What is "real" Christianity?

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
What is "real" Christianity?

I would like to know once and for all precisely what "judeo-christian" means. The phrase "judeo-christian values" is bandied about ever and anon, with such implied objectivity, that one presumes to end (and win) any discussion by merely mentioning it. Yet when I examine the phrase, it is anything but clear what is meant herein. judaism and christianity, in a broad sense, are in dispute on many topics (including, but not limited to, the divinity of jesus). Why are they then cobbled together in this catch-phrase? Because they share a common tradition? Islam parttakes just as much from this tradition. Would george bush sound less credible should he say "judeo-christian-islamic"? judaism and islam are in agreement that jesus was not divine. christianity and islam are in agreement that jesus was a man of god. So how do we settle on "judeo-christian"?

Examining further, we see that judaism and christianity are decidedly heterodox. There are orthodox jews, conservative jews, reform jews, hasidic. There are jews who believe the book of genesis is historical, and that Israel is ordained by divine right. Yet there are also gay and atheist synagogues.

"Christian" serves to identify Pat Robertson (evangelical TV personality), pope benedict (catholic, termed the anti-christ by some other denominations), Gene Robinson (gay episcopalian minister), Fred Phelps (hates homosexuals, loves IEDs), and Ted Haggard (hates homosexuals, except when he's getting massaged). The amish are christian, who reject technology. The megachurches are christian, which are so hi-tech they need their own electric grids. New denominations pop up all the time with new twists on the old story, while some denominations now exist only as encyclopedia articles.

So what is "judeo-", what is "christian", and what is "judeo-christian". I simply feel that when one uses the phrase, one seeks to tap the support of all to whom that phrase applies, which cuts fairly wide in its scope. If we define the particulars, and settle on what exactly values the phrase indicates, the scope of that phrase might shrink drastically. We would at least have greater clarity in our discussions and that would be a good thing.


tracifish
Theist
tracifish's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Anybody can call themselves

Anybody can call themselves Baptist these days. Maybe it has always been this way. A person could open a strip club and call it 'The Baptist Church' And all the employees and customers could say they're Baptist...and there'd be nothing we could do about it. It would actually be much less embarrassing than the Westborrows.

 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak,

razorphreak,

I looked at the 3 links you provided (thank you), and I'm afraid I do consider jcgadfly's assessment appropriate:

1) http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

This site begins its response to claims of biblical contradictions on a shaky premise (my emphasis in bold):

First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative?

In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one we are about to respond to below. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts.

By their own admission, they are not concerned whether their explanation is true or not. A rather flimsy way to defend the "word of god". Here is just one example of this "logic" in operation:

David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel [2 Sam 24:1]

David was tempted by Satan to number the people [1 Chron 21:1]

There are three possible responses here:

(1) Biblical writers often dismissed secondary causes and attributed all things that happened to God, since He is over all things. Thus, God is [sic] did not tempt David, He allowed Satan to influence him.

(2) Arthur Hervey believes 2 Sam 24:1 is better translated as, "For one moved David against them." In this case, the numbering of the people was the cause of God's anger, not the result. After all, without this interpretation, it is not clear why God was angry with Israel.

(3) The verse in 1 Chron translated as "satan" could also be translated as "adversary." Strictly speaking, in this situation, God was Israel's adversary.

2)http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-contradictions.htm

This site addresses contradicitions rather broadly, exploring only one particular item (the definition of ακουω in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9). In fact, we see here an involuntary admission of biblical contradictions:

While all apparent Biblical contradictions -- doctrinal, ethical, or historical -- have not been cleared up, Christians expect that as more knowledge is gained, each contradiction will disappear.

 

So we see that the writer has assumed a priori that the bible is true and non-contradictory, and when he lacks an answer to a proposed contradiction, he "expects" that the answer remains to be found. This is patently illogical.

3)http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

This site seems primarily to address claims of biblical contradiction made by muslims. One example should suffice to show the desperate semantics in use here:

Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.

Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.

Such speculation to make two disparate accounts compatible would not pass muster in a history book; only in a religious text.

 

razorphreak wrote:
I don't want it this thread to go way off into outter space - perhaps it should be readdressed in rook's thread (even though it never was)?

I agree. Its relevance to this thread is predicated on your claim that true christianity is defined solely by the scripture. If I have followed you correctly so far, "What is christianity" is essentially the same as asking "What is the proper reading of scripture". Yet if the speculative reasoning observed above (or the need for "more knowledge" to be "gained&quotEye-wink is necessary to deflect claims of scriptural innaccuracy, it would appear the proper means of reading scripture remains elusive.

Thank you again for staying with this topic. Let me know if you would like to separately pursue the topic of biblical errancy (or link me to an existing thread).

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Christmas in May

If there wasn't already enough schismatic disagreement, I found this today:

Apparently a christian sect in Africa celebrates christmas on May 25. True christians, or heretics?

 

 

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
I looked at the 3 links you provided (thank you), and I'm afraid I do consider jcgadfly's assessment appropriate:


Well from those three links I think the point should have been to consider first it obviously needs more research and second there are explanations hence you cannot say all 160+ "contradictions" are in fact so.  If you knock out what, 90% of them because of Greek to English translation issues, well you see my point.  What irritates me is when that point is addressed and not given any consideration even though it's right there for anyone to research more throughly.

zarathustra wrote:
Thank you again for staying with this topic. Let me know if you would like to separately pursue the topic of biblical errancy (or link me to an existing thread).


If you like.  I'm game.

zarathustra wrote:
If there wasn't already enough schismatic disagreement, I found this today:

Apparently a christian sect in Africa celebrates christmas on May 25. True christians, or heretics?


Oh I wouldn't say that.  Actually, I'd ask a question to those who go nuts over the date to which to celebrate Jesus' birth: does it really matter?  If your birthday falls on a day during the week, what usually happens?  You get told by parents and friends "let's celebrate it on Saturday" even though that's not your day.  So we all know that the actual date is not known so when we choose to celebrate it is simply an observance.  When is not important; why is.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Well

razorphreak wrote:

Well from those three links I think the point should have been to consider first it obviously needs more research...

Very well.  Christians should do more research before making their claims.

 

razorphreak wrote:

...and second there are explanations hence you cannot say all 160+ "contradictions" are in fact so.

 I repeat the exact quote taken from the first site mentioned:

Quote:
Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts. "

It is curious to begin with that so many contradictions (or, if you prefer, possible contradictions) occur in what purports to be the "word of god" and the ultimate authority on christianity.  When one has to resort to the aforementioned (a lack of concern for the truth, as long as a "dodge" is achieved), to defend the scripture, it casts doubt on the whole enterprise.

razorphreak wrote:
 

If you knock out what, 90% of them because of Greek to English translation issues, well you see my point.

I'll again cite what I cited above.  In one case, somebody believed a verse could be better translated another way; in another, "satan" could also be translated as "adversary", in which case it could mean god.  This is more desperate than it is rigorous.

 If "lost in translation" is indeed a defense against biblical contradictions, we should at least demand that anyone wishing to preach about the bible should first master hebrew and greek.  Since, as you've said, the scripture is the source of christianity, and is corrupted by translation into english, perhaps anyone at all wishing to call himself a christian should do the same.  Islam holds this standard for its holy text.

razorphreak wrote:
What irritates me is when that point is addressed and not given any consideration even though it's right there for anyone to research more throughly.

What irritates me is that it took sceptics to compile a list of contradictions before christians went scrambling to "explain" them.  If Greek to English was such a problem for the word of god, the true believers should have nipped it in the bud, rather than waiting for the non-believers to raise the red flags.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
If there wasn't already enough schismatic disagreement, I found this today:

Apparently a christian sect in Africa celebrates christmas on May 25. True christians, or heretics?


Oh I wouldn't say that. Actually, I'd ask a question to those who go nuts over the date to which to celebrate Jesus' birth: does it really matter?

No, in and of itself, it doesn't really matter.  It might matter that the decision to switch the date was based on 'several prophetic "revelations"', as the article relates. 

At any rate, it's just another example of how christians can't keep their own "facts" straight.  When jesus can be passed up and down the field like this by 30,000 different quarterbacks, it seems that not only does the date of jesus' birth not matter; jesus himself doesn't matter.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:
Christians should do more research before making their claims.

As should atheists I think - ref. rook. 

zarathustra wrote:
When one has to resort to the aforementioned (a lack of concern for the truth, as long as a "dodge" is achieved), to defend the scripture, it casts doubt on the whole enterprise.

Well let's see.  My favorite example is that of the word Lucifer.  In Greek it refers to the king of Babylon, not Satan.  It was an issue of Greek to LATIN that got that screwed up and to which Latin to English that complicates it even further.  Remember the best source to date for English from the Greek is the NASB translation but that won't be perfect either (just far too many possibles for some Greek words to English).  It's about readability and using deductions to get the best possible. 

zarathustra wrote:
If "lost in translation" is indeed a defense against biblical contradictions, we should at least demand that anyone wishing to preach about the bible should first master hebrew and greek. Since, as you've said, the scripture is the source of christianity, and is corrupted by translation into english, perhaps anyone at all wishing to call himself a christian should do the same. Islam holds this standard for its holy text.

As I said the first issue is readability in the native language.  How long was Latin the approved language of the church?  But hey learning Greek might be fun (even though from what I understand it's just as hard as learning Japanese). 

zarathustra wrote:
What irritates me is that it took sceptics to compile a list of contradictions before christians went scrambling to "explain" them. If Greek to English was such a problem for the word of god, the true believers should have nipped it in the bud, rather than waiting for the non-believers to raise the red flags.

Who made what claim first?  The fact that the claim of contradictions arose should mean that there should be an exhaustive attempt to explain them before just running with them.  And as I said, while there are translation issues, the NASB isn't exactly an easy reader (like KJ).

zarathustra wrote:
No, in and of itself, it doesn't really matter. It might matter that the decision to switch the date was based on 'several prophetic "revelations"', as the article relates.

At any rate, it's just another example of how christians can't keep their own "facts" straight. When jesus can be passed up and down the field like this by 30,000 different quarterbacks, it seems that not only does the date of jesus' birth not matter; jesus himself doesn't matter.

First any "revelation" towards the birth date is for the most part a shot for attention.  Second, keeping facts straight seems to be more of a thing for the media that loves to bring things like this up to create controversy.  Third, as I said it's not important to when he was born but why he was born.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Christians should do more research before making their claims.

As should atheists I think - ref. rook.

It is firstly contingent upon christians who are making the positive claims about god/jesus/scripture. Until sufficient research is done, belief in such claims should be suspended.

Rook has a thread on biblical errancy here. Several biblical websites are dealt with, including one which you mentioned. If you'd like for us this sub-topic, that would be a good place.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
When one has to resort to the aforementioned (a lack of concern for the truth, as long as a "dodge" is achieved), to defend the scripture, it casts doubt on the whole enterprise.

Well let's see. My favorite example is that of the word Lucifer. In Greek it refers to the king of Babylon, not Satan. It was an issue of Greek to LATIN that got that screwed up and to which Latin to English that complicates it even further.

Not much complication with Latin to English -- translates as "light-bearer" (lux + ferre) -- pretty straightforward.

At any rate, not sure what bearing that has on the fact that...when one has to resort to the aforementioned (a lack of concern for the truth, as long as a "dodge" is achieved), to defend the scripture, it casts doubt on the whole enterprise.

razorphreak wrote:

Remember the best source to date for English from the Greek is the NASB translation but that won't be perfect either (just far too many possibles for some Greek words to English). It's about readability and using deductions to get the best possible.

Are we yet to deduce "the best possible"? Has every currently operating version of christianity been derived from scripture that is less than "the best"?

razorphreak wrote:
As I said the first issue is readability in the native language. How long was Latin the approved language of the church? But hey learning Greek might be fun (even though from what I understand it's just as hard as learning Japanese).

Therefore, if one has not taken the troubl to study scripture in the native language, do they lack the authority to preach christianity? That would surely silence a great many of the pulpits from which sermons currently peal. Do we now say that any denomination not predicated on a reading of the original Hebrew & Greek does not make the cut for "true christianity"?

This need to understand the original reading which you are now asserting seems to clash with your previous claim, that the true reading of the scripture is gained by revelation, which god chooses to bestow. Are we arrived at a contradiction?

razorphreak wrote:

Who made what claim first? The fact that the claim of contradictions arose should mean that there should be an exhaustive attempt to explain them before just running with them. And as I said, while there are translation issues, the NASB isn't exactly an easy reader (like KJ).

christians made the claim first - by claiming that there is a god, his name is jesus, and it's all in the bible. Prior to making such claims, they should have been alert to the fact that many passages are contradictory (even if only in their phrasing, as seems to be the running defense), they shoudl have handled it at that time. Trying to recover only after sceptics have pointed out the contradictions smacks of desperation.

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
To debate contradictions

To debate contradictions and theological points, it is important to know the original languages. It is possible to preach without knowing Greek or Hebrew because there are several books written by people who do know those languages. You should never preach anything without making sure the Bible actually says what your preaching.

Quote:
This need to understand the original reading which you are now asserting seems to clash with your previous claim, that the true reading of the scripture is gained by revelation, which god chooses to bestow.

I don't think true reading of the scripture is gained by revelation. Anyone can claim revelation. For example the Westboro guys. I think that true understanding of the Bible can be gained only by studing it.


Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: You are

sugarfree wrote:
You are reading the scripture out of it's historical context, which is why, if you truly want to understand the Bible, you must understand the culture in which it was written

That's EXACTLY why I don't believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of god.  In fact, understanding the cultural influence ON the scriptures is pretty much PROOF POSSITIVE that the bible was written by people with little or no understanding of reality and THUS could not have been recieving the words they wrote from any god.

Think about what you just typed out there.

You're asking us to understand that the bible was written by bronze-age man, contains bronze age understanding of the universe, and that it's the word of god?

I guess that I'd counter with this question:

If God really was talking to these people, why wouldn't his understanding of reality seep into the words?

Why is it that god really does want women to be silent in church?  Why is it that god really wants you to have slaves as long as they are not from amongst your own race?  Why is it that God told those in power that it's okay to beat your slaves to the edge of death as long as they are able to go back to work a few days later?

If god REALLY set out to inspire people to write of his will and his love for all his creation, I doubt it would have included so much hatred of women everyone who isn't a Jew or a Christian.

I distrust the bible because I DO understand the culture from which it came and can CLEARLY see how the faith was structured to establish a power base and control over the masses.  It's clear as day when you read the bible and understand the ignorance of the people who wrote it. 

Quote:
If you read it solely against the backdrop of contemporary culture, you will come to these types of false conclusions. It takes a little extra effort, but it is worth it.

No, I read it against the backdrop of our current culture which holds women to be equals, holds that slavery is EVIL, thinks that EVERYONE deserves life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, and believes that everyone should be free to believe whatever they want.

The Bible holds all those things I have listed as sin and thus I reject it.

Who needs God when you have Chopin?


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
On Slavery: Lets look at

On Slavery:

Lets look at the idea of Child Labor. Seems bad right? But what about in countries that don't have wellfare. The childs parents are unable to work for whatever reason. If the child doesn't work, the child and parents starve. In this context giving the child a job so that he and his parents can live isn't so evil. I find it possible that maybe a similar situation exists with slavery, although I can't think of what it might be, but it could exist.

On Women:

There are various views for why women couldn't speak in church.None of which make them inferior to men.  Also remember that females are cited as seeing the empty tomb first.

If you read ALL of the New Testament, it becomes clear that women are not inferior to men. 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Not much

zarathustra wrote:
Not much complication with Latin to English -- translates as "light-bearer" (lux + ferre) -- pretty straightforward.

At any rate, not sure what bearing that has on the fact that...when one has to resort to the aforementioned (a lack of concern for the truth, as long as a "dodge" is achieved), to defend the scripture, it casts doubt on the whole enterprise.

Ah but when the GREEK said something different, then the Latin was wrong and continued throughout history.

My point is while you keep calling it a dodge it's escaping my understanding how you can miss the point.  In the Spanish language, if you say "te amo" you are saying you love them.  If you say "te quero", litterly meaning "I want you", in context of how it was spoken it can also mean "I love you" as well.  My point here is depending on the language, phrases translated may not express the full meaning or the full understanding.

There is no dodge.  It is how spoken languages are. 

zarathustra wrote:
Therefore, if one has not taken the troubl to study scripture in the native language, do they lack the authority to preach christianity? That would surely silence a great many of the pulpits from which sermons currently peal. Do we now say that any denomination not predicated on a reading of the original Hebrew & Greek does not make the cut for "true christianity"?

This need to understand the original reading which you are now asserting seems to clash with your previous claim, that the true reading of the scripture is gained by revelation, which god chooses to bestow. Are we arrived at a contradiction?

Hardly.  Understanding comes from God, not our own will to sit and read.  How many people do you know that missed what happened in The Matrix and had to watch it again?  I know of a few.  But yet so many others got it on the first shot.  Why?  To them what they saw and heard made perfect sense, to others not so much if ever.  As it states in proverbs, wisdom is more valuable than gold.  In the same breath, it also tells you where you get it.

Knowing the original languages used to be pretty much a requirement.  Most churches before 1980 conducted their masses in Latin.  There was definately way more studying than there is today.  Does it mean they are not qualified?  No, for the simple reason of the message of God can be expressed without going into technicalities.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Ghost Rider wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:
That's EXACTLY why I don't believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of god. In fact, understanding the cultural influence ON the scriptures is pretty much PROOF POSSITIVE that the bible was written by people with little or no understanding of reality and THUS could not have been recieving the words they wrote from any god.

You're asking us to understand that the bible was written by bronze-age man, contains bronze age understanding of the universe, and that it's the word of god?

Influence is what the point is. Yes man wrote the bible but there is a favorite passage of mine that explains why we believe the bible is from God:

2 Peter 1: 20-21 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Ghost Rider wrote:
Why is it that god really does want women to be silent in church? Why is it that god really wants you to have slaves as long as they are not from amongst your own race? Why is it that God told those in power that it's okay to beat your slaves to the edge of death as long as they are able to go back to work a few days later?

As to the issue of women, check out this thread.

As to slavery, understand it should NOT come from what we know of the issue of slavery from 19th century America. In ancient Rome (and I'm not talking about the city now), slavery was for war captured soliders, debtors and criminals. Very few mistreated their slaves and many times they could either buy or earn their freedom. True it wasn't paradice (they attribute slavery as a major reason to the fall of Rome), but it wasn't anything like American slavery (1). I think you are coming from the wrong point of view.

Ghost Rider wrote:
I distrust the bible because I DO understand the culture from which it came and can CLEARLY see how the faith was structured to establish a power base and control over the masses. It's clear as day when you read the bible and understand the ignorance of the people who wrote it.

Funny, you mention slavery and didn't bring about what it was about at the time? You have me wondering what culture is it you think it came from.

1. http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/Romans/slavery/slavery2.html 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: To

simple theist wrote:

To debate contradictions and theological points, it is important to know the original languages. It is possible to preach without knowing Greek or Hebrew because there are several books written by people who do know those languages. You should never preach anything without making sure the Bible actually says what your preaching.

I don't think true reading of the scripture is gained by revelation. Anyone can claim revelation. For example the Westboro guys. I think that true understanding of the Bible can be gained only by studing it.

The discussion of understanding scripture came up in reference to the thread topic because it was offered as the unifying element among all "christian" denominations, despite their dogmatic differences.  I contended that it begged the question, as the scripture can be (and has been) interpreted in countless way--therefore it remains an open question to determine what the correct reading of the scripture is.  

We are presently discussing the need to study scripture in its original form -- an acknowledgement that something is lost in translation.  

As it presently stands, there are several denominations (a d individual preachers) whose knowledge of scripture is not predicated on a study of the original texts.  Are such denominations and preachers therefore inadmissible as "christian", since their understanding of scripture is corrupted?  If study of the originals becomes standard, will the various christian denominations grow unified in their beliefs, or will sectarian differences remain?

Razorphreak previously responded that the proper understanding was given by revelation from god, going so far as to say

Quote:
God reveals the truth to some and blinds others, just as in the example of Pharaoh from the bible.
  You suggest otherwise, that revelation plays no part in it.  Such basic disagreements as this are why I am confused as to what true christianity is.  

(I certainly do not mean to beat up on razorphreak by citing him.  He is the only one who has taken the trouble to pursue this discussion, for which he has my thanks).

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Christian: Christ - the

Christian: Christ - the Messiah whom we believe is Jesus; ian - Slave

Therefore Christian means a slave of Christ. Now what does it mean to be a slave of Christ.

I think at the minimial, you must obey Jesus' two commandments. Love God, and Love everyone. YOu must also except Christ as Savior and believe in The Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirt. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:

I think at the minimial, you must obey Jesus' two commandments. Love God, and Love everyone. YOu must also except Christ as Savior and believe in The Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirt.

Kindly read the third paragraph of the topic heading to see why this terse description doesn't work.  Let me know if you need clarification. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Thus Spake Zarathustra

Thus Spake Zarathustra:                                                                          

Kindly read the third paragraph of the topic heading to see why this terse description doesn't work. Let me know if you need clarification.

 

 

I just wanted to come in and edit your quote box like that... I think you should use it...

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: As it

zarathustra wrote:
As it presently stands, there are several denominations (a d individual preachers) whose knowledge of scripture is not predicated on a study of the original texts. Are such denominations and preachers therefore inadmissible as "christian", since their understanding of scripture is corrupted? If study of the originals becomes standard, will the various christian denominations grow unified in their beliefs, or will sectarian differences remain?

... 

(I certainly do not mean to beat up on razorphreak by citing him. He is the only one who has taken the trouble to pursue this discussion, for which he has my thanks).

First this has been a really good discussion so thank you too.

Your question above got me thinking about the question but not from a future standpoint but from the past - if "Christianity" began as a united belief, what made sectarian differences?  This first brings back the 3 point base to which all Christians belong (belief in Jesus as son of God, his death, resurrection) - the reason why JW and Mormon are NOT Christian.  Anyway if we began united what split us?  Well think of it this way...each "split" typically began with man's instructions, not God's.  "You need to obtain (at times buy) 'indulgences' to be saved" - producing the "protestant" or "reformation" movement to remove that notion (since the bible said otherwise) which of course led to the protestant dogmas, first of which being Lutheran (which I consider ironic since Luther spoke out against that very thing with sola scriptura).  The different protestant movements (Methodist, Advents, Baptist, etc) I look at like the "baby bells" of the AT&T breakup of long ago.  Each are basically the same, just choose to worship a bit differently.

My point in all this is while some people look at titles to show resentment, the commonalities make all Christians (including Catholics) all from the same source and all from the same message: love.

1 John 4:7-12,15 Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us...If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.

This is how I can claim basic unity and why denominations are basically from the desires of men wanting to be different for whatever reason under the sun.  If you are one denomination and I pose the question, since you are denomination x, is it possible that someone from denomination y be in heaven?  If so then why the animosity towards a title?

See what I mean more so now?  Back to your question: "If study of the originals becomes standard, will the various christian denominations grow unified in their beliefs, or will sectarian differences remain?"  I think under a utopian scenario unification would be possible.  I think the only reason differences remain is in many cases a belief in what you were born with and until a real movement to sit down and learn from one another begins, they will remain.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Your

razorphreak wrote:

Your question above got me thinking about the question but not from a future standpoint but from the past - if "Christianity" began as a united belief, what made sectarian differences?

A fair question. It is also fair to ask however if in fact christianity ever was a united belief. The pauline epistles are the only references to christianity prior to the writing of the (canonical ) gospels. We see many instances in his letters where he is writing to correct the beliefs of early communities. This would suggest that uniformity of belief was not in place even from the beginning.

razorphreak wrote:
The different protestant movements (Methodist, Advents, Baptist, etc) I look at like the "baby bells" of the AT&T breakup of long ago. Each are basically the same, just choose to worship a bit differently.

A cute analogy -- I wonder if it's relevant that the government broke up AT & T because it was a monopoly.

Yet, as mentioned before: With distinct and incompatible differences over biblical literalism, faith over means, predestination etc., it is egregious oversimple to say that they are "basically the same". Disagreement over how salvation is conferred (through faith, actions or predestined fate) does not reflect a difference in worship.

razorphreak wrote:
Back to your question:
zarathustra wrote:
If study of the originals becomes standard, will the various christian denominations grow unified in their beliefs, or will sectarian differences remain?
I think under a utopian scenario unification would be possible. I think the only reason differences remain is in many cases a belief in what you were born with and until a real movement to sit down and learn from one another begins, they will remain.

I think a reason (and not the only reason) differences remain is that the bible can be interpreted in so many countless ways -- regardless of the reader's exegetical scholarship. In absence of some generalized objective method for reading the scriptures, anyone is free to interpret the scriptures as he or she sees fit, and call it christianity.

As long as the differences remain, ought we to discard "christianity" as an all-encompassing term?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: A fair

zarathustra wrote:
A fair question. It is also fair to ask however if in fact christianity ever was a united belief. The pauline epistles are the only references to christianity prior to the writing of the (canonical ) gospels. We see many instances in his letters where he is writing to correct the beliefs of early communities. This would suggest that uniformity of belief was not in place even from the beginning.

I'm not sure I understand your statement.  If the earliest gospel, Mark, was said to be written between 40-60 AD,  about the same time that Paul wrote is earliest letter, Romans, but yet we have Acts which puts things into a time line.  Ignoring that Paul almost surely knew Luke, Mark, Peter, and John, the other New Testament writers, the dates to which the letters are attributed are regarded as simply date of writing.  Acts really is the key to showing the uniformity that you make reference to and exactly how the other disciples influenced Paul and how Paul used his new knowledge with that of those who were actually there.  Remember Paul is not the only one to correct early societies.

zarathustra wrote:
Yet, as mentioned before: With distinct and incompatible differences over biblical literalism, faith over means, predestination etc., it is egregious oversimple to say that they are "basically the same". Disagreement over how salvation is conferred (through faith, actions or predestined fate) does not reflect a difference in worship.

I think a reason (and not the only reason) differences remain is that the bible can be interpreted in so many countless ways -- regardless of the reader's exegetical scholarship. In absence of some generalized objective method for reading the scriptures, anyone is free to interpret the scriptures as he or she sees fit, and call it christianity.

As long as the differences remain, ought we to discard "christianity" as an all-encompassing term?

You know after 6 pages of debating here, I got to wondering what point of view are you looking at the various denominations vs. the encompassing title of "Christian".   As far as I know, Christian denominations all read from the same New Testament.  The Catholic vs. Protestant bible differs only in the OT.

Interpretations come not to debate the 3 prong view of Christianity but rather, in my humble opinion, to control.  Organized religions indeed show differences however those differences have been and continue to be related to dogma.  Many times those interpretations come from an educated guess that did not regard Jewish tradition and attempted to start a new (such as the sacrament of confession).  Most churches realized that without their congregations, they would go out of business.  So for control, guess what, dogma.  As it stands you have several theists on this very forum that will probably issue different points of view of the subject of salvation yet only one is correct due to it being from the bible only.  

Incorrect interpretations cannot be lumped in with the correct ones and regard Christianity as "divided" when the divisions are insignificant to what being a Christian is about.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: simple

zarathustra wrote:
simple theist wrote:

I think at the minimial, you must obey Jesus' two commandments. Love God, and Love everyone. YOu must also except Christ as Savior and believe in The Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirt.

Kindly read the third paragraph of the topic heading to see why this terse description doesn't work. Let me know if you need clarification.

I did read the third paragraph and don't think it applies.

 

Quote:
"Christian" serves to identify Pat Robertson (evangelical TV personality), pope benedict (catholic, termed the anti-christ by some other denominations), Gene Robinson (gay episcopalian minister), Fred Phelps (hates homosexuals, loves IEDs), and Ted Haggard (hates homosexuals, except when he's getting massaged). The amish are christian, who reject technology. The megachurches are christian, which are so hi-tech they need their own electric grids. New denominations pop up all the time with new twists on the old story, while some denominations now exist only as encyclopedia articles.

I'm not so sure Ted haggard actually hates homosexuals. Fred Phels on  the other hand doesn't fit into my minimial requirements. Neither would Ted if what you say is true. Everyone else listed should be considered christian using my minimal definition of what a Christian is. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
A fair question. It is also fair to ask however if in fact christianity ever was a united belief. The pauline epistles are the only references to christianity prior to the writing of the (canonical ) gospels.

I'm not sure I understand your statement. If the earliest gospel, Mark, was said to be written between 40-60 AD, about the same time that Paul wrote is earliest letter, Romans, but yet we have Acts which puts things into a time line. Ignoring that Paul almost surely knew Luke, Mark, Peter, and John, the other New Testament writers, the dates to which the letters are attributed are regarded as simply date of writing. Acts really is the key to showing the uniformity that you make reference to and exactly how the other disciples influenced Paul and how Paul used his new knowledge with that of those who were actually there. Remember Paul is not the only one to correct early societies.

My statement was based on the understanding that the canonical gospels -- mark included -- were written after the year 70. The premise for this dating of the gospels is that they all reference the destruction of the temple which occurred in that year. A further premise is that the majority of the gospel events are not mentioned at all in paul's letters. This disagreement over the dating of the gospels aside, paul's admonitions in his letters attest to the doctrinal errancy of the earliest congregations.

As we've previously discussed, the first attempt at scriptural uniformity was not essayed until the Nicene council in the 4th century, when the present canon was decided, and all other gospels rejected. Which is to say non-canonical gospels were in use for the first 3 centuries of christianity. christianity specifically defined by what we call the new testament did not exist until the 4th century.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

As long as the differences remain, ought we to discard "christianity" as an all-encompassing term?

You know after 6 pages of debating here, I got to wondering what point of view are you looking at the various denominations vs. the encompassing title of "Christian". As far as I know, Christian denominations all read from the same New Testament. The Catholic vs. Protestant bible differs only in the OT.

And as far as I know, this is simply not enough to carry the day. You allude to this below (my emphasis added).

razorphreak wrote:

Interpretations come not to debate the 3 prong view of Christianity but rather, in my humble opinion, to control. Organized religions indeed show differences however those differences have been and continue to be related to dogma. Many times those interpretations come from an educated guess that did not regard Jewish tradition and attempted to start a new (such as the sacrament of confession). Most churches realized that without their congregations, they would go out of business. So for control, guess what, dogma.

If there is any worth in the "3 prong view of christianity", one would think it sufficient for keeping churches "in business". If they have to resort to such heterodox dogma for the sake of control, one is left to wonder what that 3 prong view is good for in the first place.

razorphreak wrote:
As it stands you have several theists on this very forum that will probably issue different points of view...

Precisely. You can find a dozen different people professing to be christian, who argue for their religion in a dozen different ways. They may very well share a common belief in jesus/trinity/new testament, but what they regard as evidence or logic to support that stated belief is anything but common. On this very site we have "christians" who take the bible literally and reject evolution; "christians" who take the bible allegorically and accept scientific theories (such as evolution and the big bang) but still put their trinitiarian deity behind it all. There are "christians" who argue purely from faith, and those who seek to argue from logic (which is a concession that they cannot argue christianity from the bible alone). My claim is that whatever unifier you use to describe all christian denominations, it is a meaningless unifier when it permits so many variegated points of view.

razorphreak wrote:
of the subject of salvation yet only one is correct due to it being from the bible only.

Incorrect interpretations cannot be lumped in with the correct ones and regard Christianity as "divided" when the divisions are insignificant to what being a Christian is about.

If the divisions are insignificant, they ought not to exist.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: My

zarathustra wrote:
My statement was based on the understanding that the canonical gospels -- mark included -- were written after the year 70. The premise for this dating of the gospels is that they all reference the destruction of the temple which occurred in that year.

Verses please.  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  The only temple destruction that was referenced was Jesus himself speaking of destroying the temple in 3 days.  Please use Mark since that is considered the first written. 

zarathustra wrote:
A further premise is that the majority of the gospel events are not mentioned at all in paul's letters. This disagreement over the dating of the gospels aside, paul's admonitions in his letters attest to the doctrinal errancy of the earliest congregations.

I still don't understand how that's relevant (gospel events). 

As to correcting early Christian followers, those letters remember were AFTER they were established.  It didn't happen the same day Jesus died ya know. 

zarathustra wrote:
As we've previously discussed, the first attempt at scriptural uniformity was not essayed until the Nicene council in the 4th century, when the present canon was decided, and all other gospels rejected. Which is to say non-canonical gospels were in use for the first 3 centuries of christianity. christianity specifically defined by what we call the new testament did not exist until the 4th century.

Actually it would be more like word of mouth issues.  Writting was not common practice then and word of mouth problems would occur, much like they still do today.

zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
If there is any worth in the "3 prong view of christianity", one would think it sufficient for keeping churches "in business". If they have to resort to such heterodox dogma for the sake of control, one is left to wonder what that 3 prong view is good for in the first place.

Who says it's not?  Dogma is man's control over another man, not over the word of God. 

zarathustra wrote:
Precisely. You can find a dozen different people professing to be christian, who argue for their religion in a dozen different ways. They may very well share a common belief in jesus/trinity/new testament, but what they regard as evidence or logic to support that stated belief is anything but common.

We are talking about people, who throughout history can't get much right, ever.  And that goes for all subjects, not just religion.

zarathustra wrote:
My claim is that whatever unifier you use to describe all christian denominations, it is a meaningless unifier when it permits so many variegated points of view.

And mine is those differences that you might use to say they break the notion of belief are insignificant because of that unifier. 

zarathustra wrote:
If the divisions are insignificant, they ought not to exist.

As I said before, nobody's perfect.  It's tradition to some to marry more than one person which makes for division in American society yet they are insignificant to the whole. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
My statement was based on the understanding that the canonical gospels -- mark included -- were written after the year 70. The premise for this dating of the gospels is that they all reference the destruction of the temple which occurred in that year.

Verses please. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The only temple destruction that was referenced was Jesus himself speaking of destroying the temple in 3 days. Please use Mark since that is considered the first written.

Yes, I'm referring to Mk 13:1-4. Aside from the temple destruction, there is reference in mark to other events which occurred during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70). I take the existence of these references as dating mark during or after the Revolt. I imagine one who claims mark was written during the years 40-60 would hold that jesus was simply prophesying those exact events. If this claim hinges solely on faith in jesus' existence and his ability to prophesize, I suppose there is no resolution to this disagreement.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
A further premise is that the majority of the gospel events are not mentioned at all in paul's letters. This disagreement over the dating of the gospels aside, paul's admonitions in his letters attest to the doctrinal errancy of the earliest congregations.

I still don't understand how that's relevant (gospel events).

If we can't agree on the dating of the gospels, then I suppose we can't agree on their level of relevance to the matter. I was simply analyzing your assertion that christianity is defined by the new testament. paul is the only documented source for christian doctrine prior to the gospels; if you would rather contend that the gospels (or at least mark) was concurrent with paul's epistles, it is pertinent that paul does not utilize them or any similar source. There is no treatment in the epistles of the full events of jesus' life (birth, ministry and miracles) as are mentioned in the gospels, nor even any obvious treatment of jesus as a historical figure.

That we see paul correcting the beliefs of his audience barely a few years after jesus' purported death is indication that uniformity of christian doctrine went off course very early in the game, if indeed that uniformity ever existed.

razorphreak wrote:

As to correcting early Christian followers, those letters remember were AFTER they were established. It didn't happen the same day Jesus died ya know.

Of course not. It happened 3 days after he died. That is, if there even was such a person who lived and died. Ya know.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
As we've previously discussed, the first attempt at scriptural uniformity was not essayed until the Nicene council in the 4th century, when the present canon was decided, and all other gospels rejected. Which is to say non-canonical gospels were in use for the first 3 centuries of christianity. christianity specifically defined by what we call the new testament did not exist until the 4th century.

Actually it would be more like word of mouth issues. Writting was not common practice then and word of mouth problems would occur, much like they still do today.

I was referring to the usage of other gospels, such as thomas and peter, as well as the arian heresy. This is evidence enough that other conceptions of jesus abounded prior to the Nicene Council.

As far as word of mouth problems: Although I am sceptical of this (we see that paul could write letters without any trouble, and at least one person in each of his intended audiences could read them presumably), how can we be sure that the true version of the message has persevered, and that it didn't get irreparably corrupted during this early game of whispers?

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
If there is any worth in the "3 prong view of christianity", one would think it sufficient for keeping churches "in business". If they have to resort to such heterodox dogma for the sake of control, one is left to wonder what that 3 prong view is good for in the first place.

Who says it's not? Dogma is man's control over another man, not over the word of God.

Yet if man finds dogma so important that he would separate from another denomination and form his own over it, it appears the "word of god" is not significant enough to compel man to look past his dogmatic differences.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Precisely. You can find a dozen different people professing to be christian, who argue for their religion in a dozen different ways. They may very well share a common belief in jesus/trinity/new testament, but what they regard as evidence or logic to support that stated belief is anything but common.

We are talking about people, who throughout history can't get much right, ever. And that goes for all subjects, not just religion.

Quite so. However, in regard to science, history or any other subject, noone would say that a dozen different theories (let alone 30,000 different theories) were all simultaneously true. In such case, objective methods exist for sifting the true theory out of the false ones. No such comparable objective method exists in regard to religious dogma.

razorphreak wrote:

Quote:
My claim is that whatever unifier you use to describe all christian denominations, it is a meaningless unifier when it permits so many variegated points of view.

And mine is those differences that you might use to say they break the notion of belief are insignificant because of that unifier.

Quote:
If the divisions are insignificant, they ought not to exist.

As I said before, nobody's perfect. It's tradition to some to marry more than one person which makes for division in American society yet they are insignificant to the whole.

Marriage is a human institution. christianity purports to be divine in origin. You'd expect more consistency if such is the case. Unless "nobody's perfect" refers to god as well.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Yes, I'm referring to Mk 13:1-4.

Interesting. From my studies, Mark 13 along with Matthew 24, Jesus was NOT speaking of the temple (since in verse 1 it even says "As he was leaving the temple", i.e. already out) but rather the signs of his return to Earth. Verse 4 leds you into that so I'm not sure how that speaks of the temple destruction.

zarathustra wrote:
there is reference in mark to other events which occurred during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70).

OK that's one I've never heard before. Where is that from?

zarathustra wrote:
I take the existence of these references as dating mark during or after the Revolt. I imagine one who claims mark was written during the years 40-60 would hold that jesus was simply prophesying those exact events. If this claim hinges solely on faith in jesus' existence and his ability to prophesize, I suppose there is no resolution to this disagreement.

I understand the reason behind WHY now, however let me ask you if there is a proper explanation to the verses you quote (though I get the feeling you'd probably dismiss them in favor of what would work towards your point of view) would that not solve this disagreement?

zarathustra wrote:
I was simply analyzing your assertion that christianity is defined by the new testament. paul is the only documented source for christian doctrine prior to the gospels; if you would rather contend that the gospels (or at least mark) was concurrent with paul's epistles, it is pertinent that paul does not utilize them or any similar source. There is no treatment in the epistles of the full events of jesus' life (birth, ministry and miracles) as are mentioned in the gospels, nor even any obvious treatment of jesus as a historical figure.

And if it was explained that the gospels really were written before Paul's letter to the Romans, a good 5-10 years almost, how would this alter that view? What's more, WHY would the NT not qualify as being the proper explanation for what Christianity is?

zarathustra wrote:
That we see paul correcting the beliefs of his audience barely a few years after jesus' purported death is indication that uniformity of christian doctrine went off course very early in the game, if indeed that uniformity ever existed.

If I said I had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for a snack after 10 people told it I'd probably end up having it with milk and it was choosy-moms-choose-Jiff pb and strawberry jelly. Eventually I'd have to go back in and correct them even though the message was for the most part, correct.

zarathustra wrote:
I was referring to the usage of other gospels, such as thomas and peter, as well as the arian heresy. This is evidence enough that other conceptions of jesus abounded prior to the Nicene Council.

Doesn't mean they'd be correct either. There is one letter that refutes the sources (gnostic) of those anyway - 1 John. And from someone who was actually there with Jesus, I'd consider that a pretty acceptable source to refute those so-called gospels.

zarathustra wrote:
As far as word of mouth problems: Although I am sceptical of this (we see that paul could write letters without any trouble, and at least one person in each of his intended audiences could read them presumably), how can we be sure that the true version of the message has persevered, and that it didn't get irreparably corrupted during this early game of whispers?

You forget, while Paul dominates the NT he was around with Mark, Luke, Peter, and John. These guys were very much a part of Jesus' ministry (not to mention Stephen, James, so on) so just like we have so many that take their version of what was written for their own use, I'm sure it happened 2000 years ago too.

zarathustra wrote:
Yet if man finds dogma so important that he would separate from another denomination and form his own over it, it appears the "word of god" is not significant enough to compel man to look past his dogmatic differences.

Again it doesn't make it right.

zarathustra wrote:
However, in regard to science, history or any other subject, noone would say that a dozen different theories (let alone 30,000 different theories) were all simultaneously true. In such case, objective methods exist for sifting the true theory out of the false ones. No such comparable objective method exists in regard to religious dogma.

But they were at one point in time considered true and that's my point. Earth being flat, flight impossible, a "sea monster with tentacles able to take down ships" myth, so on. How many times does man get it right on the first try?

zarathustra wrote:
Marriage is a human institution. christianity purports to be divine in origin. You'd expect more consistency if such is the case. Unless "nobody's perfect" refers to god as well.

LOL marriage is a term for the lawful union between two people. It has nothing to do with God in the terms that we think it. "Marriage" to God is between two people and the feeling that is shared "heart-to-heart" if you will and when they consummate that relationship, joining to being one flesh. To God, that's marriage. Marriage today is clouded which is why there is such a hot debate on homosexual marriage. Still doesn't make anyone perfect.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Yes, I'm referring to Mk 13:1-4.

Interesting. From my studies, Mark 13 along with Matthew 24, Jesus was NOT speaking of the temple (since in verse 1 it even says "As he was leaving the temple", i.e. already out) but rather the signs of his return to Earth. Verse 4 leds you into that so I'm not sure how that speaks of the temple destruction.

zarathustra wrote:
there is reference in mark to other events which occurred during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70).

OK that's one I've never heard before. Where is that from?

It's touched upon here:

Quote:

The most probable understanding of the "Little Apocalypse" is that it was written with reference to the events of the First Jewish Revolt: The Temple is destroyed (v. 2), there are wars and threats of wars (c. 7), nation rises against nation and there is famine (v. Cool, many are brought into custody (v. 11), one should flee from Judea (v. 14), there are false prophets (v. 22), and all this is "more distressful than any time between the work of creation and now, and for all time to come."

Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE.

razorphreak wrote:

I understand the reason behind WHY now, however let me ask you if there is a proper explanation to the verses you quote (though I get the feeling you'd probably dismiss them in favor of what would work towards your point of view) would that not solve this disagreement?

Of course it would, as long as it's proper. And no, I'm not assuming my conclusions in advance, and deliberately dismissing any explanations that lead to different conclusions. Hopefully you aren't either.

razorphreak wrote:
...if it was explained that the gospels really were written before Paul's letter to the Romans, a good 5-10 years almost, how would this alter that view? What's more, WHY would the NT not qualify as being the proper explanation for what Christianity is?

Is this just an "if", or do you actually have an explanation that the gospels were written before the epistles?

If the gospels were written before paul, it would be paramountly strange that paul makes no mention of the gospel events when ministering in his letters. As far as why the NT is dubious as an unequivocal explanation of christianity: christianity predates the NT, by some 3 centuries. How was true christianity determined prior to the NT's compilation? If it could in fact be determined without the use of the NT, what need have we for it now?

razorphreak wrote:
zarathustra wrote:
That we see paul correcting the beliefs of his audience barely a few years after jesus' purported death is indication that uniformity of christian doctrine went off course very early in the game, if indeed that uniformity ever existed.

If I said I had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for a snack after 10 people told it I'd probably end up having it with milk and it was choosy-moms-choose-Jiff pb and strawberry jelly. Eventually I'd have to go back in and correct them even though the message was for the most part, correct.

And then when the message fubars all over again after your "corrections", it appears that your snack story isn't all that important in the first place. 

Lets raise the stakes on this absolutely inconsequential analogy:  one version of the lunch story claims the PBJ and milk was actually Peter Pan's body and blood, and if you don't eat it you'll get the measles, while others claim you just have to read the ingredients on the jar.  Some think Peter Pan is going to return before lunch bringing more PBJ, whie others say we know not the day nor the hour when he returns.  At this level of divergence, the message is no longer, for the most part correct. Frankly, if Peter Pan had any self-respect, you'd think he'd come out of the kitchen to set the story straight, rather than letting all these unfounded rumors spread about him.

Yeah, I think we're way out in left field now. Fun, isn't it.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
I was referring to the usage of other gospels, such as thomas and peter, as well as the arian heresy. This is evidence enough that other conceptions of jesus abounded prior to the Nicene Council.

Doesn't mean they'd be correct either. There is one letter that refutes the sources (gnostic) of those anyway - 1 John. And from someone who was actually there with Jesus, I'd consider that a pretty acceptable source to refute those so-called gospels.

No point, I suppose, in delving into the scholarship which posits this was not written by the apostle (and that the author may actually be different than the writer of the gospel of the same name).

razorphreak wrote:

You forget, while Paul dominates the NT he was around with Mark, Luke, Peter, and John. These guys were very much a part of Jesus' ministry (not to mention Stephen, James, so on) so just like we have so many that take their version of what was written for their own use, I'm sure it happened 2000 years ago too.

If paul had no use for the gospel events, what need do we have?

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Yet if man finds dogma so important that he would separate from another denomination and form his own over it, it appears the "word of god" is not significant enough to compel man to look past his dogmatic differences.

Again it doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make what right?

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
However, in regard to science, history or any other subject, noone would say that a dozen different theories (let alone 30,000 different theories) were all simultaneously true. In such case, objective methods exist for sifting the true theory out of the false ones. No such comparable objective method exists in regard to religious dogma.

But they were at one point in time considered true and that's my point. Earth being flat, flight impossible, a "sea monster with tentacles able to take down ships" myth, so on. How many times does man get it right on the first try?

In regard to flat earth or flight, our knowledge has progressed, and false theories have been thrown out. christianity does not appear to be progressing towards any clarity.

And if this religion (or group of religions) was started by the original disciples of the god in question, why wouldn't they get it right on the first try?

razorphreak wrote:

LOL marriage is a term for the lawful union between two people. It has nothing to do with God in the terms that we think it. "Marriage" to God is between two people...

If we ignore the old testament, that is.

razorphreak wrote:

...and the feeling that is shared "heart-to-heart" if you will and when they consummate that relationship, joining to being one flesh. To God, that's marriage. Marriage today is clouded which is why there is such a hot debate on homosexual marriage. Still doesn't make anyone perfect.

You originally used marriage (and the different opinions people have of it) to draw a parallel to christianity and its many different views. I'm not sure what this last passage has to do with anything.

 [edited for typos]

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Would have responded

Would have responded sooner, but either I missed it or was planning on responding to it and then forgot. 

zarathustra wrote:


The discussion of understanding scripture came up in reference to the thread topic because it was offered as the unifying element among all "christian" denominations, despite their dogmatic differences. I contended that it begged the question, as the scripture can be (and has been) interpreted in countless way--therefore it remains an open question to determine what the correct reading of the scripture is.

We are presently discussing the need to study scripture in its original form -- an acknowledgement that something is lost in translation.

I think you plan on teaching others what the bible says, you really should be able to read Greek and Hebrew.

Quote:
As it presently stands, there are several denominations (a d individual preachers) whose knowledge of scripture is not predicated on a study of the original texts. Are such denominations and preachers therefore inadmissible as "christian", since their understanding of scripture is corrupted? If study of the originals becomes standard, will the various christian denominations grow unified in their beliefs, or will sectarian differences remain?
I'm not sure if this would fix everything and I wouldn't say that they are absolutely non-christian. I don't think the denominations will grow unified. Protestants protested the Catholic Church and after learning they could seperate from the parent chuch whenever they wanted, kept doing so whenever they disagreed over something. I find it strange that the Orthodox Church has never had anyone seperate from it to my knowledge.

Quote:
 

Razorphreak previously responded that the proper understanding was given by revelation from god, going so far as to say

Quote:
God reveals the truth to some and blinds others, just as in the example of Pharaoh from the bible.
You suggest otherwise, that revelation plays no part in it. Such basic disagreements as this are why I am confused as to what true christianity is.

I think if revelation played a part in it, there wouldn't need to be any additional study books, and we would never disagree over what scripture means. Joseph Smith had a large revelation that there was additional books that were equal to the Bible (or a good way to get people to follow him). This doesn't mean that God can't reveal what scripture means or that he hasn't. True Christianity means accepting Jesus as Lord.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
It would be hepful if we

It would be hepful if we could agree on those basic tenets.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
I've chosen to skip the

I've chosen to skip the Jewish temple point because we are getting into a interpretation issue - Jesus spoke the words yet it's being taken as if Jesus himself witnesses the temple destruction. His descriptions are in line with other "apocalypse" points for his return to Earth, NOT another event on Earth...but I'm going to get into that in just a bit.

zarathustra wrote:
Of course it would, as long as it's proper. And no, I'm not assuming my conclusions in advance, and deliberately dismissing any explanations that lead to different conclusions. Hopefully you aren't either.

Nope not at all....but forgive me if I do play devil's advocate because that's how my mind works at times.

zarathustra wrote:
Is this just an "if", or do you actually have an explanation that the gospels were written before the epistles?...If the gospels were written before paul, it would be paramountly strange that paul makes no mention of the gospel events when ministering in his letters. As far as why the NT is dubious as an unequivocal explanation of christianity: christianity predates the NT, by some 3 centuries. How was true christianity determined prior to the NT's compilation? If it could in fact be determined without the use of the NT, what need have we for it now?

This question has come up several times in other threads and I have thought about it for a while now, and so far, the only explanation that keeps occurring in my mind is "are they forgetting what period of time we are talking about?" Let me explain...

Realistically speaking, how long do you suppose letters and books took to publish before the printing press (i.e. before 1450 CE)? Never mind people were typically not educated to read to start, writing took years to accomplish something more than 2 or 3 chapters in length. By today's standards, a 20+ chapter novel takes sometimes several years to write, edit, rewrite, and then publish. Now that's with the use of computers, typewriters, or other equipment. Now add the complexity of having to use an ink stick or something like that, finding ink, finding the paper, so on, not to mention you are HAND WRITING too, and I would hope that the amount of time begins to sink in.

OK so we take the death of Jesus..if he was born in year 0, lived to about 32-35 years of age, that means that the writings could have begun while he was alive of the things he did and scribes that followed him had tons of information (i.e. notes) as to what was done. Mark is one of those scribes (considered to be one of Peter's behind the scenes dudes...umm disciples). Now the reason I brought up how much time it takes to write something like one of those gospels from memory and notes [at that time] means Mark's writing to completion should be given at least 5-10 years before the prediction of the temple destruction (if that indeed was the proper prediction); remember we are saying it came from the 13th chapter after all so the other 12 most likely were already written, proofread, rewritten, and so on.

So was it really a prediction or a recording of what already happened? Well if we take it in context, that is to read the fullness of chapter 13, then we see that the rest is all about prediction so it MUST be written before 70CE. And how far back do you go now considering how much time must have been spent writing up such a novel? See my point yet? I am of the opinion, disregarding the qumran 7q5 piece (dated 50CE), Mark must have been written between 55-60CE and that would be if Jesus was indeed speaking of what Titus did, which, because of the context of Mark 13, would not be so...soooo we could say that Mark may be older than that even and I have a reason behind that too.

The reason, Paul. Paul began his mission not too long after Jesus' death and we can conclude that because of the dating of the letter to the Romans; his letter was probably written between 55-60CE. Now this means the gospels were most likely being written at the same time so now we've got the reason as to why they were not included (not that they had to be either mind you) in Paul's letters but also where Paul's influences and references could have additionally come from (besides that of God). And I didn't even mention how much time it takes after the writing of something for it to circulate, be read, copied, circulated again, and so on to the point where Paul would get the chance to read it; actually I can drop that point since most likely, it was probably communicated to him orally.

Oh yea, did I forget intended audience and how that differs from Paul's purpose to that of the gospels? I'm sure you already knew that though.

I don't think what I've written is that far out in left field this time. By the way, it took me probably just under 2 hours to write all this, looking at my notes, other sources, and referring back to your post as well and that's using a high speed computer.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I've

razorphreak wrote:

I've chosen to skip the Jewish temple point because we are getting into a interpretation issue

I suppose.  The source of this digression was whether the gospels were written before or after the pauline epistles.  This bears upon the main topic as far as how heavily the gospels can be relied on for determining true christianity.  If -- as I contend -- the gospels were written after 70, there is a 40-year interval to account for, and the definition of true christianity must be sought by other means. 

razorphreak wrote:
...forgive me if I do play devil's advocate because that's how my mind works at times.

Of course, as satan may be deceiving you--a posibility you allowed for previously.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
If the gospels were written before paul, it would be paramountly strange that paul makes no mention of the gospel events when ministering in his letters. As far as why the NT is dubious as an unequivocal explanation of christianity: christianity predates the NT, by some 3 centuries. How was true christianity determined prior to the NT's compilation? If it could in fact be determined without the use of the NT, what need have we for it now?

Realistically speaking, how long do you suppose letters and books took to publish before the printing press (i.e. before 1450 CE)?

Realistically speaking...not that long.  Alexander and Julius Caesar have contemporary references, and they both predate jesus. Caesar for one left writings of his own.

razorphreak wrote:

Never mind people were typically not educated to read to start, writing took years to accomplish something more than 2 or 3 chapters in length.

Did paul spend 2-3 years per letter? 

razorphreak wrote:

OK so we take the death of Jesus..if he was born in year 0, lived to about 32-35 years of age, that means that the writings could have begun while he was alive of the things he did and scribes that followed him had tons of information (i.e. notes) as to what was done.

Mark is one of those scribes (considered to be one of Peter's behind the scenes dudes...umm disciples). Now the reason I brought up how much time it takes to write something like one of those gospels from memory and notes [at that time] means Mark's writing to completion should be given at least 5-10 years before the prediction of the temple destruction (if that indeed was the proper prediction); remember we are saying it came from the 13th chapter after all so the other 12 most likely were already written, proofread, rewritten, and so on.

With tons of information (i.e. notes) written between the year 0 and 35, we ought to expect at least a few scraps-- if not tons--of such information (i.e. notes) dating to that period.  And with tons of information (i.e. notes) in immediate circulation, it is paramountly strange that paul makes no mention of the gospel events when ministering in his letters.

razorphreak wrote:

So was it really a prediction or a recording of what already happened? Well if we take it in context, that is to read the fullness of chapter 13, then we see that the rest is all about prediction so it MUST be written before 70CE.

I'm not sure what criteria you're following in order to take it in context, that is to read the fullness of chapter 13 -- unless that means assuming without prior that jesus is real, and your reading has to confirm that assumption.  What I get from reading it is that it is apocalyptic literature, and the writer thought the world would end and jesus would return in his lifetime ("So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.  Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." Mk 13:29-30).

 This has become quite a digression, I must admit.  What relevance can be gained is this:  Your continuing assertion is that the proper definition of christianity is contained within the scriptures.  As our discussion indicates, the scriptures are a confusing collection altogether.  It is fully inconclusive when the first gospels were written, and what became the definitive canon was not decided until the 4th century.  Furthermore, the scriptures betray at worst outright contradictions (the skeptic's claim), and at best, ambiguities due to difficulty in translation (the faithful's claim).  With such obstacles in place, true christianity remains without a clear definition.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: If -- as

zarathustra wrote:
If -- as I contend -- the gospels were written after 70, there is a 40-year interval to account for, and the definition of true christianity must be sought by other means.

I agree, but that's a big if, and from what the writings indicate, it wouldn't be true.  My own if's would be:

  1. If Mark 13 (and the subsequent references) were indeed speaking of a future event, that is the temple destruction in 70CE, then as the role of biographers they wrote of a prediction hence indicating written before.
  2. If it was about Jesus' return to Earth, which is what the entire chapter 13 is about (and since when originally written, there were no chapters so once a point begins (end of the world) it is isn't dropped until complete meaning the verses about the buildings destruction and the one's about false prophets are all related since they speak of the end of time), now we are talking about something different that isn't meant to be broken apart as v1-2 are one point but 3-37 are another. 

By the way, if you take all of ch 13 then you'll notice a continuance in verses 3-4 where he begins to explain a time when they will occur - didn't sound like a few years down the road (I'll explain more on your "generation" point).

Because of the audience for each of the Pauline letters, the relevance between what he wrote and what the gospel writers is an unspoken one.  I gave an example on a different thread - if I just read the book The Firm and then I read The Rainmaker, both of these are about law but yet why didn't one reference the other since they both occurred in Memphis?  They are written for different audiences and hence different words and explanations will be used but the main theme of the writings still exist; law.

zarathustra wrote:
Of course, as satan may be deceiving you--a posibility you allowed for previously.

Always is. 

zarathustra wrote:
Realistically speaking...not that long. Alexander and Julius Caesar have contemporary references, and they both predate jesus. Caesar for one left writings of his own.

Did paul spend 2-3 years per letter?

It's possible no? 

zarathustra wrote:
With tons of information (i.e. notes) written between the year 0 and 35, we ought to expect at least a few scraps-- if not tons--of such information (i.e. notes) dating to that period. And with tons of information (i.e. notes) in immediate circulation, it is paramountly strange that paul makes no mention of the gospel events when ministering in his letters.

Not if (a) they were written at the same time and (b) those who he wrote to already knew of the story of Jesus (probably by oral communication). 

zarathustra wrote:
I'm not sure what criteria you're following in order to take it in context, that is to read the fullness of chapter 13 -- unless that means assuming without prior that jesus is real, and your reading has to confirm that assumption. What I get from reading it is that it is apocalyptic literature, and the writer thought the world would end and jesus would return in his lifetime ("So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." Mk 13:29-30).

The word "generation" in Greek is "γενεά" (Strongs G1074) which has the definitions of the following:

1) fathered, birth, nativity

2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy

b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character

1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation

3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time

4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

I'm sure that when you first read it you took it to mean point 4.  Note definition 2a.  Because of how the culture at the time would most likely use the word, Jesus' use of the word "γενεά" would probably follow 2a in it's meaning in the verse you posted above because of his future tense of his other points and because 13:32.  Jesus' words speak of "generation" as "race" or rather "humanity".

zarathustra wrote:
Furthermore, the scriptures betray at worst outright contradictions (the skeptic's claim), and at best, ambiguities due to difficulty in translation (the faithful's claim). With such obstacles in place, true christianity remains without a clear definition.

It takes time to explain and doing so online isn't going to help things I'm afraid. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
If -- as I contend -- the gospels were written after 70, there is a 40-year interval to account for, and the definition of true christianity must be sought by other means.

I agree, but that's a big if, and from what the writings indicate, it wouldn't be true. My own if's would be:

  1. If Mark 13 (and the subsequent references) were indeed speaking of a future event, that is the temple destruction in 70CE, then as the role of biographers they wrote of a prediction hence indicating written before. 
This is a much bigger 'if', and therefore far less reasonable.
razorphreak wrote:
  • If it was about Jesus' return to Earth, which is what the entire chapter 13 is about (and since when originally written, there were no chapters so once a point begins (end of the world) it is isn't dropped until complete meaning the verses about the buildings destruction and the one's about false prophets are all related since they speak of the end of time), now we are talking about something different that isn't meant to be broken apart as v1-2 are one point but 3-37 are another.
  • Correct.  The gospel of mark is about the end time, which was expected to occur soon (and of which the temple destruction was taken as a harbinger). 
    razorphreak wrote:

    By the way, if you take all of ch 13 then you'll notice a continuance in verses 3-4 where he begins to explain a time when they will occur - didn't sound like a few years down the road (I'll explain more on your "generation" point).

    I do notice that...unfortunately I don't notice your point.

    razorphreak wrote:

    Because of the audience for each of the Pauline letters, the relevance between what he wrote and what the gospel writers is an unspoken one. I gave an example on a different thread - if I just read the book The Firm and then I read The Rainmaker, both of these are about law but yet why didn't one reference the other since they both occurred in Memphis? They are written for different audiences and hence different words and explanations will be used but the main theme of the writings still exist; law.

    Law is an abstract concept.  The Firm and The Rainmaker are works of fiction which use law as a backdrop.  jesus is supposed to be an actual person.  The gospels and the epistles are supposed to be about jesus (not about something else, with jesus as a backdrop...or are they?).  So your comparison is worthless.  A worthwhile comparison would be two historical works (or even to novels of historical fiction) about the same individual.  In such a case you would expect some concurrence of reference -- such as does not exist in the gospels and epistles.

     

    razorphreak wrote:

    zarathustra wrote:
    Of course, as satan may be deceiving you--a posibility you allowed for previously.

    Always is.

    Thank you for acknolwedging that.  Am I free to say I sense satan's power in your words, and therefore declare victory by default? 

    razorphreak wrote:

    zarathustra wrote:
    Realistically speaking...not that long. Alexander and Julius Caesar have contemporary references, and they both predate jesus. Caesar for one left writings of his own.

    Did paul spend 2-3 years per letter?

    It's possible no?

    It's possible yes.  But kind of pointless.  

    There are no theists on operating tables.

    πππ†
    π†††


    razorphreak
    Theist
    razorphreak's picture
    Posts: 901
    Joined: 2007-02-05
    User is offlineOffline
    Man I thought you left

    Man I thought you left me...haven't talked to you in an evolutionary blink... 

    zarathustra wrote:
    This is a much bigger 'if', and therefore far less reasonable.

    Not really.  It's basically the "if" of Mark was written before 70CE.  And since most resources agree it was, including the possibility of that 7Q5 is indeed Mark, and not to mention the tense of the writing, it is a far more reasonable "if" that it really sounds like you don't want to either consider or accept for reasons unknown...

    zarathustra wrote:
    Correct. The gospel of mark is about the end time, which was expected to occur soon (and of which the temple destruction was taken as a harbinger).

    Odd that I've never read it that way but then I suppose because I first read it in the 20th century and not the 1st.  This however does highlight one important fact - no one knows when the end of the world will come but God.  Not even Jesus knew while a man on Earth.  Because those are Jesus' words the assumption made that the destruction of the temple would begin such events were not of God but of man and hence the ENTIRE chapter does not speak of the events of 70CE. 

    zarathustra wrote:
    Law is an abstract concept. The Firm and The Rainmaker are works of fiction which use law as a backdrop. jesus is supposed to be an actual person. The gospels and the epistles are supposed to be about jesus (not about something else, with jesus as a backdrop...or are they?). So your comparison is worthless. A worthwhile comparison would be two historical works (or even to novels of historical fiction) about the same individual. In such a case you would expect some concurrence of reference -- such as does not exist in the gospels and epistles.

    Oh my goodness I cannot believe you took that approach.  My example was to relate it back to the SUBJECT of law, not the concept. 

    zarathustra wrote:
    Thank you for acknolwedging that. Am I free to say I sense satan's power in your words, and therefore declare victory by default?

    Of course you can.  Although if you "sense" Satan then you must believe such a deity exists and therefore since everything has an opposite, then you are acknowledging God exists as well. 

    Na you wouldn't go that far would you? 

    zarathustra wrote:
    It's possible yes. But kind of pointless.

    Umm not really.  If it takes so long to write such a manuscript then the dating of said writing could very well be earlier than later, and such would also show the gospels as well. 

    What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


    zarathustra
    atheist
    zarathustra's picture
    Posts: 1521
    Joined: 2006-11-16
    User is offlineOffline
    caposkia wrote:zarathustra

    caposkia wrote:
    zarathustra wrote:

    Every sect of Christianity has it's own way of presenting things.

    Which is to say, every sect of christianity disagrees with the others.

    In some aspects of course. That's why they're sects. Sorry to break it to you, but you can't look at sects and religions and expect that to truely represent Christianity.

    BTW, true followers of Christ dwell outside sects. They stick true to what Biblical scripture shows along with history and science.

    So where is one to look for a true representation of christianity?  What is christianity other than a religion, consisting of multiple, conflicting sects?

    caposkia wrote:

     

    zarathustra wrote:

    ...in the end, noone knows what real christianity is.

    Really! My guess is you've never talked to a true Christian then.

    So how does one determine if he's speaking to a "true christian"?

     

    There are no theists on operating tables.

    πππ†
    π†††


    caposkia
    Theist
    Posts: 2701
    Joined: 2007-05-15
    User is offlineOffline
    zarathustra wrote:So where

    zarathustra wrote:

    So where is one to look for a true representation of christianity?  What is christianity other than a religion, consisting of multiple, conflicting sects?

    Now this is a real question. 

    First and foremost, it is love.  True Christianity is concerned about the person, not the people... not to say that a group or race is not of concern, but the focus is the person.  Therefore, true Christianity doesn't separate itself from itself.  Leave that to the hypocrites.  Christians unite and work together toward one cause, which is love toward all of course from the God above.  The purpose is to spread the word about this love, but not to put restrictions on their lives, but to show them how much they are loved. 

    Try to grasp this.  Christianity is a religion... followers of Christ are true Christians.  Christianity does not ask you to give up your heritage.  For example;

    There are roughly 14 million Hindu's in the world.  About 4-5 million of those Hindu's are followers of Christ.  Of all the Muslims in the world, hundreds of thousands of them are as well, followers of Christ.  (info provided by Dr. Ralph Winter Chancellor WCIU)

    ergo it's not about your heritage, or about your religion, it's about what you're for.  Are you for arguing with the world that you're right and everyone else is wrong, or are you for bringing people together regardless of their background and helping them.  Being there for them.  Are you about Jesus Christ? 

    caposkia wrote:

     

    zarathustra wrote:

    ...in the end, noone knows what real christianity is.

     

    Really! My guess is you've never talked to a true Christian then.

    So how does one determine if he's speaking to a "true christian"?

    They are the people you'll see out there, humbling themselves in ways beyond what you'd probably expect.  They are the ones that don't ram sunshine up your ass, but rather befriend you.  They will take you into their home and they will be there for you.  Instead of going on and on, they will love you for who you are, not what you are.  If you want more detail, let me know. 

     


    Strafio
    Strafio's picture
    Posts: 1346
    Joined: 2006-09-11
    User is offlineOffline
    Hmmm...You seem to use the

    Hmmm...
    You seem to use the word 'Christian' the way that we use the word 'humanitarian' - someone who cares for the welfare of their fellow person.
    A lot of Jesus' sayings gave a humanitarian message, but you could also find quotes that are anti-humanitarian.
    A Christian is someone who finds importance in Jesus and I think that whether they interpret him in a humanitarian way will depend as much on them and their common sense more than what Jesus said. Another point is that there are a multitude of ideological figures who also promote a humanitarian message, many of them completely unconnected with Christianity.

    Having said that, the humanitarian spirit is what most modern Christians use as a measure when determining whether someone is a true Christian. What's more, these modern Christians tend to be very open to recognising that 'all paths lead to God', that what they call 'Jesus' another might call 'Buddha' or 'Mohammed'. Some point out that the theologies contradict, but they miss the point that when humanitarianism (and other aspects of 'ideal' faith) is a measure of Christianity/truth, the fact that other faiths can produce such humanitarianism should make them equally acceptable if you are to be consistent.

    To bring this back to the question of the OP, when many talk of a 'real' Christianity they talk of a set of beliefs/doctrines/dogmas that you are supposed to accept.
    Especially when the conversation is of a political nature.
    However, when Christians talk of 'true' Christian, (provided the conversation isn't of a political nature) they tend to be thinking in terms of the characteristics and virtues of the person involved. When people talk about 'true faith', in my experience they tend to use examples of historical/mythological characters, and how their faith helped them over-come certain vices and weaknesses of human nature.
    For some, faith helped them overcome fear and follow their principles against dangerous adversity that would've broken a lesser man into a submissive wreck.
    For others, faith helped them overcome greed and personal grasping, led them to choose a life that was more difficult and less comfortable but ultimately much more rewarding.
    Another example of the traditional 'benefits' of faith are those who are full of bitter prejudices, grudges, feuds, and have been stuck in circles of revenge and escalations - faith eased their frustrations and allowed them to experience peace and rise above petty squabbles to savour something more important.

    Perhaps a good definition of faith is the state of mind that allows one to conquer ones human weaknesses, resist temptations in order to do what we know is right.
    After all, I've yet to meet a Christian, moderate or fundamentalist, who has claimed that acknowledging the facts is what is important. What they have in common is claiming that faith is something that transforms their lives, helps them rise above the gremlins that used to get them down. That is, we have a definition of faith that the religious folk themselves would agree with.
    From there, the big difference between moderates and fundamentalists would be that fundamentalists tend to have a very narrow and rigid idea of what real faith is, that they try and tie it to specific rules and doctrines while the moderates have a more open mind towards the bigger picture.


    Archeopteryx
    Superfan
    Archeopteryx's picture
    Posts: 1037
    Joined: 2007-09-09
    User is offlineOffline
    caposkia wrote:Now this is a

    caposkia wrote:

    Now this is a real question. 

    First and foremost, it is love. True Christianity is concerned about the person, not the people... not to say that a group or race is not of concern, but the focus is the person.  Therefore, true Christianity doesn't separate itself from itself.  Leave that to the hypocrites.  Christians unite and work together toward one cause, which is love toward all of course from the God above.  The purpose is to spread the word about this love, but not to put restrictions on their lives, but to show them how much they are loved.

    That's impossible, since love is conditional and not everyone will meet your conditions. What you mean is that everyone deserves love by default, and so everyone should love first, which is true. But love is never unconditional and it is certainly not always deserved.

    Quote:

    Try to grasp this. Christianity is a religion... followers of Christ are true Christians.  Christianity does not ask you to give up your heritage.  For example;

    There are roughly 14 million Hindu's in the world.  About 4-5 million of those Hindu's are followers of Christ.  Of all the Muslims in the world, hundreds of thousands of them are as well, followers of Christ.  (info provided by Dr. Ralph Winter Chancellor WCIU)

    ergo it's not about your heritage, or about your religion,

    But all the people from "different heritages" you just mentioned were "followers of christ". Try asking a Jew to accept the truth of Christ and see if they don't think they're being asked to give up their heritage.

    Quote:
    it's about what you're for.  Are you for arguing with the world that you're right and everyone else is wrong, or are you for bringing people together regardless of their background and helping them.  Being there for them.

    Ooh, that all sounds nice.

    Quote:

     Are you about Jesus Christ?

    Dang. Ruined with a non-sequitur.


    Quote:

    They are the people you'll see out there, humbling themselves in ways beyond what you'd probably expect.  They are the ones that don't ram sunshine up your ass, but rather befriend you.  They will take you into their home and they will be there for you.  Instead of going on and on, they will love you for who you are, not what you are.  If you want more detail, let me know. 

     

    "I challenge you to name one good thing that a religious thinker could do that a secular thinker could not do. You'll find it's difficult. Now I challenge you to name one terrible thing a religious thinker could do that a secular thinker could not do. You'll find it's very easy." --Hitchens

    A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


    Eloise
    TheistBronze Member
    Eloise's picture
    Posts: 1808
    Joined: 2007-05-26
    User is offlineOffline
    I essentially use the term

    I essentially use the term judeo-christianity as a rough generalisation of christian sects whose absolute primary and/or only authoritative scriptural reference point is an artefact of the monotheistic jewish tradition, whether they agree or not on the details the common factor is that they have the same primary authoritative scripture. So it covers biblical, baptist, protestant, evangelical, pentecostal christianity SDA, JW... and others under one definition.

    What I mean when I say judeo-christianity is probably best represented by what it doesn't include. It doesn't technically include catholicism because of their catechisms et al nor gnostic christianity/alchemy because gnosticism references sources of authority outside jewish tradition, eg egyptian.

    I would also exclude:

    Mormonism - extra book in conjunction with the jewish artefacts

    Islam - primary book superceding the jewish artefacts

    can't think of any more right now...

    Helpful?

    Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

    www.mathematicianspictures.com


    zarathustra
    atheist
    zarathustra's picture
    Posts: 1521
    Joined: 2006-11-16
    User is offlineOffline
    Ad Eloise

    Thank you for your post. 

    I'm afraid your response does not clarify the matter at hand. 

     

    Eloise wrote:

    I essentially use the term judeo-christianity as a rough generalisation of christian sects whose absolute primary and/or only authoritative scriptural reference point is an artefact of the monotheistic jewish tradition, whether they agree or not on the details the common factor is that they have the same primary authoritative scripture.


    When you say "authoritative scripture", do you mean the canonical gospels, (which were not determined until the 4th century)? 

    Eloise wrote:
    So it covers biblical, baptist, protestant, evangelical, pentecostal christianity SDA, JW... and others under one definition.

    If this is the case, then "real" christianity did not begin until the 16th century with the protestant reformation.

    Eloise wrote:

    What I mean when I say judeo-christianity is probably best represented by what it doesn't include. It doesn't technically include catholicism because of their catechisms et al nor gnostic christianity/alchemy because gnosticism references sources of authority outside jewish tradition, eg egyptian.

     

    I would also exclude:

    Mormonism - extra book in conjunction with the jewish artefacts

    I do not see how this is anything but an arbitrary distinction.  The adherents of each sect (catholics and mormons included) assert-- circularly -- that their sect is the true version.  The catholic church originally branded the protestants as heretics (.ie., corrupters of the real christian church).  joseph smith claimed that the current christian denominations were apostate, and it fell to him and his golden plates to put true christianity back on track.

    Eloise wrote:
    Islam - primary book superceding the jewish artefacts

    While I'm sure muslims claim that they espouse the one true faith, I don't think they or anyone regards islam as a christian sect.  Yet the existence of conflicting muslim factions indicate that "real" islam is as elusive a notion as "real" christianity.

     

     

    There are no theists on operating tables.

    πππ†
    π†††


    caposkia
    Theist
    Posts: 2701
    Joined: 2007-05-15
    User is offlineOffline
    Strafio wrote:After all,

    Strafio wrote:

    After all, I've yet to meet a Christian, moderate or fundamentalist, who has claimed that acknowledging the facts is what is important.

    well, it's a pleasure to introduce myself to you then Smiling

    Strafio wrote:

    What they have in common is claiming that faith is something that transforms their lives, helps them rise above the gremlins that used to get them down. That is, we have a definition of faith that the religious folk themselves would agree with.
    From there, the big difference between moderates and fundamentalists would be that fundamentalists tend to have a very narrow and rigid idea of what real faith is, that they try and tie it to specific rules and doctrines while the moderates have a more open mind towards the bigger picture.

    There's a lot more to Christianity than that, and than what I explained here so far.


    caposkia
    Theist
    Posts: 2701
    Joined: 2007-05-15
    User is offlineOffline
    Archeopteryx wrote:But all

    Archeopteryx wrote:

    But all the people from "different heritages" you just mentioned were "followers of christ". Try asking a Jew to accept the truth of Christ and see if they don't think they're being asked to give up their heritage.

    Quote:

    Right, but then ask a Jew that is currently a "follower of Christ" if he/she has given up their heritage, and they'll say; "Absolutely not!"  Likewise for any other heritage.

    Archeopteryx wrote:

    it's about what you're for.  Are you for arguing with the world that you're right and everyone else is wrong, or are you for bringing people together regardless of their background and helping them.  Being there for them

    Ooh, that all sounds nice.

     

     Are you about Jesus Christ?

    Dang. Ruined with a non-sequitur.

    ...but I haven't mentioned anything that Jesus Christ does not represent or enforce.  If he was the ONE that came down to die for all of us, why not Jesus? 

    p.s. if you research history, 90% of "other followings" or teachings derived from a Christian or Jewish origin. (suggested reading:  The Next Christiandom, By Jenkins)


     

    Arecheopteryx wrote:

    "I challenge you to name one good thing that a religious thinker could do that a secular thinker could not do. You'll find it's difficult. Now I challenge you to name one terrible thing a religious thinker could do that a secular thinker could not do. You'll find it's very easy." --Hitchens

    That's why religion and Followers of Christ don't mix.  Religion says if you're a follower of Christ, you need to be a Christian.  Followers of Christ understand that you can call yourself whatever you want.  It really comes down to what 's in your heart.  E.g.  Do you follow the teachings of Christ or not. 


    Strafio
    Strafio's picture
    Posts: 1346
    Joined: 2006-09-11
    User is offlineOffline
    Strafio wrote:After all,

    Strafio wrote:

    After all, I've yet to meet a Christian, moderate or fundamentalist, who has claimed that acknowledging the facts is what is important.

    caposkia wrote:

    well, it's a pleasure to introduce myself to you then Smiling

    I should probably rephrase that.
    I've yet to meet a Christians who has claimed that acknowledging the facts is what is most important.
    Your post above talked about 'love', many others would talk about living in faith in a relationship with Jesus. etc
    Fundamentalists tend to emphasize that acknowledging Christian fact is important, but even they see it as secondary importance compared to the main 'spiritual' element.

     

    Strafio wrote:

    What they have in common is claiming that faith is something that transforms their lives, helps them rise above the gremlins that used to get them down. That is, we have a definition of faith that the religious folk themselves would agree with.
    From there, the big difference between moderates and fundamentalists would be that fundamentalists tend to have a very narrow and rigid idea of what real faith is, that they try and tie it to specific rules and doctrines while the moderates have a more open mind towards the bigger picture.

    caposkia wrote:

    There's a lot more to Christianity than that, and than what I explained here so far.

    Ofcourse. But when it comes to justifying faith, (for any faith) that's the main theme that comes up.
     


    caposkia
    Theist
    Posts: 2701
    Joined: 2007-05-15
    User is offlineOffline
     Strafio wrote:I should

     

    Strafio wrote:

    I should probably rephrase that.
    I've yet to meet a Christians who has claimed that acknowledging the facts is what is most important.
    Your post above talked about 'love', many others would talk about living in faith in a relationship with Jesus. etc
    Fundamentalists tend to emphasize that acknowledging Christian fact is important, but even they see it as secondary importance compared to the main 'spiritual' element.

    I'm sorry. I understood what you were saying.  My belief is based off of fact.  There is no "fact" out there that disproves the existence of my God from what I've seen.  In fact, I've seen a lot of facts that support his existence. 

    btw, if you're going to ask "like what"  I have a few other blogs up on this site that has gone through some of them.  Further questions after reading those and we can get a new one going. 

    I apologize because I don't know how to make links to blogs on this page. 

     

    Strafio wrote:

    What they have in common is claiming that faith is something that transforms their lives, helps them rise above the gremlins that used to get them down. That is, we have a definition of faith that the religious folk themselves would agree with.
    From there, the big difference between moderates and fundamentalists would be that fundamentalists tend to have a very narrow and rigid idea of what real faith is, that they try and tie it to specific rules and doctrines while the moderates have a more open mind towards the bigger picture.

    Well, I do hold the view that religion is wrong.  Therefore the bigger picture is what should be looked at.  From what I know of fundamentalists, I'm definitely far from that. 

    Strafio wrote:

    Of course. But when it comes to justifying faith, (for any faith) that's the main theme that comes up.
     

    trying to justify faith is like nailing eggs to the wall.  One could explain their faith till their blue, but until the opposing side experiences it for themselves, they'll never understand. 

    That's why many debates get nowhere.  Each side is trying to justify their faith and they miss the bigger picture.   The mindset that should be on "both sides" is; "could it be that I'm wrong?"  Therefore each is looking for clear logical answers to conclude that they are right versus having the prenotion that they are right and try to justify it. 

    Faith comes in through personal experience.  That's why justifying it will never get anywhere.  No one can discredit another's personal experience because no one can have anyone else's personal experience. 

    E.G.  Take the Christian God.  Faith on a Christians side is there because (and most of them will say) They know God!  They have a personal relationship with him etc. 

    To an atheist or non-believer, Faith on their side is there because they don't know God.  They've never had a personal relationship with him, therefore, he cannot be there. 

    Notice the stalemate. 


    zarathustra
    atheist
    zarathustra's picture
    Posts: 1521
    Joined: 2006-11-16
    User is offlineOffline
    I appreciate your effort in

    I appreciate your effort in responding, but I'm afraid it altogether ignored the OP.

    caposkia wrote:

    First and foremost, it is love.  True Christianity is concerned about the person, not the people... not to say that a group or race is not of concern, but the focus is the person.  Therefore, true Christianity doesn't separate itself from itself.

    Touching to say the least, but it does not serve to resolve any of the questions  raised in this thread.  Love not withstanding, does "true christianity" espouse biblical literalism, predestination, speaking in tongues, just war, etc.?

    Incidentally, if christianity is "first and foremost" love, does that include homosexual love?

    caposkia wrote:
    Leave that to the hypocrites. 

    I would be happy to leave that to the hypocrites, if you would identify the hypocrites, distinct from the "real christians".

    caposkia wrote:
    Christians unite and work together toward one cause, which is love toward all of course from the God above.  The purpose is to spread the word about this love, but not to put restrictions on their lives, but to show them how much they are loved.

    Touching yet again.  However, as long as "christians" subscribe to their various sects, they cannot  claim to be united and working together toward one cause.  Each sect  is competing with the others for members and their pocketbooks.  They are each in turn spreading a different version of "the word".

    caposkia wrote:

    Try to grasp this.  Christianity is a religion... followers of Christ are true Christians.

    Begging the question.  If "true christians" are "follower of christ", how do we determine who are the followers of christ?

    caposkia wrote:

    Christianity does not ask you to give up your heritage.  For example;

    There are roughly 14 million Hindu's in the world.  About 4-5 million of those Hindu's are followers of Christ.  Of all the Muslims in the world, hundreds of thousands of them are as well, followers of Christ.  (info provided by Dr. Ralph Winter Chancellor WCIU)

    Interesting figures that you cite.  As far as hindus, you're off by an order of approximately 70.  By whatever contortion of definitions you manage to term some portion non-christians as "followers of christ", you still are not resolving

    caposkia wrote:

    ergo it's not about your heritage, or about your religion, it's about what you're for.  Are you for arguing with the world that you're right and everyone else is wrong, or are you for bringing people together regardless of their background and helping them.  Being there for them.  Are you about Jesus Christ?

    If I'm not mistaken, anyone who claims to be a christian is by default arguing that they're right and that non-christians are wrong.  An adherent of any particular christian denomination is by default arguing that his denomination is correct, and other denominations are incorrect, or at least not as correct as his.

    caposkia wrote:

    zarathustra wrote:

    ...

    So how does one determine if he's speaking to a "true christian"?

     

    They are the people you'll see out there, humbling themselves in ways beyond what you'd probably expect.  They are the ones that don't ram sunshine up your ass, but rather befriend you.  They will take you into their home and they will be there for you.  Instead of going on and on, they will love you for who you are, not what you are.  If you want more detail, let me know.

     

     

    If you intend at all to address the OP, then yes, I would like more detail.  If you intend to carry on talking vaguely about "love", erroneous hindu statistics, and "ramming sunshine" (whatever that is), then no thanks, I find nothing useful in all that.

    There are no theists on operating tables.

    πππ†
    π†††


    caposkia
    Theist
    Posts: 2701
    Joined: 2007-05-15
    User is offlineOffline
    zarathustra wrote:Touching

    zarathustra wrote:

    Touching to say the least, but it does not serve to resolve any of the questions  raised in this thread.  Love not withstanding, does "true christianity" espouse biblical literalism, predestination, speaking in tongues, just war, etc.?

    Each topic you brought up is something that would have to be individually addressed.  Quickly though

    1.  If you want to understand the literalism of the Bible and talk about it, then you cannot pull something out of the OT without considering what the NT has to say.  You also have to take into consideration life at the time and the purpose of each.  The only critisism's I've seen of the Bible in it's literalism is people taking things out of the Bible without taking the rest of it into consideration.  I can make the Bible say anything I want "literally" as well if I pull stuff out of context.  The book was put together as a whole for a reason.  Read it cover to cover, compare and contrast commands and issues, then come to me with questions.

    2.  Predestination:  Depends on who you're talking to.  True Christianity is not concerned about it.  God has a plan, it's our choice to follow it or walk away at any moment.

    3.  Tongues:  As I understand it, it's just another language.  We understand it as the divine language.  Regardless of what True Christians believe about tongues, why do you care if someone's blabbing in another language you don't understand? 

    4. Just war:  Who said war was just?  I never read that in the Bible.  OH, you're talking about the attacks lead by God in the OT.  Did you take into consideration what the NT has to say about all that first?  no.  yea, I knew that. 

    Also, are you saying that there was another way?  Are you saying you know that if those wars didn't happen, everyone would have survived?  I can't account for every war mentioned in the Bible because I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing to, but many wars mentioned in the Bible were not actually lead or approved by God if you read carefully enough.  Some of the wars that God told people to get involved in or helped people with were helping his people take back land that was stolen by an attack by the enemy prior to.  Many others were places that were destroying their own lives.  to which were you referring to? 

    to keep the war thing basic.  Would you tell your kid to let a bully keep beating him up on the playground, or would you tell them to stand their ground and possibly if necessary, take his lunch money back from the bully? 

    However, there is no Just WAR.  Sure, God could have just destroyed the opposing sides himself, but what would that prove?

    zarathustra wrote:

    Incidentally, if christianity is "first and foremost" love, does that include homosexual love?

    I'm talking about love, not relationships.  This is the true passion and care for another person, even ones you don't know.  Like family love. 

    Are you really interested in homosexuality in the eyes of the followers of God as well as God's view on it? or are you just looking for an excuse to justify your views?

    zarathustra wrote:


    Touching yet again.  However, as long as "christians" subscribe to their various sects, they cannot  claim to be united and working together toward one cause.  Each sect  is competing with the others for members and their pocketbooks.  They are each in turn spreading a different version of "the word".

    you are exactly right.  That's why True followers don't take any part in that.  There are more and more "independant" Christians which are not a part of any sect that basically makes up their own gospel or is there for others pocketbooks.    see Religious Adherents in the United States of America, 1900-2005 from the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, 2007. 

    you cannot label the followers of Christ with the other sects listed in that book.  There are over 25000 sects of Christianity in the world.  Ask many "true followers of Christ" and they will refuse to call themselves a Christian anymore because of what the sects have done to the worldview of God. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    Begging the question.  If "true christians" are "follower of christ", how do we determine who are the followers of christ?

    Anyone can say they're "Christian" but actions speak louder than words.  If you want me to get more specific, then please tell me what you're looking for.

    simply, they're not out for your money like the sects and they don't make up their own gospel. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    Interesting figures that you cite.  As far as hindus, you're off by an order of approximately 70.  By whatever contortion of definitions you manage to term some portion non-christians as "followers of christ", you still are not resolving

    those numbers weren't as up to date as they could have been.  The point was that there are Hindus and other peoples that are "followers of Christ".

    What are you looking for here?

    zarathustra wrote:

    If I'm not mistaken, anyone who claims to be a christian is by default arguing that they're right and that non-christians are wrong.  An adherent of any particular christian denomination is by default arguing that his denomination is correct, and other denominations are incorrect, or at least not as correct as his.

    which would make your views a religion as well.  Also, it would make it impossible for any person to not think someone was wrong. 

    Maybe I should put it this way.  True Christians aren't going to condemn you or put you down for your views.  They will help you try to understand what they do, but if you don't want to hear it, they're not going to push it on you.  There are plenty of people in the world who do want to hear it. 

    The gospel is Good News.  We want to share the news with everyone because everyone has a right to know (this of course coming from the view that we hold that the gospel is true).  When it comes down to it, it's about God sending his only son to die so that the world may live.  Going back to love, that's what love is.  Not sex.

     

    zarathustra wrote:

    If you intend at all to address the OP, then yes, I would like more detail.  If you intend to carry on talking vaguely about "love", erroneous hindu statistics, and "ramming sunshine" (whatever that is), then no thanks, I find nothing useful in all that.

    I will answer your questions to the best of my ability.  I only brought up the stats because most non-believers see Christians as those churches out there yelling at the sinner and telling them to go to hell as well as forcing people to give as much money as they can to them.  people who have something to prove in other words

    I wanted to bring to light that people don't have to call themselves Christians to be followers of Christ and that it's not all about Christianity.  followers don't have anything to prove, only news to share and relationships to build.  oh... wait... sorry... getting sappy again. 

    your topic is what is 'true' Christianity.  I thought it be quite a surprise to many non-believers that followers of Christ can call themselves anything and that the religious sects of the world mean nothing to a True follower.  Was I wrong?  You knew this already? 


    caposkia
    Theist
    Posts: 2701
    Joined: 2007-05-15
    User is offlineOffline
    sorry

    I noticed no response after my post.  I read through it and realized it may have looked semi-sarcastic, possibly angry.  I did not mean any of my responses to come across in a demeaning manner.  I hope I didn't offend anyone.  I can be sarcastic.  It's just my nature and I apologize if that offended anyone.  I assure you, no matter how it is written, all my responses are intended to be taken in a calm, assertive manner.  I throw personality in many of them just for fun.  It's really not a good conversation if you're talking to a monotonous being on the internet. 

    Again, I do apologize and I hope no one took this and other responses in offense.


    zarathustra
    atheist
    zarathustra's picture
    Posts: 1521
    Joined: 2006-11-16
    User is offlineOffline
    caposkia wrote:I noticed no

    caposkia wrote:

    I noticed no response after my post...Again, I do apologize and I hope no one took this and other responses in offense.

    Your concern is appreciated, but no offense taken.  I intended to respond, but I'll admit I got discouraged, because with all due respect, your response seems to have gone entirely off on a tangent.  Yet since you did afford me the courtesy of contributing (thank you), I do owe you the same:

    caposkia wrote:

    1.  If you want to understand the literalism of the Bible and talk about it, then you cannot pull something out of the OT without considering what the NT has to say.  You also have to take into consideration life at the time and the purpose of each.  The only critisism's I've seen of the Bible in it's literalism is people taking things out of the Bible without taking the rest of it into consideration.  I can make the Bible say anything I want "literally" as well if I pull stuff out of context.  The book was put together as a whole for a reason.  Read it cover to cover, compare and contrast commands and issues, then come to me with questions.

    Perhaps I should have been clearer about what I was asking.  There are christian denominations which maintain that the bible is literally true (assemblies of god, for example), while other denominations concede that many parts are not literally true (catholicism, for example).  So various christian denominations have differing views biblical literalism, and they cannot all be correct.  So, what is the true christian stance on biblical literalism?  Are those denominations that differ not christian as a result?

    caposkia wrote:


    2.  Predestination:  Depends on who you're talking to. 

    Indeed it does.  Right now I'm talking to you.

    caposkia wrote:

    True Christianity is not concerned about it.  God has a plan, it's our choice to follow it or walk away at any moment.

    So are calvinists not true christians, since they do believe in predestination?  Total depravity is among its doctrines -- namely that some people are incapable of choosing to follow god, because that is how they were made.


    caposkia wrote:

    3.  Tongues:  As I understand it, it's just another language.  We understand it as the divine language.  Regardless of what True Christians believe about tongues, why do you care if someone's blabbing in another language you don't understand?

    I am curious to know:  why does speaking in tongues occur in some denominations, and not others?  Are only those denominations where members blab examples of true christianity, and those denominations false which lack blabbing?

    caposkia wrote:


    4. Just war:  Who said war was just?  I never read that in the Bible.  OH, you're talking about the attacks lead by God in the OT.  Did you take into consideration what the NT has to say about all that first?  no.  yea, I knew that.

    ...

    However, there is no Just WAR.  Sure, God could have just destroyed the opposing sides himself, but what would that prove?

    Who said war was just?  church father augustine, catholic theologian aquinas, calvinist Hugo Grotius, among other "christians."  So don't worry about whether I'm taking the nt into consideration; worry about your fellow "christians" who support just war, then get back to me about the true christian stance.

     

    caposkia wrote:


    zarathustra wrote:


    Incidentally, if christianity is "first and foremost" love, does that include homosexual love?



    I'm talking about love, not relationships.  This is the true passion and care for another person, even ones you don't know.  Like family love.

    Very well.  Does a gay couple raising a child count as "family love", and as such, is it within the province of christian love?

    caposkia wrote:


    Are you really interested in homosexuality in the eyes of the followers of God as well as God's view on it? or are you just looking for an excuse to justify your views?

    What views of mine are you insinuating I am trying to justify?  Please refrain from making vacuous accusations.  And yes, I am interested in knowing the true christian stance on homosexuality.  That should have been clear from reading the OP.  Just so you don't waste time going off on another tangent:  some christian denominations use Lev 18:22/20:13 to justify the condemnation of homosexuality.  There are other christian denominations which disavow these verses and tolerate homosexuality.  They can't both be correct.  Who are the true christians?

    caposkia wrote:


    zarathustra wrote:


    Touching yet again.  However, as long as "christians" subscribe to their various sects, they cannot  claim to be united and working together toward one cause.  Each sect  is competing with the others for members and their pocketbooks.  They are each in turn spreading a different version of "the word".



    you are exactly right.  That's why True followers don't take any part in that.  There are more and more "independant" Christians which are not a part of any sect that basically makes up their own gospel or is there for others pocketbooks.    see Religious Adherents in the United States of America, 1900-2005 from the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, 2007.

    you cannot label the followers of Christ with the other sects listed in that book.  There are over 25000 sects of Christianity in the world.  Ask many "true followers of Christ" and they will refuse to call themselves a Christian anymore because of what the sects have done to the worldview of God.

    By what objective criteria can I determine if I'm speaking to a "true follower of christ"?  And, "because of what the sects have done to the worldview of god", is anyone who calls himself a christian...not a christian?

     

    caposkia wrote:


    zarathustra wrote:


    Begging the question.  If "true christians" are "follower of christ", how do we determine who are the followers of christ?



    Anyone can say they're "Christian" but actions speak louder than words.  If you want me to get more specific, then please tell me what you're looking for.

    What I'm looking for:  If "true christians" are "follower of christ", how do we determine who are the followers of christ?

    caposkia wrote:


    simply, they're not out for your money like the sects and they don't make up their own gospel.

    Is any denomination which asks for money therefore not christian?

    If it's not too much to ask, could you provide a short list of sects which are not christian, since they do make up theirown gospel?


    caposkia wrote:

    zarathustra wrote:


    Interesting figures that you cite.  As far as hindus, you're off by an order of approximately 70.


    those numbers weren't as up to date as they could have been. 

    I should say not -- given that there have been more hindus than the U.S. population, for more than a century.

    caposkia wrote:

    zarathustra wrote:
    If "true christians" are "follower of christ", how do we determine who are the followers of christ?

    The point was that there are Hindus and other peoples that are "followers of Christ".

    What are you looking for here?

    I am looking for a definition of "true christians" -- I thought I made that clear in the OP, if you read it.  It is quite beyond me how you turned this into "followers of christ", such that you could include hindus and muslims -- who presumably are not christians.  Are you in fact saying that some hindus and muslims (who presumably don't believe in christ) are true christians, whereas some christian sects (which do espouse belief in christ) are actually not true christians?

    caposkia wrote:

    your topic is what is 'true' Christianity.  I thought it be quite a surprise to many non-believers that followers of Christ can call themselves anything and that the religious sects of the world mean nothing to a True follower.  Was I wrong?  You knew this already?

    I am at the very least surprised that here you are censuring sectarian christians as not being "true christians", and simultaneously permitting non-believers to be "followers of christ".  This seems to run counter to your statements in your own thread that America is a christian nation, and you were willing to overlook the various sectarian differences of the Founders, because in the end, they were all "christian".

    I sense inconsistency.

    There are no theists on operating tables.

    πππ†
    π†††


    caposkia
    Theist
    Posts: 2701
    Joined: 2007-05-15
    User is offlineOffline
    zarathustra wrote:Your

    zarathustra wrote:

    Your concern is appreciated, but no offense taken.  I intended to respond, but I'll admit I got discouraged, because with all due respect, your response seems to have gone entirely off on a tangent.  Yet since you did afford me the courtesy of contributing (thank you), I do owe you the same:

    I'm sorry for the tangent.  I tried to stay on topic while at the same time trying to cover all basis for repetitive counterarguments.  In the process of trying to avoid that I do tangent a bit.  I'm sorry.  I'll try not to do that with you. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    Perhaps I should have been clearer about what I was asking.  There are christian denominations which maintain that the bible is literally true (assemblies of god, for example), while other denominations concede that many parts are not literally true (catholicism, for example).  So various christian denominations have differing views biblical literalism, and they cannot all be correct.  So, what is the true christian stance on biblical literalism?  Are those denominations that differ not christian as a result?

    Every denomination is going to make the Bible what they want it to be.  Where you should take the Bible literally and metaphorically I think is pretty clear due to the consistency of each story.  Anyone can take a line out of one story and say well if this is literal, then the rest of the Bible has to be or vise versa. 

    My take, if the chapter or story implies literalism or takes on a literal sense, then it's probably safe to assume the story in general is to be taken literally.  Same with metaphors.  The difficulty in catching metaphors is understanding that in the translations of many Bibles, they don't add in the "obvious helper words" that let us know they're being metaphorical always.  e.g. "like" and "as"

    I guess if you have question of something specific that you're unsure of, you can reference it for me.  I'll let you know our take.  Denominational Christians will manipulate a lot sometimes to further prove the validity of their own belief.  Most don't care to question inconsistencies. 

    There is a difference between Christians and followers of Christ.  This of course referencing to your conflicting denominations views question.  Christians will usually follow what others tell them to follow.  Usually they're led by a larger denominational standard of Christianity.  Followers of Christ will maybe follow a denomination, but lightly.  They will walk more on their own and always question what they know.  They will always try to further their understanding so as to best represent God and not their denomination. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    Quote:
    2.  Predestination:  Depends on who you're talking to.

    Indeed it does.  Right now I'm talking to you.


    my take:

    God made us and understands the outcomes of every choice we could possibly make.  I believe we freely make those choices though.  In other words, no predestination.  Just because God knows what my life would be like if I lived in Colorado versus say New Mexico doesn't mean I was predestined for either.  I still have a choice to go to either.

    Some people will argue that God has a plan and therefore makes you follow it, but that goes against free will that is stated in the Bible. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    So are calvinists not true christians, since they do believe in predestination?  Total depravity is among its doctrines -- namely that some people are incapable of choosing to follow god, because that is how they were made.

    I do not believe that anyone is incapable of choosing to follow God.  If that were the case then the Bible would be lying to say that Jesus died for the world.  It would have to say that Jesus died for the chosen ones in the world. 

    I cannot and will not say whether anyone is a true Christian or not.  That is a choice they make in their hearts.  Some Calvinists could be true Christians.  One can be a follower of Christ and misunderstand certain teachings.  The Bible says you are not accountable for what you do not know. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    I am curious to know:  why does speaking in tongues occur in some denominations, and not others?  Are only those denominations where members blab examples of true christianity, and those denominations false which lack blabbing?

    That's just general hearsay.  Part of that generalization is that denominations like Baptists don't speak in tongues and yet I know of Baptist churches that claim of tongues happening within their church. 

    For tongues to happen, a person has to be gifted in it and not all are gifted in tongues.  Many denominations (or specific churches I should say) don't tune themselves into the spiritual side as much as others.  That is another reason why certain denominations are "labeled" with the idea that tongues or other gifts aren't expressed there. 

    zarathustra wrote:


     

    Who said war was just?  church father augustine, catholic theologian aquinas, calvinist Hugo Grotius, among other "christians."  So don't worry about whether I'm taking the nt into consideration; worry about your fellow "christians" who support just war, then get back to me about the true christian stance.

    why do you think I refer to myself as a Follower and not a Christian in the general sence of the term.  Just because people say war is just doesn't mean that's what God says.  The Bible is really the final say in the matter.



    zarathustra wrote:

     

    Very well.  Does a gay couple raising a child count as "family love", and as such, is it within the province of christian love?

    Christian love... hmmm.  well, that would depend on whether the gay couple is Christian or not and do they follow and try to example Christian love?  Despite denominational radicalists claims, one can be gay and still follow Christ.  Just like one can be a sinner and still follow Christ. 

    to clarify, because I can see where this is going.  God's intention for marriage relationships was between a man and a woman.  Why?  That's how He made it, that is what He intended it to be when He made it. 

    BUT!!!! any church that says they're not welcome, or can't be Christian because they're gay is hypocritical and wrong. 

    I won't tangent any further on this one.  Sorry for the little I did, but just wanted to clarify.  Feel free to ask further if you need. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    What views of mine are you insinuating I am trying to justify?  Please refrain from making vacuous accusations.  And yes, I am interested in knowing the true christian stance on homosexuality.  That should have been clear from reading the OP.  Just so you don't waste time going off on another tangent:  some christian denominations use Lev 18:22/20:13 to justify the condemnation of homosexuality.  There are other christian denominations which disavow these verses and tolerate homosexuality.  They can't both be correct.  Who are the true christians?

    I'm sorry for my vacuous accusations.  I shouldn't have said that. 

    The Bible says a marriage relationship is to be between a man and a woman.  The Bible also says to welcome and love everyone.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say for followers to condemn homosexuals.

    Homosexuality is also not seen as a "tolerance" to True Christians.  They are to be loved and accepted just like anyone else.  Their love life is theirs, not ours.  (yes, that is Biblical) Not specifically about homosexuals, but to all.  It's understood that homosexuals are included in that.


     



    zarathustra wrote:


    By what objective criteria can I determine if I'm speaking to a "true follower of christ"?  And, "because of what the sects have done to the worldview of god", is anyone who calls himself a christian...not a christian?

    See Matthew 7:21-27 for your question, "is anyone who calls himself a Christian...not a Christian?.   This isn't talking about believers vs. non-believers.  It is understood that both sides were people who knew God. (people claiming to be Christian)

    ...and for your question of "by what objective criteria can I determine if I'm speaking to a 'true follower of Christ" see; Matthew 25:31-40.  By this criteria you can recognize a True follower of Christ. 

     

    zarathustra wrote:

     


     

    I am looking for a definition of "true christians" -- I thought I made that clear in the OP, if you read it.  It is quite beyond me how you turned this into "followers of christ", such that you could include hindus and muslims -- who presumably are not christians.  Are you in fact saying that some hindus and muslims (who presumably don't believe in christ) are true christians, whereas some christian sects (which do espouse belief in christ) are actually not true christians?

    you must believe in Christ to be a follower.  The Muslim/Hindu/etc. followers of Christ know and follow Christ and just hold onto their heritage.  The name Christian is just a name.  It's what you follow in your heart that counts. 

    zarathustra wrote:


     

    I am at the very least surprised that here you are censuring sectarian christians as not being "true christians", and simultaneously permitting non-believers to be "followers of christ".  This seems to run counter to your statements in your own thread that America is a christian nation, and you were willing to overlook the various sectarian differences of the Founders, because in the end, they were all "christian".

    I sense inconsistency.

    There are phrases and claims quoted from those people (some referenced in my forum, some not) that would indicate that they were more than just mere denominational religious Christians. 

    Understand i did not single any denominational Christian or specific denomination or denominations in general to say that none of them could be Christians.  Generally speaking if you're following a denomination, it's hard to follow Christ too because most denominations not only contradict each other, but they tend to contradict many of God's teachings. 

    [fixed quotes -aiia]


    zarathustra
    atheist
    zarathustra's picture
    Posts: 1521
    Joined: 2006-11-16
    User is offlineOffline
    Can't keep a "true" christian down...

    I'll admit I lost interest after your last response, but given your antics in your current thread, I thought it instructive to revisit this:

    caposkia wrote:
    Every denomination is going to make the Bible what they want it to be.  Where you should take the Bible literally and metaphorically I think is pretty clear due to the consistency of each story. 

    Obviously it is not pretty clear, since we have so many different denominations, each claiming to have the proper reading of the bible.  I thought I made this pretty clear before.  Actually, I'm sure of it.

    So would you please offer something more substantive than "I think it is pretty clear...".

    caposkia wrote:
    My take, if the chapter or story implies literalism or takes on a literal sense, then it's probably safe to assume the story in general is to be taken literally.

    So...is "true" christianity defined by your take, and what is "probably safe to assume"?

    caposkia wrote:
    Denominational Christians will manipulate a lot sometimes to further prove the validity of their own belief.  Most don't care to question inconsistencies.

    So...are denominational christians "true" christians or aren't they?

    caposkia wrote:

    There is a difference between Christians and followers of Christ.  This of course referencing to your conflicting denominations views question.  Christians will usually follow what others tell them to follow.  Usually they're led by a larger denominational standard of Christianity.  Followers of Christ will maybe follow a denomination, but lightly.  They will walk more on their own and always question what they know.  They will always try to further their understanding so as to best represent God and not their denomination.

     

    I apologize, but I find that the introduction of this new term "followers of christ" only confuses the discussion further.  We're trying to determine what "true" christianity is (see thread topic).  I'm not sure if you're now implying that "christians" don't practice "true" christianity, whereas "followers of christ" do -- perhaps you'd take an interest in clarifying this (and attending to the thread topic). 

    caposkia wrote:
     

    zarathustra wrote:
    So are calvinists not true christians, since they do believe in predestination?  Total depravity is among its doctrines -- namely that some people are incapable of choosing to follow god, because that is how they were made.

     I cannot and will not say whether anyone is a true Christian or not. 

     Except, of course, in your current thread

    caposkia wrote:
     

    That is a choice they make in their hearts.  Some Calvinists could be true Christians.  One can be a follower of Christ and misunderstand certain teachings.  The Bible says you are not accountable for what you do not know.

     Cap.  Is predestination a doctrine of "true" christianity?  If not, are calvinists "true" christians (or " 'true' followers of christ", or whatever term you're juggling now), since they do believe in predestination?

     

    caposkia wrote:

    zarathustra wrote:
     

    Does a gay couple raising a child count as "family love", and as such, is it within the province of christian love?

     Christian love... hmmm.  well, that would depend on whether the gay couple is Christian or not and do they follow and try to example Christian love?  Despite denominational radicalists claims, one can be gay and still follow Christ.  Just like one can be a sinner and still follow Christ.

     to clarify, because I can see where this is going.  God's intention for marriage relationships was between a man and a woman.  Why?  That's how He made it, that is what He intended it to be when He made it.

     BUT!!!! any church that says they're not welcome, or can't be Christian because they're gay is hypocritical and wrong.

     So.  Cap.  Are Fred Phelps, Falwell and Robertson (and their respective congregations) not "true" christians  (or " 'true' followers of christ", or whatever term you're juggling now), given their opposition to homosexuals?

     

    caposkia wrote:

     ...and for your question of "by what objective criteria can I determine if I'm speaking to a 'true follower of Christ" see; Matthew 25:31-40.  By this criteria you can recognize a True follower of Christ.

    Instead of citing a biblical passage and leaving it to me to figure it out, could you possibly explain "by what objective criteria can I determine if I'm speaking to a 'true follower of Christ"?   My take is that it's just about doing nice things for people, so it's "probably safe to assume", that christians (or " followers of christ", or whatever term you're juggling now) think there's more to "true" christianity than that.

      

    Matthew 25:31-40 (New International Version) 

          31"When the Son of Man  comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

      34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

      37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

      40"The King will   reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

     

    P.S.  This banner ad was in my browser while creating this response -- apparently catholics are different from christians?

    There are no theists on operating tables.

    πππ†
    π†††


    mohammed
    mohammed's picture
    Posts: 119
    Joined: 2008-08-20
    User is offlineOffline
    jmm wrote:I don't know if

    jmm wrote:
    I don't know if there's such a thing as "real christianity".  Christianity changes from generation to generation, so it's a tough call. 

     

    it changes from one generation to the next because humanities scientific knowledge grows. the more science learns the more religion has to admit that it MADE UP.
     


    caposkia
    Theist
    Posts: 2701
    Joined: 2007-05-15
    User is offlineOffline
    zarathustra wrote:I'll admit

    zarathustra wrote:

    I'll admit I lost interest after your last response, but given your antics in your current thread, I thought it instructive to revisit this:

    I apologize.  I don't know what I said to make you lose interest.  I was, as far as I remember, answering your questions to the best of my knowlege.

    zarathustra wrote:

    Obviously it is not pretty clear, since we have so many different denominations, each claiming to have the proper reading of the bible.  I thought I made this pretty clear before.  Actually, I'm sure of it.

    Just like many people on here that I've talked to, people can easily take a quote out of the Bible and claim X because that's what they want it to say.  It's when the critique of their claim comes into play that they either get defensive and angry or walk away and don't want to hear it. 

    Some inside information about the Bible:  From the Greek and Hebrew it is very hard to accurately translate the Bible into English because there are many words used in both Coyne Greek and Hebrew that cannot be literally translated.  If you take the original languages into consideration when critiquing a claim, they make it pretty clear.

    Most people cannot even use that as an excuse however because they just blow a passage they read way out of proportion.  If they actually took the whole story into consideration and in context, I'm sure most denominations out there would die off. 

    I'm  not sure what more you'd be looking for.  If you could clarify, I'll go from there." 

    zarathustra wrote:

     

    So...is "true" christianity defined by your take, and what is "probably safe to assume"?

    Probably safe to assume:

    I am careful at what I say on here because if I said "is definitely safe to assume" I'd get a few people on here who would pull a completely metaphorical passage out of the Bible and claim something radical about it.  I would then have to take the next few pages of the forum to explain why one cannot take a passage out of context and why that particular passage is metaphorical and should not be taken literally whereas others can be.  Then I would have to explain how I'm not just picking and choosing, but taking the context of the whole story into consideration etc. etc. etc.   I was just easier to say than to have to deal with that. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    So...are denominational christians "true" christians or aren't they?

    You're asking me to make a judgment on thousands of people I've never met before.  Anyone claiming to be christian could be, but it doesn't mean they are.  I would assume most denominational Christians are not due to the red tape the denominations like to throw into scripture. 

    zarathustra wrote:

    caposkia wrote:

    I apologize, but I find that the introduction of this new term "followers of christ" only confuses the discussion further.  We're trying to determine what "true" christianity is (see thread topic).  I'm not sure if you're now implying that "christians" don't practice "true" christianity, whereas "followers of christ" do -- perhaps you'd take an interest in clarifying this (and attending to the thread topic). 

    I basically have been trying to find an agreeable term that will help people realize that the "Picture of a Chirstian" that has been very obviously painted on this site among others is not the real Christian.  90% or more of the claims that Christians are and do on here that people use as an excuse to not be a Christian are dead wrong.  Those are the heretics and hypocrits. 

    zarathustra wrote:


     Cap.  Is predestination a doctrine of "true" christianity?  If not, are calvinists "true" christians (or " 'true' followers of christ", or whatever term you're juggling now), since they do believe in predestination?

    No, predestination is not a doctrine of "true" Christianity.  The point I was making is that even though someone holds a label, it doesn't mean they necessarily agree with all of it.  They just might not know where else to go. 

    zarathustra wrote:

     


     So.  Cap.  Are Fred Phelps, Falwell and Robertson (and their respective congregations) not "true" christians  (or " 'true' followers of christ", or whatever term you're juggling now), given their opposition to homosexuals?

    I don't know who they are.  I know I've heard the names, but i"m not familiar with them.  If they're openly opposing homosexuals themselves, then I'd say they're not true Christians because that's not what true Christians are taught. 

    Homosexuality may be wrong according to scripture, but it doesn't mean it's ok to demean them or not accept them within your church community.  It doesn't mean they can't be followers of Christ either. 

    zarathustra wrote:

     

    Instead of citing a biblical passage and leaving it to me to figure it out, could you possibly explain "by what objective criteria can I determine if I'm speaking to a 'true follower of Christ"?   My take is that it's just about doing nice things for people, so it's "probably safe to assume", that christians (or " followers of christ", or whatever term you're juggling now) think there's more to "true" christianity than that.

      

    There are a lot of things that make up a true Christian:

    personality is key.  Simply put, they will express love to you first and foremost.  You will not be judged by them, they will not demean you because you're gay/lesbian, black, hispanic, etc. 

    Their actions will also speak louder than their words.  Sure, nice things for people is good and all, but anyone can do that.  Satanists "do nice things for people". 

    True Christians will sacrifice time and money (AT THEIR OWN WILL, not because someone said they'd have to or they would burn in hell) to help out others.  They tend to go the extra mile to help a person or group out. 

    They are the ones truly trying to live like Jesus Christ.

    The reason why I use Bible scriptures is because that explains it better than I can.  I didn't think I was leaving you to figure it out, I thought it was pretty clear.... though I"m not sure what scripture you're referencing to.  I apologize if what i sent you was unclear. 

    If it's simply the passage you attached to this response, it's all in vs. 37 as far as actions are concerned. 

    Again, I'm sorry, I don't know what I said to make you lose interest in my last response, but just let me know.  I may just be unclear.  I'm only human.  I'm trying to explain in ways that I feel you'd understand.