Where does Christianity begin and end?

[loverofhumanity]

A "common" foundation? Which is what? Take the different sects of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and then add the Baha'i Faith... What is that common foundation?

The Christian sects although they differ from one another all have a common belief in Jesus and the Bible which Baha’is do also. Same with Jews and Muslims. Despite their various sects they have a common belief in their Prophet Moses or Muhammad and the Torah and Quran.

And all these faiths have belief in Abraham in common so there is agreement on foundational issues between all religions.

Another topic all the religions agree upon is virtuous conduct. The scriptures of every religion teach virtues like love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, justice and wisdom. So there is much common ground between faiths as they all come from the same source.

Customs and traditions differ but they are the outward expressions. The inner reality of all religions is the same. No one religion added to another. They all are rays of the same sun.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If that were really the Baha'i position, Baha'is wouldn't proselytize (or "pioneer," to use the Baha'i euphemism). You - the plural "you" in this case - would be fine with people staying where they are and you would see no need to get them to move to the Baha'i side of a border you claim is imaginary.

What I see going on is that the Baha'i faith tries to co-opt the scriptures and characters of other religions as a conversion tactic. Telling prospective converts that the border between their religion and the Baha'i faith doesn't matter can help coax some of those prospective converts across the border into Baha'i territory.

And the idea of "there would be no division if everyone just joined our religion" isn't "oneness." It makes the Baha'i faith just like many other exclusionary, divisive religions.

I became a Baha’i because I loved its teachings. No one converted me. No one proselytised to me. I asked. I wanted it. I investigated it myself. And I’m a very, very, very happy Baha’i of 45 years and thank God every second that those Baha’is I met told me about Baha’u’llah when I asked why they were such nice people.

It’s an honour and privilege and a priceless gift for me to have been lucky enough to become a Baha’i. It is the greatest thing that has happened to me in all my life. I hope one day you will come to understand what this really is because it’s more beautiful than you can imagine.

 

[DNB]

The Bible does not confirm that. I think that a holistic view of its passages will show that belief and obedience is required not just belief.

Matthew 7:21, KJV: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Grace is not grace, if works are required. Forgiveness is meaningless, if perfection is obligatory.

 

[DNB]

I don't think that Christianity has an end. But it makes Christianity very exclusive. Even a religion that those Christians believe is true, Judaism, doesn't include Jews unless they turn to Jesus. Several sects of Christianity are left out, because they don't have the right beliefs and doctrines. Religions that come after, that include a belief in one God and Jesus, are excluded, because they add in other prophets and new teachings that contradict those teachings. Other religions that came before Jesus, other than Judaism, aren't even considered as being true.

So, lots of religions have found a way to include themselves into the mix of true religions by interpreting the Bible and the NT differently. Which makes Christianity and Jesus one of the many "paths" to truth... but not the "only" path. And that does put an end to Christianity... to that exclusive Christianity.

God is neither divided nor frivolous - there is only one truth and God is single-minded - there is only path that leads to God's approbation.
Foolish people have stated that all roads lead to Rome - if Christ died for the sins of mankind, then Hinduism cannot be true. If Mohamed is a prophet, then salvation is not from the Jews. If a Hindu can attain to nirvana, then clearly a Buddhist cannot.

 

[CG Didymus]

God is neither divided nor frivolous - there is only one truth and God is single-minded - there is only path that leads to God's approbation.
Foolish people have stated that all roads lead to Rome - if Christ died for the sins of mankind, then Hinduism cannot be true. If Mohamed is a prophet, then salvation is not from the Jews. If a Hindu can attain to nirvana, then clearly a Buddhist cannot.

Unfortunately, that supposed "one truth" gets chopped up into a bunch of little pieces. I can see why some Christians believe as you do. But I can also see how people in other religions have found ways to interpret the Bible, the NT, to fit into their beliefs.

It's not that hard to find ways to make the Bible and the NT less than perfect. People wrote the stories. People picked which stories got put into them. And people interpreted what it all meant. Different Jewish sects interpret the Bible different. Different Christians interpret the Bible and the NT different. Then Islam and the Baha'i Faith interpret them in a way to make their Scriptures fit in. They each have a way to explain why Judaism then Christianity were not the end of revelation but were only part of a continuing story about God and from God.

Their Scriptures contradict your interpretation of the Bible and the NT. But to them, their interpretation makes much more sense than yours. But, to you, your truth is The Truth. And there's is a lie. A false teaching from false messengers. But Jews say the same thing about Christianity. Christianity has put a stop to the Jewish way of doing things. To Christians, Judaism had a beginning and an end. It ended when Jesus came. And that's what Islam and the Baha'i Faith say about Christianity. You had The Truth.... for a while. Then came Muhammad and he updated that truth. Then came the Baha'i prophets and they updated it again.

To you those religions didn't update the truth, they deviated from it, and made up their own religion. And that sure seems possible. But, like I said, to the Jews, that is what Christians did. They took what they wanted from the Bible and created their own version of the truth. And everybody has proofs and reasons to believe their truth is The Truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Christian sects although they differ from one another all have a common belief in Jesus and the Bible which Baha’is do also. Same with Jews and Muslims. Despite their various sects they have a common belief in their Prophet Moses or Muhammad and the Torah and Quran.

And all these faiths have belief in Abraham in common so there is agreement on foundational issues between all religions.

Another topic all the religions agree upon is virtuous conduct. The scriptures of every religion teach virtues like love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, justice and wisdom. So there is much common ground between faiths as they all come from the same source.

Customs and traditions differ but they are the outward expressions. The inner reality of all religions is the same. No one religion added to another. They all are rays of the same sun.

Are the differences, the different practices and beliefs, of the different religions important? I think they are. Those things define the religion and separates it from the others. A person has to dump a lot of things out of each religion to make them all one. And maybe those things should be dumped.

But what about the Baha'i Faith? What can we and what should we dump from the Baha'i Faith? Naturally, to a Baha'i nothing. But it is the same thing for a believer in any religion. Those beliefs are true to them and can't be dumped.

 

[sojourner]

Great post. Certainly I am a non-muslim, non-Baha'i, non-atheist et al. - and also would have no problem being designated as such.

I get what you’re saying, but here’s the thing for me: why would a person want to identify herself in negative terms, that is, by asserting what she is not? Doesn’t that act imply divisiveness, in addition to not being very helpful in identifying who she is?

You are a Christian; you’re not a “not-Muslim.” Do you see how contrived that sounds? Unless the majority is Muslim and you wish to decisively differentiate yourself from them, a negative identity isn’t helpful.

When we positively identify differently, we are able to positively contrast and compare in ways that can serve to build diverse communities based on broader identities than simply one’s creed. But when we identify as “not-something,” the door to an open interchange and possible blending of like ideologies is slammed shut.

 

[Kenny]

I get what you’re saying, but here’s the thing for me: why would a person want to identify herself in negative terms, that is, by asserting what she is not? Doesn’t that act imply divisiveness, in addition to not being very helpful in identifying who she is?

You are a Christian; you’re not a “not-Muslim.” Do you see how contrived that sounds? Unless the majority is Muslim and you wish to decisively differentiate yourself from them, a negative identity isn’t helpful.

When we positively identify differently, we are able to positively contrast and compare in ways that can serve to build diverse communities based on broader identities than simply one’s creed. But when we identify as “not-something,” the door to an open interchange and possible blending of like ideologies is slammed shut.

You are right...

I mentioned before that the person who was presiding wasn't using wisdom by using that wording.

My point on this one is that if some did use that terminology for me, I wouldn't be bothered by it. None the less, it is best not to use the negative terminology.

 

[vulcanlogician]

My question would be, just exactly what do the Christian Quakers believe if they don't believe Jesus was risen from the dead in as much as Jesus said he was going to be risen from the dead. Do they pick and choose what they want to believe?

I wouldn't say that Christian Quakers "pick and choose" what they believe. There are all kinds of Quakers. There are the more conservative kind who hold more traditional beliefs and are homogeneously Christian, often treating scripture with the same regard as most inerrantists. Then there are the more liberal strain who do not even require that members profess Christianity.

Muslims and atheists are welcome to worship and participate as full members in "liberal" Quakerism (though in my experience, about half or more are Christians anyway-- that's why I was sure to specify "Christian" Quakers in my previous post). "Liberal" Quakers often practice "unprogrammed" meetings, wherein the worshipers gather (usually in someone's home) and spend an hour in silence. They call it "waiting." It isn't necessarily meditation. I have been to these meetings and was never once encouraged to meditate. You just show up, say your hellos, and then boom... an hour of silence.

There is no sectarian divide between liberal and conservative Quakers AFAIK. They all belong to the "Religious Society of Friends." And as far as I can tell, there exists a harmony between the two. They are both "non-doctrinal" meaning that, to be a Quaker is not a commitment to a list of beliefs but rather a different kind of religious commitment. If there is any peculiar belief that underlies all Quakerism, it might be "the inner light" or the belief that deep within you is a part that can fully engage with God so there is really no ultimate need for institutions or doctrines for worship. (I suppose atheistic Quakers have a version of that without God, but this was how it was explained to me. I was also told I didn't need to accept the concept of the "inner light" to become a Quaker. And btw, I'm not a Quaker or anything. I just hung out with them for a few weeks and did some reading about them afterward.)

It may sound like an "anything goes" scenario to be non-doctrinal, but I found the opposite to be true. I found a kind of full-throated endorsement of the Sermon on the Mount going on amongst them. Whereas most Christians have a long list of exceptions when speaking of the Sermon, the Quakers seem to have the attitude that's it's a straightforward requirement of what's required of them in their service to God, and in no way impossible to achieve. I understand folks not wanting to take the Sermon literally. It seems a bit much. But the "why not?" attitude of (some) Quakers to that end left an impression on me.

Some Quakers drink no alcohol whatsoever. Others are pacifists. In my limited experience, I found each one to be a kind, gentle, and carefully spoken person. I mean, it's what you'd expect from people who are willing to sit for an hour in silence as their method of worship. They seem to be highly principled, and more married to their principles as duties to be performed rather than commandments to be repeated. As I said before, quite the opposite from "anything goes." They don't have a list of doctrines that they all agree that everyone should adhere to, but at the same time, they seem to have more of a doctrine (substance-wise) than most fundamentalists I've met.

Your mileage may vary. I'm working with a small sample size. I'm not saying there aren't flaky Quakers out there. There probably are. But it seems from online and in books I've read, that there is this kind of "integrity" running through a lot of Quakers. As you might be able to tell, I was fairly impressed by them. I've hung out with evangelicals, Catholics, Pentecostals, you name it. In my opinion, they aren't any more or less "Christian" than the Quakers. Despite what their doctrines may say.

That's why I was compelled to bring in "Christian Quakers" after reading your original post. Because your statement on the definition of a Christian: "A Christian is simply one who has trusted and given his heart to Jesus Christ (thus Christian) - as the Messiah, Savior and Lord. A follower of Christ." -- I like that definition. I think the Christian Quakers I've met certainly fit the bill here. I don't know what goes on in their minds or anything, but I get the impression that they strive to be servants --or followers-- of Christ. And in a very careful and humble way. That would seem to qualify them as Christians as per your definition.

Later, you made an attempt to state the unifying beliefs that all Christians share: "probably that Jesus died for our sins, was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father." You were careful with your words. You didn't "proclaim" that as the central belief of all Christians or anything. But, in my view, it seems like this is imprecise. Those needn't be beliefs that all Christians share at all. Maybe it's possible for one to be a Christian, and yet not hold any of those beliefs. I'm not saying this is correct. But the matter deserves discussion doesn't it?

I'm a fan of your definition of a Christian, but take issue with the unifying beliefs.

 

[Kenny]

I wouldn't say that Christian Quakers "pick and choose" what they believe. There are all kinds of Quakers. There are the more conservative kind who hold more traditional beliefs and are homogeneously Christian, often treating scripture with the same regard as most inerrantists. Then there are the more liberal strain who do not even require that members profess Christianity.

Muslims and atheists are welcome to worship and participate as full members in "liberal" Quakerism (though in my experience, about half or more are Christians anyway-- that's why I was sure to specify "Christian" Quakers in my previous post). "Liberal" Quakers often practice "unprogrammed" meetings, wherein the worshipers gather (usually in someone's home) and spend an hour in silence. They call it "waiting." It isn't necessarily meditation. I have been to these meetings and was never once encouraged to meditate. You just show up, say your hellos, and then boom... an hour of silence.

There is no sectarian divide between liberal and conservative Quakers AFAIK. They all belong to the "Religious Society of Friends." And as far as I can tell, there exists a harmony between the two. They are both "non-doctrinal" meaning that, to be a Quaker is not a commitment to a list of beliefs but rather a different kind of religious commitment. If there is any peculiar belief that underlies all Quakerism, it might be "the inner light" or the belief that deep within you is a part that can fully engage with God so there is really no ultimate need for institutions or doctrines for worship. (I suppose atheistic Quakers have a version of that without God, but this was how it was explained to me. I was also told I didn't need to accept the concept of the "inner light" to become a Quaker. And btw, I'm not a Quaker or anything. I just hung out with them for a few weeks and did some reading about them afterward.)

It may sound like an "anything goes" scenario to be non-doctrinal, but I found the opposite to be true. I found a kind of full-throated endorsement of the Sermon on the Mount going on amongst them. Whereas most Christians have a long list of exceptions when speaking of the Sermon, the Quakers seem to have the attitude that's it's a straightforward requirement of what's required of them in their service to God, and in no way impossible to achieve. I understand folks not wanting to take the Sermon literally. It seems a bit much. But the "why not?" attitude of (some) Quakers to that end left an impression on me.

Some Quakers drink no alcohol whatsoever. Others are pacifists. In my limited experience, I found each one to be a kind, gentle, and carefully spoken person. I mean, it's what you'd expect from people who are willing to sit for an hour in silence as their method of worship. They seem to be highly principled, and more married to their principles as duties to be performed rather than commandments to be repeated. As I said before, quite the opposite from "anything goes." They don't have a list of doctrines that they all agree that everyone should adhere to, but at the same time, they seem to have more of a doctrine (substance-wise) than most fundamentalists I've met.

Your mileage may vary. I'm working with a small sample size. I'm not saying there aren't flaky Quakers out there. There probably are. But it seems from online and in books I've read, that there is this kind of "integrity" running through a lot of Quakers. As you might be able to tell, I was fairly impressed by them. I've hung out with evangelicals, Catholics, Pentecostals, you name it. In my opinion, they aren't any more or less "Christian" than the Quakers. Despite what their doctrines may say.

That's why I was compelled to bring in "Christian Quakers" after reading your original post. Because your statement on the definition of a Christian: "A Christian is simply one who has trusted and given his heart to Jesus Christ (thus Christian) - as the Messiah, Savior and Lord. A follower of Christ." -- I like that definition. I think the Christian Quakers I've met certainly fit the bill here. I don't know what goes on in their minds or anything, but I get the impression that they strive to be servants --or followers-- of Christ. And in a very careful and humble way. That would seem to qualify them as Christians as per your definition.

Later, you made an attempt to state the unifying beliefs that all Christians share: "probably that Jesus died for our sins, was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father." You were careful with your words. You didn't "proclaim" that as the central belief of all Christians or anything. But, in my view, it seems like this is imprecise. Those needn't be beliefs that all Christians share at all. Maybe it's possible for one to be a Christian, and yet not hold any of those beliefs. I'm not saying this is correct. But the matter deserves discussion doesn't it?

I'm a fan of your definition of a Christian, but take issue with the unifying beliefs.

Very informative and very interesting. I've been to a Coptic service and think I would enjoy a Quaker meeting.

Really appreciate your sharing!!!

 

[DNB]

Unfortunately, that supposed "one truth" gets chopped up into a bunch of little pieces. I can see why some Christians believe as you do. But I can also see how people in other religions have found ways to interpret the Bible, the NT, to fit into their beliefs.

It's not that hard to find ways to make the Bible and the NT less than perfect. People wrote the stories. People picked which stories got put into them. And people interpreted what it all meant. Different Jewish sects interpret the Bible different. Different Christians interpret the Bible and the NT different. Then Islam and the Baha'i Faith interpret them in a way to make their Scriptures fit in. They each have a way to explain why Judaism then Christianity were not the end of revelation but were only part of a continuing story about God and from God.

Their Scriptures contradict your interpretation of the Bible and the NT. But to them, their interpretation makes much more sense than yours. But, to you, your truth is The Truth. And there's is a lie. A false teaching from false messengers. But Jews say the same thing about Christianity. Christianity has put a stop to the Jewish way of doing things. To Christians, Judaism had a beginning and an end. It ended when Jesus came. And that's what Islam and the Baha'i Faith say about Christianity. You had The Truth.... for a while. Then came Muhammad and he updated that truth. Then came the Baha'i prophets and they updated it again.

To you those religions didn't update the truth, they deviated from it, and made up their own religion. And that sure seems possible. But, like I said, to the Jews, that is what Christians did. They took what they wanted from the Bible and created their own version of the truth. And everybody has proofs and reasons to believe their truth is The Truth.

But, that can be said about anything - everyone has an opinion - take 5 people to watch the same movie, and see how many varying interpretations evolve.

Therefore, one must decide what the authorial intent was: liberal or subjective interpretation, or an extremely distinct, unequivocal and pertinent meaning - one that divides between life & death.
I chose the latter, thus I am obligated to derive a harmonious and unified, wise and glorifying extrapolation of the Scriptures - one that undermines the rationale and philosophies of all other religions. To me, that's what Christ offers.

 

[CG Didymus]

But, that can be said about anything - everyone has an opinion - take 5 people to watch the same movie, and see how many varying interpretations evolve.

Therefore, one must decide what the authorial intent was: liberal or subjective interpretation, or an extremely distinct, unequivocal and pertinent meaning - one that divides between life & death.
I chose the latter, thus I am obligated to derive a harmonious and unified, wise and glorifying extrapolation of the Scriptures - one that undermines the rationale and philosophies of all other religions. To me, that's what Christ offers.

Nothing wrong with that... except it makes everyone else hopelessly lost sinners that are destined to be cast into hell. So, there is some motivation to find reasons why the Bible and the NT aren't literally true. And I can understand why some people want to debunk Christianity so they can justify their lifestyles, but some do it to justify their religious beliefs. And the lifestyles they are trying to live are as pure and Holy as any Christian's. They just don't want to hear all that stuff about Jesus being the only way.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Grace is not grace, if works are required. Forgiveness is meaningless, if perfection is obligatory.

Its pure grace that one is enabled to accept Jesus. But after that He expects His followers to obey God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Are the differences, the different practices and beliefs, of the different religions important? I think they are. Those things define the religion and separates it from the others. A person has to dump a lot of things out of each religion to make them all one. And maybe those things should be dumped.

But what about the Baha'i Faith? What can we and what should we dump from the Baha'i Faith? Naturally, to a Baha'i nothing. But it is the same thing for a believer in any religion. Those beliefs are true to them and can't be dumped.

Traditions and customs which do not cause physical or mental harm or disunity are welcomed as aspects of diversity which enhance the experience of unity. For example a tradition that teaches to despise non believers or followers of other religions is dangerous whereas differences of food and culture can add to harmony. We have a vast range of diverse national dishes in our country and people love it and it helps us appreciate the food of other nations. It breaks down prejudice. I love Chinese, Mexican and Indian food much more than western but I do love the occasional pizza and Big Mac. So much variety to choose from.

Current traditions of only mixing with our own kind can be put down to language so having a common language will greatly help the different communities to mix and mingle and develop closer friendships and bonds which can unite us and even prevent wars as we will not want to go to war with people who we have come to know and respect. So a common language in addition to our own one would greatly foster closer ties between nations, races and religions.

 

[Muffled]

I wish to explore what it means to be a Christian and follower of Christ. What does it mean to identity as Christian and non-Christian.

I attended an interfaith gathering recently and initially there were six Christians, one Buddhist and a Baha'i. The theme was 'hope' and we were sharing from our respective faith traditions what that meant. The Christians certainly had a great deal to say and then I offered to share a perspective from outside of Christianity. I shared a story about Muhammed and the circumstances leading to the Muslims flight to Ethiopia to escape the persecution from the Qureshi.

The Christian chair thanked me for sharing a 'non-Christian' perspective. In hindsight I felt uncomfortable with the words non-Christian and felt a better phrase would have simply call it a Baha'i perspective.

So what does it mean to be a Christian or non-Christian. At what point are these labels helpful and when do they simply fuel division and tribalism?

Thoughts? Questions? Thanks in advance for sharing.

I believe a Follower of the Way is one who has received Jesus as Lord and Savior. A Christian is one who believe Jesus is the Messiah or Christ in Greek. I believe I am both.

As far as I can tell the B man had a lot of respect for the teachings of Jesus and perhaps one could call the person a Jesuit although the Roman Catholics seem to have captured that title.

 

[Muffled]

Labels tend to be laced with connotation. When talking with Christians I leave it to them to define the term. Still, I can think of no useful definition of Christian or Christianity which would not render me non-Christian, nor can I think of a particular reason to feel uncomfortable with the designation. Interfaith is about bridging distinctions, not denying them.

I believe the contrary is true. Jewish people believe in a Messiah but just not that he has come yet. Perhaps even though Messiah and Christ mean the same things the early application of Christian was a designation for those who believed Jesus as the Messiah.

 

[Muffled]

I agree about labels. Often they are used in a superficial sense, fought over ("true Christian) or used for social/political purposes.

That's why the first quote in this post gets to the heart of the question. If I give my heart to my wife and children, I naturally want to make them happy and act accordingly. If I love God then naturally I want to work at aligning my life with God's pleasure and for Christians that can be found in the Bible.

I suspect some who call themselves Christian are actually Biblicalians.

 

[pearl]

If I give my heart to my wife and children, I naturally want to make them happy and act accordingly. If I love God then naturally I want to work at aligning my life with God's pleasure and for Christians that can be found in the Bible.

One could say much the same of the 'Ten Commandments', they are divided, 3 and 10 with the first 3 applying to God, and if we really honored the first 3 the remaining would be in our hearts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe the contrary is true. Jewish people believe in a Messiah but just not that he has come yet.

Please don't presume to tell me what "Jewish people believe." The word "some" is in the lexicon for a reason.

 

[CG Didymus]

Traditions and customs which do not cause physical or mental harm or disunity are welcomed as aspects of diversity which enhance the experience of unity. For example a tradition that teaches to despise non believers or followers of other religions is dangerous whereas differences of food and culture can add to harmony. We have a vast range of diverse national dishes in our country and people love it and it helps us appreciate the food of other nations. It breaks down prejudice. I love Chinese, Mexican and Indian food much more than western but I do love the occasional pizza and Big Mac. So much variety to choose from.

Current traditions of only mixing with our own kind can be put down to language so having a common language will greatly help the different communities to mix and mingle and develop closer friendships and bonds which can unite us and even prevent wars as we will not want to go to war with people who we have come to know and respect. So a common language in addition to our own one would greatly foster closer ties between nations, races and religions.

I'm talking about religious beliefs.

Are the differences, the different practices and beliefs, of the different religions important? I think they are. Those things define the religion and separates it from the others. A person has to dump a lot of things out of each religion to make them all one. And maybe those things should be dumped.

But what about the Baha'i Faith? What can we and what should we dump from the Baha'i Faith? Naturally, to a Baha'i nothing. But it is the same thing for a believer in any religion. Those beliefs are true to them and can't be dumped.

Would the world be a better place if those Christians that insist that Jesus is the only way to be saved? That Jesus is God? That Jesus saves a person from hell and Satan?

Baha'is don't believe in the teachings of these very literal-believing types of Christians. What do you do with them? If what they believe and what they are saying are lies, how can we allow them to keep preaching those things? But... they feel the same way about Baha'is. Then we have all the other religions. We aren't going to get people to stop believing those things. Yet, with some religious groups we do stop them from teaching their religious beliefs. We call them cults and say that they are a danger to society. But, again, where do we draw the line? Some say Mormons, Baha'is, JW's and others are cults.

So, when we are talking about variety. Are all these different beliefs important to keep and let everyone pick and choose which one is true? Or is there one truth from God. And, for the sake of peace and unity, that one truth should be taught and believed? And all the others done away with.... Because they are false in one way or another? Or at least do away with those false beliefs that have crept into those religions?