Categorizing and Grouping

[xm.bretton]

Somehow I found myself here again, haven't posted since the beginning. Most of you won't know me unless there are some original members still left.

Anyway... :)

After reading some of these Christian posts about God or the bible I've felt compelled to clear something up about classifying a Christian.

In my reading I have seen a lot of reference to a "Christian God" or "Christian people" and so on; what exactly do you mean when you say this? There are so many variations and break-offs of the Christian religion that I don't believe it's possible to even refer to it as a whole. How would you classify a Christian? Is anyone who proclaims themselves as Christian automatically included in the group? This is obviously not the case. Look up the word Christian in the dictionary and what will you find as the prominent definition? Having belief in Jesus Christ and following his teachings. Now since you all are debating the bible and Christianity than it's obvious to you where the teachings of Jesus are found correct? That's right, in the bible.

What I don't really understand is how some of you debate the Christian faith but admit you haven't fully read the bible or do not understood it completely. To know what a Christian is you must know Jesus teachings. To know Jesus' teachings you must have thoroughly read the bible and understood it's contents. You might say, "well I tried to read what I needed to discuss the specific topic but it was too complex and confusing, it is a poorly written book." I could even specifically quote someone from another post saying it was hard to read and if they submitted it as a English project it wouldn't pass. Ever stop and think why you have so much trouble understanding what's in the bible? It very well could be because the bible is only understood in it's entirety. Taking it out of context fragments the ideas because it's not meant to be dissected, rather to be considered as a whole. Everything you read in the bible can be related something else in the book, and if you can't find the relation then you haven't looked hard enough. Also, have you ever thought about the amount of translating it's gone through and the difference in language. The process of maintaining a thought between a language that has been around since the beginning of language and one that was just recently created isn't the easiest task. Considering that, I would say the English bible does a good job of conveying messages even without perfect structuring or writing style.

Once you understand Jesus' teachings then you can criticize the Christian religion. In essence all you are criticizing are his teachings anyway. Saying "Christians were responsible for this" or "Christians always believe this" will almost always be a false statement. Most things that you think Christians do wrong weren't committed by Christians in the first place (since most things considered "wrong" are condemned in the bible). Any Christian who participated in the Crusades could not be classified as a Christian because it went directly against Jesus' teachings. Any person who has involved themselves in government would be ruled out as a Christian because that is against Jesus' teachings also. Pick something to criticize about Christians and you will come to a realization that those ones aren't really Christian at all. Jesus taught that you must love everyone.

Anyway, all you who complain about the crimes of Christianity or the hypocrisy... realize it's the crimes of man, because Christianity doesn't allow for hypocrisy.

That is all.

[orgaelin]

Any Christian who participated in the Crusades could not be classified as a Christian because it went directly against Jesus' teachings.

and

realize it's the crimes of man, because Christianity doesn't allow for hypocrisy

Oh you have got to be kidding me?!

So you're saying that if any Christian does something wrong, he's immediately not a christian any more, and thus christianity has never been guilty of any wrongdoing?

WHAT a cop out!

And by the way, I really don't think you should just stick to reading the whole bible and then claim you fully understand. You need to read other books too. You need to understand the JEWISH religion which Jesus belonged to, and the rules and practices of it. Only then can you come to understand fully.

But since you only read the bible, you wont understand the real story beneath the story. For example, you think Jesus actually floated atop the water, but a reasonable scholar with access to other material can learn that Jesus was walking on a pier to a boat to perform the priestly ceremony of 'fishing', whereby men were pulled out of the water onto the boat to be baptised, symbolic of Noah. This was not Jesus' role, and he shouldn't even have been there. It was a 'miraculous' political move, because Jesus was so concerned notions that he could be both priest and king, even though the law forbade it.

How many times do you need to be told that the bible has one layer for the babes in christ (the simple folk who need miracles and magic to make them feel comforted) and another layer for those who know the secrets, who are intelligent enough to try and find out what the stories really mean.

I believe that Jesus existed, was the Christ (King) and the Messiah (anointed one = king). Does that make me a Christian? I also believe, and could show you if I had time and I thought you were in any way open minded, that Jesus and his buddies conspired to fake his own death.

Maintaining the bible as your only source of truth, you severely limit your wisdom. Jesus himself would be ill-impressed with you.

~ Org.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by orgaelin,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (orgaelin,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Jesus was walking on a pier to a boat to perform the priestly ceremony of 'fishing', whereby men were pulled out of the water onto the boat to be baptised, symbolic of Noah.[/b]

What a crock. That's not what the Bible says.
<!--QuoteBegin-orgaelin,
Jesus and his buddies conspired to fake his own death.[/quote]
More revisionism. Don't stand anywhere near me on Judgement Day, please. I don't wanna smell the smoke of your previous incarnation's ashes...Just remember, you brought it on yourself.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-orgaelin, Jesus was walking on a pier to a boat to perform the priestly ceremony of 'fishing', whereby men were pulled out of the water onto the boat to be baptised, symbolic of Noah.

What a crock. That's not what the Bible says.[/b][/quote]

Okay pal, if you are here for reasoned debate (which I suspect you're not) then I suggest you go back and re-read my post, since doing so carefully might give you the correct impression that I didn't indicate the bible to have said that. In fact the main thrust of my argument was that such understanding could *only* be gained by examining other-than-biblical sources.

Weren't you paying attention? And if not, why did you bother to reply if you weren't even interested?

For your next trick, think, then speak!

~ Org.

Oh and BTW, have no fear... I won't be standing anywhere near you, since it will be your fantasy, not mine.

[orgaelin]

Patrick,

Your profile says you were a "carpenter for 30 years"...

I'm sorry, but that's just taking the whole Jesus thing too far! Jesus wasn't even a carpenter!!

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by orgaelin, So you're saying that if any Christian does something wrong, he's immediately not a christian any more, and thus christianity has never been guilty of any wrongdoing? WHAT a cop out!

What I am saying is repentance is a quality of a Christian. Those who participate in wrongdoing and show no remorse or changing of their ways could not be qualified as a Christian.

Hardly a cop-out.

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by orgaelin, And by the way, I really don't think you should just stick to reading the whole bible and then claim you fully understand. You need to read other books too. You need to understand the JEWISH religion which Jesus belonged to, and the rules and practices of it. Only then can you come to understand fully. But since you only read the bible, you wont understand the real story beneath the story. For example, you think Jesus actually floated atop the water, but a reasonable scholar with access to other material can learn that Jesus was walking on a pier to a boat to perform the priestly ceremony of 'fishing', whereby men were pulled out of the water onto the boat to be baptised, symbolic of Noah. This was not Jesus' role, and he shouldn't even have been there. It was a 'miraculous' political move, because Jesus was so concerned notions that he could be both priest and king, even though the law forbade it. How many times do you need to be told that the bible has one layer for the babes in christ (the simple folk who need miracles and magic to make them feel comforted) and another layer for those who know the secrets, who are intelligent enough to try and find out what the stories really mean. I believe that Jesus existed, was the Christ (King) and the Messiah (anointed one = king). Does that make me a Christian? I also believe, and could show you if I had time and I thought you were in any way open minded, that Jesus and his buddies conspired to fake his own death. Maintaining the bible as your only source of truth, you severely limit your wisdom. Jesus himself would be ill-impressed with you.

It would help if you backed up some of your claims here.

There are books you can find that people claim were written by angels. Now since angels relate to Jesus and these books could possibly pertain to Jesus, then I should go read this book and take it as pure fact? Hardly.

You don't have to believe the bible, but scientifically you have to accept that it has proof of authenticity much father back than any book you could possibly quote. Anyone could write something and say "Hey, this what really happened!" How would you go about backing that up though? Really...

[castille]

Originally posted by xm.bretton, What I don't really understand is how some of you debate the Christian faith but admit you haven't fully read the bible or do not understood it completely.

What I really don't understand is how some of you debate about Nazism being wrong but admit you haven't fully read Mein Kampf and the entire works of the NSDAP and German Government of 1933-1945.

Any Christian who participated in the Crusades could not be classified as a Christian because it went directly against Jesus' teachings.

In that case any German person who committed genocide could not be classified as Nazi because it went directly against Hitler's teachings (he never told anyone to conduct genocide directly).

Anyway, all you who complain about the crimes of Christianity or the hypocrisy... realize it's the crimes of man, because Christianity doesn't allow for hypocrisy.

Everything is the fault of man. However, Christianity provides the cheap excuses for humanity to conduct genocide and ethnic cleansing (since Christians hate all blacks/Asians/Arabs).

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by xm.bretton, What I am saying is repentance is a quality of a Christian. Those who participate in wrongdoing and show no remorse or changing of their ways could not be qualified as a Christian. Hardly a cop-out.

It IS a cop-out!!

It's like you playing the tape backwards!

Let's say Joe Smith goes to church every week and is a good, God's law obiding Christian.

He's a Christian because he chooses to be one, he wears the badge, the T-shirt, and plays the record.

One day someone like me winds him up, so the previously good Christian kills him/me.

It was not a non-Christian who committed the murder. He was a christian before he did, he is a christian after he did it.

It would be fair to say that someone who claims to be Christian, even worships and believes, but simultaneously does various bad things regularly is not a very good Christian... but they can still be a Christian.

I mean, for Christ's sake the Anglican church has a GAY bishop! You can't tell me he's not a Christian!

Also, the point you should have been raising in defence is that just because a particular christian does something bad doesn't make Christianity itself bad.

[orgaelin]

Castille, an excellently argued post if I may say so!

Originally posted by xm.bretton, It would help if you backed up some of your claims here.

I thoroughly agree and I apologise for not having done so in the first place.

It will possibly take me a wee while though, so bear with me.

There are books you can find that people claim were written by angels. Now since angels relate to Jesus and these books could possibly pertain to Jesus, then I should go read this book and take it as pure fact? Hardly.

Um... how does this involve me? I never made the suggestion. You did, and then you say "hardly"... are you talking to the angels now?!

You don't have to believe the bible, but scientifically you have to accept that it has proof of authenticity much father back than any book you could possibly quote.

Okay, you have to remember that there is some difference in age between the various books of the bible. And there are plenty of books/texts far older than even genesis. Didn't your Sunday School teach you anything?!

Anyone could write something and say "Hey, this what really happened!" How would you go about backing that up though? Really...

Well, this is the funny thing, because the stuff I will explain to you (once I've typed it up) is actually based on the bible, as well as a strong understanding of Judaic customs. So I'll back it all up on the strength of the same book in which you see so much reality.

Really...

[Technosoul]

Once someone asked me if I believe in Jesus, and I answered with a question "which one"?

As I recall the word "Christian" means "Christ like". Not sure how many people I can fit into that classification.

Words can change meanings over time, and I think it would be fair to say that Christianity (Chirstianism) could now be called "Confusionism" because of all the interpretaions about Jesus that are floating around, be they in context or out-of-context the opinions are as vast as are the spiecies of birds on this planet.

More so anyone who would title their self as a Christian would have the very attitude that is contrary to the attitudes Jesus advocated.
Such would encourage an egocentrcal attitude of being above others who the title holder thinks is still just a sinner - pride goes before the fall leading such on a ever downwards trip while they maintain the illusion they are getting higher.

So use only the title "human being" and drop all those other phoney titles, and then you will know your true classification.

Technosoul.

[orgaelin]

Techno, I think you pretty much summed it up!

[Inquisitor]

Words can change meanings over time, and I think it would be fair to say that Christianity (Chirstianism) could now be called "Confusionism" because of all the interpretaions about Jesus that are floating around, be they in context or out-of-context the opinions are as vast as are the spiecies of birds on this planet.

This is why Christians identify themselves by the church they belong to. E.g. catholic, protestant, orthodox.

More so anyone who would title their self as a Christian would have the very attitude that is contrary to the attitudes Jesus advocated.

Such a grand statement with such little evidence. Did I say little? I meant, no evidence.

So use only the title "human being" and drop all those other phoney titles, and then you will know your true classification.

This would put me in a company with people I have no respect towards.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by Inquisitor,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Inquisitor,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-technosoul More so anyone who would title their self as a Christian would have the very attitude that is contrary to the attitudes Jesus advocated.

Such a grand statement with such little evidence. Did I say little? I meant, no evidence.[/b][/quote]

Self evident facts don't actually need evidence. The Christian faith is essentially a collection of Pagan rituals and beliefs. Christmas day is based not on Jesus' birthday but on the Pagan Festival of the Sun God, Sol, of which Constantine was a faithful member. Jesus would be dismayed to see his religion so tainted, though I suspect he would be OK with it in the way it is today.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Inquisitor, This is why Christians identify themselves by the church they belong to. E.g. catholic, protestant, orthodox. Such a grand statement with such little evidence. Did I say little? I meant, no evidence. This would put me in a company with people I have no respect towards.

My claim that a real Christian would not hold the title of Christian is based on the evidence outlined in the blessed attitudes about being humble, etc.

We should respect one another even as god would respect everyone the same way, and the title Christain would be like saying "I am better then the lowlife" which is an attitude of pride that is not in keeping with the attitudes outlined as being the blessed attitudes. Any self-righteous title would give one the false impression of not being in the same boat with everyone else, and likewise, and no worldly appointed title can save anyone from being as human as the next guy. The whole ranking system of being called Bishop, Pope, Deacon, Priest, and all such things is all for show and not based on anything that would denote that it is nothing more then a surface mask to hide behind for the pretence of authority and/or favortism. Call not man on earth "Father". Oh Adam, why are thee still hiding behind a fig leaf?

Technosoul.

[Suburbanite]

This is a common tactic. Denounce a sigular word for describing something so it becomes unobtainable to insult.