Christian Beliefs

[Pladio]

By Corwin's suggestion I'm starting a thread on Christian beliefs.
Anything on it can go here, from it's creation to the end of times.

The only rules for this thread are:
- NO Personal attacks
- NO Religion bashing

I have certain questions to start the topic with, from my reading up on Christianity.

My first one is, how do Christians today truly believe in their religion when most of it has been knowingly corrupted by the church? Most gospels have been taken out of the NT. Christians of today know that and still choose not to believe in other gospels found. How can one Gospel be considered true while others are not, especially since it's the doing of just several people who decided on it?

It is also known that early Christians tried to annihilate the other Christian sects of the time. This brought loss to a lot of old documents and old Christian movements.

I think this would be a good start.

I also would like to explain why this thread is important to me.
First of all, this forum has always been a civilized one, where people to the least tolerate other people's opinions. This brings a lot of comfort to discussing issues.
Second and perhaps most importantly for me, I have started dating a Christian girl and her religion is really important to her. Since then I've more and more interested in learning about Christianity. In my reading about it though, I have come across pretty hefty issues which bother me too much to concentrate on even the basic beliefs.

 

[blatantninja]

My first one is, how do Christians today truly believe in their religion when most of it has been knowingly corrupted by the church? Most gospels have been taken out of the NT. Christians of today know that and still choose not to believe in other gospels found. How can one Gospel be considered true while others are not, especially since it's the doing of just several people who decided on it?

I addressed this in the other thread, but I think it worth a bit of a synopsis. The Canonical Gospels have survived much in their original form (at least going back to the late 1st and early 2nd century). There are issues with translation, but it's hard to find specific things that have been changed to significantly alter the meaning. Surviving manuscripts have shown that outside or translation problems, the texts have remained virtually unchanged.

As for the ones left out. Many needed to be because they don't appear to be authentic (IE not Apolistic), such as the Gospel of Judas. Others, such as perhaps the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Phillip, appear to be at least close to Apolistic, but had enough differences in content that they didn't reconcile with the four that were chosen very well.

It's like being in a courtroom. You have 12 people that have viewed the event in question. You are likely to get 12 different descriptions of what happened. Some will agree more than others. A few may be totally off the wall, but that person really did see it that way. Eventually, you have to figure out which to believe, and which to not.

It's always important to remember that the Gospel's are NOT the writings of Jesus, but rather the recollections of those that followed Him.

It is also known that early Christians tried to annihilate the other Christian sects of the time. This brought loss to a lot of old documents and old Christian movements.

True, but what you generally see is more power struggles than doctrine struggles. When Rome or Constantinople felt their authority was being questioned, they came down hard. I've always believed that Constantine was both the best and worst thing that ever happened to Christianity, though there were still things that went on before him. In the end the Church in this world is flawed because the people that run it are imperfect.

I hope some others can comment on the non-canonical Gospels on this thread. As I said in the other one, I went to read them, terrified that it would shatter my faith, and instead came out with a stronger faith. I'd be curious how others have reacted.

 

[Pladio]

But that's what I'm saying. If the other Gospels are different, how can you believe them ? If they all say something else, why are those four true and the others not?
And if they were written by witnesses and not Jesus himself, how do you even know that they're actually real and/or truthful in what they saw? Like I said in the other thread too, they chose the four which seemed to be the most compatible with one another, but what if the one which was actually the truth got rejected?

12 Angry Men
This movie reflects this completely.

 

[Corwin]

It's late at night, I've just finished a 2 hour session of NWN online with Peter and Cm, so I'm not up to getting involved right now, but I will tomorrow. Just one quick point. Christians don't believe in a religion, or a church, they believe in a person, Jesus and strive to be like Him. Unfortunately, churches, men and especially politics have over the years hijacked many aspects and as you say, corrupted them. The Crusades, for example, weren't really religious, they were primarily political and used religion as their justification, or excuse. More when I wake up!!

 

[Bartacus]

Personally I don't know if I can consider myself a full Christian. I believe in good&evil and I also believe that there was once a man called Jezus who could inspire people to do good. The Church as an institute is way less for me then the actual faith. It's not only political abused, but also very rigid and totaly lost the feeling with western civilisation (don't know weather that's a good or an evil thing, but I certainly know that it is the reason why there are few people in church today)

 

[JemyM]

NO Religion bashing

Doh! I guess I am disqualified then.
I can be as pragmatic about Christian beliefs as I can be with other radical ideologies such as communism and nationalism. It's impossible for me to discuss any radical Utopian ideology without treating it's followers as puppets to tribal instinct and then judge them by the victims of their ideas, whoever/whatever they are.

Christianity is a death cult with a primitive execution machine as their symbol. Their totem pole is usually a wooden statue of a bloody and mutilated body which they worship with great passion and they want every young child exposed to this gory scene as possible.

They spread the idea that that life without their master is meaningless and the only goal of life is to die the right way. Nothing else (friends/family etc) really matters at the end. Then they say that there's no reason to be moral unless one submit to their totalitarian master. They also teach that there's no point in bothering with the environment or improve life etc since the world will end soon anyway.

In a gruesome ritual they practice virtual cannibalism in which they eat a cracker that they believe is their masters flesh. Many jews have been slain throughout history for this belief alone since it was believed that the jews couldn't live normally if they didn't eat Christians who ate crackers (sentenced to death after being charged with "desecration of the Eucharist").

They reject science like biology because they believe in a creation story from pagan animal-sacrificing nomads who believed that every animal on the planet lived within walking distance and that all humans come from a single person (Cain) who was also a murderer, alternatively had incest with his mother Eve.

They believe that a book that suggest "kill them" for everything from wrong clothes to wrong sexuality, is the source for western liberalism, democracy and human rights.

Nowadays they are harmless to anyone but themselves though since they lost their power to secularism. They go to church and throw protective spells at themselves (prayer) once per week. In their favorite chant they claim themselves to be broken and helpless sinners who submit to their master and ask him for forgiveness for being born. Rather depressive.

Then there are those who call themselves Christians without believing in any of this crap. They do so due to cultural pressure, not because they actually believe in it, nor have they given any thought of what the religion actually contain.

 

[Pladio]

Like you said JemyM, I think that maybe you should exclude yourself from this discussion, even though some points you make seem quite valid, but they're true about every single religion in the world.

I am however looking for more specific answers about Christian beliefs.

 

[JemyM]

I am however looking for more specific answers about Christian beliefs.

Have you ever heard someone say "Christianity for me is..." or "God for me is...". That's what personal faith is about, making up your own religion that simply share the same label as your neighbor.

There are as many doctrines as they are Christians really and they are divided by a great amount of branches. Each "Christian" is influenced by multiple belief systems as well as their own life experiences. A conservative southern baptist Christian in the south US do not have much in common with a social-democrat Lutheran Christian from Stockholm. A persons nationality, culture and political beliefs will have a strong impact on how they interpret Christianity, even more so than the bible itself!

I poked fun of some of Christianity's weird content that we normally do not see because we are too familiar with it so we never question it. Children do see the weird stuff though and they often ask all the questions that we no longer ask ourselves... like "who was Cains wife", "is there a pet heaven" and "why do we have to drink wine, cant we have a non-alcoholic beverage instead?".

 

[Pladio]

Yes, but 'most' people have the same core beliefs. My problem is that those core beliefs have mostly been corrupted by people over the ages. I'll never find one answer, but that's not exactly what I'm looking for.

 

[Corwin]

JemyM, your diatribe did not deal with Christianity, but at a warped view of certain Catholic practices, most of which the Protestant side of Christianity does not endorse or practice. Please keep your personal dislikes for a different thread and let us discuss various 'Christian' beliefs in as neutral a manner as possible. I personally consider the Catholic use of a crucifix to be akin to pagan idolatry also, but I'm willing to discuss that issue with a Catholic in a calm and rational manner explaining my perspective while they present theirs and then allow others to draw their own personal conclusions. There is no need to denigrate someone's belief and as moderator, I will not tolerate it in future. Let's all be adult and mature as we discuss what may be sensitive issues.

 

[Pladio]

Corwin, you also said you had something to add

 

[JemyM]

Yes, but 'most' people have the same core beliefs. My problem is that those core beliefs have mostly been corrupted by people over the ages. I'll never find one answer, but that's not exactly what I'm looking for.

I think to be a Christian you must believe in Jesus. Of course, why would anyone build a religion who ask you to believe in something? Consider; usually you believe in something because you think it's true. If you initially believe someone, but then they tell you that you must believe them all the time, wouldn't you consider that a bit... weird... maybe they ask you to believe it because they are pulling your leg and know themselves that it ain't true? Why is trying to "believe" a greater task (and more important) than trying to follow some rules etc?

Anyway, I think that's the only thing they have in common. Many believe though that believing in Jesus is the key for not dying. You see, the creator of this world created an apple tree for some reason and then he created a man and then used his rib to create a woman (how he could conjure the man without the specific magic components I do not know). So anyway, they did what every child would do if you place a bag of candy in front of them if you tell them they cannot eat it. They eat it. So the all loving god cursed them forever, to die. Yes, death is a human curse for eating an apple, wouldn't you love to have a such understanding father? Then he threw them out of heaven down to earth. Why heaven is separated from earth and what earth was meant to do before mankind was exiled there, the story doesn't tell. Anyway, now people can actually die. A few thousand years later the creator has a human son from a virgin. It's got to be a son of god born of a virgin (like every other super hero back in ancient middleterranian sea). First he preached that the world will soon end (like so many other prophets back around the ancient middleterranian sea). When that happen, everyone will be judged, not according to their actions but according to if they believe him or not. Everyone who do not will be thrown into hell and be tortured forever if they have not submitted to the creator (who loves them). However, he made a lot of fuzz so that people in power got angry and executed him on a cross.

Then a guy named Paul come up with the brilliant idea that when he died he created a key to remove the death curse which plagued mankind since their loving creator cursed them with it. According to him, if you believe that Jesus died for your sins, then you can live forever. Sounds nice right? Now Jesus needs your help to spread his word, because even if he was the son of the creator he's dead, or undead, or something like that, and that makes it impossible for him to spread his words by himself even if he's omnipotent and loves you. Then Paul was killed as well, by the eeeevil romans, and they killed everyone else who loved Jesus since they are eeevil and hate love. But then they were converted themselves and then it was okay to kill every pagan, jew and everyone who did not have exactly the same christian beliefs as the roman emperor / pope. Now those guys were also a god since they are infused by the "holy spirit", and saying no to the "holy spirit" is actually the only sin in the whole bible that Jesus do not forgive. He can forgive everything if you ask him, genocide, masturbation, being woman, being born etc but he cannot forgive you if you deny the holy spirit. And these guys need money. Even if the creator "created" gold etc, he seemed to make sure that the church never had enough of it.

So time moved on and then people started to dig up stuff from the ancient greeks that had other ideas about humanity, like humans are valuable and all that. One humanist called Martin Luther formed "protestantism". Since this upset the church (like everything else) he had to run away. So he said that kings could be leaders of the church. This was a good idea since now he could be protected by protestant kings who kinda became the replacement for the pope. This was good, because now the king could get all the money that the church used to get. But it was okay to give away all your money to the emperor/king/pope whatever since that's what Jesus asks you to do. Who ever is rich on earth will get poor in heaven. You make yourself a favor if you give all the money you have to the king.

Then there was a French revolution etc and Europe was a mess for awhile and submitted to democracy, ended all dictatorship etc and now many Christians believe it was their work.

If I remember something more I tell you but that's some of the core beliefs.

And yeah, if you haven't read the ten commandments you want to murder and steal like all the time.

 

[dteowner]

I'm a little troubled that this thread specifically silences a relevant point of view. While JemyM's a little "rigorous", I don't see where his position is any less relevant, nor any less valid. It's not like there's any undeniable facts on either side of the dispute.

 

[Pladio]

Well, I'm a bit against it, mostly because I meant this to be more of a Q&A thread than a discussion about how Christians are right or wrong in believing what they do.
I was hoping for a more Christian point of view.
I know a lot about the Christian pogroms, killings, murders, Crusades and other evil stuff that has been done.

I'm rather more interested in trying to understand the underlying beliefs.

 

[dteowner]

One of the best ways to gain understanding of an issue is to consider the various attacks on it. JemyM will joyously supply a cupboard-full of attacks, and it's not overly difficult to ignore the venom coating and give some deeper consideration to the realities of Christianity, which often run quite astray from the teachings. Any investigation of the subject would be woefully incomplete if the differences between "as advertised" and "as delivered" are willfully ignored.

 

[JemyM]

Well, I'm a bit against it, mostly because I meant this to be more of a Q&A thread than a discussion about how Christians are right or wrong in believing what they do.
I was hoping for a more Christian point of view.
I know a lot about the Christian pogroms, killings, murders, Crusades and other evil stuff that has been done.

I'm rather more interested in trying to understand the underlying beliefs.

Well, when I was still Christian I believed that the bible was a part history, part a key to afterlife. I could improve this life by communicating with God and Jesus and ask them questions and for help and if I did everything right I would be rewarded after death. I didn't know everything that they wanted but I knew that they looked down on exploiting your sexuality and they wanted you to help other people, so I did.

It was not until later I understood that my Christianity was shared by people close to me, but did not represent all christians. I was a liberal christian but a faithful one, but my faith like most swedes had more in common with socialism and humanism than with the bible. I was one edge of the spectrum with radical hategroups like KKK on the other.

Ask ten "christians" what their religion is about and you will get ten different answers.

 

[Pladio]

From what I know of Christians, most of them don't know the history too well. They do know what they believe. They also believe that what they believe is true.
Of course you'll get some different answers and that's what I'm asking to understand in this thread.

As dte said, just looking at one side without looking at the other is like being blind, except that I want to hear one side of a story first, before someone comes in between and says it's all wrong.

Imagine talking to someone, telling them what happened to you yesterday with your sister or something like that and then all of a sudden your sister intervenes and says you're telling it wrong. You lose not only credibility but also where you were in the story and information gets communicated wrongly this way.

Even though, I'd ask ten Christians what their religion is about and I'll get 10 different answers, they'll all tell me that Jesus is their saviour and that by believing in him they will go to heaven.

My questions still stand though and I would very much like your (JemyM's and others') point of view on my questions, but bashing the religion is just disrespectful and even when your point is valid, the disrespect will transcend the validity of it. Meaning, no one will look at your point, but more at how you presented it.

 

[dteowner]

I'm afraid I won't be able to bring much to the subject, to be honest. I have a difficult time with that whole advertised/delivered thing. My extreme distaste for organized religions of all colors due to the countless abuses of their various messages cause me to be a poor student of the "theory". I've had some discussions in the past that were very similar to the path you're looking for here, and many of the folks here tried their level best to help me out, but in the end I proved to be a hopeless student.

 

[JemyM]

but bashing the religion is just disrespectful and even when your point is valid, the disrespect will transcend the validity of it.

Making satire, poking fun of and even teasing an ideology is ok. Demanding respect for an ideology is totalitarian however. Since liberalism won the ideology conflict during the 1900 (and we now have liberal democracies all over instead of communism and dictatorships) we have a kind of natural selection on ideas. The most important component in this practice is freedom of speech and allows for good ideas to persist and bad ideas to die.

Thus, we humans improve in a rapid pace compared to just a few hundred years ago. We improve rapidly by questioning and critizising eachother, because by doing that we push ourselves to improve and thus we correct our flaws. If we blindly respect without questioning what we find is wrong, then we fool both ourselves and humankind. An opinion, no matter how radical or how wrong it sounds, is still something that benefits us. You see, a valid idea will prevail even the harshest of all criticizm, just look at evolution. Each time you question a good idea you make it stronger. Each time you ask for blind respect for a bad idea you make yourself and everyone around you weaker. Critizism is only corrosive on falsehood but never on truth.

You will also benefit if your sister comment on how you tell something, because she force you to question yourself. When you believe you know everything right you can no longer improve. It's a great reason to speak to friends, but they tell you when you are wrong when you cannot tell this by your own.

 

[mudsling3]

No bashing? count me out