Pontiff (in Off-topic)

Pontiff. Pontifical.

The Pope.

Pontiff.

Sue me, Holy See. I dare you.

Since when are words referring to the pope TM/(C)?

Sut is just pontificating.

No, I'm _P_ontificating. Like The Pope. Like him himself. Pope. Pontiff. Pope-like. Downright Papal.

I need to make a t-shirt that just says "got Pope?" on it. If anyone gives me grief, I'll say it used to say "got Rope?" (because I love rope, but the little leg fell off the "R".

Next up? I'll trademark the word "Word."

Word.

Why do I think Sut might be adding to his beer wall right now?

nov:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/25-12-2009/111400-pope_copyright-0

...and I guess it just means the name of the Pope himself, so....

Pope Benedict XVI! And I'm not paying!

I have no idea what is going on here right now.

Then look at the link directly above your post. :)

Explains it all.

...that was supposed to be me replying

OB =

Worst.

Multi.

Ever!

What a crock of poo.

So he's a hypocrite as well.

This all sounds like a joke to me. I have no respect for the Pope to begin with, but this seems too far out there even for the Vatican.

You are right in every way, LB.

Maybe now the atheist sign at the capitol makes more sense? *smile* Though, I'd actually bet atheists of that caliber wouldn't even resort to pointing out how awful this is -- their belief doesn't even require a believer to screw up. I really like that consistency in the atheist standpoint.

Pope.

Papal.

Benedict sucks. Even the Pope. Regardless or Roman numeral.

Businesses have a duty to defend their property. *stifled guffaw*

Not all religions are as hypocritical and unbending.

Not all Christians are this way either....

All blanket statements are true.

That then begs the question of "When is a Christian not a Christian?" ;)

I don't get this thread.

That's on you.

The "Christians" in this case are Catholics.
+1 nov!

Which denomination is the correct Christian demonination? ;)

I mean, every individual denomination can't all be Christian at the same time, can they. When they each have widely varying 'rules' as to what actually makes you Christian, and what the Christian God actually is. ;)

(And beleiving 'a' God made the world doesn't default you to being a Christian. Just a monotheist!)

And Sute, be careful;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_pope

;)

Also, I feel sorry for all those with the surname 'Pope'. Sorry, you're now in copyright infringment with the Vatican. Here's a legal order to get you to change your family name.

If you won't do it, the Holy See reserves the right to choose a new surname for you...

;)

GL, I define "Christian" (and was taught as such in Catholic school) as "living as Christ would". In other words, simply put, being like Christ. makes sense, seeing as how "Christ" is the root word of "Christian".

Any definition beyond that is on its own, and I don't think any definition beyond that (if even that) would have hard (i.e. non-human-based interpretation) support from the Bible.

So, no, by that definition there does not have to be one "right" version of Christian.

I agree with you there. But, not soooo much on the definition.

I don't see why they are doing this.. unless it's for the same reason Scientology enforces it's copyrights, to prevent criticism, which is kind of messed up in the first place.

Ah, I love vauge, open ended rules. ;)

How *would* Christ live? Isn't that set out in the Bible?

And if I live the way Christ would have differently to you (as he can't have lived his life in two different ways!) who's right?

Titan, would you make the definition any more specific? As soon as you add anything specific, then that's it -- you're going to have conflict, aren't you?

I just found what appears to be a fairly even-keeled religious tolerance site, and their definition of Christianity as as follows:

"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe that they follow Yeshua of Nazareth's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) teachings as they understand them to be."

(By the way, this site isn't saying Christianity is the only game in town -- the above definition is just from their "Christianity" section...)

Does that definition resonate more with you, Titan? If not, can you elaborate on why not?

FYI, that web site can be found at:

http://www.religioustolerance.org

I can't think of anything more critical in religion than tolerance, just so you know where I'm calling from...

That's pretty on site with what I'd say, my definition wouldn't be as wordy. Give me a few hours and I'll come up with a good definition.

GL, the whole point of a generic definition is that everyone is right.

That is, as long as folks are tolerant of others. There is no "right way" that needs to be enforced, because when one is tolerant of another's beliefs, there's nothing to enforce in the first place.

I know where you are coming from (playing a bit of a devil's advocate, perhaps?), but I happen to have my own side-thoughts on being a Christian, and the first rule is to not force your beliefs on others. In other words, if one does force beliefs, thereby being intolerant of others, one is just about the farthest thing from Christian one can be. Because Jesus never said "Follow me or I am going to kill you." That sort of zeal was added by humans, later. Jesus laid out what one needs to do to get to heaven, etc., mainly based on the concept of love. I also believe he taught free will in his Bible passages, though that is definitely a point where interpretations differ.

And anything I get from the Bible (not a whole lot these days, but it's not a bad read), I get from the New Testament (since that's where Jesus is). That's an important part of the "Christ" in "Christian" -- Christ is only physically in the New Testament. So, I don't always understand Christians who get the bulk of their thoughts from the Old Testament, since Christ doesn't reside there much.

ALL of this (in my view) considers the Bible to simply be a book. One could just as easily call oneself an Aragornian, saying their belief system is based on living as Aragorn would live. I am entirely tolerant of that way of life (even if it would seem a bit silly to me). For an Aragornian, I would understand that Aragorn is their central figure, and that the "Lord of the Rings" is their spiritual tome. I see no problem with that.

Sorry, that got long -- I'm on lunch and got bored. *smile*

Hehehehe. ;)

Had a busy day, and tired tonight, more tomorrow!

Specific versus generic. ;)

At the most generic, I suppose all any Religion needs to define itself is the single belief in the existence of their God. Now this can be totally generic (some sort of supernatural being exists that created everything) to ultra specific.

Christianity has drifted away from the generic end of the spectrum, moving from generic monotheism to a specific single God. And as such has defined itself. This definition is (supposedly) totally contained within the Bible. From the name of God, his commandments, to his rules passed down to us through his son on how to live as a follower.

At the very basic, that Jesus laid out what you need to do to get into heaven (And be a 'true' follower), means there are some things you can't do. And we get more specific.

All this is compounded by the nature of the 'rules' Christians are supposed to follow, leaving a lot (and some would call this intentional) open to personal interpretation, as you mention above.


But there is a "right way". If you don't follow it, you don't get into Heaven, and you aren't a Christian.

Personal interpretation further muddies the waters. Two Christians hold a different interpretation of a section of Christianities rules. Both live their lives, confident in belief, but living in two distinctly separate ways. When the time comes to be judged, they can't both have been following the 'right' path, so at least one of them is doomed to an eternity of non Christian afterlife, and wasn't really a 'Christian' while they were living.

This is highlighted by the different denominations of Christianity, who by just coexisting can't all be the "right way".

While at its most generic, Christianity is simply belief in the Christian God, this belief has a structured and specific definition that must be followed.

;)

I hope this all makes sense and doesn't ramble too much! And isn't going too off topic on the ludicrous notion the Vatican can copyright 'Pope'.

Out of all the definitions for Christianity I've read here, I haven't seen anyone mention Jesus dying on the cross to bury our sins.

The way to recieve the Holy Spirit into your heart and to be viewed as blameless in the eyes of God is to believe that Jesus, the Son of God, died on the cross for the sins, past, present, and future, of the human race.
Once you set your heart on that belief and put your faith in God's gift of His only Son, then the Holy Spirit will come into your heart, and God will no longer see you as a sinful human being.

There is no way that we can be perfect, while alive.
Just putting our faith in Jesus's sacrifice is not going to make one perfect. It is not by man's works that salvation is recieved.
To define Christianity by how one acts is to doom everyone!
Who knows us better than God?
Why would he make our only chance at salvation be impossible to obtain?
There is no way that anyone would make it to Heaven unless there was a way that was fool-proof, because we are all fools!

I felt I had to write this, but if I'm wrong to put my beliefs before you in an uncompromising manner, then that is due to my foolish and sinful nature as a human being.
If you have any questions, please CM me.

Humanists FTW !

The Human Fund!

Ok, sorry I'm so late. Definition of a Christian: Someone who has accepted Jesus Christ in the hearts as their savior and confesses with their tongue their belief and faith in him.




If you're speaking about a "right way" of living, then not all denominations of Christianity believe this. Those who do I believe don't read the Bible. Doing the above thing I mention in the definition is the only required to get into heaven. The "doing the right thing" part should come naturally afterward.

You can (and many have in the past)


And still live an utterly evil and immoral life (killing, persecution, etc). Sometimes even in Gods name.

I'd really hope they wouldn't be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven after they are Judged...

As an aside, how relevant are the 10 commandments?

Those who have truly accepted Christ as their savior wouldn't do this. This is why it's up to God to judge people, not to humans.

I don't know who you believe is saying this, or if you are mainly speaking toward what you don't like about some organized Christian religions. I do not believe what you state above. There is no "right way", and nothing heavenly (God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, saints, angels, etc.) even said there was one, exact way of living. The Bible lists some biggies:

-- Ten Commandments
-- Beautitudes
-- Jesus overall lessons, based mainly on love.
-- Jesus' salvation (thanks, Joel)

But these rules are just like any rule. There is the letter of the law and the spirit (pardon the Holy pun) of the law. That means there is no one right way. Anyone who says there is, is:

1. Human (yes, I believe this to be true even for the Pope).
2. Not God.
3. Therefore, immaterial.



Two people can choose different paths, and still both go to heaven (if you go in for that kind of thing). There is no absolutely prescribed path to reach the pearly gates (and be let in). I know some people think that, but that's not what I'm trying to discuss, anyway.

If you are going to bother with the whole "God thing" at all, you have to realize that the judgment He will pass has nothing at all to do with the human interpretation of the rules here on earth. In other words (again, only if you go in for this type of thing), you can't really understand what God will do when you reach heaven. All you can do is your best, and hope that God's omniscient omnipresence tells the right tale. In fact, "hope" is the wrong word to use -- God can't "get it wrong", He's God.

That's why I keep saying, you go in for it or you don't.

If you believe God is God, then you've nothing to worry about, even if you can't understand it. You will be judged accurately. Internally, consistently, perfectly, individually, and intimately judged.

And if you don't believe in God, then discussions of this sort are just purely philosophical in nature. In that case, all you should care about is making sure religion isn't used to help humans bonk each other here on earth.

That's why tolerance, due to it's inherent passivity, is key. It works just fine for both scenarios. No one's right, no one's wrong, and nothing needs to be enforced here on earth. By the time it matters, if you believe it, it is in God's hands, and he cannot make mistakes. Just do your best.

Titan, that definition is way too specific for me -- and yet vague at the same time (that's the whole problem, in my eyes):

-- Define "accepted".
-- Define "in the hearts"
-- Define "confesses"
-- Define "belief and faith"

Because I just found a way to be the perfect Christian, by your definition:

Stab myself, resignedly, in the heart with a spike having a blessed Jesus statue as the handle while reciting "I love and believe in Jesus" as long as I remain conscious.

One way ticket to salvation?

One of my favorites charities during this Festivus season!

Sut: see what I responded to GL.

in their hearts is what my definition should read. (and my definition is very similar to Joel's)

:) I've been arguing that for as long as I've been discussing the nature of the soul.

By definition, the Holy Bible is Gods words, written by him, through Human agents (Anything less, and the Bible becomes purely a written work of fiction by Man, and joins the Lord of the Rings above). The Christian God is defined to be Perfect, while Humans are flawed. Applying flawed human interpretation to the perfect word of God will always produce a flawed reasoning.

But this is probably something for a different topic. (By the way, I'm enjoying this immensely, and in no way trying to belittle anyone's personal faith or beliefs. If you'd like to let this topic die, I'm happy to move onto other things. ;) )



Then why do you even need to believe? What difference does it make if two identical people lived identical lives. One believing in the Christian God, and the other not.

Not wanting to obfuscate this topic in back and forth circular quoting, Iﾒll just ask what relation you think the Bible has to the Christian Religion, and in what form Christianity would exist without it.

But back to general versus specific.

Are we all Christians? How do we categorize who is? Anyone who believes in the Christian God (Heart and soul, as mentioned above)? What is the Christian God we all believe in?

Is a Satanist actually a Christian? By extrapolation of their beliefs, they too believe in the existence of the Christian God, so would believe themselves judged by him. And if we can't comprehend how we are supposed to live, we can't expect Satanists to be 'doing it wrong' or be punished for whatever they do when they are finally judged.

Do Heaven and Hell exist? Do they have any relation to our lives at all? Is there anything we can actually do to influence which one we end up in at the end?

;)

I don't think stabbing oneself in the heart is particularly evil, but I suppose I can divine what you mean from your response to GL... *smile*

I'm mainly trying to point out that the more specific one makes one's definition of "Christian", the more likely it is that folks are going to argue over it, pass judgment, etc. Of course, if no one ever did that (no good Christian should ever pass man-made judgment, for example), it would be an example of tolerance, rendering my point moot. I'm just sort of pessimistic when it comes to human ignorance, cruelty, and stupidity, hence my tendency to seek solace in less specific definitions. Sometimes it seems to me that folks WANT to be very specific in the rules they make (regardless if the rules are actually necessary) just so they can point at others and say, "you're doing that wrong."

(Not saying anyone has done anything remotely like that here, except for maybe the Pope and the Holy See, which started the thread in the first place. *smile*)

Just for the record GL, most Christians don't believe this.

Actually, let's make that, "most people that call themselves Christians" don't even believe that.

(my quote)

(what Titan said)

Say what? Most Christians don't believe in God, don't believe God is infallible, and don't believe His judgment is supreme and accurate?

You lost me here, or at least pretty much entirely misunderstood what I was saying there... What you've "nothing to worry about" doesn't mean you'll get into heaven no matter what. I never said that. I mean, if you do your best under your own interpretation of God, the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus, there is no single mis-step that will suddenly send you to Hell. I wrote what I wrote above in response to GL saying two Christians doing different things can't both go to heaven. They can.

...or, do you really believe only the folks of your particular Christian denomination are going to heaven? If that is the case, then I have been completely mis-reading your very sensible, even-metered responses, and I'll probably have to curtail my responses...

(I won't even get into what "most Christians believe"...seriously, you think you know what most Christians believe? Did you take a poll, or do you just know "most Christians"? What I said above stems directly from what I was taught in Catholic school. Roman Catholics represent quite a few Christians.)

That's the whole basis for Eve and the Apple and Hell though, isn't it. ;)

It's an inherant part of Chirstianity, you cannot escape from. Don't do exactly what you're told, and you get punished for it.

It's like "Thou shall not kill". Very specific. And absoultly impossible to keep to.

You can't kill each other, ok. But this would also include killing animals, plats, insects, germs, etc.

;)

Didn't see your second post, Titan, before I posted above.

Still, I don't know how you know the mind of "most people calling themself Christians," and I'm still not sure I understand what said Christians would take issue with on what I said.

Like coming to the conclusion that you must emulate Cain, and offer up a sibling to God.

Surely there must be actions we can take that will damn us.

Ok... I'll make this simple. Pretty much anyone who calls themselves a Christian does not believe that simply believing in God is good enough. For example, Jews believe in God.

Don't worry, that's God's job.

It's not an inherent part of Christianity as I define it GL, and the Adam/Eve story is in the Old Testament (so it holds relatively little water for me).

Jesus taught love, not rules. He taught beautitudes, not Commandments. There's a reason His testimony is called "New," and there's a reason His teachings can be affecting even to someone who does not believe in God at all.

For more context on where I'm coming from, I believe in the individual, and that works both ways. I don't really go in for trite little comments (not that you've said, but that I must have heard dozens of times once I hit college) like, "I'm a recovering Catholic" or "religion = guilt". If you're recovering, or feeling guilty all the time, that's on you. I understand that children don't always have a choice on what they are taught or how rules are enforced, but that goes for a lot of things beyond religion. People are responsible for what they do and what they believe, so words like "escape" have no bearing, in my opinion. If one wants out, then go. There's nothing to escape from.

My point exactly. Last I checked, God isn't a user on Carnage Blender.

If he is, he's totally squandering His NUB.

(^ I'm lost, how does that relate?)

Some relevant scripture:


Romans 3:


9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."[c]
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."[d]
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."[e]
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[f]
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."[g]
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[h]

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunishedﾗ 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Thanks for making it simple -- clearly I'm just being dense. :\

"Faith alone" vs. "faith and good works" is an age old debate, and is a big reason behind the Reformation. Martin Luther was more of the "faith alone" line of thought, as are many Lutherans today (that's just one denomination I know of).

But maybe that is not what you were saying, because maybe I didn't make clear what I was saying. *smile*

I was brought up Catholic, so was taught that crazy thing about Jesus and God being the same Thing (throw the Holy Spirit in there, too!) When I say "believing in God" or "that whole God thing", I mean the whole works. God, Jesus, heaven, etc.

And many, many Christians believe that faith (believing) alone is enough to gain the Kingdom of Heaven.

But what are they beliving in? ;)

Entry into Heaven. Ok, what is Heaven? If it's as described in the bible, then there's Hell. And the same place decribiing those includes how to get into both.

I think i'm starting to ramble on now, what I'm trying to get at is while Faith alone might be enough, how do you know what it is you are supposed to have Faith in?

Oh yes yes yes... ok, you said God and I got lost I guess. Yeah, I'm not Catholic, but I do believe in Christ and God being the same being, but others do not. That's why I said that just believing in God wasn't good enough. Here are some verses as to why I'm not Catholic:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9)

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

They said therefore to Him, what must we do, that we may work the works of God?
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent." (John 6:28-29)

Titan,

You said:

I said:

You said:

I was agreeing. If it is anyone's job to divine the mind of a Christian, or "most Christians", it's God's.

And since he isn't on CB, I was wondering why further up this thread someone was making assertions as to what most Christians may or may not believe. That was you.

I'm all for leaving that up to God. That means I probably shouldn't be seeing it stated here, by a human, especially a human clearly then stating that this is God's job, not work for human-kind.

Grr... I mean others as other religions do not.

When I think of Christians, I think of what Christians should believe, and I mean there is a little in between here and there arguments on deeds versus belief. But, basically I mean belief in Christ and trying to work for what he believed. That is all I ever tried to say.

Must resist urge to pay an Admin to rename you! ;)

I'm pretty sure btw, that God would have no problem with me saying that most Christians believe in Christ.

Titan, I've never met a Catholic who would have any problem with any of those Bible verses, so I'm not sure I follow.

The Reformation took place due to many of the things the Catholic church was calling "good works" at the time (to go along with "the faith"). A big one: indulgences -- paying to have your sins removed. Terrible stuff, totally man-made, a complete abuse of religious power.

They don't do that any more. And if you want to consider "good works" to simply be prayer and good behavior (like you said, if you believe, you'll do that anyway), there's not a Catholic church in the world that wouldn't let you into Mass.

In other words, the "faith alone" vs. "faith and good works" debate is just about the silliest division running, and when it did cause a lot of trouble, it was based on historical issues that are no longer the case. The Bible verses you quote would be considered some of the most beautiful sentiments expressed in the New Testament by the Catholic Church, too.

Well great then.

I'm pretty sure as well, since that is what I was saying too, as we've cleared up.

But one can never be too sure. Careful use of superlatives (most, all, many, everyone, etc.) is something we should all remain vigilant about, regardless of discussion topic. *smile*

I don't remember saying anything about most Christians btw either, except that they don't believe in your one statement (that was b/c I misread your statement); and that not all Christians are hypocrites. (This I still half stand-by, b/c I'm sure we're all hypocrites sometimes.)

Now that is definitely something I can find common ground on. I'm a hypocrite almost every day, sometimes twice before breakfast! *smile*