And God said....

[myk]

sargebaldy said:
There are some that just look at the Bible as a collection of stories from which to derive moral lessons.

Religion is, loosely, like a program... you can make an analogy with a computer program. I don't just mean in a blatantly zombiish manner, but due to the fact that it is a kind of semirational and practical underlying structure for behavior.

Some churches don't even have preachers, or expect you to believe in God. Not all of them enforce any sort of creed.

Yes, although this makes a strong reference to all the preaching and standardizing that those that did have a more traditional religion did before.

[Mindless Rambler]

Atheist. I think the universe has always existed and always will (Law of Conservation of Energy.) I believe in separate universes and dimensions which we cannot enter, but perhaps we can interact with them. I don't believe there are any gods or supernatural forces, though I do believe that there are physics and processes we do not know of or understand yet since we are human and all.

[Quast]

sargebaldy said:

Not everyone takes all that stuff literally.

Of course. But the one thing required to be a christian would be faith in the core dogma, that is: jesus christ, born of a virgin mother is the son of god, died and was resurrected and salvation comes through him. Anything else in the bible is just filler really.

I mean, I could call myself a christian despite not buying that pap. I'd just be lying to myself. Not that it's really a big deal, but it dilutes meaning from the term. If someone didn't believe in the divinity of christ, I wouldn't be inclined to think of them as a christian anymore than I would be hindu even though I don't believe in reincarnation and karma.

There are some that just look at the Bible as a collection of stories from which to derive moral lessons.

Who are you refering to here? Vague, "feel-good christians as defined by sargebaldy" or non-christians?

[Sharessa]

Interesting how so many of you are so quick to tell people what they should believe (or that what they believe in is crap).

[sargebaldy]

Quast said:

Who are you refering to here? Vague, "feel-good christians as defined by sargebaldy" or non-christians?

No. Unitarian Universalists and unprogrammed Quakers both take such an approach. Actually, it's kind of ironic. Quakers started out only having unprogrammed meetings (no sermon, no preaching, and so on) and only later were there Quakers who had programmed meetings. So traditional Quakers are actually liberals or radicals, while the more conservative Quakers are both a minority and a much newer strand.

[myk]

Danarchy said:
Interesting how so many of you are so quick to tell people what they should believe (or that what they believe in is crap).

Interestingly, what's in parenthesis applies much more clearly to them than what's in the main sentence.

sargebaldy said:
Actually, it's kind of ironic.

Maybe ironic, but by no means an uncommon phenomenon within mass movements. Also, in a way it's not so ironic, as since there is no actual restraint on creed, it presents itself in various ways within the groups, or in distinctive resulting offshoots.

Quast said:
But the one thing required to be a christian would be faith in the core dogma, that is: jesus christ, born of a virgin mother is the son of god, died and was resurrected and salvation comes through him. Anything else in the bible is just filler really.

That's not necessarily the core dogma; if it were to consider "Christ's word most worthy of listening to" it might very well not take for granted what others seem to have said Christ said, or what others said about Christ.

[Sharessa]

myk said:

Interestingly, what's in parenthesis applies much more clearly to them than what's in the main sentence.

Well by saying the latter they're basically implying the former.

[myk]

Danarchy said:
Well by saying the latter they're basically implying the former.

That implication seems to be especially so because religion is socially projecting and binding, which is one of the main things Quakers and other liberal religionists are wary of (and in any case is often internally criticised in religious discourse to some degree).

It's more like saying "I sure as fuck wouldn't believe that". There's not so much to reason about "faith", and if it's going to be very personal then another's "belief" is far from one's business, perhaps even irrelevant and incomprehesible, or vastly incompatible, not unlike tastes and preferences.

[Kirby]

There's no reason to be argumentative over it. If they say it, you don't have to listen in the first place anyways. If people didn't have faith and believed their religion was what someone else said, the whole idea of having faith at all would disappear completely

[Th0r]

myk said:

That's not necessarily the core dogma; if it were to consider "Christ's word most worthy of listening to" it might very well not take for granted what others seem to have said Christ said, or what others said about Christ.

Nope, Quast sounds about right to me.
I'm a christian yes, and i can tell you there is a huge amount of stereotyping going on here. Not every christian is intent on "converting" you or "pressing god on you." Christianity is a religion of FAITH. Its like some kind of sick test, if you believe then you go to heaven, and if you don't you go to hell. Very simple concept, accept Jesus and all, then you have pretty much made it to heaven. Of course there are things that could prevent you from getting there(denouncing your beliefs/god/Jesus etc) but as someone said, everything else is just a filler.

[myk]

Th0r said:
Nope, Quast sounds about right to me.

What you define as a "Christian" isn't going to define what people who consider themselves "Christian" are or think that they are. More so, you'd be specifically wrong, as what's certain is that a "Christian" is a "follower or admirer of Christ", and from there tons and tons of churches, sects, and groups exist or have existed who consider themselves or have been considered Christian, whether or not they were to "believe" Mary was a virgin, the Bible a holy work, Jesus a god, or whatever. That's what you have specific adjectives and sect or church names to tell all the Christian-related movements and organizations apart.

If someone didn't believe in the divinity of christ, I wouldn't be inclined to think of them as a christian anymore than I would be hindu even though I don't believe in reincarnation and karma.

You would be able to call such people a Christian if they had a particular (fervorous, devout, or faithful) dedication to Christ and his "example". You would certainly not call them Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or Conservative Protestants, but you would refrain from calling them Christian altogether even if they were to follow Christ and hold his teachings most highly? Sounds like you're giving the hegemonic or "leading" churches quite some credit there, giving them carte blanche to define Christ and Christianity as they prefer.

[Quast]

myk said:

That's not necessarily the core dogma; if it were to consider "Christ's word most worthy of listening to" it might very well not take for granted what others seem to have said Christ said, or what others said about Christ.

To a point, sure it is. Christianity as we know it isn't about what christ said or did. It CAN'T be. When you take into account that jesus didn't have a blog then we can't be certain that the bible says says about him is inerreant. And given that the bible was written over how long by how many people and translated and retranslated and compiled into its current form...for all we know jesus could have been a real son of a bitch with some good pr.

Hence were "faith" comes into play. It doesn't matter whether or not jesus did what people said he did, or is what people think he is. But that people have faith in these things as fact are what make them christians.

As for Baldy...

Now we all know there are various denominations that disagree and argue about certain things ie:(what is the "true nature" of the holy trinity? Is it ok to revere mary and patron saints? Are those that do actually worshiping mary? Are good works and good deeds required above faith and faith alone? etc.). At the heart of it all, when you take that "filler" away, they all have faith in christ as their personal savior. Quakers? Unitarians? They don't, thus they are not christians. End of story.

A religious philosophy based around the bible and jesus and his word of "be excellent to each other" doesn't make one a christian. The methods these people use to practice their faith are irrelevent. "Experienced based faith" christians who "speak in tongues" are no more or less christian than morose catholics. What matters is what they believe. Also, I am not saying one brand of faith is of more worth than another here. None have merit in my eyes.

Th0r said:

Christianity is a religion of FAITH.

All religious beliefs are of faith.

edit:

myk said:

but you would refrain from calling them Christian altogether even if they were to follow Christ and hold his teachings most highly?

But the question would be: Do they believe in his divine nature? I think that distinction needs to be made.

[myk]

Quast said:
Christianity as we know it isn't about what christ said or did.

It's a word in the dictionary, and then it takes its meaning in context. It's a series of religious movements that originated and girate around Jesus Christ. It's numerous people who are claimed to be "Christian", looking to Christ in whatever way they have defined as relevant.

At the heart of it all, when you take that "filler" away, they all have faith in christ as their personal savior. Quakers? Unitarians? They don't, thus they are not christians. End of story.

The "filler" if you want, is anything but Christ, any devout, faithful, or loving follower of the ancient personage named Christ can be considered Christian. As for Quakers and Unitarians, whether they can be thus considered "Christian" and how, depends on the persons in question.

What matters is what they believe.

Whatever they might profess to believe can only matter in respect to this factor (being "Christian") if it is related to Christ or Christianism.

But the question would be: Do they believe in his divine nature? I think that distinction needs to be made.

Why is that necessarily relevant? How is this "divinity" defined? What if they say something like "oh, no, we don't not believe in Christ's divine nature, we experience Christ"? Or what if they think that Christ was as mortal as anyone but was, and continues to be through his legacy, the ultimate mentor of humanity?

It's much easier to simply say you're talking about this or that church or shcool of thought, than pretend to equate a term as widely used as "Christian" (or "Christianity") with certain claimed characteristics which some self-claimed Christians even reject; or you can generalize, but sooner or later that will be confusing.

Arguing who is a "true" Christian in a world with so many voices and cases is in vain, language itself will defeat you before anyone even comes against you. Leave it to the Inquisition.

[Quast]

myk said:

Why is that necessarily relevant?

I suppose becuase jesus himself though it particularily relevant. Is it wrong to assume that those who would claim to be his followers should follow his example in that respect?

How is this "divinity" defined?

In regard to christ? As he himself defines it. That he is the son of the lord god. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." He does not at all shy away from explaining just who he is or what his mission is about.

[myk]

Quast said:
As he himself defines it.

If you've been talking to Jesus please PM me his cell number, assuming he doesn't mind it being shared. I'd like to hear it from the man himself, and I've a few questions up my sleeve as well.

[Fredrik]

myk said:

If you've been talking to Jesus please PM me his cell number

Approximately 100 trillion.

[Kristian Ronge]

Hey-o!

*applause*

[Quast]

myk said:

If you've been talking to Jesus please PM me his cell number, assuming he doesn't mind it being shared.

He does. I promised to keep it secret, sorry. :)

[Pika132]

I saw this play once where God was a student at this college-type thing and our entire planet was a science project.
He got a C+. No joke.