PoiuyWired Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Fact, you are a christian if : 1) you believe in God 2) Jesus Being the son of God, and/or Binity (Trinity is not required, a concept for only 200 years old or so) THAT IS ALL. As for things in the Bible, Scriptures and the like, different sects/groups/etc have different interputation and/or selection of what is being Kanon and what is not. EVEN for the same line in the same verses there are varients dut to different source, menuscript and/or translation. Also remember that some books are at odds to each other, due to the will of humans, namely the translators and writers. Even the writer of old verses have different views on things, and they(and their followers) sometimes do not see eye to eye with each other. Well, you add another bunch of "Traditions" to this like festivals, saint-worshipping and rituals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Well, what drove the early Muslims? They created the largest empire in history, albeit a short-lived one (darn Crusaders). They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will. Except for all that "burning people at the stake" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 That was a trademark of the Church of medieval times, and like I said, they didn't even know about the Bible or what it taught, so they can't even be considered "Christians". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrrrrrrrrr7 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I AM PROUD OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Well, I don't go to church every weekend.............) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Why do you have to be proud? Can't you be normal about it? Sure i'm "proud" of an atheist, but I never incorporate the word "proud" when I say that i'm an atheist, i'm normal with it. Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5 They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will. uhh..no? Christianity took over the pagan religions of Finland for example because of Swedish settlers that took the religion with them, we didn't choose christianity. It was the Swedes that forced it upon us and preached it to us. And what about Native Americans for example? Spanish/Portugese settlers forced christianity to them aswell, which also lead to genocide. -BLT Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrrrrrrrrr7 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Why do you have to be proud? Can't you be normal about it? Sure i'm proud of being Finnish and an atheist, but I never incorporate the word "proud" when I say that i'm Finnish and an atheist. Ever heard of scarcasm? (No offense) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5 They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will. uhh..no? Christianity took over the pagan religions of Finland for example because of Swedish settlers that took the religion with them, we didn't choose christianity. It was the Swedes that forced it upon us and preached it to us. And what about Native Americans for example? Spanish/Portugese settlers forced christianity to them aswell, which also lead to genocide. In that post, I was referring to early Christians - i.e., those who lived during the 1st century. After there were less and less witnesses of Jesus' lifetime, the ideals of Christianity began to deteriorate and, in my opinion, Christianity wasn't re-awakened until the Reformation. Although there are some Catholic churches who I believe have the right idea, in general the Catholic church has given Christianity a bad name throughout the centuries. So quit trying to compare the old European Catholic church to today's Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 So quit trying to compare the old European Catholic church to today's Christians. You're right - Medieval Christians were nothing like how modern Christians are. Radical Muslims today are much like how the Medieval Christians were. This is because Christianity was influenced by the secular humanism that came with the Enlightenment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Jimmy Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. Just get rid of the apostrophe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smon Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today. Yes it is accurate. Just look at all the cavemen and dinosaurs Adam and Eve saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 That's one thing that's disputed among Christians; about where the events of Genesis can be placed in relation to...well...yeah, cavemen and dinosaurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today. Actually, the bible is very inaccurate, historically speaking. There isn't a single confirmed prophecy. There is plenty of evidence of literary manipulation to fulfill prophecies, but none that can be actually said to be prophetic. I challenge anyone to cite a myth from the bible that they feel is 'historically' accurate. I'll gladly debunk it if it it's historically inaccurate. Exodus perhaps? The "prophecies" of Ezekiel? Resurrection? Virgin birth? Global flood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Global flood? Actually, interestingly enough, the Mesopotamians had an ancient hero named Hammurabi, and one of the stories about him includes a great flood across the earth. I found it interesting that two different stories seem to be related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 That's because they both stem from the same myths. The ancient Israelites that wrote down and codified the Old Testament were products of the cultures around them (the cultures that they themselves came out of.) They heard the ancient myths of a "world-spanning" flood and incorporated it into their own stories. No need to make more of it than that. The myth itself might be somewhat rooted in truth: A very bad localized flood that washed an entire tribe's village away (which, for a people who may not travel more than a couple miles from the place of their birth in their lifetimes, that would have been the ENTIRE world for them.) Perhaps the survivors managed to escape to the high ground, or on-board a boat with a couple of breeding pairs of livestock. The fact that they managed to survive while all their neighbors were wiped out could only be attributed to divine providence, and being favored by the deity. Instant mythology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Yeah, I agree that some Old Testament stories may not be exactly what they sound like. But I still hold to the fact that the New Testament is historically accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I found it interesting that two different stories seem to be related. The same can be said about the birth of "vampires" and "vampirism".. Both the idealogy and conceptions on the creatuers developed on 2 seperate sides of the world near the same era... with almost all the details matching... however, this tid-bit of info isn't going to affect my life and change my belief (or non-belief rather) of said creature/monster... I'm no Christian (nor Emo or Goth for that matter.. hehehe), but I don't have anything against the ideas & concepts that the Bible is supposed to be portraying. However, if someone was to bring one in and try to teach me factual history lessons with it (Old or New Testament) .. I'm sorry, but I'd laugh in their face... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Terros Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Yeah, I agree that some Old Testament stories may not be exactly what they sound like. But I still hold to the fact that the New Testament is historically accurate. But surely by saying that the Old testament has fallacies in it is going against the bible which is the word of god? and wouldnt saying god is wrong make you a very bad little christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 The New Testament is the worst. It wasn't even written by those that witnessed the alleged christ. The earliest gospel was probably written around 70 CE, and the remaining gospels except John were based on this and another text that has yet to be discovered. Errors and inconsistencies in the stories between the writers abound, most notably the ignorance one of the anonymous authors had about the geography of the region as he had Jesus zig-zagging around the Sea of Galilee in a manner that wouldn't have occurred. Mark was the first gospel, and the anonymous authors of Luke and Matthew basically plagiarized Mark and Q (another gospel source). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 But surely by saying that the Old testament has fallacies in it is going against the bible which is the word of god? and wouldnt saying god is wrong make you a very bad little christian? Many Christians debate over how literal we should take the Old Testament. For example, some believe that Earth being created in six days really means six days, and is not symbolic for 6,000 years or something like that. Genesis could very well be symbolic and in fact the Big Bang could have actually been the cause of creation, except that it was initiated by God. The New Testament is the worst. It wasn't even written by those that witnessed the alleged christ. The earliest gospel was probably written around 70 CE, and the remaining gospels except John were based on this and another text that has yet to be discovered. Errors and inconsistencies in the stories between the writers abound, most notably the ignorance one of the anonymous authors had about the geography of the region as he had Jesus zig-zagging around the Sea of Galilee in a manner that wouldn't have occurred. Mark was the first gospel, and the anonymous authors of Luke and Matthew basically plagiarized Mark and Q (another gospel source). Keep in mind the gospels don't describe every single moment of Jesus' travels. So if one chapter they're at one place and the next chapter they've leapt to a different part of the area, that just means the author skipped several events to get there. They only included the most important and memorable stories. The gospel writers may have very well worked off of Mark's, but who cares? Mark was one of Jesus' disciples. Luke wasn't. Luke was only a companion of Paul. Most likely, Luke went around and interviewed witnesses and those who knew Jesus. John's gospel is different because it is his own version -- he was one of Jesus' closest disciples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 The gospels might not even describe a single moment of jesus' travels. There's no evidence that they were authored by their title names and quite a bit that indicates that they were authored by those that weren't alleged to be directly connected with the alleged christ. The gospel of John differs because it was written by an anonymous author who didn't read Mark or Q. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 So, basically, your assumption is that the entire history of Christianity - and the whole reason it spread to become the single largest-followed religion on Earth - with one-third of the world's population accepting its message - is because of a huge network of lies and carefully planned out made-up stories, which are compiled in one, 1,000+ page book. Yes, that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Terros Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 So, basically, your assumption is that the entire history of Christianity - and the whole reason it spread to become the single largest-followed religion on Earth - with one-third of the world's population accepting its message - is because of a huge network of lies and carefully planned out made-up stories, which are compiled in one, 1,000+ page book. Yes, that makes sense. Just because its popular doesnt make it right i mean the nazi party was pretty popular in germany at one point and look how that turned out. Christianity has been forced on more people over the years than any other religion hell at one time if you didnt believe it you wouldve been killed which kind of gave them a boost when it came to spreading across earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 So, basically, your assumption is that the entire history of Christianity - and the whole reason it spread to become the single largest-followed religion on Earth - with one-third of the world's population accepting its message - is because of a huge network of lies and carefully planned out made-up stories, which are compiled in one, 1,000+ page book. Yes, that makes sense. that is a terrbly cynical statement. Skin is a man that deals with facts, he is stating them. Whether or not Jesus, or any figure within any theology actually existed or did what is written becomes immaterial in matters of faith. Faith is something complex, and far more than a collection of facts and figures. It is a sociological, political and psychological phenomenon that is an innate construct of humanity alone. ie. It's a really tricky subject ! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.