"You get more hate for being a Moderate Christian then a zealous one." Do you believe this is true? Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT | |
When was secular reality important to religious world views?
Don't they themselves constantly underline how they're part of something greater than themselves, how they're united with other Christians in their faith? You can't really share in the good but not the bad, either you are a group with shared beliefs, or you're a bunch of people with personal views who happen to call yourself the same thing. Now which of those two are the religious claiming to be? If they themselves won't acknowledge their individuality, why would I?
So since "god" doesn't exist, no matter how hard anyone argue its merits it simply doesn't matter? Fictional concepts aren't meaningless, nor is something illogical simply because it's not practically feasible. I'm simply pointing out how utterly impossible religion is to follow in the absolute way it demands to be followed in. ...Also, given how awesomely autistic the world would be, I'll say that all scientists should try to be more like Sheldon! | |
Schism, Reformation, Revision, and Forgiveness. I think your making the false assumption that any religion chooses to remain with the worse of their organization. Christianity alone is made up and many independent churches, with different interpretation of the Bible, and separate histories. You cannot possible ignore these efforts and group all of them together. And even if you do, you must admit how bias you are being with which areas of heterogeneous group you choose to focus on. Christians think being gay is a sin? The United Church of Christ would openly marry a minister with a same sex partner. If we're going to group them altogether why not make that the standard instead? Even if we were talking about a single organization, there is no such religion organization that has gone on without reforming or revising their beliefs. The law changes, new prophets show up, or the culture out grows certain superfluous customs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints banned polygamy, just like other forms of Christianity or Judaism did before it. It is unfair to impose laws or actions of the old church to the new church, as the entire point of organized religion is to have some wise interpreter of the religion explain to you how you should follow this faith in these modern times, so you don't end up listen to any idiot. And then we can argue ancestry, that people take on the sins of their past. But even if you are fairly separating my religion from any that sound similar, and even if your not pointing out things my religious organization has denounce, it is still unfair to think I need to answer for anyone who has ever shared the same faith as me. We are all human, we all share a common history, and maybe we should accept the worse of us as being one of our brothers. But at some point we need to have forgiveness or at least acceptance that there could be no alternative past. It's not about answering for past sins, its about finding a way to be better. And if that organization continues to do wrong, well I rather those in the group to stay there and try to make their organization better than abandon it to the radicals they are against. Though, countless times in the past they did split off, so I am not so quick to judge these folks as hypocrites. They are just looking for an alternative solution they think is better, and I hope for all our sakes they find it. | |
I guess it's a matter of perception. I know for me, if I seem like I dislike moderate Christians more, it's more because the true zealot ones are so far fucked in the head that trying to reason with them is like trying to reason with a natural disaster. Where you guys might actually listen to some reason and shit. So if zealots are treated as less important to be talked to in a discussion it's because frankly to a degree they are, and to a degree their antiquated ways just have to slide the fuck out of common vernacular. They're holding us back, in ways that are going to cost us our environment and health and prosperity. At risk of bringing up an off topic, it's a lot like the whole evolution vs. creationism debate. Evangelical types that absolutely won't believe in evolution hold medicine back in a real way (germ theory without evolution basically means we can't cure resistant germs, period). Therefor real people die, while you moderate Christians prop them up with a bunch of apologies to their horseshit. "Oh, it's their right, to believe this, blah blah, it's not hurting anybody". So even if you 'agree' with us, you often support them by proxy, or with silence. IF we seem critical of you, it's because again, they're too fucked in the head to listen. You might. I get tired though having to court many moderate Christians through the guise and lens of Christianity. Like me trying to refute bigotry picking apart tenants in their religion is non-appealing to me, because I don't frankly give a shit about the Bible's 'laws' whether or not I can squint at them and make them less barbaric or not. It'd feel like, I guess trying to convince your kid he has to go to school by couching everything in Pokemon terms or some shit. Like I said, it's not appealing. I don't feel that I can get moderate or 'crazy' Christians to side with me teaching them more about their religion somehow, and I feel it's a stupid method to try. What I mean by that, is that for many of us, we have no real desire to coach you into tolerance because 'that's what Jesus would do' as theocracy would be somehow more appealing to us if that theocracy was more modernized. Frankly I don't think it can be done. The closest you can do, in my experience, is to get them to stop giving a shit about parts of the bible; that is to say they became more modern and moderate Christians not by some 'new' understanding of a 2,000 year old book, but by ignoring large parts of it. | |
Honestly this is the kind of christianity i can get behind. Even I agree with jesus on pretty much every damn level. Jesus is in fact a personal hero of mine. I admire him greatly. Despite being an atheist. I always wondered why "CHRISTIANITY" did things that christ didnt say to do. Surely "followers of christ" should always prioritise the things he said above everything else? The love bit before the other "hate bits". Always seemed more logical to me. If you wanna be a "bibleologist" then follow every damn letter but if youre a follower of CHRIST do what CHRIST said and ignore the bits pretty much entirely unrelated to CHRIST. Thats my take on it anyway. Youre not a hypocrit. Youre not an idiot. I feel that people like you are the truest expressions of what a CHRISTian is. Because you value the words of CHRIST above all else. I dont define bible literalists as christians. It never made sense to me. Fellow atheists STOP hating on the fucking moderates like this guy! Sweet troll jegus these people are reasonable and logical. Even I admit that the idea of a god that exists only for love and NO other arbitrary rules or hell ect isnt the most illogical of ideas and isnt completely batshit insane. Its a respectable view! Society is going to have religion forever and like that kid in school who cant play well with others we cant keep throwing rocks at everything and hoping it will go away. It wont. We gotta make some friends with the guys who are doing it right. We gotta say "THESE are the kind of people we want to represent religion" and give then some damn leeway. Dont PUNISH people for destroying dogma and embracing LOVE. What the hell is WRONG with that?! There is no reason to hate the moderates. They are closer to us than the extremists. And more like jesus. And everyone likes jesus. That guy was awesome. | |
To an extent I think you answered your own question: the shit-flinging fundamentalist loons clearly aren't worth reasoning with, and they're doing such a splendid job of sabotaging their own side's credibility that it'd be a shame to stop them. So, why does the moderate middle get pressed the hardest? Here are my speculations, from my limited, secular, and occasionally anti-theist viewpoint: 1) The "not doing it right" argument: you're a Muslim, but you eat pork, drink beer, don't pray, and don't literally believe much of the Koran? Easier to stop calling yourelf a Muslim, because you're stretching the definition of "Muslim" to the point where it's meaningless. 1b) Is this the same as "waaaah, conform to my expectations/prejudices" and "no true Scotsman"? That's subjective. If membership of Group A requires credentials x,y,z, and you don't tick any of the boxes, why assume the label? Or, as some would argue, is it really all down to how you choose to self-describe, and can you legitimately be a non-religious member of a religious group? 2) They're clearly intelligent; they should know better. From a standpoint of intellectual integrity and consistency it's infuriating to see somebody who's capable of scrutinising peer-reviewed articles and yet can't see through the paper-thin mythology of the Bible. 3) Moderates legitimise and enable the harmful "true believers". | |
I don't hate moderate Christians or zealous ones. However I have much more respect intellectually for people who actually do believe the bible is the word of god and stick with that consistently, than I do for the hypocrites that pick and choose what they want to believe from Christianity. They are lying to the world and themselves. | |
It is of course impossible that people genuinely have a nuanced spirituality and think about metaphysical issues for themselves rather than blithely accepting doctrine. It's impossible that some people actually believe it when they say that fundamentally, their religion is a personal thing, a relationship between themselves and whatever God they worship. That maybe, whilst their beliefs may not be precisely the same as that of the person on the next pew, they attend for a sense of community and to share in the worship experience. Strictly speaking, if you can say the Nicene creed honestly, then you can call yourself a Christian.
Because lets face it, under your criteria there are no Christians. Considering that, for example, the 2nd chapter of genesis directly contradicts the first, its not unreasonable for people to conclude that aspects of the Bible are open for interpretation. | |
I can only speak for myself and what I dislike about moderate Christians. Their beliefs and moral basis comes from cherry picked content of their religion, yet they still play the "I abide the morals of God so they must be superior to yours" card. From a personal standpoint I believe that if you choose to ignore some of the clearcut moral messages a religion has to offer you cannot be called a true follower of that religion. For example
This is in the bible, you must be insane to truely believe this is justice nowadays. If you disregard this passage and recognise it as obscene I don't understand how you can still hold other passages as supreme truths. I'm not an expert but aren't they both part of the TRUE word of God? Captcha nut case, devillishly relevant. | |
Why? The Bible doesn't say it's the word of God. That's your interpretation. Why is your use of interpretation consistent, while other people using their interpretation hypocrisy? | |
The Bible as we know it didn't exist until almost 400 years after the resurrection. Are you saying those original disciples and those who followed were doing it wrong because they didn't have the Bible to look from yet? And the same goes with you, Imperator. That is more or less the heart of the argument I'm posing here--why must Christianity directly follow the Bible? Christians, by their very name, are not followers of the Bible. The word Christian comes from the word Christ and the Greek word ianos, meaning follower. So literally the name means Follower of Christ. Christ didn't write or assemble the Bible, and his followers who wrote a few of the letters included in the Bible didn't assemble it either. Yes, it's been a common theme of many Christians for a while now to revere the Bible so and say it's the word of God pure as if it floated from heaven on the wings of a dove. But that's not how it started, and that's not what Jesus called his followers to do. If the Bible truly is supposed to be the one and only complete and literal dogma of the Christian faith, show me where in the Bible it says that. If the Bible doesn't say it, then that means that label was given by somebody else. And since we know neither Jesus nor any of his disciples were in any position to say what the Bible is (since they were long dead by the time the Bible came around), then it must be assumed it was some other random person somewhere along the way who said that's what the Bible is. So if you're going to follow this "if somebody else says it then that's how it must be" logic, Imperator, then Christians like me who believe the Bible is up for interpretation are just as correct as those who think it's the unquestionable word of God. | |
Reviled and hated? I don't see that so much. I see them actually challenged more, since they're perceived as being more productive conversation partners than creationists or flat earthists. Maybe you're misconstruing the disdain for your religious views as disdain for your person? The two aren't the same, you're a separate entity from the things you believe. Most Christians I know are basically good people, like me. | |
Speaking as someone who believes that they don't run down the street smacking people in the skull with the bible... Zealous: OMG Y U NO MORE SERIOUS ABOUT HATING ATHEISTS?!!?!
Problem is alot of people don't separate who you are from what you believe. They'd rather put you in a group and label you. | |
When did "the Bible is the literal word of God" become the default position? | |
Yep, you were the first user who sprang to mind when I saw the title of this thread. I see I wasn't wrong in making that assumption. Although a large part of me remembering you probably has more to do with the fact your avatar's facial expression scares me slightly. Personally, I love moderate religious folk. They're open-minded sorts who are more open to debating their positions on certain matters, less likely to blankly shut out any opinions they don't want to hear, and can usually make or take a joke about their faith without getting too offended. They're also the kind of people that hold the fundamentalists in line, and are open to making changes to their faith or reforming the whole thing altogether to reflect changing social stances. Since moderates are generally willing to live and let live as far as other religious positions are involved, so I let them carry on believing as they want to believe, out of mutual respect. | |
Or they themselves don't separate and take any criticism on their beliefs as personal attacks. It works that way, too. | |
I don't have a problem with liberal Christians, the ones who are actually on the front lines of fighting for people that other parts of their faith are trying their damnedest to oppress. I love the people who file amicus briefs in religious freedom cases, who stood up for the civil rights movement, who help collect signatures to pass marriage equality, who guard Planned Parenthood patients from pro-life screamers, who actually *do shit* to fight against Christians who harm people. Those folks? Are awesome. Moderate Christians, OTOH, I classify as people who generally believe that LGBT people should have rights, that women should have control over their bodies, that people should be allowed to choose any faith or none, but they really don't care much about doing anything to help that happen. They go to churches that aren't welcoming to LGBT people and say "I wish my church wasn't so anti-gay, I argue against that, but I like my church so I'm not going to stop going". Sometimes they go to Pride to soak up all those kudos for not hating gay people, and they turn around that November and vote Republican (hi, mother-in-law). And no, people generally don't get more hate for being a moderate Christian than for being a fanatical, fundamentalist one-- not in the real world. In the real world, moderate Christians are practically fellated for not being total assholes. So tough shit that parts of the internet aren't as "OMG GO YOU" as the real world is, particularly parts of the internet that are full of people who've been kicked around by Christianity in the real world. I encounter liberal and moderate Christians on boards like this one in one of two ways-- either they're in there arguing against their conservative cousins, or they're making "why does everyone hate people like me?" threads. The former, I love you. I'm thankful for you. I appreciate you. The latter can go get bent, as far as I'm concerned they're part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. Okay, fine, they don't want a lot of controversy in their life, I get that. But I'll be damned if I'm going to give them pats on the back for not being an asshole, when they're not doing a fucking thing to help stand against Christians who are. Besides, most people like that are so busy congratulating themselves for being so progressive for thinking LGBT people, women, and non-Christians might actually be people that they don't need my help-- hell, I'm surprised they don't break an arm patting themselves on the back. | |
Just for the sake of argument, let's take this to the extreme: how would people react to someone claiming to be a Nazi, and saying that what Hitler was really all about was pacifism and celebrating cultural differences? (I had to say "claiming to be a Nazi" to distinguish this hypothetical person from Glenn Beck.) What if this person's political views for all practical purposes (aside from the label he gave them) were no different from any other progressive, but he just kept saying that Hitler was a great and inspirational guy and, well, Mein Kampf was just translated badly? Oh, and that all those "Neo-nazi" people were just missing the real point of Nazism-- they're NINOs. Personally, it would be a struggle for me to avoid mild annoyance at such a person. | |
You have a very misguided view of Christianity and your supposed 'hero' Jesus. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17) Translation: The Old testament still applies. Follow it. The image that so many have of Jesus as the cool peace-loving dude with little relation to the Old Testament is just some nonsense B.S made up by those trying to sweep away the primitive, barbaric aspects of their religion. | |
I'd definitely agree with all of that. Seems to be the case with moderates everywhere. | |
Christ disobayed the old testiment. The "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" directly stopped someone from stoning an adulterer. The rule of the old testiment. Pretty much everyone jesus said was at odds with the blood thirsty ways of the old testiment. His lessons WERE primarily of peace and love and if you can find quotes that indicate jesus advocated the brutal violence of the old testiment other than the quote above ill be interested to hear it. I like jesus. Im just sure he was a random dude and not magic in any shape or form. Or a son of god. But the whole "peace" and "love" thing was pretty damn cool. Id like to hear where he indicated you should hurt others. | |
Um, the "Old Testament" didn't exist as we know it then. Only the Torah and the few prophets they had then. The "Old Testament" didn't come til a few centuries later. Also, did you know the word "fulfill" can also mean "satisfy" as well as "carry out?" In other words, it could also be said that Jesus was saying he did not intend to simply cast out the powers that be, but fill up the parts of them that aren't whole.
How so? Again, Jesus wasn't around when the Bible was composed. He never explicitly said "continue to be Jewish." The most explicit orders he ever gave were love God with all your heart, mind, and soul and that the only way to heaven was to accept him as the Messiah. Even Paul wrote in one of his letters that it was okay to no longer be Jews and uphold those old traditions (like being kosher, getting circumcised, etc). So obviously after all he saw from Jesus he wasn't under the impression they still had to obey those old authorities. This may help you some, it's a pretty thorough but extremely neutral analysis of what was going on during Jesus' time and how that relates to the other peoples of the time (the Jews and the Romans, mostly). | |
Most moderate christians only get hate from people who assume they are overzealous. Also, | |
No you don't get more hate for being a moderate Christian then a zealous one. It's just a lot more common to be a moderate Christian on the internet than a fundamentalist wacko. Also many fundamentalist topics are often automatically dismissed for either being flamebait or simple trolling. That's not to say ordinary Christians get their fair share of poop flying at them, but honestly what do you expect? The history of Christianity is filled with lies upon lies, spreading of misinformation, indoctrination of children, fascism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism and racism in general. You don't just get rid of hundreds of years of violent, bigoted, hateful, fear mongering, anti-science, anti-intellectualism and anti-thought behavior by saying you now have a more "moderate viewpoint" of things. Also it certainty doesn't help we still have many of those problems today. Just look at today's US politics. Why are there still debates whether or not evolution should be taught in schools as the only scientific theory? Why are gays still not allowed to get married in most states? Why is it getting a lot harder for women today to get an abortion in some states? Why do people still have to swear on the bible in court? Why are there religious propaganda printed on the money? These issues are not just caused by a minority filled with religious fundamentalist, sure they might be the ones driving these topics into politics but at the end of the day it's the majority filled with moderate Christians that keeps these unnecessary problems alive. Furthermore what does it even mean to be a "moderate Christian" anyway? I'm sure there were many Christians during the enlightenment who saw themselves as moderate to some of the witch burning, tortures, mass murdering psychopath Christians who lived in the middle ages. But that didn't stop some of them to commit their own atrocities, like genocide of the native Americans or mass enslavement of Africans. Even today we see a majority supporting the death penalty and torture. Were is that love and tolerance when it ACTUALLY MATTERS?!? Maybe it's time for people to just stop associate themselves completely with crazy ancient sects. Maybe it's time for people to stop kind of sort of live their life by what some carpenter may or may not have said 2000 years ago. Maybe it's time for people to just admit their religion is nothing but a tragic, ongoing, constant mistake and let go. | |
I fail to see why you discount the quote that states that he supports the barbarism of the Old Testament but if you insist. "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27) Translation: Kill the non-believer! Doubt I need more but might as well throw out some other examples of Jesus' dickishness. Jesus Supporting slavery: "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1 - 2) Jesus being a misogynist: "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. Jesus just being an overall dick: Matthew 15:23. Truth be told, this one will require some context. A Canaanite (non-Jewish) woman has sought out Jesus' help to heal her sick daughter. He says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Translation: I'm only helping the Jews, go away) Her reply, "Lord help me!" To which Jesus, ever so kindly responds: "It is not right to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." 15:26 (Translation: Wasting his healing powers on this non-Jew would be like wasting the children's food on a dog) However being the nice guy that he is Jesus finally heals her daughter, however only after she gets on her hands and knees and says "yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." I.e. Ok, I'm a dog spare me some scraps. What a hero! | |
Conceded. I wasnt aware of these quotes. Ill look into it more but fom what youve said it seems jesus wasnt the nice PR guy christianity wants him to be. Weird. | |
I get all this, but to be honest though there's so much anti-Semitism both currently and historically and modern Christians are so divorced from and casually dismissive of their Jewish roots that IMO it wouldn't hurt Christianity a bit to be more Jewish and more aware of what Judaism teaches. I mean, that thing you said up above "to fill up the parts of them that aren't whole" is the kind of thing that really hurts Jews to hear, it smacks of "your religion wasn't good enough until Jesus came along to fix it". Just passing on something I've often heard Jewish people say. And coming from an interest in reconstructionism in a Pagan sense, I just don't understand why Christians aren't more interested in the Rabbinic commentaries on the Torah, there are centuries of incredibly learned people analyzing some of the same material that's part of your religion, I can't for the life of me get why Christians don't want to know what they say. These are your spiritual ancestors. They matter. | |
This is actually likely to have been added long after the first copies of the gospels were made as it doesn't appear in the oldest manuscripts that we have access to. A really interesting read is the book "Misquoting Jesus" by the Bible scholar Bart Ehrman. | |
I agree that even in my church (where I feel like we work for a fuller understanding of the text that is applicable to reality in a positive way rather than simply saying "HEY LEVITICUS WHATEVER SAYS GAYS ARE BAD. OKAY? OK. And then later it says you can keep slaves and sell your sister but you shouldn't do that cause it's bad."), we still draw a pretty thick line between ourselves and the Jews when really we're technically just Jews that are post-Messiah. That is more or less what I take from the "not here to abolish but fulfill" thing. He didn't want to break away from the Jews or make it "us VS them," he wanted to envelop them and bring them with him. Anyway, I guess the reason nobody bothers is because a lot of Jesus' parables and stories were geared toward breaking down how corrupt and hypocritical the pharisees and powers that be were. So in general, if having to choose between Jesus and those who followed him and the those who Jesus ended up scolding (and who would attend his execution to scorn and jeer him) it is a lot easier to just stick with Jesus and ignore the other guys. That video has actually spurred my interest in these Messianic Jews and the old great Jewish teachings, which I think I'll be looking into just as soon as finals stop beating my head with a croquet mallet. | |
While I do believe Jesus was quite the dick, if he ever existed, which is far from certain, you should take note of the fact that the letters were written by Paul, not Jesus. Now, Paul was a right twat, and that might be why the quite amusing phenomenon has arisen of some christians actually throwing out parts of the letters as not being the word of god, with the excuse that Paul was full of shit, but the actual reason that they themselves don't want to seem like twats for following what he said. Of course, that's the big problem I have with moderate christians; they are cutting out pieces of their teachings to suit the times in which they live. If there really is a divine being behind everything, shouldn't the world conform to his teachings rather than the other way around? | |
Jesus never said "stop the world and wait up for me." In fact, what he was teaching WAS pretty radical for his day. Tearing down the temple veil that separated the Holiest of Holies from everybody else; fraternizing with Samaritans, gentiles, lepers and other outsiders thought to be unholy, full of sin, or simply unclean; and stating to do unto others what you would have done unto you (while the only other version of that rule going around was "DON'T treat others as you WOULDN'T have yourself treated," being proactive requires a bit more effort). He was already quite a bit ahead of his time as far as social justice is concerned, that is why the pharisees and whatnot were so uncomfortable with him. He made them see how much room for improvement there was. I think trying to stack on another 2000 years of social justice movements would have been pushing his luck just a bit. | |
It actually didn't. Many, many Christians understand that the Bible is a book or passages written by men, collected by men, edited by men, and translated by men. I would even wager that Christians who understand this are the majority, though I'm basing this on my experience since I don't have any polling data. I think the Christians who venerate the Bible to the point that they don't acknowledge what it is are the minority. But they're vocal, and so they appear to be the majority. You're going to hear more people appealing to the Bible as the infallible word of God because the Christians who don't consider the Bible to be the literal word of God are by nature of the argument less likely to get involved. As in all arguments, the moderates usually choose not to get involved because they have better things to do. Then you have anti-religious people like ImperatorDK who spread from a position of ignorance the incorrect notion that all religious people must treat their holy books as instruction manuals and unfailingly conform to the directives therein (conveniently ignoring that in the Bible for example there are no unambiguous directives therein) as a cynical rhetorical strategy for pursuing their hatred of clubs that are not their own. With all of this misinformation spreading around, it's no wonder that so many are unaware of what the Bible actually is. | |
Wow. We often have people on this board who don't know what they're talking about, but you've set the bar to a whole new level.
Hooray for out-of-context bullshitting! This line comes from a parable. It was never an instruction from Jesus to his followers.
Wow. Okay, time for some really basic education here: Jesus didn't write the Bible. He didn't write Timothy. Someone else wrote Timothy. The opinion expressed in Timothy is attributed to Paul, but it's unknown who actually wrote it. In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and until you give yourself a basic education on the fundamentals of biblical literature, your participation in this conversation serves no purpose but to inhibit understanding. You're spreading nothing but hateful propaganda. | |
No, since they preceded the formation on an official and authoritative dogma, they were free to lay it down. Once it was determined which scriptures were canonical and which weren't, the religion calcified into the thing that'd lead to one-and-half millennia of oppression. And really, you are the equal of the apostles?
You don't recognize the Council of Nicaea? That's really where Christianity took form as a "religion" (a formalized system of shared beliefs), so if so you're somewhere in a pre-religious state of personal faith. Which isn't religion, and hence not the religion of Christianity either. Also, even if we acknowledge "interpretation" to play some role, your approach isn't anything like that either. Interpretation is to extrapolate a meaning from a text through linguistic, historical, hermenutic etc. analysis, with no prior idea or intent as to where this should lead you to. In actual interpretation, there is only ever "is", never "should", and the only concern with the result is whether it's correct, not what it'll mean for you or anyone else. You on the other hand seem to very much have some pre-existing views you'd like to reach, and then to twist the wording through whatever mental acrobatics it takes to end up at it. You put yourself and your wish for compatibility with modern views first, and the text second, which isn't interpretation in the least.
If you founded your own religious denomination and decided upon its official dogma, then yes, I'd have to recognize your view as being dogmatically correct, and your practise of it as "religion" since it conforms to a formalized system of shared beliefs. However, it seem you're part of an established denomination, and not in any position to change its official stances.
Well, hate might be a bit - actually lots and lots - of a stretch, it's merely annoyance of the misuse of the word "interpretation" and "adherence" for "whatever I feel like believing", and the arrogance in claiming "god" to be on your side when you've pretty much made everything up yourself. I certainly don't hate anyone over it though, it's simply a passionate argument over terminology, a pet peeve. A more problematic thing with them is that they lend legitimacy to ideologies which so easily cause and justify oppression, discrimination, and violence. Without taking any responsibility for curbing those side effects of the thing they actively help keep in the world. That I do resent them over, if not by much.
I assure you that Hanyū isn't the least scary. | |
Why yes, yes I am. And so are you. I believe the holy spirit is within me as much as it was within them. Or as Jesus himself put it as Luke recalls, if you insist on always going back to the Bible: "20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is in your midst.[1]" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17&version=NIV#en-NIV-25673 Jesus said it, Luke wrote it down. Well, a few years later. The kingdom of God is within us. Not just the ones who happened to be alive during his time, but everyone. Right now. We are all capable of being just as good as they were back then.
No, I haven't even really heard of that to be honest :-\ But since if this council was the first group to organize Christians, I assume they formed the Eastern Orthodox church then? If that's the case then if differences in interpretation and practice aren't allowed in your book that is the only TRUE form of Christianity in your book? Since the Catholics broke off from them, they and everybody else aren't doing it right? Why is it so hard for you to believe religion isn't always solid? Here, let's start with the textbook definition of the word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t Very first definition: usually involving devotional and ritual observances, often containing a moral code. According to the definition those are common traits, but not required to be a religion. Second one: generally agreed upon. Generally, not totally, completely, or unanimously. And it gives room for different numbers of persons and sects. Third one: adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, doesn't give any indication as to who must come up with the set and that they can never change or evolve. The fourth doesn't really apply to our conversation here, they're simply lifestyles based upon their views. And the last one, a ritual observance of faith. Faith is simply confidence or trust, and the only way you'd even need confidence or trust is if the situation weren't always consistent.
Again, if that's the case then your definition has no ground in reality. Religious people simply aren't like that, and even the textbook definition of a religion isn't so specific. So either you are the one freestyling with your own unofficial definition of the word, or the world isn't as black and white as you think it is. [1] or "within you." | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT | |
depends, is there a established definition of what makes a person a Christian? i mean i believe that if a person believes Jesus is there lord and Saviour they are pretty much a Christian. some people believe that you gotta follow what they say to follow to be a Christian. so does no true scotsmen apply to abstract and vague definitions that vary differently within the group itself. some people do not consider Mormons or JW as Christians and some do not consider any sect but their own to be true Christians. so how exactly can you apply no true Scotsman to a group that cant decide itself who is Christian or not?