TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
Regional Religious Bias
search forum titles
google site search
Wiki Headlines
We've switched servers and will be updating the old code over the next couple months, meaning that several things might break. Please report issues here.
Total posts: [120]  1  2  3  4
5

Regional Religious Bias:

NCC - 1701
Okay, while I've had my fill and then some of religious discussions, I'd like to address something.

As Lawyerdude (or was it Derelict) pointed out, nobody is trying to be arrogant when they declare "A real Christian wouldn't (or would) do this or that."

In any sufficiently large group of people, there's going to be significant variance in how much it's members subscribe to the group's parameters. Being a Christian, or a black person, or an American means a ton of different things to different people.

But.....there are certain core qualities; qualities that are a basic condition for being in said group.

In the case of Christianity, we can argue about whether we should eating pork, or whether rap music is evil, or even whether homosexuality is wrong. But not causing harm to people is basic. If you can't keep that straight, then in my very humble opinion, you might need to check exactly what faith you claim to be following.
It was an honor
 102 Carciofus, Fri, 8th Jun '12 7:31:10 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
But on the other hand, "you should not cause harm to other people" is hardly a sentiment which is exclusive to Christianity.

My personal opinion is that the term "Christian" should apply to all movements that recognize that Jesus is the Messiah, and which claim (no matter how correctly or incorrectly) to be based on His teachings.

But if somebody does not fit this definition and wants still to call himself Christian, I won't begrudge that — I see little use in quarreling about definitions.

edited 8th Jun '12 7:34:27 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

 103 Drunk Girlfriend, Fri, 8th Jun '12 7:40:52 AM from Castle Geekhaven
Not to mention that there are a multitude of sects that have different definitions of "harm".
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
 104 Oh So Into Cats, Fri, 8th Jun '12 7:51:26 AM from The Sand Wastes Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
I am mostly just tired of people claiming that the violence in Christianity stems from Judaism while still saying it's less violent because they're not beholden unto the old laws. It tastes a bit too much like having your cake and eating it too. I do however agree that the definition of Christian should include accepting Christ as the messiah. Christians don't have a monopoly on not harming people. If they did, taking the Hippocratic Oath would be conversion.

Eidolonomics: ~60.4k/100,000 words
 105 Carciofus, Fri, 8th Jun '12 7:58:26 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
I don't know if I would say that Christianity, today, is less violent that Judaism today. As a matter of fact, I'd say that the opposite is true, probably — I know that some ultraconservative branches of Judaism can get pretty oppressive, but mainstream Judaism as a whole is not at all interested in stonings and so on (and neither is mainstream Christianity, of course.)

edited 8th Jun '12 8:00:30 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

NCC - 1701
For the record, I've never suggested not causing harm is exclusive to Christians.
It was an honor
 107 Drunk Girlfriend, Fri, 8th Jun '12 9:22:23 AM from Castle Geekhaven
[up] No, of course not. I personally believe that the moral compass is pretty consistent regardless of religious inclination, but certain things can cause it to lose it's calibration, as it were.

To expand on what I was saying earlier about different sects having different ideas as to what constitutes "harm":

Most Christians I know would think that it's very Christ-like to step in and keep people from getting hurt, yes? Most of them would also agree that offing a serial killer to keep him from killing again is morally just.

However, if that same idea gets tweaked just a little bit, you wind up with the Christians that believe that, say, the George Tiller murder was morally correct.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
 108 Carciofus, Fri, 8th Jun '12 9:23:07 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
[up][up]I acknowledge that. Still, what you wrote seemed to imply that if you intentionally cause harm, then you are not a Christian. I don't know if this was your intended meaning; but it seems to me that if we accept this condition, then we charge too much the meaning of the term "Christian".

I agree of course that intentionally causing harm is in contrast with the Christian message; but eh, if we counted as Christian only those who follow the Christian message to perfection then I think that there existed only one Christian ever (or maybe two, if we want to count Mary) tongue

edited 8th Jun '12 9:23:24 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

 109 Lawyerdude, Fri, 8th Jun '12 9:37:45 AM from my secret moon base
Citizen
Bertrand Russell, the Atheist and Philosopher posited the very question, "What is a Christian" in his essay "Why I am not a Christian". He runs through several possible examples, and points out that, up through the Reformation, it was easy to say who was a Christian or not because there was only one Catholic (universal) Church. But nowadays it isn't because anybody can call themselves a Christian and there's no central authority who can say who is or who isn't.

Heck, there are Atheists today who identify themselves as "Atheist Christians", who embrace the moral teachings of Jesus but reject claims of divinity. It's a sort of Jesus Was Way Cool, but he wasn't God.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
 110 Carciofus, Fri, 8th Jun '12 9:41:55 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
Points out that, up through the Reformation, it was easy to say who was a Christian or not because there was only one Catholic (universal) Church.
What about the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Or the Oriental Orthodox Churches (they are different)? Or the Assyrian Church? Or any number of "heretical" movements?

Paul's letters already talk about "divisions" within Christianity, and try to get people to avoid factionalism as much as possible. The first division within Christianity happened literally decades after Jesus' death, when some took the position that Christians had to obey the Torah and the Law in full and others took the position that this was not the case.

edited 8th Jun '12 9:44:53 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

 111 De Marquis, Fri, 8th Jun '12 10:18:53 AM from Hell, USA Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Who Am I?
"No, but it may make you an undiscerning hobbyist who can't tell the Cthulhu mythos from actual occultism."

Puhlease! I am well aware that the Necronomicon they published in paperback form is just a watered down version of the Golden Dawn system. Since I believe in the efficacy of neither, it makes no matter to me, but to some of the people who have been described, it must seem the very essence of satanic evil.

"However, if that same idea gets tweaked just a little bit, you wind up with the Christians that believe that, say, the George Tiller murder was morally correct."

This is what happens when someone tries to use one single moral principle to guide all their life decisions- they end up becoming an extremist, and losing all sense of balance.
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
 112 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 8th Jun '12 10:24:19 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
My rule of thumb for deciding what's "Christian" is generally the Nicene Creed. It's broadly inclusive, well defined, and historically grounded. In addition, the general public already tends to be dubious about the "Christian" status of non-Nicene sects & churches; this means that credal criteria and the man in the street's working definitions match up tolerably well.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 113 Derelict Vessel, Fri, 8th Jun '12 10:34:57 AM from the Ocean Blue
Flying Dutchman
[up] Though I wouldn't say that they line up intentionally. I imagine most Americans, being lax Christians at best, don't even know the Nicene Creed (though perhaps they'd be able to say it along with you from rote memory depending on when and where they grew up).
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

 114 Drunk Girlfriend, Fri, 8th Jun '12 10:40:36 AM from Castle Geekhaven
There's also a difference between the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. Some denominations use one, but not the other.

One example I can think of off the top of my head is that Methodists use the Apostle's creed instead.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
 115 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 8th Jun '12 10:42:49 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up][up]True. I just meant that since general public perceptions and the Creed line up roughly, that makes the latter all the more useful a yardstick if we're looking for solid criteria.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 116 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 8th Jun '12 10:45:39 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up][up]The Apostle's Creed is a condensed version of the full Nicene. I believe high Protestant churches that use a Creed in their liturgies may go for one or the other, depending on how formal they lean, and how interested they are in cutting to the chase.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
speaking as a former seventh day adventist, I can safely say my church never once ever mentioned the Nicene Creed and I never even heard the name until after I had long since left the church.
Going Forth!
 118 Jhimmibhob, Sat, 9th Jun '12 7:19:31 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
If I understand correctly, SDAs are opposed to the formulation of any creeds at all, contending that only the Bible is an adequate source of doctrine. That's the default stance in many Evangelical and low-church denominations—I was raised Pentecostal, and never heard of "creeds" until I was an adult.

On the other hand, the Creed is perfectly consistent with the doctrines of the latter two: I don't think you'll find an evangelical church that'd disagree with the Nicene creed if it was presented to them (except for understandable reservations about the definition/scope of "catholic"). SDA sources, though, tend to get dodgy about many of the Creed's definitions, and don't even like to say whether it's consistent with their understanding of doctrine. So it's hard to get enough out of them to say whether their teachings are classically Christian in the fullest sense.

edited 9th Jun '12 7:19:42 AM by Jhimmibhob

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
[up]

In my experience with their documents..they tend to cleave to a somewhat fundamentalist/young earth creationist bent.

edited 9th Jun '12 9:36:11 AM by Midgetsnowman

Going Forth!
 120 Jhimmibhob, Sat, 9th Jun '12 9:43:06 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
Yeah. Plenty of fundamentalist-inclined churches and individuals do. However, that's not inherently inconsistent with the creeds; I'm a little more puzzled about their take on Trinitarianism and the nature of the Persons who comprise it. That's highly relevant to the creeds, and to the ordinary working definition of orthodox Christianity. Not that they require my stamp of approval; I'm just curious.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 120
 1  2  3  4
5


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy