Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
So, if all religious traditions would be on shaky grounds (those that you chose)...why would you decide that these should be grounds for criticism? It would seem to me that this is an area of parity in every case. No one can agree who their fairy was, and what he is supposed to have said in the myth.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(February 2, 2012 at 10:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, if all religious traditions would be on shaky grounds (those that you chose)...why would you decide that these should be grounds for criticism? It would seem to me that this is an area of parity in every case. No one can agree who their fairy was, and what he is supposed to have said in the myth.
Before we go off on a tangent turning this into a vague abstraction concerning all possible religions, may I go back and summarize a bit about the actual points that I was addressing concerning the "definition" given for a "Christian"?
The definition that was offer was:
Quote:Chris·tian noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Definition of CHRISTIAN
1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
I suggested that this particular definition for this particular religion is a bit meaningless.
I would also even argue that it's a false and incorrect definition (even if it came straight out of a dictionary)
The real basis for Christianity is a belief that Jesus was "The Christ".
In other words, it's a belief that Jesus is a continuation of the fables of the God of Abraham and is the Son of that God.
Therefore to even define a "Christian" as merely one who professes a belief in the teaching of Jesus Christ is a bit misleading.
Although, I must confess they did state "Jesus Christ.
That very notation right there is a bit misleading and actually improper speech.
Christ is not Jesus' last name. It's a title that has been given to him that implies that he was indeed the Son of the God of Abraham.
So in truth the definition given above should truly read:
"1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus as the Christ, the only begotten Son of the God of Abraham."
In other words, this definition is already assuming that the person not only believes in the teachings of this man, but that they also already believe that this man is indeed "The Christ" the only begotten Son of the God of Abraham sent to be the sacrificial lamb of this God.
So the definition is a bit misleading already and assumes far more than it appears to be suggesting.
In other words, it doesn't say that a Christian is simply anyone who professes to believe in the teachings of "Jesus", but instead it says that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus was "The Christ".
Because of that, this definition actually requires that a person believes far more than just the teachings attributed to the man called Jesus, they must also believe in all the other rumors about this man that claim that he was the special Son of God sent as a sacrificial lamb.
In other words, they must also believe that Jesus was "The Christ".
So the definition is highly misleading and assumes far more than it appears to actually be stating. Simply because they already call Jesus "Christ" in their definition.
My original point stands:
My original point is that it's meaningless to try to make a religion out of Jesus alone. Jesus is nothing in a sense of divinity outside of being the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.
To claim to be a follower of Jesus without being a lover and follower of the God of Abraham is utterly meaningless.
To worship Jesus is to worship the God of Abraham.
Therefore a "Christian" must necessarily worship the God of Abraham and love him with all their mind, heart, and soul, just as the Old Testament demands.
To claim that they are merely "followers of the teachings Jesus" is a gross misrepresentation of what Christianity actually demands.
They must first be believers in the Old Testament and LOVERS of the God of Abraham.
If they aren't that, then any respect they might have for Jesus is a moot point.
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!
February 3, 2012 at 6:05 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2012 at 6:11 am by tackattack.)
(February 2, 2012 at 5:01 pm)Abracadabra Wrote:
(February 2, 2012 at 6:20 am)tackattack Wrote: Chris·tian noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Definition of CHRISTIAN
1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. ref
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?
You have every right to believe whatever you like about the definition. The reason is simple is because it's a dictionary and words have meanings, and I won't go redefining words to suit my beliefs, which you seem comfortable with. Your question about what are Jesus' teachings are valid as they're posrt of the definition of Christian (however, because you don't like the answer doens't invalidate the definition)
To answer that first question regarding which teachings were the greatest Jesus answered it in Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
He had many other teachings attributed to him throughout the NT. He also claimed to be a fufillment of the OT prophesies of the Messiah and Son of God. John 4 for one example
"25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”
.
The definition also implies within itself that you believe that Jesus Christ existed. It also implies that the teachings are the ones from the Bible. I could write a book with a whole bunch of faked teachings of Jesus, so I guess belief in the Bible is also a presumption of the definition. There are many religious sects that claim Christianity and believe Jesus wasn't the son of God, I don't consider them by this definition Christian because they're denying Biblical teachings of Jesus. That's why JW, Muslims and Jews are JW, Muslims and Jews , not Christians. It's not a superficial or useless definition, it a simple and inclusive one because it's a broad subject.
You obviously haven't done enough research on what the Bible actually said and are going off of a lot of hearsay yourself. I assume since you don't believe what Jesus said about himself that you wouldn't qualify as a Christian, according to the common definition.
To answer your question about Jesus and the OT:
1.Source of Authority
A.When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a source of authority by stating, "It is written," (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
2.Imperishability
A."For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished," (NASB, Matt. 5:18).
3.Unbreakability
A."The Scripture cannot be broken," (NASB, Jn. 10:35).
4.Source of Doctrinal Authority
A.Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).
Along with a slew of others.. just check out CARM for a more detailed list, I really can't be bothered for the time right now.
(February 3, 2012 at 3:44 am)Abracadabra Wrote:
numbering by me My original point stands:
1-My original point is that it's meaningless to try to make a religion out of Jesus alone. Jesus is nothing in a sense of divinity outside of being the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.
2-To claim to be a follower of Jesus without being a lover and follower of the God of Abraham is utterly meaningless.
To worship Jesus is to worship the God of Abraham.
Therefore a "Christian" must necessarily worship the God of Abraham and love him with all their mind, heart, and soul, just as the Old Testament demands.
3-To claim that they are merely "followers of the teachings Jesus" is a gross misrepresentation of what Christianity actually demands.
They must first be believers in the Old Testament and LOVERS of the God of Abraham.
If they aren't that, then any respect they might have for Jesus is a moot point.
1- Yet that is the definition of Christianity as I referenced
2- I agree that a Christians should Love God. As that's one of Jesus many teachings, the definition covers it. Unless you believe that JEsus never spoke of God (His Father) or the OT (which I referenced handily for you again)
3- No it's just a simplified definition because spelling out each of Jesus' teaching for ingorant people who choose not to read it for themselves would take far too long. We have a book for that, it's called the Bible. If you're interested read it, if not, stop making unfounded and incorrect asumptions about something you understand very little of. If you'd like we could have a Bible study via Email. However feel free to redefine as many words from the dictionary as you like, it makes whomever's side you're against seem that much more rational. Have a great day!
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
February 3, 2012 at 7:42 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2012 at 7:44 am by Abracadabra.)
(February 3, 2012 at 6:05 am)tackattack Wrote: 3.Unbreakability
A."The Scripture cannot be broken," (NASB, Jn. 10:35).
But they are indeed easily breakable. In fact they are grossly contradicting at every turn of the page throughout the whole cannon. They are as broken as can be.
There are countless examples of this all throughout these fables.
Here are just a few utterly obvious examples taken from the New Testament.
Here John is claiming that God the father judgeth no man but has committed all judgement unto the Son (i.e. Jesus)
John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Here John claims that Jesus said that he will not judge men for not believing his words, and that he came not to judge the world.
John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Here Luke claims that Jesus was asking the Father to forgive people.
Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do
Why would Jesus be asking the father to forgive people if all judgement had been committed to him?
Clearly these fables are as false and contrived as anything can possibly be.
The scriptures can't be "broken"?
Excuse me, but they already are as broken as they can possibly be.
They are total nonsense.
I don't need any Bible study thank you very much. I've already studied it in enough depth to know for certain that it's utter nonsense.
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!
February 3, 2012 at 9:05 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2012 at 9:07 am by The Grand Nudger.)
CARM is a great site. I love the description in google too..
"CARM teaches Christian theology and deals with heresy like Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, atheism, and wicca."
Hehehehe. Ever get the feeling that christianity is a rebellious child eager to throw it's senile father in the oven for the inheritance?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(February 3, 2012 at 9:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: CARM is a great site. I love the description in google too..
"CARM teaches Christian theology and deals with heresy like Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, atheism, and wicca."
Hehehehe. Ever get the feeling that christianity is a rebellious child eager to throw it's senile father in the oven for the inheritance?
What's the saying about philosophy? "Philosophy always buries its undertakers."
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
(February 3, 2012 at 8:49 am)Epimethean Wrote: But your book of shadows is the real deal: Riiiiiiight. Trash bin, meet dumpster.
I don't recall ever claiming that my Book of Shadows is the "Word of God".
I've also never claimed that it can't be "broken". In fact, I've never even claimed that it should make any sense to anyone other than myself.
So may I ask in what way your comment even makes any sense?
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!
February 3, 2012 at 9:39 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2012 at 9:39 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Ah, so, a puzzle emerges. You have such an extreme version of a mystery faith that it is known only to you, comprehendable or understandable only by you? Should I have a faith that makes sense only to myself as well?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(February 3, 2012 at 9:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: Ah, so, a puzzle emerges. You have such an extreme version of a mystery faith that it is known only to you, comprehendable or understandable only by you?
That probably is true. But it wasn't my idea to make it this way. It's just the way things worked out.
Well, I mean, obviously I chose the paths that led me to my current beliefs. But I didn't make those choices with the intent to end up any particular place. I simply followed my heart and chose the things that called to me, and here I am. And that's what I personally recommend for everyone, even if they are called to Christianity which I constantly say horrible things about. And of course secular atheism is fine too, or Buddhism, or whatever. Everyone should follow what calls to them.
Quote:Should I have a faith that makes sense only to myself as well?
Well it would certainly be silly to have a faith that doesn't make sense to you.
So that much is a given.
Whether or not it "only" makes sense to you is likely to be beyond your control.
Currently you appear to have faith that science has ruled out all possibility of a spiritual essence to reality. As far as I can tell that faith is not unique, I've met other people who believe similarly so I'm willing to bet that you can easily find other people who share your faith and believe it makes sense as well.
I doubt that you planned for things to work out that way. Although, for all I know you may have been convinced by others to believe as you do.
By the way, I'm not attempting to convince you to take on a spiritual view of reality. If you're happy with a secular view of life more power to you. I'm certain that your cosmic higher self isn't going to cast you into hell for not recognizing your true nature. In fact, if you aren't recognizing your true nature it can only be because this is how you prefer things to be. So that's what you should do by all means.
There's nothing wrong with believing that life is an accident and that humans are nothing more than highly evolved dirt. As long as you don't treat people like dirt, I'm sure it won't be a problem.
Just kidding of course!
I know that you're really made of star stuff and your the child of a grand supernova. So I'm sure you'll treat everyone like they are a star as well.
You simply can't believe in a spiritual essence to life.
I can't believe in a secular universe.
Trust me I've tried. I simply can't believe that this grand universe and life as we know it is just some sort of fleeting accident that just popped out of nowhere. I mean truthfully, that's every bit as bizarre and weird to me as a spiritual reality.
I confess that they are both utterly absurd and weird.
However, I've thought about it long and hard and my conclusion is this:
Which of these possible truths of reality makes more sense?
My answer is that neither has a leg up on the other. They are both utterly ridiculous. So I can't come to a firm intellectual logical conclusion. Either scenario is equally illogical to me. They are both truly absurd. And I can't rule out either one of them.
Which am I drawn to intuitively? That's easy, I'm definitely a spiritual person on an emotional level. Maybe it's the "romantic" in me, but whatever it is, I definitely lean toward spirituality intuitively. It's even hard for me to actually imagine a truly secular existance. I mean "intuitively" that just doesn't make any "sense" to me at all.
So, if I can't come to a firm conclusion using logic, and I'm intuitively leaning toward a spiritual essence of reality why not "Go with the flow" as they say.
Why fight my spiritual intuition to become a secular atheist when I don't even have a solid logical reason to do that? I may as well choose to believe that life is spiritual. That's how I truly feel about it intuitively anyway.
So I accept that the universe is a mystical magical place created and sustained by a cosmic consciousness of which I am a part.
It hasn't hurt me to do this. On the contrary I find it quite enjoyable, and it works well for me. Save for being harassed by the Christians for not accepting Jesus as my Savior, and constantly being called "stupid" by secular atheists.
But you know what? I really don't care about any of that superficial silliness.
Well, it would be nice to be seen as an intelligent person and given some respect once in a while. But if I have to lie to people about my spiritual or religious beliefs to gain their respect what would be the point to it?
I'm just going to tell everyone the truth, and let the cards fall where they may.
In my case, those would be Tarot cards of course.
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!
Have a great day!
