The argument over personal beliefs as compared to what is considered the standard norm has an interesting side effect of prompting serious discussion over nature of Christianity, but also the character of any religion. Should religion become accustomed to changing social circumstances or should it force people to alter themselves and the society to "eternal" what we consider religious values?
This forces us to consider two different conceptions of what religion is. On the one hand we have functionalist definitions which portray religion as a means, in which; people use to fulfill social and psychological needs. So I suppose, in general, religion performs a function. Then we have people who argue that religion is defined by some basic "real meaning" of belief or ideology which must be conserved for that religion to continue.
To adjust God to fit human wants, religions, which are supposed to be spiritual organizations, become turned around therefore becoming conceptualized as social ones. Social organizations seem to be based on the psychological abilities of their members. Also, the sense of organizing a foundation of what is promising seems to be what most are looking for in a pursuing/practicing any religion. To find reason of any sort tends to satisfy ones curiosity, therefore bringing a conclusion to the unexplainable. But, if a social organization is founded to meet social needs- then should not change occur? If change does not take place then won’t the organization die?
On the other hand- if religion is not a social organization and must hold on to certain necessary truths or demands, doesn’t this require humans to adjust themselves to eternal values provided by God? This conception of religion has a several things to present, but the idea that religions do not adapt to change is ridiculous. I feel that religions are social and they do fill social functions in human society and psychology. When there is a discussion with different definitions of religion and without realizing that their definition is not perfect, they are bound to just end up talking past each other and make worse their original argument.
The subject of Christian Ethics is very important in the debate about the truth or validity of Christianity. Christians will often refer to the high ethical standards of Jesus in an effort to support their argument that they have the True Religion. Even supposed Christians and many non-Christians have considered Jesus to be one of history's great moral teachers. But are such claims true? If so do they stand up under scrutiny? I intend to explore that issue and hope to shed some light on a matter not often discussed.
So… what did Jesus teach? That is not such an easy question to answer, believe it or not. It is not entirely certain what exactly he taught. Early Christian writers, have little or nothing to say about his ethical teachings, even when it would be to their lead to do so. The seeming ignorance on the part of the early writers raises the genuine question of whether or not Jesus really did teach what the later writers say. In later writings, there is real controversy as to what statements credited to him (Jesus) might actually be original. Some religions (unsure of which ones) do not believe that several can rightly be called original to Jesus. An explanation of this difference would be the alleged teachings are later add-ons. So many Christians either ignore this problem or do not accept this solution and instead follow what is in the Gospels.
Most of us go based upon faith in hope we are doing “right” according to God. In the Protestant practice (or any, I am assuming) this seems to elicit fear. I am stating this due to the fact I have been raised protestant. It seems if our whereabouts after our time on earth is already determined shouldn’t we be praying for mercy in hopes of a change of place? Sort of a Calvinistic approach, don’t you think?
I suppose this leads to the question of ethics. Ethical teachers usually build up full and logical systems which provide a full basis for teaching proper behavior and attitudes. Sorry to say there is no such structure to originate from. Instead most patchwork homilies and pronouncements, some of which are vague and contradictory.
Many Christians will refer to Jesus’ main belief: "You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38). Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the context of Jesus' ministry was unkind and very urgent - thus casting a somewhat different light on this great commandment. This, to me, gave the same feeling/mood as Edwards in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Edwards tended to use the same energy of urgentness and wrathful feeling. According to Jesus, the Kingdom of God was very close at hand and would in fact come into being within the lifetime of some of those around him. Because of this, he was not mainly concerned with typical problems, saying that people should "sell all that they have" (Luke 18:22), neglecting his family despite their importance in Jewish culture (Matthew 12:46-50), and predicted that his teachings would lead to murdering a brother (Matthew 10:21) and followers hating members of their own family (Luke 14:26). Anyone who did not renounce all that they had could not become a disciple, and anyone who rejected his teaching would receive severe punishment. Does any of this reasonably follow from the principle of love?
Jesus’ demand for followers to have total faith in him is maybe his most original, since his other commandments were already anticipated in earlier Jewish writings. But what is a person to have faith in, exactly? That Jesus is the son of God? or the son of Man? Then why was Jesus usually so cautious to undoubtedly state that those phrases described him? How can someone reasonably follow the control to have faith when they aren't sure what the faith is supposed to be about? So shouldn’t we have faith in Jesus?
In general I have followed what has been formally taught to me over the years, but I continue to question, and form opinions about my own and other religions. I argue the fact that we must live with what is stated and leave it as is, just because it is said to. People tend to find comfort in not knowing and leaving up to God’s will. At times I feel that is all it can be. Simply stated- Things happen for a reason. AKA- Fate.