Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

What Is Correct Christian Faith?


StarMountainKid

Recommended Posts

Well, there is a saying concerning Christian beliefs and denominational differences: In essential doctrine: Unity, in non-essential matters: Charity. I'm also certain my beliefs or my interpretation of the Nicene Creed, while probably quite mainstream as Christians go, could certainly generate an argument from other believers and non-believers alike. I cannot presume to tell someone that what God has reveled to them for their lives is either wrong or universal: It may not apply to all people, at all times, in all cultures. For example, one denomination may absolutely ban the use of alcohol, another may allow it, the revelation in Scripture on the matter seems pretty clear is that drunkenness, not alcohol per se, is the sin, and one presumably can have a bit of wine without becoming drunk. But you can see how any position taken to extreme can generate conflict.

Very true, which brings us back to the reason why the church was not created to rule society. We have political systems for that. The churches sphere of influence is the spirit of mankind not how they choose to live on earth. The church should have no say on secular society, if we have to influence people it will always be on the personal level never as a political group fighting for dominance.

It's what got the early church into trouble.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A holy book brief and to the point would perhaps would settle these disagreements and discussions within religion, and would therefore be adventageous. However, as you imply, any static philosophy may lead to stagnation and a lifelesness.

However, I still think some simplification of religious dogma would be beneficial. Of course, only if that dogma promoted human dignity and promote the wealfare of all without prejudice.

Star -

I agree, things have gotten pretty complicated since the days when Jesus walked the earth. As my screen name implies, I like to keep things simple. My personal answer to your question, "What is Correct Christian Faith?" would be James 1:27:

"This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world".

The Old Testament version is Isaiah 1:17:

"Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphan, plead for the widow."

And this one from the Book of Proverbs has become a personal goal:

"What is desirable in a man is his kindness, and it is better to be a poor man than a liar." (Proverbs 19:22)

For me, those three verses encompass the whole of religion. Throughout history (and most of our modern world) widows and orphans have been the most vulnerable people in society, along with the mentally ill and others that are often abandoned by society. I would include drug-and-alcohol-addicted people on that list also.

I go to a great church with a lot of great people, but my most memorable encounters have been with street people and other social rejects:

Years ago I worked with a guy that rarely showered, and always looked as though he slept in his clothes. He was loud and boisterous, and would fly into a rage if he felt disrespected. One day we had a conversation; I mostly listened and responded. When we parted ways, he said quietly, "Thank you for talking to me like I'm normal".

Another guy named Casey was a cranky older guy that I'm sure drove our younger coworkers crazy. We went to lunch together one day, and afterwards he said, "Thank you for accepting me for who I am". He actually said those words! It broke my heart that a 60-something-year-old man was thanking me for the "kindness" of merely having lunch with him. I wondered what kind of bitterness he'd had in his life that compelled him to thank me for something so simple.

I'm sometimes criticized for giving money to the homeless people that approach me on the street. My defense is Proverbs 31:6: "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter." I wrestled with that for a long time. It didn't make sense to me to give that guy in the gutter more booze. I thought it was my duty as a decent citizen to walk up to homeless people, thump them on the head with a 20-pound King James Bible, and yell, "Get a job!" I finally realized that it's all in the "delivery".

I was walking in a park one day when a half-drunk homeless guy with a cloudy, vacant stare in his eyes came up and asked for a cigarette. I told him I don't smoke, so he turned and wandered off; a few minutes later he approached me again and asked for a cigarette, having forgotten he'd already asked. I handed him enough money for a whole pack of cigarettes and said, "Buy yourself a pack". That was 35 years ago, but I still remember the look on his face, and the way he focused on me with tears in his eyes, and said, "Thank you".

I once spent a week in St. Lucia on a spur-of-the moment vacation. I stayed in the small town of Soufriere, and mostly walked everywhere. One morning, an obviously drug-addicted young man approached and asked for money. I gave him some cash, and stood there for a few moments and talked to him. The next day he approached me again, and I greeted him like an old friend. He stared at me for a moment until he remembered who I was and our conversation the day before. I ran into him several times during the week, and I always had a conversation with him. On the last day of my vacation, I told him I was leaving, and he put his arms around me and gave me the warmest hug I've ever gotten, and said, "I'm going to miss you!"

I was walking through downtown Salt Lake City one afternoon and saw a skinny blond woman sitting cross-legged on the sidewalk, holding a sign asking for money. I could tell she had been attractive at one time, but I recognized the meth-ravaged look of her skin. I had to weave my way across the busy sidewalk to get to her. I handed her a five dollar bill and smiled and said "God bless you". She looked up and smiled and said, "God bless you too".

Having grown up in some unfortunate circumstances myself, I now know that my own alcoholism wasn't from craving alcohol; I was craving kindness, and using alcohol to cover the pain. I was healed by kindness, not scolding. I'm sure those homeless people spent my money on booze and drugs, but I'm convinced that by showing them kindness I changed that bottle and that needle from being symbols of addiction to symbols of hope.

Anyway, I said all that to say this: we've made it all too complicated. Jesus simply said, "Follow Me".

Sorry I got so long-winded. I like to write, and I get carried away sometimes.

Edited by simplybill
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star -

I agree, things have gotten pretty complicated since the days when Jesus walked the earth. As my screen name implies, I like to keep things simple. My personal answer to your question, "What is Correct Christian Faith?" would be James 1:27:

"This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world".

The Old Testament version is Isaiah 1:17:

"Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphan, plead for the widow."

And this one from the Book of Proverbs has become a personal goal:

"What is desirable in a man is his kindness, and it is better to be a poor man than a liar." (Proverbs 19:22)

For me, those three verses encompass the whole of religion. Throughout history (and most of our modern world) widows and orphans have been the most vulnerable people in society, along with the mentally ill and others that are often abandoned by society. I would include drug-and-alcohol-addicted people on that list also.

I go to a great church with a lot of great people, but my most memorable encounters have been with street people and other social rejects:

Years ago I worked with a guy that rarely showered, and always looked as though he slept in his clothes. He was loud and boisterous, and would fly into a rage if he felt disrespected. One day we had a conversation; I mostly listened and responded. When we parted ways, he said quietly, "Thank you for talking to me like I'm normal".

Another guy named Casey was a cranky older guy that I'm sure drove our younger coworkers crazy. We went to lunch together one day, and afterwards he said, "Thank you for accepting me for who I am". He actually said those words! It broke my heart that a 60-something-year-old man was thanking me for the "kindness" of merely having lunch with him. I wondered what kind of bitterness he'd had in his life that compelled him to thank me for something so simple.

I'm sometimes criticized for giving money to the homeless people that approach me on the street. My defense is Proverbs 31:6: "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter." I wrestled with that for a long time. It didn't make sense to me to give that guy in the gutter more booze. I thought it was my duty as a decent citizen to walk up to homeless people, thump them on the head with a 20-pound King James Bible, and yell, "Get a job!" I finally realized that it's all in the "delivery".

I was walking in a park one day when a half-drunk homeless guy with a cloudy, vacant stare in his eyes came up and asked for a cigarette. I told him I don't smoke, so he turned and wandered off; a few minutes later he approached me again and asked for a cigarette, having forgotten he'd already asked. I handed him enough money for a whole pack of cigarettes and said, "Buy yourself a pack". That was 35 years ago, but I still remember the look on his face, and the way he focused on me with tears in his eyes, and said, "Thank you".

I once spent a week in St. Lucia on a spur-of-the moment vacation. I stayed in the small town of Soufriere, and mostly walked everywhere. One morning, an obviously drug-addicted young man approached and asked for money. I gave him some cash, and stood there for a few moments and talked to him. The next day he approached me again, and I greeted him like an old friend. He stared at me for a moment until he remembered who I was and our conversation the day before. I ran into him several times during the week, and I always had a conversation with him. On the last day of my vacation, I told him I was leaving, and he put his arms around me and gave me the warmest hug I've ever gotten, and said, "I'm going to miss you!"

I was walking through downtown Salt Lake City one afternoon and saw a skinny blond woman sitting cross-legged on the sidewalk, holding a sign asking for money. I could tell she had been attractive at one time, but I recognized the meth-ravaged look of her skin. I had to weave my way across the busy sidewalk to get to her. I handed her a five dollar bill and smiled and said "God bless you". She looked up and smiled and said, "God bless you too".

Having grown up in some unfortunate circumstances myself, I now know that my own alcoholism wasn't from craving alcohol; I was craving kindness, and using alcohol to cover the pain. I was healed by kindness, not scolding. I'm sure those homeless people spent my money on booze and drugs, but I'm convinced that by showing them kindness I changed that bottle and that needle from being symbols of addiction to symbols of hope.

Anyway, I said all that to say this: we've made it all too complicated. Jesus simply said, "Follow Me".

Sorry I got so long-winded. I like to write, and I get carried away sometimes.

Edited by Beany
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star -

I agree, things have gotten pretty complicated since the days when Jesus walked the earth. As my screen name implies, I like to keep things simple. My personal answer to your question, "What is Correct Christian Faith?" would be James 1:27:

"This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world".

The Old Testament version is Isaiah 1:17:

"Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphan, plead for the widow."

And this one from the Book of Proverbs has become a personal goal:

"What is desirable in a man is his kindness, and it is better to be a poor man than a liar." (Proverbs 19:22)

For me, those three verses encompass the whole of religion. Throughout history (and most of our modern world) widows and orphans have been the most vulnerable people in society, along with the mentally ill and others that are often abandoned by society. I would include drug-and-alcohol-addicted people on that list also.

I go to a great church with a lot of great people, but my most memorable encounters have been with street people and other social rejects:

Years ago I worked with a guy that rarely showered, and always looked as though he slept in his clothes. He was loud and boisterous, and would fly into a rage if he felt disrespected. One day we had a conversation; I mostly listened and responded. When we parted ways, he said quietly, "Thank you for talking to me like I'm normal".

Another guy named Casey was a cranky older guy that I'm sure drove our younger coworkers crazy. We went to lunch together one day, and afterwards he said, "Thank you for accepting me for who I am". He actually said those words! It broke my heart that a 60-something-year-old man was thanking me for the "kindness" of merely having lunch with him. I wondered what kind of bitterness he'd had in his life that compelled him to thank me for something so simple.

I'm sometimes criticized for giving money to the homeless people that approach me on the street. My defense is Proverbs 31:6: "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter." I wrestled with that for a long time. It didn't make sense to me to give that guy in the gutter more booze. I thought it was my duty as a decent citizen to walk up to homeless people, thump them on the head with a 20-pound King James Bible, and yell, "Get a job!" I finally realized that it's all in the "delivery".

I was walking in a park one day when a half-drunk homeless guy with a cloudy, vacant stare in his eyes came up and asked for a cigarette. I told him I don't smoke, so he turned and wandered off; a few minutes later he approached me again and asked for a cigarette, having forgotten he'd already asked. I handed him enough money for a whole pack of cigarettes and said, "Buy yourself a pack". That was 35 years ago, but I still remember the look on his face, and the way he focused on me with tears in his eyes, and said, "Thank you".

I once spent a week in St. Lucia on a spur-of-the moment vacation. I stayed in the small town of Soufriere, and mostly walked everywhere. One morning, an obviously drug-addicted young man approached and asked for money. I gave him some cash, and stood there for a few moments and talked to him. The next day he approached me again, and I greeted him like an old friend. He stared at me for a moment until he remembered who I was and our conversation the day before. I ran into him several times during the week, and I always had a conversation with him. On the last day of my vacation, I told him I was leaving, and he put his arms around me and gave me the warmest hug I've ever gotten, and said, "I'm going to miss you!"

I was walking through downtown Salt Lake City one afternoon and saw a skinny blond woman sitting cross-legged on the sidewalk, holding a sign asking for money. I could tell she had been attractive at one time, but I recognized the meth-ravaged look of her skin. I had to weave my way across the busy sidewalk to get to her. I handed her a five dollar bill and smiled and said "God bless you". She looked up and smiled and said, "God bless you too".

Having grown up in some unfortunate circumstances myself, I now know that my own alcoholism wasn't from craving alcohol; I was craving kindness, and using alcohol to cover the pain. I was healed by kindness, not scolding. I'm sure those homeless people spent my money on booze and drugs, but I'm convinced that by showing them kindness I changed that bottle and that needle from being symbols of addiction to symbols of hope.

Anyway, I said all that to say this: we've made it all too complicated. Jesus simply said, "Follow Me".

Sorry I got so long-winded. I like to write, and I get carried away sometimes.

I'm with you, those 3 verses are perhaps the only ones necessary to religion, or even a non-religious life. There's nothing to believe, nothing to dispute, no dogma, no proselytizing, the admonitions are so simple that anyone could take them up if they so chose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect because if that were true I would simply say that the church has the right to rule...

This "right to rule" is determined only by either the ability of the authority to enforce that rule, or the obedience of the subjugated to allow it. In both cases, the authority has the "right" to rule.

... and I said the opposite, the church rules within its own sphere, not on a political platform.

And you spoke, and still speak, about limiting their spheres of influence. In doing so you set yourself as an authority to dictate what the (or a) church may, or may not do. Is it right to cage some so others can be freed?

I have no need to make my view the accepted truth because if I tried to impose my view I would simply be repeating the mistakes of the Christians of the 3rd century who thought it was a rather cool idea to be the official religion of the empire...

As was their right to do, and it was not necessarily contrary to the faith they espoused.

I believe my view is correct but I do not begrudge other opposing views, that is the point of living within a neutral rule of law. When one starts imposing one stops respecting other views. The battle is for the spirit of men not to rule them from an earthly throne.

Yet your view expresses a desire for "earthly authority" (i.e. limiting the authority of the/a church) in order to effect victory in this "battle for the spirit of men"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I was responding ironically to the idea that Christianity is a sinking ship. It ain't, or should I say people have been saying it's sinking for several hundred years now and it manages to stay afloat anyway.

I think local pastors and so on in their regular ministerial work do a great deal of good visiting the sick and helping the disturbed. I think people like the present Pope are well minded albeit it indoctrinated so that their generous impulses can't be carried out all the way.

On the other hand I also think the victory of Christianity in ancient times was one of the greatest disasters ever to hit mankind and led to a thousand years of backwardness in Europe and to all kinds of prejudices and harmful practices and hurts. It was a victory of lies (fulfilled prophesies, miracles, etc.) over truth.

On the other hand the united Europe of Charlemagne (united only through its common Christian religion) was the only thing which turned back the mongol hordes (and even then they were lucky to do so) Without Christianity arguably Europe and hence the rest of the European colonised world might be worshipping the mongol gods of the sky and earth or perhaps the Viking gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, for your own version of the belief to be recognised as "the truth" you would essentially be setting up a "church rule". To enable and/or enforce any particular version of belief as the one all should follow requires an authority with the mandate or power to enforce it.

The only way for your system to work, would be for every individual to hold to their own 'truth' - with no individual promoting "the truth". In doing so you defeat your own 'truth', as it is no longer 'true'.

Not true. :innocent: When it comes to belief of things which cannot be known or proven, then all are equally true or untrue The bible, and the words and deeds of Christ in the bible, set parameters within which many variants of Christianity can prosper. Personally I am with jorel on this, in that one only needs the word of god to worship god, and the bible makes clear that there is no need for others to intercede between any man and god and that the words of the bible are all that is needed. No church and no priest or pastor is needed to make the connection between man and god, and in some respects it is better made one on one, without the complication of church doctrine or religious leaders. The only law or rule required in this is something like that in the American constitution; that the govt shall not establish religion NOR prevent the free establishment of any religion. So in practice, under law all religions and atheism would have equal rights of existence and treatment by a secular state

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your detailed analysis of my post. The thing is, this kind of "tension and dissent leading to discovery" has been going on for the last two centurys and will continue into many centurys to come. There is no final solution to these differing interpretations.

A holy book brief and to the point would perhaps would settle these disagreements and discussions within religion, and would therefore be adventageous. However, as you imply, any static philosophy may lead to stagnation and a lifelesness.

However, I still think some simplification of religious dogma would be beneficial. Of course, only if that dogma promoted human dignity and promote the wealfare of all without prejudice.

I can simplify it for myself very easily when I need to. When all else fails and I am lost in my understanding of how to deal with the world and what is before me, these words always give me a great deal to reflect on and contemplate. "Love one another as I have loved you" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If anyone masters these, I think the bible will unfold before them in all it's true and intended wisdom - of course, perversely, it may not then be necessary to read the bible at all. :P

I approach what I read with those words in mind and am often surprised in how differently I perceive what I am reading and it's true context and purpose.

I totally agree that dogma should not impinge on human welfare or dignity, you have chosen an excellent litmus test for the value of any dogma that may come your way. I expect it will keep you on solid ground regardless of which direction you choose to explore or contemplate the great mysteries of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think there is only one right way to be a Christian? This isn't a rhetoric question. Doesn't Christianity have room for the various disparities in beliefs? I know there are some Christians who are pretty inflexible, but isn't Christianity itself a pretty big corral, so to speak?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. :innocent: When it comes to belief of things which cannot be known or proven, then all are equally true or untrue The bible, and the words and deeds of Christ in the bible, set parameters within which many variants of Christianity can prosper. Personally I am with jorel on this, in that one only needs the word of god to worship god, and the bible makes clear that there is no need for others to intercede between any man and god and that the words of the bible are all that is needed. No church and no priest or pastor is needed to make the connection between man and god, and in some respects it is better made one on one, without the complication of church doctrine or religious leaders. The only law or rule required in this is something like that in the American constitution; that the govt shall not establish religion NOR prevent the free establishment of any religion. So in practice, under law all religions and atheism would have equal rights of existence and treatment by a secular state

And you, like Jor-el I suspect, have misunderstood the point I am making.

I have no argument with "all unverifiable beliefs are equal", and I have no argument that all should be free to believe as they will - my point is this includes those who operate the churches.

Jor-el's call for those churches to be limited denies them this freedom of expression. In stating his belief that all "should be free to believe as they will, without interference by the church", he seeks to interfere with the beliefs of those in the church.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true, which brings us back to the reason why the church was not created to rule society. We have political systems for that. The churches sphere of influence is the spirit of mankind not how they choose to live on earth. The church should have no say on secular society, if we have to influence people it will always be on the personal level never as a political group fighting for dominance.

It's what got the early church into trouble.

How so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the originating question ... Are liberal Christians following the true faith? Is not the correct belief of Christianity a very conservative, literal belief? ...

If one assumes the bible as the basis for interpretation of Christianity, then one might argue the bible presents as a profound treatise on spiritual introspection and civil morality. Jesus, as the principal, presents as perhaps one of the most liberal enlightened individuals to have walked the planet. The thematic premise of unequivocal love has unfortunately been corrupted by many people seeking power and dominance. But, to answer your question, ask the question, is unequivocal love liberal or conservative? To whom do you wish to empathize? Jesus or ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think there is only one right way to be a Christian? This isn't a rhetoric question. Doesn't Christianity have room for the various disparities in beliefs? I know there are some Christians who are pretty inflexible, but isn't Christianity itself a pretty big corral, so to speak?

Beany -

Yes, Christianity is a pretty big corral, though I'm very inflexible on one particular aspect: every church organization should refrain from putting the focus on itself, except to hold itself accountable to truth (both financially and doctrinally). By keeping the focus on Jesus and the teachings of Jesus, a church body remains healthy and relevant. As soon as the church members allow themselves to become a "social club", it loses it's relevance for the outside world.

In other words: the teaching is important, but the "doing" is essential. Faith without works is dead. Any denomination or individual church or individual Christian that sits around reading the Bible and doesn't actually "do unto others" is dead, dead, dead.

I need to clarify something from my earlier post. I should have said:

"I'm sure those homeless people spent my money on booze and drugs, but I'm convinced that by showing them kindness I changed that bottle and that needle from being symbols of addiction to symbols of hope, when they begin to realize, "I don't need this anymore."

Edited by simplybill
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "right to rule" is determined only by either the ability of the authority to enforce that rule, or the obedience of the subjugated to allow it. In both cases, the authority has the "right" to rule.

Christ did not give the church that authority, men within the church seized that authority when the possibility to do so opened up before them, the forgot their purpose and were seduced by power.

So the right to rule is indeed given by ability (which the church demonstrated it did not have) and the authority to enforce that rule (which the Roman Empire gave to the church) but in all respects it has no legitimacy to rule since its legitimacy comes from Christ, and he did not give it.. The obedience to that rule was only by the Christians and was opposed by all others and they were destroyed for it.

And you spoke, and still speak, about limiting their spheres of influence. In doing so you set yourself as an authority to dictate what the (or a) church may, or may not do. Is it right to cage some so others can be freed?

I speak not only of limiting their sphere of influence but the sphere of influence of all religions and the possibility that they might come to power one day. The only legitimate rule is by a neutral party that has no beliefs either way and can thus seek to protect all its citizens from excesses by religions.

As was their right to do, and it was not necessarily contrary to the faith they espoused.

Yes it was, the rule of the church can only happen under specific circumstances, and that is with Christ physically ruling the church as the bible says. No other authority is legitimate in ruling over human society that is constituted by believers and unbelievers.

Yet your view expresses a desire for "earthly authority" (i.e. limiting the authority of the/a church) in order to effect victory in this "battle for the spirit of men"?

That is the purpose of the church as given by Christ himself.... and the area of intervention is also absolutely clear, it is not to constitute government but to convert people through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not by the use of the sword and Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand the united Europe of Charlemagne (united only through its common Christian religion) was the only thing which turned back the mongol hordes (and even then they were lucky to do so) Without Christianity arguably Europe and hence the rest of the European colonised world might be worshipping the mongol gods of the sky and earth or perhaps the Viking gods.

Christianity of the time did NOT impede the conquest of anything by the Mongols.... they lost every battle.... They turned back for only one reason, Genghis Khan died. Oh and the black death also helped resolve that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you, like Jor-el I suspect, have misunderstood the point I am making.

I have no argument with "all unverifiable beliefs are equal", and I have no argument that all should be free to believe as they will - my point is this includes those who operate the churches.

Jor-el's call for those churches to be limited denies them this freedom of expression. In stating his belief that all "should be free to believe as they will, without interference by the church", he seeks to interfere with the beliefs of those in the church.

I deny the church nothing. Its sphere of influence is not to govern human society until such time as Jesus returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think there is only one right way to be a Christian? This isn't a rhetoric question. Doesn't Christianity have room for the various disparities in beliefs? I know there are some Christians who are pretty inflexible, but isn't Christianity itself a pretty big corral, so to speak?

I'd say yes and no, Beany. There are some doctrines that don't affect our salvation or understanding of God, and these can be argued for and against, and at the day's end make no significant difference in our lives. However, there are some doctrines that are essential for Christian belief, and without that it ceases to be "Christian". That Jesus literally rose from the grave is probably the biggest of these core essential doctrines, but it isn't the only core belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say yes and no, Beany. There are some doctrines that don't affect our salvation or understanding of God, and these can be argued for and against, and at the day's end make no significant difference in our lives. However, there are some doctrines that are essential for Christian belief, and without that it ceases to be "Christian". That Jesus literally rose from the grave is probably the biggest of these core essential doctrines, but it isn't the only core belief.

Actually I've heard many (even Bishops) argue that that last point should be seen as metaphorical in one way or other rather than literal.

Edited by Admiral Rhubarb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I've heard many (even Bishops) argue that that last point should be seen as metaphorical in one way or other rather than literal.

And they are not Christians, and have no right to call themselves such! 1 Corinthians 15:14 states that if Jesus did not resurrect, then a Christian's faith is useless (a later verse in that chapter goes on to say that if Christ didn't resurrect then Paul and others like him are false witnesses). Belief in Jesus' resurrection is essential for one to call themselves "Christian". Without it, faith is useless, and the opinion of bishops who disagree be damned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand the united Europe of Charlemagne (united only through its common Christian religion) was the only thing which turned back the mongol hordes (and even then they were lucky to do so) Without Christianity arguably Europe and hence the rest of the European colonised world might be worshipping the mongol gods of the sky and earth or perhaps the Viking gods.

Turning back the Mongol hordes was rather unfortunate for Europe. The Chinese did not and were conquered and went on to prosper and attain heights of civilization under them -- without all the hordes of priests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they are not Christians, and have no right to call themselves such! 1 Corinthians 15:14 states that if Jesus did not resurrect, then a Christian's faith is useless (a later verse in that chapter goes on to say that if Christ didn't resurrect then Paul and others like him are false witnesses). Belief in Jesus' resurrection is essential for one to call themselves "Christian". Without it, faith is useless, and the opinion of bishops who disagree be damned.

The problem with that is that it also means you have to accept the idea of original sin, which means you also have to accept that nonsense about the snake and Adam and Eve and the curse on all their descendants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that is that it also means you have to accept the idea of original sin, which means you also have to accept that nonsense about the snake and Adam and Eve and the curse on all their descendants.

Original Sin is another kettle of fish indeed, and leads to all sorts of more complications than are really necessary (such as the idea of the "Virgin Birth", which really, when you think about it, renders the painstaking spelling out of Jesus's ancestry at the start of Matthew's gospel, which was done in order to convince the audience that Jesus was the Messiah, pointless, doesn't it). I think the problem was Augustine's in particular's insistence that it was concerned with and was transmitted by sex, and we all know what knots the Church tied itself into as a consequence. If they'd just stuck to the idea of it being about humanity trying to go its own way and convince itself that it didn't need God, they might have saved themselves an awful lot of angst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that is that it also means you have to accept the idea of original sin, which means you also have to accept that nonsense about the snake and Adam and Eve and the curse on all their descendants.

"Original Sin" - the idea that human/s in the past sinned against God and since then all humans have the capacity to sin, and when they are old enough to knowingly (based on cognition) sin, inevitably they do.

That is not the same as talking snakes and gardens. The story of Adam and Eve need not be true history in order for original sin to be valid in Christianity.

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deny the church nothing. Its sphere of influence is not to govern human society until such time as Jesus returns.

Ironic post is ironic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.