Christianity vs Christendom

[Forever Atlas]

I was moved to make this thread in light of the fact that the Christian religion today, because of it's long history, has a bad wrap. I know this is one reason many are turned away from Christianity and why some choose not to be affiliated with any denomiation.

First to clear up the title, I use the word Christianity as how Jesus wanted his followers to be and set the example to be followed. Christendom is the collective "christian" groups we see around the world whether or not they are doing things the right way.

The main issue I think here is how people define a Christian versus how a Christian should be defined. In other words the connotation and the denotation of Christianity. Most people use the connotation of Christians - How they see Christians today and what is widely accepted as Christian doctrine. The denotation may be a little more tricky to find, that's what this thread aims at.

As I have said in other threads, Christianity today is very different from how Christianity was in the first century. That is what I believe we should define what the true meaning of Christians as (First Century Christians) and what they SHOULD be today.

Today there are hundreds of different sects and denominations that all claim to serve the same God, yet they have several different customs and beliefs. Why?

I feel that today the Bible is being judged on how people teach it today (Christendom) instead of what it really says. I feel it is being judged on how the people who claim to follow it (Christendom) act contrasting how it says people should really act.

So I think it is important to find out the roots of Christianity from the very start and see what happened to it along the way to make it what it is today.

Now I do not mean to offend any by creating this thread because I know that there are those who truly are trying to do things the right way according to their interpretation of the Bible. I think however, it is important for all such people who do want to truly follow to go back to the roots.

So instead of defining Christians by what most are today, the point of this thread is to try find another definition of how Christians should be defined.

Main points I think we should focus on:

- What the Bible says (as it is supposed to be the authority for Christians) on what a Christian should be.

- How those who were with Jesus acted (his disciples and apostles)

- How the First Century Christians lived their lives and the doctrine they taught.

- What happened along the way? Where did the doctrines and practices that are widely accepted today as a part of Christianity really stem from?

I'm not sure if my thoughts are coming across as clear as I would like them to be so hopefully those who read this understand what I'm saying.

Note: I think it is important to look at both history and the Bible itself to come to this conclusion so any who would like to help in this discussion are more than welcome.

[Shade737]

As you well know I hate denominations and look at them as a bad thing that separates Christians as a whole and firmly believe that they shouldn't of been made in the first place. I also think of Catholics to be the worst offenders of what you are talking about.

[Aucune Raison]

I'm turned off by organized religion as a whole. This sort of thing happen(s/ed) with the other two Abrahamic religions. It's just how it works, especially with the writing style of the religious texts.

1st Century Christians weren't better than modern day Christians, there were just less of them. If anything they were worse from a cultural standpoint.


In my opinion, if you're going to base your beliefs on a book, you should just vigorously read it through and draw your own opinions, instead of just following your preacher. I don't see how your God would look down upon those who did that, by having a strict way to do things. That's one big flaw with fundamentalist (aka "get saved") Christians, among other things.


Anyways, there's nothing you can really do about it. As science strengthens, religion weakens, that's a fact no matter what the circumstance. The only thing that will help is if Christianity sheds its more "strict" portions, but that's difficult to do when that is your base.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

I was moved to make this thread in light of the fact that the Christian religion today, because of it's long history, has a bad wrap. I know this is one reason many are turned away from Christianity and why some choose not to be affiliated with any denomiation.

First to clear up the title, I use the word Christianity as how Jesus wanted his followers to be and set the example to be followed. Christendom is the collective "christian" groups we see around the world whether or not they are doing things the right way.

The main issue I think here is how people define a Christian versus how a Christian should be defined. In other words the connotation and the denotation of Christianity. Most people use the connotation of Christians - How they see Christians today and what is widely accepted as Christian doctrine. The denotation may be a little more tricky to find, that's what this thread aims at.

As I have said in other threads, Christianity today is very different from how Christianity was in the first century. That is what I believe we should define what the true meaning of Christians as (First Century Christians) and what they SHOULD be today.

Today there are hundreds of different sects and denominations that all claim to serve the same God, yet they have several different customs and beliefs. Why?

I feel that today the Bible is being judged on how people teach it today (Christendom) instead of what it really says. I feel it is being judged on how the people who claim to follow it (Christendom) act contrasting how it says people should really act.

So I think it is important to find out the roots of Christianity from the very start and see what happened to it along the way to make it what it is today.

Now I do not mean to offend any by creating this thread because I know that there are those who truly are trying to do things the right way according to their interpretation of the Bible. I think however, it is important for all such people who do want to truly follow to go back to the roots.

So instead of defining Christians by what most are today, the point of this thread is to try find another definition of how Christians should be defined.

Main points I think we should focus on:

- What the Bible says (as it is supposed to be the authority for Christians) on what a Christian should be.

- How those who were with Jesus acted (his disciples and apostles)

- How the First Century Christians lived their lives and the doctrine they taught.

- What happened along the way? Where did the doctrines and practices that are widely accepted today as a part of Christianity really stem from?

I'm not sure if my thoughts are coming across as clear as I would like them to be so hopefully those who read this understand what I'm saying.

Note: I think it is important to look at both history and the Bible itself to come to this conclusion so any who would like to help in this discussion are more than welcome.

The hypocrisy and corruption of which you speak of, F_A, while it usually serves as a catalyst for leaving Christianity, it usually isn't the main reason. Contrary to popular belief, most of us are aware that a bad reputation and a couple of bad apples don't speak for the entire religion as a whole. While I can't speak for everyone, there's 3 main issues I have with Christianity (issues that most religions would also share):

1. From Genesis to Revelations, a simple fact is apparent: an individual human's actions are, ultimately, meaningless. Take for example Gandhi: his entire life is a book on self-sacrifice, charity and kindness. He does everything he can for his fellow man, and while he stumbles from time to time, he has become mankind's face for peace. According to your religion, however, he's not at God's side, though. See, even though he loved and cared and basically embodied what Jesus would've wanted a human being to be, he wasn't a Christian.

You could argue that sin is eternal, that no human is innocent and that all crimes, even the most minuscule, are an abomination unto God, but the message is essentially this: your beliefs are far more important than your actions.

Another is example is Job. Sure he has a happy ending, and again you could argue that God is perfect and can do no wrong, but what the story of Job says to me is that humans are little more than playthings.

These 2 aren't isolated incidents; the entire Bible is full of such examples: humans were created for the sole purpose of admiring God and God's creation, and if they don't do this, they deserve death and that is justice.


Now, you could say that even though these could be ugly truths for me, it has no bearing on whether or not Christianity is right. Relatedly, if I disagree with Christianity based on this alone, why aren't I, say, a Buddhist? Which brings me to my next point:

2. There is no empirical proof for religion.

This is glorified, really, since faith is such a magic word today. "I have faith, so you're not allowed to question my beliefs". However the fact that you have faith, or the fact that the Bible is really old, or the fact that most ancient civilizations believed in the supernatural does not mean any of it is true. When there are perceived contradictions in the Bible, Christians seem to go really fucking far to justify them, akin to playing connect-the-dots when the dots are really far away from each other, and then going on to claim you've solved the puzzle.

There are many events in the bible that Christians swear by, events that by their very nature have to leave conclusive, strong and abundant empirical proof (Flood, parting of the Red Sea and annihilation of the Egyptian army and pharaoh), but they don't. Instead, we're provided with sketchy facts open to interpretation that might or might not prove something if you ignore other facts. But you still swear by them. Which brings me to my last problem with Christians and Christianity:

3. Attitude regarding their religion.

I am sure this doesn't apply to all Christians, but nevertheless. When I'm debating something such as the Big Bang, evolution, relativity, quarks and so on, I am no afraid to say "I could be wrong" or "I don't know". These are difficult subjects, and as sure as hell am not omniscient, so when someone asks me of the events "before" the Big Bang, I can freely say "we have no bloody idea". I propose that time might not have existed by that time, so the word "before" is meaningless, but to be completely honest, I could very well be wrong and I'm not afraid to admit this. But good luck getting one of you to say "Regarding my religion, I could be totally off", even in a hypothetical scenario. Someone who is confident in his beliefs wouldn't hesitate in admitting that he could be wrong.

Or how you tie recent knowledge obtained through means that disregard faith and tie it to your God:

Person 1: Evolution is fact

Person 2: No, evolution is fake.

Person 1: *proof*

Person 2: Still fake.

Person 1: *even more proof*

Person 2: Ok, but God guided it.

Or a recent one:

Person 1 : The Big Bang is fact.

Person 2: Explosions don't create order, stupid, and what happened before it?

Person 1: BB wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion, and the BB theory doesn't deal with the before.

Person 2: Ok, but God was the force behind the expansion.


The God of the Gaps argument. Again, I'm sure not all of you do that, but it's an attitude I have a problem with.


PS. Sorry for the mess, I know it's not well organized.

[Forever Atlas]

^ Never said it was the main reason that people are turned away, and the point of the thread was not to see if the religion is true or not. Not the reason's why people do not turn to religion or Christianity. I could sit here for an hour and tell you that I disagree with all your remarks, but that would defeat the purpose of this thread. I think you missed the point of the whole topic. I was trying to set a standard of what a Christian is/was/should be according to the beliefs.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

^ Never said it was the main reason that people are turned away, and the point of the thread was not to see if the religion is true or not. Not the reason's why people do not turn to religion or Christianity. I could sit here for an hour and tell you that I disagree with all your remarks, but that would defeat the purpose of this thread.

I'm sorry? My remarks weren't even up for debate. If you agree or disagree, bully for you. They were merely my reasons at to why Christianity has the bad reputation it has, rightly or wrongly. I was under the impression that you wanted to fix this, and was why you made the thread. A bit hard to do if you cover your ears and go lalala.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I'm sorry? My remarks weren't even up for debate. If you agree or disagree, bully for you. They were merely my reasons at to why Christianity has the bad reputation it has, rightly or wrongly. I was under the impression that you wanted to fix this, and was why you made the thread. A bit hard to do if you cover your ears and go lalala.

The religion has the bad reputation because of the things it has done through the ages. Although I did mention the reputation of the religion that was not the intended focus of the thread. I'm not trying to right their wrongs or fix the reputation. I can not do that. Like I said, it was to pretty much compare what Christianity is today from what it was originally and what it was meant to be originally according to the Bible and even secular history.

[Phoenix]

The religion has the bad reputation because of the things it has done through the ages.

No, no it really isn't. It's because of the things it does today.

I know you aren't Catholic, so you can't possibly take offense to this: heard the Pope told Africa condoms are evil? Thanks for the help with AIDS there, pope.

Although I did mention the reputation of the religion that was not the intended focus of the thread. I'm not trying to right their wrongs or fix the reputation. I can not do that. Like I said, it was to pretty much compare what Christianity is today from what it was originally and what it was meant to be originally according to the Bible and even secular history.

Then by all means, continue =/

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Aucune Raison

1st Century Christians weren't better than modern day Christians, there were just less of them. If anything they were worse from a cultural standpoint.

As a matter of fact 1st Century Christians and that of those today are almost two completely different religions. Only similarity I can see is that of believing in Jesus.

[Alaude Drenxta]

Forever Atlas has successfully proved that he is in fact the REAL reason why Christianity has a bad reputation.

You've proved yourself to fit perfectly into Phoenix's 3rd point.

[Shade737]

Originally Posted by Alaude Drenxta

You've proved yourself to fit perfectly into Phoenix's 3rd point.

Well you can vouch for me that I don't fit into that point.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Alaude Drenxta

Forever Atlas has successfully proved that he is in fact the REAL reason why Christianity has a bad reputation.

You've proved yourself to fit perfectly into Phoenix's 3rd point.

Elaborate. How am I the real reason Christianity has a bad reputation? Actually never mind. That's going to take the thread on a path separate of that of the subject. But you got probs fella.

[Alaude Drenxta]

3. Attitude regarding their religion.

I am sure this doesn't apply to all Christians, but nevertheless. When I'm debating something such as the Big Bang, evolution, relativity, quarks and so on, I am no afraid to say "I could be wrong" or "I don't know". These are difficult subjects, and as sure as hell am not omniscient, so when someone asks me of the events "before" the Big Bang, I can freely say "we have no bloody idea". I propose that time might not have existed by that time, so the word "before" is meaningless, but to be completely honest, I could very well be wrong and I'm not afraid to admit this. But good luck getting one of you to say "Regarding my religion, I could be totally off", even in a hypothetical scenario. Someone who is confident in his beliefs wouldn't hesitate in admitting that he could be wrong.

Or how you tie recent knowledge obtained through means that disregard faith and tie it to your God:

Person 1: Evolution is fact

Person 2: No, evolution is fake.

Person 1: *proof*

Person 2: Still fake.

Person 1: *even more proof*

Person 2: Ok, but God guided it.

Or a recent one:

Person 1 : The Big Bang is fact.

Person 2: Explosions don't create order, stupid, and what happened before it?

Person 1: BB wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion, and the BB theory doesn't deal with the before.

Person 2: Ok, but God was the force behind the expansion.


The God of the Gaps argument. Again, I'm sure not all of you do that, but it's an attitude I have a problem with.

Avoiding what others say that oppose your beliefs, denying it openly and brashly, pushing your own opinions into the pile to make sure nobody talks about anything but your own opinion.




Shade737 does not indeed fit into this category.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Alaude Drenxta

Avoiding what others say that oppose your beliefs, denying it openly and brashly, pushing your own opinions into the pile to make sure nobody talks about anything but your own opinion.




Shade737 does not indeed fit into this category.

I loled.

Really now? I avoid what other say that oppose my beliefs? Actually I invite people to give their own personal beliefs. If you haven't realized MOST people do not agree with my beliefs.

Pushing my own opinions into the pile? Eh, isn't that what everyone does? Everyone is giving their own thoughts on the subjects at hand. I don't force people to accept my beliefs, I just present them. As for making sure nobody talks about anything but your own opinion? WTH? lol If you mean staying close to the topic of the thread, erm, thats forum rules and common sense.

[Ryu]

Having experienced the disappointment in certain religious matters by myself and by others, I'll have to say I agree with Phoenix. Naturally, FA, one of the reasons people might not like religion is because of the things that have been done in its name. But then again, things are still being done in the name of god or religion that can't be justified by any logic or manner. Yeah there's no more burning of witches or crusades, but instead we still have total social rejection of gays, 'free-thinkers', opposition to abortion, not to mention there are still wars being waged in the name of god. So like I said, nothing has changed, but this isn't the point I'm trying to make.

The real reason people nowadays are opposed to religion are already described by Phoenix. What it comes down to is that people are given the impression that every religious person is a pushy arrogant son of a bitch. Whether these are only a few bad apples or a lot of bad apples is up for discussion, but that's not the point. A lot of the prominent religions nowadays, whether with biblical roots or not, have the reputation of tolerating no doubt in its roots. Try standing up in a church and saying that Jesus might have only been a prophet, or telling someone in a mosque that the Qu'ran's similarity to the Bible in certain verses is extremely suspicious. There seems to be no room for doubt or speculation.

I have to say though, that while I understand people's (Phoenix's) frustration towards the unrelentingness of a religion when it comes to the certainty of such matters, I also have to say that a religion would not be able to maintain itself without showing confidence to this extent. After all most religious beliefs or doctrines aren't based on a scientific and universal truth, they are based largely on faith. I'd like to analyze it further but I'll collectively call it 'faith' for now. Anyway, what I'm trying to say; if a religion collectively started saying "we believe this and that BUT we might be wrong I dno", then that would destroy the very foundation of the religion. Apparently it's extremely hard for people to say "I know for sure that what I believe is true" and also say "but I realize I might be wrong". Ultimately faith is all they have, and when they start to acknowledge they might be wrong, faith is useless.

tl;dr for a religion to exist, (extreme) determination is necessary.

Also FA, you know yourself that I'm more than familiar with the idea you expressed in the op (christianity vs christendom) and from a christian's point of view I have to agree with your statements. While there are many interpretations of one verse let alone the entire bible, ultimately if you believe that the writers' inspiration was divine, there can only be one correct interpretation. Those who truly aspire to be christians should be able to throw caution to the wind and study the bible, not until they reach a truth that is satisfactory to their personal wants, but a truth that can't be destroyed by any other (biblical) interpretation or argument.