Should Christians update Christianity -- or abandon it?

I think it will largely depend on whether most of the world is a trash tosser or a recycler. I mean that only half as a joke!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Rather than trying to "update" Christianity (a move that is essentially hypocrisy) -- they ought to do the ethical thing -- reject and abandon Christianity (because of its dependence on the Old Testament) and either start a new religion or become agnostics.

I don't believe that any collective "they" -- Christians, churches, denominations -- is the relevant decisionmaker here. Christian individuals are. And I also believe that each individual should just do what makes him happy. In some cases that will mean ignoring the real world and just keep adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other cases it means adhering to part of the bible, reinterpreting other parts, and quietly ignoring the rest. (If I remember correctly, the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuals is written in the same book that advises Jews on kosher food. Since Christians could drop kosher food without ideological trauma, I see no deep reason why they couldn't drop homophobia too.) Finally, there's always the possibility to call the whole thing off, which is what I did. I think the term "god" is so ill-defined as to be meaningless, and I see no point to believe she exists, believe she doesn't exist, or even believe I don't know.

But back to the important point: I see no reason why all Christians should do the same thing, whatever that thing is. Let each of them do what makes them happy, as long as they make no one else unhappy. The big picture will just take care of itself.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Rather than trying to "update" Christianity (a move that is essentially hypocrisy) -- they ought to do the ethical thing -- reject and abandon Christianity (because of its dependence on the Old Testament) and either start a new religion or become agnostics.

I don't believe that any collective "they" -- Christians, churches, denominations -- is the relevant decisionmaker here. Christian individuals are. And I also believe that each individual should just do what makes him happy. In some cases that will mean ignoring the real world and just keep adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other cases it means adhering to part of the bible, reinterpreting other parts, and quietly ignoring the rest. (If I remember correctly, the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuals is written in the same book that advises Jews on kosher food. Since Christians could drop kosher food without ideological trauma, I see no deep reason why they couldn't drop homophobia too.)

Neither do I. But to continue to consider homosexual conduct a sin (the first part of the biblical passage) and to disregard the penalty the god of the Bible intends (the second part of the biblical passage) seems like an awfully fine distinction.

In any case, to pretend there is a second covenant which allows for certain parts of the LAW (dietary restrictions and circumcision) to be disregarded is, in my opinion, hypocrisy on the part of Paul -- who obviously was much more interested in expanding a religion than being true to what Jesus taught.

Quote:

Finally, there's always the possibility to call the whole thing off, which is what I did. I think the term "god" is so ill-defined as to be meaningless, and I see no point to believe she exists, believe she doesn't exist, or even believe I don't know.

I certainly understand your disinclination to "believe" she does -- and I understand your disinclination to "believe" she doesn't -- but you certainly should be able to determine if you KNOW one way or the other -- and if you don't, you should easily be able to acknowledge THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. No need to "believe" what you know.

(Naturally, I am assuming that "not being able to retrieve the information" is equivalent to not knowing it.)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Interesting!

But if Christians "believe" the Bible contains the word of GOD -- and if the word of GOD tells them that homosexual conduct is an abomination and that the GOD wants people to KILL people who engage in it -- how do they justify being reasonable and accomodating (not being denied communion) to someone engaged in it?

Explain how you come to the conclusion you come to, Steissd, without encouraging people to be hypocrites.

I'm a christian and I believe homosexuality to be an equaly sinful action as any other sin. I sin everyday (That is why I believe Jesus died on the cross to save me). Therefore I am as elligible to have communion with my god than any homosexual. Not only homosexuality, but all the other sins are abomination to god. Does it make sense?

0 Replies

no

0 Replies

no

0 Replies

no

0 Replies

no

0 Replies

Euuu guys, could you please elaborate on the "no" please?

0 Replies

you are intimating that sense can be made from religion=non sequitor, sense has nothing to do with religion.(you might get somewhere with a plea on the grounds of faith but not from me)

0 Replies

Ionesco,

As dyslexia observed, sense cannot be made from nonsense. Attempting to validate logic by referrencing for support a means requiring a "Leap of Faith" is as absurd as any of the Rhinoceri skewered by Eugene Ionesco. That sort of logic, in fact, is lampooned by the character Logician in Ionesco's Rhinoceros: "All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates is a cat". I find congruence between your screen name and the nature of yourr initial hypotheisis and query. No disrespect meant, but I simply find the entire concept as stated absurd. It does not stand to reason.

0 Replies

Requestionning
Basically you are saying: Christianity doesn't make sense. Therefore my attempt to explain why it would make sense is a leap of faith and is absurd. Is that it? Sorry, english is my second language...

Ok I also have another question. I don't think it is that appropriate for this threat but I will bring it anyway. You are saying that christianity does not make sense. I know that Frank Apisa posted a link about parts of teh Bible which contradict each other. I'm looking through it.

What I would ask you is why doesn't christianity make sense. I was raised in a christian home and I probably got brainwashed a little Smile

. Since I got to University, I started to rethink about it and I'm now questionning the whole thing. I'm mainly having problems with the Ancient Testament. Why would God choose the Jews as his people. And how can we explain all the genocydes he ordered them to perform? I don't want any bashing at christianity, but maybe links or constructive thoughs, to help me find out by myslef wheter christianity is true or not.

BTW, I didn't know that anglophones knew about Eugène Ionesco. I am a french canadian (There is about 8 milion of us in the province of Quebec). Most Quebecers don't even have a clue who Ionesco is! Congrads! As for "le théâtre de l'absurde" of Ionesco, I love it. Most of the time, absurdity makes a lot more sense anyway... (Well not conserning wether christianity is true...)

0 Replies

Just watching -- and listening.

0 Replies

"Why would God choose the Jews as his people. And how can we explain all the genocydes he ordered them to perform?"

Maybe God likes matzoh balls better than Christmas pudding...

0 Replies

Ionesco, first, please don't think I'm being harsh with you ... I'm just that way with everybody Laughing

Second, you'll be amazed by the things with which various members of this forum will be familiar.
Now, on to your most reasonable question ... from my point of view only, of course; there certainly are other points of view, some of which may be not entirely invalid Twisted Evil

I'm not necessarily saying "Christianity doesn't make sense", nor that "Religion doesn't make sense". My observation is that I am unaware, despite assiduous research, to find that either make sense, however. Should such valid argument exist, I've not encountered it. I grant the validity of much of Christianity's moral teaching ... for instance, I think there's definite value in discouraging things like murder, theft, and dishonesty, and so forth. That's fine ... no quarrel here. My primary objection stems from the fact that Christianity is entirely self referencing and self-validating. No independent, verifiable, unambiguous support exists for it. A thing or condition which cannot be validated other than internally is immediately suspect, particularly in the face of abundent independent indications of invalidity. Now, longshots win from time to time, but you can't make a living betting on them ... you have to go with the odds in the long run. There is a terrible inevitability to probability, and probability just does not favor the paranormal or metaphysical. I'd bet against 'em.

0 Replies

Seems to me that Christianity may be progressing. There are no more "holy rollers," few people think of Jews as Christ-killers, meat is eaten on Fridays, women are no longer the chattel of men. People are actually taking serious the thought of homosexuals having the same rights as everyone else. And, remember when female prostitutes were branded (as was Dulcinea in Man from Lamanche)? Now some seem to be paying for college in this "career."

We can't abandon Christianity. Time, time, takes care of it all.

0 Replies

I think that Christianity really needs reform and to stay true to New Testament teachings of Jesus himself. He did say he is "the new way" and his purpose was to bring humanity out of that superstitious ignorance and to respect all humans and human dignity.

Unfortunately, a large part of Christianity seems to have lost sight of his central message. It has added a bunch of extraneous junk that distorts what is really a very fine philosophy that teaches mutual respect for all peoples and teaches us to "mainstream" rather than to ostracize. Things like "blessed are the meek", "blessed are the poor in spirit" are the types of things that relate to this core message.

It makes sense to me to modernize Christianity to our times and include rather than exclude. If that is hypocrisy, then so be it.

0 Replies

Tex-Star wrote:

Seems to me that Christianity may be progressing. There are no more "holy rollers," few people think of Jews as Christ-killers, ...

Guess you don't have cable or satellite TV, huh? Mr. Green

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

Unfortunately, a large part of Christianity seems to have lost sight of his central message. It has added a bunch of extraneous junk that distorts what is really a very fine philosophy that teaches mutual respect for all peoples and teaches us to "mainstream" rather than to ostracize. Things like "blessed are the meek", "blessed are the poor in spirit" are the types of things that relate to this core message.

Pretty good observation. I think if you look at what The Bible actually says Christ said and did its pretty straightforward, and a reasonable philosophy. Where the trouble comes in is what The Bible says ABOUT what it says Christ said and did.

Oh, and I've always liked the bumpersticker slogan, "The meek are welcome to whatever is left when we're done"

0 Replies

Yo Timber, talking about bunper stickers, how about the one that says:

So many Christians; so few lions!

In any case: CerealKiller, question:

Why do you limit the Christian stuff to what is in the New Testament. None of the New Testament makes any sense at all -- if the Old Testament has any faults. Right?

0 Replies

Should Christians update Christianity -- or abandon it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know