Is Christianity a religion any more?

[tigerbob]

Yes, I think it is a very small percentage indeed, and it is abused and misrepresented quite a bit to stereo type the whole religion.

Personally, I see a few qualifiers here:

1. "Christianity" is very, very broad-spectrum. Interestingly enough, it means different things to different people. Some people consider many different religions to be a part of "Christianity" as a whole, while there are many who consider themselves to be Christians, yet don't consider people of other "Christian" religions to be Christians.

2. Personally, there is a big difference in someone saying they are a Christian and actually being a Christian. Someone who truly aspires to be "christ-like" (Christian) will not be rude/obnoxious/hateful towards others or attack them just because they don't believe the same.

3. Christians are stereotyped just about as much as atheists/non-believers or those of different faiths. Sometimes they have brought it upon themselves (Phelps' come to mind) and sometimes they haven't.

That is a perfect example of what I am saying. Phelps does not represent me, nor would I guess that he represents the feelings or beliefs of 99% of Christians, yet b/c his name is in the media (surprise, surprise) then you say 'they' have brought it upon themselves. So, how does Phelps bring anything on me or the thousands of other Christians out there? Are you not intelligent enough to understand or distinguish that you can't take one person's beliefs or actions and color an entire group? Should Phelps actions represent those of all men since he is a man? Would you substitute that wording when talking about a stereo type of the black race. Would you use the word 'they' in the same context then? I highly doubt it.

She said sometimes.

 

[Phoenix]

That is a perfect example of what I am saying. Phelps does not represent me, nor would I guess that he represents the feelings or beliefs of 99% of Christians, yet b/c his name is in the media (surprise, surprise) then you say 'they' have brought it upon themselves. So, how does Phelps bring anything on me or the thousands of other Christians out there? Are you not intelligent enough to understand or distinguish that you can't take one person's beliefs or actions and color an entire group? Should Phelps actions represent those of all men since he is a man? Would you substitute that wording when talking about a stereo type of the black race. Would you use the word 'they' in the same context then? I highly doubt it.

Sure I would. It's the ubiquitous "they".

Some black people give other black people a bad name, as do white people, religious people, non-religious people, etc.

Phelps has an impact on the name "Christian" because that's what he calls himself. Therefore, people associate all Christians with him to at least some degree. It doesn't matter that he could be in the minority - he's in the news. When the news starts reporting on the front page about the Christians who are good, solid citizens, who care for their neighbors, who are constantly kind and generous - then people's opinions about Christians may change. But that ain't going to happen because Phelps sells papers.

That's the bad thing about defining yourself with a single word or title - you don't get to choose how others associate that with positive or negative opinions/thoughts/impressions/feelings.

 

[Newby]

Personally, I see a few qualifiers here:

1. "Christianity" is very, very broad-spectrum. Interestingly enough, it means different things to different people. Some people consider many different religions to be a part of "Christianity" as a whole, while there are many who consider themselves to be Christians, yet don't consider people of other "Christian" religions to be Christians.

2. Personally, there is a big difference in someone saying they are a Christian and actually being a Christian. Someone who truly aspires to be "christ-like" (Christian) will not be rude/obnoxious/hateful towards others or attack them just because they don't believe the same.

3. Christians are stereotyped just about as much as atheists/non-believers or those of different faiths. Sometimes they have brought it upon themselves (Phelps' come to mind) and sometimes they haven't.

That is a perfect example of what I am saying. Phelps does not represent me, nor would I guess that he represents the feelings or beliefs of 99% of Christians, yet b/c his name is in the media (surprise, surprise) then you say 'they' have brought it upon themselves. So, how does Phelps bring anything on me or the thousands of other Christians out there? Are you not intelligent enough to understand or distinguish that you can't take one person's beliefs or actions and color an entire group? Should Phelps actions represent those of all men since he is a man? Would you substitute that wording when talking about a stereo type of the black race. Would you use the word 'they' in the same context then? I highly doubt it.

She said sometimes.

For those who hold up people such as Phelps as a representation for a group of people, they are only doing a disservice to themselves. If people want to believe that Phelps and others like him are what represent Christianity, then they are ignorant and uninformed on the topic.

 

[RodISHI]

I am sure you'll figure it out.

Luke 22:50-52

The fact that, in their religious zeal, some Christians think it is important to attack those who do not share their beliefs?

That and truthfully humans are all children when you get down to it. They are certain manners that go with being a Christian. Paul spoke about these to the churches. I could go into them but I don't think it is a sermon your after.

 

[Newby]

That is a perfect example of what I am saying. Phelps does not represent me, nor would I guess that he represents the feelings or beliefs of 99% of Christians, yet b/c his name is in the media (surprise, surprise) then you say 'they' have brought it upon themselves. So, how does Phelps bring anything on me or the thousands of other Christians out there? Are you not intelligent enough to understand or distinguish that you can't take one person's beliefs or actions and color an entire group? Should Phelps actions represent those of all men since he is a man? Would you substitute that wording when talking about a stereo type of the black race. Would you use the word 'they' in the same context then? I highly doubt it.

Sure I would. It's the ubiquitous "they".

Some black people give other black people a bad name, as do white people, religious people, non-religious people, etc.

Phelps has an impact on the name "Christian" because that's what he calls himself. Therefore, people associate all Christians with him to at least some degree. It doesn't matter that he could be in the minority - he's in the news. When the news starts reporting on the front page about the Christians who are good, solid citizens, who care for their neighbors, who are constantly kind and generous - then people's opinions about Christians may change. But that ain't going to happen because Phelps sells papers.

That's the bad thing about defining yourself with a single word or title - you don't get to choose how others associate that with positive or negative opinions/thoughts/impressions/feelings.

Perhaps people should educate themselves before they form positive or negative opinions regarding a group? Perhaps that says more about the person forming the opinion based on little knowledge than it does about the group they are painting with the same brush?

 

[Phoenix]

Perhaps people should educate themselves before they form positive or negative opinions regarding a group? Perhaps that says more about the person forming the opinion based on little knowledge than it does about the group they are painting with the same brush?

You are absolutely correct. In a perfect world, no one would be judged or pigeon-holed by their beliefs, skin color, accent, physical attributes or anything else.

Reality isn't perfect.

 

[editec]

Christians have been debating and killing each other over how to love thy neighbor as thyself for a touch of 2000 years, now.

We're still working out a few details (like: Who would Jesus kill?), so just give us time.

Now you'd think that what with the Bible we'd have gotten this down by now, but I suspect that the people who wrote the bible were moonlighting from their day jobs as those technical writers who give us directions for how to put together stuff made in China.

So the problem is either a problem of meaning lost in translation or perhaps, just perhaps, the Bible lost something in the original.

 

[tigerbob]

That is a perfect example of what I am saying. Phelps does not represent me, nor would I guess that he represents the feelings or beliefs of 99% of Christians, yet b/c his name is in the media (surprise, surprise) then you say 'they' have brought it upon themselves. So, how does Phelps bring anything on me or the thousands of other Christians out there? Are you not intelligent enough to understand or distinguish that you can't take one person's beliefs or actions and color an entire group? Should Phelps actions represent those of all men since he is a man? Would you substitute that wording when talking about a stereo type of the black race. Would you use the word 'they' in the same context then? I highly doubt it.

She said sometimes.

For those who hold up people such as Phelps as a representation for a group of people, they are only doing a disservice to themselves. If people want to believe that Phelps and others like him are what represent Christianity, then they are ignorant and uninformed on the topic.

Perhaps so, but Phelps is more visible than most Christians and people tend to speak as they find. It may not be reality, but to a degree it reinforces some peoples' perception

 

[Newby]

Sure I would. It's the ubiquitous "they".

Some black people give other black people a bad name, as do white people, religious people, non-religious people, etc.

Well, I don't follow that philosophy and I would hope that most other people would not either. Just because one person, that can be identified as being a part of a certain group, acts in a negative way, I would not automattically assume that the rest of the group acts in the same manner simply because they may share similar characteristics. That's the danger of grouping people in a society and indiscriminantly applying labels.

 

[tigerbob]

Personally, I see a few qualifiers here:

1. "Christianity" is very, very broad-spectrum. Interestingly enough, it means different things to different people. Some people consider many different religions to be a part of "Christianity" as a whole, while there are many who consider themselves to be Christians, yet don't consider people of other "Christian" religions to be Christians.

2. Personally, there is a big difference in someone saying they are a Christian and actually being a Christian. Someone who truly aspires to be "christ-like" (Christian) will not be rude/obnoxious/hateful towards others or attack them just because they don't believe the same.

3. Christians are stereotyped just about as much as atheists/non-believers or those of different faiths. Sometimes they have brought it upon themselves (Phelps' come to mind) and sometimes they haven't.

All good points, with a particular for number 2.

Exactly, yet that behavior will be ascribed to Christians in general, yet you freely admit that anyone who truly follows the word of Christ would not act in such a manner. So, how can that behavior be attributed to Christians in general then? Yet it is by people who find it convenient to do so for the sake of their anti-Christian arguments.

I can't speak for them. In the words of Thomas More, I have no window to look into another man's soul.

Life isn't fair. Christ had a cross to bear. Perhaps this is ours?

 

[Newby]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...church-of-christ-in-the-only-true-church.html

This is a classic example of what I was attempting to illustrate in the OP.

And I could show you links to myriads of threads started by Colorado Mountain Man doing just the opposite with his Christian bashing threads. Because one person on a message board posts that crap, then he speaks for everyone in his 'group' then? Like I said, those with a little common sense would know better I would hope.

 

[tigerbob]

I am sure you'll figure it out.

Luke 22:50-52

The fact that, in their religious zeal, some Christians think it is important to attack those who do not share their beliefs?

That and truthfully humans are all children when you get down to it. They are certain manners that go with being a Christian. Paul spoke about these to the churches. I could go into them but I don't think it is a sermon your after.

Point taken.

 

[Newby]

Christians have been debating and killing each other over how to love thy neighbor as thyself for a touch of 2000 years, now.

We're still working out a few details (like: Who would Jesus kill?), so just give us time.

Now you'd think that what with the Bible we'd have gotten this down by now, but I suspect that the people who wrote the bible were moonlighting from their day jobs as those technical writers who give us directions for how to put together stuff made in China.

So the problem is either a problem of meaning lost in translation or perhaps, just perhaps, the Bible lost something in the original.

You could replace 'Christians' with 'People'. Why do you think Christ was sent as a savior? Because people were being perfect and had no need of salvation? What ever gave you the belief that all Christians should be perfect? If that were the case, then the words of Jesus would be absolutely meaningless, and there wouldn't have been any reason for him being here to begin with. His words are words that Christians are supposed to adhere too and follow, it doesn't mean that they always do.

 

[Newby]

Perhaps people should educate themselves before they form positive or negative opinions regarding a group? Perhaps that says more about the person forming the opinion based on little knowledge than it does about the group they are painting with the same brush?

You are absolutely correct. In a perfect world, no one would be judged or pigeon-holed by their beliefs, skin color, accent, physical attributes or anything else.

Reality isn't perfect.

On that, we can agree. In a perfect world there would have been no need for Christ or His salvation so we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[RodISHI]

That is a perfect example of what I am saying. Phelps does not represent me, nor would I guess that he represents the feelings or beliefs of 99% of Christians, yet b/c his name is in the media (surprise, surprise) then you say 'they' have brought it upon themselves. So, how does Phelps bring anything on me or the thousands of other Christians out there? Are you not intelligent enough to understand or distinguish that you can't take one person's beliefs or actions and color an entire group? Should Phelps actions represent those of all men since he is a man? Would you substitute that wording when talking about a stereo type of the black race. Would you use the word 'they' in the same context then? I highly doubt it.

Sure I would. It's the ubiquitous "they".

Some black people give other black people a bad name, as do white people, religious people, non-religious people, etc.

Phelps has an impact on the name "Christian" because that's what he calls himself. Therefore, people associate all Christians with him to at least some degree. It doesn't matter that he could be in the minority - he's in the news. When the news starts reporting on the front page about the Christians who are good, solid citizens, who care for their neighbors, who are constantly kind and generous - then people's opinions about Christians may change. But that ain't going to happen because Phelps sells papers.

That's the bad thing about defining yourself with a single word or title - you don't get to choose how others associate that with positive or negative opinions/thoughts/impressions/feelings.

I see Christians in the news all the time doing good things. The media most generally does not make a big deal they are Christians.

As far as if people are choosing to "associate" one with another you have a point but then if Believers deny that they are Believers in Jesus, He has a problem with them. He will deny them. I think for many that is where their own zeal can get them in trouble.

Being zealous for our Lord Jesus and being blinded by ones own self righteousness is a fine line we all have to be careful not to cross. If one teaches/preaches they are held to a higher standard by God and people.

 

[tigerbob]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...church-of-christ-in-the-only-true-church.html

This is a classic example of what I was attempting to illustrate in the OP.

And I could show you links to myriads of threads started by Colorado Mountain Man doing just the opposite with his Christian bashing threads. Because one person on a message board posts that crap, then he speaks for everyone in his 'group' then? Like I said, those with a little common sense would know better I would hope.

You're really getting upset about this, aren't you? Just because I post one thing to illustrate a point doesn't mean that I am deliberately not posting another perspective because I want to slant the thread one way or another.

The OP was about the different branches of Christianity, and the way they sometimes make comments that exclude other branches of Christianity. CMM is not a Christian, and is therefore off topic on the basis of my OP. You've welcome to comment on this of course, but that's the reason I didn't.

If you read my posts rather than just reacting to what you appear to be perceiving as a hidden agenda, you'll see that nowhere have I said that any one person "speaks for everyone in his 'group'".

 

[Phoenix]

Sure I would. It's the ubiquitous "they".

Some black people give other black people a bad name, as do white people, religious people, non-religious people, etc.

Well, I don't follow that philosophy and I would hope that most other people would not either. Just because one person, that can be identified as being a part of a certain group, acts in a negative way, I would not automattically assume that the rest of the group acts in the same manner simply because they may share similar characteristics. That's the danger of grouping people in a society and indiscriminantly applying labels.

What philosophy?

I merely pointed out that some people give others similar to them a bad name by virtue of being similar. We define people and things by the ways they are alike or the ways they are different, but group to define them we do. That is how we have been taught, that is what we know.

For instance, I was raised a fundamental Baptist. I have seen as much or more hypocrisy and idiocy in the name of God as anywhere else. On the other hand, I have a good friend who doesn't believe in God but is much more well-read on just about any religion I can bring up than any pastor I've ever met. This person has never attacked my religion, never tried to sway me their beliefs but has always encouraged me to explore what I believe.

Are all atheists/non-theists that way? Not at all, many others I've met have been extremely rude about religion. Do I judge all "non-believers" by how they acted? No. Nor do I believe that all "Christians" are good, religious people. I've known too many of them that merely used it as a title to categorize themselves, yet it meant nothing in their everyday life.

 

[Newby]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...church-of-christ-in-the-only-true-church.html

This is a classic example of what I was attempting to illustrate in the OP.

And I could show you links to myriads of threads started by Colorado Mountain Man doing just the opposite with his Christian bashing threads. Because one person on a message board posts that crap, then he speaks for everyone in his 'group' then? Like I said, those with a little common sense would know better I would hope.

You're really getting upset about this, aren't you? Just because I post one thing to illustrate a point doesn't mean that I am deliberately not posting another perspective because I want to slant the thread one way or another.

The OP was about the different branches of Christianity, and the way they sometimes make comments that exclude other branches of Christianity. CMM is not a Christian, and is therefore off topic on the basis of my OP. You've welcome to comment on this of course, but that's the reason I didn't.

If you read my posts rather than just reacting to what you appear to be perceiving as a hidden agenda, you'll see that nowhere have I said that any one person "speaks for everyone in his 'group'".

No, I'm not upset at all. If you think this is upset, you haven't seen nothin' yet. I addressed what you said in the OP about people being at odds about 'true christianity' for 100's of years, so I don't think that is a good reasoning for saying that Christianity is falling apart.

I'm reacting to the posts as I go, I will admit however that I am used to being bashed and attacked for my beliefs, so perhaps I look for that agenda at the first. You haven't said that, but in my mind it was somewhat implied. I was satisfied when you said that you didn't know what percentage of people who call themselves Christians attack others for their different beliefs.

 

[Newby]

Sure I would. It's the ubiquitous "they".

Some black people give other black people a bad name, as do white people, religious people, non-religious people, etc.

Well, I don't follow that philosophy and I would hope that most other people would not either. Just because one person, that can be identified as being a part of a certain group, acts in a negative way, I would not automattically assume that the rest of the group acts in the same manner simply because they may share similar characteristics. That's the danger of grouping people in a society and indiscriminantly applying labels.

What philosophy?

I merely pointed out that some people give others similar to them a bad name by virtue of being similar. We define people and things by the ways they are alike or the ways they are different, but group to define them we do. That is how we have been taught, that is what we know.

For instance, I was raised a fundamental Baptist. I have seen as much or more hypocrisy and idiocy in the name of God as anywhere else. On the other hand, I have a good friend who doesn't believe in God but is much more well-read on just about any religion I can bring up than any pastor I've ever met. This person has never attacked my religion, never tried to sway me their beliefs but has always encouraged me to explore what I believe.

Are all atheists/non-theists that way? Not at all, many others I've met have been extremely rude about religion. Do I judge all "non-believers" by how they acted? No. Nor do I believe that all "Christians" are good, religious people. I've known too many of them that merely used it as a title to categorize themselves, yet it meant nothing in their everyday life.

The philosophy of judging someone based on criteria that may include them in a certain group. I don't think that 'some black/white people give other black/white people a bad name'. I realize that other people operate this way, but I try very diligently to not do that.
People should be judged as individuals. So, I really don't think we're in disagreement here since I agree with what you posted.

 

[manu1959]

Christians have been debating and killing each other over how to love thy neighbor as thyself for a touch of 2000 years, now.

We're still working out a few details (like: Who would Jesus kill?), so just give us time.

Now you'd think that what with the Bible we'd have gotten this down by now, but I suspect that the people who wrote the bible were moonlighting from their day jobs as those technical writers who give us directions for how to put together stuff made in China.

So the problem is either a problem of meaning lost in translation or perhaps, just perhaps, the Bible lost something in the original.

or perhaps evil people do evil things and co-opt whatever dogma suits their purpose.....