Christians: explain Christianity to me. -

Lisa0315 · 08-21-2008, 12:56 PM

:

25%?

Parable of the Sower.

I would have an alternate exegesis.

See above post.

His Noodly Appendage · 08-21-2008, 12:58 PM

Could we establish a few more goalposts before people start kicking stuff through them?

Lisa0315 · 08-21-2008, 01:00 PM

:

Could we establish a few more goalposts before people start kicking stuff through them?

What do you mean?

His Noodly Appendage · 08-21-2008, 02:10 PM

Oh, was just hoping to get more background before people started debating points...

BioBeing · 08-21-2008, 02:52 PM

:

Who is this god person, and what is the significance of his existence?

What we know of God must be experiential. We don't sit around and ponder Him but we do depend on things like trusting that the union of the soul with God is known through faith, hope and love.

Can I ask for an explanation of this bit, please?

How do you experience God? How do you know it was God you experienced and not a different god, or Satan, or a bad case of gas?

What does "trusting the union of the soul with God" even mean? What is a soul? What type of union? What is God? What type of union is it, specifically, that you have no idea about, but have to have unevidenced faith in?

gamera · 08-21-2008, 06:43 PM

:

Okay, I will play.

Love is the central theme. This may not be recognizable in today's Christianity, but according to Scripture, only 25% of those who profess are indeed true followers of Christ.

Next, I would say tranformation. That is a process that only ends at death.

Finally, I would say salvation. I believe salvation is the journey (transformation) and the end result.

Lisa

Well said (except the mathmatical literalism).

I would say Christianity is the gospel, and the gospel is a narrative about the transformational power of God's love in light of the existential dilemma of what sort of persons we want to be: loving persons or self involved persons.

The promise of the gospel is that if you trust that God's love can transform you into a loving person and free you from self-involvement, it will transform you.

The credal elements of Christianity, like original sin, the trinity, sacrificial death, are the later development of Historical Christianity and its various obsessions, all of which resulting in alientating Jesus from the gospel narrative.

It makes "sense" in a narrative for God to have a son. You don't need to figure out the ontology of it, because it has a narrative purpose: showing the depth of God's love. It makes no sense for God to have a son outside the narrative, and leads to bizarre theologicall propositions to "explain" it. Hence the growing irrelevancy of modern historical Chrsitianity as a living faith.

I'm amazed at how modern Christianity avoids the radical implications of Paul in these writings:

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith

Gal 6:15 For neither is circumcision anything nor
uncircumcision, but a new creation is what matters.

Gal:5:6 The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

gamera · 08-21-2008, 06:50 PM

:

Few of us unbelievers denigrate love/charity, Lisa. We just don't see why we need Jesus, or any God, to understand it, or to achieve it. It looks to us like a very human thing.

And of course, if the essential nature of the Lord and Creator of the Universe is universal love, why do we see so much hate and sorrow and suffering in His universe?

Christianity addresses a paradox. If existentially we want to become loving persons, and overcome our pervasive self-involvement, how do we do that by our own means without merely enforcing our sense of self and will?

If we strive to become loving persons, and "achieve" it, then we have paradoxically not acheive it, since it is an acheivement of the will or the self, resulting in more ego, more will.

The guruism of most religious systems (and subsets of Christianity) bare this out.

Christianity short circuits this loop of the self, by asserting that not our will, and not our efforts, but only God's love can truly transform us, and that love is freely given. All that is required is the existential choice to accept our helpless situation, and recieve the gift. This is the heart of the gospel narrative. Indeed, it can only be experienced through the narrative. Even my explanation becomes propositional, and is other than the gospel.

Hence Paul's radical claim that it is the gospel (not even Jesus but the gospel) that saves us (from our self-involvement, conceived in the first century as "sin").

So ultimately if you ask me what is Christianity, my real answer would be to point to the gospel. I can add nothing with commentary and supplements.

gamera · 08-21-2008, 06:56 PM

:

What are the consequences of this love?

I mean, if someone genetically engineered a dog to love everyone and everything in the world totally and unconditionally, I can't see how that would affect my life.

Why does it matter whether or not god loves us? What is his role in our existence?

We know things about ourselves through narratives. Even our own life is a narrative, which we generate as we order our experiences. Meaning comes out of the narratives.

The narrative at issue is the gospel.

As to being a loving person, it's an existential question about the authenticity of one's life and its relationship to others. That's something for you to answer, nobody else. Salvation (authenticity, transformation) is always MY salvation. It is not about a general proposition about a general transformation.

In short if this isn't an issue for you, it isn't an issue for you. It is not subject to argumentation. So the first question is whether it's an issue for you.

gamera · 08-21-2008, 07:00 PM

:

Could you expound on those a bit?

Okay.

Love is central. Without love, we (Christians) and our doctrine are nothing. Without love, there is no salvation. Without love, there is only condemnation. It is a lack of love that we need saving from.

I remember, back in my Christian youth, a priest explaining how "loving" someone didn't mean he had to "like" that someone.

That was a quantum leap in my path to understanding the fact that the Christian concept of "love" is... meaningless.

The explanation was certainly confused. However, the NT is a bit clearer. Love is meaningless unless expressed by helping the poor, the needy, the oppressed. Christianity exists in relationship to others, or not at all. Or to put it better, if you have truly been transformed into a loving person, it will result in you helping others, so if you don't help others, you have not been transformed. Hence Matthew 25: 31-, and James' comment that faith without works is dead.

gamera · 08-21-2008, 07:08 PM

:

Who is this god person, and what is the significance of his existence?

What we know of God must be experiential. We don't sit around and ponder Him but we do depend on things like trusting that the union of the soul with God is known through faith, hope and love.

Ironically, we are unable to know the assured truth of God and this will be acknowledged every Sunday morning by televangelists. However, this realization is not even followed through with modern Christianity!

There are two ways to follow what God is: cataphatic and apophatic. The former proceeds with affirmations about what God is. The later, which I ascribe, proceeds by saying what God is not....perhaps misinterpreted as dodging or speakign paradoxically.

I agree. I would say Christianity is existential and narrative. Salvation (tranformation from self-involvement) is always MY salvation. It's something I have to experience. It isn't about propositional "truths" about God or Jesus or theological doctrines that apply in some universal stratum of discourse.

Regrettably, Historical Christianity began entangled in social power, and produced a vast discourse of theological commentary which was retrojected to gloss the gospel narrative into a propositional tract.

And it is this modern descendant of Historical Christianity that most of the people on this thread are reacting negatively to. Quite understandably by the way

Gagundathar Inexplicable · 08-21-2008, 07:15 PM

:

Read Matthew 13, the whole chapter. It is the Parable of the Sower.

So in which translation does it say that exactly equal amounts fell along the path, on the rocks, among the thorns, and on good soil? I ask that because the only way you can say that "according to Scripture, only 25% of those who profess are indeed true followers of Christ" is if you assume that equal amounts of seed fell in all four places. For all you know, Jesus could have meant that 10% fell on the path, the rocks and the thorns combined. It would have to be a pretty sloppy sower who didn't get most of the seed in the good soil.

True, and I admit that was pretty sloppy on my part. I concede the point.

Lisa

Wooo hoo! Look at this, y'all. She can concede a point graciously. Some other folks (OK probably just one or two particular ones) could learn a lot from this lady.

Lisa, just so you know, I am not ragging on you. I am gratified to see a real discussion going on about this kind of stuff without it devolving into puerile poo-flinging. Such a relief.

Lisa0315 · 08-21-2008, 07:46 PM

:

So in which translation does it say that exactly equal amounts fell along the path, on the rocks, among the thorns, and on good soil? I ask that because the only way you can say that "according to Scripture, only 25% of those who profess are indeed true followers of Christ" is if you assume that equal amounts of seed fell in all four places. For all you know, Jesus could have meant that 10% fell on the path, the rocks and the thorns combined. It would have to be a pretty sloppy sower who didn't get most of the seed in the good soil.

True, and I admit that was pretty sloppy on my part. I concede the point.

Lisa

Wooo hoo! Look at this, y'all. She can concede a point graciously. Some other folks (OK probably just one or two particular ones) could learn a lot from this lady.

Lisa, just so you know, I am not ragging on you. I am gratified to see a real discussion going on about this kind of stuff without it devolving into puerile poo-flinging. Such a relief.

First lesson in Apologetics is to concede gracefully so folks will take you seriously on another point. Thanks for the compliment, though. We will get along fine, I am sure.

Lisa

KnightWhoSaysNi · 08-21-2008, 08:08 PM

Hi folks, I think this topic might make an interesting Rat Ring one-on-one formal discussion if anyone's interested.

Keep in mind that the Rat Ring doesn't necessarily have to be about debating or confrontation. It can involve a healthy dialogue as well. I'd encourage people to get involved and suggest a proposal.

KWSN, Rat Ring Moderator

seebs · 08-21-2008, 08:44 PM

There are a lot of different answers. I tend to think they are all "Christianity", because I don't think I accept the foundational premise of propositional Christianity; I do not think Christianity is correctly defined in terms of a set of cognitive assents.

Christianity as often practiced reflects the needs of an institution which hopes to survive and maintain temporal power; these are often fundamentally opposed to the doctrines as originally understood, because the Christian faith was founded on something that I would describe as very close to a complete rejection of the notion of temporal power.

I have heard a quote to the effect of "if the Cross means anything, it is that God has fixed it so that no human will have to do anything about religion ever again." I pretty much agree with this evaluation. The entire point is not that we must do elaborate complicated things to appease God, but that we do not have to do anything of the sort.

This view is sometimes unpopular with people who make money telling people how to "get right with God". It's very frustrating. Imagine how you'd feel if you had a really great relationship with one of your kids, and then someone started charging your kid $25 a week for lessons on how to "get right with Noodles" including instructions on which comic books you will find it acceptable for your child to like, and so on. Just a whole bunch of crazy superstitious stuff, half of it based on watching House and assuming that your avatar reflects your nature. ("Never tell him it's Lupus.")

That'd be modern Christianity as seen on television.

seebs · 08-21-2008, 08:46 PM

:

Oh, was just hoping to get more background before people started debating points...

Yeah, I know what you mean.

I think a lot of our usual ways of thinking about What Something Is fail when confronted with something as diverse and sprawling as Christianity. It's like trying to get people to discuss what Love is.

Protinus · 08-21-2008, 09:34 PM

:

Heh.

See, there's an infinite number of things that a given thing isn't. I mean, think of all the things that pizza is not. You could list attributes that it lacks for a trillion years, and your fossilized listener would still be no closer at all to having a concept of it.

On the other hand, just a dozen words could leave a listener as informed as anyone on the planet.

I'm sure the intent would not be to evade... but damn, it's hard to imagine an approach that would actually achieve the same effect any better than that.

Now, as for god being unknowable and thus requiring the latter approach - I put it to you that you're attempting to solve the wrong problem. Your brain is a finite thing, and however wrong or limited or whatever it might be, it must, by definition, contain your own personal concept of 'god'.

Can you convey that concept, which is fully knowable, to us?

I would imagine that you would would be better equiped to to us all that pizza is. And that it might be reduced enough for all of us to contemplate...so your example isn't surely an attempt to provide the barest example of what pizza is...much less how it is appreciated by others.

And your brain might be finite in your dreams. I work in and around brain surgery all the time...I should be the one to tell you that it is finite. But it is not. I'm sure that you can have a finite brain and answer: 1) what is life?; (2) what is mind or intelligence?; (3) what are the underlying physical laws of the universe?

gamera · 08-21-2008, 09:54 PM

:

.

Now, as for god being unknowable and thus requiring the latter approach - I put it to you that you're attempting to solve the wrong problem. Your brain is a finite thing, and however wrong or limited or whatever it might be, it must, by definition, contain your own personal concept of 'god'.

Can you convey that concept, which is fully knowable, to us?

I guess the question is, is that relevant to being a Christian?

If being a Christian means accepting the existential implications of the gospel narrative (which is my "Narrative Christianity" position), then how God is conceived becomes irrelevant. I suspect each Christian has all kinds of personal views of God. This is only defintional if, like Historical Christianity has done, you make it doctrinal.

I can sympathize with your asking the question since Historical Christianity has been so verbose on the issue of defining God for 2,000 years. But I would assert that this is exactly not Christianity, but institutional discourse producing commentary on the gospel, and more particularly inventing problems that are then retrojected for the gospel to "solve."

How would the "correct' concept of God in any way make me a Christian or more of a Christian or a better Christian? In a profound sense, at some point, Christianity isn't about God at all (he'll do just fine), but about loving others.

But if you insist, my isn't, along with Jean Luc Marion's, that God is not, since God cannot exist like some other thing in this universe, or God would be subject to Being, just like a desk or a supernova. To say God exists is to limit God in ways that makes God rather paltry. However, I don't need to figure that out. I just need to address the issues raised in the gospel narrative, where the issue is making God's love comprehensible through a story. In a story, God can have a son and do all kinds of things that I understand -- because it's a story.

Sewer Rat · 08-21-2008, 11:24 PM

You have ask a question that is not going to get the same review by no two people. I would do my own research the web is full of info on it......Christianity was more so created in the New Testament an interesting observation here is that the word Christian did not appear until some 40 years after Jesus death so he never knew the word.....I can see his face now if he were confronted with it today.............OMG!

David B · 08-21-2008, 11:37 PM

:

Who is this god person, and what is the significance of his existence?

What we know of God must be experiential.....

I see problems here, from my own experience.

At one time of my life I was a True Believer in the enlightenment of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and in his accounts of god - which were not for public consumption, I was hard core.

And I had my experiences, which led me to believe as I did, and to worship my (then) Master.

I'd presume that you would think that those experiential beliefs were in error.

I do, now, anyway.

I put the powerful experiences I had then down to the power of suggestion, of self suggestion, and of group reinforcement.

Powerful experiences they were, though!

What is so good about 'experiential'?

Given known human flaws

http://www.skepdic.com/hiddenpersuaders.html

David B (has found it wanting)

gamera · 08-22-2008, 12:10 AM

:

Who is this god person, and what is the significance of his existence?

What we know of God must be experiential.....

I see problems here, from my own experience.

At one time of my life I was a True Believer in the enlightenment of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and in his accounts of god - which were not for public consumption, I was hard core.

And I had my experiences, which led me to believe as I did, and to worship my (then) Master.

I'd presume that you would think that those experiential beliefs were in error.

I do, now, anyway.

I put the powerful experiences I had then down to the power of suggestion, of self suggestion, and of group reinforcement.

Powerful experiences they were, though!

What is so good about 'experiential'?

Given known human flaws

http://www.skepdic.com/hiddenpersuaders.html

David B (has found it wanting)

I don't know if "error" is the right word.

Whatever experience you had is not true or false, since it's an experience. The issue is that in the course of your life, if I understand you correctly, the experience didn't satisfy you, or you grew beyond it, or it no longer felt meaningful, or it became problematic as your life progressed. That of course itself is a valid experience.

You find yourself where you are now, and I think Protinus' point (not to put words in his mouth), is that addressing the issue of any relationship with God that you wish to pursue (and you may not) involves more than ratiocination about theological propostions, but the kind of questions that come out of your existence as you find yourself in, now.

The fact that you ultimately found guruism wanting suggests to me that the narrative of guruism (not to mention the social relations it supports) are in fact wanting, and do not adequately address the existential questions "who am I and who should I be?"

TySixtus · 08-23-2008, 05:12 AM

:

Christianity is (and should be taught as) the Gospel of unconditional love.

1) Jesus' love was not unconditional.

2) Of what value is love if it is unconditional?

Ty

Octavia · 08-23-2008, 05:49 AM

I guess I'm quite interested in this "experiential" thing as well. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what that is. What do you experience as a Christian that leads you to interpret that experience as Christian, and what makes it different from people who have experiences that they interpret as, say, Buddhist or Muslim or humanist?

I've never been religious, so have never interpreted an experience through that framework. I'm kind of curious how it works for different people.

His Noodly Appendage · 08-23-2008, 06:59 AM

:

Christianity short circuits this loop of the self, by asserting that not our will, and not our efforts, but only God's love can truly transform us, and that love is freely given. All that is required is the existential choice to accept our helpless situation, and recieve the gift.

Why God's love, in particular?

Why not the love of Eric the pet rock? What is it about God that makes his love any more important than anyone else's

TySixtus · 08-23-2008, 07:16 AM

:

Christianity short circuits this loop of the self, by asserting that not our will, and not our efforts, but only God's love can truly transform us, and that love is freely given. All that is required is the existential choice to accept our helpless situation, and recieve the gift.

Why God's love, in particular?

Why not the love of Eric the pet rock? What is it about God that makes his love any more important than anyone else's

HNA, don't you think you're being too generous here? Personally I think that what you quoted by Gamera is utterly meaningless. "Transfom us"? How? Into what? "Helpless situation"? Which one? Why is it helples? "The loop of the self"? What does that even mean?

Tu

His Noodly Appendage · 08-23-2008, 07:30 AM

Ty:

I'm not, in this thread, debating the truth of the propositions. There's plenty of time for that afterwards. Call it a hearing, not a trial

What I'm doing is trying to flesh out various people's working model of the-world-wrt-christianity, so that any future debates can be meaningful. If Gamera feels that God''s love is more important, then there's obviously some unstated premise that leads to that conclusion. And I'd like to know what it is.

08-21-2008, 12:58 PM	#135859 / #27
His Noodly Appendage Chaotic good : Mar 2008 : Cylon occupied paprika : 8,724	Could we establish a few more goalposts before people start kicking stuff through them? __________________ Dysmorphia is a sucky cure for vanity.

08-21-2008, 02:10 PM	#135945 / #29
His Noodly Appendage Chaotic good : Mar 2008 : Cylon occupied paprika : 8,724	Oh, was just hoping to get more background before people started debating points... __________________ Dysmorphia is a sucky cure for vanity.

08-21-2008, 08:08 PM	#136488 / #38
KnightWhoSaysNi Recipient of shrubberies : Apr 2008 : Calgary, Canada : 746	Hi folks, I think this topic might make an interesting Rat Ring one-on-one formal discussion if anyone's interested. Keep in mind that the Rat Ring doesn't necessarily have to be about debating or confrontation. It can involve a healthy dialogue as well. I'd encourage people to get involved and suggest a proposal. KWSN, Rat Ring Moderator __________________ I went back to Pendarica... Last edited by KnightWhoSaysNi; 08-21-2008 at 08:40 PM. : typo

08-23-2008, 07:30 AM	#138258 / #50
His Noodly Appendage Chaotic good : Mar 2008 : Cylon occupied paprika : 8,724	Ty: I'm not, in this thread, debating the truth of the propositions. There's plenty of time for that afterwards. Call it a hearing, not a trial What I'm doing is trying to flesh out various people's working model of the-world-wrt-christianity, so that any future debates can be meaningful. If Gamera feels that God''s love is more important, then there's obviously some unstated premise that leads to that conclusion. And I'd like to know what it is. __________________ Dysmorphia is a sucky cure for vanity.

X vBulletin 3.8.6 Debug Information
Page Generation 0.28380 seconds Memory Usage 4,566KB Queries Executed 74 (?)
More Information
Template Usage: (1)SHOWTHREAD (1)ad_footer_end (1)ad_footer_start (1)ad_header_end (1)ad_header_logo (1)ad_navbar_below (1)ad_showthread_beforeqr (1)ad_showthread_firstpost (1)ad_showthread_firstpost_sig (1)ad_showthread_firstpost_start (25)add_ignore_user_to_postbit (32)bbcode_quote (1)footer (1)forumjump (1)forumrules (1)gobutton (1)header (1)headinclude (2)im_aim (46)mysmilies_imagebit (1)navbar (3)navbar_link (1)navbar_mini (1)navbar_noticebit (55)option (1)pagenav (1)pagenav_curpage (3)pagenav_pagelink (2)pagenav_pagelinkrel (25)postbit_legacy (25)postbit_onlinestatus (25)postbit_reputation (25)postbit_wrapper (1)spacer_close (1)spacer_open (1)tagbit_wrapper (7)v3arcade_award_bit (1)v3arcade_postbit_userid_popup_menu (1)v3arcade_postbit_userid_trophy Phrase Groups Available: global inlinemod postbit posting reputationlevel showthread	Included Files: ./showthread.php ./global.php ./includes/init.php ./includes/class_core.php ./includes/config.php ./includes/functions.php ./includes/class_hook.php ./includes/functions_notice.php ./mobiquo/smartbanner.php ./mobiquo/smartbanner/head.inc.php ./includes/functions_bigthree.php ./includes/class_postbit.php ./includes/class_bbcode.php ./includes/functions_reputation.php Hooks Called: init_startup cache_permissions fetch_threadinfo_query fetch_threadinfo fetch_foruminfo style_fetch cache_templates global_start parse_templates fetch_musername notices_check_start notices_noticebit global_setup_complete showthread_start showthread_getinfo forumjump showthread_post_start showthread_query_postids showthread_query bbcode_fetch_tags bbcode_create showthread_postbit_create postbit_factory postbit_display_start reputation_image postbit_imicons bbcode_parse_start fetch_userinfo_query fetch_userinfo bbcode_parse_complete_precache bbcode_parse_complete postbit_display_complete pagenav_page pagenav_complete tag_fetchbit_complete forumrules navbits navbits_complete showthread_complete
Messages:

08-21-2008, 08:44 PM	#136511 / #39
seebs God Made Me A Skeptic : Mar 2008 : Minnesota. : 11,216	There are a lot of different answers. I tend to think they are all "Christianity", because I don't think I accept the foundational premise of propositional Christianity; I do not think Christianity is correctly defined in terms of a set of cognitive assents. Christianity as often practiced reflects the needs of an institution which hopes to survive and maintain temporal power; these are often fundamentally opposed to the doctrines as originally understood, because the Christian faith was founded on something that I would describe as very close to a complete rejection of the notion of temporal power. I have heard a quote to the effect of "if the Cross means anything, it is that God has fixed it so that no human will have to do anything about religion ever again." I pretty much agree with this evaluation. The entire point is not that we must do elaborate complicated things to appease God, but that we do not have to do anything of the sort. This view is sometimes unpopular with people who make money telling people how to "get right with God". It's very frustrating. Imagine how you'd feel if you had a really great relationship with one of your kids, and then someone started charging your kid $25 a week for lessons on how to "get right with Noodles" including instructions on which comic books you will find it acceptable for your child to like, and so on. Just a whole bunch of crazy superstitious stuff, half of it based on watching House and assuming that your avatar reflects your nature. ("Never tell him it's Lupus.") That'd be modern Christianity as seen on television.

08-21-2008, 11:24 PM	#136675 / #43
Sewer Rat Junior Member : Aug 2008 : 23	You have ask a question that is not going to get the same review by no two people. I would do my own research the web is full of info on it......Christianity was more so created in the New Testament an interesting observation here is that the word Christian did not appear until some 40 years after Jesus death so he never knew the word.....I can see his face now if he were confronted with it today.............OMG!

08-23-2008, 05:49 AM	#138241 / #47
Octavia Kiwi at the Nexus : Mar 2008 : 3,008	I guess I'm quite interested in this "experiential" thing as well. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what that is. What do you experience as a Christian that leads you to interpret that experience as Christian, and what makes it different from people who have experiences that they interpret as, say, Buddhist or Muslim or humanist? I've never been religious, so have never interpreted an experience through that framework. I'm kind of curious how it works for different people.