The Worst Religion

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, Christians do disagree about the interpretation of John 3:16 and the second definition is just plain circular. What are Christians? Those who identify under Christianity? And what is Christianity? The totality of Christians. Brilliant.

Circular, no not at all. Then you have to read the definition again, and this time, read carefully, and you'll se no circularity. (You didn't read my posting did you? 🙂 )

How can John 3:16 be disagreed upon? Have you even read the verse? That's one of the most basic statement of the entire bible, and you don't know about it? 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes it would be fair to say,
However i was just trying to get at the historical significance of Christianity.
In my book it doesn't matter how much good you've done if you've done bad as well. Sorry, like I said Christianity was a great learning tool...

But the Bible says that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So to say that Christians were perfect would be to make this theology a lie. In addition, if the Christians are ignoring the teachings of Christ, which I am sure they were when the did "bad" things, why then charge this to the message?

Originally posted by whodey
But the Bible says that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So to say that Christians were perfect would be to make this theology a lie. In addition, if the Christians are ignoring the teachings of Christ, which I am sure they were when the did "bad" things, why then charge this to the message?

?
I don't know if you are making a good point or not////
I just...ARRRGH!!!
Maybe you could elucidate a bit further?...
(maybe you were replying to another point?)

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Circular, no not at all. Then you have to read the definition again, and this time, read carefully, and you'll se no circularity. (You didn't read my posting did you? 🙂 )

How can John 3:16 be disagreed upon? Have you even read the verse? That's one of the most basic statement of the entire bible, and you don't know about it? 🙂

[b]Circular, no not at all. Then you have to read the definition again, and this time, read carefully, and you'll se no circularity. (You didn't read my posting did you? [/b]

Of course it is circular. You said, "Christianity is the collection of all christians." How am I supposed to know a Christian without first a definition of Christianity?

How can John 3:16 be disagreed upon? Have you even read the verse? That's one of the most basic statement of the entire bible, and you don't know about it?

I have read the verse. I know the verse. I just acknowledge that there is major dispute about what it means.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b][b]Circular, no not at all. Then you have to read the definition again, and this time, read carefully, and you'll se no circularity. (You didn't read my posting did you? [/b]

Of course it is circular. You said, "Christianity is the collection of all christians." How am I supposed to know a Christian without first a definition of Christianity?

...[text shortened]... rse. I know the verse. I just acknowledge that there is major dispute about what it means.[/b]

Take a look again, and again if needed. A doesn't need B, but B needs A. So the circle is broken. Not circular.

So you think it's a major dispute, but you don't know what the dispute is about. Or else you would have told me.

I don't know any better definition of what is a christian. Do you? Can you deliver one, or are you just complaining for fun? 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Take a look again, and again if needed. A doesn't need B, but B needs A. So the circle is broken. Not circular.

So you think it's a major dispute, but you don't know what the dispute is about. Or else you would have told me.

I don't know any better definition of what is a christian. Do you? Can you deliver one, or are you just complaining for fun? 🙂

[b]Take a look again, and again if needed. A doesn't need B, but B needs A. So the circle is broken. Not circular.[/b]

What are boggles? Boggles are anything with the quality of being Boggly. It is not very helpful when I do not know what a Boggle is.

So you think it's a major dispute, but you don't know what the dispute is about. Or else you would have told me.

Well, for example, there is a major dispute about the nature of 'everlasting life'. Some Christians deny the idea of a personal afterlife. Some interpret it as symbolic. One local Anglican bishop in my area is a 'process theologian' and believes that the eternal life is just God's memory of the person. There is also a profound division about what it means to believe in Christ. For many Catholics, the idea is that to believe in Christ simply means to live a moral life and strive to live holy (the idea of the 'anonymous Christian'😉. Some hardcore fundamentalists on this forum however have argued that only those who accept Christ as saviour can have salvation. There are also substantially variant translations. Only check out the list on wikipedia. Can you spot the difference between:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

and,

This is how much God loved the world: he gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b][b]Take a look again, and again if needed. A doesn't need B, but B needs A. So the circle is broken. Not circular.[/b]

What are boggles? Boggles are anything with the quality of being Boggly. It is not very helpful when I do not know what a Boggle is.
[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition
Ok, there, read.

Then give me a better definition. You have one, I know, because if you don't then I have to assume that you are just complaing for the fun of it. 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition
Ok, there, read.

Then give me a better definition. You have one, I know, because if you don't then I have to assume that you are just complaing for the fun of it. 🙂

I understand what circular means. Why not you look at your original words. Hint: the term in question appears in its definition.

But at least you now acknowledge that John 3:16 is not a good test of whether someone is a Christian, right?

Christian:
If you are atheist: Anyone professing to be Christian.
If you profess to be Christian:
a: Christian: Anyone who has reasonably similar beliefs.
b: True Christian: Anyone who has similar beliefs on the issues most important to you.

Under a: you can declare someone non-Christian if he declares you to be non-Christian.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I understand what circular means. Why not you look at your original words. Hint: the term in question appears in its definition.

But at least you now acknowledge that John 3:16 is not a good test of whether someone is a Christian, right?

Okay, let's see what I wrote:

One definition that collects all christians into the same religion might be:
I don't say that it's the ultimate definition, but it's the best one there is so far. If you don't have a betterone, then it's still the best one there is.

"A Christian is someone who believs in John 3:16."
This is a definition of a christian. Let's call this statement (A).
I think you accept this as a definition, not the best one, but still a definition.

And subsequently:
This means that there is more to come. But it doesn't need to be more. The definition of 'christian' still stands as a definition.

"Christianity is the collection of all christians."
Let's call this statement (B)
This is a definition of 'christianity'. Let's call this statement (B). It doesn't stand fro itself. It relies on (A).

If (A) relied on (B) and at the same time (B) relies on (A), then it would be circular. But it doesn't. (A) stands for itself, and (B) makes a back reference to (A). Nothing peculiar with this.

Do you now see that it's not circular? No?

You gave me an example of circularity:
"What are boggles? Boggles are anything with the quality of being Boggly." Yes, this is circular, if it stood for itself.
But what about if you defined "being Boogly" before? Then it would be clear, and not at all circular.

So if you read the wikipedia link once more, then go back and see what I really did write. If you still think my (A) and (B) is circular, then you've had your little fun, and I'm out of this futile discussion with you.

And I still waiting for a better definition, if you have one. If not, you really shouldn't complaing about it. Just not productive.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
?
I don't know if you are making a good point or not////
I just...ARRRGH!!!
Maybe you could elucidate a bit further?...
(maybe you were replying to another point?)

For example, you may bring up the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition as dark periods within Christiandom, however, if we study these events these actions are not based within scripture in terms of the example and teachings of Christ. For example, where exactly did Christ say to take up the sword and purge the holy land? Where exactly did he do something similar in his life, yet, these individuals took it upon themselves to do so in his name.

So what is amiss here, is it the messsage or the people who received the message?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Okay, let's see what I wrote:

[b]One definition that collects all christians into the same religion might be:
I don't say that it's the ultimate definition, but it's the best one there is so far. If you don't have a betterone, then it's still the best one there is.

"A Christian is someone who believs in John 3:16."
This is a definition ...[text shortened]... f not, you really shouldn't complaing about it. Just not productive.[/b]

Sorry, I misunderstood your post earlier. I thought you were giving two definitions: that A and B were separate definitions. In which case, B was circular.

As for John 3:16, I don't see why this verse should be so definitive. For a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, the Scripture does not define a Christian but devotion, fidelity to Tradition and participation in the Sacraments and life of the Church. For them, a Christian is someone baptised and confirmed and who has professed the Faith. And the fact is that many professed Christians do not agree on the meaning of John 3:16.

And I still waiting for a better definition, if you have one. If not, you really shouldn't complaing about it. Just not productive.

And I'm not giving one. This is not a thread about 'the definition of a Christian'. It is about the worst religion. My point is that the label 'Christian', however you define it, is not very useful. Christians are not a homogeneous group. One Christian may have nothing in common with another except nominally. Perhaps it would be fruitful to call a particular denomination or church or sect the worst religion.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Sorry, I misunderstood your post earlier. I thought you were giving two definitions: that A and B were separate definitions. In which case, B was circular.

As for John 3:16, I don't see why this verse should be so definitive. For a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, the Scripture does not define a Christian but devotion, fidelity to Tradition and p ...[text shortened]... would be fruitful to call a particular denomination or church or sect the worst religion.

Apology accepted. No much harm done.

I had one idea once - that there are as many religions that there are humans on earth. And as many branches of christian belief that here are christians, because no belief is exactly as anyone elses belief. But I met problems stronger than before.
After that I sought a straight definition good enough to hold. I ask the question here at RHP and got a seed of an answer. It grew to this definition. It's the best I know. Perhaps there are some gray areas in the fringes, but still.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is not a thread about 'the definition of a Christian'. It is about the worst religion.

Funny how these discussions always revolve around the 3 stunted middle eastern brothers. They all talk about "saving" but so far humanity has not been saved from the divisiveness, discord, and outright murder that their ideas inevitably promote. How many threads in this forum have been started just to bash one of these mental defectives? And still, every day on this god forsaken planet even the most blameless among us (children) are sacrificed on the alter of doctrinal purity. When this is pointed out to an adherent they either offer the justified homicide defense or "poor-mouth" that the particular murderers that yesterday they identified as "brothers" are no longer acting according to the teaching so the teaching itself is not flawed - ignoring the obvious point that a "teaching" is supposed to teach - if it fails at that purpose then the problem must lie with the teaching. A teaching that divides humanity into warring groups is a flawed teaching and will lead to murder. The evidence for this is literally all around us. Wake up and smell the coffee. The future of our children on this planet is at stake.