Hi everyone!
I was wondering if christianity could have been a more "sensible" religion and less of a death cult. Do you know about arianism and marcionism? I bet a lot of you do.
Here to links:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_arianism.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#Reaction_to_Marcion_by_early_Ch...
Good points: the two of them are non-trinitarian, arianism' Jesus is not perfect and so can be emulated. For marcionism, it recognize the OT god as the son of a bitch he is.
So what are your opinions on these?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
It seems similar to the form of Christianity I was first introduced to (at home) as a child: that Jesus was not a supernatural creature, but instead an important teacher of morality and parables. Did not match up well with what I encountered at church.
The clerical establishment prefers one form that better serve their need of control. I wonder why pauline christianity was more platable for people in the western part of the Empire. Still, if you remove ex-nihilo creation, it will be a more serious idea. For exemple, one traditonal african religion is panentheistic, or, the Greeks should hav kept their idea of Chaos.
You are missing Adoptionism, which was the original Jewish form, They had their own gospels in Aramaic much to the surprise of the Pauline Elders when they visited in the mid 3rd Century CE. Their gospel of Matthew did not have the first two chapters ( the bits that had the census the travel to Bethlehem etc etc to marry with Isaiah) They also had several differences with other gospels and had declared "paul" apostate because of his self declared mission to the gentiles and the abrogation of the Law he espoused for personal enrichment and influence.
Adoptionism makes more sense than Trinitarian beliefs and , indeed, there is some evidence that the gospels were altered after the ascension of that ridiculous belief to discredit the Adoptionist and its gnostic offshoot heresy.
I think it too, i was just wondering if a religion could be internally coherent, yet, it would'nt erase the belief in supernatural things but it would be slightly better... one rock at a time.
I am with you. Marconi probably had the right idea. "Get rid of all the hate." In the end it probably would have looked more like Jainism. Marconi's Christianity would still be loaded with bullshit ideas of heaven and hell but the hate would have been removed.
Wait a minute. That makes no sense. You can not have heaven and hell without hate. The hate would just be somewhat different. Probably just the "Believer" vs "Non-believer" BS. Not sure how you can get the hatred out of the Christian faith or how the faith could survive without it.
I love your irony! Universalism was not around (and it still a fringe today), but yes, all religions is a canal for hate, christianity in particular because it is an exclusive monotheism, maybe if it was a monolatry... I wonder how not one in the ancient word came with the idea that all their deities are the same "supreme being" with different faces/names... wait, hinduism?
I just prefer being a human person.
rmfr
I would think a religion that does not push their agenda on others, does not attempt to convert people, does not worship, does not collect money/donations, does not get involved in anything politically is a more "sensible" religion then the major organized religions.
However, by their very nature, these religions will remain very small/and or die out. Any religion that stopped proselytizing usually died out pretty quick and disappeared, where the religions that emphasize it, perhaps even with violence, do very well. (An easy example is the extreme variants of islam and things like Jihad and the like that are spreading like wildfire.)
Heck the oldest trick in the book, "go home and have lots of babies" is one of the very best ways to spread and grow a religious idea.
Not how to do it: "how reasonable, logical, factual, and evidenced" a religion is compared to others.
Fuzzy jumped into my head. Isn't this the incorrect title?
What Christianity could have been?
would it not be accurate to have asked:
What Christianity would never be?
rmfr
How does any religion exist without some form of absurd idea or ideas behind it? How could there be a religion based on that which is real in the world around us without some moronic assumption? No assumptions, no religion.
Basing it on assumptions is a good point. But One can be religious about anything, imho. Organized religions require a deity who has supernatural powers. Organized religion need idolatry. Without a deity who can't do supernatural events, it's just another celebrity.