I am curious what DUers think authentic Christianity ought to look like.

[Perky]

There would seem to be a variety of opinions on this issue.

Assuming a fairly common understanding here that authentic Christian Faith does not include fundie politics is a given I am wondering where you folks would see the proper balance in an authentic Christian Faith.

These are broad, non inclusive categories, meant to give a sense of each element. I am not asking for your opinions of the fervency of expression only the degree to which the element is part of what you consider to be indicative of a "good Christian witness", given these elements and your understanding of What Jesus taught:


Social Gospel: Good works in the community (peace activism, Habitat, working with the Homeless, etc.)

Evangelistic activity: Proclamation of the Gospel. Not asking about technique and audactity...just what percent of of such activities you think are indicative of authentic Christan Faith.

Clean living: Just asking if you think a personal moral code based on Jesus' teaching is indicative of a real faith completely apart from pushing that moral code on others.

Private Devotional experience: Bible Study, Prayer, worship, fasting, etc
So with these four elements what is your notion of an appropriate balance?

[ThomWV]

1. Fuck Every Bit Of It

That pretty much says it all about how I feel about every aspect of the various christian sects and their acts.

[blm]

10. huh?

Just a month ago you lambasted me and called me a Catholic basher, just for pointing out that ALL religions had politically based fundamentalism in common.

Not getting if this post is meant to be a joke or note.

[SPKrazy]

17. Well, tell us how you really feel! n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

43. Ah...feel the love...

[catmother]

82. that's not very nice. i'm not a christian but you can at least have

some respect for those who are.

[and-justice-for-all]

99. I agree 100%

Christiandom is based on lies, there is nothing in its foundation that makes it genuine..its all a shame of robbing older religions of their identity. Here is an example:

"Most xians and many others believe the Judeo/Christian Bible to be the word of "God." In truth, nearly everything within the bible was stolen from other religions that predated Judeo/Christianity by hundreds to thousands of years. The god "Yaweh/Jehova's" name was inserted, replacing the names of many other Gods. "Jehova" is fictitious. The name "Jehova" was stolen from the Roman God "Jove." "The pious Dr. Parkhurst. . . proves, from the authority of Diodorus Siculus, Varro, St. Augustine, etc., that the Iao, Jehova, or ieue, or ie of the Jews was the Jove of the Latins and Etruscans..." "YHWH/IEUE was additionally the Egyptian Sun God Ra: Ra was the father in heaven, who has the title of 'Huhi' the eternal, from which the Hebrews derived the name 'Ihuh.'" "Jewish mystical tradition viewed the original Jehova as an androgyne, his/her name compounded as Jah (jod) and the pre-hebraic name of Eve, Havah, or Hawah, rendered he-vau-he in Hebrew letters. The four letters together made the sacred tetragrammaton, YHWH, the secret name of God..."¹ We can also see where the antagonistic story of Zeus (Jove) and Prometheus was used to promote the concept of a rebellious God who was condemned and ostracized for bringing knowledge to humanity."

The Story of Constantine converting to Christiandom is Xtian spin, it never happened:

October 6th..."The Battle of Cibalae was fought this day in 316 AD. Constantine, who had shrewdly recognized the predominance of Christianity in his army while noting that Licinius was backed by the old order of pagan nobles. Capitalizing on these differences, he had the army display the Christian cross on flags, which must have pleased and united the soldiers, while undermining the morale of Licinius' soldiers, many of whom were also Christians. Constantine defeated Licinius, sentenced him to exile, and later had him murdered. Although Christians claim Constantine was converted to the new religion by a vision on the way to battle, this was merely a later Christian fabrication. There was no contemporary corroboration of any such event, and in fact, Constantine never became a practicing Christian and never got baptized until the day he died."

[Sandpiper]

2. Like a relic of history

Along side the now defunct mythologies of earlier cultures (Zeus, Odin, etc).

[blm]

3. It should look like Dennis Kucinich.

.

[JohnnyBoots]

8. I was thinking that Bono is a good example of a pro-active

"Born Again" actually helping the poor and the sick of the world instead of telling people how to live their lives.

[Warpy]

4. The biggest shame of Christianity

is that it is so poorly followed that socialism had to be invented.

If Christians were Christian instead of Calvinist, there would never be a need for socialism. Christians would spend much of their time looking for people who needed help, food, clothing, medicine, and shelter.

Alas, we all know they're Calvinists who think the poor are lazy bastards with criminal impulses who are cursed by god and undeserving of anything but a sneer, so bring on the socialism!

[leftofthedial]

24. great line!

The NEw Testament spells out the basic philosophical underpinnings of socialism.

[Inland]

104. Well, there's the difference between government and religion.

It's the same people in both circumstances, but any religion that relies on voluntary charity isn't going to have the same systemic treatment that a government compulsion does. The lack or prescence of religion doesn't change all that much, it's the compulsion. Where religion is able to use the power of the state to force collections and distribute them, for example, muslim states, there's a shitload of "charity".

[AZBlue]

5. I have as much of a problem with Dems or DU defining Christianity as I do

with Republicans defining it.

[stepnw1f]

6. How About Doing the Right Thing without Being a Religion

Jesus said as much... why not follow his words with action instead of dividing all of us further. Issues such as, poverty, crime, etc. does not need religion.

[DanCa]

Didn't Abe Lincoln say I do good I feel good that's my religion?

Personally I like Christopher Reeve's quote "I don't know if God exist but I like to "behave" like he's watching me. Note behave is in quotes.

[trotsky]

46. Here's the complete quote:

"Even though I don't personally believe in the Lord, I try to behave as though He was watching." -- Christopher Reeve

[FreedomAngel82]

28. Right

A lot of the time when Jesus said something it was because he was being asked about it or making a point or trying to change how the Pharasiee's were running things in his day. Sad to say not much has changed (where it concerns social issues).

[Boojatta]

42. "why not follow his words with action instead of dividing all of us"

For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

44. Kind of zen

for the Prince of Peace, I think.

But he was damned prophetic.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. There is no "authentic" Christianity. It's a virus cult that adapts.

It was a product of its time---i.e the Roman Empire breaking down traditional barriers between cultures and creating "One world" which needed "one common cause" to unite diverse people.


Buddhism is a MUCH more useful and successful variation of the same principle, and I believe that in the future we will see Christianity take a back seat to Buddhism.

[SPKrazy]

19. Interesting thoughts, but why can't we all coexist in peace? n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. Is Buddhism a gentle faith?

is it ever warlike? I'm not being pissy...asking a real question.

[Goldensilence]

75. i don't know about gentle but it is comtemplative and quiet

it is not warlike but feels the right to defend itself if necessary. I do have some uneasiness at sometimes about the structure of Tibetian buddhism but the Dalia Lama Is by far one of the most graceful compassionate human beings.

I've never thought it right that buddhism being seen as a religion. Most schools of thought in it Do NOT believe in A God. There is NO DOGMA. One could easily view Karma in the same sense as the rules of Cause and Effect. It is not salvationist. Enlightenment is far different from Salvation. Salvation is Earned or Granted. Enlightenemnt is attained. It does not oppose Science and in many cases compliments it.

These should at least give a historical pretex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm

I could recommend some great books too :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

76. Just the words "contemplative and quiet"

are soothing, aren't they? I went to a convent boarding school and at one time considered jointing a cloistered, contemplative convent. But I grew out of that around age 19 or so.

But sometimes I fantasize about the quiet. I think all middle school teachers have quiet fantasy places!

My husband reads a lot about zen and I've learned some very helpful techniques from him, things that really reduce anxiety.

I also have a gook (no author..I'm at work) called "The Zen Sayings of Jesus" that is very good at digging into what I call the real Christ. If you want that author I'll find it for you. Just email me.

[Goldensilence]

87. hmmm

I have mixed feelings on such subjects. Being a born and raised catholic i have some knowledge of the bible and i found both parts kind of...disturbing in hindsight. In all honestly i turned my back on christianity a while back. I thank you kindly for the offer though.

Jesus was an alright guy , assuming he existed, must suck to have your good works shredded by a book. As you cna tell some bitterness over the Catholic guilt still lingers....still working on it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

89. I know a LOT of x-Catholics and

they all have "issues."

But on the other hand, I know some active ones who are very big on social issues and they appear happy. I guess they have sublimated or something.

I'll take quiet and contemplative ANYWHERE. Any temple, cathedral, convent, backyard... I can even pull it off in my car in the WalMart parking lot!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

90. Forgot to mention

I'm not Catholic. The convent was/is Episcopalian.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

88. Ummm up there?

where I wrote "gook" typo for book, okay???

[greyl]

101. Buddhist wars:

Buddhism and violence
But Buddhism, like the other great faiths, has not always lived up to its principles - there are numerous examples of Buddhists engaging in violence and even war.

* in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China


* in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters


* In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

"It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing . It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."

* In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/buddhism.shtml

‘If ordered to march: tramp, tramp or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest wisdom of enlightenment. The unity of Zen and war ... extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war now under way.’ (Zen Master Harada Daiun Sogaku – 1939).

‘Warriors who sacrifice their lives for the emperor will not die. They will live forever. Truly they should be called gods and Buddhas for whom there is no life or death. Where there is absolute loyalty there is no life or death.’ (Lieutenant Colonel Sugimoto Goro)

‘Since the Meiji period, our (Soto Zen) sect has cooperated in waging war.’ (Soto Zen Statement of Repentance – 1992).
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/links/zenatwar.htm

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't Buddhist quotes and dogma that have peaceful messages. But ideals, words and actions are different things, aren't they? In the end, Buddhism is a salvationist religion like Islam and Christianity.
"all life is suffering"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I'm not a Christian, but an admirer of his words and deeds.

As differentiated from the version of Christianity that followed from Paul to the present.

[leftofthedial]

11. a museum exhibit

same as other destructive superstitions.


well, you asked.

[Sandpiper]

15. My brother!

See post #2.

:)

[DanCa]

12. I like to think if Jesus exist

He'd be a healler and a teacher and not this version of crusader we see the msm portray him.
Anyway that's my take I hope I answered your question.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. That's exactly how he was

Think of Jimmy Carter. :)

[MuseRider]

13. Quiet

that is how I think it should look. I don't care one way or the other what religion someone is or if they have no religion. I DO NOT want to hear about it. It should be personally important enough not to cheapen it. What do I know? Nothing except I am damn sick of hearing about it.

I am btw, a Christian without a particular organization. You won't hear that from me very often but just so I don't get clobbered here I thought you should know. My internet is iffy today so I might not be able to defend myself, lol.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. There is a saying

that says "don't let your right hand see what your left hand is doing." And don't forget when Jesus in Matthew preached about being like the hypocrites.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

45. Actually the only I place

I ever hear about it is here. From the other side. I can't remember the last time somebody tried to evangelize to me. Must be 20 some years and I live in the deep, deep south.

[MuseRider]

58. Wow

it happens here with a fair regularity but then I also grew up with part of the family being the evangelical missionary types so I am very touchy about it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

60. What part of the country do you live in and

how are you approached?

Once in a while I find a flyer for a new church on the windshield. And every few years a parent (I teach) will ask me if I want to come visit their church. I always kindly say no and that's it.

[MuseRider]

63. We get flyers

and mailings and our news seems to be peppered with "pray for this" and a "good religious man" and all the "GOOD" news usually about a church. It seems so pervasive and there is always someone wanting to tell you about Jesus. Frankly I don't think Jesus needs the publicity. Everyone knows where to find him if they want.

I am going to stop this conversation. Bush** just flew over my house and I am annoyed and when that happens I get really unreasonable. Chalk it up to a life filled with a nutty, criminal Uncle who was constantly dragging his very young niece against her will up to the front of his kooky church to be saved by some odd man who smelled funny and spoke in tongues and smacked you over the head. I have very little tolerance for any of the people who do not try to live the life they pretend they do.

Edit to add that I am in Kansas

[greyl]

14. Huh? It would look exactly how it does look.

The problem with Christianity in the world isn't that it isn't authentic enough, it's that it views humans as innately flawed creatures that need salvation.

[Perky]

18. Heh....nice to know that there are some here who think they are

without flaws.

[SPKrazy]

21. Flawless indeed!

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

why is there so much animosity towards a belief?

[Lars39]

27. Serious answer?

Because many of us have been on the receiving end of christians who won't take "no" for an answer and still respect those who turn down their repeated offers.
It's a superiority versus inferiority mindset.
If you view others as needing "saving" because of "sins", you never see them as equals.

[SPKrazy]

33. Having grown up in Utah as a non-Mormon

and been on the receiving end of that kind of pressure, and put down, I can understand feeling offended.

However, I realized then, that Mormons don't represent all Christians, nor do Baptists, Presbyterians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Episcopalians, etc.

To broad brush an entire group of people who have in common the fact that they call themselves Christians is really not fair either.

As a Christian, I am glad to help if needed, but really feel that a program of attraction rather than promotion is much more attractive to those who would be interested in Christianity.

We all are "sinners", meaning no one is perfect.

(perfection equaling sinless in this context)

[greyl]

85. My point was that salvationist religions,

including Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity, have at their core, the belief that humanity itself is innately flawed. Iows, God put us in charge of ruling the world, yet we keep fucking it up because God botched the job when it came to creating us. It's a sneaky way of blaming god for our personal shortcomings. At the same time, it's saying that God cares more about humans than others in the community of life. (or even entire groups of non-chosen humans) Did Jesus (or any other "prophet") come to save the whales?

Point is, this view is based on ignorance, and should be understood that way. When these tales were written, the scribes had no idea that humanity at large had been humming along just fine without concepts of "original sin", "the fallen", or "unenlightened" for 3 million years. In their somewhat understandable ignorance, they thought that there was only one right way to live; their way.

About 100 years ago, Paleontology came along to indicate the ignorance of the basis of salvationist religions, but I bet you'd agree that salvationist religions don't play well with authentically new wisdom and knowledge. They are enemies to the death. If you can climb to the top of ladder and look back on the true history of humanity, these few thousand year old salvationist beliefs begin to look entirely ridiculous and counter-productive to the community of life on earth. To some, however, personal salvation is more important than absolutely anything in the world, including the lives of those that aren't living the One Right Way.

Kneeling, one can't see far.

"We all are "sinners", meaning no one is perfect."

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that humans are born innately flawed in the eyes of God, the one who created them. To hell with that stupid noise.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

49. Could you expand a bit

on where you are accosted by these folks? Like at the grocery store? We used to get the Jehovah W's once in a while, and the Mormons maybe once or twice, but mostly around here everybody just shuts up about it.

[trotsky]

41. You're taking words out of context.

"innately flawed creatures that need salvation"

greyl didn't say people aren't without flaws. That's you choosing to twist someone else's words. Would Jesus do that?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. That has always bothered me, too

and I'm a Christian.

But I have to admit to one or two flaws.

[greyl]

86. How do you handle being bothered by that central idea?

Also, to be clear, the alternative to "Humanity is innately flawed and in need of salvation" is "Humanity was created with just as much care and inherent goodness as any other creature in the world". The alternative is not "Personally, I'm flawless". :)

[Inland]

107. That strikes me as a precise summary of Christianity.

So if that's the problem, then there isn't a cure.

[Servotron]

16. The simple answer is

If you are not living and acting according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, then you have no right to call yourself by His name.

And while no mere mortal can live up to His example 100% of the time, the right wingers fail deliberately. I doubt many of them have ever read their bibles.

[FreedomAngel82]

35. Good point there

My grandmother on my dad's side not too long ago brought that up. About how many who call themselves Christian's really read their Bible's or do they go by what a preacher tells them only or other books. If you read your Bible and there weren't "preachers" like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell then perhaps things would be different today.

[Cleita]

20. I was raised a Catholic and taught that any other Christian

religions were heretics, since supposedly the Catholics were the founding religion.

I, on the other hand, believe that the reason we have a variety of religions and sects of those religions is because then no one religion can claim to be THE religion.

When that happens all kinds of abuse of power start happening like the inquistion, and so on.

[SPKrazy]

22. Funny, the Baptists think similarly

not that they were the founding religion, but that they are the only religion

lots of other Christian sects feel similarly.

And yet, the RW has found a way to band them all together against the "Godless Atheistic Liberals"

As a Christian who is not Baptist, Catholic, or in a sect that feels other sects are wrong, I feel that my religion isn't perfect, but that it's a start in the direction of Christlike acting.

But all one would have to do to get the idea that liberals were "Godless Atheists" would be to go to a thread like this to read the bashing of Christians.

I often wonder if we liberals don't shoot ourselves in the foot by this kind of behavior.

[Perky]

25. Hey so do the Presbies.... ANd come to think of it....

[Perky]

23. to those who checked: Any part of any element in public it too much .

I am furher curious how you would reconcile being non-public in the display with being Christ-like, since Christ's three years of publica ministrey was very public.

If you don't believe he ever existed,, your answere is undersatnable...but if you think he was atleast a good philospher....how would you reconcile saying that his followers should be silent and at the same time be Christ-like.


Not baiting just trying to figure out how you think one could exist without the other.

[Zenlitened]

39. Well, I didn't vote in the poll, but I'd like to hazard a guess...

From my POV, being a good philosopher is not the same as being "religious."

Just like being a good person... it doesn't necessarily have any connection with religion.

So maybe the folks who checked "nada" would have no major objection to someone walking around proposing ideas on how we ought to conduct ourselves, just as long as they kept the "god says so" angle out of it?

:shrug:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

52. But Christ wasn't a Christian

he was a Jew.

[FreedomAngel82]

26. As a Christian

Christianity is supposed to be about your spiritual life and not dictating a society. Even Jesus said "Give that which is Ceaser's unto Ceaser and that which is God's unto God" so he clearly was for seperation of church and state. The only thing he really tried to change in his lifetime social wise was making everybody equal rather then men vs women, Jews vs Gentiles etc. but everybody equal in society. He talked to everyone and even had women sometimes follow him in his innercircle such as Mary Magdalene and a girl named Phoebe. In all of Jesus' teachings they were about the spiritual life except when someone tried to cornor him such as about paying tax's. Evangelicals are people who really are energized in spreading the gospel of Jesus. As a Christian that is instructed in Mark16:16. I do believe in this happening but I also believe that people have the freewill to reject it and make their own choices in life. I'm not the judge of someone else. Only God can do that. Each of those you listed I think are titled in the Christian faith except for getting politics involved. I don't care if people have their own individual groups for politics but not with the church as a whole because I don't want my church speaking on my behalf.

[Lorien]

30. It should look like this

(even though he was hindu):

[Perky]

36. Why not a phot aof MLK instead???

Sinc he was a CHrisitian.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

53. Well, MLK was a devotee of Ghandi, as well

I think the picture is appropriate.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. Read Matthew chapter 6 if interested

[Bridget Burke]

34. It's not up to me.

Not to say that I don't have opinions.

Religious expression "in public" is not the same as "in politics." Free expression of ideas--other than virulent hate speech--is allowed in this country. If you can't take it, too bad.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

54. Good point

Sometimes I feel ashamed to wear a gold cross I have worn for years.

I need to remind myself that I have that right. What I don't have a right to do is pass them out and demand others wear them, too.

[Ally McLesbian]

37. I'll never be a Christian again

as long as the story of Adam and Eve starts the Book of Genesis - thereby permanently reducing women to second-class status, and establishing the roots of homophobia.

[jonnyblitz]

40. you should read: "woe to women, the bible tells me so"

by annie gaylor of The Freedom From Religion Foundation. It documents how anti-woman the bible is.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068506686X/102-7317459-4928923?v=glance&n=283155

<snip>

WHY WOMEN NEED FREEDOM FROM RELIGION


Organized religion always has been and remains the greatest enemy of women's rights. In the Christian-dominated Western world, two bible verses in particular sum up the position of women:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16

By this third chapter of Genesis, woman lost her rights, her standing--even her identity, and motherhood became a God-inflicted curse degrading her status in the world.

In the New Testament, the bible decrees:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14

One bible verse alone, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) is responsible for the death of tens of thousands, if not millions, of women. Do women and those who care about them need further evidence of the great harm of Christianity, predicated as it has been on these and similar teachings about women?
<snip>
more..
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php

[Ally McLesbian]

50. Thanks...

It's a very eye-opening read. I'm sharing it with others by placing a link on my blog.

Thanks again!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

56. Hopefully

a thinking person takes a document's cultural context into account when reading it. (and not all Fundies are thinking people, obviously.)

Women had it rough then. (and still do in many of the countries where the document originated from).

Jesus said nothing about subjugating women. I personally really only pay attention to his words in the Bible. Not that some of it is not lovely literature, psalms, poems. Old Paul could turn a phrase but he was a mean old woman-hating goat.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

59. Do we know whether

"witch" was translated correctly from the Greek?

What an awful verse. Reminds me of public stonings and "honor killings." Yeesh.

[jonnyblitz]

61. it is an awful verse.

so is the one in leviticus that says gays(me) are worthy of death. I am not familiar with biblical translation issues to be honest,TGrannie, i suppose i should familiarize myself with them.I feel as an atheist it behooves me to know more about the bible than christians if I am going to be critical of it :hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

62. Good point.

Of course if we all lived by Leviticus we'd be doing some really strange stuff.

But I always liked the part where when a woman has her "unclean" time she needs to stay home from work for two weeks.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

55. I understand the Adam and Eve point

that's always ticked me off. But homophobia? Do you mean Sodomn and Gomorrah? Or someplace in the
Adam and Eve fable?

[Ally McLesbian]

70. It's the gender hierarchy...

... and gay relationships' tendency to destroy it, that leads from traditional male chauvinism to homophobia.

Remember, they really don't like gay men, not because they have sex with other men, but because they are perceived as feminine - not quite men.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

71. Gotcha

and oddly enough, most of the men I know like lesbians, and I'm not talking the usual "guys like to watch women" stuff. My son is a paramedic and his favorite partners are lesbians. He says he has a lot in common with him but they are better with the patients than his male partners. So is this a permutation of "if it is the slightest bit masculine it must be good" philosophy?

[Yollam]

38. I have no Idea what your talking about - like Greek to me.

But when it comes to religious and superstitious mumbo-jumbo, less is always better as far as I'm concerned, regardless of which sect we're talking about.

Is that authentic? Beats me. Is authentic good where it concerns religion?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

57. What is authentic?

I hear that word so much lately. One of my high school students told me that tribal peoples were much more "authentic" than suburbanites. And I don't quite get it.

I mean, I see, hear, think, bleed, breed, sleep, etc. I figure I'm pretty darn authentic.

Any insight anybody? (And I know this is an old thread and I'm taking it off track so I won't be offended if nobody answers)

[Inland]

106. Good points.

It's a nonsensical question to put to someone who is an atheist or non christian. In all honesty, the answer for them is that the best form of chrisitianity is none at all or something that resembles their own different religion. And authentic is not a usuable concept. Older is not necessarily better, as the bear thread showed, and if it means something else, good luck proving what it is.

[kwassa]

51. Unless someone identifies as a Christian, they should have no say

in what authentic Christianity should look like. Being a member of DU gives no particular insight or validity on the subject.

There still will be plenty enough Christians to argue among themselves about what constitutes a Christian.

[trotsky]

64. Would you say, then,

that unless one is an atheist, one has no idea what "authentic" atheism is? And that "being a member of DU gives no particular insight or validity on the subject"?

[kwassa]

66. I agree with the second part.

the first part:
"that unless one is an atheist, one has no idea what "authentic" atheism is?"

I would not agree with this and I am also not saying that atheists have "no idea" what Christianity is, I simply think that non-Christians are not in a position to define authenticity.

Christianity is a much broader and more diverse field than atheism, having developed deep sectarian differences over a couple thousand years. Atheism does not have a comparable history.

[trotsky]

67. Atheism has been around far, far longer than Christianity.

So basically you're trying to come up with some sort of rationalization for your double standard. Pretty weak.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

79. I wonder how many religions existed

before Christianity? Sun worship, Pagans, etc. I wish he had better knowledge of what went before.

And I would think there have always been atheists, even if they were very quiet in their non-belief (because so many of those early religions, including Christianity, didn't cotton to non-believers and pushed them off cliffs, and lovely things like that.)

[trotsky]

81. Pushing us off of cliffs would have been a nice way to go.

Compared to what was usually the standard practice.

[kwassa]

84. On what historical basis do you make this claim?

What proof do you have of atheism pre-existed Christianity?

And you didn't address the point of the relative complexity and development of these different systems of belief.

[trotsky]

91. Are you really asking that question?

C'mon, kwassa - Christianity is not quite 2000 years old. Four centuries before your messiah supposedly walked the earth, Socrates was put on trial for atheism. (Atheism in the sense that he rejected the Athenian gods, which to his accusers was no different than rejecting all gods.)

I guarantee you that when the very first god was proposed, there were people who weren't convinced.

Your other point is irrelevant - you are attempting to tell others what they believe, but you adamantly refuse to allow anyone else to do the same to you. The "relative complexity and development" of ideas makes no difference - it's simply a ruse to disguise your double standard.

[kwassa]

92. Well, you didn't prove either point.

If Socrates rejected Athenian gods, he is not necessarily an athiest, so your point isn't proven there.

"Your other point is irrelevant - you are attempting to tell others what they believe, but you adamantly refuse to allow anyone else to do the same to you."

Sorry. You completed avoided dealing with my point at all. Non-argument. Instead, you attack the messenger.

You can tell any Christian what you think Christianity is. I can, and have said what I thought Atheism is. It is all rather pointless, of course, if it isn't your belief system. I simply thought it odd for the OP to ask people at large what they thought made Christianity authentic. Most of the responses were simply anti-religious, a pretty low level of commentary. It would have been a more interesting thread had the question been asked aimed at the Christians alone to define what they thought made Christianity authentic.

[trotsky]

93. LOL

If Socrates' accusers claimed he was an atheist, then they knew what atheism was. To them, rejection of the Athenian gods was atheism, whether you believed in other gods OR NOT. But regardless, atheism as a concept was right there in the public knowledge, FOUR CENTURIES before your religion's central figure appeared. Give up this point, kwassa. Certainly there were atheists as soon as a god was postulated!

Attack the messenger, eh? Naw, just pointing out a double standard. If you don't really hold that double standard, how can it be an attack?

[kwassa]

94. Sorry

"If Socrates' accusers claimed he was an atheist, then they knew what atheism was"

Says who? By this definition anyone who believed in a different god was an atheist. Pretty broad definition of an atheist, isn't it? A highly religious person of a different faith would be an athiest. This makes no sense. As I said, your point is unproven.

"Attack the messenger, eh? Naw, just pointing out a double standard. If you don't really hold that double standard, how can it be an attack?"

I see that you have ducked my point once again. It seems you have no answer for it.

[trotsky]

95. If you had a point, I could try and duck it.

But as you don't, I fail to see the relevance.

Anyway, since the first god was introduced, there have been atheists. That is patently obvious. I can't believe you think atheism didn't exist until after your precious religion came around. How arrogant a viewpoint is that?

[greyl]

100. You've taken a position impossible to defend.

Why do you take it in the first place? For what reason?
The first thing approaching religon was animism, but hundreds of thousands of years ago people who were animists would have no idea what you meant by "religion". In essence, the first "religion" was atheistic, and was perfectly compatible with and indistinguishable from scientific knowledge. The didn't invent gods or elaborate laws, they simply lived in the hands of that which energizes this place.
Furthermore, atheism isn't some reactionary belief system. It's clearly the default condition of humanity.

btw, there's no way in hell that trotsky attacked you as the messenger. You made that up.

[greyl]

103. i need to sharpen a point.

"They didn't invent gods or elaborate laws, they simply lived in the hands of that which energizes this place."

A more 'scientific' way to put that thought is: "They were curious about, paid attention to, learned about, respected, and lived in reality."

[Inland]

108. That doesn't prove it's the default position of humanity.

The first thing approaching religion was animism, which was held by the first thing approaching human.

In other words, the default position among our pre human ancestors may be atheism, but it seems that as humans evolved they invented religion. The default position is impossible to determine, the origins of both humanity and religion obscured by time. Just saying.

[greyl]

109. Why would you need proof?

But anyway, the proof is in the lifestyle and beliefs of indigenous peoples that still exist, in spite of our culture's best efforts at converting or extinguishing them.

[Inland]

110. Those aren't religions?

I had assumed that you were speaking of time long ago, before there was religion. Spirits, offerred gifts, with supernatural powers, systems of tabus, priests, carved idols....those are religions. I'd be pretty suprised to learn that the native americans and hawaiians had no religion until the europeans showed up, as they had gods, rituals, particularly sacred places, creation myths, the whole bit.

If that's the evidence of the default position, then it's pretty clearly religious belief or something really close to religion, lacking only a big building made of stone.

[greyl]

111. I WAS talking about before religion.

No spirits offering gifts with supernatural powers, no priests, no carved idols. Ritual and "sacred" places, yes, but based on pragmatic value, not invented value. Based on real-world wisdom, not recieved wisdom. There is a peculiar and refreshing lack of self-professed "prophets who have secret knowledge" in these cultures, for those reasons.

There were thousands of different First American tribes, and there are nearly thousands of indigenous cultures that still survive. I'm not aware of one that invented a salvationist religion that they believe is the one true religion. As a general rule, they don't distinguish between "god" and reality. Their "God" is simply that which animates this place.

To believe that humanity was born worshiping supernatural/otherworldly gods, is to believe a myth with no evidence behind it.

[Inland]

113. It's religion, just a different kind.

It is religion, certainly, of a kind. I dont' know what you are trying to say. Maybe that they are better religions, but religions they are.

They see gods, but because it's a deer god it's not a supernatural god and there's evidence behind it? They see a god in a lava flow that can be bought off with sacrifices, but they aren't believers in myth?

That a storm is caused by the wrath of the sea god is merely reality, and not a belief in supernatural powers?

A medicine man who removes the evil spirits causing sickness with incantations and herbs isn't a practitioner of secret knowledge? A shaman in a trance isn't invoking another world?

It's religion.

I'm not sure about the entire concept of a "default position", anyway. The default position of humanity in that sense is shitting in the woods, and there isn't anything about being old that particularly makes it better, or even more natural. In another form of argument, some atheists claim that we are progressing beyond a primitive ignorance, in which argument the starting point is not the best. It's the argument that would be shared by the religions developing since the 5th C. BC, like the Abramic religions, Buddhism, etc.

[Inland]

115. As to Socrates,

I don't think he was as much accused of being an atheist as cracking wise about the gods and tempting their wrath, but it's also pretty well established that Athenian law was a popularity contest and he got caught in some political currents. So even the charge doesn't mean anyone cared what Socrates thought about religion. Then he has a trial where his proposed verdict is a pension, practically daring the jury of five hundred to find him guilty of being a smartass. IF Stone's book is short and interesting.

But there's no doubt that there were some who rejected the notion of deities. I'm not really sure what that proves, except that the greeks did a shitload of thinking and ended up all over the map and at the end of the day, were all converted by volition or compulsion to christianity.

[beam me up scottie]

120. Rewriting history again, Inland?

You're not allowed to do that even if you do put all of us on ignore.

I thought you learned your lesson when you tried to claim christians invented democracy.

[Zenlitened]

74. Until all christians sequester themselves away on an island somewhere...

... or South Carolina... the rest of us have no choice but to have an opinion of what makes an authentic christian or not.

:(

[TallahasseeGrannie]

78. That's a very interesting thought

and its parallel is having an opinion on what makes an authentic Muslim. There was a time in my life I knew nothing about Muslims. I remember we called them "Mohammedans." But because they are now a large part of my world view, I am developing my own opinions as well.

I put forth that even if we aren't "one" we get to say what IS "one." For example, I don't have to be a farmer to know what a farmer is.

But I think we are getting a bit close to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, so I'll shut up now.

[Inland]

105. No, you missed it.

You are still taking a muslim's word for what is or is not an authentic muslim. If all muslims, or even most muslims, endorsed general violence you would accept that as what a genuine muslim is. But they don't, so you accept that violence is a minority sect belief or something else.

Your correspondent is simply looking for an excuse to bash christians for failing to meet the standards that he doesn't share, sort of if you criticized muslims for eating pork with a ham sandwich in one hand. The justification is that christians haven't all disappeared yet, so until that happens, you have to keep at them with anything that's available.

[Zenlitened]

112. "No, you missed it."

Coming from you, that's priceless! :rofl:

[Inland]

114. Don't see anybody contradicting me.

I wouldn't call it priceless, but it is unopposed.

[Zenlitened]

116. This is how you measure the merits of your arguments now?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Inland]

117. Nobody's questioned its merits. nt

[beam me up scottie]

118. I do.

But you put me on ignore like you do with all of us who call you on your bullshit.

[beam me up scottie]

119. Sure we do, but you put us on ignore when we do it too well and too often.

Unopposed my ass.

:rofl:

[trotsky]

65. I voted "Who am I to judge???"

If someone says they are a Christian, then they are an authentic Christian.

Authentic Christians can lie, steal, cheat, rape, murder, start wars, and support policies that condemn millions to poverty and/or death.

When Christians themselves can come to agreement on what an authentic Christian is, then this poll would would have meaning.

[Feenicks]

72. An authentic Christian is one who authentically is "Christ-like" or

who tries to live their life following the teachings of Jesus. Authentic Christians cannot do the things you list. Being a Christian has much less to do with what one believes as it does with what one does. (faith without works, or pretty much the book of James)

[trotsky]

73. You're missing the point.

The various flavors of Christians all disagree about exactly what the teachings of Jesus ARE.

So there's absolutely no way to tell who's following those teachings. Plus, some of those teachings aren't exactly a good example for today. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

80. I think they agree on the teachings

but what they don't agree on is the interpretation.

Sometimes as a Christian I wonder why He left us with such incomplete information. Maybe it's a test or something.

[Perky]

97. Sure they can do the things on Trotsky's list

Its call sinning. Christianity does not impute a sinless future, Only the powere to over come temptation if the CHristian chooses to act upon it,, which is where the rub comes.

THe point it that foregivenss of sin is between a individual and God and while hypocrisy is commonplace it does not make some one a non-christian or a partial Christian if they sin.

[greyl]

102. Christians think they know "The One Right Way To Live".

That's a fatal mistake. Not necessarily fatal to Christians, just don't get caught in the path of their expansion living your own way. They'll fix that.

[Igel]

68. I'm unclear on what you mean by 'social gospel'.

I usually understand that as saying the state should take over the role of the church and pursue Xian ends: feed and house the poor, help the sick and feeble, even ensure racial harmony or reduction of class distinctions, that sort of thing. These are not typically voluntary and are necessarily collective activities with a fairly stark division of duties: the state collects taxes under threat of force and hires specialists to engage in the various activities; somebody may be against the state's engaging in these activities, or regard this as an unacceptable mixture of church and state, on principled grounds.

But your examples are all voluntary, individuals banding together voluntarily into a collective to accomplish socially meritorious ends.

I personally believe Jesus advocated the latter. I don't see any evidence that he advocated the former, apart from the church. And merging the church and state would, by definition, be a theocracy.

[catbert836]

69. Authentic Christianity... no such thing

There was only one truly authentic Christian, as far as I'm concerned, and I think right now, (if what we know about him is true) he would be very disappointed with his so-called followers.
As M. K. Gandhi said: "I like your Jesus and his teachings. I do not at all like your Christians, who are nothing like your Jesus."

[Desertrose]

96. I agree with your assessment, catbert836 n/t

.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. As an atheist, I don't think I should vote

but I will say that 'private devotional experience' doesn't seem important, and doesn't seem to be held to be that important in the gospels either. 'Clean living' is part of Jesus' message, as far as I can see, and is largely based on helping others, or behaving as they'd like you to (eg fidelity in marriage) so seems a vital part of being a Christian (and I appreciate you separate this from pushing this on others); and 'social gospel' is also a vital part - and the most admirable, from an outsider's point of view. 'Evangelistic activity' is pointless from my point of view, but I can see that if you really believe that someone has to believe in Christ to be eternally saved, it is important. However, if your view of God is such that you think he would forgive someone who led a 'good' (ie socially repsonsible) life without being a Christian, then it becomes not very important. And that seems to be a large part of the difference between the pushy fundamentalists and moderate Christians - the former are the loud Christians, saying "you're with us or against us", while the latter work for a just society without saying 'Jesus' every fifth word, which means they aren't the stereotype of 'the typical Christian', even if there's just as many of them.

[bloom]

83. I think it comes down to

love and respect for others. Which a person could do without Christianity - but without which a person does not seem to be Christian, IMO.

And if people think that people can be Christian without love and respect for others - I have to wonder what they think the point is.


Not everyone is in the position to do "Social works", I think "Evangelistic activity" is really annoying, "Clean living" should follow from "love and respect for others", and I think "Private Devotional experience" is nice but optional.

[beam me up scottie]

98. This is what it looks like: