21st Century Christianity - A brief manifesto for our age.

[2ndRateMind]

Jeremiah 51:45
Ezekiel 22:26
2 Corinthians 6:17
James 1:27
Revelation 18:4
I'm not sure you've ever even caught sight of a Bible. See above verses.

This pet religion you'd like to create already exists.

It's called satanism.

There ya go. They've already done all the groundwork for you.

I have two perfectly good Bibles, one of which is the KJV. When I quote from it, the archaic language should warn people of the invoked authority.
But I do not often do so. When I use ordinary, plain language, I offer my own opinions, interpretations and reasoning. They may not suit you, but they do not amount to Satanism. Which kind of insult is known by philosophers as the ad hominem fallacy. It is an attack on the protagonist not the argument proffered. It is quite irrelevant, because I could be a Satanist, and still have some pertinent observation to contribute to the discussion. And that is why it is a fallacy. That you feel the need to take refuge in insult, rather than reason, says more about you than it does about me, my friend. It says your philosophy is so impoverished, you have have nothing useful left to say.

I'll read your references, in due course. I try to make a habit of doing so, for every reference I receive. They are all part of human understanding, and therefore of interest to me.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[2ndRateMind]

That's all meaningless.
That's just secularism and moral relativism.

On the contrary, it is not all meaningless. At least to me, even if it is to you. And theology and the philosophy of religion in the Christian tradition, are hardly secular. Furthermore, my position on ethics is not moral relativism. Here is what it is:

God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, ie, He knows everything that can be known, and loves us enough to want the very best for us. That means, His ethics are objective and absolutely accurate. His ethics are both His perfect Law for us, and His desired Will for us, because an ethical life is the best kind of life for us to live. The kind of life in which we, and anyone else we love (which, as I hope I have made clear by now, should ideally be everyone), will be most happy.

Here's the rub, though. He does not tell us His Law and His Will, except partially, over the course of history. Possibly because that might interfere with our freedom, which He quite clearly prizes above almost everything He does for us, (apart, perhaps, from feeding us and watering us, through the medium of His world) and possibly because He just wants us to have something interesting, important and useful to do with our lives.

So, we have to work out what is ethical for ourselves. The 10 commandments may be seen as an early first draft attempt at ethics. They were supplemented and superseded by Jesus' revelations, when it bacame clear that humanity was not making the desired progress. And these have been supplemented and superseded through the work of theological and philosophical ethicists since. But, I contend, we still do not know what God's objective, absolutely accurate ethics are, or how we shall know we know if and as and when we ever do. We are still left with one of life's big questions, to which we do not know the answers, or even how to get at those answers. And that, for me, is really quite exciting. Meanwhile, the best we can do is remain current with the state of the art in ethics, think about it, and decide for ourselves what we make of it, and how accurate it is.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GEN2REV]

Is that my problem, or a fault in the Bible, and therefore, yours?

Best wishes, 2RM.

If you're knowingly preaching that which is found nowhere in Scripture, then you're not preaching a Christian message.

And, you can rest assured, that would be your problem.

 

[2ndRateMind]

On the contrary, I am not preaching at all. Just explaining what my reasoning leads me to think, and why I think it. But, if you want to remain 2000 years and more stuck in the past, you are perfectly at liberty to do so. Just don't try to tell me I am not a 'true' or 'proper' or 'honest' Christian. Then I really might be tempted to fight fire with fire, and answer insult with insult, and believe me, you would lose. But that would be a pity, and perhaps I might prefer just not to answer your posts.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

How do you know who gets saved? Are you God? Have you ever been a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Hindu? If not, how would you know if and how they might come to the Father? Are you dead yet, and have you found Heaven to be solely populated by Christians? One thing we can be quite sure of; it is a lot easier for some to become Christians than others, and (in my happy experience) most people, of most faiths, most of the time, are reasonably decent folks, and just don't deserve to be punished (or even just denied heaven, which amounts to the same thing) because they were born, say, into a Muslim family in a Muslim nation. Or into a Chinese family in China, where the powers that be persecute all religions and demand total loyalty to the State. Even a cursory glance at a demographic map, showing population and religion, should provide evidence of just how unjust the system proposed by conventional Christianity and it's various instantiations actually is. But God, it insists, is just.

Well, God may well be, and I believe that. But in this respect, conventional Christianity most certainly isn't.

Moreover, it's not even a free gift, this salvation, though it is disengenuously presented as such by conventional Christianity. It's a coercive bargain. Believe in Jesus as Messiah, get heaven. Disbelieve, get Hell. The truth is, we can only believe what we think to be true, and as things stand, Christianity has to buck it's ideas up, because the status quo just won't do.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Hi 2ndRate,
I do believe we've been through this already, if I remember correctly.

You know how I feel about thinking that only Jesus believers get saved.
Some have never heard of Jesus and that would fall under Romans 1:19.

However, I do want to respond to your question to the other member as to how we can know who will get saved.
Do you believe we CANNOT know?

God does let us know who will be saved.
It's very simple:
We must believe in God.
We must follow His ways.

 

[GodsGrace]

On the contrary, it is not all meaningless. At least to me, even if it is to you. And theology and the philosophy of religion in the Christian tradition, are hardly secular. Furthermore, my position on ethics is not moral relativism. Here is what it is:

God is omniscient and omnibenvolent, ie, He knows everything that can be known, and loves us enough to want the very best for us. That means, His ethics are objective and absolutely accurate. His ethics are both His perfect Law for us, and His desired Will for us, because an ethical life is the best kind of life for us to live. The kind of life in which we, and anyone else we love (which, as I hope I have made clear by now, should ideally be everyone), will be most happy.

Here's the rub, though. He does not tell us His Law and His Will, except partially, over the course of history. Possibly because that might interfere with our freedom, which He quite clearly prizes above almost everything He does for us, (apart, perhaps, from feeding us and watering us, through the medium of His world) and possibly because He just wants us to have something interesting, important and useful to do with our lives.

So, we have to work out what is ethical for ourselves. The 10 commandments may be seen as an early first draft attempt at ethics. They were supplemented and superseded by Jesus' revelations, when it bacame clear that humanity was not making the desired progress. And these have been supplemented and superseded through the work of theological and philosophical ethicists since. But, I contend, we still do not know what God's objective, absolutely accurate ethics are, or how we shall know we know if and as and when we ever do. We are still left with one of life's big questions, to which we do not know the answers, or even how to get at those answers. And that, for me, is really quite exciting. Meanwhile, the best we can do is remain current with the state of the art in ethics, think about it, and decide for ourselves what we make of it, and how accurate it is.

Best wishes, 2RM.

We can know what God's laws are...
We just don't want to at times.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have two perfectly good Bibles, one of which is the KJV. When I quote from it, the archaic language should warn people of the invoked authority.
But I do not often do so. When I use ordinary, plain language, I offer my own opinions, interpretations and reasoning. They may not suit you, but they do not amount to Satanism. Which kind of insult is known by philosophers as the ad hominem fallacy. It is an attack on the protagonist not the argument proffered. It is quite irrelevant, because I could be a Satanist, and still have some pertinent observation to contribute to the discussion. And that is why it is a fallacy. That you feel the need to take refuge in insult, rather than reason, says more about you than it does about me, my friend. It says your philosophy is so impoverished, you have have nothing useful left to say.

I'll read your references, in due course. I try to make a habit of doing so, for every reference I receive. They are all part of human understanding, and therefore of interest to me.

Best wishes, 2RM

We're so much nicer over there...

 

[2ndRateMind]

You're posts concluded that the Love of God, the Church of God, is a wall against whatever it is that you seem to think is more important.
You talk about helping others.......but you dont understand that the greatest help you can give them, is not food, shelter, and health care.
But rather its to lead them to eternal life, who is Jesus The Christ, as He is the greatest gift you can give to anyone.

What use is it to attempt to lead someone to eternal life, if the poor sod dies of hunger before you have finished your proselytising? Give him a livlihood, the proceeds from which he can afford food, shelter, healthcare, etc, and he might even be tempted to think you mean what preach, that he is important to you and to God, and thus make your attempts to convert him somewhat easier.

See, all your philosophical meanderings and opinions are based on a temporary situation, and that is "human existence" on earth.
This is the small aspect, the temporary situation.....so, to resolve that so that a person has some comfort on earth, but then dies and is excluded from Heaven......
See that?
You are majoring in the minors and pursing the next best thing, instead of seeing the long vision and the main thing.

I focus on the here and now because the here and now is what I actually know. Much of the rest of Christianity is just so many theories to comfort the poor and content them with their lot. If we actually all focussed on the here and now, and resolved the two major global issues that confront us I mentioned in the OP, our work will not be done. But we will have made important progress, and have a substantial claim on that salvation you still seem to think of as a 'free' gift, not a coercive bargain.

The plain fact is (and it seems so obvious to me) that by saving the temporal world, we develop the character attributes and virtues, and rid ouselves of the vices, that befit us to fully appreciate God, and so improve our wholly spiritual experience of eternity.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

We're so much nicer over there...

I'm sure you are. Seems neither I nor my antagonists do 'nice' very well. The best I can say is, I have some tough things to say, and only radical change to offer, or looming disaster. And inevitably some will feel threatened by that, and would prefer the disaster to the change.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm sure you are. Seems neither I nor my antagonists do 'nice' very well. The best I can say is, I have some tough things to say, and only radical change to offer, or looming disaster. And inevitably some will feel threatened by that, and would prefer the disaster to the change.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I've never thought it's very radical.
In Christianity we're taught different theology in different denominations,
and wow, if you wander off into your own line of thinking.
I'm a firm believer that we've put God into a box that is entirely too small for Him.
But you're going to have a tough time indeed.
I've been speaking to some on this forum and the other for years now.
Does it cause anyone to change?
I doubt it ever has.
But it's still good to talk. You never know who is listening.

 

[2ndRateMind]

We can know what God's laws are...

OK. Here's a moral conundrum for you, I devised to illustrate this point.

You are to imagine you are the newly elected President of the United States. Realistically, you can establish only one of three possible major domestic reforms during your 4 year term. You can choose between: 1) banning the civilian ownership of all guns except hunting rifles, shotguns and target rifles. Without this measure, you know there will be more massacres, and people will die. 2) Establishing a British style NHS, in which all health care is paid for by taxation, and free at the point of need. Without this measure, you know those who cannot afford health insurance won't get health care, and people will die. 3) Investing heavily in public schools, so that all children get a decent education, and are fit for employment in an increasingly technological age. Without this measure, you know children will be attracted into gangs, guns and drugs, and people will die.

Which should it be? And why?

We just don't want to at times.

That is certainly true, but a secondary consideration to deciding what is ethical in the first place.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

OK. Here's a moral conundrum for you, I devised to illustrate this point.

You are to imagine you are the newly elected President of the United States. Realistically, you can establish only one of three possible major domestic reforms during your 4 year term. You can choose between: 1) banning the civilian ownership of all guns except hunting rifles, shotguns and target rifles. Without this measure, you know there will be more massacres, and people will die. 2) Establishing a British style NHS, in which all health care is paid for by taxation, and free at the point of need. Without this measure, you know those who cannot afford health insurance won't get health care, and people will die. 3) Investing heavily in public schools, so that all children get a decent education, and are fit for employment in an increasingly technological age. Without this measure, you know children will be attracted into gangs, guns and drugs, and people will die.

Which should it be? And why?



That is certainly true, but a secondary consideration to deciding what is ethical in the first place.

Best wishes, 2RM.

We've already gone through the president thing 2ndRate.
I had picked no. 3
I told you you were a bit tricky about this choice since each choice should be spoken of separately and should not be a choice. Each choice could be morally objective or subjective.
I forget how we ended up.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Ah! I know who you are now! You are wondering, on that other forum.

So, you said you wanted to consider each possibilty separately, and decide which were moral and which were not. And I said fine, that's a good start, but how are you going to decide that? And I suggested the next step was to consider each proposition from the four main academically credible perspectives, which are deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics and situation ethics. And then weigh up the pros and cons of each, from each perspective, and then assess them all, arrive at a conclusion, and make your decision. But, I said, whatever you decided, it was bound to be controversial, and therefore does not amount to us, humanity, knowing God's Law and Will on the matter. I'm paraphrasing, and simultaneously clarifying, but if that's not exactly what I said, it's pretty much what I meant.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

For everyone else:

There appear to be (at least) four main academically credible schools of thought among ethicists:

Deontology: The Bible. (circa 3500 BC to 400 AD) we have a duty to accept and observe rules, eg the 10 commandments. That duty may be owed, for example, to our families, our nations, or to God.

Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Milll. (1780 AD) The greatest happiness of the greatest number determines what is ethical. Bentham thought his 'felicific calculus' could help us make this decision.

Virtue ethics: Derived from Ancient Greek thought, but revived recently by Elizabeth Anscombe (1956 AD) The ethical life is best achieved by developing one's character and cultivating the virtues.

Situation ethics: Joseph Fletcher, ( 1966 AD) What is ethical is determined by finding the optimum solution amongst all interested parties in any given situation.

Needless to say, all these approaches have issues, problems and objections associated with them. My own preference, when confronted by a particularly knotty moral conundrum, is to consider it from each of these angles, and then make my decision.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

It's OK to hate sin. I do too, though we appear to have quite different ideas around what sin actually is, and why it is sin. It's just not OK to hate sinners. Jesus never did; in fact, He loved us all so much, He gave up His life for us. Would you do that, for a bunch of sinners?

Best wishes, 2RM.

No answer yet. Am I to presume you would not give up your life for the rest of us sinners? Because, if you wouldn't, don't try to pretend you know Jesus, or have any notion whatsoever of the extent of His love for us all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

As to the elimination of poverty, if the 1% at the top were to truly repent and be converted, there would be no poverty.

Agreed.

As a matter of fact the globalists elites have an agenda to make everyone poor and destroy their lives.

Sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory to me. What is your evidence?

The remedy would be to arrest them all and lock them up. But who is going to do that?

They are already locked up, chained as they are to the trappings (sic) of wealth. Our job, our Christian duty, because we love all sinners, rich and poor alike, of whatever faith or none, is to try to set them free.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Enoch111]

Sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory to me. What is your evidence?

You need to be able to discern between genuine conspiracies and conspiracy "theories".

 

[RLT63]

On another forum, I lamented that Christianity was being left behind, and as it is currently consituted, stood to collapse into irrelevance and obscurity, with none but a few dinosaur conservatives left muttering to each other in corners about how evil the world is. So, I proclaimed, the 21st century religion needs a 21st century approach. I was duly asked, what would a 21st century Christianity look like?

Here is my answer:

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that the laity, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was (wrongly) enlisted to control in the dark and middle ages. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

It might help if those same authorities also realised that all the various Christian schisms, denominations, sects and cults are counter-productive to spreading the Gospel in it's purest form, and sought to compromise on their doctrine and dogma with a view to burying their differences for good. How can we pretend to know truth if we cannot even agree among ourselves what it is?

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into the modern age.

I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.

I would like to see a more inclusive religion, that encompasses the whole of humanity within it's remit, even those of other faiths and none. I would like to see it end it's insistence, for example, that one has to be a Christian to receive heavenly reward. I really think we have to decide whether we mean 'the family of man' to be a real objective to strive for, or just a trite, complacent, inaccurate description of an exclusive club of people 'who think like me'. In other words, we have to decide whether we think God, as Jesus did, to be the loving Father of all mankind, or just Christians, the born again, the elect, or some other sub group of the faith.

Finally, I would like to see the development and promotion of a philosopically rigorous, (but upgradeable in the light of new facts and discoveries and developments), world view, rather than the hotchpotch mélange of obsolete ideas and ideologies we are currently presented with.

Doubtless you can think of other improvements the religion could make. You are welcome to suggest them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

How about a worldwide religion with one leader and no one can buy or sell without his mark? Sounds like that is what you are working towards or at least a left leaning religion that gives up the convictions that set us apart from the world. Throw in fighting climate change and I think a lot of people would want to join your 21st century Church

 

[Enoch111]

Throw in fighting climate change and I think a lot of people would want to join your 21st century Church

Particularly Pope Francis the heretic. And he would also include the LGBTQ agenda.

 

[Wrangler]

Something I think most Christians today don't realize is that old school, original, authentic, Christianity is not inclusive. Neither is God or the Bible. They are both very exclusive. That is actually the point.

Agreed.

Sadly, the perversion of equality has infected many Christians.