Do most Christians even understand their own religion?

[Cypress]

Well Jesus upon granting forgiveness would tell them to go forth and sin no more.
Sin was defined already so no real question about that.
But you DO have to repent your sins to obtain your salvation.

I think it is the modern 20th century fire-and-brimstone christians who find the Old Testament so appealing and have elevated to equal status with the NT.

Historically, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most mainstream Protestant considered the NT to be a new covenant, superceding the OT.

To live the authentic Christian life means to emulate the Jesus of the New Testament. That was exactly the origin of the monastic movement, and they did not think sex with anyone was a good idea for the ascetic Christian life.

"The Christian Old Testament is, of course, the Jewish scripture, sometimes called the Hebrew Bible. In many Christian communities today, the Old Testament occupies a rather ambiguous position. Rarely are sermons preached on the Old Testament, and many Christians see it as irrelevant."

-- Bart Ehrman, Professor of Theology, University of North Carolina

 

[Celticguy]

I think it is the modern 20th century fire and brimstone christians who find the Old Testament so appealing and have elevated to equal status with the NT.

Historically, Roman Catholics Eastern Orthodox, and most mainstream Protestant considered the NT to be a new covenant, superceding the OT.

To live the authentic Christian life means to emulate the Jesus of the New Testament. That was exactly the origin of the monastic movement, and they did not think sex with anyone was a good idea for the ascetic Christian life.

Jesus is the new covenant. he said go forth and sin no more.
repent, accept him as lord and savior and have everlasting life.
but no new set of rules.

when you start taking the word of men over the Messiah is when you get into trouble.

 

[Cypress]

Jesus is the new covenant. he said go forth and sin no more.
repent, accept him as lord and savior and have everlasting life.
but no new set of rules.

when you start taking the word of men over the Messiah is when you get into trouble.

Some of the greatest minds in Christianity - Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin - all maintained that salvation is based on faith and grace alone.

Period, end of story.

The basic idea was that you were still supposed to be a decent person.

But acting like a decent person in the expectation of a reward (eternal salvation) was not good Christian theology.

In fact, you might have to wonder about the motivations of someone who is doing good deeds with the expectation of being rewarded for it.

Confucius said virtue is it's own reward, and I think that is fairly close to what John Calvin and Martin Luther were claiming.

 

[Celticguy]

Some of the greatest minds in Christianity - Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin - all maintained that salvation is based on faith and grace alone.

Period, end of story.

The basic idea was that you were still supposed to be a decent person.

But acting like a decent person in the expectation of a reward (eternal salvation) was not good Christian theology.

In fact, you might have to wonder about the motivations of someone who is doing good deeds with the expectation of being rewarded for it.

Confucius said virtue is it's own reward, and I think that is fairly close to what John Calvin and Martin Luther were claiming.

and where did i mention good deeds ?
grace is the reward if you want to call it that.
im not saying anything different than those guys.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I knew nothing about the real history of Christianity until I studied on my own. I think the majority of Christians know very little.

The history of mankind is written in blood.

The history of progress is written in the blood of men and women who have dared to espouse an unpopular cause, as, for instance, the black man's right to his body, or woman's right to her soul.
-- Emma Goldman

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Some of the greatest minds in Christianity - Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin - all maintained that salvation is based on faith and grace alone.

Period, end of story.

The basic idea was that you were still supposed to be a decent person.

But acting like a decent person in the expectation of a reward (eternal salvation) was not good Christian theology.

In fact, you might have to wonder about the motivations of someone who is doing good deeds with the expectation of being rewarded for it.

Confucius said virtue is it's own reward, and I think that is fairly close to what John Calvin and Martin Luther were claiming.

Agreed. Rewards are for immature minds like promising a lollipop to a kid who gets his annual vaccinations. It's a way to sell it to those people on the backside of the IQ curve.

Intelligent adults understand the meaning of the words of Confucius, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Jesus is the new covenant. he said go forth and sin no more.
repent, accept him as lord and savior and have everlasting life.
but no new set of rules.

when you start taking the word of men over the Messiah is when you get into trouble.

Isn't that what the Evangelicals and Republicans are doing these days?

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Rewards are for immature minds like promising a lollipop to a kid who gets his annual vaccinations. It's a way to sell it to those people on the backside of the IQ curve.

Intelligent adults understand the meaning of the words of Confucius, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi.

I like the way your brain works!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I like the way your brain works!

Thanks. I have my moments...usually before sundown.

 

[Celticguy]

Isn't that what the Evangelicals and Republicans are doing these days?

The evangelicals (the group) understand that its Christ that matters. Its the non-evangelicals that seem to get confused.
I would argue that either all pols or no pols do it as they have no role in religion.
They all either have accepted Christ as their lord and savior and have repented of their sins or they have not.
Thats for God to work out at the end of days as no other man may know.
But mainly its a matter of rendering unto Caesar that is their concern.
Now they can support right over wrong or similar matters of morals that have worked their way into Common Law (in the west but in general worldwide).

 

[Cypress]

and where did i mention good deeds ?
grace is the reward if you want to call it that.
im not saying anything different than those guys.

The whole point of the Protestant tradition, particularly John Calvin and Luther, probably even Paul is to get rid of the concept of rewards for acting a certain way or performing certain deeds. Grace comes through faith alone.

The idea is that you cannot buy your way into heaven, either by money or indulgences, or by acting a certain way with the expectation of being given a reward.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The essence of Christianity...in fact, the essence of EVERY religion...is the blind guess that a god/gods exist...and, for the most part, the further blind guesses about the nature of the gods, particularly about what the gods want...what pleases them and what offends them.

The "faith" stuff is just people insisting that their blind guesses are correct.

Too bad we make religion to be more than that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The evangelicals (the group) understand that its Christ that matters. Its the non-evangelicals that seem to get confused.
I would argue that either all pols or no pols do it as they have no role in religion.
They all either have accepted Christ as their lord and savior and have repented of their sins or they have not.
Thats for God to work out at the end of days as no other man may know.
But mainly its a matter of rendering unto Caesar that is their concern.
Now they can support right over wrong or similar matters of morals that have worked their way into Common Law (in the west but in general worldwide).

Disagreed on Evangelicals since they are the least Christian people in America. Do you support Prosperity Christianity like Trump and Paula White?

 

[Cypress]

The essence of Christianity...in fact, the essence of EVERY religion...is the blind guess that a god/gods exist...and, for the most part, the further blind guesses about the nature of the gods, particularly about what the gods want...what pleases them and what offends them.

The "faith" stuff is just people insisting that their blind guesses are correct.

Too bad we make religion to be more than that.

In my opinion, religion first and foremost is a systematic, binding moral vision for how to live this life. The afterlife is conjecture.

The late paleolithic people, nor the Romans, nor the Greeks had a systematic, consistent, binding moral code like this:

Founded by Vardhamana, 6th century BCE


The Five Vows of Jainism

No violence
No stealing
No sexual immorality
Absolute truthfulness
Non-attachment to material wealth

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/beliefs/dharma.shtml

Confucian ethics in China did not develop in a vacuum, there was nothing inevitable about it's moral vision, and indeed the Qin dynasty rejected Confucian ethics for a system of harsh legalistic philosophy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

In my opinion, religion first and foremost is a systematic, binding moral vision for how to live this life. The afterlife is conjecture.

The late paleolithic people, nor the Romans, nor the Greeks had a systematic, consistent, binding moral code like this:

Confucian ethics in China did not develop in a vacuum, there was nothing inevitable about it's moral vision, and indeed the Qin dynasty rejected Confucian ethics for a system of harsh legalistic philosophy.

Great post.

In the ancient world of violence and subsistence living, where was time for discussion of philosophy and spiritual matters, namely "why are we here?" type questions.

Philosophy would offer moral codes such as the Jainism rules....which seem a little extreme to me as the link notes. Siddhartha experimented with asceticism before passing on it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/living/layjaincode.shtml

https://science.jrank.org/pages/8383/Asceticism-Hindu-Buddhist-Asceticism-Asceticism-in-Jainism.html

Jainism is perhaps the most ascetically oriented of all the world's religions. Most Jains are and have always been householders, but even householders are urged to live lives of self-restraint and especially nonviolence. Jain monks pursue lives of even greater austerities, following the five "great vows" (no killing living beings, truthfulness, no stealing, chastity, and renunciation of possessions) and, in some sects, not wearing any clothing. Jains seek ascetic heat in both its "external" and "internal" forms—the former entailing fasting, begging, and mortification of the body; the latter requiring penance, modesty, service to others, study, meditation, and nonattachment to the body. The epitome of asceticism is found in the Jain tradition of religious suicide by starvation.

Read more: Asceticism - Hindu and Buddhist Asceticism - Asceticism In Jainism - World, Mahavira, Austerities, and Jains - JRank Articles https://science.jrank.org/pages/838...cism-Asceticism-in-Jainism.html#ixzz7Fb2lMQju

 

[Ross Dolan]

In my opinion, religion first and foremost is a systematic, binding moral vision for how to live this life. The afterlife is conjecture.

The late paleolithic people, nor the Romans, nor the Greeks had a systematic, consistent, binding moral code like this:



Confucian ethics in China did not develop in a vacuum, there was nothing inevitable about it's moral vision, and indeed the Qin dynasty rejected Confucian ethics for a system of harsh legalistic philosophy.

I understand what you are saying here, C. But "moral codes" and "moral visions" can be obtained WITHOUT the blind guesses about gods mandating them. Moral codess are what humans determine them to be...not what some god dictates that they are. And this holds whether there are gods or not.

My point is that any assertions about gods, their natures, and the things that please or offend them...is just blind guessing.

We humans would be much better off if we acknowledge that.

 

[BidenPresident]

I understand what you are saying here, C. But "moral codes" and "moral visions" can be obtained WITHOUT the blind guesses about gods mandating them. Moral codess are what humans determine them to be...not what some god dictates that they are. And this holds whether there are gods or not.

My point is that any assertions about gods, their natures, and the things that please or offend them...is just blind guessing.

We humans would be much better off if we acknowledge that.

Aristotle's "Ethics" is not religion. Cypress clearly never read philosophy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Aristotle's "Ethics" is not religion. Cypress clearly never read philosophy.

You're right about ethics, wrong about Cypress. Consider what happened to Socrates and why. Also note the quote below to see that Aristotle was a man of his times.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
Aristotle indicates several times in VII.11–14 that merely to say that pleasure is a good does not do it enough justice; he also wants to say that the highest good is a pleasure. Here he is influenced by an idea expressed in the opening line of the Ethics: the good is that at which all things aim. In VII.13, he hints at the idea that all living things imitate the contemplative activity of god (1153b31–2). Plants and non-human animals seek to reproduce themselves because that is their way of participating in an unending series, and this is the closest they can come to the ceaseless thinking of the unmoved mover. Aristotle makes this point in several of his works (see for example De Anima 415a23–b7), and in Ethics X.7–8 he gives a full defense of the idea that the happiest human life resembles the life of a divine being. He conceives of god as a being who continually enjoys a “single and simple pleasure” (1154b26)—the pleasure of pure thought—whereas human beings, because of their complexity, grow weary of whatever they do. He will elaborate on these points in X.8; in VII.11–14, he appeals to his conception of divine activity only in order to defend the thesis that our highest good consists in a certain kind of pleasure. Human happiness does not consist in every kind of pleasure, but it does consist in one kind of pleasure—the pleasure felt by a human being who engages in theoretical activity and thereby imitates the pleasurable thinking of god.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I understand what you are saying here, C. But "moral codes" and "moral visions" can be obtained WITHOUT the blind guesses about gods mandating them. Moral codess are what humans determine them to be...not what some god dictates that they are. And this holds whether there are gods or not.

My point is that any assertions about gods, their natures, and the things that please or offend them...is just blind guessing.

We humans would be much better off if we acknowledge that.

Agreed. Notice the moral codes set in both Russia and Germany in the 1930s. No religion necessary.

Notice the actions of the atheistic Trump administration. No religion necessary even though he used religion as a weapon.

 

[Cypress]

I understand what you are saying here, C. But "moral codes" and "moral visions" can be obtained WITHOUT the blind guesses about gods mandating them. Moral codess are what humans determine them to be...not what some god dictates that they are. And this holds whether there are gods or not.

My point is that any assertions about gods, their natures, and the things that please or offend them...is just blind guessing.

We humans would be much better off if we acknowledge that.

Yes, the afterlife is conjecture.

If there is an ultimate guiding principle to the universe, it is incomprehensible to us.

IMO, whether or not one likes Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Christianity, the key thing about them is they establish a consist moral vision on how to live this life which is considered binding and non-negotiable by it's community.

We could just say everyone figure out moral awareness independently on your own, but that probably leads to people like Donald Trump. He may seem immoral to us, but in his mind he probably doesn't think he is doing anything wrong.

And he would not be the first. The Melian debate in Greek history is infamous for showing the Greeks thought might makes right.