99% of 'Christians' are not Christians

liamw

I'm starting to see this more and more. From chatting to my friends about religion, a lot of times the conversation goes through evolution (dismiss the creationist part of the Bible), shifting morals (dismiss the whole absolute morals part of the religion) etc etc. until I get to the point where I'm wondering how this person is different to me.

A lot of times the only difference is that:
a. They would tick the 'Catholic' box on a form
b. They claim there's more to life than just science. They can just 'feel it', or have had an 'experience'
c. They go to mass at Christmas and other major religious occasions.

Are these people really Christian? Do you not have to conform to the rules of your religion to say your a member? It seems a bit ridiculous to me that people who simply believe in a deity or supernatural entity can say they belong to a religion based on a holy book which they pretty much dismiss.

Edit: Please do not waste time and ask where I got 99% from. I'll change it to 'most' becuase I know what these forums are like

Sea Sharp

I'd say you'll get a better response in the christianity forum.

But you're right. christianity is on it's way out in the western world.

Look at the Islamic countries. That's what the christian west was like 50+ years ago.

dan_d

And what will replace it?

Galvasean

dan_d wrote: »

And what will replace it?

Scientology, Jedism, Church of FSM...

edit: I'm not taking the mick here, apparently these are the 3 fastest growing religions!

getz

you do not have to conform to any dominations to be a christian.

NothingMan

I think it is much more a social issue nowadays than any firmly held religious beliefs. I know my family are exactly what you described as tick the box catholics and some wouldn't even say outright they believe in a God, they just won't say they don't either. I think they know how stupid it sounds when you say it out loud.

But the biggest thing is that they feel it is a right of passage to go through Baptism, communion, confirmation, church marriage and catholic funeral and because it's the status quo they just unquestionably go along with it.

I don't have any major problem with their religious practices, but ironically as an atheist I would have less of a problem if they were actually religious and not just hypocritcal clones. (I don't mean that as harsh as it sounds. I love my family.)

Sea Sharp

you do not have to conform to any dominations to be a christian.

You just have to not have sex before marriage, hate the gays and pray a lot. (which is probably 1% of Christians as the OP says.)

Galvasean

getz wrote: »

you do not have to conform to any dominations to be a christian.

This is true. Although I'm pretty sure you must believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God to be an actual Christian by definition.
Strangely, I have met several 'Christians' who don't actually believe that.

Dades

getz wrote: »

you do not have to conform to any dominations to be a christian.

I suspect a few Christians I know would disagree with that!

There's a difference between being "a Christian" (1-3) and being "Christian" (4-6).

From dictionary.com:

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

But I would agree with the OP.
A lot of "Christians" are only that in name, and only remain so because of apathy or fear of an alternative.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

5uspect

It's a cultural thing. There are many Atheist Jews.

People feel the need to be Catholic to be Irish.
They'll sure to Mass at Xmas, bless themselves when they go past a graveyard or similar but they don't believe it really. Not unless they get older and their mortality starts to prey on them.

liamw

getz wrote: »

you do not have to conform to any dominations to be a christian.

I don't get this. I mean, what's the cut off point? What % of your religion can you reject before you can't call yourself a member of that religion anymore?

That doesn't make sense to me. Surely you're either a Christian or you're not? Can I be 25% Christian, 25% Muslim, and then 50% Hindu?

Sorry, make that 98% becuase I'd rather not hate gays, and believe that slavery is OK...

liamw

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you've missed the point of the thread by nitpicking at a couple of examples I gave. I'd rather this thread didn't go on a tangent explaining how evolution, and shifting morals are compatible with religion.

Turtwig

81.2351234613461213251%

Of all statistics are made up on the spot ya know.

Most people don't really concern themselves with their beliefs or the God issue. So they don't really bother to think about what label they have, other than what they were born with.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

Most people don't really concern themselves with their beliefs or the God issue. So they don't really bother to think about what label they have, other than what they were born with.

True, but I don't get why people just don't think about it. And why a lot of people tend to get defensive when I question their religion.

Why people keep going to mass week after week, while never really critically thinking of the reasons why they are doing it is beyond me. It just takes up valuable time. Anything that takes up my time, I think about.

Sam Vimes

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whether someone successfully lives by absolute morals is different to whether he thinks they exist. A lot of people who consider themselves christian see absolutely nothing wrong with sex before marriage, homosexuality, blasphemy, euthanasia etc etc. It's not that they're trying and failing to live up to what it says in the bible, they just don't think there's anything wrong with them regardless of what the bible says. They're just taking the parts they agree with and leaving the parts they don't. Their religion is really just used to give weight to opinions they already hold rather than as the source of these opinions and the standard to live by

nozzferrahhtoo

Liamw,

You’re not far off. There’s a train of thought championed by people like Daniel Dennett that the number of people who affiliate with a religion don’t actually believe in the religion, but "believe in belief" in religion.

There are also a number of people who just identify themselves as religious because the term “atheist” has been given such a bad rep. This is why I find it funny when people attack the arguments Dawkins makes for example, which are admittedly often quite basic.

The power of writers like Dawkins is not what they are saying, but THAT they are saying it. A subtle point most of his antagonists fail completely to see. Most of his arguments people know already and are common sense for the most part. However through them people are being shown that it’s actually ok to declare yourself religion free. The recent rise in atheism is not because people are being converted in droves, but simply because they are admitting it.

Similar to you, one question I have always had is how they can really believe any of it, and continue their lives as they have been. If I truly believed this stuff the way I live my life would be starkly different to how it is now. I would abandon possessions and my 9to5 and would now be in Africa building schools for children safe in the knowledge that poverty, disease and underpaid over work will likely kill me off soon but in a righteous state of being.

The way we live our lives now however seems to have no foundation in such beliefs and theists and atheists alike do their 9to5, amass as much selfish private wealth as they can, and act as if this life really is the only one open to them.

Also we see believers happily marrying unbelievers, without any fear of the latter’s influence on the children they claim to love with all their heart. The risk of the non-believing parent leading the souls of the children to eternal damnation is clearly there but they do not act on it.

Even on the inside we find that most Christians do not think most other Christians are even proper Christians. There are over 33000 different registered active branches of Christianity with conflicting often irreconcilable differences between them. Each of them of course thinks they are the proper Christians.

Further most Christians seemingly do not even read the book they claim is the perfect word of the creator.

If one really truly believed that a given book could give insight into the workings of the entity that holds your soul in double jeopardy for all eternity, you think you would be damn sure you knew it inside out and backwards. A tome of such knowledge I would dedicate every spare waking second to the study and understanding of, yet the most of these people do not even OWN a copy, let alone read it.

Contrasted to this, the only people I have EVER turned away from Religion and God I have done so not by showing there is no evidence for god, but by sitting them down, actually getting them to read the Bible, and letting them find out what it is they think they believe.

Each and every time I have gotten to do that with a person and ensured they put time into it; their faith disappeared like hot breath on a cold day.

Sam Vimes

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Liamw,

You’re not far off. There’s a train of thought championed by people like Daniel Dennett that the number of people who affiliate with a religion don’t actually believe in the religion, but "believe in belief" in religion.

I was watching Dawkins in a debate with a clergyman of some kind and he kept going on about how atheism and science don't provide a moral code to live by etc etc. Of course the obvious response is that the fact that religion gives a moral code to live by does not mean its supernatural claims are true. I found myself wondering if he actually believes the bible is the word of god or if he's just playing along to use the authority of biblical morality and because it's comforting etc and if he could be convinced that he doesn't have to believe (or pretend to believe) that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago in order to apply the golden rule of morality in his life. An extreme example of this type of thing is creationists who refuse to acknowledge evolution because they think they'll have to drop the bible along with all of its moral teachings and bring in social Darwinism. It's a symptom of how religion has usurped morality and made out it has a monopoly on it for the last few thousand years.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Contrasted to this, the only people I have EVER turned away from Religion and God I have done so not by showing there is no evidence for god, but by sitting them down, actually getting them to read the Bible, and letting them find out what it is they think they believe.

Each and every time I have gotten to do that with a person and ensured they put time into it; their faith disappeared like hot breath on a cold day.

Yeah if you don't have a priest around to gloss over or explain away the horrendous bits and point to the nice bits explain it with exegesis and Hermeneutics you can end up with a very different view of good old Yahweh

toiletduck

99% of 'Christians' are not Christians

I dunno about that but from my own experience, I'd say a huge number of catholics in this country hold views on Christianity that are way more in line with protestant denominations than the Vatican.

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

Why people keep going to mass week after week, while never really critically thinking of the reasons why they are doing it is beyond me. It just takes up valuable time. Anything that takes up my time, I think about.

Many 'Christians' I know don't even bother with mass any more. They simply don't let religious beliefs or anything along those lines be part of their thinking, yet they still accept it, funny position huh?
True fact : I actually attend mass more than they do...know thy enemy and all that.:D

getz

toiletduck wrote: »

I dunno about that but from my own experience, I'd say a huge number of catholics in this country hold views on Christianity that are way more in line with protestant denominations than the Vatican.

a good doses of realism has hit them

ShooterSF

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Liamw,

You’re not far off. There’s a train of thought championed by people like Daniel Dennett that the number of people who affiliate with a religion don’t actually believe in the religion, but "believe in belief" in religion.

There are also a number of people who just identify themselves as religious because the term “atheist” has been given such a bad rep. This is why I find it funny when people attack the arguments Dawkins makes for example, which are admittedly often quite basic.

The power of writers like Dawkins is not what they are saying, but THAT they are saying it. A subtle point most of his antagonists fail completely to see. Most of his arguments people know already and are common sense for the most part. However through them people are being shown that it’s actually ok to declare yourself religion free. The recent rise in atheism is not because people are being converted in droves, but simply because they are admitting it.

Similar to you, one question I have always had is how they can really believe any of it, and continue their lives as they have been. If I truly believed this stuff the way I live my life would be starkly different to how it is now. I would abandon possessions and my 9to5 and would now be in Africa building schools for children safe in the knowledge that poverty, disease and underpaid over work will likely kill me off soon but in a righteous state of being.

The way we live our lives now however seems to have no foundation in such beliefs and theists and atheists alike do their 9to5, amass as much selfish private wealth as they can, and act as if this life really is the only one open to them.

Also we see believers happily marrying unbelievers, without any fear of the latter’s influence on the children they claim to love with all their heart. The risk of the non-believing parent leading the souls of the children to eternal damnation is clearly there but they do not act on it.

Even on the inside we find that most Christians do not think most other Christians are even proper Christians. There are over 33000 different registered active branches of Christianity with conflicting often irreconcilable differences between them. Each of them of course thinks they are the proper Christians.

Further most Christians seemingly do not even read the book they claim is the perfect word of the creator.

If one really truly believed that a given book could give insight into the workings of the entity that holds your soul in double jeopardy for all eternity, you think you would be damn sure you knew it inside out and backwards. A tome of such knowledge I would dedicate every spare waking second to the study and understanding of, yet the most of these people do not even OWN a copy, let alone read it.

Contrasted to this, the only people I have EVER turned away from Religion and God I have done so not by showing there is no evidence for god, but by sitting them down, actually getting them to read the Bible, and letting them find out what it is they think they believe.

Each and every time I have gotten to do that with a person and ensured they put time into it; their faith disappeared like hot breath on a cold day.

I usually skim over posts of this lenght but it was so well said I read word for word. The paragraph in bold reminded me of something I seen a few weeks ago that confused me about someone with strong beliefs. It was a priest who was on one of those "How long will you live" shows where they tell you stress/drink/tobacco is going to kill you and show you how to live longer. He changed his attitude and was delighted to be told he extended his life expectancy for a few years but why? His belief surely means that he has just extended his passing through this temporary plane on route to eternal bliss. Why would he be happy about that?

toiletduck wrote: »

I dunno about that but from my own experience, I'd say a huge number of catholics in this country hold views on Christianity that are way more in line with protestant denominations than the Vatican.

I mentioned this to a few friends before when discussing my and their beliefs. Strangely they took offence at me suggesting they investigate further as they may infact be protestant.

Galvasean

ShooterSF wrote: »

The paragraph in bold reminded me of something I seen a few weeks ago that confused me about someone with strong beliefs. It was a priest who was on one of those "How long will you live" shows where they tell you stress/drink/tobacco is going to kill you and show you how to live longer. He changed his attitude and was delighted to be told he extended his life expectancy for a few years but why? His belief surely means that he has just extended his passing through this temporary plane on route to eternal bliss. Why would he be happy about that?

More time to do the Lord's work and 'save' others?
Or the off chance that killing yourself with alcohol and tobacco might be deemed suicide, and land you in the inferno?

Zillah

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Look at the Islamic countries. That's what the christian west was like 500+ years ago.

Fixed that for you. I really don't think you'd have seen a woman arrested for sitting in a car with her fiance in broad daylight 50 years ago in the west. I also cannot for the life of me remember the last time someone had a hand chopped off outside Mountjoy.

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

Fixed that for you. I really don't think you'd have seen a woman arrested for sitting in a car with her fiance in broad daylight 50 years ago in the west.

Women were sent to Magdelane laundries in this country for life up until very recently for "crimes" on a par with that.

nozzferrahhtoo

ShooterSF wrote: »

I usually skim over posts of this lenght but it was so well said I read word for word.

He changed his attitude and was delighted to be told he extended his life expectancy for a few years but why?

I am glad my prose has the unique capability of boosting your attention span A better compliment I can barely imagine Thanks. You have likely provided my ego with enough fuel to keep it alive for a few weeks.

Yes, it is baffling that he would be that over joyed at slowing down his entrance into heaven. Especially considering it was science which achieved it and thus changed "gods plan" for his natural time of death.

I find it easier to understand people who actually display the courage of their convictions and who really do act like they believe what they claim to believe. We know where we are with people like that.

An example would be the former Archbishop of Canterbury (Jeffery Fisher) who told us that the worst thing Nuclear War could do is speed people on their way to paradise. THAT is thinking which appears to me to match what the man actually claims to believe.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Even on the inside we find that most Christians do not think most other Christians are even proper Christians. There are over 33000 different registered active branches of Christianity with conflicting often irreconcilable differences between them. Each of them of course thinks they are the proper Christians.

I've seen this claim made a number of times in this forum, and it is quite untrue.

There are indeed many Christian denominations and movements, but very few insist that they are 'the proper Christians'. Most Christian churches differ from each other on matters of church government or minor points of doctrine - and they certainly do not deny that other groups are Christians.

For example, I belong to a particular denomination, and I can off the top of my head think of hundreds of other denominations whose beliefs are virtually identical to my own. I find my current movement to be the one that suits me best, but I would quite happily switch to another denomination with similar beliefs. Indeed, I actually think some other church's beliefs are better and more biblical than my own church's Statement of Faith - but we don't get bent out of shape by such minor details.

The vast majority of Christians happily acknowledge the validity of the faith of the millions of other Christians who choose to worship in different churches. Those sects or cults (I'm using those words sociologically to signify exclusivity, not in regards to the validity of their beliefs) which believe they are the only true Church tend to be few and fare between - and, like with Fred Phelps and his ilk, rarely manage to attract members into the double digits.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the Roman Catholic Church which claims to be the one true Church. But this is, for most Catholics, a notional fiction with as much meaning as the wording on English banknotes (try taking a fiver to the Bank of England and see if the Queen really will pay the bearer on demand five pounds in weight of sterling silver!). Most Catholics happily acknowledge the rest of us as being true Christians, irrespective of what Pope Boniface once said about salvation only being found in Rome.

So, this idea of 33,000 branches of Christianity all denying the validity of one another's Christianity and insisting themselves to be the true Christians is a figment of someone's fevered imagination. The reality is well over 32,000 branches of Christianity, each with their own identity and emphasis, but happily acknowledging one another as true Christians, and then a much smaller number of fringe groups who are convinced that they, and they alone, possess the truth.

I doubt if this clarification will be welcomed in these parts, but there you go!

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

An example would be the former Archbishop of Canterbury (Jeffery Fisher) who told us that the worst thing Nuclear War could do is speed people on their way to paradise. THAT is thinking which appears to me to match what the man actually claims to believe.

You have a source for this 'quote' from Geoffrey Fisher? Presumably an old one, since the chap has been dead for 37 years.

liamw

PDN wrote: »

I doubt if this clarification will be welcomed in these parts, but there you go!

First of all, I for one welcome comments from another perspective. On that point though you use phrases like 'virtually identical' and 'similar'. Therefore the beliefs are not exactly the same.

I don't get how you can reconcile having one belief one day becuase the denomonation 'suits' you better, and then say you could easily switch to another one with even slightly diffferent beliefs. Surely you either believe somthing or you don't? It sounds to me like your happy enough with your beliefs being dictated to you, depending on what denomination you're in.

krudler

You'd probably find most Irish Catholics are cafeteria Christians, believe in some of the stuff the bible claims, Jesus,resurrection, virgin birth, y'know, the classic fairy tales, but not the other more crazy stuff, Noah and his floating menagerie, adam and eve (although one person I know believes that little doozy to be the truth, while at the same time believing in evolution, wtf) Thats why I abandoned my faith when i was in my teens, I couldnt take the hypocrisy of religion anymore

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

First of all, I for one welcome comments from another perspective. On that point though you use phrases like 'virtually identical' and 'similar'. Therefore the beliefs are not exactly the same.

I don't get how you can reconcile having one belief one day becuase the denomonation 'suits' you better, and then say you could easily switch to another one with even slightly diffferent beliefs. Surely you either believe somthing or you don't? It sounds to me like your happy enough with your beliefs being dictated to you, depending on what denomination you're in.

It's another example of how christians for the most part believe not because of what is most likely to be true but because of what makes them feel better about themselves. Ann Widdecombe was raised in the Church of England her whole life but became a catholic when they allowed female priests. To an atheist that seems really strange because allowing female priests doesn't make everything else in protestantism false and everything in catholicism true but then that's not why she's a member of the church.

In reality there's probably very little point arguing evidence and logic with believers because any evidence or logic that might exist to support their beliefs is an unnecessary bonus, they believe because of what believing offers them.

edit: And a big mistake made by believers is to assume that atheists are like them in not believing because it suits them, that's where you get things like atheism being called a faith and people pointing out that atheism doesn't give a moral code as if that in some way makes it false. I think it's safe to say that most atheists would be delighted to believe in a god because of all the wonderful things it offers but we're just not prepared to believe something for that reason.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN,

I am not sure where you get your information from but many of these denominations in fact do question whether each other are proper Christians or whether they have their interpretation right. Just off the top of my head without going into the other 33000 branches of Christianity, I can point to the Mormons who clearly do not think you are a true Christian unless you accept the words of Smith. Other Christians in turn think they are not true Christians as they are now following a false prophet. This is before you ever get into the realm of the other branches like Mormonism. You yourself give the example of the Catholic Church for me.

Christopher Hitchens tells a story of talking about the Christian warriors and their leader who have been using Child soldiers. Hitchens spends time with a Pastor, also a Christian, who has been rehabilitating the children who escaped or were liberated from this “army”. De-brain washing of a sort. He asked the pastor “Both of you clearly think you are following the Christian path, yet he would have you killed and you work to undo what he has done. Which one of you is the true Christian as it clearly is not reconcilable”. I actually credit the Pastor with the honesty of his response which was essentially “I do not know, all I can do is hope it is me and continue as if it is”.

However I never said that they are “all denying the validity of one another's Christianity”. I said each of them think they are proper Christians and they OFTEN have irreconcilable differences. I find you do me an injustice by subtly turning up the extremity of my actual words and then attacking the extremity of them.

On that note I would like to retell a story I once told about a situation where I attended an Alpha Course meeting and I told a joke about religion. Just a joke and a rather tame one but it caused huge offence with the course coordinator. In a rage he told the following joke about atheism in an attempt to offend me back.

=========================
AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODS

An atheist was walking through the woods. 'What majestic trees! 'What powerful rivers! 'What beautiful animals! He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, 'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.

'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?’

The atheist looked directly into the light, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian'?

'Very well,' said the voice. The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen.'
=========================

The coordinator looked at me waiting for me to be terribly offended or some such. My response was not what he expected.

“Silly atheist,” I said. He should have specified _which_ of the 33820* forms of Christianity to turn the bear into. If he had specified Mormons for example they eat meat sparingly so he would have been in with a good chance at least. If he had said Amish the bear might have wandered off looking for gravy first.

Or maybe even another kind of nutter like the Ugandan "Ten Commandments of God" sect. The bear would have just wandered off into a hut and burned the place down around him then. Not before getting his wife and kids into the hut first however! So the man would have been ok!

Not to say that any of the Christians here are nutters of course. Lord no. Just the other 33819 denominations who clearly have it wrong. You guys here are on the money clearly.

*World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version)

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN again,

Sure no problem on the source. I read it in the Guardian.Saturday 28 August 1999. Exact quote is:

"The very worst the Bomb can do is to sweep a vast number of People from this world into the next into which they must all go anyway'." - Fisher

Though I am not sure what the age of the quote or how long the person who said it has been dead impacts my point in any way. I would welcome clarification on that.

PDN

liamw wrote: »

On that point though you use phrases like 'virtually identical' and 'similar'. Therefore the beliefs are not exactly the same.

Nobody's beliefs are exactly the same. If you polled 1 million people as to their exact beliefs on 1000 subjects then I'm pretty sure that you would end up with very close to a million sets of varying answers.

What Christians recognise is that different people, and different groups, differ over many minor issues. However, the vast majority of Christian denominations and groups agree on the important things that we believe are necessary to salvation. Unless one is in the Taliban, or a member of the North Korean government such minor disagreements are no great shakes. Most people in any society have mastered the art of tolerating minor differences of opinion.

I don't get how you can reconcile having one belief one day becuase the denomonation 'suits' you better, and then say you could easily switch to another one with even slightly diffferent beliefs. Surely you either believe somthing or you don't? It sounds to me like your happy enough with your beliefs being dictated to you, depending on what denomination you're in.

Ah! I see your problem. You think that Christians' beliefs are dictated to them by their denomination? That is incorrect.

For most denominations, a Statement of Faith is simply a guide as to what is taught in the Church. For example, my denomination requires that ministers should not preach anything that is contrary to the Declaration of Faith. That's fine, but it doesn't dictate what the members believe.

I, like most Christians, will hear a preacher say something that we don't agree with. That's cool. We make up our own minds what we believe. If a preacher happens to believe something different then that's up to him, providing it's not a fundamental issue concerning salvation then I couldn't really care less.

A cousin of mine joined the Salvation Army. They don't agree with everything in that denomination's Statement of Faith, but that's no great shakes. They do, however, want to work to help the homeless in inner cities - and the Salvation Army gives them that opportunity.

You see, for me Christianity is not about subscribing to a particular set of beliefs. It is about sincerely trying to live by the teachings of the Bible and, more particularly, being a follower of Jesus Christ. I don't expect everybody to see everything the way I see it, although I do have a lot of fun with other Christians discussing our different opinions.

There are a few groups that act as fundamentalist zealots trying to insist that everybody holds the same views on everything down to the tiniest detail. But they are few and far between. The idea of 33,000 denominations all acting in such a way is, to be honest, an urban legend that seems to swallowed uncritically by those who often claim to base their views on rationality and evidence.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

PDN,

I am not sure where you get your information from but many of these denominations in fact do question whether each other are proper Christians or whether they have their interpretation right. Just off the top of my head without going into the other 33000 branches of Christianity, I can point to the Mormons who clearly do not think you are a true Christian unless you accept the words of Smith. Other Christians in turn think they are not true Christians as they are now following a false prophet. This is before you ever get into the realm of the other branches like Mormonism. You yourself give the example of the Catholic Church for me.

Christopher Hitchens tells a story of talking about the Christian warriors and their leader who have been using Child soldiers. Hitchens spends time with a Pastor, also a Christian, who has been rehabilitating the children who escaped or were liberated from this “army”. De-brain washing of a sort. He asked the pastor “Both of you clearly think you are following the Christian path, yet he would have you killed and you work to undo what he has done. Which one of you is the true Christian as it clearly is not reconcilable”. I actually credit the Pastor with the honesty of his response which was essentially “I do not know, all I can do is hope it is me and continue as if it is”.

However I never said that they are “all denying the validity of one another's Christianity”. I said each of them think they are proper Christians and they OFTEN have irreconcilable differences. I find you do me an injustice by subtly turning up the extremity of my actual words and then attacking the extremity of them.

On that note I would like to retell a story I once told about a situation where I attended an Alpha Course meeting and I told a joke about religion. Just a joke and a rather tame one but it caused huge offence with the course coordinator. In a rage he told the following joke about atheism in an attempt to offend me back.

=========================
AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODS

An atheist was walking through the woods. 'What majestic trees! 'What powerful rivers! 'What beautiful animals! He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, 'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.

'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?’

The atheist looked directly into the light, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian'?

'Very well,' said the voice. The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen.'
=========================

The coordinator looked at me waiting for me to be terribly offended or some such. My response was not what he expected.

“Silly atheist,” I said. He should have specified _which_ of the 33820* forms of Christianity to turn the bear into. If he had specified Mormons for example they eat meat sparingly so he would have been in with a good chance at least. If he had said Amish the bear might have wandered off looking for gravy first.

Or maybe even another kind of nutter like the Ugandan "Ten Commandments of God" sect. The bear would have just wandered off into a hut and burned the place down around him then. Not before getting his wife and kids into the hut first however! So the man would have been ok!

Not to say that any of the Christians here are nutters of course. Lord no. Just the other 33819 denominations who clearly have it wrong. You guys here are on the money clearly.

*World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version)

I get my information from being actively involved in Christian leadership for the last 25 years. As a denominational leader I interact with literally thousands of other churches and denominations.

You quote two examples of groups that are the kind of exclusive sects I referred to and which I know, and you know, and even the dogs in the street know are very far from being typical of most Christian groups. Then you try to use that as a basis for making a false blanket assertion about 33,000 Christian groups.

You should be ashamed to post such stuff. You do yourself, and your cause, no favours whatsoever.

nozzferrahhtoo

You make my point for me. They would consider themselves normal Christians with the true path. You sit there and say they are not; they are a sect and are not typical. They would say the same of you.

This is, wholly and totally, 100% the exact point I was making thanks. And thanks for quoting my entire post unnecessarily while doing so, it doubles my exposure.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You make my point for me. They would consider themselves normal Christians with the true path. You sit there and say they are not; they are a sect and are not typical. They would say the same of you.

This is, wholly and totally, 100% the exact point I was making thanks. And thanks for quoting my entire post unnecessarily while doing so, it doubles my exposure.

So your point is that there are 33,000 groups of Christians, most of which are in broad agreement and recognise each other as Christians. But that there are a couple of groups that are more exclusive and are viewed as atypical.

Then I'm glad we're in agreement, although somewhat mystified as to what the point of the point is.

philologos

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I'd say you'll get a better response in the christianity forum.

But you're right. christianity is on it's way out in the western world.

I disagree with you. Christianity will be staying, but perhaps less people will be convinced of it. I have met a lot of people around my age (20) who are still very much interested in the Gospel.

MagicMarker

You didn't meet them in Church by any chance?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you. Christianity will be staying, but perhaps less people will be convinced of it. I have met a lot of people around my age (20) who are still very much interested in the Gospel.

I think what he means is that it won't have the majority following that it does now. With every generation it diminishes I have no figures to back that up but anecdotally very few people I work with pay any attention to religion doesn't mean they're atheists but certainly not "religious" definitely not true Christians. And you're right it will stick around but only for the truly religious.

liamw

PDN wrote: »

Nobody's beliefs are exactly the same. If you polled 1 million people as to their exact beliefs on 1000 subjects then I'm pretty sure that you would end up with very close to a million sets of varying answers.

What Christians recognise is that different people, and different groups, differ over many minor issues. However, the vast majority of Christian denominations and groups agree on the important things that we believe are necessary to salvation.

If a preacher happens to believe something different then that's up to him, providing it's not a fundamental issue concerning salvation then I couldn't really care less.

It all seems very very wishy washy to me. So what is the critera for which I can call myself a Christian then?

PDN

liamw wrote: »

It all seems very very wishy washy to me. So what is the critera for which I can call myself a Christian then?

You need to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour and put your trust in him. Most churches would expect you to make broad assent to the fundamentals of the faith (eg the Deity of Christ, His atoning death upon the Cross etc) All the extra bells and whistles are non-essentials.

I don't think it's wishy washy at all. But I do appreciate that it would easier for you if we were all like Fred Phelps or the Taliban, because then we'd make a much easier target, wouldn't we? Unfortunately in real life we rarely encounter such convenient strawmen - only in the world of internet discussion boards and their groupthink.

Jari

Galvasean wrote: »

This is true. Although I'm pretty sure you must believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God to be an actual Christian by definition.
Strangely, I have met several 'Christians' who don't actually believe that.

could you explain how did jesus become son of god, becoz god created him without father. if this the case adam should be more than Jesus becoz he was created without father and mother

liamw

PDN wrote: »

You need to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour and put your trust in him. Most churches would expect you to make broad assent to the fundamentals of the faith (eg the Deity of Christ, His atoning death upon the Cross etc) All the extra bells and whistles are non-essentials.

I don't think it's wishy washy at all. But I do appreciate that it would easier for you if we were all like Fred Phelps or the Taliban, because then we'd make a much easier target, wouldn't we? Unfortunately in real life we rarely encounter such convenient strawmen - only in the world of internet discussion boards and their groupthink.

I'm not really sure what your problem is but you should try not to get so over defensive anytime somebody questions you. If I made the same remark on your forum, you would infract me no doubt.

Would you say my friends, as described in my original post, qualify as Christian? They don't live their lives in any way to indicate that they are religious. Does it upset you at all that these people, who make up the majority of the so-called 'Christian' population in this country, probably couldn't quote me one verse from the Bible?

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

You didn't meet them in Church by any chance?

No I didn't. Most of them go to many different churches. I know most of them through university.

There are 1,500 students involved in Christian Unions at 25 campuses in Ireland currently. There are plenty more in other faith based societies.

Obviously including all other similar organizations, church congregations etc around Ireland the figure starts to look a lot bigger.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

You need to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour and put your trust in him. Most churches would expect you to make broad assent to the fundamentals of the faith (eg the Deity of Christ, His atoning death upon the Cross etc) All the extra bells and whistles are non-essentials.

I don't think it's wishy washy at all. But I do appreciate that it would easier for you if we were all like Fred Phelps or the Taliban, because then we'd make a much easier target, wouldn't we? Unfortunately in real life we rarely encounter such convenient strawmen - only in the world of internet discussion boards and their groupthink.

That is generally how most christians live their lives, we can all see that. The "cafeteria catholic" thing is how just about everyone deals with religion to some extent, everyone has their own interpretation and no one can definitively say that everyone else is wrong. Even Fred Phelps does it by ignoring all the turn the other cheek type aspects and focussing on the fire and brimstone stuff.

But given that, I don't see how christians can claim to have any moral high ground over anyone else. Their viewpoint on such issues is just as much a matter of opinion as the most hardest materialist and they can no more appeal to the authority of god to back up their moral viewpoint than me because they can't show that their interpretation is the correct one

Funglegunk

Malty_T wrote: »

Most people don't really concern themselves with their beliefs or the God issue. So they don't really bother to think about what label they have, other than what they were born with.

Have to agree with this. Many, perhaps most people in Ireland just don't care. Saying they believe in God is a nice way to cordon off the questions that they just aren't interested in thinking about, put them in a box in the attic, label them, and then thats that. It also doubles as a handy shutdown for when they are asked those questions, "It's just what I believe."

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

So your point is that there are 33,000 groups of Christians, most of which are in broad agreement and recognise each other as Christians. But that there are a couple of groups that are more exclusive and are viewed as atypical.

Just curious though, who would you regard as having the more saying power when it come's to stuff like politics,education and ethics?

In my experience of what I've learned is that the person who sounds the most convincing that get's their idea out there the most - which sadly is the fundies:(
The growth of creationism, especially in Islamic countries is something of concern. And I'm sure you'll agree with me that the fast growing sects at the moment happen to be fundies.:( [Another worry is their repeated calls for an international religious respect bill.]

However,thankfully, they're not the largest but I just wonder who you think has the most saying power?

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

although somewhat mystified as to what the point of the point is.

I am not surprised, considering the point I was making was the one I said I was making, not the one you just said I was making. That you should be baffled at what my point is when you talk about a point I never made in the first place is not a mystery by any stretch.

My point was merely this: That in the context of a thread about Christians not really being Christians, it is useful to point out the large number of Christians who think other Christians are not really Christians.

My point was no more, and no less, than that.

Turtwig

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not surprised, considering the point I was making was the one I said I was making, not the one you just said I was making. That you should be baffled at what my point is when you talk about a point I never made in the first place is not a mystery by any stretch.

My head hurts:mad:

PDN

liamw wrote: »

I'm not really sure what your problem is but you should try not to get so over defensive anytime somebody questions you.

Strange that isn't it? You call somebody wishy-washy and they get defensive. Fancy that.

If I made the same remark on your forum, you would infract me no doubt.

You're wrong. But I'll refrain from other comment since it is frowned upon to use one forum on boards.ie to discuss the moderating in another forum. I make a practice of trying to observe the Charters in the various fora I visit.

Would you say my friends, as described in my original post, qualify as Christian? They don't live their lives in any way to indicate that they are religious. Does it upset you at all that these people, who make up the majority of the so-called 'Christian' population in this country, probably couldn't quote me one verse from the Bible?

That all depends on your definition of 'Christian'. If you use the term in the sense of being a disciple of Christ then they don't sound like Christians to me.

However, if you use the term in a broader way, then it can mean almost anything. After all, Richard Dawkins has described himself as a cultural Christian.