Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[2PhiloVoid]

It's mostly the history that rules-out Christianity for me. I do NOT mean Christianity's history of abusing Christian heretics and non-Christians. I mean the history that argues against divine inspiration shaping either Judaism or Christianity. The religions evolved gradually and clumsily over centuries. That isn't what I would expect to see if divine inspiration was a factor.

That might be an expectation that you are, however unintentionally, importing into your preconceptions about how God 'would' work if He were real. Personally, I think the truth of the matter is that no one can say, "Listen to me everybody, I figured out how God works and intends to implement His will in the best way possible for humanity!" Yeah, I don't think anyone less than a person who has actually been visited by God can say that. (I can't say that I have been visited directly by God, although, I do have to admit that there seems to be a whole lot of that level of assertion going around these days, and on both sides of the theist/atheist divide.)

 

[cloudyday2]

That might be an expectation that you are, however unintentionally, importing into your preconceptions about how God 'would' work if He were real. Personally, I think the truth of the matter is that no one can say, "Listen to me everybody, I figured out how God works and intends to implement His will in the best way possible for humanity!" Yeah, I don't think anyone less than a person who has actually been visited by God can say that. (I can't say that I have been visited directly by God, although, I do have to admit that there seems to be a whole lot of that level of assertion going around these days, and on both sides of the theist/atheist divide.)

If I am going to believe in Christianity then I expect that belief to have some implications such as historical events, present day effects in my life in response to certain behaviors, etc. There is no reason to say "I believe in Christianity" if that belief has no implications.

An analogy would be Christians who say that God created the world through evolution. You can say God inspired the creation of Christianity even though it can be explained more simply as centuries of human bumbling.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I am going to believe in Christianity then I expect that belief to have some implications such as historical events, present day effects in my life in response to certain behaviors, etc. There is no reason to say "I believe in Christianity" if that belief has no implications.

Well of course, we're all going to individually have our own particular expectations since we each interpret what we read in the Bible a bit differently. For instance, in our respective cases, I would say that even though there have been times in my life where I've been mighty frustrated with God (or even with myself due to emotional vacillation in my growth and walk as a Christian, not to mention the occasional existential crisis I've had), each of us probably doesn't have the same interpretive framework of the Bible. I can't say that I don't empathize with you, because I do, but I also know that my own approach to interpreting the Bible has changed two or three times over the past 30 years as I've continued to learn.

An analogy would be Christians who say that God created the world through evolution. You can say God inspired the creation of Christianity even though it can be explained more simply as centuries of human bumbling.

Sure. That can be an analogy. But there's also no reason, biblically speaking, that your analogy of human bumbling can't also be a part of the overall way in which God actually works in the world at large, both corporately and individually. It seems to me that God associates with, and even constructively uses, both people who are bumbling, in need of learning, as well as those who seem to have themselves together pretty well (the latter of which isn't me, as far as I can tell--at least I don't count myself as being among those who have themselves all together). Just look at Peter and Paul. Both of them were a mess in their lives at various points. Both hit snags in their lives where they had to reassess "what it all means," and "what it was going to really take" to be and remain a Christian.

I thought it was very poignant what you wrote in one post somewhere recently, the one where you said the truth of Christianity is that it is a "hard road," or something to that effect. And I'd say you pretty nearly hit the nail on the head, no matter how many Fundamentalist Christians of a particular type say that we can all just pray and claim our way into health, prosperity and success. I think we both know that isn't true. No analogy needed.

Doesn't mean I don't believe in prayer, however. It just means I think it's for something other than what people most often resort to it for.

 

[GenemZ]

It's mostly the history that rules-out Christianity for me. I do NOT mean Christianity's history of abusing Christian heretics and non-Christians. I mean the history that argues against divine inspiration shaping either Judaism or Christianity. The religions evolved gradually and clumsily over centuries. That isn't what I would expect to see if divine inspiration was a factor.

They did not evolve clumsily. Christianity in its fullness was already there. What history records in many cases has been because of stupidity, ignorance ... and superstition that hindered what should be...

What kept Christianity imprisoned in a majority of the cases was the snatching into the hands of incompetent men who craved power over others. The few minds that broke free by discovering Truth were at times persecuted. That was because... Satan wants to control the minds of men. Well intentioned men even. Satan will even use the name of Jesus to do so.

I just tell you what is the truth. Because, it is. Even if I believe you will not grasp it.

 

[bhsmte]

They did not evolve clumsily. Christianity in its fullness was already there. What history records in many cases has been because of stupidity, ignorance ... and superstition that hindered what should be...

What kept Christianity imprisoned in a majority of the cases was the snatching into the hands of incompetent men who craved power over others. The few minds that broke free by discovering Truth were at times persecuted. That was because... Satan wants to control the minds of men. Well intentioned men even. Satan will even use the name of Jesus to do so.

I just tell you what is the truth. Because, it is. Even if I believe you will not grasp it.

You told us what you personally believe to be the truth. You did not demonstrate this to be true.

 

[cloudyday2]

I thought it was very poignant what you wrote in one post somewhere recently, the one where you said the truth of Christianity is that it is a "hard road," or something to that effect. And I'd say you pretty nearly hit the nail on the head, no matter how many Fundamentalist Christians of a particular type say that we can all just pray and claim our way into health, prosperity and success. I think we both know that isn't true. No analogy needed.

Yeah, I have been asking myself "assume Jesus really was inspired or divine then what was his life's purpose (including the Crucifixion)". I don't buy the vicarious redemption explanation of the Crucifixion (or any of its watered-down variants). The only explanation that resonates with me is that Jesus was saying "This world is corrupt. If you want to follow me, then it's going to cost you everything that this world values."

 

[GenemZ]

You told us what you personally believe to be the truth. You did not demonstrate this to be true.

If someone could demonstrate truth? In the manner you demand, so that all would believe? No one would be able to love God. They would only be able to submit in terror.

There's your problem. Also, the fact that God draws millions of people freely by His love makes your demand null and void. Why have all people terrorized?.. and no one able to relax and freely love God?

Jesus was God demonstrating His love for man. Some crucified him.

Why? God refused to terrorize those who crucified Him into submission.

 

[GenemZ]

Yeah, I have been asking myself "assume Jesus really was inspired or divine then what was his life's purpose (including the Crucifixion)". I don't buy the vicarious redemption explanation of the Crucifixion (or any of its watered-down variants). The only explanation that resonates with me is that Jesus was saying "This world is corrupt. If you want to follow me, then it's going to cost you everything that this world values."

What exactly does the world value?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I have been asking myself "assume Jesus really was inspired or divine then what was his life's purpose (including the Crucifixion)". I don't buy the vicarious redemption explanation of the Crucifixion (or any of its watered-down variants). The only explanation that resonates with me is that Jesus was saying "This world is corrupt. If you want to follow me, then it's going to cost you everything that this world values."

...and I would agree with that in general, but in saying that, I can only agree with the criticism of Vicarious Redemption on a purely human level. But on a Divine level, and purely between us and God, I think there's a whole other ball of wax that has to be handled. With that said, I do think you're right in saying that Jesus definitely implies that we each need to let go of the world in order to follow Him. So, I can't knock you're theology there. It's right on.

 

[GenemZ]

If I am going to believe in Christianity then I expect that belief to have some implications such as historical events, present day effects in my life in response to certain behaviors, etc. There is no reason to say "I believe in Christianity" if that belief has no implications.

I could not believe in Christianity as we see it almost everywhere today. That is, if that was all there is.

Mainstream Christianity to me is in most cases is used as an escape by adults trying to recapture that "Sunday School" feeling they once had known in childhood. For this is a confusing world. Sadly, what we see in most cases only adds to the confusion as far as I am concerned.

 

[GenemZ]

Yeah, I have been asking myself "assume Jesus really was inspired or divine then what was his life's purpose (including the Crucifixion)". I don't buy the vicarious redemption explanation of the Crucifixion (or any of its watered-down variants). The only explanation that resonates with me is that Jesus was saying "This world is corrupt. If you want to follow me, then it's going to cost you everything that this world values."

Jesus was not simply "inspired." He was in on the plan long before he took on the form of being as a man. He needed to make himself become as a man as to fulfill what was needed to redeem back men whom God knew would love Him. For God took on the responsibility for allowing for the Fall of man. Yes, God has a purpose in having man now fallen.

 

[cloudyday2]

What exactly does the world value?

Basically just read the sayings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. Take the Sermon on the Mount: "blessed are the poor". Jesus was not saying "poor people, I know you had bad luck in this life, but God will make it up to you in the next life." No, Jesus was saying "renounce wealth, renounce social standing, etc." Look at the early Christians. They gave all their money to the commune. They abstained from sex - even if they were married. They were called "the poor".

Essentially the Crucifixion could be imagined to say "this is what will happen to you if you want to be my follower"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Basically just read the sayings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. Take the Sermon on the Mount: "blessed are the poor". Jesus was not saying "poor people, I know you had bad luck in this life, but God will make it up to you in the next life." No, Jesus was saying "renounce wealth, renounce social standing, etc." Look at the early Christians. They gave all their money to the commune. They abstained from sex - even if they were married. They were called "the poor".

Essentially the Crucifixion could be imagined to say "this is what will happen to you if you want to be my follower"

On that part, I'd probably have to disagree, even though you obviously do have some other things right about your interpretation of Christianity. Actually, in the Beatitudes given on the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 5:3, Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." It doesn't say blessed are those who voluntarily renounce all wealth of any kind and run around as penniless, half-clothed vagabonds in the streets, or as sex starved ascetics. Jesus (God) is a little more insightful than that, Cloudy.

Rather, I'm confident that what this verse "means" is rather 'blessed are those who fully realize their spiritual predicament in their sins as they stand before a Holy God and are in need of Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness.'

 

[cloudyday2]

On that part, I'd probably have to disagree, even though you obviously do have some other things right about your interpretation of Christianity. Actually, in the Beatitudes given on the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 5:3, Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." It doesn't say blessed are those who voluntarily renounce all wealth of any kind and run around as penniless, half-clothed vagabonds in the streets, or as sex starved ascetics. Jesus (God) is a little more insightful than that, Cloudy.

Rather, I'm confident that what this verse "means" is rather 'blessed are those who fully realize their spiritual predicament in their sins as they stand before a Holy God and are in need of Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness.'

Then why do you suppose the early Christians renounced their wealth and abstained from sex - even when married? It seems to me that the earliest Christians are the most likely to have understood the teachings of Jesus.

When Christianity became a mainstream religion under Emperor Constantine why did people flee to the monasteries and reject "the Church"? Jesus said a servant will be treated no better than his/her master, and we can see in the Crucifixion how the master was treated. If we aren't hanging on a cross ourselves, then we must be doing something wrong.

Obviously that is a suicide religion, but I think that is what Christianity was all about. They expected the world to end in their lifetimes, so they could be extreme.

 

[GenemZ]

Basically just read the sayings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. Take the Sermon on the Mount: "blessed are the poor". Jesus was not saying "poor people, I know you had bad luck in this life, but God will make it up to you in the next life." No, Jesus was saying "renounce wealth, renounce social standing, etc." Look at the early Christians. They gave all their money to the commune. They abstained from sex - even if they were married. They were called "the poor".

Essentially the Crucifixion could be imagined to say "this is what will happen to you if you want to be my follower"

Blessed are the poor in spirit..... Not simply poor. (Matthew 5:3)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." ​

I should add, King David was a multi millionaire when he wrote Psalm 51:16-17...

"For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise."​

The poor in spirit are the ones who see the truth and realities of eternity and must witness to the emptiness and vanity of those seeking their happiness in this present world. The empty may be stimulated and distracted by their stimulation, but they are all like a droplet of water hitting a hot frying pan. They're here ...and then in a split second, they no longer are ....

Life in this world, when lived for this world, is futile and vain. Many think much about Johnny Carson lately? Gone. In a few generations... totally forgotten.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then why do you suppose the early Christians renounced their wealth and abstained from sex - even when married? It seems to me that the earliest Christians are the most likely to have understood the teachings of Jesus.

When Christianity became a mainstream religion under Emperor Constantine why did people flee to the monasteries and reject "the Church"? Jesus said a servant will be treated no better than his/her master, and we can see in the Crucifixion how the master was treated. If we aren't hanging on a cross ourselves, then we must be doing something wrong.

Obviously that is a suicide religion, but I think that is what Christianity was all about. They expected the world to end in their lifetimes, so they could be extreme.

From my reading of Church History, Dogmatics, and the historical development of Christian doctrine, I wouldn't say that much of the above was true, at least not to the extent that you are implying, especially not in the 1st century of Christianity.

Ascetism/Monasticism was a later development, and not one that affected all Christians everywhere. It had more to do with the change in the view of the nature of the Church, going from what was originally more of a "grassroots" movement started by Jesus to one that took on the formalities of the Roman Empire and synthesized some of the existing social philosophies that were also floating around during that time.

And if you really want to get into it, I've got about 40 or 50 books on all of this kind of thing. So, I'm sorry, but I don't see Christianity as a "suicide religion," or one beholden to either celibacy or martyrdom by any means whatsoever. Especially not since it is evident in the New Testament that both Jesus and Paul held marriage in high regard, along with the whole theological backdrop of the Prime Directive that God gave Adam and Eve (i.e. "Multiply and Fill the Earth ... etc., etc.!)

 

[cloudyday2]

Blessed are the poor in spirit..... Not simply poor. (Matthew 5:3)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." ​

I should add, King David was a multi millionaire when he wrote Psalm 51:16-17...

"For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise."​

The poor in spirit are the ones who see the truth and realities of eternity and must witness to the emptiness and vanity of those seeking their happiness in this present world. The empty may be stimulated and distracted by their stimulation, but they are all like a droplet of water hitting a hot frying pan. They're here ...and then in a split second, they no longer are ....

Life in this world, when lived for this world, is futile and vain. Many think much about Johnny Carson lately? Gone. In a few generations... totally forgotten.

Yeah, my theory was inspired by one of Bart Ehrman's writings (I can't remember which and it might have been his blog). I trust the interpretation of an atheist who knows Greek and the culture of the period (such as Ehrman). It is easy for later generations to imagine words to mean something entirely different, and that is what I suspect may be the case with your source on "poor in spirit".

I would say more, but I didn't sleep well last night and I'm running out of steam today.

 

[cloudyday2]

Ascetism/Monasticism was a later development, and not one that affected all Christians everywhere.

John the Baptist was almost certainly an Essene and a role model for ascetics. Jesus and his early disciples were connected with John the Baptist. Jesus preached the same message as John the Baptist. James the brother of Jesus was an ascetic. Mary the mother of Jesus was an ascetic according to tradition. The description of early Christianity in Acts is ascetic. ... IDK what else to say.

EDIT: Also, according to Ehrman one of the distinguishing traits of the proto-orthodox Christians was an obsession with martyrs. Gnostics were ascetics too it seems. Of course there are degrees of asceticism. Apparently all Jews and Christians fasted at least two days per week. Of course later monks took it further by wearing chains and living on pillars or inside caves and so forth.

 

[Silmarien]

I trust the interpretation of an atheist who knows Greek and the culture of the period (such as Ehrman).

Why, exactly? Atheists are no less biased than Christians or Jews. They're just biased differently. Ehrman's not too bad, but he's still got his hangups.

The Jewish Annotated New Testament suggests that "poor in spirit" actually means humble, so for a very Jewish perspective on a very Jewish Gospel, there's that.

 

[cloudyday2]

Why, exactly? Atheists are no less biased than Christians or Jews. They're just biased differently. Ehrman's not too bad, but he's still got his hangups.

The Jewish Annotated New Testament suggests that "poor in spirit" actually means humble, so for a very Jewish perspective on a very Jewish Gospel, there's that.

I found this discussion of that question from Ehrman's "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium". Basically Matthew says "poor in spirit" while Luke says simply "poor", and Thomas also says simply "poor".
Jesus