Paradox Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Hi, I'm a Newbie; I submitted my official Newbie introductory post recently but for one reason or another it did not arrive on the list, unless I am looking in the wrong place. This is my question: would this group exist if Christianity was fully liberal, and basically taken by everyone not to be a set of religious edicts but, rather, to be a set of guiding principles (eg. for those who aren't especially good at recognising how some forms of behaviour may impact negatively upon others)? That was the way I always thought Christianity ought to be. I still wonder whether I could, in some abstract sense, call myself a Chirstian while believing that it is unlikely that Jesus ever existed. I see no reason why a Marxist couldn't call themselves a Marxist without believing Marx ever existed [i.e. that his work was forged by, for example, some government]. Furthermore, I reckon, just as there is neomarxism, we could have neochristianity if such were desired, couldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super FZL Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Oh, it certainly is possible to espouse the principles of Christianity without believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ or the existence of God. In fact, one of America's prominent founding father's Thomas Jefferson felt that way. In fact, he created his own version of the Bible that removed supernatural occurrences. Indeed, I support the idea of treating your fellow man kindly - I like it. I like the idea of "turning the other cheek" and "going the second mile." If everyone did that, we'd live in a better world. And a source, to at least somewhat validate my claim, even if it is Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 If one tried to espouse the "set of guiding principles" that is Christianity but remove the god concept from the equation, then people would be free to question the "set of guiding principles." I believe that given that freedom, the "set of guiding principles" would fail to be quite so popular. Much of it is absolutely terrible and remains viable today only because people are afraid of divine punishment (i.e., hell) if they don't adhere. So, yes, this group would exist in the sense that we would still reject many of the "guiding principles" except the group would be much larger without the threat of hell combined with the promise of heaven keeping so many in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 This is my question: would this group exist if Christianity was fully liberal, and basically taken by everyone not to be a set of religious edicts but, rather, to be a set of guiding principles (eg. for those who aren't especially good at recognising how some forms of behaviour may impact negatively upon others)? . . . Furthermore, I reckon, just as there is neomarxism, we could have neochristianity if such were desired, couldn't we? I suppose if Christianity across the board had been different from the Christianity experienced by most of the ex-Christians here, there might have been no need to deconvert. Speaking for myself, you would have to list the things I would be expected to dogmatically believe in order to be described as a "Neo-Christian." What would be the consequences in your vision of society for not agreeing with or practicing neo-christianity? Would I be shunned and shamed if I went from being a "Neo-Christian" to an atheist or agnostic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 I suppose if Christianity across the board had been different from the Christianity experienced by most of the ex-Christians here, there might have been no need to deconvert. Speaking for myself, you would have to list the things I would be expected to dogmatically believe in order to be described as a "Neo-Christian." What would be the consequences in your vision of society for not agreeing with or practicing neo-christianity? Would I be shunned and shamed if I went from being a "Neo-Christian" to an atheist or agnostic? I was always a liberal, and I feel that the raison d'etre of this group is the pain of people who have experienced the agressive forms of Christianity. I was always horrified by that strain of the creed, and so were the chaplains and rectors that I discussed my thoughts with. It's just that I am now more inclined to believe in a Gnostic origin of the Christ concept, via Marcion (and Justin Martyr). The Gnostics evidently had something. They had the basis of a very powerful philosophical system; hence I still have a firm belief in the Trinity, while being left to contemplate the role of the Logos (as it was known in at the time of the Council of Nicea -- and subsequently replaced with Jesus) in the Trinity. The Logos, of course, can be -- and probably was -- construed as the role of material nature in the cosmos. I think it's a major element of masonic doctrine, and I find the history of this, and its various bifurcations, truly fascinating. I still believe in demonisation, and it's not difficult to find evidence. Likewise, the power of prayer; and heaven-based angels; and the transcendence of grace. I suppose in some people's minds that makes me a Christian. Forget St. Paul and all that. I'll put it this way: I believe in God as perfect justice. Religious edicts are just baggage. Jesus -- fictional or nonfictional, alien or human, Jew or Gentile -- seems to have been something of a Stoic (I speak, here, of the Greek school of philosophy); and by being as much, he at least infuses society with a perspective on moral responsibility that one ignores at one's peril. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 PS Why does it say 'Authentic Christian Believer' against my name, in the left-hand margin? Just curious.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 10, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2011 This is my question: would this group exist if Christianity was fully liberal, and basically taken by everyone not to be a set of religious edicts..... You mean if Christianity wasn't Christianity? There are degrees and flavors of the religion, but they all (if they honestly identify as Christian) require belief in Jehovah and Jesus as real entities. The principles of living as taught in Christianity aren't original anyway, so what sense does it make to claim that "love thy neighbor" is a Christian concept? The teachings that define Christianity are such things as the doctrine of the Trinity, Hell and Heaven, Satan, sin, the resurrection, salvation, etc., etc. The other problem with any sect of Christianity, no matter how "liberal," is that it is inescapably tied to the Bible - which I have demonstrated to my satisfaction is no authority. No evidence for a god, no evidence for the reliability of the Bible, no Christianity of any type for me, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 PS Why does it say 'Authentic Christian Believer' against my name, in the left-hand margin? Just curious.... Although it looks like it has been removed, anyone who says they are Christian (by any stripe) gets tagged with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 There are degrees and flavors of the religion, but they all (if they honestly identify as Christian) require belief in Jehovah and Jesus as real entities. The principles of living as taught in Christianity aren't original anyway, so what sense does it make to claim that "love thy neighbor" is a Christian concept? The teachings that define Christianity are such things as the doctrine of the Trinity, Hell and Heaven, Satan, sin, the resurrection, salvation, etc., etc. The other problem with any sect of Christianity, no matter how "liberal," is that it is inescapably tied to the Bible - which I have demonstrated to my satisfaction is no authority. No evidence for a god, no evidence for the reliability of the Bible, no Christianity of any type for me, thank you. In all my Sunday school teachings, and further and further (Alpha courses etc.) I don't think I ever heard any reference to the word Jehovah. Of course, it was implicit in much of it, but so what? There are, believe it or not, a great many Christians who entirely reject the Hebrew scriptures -- as I always did, with the possible exception of what some of the prophets said. Scriptural dogma, I would always argue, was simply Jesus' vehicle for his cult's getting anywhere. Pinch of salt type of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 10, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2011 In all my Sunday school teachings, and further and further (Alpha courses etc.) I don't think I ever heard any reference to the word Jehovah. Of course, it was implicit in much of it, but so what? There are, believe it or not, a great many Christians who entirely reject the Hebrew scriptures -- as I always did, with the possible exception of what some of the prophets said. Scriptural dogma, I would always argue, was simply Jesus' vehicle for his cult's getting anywhere. Pinch of salt type of thing. Really? How about Yahweh? Elohim? The God of the Hebrews? He is the Father to Jesus. It's just a story, but for the sake of argument... There is no Christianity or reason for Jesus to bring salvation to the world if there is no OT to build upon. Jesus and other characters in the NT make references to people and events found in the OT. How can you honestly ignore the crucial importance of OT background? I know Christians like to "cherry pick" what they feel comfortable in believing, but how can any of it work without the OT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 There is no Christianity or reason for Jesus to bring salvation to the world if there is no OT to build upon. Jesus and other characters in the NT make references to people and events found in the OT. How can you honestly ignore the crucial importance of OT background? I know Christians like to "cherry pick" what they feel comfortable in believing, but how can any of it work without the OT? It's a long time since I trotted this argument out, but here I go. Imagine Jesus as an Extra-Terrestrial (and, in the past, I admit have been interested in theories based on the idea that he was). Imagine he landed on earth wanting to create *just the right* amount of a stir, right in the heart of the Roman empire where that stir can create larger eddies. Ultimately, of course, the goal is to be crucified. That we take as a foregone conclusion. Now, let's put him in Judea, because this is the ideal place, what with all the politics and opportunity for exposing hypocrasy, for what he wants to achieve. What kind of things is he going to say? Do you think he is going to slam the Scriptures straight off? He wouldn't last a week!! On the other hand, if he embraces the Scriptures, he *does* last; more than that, he gets taken seriously by the laity. People listen, which they wouldn't were it that he rejected the Scriptures. Speaking cunningly, he ruffles a few feathers. And then he ruffles a few more, and more, and so on, until he has done what he needed to: he has become a threat to the Roman authorities. Thus he has got where he wants to be: put in jail with a baying mob... and the rest is history (or so they say). You can see that there is a logic behind his espousing the Scriptures, whoever he might be. But all these arguments are basically behind me. The only point I am making is that the vitriol that one tends to witness on this message board is somewhat misdirected. And, from a personal point of view, I still can't decide upon the future of my relationship with the Church, and with all the friends I made within it, some of them long-term liberals as I had been. The whole thing seems to turn on the way that Christianity is considered to be a matter of identity; this fact has long been cultivated for political ends, but I always thought that one's sense of identity shouldn't really be the foremost concern. Would I be lying to them if I said I was still a Christian, when I think it's unlikely that Jesus ever existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 10, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2011 Would I be lying to them if I said I was still a Christian, when I think it's unlikely that Jesus ever existed? In my opinion, yes. I'm having trouble finding a point here. All major religions are political and cultural identities; that's how they spread and gain power. If Jesus (perhaps an alien!) wanted to start trouble he would use the established OT religion to his advantage. On the other hand, Jesus didn't exist. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eugene39 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The disconnect between the OT and NT is what did it for me. The verses that primarily Matthew uses to show that Jesus is Messiah are just verses taken completely out of context. The verses in the OT which actually are referring to a Messiah have very obviously not been fulfilled. My SS teacher encouraged us to read the Bible through in a year, and in the end, I left the faith because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I suppose if Christianity across the board had been different from the Christianity experienced by most of the ex-Christians here, there might have been no need to deconvert. Instead of having traumatic deconversions, we would have just gradually lapsed out of it, choosing instead to sleep in and watch the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I think 'Free Thinker' would suit me best. I always was one such, and was never afraid to deliberately get people -- especially fundies (and I was right in among them on a social, if not doxastic level) -- hot under the collar: you should have heard my speech, as best man at my pal's wedding, in a hard-line Pentacostal church (my pal was a closet liberal at the time)! Whatever you say about Christianity, the iconography of one person suffering terrible, excruciating agony and dying in order to change prevailing mindsets for the better is exceptionally powerful. Leaving aside the teaching itself, I put it to you that one could call oneself a follower for no other reason than for the iconography's being so justifiably humbling. What say ye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eugene39 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I've been watching some of Karen Armstrong's videos on TED.com where she talks how the origins of religion involved community, sympathy, peace and living for more than just "myself" vs. rules and regs, rewards and punishments; any passage from a holy book that doesn't uplift people needs to be further examined, instead of using it as a club to beat people over the head with; that egotistical people figured out how to manipulate people. Her ideas are very unfamiliar to me, but interesting, and quite honestly, like-able. I'm still in the early stages of thinking about religion in this way, and don't have much idea on how seemingly naturally occurring empathy, etc. can be made into religion, without turning it into the mess we have today. Hopefully, this makes a little sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedah Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 You can only polish a turd so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts