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

[meekon5]

Please first off understand I am not a christian, I count myself as a Pagan.

I feel an imbalance has been made in the forum recently and some of us have not posted their point of view for fear of exasperating the problems led by a certain individual.

Also notice a lack of "Nihilist, nazi, cultist" comments.

That said there were recently a couple of points raised that I wish to question.

I am not attempting to start a flame war, I would like to make the point that I don't agree with this point of view, I am just looking to discuss these points, it is co-incidnece that the quotes are Homonid's, his were the first I found making this sort of point.

(1)Christianity vs The Bible.

...He was faced with the contradiction of self-applying the label "Christian", yet not self-applying what the bible says.  It's a logical fallacy to do so, and BD was pointing that out in a very succinct way.  Lots of people want to give themselves titles and labels, but don't take the tenets of that belief system seriously.  People who do that will eventually get called on it at some point.

I have to disagree with this point of view. If it were so why are there so many different versions of christianity?

If you go back to christianities origins there were  many versions of the creed, multiple versions based on differing points of view taught by different disciples.

It is widely accepted that most of the new testament was not actually written down until at least about eighty years after the event, if not later.

It just happens that the roman version systematically removed many of the other points of view (Coptic, Arian amongst others. All with their own version of the bible, here please refer to the Nag Hammadi index or library, a set of Coptic texts, unfortunately I have no reference for Arian Christianity apart from a mention in roman sources that the Vandals practiced it).

It is not until the Vulgate Bible (late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible. Largely the work of St. Jerome) that a coherent version of the Roman Bible appeared. The final canon of Scripture, was settled on 28 August 397 AD by the Council of Carthage after the example set by St Cyril of Jerusalem in 350.

This goes before any consideration of the versions from Luthers, King James, the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, to the Amesh interpretation.

My point actually being that the line you are taking is needlessly dogmatic view point of one version of the text.

Also the point of does not allow for personal preference. Zen Buddhism would not exist if it applied to the strict word of the sutra, they choose to rely on the Diamond sutra, as Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism would not exist, theme and variation.

There is no absolute "what the bible says" and I see no problem with someone claiming to be christian, what ever their choice of parts of the bible they find palatable.

Your argument would stand if individuals were claiming to be Catholic and not applying to the Catholic creed but this is different. There are specific rules for Catholocism, there are not for Christianity.

I think you are making exactly the same mistake Icon was making, except his was about Dudeism, and yours is about christianity. You both are confusing the finger pointing with the moon it is pointing to. You (generally) in opposition of christianity though.

Finally

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

or my own favourite

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I personally rely on these to rights as a practicing Pagan (more correctly Neo-Pagan)

Again if all we can do is agree to disagree that is fine but I feel this point of view should be represented for a balance.

I am neither Anti or pro christian, I am only representing what I think is their right to practice what they want the way they want.

(2) Natural Law.

...Most of us know by instinct what is moral and what isn't anyways...

Again I have to argue with this point of view. Laws and morals are impositions by society that aid the perpetuation of the society. There is no such thing as natural law. An individual will try to get away with what ever they can get away with. Laws and morals exist in order to drive back chaos (the true natural state of all things), and to allow society to progress beyond a bunch of cavemen beating each other up over food and mating.

(3) End Word.

Hopefully that restores some of the balance.

Again, I am not a christian, I am not trying to start a flame war, but am a religious individual and stand by anyone's right to practice, or not practice, their religion any way they see fit.

Yours

Simon (meekon5) Kennedy,

GENUINE AND AUTHORIZED POPE,

Existentialist, Postmodernist, Taoist, Pagan, Dudeist.

[Hominid]

Please first off understand I am not a christian, I count myself as a Pagan.

I feel an imbalance has been made in the forum recently and some of us have not posted their point of view for fear of exasperating the problems led by a certain individual.

Also notice a lack of "Nihilist, nazi, cultist" comments.

That said there were recently a couple of points raised that I wish to question.

I am not attempting to start a flame war, I would like to make the point that I don't agree with this point of view, I am just looking to discuss these points, it is co-incidnece that the quotes are Homonid's, his were the first I found making this sort of point.

(1)Christianity vs The Bible.

...He was faced with the contradiction of self-applying the label "Christian", yet not self-applying what the bible says.  It's a logical fallacy to do so, and BD was pointing that out in a very succinct way.  Lots of people want to give themselves titles and labels, but don't take the tenets of that belief system seriously.  People who do that will eventually get called on it at some point.

I have to disagree with this point of view. If it were so why are there so many different versions of christianity?

If you go back to christianities origins there were  many versions of the creed, multiple versions based on differing points of view taught by different disciples.

Hey, I'm often the first to step up, so no offence taken. And of course there's no need for flame wars; that's for people who can't control their temper.  That said, I will defend my stance.

I understand you from a technical or dogmatic standpoint, but your point is moot because Icon fits into one very specific small slice of Christianity... an evangelical holier-than-thou fundie. Just because there are so many versions of Christianity out there, it does nothing to negate that fact he couldn't stand up to what any (read: HIS) Christian bible has in its texts: they all describe a god who sanctions murder, rape, slavery, etc... nothing to do with creeds (maybe I misused the word "tenets"?) that address smaller issue of dogma; all bibles have the same stories...  So if I'm missing the import of what you're saying M5, pls explain.

[Hominid]

(2) Natural Law.

...Most of us know by instinct what is moral and what isn't anyways...

Again I have to argue with this point of view. Laws and morals are impositions by society that aid the perpetuation of the society. There is no such thing as natural law. An individual will try to get away with what ever they can get away with. Laws and morals exist in order to drive back chaos (the true natural state of all things), and to allow society to progress beyond a bunch of cavemen beating each other up over food and mating.

Part of me agrees with you, another part doesn't... It actually sounds more like an opinion than an authoritatively sourced absolute.  Who says there is no such thing as natural law?  You have to remember that we are evolving as a species... Civilization seems to have reached the point of understanding that in order to thrive, we have learned to not cause intentional harm or suffering. Take away government and the law (such as in natural disasters like Katrina and 9/11), and yes - you have the looters and murderers.  BUT - you also have many stories of people whose natural instinct is to risk their lives saving others.

I agree that there are individuals who live by chaos, getting away with whatever they can, but please don't characterize all of us in that light.

[cckeiser]

I know i should stay the fuck out of these discussions, but....well Fuck it!
My stance on this as a recovering Catholic.
Everyone who believes in a "God" has been mind fucked...most likely since birth. They have all been brainwashed into believing in pure Nonsense. Any one teaching Theism to a child should be arrested for Child Abuse!
Just like my opinion dude.

[Hominid]

I know i should stay the fuck out of these discussions, but....well Fuck it!
My stance on this as a recovering Catholic.
Everyone who believes in a "God" has been mind fucked...most likely since birth. They have all been brainwashed into believing in pure Nonsense. Any one teaching Theism to a child should be arrested for Child Abuse!
Just like my opinion dude.

I am a religious refugee as well, so I hear you!  It's taken a lot of work to extricate myself from it all, and I agree that childhood indoctrination can be akin to abuse, particularly when you're told THE only way to not be condemned is to say the sinner's prayer, or get baptised, and keep going to confession and mass.  All these conditions... it's exhausting!

[meekon5]

I was lucky I was brought up without any religious indoctrination.

As a teenager studied religion extensively (particularly Zen Buddhism after having found Christmas Humphreys, Taoism after linking him in with Alan Watts), Paganism came later, and is fact a vehicle to apply archetypes (based on ideas of my personal ancestry) to the mess that is my subconscious, problem is occasionally they talk back for themselves.

I agree anyone who doesn't question what they are told should be held in contempt as ignorant.

[meekon5]

I know i should stay the fuck out of these discussions, but....well Fuck it!
My stance on this as a recovering Catholic.
Everyone who believes in a "God" has been mind fucked...most likely since birth. They have all been brainwashed into believing in pure Nonsense. Any one teaching Theism to a child should be arrested for Child Abuse!
Just like my opinion dude.

I am a religious refugee as well, so I hear you!  It's taken a lot of work to extricate myself from it all, and I agree that childhood indoctrination can be akin to abuse, particularly when you're told THE only way to not be condemned is to say the sinner's prayer, or get baptised, and keep going to confession and mass.  All these conditions... it's exhausting!

This actually explains the problem I think. Lapsed Catholics are the worst

Seriously though it explains your attitude towards the bible. The Catholic line has always been they are right and their copy of the bible is absolute (despite the copious historical evidence to the contrary). Church of England (and other protestant lines) tend towards the "pick the bits you want to believe", a convenience I know but the reality of the situation. Even the Catholics pick and choose, you don't see them sacrificing lambs on the alter.

Yes the bible does read like Mein Kampf in places.

My major point has to stand that who ever has a right to practice their religion how they see fit, and actually a number branches of christianity have arisen from trying to ascertain Christs actual message from the dogmatic line of the text, still calling themselves "christian".

Christianity itself is a deviance from the book.

all bibles have the same stories...

Actually this is not the case, all modern bibles are a version of the Roman Catholic bible, so they do. But if you look at the Nag Hammadi Library it includes books not in the current accepted version of the bible (the gospel according to Mary Magdalene, the gospel according to Tomas the Doubter, the gospel according to Judas, for instance).

[Hominid]

*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

[meekon5]

*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.

[Shagbeard]

*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.

Far out, M5 Dude, Far Out. Totally dig it. 

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Meekon's first point is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, to say only those with red beards are Scotsmen is the same as saying only those who read the Bible a certain way are Christian. When the fact is there are many colors of beard in Scotland and many ways of being Christian.

Second point is wrong, there is a natural state of empathy, brought on by mirror neurons and oxytocin. Us and other mammals have a natural morality built in by evolution. Empathy is the basis of our species and our morality. This is beyond even the work of Sam Harris and his moral landscape. Modern science is teaching us that even our robots are going to need to experience pain and loss, and then apply that understanding to being empathetic toward others. Suffering and by extension empathy are key to consciousness, with out them interacting with the physical world would be difficult at best and maybe impossible to sustain otherwise.

Third, there is a difference between being tolerant and being discerning, not all beliefs and ways of believing are created equal.

[Hominid]

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

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  In my mind, if there's no book, there's no label.  Like BD's analogy: if one only believes in 10% of Nazi-ism, you can't really call yourself a Nazi...

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Both are right, out of the tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity Meekon describes the majority, but there are always outliers, so there are those who are not Christian but rather just douchebags. It is a matter of perspective, the picture changes depending on how closely you view it, from a distance Meekon is absolutely right, there is a clear line between this and that. But when you zoom in you see the line is a bit fuzzy and that is where Hominid's case is strengthened. Your disagreement is not actually a matter of definition but rather one of geography (metaphorically).

[Hominid]

Interestingly put revgms... I like your style dude.

+1

[meekon5]

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

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  In my mind, if there's no book, there's no label.  Like BD's analogy: if one only believes in 10% of Nazi-ism, you can't really call yourself a Nazi...

I think you're right I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.

and thanks Revgms

Both are right, out of the tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity Meekon describes the majority, but there are always outliers, so there are those who are not Christian but rather just douchebags. It is a matter of perspective, the picture changes depending on how closely you view it, from a distance Meekon is absolutely right, there is a clear line between this and that. But when you zoom in you see the line is a bit fuzzy and that is where Hominid's case is strengthened. Your disagreement is not actually a matter of definition but rather one of geography (metaphorically).

I think that's about as far as we can take it.

I did just feel that the point of view had to be made, as it was being crushed by the idiocy of certain other individuals actions