‘We should learn from what Christianity says, and ignore what it has done.’

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I agree with the statement, for several reasons. Firstly, the Church – the community that preaches the work of Jesus – is not Jesus. Jesus, in the eyes of Christians, was perfect, but the Church, however, is imperfect. The work of the Church, although wholly advantageous, has been very dubious in its acts. We cannot know if the clergy has its own hidden agenda, be it money (collection plates) or another seduction that should be disallowed in the Church. The Church is filled with humans, quite obviously. However, these humans are a flawed image of God – Jesus – therefore we cannot, or should not, use the word of the Church as the word of God.
Also, the Church – the voice of Christianity – has either misconceived or completely ignored the teaching of the Bible to its own gains.
The most prominent example is the apartheid in South Africa. In this situation, the white ‘Afrikaner’ South Africans, by the will of the Dutch Reformed Church, segregated the black South Africans to their own Churches. This form of segregation was just as bad as the anti-Semitism in Germany, without the massive death count. For example, non-whites were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in those areas designated as 'white South Africa' without a permit. They were supposed to move to the black homelands and set up businesses and practices there. This isolation not only segregated the majority, unlike the German anti-Semitism, but was condoned by the Church. This is an example of one of the mistakes made by the Church, and why it cannot be trusted as the work of God.

However, one might say that the work of Christianity, and the Church, can be remembered as a reminder of past mistakes. For example, after the apartheid in South Africa, the Christian community could learn from the mistakes, and realise that segregation like this can only lead to hardship and failure. In this way, the mistake will never happen again.
Using the example of paedophilia – if a man used two small children, should such a heinous act be forgiven? And if so, should it be forgotten? As Jesus said in the Bible, “if a man should slap your left cheek, give him your right also”. However, the Bible was compiled thousands of years ago, and such an incident would have been rare. However, with the Church, the Bible can be taught in different ways, to suit the community, societies, and the era in which it is being taught.

I am sure that I am right because, in Christianity, Jesus is seen as the ‘Son of Man’, and a God-like figure. However, the Church, and clergy, are human (or human inventions – Peter founded the Church) This means that neither can be trusted to be the true voice or teachings of God and Jesus, and that means that neither the Church, nor the clergy, should be remembered for their work in Christianity (not the community e.g. Desmond Tutu). Both are imperfect, and neither are Jesus, therefore can be tempted or seduced by human sin, and should not be given such a huge responsibility.

[Mathias]

I agree, as you can see from my sig Im not religius, but I do agree with many of the different religions teachings.

[RZZZA]

"We should learn from what Christianity says, and ignore what it has done."


Thats called selective reasoning, cherry picking the good things and ignoring all the bad.

I do that too, but not with just christianity, I try to take the good from all religions...but I dont consider myself part of a religion just because I take some good teachings from it.

[MasterAdnin]

I think that statement is pretty obvious and applys to to all religions. You can not just say this about Christianity, but all religions.

Adnan

[Honeohvovohaestse]

"We should learn from what Christianity says, and ignore what it has done."


Thats called selective reasoning, cherry picking the good things and ignoring all the bad.

I do that too, but not with just christianity, I try to take the good from all religions...but I dont consider myself part of a religion just because I take some good teachings from it.

Glad you caught that one. :laughing:

Cherry picking, literally meaning harvesting cherries, is used metaphorically to accuse someone of pointing at individual cases which seem to confirm his or her position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict it.

[Ummon]

"We should learn from what Christianity says, and ignore what it has done."


Thats called selective reasoning, cherry picking the good things and ignoring all the bad.

I do that too, but not with just christianity, I try to take the good from all religions...but I dont consider myself part of a religion just because I take some good teachings from it.

It's not the same at all.

The teachings of Jesus are one thing, The behaviour of the first Christians another. The behaviour of Christians after their come to power another too. Same goes for the behaviour of Christians today.

What Spartacus says is infact quite correct: the message of the Church is outdated under some aspects, but a new one might be born which takes into account the good sides of the previous one. This process is what makes and unmakes ideas through the course of history. While today we do not believe in Mithras or Zeus anymore, aspects of these Gods survive in our minds and ideas, even religious ones. The same will be true for present religion.

It is time for men to learn to stop themselves from evil deeds on their own volition, and not because someone else told them to. The message of patriarchal morals of the OT, and that of love of the NT, cannot stop them alone. The change in our perception of what is holy is unavoidable. This doesn't mean that we have to disregard religion or God, or Jesus. We must find a new synthesis in our beliefs.

[Musha]

"We should learn from what Christianity says, and ignore what it has done."


Thats called selective reasoning, cherry picking the good things and ignoring all the bad.

I do that too, but not with just christianity, I try to take the good from all religions...but I dont consider myself part of a religion just because I take some good teachings from it.

No it isint.
Its called seing through the lies of the church

But i guess maybe that is the same thing

A

[Ahlerich]

how about:

we should ignore christianity and leanr from what it has done?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

The statement, in laymens terms, means the Bible is right, but the Church is wrong. Basically.

[Denny Crane!]

The bible is right, who's interpretation exactly? I can guaruntee you if I read it I will get a totally different message from you.

The only way we can learn from the bible is to view it as a historical source for the effects it has had on society over the ages (not as a historical reference I hasten to add). We have a complex idea of morality and ethics in western society that supercedes any ideas the bible could give us, basic as they are.

Peter

[removeduser_426582376423734]

No, dont get me wrong, I'm not saying the Bible is correct. That is just the title of the topic, the caramel centre is the discussion.

[Denny Crane!]

No, dont get me wrong, I'm not saying the Bible is correct. That is just the title of the topic, the caramel centre is the discussion.

Which is what exactly?

What I said is not irrelevant. The bible to modern day society is irrelevant. Christianity in its current form is irrelevant and as a non organised religion its practically buddhism.


Peter

[removeduser_426582376423734]

In what way? Christianity cannot be preached in any other way than through the Church. As I said, however, the Church is not Jesus reincarnated - it is the preaching of Jesus' teachings. This, in a way, can be hazardous, for, in history, the Church has made many mistakes. Therefore, my dilemma is - should we only rely on Jesus' teachings, or the Church also?

[Denny Crane!]

In what way? Christianity cannot be preached in any other way than through the Church. As I said, however, the Church is not Jesus reincarnated - it is the preaching of Jesus' teachings. This, in a way, can be hazardous, for, in history, the Church has made many mistakes. Therefore, my dilemma is - should we only rely on Jesus' teachings, or the Church also?

EDIT: Why can it not be preached from anyone but the church? I'm sure the catholics said that when the protestants splintered off to form their own church.

I personally believe that Jesus was ideologically opposed to organised religion and therefore the church is as far away from christianity as you are likely to get.


Peter

[Darth Wong]

It's just as easy to interpret the Bible in a horrifically evil way as it is to interpret it in a loving, generous way. There are people who read it and see approval for a "just war" against Albigensian heretics in which women and children are mercilessly slaughtered. There are people who read it and see the need to discriminate against gays. There are people who read it and decide that they need to volunteer at a soup kitchen and adopt a third-world child. All of those perspectives and more can be drawn from the Bible, which perhaps indicates how inconsistently written it is. In any case, it does render the notion of "what Christianity says" somewhat meaningless, or at least schizophrenic a la multiple-personality disorder.

[Oldgamer]

It's just as easy to interpret the Bible in a horrifically evil way as it is to interpret it in a loving, generous way. There are people who read it and see approval for a "just war" against Albigensian heretics in which women and children are mercilessly slaughtered. There are people who read it and see the need to discriminate against gays. There are people who read it and decide that they need to volunteer at a soup kitchen and adopt a third-world child. All of those perspectives and more can be drawn from the Bible, which perhaps indicates how inconsistently written it is. In any case, it does render the notion of "what Christianity says" somewhat meaningless, or at least schizophrenic a la multiple-personality disorder.

Interpreting the Bible is usually done incorrectly because the people doing the interpreting take a single verse or phrase, and fail to place it in its context. The Bible is not inconsistent ... the people interpreting it are going about the process in the wrong way.

For which thing's sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience Colossians 3:6

The bad interpeter pulls this verse out of context and says, "See, the God of the New Testament isn't any kinder or gentler than the God of the Old Testament.

However, what comes before verse 6?

If you are risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Colossians 3:1-2

After the original verse, we read:

But now put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Don't lie to each other, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek or Jew, circumscision or uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free. Christ is all, and in all. Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, mercy, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering. Forbearing one another and forgiving one another ... and above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfectness, and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which you are called in one body, and be thankful. Colossian 3:7-15

By looking at the verses in original context, and taking into consideration the rest of Paul's letter to the Colossians, we find out that the apostle is teaching people about tolerance, in a church where people claimed to have secret knowledge about God, and demanded that other people in the church do certain things. The whole letter is a warning against false teachings .... philosophy and vain deceit ... the tradition of men ... the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ Colossians 2:8 ... and Paul's teachings about what true apostolic Christianity consists of.

Once again, taken by itself, Chapter 3, Verse 6, has the nasty old wrathful god of the Old Testament. But that is completely out of its natural context.

The point is, the Bible is not written inconsistently. It is interpreted inconsistently. The God of the Old Testament is manifested as the Christ of the New Testament. And for all of the human imperfection with the Christian church, there is a core of meaning and tradition which runs through it.

[Last Roman]

but the core message of Jesus, was be a loving and forgiving person. Of course, many seem to forget that part and cherry pick, as RZZZA said, the parts they want to be known, for whatever reason.

[Darth Wong]

but the core message of Jesus, was be a loving and forgiving person. Of course, many seem to forget that part and cherry pick, as RZZZA said, the parts they want to be known, for whatever reason.

The core message of Jesus was to be a loving and forgiving person, but he thought the Old Testament God was a wonderful guy, and the Old Testament God was a butcher. That's the central contradiction of the Bible, although there are other smaller ones.

[Justinian]

The core message of Jesus was to be a loving and forgiving person, but he thought the Old Testament God was a wonderful guy, and the Old Testament God was a butcher. That's the central contradiction of the Bible, although there are other smaller ones.

Sweet Mary, I agree with Darth Wong...

The problem with the Bible is that it presents a lot of good philosophies on how to live one's life (turn the other cheek, et cetera), but at the same time presents ideas that are immoral by its very own standards. This leads to having to pick and choose parts of the Bible to follow to follow the Bible at all, which means some parts of the Bible are not true, and if some parts of a whole are a lie, none of it is true.

[Last Roman]

The core message of Jesus was to be a loving and forgiving person, but he thought the Old Testament God was a wonderful guy, and the Old Testament God was a butcher. That's the central contradiction of the Bible, although there are other smaller ones.

And that is, my friend,why I don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible.