|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:21 am
These days, every Christian has different ideas on what
Christianity's principles are.
You have so many different kinds of Christians, and I am
not talking denominations, that it is insane!
There are two main groups; those who have read the Bible,
and those who haven't. Then you have the ones who were
told the Bible, and thus there are those who understood it,
and those who misinterperated it. You have psychotic, radical
Christians, who scream at you every time you say something
they think of as blasphemous. Lazy Christians who feel they
are too good to go to church...
There is such a division, it's hard to say what Christianity
is anymore, if it could even be counted as one thing.
Is there a true Christianity out there?
A base guidline that Christianity was meant to follow?
I am curious because I often see Christians at each other's
throats, baying for blood because the other one has ideas
that are non-Christian, even though they are both of said
religion.
So, to be short... what is Christianity supposed to be?
(And don't give me a cyclopedic definition. I want to know what
you seriously think.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:48 am
I suppose it's somebody that follows Christ's teachings and the Bible.
It makes sense right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:54 am
Deo_Machina I suppose it's somebody that follows Christ's teachings and the Bible. It makes sense right? The issue is that there are many different ideas about what the Bible means. What a scipture means to one person could be completely different than what it might mean to another person. So who is to say there is a true way to follow the Bible? A murderer might say he saw something in the Bible that he took as a message that he should do such a thing. That may be an extreme case, but who are we to say it won't happen? And wouldn't that be, to him, following the Bible? So which meaning is right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:01 pm
It seems hard to define.
And I have no idea which one is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:02 pm
I...would have to say that Christianity is just like any and every other religion I've studied. A means to control those who are weak of mind, and a means to implement those who are strong. It, like many other religions, is based on a theist system, carrying a tome of worship (in this case, the Holy Bible, of which I usually quote KJV, should it come to that) that is part one-sided historical record as passed down by those who believed themselves to be right, and part The Idiot's Guide to Living a Decent Life.
Christianity is no different from any other religion, and I will defend my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:54 pm
Cougar Draven I...would have to say that Christianity is just like any and every other religion I've studied. What other religions have you studied? Quote: A means to control those who are weak of mind, and a means to implement those who are strong. Please prove these assertions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:08 pm
SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven I...would have to say that Christianity is just like any and every other religion I've studied. What other religions have you studied? Buddhism, Shinto, and certain aspects of Hinduism. I was beginning to study Zoroastrianism, but I lost interest in the study of religion, since I no longer believe in organized religion. SoundDoctrine Quote: A means to control those who are weak of mind, and a means to implement those who are strong. Please prove these assertions. Ok, then. I will clarify that by "strong" and "weak" of mind, I was referring to those who have that wonderful combination of intelligence and charisma, and those who don't. Those that do are implemented by evangelist Christianity, and are used as such as priests, and televised evangelists. The rest sit, and listen, and absorb. It's the fundamental base of the religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:37 pm
Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven I...would have to say that Christianity is just like any and every other religion I've studied. What other religions have you studied? Buddhism, Shinto, and certain aspects of Hinduism. I was beginning to study Zoroastrianism, but I lost interest in the study of religion, since I no longer believe in organized religion. How are they like Christianity, in the context of your post, how are they a means to control those who are weak of mind and a means to implement those who are strong in it? Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: A means to control those who are weak of mind, and a means to implement those who are strong. Please prove these assertions. Ok, then. I will clarify that by "strong" and "weak" of mind, I was referring to those who have that wonderful combination of intelligence and charisma, and those who don't. Those that do are implemented by evangelist Christianity, and are used as such as priests, and televised evangelists. The rest sit, and listen, and absorb. It's the fundamental base of the religion. Prove that it is the fundamental base of the religion. Not every denomination of Christianity and thus you cannot assert that that is how Christianity is. It's a hasty generalization. I am personally a Missouri Synod Lutheran. My pastors are not all that Charismatic, but they are intelligent, but the people who sit, listen, and absorb are sometimes as intelligent and sometimes more charismatic than my pastors, but they have chosen different career paths. If you are only talking about the Charismatic movement of Christianity, or other movements/denominations, then I would like you to edit your post with this clarification and conceed that that is the fundamental base of the religion. I had always been under the impression that the base of Christianity was following Christ, not who does what in the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:15 am
SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven I...would have to say that Christianity is just like any and every other religion I've studied. What other religions have you studied? Buddhism, Shinto, and certain aspects of Hinduism. I was beginning to study Zoroastrianism, but I lost interest in the study of religion, since I no longer believe in organized religion. How are they like Christianity, in the context of your post, how are they a means to control those who are weak of mind and a means to implement those who are strong in it? Because since, like Christianity, every religion's goal is to spread their message, they utilize those charismatic and intelligent people to "teach", and the rest "learn", as it were. SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: A means to control those who are weak of mind, and a means to implement those who are strong. Please prove these assertions. Ok, then. I will clarify that by "strong" and "weak" of mind, I was referring to those who have that wonderful combination of intelligence and charisma, and those who don't. Those that do are implemented by evangelist Christianity, and are used as such as priests, and televised evangelists. The rest sit, and listen, and absorb. It's the fundamental base of the religion. Prove that it is the fundamental base of the religion. Not every denomination of Christianity and thus you cannot assert that that is how Christianity is. It's a hasty generalization. I am personally a Missouri Synod Lutheran. My pastors are not all that Charismatic, but they are intelligent, but the people who sit, listen, and absorb are sometimes as intelligent and sometimes more charismatic than my pastors, but they have chosen different career paths. If you are only talking about the Charismatic movement of Christianity, or other movements/denominations, then I would like you to edit your post with this clarification and conceed that that is the fundamental base of the religion. I had always been under the impression that the base of Christianity was following Christ, not who does what in the church. I was not talking about denominated Christianity. Don't know how we got on that topic, but I will make a point on it. My roommate is also part of the Missouri Synod, and I've sat in on a service or two. You must have less charismatic pastors than he does. And, as I said above, the base of Christianity is spreading the message of Christ, and doing your damnedest to follow the infallible is a secondary idea. It's been about proselytism for two millenia, and it still is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:08 pm
Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven I...would have to say that Christianity is just like any and every other religion I've studied. What other religions have you studied? Buddhism, Shinto, and certain aspects of Hinduism. I was beginning to study Zoroastrianism, but I lost interest in the study of religion, since I no longer believe in organized religion. How are they like Christianity, in the context of your post, how are they a means to control those who are weak of mind and a means to implement those who are strong in it? Because since, like Christianity, every religion's goal is to spread their message, they utilize those charismatic and intelligent people to "teach", and the rest "learn", as it were. What about closed-culture religions who don't want or need to spread their message? Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: A means to control those who are weak of mind, and a means to implement those who are strong. Please prove these assertions. Ok, then. I will clarify that by "strong" and "weak" of mind, I was referring to those who have that wonderful combination of intelligence and charisma, and those who don't. Those that do are implemented by evangelist Christianity, and are used as such as priests, and televised evangelists. The rest sit, and listen, and absorb. It's the fundamental base of the religion. Prove that it is the fundamental base of the religion. Not every denomination of Christianity and thus you cannot assert that that is how Christianity is. It's a hasty generalization. I am personally a Missouri Synod Lutheran. My pastors are not all that Charismatic, but they are intelligent, but the people who sit, listen, and absorb are sometimes as intelligent and sometimes more charismatic than my pastors, but they have chosen different career paths. If you are only talking about the Charismatic movement of Christianity, or other movements/denominations, then I would like you to edit your post with this clarification and conceed that that is the fundamental base of the religion. I had always been under the impression that the base of Christianity was following Christ, not who does what in the church. I was not talking about denominated Christianity. Don't know how we got on that topic, but I will make a point on it. My roommate is also part of the Missouri Synod, and I've sat in on a service or two. You must have less charismatic pastors than he does. I got to that topic because when a person says,"Christianity" that makes me think of Christianity as a whole, and there are so many different types of Christians in the world, that when a person says,"Christianity" they have to realize that they may be including people who don't act like the part of Christianity they may be thinking about. Did that make sense? Quote: And, as I said above, the base of Christianity is spreading the message of Christ, and doing your damnedest to follow the infallible is a secondary idea. It's been about proselytism for two millenia, and it still is. This is where I disagree with you. How can you say that the base isn't about following Christ? That's the heart of what Christianity is. As Christians, we are followers of Christ. Yes, Christ did say to make disciples of all nations, but some Christians don't go all out and prosletize their little hearts out. Most make that a secondary thing, because loving God with all our hearts, souls, and minds and loving our neighbors as ourselves, are the two greatest comandments Jesus gave. Those commandments being the greatest, everything else Jesus said is secondary to that; since those commandments are the greatest, they are the base of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:55 pm
SoundDoctrine What about closed-culture religions who don't want or need to spread their message? I'm curious. What religion can honestly not need to spread their message? SoundDoctrine I got to that topic because when a person says,"Christianity" that makes me think of Christianity as a whole, and there are so many different types of Christians in the world, that when a person says,"Christianity" they have to realize that they may be including people who don't act like the part of Christianity they may be thinking about. Did that make sense? Somewhat. I always take Christianity as a whole, not as a denominated strata. I was baptized a Roman Catholic, and until I left the faith officially, oh, six or eight months ago, I was a pretty poor Christian, but I've always thought that the denomination of the faith is one of the things that actually contributed to my loss of faith. If Christianity actually had been about following Christ first, we wouldn't have stopped to argue with one another about how to do so. SoundDoctrine Quote: And, as I said above, the base of Christianity is spreading the message of Christ, and doing your damnedest to follow the infallible is a secondary idea. It's been about proselytism for two millenia, and it still is. This is where I disagree with you. How can you say that the base isn't about following Christ? That's the heart of what Christianity is. As Christians, we are followers of Christ. Yes, Christ did say to make disciples of all nations, but some Christians don't go all out and prosletize their little hearts out. Most make that a secondary thing, because loving God with all our hearts, souls, and minds and loving our neighbors as ourselves, are the two greatest comandments Jesus gave. Those commandments being the greatest, everything else Jesus said is secondary to that; since those commandments are the greatest, they are the base of Christianity. Perhaps my view of Christianity is a little jaded, for the reasons I've already stated. I issued an open challenge to any and every Gaian Christian to try to convert me back to the faith. I doubt it'll happen, but I'll admit that I'm a jaded cynic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:44 am
Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine What about closed-culture religions who don't want or need to spread their message? I'm curious. What religion can honestly not need to spread their message? Judaism doesn't go out of their way to find converts, and orthodox Jews sometimes discourage people who want to join Judaism, and religions in which membership is inherited, such as Zoastrianism and Druze. Quote: SoundDoctrine I got to that topic because when a person says,"Christianity" that makes me think of Christianity as a whole, and there are so many different types of Christians in the world, that when a person says,"Christianity" they have to realize that they may be including people who don't act like the part of Christianity they may be thinking about. Did that make sense? Somewhat. I always take Christianity as a whole, not as a denominated strata. I was baptized a Roman Catholic, and until I left the faith officially, oh, six or eight months ago, I was a pretty poor Christian, but I've always thought that the denomination of the faith is one of the things that actually contributed to my loss of faith. If Christianity actually had been about following Christ first, we wouldn't have stopped to argue with one another about how to do so. That's not true because people interpret and understand the teachings of Christ differently. Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: And, as I said above, the base of Christianity is spreading the message of Christ, and doing your damnedest to follow the infallible is a secondary idea. It's been about proselytism for two millenia, and it still is. This is where I disagree with you. How can you say that the base isn't about following Christ? That's the heart of what Christianity is. As Christians, we are followers of Christ. Yes, Christ did say to make disciples of all nations, but some Christians don't go all out and prosletize their little hearts out. Most make that a secondary thing, because loving God with all our hearts, souls, and minds and loving our neighbors as ourselves, are the two greatest comandments Jesus gave. Those commandments being the greatest, everything else Jesus said is secondary to that; since those commandments are the greatest, they are the base of Christianity. Perhaps my view of Christianity is a little jaded, for the reasons I've already stated. I issued an open challenge to any and every Gaian Christian to try to convert me back to the faith. I doubt it'll happen, but I'll admit that I'm a jaded cynic. I just don't think your whole view of Christianity to be jaded. It's fine to be jaded against the Roman Catholic church based on your experiences, but it's not right to take what you know about them and apply it to every Christian by saying Christianity without being specific about which Christians you are speaking of. I personally am unfamiliar with many denominations, so I wouldn't say anything is "Christian" or that the base of Christianity is something, or that Christianity does such and such if whatever I was saying did not center around the Law of Agape. I wouldn't try and convert you. I realize that faith is a personal thing and I don't think I'm knowledgable enough in the Christian religion to persuade you to it. But I jut want you to know that just because you didn't like the Roman Catholic church, it doesn't mean that you wouldn't like any other denomination of Christian out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:42 pm
SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine What about closed-culture religions who don't want or need to spread their message? I'm curious. What religion can honestly not need to spread their message? Judaism doesn't go out of their way to find converts, and orthodox Jews sometimes discourage people who want to join Judaism, and religions in which membership is inherited, such as Zoastrianism and Druze. True enough, but just because they don't go get new members doesn't mean they don't need them. I usually use the Shaker sect to reference that point. SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine I got to that topic because when a person says,"Christianity" that makes me think of Christianity as a whole, and there are so many different types of Christians in the world, that when a person says,"Christianity" they have to realize that they may be including people who don't act like the part of Christianity they may be thinking about. Did that make sense? Somewhat. I always take Christianity as a whole, not as a denominated strata. I was baptized a Roman Catholic, and until I left the faith officially, oh, six or eight months ago, I was a pretty poor Christian, but I've always thought that the denomination of the faith is one of the things that actually contributed to my loss of faith. If Christianity actually had been about following Christ first, we wouldn't have stopped to argue with one another about how to do so. That's not true because people interpret and understand the teachings of Christ differently. Yes, they do, but as I recall, Christ's teachings did not include "Denominate the faith into many different forms, rivaling the strata in the Earth, and sayeth unto others 'Follow unto me, or burn in hell.'" I am not talking about any denomination specifically, but I will say that the focus shifted. I know some Christians, don't exactly remember their denominations, who actually believe that their denomination is the only one going to hell. And then there's the Jehovah's Witnessess...I implore, how can a denomination that holds that Paradise can only hold 10,000 honestly need more people? That's the one exception to my above case, as far as I know. SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: And, as I said above, the base of Christianity is spreading the message of Christ, and doing your damnedest to follow the infallible is a secondary idea. It's been about proselytism for two millenia, and it still is. This is where I disagree with you. How can you say that the base isn't about following Christ? That's the heart of what Christianity is. As Christians, we are followers of Christ. Yes, Christ did say to make disciples of all nations, but some Christians don't go all out and prosletize their little hearts out. Most make that a secondary thing, because loving God with all our hearts, souls, and minds and loving our neighbors as ourselves, are the two greatest comandments Jesus gave. Those commandments being the greatest, everything else Jesus said is secondary to that; since those commandments are the greatest, they are the base of Christianity. Perhaps my view of Christianity is a little jaded, for the reasons I've already stated. I issued an open challenge to any and every Gaian Christian to try to convert me back to the faith. I doubt it'll happen, but I'll admit that I'm a jaded cynic. I just don't think your whole view of Christianity to be jaded. It's fine to be jaded against the Roman Catholic church based on your experiences, but it's not right to take what you know about them and apply it to every Christian by saying Christianity without being specific about which Christians you are speaking of. I personally am unfamiliar with many denominations, so I wouldn't say anything is "Christian" or that the base of Christianity is something, or that Christianity does such and such if whatever I was saying did not center around the Law of Agape. I wouldn't try and convert you. I realize that faith is a personal thing and I don't think I'm knowledgable enough in the Christian religion to persuade you to it. But I jut want you to know that just because you didn't like the Roman Catholic church, it doesn't mean that you wouldn't like any other denomination of Christian out there. It's not just the Roman Catholics. It's also the Nazarenes, United Methodists, and some Lutherans. Not you personally, nor my roommate, but others I know. I left Catholicism long ago, and moved first to the Church of the Nazarene, and from there to the United Methodist Church. Neither was any better, nor any worse overall, but it seems to me that what will eventually happen is infighting between the denominations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:10 pm
Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine What about closed-culture religions who don't want or need to spread their message? I'm curious. What religion can honestly not need to spread their message? Judaism doesn't go out of their way to find converts, and orthodox Jews sometimes discourage people who want to join Judaism, and religions in which membership is inherited, such as Zoastrianism and Druze. True enough, but just because they don't go get new members doesn't mean they don't need them. I usually use the Shaker sect to reference that point. Why would they need more members if they only want people of their own culture to be in their religion? I do not understand how the Shakers reference your point. Could you clarify that? Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine I got to that topic because when a person says,"Christianity" that makes me think of Christianity as a whole, and there are so many different types of Christians in the world, that when a person says,"Christianity" they have to realize that they may be including people who don't act like the part of Christianity they may be thinking about. Did that make sense? Somewhat. I always take Christianity as a whole, not as a denominated strata. I was baptized a Roman Catholic, and until I left the faith officially, oh, six or eight months ago, I was a pretty poor Christian, but I've always thought that the denomination of the faith is one of the things that actually contributed to my loss of faith. If Christianity actually had been about following Christ first, we wouldn't have stopped to argue with one another about how to do so. That's not true because people interpret and understand the teachings of Christ differently. Yes, they do, but as I recall, Christ's teachings did not include "Denominate the faith into many different forms, rivaling the strata in the Earth, and sayeth unto others 'Follow unto me, or burn in hell.'" No, Christ's teachings did not include any of that... Quote: I am not talking about any denomination specifically, but I will say that the focus shifted. I know some Christians, don't exactly remember their denominations, who actually believe that their denomination is the only one going to hell. Hell? Or did you mean heaven? I'm confused. Quote: And then there's the Jehovah's Witnessess...I implore, how can a denomination that holds that Paradise can only hold 10,000 honestly need more people? That's the one exception to my above case, as far as I know. The thing is, you asserted that Christianity is no different from any other religion,which it is, since we have a proclaimation with Christ to spread the gospel, while other religions have no desire to spread their message, and you asserted that it is a means to control those who are weak of mind, and a means to implement those who are strong in it. This assertion is also not true because there are some Christians who don't even go to church, some Christians who don't go out of their way to proslyetize, or to be implemented, some Christians don't fellowship with other Christians, some Christians who have been utilized as pastors may not be all that charismatic, and some Christians who have not been utilized are very strong in mind. The basis of Christianity is following Christ. It is not to spread the word, or to condemn others to hell. Some Christians, whom other Christians might not even call Christians, do not believe people who don't believe in Jesus are going to hell. I have found both of your assertions to be hasty generalizations, and you have not yet said anything to make me think that they were anything other than hasty generalizations based on your personal experiences. Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: And, as I said above, the base of Christianity is spreading the message of Christ, and doing your damnedest to follow the infallible is a secondary idea. It's been about proselytism for two millenia, and it still is. This is where I disagree with you. How can you say that the base isn't about following Christ? That's the heart of what Christianity is. As Christians, we are followers of Christ. Yes, Christ did say to make disciples of all nations, but some Christians don't go all out and prosletize their little hearts out. Most make that a secondary thing, because loving God with all our hearts, souls, and minds and loving our neighbors as ourselves, are the two greatest comandments Jesus gave. Those commandments being the greatest, everything else Jesus said is secondary to that; since those commandments are the greatest, they are the base of Christianity. Perhaps my view of Christianity is a little jaded, for the reasons I've already stated. I issued an open challenge to any and every Gaian Christian to try to convert me back to the faith. I doubt it'll happen, but I'll admit that I'm a jaded cynic. I just don't think your whole view of Christianity to be jaded. It's fine to be jaded against the Roman Catholic church based on your experiences, but it's not right to take what you know about them and apply it to every Christian by saying Christianity without being specific about which Christians you are speaking of. I personally am unfamiliar with many denominations, so I wouldn't say anything is "Christian" or that the base of Christianity is something, or that Christianity does such and such if whatever I was saying did not center around the Law of Agape. I wouldn't try and convert you. I realize that faith is a personal thing and I don't think I'm knowledgable enough in the Christian religion to persuade you to it. But I jut want you to know that just because you didn't like the Roman Catholic church, it doesn't mean that you wouldn't like any other denomination of Christian out there. It's not just the Roman Catholics. It's also the Nazarenes, United Methodists, and some Lutherans. Not you personally, nor my roommate, but others I know. I left Catholicism long ago, and moved first to the Church of the Nazarene, and from there to the United Methodist Church. Neither was any better, nor any worse overall, but it seems to me that what will eventually happen is infighting between the denominations. What about Baptists? There are not only fundamentalist Baptists, but Northen Baptists, Missionary Baptists, etc. What about Pentecostals? There's the United Pentecostal Church, The Assemblies of God, the Church of God in Christ, the New Testament Church, etc. What about the Protestant Episcopal Church? You mentioned the Missouri Synod Lutheran sect, but what about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? What about Presbyterians? The list just goes on and on... Secondly, I don't imagine fighting. There's just debate over who's right. I just can't personally imagine anything physical happening, what with Jesus saying to love our enemies.Fighting in the name of Christianity has always been a mystery to me anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:38 pm
SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine Cougar Draven SoundDoctrine What about closed-culture religions who don't want or need to spread their message? I'm curious. What religion can honestly not need to spread their message? Judaism doesn't go out of their way to find converts, and orthodox Jews sometimes discourage people who want to join Judaism, and religions in which membership is inherited, such as Zoastrianism and Druze. True enough, but just because they don't go get new members doesn't mean they don't need them. I usually use the Shaker sect to reference that point. Why would they need more members if they only want people of their own culture to be in their religion? I do not understand how the Shakers reference your point. Could you clarify that? The Shaker sect was very specific about their celibacy, and at the same time, didn't go out of their way to attract new members. As such, their membership dwindled to nothing in a very few generations. They needed new members...but didn't go get them. SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine I got to that topic because when a person says,"Christianity" that makes me think of Christianity as a whole, and there are so many different types of Christians in the world, that when a person says,"Christianity" they have to realize that they may be including people who don't act like the part of Christianity they may be thinking about. Did that make sense? Somewhat. I always take Christianity as a whole, not as a denominated strata. I was baptized a Roman Catholic, and until I left the faith officially, oh, six or eight months ago, I was a pretty poor Christian, but I've always thought that the denomination of the faith is one of the things that actually contributed to my loss of faith. If Christianity actually had been about following Christ first, we wouldn't have stopped to argue with one another about how to do so. That's not true because people interpret and understand the teachings of Christ differently. Yes, they do, but as I recall, Christ's teachings did not include "Denominate the faith into many different forms, rivaling the strata in the Earth, and sayeth unto others 'Follow unto me, or burn in hell.'" No, Christ's teachings did not include any of that... Well, there we go. SoundDoctrine Quote: I am not talking about any denomination specifically, but I will say that the focus shifted. I know some Christians, don't exactly remember their denominations, who actually believe that their denomination is the only one going to hell. Hell? Or did you mean heaven? I'm confused. I'm a moron. Sorry, I did mean heaven. As far as I am aware, no denomination of Christianity holds that its followers go to hell. I need to recheck my typing. SoundDoctrine Quote: And then there's the Jehovah's Witnessess...I implore, how can a denomination that holds that Paradise can only hold 10,000 honestly need more people? That's the one exception to my above case, as far as I know. The thing is, you asserted that Christianity is no different from any other religion,which it is, since we have a proclaimation with Christ to spread the gospel, while other religions have no desire to spread their message, and you asserted that it is a means to control those who are weak of mind, and a means to implement those who are strong in it. This assertion is also not true because there are some Christians who don't even go to church, some Christians who don't go out of their way to proslyetize, or to be implemented, some Christians don't fellowship with other Christians, some Christians who have been utilized as pastors may not be all that charismatic, and some Christians who have not been utilized are very strong in mind. The basis of Christianity is following Christ. It is not to spread the word, or to condemn others to hell. Some Christians, whom other Christians might not even call Christians, do not believe people who don't believe in Jesus are going to hell. I have found both of your assertions to be hasty generalizations, and you have not yet said anything to make me think that they were anything other than hasty generalizations based on your personal experiences. Which is, of course, a distinct personality. I've been jaded, and I tend to react quickly. If I am forced to concede my points...oh well. It'll refine my knowledge, for one. SoundDoctrine Quote: SoundDoctrine Quote: Perhaps my view of Christianity is a little jaded, for the reasons I've already stated. I issued an open challenge to any and every Gaian Christian to try to convert me back to the faith. I doubt it'll happen, but I'll admit that I'm a jaded cynic. I just don't think your whole view of Christianity to be jaded. It's fine to be jaded against the Roman Catholic church based on your experiences, but it's not right to take what you know about them and apply it to every Christian by saying Christianity without being specific about which Christians you are speaking of. I personally am unfamiliar with many denominations, so I wouldn't say anything is "Christian" or that the base of Christianity is something, or that Christianity does such and such if whatever I was saying did not center around the Law of Agape. I wouldn't try and convert you. I realize that faith is a personal thing and I don't think I'm knowledgable enough in the Christian religion to persuade you to it. But I jut want you to know that just because you didn't like the Roman Catholic church, it doesn't mean that you wouldn't like any other denomination of Christian out there. It's not just the Roman Catholics. It's also the Nazarenes, United Methodists, and some Lutherans. Not you personally, nor my roommate, but others I know. I left Catholicism long ago, and moved first to the Church of the Nazarene, and from there to the United Methodist Church. Neither was any better, nor any worse overall, but it seems to me that what will eventually happen is infighting between the denominations. What about Baptists? There are not only fundamentalist Baptists, but Northen Baptists, Missionary Baptists, etc. What about Pentecostals? There's the United Pentecostal Church, The Assemblies of God, the Church of God in Christ, the New Testament Church, etc. What about the Protestant Episcopal Church? You mentioned the Missouri Synod Lutheran sect, but what about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? What about Presbyterians? The list just goes on and on... Secondly, I don't imagine fighting. There's just debate over who's right. I just can't personally imagine anything physical happening, what with Jesus saying to love our enemies.Fighting in the name of Christianity has always been a mystery to me anyways. In three words: too many denominations. And once again, I apologize for my typing. I didn't mean physical fighting...more like fierce debate. And you're right. Fighting in the name of any god or goddess is a waste of faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
