Philosophy Now Forum

To look for a clear and concise message to ALL RELIGIONS is just as pointless as looking for a clear and concise message to ALL POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES. The nature of the ideas being discussed precludes such agreement. Totalitarianism and Democracy cannot by their nature be compatible; they are based on opposing presumptions, ideas, ideals, and worldviews. The basic presuppositions of the ideas are diametrically opposed. If you feel Democracy is the best political system does that make you a “sheep” following deluded, ignorant, brain-washed Democrats with your head in the clouds?? Because you feel that those who are vehement Fascists and do away with your Democratic ideals are not “getting” something pretty basic, does that make you hateful and intolerant? Is Politics in and of itself nothing more than a hate-producing machine that should be done away with since there is such disagreement? Religions are too disparate to seek any valid commonality in their fundamental messages. Disagreements are inevitable. Most atheists state that even the individual messages of each religion are not clear and concise. I’m going to stick with Christianity as my reference.
Many people who argue against Christianity state the Christian message is neither clear nor concise, it must be bunk. I, naturally, have to disagree. The Christian message is quite clear and quite concise:
There is one true God(who exists in 3 distinct yet integrated persons) who is responsible for the creation of the cosmos. He made mankind in His image. Mankind rebelled against Him bringing sin into the world. Sin is a poison/disease that warps God’s creation and separates mankind from God. Spiritual and physical death is the consequence of sin. Jesus Christ (2nd person of the Trinity) was God incarnate and served as the perfect sacrifice to reunite man with God. Christ’s death and resurrection are at the very core of Christianity. Christ is the road to salvation from God’s judgment.

I a not theologian, but I’d say that is a basic run down of the fundamental Christian message. Sure you can expound and get very technical but the 103 words I used to express the Christian message seems to preclude the argument that the “basic” message is not concise. As far as I know all Christian denominations share the “basic” message. The particulars get fuzzy.
The objection that the Christian message is not clear I disagree with as well. There may be disagreements on the small things, but overall, the vast majority of Christian denominations agree on clear doctrines I stated above.

Also, there are multitudes of scholars and intellectuals who use the ancient writings and translations as sources to strengthen their faith and their convictions. Overwhelmingly any variations that exist do not affect AT ALL the basic, fundamental, teachings of Christianity. Most of the errors, deviations, and alterations are mundane, and completely inconsequential. The bulk of the “textual inconsistencies” are different verbs, or verb tenses, different vocabulary or different words for the same thing, etc. But, my research has always shown that the message, the meat, the point of it all is consistent, clear and concise.
Basically, the typical argument is that since different religions disagree, religion is pointless and God is a myth and textual variations demonstrate that the Bible is a piece of cheap fiction. Not a very powerful or moving argument. It will stroke those who already agree with you and those who don’t will see it as an impotent argument.

The Clear and Concise Christian Message.....

Love works.

metachuck wrote:To look for a clear and concise message to ALL RELIGIONS is just as pointless as looking for a clear and concise message to ALL POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES. The nature of the ideas being discussed precludes such agreement. Totalitarianism and Democracy cannot by their nature be compatible; they are based on opposing presumptions, ideas, ideals, and worldviews. The basic presuppositions of the ideas are diametrically opposed. If you feel Democracy is the best political system does that make you a “sheep” following deluded, ignorant, brain-washed Democrats with your head in the clouds?? Because you feel that those who are vehement Fascists and do away with your Democratic ideals are not “getting” something pretty basic, does that make you hateful and intolerant? Is Politics in and of itself nothing more than a hate-producing machine that should be done away with since there is such disagreement? Religions are too disparate to seek any valid commonality in their fundamental messages. Disagreements are inevitable. Most atheists state that even the individual messages of each religion are not clear and concise. I’m going to stick with Christianity as my reference.
Many people who argue against Christianity state the Christian message is neither clear nor concise, it must be bunk. I, naturally, have to disagree. The Christian message is quite clear and quite concise:
There is one true God(who exists in 3 distinct yet integrated persons) who is responsible for the creation of the cosmos. He made mankind in His image. Mankind rebelled against Him bringing sin into the world. Sin is a poison/disease that warps God’s creation and separates mankind from God. Spiritual and physical death is the consequence of sin. Jesus Christ (2nd person of the Trinity) was God incarnate and served as the perfect sacrifice to reunite man with God. Christ’s death and resurrection are at the very core of Christianity. Christ is the road to salvation from God’s judgment.

I a not theologian, but I’d say that is a basic run down of the fundamental Christian message. Sure you can expound and get very technical but the 103 words I used to express the Christian message seems to preclude the argument that the “basic” message is not concise. As far as I know all Christian denominations share the “basic” message. The particulars get fuzzy.
The objection that the Christian message is not clear I disagree with as well. There may be disagreements on the small things, but overall, the vast majority of Christian denominations agree on clear doctrines I stated above.

Also, there are multitudes of scholars and intellectuals who use the ancient writings and translations as sources to strengthen their faith and their convictions. Overwhelmingly any variations that exist do not affect AT ALL the basic, fundamental, teachings of Christianity. Most of the errors, deviations, and alterations are mundane, and completely inconsequential. The bulk of the “textual inconsistencies” are different verbs, or verb tenses, different vocabulary or different words for the same thing, etc. But, my research has always shown that the message, the meat, the point of it all is consistent, clear and concise.
Basically, the typical argument is that since different religions disagree, religion is pointless and God is a myth and textual variations demonstrate that the Bible is a piece of cheap fiction. Not a very powerful or moving argument. It will stroke those who already agree with you and those who don’t will see it as an impotent argument.

Chuck, I'm not exactly sure what you position is. I can see you are saying that the very nature of politics excludes agreement. I can also see that you are saying the real religious message precludes disagreement. So, are you arguing for some type of theocracy? I don't really see how the two ideas are supposed to be linked.

My post is a little confusing. I'm addressing several points and I didn't do a good job of making them clear. I have been told that since all religions are so different about their assertions then religion is shown to be just a bunch of bunk. The argument presented to me is that religion in general needs to present a concise, uniform message for religion to be valid. The second argument I've gotten is that Christianity itself doesn't present a concise message. I rattled off a garbled argument. I'm surprised it makes any sense at all.

Chuck, I'm not exactly sure what you position is. I can see you are saying that the very nature of politics excludes agreement. I can also see that you are saying the real religious message precludes disagreement. So, are you arguing for some type of theocracy? I don't really see how the two ideas are supposed to be linked.

His idea actually isn't controversial today at all, in that regard. Political philosophers are all recognizing what they call "the fact of incommensurable pluralism," which means that within democratic institutions are groups of people whose ideologies, religions, values etc. *cannot* be reconciled though a single solution. In fact, they even say that the test of a good democracy is it's ability to work our provisional solutions among these competing groups of "irreconcilable" interests.

All this high language just means this: people believe different things. In many cases, those things contradict one another at the basic level. No single solution pleases everyone, or preserves everyone's interests equally. We've got to make concessions here, or we can't get along.

But the implication of "incommensurable pluralism" is very interesting: it's an admission that the liberal myth of the comparability of all religions and ideologies was always a lie. It was no more than liberal wishful thinking, not reflective of any truth at all.

Well, shoot -- everyone who actually *cared* about what they believed, or who ever examined one other belief system fairly should have known that all along.

Metachuck, I am enjoying your posts and hope they will keep coming. I do have to quibble a bit with your summary of Christianity though...

There is one true God(who exists in 3 distinct yet integrated persons) who is responsible for the creation of the cosmos. He made mankind in His image. Mankind rebelled against Him bringing sin into the world. Sin is a poison/disease that warps God’s creation and separates mankind from God. Spiritual and physical death is the consequence of sin. Jesus Christ (2nd person of the Trinity) was God incarnate and served as the perfect sacrifice to reunite man with God. Christ’s death and resurrection are at the very core of Christianity. Christ is the road to salvation from God’s judgment.

... a summary of the Christian message should probably contain the word love in there somewhere, don't ya think?

It's doesn't seem true that the Christian ideological message is basically clear and consistent. If that was so, why are there for instance, Catholics fighting among themselves like cats and dogs all over the net?

... a summary of the Christian message should probably contain the word love in there somewhere, don't ya think?

I think that's a good suggestion. And probably a few words like "just" and "righteous" and "holy," and probably a few others. But of course, he was trying to be as concise as possible, so we can't blame him if he glosses over a fair number of important issues. However, "love" should be in there. Point taken.

It's doesn't seem true that the Christian ideological message is basically clear and consistent. If that was so, why are there for instance, Catholics fighting among themselves like cats and dogs all over the net?

That's a great question. We should let a Catholic answer it. Is there one around?

Immanuel Can wrote:

... a summary of the Christian message should probably contain the word love in there somewhere, don't ya think?

I think that's a good suggestion. And probably a few words like "just" and "righteous" and "holy," and probably a few others. But of course, he was trying to be as concise as possible, so we can't blame him if he glosses over a fair number of important issues. However, "love" should be in there. Point taken.

It's doesn't seem true that the Christian ideological message is basically clear and consistent. If that was so, why are there for instance, Catholics fighting among themselves like cats and dogs all over the net?

That's a great question. We should let a Catholic answer it. Is there one around?

Dont know,
Wish id been raised a catholic. then i could lapse. oooooohhh. that feels good

I was raised a Catholic...what was the quest?

...oh yes i fight like a dog. Damn those cats.

attofishpi wrote:I was raised a Catholic...what was the quest?

...oh yes i fight like a dog. Damn those cats.

The quest of any true jesuit.
[Roman Catholic order founded by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in 1534 to defend Catholicism against the Reformation and to do missionary work among the heathen;
it is strongly committed to education and scholarship]

I prefer the orthodox view to the Catholic view, if I had to pick a lesser of two evils. It's basically very simillar although the Orthodox priests have some less controversial ways of absolving sins, such as by doing penances that deprive the person more spiritually rather than asking for coin, and of course Jesus being the head of the Church, and James the Just being the first rather than Peter and a few other minor wranglings over the nature of the trinity and where the Church should base its HQ.

The message is simple, but even the Bibles composition is pretty much an extension of political wrangling within the church that would eventually lead to the complete schizm of the church on two occassions, once as mentioned when orthodoxy of the more Middle Eastern churches went its own way over disagreements of dogma such as the nature of God and political in fighting about who should lead the church and from where, being that the Eastern Church felt better represented by Byzantine and Jerusalem than Rome, and then of course the more well known schism which birthed protestantism and a shed load of religious in fighting. Based I think mostly on the view Catholocism had become a bloated corpulent fat cat that had abandoned much of its ideals with things like indulgences ie paying to have your sins absolved. And ensuring wealth stayed with the church by refusing to let priests marry (which would ensure a family would inherit none of the churches wealth), which had nothing whatsoever to do with any scripture at all, amongst a great deal of other things which are too long a list to go into but are basically doctrinal issues like transubstantiation and wot not.

The only reliable message is probably what Jesus was supposed to have said, certainly not he was supposed to have done, this simple more human Jesus can only be found outside of cannon though and is considered heresy for which crucifixion, burning and being torn apart by horses were some of the more brutal punishments.

If the church would not insist on the Gospels being Gospel and everyone else as being heretics, and just stuck to the simple message, I suspect The Church would of had a more steady ride, unfortunately though the process of deification and the nature of Chinese whispers probably turned what was a simple church of those who believed in a prophet who would lead the way, into a Church of solid politics and in fighting, typically human take a simple message and turn it into a tribal infighting mess.

This Priest, sums up the sorts of doctrinal issues in albeit a humorous way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HgCWjLvhWg

attofishpi wrote:SO WHAT?

Is that a question, what did you want I just basically laid out why not a simple message in detail, are you trying to make a point or do you have something to say? So what is not really a debatable question.

Blaggard wrote:

attofishpi wrote:SO WHAT?

Is that a question, what did you want I just basically laid out why not a simple message in detail, are you trying to make a point or do you have something to say? So what is not really a debatable question.

SORRY! Mr Blaggard.
Posting in the middle of party mode should never be done..woops.

I liked your point, quote:- "The only reliable message is probably what Jesus was supposed to have said.."
I've read four Gospels to accomplish that end.

At the end of the day any religious establishment is only man made and subject to the same vices as any secular organisation. Religion is mans interpretation of interactions with the 'divine.' ...and man will misinterpret or manipulate to suit his own agenda.

I will say from personal experience yet again, i know God exists, and Jesus is the Christ....beyond that i dont give a flying rats about such establishments. Its a monumental task for myself to state i am Christian because it brings with it all amounts of pre-judgment and misconception.

Life is a big game of chess..
Jesus Christ...Chess Jurist

attofishpi wrote:

Blaggard wrote:

attofishpi wrote:SO WHAT?

Is that a question, what did you want I just basically laid out why not a simple message in detail, are you trying to make a point or do you have something to say? So what is not really a debatable question.

SORRY! Mr Blaggard.
Posting in the middle of party mode should never be done..woops.

I liked your point, quote:- "The only reliable message is probably what Jesus was supposed to have said.."
I've read four Gospels to accomplish that end.

At the end of the day any religious establishment is only man made and subject to the same vices as any secular organisation. Religion is mans interpretation of interactions with the 'divine.' ...and man will misinterpret or manipulate to suit his own agenda.

I will say from personal experience yet again, i know God exists, and Jesus is the Christ....beyond that i dont give a flying rats about such establishments. Its a monumental task for myself to state i am Christian because it brings with it all amounts of pre-judgment and misconception.

Life is a big game of chess..
Jesus Christ...Chess Jurist

Fair enough, I wont argue with a man's faith, as long as at least it's based on something fairly consistent, I don't think any religion is but then I don't have to, I do however think the message of Christ is good, all the wine to water, walking on water stuff is unnecessary, just say be nice to people we don't need a magician to get decent ethics. Hell that's half the problem in the first place, if the message is good you don't need the magic. If you are logical, make a good case, have some moral centre that is not too egregious, you'll probably end up being a decent person, although good luck to you it probably takes practice.