FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Clearing up the confusion about Christianity





Bluedoll
The purpose of this post is to clear up the confusion I read here about Christianity.

Christianity is more than a label. There is in effect two labels associated with Christianity. One could be described as chrisdedumb, which is basically persuading people to promote a falsehood. This can be made evident in history by using one example. During the crusades political leaders used religion to create wars. They conquered and anyone not joining their pursuit was classified as a pagan.
The other label is Christendom which promotes teachings as recorded in the bible. It is most often recognized as a religion.
Christianity however is more than just labels.

It is a movement. Jesus Christ through the writings in the bible actively publicizes a message that can be understood. Regardless of what people believe, there is a consideration. What is the message and whether or not they agree with it? Agreeing with a message does not mean you are giving up your rights, beliefs, religion or ideas. It just means you agree with a message of peace.

__________________________________

I hope this post helps undo confusion and of course the post is open for discussion. (shall we see if the post quickly it turns from discussion into a hostile debate which is common in this section – applied sarcasm)
Rolling Eyes
deanhills
Bluedoll, this posting does confuse me. I've never heard of chrisdedumb. Shocked

This I could understand however:
Quote:
Agreeing with a message does not mean you are giving up your rights, beliefs, religion or ideas. It just means you agree with a message of peace.


What I do believe is that there are many groups within Christianity that are completely different from one another, may even be hostile to one another and that even within one Group you may find Christians who differ with one another. None of religion is ever simple (a reflection of people who make things complicated all the time) and there is lots of bigotry involved as well as is everywhere else, bigotry being a human characteristic.
Indi
Disagreeing with one particular message of peace does not mean you disagree with peace.

Bluedoll, you and several other posters here don't get why we criticize religions. You don't get our criticisms, sure, but most importantly you refuse to even try to understand why we keep challenging people's religious beliefs. You seem to think we're doing it just because we're "mean" or get a thrill out of insulting other people's beliefs, and whine about persecution. You refuse to acknowledge or even understand that we are the persecuted ones - and that anger and bitterness you think you see in our words when we attack Christianity... that is the just fury of the wronged coming back to demand justice and vengeance from the unrepentant evil-doers who are wronging us. Your god tells you to turn the other cheek; mine does not. Mine tells me that when you are slapping my cheek, if i want you to stop then i must stop you - and if i see you slapping someone else's cheek, i must step in then, too.

Honestly your silly little persecution act is tiring and offensive. You probably live in the US, which means that your religion - Christianity - makes up for 80% of the general population, and damn near close to 100% of the government. There are no laws restricting Christianity in particular in any way, shape or form, yet, despite being a secular democracy there are laws discriminating against atheists. And there are serious moves afoot to put even more laws in place to restrict and persecute non-Christian behaviour and beliefs. You want to live in a fantasy where the past is still real, where the plucky little Christians are being persecuted by the Roman overlords, but the reality of the world is that you are the Romans now: you are doing the persecuting, not us.

There is no confusion about Christianity. That's all in your head. We understand it perfectly well. We do not believe the nonsense you are trying to pretend we believe.

You are confused. You are confused about why we're doing what we do; about why we keep challenging and criticizing Christianity (and all religions, but for now, let's focus on Christianity).

At the risk of engaging in the futile effort to reach someone who doggedly refuses to be reached, i am going to try again. i am going to try and explain to you what we are trying to do when we criticize Christianity, and why we are not your enemies, but rather very important friends that you would be wise to take heed of.

First of all, no one "labels" Christianity as "what those guys did during the Crusades and Inquisitions". That is what Christians did, not what Christians are. Any fool knows that. But the hard fact is that people who followed the teachings of Jesus... what you label "Christians"... did those things, and continue to do heinous things. Denying that is dishonest. No one believes that Christianity makes you do those things (obviously, because if it did, all Christians would be doing it even today, duh). The important lesson we keep trying to teach by bringing those people up is that people who say they are Christians, and who believe they are acting in accordance with Jesus's teachings, can still do horrible and evil things. Not will do evil things; can do evil things. Insult their religious beliefs all you want, Bluedoll, the bottom line is the Crusaders thought they were good Christians... yet they did evil things. The lesson of that... which you refuse to acknowledge... is that you may also think you're following the teachings of Jesus, yet still do evil things.

Let me put it in terms you will understand:
☀ They thought they were good Christians.
☀ You think you're a good Christian.

☀ They found justification for their actions in the Bible. ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.")
☀ You find justification for your actions in the Bible.

You sit now, eight or nine hundred years after them, and judge them to be poor Christians. "Judge not lest ye be judged", Bluedoll; how do you know at eight hundred years from now, more enlightened Christians won't look back on you as a barbaric idiot who believed a false message of Christianity. That is a serious question: how do you know YOU have it right? You feel that you have Christianity right? So did they, Bluedoll, and they murdered hundreds of thousands of people in what you now judge to be a mistake.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE CHRISTIANITY "RIGHT"?

THAT is the key question that we keep trying to get you to consider, but you refuse, preferring to play the whining martyr instead. We are trying to get you to better understand your own religion, but you refuse to listen to our warnings and advice because they make you feel bad. Well, tough cookies, Bluedoll, because i come not to bring you peace, but to bring a sword: the sword of reason that cuts through the fuzzy wool you want to keep pulled over your eyes. i ask... no, scratch that... i DEMAND that you take your Christian beliefs as seriously as i do, and question them, because otherwise i will not tolerate you using them to take away my rights and freedoms.

That's why we do what we do, Bluedoll. Not because we don't understand Christianity, but because we do... and because you refuse to fully understand Christianity because you prefer to just ignore the bad parts and whitewash over centuries of bloodshed and persecution CAUSED by Christians just like you, Christians who thought they were good Christians and who thought they were following the teachings of Jesus.

And that is also why you should be taking care to take our criticisms very seriously. Because you don't want to be wrong, do you? You don't want to be the guy that, a couple hundred years from now, future Christians look back at and say, "He didn't really understand Christianity, he was just a barbarian using Christianity as an excuse."

We criticize Christianity to protect our rights and freedoms. If you can't see that, you are either a fool or you are being deliberatly obtuse. No one can possibly deny that Christianity is attempting to take away the rights and freedoms of others, even if it's something as simple as allowing two men or two women to marry. You may try to claim that those guys trying to ban gay marriage aren't real Christians; i would reply that they believe they are just as much as you do, and they say you are not the real Christian... so are you sure you're right?

We criticize Christianity because you are confused about it - you and all Christians. If i ask 10 different Christians what Christianity is, i'll get 11 different answers. Most of you people haven't even read your damn holy book! We challenge your understanding and force you to make it solid and beyond criticism. We are helping you make Christianity better - or at least we would be, if you would take our criticisms seriously rather than whining like a spoilt child who isn't getting their way.

We criticize Christianity because we want to understand it, because that is the way we learn. We question what we see, demand answers, and insist that those answers not be contradictory or fallacious. That's what we do, both to our own beliefs and to others, because we know it works: it susses out errors in the beliefs, and helps build up what's left into a stronger, more assured belief.

No one believes Christianity says "go out and slaughter Moors", Bluedoll, and if you seriously believe that we believe that, you're an idiot. i can't think of a gentler way to put that. But we do believe that Christianity can and has been used to cause and justify a lot of evil in the world, and we consider that to be a very, very serious problem that must be addressed, before the next little kid gets thrown out into the wild for being a witch or gets raped by a priest. If you want to help us solve this problem by working with us to create a "better" version of Christianity - one immune to misinterpretation, so it can never be used to justify evil - you are welcome to join us. If, on the other hand, you just want to whine about how mean we're being because we don't silently acquiesce to every pithy little thing you say about your religion, well then ****** you, we'll fix the problem ourselves... and you might not like our solution.

There it is, Bluedoll. You wanted a thread about clearing up confusion? There it is. Only the confusion is not where you thought it is - it is not us that is confused about Christianity, it is you. You need to figure out what you really believe, and you need to answer the question of how you know you have it right, and you need to come to terms with the fact that your religion can cause and justify evil, and figure out what you're going to do about that.

Or we will - not bringing peace, but a sword. i hope there's no confusion there.

While all this was addressed specifically to Christianity, it applies to all religions, and all whining twats who play the persecuted martyr card every time someone challenges their beliefs or points out the evils now or historically being done in the name of their religion. You know who you are, and if you don't, ask, and i'll bloody well tell you.

And to all those people who get off on accusing every paragraph i write of being a rant, behold. This is what an Indi rant look like. This is what it looks like when i lose patience with the deliberately obtuse, and the ignorantly offensive. This is what it looks like when i put my foot down and say enough stupidity is enough. Bask in this, ******, bask in its glory! Mwahahaha!
Bluedoll
@Indi "Judge not lest ye be judged" Thank you for posting Indi. It is very long Indi however, I will, if possible, address everything you wrote but not in one post but in several posts under this topic. For now, please allow me to write, that yes, I do judge and yes, I expect to be judged in fact I want to be judged, that is entirely the point! It will make me a better person and clarify who I am. As for judging history, history tells us something and we can learn by history. That is why we do well to study it.
At this time, I am making a note. Later, under this topic I will be addressing your post and actually discussing on topic, in a lot more detail. My note here is to say that I do find the tone of your post angry, like a big fight, aggressive, insulting and if I may say somewhat ignorant. However, I recently have come to an understanding while clicking on a previous link way back in time, when in this section, there were people posting on the positive sides of Christianity. Although, I did not see attacks on ‘atheists’ I can understand, if you say your were persecuted, I believe you and sorry that happened to you. I want you to know that I have no intentions of attacking, so you don’t have to feel you are being persecuted but at the same time I need to make it very clear that I can only consider ‘a friend’ in the context that I am asking for better communication. I am hoping your posts will improve. Indi, you are describing what I am doing here to be “your silly little persecution act”. This is not true. I simply want to post and discuss the topic with some reasonableness. Please do not talk down to me and try to stop being so rude in your posts please!


@deanhills Not everyone has to agree on everything. This is human characteristic. I agree on this.
Having said that, discussing disagreements without resorting to hostilities is a choice. It occurs in the UN, governments, organized religions, families and even on internet boards. The idea of ‘turning the other cheek’ is a choice. You can pick up a sword too. The difference is one is peaceful and the other is not. –understandable I think.
Ambiguous term chrisdedumb? Sorry about that, chrisdedumb is a term I coined. Please continue to point out anything I write which is confusing. Thank you, that is really helpful.
Christianity was coined after the death of Jesus Christ, I think that was on the roman calendar 34 or 32 something like that, forget now. I might need to dig this info up but somewhere around 100-300, a generation or two perhaps, things began to go astray, badly. Religion was a curse (using words loosely here) because you can have something really good and it can go very bad quickly. That is not to say though, that Christendom didn’t have good things come out of it. I think we have all experienced something in our life that starts out fine and then disaster moves in. That is what happened, it is history, chrisdedumb Razz is a term I am using here to define how humans (religions) really mess up remarkably good things to contradict a positive movement.

God’s word is movement, an active positive force in the right direction. People sometimes go in the opposite direction and might want to consider for their own benefit.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
Bluedoll, you and several other posters here don't get why we criticize religions. You don't get our criticisms, sure, but most importantly you refuse to even try to understand why we keep challenging people's religious beliefs. You seem to think we're doing it just because we're "mean" or get a thrill out of insulting other people's beliefs, and whine about persecution. You refuse to acknowledge or even understand that we are the persecuted ones - and that anger and bitterness you think you see in our words when we attack Christianity... that is the just fury of the wronged coming back to demand justice and vengeance from the unrepentant evil-doers who are wronging us. Your god tells you to turn the other cheek; mine does not. Mine tells me that when you are slapping my cheek, if i want you to stop then i must stop you - and if i see you slapping someone else's cheek, i must step in then, too.
Come off it Indi! You do get thrills when you are flattening Christian debaters to the ground, especially when you and Bikerman are together. That's fun! Let's at least be honest here.

To be truthful, you are not doing your "mission" in this Forum any good with the aggressive way you are tackling Christianity. If you want the Christians to be rid of their "illusions" then perhaps you need to act like the person that you are urging them to be? If you acted like Richard Dawkins for example, you may have stood a much greater chance of converting any Christians at Frihost. Instead you are just alienating them with their backs straight up. Bad move!

Look at this sentence for example:
Indi wrote:
At the risk of engaging in the futile effort to reach someone who doggedly refuses to be reached, i am going to try again. i am going to try and explain to you what we are trying to do when we criticize Christianity, and why we are not your enemies, but rather very important friends that you would be wise to take heed of.
It says the following to me:
Quote:
1. The person you are debating with does not get your message
2. You are on a mission for her to get your message
3. Your mission is to criticize Christianity
4. You are criticizing Christianity in order for her to get that Christianity is her enemy, you are her friend.

So the message I get is that you are on a mission in this forum to cure Christians of their Christian beliefs? How different is this to what you are accusing Christians off when they try and convert atheists with messages like atheists will be going to hell? Sort of the flip side of the same coin? And are the Christians in THIS Forum doing that to you? They aren't Indi. But you are doing it to them. You have the right of freedom of expecting no one to convert you, but it is OK to work on Christians?

Check through the paragraphs in your posting and particularly the one below and what different are they to the sad story of having been persecuted as an atheist, are you not doing exactly the same right now? Which is being on a mission to cure the Christians in this Forum of their faith? Should we then act any differently to what you would have if we had tried to cure you of your atheism? And imagine if we would have told you that you really knew nothing about atheism, that you may think you do, but perhaps you don't. And that we felt enormously concerned for you? Can you imagine how outraged you would have been? Especially if we kept repeating that you don't get it, that you are a bigot, that you are a liar, that you are a hypocrite, and perhaps you needed a dictionary to check through the stuff you are writing, as truly you are really very very dense. As guess what, that is exactly what you have been doing. You have the right to do that, so we have the right too? But this is not what we do, nor the reason we are posting in this Forum. We are here to learn about other religions. We are curious about atheism. You seem to not need to learn anything, as you know everything. You know what our beliefs are. You are the expert on how wrong our beliefs are. What bigots we are, what liars we are. Now since you are so very intelligent Indi, go and think about that for a while, and check who is really being persecuted here. And by whom!
Indi wrote:
We criticize Christianity to protect our rights and freedoms. If you can't see that, you are either a fool or you are being deliberatly obtuse. No one can possibly deny that Christianity is attempting to take away the rights and freedoms of others, even if it's something as simple as allowing two men or two women to marry. You may try to claim that those guys trying to ban gay marriage aren't real Christians; i would reply that they believe they are just as much as you do, and they say you are not the real Christian... so are you sure you're right?

The freedom of speech and rights of who exactly? As apparently those who are Christians don't seem to have any? You think for them. You speak for them. You understand them better then they understand themselves ....! And so when you get them to finally see the light, so that they will think exactly like you do. Do you still think that that is "free"?
Bluedoll
This point of making this post was to express a thought and clear up confusion about all this talk on Christianity being made in this forum but not from a standpoint of religion however but from the man’s mouth.
______________Jesus Christ is the truth. The message is peace____________________

Yes, even within chrisendom religions there is debate and confusion. I personally do not know everything but what I do know is this. To stop the confusion we can stop looking at religions but instead look to the message itself.

Jesus spoke using illustrations, figuratively. He used the things around him to explain meanings to those close to him.
(Matthew 10:32)
I’ll translate - For example, the sword is not an actual sword but refers to words we might use everyday. In Matthew 10 he is talking to his disciples and uses the word sword.
You can choose a message of peace that Jesus will support. It will be in a Godly way but those that discard it will be in their own way. Jesus did not put peace on the earth but put words of peace into people’s minds.
Presently, the world may not be at peace but the peaceful words of Jesus are available. Jesus did tell us peace was not going to be established on earth by his presence only. He gave a message of peace and it remains today actively seeking out those that will listen. Words are like a sword and is it not logical there is a difference between accepting a peaceful solution or not? But in choosing not peace - in doing so, sword fight with each other in the doing of it.
I believe that teaching in the bible will help us in our day to day things

_______________________________________________________________


I stated previously, I would take the time to address everything Indi wrote. In an attempt to detail the points out of that post I’ve listed the main points. If any of these points are incorrect please indicate.

- Indi is saying, Jesus is a god that says turn your cheek but contradicts that by saying “I didn’t mean that draw your swords!” (not true at all see above)
- Indi’s god is mr unidentified (not mine -God so loved the world he sent his beloved son)
- Bluedoll lives in the USA and must be an idiot (sorry Canada eh)- off topic
- Indi damm’s the bible (someone throw one at him?)
- Indi thinks chrisens who think they are good can do evil things (I agree, sad, isn’t it.)
- Indi is angry with governments/religions and wants to create a "better" version of Christianity - one immune to misinterpretation (I think I will leave that one to God – In God We Trust)
- Indi wants to know how I know I have it right and have authority to say so ( I do.)
Indi
Bluedoll wrote:
I stated previously, I would take the time to address everything Indi wrote. In an attempt to detail the points out of that post I’ve listed the main points. If any of these points are incorrect please indicate.

Oh, they're all wrong, except for one, but that's better than i would have expected.

Bluedoll wrote:
- Indi is saying, Jesus is a god that says turn your cheek but contradicts that by saying “I didn’t mean that draw your swords!” (not true at all see above)
- Indi’s god is mr unidentified (not mine -God so loved the world he sent his beloved son)
- Bluedoll lives in the USA and must be an idiot (sorry Canada eh)- off topic
- Indi damm’s the bible (someone throw one at him?)
- Indi thinks chrisens who think they are good can do evil things (I agree, sad, isn’t it.)
- Indi is angry with governments/religions and wants to create a "better" version of Christianity - one immune to misinterpretation (I think I will leave that one to God – In God We Trust)
- Indi wants to know how I know I have it right and have authority to say so ( I do.)

The bolded one is the only one you got right.
Bikerman
Quote:
Christianity was coined after the death of Jesus Christ, I think that was on the roman calendar 34 or 32 something like that, forget now.
Christianity is coined in the bible - Acts 11:26
That would certainly be after the death of Christ - probably around 75-100CE.
Quote:
I might need to dig this info up but somewhere around 100-300, a generation or two perhaps, things began to go astray, badly. Religion was a curse (using words loosely here) because you can have something really good and it can go very bad quickly.
There were a number of sects of Christianity in the first century. Over time the Pauline version became dominant. I don't know what you mean by 'astray'. Astray from what?
Dennise
Bottom line to remember.

All the words above came from man, and man was/is fallible.

It was men who said Jesus was divine and the son of God. It was men who wrote the tomes of the varied religions. It is/was men who were inspired and recorded their thoughts, visions and feelings.

I'm still awaiting true divinity, not men to sort out our mess and speak to us all in a single unmistakable tongue. History shows us that too many otherwise learned, gifted, spiritual and religious men had/have it all wrong.
Bluedoll
@Dennise
The bible was written by men and men then go off to create fallible religions, yes, men go astray just as you wrote so eloquently. I agree, the word of God is the word to follow.
Arseniy
Some fresh and new aspects to your arguing! Smile

As for psychoanalysis, a religion or any kind of religious belief is a regulative construction, which is called to suppress the primitive drive in our unconscious. Last ones are dangerous enough: they represent the Id and make the human (while breaking out) a real animal.
Nowadays there are lots of such regulatives along with religion: career, political ideology etc. Also the regulative is a suppressive form of action, while the sublimation can forward your Id drives in another direction: arts, music, literature, social activities, lots of them.
So the need in religion is nowadays low, but it's really crucial for some people with hard psychic or social situation to find the strong belief to carry on. That's why I'm not aggressive atheist, just a little bit freudist. Smile
Bluedoll
Christianity is not a religion. Christianity is a movement. This post is about Christianity and what it is. Christianity was highjacked by religions just as posters can highjack topics. On message boards in general, internet users like to post about the things that they know and want to share. I may be wrong but I think what computer users should do when they access message boards is to post to the topic or create their own.
This kind of solidifies topics in nice little organized topics and threads and puts everything in a logical order. However, I am thinking this rarely happens on many boards for several reasons.
Take this post for example. This post was created to clear up the confusion I see being created on this board specifically about Christianity. It is not about atheism, freudism, stupidism or any other philosophical topic. It is about Christianity as a non religion, a movement started by Jesus Christ. Now, I suppose one could argue that it belongs in another section and that might be true. I posted it here though because most people relate to Christianity as religion and this is where most of the confusion about it is created. I am not saying, other topics are not interesting. I am just saying they are out of place.

I am neither saying that the message of peace of Jesus Christ (Christianity) can not be discussed or considered from every perspective but I am saying to aggressively argue, debate with hostility, attempt to confuse the topic is not constructive to the purpose. Fighting over a message of peace is like robbing the child’s cradle of it's blanket.

In conclusion, we can see structure on a message boards, in political forums, in religions and usually there is a body of people, representative or some controlling agent to oversee the organization. The lead of Christianity is Jesus Christ and no other. Of course, a person that does not trust the message as one of peace, wishes to be disruptive or has their own personal agenda will not be open to the message most likely as well and that is rather sad.

Christianity was highjacked.
Indi
You claim that what you're trying to do is clear up confusion. i don't see it. i see just another apologist redefining words in a self-serving way to avoid facing problems (and at the same time, making cowardly, backhanded swipes at anyone who challenges your beliefs, while pretending to be open to them). If you're really serious about clearing up confusion, then let's see you do it.

The definition of a movement in this context is either:
  • A collection of people or groups loosely organized together toward a common goal.
  • The actions taken toward this common goal.
If Christianity is a movement and not a religion:
  • What is the goal of the movement?
  • What are the actions being undertaken in the movement?

The definition of religion is:
  • A set of beliefs about the nature of the universe or humanity's place in it, based primarily on faith.
As you can see, this has nothing to do with your imaginary definition, as it doesn't even mention a controlling group.

Now:
  • Is Christianity a set of beliefs?
  • Are those beliefs held to primarily by faith?
  • Do those beliefs have to do with the nature of the universe or humanity's place in it?
Which of those questions has the answer "no"?

Bluedoll wrote:
I am neither saying that the message of peace of Jesus Christ (Christianity) can not be discussed or considered from every perspective but I am saying to aggressively argue, debate with hostility, attempt to confuse the topic is not constructive to the purpose. Fighting over a message of peace is like robbing the child’s cradle of it's blanket.

Every religion and their apologists claim to have messages of peace. Choosing not to take someone's word that they have a message of peace, and instead analyzing the message to see if it really is about peace, is the only wise thing to do.

This is an example of your hypocrisy that i was talking about. In one paragraph you first claim that you are open to having your beliefs challenged... then immediately say that your beliefs shouldn't be challenged because they are a "message of peace" (of course, without providing any proof that they have anything to do with peace at all). Later on, you go even further, saying: "Of course, a person that does not trust the message as one of peace, wishes to be disruptive or has their own personal agenda will not be open to the message most likely as well and that is rather sad." This is basically "anyone who doesn't trust what i say (about Christianity being a message of peace) is closed-minded and just wants to stir up trouble"... right after you've just said you were open to having your beliefs criticized. What hypocrisy.
Bluedoll
@Indi As soon as this post appeared you jumped on it to discredit me personally. If you were really interested in a discussion and wanted answers to your questions you would ask them and wait for answers. You do not do this but attack, which is evident in your post(s). It is ok to state different views but I see you as a person once involved in religion but something happened to you to make you angry and aggressive. Your attitude is one of self-assuming and I am not sure you are up for constructive discussion with other members. “It is hard to soar like an eagle when you’re surrounded by turkeys” - Indi.
Do not even think I am taking ‘a swipe’ at you. I am simply saying what I think is true and if I am wrong that’s fine, I will gladly learn and yes even apologize. Why not?
"I am not saying that the message of peace of Jesus Christ can not be discussed or considered from every perspective but I am saying to aggressively argue, debate with hostility, attempt to confuse the topic is not constructive to the purpose. Fighting over a message of peace is like robbing the child’s cradle of it's blanket." - Bluedoll
"In one paragraph you first claim that you are open to having your beliefs challenged... then immediately say that your beliefs shouldn't be challenged because they are a message of peace of course, without providing any proof that they have anything to do with peace at all". – Indi
I did not say I am open to having my beliefs challenged you did. I said, and it is important to see the distinction for the benefit of understanding what I am saying is that the scriptures in the bible concerning Jesus Christ, the words of Jesus Christ can be discussed and considered. That has little to do with me and everything to do with Jesus Christ and the message. What I will say is that approaching a discussion like you are demonstrating is not constructive to it!
"Later on, you go even further, saying,
"Of course, a person that does not trust the message as one of peace, wishes to be disruptive or has their own personal agenda will not be open to the message most likely as well and that is rather sad."- Bluedoll
"This is basically anyone who doesn't trust what I say (about Christianity being a message of peace) is closed-minded and just wants to stir up trouble... right after you've just said you were open to having your beliefs criticized".
– Indi
I think all aggressive, insulting posts with attitudes of sword fights are unproductive. That is my opinion. As for having my beliefs criticized, I do not share that outlook because I think it is the topic that should be addressed and not the personal belief of the person posting.
Please, please, please when it comes to trust about such topics do put your trust in man but put your trust in God. I will rephrase it. In God we trust.
"If Christianity is a movement and not a religion, what is the goal of the movement and what are the actions being undertaken in the movement"? - Indi
These are good questions but I think not you were actually asking these but using the questions to make a point. You would do better I think Indi to just write what you believe is true. They are regardless good questions. It is obvious to me, the confusion I need to clear up is the confusion you are creating. Ok, I understand this. You once said you studied the bible a lot so I assuming you would know the answers to your own questions. Maybe you do but got confused somewhere?

Jesus Christ from a heavenly place is with God for times appointed to bring peace and security to all the earth. We are and will see events transpiring to that end. Here on earth the best way to address those questions would be to ask Jesus this.

His friends were asking him. Do you not want to eat? Jesus said, “I have food to eat which you do not understand.” They started to say to each other what is this because no one brought him anything to eat? Jesus then said to their confused faces, “my food is for me to do the will of God who sent me and to finish his work”. - from John 4:31

"Every religion and their apologists claim to have messages of peace. Choosing not to take someone's word that they have a message of peace, and instead analyzing the message to see if it really is about peace, is the only wise thing to do". – Indi
It is wise to look at the words of Jesus Christ to understand the message, I agree. I for one would certainly like to do this. I do ask however that you read my post more carefully Indi to understand it more clearly and if not ask me in a reasonable manner. This post is stating that Christianity at the start was not a religion created by mankind. Men make religions not God. I am not affiliated with any worldly religion by the way.
Bikerman
Quote:
This post is stating that Christianity at the start was not a religion created by mankind. Men make religions not God. I am not affiliated with any worldly religion by the way.

Christianity absolutely WAS a religion created by mankind. As I said earlier, the word Christianity is first used in the Acts of the Apostles which were written by a man (or men) about 70-100CE.
We don't know what Jesus said or did - even if he existed. What we have is later accounts written by men, probably non of whom ever met Jesus. So we have selective second or third hand recounting of what he is supposed to have said and done, according to particular people with a particular agenda. They disagree on fundamentals - like where he was born and when. They disagree with the historical record on events - like the invention of the Roman census by 'Luke'. There is also obviously material which comes from a common earlier source in at least 2 of the Gospel accounts (which is where the Q hypothesis comes in).
Thus it is not possible to say that 'Christianity was hijacked' because the only source you have for what Christians believe is the bible which is an unreliable source of data. Nobody can say what, if anything, Jesus actually intended people to do or believe. Nobody can say with any level of certainty that the Jesus described in the New Testament actually existed - let alone what his message was.
Bluedoll
I agree mankind makes religions. I am not sure about the actually date in the acts of the Apostles. I am not even sure how old Peter would be in Act 11:26 in Antioch as they were being called ‘Christians’. Later religions began to develop from this small beginning. Religions do not always get it right and use for ill purpose = highjacked.
Yes, all the bible was written by men and translated. There is verses that seem to conflict and certainly people will interrupt the scriptures differently so to find contradictions in them. The bible is an unreliable source of data if you look at the bible as a modern day book but is far from unreliable in the sense that it contains within it, truth.
I can say for certain that Jesus Christ does exist and have a good clear understanding of the important things of what Jesus is saying even for today. Yes, the bible may be old but the messages within it are real and have real meaning but only to those that will listen to them.
Important in my mind is mankind will always have necessity for the sake of peace and security to understand clearly that God is needed, for without God mankind can not survive.

But they left God out of the equation and refused to want to understand God instead turned disrespectful . . . and if God had not saved a few survivors we would have been lost - from Isaiah 1
Bikerman
Reliability is not dependant on age. If a book contains errors then it is unreliable. The bible contains many errors ergo it is not a reliable source of information.
You THINK you can say for certain that Jesus exists, but since you cannot evidence that in any manner that would be recognisable AS evidence then the certainty is entirely personal.
Of course mankind can survive without God. We must have done so as a species before religion was invented and over a billion people survive quite well in the world today without any God(s).
Arseniy
@Bluedoll. You're using the word 'religion' (while talking about difference between movement and religion) like 'these stinky and dumb old popes in Vatican who squeeze money from poor Christians'. That's completely wrong and I think I don't need to explain why. Just note: not the church administrative body, whole church and related.
The second funny thing is that you exhibit Jesus Christ like first hippie round the world (everyone knows, that Diogenus was earlier, heh). Christianity is NOT ONLY the message of peace, just because there IS a punishment conception. And if one side will suffer, other side earlier or later will equal to the first side.
Bikerman
I think the time to apologise for your English is when I, and other posters, are able to reply to you in Ukrainian. Until then I don't think any apology is necessary.
Arseniy
Heh, ok Smile That's my 3-years-old signature which I've completely forgot about.
Indi
Bluedoll wrote:
@Indi As soon as this post appeared you jumped on it to discredit me personally. If you were really interested in a discussion and wanted answers to your questions you would ask them and wait for answers.

Because the reason you created this topic is to avoid the criticism your claims were getting in other threads. This whole topic exists so you can dictate what's on topic and what's not, just so you can say that any criticism of your beliefs is off-topic. And that's what you've been trying to do - you've been trying to find ways to make every criticism i make about what you write off-topic so you don't have to answer the criticisms.

But it's not working. You're just doing the same thing you always do: you just ignore the criticisms and whine about how you're being persecuted. Right from the start, you opened up with a claim that there is a "right" version of Christianity, and a "wrong" version (which you called "chrisdedumb"), so naturally i asked the logical question: how do you know your version is the right one? And, naturally, you didn't answer. Instead you complained about how "aggressive" i was being, fired off more empty platitudes and ended up misrepresenting everything i said by making ridiculous claims about what i wrote.

Then you claimed Christianity was not a religion, it was a movement, so - again, naturally - asked you to explain how that could be true using the definitions of the words "religion" and "movement". Once again, you didn't answer. Once again, you whined about being persecuted, called me aggressive again, made stupid and irrelevant insinuations about why you think i'm "angry", and - yet again - fired off a stream of empty platitudes.

You want me to sit quietly and wait for answers, when you have no intention of ever giving any. That's why i have put my foot down and said enough. From the Gospel According to Indi: "Put up or shut up." i'm not going to sit around after you've said something clearly false, and wait for you to finish your meandering streams of empty platitudes, knowing you'll probably never answer any of the questions. Hell no. i'm going to call you out on your evasiveness and hypocrisy. You're in a discussion forum, desperately trying not to have anything you claim discussed. Sorry, that's not happening; i'm not going to let it happen. i'm not letting you or anyone make claims around here without having those claims face reasonable challenges. That's philosophy.

Bluedoll wrote:
I did not say I am open to having my beliefs challenged you did. I said, and it is important to see the distinction for the benefit of understanding what I am saying is that the scriptures in the bible concerning Jesus Christ, the words of Jesus Christ can be discussed and considered. That has little to do with me and everything to do with Jesus Christ and the message.

You're not in touch with reality. The "message" of Jesus Christ that you think you have IS your belief. That Jesus's message was a message of peace, that you understand that message properly and the "chrisdedumb"s don't, that Christianity is a movement and not a religion: ALL of these are YOUR BELIEFS. They are not facts. They are not even close to facts until they have face a serious of stiff challenges to ensure they're actually true objectively... which, of course, can't happen, because you refuse to face any challenges or criticisms.

Bluedoll wrote:
What I will say is that approaching a discussion like you are demonstrating is not constructive to it!

If you are ruling out any criticism of your claims as "sad" and "disruptive" and based on people's "personal agenda", then this is not a discussion, so i can't possibly disrupt what doesn't exist.

If no one can challenge your claims, then this can't be a discussion: you are simply making a speech. You're not interested in any input or feedback - you just want people to say "you're right", "i agree" and "Bluedoll is so smart and insightful". If that's what's going on, i have no qualms about disrupting, because this is not a soapbox forum for you to make speeches without being challenged, this is a discussion forum, so your claims will be discussed. Whether you like it, or not.

Bluedoll wrote:
As for having my beliefs criticized, I do not share that outlook because I think it is the topic that should be addressed and not the personal belief of the person posting.

The topic IS your personal beliefs. There is nothing in this thread except your personal beliefs. If you post your personal beliefs in a discussion forum... surprise, surprise... they will be discussed. NOTHING you said in your first post can't be challenged - most if it is of very questionable veracity, to say the least.

You made this topic entirely about your personal beliefs... so yes, your personal beliefs will be discussed. If you don't want your personal beliefs discussed, don't post them; i don't post mine.

Bluedoll wrote:
These are good questions but I think not you were actually asking these but using the questions to make a point. You would do better I think Indi to just write what you believe is true. They are regardless good questions.

See? You're not answering questions, and you're not clearing up confusion. You're just evading. You even admit that i've asked good questions... but you refuse to answer them.

And then you tell me to post what i believe?!?! After you just finished saying that personal beliefs are not to be discussed? Really, seriously, you're not in touch with reality.

Bluedoll wrote:
I do ask however that you read my post more carefully Indi to understand it more clearly and if not ask me in a reasonable manner. This post is stating that Christianity at the start was not a religion created by mankind. Men make religions not God. I am not affiliated with any worldly religion by the way.

i read your post, and i understood it, and i asked a reasonable question... and you refused to answer. Instead, you whined and evaded and waxed platitude. i'll ask again, and once again, as i said before, this seems a futile exercise because you never answer simple, direct questions with simple, direct answers, but, here goes:

You have the definition of religion there. You say you know what Christianity was supposed to be "at the start". Explain... EXPLAIN, don't just assert... how Christianity was or is not a religion. Show me that it is either not a set of beliefs about the universe or humanity's place in it, or that those beliefs are not held to primarily by faith. It's a simple request. It's a topical request. It's not hostile. It's not aggressive. It's not based on anger on abuse i suffered at the hands of religious people or whatever. You made a claim, i question it. As usual, that's all there is to it. So, quit whining and just answer.
Bluedoll
How is Christianity not a religion?
How is Christianity not just a set of beliefs about the universe or humanity's place in it?
Why are Christian beliefs not held primarily by faith?



Christianity is matter of record. Early on, the word Christiantity didn’t even exist. Jesus and later in time his apostles went from place to place to deliver the message. A movement. They were called Christens by people of that day. Later in time religions were formed around these teachings. Christianity is a movement in that the originator of the message Jesus Christ continues to speak through recorded scripture to deliver truth. I find no fault in the words of Jesus. They are for me a message of peace.

Can someone define a living person’s message as a religion? Yes, but then it stands to reason we all will associate both the good and bad of all religious organizations with this person. Christianity in itself is not a religion because religions are earth bound while the living Jesus Christ is not.

The good news is the bible does exist for all that want to listen. You can never deny the existence of the words of Christ for they are living proof.

We can belief in something if we choose to because it is our right to do so. I belief in the words of Jesus Christ but not by faith alone. This might lead to another question. Why can I believe in the words of a very old book? I believe because I have opened my heart to wish to understand the words in the bible and do. I have faith that Gods’ Will, will be done but I do not need faith to believe in what I read in the bible to be true or not. I know it is.


________________________________________

@Indi
I have tried to answer your questions and will address the rest of your post by posting with a new topic when I am ready because it applies to me personally and not this particular topic. (I will send you a pm to let you know which one and you can enter in on the discussion or refrain from it your choice)Note: I had to re-word the questions slightly so they would make sense to me, 'either' was not clearly defined for me? The use of 'or' seemed like it was asking several questions at once? In any case I addressed the questions above as stated - Bluedoll

After you just finished saying that personal beliefs are not to be discussed? –Indi
I did not say this. I said or at least meant to say that beliefs and topics are better discussed than attacking the person who has the beliefs.
infoxt
It is not just a religion but a way of life.

It was men who said Jesus was divine and the son of God. It was men who wrote the tomes of the varied religions. It is/was men who were inspired and recorded their thoughts, visions and feelings.

I'm still awaiting true divinity, not men to sort out our mess and speak to us all in a single unmistakable tongue. History shows us that too many otherwise learned, gifted, spiritual and religious men had/have it all wrong.


This is my opinion too.
Bluedoll
infoxt wrote:
It is not just a religion but a way of life.

It was men who said Jesus was divine and the son of God. It was men who wrote the tomes of the varied religions. It is/was men who were inspired and recorded their thoughts, visions and feelings.

I'm still awaiting true divinity, not men to sort out our mess and speak to us all in a single unmistakable tongue. History shows us that too many otherwise learned, gifted, spiritual and religious men had/have it all wrong.


This is my opinion too.


I agree with this opinion and will add, this is why we need to listen to the words of Jesus Christ, our living teacher.
Arseniy
Ohoho, guys, you have completely messed two different concepts: religion and moral principles.
The religion physically IS a movement or a conglomeration of people, who spread the word about this religion, its statements and features (don't you think that buddhism or hinduism had been spreaden in another way?), and metaphysically it is a complex of prediscribed rules for each adept to live according to.
Moral principles are a way older thing. It is a complex of our impersonal likes and rules which were formed due to some reasons like education, family etc. And it is not always the same as religious views.
Nowadays christianity makes a very huge influence onto our moral. The main statement not to kill is absolutely normal to people of different nations and cultures. But, we need to know difference between these two.

Quote:
The good news is the bible does exist for all that want to listen. You can never deny the existence of the words of Christ for they are living proof.

Funny, but I met a lot of critic works that put the ever existence of Christ under the distrust. And who knows if Bible was written not by some crazy monk.
watersoul
24 replies later and I'm still waiting to see the confusion cleared up
Arseniy
Man, you don't understand. We ARE clearing it up! Wink
Bikerman
Arseniy wrote:
Ohoho, guys, you have completely messed two different concepts: religion and moral principles.
The religion physically IS a movement or a conglomeration of people, who spread the word about this religion, its statements and features (don't you think that buddhism or hinduism had been spreaden in another way?), and metaphysically it is a complex of prediscribed rules for each adept to live according to.
Moral principles are a way older thing. It is a complex of our impersonal likes and rules which were formed due to some reasons like education, family etc. And it is not always the same as religious views.
Nowadays christianity makes a very huge influence onto our moral. The main statement not to kill is absolutely normal to people of different nations and cultures. But, we need to know difference between these two.

Hmm...I don't agree that Christianity makes a huge difference with regard to morals - except perhaps in a negative way. The moral precepts of Christianity are nothing new - they were around way before the bible first appeared in mass circulation. In the modern world the message of Christianity is different, depending on which sect you listen to. The Evangelicals think that atheism, sexuality and abortion are the 'big' moral issues of our time, as do the Catholics. I don't see that they have anything positive to add to the moral debate on such matters.
Arseniy
Quote:
The moral precepts of Christianity are nothing new - they were around way before the bible first appeared in mass circulation.

Not every of them. Such as negative attitude to onanism or positive attitude to purism are new principles of Christianity.
Bikerman
I'd be surprised if that were the case. Certainly the Egyptians and Sumerians celebrated masturbation (onan comes later, if you will pardon the pun), but it seems to me that there would be a strong social imperative to condemn it in societies in the nomadic/hunter-gatherer period. Obviously tribal strength depended largely on numbers and 'wasting' potential numbers would surely have been some sort of taboo.

I think the case for 'purity' is stronger. Certainly the OT puts a very big emphasis on cleanliness and has a lot to say about uncleanliness. I read Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy a long time ago, as a student, and Moore definitely would agree - he traces much of later killing and torture back to this early emphasis on purity and not being 'defiled'.
Related topics
islam is...
I'm new and...
science vs. religion
Contradictions to Stories in the Christian Bible.
Christianity isn't easy so everybody isn't doing it.
A few quik questions.
Buddhism
No offense ment by this
The Truth About Easter
Astrology vs. Christianity?
A debate of religion, science, and more
Deism vs Atheism
Declaration of Separation
Atheist Evangelism at Frihost
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.