do beliefs or actions make one christian?

[jmercer]

The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak, and so on.

When you do sin -- be it minor or major -- there is the challenge of getting back on the right track, and to stop straying, rather than throwing one's hands up at being imperfect and fall into the rathole of despair. Note: the manual says you are imperfect, deal with it. Despair makes the Devil a happy camper.


DR

Yep. In the Catholic faith, despair is a sin.

However, you're only considered in despair if you give up... if you keep trying and fail, you're still heaven-bound.

 

[Bradk3]

The difference between an observant and non-observant Jew is stark. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as an “observant” Christian. It appears to me, as I stated in a previous thread, to be the "laziest" religion*.

*except for the Mormons

Whether intended or not, this particular Mormon thanks you for the compliment.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Whether intended or not, this particular Mormon thanks you for the compliment.

Ryan is full of sh**, but that is forgivable, since familiarity often breeds contempt. He probably has no clue about lazy Muslims who drink like fish. I've met a few.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Whether intended or not, this particular Mormon thanks you for the compliment.

Ryan and his assertion that "Christians are the laziest of relitions" is full of sh** -- but that is forgivable, since familiarity often breeds contempt.

He probably has no clue about "lazy" Muslims who drink like fish. I've met a few.

DR

 

[PenguinWarrior]

You have your opinion. Mine comes from years of being a member of a Fundie Church and seeing the games that are played there, and also by visiting other local Fundie Churches. I played the game, just like others did. I was secure in my beliefs at the time, but largely, it was all a bunch of superficial BS - a show. I gave in to temptations just like everybody else did, and then I felt bad for it and tried to hide it. I blamed Satan or Demons, but I maintained my image of being a true Christian, until I just couldn't take the BS anymore.

I remember once, several years after I had left the Church, I was at my parents house visiting, and my mother had a church friend over after her church service. She asked me what church I went to since I was not going to my mother's church. I looked at her and told her that I no longer went to church and was not interested in ever going back. I told her that I was in a discovery phase in my life and was actually leaning toward being an Agnostic or even an Athiest!

I will never forget the look she gave me. Her natural smile left her quickly and she said with a frown, "an Athiest!" The nice person was gone. I was now the enemy, a friend of Satan! A supporter of evil. My mother and I didn't talk for weeks after this little incident.

I truly felt sorry for her. She lived her role well. The good Christian role, that is indoctrinated and played. And yes, my mother still plays the role, but she has learned to accept me as I am; even thou I know she feels that I am destined for the fires of Hell.

You've had a bad experience. This does not make the statements "Christians may be the most selfish of all." or "Most if not all unselfish acts they commit are for show" true. The statement "No one is unselfish" is of course true, but there are degrees of selfishness.

Seriously, I don't think the idea that Christians can be good, unselfish people is even an opinion, it's a blatant fact. I was a decent person when I was a Christian, and I was never intolerant of atheists or gays or jews or whoever, and thought they would go to Heaven if they were good people (although towards the end I tried to avoid talking religion with them, as it worried me that most intelligent people I knew didn't believe in God, and that I didn't really have any good counter-arguments. Hence, my current status as an atheist.). Of my two best friends, who are both thoroughly decent people, one is a Christian and the other is an atheist (although she dabbled with Wicca in a depressed teenager sort of way in school). I don't think that makes her a better person, just a slightly less deluded one.

Now, yes, as I mentioned before, religion can make otherwise decent people be hateful in certain circumstances to those outside their group, but this does not apply to all people. I think it's much worse in the US, actually, where religion has got tangled up in politics. In my school the majority of the year was either atheist, confused agnostic or uncaring about the question of religion completely. It's hard to be intolerant of nonbelievers when 90% of people you know are them, and they are clearly not engaging in congress with goats or whatever.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Ryan and his assertion that "Christians are the laziest of relitions" is full of sh** -- but that is forgivable, since familiarity often breeds contempt.

He probably has no clue about "lazy" Muslims who drink like fish. I've met a few.

DR

I won’t argue that I may be full of sh** generally speaking, but I will argue my point about Christianity.

The question isn’t whether you can give examples of adherents in a disciplined religion who aren’t disciplined, the question is how much discipline does the religion in principle impose. I’m even sure there are Christians beyond a few sects (I actually meant Amish, not Mormon -- not too familiar with them) who are highly disciplined, but how much is formally required?

It seems to me that mainstream Christianity doesn’t impose any hardship beyond the minimum necessary to be a decent member of society. This in contrast to Judaism, Islam, and you can throw in at least Zen Buddhism (I’m sure there are others) which require serious sacrifice, discipline and hardship. In principle.

I imagine, after all, you could find a lazy marathoner. This wouldn't prove the sport of marathon running was undisciplined.

 

[JamesDillon]

It seems to me that mainstream Christianity doesn’t impose any hardship beyond the minimum necessary to be a decent member of society. This in contrast to Judaism, Islam, and you can throw in at least Zen Buddhism (I’m sure there are others) which require serious sacrifice, discipline and hardship. In principle.

I think it depends on how you define "mainstream." Most non-orthodox Jews I know don't have to endure any sacrifice beyond observing a few holidays that don't involve presents. I don't know very many who take the kosher thing all that seriously. But if you're going to look at what a religion demands in principle rather than in practice, then Christianity is pretty demanding. I don't have time to look up the citations right now, but Jesus commanded his followers, among other things, to give all their material possessions away and take up a pretty austere life of faith. Mainstream Christianity today certainly doesn't hold to those traditions, but they're certainly there.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I think it depends on how you define "mainstream." Most non-orthodox Jews I know don't have to endure any sacrifice beyond observing a few holidays that don't involve presents. I don't know very many who take the kosher thing all that seriously. But if you're going to look at what a religion demands in principle rather than in practice, then Christianity is pretty demanding. I don't have time to look up the citations right now, but Jesus commanded his followers, among other things, to give all their material possessions away and take up a pretty austere life of faith. Mainstream Christianity today certainly doesn't hold to those traditions, but they're certainly there.

I agree that non-orthodox Jews are generally no more disciplined than mainstream Christians. Also, that you can find passages in the New Testament advocating a disciplined life. But how is the religion interpreted by its followers?

The only Christians giving up their material possessions and living austere lives are extremists -- certain members of the priesthood, and certain oddball sects (e.g. the Amish). You can always find extremists.

Orthodox Judaism is not an extreme form of Judaism (though there are orthodox extremists). In fact, one could argue that orthodox Jews follow a religion, while reform, etc. Jews follow a culture.

I don’t see this kind of mainstream division of Christians. There are not whole (non-oddball) communities who practice rigorous Christianity, as opposed to those merely observing the holidays.

If the Amish were as mainstream an interpretation of their religion as orthodox Judaism is to Jews, my argument would be wrong. But the vast majority of Christians, as far as I can tell, require no more discipline of themselves than the "merely cultural" Jews (and arguably less).

 

[drkitten]

I agree that non-orthodox Jews are generally no more disciplined than mainstream Christians. Also, that you can find passages in the New Testament advocating a disciplined life. But how is the religion interpreted by its followers?

You're trying to play both sides.

If you accept the standard of "how is the religion interpreted by its followers," as opposed to "what does the letter of the sacred text demand," then Judaism is no more demanding than Christianity -- most Jews are non-orthodox.

If you accept the standard of "what does the letter of the sacred text demand," then Judaism is again no more demanding than Christianity -- in fact, is substantially less.

You can't exclude BOTH non-orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians and expect your comparisons to be at all meaningful.

Orthodox Judaism is not an extreme form of Judaism (though there are orthodox extremists). In fact, one could argue that orthodox Jews follow a religion, while reform, etc. Jews follow a culture.

I could replace the word "Judaism" and "Jews" with "Christianity" and "Christians" throughout and the same statement would be true.



I

 

[Darth Rotor]

I won’t argue that I may be full of sh** generally speaking, but I will argue my point about Christianity.

The question isn’t whether you can give examples of adherents in a disciplined religion who aren’t disciplined, the question is how much discipline does the religion in principle impose. I’m even sure there are Christians beyond a few sects (I actually meant Amish, not Mormon -- not too familiar with them) who are highly disciplined, but how much is formally required?

It seems to me that mainstream Christianity doesn’t impose any hardship beyond the minimum necessary to be a decent member of society. This in contrast to Judaism, Islam, and you can throw in at least Zen Buddhism (I’m sure there are others) which require serious sacrifice, discipline and hardship. In principle.

I imagine, after all, you could find a lazy marathoner. This wouldn't prove the sport of marathon running was undisciplined.

Thanks for pleasant reply after my rather tart comment.

Mainstream is a descriptive, it seems to me, written from the outside looking in. When it comes down to cases, to actually walk the Christian walk takes a considerable amount of self sacrifice and self discipline. Why? Because temptation to be lazy or weak is all over the place. That is as true for a Christian as for a Bhuddist. What I can't do, Ryan, is speak for all Christians, and anyone who tries to do so is, I think, leading you on. (Pope, you hear me?)

how much discipline does the religion in principle impose

That's a very good question, and I'll offer that what your previous comment addressed was how much variation or backsliding a given denomination tolerated.

The application of doctrine, and the habit of being doctrinaire varies a great deal in Christianity. In principle, the answer to that is in the distillation of doctrine into actionable and expected habits and behaviors. In an open society where choices run rampant, Christianity presents a difficult standard to live up to on a daily basis. It takes effort and sacrifice to "get it right" or even "almost right." A lot of the public face (of the ranting fundie for example) is almost a false front for Christian principles.

More flies with honey, and all that.

DR

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

You can't exclude BOTH non-orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians and expect your comparisons to be at all meaningful.

In fact, I think I can, insofar as I think there simply is no equivalent of an orthodox Jew in Christianity. There are extremist sects of Christianity, like the Amish. But there are extremists in any belief system -- including Judaism. I think it’s unfair to compare extremist Christians with relatively mainstream Jews.

Don’t forget, orthodox Jews represent maybe 15% of the Jewish population. Source. You couldn’t call them fringe -- they’re just high on the scale of devout. What is the equivalent in Christianity? I see only the fringes filling that role.

The fact is, even many conservative Jews keep kosher. Even many reform Jews learn Hebrew. Judaism makes demands at these lesser levels of practice that as far as I know only exist on the outskirts of Christianity.

To convert to Judaism (in many if not most of its schools), you have to learn Hebrew, study with a Rabbi for weeks if not months, and show mastery of your knowledge. To convert to Christianity (in most of its schools, if I understand right) you have to think: “I accept Jesus as my personal Savior.” And mean it. This, to me, is the difference in a nutshell.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Thanks for pleasant reply after my rather tart comment.

It’s an interesting discussion. I’m glad you’re taking it seriously.

Mainstream is a descriptive, it seems to me, written from the outside looking in. When it comes down to cases, to actually walk the Christian walk takes a considerable amount of self sacrifice and self discipline. Why? Because temptation to be lazy or weak is all over the place.

Well, it’s hard to be a good person, I agree. But that’s true if you’re Christian, Jew, atheist, or FSMer. I don’t see how Christianity imposes more discipline in that regard. In fact, though I’m not sure how one absolves mistakes in Judaism, Islam or Buddhism, I do get the impression that much of the Christian world need only pray for forgiveness or go to a confessional to clear things up. Hardly an imposition, seems to me.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It’s an interesting discussion. I’m glad you’re taking it seriously.



Well, it’s hard to be a good person, I agree. But that’s true if you’re Christian, Jew, atheist, or FSMer. I don’t see how Christianity imposes more discipline in that regard. In fact, though I’m not sure how one absolves mistakes in Judaism, Islam or Buddhism, I do get the impression that much of the Christian world need only pray for forgiveness or go to a confessional to clear things up. Hardly an imposition, seems to me.

Until you have been inside of it, I guess it may be a bit tough to fathom.

I observe that the more habitual "right" behavior becomes, the less often one screws up, but also the more it hurts (inside and among those who count on you) when you fall.

The detailed process of confession, repentance, and getting back on track aren't necessarily worn on the sleeve, though I am sure some do. That would make it harder to "see" from where you are sitting.

Does that make sense to you?

DR

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Until you have been inside of it, I guess it may be a bit tough to fathom.

I observe that the more habitual "right" behavior becomes, the less often one screws up, but also the more it hurts (inside and among those who count on you) when you fall.

The detailed process of confession, repentance, and getting back on track aren't necessarily worn on the sleeve, though I am sure some do. That would make it harder to "see" from where you are sitting.

Does that make sense to you?

DR

What I hear you saying is that the penalty for making mistakes in Christianity, and the difficulty of repenting is, to put it simply, much greater than I’m allowing. I can certainly accept that, and it does degrade my argument somewhat.

I guess the next question would be, how much does that add to the overall day-to-day discipline required to observe Christianity, and how does that overall discipline compare to the demands imposed by the other Abrahamic religions?

Here’s my suspicion: The maximum discipline required of a practicing Christian is not much more than the baseline for a practicing Jew or Muslim.

 

[bruto]

I won’t argue that I may be full of sh** generally speaking, but I will argue my point about Christianity.

The question isn’t whether you can give examples of adherents in a disciplined religion who aren’t disciplined, the question is how much discipline does the religion in principle impose. I’m even sure there are Christians beyond a few sects (I actually meant Amish, not Mormon -- not too familiar with them) who are highly disciplined, but how much is formally required?

It seems to me that mainstream Christianity doesn’t impose any hardship beyond the minimum necessary to be a decent member of society. This in contrast to Judaism, Islam, and you can throw in at least Zen Buddhism (I’m sure there are others) which require serious sacrifice, discipline and hardship. In principle.

I imagine, after all, you could find a lazy marathoner. This wouldn't prove the sport of marathon running was undisciplined.

But then imagine for a moment that the general precepts of Christianity are true, and that God really is not such a bastard after all. Does not the lack of hardship, the "laziness" of so-called mainstream Christianity, which merely requires you to be a decent member of society, and requires no odd, irrational, evil or hurtful behavior, become a virtue? What about hardship makes it a necessary or desirable accompaninment to religious belief?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

But then imagine for a moment that the general precepts of Christianity are true, and that God really is not such a bastard after all. Does not the lack of hardship, the "laziness" of so-called mainstream Christianity, which merely requires you to be a decent member of society, and requires no odd, irrational, evil or hurtful behavior, become a virtue? What about hardship makes it a necessary or desirable accompaninment to religious belief?

I absolutely agree that religious discipline does not necessarily produce a more virtuous person, and can, in fact, produce the opposite.

Nonetheless, on a personal level, I admire people who actually believe their own beliefs (barring the real atrocious stuff), and who prove it. People who put their money where their mouth is.

When you see practicing Jews bending themselves in pretzels to “keep the Sabbath holy,” you know they’re serious. When you see a Christian go to Church on Sunday (if they’re up for it), then go home and watch the game or clean out the gutters, how much do you think they believe the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy?

When you walk into a synagogue, there are no stained glass windows depicting God giving the tablets on Mount Sinai. No paintings of God revealing himself to Moses at the end of the five books. No graven images. Walk into your typical Church, what do you see?

You can point out a lot of bad things about Jewish observance, and I’ll be right there with you. But at least -- at least -- you know they believe what they say they believe.

 

[Trantor]

I have known several people of the Jewish faith well over the years, and I have always admired the fact that they never preached their religion to me. They don't seem to put much emphasis on converting and spreading their religion to others. From my past observations, their religion is on a more personal/family level. I'm sure that there is religious dogma involved, but they never pushed it on me at anytime.

I have no problem with anyone believing in whatever religion makes them feel better, but don't lecture me on your faith being the one and only true faith, unless you have some good evidence to back it up. Fundie Christians have a tendency to preach their faith and show intollerance to others.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What I hear you saying is that the penalty for making mistakes in Christianity, and the difficulty of repenting is, to put it simply, much greater than I’m allowing. I can certainly accept that, and it does degrade my argument somewhat.

I guess the next question would be, how much does that add to the overall day-to-day discipline required to observe Christianity, and how does that overall discipline compare to the demands imposed by the other Abrahamic religions?

Here’s my suspicion: The maximum discipline required of a practicing Christian is not much more than the baseline for a practicing Jew or Muslim.

Having never been a practicing Muslim or Jew, I don't think I can answer that with any clarity. It is my opinion that Mohammed had a good point when the admonished his followers to respect other "people of the book." Those who truly followed the discipline of their religion and doctrine, be he Jew or Christian at that time, were more likely to be reliable, predictable, and honorable due to the habit of discipline and adherence to core behavioral principles.

So, I'd say that at root, the similarities are there, but the outward manifestations -- dress and food prohibitions for example, and public prayer -- have been considered and generally discarded by a great many (not all) modern Christians. The Amish, on the other hand, are still more like the Muslim in Basra regarding adherence to a dress code.

Is that what you mean by the discipline, and evidence for it? To me, discipline starts within.

DR

 

[bruto]

I absolutely agree that religious discipline does not necessarily produce a more virtuous person, and can, in fact, produce the opposite.

Nonetheless, on a personal level, I admire people who actually believe their own beliefs (barring the real atrocious stuff), and who prove it. People who put their money where their mouth is.

When you see practicing Jews bending themselves in pretzels to “keep the Sabbath holy,” you know they’re serious. When you see a Christian go to Church on Sunday (if they’re up for it), then go home and watch the game or clean out the gutters, how much do you think they believe the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy?

When you walk into a synagogue, there are no stained glass windows depicting God giving the tablets on Mount Sinai. No paintings of God revealing himself to Moses at the end of the five books. No graven images. Walk into your typical Church, what do you see?

You can point out a lot of bad things about Jewish observance, and I’ll be right there with you. But at least -- at least -- you know they believe what they say they believe.

I'm not convinced that ritual observances and the like translate into truly believing or truly understanding what you say you believe. It certainly seems possible to find adherents of any number of religions who slavishly follow the finicky details, sumptuary laws, rituals and rites, berate others for not doing so, and yet betray the deepest priinciples of their faith with regularity. I do see the point that constant exercise of one's faith keeps it at the forefront, so to speak, but I don't think that necessarily leads to the conclusion that a person who does this is better either as a person or an adherent than someone who is a little less stringent on the details but draws the line on important actions. In fact, I seem to recall from my Christian education that Jesus himself made siimilar observations regarding the conspicuous exercise of ritual and law while ignoring fundamental principles. "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," for example. Not to belabor the obvious, but is, for example, a Muslim who keeps the dietary laws, dresses properly, prays faithfully 5 times a day, etc. etc., and then uses his faith as an excuse for mass murder a better Muslim or aq more understanding one than one who shirks the daily routine but interprets his religion as forbidding that?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

So, I'd say that at root, the similarities are there, but the outward manifestations -- dress and food prohibitions for example, and public prayer -- have been considered and generally discarded by a great many (not all) modern Christians. The Amish, on the other hand, are still more like the Muslim in Basra regarding adherence to a dress code.

Is that what you mean by the discipline, and evidence for it? To me, discipline starts within.

I'm not convinced that ritual observances and the like translate into truly believing or truly understanding what you say you believe. It certainly seems possible to find adherents of any number of religions who slavishly follow the finicky details, sumptuary laws, rituals and rites, berate others for not doing so, and yet betray the deepest priinciples of their faith with regularity. I do see the point that constant exercise of one's faith keeps it at the forefront, so to speak, but I don't think that necessarily leads to the conclusion that a person who does this is better either as a person or an adherent than someone who is a little less stringent on the details but draws the line on important actions.

These are good points. First let me say that following the laws for a Jew, while it may become habitual and rote, nonetheless has deep-seated purpose. Every mitzvah performed (including every episode of following the laws) literally brings the world a little closer to perfection. This is a deep principle.

I agree that discipline is an internal matter, and not very easy to quantify for that reason. I also agree that being a devout person means more than merely following the letter of the rules, even in the Jewish formulation. But what does it actually mean to be a “good Christian”?

It’s not enough to say that strict Jews aren’t necessarily good people or self-disciplined, etc. What sacrifices are even required of a Christian? I could rattle off a list of deprivations a Jew undergoes in pursuit of their faith -- deprivations written into their laws. Requirements. Is there anything similar in Christianity?

Remember, the earliest Christians actually obeyed the Jewish laws -- until they were quite consciously dumped overboard. Were they replaced by laws of equal difficulty? Not as far as I can tell. In fact, I’m inclined to make the argument (if I’m not already on thin ice) that the laws were dumped, in part, specifically to make it easier to follow Christianity. This helped pave the way to converting masses of pagans, among other possible reasons.

When you start with a religion that follows the same laws as Judaism, then strip away those laws without replacing them, aren’t you, by definition, ending up with a religion that’s easier, less demanding to follow?

Whether self sacrifice and discipline make you a better person is a question for another thread. All I'm arguing is that relative to Judaism (and Islam) Christianity is, in principle, much, much easier to follow.