• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I invite you to pick apart Christianity

stellar renegade

PEST that STEPs on PETS
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
1,446
MBTI Type
ESTP
Well, thanks for your questions (I appreciate respect as long as it includes, or at least lends room for, a demand for honesty). Paul, a monster? omg. I'd like to see your reasoning for that. He seems like one of the most laid-back, freedom fighting, passionately loving people I have ever heard of.

Where to start? Should I start with pagan religions* seeming to revolve around ritual and imagery, where Christianity is based upon love and community with extreme adaptability in expression? Or should I start with pagan religions (at least the more urbanized versions, I guess) tending to be oppressive, whereas early Christianity was very liberating. Pagan religions often required for there to be a professional cleric who initiated ritual, whereas in Christianity everyone was encouraged to minister to each other (1 Cor. 14:26). Christianity revolved around community and the presence of God, whereas pagan religions revolved around various things such as sex, images (idols), the state or money. The faith of pagan religions were based on the arbitrary whims of corruptible gods, whereas Christianity is based on an absolute, irreverisible, inherent and inescapable law of love and equality which is said to come from an infinite God.

Which road should I go down with you? There are many other differences I could talk about as well, I'm sure.

*Keep in mind that the word 'pagan' resembles the word 'heathen' in that it used to refer to rural folk and came to mean anyone who didn't believe in a monotheistic faith after Christianity became a dominant faith in urban centers. The faith of the country folk differs in a few important ways from the faith of the urban "pagan" religions.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
I'm glad this thread hasn't been done before.

Buford: Whadayawanna do today, Frank?
Frank: I dunno, Buford, shoot beers cans off that fence?
Buford: But that's what we do EVERY day, Frank!
Frank: But what the heck else are we gonna do with all the beer cans, Buford?
Buford: You're right, good buddy, load 'em up!

From a Christian perspective, we're not doing anyone any favors by inviting folks to articulate--yet again--their pet blasphemies, either.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What is amazing about God is that He lets any of us have a crust of bread or a blanket to wrap around us, not that some of us have to sleep outside, much less that He treats some of us like His adopted children and some of us like the outcasts we all truly are. Some of us get what we deserve and some of us get divine grace, unmerited, unearned. Who can charge God with unfairness?

I don't think of it as charging God with unfairness, I think that it's more about charging that a concept of God that does that sort of thing is either (1) not the god that actually would exist as the moral epitome of virtue in this world or (2) not a concept worth following. I think choosing to believe in that sort of deity says more about the believers and those who choose not to believe and less about the nature of spiritual reality itself.

Your defense here is the typical Calvinist defense. ("Well, God didn't have to save ANY of us... so we should be grateful ANYONE gets to spend eternity with God.") I used to use it in arguments when I was defending Calvinism, but now I'm sort of ashamed and embarrassed at how self-serving such a definition is... it's a very easy thing to say when you also cast yourself as one of the elect and thus entitled. Would you say those words if you were not one of the Elect?

Looking at my prior example, that's like some of the children being abandoned outside the home while others are inexplicably favored... and when the abandoned children complain about the unfair treatment, the kids inside with their warm beds and delicious food say, "But you're lucky ANY of us have been treated kindly -- you should be grateful!"

It just does not pass muster.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
I don't think of it as charging God with unfairness, I think that it's more about charging that a concept of God that does that sort of thing is either (1) not the god that actually would exist as the moral epitome of virtue in this world or (2) not a concept worth following. I think choosing to believe in that sort of deity says more about the believers and those who choose not to believe and less about the nature of spiritual reality itself.

Your defense here is the typical Calvinist defense. ("Well, God didn't have to save ANY of us... so we should be grateful ANYONE gets to spend eternity with God.") I used to use it in arguments when I was defending Calvinism, but now I'm sort of ashamed and embarrassed at how self-serving such a definition is... it's a very easy thing to say when you also cast yourself as one of the elect and thus entitled. Would you say those words if you were not one of the Elect?

Looking at my prior example, that's like some of the children being abandoned outside the home while others are inexplicably favored... and when the abandoned children complain about the unfair treatment, the kids inside with their warm beds and delicious food say, "But you're lucky ANY of us have been treated kindly -- you should be grateful!"

It just does not pass muster.

I think it's an NT defense... technically accurate, but sidestepping a vital issue.

EDIT: I've observed that NT Christians really luuuuvv them some Calvinism.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't think of it as charging God with unfairness, I think that it's more about charging that a concept of God that does that sort of thing is either (1) not the god that actually would exist as the moral epitome of virtue in this world or (2) not a concept worth following. I think choosing to believe in that sort of deity says more about the believers and those who choose not to believe and less about the nature of spiritual reality itself.

Your defense here is the typical Calvinist defense. ("Well, God didn't have to save ANY of us... so we should be grateful ANYONE gets to spend eternity with God.") I used to use it in arguments when I was defending Calvinism, but now I'm sort of ashamed and embarrassed at how self-serving such a definition is... it's a very easy thing to say when you also cast yourself as one of the elect and thus entitled. Would you say those words if you were not one of the Elect?

Looking at my prior example, that's like some of the children being abandoned outside the home while others are inexplicably favored... and when the abandoned children complain about the unfair treatment, the kids inside with their warm beds and delicious food say, "But you're lucky ANY of us have been treated kindly -- you should be grateful!"

It just does not pass muster.

An irony to this is that most Calvinists will admit that their faith might be "vain". Passages dealing with that have to be dealt with too, and Calvin came right out and said that God gives some reprobates false faith so He can take it away, and they end up with their "just punishment". They really have not thought out the full ramifications of their doctrine. If they did, they would not gloat about this "hard doctrine" of OTHERS being "fit for destruction".

So what you end up with is something that is not "Good "News" at all, and eliminates the "eternal security" Calvinism was supposed to guarantee. (And some end up trying to secure their salvation through works even more than the average "semi-Pelagian" they criticize for that!) :shocking:
It presupposes (especially the "supralapsarian" form of the doctrine) that God's main plan of the Gospel is damning most people as "vessels of wrath" (to "glorify Himself", which is His highest goal), and "Grace" is just Him making some exceptions. So the "good news" is basically for Himself, not for mankind.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
An irony to this is that most Calvinists will admit that their faith might be "vain". Passages dealing with that have to be dealt with too, and Calvin came right out and said that God gives some reprobates false faith so He can take it away, and they end up with their "just punishment". They really have not thought out the full ramifications of their doctrine. If they did, they would not gloat about this "hard doctrine" of OTHERS being "fit for destruction".

So what you end up with is something that is not "Good "News" at all, and eliminates the "eternal security" Calvinism was supposed to guarantee. (and some end up trying to secure their salvation through works even more than the average "semi-Pelagian" they criticize!) It presupposes (especially the "supralapsarian" form of the doctrine) that God's main plan of the Gospel is damning most people as "vessels of wrath" (to "glorify Himself", which is His highest goal), and "Grace" is just Him making some exceptions. So the "good news" is basically for Himself, not for mankind.

But you see, I actually do believe "the point" is GOD not man. Mankind is not "the point" at all. GOD is "the point." Everything looks different when you look from this view.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
True, but then He does say the "Good News" is for/to man (Luke 2:10). The Gospel is a message from Him to us, not from Him to Himself!
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
...It presupposes (especially the "supralapsarian" form of the doctrine) that God's main plan of the Gospel is damning most people as "vessels of wrath" (to "glorify Himself", which is His highest goal), and "Grace" is just Him making some exceptions. So the "good news" is basically for Himself, not for mankind.

Basically, that's it... and the way I was taught it should be.

Again, I don't think there aren't good ideas attached to particular doctrines, it's just that there seems to be a strong attempt to make a strong consistent front as well as nail things in stone... and when you do this, some of the truths get distorted because they just cannot be reconciled.

Some of these things also seem to be theoretical in value rather than practical. A five-year-old child who does not understand ANY of this can still treat people with the heart of a loving servant and be a follower of God (if one goes that far); if the child could not, then people would be saved by faith + intellect, which I don't think anyone here would openly say is the case. But these discussions over doctrinal points and challenging people's salvation and standing in the eyes of God hinge on intellectual dissertation and winning of points, rather than how one's life is actually lived and spiritual fruit expressed.

It's a nice conundrum -- believing in a faith that cannot possibly esteem intellect, but then trying to justify one's beliefs via the intellectual faculty.

Face it, all of us have something "wrong" with our beliefs, most likely. How can we know we're correct? If there's a higher spiritual reality, it's not based on what we know or can argue.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Well, thanks for your questions (I appreciate respect as long as it includes, or at least lends room for, a demand for honesty). Paul, a monster? omg. I'd like to see your reasoning for that. He seems like one of the most laid-back, freedom fighting, passionately loving people I have ever heard of.

Paul took a message of peace, tolerance and understanding that came from Jesus (the law is "love thy neighbor as thyself"), and turned it into a bunch of convoluted and contradictory prohibitions against behavior that affects none but the actor themself. Likewise, he built the massive undercurrent of anti-Semitism within Christianity, most likely due to a personal vendetta against the Jewish power structure within Judaea. His motivations, from an outsider's perspective, seems to more be political than religious, being one of the upper class men in the region.

Where to start? Should I start with pagan religions* seeming to revolve around ritual and imagery, where Christianity is based upon love and community with extreme adaptability in expression? Or should I start with pagan religions (at least the more urbanized versions, I guess) tending to be oppressive, whereas early Christianity was very liberating. Pagan religions often required for there to be a professional cleric who initiated ritual, whereas in Christianity everyone was encouraged to minister to each other (1 Cor. 14:26). Christianity revolved around community and the presence of God, whereas pagan religions revolved around various things such as sex, images (idols), the state or money. The faith of pagan religions were based on the arbitrary whims of corruptible gods, whereas Christianity is based on an absolute, irreverisible, inherent and inescapable law of love and equality which is said to come from an infinite God.

Most pagan religions revolved around love and community as well - all religions do. Zoroastrianism (where Christianity got its Manichean duality from) preaches the love and community of all creations of Ahura Mazda (who was just as infinite and mighty as the Jewish YHWH), and that the best means of contemplating that love and community is in the presence of a sacred fire. The fire-priests only aimed to facilitate the contemplation process, and explain what the faith meant. You had the Persian political structure taking care of the oppression. The Mithraic cult (where the idea of a demigod that dies for three days and rises again comes from, it's also Sol Invictus) didn't have any clergy whatsoever - it was shared between the Roman soldiers as a bond in a world where they were far from home, highly marginalized and only had each other.

We seem to restrict our concept of pagan religion to the Greek and Roman pantheons often, which is unfortunate, because they do seem rather silly to us - but that makes sense, because those were tribal religions that were co-opted to do things far beyond what they were appropriate for, much as the Old Testament seems contradictory without the understanding that YHWH was the Israelite tribal god, and nothing more.

Which road should I go down with you? There are many other differences I could talk about as well, I'm sure.

Feel free to go wherever - I'm game.

*Keep in mind that the word 'pagan' resembles the word 'heathen' in that it used to refer to rural folk and came to mean anyone who didn't believe in a monotheistic faith after Christianity became a dominant faith in urban centers. The faith of the country folk differs in a few important ways from the faith of the urban "pagan" religions.

True, but that's the same nowadays - compare Christianity in New York to that of Moore, Oklahoma.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Paul took a message of peace, tolerance and understanding that came from Jesus (the law is "love thy neighbor as thyself"), and turned it into a bunch of convoluted and contradictory prohibitions against behavior that affects none but the actor themself. Likewise, he built the massive undercurrent of anti-Semitism within Christianity, most likely due to a personal vendetta against the Jewish power structure within Judaea. His motivations, from an outsider's perspective, seems to more be political than religious, being one of the upper class men in the region.
Ahh yes the usual shtick: if you dislike something about Christianity, blame St. Paul.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
No it's the religion of Jesus.

No, Jesus is the central figure. That would be like calling Islam "the religion of Allah". It's still Muhammad's creation - just as Christianity was mostly formed from Paul's efforts.

Without Paul, Christianity just stays as a Jewish mystery sect, like most of the Apostles wanted it in the first place (according to the Gospels). Not only that, but it was through the epistles that most initial doctrine was created (with the very obvious exception of Timothy), rather than anything Jesus said (which mostly consisted of "love God", "love each other", "I am the salvation of mankind and the Jewish people").

The whole "idolators are going to hell, gays are going to hell, people who have sex outside of marriage are going to hell, Jews who don't accept Jesus are responsible for his murder, women should be subservient to men as long as their husbands love them (oh yeah, don't wear hats to church), Jewish laws still apply except for the dietary restrictions, thinking I know more about Jesus than someone who putatively walked with him (Peter), etc." all were Paul's innovations. Hell, he took what was essentially a love cult, and injected his own sexual and misogynist complexes into hard doctrine - that enough is reason to seriously question his credibility. That being said, Christianity after Nicaea was his religion - Jesus never had any inclination of using the Jewish scriptures as canonical, as most of his work as indicated in the Gospels was to emphasize how a textualist interpretation of the Jewish scriptures was incredibly counter-productive.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
You said it yourself, Jesus is the central figure of Christianity - ergo it's the faith of Jesus.

The notion of St. Paul corrupting Christianity for this or that reason has been repeated ad nauseum in one form or another across several generations. Sorry, I've heard this all before and I'm not wasting my time on it.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
You said it yourself, Jesus is the central figure of Christianity - ergo it's the faith of Jesus.

The notion of St. Paul corrupting Christianity for this or that reason has been repeated ad nauseum in one form or another across several generations. Sorry, I've heard this all before and I'm not wasting my time on it.

Just because an idea is rather persistent, doesn't mean it's not true (just like it doesn't mean it is true).

The faith of Jesus was Judaism. At the most blatant, he claimed a special Gnostic connection with God (calling himself the Son of Man while calling his followers the Children of God). It was Paul's innovation to ascribe some sort of divinity on him - as we know the epistles were written well before the Gospels (40-60 AD vs 70-200 AD).

Personally, I think the idea that Paul and Peter spread a Judaized version of the Mithraic cult and cult of Sol Invictus in order to counter the increasing radicalism and anti-Roman impulses within the Judaean population (combining the Roman soldiers' religion with Judaism) makes sense in the context, given their respective backgrounds (Paul as a well-known Hellenized Jew with Roman citizenship, indicating his social class, and Peter's knowledge of Greek which belies his supposed humble background). They later split on either a political difference (Peter wanting to keep the movement within the Jews, Paul wanting to go worldwide), or over an honest dispute regarding doctrine. However, I am not going to argue from this perspective, and just use the assumption that the historical Jesus existed.

Jesus is the central figure. However, he did not create the religion, as he did not provide most of the associated doctrine. Paul and Peter did, with a heavy emphasis on Paul. Once again, saying Jesus created Christianity would be like saying Allah created Islam. Both are the key central figures of both religions, but it's obvious that Muhammad created/related (depending on your religious views) Islam. Much in the same way, Paul (with Peter's assistance) created the majority of Christian common doctrine.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Just because an idea is rather persistent, doesn't mean it's not true (just like it doesn't mean it is true).

Maybe not per se, but when you look more closely at many of these arguments it often exposes the lack of ones real understanding of what they're talking about - not least of which because it involves selective readings of scriptures, nitpicking, hair-splitting, fact twisting, and most importantly random speculation. I have no time nor patience for such sophistry.

As I said, this has been done to death before by so many people, often for self-serving ends. A good example would be the Nazi claim of Jesus being a pure Aryan figure whose teachings were corrupted by the sneaky Jew St. Paul. Everybody has their own version.

So yeah, I've heard this all before.
 
Last edited:

stellar renegade

PEST that STEPs on PETS
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
1,446
MBTI Type
ESTP
Just letting you know I'm going to try to get back to this. Kinda busy right now and I've been sleeping alot.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Maybe not per se, but when you look more closely at many of these arguments it often exposes the lack of ones real understanding of what they're talking about - not least of which because it involves selective readings of scriptures, nitpicking, hair-splitting, fact twisting, and most importantly random speculation. I have no time nor patience for such sophistry.

As I said, this has been done to death before by so many people, often for self-serving ends. A good example would be the Nazi claim of Jesus being a pure Aryan figure whose teachings were corrupted by the sneaky Jew St. Paul. Everybody has their own version.

So yeah, I've heard this all before.

Just because an idea has been promoted by maligned groups doesn't mean the idea is bad. The Nazis believed in heavy infrastructure investment - does that mean we let our roads crumble?

I'm not saying Paul invented Christianity as we know it as a means to an end. I'm saying it because that's what the evidence suggests.
 
Top