Found on twitter....

What if every single person on this planet believed in and lived the teachings of Jesus Christ?
The world would be at peace......provided that they could agree on what exactly Jesus taught. But they can't.
Would our world be better off or worse off from your view, and why?
Were such a thing remotely possible, in my opinion, people would be so different than they are that it is impossible to say. There is an aspect to contrafactual reasoning that makes it hazardous: a small contrafactual (what would have happened if I had flipped tails instead of heads) is an instructive excercise. A large contrafactual (What would the world be like if we were all intelligent aphids?...or even merely intelligent? ) simply can't be readily evaluated.
 
The world would be at peace......provided that they could agree on what exactly Jesus taught. But they can't.
Thank you for admitting that religion is not the problem. That was the point of my question.

But---supposing your statement to be accurate--is it that people cannot agree on the teachings--or is it that people cannot agree on the application of the teachings?

For example: does following Jesus's teachings require a Christian to be against the death penalty? Does following Jesus's teachings require a Christian to be a pacifist? Does following Jesus's teachings require a Christian to be against abortion? Does following Jesus's teachings require a Christian to be anti-capitalist, or pro-communism/socialism? That is where you see the most disagreement among Christians--since, sadly, Christians--even Catholics tend to conform their religion to their ideology rather than the other way around.
 
In my view, such obviously unachievable hypotheticals are not worth dealing with.
You are right. It is unachievable. But why are they unachievable from your view? What is the problem that prevents this? Christians know why this is impossible in this life. What I want from you is--what you think the problem is--especially since you do not believe in objective truth that isn't scientific in nature.
Come back when every person who currently claims to live the teachings of Jesus Christ is able to stay in the same room together for thirty minutes before the fights break out.
Yes--Christians often vehemently disagree with each other. is the problem with Christianity, or the adherents not following the teachings?
 
Thank you for admitting that religion is not the problem. That was the point of my question.

But I do not do so. Religion as it is cannot be divorced from humanity as it is, any more than science as it is can be divorced from humanity as it is. To me, a religion that proposes an unworkable scheme proposes it to humans for whom it is unworkable. One can't simply blame the humans because they don't fit the idea, any more than one can blame the ideas because they don't fit the humans. Its human ideas as much as human nature. This difference in viewpoint probably stems from our different ideas about the origin of religion.
But---supposing your statement to be accurate--is it that people cannot agree on the teachings--or is it that people cannot agree on the application of the teachings?

For example: does following Jesus's teachings require a Christian to be against the death penalty? Does following Jesus's teachings require a Christian to be a pacifist? Does following Jesus's teachings require a Christian to be against abortion? Does following Jesus's teachings require a Christian to be anti-capitalist, or pro-communism/socialism? That is where you see the most disagreement among Christians--since, sadly, Christians--even Catholics tend to conform their religion to their ideology rather than the other way around.
I'll buy that, but to my eye its also a limitation of the teachings. There is a lot of good in Christianity, but it is hard to see a straight line from the teachings of Jesus to the nature of multilateral trade agreements, and so forth, and yet the health and happiness of people depend on such agreements, and a lack of such agreements leads to conflict.
 
But I do not do so. Religion as it is cannot be divorced from humanity as it is, any more than science as it is can be divorced from humanity as it is. To me, a religion that proposes an unworkable scheme proposes it to humans for whom it is unworkable. One can't simply blame the humans because they don't fit the idea, any more than one can blame the ideas because they don't fit the humans. Its human ideas as much as human nature. This difference in viewpoint probably stems from our different ideas about the origin of religion.

I'll buy that, but to my eye its also a limitation of the teachings. There is a lot of good in Christianity, but it is hard to see a straight line from the teachings of Jesus to the nature of multilateral trade agreements, and so forth, and yet the health and happiness of people depend on such agreements, and a lack of such agreements leads to conflict.
Well, from the Catholic perspective, this is why we believe God gave us a Church endowed with God's authority. For Catholics, the role of the Church in the form of bishops and the pope is to speak to the disagreements when they threaten the unity of the Church and resolve them.

Because Protestants disbelieve that the Church speaks with God's authority, they have no mechanism for resolving disputes--and thus--divide endlessly over disagreements forming new sects.
 
Well, from the Catholic perspective, this is why we believe God gave us a Church endowed with God's authority. For Catholics, the role of the Church in the form of bishops and the pope is to speak to the disagreements when they threaten the unity of the Church and resolve them.

Because Protestants disbelieve that the Church speaks with God's authority, they have no mechanism for resolving disputes--and thus--divide endlessly over disagreements forming new sects.
And yet that authority has not prevented schisms, separations and divisions. So with all due respect, authority resting in belief is only effective on its own when everybody believes in it, which never seems to happen.
 
In my view, such obviously unachievable hypotheticals are not worth dealing with. Come back when every person who currently claims to live the teachings of Jesus Christ is able to stay in the same room together for thirty minutes before the fights break out. Until then your "what if every person in the world agreed with me 100%" fantasy is not worth engaging with.
The point was IF everyone did live out the teachings of Jesus.. now you would be right to say that wont happen, if it could there would be no need for Jesus, but your alternative doesnt seem to be achievable. ;-)
 
And yet that authority has not prevented schisms, separations and divisions. So with all due respect, authority resting in belief is only effective on its own when everybody believes in it, which never seems to happen.
And the NT tells us that wont happen because of the fallen nature of mankind
 
The world would be at peace......provided that they could agree on what exactly Jesus taught. But they can't.

Were such a thing remotely possible, in my opinion, people would be so different than they are that it is impossible to say. There is an aspect to contrafactual reasoning that makes it hazardous: a small contrafactual (what would have happened if I had flipped tails instead of heads) is an instructive excercise. A large contrafactual (What would the world be like if we were all intelligent aphids?...or even merely intelligent? ) simply can't be readily evaluated.
What Jesus taught is there in the scriptures. We can see it describes disputable matters and we can see there are people who deny what it says.
That is why one needs to look at what the scriptures say rather than what people claim.
 
The world would be at peace......provided that they could agree on what exactly Jesus taught. But they can't.

Were such a thing remotely possible, in my opinion, people would be so different than they are that it is impossible to say. There is an aspect to contrafactual reasoning that makes it hazardous: a small contrafactual (what would have happened if I had flipped tails instead of heads) is an instructive excercise. A large contrafactual (What would the world be like if we were all intelligent aphids?...or even merely intelligent? ) simply can't be readily evaluated.
The thing about agreeing on what Jesus taught. There were conflicts even in the NT churches and the NT even itself describes disputable things.
Even when one has removed outright denial there are differences in emphasis.
So you have a point.

However if everyone accepted they may get offended, persecuted and killed, but should forgive, it should work
 
Nope. Not even close. Gut think doesn't cut it. Your emotional responses don't define murder.
Wrong. There was no appeal to emotion or instinct. I’m merely pointed out the obvious.

However, I do believe gut instincts are very reliable and should not be dismissed off hand.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. There was no appeal to emotion or instinct. I’m merely pointed out the obvious.

However, I do believe gut instincts are very reliable and should not be dismissed off hand.
Whereas I believe that you are wrong on all three counts. Particularly when it comes to legal decisions. There's no room for gut think there. That's what leads to innocent people being executed.
 
Back
Top