Corruption of Christianity

[DisingenuousChristian]

Do you think Christianity might have lost something when it became the majority?

It seems to me that for something to become the majority worldview it can't require significant sacrifice, great commitment and radical change. I doubt the average person has the inclination or perhaps even the ability to give their whole self to faith. They have to raise a family, go to work, study, socialise, go to church and be 'good' people. All important things; all with roughly equal emphasis. But then faith just becomes an important thing.

They forgot why they believed in the first place. What it meant. Why it was different. It became common place. Easy. The societal norm. Plain. Luke-warm. Powerless.

"Believe Jesus dyed for your sins, come to church every Sunday and keep a few rules we give you and you'll be fine."

Should faith be hard?


(My view is more complex than this, but I don't want to write too much)

You raise many a good point, but no offense to you or anyone; I see this sort of question now as quite meaningless the more I actually look at the world.

I, too, used to differentiate (and not even that long ago!, actually pretty recently...) the difference between a "strong" faith and a lukewarm, hollow faith. Now I'm seeing these things differently, i.e., in terms of our shared humanity. In that, I honestly see less and less difference between the truly devout and thoroughgoing Christian and the average blow-shlo who is simply praying to get a good lay.

Maybe what I am saying is blasphemy, but I don't think it is. I think we are human first and foremost, and we are searching for some Sweetness, whoever we are. Depending on the state of our mind, genes, and power of will, that comes in many degrees and shades which I can't even begin to judge.

 

[Paradoxum]

You raise many a good point, but no offense to you or anyone; I see this sort of question now as quite meaningless the more I actually look at the world.

I, too, used to differentiate (and not even that long ago!, actually pretty recently...) the difference between a "strong" faith and a lukewarm, hollow faith. Now I'm seeing these things differently, i.e., in terms of our shared humanity. In that, I honestly see less and less difference between the truly devout and thoroughgoing Christian and the average blow-shlo who is simply praying to get a good lay.

Maybe what I am saying is blasphemy, but I don't think it is. I think we are human first and foremost, and we are searching for some Sweetness, whoever we are. Depending on the state of our mind, genes, and power of will, that comes in many degrees and shades which I can't even begin to judge.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I think I sort of get what you mean, but it would be easier to reply if you more explicit and specific with what you mean.

If you are just saying people are people first and people matter I can hardly disagree.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

If you are just saying people are people first and people matter I can hardly disagree.

Essentially that's what I mean. Human beings are the way they are. And to quote Hegel I believe they cannot help acting the way they do. Whether for good or ill, we are hurtling on in our fate. If we are lucky, we are more noble, more good, more praiseworthy than others. But that is simply the channel that our life flowed into. As for others, time equally takes its toll.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Essentially that's what I mean. Human beings are the way they are. And to quote Hegel I believe they cannot help acting the way they do. Whether for good or ill, we are hurtling on in our fate. If we are lucky, we are more noble, more good, more praiseworthy than others. But that is simply the channel that our life flowed into. As for others, time equally takes its toll.

To go off on something of a tangent... whence, then, cometh evil? If one's destiny is to sin, who wrote that destiny? If sin is punishable with eternal suffering, we are not the ones to be punished - surely whoever made us sin is the one to be punished?

 

[Theofane]

Well, everyone can fail to match their own standards.
(I´m not assuming you go so far to say that atheists don´t or can´t have standards).

Atheists have one (1) standard. Everything else is leeway.

 

[Theofane]

To go off on something of a tangent... whence, then, cometh evil? If one's destiny is to sin, who wrote that destiny? If sin is punishable with eternal suffering, we are not the ones to be punished - surely whoever made us sin is the one to be punished?

Nobody makes us sin or flee from it. The responsibilty for doing good or evil is entirely our own.

 

[Belk]

Atheists have one (1) standard. Everything else is leeway.

I disagree. There is one standard to be an atheist. That does not mean that atheists only have one standard.

 

[quatona]

Atheists have one (1) standard.

No - I assure you I have a lot of standards.

 

[Paradoxum]

Essentially that's what I mean. Human beings are the way they are. And to quote Hegel I believe they cannot help acting the way they do. Whether for good or ill, we are hurtling on in our fate. If we are lucky, we are more noble, more good, more praiseworthy than others. But that is simply the channel that our life flowed into. As for others, time equally takes its toll.

Well I could accept that because of determinism. Obviously from our point of views though it seems like we have choice, so it makes sense for me to try to influence someone to be better.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Atheists have one (1) standard. Everything else is leeway.

What standard is that?

Nobody makes us sin or flee from it. The responsibilty for doing good or evil is entirely our own.

I would argue that people are disproportionately predisposed to evil - someone raised in Europe or America is more likely to be Christian (and therefore good) than someone raised in the Middle-East, who will likely become a Muslim (and therefore evil). Bear in mind that 'good' and 'evil' are in God's terms, as in, those who are Saved.

In any case, my post was in response to DisingenuousChristian, who asserted that our fates are predetermined and out of our control.

 

[Theofane]

I'm an atheist and I support this message

Really? It wasn't meant to be charitable or positive.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Really? It wasn't meant to be charitable or positive.

My belief in a claim isn't based on its charitability, positivity, or other desirable traits. It's based on its veracity - is it true?

"All an atheist has to do is not believe in God or gods."
Yep.

"Other than that, there are absolutely no standards. As long as you reject God and disdain the supernatural, atheism requires nothing of you."
Yep.

"Keeping the faith = difficult"
Yep.

"Criticizing those who keep the faith = easy"
Yep.

What in there was supposed to be offensive? What in there was I supposed to take issue with?

 

[Belk]

My belief in a claim isn't based on its charitability, positivity, or other desirable traits. It's based on its veracity - is it true?

"All an atheist has to do is not believe in God or gods."
Yep.

"Other than that, there are absolutely no standards. As long as you reject God and disdain the supernatural, atheism requires nothing of you."
Yep.

"Keeping the faith = difficult"
Yep.

"Criticizing those who keep the faith = easy"
Yep.

What in there was supposed to be offensive? What in there was I supposed to take issue with?

Well, the supernatural claim for one. There are lots of atheists who believe in the supernatural but not in a god.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, the supernatural claim for one. There are lots of atheists who believe in the supernatural but not in a god.

True, but she said 'disdain'. I think that could be equated with 'scepticism', which atheists generally have in buckets - but that doesn't stop them from believing anyway. 'Scepticism' doesn't mean refusing to believe ever ever, so being sceptical (or disdaining) of the supernatural doesn't mean an atheist cannot believe in it - unlike the existence of God, which would disqualify someone from the moniker 'atheist'.

I once read an article that more atheists believe in the supernatural than any other religious demographic (Jew, Muslim, etc). Go figure.

 

[Nabobalis]

True, but she said 'disdain'. I think that could be equated with 'scepticism', which atheists generally have in buckets - but that doesn't stop them from believing anyway. 'Scepticism' doesn't mean refusing to believe ever ever, so being sceptical (or disdaining) of the supernatural doesn't mean an atheist cannot believe in it - unlike the existence of God, which would disqualify someone from the moniker 'atheist'.

I once read an article that more atheists believe in the supernatural than any other religious demographic (Jew, Muslim, etc). Go figure.

Yeah, the reply seemed to indicate that you/atheists should of been offended. I don't see it.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Well I could accept that because of determinism. Obviously from our point of views though it seems like we have choice, so it makes sense for me to try to influence someone to be better.

Do we even know what the thesis of determinism is?

From my point of view, I don't deny freedom. What I say is, we are "hurtling forward" in our fate. This isn't entirely graspable by the mind. What I think is, freedom is not something in time or space. It is of an order above, so to speak. But it is still manifested in time. It is occuring Now, or this very moment. So in that sense the life script is already written given how our individual lives play out "in the beginning" so to say. Apart from that, nature comes in and alters all our attitudes.

That probably didn't make a lick of sense but oh well.

 

[Theofane]

I disagree. There is one standard to be an atheist. That does not mean that atheists only have one standard.

Strictly speaking, what other standard is there? A moral standard? Since atheism concerns itself only with rejecting God and all things of God, the atheist does not need to be good or divide right from wrong.

Atheism is easy!

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Strictly speaking, what other standard is there? A moral standard? Since atheism concerns itself only with rejecting God and all things of God, the atheist does not need to be good or divide right from wrong.

Atheism is easy!

Basically I agree with you. This is because morality is fundamentally autocratic.

I act as the authority above me gives me directives. Without the force of an external agent backing my obligations, I don't see any point in them.

 

[Myshkin99]

Is atheism, or theism for that matter, even a choice? Can you choose what to believe? What matter which is "easier" when faith is not something that we can choose for ourselves. We believe what appears true to us. Yes? No?

Are any of us capable of believing something that the little voice in our minds says..."y'know....this just sounds so ver far-fetched and is not well-supported except by some pretty vague prophecy and some 2000-year-old heresay...I'd like to believe it, but I just don't know how"? How does one "choose" to believe?

 

[sk8Joyful]

They
forgot why they believed in the first place. What it meant. Why it was different. It became common place.

"Believe Jesus dyed for your sins, come to church every Sunday
and keep a few rules we give you and you'll be fine."
Should faith be hard?

Two things:

Don't concern yourself with they, for whom the above statement is, yes hard, as only a small part of it is true.

Rather, develop your own Loving relationship with God as your Creator, Father, Savior, Teacher, Best-friend, & Resurrector... God's Guidance you will find easy.