Those aren't REAL Christians!

[tomato1236]

Yeah, I think swords divide people. Literally.

Matt. 10: 34
34 Think not that I am come to send apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Real Christians, real atheists, real fairies, real FSM's.....

No such thing. We are all unique and individual. As are our views.
A Crusader was not a Christian as I understand myself to be a Christian. We're both real Christians even though our views are opposed and contradictory.
The world is not black and white.

True, then would you agree that religion's claim that it brings people together is somewhat misleading?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Jesus life is the example of how a Christian should live.

Mohammed's life I assume would show how a Muslim should live.

Was Jesus violent?

Was Mohammed violent?

True. Then should I assume you think that most Christians do not qualify to be Christians?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

The "real" religion is defined by those who practice it. Religious people would be well-advised to keep this in mind if they are at all concerned with how their religion is viewed by outsiders.

Well said, as always!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A real Christian is one who has been born again. But that aside, can we get over the crusades by now? We have killing in the name of certain religions and secularism going on today and people want to point way back to the crusades to compare them to Christianity. If that is all you got then the scales are way out of balance in favor of Christianity.

Don't worry - there's plenty of killing for Christianity still going on today. For instance: Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And maybe you recall the Hutaree militia that made the news this year? Or James Kopp?

BTW - exactly who's killing in the name of secularism?

 

[sandandfoam]

True, then would you agree that religion's claim that it brings people together is somewhat misleading?

Yes, in a sense I would.
People bring people together, atheism, religion, science, creationism, sport, music, politics etc etc are all vehicles.

 

[michel]

Lately I have been noticing a trend among our religious friends here at RF.
Every time an atheist challenges Christians about the bloody history of Christianity, they say, "Well, those weren't real Christians. Real Christians are not violent and yada yada...

But these same Christians often blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. Just look at the Park 51 debate we had here. This in spite of a lot of our Muslim brethren affirming that real Muslims are not supposed to be violent and yada yada. For example, a nameless Christian member said that we should allow the Mosque at Ground Zero only if the Muslims agree to build a Jewish temple at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, while reaffirming that it wasn't real Christians who carried out the crusades and the inquisition and so on.

Why is this double think in place with these individuals? Thoughts?

There's no "double think" - there are people who ruin well meaning concepts in every walk of life.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

There's no "double think" - there are people who ruin well meaning concepts in every walk of life.

Care to elucidate a little?

 

[ChristineES]

I guess my point is that religious folk are quick to take offence when we paint them with a broad brush. For example, if we point out that a Christian carried out some horrible act, they are quick to point out that the guy was not of their particular sub sect of Christianity. But when Muslim bashing is going on, they jump on the band wagon and blame all Muslims for what a particular sub sect of Islam (say Wahabbi) did.

The broader picture seems to indicate that religion is not really unifying people together, rather it seems to divide and conquer. Religious people live in fear of other religious folk. According to religion, the mantra seems to be " Agree with me and we will be unified, else I will kill you." This hypocrisy of religion is rather depressing.

I made a deal once here, it must have been 2 years ago- it was: I won't paint you with a wide brush if you don't paint me with a wide brush.
Let's just say history is filled with people of our religion, race, group, ancestry, etc that we are not proud of. All of us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess my point is that religious folk are quick to take offence when we paint them with a broad brush. For example, if we point out that a Christian carried out some horrible act, they are quick to point out that the guy was not of their particular sub sect of Christianity. But when Muslim bashing is going on, they jump on the band wagon and blame all Muslims for what a particular sub sect of Islam (say Wahabbi) did.

I think that just might be an example of something that most people do: they recognize fine-grained distinctions between people who they perceive as close to them, but ignore these distinctions between people who they consider distant.

I don't think it's a religious phenomenon. You see it everywhere - for instance, go to a record store (if they still exist any more) and you'll find all sorts of categories for modern Western music. Everything that isn't western all gets lumped together as "world music", and everything that's not modern gets lumped together as "classical".

Musically speaking, there's a heck of a lot more difference between Bach and Beethoven than there is between AC/DC and RUN-DMC, but Johann and Ludwig get put next to each other in the rack, while the two modern groups are considered to be in completely different categories.

 

[Zadok]

I am not criticizing Christians in particular. It was a demographic thing. I just gave an example of a Christian member. It is often true of other religious folk too.
Yes, humanity has had a bloody history. I willingly take responsibility for our past actions. We did not know better then and we don't seem to be doing any better now.

I am sorry - I think mankind is rational and does know better. There are many people that just do not want to demonstrate that they really know better – so they criticize. I am not impressed with any group that can criticize another. What is sad is that all the people that think they know better that are not willing to be an example of it.

Jesus was willing to say, “Come follow me.” Unless someone is willing to say they are a better example; what difference does it make that they can be a critic?

Zadok

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I don't find the Biblical Jesus to be a good example in the first place so.....

As for the OP. The No True Scotsman stuff is old hat. Course as an atheist. I don't find it particularly surprising that religion, based in the imposition of fictional supernaturalism on the observations of the natural universe. just might involve a lot of people fighting each other over what constitutes The One True Way™. When it's an arbitrary label in the first place.

 

[FluentYank3825]

I guess my point is that religious folk are quick to take offence when we paint them with a broad brush. For example, if we point out that a Christian carried out some horrible act, they are quick to point out that the guy was not of their particular sub sect of Christianity. Religious people live in fear of other religious folk. According to religion, the mantra seems to be " Agree with me and we will be unified, else I will kill you." This hypocrisy of religion is rather depressing.

In ancient times, Christian people were far more superstitious and so blamed any disasters or political problems on those who opposed their views of orthodoxy, as they were out of God's favor. It also didn't help that state religions existed then too and also changed depending on the whims of the ruling class. Lots of strife resulted and thousands or more died as a result of these disputes. In modern societies, laws separating church and state keep this from happening...to an extent.

Human conflict is inherent throughout history, this will not change. People will die in these conflicts. People will always be religious and disagree. This will not change. The fact that not as people now are as superstitious as now as they were back then is a great sign of progress.

The "real" religion is defined by those who practice it. Religious people would be well-advised to keep this in mind if they are at all concerned with how their religion is viewed by outsiders.

I agree. In my experience and view, any flaws existent in religions are manifest in the humans who belong to them. To quote a Cardinal in the movie "Angels and Demons": "Religion is flawed because man is flawed."

and i agree here as well; religion divides people.

Hence the reason I decided to adopt a more universal view of life and God. Religion in many ways can confine people as much as set them free.

 

[allright]

True. Then should I assume you think that most Christians do not qualify to be Christians?

Jesus said "fear not little flock it is the fathers good pleasure to give you the kingdon".
Also "The road to life is hard and few there are who find it."

 

[Walkntune]

Lately I have been noticing a trend among our religious friends here at RF.
Every time an atheist challenges Christians about the bloody history of Christianity, they say, "Well, those weren't real Christians. Real Christians are not violent and yada yada...

But these same Christians often blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. Just look at the Park 51 debate we had here. This in spite of a lot of our Muslim brethren affirming that real Muslims are not supposed to be violent and yada yada. For example, a nameless Christian member said that we should allow the Mosque at Ground Zero only if the Muslims agree to build a Jewish temple at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, while reaffirming that it wasn't real Christians who carried out the crusades and the inquisition and so on.


Why is this double think in place with these individuals? Thoughts?

I say guns don't kill people. Religions don't cause wars.People use religion for there own dogmas.Don't worry though politics is now using science for its agendas.
True Christianity is about love and sacrifice. Wars are fought over power,control, and greed.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I say guns don't kill people. Religions don't cause wars.People use religion for there own dogmas.Don't worry though politics is now using science for its agendas.
True Christianity is about love and sacrifice. Wars are fought over power,control, and greed.

religions are social institutions. The implementation of an ideology can only be accomplished if people who hold that ideology use the ideas of it to act upon the world. Trying to separate the ideas from those actually implementing them saves religion from nothing.

 

[Sunstone]

True Christianity is about love and sacrifice. Wars are fought over power,control, and greed.

I think true Christianity is not just about love and sacrifice. It's also about sin and punishment. About who is "us" and who is "them". And about other things too. In fact, true Christianity contradicts itself to some extent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus was willing to say, “Come follow me.” Unless someone is willing to say they are a better example; what difference does it make that they can be a critic?

It seems to me that the quality of Jesus' example depends quite a great deal on whether what he said was the truth.

 

[Walkntune]

religions are social institutions. The implementation of an ideology can only be accomplished if people who hold that ideology use the ideas of it to act upon the world. Trying to separate the ideas from those actually implementing them saves religion from nothing.

Well being religious has nothing to do with being Christ-like or a so called Christian.
The Pharisees and Sadducees in scripture were very religious which is also self righteous.So you want to talk about separating true Christianity from religion it was done so even as Christ walked the earth and set a foundation. True Christianity is walking in selfless love and is not subject to any laws.

I think true Christianity is not just about love and sacrifice. It's also about sin and punishment. About who is "us" and who is "them". And about other things too. In fact, true Christianity contradicts itself to some extent.

Jesus only preached about hell and suffering to the religious, he never preached it to the sinners. He only preached grace to the sinners.It has nothing to do with what true Christianity is.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Well being religious has nothing to do with being Christ-like or a so called Christian.

I'm glad that Christians love to play that game. But it's hardly applicable as a response to the portion of my text you quoted. For one. "To be like the head figure of one's religion.", would certainly work under the category of being religious. And taken at face value it just gets silly. So are you going to start walking the earth and proclaiming yourself the son of the God Jehova now?

If by the latter by that it being religious doesn't mean you are Christian...well if this is simply a reiteration of "it's not a religion it's a relationship!" Let me just nip that in the bud. It's a stupid let me feel good at myself by denigrating others meme certain Christians have spread around. It's really a meaningless phrase.

The rest of that first paragraph is simply the No True Scotsman fallacy. If people want to go with hippy ultimate love Jesus. Ok sure. But to expect others to simply ignore not only the history of Christianity, or the negative aspects of Christian beliefs or the modern actions of Christians that harm others is rediculous. And you don't need religion to try to practice selfless love. Your religion at that point is simply a negative superfluous and unnecessary hanger on easily discarded. As far as it pertains to someone's capacity to express love in such a manner.

Jesus only preached about hell and suffering to the religious, he never preached it to the sinners. He only preached grace to the sinners.It has nothing to do with what true Christianity is.

Happy Go Lucky Christianity is neither historical Christianity or the entirety of what constitutes modern Christianity.