Why I cannot be Christian simplified

1. This is an expansion of the concept of 'sin'. Jesus was the one who extended 'sin' to the thoughts..

Matt. 5:21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.
..
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The idea Jesus brought is that God's standards of righteousness and morality extend beyond the act. Thought is where sin originates, and we are all exposed as sinners, missing the mark of God's perfection.

That is uncomfortable, for those who take pride in their own ability, but it is a great revelation, for why we need a Savior.

2. The bible contains the only record of the life, words, and mission of Jesus. There is no credible or historical account of His life anywhere else.

 

1. I do not claim to be more than a tiny speck of dust in the universe. I do not appreciate however being talked down to over how much of a horrible person I am for having the wrong thoughts.

2. You ever read the Urantia book? I'm reading it now. The life story of Jesus is much more beautifully written and in greater detail there. And Jesus is no excuse for everything objectionable written in the Old Testament.

 

1. No human can 'talk down' to another. We are all guilty of missing the mark of God's standards. There is only 'good news' of redemption from fellow sinners. It is one beggar telling another where to find bread.

Self righteousness was roundly condemned by Jesus. We have no 'righteousness' of our own.. at least our own good deeds are powerless to deliver us. Only the imputed righteousness from Jesus can set us right with our Creator.

2. ..Been a while, but i don't remember it. It is a knockoff, not the original. Like other post biblical books or stories claiming supernatural origins, it has a 'me too!' flavor.. a biblical wannabe. Written mid 20th century, where exactly, did the accounts come from? Like the book of mormon, the Qur'an, and hosts of others, it seems to be another departure from orthodox Christianity.

 

You make some good points. I look at it this way. If one was to want to use the Bible as the source text for one's religion - say as in Christianity - what God and what Principles would one believe.

Would one believe in the God of Creation El Shaddai ? or would one believe in the flip flopping, irrational genocidal God YHWH - a God with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics and emotions. A God who makes a rule stating that children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents (good rule) - then turns around and commands the Israelite's to go out and slaughter children and babies - because of the sins of their parents.

or .. would one believe in the God of Jesus - the "Love neighbor as self", "Judge not", "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" God ?

Even today Christianity can not figure out what it believes with respect to the salvation formulation. The formulation of Catholic and Orthodox (the majority) contradicts the salvation formulation (Sola Fide - Salvation by faith alone) of Protestantism.

Should women keep silent in the Church and not be teachers of religion - as per Pauline gibberish or do we follow the example of Deborah - a prophet in the OT.

Should we stone adulterers or - "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" ?
Should we kill homosexuals or "love neighbor as self" and "Judge not lest you be Judged" ?

What is humorous is watching the mind bending and twisted irrational explanations that Christians will come up with when faced with these problems.

 

Probably came more from the Deist philosophy? Quite a few of our founders were Deists.

 

You are reacting against one interpretation of the bible and what it is. There are others.

I can read the bible and get the a similar message as seen in buddhism, taoism and hinduism. I guess that Comparative Religion course in 1972 is to blame. ha ha

 

A departure from orthodox Christianity can be both a good thing and a bad thing.

Excellent points! I don't have anything to add except that even if Christians decided to focus on the positive parts of the bible, they have to do so many mental gymnastics in defending the negative parts of the bible. Also, that would not be the end of it. They would also have to explain why they declare that anti-gay crusaders in Uganda and prosperity gospel televangelists are not "real" Christians despite using the the exact same book: the Bible.

 

The amount of contradiction and hypocrisy is very high. The Church can't explain its most fundamental doctrine - The Trinity doctrine.

Folks are expected to believe that Jesus - God and the Holy Spirit are separate - but at the same time are one in the same.

So the Son is the Father and the Father the Son but the Son is not the Father nor the Father the Son.

Here is a video of some desperate apologist trying to explain the Trinity.

As is the case with Church leaders themselves - the explanation is " It is incomprehensible to Man".

Now if God was the author of the Trinity - this answer might hold some water. The problem is that the Trinity was invented around 200 AD by Tertullian (at the time the Church called this doctrine heresy) and codified in 325 AD at the council of Nicene.

The Trinity was invented not by God - but by Man. So some human had an idea that is so illogical that it is incomprehensible but , we should accept this idea as truth because it is incomprehensible.

 

I made no judgment, regarding 'good and bad', just clarifying definitions. An offshoot, hybrid, knockoff, or departure is not the same as the original.

That said, historically, 'departures' from Christian orthodoxy have been called heresies, and have been opposed as an enemy infiltration, to distort or destroy the original. That reality gave birth to Christian apologetics, like 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus, in the 2nd century.

 

>>>>>
It is hard to explain, but not impossible to understand.

2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
...forgiven by grace, loved by God and helped by the Holy Spirit.

 

According to Church Leadership the Trinity is "incomprehensible". Quoting some obscure passage from some holy book does not make it any less incomprehensible.

 

Since Christianity is a matter of faith, what wrong is there in offering something better to have faith over? If we make God more benign for instance and say he never flooded the entire planet.

Got it though... You did say you are not judging something as good or bad. With that in mind you should avoid using terms like 'enemy infiltration' which some Christians use.

 

And with that, you just replaced the Bible with your own "instructions".

 

Then it would be something else.. a different religious belief. Christianity is Christianity, defined by the Founder. Something else is 'not Christianity,' and whether motivated by enmity or improvement, it is still 'not Christianity'.

Anybody can start their own religio/philosophical belief system. You might even get followers.. (or at least likes!). It can piggy back on another, or be a 'New! Improved!' version of something else. But if it changes the core tenets of the system it is revising, it is not the same thing.

 

Well there you go! Christianity is a choice but not the "best" choice! The Great Comission has failed! I don't need Christianity. There are more loving deities to choose from. After all, it is all only a matter of faith.

 

I don't believe that blind faith, in anything, is helpful.. either to the rational mind, or the soul.

Christianity is a worldview, based on a central Event in history.

Truth seekers can find out the claims of this Man Jesus, and decide for themselves if it is worthy of investigation. What everyone decides is up to them.

Everyone has to do their own believing and their own dying.

 

It took me a while to process this all. Honestly, I cannot find any point of disagreement except where I marked in bold which I'll explain in a moment. I'll only say that if each of us are on our own spiritual journey regardless of the path (religion) we take, we are taking it alone and I would be reluctant to have somebody else point the path for me (religious leader/institution) and I would disassociate myself with people I find reprehensible who might be worshiping with me (they are on their own path I don't wish to tread on).

In short, having a spiritual path can be a good thing, but organized religion will always be problematic.

Now onto what I put in bold: I find the roads and paths analogy problematic in your example because Christians use it in a very different way. They say that there are only two paths: the wide and straight path to destruction, and the narrow and winding path to salvation. Many (not all) Christians have homosexuality in the former. Which is ironic as choosing to come out gay and having those desires in the first place is never something easy.

 

Unfortunately, Christians are not the best guage for Christianity (for lack of a better word to describe the spirituality depicted in the New Testament of The Bible). I think they are a better guage now than they were during the dark ages, but they were a better guage in the decades following Christ than they are now. Religion will always be twisted by man to control and manipulate social power to some degree. You have to decide which is interpreted by man to this end and which is actually from God. And only you can ultimately figure that out for yourself, using the texts, intuition and relationships God has made accessible.

 

Who decides what's the best gauge? Communists are often rejected with reference to Stalin and Mao. I think it is reasonable to reject communism, not because the Gulag was explicitly laid out in the communist manifesto, but because in practice, for whatever reason, it seems it will fail to bring about any sort of utopia it is going for.

We often judge our own ideas by their best intentions and other ideas by their worst examples, and that often leads to biases.

 

We each must decide. Spirituality is an entirely personal matter, imo.

Are you seeking a consensus on the validity of (a) religion?

 

I'm not requesting that everyone agree with each other, that would be some sort of 1984 world. I'm requesting that everyone agree with themselves, because the option is hypocrisy. It is fine for me to judge by example and you by origin, but it is not fine for me to arbitrarily judge by example in one case and by origin in another. Not that hypocrisy is a crime or anything, but it's hardly desirable from anyone.

If anyone rejects communism on the basis of the atrocities which were carried out in its name (but wasn't specified in the manifesto or similar sources) they should also reject Christianity on the basis of atrocities which were carried out in its name (but wasn't specified in the Bible or similar sources). That is, of course, unless they have provided and defended some more sophisticated logic which sets the two apart.