RE: Freedom of Religion
February 2, 2012 at 5:01 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm by Abracadabra.)
(February 2, 2012 at 6:20 am)tackattack Wrote: Chris·tian noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\ref
Definition of CHRISTIAN
1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
[/quote]
That's a meaningless definition anyway.
For example the very first question I can put to you is "What constitutes the teachings of Jesus".
Most "Christians" tend to support the entire Christian "biblical cannon" as the "Word of God". That's far more than merely professing a belief in the teachings of Jesus.
Moreover, about 75% of the New Testament actually constitutes the teachings of Paul, not Jesus.
In fact, if you reduce the Bible to only references of teachings made specifically by Jesus himself it would be a quite small cannon.
It would basically only contain the four gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John. And even much of those documents are nothing more than the narrative hearsay of the authors who wrote them. By the time you weed out all the background narrative hearsay and opinions about what Jesus might have meant and get down to actual verses that are supposedly regurgitated quotes of Jesus you don't have much left.
Finally, even those regurgitated quotes are highly suspicious since they are just the hearsay gossip of men who are claiming what this man Jesus might have said.
That's pretty shaky right there.
Also, where do these gospels ever claim that Jesus taught anyone that they should believe, or accept, the entire Torah as the official infallible "Word of God".
They don't. No such teaching exists.
Where does Jesus prophecize the some guy name Saul/Paul will come at a later date to finish his message and ministry?
He doesn't.
Yet I would think that if this was in God's plan he would have certainly made it clear that we should listen to the teachings of this guy named Paul as though he speaks for Jesus.
This is baloney. It's that simple. Much of the teachings in the Bible that are attributed to "Jesus" never even came from Jesus in the first place according to this very cannon of gossip.
So attempting to define a "Christian" as nothing more than a person who professes a belief in the teachings of Jesus isn't saying much.
I could easily qualify as a Christian myself based on that definition.
Jesus never taught anyone that he was born of a virgin. So you certainly wouldn't need to believe that.
Jesus never claimed to be the Son of the God of Abraham. So you wouldn't need to believe that.
Jesus never taught anyone that they need to believe that the Torah was the "Word of God". So you wouldn't need to believe that.
Jesus never taught anyone that he was going to send Paul to finish his teachings and ministry. So you wouldn't need to believe over 75% of the New Testament.
You wouldn't need to believe that Jesus rose form the dead, etc.
You wouldn't need to believe much at all really.
My belief that Jesus was a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist who actually taught against the immoral teachings of the God of Abraham would suffice as a "Belief in the teachings of Jesus". Thus by your superficial definition I would qualify as a "Christian" without even believing that Jesus was any special "Son of God" or that he was on a suicide mission to pay for he sins of mankind. I wouldn't need to have any belief in the God of Abraham or the Old Testament at all. And I could probably toss out the vast bulk of the New Testament as being unreliable hearsay gossip that really has nothing at all to do with the so-called "teachings of Jesus".
And I would be totally within rational rights to even highly question the verbatim validity of the hearsay quotes that even had been attributed to Jesus himself.
The "teachings of Jesus"?
What precisely would that even entail?
The gospels claim to "quote" Jesus as having taught that if any man hears his words and does not believe he will not judge them for this.
Yet, as a narrative opinion John proclaims that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is condemned already because they don't believe in the name of the Son of God. That's in total contradiction with what he claims that Jesus actually taught.
So who should you believe? John, or Jesus?
Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
