Christianity What Do You Think Of Christianity?

[Auzer]

For me, Trinity and Original Sin gives it away for Christianity.

These two are founding corner stone of whole Christianity, and both of these doctrines are irrational and unjust.

For example the doctrine of original sin states that just b/c Adam didn't obey God, every new born human child was damned because his 'father' had sinned. So all of us are born evil/sinful beings and are doomed. This is clear injustice from the part of God...and since God can't be unjust, I don't believe that Christianity is truth.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

For me, Trinity and Original Sin gives it away for Christianity.

These two are founding corner stone of whole Christianity, and both of these doctrines are irrational and unjust.

For example the doctrine of original sin states that just b/c Adam didn't obey God, every new born human child was damned because his 'father' had sinned. So all of us are born evil/sinful beings and are doomed. This is clear injustice from the part of God...and since God can't be unjust, I don't believe that Christianity is truth.

Auzer,

Guru Fateh.

Please always keep in mind that all three Abrahamic religions- Judaism, Christianity, Islam- have "one umbilical cord".

Hence, what you may not like in one of the branches of the same tree, never forget that you belong to the same tree thus "joint at the hip" so to speak.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[aristotle]

Nobody talks about Mormons anymore......they're my favourite Christian denomination

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Nobody talks about Mormons anymore......they're my favourite Christian denomination

God bless America with all the sisterwives.

 

[aristotle]

God bless America with all the sisterwives.

Seriously, jokes apart, the 'Book of Mormon' makes a good read, if you don't mind the repititions.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Seriously, jokes apart, the 'Book of Mormon' makes a good read, if you don't mind the repititions.

The play is much better.

 

[aristotle]

The play is much better.

Yeah, I've heard from many people....now that you found it good too, I'll have to download it.

 

[seeker3k]

SSA

Christianity is the biggest religion hold on maybe Islam is. I think it is Christianity is biggest. There has to be a reason that they became the biggest.
If we go by number power then Sikhs are the last.

We have to look at the reason why people joining Christianity? We all are looking for faults in Christianity to knock is down so we Sikhs look good.
Christians have their system of hell and heaven. All are happy with it. How can 35 million Sikhs tell over billion Christians that they are wrong? Then again every one believed that earth was flat and sun goes around the earth. Earth is the center of universe.
That is the reason they named Catholic (universe church).

Every religion claims that God gave them the conduct book. Like dhur di vani?

Christianity made many mistake in their growing days. But they especially those from UK gave us the democracy and education where ever they went. I am grateful to them for it. Other then Catholic most other Christian are just people. They up hold the law and fairness in their dealing. They are companionate. They go to poor counties to help poor and treat them. I have not seen any other religion doing what they are doing. I know people will say they are just doing to convert people to Christianity. So what in the process people are being treated. If we believe every religion people that there is only one God what difference it make if some are Christian or muslim Hindus,Sikhs they all going to same place. IF THEY ARE GOING ANYWHERE.

 

[Lindsey]

I am new to this forum, so please forgive my comment for being four years late.

Some observations which may help: my understanding (from Catholicism) of the Trinity, is that it embodies the idea of relationship in the godhead itself, as the nature of God is essentially love. The Trinity also encompasses the understanding that God is both transcendent and imminent. The Father (or Mother, it doesn't have to be gender specific) is the transcendent source, which is unknowable to human understanding. The Son, the logos or word of God, is the outpouring of God's loving energy into creation. The Holy Spirit is the divinely created spark within us which shows us the way to truth. God is one, but one in three. This is a divine mystery, which we can never expect to comprehend fully through rational though.

Jesus is understood to be the human incarnation of the logos, the word become flesh. The idea here is that the world is fallen and we have lost our full unity with God. God reaches out to us, out of love, to fully participate in our bodily humanity. This is at the heart of the idea of theosis - God became human so that humans may become God. From this viewpoint, saying none are saved except through Jesus really means that we can all be united with God through God's loving participation in our humanity.

On the question of free will, God gives us this freedom because he wants us to have the capacity to love him freely. Without this, we would merely be puppets, and not created in the divine image. Our free will means we also have the capacity to choose to reject God's love. That is the risk God takes for our freedom, and is where the idea of hell comes in. Hell is defined as separation from God. Only we can choose that, by choosing to love what is not God, which is what 'sin' means.

Do I like Christianity? I'd probably be more comfortable being a Sikh, personally, as it seems to me less problematic. Christianity is riddled with distortions, such as literalism and biblical fundamentalism, which make it hard to sympathise with. It also has a long established, genuine mystical spirituality at its core, which seems to me to be essentially similar to the Sikh religion. I hope that helps!

 

[sukhsingh]

the question of free will, God gives us this freedom because he wants us to have the capacity to love him freely. Without this, we would merely be puppets, and not created in the divine image. Our free will means we also have the capacity to choose to reject God's love. That is the risk God takes for our freedom, and is where the idea of hell comes in. Hell is defined as separation from God. Only we can choose that, by choosing to love what is not God, which is what 'sin' means.

I agree with much of what you have said but can you please clarify whether you believe 'god' is a entity that gives us free will.. If one believes that 'God' gives us free will then surely we are puppets?

 

[sukhsingh]

I am new to this forum, so please forgive my comment for being four years late.

Some observations which may help: my understanding (from Catholicism) of the Trinity, is that it embodies the idea of relationship in the godhead itself, as the nature of God is essentially love. The Trinity also encompasses the understanding that God is both transcendent and imminent. The Father (or Mother, it doesn't have to be gender specific) is the transcendent source, which is unknowable to human understanding. The Son, the logos or word of God, is the outpouring of God's loving energy into creation. The Holy Spirit is the divinely created spark within us which shows us the way to truth. God is one, but one in three. This is a divine mystery, which we can never expect to comprehend fully through rational though.

Jesus is understood to be the human incarnation of the logos, the word become flesh. The idea here is that the world is fallen and we have lost our full unity with God. God reaches out to us, out of love, to fully participate in our bodily humanity. This is at the heart of the idea of theosis - God became human so that humans may become God. From this viewpoint, saying none are saved except through Jesus really means that we can all be united with God through God's loving participation in our humanity.

On the question of free will, God gives us this freedom because he wants us to have the capacity to love him freely. Without this, we would merely be puppets, and not created in the divine image. Our free will means we also have the capacity to choose to reject God's love. That is the risk God takes for our freedom, and is where the idea of hell comes in. Hell is defined as separation from God. Only we can choose that, by choosing to love what is not God, which is what 'sin' means.

Do I like Christianity? I'd probably be more comfortable being a Sikh, personally, as it seems to me less problematic. Christianity is riddled with distortions, such as literalism and biblical fundamentalism, which make it hard to sympathise with. It also has a long established, genuine mystical spirituality at its core, which seems to me to be essentially similar to the Sikh religion. I hope that helps!

BTW I really like your post! No need to be apologetic at all.. We should be able to speak freely and openly and without fear so we can learn and grow and be challenged

 

[Lindsey]

I agree with much of what you have said but can you please clarify whether you believe 'god' is a entity that gives us free will.. If one believes that 'God' gives us free will then surely we are puppets?

I have difficulty thinking of God as an 'entity' to be honest because, in Western philosophy, this then raises the question of the existence or non-existence of such an entity. God would therefore be placed on one side or another of a dualistic category, which infers a limitation. God, by definition, would transcend both the possibilities of existence and non-existence. It's probably just semantics and the limitations of dualistic thinking, but I personally feel more comfortable with expressions like, the ground of being, or the unknown source of existence. I would be very interested to learn more about how Sikhs think of God.

As for the question of free will and humans being puppets, my understanding would be that God is creator and we are creatures. Catholic theology speaks of humans being created in the image and likeness of God. We are not God, in the sense that we are created whereas God is uncreated, yet we can share in his life and realise unity with him.

Again, I feel aware of the limitations of language and understanding in trying to talk about these things. I am happy to think of God as mystery, which we ultimately come to know through love rather than intellect. I practice prayer of the heart, which is a form of contemplation aimed at stilling the mind and becoming aware of God's presence.

As I say, the understanding I have comes from a Western Catholic background, although I have read some Eastern philosophy. If anyone could recommend a way of learning more about the Sikh understanding of God, I would be grateful.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Why would God be a male (why would the creator of the Universe need a male appendage)?? Also the trinity is also all male. The saviour is male. Males are called to be the leaders and religious authority. Males in christiantiy were created first and seen as the glory and image of God.

Women? Made as an afterthought only to serve their husbands and be obedient and submissive... subject to men and male rule. In church supposed to wear head covering as a sign of inferiority and subjection to men because a woman would disgrace herself in front of God to be uncovered while since men are the image of God they are not required.

In Christianity women were born into a sort of Slavery under men.

That to me makes no sense.

But I guess some are ok with it obviously or at least they ignore some parts to make it more palatable. In my opinion the only major difference between Islam and Christianity are that Muslims don't ignore the less palatable parts of their religious text.

 

[Lindsey]

Christianity derives from a patriarchal culture, as you say. Where in the world do we not have patriarchy? In some ways historical Christianity has contributed to and reinforced patriarchal roles, in other ways it has challenged them.

A few points; there is no necessity to ascribe gender to any aspect of the Trinity. The historical figure of Jesus was male, but the Logos, God's word, is beyond gender. In the creation stories there are actually two versions, one of which describes male and female being created together. I would say a major difference between Islamic and Christian scripture is that Christianity sees God's revelation as an evolution in understanding, from the earliest texts to the New Testament and beyond. Don't forget the Bible is a collection of writings spanning around 3000 years, it wasn't put together in one lifetime with one person's understanding.

In Catholicism, the figure of Mary symbolises the ideal spiritual life; a person who brings God to birth within herself through her own purity. Even St Paul says that there is no male and female in Christ, all are one. You're comment about women being born into slavery under men is incorrect; there is nothing essentially in Christian teaching which justifies seeing women as inferior. The Christian church, however, is a human institution and subject to the same failings we see in the rest of society.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Christianity derives from a patriarchal culture, as you say. Where in the world do we not have patriarchy? In some ways historical Christianity has contributed to and reinforced patriarchal roles, in other ways it has challenged them.

A few points; there is no necessity to ascribe gender to any aspect of the Trinity. The historical figure of Jesus was male, but the Logos, God's word, is beyond gender. In the creation stories there are actually two versions, one of which describes male and female being created together. I would say a major difference between Islamic and Christian scripture is that Christianity sees God's revelation as an evolution in understanding, from the earliest texts to the New Testament and beyond. Don't forget the Bible is a collection of writings spanning around 3000 years, it wasn't put together in one lifetime with one person's understanding.

In Catholicism, the figure of Mary symbolises the ideal spiritual life; a person who brings God to birth within herself through her own purity. Even St Paul says that there is no male and female in Christ, all are one. You're comment about women being born into slavery under men is incorrect; there is nothing essentially in Christian teaching which justifies seeing women as inferior. The Christian church, however, is a human institution and subject to the same failings we see in the rest of society.

I could get into the verses but I won't. I'll just say "wives be subject to your husbands" et al.

 

[Lindsey]

I could get into the verses but I won't. I'll just say "wives be subject to your husbands" et al.

Similarly I could find verses which challenge that, but I think it's pointless quoting things out of context. The Christian church and scriptures are affected by the patriarchal middle eastern cultures from which they derive, I'm not saying otherwise. Christian institutions, like the societies in which they exist, are broadly patriarchal. This is a failing which needs to be challenged. Christian spirituality, however, is equal for women, and many of the greatest Christian saints and teachers are women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no female gurus in Sikhism?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Similarly I could find verses which challenge that, but I think it's pointless quoting things out of context. The Christian church and scriptures are affected by the patriarchal middle eastern cultures from which they derive, I'm not saying otherwise. Christian institutions, like the societies in which they exist, are broadly patriarchal. This is a failing which needs to be challenged. Christian spirituality, however, is equal for women, and many of the greatest Christian saints and teachers are women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no female gurus in Sikhism?

The Gurus in Sikhi came at a time in India when women were throwing themselves into their dead husbands funeral pyre because they were so worthless.

Imagine a slave making claim that slaves should be freed... would slave owners listen? If someone low caste claimed they deserved equality with high caste would the Brahmins listen?? If women made a claim of equality with men in that time, would the men have listened?? Of course not. However here we had high caste males saying that caste is wrong and that women are equal to men. Men of the time listened.

But with advent of Sikhism there is no post that is reserved for only males. Women can be granthis, sing kirtan, lead in ardaas, and even initiate others into the Khalsa as one of the Panj Pyaras (even though some sexism has crept back in but that happened because of Brahminical influence).

So Sikhi also came out of a highly patriarchal society but the Sikh Gurus instead of writing texts that would continue to enslave women, spoke about equality of all humans. Gurbani has not one piece of text that could suggest women should be subordinate or submissive to men.

 

[Lindsey]

It is to the great credit of the Sikh teachings that this is so.

Your comment shows that you understand the influence of patriarchy in the formation of religious institutions and practices, so I wonder why you don't apply the same argument to the development of Christianity. As I pointed out, the Biblical texts were compiled in far earlier societies, which also makes Christ's own attitude to women exceptional for the time. I don't find anything in the life or example of Jesus which advocates the subordination of women; as I said, his Mother is held up as the exemplar of the spiritual life.

A comment on the text you quoted from Ephesians. Paul is using marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church, and this is the context in which the word obedience is used. If you read the rest of the passage, you would see that he also describes the husband's responsibilities towards the wife. The text therefore does not have the meaning which you used it to suggest, and this is the danger of quoting passages without understanding the context.

I think the point we agree on is that women and men are equal and should be treated with equal respect. Where patriarchy has influenced and distorted religious traditions and attitudes, it should be challenged and overcome.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

It is to the great credit of the Sikh teachings that this is so.

Your comment shows that you understand the influence of patriarchy in the formation of religious institutions and practices, so I wonder why you don't apply the same argument to the development of Christianity. As I pointed out, the Biblical texts were compiled in far earlier societies, which also makes Christ's own attitude to women exceptional for the time. I don't find anything in the life or example of Jesus which advocates the subordination of women; as I said, his Mother is held up as the exemplar of the spiritual life.

A comment on the text you quoted from Ephesians. Paul is using marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church, and this is the context in which the word obedience is used. If you read the rest of the passage, you would see that he also describes the husband's responsibilities towards the wife. The text therefore does not have the meaning which you used it to suggest, and this is the danger of quoting passages without understanding the context.

I think the point we agree on is that women and men are equal and should be treated with equal respect. Where patriarchy has influenced and distorted religious traditions and attitudes, it should be challenged and overcome.

The husbands command in that passage is not to submit to his wife but to love her. it says the husband is the head of the wife and uses the order of creation to support it. Adam came first so he is the leader and eve is a subordinate 'help meet'.
If Christianity truly wanted to remove gender hierarchy there would be no passages at all reiterating that women obey or be subordinate or subject to husbands. Do you think it's only the duty of a wife to obey her husband but the husband does not have to obey his wife??? If you believe that, it doesn't matter what context it's in, it doesn't matter how much a superior loves a subordinate... they are still subordinate. They are born into subjection from which they can never escape.

The difference is that in Sikhi there does not need to be any picking apart of passages to suggest the words "obey" and "subject" don't mean what they really do. When someone is subject to someone else, they must abide by that other persons will over their own and obey that person. It doesn't matter how much that person loves them or cares or protects or provides for them. It still means they are subordinate, lower in a hierarchy. Ask any adult if they'd like to be a kid again. After a few mins of wondering what it would be like to not have any bills or responsibility virtually ALL adults would never give up their freedom and autonomy as an adult... freedom to choose for themselves. But the Bible asks women to be in the position of a child all her life.

In Sikhi this is just completely absent.

 

[Lindsey]

I understand what you are saying, and essentially I don't disagree with you. The Bible is a complicated and difficult collection of writings, which is why the Catholic Church has always taught that it needs to be interpreted, and our understanding needs to continually evolve. I don't know anyone personally who would take that passage literally, or see it as indicative of anything other than the misogyny of the writer. Biblical literalism is a relatively modern deviation, encountered mainly in the Protestant sects of the last 150 years or so. It is not a position I hold, so I have no interest in defending it.

I am not sure that the way to remove gender hierarchy from Christianity is to delete all the offending texts. I don't believe misogyny is compatible with the spirit of the Gospel or the life of Jesus. Focusing on the liberating truth of God's presence seems to me a more productive approach than giving undue weight to the letter of the Bible. Obviously Christian institutions could also do much more to promote equality.

I started off by saying that I would probably be more comfortable personally in the Sikh religion, but that isn't what was culturally available to me growing up. Despite its shortcomings, I have found what I consider to be a valid contemplative path within the Carmelite tradition, whose central teacher and saint is Theresa of Avila. I am also very open to learning from other faiths and philosophies.