News and Politics Forum

Some factions of the Christian faith make a big deal about the "teachings of Christ" over and above the rest of the Bible.  Evangelicals, for the most part, do not.  We hold that the entire Bible is God's Word, and that the entire book is authored by God through the human beings he chose to use for that task, so in essence, when we say that we follow the teachings of the Bible, that would include Christ's teachings.

Also, it is not just a "belief" thing...  Belief leads to actions and actions tend to prove beliefs.

About UCORA -- that site is not primarily a site about Christian theology, doctrine, etc., though we certainly get involved with some of those type of discussions.  It is mostly what we advertise it to be -- and alliance of Christian off-road groups around the country (and now, world).  We don't dictate the doctrines or beliefs of the individual clubs or members -- that is their business, via their local church, ministry group, parish, etc.  We just come together in Christian fellowship for a rather singular purpose -- to further our sense of community with fellow off-road enthusiast from a Christian perspective.

glfredrick wrote:

Some factions of the Christian faith make a big deal about the "teachings of Christ" over and above the rest of the Bible.  Evangelicals, for the most part, do not.  We hold that the entire Bible is God's Word, and that the entire book is authored by God through the human beings he chose to use for that task, so in essence, when we say that we follow the teachings of the Bible, that would include Christ's teachings.

So, is it important to be aware of the actual teachings of Christ, and follow them more or less scrupulously?  Or is it enough to know that he did teach, that he did the bit with the money changers in the temple, the loaves and fishes, the water into wine, etc., etc., etc.?

What is the role of his teachings on relationships (brotherly love) and the idea that you cannot serve two masters?

glfredrick wrote:

Also, it is not just a "belief" thing...  Belief leads to actions and actions tend to prove beliefs.

I agree that actions speak louder than words, but I don't understand this statement fully.  Would you mind elaborating?

Bart, You've drawn my interest in part because your opening posts are so apparently contradictory.  If the appearance of contradiction is just an illusion I've seen, I am sure you can clear it up.

I've some question about the conviction with which you hold that

Unka Bart wrote:

When one self-label one's self, one has, a priori, bought into a school of thought.  When one has done that, one has already ruled out considering facts/aspects of an issue that conflict with the "approved solution."

...or whether that is a platitude with the same degree of meaning as a horoscope.

I know you assert that the religious context is somehow different, but have not indicated any way they would be different.  On the contrary, you assert they are very much the same.

Unka Bart wrote:

The problem with self-applied labels is the baggage that comes with them.  To wear the label is to subscribe to what someone else has decided is the approved way of looking at the world.  It's to start seeing complex issues through a filter, it's the antithesis of clear thinking and open-mindedness.  It's very similar to religion, and in fact, could accurately compared to a secular religion, lacking only a professed diety to be the complete package.

So lack of a diety cannot be the distinguishing characterisitc, true?

Unka Bart wrote:

I'm a buddhist.  It's not a religion, it's a philosophy for living and seeking enlightment.

Perhaps another way of saying it, it's a path to salvation.  Like that?

I believe that the buddha was not a diety but a human who became enlightened.

I believe that the Dharma, aka the four noble truths (Eastern philosophies are big on lists) are a "Do it yourself" manual for salvation attainable in this life time.  But you can't get "it" any way but doing it yourself.  No one can give it to you.

Your turn...

Did you piece this buddhism together yourself, or does the label indicate what someone else has decided is the approved way of looking at the world?

Which facts/aspects of issues have you ruled out?

EDIT:  I didn't see glf's post above when I wrote this.

Zuki, where did those quotes come from?  Nobody edited their post here.  Did Bart delete a post?  Only the last quote shows up in this thread.

Unka Bart wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

Also, it is not just a "belief" thing...  Belief leads to actions and actions tend to prove beliefs.

I agree that actions speak louder than words, but I don't understand this statement fully.  Would you mind elaborating?

I think I can answer this for glf.  This answer is specific to Christianity, although it may also apply to other belief systems.  A Christian should have a changed heart, one that is no longer maligned with God but aligned.  This changing can only happen by God.  A changed heart will nearly always result in the person doing things "differently."  A changed heart enables belief to be possible.  We cannot see hearts; we can only see actions.  This is how "actions tend to prove beliefs."  If a person suddenly starts behaving differently, it suggests an inward belief and changed heart is present.  This is an imprecise measure, though, hence glf's word "tends".  A "good" person may have an unchanged heart, and a "bad" person may indeed have a changed heart.  Actions don't change the heart; the heart changes the actions. 

Christianity is unique among world religions and philosophies in that it does not have a "do it yourself" salvation (a word used as broadly as Unka Bart).  People can only react to what God has done to them inwardly. Salvation, future hope, destiny, purpose, meaning, peace:  these are all given to the Christian and are not acquired or earned by anybody, through good works, positive vibes, pious belief, coherent philosophy, self-enlightenment, or any other means.

Unka Bart wrote:

Do those teachings have any role in your life and the formation of your philosophy? Or is it sufficient to believe that he is your savior?

A good question.  glf I think clarified what UCORA is about; anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" is welcomed in, and if I may speak for him again, anyone who does not call themselves a "Christian" is also welcome   As to what that label "Christian" represents, that is to be determined by the individual's local church where, hopefully, serious discipleship and discipline are administered.  But since everyone is allowed in and their statement is loose, it doesn't really matter what that definition is.

I agree with glf in that the entire Bible is my guide for how to live.  Christ makes things a lot clearer, so he tends to take the focus, but I find myself reading the Old Testament more often than the New (possibly because there's more written in the Old).  Just as the New clarifies the Old, the Old makes sense of the New, so both are indispensable.  My daily task is to follow (obey) Christ as my Lord (Master, Owner, Leader, Boss).  This includes the following:  His commands, orders, laws, rules, commissions, advice, examples. 

Since Jesus is God, this extends beyond the New Testament and incorporates the laws of the Old Testament.  However, many of those laws were fulfilled/completed by Christ.  For example, if the law said to take the trash out every Thursday, but Christ "took all trash out for everybody for all time," then that means I don't have to take the trash out anymore (because there's no trash to take out!). 

All this legalism is all simplified with God's greatest commandment:  love God with every fiber of your being, and its derivative, love everyone else as yourself, echoed again by Jesus.  Love is a verb, which means doing stuff.  I aim do this every hour of every day, however that works out.  (I often fail, though.)

But in all this I'm not concerned about my salvation.  That's been done before I even knew it.  Christ died for all the crappy things I did, I recognize and believe He did, and I've turned away from those old things.  My actions (and my desires) speak of that inward change that already took place.  The unchanged person is at best indifferent to the things of the God of the Bible.  If you're indifferent, you should be concerned.  If you're concerned but are not sure of your salvation, you should look into why.  If you don't know what Christ specifically did, read the Bible (the Book of John is a good place to start) or ask a Christian friend of yours.

Last edited by Buho (07-22-2008 02:10 PM)

Buho wrote:

Zuki, where did those quotes come from?  Nobody edited their post here.  Did Bart delete a post?  Only the last quote shows up in this thread.

http://www.npboards.com/thread/13472/li … 43#p246843

Unka Bart wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

Bart, You've drawn my interest in part because your opening posts are so apparently contradictory.  If the appearance of contradiction is just an illusion I've seen, I am sure you can clear it up.

I've some question about the conviction with which you hold that

Bzzzzzzzzzt!  Sorry, this is an attempted threadjacking.  15 yards!

That is not a recognised infraction here.  This is the autobahn of thread drift.

Unka Bart wrote:

If you give the matter some thought, you might see the answer to your question yourself, but if you can't, post this in the other thread and I'll get around to it.

I see a reluctance to be describe your political positions with any specificity cloaked in a rationale that seems defective on its face immediately followed by a thread that contradicts the offered rationale.

If you decide not to address the questions posed that will be your decision, but telling me to guess what you think is a weak way to explain yourself.

If you need to repost any of this to respond in another thread, feel free.

Buho wrote:

EDIT:  I didn't see glf's post above when I wrote this.

Zuki, where did those quotes come from?  Nobody edited their post here.  Did Bart delete a post?  Only the last quote shows up in this thread.

Firstly, thanks to glf and Buho for explaining your views, and secondly, this Bart didn't delete any posts.  I dunno what you're refering to, but if a post got deleted, it wasn't by me.  Why would anyone do that?

Thirdly, I'm getting a picture here, but (and thanks to those who have responded, and I mean no offense by my reactions to follow) I don't know if it is a picture of Christian belief in general, or merely a picture of evangelical christians. 

That picture is of a belief that says, in the final analysis, one's salvation is unrelated to one's following of the scriptures one professes to believe in, beyond the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal savior.

Am I correct?  I'm not trying to pull anyone's chain here, I'm simply trying to understand what is at the core of the Christian belief on the role of Christ's teaching in the the Christians life.  And as I see it, based unfortunately on a very small sample, the answer is "not much."

zuki raised a question about my sincerity in saying, in a political thread, that I don't wear labels; and I called him on his threadjacking attempt because the question is not relevant in a discussion of faith.

I'm going to define "faith" as I use it.  You don't have to accept the definition, I provide it merely to give context to my remarks and allow us to sing off the same sheet music when you read what I'm going to say.

Faith, as I use it, it the unquestioning and unshakable belief in something that cannot be objectively proved.  One accepts the premis, or one does not, one cannot prove it objectively.  Belief in God is Faith under this definition.

When I say I am a buddhist, it's because at the point in my life that I read about the buddha's life and what he said about life, suffering, the causes and the cure, I had an "eureka" moment and realized that what he said about life, suffering, and the causes was consistent to my own observations and experience and what he said about the cure was something that could be tried and tested. 

Either it worked, or not, it wasn't something that I had to believe and furthermore; believing it or not wouldn't get me squat, only practicing it would.  Or would not.  Doing, not believing, was the only way to find out.

So, (zuki, are you paying attention here?) when I said that I am a buddhist, it simply means that I am on the path.   I am on the path because it works for me, not because someone told me it would (although obviously someone told me it would or I would not know about it in order to try it in the first place.  Do you understand the difference, Zuki?  But I digress...)

I'm not preaching anything here, just letting you know where I'm coming from.

Last edited by Unka Bart (07-22-2008 03:01 PM)

OK, zuk, I'll play your game

zukiphile wrote:

Bart, You've drawn my interest in part because your opening posts are so apparently contradictory.  If the appearance of contradiction is just an illusion I've seen, I am sure you can clear it up.

I'm not sure I can because the nature of your post indicates to me that you're simply out to goad me.  Perhaps I'm wrong, and allowing that possibility, I'll do my best to answer your questions.

zukiphile wrote:

I've some question about the conviction with which you hold that

That's OK.  You're mistaken if you think I'm insincere, but as I said, that's ok.

Unka Bart wrote:

When one self-label one's self, one has, a priori, bought into a school of thought.  When one has done that, one has already ruled out considering facts/aspects of an issue that conflict with the "approved solution."

zukiphile wrote:

...or whether that is a platitude with the same degree of meaning as a horoscope.

You may call it what you will.  It's a statement of what my experience in life has taught me.

zukiphile wrote:

I know you assert that the religious context is somehow different, but have not indicated any way they would be different.  On the contrary, you assert they are very much the same.

I've addressed that above in this thread.  If you still believe that they are not different, that is, of course your prerogative .

Unka Bart wrote:

The problem with self-applied labels is the baggage that comes with them.  To wear the label is to subscribe to what someone else has decided is the approved way of looking at the world.  It's to start seeing complex issues through a filter, it's the antithesis of clear thinking and open-mindedness.  It's very similar to religion, and in fact, could accurately compared to a secular religion, lacking only a professed diety to be the complete package.

zukiphile wrote:

So lack of a diety cannot be the distinguishing characterisitc, true?

I confess that my statement above is not a model of clarity and is confusing at best.  My analogy was not well chosen.  What I intended to convey is that adhering to a political philosophy can be like believing in a religious faith.  The person who buys into the message becomes unwilling to critically examine the fundamental tenents.  In a religion, that's one thing, but in politics, it's often an impediment to progress.

Now my question to you is do you understand what I said, not do you agree with it?

Unka Bart wrote:

I'm a buddhist.  It's not a religion, it's a philosophy for living and seeking enlightment.

Perhaps another way of saying it, it's a path to salvation.  Like that?

I believe that the buddha was not a diety but a human who became enlightened.

I believe that the Dharma, aka the four noble truths (Eastern philosophies are big on lists) are a "Do it yourself" manual for salvation attainable in this life time.  But you can't get "it" any way but doing it yourself.  No one can give it to you.

Your turn...

zukiphile wrote:

Did you piece this buddhism together yourself, or does the label indicate what someone else has decided is the approved way of looking at the world?

That's my original thought, my analysis of the matter and what it means to me.  I don't doubt that others see it the same way, but I don't belong to any group of buddhists and I don't really care, or concern myself with what they think.  It's what I think.

Which facts/aspects of issues have you ruled out?

Aspects of what?  I don't understand your question.

(sorry it's taken me so long to reply, trying to break this up and manually balance the quotes and end quotes has been driving me batty.)  (Yeah, I know, explains a lot...)

Unka Bart wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

I've some question about the conviction with which you hold that

I read that as a question of my sincerity.

That's how you read it. Doesn't mean that's how he wrote it.

To apply your own, somewhat arbitrary meaning to his words, regardless of their intent doesn't further the discussion. If anything, it's sometimes considered a red herring debate tactic. From my vantage point, it appears that you are avoiding his query. First by crying foul for threadjacking, and now by personalizing a simple observation and trying to make it into a insult.

The picture I am getting here is of someone who takes a very seat of the pants approach to politics, religion and philosophy. If that's the path you choose to follow, then so be it. I won't begrudge you that at all. On the other hand, it makes discussion difficult because you can never be pinned down to any particular viewpoint. I don't see how there's anything to be learned from someone who's outlook is so amorphous. So far you've offered lots of observations on the social and political dynamic while somehow managing to stand apart from all of it.

Instead of telling us what you don't believe in, why don't you try telling us what you DO believe in.

Unka Bart wrote:

(sorry it's taken me so long to reply, trying to break this up and manually balance the quotes and end quotes has been driving me batty.)  (Yeah, I know, explains a lot...)

Relax.  If it helps, don't use the quote notation and bold the quoted text instead.  Many find that easier.

Unka Bart wrote:

OK, zuk, I'll play your game.

The "game" is primarily asking you what you mean or think. 

Unka Bart wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

I've some question about the conviction with which you hold that

That's OK.  You're mistaken if you think I'm insincere, but as I said, that's ok.

Unka Bart wrote:

When one self-label one's self, one has, a priori, bought into a school of thought.  When one has done that, one has already ruled out considering facts/aspects of an issue that conflict with the "approved solution."

zukiphile wrote:

...or whether that is a platitude with the same degree of meaning as a horoscope.

You may call it what you will.  It's a statement of what my experience in life has taught me.)

I question your commitment to this thesis, and freely acknowledge that the idea can arise from causes other than insincerity.  The "no labels" protest can arise from insincerity where the proponent knows perfectly well the category into which his position falls, but knows that it is unpopular.  This was popular with liberals a few years ago, and we've seen some labelling games with agnostics and atheists.

Unka Bart wrote:

Unka Bart wrote:

When one self-label one's self, one has, a priori, bought into a school of thought.  When one has done that, one has already ruled out considering facts/aspects of an issue that conflict with the "approved solution."

zukiphile wrote:

...or whether that is a platitude with the same degree of meaning as a horoscope.

You may call it what you will.  It's a statement of what my experience in life has taught me.

How did it teach you this?  Can you name any specifics?

I read bunches of Edmund Burke as a lad, and I believe most would describe me as a conservative.  That doesn't prevent another conservative and me from differing on an issue or considering the same aspects of an issue with different conclusions.

Mere descriptions describe but do not obviously have the limiting function you describe.

Unka Bart wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

I know you assert that the religious context is somehow different, but have not indicated any way they would be different.  On the contrary, you assert they are very much the same.

I've addressed that above in this thread.  If you still believe that they are not different, that is, of course your prerogative.

You've addressed it by simply claiming a difference, but declining to note any salient difference.  "Apples and rutabegas", idiom for different, does not elucidate.

Unka Bart wrote:

What I intended to convey is that adhering to a political philosophy can be like believing in a religious faith.  The person who buys into the message becomes unwilling to critically examine the fundamental tenents.  In a religion, that's one thing, but in politics, it's often an impediment to progress.

Now my question to you is do you understand what I said, not do you agree with it?

I understand what you wrote.  You assert it is "one thing" and contrast that with a putative lack of progress it would cause in politics.  Would that mechanism have precisely the same effect in the religious realm?

Unka Bart wrote:

I'm a buddhist.  It's not a religion, it's a philosophy for living and seeking enlightment.

I think we may agree that the distinction between a philosophy and a religion is tenuous.  Why is it descriptive to note that your buddhism is not a religion?

Unka Bart wrote:

Which facts/aspects of issues have you ruled out?

Aspects of what?  I don't understand your question.

The question revisits your thesis about labels limiting people from facts and aspects of issues.  Why would your self description as buddhist evade this limit?

Unka Bart wrote:

I'm not sure I can because the nature of your post indicates to me that you're simply out to goad me.

I would hope that my constitutional sarcasm and curiosity don't come across as malevolence.

Unka Bart wrote:

I don't know if it is a picture of Christian belief in general, or merely a picture of evangelical christians.

Bleh.  All these terms, loaded with baggage.  What does "evangelical" mean?  Does it mean something different if it's capitalized?  What does "Christian" mean?  My understanding is that a Christian is a follower of Christ, no more, no less.  A follower of Christ does a lot of what I described in my last post (obey out of love from a God-changed heart).  An evangel is one who spreads the good news of Jesus Christ.  Catholics would not strictly call themselves evangelical.  However, since Jesus commanded us to spread the good news in Mathew 28, even Catholics engage in evangelism.  All Christians, therefore, in the strictest sense, are (or should be) evangelical.

But yes, what I describe can be pigeonholed into the amorphous/vague vernacular of "evangelical Christianity,"  as I understand the current cultural trends.  Catholics, for instance, believe works plus faith are required for salvation.  Others believe baptism is required for salvation.  I'm going by the ultimate standard and revelation of God:  the Bible, so these labels "evangelical" don't have much truck with me.  Perhaps similarly how "Buddhist" doesn't mean much to you.  To determine which Christian thought is aligned with the Bible we would have to get into a theological discussion, which is for another topic.  (This difference is one reason why Catholics and "evangelicals" have not merged yet.)

Unka Bart wrote:

That picture is of a belief that says, in the final analysis, one's salvation is unrelated to one's following of the scriptures one professes to believe in, beyond the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal savior.

Am I correct?

It is as you say.  Simple.  Yet, and I hate to say this, it's more complicated than that.  Some Christians assert that, in the final analysis, in order to be saved, one must have faith and do good works.  Based on my understanding of scripture, I would say that, in the final analysis, it is only faith, which is what is reflected in my prior post (and also in glf's).  BUT, there is this book called James in the Bible that says "faith without works is dead.... Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."  In other words, salvation is apart from anything we do, but if you don't do good deeds, you are probably not saved; good deeds accompany a prior saving work in the heart by God.  So, practically-speaking, Christ's teachings are central to the lives of Christians, or ideally should be.  Make sense?

Unka Bart wrote:

I am on the path because it works for me

Aah, pragmatism!  You have faith that pragmatism leads to truth!

Hehehe.  Thanks for your thoughts.  They're well-written and reasonable.  I just wanted to point out the above line for fun. 

Zuki, the contradiction you brought up... could you briefly clarify it for me?  I'm having difficulty seeing it.

Unka Bart wrote:

The person who buys into the message becomes unwilling to critically examine the fundamental tenents.

This is not my experience.  I used to be agnostic.  I questioned the fundamentals of Christianity and I found myself utterly convinced of its truth.  Even still, I question and re-question the same fundamental truths, and still do today, four years later.  Each time I try, they stand firm and I become more convinced.  Perhaps you think I'm biased now, and not really testing them.  That skepticism cannot be satisfied until you meet me in person.

An addendum to my last post:

What is the goal of the person who calls himself a Christian?  Your answer is dependent upon this answer.

If the Christian's goal is to be saved, the answer is as I described above:  following Jesus will make no difference.

If the Christian's goal is to love God, the answer is also as I described above:  following Jesus is essential.

If the Christian's goal is to make lots of money, get a wife, have 2.8 children, get a dog, buy a big house, and buy a boat:  following Jesus will only get in the way of these other life-goals and should not be followed.