Discussion on Christianity
To avoid running off-topic from another thread, I thought it would be better to start a new thread for discussing various aspects of Christianity and the Christian teachings, including discussion on the Old Testament and the Law.
Comments (71)
Forgiveness:
Often the Christian God is thought of as a God of love and forgiveness, but just as often it is forgotten that He is the God of justice and holiness as well.
Hence, when I consider forgiveness, Christ's work comes to mind. By no means was it necessary for God to offer a solution to the law that cannot be kept, but He did so anyway by the sacrifice of Christ. He died that we may have life, yet refusing this grace brings death. As does refusing antivenom after a toxic snake bite.
You have the frank seal of approval.
By prove it, yes, please share your thoughts on the comparison between Seneca and Christ and show how Seneca is superior. But I will ask you to reference actual Christian Scripture and the works of Seneca when giving your examples so that it is apparent where you are coming from.
Does that forgiveness extend to the hundreds of thousands of years prior to Christ's birth (as far as Homo sapiens has existed) or is it only afterwards? If so, why did it take so long? Or am I misunderstanding? What does accepting this grace mean?
The answer to your question varies by sect.
I think any comparison of Seneca and Jesus is probably an unhelpful exercise. We know much about Seneca, and little of Jesus. Seneca wrote extensively, was well-known while he lived, a significant figure before and after he tutored Nero, a significant figure in governing the Empire until his falling out with Nero and being required to commit suicide. Jesus we know only by what was written of him decades after his death. What was written of him can be obscure, and sometimes confusing.
Seneca was the great stylist of his age, sophisticated, well-educated in philosophy and Greek and Latin literature. Jesus was not. Jesus as best we can tell spoke simply. His pronouncements on morality are generally unobjectionable.and admirable, but I think are unremarkable given the centuries of thought given morals by the philosophers who came before him. Seneca was a part of that tradition, and naturally voiced it much more eloquently than Jesus or at least those who claimed to repeat his words could.
Trump is like Seneca in terms of his opinions about wealth.
Jesus said the meek would be blessed. Eventually his followers would become convinced the Roman Emperor was the Anti-Christ.
It's a multi-faceted story, but the revolutionary spirit of early Christianity is part of it. Christianity is about grandeur. Seneca was about brushing your teeth properly.
It's also interesting how easily the revolutionary spirit of Christianity became the imperial spirit of the Christian Roman Empire. You might be surprised to learn the number of Roman Emperors who were Christian.
Obviously the greater contributer to Christianity was Plotinus. The stoicism of Seneca's day fizzled out on its own.
There is no commandment to forgive except when a brother or a sister repents. Then you shall forgive, but there is no commandment to forgive before that.
An Anglican priest named Staniforth or something like that wrote an introduction to the Penguin Classics version of Marcus Aurelius' Medtations which detailed what he thought were the significant contributions to Christianity. He thinks the Stoic conception of the Logos was borrowed by Christianity, that the Christian trinity and the Holy Spirit finds its basis in Stoicism, and more. He thought that Paul used Stoic terminology in his letters. I would add Stoicism's claim that we are all united and one people, not many different peoples, as we all carry within us a part of the providential divinty that is inherent in the world, and their concept of natural law which Cicero wrote of. Cicero did a lot to popularize Greek thought in the Roman world.
Stoicism keeps coming back. It was popular again during the Renaissance, and Justus Lipius founded neo-stoicism in the 16th century. And it's resurgent now, as you'll find by doing a Google search. There are several new books being written about it, academic and popular, and Internet stoic communities exist.
I agree that Plotinus and neo-platonism influenced Christianity greatly. The Platonist version of Christianity was probably dominant until the works of Aristotle began being read again in the 12th-13th centuries.
All the information we have about Jesus comes from writings from early Christians, so one should expect consistency between what was written and what they believed - irrespective of the historical accuracy.
See Colossians 3:13, Matthew 6:14-15, 18:21-22, Luke 6:41, Ephesians 4:31-32.
The origins of humanity is a more challenging question to answer, but as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:22, every person born in the lineage of Adam has sinned, hence falling under judgment and needs the salvation which Christ offered. Hebrews 11 explains this very well. It is by faith that those before Christ received redemption. As for taking this amount of time, we must acknowledge the course of events in the Scriptures. There had to be something to set Christ apart from the masses, which comes in one way of the many prophecies. Mostly, I think this can be because our ways are not God's ways.
Accepting grace means to repent of wrongdoing and allow the death of Christ to pay for our sins, and believe that He rose from the dead on the third day, conquering death and sin.
Considering that the 4 Gospels are written as eyewitness accounts by separate individuals and generally agree on most points, that seems like good evidence that what was written is true. Decades is a very small amount of time, and the accounts still largely agree...
I have to agree here for the most part. Christendom has fallen. As it is written in Revelation 3:15-17, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human,
Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.
from Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy
I dont think any scholar believes that. Luke wasn't supposed to be an eye-witness anyway.
"The disintegration of Protestantism into over 400 different denominations is a sure sign that the restlessness continues." Carl Jung
And this error is what it is to be specifically human.
There is no ideal 'good' person.
There are only people.
None of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and they are not independent. The disciples were illiterate Aramaic speakers in Palestine; the Gospels were originally written in Greek, which was spoken outside Palestine. Analysis of the "Synoptic Problem" shows there to be a literary dependency, and the most credible theory is that Mark was written first, and that Matthew & Luke used Mark as a source - which explains the agreements. The relationship to John is more complex, but displays evidence that the authors were familiar with the synoptic accounts.
Where did he come up with "a sage who bids men work no more"? That is against the teachings and actions of Christ; we are instructed to work hard.
"Justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice" makes sense when you consider the concepts of grace and justice put together, and needless to say, Christ offered Himself and wasn't forced into doing anything.
Sins are real, and also don't essentially effect God except that He is a personal God and cares for people, hence why he attoned for our sins.
And the cross statment is just absurd and foolish....
Quoting Relativist
Or maybe they saw the same events, and that is why they are similar...
Nope.
"Or maybe they saw the same events, and that is why they are similar..."
That does not explain the identical wording in Greek. This provides an example.
Quoting Waya
I see. I was more wondering why it took so long for God to realize things were going down the wrong path. Since, as you mentioned, every person born under Adam's lineage already sinned. Corroborating man's knowledge of the humanity's origins and Genesis's account makes this all very difficult/incompatible it seems. Either Genesis is correct or not. If it isn't, then why did it take so long? Pre-history was a lot longer than the current era of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Quoting Waya
I see. : )
Apologizes for the late response.
According to the account found in Genesis, directly after the Fall of Mankind, God offered hope of redemption. He knew right away things went wrong. Adam is recognized as the first man, hence salvation was available nearly immediately, regardless if one sees it as a literal or figurative passage. : )
Well he would, wouldn't he?
What, with all that omnisciences and stuff. Knowing what will happen is his job.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil is implicit of law. Law memory is very unique in that law memory writing contains two conflicting emotions, that are two sides of the same coin. It has the good behavior that has a tag connected to peace, rest and reward. It also has an evil tag connected to fear and pain.
Since these two sets of feelings are conflict, the natural writing process is tricked in separating one law memory into two locations in the brain. So if we try to do good by the law, the evil side of the coin is repressed. It does not go away, but becomes unconscious as a shadow affect. Sin taking opportunity though the commandment produces sin of every kind. The unconscious side of the coin can become autonomous in an attempt to merge the memory back to neutrality. The result is impulsive evil behavior inductions to merge the memory.
Love your enemy was a way to disrupt the divided mind, due to law tricking the writing process. Forgiveness of sins was a way to change the emotional tagging on the dark side of law memory, in attempt to restore a natural neutral writing process. Jesus was way ahead of his time based on science 2000 years in the future. The atheist position is not based on science, but comes from the dark side of the law memory consolidation, symbolic of Satan.
Christianity is at base a rejection of human life. It is at base an abject, wretched revolt against humanity. It is slave morality. The idea that humanity has to be saved through a slaughtering of God is absolutely grotesque. Furthermore, blood ritual and cannibalism?
The Garden of Love
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And Thou shalt not. writ over the door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore.
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tomb-stones where flowers should be:
And Priests in black gowns, were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars, my joys & desires.
1. The assertion that I am an abomination my blood shall be on my hands for loving a man.
2. Christianity looks at humans as fundamentally corrupt needing a savior as if they cannot save themselves. This renders humans as impotent.
3. Christianity hates life and desires. It says that this life is to be disregarded, in that one should not create their own meaning and create their own firm ethics, but merely adopt one based on an appeal to divinity, which renders man as meaningless and at base worthless in relation to God.
4. Christianity speaks of absolute truth and does not give any ideas about ethical dilemmas in which killing or stealing would be justified... In the case of having a gun and watching someone about to murder your family, true Christianity says to sit back and let God take care of it and not commit sin.
What a wonderful ideology. It is all about judgment and dressing the human up to be what he is not, namely HUMAN!
In terms of evolution, Darwin said that humans shouldn't live by survival of the fittest. I wonder why? Huh...
If there is an anthropomorphic deity, it is absolutely psychopathic and malevolent.
Again, why is this wrong? People clearly aren't capable of saving themselves, otherwise, we wouldn't die. So what if we are impotent? Why does human potential need to be an absolute truth?
Why is this wrong? Man's own "meaning" and "fulfillment" to "create their own firm ethics" result in relativism and lawlessness.
Really? Read the Bible.
It is wrong because human freedom is extremely important. Humans can save themselves. Just because we die does not mean that all is lost. Life is what matters, and we do not need to be saved and live a life in relation to the unknown, and make an appeal to some sort of absolute truth, which is if I may say at base wish fulfillment and based upon absolutely nothing substantial. Humans can provide for other humans. Not all do but that does not mean they can't. The point is to empower people through this with education and empathy, bringing people together as opposed to separating them further, which is at base all religion does.
The point is that we are not impotent. We have a will and should implement this instead of giving up, again, rejecting what we have at our disposal based upon nothing!
All you have is faith. Faith is meaningless if it renders the human having the faith, willing the faith completely impotent and without the ability to provide for others and himself, and live a fulfilling life without some sort of contingency enslaving him to a have-to, fear based morality.
And no, the Bible disgusts me.
Relativism? Lawlessness?
Have you ever heard of secularism?
Wow
Then why don't humans save themselves? Why do we still have murder, death, poverty, and all that if humans can save themselves? Why do we still die?
The soul hypothesis has been refuted time after time.
It is a disgrace to human intelligence to look at the pleasures and joys of people through a lens of corruption.
"The soul of sweet delight can never be defiled." William Blake
Notice that this is poetry.
I personally have absolutely no idea how people can still adhere to it today with so much philosophy. A Christian in the strict sense, copying and pasting his/her life in terms of the Bible's text, is the product of an impoverished education.
We agree! :up: Humans can't stop physical death. They are limited.
Quoting Blue Lux
Which is why Christians see others after repentance as cleansed.
Yes, he is capable of anything. He did see the outcomes and He did do something about it. Directly after the Fall of Man, He told us what He was going to do about it in Genesis 3:15.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and Her seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel."
Because of our sins, Christ came and died. Because of His power and grace, He rose again on the third day. We must repent of our sins, and He will forgive.
The issue could be your definition and understanding of what a Christian is.
There is no inherent conflict between philosophy and theism.
Because then, it would not be free. If I give you the choice of only good, and you chose good, did you chose at all.
Stanley Jaki (1924–2009): Benedictine priest and Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, who won a Templeton Prize and advocated the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society.[193]
Allan Sandage (1926–2010): astronomer who did not really study Christianity until after age forty. He wrote the article A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief and made discoveries concerning the Cigar Galaxy.[194][195][196][197]
Ernan McMullin (1924–2011): Ordained in 1949 as a catholic priest, McMullin was a philosopher of science who taught at the University of Notre Dame. McMullin wrote on the relationship between cosmology and theology, the role of values in understanding science, and the impact of science on Western religious thought, in books such as Newton on Matter and Activity (1978) and The Inference that Makes Science (1992). He was also an expert on the life of Galileo.[198] McMullin also opposed intelligent design and defended theistic evolution.[199]
Joseph Murray (1919–2012): Catholic surgeon who pioneered transplant surgery. He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology in 1990. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
These are just a few of modern day scientists who are Christian, all seem quite well educated to me.
The are conflict between religions including those elevating science to one.
Here's an example. Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services to the needy in the United States, topped only by the federal government. To me, that's impressive.
But I've spent years exploring the Catholic web and it's almost impossible to find discussion among Catholics of this amazing accomplishment. Everybody seems to want to discuss and debate ideology instead. Not such a good plan, in my view.
I have heard that Tolstoy's idea of Christianity is interesting, but I have not researched it very much.
99% of Christianity is brainwashing and delusion.
Probably because Catholic Charities is not funded by, or for the most part performed by individual Catholics. Large religious service organizations like Catholic Charities do not rely very much on direct individual donations; they rely on collective donations from the church, as well as fees for services and contracts. Take refugee settlement: Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services (in this part of the country) are the main contractors with the government for refugee settlement and other social services.
Large social service operations like shelters, medical facilities, housing, settlement programs, etc. have to have secure year-long or multi-year budgets to operate at all. Income dribbling in from individual donations isn't nearly reliable enough.
I'm certainly not claiming that there is no connection between the individual in the pew and Catholic Charities: donations are where the church's money to operate comes from. But funds are then aggregated and distributed to various and sundry programs--among them Catholic Charities. And as I mentioned, contracts with federal, state, and local governments provide big bundles of operating funds.
Most Protestants and Catholics are not reminded about Matthew 25:35-40 anywhere close to often enough.
Odd, then that Muslims 'Give Most To Charity', Ahead Of Christians, Jews And Atheists,
What to make of that?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Hmm....
Quoting Bitter Crank
More precisely, most human beings are not reminded of this advice anywhere close to often enough, including yours truly.
The average individual in the US whose income was $50,000 gave $2,868 to charity, or about 5.8% of income (according to the Internal Revenue Service).
Corporations and foundations (established by the uber rich) along with individuals donated about $420 billion dollars to charity last year. Some corporations, like Target, donate 5% of pretax profits to charity.
I would expect that people living in countries with fragmented and inadequate state welfare programs (like the United States) would see more visible need among their countrymen. It also seems to be the case that those with fewer financial resources tend to give a larger percentage of income to charity -- maybe because they can better identity with raw need.
However generous individuals are, a well-run social welfare state is a better solution to solving social equity problems than the best intentioned helter-skelter charity approach.