The whole bible speaks against sin and sinful people and how we should reject sin and sinful people


I beg to differ,, Jesus preached to sinners, he did not preach to reject them, he preached that they reject sin,,,BIG DIFFERENCE

The "individual" definition of Christianity that I subscribe to, is the biblical one. I find that "denominational" subscription of Christianity falls woefully short - and breads the majority of hypocrites and extremists; be they luke_warm_christians with their message of tolerance and "universal love" - or the radical cultish legalists who are more interested in keeping score of their "deeds" than they are the longevity of their membership. Though they claim adherance to christianity - they are counterfeits and should not be considered part of the community of believers in Christ that make up what is refered to as the "church".

I will also add - that I consider secular definitions and "lists" of what constitutes "the population of Christainity" to be so inaccurate - that if it weren't so sad - it would be humerous. I liken it to arguing what the color of the sky is with someone born blind. Somehow, they lack the experience or credibility to even have an opinion, let alone argue from a stance of obvious ignorance.

Another point - is though I can't disagree with you that there are fanatics and extremists in all religious groups - christianity not with_standing, I think it becomes a misnomer when the distinction is not made between these extremists, and the laity. In other words, do we consider Bin Laden a true Muslim? While his idea of Islam is hardly in line with mainstream Islamists - do we still consider him representative of the religion? Or a deviant? Do we even consider him a Muslim, or someone venting their hatred of the Western world under the guise of Islam? And what of the radical Atheists? Why is it that Stalin or Lenin is never brought up - or Hitchins or Satre, extreme radicals of their own "religious" movement, and the present dangers their idea's have fstered. The Columbine's and Russian Pograms and Holocosts - be they Darwinistic, such as Hitlers, or Sangers Euthanasia movement in America (which goes on till this day with full government support)... these are very rarely, if ever brought up with the freuquency of the Crusades, or the occasional abortion clinic bomber. Why is that?

As a final thought here, I'm curious about what you may think about this. Is it true that a Catholic is a Christian because they attend Mass on Easter and Christmas - go to confession once every decade or so, and are Catholics because their parents were - or because, as Catholics - they believe that Christ died on the cross for their sins, and is the incarnate son of God, and creator of all that is created? Which is a better representation of a Catholic who is a Christian, or is one simply a Christain because they say they're a Catholic?

Hate to break this to you - but for every Christain extremist you'll find in this country - you'll find a secular humanist extremist pointing them out for you. In most circumstances - the Christian extremists are far outnumbered by the Humanist extremists.

And we need to stop "de-evolving" if you want to put an end to what is damaging humanity. For man is his own biggest problem - and contributes little, if anything to the solution of what ails humanity.

And how may I ask Eljay, that your 'individual and most personal' belief and interpretation of the bible should be any more true, or better, or definitive than the BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION of let's say catholics, Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, English reformists, Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, Calvinism or Zwinglism, etc. ???

If I may be so bold, and since you are not answering the question you are asking others, I will suggest that you my friend are of the christian fundamentalist branch, whom have the least credibility in calling themselves of 'Christ'. Now that wouldn't be you personally, for I believe you could be saved, but it would certainly apply to the words and dogma you have been taught and have adhered to.

Just take account for a brief moment of the content of this single post you are offering us here. I am clear it is not YOU writing these words Eljay. I am clear it is but an automated piece of dogmatic fundamentalist gibberish being written through you.

If I'm wrong, then I would suggest you and your community of fundamentalists need to regroup, for your message here is nothing other than a metaphorical declaration of war on all of humanity, laced with a clear and profound attitude of divisiveness where YOU alone have the truth and everyone without exception is either a form of 'counterfeit christian' (one whom doesn't meet YOUR STANDARDS!!!), member of the wrong religion, an evil-radical atheist, and to make absolutely sure you don't forget anyone in your invalidating genocide, you have invented subcategories inside the christian community such as 'the hypocrites, the 'Luke Warms' and the 'Cultish Legalists'.

No mention of the evangelical-apologetic-fundamentalists?!?!? The only group left out of your genocidal blacklist?!?!?!

This is a pure age old juvenile 'divide and conquer' megalomaniac recipe. NOTHING CHRISTIAN OR CHRIST LIKE ABOUT THE WORDS OF YOUR POST ELJAY.

Moralizing, judging others without just cause, a barbaric mentality of divisiveness will only taking us back to the barbaric dark ages Eljay. Surely you of all people can appreciate this simple evidence ?!?!?!

And remember Eljay, in physics as in life itself, '... exertion of a particular concentration of energy (force) will automatically cause its correlate counter force!!! If you believe in god, well then, that's how god created the playground in which you and I play.

edited for brevity


It isn't. But the point here is not who is interpreting it - but where they're getting their interpretation from. Is this not the central issue to this discussion? Where else can one get an accurate definition of what a Christian is but from scripture? Any other source of a definition is relying on an opinion of what someone thinks the bible says.



You assume quite a bit here neither claimed - or evidenced. For one, I've never offered a definition of Christianity - just the means of locating an accurate one. And it doesn't matter what one believes or adhere's to. I'm not an Atheist (though I've experienced being one in the past), but I'd hardly seek my definition of one amoungst the Amish. I'm sure if you ask any Atheist where the better place to find a definition of Christianity is - the bible or the dictionary, they'd come up with the right answer on that one, so I have no idea what this "fundamentalist gibberish" is all about in terms of locating a definition of who and what a Christian is.

And as to who and what I was "taught" about what I believe... No one "taught" me about what I believe, other than to demonstrate to me what is wrong about what they believe. I've spent enough time around Cults - both Christian and non, to know how to discern when someone has a grasp o the truth or not.



You're babbling here Voile. All I asked is where you're getting your definition of what a Christian is if it's not from the bible itself. What's this nonsense about judging?

It isn't. But the point here is not who is interpreting it - but where they're getting their interpretation from. Is this not the central issue to this discussion? Where else can one get an accurate definition of what a Christian is but from scripture? Any other source of a definition is relying on an opinion of what someone thinks the bible says.



You assume quite a bit here neither claimed - or evidenced. For one, I've never offered a definition of Christianity - just the means of locating an accurate one. And it doesn't matter what one believes or adhere's to. I'm not an Atheist (though I've experienced being one in the past), but I'd hardly seek my definition of one amoungst the Amish. I'm sure if you ask any Atheist where the better place to find a definition of Christianity is - the bible or the dictionary, they'd come up with the right answer on that one, so I have no idea what this "fundamentalist gibberish" is all about in terms of locating a definition of who and what a Christian is.

And as to who and what I was "taught" about what I believe... No one "taught" me about what I believe, other than to demonstrate to me what is wrong about what they believe. I've spent enough time around Cults - both Christian and non, to know how to discern when someone has a grasp o the truth or not.



You're babbling here Voile. All I asked is where you're getting your definition of what a Christian is if it's not from the bible itself. What's this nonsense about judging?




Eljay,

Let's get real for a moment here. So YOU read the bible!!!

At last count 1,4 billion catholic christians read the bible, nearly 450,000 more Greek Orthodox christians read the bible, and so on.

YOU are but ONE of nearly 2 billion people whom have read, or keep reading the bible.

YOUR definition of ANYTHING you claim to be YOUR DEFINITION is straight out of the personal interpretation YOU make of whatever it is YOU read (includes the bible), and whatever it is YOU seek to define personally.

Without YOUR personal interpretation, the bible is but an undistinguished piece of matter!

You have a personal interpretation of whatever it is you experience (includes your reading of the bible), and so does everyone else.

Catholic christians read and interpret the bible just like YOU. Their interpretation may differ from YOURS, but they read the bible just like you do. You suggest they're not christians unless they arrive at the same interpretation of the bible as you have.

WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE SUCH A PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM!!!
Why should YOUR simple and personal interpretation of a book be 'THE DEFINITIVE INTERPRETATION OVER ALL'!!!

This is what is being discussed here Eljay!!! Fanaticism! Fundamentalism! Extremism! ... the mascarading of a supreme righteous individual interpretaion of one over all others!!!

Pick a number Eljay. We are all 'supreme', or none of us are!!!

Your definition of christian coming from the bible means absolutely nothing. YOUR personal interpretation holds all of YOUR meaning. That's it Eljay. You are confusing YOUR interpretation with the 'ultimate interpretation'. YOURS, is just one of an overwhelming possibilities of just as legitimate interpretations as your own.

And that is what we, all of us, need to start reconciling and dealing with. This is what this post is about: the simplistic delusion of all fundemantalisms, and christian fundamentalists in particular for us North Americans, is a virus from which we all need to heal our North American and Western World community.

Humility, perhaps, would be the virtue to reclaim at the heart of our new journey.
Questioning our own fanatical dogmas of old, ending the circular monologues which deepen the divisions, and reconnecting with the essence of the simple and straight forward message that Jesus left us with, FREE OF ANY FORM OF RELIGIOSITY, christian fundamentalism or otherwise.

It is so contradictory towards your understanding of Christian belief, and yet it is evidently consistent with many other's understanding of Christian belief. Based on my reading of the four Gospels, I would agree with you. And yet I've known many others who produce quotes from the old testament and from the epistles of Paul that seems to lend Biblical support for their hostility. So I "get this idea" from self-declared Christians who cite 'biblical evidence'.

They may, in the end, be 'wrong' - and yet I would definitely consider them to be members of the Christian religion. I'm not alone in this perception.

If those whom I label the 'loving Christians' are, in fact, 'the only true christians', it might be helpful if they did more to dis-avow the beliefs of the gay-hating and Muslim-hating people who proudly label themselves Christian.



For me, the focus is on systems of beliefs, group identification, and particular beliefs such as self-perceived moral superiority and the encouragement of "us vs them" attitudes. There are secular parallels to this problem, for certain (perhaps amongst some animal rights activist, eco-terrorists...?), but that would not diminish the depth of the problem we, as a species, have under the influence of religion.

So back to your points - I consider Bin Laden to be, in part, a product of a subset of Muslim beliefs. And he is certainly co-oping those beliefs to further his aims. In the interest of civilization, we should look at that. Atheism proper is not a system of beliefs, but I'll accept that Stalin might be a product of an atheistic belief system, which may suffer some of the same fatal flaws that fundamentalist Christian has.



Personally, I never thought of Hitler as "representing" Christianity - but I am open to the possibility that he is further evidence of why certain sets of beliefs which are found, amongst other places, in Christianity might be inherently dangerous.

Any substance, belief, child, pet,,,etc,,,


ANYTHING that is abused or misused can be dangerous.

Those amongst the religious want the world to be a more peaceful place, should acknowledge any cause-and-effect there may be between religiosity and violence.

In my view, the act of dating is incidental to date-rape. A categorical lack of respect for the opposite sex is not (to my mind) incidental to date-rape. So I would not 'take responsibility' as 'one who dates', but I see an argument for 'taking responsibility' as 'one who shows disrespect to the opposite sex'. Many would see this as a tenuous connection - but I still think the connection is there.

Is religiosity merely incidental to violence caused by fundamentalists? Personally, I don't think so. I haven't read the book that keeps being mentioned.



Therefore, all philosophies are equal? Or are some philosophies fertile ground for extremism?

Funny, when I read that I agreed with Eljay. Long ago, when I was reading the Bible and discussing theology with any who would indulge me, I had decided that Catholics weren't followers of Christ's teachings. But here all of us keep coming up against the wall of definitions.

I thought the original point was related to the connection between "religiosity" and violence. Certainly Catholics (taken as a group) demonstrate "religiosity", and they self-identify as Christian, and they cite the Bible to validate their views.



<==== Non-Christian with an opinion about the debate.

All philosophies are equal in their ability to be manipulated by humans,, yes.

Christianity is the variant that dominates in our western culture... from a 'take responsibility close to home' perspective, it makes sense to me that we would put extra attention on Christianity. Its a similar kind of motive that lead me to mention animal rights activists, as I care deeply about animal welfare I feel its important for me to acknowledge the system of memes amongst 'my colleagues' that can contribute to violence.

I would like to see fundamentalism and extremism reduced amongst Muslim cultures, too.

On an arbitrary basis, no, we ought not.

But lets not turn a blind eye to the possibility that certain beliefs advocated by a large number of self-identified Christians might actually, if sometimes indirectly, encourage hate and violence.

AGreed, many people take history,,even biblical history, as encouragement for the atrocities or hate they wish to take part in. Many take Hitlers example and consider he and his beliefs to be esteemed and logical, many also take sinners actions that are recorded in the bible and consider them endorsements of that behavior instead of just a document of their happening.

On a side note, I think READING COMPREHENSION would be a good place to start to diminsh many of these misunderstandings. I find that kids today and people in general are lacking that skill.

I find this claim shocking. So I can take a group of people who are enthusiasts for Ghandi, and add some people who are enthusiasts for MLK. They look up to these guys as heros, they love Ghandi and/or MLK, they've read their writings. Together, they make group 1.

Then I take a group of Klansmen. I'm sure they have people they look up to, texts that they periodically read to reinforce their beliefs. Okay, maybe they aren't the reading type - but still, their beliefs form a kind of cohesive whole, and are reinforced at least orally. This is group 2.

Are you saying these two groups could be brought to an act of violence with equal ease by, say, a charismatic orator?

And if not, wouldn't you agree that the beliefs that dominate in those two groups play a role in how easily they are brought to violence?

And don't aren't those beliefs influenced by the philosophies involved? That of Ghandi and MLK, vs that of the Klan?

( Edit: I was so focused on the context of "manipulated for anti-social ends" that I didn't see your statement literally. )

Yes, actually, they could.

Ghandi and MLK , contrary to popular belief, were men and not saints. Even they had spoke controversial words in their lifetimes that others could use as endorsement towards violence. Particularly if these 'groups' are indoctrinated or created amongst the young and impressionable.

MsHarmony, would you please finish that sentence for me?

Yes, actually, they could what?

(at the risk of posting out of sync)

Do you really believe that these two groups could be brought to violence with equal ease ?

I find it funny you people are arguing over what a christian is since the religion itself is one big contradiction. Jesus merely pointed out how the jewish religion had been hijacked and corrupted and laid out how it should be practiced and not once told anyone to start a seperate religion. He never claimed to be God, never claimed to be God's son (this phrase son of God comes from the aramaic phrase Servant of God which the word Servant..the greek equivilant was son) the mere fact that catholics pray to other saints for guidance as well as Mary, and has statues of them including Jesus goes against the very fabric that the 10 commandments stated no graven images or idols.