Christianity is a crapshoot

[roger1440]

But are you dying for Jesus? Does the reason you are dying matter? Being mugged isn't the same thing as martyrdom.

The verse in question has nothing to do with physically losing one’s life. It makes no difference if a Christian was mugged simply because a person is a Christian or hit by a truck on the way to church.

 

[buddhist]

Orthodox Christianity teaches one must accept Jesus to be saved. Few Christians can explain what exactly one “saved” from. Rather than to discuss what “saved” means, what does it mean to accept Jesus or to believe in Jesus? Jesus died about 2000 years ago. He is not here to speak for himself. The only available means a person in the 21st century has to hear about Jesus is by the testimony of others. This testimony is transmitted either by word of mouth, a minister or pastor, books, radio, internet, etc. None of these sources had contact with Jesus. Using the Bible as the primary source opens more questions. There is no agreement among the churches on the interpretation on Christian scripture. If there were there wouldn’t be so many churches. Then the problem of authenticity of the Bible comes up. The New Testament is a collection of 27 books. The early church fathers chose what books are in and what books are out. How can we trust their decision? Who were these men? Then the problem of authorship of these 27 books comes up. Many of the authors of these books are anonymous. Scholars are not in agreement on who wrote them. Then there is the problem of the authenticity of the subject matter itself. We can’t ask the authors because they are long dead and we don’t know who they are anyway. Added to the mix are other books that didn’t make the cut. How can anyone know the Gospel of Thomas is is not authentic? Not only is Christianity diverse but there are many other religions across the planet. It would seem Christianity is a crapshoot, a gamble.

OP, IMO you've discovered the Achilles' Heel of all faith-based religions. They're all based on ... blind faith ... 1. that events - which you're required to believe in - truly happened the way they were recorded, 2. that associated doctrines - which you're also required to believe in - were correctly interpreted, correctly translated, correctly preserved, etc., 3.. that intermediaries (saviors, prophets, priests, etc.) - whom you're required to believe in - truly existed and truly taught those doctrines, and 4. that historians, archaeologists, etc. who reconstructs this history - individuals whom you must also believe in, consequently - also accurately interpreted their data. The entire chain must be infallible, if an infallible deity was it source.

After realizing this truth for myself - that little to none of the above was personally verifable - I had nothing more to do with faith-based religions.

 

[George-ananda]

Orthodox Christianity teaches one must accept Jesus to be saved. Few Christians can explain what exactly one “saved” from. Rather than to discuss what “saved” means, what does it mean to accept Jesus or to believe in Jesus? Jesus died about 2000 years ago. He is not here to speak for himself. The only available means a person in the 21st century has to hear about Jesus is by the testimony of others. This testimony is transmitted either by word of mouth, a minister or pastor, books, radio, internet, etc. None of these sources had contact with Jesus. Using the Bible as the primary source opens more questions. There is no agreement among the churches on the interpretation on Christian scripture. If there were there wouldn’t be so many churches. Then the problem of authenticity of the Bible comes up. The New Testament is a collection of 27 books. The early church fathers chose what books are in and what books are out. How can we trust their decision? Who were these men? Then the problem of authorship of these 27 books comes up. Many of the authors of these books are anonymous. Scholars are not in agreement on who wrote them. Then there is the problem of the authenticity of the subject matter itself. We can’t ask the authors because they are long dead and we don’t know who they are anyway. Added to the mix are other books that didn’t make the cut. How can anyone know the Gospel of Thomas is is not authentic? Not only is Christianity diverse but there are many other religions across the planet. It would seem Christianity is a crapshoot, a gamble.

I think the saving grace of Christianity is the spirit of brotherly love and righteousness taught by Jesus. Those things are timeless and much of the rest is just details. An exclusivist view of Christianity (being saved?) is outdated. If you follow the timeless teachings, it is not a crapshoot, they are the path to heaven.

 

[roger1440]

OP, IMO you've discovered the Achilles' Heel of all faith-based religions. They're all based on ... blind faith ... 1. that events - which you're required to believe in - truly happened the way they were recorded, 2. that associated doctrines - which you're also required to believe in - were correctly interpreted, correctly translated, correctly preserved, etc., 3.. that intermediaries (saviors, prophets, priests, etc.) - whom you're required to believe in - truly existed and truly taught those doctrines, and 4. that historians, archaeologists, etc. who reconstructs this history - individuals whom you must also believe in, consequently - also accurately interpreted their data.

After realizing this truth for myself - that little to none of the above was personally verifable - I had nothing more to do with faith-based religions.

This faith comes from placing one's trust in the testimony of others. Like any good salesman would say, "Trust me on this".

 

[buddhist]

This faith comes from placing one's trust in the testimony of others. Like any good salesman would say, "Trust me on this".

The entire chain must be infallible then, and divinely preserved by an infallible deity who wished to preserve its infallible message through the medium of human words.

The source (deity) must be infallible, the intermediaries who preserve that word (saviors, prophets, priests, etc.) must be infallible, the written documents (ancient texts) must be infallible, and translators and interpreters of that word (preachers, teachers, etc.) must also be infallible, and the individual's ability to discern this infalliblity must also be infallible. Any failure in a link in this chain destroys 1. the idea that the source is infallible, or 2. the idea that it preserved its message through human words.

 

[roger1440]

I think the saving grace of Christianity is the spirit of brotherly love and righteousness taught by Jesus. Those things are timeless and much of the rest is just details. An exclusivist view of Christianity (being saved?) is outdated. If you follow the timeless teachings, it is not a crapshoot, they are the path to heaven.

If it is so outdated how is possible the novels, movies, and TV series “Left Behind” is so popular? Ever few years it gets resurrected again.

 

[George-ananda]

If it is so outdated how is possible the novels, movies, and TV series “Left Behind” is so popular? Ever few years it gets resurrected again.

The strong evangelical movement still has its appeal to some but my point was it is becoming more marginalized by the increase in education and exposure. Did not even the current Pope say that even atheists can get to heaven? Critics of Christianity like to focus on its most right-wing forms as that is easiest to attack. I still believe Jesus to be a great figure.

 

[buddhist]

Did not even the current Pope say that even atheists can get to heaven?

He apparently also taught that Jesus was a sinner

 

[George-ananda]

He apparently also taught that Jesus was a sinner

You lost me on that comment. What?

 

[roger1440]

I think the saving grace of Christianity is the spirit of brotherly love and righteousness taught by Jesus. Those things are timeless and much of the rest is just details. An exclusivist view of Christianity (being saved?) is outdated. If you follow the timeless teachings, it is not a crapshoot, they are the path to heaven.

No one in the 21 century knows what Jesus taught. People are taught by books, not Jesus. I have never met anyone who has been to heaven, have you?

 

[savagewind]

No one in the 21 century knows what Jesus taught. People are taught by books, not Jesus. I have never met anyone who has been to heaven, have you?

Do you really think that if heaven exists communication CAN'T come from it?
Is the resurrection real, in your opinion?

 

[George-ananda]

No one in the 21 century knows what Jesus taught. People are taught by books, not Jesus.
I have never met anyone who has been to heaven, have you?

Yes, I do believe many Near Death Experience survivors and others have seen things and heaven is non-denominational (i.e. no 'one' right religion). But they do report the importance of love and brotherly love as I previously mentioned.

 

[buddhist]

You lost me on that comment. What?

"The Pope reflected on the Sunday reading from the Gospel of Luke, in which a young Jesus stayed in Jerusalem in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph when they could not find him.

“For this little ‘escapade,’ Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents,” the Pope suggested. “The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.”" (source)

 

[George-ananda]

"The Pope reflected on the Sunday reading from the Gospel of Luke, in which a young Jesus stayed in Jerusalem in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph when they could not find him.

“For this little ‘escapade,’ Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents,” the Pope suggested. “The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.”" (source)

I hope you are not serious that this is any issue?

 

[buddhist]

I hope you are not serious that this is any issue?

Sure it is. It simply means that there probably just as many interpretations of (insert faith-based religion here, including Christianity) as there are followers. Sad thing is, one's interpretation needs to be the "correct one" in order to be "saved".

Just as one "small" example, I've seen Christians debate which name they must use and believe in to be "properly saved"; if one does not use the proper name, his salvation is suspect, e.g.:

Jesus
Jesus Christ
Yeshua
Yeshua Messiah
Yehoshua Messiah
Yahoshua
Yahusha
Ieosus
Iesus
YSH
Jehovah
Yahweh
YHWH
I Am
Etc.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure it is. It simply means that there probably just as many interpretations of (insert faith-based religion here, including Christianity) as there are followers. Sad thing is, one's interpretation needs to be the "correct one" in order to be "saved".

Just as one "small" example, I've seen Christians debate which name they must use and believe in to be "properly saved"; if one does not use the proper name, his salvation is suspect, e.g.:

Jesus
Jesus Christ
Yeshua
Yeshua Messiah
Yehoshua Messiah
Yahoshua
Yahusha
Ieosus
Iesus
YSH
Jehovah
Yahweh
YHWH
I Am
Etc.

I am not sure how your reply even follows my question, but you are doing more of what I said in a previous post: Critics of Christianity like to focus on its most right-wing forms as that is easiest to attack. We both disagree with these right-wing, evangelical types but there can be more to Christianity than that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I still believe Jesus to be a great figure.

 

[Windwalker]

Losing one’s life means to turn one’s life over to Jesus. By doing so one would save their life, by not doing so, one would forfeit their life. A person can’t turn over a portion of one’s life. A person must turn over ALL of their life. It’s like being a little pregnant. A person is or is not pregnant, there is no in between. A person must bet the farm.

"For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it." (Luke 9:24)

Which would include hanging on to beliefs to put your trust in. "I don't know" is the beginning of Wisdom. "Lose your life for my sake", would entail letting go of trying to find answers in beliefs.

 

[Skwim]

My point is that, if you look at things objectively, Protestantism--which comprises over 99% of all Christian branches--can be discarded as an absurdity due to its novelty and its relativity in doctrine (among other reasons)

I wouldn't think that anything with 99% of a given population would be considered novel. Care to explain?

And what is the " relativity in doctrine" you're talking about?


.

 

[buddhist]

I am not sure how your reply even follows my question, but you are doing more of what I said in a previous post: Critics of Christianity like to focus on its most right-wing forms as that is easiest to attack. We both disagree with these right-wing, evangelical types but there can be more to Christianity than that.

Whatever "wing" various factions of Christianity represent, my example was to demonstrate that even the interpretations of the current RCC Pope is not in lockstep with his own church's predecessors, much less those in other wings of Christianity. There are as many ideas about Christianity as there are denominations and individuals

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I still believe Jesus to be a great figure.

Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't. I have no personal knowledge of who Jesus was, unfortunately.

IMO some of the things he allegedly taught as recorded in the common Bible are laudable, but they are not unique teachings to him or exclusive to Christianity.

 

[George-ananda]

Whatever "wing" various factions of Christianity represent, my example was to demonstrate that even the interpretations of the current RCC Pope is not in lockstep with his own church's predecessors, much less those in other wings of Christianity. There are as many ideas about Christianity as there are denominations and individuals

As I said before the timeless teachings (love, brotherly love) are what is important and the rest are less important details they can argue about that are not going to change reality.

Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't. I have no personal knowledge of who Jesus was, unfortunately.

He certainly did not live in the day of mass media. But the image and heart of Jesus that comes through from the Gospels is a real thing (whatever details were gotten right/wrong in the Gospel stories).

IMO some of the things he allegedly taught as recorded in the common Bible are laudable, but they are not unique teachings to him or exclusive to Christianity.

I agree that nothing is unique or exclusive to Christianity but that does not mean making yourself a follower of Jesus is still not a good thing. It doesn't have to be Jesus but He is one good option for those raised in the Christian culture.