The Difference between a Christian and a Fanatic

[Silas]

Heres a website I found on science and the bible
http://www.icr.org/
I haven't gone thru it all yet, but they seem to have some intersting stuff.

As far religions dismissing other religios documents- I dont think this is true. In the sense that Muhammet did live. Moses did Live, and Jesus did live. The things they all claim in the writing might have very well happened, we weren't there to say other wise. The historical things they wrote about for a large ppart did happen. And just because they are not refrenced alway eslewhere, does not DISprove it.
I think the leaste we can settle for is the religion might not be true, to say that a religios book is completely fiction is a haste jusgement. I mean, if you found a letter from your mom to some man she was having an affair with 10 years ago; you could immediately dismiss it as something that might have been a joke, so you dont have to think about it, or it could be true.
But until you ask your mom you wont know.
In this case we can't ask our "mom" because they are all dead. So we can either A) say it is fiction so we simply dont have to think about it
or b) belive it.
But it all comes down to believing what you want.
But we cant' say it is fiction do to lack of proof.
Juts like we can't say it is fiction due to proof.
You cant proof it either way.

ryanwh- ditto lol

 

[BlueScope]

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.

@Kosterz & Silas: The bible has been made of collected letters and knowledge by monks, as I (and Silas) already stated somewhere... That is a fact. On the other hand, the book says that the humans got it from god. Well, that's like you're reading a fictional novel, the things you read are clearly marked (indirectly, in this case) being fiction by the author(s).
Well, you also can't prove if not any of the monks changed a few facts to what they liked to write, and it most likely was, because of the times (humans who could used the knowledge of god to get themselves advantages).
That's not an atheistical opinion, but a simple 1+1 -thought-process.

@Ariel: Well, what you said is what I think a Christian should be. You can be happy if you're a believer, but you don't judge other people for not being or believe in something else.

@Silas: Read what I said to Ariel... I don't attack Christians, I 'attack' Fanatics. If they think they can tell me how I should live and what I should believe, they should be able to get over I'm saying that they should stop.

@ryanwh: Nobody forces you to write in here, so if you don't like it, stay out... simple thing.

 

[kosterz]

The bible has been made of collected letters and knowledge by monks, as I (and Silas) already stated somewhere... That is a fact. On the other hand, the book says that the humans got it from god.

Aye, the Old Testiment was written and put together by word of God, but the New Testament was written by vision. The Disciples of Jesus wrote their own accounts of what happened, some having the same things where was others carry other things that one might not have had, and some wont' have stuff that others might have.

 

[BlueScope]

the Old Testiment was written and put together by word of God

Who says that? I hope it's not the bible ^_^

 

[Roman Candle]

It would be obvious if the Bible had been changed as copies predating the altered ones would be different, as well as copies made by other monks. When people say this, they seem to have the impression that for years there was only one Bible. Copies of it were being made all the time, all over the world. To create a consistent alteration, every scribe making a copy would have to act simultaniously, as well as altering all previous versions. Both of which are impossible. So I think we can safely say that no rogue monk played around with the text.

You can only 'truly' be a Christian if you attempt to adhere to every line in the book. Therefore if you run up to someone in the street and start going on at them about how they are going to hell, you do not have the right to call yourself a disciple of Christ. It sounds idiotic, but you should always think "What would Jesus have done?". And if you don't feel guilty that you didn't do what he would have, then you can't really call yourself a Christian.

 

[Lene]

I'm sorry, how did this debate veer into a discussion on whether the Bible is true or not?

Anyways, you do have to understand along with the fact that not everyone has the same opinion, that not everyone has the same sense of humor. Just because I may think a joke you made at the expense of something that I believe in is not funny does not make me a "fanatic".

It's like those Muhammed comics a while back. People were really offended by that. Some people thought it was funny. So should those people who thought it was insulting be unable to express that something, to them, was tasteless just sit there taking it? No.

It's like race jokes. Not funny to me most of the time. Does that make fanatically politically correct and therefore open to attack from more "open-minded" people.

Sorry, but I think that's unwarranted.

 

[m_artist200]

Hmm.....*ignored the bible debate and answers the question*

Technically, I think its a matter or how the christian (or anyone following a religion) acts.

For example, if say, a person believes the bible without question and not only tries to base their life around it, but make others conform as well (regardless of that persons wishes)....THAT would seem fanatical to me.

However, I think there might be a fine line between what is considered "fanatical" and "faithful" when it comes to how an individual person acts without influencing others around them.

 

[kosterz]

Who says that? I hope it's not the bible ^_^

Don't be smug. The Old Testament of the bible was "supposedly" written by religious figures following the words of God. Although unproveable, so is the statement of yours in which you stated it was written from knowledge and letters.

But is that better, that I used "supposedly" or are you going to be like "no, it's not good enough because it isn't true!"

PS. I'm not editing my post if you think it's too bitchy. You can modify it yourself if you don't like it. I'm having a really bad day.

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

I'm sorry, how did this debate veer into a discussion on whether the Bible is true or not?

Anyways, you do have to understand along with the fact that not everyone has the same opinion, that not everyone has the same sense of humor. Just because I may think a joke you made at the expense of something that I believe in is not funny does not make me a "fanatic".

It's like those Muhammed comics a while back. People were really offended by that. Some people thought it was funny. So should those people who thought it was insulting be unable to express that something, to them, was tasteless just sit there taking it? No.

It's like race jokes. Not funny to me most of the time. Does that make fanatically politically correct and therefore open to attack from more "open-minded" people.

Sorry, but I think that's unwarranted.

Thank you for being the voice or reason lene. Things have been veering too far off course.

 

[kintaruo]

I had a big long message typed, but it got deleted, so I'll paraphrase. Christianity is whack. Here's why. It's based of Roman Catholocism, which by almost every account in history has been a very corrupt church, who changes their mind to get support. See the Crusades. Then, other churches broke away and changed more stuff, so the original ideas aren't even all there anymore. But they are taught like they are the original ideas and are from god himself.

Then you have other things. For instance, Angels came from Zoroastrianism, which, if you asked a christian, would be considered a "pagan" religion. The idea of the devil in the form everyone knows came from the book Paradise Lost. These are not exactly trusted sorces, and yet they have their place in the christian religions.

You talked of fanatics. They are probably the most annoying people in the world to deal with. Whenever you bring up a scientific fact, they'll say "well, that's not true, god did it." Or they say stuff like "God did this for a reason." First of all, if there was a God, then he is doing a pretty shitty job. If he is all powerful, why doesn't he make sure things go right? He is "testing" us? That sounds like bull to me. It sounds like a good excuse for "why didn't god help us."

Finally, what really annoys me about these people, is that they don't think for themselves. Everything they've been taught they've been force fed, and they are things that go against common sense. They haven't formulated their own, logical opinion. They've thought, "wow, god is so great, I'm so glad my parents have brainwashed me into believing in him." I grew up a catholic, but honestly, it's just too much bull for me to handle. I like to come up with my own beliefs, and the idea that some all powerful being made the world in 7 days seems a bit far-fetched.

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

I'm sorry, how did this debate veer into a discussion on whether the Bible is true or not?

Good question. It started with BlueScope's statement in the initial post that the Bible is fiction. It was exacerbated by my questioning of someone's calling that statement ignorant. Truthfully, the "Bible is fiction statement" virtually guaranteed that the topic would end up veering into debating that statement.

It somewhat amuses me that some people are arguing with me over whether the Bible is true or not when I've actually only argued and attempted to explain why it is not ignorant to say that it's fiction. I don't want to have that argument. It's a stupid one that is without end... I'd much rather people understand why it's not ignorant to say that the Bible is fiction. Maybe I should have specified that the logical default position isn't necessarily correct... it's just never ignorant.

But, what you said is absolutely right. People's senses of humor differ, and taking offense at a joke does not make one a fanatic.

However, I'm of the opinion that it's silly to take offense at anything that wasn't actually intended to give offense.

As far religions dismissing other religios documents- I dont think this is true. In the sense that Muhammet did live. Moses did Live, and Jesus did live.

Mohammed and Jesus are recorded by contemporary sources. The Romans left records of a religious leader named Jesus. Mohammed actually wrote a good chunk of the Qu'ran himself AND is mentioned by contemporary sources. The fact that some of the people mentioned in holy books existed is not disputed by any reasonable person.

It's the important bits that have to be dismissed. A Jew cannot believe that Jesus was the messiah. A Muslim cannot believe that Jesus was the son of God. A Catholic cannot believe that Mohammed was a prophet. (note, I specified a denomination because the various sects of Christianity do hold some wildly differing opinions... it's enough that some of them could actually be considered completely different religions) These are necessary dismissals. It's just like how a Jew/Christian/Muslim can't possibly believe that Zeus was a god or a Zoroastrian can't possibly believe that Yahweh is the one true god.

The things they all claim in the writing might have very well happened, we weren't there to say other wise. The historical things they wrote about for a large ppart did happen. And just because they are not refrenced alway eslewhere, does not DISprove it.

I really wish that you would actually read what I wrote... because I already addressed this at some length in my last post. In fact, this was kind of the primary focus. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore than to say: A claim doesn't need to be disproved unless sufficient evidence has been offered to support it.

What you have to understand, is that the logical default position is negative, not neutral.

But it all comes down to believing what you want.

Believing something without evidence ("what you want") is the very definition of faith. See my last post... the stuff at the end about faith. Faith is a perfectly valid reason to believe something. It is not, however, a logical one.

But we cant' say it is fiction do to lack of proof.

See my last post. All that stuff about the negation of a claim. You don't prove the negative, you prove the positive.

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."

You should actually read what I wrote. I did directly explain why a historical document can be relied on. I also explained that contemporary external sources DON'T mention the important events of the Bible.


The truth of the Bible (or any other holy book) comes down to one simple thing: faith. Those that believe in it have to have faith that the important stuff is true, because there is NOT proof. Religion is based on faith... this is a fact. Faith, is by its very definition, illogical. But that's ok. It's a valid reason to believe in God. In fact... it's sort of the point.

But, I'll say this one more time: saying that the Bible is fictional is not ignorant... it's the logical negation and starting point. Perhaps I've been unlear, but that is all I've been arguing towards. Now, I'm not going to continue participating in the derailment of the topic any further.

 

[Roman Candle]

Christianity is whack. Here's why. It's based of Roman Catholocism

No, Catholicism is based of Christianity, and the Catholic Church is an organisation that endorses everything in the Bible as well as other beliefs.

As a side note, believing in dogma other than that put down in the Bible does not make you less of a Christian. The Bible does not mention gravity, yet you believe in it. The Bible does not say that the Earth is a rough sphere, yet you would still believe it.

It's difficult to define what makes someone a fanatic. Someone who cares more about their beliefs than other people, perhaps.

 

[BlueScope]

Just because I may think a joke you made at the expense of something that I believe in is not funny does not make me a "fanatic".

You're right, but that wasn't what I said. I said that you're a fanatic if you hear a joke about Mohammad/Jesus/whoever and think you need to beat up the person who told it, or even blow him up with suicide bombers...
Of course, I don't talk about people who just don't find something funny, as everyone has a different sense of humor. Well, it is a huge difference.

The Old Testament of the bible was "supposedly" written by religious figures following the words of God. Although unproveable, so is the statement of yours in which you stated it was written from knowledge and letters.

Yeah, right. Do me and mostly yorself the favour and ask your priest or whatever how the bible has been put together, or just look on Wikipedia or anything. As I already said, it's not a guess from me or whatever, it's a fact. Believing in the bible without knowing it's sources is like believing in blind words.

 

[Minkoff]

You're right, but that wasn't what I said. I said that you're a fanatic if you hear a joke about Mohammad/Jesus/whoever and think you need to beat up the person who told it, or even blow him up with suicide bombers...

Sounds like you already know the answer to your question.

 

[Lene]

Minkoff is right, and I thought you were talking from personal experience on a group of Christians not being able to take a "joke", making them "fanatics". You've spent more time debating the truth of the religion and less time on your actual point.

It's not about what people are fanatical about, it is the fanatic behavior that should be the issue here.

 

[BlueScope]

It is, in my opinion. Well, it's very close to each other, that's why we need both points being dicussed...

I don't have a personal experience in which people would've beaten me into the ground, but there was a close one... so when I see how a Christian nearly can't hold himself back just because of a joke, I simply have to think that he's a fanatic... I mean, if someone would say anything mean about something that's pretty worthy to me, I'd just don't care.

^ My point ^_^

 

[Rare]

Heh, I laugh at the comment about "The bible is a work of Fiction".
Have you even read the bible? Im guessing not. Maybe if people would take some time to read whats actually contained in the bible, they would understand it more.

Yes, there is a difference between psyco fanatic and Christian. I can always joke about stuff. People just sometimes find it offensive to put Jesus in a game. Its a game, and thats not showing any respect for someone (if you belive in him) that died for us, to save us.

 

[Lene]

It is, in my opinion. Well, it's very close to each other, that's why we need both points being dicussed...

I don't have a personal experience in which people would've beaten me into the ground, but there was a close one... so when I see how a Christian nearly can't hold himself back just because of a joke, I simply have to think that he's a fanatic... I mean, if someone would say anything mean about something that's pretty worthy to me, I'd just don't care.

^ My point ^_^

How are the two things related? Both Christians and "fanatics" believe in the same thing when you get right down to it.

If you're going to trash/mock a belief thinking that no one but a fanatic would get offended, then you're sadly mistaken. It's one thing to say "okay, I don't believe in <blahblah>" but it's another to say that people who do are mindless sheep brainwashed by a stupid work of fiction.

The latter is offensive. It is not only trashing something that Christians believe in, but you are attacking the Christians personally by dehumanizing them into sheep unable of individual thought.*

If someone said that to me in my face I would get offended. I may not beat the person up, but I'd sure as heck tell them off for being rude. Guess that make me a fanatic.

Frankly, people have been beat up for worse. I knew a guy who worked at McDonalds. This guy rolls up the drive through and pays for his food. The customer wonders how much change he'd get back and the guy I know responded. The customer reacts "Wow, black people have really gotten smarter these days."

Now either 1) The guy was serious or 2) The guy was joking.

To me, and to all the people I've asked, it doesn't matter whether it's 1 or 2. It's offensive! I asked many of my black peers what they would do and the responses ranged from telling the person off to throwing the soda in the guys face. Who's the fanatic? I don't know. It's all about demeanor. If you're a violent person, you're more likely to react in a violent way. If you're not then you're not.

*I know you didn't say those things Bluescope but people in this thread have, and I am addressing it to them.

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

In my topic "the extream end of feminism" I mentioned a few times that EVERY cause has fanatics. What defines a fanatic is not the ability to not be offeneded when they are made fun of. Waht defines a fanatic is that they care more about their cause than human life. They care more about their cause than other people's well being. Heck, fanatics care more about their cause than their OWN well being. Most christians are NOT fanatics. Though, in a lot of causes a fanatic can convince people of what to think as most people are sheep. Let us be honest here, most people in general are sheep. To say that just christians are sheep is an untrue statement. Most people are sheep. Sheep are people who are easily influenced by fanatics as fanatics tend to get in charge, sadly enough.

 

[BlueScope]

@Cresten: I haven't read the whole thing, because I don't believe in it and it's simple waste of time for me. Also, the bible's content simply couldn't change what I think about the origin.
A little counter-example: If I'd write a book which says some kind of supernatural person has written it and you have to believe in it, would you? Of course not. Now tell me why...

@Lene: I get your point... but I think you don't get mine fully... I don't say anyone has been brainwashed by the bible or something, I just say that people that take the bible too serious and'll physically attempt to erase anyone who doesn't believe in it are simply insane and fanatic.
On the other hand, I'd also find it offensive to make racial discrimination. I think there's a difference, though. What difference, you ask? Well, I'd most likely'd explain it because a Christian has the choice between being a Christian or a fanatic Christian, while black people are black and can't do anything about it without being "stupid" (another point where the opinions are surely split) and do some plastic surgery...

PS: Just to point that out, I fully respect people who believe in the bible and pray to god and all that, though I'd never do something like that, but I don't respect people who try to 'form' their environment, because that makes Christianity to a sect more than to a religion IMO...