What is Christianity? (A CALM discussion of what it's about)

[Adventurer]

DO NOT TURN THIS INTO "IS CHRISTIANITY RIGHT OR WRONG?" THE POINT OF THIS TOPIC IS TO CLEAR UP ANY CONFUSIONS ABOUT CHRSITIANITY. THAT MEANS THAT YOU DON'T START ANOTHER "THE BIBLE" THREAD. THE LAST ONE WENT UP IN FLAMES

 

 

 

Rules of discussion here:

 

-Please give an idea and ELABORATE to MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR

 

-Negative views are welcome. However, KEEP OUT THE FLAMING. KEEP your OPINION as objective and CALM as possible

 

-FLAMING IS NOT DISCUSSION

 

-This is NOT an ATHEISM VS CHRISTIANITY thread. This is to help people understand Christianity (in response to the recent religion flame wars)

 

-Please HIDE LONG QUOTES for ease of reading

 

 

 

Hello everybody. I have seen a lot of Christianity/Atheist threads pop up then erupt in flames hours later. Now, I was wondering why this happens. Obviously, atheism isn't an organized worldview type thing; it simply is a general worldview that God does not exist, hence the name.

 

 

 

In stark contrast to this understanding of Atheism, there is a lot of haze about what Christianity really is, and what it and Christians are about. I would like to know what the world of TIF thinks about Christianity, and I will check maybe once a day and respond to these ideas.

 

 

 

Just to clarify what the CORE beliefs are, here's the Apostle's Creed which states pretty much all the CORE beliefs:

 

 

 

The Apostle's Creed

 

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

 

creator of heaven and earth.

 

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,

 

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

 

born of the Virgin Mary,

 

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

 

was crucified, died, and was buried;

 

he descended to the dead.

 

On the third day he rose again;

 

he ascended into heaven,

 

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

 

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

 

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

 

the universal Church,

 

the communion of saints,

 

the forgiveness of sins,

 

the resurrection of the body,

 

and the life everlasting. Amen.

 

 

 

Btw, no flaming. If you have a negative opinion, please share it, but make it as objective as you can. Don't fill it with overly emotional fluff.

[gonpost]

I'm not sure if this is right....but isn't that a Catholic thing?

 

 

 

The phrase "the universal Church" clues me in, seeing as catholic literally means "universal". The problem you'll have is that Christianity simply means that you recognize Jesus as your Lord (or part of or w/e). ANYTHING can vary after that.

 

 

 

But yeah, that's the problem. You can never say "Christians" unless you mean *only* people who recognize Jesus as their lord. Anything further than that and you have to specify, just as with any other group or sect of people.

[Satenza]

Christians can not catch a break with me really. Shortened down (since it's late).

 

 

 

Those who follow the Bible literally hold what i see as prejudice beliefs a well as the nievity to follow an ancient document and trust their interpretation of it to be correct.

 

 

 

Christian Liberals just seem to pick and choose what they think is relevant to todays society. I think they'd be more suited as deists if anything really. Just this Jesus buiness holding them back under the label.

 

 

 

Really though, for each it comes down to the fact that i do not think divine revelation is anyway to gain truth (or that it is even possible). I'm an empiricist, and i'd challenge any Christian that their fundemental beliefs come from epiricism as well. I think we are all empiricists, just some of us are clouded by this divine revelation.

[indy500fan]

I'm not sure if this is right....but isn't that a Catholic thing?

 

 

 

The phrase "the universal Church" clues me in, seeing as catholic literally means "universal". The problem you'll have is that Christianity simply means that you recognize Jesus as your Lord (or part of or w/e). ANYTHING can vary after that.

 

 

 

But yeah, that's the problem. You can never say "Christians" unless you mean *only* people who recognize Jesus as their lord. Anything further than that and you have to specify, just as with any other group or sect of people.

 

 

 

Yeah, I know I was a Catholic and had to learn that one. I was going to make a post about it when I first saw it, but I couldn't remember for sure. Pretty sure universal church is talking about the Catholic church.

[gonpost]

 

 

 

Christian Liberals just seem to pick and choose what they think is relevant to todays society. I think they'd be more suited as deists if anything really. Just this Jesus buiness holding them back under the label.

 

 

 

Not to offend Satenza, but I'm just pointing something out here.

 

 

 

If you want to avoid a flame war, avoid generalizations (I'm going with what the author was thinking here). Hence the term "Christian Liberals" doesn't cover *all* Christian liberals. IN MY OPINION, Satenza is right that what he said applies to MANY of them, but we could by no means say all of them.

 

 

 

If you want to have a religious topic, it's best to keep it to the individual unless you are very specific about what you are saying, so as to avoid accusing the wrong party, and also to avoid accusing people who affiliate themselves with said party but who happen to think differently on a few issues.

 

 

 

Edit: The other thing you have to do to avoid flame wars is to keep focus, and to avoid all insults! It's incredibly rare that an insult is effective, unless you want to convey an honest opinion and use them sparingly, and only when they are needed. That's my take on it, anyway.

[Satenza]

Yes, sorry i do not mean to generalize. Then again though, being liberal with christianity is flaunting some aspects of the Bible, and so for many reasons i think it attains to double standards, accepting some parts of the Bible and denying others.

 

 

 

I'm not talking really about myths as Noah's ark and so on, I'm rather talking about some of the morality that is sometime shown throughout the Bible, from different people. Which generally goes against modern society's views.

[Barihawk]

I'm not sure if this is right....but isn't that a Catholic thing?

 

 

 

The phrase "the universal Church" clues me in, seeing as catholic literally means "universal". The problem you'll have is that Christianity simply means that you recognize Jesus as your Lord (or part of or w/e). ANYTHING can vary after that.

 

 

 

But yeah, that's the problem. You can never say "Christians" unless you mean *only* people who recognize Jesus as their lord. Anything further than that and you have to specify, just as with any other group or sect of people.

 

 

 

Catholic is a generic term for the church. We often shorthand "Catholics" to mean the Roman Catholic Church.

 

 

 

All Christian churches are Catholic, but many just say Universal now. It means the same thing.

[Adventurer]

[hide]

Christians can not catch a break with me really. Shortened down (since it's late).

 

 

 

Those who follow the Bible literally hold what i see as prejudice beliefs a well as the nievity to follow an ancient document and trust their interpretation of it to be correct.

 

 

 

Christian Liberals just seem to pick and choose what they think is relevant to todays society. I think they'd be more suited as deists if anything really. Just this Jesus buiness holding them back under the label.

 

 

 

Really though, for each it comes down to the fact that i do not think divine revelation is anyway to gain truth (or that it is even possible). I'm an empiricist, and i'd challenge any Christian that their fundemental beliefs come from epiricism as well. I think we are all empiricists, just some of us are clouded by this divine revelation.

[/hide]

 

 

 

What is empiricism?

 

 

 

Also, could you give an example of the pick and choose thing? It's hard to comment on your argument if there's only a conclusion.

 

 

 

As for the Jesus thing, you're EXACTLY right. From what I've studied, Christianity is different because it's all based on God's love. Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.

 

 

 

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life.

[PeaceBoy]

[hide]

Christians can not catch a break with me really. Shortened down (since it's late).

 

 

 

Those who follow the Bible literally hold what i see as prejudice beliefs a well as the nievity to follow an ancient document and trust their interpretation of it to be correct.

 

 

 

Christian Liberals just seem to pick and choose what they think is relevant to todays society. I think they'd be more suited as deists if anything really. Just this Jesus buiness holding them back under the label.

 

 

 

Really though, for each it comes down to the fact that i do not think divine revelation is anyway to gain truth (or that it is even possible). I'm an empiricist, and i'd challenge any Christian that their fundemental beliefs come from epiricism as well. I think we are all empiricists, just some of us are clouded by this divine revelation.

[/hide]

 

 

 

What is empiricism?

 

 

 

Also, could you give an example of the pick and choose thing? It's hard to comment on your argument if there's only a conclusion.

 

 

 

As for the Jesus thing, you're EXACTLY right. From what I've studied, Christianity is different because it's all based on God's love. Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.

 

 

 

Romans 6:11 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life.

 

 

 

Well I agree with you there even though Christianity and Catholics believe in one God does not necessary mean they are the same thing I mean they teach different lectures. Christians focus mainly about Jesus and how he died for the sins of mankind and how Jesus loved everyone, but Catholics teach something else for example they also worship the Virgin Mary also know as the mother of Jesus, but this contradicts the 10 commandments because it is written that "Thou shall not have any other gods/idols before me". Plus if you had social studies it teaches the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church how they use God for make money and killed people for the name of God. If you read the bible it is written clearly in the commandments that "Thou Shall Not Murder". So this is all I have to say.

 

 

 

P.S: Its John 3:16 not Romans 6:11 lol.

[Adventurer]

Well, ok. I'm not sure what Catholicism's old mistakes have to do with this though. I don't want to make two discussions here with one about Christianity and one about Catholicism because that would be confusing and messy.

 

 

 

However, I'll comment that I'm unsure of Catholicism's teachings. From what little I know, some Catholics seem to hold a different focus than what Christianity in general seems to hold.

 

 

 

P.S. Thanks for the correction. The thing is that Romans 6:11 (For in the same way, count yourself dead to sin but alive in Christ) is a very familiar reference to me, more than John 3:16 =P

[warri0r45]

[hide]

Christians can not catch a break with me really. Shortened down (since it's late).

 

 

 

Those who follow the Bible literally hold what i see as prejudice beliefs a well as the nievity to follow an ancient document and trust their interpretation of it to be correct.

 

 

 

Christian Liberals just seem to pick and choose what they think is relevant to todays society. I think they'd be more suited as deists if anything really. Just this Jesus buiness holding them back under the label.

 

 

 

Really though, for each it comes down to the fact that i do not think divine revelation is anyway to gain truth (or that it is even possible). I'm an empiricist, and i'd challenge any Christian that their fundemental beliefs come from epiricism as well. I think we are all empiricists, just some of us are clouded by this divine revelation.

[/hide]

 

 

 

What is empiricism?

 

 

 

Also, could you give an example of the pick and choose thing? It's hard to comment on your argument if there's only a conclusion.

 

 

 

As for the Jesus thing, you're EXACTLY right. From what I've studied, Christianity is different because it's all based on God's love. Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.

 

 

 

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life.

 

 

 

Something is said to be empirical when it is percievable through the natural senses. Empirical evidence would thus be material things; rocks, a pool of blood, DNA, a piece of clothing, etc, etc.

 

 

 

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas.

[PeaceBoy]

Well, ok. I'm not sure what Catholicism's old mistakes have to do with this though. I don't want to make two discussions here with one about Christianity and one about Catholicism because that would be confusing and messy.

 

 

 

However, I'll comment that I'm unsure of Catholicism's teachings. From what little I know, some Catholics seem to hold a different focus than what Christianity in general seems to hold.

 

 

 

P.S. Thanks for the correction. The thing is that Romans 6:11 (For in the same way, count yourself dead to sin but alive in Christ) is a very familiar reference to me, more than John 3:16 =P

 

 

 

Well I'm just trying to say that catholicism is still a very corrupted religion I mean some of their priest have sex with boys that is just plain wrong.

[GordanFreeman]

A "Christian" (going by what I was taught) is someone who:

 

 

 

1. Believes that Jesus is their savior and that the only way to have eternal salvation is through him. Therefore, they must believe and follow in Jesus.

 

 

 

2. Someone who takes every part of the Bible as fact, and views it as "God's word", thus making it primary rule over their lives (including the principles, morals, and prayers).

 

 

 

Everything else you hear about "Christianity" is something that's been added on throughout history, such as traditions like worshipping/praying to the saints (which you touched on earlier saying something about the virgin mary, because many Catholics pray to "saint Mary", when the Bible tells you to pray only to Jesus).

 

 

 

I also know that many Christians believe that no matter what you do throughout life, as long as you repent for your sins (through praying), and follow in Jesus, you go to Heaven.

 

 

 

Christianity is a very broad subject...I doubt you'll get everything you want to know out of this thread.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.

 

So you don't believe in that second part?

[Rebdragon]

Well I'm just trying to say that catholicism is still a very corrupted religion I mean some of their priest have sex with boys that is just plain wrong.

 

Wow.

 

 

 

Dude.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

I've said it before, and I guess I'll have to say it again. There are way better reasons for you to hate Catholicism. Look into it, please, for your own sake, and for ours.

[Adventurer]

Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.

 

So you don't believe in that second part?

 

 

 

I wasn't saying that I don't believe in them; I was stating that those are not THE focus of Christianity.

 

For example, I would not encourage somebody with a megaphone shouting at people that they're going to hell or that they're immoral.

 

 

 

Christianity is a very broad subject...I doubt you'll get everything you want to know out of this thread.

 

Probably, but this thread isn't as much for me as it is for our off-topic forum. I'm trying to clear a lot of the Christian stereotypes and prejudices here.

 

 

 

Well I'm just trying to say that catholicism is still a very corrupted religion I mean some of their priest have sex with boys that is just plain wrong.

 

Let me teach you something about arguments/discussions. If you provide examples to prove an idea, you must use representative examples which can represent the people you talk about as a whole. Your argument is biased in that it only puts up mistakes that a few corrupt people have made. That does not and cannot mean that Catholicism itself is bad.

[PeaceBoy]

Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.

 

So you don't believe in that second part?

 

 

 

I wasn't saying that I don't believe in them; I was stating that those are not THE focus of Christianity.

 

For example, I would not encourage somebody with a megaphone shouting at people that they're going to hell or that they're immoral.

 

 

 

Christianity is a very broad subject...I doubt you'll get everything you want to know out of this thread.

 

Probably, but this thread isn't as much for me as it is for our off-topic forum. I'm trying to clear a lot of the Christian stereotypes and prejudices here.

 

 

 

Well I'm just trying to say that catholicism is still a very corrupted religion I mean some of their priest have sex with boys that is just plain wrong.

 

Let me teach you something about arguments/discussions. If you provide examples to prove an idea, you must use representative examples which can represent the people you talk about as a whole. Your argument is biased in that it only puts up mistakes that a few corrupt people have made. That does not and cannot mean that Catholicism itself is bad.

 

 

 

Ok then I'm sorry for sounding biased I didn't know what way to put it. And also sorry for not providing examples for my last statement, but I'm was never saying I hated catholicism I just don't agree with some of their teachings.

[meol]

I'm not going to post my opinion on this topic at the moment, but you might also want to add the longer Nicene Creed (the one I learnt, being raised as a Christian):

 

 

 

[hide=Nicean Creed]We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ÃÆÃâÃâæons, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; and whose kingdom shall have no end.

 

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.[/hide]

[Adventurer]

^

 

That looks exactly the same as mine. It just has fluffier wording.

 

 

 

Ok then I'm sorry for sounding biased I didn't know what way to put it. And also sorry for not providing examples for my last statement, but I'm was never saying I hated catholicism I just don't agree with some of their teachings.

 

That's ok. I never said that you hated it either. However, priests making mistakes, Catholics sinning, etc. aren't good examples of their teaching. I really don't know much about Catholicism, and I don't want to get into the gritty little details of denominations (I consider Catholicism a denomination), so maybe start your own topic to discuss Catholicism.

 

 

 

P.S. Jesus said (in Mark 2:17), "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

 

 

 

P.S.S. Please use the Hide feature on your superlong quotes please. It would make reading through the thread easier for other people. Maybe quote only the last response too, instead of including all the responses of everybody else in the quote too.

[Ragen]

Even after leaving the church, I still hold onto the basics of Christianity, so my opinion has at least some value. I follow the 'Love your neighbour' philosophy which IMO covers everything that you need. The rest of the bible is fluff which tells you how to do that. Other people will disagree, I'm sure. Just my opinion.

[PeaceBoy]

[hide]

^

 

That looks exactly the same as mine. It just has fluffier wording.

 

 

 

Ok then I'm sorry for sounding biased I didn't know what way to put it. And also sorry for not providing examples for my last statement, but I'm was never saying I hated catholicism I just don't agree with some of their teachings.

 

That's ok. I never said that you hated it either. However, priests making mistakes, Catholics sinning, etc. aren't good examples of their teaching. I really don't know much about Catholicism, and I don't want to get into the gritty little details of denominations (I consider Catholicism a denomination), so maybe start your own topic to discuss Catholicism.

 

 

 

P.S. Jesus said (in Mark 2:17), "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

 

 

 

P.S.S. Please use the Hide feature on your superlong quotes please. It would make reading through the thread easier for other people. Maybe quote only the last response too, instead of including all the responses of everybody else in the quote too.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Well I don't know much about catholicism ethier I just know they have a much strict view on sinners and comdemption. And not focus on what God is really about.

[warren211]

Well I'm a Catholic and I am quite annoyed at the fact that a lot of people who flame christians believe that everyone is a fundamentalist. The Bible uses more symbolism then actual facts. a lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken 100% seriously and thus those against catholics use that stereotype as the bases for arguements.

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution or creation? the answer i believe is both. In Genesis, the "days" that god created earth were symbols, based on the Israeli work schedule. work for 6 days, rest on sunday. These days represent the time it took for god to create the earth. While some days can have lasted an hour or so, other days might have actually been over 60 million years. Evolution can have taken place in one "day" of creation. Plus, God is not restricted by time. He resides in eternity. Time is irrevelant. everything could have happened instantaneously, but to convert it to time would be impossible without symbolism.

 

 

 

There are a lot of examples of symbolism in the bible. plus, the bible had dozens of different authors. While one phrase in Paul's letters may be controversial, you can't use that to say the whole bible is wrong. different authors use different styles. While evangelists like Mark may have more accurate historical events in the life of Jesus, the Book of Revelation was made entirely out of symbolism. Revelation has no relevence to the end of the world, contrary to popular belief. In Greek, Revelation means the Re-veiling. In Greek, Apocalypse means the un-veiling. Plus, the Jewish tradition of unveiling the bride before marrying goes back to the bible stories. What do these 3 points mean? Revelation is not about the end of the worl. its about god's marrying to his bride, the church. Its about the christian persecution in AD 90, where the emperor and his brutal assistant were repeatedly referred to as a demon and a demon's assistant who made others worship him in Revelation.

 

 

 

In conclusion, the bible has more symbolism then you think. You can say that some things dont make sense, but its simply because the symbolism is very elastic in meaning. It just seems like its repeatedly ignored to be symbolism and more of a "flame christians here" manual.

[atestarossa]

Well I'm a Catholic and I am quite annoyed at the fact that a lot of people who flame christians believe that everyone is a fundamentalist. The Bible uses more symbolism then actual facts. a lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken 100% seriously and thus those against catholics use that stereotype as the bases for arguements.

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution or creation? the answer i believe is both. In Genesis, the "days" that god created earth were symbols, based on the Israeli work schedule. work for 6 days, rest on sunday. These days represent the time it took for god to create the earth. While some days can have lasted an hour or so, other days might have actually been over 60 million years. Evolution can have taken place in one "day" of creation. Plus, God is not restricted by time. He resides in eternity. Time is irrevelant. everything could have happened instantaneously, but to convert it to time would be impossible without symbolism.

 

 

 

There are a lot of examples of symbolism in the bible. plus, the bible had dozens of different authors. While one phrase in Paul's letters may be controversial, you can't use that to say the whole bible is wrong. different authors use different styles. While evangelists like Mark may have more accurate historical events in the life of Jesus, the Book of Revelation was made entirely out of symbolism. Revelation has no relevence to the end of the world, contrary to popular belief. In Greek, Revelation means the Re-veiling. In Greek, Apocalypse means the un-veiling. Plus, the Jewish tradition of unveiling the bride before marrying goes back to the bible stories. What do these 3 points mean? Revelation is not about the end of the worl. its about god's marrying to his bride, the church. Its about the christian persecution in AD 90, where the emperor and his brutal assistant were repeatedly referred to as a demon and a demon's assistant who made others worship him in Revelation.

 

 

 

In conclusion, the bible has more symbolism then you think. You can say that some things dont make sense, but its simply because the symbolism is very elastic in meaning. It just seems like its repeatedly ignored to be symbolism and more of a "flame christians here" manual.

 

 

 

 

 

well.. first, just thanks for posting that, spared me for saying the same thing =)

 

 

 

the way i believe, christianity is very different from most (i believe all other, but then.. i don't know about every religion in the world) others with this part: We're all sinners, and only through jesus we can be saved.

 

while islam and most others say how you have to live good/perfect to get to heaven, nirvana or what is the symbol on it, christianity says that there is NO chance ever that we can manage to live a perfect life, without sinning, and without thinking about sinning, and that's why jesus (who was fully human, and fully god) lived the perfect life, but took our death penalty instead of us.

 

 

 

this is the common factor for every christian group, worshipping saints, or not.

[warri0r45]

 

Evolution or creation? the answer i believe is both. In Genesis, the "days" that god created earth were symbols, based on the Israeli work schedule. work for 6 days, rest on sunday. These days represent the time it took for god to create the earth. While some days can have lasted an hour or so, other days might have actually been over 60 million years. Evolution can have taken place in one "day" of creation. Plus, God is not restricted by time. He resides in eternity. Time is irrevelant. everything could have happened instantaneously, but to convert it to time would be impossible without symbolism.

 

 

 

 

You know as much as I dislike biblical literalism in respect to genesis, your half-acceptance of said bible story and half-acceptance of evolution is annoying. In trying to rationalise they days as hours to over 60 million years, you've just made natural evolution an impossibility due to lack of time scale (unless some of these days went for billions or near billions of years?). Then you conveniently mop this up by saying god isn't restricted by time. How can you have a half-miracle? How can you justify accepting half the scientific story? Some facts not as important as others? Radiometric dating not a factor in your thinking? Genesis only half-symbolic? Which parts can you call symbolic and which not?

 

 

 

Sorry it just seems you're trying to half-heartedly incorporate the scientific perspective into your beliefs. I admire you for trying but if you're going to do this, you should probably know that with science it's not like you can just pick and choose the theory or fact that suits you.

[GordanFreeman]

The Bible uses more symbolism then actual facts. a lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken 100% seriously and thus those against catholics use that stereotype as the bases for arguements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This I don't really understand. Are you saying that Christians and non-Christians alike should not take everything in the Bible as 100% fact? It's my understand that the Church teaches the Bible as 100% fact, because it's God's word; God is perfect. Why would the Bible use sybolism if it didn't actually note the use of symbolism?

 

 

 

The New Testament was written by the appostles 2000 years ago. How can you be sure that they didn't mean for everything in it to be taken as fact?