The Impossibility of being a Christian..

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The purpose of Chrsitianity, I would assume for most, is to live your life more like Jesus, and to believe in god altruistically,(as I see it, this is what Jesus preached, feel free to tell me my folly if you disagree) This, is what Jesus taught, and teaches, but there is an inherent impossibility to act or even attempt to act like Jesus does, because of something in the very deepest dogma of the Christian Religion.

The thing that I am speaking of, is the way Christianity inexorably creates every action, into a Punishment v. Reward system, in which there is always the underlying knowledge that If you fuck up, you will go to hell. The very idea of Heaven and Hell, creates this fundamental flaw, the flaw that all Christians are bound by, the flaw, that they know, good deeds get them in to heaven(in a manor of speaking, faith being seen as a good deed also), and bad deeds keep them out.

So, with this knowledge, even if a altruistic person sets out to do an altruistic deed, he cannot, because he will always know that these deeds will get him into heaven, and thus he has personal gain to receive. He can no longer do an act “just because”, or because “goodness is deep within him”, because of the dogma the church has taught him. They have in a since been corrupted against there religion, by there religion.

So i guess in conclusion, it is inherently impossible for Christians to act like Christ, because of the system of Punishment v. reward, that has been set up by the church. They can no longer do a good act, just for its sake, because they will always know that it gets them into heaven(depending on what you believe), and they can no longer believe in god, just because…

2

Hell is held over the believer’s head like a Damocle’s sword. Love, and not fear, should be the motivation.

Man! I have thought a lot about this (from an atheistic perspective)! Let me clarify, i have given serious thought to those who wish to get paid for their virtue as if virtue were not it’s own reward. They don’t love virtue, they just want to be paid well!

3

Excellent observations, Nih.

Look at Pascals wager(the maxim, not the ILP member)

It is as if people believe in God just in case there is one, but would rather not if they could get away with it.

In other words, these people say “I believe in God because it’s my ass if I don’t.”

And then as if that isn’t enough, they actually think they have pulled the wool over God’s eyes. That, or God is a gullible idiot to have let them in.

4

Even sincerely religious people dislike the attitude of these “luke-warmers”. This is what some philosophers think Nietzsche intended the idea of the eternal recurrence for. As a test to see if you were really willing to live your life to it’s fullest. A man who half-lives his life hates himself. It’s bad faith.

5

Alas, this is what it has become for many. But it isn’t as simple as many would like it to be. I even believe that people manouver themselves into this simplistic view. You see, if we really look at the preaching of Christ - and not assume what we can remember from long ago is true - he opposed a dualistic approach and preached that God was a friend of the lowly.

The whole legend of his birth is supposed to tell us that whilst being a godly man, he was born poor and outcast. That is in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah, who said that the servant of the Lord would have “no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” - he would be a pretty common kind of bloke.

What is significant about this is that the God of the Bible doesn’t need the success stories, he’s always using the born losers, the smaller, the youngest, the least and the improbable. Consequently, he isn’t into reward and punishment. Far more he is into grace, charity, benevolence or altruism. All the characters of the Bible who he calls are convinced that they didn’t deserve his grace.

Far more, it is in keeping with the OT Prophets that Israel is regarded like a bride for God - but she is always off whoring around. Christ taught that God’s love is unreasonable, his goodness is outrageous. He is good to “bad” people or he is just as benevolent to the last in line as to the first on the job.

If anything, Christ taught a behaviour that would be fitting for a bride of God, or of his spiritual children. Added to that, he said that God’s compassion is with the weak in spirit, with the mourning, with the meek, with those that hunger and thirst for righteousness, with the merciful, with the pure in heart and the peacemakers, and of course with those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.

No, not really. Eternity is held up as a goal for those who answer to their calling. There is no alternative - it’s either that or nothing. It’s just Hell if you knew that and were too stupid to get in.

Shalom
Bob

6

Bob,

I’m going to tell you a secret, but you’ve got to promise not to tell anyone, mmkay?

God does exist, but things are not what they seem.

You, and all your religious friends are devils. The atheists are the angels.

I’d explain it to you but you’d never believe me. And so I must end this post with some words of wisdom:

There’s a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.

Sleep on it.

7

To the best of my knowledge, the people of King Judah (the Jews) never had a hell until they encountered the Zoroastrians. Hell is unpopular in our politically correct times, but even Jesus mentions this ‘blessed’ place. e.g. matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? being one example among many.

It is interesting how in the bible God always favors the younger, and the shepherds, and how Israel was a young nation which tended sheep.

The legend of Jesus’ birth is only encountered in the Gospel of Luke. Luke being a Greek familiar with many examples of virgin births.

God also commanded men to smite other nations and to do many other abominable things in the bible. The priests have had more power than Kings in some places at times. A lot of the dead sea scrolls talk about how much of the sacrifice goes to the priest, to this tribe, etc. The priest, at times, seems like just another guy at the top trimming off the fat, similiar to today’s capitalists in some respects.

Thank you for quoting Meister Eckhard, Bob. Now there was a mystic!

8

Gehenna, or Geh-Hinnom, or Geennom is a vale south of Jerusalem, where “the idolatrous Israelites” worshiped a god called “Moloch”. The chief feature of Moloch’s worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was “to pass through the fire”, a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death. Not only was this documented in the OT, it was a proverbial “hell” to which people referred to, said to reveal what Mankind is capable of doing when without God. Hell is, after all, the absence of God.

This is something that has been the subject of debate for centuries - even in Jesus time this debate was going on. If we accept that these stories are part of an originally oral tradition, the language used is as violent as the times and the people living then. Remember, these stories tell us very often more about the developing understanding of what the “divine” actually is, than give us a historic record.

It is easy after the abomination of war to say it was necessary to do these things (they still happen today), and those writing history from the perspective of Faith in Israel’s God, need only to want to promote a military leader as a chosen servant of God, and you have it.

Shalom
Bob

9

So for you, Hell is not a physical place?

10

I believe it is a soul place. It is a place where people imprison themselves in the imaginations of being lost. I appreciate the image in the film “Dreams May Come True” where Robin William’s wife is lost in her bereavement and takes her life. She is imprisoned in her sorrow and disbelief.

But these are all only very human imaginations. If there is a hell beyond the rhetoric, I don’t believe that it is imposed upon anybody, but something we get ourselves into.

Shalom
Bob

11

I seem to sense from the Christian community in general, that psychology is utilized a great deal. To point out why people should not do particular things, as apologetics for a more fundamentalist position, etc. It seems that religion always adapts itself to the World around it, just that it comes up to speed at a much slower pace than most other disciplines. I do , however, understand your position. People do create their own Hells. As Milton said (paraphrased, appropriately enough from Paradise lost, i believe) “The mind is it’s own sovreign and can make a hell of any heaven or a heaven of any hell.” But you would say that this coming up to speed is mainly man coming to know the divine, whereas i would attribute it to man introspecting even though a part of me understands the austere asceticism of “be ye separate…”, which is required if religion is to stand back from the rest of the World.

12

It is an interesting consideration to point out that being moral for the sake of an eternal reward or punishment removes the chance of the reward being intrinsic.

I think upon observation that what we find “moral” typically derives from traditional definitions relative to imposed laws that are claimed to be mandates from God centuries ago.

With law and morality, they are under constant revision. The laws and morals of this age are considerably different from a century or a millenium ago because of this. Humanity is chipping away from these traditional mandates of God to create their own brand of morality and law much to the dismay of theists and to the delight of non-theists. Theists however are at a loss because until another influencable prophet can impose the will of God, then the mandates of old will be replaced and forgotten by the new. This evolution of morality is inevitable and those traditional impositions are fading away into history just like the traditions before them.

It is still common for people to view morality in terms of infinite reward and infinite punishment, but this view is fading due to a more secular understanding and acceptance of the universe found in science. Science is taking over in terms of defining morality more so than ever. It will continue to do so. People deny this, but it is quite obvious that law (which is a projection of morality) embraces science more so than ever over religion in regards to it’s decision making. This will continue to grow.

13

[quote
The whole legend of his birth is supposed to tell us that whilst being a godly man, he was born poor and outcast. That is in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah, who said that the servant of the Lord would have “no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” - he would be a pretty common kind of bloke.
Shalom
Bob[/quote]

according to matthew, jesus was an aristocrat, if not a rightful and legitimate king- descended via solomon. matthew states jesus’s family had been fairly well-to-do and jesus himself was born in a house.
so many conflicting veiws ???

14

More haste, less speed is what I think we should say to many of the other disciplines. There are many issues to address and debate, but do we do them justice and our fellow man a service by pushing them through? I truly believe that speed has been the ruin of many a good idea in the past. And many a decision that seemed reasonable at the time has been regretted later.

Yes, we dismay somewhat, but not for the reasons you have written. The real reason is that the commandments in various forms enjoy recognition around the world, so too the wisdom of many proverbs. Today young people are assuming that things are in need of revision only because the are old. It isn’t the question whether something has proven to be wrong or contraproductive, but whether it is modern or old. It is again the difference between image and character.

If you take up my argument from ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=139534:

you can see that I believe that Religion really is the passing on of knowledge from “God” - the problem is that we just haven’t got enough evidence to describe God in a manner that we could all agree upon. Religion finds things to agree and act on - hopefully in the interest of all human beings, and not just for people living in luxury like us.

The only requirement for the coming Messia was to be a descendant of David and to lead his people to world recognition. The Aristocracy of Israel was found among the priests of the temple. And what it meant to be a descendant of Abraham, Jesus pointed out quite bluntly - it meant having trust in God and his prophecies.

Herod, called “the Great”, was a son of Antipater, an Idumæan and referred to as a “half-Jew” by some. He didn’t find full recognition until the temple project began. Jesus obviously held the respect of the Jews for Herod as “bought” and was appropriately critical of this.

Shalom
Bob

15

Enigma stated:

You almost always see things from an interesting angle. Giving morality a reward/punishment system takes a lot away from morality. Bob and i discussed virtue as it’s own reward elsewhere. There is also a thread here called creativity and what blocks it in which monkeys enjoyed art. Then they were rewarded with food for their art and they no longer enjoyed it. no art pour l’art as it were, likewise A lot of people fail to enjoy morality for it’s own sake. For some i imagine they care more for God than their fellow man. Nietzsche once said, “There is too little love for us to be able to afford to give any of it away to imaginary beings.” I think this correct, personally i think whether people believe in God or not is an ancillary consideration when compared to the major consideration of fair treatment of other people on this earth. Religion (as practised, maybe not as taught) often achieves something counter to this.

16

Good day everyone,
This is a fantastic website, and the best one devoted to philosophy on the internet I’ve discovered thus far.

I would tend to agree with Bob. Christian theology is not as simplistic as some (fundamentalists) would suggest. The notion of redemption through works (ie being good is a ticket through the Pearly Gates, being bad is hellfire and brimstone) is not necessarily the pre-eminent theology. Martin Luther himself severed the Church when he suggested that we were saved by faith alone. For myself, I find the literature of Kierkegaard to be most illuminating in my exploration of the Christian mystery. To me, faith in the most absurd of revelations (to use his expression), makes Christianity the most difficult of religions to truly “believe”. Christ said himself (please excuse the paraphrasing) “Whosoever believeth in me shall have eternal life” has nothing to do whatsoever whether or not one is in fact good or not. Rather, it calls one to place one’s entire existence in a single miracle of ridiculous proportions. It is this, I think, which makes it impossible to truly be a big “C” Christian, rather than a small “c” Christian.

Regards

17

Welcome to the forum Sysiphus!

18

Welcome Sisyphus!

Luther discovered that the jewish discussion at the time of Christ was about the reason for the occupation of Israel by the Romans. Some schools of thought said that it was because the people were lacking in piety and were impious. Some Pharisees adopted a behaviour whereby people were meant to be made aware that they were a holy nation. They overly obeyed the law and made a show of everything to do with their religion.

Christ was in opposition to this, although he had a clear affinity to much pharisee teaching. He went about looking for trust or faith in God, arguing that Abraham didn’t have a law to abide by and yet is declared righteous for trusting God. At the same time, he declared that the law was the guideline for holy living and always would be.

“the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him” (Psalm 34:8 )

Shalom
Bob

19

If more Christians were like Christ the World would be a different place. Also, i think Jesus’ role as a political reactionary and revolutionary is typically underplayed. The Pharisees and Sadducees were getting rich.

20

If that is what you think of Christianity then you have never gotten it, and never understood the meaning of grace.

It is for freedom that Jesus have set us free. [Gal 5:1]

What we do or do not do don’t count for brownie points for heaven, not that they are of any value at all in the first place. Somewhere in the bible it is written that our righteousness are as filthy rags. Dont bet on your deeds nor think them more highly than what they truly are. If heaven is your due reward than indeed it is sheer impossibility.

So God in his goodness and love introduced the new covenant, the covenant of grace, to replace the covenant of works, ie the covenant of rewards and punishment.

What we are set free from is precisely this deadening system/covenant of rewards and punishment. Instead we get heaven for “free” right now, solely on the basis of what Christ have done for us.

Just consider this: If Jesus is sinless, could he have died? Yet he died! How? But for the FACT that he indeed took on him the sins of the world. So now your faith is rested not a blind belief but rationally on a fact and a truth that all your sins have been paid for.

But not only that we can also believe that death is not the end of things for there is the ressurrection! and again it is not fantasy or a theory but a historical FACT and a truth. If you are to dispute the historical fact then you should also question how you ever know anything in the past at all or anything you read in the papers or hear in the news everyday.

So now why do you do good works at all since it doesn’t count for heaven?

Well, in theory at least, you can go on murdering and committing all sort of injustices and selfishness, and you will still go to heaven. But then is this consistent with the knowledge of the goodness, mercy and grace of God? For if you have truly known God this theory is a false one.