Skip to main content

Would makes a Christian a Christian?

What do you love and hate most about the religion?

(State whether you are Christian or not along with your answer)
<marquee>Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.</marquee> If you miss me at the back of the bus You can't find me nowhere Come on over to the front of the bus I'll be riding up there -Seeger <marquee>Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.</marquee> Don't Talk. DONATE!
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by DivineJoy:
A Christian is a believer of the God of Heaven, who follows the traditions of men. They still struggle with the teaching of the Holy Bible, but at least they have the right God and are trying. Smile


lol 20

The right God? That's like telling someone that taking a particular highway from where they live to a particular destination is wrong when you happen to live somewhere they don't and happen to have to use another. Exlusionists kill me, they are so miopic.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by DivineJoy:
A Christian is a believer of the God of Heaven, who follows the traditions of men. They still struggle with the teaching of the Holy Bible, but at least they have the right God and are trying. Smile

lol 20
The right God? That's like telling someone that taking a particular highway from where they live to a particular destination is wrong when you happen to live somewhere they don't and happen to have to use another. Exlusionists kill me, they are so miopic.


Whatever, whatever. I don't push my agenda on you. I let YOU be myopic.
quote:
Originally posted by DivineJoy:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by DivineJoy:
A Christian is a believer of the God of Heaven, who follows the traditions of men. They still struggle with the teaching of the Holy Bible, but at least they have the right God and are trying. Smile

lol 20
The right God? That's like telling someone that taking a particular highway from where they live to a particular destination is wrong when you happen to live somewhere they don't and happen to have to use another. Exlusionists kill me, they are so miopic.


Whatever, whatever. I don't push my agenda on you. I let YOU be myopic.


Anyone publically claiming(you are on a forum) the 'right path' or the 'right God' is pushing an agenda, simply by BEING exclusionary. What cultural base is exclusionary? Who went around the world saying they had the only 'right way' to do damn near everything(particularly religion)? If that doesn't demonstrate and agenda(Exclusivist cultural/religious imperialism)...I don't know what does. If you are following in these exclusionary footsteps... then, if the shoe fits...

If you would have said, the right god for me... I would have said nothing. Exclusivity tends to make one miopic. You can't see outside yourself.
Christianity is the broad term applied to the doctrines and values which its adherents claim to have originated from pagan sources, and which have been propagated ever since it was first organized in the year 300 AD in Rome. It has always been a great influence on the lives of millions of people all over the world.

Politics as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as: factional scheming within a group.

What, you may ask, does politics have to do with Christianity? If you closely examine its history and heroes, you will find facts saying that this fabricated religion is nothing but politics. It has been the vehicle that enables the evil one (Azazl) to pursue and reach his political aims. The proof is that everywhere the doctrine of Christianity has been propagated, its recipients became the subjects of that nation which sponsored the teachers. From that point onward, every facet of their lives was governed by and according to the whims of that nation.
X-tianity is a re-fried child-like version of spirituality that was culled from a much older parent-adult source.

I don't know what makes a Christian a Christian; however, I do know that a X-tian is brain-washed into never thinking nor asking pertinent questions that inherently affect body, mind and soul.

I do not hate X-tians. I distrust the structural organizations that make up its lie-based belief system.
quote:
Originally posted by DivineJoy:
A Christian is a believer of the God of Heaven, who follows the traditions of men. They still struggle with the teaching of the Holy Bible, but at least they have the right God and are trying. Smile

I am Nazarite. I love my relationship with the Creator and I am grateful to know him.


WOW!!!!!

Okay, number one, I am NOT Christian any longer bow, for one of many reasons, yeah. Roll Eyes I respect the religion, just like I respect just about anything people find the will to pour their faith into, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with it's tenets. But as individuals around me, many Christians do the preaching without practicing thing, the hypocrite thing, the I'm-going-to-Heaven-and-Lord-have-mercy-on-my-soul-you are-going-straight-to-Hell-oh-yes-you-are thing.

Growing up we were taught that to be Christian meant to believe in the "Lord" Jesus Christ as our "Saviour", and that he died for our sins, and that if we went to church and prayed and did good deeds that we would go to Heaven, and everybody else would burn, baby burn. Smile
Black Christianity is a spiritual adjustment that Africans made in order to unify; so as to overcome the social/physical/mental/spiritual discomfort. I believe our demise came as a result of our disunity.

I believe Dr. Iyanla Vanzant said it best when she said that we adjust to the level of deficiency that is around us.

I say that because the more we open our eyes, the less comfortable we are with our current leading spiritual system.

Black Christianity itself is going to have to adjust to the comfort level of blacks.
If one's religion holds that the truth is that his God is the one true god, so what if that's exclusionary? Who is not? Athiesm itself is exclusionary. The first person is saying that his god(s) is the true God and other god worshippers and nonbelievers. The second is saying that the god-believers are all mistaken and that there is no god(s). Neither is inclusive of the the other's belief of the truth.

Exclusion is often used as a dager in our culture, but "exclusionary" shouldn't automatically be taken as insult or compliment--Especially when it comes to religion.

Each religion believes that it holds the truth, and "truth" itself is exclusionary. It doesn't mean truth is right or truth is wrong. Truth just is.

It's ridiculous to believe that someone else's belief of the must include your own in order to be inclusive. As ridiculous as telling Iris, who is sure that she sees black on the uni-colored blot, that she must say that she sees yellow because that is what Mohammed sees along with the pink that Shmuley sees and the nothing the Alexis sees.

All of them might be wrong, but only one could be right.

While it can argued whether the blot is truely black, yellow, pink, or nonexistant, it is ridiculous to make anyone believe that he or she should pretend to see what everyone else sees for the sake of inclusion.

Truth excludes falsities.
quote:
Originally posted by ma'am:
If one's religion holds that the truth is that his God is the one true god, so what if that's exclusionary? Who is not? Athiesm itself is exclusionary. The first person is saying that his god(s) is the true God and other god worshippers and nonbelievers. The second is saying that the god-believers are all mistaken and that there is no god(s). Neither is inclusive of the the other's belief of the truth.

Exclusion is often used as a dager in our culture, but "exclusionary" shouldn't automatically be taken as insult or compliment--Especially when it comes to religion.

Each religion believes that it holds the truth, and "truth" itself is exclusionary. It doesn't mean truth is right or truth is wrong. Truth just is.

It's ridiculous to believe that someone else's belief of the must include your own in order to be inclusive. As ridiculous as telling Iris, who is sure that she sees black on the uni-colored blot, that she must say that she sees yellow because that is what Mohammed sees along with the pink that Shmuley sees and the nothing the Alexis sees.

All of them might be wrong, but only one could be right.

While it can argued whether the blot is truely black, yellow, pink, or nonexistant, it is ridiculous to make anyone believe that he or she should pretend to see what everyone else sees for the sake of inclusion.

Truth excludes falsities.

But not all religions are exclusionary, indeed, not all forms of Christianity are strictly exclusivist. Some would even argue that this is a characteristic of so-called ethical monotheisms (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

For henotheistic or polytheistic religions, there is not a problem with a plurality of religious traditions or truth claims. You can have your truth and I can have mine. I believe that it was the Nigerian author, Chinua Achebe who said that no practitioner of indigenous West African traditions would ever think of go up to someone attempting them to change their religion.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by ma'am:
If one's religion holds that the truth is that his God is the one true god, so what if that's exclusionary? Who is not? Athiesm itself is exclusionary. The first person is saying that his god(s) is the true God and other god worshippers and nonbelievers. The second is saying that the god-believers are all mistaken and that there is no god(s). Neither is inclusive of the the other's belief of the truth.

Exclusion is often used as a dager in our culture, but "exclusionary" shouldn't automatically be taken as insult or compliment--Especially when it comes to religion.

Each religion believes that it holds the truth, and "truth" itself is exclusionary. It doesn't mean truth is right or truth is wrong. Truth just is.

It's ridiculous to believe that someone else's belief of the must include your own in order to be inclusive. As ridiculous as telling Iris, who is sure that she sees black on the uni-colored blot, that she must say that she sees yellow because that is what Mohammed sees along with the pink that Shmuley sees and the nothing the Alexis sees.

All of them might be wrong, but only one could be right.

While it can argued whether the blot is truely black, yellow, pink, or nonexistant, it is ridiculous to make anyone believe that he or she should pretend to see what everyone else sees for the sake of inclusion.

Truth excludes falsities.

But not all religions are exclusionary, indeed, not all forms of Christianity are strictly exclusivist. Some would even argue that this is a characteristic of so-called ethical monotheisms (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

For henotheistic or polytheistic religions, there is not a problem with a plurality of religious traditions or truth claims. You can have your truth and I can have mine. I believe that it was the Nigerian author, Chinua Achebe who said that no practitioner of indigenous West African traditions would ever think of go up to someone attempting them to change their religion.


I deleted a paragraph about some exceptions like Universalists. Because, on one hand, they are very inclusive, but that's only because the truths they hold excludes the truths of others. Like, they are inclusive in that their ideology says that all will receive salvation, but they are exclusive in that their ideology rejects that there is only one true path to salvation.

They aren't saying that it is true that there are multiple paths and it is true that there is one path.

It's like the pink and yellow analogy.
quote:
Originally posted by ma'am:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by ma'am:
If one's religion holds that the truth is that his God is the one true god, so what if that's exclusionary? Who is not? Athiesm itself is exclusionary. The first person is saying that his god(s) is the true God and other god worshippers and nonbelievers. The second is saying that the god-believers are all mistaken and that there is no god(s). Neither is inclusive of the the other's belief of the truth.

Exclusion is often used as a dager in our culture, but "exclusionary" shouldn't automatically be taken as insult or compliment--Especially when it comes to religion.

Each religion believes that it holds the truth, and "truth" itself is exclusionary. It doesn't mean truth is right or truth is wrong. Truth just is.

It's ridiculous to believe that someone else's belief of the must include your own in order to be inclusive. As ridiculous as telling Iris, who is sure that she sees black on the uni-colored blot, that she must say that she sees yellow because that is what Mohammed sees along with the pink that Shmuley sees and the nothing the Alexis sees.

All of them might be wrong, but only one could be right.

While it can argued whether the blot is truely black, yellow, pink, or nonexistant, it is ridiculous to make anyone believe that he or she should pretend to see what everyone else sees for the sake of inclusion.

Truth excludes falsities.

But not all religions are exclusionary, indeed, not all forms of Christianity are strictly exclusivist. Some would even argue that this is a characteristic of so-called ethical monotheisms (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

For henotheistic or polytheistic religions, there is not a problem with a plurality of religious traditions or truth claims. You can have your truth and I can have mine. I believe that it was the Nigerian author, Chinua Achebe who said that no practitioner of indigenous West African traditions would ever think of go up to someone attempting them to change their religion.


I deleted a paragraph about some exceptions like Universalists. Because, on one hand, they are very inclusive, but that's only because the truths they hold excludes the truths of others. Like, they are inclusive in that their ideology says that all will receive salvation, but they are exclusive in that their ideology rejects that there is only one true path to salvation.

They aren't saying that it is true that there are multiple paths and it is true that there is one path.

It's like the pink and yellow analogy.

What is the pink and yellow analogy?
I have no idea what makes a Christian a Christian. sck If I had to guess, I suppose I would say believing in Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings??

I don't really know (remember) enough about the religion to love it or hate it. But, I don't like that so many of my people are lead astray by so many unscrupulous pastors of it.

No, I am not a Christian.
Maybe if Africans came up with their own colonizing mechanism in the past we wouldn't be in this predicament. Maybe if we colonized ourselves in the past and developed a unifying religion, we would be one of the world super-powers.

So is empirialism evil?

I think not, tribal dissension and spiritual disunity will always cause more destruction than unity.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
What is the pink and yellow analogy?


quote:
Originally posted by ma'am:
Each religion believes that it holds the truth, and "truth" itself is exclusionary. It doesn't mean truth is right or truth is wrong. Truth just is.

It's ridiculous to believe that someone else's belief of the must include your own in order to be inclusive. As ridiculous as telling Iris, who is sure that she sees black on the uni-colored blot, that she must say that she sees yellow because that is what Mohammed sees along with the pink that Shmuley sees and the nothing the Alexis sees.

All of them might be wrong, but only one could be right.

While it can argued whether the blot is truely black, yellow, pink, or nonexistant, it is ridiculous to make anyone believe that he or she should pretend to see what everyone else sees for the sake of inclusion.

Truth excludes falsities.
quote:
Originally posted by ma'am:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by ma'am:
If one's religion holds that the truth is that his God is the one true god, so what if that's exclusionary? Who is not? Athiesm itself is exclusionary. The first person is saying that his god(s) is the true God and other god worshippers and nonbelievers. The second is saying that the god-believers are all mistaken and that there is no god(s). Neither is inclusive of the the other's belief of the truth.

Exclusion is often used as a dager in our culture, but "exclusionary" shouldn't automatically be taken as insult or compliment--Especially when it comes to religion.

Each religion believes that it holds the truth, and "truth" itself is exclusionary. It doesn't mean truth is right or truth is wrong. Truth just is.

It's ridiculous to believe that someone else's belief of the must include your own in order to be inclusive. As ridiculous as telling Iris, who is sure that she sees black on the uni-colored blot, that she must say that she sees yellow because that is what Mohammed sees along with the pink that Shmuley sees and the nothing the Alexis sees.

All of them might be wrong, but only one could be right.

While it can argued whether the blot is truely black, yellow, pink, or nonexistant, it is ridiculous to make anyone believe that he or she should pretend to see what everyone else sees for the sake of inclusion.

Truth excludes falsities.

But not all religions are exclusionary, indeed, not all forms of Christianity are strictly exclusivist. Some would even argue that this is a characteristic of so-called ethical monotheisms (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

For henotheistic or polytheistic religions, there is not a problem with a plurality of religious traditions or truth claims. You can have your truth and I can have mine. I believe that it was the Nigerian author, Chinua Achebe who said that no practitioner of indigenous West African traditions would ever think of go up to someone attempting them to change their religion.


I deleted a paragraph about some exceptions like Universalists. Because, on one hand, they are very inclusive, but that's only because the truths they hold excludes the truths of others. Like, they are inclusive in that their ideology says that all will receive salvation, but they are exclusive in that their ideology rejects that there is only one true path to salvation.

They aren't saying that it is true that there are multiple paths and it is true that there is one path.

It's like the pink and yellow analogy.

I should have emphasized that I think that the term inclusive is problematic. It is for this reason that I tend to emphasize the distinctions between exclusivist-exceptionalist forms of religion and pluralistic orientations.

A definition that I often call upon is that given by Diana L. Eck, Harvard professor and director of the Pluralism Project.
***************************************************************************************************************************
What is Pluralism?

The plurality of religious traditions and cultures has come to characterize every part of the world today. But what is pluralism? Here are four points to begin our thinking:

* First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies.
* Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.
* Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another.
* Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the "table" will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table -- with one's commitments.

"”Diana L. Eck
Christianity is ignorance.The word ignorance means to ignore the facts, however, when you ignore the facts, you breed beliefs; and that's just what they (religious teachers) have, all belief and no facts. When you believe in something, you are accepting things without knowing. To break the spell of ignorance or belief, you must have knowledge: knowledge of the root of any subject.
The people of old overstood how the language was shaped, and how it grew because they knew the roots. Then evil people set in to rip the plant from its root like goats (the symbol of Sama'EL) rip plants from the root, to kill the crop.
We, I hope, are not so gullible as to think that we could've continued divided into our on little tribes, believing in our own various religions, breeding and breathing peacfully. The races who unified (by whatever means) are still standing strong (i.e. whites, asians) and the races who didn't unify are scarce (i.e. blacks, and anything with native- attached to it).

Complacency killed us. Wanting to "just be" weakened our senses.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:

Besides afrikans of the past didn't need a unifying religion. Just space and respect among themselves.


Enough space and respect, so that whites/arabs/asians could come in for the easy pickings.

I'm not saying that Christianity should be the forefront of any Pan-africanist movement. But I believe the only other way to really unify is to devote ourselves to some sort of positive philosophical seculuralism. Yet, blacks are spiritual, so I don't see that happening.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
We, I hope, are not so gullible as to think that we could've continued divided into our on little tribes, believing in our own various religions, breeding and breathing peacfully. The races who unified (by whatever means) are still standing strong (i.e. whites, asians) and the races who didn't unify are scarce (i.e. blacks, and anything with native- attached to it).

Complacency killed us. Wanting to "just be" weakened our senses.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:

Besides afrikans of the past didn't need a unifying religion. Just space and respect among themselves.


Enough space and respect, so that whites/arabs/asians could come in for the easy pickings.

I'm not saying that Christianity should be the forefront of any Pan-africanist movement. But I believe the only other way to really unify is to devote ourselves to some sort of positive philosophical seculuralism. Yet, blacks are spiritual, so I don't see that happening.


With all that said, I take you agree that empiralism is [a neccessary] evil with regard to unifying black folks on a religious level?

Complacency killed who and when? Complacency with regard to what exactly?

As for the other groups comming through for the "easy pickings" afrika was on it's last leg with regard to prosparity and cultural dominance. History tells us that every dog has its day. Besides, half of human history was over before thoughs other culture groups intervened with any great significance.

I find it that Afrika was more "tired" than complacent.
quote:
Orignially posted by Raptor:
As for the other groups comming through for the "easy pickings" afrika was on it's last leg with regard to prosparity and cultural dominance. History tells us that every dog has its day. Besides, half of human history was over before thoughs other culture groups intervened with any great significance.


Good point.

But couldn't we benefit from some sort of unifying principle? What is, or should be, our common denominator? And no I don't mean denomination... (it isn't implied)
I could swear than Pan Africanism is being 'suggested'...OMG! Eek... Razz Wink

What a strange title for it to 'pop up' under...

A good 'unifying' principle for African people is that were are all African, and are oppressed, and exploited worldwide because of white patriarchal supremacy, reguardless of what religion/spiritual system we practice.

'Asia' isn't 'unified' under any specific religion, just certain sections of it are unfied, and not because of religion. One could even argue that China got organized under authoritarian atheism... There is a large religious diversity in Asia. Hinduism/Islam(and all it's sects)/Sikhism/Confucianism/Buddhism/Shinto/Taoism/Jainism/Judaism/Christianity...So I don't think 'Asia' is a good example of religion being an underlying cause for political unification.

Oh, and we weren't 'easy pickings' either. We fought like hell, we just lost to superior weapons technology...which happened WORLDWIDE. We were not the only people colinized. What we are lacking is organization. But personally, I don't see religion or any form of 'imperialism' being a/the desirable answer to our dilema.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×