Archive of the ChristianityDiscussion prior to August 10th 2009 (or July 28th 2009 depending on your sect)
Brimestone Cow: The Seventh-Day Adventist section seems off to me. The tone for about Jubilee and Sabbath Year seems to be more accusational, as if it makes the chruch hippocritical for advocating Saturday sacrament. Also, in my experience, the emphasis on Ellen G. White is not nearly as high as the article makes it out to be in all but the most ultra-conservative members of the church. The same is also true about vegetarianism, which is common, but not required. I also have issue with their placement in the "other" section with the implication that they are a cult. To me, they seem like a typical protestant denomination that goes to church on Saturday and shares with other groups the belief in a sleep after death. I'm both unsure of how to correct it make it more charitable and didn't want to do so unilaterally. I am, however, going to clarify their connection to the Millerites in the last sentence. For the record, I'm an atheist from a secular household who attended an SDA high school and spent 2 years attending a Baptist church (for a girl... of all things) and never noticed any major theological differences other than the Sabbath and Hell. Then again... I could have been brainwashed by them. Now I'm paranoid.
gs: Not that its so unexpected given the topic, and so help me this is the first bit of discussion I've put up ever BUT... this article needs serious work. Its way too big and throughly disorganized. Too many sects listed with too much detail in particular. Secondly in a section entitled Useful Notes, there seems to be less exposition and more quiet deadpan snarking by non-Christians about things they consider bizarre/silly. I'd point to the The Bad Wolf comment below for example. And at least compared to the related Useful Note religous articles this one seems less about debunking sterotypes and explanations.... and more about reinforcing them. Not like this is that other website or anything but this article isn't the least bit useful. I'd rewrite the whole thing but am unclear on HOW to do that.
The Bad Wolf: just did a bit of an rewrite, the idea here is that we could have a long page of facts, but that would be boring, so the idea so to be informative while at the same time funny, but not reinforcing any stereotypes. What I'm aiming for in this page is a concise and amusing but accurate summery of basic questions about Christianity that you can check if you see some sort of referencein a book or movie, or somewhere else on this wiki, anything more and you need to hit up Wikipedia.
The Bad Wolf: I just added some snappy/sarcastic definitions of various types of Christianity, I'm pretty sure its all correct but i did write it off the top of my head so if anybody is a member of any of the religions is wrote up they might want to check it. (for the record i was raised unitarian universalist so that one at least i know is true)
Regshoe: Strange point that needs clarification. The creation of the Anglican Church was an act of protestantism, BUT the Church of England (as well as the other Anglican churches such as the Church in Wales (Yes they are separate organisation but mostly on admin issues, not religious ones) and so on) are catholic churches, just not ROMAN catholic.
Morgan Wick: Christianity is not about being good, only forgiven. I want to mention the logical Family-Unfriendly Aesop from this, which is basically "you can be worse than Hitler and still get saved," which is not just isolated to critics of Christianity - no less than Jack Chick not only seems to espouse just such a belief, but combines it with "you can be as perfect as humanly possible, you still have to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior or it's off to the pits of hell for you".
Meta4: Well, if you are worse than Hitler, but you're truly repentant, should you be turned down? (And the mindset of "I can sin and get away with it because Jesus will forgive me" is explicitly condemned by Paul in his letter to the Romans.)
Noaqiyeum: Combined with the fact that "as good as humanly possible" ultimately comes down to "people are idiotic, sinful, willful, ignorant, rebellious, and don't have the slightest idea what's best for them" (with the one hope being that, Seek, and Ye Shall Find).
Sukeban: It's also very Protestant. Catholics have a rather different take on that issue...
Seanette: So do some other Christian denominations. My own (I'm LDS) considers some sins to be beyond forgiveness, and murder's borderline that way (probably depends heavily on circumstances). We tend to take the view that God will correctly balance mercy with justice. We do tend to take the view that professions of faith are empty without corresponding good works, such as doing one's best to keep God's commandments and emulate Christ.
Mirrinus: Some would argue that the greatest sin one can commit is to reject the Son of God who gave his life for you. Thus, to "be as perfect as humanly possible" yet still reject Christ is to still commit the worst sin imaginable.
Mister_Wolf I would say that the statement Christianity is not about being good, only forgiven. is not a majority oppinion amongst Christian Theologians. Dietrich Bonhoeffer refered to this attitude as "cheap grace". I would propose amending this to something like: "Christians believe in a system of ethics based on compassion and forgiveness, inspired by their belief that God loves and forgives them. Almost all Christians (aside from a few antinomian Gnostic sects) believe it is important to be good. They also believe in human imperfection and divine forgiveness."
Kilyle: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" - to enter Heaven, you have to meet the standard, and that standard is perfection. Not one of us has it; those who so desire can, well, borrow it from Christ, so that God gives us a pass on account of Christ's status, not our own. Paul says somewhere "We know that people who do X, Y, and Z will not enter Heaven - and such were some of you, but you have been cleansed." It's not a matter of your past actions, no matter how bad they were. Otherwise we wouldn't be trying to win souls in prisons. Corrie Ten Boom managed to forgive the man who had once been her guard during the Holocaust, who was part of the group that killed her family. And in John 5:24, Jesus says, "He who hears my words, and believes the one who sent me (God), has eternal life, and will not come under judgment, but has passed from death into life." If you pay attention to those tenses, you'll note "has eternal life right now", "will never come under judgment", and "has already passed out of death into life". Doesn't get much clearer than that.
- It's not that hard to understand. Simon forgives Mei-Mei for throwing up on his bed, chopping Jayne with a steak knife, and going crazy watching fruity oaty bars commercials. He doesn't take pleasure in those things and he certainly does not wish her to continue doing so the rest of her life and he does expect her to do her part because after all he could have been back home drinking sake at a med school frat party. Good works is not "earning" , it is picking a few hodgeberries for big brother.
Ialdabaoth: Removed "Mandaeans" from the "Other Christians" paragraph. The Mandaeans do not consider themselves Christian. They are an ancient Gnostic sect (the only surviving one) who in fact reject Jesus as a false prophet and revere John the Baptist, though as a wisdom teacher and healer, not as God or Messiah.
Silent Hunter: I'd like the caption and the picture removed please. a) it's inaccurate and b) I don't think the language is appropriate here, even asterisked.
HeartBurn Kid: Good one! I thought you were really serious there for a moment.
Silent Hunter: I'm not joking.
Caswin: He's got a point. (Among other things, it's misleading. If there's a place for either of those, it's not together.)
Fast Eddie: pulled the image...
Trigger Loaded: I won't contest it, but aww, I liked that picture and caption, even as a Christian. Well, at least it's in here for now.
Ununnilium: I'm sure there's a better page for it.
Kilyle: Aw... I totally agree, it's inappropriate if we're trying to avoid instant flame wars and all that... but yeah, as a believer, I found that picture wonderfully amusing (almost laughed out loud, but it's late and I don't want to wake anyone up). But then, I've always thought that it would be good for more people to keep in mind that he could have done that. He could have listened to one last mocker yell an insult at him and said, "You know what? I'm outta here" and just gone back to Heaven and left us to rot; the love he had for even the mockers is what kept him up there. But every time I try to bring that up among believers, every says it's inappropriate to think that way. Eh well. Good pic!
Kilyle: Okay, not sure of my facts here, so don't want to include it, but isn't the Amish "wild teenagers" bit because at the age of majority (or whatever the term is), they tell their kids to go out into the world and see what it's like, really understand the contrast so they can make an informed decision as to their adult lifestyle, and even get the bad stuff out of their system, before the young adults finally decide whether to be Amish or to simply run off? And what do the Amish think about those that go join the world, anyway - do they shun them like JW's do?
The Bad Wolf: that's the exact reason for the wild amish teens, they go out and see the world, and like all teenagers don't always know their limits. As for people that join the world, I have no idea though it probably depends on the sect (most things about amish depend on the sect, the version of seeing the world that the amish that live by my grandparents practice involves being sent to stay with those liberal amish a couple counties over that allow smoking pipes in public and other horribly modern things.)
Obadiah The Slim: The bit at the end of the mormonism blurb is kinda bothering me. "Others take the view that Latter-day Saint theology is a restoration of original Christianity," That little phrase just screams Weasel Words. Who are these Others? Why not flat out admit that only mormons believe that.
Friar Sam: This troper, an Anglican himself, would take issue with the idea that Anglicanism is "largely identical in terms of doctrine" to Catholicism. Although several purely ritual aspects of Catholicism are retained among the Anglican Communion (which are almost entirely superficial), it is almost universally in line with the other Protestant faiths when it comes to doctrine. Notably, Anglicans do not believe in Purgatory, in praying to the saints or the Virgin Mary, in Immaculate Conception or in the Assumption of Mary. It actually not only "resembles protestantism" but is wholly protestant. It must also be remembered that many of the basic rituals of Catholicism are also retained in other early Protestant denominations such as the Lutherans.
Kizor: Incidentally, you're allowed to talk in the first person singular in places where you're supposed to use your name. ("This troper" really isn't supposed to be used anywhere, with the possible exceptions of WMG and bugs.) On-topic commentary when I'm at home.
Filby: I think the bit about Protestantism could stand to be expanded, with blurbs on for some of the individual sects.
Brickie: Is it me, or is this page monumentally bloated and confusing to the uninitiated?
Wascally Wabbit: You're absolutely right, but how can we thin it out without annoying anyone. Maybe if we cut everything that can't be given an example from media.
Brickie: The Useful Notes section generally is more lenient on that sort of thing, but a pithier version would defnitely be better. It's "Useful Notes" not "Vaguely Interesting Factoids". The stuff about the Eastern Particular Churches is vaguely interesting, but how often does it come up in media?
Dammerung: Unknown Cat went a long goddamn way to define "Christianity" as what he personally believes.
JurassicMosquito: I changed the second sentence under "Homosexuality" in the list of things Christians disagree about because apparently no one remembers Romans 1:26, which actually does mention lesbians (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Rom&c=1&v=1&t=ESV#)
. I have done my best to avoid any Serious Business in the article.
gkong3: Dude, WTF? Neutral? That part of the Epistle is lumping homosexuals of all sorts in with murderers, thieves and gossipers, man. Changing that as noted below.
JurassicMosquito: I never said the verse was neutral; I said I tried to keep the article that way. The verse is in the Bible and was therefore relevant to the discussion, especially since the version I edited it from was written by someone who thought homosexuality was mentioned only in the Old Testament, and that is blatantly incorrect. I do like your edit better now, though.
Dammerung: The entire practice of quoting verses borders on blasphemy anyway. The letters of the Bible were written to be read and reflected upon, not to have individual sentences stripped of context and used to mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.
Old joke - '''A man was mourning the death of a friend, and decided to turn to the Bible for consolation. Not knowing it well, he decided to just open a page at random and point to a place. He asked God for advice on how to deal with his grief. So he flipped through the pages and put down his finger. "And Judas went and hanged himself." Well, that's not very helpful, he thought. So he tried again. "Go ye and do likewise".
Paul's letters weren't written split up into numbered verses; that was a later (and probably diabolical) interpolation.
JurassicMosquito: A) Your view that quoting verses is blasphemy is hardly a belief held by every single denomination. In fact, you don't even have to be a "fundie" to disagree with it. B) I didn't place a link in the article itself, and the link I provided on this page (and only on this page) has the entire chapter attached, and a fully searchable Bible in just about every available English version, Greek/Latin/Hebrew as applicable, all online, for free, along with several commentaries. Exactly how much more context are you looking for?
Dammerung: Touchy, touchy.
My belief that breaking the Bible into "verses" is heretical is, as far as I know, held by absolutely nobody else, let alone a denomination.
I just think it's funny the debate is about the Christian response to Paul's belief that homosexuality is sinful, when in almost the same breath he instructs women to keep their heads covered in church. Why no debate about that? Isn't a woman with uncovered hair just as sinful as the queers?
It just goes to show that people will make issues of what they have issues with.
gkong3: Making some massive changes to the disagreements part of the page. Stuff I'm taking out as irrelevant to mainstream 'orthodox' Christianity (which is the Christianity most people will be wanting to refer to and lean about, hopefully) includ:
- The Trinity: Was Jesus created by God, or are the two merely aspects of a single being? And where does the Holy Spirit fit in?
- The Bible: Is this really God's word or a series of letters exchanged between men in the past? Is it divinely inspired but not written by God directly? Is it a collection of allegories and fairy tales compiled to teach mankind about virtue and obedience?
- Reincarnation: Many early Christians believed it, few modern Christians do. Who's right? And what flavor of reincarnation?
Also added in a 'fringe group / sect' section. I know this can lead to Edit Wars, but it is important that people realise most of mainstream orthodox Christendom see certain self-identifying 'Christian' groups as outright heretic cults.
Seed: Given that many things on the disagreements list are serious matters that wars have been started over, some of the minor ones seem inappropriate to include. No one takes the King-James-Only types seriously, and the article as it stands seems to imply that this is a major, violent issue. —-
- Almost all traditional Christians who do not "pick and choose" what parts of the Bible to believe would agree that sex should be in the context of marriage, as the Bible is pretty black-and-white clear on the matter.
- Of course all traditional Christians "pick and choose" which parts of the Bible to believe. Unless you've been stoning people to death lately? Avoiding shellfish? Punishing women for not covering their heads in church like the Good Book instructs?
- Much of Jewish ritual law was repealed by the New Testament (especially concerning foods), and stoning was at the very least discouraged (judge not lest ye be judged). As far as covering heads goes many people interpret that in the context of the time it was written, when what was worn had different implications than it does today.
- It's goddamn amazing you hear the exact same Justifying Edit from two dozen different people. Implying that none of you have given this matter the slightest bit of thought and are merely repeating something you heard from someone else.
- Or it could just be that people keep giving the same response because it's, you know, true.
- It's stupid and wrong. Speaking as an educated theologian, Paul was no more writing for God than I am right at this moment. Early Christians, like modern Christians, agreed on virtually nothing. Paul was putting forth his opinion, which he derived from his Greek and Jewish education and his experience on the road to Damascus. However, that doesn't make Paul automagically right about everything, especially since he himself acknowledged that he only saw through a glass, darkly. If Paul were alive to see his scholarly letters conflated with the Logos as referenced in John 1:1, he would be incoherent with wrath.
- Ah, now I see where you're coming from. The fact is most Christians today do regard Paul's letters as divinely inspired in some way which is why that's the standard response, but those are some very interesting points. I'm thinking this whole discussion should probably be moved to the discussion page however.
- Actually, Christians should be a-okay with gay marriage right up until the buttfucking comes up.
- Catholics not only agree that sex should be reserved only for marriage, but also believe that love must be the central factor in the act more so than pleasure—though of course it's supposed to be pleasurable too, but love for the spouse should be the foremost motive—and sex should be had without using contraceptives of any kind and without doing it in such a manner that would make conception impossible. The Catholic approach to sex is similar to any healthy approach to eating: Yes it's legitimately pleasurable and "awesome", but it also serves a practical purpose, and that purpose shouldn't be detached from it, just as a person shouldn't go bulimic just to get the "pleasure" of eating without the calories, but should instead practice moderation. If you're now wondering "How in the world would moderation translate from the eating analogy into the sexual arena," please see this article on Natural Family Planning. Of course, deliberately avoiding sex during the fertile period (which is what the method consists of) without very good reason for not having children—and what qualifies as good reason which would have to be determined with a priest—would be similar to literally starving yourself to get thin, and is then considered just as immoral. If artificial contraceptives are sort of like sexual bulimia, using Natural Family Planning without good reason would be like sexual anorexia. Neither is considered healthy or morally sound within Catholic ethics.
- Of course, the fact that nowhere in the Bible are contraceptives banned or even discouraged, and the very existance of a pornographic poem in the Bible seems a non-issue.
- Said "pornographic" poem is a wedding poem, and all modern Christians think sex within marriage is perfectly natural and even encouraged. Contraceptives are only an issue for the Roman Catholics.
- Even among Christians who agree upon the (imaginary) traditional approach to this issue, there is a divide into two basic stances:
- One side seems to believe even the homosexual orientation is a sin. If you like people of the same sex and don't spend your entire life changing that fact then you could be held accountable for that by God and are thus sinning. This is most prevalent among the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalists.
- The other view seems to be that only homosexual actions are sinful. If you have the orientation but recognize that the action is sinful, and thus refrain from acting on it, this view would say you're not sinning. The orientation is seen as only a temptation, and temptation in itself isn't a sin unless you yourself are causing it or deliberately feeding into it. This view, which both upholds traditional Christian values on the matter while at the same time embracing homosexuals as people, is the prevalent one among more moderately conservative Protestants and especially among Catholics.
- Is it possible that Christians just spend way too much free time thinking about what other people do with their junk?
- Many Christians believe so, including many who (when pressed) condemn homosexuality in one of the above senses.
- It is impossible not to given that an annoying amount of non-christians seem to delight inordinately in making an uncommon fuss about the whole thing and have no concept of the word private. It is hard to be sympathetic to someone who throws their "junk" on the street and then complains that others are annoyed at litter.
- Interesting that you think that other people, including non-Christians, should conform to your idea of Christian standards. There's a thousand cultures whose standards of behavior you do not conform to, but that doesn't seem to bother you an iota. The only reason you think your standards of behavior are any less bizarre than those of the Waziristanis or Arapesh of New Guniea is because you've been raised in them like a fish in water. The whole world cannot be expected to conform to or agree with your idea of social acceptability.
- A balanced view of the Protestant/Evangelical take on the matter revolves around three tenets which distinguish between them and the Roman Catholics; sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola Christus. Sola scriptura states that everything else is to be examined against the revelations of the Bible - because both heaven and hell are described in the Bible, they therefore exist. However, because Purgatory is neither identified by name nor by function nor by description, it therefore is likely nonexistent. Sola fide states that salvation is by grace through faith alone (albeit saving faith that is demonstrated/proven through works) - hence no amount of punishment or suffering on our part is going to sweat off sin or help us become more perfect. Sola Christus states that Christ is the only mediator between us and God - shown when He assures the thief on the cross that he (the thief) will be with Jesus in Paradise that very day. Protestants believe that man dies once, then everyone gets judged at the end of days, and one either joins Jesus or departs from Him - no third or intermediate option.
- The Catholic viewpoint is that when people follow God and die in His Grace but still have sinful tendencies or attachments at the time of their death—that is to say, they have not yet become completely flawless—they are sent to Purgatory where the sins (and sinful tendencies) are cleansed from them so that they can become totally perfect and enter Heaven, where nothing imperfect can enter. Catholics believe that Purgatory is not adding to God's Grace or Christ's sacrifice, but rather is a part of God's Grace, and a merit of Christ's Sacrifice.
- According to older Catholic theologians like Abelard, every Christian goes to Purgatory, not just those who still have some tendencies. The reasoning is that Christ's death frees a Christian from eternal consequences (i.e., going to Hell) but not from all punishment. If you die before having been adequately punished while alive, you fill out the rest of the punishment in Purgatory. In Dante, this meant waiting at least the period of time you lived before converting.
- Almost all traditional Christians who do not "pick and choose" what parts of the Bible to believe would agree that sex should be in the context of marriage, as the Bible is pretty black-and-white clear on the matter.
