None of it is true - Does this bother anyone?

[slave2six]

Slave4six and Madhair,

You are actually overlooking the emerging discussion on the origins of secularization and modernity. I am myself am just venturing out in that area of study, but before you shake your head at me I suggest at least picking up Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age".

Can you define what you mean by "secularization and modernity"? Are you talking about how the Christian faith is becoming more secular/modern or are you implying that the modern secular world is a byproduct of Christian teaching?

 

[slave2six]

That's not something I've ever heard, and I do know that Jesus once said: "Suffer little children, and do not prevent them from coming to me, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

It's weird how many grown-ups quote that but are nevertheless as un-childlike as possible (I'm not saying you but it has been my experience that most adults aren't).

Example - until two years ago, we were raising our kids in the Christian church. About a month ago I was watching a show on Discovery about how the Grand Canyon was formed. My daughter came and watched with me for a while and when the narrator explained that it took millions of years for the canyon to form, she said, "I thought the Earth was only 10,000 years old." (This was something she learned in her Christian school.) At age ten she nailed the core of the conflict. I simply asked her if it's possible for the things that she had been taught to be true or was the physical evidence more reliable. Guess which one she chose? Reason. It was great because I have been very careful lately to teach my kids how to think rather than telling them what to think. I have told them that they can believe whatever they want to about God provided that they never abdicate their brains in the process.

 

[slave2six]

There is a difference in teaching children the lessons of the bible and indoctrinating them.

But that leads to a real conundrum. If you really believe that there is a Hell for those who don't believe in Jesus then not indoctrinating your children is worse than being a silent observer in Nazi Germany. This is why I think it is so important to start talking about the fundamentals of the faith and getting as many people to really think about them as possible. I think that most people are so used to being told what to think that they don't really know how to get to the central issues as I have attempted to do here.

 

[slave2six]

Well then thank god those days are done is all I can say. But why do you think (assuming this is true) it has anything to do with modern Christianity? Yeah, there are some hardcore fundamentalists, but they're a tiny minority.

"Modern Christianity" is a very wide spectrum and, as you infer, much of it would be completely unrecognizable as Christianity by those who founded the religion.

However, there are some fundamentals that remain and these include:

1. There is something fundamentally wrong with human beings
2. This thing causes conflict between man and God
3. The thing cannot be overcome by personal merit or effort
4. Only by accepting Jesus (e.g. his suffering, death and resurrection) can this thing be overcome and peace between man and God be restored
5. Those who do not accept this free gift of Christ will spend eternity (or at least a portion of it) in Hell

Do you disagree with any of this? If you do then we are not talking about the same thing. If you do not then my argument is that #1 is incorrect (for reasons cited before) and therefore #2-5 are meaningless, pointless, and flat out wrong.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I am saying that the notion of the Enlightenment as a simple intellectual emancipation from the Christian religion is far too simplistic a narrative. As I said before, "the secular" itself is a product of the Christian imagination.

Modernity is in some senses the Christian mind in a fun house mirror. But that too would suggest that modernity is merely a distortion of Christianity- another narrative I also reject.

I am by no means trying to corner you into Christianity, but trying to emphasize that the West as it stands in its modern era is in significant debt to the history of Christian thought. The Christian religion set the West out on the path that it is still treading. Is it a wonder that secular humanism is itself a derivative of the Christian humanism of the 15th century? That it too holds up agape as the primary virtue, and is itself a kind of pruned Christian moralism? Or that individualism emerges in the society which declared man to be in the imago Dei, abolished the letter of the law for the law of the heart, produced sola scriptura, beheld a God who "knew you and knit you in your mother's womb", and whose central religious doctrine was, for centuries, the condenscing of divinity into a human individual?

On the flip side, I don't think Christianity can simply beseige itself in the past, but is also called to recognize its own self in the social, political and philosophical developments of the last centuries- to confront them and even to, in some sense, adopt them.

In my opinion, Christianity has contained in itself all along the seeds of its own criticism. It has the potential to be both radically conservative and revolutionary. It is the only religion, as Chesterton said, where God seemed for a moment to be an atheist (in Christ's "my God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?")

 

[challupa]

But that leads to a real conundrum. If you really believe that there is a Hell for those who don't believe in Jesus then not indoctrinating your children is worse than being a silent observer in Nazi Germany. This is why I think it is so important to start talking about the fundamentals of the faith and getting as many people to really think about them as possible. I think that most people are so used to being told what to think that they don't really know how to get to the central issues as I have attempted to do here.

Yes, I do see what you mean. However, after talking to many people I have come to the conclusion that thinking isn't important when it comes to faith. In fact, I think some people are very proud of their strong "faith" in the face of such a lot of scientific evidence. I don't understand it, but I do know it happens all the time. Then there are those who just don't care and just believe anyway. I really don't think many people care to think about the origins of religion and all the contradications because it just doesn't matter to them. I have read so much I couldn't possibly believe in the Judaeo, Christian, Muslim God. I haven't since I was 12. But the family I grew up in were staunch Christians who could never understand how I had the "courage" to not believe. They seem to think that it is their salvation, there get into heaven card, and they say it makes no sense for me to not just go along with it just "in case" it's true. I usually point out to them that if the God they believe in is true, then he would surely be smart enough to see through their ruse. They truly don't understand and they don't want to. It brings them comfort and I am not thinking I have the right to try and destroy that. We agree to disagree these days.

 

[Alceste]

I appreciate your candor. I am new to this forum and so have little experience with other discussions but after a lifetime within the religious community I would hazard a guess that most discussions here are based on the idea that the participants accept the basic premise of the particular religion and like to talk about the nuances thereof. I am more interested in exposing the fallacy of the Christian religion at its most basic levels if for no other reason than to cause those within it to stop and think about what they believe.

Hi, s2s, a quick tour - the religious DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) sections of the forum are for people who would like to discuss the nuances of particular religions, and the forum rules state that non-believers visiting these forums should be respectful and stick to asking questions about the religion in question. That's why I never go there.

The section this thread is in, "Religious Topics" is specifically for the purpose of the discussion and debate of religion, including "exposing the fallacy of the Christian religion at its most basic levels to cause those within it to stop and think about what they believe". You'll be disappointed to find that the majority who participate in the debates already do this though. Nevertheless, it hardly ever stops being fun!

It sounds like you've recently freed yourself from a fundamentalist Christian sect - judging by the fact of your daughter being taught YEC at church - which is great. But your church is not representative of the majority of Christians. Most people in the forum - the exception being the fundies themselves - understand that biblical literalism and the promotion of an Old Testament style God is a recent phenomenon within Christianity. The majority of Christians understand that a story doesn't have to be literally true to be profoundly meaningful. Jesus taught using parables and most Christians are followers of Christ, not Moses.

 

[Alceste]

"Modern Christianity" is a very wide spectrum and, as you infer, much of it would be completely unrecognizable as Christianity by those who founded the religion.

However, there are some fundamentals that remain and these include:

1. There is something fundamentally wrong with human beings
2. This thing causes conflict between man and God
3. The thing cannot be overcome by personal merit or effort
4. Only by accepting Jesus (e.g. his suffering, death and resurrection) can this thing be overcome and peace between man and God be restored
5. Those who do not accept this free gift of Christ will spend eternity (or at least a portion of it) in Hell

Do you disagree with any of this? If you do then we are not talking about the same thing. If you do not then my argument is that #1 is incorrect (for reasons cited before) and therefore #2-5 are meaningless, pointless, and flat out wrong.

I personally know a lot of Christians who don't believe 4 and 5, and would word 2 a little differently (i.e. "distance" where you put "conflict").

 

[slave2six]

I am saying that the notion of the Enlightenment as a simple intellectual emancipation from the Christian religion is far too simplistic a narrative. As I said before, "the secular" itself is a product of the Christian imagination... The Christian religion set the West out on the path that it is still treading.

That is extremely naive. It is nothing of the sort.

The Renaissance was so called because it was a "rebirth" of certain classical ideas that had long been lost to Western Europe (I would contend that they were lost as a direct result of Christianity as it was the prevailing power in Western Europe for 1,000 years).

Renaissance scholars such as Niccolò de' Niccoli and Poggio Bracciolini scoured the libraries of Europe in search of works by such classical authors as Plato, Cicero, Pliny the Elder and Vitruvius. Additionally, as the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula from Islamic Moors progressed, numerous Greek and Arabic works were captured from educational institutions such as the library at Córdoba, which claimed to have 400,000 books. The works of ancient Greek and Hellenistic writers (such as Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, and Plotinus) and Muslim scientists and philosophers (such as Geber, Abulcasis, Alhacen, Avicenna, Avempace, and Averroes), were reintroduced into the Western world, providing new intellectual material for European scholars.

It was the discarding of Christian doctrines and the re-introduction of these earlier works that "set the West out on the path that it is still treading."

 

[slave2six]

The majority of Christians understand that a story doesn't have to be literally true to be profoundly meaningful. Jesus taught using parables and most Christians are followers of Christ, not Moses.

Thanks for the tour. As to the comment above, I would argue that such people do not believe in Christianity as the central doctrine is Christ as the sole means of salvation and not a primer on decent moral behavior. What you are describing sounds to me more like a Universal or Eastern Mystic kind of religion. And if what you are saying is true, more power to them! I have no problem with people taking Christianity as a role model for decent living. I do take issue with those who think or preach that it is the way.

I totally understand that most people need some kind of spirituality in their lives. That's fine. But it's not just the fundies who preach exclusivism. I have plenty of Orthodox friends who think that protestants aren't really Christians at all. It's more rampant than you may suspect.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is extremely naive. It is nothing of the sort.

The Renaissance was so called because it was a "rebirth" of certain classical ideas that had long been lost to Western Europe (I would contend that they were lost as a direct result of Christianity as it was the prevailing power in Western Europe for 1,000 years).

Renaissance scholars such as Niccolò de' Niccoli and Poggio Bracciolini scoured the libraries of Europe in search of works by such classical authors as Plato, Cicero, Pliny the Elder and Vitruvius. Additionally, as the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula from Islamic Moors progressed, numerous Greek and Arabic works were captured from educational institutions such as the library at Córdoba, which claimed to have 400,000 books. The works of ancient Greek and Hellenistic writers (such as Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, and Plotinus) and Muslim scientists and philosophers (such as Geber, Abulcasis, Alhacen, Avicenna, Avempace, and Averroes), were reintroduced into the Western world, providing new intellectual material for European scholars.

It was the discarding of Christian doctrines and the re-introduction of these earlier works that "set the West out on the path that it is still treading."

But would that have happened if it weren't for the Dark Ages? (And yes, I do acknowledge that time period as "dark," and fully place the cause within the political Catholic Church, which ruled most of Europe with an iron fist, at the time.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Thanks for the tour. As to the comment above, I would argue that such people do not believe in Christianity as the central doctrine is Christ as the sole means of salvation and not a primer on decent moral behavior. What you are describing sounds to me more like a Universal or Eastern Mystic kind of religion. And if what you are saying is true, more power to them! I have no problem with people taking Christianity as a role model for decent living. I do take issue with those who think or preach that it is the way.

I totally understand that most people need some kind of spirituality in their lives. That's fine. But it's not just the fundies who preach exclusivism. I have plenty of Orthodox friends who think that protestants aren't really Christians at all. It's more rampant than you may suspect.

I understand that, as well. It's just primarily the fundies who are the loudest.

And, if you read what Jesus taught, and compare and contrast his teachings with those of Hindu/Buddhist Sages, you'll find a striking resemblance. I have a theory (as yet untested, and probably untestable at the moment) that Jesus was, at some point in his life, exposed to Eastern spirituality, and adapted the teachings into his native Judaism. (I'm not the first one to come up with this: read The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ index, which I didn't know about until after I came up with my theory, and actually haven't read yet; but one glance at the Table of Contents told me all I needed to know about what the author thought.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'd be interested in your evidence to the contrary. Have you read Jesus' genealogy in Matthew? It goes all the way to Adam. If Adam wasn't a literal person then one would have to suggest that neither was Moses or David. Certainly the literal genealogy was important to the Gospel writer because it was his Exhibit A of why Jesus was in fact the Messiah.

This is another reason I asked why can't we assume Yeshua to be a metaphor...(allegory). Why is the Flood story, Adam and Eve and a few other stories considered Allegory but not the story of Yeshua...?

 

[Alceste]

Thanks for the tour. As to the comment above, I would argue that such people do not believe in Christianity as the central doctrine is Christ as the sole means of salvation and not a primer on decent moral behavior. What you are describing sounds to me more like a Universal or Eastern Mystic kind of religion. And if what you are saying is true, more power to them! I have no problem with people taking Christianity as a role model for decent living. I do take issue with those who think or preach that it is the way.

I totally understand that most people need some kind of spirituality in their lives. That's fine. But it's not just the fundies who preach exclusivism. I have plenty of Orthodox friends who think that protestants aren't really Christians at all. It's more rampant than you may suspect.

What I'm trying to tell you is that's just your particular sect. I am actually describing what my father learned at university in the process of obtaining his theology degree in order to be a minister in the United Church of Canada.

The UCC, of course, is also just one sect, but it is the second largest sect in Canada after Catholicism. It's a sect whose elected moderator (UCC's top dog) once stated that he believed Christ was fully human and the story of the resurrection was not literally true, and one that openly lobbies for homosexual civil rights and has accepted openly gay ministers since 1988.

Granted, it's a general rule that some degree of faith in the basic principle that Christ was a living God who died and rose again is present in someone who calls themselves a "Christian" - the moderator above sparked quite a controversy with his views - but it doesn't go nearly as far as you've been brought up to think it does.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The Dark Ages were not caused by Christianity. Which scholars are teaching that today? Civilization collapsed in the West, on account of the barbarian influx among other reasons. If the Christian Church did anything in this period, it was to preserve of the fallen Rome what it could. The Christian East maintained until the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century.

Why is it, on the one side, we have people lambasting Christianity for Hellenizing the message of Jesus [ a supposed corruption] and, on the other, for burying everything good Greece ever gave to the world?

Would you have us believe that Christianity simply took the worst of every surrounding culture?

You should remember that it was clergymen who translated into Latin whatever of the ancient Greek literature that existed until the Renaissance. Or remember that Augustine was a neo-Platonist (and then the entire West after him, Augustinian), Aquinas an Aristotelian, Echkhart and Fiore the "proto-moderns". I would also look into the Christianity of Kant or or Hegel while you are at it. For both, especially Hegel, Christianity had a very important (if highly unorthodox) place.

If there are Hellenistic elements in the West today, they underwent a fundamental transformation in their contact with Christianity.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Dark Ages were not caused by Christianity. Which scholars are teaching that today? Civilization collapsed in the West, on account of the barbarian influx among other reasons. If the Christian Church did anything in this period, it was to preserve of the fallen Rome what it could. The Christian East maintained until the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century.

Why is it, on the one side, we have people lambasting Christianity for Hellenizing the message of Jesus [ a supposed corruption] and, on the other, for burying everything good Greece ever gave to the world?

Would you have us believe that Christianity simply took the worst of every surrounding culture?

You should remember that it was clergymen who translated into Latin whatever of the ancient Greek literature that existed until the Renaissance. Or remember that Augustine was a neo-Platonist (and then the entire West after him, Augustinian), Aquinas an Aristotelian, Echkhart and Fiore the "proto-moderns". I would also look into the Christianity of Kant or or Hegel while you are at it. For both, especially Hegel, Christianity had a very important (if highly unorthodox) place.

If there are Hellenistic elements in the West today, they underwent a fundamental transformation in their contact with Christianity.

Okay, let me clarify: the political Catholic Church (AT THE TIME!!!), by which I mean the Church's heavy political influence at the time, was a factor in the suppression of peasants and frequent witch-hunts/burnings. From what I understand, the vast majority of the population was illiterate, and THAT is one of the reasons why it's called "dark."

Christianity (more specifically, Catholicism) itself didn't cause it. It was the heavy political influence it had at the time. At, as you remind me, it wasn't the ONLY cause; there were many factors.

This is primarily what I learned in school, which I'll admit is not the best source of accurate historical information. But it does seem to follow through with what I've seen people say.

 

[slave2six]

Yes, I do see what you mean. However, after talking to many people I have come to the conclusion that thinking isn't important when it comes to faith. In fact, I think some people are very proud of their strong "faith" in the face of such a lot of scientific evidence. I don't understand it, but I do know it happens all the time. Then there are those who just don't care and just believe anyway. I really don't think many people care to think about the origins of religion and all the contradications because it just doesn't matter to them. I have read so much I couldn't possibly believe in the Judaeo, Christian, Muslim God. I haven't since I was 12. But the family I grew up in were staunch Christians who could never understand how I had the "courage" to not believe. They seem to think that it is their salvation, there get into heaven card, and they say it makes no sense for me to not just go along with it just "in case" it's true. I usually point out to them that if the God they believe in is true, then he would surely be smart enough to see through their ruse. They truly don't understand and they don't want to. It brings them comfort and I am not thinking I have the right to try and destroy that. We agree to disagree these days.

Yes. You have some very valid points. Becoming non-religious has been a very freeing experience for me. I have friends who are happy in their little Christian world although they are trapped in a vicious cycle of life sucking because God hasn't come to the rescue yet (as opposed to taking life by the horns) and the never-ending "well, I just have to trust God that things will get better" and to me that is very sad. Then there are those who are professionals Christians. With them I have a huge beef because they ought to know better.

I worked a TBN telethon once as an operator and I cannot tell you how many poor saps called in pledging money "so that God can release a blessing on me" or so that they would be healed of some disease or even so that they might be forgiven for something that was really troubling them. It was nauseating and I cannot tell you how many such people there are.

Do we not have an obligation to help such people out of the slavery of their religion? Surely we can ask them to think. If they refuse to, that's their lookout but how do you walk by something like that and not scream to the heavens?

And it's not just the con artists on TBN. Anyone that teaches salvation though accepting the atonement of Christ ought to be taken to task because their the ones who enslave others.

 

[slave2six]

But would that have happened if it weren't for the Dark Ages? (And yes, I do acknowledge that time period as "dark," and fully place the cause within the political Catholic Church, which ruled most of Europe with an iron fist, at the time.)

Well, I think the idea of a "rebirth" is important. It implies that something died. Had these things never been lost to begin with, there would not have been a Dark Ages and we would be much further along as a species than we are at present.

 

[slave2six]

I understand that, as well. It's just primarily the fundies who are the loudest.

And, if you read what Jesus taught, and compare and contrast his teachings with those of Hindu/Buddhist Sages, you'll find a striking resemblance. I have a theory (as yet untested, and probably untestable at the moment) that Jesus was, at some point in his life, exposed to Eastern spirituality, and adapted the teachings into his native Judaism. (I'm not the first one to come up with this: read The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ index, which I didn't know about until after I came up with my theory, and actually haven't read yet; but one glance at the Table of Contents told me all I needed to know about what the author thought.)

Well, according to the story, Jesus did live in Egypt as a child. That would make total sense. Besides, the Mediterranean was replete with Eastern teaching at the time. He would not have had to go very far to hear it.

 

[challupa]

Yes. You have some very valid points. Becoming non-religious has been a very freeing experience for me. I have friends who are happy in their little Christian world although they are trapped in a vicious cycle of life sucking because God hasn't come to the rescue yet (as opposed to taking life by the horns) and the never-ending "well, I just have to trust God that things will get better" and to me that is very sad. Then there are those who are professionals Christians. With them I have a huge beef because they ought to know better.

I worked a TBN telethon once as an operator and I cannot tell you how many poor saps called in pledging money "so that God can release a blessing on me" or so that they would be healed of some disease or even so that they might be forgiven for something that was really troubling them. It was nauseating and I cannot tell you how many such people there are.

Do we not have an obligation to help such people out of the slavery of their religion? Surely we can ask them to think. If they refuse to, that's their lookout but how do you walk by something like that and not scream to the heavens?

And it's not just the con artists on TBN. Anyone that teaches salvation though accepting the atonement of Christ ought to be taken to task because their the ones who enslave others.

I guess I am overwhelmed by what a huge undertaking it would be to try and get people to quit preaching what has been preached for 2000 years or more. It has been very lucrative and it's not about to end anytime soon. I wrote a book called "Redefining Religion for Our Modern World: Can we find a balance?" and I have had many conversations because of it of course. People will believe what they want to believe. That is their right of course. Just as it is our right not to believe. In the end it really doesn't matter I guess. When we die, we will either not know another thing because it all ends, or we will find out that there is no jealous, mean God waiting to judge us and send us to hell. Either way, it just doesn't matter. We choose our life experience and if that means believing in God, well.... I honestly think the whole purpose of taking on a physical existence is for the experience, whatever that may be. I don't mean we can condone an "anything goes" mentality, but really, in the end, dead is dead.