Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Two Ways to do this

In response to I Can Accept You, Brian, As An Authoritative Figure Here posted by pink101:

I see two ways to do this.

For those wanting to dig into and "deconstruct" MODERN Christianity, the best way (though no way is easy) is to look at the creeds or statements of faith of the leading Christian denominations.

Most churches and/or denominations have what are called Statements of Faith or Doctrinal Distinctives. These provide (in the view of those producing the lists) the most important theological tenets of that particular church or denomination.

The easier way would be to go back into HISTORY and take up what is considered the best and most comprehensive of the early Christian creeds - namely, the Apostles' Creed. Deconstructing the Apostles Creed seems much more realistic. I can wrap my brain around that much better than deconstructing Christianity with all its modern-day variants.

» pink101 - Inclusions

In response to Inclusions posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Right.
.
But, I think we can lump them into two or three categories and put them under one heading for an item--like maybe, Media. And we can set that aside as really not having anything to do with the structure of Christianity. Its a method of distribution just like the physical church building provides a method.
.
So, we needn't get hung up on such a tangent.
.
It's the basic building blocks were trying to itemize.
.
Can you help us?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Bias - reply to Brian

In response to Bias posted by BrianTubbs:
.
They therefore automatically rule out any of Jesus' alleged miracles and either substitute naturalistic explanations or chalk the accounts up to embellishment. They do this automatically, without any consideration of the possibility that maybe - just maybe - Jesus DID walk on water or turn water into wine....
.
NT miracles are based on a whole lot of 'maybe - just maybe'. Does "available EVIDENCE" exist that proves Jesus walked on water or changed water into wine (repeating your examples)? If so, I'd love to see it. The alleged 'supernatural' events recorded in the Gospels are based on the ~HEARSAY~ of Jesus' followers, nothing more. PreChristian mythology has Dionysus turning water into wine. Because someone claims it happened, and through divine powers, doesn't make it true -- not for Jesus or Dionysus.
.
Now, let's say that I could offer climate models that suggest that ice had formed on the lake (Sea of Galilee) during the time of Jesus' ministry. This ice, being difficult to see, might've made it 'appear' that Jesus was walking on water. (Well, ice IS water, so I guess it's partially true, ay?) Would you consider it possible, or would your Christian bias automatically reject it?
Did Jesus walk on water? Or ice? -- Scientist says Sea of Galilee could have had frozen patches in Jesus' day
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12152740/
.
Personally, I think "naturalistic explanations" can be (and often are to me) as awesome as any supernatural explanation.

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - PreChristian mythology

In response to Bias - reply to Brian posted by Migisi:

As I mentioned before Mig, this myth is definitely not 'pre-Christian' as you claim. Further research into the subject reveals its fatal flaws.

Dealing Down Dionysus
Did The Greek God of Wine Influence Christian Beliefs?
by J. P. Holding

...a small snippet...

The Greek deity Dionysus (also called Bacchus) is known by most people for his patronage of wine; he is best known, in the context of this series, as one from whom, supposedly, Jesus' Cana miracle was borrowed. It is quite right to note that the miracle of Dionysus (hereafter, merely "D" for convenience) comes from a record that postdates the first century, so that any influence must have been the other way around if at all -- more on this later. But both D, and the claims of copycatting, are much more complex than this, and D is "the most complex and multifacted of all the Greek gods." [Carp.MD, 1] D was not merely a god of wine, but a god of paradox; he was the god of the civilized theater, but also the god of wild, orgiastic behavior and drunkenness. He was a god of fertility, but also a god who comforted the dying. He is depicted sometimes as a maniacal, destructive figure, and at other times as an innocent child; sometimes as a bearded man, other times as an effeminiate youth. He is a god of sensuality and experience: "Dionysism throws itself wholeheartedly into savagery in seeking to possess and contact the supernatural." [Dan.GLE, 150] And, it is: "...an expression of the sensual joys of life unrestrained by the state and unchanneled by the patriarchal family." [Eva.GE, 37] Sum it up: Dionysism is a religion that celebrates the destruction of boundaries and the blurring of categories. It is no more like Christianity than Buddhism. So how is it that some argue that D and Christ are twins?

Dionysus is best seen generally as the god of reversals, of the breaking of categories and of the reversal of norms. His function as god of wine etc is, I think, largely a reflex of this, though the fertility thing certainly has an importance of its own. Personally, I wouldn't use the phrase 'civilized theater', since Greek theatre may have had its origins in distinctly uncivilised ritual worship (of Dionysus?). Also, the link with the theatre was challenged by Prof. Scott Scullion in an article in the last edition of Classical Quaterly (52/2002, 'Nothing to do with Dionysos?'), though it certainly holds good for the city of Athens

The answer, of course, is that they do it by arguing fallaciously. Modern scholars deep into the study of Dionysus perceive a common thread in these stories of D as one involved in sources of illusion (the theater, altered states of consciousness) and as one who has the ability to embody opposing qualities simultaneously [Hein.HHG, 14ff]. But few outside of the Freke-Gandy-S crowd, and few scholars, see in Dionysus any real parallel to the figure of Christ. There are exceptions: Evans [Eva.GE] thinks there are parallels in the birth, humanity (though D was not ever regarded with the "100% God, 100% man" idea), suffering, sacramentalism, and glory of Dionysus and Christ; but these are vaguely general and universal parallels, or not parallels at all (as we will see). For the most part, as with Mithraism, no such parallel is seen -- and the few that have been seen in the past by the less knowledgable are starting to fade away.

[ Wendell adds: ending of the article - comes the conclusion, I've included as part of the partial snippet.. ]

Conclusion

What more needs be said? The Christ-Dionysus parallel has very little to commend it. What few exist are based on universal conceptions and themes. Moreover, to make his argument persuasive, the claimant must explain how and why a group of Palestinian Jews borrowed the theology and teachings of a foreign cult and founded a new religion based upon them. He must also explain why the parallels between the doctrine taught by Jesus and that of contemporary Judaism were so similar, not to mention why the early Christians initially maintained the trappings of Jewish religious observation (Temple attendance, circumcision, etc.). In fact, the only Apostle who might reasonably be expected to have had any reasonably detailed knowledge of pagan religion was the educated rabbi, Saul/Paul - and it utterly defies credibility that a professed and professing Pharisee, let alone a pupil of Gamaliel, would or even could have taken control of a group of Palestinian peasants and turned them into proselytising Messianic Bacchus-worshippers.
http://tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.ht...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» redback - Response to redback

In response to Response to redback posted by BrianTubbs:

"Part of the challenge with this thread is that different people have different perceptions as to what "Christianity" comprises." Agree...and the customer-service focus, the challenge, may rest more with Christianity?

Part of the challenge is to stay in step with a brainstorming exercise that so far is only dabbling at what may be 10 or more core points without factoring in the spectrum within...and my brain asks: For what purpose. Having no purpose is OK objectively and may well broaden the scope of brainstorming. But for example, if say a Christian is expected to be held accountable for Earthly "misdeeds", what performance indicators measure a Christian's misdeed. They don't hold a monopoly on ethics et al and equally don't appear to hold any with Earthly misdeeds. Maybe by their misdeeds shall ye know them.

I prefer to use terms like "dissect" or "audit" or to do an EIS if one was to either build a Christian faith from scratch OR examine consequence if it totally disappeared. 'Deconstruct' it seems to me implies identifiable self-contained units that can be dismantled to examine a...nucleus...from which one can return to looking forward? Anyway, like you I suspect tis too ambitious. And I recall in other topics being asked to put my "free-range" posts into more manageable bytes.

Sounds flippant but I really can't tell if I passed a Christian in a faceless crowd. Or in attributing a good deed done. So, somewhere in this its not for me so much about Christianity of old vs new but at what point is there consensus (MLK's dream) that it can't be Christianity. Be it a specific belief, an hypocrisy or ultra extreme; liberalism, fundamentalism; ism-ism.

In the real world, Christian-based churches control for example, considerable wealth. It's like salt. I really believe it coz I can see it on the table. So, some of this is about real difference, not just perceptions.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Response to redback

In response to Response to redback posted by redback:
.
I found this post of yours very interesting.
.
You have pretty well nailed the problem squarely on the head.
.
So, do you think there is a chance that the parties involved do not want to clearly identify what it is that constitutes their religious beliefs; because, maybe, just maybe, they cannot? Are they THAT loosely bound together?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - In Reality

.
In reality, what we are doing in most of the threads here involves the process of deconstruction.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - A Christian is

In response to A Christian is posted by _Boanerges_:

1: a follower of the historical Jesus as presented in the Bible.
2: hold to the essential teachings of the Bible.

Central Beliefs (from Columbia Encyclopedia)
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Christia.h...

"The central teachings of traditional Christianity are that
1- Jesus is the Son of God,
2- the second person of the Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;
3- that his life on earth, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension into heaven are proof of God's love for humanity and God's forgiveness of human sins;
4- and that by faith in Jesus one may attain salvation and eternal life (see creed).
This teaching is embodied in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, but Christians accept also the Old Testament as sacred and authoritative Scripture.
2: Christian ethics derive to a large extent from the Jewish tradition as presented in the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, but with some difference of interpretation based on the practice and teachings of Jesus.
Christianity may be further generally defined in terms of its practice of corporate worship and rites that usually include the use of sacraments and that are usually conducted by trained clergy within organized churches.
There are, however, many different forms of worship, many interpretations of the role of the organized clergy, and many variations in polity and church organization within Christianity."

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - Response to redback

In response to Response to redback posted by redback:

if say a Christian is expected to be held accountable for Earthly "misdeeds", what performance indicators measure a Christian's misdeed.

Jeff.. according to the bible, judgment comes to the unsaved, not those who have repented... Repent means to turn around. No person will be sin free. God looks at the heart, not the 'deed'. If you are truly repentant and know and understand you have violated God's laws, and that God will judge all ungodly people, then, your sins are forgiven you.

From that point forward, your 'bad deeds' will begin to wane and your good deeds will begin to show fruit. God does not judge your 'deeds' but rewards you as to your fruit in this life. According to the Bible, no saved person is punished for being a 'bad person' - for - all are bad and none can be good. This is the point of salvation...

Paul stated clearly about himself:

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Brian Tubbs - Early Creeds

The more I think about this, the more I believe we HAVE to go back to the early creeds if we're going to attempt any "deconstruction." Modern Christianity is simply much too broad.

In deconstructing something, I think one needs to go to the FOUNDATIONS - to the roots. If we're going to deconstruct something, let's not start with the paint. Let's get to the foundation straightaway.

There's evidence that the famed "Apostles' Creed" was coming together in the 2nd century and was probably in wide circulation by the 3rd century. (Though a few scholars date it as late as the 5th).

Then, you have the Nicene Creed, which everyone agrees was passed by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and revised in 381.

You can trace every single mainstream Christian denomination today back to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed.

(One 'caveat' is that Baptists believe the local church to be autonomous and central to God's plan, whereas these creeds show a momentum toward a structured, universal church. The Council of Nicea, for example, was a milestone in the genesis of what became the Roman Catholic Church, But, even as a Baptist, I can still look at the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed as see the building blocks of Christian theology).

And then of course you had the canonization process of the New Testament which was taking place at this same time. Quite honestly, if we had more time, the BEST 'creed' to deconstruct would be the book of Romans. Paul's letter to Rome is the closest thing we have to a first century Christian theology treatise. But I'm not sure I have the time to do a point-by-point expository study of Romans.

For those interested in deconstruction, I think we should start with the Creeds. Pick either the Apostles or the Nicene Creed. Then, we can take them point by point.

That's of course assuming the majority of you want to tackle this deconstruction endeavor.