Self-applying the label "Christian", yet not self-applying what the bible says.

[cckeiser]

And in my opinion neither Taoism or Dudeism gives a fuck.
I'm an Anti-theist and Shagbeard is a non-affiliated Christian. Dudeism doesn't care.
As DigitalBuddha has already stated....Dudeism just says....take er easy dudes....can't be worried about that shit....life goes on man.
Abide dudes.....abide.

[meekon5]

And in my opinion neither Taoism or Dudeism gives a fuck.
I'm an Anti-theist and Shagbeard is a non-affiliated Christian. Dudeism doesn't care.
As DigitalBuddha has already stated....Dudeism just says....take er easy dudes....can't be worried about that shit....life goes on man.
Abide dudes.....abide.

I agree but the whole point was we were represented as intolerant of a point of view and I felt we needed to discuss it properly.

I have to admit I probably seem to be one of the major "anti-christians" at times. It just worried me that we were all seeming "anti-christian", instead of the small percentage of us that may actually have problems with christians.

[Hominid]

Perception is everything.  His take-away was a result of his own filters. 

[meekon5]

Perception is everything.  His take-away was a result of his own filters.

It's not about Icon, but about the rest of the people who may look at the recent conversations, and certain people who felt undue pressure due to having the sort of beliefs that Icon claimed to have.

[meekon5]

Circulating on face book at the moment

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

The flaw with every human deduced hyper reality is that it assumes humans are all subject to the same effects of mirror neurons  and thus are capable of empathy. The problem is there are a shit load of sociopaths out there. Then there are the weak, fearful and stupid out there as well.

Empathy is the key to everything, it is not a belief it is an experience, but some are unable and others unwilling to cultivate those experiences. Thus all the hyper realities (religion, politics, economics) are doomed by the insinuation of the human element.

It will be the case that our robots and cyborgs will be more human (empathy being the key trait of humanity) than many biologics that self apply the label today.

Simply, our culture is a reflection of our brain architecture and chemistry, not our beliefs. It's a hardware and OS problem.

[meekon5]

The flaw with every human deduced hyper reality is that it assumes humans are all subject to the same effects of mirror neurons  and thus are capable of empathy. The problem is there are a shit load of sociopaths out there. Then there are the weak, fearful and stupid out there as well.

Empathy is the key to everything, it is not a belief it is an experience, but some are unable and others unwilling to cultivate those experiences. Thus all the hyper realities (religion, politics, economics) are doomed by the insinuation of the human element.

It will be the case that our robots and cyborgs will be more human (empathy being the key trait of humanity) than many biologics that self apply the label today.

Simply, our culture is a reflection of our brain architecture and chemistry, not our beliefs. It's a hardware and OS problem.

The selfish genes one prerogative is to reproduce.

[BikerDude]

The fact that there a many DIFFERENT versions of Christianity points the the fact that it is not in fact just a matter of pulling it out of your ass as you go along.
If a group differs from a given Churches sanctioned beliefs they formally break off and form a new church. With a new set of well outlined beliefs sanctioned by the new church.  These breaks constitute big news ala Martin Luther.
What grinds my gears is the typical "make it up as you go along" version that seems to suggest that the bible is just a personal thing that you throw out the inconvenient parts as you go along. That essentially has no meaning. It's fine for a person individually to do that but in essence it makes it impossible to talk about what constitutes belief. Clearly it becomes absurd to talk about the "Gospel according to Tom and Sally and Dick etc etc etc etc." People go to school for Theology/ Others devote a lifetime in the Church to the study of the bible. Suggesting that any person working as a greeter at Walmart can just make up there own version of faith would be about as meaningful as you or me making up our own version of the theory of relativity. Sure we can do it but why should anybody else care?
There are different versions of Christianity but usually the differences are actually pretty small details.
For instance...
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/differ.html
There is usually not a lot of hair splitting over the bible versus. That is pretty universally agreed upon.
The contents of the bible has been very very carefully considered. Just thinking Jesus was a pretty cool dude does not by any definition even come close to making a person a Christian. A person has to at least believe in the divinity of Jesus. The big bullet points. Virgin birth, son of God, rose from the dead, will return to judge.
None are optional in any way shape or form. Otherwise every Muslim could be considered a Christian. The Quran teaches the "Jesus was a cool guy" message.

[BikerDude]

Lost my train of thought...

[Hominid]

Like, what's your point?  In or two sentences.  (I have ADD).

[Shagbeard]

I am married but am going on a date with my special lady friend tomorrow 

[BikerDude]

How about this "Self applying the term Mormon without believing the book of Mormon"?
Would that make sense?

The only reason we ever need to discuss this is because 99% of Christians have never chosen to be Christian.
They were raised that way. It's culture not belief. But as far as actual Christianity goes the term describes a set of beliefs.
It has meaning. For many many Christians self applying the term Christian is virtually like choosing a sports team to root for.

[Hominid]

Got it.  And, your point particularly applies in countries where religion & culture are inseparable, such as the middle east... born into such a culture leaves no wiggle room at all.

[BikerDude]

Got it.  And, your point particularly applies in countries where religion & culture are inseparable, such as the middle east... born into such a culture leaves no wiggle room at all.

Not really.
My point is that wiggle room is not even an issue. There is at least some level of belief necessary to make the statement "I am a Christian" in fact true It is in fact a statement of belief. It seems to have reached a point where essentially no belief in anything is necessary. It's more a statement of "I call myself a member of that team".
I think it's reasonable to suggest that in order to be a Christian one would have to at least believe in the things that Jesus Christ is supposed to have said and that any common definition of Christian would include the divinity of Jesus Christ.
For people to suggest being Christian means something that does not even include that is NOT wiggle room. It is making the term meaningless.

[BikerDude]

*Sigh* - you're missing my main point (and perhaps it's my fault that I'm not specific enough), that all bibles have the same stories of god being a murderous, jealous dude who sanctions rape, slavery, etc.  Missing gospels or not.  And, I'm not a lapsed Catholic...  http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html

Then I think we're both missing each others points.

I get the fact that the bible has all the nasty stuff in it, but you're consistently missing the point I'm making that christianity (at it's beginning) and now does have a tradition of being off the book. The Pharisees main problem with jesus was that he refused to follow what they saw as the absolute interpretation of the book.

I am saying you can be a christian without the book.

I don't think there is any possible way to make this case.
Christ said that you need the book. Including the old testament.
Actually it was only the old testament when he spoke of course.

This is the age old difficulty and the reason why the bible remains static.
The old and new testaments form a sort of Gordian Knot that can not be changed without it all unraveling.
The main issue lies with the Divinity of Jesus. Jesus over and over instructed his follows to believe in the "law" (old testament)
If parts are good and others are not then it introduces the concept of the Scripture as fallible. And by extension Jesus Christ's council as NOT DEVINE.
This has been the source of endless Intellectual gymnastics on the part of Christians to extricate themselves but for the most part they look ridiculous. Like the claim that "Slaves where treated much better in the time of Christ".
Christian Apologetics aside it is very clear that Jesus did instruct his follows to believe in the old testament in it's entirety. It was the old testament that he said he would use to Judge all men on the last day.

He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture

A. We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God?s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ?The Scripture cannot be broken? (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ?the commandment of God? (Matthew 15:3) and as the ?Word of God? (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ?Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished? (Matthew 5:18).

When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ?Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?? (Matthew 22:31); ?Yea; and have you never read, ?Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou has prepared praise for thyself??? (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and ?Have you not read what David did?? (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and he trusted it totally.

Throughout the Gospels, we find Jesus confirming many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot?s wife (Luke 17:29, 32) the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), and the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31?51).

The list of examples goes on, and the evidence is clear: Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God?s Word, and his attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust. Many people want to accept Jesus, yet they reject a large portion of the Old Testament. Either Jesus knew what he was talking about, or he didn?t. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct.