Would Christianity Survive without the filter of a Church?

[samaelrocks]

What this means is:

If it was not the first church's that put the Bible together in the first place, would Christianity exist?

Without the filter of a minister, would you be able to read the Bible independently and get a moral compass from it that would work in any culture, especially, civilized culture?

Based on what the Bible says, would the Bible's philosophy of morality support a modern culture?

===============================================

My stance from growing up in Church and then reading the Bible without a filter caused me to become quite the skeptic. Without the pictures we see in Sunday school, I read many stories in the Old Testament to be very cruel and frankly, something that I'd expect to hear from a drunk talking about a past war he was in.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I don't as a rule think religion can have much of a role without a dharmic approach, so maybe it would exist yet be more dharmic?

 

[rusra02]

What this means is:

If it was not the first church's that put the Bible together in the first place, would Christianity exist?

Without the filter of a minister, would you be able to read the Bible independently and get a moral compass from it that would work in any culture, especially, civilized culture?

Based on what the Bible says, would the Bible's philosophy of morality support a modern culture?

===============================================

My stance from growing up in Church and then reading the Bible without a filter caused me to become quite the skeptic. Without the pictures we see in Sunday school, I read many stories in the Old Testament to be very cruel and frankly, something that I'd expect to hear from a drunk talking about a past war he was in.

Would the Bible support a modern culture? You have only to look at those who truly follow the Bible to see it's benefits. A world-wide brotherhood, united in peace, rejecting war, living happy lives free from the vices that plague mankind. I think the results speak for themselves for the one true religion that follows Bible teachings, and worships the one true God.

 

[samaelrocks]

Well considering there's so many different flavors of Christianity, I'm not sure it's ever been dharmic, as you say. What I see in the U.S. and different regions varying teachings of Christianity and varying degrees of right and wrong per the religion.

I believe that Religion was brought on by trying to explain the unknown through a belief in God and applied cultural moral codes to whatever philosophy happened to be the majority.

Therefore, over 1,000's of years, I cannot see how any religion would last past a few generations without the filter of a church or minister. I focus on Christianity because that's what I know and has the majority of followers globally. But as you know, when you go country to country, moral codes and the arguments for or against based on the Christian faith are completely different. Mainly, types of punishment for various moral crimes, for example.

 

[samaelrocks]

Rusra02, you are assuming everyone decides to follow a Christian doctrine (which one?) globally making everyone the same. Of course, if everyone was the same and like minded regardless of what religion you choose, there will be world peace. No debate there. That could mean everyone practices the tenants of Satanism. Same thing. There would be peace if everyone followed Satanism.

Building on your comment. What do you mean when you say "truly follow the Bible? I need to understand how you believe in God. Do you believe Jesus is God? Do you believe in a Trinity? Do you believe Jesus and God are two separate entities? That makes a difference in how you view or read the Bible.

For example, if you believe that Jesus is God, you'd have to also believe then that the Laws and cruelty in the Old Testament were commanded by Jesus. If not, then you can get a by on the Old Testament and talk about how Jesus returned to save man kind from God's wrath and the Bible's idea of sin.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well considering there's so many different flavors of Christianity, I'm not sure it's ever been dharmic, as you say.

Yet by my turn I have no doubt that it has often been. It could hardly have survived for more than, say, two generations at most without any Dharma.

I lack a proper source right now, but it has been pointed to me that St. Francis of Assisi is reported to have been told by Hindus that what he taught was Sanatana Dharma, for instance.

What I see in the U.S. and different regions varying teachings of Christianity and varying degrees of right and wrong per the religion.

I agree. I will even say that it is inevitable, although not incurable, or even necessarily wrong. To a degree what is right or wrong will indeed vary among cultures. That is not necessarily a problem.

I believe that Religion was brought on by trying to explain the unknown through a belief in God and applied cultural moral codes to whatever philosophy happened to be the majority.

There is certainly some of that. I don't know how often it happened in that exact way, though.

Therefore, over 1,000's of years, I cannot see how any religion would last past a few generations without the filter of a church or minister.

By changing according the cultural circunstances and the wisdom of their best adherents.

I focus on Christianity because that's what I know and has the majority of followers globally. But as you know, when you go country to country, moral codes and the arguments for or against based on the Christian faith are completely different. Mainly, types of punishment for various moral crimes, for example.

Indeed.

 

[Father Heathen]

What this means is:

If it was not the first church's that put the Bible together in the first place, would Christianity exist?

Without the filter of a minister, would you be able to read the Bible independently and get a moral compass from it that would work in any culture, especially, civilized culture?

Based on what the Bible says, would the Bible's philosophy of morality support a modern culture?

===============================================

My stance from growing up in Church and then reading the Bible without a filter caused me to become quite the skeptic. Without the pictures we see in Sunday school, I read many stories in the Old Testament to be very cruel and frankly, something that I'd expect to hear from a drunk talking about a past war he was in.

Christianity would be more diverse and fluid without the rigid stagnancy of monolithic institutions.

 

[columbus]

Christianity would be more diverse and fluid without the rigid stagnancy of monolithic institutions.

I don't think Jesus would even recognize, much less own, what is now referred to as The Church. He would be horrified by the heresy of trinitarianism and appalled by the evil things people do because they believe ancient scripture commands it.

Tom

 

[samaelrocks]

Sharing an example of my experience growing up and why am such an avid anti-theist:

What I heard in church regarding Job's test was, "And the Devil challenged God that his servant Job would turn away if he wasn't blessed with riches, family, etc. God allowed the Devil to do anything he wanted to Job except kill him to show the Devil that Job was righteous in his faith. And when Job prayed to God after his turmoil, God blessed Job in abundance of what he had! Praise God!"

Now what I read as I grew older on my own, unfiltered:

"God takes a bet from the Devil that Job would remain faithful even if he allowed the Devil to take everything from him. Even though God already knew the outcome and presumably, the Devil did too. The bet happened anyway and the outcome surprised no one. God won a bet against the Devil in which God already could see the cards and all at the expense of a dead wife, children, slaves and cattle."

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think Jesus would even recognize, much less own, what is now referred to as The Church. He would be horrified by the heresy of trinitarianism and appalled by the evil things people do because they believe ancient scripture commands it.

Tom

Why would Jesus much care about trinitarianism? In fact, why does anyone? In practice it amounts to little (if anything) more than having a couple of fancy names for God.

 

[LuisDantas]

I suppose so. Any threads worth a visit?

 

[samaelrocks]

Mainly Facebook. I'm new here so not sure on this site.

 

[technomage]

If it was not the first church's that put the Bible together in the first place, would Christianity exist?

Christianity existed for at least fifteen years before Paul wrote his first letter, and for at least forty years before the first (surviving) Gospel was written.

Without the filter of a minister, would you be able to read the Bible independently and get a moral compass from it that would work in any culture, especially, civilized culture?

It is possible. As a former Christian, I was (and am) relatively well-versed in the Bible. However, I will note that the Bible is interpreted, as any other book, by the mind of the reader as influenced by the culture that mind has grown up in. There is no such thing as reading the Bible "unfiltered"--we ALL filter what we read through our worldview.

Based on what the Bible says, would the Bible's philosophy of morality support a modern culture?

Possible.

 

[samaelrocks]

Christianity existed for at least fifteen years before Paul wrote his first letter, and for at least forty years before the first (surviving) Gospel was written.

You're only talking a few thousand people in a very concentrated area though. I think without a talking head, the message would be lost in a couple generations.

One reason I think like this is what I "hear" Christians say they believe and who told them what the Bible said. Look at the story of the Deluge. It's retold as a child's story. The horror of that type of event is covered up, in a sense. In fact, a large Baptist church close to me with almost 10k members has Noah's ark images of happy animals and a happy family with a nice colorful rainbow painted over the Sunday school walls.

What if a 10 year old was told that story the way the Bible actually states it with total destruction? What if you put the images of dying babies, puppies and kittens in their heads when retelling it?

I believe that most Christians don't actually read the Bible outside of what verses someone points them too and then interprets them. If rational people read the Bible without a church head (the filter I'm referring to), the religion would go away after a few generations.

 

[columbus]

Why would Jesus much care about trinitarianism? In fact, why does anyone? In practice it amounts to little (if anything) more than having a couple of fancy names for God.

I believe Jesus was a religious Jew. For some reason religious people tend to hate heresy more than just another religion. Polytheistic monotheism based on Judaism would have to be up there in terms of what Jesus would hate.

Doubtless a religious Jew could best explain.

Tom

 

[technomage]

You're only talking a few thousand people in a very concentrated area though.

We have no idea of the numbers, but the area (from Rome to Alexandria to Asia Minor) was not what one would call "very concentrated." And you must remember, while the NT was still unwritten, the OT did exist, was available in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So there was already a substantial body of text.

I think without a talking head, the message would be lost in a couple generations.

Even with a "head," there were already diverse opinions within the early Church community.

One reason I think like this is what I "hear" Christians say they believe and who told them what the Bible said. Look at the story of the Deluge. It's retold as a child's story. The horror of that type of event is covered up, in a sense. In fact, a large Baptist church close to me with almost 10k members has Noah's ark images of happy animals and a happy family with a nice colorful rainbow painted over the Sunday school walls.

What if a 10 year old was told that story the way the Bible actually states it with total destruction? What if you put the images of dying babies, puppies and kittens in their heads when retelling it?

I believe that most Christians don't actually read the Bible outside of what verses someone points them too and then interprets them. If rational people read the Bible without a church head (the filter I'm referring to), the religion would go away after a few generations.

You're reading the Bible from a set of modern sensibilities, and not with any real understanding of the meaning of the text. If that's how you want to interpret it, that's fine ... but if you choose to interpret it that way, you;re going to miss out on a lot.

Even a non-Christian, such as me, can gain a more accurate understanding by having some understanding of the culture in which the Bible was written. (More precisely, "cultures," plural. There were radical differences between the OT and the NT cultures.)

But it is a lot of study. and frankly unless you enjoy the topic, it would be a lot of effort for little gain.

 

[samaelrocks]

Wait, what? I former Christian telling another former Christian that the way I read the Bible, that I will miss a lot? That's what I would expect a Christian to tell me. An opinion on what someone could gain from a book is very subjective. I also believe fully that what was written is cultural from ideas of morality to punishments. Hardly the inspiration of a God.

No, I read the Bible just as God is explained in said Bible. Omnipotent. So any travesty caused by God, I think back to that characteristic. That characteristic doesn't pass the compassion test from the very first fall of man story.

Every event in the Bible happened in an area the size of the Southeast states in the U.S. Early Christians were in a concentrated area. Of course it spread. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned Paul's letters. There's your filter to spread the word interpreted by Paul. But let's look at the stories in the Old Testament. Noah's Flood. A close copy to a Sumerian text in tablet 11 of "Epic of Gilgamesh." And recently, archeologists found another example of the same story but a different hero told by the Babylonians. All of this in a concentrated area. As the story goes, it spread the same as any other religion. Being a strong second of the 3 Abrahamic religions, it spread enough to **** off neighboring Arabs creating our favorite world religion, Islam a few hundred years later. Again, exclusively in the Mid East.

 

[technomage]

Wait, what? I former Christian telling another former Christian that the way I read the Bible, that I will miss a lot? That's what I would expect a Christian to tell me.

Perhaps, but I am not telling you that you _should_ read it that way, or at all. I am simply telling you that _if_ you choose to read it through the filter of ethnocentrism, there will be a considerable amount of information that will not (as it were) make it through the filter.

I experienced the same kind of "filter" when reading the Canterbury Tales. When I first read it, I had little or no knowledge of Chaucer's culture or of the times in which he lived. I spent some time studying medieval England, then re-read the Tales, and came away with a greater understanding.

 

[ChristineES]

Considering the original Christians had no Church whatsoever that it would and could survive. Maybe there would less of the "Christians on the fence", however: There are a lot of those.

 

[samaelrocks]

Perhaps, but I am not telling you that you _should_ read it that way, or at all. I am simply telling you that _if_ you choose to read it through the filter of ethnocentrism, there will be a considerable amount of information that will not (as it were) make it through the filter.

Got your point. I've debated this topic and especially the Islamic religion for years so I'm familiar with cultural points from that region.

Consider this. When the Catholic church owned the religion in 1000 AD est. they had called owning any translation of the Old or New testaments heresy. Of course, literacy was pretty low but what does it say when the church get's to make owning the literature illegal? What if that did not happen? At that time, not everyone would have gone to church but certainly interested as to what's going on with "Christianity."

Consider the church never ruled at any level in any country. People became more educated. People could own the Bible without fear of being tortured.

This has me considering that if the Dark Ages were really the enlightened age of free thought and unfiltered indoctrination, Christianity would be no more than a philosophy. Probably having a book trimmed down to what universally would be considered "good." No more stoning of adulterous women. Maybe remove Jesus' reference to marrying a divorced woman as being a sin. Definitely the removal of Moses stoning a guy for collecting wood on Saturday (I don't believe most Christians even know that Moses had a man stoned to death for working on a Saturday). This opinion after talking to hard right Christians.