Overthinking Christianity

@indonesia-phil said
You twist my words, something which you are very good at. I didn't say the beginning of life doesn't matter, nor did I suggest it; the beginning of life is the singular most important thing which has ever happened. What I said was that what I think about the beginning of life doesn't matter, and that is an important literal and intellectual distinction. This is either ...[text shortened]... conversation. Nature is not 'nothing', nature is nature, which doesn't need a god to make it happen.

I'm simply stating that mindlessness cannot account for all we see and experience
in this life. The beginning of life, not just an individual life, was what I was referring
to, but even an individual life's complexity, if you consider all the things that have
to happen are also a miracle considering all that could go wrong.

You cannot come up with a reason for all things to be, so it isn't important to you.
I'm not twisting your words; feel free to correct me when I misunderstand you. I
guess avoiding the subject is as good an answer as I can expect.

@kellyjay said
You deny what is supernatural simply because you don't like the idea when nothing
else will do is denial without cause; it is denial without evidence or logic supporting
your denial.

I am open-minded about the existence of a creator entity. You are pretending to have not read my posts again.

@kellyjay said
If you disagree, give me another choice; at least be able to produce
something so we have a binary discussion of what is the most likely.

Here is "another choice": neither of us knows ~ faith is not knowledge, faith is not objectivity ~ so we can but speculate.

@kellyjay said
Christianity isn't a corporation; those sanctified by God are the Church; it isn't a man
made organization.

The Council of Nicea was NOT a function of corporate Christianity?? What a strange approach you have to the word "corporate"! So what about all those Gospels that corporate Christianity chose not to include?

@kellyjay said
We can examine any natural explanation; if you don't have any, then you have
nothing, and if you have nothing and we know nothing is not the cause for
everything, then something that transcends the natural is the cause!

Why do you think I have to "have something" to compete with [and displace] the specific theological narrative that you have settled for?

@divegeester said
How do you define “most merciful God” within the context that he’s invisible and only communicates slightly mysteriously (some would say incoherently) via collection of writings written by a disparate group of people thousands of years ago… or by people claiming to know the ultimate truth and articulate that “truth” by making dark threats about this “most merciful God” bu ...[text shortened]... for not them not believing in him?

Interested in your thoughts on that specific exegesis please.

People don’t go to hell because they don’t believe in God. They go to hell because their sins aren’t forgiven.

Do you feel a human being should set the criteria by which humans can enter Heaven, which is, after all, God’s home?

@suzianne said
For one thing, Jesus recommended it.

But then, he also recommended following scripture. Some "red-letter Christians" think all you have to do is heed the words of Jesus. There's far more to the Christian walk than that, although it's a good starting point to be sure. The rest is flavoring, yet important. It helps one to become more than a blind follower. It also help ...[text shortened]... out words like "me" and "I". Try "we" and "us". Pray more for others. This will enrich your life.

Interesting that nowhere in the Lord’s Prayer are thanks offered to God. Perhaps that’s because genuine gratitude comes from the heart and not a memorized prayer.

@kellyjay said
There is God; you really shouldn't leave Him out of the equation on why the church
was birthed and survived.

So that's your explanation how Christianity survived three centuries without Scripture, is it? Godidit? If so, then Christianity does not need any Scripture now either. God'll do it.

@moonbus said
So that's your explanation how Christianity survived three centuries without Scripture, is it? Godidit? If so, then Christianity does not need any Scripture now either. God'll do it.

Yes, exactly God did do it; if He didn't do it, is man-made, man-inspired, man who
holds it all together, and there is no redemption from God because God didn't do
it. Throughout the OT, there were scrolls; throughout the NT, there were letters sent
and written in many languages; in many countries, across time. The text was widely
distributed and the only thing the 'canonizing did' was take what was scattered and
accepted already as the gospel truth and put them what we now call the Bible.

If God isn't real in someone's Christianity today, if God didn't do it, today even
with the Bible, they are something only man-made, man-inspired, and it is no
different than a social club without the Spirit of God in it.

@kellyjay said
If God isn't real in someone's Christianity today, if God didn't do it, today even
with the Bible, they are something only man-made, man-inspired, and it is no
different than a social club without the Spirit of God in it.

I think that Christianity, as a code for living, has much to offer humanity even if its supernatural underpinning and narrative - based on the Bible - is not actually true.

If there is a creator entity, and if it is not as you describe it [based on your religious beliefs], and it is "only man-made, man-inspired", I don't see how, as a consequence, Christian moral ideas are rendered worthless.

@fmf said
I think that Christianity, as a code for living, has much to offer humanity even if its supernatural underpinning and narrative - based on the Bible - is not actually true.

If there is a creator entity, and if it is not as you describe it [based on your religious beliefs], and it is "only man-made, man-inspired", I don't see how, as a consequence, Christian moral ideas are rendered worthless.

You have renounced Jesus Christ as coming into the flesh; what else is left to you?

@fmf said
Here is "another choice": neither of us knows ~ faith is not knowledge, faith is not objectivity ~ so we can but speculate.

Faith is built from our relationship, living word, obedience, and trust in Gods knowledge and wisdom. After all he is the creator and giver of all knowledge.

@kellyjay said
Yes, exactly God did do it; if He didn't do it, is man-made, man-inspired, man who
holds it all together, and there is no redemption from God because God didn't do
it. Throughout the OT, there were scrolls; throughout the NT, there were letters sent
and written in many languages; in many countries, across time. The text was widely
distributed and the only thing the 'cano ...[text shortened]... man-made, man-inspired, and it is no
different than a social club without the Spirit of God in it.

You are correct that there were scrolls and letters in circulation, but you are mistaken about what canonizing accomplished. Canonizing did not simply gather together what was scattered. What it primarily accomplished was a winnowing out of scrolls and alternate Christianities deemed not acceptable to the Roman bishops. The other scrolls and letters were not merely collected, but destroyed. Early Christianity was very varied, much more so than it is today. Some of the early churches denied the divinity of Jesus, others denied his humanity, some were non-committal and simply reported his words without reference to resurrection, virgin birth, or miracles. The early churches and Christian communities were in possession of scrolls which they appealed to as authoritative but which the Roman bishops rejected. What the canon did was to eliminate most of the scrolls from the historical record, thereby falsifying the early history of Christianity; and for nearly 1700 years after Nicea, the trick worked: no one suspected that there were any other gospels or letters than the ones the Roman bishops approved in 325 AD, no one suspected that early Christianity was much more diverse than it is today. What the canon did was impose a single rigid interpretation on the multifarious tradition which had grown up in the three centuries prior the Council of Nicea and place sole interpretive authority in the Primary See at Rome--thereby creating a man-made "corporation," as you called it--, and denying the early multiplicity of the other churches (which presumably had been founded by the Apostles). Thus, canonization represents a great impoverishment which reduced Christianity to Churchianity. Such is the NT you know today; it's like having only the violins left from a former symphony orchestra.

@moonbus said
You are correct that there were scrolls and letters in circulation, but you are mistaken about what canonizing accomplished. Canonizing did not simply gather together what was scattered. What it primarily accomplished was a winnowing out of scrolls and alternate Christianities deemed not acceptable to the Roman bishops. The other scrolls and letters were not merely collected, ...[text shortened]... h is the NT you know today; it's like having only the violins left from a former symphony orchestra.

As I said, if God isn't in it, it doesn't matter.

@mike69 said
Faith is built from our relationship, living word, obedience, and trust in Gods knowledge and wisdom. After all he is the creator and giver of all knowledge.

Every theist in every religious tradition has "faith" of some kind and to some degree. The details of these feelings of faith are relevant only to those who feel them and those that share them. Faith is not knowledge, per se. Nor does it create anything objective. Instead, it is knowledge of what your own beliefs are about yourself and about a particular God figure.