What is the essence of Christianity?

[bbbbbbb]

We have been given a book to explain everything we need to know, but people firmly insist on making up their own doctrines. It is not reliable to let people tell you what the bible says. Many people will make up stuff because they don't know what it says, and many will make up stuff because they wish it would not say what it says. You just have to read it for yourself.

Read a chapter of Proverbs every day. Proverbs has 31 chapters so you can keep your place by just looking at a calendar. There is no religion or nothing in Proverbs and you don't have to believe anything. Just read to find wisdom. When you are comfortable with that, then read the bible from Romans to 2 Thessalonians over and over until you start to remember what it says. That is the part that applies to Christians.

Here is the answer to your question:

Romans 10:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Nothing there about repenting, or doing good deeds, or sexism, ... It says the same to you as it says to anybody else.

You seem to have a very curious edition of the Bible. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's edition, which is available in printed form for those who wish to read it. (Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia) He started by eliminating the Old Testament completely and then took out his scissors and excised all of the verses in the New Testament which he disagreed with.

Is your edition available in printed form or must one take a Bible and remove the offending parts to create yours?

 

[david shelby]

You seem to have a very curious edition of the Bible. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's edition, which is available in printed form for those who wish to read it. (Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia) He started by eliminating the Old Testament completely and then took out his scissors and excised all of the verses in the New Testament which he disagreed with.

Is your edition available in printed form or must one take a Bible and remove the offending parts to create yours?

Jefferson wasn't trying to make a Bible though so this is inaccurate with respect to accusing him of removing the Old Testament. His book was titled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" so it was supposed to be a biography of Jesus with what he thought was superstitious removed. So saying he removed the Old Testament doesn't make sense as that isn't part of Jesus' biography. He can only legitimately be accused of removing miracles from the gospels. In other words, Jefferson didn't title it "The Jefferson Bible"; people who misunderstood its purpose gave it that name. In reality, rather than a "Bible" his book was more like a "Quest for the Historical Jesus" type of book.

 

[Oldmantook]

What is the essence of Christianity? What theological hills are the ones I must die on?

I'm in my mid-thirties, and I'm at a tough point in the faith. I've dealt with doubt before, eventually broke through it and rejected all forms of agnosticism and atheism, found other religions lacking as well -- and yet I still haven't figured out everything about Christianity, either.

I was raised in something of a generic, and yet very unstructured, American Protestant Christian home. However, there were a few theological quirks: my mother basically reduced everything in the Bible to Micah 6:8, my father told me hell isn't eternal and that people can be saved after they die (he vigorously maintains this belief to this day -- it's his own theological hill that he chooses to die on), and most emphasis was placed on endless End Times speculations rather than morality, even though both my parents identified as conservative Christians. (They remained outsiders in the faith, and few followed their highly idiosyncratic theology. As I've gotten older, I totally understand why few people followed them, despite my love for them -- they were very inconsistent theologically, and took a lot of the Bible grossly out of context, and could never admit or discuss their hermeneutical errors well with others.)

In my young adult years, I was exposed to the conservative Calvinist/Reformed, Vision Forum, somewhat famous/infamous "Brain Type" patriarchal Christianity of the Niednagel family, which holds that most people are Myers-Briggs ENTPs/FCIRs and cannot discern truth and reality well. True Biblical Christianity, according to them, is following rules and regulations to the utmost, and following the Bible according to black-and-white, linear left brain context, best exemplified in rigid Reformed Calvinism and ISFJ or ISTJ BEAL and BEIL Brain Types. My parents were believed to be generic ENTP FCIR right brain thinkers who took the Bible too creatively and didn't spend enough time on law, righteousness, and the like, which would explain their obsession with doomsday thinking, and the lack of emphasis on law/morality, and why my family never gave into the very different thinking of the Niednagel Brain Typists.

I also have been exposed to Calvary Chapel, which holds that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion, and that God can be attained through ecstatic emotional spontaneous Pentecostal worship, coupled with a somewhat conservative theological bent. The Niednagels would dismiss this as right brain extroversion emotionalism, and to me, it seems offensively feminine instead of male patriarchal. God is not a woman -- He is a MALE, so why treat him so emotionally and reduce His holiness to a girly RUH-LAY-SHUN-SHIP? Men are systems thinkers, thus so should a male God be, not a "relationship."

I now think, and have thought for over a year, that conservative Lutherans have the best balance of all these matters, theological and otherwise -- but it's alienated my family and all my former Calvinist and Calvary Chapel friends, who would wish to persuade me back to 'their' ways.

Even so, I find myself fighting: is conservative Lutheranism just my own preference, or is it absolute truth? If it's absolute truth, how do I -- as a woman and descendant of Eve -- practice it best? Women aren't supposed to hold Scriptural authority in the Bible, and yet the men in my life have had such differing views on how the Bible should be interpreted, so it's hard to figure out who to submit to. They are all over the place! Where is the consistency in Protestant Christianity? I outlined what my parents, the Niednagel Brain Typist Calvinists, and the Calvary Chapelists believe -- and none of it is internally consistent or co-existent. What a mess!

It got me thinking, even back to the bigger picture -- what, then, IS the essence of Christianity, and what does Christianity offer that other world views or religions don't? Why is there such division in Christianity when the Apostle Paul told us not to have all these divisions? And as a woman, how especially do I deal with all of this, when Eve's curse is upon me? How can I figure out the truth when I'm supposed to have a male intermediary to decide my beliefs for me (women must submit to men authorities, and cannot come to Christ on their own), and yet all my male intermediaries would war over very different theological views, coming to completely logically contradictory conclusions?

Seems madness to me...

Wow. It appears to me that you are figuring things out just fine on your own. My advice would be to keep at it. You may not have all the answers you seek now but I think your persistence will serve you well. I've changed my own views on several things/doctrines over the years.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jefferson wasn't trying to make a Bible though so this is inaccurate with respect to accusing him of removing the Old Testament. His book was titled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" so it was supposed to be a biography of Jesus with what he thought was superstitious removed. So saying he removed the Old Testament doesn't make sense as that isn't part of Jesus' biography. He can only legitimately be accused of removing miracles from the gospels. In other words, Jefferson didn't title it "The Jefferson Bible"; people who misunderstood its purpose gave it that name. In reality, rather than a "Bible" his book was more like a "Quest for the Historical Jesus" type of book.

Although this is true, the fact that Jefferson went to such lengths to produce his book showed both his respect for Jesus, as Jefferson wished to understand him, and Jefferson's disdain for orthodox Christianity.

The curious thing to me is that various theologies have done similar things with the Bible, although rarely going to the extent of having an edited version printed. The closest I know of such a thing was the "gender-neutral" Bible which, interestingly, has never gained any traction. Then, there is a whole genre of extra-biblical literature which have been regarded as being equally inspired with the Bible. These include some Bibles which include various speeches from Martin Luther King, Jr., various Mormon books, Mary Baker Eddy's book, etc.

 

[david shelby]

Although this is true, the fact that Jefferson went to such lengths to produce his book showed both his respect for Jesus, as Jefferson wished to understand him, and Jefferson's disdain for orthodox Christianity.

The curious thing to me is that various theologies have done similar things with the Bible, although rarely going to the extent of having an edited version printed. The closest I know of such a thing was the "gender-neutral" Bible which, interestingly, has never gained any traction. Then, there is a whole genre of extra-biblical literature which have been regarded as being equally inspired with the Bible. These include some Bibles which include various speeches from Martin Luther King, Jr., various Mormon books, Mary Baker Eddy's book, etc.

It showed that he had an interest in the concept of the historical Jesus, so if Reimarus hadn't preceded him, he might have been considered the first "Historical Jesus" scholar. Its strange actually that Albert Schweitzer didn't include him in his summary of the quest scholarship, or maybe its just because he wasn't considered "scholarly" enough. Or maybe Schweitzer did mention him in passing, and I didn't take any notice of it.

BTW, anyone who has actually read Jefferson's book will see that he didn't actually succeed in removing all of the miracles. Just saying. Its funny because its the point of the book, yet it doesn't accomplish it fully.

 

[kdm1984]

I don't think the passage about women submitting to their husbands has anything to do with theology having to be mediated by a male authority in the sense in which you are framing it. Basically it means don't commit adultery. If your husband doesn't want you going out drinking at the club with the girls for a girls night out because he doesn't trust them, or you when drunk and with them, then submit to that and don't go. If your husband doesn't want you going out in that slootty dress, don't do it. That's how I see the notion of submission talked about there. (It could also have to do with money, like if your husband says don't blow $500 on that gucci purse, we can't afford it, then don't do it. These are the sorts of things I think the author has in mind.) I don't think it is trying to say women must set aside their own common sense and embrace every wind of doctrine being taught by a pastor because he's a man, or whatever you seem to be making it mean here.

But in any case, it would be a travesty I think if everyone ignored what I wrote about the essence of Christianity on the previous page and focused only on this post that deals with the last paragraph of what you wrote. But that's typically what happens on forums, making me wish I had made it all one post.

Your first post was certainly more dignified than this one. This second one looks like a troll post. Obviously my post doesn't read like something that comes from the sorts of women who dress provocatively, buy expensive Gucci purses, or spend girls nights at clubs, so I'm puzzled that you used those things as examples, unless you're trolling. I have Asperger Syndrome. I'm essentially the polar opposite of the kinds of women you just described. I spend hours sorting through theological treatises in cheap oversized pajamas, not clubbing with socially sophisticated women. Lol I don't even have any women friends. It's hard to discuss theology with most of them because they are overly focused on feelings and relationships (another reason I hate it when people reduce Christianity to a relationship-- that might appeal to the Gucci sorts of women, but God is Male, and certainly there is more to Christianity than some nebulous touchy feely concept of relationship. )

 

[~Zao~]

Your first post was certainly more dignified than this one. This second one looks like a troll post. Obviously my post doesn't read like something that comes from the sorts of women who dress provocatively, buy expensive Gucci purses, or spend girls nights at clubs, so I'm puzzled that you used those things as examples, unless you're trolling. I have Asperger Syndrome. I'm essentially the polar opposite of the kinds of women you just described. I spend hours sorting through theological treatises in cheap oversized pajamas, not clubbing with socially sophisticated women. Lol I don't even have any women friends. It's hard to discuss theology with most of them because they are overly focused on feelings and relationships (another reason I hate it when people reduce Christianity to a relationship-- that might appeal to the Gucci sorts of women, but God is Male, and certainly there is more to Christianity than some nebulous touchy feely concept of relationship. )

That’s a good reply from someone who stereo typified women from the first post. Or is that just a too EE-motion-LL response to be deemed acceptable

 

[Unnamed Guy]

Your first post was certainly more dignified than this one. This second one looks like a troll post. Obviously my post doesn't read like something that comes from the sorts of women who dress provocatively, buy expensive Gucci purses, or spend girls nights at clubs, so I'm puzzled that you used those things as examples, unless you're trolling. I have Asperger Syndrome. I'm essentially the polar opposite of the kinds of women you just described. I spend hours sorting through theological treatises in cheap oversized pajamas, not clubbing with socially sophisticated women. Lol I don't even have any women friends. It's hard to discuss theology with most of them because they are overly focused on feelings and relationships (another reason I hate it when people reduce Christianity to a relationship-- that might appeal to the Gucci sorts of women, but God is Male, and certainly there is more to Christianity than some nebulous touchy feely concept of relationship. )

The relationship is that of a father and son. When you are saved you receive the spirit of Jesus Christ and you are then a son of God. When God looks at you He sees Jesus. There is nothing "reduced" about Christianity.

Religion has nothing to do with it. This tends to confuse some people because they have no idea what religion is except that it's something about a crabby old man who lives in the sky and smites people. The bible says religion is made up by men telling each other what to do, and God has a low opinion of it.

 

[david shelby]

Your first post was certainly more dignified than this one. This second one looks like a troll post. Obviously my post doesn't read like something that comes from the sorts of women who dress provocatively, buy expensive Gucci purses, or spend girls nights at clubs, so I'm puzzled that you used those things as examples, unless you're trolling.

I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was explaining the sorts of things I think the author had in mind regarding submission. My point is that you seem to have bought into an interpretation of the submission passage that is suggesting some sort of submission to a church hierarchy, and I think the passage is just talking about women submitting to their husbands in not doing things that can easily be understand as leading to sexual sin.

Because you know there will be women who want to keep hanging out with their male "best friend" who "used to be" a FWB (teehee) and so on. And when their husband says "No, you are not to see that guy again, I mean you used to sleep with him, it's totally inappropriate" they will rebel rather than submit. I think its about this kind of stuff. I don't think its about, "I'm a man, and I say that you have to believe in the PreTrib rapture, and you're a woman, so now you have to submit to me and believe in the PreTrib rapture."

 

[~Zao~]

I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was explaining the sorts of things I think the author had in mind regarding submission. My point is that you seem to have bought into an interpretation of the submission passage that is suggesting some sort of submission to a church hierarchy, and I think the passage is just talking about women submitting to their husbands in not doing things that can easily be understand as leading to sexual sin.

Because you know there will be women who want to keep hanging out with their male "best friend" who "used to be" a FWB (teehee) and so on. And when their husband says "No, you are not to see that guy again, I mean you used to sleep with him, it's totally inappropriate" they will rebel rather than submit. I think its about this kind of stuff. I don't think its about, "I'm a man, and I say that you have to believe in the PreTrib rapture, and you're a woman, so now you have to submit to me and believe in the PreTrib rapture."

Or maybe Paul just meant that as the pattern in shadow form so as not to lose sight of what the substance was about. Which is Christ and the church with one head over all. That, my friend, is the true reality.

 

[kdm1984]

Paul does also use the analogy of marriage to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church. Sadly that kind of specificity is lost in the vague abstract platitude of "it's a relationship, not a religion," which gives no definition of either thing in substantial context. In this case, submitting to Christ's will would be the appropriate comparison for the submission passage. As for the Male intermediary theology, that one was big among the Vision Forum Calvinists I knew. GotQuestions.org doesn't agree with that view in their link on the quiverfill movement (with which Vision Forum Calvinism is associated) and believes that a daughter's father or an adult woman's husband are not intermediaries between women and Christ. Nonetheless it's a thing that some of them believe, hence why GQ address it on their site, and even warn that such a view borders on idolatry. That's how far some people take Paul's analogy. For what it's worth, I have noticed that seems to be a fringe doctrine or interpretation held only among people of that persuasion. My parents, Calvary, and the Lutherans have never spoken of a woman's relations to Male authorities in that way.

 

[FireDragon76]

Paul does also use the analogy of marriage to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church. Sadly that kind of specificity is lost in the vague abstract platitude of "it's a relationship, not a religion," which gives no definition of either thing in substantial context. In this case, submitting to Christ's will would be the appropriate comparison for the submission passage. As for the Male intermediary theology, that one was big among the Vision Forum Calvinists I knew. GotQuestions.org doesn't agree with that view in their link on the quiverfill movement (with which Vision Forum Calvinism is associated) and believes that a daughter's father or an adult woman's husband are not intermediaries between women and Christ. Nonetheless it's a thing that some of them believe, hence why GQ address it on their site, and even warn that such a view borders on idolatry. That's how far some people take Paul's analogy. For what it's worth, I have noticed that seems to be a fringe doctrine or interpretation held only among people of that persuasion. My parents, Calvary, and the Lutherans have never spoken of a woman's relations to Male authorities in that way.

You are correct, it is wrong to say that a family member or husband is an intermediary to Christ.

Some Calvinists come up with strange doctrines out of a misguided desire to create a doctrinal fortress around pet notions, such as male hierarchy, in response to pressure from changing norms in society.

 

[Unnamed Guy]

You seem to have a very curious edition of the Bible. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's edition, which is available in printed form for those who wish to read it. (Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia) He started by eliminating the Old Testament completely and then took out his scissors and excised all of the verses in the New Testament which he disagreed with.

Is your edition available in printed form or must one take a Bible and remove the offending parts to create yours?

I do not care to discuss your sarcasm. If you want to discuss the bible in a straightforward manner, then I will respond.

 

[kdm1984]

You are correct, it is wrong to say that a family member or husband is an intermediary to Christ.

Some Calvinists come up with strange doctrines out of a misguided desire to create a doctrinal fortress around pet notions, such as male hierarchy, in response to pressure from changing norms in society.

Yes, for sure, this is quite a tendency on their social media, I've observed!

While I respect that they try for doctrinal rigor, sometimes they run so far with notions and principles that they've supposedly gleaned from Scripture, and they defend these as though they're self-evident absolute and universal truths that everyone must accept or else. Check their obsession with 'Biblical womanhood,' a spiritual ideal which many ironically believe is best represented by a fictional secular TV character, June Cleaver. If I had a dime for every conservative Calvinist woman blog or other social media presence that obsesses over modesty, June Cleaver, long lists of what wives should and shouldn't do with/to their husbands (usually with the wrong-headed assumption that all women hate sex or aren't ever physically attracted to men), and the like...rather than bringing honor to 'Biblical womanhood,' they make it sound like the biggest chore of all-time. Actually marriage isn't that hard, sex and physical attraction come easily to some of us women in marriage, modesty is not rocket science, June Cleaver is not the Biblical womanhood ideal and is merely like an exaggerated Martha with fancy pearls and a vacuum (let alone Mary, the woman whom Jesus praised more), and Biblical womanhood in general isn't nearly as laborious, pompous, heavy-handed, and over-wrought as they like to make it to be.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do not care to discuss your sarcasm. If you want to discuss the bible in a straightforward manner, then I will respond.

Very well. I take it that the epistle to the Hebrews does not apply to Christians, according to you. If not, then who does it apply to?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, for sure, this is quite a tendency on their social media, I've observed!

While I respect that they try for doctrinal rigor, sometimes they run so far with notions and principles that they've supposedly gleaned from Scripture, and they defend these as though they're self-evident absolute and universal truths that everyone must accept or else. Check their obsession with 'Biblical womanhood,' a spiritual ideal which many ironically believe is best represented by a fictional secular TV character, June Cleaver. If I had a dime for every conservative Calvinist woman blog or other social media presence that obsesses over modesty, June Cleaver, long lists of what wives should and shouldn't do with/to their husbands (usually with the wrong-headed assumption that all women hate sex or aren't ever physically attracted to men), and the like...rather than bringing honor to 'Biblical womanhood,' they make it sound like the biggest chore of all-time. Actually marriage isn't that hard, sex and physical attraction come easily to some of us women in marriage, modesty is not rocket science, June Cleaver is not the Biblical womanhood ideal and is merely like an exaggerated Martha with fancy pearls and a vacuum (let alone Mary, the woman whom Jesus praised more), and Biblical womanhood in general isn't nearly as laborious, pompous, heavy-handed, and over-wrought as they like to make it to be.

Alot of those types smuggled in Victorian values and baptize them (esp. the idea that women were naturally asexual). They also had a very totalizing view of the Christian faith that meant every aspect of society had to be rationalized according to their ideology. But that has been the tendency of some in the Reformed camp, anyways, particularly in the early days in Switzerland and later in Britain and the US (Puritans in New England in particular). You can still see that in conservative Reformed types today, and that's part of what drives the doctrinal fortress mentality. They aren't just apart from the world, but actively opposing it. The Bible is less a book about Jesus and how to find salvation and more about a social and political manifesto.

 

[~Zao~]

Paul does also use the analogy of marriage to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church. Sadly that kind of specificity is lost in the vague abstract platitude of "it's a relationship, not a religion," which gives no definition of either thing in substantial context. In this case, submitting to Christ's will would be the appropriate comparison for the submission passage.

That's actually the quintessential meaning of relationship.

 

[kdm1984]

Alot of those types smuggled in Victorian values and baptize them (esp. the idea that women were naturally asexual). They also had a very totalizing view of the Christian faith that meant every aspect of society had to be rationalized according to their ideology. But that has been the tendency of some in the Reformed camp, anyways, particularly in the early days in Switzerland and later in Britain and the US (Puritans in New England in particular). You can still see that in conservative Reformed types today, and that's part of what drives the doctrinal fortress mentality. They aren't just apart from the world, but actively opposing it. The Bible is less a book about Jesus and how to find salvation and more about a social and political manifesto.

Ah yes, those Puritans, and the Vision Forum types who want to bring that sort of thing back. Here's an example of how they think:

Modesty Pertaining to the Christian Man

At the very end, they acknowledge the possibility of some women struggling with this, but it's with much nudging and qualification. This is so typical of them.

I once caught one of their leaders on public social media telling me that he had "never heard" that women never struggle with visual lust, and yet I'd already caught a screen-shot where he in fact agreed with another guy on public social media who insisted that women were created to be tempted differently and don't struggle with such a thing!

I've posted on this forum a few times about my inappropriate contentography addiction as a teen, and all the naked men pics I looked at, with favorites printed out and kept in a secret journal. As recently as 3-4 years ago, a well-known athlete who is also a part-time male supermodel posed naked for a sports magazine; I of course looked at it (I mean women can't be tempted visually, right? that's what they always say, despite my previous struggles, so I guessed I could do it again!)... and of course I daydreamed about what I saw for months. The man is an amazing physical specimen to behold, physically. He was so appealing to the eye that I even wrote several poems about it.

I have to get in this kind of graphic detail with those conservative Calvinists because they will otherwise deny such things exist, and use their presuppositions to assume this is some kind of absolute truth for men and women in all situations. When a man in authority tells you cannot sin such a way, and yet you KNOW that you do, is the Biblical thing to oppose him and do right before God (and stop looking), or keep sinning before God in submission to his views? Do we take Paul's words so far that we presume men are God, or do we instead turn to what Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men?"

Even Michelle Lesley had to agree with me on this, after I posted the question to her:

The Mailbag: Is lust a sin for women, too?

But still, this is the kind of thing women like me can run into with men in authority who are dogmatic that only men can sin in a certain way, and that only women can sin in a certain way, with no overlap ever.

Finally, as for the politics...yep, that too -- theonomy, reconstructionism, and the like are very conservative Calvinist things. Lutherans believe in a much more Biblical (and practically sensible) two kingdoms. Jesus plainly said His kingdom was not of this world, but those kinds of Calvinists will do theological gymnastics to try and prove otherwise.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ah yes, those Puritans, and the Vision Forum types who want to bring that sort of thing back. Here's an example of how they think:

Modesty Pertaining to the Christian Man

At the very end, they acknowledge the possibility of some women struggling with this, but it's with much nudging and qualification. This is so typical of them.

I once caught one of their leaders on public social media telling me that he had "never heard" that women never struggle with visual lust, and yet I'd already caught a screen-shot where he in fact agreed with another guy on public social media who insisted that women were created to be tempted differently and don't struggle with such a thing!

They started confusing their ideals with reality and having to make endless qualifications. One of the reasons that English and Americans cracked down on prostitution, after centuries of toleration (Germany has never completely outlawed prostitution, BTW), was the dehumanization of sex workers as "other", since they were not "pure" like normal women. Of course, anybody familiar with medieval confessional manuals would be able to quickly dispel the notion that women were not just as interested in sex as men, or just as creative in finding ways to satisfy themselves. So, by the 19th century sexual education basically ignored and discounted women (indeed, it seemed knowledge or interest in sexuality among women was tainted by the image of the prostitute). It wasn't until the 20th century that scientists who were not wedded to these religious ideals were able to relearn what people in premodern times understood intuitively.

 

[~Zao~]

It wasn't until the 20th century that scientists who were not wedded to these religious ideals were able to relearn what people in premodern times understood intuitively.

Is that true? Intuition can be seen as a part of the human mind in connection to the mind of God (or universe whatever). Along with communion (with God and others of the same mind) and conscience as guiding forces. I think that those of the science world and prechristian era people faced the same challenges. Some may have had intuition but unless it was in effect lined up in relationship to communication with God tested with the conscious I can’t see that as being of any use.