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 -

Many Christians betray their title?


Obscurum
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can someone please explain to me how Christians qualify to use this name in light of the following:

In a religious context a name refers to more than just an identifying word but also to a reputation, encapsulating the meaning of said persons life. That's why "In the name of Jesus I compel you." has nothing to do with the word Jesus but with whom it represents. This is also why Jesus and Christ are used interchangeably.  Following from this we can ask what the claimed reputation of Jesus is and how he lived his life. This should shape the lives of those that are his followers to qualify them to carry his name and in turn the name of his father who's name he glorified and with whom he was/is in union. Supposedly.

To keep this as short as possible one can subjectively summarize who Jesus is as follows: Someone who sacrificed himself or was sacrificed so that others could see and enter the kingdom of God and come to a state of unity with him and in turn with God.

From what I understand the giving up of the self was one of his main lessons and a key to entering the kingdom. Then why does Christianity not center on selfless union with Christ but on selfish desires for eternal life after death and materialism? Who would remain a Christian if they realize that the eternal heavenly self is a teaching of the original serpent (the manifestation of selfishness and self preservation) who said "you will surely not die"? (Note also when Peter tried to have Jesus avoid death what he was called). There is a marked difference between 'eternal self' and 'eternal life'.

Jesus apparently was only recognized after his death by 'the word of truth' that he spoke, not by his physical appearance or personality. We are shaped by physical processes of the body, and cannot exist without it. (Hence why we cannot ask "Why am I me and not someone else?" or "Why am I in this body?"). Brain damage or other chemical processes can change our personality. 'You' end at death.

Jesus supposedly lived his life knowing that flesh and bone won't inherit the kingdom, but only in selfless unity with God (the original selfless one) he would live forever. So whenever selflessness is expressed by a being with free agency he lives, and so do all his followers who did the same in their lives and were in unity with him. Even if this universe collapses and in billions of years free agents arise again, whenever such ones express selflessness he (and those that were in unity with him) live again, because that is the meaning of his name. I would wager this is the resurrection and the kingdom of God. Yet many Christians even when they pray pray for the longevity of the body, the preservation of self ('Me') eternally in heaven, and for others, mostly to ensure that. Truly they are physically alive but spiritually dead. God is purported to be a god of the living, not of the dead.

We 'suffer' death because we realize the loss of self even in the face of the religions we created, and forget to use the opportunity life gives us to express freedom in selflessness and the preservation of the freedom of others. 

If 'the truth will set you free' was true why do many Christians chain themselves to self-preservation, selfishness, materialism and its burdens when Christ lived in contrast to this? And not only do they chain themselves but they attempt to chain others with judgement even while not following their supposed leader themselves. There are non-Christians that have entered the kingdom of God, and radiate his will and they put no unnecessary burden on others lol.

I am not a Christian, but I can't help but marvel at the silliness.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Obscurum said:

If 'the truth will set you free' was true why do many Christians chain themselves to self-preservation, selfishness, materialism and its burdens when Christ lived in contrast to this? And not only do they chain themselves but they attempt to chain others with judgement even while not following their supposed leader themselves. There are non-Christians that have entered the kingdom of God, and radiate his will and they put no unnecessary burden on others lol.

 

Three ideas:
1."Christianity" in its various forms has been bastardized and co-opted by various people, governments and institutions  for 2000 years to divert from the "original" message (as much as it can be reconstructed with the material as we have) and use it as a tool to control populations instead. For example, originally Christianity (or at least as far as we can reconstruct its original mainstream believes) actually flat out said that a person ceases to exist upon death and will only be resurrected at the end of times, rather than the (originally Pagan) believes of an immediate afterlife many Christians today expect.
2.Following, actually following a religion that has the extinguishment of the ego for the benefit of others and to attain salvation is, like, really hard. So people spent 2000 years thinking up reasons why they don't have to do that and still can attain salvation. There's also some of that in certain sects of Buddhism that focus on worship of the Buddha rather than the extreme self-denial that is at its core, which is kinda similar.
3.From what we can re-construct it seems that the religion Yeshua preached was, or at least had elements of, a Jewish Doomsday Cult that seemed to expect the end of the world coming during their lifetimes ("this generation shall not pass away" etc.) after that...see point 1.
 

Edited by Orphalesion
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Obscurum

I believe @XenoFish said it right in one sentence.

My view: The relationship with God, either being a Christian, Jew, Muslim..is ment to be private, between you (me) and God. Reason: less room for coruption of the faith, belife. No organization that will direct your life in order to accomodate their needs. No wars in the name of God.

A beliver would strive to do good to please God, not the Church, Community or just to feel recognized.

Religion, a belife in a superior being, being a christian, a jew, a muslim..was never the problem, the issue. It was always the organized criminal mind behind that. The organised religion that takes away your will, your right, your freedom.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it comes from modern evangelical interpretation of living with ''Faith in Christ'' believing in him and you get salvation vs. living with the ''Faith of Christ'' to love your fellow man, charity, selflessness, etc. And most people can't follow these principles in a hyper aggressive modern society so.. ''Faith in Christ'' it is.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

actually flat out said that a person ceases to exist upon death and will only be resurrected at the end of times, rather than the (originally Pagan) believes of an immediate afterlife many Christians today expect.

I've thought a lot about this over the years and I have a question for you.  IF we can agree that "death of the body" implies an absolute lack of any awareness (including the passage of time), then when you compare the two views of coming into His presence... how would a person distinguish between the two?  

As for using His name but failing to carefully follow His commands, guilty as charged, and I'm often reminded of it by my conscience.  I'm also aware at those times that I'm going to be held to a higher standard than a person who had never heard of, or chosen His way to begin with.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, and then said:

I've thought a lot about this over the years and I have a question for you.  IF we can agree that "death of the body" implies an absolute lack of any awareness (including the passage of time), then when you compare the two views of coming into His presence... how would a person distinguish between the two? 

Of course that's a very valid point, if I understand you correctly that you're saying that form the POV of a person who dies and is resurrected on Judgment Day it would seem like an immediate transition. So they would feel like closing their eyes on their deathbed and open them up again a second later during the resurrection of the flesh, no matter how many years, decades, centuries or millennia have passed in-between. That's also how I would imagine it, since there'd be nothing but oblivion between the two events.
But that is still different from the folk belief that you literally go to Heaven or Hell right the moment you die, which I do believe is not Biblical, the way I understand it. To a person it would feel immediate but to the world around them it wouldn't be.  

Of course there is also that interesting passage in Luke where Yeshua tells the penitent thief
 

Quote

I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise

Is that possibly a partof the Bible that seems to point towards an immediate reward or punishment after death? Is he speaking figuratively (to the thief it will seem today)? Has the passage been tempered with over the centuries and/or something been lost in translation? Or is it a symbolic passage showcasing that the worst sinner can repent and will be accepted?
And of course there's the martyrs who are with the Biblical god in the Apocalypse of John, and seem to have some sort of conscious existence, even before the general Resurrection and Judgment  (of course you know that I, personally, believe Revelations to be a purely allegorical text)
I also find it possible that this passages might have had a hand in the development of Catholic and Orthodox ideas of Sainthood. People who, unlike normal mortals, were rewarded with an immediate place in the presence of the Biblical god and have the power to beseech and intercede on the behalf of living people.
I don't think saints are a part of your branch of Christianity are they? But its still a couple interesting passages to think about.

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

2 hours ago, odas said:

between you (me) and God.

I feel it should be this way. Which is more spirituality than religion I suppose.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ironic that the most ignorant and dismissive of religion are, also, the most obsessive and contentious about it. A thread about religion draws them, irresistibly, like moths to a flame. 

Anatomy of an Angry Atheist | HuffPost Life

Why Are Atheists So Angry? | HuffPost Communities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's ironic that the most ignorant and dismissive of religion are, also, the most obsessive and contentious about it. A thread about religion draws them, irresistibly, like moths to a flame. 

Anatomy of an Angry Atheist | HuffPost Life

Why Are Atheists So Angry? | HuffPost Communities

I think you jumped the gun on this. Needed to wait at least 3 more pages before this. The regular angry atheist haven't shown up yet.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I think you jumped the gun on this. Needed to wait at least 3 more pages before this. The regular angry atheist haven't shown up yet.

And you're not one of them. Just wanted to get in before the lock.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

And you're not one of them. Just wanted to get in before the lock.

Atheism fueled my nihlism and depression. I choose agnosticism. I see the gods as man-made, however an actual creator thing/entity is forever an unknown to me. If faith helps people cope with this cruel unfeeling world, more power to them. I never met god, can't say much about it, can't blame it, not even sure it exist. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Atheism fueled my nihlism and depression. I choose agnosticism. I see the gods as man-made, however an actual creator thing/entity is forever an unknown to me. If faith helps people cope with this cruel unfeeling world, more power to them. I never met god, can't say much about it, can't blame it, not even sure it exist. 

To be religious or spiritual, is not a matter of what one believes is or is not. It's a state of mind that hearkens back to that sense of wonder in childhood, where one is newly immersed in a universe of wonders that seemingly never ends. The big lie is that it does end, which, in the infinity of space-time, it truly never does. A closed mind, on the other hand, is a mere hall of echoes, where one hears whispers from only oneself. 

You have come far, my friend, not far, at all, from the kingdom of heaven. What is the kingdom of heaven? 'Tis whatever you want it to be.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is Christians have been fed the milk (often adulterated) that when shown the meat they crawl back to the enslavement of the beggerly elemental spirits.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's ironic that the most ignorant and dismissive of religion are, also, the most obsessive and contentious about it. A thread about religion draws them, irresistibly, like moths to a flame. 

Anatomy of an Angry Atheist | HuffPost Life

Why Are Atheists So Angry? | HuffPost Communities

They are just dumbfounded by the powers of the Armor of God.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the replies.

I think one of the driving forces of our self awareness is to preserve it and it corrupts anything that is meant to promote selflessness. I think that if Christ would return today that same force would crucify him again like the first time, even among so-called Christians. The preservation of 'Me' is something that is hard to let go, and many interpret the bible and other religions through this lens and it builds vast bodies of corrupted knowledge in its wake.

Truly the serpent is one of the most crafty beasts of the field.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Obscurum said:

Thank you all for the replies.

I think one of the driving forces of our self awareness is to preserve it and it corrupts anything that is meant to promote selflessness. I think that if Christ would return today that same force would crucify him again like the first time, even among so-called Christians. The preservation of 'Me' is something that is hard to let go, and many interpret the bible and other religions through this lens and it builds vast bodies of corrupted knowledge in its wake.

Truly the serpent is one of the most crafty beasts of the field.

 

 

Even selflessness and ego destruction are purely egotistical drives. All is ego.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Even selflessness and ego destruction are purely egotistical drives. All is ego.

This may be true. But, I think the goal Christ tried to promote is to learn to love and respect others just as much as you may love and respect yourself, and find a more perfect balance. Part of the challenge is to learn not to become a slave to your own ego while simultaneously not becoming a slave to the ego of others. I suppose it would help to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.

I find that the God of the Old Testament is metaphorically a representation of ego, while the Father of the New Testament as taught by Christ represents a more loving deity.

As you state, the self is never really out of the picture. But I think a more balanced approach is the goal.

Regards,

Sojo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sojo said:

This may be true. But, I think the goal Christ tried to promote is to learn to love and respect others just as much as you may love and respect yourself, and find a more perfect balance. Part of the challenge is to learn not to become a slave to your own ego while simultaneously not becoming a slave to the ego of others. I suppose it would help to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.

The way I figure it (I could be wrong), the whole idea is to cultivate one's better qualities while exercising a little faith in something greater. Not so much about ego destruction but a healthy sense of self. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, Pacific Islanders & other cultures believe in a creator of some kind.

Not just your mainstream religions. So where are all these cultures getting the idea of a divine entity?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2022 at 1:03 PM, Essan said:

Most Christians do not follow the teachings of Christ (as recorded).

Many people who are not Christians do.

I keep asking local Christians what the Golden Rule is.  The answer is always "I don't know".  And it's supposed to be the law of their prophets.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoldenWolf said:

I keep asking local Christians what the Golden Rule is.  The answer is always "I don't know".  And it's supposed to be the law of their prophets.

That particular phrase (‘The Golden Rule’) isn’t in the Bible itself. It may have been used at one time to convey the message of Matthew 7:12 - “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets”, but it’s used differently now.
The shortened version of the phrase (“Treat others the way you would have them treat you”) is now used in a more secular context, such as in employee manuals,  and there have been other variants such as “He who has the gold rules”.


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Hawken said:

Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, Pacific Islanders & other cultures believe in a creator of some kind.

Not just your mainstream religions. So where are all these cultures getting the idea of a divine entity?

Monkey curiosity

Human brains all work basically the same.   So if A happens and B exists, we ask why did A happen?  Why does B exist?   And when there is no answer we invent an explanation.   Just so stories.     If the world exists it must have been created, and since it's too big to have been created by my dad, or even my great-grandad, it must have been a god.  Ergo one (or more) of the gods must be the creator god(s).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, simplybill said:

That particular phrase (‘The Golden Rule’) isn’t in the Bible itself. It may have been used at one time to convey the message of Matthew 7:12 - “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets”, but it’s used differently now.
The shortened version of the phrase (“Treat others the way you would have them treat you”) is now used in a more secular context, such as in employee manuals,  and there have been other variants such as “He who has the gold rules”.


 

It's a pretty universal concept.

https://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm

  • Like 2
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.