Christianity: A Flawed System?

[TimeBeast]

There are so many sects these days... there's mainstream religions and theres the more unorthodox cults. Christianity is a very broad term, covering many different denominations... from Protestant to Catholic, Seveth Day Adventist to arguable the LDS (otherways known as mormons). However, there is one essential flaw with every christian or christian claiming church in the world. It's the same problem with the Bible or modern scripture.

Man.

The Bible was written by men. The church was run by men after Christ departed us. Every single breakaway or new group formed was made by men. I was a part of the Mormon chuch... they had a lot that made sense even though it wasn't always orthodox. However, there were discreptancies and embaressing holes in the story... I've even had a personal experience where leaders have had 'revalation from God' that is 100% not true... how can one believe in a religion after having had that happen? The truth is that you can't...

Read the Bible and take into account that the people who wrote it we're human... they had fallible memories and most of the New Testament was written years after it happened. Add a pinch of salt as its over 2000 years old it has changed over time... some changes accidental through translation or copying. Others intentional by those who wanted to debunk the text by creating self contradictions and disreptancies.

A recurring theme I have noticed is the corruption of both the faithful and the church. There are too many examplesto even start quoting. We are truely foolish to think that these are just ancient texts and those times are all over. It has happened over the last 2000 years and is most certainly happening now.

Jesus is the only one who lead a perfect life free of sin... it's was a requirement or else the atonement would have been for nothing. All other men, from Job to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to Florence
Nightingale... they all made mistakes and sinned, and probably much more than you imagine. They were not pefect, nor is anyone else in our time.

Those that are eager to point out that some leaders are 'false prophets' please, point out to me one man who has prophecied flawlessly... point out one modern prophet that isn't a false prophet. Give me a man who has not made a mistake or two sometime in his life and hence is the only person we can believe... why not pray for God to bless you with revelation. Perhaps maybe then you would understand the difficulty those who actually recieve revelation face. Perhaps you would understand why they might get it wrong some of the time... or maybe you might discover what lies behind false prophets.

So go back to your sunday meetings. Remeber when you look at your chaplain/bishop/leader that he/she is not infallible. When you go to your seminary or read the Bible think that it has been through both the hands of good and evil people, all who have made mistakes with it. Eventually there are only two people you can trust... that is yourself and God. Ultimately you must make your peace with him and him alone.

 

[Blessed-one]

Jesus is the only one who lead a perfect life free of sin... it's was a requirement or else the atonement would have been for nothing. All other men, from Job to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to Florence
Nightingale... they all made mistakes and sinned, and probably much more than you imagine. They were not pefect, nor is anyone else in our time.

you said you were once a mormon. Do the mormons believe that Jesus is God made flesh? As Jesus is God, He is perfect (his life on earth was without sin). Luke, Matthew... and all others cannot be compared with him, the comparison is not valid.

 

[Katya]

There is a popular saying in my church. "The church is perfect, the people in it aren't."
I believe there are false prophets in all religions, and by false prophets, I mean that they know they are.

 

[TimeBeast]

The Mormon idea of the trinity is that they are three united in purpose, not existance. They believe that the trinity is made up of three seperate beings. The also believe that we are all sons and daughters of God (from a spitirual point of view), including Jesus, who happens to be the first born.

So I would suppose that Jesus is not God made flesh, but the only child to lived a perfect life on this earth and hence a valid comparison. However, the point I was making was that people we may think highly of aren't perfect. The only perfect person in all known history, according to most christian denomination that I know and regardless of whether he was simply another man or God made flesh, was Jesus Christ.

 

[brewmama]

This is certainly nothing new to Christianity. Paul certainly condemns himself enough, and Peter wept when he realized what he had done. I don't see how this makes Christianity flawed though. That is the whole POINT of it, to help us get back to God.

 

[Blessed-one]

The also believe that we are all sons and daughters of God (from a spitirual point of view), including Jesus, who happens to be the first born.

my point exactly.

The Bible was written by men. The church was run by men after Christ departed us. Every single breakaway or new group formed was made by men.

aye, but the words were inspired by God. You can't throw the holy spirit out of the equation.

 

[dnich163]

For me the two areas that lead to God are faith "and" reason.

We need to be aware for false prophets that may appear to lead to God but don't.

It is right and fitting that you and we should always question 'the church' and it's teaching to see where it is leading and what the values are.
I question my faith in the Catholic teaching quite a lot, and have so far found the answer to most questions in my life.

In this one thing I also have to do is question myself just as rigorously.

We can all kid ourselves on and end up believing the lies.

The Philosophy of Faith and Reason as put forward by Thomas Aquinas raises such questions as how can we know God and can we prove he exists.

This very questioning of our life and existence is necessary and has lead me to my belief in God and scripture as well as re-affirming what I perceive to be the truth of Jesus and the Roman Catholic church as well as the Kingdom here on Earth.

Feel good about this one

Regards
David

 

[undead1]

Originally posted by TimeBeast
There are so many sects these days... there's mainstream religions and theres the more unorthodox cults. Christianity is a very broad term, covering many different denominations... from Protestant to Catholic, Seveth Day Adventist to arguable the LDS (otherways known as mormons). However, there is one essential flaw with every christian or christian claiming church in the world. It's the same problem with the Bible or modern scripture.

Man.

There is only one gospel, and that is the gospel that Jesus & the apostles taught. If a man preaches the same gospel, them its a perfect gospel. Otherwise imperfect. Life is simpler than you say.

(Now, where can I find a church which practices women keeping their heads covered? 1 Cor 11;2? Oops. Think I'll stick to the gospel instead.)

 

[Risen Tree]

Although I disagree with TB on many, many points, which I do not have the time to cover, let's assume you're right for a moment, that Christianity is imperfect.

(1) Where is your standard that decides what is perfect and what is not? And if your standard is yourself, can you prove to us that you are absolutely perfect?

(2) What perfect standard supercedes the Bible?

 

[undead1]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
Although I disagree with TB on many, many points, which I do not have the time to cover, let's assume you're right for a moment, that Christianity is imperfect.

(1) Where is your standard that decides what is perfect and what is not? And if your standard is yourself, can you prove to us that you are absolutely perfect?

(2) What perfect standard supercedes the Bible?

Churches are imperfect, not Christianity. But "churches" are not "the church". There is only one church, which is comprised of imperfect members, who hopefully are being made perfect, though I guess you could be forgiven for being mistaken on that count, judging by the evidence. However, the evidence does not lie, and only those being made perfect are true members of the one true church.

Only God is perfect, and only the gifts of God are perfect. Jesus, as the image of God, is perfect, and so is the gospel, the gift of God for the salvation of men. God entrusted the whole of the gospel to Paul. To other apostles too, but to Paul as chief apostle to the Gentiles. Now if you want to know what is perfect, then see what Paul says about the matter:

Phil 4;9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

 

 

[HazyRigby]

In response to the words:

"Christianity: A flawed system?"

Of course it is. Any philosophy which advocates faith as the highest of man's impulses is flawed by definition.

 

[Mephster]

Originally posted by HazyRigby
Of course it is. Any philosophy which advocates faith as the highest of man's impulses is flawed by definition.

How is Christianity a "philosophy"? And I think it important that you demonstrate that Christianity places Faith higher than Truth (for example).

 

[dnich163]

I should say that it is man that is flawed, not christianity in it's real sense.

Perhaps this flaw in mankind is what is meant by the fall of man in Genesis.

David

 

[HazyRigby]

Mephster said this in Post #12

How is Christianity a "philosophy"? And I think it important that you demonstrate that Christianity places Faith higher than Truth (for example).

Of course Christianity places faith higher than truth. I think we all can accept the fact that murder is wrong; however, if God tells you to do it, murder becomes okay. Faith before reason, right? The most basic premise of Christianity is that God's word is absolute--there is no room for experimentation. There is no room for discovering the truth for oneself. There is no room for objectivity. Whatever God says is true, IS.

An example of how Christianity places faith higher than truth would be this: if you're shopping for a new car, you don't listen to the salesperson when he tells you that one car is better than another, do you? You don't accept his anecdotal claim without proof. You research. You find out which car is objectively better. Conversely, when you're shopping for a belief system, you don't use the same kind of scrutiny that you put into buying something. You listen to anecdotal evidence. You follow what your parents did. What is comes down to is this: there is not ONE shred of concrete evidence which proves Christianity. There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific study which proves ANY of the claims of your religion. So how can you claim that Christianity is concerned with truth? There's a pretty big gap between truth and belief. Was the Council of Nicea concerned with truth, or were they concerned with politics? Were the folks who condemned Galileo interested in objective truth? Is the Pope concerned with truth when he outlaws birth control, or is he simply trying to make sure that there are always more Catholics? If there is any truth concerning religion, it's that neither you nor your Muslim neighbor knows what happens after death--but both of you seem awfully sure of yourselves.

Read some of Paul's writings in the Bible, and then tell me that reason and truth matter to Christianity. All Paul ever talked about was faith, faith, faith--and how it was the most important thing to have.

Since you have made the claim, now back it up. How is Christianity concerned with truth over faith?

 

[wildernesse]

Today at 10:03 PM HazyRigby said this in Post #14 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=644865#post644865)

I think we all can accept the fact that murder is wrong; however, if God tells you to do it, murder becomes okay.

Killing someone intentionally is always wrong. If God told me to kill someone, I would not do it--because I would have serious doubts that God was instructing me.

The most basic premise of Christianity is that God's word is absolute--there is no room for experimentation.

I think that the most basic premise of Christianity is that God loves us.

There is no room for discovering the truth for oneself. There is no room for objectivity. Whatever God says is true, IS.

An example of how Christianity places faith higher than truth would be this: if you're shopping for a new car, you don't listen to the salesperson when he tells you that one car is better than another, do you? You don't accept his anecdotal claim without proof. You research. You find out which car is objectively better. Conversely, when you're shopping for a belief system, you don't use the same kind of scrutiny that you put into buying something. You listen to anecdotal evidence. You follow what your parents did. What is comes down to is this: there is not ONE shred of concrete evidence which proves Christianity. There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific study which proves ANY of the claims of your religion.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies cannot by definition prove religious beliefs true or false. Science does not describe the supernatural world--or faith. I don't know that science is the best tool to use for understanding belief systems or the veracity of faith. Faith, by definition, means that there isn't proof of the scientific kind.

So how can you claim that Christianity is concerned with truth? There's a pretty big gap between truth and belief. Was the Council of Nicea concerned with truth, or were they concerned with politics? Were the folks who condemned Galileo interested in objective truth? Is the Pope concerned with truth when he outlaws birth control, or is he simply trying to make sure that there are always more Catholics? If there is any truth concerning religion, it's that neither you nor your Muslim neighbor knows what happens after death--but both of you seem awfully sure of yourselves.

Truth has not been defined. I don't think there is an agreed-upon definition, so I can't really address this. Truth should be defined by Mephster.

Read some of Paul's writings in the Bible, and then tell me that reason and truth matter to Christianity. All Paul ever talked about was faith, faith, faith--and how it was the most important thing to have.

Since you have made the claim, now back it up. How is Christianity concerned with truth over faith?

Could you be more specific about what in Paul's writings you consider to be unreasonable or false? Of course, regarding Paul, I like to remember that I am not a Paulite, but a Christian.

Why is faith bad? And, again, what is truth?

I know that your post wasn't addressed to me, but I wanted to comment a bit. Sorry about the weird snipping in your quotes at the beginning--I changed my mind about how I wanted to reply to you (and I'm too lazy to redo it to make it all consistant).

--tibac

 

[HazyRigby]

Today at 02:22 PM wildernesse said this...

Killing someone intentionally is always wrong. If God told me to kill someone, I would not do it--because I would have serious doubts that God was instructing me.

So...Abraham was wrong?

And you're telling me that if God literally spoke to you and told you to kill someone, you wouldn't? You're not a very obedient child of God, then, are you?

I think that the most basic premise of Christianity is that God loves us.

I suppose we all have our opinions.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies cannot by definition prove religious beliefs true or false. Science does not describe the supernatural world--or faith. I don't know that science is the best tool to use for understanding belief systems or the veracity of faith. Faith, by definition, means that there isn't proof of the scientific kind.

Exactly. Religion isn't concerned with truth or with proof--it's concerned with BELIEF. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make in my post above.

Truth has not been defined. I don't think there is an agreed-upon definition, so I can't really address this. Truth should be defined by Mephster.

Truth has not been defined, eh? It has for me. And I don't think Mephster (or anyone else, for that matter) needs to "define" it. Sheesh. Truth is that which is real, not that which we hope to be real or what we wish were real.

Of course, regarding Paul, I like to remember that I am not a Paulite, but a Christian.

You either follow the Bible or you don't. Considering that Paul wrote or was responsible for a huge portion of the New Testament, are you saying that you consider the portion that he wrote unworthy of following? Perhaps you should ask yourself sometime how much of the New Testament came from the words of Christ and how much came from the mind of Paul. To respond to your question, I find many of the things Paul claims to be abhorrent; things such as disobedient children "are worthy of death" (Romans 1:30-32)--not to mention the fact that, as I said, Paul is all about faith, faith, faith. He talks many times about being "justified by faith," which is an oxymoron if ever I've heard one. And if we added up all of the words ascribed to Jesus in the Bible, we probably wouldn't even have enough to match Paul's epistle to the Corinthians. So who's the real teacher of Christianity?

Why is faith bad? And, again, what is truth?

Faith is bad because it short-circuits the mind. That which is real and true is no longer important--if someone has strong faith that I own a green car, no amount of empirical evidence could convince him otherwise--and that's terrible. I've often thought that if science could somehow prove that, say, the Bible was written by a group of people with the specific intention of controlling the masses, we would have very little change in church attendance. People don't seem to care what's true--they like what's comfortable and what makes them happy. If a child asks you where Grandma is now that she's dead, and you tell him the truth--"Grandma's body is in the ground in a coffin, and nobody knows if some part of Grandma is still conscious"--you'd probably be considered a monster. But tell a child a happy lie--"Grandma's in a better place. I know that for sure"--and you're a hero. Comfortable lies are still lies. And the truth is that Christianity has as much support for its assertions as I have proof of green men living in my basement. It's a persuasive fallacy. Everyone wants to live in a happy place forever and ever, but just because some people believe something--even if it's a large group of people believing it--that does not make it real.

 

[wildernesse]

Today at 06:42 AM HazyRigby said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645890#post645890)
So...Abraham was wrong?

And you're telling me that if God literally spoke to you and told you to kill someone, you wouldn't? You're not a very obedient child of God, then, are you?

Maybe Abraham was sure. I would have significant doubts if something told me to kill someone and that something said it was God. If that makes me disobedient, so be it.

I suppose we all have our opinions.

True--but what makes your opinion more valid than mine on the question of what is the basic premise of Christianity?

Exactly. Religion isn't concerned with truth or with proof--it's concerned with BELIEF. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make in my post above.

Just because someone believes something without proof does not make the object of that belief untrue, however. I don't understand the proofs of many scientific theories--physics *is* more of a belief for me, but that doesn't make the object of my belief (physics) untrue. Saying that because religions are concerned with belief (even primarily concerned with belief) does not necessarily negate the truthfulness of the object of that belief.

So, I don't think that you can say that religion isn't concerned with truth.

Truth has not been defined, eh? It has for me. And I don't think Mephster (or anyone else, for that matter) needs to "define" it. Sheesh. Truth is that which is real, not that which we hope to be real or what we wish were real.

For the purpose of discussion, it is preferable that the terms be defined and agreed upon. Otherwise you may end up arguing at cross-purposes.

You have defined truth as something that accords with factual evidence, while other people could define it as behavior/activity/thoughts that meets divine standards for humans.

You either follow the Bible or you don't. Considering that Paul wrote or was responsible for a huge portion of the New Testament, are you saying that you consider the portion that he wrote unworthy of following? Perhaps you should ask yourself sometime how much of the New Testament came from the words of Christ and how much came from the mind of Paul. To respond to your question, I find many of the things Paul claims to be abhorrent; things such as disobedient children "are worthy of death" (Romans 1:30-32)--not to mention the fact that, as I said, Paul is all about faith, faith, faith. He talks many times about being "justified by faith," which is an oxymoron if ever I've heard one. And if we added up all of the words ascribed to Jesus in the Bible, we probably wouldn't even have enough to match Paul's epistle to the Corinthians. So who's the real teacher of Christianity?

I just think that Jesus's words are far more important than Paul's, especially as I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Paul is just a person like anyone else. Mere quantity of written thought does not make someone correct. The entire Bible sums up for me as: Love God and your neighbor with all that you are. People may disagree with me, but that's the point of Christianity.

Faith is bad because it short-circuits the mind. That which is real and true is no longer important--if someone has strong faith that I own a green car, no amount of empirical evidence could convince him otherwise--and that's terrible. I've often thought that if science could somehow prove that, say, the Bible was written by a group of people with the specific intention of controlling the masses, we would have very little change in church attendance.

Science can't prove that God exists or not. Stop wielding it like a club against faith. They are not mutually exclusive. Science tells us about this natural world, it cannot and does not purport to tell us about non-natural things. It can explain natural phenomena that were previously thought to be supernatural, but in the end there is not a way for it to tell us that there isn't a supernatural.

People don't seem to care what's true--they like what's comfortable and what makes them happy. If a child asks you where Grandma is now that she's dead, and you tell him the truth--"Grandma's body is in the ground in a coffin, and nobody knows if some part of Grandma is still conscious"--you'd probably be considered a monster. But tell a child a happy lie--"Grandma's in a better place. I know that for sure"--and you're a hero. Comfortable lies are still lies.

If someone's belief makes them happy and comfortable, what's it to you? In your example to a child, I see no reason why telling a child that "Grandma's body is in the ground and no one knows if some part of her still exists. I think (whatever the person thinks about this). I do know that she's not suffering any longer, and I think that's better. We're going to miss her a lot." etc. The stupid thing would be to act like the child's pain was un-important or her fears were inconsequential, which you could do believing there's an afterlife or not.

And just to be nit-picky here, you've not shown that lying is bad, and bad in all situations.

And the truth is that Christianity has as much support for its assertions as I have proof of green men living in my basement. It's a persuasive fallacy. Everyone wants to live in a happy place forever and ever, but just because some people believe something--even if it's a large group of people believing it--that does not make it real.

As you said earlier, I suppose we all have our opinions. However, I don't think that there's a large body of objective evidence regarding Christianity's origins one way or the other.

I agree that just because a large group of people believe something doesn't make it true. But, an idea also can't be discarded just because a large group of people believe it either.

--tibac

 

[Cardinal_James]

Sorry, but i just have to put in my two sense about this one . . .

"Faith is bad because it short-circuits the mind. That which is real and true is no longer important--if someone has strong faith that I own a green car, no amount of empirical evidence could convince him otherwise--and that's terrible. I've often thought that if science could somehow prove that, say, the Bible was written by a group of people with the specific intention of controlling the masses, we would have very little change in church attendance."

I'd have to agree with Wildernesse's assesment of this quote, in that HazyRigby is using the old "truth verses faith" argument as her personal blackjack. I would have to argue that no, faith does not short-circut ones mind, that statement is totally outrageous. Some of histories most brilliant minda were devoutly religous men; Einstien, Darwin(yes, the evo guy) Newton, Lincoln. These men were as devoute to their theories and country's as they were to their faith.

Also, i think that the whole Green Car anaolgy is totally ridiculous! A car is a tangable object, religion is something completley different! Where on earth is your mind!

Lastly, the bible is full of holes, big ones, inaccurcies abound, but you know what? It doesn't matter! At least it shouldn't to senseable people because what's most important is not wether the stories are true, but the messages the the bible contains; love, compassion, courage, reverence, those are reasons the bible remains so timeless for everyone, not just Christians.

Geeze, i'm usually the one on the other side of the fence. What happened?

Wildernesse - 1

HazyRigby - 0

 

[Outspoken]

"In response to the words:

"Christianity: A flawed system?"

Of course it is. Any philosophy which advocates faith as the highest of man's impulses is flawed by definition.
"

that pretty much strikes down every faith, belief, moral code, and even science itself.

 

[Cardinal_James]

"Of course it is. Any philosophy which advocates faith as the highest of man's impulses is flawed by definition."


So simple, yet to inassalible . . .i like it, Kudos for you!