Mere Christianity

[christine]

by C.S. Lewis...Has anyone else read it? I find it very practical for both believers and nonbelievers. Despite religious preferences, Christianity, is by my standards, the best existing morality. Care to agree or disagree?

[Vergil]

I am reading it right now, and am fascinated by both his arguments and logical development. The trilemma situation is extremely...confounding? I don't know if that is the right word. But yes. I am enjoying it.

EDIT for further comment:

I think that Christianity as a religion can be dangerous (all "religions" can). But Christianity, as a philosophy is very compelling, yet impossible to achieve, even according to Christian doctrine, since as fallen man, we still live with sin. It was kind of like what Nietzsche said, "There was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross." And Lewis is so compelling, because he boils down Christianity to what it "should" be about - Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Christianity as a philosophy, as a relationship I think is what can make it the, as you said, best existing morality. But how do we define best?

[Jebus]

by C.S. Lewis...Has anyone else read it? I find it very practical for both believers and nonbelievers. Despite religious preferences, Christianity, is by my standards, the best existing morality. Care to agree or disagree?

I do not disagree that by your standards Christianity gives the best existing moral code. I'd be pretty stupid to disagree with such a thing as you are most likely the foremost expert on your own standards and beliefs.

[eriador]

Christianity is by no means the "best morality." As a matter of fact, I'd put it right down at the bottom of the list with every other organized religion. Sure, the beliefs espoused by Jesus were pretty good (I wouldn't call them the best because I don't know enough about other, similar ideals), but Christianity is the religion, not the beliefs, and that religion is not so good.

I find that Neil Stephenson puts it better:

Christ's gospel is an attempt to take religion out of the temple, out of the hands of the priesthood, and bring the Kingdom of God to everyone. That is the message explicitly spelled out by his sermons, and it is the message symbolically embodied in the empty tomb. After the crucifixion, the apostles went to his tomb hoping to find his body and instead found nothing. The message was clear enough: We are not to idolize Jesus, because his ideas stand alone, his church is no longer centralized in one person but dispersed among all the people.
People who were used to the rigid theocracy of the Pharisees couldn't handle the idea of a popular, nonhierarchical church. They wanted popes and bishops and priests. And so the myth of the Resurrection was added onto the gospels. The message was changed to a form of idolatry. In this new version of the gospels, Jesus came back to earth and organized a church, which later became the Church of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire - another rigid, brutal, and irrational theocracy.

[VelvetElvis]

I find that Neil Stephenson puts it better:

Christ's gospel is an attempt to take religion out of the temple, out of the hands of the priesthood, and bring the Kingdom of God to everyone. That is the message explicitly spelled out by his sermons, and it is the message symbolically embodied in the empty tomb. After the crucifixion, the apostles went to his tomb hoping to find his body and instead found nothing. The message was clear enough: We are not to idolize Jesus, because his ideas stand alone, his church is no longer centralized in one person but dispersed among all the people.
People who were used to the rigid theocracy of the Pharisees couldn't handle the idea of a popular, nonhierarchical church. They wanted popes and bishops and priests. And so the myth of the Resurrection was added onto the gospels. The message was changed to a form of idolatry. In this new version of the gospels, Jesus came back to earth and organized a church, which later became the Church of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire - another rigid, brutal, and irrational theocracy.

What?

[Rei]

It's generally not worth minding. This Neil Stephenson is selecting small pieces of the New Testament out of context and writing off the rest as human fabrications.

[eriador]

HBC, I'm saying that Christianity (the ORGANIZED religion) is very much different from what Jesus preached. Stephenson is just helping to illustrate.

And Rei, no he's not...

Christ's gospel is an attempt to take religion out of the temple, out of the hands of the priesthood, and bring the Kingdom of God to everyone. That is the message explicitly spelled out by his sermons, and it is the message symbolically embodied in the empty tomb.

I'd argue that Jesus's sermons and his resurrection make up almost all of the meat of the New Testament. You can't deny that Stephenson's reading is valid. What was Christ's big thing? That's right, that the important thing was not the institutions of the church but what was in your heart. He was trying to make religion personal. It wasn't until later that the concept of an established church grew up. Jesus' teachings didn't say a thing about building a church of the sort we have, and as Stephenson says, they really pointed in the other direction.

[Eaquae Legit]

I'll deny it. He's basing his interpretation on the gospels. But only part of them. He's picking and choosing what parts he wants. The resurrection is in the gospels; he doesn't believe in a resurrection, so he dismisses those parts as corruptions or later additions. But what makes his interpretation of the text more valid? Nothing, really.

Jesus certainly set himself up as something special, contrary to what Stephenson says. He claimed his very presence trumped the Sabbath, that he could forgive sins (and extended that power to his followers - something he wouldn't've done if he thought everyone already could), and equated himself with the one God multiple times. He thought he was important, on the same level as God.

For the most part, I see Stephenson taking his presuppositions and reading them into the text. I think he is inconsistent.

Did Jesus set up a Church? Not the way we have them organised today (although some denominations try very hard to mimic the early church). However, he did also mention an advocate who would reveal further truths.

Eh.

[eriador]

Wait... wha?

He isn't writing off the resurrection, he's INTERPRETING IT. There's a difference.

And he isn't saying Jesus wasn't special, he's saying that Jesus meant to set up a religion that was not centralized in the way Christianity is today, but rather a totally personal religion. All of these "special powers" you mention actually point towards this: that the Sabbath wasn't all-important, that ANYBODY could forgive your sins, not just an established church. Equating himself with God was a way of saying that humans have power over their own spiritual lives.

And not only did Jesus not set up a church, the church was only founded AFTER HIS DEATH. If all the evidence for Jesus wanting a church like we have that you can offer is that he mentions a vague "advocate", I'd say you're on pretty shaky ground.

I think that I should explain some of the reasoning in what I'm saying so that you won't continue making shots in the dark to prove me wrong. Here goes: I believe that Jesus was a real man with a great message, whether or not he was the "Son of God". His words were powerful and meaningful. Sadly, they have undeniably been changed, given the number of people following them and the seeming fluidity of the church that has taken charge of them.
Now, when you look at these texts to determine anything, you're going to be dealing with two different sources of information (yeah, it's a rough dichotomy, but it's valid). On the one hand you have the original philosophy of Jesus (parables, etc. that are mostly unchanged, at least in their general structure and meaning) and on the other you have the additions. These are slipperier because they've been added in an attempt to sound like Jesus' words.

Part two:

If you accept all of the above (which I don't think is making any presumptuous claims) you will have to agree that it is difficult to figure out exactly what Jesus' message was and whether or not the additions change or enforce the message. However, with a bit of reasoning it should be possible to get a rough idea of what Jesus' basic ideas were and what the additions are.

All it requires is the assumption that most of Jesus' teachings have not been fundamentally changed by the church. This is reasonable, because it's common knowledge that the people in charge of the church believe what the church professes. If they were to make changes they would most likely be of a cosmetic or other minor nature due to the difficulty of making major changes to such an admirable system of spirituality and keeping it coherent and believable). This means that it's safe to assume that the "real Jesus"* did indeed teach what he's mostly know for. Thus it also follows that conclusions drawn from looking at the big picture of Jesus' teaching will best reflect "real Jesus'" teachings. The opposite also holds true: that conclusions drawn from specific passages or lines are most likely to be later additions to the Gospel, and so be less exemplary of "real Jesus'" teachings.

Now, if we wish to compare the teachings of "real Jesus" to the dogma of the church, we have to base all of our comparisons not on specific examples, but on generalized TRENDS in the information. It is with this understanding that Stephenson says his bit:

Christ's gospel is an attempt to take religion out of the temple, out of the hands of the priesthood, and bring the Kingdom of God to everyone. That is the message explicitly spelled out by his sermons, and it is the message symbolically embodied in the empty tomb. After the crucifixion, the apostles went to his tomb hoping to find his body and instead found nothing. The message was clear enough: We are not to idolize Jesus, because his ideas stand alone, his church is no longer centralized in one person but dispersed among all the people.
People who were used to the rigid theocracy of the Pharisees couldn't handle the idea of a popular, nonhierarchical church. They wanted popes and bishops and priests. And so the myth of the Resurrection was added onto the gospels. The message was changed to a form of idolatry. In this new version of the gospels, Jesus came back to earth and organized a church, which later became the Church of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire - another rigid, brutal, and irrational theocracy.

All of his observations, if you notice, are drawn from larger trends in Jesus' words and actions, not short, cryptic comments which are easy to insert into a text such as the gospels.

However, I will admit that my knowledge of the Gospels is limited, though I do have some knowledge. Stephenson's interpretation makes sense to me because of both my knowledge of the gospels and the logic I explained above. However, I'm open to anybody who can make a compelling case (illustrated by a clear theme shown in Jesus' words and actions) for Stephenson being wrong.

*(a term I'll use to refer to the actuality of what happened (as opposed to the Jesus of the New Testament). I'm not making a dig at the church's version.)

[Dr. Mobius]

Jesus certainly set himself up as something special, contrary to what Stephenson says. He claimed his very presence trumped the Sabbath, that he could forgive sins (and extended that power to his followers - something he wouldn't've done if he thought everyone already could), and equated himself with the one God multiple times. He thought he was important, on the same level as God.

No wonder they killed the egotistical bastard.

[Rei]

Okay, we have a problem here. I will never believe that the only true bits of the gospels are Jesus' parables, and you seem to believe that those are the only bits that are mostly solidly true.

This means that it will mean nothing if Christ said he would build the Church (his Church, actually, Matt. 16.18 ). It also means that you couldn't care less whether the resurrection were denied or not. "And so the myth of the Resurrection was added onto the gospels" certainly suggests that the only important bit is that the body wasn't there anymore and that the resurrection never happened. This fits with the idea that the parables are the only true bits. In short, I think the ideal of the Jefferson Bible is bunk.

[eriador]

I never said that. I said that the parts of the gospels that were truest to what "real Jesus'" message was can be found in the large themes in those works instead of in specific examples.

[Rei]

That is basically confirming what I said about our claims of what are true. You believe in truest and less true parts; I believe that it is all equally and fully true.

As for the "real Jesus" message that you are so keen on, I think that it is a bit off. I do not deny that Christ wished to make his kingdom available to all people -- indeed, that was one of the greatest aspects of his life on Earth. However, at one point Jesus spells out exactly what his desire for us is: "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me" (John 17.19-21).

I submit that all of Jesus' teaching points to this one great desire that we be made one with Christ, as his body, the Church. And this includes bringing his kingdom to all people, for how can his body be separated from inheriting the kingdom along with the head?

On a slightly different focus, what exactly is your standard for determining which passages you count as more true and which you count as less true?

[eriador]

My goodness! I explained all this: that specific quotes are the pieces the LEAST likely to reflect "real Jesus" and that BROAD THEMES are the MOST likely to reflect "real Jesus".

I believe that Jesus was a real man with a great message, whether or not he was the "Son of God". His words were powerful and meaningful. Sadly, they have undeniably been changed, given the number of people following them and the seeming fluidity of the church that has taken charge of them.
Now, when you look at these texts to determine anything, you're going to be dealing with two different sources of information (yeah, it's a rough dichotomy, but it's valid). On the one hand you have the original philosophy of Jesus (parables, etc. that are mostly unchanged, at least in their general structure and meaning) and on the other you have the additions. These are slipperier because they've been added in an attempt to sound like Jesus' words.

If you accept all of the above (which I don't think is making any presumptuous claims) you will have to agree that it is difficult to figure out exactly what Jesus' message was and whether or not the additions change or enforce the message. However, with a bit of reasoning it should be possible to get a rough idea of what Jesus' basic ideas were and what the additions are.

All it requires is the assumption that most of Jesus' teachings have not been fundamentally changed by the church. This is reasonable, because it's common knowledge that the people in charge of the church believe what the church professes. If they were to make changes they would most likely be of a cosmetic or other minor nature due to the difficulty of making major changes to such an admirable system of spirituality and keeping it coherent and believable). This means that it's safe to assume that the "real Jesus"* did indeed teach what he's mostly know for. Thus it also follows that conclusions drawn from looking at the big picture of Jesus' teaching will best reflect "real Jesus'" teachings. The opposite also holds true: that conclusions drawn from specific passages or lines are most likely to be later additions to the Gospel, and so be less exemplary of "real Jesus'" teachings.

As to your claim, I think we agree. However, I don't think that the way the church turned out is how Jesus would have wanted it. The whole catch of being "made one" is that we are all equals, which is not how the church has ended up. Just look at how one refers to members of the priesthood. If you call others "brother" and "sister" that reflects equality (and the desires of "real Jesus" by my estimation). When you start calling people "father" or "mother" you have a power inequality that is not in keeping with Jesus' message.

[VelvetElvis]

The Bible has pretty specific instructions on how to "run" a Church. Read some of the epistles.

[eriador]

Excuse me... but I was under the impression that the epistles were all after the death of Jesus, when the church first began. Those instructions didn't come from Jesus, they came from the apostles, who, try as they might, are not the same as Jesus. Just because they said it doesn't mean Jesus stood for it.

[Rei]

Jesus did speak on several occasions about his Holy Spirit coming to teach his followers. And in Luke II, (better known as Acts), there is a narrative account of this Holy Spirit coming and doing just that. But then, you don't accept anything that might be quoted and will only consider a few very broad themes which may have been stated by Buddha or any other spiritual leader.

[eriador]

...for reasons I have explained and have not been challenged much beyond hurt "no"s

[Rei]

Basically, why bother even saying that you accept themes in Jesus' teaching? Because, really, you don't. What you really believe is that there was such a person as Jesus, and that everything written about him is a half-truth or a lie, because all he REALLY cared about is what you have already stated. We can have no real discussion of what his intended ministry was, because you deny everything but the most simple, feel-good themes and thereby deny everything that sets Christianity apart from any other world religion. I do not believe that Christianity could have survived beyond a single generation if there were so little history in it and the rest human fabrication. Nobody would follow it, and nobody would die for it. Whether you believe all of it or not -- whether you believe that seeing the risen Jesus was really mass hallucination brought on by severe stress or Mary serving funny mushrooms at dinner -- there needs to be far more of the gospels that actually happened. And this includes the words that Jesus said. And it includes the Acts of the Apostles. If none of it is true besides the happy equality theme, then the Jesus we know never existed and the Church is the best con-artist ever to exist.

[VelvetElvis]

Excuse me... but I was under the impression that the epistles were all after the death of Jesus, when the church first began. Those instructions didn't come from Jesus, they came from the apostles, who, try as they might, are not the same as Jesus. Just because they said it doesn't mean Jesus stood for it.

You fail to realize that Christians accept the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God. Since Jesus is God, then the epistles are, in fact, from Jesus.

[Darth Petra]

I'm a Christian....

[KennEnder]

A death-obsessed Christian... well, it's not like history hasn't seen a few of those already!

[Darth Petra]

A death-obsessed Christian... well, it's not like history hasn't seen a few of those already!

I'm just a weirdo. Certainly not the spokes-girl for Chirstianity. But God rules, yo.

[KennEnder]

Not that Eriador needs any help from me, but as a person who wants to believe in the "message of Jesus" but is a bit disappointed by the organizations that presently represent him, here's my observation and logic (if logic is even allowed to be applied to a document like the Bible which is protected by Faith, not logic):

Jesus Christ came to Earth to change the relationship between Man and God.

Jesus emphasized a more personal relationship between Man and God.

Jesus's message was, basically: "You've got it all wrong; turn around and go back to God."

and many more...


I would have to agree that, overall, the THEMES of the Bible are more reliable than actual, quoted text. After all, nearly every major religion accepts Jesus' presence in the world, and respects his remarkable life and ground-breaking message. But the Bible was written by PEOPLE, not Jesus, and it was written DECADES after his death. So skepticism is fair.

Besides, it's not like they had a scribe (much less a tape recorder or digital voice recorder) to record his every word. And they didn't take any notes, either. So, realistically, what are the chances that even one quote is verbatim from Jesus? (Yes, I realize that there is the 'divine intervention' idea, but I'm trying to be a skeptic here, remember?) Each of Jesus's disciples went around preaching "His Word" (which really means, 'His Message') for decades after He died, and after a long time they eventually wrote down the Messages. But those Messages had been practiced and "perfected" through repeated tellings. My guess is, the Stories that worked well they told more often, and each time they told them, they made them more effective by changing (ever-so-slightly) the words attributed to Jesus to make them more "believable" or "influential." They had an agenda, after all, and they had an audience. They needed to entertain and they wanted people to take ACTION. They wanted to change lives. They needed a reaction. Those are not ideal conditions to expect zero change.

But I have no doubt at all that the THEMEs of the Messages were by-and-large unchanged.

Anyway, enough from me.