The Difference between a Christian and a Fanatic

[BlueScope]

Well, the discussion in the recruitment topic was finally muted (though I'd liked to discuss that out there), but I'll open up this thread for the special purposethe title already said ...

First of all, I'm not a Christian and I'm not believing in anything 'supernatural', like beings in the nothing that can create everything... I'm a realist, an atheist and a guy who thinks about what he believes and what not, and not simply thrust a book containing a story someone made up...


Now for the topic... I already met some people that wore about a thousand crosses around their necks and almost try to start a fight when you made some ironic - though not any mean - joke about anything the Christian religion is about. I know people phasing out if I refer to some guy saying 'the one with the Jesus-beard'. Man, would I offend Hitler if I say someone got a Hitler beard? Did Jesus was ashamed of his own beard? Well, most likely, he didn't had a shaver, but as the son of a wise being called 'god', he could order one from heaven, couldn't he? :D

Well, there're also Christians who are just Christians. They do believe in the story (I don't say bible because it's a work of fiction... and all Christians should realize that) and are open for a controverse discussion. The can laugh about a non-offensive joke and still believe in god.

I'd call the second group Christians, and the above one Fanatics, simple thing. If one can't accept that another person has another mentality than oneself and start arguing and fighting, he or she should *** -_-

Your opinion to that?

 

[King Moogle]

Now for the topic... I already met some people that wore about a thousand crosses around their necks and almost try to start a fight when you made some ironic - though not any mean - joke about anything the Christian religion is about.

I think it's judging to say whether or not that's right. If you were gay and AceJP began cracking jokes about it , the odds are you'd be offended. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It seems to me like it's a bit futile to commit your entire life to a preference that dies when you die as opposed to a supernatural figure who you believe is there for eternity, but that's just my oddball logic.

Quite frankly, there is nothing-- and I mean nothing-- more serious than eternity and God. This is because if God exists then everything is important solely based on its relationship to God, and if God does not exist then it has singlehandedly deceived more than any political or subversive organization. That's serious as a heartattack. Regardless of whether or not God exists, I don't believe it to be unfair to say that if he does, it is the single most important topic in existance. That is likely why some people are offended.

Editted for a grammar correction.

 

[ryanwh]

Deceit is a strong word. It deceived many people into altruism, something completely contrary to the logical human condition. Helping someone with nothing tangiable to gain yourself? Well if there's a heaven, they're rewarded, but if there isnt, they spend their lives selflessly helping others. That's a bad thing? I dont think so.

 

[Cortez]

I don't really believe in any god or gods, although I was raised to do so.

I think that if people can hold onto and believe in something like Christ, then that's great for them. I'm almost envious of people who can do something like that. Me, I just can't do it.

It's different when people take it too seriously. If you're a religious person, and have your beliefs, that's incredible. But if you take it too far, and can't find humor in it, then there's something wrong (did anyone see that episode of Trading Spouses- gargoyles, psychics!)

There's a difference between joking about a religious figure and mocking one. For example, the South Park episode where Jesus and Santa sing together about Christmas is absolutely hilarious. Then other episodes, where Jesus guns down Arabs, isn't (well, it is...but on a totally different level).

 

[kosterz]

If one can't accept that another person has another mentality than oneself and start arguing and fighting, he or she should ***

Although I understand what you say there, you were being this way, in a sense. You are saying that "the bible is fiction" and you are implying that it is a fact, though you show no proof that it is. I respect you for your opinion on your athiesm, but I do not respect you for your igorance. Good ideas, though, and I share the belief of the idea between Christian and Fanatic.

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

Although I understand what you say there, you were being this way, in a sense. You are saying that "the bible is fiction" and you are implying that it is a fact, though you show no proof that it is. I respect you for your opinion on your athiesm, but I do not respect you for your igorance.

How, exactly, is stating that the Bible is a work of fiction ignorant?

Honestly, if you are a member of ANY religion other than Christianity, then from a logical standpoint, you MUST think that, at the very least, a considerable portion of the Bible is a work of fiction... with, or without proof. Similarly, a Christian MUST think the same of ANY other religion's holy books.


Of course, demanding proof that the Bible is fiction is actually the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. See, it's the burden of the person claiming that the Bible is correct and accurate to prove that claim... NOT the burden of the person who simply says: "It's not true." -- ie, fiction.

If you want people to think that the Bible is true, then prove it-- because the default position from a logical standpoint is that it is fiction, simply because there's no proof that it's true.



On a completely unrelated note:

Man, would I offend Hitler if I say someone got a Hitler beard?

Hitler didn't have a beard. He had a moustache... which he stole from Charlie Chaplin.


PS: BlueScope, you might be interested in reading the book "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. It's about the nature of fanaticism and is quite an interesting read.

 

[Ariel]

Well, you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe.

I'm a cathoolic, but i don't judge people because they are gay or athiest.
I have respect for evey human being in this world, just don't disrespect me.

Bluescope, some christians are good, but some are judging you(and they do not know your a good person.)I believe your a cool person Bluescope, and all you want is to get through life.

I believe in god because I made a choice to do so.
No one knows all the world secrets in this world.

 

[Exodus]

@blackstaticwolf Not nessacarily (sp), for instance the jewish torahs are the old testiment of the Bible. And supposedly the quran is just an addition from their profet Mohamed. (sorry if I spelled lots of stuff wrong, I'm dependent on Word now lol.) So basicly many of the most dominant religions of the world sprout from the same basic premise.

Now saying that the Bible IS fiction on a given assumption IS ignorant. In fact science is begining to actually prove certain things in the Bible. I'm sorry I don't have any links at the moment but I'll try to find something. Now if someone in the future saw a biography in the future and assumed it was fiction that would be ignorant as well. Please consider all the facts before making sweeping generalizations.
Now on to the main subject. Yes there are religious zealots who think anything said about religion (joke or otherwise) should be punished by death. I for one am a follower of christ and I would like to say that I'm not one of those. I can take a good joke. I, however, am offended when someone writes on a desk, and I quote, "Fuck Jesus". (I actually saw that today) It just sucks how so many "Christians" are making a bad name for the rest of us. Some of us maybe even most of us are actually good people.

P.S. If I sound condesending at all I'm sorry, didn't mean to.

 

[Faeroe]

Fanatic= http://www.godhatesamerica.com

Christian= A person whom believes in a certain god and a certain book (most of it, maybe.) Strives to help; and isn't ignorant, hypocritical, or judgemental.



Not Christian, I'll tell you. I've had to tell my friends I was atheist. Some left me, some didn't care.

 

[WeAreSuperhero]

I'd consider the bible more a metaphor, actually. I can't believe that you're actually meant to believe in the actual devil, with the horns ect, but more the idea that evil walks with us and tempts us. The world wasn't really created in seven days, its not only 2000 years old, that is the explanation based on evidence from 2000 years ago or less. Meanwhile, since then, people have discovered that the earth is billions of years old. If the bible were to be written today, it would have said that the earth was millions of years old.

 

[Silas]

Well, there're also Christians who are just Christians. They do believe in the story (I don't say bible because it's a work of fiction... and all Christians should realize that)

Quoted from

http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-truth.htm
The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered so far (compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered thus far). The printing press wasn't invented until the 1450's, but we have hand-written copies of the Old Testament dating back to the 200's BC. Remarkably, these ancient manuscripts are nearly identical to the Bible we read today.

Clement of Rome was martyred in 100 AD. In his writings, he quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Titus. Clement's quotes totally correspond with the Bible we read today. In fact, even if we lost all of the 5,300 early Greek manuscripts, all of the 10,000 Latin vulgates, and all of the 9,300 other ancient manuscripts, we would be able to reconstruct all but 11 verses of the New Testament from the writings of the early Church leaders who quoted from them extensively. We have over 36,000 preserved quotes from the New Testament. In a nutshell, the Bible stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, and it's overall reliability is without question!

You state that the bible is a work of fiction? How did you come ot this conclusion? All history we have we know from written works. The bible is a written work, with more preserved copies than an other writing, ever. You may say, oh well, they were changed. Then how can you trust any writing? If you wish to apply this logic, you are not being intellectual; you are simply trying to explain away something you do not believe in. This is not a valid for of logic.

If one can't accept that another person has another mentality than oneself and start arguing and fighting, he or she should ***

Why then do you attack Christians?

I'm a realist, an atheist and a guy who thinks about what he believes and what not, and not simply thrust a book containing a story someone made up...

They do believe in the story (I don't say bible because it's a work of fiction... and all Christians should realize that)

If you were gay and AceJP began cracking jokes about it

http://www.rmxp.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6694&page=2

It's different when people take it too seriously. If you're a religious person, and have your beliefs, that's incredible. But if you take it too far, and can't find humor in it, then there's something wrong

If you had a sister who was raped; and you sincerely thought rape was horrible. Would you laugh at rape jokes?

If you want people to think that the Bible is true, then prove it-- because the default position from a logical standpoint is that it is fiction, simply because there's no proof that it's true.

Books and books have been written on this subject; it’s called Apologetics. Here are some links to get you started if you interested in finding facts.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/is-the-bible-true-c.htm
http://www.carm.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bible.asp

Fanatic= http://www.godhatesamerica.com

That’s’ like the jacked up “Christians” who protested military funerals.
But you cant let them shape your view. Just like you can’t let the Muslims who are suicide bombers shape your views on all Muslims.

I'd consider the bible more a metaphor, actually. I can't believe that you're actually meant to believe in the actual devil, with the horns ect, but more the idea that evil walks with us and tempts us. The world wasn't really created in seven days, its not only 2000 years old, that is the explanation based on evidence from 2000 years ago or less. Meanwhile, since then, people have discovered that the earth is billions of years old. If the bible were to be written today, it would have said that the earth was millions of years old.

Evil does walk and tempt us. But Satan is an actual being. He is a created being
Mark 1:13 “and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.”
1 Corinthians 7:5 “Do not deprive each other [your spouse] except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” <<<Theres a good reason for being a christain, your wife can never have a "headache" ^_^
Revelation 12:7-9 “7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”

 

[Andy6000]

I'm tempted to ask only one thing: What the hell are you babbling about? I'd like to ask you to not speak in such absolutes, completely denying anyone else's point of view being possible, even plausible.

"That’s’ like the jacked up “Christians” who protested military funerals.
But you cant let them shape your view. Just like you can’t let the Muslims who are suicide bombers shape your views on all Muslims.

Also, the topic title is " The Difference between a Christian and a Fanatic" thus we must connect that that link is to show the 'fanatic' side of such. The NON-normal side that we DON'T think is everyone.

 

[Silas]

lol
I just read the posts and saw alot of things states without any backing. I didn't comment on much, rather let other people do the talking. Sue me?

As far as my opinion on fanatic/non-fanatic I was mearly stating that we cant let the fanatics shape our view of the non-fanatics.
Shit- I thought this was where we post our thoughts. Thanks for listening:satan-cheezy:

 

[Wings]

You state that the bible is a work of fiction? How did you come ot this conclusion? All history we have we know from written works. The bible is a written work, with more preserved copies than an other writing, ever. You may say, oh well, they were changed. Then how can you trust any writing? If you wish to apply this logic, you are not being intellectual; you are simply trying to explain away something you do not believe in. This is not a valid for of logic.?

The Bible may be considered to be an socially accepted historical document due to the massive amounts of people that believe in corresponding religions. However this does not mean it has basis for factual claims. Words and phrases from any written piece can be twisted into many different definitions...so once again, there is no irrefutable evidence proving the Bible's historical accuracy (even if you decide to start quoting passages.)

Now onto the matter at hand. I for one am not Christian (Druidic pagan) but being raised by a family who is deep rooted in traditional Christian/Catholic beliefs, the tendency to pick up on most views and thoughts comes naturally to me.

Unfortunately however, most people who claim to be "true" Christians (in this case) that I seem to have come across do not fit their own ideals, nor do they stay true to their morals. To them it is more of a question whether or not they are able to stick their noses in on someone else's business even if it means becoming borderline offencive or demeaning. Mind you I'm not saying that everyone in these religions act the same way. I'm just merely pointing out these radical groups and other hypocrites who claim to follow their faith and the "word of god", but in turn really do not (like the Westboro Baptist Church for instance).

Everyone has the right to be able to voice their opinion regardless of religious preferences/organisation/sexual preference. But when these opinions lead to demoralising actions (such as these funeral protests), there is a line to be drawn.

Here are a few passages that maybe everyone should take into heart (and some quotes are from the Bible even if I don't believe in it. Wise words nonetheless).

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."

"He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."

Finally one quote from www.godhatesamerica.com. This quote isn't intended to be serious...but should give you a good chuckle. It was taken from the FAQ section of the website, so please bear with me.

You sound like the Taliban, are you associated with them?

2,475...WBC prays for it to be 244,475!!!

We aren't associated with any violent group of degenerates that thinks killing people is a good thing.[/FONT]

 

[Silas]

Black beard- im not a chirstian, I just like to research peoples opinions before I argue any side.
In this case, it seemed the christian side was the underdog, so I figured i'd look into it.
I was Wiccan for awhile, but eventually left that when nature didnt respond to me.
I am a spiritual person, in the light that I feel intensely connected to my surroundings and whatever is "out there"
So, dont get me misunderstood. Last thing I need is enemies my first day here!

Could you rephrase the bible quotes you posted? I havent spoken old english for awhile and am a little rusty

 

[Wings]

I was Wiccan for awhile, but eventually left that when nature didnt respond to me.

I'm not Wiccan Common misconception.

Could you rephrase the bible quotes you posted? I havent spoken old english for awhile and am a little rusty

The first quote simply means, "Do not judge unless you be judged also." It's kind of like...um...you are no better to judge someone else because you have also done wrong in the past. Judging people in this fashion just makes you just as bad as the sinner.

The second quote shouldn't be too hard to understand.

 

[Silas]

Cast the first stone?

I know they are different.
Wiccans believe in Pan the horned god (probably where christians got the pic for the devil ,although the devil is never described as horned, other than the dragon) and the goddess.
Not sure what druids are all about. Are they like the celts? I'll go wikepdia it
Meh, off topic.

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

@blackstaticwolf Not nessacarily (sp), for instance the jewish torahs are the old testiment of the Bible. And supposedly the quran is just an addition from their profet Mohamed. (sorry if I spelled lots of stuff wrong, I'm dependent on Word now lol.) So basicly many of the most dominant religions of the world sprout from the same basic premise.

This does nothing to dispute my statement. I did not say that they had to think that the entirety was fictional... I said they had to dismiss considerable portions as fictional. The Torah is the book of the Jewish faith, but it is incorporated into both the Bible and the Qu'ran as the Old Testiment (when I say Bible, I'm only referring to the New Testiment out of respect for Jewish belief), the Qu'ran is the holy book of the Islamic faith.

The Jews dismiss both the Bible and Qu'ran as largely fictional... to them, neither Jesus nor Mohammed is even a prophet.

The Muslims dismiss the claim in the Bible that Jesus is the son of God as well as his resurrection. To them he was the last prophet before Mohammed. That a rather considerable portion to dismiss.

The Christians dismiss the Qu'ran... largely in it's entirety. To them, one of the core claims is false (Mohammed's status as a prophet).

By and large, the Torah is not disputed by either Christianity or Islam. However, some of it clearly must be dismissed, as Christians and Muslims don't celebrate Jewish holy days.

Now saying that the Bible IS fiction on a given assumption IS ignorant.

You clearly have very little experience with formal logic. The statement that "the Bible is fiction" is NOT in fact a claim at all. It is the negation of the claim that it is true. The negation is the default position to take with regards to ANY claim until satisfactory supporting evidence has been provided.

It is in NO way an ignorant statement... it is the logical starting position.

In fact science is begining to actually prove certain things in the Bible.

Science is beginning to do nothing of the sort. As the phrase goes: "put up, or shut up."

I'm sorry I don't have any links at the moment but I'll try to find something.

Not to sound rude, but unless you link to articles that have been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal... don't bother, because it's not reliable support for your claim.

Oh, and journals of Christian Science aren't considered reputable in the scientific community, by the way.

Now if someone in the future saw a biography in the future and assumed it was fiction that would be ignorant as well.

It would be no such thing. It's entirely illogical to believe that something is true without evidence, and that fact that someone wrote it is evidence of nothing save that it was written by someone. Since you gave the example of the biography... here's a counter-example...

In a two thousand years, someone picks up a copy of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Would it be ignorant to discount it as fictional?

Please consider all the facts before making sweeping generalizations.

I have made no "sweeping generalizations." I've applied formal logical reasoning in a rational fashion.

Cast the first stone?

It means, don't condemn another for their "sins" unless you're without sin of your own. Basically, it's means "leave judgment to God."

You state that the bible is a work of fiction? How did you come ot this conclusion?

As I said before... from a logical standpoint one doesn't need to "come to the conclusion" that the Bible is fiction... it is the default starting position for anyone applying logic in a non-fallacious fashion.

"The Bible is true" is the claim... without supporting evidence to prove that this is the case, then one must maintain the default negative position. That's how formal application of logic works.

What one person decides is satisfactory evidence, may not (and likely will not) suffice for another. Personally, based on the actual evidence, I'm much more inclined to believe that the Bible is intended to be allegorical (and thus largely fictional) than an accurate recounting of events. (and that's as forgiving of a holy book as you're likely to get from an atheist)

The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered so far (compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered thus far). The printing press wasn't invented until the 1450's, but we have hand-written copies of the Old Testament dating back to the 200's BC. Remarkably, these ancient manuscripts are nearly identical to the Bible we read today.

Clement of Rome was martyred in 100 AD. In his writings, he quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Titus. Clement's quotes totally correspond with the Bible we read today. In fact, even if we lost all of the 5,300 early Greek manuscripts, all of the 10,000 Latin vulgates, and all of the 9,300 other ancient manuscripts, we would be able to reconstruct all but 11 verses of the New Testament from the writings of the early Church leaders who quoted from them extensively. We have over 36,000 preserved quotes from the New Testament. In a nutshell, the Bible stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, and it's overall reliability is without question!

This is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the Bible's actual factual veracity. The fact that it is well preserved has no bearing what-so-ever on the veracity of its contents. If I write an autobiography and it survives in its entirety for the next 3,000 years, that does not make the contents that are true any more true, or the contents that are invented any less false. Why should the Bible be any different?

In short: Preserved =/= Factual

Further... the fact that there are more manuscripts of the Bible preserved than there are of the Iliad is irrelevant to the issue of preservation: The Bible is LONGER than the Iliad... so of course there are more manuscripts. That has no effect what-so-ever on which is actually better preserved.

You may say, oh well, they were changed. Then how can you trust any writing?

Don't put strawman arguments in the mouth of your opposition. It's a logical fallacy... and somewhat rude.

But to answer the question... historical documents that are relied upon as factual are relied upon because they have been verified by external sources. In other words, archaelogical records and other contempary sources. If four different people from different places record the same event and archaelogical records support it, then it's logical to assume that it happened.

The Bible has no such external support.

Books and books have been written on this subject; it’s called Apologetics. Here are some links to get you started if you interested in finding facts.

I've read Apologetics in their entirety, seen them cited, and had them cited to me more times than I can count. I am now, as I was then... unimpressed. Apologetics is primarily concerned with explaining Biblical inconsistencies (sometimes it does well, others it does not), but one key fact remains: There is no support from external sources contemporary to the Bible for the events described therein.

Without external support, the Bible cannot be verified as factual... therefore, the logical position is negation.

You can believe something is true based on faith... but faith an logic are two completely different animals.

 

[kosterz]

Wiccans believe in Pan the horned god (probably where christians got the pic for the devil ,although the devil is never described as horned, other than the dragon) and the goddess.

Satan is described as a horned beast.
In revalations, it stats he's a Seven Headed Beast with Ten horns upon the seven heads, while accompanied by a Harlot(whore). But yes, he is mentioned as a horned beast.

Also, towards Wolf guy, if you say the Bible is fiction, then so is any historical document. They were written of many years ago, and could merely be stories. And if you are going to say that multiple historical documents mention other stories, so does historical documents make notice of Biblical "fictions."

 

[ryanwh]

This is the worste thread that ever been in this section.