Why is it so hard for Christians to define themselves?

[Cleobulus]

Looking through Burtworm's thread on how would you feel about people who declare themselves Christians, I was fascinated by a pattern by many who basically said that such people would have to prove they are Christian. What is even more interesting is the acceptable evidence, nothing to do with faith or piety only acts. So in order to be Christian people must act Christian, emulate Christ or, in other words act like a decent human being.

Frankly I'm mystified by this definition. No other religion has this type of generalized attitude that I'm aware of. How does one act Shinto for example? It seems nonsensical and related to the debate about who are "true" Christians and who isn't. At the same time these very Christians run the risk of diluting the meaning of their religion. When acts are all that matter then atheists can be good "Christians".

This also seems to illustrate a condescending attitude towards non-Christians. That Christians live at a higher level of morality than non-Christians and carry an extra burden of setting an example for the rest of us damned souls.

This also illustrates what can be offensive to non-Christians about this misuse of the definition and use of the word Christian. Christian is used today as a substitute for words like "good", "decent", and "charitable". Carrying the implication that people who aren't Christian lack these qualities or have to work harder to acquire them.

What I find interesting is that all the above beliefs and definitions are bullshit. Frankly whether someone declares themselves Christian only seems to affect how insufferable they are to be around which doesn't affect their ethical outlook that much. The uses of Christian as illustrated above are extremely subjective add as many other qualifiers as you want it surely isn't objective.

Indeed, for myself, these fine subjective distinctions outside of the ones that can be offensive to non-Christians are meaningless to me. A Christian is anyone who believes Jesus Christ is the Messiah and worship him as Son of God. Outside of this faith only definition everything else applies equally well to non-Christians and Christian have no ownership over being good or decent.

[disidoro01]

1. Probably

You could apply that to most religions. Or should I back away because this is just a Christian bashing thread, not a religion bashing thread? Religion is not easy to define because people just make stuff up to feel good.

[Cleobulus]

3. Actually no it doesn't. Most debates I have seen....

Among non-Christian religious people usually has to do with beliefs rather than acts as to whether that constitutes who are true followers of that religion. How does one act Hindu for example?

[saltpoint]

2. Good question. I know individual Christians who can

and do define themselves very well, generally by trying to follow the tenets of the ministry of Jesus of Galilee. They serve others, usually quietly and sincerely.

Some of the more high-profile Christians, on the other hand, are better at self-promotion, which is not at all the same as defining themselves as Christian, and tend to use Jesus as a theater prop, brandishing his name whenever they want to prevent women from being officers in their church or in condemning lesbians and gay men or in their idiotic opposition to science and scientific research, or when they blame liberal constituencies for the 911 attacks.

Reverend Jones down in Gainesville is one of the more recent tawdry examples of the self-promotional sort of "Christian."

[Cleobulus]

4. Your post illuminates what I'm talking about...

You make a distinction between the "true" Christians you know and "false" Christians like Reverend Jones as if there how they act is far more important than the beliefs they espouse. If Reverend Jones is sincere in his beliefs about Jesus then he is as much of a Christian as your friends. How any of them act makes no difference.

[saltpoint]

6. Hi, Cleobulus. Although truth be told, if a hundred

assorted rabid beasts with razor-sharp teeth and claws suddenly burst into Terry Jones' or Pat Robertson's offices and tore them to bits, I wouldn't shed many tears.

Fundamentalism in Christianity ain't no purtier than it is in any other religion. I surely would like to see fundamentalism die out. It will probably linger a while. But I hope for a big drop in influence.

[Cleobulus]

7. Uhm ok. That is offtopic from this thread but thanks for the opinion.

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

8. I felt the desire to express myself on the

high-profile Jesus-distorting "christians."

Thanks.

[Cleobulus]

11. Considering how vague scripture is, what's distorted...

And even if it is distorted, if these people sincerely believe in it how does that make them "false" Christians?

[saltpoint]

12. Are you talking about someone like Pat Robertson?

I would say his "Christianity" appears to have skipped over several key passages in the Gospels, yes.

[Cleobulus]

16. So has everyone else's, liberal or conservative...

The one thing Christians should never do is accuse each other of not following the Bible.

[saltpoint]

18. Why would that be, though? The Gospels themselves

are not wholly aligned in what happened, or how anybody else should respond.

We only have what we have of the guy's life, and that ain't much, and the filter isn't clear.

There are a few basic passages that appear to involve inclusion of others and care for the disenfranchised, for example. There are notable passages in which Jesus is shown as taking the side of someone her village wants to stone to death.

The argument about whether those are "true" stories is beyond us, because we don't have extant sources at all, and if we did, it still would not clinically demonstrate that the woman taken in adultery existed, or that her fellow villagers elected to kill her with stoning, or that someone named Jesus stepped in and scolded and shamed them from doing so.

With what we are given, inclusion and defense of the disenfranchised stand as characterizations of the ministry of Jesus of Galilee, and a televangelist who promotes division and racial or gender-based bigotry is in fact running afoul of those passages.

I think that's fair game.

[Cleobulus]

19. That's your subjective interpretation others view it differently.

Being on the outside of such views I think both are equally valid.

[saltpoint]

21. I'm standing on the shoulders of some very tall folks

in that subjective interpretation.

[Cleobulus]

24. Arguments from authority only work if objective...

evidence backs you and them up.

[saltpoint]

26. I think you run off the road with 'authority,' because

a text has authority in its own soup. The New Testament is a provocative and interesting text, but as written language, it suffers from way too little editing or way too much, depending on what you think has happened to it over a 2000-year or so span.

I suspect a great deal of monkeying around has taken place and that we have a very uneven, if often beautiful, mosaic of temperaments.

We have no evidence that Alexander was at Siwa but texts indicate that he was in fact there. Absent clinical evidence that he was not at Siwa, it is plausible that he was, and in any case, what we are given says he was there and suggests why.

You and I, if we believe he was not there, could no more prove he wasn't than prove he was if we believed that instead.

Scholars and seekers work with the texts we are given.

[Cleobulus]

28. The text is only authorative if it can be corraborated...

Through two or more independent sources. This is very basic for determining the authority and sometimes authorship of texts.

[saltpoint]

30. That's not true, Cleobulus. In ancient texts there

simply are not "two or more independent sources."

That's a false claim on the text. Again, you don't throw out a text from the third century bce just because "two or more independent sources" cannot be determined for its verity.

We.
Work.
With.
What.
We.
Have.

[Cleobulus]

33. The veracity of them will continue to be in doubt however. n/t

[saltpoint]

35. Not at my house. I hold that we can respond to the

texts as they are given and that that humble investment of attention and respect shall bring forth a great, great garden.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. In the area of Christian teachings

A belief is a thing made manifest, that is, the resultant actions of a belief are what define the believer. A tree is named by the fruit it bears. And the teachings of Jesus about final judgment are very clear that many who call him Lord will be unknown to him, specifically because of their actions toward others, specifically the lesser members of society. In that teaching Jesus says that those people literally are him, and that those who mistreat the poor, elderly, sick, prisoners, have mistreated him. And he knows them not. Even if they think they know him.
So. That is what the Jesus guy said about it. Actions make all the difference. I was hungry and you fed me not.

[Cleobulus]

10. Such beliefs are subject to interpretation.

Always have been, and frankly any Christian is completely incapable of judging whether other Christians are "true" or not. So there is no point in even having such debates.

[saltpoint]

14. Of course it's worth having the debate.

The debate's been roaring for some centuries now, in fact.

The outcome is still in flux.

I love a ballgame that comes down to the late innings.

[Cleobulus]

17. Its not a debate when both sides make asserions without evidence. n/t

[saltpoint]

20. We know that Lincoln was at Gettysburg, and when,

and with whom, and for what reason. There are photos of his presence there for just that purpose -- to commemorate the fallen from a battle at that site.

No photos are available from the ancient world. There are texts, but texts could be imperfect, or could omit key information, or distort it outright. It's true we don't know their clinical reliability.

But they are what we have before us. They are the evidence we have to work with. And scholars and seekers work accordingly.

I'm not seeing any source that gives us artist interviews for the cave drawings at Lascaux some 14 thousand years ago to indicate intent and context of the images, but that fact does not reduce their significance or their beauty one iota.

And we are free to comment on those images til the cows come home.

[Cleobulus]

22. As far as I'm aware of no one worships the cave painters...

If we were analyzing the Bible in the same way we did Homer then I would have less of a problem with it. However we have quite strong reactions to Bible debates because people are emotionally invested in the mythology. That is a problem.

[saltpoint]

23. Hah. I worship them. I hold them very, very high.

O but yes the creative impulse is a holy thing.

Mythology. You speak of it as if it were a shameful thing.

Shame on you.

It is a beautiful thing.

[Cleobulus]

25. Not shameful but held in the same regard as all fiction...

I love the Lord of the Rings books. That doesn't mean I think they are true.

[saltpoint]

27. O but of course they are true, Cleobulus. They are

archetypcally true. Which is why they are powerful and quite real.

[cleanhippie]

46. But its not a ballgame, and there is no end....

ever.

[saltpoint]

47. I'm totally cool with that. It can be as long a game

as one wants.

Infinite baseball? I love the concept.

Count me in.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. That has nothing to do with the point I was making

I was countering the 'actions don't matter' notion. In a discussion you opened. I just cited the teachings of the teacher that faith is centered on, and pointed out what he said about actions. Which is that they matter big time, and that profession of 'faith' is beside the point, basically.
I'm not having a debate about what is a 'true' anything. That is not my business. But I do go with the actions as a way of seeing character in my own life, not the names people give themselves. Personally, when people announce their religion to me, I assume it is for reasons of their own agenda. That is, it is a warning sign.
And outside of the religious balderdash, it is absolutely proper to look to actions of those who claim to be anything, religious or not, to see if they are what they claim. And it is simple fact that each faith has things that define them. A person claiming to be a vegan eater needs to eat vegan or I personally will not be calling them a vegan or giving them their sought after brownie points. Same for religious people.
The teachings I cited mean this: believe what you see in people, not what they claim for themselves. People call themselves all manner of things for all manner of reasons.

[Cleobulus]

34. Again the problem is subjectivity...

For example some people think Christians must be against marriage equality to be true to the religion. Others believe the opposite. The question is, who is right? Well both are, or neither. When a religion is based on such an ambitious text as the Bible it is impossible to declare any one position or action right or wrong.

[msongs]

5. I agree with M Ghandi on this, being a better "christian" than most who claim to be,....

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mohandas Gandhi

[ZombieHorde]

44. Gandhi was a wife beater, so he wasn't exactly a shining example of peace and good will either. nt

[Bitwit1234]

13. Most times Christians don't need to act like Christians, OK

they just practice the things a Christian would do. That's why I have not seen one republican who I think is a Christian. They discriminate against those who do not fit their narrow way of life. The republicans in congress and the tea bags and such want to deny basic health care to people. The republicans in congress vote not against all social programs. they deny unemployment to the very needy. AND I DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE NOT..NOT..NOT..ACTING LIKE CHRISTIANS.

[Cleobulus]

15. Define how to act Christian that is unique to Christians...

Actions that non-Christians are incapable of.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. I think the point is that there should be things that

those who profess certain faiths would not do, or should not do, that many of them actually do. To eat plants is not unique to Vegans, but if a person says they are Vegan, and yet they eat meat, one can say easily they are not a Vegan. What others eat or do not eat is of no importance. They did not claim to be Vegans.
The point is that there are things people do that Christians would not, this does not make those things 'unique' to them, just that it would be part of them. It does not have to be unique to be a requirement. But Orthodox Jews and Muslims refuse pork. It is not unique to either, but it does define both.

[Cleobulus]

32. Being a vegan is well defined....

A Jew who doesn't keep Kosher is just that. Same for a Muslim not keeping Halal. These dietary laws are also well defined. For Christians there are no equivalences.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Yes there are.

Christians claim to have a set of practices. Yet they do not follow them. Hence their claim can be considered false by those outside of their faith, you know? First you were asking what is 'uniquely Christian' and I pointed out that it does not have to be only theirs to be theirs. And they do have dogmas, and they do have recorded teachings of the guy whose name they claim. I knew a guy who claimed to be Luke Skywalker, I had no reason to believe him.
Many, many Christians make much noise about their opposition to equal rights for gay people, and they claim that noise stems from their well defined beliefs and dogmas, the President claims that faith is the whole reason for his opposition to equality. They themselves claim it is well defined, by the verses of the New Testament. Thus, it is proper to use those verses as template to see if they do in fact follow that which they demand that others should be subject to. And they do not follow those verses. They were taught that unless they are without flaw, they are not to judge others, at all. And yet they do.
If they did not seek to impose the rules of their faith on others, we could pretend that there are no defined rules of that faith, but they say there are defined rules, and they say those rules are their Scriptures. They ask that others follow those rules. They do no claim there are no definitions of their faith, that no actions matter in their faith. They say it is all about these rules, and making others follow them, while they do not.
Those who do not follow the rules they profess, while insisting that others do are hypocrites, and liars. The religion is made by people, and those people say there are definitions. Exacting ones.

[Cleobulus]

41. Removed from dogma and religious observances...

What are these Christian practices?

[saltpoint]

40. I wouldn't guess that dietary restriction is the only

way someone would define himself/herself anyway.

It would be one identifier, but by no means the whole package.

[stray cat]

36. Do you define DU?

or want to be defined by any one contributor?

[AlecBGreen]

37. i dont find it hard to define myself as a Christian

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." -John 13:34-35

Jesus (assuming you believe he existed :P ) said this. This is one of many metrics I could use to decide if someone is a true Christian. Now we (as Christians) are commanded not to judge others, that task is solely God's, so when I judge another as not being 'a true Christian' I am overstepping my authority. Its hard to refrain from this. Even so, this verse of Scripture helps me in my own self reflection; it helps me define my self-image as a 'true' Christian. My thought process goes like this:

Am I a true Christian?
Well what IS a true Christian?
Jesus commanded me to love others as MUCH AS HE LOVED ME.
Am I doing that?
No, it is an impossible task because his love was and is perfect.
So does that mean I am not a Christian?
No, its the attempt that counts. All have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God. Strive for perfection. Be content.

There are other passages that I use in self reflection. One poster mentioned upthread the parable of those who did not aid Christ. ("Get away from me, I know you not"). This is another that I think on.

[saltpoint]

39. I'm not sure that in all cases "Christian" is understood

to be synonomous with 'good' or 'charitable.' It is sometimes, you bet. But not in every case.

An awful lot of scholars would not hold a condescending attitude toward non-Christians. I could understand their holding a condiescending attitude toward Jerry Falwell, although for a scholarly paper those writers would likely employ clinical speech to make a case against Falwell's ministry. As tempting as it would be for them to call his ministry a fraudulent sewer masquerading as Christianity, language like "fraudulent sewer" would likely not survive the final draft.

On a personal note, I do think "fraudulent sewer" works pretty well to describe Jerry Falwell's ministry.

[Cleobulus]

42. I'm talking in common usage not academic. n/t

[saltpoint]

43. OK.

But most practitioners of any religious tradition are not academics.

[ZombieHorde]

45. For me, a Christian is anyone who sincerely considers themselves to be a Christian.

Many Christians don't like this definition of the word "Christian" though.

[saltpoint]

52. Agree. It a long list of different versions of responses

when someone opens up that issue. Jesus himself wouldn't have understood the question, more than likely.

There are people who call themselves Christians in the Appalachians who handle rattle snakes, even though I don't recall any passage in the gospels where it's a feature of Jesus' ministry.

And if Jesus did show up here in modern times and saw some of these megachurches, I think he'd puke.

[ZombieHorde]

53. There is a passage in Mark which mentions snake handling. nt

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016&version=NIV

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

[saltpoint]

54. Well, yeah, there it is. Thanks. I guess they're being Christian

enough to do the rattlesnakes.

As a rule of thumb, and speaking just personally for myself, I try to give poisonous snakes wide berth.

[ZombieHorde]

58. Agreed, I don't mess with poisonious snakes and they don't mess with me. nt

[humblebum]

48. Christians are as individual as any other grouping of people. From

being heavily involve with atheists over the years, I can assure you that they are equally individualistic and unable to unanimously agree on the finer points of being an atheist.

[xfundy]

55. What are "finer points" of being atheist?

All it takes is not believing in an invisible man in the sky who watches everything we do and catalogues it all so he can play it back on judgment day.

I used to be a Christian. Then I said I was an atheist. Then I realized, if I was to be honest, I'd have to say I'm agnostic. Which is what everyone is, even if they don't admit it. We just don't know.

[dimbear]

49. Why is it hard for Christians to define themselves?

That is because Christians do not know their history. And that is because Christians do not want to know their history. An additional cause is the great difficulty of learning it, since others have powerful reasons to conceal Christian history. But in general, Christians do not want to know their history.

An example is bookburning. Bookburning has a long Christian history, and is key to the supremacy of Christianity in the western world, yet some imagine it is somehow un-Christian. Shocking, no? History, my friends, history.

If we turn to the academic world, where the study of Christian history would be expected or hoped to be free and far-ranging, we find the same trepidation and pusillanimity. Almost all the supported works in the relevant areas are supported somehow by Christian institutions, scholars who find results unflattering to the Christians do not advance or even survive, so the critical areas of Christian history are glossed, elided, or ignored. Closed chapters, contents undesired, comfort to the enemy, move on.

For my Christian friends, if you have read this far, ask yourself a question or two. Why is the current Old Testament so different from the Jewish Scriptures the gospel writers used? Why does the New Testament quote books that aren't in the Bible now? Why is Saint Constantine, the serial killer, a saint? Once you know the answers to those questions, you will be well on the way to understanding what Christianity is really all about.

[Igel]

50. Xians have trouble defining themselves because they're Western.

Because there's been little overt or serious discrimination, because Xians have been a majority, whether believing Xians or nominal "cultural" Xians.

Non-Western Xians have a very easy time. To some extent they're defined by the majority.

In the west, we think tribalism is a bad thing, at least as far as religion is concerned. Therefore, we don't want to put up boundaries. However, if there are no boundaries and doctrines/behaviors/beliefs don't explicitly and clearly bundle together in obvious yet specific ways, then you have to deal with a lot of ambiguity. Groups that do keep boundaries tend to be called called "cults". Xians are aware of numerous splits and schisms and what happens when you start calling each other infidels. To provide some structure, we've set up sub-groups and define each other by formal group affiliation or tradition, not by doctrines (where the real group boundaries are). I may belong to one church, you to another, but I'm unlikely to punch you over it or threaten to kill you or even fire you (or expect myself to be fired. Nothing important rides on religious affiliation. (See note 1).

Non-Western Xians have it easier because they can define themselves in terms of the majority, not that different groups don't poach from each other.

Within Xianity there are two strains of beliefs that aren't mutually exclusive but neither are both necessary: We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; if we love God we are obedient to his will and therefore the world will identify us through our works. Perhaps "love for one another"--that's a work; perhaps because we accept Jesus' words in not leaving tithing even of mint and rue undone. (That'll rankle somebody, I'm sure.) Adding more uncertainty is that humans are fallible and sin, so need to be forgiven. This means that to some extent belief and therefore self-designation is all that matters for some and at times; it also means that works are important for some and at times--because we fail at what we do, our works aren't necessary each and every one probative.

All of this leads to dis-ease: Since we don't define "Xian" in any truly specific terms, we're left with "if you say you're Xian, you're Xian" or "if you accept Jesus"--whatever that means--"you're Xian."

Paul also said that Xians have no uniqueness in doing good, and many non-Xians are even better at it. This was to shame Xians, but I'm not sure your goal isn't essentially the same in that regard.

Muslims should have this problem. Then you'd see much of "Islamophobia" collapse. First and foremost is the acceptance that each Muslim has "his" or "her" Islam--there cannot be only one.

Note 1: A lot of people seem to say that they object to non-Xians doing something or other. Most of the time it's specific kinds of non-Xians that they object to. It's not Muslims as non-Xians that most loons object to; it's to them as Muslims when what "Muslim" means is a bit up for grabs if you actually pay attention.

[DeSwiss]

51. "So in order to be Christian....

...people must act Christian, emulate Christ or, in other words act like a decent human being. Frankly I'm mystified by this definition."

- Just read the bible.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." - Matthew 16:27

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. - II Corinthians 11:15

And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. - Revelation 14:13

[Manifestor_of_Light]

56. Act like Jesus. You can get away with anything.

The term "Christian" is meaningless. Anyone who says they are, is one.

The "true Christian" term is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Jesus was cruel and mean, as well as nice. So if you act like Jesus, you CAN be cruel and mean.
Furthermore, we don't know if he really existed. There is nothing distinctive about Jesus that makes him any different than Mithra, Apollo, Osiris, or Tammuz, among many other messiahs. Christianity is syncretic; made up from older pagan myths with new names slapped on them.


Examples, just from the Four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John:




Matthew

1. Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

2. Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

3. Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

4. Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

5. Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

6. "The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

7. Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

8. Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

9. Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

10. Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

11. Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

12. Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

13. Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

14. Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

15. Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

16. Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

17. In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35

18. "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

19. In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

20. Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

21. God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

22. The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

23. Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

24. Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

Mark

25. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

26. Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

27. Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

28. Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10

29. If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.) 8:38

30. Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49

31. Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

Luke

32. God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20

33. Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9

34. John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

35. Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37

36. Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

37. Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5

38. Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

39. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5

40. According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

41. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31

42. Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27

43. Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

44. In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

John

45. Jesus believed the stupid and vicious story from Numbers 21. (God sent snakes to bite the people for complaining about the lack of foood and water, and then God told Moses to make a brass snake to cure them from the bites.) 3:14

46. As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

47. People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

48. The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

49. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

50. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

51. Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66

============================================

Truly a ridiculous book to take guidance from. Inconsistent and irrational.

[DeSwiss]

57. "Truly a ridiculous book to take guidance from. Inconsistent and irrational. "

Agreed.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

59. Guess what I have noticed about the Buddha's words.

Been reading some of the basics of The Pali Canon. The Buddha's teachings. The particular book is "In the Buddha's Words, Discourses from the Pali Canon" Edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications which is a fairly new translation.

Everything is general enough that it could have been written within the last few years. There are no rules that would be specific to Northern India in 600 BCE. Every teaching is about situations that could come up in any of our lives, today or at any time, because of human nature. Except that, there is the caste system, which I presume was around in India before Gautama The Buddha was alive.


There is NO superstitious anti-intellectual goat-fucking Bronze Age cultural overlay like the bible has. No killing your neighbor for eating shellfish or wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt. No stupid rules like the 613 that the Jews try to follow, no "treat your slaves well", no hatred of women, no stories of fruit-munching idiots causing humanity to be inherently bad; no God performing mass murders on groups of innocent people whenever he feels like it.

The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path and the Middle Way are perfectly applicable now as they would be when they were written. They are about doing the right thing just because it's the right thing. No heaven involved. No god involved.

===========================



Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders
Do not believe in traditions merely because they have been handed down for many generations
But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.
---The Buddha

[saltpoint]

60. I think that

"There is NO superstitious anti-intellectual goat-fucking Bronze Age cultural overlay.."

-- would make an excellent blurb for the jacket cover of that book.

:thumbsup:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

62. Thank you!!!

I am sure the nice people at Wisdom Publications would not like it though, they are polite.

I think "superstitious anti-intellectual goat-fuckers" about nails it!!

:D :bounce: :toast:

I'll go have a nice sweet iced tea to celebrate (it's still 96 degrees in the afternoon here in Texas, you see -- no fall weather yet--heat index of 101).

[wookie72]

61. I have no idea what is a Christian.

I just try to live my life based on what I personally believe are his teachings. Personally, I have no need for him as a personal saviour or the one and only Son of God. Perhaps that makes me a Unitarian, but I have my issues with them, so I'll stick with my fairly liberal Christian denomination.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

63. "his teachings".

I hope you've thrown out the evil and cruel stuff that Jesus said in the Gospels. There are over 100 citations for the evil and nonsensical stuff.

And I hope you just follow the kind stuff like The Sermon on the Mount.

None of these Christians that post distinguish between the good stuff and the evil stuff that Jesus endorses. They ignore the bad stuff.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

64. kick

what about Jesus' teachings? Do you ignore the evil ones?

[Cleobulus]

65. You won't get the truth, that much I already know. n/t