chavos

As a Christian, i get the sense from time to time that my religion isn't terribly appriciated around these parts. Too bad, but okay.

I also get the sense that there is almost no understanding of what faith means on this board. Not okay.

While i acknolwdge the existance of those whose faith is as extreme as is often described here, those characteristics which i list below are NOT the same thing as Christian faith.

Christianity is not equal to the following:

Believing that non-Christians are going to hell
Anti-intellectualism
Creationism
Mysogeny
Racism
Blind or unquestioning in belief
Republican
Homophobia
A refusal to learn, or explore
A mental illness, defect, or hallucination
Fundamentalism
A single, definable entity, easily described with single adjectives.

The point is, that Christianity encompasses a whole range of beliefs and persons...so the next time you feel tempted to use an unflattering or overbroad description of Christians, ask yourself whether or not its actually true. Its no more true that all Christians do any of the above than it is that all athiests are axe-murdering wankers. MMkay?

pyraxis

You've got a good point here.

How would you describe Christian faith?

__________________
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson

bermuDa

so you've defined it by negation, what IS christianity? Seems that there's more confusion within the various denominations than without.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

KellyC

there are many branches or christianity, which one are you refering to? or is this generalization?

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.

Fibrosa

While I do agree with you that there are many different versions of Christianity and that it's not fair to judge all Christians by the predominant version, I have to say that the reason Christians are often 'brushed with a large brush stroke' is because the 'loudests' Christians are often the type you describe above.

__________________
D'oh!

chavos

pyraxis, bermuDa: I can define what it means to me...but at the most basic, i think that Christians are those who find a unique experience of God in Jesus of Nazareth. To say more than that...there will probably be differences.

KellyC: I'm wasn't seeking to define any movement, sect, or denomination. I was only pointing out that the generic label Christian does not by definition neccessarily imply any of those things.

Fibrosa: Yes, i would say they are loud. I somewhat regret that...but i don't want to have my faith defined by them just because they happen to shout. Its my church, too. This is one way of raising my voice.

nanofever

A."I also get the sense that there is almost no understanding of what faith means on this board. Not okay." Would you please enlighten this board on what faith exactly is.

B. You didn't define what "Christian faith" is, making this entire rant kind of silly. Unless you were defining "Christian faith" but what is it not... in which case you forgot that "Christian faith" is not a purple sock nor is it a TI-83 calculator.

C. My sect of Christanity is all of the things you listed Christanity is not. Are you willing to step up to the plate and tell me I'm not a Christian ?

D. "Christianity is not equal to the following: A single, definable entity, easily described with single adjectives." So you can say what Christianity is not with "single adjectives" but you can't define what it is ? That seems like a logical contradiction to me.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

pyraxis

But what does it mean to have a unique experience of God? Do you simply mean to believe that Jesus is God incarnate, or is there more to it than that?

__________________
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson

GakFace

His point in this thread was to point out all of things people call Christianity. His point is this thread was to point out that these things are wrong. He wasn't defining the other things, that was not part of his intent. If you wish to argue what he stated was wrong.. then you're on track with the thread, if not.. then you are drifting away from why he created this thread.

You say your Sect is everything he said christianity is not? I'm sorry, but to be correct you might want to say "IF my sect has some of those qualities, am I not a christian?" Why? simply because one of them in particular was, "A mental illness, defect, or hallucination" I have only seen this to show how a religion is BS.. People say the religion is BS because the sightings and what not are from people that are mentally ill. If you know how else this fits, please tell me. Quite simply, if this is how this one is used, I sincerely doubt you would say that your sect is mentally ill. If you would... I would like to see an explanation for that one.

Again with your part D, he didn't create the thread to define what it IS, but to point out all the things that people like to say it is, even though those ideas are wrong. That was merely something that is heard... Did he say, I'm here to define what christianity IS... no I don't believe he did. Please read the thread again before saying he did a bad job.

__________________
RoboBlaster:
Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

chavos

nanofever: Gak already covered this, but horse's mouth nonetheless...

A/B: Not the point of the thread, really. Maybe i should start a new one just for that purpose, but the positive definition is what i spend most of my posting time on the TFP talking about.

C: Perhaps i was not clear...but my point was some Christians are some of those things i listed. Not all. Judging an entire religion by only some of its adherants isn't cool IMO, and i set out to bring that to attention.
D: No...perhaps there is a problem of explanation, but there is no error in logic. Those adjectives do not define Christianty...some Christians are described by them. I would just as readily substitute athiest, muslim, bhuddist or jew for christian in that statement. No faith is defined soley by an unrepresentative sample of members.

I'll post a new topic shortly, for what it means to me. I just don't want to subtitute my definition of Christianity for a fundamentalist one here. To do so would be just as offensive to a fundamentalist as their definition is to me. Despite the disagreements...i feel that it is possible to share the label, and so i don't want to give people the impression that Christianity is defined by my particular spin.

sixate

I hate when I spend 20 minutes on a rant, and then realize it's not suitable for TFP...

Tophat665

Chavos,
Christianity is all of those things that you say that it is not. Now, not all Christians are, but one or all brands (sects, if you prefer) adheres to all of them.

Did not Christ say that he was the only way into heaven?

Some brands of Christianity are mature enough to figure out that the Bible is allegory. Some are not. The latter are Creationists. They are also Anti-Intellectuals. Further, any religion that makes a saint of the man who lead the mob that destroyed the largest collection of knowlege in the ancient world (that would be the library at Alexandria, burned by St. Cyrus and his rabble. They flayed the librarian alive too. Sweet fellow. Burining in Hell now, if there is such a place.) is anti-intellecutal across the board (in my book) until they repudiate that really awful descision to canonize him.

Tell it to the Pope.

Tell it to the Mormons

Four years of religion classes told me that one could intellectualize all one wanted, but until one had faith, one was going to Hell. That's Catholic. I would say you could hear the same thing from any protesant sect. Christinity is at the base of it a devotional cult (in the technical, non-perjorative sense). That means it runs entirely on faith in Christ. Without faith in Christ, you are not a Christian.

That's a good point, and the most accurate one in the list. Fundamentalist Christians are republicans. Sane Christians might be in any party.

Not all sects are homophobic, but even some of the ones that seem on the verge of joining the 20th century get their collective frocks in a knot over ordaining gays. The Anglicans, who seem to me to be just about as modern a sect as Christianity has, are talking schism over a gay bishop. 'Splain me what that is if it ain't homophobia?

If all one needs is faith, then one does not need to learn or explore. This does not mean that Christians don't do this. It does mean that they don't need to do this, so lazy Christians don't.

That's not Christianity. That's religion. Don't take it personally. From the outside looking in, organized religion has a remarkable resemblance to mass mania or ergot poisoning. What it looks like from inside is something else again, but folks who say that aren't just talking about Christians.

But there are Fundamentalist Christians, who are normally the ones that are complained about, and, frankly are dangerous. Don't like being tarred with the broad brush? Moderate Christian churches need to use their organizational powers to distance themselves from Fundamentalists. Better yet, to tell the World that Fundametalist Christianinty is neither Christian nor based on Fundamentals. When I see Moderate Christian leaders, or even fanatical fossils like JP Jr , denouncing Billy Graham and Pat Robertson as regularly as they denounce the rest of Christianity, I will consider cutting the rest of Christianinty slack on this. As it stands, though, the rest of the churches sin by omission.

Christianity is Faith in Christ, and all that that implies. Anything else and it's not Christian. It is the responsibility of Christians to denounce those that are not Christian (the protestant Old Testament fetishists) but call themselves Christian. So simple adjectives do describe parts of Christianity, and some describe it all. If faith driven = delusional, as it does to some, then there's one right there.

I'm sorry to, no I'm not. Lemme try that again: I really do like that you have tried to do this. I think it's a step toward separating the Sheep from the goats, if you will. The Christian Christiains from the Paulist Christians and the Talmudic Christians. Though I don't agree with their faith, I find Christian Christians to be fine people almost without exception. I would really like to see them take back their religion from the hijackers.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

tecoyah

I gotta say, Tophat, That was extremely well put. I have also found the christians I associate with to be wonderful people, I do however choose my associations quite carefully. very rarely can I agree wholeheartedly with a post here, this is an exception and your intellect is to be commended. that said.....

I have found "religion" and faith to be very personal aspects of individual spiritual growth. Most of the debate occurs when we feel the need to "convert" others to an alternateive path, most unfortunate. Christian (generalized) failure is in the attempt to incorporate those who have grown beyond the need for "blind faith" and would rather be left to the devine for guidance, however that may be interpreted.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

chavos

okay. massive not communicating problem. I'm trying my damnedest here...one more time i guess.

Some Christians are those things. Christianity is not. Nobody owns it, and can define it as such.

I certainly will own up to the problems of the tradition. and i will certainly note how some, perhaps many christians are some of those things. but they do not own christianity. they own their beleifs...their mind. but when outsiders accept the claims that fundamentalists rule Christianity, it just makes the problem worse. adn it results in a lack of respect for moderates. i'm not saying that fundamentalists don't exist, or that you shouldn't talk about them. I'm saying that because a person is Christian doesn't make them anything else. Not liberal, not conservative, not color blind, not racist.

I'll start a new thread on Queer Christians, and a few other of the specifics...but right now i need to sleep off new years.

Okay, so i know what i think faith in Christ means. But i'm not going to disown a brother or sister over my own pride. There are lines i draw for who i will call Christian...but i won't do it simply for a point of theology. The flaw i see in them may not be any greater than the one i miss in myself. I will rebuke them, but from with in the community...not in an attempt to throw them out. its big, happy, dysfunctional family...and so i'm simply asking for folks to not do guilt by association. its a logical fallacy, rude, and unfitting of debate here. all i ask.

Tophat665

OK, here's the point I'm trying to make about Fundamentalists: They're not Christians; they're Old Testament fetishists who have mistaken symbol for substance. HOWEVER, they loudly, stridently even, proclaim that they are the only real Christians. Now, your post is a step in the right direction. What Chrisians across the spectrum need to do to avoid being associated with these non-Christians in all but name is to publicly rebuke them. When I see the Pope (going to have to be the next one) on CNN saying that Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, and their followers are not Christians, and really need to stop their hijacking of Christ's good name, then my problems with Christianity as a whole will decrease by about a third.

Quote:

I will rebuke them, but from with in the community...not in an attempt to throw them out. its big, happy, dysfunctional family...and so i'm simply asking for folks to not do guilt by association. its a logical fallacy, rude, and unfitting of debate here. all i ask.

It is a big, dysfunctional family with an armed, drunk, weird old uncle in the room, who is shooting holes in the walls and who no one seems to be able to admit needs to be locked up for the evening at least, for the long haul most likely. You've got a black sheep in the flock. It's making a terrible racket. Please don't be upset with the neighbors for calling the cops, and undersand that if you get bent out of shape at the cops for not controlling what goes on in you're house, you're likely to get hauled away too. (Now how's that for a dreadfully mixed metaphor? Opus grade!)

So you can call it guilt by association if you like, but guilt <u>of</u> association would be more accurate. Look, if I start putting dark beer in Coca Cola bottles and selling it to grade schoolers, not only would they lock me up, but Coca Cola would sue the bejeezus out of me for defaming their brand. Jesus is your brand. He's your trademark, and he is being diluted, deleted, and deranged every day by walking hairspray ads with televison cameras. If you (all Christians) don't do something about this, daily, vigorously, effectively, until that brand is yours and yours alone again, then you cannot justly complain that you are being unfairly accused.

Things are done in the name of your brand, your religion, like it or not, and if you don't disown the acts and repudiate publicly the actors, then you share their guilt. An undefended trademark belongs to no one.

Look, Fundamentalists are Dangerous. They are willfully ignorant, unable to separate metaphor from reality, and positively hostile to the manifest truth that their holy book is, just as much as a sacred writing, a political document compiled by men for political reasons 1600 years old. These people do not deserve respect. They deserve ridicule at best, perhaps with a measure of pity. That they can behave that way in the name of Christ without massive derision from Christians is nothing less than negligent on the part of believing Christians everywhere. They are clowns and it is as much or more your responsibility as it is mine to make people know that. I am not a Christian. (I believe in universal personal divinity) I can only be taken so seriously when I tell people that the fundies must be reduced to the status of Juggalos or this country and the world are in trouble but goot. Cast your eyes to the whitehouse and know fear that I am right. When Christians - church going, cross wearing, believing by God Christians - start constantly and consistently repudiating, mocking, disavowing, disowning, and otherwise opposing fundamentalism, then we can all rest easy again.

All Christians own Christianity. It is their responsibility to keep non-Christians from claim jumping.

Chavos, it's a good post. It's a start. Take responsibility for your religion, even if you won't take responsibility for your own godhood (there's my quirky religion). It doesn't need to be holy war. All you need is love and laughter to drive these delusional people back into their holes.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

tecoyah

Again....well put, It might be added that these public fundementalists, were they not pretending reverence for a sacred book, would be considered disgusting and evil in the words they say and the deeds they commit. Just think about a standard statement from Jerry Fall-Well, if the term "god" was replaced with any other name....pretty much , hardcore nasty and mean.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Endymon32

"Those that are not with me are against me, and those that are lukewarm are like vomit from my mouth" Jesus Christ.

Sounds like if you are not Christian you are going to hell to me.

chavos

Not likely to be authentic at all. If memory serves, that's only in Matthew, and is probably directed at fence sitters after the destruction of the temple who refused to help the Christians openly when they were facing repression.

PS: Cite book and verse when you quote. I'm good, but i'm not that good. It helps to know what exactly i'm supposed to comment on. thanks.

tophat: I see what you're saying...but there are two problems with completely disowning them.
1. Nobody takes such charges seriously. America is so brainwashed, it may not be possibile to convince them that there is a christianity that is apart from conservative/fundamentalism.
2. I have personally felt the pain of having someone tell me that i wasn't "christian" enough to use the name. I don't know if i really want to inflict that pain with out a damn good reason.

When fundamentalists spew hate...that is a sin. When they tell you that gays are bad...that's a sin. When they failed to condemn and participated in racism...that's a sin. I'll use the strongest language i can, save to try to deny their belief in Christ. Nobody save a person and God knows if they are sincere believers...and so all i feel free to comment on is their behavior. if it is bad...and much of it has been, then i'll call them on it. But at the same time...i can't own the name more than they can. A simple numbers game, and they win. A money game, and they win. I think i've got truth on my side...but that's one hell of a fight. Its what i'll do...but there's not much i can do to take the name from them. The reclaimation has just started, IMO, and its going to take time.

So...in the meantime...perhaps its not too much to ask to recogize the Christianities, plural, that comprise the faith. The whole idea of a catholic, small c, and orthodox, small o, faith is a late invention. Why buy in to it now? Why accuse those who are starting the work that needs to be done, and dishearten the moderates from ever joining? If they're going to be damned as fundies no matter what, why not just avoid the fight?

Tophat665

Chavos,
I recognize you're trying to do the right thing, and I respect that. You've got a benefit of the doubt clause built into your religon, and you're actually paying attention to it, unlike the folks I am talking about. It's just something that we're going to have to disagree on.

So here's the deal: I advocate ridicule and exposure for Fundamentalists. I believe that they should be disowned by their religions. A religion that won't disown it's fundamentalists needs to be shamed into doing so.

There will be collateral damage. There will be wounds to the self esteem. Sides will be split and asses will fall off from laughter. It ain't a shooting war, though, so nobody dies and no one gets hurt. If I cannot shame you into putting these mad dogs out of your church, please don't try to tell me I can't abuse them through the church windows, because I'm not going to listen to it.

At the same time, don't let me stop you from trying to get these idiots to realize that saying they're Christian isn't enough, and that faith in Christ, while enough strictly speaking, isn't anywhere near as good as actually doing what the Man said. Loving one's neighbor, charity as a virtue not as a tax writeoff, that kind of thing. I wish you all the success in the world in doing that. Makes my end of things so much easier.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Easytiger

Chavos, thanks for this thread. I respect your courage. Defining your faith is not easy, and sharing it is a brave thing to do in such a public (and opinionated) forum.

Nisses

Chavos, I think that's part of the problem for alot of people to begin with. That they have to think of christianities, instead of 1.
Different groups with different shades of the same belief. That's the confusing part since you can't properly label it anymore.

Here's what christianity is in my eyes: a religion grown worldly in the middle-ages, and never really recovered. They made the transition from religion into a political power, and by doing that gave the religion a worldly side as well. It's people that are on this side of christianity that are causing so much problems. As far as I can see of course. (and I realise this post is just as much a case of "it's not us, it's them" as any, but it's how I feel things are)

__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated.

tecoyah

[ Why accuse those who are starting the work that needs to be done, and dishearten the moderates from ever joining? If they're going to be damned as fundies no matter what, why not just avoid the fight?


indeed.....why not just avoid the fight, you will fail against such odds. At this point, if you wish to improve the image of christianity, you will need to change the name. Distance yourselves from the fundies.....or accept the fact that most non-christians interpret these guys as the voice of your religion.
Honestly, those of us who understand your point and accept the many faces of your faith, don't really care enough about the future of your religion to cut you alot of slack. With any luck, Organized religion, as a whole is finally on the wane. Then we can all start to grow as a species.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

chavos

nissus...ultimately, what i'm attempting to promote is the idea that heresy doesn't exist. orthodoxy doesn't exist. political, worldy powers can impose uniformity on some levels...but in terms of a relationship with God, that Christianity doesn't promote mediation-the authorities that could declare one faith to be right or wrong. i would agree schism is confusing and frustrating, but it all stems from ideas competiting to be "the one right one." multiple christianities that are not competiting won't look like schism, because they can coexist. absent a desire to impose one's beliefs on another, difference isn't a problem with in a faith.

tecoyah: for better or for worse, it's my church too. if someone gave athism or agnosticism a bad name, would you throw in the towel and convert? i should hope not.

and if you honestly don't care about organized religion, i suggest you rethink that. if i told someone i simply didn't care about politics, or science, or the enviroment, and that once it faded from public view, we could grow as a species, you'd tell me i'm daft.

religion, for good and ill, has been a major part of civilization since inception. Regardless of what you personally choose, society still gains from religious life. Charities, soup kitchens, 3rd world aid: all are largely staffed, organized and supported by religious orgs. Arts, music: traditions inspired by, funded, and kept alive by religious life. counseling and social work for the grieving, mentally ill, hospice care for terminal patients, alcoholics anoymous, community support: organized, fed and run by religious groups.

that's not the point, though. if you don't care for relgion, fine. i respect that. if you don't care enough for the truth to describe religion accurately, not fine. i can't respect that. i'm not out to make you all fans of christianity. i am out to correct the errors, stereotypes and falsehoods that are being used.

tecoyah

Guess I owe you an apology (though I can't quite figure out why) I just re-read my post and thought it was clear that I understand and accept the many faces. As for accurate descriptions of ANY religion, I will admit to my shortcomings in this regard, I would be interested to hear what an "accurate" description would be. I cannot even describe my own religion accurately, I can however, admit that.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

grumpyolddude

If Endymon32 refers to Matthew 12, 30:
"30] He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. ", then he might want to finish the quote with verses 31 and 32:
"31] Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
[32] And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. "

I prefer Luke 6, 37:
"[37] "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; "

Chavos has taken a very brave and eloquent approach to witnessing for his faith. We see in this and many other threads, that he(?) is an exceedingly thoughtful and spiritual soul. We are forunate to have him among us to help elevate the discussion above the "you're bad/I'm good" rhetoric that seems prevelant.

It is not our place as Christians (or adherent of any theology) to define what Christianity (or, insert your religion or non-religionhere) should mean to others. I, myself, can only describe what my beliefs are through my words and actions. If I feel that someone is causing harm and using Christianity as a shield or excuse, I can voice my disagreement and opposition. I cannot deny that person his belief in Christ.

__________________
"Regret can be a harder pill to swallow than failure .With failure you at least know you gave it a chance..." David Howard

chavos

tecoyah: thank you, even if there's no "why." goodwill is always appriciated.

endymon:
I found that one: its actually from Revelations, 3:16. Written much later, during a time of persecution of the church, it is most certainly not authentic to the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The vision as a whole is a metaphor, and is probably a risky place to draw doctrine from if it is the sole witness to a teaching or idea.

grumpy: thank you.

Amen.

MSD

Regardless of what Christianity is, it should be a way of life dedicated to following the example of love and acceptance that Jesus Christ set for his followers. Notice how Christianity comes from the word Christ? A lot of people these days seem to forget that.