Christianity

[Sakujo]

I saw a number of things here that should be addressed.

1) Tolkien and Lewis were both part of The Inklings, a group dedicated to mystery religions and "occult" things. Their works and their personalities weren't Christian by the "true" definition, but were very "pagan". Lewis even had a Bacchean parade in his Prince Caspian work.

2) The link about "occultism" in the police force is hilarious. You think the police have any clue what they're talking about? Seriously, they're possibly More susceptible to folk psychology and explanations than anything. (The police truly aren't very educated about much beyond their immediate training and experience, from what I've seen with officials I know.)

3) Harry Potter is demonic, etc, etc to Christians, because those are the definitions they've thrown onto it. They're terms of reference, and not so much anything exact at all, but haven't we always known that?

4) Since when can a Christian care about things like civil liberties? If Jesus came back, they'd be begging for the immediacy of their promised totalitarian state where all offenders to God are killed in an instant. (Seriously, it's in the bible. I was a Christian until months ago.)

5) Furthermore, if these "Christians" had taught their children "properly", the kids wouldn't be reading the books in the first place. I was the best little Christian kid you could imagine, staying away from all kinds of sinful and pleasurable things, until my dad went brain-wrecked and screwed up our lives, and I didn't seem to have a reason to care for god anymore. Then, upon reading the bible and going to church for myself I once again became very devout (Of course, I had to use a lot of compartmentalization, rationalization, and just outright ignoring errors while being deceived by the church leaders). But when that happened I was like a Seventh Day Adventist from the Old times, Before the reformation (who believe that the Catholic church was the red dragon, etc).

Point being, if you indoctrinate your prey children correctly, they won't touch it in the first place.

Even so, there doesn't seem to be a solid resolution to the whole "God puts authorities in place, but we can still vote" thing.

And that being the case, it's everyone who loves the current American style of freedom's job to counter-act these poor, self-illusioned people at every crossing.

I could go on about the horrors of Christianity, but that isn't what this topic is about.

6)People who commit crimes labeled as "occult" aren't necessarily mentally ill. They may or may not have mental disorders (different from being mentally ill), but certainly are sick people, even if they have no disorder.


Edit: In sum, the real issue here is parental responsibility, not to ban books, but to be involved in a child's life and teach them what one wants them to know, and then the responsibility is on the child. Banning books from a library of Any sort is retarded, unless it isn't age-appropriate for a certain section (Like a five year old being forced to read a slaughter novel or other such ridiculous idea), because everyone should have equal access where sensible.

[Moondazed]

Words like 'sensible' are the problem... it's subjective.  What's sensible to me may not be to you, so this is one of those arguments that can't be won, unless you take an all or nothing position.

[Sakujo]

Words like 'sensible' are the problem... it's subjective.  What's sensible to me may not be to you, so this is one of those arguments that can't be won, unless you take an all or nothing position.

If we want to get into the philosophy of it, my use of the word sensible indicates something other than what the woman has said, but sensible from a philosophical standpoint would be that which is based upon sound/cogent argumentation, and that which is accepted by the greatest number of studied peers.

Aka, not your common religious fanatic.

[Moondazed]

I understand the concept of 'sensible'... but it's something that is too subjective to be argued with facts... the basis of the topic is moral, so how can there be an actual, truly 'sensible' answer?  I'm not trying to argue with you, just pointing out that it's subjective. 

Now if we could all get behind a process of alignment instead of consensus, this would be a much more viable term to use :)

[Elvi]

You see, we teach beastgirl (my daughter) a totally opposite way, to what you say children should be sakujo.

I encourage her to read, view and listen to, what she wishes to, (within reason of course).
Myself an Atheist and Strangely an Agnostic, don't refuse to have religious books in the house, or watch programs about religion, I infact bought her her first and (come to think of it second) bible.

What we do, though, is discuss these things with her.
When she came home from school and declared herself a Christian and that she loved Jesus, we asked her why and gave her our points of view.

Infact recently, she has declared an interest in Veudeuism (whichj I think is the correct spelling?
So we talked about the ture meaning of that religion, I have found her web sites that discuss it as a true religion and Strangely found a magazine with a good article that discussed and rebuffed the Christian slant that was placed upon it. 

When she listens to music, we discuss the musicians, the origins of the type of music she is listening to and the lyrics and what they actually mean.

When she swears (or tells us that her schools mates have sworn), we tell her the meaning of the word and why it is insulting along with why we would prefer her not to use it.

The list goes on, sex, racial differences, violence in programs and the real world, why we are for or against wars, why books written in the 50' and 60's can be seen as racist/sexist, we discuss, listen to her point of view and give her our opinions upon the matter.

Not allowing children to see, hear and discuss things is a blinkered way.
To me, that is indoctrination, not education and it is unfair to lump all Christians in with the fundamentalists and say that 'they' are bad 'christians' for not doing so...

[Sakujo]

It seems you've overlooked what I said. I said that the Christians look forward to a day when God/Jesus will reign, and thus all the unfaithful will be slaughtered. Ignoring Revelation (since it's Littered with details about the end of all things and massive slaughter), here are some quotes for you.

Mat 13:41      The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42      And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 22:12      And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13      Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14      For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

Mat 24:33      So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
Mat 24:34      Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
(Hilarious that this never came true, and Revelation & the end times are so strongly believed to be for now.)
Mat 24:35      Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mat 24:36   ¶   But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Mat 24:37      But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Noe being Noah, meaning the world covered in sin, the majority slaughtered, and a few saved through baptism{ {Noah water, Jesus spirit/confession}.)
...
Mat 24:50      The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of,
(This likely being the reason for fear that Revelation is right around the corner.)
   Mat 24:51      And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Of course, these beliefs come from a collection of writings that say sin leads to disease and death, such as in John 5.

Jhn 5:14      Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Hbr 10:26   ¶   For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Hbr 10:27      But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Hbr 10:28      He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Hbr 10:29      Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Hbr 10:30      For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Hbr 10:31      [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2Pe 3:7      But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
...
2Pe 3:10   ¶   But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


Jud 1:5   ¶   I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jud 1:6      And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7      Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8      Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Jud 1:9      Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jud 1:10      But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jud 1:11      Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jud 1:12   ¶   These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds [they are] without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13      Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Jud 1:14      And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15      To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jud 1:16   ¶   These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

Luk 19:27      But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

Finally, here's one of my favorite parallels from Revelation.
2Th 2:8      And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Rev 1:16      And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength.
Rev 2:16    Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 19:15    And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:21    And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which [sword] proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.



So there's some of the evidence for that, though there is more. And that's the thing about Christianity, it's filled with opposing statements and characters. There are evil men and good men who are praised, people in one book lifted up, and in another slammed. Jesus, himself, morphs from page to page.

Don't you just love the quote from Luke? Since it's said in the immediacy, it can be interpreted as either a future statement for the day of judgment, or as a slip showing the violent Jesus that comes out from time to time.

(For the sake of context, here is the entire section from Luke, and a very brutal one, from which that comes. Note the parable ends at 25, and Jesus's follow-up begins at 26.

   Luk 19:11   ¶   And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
   Luk 19:12      He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
   Luk 19:13      And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
   Luk 19:14      But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us.
   Luk 19:15      And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
   Luk 19:16      Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
   Luk 19:17      And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
   Luk 19:18      And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
   Luk 19:19      And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
   Luk 19:20      And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
   Luk 19:21      For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
   Luk 19:22      And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
   Luk 19:23      Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
   Luk 19:24      And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.
   Luk 19:25      (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
   Luk 19:26      For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
   Luk 19:27      But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.)

But shouldn't this be expected? This is the same Jesus who said

Mat 11:20   ¶   Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
Mat 11:21      Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Mat 11:22      But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
Mat 11:23      And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
Mat 11:24      But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Note: Jesus is openly saying here that Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom could have been saved, but Jesus/God chose Not to do what would have led to their salvation. (This is especially cruel for those of you who know the full story of the destruction of Sodom, complete with the begging for the peoples' lives.)


So, as I was saying, Christians really don't have a Choice to respect civil liberties where they are capable of violating them. God's law is absolute, and will be executed in any case where it can be without violating the laws of society, unless the laws of society restrict god's law, in which case the laws of society are to be violated.

Again, the only real dilemma for Christians is whether Jesus's stance on authority as put in place by god means voting is wrong or not. (Unfortunately, many may not even recognize this as a dilemma.)

This has nothing to do with that the individual chooses, it's Demanded by their belief system. It doesn't matter if they think that they're right in not acting a certain way if the bible says to do such a thing, unless they renounce the bible, and then they have A Lot of explaining to do about the sources for their beliefs in "god" and Jesus", unless they're a casual person who doesn't think it really matters, in which case they really have no claim to "Christianity", as the real meaning of the word is supposed to be derived from "disciples of Christ", and to be a disciple, to be exactly as one's rabbi (Uh oh, that {along with the fact that Jesus never abolished the OT Law covenant to satisfactory requirements} would mean they should follow the Jewish covenant laws of God, too!), requires actually Knowing the rabbi.

But this rant on Christianity has gone on long enough, again. I'd be happy to begin a study of it elsewhere, if there's demand for it. I Really hate the religion, having come out of it after forcing myself for so long, then going through so much brainwashing. The after-effects are nasty.

Again, yes, sensible is subjective, but I support inter-subjective means. If there is anything objective, we can never be certain that we know it.

Finally, working in a school district I've been acquainted with No Child Left Behind and teacher's opinions of it enough to want to smack Bush crazy.


Edit: Not to tl;dr this, but I forgot the comment abotu raising kids.

What I was saying was directed at the Christians, like the woman, who have to be totalitarian to some extent, according to their religion (based on the bible, folks. NT included.). This goes twice for those who don't want their kids "seeing anything bad" in general.

Even so, every parent is totalitarian/indoctrinating in some ways. I wasn't recommending it for everything. It's a fact that the authoriTATIVE process is best for all parties involved. However, when subjects that one Doesn't want their kid knowing about come up, you have to draw a hard line and take personal responsibility, not immediately ban anything related to it from the entirety of the public sphere.

It's not like someone erected a hologram of the movie in the middle of the park, and even if they had, why is the parent incapable of convincing their child to stay away from it? That's my issue here; that the parent is only taking responsibility as far as to remove something from all access to the public at the school.

[Sherona]

Rather then point out the OBVIOUS about the scriptures you have provided (that this is talking about the time when christian dogma says Jesus will return and slaughter the Anti-christ and his armies, which could also be observed that the anti-christ and his followers would be demonic..also that this is talking about the final judgement..not taking the laws into their own hands)..


*shrugs* There are always those who take words written thousands of years ago, written in a fashion that was custom thousands of years ago, literally and try to spin it aroudn their own laws and customs...sorry Sakujo, but whatever christian sect you were brougth up in must interpret those passages way different then any christian church i have ever been in.

Edit: that is why there are so many different Christian denomination...so many translations and interpretations. The passages above are interpreted by most christian churches as to be figurative, parables, or talking about the final judgement that is suppose to happen after the seven year tribulation that is spoke about in revelations. Yes Jesus said that Sodom and the others could have been saved..only if (according to christian dogma PLEASE do not assume that I buy into the christian faith..really..I am just agnostic..) they had been judged under Grace, and not by Law. Before Jesus- certain damnation due to the first sin...after Jesus-grace, their is forgiveness now ...THAT was jesus' point...in most christian faiths.


It is not christianity, unfortunately, that is beleagured (is this the right word?) by misconceptions or the few way out there sects that seem to be rather vocal..its all religions out there..


frankly if you want my view..I won't say I am athiest because I do think that there just MIGHT be a higher power..I jsut think if there is, then human's are probably not advanced enough to understand it.. *shrugs*. /end rant. I am done. :)

[ZK]

I thought this was about book banning, not Christianity. The Christians that voice their opinion and be completely off basis and make a fool of themselves are not the only ones proclaiming to ban books. Coming from a multi-religious bases family (I swear, I have members of just about any pathos of religion, aside from Islamic and some others, primarily Christianity, Catholicsm, Shintoism and Bhuddaism [Yes, members of my family converted to other religions) I just had to say that.

If you want to debate on the intepretations of the Holy Scripture known as the Bible for Christians, you're more then welcome to make a new board about it in this same P&R board.

As for book banning, a lot of books do need to get banned, but see, it's not the -right- ones targeted by the media and group conscenses that are the ones that need to be banned... or at least, out right regulated.

I correct to what I stated, there are books that need regulation, warning labels and be handled like adult material, but that's a whole 'nother ball game. If people cared (as a whole) we wouldn't have this problem, but alas, the majority doesn't care unless it is happening to them and them alone.

[Sakujo]

"Rather then point out the OBVIOUS about the scriptures you have provided (that this is talking about the time when christian dogma says Jesus will return and slaughter the Anti-christ and his armies, which could also be observed that the anti-christ and his followers would be demonic..also that this is talking about the final judgement..not taking the laws into their own hands).."

You're wrong, actually. In the scriptures I listed and those in Revelation there is a distinction between those slaughtered physically and spiritually, and those slaughtered who are "demons" and those who are human. Furthermore, there is no single person "anti-Christ", and some events in revelation (actually Many) occur Before the final judgment, as All physical bodies are resurrected for the final judgment, and then the evil destroyed again (hence why it is called the second death). Furthermore, there is no seven year tribulation Anywhere in the bible.

Finally, Sherona, you're simply wrong about putting the figurative, allegorical, etc tags on those verses, and your assumption that I was simply a part of one of many Christian sects. I began memorizing the KJV when I was three or four (not sure which, exactly), and grew up in a non-denominational church, and by the time I left Christianity completely I had worshiped and done intensive study with around 14 different denominations. I was studying to be a minister.


For reasons why what I have stated above are true, anyone can PM me, as I've more or less received a request to discontinue speaking openly on the subject. If enough people want me to tell them, or I receive a request for this, I'll make a rant topic on Christianity and elaborate on what the bible actually says, the various "forms" of Christianity (Disciple, Contradictory-Biblical, and Generalized/No true adherence), and my personal experience with them.

There is at least one book that I think should be banned.  I really think "The Anarchist Cookbook" should be banned.  Or maybe someone can tell me why a book about making things like letter bombs shouldn't be.

As for Harry Potter, or the Golden Compass?  Can't say that I have read them, can't say that I ever will.  Just can't find the interest to read them.  I think there are plenty of books someone might find objectionable, and I would say, don't read them.

Now, I think I would find it... uncomfortable if a school would require those books to be read.  Since there is so much bad felings against them.

The Anarchist cookbook could be useful in case of there ever being a time when the things in it are, well, needed. (Martial law with evil intent, invasion by another country, etc.)

As for HP and GC being material schools can't force one to read, you're on very shaky grounds, because there are books from all viewpoints  (and some I had to read in school) that have people who have "very bad feelings" about them.

[Elvi]

There are things that I would love to bring up about that post Sajuko, but as A siren has already asked for us not to continue on the subject here (as it is off topic on this thread), BEFORE you posted your reply and you say you have been asked to refrain on posting like this, perhaps it is wsie to just let the subject drop?

[Vekseid]

Split from the book banning thread.

Since Sakujo said he left Christianity a few months ago, and just about everyone I know who has done that went grinding their ax for about a year afterwards, I have some sympathy. We do have rules, however, and we ask that they be followed.

1: We are particularly sensitive to off-topic subjects in this forum and in Elliquiy U. You can always make a new thread and link to the old one when your subject differs significantly. This rule came between the last post in the thread and your post, which is why you might have been led astray.

2: There are many definitions of Christian, however, between Gnosticism, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, and the countless heresies that they had spawned, the only solid definition of Christian is one who accepts Jesus as their savior. So you write things like...

3) Harry Potter is demonic, etc, etc to Christians, because those are the definitions they've thrown onto it

As if it's demonic to all Christians, or even a majority (somehow I doubt that).

4) Since when can a Christian care about things like civil liberties? If Jesus came back, they'd be begging for the immediacy of their promised totalitarian state where all offenders to God are killed in an instant. (Seriously, it's in the bible. I was a Christian until months ago.)

Biblical Inerrancy is very recent practice, held by a minority of Christians, many of whom treat the less wholesome parts of the Bible as pieces that, as a culture, we have gained the ability to move beyond.

5) Furthermore, if these "Christians" had taught their children "properly", the kids wouldn't be reading the books in the first place.

The Christians you refer to are not worried about -their- children, they are worried about yours, mine... just about any child from any Elliquiy member, really >_>

But the ones you refer to are not the majority. You can make these statements about fundamentalists, southern baptists, and so on - but Christianity in general is a huge faith covering many vastly different traditions, and some of the older, dead versions are beginning to gain traction again, such as Gnosticism.

In the future, please target your statements appropriately.  Thank you.

[Sakujo]

"1: We are particularly sensitive to off-topic subjects in this forum and in Elliquiy U. You can always make a new thread and link to the old one when your subject differs significantly."

Understood. I'll be more attentive to that from now on.

"2: There are many definitions of Christian, however, between Gnosticism, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, and the countless heresies that they had spawned, the only solid definition of Christian is one who accepts Jesus as their savior."

That isn't a solid definition, and not even the least common denominator, as many people who call themselves Christian don't beleive he's the only way to heaven. The issue here is where the "Christian" line is going to be drawn, hence why I stated that there are three basic "formulas" for people who call themselves "Christian".

It is in the more typical Contradictory-biblical form that I speak of Christians, because that's what the majority of those who self-identify as practicing happen to be. These are the people who go to church, listen to their pastor or priest, and then think that the bible is generally without error, and all contradictions are just misunderstandings or things god doesn't do anymore, because, after all, god can't be wrong.

These need not be Southern Baptists, nor need they be fundamentalists. I've seen these people in the majority of the congregations in every sect I've visited.

Hence, when I say that "demonic" is a word they've thrown at books like Harry Potter, and I speak as though I'm speaking of all of them, that's exactly what I'm doing, from personal experience. Again, this applies to those who would actually stand up and call themselves Christians, devout, church-goers, etc.

My error was in not making the point more clearly that the generalized "Christians", the ones better suited to your "Jesus is my savior, and now I can do whatever I want. God is cool." kind of person, don't really fit into any reasonable definition of Christian via the definitional standard. These people may be the current majority, if only because they know so little about Christianity and think that believing in Jesus as savior means they're spiritual and saved for the afterlife. Still, without having any real adherence to the religious system/doctrinal pattern and actual knowledge of the bible, I, like the Christians who criticize them, see no reason for them to think of themselves as anything different from people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

There may be times where I mistaken use "Christian" when referring to the last group, the disciple group (and there are different factions within this group, being those who try to keep as much of the bible's teachings as possible, the gnostics, those who reject anything after the four gospels, those who reject every gospel but Mark, etc.), I'll normally say "disciples of Christ" or something clearly similar.


"4) Since when can a Christian care about things like civil liberties? If Jesus came back, they'd be begging for the immediacy of their promised totalitarian state where all offenders to God are killed in an instant. (Seriously, it's in the bible. I was a Christian until months ago.)

Biblical Inerrancy is very recent practice, held by a minority of Christians, many of whom treat the less wholesome parts of the Bible as pieces that, as a culture, we have gained the ability to move beyond."

I don't see how biblical inerrancy has anything to do with the believed coming totalitarian state of god. Those who cherry pick the bible, and even those who see it as largely full of error, in general still espouse a majority of the bible's teachings, especially as it relates to future events (because they have no other real ties to modern life, I'd say). Furthermore, it seems as though you're describing the idea that parts of the bible are simply out-dated, and that it was written for people in a specific time, which fits into the "generalized" "half-Christian" group.


"5) Furthermore, if these "Christians" had taught their children "properly", the kids wouldn't be reading the books in the first place.

The Christians you refer to are not worried about -their- children, they are worried about yours, mine... just about any child from any Elliquiy member, really >_>"

Sadly, this is also true, but the initial concern is nearly always for one's own or for "the sake of ridding evil and blasphemy".


"In the future, please target your statements appropriately.  Thank you."

In the future I'll clarify specifically what I mean by Christian, until everyone understands what I'm saying.

[Elvi]

In the future I'll clarify specifically what I mean by Christian, until everyone understands what I'm saying.

And while you are doing that Sajuko, please remember that this is an international site.
There are one hell of a lot more Christians in this world than just those in America.

As I have said before, I am not a religious person, but I have friends and relatives who are and I get very annoyed when someone uses a Generic term to lump them all together.

[kongming]

Yeah seriously, the word itself merely means "Slave of Christ". So anyone who decides they worship and serve Christ is, wait for it, a Christian! Sure, other branches can call them wrong, misguided, evil or even heretical, but they can't correctly call them un-Christian.

There are many different types of Christian - Heck, depending on where you want to draw the lines, there can be as many types of Christian as there are Christians, each viewing their faith a little differently. But they all share one trait - from the ones who help feed the poor and volunteer for charity work or looking after children, all the way to people who commit genocide in the name of Christ - they worship Christ, and that means they are Christians.

The term can't really be used to say that many things about even a clear majority of them, much the same as you can't really say that many things that applies specifically to all Virgos or Libras.

[Elvi]

Out of interest, mainly because I wanted to see how many there were I have just googled,  "list christian denominations worldwide"

This popped up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

and even with the inacurate 'wikki' it's an impressive list

[Sakujo]

Yeah seriously, the word itself merely means "Slave of Christ". So anyone who decides they worship and serve Christ is, wait for it, a Christian! Sure, other branches can call them wrong, misguided, evil or even heretical, but they can't correctly call them un-Christian.

There are many different types of Christian - Heck, depending on where you want to draw the lines, there can be as many types of Christian as there are Christians, each viewing their faith a little differently. But they all share one trait - from the ones who help feed the poor and volunteer for charity work or looking after children, all the way to people who commit genocide in the name of Christ - they worship Christ, and that means they are Christians.

The term can't really be used to say that many things about even a clear majority of them, much the same as you can't really say that many things that applies specifically to all Virgos or Libras.

Christian doesn't mean slave to Christ, even in its original Greek form. Furthermore, the general definition of "believing on/in Christ" needs clarification of the meaning from the original source, wherein "believing on" meant an act of trust and submittance. What could a Christian submit to but either Jesus directly (as in the case of the Disciple groups) or the bible (as in the case of biblical-contradictory groups)?

Once again, the final group who generally hold the extent of their belief to "the bible is right, Jesus saves em from hell cause I say he's god" to "Jesus is a savior, there are many paths to heaven. he was a good guy." Don't fit into this group, because A) they have no idea what they're talking about, and B) how can one submit to something they know nothing of?

So, again, even Formally, the word applies to one of two groups, and of those two one is the majority, and would be the generally understood section. Again, this isn't merely my thinking, it's the thinking I've encountered in group after group of believers and non-believers.


And honestly, it's humorous to me that those who are responding are attempting to be technically correct for the sake of "saving" those who Don't fit into the definition I'm using. I'm not attacking the people who don't know their own book and claim to be a part of something they aren't, I'm pointing out simple facts about the main Christian belief system. Those unaware of it are simply that. If they became aware of it and decided to stick with it (the mainstream, biblical-contradictory model), then they would be subject to the same insanity.

This is why the only respect that I Do have is for the disciple groups, because they actually Consider what they claim to be a part of, follow it, and use their heads in doing so.


Edit: Allow me to clarify something. Biblical-contradictory Doesn't mean that the bible is their only source (sola scriptura or otherwise standing) for religious guidance. They may have other contradictory forms of religion, such as that within the Catholic church's traditions and catechism.

[Moondazed]

Ahhhh... the righteousness of youth :)  You may want to work on your persuasive conversation skills if you want people to hear what you're saying instead of reacting to your inflammatory language.

And for the record, I'm not Christian, you aren't personally offending me... just saying that your choice of wording is not conducive to considerate debate.

[Elvi]

It's really nice to know that you are being 'amused' by us Sajuko.

Next time I bump into the local Vicar (who by the way, had a very interesting chat with my daughter about Harry Potter, as he had read all of them and seen the films), I'll tell him that he doesn't know the book, (Bible) that he holds most Holy and that all those years of study and service have been useless.

This is where I walk away from this discussion...

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Maybe I'm tired, maybe I'm just not that bright, or maybe there is simply just a lot of text floating about but I feel compelled to ask, what is the point?  This sounds more like a rant than an actual debate topic.  So if a topic is up for debate, what is it?  All I see is a logic where either you believe this and are stupid or if you don't then you are stupidly following something you don't understand.  There is a lot of bitterness here masked under intelligent words, a decent grasp of theology, a touch of arrogance and quite a bit of confusion.  This isn’t the “study” you claimed to want in your first couple of posts, but someone wanting justification.

So the question is that even if there is a topic for debate, do you even want an answer?  A lot of your statements are very condescending and straight forward, as if you were the authority lecturing to children.  That leads me to think that you aren't wanting a back and forth conversation, you're wanting a podium to rant your beliefs from into an audience that you either think will agree or won't get it.  Those that don’t readily nod their heads to whatever the point of this “thing” is are said to be wrong or amusing to you. 

If this is a rant, put it under rants.  If this is a debate, then what are we debating?  Originally you stated that the point was pariental responsibilty, but I'm not seeing that anymore. The best I’ve seen in here is some references to whether the Bible supports the notion of civil liberties.  Is that what we are supposed to be discussing?

So help the uneducated here and part those Heavens so I can see the point. If anyone else gets it, let me know cause I'm certainly lost.

[Sakujo]

Asku, you'd have to note that this was separated from the Book Banning thread by a mod. This isn't the topic I said I'd open to "debate"/discuss the meanings of things in the bible. You're exactly right, I am acting as an authority here and standing in front of a podium, because all I'm getting are challenges to what I've said, and so I'm responding with appropriate facts. This isn't a discussion, this is people questioning my statements and me backing them up.


Edit: Though Elvi said she'd be walking away, I'll go ahead and answer her response, anyway.

Yes, the "Vicar", as you want to call him, is in the wrong, according to his holy book. It's more iffy with the Catholic system because of their emphasis on ritual and works, but the same line is still there, though now more based upon the dictations of the "Church" than upon the bible. While he may know the book in general, most Catholic priests seem to be rather clueless about it, though they know the "Church"'s views rather well. This sort of pseudo-biblical stance is why many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.

The real issue at hand here isn't so much a question of who identifies with "Christianity", as much as it is what the basis for belonging is. If we went by the bible in whole for its own standards for affirming who is a part of "the body of Christ" and who is not, a large number of people would fall off, including Catholics and Protestants, but certainly those who take the "Jesus was a good guy" approach. If we exclude certain books, it gets a bit more tricky. Hence my three separations.

[Sakujo]

Then I'll say, to clarify for any further "Warriors of Justice", that my hatred isn't of Christians in general because they're Christians, my hatred is of the Christian system that's in place. For anyone else who bothers to come here and throw such ridiculous accusations at me, I'll just say "Read the topic first, make sure you understand what's being said, and if you still don't get it, either ask for clarification or leave the reply box alone.", because you're simply fueling the responses here. I have no problem entirely dropping this, except in as far as it comes to defending what I've said. I don't back down, but I'm not going to try to force this down people's throats, either.

Baka.

[strangely made]

Sakujo, only going to be brief because I don't normally discuss religion at all. But I do need to correct you on just one thing.


Elvi mentioned the local Vicar. He isn't a Catholic, Roman, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox or what ever sect of the Catholic church you care to think of.
A Vicar is the ordinary title give to priests of the Anglican church, specifically, The Church of England, as in 'The Mother church' of the world wide Anglican Communion.

Now as far as I know Anglican churches (Of which there a forty National Anglican churches world wide ) are Protestant not Catholic.

[Sabby]

Wow... you sir are passionate and opinionated, traits I share. But you gotta learn... A) when and how to settle down, and B) how to get a point across without being provocative.

Its not really a debate if you act as though your opinion here is the only one that matters or is correct, and if the aim of it is to persuade us into adopting your views, your going about it the wrong way. people won't listen to you if you speak to them like this.

I learned those 2 key lessons, and I got less and less fists in my face. I suggest you try and learn them as well.

[Sherona]

Ahhhh... the righteousness of youth :)  You may want to work on your persuasive conversation skills if you want people to hear what you're saying instead of reacting to your inflammatory language.

And for the record, I'm not Christian, you aren't personally offending me... just saying that your choice of wording is not conducive to considerate debate.

Indeed Moondazed :) I figured that out very shortly which is why I haven't really bothered answering anything on this board. For the record I am not Christian either, and while his words do not offend me personally either I never have been able to back away from a good debate..unfortunatly as you have stated his wording is not conductive to a considerate debate.

[Mia]

Ok, I tried to avoid getting into this and I will I just need to clear out my stand point in this. I’m from Sweden which may be one of the most no-religious countries in the world in short we don’t hold much for religion at all and I and what I believe in is colored by that. To me I have never really understood what this big fuss is about. Here we got an old set of books which is called “the bible”, the general message is: “Please be nice to each other”, why you that use the books as guide lines always seems to fight about how this is said is beyond my understanding. But then all major religions hold that thought: to be nice to each other. Problem is that when comparing religions suddenly you guys are fighting how it is said.

I think Monthy Python told the best story of them all in Life of Brian and how ridicules it all is. Just live by that simple phrase: “be nice to each other” and you will do fine. To follow a set of stories that has been written and re-written more times than we can count, most likely wrongly translated and changed so it would fit a bunch of male priest’s world view and then forced upon us… well I lack words.