knowledge than simply rejecting authority. Chaos is its own trap. So is oppressive authority.

Is there anything in the bible about Satan's motivations?  (I don't know - so asking)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:30 PM, EasternMagic said:

Why?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, EasternMagic said:

Sure, but that doesn't mean his intentions were good, or to liberate mankind. Maybe he was just seeking to feed on the resentment of those who felt oppressed by a tyranical God. This isn't to say he didn't try to bring knowledge to mankind, he did, but there's more to the pursuit of knowledge than simply rejecting authority. Chaos is its own trap.

 

8 minutes ago, uhtred said:

In contrast, what does Lucifer really do that is evil? He brings knowledge to Adam and Eve.  Offers to rescue Christ from the cross.   He starts a philosophical argument with God about Job's loyalty, but it is God who murders innocents to prove his point.  I see Lucifer as related to the Greek Prometheus,  who tried to help and raise-up mankind, but who was punished by vengeful gods who wanted to keep man in his place. 

 Of course to be more specific about this, the story goes that Satan convinced Adam and Eve to eat the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which is markedly different from knowledge itself. Presumably, it introduced the ability to question and think about the ethical nature of things specifically. I think the story is generally saying that without the ability to question that people would be good by default but by questioning it they are able to draw the wrong conclusions. My understanding of the fable is not that Adam and Eve were previously unable to investigate scientific pursuits or other such forms of knowledge, only that they could not (had no reason to?) question ethics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

First principles ... You'd probably have to move from logic and epistemology to metaethics, then to normative and applied ethics.  Fun, huh :)

Sounds fantastic to me! (not sarcasm) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:42 PM, A. Sterling said:

the story goes that Satan 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...