Is christianity, or religion in general, a belief of convinience?

I think>> I feel>> I know>> I'm right...It's a subjective process we all use to justify our perception of truth and the righteousness of itstupid ???...yeah probably, because of the subjective nature of individuality we will never gain consensus but on a collective level we march blindly towards who knows ???God maybe...I'm bored...excite me please

Sorry but to a great extent, and without some pretty strong qualifiers, that's nonsense and simply not true.Christianity deals with Whys, with Morals. If you limit TRUTH to the field of Morals, to Why, then to some extent, you are correct.But there is nothing in the Christian Faith that says that Christians have any secret knowledge when it comes to science, to history, to art or wisdom. To imply otherwise is a sign of abdicating the very capabilities that God gave you. When it comes to Morals and Faith, then Christian belief may well be a standard. But when it comes to the world, to life around us, to evolution, to geology, to astronomy, to medicine, to mathmatics, to engineering to biology, the standard is how closely the hypothesis matches the evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Believing in Jesus does not fully define them as christian, which is why I encourage you to look at this logically.I won't go into the explanation of the converse as I am repeating myself, but I know of many Jews who believe in Jesus, and they are NOT christians, and take offense at being called christian. They insist that they are Messianic Jews. But my whole point was that they DO NOT fit the definition. EVEN I admitted that you were not using the "scotsman fallacy" IF the predicate is contrary to the definition. You're not being fair considering how fair I have been. Here's what you said earlier; If you insist they are still religious followers because their actions yet contradict their faith , then you are not observing logic at all. The fact is that the whole point of the scotsman fallacy, is that the predicate must be contrary to the definition to be justified. Shall I explain?So tell me, are they recognised as a restaurant or not? Yes or no? Wrong. They do not fit the definition. Don't have me to explain the this. Here is part of the definition; "One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."BUT guess what, it was your logic I was using!Here's what you said; Exactly! Neither do I. So why am I wrong when I argue it, but you're not?Yet you say; That is what you said in reply to MY question; "wouldn't you say that a rapist has failed to follow Christ's teachings?" YET LOOK what your quote (in yellow) says. ANd I even asked you to consider that the sinner could be backslidden but then just becoming a rapist if he only continued this contradiction of Christ's teachings (which even you said).(by raping), then OBVIOUSLY you are more adequately described as rapist (^{Do you deny this simple logical observation}). Whether YOU like it or not, rape is most definitely against the definition, and my argument is INDEED justified, that's logic, plain and simple.Now you don't consider the 9/11 guys as proper religious followers, YET I bet THEY DO qualify as Muslims because their book says JIHAD.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-25-2004 08:44 PM

Ummm, when did God "say" this to you? If you say the Bible, you are taking some human's word that "God" talked to them and that they got it straight. Whatever higher wisdom there may or may not be, a human has to decide that it is wisdom. In other words they have to use their wisdom to evaluate it. So, it's a misrepresentation to claim that they believe in a "higher wisdom", it's self deception, as their own wisdom is what is passing judgement on the truth or falseness of this claimed "higher wisdom".A Christian, like any other religionist relies on the authority of others who claim to have "the" truth from a "higher" authority. This is a long standing human cultural psychological situation. It has worked and continues to work for very large group cohesiveness and it does provide psychological support to individuals. This comfort has been offered here as an explanation of it's "truth". The mind uses many things effectively to provide happiness and even healing. However, humans being what they are disagree and this disagreement can become violent.It's just not the violent conflicts between differing religions or sects alone but that is one symptom of the human origins. Now humans are clever rationalizers and very good at arguments to support their belief that they are right. For example, they don't say "I am right" they say "God is right, and I know exactly what God wants and you don't, HAH!". And then they demonize those who disagree. I mean I've read here that some of you Christians believe other religions are the result of the activity of demons.Poor scientist, they aren't allowed to quote friend's vivid visions, hallucinations, intuitions, hunches as proof of anything. Human belief can have powerful effects on individuals and groups, but that in no way establishes the "truth" of the belief. It CAN establish the desirablity of the belief for some people.The conversion activity is irrational or flawed logic used to sell things, religion, deordorant etc all use rhetoric that has emotional appeal to the insecurities of the ego. "Buying" a religious or any other persuasion results in a psychological satisfaction. At this point in history the value of that probably still out weights the social problems and conflicts it causes.Religion isn't about getting to heaven or saving souls, it's about managing behaviours and feelings in this world by the use of imaginary rewards and punishments. Some would rely primarily on reward systems, other favor punishments, "threaten 'em with hellfire if they don't submit to your authority". Or worse, witness the Inquistitions, witch trials, and as mentioned here Jihads.So, yes, religion can be helpful to people, especially depressed or substance addicted or anxious individuals. On the other the price we pay is written in the history of the wars and persecutions.There are other approaches to relgion. Buddhism has some significant differences but that is not on topic here.peace,
lfen

So then what DOES define a Christian?If believing in god "taking christ into your heart", having a personal relationship wioth god - if none of that makes any difference, or makes you a christian, what does?Your deeds?Your organisational membership?

quote:

---

Here is part of the definition; "One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

---

Mike the Wiz, do you live by all the teachings of Jesus, every one, every day, without fail? No hiuman weaknesses, no failings? You;d better, because otherwise you're not a christian.

My "bolds" added.That one sentence is what I would define a "True Christian" to be. And it is also why I wonder if many atheists are better Christians than are many professed Christians.Mooseps: This may be going off-topic, but to me, the topic is pretty vaguely defined.

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Is this...an assertion? Can you at least explain how you came to this "conclusion"? Well, I don't know what your friends are, but if they believed in Jesus Christ as their personal saviour, and that Jesus was the son of God, then they would have a hard time arguing that they are anything but Christians. Errrrr....no. What you mean to say is that they do not fit your definition of Christian. You better explain. Well, I certainly won't recognise it as one, but I'm afraid it fits the description. Explain it. I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not arguing that they are not Christians. I am saying that they are Christians, but they are not doing what Jesus taught.A cat is a cat because it is a cat, not because it catches mice. A cat that doesn't catch mice is still a cat.A Christian is defined by their beliefs and faith in Jesus Christ as their saviour. They are not defined by their actions.Consider:A sinner can be a Christian, and a Christian can be a sinner. Following Christ's teachings (not sinning) is not a necessary nor a sufficient criteria for the term "Christian".However:An individual who does not believe in Christ as his/her saviour cannot be a Christian, and an individual cannot be a Christian unless he/she believes in Christ as his/her saviour. Therefore faith in Christ is both sufficient and necessary for being a Christian. (You may wish to argue sufficiency)Your emphasis on behaviour as an indication of faith is a poor argument. 1) "Christian" is necessarily one who believes in Christ as their saviour.2) "Christian" may not necessarily follow Christ's teachings perfectly.3) Rape is a contradiction of Christ's teachings.Add (2) and (3) and you can see that a Christian can be a rapist. Chuck (1) into the brew and you'll see that a rapist can be a Christian - as long as they believe in Christ as thier saviour.Where's your reasoning?QED. I'll deny it. Why is it obvious? It is not simple nor is it logical.Unless the definition of a Christian is "one who does not/did not/will not rape", Christians and rapists need not be mutually exclusive concepts. Yes. So?Like I said, I don't consider dog excretion proper "food", yet they very much qualify for the definition of "substance that provides sustanence".Anything I haven't addressed, please list in your next post.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

I'll make this short because I think people will always fail to understand me on this(also - it's become a "define christian" argument, of which I've partaken in too many).But I think Minnemooseus is right in that he would consider some atheists more Christian because of the importance of following Christ's teachings. I myself think that many atheists are Christlike and follow the teachings, and that holds a lot of weight with me also. And it does Christ it seems, acccording to the seperating of the sheep from the goats.Here's what I meant though - and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong; Your logic is correct, because of the two attributes necessary in defining christian.A christian is one who professes belief in Jesus Christ.The contra-positive is that if there is no belief in Christ, then the person isn't a christian. (So your quote is correct to me)Yet, I think I can prove that christian is not defined as this one thing, (because of what Moose said). Here's what I mean, and if I am wrong then I am wrong;Christian = professor of belief in Christ
Christian = one who follows his teachings.Is then, a professor a follower?
Is then, a follower a professor?A professor of belief, could be a Messianic Jew or a murderer.A follower, could be an atheist or a humanistTherefore, I think BOTH believing and professing are necessary, as we could derive many types of people if we suggest that one definition is sufficient.I hope you see my point. Again - if I am wrong I don't care anymore, as I have done this a thousand times now.So I have taken heed of your sayings SD, and will consider revising my position on this.Yet, do you think an added phrase would be necessary - if only to be fair? Cos to be honest, I think a true Muslim isn't an extremist aswell. Yet would we call them?So - would you consider it fair if we called these people muslim extremists and christian extremists? As to show the difference between the extremist and the more "religious" follower, of more peaceful endeavours. -->Just wondering.^{edited out vagueness}This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-26-2004 08:31 PM

and While this may be going offtopic, IMHO it is so important that it deserves to continue.As I have said in other posts, I happen to agree with you completely.A couple points I think might be worthwhile to consider.First, Christ did not establish a seperate church or faith. He was a Jew, a devout Jew. He lived his life as a Jew and his Mission was one of reform and redirection within Mankind and extended beyond just Jews. He also stressed, through his teachings, an inclusiveness that reached beyond religious bounds and across political, cultural and age issues.About 300 years after Christ, what constitutes someone who would be a member of a sect called Christians was finally defined. Those conditions are laid down in the Nicene Creed. To be a member of the sub-group Christian, one must sunscribe to the conditions laid down in the Nicene Creed. They are the statement of the "I believes" and set out the specific membership requirements.But that is all they do. They define group membership. They have nothing specifivcally to do with anything other than conditions to be a memebr of the Sacred Body of Christians. They are exclusive to tthat organization but do not preclude others from being "Followers of Christ".This idea is expanded in Matthew in both the positive and negative versions. and These two passsages as well as others. such as open the concept of salvation beyond just Christians and includes many who would not fall into the sub-group Christian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Perhaps, instead of stating that Christians who don't follow Christ's teachings well aren't Christians, you may want to say that they are Christians, but their behaviours reflect Christ's teachings poorly. I thought I have already shown that the second equation is flawed. Since Christ teaches us how not to sin, the fact that Christians can sin means that Christian does not necessarily equal to "one who follows his teachings". (and vice versa) I think you meant "both following and professing are necessary". And I am arguing that following is not necessary - because a Christian need not follow Jesus's teachings, and one who follows Jesus' teachings does not make him/her a Christian (as you have pointed out).So I don't see how "following" is a factor at all. Why do you trouble yourself with such annoying terms as "true" and "real"?A Christain is a Christian and a Muslim is a Muslim.A Christian who rapes is a Christian who follows Christ's teachings poorly.A Muslim who kills is a Muslim who follows Muhammad's teachings poorly.How can it be any simpler?Even so, there are many ways to interpret and understand religious teachings, and this is where we enter the realms of "misuses". What? Christian extremists are not "extremists"? Muslim extremists cannot be more peaceful than the Christian variety?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

still quibbling over semantics. Don't you get it ???Christ is "THE WAY" etc...any body who follows "THE WAY" regardless of belonging to a or any religious institutiton is a christian whether they know it or not and whether they want to accept it or not!!!you can't deny the way to a good life is to strive to follow "THE TRUTH" of "THE WAY" in which Jesus lived "THE LIFE" that leads to an awareness of the creator...learn the lesson of the golden rule !!!the rest is you guys complicating things to prove how clever you are to each other and for what respect on a message board ???...grow uplive and learn, evolve or diesimple really

is what the essenes taught and lived...the writers of the dead sea scrolls...and from what Ifen says in another thread "the way" is what Lao Tzu practised and taught alsoJesus in his missing 18 years between chastising the pharisees at 12yrs and beginning his ministry at 30yrs was taken to the homelands of the wise men present at his birth and taught...the wayso when he claimed he was "the way", he was claiming the personification of it's practise in man as a means to know the creator

To RingoKid: The Olympics is an arena where competitors prove how strong/fast/good they are to each other for respect and recognition in various sporting activities.The World Chess Championship is an arena where competitors prove how clever and skillful their strategies are to each other for respect and prestige on a chess board.The Global finance markets is an arena where traders prove how clever and insightful they are to each other for respect and financial rewards in the markets.I think the point is made.Perhaps you could try to understand that we are all here to seek answers, sharpen our wits, and learn knowledge from one another through discussions and debates.It would perhaps be to your best interest if you can scale down your overwhelming arrogance and grow up a little yourself...or perhaps you would like to continue muffing your ears and chant: "You're all immature! Grow up!" to all those around you.Either way, your unsupported assertions are not helping your case (if you have one) any.Have a nice day.(By the way: is anything that you've claimed supported by literatures anywhere, or are they just creative, baseless speculations like I suspect they are?)

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

You only took offense at my remark about proving how clever you are trying to be but if it wasn't true the why did it offend you and why bother responding about only that in the context of my post why not pull me up on what my point was and rip that to shreds ???I mean really... don't you think you're over analyzing an extremely simple concept to prove yourself right, another person wrong and for what purpose ???respect, prestige, rewards, recognition, to prove how insightful and strategically skillful you are on a message board on the internet...point proven???Dude get over yourself...it's just a message board tucked away in a tiny corner of cyberspace not an international competition so your analogies mean little. But if it is a competition then you can be the financial, award winning, olympic chess champion of this message board and I'll be the arrogant child that needs to grow up just to make you feel better...OK, happy now ???your prize can be another verbose post complete with boring quotes full of sound and fury signifying nothingwake up and smell the coffee sleeping dragonMy opinion is creative..yes, baseless...no, speculations...just like everyone elses just not as bombastic, supported by literature...already quoted from...Tell ya what, try posting your real name, age and credentials cross reference all your sources and name them...I'm sure we can find somebody to peer review it for you and then get everyone else to do the sameYou want answers ??? It appears you wouldn't know one if it crawled up your leg and bit you on the ass, let alone if I or anyone else gave you one and I doubt you'd admit to it anyway.You'd rather argue some inane point to where everyone just breezes past your posts for fear of nodding off midway. I too wish to learn but you ain't said jack worth noting mister, now why don't you run along and let the mods do the moderating... eh ???If they think I need scaling down then sweet as, no worries it's their boardnow have yourself a beautiful day also...

The last couple of posts are starting to get unnecessarily personal. You may make your points without that. Thank you.