do beliefs or actions make one christian?

[kittynh]

through time this has gone back and forth.

Early on, pretty much everyone was working toward behaving as a Xian. I think you weren't even allowed to be part of the military and be a Xian.

then the church was like, "we'll handle the prayer stuff, you just sit and listen to the Latin." I mean, most people couldn't read, Latin forget that! So the enlightened took care of the masses. Then a lot more emphasis on how you behave and your place where GOD put you (and don't move from it). But there was a sense that the average person was not capable of handling religion.

Then Martin Luther and all that stuff.

Fundies changed it even further. And back and forth they go. I just finished a book called, "My Fundamentalist Education" about a girl in the 1970's at a fundie school. They made fun of the Pentacostalists.

What makes one a Xian?

Well, as a Xian I'll give it my best shot.

YOU can't tell. It's not important if you know or can tell or not. It doesn't matter. No one that thinks he or she is a Xian shouldl go around going "I'm a Xian". It doesn't matter to anyone but yourself and God. Any human that thinks he can "tell" if someoe is a "real" Xian or not is playing God. And that is a big NONO. If God is as all powerful as THEY say, then you know what, HE wrote the Bible, He can let whomever He pleases be a Xian or not. I don't care what it says, I've seen too many Xians telling everyone who is and isn't one. Well, guess what. LIke most things, worrying about what others say and think about it becomes more important than just living your life the best you can. Stop playing God, and start living your life.

side note, I don't think God wrote the Bible or had much to do with it. It's rather awful, but the King James version is the best of a bad lot.

I always try to say to fundies, "Don't you trust God to do HIs job?" Nope, God needs someone to help Him out I'm sure.

Darn fundies.

You go get them Pesta!!!

 

[bruto]

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.

Well, not to stretch this out too far, but I'm going to have to disagree with you anyway, at least a little. Right now, I guess there aren't many sacrifices necessary to be a Christian because Christians are in power and in a majority. It's worth noting that in the early history of Christianity simply to acknowledge it was a dangerous thing. Perhaps, since Christianity started out as an illegal cult, it follows that conspicuous behavior or uniforms would have been an unhealthy option.

If early Christians at some point dumped the Jewish laws because they deemed them unnecessary to the goal of salvation and peace with God, why should they replace them with anything, difficult or not? It may well be that a part of the reason was to make it easier to convert pagans, but why not? If you truly believe that god doesn't care whether or not you eat pork and shellfish, why should you lie to your congregation and tell them otherwise?

By what principle, other than some cultural habit, does one decide it's appropriate for a religion to require sacrifice or difficulty or deprivation along with its commitment? I see no reason why a religion should be thought deficient in some way because it is easy to follow. It seems to me like a virtue not to require gratuitiously irrational behavior. I find it ironic that in this forum especially, where religion is so often criticized (and rightly so, I think) for bringing about so much stupid, counterintuitive and irrational action and thought, that Christianity should now be criticized for not requiring its members to perform unnecessary duties for the sake of religious discipline, or to wear funny hats.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

... snip...
By what principle, other than some cultural habit, does one decide it's appropriate for a religion to require sacrifice or difficulty or deprivation along with its commitment? I see no reason why a religion should be thought deficient in some way because it is easy to follow. It seems to me like a virtue not to require gratuitiously irrational behavior.
...snip...

And this is where we part company.

All religions require gratuitously irrational behavior -- from the perspective of all other religions. Do Jews require more irrational behavior? A Christian could make that argument, yes.

But imagine two philanthropists. One is filthy rich, gives a million dollars to a children’s hospital. It’s a lot of money, but he hardly notices. The other is dirt poor, gives twenty dollars to the same hospital. Not a lot of money, but now he has to skip a couple meals. Who earns more respect? To me, the poor guy is demonstrating a profound commitment to his beliefs. Maybe the rich guy is just as committed, but how can we tell?

I personally don't think we can. So right or wrong, I respect the guy who sacrifices much for his beliefs over the guy who sacrifices little (unless those beliefs are atrocious, of course).

Does this make Judaism right and Christianity wrong? Not at all.

 

[bruto]

And this is where we part company.

All religions require gratuitously irrational behavior -- from the perspective of all other religions. Do Jews require more irrational behavior? A Christian could make that argument, yes.

But imagine two philanthropists. One is filthy rich, gives a million dollars to a children’s hospital. It’s a lot of money, but he hardly notices. The other is dirt poor, gives twenty dollars to the same hospital. Not a lot of money, but now he has to skip a couple meals. Who earns more respect? To me, the poor guy is demonstrating a profound commitment to his beliefs. Maybe the rich guy is just as committed, but how can we tell?

I personally don't think we can. So right or wrong, I respect the guy who sacrifices much for his beliefs over the guy who sacrifices little (unless those beliefs are atrocious, of course).

Does this make Judaism right and Christianity wrong? Not at all.

This is where we part company, obviously. I agree that all religions require irrational behavior, but it does not follow that it is gratuitous, and my real argument here is with your initial characterization of christianity as somehow lazy or deficient because when certain exercises, laws and observances which were once considered necessary were, for whatever reason (and I would like, at least, to think that there was a tiny scrap of reason behind the reasons) determined to be unnecessary, they were not replaced by gratuitious ones. Looking at individuals, I do respect the sacrifice people make for their beliefs, and the sense of commitment, at least when such sacrifices are called for. Martyrs can be admirable at times, and Christianity has its share. I just don't think it's particularly admirable for any religion to require ongoing rituals of commitment and sacrifice for no better reason than to police its followers or test them, and I see no reason to think less of a religon or a sect for abandoning those requirements and trusting that believers will call on whatever faith and conscience is required when the need arises. I do understand the point you made about Jewish requirements being thought to improve the world in their own right, but if, for example, christians do not believe that this is the case, that this doctrine is actually an error, then abandoning the requirements is the only proper thing to do. Replacing them with other requirements is foolish if the only purpose is to have requirements. I would characterize that as more efficient than lazy.

ON the example of the hospital donors, why should whether or not we can determine their commitment matter? I'm not much of a Christian these days, nor much of anything else either, probably, but I was brought up with some Christian education, and one of the things my church, at least, stressed, was that you don't exercise either your faith or your commitment for public consumption. The rituals are optional. The Church itself is optional (obviously I wasn't raised Catholic!). You do what's right because it's right, not because it's easy, hard, respectable or not. The fashionable fundies of the present seem to have forgotten the lessons, but Christian teaching abounds with instructions to practice one's commitment and faith quietly, discreetly, even secretly. You might not know it listening to the loudmouthed chest-thumping snollygosters who seem to characterize Christianity these days, but one prime example is the Lord's prayer.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I actually respect your arguments, bruto, and they’ve given me pause. But I guess this is ultimately an “agree to disagree” situation.

Perhaps we’ll take this up in a different context in the future. I suspect the last i has not yet been dotted.

















"snollygosters" Gotta remember that

 

[brooklyn44]

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.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. At first, I thought I knew where it would lead, and i was WRONG! I am reminded of some of the points made by Leibniz and Spinoza about whether observing the law is sufficient. (It's been decades since I've studied this) I believe it was Spinoza that said that the actions carried you forward. While it would be the perspective of a Christian to say that actiond devoid of belief is hypocrisy.