YART: So, at what point does religion become mental instability?

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by Bandoman

Wait a minute. If Bill believes that Jesus is the Son of God, was crucified, and rose from the dead to redeem mankind, but he doesn't go to church, read the bible regularly or take the sacraments, he isn't a Christian?

If you ask Bill "What does Christianity mean to you", and he replies as you did above, I would not object to the characterization that "a Christian murdered his girlfriend with a shovel."

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

But these people are Christian. They identify as Christians.

I self identify as a feminist. Few would accept this, knowing me.

[kvrdave]

Exspecially the bitches.

[Supermallet]

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

Are those your standards for life in general--whatever people claim themselves to be, their personal assessment is rational and objectively true?

All Christianity requires is a belief that Jesus Christ is the messiah. The rest of it may be useful in gaining a deeper understanding of the religion.

Also, what set of criteria are you using? Catholic, C of E, Baptist, etc? Christianity itself doesn't have a unified criteria for what makes a Christian. This isn't like a lawyer needing to pass the bar in order to practice law.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

All Christianity requires is a belief that Jesus Christ is the messiah. The rest of it may be useful in gaining a deeper understanding of the religion.

I'm fine with that---we can at least agree that the standard is believing in and accepting Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God---and that the standard is not checking off "Christian" on a form.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

All Christianity requires is a belief that Jesus Christ is the messiah. The rest of it may be useful in gaining a deeper understanding of the religion.

Huh. Christianity claims that even the demons believe that. Who knew they were Christians as well.

[Supermallet]

And who are you to judge whether or not someone believes that? Especially without even meeting them?

It must be tough to be the caretaker of Christianity for the whole world.

Edit: Dave, you didn't know demons were Christian? Doesn't that theory perfectly account for the current Pope?

[kvrdave]

Actually, I may have it all wrong. Certainly, I can envision the following....

"Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name and drive out demons?"
"Oh, good point. Come on in."

Seems like a verse about that, but I don't remember exactly which one it is.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

And who are you to judge whether or not someone believes that? Especially without even meeting them?

It must be tough to be the caretaker of Christianity for the whole world.

Well, I haven't read the Bible in a while, but as I recall, Jesus told me that I should judge my fellow man severely and often, and in a haughty manner---so I try to stick to that.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

Huh. Christianity claims that even the demons believe that. Who knew they were Christians as well.

Ah, good point.

[Supermallet]

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

Well, I haven't read the Bible in a while, but as I recall, Jesus told me that I should judge my fellow man severely and often, and in a haughty manner---so I try to stick to that.

Glass houses, my dear Ky-Fi. Glass houses.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

Glass houses, my dear Ky-Fi. Glass houses.

You do know that was a sarcastic post?

[Supermallet]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

Huh. Christianity claims that even the demons believe that. Who knew they were Christians as well.

In all seriousness, I'm not going to worry too much about the beliefs of fictional creatures.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

Are those your standards for life in general--whatever people claim themselves to be, their personal assessment is rational and objectively true?

When you're already in a hole... just stop. Free information: you're in a hole.

Let's examine this idea though... in Christianity, the text of the New Testament, there is one person who is said by Christ himself to have a place in The Kingdom with Him. Only one. Others receive high compliments such as John the Baptist, but only one is directly said to be on his way to paradise to join Christ there.

It's a criminal.

A criminal dying on a cross, as he had been sentenced to death. One can safely assume, after a long career of repeated criminal acts. He himself says he deserves his fate in Luke. Such a man would have had no place in the Judaic religion, and would have been cast out and condemned by the religious leaders of the time. This person would not have possessed the ability to read, a very rare thing in commoners in that day, so in his life he had never read a single line of scripture. Simply being able to read would guarantee you a living in that day, and you would not have a need to steal or be a criminal. This person would have had no schooling on the religious rituals of the day, as such training was reserved for the Pharisees and Sadducees, and no one would have dared to try and interpret or teach either the tenets of the religion, nor the rituals thereof, much less describe the meaning of them. Even Christ Himself sent people to the scribes and the officers of the church, as was the norm of the day. Christ Himself expanding on the tenets of the religion, correctly, as a child was considered startling and amazing, and out of the norm within the text of the bible itself. It was a sign of His divinity.

So we have a career criminal, sentenced to death for his crimes, who says he deserves it, of no religious background of religious office, who could not read the scripture and could most likely not explain a single thing of the intricate and interdependent nature of Judaism of the day. More than that, if he even knew Christ existed, he was most certainly not a follower of Christ, it's not a stretch to assume he was one who had not professed faith in Christ previously.

He simply called him "Lord", and asked to remembered. That's the guy who we know for sure got it right.

From Luke:

39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

You're way off thinking you have some handy checklist to determine who is and is not a Christian. I mean you could not be farther off, it's impossible to get farther away from Christ's teachings than that. The people he condemned as servants of Satan, snakes, liars who spoke lying as their native tongue, were the most religious men of the day.

They could quote you scripture, indeed the entirety of it literally, they lead the religious services and as such were there every time the 'doors were open' as it were, they were more qualified than any on Earth to explain the tenets of the faith. Here is how Christ described those teachers and leaders of the religion, citing one of my favorite passages form Isaiah:

7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias (this is the word "Isaiah" in the English of the late 16th century)prophesy of you, saying,

8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man(I guess meth falls under this too huh? as well as eating without washing your hands); but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

He is citing this from Isaiah 29:

13 The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is based on merely human rules they have been taught.

So, your assertion that people need to 'know the rules' to be a Christian is just so far off. I mean you couldn't be more far off the mark. In fact Christ described those who did the things you list as a requirement for being Christian, and those who follow them and their teachings, as a group of blind people heading for a fall into a ditch.(ditches contained sewage in that day, you did not want to be there)

Stop digging.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

I'm fine with that---we can at least agree that the standard is believing in and accepting Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God---and that the standard is not checking off "Christian" on a form.

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

So, your assertion that people need to 'know the rules' to be a Christian is just so far off. I mean you couldn't be more far off the mark. In fact Christ described those who did the things you list as a requirement for being Christian, and those who follow them and their teachings, as a group of blind people heading for a fall into a ditch.(ditches contained sewage in that day, you did not want to be there)

Stop digging.

If you read the totality of my posts, I'm not exactly laying out these iron rules for who is or who is not a Christian---but are you really arguing that reading the Bible, going to church, being baptised, partaking in communion and being able to articulate your faith makes one LESS of a Christian? This would put you at odds with pretty much every major Christian denomination and every major Christian theologian. So your Jesus didn't want people to gather in groups to worship, didn't want people to drink wine and eat bread in remembrance of him, and didn't want people to read scripture?

[Sean O'Hara]

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

Japan? Where are you possibly coming up with the idea that Japanese culture was one of atheistic materialism, whereby the material world was considered the ultimate reality and human reason was considered the primary means to progress? This is not the basis of either Buddhism or Shintoism.

We're talking "is" not "was". Modern Japan is an atheistic nation:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Figures that state 84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to Shinto and Buddhism are not based on self-identification but come primarily from birth records, following a longstanding practice of officially associating a family line with a local Buddhist temple or Shinto shrine.[3][4][5][6] About 70 percent of Japanese profess no religious membership,[7][8] according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15 percent reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000.[9] And according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[10] According to Edwin Reischauer, and Marius Jansen, some 70 to 80 percent of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion.[1] Japanese streets are decorated on Tanabata, Obon and Christmas.

Sure, they weren't always this way, but then Christianity existed for thousands of years in Russia, yet you have no issue with ascribing Soviet crimes to atheism. You can't have a double-standard where if an atheist nation does something bad, it's because they're atheists; but if they do something good, it's because they have a religious tradition.

My point is not that Christian countries are going to be paradises, but rather that when Christianity is discarded, they will get worse, not better.

Because I'm able to judge that the culture of the United Kingdom is morally superior to that of North Korea?

So then, what's wrong with Japan? What's wrong with France and Sweden?

I don't think you're getting my point. I'm not saying Christianity is going to produce the most militarily powerful countries--I'm saying it's going to produce morally superior countries. Yes, Communism was a powerful military force, it defeated the Nazis and it was another alternative to a Christian worldview. As I said in an earlier post, the decline of Christianity as a force in Europe opened it up to both fascism and communism.

If you're arguing that it made the people susceptible to the political ideologies, then that only applies to the countries that turned fascist and communist, not the ones that were conquered. Lack of religious belief in France, Denmark and Norway had nothing to do with why they were conquered; nor do British beliefs have any connection to how they escaped Nazi dominion -- nor, for that matter, did Polish belief have anything to do with why they were conquered so easily.

Whatever your claim is, do you have any figures to back up your claim. What percentage of Germans were atheist in the 1930s? Brits? Poles? Czechs and Slovaks? Italians? Spaniards? Abyssinians? Finns? Danes? Dutch? Belgians?

I don't believe you can separate Christianity from the development of American liberal democracy.

I disagree, but that's not relevant. The liberal democracy imported to Japan was divorced from Christianity. It took root in Japan without the help of Christianity. It stays in place today not only without the aid of Christianity, but without any other religious support.

We're all sick bastards, but yes, I think there are objective criteria for determining if someone is a practicing member of a religion, and I think the criteria I listed were pretty reasonable.

So only practicing members count? I'd think believing that there's a God who will lay the smack down on your ass if you do bad things would be enough.

That's fine, and logically it also doesn't mean that individual atheists DO have morals, either.

So you don't think I have morals? You don't think Dawkins, Penn, Hitchens, or Orwell had morals? Please provide some examples of our immorality.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

If you read the totality of my posts, I'm not exactly laying out these iron rules for who is or who is not a Christian

Oh please. Your implication was clear in that post and everyone saw it. Denying or trying to rationalize it now is a flightless bird, a dog incapable of tracking prey, etc.

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

---but are you really arguing that reading the Bible, going to church, being baptised, partaking in communion and being able to articulate your faith makes one LESS of a Christian?

I was addressing and rebutting your point. I would refer you back to 'blind leading the blind' if you want to explore that idea further. I find many more atheists who actually know a bit about the bible than I do religious 'Christians' who 'follow the rules' though. The words of Christ and the bible are quite clear on such things, I'll refer you to them if you care to know more on that topic.

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

This would put you at odds with pretty much every major Christian denomination and every major Christian theologian.

You are correct. I'm in the best of company in being just that btw.

Glad you noticed it.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara

Sure, they weren't always this way, but then Christianity existed for thousands of years in Russia, yet you have no issue with ascribing Soviet crimes to atheism. You can't have a double-standard where if an atheist nation does something bad, it's because they're atheists; but if they do something good, it's because they have a religious tradition.



So then, what's wrong with Japan? What's wrong with France and Sweden?

I'll atrribute Czarist crimes in Russia to a Christian country since the people making the rules were Christian, but I'm not attributing Soviet crimes to a Christian country since the people making the rules were atheists.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Japan, France or Sweden, but as I said, those three countries have been as successful as they have for the last 60 years largely because of American cultural, military and political hegemony. Without America, it's likely that all three of those countries would have become Communist or Fascist. The next 50 years will cetainly tell the tale though, as America is waning as a world power, and Europe retreats militarily, demographically and culturally.

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara

If you're arguing that it made the people susceptible to the political ideologies, then that only applies to the countries that turned fascist and communist, not the ones that were conquered. Lack of religious belief in France, Denmark and Norway had nothing to do with why they were conquered; nor do British beliefs have any connection to how they escaped Nazi dominion -- nor, for that matter, did Polish belief have anything to do with why they were conquered so easily.

Sure, there were a lot of political and logistical reasons why some countries were conquered or resisted the Nazis that were not related to religion.

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara

Whatever your claim is, do you have any figures to back up your claim. What percentage of Germans were atheist in the 1930s? Brits? Poles? Czechs and Slovaks? Italians? Spaniards? Abyssinians? Finns? Danes? Dutch? Belgians?

I'm not going to provide sources, but I accept it as given that Marxism and scientific materialism were gaining millions of adherents in Europe in the first half of the 20th century, and this weakend the hold of Christianity on the people. I'm not sure too many people would dispute this.

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara

I disagree, but that's not relevant. The liberal democracy imported to Japan was divorced from Christianity. It took root in Japan without the help of Christianity. It stays in place today not only without the aid of Christianity, but without any other religious support.

Yep, it does. Again, I would argue that it's been helped quite a bit by massive American oversight and protection---but yes, maybe it will thrive on its own for a long time. I don't rule out that possibility, but liberal democracies are pretty rare in the history of mankind, and time will tell how long it will thrive.

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara

So you don't think I have morals? You don't think Dawkins, Penn, Hitchens, or Orwell had morals? Please provide some examples of our immorality.

Oh, I have no opinion on the personal morality of any individual atheists. I assume you're a decent person from interacting with you on this forum. I'm just going by what you and others have informed me: describing someone as an atheist doesn't say anything one way or another as to whether they'd be more inclined to serve meals at a homeless shelter, or murder children. Atheism is simply a non-belief in God---it doesn't imply nor necessarily lead to any type of moral code or values.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

You are correct. I'm in the best of company in being just that btw.

Glad you noticed it.

Fair enough.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

In all seriousness, I'm not going to worry too much about the beliefs of fictional creatures.

Apparently you aren't going to worry about the point of the post, either.

[Supermallet]

I think I've adequately explained why I see adherence to a religion as being different than, say, a professional certification.

[kvrdave]

The whole point was self identification. I figured you would get that in my post about being a feminist. You didn't seem to.

[Dr Mabuse]

And thus kvr found himself facing his own tactic on the field of debate: deliberate obtuseness.

[kvrdave]

Rarely deliberate. Generally it comes from apathy. What did I miss?

[wishbone]

Dammit Dave...