Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Wolfblade

Who's a True Christian?

I keep seeing this. "Don't judge me along with them, they're not real Christians."

What makes a "real" Christian?

I do not want your personal individual definition of what it means to be Christian. I am asking for a workable metric by which to determine whether or not a person can and should be classified as "Christian." A reasonable and rational means of separating "real" Christians from... whatever it is "real" Christians want to call all the other people calling themselves Christians.

To me, it seems pretty simple. Where does Christianity come from? The Bible, right? Is there a source of the ideas and doctrines that compose the religion besides the Bible? There are older forms of it and/or related texts that tend to be connected to other religions, but does Christianity have a source other than the Bible? At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that, other than accounting for a VERY negligible small number of exceptions, just about anybody who considers themself to be "Christian" would say the Bible is where it all comes from.

So, if the Bible is what tells you what God wants, how he thinks, what he expects of you, how he wants you to behave, then how would it make sense to define "Christian," or the degree or level of one's Christian-ness by anything other than how well you follow the instruction manual?

The moment you acknowledge that any of the book could be just the corruption of man adding/changing/making up passages to suit their own desires, you have to acknowledge that all of it could be just as bogus. It makes no sense to pick and choose what you think sounds good and what you think sounds bad, and then declare definitively that the only "True" Christians are the ones who ignore precisely the same bits that you do.

Really, can anything be more pretentious and full of yourself? This religion, defined by this book, has been around for over 2000 years. The book has been altered countless times, but somehow it still supposedly holds some universal truth. People the world over consider themselves followers of this religion. But you, well, you read the book (right? because nobody who says who is or isn't a "true" Christian could possibly have not actually read the thing cover to cover), and you decide that you don't like this part. Or that part. Or those parts. Or maybe you don't like pretty much any of it except just this one part here. So you declare that anybody who follows any part of this book that you have decided doesn't sound right (but of course the parts you agree with are 100% Gospel Word of God and can't possibly be wrong) is "not a real Christian."

If you have enough brains to be able to see how so much of the book is evil and wrong and reject those parts, you have to be able to understand the ridiculousness of trying to declare who is or isn't a "true" Christian. If you insist that the book ISN'T full of all kinds of outright evil and hate and bigotry, then you Have Not Read It. Period, no argument, if you say that book is love and acceptance and fellowship you HAVE NOT READ IT.

Basically, I'm just really past my tolerance for apologists that aren't even apologizing, they're just trying to say they're totally unrelated to the "extremists" or "crazies" that are fucking everyone over all the time. "Oh, no, they're not with us. That's not what we are. They worship... well they worship the same book we do, but they follow it much more closely and faithfully, and they obey the parts that we think aren't good so they're... somehow less Christian than we are. Go ahead, they're bad, go get them, but hey, you can't tell us WE'RE wrong because... well we ignore more of the book our faith is based on."

"There's nothing wrong with our religion just because the source of our religion is the same source that justifies all these hateful extremist crazies to believe the evil they do is the Will of God. The book DOES tell them to do all the things they are doing, but we only look at the parts that tell us to do nicer things. So we're more Christian. And there's nothing objectionable about the religion itself."

Bullshit.

Teach a man to ignore all fact and evidence and argument and opposition, teach him to believe he is doing The Will of God, and that the more people oppose him, the more that's a sign that he's on the path of the righteous, and you have Ruined that person. You've made them an obstacle to reason and progress. It does not matter how benign your personal beliefs may be. So long as people are taught that you are entitled to believe things based on >nothing,< and that such beliefs deserve any credence or consideration at all, humanity will be hindered.

If you measure how much of a Christian someone is by how much of the Bible the ignore, and the MORE of it they ignore and disregard, the MORE Christian they are, then how does it not make sense to just throw out the whole damned thing and use your own intelligence and sense and reason and empathy and compassion to determine right from wrong?

I've linked this before, but linking it again because this is how I have determined my own morality since I realized religion was bullshit in grade school, and he explains it better than I ever could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk&feature...

If you can have a good, useful, reasonable, logical and rational functioning morality without needing a book that is FULL of hate and judgment and bigotry and plain old fucking Evil, why in the shit does anybody need the book at all? It justifies and validates endless acts of evil, and yet ALL of the good that supposedly comes from it can be seen and learned and taken to heart without needing to even open the damn thing once.

It's like having a huge bucket of Shit. Some people >coat< themselves in shit from this bucket, and run around slinging and smearing it all over everything and everyone - which is actually carved onto the bucket as instructions for what you are supposed to do with this shitbucket. Others ignore their shitbucket's instructions and only very gingerly reach in and try to minimize how much shit clings to them, saying that it's worth it for these little nuggets of corn in the shit. These "True" Shitbucketians wash the shit off to get at those kernels of golden corn, and try to say how it really is worth digging through the shit, and putting up with the "extremist crazies" slinging the shit everywhere, because this corn is Just That Damn Good, and is vital for life and happiness, and you can't get corn from anywhere but the shitbucket.

And the rest of us are pointing to the corn field outside and losing our minds trying to convince you to just let us throw the shit bucket out so the "extremist crazies" can't use it against anyone, and you can come join us in enjoying the corn fields without having to dig through shit for it.

So please stop failing to understand why people don't count you as separate from the "extremist crazies" or why we don't seem to grasp how "true" Christians are harmless and good while those others are oh so bad and wrong and they're missing the point of being Christian by actually doing what the Bible does tell you to do. Because to us, you're all pulling shit from the same bucket, and there's just absolutely no need for it.

EDIT 10-26: This one's run its course. Comments locked.
Viewed: 662 times
Added: 6 years, 1 month ago
Commenting Locked
 
Hammytoy
6 years, 1 month ago
This is not going to help ease your frustration, its going to lure you into loads of arguments that will make you even more annoyed, it's how this stuff always goes :)
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Oh I know, but this isn't one of my super-rage passionate issue things, this is just an annoying thing I keep seeing and commenting on, and I figure getting it all out in one big blah is better than repeatedly making the comment over and over. Now I can just link back to this when I see people trying to act like the shit they pick out of the shitbucket smells like roses.

I actually don't expect too much response on this one. ;D
Hammytoy
6 years, 1 month ago
good luck either way :)
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Thank you. ^_^
Danjen
6 years, 1 month ago
I feel sort of the same way about tumblr feminazi's. You know, the ones that think all men are the work of the devil and equal rights means castration. It's like... really? That's how you waste your time?
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Anyone who thinks Equality is about championing any one group while putting down any others is sorely missing the whole fucking point. :D
TuneCharmer
6 years, 1 month ago
Lol the perfect of example of the pastors that come to my college's campus
CookieWusky
6 years, 1 month ago
I don't believe in god o-o and I always thought this 'god' was suppose to 'love' everyone no matter what.
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
If by "love" you mean "torture everyone who doesn't believe the right load of bullshit without any evidence whatsoever", then yes, he loves everyone.

Christianity is a really, REALLY fucked up religion.
CookieWusky
6 years, 1 month ago
Yea I know that's why im athiest! x)
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
Well, I guess I'm just agreeing with you in a weird way. XD
And expanding on your point, possibly.
CookieWusky
6 years, 1 month ago
Lol yea, also there's allot of christans on FB who talk shit but can't back it up.
Alfador
6 years, 1 month ago
Right on. The sad thing is: I'll betcha religious people would use the exact same analogy as this shitbucket. In fact, I vaguely remember from reading a "young people's (a.k.a. sanitized) version" of The Pilgrim's Progress wherein a group of people were observed mucking about in mud, sifting through it for bits of gold they swore were in there, ignoring a guy in pristine robes holding an eternal crown out for them. The mudmen were meant to be non-Christians, ignoring the "eternal gift" of Christianity.
chaosblackwing
6 years, 1 month ago
I know I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but replace 'crown' with 'collar' and that parable would be more accurate.

And in that case the idea behind it wouldn't be that the people are scrounging in the mud looking for gold when they could just accept it from the guy in robes, but rather than they are willing to suffer the mud to avoid the 'gold' that also happens to come with a leash and an owner holding the end of it.
RageBanken
6 years, 1 month ago
"Here may we reign secure, and in my choice To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell." - John Milton
chaosblackwing
6 years, 1 month ago
I... am honestly not sure what point, if any, you're trying to make with that quote. Mind elaborating?
RageBanken
6 years, 1 month ago
"rather than they are willing to suffer the mud to avoid the 'gold' that also happens to come with a leash and an owner holding the end of it." - You

Essentially the same sentiment.
chaosblackwing
6 years, 1 month ago
Okay, sorry about the confusion on my part, I was tired and the mind wasn't working so well at the time I guess.
Catwheezle
6 years, 1 month ago
I'd use a different metaphor: he's holding an old picture of an impossible crown. But even though it's impossible, and he's never seen the crown himself, his picture says it exists, and the picture has written right on it that it's completely true. And he tells the prospectors the crown could be theirs if only they disbelieve in the real gold, and believe in the crown. Well, it'll only be theirs after they die, but...

OK, that's not very metaphorical at all. It's hart to find a metaphor for crazy.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
I wonder if it's possible to construct an accurate metaphor that wouldn't be condescending or belittling to people who do believe.

Because it seems when you construct >any< hypothetical circumstance that matches the basic elements of what faith-based-belief is all about, but you change the specific elements to anything other than the canonical religiously stated ones, they get angry about how insulting your metaphor is because OBVIOUSLY what you've presented is ridiculous and inane and childish and impossible to be taken seriously by any sane rational adult.

While completely missing that THAT IS OUR ENTIRE POINT. ;_;
SharakoCloudCat
6 years, 1 month ago
I gave up on the Bible/Christianity at 12. It just does not make scene to me.  

to think that a book, supposedly being the "words of god" written by "Man" ( whom is flawed) into one language then translated to another and another, had countless " Revisions" for the "True meaning"  of god...

Yeah Christianit pretty much Blows.

I can't say my religious views are any less weirder than a zombie son of god saving us all but at least I don't go around saying Oh your not pure in the eyes of god, I am sorry I need to shun/haze/harm you/your loved ones/friends/property. because God says so.

That's my take on Christianity.
Cenny
6 years, 1 month ago
thank you so fucking much <333 I love you... 100,000,000,000% agree with this
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
The whole not a "real" x-ian thing is bullshit mostly because it admits that they accept, on some level, the bullshit they spew. If they don't directly and definitively renounce them as being any part of your religion then they're giving tepid permission for it.

If you can't say that an abortion clinic bomber is 100% NOT a Christian then on some level he is and that stains your hands as well.
xpanther
6 years, 1 month ago
this is when i typically hand them a copy of "Banned from the Bible I and II" then walk away
Yury
6 years, 1 month ago
Big Text .... Something i understand something i dont and now i Write what i Think about Religion

I dont like any Religion .. I dont mean with this i hate People who like it i just cant belive in any religion.
The biggest Thing in the Most religions are the dead ...i think because  People Need something to explain what Happen there or After it ..... I dont know what will Happen Maybe there are right Maybe there are Wrong but i just cant belive that there are is something After live .. . I Often hear that this Sounds cold ....
A other Thing why i dont like Religion us because soo many war's because of "No ! My Religion is the best " ....


Ok Sry Not a answer to you Big Journal but something i want Say
OnyxTanuki
6 years, 1 month ago
I'd say it's more a mix-up of terminology. People who say they're more Christian because they follow only certain facets of the Bible typically say they are so due to being more devoted to their morality than the rules given to them. Basing it on the way D&D does alignments, these are people who judge their level of Christianity on the Good/Evil axis, whereas those who deem one's level of Christianity on how closely they follow the Bible seem to be judging it on the Lawful/Chaotic axis. One can be good without following the rules, and one can stick to the rules and still not be a good person, and the two aren't necessarily hand-in-hand.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Jack Chick would be spinning in his grave at this comparison.


Well, except for the fact he's not dead.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
My point is that any of the actually worthwhile morality gained from the bible "because the Bible tells you to," can be reached by reason and rationality, without needing the bible as a source at all.

Therefore, rather than leaving this book that unarguably has countless horrible and immoral thing it outright commands people to do, letting people apply completely arbitrary cherry-picking as to which commands are good to follow and which are not, better to just throw the whole thing out.

Teach people the logic and reason behind morality, so they can reach an understanding of morality on their own, rather than teach people to just accept and operate on rote instructions. Some people will choose morality over rules when deciding what to take from the bible, but it's subjective as to where that line is drawn, and invariably, one person's immoral rule will be another person's divine morality.
Klandagi
6 years, 1 month ago
In the Bible, I think it was in First or Second Book of Kings, some guy hacks his wife to pieces to insight war.

"Go, and do thou likewise."

You can make the Bible, or any 'holy' text, say whatever you want it to.
Deedle
6 years, 1 month ago
You can make any book that is sufficiently long enough say anything you want it to if you misquote text or take it out of context.

The difference between different groups of "Christians" isn't the book they follow it's how it was interpreted. For example some people are honestly deluded and attempt to follow every rule and command of the old testament even though every command of the hold testament was repealed. Some organized churches (Baptists and Presbyterians) are largely split over smaller issues such as church government and as the Baptists name represents, the importance and application of baptism. This isn't selective reading and any good pastor will tackle any passage of the Bible you give them; however, they will do so in context of the rest of the bible, the New Testament in particular.

Then there are also groups like the Mormons that decided to write more "Bible" that is blatantly contradictory  and everyone else thinks they are crazy for it.
Klandagi
6 years, 1 month ago
First, I would not the length of the work doesn't matter much.  Anything can be quoted out of context.

Second, the whole Bible is 'out of context' these days.  The culture that created it is long dead.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
" Dudze wrote:
For example some people are honestly deluded and attempt to follow every rule and command of the old testament even though every command of the hold testament was repealed.


Nope. Extremely common, and extremely wrong, misconception. There are many passages where Jesus upholds the Old Testament plainly and unarguably.

" "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

“...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35
Deedle
6 years, 1 month ago
Sigh... okay I don't have enough characters to do this argument so I have something to refer you to. http://www.redeemer.com/news_and_events/newsletter/?ai...

The Old Testament laws wasn't declared wrong by Christ but was instead fulfilled by him. Therefore anyone saved by Christ is not held by those laws.  The New Testament explicitly teaches that the old law has been abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that no longer is in effect. Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the cross forever (Matthew 5:17-18; Colossians 2:13-17).

As a further note into this subject you can look here if you're interested. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?categor...

If you would prefer a more direct answer without links then I'm sorry but I'm in the middle of tests and papers.
RageBanken
6 years, 1 month ago
At which point it is no longer morality.  The minute a person uses reason and logic to arrive at this it becomes an ethic.  

This is part of the reason that ethics is considered "moral philosophy", it's actually reasoned and argued instead of just accepted because some yahoo says so.  Morals have no requirement to be reasoned or considered, just  an expectation of acceptance.
atemaru99
6 years, 1 month ago
I think what most mean by that, is that there is a difference between a real christian, and a sunday christian.  A real christian is a person who follows the bible 24/7, someone who puts all of his/her faith in Jesus Christ.  A Sunday christian's belief only goes as far as the time they are in church.  Meaning once church lets out, they go back to the same old habit's without regard to what they've learned from the bible.  Hope that helps.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
No, see, a person who truly follows the bible 24/7 would not be able to exist in modern civilization. It outright commands you to be a murderous, misogynist bigot. There's countless things the bible tells you to kill people over, and no way you could go through life in today's world without encountering any of them.

The people who get labeled as the extremist crazies, people like the "God Hates Fags" Phelps family and other "nutjobs" are the ones who are most closely abiding to the written command of the book. It's the people who are the most ignorant of the Bible, or the most dismissive of the bad parts of it, the "Sunday Christians," who are the ones calling themselves true Christians and dismissing the extremists - the ones coming closest to actually following everything in the bible - as "not really Christian."

That's the issue.
FoxWolfie
6 years, 1 month ago
You seem to be referring to a vastly different Bible than what I have and read.  What you are saying might be true of someone who reads a few chapters, particularly in the Old Testament, and decides to throw the rest out.  Any Bible I've read explains the commands associated with killing people, and also says that they do not work, and it is not the way.  If some group is trying to use the Bible as justification for killing and hatred, then they obviously picked preferred parts out and totally ignored the overall theme and main message.  Yes, lots of religious groups are very guilty of that.

I think people see what they want to see, in anything that they read.  If they hate someone, or a group of people, they will easily find justification for that hatred in nearly everything that they do. The Bible is not immune to people manipulating the words and pulling stuff out of context. When a corrupted church approaches the Bible with a pre-existing agenda, they are going to make it into exactly what they were looking for.  Most organized religion is guilty of this, some to an extreme degree.  The Jonestown Massacre is just one example of selective Bible reading gone bad.  The worst tragedy is that thousands of people didn't bother to question it. I'm suspicious of any religious leader who preaches mainly from specific Bible books, while ignoring the rest.  It's a near 100 percent guarantee that they are taking things out of context to promote their agenda.  Consider the preachers who dwell exclusively on Revelation. They toss away to rest of the Bible, because they're only concerned with the part that fits their agenda.

Read the entire Bible. Look at one one part says about the others and why. Analyze the styles of writing, and what the purpose of those styles are. For example, some books are written mainly in parables, while others were written more in the sense of documentation, or even as poems.  Anyone with better than fifth-grade reading skills can figure things like this out, assuming they actually read, rather than just echoing what other people say all the time.

The Bible is full of things that people can and will manipulate out of context.  The overall theme that is referred to over and over is the teaching of forgiveness and love. An unforgiving and unloving person is certainly not going to propagate that message though.   Instead, they'll do everything they can to bend their focus away from that.  After all, you can't hate gays while preaching that God loves everyone and forgives all who ask for it in his name. If someone hates, then they are forced to either lie, or to simply ignore when the Bible tells them to love.  Generally, they lie and deceive, by selecting verses out of context, to support their hatred.

So what is a true Christian?  A true Christian hates no one.  A true Christian is commanded to love even their enemies.  Do most who call themselves a Christian follow that command?  I'd have to say no.  Will God recognize them as Christians on the day of their judgment?  Probably not.  If someone doesn't look like a Christian, then there is a very good chance that they are not.  If God sees someone with a hateful heart, then he knows right away that they were not following Christ.  It doesn't matter if they are a preacher in the biggest church in the world either.  The name, Christian, means nothing, if it's not backed by love and forgiveness.

There are just as many people doing God's will, who don't call themselves Christian, as those who do.  I even expect a fair amount of gay people to be spending eternity with God, along with some other true Christians, despite what some false Christians say.  I am far from being a perfect Christian, but it really bothers me when people call themselves Christian while twisting what Jesus said are his greatest commands - to love and to forgive.  Why is it so hard for people to love or forgive, but instead, they contemplate revenge and hold hateful prejudiced grudges?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
>Any Bible I've read explains the commands associated with killing people, and also says that they do not work, and it is not the way.

I think you're the one who has read some obscure unknown Bible because that sentiment is nowhere in the Holy Bible.
Chase
6 years, 1 month ago
" vicwuff wrote:
>Any Bible I've read explains the commands associated with killing people, and also says that they do not work, and it is not the way.

I think you're the one who has read some obscure unknown Bible because that sentiment is nowhere in the Holy Bible.


This.
FoxWolfie
6 years, 1 month ago
I actually took the time to not only read it, but also to study it.  Nearly every time someone says it is not about love, they also admit that they've never actually read all of it, and even when they did, very few have actually studied it. Most people, including a surprising number of Christians, don't even know when it was written, which languages it was originally written in, how many books it contains, which scriptures were left out, who decided that, and why.  Yet, they somehow know it enough to claim it is not about love and forgiveness.  Seriously, have you studied it yourself, or are you doing as most people do, and repeating what others say about it?  If you actually studied it, and came to a different conclusion than I have, I can respect that.  I think it would be unlikely for someone who actually studies it to differ too much in their conclusions though. The words say what they do, and it's not even a huge book to get through.  Studying the translations does take some effort though.  When you find something that doesn't quite make sense, have you ever looked up the Greek or Hebrew (in most cases) to figure out what was being said?  You can't just look up a few words either.  You often have to look up every occurrence of the same word in the entire Bible, to learn and understand if there were any variations in use at the time it was written, or variations in translation from one area to another.  It's very easy to slam something that a person has never read, has never studied, and therefore has little understanding of.  Looking up a few hotly controversial verses on google does not qualify as reading or studying the Bible, but that's as far as most people ever take it.  The Bible makes it pretty clear what happens to those with a hateful and unforgiving heart.  I think it is safe to say that it is a lot easier for a kind-hearted gay person, who masturbates over furry cub porn, while listening to heavy metal and smoking a bong, to spend eternity with God, than for a church-going Christian who has a heart full of hate, to do the same.   Most Churches would not approve of this message, as it undermines their ability to hate so badly on people.  My Bible, or the what I've studied to be as close to the original as possible, forbids me to hate on people and demands that I forgive people, even those who hate me. I don't love or forgive people because the Bible tells me to though. I do it because I want to, and because it logically leads to the best results for me, and those around me.
Cougar1823
6 years, 1 month ago
Your argument would be more convincing if you would say which version of the Bible you use, and which passages you're referring to. Otherwise, you're making unsupported assertions.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Well the passages and interpretations don't exist anywhere in any version of the bible so...
Krechevskoy
6 years, 1 month ago
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8bUWw1-8wk

(I'll have to give this a more thorough reading later, but I'm fairly certain we are in agreement)
Shokuji
6 years, 1 month ago
" I've linked this before, but linking it again because this is how I have determined my own morality since I realized religion was bullshit in grade school, and he explains it better than I ever could. http://youtu.be/dWNW-NXEudk
I'm glad I shared that link with you. =) I really hope everyone watches it. Good luck with this journal, WB. I'd say I'd help out but I know you don't need it. =p But I'll probably reply anyways if I can.

Edit: Haha, when I checked there was only Hammytoy and you talking. Then bam! 22 comments. X3
Shokuji
6 years, 1 month ago
Actually I need to correct myself as apparently Krech was the one who shared it with you and myself first. Ah well, just glad it's being spread around. =)
EricAdler
6 years, 1 month ago
The definition you want is impossible, the category is too broad.

A Roman Catholic is a Christian.
An Eastern Orthodox is a Christian.
A Baptist is a Christian.
A Mormon is a Christian.
A Methodist is a Christian.
A member of Jews for Jesus is a Christian.
Jack Trick (of Trick Tracks infamy) is a Christian.

I think the following link to TV Tropes may help you understand what I think you're looking for:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoTrueScotsman
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
For what it's worth, I think you've won the discussion.
Krechevskoy
6 years, 1 month ago
This is highly related, right around 5 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN3-3oNmOMo
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
I should have specified, it was sort of a rhetorical question. >_<

I don't really want people to give me an answer, I wanted them to ask themselves the question and see how silly it is to define such a thing as people almost always do.

I offered the "the more you follow the bible, the more Christian you are" option just because that's the closest thing I can see to anything approaching a reasonable measuring stick for the subject. But yeah, the fact that nobody within the whole realm of "Christianity" can dismiss or disregard other Christians as not really being Christian, was the point.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
*headdesk*  That woulda helped frame this! XD
kenji321
6 years, 1 month ago
Okay I skipped the read to just answer your question in the first few lines.
Jesus is the example you go by.
No one else.
That's the only "True Christian"

Everyone else falls shorts.
Yadidi Yada.
Done.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
But Jesus was a jew, if you were to follow his path you'd have to be a jew too.
CursedFerret
6 years, 1 month ago
Only problem in that is the Jewish faith does not believe Jesus is the Son of God and is where Christianity is formed.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Are we talking about the branch that believes he was the "son of god" or the ones that believe that he was both that and god himself? I get confused by that.

Judaism believes that there is a messiah but not specifically that Jesus was him.
Chase
6 years, 1 month ago
Jesus is both the son of God and God, as well as the Holy Spirit. They are all God.
kenji321
6 years, 1 month ago
I would give you a better answer but I know better than to have faith in good discussion via text on the interwebz.
Yaoifairy
6 years, 1 month ago
Agreed :) Also tl;dr sorta deal too >_>;;
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Yeah, that question was actually rhetorical, and not the actual point of the journal. All the rest of those words had a purpose for being there. X3

The point being, it's ridiculous for anybody calling themselves Christian to say who is or isn't "really" a Christian.

You say to follow Jesus, that's it, end of story. Jesus didn't denounce slavery, and actually told slaves to fear and respect their masters and follow and honor them as they would follow and honor Christ. There's no shortage of really heinous stuff Jesus told people to do. It wasn't all love and brotherhood.

So if there's a passage of the Bible that has Jesus telling you to do something that would be considered evil or wrong to modern society, if you're really a real Christian, you have to do it anyway, is that right?
kenji321
6 years, 1 month ago
(last sentence section answer.)
"Follow/obey the laws of the land." (that meaning I follow what the law of my land saids which is also what Jesus saids.)
He gives exceptions to the above as well, but that's as far as I'm going with this lol.
This is a, "Been there, done that" discussion for me. (as in your last two paragraphs)

I got Bible scriptures shoved down my throat.
We could debate on this heavily if I knew ya in the real.
No point here though lol.
kenji321
6 years, 1 month ago
Slavery response.
Colossians 4:1 – Masters, give unto your slaves that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Your problem with your argument is that American slavery did not do this at all.
Thus Jesus would not approve of what has happened to African American slaves, or any slaves not treated in such a way.
(time for me to hit some ZZZZZZZZZZs)
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Seems a little off color that Jesus was okay with slavery AT ALL much less that being in the bible being used as a justification for the practice.
RageBanken
6 years, 1 month ago
We are all supposed to be gods property.  That makes us all slaves in the first place, so why would Jesus be against slavery?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
I'm not saying that he would be. The bible is full to be brim with internal inconsistencies and flat out contradictions and the whole slavery thing isn't even one of them; it's just a prime example as to why religious dogma is stupid and incompatible with a functioning and evolving society.
kenji321
6 years, 1 month ago
Tell that to others who care lol.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Don't do this. Ever. It's instant fail.

If you don't care, don't even open your mouth and join in a discussion. If you want to speak your opinion, you DO care, and using this particular means of removing yourself from the debate is childish and ridiculous.

If you participate until you simply no longer feel like continuing, then just stop responding. There's very few ways to make yourself appear as immediately foolish and juvenile than to try and leave an argument by acting like you're above the whole thing and never really gave a shit. If it was actually true, then you were just a troll from the start.

I'll never get how so many people think this method of dropping out of discussion makes you look like you came out on top somehow. :/
kenji321
6 years, 1 month ago
You assume too much.
I don't care that the Bible promotes slavery and condemns it like the comments said dude.
So I said to tell it to someone that does.

Also I was only answering your question.
I wasn't gonna let any other random anon just jump in and pull me into a debate.
Besides the debate wasn't even continued.
Among us.
You simply didn't respond like you said.

Also I don't think it's an, I'm on top tactic.
Who gives a shit on who's on top.
It's simply a exchange of text that won't amount too much.
I just felt obligated to give my answer to the question you pose to me without having others simply jump in.
If you don't like that Blade then it's your problem not mines.
Sheesh dude.

Remember I was in a discussion with you.
Not with some anon.
So it wouldn't matter if I did drop off his question cause again I was only in a discussion with you.
AbelNezumi
6 years, 1 month ago
So, in a simple answer, do you think being a Christian makes you a bad person?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
It prevents you from being a better person.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
See, now I gotta go against my post.  But I don't think that's a fair assessment.  If only because there's always outliers in any group.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
So lets say that a person is a complete paragon of social and moral excellence and is a x-ian, they would directly be a better person if they didn't tie themselves to the supernatural bullshit of the religion because they would not be holding in their worldview something that isn't based in reality.

And if they already do all that above, then in what way are they a x-ian?
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
No, that's completely wrong, and you're honestly abhorrent for thinking it.
A person is not less of a person or less moral because they believe in Christ or a God? What's wrong with you?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Are you illiterate?
"So lets say that a person is a complete paragon of social and moral excellence"
The only thing that would change is whether or not that live in reality where supernatural shit doesn't color their perception of things and that is necessarily a positive change.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Mrf. Are you an idiot or a troll? Please let me know cause I have had enough bullshit today.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Please don't be so quick to personal hostility.

There is a difference between attacking a person's belief, and attacking the person. Also a difference between attacking and simply arguing.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
v-v; Apologies but really he is being needlessly hostile.

These people attack any and all religion, regardless of belief with no reason for doing so. Just to feel better about themselves.
And if you read his comments so far, you'll note that he has been attacking people.

And yes, it is already on a personal level from his half, attacking anyone who has any inkling of belief in something more regardless. He is literally saying everyone who believes in a God, Or gods, is scum.

That's arrogant, pigheaded, and insulting.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
You responded to my post without reading it apparently, I questioned your ability to do so. My mistake, I should have assumed that you were trolling and not incapable of giving a proper response.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
I haven't read all the comments yet but I have not seen him use the word 'scum' or anything close to it.

What I saw him say was that if a person was an absolute paragon of human perfection, but they believed in god or any other mythical/supernatural phenomenon, then this person would be a better person if they only believed in what there was evidence for them to believe.

That's not saying A is scum and B is gold. That's saying that if your golden pillar has even the slightest faintest smudge on it, cleaning that smudge will be an improvement.

His belief as I read what he has stated, seeming to be one I share, is that a person who bases their ideas, beliefs, values, and principles, on what is observable and can be tested and proven to be true, is of more value or virtue than a person who can form beliefs, values, ideas, and principles which have no evidence to suggest them or have evidence to clearly contradict them.

If that feels like an attack, it is because that is the core issue between atheism and religion. Religion cannot exist without the acceptance that an idea formed with no basis, with no proof, and with no evidence, must be respected and regarded as worthwhile, even if there is evidence directly disproving the idea. While some of religion's ideas cannot ever be disproven, the issue then becomes that any one idea which is impossible to disprove holds exactly as much validity and merit as ANY other idea which is impossible to disprove.

If I say I have a magical invisible sky friend who has the power to alter reality - no, who is the >creator< of reality, and has designed reality such that you can never ever see or find any solid evidence of his existence, well, that is essentially the idea of Christianity's God. But if I say my invisible sky friend is a purple dragon, the only difference - the ONLY difference - is that my version has not been repeated by many other people for years before me. But if my purple dragon sky friend catches on, and more people decide my sky friend would be cooler to believe in, fast forward a few thousand years and boom, it's a religion, and somehow deserving of respect and acknowledgement.

Nevermind the thousands of years, how old is Mormonism? Or Scientology? How >fucknuts crazy< are some of the bits of their stories even to Christians, and yet after such a short time, just because a number of people have decided "hey, that sounds right to me," we're supposed to have respect for these different beliefs and ideologies?

But, again, the most inconceivably farfetched notions of those newer religions are just as impossible to disprove, and therefore exactly as possible to be true, as the tenets of Christianity.

What is the value of truth or reality if anything CAN be true if you believe it to be?
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
" Wolfblade wrote:
I haven't read all the comments yet but I have not seen him use the word 'scum' or anything close to it.


I'm not sure how you missed what he's been saying, maybe because you agree with him on it because you've been slighted or otherwise? Willful blindness maybe?

" Wolfblade wrote:
What I saw him say was that if a person was an absolute paragon of human perfection, but they believed in god or any other mythical/supernatural phenomenon, then this person would be a better person if they only believed in what there was evidence for them to believe.

That's not saying A is scum and B is gold. That's saying that if your golden pillar has even the slightest faintest smudge on it, cleaning that smudge will be an improvement.


Which implies that having ANY belief at all otherwise is errant. And that you are right and know the inner machinations of the universe (Arrogance in the highest). Further, Science is perfect, yes. But we are not yet conscious of the full universe yet.

" Wolfblade wrote:
His belief as I read what he has stated, seeming to be one I share, is that a person who bases their ideas, beliefs, values, and principles, on what is observable and can be tested and proven to be true, is of more value or virtue than a person who can form beliefs, values, ideas, and principles which have no evidence to suggest them or have evidence to clearly contradict them.

Once again LITERALLY SAYING that people who believe in a god or gods are Worth less than another person because they have faith in something.

" Wolfblade wrote:
If that feels like an attack, it is because that is the core issue between atheism and religion.


It feels like an attack because it IS an attack, you are literally belittling people by saying it.

" Wolfblade wrote:
Religion cannot exist without the acceptance that an idea formed with no basis, with no proof, and with no evidence, must be respected and regarded as worthwhile, even if there is evidence directly disproving the idea. While some of religion's ideas cannot ever be disproven, the issue then becomes that any one idea which is impossible to disprove holds exactly as much validity and merit as ANY other idea which is impossible to disprove.

Now you're being intentionally redundant in an attempt to confuse v-v;
Laconically I assume you mean that we should regard faith as immediate truth above science in all instances? Or discard it completely as alternative right?

" Wolfblade wrote:
If I say I have a magical invisible sky friend who has the power to alter reality - no, who is the >creator< of reality, and has designed reality such that you can never ever see or find any solid evidence of his existence, well, that is essentially the idea of Christianity's God. But if I say my invisible sky friend is a purple dragon, the only difference - the ONLY difference - is that my version has not been repeated by many other people for years before me. But if my purple dragon sky friend catches on, and more people decide my sky friend would be cooler to believe in, fast forward a few thousand years and boom, it's a religion, and somehow deserving of respect and acknowledgement.

Nevermind the thousands of years, how old is Mormonism? Or Scientology? How >fucknuts crazy< are some of the bits of their stories even to Christians, and yet after such a short time, just because a number of people have decided "hey, that sounds right to me," we're supposed to have respect for these different beliefs and ideologies?

But, again, the most inconceivably farfetched notions of those newer religions are just as impossible to disprove, and therefore exactly as possible to be true, as the tenets of Christianity.

What is the value of truth or reality if anything CAN be true if you believe it to be?

This has nothing to do with my core argument and I'm not debating this. I'm not saying you're wrong at all in this respect.
I'm just saying you're being insulting, and ridiculous by discarding these people and belittling them
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
-_-

If someone comes to you, and says "I believe that 2 + 2 can sometimes be 8," is it possible to try and argue with this person without seeming to be condescending or belittling them? The simple fact is that they are wrong. But they believe it. So you're supposed to respect that belief?

You cannot respect a person's belief if you feel it to be ludicrous and ridiculous. That's not the same as disrespecting the person. Look at Yamato and myself. We clearly disagree on this, but we're friends, and we're not disrespecting each other. If either of us comes to feel disrespected, it would be because we simply cannot respect the stance of the other on this subject. That lack of respect for the belief/opinion/stance, will naturally be taken as some degree of lack of respect for the person holding it. That doesn't mean that I am trying or wanting to belittle or disrespect him. I simply cannot, and will not, acknowledge a belief I believe to be patently untrue.

" SnowTaradien wrote:

Which implies that having ANY belief at all otherwise is errant. And that you are right and know the inner machinations of the universe (Arrogance in the highest). Further, Science is perfect, yes. But we are not yet conscious of the full universe yet.


Actually, yes, that is the point. If you believe something which there is no evidence to suggest or base the belief on, that IS, or at least SHOULD BE, seen as an error. If someone tells me they have a purple dragon, and I believe that without requiring any kind of evidence, then that IS errant on my part. You have to understand how it is so.

The reason this line of logic, and comparing your beliefs to such ridiculous and childish fantasies, comes across as belittling or insulting to you is that there simply is no way to show you acknowledgement that wouldn't belittle or insult you without conceding credibility to ideas that are to us exactly as implausible and fantastical as the fairies and unicorns and purple dragons that you yourself would dismiss as laughably impossible.

" Once again LITERALLY SAYING that people who believe in a god or gods are Worth less than another person because they have faith in something.


There is a difference between saying "person A has more merit or value than person B" and saying "Person A is worth more than person B."

If someone were to tell you that a skilled, competent, compassionate and brilliant doctor is of more value or merit or desirability than an illiterate, mentally-handicapped homeless person, would you argue that statement? Would you say that a group of people wanting to establish a thriving town should hold both these persons as equal in consideration to bring with them? Would you say that the person making the statement has just disregarded ALL worth or value of the homeless person?

If I have to choose between a person who will form ideas, theories, beliefs, and judgments based on what can be seen and tested and proven to be true, or a person who can truly and unwaveringly believe things based on - whatever, books, his gut feeling, the voices in his head, anything BUT observable reality - I am going to prefer to be around the person basing his views on what IS there.

" It feels like an attack because it IS an attack, you are literally belittling people by saying it.


I believe people are belittling themselves, and getting upset when it's pointed out to them.

" I'm just saying you're being insulting, and ridiculous by discarding these people and belittling them


If it is insulting to you to tell you my beliefs which differ from yours, then it is not possible to hold discussion with you without being insulting.

It is insulting to you for me to tell you I believe that your beliefs are wrong. It is not insulting to me for you to tell me that you believe my lack of beliefs are wrong. Right here, this is one of the many ways that belief in itself is an obstruction to discourse and understanding.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
You know I wonder why I even bother commenting on this journal anymore, it was flamebaiting/trollbaiting from the get go.

Okay. So first thing first, you are obfuscating the point of the argument to prove that I'm somehow wrong/the villain in all this? That's really low.

Second thing,
" wolfblade wrote:
Actually, yes, that is the point. If you believe something which there is no evidence to suggest or base the belief on, that IS, or at least SHOULD BE, seen as an error. If someone tells me they have a purple dragon, and I believe that without requiring any kind of evidence, then that IS errant on my part. You have to understand how it is so.

The reason this line of logic, and comparing your beliefs to such ridiculous and childish fantasies, comes across as belittling or insulting to you is that there simply is no way to show you acknowledgement that wouldn't belittle or insult you without conceding credibility to ideas that are to us exactly as implausible and fantastical as the fairies and unicorns and purple dragons that you yourself would dismiss as laughably impossible.


This, (further obfuscation of the argument into a point I never even made, drawing at straws here) "argument" that you are presenting to me here is incorrect.

People can believe, whatever the fuck they want to believe. Say I do believe in Purple Dragon Unicorn Clusterfuck B, lets just for a moment say I do. If I want to believe in that, that is my Prerogative. It doesn't make it any more or less true than it is, truth is a constant, Binary. It is always right. A belief is not binary it can be out of left field and completely wrong.

It doesn't make me less of a person.

Third,
" wolfblade wrote:
There is a difference between saying "person A has more merit or value than person B" and saying "Person A is worth more than person B."

Actually no, there isn't.
Merit and Worth are equal to a close enough value that it would be valid to say they were the Same.

Merit, "A desirable trait or ability belonging to a person or (sometimes) an object."
Worth, "The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable"
Source: The fucking Dictionary

" wolfblade wrote:
If someone were to tell you that a skilled, competent, compassionate and brilliant doctor is of more value or merit or desirability than an illiterate, mentally-handicapped homeless person, would you argue that statement?

And now you have, subconsciously or otherwise, compared all people who have faith in an afterlife or otherwise to mentally deficient homeless people. Great job Wolfblade.

That aside, who is to say Said Handicapped homeless person is not a good worker? You said mentally handicapped correct? Autism is a Mental Handicap, Bipolar Disorder is a Mental Handicap. Who knows, he could be an extremely talented individual unable to get a job due to the way he treats people? He's quite possibly still JUST AS USEFUL, he still has just the same amount of merit and worth.

I've seen mentally deficient, Downs Syndrome and otherwise become extremely talented trades workers, making this so called Argument Moot. The fact that you would even make this comparison in the first place is appalling.

" wolfblade wrote:
If it is insulting to you to tell you my beliefs which differ from yours, then it is not possible to hold discussion with you without being insulting.

It isn't, that's not at all what's insulting, its the tone of superiority in your writing, and constant put downs of those who believe anything other than what you do.

" wolfblade wrote:
It is insulting to you for me to tell you I believe that your beliefs are wrong. It is not insulting to me for you to tell me that you believe my lack of beliefs are wrong.

Did I ever once say your lack of belief was the issue? No. I didn't.
Read my posts again, you will not find me saying that once.

" wolfblade wrote:
Right here, this is one of the many ways that belief in itself is an obstruction to discourse and understanding.

Yes, it is. Self blind faith.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
I will challenge that with what I say to everyone who puts that accusation forward: disprove God.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
I don't have to disprove anything, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. You have to prove god.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
We are not in a court of law.  You are not right because I cannot prove my argument, it just means you are not wrong.

God cannot either be proven or disproven.  Any attempt to do so is an exercise in futility for philosophers.  And no reputable scientist would waste his time on the issue.

Metaphysics are best left to the individual, and as long as it doesn't disagree with the physical world, what does it matter what an individual believes?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
We don't go around supposing the existence of absolutely everything that we can't actively disprove, asserting otherwise is stupid and simply shows that you have no idea how we have come to know anything at all about the world around us.

If you truly desire to be blissfully ignorant of the world, that is fine, keep it to your goddamn self and let the adults discuss realty while you spin around in a swivel chair shouting "you can't know that for sure" while we all ignore you.

>what does it matter what an individual believes
It matters when a mother refuses to take her child to the hospital because she believes in "faith healing"
It matters when children are kept ignorant of scientific progress because the facts disagree with the beliefs of their parents or teachers
It matters when children are mutilated at birth because of the beliefs of their parents
It matters when people are murdered because that individual believes that his God told him to

If you go around saying that "beliefs don't matter" you're being disingenuous and giving permission to sociopaths who carry out these things in the name of their beliefs.

So yeah, it does matter and the burden of proof if on you to prove that your supernatural bullshit exists and until you do, keep it locked up in your damaged brain where it belongs.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
You're disqualifying my "if it doesn't disagree with the physical world" bit.  That isn't fair.  I'm not talking about parents who want to "pray their kid better".  Seriously, do you not get there are people with religious beliefs or faith that live by the rules of the real world, fully accepting them, but believe there's more to it?  It's not just "BLIND CHRISTIAN FAITH" versus atheist views, there's middle ground.

Frankly, you're coming off as either a blind hater or a troll.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
>do you not get there are people with religious beliefs or faith that live by the rules of the real world, fully accepting them, but believe there's more to it

And how do you not understand that they would be better people and be able to contribute more to society if they discarded the notion of supernatural stuff?

>there's middle ground.

Not in any way that matters in the context of this journal topic. A moderate in this context is a person who stands next to a mass murdering Christian zealot and says "he's not ENTIRELY insane about what he believes" and grants him legitimacy in doing so.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
The problem with "if it doesn't disagree with the physical world," as we'd discussed before, is that it is not a factor for any but an insignificant minority of religious people like yourself - there are so very few people who hold religious beliefs that they will let go of at the first sign of proof that they are wrong compared to the number of people for whom the whole POINT of their religious beliefs is to believe in them regardless of whether there is evidence for or against at all. It's a non-argument.

It's like saying "Okay, well, 1 in a million people can contract hiv and it will never develop into aids, so why do you feel the need to rid the entire world of hiv rather than letting those 1 in a million people keep it?" It serves no valid purpose or benefit to those exceptionally rare cases - unless they've been indoctrinated to believe their life would be somehow less without it - and if they ever pass it to someone else, the odds of it being benign in that next person are next to zero.

For the unarguable and extreme majority of people, contracting hiv is a bad thing, and curing people of it only harms those who have been taught to believe - without any evidence for this belief besides this indoctrination - that they will have lost something important if they're cured of this thing.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Ah!  I think you used a good word there!  Indoctrination.  Which is really something we really need to get rid of.  A lot of the problem comes down to the immutability of a person's faith.  They're so locked in to this idea that they cannot act in a different way than they were born or they'll burn forever, and it ultimately ends up as brainwashing.

I think what really needs to be broken is the idea that beliefs have to be rigid and unchanging, as they are for most people.  That's part of why what and how I believe in what I believe in works: because I'm not locked into "I have to do this or I'll go to HELL!"  So, I think I kind of understand your point now.  Views like mine can work for people like me because they're not carved in stone, but for people who have beliefs carved in stone, having beliefs that don't disagree with the physical world still doesn't work, because if their belief is disproven, they'll stay with the belief instead of adapting the new knowledge into their belief structure.

Did I kind of get the idea that you were trying to get across?
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
X_x

Almost... ^_^;;

The point of indoctrination is that you yourself have been indoctrinated into believing in a god and an afterlife. To whatever limitations your spiritual/religious beliefs may be confined to, those beliefs are a result of indoctrination. You will hold to them until someone disproves them. Being impossible to disprove, you can comfort yourself in their validity.

But what if you were born to a family that taught you to believe in the impossible-to-disprove flying spaghetti monster? As ridiculous as it may seem to suggest that you personally could believe in such a thing, it is no less ridiculous to us to believe in this omnipotent all-knowing all-powerful benevolent being.

The usual thing is to see the religion defender declaring the atheist as just as unwavering as they are. Just as indoctrinated in their belief.

But that's not the case. A faith-believer believes based on nothing. An evidence-believer believes based on evidence. A faith-believer is unwavering because nothing can contradict their belief because it is constructed to be impervious to all evidence. An evidence-believer is unwavering only because the faith-believer cannot provide any evidence. Should evidence against the evidence-believer's stance be presented, they would alter their stance. The faith-believer's stance will not falter by evidence.

Again, YOUR personal beliefs are as benign as they get. But clearly you cannot see faith-belief in general come under fire without feeling the need to defend it, to defend yourself. This is a way in which even your most exceptionally rare and uncommon benign faith-based belief does you harm and inhibits you in a way that would not be a factor had you not been indoctrinated with these beliefs and the irrational >need< to validate them.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Indoctrinated by whom?  Myself?  I'm the one who chose what I believe, my parents never really led my beliefs and we were never church-goers.  I believe what I choose to believe.  It just also happens that I'm tired of the assertion that people with faith can be criticized while atheists are "untouchable".  And mind you, this is how I FEEL on this topic, it's not necessarily true.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
I can easily understand why that assertion would be tiring.

But it comes back to that "prove it" thing.

Believers are criticized because they make claims they cannot provide evidence for, and expect their claims to be held as valid and equal to claims made based on evidence. Non-believers are "untouchable" because they aren't making any claims except what they can prove and validate. They're simply unwilling to acknowledge the validity of a claim that has no reason to be considered valid.

That's at the discussion's most neutral, though.

Take it a step further, into practical application in the world today, and believers are criticized because they are trying to use their baseless claims as justification to adversely affect the lives of others, to the complete disregard for evidence or facts of how or why their goals are not acceptable, while non-believers are 'untouchable' because their stance is simply "we can show how what you want is bad and wrong, you must show us how it is good and right to get our cooperation" and believers cannot show their goals to be good and right because they are not.

The neutral believers, TRULY neutral like yourself, again, are an extreme minority. The majority are people in the middle, muddled by their beliefs conflicting with their sense, confused between society's morals and doctrine's teachings, unsure of where to plant their flag along that spectrum. The vocal extremist problem believers are a minority, but the fact of their belief is WHY they are so incredibly driven to such extremes as to carry monumentally greater weight and influence than their numbers should grant them.

And every time people try to oppose THOSE people, you and other mostly-harmless or fully neutral believers jump into the crossfire, upset, offended, or just trying to defend something important to you personally, without meaning to defend the truly harmful.

But that's what it amounts to. At worst, you just get lumped in with the extremists and hated and disregarded as being the same as them, and what good does that do. At best, from your perspective, if you manage to accomplish anything, it is to take the wind out of our sails. To make those opposing the harmful believers feel guilty, or hesitate, or question what they're doing, and when that happens, it is all to the advantage of those using belief to do evil and harm.

It's an army going after an evil dictator regime, and having a flock of civilians with kittens and babies jump in the middle. We're not after you, we're not trying to stop you from doing what you're doing, we're trying to stop bad people from doing bad, and when we try to explain to you how what you're doing helps them, it makes you sad and hurt, and that makes us less driven to just plow through you to accomplish the goal that NEEDS to be accomplished.

If you see someone attacking religion, they are attacking the >evils< of religion.

If you see them attacking the basic core of faith based belief in general, they are only doing so because that is the foundation that the evils of religion are built upon.

Just Stay Out Of It, and if you're truly just practicing personal belief and not trying to enforce your views on anyone else or use your beliefs to dictate someone else's life, nobody is going to come after >you.< And once there aren't so many people using religion as a weapon and a tool to control others, then maybe people can have a more open dialogue about spiritual ideas and possibilities.

I'm really sleepy, and my brain is telling me I'm missing a counter-argument to this post, so I may well do some backpedalling tomorrow, I'm too groggy to fully check my reasoning here for holes, but basically, I hope you get the point.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Aw dude, no. >_<

Y U DO DIS. ;_;

Disprove the flying spaghetti monster. Disprove the magical dragon in my garage that is invisible, can phase-shift to be immaterial, emits no detectable signs of any kind, and only speaks telepathically to me and a select few around the world. Disprove Scientology. Disprove Mormonism. Disprove karmic rebirth.

Disprove Atheism.

Burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. "There is no god" is not a claim. "There is a god" is a claim. Stating that there is a floating orb in the sky is a claim that requires some evidence or proof. Countering the claim with "I see no orb in the sky, a plane passed through where you said the orb was, nothing and nobody can see, feel, sense, or detect this orb in any way, so I say there is no orb" is not making a claim, it is dismissing a claim made baselessly.

In this scenario, the person claiming the existence of this orb counters with "prove that my orb isn't there" and considers that to be argument won in their favor.

Please tell me you see how "disprove God" is not ever seen as anything less than ridiculous by anyone who doesn't simply take it on faith that he's there. >_<
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
He annoyed me!  It was a dumb thing to say, I'll concede that.  But he's being a little intolerant tool!

...and the worst part is I really should have known better. ^.^;;;
Catwheezle
6 years, 1 month ago
I don't feel you were bad to make the "Disprove God" argument. It needs to be said.

It is usually, and very wrongly, rebutted with the assertion that negative claims cannot be proven. This is intellectually lazy and dishonest. "There is no God" is just as much a positive claim, as is "There is a God".

Neither are true representations of anyone's knowledge, anyway.

So I prefer the more fact-based :
"The Christian God as described in the bible is logically impossible in multiple ways, so simply cannot exist in a way that fits all contradictory definitions contained in that book."
"There is no known possibility of a being existing with a truly infinite capacity for any trait (omniscience, omnipresence, etc). The odds of such a capacity even being possible are negligible enough to be considered zero."
"There is currently no evidence of intent or intelligence or design anywhere in the universe outside of earth, except the stuff we put out there ourselves. There are some counterclaims here, however (cosmological constant being so close to 1, but not; uneven chirality; similarity of moon/sun visible sizes; various numerological tricks; etc. The anthropic principle is a morass where arguments go to die)."
"There is currently no evidence of stuff being designed at any point in history prior to mankind. However, some other animals have shown an ability to design, so it may not be unique to us."
"Despite repeated attempts in the last few decades, there is currently no evidence of creatures being designed by any species other than mankind (ID proponents' claims have thus far all been refuted with examples)."
"Despite repeated attempts through the ages, there remains no reliably reproducible experiment that demonstrates the efficacy of prayer (though there's a whole fascinating field of of research on how even double-blind experiments can represent the beliefs of the testers)."
"Despite a whole bunch of people really needing it an awful lot, and tons of stories about it happening, divine intervention - or indeed any evidence of a higher power that is not entirely indifferent to humanity - remains the domain of folk tale."

These are statements that I'm happy to stand by, as matters of well-documented fact. "There is no god" is, on the other hand, a positively stated opinion, not a fact.

I feel the above facts demonstrate that the probability of anything that we would recognize as a deity existing are so slim as to be effectively zero, and thus irrelevant to everyday life; to live one's life as if deities do exist, while at the same time accepting all the above, would seem to require some level of cognitive dissonance to which I cannot personally relate.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Regardless, I did it in such an immature and confrontational way as to negate the entire sentiment behind it.
Catwheezle
6 years, 1 month ago
I didn't read it as immature and confrontational :)

Consider appending "...so there, nyah nyah nyah!" to future posts :P
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Seriously, if you want to put me in the corner for saying that, I'll accept it.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
*puts you in the corner* XP

And he's really not being that bad. (EDIT: okay, I hadn't read the comments farther down, yeah, you're all getting kinda in each others' faces X3 ) If someone comes to you and says something so incomprehensibly stupid and missing what you feel to be a painfully obvious fact of reality - like saying the sky is green - how much patience and tact and respect will you hold for that person? What if there's a cult of people all over the world insisting that the sky is green and demanding you to PROVE to them that it isn't? At some point, you would react to any of these people as atheists tend to usually react to people trying to proclaim worth or virtue in faith-based belief.

And honestly dude, doing the disprove god thing, that's like, ugh, I dunno. XD

It's like getting into a debate, then just throwing out tl;dr or 'eh, I don't really care anyways' or some other way of giving up while trying to act like you won.

If someone's treating you dismissively, like you're just a __________, and your response is to do precisely what a ___________ would do, how does that accomplish anything but make their judgment of you appear validated? X_X
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
To be fair, the Japanese don't really differentiate between blue and green, they're kind of treated as one general color... XD

But I could have approached him differently I suppose.  He just kind of came off as the type of strawman atheist who seems to think it's his job to convince everyone to abandon faith entirely because.  Which might not be fair, but I interpret things how I interpret them with my brain, which happens to have shoddy wiring.

However, sometimes it feels like I get labeled as "just another religious person" (or a fundamentalist, according to this guy!) for trying to defend a position of "faith combined with intelligence and reason".  It's really feeling more and more like discussing these topics in a respectful manner is just impossible, because I'm just going to be cast as the "religious idiot", and that's probably why I went at him with the gloves off straight out of the starting line.

I'm willing to give anyone enough respect to say "I don't think you're right, but I don't have the wherewithall to prove you wrong, and there's no reason we can't get along despite this", but sometimes people say the right thing that gets me started off tweaked, and insinuating that NO person of Christian faith, true or otherwise, can be a good person did not sit well with me.

Why?  Because my first astronomy teacher was a woman of science and faith.  She believed that the two did not have to be exclusive, that science could explain faith, and she didn't deny an ounce of science despite belonging to an organized sect of Christianity.  And she is a good woman, I've seen this.  I don't know if she's ever blinded by faith, but it never came up as part of the class itself.  The only reason I know she is religious is getting to know her outside of class, and because she said one time in class that she has faith to explain to the class that one does not have to pick just science or religion when observing the cosmos.

And...well, I got too defensive.  I saw her and other people like her derided by a person who seems to write off anyone with faith as an idiot who'd let their kids die of a treatable disease, and I snapped.  And I shouldn't have.  And I should try harder.  But what is, is.  I can't change my actions, and I'm not sure I want to change some of them.  All I know is that not all people with faith are bad.  Sometimes misguided, but not bad.
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
Define, in detail, the exact god that you want me to disprove.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
The "God of Not-Being-Allowed-To-Delete-Replies-In-Other-People's-Journals".  Which would hopefully let me delete comments I've made here. >.<
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
>;3 Just showing my willingness to make reasonable discussion with people whose points I disagree with so strongly that I cannot respect them, while also pointing out that god is too ill-defined a term to be proven or disproven without prior exact specification of the term I'm supposed to disprove.
AbelNezumi
6 years, 1 month ago
Believing in something doesn't make a person morally wrong. Would you refuse CPR from someone because they were wearing a yarmulke? Would you not let your child be rescued from a fire by someone wearing a cross?

It's the actions, not the belief, that makes the person.
IrritatedCharizard
6 years, 1 month ago
*submits ticket for faving/likeing comments feature*
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
"So lets say that a person is a complete paragon of social and moral excellence..."

the only change would be them not believing in supernatural bullshit; or to put it in your scenario, the difference would be the person actually giving CPR instead of praying over the dying person because their religion says that would save them.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Correction, you're one of those filthy "super atheists" who are just as bad as the Extremist Christians.
I was right, you are abhorrent.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
I'm abhorrent because I don't put up with religious zealots who actively seek to poison the well of knowledge and discovery? So be it then, I'll be abhorrent to you if it means that your ignorance is shown for what it is.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
No, you are being a Zealot yourself, grow up. Please.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Here here!  I'm getting tired of the atheists that think that they're not intolerant bigots because they're denouncing religion as a whole.  Religious intolerance is different from decrying religious beliefs that hurt people.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
I should tolerate intolerance? It's pretty funny to me how hypocritical and glass-jaw'd you religious folks are.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
To be fair, other than disagree with you, I have no CHOICE but to tolerate you in this forum of discussion.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
You could have a discussion like an adult but whatever, I don't expect that from religious people anymore.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
You're acting no more like an adult than I am.  The difference is I am willing to concede that people with views other than my own are right, presuming they're not insulting all people with faith like they're parroting Brian on Family Guy.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
>I am willing to concede that people with views other than my own are right
You're willing to concede that someone like Ted Bundy had a point in his philosophy of raping, murdering, and eating young men?
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Again, thank you for putting words in my mouth.  I wouldn't be able to fit with your preconceptions of me if you weren't telling me what I'm saying.

Also, that was a typo.  I meant "may be right", not "are"
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
My point and question still stand.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
If all you give others is intolerance first, then why should they tolerate you?  My point is, if you won't even offer the person you're speaking to the basic respect that you're speaking to a fellow human being who is no better nor worse than you, then why should they have anything to say to you other than insults and denigration?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
You have the wear the banner of the religion that has been raping and murdering for thousands of years, you don't get the wish that past away or ask nicely that it be ignored.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Yes, thank you.
:3
AbelNezumi
6 years, 1 month ago
Find me a person that knows CPR and would rather pray over them, and then tell me that all people of that religion are as bad as them. Then we'll have found the true moral downfall in the person that makes that assumption.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
This.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
every death linked to faith healing ever.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Because EVERY Christian chooses faith healing over practical.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Are the ones that do not real Christians?
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Is defending the exceptionally rare and benign faith-based belief worth the inescapable side-effect of also allowing the harmful faith-based beliefs?

That's the problem, dude. You can't act like someone attacking 'belief without/despite evidence' is attacking 'belief without/despite evidence that doesn't hurt anybody.' You can't have the latter without the former. You can't address the former without pointing out the problems with the latter.

You can't stand up and cry against people who let their kids die because they were taught "prayer works" without addressing the core problem: teaching people that they can and should believe things that have no evidence or reason to believe them IS A BAD THING.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Well, you could if people would stop doing it when they're shown that it's NOT healthy.  Not to mention faith-based healing, as an example, is stupid anyway.  There's tons of stuff in the people's own religious teachings about "God helps those who help themselves, etc." that they're fully willing to ignore so they can do faith healing in some sort of attempt to PROVE God exists, which of course defeats the purpose of faith should He exist, and is RETARDED if he's not.

I really feel that the issue comes down to the aforementioned point of flexibility of beliefs.  Belief in a creator/beyond/giant-spagetti monster is not a problem if one accepts the world around them, and can let their views adapt to it.  But as I'm beginning to understand (you have to remember, I have very little exposure to the 'traditional' church sects), these people do not bend AT ALL.  They would sooner die than defy what they've been taught, and that is dangerous as fuck.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
> Belief in a creator/beyond/giant-spagetti monster is not a problem if one accepts the world around them, and can let their views adapt to it.
That's kinda the point. Where do you get to the idea of a creator/beyond/giant-spagetti monster if you're accepting the world around you and adapting your beliefs to it since there's no evidence for the above mentioned supernatural things?
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Of course not.

Being a bad person makes you a bad person. My issue is that far too many people make choices and actions, and hold beliefs, that make them a bad person - but only because this is what they were taught as a part of their religion.

If a person teaches their children wrong, bad, detrimental things that are just that individual's personal issues, we try to correct and educate and repair the damage done to the children.

If these teachings are because of religion, we act as if there's some kind of debate or dilemma around whether or not to fix the damage done. People let their child die of perfectly and easily curable illness because of religious belief in magic water. >AFTER< the fact, of course there is outrage and calls for punishing the parents for letting this happen. But there are also people coming to the defense of the parents' rights to hold to their beliefs even if it meant the preventable death of their child. Yet there are almost no cries to go after the actual cause of the whole mess: allowing people to be taught that holding a belief against all evidence to the contrary is some kind of virtue.

That's the basis of what is wrong with all religion. It is a bad thing for a person to believe that there is merit or virtue in forming a belief without evidence or to hold a belief without evidence supporting it and despite evidence against it.
AbelNezumi
6 years, 1 month ago
I partially agree. If the beliefs are directly detrimental to a person's well-being, well, of course they;re wrong. But that doesn't make EVERY belief of that religion wrong. I mean...

"What do you think about those weird neighbors?"
"They may be different, but I still love and tolerate them."
"Really? Why?"
"See, I was just reading the Bible, and-"
"ARE YOU TRYING TO BE AN IDIOT?!"
"What? No! I just think that God-"
"WANTS ME TO BURN IN HELL?"
"No, man, it's just that Jesus said to-"
"TO BE IGNORANT? HUH?"

But that's rather extreme, as most hypothetical examples are. I hope the point still stands.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
This.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
The problem is that those hypotheticals HAPPEN.  People get so knee-jerk reaction on some things, that they just won't listen to the other side, even if they're trying to be tolerant of the person shoving words down their throat.
AbelNezumi
6 years, 1 month ago
And Christians are often stereotyped for this. Is it justified? Partially. But it's not always one side or the other. And that's why I have a difficult time on the internet a lot - there are so many knee-jerk reactions from people attempting to be sensible.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
So, basically: are you saying we should try to consider what others say, what we say and how best to say it instead of just spitting a reaction out?
AbelNezumi
6 years, 1 month ago
*MISCONSTRUED FAUX-REVOLUTIONARY RESPONSE!*
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Okay, fine, I was trying to boil it down like that.  But it's true.  If we could work on cutting down our reactionary natures to these things (people like myself included), we might be able to open discourse so that we're not just yelling at each other, but actually trying to live and let live.  Which is really the ultimate goal, since we're stuck with each other anyway.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Well this is a chicken and the egg argument.

Which came first, the christian or the atheist?

Is an atheist person's snap response to a religious person out of nowhere? Could their overly hostile reaction possibly be due to a long established history of people using religion as a weapon?

It may ring hollow, but it's kindof a "he hit me first" thing here. Christianity has been beating people over the head for thousands of years. There is no end to the hindrance and backsliding the human race has endured because of religion in general and christianity specifically. The Dark Ages, hello. Right now, the world is going to hell, and people are STILL largely concerned about gay marriage as an issue on the table with all the fucking shit that actually really matters.

It may not be fair for non-believers to be so quick to jump on believers. But it is simply not comparable to the prevalence of believers significantly and extensively using their beliefs to adversely affect people the world over.

The negative impact believers have on nonbelievers is not something that can remotely be reduced to the negative impact nonbelievers can have on believers. Atheists aren't telling people who they can't marry. Atheists aren't passing laws to legalize murdering someone for being gay. Atheists aren't blowing themselves and others up in the service of their non-god.

People attack the believers that cause harm and detriment to others. The harmless believers throw themselves into that line of fire, include themselves in the targeted group, and by doing so, help defend the 'extremists' they say they don't support. The harmful believers cannot exist in any kind of significant prominence without the harmless believers being the shield and buffer between them and the nonbelievers.

I don't think it's unfair to suggest that religious people could at least acknowledge what is done in the name of their religion, and that people who react strongly against religion are not entirely without justification.

There's also the end-all of this debate: The side of non-belief does not ask you to accept anything as true that we cannot point to evidence and proof as being true. But we do ask you to accept things as true if we can point to evidence and proof establishing it to be true. The side of belief asks that we accept things as being true with NO evidence to prove or even suggest it AND asks that we accept your dismissal of anything your belief declares untrue, regardless of any amount of evidence we provide to the contrary.

How can any reasonable co-existence come from that?

And how is that the fault of the side simply wanting to operate on what is observably and veritably true?
AbelNezumi
6 years, 1 month ago
"Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation."
-D. Elton Trueblood

So, here's the thing: Waging an intellectual war and retaliating against pretty much anything, religion included, is still war. Violence with words is still violence. Why cause this? Why speak out against anyone pejoratively is a majority of the individuals aren't affecting the issue?

I don't argue about religion, or politics, or anything like that, not because of shaky beliefs or a lack of education.

I just don't support war. And that's where both arguments are in the wrong; conflict begets conflict.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
That's a nice definition of Faith. If we assume that his definition of trust requires that trust to be earned by experience which serves as evidence to suggest the trust is well-founded, then I have no problem with that notion of faith, and have in fact at many times described that type of 'faith' as what one has in one's family and close friends whom have taught by experience that you can have that kind of faith in them.

However, that is absolutely >not< the definition of Faith that is most valid in discussion of religion. Religious Faith IS belief without proof. In a religious sense, even if we say trust without reservation that god exists, or jesus died for our sins, or whatever, that would still be a definition of "trust" that does not require any foundation of evidence or proof to suggest that such trust is well-founded.

The core problem of religion is that distinction; between whether or not any kind of evidence should be required before taking an assertion as suitable foundation upon which to build ideas, beliefs, trust, faith, actions, principles, etc.

I hold, and will always hold, that while anyone can be wrong, or misinformed, or mistaken, a foundation of evidence will always be a more rational and desirable foundation than an absence of evidence.

There are (at least) two sides to any conflict. When one side >wants< conflict, there is no avoiding it other than to simply do everything you are commanded to do. When you do not, when you stand up, or strike back, when you choose to wage war rather than silently accept whatever an outside force wishes to do to you, that does NOT make YOU the one at fault or blame for the state of war.

Atheism and those suggesting that evidence-based belief is more valid, more worthwhile, more RIGHT than belief based on nothing that can be tested, observed, or proven; this is NOT the side that is making war. Religion is the side that is pushing baseless unfounded beliefs as justification for moral wrong and mistreatment to be done to those who have done no wrong. People opposing religion and the notion of faith-as-a-virtue that is the foundation of all the evil religion is allowed to do, they are defending themselves.

I didn't make this journal to wage war. I did it to bitch about something stupid, as usual. To a person who believes that faith is a virtue; those who only believe what evidence suggests are a sad thing, a person somehow missing out on something wonderful. To a person who believes that any belief should have some actual reason or solid foundation to be based on; those who believe based on nothing are sad and delusional, less capable of reason and understanding due to indoctrinated ideas.

We can get along just fine as two people with mutual respect in most regards, and in most circumstances of interaction. People can have different tastes or opinions and still be friends. But when this specific topic is broken into, it's very hard for civility and respect to be maintained because of the deeply fundamental difference of basic perspectives.

Opposition to religion, people denouncing it as bad, are making a valid point. There is incontrovertible evidence to support the notion that religion is used to do harm to people on a global scale, to a significant degree. The worst non-belief does to believers on any kind of large scale is this, these little arguments, these personal feelings of hurt or offense when people argue about the topic. There's no atheist movement dedicated and committed to denying the rights and freedoms of other people at any cost. There are >countless< religious groups that exist for no other purpose.

When people aren't being legally discriminated against and in some parts of the world, legally killed, because of religion, when religion isn't actually doing real harm in the world anymore, THEN you can criticize non-believers being strongly opposed to the idea that a man's belief based on nothing is equal to belief based on fact.
AbelNezumi
6 years, 1 month ago
We'll stop criticizing non-believers when they make a real difference instead of making these journals. I understand the problem, and I understand your opinion, and that can be easily respected. Yet, we both know there are more constructive things that can be done. If you don;t like war, do what you can to stop the war, because you're not going to be able to stop the people behind it.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
" wolfblade wrote:
Well this is a chicken and the egg argument.

Which came first, the christian or the atheist?


In both cases the latter.

A Chicken is the result of the predecessor species producing an errant offspring with a superior trait, that creature breeds and eventually over time the original dies out and the chicken remains, but either way it still came from an egg. Stupid question.

Atheism came first because Christianity is a relatively new concept, not perhaps by our standards but definitely not before the concept that there are no gods.

Just sayin.

And further, what the above just said

" TheOrigamist wrote:
"Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation."
-D. Elton Trueblood

Is pretty much truth.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W_hcLXKp5w

Don't get me wrong, I think you've got some good points.  GREAT points, in some cases.  I just...well, the video sums it up for me.
greyslayer
6 years, 1 month ago
You are now my absolute hero. <3<3<3
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Wanna know what makes you a christian? its a very simple yes no actually.

"Do you believe in christ as a Holy Being?"
Y/N

Y I am christian
N I am not Christian.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
I think you just pissed of every Muslim, Jew, Wiccan, and pagan here.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Do you even know what Judaism, Islam, Wicca and "Paganism" are?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Do you?
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Yes, I do, as a hobby I studied them for giggles.
Its easier to talk someone down when you can use their own religion against them.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
So you understand then how your original post would piss them off eh?
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
No, I don't.
Because it wouldn't.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Wolfblade was asking for "TRUE" Christian.  Not definition of Christian.  Honestly, EricAdler up there nailed this question, IMO.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Mrf, I guess. To elabourate more I mean...
A true Christian is someone who Believes in christ, and has enough faith to believe in their god even with what all the modern world has to offer.
I don't mean someone with blind faith who shuns anything "non christian."
I mean someone with Unshakeable Faith who is able to enjoy things because they aren't afraid that they or their children's belief will be tarnished by "Magic" or fantasy or whatever.

Anyway you're right basically.
IrritatedCharizard
6 years, 1 month ago
No one is a real/true chrisitian, for everyone is different in their own ways and to say you are means you are saying your better than everyone who isn't one.
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
I just leave this here....
http://imgur.com/gallery/UTKJi
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
No matter what you believe, that's fucking priceless.
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
Art of trolling level --> EPIC !
^w^
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
I may have to do this now.  It just sounds too win.
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
PLEASE, with a pretty, do share how it went down ^w^
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
First I have to pick a target...
chaosblackwing
6 years, 1 month ago
Oh jeesh, I've literally got tears in my eyes from laughing so hard, thanks a ton for that.
Incorgnito
6 years, 1 month ago
When people give me shit about religion, I ask them, "Do you really think Jesus died nailed to a cross so you can spread hatred and bigotry in his name?" I haven't once got an answer, so that's what Christianity is, apparently.
I'm a Darwinist myself, so, I don't really care. I have science.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
So you're against helping the weak and less fortunate?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
What in your head gives you the idea that you need religion to do that?
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
No, he's a Darwinist.  That means he supports the survival of the fittest.  I think you missed what I was getting at there.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Just ignore this guy, he's intentionally inciting fights just to be an asshole.

Further let it be stated regardless of what he says I am no longer responding to him, I don't tolerate these kind of people.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
To be fair, I earned a little of it.  But he's not willing to listen, he just wants to be as intolerant of other people's beliefs as the people he's decrying.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
"Darwinism" is natural selection, not "survival of the fittest". Simply another example of religious fundies either not knowing what they're talking about or intentionally being dishonest.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
...you're freaking stupid, aren't you?

First of all, that bit was trolling because I find someone calling themselves a "Darwinist" stupid.  Evolution is not a religion, it's a passive system.

Secondly, the only reason I'm not an atheist is because, to me, the universe makes too much damn sense to not have some forethought to it.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
>the universe makes too much damn sense to not have some forethought to it.
If you honestly believe that then I can safely say that you don't know much about the universe if you think that it makes sense. Either that or you're blind to your confirmation bias as a pattern seeking human.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
The way atomic structure works.  The way the heavier elements came into existence.  The way the rules of physics work.  They seem VERY intuitive to me.

Before we judge each other, why don't you tell me how far your science education goes?
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
>The way the heavier elements came into existence
Stellar fusion through supernovae, there's nothing well organized about that. I have to question the wisdom of any creator that destroys countless stars and planets in order to create some gold.

>They seem VERY intuitive to me
They may SEEM intuitive because you stand on the shoulders of giants who spent their lives trying to study and understand the way that they work. Just because it isn't completely random doesn't mean there is some overarching organization to it. But I have to hand it to you religious folks, you try REALLY hard to suck the sense of wonder out of the world; good thing you've largely failed.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Suck any wonder out?  What?  I think it's an immensely artistic approach, that the matter we're made of took such a long time to come together as it exists today.  That it's an a show of finesse and artisanship that such a system that leads to bigger things, as well as the possible outcome of life such as on Earth and other planets.  A creator should not simply just drop life down, but create the system by which it is self-occuring.  I see the majesty of the universe, of the life and death of stars in creating and spreading new matter to different parts of the universe, and I see an artist's brush.

And the fact of the matter is, everything dies.  That is the greatest truth of the physical world.  But to use the death of such massive things to spread the seeds of rebirth for other stars and planets?  That is truly the system that a god would create.  Not some innane idea of forming a planet and just plopping life down on it like he's dumping trash.  I see motive behind the universe.  That you do not is your own prerogative.  And I do not think any less of you for disagreeing.
RevampSkunk
6 years, 1 month ago
I have a baclehors degree, and to be honest I do see where you're coming from, however to be honest, there are too many events where it supports random chance or natural selection than a holy being. I'm agnostic in my beliefs, however there is more and more evidence with science than with religion. Just looking at quantum physics over the past 10 years has blown all of what we thought out of the water.
Incorgnito
6 years, 1 month ago
What?! Science?! Ah'm going to hell.
Incorgnito
6 years, 1 month ago
Changed my mind, I'm going to reply.

 So believing in something that "isn't a religion" means that I'm  a bad person?

Dark Ages, Inquisition, Crusades (I think we had what, 13 of them total?), many abuse scandals in the church involving children which are still coming to light in this day. And how about all the manslaughter that happened over the years, false killings, WAR over the views on a God, and... Someone who believes in natural selection, that evolution helps us survive is a bad person and doesn't like helping the weak and unfortunate.

Let me shed some insight to you on this, helping someone who is unfortunate isn't a religious practice, it's a basic moral. And if you think otherwise, you need to rethink your religious system. Secondly, that's the exact problem with your system, you see someone who doesn't agree with you and you, like instinct, hop on it and criticize it. I saw that you said the first few comments where trolling, but you obviously thing this way as evidence from the ~15 comments below state.

When was the last time you saw a bunch of evolutionists committing manslaughter in the name of science? That's probably a better idea than letting the Church run everything. At least then all the ignorant bigots would be wiped off and we could maybe finally progress as a species.

Millions of years later, homosapians are starting to accept their homosexuality... And still killing each other over it.
Meanwhile, 65 million years ago, dinosaur boys are doing anal. #YOLODINO
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
Okay, since you don't get it, let me clarify this to you: I was trolling you.  I don't like the term "Darwinist" because it sounds ludicrous.  Hell, it's something creationists use as an insult to evolution.

And regardless of how you meant it, there's a LOT of people out there that do ascribe to things like social Darwinism, which is very much a "survival of the strongest" mentality.  So when you use a word like that, it frankly makes you look like you don't even know what you're talking about.

My issue with you was never about what you believe (though it is now if you're talking about "dinosaur  boys having anal".  What?  Just...what?), it was the fact you're identifying using an inaccurate and silly term.  You're not a "Darwinist", you're either atheist or agnostic and don't deny the existence of evolution, which NO intelligent person would.
Incorgnito
6 years, 1 month ago
I'm kind of insulted you took my #YOLODINO statement literally.
I can't even.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
WTF does a pound sign and YOLO have to do with anything?
Incorgnito
6 years, 1 month ago
*Sobs*
40ozhyena
6 years, 1 month ago
I normally don't post in political or religious topics. But I just figured I'd add my two cents.
Christianity, like Islam, is a toxic doctrine of lies and deceit. A poisonous idea that is holding us back as a species.
Yaoifairy
6 years, 1 month ago
Humans are a doomed race :P
40ozhyena
6 years, 1 month ago
I know. :D
Yaoifairy
6 years, 1 month ago
I always wish I was born a bird. That woulda been the life
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
I dunno.  They came up with Doctor Who and City of Heroes.  Not to mention pizza!

So they aren't all bad!
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
But really , on a more serious note...
Considering morality and bible...
To me, and i think it runs as a more basic princible also....
IF you base your whole morality on something which is told and written by others, like for example bible, or prechers word, that is not truly morality, that is obedience..
Morality is doing the right thing REGARDLESS of what you are told..
obedience is doing what you are told REGARDLESS of what is right...
So, basically what i think is, morality always springs from within, not from an outer source, like some dusty old tome.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Dude, that is fucking beautiful. Thank you.
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
Dude, your appreciation means more to me than any amount of free art you could ever throw in my general direction ^^
like i have been saying..
I love the way your mind works ^^
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Thank you.
And the million other folks who say this. Because it never stops being true.
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
Thank you fur the kind words ^^
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
>speaks quite strongly for religion and against the ones who argue in favour of logic and reason
>agrees with non-biblical ANTI-biblical statement for morality from within
Wait, what?
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
I'm an egalitarian, and a hedonist. I will fight for your right to believe in whatever the fuck you want until they day you die.
When your beliefs encroach on others ability to enjoy themselves then its a problem.

Also its not Anti bible, its pro logic.
You don't need a book to tell you what is right and what is wrong, and you can only decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong. Allowing someone else's beliefs to completely govern your morality is foolhardy.
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
Dude. Pro-logic IS anti-bible.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
v-v; Don't fucking start. Seriously, don't fucking start, I've had enough argument on this goddamn Journal.
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
Maybe you should adopt a more reasonable stance, then.
It would certainly be easier to respect you if didn't spout... you know? That stuff.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Excuse me? What stuff? The cursing?
Or is defending someone's right to believe in religion a crime?

I don't have to believe it myself.
King30
6 years, 1 month ago
I'm just gonna give you my honest opinion. Anyone who says someone else isn't a real Christian is an idiot. That's not their call to make. I swear people get so angry over what other people of other religions do and it's just silly. Who says that this religion is wrong because they believe this and that religion is wrong because they believe that. In my opinion there's just absolutes. You're this, that, or none of the above. There's no 50% christian, catholic, etc. I claim to be a part of no religion. I believe and let the religions fight amongst themselves. XD Don't try to understand people's silly logic. You'll get a headache. I tried for a long time, then gave up.
Tycloud
6 years, 1 month ago
I dislike how you tell people not to give their opinion while giving your own opinion.  I'm not disliking you just how it was brought forth.   The true question is why you are concerning yourself with the answer?  Will this journal help put you at ease or cause more frustration?
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
I obviously wasn't clear that the question was rhetorical. >_<

I wasn't asking for an answer, I wanted people to see the question, the notion of declaring other people "not real Christians," for how ridiculous it is.
BillySquirrel
6 years, 1 month ago
Opening a conversation about religion with the qualifier that you don't want to hear opinions about religion is.......confusing troll bait. >_>
Tycloud
6 years, 1 month ago
*Thumbs up*
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Subjective personal views of something's definition are meaningless in a discussion about the most applicable definition of something.

It's more like, starting a conversation on math and saying that you don't want to hear from people who think that 2+2=5.
BillySquirrel
6 years, 1 month ago
That's assuming that faith is an known quantity with absolute borders with a right and wrong. Which isn't in keeping with the broad diversity of religions. Till you're dead, and know for sure, it's subjective and individualistic. What makes a "true christian" is as nebulous and ill defined a question as "what is God and how do you worship him/her/it". You'll get a different answer every time. Hence my previous statement. This place is a really bad forum to be talking about religion. It's troll bait.
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Yes.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Well that point of view pretty much invalidates ALL religions if you cannot admit that there are rights and wrongs within a specific confines of a religious family (Abrahamic, bible followers) since one of the core tenants is that everyone who isn't of their faith goes to hell.

>You'll get a different answer every time
This is especially untrue if you consider the structure of Catholicism which by doctrine is required to believe what they are told to by the holy c. And personally, I'd feel more comfortable around a Catholic, whom I can know what they believe within a reasonable margin, versus someone who claims to be a Christian that apparently can believe fucking anything they want.
BillySquirrel
6 years, 1 month ago
What is a christian? Is it a catholic? A protestant? Which branch? Who's right? Who determines? What of the others? See how slippery a slope this is, when every absolute ends in exclusion of a silent majority? The kingdom of God is within you and all around you. Not in buildings made of wood and stone. Split a log and you will find him, lift a rock and he is there.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
That's nice, however we live in reality and there's no such thing as supernatural stuff (unless you have some sort of evidence that there is in which case why aren't you a millionaire?).
BillySquirrel
6 years, 1 month ago
You can't argue in favor of a "right religion" then disconnect later by saying "there's no such thing as supernatural stuff". Stand by your arguments, and if you are wrong own up to it.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
The "right religion" argument isn't mine, it's the one being made by all religions; I was simply pointing it out for you. My point is that a religious person is an atheist to all gods but one, I just take it one god further.
BillySquirrel
6 years, 1 month ago
Atheists are no different from the religious. Just militant and arrogant about a slightly different banner. But more or less the same finger pointing and sanctimony. I'm not impressed with any of them. Bill Maher is no different than Pat Robertson. They just want to burn different people at the stake.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
The difference is that if presented with evidence that shows my positions to be false, I will adjust my positions accordingly. Religious people will not and cannot do this.
BillySquirrel
6 years, 1 month ago
Were that the case there would be only one religion. There are thousands. There would be only one scientific theory. There are many. There is no difference between them because it isn't about belief, evidence, or faith. It's about biological imperative. You aren't being manipulated by an idea, you're being manipulated by your inner ape's need to form a tribe and exclude all others who disagree.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Now you're just being intentionally disingenuous.
>Were that the case there would be only one religion. There are thousands. There would be only one scientific theory. There are many.
There are many religions because people in them disagree on the voracity or interpretation (ironically since the dogma is that the book is the word of god and thus literal) of the tenants of the faith.
As for scientific theories, there is only one scientific method because it is what works. You build a falsifiable hypothesis based on observations then design an experiment to try and falsify it. It is exactly why there aren't thousands of theories of gravity or planetary motion.

>There is no difference between them because it isn't about belief, evidence, or faith. It's about biological imperative. You aren't being manipulated by an idea, you're being manipulated by your inner ape's need to form a tribe and exclude all others who disagree.

I don't exclude anyone, I simply insist that they live in the real world and not base important decisions on works of fiction and a belief in supernatural bullshit.
Sarxory
6 years, 1 month ago
To be fair, you get this in almost every group, religious and political.  Some idiot does something and justifies it with X god or X political belief, and the rest of that same group is going as fast as they can to declare that person wasn't actually part of what they follow.  It's the human tendency to follow blindly to extremes on one end, and the tendency to distance oneself from anything that makes you look bad on the other.  Not that it isn't stupid, no matter what group it comes from.  You actually see some analog here in the fandom..those folks that get ripped into for going onto various television and news shows.   They say they're doing it to try and help clear up the furry image, a lot of folks will berate them for doing it when more than likely it will just get spun as more perversion.  I've even seen the argument that those folks should not be considered part of the fandom, since they are just making us look bad.  Honestly, people are gonna do what they're gonna do.  If they didn't have religion, they would blame it on some other rationalization.  Kinda the way people work sometimes.  Sad, in a way...we're really designed to try and destroy ourselves.
Jovo
6 years, 1 month ago
There is hypocrisy in every religion, (it pisses me off a-lot) and the word *christian* is used to loosely... each religion has their own definition of it. any way you slice it, it is faith to believe that the world appeared in a big explosion, and it is faith to believe in a god who made it. its your own decision on what to believe, and NO-ONE should be a dick about it, agree to disagree.
(and don't kill anyone over it! 9/11 DAMN!)
anyway, i hope i didn't offend anyone. ;-)
-Jovo
MystBunny
6 years, 1 month ago
Well.. I don't know if I really should get involved in this, but here goes. I'm gonna take this in two parts.

Part 1: The bible. I am a Christian, but indeed I am rather skeptical about the contents of the bible. They say that God is always testing us, and putting obstacles in front of us, because our experiences, good or bad, make us who we are. What if the Bible is the ultimate test. It's pretty clear that you almost can't follow one part of the Bible without disobeying another, so what if its real purpose WAS to be altered by the greedy and power-hungry, and ultimately contradict itself everywhere. Perhaps the ultimate test is what parts of the Bible you follow. Perhaps there was no divine inspiration and it's the ultimate treachery. I dunno. I can only speculate, I can't know for sure. All I can do is assess how my decisions affect others, and go with that.

Part 2: Real Christians. I believe there is a creator. I can't prove it, but I believe it, and that's something I can decide for myself. With the Bible being what it is, I suppose there's no way to know what a real Christian actually is, but when I say that people are NOT real Christians, I'm referring to people who take religion not as a spiritual belief, but as a tool of power and greed. People who like to spout the name "Jesus" because it gives them status, and couldn't give a shit what his teachings actually were. Using Christianity to impose your moral beliefs on others means that you care more about power over others than the religion itself, which is why they're often classified in my eyes as well as the eyes of others as "not real Christians".

Also, I do want to add one more thing. Doesn't matter if you don't believe me, I just want to say it. I couldn't tell you with absolute certainty that I'm right, and there is one almighty omniscient being that created us and the universe. However, one thing I CAN tell you with absolute certainty from personal experience, is that there IS something after death. I don't know what exactly, but there is something.

What makes a real furry, by the way? O.o
fluffdance
6 years, 1 month ago
You're asking for a working metric for a wholly interpretive concept.

If we all behaved like -real- Christians, we'd all be acting like Muslims.

Seriously.  Read the Bible, then read the Quran.  "The names and places of the people in this story have been changed to protect the innocent."  :P
Mooglit
6 years, 1 month ago
Old testament - Jewish.
New testament - Christian.
The whole thing - Crazy as shit.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but there was a christian priest, like, a bishop or something who remarked to his church when asked about athiests- "When an athiest does a good deed, he does not do it because he is asked, or told. He does it, because he has an innate sense of good morality. When you do a good deed, you should not call yourself a christian, but an athiest, because if you do good things because you are told, and not because it is innate to you, then you have missed Jesus' most important lesson."

I'm agnostic. Organised religion makes me ill. And people who blindly follow something, without an ounce of insight into what they are following should be smacked. >:T

I had a thought: What if we call people in their faiths by the amount of book they abide by / have read and acknowledge.
Sunday christians - Semi-biblers.
Christians - whole-biblers.
Mormons - neo-martian-biblers.
Muslims - What-the-dude-in-the-robe-tells-us-quranists.
daemonicusprince
6 years, 1 month ago
From my understanding from my dad who's starting to explore a Greek Orthodox church now, who's super scholarly about this stuff, he says 2000 years ago it was intended to be metaphor, and everyone who called themselves Christians 2000 years ago understood it to be metaphor, but because people are so shitfaced stupid today, people on both sides have to be completely literal about it;
"IT SAID EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD SO I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG", vs
"IT SAYS EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED"
as opposed to
"the point isn't that he pulled two tons of bread and fish out of his ass, the point is make do with what you have", &c.

Your question can't be answered; there's no universal metric to judge whether someone is "christian" any more than there's a universal metric to judge whether someone is "a true furry", or "a true scientist"; it's self-identification, and plenty of fuckwits self-identify with everything.  That said, my opinion (which I know you didn't ask for, so ignore as you see fit) of a good Christian is a reformed Christian - one who acknowledges history and where Christianity screwed up, as well as the book - something like the pastor in Associated Student Bodies, a character that helped me grapple quite a bit.

And if you prefer those who quietly believe to themselves instead of getting confrontational about how wrong you are, I'd suggest you lead by example, if you'd rather experience tolerance, show a little and maybe they'll treat you the same; saying to someone else they are a "ruined person" isn't a way to win over a convert to your side.

...let the flamewar commence...
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
I like your icon as well as your statement!
daemonicusprince
6 years, 1 month ago
I live by a lot of the lessons from the story actually... not sure I'd publicly proclaim my allegiance to a Church of Simba but if I could sneak away to such a sect I'd gladly do so :3
nekkofox
6 years, 1 month ago
*applauds*
Niji
6 years, 1 month ago
Well...biblical fact dictates since Jesus only gave one law "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." anyone who practices Christianity and adheres to this one and only law, would be a "true" Christian.
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
I do not have the biblical knowledge nor the motivation to check in that putrid book for an example to show that you are wrong, so I will merely state my disagreement as a personal opinion rather than a proven fact, but I believe he did indeed dictate a lot more laws than just that.
But that's beside the actual point I want to make.

My actual point is that I consider myself an anti-theist (enemy of religion as a whole) and an anti-christian (enemy of christianity in particular), yet my personal morality system is based on that very golden rule which you just declared the defining characteristic of a christian, and which I consider to be one of the few kernels of actual gold that you can pull from the shitbucket that is the bible. So please don't redefine "christian" in a way that includes me. It is offensive and uncalled for. And trust me, I should know about things that are uncalled for. ;P
Niji
6 years, 1 month ago
Oh I didn't, see my next comment immediately after this one.
A few things to make you aware of 99% of the rules made up for Christianity were taken from his apostles and future disciples, who in the very books they make those "suggestions" state they are just their personal opinions are are probably not inspired by Jehovah's holy spirit(aka inspired by god). He did say to observe the memorial in remembrance of him, but that was only to the 144,000 of which there aren't any left most likely(as the majority of them were alive while he was).
It's not a vile book, its a great book filled with stories of rape, murder, war, mass genocide, various apocalypses and world destruction, resurrection of ASSASSINS to gut fat kings and have their poop spill out everywhere, etc, The part relevant to Christians(the new testament) is a but a 1/8th or less of the rest of the book(which is all irrelevant to Christians per both Jesus and Jehovah's (DIRECT!) word).

Incidentally, Jesus befriended dragons, and traveled out of Israel to see the world(including areas of china etc supposedly, where he met Buddhists...). The book is pretty damn interesting read actually, as long as you don't take it too seriously lol.

But the golden rule is pretty damn cool and I have yet to ever find a circumstance where it doesn't apply.

99% of Christians do not know any of this information.
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
Indeed. 83
Sorry for reacting to you before reading the next comment for clarification. My only excuse is that I'm overworked at the moment, having VERY recently started studying computer science after a relatively long period of intellectual inactivity.

Anyway, the golden rule. In its original phrasing, it may be misleading, since it suggests to act as if anyone shares one's own personal preferences. BUT if you see it a little more abstractly, the rule can be made pretty much universal. So yeah, I agree. 83
Niji
6 years, 1 month ago
Well originally Confucius (or rather the person he ripped it from) said do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
but Do to others as you would want them to do to you is waaaaay better lol, in terms of applying it everywhere anyway XD

THE MAIN PROBLEM IS....people like me...who want other people to do certain(and very specific)...ass-hole/bad/mean/violent things to them...so we do them to others XD
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
That's why you must look at the rule in a more abstract way. Not do the specific things you them to do to you, but do to them as they ask you to do. Or something along those lines.
Niji
6 years, 1 month ago
Incidentally :3 Christianity came into existence fairly long after Jesus ("Christ") died....and it was some roman...oh look politician... that turned it into a new religion called "Christianity" (follows of Christ).

But for the purposes of "True Christian" (of which there can be none as it is a discipleship to begin with), you would go about translating it as "disciple of Christ." sooo to be a disciple of him you must LEARN FROM his teachings, and perhaps inform others of them should you so choose, but as Jesus mentioned it is unnecessary, something to do at your own discretion and will. The only thing required however of Christ's disciples is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

To add in a different side of the argument I post this post! Though I am doing it in violation obviously of that teaching D:
BUT I CANNOT RESIST PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE as I am a lovely human being, and as such exist as a contradiction, both in mind and in body.
HaruTotetsu
6 years, 1 month ago
Jesus...because he was the only individual that truly knew what he was talking about.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
But Jesus was a jew...
HaruTotetsu
6 years, 1 month ago
Ah but he's also the founder of Christianity (though that wasn't his aim).
Incorgnito
6 years, 1 month ago
PEOPLE founded Christianity.
HaruTotetsu
6 years, 1 month ago
Are you suggesting Jesus can't be classified as a person?!
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
I thought that was Christianity's entire claim... >.>
HaruTotetsu
6 years, 1 month ago
God in a mortal body, I'd say that still fits the identity of "person"
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
It was a joke. :P
HaruTotetsu
6 years, 1 month ago
I said that once...and got attacked by the 40% of US citizens that believe creationism to be a fact.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
HaruTotetsu
6 years, 1 month ago
Who said I was trying to be funny.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
I was trying to be clever.  A flaw of mine, you see.
HaruTotetsu
6 years, 1 month ago
Better than when a creationist tries using science after dismissing evolution.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
See, now that's a joke!  They may not REALIZE it's a joke, but it is! X3
Demesejha
6 years, 1 month ago
Actually, people founded it after his death by about 30 years or more.
Friar
6 years, 1 month ago
Wallow in the shit, be fertile and grow something beautiful in this world like acceptance and love. That's what I believe in.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Yeah, see, I just feel that since you can have acceptance and love in endless abundance >without< wallowing in the shit at all... maybe people should just not be taught to think that dipping into the shitbucket is a required step of the process. <:3

AlyssaKamber
6 years, 1 month ago
I'm Christian. I won't define my beliefs in regards to what doctrine I agree with or what parts of the Bible I don't like, because I don't think that should matter to anyone else. If someone asks to have a polite discussion about beliefs AND they're a close friend, I'll consider explaining mine. I will never call myself a "true" Christian, or say I'm more or less, better or worse than "those other" Christians. I believe what I believe, I don't push it on anyone else, and you can believe whatever you want to believe. I treat people by the tenets I think are meaningful; what anyone else does in the name of religion is outside my control, so there isn't a reason for me to try to change them. And no, I haven't read the Bible cover-to-cover. I probably never will. I've read parts of it and I'm sure I'll read other parts.

If people who find out decide that I'm less of a person, or less trustworthy, or that I'm unbalanced or stupid or ignorant or insane, that's their right. If my trying to be a good, just and kind person can't change that, then it can't change that.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Is a person who firebombs an orphanage and dismembers dozens of children in the name of Christianity as much of a Christian as you are?
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Come on dude, she was being pretty civil and neutral, no need to be too confrontational.

People who might be able to be reasoned with should be given a chance at least.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
Sorry, wasn't trying to be uncivil, just taking the point to the absolute extreme to make a point because I find that the furthest border of an example for religious debates is the best place to start drawing in our understanding of a position. It's also the least likely, when you think about it, starting point at which a religious person is willing to either distort or make excuses for the behavior of the example.

I just think that it's important for all sides in the discussion to acknowledge the existence of such monsters and not simply sweep them away as "obviously" not representative.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
There are people in the homosexual population who intentionally infect fellow members with diseases as well.  Does that make all gays people who spread disease willfully and hurtfully?  Because there's not much difference between that comparison and the comparison you just made.  Seriously, would you be bringing all these examples of the worst of people identifying as Christian up if this were not a religious discussion?

Using absolute extremes like that really borders on being a logical fallacy, if it isn't.  Taking a small group within a demographic and painting the demographic as that isn't much better than generalizing; in fact, it can come off as a kind of prejudice.  You've got every right to dislike and speak out against Christians and how they upset you (provided you're in a country you have such freedoms of speech, of course), but remember there's an individual not that dissimilar from you behind each of these users you're replying to.  It's best to judge individually than based on a group, or else you're getting close to bigotry.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
What an asinine assertion. I didn't claim on any level that someone who lives a good life as a Christian is directly related to someone who does heinous things in the name of Christianity, I asked if doing heinous things makes that person less of a Christian. If you cannot draw a distinction based on a person's actions then I can see how you'd be offended by that question but I would have to question your own moral integrity if you cannot flatly say that this person is not part of what you believe.

>Seriously, would you be bringing all these examples of the worst of people identifying as Christian up if this were not a religious discussion?
If the discussion is "who is a true christian" then of course I would.

As for the laughably absurd association you made, being gay is in no way comparable to being a member of a religion. For the sake of debate I'll help you make it less stupid: Does the existence of gay rapists who intentionally infect people with STDs mean that the niche community of "bug chasers" all bad people? The, what should be obvious, answer to this would be yes; if they do not denounce and repudiate these people. And if you cannot do the same to a self avowed Christian then yeah, I'd say it makes all of the ones who don't bad people.
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
I agreed with almost all other comments you made here (silently, without posting my agreement in comments), but what you just said was pure jerkassery. As an anti-theist, I understand your strong opposition towards all things religion, and I understand that there is sufficient reason to hold such a strong opposition, but please try not to be a douchebag about it. It gives the relitards (defined as the most stupid and confrontational members of the religious crowd) a small, but existent, shred of merit when they declare us to be irrational and douchebaggy.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
How so, exactly? I don't honestly see the question as a particularly offensive one because it is based in reality. In the bible they claim to hold so dear, soldiers slaughter the children, mothers, and fathers of whole cities in the name of their faith. If you are indeed a "good person" and believe that living as a "good person" is not doing such things, then you should be able to instantly respond that a person who did such things is at the very least less of a Christian than someone who did not do them.
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
The reason is the original comment you responded to, the problem is not inherent to your question. The one you responded to was clearly non-confrontational and unwilling to discuss their personal beliefs, as they previously stated.
For a christian, the way they view their own beliefs is exceptionally benign and harmless.

Please use your (justifiably) aggressive arguing techniques on people who are actually part of the core problem, that is people who actually stand up for the nutjobs they supposedly don't agree with or worse are part of those very nutjobs that inspired our shared opposition to religion as a whole.

AlyssaKamber: "I will never call myself a "true" Christian, or say I'm more or less, better or worse than "those other" Christians."
Here lies the problem. You argue what this person would define as more or less christian when they clearly don't want to, and have stated they will not push their beliefs on others or even explain their personal beliefs unless the other person is a close friend. Basically, you are trying to shove your beliefs down their throat, however justified your beliefs are, through being confrontational and trying to provoke them into arguing with you.

I hope I could clear up why I saw that one specific comment as douchebaggy.
YamatoIouko
6 years, 1 month ago
...may I buy you a cookie?
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
Yes, thank you. 83
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
>For a christian, the way they view their own beliefs is exceptionally benign and harmless.
Except in the case of someone who uses those beliefs to justify harming others yeah?

>Please use your (justifiably) aggressive arguing techniques on people who are actually part of the core problem
Well for one, those people are not open to any conversation with anyone much less someone directly hostile to the idea of faith as a whole (like myself). For another, I don't see the issue with seeking a condemnation against said nutjobs, do you? Is silence in the face of something like that not equal to tacit approval?

>Basically, you are trying to shove your beliefs down their throat
In no way true. I'm seeking to understand the rationalization used by people who consider themselves Christian that either do or do not condemn people who perform heinous acts in the name of the religion they identify with. Hell, there's even an easy cop-out by saying "this person does not represent me or what I/my religion stand for" but so far I've not even been able to get something that simple out of anyone.

So yeah, I don't see the issue, and I even apologized for the way my comment may have been taken (not directly but whatever).
theuncalledfor
6 years, 1 month ago
" vicwuff wrote:
>For a christian, the way they view their own beliefs is exceptionally benign and harmless.
Except in the case of someone who uses those beliefs to justify harming others yeah?


Despite using the plural, I was only talking about this one specific person. Using plural is a viable alternative to avoid implying a specific gender. I used it because Wolfblade called this person by the female pronoun, and I was not entirely sure he was correct in assuming that this user is in fact female.
Therefore, your argument doesn't apply since it assumes other persons. Persons that I was decidedly NOT talking about.

" vicwuff wrote:
>Please use your (justifiably) aggressive arguing techniques on people who are actually part of the core problem
Well for one, those people are not open to any conversation with anyone much less someone directly hostile to the idea of faith as a whole (like myself). For another, I don't see the issue with seeking a condemnation against said nutjobs, do you? Is silence in the face of something like that not equal to tacit approval?


- this person is also not open to discussion, as they clearly stated (unless you were a personal friend)
- this person has not expressed any approval for those nutjobs, either explicitly or implicitly, this person only spoke for themself, expressing personal neutrality

" vicwuff wrote:
>Basically, you are trying to shove your beliefs down their throat
In no way true. I'm seeking to understand the rationalization used by people who consider themselves Christian that either do or do not condemn people who perform heinous acts in the name of the religion they identify with. Hell, there's even an easy cop-out by saying "this person does not represent me or what I/my religion stand for" but so far I've not even been able to get something that simple out of anyone.


Then I suggest asking someone who is open to discussion and will actually state their own personal beliefs, unlike this person, who, and I cannot stress this enough, is NOT open to discussion and refused to even specify their own beliefs.

" vicwuff wrote:
So yeah, I don't see the issue, and I even apologized for the way my comment may have been taken (not directly but whatever).


The issue is that the person in question was exceptionally neutral and didn't even state their own beliefs, expressing an unwillingness to discuss the topic. This does not warrant such an aggressive approach and the approach will therefore be justifiably seen as douchebaggy.
vicwuff
6 years, 1 month ago
>The issue is that the person in question was exceptionally neutral and didn't even state their own beliefs, expressing an unwillingness to discuss the topic. This does not warrant such an aggressive approach and the approach will therefore be justifiably seen as douchebaggy.

Then what was the point of her post in the first place?
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
I want to thank you, this is a very nice stance to have on it, and it's just a very pleasantly worded comment. I don't object to people having this approach to their personal beliefs, except for just this one part:

" what anyone else does in the name of religion is outside my control, so there isn't a reason for me to try to change them.


A person doing harm to others for no good reason is itself >always< a reason for anyone and everyone aware of it to try to change them to whatever extent they are able to do so.

" If people who find out decide that I'm less of a person, or less trustworthy, or that I'm unbalanced or stupid or ignorant or insane, that's their right. If my trying to be a good, just and kind person can't change that, then it can't change that.


If someone is just trying to be a good, just, and kind person, then I personally do not begrudge them whatever their beliefs may be, beyond simply feeling that everyone would benefit more from a practice of belief requiring evidence. That is of course, provided their beliefs aren't distorted into thinking that the good, just, and kind thing to do is to send a kid to a pray-the-gay-away camp or other such distortions that cause many otherwise decent and good people to do horrible cruelty and harm because they honestly believe that what they're doing is good and just and kind.

I don't have issue with people who express the stance you have expressed here. If you were representative of the vast majority of people with religious beliefs, then it probably wouldn't even be an issue.
AlyssaKamber
6 years, 1 month ago
Thing is, people with the more hateful beliefs usually believe they're a solid stone pillar of truth in a world of lies. A hundred burly men with Bibles and Theology degrees can't change them one tiny bit. Just look at the Westboro folks. Or Ken Hutcherson in Washington.

I have met a few people so far who strongly believe that beliefs without concrete proof indicates that someone is not intelligent, and are very firm on the point that this makes me both stupid AND untrustworthy.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
That's why I believe in people being more vocal about pointing out the flaws in religion and religious thinking. Once someone has had their mind set in stone, and are using their beliefs to push acts of harm and bigotry, there's not much to be done to change them, but they still need to be obstructed as much as possible.

To me, the goal is to get as many people at least >questioning< the rationality of religion, in the hopes that more people will - at the very least - have enough sense of flexibility with their beliefs to be more like yourself, and keep their beliefs as a more personal thing, just guiding their own lives. It's the super-certain, I-know-this-is-what-God-himself-wants-people-to-do-so-you-have-to-do-this-too people that are the problem.

I don't personally believe that holding faith-based belief by itself makes a person stupid or untrustworthy. I know people who are neither, yet still hold faith-based beliefs. The reason a smart-yet-religious person is often treated like a contradiction is usually just a matter of logic.

It stands to reason that a person who can fully accept and believe an extraordinary claim without extraordinary, or even minimal evidence, is a person with less strict requirements of evidence before they can believe something. The reasoning is that a person who can believe in, essentially, fantastical tales of magic and the supernatural, is a person with a less critical sense of observation and evaluation of the world around them. The judgment of a person who accepts the impossible on faith is, arguably, less reliable than a person who does not accept the impossible unless it is proven to be possible.

As I said in a previous comment, it is VERY difficult (if not impossible) to construct an analogy for the purpose of discussion, which illustrates the non-believer's viewpoint of faith-based belief without seeming insulting or condescending to a believer. So please believe that I am not >trying< to be insulting with the following.

A person who hears a strange noise, and genuinely believes it could be caused by a ghost when countless non-supernatural explanations would explain it much more simply, will generally be viewed as a person whose abilities in reasoning and evaluation are less than a person who would discount a supernatural explanation if more grounded explanations would suffice.

A more extreme example, would be an adult believing in Santa Claus. This is a character who is essentially a Holy man, represented as having the ability to do things which are impossible. Magic. Most any rational adult would dismiss belief in Santa Claus as childish and silly, because the very basis of this supposed person is simply not possible in the world we live in.

Yet we teach the existence of this magical, saintly man to our children because it is a Happy Lie. It comforts them and brings them joy to think of this magical person who exists only to love them and show them reward for good behavior, and disfavor for bad. In addition to using this fiction to bring children joy, the threat of punishment (or withholding of reward) that is a part of the fiction is also used to coerce more desirable behavior from them, and discourage undesirable behavior.

With Children, who have yet to experience enough to be able to formulate morality and ethics on their own, the harmless lie is a useful tool for directing their behavior until such time as they are able to understand right from wrong on their own, without needing threat of punishment or promise of reward.

Again, I'm not trying to be insulting, but strictly speaking, religion is essentially the same sort of device. To someone who believes in Santa Claus, he's just obviously real. To someone who doesn't believe, he is obviously fantasy. To non-believers, there is >zero< difference in the plausibility of the "magic" of religion and the magic of fairy tales. Non-believers often dismiss believers as childish because to us, it's all children's stories.
AlyssaKamber
6 years, 1 month ago
Yes, though technically, Christianity's command to go out and "spread the word" can easily be interpreted as telling people, loudly and repeatedly..

I simply don't, and won't, do that, and the only reason I have comes down to interpretation: I don't read it that way. I figure most everybody in the civilized world, in countries where Christianity is a common path, HAVE heard the "good news." Now, whether or not they follow the path to some degree or in some way is up to them. Free will. Your decision, not mine. For me to attempt to make that choice FOR anyone is taking away a right I fully believe God gave us. And I've found nothing in the Bible that tells me that I can do that - that I have been given the authority to cut through God-given rights. Neither do I believe that any church leader is given that right by God.
Stumpycoon
6 years, 1 month ago
The dictionary definition would be anyone who believes in salvation through Christ is a Christian.  

So the people saying hateful stuff in Christ's name are just as Christian as the people saying that's un-Christian and real Christians wouldn't use Christianity to justify their own personal prejudice against gays / women / non-whites / science / atheists / etc.  

They're all Christians.  Temporarily pretending that one Christ-follower who has done something that's become inconvenient to another Christ follower is suddenly (and temporarily) "not a real Christian" is, basically, a lie.  It's a excuse to try and avoid taking responsibility for the bad things Christians do but claim full credit for any good things they might do.

Christ followers = Christians.  End of story.
MrSOCKS
6 years, 1 month ago
The Jehovah's Witnesses are the purest Christian sect in the USA.
No. Really. Their shit is %100 Bible from start to finish. They practice an amazing detatchment from mainstream culture, either because the Bible says not to, or doesn't mention it at all. No Christmas, no birthdays, no voting, and a bunch of other shtuff.
All the other evangelical cults-- like Catholicism-- are based very-largely on the works of whatever church fathers and very little, if at all, based on the Gospel itself. That's why there is so much apostasy in the Christian church, and why the Christian church is such a patent failure: there is far more the words of men involved, than the Word Of God.
SenGrisane
6 years, 1 month ago
Gonna make you go to the cornfield for that XD
Revrant
6 years, 1 month ago
Actually follow the teachings of your "lord".

Which is to say some ridiculous number, such as 80% of people, aren't Christians.
SojiroEX
6 years, 1 month ago
I'll certainly give you one thing, you clearly do a lot of thinking. You're a lot better spoken than most people I know.

I have no answer on this topic though, I avoid religion.
greenmont
6 years, 1 month ago
You know that this won't get you anywhere, right?
People willing to read it already agree with you, and people who it should matter to aren't willing to think about it.

I've recently decided that people who are raised within certain kinds of religious environments are basically a lost cause for this kind of thing. When they were young, their faith was deeply embedded in their minds, to the point where asking them to question their faith is like asking them to question breathing... you'll never convince someone to stop breathing, and you'll never convince one of these people to stop believing... They can be VERY INTELLIGENT people, able to form very coherent logical arguments, all with the same root flaw; at the base level, they "know" that X (the Bible, some certain tenet of morality, etc) is true, and their ENTIRE ARGUMENT collapses if it's not true, but they will NEVER question it. Someone who seemed very bright, very well thought-out, will run babbling in circles once you dig back to this point, as if the neural pathways for questioning it are just short-circuited, redirecting brainpower to the "circular reasoning" and "bile-spewing" lobes. I used to get really frustrated at them, but I can't affect them in any way, so rather than get angry about it I just sort of treat it like it is... something they can't help, something that was DONE TO THEM by their parents and family. Doesn't make me less angry, but it makes me less angry with THEM.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
If I cannot fix something, I want, at the least, for people to acknowledge that it is broken.

For people to stop silently and passively just accepting that everything which is less ideal than it could be is simply unavoidable and a fact of life. I fucking >despise< apathy.

It is my belief (ha), that if enough people are even just remarking on the fact that a thing is broken, it will eventually break through the status quo of accepting the broken thing as being normal and acceptable. If people see something with no basis of comparison, and everyone around them accepts this something as normal, that person will consider it normal as well and won't question it.

Like mutilating baby genitals.

The more people talk about how fucked up a thing is, the more someone who has yet to establish that something as part of the status quo will actually think about and question it.

And that is the only way to defeat religion. To remove this barrier of NO NO NO YOU CAN'T QUESTION US OR TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE APPLYING LOGIC AND REASON TO OUR INSANE-ASS BELIEFS, THAT'S MEAN. To have more people thinking about it and questioning it before it has the chance to take root and become ingrained in them.

In the meantime, we will be talking to brick walls and hurting the feelings of perfectly nice people who are unfortunately victim to this disease, but the more people speak up, the fewer people will be so firmly indoctrinated into it. Kids are growing up with cell phones in their hands and the internet at their fingertips, and despite all the bad that's causing, if ANY good can come of it, it will be the chance of them encountering even the thought of "religion actually doesn't make much sense" before they're too hard-wired to accept such a notion.

SO, there can never be too much bitching about the stupidity of religion. Not until all religious laws are struck down, and there is no legally supported religiously-motivated discrimination against anybody, and kids aren't brain-washed into having these ass-backwards circular reasoning ideas.
greenmont
6 years, 1 month ago
I guess I agree. On the large scale all this "bitching" can have a positive outcome. It's just depressing how it doesn't seem to affect anyone on the small scale...

Forgive me, I was home-schooled for much of middle school and went to a catholic highscool and a relatively conservative college, so... I've been trying the micro-level thing for much of my life... and it's left me disappointed...
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Because I don't believe in eternal afterlife, because I feel this one life IS all we get, then I do feel the effort of all this bitching is worth it, both for the long term cumulative effect if it's part of a growing movement to push education and evidence over ignorance and belief-based-on-nothing, AND for the individual effect it may have, however small it may be.

If anything I have to say amounts to even one step along the path of someone freeing their mind from the shackles of irrational baseless belief, then it was worth it.
greenmont
6 years, 1 month ago
I can stand with that.
zenmigawa
6 years, 1 month ago
Oh my god, six hours later and 175 comments. You sure love stirring up hornets' nests just to express yourself, Blade XD

I'd say something else here, but I'm pretty sure my opinions regarding this journal and religion and general are in here... somewhere. Somewhere.
TheColour66
6 years, 1 month ago
If you look at this technically, a christian would be anyone who is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Or a member of any of the religions that revere the New Testament.
AlexReynard
6 years, 1 month ago
'The only true Christians are the ones who agree with me.'

Lovely journal as always, WB. Specially this part: "But you, well, you read the book (right? because nobody who says who is or isn't a "true" Christian could possibly have not actually read the thing cover to cover)" I'll try to remember, next time I see someone wearing a little gold cross, to ask them how many times they've read their Bible. If they give me a hard number or even an estimate instead of A) fidgeting, B) deflecting or C) getting offended at me, I will be quite surprised.

Also, the shitbucket analogy is perfect, especially the corn bit. I think society's gotten the message enough that religion does bad things, now what really needs to be pounded home is that religion doesn't give anyone anything good that they couldn't get a truer version of somewhere else. Religious morality is the equivalent of a New York vagrant's bootleg DVD copy of morality, made by some guy holding a camera in the theater.
Meowz
6 years, 1 month ago
Christians come in flavours. You can't have a one for all. :) It's just not in there. It goes so far that for each kind of christian church, in certain areas, you also have a different shade of the religion. Varying ever so slightly. My guess would be, everyone who follows those commandments to the letter, all of them, would seem to be a vanilla christian. Just those commandments.
FlynnRausch
6 years, 1 month ago
Religion bad. Kung fu GOOD!
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
Well, didn't Kung-Fu actually originate as an obscure Buddhist sect ?
Ain't Kung-fu basically a religion, or actments upon faith sort of, like prayer/meditation ?
FlynnRausch
6 years, 1 month ago
Not as religions, no, but pretty much all martial arts espouse a certain degree of moral discipline. In chinese MA's, there are 5 concepts of mind and deed: courage, patience, endurance, perseverence, and will for mind; humility, sincerity, courtesy, morality, and trust for deed. They are supposed to direct your behavior and actions so that you can be a more enlightened person with purer spiritual energies and such. It's more of a moral compass than a strict doctrine, as morality has a habit of changing, where as doctrine doesn't.

Anyway, that was a reference to the movie Zoolander :p
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
Why not just simply prefer Krav Maga, and beat the fuck out of everything living ?
atleast that would be efficient :P
FlynnRausch
6 years, 1 month ago
Krav maga is brutal and ugly. I don't really see much spiritual potential in ripping someone's arm off and beating them to death with it. :p
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
yaeh, krav maga is kinda horrible in every way.
i really dislike it myself.
And i do like Kung-Fu, so refined and philosophical, so determined also.
and beautifull..
as are you ^^
*nuzzles*
prufen
6 years, 1 month ago
Christianity didn't originate with Bible, it originated with the early churches.  The Bible is an imperial Roman rehash.  If you want to know about early Christianity, you should read about the Nag Hammadi library.
Nethus
6 years, 1 month ago
Personally, I think true Christianity is defined best in this verse from the book of John. "A new command I give to you, that you should love one another. As I have loved you, so you should love one another. By this everyone will know you are My disciples by how much you love each other."

Casting Crowns put it beautifully in their song, Jesus Friend of Sinners. If you ever have a chance, I highly recommend listening to that song. Here's an excerpt: "Nobody knows what we're for, only what we're against, when we judge the wounded. But if we put down our signs, crossed over the lines, and love like You did... Oh Jesus, friend of sinners, open our minds to the world at the end of our pointing fingers. Let our hearts be lead by mercy, help us reach with open hearts and open doors. Oh Jesus friend of sinners, break our hearts for what breaks Yours."

So often we forget that Jesus was there for people who needed Him the most. The sick, the dying, the outcast. I've seen things on the news about the Westboro Baptist church holding signs the say things like "All homosexuals should die". That is not Christ's love. That is not how a true follower of Christ is supposed to behave.
LeonHunter
6 years, 1 month ago
Religion is a blight on the intellect and morals of humanity, that's the extent of my feelings on the matter.
Chase
6 years, 1 month ago
I personally resent such a blanket statement of religion, but you have a right to that opinion.
LeonHunter
6 years, 1 month ago
You're right, the Pastafarian's aren't that bad, but unfortunately every other religion is.
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
rAmen... ^^
shadycat
6 years, 1 month ago
Hear hear!
LabrnMystic
6 years, 1 month ago
I'm a Christian. To me, it is as simple as believing and trying to live by the bible, 10 commandments, and with love for your fellow man. I find it hard to believe there are 'real'Christians compared to others. No one can measure another's faith. Only you and God know how much you truly believe.

I always felt that those sqwaking louder and more zealot like in their mind set don't truly believe. That they have to drive into their minds so hard to try to believe. In reality, "its harder to believe than not to." You can't just think you believe or tell yourself you do. That's a fight with logic and just trying to brainwash yourself into believing. Belief comes beyond what we can see and grasp. Its a feeling from within.

Pray, believe, love. That is a Christian.
PeachClover
6 years, 1 month ago
You didn't read the whole post did you?  He points out that if you read the whole of the christian's bible and not just the parts the preacher recites in sermons, then you will see that the christian god commands death and damnation as a punishment for many things that in today's modern world is considered normal and good such as loving anyone both sexually and brotherly regardless of race, gender, and religion.  You might notice that the christian god commanded the jews to kill other people just because they were not of the same race or religion and that if a woman stood up to a man she was to be stoned to death.  Also the christian god condoned many acts that are considered bad in modern society, such as slavery and the right to kill without trail, judge, or jury.

To sum up Wolfblade's point from the post - you may be a good person who calls yourself a christian, but what the christian's bible commands is obedience not compassion, since you are not in prison for killing anyone, it can be assumed that you do not follow that book accurately, and are therefore, as far as that book is concerned, just as damned as the rest of us.
AlexReynard
6 years, 1 month ago
That was pretty damn incendiary, but also a skillfully-condensed summary. Well-done, amigo.
LabrnMystic
6 years, 1 month ago
True. I only skimmed due to time. Also, wasn't the question what a Christian is in our eyes?

Most the dark/evil/wrong side that most disagree with in the Bible come from the Old Testament. This book is also a collection of the stories and history of Jewish people before Jesus and the New Testament. I guess you'd say I'm a follower of he new testament. Pentecostal was the main church I church I found myself under. Granted, I could use a bit of rereading, but I've never read those parts and felt I needed to commit murder or genocide. What's abominations in the bible compared to modern times. To me, a lot of it is spinning your wheels. I delve into the basics. The meanings and the messages.

I had another point to make, but the site is acting screwy and I've had to retype this a few times and lost my train of thought. :/
LabrnMystic
6 years, 1 month ago
True. I only skimmed due to time. Also, I thought I read that the question was what our definition was.

Most the dark/evil/wrong side that most disagree with in the Bible comes from the Old Testament. This book is also a collection of the stories and history of Jewish people before Jesus and the New Testament. That fact people seem to skip. That the Bible is a religious text for guidance. The 10 commandments are moral laws to live life by. When people in the Bible break them, they face punishment, and either learn the right ways, find repentance, or meet their fate. It is a learning tool to see what those in the past have done and to find your path to God. As much as anyone can gather from the Bible, there is the chance you can be wrong. We may think we are doing God's work, but it had gotten twisted or misdirected. Only God knows for certain. That is why the Church seeks community. That we can help each other down the path of righteousness. That if I go a stray, my brothers and sisters will see it and help me find my way back. So when I read, I look to see "Is this what god demands, what the writer is saying, or how it was in the time of the story." I want to think context is required, but then again, some passages are universal in situations. Is this making sense? If my typing seems erratic, its my tablet messing with my typing. Jumping the cursor around and rewritting/deleting portions.

I guess you'd say I'm a follower of the new testament more than the old. I started at a Baptist church, then a Pentecostal a church, followed by a Christ Community church. Pentecostal struck the strongest for me. That no one is so far gone unless they choose to. That is their right. God gave us free will. A quick note, I find people argue fate, free will, and that God has already set the path before us. My understanding is this. All the choices you could make, God has prepared. What choices you decide to make and how you deal with the consequences of those actions, that is your free will. Like a board game. God made Monopoly, but its us who roll the dice make the choice.

Granted, I could use a bit of rereading of the bible. I can't quote scripture, or name chapter and verse. I follow the concepts. Since context matters so much to everyone, there is no room for error in people's eyes. It makes it hard on a paraphraser, like myself. I've never read those parts of the bible that recount great battles or someone who said "God told me to do this," and killed someone and felt I needed to commit murder or genocide. That is where you have determine, is this a story to learn from? A metaphor? Or did someone think they were doing God's work, made a bad decision and it was recorded in the Bible, since they used the Bible as a way to record the endeavors of Christianity/Judaism? The Bible is a collection of writings. It is not so much ignore this part and study that part, but understanding all the parts that make the Bible.

I had another point to make, but the site is acting screwy and I've had to retype this a few times and lost my train of thought. :/'
PeachClover
6 years, 1 month ago
I watched that video, and it is very clear; a perfect definition essay.  However, the problem with christians is that every argument for which they will listen still makes them cling to their jew god because these arguments do not take into consideration other gods or goddesses.  

I find the strongest defense against christians is not to defend a rational real world argument, but to make them defend their broken view while testing it against logic and denying their divine right by using knowledge of several non-jew religions.  Doing this, I have made at least four christians cry and one literally went into medical shock.
ChipmunkClunk
6 years, 1 month ago
PC, you believe that furries came from outer space to teach humans how to love. Don't bash other people's beliefs.
PeachClover
6 years, 1 month ago
Are you insinuating that I am crazy because of that?  I'll be the first to admit that my beliefs are hard to swallow, and that is why I don't go preaching them unsolicited, but truly I say onto you that my brand of crazy is far less harmful to others than jehovian religions.  

christians believe they are born onto this world to live a life of suffering, starving themselves of every pleasure, and forcing others by any means to believe exactly what they do, so that when they die they go to a place beyond time and space where no living human being will ever see them again... If you want to call me crazy, then you need to take into perspective that I am far less crazy than these people who somehow manage to lie to themselves believing that by hurting other people they are doing the will of an all loving deity...

Did you know that my goddess is crazy?  Shi does not believe in revenge at all.  Shi has the power to stop all wars and all possible harm from everything, but shi doesn't, because shi wants us to evolve to a point where we can temper our reactions to pain with compassion, to understand that accidents happen, and that even when people do hateful or hurtful things they only do so out of ignorance to how their actions effect everyone both beloved and yet unknown.  Shi has never laid down a doctrine of how to do this because shi understands that words can be misleading and manipulated.  Instead, in each of hir lives, living among humanity as a mere mortal, even under all the suffering that the world can throw at the life of a mere mortal shi demonstrates that anyone can overcome selfishness, greed, fear, and hatered to become something more beautiful.  Some people call hir Quan Yin.

Comparing the ideals of compassion of Quan Yin to the doctrine of jehova, I would have to believe that if this jew god existed and showed 1% of the compassion for which Quan Yin stands, then he would find a way to destroy every copy of every variant of holy text that held his name in the same sentences condoning harmful action against others.

Your one liner argument against my disapproval of jehovians seems to be akin to the phrase, “don't throw stones when you live in a glass house”, but now that you know more about the way in which I aspire to live my life, on what grounds do you stand insinuating that my spiritual beliefs are more detrimental to the health and happiness of people in general than those of the average, median, and/or mode of christians?
ChipmunkClunk
6 years, 1 month ago
I am merely insinuating that as a man of a religion that many might find bizarre, making fun of Christians for having strange beliefs is rather uncouth and hypocritical. I don't give a fuck WHAT you believe, how you practice (provided no one is harmed), or what gods you choose to worship. In fact, unlike many people, I respect your beliefs. What I do not respect is how you tote this holier-than-thou, better-than-human demeanor and expect everyone else to accept and respect you when you don't respect other people's beliefs and customs.

As a man who wishes to be more than a man, you're looking mighty human.
PeachClover
6 years, 1 month ago
There is nothing hypocritical about my beliefs.  If you measure the goals of my beliefs by the scientific study and measure of happiness or the lack thereof, then you would find no hypocrisy; there are no pointless mandated rituals nor is there any practice in my beliefs that harms another while allowing me to falsely believe that I am doing some sort of good.

As far as believing myself better than an unnamed group.... So what?  That in and of itself is by no means uncommon nor is it inherently bad.  It is only when a person treats other yet unknown persons as undeserving, does it begin to fester into a problem.  It's not that I believe christians are beneath me; it is that I believe all jehovian religions are beneath everybody.  That does not mean that I wish ill will upon the practicioner; it means I wish the practicioners would grow up.
ChipmunkClunk
6 years, 1 month ago
Hypocrisy. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
There is everything hypocritical about your beliefs, from your lack of knowledge about the gods you claim to worship in the context of the traditional religions from which they come, to your lack of knowledge about the religions you criticize. But hey, no one worships the same way nor believes the same things, so I don't really care what you decide to believe if it makes you happy.

As for the second point, well, you're just egocentric :P I'd suggest you're no better than the Christians you criticize, "hating the sin, not the sinner."
PeachClover
6 years, 1 month ago
Maybe I should have said, "shi was once called Quan Yin", but there is nothing traditional about my beliefs, and I never said I follow a previously defined religion.  Notice that I only refer to my beliefs; I have no religion.  Saying that I don't fit in with followers of religions for which I am not part is not hypocrisy.  Now that I know who you are, you are already aware of my body's family's religious beliefs.  Do you think that they did not try to force that down my throat as well?  Saying that I am too ignorant about that religion to criticize it is something that I am not prepared to tolerate from you.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
I think his basic point is that a person who believes in Santa Claus as the one true savior is not in a position to call the beliefs of others ridiculous or in any other way laughable.

You can't be dismissive of baseless fantastical beliefs of others if you have baseless fantastical beliefs of your own. If your own beliefs have no solid and testable evidence to support or prove them, then your beliefs are no more OR less valid than the unprovable beliefs of anyone else.

The point, from the perspective of non-believers who feel that >no< belief is valid without evidence to support it, is that belief in the christian god is no more valid than belief in purple dragons, flying spaghetti monsters, or the cosmic teapot. NOBODY with a fantastical impossible unprovable belief can denounce or dismiss ANYBODY ELSE'S fantastical impossible unprovable belief without being a hypocrite.

It doesn't matter what you believe, or whether you are alone in your belief, or part of a religion of millions. If you hold beliefs that are the realm of the supernatural and impossible to be tested, your beliefs are >exactly< as valid or invalid as anybody else's impossible fantasy beliefs. Christians who declare Mormon beliefs as ridiculous and laughable are Hypocrites.

I don't know your beliefs (not asking either) but just from what you've said here, they are no less "ridiculous" to believe than anything the Christians believe. You, as a person with impossible fantastical personal beliefs, dismissing the impossible fantastical personal beliefs of others, are being a hypocrite when you do so.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
To be clear, I am not attacking your beliefs, or you for having them.

You are essentially proving the point of the argument against treating faith-based beliefs as valid: if all the religious nonsense of the world has to be considered as possible and valid, then too must all of the individual imaginings of anybody else, no matter how far fetched, be treated as perfectly valid and possible.
PeachClover
6 years, 1 month ago
I think my major point has been forgotten in all of this.  My point at the start of this mess, and has remained so is not the question of whether one's beliefs are believable to the objective outsider, but the question of does a person's beliefs convince them to cause harm believing that they are doing what they are supposed to do for the sake of something yet scientifically unprovable?

Considering that I am not part of a group, but an individual in my beliefs, judging my believes over my actions is in fact stupid.  For the ones considering themselves "true christians", the decent people who think they follow that barbaric religion, siding with others based upon not how these others act, but by the fact that they use common words such as, "god, jesus, sin, heaven, and christ" is to allow themselves to be blinded into harming the world when they, who are smart enough not to kill people based on a unexplained command, but have had the brains to make their own evaluations in the world, surrender themselves upon a mob mentality without even realizing that these other followers are the same people that they don't want propagated in the world.

As I said in my first reply, if these decent people really cared about doing the right thing, they would step out of that religion and help destroy it.  Decent and good people do not need to be taught to fear eternal punishment to be decent and good people.  Fear of eternal punishment only makes those who are weak of will, fearful, and paranoid into true monsters killing and torturing everyone outside of themselves because they believe they are not worthy enough within but can buy their salvation from this punishment by doing every easy thing that book tells them to do.
ChipmunkClunk
6 years, 1 month ago
this is what I hear when you talk.

"If you don't think what I think, you're a dumbass."

All day, everyday. As per our private conversation, this is what I'm talking about.
ChipmunkClunk
6 years, 1 month ago
and I support that :3

that is, that all religious beliefs are valid.
KhellSennet
6 years, 1 month ago
Don't judge me with the fursuiters and bronies, they're not real furries...except they are.
Like it or not, there are rarely any concrete justifications to consider one person a "true" member of some subculture, and others not.  Christians, goths, conservatives, Muslims, hipsters; it doesn't matter what group you talk about, anyone who follows even the slightest bit of the fad is indeed a member of the club.  They may be the fringe, or they may be the card-carrying original / majority, but it doesn't change the fact that they are part of your niche.  And you should be judged by their actions, because whatever they do reflects on the whole.  If you don't like what they do (such as how the bulk of Christians don't like what the Westboro Baptist Church does) it is up to that subculture to correct them, or eliminate their association with the group.  It is not enough to simply say "Oh, those guys aren't like us" and pretend like you have nothing in common.  Using the WBC example, those backwater hick bigots are preaching from the bible, and are supporting values that the Christian/Catholic faith stands for.  Some Christians may disagree with their views, but it is the same faith, just taken from a different standpoint.  Christians may like to think they aren't the same, but that's just semantics.
RedReynart
6 years, 1 month ago
There is no such thing as a real christian. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is defined as a religion of those who follow Jesus Christ.

It was Martin Luther that started the Churches Reformation and started the protestant movement. Ever since then what makes someone a true follower has been redefined by the countless sects founded on the different ideology of how to worship under Christianity.

Catholic, and Orthodox were the two first sects under Christianity. Every other one that followed is considered a Protestant Sect and by the original Sects are considered not true Christians. Some may even argue that there sect is the right path and all others aren't true Christians. Others accept all sects as being all of the same faith.

The bible is only one text in christianity and all sects seem to follow it. Sadly the book has been re-written over and over and the information within has been re-interpreted over and over. Hence forth why there are so many sects to begin with.

Each sect has also there own collection of other texts that were written long after the bibles creation. Dante's Inferno being one of them. With out that story there would be no depiction of hell or the Seven Deadly Sins for that matter.

So there are allot of re-interpretations just by the countless new texts written. You can argue that all sects are different but in truth they are both different and the same.

Muslims you can also study. They have one book the Koran and they have over 100 different interpretations of what is actually written. Why you can see women in turkey with exposed faces and in Saudi Arabia they have to be completely covered.

Civil war has broken out just because of how the two sects Sunni and Shiite think so differently, AND YET they all follow the same book and same Deity. Just like Judaism Follow the same God as Christianity and yet they both fight with another.

So in new light, Well never know who is true to any religion. It has all been reinterpreted, rewritten and lost in translation. As long as you keep true to your faith I say you are a true follower. But to say you are a True Cristian is like saying you are the only right way and everyone else is a Heathen.

And that is Exactly what is happening.. You can not separate any one Sect and claim that they are true with out being Biased against yourself.
Wulfshade
6 years, 1 month ago
Hah! Every christian thinks he's one of the true kind, and every christian has has built his/her world view upon the interpretation of a single book. Indeed, God IS an author of confusion.

I say, if a christian is not an extremist, then he's probably more moral than the god he claims to worship and should move to more mature kind of life philosophy. Oh, and the same applies to the muslims.
ChipmunkClunk
6 years, 1 month ago
Well, you're pretty dismissive of the subject, so it would seem you're not ACTUALLY looking for a definition of "true Christian," but more looking to rant about how religion is evil. Even so, here's a try.

People are asking you not to lump them in with extremists because they don't want to be judged by the actions of a few, much the same way furries don't want to be judged by the actions of media portrayals of us, or how Muslims don't want to be judged as terrorists because someone decided to blow something up in the name of Islam. It's perfectly reasonable, and I don't see why you're so offended.

As for what a "true Christian" is, well, it's defined in this book of evil as one who strives to be Christ-like. As such, there are very few "true Christians" in this world; being Christian is very, very hard, as defined in the Book. So, regardless of whether or not homosexuality is an abomination, you don't treat homosexuals as scoundrels. You may recall, having read this book, that Jesus was pretty adamant about hanging out with people who were on the fringes of society, and even people who we might regard as pure evil like tax collectors and whores. The idea is not to judge people, it is to LOVE people. Jesus simplified God's commandments into two all-encompassing laws: Love your God, and love your fellow man.
A true Christian strives to lead people away from sin by being an EXAMPLE, by being LIKE CHRIST. So again, regardless of who you interpret the bible is telling you to hate, to be a Christian is to treat them as Christ would. That is supremely difficult.

I would also suggest that the Bible is open to interpretation in most cases. It's less about denying that things are there and more about finding a deeper, over-encompassing meaning to the whole thing. People who pride themselves on being literalists tend to miss some things in their reading; that is to say, they haven't read everything. Now, one must also recognize that the bible serves as both a religious text AND a cultural document, a preservation of ancient cultures from thousands of years ago. Giving it context, some things that seem outright silly or evil now made a bit more sense. Lying with another man when we're trying to build a people is a waste of good sperm; make kids instead. Eating pork is dangerous because pork is laden with toxins, and we don't really have a way to cure it yet. Tattoos and piercings can lead to massive infection and death, and we can't afford to lose people.
Furthermore, as I'm sure you're aware, Jesus taught in parables. Well, that wasn't unique to him. In fact, that was the most common way of teaching religion. So, in essence, the Bible is a book of parables and stories, meant to teach lessons and establish cultural morals and values.
And finally, the Bible has been used for evil. That is to say, people who are evil rally people behind the bible in order to justify and gain support for evil acts. That is to say, evil people can dupe the uneducated masses into doing stupid shit by using the bible to justify things that aren't what the bible is about. That is to say, the Bible is a malleable and misunderstood work that people can use to justify anything simply by taking things out of context.


So, I'm not a Christian, but I'm not just going to shit on everyone because I don't understand their faith and why they follow it. I'm also not going to blame decent people for the terrible acts of a few, nor will I judge people based solely on how I interpret their faith. And finally, I'm not going to bitch at people about why their faith is stupid and why they shouldn't follow it as if I am holier-than-thou because I believe something else.
ChipmunkClunk
6 years, 1 month ago
*long-winded follow-up comment*
EdwardHowton
6 years, 1 month ago
In my experience, a 'true christian' is whoever you happen to be talking to at the time, and a false christian is whoever that person doesn't like. It obviously doesn't make any sense, but it's the only metric that works.

It's amazing, really. Every time a christian contacts me to inform me of this amazing news they have that I'm an immoral monster and that I deserve to get tortured for all of eternity because I said the word 'fuck' once, by some amazing coincidence they are a TRUE christian! I never seem to talk to false christians at all, but according to the ones who judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged-but-spend-all-their-time-judging-others false christians are all over the place.

There's a theme in the replies (and I'll quote the guy who replied before me) along the lines of "people who are evil rally people behind the bible in order to justify and gain support for evil acts", but that's simply not the case. The bible explicitly orders murder. If you're gay, you're supposed to be killed on the spot. If you're a kid and disobey your parents, die. Immodest woman? Die. The list goes on and on. This isn't people looking for an excuse to do bad things. These are people who believe they are doing a good thing because a book told them to. They aren't hiding behind the bible to justify themselves (although that is what it amounts to), they are taking actions they would not otherwise take unless they thought it was commanded by their imaginary friend. The quoted line I used inverts cause and effect.

If you're still not convinced, ask yourself what real, demonstrably true benefit you can obtain by following any religion that you cannot obtain by entirely secular and non-religious means. Theists of all stripes have failed to come up with anything better than "submission to god" or "the hope of heaven". Neither of those things are real or of any value. Religion is simply a complete and utter failure of humanity's budding intellect, and the sooner it disappears, the better our chance of not nuking all life to extinction.

ChipmunkClunk above me said:
So, I'm not a Christian, but I'm not just going to shit on everyone because I don't understand their faith and why they follow it. I'm also not going to blame decent people for the terrible acts of a few, nor will I judge people based solely on how I interpret their faith. And finally, I'm not going to bitch at people about why their faith is stupid and why they shouldn't follow it as if I am holier-than-thou because I believe something else.
The problem is he doesn't understand religion. He admits to it. He's in no position to judge why it's so goddamn awful. It's not about judging the whole from a few bad apples; it's about realizing the "bad apples" are actually good examples of what you get in context of the whole. It's not about being holier-than-thou than the holier-than-thou types, it's about using a fair, critical evaluation of something instead of living in a fantasy world where 'live and let live' actually works, instead of in the real world where religion has been left alone for thousands of years and we got mass genocides and the fucking Dark Ages twice for our troubles. If you think muslim countries are a shit-hole, religion is why. They let their religion take over, and society went down the toilet. Europe did the same thing, and then they were burning books in the street, or people alive if they didn't go to church often enough. Not because they were evil, but because what they thought was an authority TOLD THEM it was a good idea.

It's the Milgram experiment, but instead of a lab coat or a uniform, the guy giving the orders is invisible.

It's not about shitting on everyone, either. Christians, muslims, even jews and hindus and everybody else, they're victims of a millennia-old brainwashing campaign. They speak out and infect their kids with this brain-virus, and that has to be stopped, but they're just ignorant and trapped in their cults.
Zer0
6 years, 1 month ago
Defining a "true" christian? Not possible in a specific format. After a bit of study and discussions with the religious folk, only two types of definitions come to mind that are mostly vague: Someone who accept Jesus as the Christ, Lord and Savior. This is dandy, but people have different definitions as to what "accept" actually means; Someone who tries to be like Jesus. Which, from what I hear about the guy, might not be a bad idea. Problem is people see Jesus in vastly different ways. As well, some people have pointed out to me that somewhere in the bible it states that Jesus didn't want people to emulate him or something. Not exactly sure, never found anything myself that stated this, but some people believe that.

Sorry, but because of the thousands of years of language barriers and deliberate misinterpretations, there is no longer a "true" way to be a christian that can be fully defined and measured.

"It makes no sense to pick and choose what you think sounds good and what you think sounds bad, and then declare definitively that the only "True" Christians are the ones who ignore precisely the same bits that you do."

Yes and no.

Yes, it doesn't make any sense to pick and choose what you want to believe willy-nilly just because you feel that way. Everybody feels a different way about the same thing. What winds up happening is schisms.

On the otherhand, if one were to dive deeply into researching the bible to know everything there is to know about it, to know where it is misinterpreted and correct it to the best language barriers would allow; if someone were to dedicate their lives to true study of the bible, the history of the bible and more, then said individual might be just a bit more qualified to say what is and is not true in the bible, as well they would probably be the best ones to differentiate between a universal passage in the bible to a passage that is very specific to the time era it was written in. Doing so would allow the picking and choosing of what to follow and what not to follow PRECISELY BECAUSE there are parts of the bible that do contradict itself between the old testament and new testament as well as there are parts of the bible written to help define specific behavior expected in a given time period (which, inadvertently  gives us a view of what the behavior actually was in a given time period). With time passing, said constraints of the given time period no longer apply to this time period due to advances in science and education.

So yes, logically people SHOULD pick and choose what to believe in the bible BECAUSE of the misinterpretations, language barriers and cultural barriers. Would people be right? Hell if I care. I'm an agnostic who doesn't care whether or not there is a/are several god(s)/goddess(es). Doesn't matter whether or not I believe, belief isn't going to help me get along in my life, so I live by a general code of do not inhibit others path to happiness until it begins to inhibit my own. I leave details for others to argue over.
Zer0
6 years, 1 month ago
By the way, LOVE reading the arguments here. Not that any of them may or may not hold water, that doesn't matter. Just watching people readily reveal whether or not they have the romantic mindset and the classical mindset is priceless to me. :3
KennyKitsune
6 years, 1 month ago
*offers hugs?*
Lyserdigi
6 years, 1 month ago
*accepts hugs from the fox, and offers some balloons in return*
^w^
vulPN
6 years, 1 month ago
The idea of "not a real Christian" is drummed up by people who want to disassociate themselves from groups within the religion that they don't support. Snake Handlers, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists are all equally legitimate forms of Christianity, like it or not. If you go to a church and call yourself a Christian, then you're a Christian. You don't need the approval of any diocese to do that.

That's my two cents' worth.
Veritas
6 years, 1 month ago
"What makes a "real" Christian?

I do not want your personal individual definition of what it means to be Christian."

Unfortunately, I think this is kind of futile. Bloody wars have been fought over the centuries because of different notions of "what it means to be Christian." At the end of the day, "real Christian" tends to be whatever the speaker thinks it is, not something objective.

See also vulPN's remark previous to mine, Zer0's somewhat previous, and perhaps others I haven't seen. You are asking for an answer that's inherently subjective, and then saying you don't want a subjective answer, and that's not fair.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 1 month ago
The fact that the question is unanswerable is basically the point. There just aren't any "true" Christians in any meaningful sense, which is pretty much what he says in the journal. So rather than it being an unfair proposition and demanding an answer, the question is evidently rhetorical.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Yes, thank you. X3

I meant the question to be rhetorical, but I guess providing an option for what I felt to be the closest anything could come to an answer clouded that, so my bad for being unclear.
foxboyprower
6 years, 1 month ago
I've only met a few people in my life that I would consider true Christians (in the sense that they reflect all the positive aspects of the religion) and I went to private school. So... yeah it's a tiny percentage. I think "wonderful people" is a better label for the select few.

Also, why don't you enjoy the benefits of being an atheist by not caring about religion rather than going out of your way to attack it. I would relax.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
No, see, you're missing the point.

You consider some people 'true Christians,' while other people who call themselves Christians, you do not consider "true" Christians. You say you make this determination by whether they reflect the positive aspects of the religion or not.

But the entire point I was trying to make: who are you (or anyone) to decide which aspects of the religion are good, and which aren't? Who gets to say which aspects are "positive?" The Bible tells you to do good things, but it also plain as day tells you to do absolutely horrible and evil things. If you use your own sense of morality to decide which of the Bible's commands are "positive" and you disregard the many MANY commands which are unspeakably evil, then >you do not need this book to tell right from wrong.<

Good people who happen to be Christians want us to accept that this book is good, and the religion is a source of worthwhile values, but what we are trying to tell you is that all of the good that comes from it can come from common sense, reason and compassion, while so much of the evil that comes from it would not be NEARLY as prevalent or excused if religion wasn't some precious protected thing that nobody can argue with.

Religious people do evil and push hate and bigotry every fucking day. There is no end to the ridiculous oppressive garbage happening in the world >right now< that is being done in the name of religion, and justified and defended by religious beliefs. You can't say that we have to be quiet and relax and just not worry about religion when religion is telling me who I can't marry, when in some countries religion is legalizing the murder of people for being gay, when it is used as a substitute for education and intelligence, and the ignorance of people who choose religion over education is exactly why the evil and corrupt people in power in this country have managed to stay there. People vote for the ones who are doing the most to harm them, just because they only vote on who name-drops 'God' the most.

"Why don't you enjoy the benefits of being a second-class citizen instead of going out of your way to attack the very thing that keeps you from having the same rights as everyone else. I would just relax."

As I have said many many MANY times: When people are attacking religion, we're not attacking any of you who will say "but I don't push my beliefs on anybody, so why can't you respect my right to my beliefs?" We aren't attacking you until you throw yourself into the line of fire. THEN we are attacking you for defending the extremist crazies that you all say you don't defend and who "aren't real Christians." Because no matter how much you may say - and really believe - that you don't condone the hateful evil extremists committing these acts in the name of the same god as you, you ARE condoning them and defending them by obstructing efforts to denounce and defy the FACT of religion being the single greatest weapon against intelligence, education, understanding, growth, advancement, and true human fellowship, that mankind has EVER constructed.

You cannot tell us to sit back and keep our atheism to ourselves and relax without acting like religion isn't hurting anybody. If you have the sight to see that religion IS causing people harm, then you HAVE to understand why nobody should back down until they are NOT being >legally< put down because of religion.

If you honestly cannot see how religion is used as a weapon every single day, how religion is the ONLY "legitimate" obstacle to people being treated equally, then you are too blind to comment on the subject.

I don't think you're that blind. I think you, and most of the others defending religion here, are all too aware of the harm your fellow Christians do. But you somehow think that defending the force causing these problems is more important than helping us eliminate the "extremists" that tarnish the good name of your precious religion.
foxboyprower
6 years, 1 month ago
I also pointed out that a better label is needed. "True Christian" is so ambigious it has little meaning.

I'm a bit worried about your stress levels.
Wolfblade
6 years, 1 month ago
Nono, I'm not stressing over this one. This one's actually a nice mental exercise for me. I can speak my mind on a subject I do feel passionately about, but it's not the stressful burning passion that comes with most of my rants. This one is more of a venting release, let's me get some of that stuff out, but without just winding me up tighter.
Synhowl
6 years, 1 month ago
Here's the thing, tho ... not everyone bases their religious beliefs based off what's written in some book. And some think that believing that there IS a God, without having really read or following any of the stuff in the Bible, is still enough to want to consider themselves as belonging to this religion or that. And and least in my opinion, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. If someone chooses to associate themselves with a particular religious faith, but doesn't believe in or follow any of the aspects of that faith that are offensive to me, then that suits me just fine. What they choose to label themselves is of no consequence to me, it's how they ACT that truly matters.

My problem isn't with people wanting to believe in something. EVERYONE should believe. Even if their belief is that there's nothing to believe in. Faith is one of the quintessential driving forces of the human experience. But where I -do- have a problem is when someone else sees fit to use THEIR religious beliefs as a justification for passing judgment on those who believe differently than they do.

Because in ALL due honesty ... not a SINGLE one of us TRULY knows what happens after we die, or if there IS some kind of higher sentient being overseeing the universe. We have ABSOLUTELY no way of knowing this. It's the collective blindspot of both theology AND science.

We. Don't. Know.

And BECAUSE we don't know, I feel that arguing about how one's dogma is more right than someone else's is just utterly and completely pointless, and causes needless harm and ill will towards our fellow man. If one, personally, needs the comfort of believing there being something out there greater than ourselves to feel comforted, then I'll defend to the death their right to do so. If someone doesn't need that and would prefer to think that there -is- no higher being and we're all that there is, I'll champion their right to believe that, too.

But absolutely NO ONE has ANY right to tell someone that they're wrong for what they believe, unless it's DIRECTLY doing harm to others around them.
RoareyRaccoon
6 years, 1 month ago
Nobody has a right to say others are wrong? Oh I beg to differ there; rights don't enter into it. All we can ever do is try to get as close to the facts as we can and make sense of them. Careful, contemplative, evidence-based reasoning. If people believe something because it just feels right then, despite it not being an inherently bad thing, it's still rather silly. It's part of our psychological make-up to believe all manner of unlikely and ill-conceived things and recognizing this is the beginning of discussion, not the end of it. To just say that discussing these beliefs is pointless is a rather defeatist and empty load of piffle. Change doesn't happen on its own, it is influenced by discourse, opinion and action.
Synhowl
6 years, 1 month ago
It's a matter of respect, tho. If someone's beliefs don't harm you or effect you, directly, why try and make them feel bad about it? If someone thought -your- beliefs were "silly", would -you- appreciate it if someone were to get all in your fac