Remind me if that's ok, are you a poster who used to post a long time back as a Christian but then became an atheist / non believer, and counted your discussions on RGT (or whatever it used to be called) as part of the reason? And then started posting again more recently? I think an Aussie?

Apologies if I'm mixing you up with another OG poster! But I think I'm right. Not that it matters, to be clear.


I scanned a couple of your recent posts, where you are again equating Christianity with "Choosing Love" (this exact same phrase). I'm a little bothered that you're playing dumb, excuse the phrasing, because I think you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

If you take a theology that includes Topics A-Z
and you happen to have a personal affinity to Topic L
and you declare the theology to be essentially about Topic L
and you ignore every other topic that is elaborated in the theology
and you ignore all the writings on Topic H in particular (a topic that is in direct contradiction to topic L)
and you declare that no-one can define what it means to be a follower of this theology but yourself
and you...etc

At what point is it fair to ask
-why are you cherry picking this theology only for Topic L?
-why are you equating this theology with Topic L?
-why are you defining the theology in such an incredibly broad way and still expecting that definition to remain useful?


The cherry picking is my biggest issue, and I'm quite sure you know you're cherry picking because you're doing it by design, with intent (which should then mean you know why I'm asking any and all these questions!!!).



Suddenly this has become a bigger question, and no longer one about whether jn is really a Christian, so only run with it if you want to.

If PTB wasn't the thoughtful person I think he is, then I wouldn't have pursued this topic. So I presume he's coming to his position through careful thought rather than through some ethno- (or theologically) -centric bias.

Otherwise, yes, you've captured my issue

Let me repeat my reply to that.

I'm not " equating 'Choosing Love' with "calling oneself Christian". If I meet you on the path and I call the path we're on Christian because I reached it from the left, and you call it Muslim because you reached it from the right, are we not on the same path?

There's no equation here. I'm not perpetuating anything.

On the idea "that being Christian means being a good person and/or being a good person means being a Christian." This is especially confusing because most fundamentalist Christians agree with you that this is a falsehood. That's what they mean when they talk about salvation by works being a heresy.

I reject both that idea and that dogma. I'm not even talking about "being Christian". I'm talking about what you want to call yourself; And that my attitude towards others being based on Love rather than what they want to call themselves. As I affirm my perspective towards that choice I respect theirs as well.

My perspective is that Jesus walks with those who choose Love. That doesn't mean that Choosing Love "means being Christian". What Choosing Love means you are "being" is someone who has Chosen Love. What you attribute that choice to is for you to say.


PairTheBoard

I made the "built" comment because I don't want to take full credit. As if I'm special because I don't do these things. Much of it comes from my personality. I just don't associate facts of reality to my self worth.

As far as where I place my identity, it is in my actions and the value I bring to others. In other words, the things I can control. Everyone can contribute X amount of value to the world. I would encourage people to ground their identity in the amount of value they bring relative to X.

I totally agree. I just don't believe that these truths would have an impact on my life. I try not to encourage people to look at things like me. Everyone has to make those decisions based on their own structure.

But if someone believes that the God of the bible exists, and that all moral truths flow through God, and that being a Christian is following this moral path, isn't it reasonable to equate these two things? Obv, you don't believe in God thus you would not agree. But it would seem like a reasonable thing for some to equate.

I believe you are thinking of Bunny

You may be thinking of bunny. I haven't seen him post here in quite a while.

My postings on this topic both here and in SMP back when it was allowed there, have been thematically consistent though evolving. I was raised in a Christian denomination where we looked to a return to the kind of relationship with Jesus that his disciples had. This to be understood from individual interpretation of the Bible. One of the most liberal denominations.

I came to see that Jesus did not talk much about theology. He mostly talked about living in an attitude or "spirit" I best understand as Love. He told stories and gave sermons to illuminate what that meant. He stressed acting in that spirit. And he preached against the hypocrisy of religious authorities of the time.

I try to view with charity the canonical theology adopted by the early church as possibly appropriate, even necessary for its time. But I view it today as pushing people away from Jesus and certainly not something Jesus ever required. Jesus was open to people. "Let the children come to me." The theology of original sin and magical "miracles" closes people off from Jesus. Viewing non-Christians as going to hell is especially damaging.

I was taught as a child to avoid religious fanaticism and to keep my religion simple. I've also come to respect the perspective of thoughtful atheists from my vigorous encounters with them on this forum (and SMP). Jesus said to carry his message to everyone in the world. In my view, that is not being done when his message has been polluted with a theology that closes people off from Jesus. The way his message is carried needs to be modernized so that everyone can actually hear it. Listening to incomprehensible words is not the same as hearing it.

Attempting this modernization according to all these influences has been my aim throughout my posting here (and SMP) going back to 2003 or so. It's an evolving project. In my first controversial thread I argued that Santa Clause exists "in a whimsical sense". No matter how many bolded, italics, and quotes I used, people refused to acknowledge the phrase, "in a whimsical sense". It's not an easy audience. But that's a good thing.


PairTheBoard

Thx, yes you're right!

I'll leave this topic for now, but I think you, PTB, are engaging in significant cherry picking. If we were to write out all of the red letter words supposedly from Jesus, are we left with a tomb of good things? Mostly good things? Or a mix of some good, some neutral, and a whole bunch of bad things (not to forget a serious lack of correcting prior bad things.



What did the Dalai Lama say about Christ vs Christians?

It might, but it might also turn out to be an equivocation fallacy: if whatever God commands is what is good. then it doesn't matter whether these are good by "Earthly" definitions. Drowning the entire population save for one family is good by this definition.

If they do mean the Earthly definition, of being kind, loving, avoiding doing harm to others, then I'd again be asking the same question about why cherry pick the good parts while ignoring the bad.

This is probably a much larger conversation. But I understand what you are saying.

You're free to make that case. I might have a different interpretation of things you think are problematic than you do.


PairTheBoard

I mean, you're not wrong that PTB is cherry-picking from the Christian tradition in describing the essence of Christianity as "Choosing Love." But that is what it means to be part of a deep religious tradition like Christianity. All Christians accept only parts of their religious tradition. If you are a thoughtful Christian, it is common to develop a systematic philosophical approach, or to use general heuristics to identify the most central features of that tradition. A heuristic like the one PTB is describing is common among contemporary liberal Christians as identifying the core message of Christianity. And the idea that love is primary is an old one as well, with many of the most important Christians of the past endorsing a version of it:

Augustine: Paul: Jesus:

Suppose that everyone has the ability to contribute (ie, "can contribute") X amount of value to the world. What percent of X do you think the average person actually contributes?

Just a different passage that says the same thing, but with a stronger identification between love and identity:

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John+13

I mean, I would just be guessing. Maybe 20% in the US. Less in other developed countries, more in undeveloped countries. I don't blame most of them though. The government is mostly to blame.

That's actually quite a bit higher than I was expecting. I would have said something like 5-10%. And yes, this is just guessing. But there's also a point, which is that under this measure, you have to be *very* generous to think someone is good. Because it seems that humans actually suck at this quite a lot.

I would have swapped the two. People in developed countries are better resourced and so have a higher ability for contributing to the world, but probably don't do proportionally more towards that outcome than less people from less resourced places.

It's because they don't have the resources, so their total capacity will be much lower. If you are an average person in Niger, there is just not a lot of potential without moving etc. I think there are a lot of factors that go into an individual not reaching their X. So I want to be fair in a general way. I would probably be more critical in a individual way it I knew more.

And yes, I probably am being conservative with the numbers. But I don't put a ton of thought into other people's actual value to others as it's so individual I just don't have a way to gauge. Also I don't think that earlier in one's life it is possible to reach that high of a percentage.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Just curious how recent are you to these thoughts?

Hard to say, maybe 4 years

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

If you are like me you have taken baby steps in moving away from whatever faith. i think that is normal and guess it may take longer for some than others. It sounds (based on your posts) that you are still working through a lot. It takes time

Maybe I'm reading it all wrong tho?

Not really working through anything on this topic anymore, unless I'm presented with new evidence. My beliefs are always constantly evolving though. I recently had a conversation with my sister on this topic, so I thought that it would be fun to post. I came to these this point about 4 years ago, but it took many years of slowly growing and evolving to come to them.