My opinion - most "Christians" aren't true Christians and why this is

[Night FM]

Based on my understanding of source texts (such as the Bible) and theology (e.x. Institutes of the Christian religion), most Christians are not true Christians.

Many have simply never read, comprehended, or properly interpreted the Bible. Typically, they have only read bits and parts and misinterpreted it. Some may even lack the literacy or mental comprehension to do so. (I don't understand how, for example, a person with a 70 IQ could properly read and interpret the Bible or a theology book which was written and interpreted by well-educated scholars).

Most sects are also, to my knowledge, based off of corruptions of the Bible (such as the Catholic Church's official stance against divorce being based only on a small part of St. Paul's writings while ignoring other parts and other books of the Bible). This may have happened due to human error or intentional corruption with an agenda.

It seems common to market false salvation to the masses who can't be expected to appreciate the true concept if one reads the Bible in full or reads more advanced theology. Typically, simply being a member of a church / sect / ministry is either said or insinuated to bring salvation (e.x. some falsely conflate concepts of the "heathen" or "world" to refer to those they deem as outside their sect, and this may be common with cults, when in reality these things were in reference to human behaviors and vices which are common to all). Likewise, some sects believe salvation is attained simply by reciting a prayer regardless of one's sincerity or comprehension thereof (though many Christians I've spoken to have said that this would not "fool god" if one's actions don't line up with one's words).

I'd argue that this is heretical and a bastardization of salvation if reads the Bible in full or reads more advanced theology. Likely, this "fast food" model of salvation and church attendance was invented simply because it became profitable to "cast pearls at swine" and sell false salvation to those who aren't truly saved, so it's really very much akin to the Medieval Church practice of offering forgiveness of sins in exchange for money.

This is why, as of recently, I am drawn to John Calvin's concept of the Elect, and am resigned to the fact that most people seem to not have truly understood the message of Christ, and I am honestly not sure that it is possible for everyone to do so to begin with simply due to the limits of human behavior and the fact that developing a "true" understanding would require a lifetime of devotion to doing so. The fact is that some people have wasted entire lives either not understanding or completely misunderstanding such things, such as due to the fact that cultural elements which have no bearing on the Bible or other relevant texts as well as human corruption have influence what people believe and how people live (e.x. such as the historical use of cherry-picked parts of the Bible to support slavery and racism. while naturally ignoring other parts which contradict this).

I'm also not convinced that attempting to "minister" to anyone who isn't willing to devote a significant portion of their life to studying the Bible and other theological texts, and integrating these practices into their daily life is worth it (similarly to how it wouldn't be worth it to offer a sports scholarship to someone who isn't capable of playing the sport or only willing to play on rare occasions), and I believe this is why Jesus only picked 12 disciples out of his many followers. I'm tempted to believe that I am Elect because I have the capacity of understanding these things, while many others due not (just as there are potentially false Elect, such as the Westboro Baptist Church who have bastardized the teachings of John Calvin and the Gospel). And while I'm not convinced that those who simply lack an understanding of things which may be beyond their capability would receive the same damnation as those who are intentionally unrepentant, this is nevertheless what makes sense to me, and I don't claim to be able to "prove it" to anyone.

While much of the above may only seem applicable to people who say they believe in Christianity to begin with, I hope that some of the topics covered can relate to people who have made similar observations about religion and so-called "religious people" in general.

Edited September 27 by Night FM

[iNow]

No true Scotsman fallacy 

[swansont]

You need to define what you mean by Christian. There are at least two - 

1. Someone who accepts Jesus as their savior

2. Someone who follows the tenets of Christianity 

(note that these are not mutually exclusive, though I suspect type 2 usually includes type 1, while 1 does not necessarily include 2)

I think there are a lot of type 1 Xtians out there who act like they are also type 2, but (as you suggest) have no clue about the details and no interest in being burdened by all of its limitations. I see a lot of the televangelist types who preach to type 1 followers without bothering to worry about WWJD. Anyone who points to another and says, “You’re not a good Christian” is arguably not a good Christian by the type 2 definition.

That said, there’s a lot of wiggle room in the Bible that gives cover to people who want to mollify themselves and think their actions are Christian

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, Night FM said:

Based on my understanding of source texts (such as the Bible) and theology (e.x. Institutes of the Christian religion), most Christians are not true Christians.

Many have simply never read, comprehended, or properly interpreted the Bible. Typically, they have only read bits and parts and misinterpreted it. Some may even lack the literacy or mental comprehension to do so. (I don't understand how, for example, a person with a 70 IQ could properly read and interpret the Bible or a theology book which was written and interpreted by well-educated scholars).

Most sects are also, to my knowledge, based off of corruptions of the Bible (such as the Catholic Church's official stance against divorce being based only on a small part of St. Paul's writings while ignoring other parts and other books of the Bible). This may have happened due to human error or intentional corruption with an agenda.

It seems common to market false salvation to the masses who can't be expected to appreciate the true concept if one reads the Bible in full or reads more advanced theology. Typically, simply being a member of a church / sect / ministry is either said or insinuated to bring salvation (e.x. some falsely conflate concepts of the "heathen" or "world" to refer to those they deem as outside their sect, and this may be common with cults, when in reality these things were in reference to human behaviors and vices which are common to all). Likewise, some sects believe salvation is attained simply by reciting a prayer regardless of one's sincerity or comprehension thereof (though many Christians I've spoken to have said that this would not "fool god" if one's actions don't line up with one's words).

I'd argue that this is heretical and a bastardization of salvation if reads the Bible in full or reads more advanced theology. Likely, this "fast food" model of salvation and church attendance was invented simply because it became profitable to "cast pearls at swine" and sell false salvation to those who aren't truly saved, so it's really very much akin to the Medieval Church practice of offering forgiveness of sins in exchange for money.

This is why, as of recently, I am drawn to John Calvin's concept of the Elect, and am resigned to the fact that most people seem to not have truly understood the message of Christ, and I am honestly not sure that it is possible for everyone to do so to begin with simply due to the limits of human behavior and the fact that developing a "true" understanding would require a lifetime of devotion to doing so. The fact is that some people have wasted entire lives either not understanding or completely misunderstanding such things, such as due to the fact that cultural elements which have no bearing on the Bible or other relevant texts as well as human corruption have influence what people believe and how people live (e.x. such as the historical use of cherry-picked parts of the Bible to support slavery and racism. while naturally ignoring other parts which contradict this).

I'm also not convinced that attempting to "minister" to anyone who isn't willing to devote a significant portion of their life to studying the Bible and other theological texts, and integrating these practices into their daily life is worth it (similarly to how it wouldn't be worth it to offer a sports scholarship to someone who isn't capable of playing the sport or only willing to play on rare occasions), and I believe this is why Jesus only picked 12 disciples out of his many followers. I'm tempted to believe that I am Elect because I have the capacity of understanding these things, while many others due not (just as there are potentially false Elect, such as the Westboro Baptist Church who have bastardized the teachings of John Calvin and the Gospel). And while I'm not convinced that those who simply lack an understanding of things which may be beyond their capability would receive the same damnation as those who are intentionally unrepentant, this is nevertheless what makes sense to me, and I don't claim to be able to "prove it" to anyone.

While much of the above may only seem applicable to people who say they believe in Christianity to begin with, I hope that some of the topics covered can relate to people who have made similar observations about religion and so-called "religious people" in general.

Why does this not surprise me?  

I must say I have always found this exclusivist variety of Christianity thoroughly arrogant, smug and obnoxious. As @iNow remarks, it's a No True Scotsman. It's also distressingly petty: the reference to the Westboro Baptist church, whatever that may be, seems laughably parochial to bring to an international science forum. This is the funny thing about some of these extreme Protestant sects: because they are exclusivist they are forever falling out with one another and splintering, with each of them claiming theirs alone is the one true version of the faith. From the outside it looks thoroughly self-absorbed and ridiculous. 

If there is any truth in Christian belief, it seems far more probable that, as faulty human institutions, no one denomination or sect has a monopoly on either understanding or on salvation. Surely it makes a lot more sense, instead of castigating everyone but yourself as erring from the truth, you accept we are all sinners and build bridges with other groups, focusing on what you can agree upon.  

Edited September 27 by exchemist

[LuckyR]

On 9/27/2024 at 2:01 AM, Night FM said:

Based on my understanding of source texts (such as the Bible) and theology (e.x. Institutes of the Christian religion), most Christians are not true Christians.

Many have simply never read, comprehended, or properly interpreted the Bible. Typically, they have only read bits and parts and misinterpreted it. Some may even lack the literacy or mental comprehension to do so. (I don't understand how, for example, a person with a 70 IQ could properly read and interpret the Bible or a theology book which was written and interpreted by well-educated scholars).

Most sects are also, to my knowledge, based off of corruptions of the Bible (such as the Catholic Church's official stance against divorce being based only on a small part of St. Paul's writings while ignoring other parts and other books of the Bible). This may have happened due to human error or intentional corruption with an agenda.

It seems common to market false salvation to the masses who can't be expected to appreciate the true concept if one reads the Bible in full or reads more advanced theology. Typically, simply being a member of a church / sect / ministry is either said or insinuated to bring salvation (e.x. some falsely conflate concepts of the "heathen" or "world" to refer to those they deem as outside their sect, and this may be common with cults, when in reality these things were in reference to human behaviors and vices which are common to all). Likewise, some sects believe salvation is attained simply by reciting a prayer regardless of one's sincerity or comprehension thereof (though many Christians I've spoken to have said that this would not "fool god" if one's actions don't line up with one's words).

I'd argue that this is heretical and a bastardization of salvation if reads the Bible in full or reads more advanced theology. Likely, this "fast food" model of salvation and church attendance was invented simply because it became profitable to "cast pearls at swine" and sell false salvation to those who aren't truly saved, so it's really very much akin to the Medieval Church practice of offering forgiveness of sins in exchange for money.

This is why, as of recently, I am drawn to John Calvin's concept of the Elect, and am resigned to the fact that most people seem to not have truly understood the message of Christ, and I am honestly not sure that it is possible for everyone to do so to begin with simply due to the limits of human behavior and the fact that developing a "true" understanding would require a lifetime of devotion to doing so. The fact is that some people have wasted entire lives either not understanding or completely misunderstanding such things, such as due to the fact that cultural elements which have no bearing on the Bible or other relevant texts as well as human corruption have influence what people believe and how people live (e.x. such as the historical use of cherry-picked parts of the Bible to support slavery and racism. while naturally ignoring other parts which contradict this).

I'm also not convinced that attempting to "minister" to anyone who isn't willing to devote a significant portion of their life to studying the Bible and other theological texts, and integrating these practices into their daily life is worth it (similarly to how it wouldn't be worth it to offer a sports scholarship to someone who isn't capable of playing the sport or only willing to play on rare occasions), and I believe this is why Jesus only picked 12 disciples out of his many followers. I'm tempted to believe that I am Elect because I have the capacity of understanding these things, while many others due not (just as there are potentially false Elect, such as the Westboro Baptist Church who have bastardized the teachings of John Calvin and the Gospel). And while I'm not convinced that those who simply lack an understanding of things which may be beyond their capability would receive the same damnation as those who are intentionally unrepentant, this is nevertheless what makes sense to me, and I don't claim to be able to "prove it" to anyone.

While much of the above may only seem applicable to people who say they believe in Christianity to begin with, I hope that some of the topics covered can relate to people who have made similar observations about religion and so-called "religious people" in general.

This supposes that most Christians (in the OP's example, but it applies to followers of all religions) approached Christianity with an unbiased mindset then used their interpretation of the Bible and other texts to come to the conclusion that of all possible belief systems, Christianity made the most sense, so therefore joined a Christian religion.

 

When in fact most Christians are so, because they were raised in a Christian family (no reading or interpretation required).

[Night FM]

8 hours ago, LuckyR said:

This supposes that most Christians (in the OP's example, but it applies to followers of all religions) approached Christianity with an unbiased mindset then used their interpretation of the Bible and other texts to come to the conclusion that of all possible belief systems, Christianity made the most sense, so therefore joined a Christian religion.

 

When in fact most Christians are so, because they were raised in a Christian family (no reading or interpretation required).

Right, but you could say that about anything. Most people don't believe in science because they've discovered any scientific theories on their own, they believe it because they were taught that such things are true in the culture they were born into, and probably would have believed whatever they were taught was true or scientific if they had been born into any other culture or era.

[Harrot]

This reasoning is obviously wrong because this would mean that there can not be any true christians at all...

How could there be christians before the bible was writen if you need to understand the bible to be a christian  ?!!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheVat]

On 9/27/2024 at 3:01 AM, Night FM said:

This is why, as of recently, I am drawn to John Calvin's concept of the Elect, and am resigned to the fact that most people seem to not have truly understood the message of Christ, and I am honestly not sure that it is possible for everyone to do so to begin with simply due to the limits of human behavior and the fact that developing a "true" understanding would require a lifetime of devotion to doing so.

This seems inconsistent with what Jesus himself taught.  A core principle of his ministry was that past limiting factors in one's behavior would not prevent finding a path to redemption.  One of his messages was that God forgives human limitations and errors, and that all humans can of their free will seek God and a moral path.

Also, your comment that "true" Christians have to read the entire Bible seems at odds with Jesus' ministry, which was that faith and a few basic moral principles (focused on compassion and love) were all that was needed to enter the kingdom.  Christ was deeply anti-elitist, AFAICT.  I'm not religious, but my spiritual life resonates strongly with his moral precepts.   

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

Right, but you could say that about anything. Most people don't believe in science because they've discovered any scientific theories on their own, they believe it because they were taught that such things are true in the culture they were born into, and probably would have believed whatever they were taught was true or scientific if they had been born into any other culture or era.

The difference, of course, is that one can check the veracity of scientific theories. It doesn't matter what you were taught if it doesn't actually work that way. You make it sound like someone could practice science that was culturally accepted but didn't actually work. 

Another mistake you keep making about science is associating it with "truth". Truth is subjective; science and scientific theory is looking for the best supported explanations, not answers, and especially not "truth". Religion looks for truth, and tries to insist on it. Science is always looking to improve, so we don't etch things on stone tablets.

[MigL]

What is a 'true' Christian ?
And why does YOUR definition of one matter to anyone else ?

[exchemist]

16 hours ago, Harrot said:

This reasoning is obviously wrong because this would mean that there can not be any true christians at all...

How could there be christians before the bible was writen if you need to understand the bible to be a christian  ?!!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the bible is the Old Testament,  which was already written by the time of Christ.  But it is true the term Christian appears in Acts of the Apostles, a part of the New Testament. So yes, there were clearly Christians before the NT was completed. 
 

Perhaps our poster does not know his bible quite as well as he thinks!😄

Edited October 4 by exchemist

[Ken Fabian]

Jesus is lucky to have you...

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Jesus is lucky to have you...

Exactly. 

[Harrot]

13 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Jesus is lucky to have you...

 

This is also why you can call it "a movement", no ?🙃

In fact, in a general sense, christians are peoples who try to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, so the name "christians".

The first adepts of Jesus dident call themselves "christians" ( they were jews at first place that believed that Jesus was THE saver who was already anounced by the jews. And yes, only the "now called christians" believe that Jesus was the one that was announced. The other jews are actually stil waiting to their saver to appear and continue the old tradition (so they are still jews).

So yes, and it is not a joke, the things peoples have to do to be christians can change over time, because christians need to attein some goals, like poverty, non condemning, etc  : They just have to follow what Jesus said using parables on the mountain, and how to do so can change over time... because world and mind change over time too,  of course.

Now, why is it confusing and Jesus speaking lead to various interpretation over time ? Jesus has answered this to his disciples :

Quote

Reason 2: To Prevent Understanding by Others

More challenging to understand is the second reason Jesus gave for teaching in parables. Jesus taught in parables to keep some people from understanding what he was teaching. Jesus’ use of parables served to divide his listeners into two groups: his disciples, and everyone else. His disciples would be able to learn from them. But to those who were not his disciples, their meaning was obscure. By using parables, his disciples would be enriched, but others would be further impoverished.

"Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." These words from Matthew 13:12 are identical to what Jesus said in Matthew 25:29 as a part of the Parable of the Talents. And I believe that connection can help us understand what Jesus is saying about his reason for teaching in parables. In this parable, three servants were entrusted with a sum of money. Two of them invested their master's money well, while a third failed. The master commended and rewarded the first two servants, but the third one was punished. Jesus put these words into the mouth of the master as he punished the unfaithful servant. The one who was not faithful with what his master gave him lost even the little bit he had.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/why-did-jesus-teach-using-parables.html

It is confused by purpose.... for those who can't understand. This is based on some sort of special logic, more powerful than the one we use on Earth, working in two directions, the cause and the effect are not ordered in time. So it is said that God is not one-eyed.

 

 

 

Edited October 5 by Harrot

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, Harrot said:

This is also why you can call it "a movement", no ?

You know what else people call a “movement?” It’s that thing we do in the morning after a cup of coffee. The overlap in this particular Venn diagram is significant now that I think about it. 

[LuckyR]

On 10/3/2024 at 6:59 AM, Night FM said:

Right, but you could say that about anything. Most people don't believe in science because they've discovered any scientific theories on their own, they believe it because they were taught that such things are true in the culture they were born into, and probably would have believed whatever they were taught was true or scientific if they had been born into any other culture or era.

Well, you're the one supposing to ascribe Biblical analysis into the area of religious choice, when you acknowledge that cultural/tribal statistics is a much more likely explanation. 

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

You know what else people call a “movement?” It’s that thing we do in the morning after a cup of coffee. 

Become alert and garrulous?  😏

A bit off topic but we had a sign in a bike shop where I worked in college: It takes cranks to make revolutions.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I expect most of the lucky Christians believe they can trace their line all the way back although there are those reliant on more recent 'revelations' or theological thinking.

Most people accept what they are taught (if it doesn't overtly contradict their experience), true, but for science based knowledge the path is open to follow the evidence, logic and reasoning that underpins it. But scientific skepticism is a lot of work; to do it well requires becoming an expert. What is taught at school level is not built with or on faith, but relies on trust that was well earned before it became - in order to become - part of school curricula.

Debates about various aspects of scientific knowledge when framed as between Religious that implicitly claim a primary role for Gods and magical miracles vs Scientific which rejects magical miracles as hypotheses for lack evidence (atheistic) aren't really adequate for testing the validity of the science based knowledge; I expect scientist rarely consider theological implications at all and are simply doing their jobs - determining what is true wrt the objects of their inquiries. Any explicit intent to disprove religious beliefs would be rare and unusual motivations.

And, yes, some - even most - such debates are between people who aren't deeply knowledgeable, leaving endless nits to pick and having no likelihood of resolution of differences. As good a reason as any to limit my participation in them - but the misrepresentations of "atheists" as incapable of moral behavior and  misrepresentations of widely accepted science as overtly anti-religious (scientist-atheists as enemies) can come across as passing judgement upon me, slanderously in too many cases, and that can press my buttons sufficiently to chime in. Not necessarily NightFM's thing but the "you'll suffer eternity in Hell" thing is especially abhorrent to me, especially when it comes with "you will deserve it" and worse again with "we will be pleased by that". I've known some very fine religious people, a credit to humanity; they seem unobsessed with proving anything and seem uninterested in making war with atheism and science.

Edited October 5 by Ken Fabian

[npts2020]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:52 PM, Ken Fabian said:

I've known some very fine religious people, a credit to humanity; they seem unobsessed with proving anything and seem uninterested in making war with atheism and science.

Most of the Amish I know fit into this category

[Night FM]

 

On 10/3/2024 at 9:44 AM, Harrot said:

This reasoning is obviously wrong because this would mean that there can not be any true christians at all...

How could there be christians before the bible was writen if you need to understand the bible to be a christian  ?!!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, you would have to understand something. Obviously, the Bible itself came after any of the events recorded in it, and was written in a day and age where most people were illiterate, so specifically having to read the Bible to be a Christian isn't a required. (A heretical thing that many do is put the Bible before God and Christ, which is akin to a form of idolatry, and may have originated in Catholicism).

But I'd argue that some attempt at understanding the concepts mentioned in the Bible would be required. Otherwise the term "Christian" is completely meaningless beyond an elective form of self-identification.

On 10/3/2024 at 9:56 AM, TheVat said:

This seems inconsistent with what Jesus himself taught.  A core principle of his ministry was that past limiting factors in one's behavior would not prevent finding a path to redemption.  One of his messages was that God forgives human limitations and errors, and that all humans can of their free will seek God and a moral path.

Also, your comment that "true" Christians have to read the entire Bible seems at odds with Jesus' ministry, which was that faith and a few basic moral principles (focused on compassion and love) were all that was needed to enter the kingdom.  Christ was deeply anti-elitist, AFAICT.  I'm not religious, but my spiritual life resonates strongly with his moral precepts.   

My understanding is that Christ had strict requirements to be one of this 12 disciples, such as requiring them to leave their families and devote their lives to living and studying from him. To me, this seems to tie in with the practices of religious renunciates who devoted their lives to God and lived simple lives without many material possessions, which may have been what one had to do to be truly saved. In history, it seems that only a minority of the population at any given time lived this way, so I would seeing it as requiring more self-sacrifice than simply being an ordinary person who tries to apply Christian principles to daily life.

However, these aspects of the life of Christ and his disciples have been dumbed down simply because the truth of what was required to be a disciple wouldn't sell to the masses and make money for those who pander to the market of mass consumption, and anyone can call themselves a "disciple" even if their lifestyle doesn't fit the bill. History seems to be rife with religion being dumbed down to make it sellable to the masses, such as in the days of the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation, which is why I'm skeptical of the utility of marketing religion to the masses at all. Christ said not to cast pearls at swine, after all.

Edited October 7 by Night FM