Are their any branches of Christianity that follow Jesus and nothing else?

GreenMantis

antiskeptic wrote: »

But there's nothing at all unique in working your way to salvation (which I'm guessing is what you extract from Jesus' teaching). Every world religion provides salvation/enlightenment precisely that way.

You might have examples that I am not thinking of but, for example, I believe that the salvation Jesus taught is far more powerful than the Nirvana that the Buddha taught. Jesus taught us to create a world and a society that functioned on cognitive love (Kingdom of Heaven) as opposed to the release from the suffering for the individual. A successful follower of Jesus will achieve Nirvana and then spread it to the rest of humanity until all humanity manifests the will of God (Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven).

antiskeptic wrote: »

His being considered divine has also resulted in much good - wouldn't you agree.

Some people have been convinced to follow the teachings of Jesus because they are convinced He is God then their study of His teachings can inspire good. But be very clear: it is the teaching themselves that have done the good, not the claim to divinity.

Divinity alone has never caused any good whatsoever and arguments over the finer points of the nature of His Divinity has been in balance disastrous.

For example, consider the controversy that split the early church because of the Nicaean creed. The Latin church wanted it to say the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son", where the Greek church only wanted it to say "proceeds from the Father". This caused a split in the church (and violence) which was never healed.

Once begun, arguments over the finer aspects of what Divinity means can by definition never end. We do not, and as humans can not have an understanding of the true nature of God and we should not let things we can never understand get in the way of what Jesus taught.

Imagine how much better our world would be if all the energy spent fighting over issues like this were instead spent on loving each other.

In short, the teachings of Jesus, not theories of his Divinity are the way to salvation. If the OP wants to get to the teachings of Jesus the Jefferson Bible is an excellent place to start.

Fanny Cradock

GreenMantis wrote: »

Again I respectfully disagree.

I gathered you would say that

GreenMantis wrote: »

When you say that this 'distills Jesus' teachings down to something that excludes all claims of His Divinity' that in only true insofar as Jesus' teachings did not actually include claims of Divinity.

Woah! I'm afraid that is where all of orthodox Christianity (and probably a fair whack of heterodox Christianity) will disagree with you. I include myself in that.

GreenMantis wrote: »

Also I'm afraid you are also incorrect that Jesus didn't say much that other luminaries hadn't already said. I believe that Jesus' teachings were revolutionary, not necessarily completely unique, but certainly the path to salvation imho.

It really depends on what you mean by salvation. Without knowing much about what it is you believe, I can't say if you are referring to a type of metaphorical salvation or a supernatural one.

Given that we aren't going to agree on the subject of Jesus' divinity and the starkly unique claims (or lack of) that Jesus made in this regard, what do you suppose Jesus said that was unique?

GreenMantis wrote: »

Frankly I find it curious that you believe that Jesus is Divine but his teachings aren't the heart of the religion.

The teachings may be vital to Christianity but I don't believe that they are the reason for it. The clue to the reason is in the name "Christianity".

This is probably because I view the central reason behind Christianity as being the divine truth claims of Jesus and what that means in soteriological and eschatological terms. If Jesus' teaching were just a set of nice principles to apply to our lives then I may as well dine at the moral banquet of other thinkers religions as I see fit.

GreenMantis wrote: »

Struggles over the finer points of Jesus' divinity and Christian cosmology has caused extreme suffering in the world and has resulted in the exact opposite actions that Jesus intended (wars, torture, starvation). It sounds to me that it is this struggle may be what the OP is rebelling against and I think it would be worth his while to read what Jesus had to say.

You are probably right. As Pascal said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction". Of course, he never experienced the 20th century.

Fanny Cradock

GreenMantis wrote: »

Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven

This is a prayer directed to God the Father and relates - amongst other things - to the final establishment of the new heaven and the new earth. The Jews like the early Christians waited for resurrection at the end of time when God would judge us all before establishing his Kingdom. The whole concept of Nirvana is utterly alien to the Judeo-Christian tradition and has ZERO place in such a discussion.

GreenMantis wrote: »

But be very clear: it is the teaching themselves that have done the good, not the claim to divinity.

Not in my experience. On a purely anecdotal level (though I believe that this can be extrapolated out into the wider Christian community), the Christians I know believe that Jesus plays an active role in their lives - guiding and upholding them in all manner of ways. It is ultimately he who guides them, not words in a book.

GreenMantis wrote: »

Divinity alone has never caused any good whatsoever.

Divinity alone has never caused any good whatsoever! What? How would you even begin to back that statement up?

GreenMantis wrote: »

For example, consider the controversy that split the early church because of the Nicaean creed. The Latin church wanted it to say the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son", where the Greek church only wanted it to say "proceeds from the Father". This caused a split in the church (and violence) which was never healed.

And what if there was a split? And what if there was violence (examples, please)? What has that got to do with a truth claim that is ultimately larger than any doctrinal squabble?

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic wrote: »

His being considered divine has also resulted in much good - wouldn't you agree.

Indeed!

GreenMantis

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I gathered you would say that

I'm glad I didn't disappoint you. :-)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Woah! I'm afraid that is where all of orthodox Christianity (and probably a fair whack of heterodox Christianity) will disagree with you. I include myself in that.

Do you have any examples of where Jesus claimed to be Divine? And by that I exclude things like "I am the word" or "I am the way" or "The Father is in me". These all have meanings other than divinity.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It really depends on what you mean by salvation. Without knowing much about what it is you believe, I can't say if you are referring to a type of metaphorical salvation or a supernatural one.

I believe that we, as humans, have the actual physical and mental capacity to have an understanding of our existence that transcends the simple understanding our senses provide. Our souls are trapped in bodies, including our brains (which is just another physical attribute) that are full of pride, wrath, lust etc that have helped us survive and evolve over millions of years. With the teachings of Jesus we can become even more. We can see God in ourselves and in each other and realize that we are part of a greater creation than we can imagine.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given that we aren't going to agree on the subject of Jesus' divinity and the starkly unique claims (or lack of) that Jesus made in this regard, what do you suppose Jesus said that was unique?

Jesus taught us to create a world and a society that functioned on cognitive love (Kingdom of Heaven) as opposed to the release from the suffering for the individual that the Buddha taught. A successful follower of Jesus will achieve something akin to Nirvana and then spread it to the rest of humanity until all humanity manifests the will of God (Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven). We would become a world of Bodhisattvas if you will.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The teachings may be vital to Christianity but I don't believe that they are the reason for it. The clue to the reason is in the name "Christianity".

This is probably because I view the central reason behind Christianity as being the divine truth claims of Jesus and what that means in soteriological and eschatological terms. If Jesus' teaching were just a set of nice principles to apply to our lives then I may as well dine at the moral banquet of other thinkers religions as I see fit.

Why does the word "Christianity" hold a clue for you? The word Christ was only related to Jesus long after he died. It was a Greek concept of Khristos that had many different interpretations at the time. The Gnostics believed that there are many different "Christs" throughout history.

'Divine truth' may be what later 'Christians' found to be important. What Jesus thought was important was to love each other.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are probably right. As Pascal said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction". Of course, he never experienced the 20th century.

Ah Pascal. For me, especially after this, the proof of the existence of God is surely the invention of the spell checker. ;-)

GreenMantis

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is a prayer directed to God the Father and relates - amongst other things - to the final establishment of the new heaven and the new earth. The Jews like the early Christians waited for resurrection at the end of time when God would judge us all before establishing his Kingdom.

That may be what the Jews and early Christians were thinking but it is not what Jesus was talking about. The new heaven and earth are physical realities that will happen here and the 'end of time' is only the end of our current experience of time.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The whole concept of Nirvana is utterly alien to the Judeo-Christian tradition and has ZERO place in such a discussion.

It may be alien to the Judeo-Christian tradition. But it is germane to a discussion of Jesus' teachings. Don't take my word for it. I urge you to read Jefferson's Bible where His teachings are laid out clearly.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not in my experience. On a purely anecdotal level (though I believe that this can be extrapolated out into the wider Christian community), the Christians I know believe that Jesus plays an active role in their lives - guiding and upholding them in all manner of ways. It is ultimately he who guides them, not words in a book.

Jesus plays an active role in my life too. I think of Him every day and use Him as my guide and Saviour. His divinity is immaterial and above my pay grade. And please don't disparage the teachings of the Saviour as "words in a book". Those words will save you and the rest of humanity if you would only let them. How can He guide you if you don't understand what He taught. If you ignore His teachings then you could be upheld by any old statue or painting if you only believed it was God.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Divinity alone has never caused any good whatsoever! What? How would you even begin to back that statement up?

And what if there was a split? And what if there was violence (examples, please)? What has that got to do with a truth claim that is ultimately larger than any doctrinal squabble?

Please provide examples where divinity, not the teachings of Jesus, caused good.

Some examples of doctrinal 'squabbles':
Byzantine Empire Icon Wars (there were many) weakened the empire so it could be taken over by the Turks.

European Catholic vs. Protestant wars (of which Ireland was disastrously a pawn) of which there were many.

PDN

GreenMantis wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

Jefferson removed the miracles, or what he considered to be supernatural 'magic tricks' and left in only the actual teachings. The rationale is that the miracles are expressions of WHY His teachings were important, but if you already agree His teachings are important then the miracles are unnecessary.

I understand if your interpretation of Christianity holds that the complete revelation of the Bible is sacred and anything less is heresy you wouldn't agree to this approach. That is fine.

However, I believe that a distillation of His teachings are extremely valuable. The OP may as well.

The problem with that approach, of course, is that it is completely illogical.

The same sources that record the miracles also record the words of Jesus. So we are faced with three possible scenarios:

a) The sources are unreliable, so we reject both the miracles and teachings of Jesus as unreliable, and have no revelation of who Jesus is or was.

b) The sources are reliable, so we follow the miracles and the teachings as a revelation of who Jesus is,

c) The sources contain a mix of truth and falsehood, in which case we rely on our own prejudices and presuppositions to decide which is which. This, of course, is what Jefferson did - which might tell us a lot about who Jefferson was, but again tells us nothing about who Jesus is and was.

So, anyone who goes by 'Jefferson's bible' (which, of course is no Bible at all) may be following Thomas Jefferson only, but they certainly aren't following Jesus.

GreenMantis

PDN wrote: »

The problem with that approach, of course, is that it is completely illogical.

The same sources that record the miracles also record the words of Jesus. So we are faced with three possible scenarios:

a) The sources are unreliable, so we reject both the miracles and teachings of Jesus as unreliable, and have no revelation of who Jesus is or was.

b) The sources are reliable, so we follow the miracles and the teachings as a revelation of who Jesus is,

c) The sources contain a mix of truth and falsehood, in which case we rely on our own prejudices and presuppositions to decide which is which. This, of course, is what Jefferson did - which might tell us a lot about who Jefferson was, but again tells us nothing about who Jesus is and was.

So, anyone who goes by 'Jefferson's bible' (which, of course is no Bible at all) may be following Thomas Jefferson only, but they certainly aren't following Jesus.

or
d) the teachings of Jesus were maintained but 'miracles' were added to added so folks will be impressed

I encourage anyone that believes it says more about Jefferson than Jesus to look at the work and decide for themselves:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefJesu.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

Fanny Cradock

GreenMantis wrote: »

Do you have any examples of where Jesus claimed to be Divine? And by that I exclude things like "I am the word" or "I am the way" or "The Father is in me". These all have meanings other than divinity.

To be perfect frank, it has been the contention of Christianity from it's earliest beginnings that Jesus was divine. If you want to understand the historic beliefs of why Christians believe Jesus to be God then I suggest you start at the beginning. However, given that you a priori dismiss any claims towards Jesus' divinity within the bible as some manner of fabrication, I'm not sure that anything you read will amount to even a hill of beans.

GreenMantis wrote: »

I believe that we, as humans, have the actual physical and mental capacity to have an understanding of our existence that transcends the simple understanding our senses provide. Our souls are trapped in bodies, including our brains (which is just another physical attribute) that are full of pride, wrath, lust etc that have helped us survive and evolve over millions of years. With the teachings of Jesus we can become even more. We can see God in ourselves and in each other and realize that we are part of a greater creation than we can imagine.

Ok, that helps a bit. Sounds something like Kabbalic mysticism with some other influences - assuming such a thing exists.

GreenMantis wrote: »

Jesus taught us to create a world and a society that functioned on cognitive love (Kingdom of Heaven) as opposed to the release from the suffering for the individual that the Buddha taught. A successful follower of Jesus will achieve something akin to Nirvana and then spread it to the rest of humanity until all humanity manifests the will of God (Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven). We would become a world of Bodhisattvas if you will.

That you repeat it a second time doesn't make it true. All you have to do is look at Jews religious belief and early Christian belief to realise that this is something that Jesus - and observant Jew - or any of his contemporaries would not have understood or intended.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition God is not trying to spread some groovy vibes, he is there to judge and redeem a fallen creation and to establish his Kingdom - a physical Kingdom - in a new heavens and a new earth. The idea that Jews and Christians believed that was some type of inner heaven is not supported by what we know of either tradition.

GreenMantis wrote: »

The word Christ was only related to Jesus long after he died. It was a Greek concept of Khristos that had many different interpretations at the time.

What does "long" mean?

If we date parts of the NT to within 50 AD (I happen to think there is a case to be made for an even earlier date) then it was not "long" after Jesus' death that he was being referred to in writing as Christ, which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "Messiah" (meaning "anointed one").

Of course, if Jesus was being referred to in writing as Christ sometime around 50 AD, then I think it very reasonable to assume that Paul and others would have been talking about Jesus the "Messiah"/ "Christ"/ "Anointed One" etc. "long" before that.

What the Gnostics thought is really here nor there. We aren't talking about Christina Gnosticism, we are talking about Chtristian orthodoxy - which states that Jesus is one part of the Triune God.

GreenMantis wrote: »

'Divine truth' may be what later 'Christians' found to be important. What Jesus thought was important was to love each other.

While I'm unsure what Jefferson had to say on the matter, what Jesus is actually reported as saying is the following:

“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.'”

Besides all this, I think it not insignificant that the Sanhedrin didn't share your views. Jesus was, amongst other things, executed for blasphemy.

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

PDN

GreenMantis wrote: »

or
d) the teachings of Jesus were maintained but 'miracles' were added to added so folks will be impressed

But, once again you are back to (c)

There is no textual evidence whatsoever that the miracles were added. The only reason to suppose that is your (or Jeffersons) prejudices and presuppositions. Jefferson created a Jesus of his own devising by cheerypicking, on no objective grounds whatsoever, what parts of the sources suited his own ideas. It is an intellectually bereft approach.

I encourage anyone that believes it says more about Jefferson than Jesus to look at the work and decide for themselves:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...ublic&part=all

I read it years ago. I doubt if it's changed much.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Besides all this, I think it not insignificant that the Sanhedrin didn't share your views. Jesus was, amongst other things, executed for blasphemy.

You're wasting your time, Fanny. Once people go down the route of picking and choosing what parts of the Gospels are reliable then reasoning with them is like nailing down jelly. All they have to respond with when you present an inconvenient passage, as the one above, is to say, "Oh, that must have been added later".

Fanny Cradock

GreenMantis wrote: »

Please provide examples where divinity, not the teachings of Jesus, caused good.

You see, debate doesn't work that way. You made the claim that belief in Christ's divinity never causes good. The idea is to convince your opponents of the veracity of this claim. So go ahead!

GreenMantis wrote: »

Some examples of doctrinal 'squabbles':
Byzantine Empire Icon Wars (there were many) weakened the empire so it could be taken over by the Turks.

European Catholic vs. Protestant wars (of which Ireland was disastrously a pawn) of which there were many.

Less about religion and more about greed, fear, power, evil - you know, the foundation and the bricks and mortar of any war. Religion is the window dressing.

All you have done is provide a couple of debatable examples where religion has caused, or been press-ganged into the excuses for, war. I could equally point my finger an any number of crooked politicians or football hooligans and say that nothing good has ever come from politics (specifically between political ideologies) or from football (specifically the rivalry between clubs).

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

You're wasting your time, Fanny. Once people go down the route of picking and choosing what parts of the Gospels are reliable then reasoning with them is like nailing down jelly. All they have to respond with when you present an inconvenient passage, as the one above, is to say, "Oh, that must have been added later".

At this point we have to ask ourselves "What Would Jefferson Do?". The answer probably is "dismiss".

Yeah, I think that I'm just about argued out.

*Queue 10 pages of argument*

antiskeptic

GreenMantis wrote: »

You might have examples that I am not thinking of but, for example, I believe that the salvation Jesus taught is far more powerful than the Nirvana that the Buddha taught. Jesus taught us to create a world and a society that functioned on cognitive love (Kingdom of Heaven) as opposed to the release from the suffering for the individual. A successful follower of Jesus will achieve Nirvana and then spread it to the rest of humanity until all humanity manifests the will of God (Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven).

Isn't this salvation ("a society that functions on cognitive love") by your work? What you're proposing is but one variation on the theme - variation on a theme isn't uniqueness.

Some people have been convinced to follow the teachings of Jesus because they are convinced He is God then their study of His teachings can inspire good. But be very clear: it is the teaching themselves that have done the good, not the claim to divinity.

That isn't their testimony. They would say that it is no longer them but Christ (not his teaching, not his inspiration .. but his person) who lives in them. And that it is indwelling which produces the good result. Not so much his claim of divinity but his being divine ..and living in them.

You needn't believe that but that is the argument.

Divinity alone has never caused any good whatsoever and arguments over the finer points of the nature of His Divinity has been in balance disastrous. For example, consider the controversy that split the early church because of the Nicaean creed. The Latin church wanted it to say the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son", where the Greek church only wanted it to say "proceeds from the Father". This caused a split in the church (and violence) which was never healed.

Once begun, arguments over the finer aspects of what Divinity means can by definition never end. We do not, and as humans can not have an understanding of the true nature of God and we should not let things we can never understand get in the way of what Jesus taught.

The argument above points to the role in divinity in good being done. The fact that men are inclined to argue over the issue isn't really here or there.

Imagine how much better our world would be if all the energy spent fighting over issues like this were instead spent on loving each other.

If there is such a thing as a single gospel. And if the consequences of following a false path are as serious as the Christian gospel makes out, then there is every reason to defend and promote that truth. There is no need to hate in so doing (for example here, where my countering what I see as a false gospel doesn't involve my hating you)

In short, the teachings of Jesus, not theories of his Divinity are the way to salvation. If the OP wants to get to the teachings of Jesus the Jefferson Bible is an excellent place to start.

I was under the impression that it was Jesus himself .. and not his teachings .. which were the way to salvation.

I dunno GreenMantis, this 'Jefferson Bible' just sounds like just another works-based salvation to me.

GreenMantis

Well it sounds like I am just annoying you folks.

I could give a point by point response to all of your arguments but it gets us into exactly what I warned about -disputes about doctrine and interpretation - and take us further away from what is important.

As Jesus says in Mark "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

I trust we can all agree on that.

The one thing I was incorrect about was when I asked Fanny to provide instances where divinity caused good. You are correct Fanny, it was a logical flaw on my part. The onus lies on me to defend my statement not you to disprove it.

To the OP (if he hasn't moved on) I encourage you to study Jesus' teachings in whatever form you can find them (Jefferson or otherwise). There are great truths there and if you study with an open heart it can change your life.

antiskeptic

GreenMantis wrote: »

Well it sounds like I am just annoying you folks. I could give a point by point response to all of your arguments but it gets us into exactly what I warned about -disputes about doctrine and interpretation - and take us further away from what is important.

It's a discussion forum, in this case, discussing the basis for holding the view you or I do. It clearly must involve dispute but that dispute can be civil ... even friendly.

As Jesus says in Mark "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

I trust we can all agree on that.

It's not as simple as that. The most important command is to "repent and believe the good news". For without that, you will not be born again and cannot begin to follow the most important command .. for believers.

Failure to apprehend that turns the gospel of grace into salvation by works.

GreenMantis

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a discussion forum, in this case, discussing the basis for holding the view you or I do. It clearly must involve dispute but that dispute can be civil ... even friendly.

Agreed, that is my usual way of behaving on discussion boards also as I see it is yours.

But when I hear some of the comments written by my co-discussioners like "I'm all argued out - Queue 10 pages of argument" and "You are wasting your time Fanny" I know its time to quit. :-)

antiskeptic wrote: »

The most important command is to "repent and believe the good news". For without that, you will not be born again and cannot begin to follow the most important command .. for believers.

Failure to apprehend that turns the gospel of grace into salvation by works.

This belief directly contradicts Jesus' words in Mark. It may be an excellent way of life and I wouldn't argue with it as a good practice. But it simply is not Jesus' teaching.

The power of Grace IS the power of cognitive love. True repentance can only come through the power of love for it is only when we truly love can we truly understand our sin and its effect on our fellow man..and so truly repent.

As for belief...any idiot can believe in any crazy thing. It is only when you understand love can you truly believe.

Must be getting late over there. It is early here (NYC).

ubertrad

GreenMantis wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

Jefferson removed the miracles, or what he considered to be supernatural 'magic tricks' and left in only the actual teachings. The rationale is that the miracles are expressions of WHY His teachings were important, but if you already agree His teachings are important then the miracles are unnecessary.

I understand if your interpretation of Christianity holds that the complete revelation of the Bible is sacred and anything less is heresy you wouldn't agree to this approach. That is fine.

However, I believe that a distillation of His teachings are extremely valuable. The OP may as well.

The Lord taught, among other methods, using His miracles. Throw out His miracles, and you throw out His teaching.

And besides, who would have the audacity to edit Scripture to his own preferences?

GreenMantis

ubertrad wrote: »

The Lord taught, among other methods, using His miracles. Throw out His miracles, and you throw out His teaching.

If he taught using a blackboard and you threw out the blackboard would you throw out his teachings?

ubertrad wrote: »

And besides, who would have the audacity to edit Scripture to his own preferences?

Thomas Jefferson. A man of reason.

Fanny Cradock

GreenMantis wrote: »

But when I hear some of the comments written by my co-discussioners like "I'm all argued out - Queue 10 pages of argument"

In my defence, I was aiming that at myself.

GreenMantis

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In my defence, I was aiming that at myself.

My mistake. I'm curiously sensitive.

Fanny Cradock

No worries. It's easy to read meaning into a sentence.

antiskeptic

GreenMantis wrote: »

This belief directly contradicts Jesus' words in Mark. It may be an excellent way of life and I wouldn't argue with it as a good practice. But it simply is not Jesus' teaching.

I wasn't suggesting Jesus in error in stating this the greatest commandment, I was suggesting that surmounting the barriers to fulfilling it of more immediate significance to the individual. And if those barriers surmounted by obedience to another command then that second command can be argued to be of prime significance to a person.

Like, which is greatest to the individual? command A which can't be obeyed. Or command B which can be and which results in command A being obeyed?

I would have thought command B.

The power of Grace IS the power of cognitive love. True repentance can only come through the power of love for it is only when we truly love can we truly understand our sin and its effect on our fellow man..and so truly repent.

Agreed in the main. The question is: how is this grace accessed. Is it something that we strive for (and without our striving for we cannot access it). Or is it freely given by act of grace - without it being dependent on our work?

Which brings us back to the kind of salvation you think Jesus promotes.

As for belief...any idiot can believe in any crazy thing. It is only when you understand love can you truly believe.

I believed I was incapable of loving to perfect degree. Or to put it as Jesus put it: I was incapable of obeying God's Law. I repented of my self-powered attempts to achieve perfection and believed the good news: that Jesus fulfilled the Law on my behalf.

And now I understand (albeit through a glass darkly) what love is for I've seen what it's capable of doing (for me of all people).

But if Jesus is only a man, then love is understood but diminished. It's downgraded to a man-sized love. Which is a tad less than God-sized love. Would you agree that if God gave himself for man then it would superceed the love of a man giving himself for man?

Must be getting late over there. It is early here (NYC).

Time to rest from all that workin' then..

GreenMantis

antiskeptic wrote: »

surmounting the barriers to fulfilling it of more immediate significance to the individual. And if those barriers surmounted by obedience to another command then that second command can be argued to be of prime significance to a person.

Like, which is greatest to the individual? command A which can't be obeyed. Or command B which can be and which results in command A being obeyed?

I would have thought command B.

Interesting idea, could you be a little more specific about what you consider Commands A and B? I want to be sure I fully understand your point.

I agree with your past rejection of salvation through works because pure works cannot be done without a pure heart (not to reject doing good...but there is more to salvation), but I believe that the answer is to cultivate a pure heart not mere devotion to a godhead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed in the main. The question is: how is this grace accessed. Is it something that we strive for (and without our striving for we cannot access it). Or is it freely given by act of grace - without it being dependent on our work?

Which brings us back to the kind of salvation you think Jesus promotes.

I believe that we have to strive for grace and when we are worthy it will be given. I believe that we are hypnotized by the desires of our physical body and we need to constantly monitor our minds and understand our sins. I hope someday to fully comprehend the impact of my thoughts and words, truly renounce my sins and ultimately be relieved of their burden (I actually have been blessed with some amazing success in this regard).

I also understand that it will take a lot of work that I might not have time in this life to complete. And that is fine because that is the work and it is all I can do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I believed I was incapable of loving to perfect degree. Or to put it as Jesus put it: I was incapable of obeying God's Law. I repented of my self-powered attempts to achieve perfection and believed the good news: that Jesus fulfilled the Law on my behalf.

And now I understand (albeit through a glass darkly) what love is for I've seen what it's capable of doing (for me of all people).

Interesting. I applaud your work.

I agree that we need to find a way to comprehend the power of love, and belief has eased the minds of many folks so that they were able to work on the commandments of Jesus.

Personally though I see great peril in believing that Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf, I have seen too many people misunderstand this idea as an excuse not to do the real work (cultivate love) and furthermore as an excuse to do horrible things to others.

The ultimate and unavoidable result of unshakable belief in any god is hostility and violence to others because we believe that it is only our actions and beliefs are 'natural' and others are heresy and must be eliminated. Governments, Priests, and Kings have long used the concept of a righteous struggle in god's name to further their selfish secular goals...and the devout on all sides become the victims. It is too easy to manipulate people in this fashion. I see it in the US and I know that you have seen it in Ireland.

A minor but current example: in the US at Christmas time we hear the complaints of the 'war on Christmas' where some people believe that saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is an affront to the almighty. Never mind that the season here is really an excuse for rampant commercialism which has nothing to do with Jesus (we are being told that it is patriotic to spend money rather than save it). The reality is that the religious in the US is currently being manipulated into outrage against the less religious for political purposes (folks like Sarah Palin are working this circuit on behalf of Corporations who use it to disembowel the government). I predict it will get worse before it gets better.

So I would not say that working on belief rather than love is the way forward for me anyway.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if Jesus is only a man, then love is understood but diminished. It's downgraded to a man-sized love. Which is a tad less than God-sized love. Would you agree that if God gave himself for man then it would superceed the love of a man giving himself for man?

I know what you are saying, but for me it doesn't make any difference. Whether He was God or not is immaterial. I believe He was right. I feel it in my heart and soul and I try, in my terribly flawed way to follow His teachings.

antiskeptic

GreenMantis wrote: »

Interesting idea, could you be a little more specific about what you consider Commands A and B? I want to be sure I fully understand your point.

In this case, command A is "love God with all your heart, etc." and command B is "repent and believe the good news"*. You'll know the orthodox Christian position: repenting and believing the good news results in a person being born again and being given a new heart - equipped thus to tackle the challegne of command A.

Without B there can be no A - rendering the 'greatest' commandment moot for the unborn-again. Jesus might as well tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.


I'm being simplistic here. I'm not suggesting a person can follow the command "repent and believe" under own steam anymore than they can follow "love God with all your heart, soul and mind" under own steam. I'm merely pointing out that the one precedes the other - rendering the 'greatest commandment' audience-specific.

I agree with your past rejection of salvation through works because pure works cannot be done without a pure heart (not to reject doing good...but there is more to salvation), but I believe that the answer is to cultivate a pure heart not mere devotion to a godhead.

The answer lies in being born again - an act of God according to Christian orthodoxy. Alternatives invariably end up being sourced at man at root. Man and his working his way to a solution.

I agree pure works follow from a pure heart. But that just kicks the ball up a level. I mean, where does this pure heart come from in your view? You say "cultivate it" but if that cultivation is sourced in you then you've got yourself a work.

I believe that we have to strive for grace and when we are worthy it will be given.

This sentence exudes work. You must strive ... and if you do, salvation (however defined) awaits. No?

I believe that we are hypnotized by the desires of our physical body and we need to constantly monitor our minds and understand our sins.

Forgive harping on about it but you see the same thing here. Dependency on you to monitor, to act, to respond to God perhaps.

I also understand that it will take a lot of work that I might not have time in this life to complete. And that is fine because that is the work and it is all I can do.

I too believe I must work - there can be no doubt that Jesus call's for work. The difference lies in our motivation. Working to be saved or working because you are saved. That's a hell of a difference.

Interesting. I applaud your work.

I applaud His being the reason I life a finger! He saved me and I am forever in his debt. He is love and I want to be like him. It starts with him. That's always the driver.

I agree that we need to find a way to comprehend the power of love, and belief has eased the minds of many folks so that they were able to work on the commandments of Jesus.

Personally though I see great peril in believing that Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf, I have seen too many people misunderstand this idea as an excuse not to do the real work (cultivate love) and furthermore as an excuse to do horrible things to others.

It's either true or it's not.

If true then the fact of it's misuse by those who avail of it should no more deflect us from it than misuse of morphine deflects us from it's merits.

It's not that orthodox Christianity even posits a soft touch God. A man reaps what he sows and if saved - and if deciding to cheapen grace with disobedience towards his calling then man can expect the discipline of God: unto distance from that which he has touched, unto sickness even Paul tells us. Unto death.

Being (irrevocably) saved by grace removes you from the frying pan of the lost. But it throws you into the fire of the saved.

The ultimate and unavoidable result of unshakable belief in any god is hostility and violence to others because we believe that it is only our actions and beliefs are 'natural' and others are heresy and must be eliminated. Governments, Priests, and Kings have long used the concept of a righteous struggle in god's name to further their selfish secular goals...and the devout on all sides become the victims. It is too easy to manipulate people in this fashion. I see it in the US and I know that you have seen it in Ireland.

]

Again you introduce a baby/bathwater fallacy.


There is besides, the problem of identification. If it is the case the the saved-by-God are saved by supernatural translation from lost to found then you won't be able to identify them in order to comment on their actions. The fact of Christendom (a cultural Christianity populated by many non-Christians) comments not on Christianity. The fact of counter-Christiantiy comments not on Christianity.

Nor is it that Christian orthdoxy posits the saved unable to sin. So what if they do? Isn't the issue between them and God?

A minor but current example: in the US at Christmas time we hear the complaints of the 'war on Christmas' where some people believe that saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is an affront to the almighty. Never mind that the season here is really an excuse for rampant commercialism which has nothing to do with Jesus (we are being told that it is patriotic to spend money rather than save it). The reality is that the religious in the US is currently being manipulated into outrage against the less religious for political purposes (folks like Sarah Palin are working this circuit on behalf of Corporations who use it to disembowel the government). I predict it will get worse before it gets better.

So I would not say that working on belief rather than love is the way forward for me anyway.

The above point applies here.

In the Irish context, 90% of Irish people ticked "Catholic" in the last census. According to Christian ortodoxy, but a fraction of those will actually be saved. Yet we've a whole industry going related to cultural Christianity.. It impinges not one jot on the saved and relationship and duty to God.

Let them turn Christmas into a consumption fest. Let them call it 25/12. Let them strip Christian heritage from the land. They are but outward symbols of what was by an large Christendom anyway.

I know what you are saying, but for me it doesn't make any difference. Whether He was God or not is immaterial. I believe He was right. I feel it in my heart and soul and I try, in my terribly flawed way to follow His teachings.

I've no doubt he was right. It's just that his being God resolves various dilemmas that crop up when the detail is considered. Not least of which is the demand that you otherwise rip pages out of testimony about him.

I'm a mechanical engineer. I tend to be satisfied by mechanisms which, when the handle is turned at the input side, produce a logical, reliable result at the output side. Whilst I've no doubt that simplified mechanisms can be constructed from stripped-down Bibles, I'm inclined towards solutions which produce congruent results from the whole. A structure based on Old Testament and New is far more elaborate a structure constructed from certain red letters - but far more elaborate structures tend to be so much more elegant. And capable of answering so much more.

PDN

GreenMantis wrote: »

The ultimate and unavoidable result of unshakable belief in any god is hostility and violence to others because we believe that it is only our actions and beliefs are 'natural' and others are heresy and must be eliminated.

I think Martin Luther King would have disagreed with you.

Probably Jesus too, since he repeatedly encouraged his disciples to have faith in God and rebuked them when they lacked faith. (Unless, of course, we choose to believe that what Jesus tought about faith was added later)

I know too, from my own personal experience, that the stronger my faith in God has grown, so too has increased my tolerance towards others of different beliefs.

I do think you're painting some pretty crude stereotypes here with a very broad brush.

GreenMantis

Ah a fellow Engineer. Aerospace/Control Systems here (if you are familiar with PID Control System theory you will get a good idea on how my mind works).

There have been a few baby/bathwater objections to what I am saying. I believe that this argument is incorrect, in fact I believe that I am correctly separating the baby from the bathwater.

I see a couple of features of all religions (not a complete list but enough for the discussion):
1. Ethics and Esoteric path to Salvation-view - in the Christian example the teachings of Jesus (love God, love each other) etc.
2. Cosmology - three persons in one god, nature of God as creator, relationship between God and Satan, the afterlife, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son etc.
3. Methods of Obedience - No meat on Friday, no food before communion, church obligations etc.

My opinion is that the baby is the ethics and salvation - something that can only be done through hard internal work that will ultimately manifest itself in good behavior. It is the hardest. But in my view the ultimate goal of the practice.

Cosmology is the way people see the organization of the creation. Many people are very precise about this (Earth is 6000 years old, man and dinosaurs lived together), you might not have this issue in Ireland but here it is rampant and these people are SERIOUS, and don't dare contradict them. Personally I see Cosmology as allegorical. Cosmology can be interesting and a helpful way to conceive of things but please understand: as humans we do not have an understanding of God and the creation...we see things through the very narrow lens of our senses and have no way to conceive of the totality of creation. As an Engineer you know that we can only see a narrow band of light, hear narrow bands of sound...through science we can sense more than our eyes and ears can. But there are many many natural phenomena that we simply do not know about. I believe that God is one of these things. As real as my desk or gravity, but not completely knowable by humans. This is why I see as foolish arguments over whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son or not etc. It is fine to have a working hypothesis, but you have to have a healthy respect for other approaches.

Finally methods of obedience can be the way that folks bring their religion into their life day to day. Another way to look at it is that it is how people are trained to be "Christian Soldiers".

The problem I have with the combination of literal Cosmology and Obedience is that you create people who can be manipulated by their belief into profound intolerance. I know someone who used belief to get over the pain of a divorce and when her son (who was also divorced) got remarried she wouldn't go to the wedding or socialize with the new wife because a second marriage is 'sinful'. This person was hypnotized by Cosmology and Obedience and forgot the most important thing - to spread love. This is wrong.

I know, you will say "that is only one person, you are using a broad brush to slander all believers". No, that is incorrect. I am not saying that all believers will necessarily act badly. But you are working with dangerous and powerful forces you don't have an understanding of that can easily be turned to evil. And when you put yourself in the debt of such forces (to help get over a divorce, to stop drinking, etc) you make yourself available to be misused by them.

You see, I think that you are throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater.

My main focus is the practice. I also have faith that there is a God and that Jesus' path is the correct one. Other than that I keep an open mind.

It is interesting in the different way we see this living in different societies as we do. In Ireland it seems like organized religion is on the wane somewhat. I can understand the impulse not to lose what is good about it. In the US religion is trying to be in ascendancy and I see the ways that organized religion tries to take control of a society and let me tell you friends, it is terrifying.

Edit: Here is an example of what I am talking about
http://gawker.com/5729626/westboro-baptist-to-protest-funerals-of-tucson-victims

antiskeptic

GreenMantis wrote: »

Ah a fellow Engineer. Aerospace/Control Systems here (if you are familiar with PID Control System theory you will get a good idea on how my mind works).

Operating stabily when it comes to the correctness of conclusions drawn in the area of metaphysics, presumably? Engineering management in manufacturing myself.

There have been a few baby/bathwater objections to what I am saying. I believe that this argument is incorrect, in fact I believe that I am correctly separating the baby from the bathwater.

To recap what those b/b situations are said to be:

GreenMantis wrote:

Personally though I see great peril in believing that Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf, I have seen too many people misunderstand this idea as an excuse not to do the real work (cultivate love) and furthermore as an excuse to do horrible things to others.

baby/bathwater: that some abuse liberty is seen as a reason to reject liberty.

GreenMantis wrote:

The ultimate and unavoidable result of unshakable belief in any god is hostility and violence to others because we believe that it is only our actions and beliefs are 'natural' and others are heresy and must be eliminated. Governments, Priests, and Kings have..

baby/bathwater: history demonstrates that unshakable conviction has frequently resulted in much good done. Your assertion is patently incorrect.

I see a couple of features of all religions (not a complete list but enough for the discussion):

1. Ethics and Esoteric path to Salvation-view - in the Christian example the teachings of Jesus (love God, love each other) etc.

2. Cosmology - three persons in one god, nature of God as creator, relationship between God and Satan, the afterlife, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son etc.

3. Methods of Obedience - No meat on Friday, no food before communion, church obligations etc.

My opinion is that the baby is the ethics and salvation - something that can only be done through hard internal work that will ultimately manifest itself in good behavior. It is the hardest. But in my view the ultimate goal of the practice.

Firstly, you've not dealt with the issues raised by my critiquing what you've previously said by way of the phrase "baby/bathwater." Would you like to go back and pick up that thread?

Secondly, one aspect of our discourse has been the supposedly unique teaching of Jesus. My criticism of your position has been that there is nothing unique in a works-based salvation - all world religions operate that way (although the details might differ. Indeed points 1 ethics and esoteric and point 3 method of obedience are an example of the same works principle expressed in a different way). The only unique position on this front is orthodox biblical Christianities "salvation by grace alone" - a core element of a major religion which isn't mentioned in your list above.

Cosmology is the way people see the organization of the creation. Many people are very precise about this (Earth is 6000 years old, man and dinosaurs lived together), you might not have this issue in Ireland but here it is rampant and these people are SERIOUS, and don't dare contradict them. Personally I see Cosmology as allegorical. Cosmology can be interesting and a helpful way to conceive of things but please understand: as humans we do not have an understanding of God and the creation...we see things through the very narrow lens of our senses and have no way to conceive of the totality of creation. As an Engineer you know that we can only see a narrow band of light, hear narrow bands of sound...through science we can sense more than our eyes and ears can. But there are many many natural phenomena that we simply do not know about. I believe that God is one of these things. As real as my desk or gravity, but not completely knowable by humans. This is why I see as foolish arguments over whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son or not etc. It is fine to have a working hypothesis, but you have to have a healthy respect for other approaches.

I can't say I'm enamoured with the YEC movement as seen operating in the States. Indeed, there's a whole lot about Christianity as it operates in the States that I'd have a problem with. Not a reason to throw babies out...or divert from the means whereby I arrive at what I consider the truth to be. Like I say, the Bible in toto is experienced as a complex almost mechanical, spiritual structure. Although I can't say I've uncovered a fraction of it's secrets I understand enough to realise that I'm faced with a stupendously constructed and intricately worked mechanism. It's God-sized in it's range, impossibly beyond the capabilities of men. I'm an engineer, I know what it's possible for men to combine to do.

The problem I have with the combination of literal Cosmology and Obedience is that you create people who can be manipulated by their belief into profound intolerance. I know someone who used belief to get over the pain of a divorce and when her son (who was also divorced) got remarried she wouldn't go to the wedding or socialize with the new wife because a second marriage is 'sinful'. This person was hypnotized by Cosmology and Obedience and forgot the most important thing - to spread love. This is wrong.

Agreed. Legalism is what religion is about - and what with religion being the arch enemy of God, you can expect (if you believe in satan) it to raise it's head right in the middle of the church. Not that it's to be worried about ultimately. Jesus said that wolves would come - so they come *shrugs*

I know, you will say "that is only one person, you are using a broad brush to slander all believers". No, that is incorrect. I am not saying that all believers will necessarily act badly. But you are working with dangerous and powerful forces you don't have an understanding of that can easily be turned to evil. And when you put yourself in the debt of such forces (to help get over a divorce, to stop drinking, etc) you make yourself available to be misused by them.

Agreed

You see, I think that you are throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater.

Given what I've said so far, how do you suppose this to be? Remember, I see self-generated attempts to love (so as to obey Jesus command) on a par with attempts at legalistic obedience.

My main focus is the practice. I also have faith that there is a God and that Jesus' path is the correct one. Other than that I keep an open mind.

The difference might be as I say: I practice because I'm saved / you practice in order to be saved. If this is an accurate representation of you then you share much with Muslims and Roman Catholics and even Buddhists. You strive means you get (whatever it is that the religion in questioin offers)

It is interesting in the different way we see this living in different societies as we do. In Ireland it seems like organized religion is on the wane somewhat. I can understand the impulse not to lose what is good about it.

To be honest I can't think of a single thing that is good about it myself. The sooner the Roman Catholic church lays over and breaths it's last the better I'll find it. Rome is about working for your salvation - the antithesis of salvation by grace. This isn't to say there are no saved Roman Catholics but it will be in spite of, not because of Roman doctrine that this is so.

In the US religion is trying to be in ascendancy and I see the ways that organized religion tries to take control of a society and let me tell you friends, it is terrifying.

Edit: Here is an example of what I am talking about
http://gawker.com/5729626/westboro-baptist-to-protest-funerals-of-tucson-victims

Mad Dog Phelps at it again I see. PID unstable if ever there was one. It's starting to dawn on me why you've thrown the babies you've thrown out, out. I'm sure the likes of Benny Hinn and the rest of the health/wealth/prosperity charlathans add to your sense of what biblical Christianity is about? It's typical America: when you go awry you do it in the way you do so many things - in a BIG way.

Perhaps we can focus on yours appearing to be a works-based salvation? And the commonality of that in all religions. And Jesus' condemnation of same using the example of the works-based salvationists of his day.

GreenMantis

Its getting interesting now. Let me do some thinking and I'll get back to you.