"True" Christians?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Icyblackflame, Nov 7, 2006.

  1. Icyblackflame

    Icyblackflame Registered Member

    Okay....I do not have much time to type this 'cause I have to go soon, but I was interested so I'll post it now. However, when I get back, I'll expand on this much further.

    As many have stated...I only specifically remember Breathilizer and Mare Tranquility at the moment, that Christianity has over 2500 different branches and different versions od the bible. I don't mean to offened anyone....these are just my beliefs, but I don't consider all 2500+ "true" Christians because a lot of them have changed the bible and what they believe, and a lot of it differs greatly from the original. Like....some don't believe in the trinity, some believe the whole "scale" thing (good outweighs bad, then you go to heaven. Seriously, that sounds very impossible to me. Eh...I can't explain it now though), etc. My point, a lot of "Christian" section things don't believe in the main three things you need to become a Christian. Yet we continue to call them Christian.

    Well, that's just me. I'm hoping that someone will give me their opinion on this and their opinion as to why. Are we just trying not to hurt anybody's feelings here? (not that we shouldn't be....religion has always been a touchy subject), but religion is religion. If you don't believe what it states...then you're not a part of it.....right?

  2. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Of course different branches aren't going to agree with one another. People who have a lot of faith obviously aren't going to reconsider what they've been taught that easily. Then again, most Christians aren't 'true' Christians and by Christian I mean following the teachings and ideas of Jesus. Jesus was all about equality, tolerance, open commensality, community, and love. Most Christians strike out on one or two of those.

    What are the "three main things?" You're just like the many thousands of other Christians, they think the others are living wrong and don't know what the reality of the teachings are.

    Christianity is so rocky and widespread it's not even funny. I think one of the main problems with it is a lot of beliefs are outdated (such as the belief that women are unimportant and not allowed in the church's heirarchy). Christians are following a ruleset (the 10 commandments) that still has some good rules, is generally outdated.

    Another thing that bothers me is that there wasn't somebody who followed Jesus and wrote all of this down. The earliest gospel was written 40 years after Jesus' supposed death. It's like one massive game of telephone. Of course some one is going to interpret something Jesus taught in a different way than what Jesus wanted it to mean.

    I'll post more later, I'm in a rush as well.
  3. raddmadd

    raddmadd Registered Member

    The main root of Christianity is that we must be saved by Jesus Christ for our sins through faith. all of the denominations in Christianity branch off of that. the denominations just contain different ways to live God's will, peoples beliefs. of course not all of us are going to interpret the scriptures the exact same way, so thats where denominations come in. its not that every denomination isn't "true" Christianity, its just that us Christians have different interpretations of the scriptures steming off of the same root. for example, Catholics believe that "born again" means water baptism. but others like me believe it means the spiritual birth. nevertheless, Catholics know that we need to be saved by Jesus Christ from our sins, and to do this is by faith, as we and others believe. so really a true Christian is a child of God, someone saved by Jesus Christ. denominations are stems off of this. if it doesn't stem off of this, whatever its considered in society doesn't matter, its not a denomination in Christianity.

    just to note, im "non-denominational" i don't agree with the denominations, i believe we are one in Christ, the body of Christ, although we have different interpretations doesn't mean we have to make a denomination out of it, its separating the church which opposes God.

    and this is just my input on denominations, i don't know much about them, i don't know if im right but this is just what i've picked up.
  4. Icyblackflame

    Icyblackflame Registered Member

    You can be a true Christian and not do the best things in life. You only need to believe three things to be considered "true." However, the bible tells us to be good because if you aren't, then it's giving Jesus and Christianity a bad name. Also, then what "branch" of Christians are you talking about there? I'm sure that, with over 2500, then the rules are changed quite a bit. We pretty much all just look at the traditional bible as how a Christian should act, which is how we should, instead of taking into consideration that there are over 1000 different variations that say 1000 different things. Who says that what they're doing is wrong in their bible? All I know is that I do know a lot of "Jesus freaks" (aka HARDCORE Christians), and I haven't cuaght them doing badish things (notice how I said I haven't caught, not they haven't done. At least they have enough sense not to do things in public....). It's the people who say that they are "weak Christians," (that's how they define it...I didn't make it up) who don't act the best, but they claim that they are trying, which is a good thing.

    I believe that Raddmadd answered this. You've been in pretty much all of his threads, and he's explained it in every single one...so I don't think that I need to explain it to you anyway. As for the second thing, I never said anything about them being wrong. I believe that you (generally) can believe whatever you wanna believe. It's just, if you don't agree with the religion's traditional views, you can't just take certain things out and replace them with certain things and still call yourself a practicer of that religion. You need to call yourself something else. Did I say that what they believe is wrong? No. I'm just saying that what they call themselves is wrong.

    The ten commandments aren't outdated. They are (in order)

    1) Do not worship any other Gods besides Him
    2) Do not make/worship any idols
    3) Do not say God's name in vain
    4) Keep the Sabbath day holy
    5) Honor you father and mother (that doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything that they say)
    6) Do not murder
    7) Do not commit adultery
    8) Do not steal
    9) Do not falsely accuse your neighbor (that doesn't mean that if you really think you did it, and you accuse them of it, and it turns out that they're innocent, that you've sinned. I think it's just like...if you know that they didn't do it, don't say that they did. And it's implying people, not an actual neighbor....although they count too)
    10) Do not covet anything your neighbor owns

    Okay...I can sympathize with the Sabbath day thing since we can't just stop everything 'cause it's Sunday, but everything else is very simple. We can control our erge to worship whomever, make any other idols (money is a biggie in the bible), saying God's name in vain, honoring your father and mother, murdering people, thinking about other people who belong to other people already (seriously...you can think about tacos or something. If you don't associate yourself with them, then you won't think about them. Really), stealing, trying to get someone in trouble for the pure hell of it, and being jealous. It's all controlable.

    Are they outdated simply because many choose not to follow them? But...when someone changes them, then everyone talks about how it's been changed again. Lol....catch 22.

    Besides, the whole thing about women was before Jesus...he didn't teach not to like woman. It had just been a popular belief that woman were useless, nasty "creatures."

    Other than that, I agree with your first sentence, lol.

    Listen. It was 40 years after Jesus died. Are you telling me that every single person who had seen him had died 40 years later? A lot of them were probably like...teenagers...although a lot of them were terribly old, so I don't doubt their deaths. But still....I'm sure that someone knew something about the subject, so we cant play the clueless card here. Hehe, telephone. I'm not saying interpretations. If somneone thinks that "(example)" meant "do not eat meat," and another thought that it meant "potatoes are evil," then whatever. I'm tlking about the three basic things. I'm sure everyone of him time knew what those three things were. I'm just surprised that some branches (thanks for the word. I seriously could not think of that when I made this thread, lol) don't even think that you need to believe in God to go to heaven, yet they call themselves Christians. I'm not calling them wrong, but I'm just saying that, since that basically defeats the purpose of Christianity, then why would they call themselves Christians?

    Seriously, this is pissing me off. I tried to post a reply like...an hour ago, but my comp decided that it didn't like FC at the moment, so it didn't lemme hit "submit." It refused to show me any page that related to FC. But now an hour later, it's not gving me problems, so it's all good I guess ^^.
  5. SenatorB

    SenatorB J.S.P.S

    Have you considered that many of the other 2500 some branches of Christianity would consider themselves "true" christians, and would consider you to not be a "true" christian? It's not just a one way thing... for the most part, when people believe in a religion, they believe their own religion is the right one and that everyone else's is wrong. People believe in their religion for a variety of reasons, mostly relating to their personal experiences. Perhaps you were raised into the religion, or perhaps you experienced some revelation, or perhaps you tried it out just out of curiosity, or perhaps any number of other things... it doesn't really matter, because other people of different religions have had similar personal experiences and yet they believe differently than you. People will describe how they know their religion is the right one, but people of other religions will describe the identical thing for their religion.

    Your religion may believe that there are three things (I don't know what three things you're talking about, and I'm sure raddmadd's description will be at least slightly different than yours, seeing as how he's a different branch than you) you need to do to be a true christian, and that if you don't do these three things you aren't one. But other religions believe otherwise, and would perhaps say that if you do those three things, you aren't being a true christian and you have to follow a different set of criteria to be a true christian.

    States according to what? There are hundreds of different versions, translations, interpretations of the Bible, and the Bible is what lays out the religion. The version of the Bible your religion uses, and your religion's interpretation of it, may state a certain thing and so following that would mean that you're a part of that religion. A different branch of christianity may use a different version of the Bible, or a different interpretation of the version you use, and so following what is stated according to that would mean you're part of that religion. What I'm getting at is that while what you have said is true, you have to follow (or at least believe in) the teachings of a religion to be considered part of that religion, there's no way of telling that your particular branch's teachings are the "true" teachings, or any other branch's teachings either.

    According to your particular branch's teachings at least. But can you prove that yours is the "true" teaching? It's impossible, it all boils down to faith... but since each religion's followers also have faith, there's no way of knowing.

    What traditional Bible is that? The original Bible has been translated and interpreted and skewed so many times that I doubt any of the currently mass used Bibles could really be considered traditional... certainly not accurate.

    Yes you did. You said that they weren't "true" christians ("I don't consider all 2500+ "true" Christians"). You said that this means that they couldn't be considered christian at all. If you believe your religion is the right religion, than other religions must be wrong... this is also stated in the Bible, with believers going to heaven and non-believers going to hell. You may think it's ok to believe other religions, that each has the freedom to believe whatever they like, but you've stated that you don't believe their religions are the right one, are the true one.

    Traditional according to what? I would venture that that the traditional views followed today are definitely not the original views by any means. So again we must default to traditional as defined by your own personal beliefs and the traditional beliefs of your particular branch of religion, because the views you consider traditional are not the same views that other branches consider tradititional, and they'd consider yours to be adding/removing/changing the tradition.

    Well yeah, you kind of did, as I explained earlier. Additionally, if they are calling themselves christians incorrectly, as you have stated, and you believe christianity is the right religion, as you have stated, they are wrong.

    Even the ten commandments change between religions. The wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments shows how different religions and branches divide them differently and interpret them differently.

    If even one aspect of a whole is outdated, it can no longer be said that the whole remains current. By admitting that one aspect is outdated, you have condemned the entire thing to the possibility of revamping.

    True, some of the New Testament is from those who were alive during Jesus' time. However, you must admit that not all of it was. The gospels, written by those who were supposedly Jesus' apostles aren't even completely solid... the earliest surviving complete copies of them date to the 4th century and only fragments and quotations exist before that... this alone is a place where translation, copying, interpretation errors could be introduced. Also, the Gospel of Paul was transcribed from Simon called Peter, and the Gospel of Luke was transcribed from Paul called Saul... still more room for error. This is exactly like a game of telephone like Merc said... just look at the chain... Jesus tells it to Apostles such as Simon, Simon tells it to Paul, Paul writes it down and it's read by 4th century scholars, 4th century scholars compile it for later scholars, later scholars translate/edit/do what they will with it for us now. By the time we get it, it's been pretty severely mangled.
  6. Icyblackflame

    Icyblackflame Registered Member

    If you take away the translations, then there is one. The bible was only written in one language originally. But many translations say the same thing in different ways. Some change it so younger people can understand it and such. Their own religion. You're putting different ones into this. But see, that's their religion. They're not bunching it into one.

    Raddmadd and I are not different branches. From what I've read of him, we believe the same things. It's the abc's - accept, believe, and confess. Each go into greater detail of things, but I don't feel like explaining it. Plus, I'm not gonna turn this into a serman, lol. To be honest....I'm still trying to get past where you thought we were two different branches. Did I say that somewhere? If I did....I didn't mean to. Sorry. Also...why do you keep bringing other religions into this? We're just talking about one here. It doesn't matter what other religions think because of course they're gonna think we're doing it wrong. Did you miss what I was saying? (Or did I just say it badly? Don't doub that. I hate posting long stuffz, so I tend to do a rushed version of whatever I wanna say)

    Again, a lot of different versions just change it so it is easier to understand, but they don't change the message. Different translations....I don't believe that someone can translate the whole entire bible completely differently from it's original meaning. If so, that translator needs to get fired xD. However, people change it 'cause they don't like what they're readin', but...if they change it, then they aren't following traditional things (traditional being the version before they changed it). Some things, trust me, only take common sense. If you don't believe me, look up some things. If you want me to, then you're gonna have to wait 'till Friday or Saturday 'cause I have to go as soon as I post this (well...I had to go 3 minutes ago).

    S_S You're moreso proving my point by adding different religions into this. Please get this straight. We're talking about one.

    It should at least still have the three main things. Someone back then had to know them. I think many can be considered accurate. Just different translations of minor words. Are you including those also? Think of KJV, NLT...they say the same thing. One consists of older English, and the other consists of modern language. Kinda like interpreting Shakespeare. If you're learning or reading it, someone may have to "translate" it for you. Of course, different opinions result in different translations. However, the main points are farily erasy to translate, and, even though you may word it differently than another, essentially, you're still saying the same thing.

    Lol. No. Stop trying to make this hard on yourself. I'll give you an example. You said that you're Jewish, right? Well....let's say you believe everything thing that the Jewish religioin states, yet you call yourself Christian. Now, I come up and tell you that you believe what is stated in the Jewish faith, not the Christian faith, and...for the example's sake, you just agree. Now, was I saying that your religion's beliefs are wrong? No. I was saying that you're identifying yourself with the wrong religion. Trust me, you're taking this the wrong way. I didn't say that their beliefs wren't true...I said that they weren't true to (let's just add "what i think) Christianty states. I can't explain it any further. We're arguing about what I'm saying. No matter what you think, I win 'cause I know what I'm trying to say - not you, apparently. xD

    Personally, you believe what you think is true, and you have to be introduced to something first to think that it's true. If you were first introduced to the "changed" result, then you're going to believe the changed result. I donno (about your other statement). Some of them will probably tell you that they revised it. Anyway, common sense again. If they just popped up over the last thousand years, then you know it's not tradition one or six or whatever number you're comfortable with. There were probably only a few different versions after Jesus died. Not all of them suddenly appeared after (I mean that 40 ears after).

    Well, no, I kinda didn't. Oh my goodness. When I said "true," I didn't mean "right." I never said anything about Christianity being the "right" religion, lol. I'm talking about different classifications possibly being miscatagorized as "Christian." K_K That's what I meant by "true." I certainly hope that you're the only one missing this here.

    Z_Z You're really killing yourself here. Here's the thing, "change between religions." That's implying that they have their own religion according to their belief system. As in, they're not all compiling themselves into one. The ones that I listed cannot be interpreted differently unless you're trying to get around it. I mean really, how many differern't ways can you interpret "Do not steal?" What? Is someone arguing that, because it has the word "do" in it, that it therefore cancels out the "not," meaning that "do not steal" actually means "do steal?" Or are they confused because it has both a "do" and a "not" in it, which is confusing them because they're trying to figure out whether they're supposed to steal or no to steal? No. Or maybe...but is it smart to listen to that?

    Okay. Fair. But...we still have 9 followable rules. Because one is not particularly followable in this day and age, it permits us to steal, to lie, to cheat, to kill, to disobey, etc? Furthermore, if we change it, then can we still call them "God's Commandments?" Or is that just "Commandments We, as Humans, Feel We Can Follow at The Moment?"

    Yes. I wasn't implying that all of it was, which I had admitted when I was talking about the people who were old as dirt, who would've been the biggest help. Yup (as in I agree and already considered that) to the second one too. N.N The telephone reference keeps making me laugh o_O But, yeah...a lot of events we have in history are like a big game of telephone, so we can't know for sure (I'm including non-bible things here too). But yeah...I agree with this paragraph.

    Now, I must go. If you respond, don't expect an answer 'til Saturday unless you email me, which I doubt you'll do.
  7. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Elite Intellectual

    The problem here is that you are starting from a false premise: you seem to think that there is a single source from which all Christianity has risen. Radd believes the same thing. It's not true, it never was, there is no "original" Bible, nor was there ever an "original" set of beliefs either. Just like Radd's assertion that everyone has to be saved by Jesus--that's a relatively new tenet of Christianity.

    There is a lot good scholarly research available on the origins of Christianity, but almost no Christians have read any of it. If you are interested in a good overview then I recommend THE FIRST COMING: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity by Thomas Sheehan. Excellent look at the first 100 or so years of Christian history, very even-handed and heavily footnoted. Another one (despite the title) that is quite good is THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN by Robert Price.

    People tend to believe that the way we do things is the way people have always done things because it is "obviously" the right way. Twaddle! The much touted Christian "nuclear family" is a perfect example, families made up of a Mom and Dad and their children living in a house together is practically a brand new idea in the history of humanity. For most of human history we have lived in tribal groups or extended families. It's damned difficult to have a "true" Christian when we don't even know if Jesus ever actually existed and we don't know for sure what He said--if in fact He did exist--but most religious people WANT to believe so badly that they never examine the basis of their religion for fear that they will discover that the Emperor is bare-ass naked!
  8. raddmadd

    raddmadd Registered Member

    Then why did Jesus die on the cross? He died to save us, all denominations revolve around that. The denominations themselves are just different interpretations and ways to live God's will after we are saved. If thats not true for a certain denomination, i don't consider it as a branch in Christianity, i consider it as a different religion.

    Also, new? What has Paul, the Apostles, Disciples of Jesus etc. been teaching for two thousand years?
  9. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Jesus died on the cross because he was a lawbreaker and a revolutionary. He brought about new ideas and thinking that scared the shit out of the leaders of the time period. He didn't get up one day and say, "Gosh, I hope I get to save everybody and die on a cross to prove it." He wanted an egalitarian (total equality) society where such things as wealth and family name couldn't divide people.
  10. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    "[SIZE=-1]Those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ."


    If you have the basic qualities that Christ said were important and vital to being a good human, you're a Christian. If you advocate un-Christlike qualities, you're not Christian. There is no such thing as a untrue Christian, there are followers of Christ and there are people who don't follow him. If one keeps the most basic esscense of Christ's teachings,they are a true Christian.

Share This Page