Bulldrek v3.0

I am a Christian. Therefore, I think "sexually-repressed conservatives" are sinners.

Does this mean I'm a bleeding-heart liberal? <eeks!>

Angel wrote:I am a Christian. Therefore, I think "sexually-repressed conservatives" are sinners.

You know, I understood Buzzed's "therefore," but I'm not following yours. I think there's probably another step in there somewhere that I'm not understanding. How does being Christian cause you to think sexually-repressed conservatives are sinners? Which sins are they committing? Is it only conservatives, or are sexually-repressed liberals sinners, too? [Isn't everyone a sinner? This is a very different question from, "Is sexual repression a sin."] Are the other conservatives - the ones who aren't sexually-repressed - also sinners?

I definitely don't follow how A leads to B leads to you being a bleeding-heart liberal, but since I don't know how A leads to B, I'd prefer to stay out of C for now.

That's interesting. Do you believe, thus, that no sinner should be judged by any Christian, no matter the sin or the situation? I know I'm an awful long ways from the one sin and one situation you're talking about; I don't mean to push you into a point of view more extreme than you're espousing. But you're right in that Christ didn't think we should judge each other. Nevertheless, it seems like the case for judging poisoners, magic users, sodomites, murderers, etc., is pretty well-founded.

One problem I've always had with Christianity is that I've never met a Christian who even comes close to the ideals Christ set. For instance, you're aware that you're judging the judgers just as much as they're judging sodomites, yeah? Someone who followed Christ's teachings should always give me their coat when I ask for it, and yet that never seems to work, either. People like to say, "Well, part of being Christian is striving for the ideal, but knowing you'll never achieve it because you're a sinner born," but I don't actually see Christians trying to strive very hard. A follower of Christ's way would have much more in common with a Buddhist monk than with any Christians I have ever met.

32: Well, whenever I become part of another service (for whatever reason, playing usually) I always notice that there's a "If you know someone who's not a Christian, teach them to believe in Christ and they'll be saved" sort of mentality. That redeeming oneself ends with baptism. Of course I'm Catholic, (not Roman Catholic, just Catholic, Roman Catholic is actually a redundancy) which some people believe to be the worst of the lot, but I've never heard a sermon in my recollection that has said 'we're saved through baptism.' Actionss are just as important.

3278 wrote:Do you believe, thus, that no sinner should be judged by any Christian, no matter the sin or the situation?

For what it's worth, I was raised Protestant (First Church of God.) While they taught you what was sinful and what was not, they did place a heavy emphasis on judgement /not/ being an individual's job. It was taught that it was God's job and that sins were between the person and God, and if you were to judge someone as being ill or bad due to their sin, you were being as Un-Christian, if not moreso, than they were. Your duty as a Christian, rather, was to expose Christianity to them and let them learn their wrongdoings for themselves, whilst providing the encouragment they may need and setting a good example of the Christian way of life by how you lead your own.

Granted, the church would preach that, and yet still be full of hypocracy, but I think in comparitive religious studies, I (personally) really did prefer how they taught it. No "Confession" or "Hail Mary's" that they required of you, just the informed knowledge that to seek forgiveness, you needed to pray to God, admitting your wrongs and turning your life around by accepting him as your personal savior, and thus-forward, leading a life of a Christian. Church was more of a gathering place to praise the Lord with others who were Christians - sort of a support group and study class all in one. There were no classes you had to take as a member. You showed up and once you felt like a member, you were one. Baptism was not required of babies, for a baby does not know that they want to choose a life following God. When you were old enough, you chose for yourself if that was what you wanted.

So, regarding the question posed earlier: Even though I am not a Christian anymore, based on my past religious affiliation, if you were to have asked me, I would have agreed with Angel that those who cast their judgment upon others regarding others' sins, are being sinful themselves, just the same.

Eliahad wrote:Roman Catholic is actually a redundancy.

I'm pretty sure you can correctly call the Eastern Orthodox faiths Catholic, even though they don't recognise the Roman Pope.


As for the judgment question, I see a major problem with the statement, "judging others is a sin". As soon as you recognise that:
A. Everybody has sinned, and
B. Sins are morally wrong,
it must logically follow that
C. Everybody has done something that is morally wrong,
which is a judgment of action. If you don't want to reach conclusion C, you must deny either A or B, or both.

You may argue that you can condemn an action without condemning the person responsible, but this is exactly what most "conservative" Christians also believe. And so this argument does not criticise conservative Christianity at all.

Let me be more specific, I messed it up the first time.

Catholic means "Church" So the Roman Catholic Church is a redundancy.

Roman means, "Those practicing the Roman rite" ie, a Roman version of the mass. Sorry, for getting it wrong the first time.

mrmooky wrote: I'm pretty sure you can correctly call the Eastern Orthodox faiths Catholic, even though they don't recognise the Roman Pope.

Eastern orthodoxy has developed itself quite differently than Catholicism, and it's almost ridiculously rude that you would say to call them such.

Certain Christian groups, such as formed into Greek and Russian Orthodoxy, and separately, Catholism, were all one and the same like what, 1000 a.d.? The Pope was seen as an equal among high-ranking religous leaders, but he was slightly higher in the sense that his opinion always tipped the boat on religious matters because he was the odd man out.

Catholics began believing that the rest of the sects were being sinful because of their use of icons. They split off and now they are entirely different. Greek and Russian orthodox churches have priests than have the choice to marry or remain celibate. They also still have icons. They do not have anything similar to a nun. They also follow highly different baptism and confirmation rituals and their hiearchy of religious officials remains entirely different. They even allow women into high ranking religious offices, and women can be priests.

Big differences. Catholism no longer equals Eastern orthodoxy.

But the difference is not between Eastern Orthodox and Catholic, it's between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

How is Roman Catholic any similar to Eastern Orthodox than sans-Roman Catholic?

MissTeja wrote:

3278 wrote:Do you believe, thus, that no sinner should be judged by any Christian, no matter the sin or the situation?

For what it's worth, I was raised Protestant (First Church of God.) While they taught you what was sinful and what was not, they did place a heavy emphasis on judgement /not/ being an individual's job. It was taught that it was God's job and that sins were between the person and God, and if you were to judge someone as being ill or bad due to their sin, you were being as Un-Christian, if not moreso, than they were. Your duty as a Christian, rather, was to expose Christianity to them and let them learn their wrongdoings for themselves, whilst providing the encouragment they may need and setting a good example of the Christian way of life by how you lead your own.

I'm Lutheran and was taught the same way.