Why do people try to change Christianity?

[The Jaded Fool]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Discernment.

Yes discerment helps... but IMHO there are just some things we will not know...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by The Jaded Fool

Umm... I guess I am not really following the logic here... if Matthew 24 was for the weak ones... why was it ( according to both the book of Mark and Matthew ) only spoken to the disciples??

It seems to me that the disciples here wanted some more details about the coming trials and they asked jesus... and he told them... it all seems pretty straight forward... even if the english translation...

Perhaps what we could say is that they were "weak at the time" but grew stronger after Jesus died and rose again because they then had a renewed sense of purpose.

I believe what was said in Matthew 24 applies for all of us in our spiritual journey as Christians. In today's world, this message would be particularly relevant for all new and beginning Christians. The "trials and tribulations" are things we'd all have to face somehow, but what it says about "false prophets" I believe is about us not having a sense of purpose, or at least "the right sense of purpose." Over time, as we mature in our journey, we get an idea of what this sense of purpose might be, and become more resistant to "deviations" from that purpose. The message of "false prophets" becomes less relevant as our understanding grows about the purpose of Christianity.

The trouble is, "over-resistance" can lead to "close-mindedness" to the "wrong things." A possible precursor to judgmentalism and "puffed up" feelings of superiority. We start growing planks in our eyes. We can suppress one "evil" but create another.

Over-resistance -- that is, extreme close-mindedness is just as bad as extreme open-mindedness. The extremely open-minded, on one hand, embrace everything, while the extremely close-minded close their minds to valuable experiences. The extremely close-minded can be "so devout" that they deem as "un-Christian" or "non-Christian" things that were done by someone genuinely Christian.

Their lives are manipulated by rules that they make for themselves. The extremely close-minded, I believe, might actually be the people most vulnerable to "the Great Taboos . . . " (so to speak) as they are so thoroughly manipulated they'd be easily manipulated if there was someone who knew how to poke-and-prod and twist their rigorous belief system. They could even be fooled into thinking "lying," "murder" and that certain "sexual sins" are ok -- even healthy and good!!! The result is rather like what Paul talks about in 1 Timothy 4:2 -- their "consciences are seared as if with a hot iron." They are so closed-minded about right and wrong that they no longer understand the difference between right and wrong. A group so devout at "being right" could be manipulated into "being in the wrong."

Ever heard of the "Children of God?" It was taught by a guy named David Berg who said "flirty fishing" was ok. "Flirty fishing" is a way of achieving conversions by bribing people with sex. Sounds Christian and godly from one perspective . . . Sex to bring people to God!!! Wow. That must be good. Too good to be true. Fantastic and sensational. And Jesus did say whoever is not for me must be against me. (Is that ironic?)

It's not necessarily "liberal Christians" that are led to "false concepts." Actually, the ones who are most devout often set themselves up to be "led astray" because they allow others to manipulate them. Trying too hard to be Christian can sometimes lead to something "non-Christian."

There is health devotion and healthy skepticism. There is also over-devotion and over-skepticism (extreme closed-mindedness). Then there is fence-sitting, which can be either legal or illegal.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by The Jaded Fool

Yes discerment helps... but IMHO there are just some things we will not know...

It gets better with knowledge, education and particularly -- experience. Open-mindedness to carefully chosen concepts and closed-mindedness to other carefully chosen concepts (healthy skepticism). You can't learn healthy skepticism if you're not open-minded. But you'd be out of line if "anything goes."

Discernment could be confused with "picking and choosing."

Btw, I like your avatar. It makes me laugh to see a picture of Jesus laughing.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Discernment could be confused with "picking and choosing."

Do tell...
(You know discernment actually eliminates that.)

[The Jaded Fool]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Perhaps what we could say is that they were "weak at the time" but grew stronger after Jesus died and rose again because they then had a renewed sense of purpose.

I believe what was said in Matthew 24 applies for all of us in our spiritual journey as Christians. In today's world, this message would be particularly relevant for all new and beginning Christians. The "trials and tribulations" are things we'd all have to face somehow, but what it says about "false prophets" I believe is about us not having a sense of purpose, or at least "the right sense of purpose." Over time, as we mature in our journey, we get an idea of what this sense of purpose might be, and become more resistant to "deviations" from that purpose. The message of "false prophets" becomes less relevant as our understanding grows about the purpose of Christianity.

The trouble is, "over-resistance" can lead to "close-mindedness" to the "wrong things." A possible precursor to judgmentalism and "puffed up" feelings of superiority. We start growing planks in our eyes. We can suppress one "evil" but create another.

Over-resistance -- that is, extreme close-mindedness is just as bad as extreme open-mindedness. The extremely open-minded, on one hand, embrace everything, while the extremely close-minded close their minds to valuable experiences. The extremely close-minded can be "so devout" that they deem as "un-Christian" or "non-Christian" things that were done by someone genuinely Christian.

Their lives are manipulated by rules that they make for themselves. The extremely close-minded, I believe, might actually be the people most vulnerable to "the Great Taboos . . . " (so to speak) as they are so thoroughly manipulated they'd be easily manipulated if there was someone who knew how to poke-and-prod and twist their rigorous belief system. They could even be fooled into thinking "lying," "murder" and that certain "sexual sins" are ok -- even healthy and good!!! The result is rather like what Paul talks about in 1 Timothy 4:2 -- their "consciences are seared as if with a hot iron." They are so closed-minded about right and wrong that they no longer understand the difference between right and wrong. A group so devout at "being right" could be manipulated into "being in the wrong."

Ever heard of the "Children of God?" It was taught by a guy named David Berg who said "flirty fishing" was ok. "Flirty fishing" is a way of achieving conversions by bribing people with sex. Sounds Christian and godly from one perspective . . . Sex to bring people to God!!! Wow. That must be good. Too good to be true. Fantastic and sensational. And Jesus did say whoever is not for me must be against me. (Is that ironic?)

It's not necessarily "liberal Christians" that are led to "false concepts." Actually, the ones who are most devout often set themselves up to be "led astray" because they allow others to manipulate them. Trying too hard to be Christian can sometimes lead to something "non-Christian."

There is health devotion and healthy skepticism. There is also over-devotion and over-skepticism (extreme closed-mindedness). Then there is fence-sitting, which can be either legal or illegal.

Very nice...

[The Jaded Fool]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

It gets better with knowledge, education and particularly -- experience. Open-mindedness to carefully chosen concepts and closed-mindedness to other carefully chosen concepts (healthy skepticism). You can't learn healthy skepticism if you're not open-minded. But you'd be out of line if "anything goes."

Discernment could be confused with "picking and choosing."

Btw, I like your avatar. It makes me laugh to see a picture of Jesus laughing.

Thanx... you might like this...

The Laughing Christ

[eccles]

Originally Posted by Dor

Oh really I do not see alot of Jews tearing up the Torah or Muslims carving up parts of the Koran!

I tore up the bible with great pleasure.

[Allogenes]

Originally Posted by Dor

Oh really I do not see alot of Jews tearing up the Torah or Muslims carving up parts of the Koran!

Literally? No, not too many people in any faith tradition actually tear up copies of their holy books, unless they are really angry. Figuratively? Reform Jews reject nearly everything that Orthodox Jews claim is essential to Jewish life. And there have been nearly as serious disagreements among Muslims. There's nothing uniquely ornery about Christians, as far as I can see.

[Allogenes]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Discernment could be confused with "picking and choosing."

No, they are clearly distinguishable. If I do it or agree with it, it's "discernment"; if I disagree with it, it's "picking and choosing."
As someone once said, "Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is anyone else's doxy."

[ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη]

Originally Posted by Francis king

why should they not try to alter christianity? there are many ideas within christianity which modern men and women should recognise are NOT the holy words of God, but words written by men, kings and priests, centuries ago... we all know that the bible has been edited, altered, changed, parts removed, parts added, and debates have raged throughout christendom about the tenets we today hold so dear... jesus wasn't always a god, u know, they held a meeting to determine how he should be viewed... years ago, the virgin mary was thought by all christians to be the holy womb of god, yet again, the church popes held another meeting, and schisms formed in the overall church every time a new idea was bandied about by a few popes... hence the different types of christian, catholic, eastern orthodox, protestant, methodist, quaker, etc, etc...

I feel that there may well be jews and muslims who disagree with the teachings within their own traditions, for various reasons, yet maybe they keep quiet about it more than christians do, or there is more scope for interpretating scriptures in different ways... ? it would be interesting to find out, though...

Good God, this post is full of truth. The first council of Nicea was easily the worst moment of Christianity in all of its history.

Originally Posted by pattimax

And where did you glean these little nuggets of pseudo-knowledge? I would truly like to research your facts.

You're welcome to, my friend. Google "early church history," "first council of Nicea." Jesus was literally VOTED to be God incarnate.

OP: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'tear-up,' but I assume you mean that some people accept some parts of the Bible and not others. There's not much that can be said for those types of people. What there can be much said of is why there are so many different denominations. Too many verses in the Bible are vague, ambiguous, people see from different standpoints, interpretations...

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

It gets better with knowledge, education and particularly -- experience. Open-mindedness to carefully chosen concepts and closed-mindedness to other carefully chosen concepts (healthy skepticism). You can't learn healthy skepticism if you're not open-minded. But you'd be out of line if "anything goes."

Discernment could be confused with "picking and choosing."

Btw, I like your avatar. It makes me laugh to see a picture of Jesus laughing.

I don't think I can accept that experience is more important in understanding than knowledge. Wisdom is important, sure, but raw knowledge is worth more than its weight in gold. When both are present, truly great things are learned.

[Allogenes]

After my previous posts it occurred to me that the complaint about people "tearing up" the scriptures might have been based on the simple fact that Protestants do not accept all the books of the Bible that Catholics and Orthodox do. If that is what was meant, well, this isn't something that anyone today is responsible for; it goes back to the very first century CE, when a council of Jewish leaders decided officially once and for all what books were part of their Scriptures. Ever since then every Jewish Bible has contained those books and only those; but earlier Greek translations like the Septuagint - which was what most diaspora Jews and thus also the first Christians were familiar with - included a few books that didn't make the final cut.
So when the Church decided to include the Jewish Bible in their own as the "Old Testament," they tended to include the whole Septuagint version, though not without an awareness that some of the books had a doubtful status. Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, became authoritative in the Western Church; it was based on the Septuagint, and included almost the same selection of books.
With the Reformation, and its insistence on Scripture as the sole ultimate authority in the Church, it became more important to determine just which books really counted, so the 15-century-old question was revisited, with most Protestants deciding that only the books finally canonized by the Jews should count as the Old Testament. The Catholic church defended the Vulgate, and so ever since then there have been two Western Christian biblical canons.
Nothing has been torn out more recently, as far as I know.

[future hope]

Originally Posted by Dor

Why do people try to change Christianity?

Seriously if people do not like Christianity why don't people just find another religion instead of trying to carve Christianity up to fit them?

Do people do it constantly to Islam and Judaism and I just do not see it?

I mean the Bible and Christ are about the only 2 things Christianity has right?
Well if people do not want to believe those then how can they even call themselves Christians?

Where would you draw the line on using that classification?

they change Christianity maybe because of contradictions that they found in it

[bananabrain]

right - and nothing in islam has ever changed, has it? it's a bit rich to be lectured in this when muslims couldn't even agree for more than a few years who the correct "rightly-guided" caliph was supposed to be.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Virtual_Cliff]

Sorry guys I haven't the endurance to read through the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been said.

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

This is the original Christianity. These are the words of Jesus. This is all you have to do. All the rest is change. Forget the rest. Anyone who does these things is a true follower of Jesus.

Remembering of course that Jesus Christ did not found Christianity.

-cliff

[Dragonseer]

Originally Posted by Dor

...If people do not like Christianity why don't people just find another religion instead of trying to carve Christianity up to fit them?

Jesus didn't leave us Christianity. He left the world with a viable template to follow in order to reach atonement (at-onement) with God. His life story and teachings were later labeled "Christianity."

The interpretation of Jesus' life purpose has traveled through many hands/cultures, which caused various alterations--e.g., certain biblical translation changes/errors that creeped in by weary and/or shifty scribes.

Before there was a single "harmonized" version of Westernized Christianity--commonly known as Roman Catholicism--there were various sects fighting to be THE "true" form of Christianity (e.g., the Ebionites, Marcionites, and Gnostics). Of course, the Roman Catholic Church "won" that battle. But it's important to note that there was a battle between distinctly different Christian sects.

In short, no one can prove that there was ever one "true" form of Christianity; rather, historical documents indicate the opposite finding: Christianity has been a very diverse religion ever since mankind convinced itself that Jesus' teachings could/should be compartmentalized and labeled (e.g., "Catholic," "Orthodox," "Protestant," etc.).