"Christianity is the religion of the end of religion"

[URAVIP2ME]

If Christianity never went through a reformation, it would still be as backwards and draconian as strict Islam is today,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

To me, it was Not 1st-century teachings of Christ that went through the reformation but Christendom.
It was corrupted Christendom ( apostate Christianity ) that had developed after the first century ended.

 

[Cacotopia]

Wierd i dont think i said it wasnt in large swaths of history its made up of "normal" folks who cant read.

I wan't referring to illiteracy, that thread is common in all religions of the early times of recorded human history-till roughly 250 years ago. Religion generally held a monopoly on education and their own benefit.

A person who is unable to educate themselves is far easier to manipulate than one that is self reliant.

 

[blü 2]

What two parts is there to the Golden Rule that is false and repellent and self-defeating.

We're dealing with the proposition you mentioned, Jesus' statement
He who is not with me is against me
(Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23)

In other words, if you're not cheering for me, you're my enemy.

Sounds like pure Trump.

And if as you suggest we apply the Golden Rule to this proposition, then we see Jesus dealing with others in a paranoid manner, because he wishes them to deal with him in a paranoid manner.

Self-defeating, as I said.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

We're dealing with the proposition you mentioned, Jesus' statement
He who is not with me is against me
(Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23)
In other words, if you're not cheering for me, you're my enemy.
Sounds like pure Trump.
And if as you suggest we apply the Golden Rule to this proposition, then we see Jesus dealing with others in a paranoid manner, because he wishes them to deal with him in a paranoid manner.
Self-defeating, as I said.

I find in Jesus' NEW commandment found at John 13:34-35 we are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has. Meaning Jesus was willing to die for his friends. Not self-defeating to me. Not paranoid either.

P.S. just recently I was talking with someone who was wondering why dead trees, etc. were left laying on the ground in wooded areas. I told her the E.P.A. believes that is natural and we should Not interfere with nature.
So, she said if someone drops dead in the woods we should leave him there because otherwise that would be interfering with nature?______ So, it does make me wonder if dead fallen trees, etc. were left laying around in California as around here, was Trump right about forest neglect. He probably doesn't realize the E.P.A. started that nonsense.

 

[blü 2]

I find in Jesus' NEW commandment found at John 13:34-35 we are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has. Meaning Jesus was willing to die for his friends. Not self-defeating to me. Not paranoid either.

So you agree that Jesus' statement "He who is not with me is against me" should be rejected, and other parts of Jesus' message, particularly about acceptance, put in its place?

P.S. just recently I was talking with someone who was wondering why dead trees, etc. were left laying on the ground in wooded areas. I told her the E.P.A. believes that is natural and we should Not interfere with nature.

Ahm, the EPA doesn't blindly believe that we shouldn't interfere with nature, any more than doctors do. Their view arises from an understanding of the benefits of particular kinds of non-interference.

The intersection of such policies and the unprecedented bushfires is a terrible lesson about many things, not least global warming, but as you know, Trump finds it inconvenient to think inconvenient thoughts like that.

 

[David T]

I wan't referring to illiteracy, that thread is common in all religions of the early times of recorded human history-till roughly 250 years ago. Religion generally held a monopoly on education and their own benefit.

A person who is unable to educate themselves is far easier to manipulate than one that is self reliant.

We have a whole church that can read and a lot of phds and i know they have zero clue what the text says for the most part.

Ken ham of the creation museum has a science degree which he has put to good use building a replica of an oil tanker and calling it noahs ark. He in fact is the worlds foremost expert on the topic god and the bible according ro most atheists!!!! Is he magically a biblical genius and expert on god and a scientific crackpot at the same time? Impossible but lots of smart folk would disagree with me. That's both of religious and non religious persuasion mind you.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So you agree that Jesus' statement "He who is not with me is against me" should be rejected, and other parts of Jesus' message, particularly about acceptance, put in its place?
Ahm, the EPA doesn't blindly believe that we shouldn't interfere with nature, any more than doctors do. Their view arises from an understanding of the benefits of particular kinds of non-interference.
The intersection of such policies and the unprecedented bushfires is a terrible lesson about many things, not least global warming, but as you know, Trump finds it inconvenient to think inconvenient thoughts like that.

To me the benefits of non-interference is kindling for fire, a fire hazard. That is Not blind but clearly plain to see.
I find No reason to disagree about having self-sacrificing love as Jesus taught at John 13:34-35.
I wonder why someone would be against having self-sacrificing love for others, after all a good mother has self-sacrificing love and who says we should reject her.

 

[Cacotopia]

We have a whole church that can read and a lot of phds and i know they have zero clue what the text says for the most part.

Ken ham of the creation museum has a science degree which he has put to good use building a replica of an oil tanker and calling it noahs ark. He in fact is the worlds foremost expert on the topic god and the bible according ro most atheists!!!! Is he magically a biblical genius and expert on god and a scientific crackpot at the same time? Impossible but lots of smart folk would disagree with me. That's both of religious and non religious persuasion mind you.

Everyone can be a self proclaimed expert, because there is no arbiter on what the bible actually says, remember that grippin and rippin guy? He said every christian out there is wrong and stupid except him!

What a surprise!
I can't look him up cause he blocked me.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Everyone can be a self proclaimed expert, because there is no arbiter on what the bible actually says,................

To me, Jesus is the arbiter on what the Bible actually says because Jesus based his teachings by his logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures often quoting or referring to them about matters at hand.
In other words, since the Bible is not written in alphabetical order as a dictionary is, then with the aid of a comprehensive Bible concordance the Bible can be put in ABC order for us to search or research the Bible by topic or subject arrangement. That helps us see what the Bible is actually saying on matters.
By taking one subject or topic at a time, and viewing what all the writers had to say on one subject at a time, then we not only see the internal harmony among the Bible writers, but how well Jesus does as arbiter on Scripture.

 

[blü 2]

To me the benefits of non-interference is kindling for fire, a fire hazard. That is Not blind but clearly plain to see.
I find No reason to disagree about having self-sacrificing love as Jesus taught at John 13:34-35.
I wonder why someone would be against having self-sacrificing love for others, after all a good mother has self-sacrificing love and who says we should reject her.

You keep changing the subject, which is Jesus' statement, He who is not for me is against me.

That's self-defeating paranoid nonsense, and you can tell him from me next time you're chatting.

 

[sealchan]

The recent thread by @Sunstone regarding the decline of religiosity in the West, reminded me of the French atheist historian Marcel Gauchet and his controversial theory that Christianity is “the religion of the end of religion” as put forward in his book The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion (original French title: Le Désenchantement du monde. Une histoire politique de la religion, Gallimard, Paris, 1985).

The idea that Christianity has played, and will continue to play, a sort of 'midwife' role in the birth of secular societies is not a novel concept.

Indeed, it has been pushed relentlessly by many researchers and intellectuals, beginning with Nietzsche himself. The most exemplary account was given by German atheist philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977), who so far as to say that “only a Christian can be a good atheist and only an atheist can be a good Christian” in his book Atheism in Christianity.

Gianni Vattimo, an Italian philosopher, MEP in the European Parliament and gay rights activist has also joined the intellectual party promoting this "Christianity = secular society" thesis:


https://www.iep.utm.edu/vattimo/#SH4b

Vattimo sees Jesus as the instigator of the desacralising weakening that has come to fruition in modernity. This weakening occurs through the exposition of the tendency of religions to be authoritarian and violent, particularly in demanding sacrifice...

"Jesus came into the world precisely to reveal and abolish the nexus between violence and the sacred"​

Most recently, the atheist and Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek has put forward yet another iteration of the same basic argument:

It is thus only in post-religious “atheist” radical-emancipatory collectives that we find the proper actualization of the Idea of the Christian collective— the necessary consequence of the “atheistic” nature of Christianity itself.​

—Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism​

It makes me wonder: are these atheist-secular scholars right, after all? Is there something inherent within the Christian worldview that by accident makes it more conducive to atheism and secularism than other religions, as odd as this might appear from a superficial understanding of the faith?

And could this be one factor, among many, in helping to explain the verdict of Pew polling data in America, the largest Western country: that while Christianity is gradually declining into secular "noneism" with every passing generation, minority non-Christian religions are actually growing or retaining their membership (i.e. at least one-third of American Muslims (42%), Hindus (36%), and Buddhists (35%) are under the age of 30)?

What I think kills a religion is its shutting down it's own creative community. No new stories are being told and made part of the canon. Instead our artists, our story-tellers like JRR Tolkien, George Lucas, Gene Roddenbery, JK Rowling have a huge niche to fill.

I welcomed Jerry Jenkins and Tim Lahaye's collaboration on their Left Behind series although I dont agree on Lahayes literalist stance. It's still a great, modern exploration of Biblical subject matter. The King Arthur legend is also a worthy start to an interesting expansion of the Christian myth.

But in a deeply ironic way so much of modern Christendom relegates the Bible, also created by the artist of it's time, to superior status and all later creative embellishments and recordings to mere fiction.

 

[Cacotopia]

To me, Jesus is the arbiter on what the Bible actually says because Jesus based his teachings by his logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures often quoting or referring to them about matters at hand.
In other words, since the Bible is not written in alphabetical order as a dictionary is, then with the aid of a comprehensive Bible concordance the Bible can be put in ABC order for us to search or research the Bible by topic or subject arrangement. That helps us see what the Bible is actually saying on matters.
By taking one subject or topic at a time, and viewing what all the writers had to say on one subject at a time, then we not only see the internal harmony among the Bible writers, but how well Jesus does as arbiter on Scripture.

Did Jesus write the bible? Did his Apostles? Nope, witnesses of witnesses of witnesses wrote the bible.

You'd think he would have thought to keep a journal.

 

[David T]

Everyone can be a self proclaimed expert, because there is no arbiter on what the bible actually says, remember that grippin and rippin guy? He said every christian out there is wrong and stupid except him!

What a surprise!
I can't look him up cause he blocked me.

I know its written in rorsach language. A bit like trying to guess the melody to a 2,000 year old bob dylan song lensed up through 2,000 years of development.. Whats the statistical odds of getting it right by reading just the lyrics?
These texts were not easy 2,000 years ago that is a fact.

Never trust anyone who claims they understand it. Thats actually literally in the text in the Thomas eyewitness narrative. Its a famous paradox called the liars paradox written in story form.

Although if you actually do understand it, you understand you cant actually explain it. Evolution doesnt allows species to self evolve itself independent from Evolution.. The text refuses to be reduced to simplistic intellectualizing reductionism. Thats Impossible.. Which is simply , percieved independence from evolution. Exactly like many in religion explicitely profess today. And science for that matter. Just "normals"....

 

[Marcion]

My point exactly about 2nd-century Christianity because that is exactly what Luke warns about at Acts 20:29-30.
Also, Jesus made the point about fake 'weed/tares' being growing together with the genuine 'wheat' Christians.
That growing together means over the vast many centuries that after the end of the first century an apostate/fake Christianity would grow along side of the 1st-century teachings of Jesus as recorded in Scripture.
The idea of a 1st-century Christianity is based on recorded Scripture ( Bible canon of '66' books )
Those 1st-century teachings are Not wishful thinking, but recorded teachings on paper for all to read.
So, the weed/tares and genuine wheat grow together until the future coming time of Matthew 25:31-33,37,40.
This coming ' time of separation ' is still ahead of us, and people will find Jesus' words to be truth.

You cannot base your ideas about "Christianity" in the first century on texts that were made decades later. Acts is a product of second century Christianity and so are many additions to the gospels of Luke and Matthew. The historical words of Jesus are less likely found outside of the Q-lite text.

 

[metis]

I was born into a Catholic tradition and received my first instruction when I turned seven. I know what the Church taught in my youth and I've followed its changes since I left it.

I taught the RCIA program for 14 years and took Catholic theology classes back during my undergrad years. I also taught a comparative religions course. Just because one's a Catholic doesn't mean that they have to turn their brain off.

BTW, the example I used was from a priest from N. Ireland that we had at our parish for several years. An excellent book that covers this is "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide", although I don't know if it's still in publication.

 

[metis]

Since I find Jesus was a theocrat, then it does Not surprise me that you say such an approach doesn't mesh well with democracy.
Jesus was Not a 'modern-day theocrat' meaning the definition of rule by clergy or rule by clergy class.
Rather, Jesus believed in the theocracy of Daniel 2:44 and taught his followers to spread that at Matthew 24:14.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I was not stating nor imply Jesus was a theocrat-- at least in the secular sense of the word. At no point was the early Church a just-do-your-own-thing body, and the evidence for this is quite clearly found in the gospels, plus the books of Acts and the Epistles.

 

[joe1776]

I taught the RCIA program for 14 years and took Catholic theology classes back during my undergrad years. I also taught a comparative religions course. Just because one's a Catholic doesn't mean that they have to turn their brain off.

Since you seem to think so, for the sake of argument, let me grant that, between the two of us that you have more expertise on what it means to be a Catholic. So, enlighten me, please.

Can we start with your explanation of the Catholic teachings on conscience? You referred to a book by the title "Let Your (informed) Conscience Be Your Guide." How does the Catholic inform his conscience? In this thread, Vouthon says that Catholics view conscience as the Voice of God. Does it make sense to you that we could somehow inform the Voice of God? What moral authority presumes to inform God?

 

[metis]

Can we start with your explanation of the Catholic teachings on conscience? You referred to a book by the title "Let Your (informed) Conscience Be Your Guide." How does the Catholic inform his conscience? In this thread, Vouthon says that Catholics view conscience as the Voice of God. Does it make sense to you that we could somehow inform the voice of God?

Through study, prayer, and contemplation. If any one of those is missing it becomes increasingly possible that one can make a mistake. If God truly wants us to believe and obey, then there must be some sort of mechanism for that process to take place. If not, then what's to believe?

Obviously, the Church uses the Bible and early Church tradition as its starting point, and then it moves on from there. However, this only covers the teachings of what the Church believes to be true. As individual Catholics, we take it from there and do with it what we feel is morally right, even if it means going against the Church's teachings at times.

IOW, the Church has its role to teach but we have our role as individuals to listen and then decide what's the most moral course of action for us to take, and this is best achieved through prayer and contemplation.

 

[joe1776]

Through study, prayer, and contemplation. If any one of those is missing it becomes increasingly possible that one can make a mistake. If God truly wants us to believe and obey, then there must be some sort of mechanism for that process to take place. If not, then what's to believe?

Obviously, the Church uses the Bible and early Church tradition as its starting point, and then it moves on from there. However, this only covers the teachings of what the Church believes to be true. As individual Catholics, we take it from there and do with it what we feel is morally right, even if it means going against the Church's teachings at times.

IOW, the Church has its role to teach but we have our role as individuals to listen and then decide what's the most moral course of action for us to take, and this is best achieved through prayer and contemplation.

Your comments would make sense if the judgments of conscience were judgments of reason because then, the precepts could be taught and learned. But the Church's current position is that conscience is an intuitive faculty. (Research has been confirming that, by the way (Haidt 2000))

I think Vouthon is right that the Church's position is that conscience is an intuitive faculty (the Voice of God) that all human beings have. They teach that, in the event of a conflict between the moral teaching of the Church and one's conscience, that Catholics should follow their conscience.

The book you recommended, "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide," was probably written many years ago when the Church was taking the position that the judgments of conscience were judgments of reason. That was Aquinas' thinking. If he had been right, then Conscience could be taught (informed). One might have a Catholic conscience or a Protestant conscience, for example.

 

[metis]

Your comments would make sense if the judgments of conscience were judgments of reason because then, the precepts could be taught and learned. But the Church's current position is that conscience is an intuitive faculty. (Research has been confirming that, by the way (Haidt 2000))

I think Vouthon is right that the Church's position is that conscience is an intuitive faculty (the Voice of God) that all human beings have. They teach that, in the event of a conflict between the moral teaching of the Church and one's conscience, that Catholics should follow their conscience.

The book you recommended, "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide," was probably written many years ago when the Church was taking the position that the judgments of conscience were judgments of reason. That was Aquinas' thinking. If he had been right, then Conscience could be taught (informed). One might have a Catholic conscience or a Protestant conscience, for example.

Trying to define "conscience" is about as "easy" as trying to define "soul". Secondly, if conscience was fully "intuitive" then there would be no variations of conscience, so that position is unrealistic, imo. Most Christians and Christian denominations believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit, and yet there are thousands of denominations and billions of people with all sorts of ideas.

Conscience is not monolithic as one can clearly see for themselves if they get into comparative religions. What's moral in one religion may be totally immoral in another, plus I certainly don't take the position myself that one religion has all "the answers".

Thirdly, we are to be judged by what we as individuals believe and do, not which church we walk into, so it is indeed important to follow our informed conscience. I don't know of a single church that believes otherwise as every church teaches what it believes is right.

Finally, the Church never left Aquinas, so I have no idea where you got that from. We very much are to use reason along with the other steps I mentioned.