SkinWalker Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Remember, there's a difference between a fundamentalist and an extremist. An extremist would be the KKK because the blow one verse way out of proportion. Actually, extremists like the KKK and Protestant Fundamentalism are not far apart. Fundamentalist movements in general, arise out of discontent with modern life and specific features of the industrial revolution (Robbins, 2001). Each fundamentalist movement, whether it is Protestant religious or KKK extremists, believes itself to have the answer to the problems facing modern society, and often, they claim to have the answer to the problem of modern society itself! Common features of fundamentalist movements are: Most have origins in the 19th century and are in response to secularization of religion or as a reaction to globalization or economic progression. Each claims to be historically oriented and interprets current events like debt crisis, war, ethnic strife, and disease as divine portents that validate their central doctrines. In addition, each blames the lack of prominence for its nation to a decline in faith of religion or principles. Each has designs on state power and has usually adopted political structures such as parties and youth groups. In most cases they want either control of existing nation-states or to create a new one. All attempt to dissuade their believers from buying into the things that non-believers espouse. Each makes and has a strong appeal to young people, particularly college students but high school students as well, and has developed organizations to reach them. Each will have its own militant arm: Hizbullah in Lebanon, Operation Rescue in the U.S., Gush Eshunim in Israel; the KKK in the U.S. Most fundamentalist groups stress the importance of the family in social life, claiming that the family as an institution has been undermined by the secular nation-state. Some place a striking emphasis on the duty of women to embody tradition, with the home being for men a sanctified retreat from the world of work. All fundamentalisms believe that the economic problems of today are caused by moral degeneration. Also, there are three basic tents held by people who consider themselves as Protestant fundamentalists: 1) the are evangelicals, that is they begin with the fact that they are saved. 2) They believe in the inerrancy of the bible. 3) They believe in pre-millennialism, the doctrine of Rapture, and/or the End Times. Protestant fundamentalism has gained a strong voice in the political process in the U.S. , demanding that political candidates adhere to certain fundamentalist principles. Support for the banning of abortion, support for school prayer, and support for laws controlling what can appear in the mass media. Even support for gun ownership has been connected to Protestant fundamentalism. Now, when you say that the KKK and such extremists are not the same as Protestant fundamentalists, I'll have to agree. But I would argue that they are very similar. I would even go so far as to say that the KKK is a subset of Protestant fundamentalism. And merely stating that "these people aren't true Christians" won't satisfy my discontent, primarily because these people think they are true Christians. Robbins, Richard (2001). Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (2nd Edition). Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Fundamentalism = extremism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Actually, extremists like the KKK and Protestant Fundamentalism are not far apart. George Lucas is protestant... i think Oh, and this is sort of old, but the best answere i can give to why christianity is more valid than any other is because most religions have a part of christianity. Look at this, muslims believe part of it, Jews believe part of it (yes, im aware they were before christianity) but still, christianity is the whole religion. Then of course there are many other religions that agree with parts of christianity, but not all of it. Its like taking a peice of paper and coloring only one corner, you dont get the whole peice of paper... bad example... but you can see how many other religions believe parts of christianity. So if many believe in parts of it, then maybe its true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Okay, when I was saying fundamtentalist, I was saying those who hold the text of the Bible to be exact and true. Under your definition, I am almost but not quite a fundamentalist. Moreover, the current "fundamentalism" movement in Christianity is simply considered fundamentalist because it holds to the tenets of traditional Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 christianity is more valid than any other is because most religions have a part of christianity. Not at all. In fact, christianity is a relatively young religion, particularly the protestant flavor. Compare with judaism, islam or hindu (the latter of which is thousands of years older), and you will find that christianity borrows many concepts from them. Christianity has merely evolved its mythology to answer more questions. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 but still, christianity is the whole religion. Then of course there are many other religions that agree with parts of christianity, but not all of it. But this is a religiocentric perspective. Through the lens of your own religion, this yours appears to be the "correct" or "right" religion. From the perspective of the followers of other religions, islam or judaism perhaps, theirs is the "correct" or "right" religion. What makes your own religion "more correct" than others besides the fact that you subscribe to its doctrine? Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 but you can see how many other religions believe parts of christianity. So if many believe in parts of it, then maybe its true. Or, conversely, you can see how christianity believes in so many different parts of other religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Compare with judaism, islam or hindu Actually Islam is younger.... remember, they knew about christ already, and he is in there scriptures. You see, muhammad knew about christ, and if he was the founder of islam, then it had to be younger. I think. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 True enough about the age of Islam.... I was considering Protestantism when I wrote that, however. The Protestant reformation began around the 15th & 16th centuries with Martin Luther while Islam has been relatively unchanged since the 1st century (Muhammed had his revalation at Mt. Hira in 610 or 611 AD, commissioning him as The Holy Prophet and Messenger of God). The Hopi religion of the American Southwest is at least as old as Christianity and the very name, Hopi, means "righteous people" or "correct people." Ther very fact that they have survived hundreds of years of oppression is enough to give thought that they might be right. What if these are God's chosen people (assuming a god exists)? They seem to think so. But the Hindu religion is perhaps one of the oldest, if not the oldest in history. It dates back as far as 3000 BC. The real interesting religion, however, is Buddhism, which dates to about 520 years or so before Jesus Christ. Siddhartha Gautama became dissatisfied with the religious status quo (Hinduism and its caste system) and "went off to the wilderness" so to speak. He returned as Buddha and offered a Way of life that is very much what Christ preached over 5 centuries later! In fact, most Buddhists love the Sermon on the Mountain (Matthew 5?) as it reflects the social teachings of Buddha. One could easily argue that Christianity has its roots in Buddhism when the respective "messiahs" are compared in message and chronology. The thing that Christians find disturbing about Buddhism, however, is that Theravada Buddhists believe that there is no god to help us and that salvation is an individual problem to solve. Nor do they pray. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of Thomas (which didn't make the final draft of the Bible!) speaks of very similar concepts as Buddhism: divine light in all people; people have divine capacity within themselves; etc. There are many deviations in similarity as well, however. Gospel of ThomasThe 4 Noble Truths & The 8-Fold Path of Buddhism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 which would mean islam was the most complete religion.... it would also go a long way towards explaining why islam is going through the same sort of factional/fundamentalist growing pains that christianity went through with all the protestant vs catholics/burning of heretics etc... a few hundred years ago. I'm fairly sure christianity is big enough and old enough to look after itself. I always wondered whether all the "fundamentalist" christians from the US would be just as extreme about Islam (or any other religon) if they had been born somewhere else. I can't help but think that they would be. Personally, after seeing that the vatican is telling aids stricken african countries that condoms don't prevent the spread of aids i am sickened by the whole lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 But even still, if muhammeds teaching were correct, then it doesnt matter, because jesus already set the "main" rules.... i mean, it does matter, to a certain degree, if its true of course. If it "undoes" some of the teachings christ put down, then i wouldnt believe it... Also, i dont know a thing about the gospel of thomas, even though, im sure he is mentioned in the bible... the gospel isnt there. But still, lets look at it this way, if the bible is the truth, the exact truth, and God is real, he would have made sure everything that is important made it into the bible... of course, not saying the gospel of thomas isnt important. I dont know... but either way, christians are supposed to live peaceful lives anyways. The thing with buddhism is, i think its almost impossible to become perfect, or even close to it, without God's help.. thats why I pray to him to help me with temptations, and to help me with any areas of difficulty i have. Personally, after seeing that the vatican is telling aids stricken african countries that condoms don't prevent the spread of aids i am sickened by the whole lot of them. As shown in this thread, i dont support the vatican, but i didnt think a condom stopped aids anyways? I'm fairly sure christianity is big enough and old enough to look after itself. Most likley, i cant see anything just stopping it, or any other major religion... which would mean islam was the most complete religion.... Well, that depends, we know the muslims believe christ's teachings. We also know that its sort of expanded upon. But it also depends on the validity of the islamic doctrine... i havnt really checked out many other religions "fully" i know the basics. ill be taken a world history class next semester, ill find out all about it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 But it also depends on the validity of the islamic doctrine... As does the Christian religion. Whence peoples skepticism of it (as well as the Islamic religion). As for HIV, it is stopped by condoms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Sure, HIV is stopped by condoms. If they're used correctly!. And in Africa, most aren't. The most effective means of stopping it to date has been faith-based initiatives encouraging abstinence: that's where the most success has occurred. That's why President Bush has worked hard to include those in his Anti-AIDS plans. Of course any religion depends on the validity of the doctrine. Duh... But one can argue that the validity of a doctrine can only be ascertained by living that doctrine and/or seeing its effects on others. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how perfect the doctrine, the humans will screw it up. Because we simply can't attain perfection. It's not possible. As far as many of Christ's teachings being similar to those of Buddhism, He would have had no way to be influenced by the other religion. None: it was still limited to Asia. And his arguments deal with our own inability to attain perfection; Buddhism does not. Moreover, He gives hope... most other religions do not have an absolute assurance of salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 I'm not frequenting these forums too often these days (mainly because I'm a bit tired of overly-confontational debates, although that's partly my own fault I guess...). ..but anyway - my 2 cents. (On top of my $10 I've already contributed to this thread ) Sure, HIV is stopped by condoms. If they're used correctly!. I've got no problem with trying to encourage sexual 'abstinence'. I would of course prefer that the reasons were kept to health reasons (rather than bring spiritual morals into it - I know VERY spiritual people who are - by christian stands - sexually 'immoral'). ...if you want to reduce the risk of STD's, then don't engage in promiscuous sex. THat's not trying to ram morals down someone else's throat - that's just stating a fact... ...HOWEVER - whenever I hear of people trying to say that you SHOULD NOT teach people about the use of condoms - my anger levels start to get dangerously high. As you've already stated MK, just because you teach a moral code - AND even if people accept this moral code - you can't MAKE them live the lifestyle YOU think is best. The catholic church is the worst example of this kind of attitude. In fact, they actively encourage lies. I recently discovered that in some catholic propaganda, they claimed that condoms DO NOT STOP THE HIV VIRUS!! AT ALL! They claimed that the HIV virus could 'slip through' the rubber material! ...this would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that millions upon millions of people are dying across the globe... Whenever I think of the pope safely cooped up in the Vatacian - totally oblivious to the extent of the carnage and suffering that can be directly related to his stubborn, backwards teachings - it just makes my blood boil. As far as many of Christ's teachings being similar to those of Buddhism, He would have had no way to be influenced by the other religion. None: it was still limited to Asia. Some things to consider... * What Jesus did between the ages of around 12 to around 30 years of age are not recorded in the Bible - and cannot be deduced from other avaliable evidence. * When a high standing buddist leader dies, several buddists priests (wise men) would set out on a quest to 'find' a replacement. Amongst other things, they use the stars to guide them in this quest... * In Buddist history, it is said that someone from Isreal was bought to them to be taught in their ways. I don't know if the exact time period this happenned is stated, but the age of this person when he arrived and left match the ages where the activities of Jesus are unaccounted for... * During the years after the 'assention' of Jesus, a man is recorded to have arrived in Kashmir, who came from Isreal, and claimed to be a 'prophet'. He spent the remainder of his life there. While (I believe anyway) it is not recorded anywhere, it is general knowledge in that area that the man had - at some point - at least claimed to be 'Jesus'. Now, while some of the above occurances are vague, and can easiely be seen as irrelavent, or co-incidental (which I accept)they can all be substantiated to a resonable degree... And there is a tantalising little ending to this. The man mentioned in the last point is now buried in Kashmir - in the tomb of a holy man. (THe tomb is laid in the tradition of a man from Isreal, rather than a native). ...the land is considered sacred by the natives there, so it is not possible to exume the body - but it's extremelly satisfying (to me at least) to know that evidence exists which can substantiate or destroy this theory. I've seen skeletons examined for wounds in many historical programs many-a-time. I'm fairly certain it should be possible to determine if at some point, the man had had nails driven through his hands and feet. And - potentially - it could be unearthed tomorrow!!! ...I for one hope to live to see that day (if it ever comes...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Main problem is this......people bash what isn't there. They think something about Christianity that isn't true. Example...some people believe Catholics are Christians. Well, yeah that was a TITLE given to them, but the definition we use today isnt that. So for example...the "Christian" preacher who says to kill gays.....that's the guy's opinion. That isn't Christianity. People are thinking one thing, and blaming it on the next. NO where in the Bible does it say to go out and kill all of the gays. As someone stated, Jesus even saves a women's life in which she had an affair with someone else. He said, go and sin no more. Did he let everyone kill her? No. You see....most of this "CHRISTIANITY SAYS TO DO THIS TO THAT" blah blah, is actually just what someone has said, and all because he's a Christian, it's blamed on Christianity. Granted, sometimes people preach things saying Jesus hates gays, but they are just clueless individuals. Christianity isnt the problem...it's the people who are putting words into God's mouth. Instead of individuals doing their research on Christianity, they use it as an excuse to bash Christianity. "The BIBLE says this, so THERE". Where did you hear that? Did you get it out of the scriptures?.....or from word of mouth..... but it is true...homosexuality, according to Christianity, is wrong...but it doesn't mean you should hate them. Even with people you don't get along with, it does say ,love thine enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Example...some people believe Catholics are Christians. Well, yeah that was a TITLE given to them, but the definition we use today isnt that. Whether they are christian or are not is irrelevant. They fully believe that they are, every bit as much as you might believe they aren't. In fact, Catholics have as much belief that they are christian as you do of yourself. That is what matters. Originally posted by RpTheHotrod You see....most of this "CHRISTIANITY SAYS TO DO THIS TO THAT" blah blah, is actually just what someone has said, and all because he's a Christian, it's blamed on Christianity. My point of contention about christianity is that it is very inconsistent, particularly in regard to the bible. Quite frequently, if I point out an inconsistency with an old testament verse, someone who believes themselves to be christian will say, "that's all changed because of the new testament and the first coming, etc." Then why doesn't christianity remove and totally discard the old testement? Answer: religion (nearly any religion) likes to have its cake and eat it too. Religions (nearly all of them) will ignore those things about their religions that are too difficult for the leity to adhere to. In short: hypocrisy. The best reason for criticizing religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 By the way: I changed the name of the thread from "Why is it okay to bash Christianity?" to "Why is it okay to criticize religion (i.e. Christianity)?" This was to make the topic less biased, more objective and to broaden it a bit. I haven't seen mr116 around her lately, so I hope he won't mind. If anybody has objections or comments, please feel free to PM me about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 That's my point. There's different "versions" of Christianity...but the core Christianity is rarely the true thing getting bashed. IE, someone is bashing "Christianity"...when it's really bashing a different version of it, not the true version. True version is entirely based completely 100% on the Bible inside and out. If you want to truly bash Christianity, it's best you study the Bible much and see what it's really saying, other than what you've heard in the past. IE, earlier in this post, someone said Christianity says to kill all gays. Well, maybe someone's "christianity", but it certainly isn't the Bible's true Christianity. Problem is....there's so many views on Christianity...and people pick and choose what they like best. Just like a "christian" preacher who also preaches to kill blacks. He just picks and chooses...but isnt truly a real Christian belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 What's a "true" christian belief? More importantly, how do you define whom isnt following the "true" christian belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Heh...very difficult to do so. im just saying, careful when you bash Christianity...you might actually just be bashing someone's personal belief, not a whole "This Is Christianity" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 hey, rp joined the thread None: it was still limited to Asia I was thinking that, but i really didnt know for sure, so i didnt say it. * In Buddist history, it is said that someone from Isreal was bought to them to be taught in their ways. I don't know if the exact time period this happenned is stated, but the age of this person when he arrived and left match the ages where the activities of Jesus are unaccounted for... if im not mistaken, i think he was in egypt... or around that area, untill the king died. My point of contention about christianity is that it is very inconsistent, particularly in regard to the bible. Quite frequently, if I point out an inconsistency with an old testament verse, someone who believes themselves to be christian will say, "that's all changed because of the new testament and the first coming, etc." Then why doesn't christianity remove and totally discard the old testement? no, only discard the things that were changed... for example, they couldnt eat certain foods, because they were "unholy" but, if you remember in the new testament, peter was hungry, and god gave him a vision of these "unholy" animals, they werent supposed to eat. So peter didnt want to eat them, then God said, somthing like, what have i made that is not holy? and that means, everything God made it holy, so it overrules the old law. Im really not sure about some of the laws.. for example the "hair" law, i just got a hair cut last night... but i havnt shaved in a week What's a "true" christian belief? More importantly, how do you define whom isnt following the "true" christian belief? if they dont follow what the bible says is true, then you can guess there not christians... but then again, who are we to judge? Maybe they were mislead? Then they would need someone to correct them.... if its in the bible (like rp said) its true... if not, then dont pay a huge ammount of attention to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Any Tom and Jerry out there could "say" something they believe and then say "and that's what Jesus would want", or "The Bible says so"....but you be freakin careful when you start telling others Christianity says that about whatever they are talking about. Study the scriptures first, see if they are just BSing you. On the other hand, some people take the scriptures out of context. I remember one person claiming that Christ was a homosexual because the Bible said he loved his disciples. This whole thing started after that with a LOT of people coming out and saying that homosexuality is obviously what we're supposed to do, since Christ did it too. This was false, of coarse...because someone was a homosexual, and looked into something that wasn't there and used it as an excuse and turned it into his PERSONAL belief.....not the true Christinaity belief. There is so many "tainted' versions and beliefs out there, it's insane. It's very rare to find a one, true belief...in which it is the KJV Bible from Genesis to Revelation. If you're looking for true Christanity...that is what matters...nothing else. My challenge to you all is to start going into the scriptures and find out the truth, instead of taking other people's word for it. Go into it with an open mind, because if you have decided it's your way or the highway...the truth will be hidden from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterSidious Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Open minds? Now that is what you call being augnostic . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterSidious Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Why do you need open minds, though? That's the best question of all. Anyway, one things for sure, we'll all know when we're dead lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 How do you know we'll all know when where dead? what if all the anti-christians out there are right? then we obviously wont know when where dead, because we wont know anything... then again, if us Christians are right, we will know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.