Is there such a thing as a Christian?

Christianity is repressive by design after all it is loosely modeled after Judaism which has hundreds of strict rules.. These rules were established because people are instinctual animals by nature...Having instincts that really need to be kept in check to live successfully in society..

Think about it, things like natural selection only work if there is a foundation of genetic diversity, to accommodate that we are hard wired to breed with many different people throughout our lifetime from puberty to sexual dysfunction or death.
This was great when people were nomadic, young males left the tribe once reaching puberty and a dominant males life expectancy wasn't long enough to be breading with his daughters.. But once we started settling down (becoming stationary) and living longer how do you limit incest?

Marriage! Now you cant bread with anyone until you are committed to that one for life and once you did that, you cant breed with anyone else.. Exponentially reducing the chance of anyone accidentally having kids with someone closely related to them..

Problem with instincts is that they have nothing to do with your devotion to a god or ability to reason..
The fact of the matter is that the instinctual part of your brain is in control of almost everything and your intellectual ability's are relegated to doing little more than allowing yourself to justify your actions by elevating them to higher function of some sort..

Though you can repress your instincts you cant completely suppress them they will eat at you constantly making you miserable until you finally cater to them (don't worry you'll come up with a good justification or excuse for it).

So in short we don't make good Christians because we are animals created by evolution with the instincts that got us here, Not divinely created in the image of an infallible extraterrestrial deity. and religion was created as a tool to aid in the repression of instincts that were viewed as unsuitable to society (become civilized)....

 

No I don't think that makes you a christian, the christ teaching is not a cult of personality although many have made it such.

These are ideas supposedly disseminated by Jesus in contravention of prevailing practice. That you practice these things is wise according to the story of Jesus. That you "understand the concepts through logic", is what attracts me to christ teaching. Having used the sayings and considering the results of that usage, I am convinced that the sayings are true.

They make sense if you regard what is written as it is rather than what we think it should represent by reputation. Incredible stories are devised to convince of specialness or transcendent authority and they are superfluous to the practical christ teaching.

Actually my faith began precisely because I understood. I understood the potential for what I was hearing, just as you regard treating your neighbor as yourself as the best short description of the best way of being in human relationships. Faith in that instance is not a matter of believing in a set something but a little willingness to allow this potential to emerge. Faith is only needed in this regard until practice produces results

If you are sincere I don't think anyone will object.

The christ teaching is that the truth sets us free and those who hunger and thirst for rightness will be satisfied.

This is not a demonstration of godly power. To think that power need be demonstrated is to not understand power. However this phenomena you speak of is a cultural imperative , that is, of the cult. Any cult demands ritual observance, seeking compliance as opposed to understanding.

 

"What" we are doing is the same thing. We both have a method of gaining knowledge we regard as trustworthy and we both think the knowledge obtained through that means is correct. You are recognizing how similar we are thinking. What you fail to recognize though, is that you are projecting your beliefs onto me by saying that I wont consider the possibility that i might not be wrong when in fact, skepticism demands that my method considers probability.

 

Thats kind of backwards though.

Jesus was only able to teach "love thy neighbor" and comply with logic
because it is an objective conclusion.

Why not just praise logic?

 

I don't understand the question, why not just praise logic. I don't understand the statement Jesus was only able to comply with logic because it was an objective conclusion. Could you flesh those out?

 

Peace !

 

"Do unto others" is self evident. Two interacting individuals have a relationship
with one another, and they are equal. Its just one before the other that I
wanted to stress.

"Do unto others" is true because men are equal. Not men are equal because "do
unto others" is true. The former is concerned with what the universe is while the
ladder is about authority.

Basically changing the equation to fit the answer instead of using the equation
to find it.

I also think parading "do unto others" around like its the holy grail undermines
our capacity to understand things. I could be overestimating our ability to
understand but it just seems like "sleep when your tired" or "eat when your
hungry" in so many words.

All this means to say that Jesus was human like we are. And it doesnt take
divine intervention to come up with "do unto others" or Einsteins theory of
general relativity.

We come up with truths like these because the universe is a certain way. The
earth is a sphere that revolves around the sun, all men are equal and the force
of gravity is 9.806 65 m·s−2

 

I think that since even now people in some parts of the world don't have access to Christ's teachings they must not be directly necessary in order to be Christian. And if that is so, there must also have been Christians before Christ.

 

More unreasonable rituals that people actually follow.

I read about a baby drowning during a baptism the other day. The pastor
probably wasn't even charged with murder.

Someone from the church even mentioned how it was in gods plan....

These people are insane.

 

.

 

Actually the prevailing virtue was do unto others as they do to you, an eye for an eye. To turn the other cheek, to treat others as you would like to be treated, to forgive, are practices that are counter intuitive to the time.
There was no democratic sense of equality.

 

Its "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". But i have the same point
either way.

My conclusion about the phrase is in the "Why", which is not of Christianity.

 

Local police said they have launched a manslaughter investigation. If found guilty, the priest faces up to three years in jail.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3069604/Baby-drowned-during-baptism.html

 

No, you don't have the same point either way.
Why did you change my wording.

I said the prevailing sentiment at the time and still exists by and large today, was do unto others as they do to you, an eye for an eye.

The why of which, is coincidental to christ teaching. There was no inherent morality of the nature you describe. It was, and still is to great extent, the province of the powerful to set the pace of brotherly relations.

 

I thought you were thumping a bible. I don't think we are even on the
same subject.

Like the earth was flat until we discovered otherwise, right?

How one should conduct themselves with regards to others is as inherent as
gravity.

Unfortunately this is correct. Which leads back to my original point about
accepting argument from authority.

I could write a book about irrational institutions and how they survive.

 

Is it obvious to you? It seems that it is not at all obvious. Many people are thoroughly mechanical in their reactions to the world believing all the while that they are willful responders. They march to the mental nutrition of a chemical soup and the hypnotic suggestions of tradition. Some recognize their state and think it most prudent to live lives as they say of quiet desperation .

 

I don't think that is a relevant example

Gravity has the same effect on everyone proportional to their own weight. People treat each other in all variety of ways. Your statistical analysis is flawed.

I will check it out.

 

Propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion. The shape of the world is a great example of this. Its hard for us to imagine why the world HAS to be flat, but its still common knowledge to some groups

"How someone should" conduct themselves Insinuates another "why" question. I'm only exemplifying one quality between the two of these things, Which is their objectivity.

 

There are no propositions without human beings and many propositions are put forth and administered through coercion.

I do not suggest how anyone should conduct themselves. I know how people do conduct themselves and that is toward their own good based on what the model of goodness is to them.

 

And there are no human beings without the objective universe.

I don't deny that there are people who follow blindly behind one another.
In fact i was suggesting that this is exactly the case when someone asked if
"understanding it from the followers perspective" made any sense.

I understand the relationship between followers and those who lead them
enough to know why they are followers in the first place.

In fact, I understand it enough to know that they don't understand it.