Do most Christians even understand their own religion?

Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
Do most Christians even understand their own religion?
Click to expand...

No. I don't get that they do.

What I see is people who want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to follow, and they like to cherry-pick passages to support whatever they want to believe anyway.
 
Ethics has been around long before the Christians who worship Jesus. A shame we need to idolize Middle East Jews and their bizarre beliefs.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
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
Click to expand...

I read a great book about the Axial Age, approximately 800 to 400 BCE when humans transitioned from thinking in collective terms of what was best for the clan, to starting to think individually about personal ethics and personal salvation, if it exists.
 
BidenPresident said:
Aristotle's "Ethics" is not religion. Cypress clearly never read philosophy.
Click to expand...
I was extremely careful how I chose my words.

I said a religious moral vision is considered binding and non-negotiable by it's community at large.

Individuals like Aristotle, Epicurus, Kant, and Cicero can each individually write their own books giving their opinion on ethics.
 
Cypress said:
I was extremely careful how I chose my words.

I said a religious moral vision is considered binding and non-negotiable by it's community.

Individuals like Aristotle, Epicurus, Kant, and Cicero can each individually write their own books giving their opinion on ethics.
Click to expand...


And you give your opinions about religion. I will take Aristotle.
 
Cypress said:
I was extremely careful how I chose my words.

I said a religious moral vision is considered binding and non-negotiable by it's community.

Individuals like Aristotle, Epicurus, and Cicero can each individually write their own books giving their opinion on ethics.
Click to expand...

Agreed you were. BP is young, female and overly emotional. I think she's smart enough to outgrow it but she seems to be going through a rough patch in her life.
 
Cypress said:
I read a great book about the Axial Age, approximately 800 to 400 BCE when humans transitioned from thinking in collective terms of what was best for the clan, to starting to think individually about personal ethics and personal salvation, if it exists.
Click to expand...

I presume that went hand-in-hand with cities and domestic agriculture vs 150,000 years of nomadic tribes?
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't do that...and while I agree that we could...my opinion is that we SHOULD NOT DO IT INDIVIDUALLY.

We should do it collectively.

The reason for an ethical/moral code is to make civilization possible...to make community possible.

Anything about ethics or morals that goes outside that...is something that probably should be done away with.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I presume that went hand-in-hand with cities and domestic agriculture vs 150,000 years of nomadic tribes?
Click to expand...
I think Karen Armstrong's thesis was that the Axial Age began on the heels of a particularly violent and chaotic period of human History.

There was a late Bronze Age collapse of civilization in the Eastern Mediterranean. The catastrophic Greek Dark ages were just ending. The Kingdom of Israel had been overrun by Babylonians. . China was in the middle of the chaotic Spring and Autumn period, and on the cusp of the Warring States period.
 
Last edited:
Celticguy said:
skipping straight to the punch line...

He didn't need to say anything about it as it was already defined an sin as was so much else.
He didn't invent Christianity because he was a jew and made no effort to be anything other than a jew.
But he did claim to be the Messiah the jews were waiting for.
They were not ok with this. Their reasons were their own.
The rest is history.

All the various denominations and sects have their problems mainly because they all have their own take on things. The one thing many fail to account for is that none of them are necessary as salvation comes solely from Christ Jesus, not from any man, idol, building or rite.

So put your faith in the Savior, ascribe to any sect that is comfortable for you (or none at all) and you will be in good hands.
Click to expand...

That's your spin!
 
Cypress said:
My understanding is that Christianity is not a religion about Jesus' Jewish heritage.

It is about what Jesus 'life meant.

In that sense, Christianity is the religion of Paul, Augustine, and the early church fathers. Specifically, how they interpreted Jesus 'life and revelation.

To emulate Jesus meant to practice charity, mercy, humility, non-violence, pacifism, and universal love.

Salvation depends on faith and grace. Not on following the Jewish law of Torah.

In early Christianity, there was even a question whether the Jewish Tanakh even was to be considered canonical scripture.

The Jewish bible was ultimately accepted as scriptural, largely because it supposedly prophesized the life of Jesus, and because having ancient scripture as part of your new religion gave Christianity legitimacy in a Roman Empire which tended to view novel new religious cults with suspicion.

According to Paul, there was no expectation for gentiles to follow the Jewish law, even though Tanakh had good ethical wisdom in it.
Click to expand...

Everyone of your post excludes the most important thing that came from Jesus sacrifice,24/7 access to the Holy Spirit that can and will translate scripture and much,much more do a believer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top