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

[sojourner]

It's a serious flaw in Christian theology. Anything goes

Let’s rephrase that. It’s a serious flaw in Protestant, Independent, Evangelical theology. The historic and creedal church: RCC, Orthodox, and Anglican (and, to an extent, Lutheran churches), have no such concept as “anything goes.” Their various doctrines are well-presented, adherents are expected to live them out, and are held accountable to ecclesiastical authority for their actions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.


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?


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.


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.

Too much conceptualization, reality is on the other side so please understand that is what I'm trying to convey. I know there is irony in the fact that I must use concepts to convey to you that concepts are merely mental creations to represent the real, but are not real in themselves except as concepts.

So because it is difficult, it should not be tried? It is not about it being oversimplified it is about realization, nothing more or less.

You, the ego mind is of the body , but there is mind beyond your body.. So long as you are trying to realize enlightenment, you will stay deep in maya. Cease conceptualizing and 'you' cease to arise in the mind as being what and who one really is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Christian Love is selfish, is it?
Thats a shame.
In our culture its the opposite.

You did not understand.

I'm saying all love comes from God.

If in your culture, if people claim the love originates from themselves, then that is vanity and what atheists think.

 

[leroy]

I may be wrong, but in identifying the 'axis mundi' of the general Christian faith, through having read many books and spent many years on forums, it seems to all come down to a core tenet of 'faith in Jesus,' when we try to arrive at something 'indisputable.' The act/state of faith, as far as I can tell, seems to be the most important to you. As well, it's also what mother told me as a kid, when I inquired what was most important

That is not what I am trying to debate, therefore. Though, if you take issue with this, could you please provide a short list of what you think is most important in the faith, so that I can see where 'faith' stands in it

My question considers the individual act/state of faith in Jesus (or whatever you think is most important) as superseding whatever else you believe, in importance, about your religion. And therefore granting you the redemption you want, in spite of anything else you might believe about anything else in the bible

For I have noticed that Christians will quickly get extremely creative with the whole corpus, while some notion of 'sola fide' remains quite constant. But in the next post, you might suddenly apply your own hermeneutics to a random verse in the book of revelation, for example, and describe an 'important' takeaway that I or no one else had ever heard of.

And you will be rather 'insistent,' though the oft random verses you prescribe great relevance to, might be in distant orbit, from that which you might all in common, call essential

So therefore, how creative can you get with the bible, while still revolving it around a solid faith in Jesus? Developing forms Christianity might have pruned out much of this, (the gnostic works getting canned etc.) but it is clear that any modern person who applies thought to the bible, and describes what they think, seems in reality unable not to apply subjective content to it, and to it add their own creativity

How much of that can you actually do. What if a person had the greatest faith in Jesus, and believed that they were saved, but believed Paul was the devil? Or that the book of revelation should be removed, or had just a touch of gnosticism in their other beliefs, or paganism?

And I would argue that anyone, any believer, who bothers to say anything at all about their Christianity, anything whatsoever besides what is literally written in the text, then says what they think about it in an inevitably altered way, even if subtly. And so adds to it

How creative can you get, while still setting all the other of your beliefs around the central core, which is faith in Jesus, as being the most redemptive and immutable in all of that? And if that is what you really think, then does it really matter at all, regarding anything you believe besides that?

In my opinion you can give away the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, even if the bible is proven to be written by uninspired men) you can still be a Christian.

 

[Audie]

You did not understand.

I'm saying all love comes from God.

If in your culture, if people claim the love originates from themselves, then that is vanity and what atheists think.

Oh, i understand just fine, that you are wrong

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh, i understand just fine, that you are wrong

Well that's telling me...

 

[Audie]

Well that's telling me...

Matches with you telling me, except i
didnt have to make things up, a very bad habit that theists have

 

[metis]

Let’s rephrase that. It’s a serious flaw in Protestant, Independent, Evangelical theology. The historic and creedal church: RCC, Orthodox, and Anglican (and, to an extent, Lutheran churches), have no such concept as “anything goes.” Their various doctrines are well-presented, adherents are expected to live them out, and are held accountable to ecclesiastical authority for their actions.

Yes, but in Catholicism we do also have the right of personal discernment.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Matches with you telling me, except i
didnt have to make things up, a very bad habit that theists have

Haha, you're an atheist, victims of the biggest misunderstanding there can be.

Did you hear about the two fish in the ocean, one says to the other, where is this ocean everyone talks about?

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but in Catholicism we do also have the right of personal discernment.

Correct, and also the right of personal dissent (unless that’s been revoked in the last 35 years).

 

[Audie]

Haha, you're an atheist, victims of the biggest misunderstanding there can be.

Did you hear about the two fish in the ocean, one says to the other, where is this ocean everyone talks about?

Are you capable of making any sense?

 

[Clara Tea]

I may be wrong, but in identifying the 'axis mundi' of the general Christian faith, through having read many books and spent many years on forums, it seems to all come down to a core tenet of 'faith in Jesus,' when we try to arrive at something 'indisputable.' The act/state of faith, as far as I can tell, seems to be the most important to you. As well, it's also what mother told me as a kid, when I inquired what was most important

That is not what I am trying to debate, therefore. Though, if you take issue with this, could you please provide a short list of what you think is most important in the faith, so that I can see where 'faith' stands in it

My question considers the individual act/state of faith in Jesus (or whatever you think is most important) as superseding whatever else you believe, in importance, about your religion. And therefore granting you the redemption you want, in spite of anything else you might believe about anything else in the bible

For I have noticed that Christians will quickly get extremely creative with the whole corpus, while some notion of 'sola fide' remains quite constant. But in the next post, you might suddenly apply your own hermeneutics to a random verse in the book of revelation, for example, and describe an 'important' takeaway that I or no one else had ever heard of.

And you will be rather 'insistent,' though the oft random verses you prescribe great relevance to, might be in distant orbit, from that which you might all in common, call essential

So therefore, how creative can you get with the bible, while still revolving it around a solid faith in Jesus? Developing forms Christianity might have pruned out much of this, (the gnostic works getting canned etc.) but it is clear that any modern person who applies thought to the bible, and describes what they think, seems in reality unable not to apply subjective content to it, and to it add their own creativity

How much of that can you actually do. What if a person had the greatest faith in Jesus, and believed that they were saved, but believed Paul was the devil? Or that the book of revelation should be removed, or had just a touch of gnosticism in their other beliefs, or paganism?

And I would argue that anyone, any believer, who bothers to say anything at all about their Christianity, anything whatsoever besides what is literally written in the text, then says what they think about it in an inevitably altered way, even if subtly. And so adds to it

How creative can you get, while still setting all the other of your beliefs around the central core, which is faith in Jesus, as being the most redemptive and immutable in all of that? And if that is what you really think, then does it really matter at all, regarding anything you believe besides that?

"when we try to arrive at something 'indisputable.' The act/state of faith, as far as I can tell, seems to be the most important to you."

Ancient Roman survivors of the Herculanium pyroclastic flow suffering from pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis felt that the Gods had attacked them. My friend from Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch wondered if that could that have grown their religion?

"it's also what mother told me as a kid"

Honor thy mother. But what if mom was wrong? Still, honor her, but disagree with her. While practicing floccinaucinihilipilification, admire her persistence. Lets say that mom asserted that the earth was flat, and you showed her images from the Apollo spacecraft (which she said was a sci-fi special effects video)....you must admire her persistence.

Fortuneately, neither of us are hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobics when it comes to brobdingnagian appelations.

Almost all wild guesses are indisputable. Let me guess that Santa exists (indisputable).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you capable of making any sense?

I take that as a lack of sense of humor...where's that ocean?

 

[F1fan]

Let’s rephrase that. It’s a serious flaw in Protestant, Independent, Evangelical theology. The historic and creedal church: RCC, Orthodox, and Anglican (and, to an extent, Lutheran churches), have no such concept as “anything goes.” Their various doctrines are well-presented, adherents are expected to live them out, and are held accountable to ecclesiastical authority for their actions.

I"ll give you that, the Eastern Orthodox seems pretty stable. The Catholics have done quite a bot of adjusting over the centuries, mostly by accepting science. But even among Catholics there are very liberal folks who think abortion is a right, while there are very conservative who think even contraception is a sin. So there is your "anything goes" even in the strict world of Catholicism.

 

[Audie]

I take that as a lack of sense of humor...where's that ocean?

Try being funi then we will see.

 

[F1fan]

Too much conceptualization, reality is on the other side so please understand that is what I'm trying to convey. I know there is irony in the fact that I must use concepts to convey to you that concepts are merely mental creations to represent the real, but are not real in themselves except as concepts.

Right, the word cat can represent any number of a huge set of actual cats. It can represent cartoon cats like Garfield and Felix. It can even be some cat you imagine. The word God doesn't correspond to anything we can identify existing outside of human imagination.

So because it is difficult, it should not be tried? It is not about it being oversimplified it is about realization, nothing more or less.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Try what?

You, the ego mind is of the body , but there is mind beyond your body..

Really, how does that work? The word mind means: a set of functions the brain does to organize thoughts. So explain. Use facts.

So long as you are trying to realize enlightenment, you will stay deep in maya. Cease conceptualizing and 'you' cease to arise in the mind as being what and who one really is.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[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…?

Who cares what name it has? Not important. The important thing is how this set of dogmas guides people to believe and behave in society. It ranges from compassion to murder. The point is why does a religion allow so much diversity of moral attitudes and behaviors if it is the truth? It seems the solution for Christians is to start a different version, and not try to make Christianity as a whole a consistent, moral framework that guides people to good and decent lives.

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

Sure, you tell someone they can get away with cheating and they might consider cheating, and ignoring how they understand their character and integrity is in the toilet. Sure, God forgives them and they are still saved. But what saves their character and integrity? Nothing, it's lost.

 

[sojourner]

I"ll give you that, the Eastern Orthodox seems pretty stable. The Catholics have done quite a bot of adjusting over the centuries, mostly by accepting science. But even among Catholics there are very liberal folks who think abortion is a right, while there are very conservative who think even contraception is a sin. So there is your "anything goes" even in the strict world of Catholicism.

Sorry. That doesn’t constitute “anything goes.” You’re making theology and praxis into a black snd white proposition. But there has always been a wide swath of grey area within Christianity.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry. That doesn’t constitute “anything goes.” You’re making theology and praxis into a black snd white proposition. But there has always been a wide swath of grey area within Christianity.

Are you suggesting that people who work at a food kitchen to help all people is not significantly different than Christian members of the KKK who terrorize black people, and have even murdered them?

To my mind "anything goes" is when an ideology doesn't offer a concise moral framework that inhibits adherents from doing criminal acts against other people. Feel free to explain how the KKK is getting Christianity correct, and not them justifying their acts via the Bible.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I may be wrong, but in identifying the 'axis mundi' of the general Christian faith, through having read many books and spent many years on forums, it seems to all come down to a core tenet of 'faith in Jesus,' when we try to arrive at something 'indisputable.' The act/state of faith, as far as I can tell, seems to be the most important to you. As well, it's also what mother told me as a kid, when I inquired what was most important

That is not what I am trying to debate, therefore. Though, if you take issue with this, could you please provide a short list of what you think is most important in the faith, so that I can see where 'faith' stands in it

My question considers the individual act/state of faith in Jesus (or whatever you think is most important) as superseding whatever else you believe, in importance, about your religion. And therefore granting you the redemption you want, in spite of anything else you might believe about anything else in the bible

For I have noticed that Christians will quickly get extremely creative with the whole corpus, while some notion of 'sola fide' remains quite constant. But in the next post, you might suddenly apply your own hermeneutics to a random verse in the book of revelation, for example, and describe an 'important' takeaway that I or no one else had ever heard of.

And you will be rather 'insistent,' though the oft random verses you prescribe great relevance to, might be in distant orbit, from that which you might all in common, call essential

So therefore, how creative can you get with the bible, while still revolving it around a solid faith in Jesus? Developing forms Christianity might have pruned out much of this, (the gnostic works getting canned etc.) but it is clear that any modern person who applies thought to the bible, and describes what they think, seems in reality unable not to apply subjective content to it, and to it add their own creativity

How much of that can you actually do. What if a person had the greatest faith in Jesus, and believed that they were saved, but believed Paul was the devil? Or that the book of revelation should be removed, or had just a touch of gnosticism in their other beliefs, or paganism?

And I would argue that anyone, any believer, who bothers to say anything at all about their Christianity, anything whatsoever besides what is literally written in the text, then says what they think about it in an inevitably altered way, even if subtly. And so adds to it

How creative can you get, while still setting all the other of your beliefs around the central core, which is faith in Jesus, as being the most redemptive and immutable in all of that? And if that is what you really think, then does it really matter at all, regarding anything you believe besides that?

Jesus wanted followers, not believers. Just follow his teachings.