Does all of Christianity operate under a shared delusion?

[Darkness]

Do all Christian sects have a shared delusion?

Being there are many, many different Christian denominations with their own beliefs. Even as I do not belong to any Christian sect, I cannot say they share any delusion. I find it plausable a god exists and this god interacts with humanity at least some of the time.

There are Christians like the Ku Klux Klan who are vicious savages, and there are Christians who risk their lives bringing vital supplies to starving people. Christians are as diverse as the rest of humanity.

 

[Mister Emu]

I guess mr. Emu should be the arbiter of what it would take to consider a belief to be universal among christians.

I didn't know I engendered that kind of responsibility Thanks for your trust, but I am not sure I am up to the task of defining Christianty

The way it's always been done: by the use of arrogance, intolerance and condescension.

So you are saying that arrogance, intolerance and condescension equate to a delusional belief system? Is this based on your belief system, or objective analysis?

BTW, good to see you again Doc.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Not all Christian sects believe in substitutionary atonement... at least I don't believe so...

I have been waiting for a response to my post. I do not know of any portion of Christianity that does not believe in "substitutionary atonement" as you called it (i.e. the primitive practice of human sacrifice as I stated). You mentioned that you do not know of any sect of Christianity that does not believe in that either. So could you address what I brought up in my post?

 

[Ozzie]

If we can't even find a shared belief then it is obviously impossible for us to be deluded about it.

I guess it all comes down to whether God exists or not.

Kierkegaard suggested an excellent way to verify God's existance (to some philosophers he didn't like too much) but I for one am not interested in finding out so quickly...

Please share Kierkegaard's method.

 

[Booko]

"Does all of Christianity operate under a shared delusion?"



If I were still a member of the Awards Committee, I would nominate this predicated inquiry as "Most Loaded Question of the Month".

Unfortunately, we don't have an award for that...hm....maybe you should suggest in Site Feedback that the Awards Committee consider handing out "special" awards from time to time. They might not come with a ribbon, but we could give out points or something.

Or maybe a month of access to the RF Executive Washroom...

I'd certainly second the "Most Loaded Question" award for this OP!

 

[Scuba Pete]

So you are saying that arrogance, intolerance and condescension equate to a delusional belief system? Is this based on your belief system, or objective analysis?

Nice twist. However, any combination of the three usually result in thinking OTHERS are delusional in their beliefs. Put all three together and we will see people attempt to segregate those who believe differently from their society.

BTW, good to see you again Doc.

Thanks, I only was gone a month and back longer than that now. I didn't even announce it, but it's nice to see that my absence was noticed.

 

[logician]

"Kierkegaard suggested an excellent way to verify God's existance"

One must define what a god is first, few people can do that to any general satisfaction.

 

[Mister Emu]

Nice twist. However, any combination of the three usually result in thinking OTHERS are delusional in their beliefs.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post...

Thanks, I only was gone a month and back longer than that now. I didn't even announce it, but it's nice to see that my absence was noticed

Lol... I assumed you had been gone because of S2a's post :sorry1:

 

[Comprehend]

Please share Kierkegaard's method.

Kill themselves (he was a little angry)

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you hanging.

 

[Mister Emu]

You mentioned that you do not know of any sect of Christianity that does not believe in that either

I believe I know of at least one major one, but I wouldn't want to speak for them...

 

[James the Persian]

Not all Christian sects believe in substitutionary atonement... at least I don't believe so...

You're quite right. The substitutionary atonement idea is a peculiarly western interpretation of soteriology. We don't adhere to it but rather go along with the Incarnational soteriology of the early Fathers like St. Athanasius. The very idea of viewing sin as crime, using a judicial metaphor for the Church etc. seems rather foreign to us. You do find some juridical metaphors in eastern thought, but they are minor - the much more dominant one is medical and the dominant soteriology is not about the Crucifixion atoning for man's sins but rather of the entire Incarnation being a reconciliation between Creator and creation. It's very different and so yuvgotmel's previous post is far from accurate.

James

 

[James the Persian]

I have been waiting for a response to my post. I do not know of any portion of Christianity that does not believe in "substitutionary atonement" as you called it (i.e. the primitive practice of human sacrifice as I stated). You mentioned that you do not know of any sect of Christianity that does not believe in that either. So could you address what I brought up in my post?

I've answered it for him. The second largest church on earth and at least one other (the Oriental Orthodox) do not adhere to the concept of penal substitutionary atonement, and never have done.

James

 

[wizanda]

Works gets you an inheritance according to Christ, and repentance of sins is how you are forgiven.
Christ gave up everything to follow what is right, even if standing alone.

Christ death gets you an inheritance according to John, Paul and Simon whom where all Pharisee, from the way they taught and what Yeshua said about, not to follow!
Don’t give up anything, just give it up for Christ to do??

Come on that is simplest can make the whole thing, it can’t be that hard to see; Can it?
One is delusional, and the other is a peaceful world….

 

[yuvgotmel]

You're quite right. The substitutionary atonement idea is a peculiarly western interpretation of soteriology. We don't adhere to it but rather go along with the Incarnational soteriology of the early Fathers like St. Athanasius. The very idea of viewing sin as crime, using a judicial metaphor for the Church etc. seems rather foreign to us. You do find some juridical metaphors in eastern thought, but they are minor - the much more dominant one is medical and the dominant soteriology is not about the Crucifixion atoning for man's sins but rather of the entire Incarnation being a reconciliation between Creator and creation. It's very different and so yuvgotmel's previous post is far from accurate.

James

Are you saying that the Romanian Orthodox does not believe that Jesus was sacrificed on a cross? Are you saying that the Romanian Orthodox does not believe that the sacrifice on the cross (of Jesus) was for a specific purpose (other than murder and/or capital punishment)?

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure if you really want an answer to that, but I have one anyway. Yes, Christianity (and all its' sects and branches) share a delusion and that concerns sacrifice...human sacrifice to be specific, which is not and never was a method to atonement.

Excerpts from [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]“The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt” by Hyam Maccoby, p.98~106

[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]---[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]----
The Passover sacrifice, as it happens, was not an atoning sacrifice in the practice of Judaism. It was rather an affirmation of thanks to God for the deliverance from Egypt and for the Covenant. It is true that the ‘Passover sacrifice of Egypt’ (as the original sacrifice described in Exodus was called) was a protective sacrifice by which the disaster decreed against the Egyptians was warded off from the Israelites. But the ‘Passover sacrifice of the generations’ had none of this aura of fear; it was carefully distinguished from the Egypt sacrifice and had different laws for its observance. This is not a trivial point, for it applies to the Temple system of sacrifices as a whole. This system was not directed towards salvation. That had taken place long ago, at the time of the institution of the Covenant.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]--------[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This piecemeal, rational approach was due to the conviction that the great sacrifice (the Akedah) had taken place long ago, that the Covenant had resulted from it, and that the worshipper thus lived in spiritual security within it. The Christian attitude to sacrifice, on the other hand, arose out of the shattering of this sense of security (or, more accurately, it arose from the standpoint of those who had never acquired it). To the author of the Epistle to the Hebrew, the fact that the Jewish sacrifices had to be continually repeated showed that they were ‘imperfect’—that they left the problem of sin essentially unsolved. What was needed was a solution that would end the problem of sin once and for all. Christianity, in fact, was a return to the condition of primitive dread, in which the primary problem is not ‘How shall I improve my deeds?’ but ‘How shall I be saved?’[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is therefore quite mistaken to see the Christian concept of sacrifice as arising naturally out of the Jewish sacrificial system, or as providing the climax to which it tended. On the contrary, the natural tendency of Judaism was in Christianity catastrophically reversed. The whole tendency of the Jewish system was to reduce the importance of sacrifice; the very term ‘sacrifice’ is a misnomer in relation to the majority of the offerings of the Jerusalem Temple, where in general the tone set was that of a communal meal with God, with the aim of thanksgiving rather than of redemption. In Christianity the age-loving Jewish process of sublimation disappears as if in a sudden bout of psychosis. We are back at the primitive level at which the abyss opens and panic requires a victim. It is not surprising in these circumstances that the human victim reappears, after so many centuries of animal substitution. It is not surprising either that the theme of mass redemption reappears, so long after its replacement in Judaism by the theme of individual self-improvement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But this air of sudden psychosis is really misleading, because Christianity is not an incident in the history of Judaism, but in the history of Hellenistic religion.[/FONT]​

The excerpt is misleading. It makes assumptions about Xy from an obviously non-Xian POV, and then uses those assumptions as proofs.

The theology of grace tells us that by Christ's incarnation, humanity was reconciled to God. Christ came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. In fact, the Law was seen as salvific by the Jews. God reveals God's self to us in Torah. Jesus fulfills the Law by making perfect that revelation of God to humanity. In his incarnation, God does not appear just as Torah wisdom, but as one of us, showing that humanity and God are, indeed, reconciled.

The Christian ethic is all about "improving our deeds," as the article puts it. "Love God -- love your neighbor. All the Law and prophets depend upon these two." This does not shatter the Law, but lifts it up as a standard, not for individuals, but for the whole human community.

The mistake the author makes is in his assumption of substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary atonement has never been the majority theological viewpoint of Xy.

What is highlighted in the last full paragraph is particularly heinous. Xian belief has it that Christ closed the abyss. There is no fear, because God is with us (Emmanuel). No victim is required. Christ died in order to destroy death. Where is the victim? Christ conquered death and lives.

The author obviously does not understand either Christian theology, or the concept of grace, as we understand it.

The delusion appears, here, to be in the mind of the author, propagated by his misunderstanding.

 

[yuvgotmel]

The excerpt is misleading. It makes assumptions about Xy from an obviously non-Xian POV, and then uses those assumptions as proofs.

The theology of grace tells us that by Christ's incarnation, humanity was reconciled to God. Christ came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. In fact, the Law was seen as salvific by the Jews. God reveals God's self to us in Torah. Jesus fulfills the Law by making perfect that revelation of God to humanity. In his incarnation, God does not appear just as Torah wisdom, but as one of us, showing that humanity and God are, indeed, reconciled.

The Christian ethic is all about "improving our deeds," as the article puts it. "Love God -- love your neighbor. All the Law and prophets depend upon these two." This does not shatter the Law, but lifts it up as a standard, not for individuals, but for the whole human community.

The mistake the author makes is in his assumption of substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary atonement has never been the majority theological viewpoint of Xy.

What is highlighted in the last full paragraph is particularly heinous. Xian belief has it that Christ closed the abyss. There is no fear, because God is with us (Emmanuel). No victim is required. Christ died in order to destroy death. Where is the victim? Christ conquered death and lives.

The author obviously does not understand either Christian theology, or the concept of grace, as we understand it.

The delusion appears, here, to be in the mind of the author, propagated by his misunderstanding.

I'm rather chuckling at what you wrote, because the author of that excerpt was considered a genius in his field. He wrote extensively on the New Testament too. And in the book (quoted above), he did, whether many agree or not, get to the core of human sacrifice as it is intepreted in Christianity, even if it may be unpleasant.

You can read more about this subject:
"The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt" by Hyam Maccoby
"The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity" by Jon D. Levenson
"The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice" by Patrick Tierney
​

Here is my own story:

I remember that I was about six years old at the time of my first taste of blood. Oh, wait...It was "grape juice." I sat there in the pew wide-eyed and trembling as my father handed me the wafer and plastic cup of a swallow's worth of grape juice. For some reason, that tiny little crumb and dribble of juice scared me to no end. I remember the preacher reading the scriptures about eating the flesh. I was trembling. I felt weak in my stomach. Everyone in the congregation ate their wafer. All except me. I just held it, not even wanting to be holding it. Then I remember hearing the preacher talking about drinking the blood of Christ. I shivered and looked at that little plastic cup. Everyone guzzled it up. All except me. I just sat there not knowing what to do. My dad was getting irritated at me for not participating. I remember his words to this day: "Missy, it's not real blood. Missy, drink it. It's not real blood. Missy, it's not real blood."


​

I was scared to no end. And it did not end there. Every time communion was presented in the church, I would get very nervous. Some times, I totally refused it. As an adult, even watching a documentary on ancient practices, I would be reminded of communion in Christianity. For me, it was obvious. It may bug most Christians to have to admit it and look at it sincerely with honest eyes, but for me, it is glaringly obvious.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
Deuteronomy 12:23~25: "Be extremely careful not to eat the blood, since the blood is associated with the spiritual nature, and when you eat flesh, you shall not ingest the spiritual nature along with it. Since you must not eat the blood, you can pour it on the ground like water. If you do not eat it, you and your descendants will have a good life, since you will be doing what is morally right in God's eyes."
​

 

[sojourner]

I'm rather chuckling at what you wrote, because the author of that excerpt was considered a genius in his field. He wrote extensively on the New Testament too. And in the book (quoted above), he did, whether many agree or not, get to the core of human sacrifice as it is intepreted in Christianity, even if it may be unpleasant.

You can read more about this subject:
"The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt" by Hyam Maccoby
"The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity" by Jon D. Levenson
"The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice" by Patrick Tierney
​

Here is my own story:

I remember that I was about six years old at the time of my first taste of blood. Oh, wait...It was "grape juice." I sat there in the pew wide-eyed and trembling as my father handed me the wafer and plastic cup of a swallow's worth of grape juice. For some reason, that tiny little crumb and dribble of juice scared me to no end. I remember the preacher reading the scriptures about eating the flesh. I was trembling. I felt weak in my stomach. Everyone in the congregation ate their wafer. All except me. I just held it, not even wanting to be holding it. Then I remember hearing the preacher talking about drinking the blood of Christ. I shivered and looked at that little plastic cup. Everyone guzzled it up. All except me. I just sat there not knowing what to do. My dad was getting irritated at me for not participating. I remember his words to this day: "Missy, it's not real blood. Missy, drink it. It's not real blood. Missy, it's not real blood."


​

I was scared to no end. And it did not end there. Every time communion was presented in the church, I would get very nervous. Some times, I totally refused it. As an adult, even watching a documentary on ancient practices, I would be reminded of communion in Christianity. For me, it was obvious. It may bug most Christians to have to admit it and look at it sincerely with honest eyes, but for me, it is glaringly obvious.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
Deuteronomy 12:23~25: "Be extremely careful not to eat the blood, since the blood is associated with the spiritual nature, and when you eat flesh, you shall not ingest the spiritual nature along with it. Since you must not eat the blood, you can pour it on the ground like water. If you do not eat it, you and your descendants will have a good life, since you will be doing what is morally right in God's eyes."
​

I don't care if he was a genius in my field. Scholars are not above reproach and understand themselves to be fair game for argument. His field is obviously not Christian theology. He does not "get to the core of human sacrifice as it is interpreted in Christianity," since he is basing that core upon substitutionary atonement, which most Christians do not espouse.

The trauma you experienced as a six-year-old has informed your own adult concept of Christian theology. I'm sorry you were traumatized by that event, but your trauma does not inform the theology of the rest of Christendom, nor does it negate it.

 

[yuvgotmel]

I don't care if he was a genius in my field. Scholars are not above reproach and understand themselves to be fair game for argument. His field is obviously not Christian theology. He does not "get to the core of human sacrifice as it is interpreted in Christianity," since he is basing that core upon substitutionary atonement, which most Christians do not espouse.

The trauma you experienced as a six-year-old has informed your own adult concept of Christian theology. I'm sorry you were traumatized by that event, but your trauma does not inform the theology of the rest of Christendom, nor does it negate it.

You can continue to wrestle with this; that is on you. In doing so, ask yourself this question: IF JESUS WAS NOT CRUCIFIED ON THE CROSS (or "sacrificed" in any other way), WOULD IT CHANGE YOUR VIEWS?

 

[yuvgotmel]

I don't care if he was a genius in my field. Scholars are not above reproach and understand themselves to be fair game for argument. His field is obviously not Christian theology. He does not "get to the core of human sacrifice as it is interpreted in Christianity," since he is basing that core upon substitutionary atonement, which most Christians do not espouse.

The trauma you experienced as a six-year-old has informed your own adult concept of Christian theology. I'm sorry you were traumatized by that event, but your trauma does not inform the theology of the rest of Christendom, nor does it negate it.

You wrote that "most Christians" (throughout the entire world) do not espouse "substitutionary atonement" (i.e. human sacrifice).

"Most" ...."MOST Christians"? Here is a statistical breakdown of demonations, branches and sects of Christianity....

Excerpt from http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity

Christianity: David B. Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia (1994 update) gives an oft-cited figure of 1.9 billion Christians (or about 33% of the world population), and projected that by the year 2000 there will be 2.1 billion Christians in the world. The 2001 edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia stated there were 2.1 billion Christians in the world, or 33% of the total population. Regardless of the degree of accuracy of this figure, Christianity, if taken as a whole, is unarguably the largest world religion - the largest religion in the world. (Keep in mind that although Christianity is the world's largest religion, it is an umbrella term that comprises many different branches and denominations.)

.....
For statistical purposes: Groups which self-identify as part of Christianity include (but are not limited to): African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God; Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons"), Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church, Lutherans, Methodists, Monophysites, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches (Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of Christ"; the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity, cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups. None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid. David Barrett, an Evangelical Christian who is the compiler of religion statistics for the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Christian Encyclopedia, includes all of the groups listed above in the worldwide statistics for Christianity.


​

The Catholic Church makes up about half of the percentage of Christians on the entire planet. http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html#International

Catholic Church 1,100,000,000
​

The Catholic Church definitely believes in the "substitutionary atonement" (i.e. human sacrifice). And, that is only the half of Christians on the entire world...not counting the Protestant demonations, which also believe the same thing.

"MOST" Christians DO believe in "substitutionary atonement" (i.e. human sacrifice).
​

 

[autonomous1one1]

But even then, we don't all believe in Jesus in nearly the same way. You have the traditional Triune God, the Mormon Godhead, Modalists, Monophysites, Arians, etc. etc...

I got as basic as I could and only came up with two... God exists, and God interacts with humanity... and I am not even sure if every sect believes the latter...

Greetings Emu. You have eliminated the latter and I have to eliminate the first - 'God does not exist' according to my favorite Christian philosophical theologian, the late Paul Tillich. Tillich says that to use the word 'exists' limits God; it puts God into existence (space-time) along side every other finite 'thing.' He says "God is." So that leaves me with only one delusion that all Christians share: the delusion that they believe non-Christians have validity when they say that all Christians share a common delusion.