What do you think about this concept?

Considering it purely as a way of living, it seems pretty nice, or nice in comparison with modern catholicism and protestantism. The idea of living poorly, simply, and just plain well. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Turn the other cheek. The entire philosophy, if truely believed in, can almost guarantee a happy life.

Anyways, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I like the idea, but I don't think it works. If you're going to accept the Bible as the Word of God, and nothing but the Bible, you also have to believe in things like God raging around and killing little children, or the "fact" that people are damned to hell forever with no chance of redemption.I recall we had an argument about that before, and you raised the prospect of Purgatory - but that's only a Catholic idea.

Just seems to me that having to believe in that kind of thing ruins the whole "simple and kind" philosophy. How simple can you be if you have to defend that injustice to yourself and others, and how kind can you be if you have to rejoice in the torment of the innocent?

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-12-2005).]

sounds good to me

but what makes it christian at all?

like, why does being a generally nice, good person have to be religious, let alone christian?

Because it would be semi-based off of the bible and the life of Jesus, two pretty important parts of christianity.

As for having to accept all the bible. I don't think that is true. You could practice this just with the new testement, the part of the bible where God is a little more "mellowed out".

You also have to take into account that simple christianity is more of a way of living your life rather than a set in stone theology with a doctorine. This means that theological and biblical questions are not of the utmost importance in our lives.

Then couldn't you do this without a reference to Christianity?

Does it really matter?

It would actually still be christianity(religion of christ), so I don't see what point there would be in calling it something else unless someone is ashamed of calling themselves a christian(which seems ludicrous in western society).

Christ is a significant part of their lives, and the whole premise of simple christianity is living like christ.

It just seems a bit superfluous to me, that's all.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Because it would be semi-based off of the bible and the life of Jesus, two pretty important parts of christianity.

As for having to accept all the bible. I don't think that is true. You could practice this just with the new testement, the part of the bible where God is a little more "mellowed out".

You also have to take into account that simple christianity is more of a way of living your life rather than a set in stone theology with a doctorine. This means that theological and biblical questions are not of the utmost importance in our lives.

Ah, I see. In that case... well, I can't say I entirely approve of it - I think considering theological questions and so forth is pretty important - but I have no other major objections. Seems like a pretty good way to live your life. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Mellowed out? Seems like you are cherry picking. Let's see if everything that Jesus espoused was cuddly:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy. (Mt.10:34-37)

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Lk. 14:26)

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. (Mt. 19:12)

Woe to the world for temptation! . . . And if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. (Mt. 17:7-9)

Doesn't exactly look like life will be a bowl of cherries if you live like that. I'm not too sure about living a happy life after ripping out my eyes and assorted appendages.

Religion doesn't attribute to healthy societies.

People are completely capable of holding good values and moral judgements while still having a complete absence of religion.

Most of the values we agree on as a society has been made IN SPITE OF religion.

And why does poor have to be a pre-requisite? What if I want to work my ass off and see the fruits of my labor pay off so that I can live more comfortably? Being "meek" shouldn't be something to aspire to. This is how the welfare state got started.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Does it really matter?

It would actually still be christianity(religion of christ), so I don't see what point there would be in calling it something else unless someone is ashamed of calling themselves a christian(which seems ludicrous in western society).

Christ is a significant part of their lives, and the whole premise of simple christianity is living like christ.

Living the life of Christ would essentially be Buddhism, minus the meditation.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Living the life of Christ would essentially be Buddhism, minus the meditation.

Exactly. The teachings the Christ preaches in bible have existed long before him. There would be no point in calling it "Christianity" save for being biased towards Christianity in the first place.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

---------------------------------------- Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Living the life of Christ would essentially be Buddhism, minus the meditation.

-------------------------------------------

Exactly. The teachings the Christ preaches in bible have existed long before him. There would be no point in calling it "Christianity" save for being biased towards Christianity in the first place.

What a superficial "reasoning".

Christ spoke about "My Father in heaven" while Buddha offered a way through (éasoning and human intelligence.

And you don't seriously believe Christ didn't meditate, do you ?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

As for having to accept all the bible. I don't think that is true. You could practice this just with the new testement, the part of the bible where God is a little more "mellowed out".

God seems a little more "mellowed out" as you put it in the New Testament because before the advent of Christ and his way of describing God as "My Father in Heaven", God wasn't perceived that way. This is something new Christ brought into the world (AFAIK).

Before Christ, the Jews knew God as IHVH, or Jahweh.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

What a superficial "reasoning".

Christ spoke about "My Father in heaven" while Buddha offered a way through (éasoning and human intelligence.

And you don't seriously believe Christ didn't meditate, do you ?





The general "rules" -if you will- that he pointed out:"The idea of living poorly, simply, and just plain well. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Turn the other cheek."

Those have been taught before, which was the point being brought forward. The mention of Buddha was merely an example.

Moreover, you would have to accurately describe "meditation" in order to conclude anything. If we compare the limited "meditation" Jesus did then it's obvious it is nothing close to the amount, type and scope of Buddha's.

Furthermore, if you want, let's say that the "exactly" only refered to "Living the life of Christ would essentially be Buddhism..."

P.S. I find it hilarious that you only reply to me, and not to SurahAhriman the one who originally made the statement, just because you hold a childish grudge against me. Pathetic.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-13-2005).]

Well this is based off the life of Christ and the bible, so I don't see what Buddha has to do with this... http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Also, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say Jesus was the originator of this school of thought.

Anyways, the fact that it is based off of the New Testement makes it entirely seperate from Buddhism.

And to ever who posted the quotes: Taking quotes out of context does nothing to prove your point.

quote:34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn

" 'a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—

36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[a]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.

quote:25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

quote:11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[b]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Your last quotation isn't even correct, but here it is anyways:

quote:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, 3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes! 8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. 10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Does it really matter?

It would actually still be christianity(religion of christ)

The moment religion is added to a simple set of moral guidelines is the moment things get complicated.

Anyway your idea sounds a lot like Quakerism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends

Quakerism won a Nobel Peace Prize, apparently.

The quakers would be very similar to this, though I think the difference between the very few quakers that Ive met and the "simple christians" that I've met is that the simple christians really only use christianity as a way of life, rather than a means to an end(heaven). I'm sure it varies from person to person, so I won't say it's true in all cases, but those are my experiences.

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

The moment religion is added to a simple set of moral guidelines is the moment things get complicated.

Well said.

I'm reading a book right now by Richard Holloway titled: Godless Morality - Keeping Religion Out of Ethics. He brings up a pretty good point, which is:

"If there is that which we call God, and God is more than the projection of our own best values and longings for transcendence, then God must be involved in all our moral struggles, so the attempt by humans to discover a morality apart from God might, paradoxically, be God's geatest triumph; and our attempt to live morally as though there were no God might be the final test of faith."

I don't think things get complicated as much as they get more serious.

When religion is factored in, you now have consequences and rewards for either following or not following that set of moral guidelines. I think that is essentially the only real difference, though it doesn't necessarily make things more complicated.

And when religion isn't factored in, you've got someone doing a less selfish and more altruistic act .... and they're not doing it out of obedience or rewards! Moral guidelines can (and do) exist without religion. There are consequences for every act you choose (or don't choose) regardless. Why use the metaphorical lake of fire as scare tactics to force this behavior? That, to me, is when it gets complicated. That is when we start judging others by what they believe in, or don't believe in, and relying on supernatural forces to guide us through our existence. All the while, we could have personally achieved all this "goodness" without having to subscribe to a religious doctrine, thereby making it less complicated.

All that said -

If someone takes the "I wanna be like Jesus" approach to living well much like the young basketball player takes the "I wanna be like Mike" approach to succeeding at his sport, then more power to you, by all means let your Role Model be your guide. And if it helps you become a better person - great! Whatever it takes. It's just not completely necessary to reaching your goal.

It never ceases to amaze me that sooo many xians will miss the point of a thread like this, and have so many prebarications against approach life this way... and yet people considered to be 'outsiders' or on the fringe of the dominant forms of christianity often get it and articulate it so well.

Maybe Jesus was right when he said that many who are first will be last

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

And when religion isn't factored in, you've got someone doing a less selfish and more altruistic act .... and they're not doing it out of obedience or rewards! Moral guidelines can (and do) exist without religion. There are consequences for every act you choose (or don't choose) regardless. Why use the metaphorical lake of fire as scare tactics to force this behavior? That, to me, is when it gets complicated. That is when we start judging others by what they believe in, or don't believe in, and relying on supernatural forces to guide us through our existence. All the while, we could have personally achieved all this "goodness" without having to subscribe to a religious doctrine, thereby making it less complicated.

No one in this thread has said anything to the contrary that religion isn't necessary to live a moral life, but it is necessary for a lot of people. Your explanation for how religion makes morals more complicated is not that good. First of all, judging others by their beliefs is not just found in religions. Athiests, agnostics, and everyone else does it. You're doing it now in fact. So that is a moot point. Second of all, no one in a religion is relying on supernatural forces to guide them, because there most likely isn't a supernatural force, unless you think that when people pray God really answers back. People who are religious stop and think about their actions and the consequences of those actions. As you can see, there is no supernatural force present in that situation.



[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 09-17-2005).]

quote:

No one in this thread has said anything to the contrary that religion isn't necessary to live a moral life, but it is necessary for a lot of people. Your explanation for how religion makes morals more complicated is not that good.

But you yourself said that simple Christianity is the best way to live life, and that the whole premise relied on molding yourself after Christ. While you assert that it's not necessary, you claim that it makes it less complicated. I disagreed with that, but I wasn't judging you. Just wanted to point out that non-believers CAN and DO stop to think about the consequences of their actions just as dutifully as a Christian would.

quote:

People who are religious stop and think about their actions and the consequences of those actions. As you can see, there is no supernatural force present in that situation.

Of course it's not present. But basing your existence on an omniscient diety to be reckoned with in the afterlife (which is, by definition, not of this world, i.e.: supernatural) - isn't that some kind of force? Believers use religion as their "force" to guide their intentions, being able to fall back on God for support. Non-believers rely on common sense and basic ethics, having only their own personal accountability to lean on.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

But you yourself said that simple Christianity is the best way to live life, and that the whole premise relied on molding yourself after Christ. While you assert that it's not necessary, you claim that it makes it less complicated. I disagreed with that, but I wasn't judging you. Just wanted to point out that non-believers CAN and DO stop to think about the consequences of their actions just as dutifully as a Christian would.

1. I never once said christianity is the best way to live, so please don't put words in my mouth.

2. You've still yet to show how religion complicates morality.

quote:Of course it's not present. But basing your existence on an omniscient diety to be reckoned with in the afterlife (which is, by definition, not of this world, i.e.: supernatural) - isn't that some kind of force? Believers use religion as their "force" to guide their intentions, being able to fall back on God for support. Non-believers rely on common sense and basic ethics, having only their own personal accountability to lean on.

It is a force, but that doesn't mean that it would be the overriding force.

Also, who says the religious can't exert common sense and basic ethics?

quote: Originally posted by napolean_complex:

1. I never once said christianity is the best way to live, so please don't put words in my mouth.

You said if someone really believed in your "simple christianity" philosophy, that they'd be almost gauranteed a happy life. And you sounded pretty confident of that. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I just took from that statement that you personally believed that was the best route to go.

(?!)

quote:

2. You've still yet to show how religion complicates morality.

Yes I did. 22nd post down, first paragraph, last portion. That was when I brought up supernatural forces. I never said overriding, though.

quote: Also, who says the religious can't exert common sense and basic ethics?

I certainly didn't. I said non-believers could get by with that, and that alone. The religious require something else in addition to that to keep their morals in check.

Pointing that out isn't making fun of Christians, or trying to prove that they're wrong. It's just showing how the two different lifestyles cope with things on different levels.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

You said if someone really believed in your "simple christianity" philosophy, that they'd be almost gauranteed a happy life. And you sounded pretty confident of that. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I just took from that statement that you personally believed that was the best route to go.

(?!)

If someone really believes in anything then they'll probably be guaranteed a happy life. Do you not agree with this? I haven't been christian in years, and I haven't been to church is many more years, so please don't make retarded assumptions.

quote:Yes I did. 22nd post down, first paragraph, last portion. That was when I brought up supernatural forces. I never said overriding, though.

I should clarify. You've yet to give a good reason for why religion complicates morality. Instead of just taking your word on it, it would be nice to maybe have an example. In every scenario that I can think of, religion does not complicate the process of deciding what is moral, as it still requires inner reflection, common sense, and a base of ethics, the things you say are used by the non-religious. The only added step is thinking about the religious consequences, but that is no complication, as most of the time that extra step will be in agreeance with the individual's original conclusion. In the cases that they don't reach the same conclusion, christianity allows for dissent.

quote:I certainly didn't. I said non-believers could get by with that, and that alone. The religious require something else in addition to that to keep their morals in check.

Pointing that out isn't making fun of Christians, or trying to prove that they're wrong. It's just showing how the two different lifestyles cope with things on different levels.

And they're both NO DIFFERENT in their ability to cope....

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If someone really believes in anything then they'll probably be guaranteed a happy life. Do you not agree with this? I haven't been christian in years, and I haven't been to church is many more years, so please don't make retarded assumptions.

No, I do not agree with it. No one is guaranteed anything in life, as far as happiness goes. But don't call my assumptions retarded just because you disagree with them, especially after flat out asking what they are. You made a thread, stated what you felt would be the ideal life, and asked:

quote: What do you think about this concept? Anyways, what are your thoughts on the subject?

Surely you didn't expect everyone to just high-five you and not have alternative "simple life" suggestions of their own.



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

No, I do not agree with it. No one is guaranteed anything in life, as far as happiness goes. But don't call my assumptions retarded just because you disagree with them, especially after flat out asking what they are. You made a thread, stated what you felt would be the ideal life, and asked:

You can't be this stupid.

I NEVER SAID THAT THIS IS THE IDEAL WAY TO LIVE!!!!

Do you understand now or should I spell it out clearer? Seriously, this can't be that hard to understand. You really cannot be this dense.

Also, how can you say that people who are living their lives in the way that they want to live them won't be happy almost all the time? Living a happy life is basically living the way you want to live. I'd like to know how people living life they way they want to live could not possibly be happy.

quote:Surely you didn't expect everyone to just high-five you and not have alternative "simple life" suggestions of their own.

No, I expected criticism or support on this way of living. I wanted people's opinion on this lifestyle. Provide a decent criticism, and I'll discuss it with you.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I NEVER SAID THIS WAS THE IDEAL WAY TO LIVE!

Relax. Screaming in all caps and calling me stupid isn't necessary. This thread was interesting. I just provided my opinion that I felt it could be done without religion involved, and stated as much.

quote: I'd like to know how people living life they way they want to live could not possibly be happy.

I never said they couldn't possibly be happy. I just said happiness wasn't gauranteed, in either scenario.

quote: I wanted people's opinion on this lifestyle.

And you got mine. Discussion over.

I like the idea of living simply. But I think Catholicism, maybe a more traditional Catholicism, would compliment that life. Thats one of the reasons why the life of a priest or monk seems attractive to me

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Relax. Screaming in all caps and calling me stupid isn't necessary. This thread was interesting. I just provided my opinion that I felt it could be done without religion involved, and stated as much.

If you wouldn't do stupid things, I wouldn't be forced to call you stupid. This is basic cause and effect here.

quote:I never said they couldn't possibly be happy. I just said happiness wasn't gauranteed, in either scenario.

I never said as much either. I said happiness could probably be guaranteed. Again, if you would have read.....

quote:And you got mine. Discussion over.

And thank God for that, because I don't know if my brain could handle talking to you much more...

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If you wouldn't do stupid things, I wouldn't be forced to call you stupid. This is basic cause and effect here.



Nope. What this is here is a difference of opinion, with you resorting to a high-school mentality of "You're stupid" instead of just agreeing to disagree.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

You quoted me as saying something I never said, TWICE!

First you said I think christianity is the ideal, which is far from the truth. Second you quoted me as saying that simple christianity is the ideal way of living, which is also true. This isn't disagreeing, this is you not being able to read.

You listed the same thing twice. And I never misquoted you. "ideal" was my word. And to reiterate what I already addressed about that, I don't think I took it too far out of context:

You said if someone really believed in your "simple christianity" philosophy, that they'd be almost gauranteed a happy life. And you sounded pretty confident of that. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I just took from that statement that you personally believed that was the best route to go.

"But you yourself said that simple Christianity is the best way to live life"

That was a stupid comment based off nothing but stupid assumptions.

I have every right to call you stupid, because you haven't shown anything to suggest the contrary.

quote:The entire philosophy, if truely believed in, can almost guarantee a happy life.

And what from that sentence says I think christianity is the best way to live? NOTHING!

You made a retarded statement based off a retarded assumption. It's as simple as that.

quote:

And what from that sentence says I think christianity is the best way to live? NOTHING!

It wasn't only that sentence. It was the entire nature of the thread. There were several statements that gave me a "retarded" assumption:

quote:

-Considering it purely as a way of living, it seems pretty nice

-Because it would be semi-based off of the bible and the life of Jesus, two pretty important parts of christianity.

-You also have to take into account that simple christianity is more of a way of living your life

-the whole premise of simple christianity is living like christ.

-Well this is based off the life of Christ and the bible

- the simple christians really only use christianity as a way of life

"a way of living, a way of life, a way of life" - several times over! I mean, c'mon! How in the world can you call me stupid, dense and retarded for assuming that you supported that it was the best way to live life? Those are your words, and that was the stance you originally took by the nature of this thread. Others had different opinions, and called it superfluous, and wondered "why even call it Christianity?" and noted how you cherry-picked your way through the Holy Bible deciding which doctrines were important, and which weren't - and I offered my own two cents.

If you disagree with the alternative that I offered, then fine. Say as much. But calling me stupid, dense and retarded for assuming that you believed your Simple Christianity was the best way to live life - after the way you supported it ... Not right.

Edit: Also, suggesting to others that "it can possibly guarantee you happiness" - that is not you advocating it as a desirable, ideal way to live? It reminded me of a subtle, yet calculating hard sales pitch. And you repeatedly deny it.



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-20-2005).]

So me saying it is a good way to live a life means that I think it is the best way of living life? I guess I don't wuite follow your logic, but whatever makes you happy...

If I was christian, or even espoused christian ideals, you may have a case, but since neither is correct, your assumptions were retarded.

I think the buddhism is a great way of living life. Does that mean that I think it's the best way of living life. Of course not. Only a retard could reach that conclusion.

I also never cherry picked doctorine. I even went to the extent of saying that this is not a religion, but rather a way of living life.

"You also have to take into account that simple christianity is more of a way of living your life rather than a set in stone theology with a doctorine. This means that theological and biblical questions are not of the utmost importance in our lives."

Again, if you would read with closer attention these issues wouldn't arise...

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



If I was christian, or even espoused christian ideals, you may have a case, but since neither is correct, your assumptions were retarded.

You keep switching it from christianity to "simple christianity" whenever it suits you, for the purpose of arguing. I am focusing on what you were espousing, which was the notion of "simple christianity".

If you go through the trouble of making a thread about it, explain your philosophy of it, criticize others who offer different alternatives to it (after you specifically ASKED for their opinion)... and if your text on here says that you believe it could guarantee a happy life -

-then what kind of conclusion would you expect to be drawn from all that?

If I were to offer the written opinion of: Drugs are good! Drugs are nice! Drugs can possibly guarantee you happiness in life! ... Then wouldn't you assume that I felt that a drug-induced lifestyle would be the best way to go? You represented it that way, using "simple christianity".

quote:

I also never cherry picked doctorine. I even went to the extent of saying that this is not a religion, but rather a way of living life.

Oh you cherry-picked, alright. And how can you not call it religion when you initially answered Paradise Lost with:

quote:

Does it really matter?

It would actually still be christianity(religion of christ), so I don't see what point there would be in calling it something else unless someone is ashamed of calling themselves a christian(which seems ludicrous in western society).

Christ is a significant part of their lives, and the whole premise of simple christianity is living like christ.

Last time I checked, Christ was a religious entity. And you stated so yourself in that first sentence.

And I hate to break this to you, but simple christianity IS a religion, since religion is defined as a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It's also a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Look it up.

You're either conveniently forgetting what you typed, or worse - you're purposefully saying one thing and meaning another.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

You keep switching it from christianity to "simple christianity" whenever it suits you, for the purpose of arguing. I am focusing on what you were espousing, which was the notion of "simple christianity".

I never espoused the ideals, I brought them up for discussion and said I think they make sense. Look up the definition of espouse. It means to marry or adopt. In no way have I suggested that I have adopted the ideals of simple christianity.

quote:If you go through the trouble of making a thread about it, explain your philosophy of it, criticize others who offer different alternatives to it (after you specifically ASKED for their opinion)... and if your text on here says that you believe it could guarantee a happy life -

Me criticising something does not mean that I agree with the opposite. I often criticise the republican party, but that doesn't mean I support the democratic party. Do you see what I'm getting at? I already said that I believe almost anything, if truely believed in, can guarantee a happy life. I think that Islam can guarantee a happy life is truely believed in, but that doesn't make me muslim. Same for Buddhism, hinduism, judaism, paganism, etc...

quote:If I were to offer the written opinion of: Drugs are good! Drugs are nice! Drugs can possibly guarantee you happiness in life! ... Then wouldn't you assume that I felt that a drug-induced lifestyle would be the best way to go? You represented it that way, using "simple christianity".

I believe that drugs are nice and good, and I've never used them more than once, so I would not make that assumption. I think that guns are great but I've never fired one. I think abortion is nice and I've never had one. You can like something without either believing in it or supporting it. Look at abortion as a perfect example. I like Catholicism and Catholics even though I don't go to Church. I like Israel even though I've never been there. I don't make assumptions, and I don't like it when others make retarded ones about me, especially if it's based off a discussion thread.

quote:Oh you cherry-picked, alright. And how can you not call it religion when you initially answered Paradise Lost with:

I guess I'll repost my initial response yet again...

"You also have to take into account that simple christianity is more of a way of living your life rather than a set in stone theology with a doctorine. This means that theological and biblical questions are not of the utmost importance in our lives."

quote:And I hate to break this to you, but simple christianity IS a religion, since religion is defined as a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It's also a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Look it up.

And for that you would need a doctorine, which there is not present in simple christianity. It's possible to be a simple christian wihtout going to mass. I could call it a faith, but it is in no way a religion.

quote:You're either conveniently forgetting what you typed, or worse - you're purposefully saying one thing and meaning another.

You're either incapable of reading correctly, or worse - you're purposefully acting like a dolt just to agitate me.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:



And I hate to break this to you, but simple christianity IS a religion, since religion is defined as a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It's also a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Look it up.



quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

And for that you would need a doctorine, which there is not present in simple christianity. It's possible to be a simple christian wihtout going to mass. I could call it a faith, but it is in no way a religion.

how is it not a doctrine?

quote:

doctrine:

A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group



[This message has been edited by everything and nothing (edited 09-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napolean_complex:

Me criticising something does not mean that I agree with the opposite. I often criticise the republican party, but that doesn't mean I support the democratic party. Do you see what I'm getting at? I already said that I believe almost anything, if truely believed in, can guarantee a happy life. I think that Islam can guarantee a happy life is truely believed in, but that doesn't make me muslim. Same for Buddhism, hinduism, judaism, paganism, etc...

What you actually believe in and practice is irrelevant. It's you saying simple christianity is based on christianity and the life of christ - and then turning around and saying it is not a religion, nor does it contain any doctrines.

You're taking this as if I'm picking on you for being religious, when in actuality I am pointing out how you are contradicting yourself by what you're saying "in theory". One example being:

quote:

It would actually still be christianity(religion of christ), so I don't see what point there would be in calling it something else

-and then, a handful of posts later, vehemently denying that it could be called a religion. We weren't arguing what you believed in. We were debating on whether or not it was a religion.

When others pointed out that it could be like Buddhism, or Quakerism, you maintained that no, it was more Christianity, based on the life of Christ. WHICH IS RELIGION!

What you actually, personally believe in, I give not one damn about.



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-21-2005).]

The idea of living poorly, simply, and just plain well. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Turn the other cheek. The entire philosophy, if truely believed in, can almost guarantee a happy life.

That is your doctrine.

Because it would be semi-based off of the bible and the life of Jesus, two pretty important parts of christianity.

That is what makes it religion.

As for having to accept all the bible. I don't think that is true. You could practice this just with the new testement, the part of the bible where God is a little more "mellowed out".

This is where you were cherry-picking.

This means that theological and biblical questions are not of the utmost importance in our lives.

This is where you continued to cherry-pick. You essentially are saying: It's Christ-like, and based off the Christian philosophy, but we're going to ignore the Holy Bible and not call it religion.

And for that you would need a doctorine, which there is not present in simple christianity. It's possible to be a simple christian wihtout going to mass. I could call it a faith, but it is in no way a religion.

Plenty of religious people don't actively practice worship such as mass. Why are you so afraid of calling it a religion? (especially after you label it "simple christianity")

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

What you actually believe in and practice is irrelevant. It's you saying simple christianity is based on christianity and the life of christ - and then turning around and saying it is not a religion, nor does it contain any doctrines.

Well it isn't a religion(it's a way of life) and it doesn't have a set in stone doctorine.

quote:-and then, a handful of posts later, vehemently denying that it could be called a religion. We weren't arguing what you believed in. We were debating on whether or not it was a religion.

I mis spoke then. Faith of christ would have been better. Mistake on my part.

quote:When others pointed out that it could be like Buddhism, or Quakerism, you maintained that no, it was more Christianity, based on the life of Christ. WHICH IS RELIGION!

I acknowledged the similarities, but then pointed out the differences between the three. It's based off the bible and the life of christ. It's a turning back to original christianity, minus the religion. I figured that was clear enough.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for your other post.

1. I never denied it having a doctorine, I said it did not have a set in stone doctorine.

2. Basing something off the bible and the life of schrist does not make it religion, especially when it merely serves as just a way of life.

3. That isn't me cherry picking, that is me explaining how you don't have to accept everything in the bible. For me to cherry pick would be me picking out the parts, but that wouldn't be up to anyone in simple christianity, for that task is left up to the individual.

4. Now you're just misconstruing what I said. I already explained how it is not a religion nor how it is cherry picking.

5. BECAUSE IT ISN'T A RELIGION! Why do you insist on calling it something that it isn't?

Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

There is no cause, principle, or system of belief that is held with faith. It is just living life like Jesus. Is this really that hard to understand? I really can't be bothered explaining myself any further, because if you can't get this explanation, then there is no hope for you.

How can you follow the ways of christ without following the religious principles he espoused?

If your going to pick and choose from the teachings of Christ why even say that your following the way Christ?

quote:

Well it isn't a religion(it's a way of life) and it doesn't have a set in stone doctorine.

religion: a set of beliefs, values and practices based on a spiritual leader

napolean_complex: "Because it would be semi-based off of the bible and the life of Jesus, two pretty important parts of christianity."

napolean_complex: "Christ is a significant part of their lives, and the whole premise of simple christianity is living like christ."

Religion IS a way of life.

quote:

I mis spoke then. Faith of christ would have been better. Mistake on my part.

Faith of christ is religion. Christianity is a religion, and it's based on faith in Christ. Therefore, faith in Christ is a religion. Of course it doesn't have to be an organized religion, where mass is attended and there is a sermon being performed. But as long as a spiritual leader (J.C. himself) is the crux of it, it's a religion.

quote:

I acknowledged the similarities, but then pointed out the differences between the three. It's based off the bible and the life of christ. It's a turning back to original christianity, minus the religion. I figured that was clear enough.

Original.Christianity.Is.Religion. If you are turning back to it, you are turning to religion. I can't understand why you're so opposed to calling it what it is. When Paradise Lost originally asked you if you could do it without a reference to Christianity, you said:

quote:

It would actually still be christianity(religion of christ), so I don't see what point there would be in calling it something else unless someone is ashamed of calling themselves a christian(which seems ludicrous in western society).

You made a very good point there. It really does seem ludicrous. It also drove home the fact that it is clearly a religion of Christ.

I say to you: I don't see what point there would be in calling it something else (other than religion) unless someone is ashamed of calling themselves religious.

quote:

I really can't be bothered explaining myself any further, because if you can't get this explanation, then there is no hope for you.

No hope for me, indeed. Because I was hoping you'd bother to explain why you're so hesitant to admit that the idea is a religious one.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

How can you follow the ways of christ without following the religious principles he espoused?

If your going to pick and choose from the teachings of Christ why even say that your following the way Christ?



What religious principles? I'm pretty positive that all his comments on religion concerned Judaism, which isn't the topic here.

I don't know which of the teachings of Christ that these people would not be practicing, so could you enlighten me a little?

They aren't following the ways of Christ, FunkyZombie. They're only claiming to. They would have absolutely no right whatsoever to claim that their lifestyle philosophy was:

quote: Originally posted by napolean_complex

"based on the bible and the life of Jesus, two pretty important parts of christianity"

You see -for reasons unbeknownst to anyone but the threadstarter, practicing this "lifestyle" is somehow NOT a religion, irregardless to the definition.

Go figure that one. And best of luck to you, because as you can see, it makes not one iota of sense.

This is an individualist faith, so I don't think it could ever qualify as a religion when the interpretation is left up to the individual.

If interpretation can only be left up to the individual, does that mean they can pretty much derive from it what suits them, and what doesn't? Is that when they get to pick and choose qualities of Christian life, drawing on whichever doctrine (accepted principle) that feels good to them? They can just pilfer through the holy texts and take heed of only the good parts - like you said, when God is more mellowed out. This "lifestyle" borrows from Christianity, but is quick to argue that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.

I couldn't even argue this if you weren't calling it "simple" christianity. You aren't creating an individualistic faith just by reinventing the nature of Christianity to suit your simplistic lifestyle. You're borrowing from Christianity, and not giving it credit where credit is due as far as their doctrines go.

Why not just say it has nothing at all to do with Jesus or the Bible, since you're maintaining that it has no doctrine and isn't a religion? Two people pointed this out before I did. If it is, in fact, like you said - just a way to simply live your life and do good unto others, then you could safely and confidently suggest that it might possibly (but not in all cases) guarantee happiness and call it a "simple philosophy". Then it could be just a pleasant set of personal ethics one could follow, and ONLY THEN would it not be religious in nature. Then it would be acceptable to most everyone.

Actual Christians could practice it without directly going against the word of God, since it is similar in quality to the life his own son J.C. lived. They could live this way in tandem with their worshipping neither would adversely affect the other. It would be acceptable to atheists because it would be a humanistic way of living without relying on the god-force to help it along, and it would also appeal to the agnostic because it would still have that "haven't made up my mind either way" quality to it, if they so desired.

That is living with moral simplicity. And I think that's what you meant to establish from the very beginning, only you had to complicate it with religion and then contradict yourself by saying it's not religious at all.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

What religious principles? I'm pretty positive that all his comments on religion concerned Judaism, which isn't the topic here.

I don't know which of the teachings of Christ that these people would not be practicing, so could you enlighten me a little?



Oh I don't know maybe the "render unto caesar what is caesar's render unto God what is God's" thing. Or one of the even more blatantly obvious examples the whole "I am the Son of God" thing? Usually in my experience when someone mentions that they're the son of God thats a pretty reliable indicator that they're talking about religion and not just a feelgood new age philosophy to base your life around.

It kind of hard to claim your a christian or that you follow chrisitian philosophy if you don't believe that Jesus is related to God in some manner. So its kind of impossible to seperate the messianic messages of Christ from your beliefs and still claim to be Christian. Kind of defeats the purpose if you know what I mean...

You can believe in God without being part of a religion, and you could believe in Jesus being the son of God without subscribing to a religion.

From what I gathered, this is not a means to an end like modern christian sects are. This falls more under that, if you live a good, happy life you will go to heaven. It's a lot like the early christians I would guess, though not exactly alike.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



The general "rules" -if you will- that he pointed out:"The idea of living poorly, simply, and just plain well. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Turn the other cheek."

Those have been taught before, which was the point being brought forward. The mention of Buddha was merely an example.

That won't do, Rust. As usual, you are contortioning yourself out of a faulty argument... the mention of Buddha was NOT "merely an example", as you yourself said that the teachings of Jesus Christ were the same as those of Buddha.

Furthermore, I would like to see you claim that you read the New Testament in its totality, or else to mention some worthy source, for having distilled out "general rules" of Christ's teachings. To be exact, I think that your "general rules" are a betrayal of Christ's teachings and a very, very poor interpretation of them at best, as it is clear you don't perceive a difference between them and those of Buddha.

quote:Moreover, you would have to accurately describe "meditation" in order to conclude anything. If we compare the limited "meditation" Jesus did then it's obvious it is nothing close to the amount, type and scope of Buddha's.

It is known and obvious that Buddha meditated his way toward illumination/enlightenment, but his was a purely mental/intellectual meditation type - which is not meant to belittle or criticize it in the least, as Buddha is/was the first/only one to offer this way to Mankind. It is only meant to characterize his way, even if unadequately.

Christ's vision of humanity was different. I don't claim to be an expert on Christ or in Christology, but I do know this much.

quote:Furthermore, if you want, let's say that the "exactly" only refered to "Living the life of Christ would essentially be Buddhism..."

That happens to be wrong. Against, this can ony be the result of a very superficial look. At the very least, I would ask you to show why you are claiming this.

quote:P.S. I find it hilarious that you only reply to me, and not to SurahAhriman the one who originally made the statement, just because you hold a childish grudge against me. Pathetic.

It is childish of YOU to want me to have replied to SurahAhriman rather than to you. I have my reasons to reply to you which I don't have to justify.

I think you are usually a cheater in debating.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

And I hate to break this to you, but simple christianity IS a religion, since religion is defined as a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Is THAT the definition of a religion ? If it is, then whatever Jim Jones, Bhagwan Rajneesh/Osho, Krishnamurti, Gandhi, and so many more spiritual leaders taught are each one a religion.

I'd say, look up your definition of religion again.

Besides, "simple Christianity" as I understand from this thread is meant to be something extracted and condensed from Christ's teachings - Christianity for dummies, something like that.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

This is an individualist faith, so I don't think it could ever qualify as a religion when the interpretation is left up to the individual.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt Protestantism leave interpretation up to the individual as well? I think that qualifies as a religion.

If this philosophy is so nonreligious why bother calling it christianity?

See thats the issue we have with what your advocating. If its not religious then why make any mention of christianity at all in its message? If the message is somehow lost because you leave jesus out of it then it should be obvious the statement your making is religious in nature.

There is nothing wrong with what your advocating. It would be nice if a lifestyle like that caught on with Christians. Keyword there is Christians though because the doctrine your espousing is Christian in nature. Nobody other then Christians will practice your philosophy.

If you were to go up to random non-christians saying that all you had to do to live happily was follow the teachings of this man from your holy book its fairly obvious what there response will be.

They'll look at you like you're somekind of deranged Jehovah's witness despite all your assertations to the contrary.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

Is THAT the definition of a religion ? If it is, then whatever Jim Jones, Bhagwan Rajneesh/Osho, Krishnamurti, Gandhi, and so many more spiritual leaders taught are each one a religion.



I agree. It's the spiritual leader that makes it a religion, regardless of how "loose" this leader may be (i.e. jim jones).

Simple Christianity is religious, no matter how "weak" it might be as compared to more serious strains of Christianity.

quote:

I'd say, look up your definition of religion again.

Okay. Here's what I came up with:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

quote:

Besides, "simple Christianity" as I understand from this thread is meant to be something extracted and condensed from Christ's teachings - Christianity for dummies, something like that.

Following Christ's teachings, condensed or not - is following religion. I have to fervently agree with you on the *dummies* comparison. Why would it be so difficult to follow it in full? Why be half-assed?

And like Funky Zombie said, if you're going to be so adamant about calling it a philosophy and not a religion, why borrow so much from Christianity?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

From what I gathered, this is not a means to an end like modern christian sects are. This falls more under that, if you live a good, happy life you will go to heaven.

How is that not a means to an end also? And what, pray tell, is the alternative punishment if the quality of life lived does not merit going to heaven? Do you just die and cease to exist, or do you go to hell? I'm curious as to what the Simple Christian belief would be on that matter.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

quote:

--------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Uncus:

Is THAT the definition of a religion ? If it is, then whatever Jim Jones, Bhagwan Rajneesh/Osho, Krishnamurti, Gandhi, and so many more spiritual leaders taught are each one a religion.

--------------------------------------------

I agree. It's the spiritual leader that makes it a religion, regardless of how "loose" this leader may be (i.e. jim jones).

You agree ??? Needless to say, I tried to show the nonsense of following through with your reasoning. Well, you did.

quote:Simple Christianity is religious, no matter how "weak" it might be as compared to more serious strains of Christianity.

I won't say it is not "religious". It simply is a watered-down version or style or whatever of the original teachings. So : Christianity for dummies, or if you prefer, more adapted to modern life perhaps. - but still diverging from the original teachings.



quote:quote:

--------------------------------------------

I'd say, look up your definition of religion again.

--------------------------------------------

Okay. Here's what I came up with:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As you can observe, there are several definitions, not all really adequate. Particularly the last one, to wit...



quote:quote:

--------------------------------------------

Besides, "simple Christianity" as I understand from this thread is meant to be something extracted and condensed from Christ's teachings - Christianity for dummies, something like that.

--------------------------------------------

Following Christ's teachings, condensed or not - is following religion.

It's "following religion", yes, but as I said, there are different ways of "following religion".

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt Protestantism leave interpretation up to the individual as well? I think that qualifies as a religion.

If this philosophy is so nonreligious why bother calling it christianity?



What sect of protestantism?

It's called christianity because it is based off the life of Christ. Seemed self-evident.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

How is that not a means to an end also? And what, pray tell, is the alternative punishment if the quality of life lived does not merit going to heaven? Do you just die and cease to exist, or do you go to hell? I'm curious as to what the Simple Christian belief would be on that matter.

It wouldn't be just a means to an end because they aren'y living this way just to go to heaven, they're living life this way because they want to live a good life.

Now that you ask, death and what comes after it never came up in my discussions with them, so I can't help you with that question.

quote: Originally posted by Uncus:

You agree ??? Needless to say, I tried to show the nonsense of following through with your reasoning. Well, you did.

Yes, I agreed. I don’t see how comparing it to the other religious sects makes it any less religious. I agreed because I felt it drove home what I was debating on, which was: what makes it a religion. I was glad you brought it up. It shows that no matter how much it appears as a “nonsense religion” (such as jim jones) – it’s still, by definition, religion.

quote:

I won't say it is not "religious".

That’s good. Because it is religious, even though napoleon_complex seems to be in denial of it.

quote:

As you can observe, there are several definitions, not all really adequate.

And what definition would you deem adequate?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

It wouldn't be just a means to an end because they aren'y living this way just to go to heaven, they're living life this way because they want to live a good life.

I can relate to that.

quote: Now that you ask, death and what comes after it never came up in my discussions with them, so I can't help you with that question.

If you ever find out, I'd be curious to know.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

----------------------------------------- quote: Originally posted by Uncus:

You agree ??? Needless to say, I tried to show the nonsense of following through with your reasoning. Well, you did.

---------------------------------------------

Yes, I agreed. I don’t see how comparing it to the other religious sects makes it any less religious. I agreed because I felt it drove home what I was debating on, which was: what makes it a religion. I was glad you brought it up. It shows that no matter how much it appears as a “nonsense religion” (such as jim jones) – it’s still, by definition, religion.

By what definition ? You just defined it as religion yourself, which is a bit too light for my taste. I gave this list to show you that that your definition of a religion was not adequate. It doesn't drive home anything You are replying now that "by definition" - your definition - they are "religion" - which is absolutely arbitrary.

In other words : you just say "they are all religion" and this is your "argument".

quote:--------------------------------------

quote:

I won't say it is not "religious".

---------------------------------------------

That’s good. Because it is religious, even though napoleon_complex seems to be in denial of it.

You can't tell someone he is "in denial" because he disagrees with you, you see ? "Being in denial" is of a whole other order. It has nothing to do with debate. You are not trying to remedy some psychological condition of his, are you ?

And besides, I tend to agree with Napoleon_complex that "simple christianity" as understood here is more of a lifestyle - if a moral and spiritual one - than a religion.

quote:---------------------------------------------

quote:

As you can observe, there are several definitions, not all really adequate.

---------------------------------------------

And what definition would you deem adequate?

Don't know. Sorry, don't have the time for it right now, I have other things to do. You can work it out yourself from your little list.



[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 09-24-2005).]

I worded it (perhaps too harshly) as "being in denial" because initially, he maintained that it was a religion. Later, he maintained that it was NOT a religion. He stated one thing and denied it later on. I'm hardly of the opinion that he is in any kind of skewed 'psychological condition' for believing this way, and should have taken the time to type out: "he said this here, then denied it later on. Poor choice of words on my part.

And just like my perception of the definition of religion doesn't necessarily make that definition absolute to the two of you, neither does your "tending to agree with him" make mine any less significant. I wasn't trying to cancel out his definition because it seemed arbitrary to me. I was trying to come to the understanding of how it could have such strong ties to Christianity yet not be deemed not religious. It was difficult following the gyst of his philosophy with so many contradictions.

Since you made it clear that you don't have the time to point out your beliefs on the subject or my supposed flaws in thinking about it out to me, it appears as though this conversation has come to a close. I can agree to disagree. Can you?

quote:What sect of protestantism?

Exactly my point.

Protestantism is based on the personal interpretation of the Bible. The reason why there are so many sects is because people are free to interpert the Bible as they see fit. Much like in your "philosophy"

So essentially you just recreated Protestantism.

Not exactly. There are doctorines within each esct of protestantism. Some protestant sects are terribly close to Catholicism, some you wouldn't even recognize as christ based.

I don't think any of the large protestant faiths are at all individual based. They have different interpretations, but they aren't really left up to the individual to make that interpretation.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Not exactly. There are doctorines within each esct of protestantism. Some protestant sects are terribly close to Catholicism, some you wouldn't even recognize as christ based.

I don't think any of the large protestant faiths are at all individual based. They have different interpretations, but they aren't really left up to the individual to make that interpretation.

Yes but they were all started by individuals though. The fact that they have grown large and wieldy doesnt change the fact that they are based on adoctrine of individual study and interpretation of the Bible. They all started the same

Some guy interperted the Bible according to his own personal beliefs and started preaching those beliefs. His followers heard his words and felt them to be true and accepted his beliefs. At any time though they can leave the church if they chose and preach their own interpretations.

Some of them obviously do.

Under your system the exact same thing would happen. People would associate themselves with those who interpreted the Christianity in a similar fashion as they do. After a few generations despite the basis on individual interpretation the main doctrines of the group would be accepted as the norm and actual true independant interpretation would fall by the wayside in favor of doctrinal homogenity.

Any independant interpretation would be surpressed in the main branch forcing the same constant schism process Protestantism is known for.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

Yes but they were all started by individuals though. The fact that they have grown large and wieldy doesnt change the fact that they are based on adoctrine of individual study and interpretation of the Bible. They all started the same

Some guy interperted the Bible according to his own personal beliefs and started preaching those beliefs. His followers heard his words and felt them to be true and accepted his beliefs. At any time though they can leave the church if they chose and preach their own interpretations.

Some of them obviously do.

Under your system the exact same thing would happen. People would associate themselves with those who interpreted the Christianity in a similar fashion as they do. After a few generations despite the basis on individual interpretation the main doctrines of the group would be accepted as the norm and actual true independant interpretation would fall by the wayside in favor of doctrinal homogenity.

Any independant interpretation would be surpressed in the main branch forcing the same constant schism process Protestantism is known for.

They were started by individuals who created a doctorine that has been followed by their followers. How is that left up to the individual? In these protestant religions, one individual makes the interpretation and everyone else follows that. In this every bit of interpretation is left up to the individual, which separates it greatly from the protestant religions and from Catholicism.

You're also making way too big of an assumption, because it isn't like the idea of simple christianity is just starting. It started out with the Renaissance humanists, so I think it's safe to say that it won't become clouded by the opinions of just a few idividuals.

Your still not aknowledging the fact that Protestants have the right to individual interpretation of the Bible in Protestantism. Protestantism is an umbrella term for a form of Christianity that believes the word of God can be interpreted by man without the intervetion of a hierarchical priesthood.

There is no test or set of qualifications required to become a protestant preacher. All that is required is a Bible and the will to interpert it.This is where the individual interpretation aspect comes in. Any man can declare himself a preacher and make his way in the world as such.

Newsflash:

The Renaissance Humanist movement got it's fledgling start in spite of Christianity. They gave up midieval supernaturalism for independent thought, and even though the first Humanists were more concerned with the aesthetic rather than than the scientific, their main goal was to separate this life from the afterlife, and make a clear distinction between the two.

It was quite a long while before they deserted the idea of the afterlife altogether. Most of the early humanists were duped into swapping Christianity for some strain of mysticism, and not until Niccolo Machiavelli did humanism reach it's full secular potential, deserting the religious ideologies completely. Interesting to note though - when he died, he reverted back to Christianity and had a Christian burial, despite the pagan views he carried with him throughout his political career.

Maybe simple christianity IS like the midieval humanist movement: chomping at the bit to declare "independent thought" as it's backbone, but still keeping one hand on the Holy Bible in order to keep a good enough standing with God to get one foot into heaven, should that be the final outcome after death. Kind of a weak insurance policy to carry with you into the supposed afterlife.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

Your still not aknowledging the fact that Protestants have the right to individual interpretation of the Bible in Protestantism. Protestantism is an umbrella term for a form of Christianity that believes the word of God can be interpreted by man without the intervetion of a hierarchical priesthood.

There is no test or set of qualifications required to become a protestant preacher. All that is required is a Bible and the will to interpert it.This is where the individual interpretation aspect comes in. Any man can declare himself a preacher and make his way in the world as such.

But they still follow a doctorine, and the people who are listening to this preacher are not acting as individuals. That is what separates the two. In Catholicism and protestantism you listen to someone else's interpretation, and in simple christianity you forumlate your own interpretation. You don't have ANYONE tell you how to interpret ANYTHING.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Newsflash:

The Renaissance Humanist movement got it's fledgling start in spite of Christianity. They gave up midieval supernaturalism for independent thought, and even though the first Humanists were more concerned with the aesthetic rather than than the scientific, their main goal was to separate this life from the afterlife, and make a clear distinction between the two.

It was quite a long while before they deserted the idea of the afterlife altogether. Most of the early humanists were duped into swapping Christianity for some strain of mysticism, and not until Niccolo Machiavelli did humanism reach it's full secular potential, deserting the religious ideologies completely. Interesting to note though - when he died, he reverted back to Christianity and had a Christian burial, despite the pagan views he carried with him throughout his political career.

Maybe simple christianity IS like the midieval humanist movement: chomping at the bit to declare "independent thought" as it's backbone, but still keeping one hand on the Holy Bible in order to keep a good enough standing with God to get one foot into heaven, should that be the final outcome after death. Kind of a weak insurance policy to carry with you into the supposed afterlife.



Think Erasmus.

I'm talking moer about Northern humanism, not Italian humanism.

I would consider Erasmus more of a Bible Evangelist than a Humanist.

That's odd, considering he is widely recognized as the father of northern humanism.

What leads you to believe that Erasmus advocated biblical evangelism when he advocated independent thought?

He was an ex-roman catholic who edited the Old Testament. His being the father of Northern Humanism is (widely)debatable, although some credit him with being among the first to successfully challenge the church with free thought. His method of "liberating" theology sure was a big step back during the Renaissance, but by today's standards he is far from a Humanist. Religious reformer, maybe?

(Consider that when he died, he was closer to being an anabaptist than anything. Follow that link to the reformed Protestants of that time and BAM! you're right back where Funky Zombie left off)



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-25-2005).]

He was a humanist then, and he would be a humanist today. The only thing that separates him from most of the others is that he happens to be a theologian.

If you examine his writings you'll see that he expresses a lot of the principles held by these people, like individual interpretation of the bible.

He'd have to shake his ties to the supernatural to be considered a Humanist today. Which is a moot point, since he's been pushing up daisies for four centuries now.

I agree that now we're just deviating. The point is this concept has been around for centuries, and if it hasn't been dominated by one individual or a group of individuals already, then I think it's safe to say that it won't be dominated by one individual or group of individuals in either the near or distant future.

All quarrels aside, this has been an interesting thread.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I worded it (perhaps too harshly) as "being in denial" because initially, he maintained that it was a religion. Later, he maintained that it was NOT a religion. He stated one thing and denied it later on. I'm hardly of the opinion that he is in any kind of skewed 'psychological condition' for believing this way, and should have taken the time to type out: "he said this here, then denied it later on. Poor choice of words on my part.

And just like my perception of the definition of religion doesn't necessarily make that definition absolute to the two of you, neither does your "tending to agree with him" make mine any less significant. I wasn't trying to cancel out his definition because it seemed arbitrary to me. I was trying to come to the understanding of how it could have such strong ties to Christianity yet not be deemed not religious. It was difficult following the gyst of his philosophy with so many contradictions.

Since you made it clear that you don't have the time to point out your beliefs on the subject or my supposed flaws in thinking about it out to me, it appears as though this conversation has come to a close. I can agree to disagree. Can you?



I can certainly agree that you are suggesting to agree to disagree. Besides, I suggested that you check out that list of yours another time, I think a more adequate definition of religion should there. That is, if you found that list in a dictionary.

Uncus:

The definitions came from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

If you feel it's inadequate, feel free to contact them. Sounded pretty thorough to me.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

But they still follow a doctorine, and the people who are listening to this preacher are not acting as individuals. That is what separates the two. In Catholicism and protestantism you listen to someone else's interpretation, and in simple christianity you forumlate your own interpretation. You don't have ANYONE tell you how to interpret ANYTHING.

What I'm saying though is that the concept of Protestantism doesn't tell you how to interpert anything either. Its only when the base concept of Protestantism breaks down into it's individual sects that it demonstrates the repressive aspects you refer to.

That isn't all you argued though. Protestantism started off that way, yes, but it did not remain that way. You went beyond that though with this:

"Under your system the exact same thing would happen. People would associate themselves with those who interpreted the Christianity in a similar fashion as they do. After a few generations despite the basis on individual interpretation the main doctrines of the group would be accepted as the norm and actual true independant interpretation would fall by the wayside in favor of doctrinal homogenity.

Any independant interpretation would be surpressed in the main branch forcing the same constant schism process Protestantism is known for."

That was my point of contention.

You know honestly I actually lost track of why I was comparing your concept to Protestantism for a minute there. Luckily as late as it is for me I managed to remember. I was trying to point out how your concept is in fact a religion because it shares the same concept as basic protestantism (independant study and interpretation of Christianity). While in the individual sects independant interpretation is discouraged at it's root form that is what Protestantism is all about. Since we can all agree that Protestanism is a religion I feel it's safe to say that your concept is a religion by extension because it shares the same basic concept.

This whole argument is pointless though because it's not like I don't agree with you. Your concept is in my opinion the ideal form of Christianity and If I where forced to follow Christianity your form is the form I would prefer. My one point of contention is your argument that it isn't a religion. I feel we should call a spade a spade and just face up to the fact that what your advocating is basically a variant of Christianity.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Uncus:

The definitions came from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

http: //dictiona ry.referen ce.com/search?q=religion (http: //dictiona ry.referen ce.com/sea rch?q=reli gion)

If you feel it's inadequate, feel free to contact them. Sounded pretty thorough to me.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



What I was saying was that you should check out your list of definitions again, as I think some other definitions than the one you took could be more adequate.

But you realize if the one off the list you are suggesting is "a more adequate definition"- then it would be essentially still defining it as a religion.

Why, thank you. This is what I've been trying to impress upon your boy NP.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)