You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #29: That's pretty much my point. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. That's pretty much my point.
As an outsider, it seems to me that unless you can come to a consensus about what constitutes the most basic tenets of your religion, then you have no business criticizing the beliefs of others who claim to be of the same religion.

Since adherence is determined by self-identification, it doesn't necessarily matter if there's any consensus about basic beliefs as long as ALL adherents acknowledge that all other adherents are representative of the religion--that it's a big tent and you accept the good along with the bad. This of course is rejected every time a Christian side-steps criticism by saying that their congregation/personal faith is different or that the belief in question isn't held by 'real Christians.'

I frequently see self-identified Christians call out other self-identified Christians as 'not a real Christian' as a way of distancing themselves from some things that range from reprehensible to just ridiculous. As I see it, if there's no basic creed that ALL Christians can agree on (by agree, I mean accept all parts of without condition rather than encompassing the entirety of someone's faith), then none of you are 'real Christians.'

If there aren't any true Christians, then it's a meaningless label that makes a hypocrite out of any of the self-labeled who criticize others wearing the same label on the non-existent foundations of the label. Using qualifiers to describe a specific sect is meaningless unless that sect is universally acknowledged as independent. You can't label someone else as outside the religion and at the same time be unable to define what places someone inside the religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC