The Definition of "Christian"

[_Atticus 10]

Stupid page flip bug

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Shingure 56]

I somewhat agree with Pingangster in the rite that different denominations are well...Different. Eastern Orthodox will be more different than Methodist. Baptist and Catholics will be different as well. The thing that is common is that they are worshipping the same god in the same fundemental way. However each church has a different spin on the way of worship. In the end every denomination inside of Christianity is fundementally the same and different only in appearance.That's it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: pingangster

It is actually more than just ethnic differences. It also includes differences in the rites they use. For example, some of the Catholic Churches in the east use rites that are more similar to Orthodox rites than to Roman Catholic rites.quote>

 

There are other differences as well.   For lack of a better way to describe it:  my Byzantine Catholic relatives are aggressively Catholic while my Roman Catholic relatives are more laid back about it.   Some of them are very devout; they just aren't as . . . intense.

 

That could be a difference in the rites or it could just be my relatives.  I have an insufficient sample size to state a correlation.

[jglei701 8]

Originally posted by: pingangster

Originally posted by: hym

Just so you know, there are Lutherans who would disagree with you.  I've heard more than one Lutheran describe themselves as being closer to Catholic than Protestant.  I've also heard a self-professed Baptist minister say that too.quote>

Nonetheless, the Lutheran Church was created a result of the Protestant reformation. Just because they feel closer to Catholics than to other Protestant denominations doesn't mean they aren't Protestants. I guess the same goes for the Baptists, which descend from the Calvinists, iirc.

-Pingangsterquote>

The Lutheran denomination has several "synods" which determine how they are run.  Some are more conservative and literal in their translations than others.  Many are liturgical in their worship styles, so they appear very much like a Catholic Mass.

If you look at different denominations, the older they are, the more traditional they are, and, by and large, the more clout tradition has in their theology.  For example, look at Judaism.  Many would think that the main Jewish scriptures are the Old Testament, and specifically the Torah (aka the Pentateuch, or the first 5 books of the Bible).  But in actualitity, the Talmud has as much authoritity, or more, than the Torah.  The Talmud is the oral tradition, passed down through the ages from Rabiis long ago that was written down in the 3rd and 6th centuries.  Modern Rabiis essentially take this interpretation of the Torah and teach from it.  Now, some might say that this is good... it is an accurate portrayal of the interpretations from over 1400 years ago.  But who is to say that they had it right?  One of the troubles with tradition is that you're taking someone else's opinion on high merit, and that other person may have been wrong.

Similarly, if you look at the Catholic Church, it, too, is steeped in tradition.  Go to Sunday School at the Catholic Church, and you will be taught as much, or more, about the Sacraments than from the Bible itself.  Now, there is nothing wrong with the Sacraments in and of themselves... except that they have been given authority.  Per Wikipedia:

Traditionally the Catholic Church defined sacraments as "An outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls."

Similarly, as I noted above, many Lutheran Synods are very traditional as well.  They rely on this tradition for their practices.

If you look at Christianity's origins and at the origins of the Reformation, these were essentially reactions to religious practices that had gone away from the original intention.  Look at the teachings of Christ Himself.  As can be seen throughout the Gospels, He is constantly challenging the Jewish religious elites in their beliefs because they have become so steeped in tradition that they have lost their way.  Now, truly, Christ had more of a mission than simply to chastize some Rabiis... He was crucified and rose again to fulfil his purpose and provide the ultimate sacrifice to atone for our sins, absolving the old imperfect Hebrew sacrificial system.

And in the Reformation, the Catholic church had gotten away from the original message of Christ as well.  5 phrases that sum up the Reformers complaints are the "Five Solas:"

Sola Scriptura: by Scripture alone

Sola Fide: by Faith alone

Sola Gratia: by Grace alone

Solus Christus: in Christ alone

Sole Deo Gloria: Glory to God alone

The Catholic church had gotten away from this, and out came the Protestant Reformation.

And the Protestant church has changed quite a bit in the last 500 or so years... That's why so many protestant denominations are so different.

Here's some food for thought, though, regarding the definition of a Christian.

Some view Christians as being people who aren't Jewish or Muslim or Hindu.  Atheists and agnostics would disagree.

Some view Christians as people who attend a service on a Sunday morning in a church.  But there are plenty of people who go to church on Sunday mornings out of a sense of obligation, don't agree with what they hear, and don't allow it to affect how they live their lives.  Are these people Christians?

Some view Christians as people who "believe in Jesus."  I'm not really sure what that means.  Jesus is a historical person.  For someone to "believe in Jesus," if might mean the same thing as someone to "believe in George Washington."  They are figures who lived in the past.  Belief in the fact that they lived isn't really questioned.  And it also doesn't differentiate one from being, say, Jewish or Muslim.  Both of those religions agree that Jesus lived... thus they would "Believe in Jesus" by some definitions.

... To truly define this term, we must define some others.  The Bible teaches that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith." (Ephesians 2:  This faith is belief, to be sure, but it is more than that, as well.  Faith is belief that causes action.  Belief in and of itself isn't enough.  To paraphrase from the book of James, even the demons believe... and shudder.

Now, grace is another term that needs to be defined. Grace is best defined as "unmerited favor."  As Paul says in Romans, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Ro. 3:23) and "The wages of sin is death." (Ro 6:23).  So, we're on the far side of the Grand Canyon.  We can't earn our way across... so we're in a pickle.  "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Ro 5:  And this is grace.  We are not deserving, but God stepped in in the person of Jesus Christ and provided a way for us to be reconciled with Him.

Now, some might see this gift from God as not being fair... someone can simply accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and be all set... thinking they've punched their ticket to heaven, and they don't change their lives.  But each person, in their own heart, knows how serious their decision is.  Again, from the book of James:

  "14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."

      Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

 20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless^[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"^[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."  James 2:14-25

 

 

True faith will spout forth with amazing works that prove the faith.  It isn't these works that brings the salvation but it is what proves it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: jglei701

Some view Christians as . . .   quote>

 

Nicely said, jglei.    Different people view being a "Christian" as different things.  That's why I bristle at the concept of a "true Christian".    Different people have different views on what that means and who is to say which view is right?

I know that my Byzantine Catholic grandmother viewed herself as very devout and would have been quite offended if someone had suggested to her that her faith, or her church, were somehow inadequate because her parents happened to be born in Eastern Europe.

But in actualitity, the Talmud has as much authoritity, or more, than the Torah.  The Talmud is the oral tradition, passed down through the ages from Rabiis long ago that was written down in the 3rd and 6th centuries.  Modern Rabiis essentially take this interpretation of the Torah and teach from it.  Now, some might say that this is good... it is an accurate portrayal of the interpretations from over 1400 years ago.  But who is to say that they had it right?  quote>

 

Can't the same thing be said about the Bible?   Who is to say they had it right?   Several people wrote it down and various other people decided what to include and what not to include.  Why would the Bible be more accurate than the Talmud?

As I understand it, the way Jewish scholars study the Talmud is to debate how to interpret it.   The meaning isn't taken literally.  It is hashed over, trying to make sense of the fine points.  To me, that makes more sense than swallowing it whole.

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Duke87

  You're either Roman Catholic or you're not Catholic, no matter how similar to Catholicism your beliefs and practice may be. quote>

My Byzantine Catholic grandmother would disagree with you.  

As would my nephew's Maronite Catholic grandmother.quote>

Those are Churches created in the earlier 13th century schism which broke Christianity into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Since they were opposite the Vatican, they would be objectively classified as "Eastern Orthodox". So no, they're not "Catholic".

And no, I did not misspeak when I said you're either Roman Catholic or you're not Catholic. There is only one Catholic church.

Remember, being an outsider, it's the objective historically-based definitions I go by, not the subjective theological ones. Simply because there's no one right answer when you start dealing with that stuff. One group can say "we're christian!", another group can say "no you're not!" - and it's impossible to make a ruling as to who's right on a subjective basis without taking a side in the debate, something which I would prefer to avoid doing.

I don't take sides, I just call 'em as I see 'em. I see 'em something like this:

Thick arrows represent a fundamental change in religion, thin arrows represent a subdivision/development of a religion. 12 point font represents the overall religion, 10 point font represents subdivisions thereof. Time progresses towards the bottom, not to scale.

Actually, a key error I notice now is that "Jewish" should probably be above "Greek".

Some may take issues with some of my arrows, but, again, this is an outsider's objective view, not an insider's subjective one. There's no explanation that can satisfy everyone.

[_Atticus 10]

Originally posted by: Duke87

And no, I did not misspeak when I said you're either Roman Catholic or you're not Catholic. There is only one Catholic church.quote>

This is true to a certain extent. There is only one Catholic Church, but there are many smaller constituent churches that form part of the One Church. One of these are the Byzantine Catholics, mentioned by SkiGeek. These constituent churches are in full communion with the Pope and have the same doctrines as Roman Catholics, but they have different rites and customs.

-Pingangster

[saltandsauce 0]

Now, grace is another term that needs to be defined. Grace is best defined as "unmerited favour." quote>

i visited my mother's cousin a few days ago (she was a nun) and she has a plaque thingy on her wall that says

"Grace is when God gives us what we don't deserve"

"Mercy is when God doesn't give us what we do deserve

according to that plaque, grace is our talents and gifts from God and mercy is not punishing us for our sins (i know perfectly well that some people will choose to interperate that differently)

although some would define grace by things like small miracles (such as the body of Saint Bernadette being "incorrupt" which merley means after being buried (with no embalming stuff) the body doesn't seem to decay anywhere near as fast as a normal corpse)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Those are Churches created in the earlier 13th century schism which broke Christianity into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Since they were opposite the Vatican, they would be objectively classified as "Eastern Orthodox". So no, they're not "Catholic".

And no, I did not misspeak when I said you're either Roman Catholic or you're not Catholic. There is only one Catholic church.quote>

 

Well, all I can say is that my grandmother was majorly psyched when she visited the Pope in Rome and that the official Vatican website talks about the Pope's Visit to the Byzantine-Slavonic Catholic Cathedral and talked about the "life of the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite Catholic Church in Bulgaria".

 

So, it's Catholic enough for the Pope.   I figure he should know, the Catholic church being his sandbox and all.

  

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek 

So, it's Catholic enough for the Pope.   I figure he should know, the Catholic church being his sandbox and all. quote>

Maybe it is now, but such was not always the case. It cannot be forgotten that there was a schism where those two churches separated. It's clear that religions may divide and go down different paths. But them reuniting after they have done so is, at least for me, an idea which is hard to swallow. As in, "it just doesn't work that way". Divisions are permanent. Once you break a glass, it cannot be made whole again.

Objectively, "Catholic" specifically defines the Roman Catholic church. By definition, they have a monopoly on that distinction. Once a church separates from them, they automatically are no longer catholic but rather a breakaway group. The (Roman) Catholic church is the "original" church - founded by Jesus who named Saint Peter as his heir, and subsequently all popes went down the line from there. Any church founded at a later date is not the "original" and thus does not carry the same distinction. It's an offshoot, a branch, not the main roadway.

As such, those eastern churches, no matter what, cannot and never will be "Catholic".

By objective definition. Theologians, of course, will disagree, as may some parties involved in practicing those religions.

But again, I just call it as I see it. Whether or not people agree with or are satisfied with my view on the matter is of no concern to me.

[TheSixCents 0]

All Greek Catholic Church's are in full communion with Rome, so they are (for all intents and purposes) Roman Catholic.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

But again, I just call it as I see it. Whether or not people agree with or are satisfied with my view on the matter is of no concern to me.quote>

I can understand that.    I'm just a bit puzzled by your reasoning.

"Protestant" refers to a collection of denominations.   Why can't "Catholic"?

 

But, whatever.

 

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Duke87

But again, I just call it as I see it. Whether or not people agree with or are satisfied with my view on the matter is of no concern to me.quote>

I can understand that.    I'm just a bit puzzled by your reasoning.

"Protestant" refers to a collection of denominations.   Why can't "Catholic"?

 

But, whatever.quote>

Depends on who you ask.  "Catholic" is defined as referring to the Catholic church, whereas "catholic" (notice the lowercase "c"), means universal/comprehensive.  Hence the rise of some using the phrase "the church catholic" or the "catholic church."

[Odainsaker 2,137]

"Catholic," as pointed out somewhere earlier, by definition means "universal," as in the One Universal Church of the early Christian Roman Empire. Of course, that scheme of things didn't last too long, with different factions claiming theological or legal reasons as to why they are the true successor to the throne. In common Western usage, "Catholic" usually refers to the Roman Catholic Church, as the eastern churches were engulfed by or isolated by Islam and the Ottomans with the collapse of the Eastern Empire. Schismatic legalese divisions over administrative authority between the Patriarch as Bishop of Constantinople, who directly had the ear of the Byzantine Emperor, or the Pope as Bishop of the Rome, who previously had the traditional primacy until the Council of Chalcedon elevated the powerful Bishop of Constantinople, was essentially rendered moot for the West when Byzantine Constantinople was finally overrun, leaving Rome and its Roman Catholic Church the de facto authority for Western civilization.  The mosaic pattern of confused medieval governance mixing church hierarchy and state dynasty is called "byzantine politics" for a reason, hehe.

I suppose if we really wanted to stretch it, there is no longer a truly "catholic" church, as a "universal" Christian church no longer exists, though many of the different churches today will still recognize each others' sacraments.

[Lambert14 0]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Lambert14

Well, what I was told in sunday school was that catholics were not christian because they never asked god to forgive them, they asked a priest. Muslims are not christians because Allah is the Devil, and Mormons are not christians because they have a seperate book that mocks the bible. I HIGHLY dissagree with all of this, but this is what evangelical churches tell childrenquote>

 

Well, that's really scary.     That just seems so hateful and divisive to me.

 

Where does loving thy neighbor fit in?

 quote>

Well, according to most Christians, you can only love your neighbor if he's Christian.

 quote>

 

That is not how I learned it as a kid.

and, btw, that is my major problem with "true Christians" today.  Apparently being a "true Christian" requires a high level of hate.    Seems to me that is taking Christ's teachings and warping them into something else.quote>

Yes, evangelical christians are great examples of fascism and extremism in religion, almost the same strain of extremism found in islam. Only difference is these extremists are wealthy and taken care of, so no need to resort to attacking people to get what god says is thiers. Also, you can see this hate when you look at politics of most churches, they dont care about human rights or equalityt or even upholding the curent laws. They want there views of thier religion to be the only views the government takes into account and forces on the rest of the population. Look at the cruelty focus on the family has done to families, actively telling parents that if there kids come out of the closet, they must reject them and throw them out. Most of these evangelicals dont even read there bibles themselves, they either listen to whatever thier pastor says and absorb it like a dry sponge, or they pay large amounts of money for "bible guides" to show them insights controlled by people with the same views as thiers

[_Atticus 10]

Yes, evangelical christians are great examples of fascism and extremism in religionquote>

Fascism makes no sense in this context. Do you even know what that means?

Also, you can see this hate when you look at politics of most churches, they dont care about human rights or equalityt or even upholding the curent laws. quote>

I would like to see some proof of this. How is it that churches don't care about human rights? Maybe you mean Islam...

Look at the cruelty focus on the family has done to families, actively telling parents that if there kids come out of the closet, they must reject them and throw them out.quote>

Though it is true that most churches consider homosexuality to be sinful, this is not the case at all. You're just saying things without any facts to back them up.

-Pingangster

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: pingangster

How is it that churches don't care about human rights? Maybe you mean Islam...quote>

To be fair, Islam is just as much if not more inherently respectful of human rights as Christianity is. Passages in the Koran and tradition actually establish gender equality, for instance. The Bible never did that.

Problem is, not everyone follows that tradition today. As happened in the west in the past, men have sort of seized power and asserted dominance over women, despite the fact that doing so is fundamentally unislamic.

Glaring example here: The Koran says nothing about women being required to wear burqas or hajibs. What it says it that people (people, that means both men and women) are required to "dress modestly". The problem stems from the fact that that's quite ambiguous and it's often unfairly interpreted in a way that is unfavorable to women.

Although, at the same time, the philosophy behind making women cover up in public is not about putting women down but rather about preventing men from looking at them in an "impure" manner, as men are wont to do. So, culturally, its purpose is supposed to be to preserve women's dignity, not to be demaning to them.

As for sharia law, that's another issue. Not all muslims believe in such severe ideas. And for those that do, it's really a cultural difference that's where the problem arises. To us, it seems to be in violation of human rights to maim and kill people for minor crimes (although, we used to do it in the West, too...). The difference really is whether or not a criminal really has "rights". The philosophy behind sharia law is not to punish people for their crimes or rehabilitate criminals (as is generally the philosophy in modern western law), it's to ake the penalty so great that it stops people from ever comiting crimes in the first place to avoid having to face the penalty. It's designed to be preventative, not punitive, in nature. We look at it and say it's grossly unfair to cut someone's hand off for sexual harassment. They would look at and say that it's simple and easy to avoid getting your hands cut off - don't sexually harass anyone. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime. Besides, muslim culture would typically scoff at the idea that a criminal somehow has rights. From their perspective, someone who breaks the law immediately forefeits all their rights, rights only apply to good moral people, not evil immoral people.

The religious aspect of it, though, also makes it seem less severe, since from their perspective, you're not killing someone so much as you're sending them to face Allah's judgment.

Although, it does seem a bit contradictory considering the Koran does stipulate that killing is wrong, especially killing of fellow Muslims. Which is why some muslims do not like it.

But seriously, actually study a religion before you pass judgment on it. And talk to people who practice it. I'm sure you will find plenty of muslims who are very nice people and would not condone any form of extremism or anything of the like. They're not all freaks in turbans who'll run into Jewish restaurants with bombs strapped to them, nor are they all misogynistic men who abuse women and kill people who disgrace their family honor. Most of them are not, I'd think.

Just like not all Christians are nutjobs who go around waving signs about how sinners will face god's wrath and burn in hell, or people who preach hatred of those who do anything their religion disagrees with.

[_Atticus 10]

You seem to know a decent amount about Islamic culture and the Koran. That's good.

I may not know as much about it, but I am not someone who thinks that all Muslims are evil or crazy. I realize that most Muslims are normal people, leading everyday lives, just like us. And maybe you misunderstood my comment, but I was not trying to demean Islam.

However, though in theory Islam promotes peace and human rights as you said, in practicality, many adherents of it have a different concept of human rights as people in the West. So, being a Westerner, in my eyes, they do violate human rights (I'm generalizing here).

I said that in response to Lambert14's comment that Christians have no regard for human rights. I used Islam as an example, because it is a religion whose adherents tend to violate what I consider to be the fundamental rights of a human being. That being said, I never passed a judgment on Islam, just used it to illustrate an example.

-Pingangster

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Lambert14

Yes, evangelical christians are great examples of fascism and extremism in religion, almost the same strain of extremism found in islam. Only difference is these extremists are wealthy and taken care of, so no need to resort to attacking people to get what god says is thiers. Also, you can see this hate when you look at politics of most churches, they dont care about human rights or equalityt or even upholding the curent laws.quote>

 

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted a discussion, instead you throw around accusations you cannot back up. Your unfounded generalizations are breathtaking in their falseness and breadth. Please know what you are talking about.

Look at the cruelty focus on the family has done to families, actively telling parents that if there kids come out of the closet, they must reject them and throw them out. quote>

 

You have been lied to, probably by 'Out N' About' or some other similar nonsense. It's not true, and just indicative of the lies repeated so often by gay groups who use these statements as propaganda.

From http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2008/11/gay_agenda_dominates_out_n_abo.html  about this very statement and I'll quote:

"Focus on the Family actually advises parents to maintain relationships with their children who identify as gay and to openly love the child without approving of their behavior."

The only reason I can't quote FOF themselves is there is a problem with the .pdf on their site.

---

Originally posted by: Duke87 Passages in the Koran and tradition actually establish gender equality, for instance. The Bible never did that. quote>

Galatians 3:28, (KJV) says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

I think it establishes gender equality (as well as prohibiting racism and ethnic hatred) pretty well. Please don't confuse role with rank. Each gender was given a role to fulfill, but neither has elevated rank above the other.

But seriously, actually study a religion before you pass judgment on it. And talk to people who practice it. I'm sure you will find plenty of muslims who are very nice people and would not condone any form of extremism or anything of the like. They're not all freaks in turbans who'll run into Jewish restaurants with bombs strapped to them, nor are they all misogynistic men who abuse women and kill people who disgrace their family honor. Most of them are not, I'd think.

Just like not all Christians are nutjobs who go around waving signs about how sinners will face god's wrath and burn in hell, or people who preach hatred of those who do anything their religion disagrees with.quote>

 

Thank you, at least someone understands that.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: pingangster However, though in theory Islam promotes peace and human rights as you said, in practicality, many adherents of it have a different concept of human rights as people in the West. So, being a Westerner, in my eyes, they do violate human rights (I'm generalizing here). quote>

The problem with generalizing is that it's easy to make unfair generalizations. Just be aware of that potential pitfall.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Duke87 Passages in the Koran and tradition actually establish gender equality, for instance. The Bible never did that. quote>

Galatians 3:28, (KJV) says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

I think it establishes gender equality (as well as prohibiting racism and ethnic hatred) pretty well. quote>

Well, I can't say I've ever seen that passage quoted before. Thank you for correcting me on the "never" part.

Still, arguments are often made that the bible (and by extension, Christian tradition) specifically establishes women as inferior due to two things:

1) Eve having been created from Adam

2) The whole original sin thing being blamed on Eve and thus by extension all women for all eternity.

And while outsiders are known to make such accusations in criticism of Christianity (Islam, for instance, does that. The Koran teaches that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously and the concept of original sin is absent), there are actual Christians who think this way. Obviously, not all Christians do (I daresay fewer do today than used to, most likely), but they are out there, even if it is not mainstream thinking.

Please don't confuse role with rank. Each gender was given a role to fulfill, but neither has elevated rank above the other.quote>

You know, a lot of people seem to have just that flaw in thought. Women and men being equal does not mean women and men are the same. It's a subtle difference but an important one.

Trouble is that sticking to traditional gender roles is (unfairly, in many cases) painted as being demeaning to women. You know have a lot of cases where both parents work because the mother absolutely can't be a homemaker since that's "too old-fashioned". Problem is, when your kids are getting raised by a nanny and don't have a parent around most of the day, it destroys the family. The whole "Mister mom" phenomenon where the father stays home while the mother goes to work is an interesting solution to this, but it has its limits. A father can't be expected to breastfeed. Nor do they have the same innate psychological connection with infants that a mother does.

[Lambert14 0]

Originally posted by: pingangster

Yes, evangelical christians are great examples of fascism and extremism in religionquote>

Fascism makes no sense in this context. Do you even know what that means?

Also, you can see this hate when you look at politics of most churches, they dont care about human rights or equalityt or even upholding the curent laws. quote>

I would like to see some proof of this. How is it that churches don't care about human rights? Maybe you mean Islam...

Look at the cruelty focus on the family has done to families, actively telling parents that if there kids come out of the closet, they must reject them and throw them out.quote>

Though it is true that most churches consider homosexuality to be sinful, this is not the case at all. You're just saying things without any facts to back them up.

-Pingangsterquote>

I lived through a very repressive church childhood. The churches I grew up in taught very repressive and cruel doctrine. Many times in sunday school I was told that anyone who did not attend our church was going to hell. Yes I understand facism, and if you apply it religiously, the churches I grew up in resembled it. We had one leader, our pastor, everything worked to better the church and his personal life. They had witch trials and heresy trials in church were they actively threw people out of the church and forbade them to reenter.  And focus on the families has changed there position, throughtout the 90s there stance was as I stated, I had to go through that with my family. The churches I have been a part of cared only about enforcing there view of the bible, not about people or caring or love or anything jesus actually stood for. Even the churches the missionarys sponsored only helped people who "came to christ" and ignored the rest of them. Before you attack me, try to understand that everyone had had different experiences in churches and I saw the cruelty and inhumanity that evangelism can achieve.

[Meg 368]

Everyone here is welcome to talk about their experiences and opinions without being attacked.    We do have radically different experiences and what is "normal" to one person will probably be different from other's experience.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Lambert14

I lived through a very repressive church childhood. The churches I grew up in taught very repressive and cruel doctrine. Many times in sunday school I was told that anyone who did not attend our church was going to hell. Yes I understand facism, and if you apply it religiously, the churches I grew up in resembled it. We had one leader, our pastor, everything worked to better the church and his personal life. They had witch trials and heresy trials in church were they actively threw people out of the church and forbade them to reenter.  And focus on the families has changed there position, throughtout the 90s there stance was as I stated, I had to go through that with my family. The churches I have been a part of cared only about enforcing there view of the bible, not about people or caring or love or anything jesus actually stood for. Even the churches the missionarys sponsored only helped people who "came to christ" and ignored the rest of them. Before you attack me, try to understand that everyone had had different experiences in churches and I saw the cruelty and inhumanity that evangelism can achieve.quote>

I am curious, would you care to divulge this particular denomination or church? I am surprised by the idea of witch trials, which sounds more like a cult than a mainstream denomination. The idea of church discipline for some things that can get a person 'uninvited' isn't new, but it can be taken too far by a pastor with unholy motives. I have seen a few churches where things have really gotten out of hand, usually at the behest of a very few with too much power. It's like any other group, where the power-mad exert themselves to a ridiculous or even dangerous degree because the masses are unwilling or too uneducated to take a stand for the truth.

I can understand being scarred by this type of experience, but it doesn't apply to all evangelical Christians or churches, you must be aware of that. I suspect a certain particular denomination or similar umbrella group is the one you refer to by what you describe, but will hold my comments to avoid offending any adherents that may be members on this site.

My guess is, they're post-millenial, and likely have or will have some form of health-and-wealth doctrine creeping in. Any "slain in the Spirit" or "holy laughter" stuff? A lot of laying of hands or excessive focus on speaking in tongues? Just guessing, but it fits a general pattern among some churches that would fit what you've already described.

[Sam 163]

Just a reminder to all members: Please consider your own personal safety first, and be careful to not publicly reveal personal information that would make it possible for someone else to identify or locate you IRL.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Lambert14

Originally posted by: pingangster

Yes, evangelical christians are great examples of fascism and extremism in religionquote>

Fascism makes no sense in this context. Do you even know what that means?

Also, you can see this hate when you look at politics of most churches, they dont care about human rights or equalityt or even upholding the curent laws. quote>

I would like to see some proof of this. How is it that churches don't care about human rights? Maybe you mean Islam...

Look at the cruelty focus on the family has done to families, actively telling parents that if there kids come out of the closet, they must reject them and throw them out.quote>

Though it is true that most churches consider homosexuality to be sinful, this is not the case at all. You're just saying things without any facts to back them up.

-Pingangsterquote>

I lived through a very repressive church childhood. The churches I grew up in taught very repressive and cruel doctrine. Many times in sunday school I was told that anyone who did not attend our church was going to hell. Yes I understand facism, and if you apply it religiously, the churches I grew up in resembled it. We had one leader, our pastor, everything worked to better the church and his personal life. They had witch trials and heresy trials in church were they actively threw people out of the church and forbade them to reenter.  And focus on the families has changed there position, throughtout the 90s there stance was as I stated, I had to go through that with my family. The churches I have been a part of cared only about enforcing there view of the bible, not about people or caring or love or anything jesus actually stood for. Even the churches the missionarys sponsored only helped people who "came to christ" and ignored the rest of them. Before you attack me, try to understand that everyone had had different experiences in churches and I saw the cruelty and inhumanity that evangelism can achieve.quote>

 

Probably a good thing to be "Expelled" from a place like that.

Find a church that isnt hate ridden.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: sam Just a reminder to all members: Please consider your own personal safety first, and be careful to not publicly reveal personal information that would make it possible for someone else to identify or locate you IRL.quote>

LOL Sam, I wasn't looking for an address or even a city... I was just wondering which denomination still lives in the 1690s. But it is a good blanket advisory.

[_Atticus 10]

Originally posted by: Lambert14

Originally posted by: pingangster

Yes, evangelical christians are great examples of fascism and extremism in religionquote>

Fascism makes no sense in this context. Do you even know what that means?

Also, you can see this hate when you look at politics of most churches, they dont care about human rights or equalityt or even upholding the curent laws. quote>

I would like to see some proof of this. How is it that churches don't care about human rights? Maybe you mean Islam...

Look at the cruelty focus on the family has done to families, actively telling parents that if there kids come out of the closet, they must reject them and throw them out.quote>

Though it is true that most churches consider homosexuality to be sinful, this is not the case at all. You're just saying things without any facts to back them up.

-Pingangsterquote>

I lived through a very repressive church childhood. The churches I grew up in taught very repressive and cruel doctrine. Many times in sunday school I was told that anyone who did not attend our church was going to hell. Yes I understand facism, and if you apply it religiously, the churches I grew up in resembled it. We had one leader, our pastor, everything worked to better the church and his personal life. They had witch trials and heresy trials in church were they actively threw people out of the church and forbade them to reenter.  And focus on the families has changed there position, throughtout the 90s there stance was as I stated, I had to go through that with my family. The churches I have been a part of cared only about enforcing there view of the bible, not about people or caring or love or anything jesus actually stood for. Even the churches the missionarys sponsored only helped people who "came to christ" and ignored the rest of them. Before you attack me, try to understand that everyone had had different experiences in churches and I saw the cruelty and inhumanity that evangelism can achieve.quote>

I'm very sorry you had to go through this traumatic experience. I really am. Because it has distorted your view of what a church, specifically a Christian one, really does.

Like manticorefan said, I've never heard of any churches that do many of things you describe, and I can only imagine how horrible it must have been. But just because the particular church you attended was "fascist" and had "witch trials", doesn't mean that all Christian churches are oppressive and don't respect human rights. For example , just because you see a Latino mowing a lawn, doesn't mean that all Latinos ever do is mow lawns (I'm a Latino). Or just because you go to a Blockbuster that happens to be dirty, smelly and has poor service, does not mean Blockbuster is a bad store. I hope I have made my point clear, and that you understand that you can't just accuse Christian churches in general of an evil just because you belonged to one that had some issues.

-Pingangster