Hey guys!

I am taking a world religions class and we are currently studying Christianity. So far I'm under the impression that it is an Orthodox religion. But aren't there aspects of Orthopraxy in Christianity?

Xtina86,

Christianity has a number of "orthodox" and "orthopraxic" variations, stemming from concerns over literal vs. interpretive treatment of the Bible (agreed Canon).

Those variations most closely related to Catholicism (the first and true Church, instituted by Christ when He sent His apostles to spread the message of salvation) tend to have more of the trappings of the "orthodox" - reaching back into the Hebrew traditions for "form" and ritual.

The more liberally based reformed variations are less concerned with "form". In some instances, the deviations from the Hebrew basis also forsake some of the key tenets of Christ's fulfillment of prophesy. They are more concerned with the idea of salvation and less aware of the reason for the entire human condition. And, they are more inclined to emphasize a sense of "feeling" good (emotion) rather than reasoned knowledge of the theme permeating the Canon... Some of these also ignore the Old Testament, believing that it's time is superceded by the New Testament.

These variations should lead you to conclude that one "label" is insufficient to address all differences in sects. The blanket label "Christianity" is inadequate, and misleading - just as the label "Islam" isn't indicative of variations in its adherents, nor accounts for the fringe elements who misrepresent their faith's teachings.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion and middle eastern in origin. It has over time evolved into several traditions which support various systems of theological thought which include but are not limited to various forms of predestination and free will theism. The eastern othodox church is one of the oldest traditions and considers man's salvation as cooperative with the will of God. This implies a tradition lending itself toward the idea that we are free will agents.

The following is the crux of Christianity. To receive eternal life, which is basically what all religion is about, you must accept what he did for you on the cross and submit your life to Him. It's all about Jesus Christ, not us!

We are not saved by our good works, whether they be in service to the Lord or our fellow man. Good works cannot save anyone, otherwise Heaven could be earned and you would be telling God that his Son's sacrifice on the cross was not enough and that you are going to make up the balance of necessary work.

We are to put our faith in "Christ's work" that he did on the cross "for" us.

It is faith and faith alone that saves us. Good works ARE suppose to come forth from our faith, but it faith and faith alone that saves and justifies us before God.

There are a lot of people doing many good and wonderful works and think that they're going to Heaven because they also attend church but that couldn't be further from the truth.

Church was meant to be a place to point people TO Christ, not TAKE THE PLACE of Christ! Jesus said: "I" am the way, the truth, and the life. He said He is "THE" way, He did not say he is one of many ways. Anyone looking to be saved because they do good works and attend a peticular church is falling far short of God's requirements for entering Heaven.

Jesus said in John 3: 3 "Verily, verily I say unto you" (and this means very important) "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

It's so very easy to look to something "we can see" and put our trust in it, and think we're going to Heaven, but God wants us to put our trust in the unseen - "in Him."

You must be born again! It's one thing to know who Christ is: the Messiah, but when you are born-again, you will not only know WHO he is, but you will come into a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with Him.

Our first birth into this world was a physical birth, but the second birth (for those who receive it) is a spiritual birth. You must be born again! God, and God alone can save.

Good God it's like we are still mired in the Middle Ages.

What?!

The fundamentals of the deism have not changed in the history of this world. There's a variety - those who ascribe to one god, those subscribing to more than one, those claiming nature is the rule, those who deny any need for one, and those who think self-improvement will get them to a "higher" plane.

So, you're amazed/disgusted?

The human race evolved beyond the need for religion centuries, if not MILLENIA ago. Religion was a natural process of Man's development. Our ancestors developed it because they wanted/needed answers to things that they did not understand. But we grew as a race beyond the need for such primitive defense mechanisms against the unknown because our knowledge grew along with our capacities to reason and think.

So when I see and hear people quoting the Bible constantly and acting as if it is the be all and end all for all of the world, it exasperates me. The Middle Ages were a time of superstition, fear and widespread ignorance. People believed in magic and witches and all sorts of nonsense. It saddens me that nearly a thousand years later things haven't changed very much.

In this day and age, in times of science, logic, and reason, Mankind has no need of religion; especially in the form of something like Christianity or Islam which were products of a certain time and place, and have nothing to do with the world as it exists today.

What exactly does a 2,000 year old Hebrew/Greco-Roman document have anything to do with modern civilization? What is the point of taken something that was written so long ago and applying it to today's standards? Would you do that with any other piece of literature that old? Live your life according to the ancients? Pattern your whole life, whole belief system on a book? One that is actually heavily censored and edited to boot? One that is full of errors and inaccuracies, most of which come from the early church fathers distorting and twisting the facts? History is written by the victor. In the case of the New Testament that victor was the Roman Catholic Church.
Would you use maps made by 16th century cartographers to navigate with? Would you apply leeches to someone's forehead to cure a headache or a fever? Would you live your life as a follower of the star religion of the Ancient Egyptians?

I suppose I worded what I really wanted to say a bit too harshly. I didn't mean to give offense. People have a right to believe whatever it is that they want to. Whatever gets you through this thing called Life is OK by me. I'm 39 years old and was brought up in a very traditional Greek Orthodox household. Church every Sunday, all holidays observed; I was an altar boy and went to Sunday school. Then I started asking questions. And no one had any answers, at least not ones that made any sense or that weren't condescending or that all ended with:"oh just believe." As I learned and studied science and history, that gulf widened. So I've had my growing pains. And I've done a lot of soul searching to reach where I am now mentally, emotionally, and intellectually. I still respect the Greek Orthodox Church because it's a part of my heritage, and I am very proud of being Greek.

Look, I get the fact that most people need some kind of religion in their lives because people need to have something to believe in, that there is a purpose to all of this. That there ARE answers to be had. I just dislike the religious angle because it has been the cause of so much strife, so many wars, and so much prejudice throughout history. Mankind needs to be pulling together in order to survive as a race. Religion has been, is and always will be a very polarizing force. It will always divide people. And that is the cause of my impatience with it. Neither amazed, nor disgusted, my friend. Just frustrated and saddened by it.

The problem you state stems from a disappointment you had in the answers others gave you, when you found something confusing and lacked answers. The 'religion' into which you were introduced is not the source of the problem. The source of your irritation comes from relying on other PEOPLE being the experts... Had you READ the Bible, you would have come across passages which warned against taking all of your answers from others - the danger being possible misdirection (e.g. cults, antichrists). It also said that reading must be done prayerfully, looking to the Holy Spirit for assistance in interpreting the parables and symbology recorded. The apostles did this, and their writings are a result. The collection of which (along with Hebrew writings) address mankind's history, tracing our beginnings to the present - becoming a Canon. I'll address this later...

Explorer72 wrote: "What exactly does a 2,000 year old Hebrew/Greco-Roman document have anything to do with modern civilization? What is the point of taken something that was written so long ago and applying it to today's standards?"

First, have you ever read the book 'The Art of War' by Sun Tsu? If you haven't, I'd recommend it - but not for gleaning how to fight your neighbor. All the basic situations confronted in combat are addressed in it. Nothing has changed - the nature of war is how you impose your will on another, by force. If you're weaker than the opponent (at a disadvantage), there are suggested tactics that can 'even the odds'. Although the ranges of sensors and weapons have increased, the idea is still to chuck the spear far enough to hit him without him hitting you. Simple. For those needing an understanding of the conduct of war, this text can answer most questions.

Secondly, the teachings incorporated in the Hebrew Tanakh, prophesies, and traditions date back more than 5000 years. The collection addresses a sociological question set, which has required resolution since the first human beings started having children: 'What happens when people can no longer remain isolated (in small family units)? Do we compete aggressively (as animals do) for resources that become more limited by the day? Or, do we learn to live together, and sybiotically work toward the benefit of the larger whole?' Societies are built on this foundation, nations grow out of them.

The nature of the issue has not changed in all the time that human beings have existed - it remains the same issue. How we deal with it necessarily must grow and improve. The distinguishing feature of man (over other animals) is the ability to reason, and to envision things that are not yet. And, then to act and bring them into being. So, should we act as animals and ignore our advantage? Or, should we be more than them? I suggest that the development of man's brain was with a purpose, we're not like the other creatures inhabiting earth.

There are ways to demonstrate the low probability of existence without an intelligent designer. To consider the complexity of the universe, in the absence of a designer, is asking the wrong question - 'How did the universe begin?'. The question that should be asked is 'Why are we in this unique position?'. Unfortunately, fives senses are insufficient to answer this completely, and some assumptions must be taken on trust (faith) that the answer is there to be uncovered.

ARGH I was just putting the finishing touches to my answer when the page automatically refreshed on me. Too tired to start over tonight, but I am enjoying talking to you. You're rational and intelligent and articulate and we have some points of view in common. I'll be back tomorrow. Don't go anywhere!

Tony

Tick...tick...tick... On vacation (holiday), are we?

Ha ha...I like your confidence, my friend.

Here I am, fashionably late, let's say.

OK.. firstly, I HAVE read the Bible. I read it in Sunday school as well as in my Religion class at the Lutheran elementary school that I attended. As you may imagine, it wasn't exactly a great start for me in the religion department. I was spending my impressionable, formative years learning the Lutheran doctrine during the week and then spending my weekends immersed in the Greek Orthodox church. I naturally gravitated towards the latter, since it was a part of my family and my heritage. It had been a part of me as far back as I could remember.

However...that was when I began asking questions. When those questions began to not be answered by those whose job it was to provide them, and I was told to simply believe and have faith...well even as a pre teen it caused me problems. So I gravitated more and more towards my other interests, all of which encompassed either science or history. One particular niche that I became interested in was biblical history. There were(and still are) many basic misconceptions (largely within the New Testament) that stem from things that have been taken out of context, or from their original meanings being deliberately changed or twisted by the early Church fathers. If you're up for continuing our discussion, I will lay them out for you so you can respond as you see fit. I respect your opinions.

Now granted, I do believe that as an adult I can go back and reread the Bible and certainly get much more out of it now than I did as a child. But it would be from a strictly historical perspective. Organized religion is nothing but mind control. The Byzantine Church used it as such for centuries. Roman Catholicism has used it as such for millenia.

I must admit I find your dual philosophy of science and faith very intriguing. How have you come to where you are? I'm not saying that a scientist can't be a religious man as well, nor a priest not have any interest in science. But most of my discussions about religion the past decade have been with fundamentalists, so I guess I'm just not used to
talking about these things with someone with a broader intellect.

More to come!

To take this in small bites... My background comes from a pair of parents with disparate 'reformed' denominations. My mother was the driving force behind finding a church where I and my sibling could develop a faith-based outlook on life. She settled on Lutheran (Missouri Synod), and I attended catechism classes - being confirmed and a member since (geographically spread congregations, over a 40-year period).

My fascination with mathematics (particularly logic and Boolean treatments) led me to search and grill the church instructors. Now, I may not be quintessential Lutheran - probably a hybrid of that focus mixed with numerology (symbolic uses of certain Biblical numeric values), Hebraic symbiosis of grace and works, and interest in millenialism.

I haven't experienced a 'crisis of faith', and am cautious of church instructors (only because friends and acquaintences can be of comparable experience) who make declarative statements without soliciting class perspectives. I've been fortunate lately to have an instructor/friend who has similar views and does solicit these from other classmembers. My mathematics inclination provides the class with some useful explanations of difficult concepts, to aid in assimilating.

I, also, feel that reading texts must be taken in context with the level of understanding of the apostles (at the time they recorded these thoughts), and with respect to the Hebraic backgrounds that most had.

I look forward to reading what you want to discuss, and hope that together we may find some reasonably palpable joint view. [If you feel this will stray from the current thread, we can initiate a new one focused strictly on this.]