Is Christianity a religion of "No?"

[timothyu]

The rest of it, is about learning to walk in Christ AFTER we believe.

And that is where the institutional religion entrepreneurs saw an opportunity and stepped in. Why follow homemade Jesus when you can go out and get store bought..

 

[Par5]

It's not about "how" you live your life. It's about "who" you live your life for. You and I are born condemned because we are born in sin. The difference is I came to recognize that and placed my trust in Jesus Christ and not in myself. The scripture teaches believers that they too sin. However as a believer recognize that and ask God for forgiveness for that.

Unbelievers do not trust in Christ to save them. They do not ask God to forgive them and cleanse them from sin.

We are not saved because we are better. It's not about works or being more righteous in ourselves. It's about trust. Trust in Jesus to save me. My soul would be toast if I had to trust in myself to save it. Thanks be to God and Christ I don't have to.

We are saved by grace and not works. Through faith in Jesus.

All the "sin" talk is simply trying to point out that we are not perfect and not good. Because we as humans want to believe we are.

The who I live my life for is my family. How I live my life is also important to me. I see no need to put my trust in something for which there is no evidence to show it actually exists.
I have no intention of turning my life into one long guilt trip, not that I have many years left.
Sure, I make mistakes in life, but I try to learn from those mistakes, and if I say or do something that is wrong and it hurts another person, then it is that person I need to ask forgiveness from, not some invisible being.
It is very obvious from reading many of the posts from Christians that they have a real downer on the world, not helped by the low opinion they seem to have of themselves.
Yes, there is bad in the world but I have experienced much more good than bad during my life, much much more.
Life is only as difficult as you make it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is Christianity a religion of "No?" Lately I've been thinking of all the CF threads having to do with the, "thou shalt nots" of the faith.

Those posts are for the writer, not the reader.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The 'no' in Christianity is the limits one should not cross. I'm tired of a Christianity that speaks only in positive language, especially in a social climate which has the same way of speaking. It feels shallow. If we don't have clear limitations then Christianity will become a religion indistinct from any other thought system.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Is Christianity a religion of "No?" Lately I've been thinking of all the CF threads having to do with the, "thou shalt nots" of the faith. Sometimes it seems to me that we spend a whole lot more time as Christians, leastwise here on CF, thinking and talking about what we are not supposed to do rather than what we are supposed to do as Christians. Ethos is a two-edged sword including both the immoral and the moral, or said otherwise, that to avoid and that to embrace.

I think of a college roommate who I thought was one of the most moral persons I had ever met, except that he had never been to church and knew nothing about Christianity. It begs the question, if we as Christians get all the "thou shalt nots" right could we still fall short because we fail to embrace the positive ethos of Christianity...those positive things that we are supposed to do if we are to walk in the way of Christ?

I think there is more to the faith that just avoiding sin. What does it mean to you to walk in the way of Christ other than avoiding sin, and how do you operationalize that in your life or your church?

There is often the thinking that someone who doesn't go to church is immoral or less moral than people who do. However, this is a fallacy. Reliable Scientific Studies and experience bear this out as you indicate. Ethical behavior is bigger than any one religion, including dominant cultural religions like Christianity in North America. People are ethical and unethical outside of Christianity and any religion. As well, Christians can be ethical and unethical too. Often the more religious one is the more unethical they are prone to be because the more they stick to a certain limited set of particular ethical standards. This can lead to behaviors that either don't respect other people's ethical ideas or justify unethical behavior. We have seen this throughout history with the justification for violence, wars, inquisitions, brutal treatment of women/blacks/LGBTQ and other peoples by Christians. The Anglican Reverend Richard Holloway has an excellent little book on keeping religion out of ethics called - Godless Morality - Keeping Religion Out of Ethics

I would recommend developing your critical and skeptical thinking skills related to ethics by:
1. Learning about how different people handle moral and ethical questions across religions and non-religious groups of people (atheist, agnostic, secular humanist etc.)
2. Learn about ethics by taking a historical survey course from the ancient Greeks to today (this will widen your perspective) at the university level
3. Finally, realize that even within Christianity there is a wide range of different ideas about ethics and morality that revolve around ideas associated with particular views of the Bible and historical traditions within denominations - Is the Bible perfect in every way or have errors because people wrote it/copied it/transmitted it, how do we know? what are the different traditions leading to different extreme views of the Bible and ethics? Why?

 

[eleos1954]

There is often the thinking that someone who doesn't go to church is immoral or less moral than people who do. However, this is a fallacy. Reliable Scientific Studies and experience bear this out as you indicate. Ethical behavior is bigger than any one religion, including dominant cultural religions like Christianity in North America. People are ethical and unethical outside of Christianity and any religion. As well, Christians can be ethical and unethical too. Often the more religious one is the more unethical they are prone to be because the more they stick to a certain limited set of particular ethical standards. This can lead to behaviors that either don't respect other people's ethical ideas or justify unethical behavior. We have seen this throughout history with the justification for violence, wars, inquisitions, brutal treatment of women/blacks/LGBTQ and other peoples by Christians. The Anglican Reverend Richard Holloway has an excellent little book on keeping religion out of ethics called - Godless Morality - Keeping Religion Out of Ethics

I would recommend developing your critical and skeptical thinking skills related to ethics by:
1. Learning about how different people handle moral and ethical questions across religions and non-religious groups of people (atheist, agnostic, secular humanist etc.)
2. Learn about ethics by taking a historical survey course from the ancient Greeks to today (this will widen your perspective) at the university level
3. Finally, realize that even within Christianity there is a wide range of different ideas about ethics and morality that revolve around ideas associated with particular views of the Bible and historical traditions within denominations - Is the Bible perfect in every way or have errors because people wrote it/copied it/transmitted it, how do we know? what are the different traditions leading to different extreme views of the Bible and ethics? Why?

Study the life of Jesus ... He and only Him is the only perfect example of what humanity (as God originally created the human race to be) ... not other peoples "opinions"

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Study the life of Jesus ... He and only Him is the only perfect example of what humanity (as God originally created the human race to be) ... not other peoples "opinions"

I have studied it extensively. Much more than most ordinary Christians and Ministers. I have read many books from both Christian and non-Christian perspectives. What have you read from the non-Christian perspective?

The problem, as you seem unaware, is that the historical life of Jesus and Jesus as an historical figure is not agreed upon. Most scholars (Christian and non-Christian) who have studied the Bible agree that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible is at least partly non-historical. However, there is no general agreement who the real Jesus was. The problem is that we virtually have no evidence outside the Bible, (Paul, NT letters and gospels) of who Jesus was. There is no way to verify the historical accuracy of any view of the historical Jesus if there is not evidence of his life outside the Bible from 4 B.C. (when he was probably born) to about A.D. 30. The gospels don't portray a unified view of Jesus, the gospels don't agree amongst themselves even though Matthew and Luke obviously were mostly derived from Mark and they don't agree with the portrayal by Paul. This has been known for a long time.

Particular views of Jesus are derived from unjustified assumptions. For example, the Bible is exactly as written or this theory of higher criticism of the Bible is best. These assertions are either not supported by facts and evidence or only by literary and cultural assumption (so either can't count as facts or are at best second hand facts) in justifying a particular position. This is one of the reasons there are so many different "Christianities" around the world.

 

[FireDragon76]

BT White sums up what I would have to say perfectly, especially regarding the role of Christianity in persecuting and suppressing all sorts of people and denying them their liberties. Often times, religions like Christianity constrain a person's ethical vision rather than enhancing it. As Voltaire put it, "Those who can make you believe absurdities will make you commit atrocities". The contempt towards skepticism and doubt exhibited by many Christians feeds into this mindset.

I actually think the real historical Jesus was a Jewish humanist in terms of his ethics, as the examples he gives in his parables ultimately appeal to human experience rather than religion as the basis of ethical deliberation. He had conflicts with religious authorities of his day who used religion as a tool of fear and control. In that way I actually think he has more in common with the ethics of somebody like Bernie Sanders than he does with the average conservative preacher or rabbi out there.

 

[keith99]

It is rather easy to make the case that American Christianity has become a relegion of NO. And one could even go so far as to say it often seems to be the no to a classic hippie line.

If it feels good don't do it!

And it is rather easy to notice that the obvious exceptions to NO are you must go to Church and give money!

BUT if one looks at what the person who is the name of Christianity said when asked what was the most important commandment it seems yes takes top billing. Though sadly it seems the second part gets forgotten. Something like 'the second is like it (the first) you shall love your neighbor as yourself'.

And do note he said your neighbor, not your fellow churchgoers.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Unless you become as a little child you cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Intellectualism and even rationality are not the door.

The matter is spiritually discerned so that the simple can respond and enter.

Pride cannot enter.

Yes there are No's...

Without No's and consequences there is no justice.

 

[FireDragon76]

Without No's and consequences there is no justice.

That doesn't make sense. Justice is more than just punishing the "right" people.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That doesn't make sense. Justice is more than just punishing the "right" people.

Injustice is punishing the wrong people...

 

[eleos1954]

I have studied it extensively. Much more than most ordinary Christians and Ministers. I have read many books from both Christian and non-Christian perspectives. What have you read from the non-Christian perspective?

The problem, as you seem unaware, is that the historical life of Jesus and Jesus as an historical figure is not agreed upon. Most scholars (Christian and non-Christian) who have studied the Bible agree that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible is at least partly non-historical. However, there is no general agreement who the real Jesus was. The problem is that we virtually have no evidence outside the Bible, (Paul, NT letters and gospels) of who Jesus was. There is no way to verify the historical accuracy of any view of the historical Jesus if there is not evidence of his life outside the Bible from 4 B.C. (when he was probably born) to about A.D. 30. The gospels don't portray a unified view of Jesus, the gospels don't agree amongst themselves even though Matthew and Luke obviously were mostly derived from Mark and they don't agree with the portrayal by Paul. This has been known for a long time.

Particular views of Jesus are derived from unjustified assumptions. For example, the Bible is exactly as written or this theory of higher criticism of the Bible is best. These assertions are either not supported by facts and evidence or only by literary and cultural assumption (so either can't count as facts or are at best second hand facts) in justifying a particular position. This is one of the reasons there are so many different "Christianities" around the world.

The Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.

And keep in mind—many of the writers of Scripture didn't even know each other.

Approximately 40 men were inspired to record the Word of God. They had no e-mail, no faxes, no phones. Imagine trying to pull together a project like this over a 1500-year period.

Coincidence?

The gospels don't portray a unified view of Jesus, the gospels don't agree amongst themselves even though Matthew and Luke obviously were mostly derived from Mark and they don't agree with the portrayal by Paul. This has been known for a long time.

I would disagree ... Matthew, Mark & Luke should be studied together. They are 3 different people giving their account ... they are not exactly the same however cover many of the same stories .... if they were exactly the same ... then it would indeed be suspicious. They don't contradict one another .... more or less details are given by each author. Same with the writings of Paul.

The message is cohesive throughout .... Jesus is God ... Jesus is the Messiah .... where is/are the contradiction(s) in that regard?

When facing possible contradictions, it is important to remember that two statements may differ from each other without being contradictory. Some fail to make a distinction between contradiction and difference.

If an event happens and say several people eye witness the event .... will they all tell the exact same story the same way? .... will their "accounts" be exactly the same? If one states something happened and another does not .... does that mean one of them is lying? or ... that none of it is true? No, but their accounts will be different (vary) ... does that mean they are contradictory? No it does not.

 

[FireDragon76]

Injustice is punishing the wrong people...

Injustice is more than just punishing the wrong people.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.

That's a naive view of the Bible not supported by the best scholarship on the subject.

I would disagree ... Matthew, Mark & Luke should be studied together. They are 3 different people giving their account ...

The best scholarship doesn't support this notion of three independent sources to the Synoptic Gospels, and it's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

 

[eleos1954]

That's a naive view of the Bible not supported by the best scholarship on the subject.



The best scholarship doesn't support this notion of three independent sources to the Synoptic Gospels, and it's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Who are these "best scholarship's" on the subject

 

[FireDragon76]

Who are these "best scholarship's" on the subject

The consensus of biblical scholarship as you will find it in accredited institutions of higher learning, not at "Bible college" diploma mills.

 

[Philip_B]

The Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.

I get the point you are making, however some of how you are making it does not help.

The Bible is comprised of between 66 and 73 books written over a period of about 1,100 year by over 40 authors from many walks of life, with different personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in two languages on three continents (unless of course you don't count the deuterocanonical in which case it would be two continents) and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects.​

I would disagree ... Matthew, Mark & Luke should be studied together. They are 3 different people giving their account ... they are not exactly the same however cover many of the same stories .... if they were exactly the same ... then it would indeed be suspicious. They don't contradict one another .... more or less details are given by each author.

A lot of work has been done on the synoptic gospels, so called because they can be studied together. They represent the work of three different authors preserving the record of revelation as they felt they must, and you are correct in suggesting the minor differences indeed attest to authenticity rather than collusion. None the less there is sufficient correlation and connection to make it meaningful to believe the is some common source material, often posited as 'Q' which of course is only a scholarly theory and not an attested fact. Matthew and Mark may well have been numbered among the twelve, whereas Luke clearly was not. There are despite there commonality some significant difference between the synoptic Gospels, Matthew is perhaps more Jewish and make much of the Davidic line, Luke is more Gentile in approach and raises the prominence of the ministry of Women. Mark, shorter than the others and most probably earlier, raises the question of the messianic secret. We don't help the cause if we try and whitewash this.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Unless you become as a little child you cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Intellectualism and even rationality are not the door.

The matter is spiritually discerned so that the simple can respond and enter.

Pride cannot enter.

Yes there are No's...

Without No's and consequences there is no justice.

For some people and for some people not. There are people who are Christians, just the same as who are not, who will have no problem following the no adultery command. However, there are other Christians whose make-up is different who will. This is true for things that a certain denomination has as rules and expectations of behaviors. This is no different for people outside of a particular form of Christianity.

Boundaries exist for behavior for all groups, not just Christians. Society and nations have them to help people know how behave in their particular group/tribe/church/denomination/synagogue/nation etc.
Christians are no better or worse according to studies than other people in general. This alone should be a clue that Christianity is perhaps a man-made religion like all others. If there is not difference is morality, if groups of people do the same things as other groups, if there exists laws/rules/ethics for other religions and groups and so on and son on......Then perhaps all the different "Christianities" are all just made up cultural constructs like all others? When you seriously consider this, and live in to this possibility all the ideas that you thought were so immutable from the "Christianities" just disappear.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Christians are no better or worse according to studies than other people in general. This alone should be a clue that Christianity is perhaps a man-made religion like all others. If there is not difference is morality, if groups of people do the same things as other groups, if there exists laws/rules/ethics for other religions and groups and so on and son on......Then perhaps all the different "Christianities" are all just made up cultural constructs like all others? When you seriously consider this, and live in to this possibility all the ideas that you thought were so immutable from the "Christianities" just disappear.

This conclusion is false.

Jesus made it clear that there would be wheat and tares so of course there is immorality in the church as there was at the beginning. The laws of love are clearly spelled out but many claiming to be Christian are simply adherents to a system and have not had the encounter with God that permanently changes their moral compass.

So from a purely sociological point of view your observation stands. But the unique nature of the teachings of Jesus remains regarless of how far "Christendom" has wandered away from them.