How many beliefs can you change in Christianity, if you still have 'total faith' in Jesus

[Hermit Philosopher]

I was commenting on the "Christian faith.. ultimate ideal",
which is, imo, unsupported by anything but assertions.

Theres nothing unique to it.

That being the case, if all else is secondary,
theres not much there.

I recall thinking this in a previous interaction between us too: we likely do not share any similar frames of linguistic reference, for I really do struggle a bit to understand what it is you try to communicate.

But I would nonetheless say that what those of (different) Christian faith share, is that they all wish to follow the example of Christ - thereof the term “Christianity”.

Do they have different rituals? Yes
Do their interpretations of “what Christ would do” vary? Slightly, I’m sure*
Does this matter to them? No
Do they have faith in their particular interpretations of “what Christ would” do? Yes
Are they saying that no one else behaves Christlike in situations? No

*)Though aspects of attentiveness, selflessness, humility towards and service to others are inevitably addressed.

 

[Audie]

I recall thinking this in a previous interaction between us too: we likely do not share any similar frames of linguistic reference, for I really do struggle a bit to understand what it is you try to communicate.

But I would nonetheless say that what those of (different) Christian faith share, is that they all wish to follow the example of Christ - thereof the term “Christianity”.

Do they have different rituals? Yes
Do their interpretations of “what Christ would do” vary? Slightly, I’m sure*
Does this matter to them? No
Do they have faith in their particular interpretations of “what Christ would” do? Yes
Are they saying that no one else behaves Christlike in situations? No

*)Though aspects of attentiveness, selflessness, humility towards and service to others are inevitably addressed.

Others here can understand me just fine.
My English is better than that of at least half of the posters here.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Others here can understand me just fine. My English is better than that of at least half of the posters here.

Again Audie, my comment had nothing to do with our English - and there is nothing wrong with yours, I assure you. It is to do with frames of linguistic reference (when communicating in language); two people who share no such references cannot understand each other, even when speaking the “same” language.

 

[F1fan]

Dear ideogenous,

The most fundamental part in Christian faith is that of [faith in] Christ as the ultimate ideal of how to live. One asks, what would Christ do here? And then, one tries as best one can to do that.

All else is secondary.


Humbly
Hermit

Why is faith in Jesus important? What does investing faith in this idea of Jesus a necessity? It's just another belief in Christianity that can be changed as well.

I think it would be important to break a pattern of dependency on concepts, and more towards more emphasis on the self being a more compassionate and global steward.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dear F1fan,

Why is faith in Jesus important? What does investing faith in this idea of Jesus a necessity? It's just another belief in Christianity that can be changed as well.

Yet, why would Christians want to rename their ideal of Christ? And if they did do so, would it not be odd to keep the name of Christianity…?

I think it would be important to break a pattern of dependency on concepts, and more towards more emphasis on the self being a more compassionate and global steward.

There is no harm in what you say here, but I suspect most Christians are okay with the concepts they use.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Psalm23]

Dear F1fan,



Yet, why would Christians want to rename their ideal of Christ? And if they did do so, would it not be odd to keep the name of Christianity…?



There is no harm in what you say here, but I suspect most Christians are okay with the concepts they use.


Humbly
Hermit

In what way do Christians rename the ideal of Christ if I may ask?

 

[F1fan]

I understand your position and appreciate your attempt to understand mine. Mine is a very subtle understanding of reality, it is based on non-duality. My comments are generally brief because I understand reality is not conceptual, it exists on the other side of conceptuality. When I speak of love, I mean the actual reality, not someone's definition. If someone has not experienced love, they can't possibly know what it is. The same thing for the concept of God, or Nirvana, or Tao, it is the reality that these terms represent that needs to be experienced directly, not to talk about it,

God is a huge set of ideas where some are described in detail and other vague. But God as a Western concept doesn't correspond to anything in reality, except for Gaia which is just nature. The descriptions refer to some real thing outside of human imagination, yet lacks any degree of evidence. Nirvana describes an ideal state of mind. To a is a type of truth a person can attain. God? I'm not sure what you mean when you use this word, but you offer no explanation how it is a word that correlates to something real.

Talking about God forever will not bring you one iota nearer, forget yourself and God is directly present.

So the negation of self is God? Why call the negation of self, which in Buddhism is a very difficult achievement which few actually attain. You make it should quite simple and easy. The dilemma is how does the mind become aware of God when ego or self is negated? And how does the religious identity of the person not simply fool the self that it is negated and God is present? Couldn't that all be an illusion?

When there is a you, then there is no God, except the concept in your mind, when there is God, there is no you and no concept of you.

If there is no "you" then what of the self is recognizing a God? Describe what this "god" is that a self experiences, but doesn't use the word "god" as a label. Krishnamurti would talk about the self being a quiet observer. That quiet mind can observe hummingbirds at a feeder and not have to think the words "humming bird" or "feeder" to recognize what is being observed. This is a discipline of mind. But of course these birds and the feeder exist and are seen by the sensory apparatus of the self. God is an abstraction, so this quiet mind observes what? What is this god of yours a quiet mind can sense in reality? If you can't answer this then your whole approach is problematic.

I don't expect you to grasp this immediately, but that is ok, it takes much contemplation to transcend the dualist mind's conceptualization of reality, to realize it without thought!

Feel free to fill in the missing elements of your claims here. Perhaps then we can grasp it, or expose more errors of your claims. You might be onto something, but you are being vague and making claims that don't add up.

 

[F1fan]

Dear F1fan,



Yet, why would Christians want to rename their ideal of Christ? And if they did do so, would it not be odd to keep the name of Christianity…?

To have a better foundation in reality, and away from the complicated and confusing illusions that are traditional. Seriously, do Christians really have any idea what the ideal of Christ is supposed to mean, and how that applies to life? Evangelicals live with this ideal and act with nearly complete opposition to what Jesus taught. Something isn't working. There's not enough real accountability for the more fervent believer.

There is no harm in what you say here, but I suspect most Christians are okay with the concepts they use.

Well they are a buffet of ideas. A Christian can be a bleeding heart liberal, or a member of the KKK, and Christ applies to all of them morally. That's a confused and vague theology. Of course they want the freedom to do whatever they want with no accountability to some moral framework. It's a serious flaw in Christian theology. Anything goes.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

In what way do Christians rename the ideal of Christ if I may ask?

Hi Psalm23,

Christians don’t - that I know of - rename their ideal of Christ. And I cannot see why they would or should want to.

But @F1fan wondered why it’s a necessity to Christians to have faith in Christ and why they don’t just focus on being good people.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

To have a better foundation in reality, and away from the complicated and confusing illusions that are traditional. Seriously, do Christians really have any idea what the ideal of Christ is supposed to mean, and how that applies to life? Evangelicals live with this ideal and act with nearly complete opposition to what Jesus taught. Something isn't working. There's not enough real accountability for the more fervent believer.

Well they are a buffet of ideas. A Christian can be a bleeding heart liberal, or a member of the KKK, and Christ applies to all of them morally. That's a confused and vague theology. Of course they want the freedom to do whatever they want with no accountability to some moral framework. It's a serious flaw in Christian theology. Anything goes.

Now I see what you’re getting at F1fan, thank you for elaborating.

I agree with you in that lots of people do terrible things in name of their faith, be that Christianity or other.

And lots of people do terrible things in name of their political convictions.

And lots of people do terrible things in name of their ancestry.

And lots of people do terrible things in name of their country.

And lots of people do terrible things in name of lots and lots of other things.

And when you think of it, people seldom think that they’re doing terrible things in their own name, when really, at times that is precisely what these terrible things are done in name of - themselves.

But it is perhaps easier to do terrible things if one convinces oneself of doing them in name of another.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Audie]

What I was thinking was contradicting is if someone believes what Paul wrote about Jesus , it doesn't make sense how the same person could view Paul as evil. Thinking over it though it could be that a person doesn't trust his character but believes he was right about Jesus.

Simple. I dont trust a liar.

 

[Audie]

Of what you believe concerning Paul's story.

Its simple. The snake story is absurd,
in detail after detail.
Didnt you ever notice?

 

[1213]

….

So therefore, how creative can you get with the bible, while still revolving it around a solid faith in Jesus? …

I understand faith in Jesus means that one remains in the teachings of Jesus, don’t replace them with own doctrines.

 

[PureX]

Why is faith in Jesus important? What does investing faith in this idea of Jesus a necessity? It's just another belief in Christianity that can be changed as well.

I think it would be important to break a pattern of dependency on concepts, and more towards more emphasis on the self being a more compassionate and global steward.

'Jesus' is a representational character, but the ideal being represented is very broad. So what he represents to people can vary by a lot. Yet the importance of the essential ideal, remains. To explain it on a basic, non-mystical level would be to say that in the story, Jesus is a man (not a god). But he is a very special man in that he is the human embodiment of God's (divine) spirit. And so as such his words and actions are real-world expressions of this Divine Spirit. And from those words and deeds (as told in the story) we learn that God's divine spirit is a spirit of love, and forgiveness, and kindness, and generosity toward all. We also learn that if we will become willing to allow ourselves to become the embodiment of that same divine spirit, within us, as Jesus did, that we can be healed and saved from ourselves, and can help others do the same.

I think the bottom line is that Jesus represents the pathway to our salvation. That pathway: the embodiment of divine love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity within us, by us, being the salvation of ourselves, and of humanity as a whole, eventually. People express this in different ways, and perceive it via different conceptualizations, but ultimately, this is what it boils down to. You ask why faith is important. It's important because we have to trust in the path and it's promise enough to be willing to follow it with our lives, to make it manifest.

 

[Psalm23]

Its simple. The snake story is absurd,
in detail after detail.
Didnt you ever notice?

I have read the story and believe it. There are much more unusual stories in the Bible. I personally do believe. I can understand how many people do not believe.

 

[F1fan]

Now I see what you’re getting at F1fan, thank you for elaborating.

I agree with you in that lots of people do terrible things in name of their faith, be that Christianity or other.

And lots of people do terrible things in name of their political convictions.

And lots of people do terrible things in name of their ancestry.

And lots of people do terrible things in name of their country.

And lots of people do terrible things in name of lots and lots of other things.

And when you think of it, people seldom think that they’re doing terrible things in their own name, when really, at times that is precisely what these terrible things are done in name of - themselves.

But it is perhaps easier to do terrible things if one convinces oneself of doing them in name of another.


Humbly
Hermit

So what you seem to be acknowledging is that even Christians, among other theists, are not directed by any sort of God or spirit, and don't take religious beliefs any more conscientiously than other identifying notions in life, like politics, nationalism, ancestry, etc. and we observers can't accept claims that believers ARE directed by spirits and a God, and are instead relying on their own moral sense and beliefs.

So if religion is as superfluous and unreliable as a means to being moral then what is its real purpose in social life and cultural experience? Believers need to think about this. Not just the lofty ideals of their religion but also how their religions fail to meet the promise it claims.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

So what you seem to be acknowledging is that even Christians, among other theists, are not directed by any sort of God or spirit, and don't take religious beliefs any more conscientiously than other identifying notions in life, like politics, nationalism, ancestry, etc. and we observers can't accept claims that believers ARE directed by spirits and a God, and are instead relying on their own moral sense and beliefs.

So if religion is as superfluous and unreliable as a means to being moral then what is its real purpose in social life and cultural experience? Believers need to think about this. Not just the lofty ideals of their religion but also how their religions fail to meet the promise it claims.

Are you able to word this question differently for me F1fan? Sorry

 

[RestlessSoul]

John 13:34-35

That’s all you need really, to understand Christianity. Those verses are the essence of the faith, to me.

 

[sojourner]

What in Jesus' teaching is not common folk
wisdom of cultures wotldwide?

Nothing. That’s why Xy is more “a way of living” than it is a unique religion.

 

[sojourner]

I was commenting on the "Christian faith.. ultimate ideal",
which is, imo, unsupported by anything but assertions.

Theres nothing unique to it.

That being the case, if all else is secondary,
theres not much there.

How much “more” do think there needs to be? Why do you think it should be “unique?” And, “unique” in terms of what? Perhaps Xy is really nothing more than arranging and presenting common spiritual wisdom in a particular set of allegories, metaphors, and symbology?