• sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    Ā·
    11 months ago

    Incorrect. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian, at least in Protestantism. You donā€™t have to do good works or anything of the kind to be a Christian. You just have to admit that you are a sinner, profess to regret those sins, and ā€œaccept Jesus into your heartā€. Thatā€™s it.

    In theory, accepting Jesus into your heart is supposed to improve your behavior, but it isnā€™t a requirement (obviously, with all of those rapey priests!!). As Iā€™m sure you know, you can be the worst kind of sinner all of your life, but as long as you accept Jesus and confess your sins to Him before you die, youā€™re all good!

    Ah Christianityā€¦the ultimate get-out-of-hell-free card, and no one can gain-say you. It is just between you and your Saviour. It is just so darn convenient, like a drive-thru. No wonder it is so popular.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      11 months ago

      Incorrect. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian, at least in Protestantism.

      No. Anyone who believes in and follows Jesus is Christian; we just usually only have someoneā€™s word to go by.

      You donā€™t have to do good works or anything of the kind to be a Christian.

      True, but a lack of love and good works proves that the repentance was a sham. ā€œA good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.ā€ Seasons of rebellion and momentary mistakes happen, but if a personā€™s life is marked by constant, unrestrained evil, theyā€™re showing a lack of fruit that probably means they arenā€™t repentant.

      You just have to admit that you are a sinner, profess to regret those sins, and ā€œaccept Jesus into your heartā€. Thatā€™s it.

      Yeah, thatā€™s not Christianity. Not historically speaking, at least. Itā€™s a shockingly new development and almost entirely centered on American individualism, and Christians from longer ago than the 1700s wouldnā€™t recognize any of that. Scripturally and historically, Christianity requires belief and repentance; which look, superficially and in the moment, like admitting youā€™re a sinner and accepting Jesus into your heart, but prove themselves to be something different over time.

      In theory, accepting Jesus into your heart is supposed to improve your behavior, but it isnā€™t a requirement

      Actually, it is. The writer of Hebrews says (13:12) equates sanctification with salvation. Historically, believing that one can happen without the other is just a bizarre idea because they were considered synonymous.

      (obviously, with all of those rapey priests!!).

      Indeed, they arenā€™t repentant, and are thus not Christians.

      As Iā€™m sure you know, you can be the worst kind of sinner all of your life, but as long as you accept Jesus and confess your sins to Him before you die, youā€™re all good!

      Again, historically and theologically, this is unrecognizable as Christianity.

      Ah Christianityā€¦the ultimate get-out-of-hell-free card, and no one can gain-say you.

      In America, at least. But the Church has, throughout the ages, excommunicated people for being horrible and ā€œshowing their faith to be a shipwreck.ā€ We hear about unrepentant, non-Christian people (particularly among the puritans) who used excommunication as a weapon against those they didnā€™t like (particularly women), but it has been used correctly throughout history as well; to get the wolves away from the sheep.

      It is just between you and your Saviour. It is just so darn convenient, like a drive-thru. No wonder it is so popular.

      Individualism is popular now, to our great shame, but a community of faith urging one another toward sanctification is in the Bible, in the early church, and in the continuing line of Christianity throughout history.

      Incidentally, the ā€œdrive-thruā€ analogy is pretty close to what Luther was ā€œprotestingā€ against in the first place. I think thereā€™s another Reformation coming, and this one is going to be about the people who value and respect and love breaking away from the people who donā€™t.

      • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        No. Anyone who believes in and follows Jesus is Christian; we just usually only have someoneā€™s word to go by.

        This a pointless distinction. You have no knowledge of the true nature of the relationship between a person and their Savior. So, on this mortal plane you only have someoneā€™s word. I, therefore, return to my point that anyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, as far as any mortal being knows. I though the latter clarification was fairly obvious since Iā€™m presumably talking to another human.

        Indeed, they arenā€™t repentant, and are thus not Christians. (Quote referring to rapey priests)

        See, now thereā€™s the rub. How do you know the priests arenā€™t repentant? Even if theyā€™ve committed hundreds rapes, they may still ask and receive the forgiveness of Jesus. The Bible does not define how many times you can commit the same sin and ask for forgiveness before Jesus doesnā€™t believe you anymore. The flesh is weak, but Jesus is forgiving.

        The way religious communities have dealt with this epistemological problem of not being able to peer into someoneā€™s heart is by distinguishing between what is acceptable in the community vs. what may be acceptable to God. The community judged their body and left God to judge their soul. Death-bed conversions were and are absolutely acceptable in Christianity and always have been. Indeed, torturing someone until they confess was common practice back in the day, partly because they believed in truth through duress, but also because it was a chance for a Christian to rescue his soul before death. Hate the sin, not the sinner. The sinnerā€™s soul can always be saved right up to their last breath.

        I think your grasp of what Christianity actually is may be contaminated by what you want it to be. But even what you want it to be contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is not logically consistent to say that Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God, while at the same time taking it upon yourself to judge who is a ā€œrealā€ Christian.

        Luther tried that when the Catholic Church abused its authority and here we are again. Except this time we canā€™t point to a single authoritarian Catholic Church, but have to deal with a massive de-centralized super-community of corrupt churches. Luther wounded the big Dragon, but replaced it with a Hydra that keeps growing new heads, each one claiming to be the ā€œrealā€ Christians!

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          Ā·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          This a pointless distinction. You have no knowledge of the true nature of the relationship between a person and their Savior. [ā€¦] anyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, as far as any mortal being knows.

          You know based upon how they act. If a person says theyā€™re an avid hiker, but after observing them for a decade you never see them hiking, you know their statement was false. If you ask them after that decade and they still profess that theyā€™re an avid hiker, you know theyā€™re lying. This is what Jesus meant by ā€œtheyā€™ll know youā€™re my disciples if you love one another.ā€

          How do you know the priests arenā€™t repentant? Even if theyā€™ve committed hundreds rapes, they may still ask and receive the forgiveness of Jesus.

          Because true repentance brings with it a change in behavior. ā€œSlipping upā€ once or twice with something minor (edit: oh geez, thatā€™sā€¦a very poor choice of words. How about ā€œsomething inconsequentialā€) is one thing. But big abuses, and patterns of abuse over decades, and efforts to hide or dismiss it once it comes to light shows a lack of repentance. This is what Jesus meant by ā€œA good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.ā€ Heā€™s speaking there specifically about false teachers seeking to harm others.

          Certainly, they could ask for and receive the forgiveness of Jesus. But by continuing in a pattern of sinful behavior, they prove that they have not, even if they claim to have done so.

          The Bible does not define how many times you can commit the same sin and ask for forgiveness before Jesus doesnā€™t believe you anymore.

          No, but Jesus does know the human heart, and will not be fooled by people trying to exploit apparent loopholes to look holy without actually pursuing sanctification. ā€œYou clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence,ā€ Jesus said. Or John the Baptist, who told the same corrupt religious leaders to ā€œbear fruit in keeping with repentance.ā€ So the Bible doesnā€™t give a limit because thereā€™s a judge on the matter with perfect understanding.

          Death-bed conversions were and are absolutely acceptable in Christianity and always have been. [ā€¦] The sinnerā€™s soul can always be saved right up to their last breath.

          Sure, but if they believe God is that easily fooled by someone who knowingly waits until the last possible instant to ā€œconvertā€ so that they can sin during their lives, why would they believe even then? Weā€™re not talking about some impersonal magic rules or an easily-befuddled genie, weā€™re talking about an intimate and infinite God who created the universe and knows your heart better than you do; and if youā€™re just checking the box at the end of your life in hopes of avoiding the flames, thereā€™s no way itā€™s true repentance.

          Indeed, torturing someone until they confess was common practice back in the day, partly because they believed in truth through duress, but also because it was a chance for a Christian to rescue his soul before death.

          Yeah, inquisition is a terrible, dark, vile, truly despicable chapter in the churchā€™s history. And while I think there may have been a few who were hoodwinked into believing that, the people who were teaching it had to have known that it was bunk.

          I think your grasp of what Christianity actually is may be contaminated by what you want it to be.

          I mean, Iā€™m just reading the founding document, through the lens of the majority of Christians over the course of history and around the world. What itā€™s become in America in the past century or so flies in the face of what it has always been, and what it was intended to be.

          But even what you want it to be contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is not logically consistent to say that Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God,

          I donā€™t say that. The ā€œpersonal relationshipā€ thing is just not in the Bible. Thatā€™s a recent addition to satisfy the independent American, (edit: reintroduced from an ancient heresy called gnosticism) and nobody wouldā€™ve recognized that faith before American evangelicals invented (edit: rediscovered) it. Christianity was always intended to beā€“and has historically beenā€“practiced in community, with people in one anotherā€™s lives so that they can see sin in one another and exhort one another toward sanctification.

          while at the same time taking it upon yourself to judge who is a ā€œrealā€ Christian.

          Once again, I am not making that judgment. The unrepentant person does not bear fruit in keeping with repentance, and thus it becomes obvious over time that they have not repented.

          And to be clear here: I am not talking about a teenage girl who gets pregnant before sheā€™s married. Iā€™m talking about Fortune 500 CEOs who gleefully fleece their customers and their employees from Monday through Saturday, then show up at church on Sunday in some pretense of piety. Iā€™m talking about police officers who worship next to Black men on Sunday morning and then have them in a chokehold on the curb on Friday night. Iā€™m talking about politicians who claim that theyā€™ve never needed to repent in their lives and that their favorite book of the Bible is ā€œTwo Corinthians,ā€ and who tear-gas people protesting the murder of Image-Bearers so that they can have a photo op with a Bible thatā€™s never been opened.

          Theyā€™re all bearing unrepentant fruit, and I think itā€™s important to recognize them as such.

          Luther tried that when the Catholic Church abused its authority and here we are again.

          Indeed. I donā€™t remember if youā€™re the one I mentioned this to, but I think thereā€™s another Reformation coming. I hope so, at least.

          Except this time we canā€™t point to a single authoritarian Catholic Church, but have to deal with a massive de-centralized super-community of corrupt churches. Luther wounded the big Dragon, but replaced it with a Hydra that keeps growing new heads, each one claiming to be the ā€œrealā€ Christians!

          Yes, agreed. The Second Reformation is going to be a long road to travel indeed. If there is any comfort, it is that there are many more Luthers this time. (And hopefully theyā€™re less antisemitic.)

          • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            Re: the personal relationship with God thing

            Itā€™s not exactly a new thing, read up on Christian Gnosticism, that goes back to when what we know as the Bible was being constructed. Largely I agree with your points though. Iā€™d write more but Iā€™m on break at work right now, sorry.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              Ā·
              11 months ago

              Ah! Fair point about gnosticism, though I think most Christians throughout history would consider that a heresy. But youā€™re right, that does precede American individualistic Jesus-fandom by many centuries. Good point.

          • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            I donā€™t say that. The ā€œpersonal relationshipā€ thing is just not in the Bible. Thatā€™s a recent addition to satisfy the independent American, and nobody wouldā€™ve recognized that faith before American evangelicals invented it. Christianity was always intended to beā€“and has historically beenā€“practiced in community, with people in one anotherā€™s lives so that they can see and exhort one another toward sanctification.

            Okay, I didnā€™t realize that was a more recent phenomenon. I did a quick lookup and it seems that this ā€œpersonal relationshipā€ thing started during the Enlightenment. And, as you say, some people argue that the ā€œaccept Jesus into your heartā€ thing really got going with American evangelical grifter-preachers like Billy Graham. I will read some more. Thanks for the tip.

            Iā€™m not sure if that Second Reformation you speak of will ever happen. Christianity has lost almost all credibility. Something less fraught with horrible historical baggage will have to take its place. Christianity is pre-scientific. Luther and the Protestants were able to shed their brand of Christianity of its Roman imperial trappings, which was due, but half of Christians are still Catholic. But even Luther is pre-scientific. Educated people just arenā€™t going to go back to believing in some invisible sky daddy. I mean, come on, an all-powerful, invisible, father figure who delivers justice to the oppressed (but only in the NEXT life) and who loves you no matter what? It is too obviously a wishful construct of childish human consciousness. And some Middle Eastern dude whose death saved all of humanity and who said heā€™s coming back any time now, but that was 2000 years ago? Itā€™s too much. We know too much now to read the Bible as though it is literally true. Weā€™ve moved on. Something more believable will have to take its place.

            Also, Protestantism is currently associated with American evangelical right wing nutters. Besides the church scandals, the politicization of Christianity, including the attacks on womenā€™s rights, homosexuality, the book banning, the stacking of SCOTUS with Christian zealots who only seem to want to restrict rights, and the election of a Christian Nationalist to the Speaker role are not putting Christianity in a good light. If anything, the crazy moralistic and hypocritical side of Christianity seems to be taking centre stage. Western populations outside of the US are rejecting Christianity in droves and that rejection is particularly pronounced among young people. If Trump and the Christian anti-science right-wingers take office again, it might well be the final nail in the coffin for religion in most of the West.

            Many of the poor countries of the global South are still pretty Christian, but their version of Christianity is very, very conservative. And by ā€œconservativeā€, I mean the ā€œletā€™s burn all the gaysā€ type of conservative. Extremist Muslims and Jews massacring each other in the Middle East, and Modi with his Hindu Nationalism, just make the societal mood toward religion worse, leading many to believe that ALL religion is inherently harmful.

            Honestly, rather than the Second Reformation you speak of, I think we are more likely see further bans on religious expression in public life, and possibly some form of state protection for children to prevent them from being religiously indoctrinated. If all the ā€œreasonableā€ people leave religion behind, only the extremists will be left, which will further convince the population that religion is harmful. It seems like Christianity has entered that downward spiral.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              11 months ago

              [ā€¦] it seems that this ā€œpersonal relationshipā€ thing started during the Enlightenment. And, as you say, some people argue that the ā€œaccept Jesus into your heartā€ thing really got going with American evangelical grifter-preachers like Billy Graham. I will read some more. Thanks for the tip.

              Yeah, for sure. Someone else pointed out that itā€™s also a repackaging of an ancient and widely-discredited heresy called Gnosticism, so perhaps ā€œrecentā€ is an overstatement; but for the vast majority of Christian history, it has not been considered orthodox.

              Christianity has lost almost all credibility.

              I donā€™t disagree, though I might clarify that Christianity has lost almost all credibility in the West due to the association with people who claim the name but have nothing to do with its tenets.

              Educated people just arenā€™t going to go back to believing in some invisible sky daddy.

              I donā€™t think that necessarily matches up with the data. Globally, Christians have on average the same amount or more schooling than non-Christians. The association of anti-intellectualism with Christians is also a recent American phenomenon, the Dark Ages excepted.

              I mean, come on, an all-powerful, invisible, father figure who delivers justice to the oppressed (but only in the NEXT life) and who loves you no matter what? [ā€¦] And some Middle Eastern dude whose death saved all of humanity and who said heā€™s coming back any time now, but that was 2000 years ago? Itā€™s too much.

              Yeah, I agree, itā€™s unusual. But if it was completely explainable, if it matched all of our expectations and experiences, it wouldnā€™t be divine. A transcendent God would have to do things and know things we donā€™t expect or understand, or we would be his equal.

              It is too obviously a wishful construct of childish human consciousness.

              I have to be honest, if I were trying to imagine and craft a religion for myself, it would be a lot heavier on me always getting what I want and a lot lower on the self-sacrifice. (/s, but only a little bit)

              Honestly, and I legitimately just realized this, it would look a lot more like the false faith that people like Johnson believe in.

              Protestantism is currently associated with American evangelical right wing nutters. [ā€¦very fair criticismā€¦] If anything, the crazy moralistic and hypocritical side of Christianity seems to be taking centre stage.

              Yep. They are. For those of us who try not to be in that camp, itā€™s very frustrating. But I think they are honestly the loud minority.

              Western populations outside of the US are rejecting Christianity in droves and that rejection is particularly pronounced among young people. If Trump and the Christian anti-science right-wingers take office again, it might well be the final nail in the coffin for religion in most of the West.

              This has been oft-prophesied. I will say that, if this anti-science right-wing nonsense masquerading as Christianity dies, what small remnant of Christians might continue on will be much healthier with their absence.

              Extremist Muslims and Jews massacring each other in the Middle East, and Modi with his Hindu Nationalism, just make the societal mood toward religion worse, leading many to believe that ALL religion is inherently harmful.

              I would hope people are able to see the difference between religion and extremism. Not that extremists make that easy.

              Honestly, rather than the Second Reformation you speak of, I think we are more likely see further bans on religious expression in public life, and possibly some form of state protection for children to prevent them from being religiously indoctrinated.

              In any occasion where religion is suppressed or banned, it flourishes underground. This is well-attested historically, not merely for Christians; and can be seen even today in places like China.

              If all the ā€œreasonableā€ people leave religion behind, only the extremists will be left, which will further convince the population that religion is harmful. It seems like Christianity has entered that downward spiral.

              Perhaps. I think the premise is unfounded, but in any case it doesnā€™t change my plan. All the bad feelings and negative thoughts about Christianity are meaningless if itā€™s true, and I believe it is; so Iā€™ll just keep on trying to be as loving and helpful as I can.