Religious people are either fundamentalists or hypocrites

[PistachioByAzul]

We still don't' have a consensus on what constitutes a real Christian. Is it natural that everyone believes the real Christian to be themself, or just a coincidence?

 

[ibintegra]

<< We still don't' have a consensus on what constitutes a real Christian. Is it natural that everyone believes the real Christian to be themself, or just a coincidence? >>



A 'real' Christian is one who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. There's some other stuff in the bible that talks about the different types of Christians but that's dealing more with in terms of what a person does after he/she accepts Christ.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

So what's makes a "right-minded" Christian then?

 

[lawaris]

I am neithere ........pls. classify me !

 

[skylark]

Whitedog:
EngineNr9, no Christian in their right mind would even discuss God or Christianity with someone who has no desire to know God, such as being demonstrated here.

Why these people on this board attempt to convince anti-religious folk is beyond me.



A word for all you zealous Christians; Do not waste your breath on people who have no desire to know God. Spend your efforts on those who show an interest in Him.

Jesus instructed Christians not to waste our time on such unbelievers.
Mark: 6, 11
...And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

Some Christians' POV in here is not a discussion. It sounds like cheerleading their own side. And what do you mean by "testimony against them"? Who? Anyone who is contented, at peace? Has found his/her *own* salvation without the Bible? Not possible to taste rapture, bliss, and transcendence while living? It is *possible* that a Christian can be more than just one dimension, dabble, and experiment when one sheds old needless skin.... Instead of holding the Bible high and mighty in front of his/her eyes that he/she couldn't see anything else beyond it.


Anyways....It seems nobody has answered EngineNr9's "sufis and buddhists"? I notice this from threads I've read. Even my previous reality-check statements in other threads I could still hear crickets. EngineNr9's comments about non-Christians achieving spiritual attainments are very fundamental ~ in questioning the integrity of Christian fundamentalism at every angle possible.

If christian's beliefs are real, as *real* as one's flesh, let's see how real it is. Leave parroting Bible passages aside, and let's see who *we* really are...

And my last thought before I take my leave: I've heard that a Christian fundamentalist can only serve one savior. But I've heard that one could love Jesus and Gautama. And to whomever could, I will lend my ears to hear such insightful delights..


Treat your friend as if he might become an enemy.
-- Publilius Syrus

 

[Moonbeam]

Nice post skylark. I found the following of your lines particularly intriguing but difficult to interpret as there seems to be some kind of grammar mistake in it:

<<Even my previous reality-check statements in other threads I could still hear crickets.>>


It's intriguing because only just a few hours ago I was thinking about working the sound of crickets into a post.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

The exclusive claim to love and spiritual equilibrium just doesn't sit well. It seems like that kind of narrow partisan thinking is "EXACTLY WHAT THE DEVIL WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE!", assuming the devil is an actual entity. Frankly I look around and I see more love eminating from other religions than I do from Christianity, so that's kind of a loss there for me.

Definitely some great things have been said in these threads in support of Christianity, but the thing is, those things ultimately transcend just Christianity, they are universal, despite the label that has been slapped on them.

 

[busmaster11]

<< Anyways....It seems nobody has answered EngineNr9's "sufis and buddhists"? I notice this from threads I've read. Even my previous reality-check statements in other threads I could still hear crickets. EngineNr9's comments about non-Christians achieving spiritual attainments are very fundamental ~ in questioning the integrity of Christian fundamentalism at every angle possible.

If christian's beliefs are real, as *real* as one's flesh, let's see how real it is. Leave parroting Bible passages aside, and let's see who *we* really are... >>



Whats there to answer? That question exemplifies my point exactly. It proves nothing that he sees some Buddhists being more polite, pious or having higher morals than a Christian - and to take it further than that would be a gross exageration of a vague generalization thay may very well not be true.

In the end we're all human beings, prone to sin and hypocrisy. You think you're judging the religion, but really you're just judging the individual and making sweeping generalizations with it...

Like I said, to you we're either all hypocrites or fundamentalists...

 

[Siddhartha]

The fundamentalists, at least the ones I have listened too, are pretty selective in which parts of the Bible they follow.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

It proves nothing that he sees some Buddhists being more polite, pious or having higher morals than a Christian

You're right it does prove nothing, but on the other hand it kinda goes beyond being "more polite or having higher morals". It is a way of being, in which one simply recognizes that all is well in the highest sense, and from this person you see nothing but positive energy flowing, because they've reached a point when all they can do is good. Yeah, that's cheesy and all, but no less is it there. That's not exclusive to any religion, but I think absolutist religions tend to focus so much on the bridge as Moonbeam says, that they lose track of what's really important and what's really being said in these scriptures.

 

[r0tt3n1]

I used to live up north, strong Catholic region, most big hypocrites. Moved to the mid-west (bible belt), strong Christian region, most even bigger self-centered, hypocritical, preaching S.O.B's...... Way I see it, neither can say 1 word about the other............... just an opinion........

 

[LeatherNeck]

<< You do raise valid points however, I don't see how anyone who's got an ounce of logic within themselves can believe that: virgins become pregnant, >>



OK djs1w, I don't have a lot of time here but I'll try to use my puny brain to see if I can fashion a logical argument. I'm hindered unfortunately by an illogical brain that enabled me to get an MSEE and a patent but I'll do my best.

Formal logic: If there is a number we call 1 and a number we call 2 and the number following them is called 3 then by formal logic:
1+2=3.

If there is a God who, by definition, created everything and is all-powerful then:

1. Everything includes all somethings.
2. A virgin is a something.
3. It takes power to make a virgin pregnant without sex.
4. God logically has the power to make a virgin pregnant without sex.

Now you did not ask for my reason for believing in God, you merely wondered how anybody who had an ounce of logic could believe that virgins become pregnant. The above is consistently logical - you just have a problem with my premise.

By the way, you might want to take more care in how you phrase your question: By definition, any woman who has not had sex is a virgin. You should have wondered how anyone could be logical and believe a virgin could become pregnant without having sex but virgins become pregnant all the time after having sex for the first time. There's another logical answer to your question if you require one.

By the way, it's not that you don't believe in God. Scripture says you do. I don't believe in Atheists. Those who call themselves as such are merely highly clever at self-deception.