What Is Correct Christian Faith?

[StarMountainKid]

This is getting rather circular. Effectively, that boils down to: Adherence to the Bible is the 'right' Christianity because it says so in the Bible.

In that case, I am the Almighty Bobo and all must bring me pet wombats. This must be true because I said it and Almighty Bobo knows everything.

See my point?

I agree with you. We give the bible its authority, it has no authority in itself. If no one believed in it, it would just be another musty old book sitting on some shelf. I think one's choice of religion is arbitrary, except in that one may choose some particular religion because one is predisposed to that religioun's content.

By predisposed I mean one's religion is mainly due to the society one grows up in, or the belief of one's family. The other element is, one chooses an interpretation of that religion according to one's personality and experience in life. Also, some cling to religion for security and a feeling of well-being. Of course, many use religion for darker reasons.

I'm no expert on the subject, but from my interest in religion, I haven't found any of them that can be looked upon as teaching only a pure and benevolent kind of morality. They all can all be used as excuses for evil behavior by their followers.

For this reason in my view all religious texts are flawed in various ways, in that they can be interpreted to supress basic human rights. The argument is made that it is human nature, not the holy book itself, that allows this misinterpretation of its message. I don't buy into this apology. It seems those who use some holy book as an excuse for malevolent behavior always quote from that book to support their actions.

Were not these quoted passages that are used for these malicious behaviors in the book, some would be forced to acknoledge personal responsibility for their actions. Of course, this is always a rare occurrence, it is much more conveinient to have a ready-made excuse close at hand.

[mythological_explorer]

^{If everyone focused more on being a good person and less on who is right and who is wrong, we wouldn't even need religion in the first place.}

[Frank Merton]

^{If everyone focused more on being a good person and less on who is right and who is wrong, we wouldn't even need religion in the first place.}

We probably don't all need religion, but I find I like some of it.

[mythological_explorer]

We probably don't all need religion, but I find I like some of it.

In theory it's an interesting concept, if of course everyone could agree on the same thing. But the minute it all got divided up into for lack of a better word "teams" all it's done has opened up a can of worms on society

[Dark_Grey]

Here's a blanket statement for you: the "correct" Christianity is, as Setton said above, the sect that adheres to the Bible and only the Bible as much as is possible. The Bible being the word of God, by following the Bible you are following His leadership.

Sounds simple, right?

The problem lies in the interpretation. Let's be honest: for one of the world's biggest and most "successful" religions, it's amazing how many times it has split itself like a cell dividing over and over. From the outside looking in, it's hard to subscribe to a religion with so much infighting simply because every member believes they have the correct interpretation of their holy book. It's been 2000 years and it seems like we barely understand the only text we have!

[Frank Merton]

Interpretation is one thing, but to me a bigger question is why the Bible?

[Setton]

Here's a blanket statement for you: the "correct" Christianity is, as Setton said above, the sect that adheres to the Bible and only the Bible as much as is possible. The Bible being the word of God, by following the Bible you are following His leadership.

That is the exact opposite of what I have said....

[simplybill]

I should clarify something I said earlier. When Jesus said, "follow me", He wasn't merely saying, "Imitate me". The cross of Jesus can't be separated from His teaching, or we go on a circular path back to self-sanctification and self-righteousness. When Jesus substituted Himself for us on the cross, He made self-sanctification obsolete. This is one reason the cross is a stumbling block: Jesus' death made it clear that our choices have consequences, and we can't avoid the consequences by being "good". We need to go outside of ourselves to find redemption.

[Leonardo]

This is a quite marvelous thread. Many people of various Christian 'faiths' arguing that their brand of faith is "the correct one", all the while graciously allowing others to retain their own brand of Christian faith. What a noble sacrifice it is to allow others to believe in what is wrong.

[029b10]

They're all a sinking ship.

The flat earth, that should be easy to understand the symbolism of, yet the wreath is symbolic of the wreath that Titus refused after the slaughter of the of Israelites and destruction of the Israelite's temple.

They even had the US President announce by Declaration the name of the new "international organization", which FDR never intended to participant in as a formal political body, only a voluntary peace keeping organization. Yet, within 14 days of FDR' death the Nazi troops in Italy began surrendering. And within the months following FDR's death, the US sign the treaty with the UN as a member 'state'. Of course there is no way to chemically induce a brain aneurysm so FDR's death within seconds of lighting a cigarette was purely natural, it's not possible that it was laced with a colorless, odorless chemical like warfarin.

However, you might read the second paragraph of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution regarding the legal authority a treaty.

Edited May 28, 2014 by 029b10

[Dark_Grey]

Interpretation is one thing, but to me a bigger question is why the Bible?

Let me know when you get a straight answer to that one. It seems like every religion claims to be the "true" religion, but not one of them seems to have more historically based evidence than any of the others. So the big, fat, juicy question is "what makes your religion the right one?"

[Dark_Grey]

That is the exact opposite of what I have said....

I bet to differ...

This is getting rather circular. Effectively, that boils down to: Adherence to the Bible is the 'right' Christianity because it says so in the Bible.

Here's a blanket statement for you: the "correct" Christianity is, as Setton said above, the sect that adheres to the Bible and only the Bible as much as is possible.

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

I agree with you. We give the bible its authority, it has no authority in itself. If no one believed in it, it would just be another musty old book sitting on some shelf. I think one's choice of religion is arbitrary, except in that one may choose some particular religion because one is predisposed to that religioun's content.

We have precedence. Ancient Jews accepted their prophets' messages (from God) because needless to say, He's a punishing Supreme Being. There are many instances in the OT that lend support to this. Just read the root causes of the destruction of the First and Second Temple, northern kingdom of Israel under the Assyrians, and Babylonian captivity. Also, let's not forget the stories of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on. Ancient Jews were not stupid people. With these in mind, one should be able to conclude the continuity of the Bible, regardless of spin doctoring and interpretations. To this day Jews are feeling the effect of the destruction of the Second Temple. Even though Israel will always be an "eternal nation," God has... You fill in the blanks.

As an aside since I was also thinking about markdohle's thread "I don't get it," this punishing aspect of God gives reinforcement to why many Christians condemn.

Just sharing.

[Setton]

I bet to differ...

Where I discussed what someone else had said and argued against it, showing the circular nature. Please try reading. It's so important these days.

My position, as stated from the start, is:

The true Christianity, if such a thing exists, would be adherence to the commandments given by Christ. Namely, have no other God and love your neighbour as yourself. I would think following the original message would be a better reflection on the 'true faith' than a corrupted version a thousand years later wouldn't you?

Finally, the followers are CHRISTians not BIBLIcans. Think on that.

[libstaK]

This is a quite marvelous thread. Many people of various Christian 'faiths' arguing that their brand of faith is "the correct one", all the while graciously allowing others to retain their own brand of Christian faith. What a noble sacrifice it is to allow others to believe in what is wrong.

Sacrifice of one's own ego, pride, envy, hate etc is at the heart of what it means to be humble before man and God.

[Space Commander Travis]

The flat earth, that should be easy to understand the symbolism of, yet the wreath is symbolic of the wreath that Titus refused after the slaughter of the of Israelites and destruction of the Israelite's temple.

They even had the US President announce by Declaration the name of the new "international organization", which FDR never intended to participant in as a formal political body, only a voluntary peace keeping organization. Yet, within 14 days of FDR' death the Nazi troops in Italy began surrendering. And within the months following FDR's death, the US sign the treaty with the UN as a member 'state'. Of course there is no way to chemically induce a brain aneurysm so FDR's death within seconds of lighting a cigarette was purely natural, it's not possible that it was laced with a colorless, odorless chemical like warfarin.

However, you might read the second paragraph of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution regarding the legal authority a treaty.

Sorry? The fact the Roosevelt was bumped off by the NWO has to do, er, what exactly, with the subject of what is the correct form of Christianity?

[Space Commander Travis]

Sacrifice of one's own ego, pride, envy, hate etc is at the heart of what it means to be humble before man and God.

And that also means not insisting that one's particular beliefs are the only right ones, and that if you don't follow them you're not going to be "saved".

[Mr Walker]

And this is not true 'freedom' but, as you state, the regulation of expression.

Jor-el wrote that limiting the influence of churches (even eliminating them) was necessary for true freedom. I argued that it was not so, but that he would be setting up his own 'church' to regulate how others could express their beliefs.

There is no such thing as 'true freedom of expression' - so long as anyone seeks to regulate how any other may express their belief.

Not true. if I say all people can express/verbalise their opinion/religious belief, including non religious belief,, then there is freedom of expression within my framework. I am not saying that all expressions/beliefs are equally ,valid or right, but that anyone has the right to any expression of religious belief. Only when acting on that belief impacts on another, does civil law have to come into effect. Thus freedom of belief is always possible, but physical acting out of beliefs might be restricted for many reasons . Thus anyone has a right to believe and say, that the first born son in a family must be sacrificed to moloch, for the family to prosper, but they are not free to act on that belief.

[Mr Walker]

I think organized religions are okay, but I don't think religious views should play a role in public policy beyond such general admonition as "be good."

Public policy should be dictated by state and societal interest, not personal morality or beliefs. For example I think abortion is morally wrong, but oppose any attempt to write laws about it beyond the state interest that the health of the woman be paramount.

And what happens when both state and public interests ARE religious in nature? Almost all western law is based on Judaeo Christian belief systems, although this is slowly changing, and you cannot remove Judaeo Christian ethical moralities form the general moralities of western culture Even hard work is a Christian ethic So is not stealing or murdering Even the concept of obeying the laws of the state is an explicit teaching of Christianity. Children's fairy tales are based on Christian ethics and moralities. The very concept of marriage and family as we know it, specifically and in detail, is a Christian construct based on Christian ethics and moralities. Do you think citizens should be entitled to at least one day of rest a week? (a Christian concept)

Edited May 29, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Space Commander Travis]

And what happens when both state and public interests ARE religious in nature? Almost all western law is based on Judaeo Christian belief systems, although this is slowly changing, and you cannot remove Judaeo Christian ethical moralities form the general moralities of western culture Even hard work is a Christian ethic So is not stealing or murdering Even the concept of obeying the laws of the state is an explicit teaching of Christianity. Children's fairy tales are based on Christian ethics and moralities. The very concept of marriage and family as we know it, specifically and in detail, is a Christian construct based on Christian ethics and moralities. Do you think citizens should be entitled to at least one day of rest a week? (a Christian concept)

So cultures and societies never had laws before Christianity? All those societies going back thousands of years before Christianity, they never had any laws that are recognisably like the laws we have? is the general morality behind Christian societies, or was it until quite recently, really significantly different from those barbaric lawless societies? ownership of slaves and legal discrimination on grounds of race was the norm in some christian countries until quite recently. Ancient cultures never had any concept of marriage? And the Christian concept of marriage, again until quite recently, wasn't exactly based on principles of equality, was it.

[Frank Merton]

Sacrifice of one's own ego, pride, envy, hate etc is at the heart of what it means to be humble before man and God.

I think humility is overrated: I go for compassion.

[Leonardo]

Sacrifice of one's own ego, pride, envy, hate etc is at the heart of what it means to be humble before man and God.

I would appreciate if any modern Christian could point out to me the commandment in the bible which states "Thou shalt be tolerant of all other faiths". Or point out where any figure in the bible preached tolerance of any other form of religious belief.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Leonardo

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28)

The Faith of the Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13)

"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:31)

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:37)

[Leonardo]

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28)

The Faith of the Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13)

"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:31)

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:37)

The Canaanite woman was "not of Israel", however she acknowledged Jesus as 'Lord'. This does not make her of a non-Christian faith. Similarly, the centurion is written as acknowledging Jesus as 'Lord'.

Neither of these passages are suggestive of a tolerance towards other religious faiths/beliefs. Both, in fact, suggest the Christian's duty is to bring those who are not already of their faith, into Christianity - not to tolerate the non-Christian faith they may hold.

As for Mark and Luke, those passages again do not suggest it is 'Christian' to tolerate others faiths. The commandment "Love thy neighbour as thyself" in particular could be seen as the justification for actively proselytising the Christian belief, which does not reflect an attitude of tolerance towards other faiths.

The modern Christian's attitude of religious tolerance actually stems from humanist reasoning, and is not derived from any reading/interpretation of what the bible suggests Christianity should be.

[Mr Walker]

So cultures and societies never had laws before Christianity? All those societies going back thousands of years before Christianity, they never had any laws that are recognisably like the laws we have? is the general morality behind Christian societies, or was it until quite recently, really significantly different from those barbaric lawless societies? ownership of slaves and legal discrimination on grounds of race was the norm in some christian countries until quite recently. Ancient cultures never had any concept of marriage? And the Christian concept of marriage, again until quite recently, wasn't exactly based on principles of equality, was it.

No I did not say that. What i said was that current western law, and the ethics and moralities they are based upon, are embedded in western attachment to Judaeo Christianity. It would be very difficult to separate out that which is religious from that which is non religious/secular/civic morality. WHY should we not steal from another. WHY should we preserve the marriage vows ? WHY should we value human life why should we care about other humans and share what we have worked for with them? Not every culture did, or does have such values. But those colonised and impacted by European countries DO, because embedded in that western law is Judaeo Christian historical influence. Why even have a day of rest? Ps marriage cannot be equal where men and women do not enjoy economic, political, sexual, and social equalities. Until the pill was invented, for example, women simply could not have equality with men because of their fertility and child bearing. Even today that fact impacts on women who lose out on promotion, superannuation and other benefits if they stop work to have, and to rear, children.