Wanted: Spiritual Alternatives

Originally posted by @fmf
Religions are surely, in large measure, about governing and encouraging certain behaviours in their followers by way of ideologies. If there is a disconnect between the actual behaviours of followers and the foundational texts, it certainly cannot be an error to discuss this.

Was speaking about the proper way to judge (or evaluate) a religion and that it’s a mistake to, for example, blame Christianity for the Crusades unless one can point to a passage or verse from the New Testament that condones the behavior and actions behind the Crusades.

And I don’t think Christianity is about following rules and regulations. I think it’s about a relationship and walk with Christ. That may sound absurd to an atheist and it probably would have sounded absurd to me 10 years ago, even though I believed in God but was not yet a Christian.

But it’s the reality of what Christianity’s all about.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Was speaking about the proper way to judge (or evaluate) a religion and that it’s a mistake to, for example, blame Christianity for the Crusades unless one can point to a passage or verse from the New Testament that condones the behavior and actions behind the Crusades.

To me, Christianity equals what Christians think and do. Because the ancient texts are just mythology to me, I don't see much is to be gained from handling them under some sort of humans-free laboratory conditions. Christianity is a human phenomenon; its constituent parts are people and it is defined by the things that these people imagine to be true and the deeds resulting from those things.

Originally posted by @romans1009
And I don’t think Christianity is about following rules and regulations.

Don't you have to believe in Jesus and do what he commanded you to do?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Psst,....the Crusades.

Of course Christianity is guilty of bad things. That wasthe point of my post.

Humans do bad things.

Originally posted by @fmf
To me, Christianity equals what Christians think and do. Because the ancient texts are just mythology to me, I don't see much is to be gained from handling them under some sort of humans-free laboratory conditions. Christianity is a human phenomenon; its constituent parts are people and it is defined by the things that these people imagine to be true and the deeds resulting from those things.

<<To me, Christianity equals what Christians think and do.>>

Christianity equals the New Testament. If you base Christianity on what Christians think and do, how do you know who is right when there is a difference of opinion? How do you know your sample size of what Christians think and do is large enough to get an accurate picture of Christianity?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Christianity equals the New Testament. If you base Christianity on what Christians think and do, how do you know who is right when there is a difference of opinion?

There are something in the region of 41,000 Christian denominations

Originally posted by @fmf
Don't you have to believe in Jesus and do what he commanded you to do?

You have to believe in Jesus, sure. See John 3:16 and Romans 10:9.

Beyond that, it’s about building a relationship with Him through reading the Bible and prayer and being led by God’s Holy Spirit, which indwells a Christian at the moment he or she accepts Christ into their heart.

Originally posted by @romans1009
How do you know your sample size of what Christians think and do is large enough to get an accurate picture of Christianity?

I think just looking at what Christians do as a result of their beliefs is a pretty good way of looking at Christianity to see what proof-in-the-pudding there is.

Originally posted by @fmf
There are something in the region of 41,000 Christian denominations

Then how do you decide which is right?

That’s my point. The denominations are man-made, based on opinions of men.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think just looking at what Christians do as a result of their beliefs is a pretty good way of looking at Christianity to see what proof-in-the-pudding there is.

But how do you know your sample size is large enough?

FMF: Don't you have to believe in Jesus and do what he commanded you to do?

Originally posted by @romans1009
You have to believe in Jesus, sure. See John 3:16 and Romans 10:9.

Beyond that, it’s about building a relationship with Him through reading the Bible and prayer and being led by God’s Holy Spirit, which indwells a Christian at the moment he or she accepts Christ into their heart.

Don't you have to do what Jesus commanded you to do?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Then how do you decide which is right?

That’s my point. The denominations are man-made, based on opinions of men.

You can decide which is "right" if you want and then declare the rest wrong.

I feel no need to apply the No True Scotsman logical fallacy to it.

Originally posted by @romans1009
But how do you know your sample size is large enough?

I am happy to spend some time making what I will of as many of the 41,000 Christian denominations that I have the time and inclination for. It's qualitative 'research', not quantitative 'research'. It's akin to ethnography.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am happy to spend some time making what I will of as many of the 41,000 Christian denominations that I have the time and inclination for. It's qualitative 'research', not quantitative 'research'. It's akin to ethnography.

Then how do you know your sample size is acceptable under qualitative research?