Christian NIN fans, WTF?

i don't really think that just believing that christ existed makes you a christian. jews believe christ existed, muslims believe christ existed and they're certainly not christian. i think it's more accpeting christ as your saviour and so on and so forth that makes you a christian. i'm not religious by any means but i'm pretty sure that just believing someone existed dosent make you anything.

I'm having a hard time decidig who to respond to, so I will make this a free-standing comment. First of all, I am Christian. Yes, I believe he died for our sins, and to teach us to be better people, and to help us develop our faith. Christianity is a self-contradicting tangle, and is interpreted differently by different people, and by different churches. The Mormons consider themselves Christians, and yet their beliefs, practices, and politics (of the Church itself) are different than that of, say, the Anglican Church. Christian is a reaaaaaaally broad label, and we don't all think the same things, so I resent being lumped into a big group. That's like saying "all Americans" or "all gays". Now, I was raised with the message that all people are worthwhile, that they all should be treated with respect and courtesy whether they agree with me or not, and that God is a forgiving God, so I don't need to concern myself with how "holy" anyone else ie. My responsibility is to be a good person myself. However, I was also taught to question my faith, and to ask questions. The idea was that if I go into my religion with eyes open, I will have a stronger faith than someone who just follows blindly because it is what they were told to do. I like Nine Inch Nails, and find Trent Reznor's lyrics to be challenging and thought-provoking. I don't think I am relegated only to listen to music, or enjoy art that is created by people who share the same values and religion as I do. That would be frightfully boring. And the point of art is to challenge us. perhaps I, as a Christian, am his target audience?

what an enlightened view. why generalize about a group, but call them hypocrites?

not all of us fit that idea of a Christian.

No, neither Muslims or Jews believe Christ existed. They believe Jesus existed but Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. Neither Muslims or Jews believe Jesus is Christ. This is exactly my point when I say that people should be aware of the facts before making sweeping and often incorrect statements.

[Edited on Mar 14, 2006 by Lissom]

I love you, lol. Lissom, marry me!

An open letter to the "true Christians" of the world:

Hi.

Why the hell haven't you thrown the moneylenders out of your father's temples yet?

Love,
~D

Who said those were ever our temples?

They can believe whatever they like, my objection was being perceived as holding the same belief-system as the fundies, which I do not.


And LondonX, I'll totally marry you.

I'd lay money on the assertions that A) a number of Hebrews circa approximately 30 AD said the same thing, and B) their non-action regarding the moneylenders of that era was equally ineffective in regard to public opinion of the Hebrew people of that era.

The lesson of the moneylenders in the temple is not that those who act under false pretenses should be ignored; it is that the true believer should not suffer a perversion of his beliefs. If the "true Christian" does not take back his father's name and the teachings of his son, he can expect to be commonly perceived as being in the same group as the vocal majority whose perversions of the teachings of Jesus has turned so many against all things Christian.

So you think that moderate Christians and Muslims have, what, a responsibility to form something akin to the ADL?

I'm well aware of that passage and its lesson, but my point is that I refuse to try and force people to hold the same beliefs as me. I don't care what they believe as long as they don't try to inflict their views upon me. That's just my opinion though, I'm sure you'll find others who would. Also, the fact that I will not attempt to force my beliefs upon Christians with a different mindset to mine does not justify the erroneous attempts of people outside Christianity to categorise us as one and the same when the simple fact is that we're not. It smacks of ignorance and a lack of education.

For me to pretend to have the answers on the how of it would be counterproductive to the cause. As a dyed-in-the-wool heathen, my personal choice of a "best scenario" would involve KellyJoy, throwabomb, Lissom, and a Boondock Saints-esque public execution of Pat Robertson. Were this to happen, I would gladly allow each of them to lay eggs in my stomach and have their offspring race to burrow their way out of my chest.

To step back from the totally creepy--I cannot adequately suggest or argue the logistics by which Point B is navigated to from Point A; I simply don't have the passion of the insider necessary to devote the energy the effort would deserve. However, as an outsider I can say with some degree of accuracy that an active effort on the part of "true Christians" (clarification: "active effort" on the level that the Robertsons and Falwells and etc. of the world are "active") to clean up Christianity, to drive public opinion toward a place at which the average person understands the difference between a "true Christian" and a Fundamentalist, to understand which of those two parties is responsible for the perversions of the Christian teachings and the tarnished image of Christianity--in other words, to "drive the moneylenders out of the temple"--would probably be met with respect by the non-Christians of the world.

Herein lies part of the problem. The Robertsons of the world by and large are not Christian. They use the words, they hold the book, they profess the beliefs, but their means and ends are not those of Jesus. It is my belief that they are your enemy and that their actions are tantamount to sacrilege and blasphemy and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, I cannot come up with a way to convince...can I say "your people" here without it sounding ridiculous?...of this without falling into that same trap of forcing my beliefs on others. Otherwise, I would have done it.

Also: Who is responsible for educating those who make those erroneous categorizations? As I understand it, those categorizations are the result of the saturation of Robertsonian "Christianity" in popular culture. The only way I know for the "true Christians" of the world to fight that is by...well, like I said.

The "true Christian" (as it were) cannot battle the Robertsons and Falwells of the world on their level because they are not seeking wealth or fame or glory for themselves. They are out fulfilling their obligation as Christians by doing charitable works, helping and comforting others. And worshipping God quietly in their homes, their hearts, and their minds, not in the huge arena-sized megachurches.

I can't pigeonhole the role of the "true Christian" thusly. The pacifism-at-any-cost mindset is just as poisonous as the Fundamentalist movement.

It's my opinion that people are responsible for their own education to an extent: If they have sufficient enough interest in a subject to comment upon it, it is their responsibility to make sure they've sought the facts beforehand. At least that's the rule by which I operate. Should anyone with preconceptions about or limited experience with Christianity actually ask me questions, I am only too happy to answer them as best I can, but I can speak only for myself. Unfortunately most people don't ask about that which they are unfamiliar; they make incorrect and often offensive statements and then it is left to those who care enough to argue in an attempt to broaden their perspectives. It is not surprising that bad feeling sometimes ensues.

I appreciate your viewpoint and I heartily dislike the fundamentalists' use of Christianity; but to me, fighting them using their methods (attempting to bend those with conflicting views to my will) would make me as reprehensible as them. However, if more people outside the religion actually made the effort to learn the truth for themselves; those hijackers would be discredited in no time.

My point, more or less, is that when the uninitiated seeks education, he is in all likelihood going to be educated by the Robertsonians of the world simply because they have the market share, and they are going to use it to teach the world that this is Christianity and that is not. Yes, to push oneself and one's beliefs to that level would understandably leave a bad taste in the mouth, but sometimes one has to sacrifice comfort in exchange for the sanctity of one's beliefs. After all, unless I'm totally forgetting scripture, Jesus' last days as a mortal consisted of being betrayed, imprisoned, whipped, beaten, and tortured to death, with the dubious honor of having to breach the gates of Hell itself as his immediate reward.

I'm not advocating the use of their methods. I am, however, advocating the use of one's own methods at the level at which the enemy uses his.

True, but remember that those scriptures were written by men hundreds of miles away and hundreds of years after the events they describe, not Jesus Himself. Everything's subjective and everything can be interpreted any way the reader wishes, unfortunately. If I were to play the Devil's Advocate, I could say that the records of Jesus' treatment could be construed as Man's attempt to manipulate followers in to adopting that more defensive stance, regarding the doctrines that are taught by their Church. So you see the only logical conclusion that I can reach is that each person should be allowed to take what they choose from the Religion if they wish and believe that which has resonance with them, personally.

By the way, I've always been a big fan of NIN.

[Edited on Mar 15, 2006 by Lissom]

well obviously they don't believe he was the son of god. and saying they don't believe jesus is christ is being semantical. to reiterate my point just believing someone existed as you stated in your original post does not make you anything. believeing that jesus was the son of god will make you christian, sure. if i believed muhhamed existed it wouldn't make me a muslim.

It's funny--I purposely didn't bring any of that up. The whole "here are the reasons why I think the book's a crock" thing never works, anyway.

They were here last night. SHUT DOWN THE INTERWEB, I WIN.

Uh. The whole "Jesus is or is not Christ" thing is a bit more than semantics. It's not like Christ was the guy's last name or something. There is a world of difference between the Jewish/Muslim perception of Jesus as a respected human prophet and the Christian belief in Jesus as a demigod through whose sacrifice the human race is given salvation.

arghh i realize this (i come from a hugely religious background i have a pretty good understanding of the basics and principles of christianity) my whole point is just believing that jesus existed does not make you a christian. believing that he existed, was the son of god, that he's your personal saviour, and believing and doing your best to follow his teachings does. i also fully understand how the jews and muslims view jesus. ok anyway enough from me on this subject as i'm the one now getting semantical i suppose.

edit for typos

[Edited on Mar 15, 2006 by youhavekilledme]

I'm afraid you have missed the point completely. As Furious_D stated, in an attempt to clarify the issue for you, the term 'Christ' equates to 'Son of God'. Nobody on this thread has made the agument that a Christian simply believes Jesus existed. I made the statement that Christians believe that Christ (i.e. The Son Of God, Himself) existed. Those two terms are not a variation in semantics, they are variations in definition.

Please (carefully, this time) reread my post, to which you originally replied and you will see that you misunderstood. Then reread my clarification, as well that of Furious_D's and your responses to both, whereupon you will realise that you are simply coming across as someone who doesn't like being caught out as incorrect. For the record, I'm absolutely bemused that someone from a supposed 'hugely religious background' doesn't seem to know the substantial difference between the definitions of 'Jesus' and 'Christ'.

Yeah, Furious_D; you are the Winnar!