What is Christianity?

If I was God and I had something important to tell you, I would write it down.

That is of course unless I knew writing it down wouldn't help you figure it out.

Which it won't. That is the reason Jesus and Buddha didn't write it down.

Everyone else who was selling something did, you have a whole book of it.

Who are you and what are you doing here?

It appears to me both Jesus and Buddha figured this out. What is it about the universe we live in that they know about that you do not.

When you have it figured out you should be able to cure the sick and walk on water, until then you don't know shit.

I want to know what you think Christianity is. If that entails you telling us what you think Jesus was telling us, then that is fine.

The topic was hopefully to showcase just how many and divergent the visions of Christianity really are.

This is perhaps important since unlike the two other major Abrahamic religions Christianity does not have a defined moral and legal system comparable to halakhah or sharia. While we might disagree with those two sets we must at least acknowledge they exist.

But as to being a biker, not since Kennedy was in office I fear. My roommate had a car driver make a right hand turn from the left lane and had to put his bike down and spent a year with a steel rod from ankle to hip. Have not so much as sat on a bike since then.

Hi Jar,

I am sure you understand, that if Jesus is God, everything he did including coming back from being dead is no big deal. If I was God I could do this stuff as well.

What is the message of Christianity, not what the churches say. If Jesus was a man like you or me, he has showed us that we can rise above the physical universe we are trapped in.

Is the story of Adam and Eve true? It is if you understand it is about YOU. Can you remember leaving God and coming into this universe? Why you did that. You can remember if you do as Jesus told you, become as a little child.

What the hell does that mean? It means you have to remember things like you did as a child. When you were 2 years did you remember things using language or did you remember things like they were a movie. You can still do that. It means your entire past is open to you if you are willing to look. It's like watching a movie of all that happened to you. BTW, this is not easy, it takes a lot of work.

It took me from 1968 to 1987 to remember being born, the next year to remember my last death ( Rennes France 1943), a few years after that to remember leaving God. It's worth the trip.

Jesus remembered being with God, in I think Luke 17.5.........it's where he talks about being with God, Before(BEFORE) the world was. Just like you and me he left God and found himself here, in this universe.

Buddha never would have said the world was an illusion.......unless he remembered what he did when he left God. What was that? You can remember it yourself, so go look. My telling you won't help you find it.

I think most people could find the answer if they just looked, but they don't.

Jesus had a lot figured out, more than me, it doesn't surprise me he has people counting years after his birth.

BTW I don't sell salvation and as far as I'm concerned no religion around here knows crap about what you are doing here. It's why my religion has a founder and one follower, and they are both me.

Is that about what Christianity is?

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

There's actually a lot of evidence in the New Testament itself that Jesus regarded Himself as God incarnate. The Messiah as described in the Old Testament was also clearly to be God Himself. But I have a feeling this is no longer the topic of interest here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It appears to me both Jesus and Buddha figured this out. What is it about the universe we live in that they know about that you do not.

Petro, this must be about the most content free argument ever. The only reason we know anything at all about Jesus is because somebody wrote something down.

When you have it figured out you should be able to cure the sick and walk on water, until then you don't know shit.

Can you cure the sick or walk on water?

t took me from 1968 to 1987 to remember being born, the next year to remember my last death ( Rennes France 1943), a few years after that to remember leaving God. It's worth the trip.

Yikes...

GDR writes: My point is though that they are written in a manner that is obviously not to be understood as fiction.

What may seem obvious to you is not obvious because of its content but because of your beliefs. The clear distinction between fact and fiction is a fairly modern concept.

GDR writes: I also contend that they believed it themselves.

I don't doubt that the gospel writers believed the gist of what they wrote. However, they were also liable to embellish, such as claiming to be eyewitnesses to events that they only heard about second-hand. (There's a joke about a carpet-layer who noticed a bump in the carpet and pounded it out flat - only to find that the homeowner's parakeet was missing. I met a guy who knew that carpet-layer.)

GDR writes: I suggest that the question is not truth or lies but right or wrong....

That's what I'm trying to tell you.

GDR writes: My point is though that they are written in a manner that is obviously not to be understood as fiction.

ringo writes: What may seem obvious to you is not obvious because of its content but because of your beliefs. The clear distinction between fact and fiction is a fairly modern concept.

I don't think it is the difference between fact and fiction. Certainly in terms of giving accounts of something historical, things weren't written down factually in the way we would expect today. Yes, my beliefs have remained Christian but my understanding of how to understand the Bible has evolved as I've learned, so I don't accept that my beliefs completely overrule my objectivity. CS Lewis has an interesting take on the Gospels.

quote:

---

I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage... Or else, some unknown writer in the 2nd century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn’t see this has simply not learned to read.

---

ringo writes: I don't doubt that the gospel writers believed the gist of what they wrote. However, they were also liable to embellish, such as claiming to be eyewitnesses to events that they only heard about second-hand. (There's a joke about a carpet-layer who noticed a bump in the carpet and pounded it out flat - only to find that the homeowner's parakeet was missing. I met a guy who knew that carpet-layer.)

The Gospel of Luke starts like this:

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

There may be Gospel writers who wrote from first hand knowledge but certainly all of them used other written and oral accounts from a variety of sources. There certainly is the possibility that there is some embellishment in the accounts.

ringo writes: That's what I'm trying to tell you

Good, then you must finally have it right.

CS Lewis writes: Of this text there are only two possible views.

CS was no stranger to false dichotomies.

ringo writes: CS was no stranger to false dichotomies.

This was his specific area of expertise.

Faith writes: There's actually a lot of evidence in the New Testament itself that Jesus regarded Himself as God incarnate. The Messiah as described in the Old Testament was also clearly to be God Himself. But I have a feeling this is no longer the topic of interest here.

Since jar started the topic, the parameters of discussion are his call. His whole point is that Christianity is not specific to one set of beliefs, and reading down the comments in this topic confirm that observation.

The Trinity itself is another topic.

I figured I would give googles massive information processing computers a shot at this topic, so I asked the following query:
What are the minimum required beliefs in order to be classified as a Christian?...There are 11 answers. The first guy says that the following are essential doctrines.

quote:

---

These are the most essential doctrines of all essentials. This includes what every Christian should always be willing to die for.

Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)

Issues pertaining to the person and work of Christ:

Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)

Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)

Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)

Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

---

You and I would likely agree with this list,but jars basic point is that some who call themselves Christian don't believe in this stuff. And the point of his topic is that its ok.

I think that what I first saw when I read this topic was "What is true Christianity versus what isn't." And to be honest I believe much as I did 12 years ago when this topic started. Granted I have opened my mind a bit more and taken in new information...trying to see beliefs through the eyes of others. There was a time (still occasionally) where I don't think that _______ is a real Christian because they violate extreme positions that are in my opinion necessary for salvation. To be blunt:

Ringo appears to believe in logic, reason, and reality and loves to try and sharpen the rest of us by contrarian argumentation. Even though he claims weak atheism, I label him agnostic because he still has an open ear in case any gods come knocking.

jar has convinced me that he is Christian, though he admits he is likely wrong and that any evidence besides what we *do* is irrelevant. You must admit he has a point. A person could have all of the "right" beliefs in the world and still come across as a jerk or ignorant. jar would likely argue that Christianity is about what we do and that we have no way of showing who He is apart from our actions. It is an interesting argument.

Faith, you have impressed me lately with the amount of study that you do regarding your personal apologetics. Critics may claim that you cling to willful ignorance regarding creationism, but to me thats not really important. What is important is how you behave towards others. I can only say that you are very human. but then again, so am I.

Many critics insist that belief in Jesus as God is essential, but I doubt a fella would miss the bus by claiming that Jesus was human. He has God in Him to such an extent that there is no room for any demons. I cannot make the same claim regarding my own flesh. Thus, aside from trusting fully in God through Jesus for my salvation, I also try to do my best. Not to earn points, but because it is the right thing to do.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

GDR writes: ringo writes: CS was no stranger to false dichotomies. This was his specific area of expertise.

Like the doctor who never gets sick?

CS Lewis was a writer and professor of literature. He wrote about experiencing God as well as any others I've seen. Belief is not necessarily defined as fact through logic alone. There is a lot of mystery, personal bias and interpretation, and comparison with other "witnesses" to the faith involved. Notwithstanding the fact that you are a contrarian by nature, I fail to see an argument where blunt logic trumps personal experience.

We could find many facts on a man based not only on testimony from those connected with im but through factual items such as a police report, psychiatric evaluation, and personal observation. Thus we could know a lot about our subject and yet not know him at all. Would you be able to say that you have as much personal experience with Jesus Christ as CS Lewis did?

How about The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe??

Phat writes: Would you be able to say that you have as much personal experience with Jesus Christ as CS Lewis did?

Since Jesus is not alive and was not alive while CS Lewis was alive is there any evidence CS Lewis had any personal experience or even could have any personal experience with Jesus Christ?