They aren't really <insert preferred religion here>

[Katzpur]

You know, Katzpur, I was thinking of y'all when I first read the title of this thread...

Thanks! It gets really old, let me tell ya. How would you feel if other Baha'is were always telling you that you weren't the genuine article? Geesh!!!!

 

[Booko]

Thanks! It gets really old, let me tell ya. How would you feel if other Baha'is were always telling you that you weren't the genuine article? Geesh!!!!

It's hard to put myself in those shoes, 'cause it can't happen.

otoh, I remember too well hearing crap about how Catholics are not *really* Christians, :ignore: and knowing it for the crap it was.

Personally, since there is no one Church with any authority to say who is and who is not a Christian, I don't know how anyone can say that and it not be just their personal opinion.

The other thing that's always impressed me is y'all never try to claim like you're in the mainstream.

The more time passes, the more I think "ok, is there any reasonable authority here?" when I hear someone say "you aren't X."

(It's off the OP, but I've read with interest threads on apostolic authority. Baha'is have their own version of that, so I find it extra interesting to see how others handle it.)

 

[Adstar]

I notice lots of religious people(Abrahamic faiths, usually) make the claim whenever someone is a "bad" representative of their faith state "They are not a true <Christian, Muslim, etc.)." It seems the second someone that is of their religion does something considered bad, they simply toss them aside, stating they are not with us, and thinking that makes everything okay. However, I think that point is pure bulls***. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if I were to do that whenever there was an agnostic I didn't like. "Well, s/he's not a true agnostic." It's just stupid, in my opinion. What constitutes a true <member of whatever freakin' religion you feel like>? If this person believes in the religion (whichever one it may be), why are they not a true <whatever religon>? Certainly that person is a member of that religion or a believer in that religion. Why toss them aside like that or discredit their beliefs? Because you don't like it? Can people not interpret and practice your religion in different ways? Why do you need to discredit these people? Are you afraid people will think you are like them? Why do people do this? And are they really right to do so?

(Sorry this post is kind of unorganized. I hope you all somewhat get my point. I threw this together with about twenty minutes before work. )

Ok lets take you through some concepts and see if you agree with them:

A follower of a religion follows and agrees with the teachings of the founder of that religion.

Does that sound like a reasonable statement? Like a good definition of what a memebr of a religion should conform to?

So a buddhist would be a person who follows the teachings of buddha and agrees with his teachings. Sounds reasonable? yes? No?

Likewise a follower of muhammad would agree with what muhammad teaches in the koran right?

And a Christian would follow and agree with the teachings of Jesus in the bible right? yes or no?



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Booko]

Ok lets take you through some concepts and see if you agree with them:

A follower of a religion follows and agrees with the teachings of the founder of that religion.

Does that sound like a reasonable statement? Like a good definition of what a memebr of a religion should conform to?

So a buddhist would be a person who follows the teachings of buddha and agrees with his teachings. Sounds reasonable? yes? No?

Likewise a follower of muhammad would agree with what muhammad teaches in the koran right?

And a Christian would follow and agree with the teachings of Jesus in the bible right? yes or no?

Not to quibble, but might it not be better to say they TRY to follow the teachings? It's not like anyone really does this 100% or anything. But you do kinda wonder sometimes about people who don't seem to even make the 10%.

Though usually what I wonder is, "Wow! I wonder how this guy got started out in life?"

It's pretty easy to forget that we all start out at different points. One person's bad behaviour might be quite an improvement over what he was before, while another person's fairly good behaviour hasn't improved from where he started. So, who's the one who's grown closer to God, really?

 

[dawny0826]

I notice lots of religious people(Abrahamic faiths, usually) make the claim whenever someone is a "bad" representative of their faith state "They are not a true <Christian, Muslim, etc.)." It seems the second someone that is of their religion does something considered bad, they simply toss them aside, stating they are not with us, and thinking that makes everything okay. However, I think that point is pure bulls***.

And to a great degree...it is bull poop...

On the flip side, there are individuals who ARE a very poor representative of their faith and if I'm ever compared to one of these individuals...I will clarify how my beliefs differ from that person.

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if I were to do that whenever there was an agnostic I didn't like. "Well, s/he's not a true agnostic." It's just stupid, in my opinion. What constitutes a true <member of whatever freakin' religion you feel like>?

As has been mentioned...Christians are bound by certain laws as those of other religions are bound by certain laws. Humans are flawed...period...regardless of faith and walk...but whether anyone wants to hear it or not...there are people who are truly not TRUE representatives of the faith they claim to accept for themselves.

Is this really a big deal? Probably not always...but...you know...

If this person believes in the religion (whichever one it may be), why are they not a true <whatever religon>? Certainly that person is a member of that religion or a believer in that religion. Why toss them aside like that or discredit their beliefs?

I see where you're coming from...I agree...who is to say they aren't a true member of their faith...still...take Christianity for example...and I'm not implying that all Christians believe this way but belief in Christ alone isn't all there is to Christianity. If one claims they believe in Christ but ignores everything else...and society compares me or those who believe similarly to the individual who doesn't accept the laws of the New Testament...I would totally clarify the differences in our beliefs because there's a HUGE difference between a Christian who walks with Christ and a Christian who does NOT walk with Christ in any way, shape or form. Should I belittle these people and make them feel as if their views are meaningless...leave them feeling as if they have been tossed aside? Of course not. But I think it's important that non Christians especially understand there is a difference between the two lifestyles...a VERY large difference between the Christian pursuing a relationship with Christ and a Christian who is not. And if I'm responsible to carry out the great comission which is to spread the gospel...and a fellow Christian openly confesses a different gospel...it's my responsbility to stand firm on what the Word states and what the Word instructs.

Because you don't like it? Can people not interpret and practice your religion in different ways? Why do you need to discredit these people? Are you afraid people will think you are like them? Why do people do this? And are they really right to do so?

Sure they can. They can do whatever they want. I don't think people are always justified in attempting to discredit people...but still...part of being a Christian is standing firm on your belief in Christ and the gospel of Christ.

And most people I know would never go out of their way to discredit a person who claimed to be part of their religion UNLESS their own beliefs were exploited in a negative manner. And truly, it's not even about individual beliefs...it's about standing firm on biblical truths and principles...spreading the gospel...applying the NT laws to daily life. There's either right or wrong...there's no in between.

And it's not supposed to be about the individual anyway...it's supposed to be about Christ.

(Sorry this post is kind of unorganized. I hope you all somewhat get my point. I threw this together with about twenty minutes before work. )

You did well...

 

[bill]

I notice lots of religious people(Abrahamic faiths, usually) make the claim whenever someone is a "bad" representative of their faith state "They are not a true <Christian, Muslim, etc.)." It seems the second someone that is of their religion does something considered bad, they simply toss them aside, stating they are not with us, and thinking that makes everything okay. However, I think that point is pure bulls***. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if I were to do that whenever there was an agnostic I didn't like. "Well, s/he's not a true agnostic." It's just stupid, in my opinion. What constitutes a true <member of whatever freakin' religion you feel like>? If this person believes in the religion (whichever one it may be), why are they not a true <whatever religon>? Certainly that person is a member of that religion or a believer in that religion. Why toss them aside like that or discredit their beliefs? Because you don't like it? Can people not interpret and practice your religion in different ways? Why do you need to discredit these people? Are you afraid people will think you are like them? Why do people do this? And are they really right to do so?

(Sorry this post is kind of unorganized. I hope you all somewhat get my point. I threw this together with about twenty minutes before work. )

It is a very good point. Departing from an authoritative text one has two options in my opinion, go for a completely personal account in which case the lack of reinforcement by an organising body like a church probably makes any interpretation possible. The other is to subscribe to a church which is a body of shared or accepted interpretation of the text. For anyone not directly within the church, religious practice will only conform to the official line to the extent it is reinforced by the church. As we are free to choose the extent of our contact with the church interpretation will again be disperate. For those within the church, their view will tend to conform to the prevailing line emanating from senior figures in the hierarchy who act like ultra-conservative judges in interpreting the text as new cases arise. Really those that insist on definitions of good and bad believers are expressing power relationships they themselves have submitted to. By subscribing to a church official line on an interpretation of the text they are giving up part of their freedom to determine their own interpretation of the religion. They would like others to fall into line to validate their own decision to conform.

 

[Sunstone]

So a buddhist would be a person who follows the teachings of buddha and agrees with his teachings. Sounds reasonable? yes? No?

This is just a quibble, Adstar, but Buddhism traditionally encourages independent thinking. For instance, there is the famous Zen Buddhist proverb, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

I agree with your other examples though, and the absence of Buddhism as a legitimate example does not really affect your point.

 

[standing_alone]

Wow, there were lots of great responses to this thread. Damn... Why did I have to work overtime?

What prompted me to make this thread was a Christian member's post in a different thread (I won't name names) stating that the certain, what I'll call them, "conversion techniques" made by certain Christians made them not "real" or "true" Christians - but I didn't see how that could be. For if someone believes in Christ and does their best to follow Christ's teachings and tries to convert people to their faith, how does that make them not a "true" or "real" Christian?

Whenever I see a member of a certain religion (I'll stick with Christianity as an example, since that happens to be the religion I see do this the most) say something like, "They are not true Christians." I see it more as a way to:

1. Discredit these certain Christians (or whatever other religion)
2. Distance themselves from these certain Christians (or whatever religion)
3. Not have to take responsibility for such uses (or maybe, misuses) of Christianity (or whatever religion)

I see this finger-pointing and "not true Christian (or whatever religion)" name-calling more as a way to not have to deal with those who take the faith to "dangerous" extremes, since it's much easier to just claim that those "dangerous" individuals are not a member of the faith, rather than dealing with the root of the problem, which is often different sects of the religion or the "holy" books themselves. At least, that's how I view this.

 

[Booko]

I see this finger-pointing and "not true Christian (or whatever religion)" name-calling more as a way to not have to deal with those who take the faith to "dangerous" extremes, since it's much easier to just claim that those "dangerous" individuals are not a member of the faith, rather than dealing with the root of the problem, which is often different sects of the religion or the "holy" books themselves. At least, that's how I view this.

There's another aspect of this, maybe. Who wants to recognize that the institutions of their Faith are, at the moment, failing to provide good guidance to the followers and rein in the extremes?

I can understand why people wouldn't want to look very hard at that. They might think that the institutions being off says something about the validity of the original message. But (imo) it doesn't. It only speaks to the current state of things. And all religions go through these cycles anyway, so what's the big deal?

I know that there are strains of thought that have it that God doesn't leave religion X without guidance, and that may be so, but it doesn't mean the *people* are taking the guidance they're being given.

I rather like the Jewish view of this where, if the community follows the mitzvot, it will prosper, because God will keep His end of the Covenant too. But the flip side of that is, if the community stops taking the guidance and does *not* keep the mitzvot and goes astray, then all bets are off and expect some consequences. It doesn't mean that God isn't ready to keep His Covenant at all times and that He isn't giving guidance, but it does mean that sometimes people have gone a bit deaf. That isn't God's fault, and it doesn't make the message given via Moses invalid.

Many Christians of my acquaintance over the years don't seem to have any similar view, or any way of viewing problems in their religion that acknowledge that people and institutions stray, but the message is still valid. I think that makes it harder to admit to the problems that happen, and then people resort to "well they're not REALLY Xians!"

Well, yeah, Pat Robertson is a Christian. And guess what? What are the rest of y'all going to do about it, if you think he's gone astray? You know the media won't give you equal airtime, because they're looking for ratings. But what I don't hear is much criticism of the *views* (not the man) from pulpits or other sources. There's no PR going on to counter crazy stuff. The institutions are pretty much silent. And if that persists, then you get what you get, and get stuck with the crazy stuff by association.

From individuals sometimes you get, "Well, we shouldn't criticize a man of God!" Ok, so don't criticize the man, but for heaven's sake, does that mean you can't show how what he's saying is 100% counter to what Jesus said? sheesh

And if a so-called "man of God" is buggering the parishioners, you really don't think that allows for a wee bit of criticism of the *acts*??? (Not to mention calling the police?) :sarcastic

 

[standing_alone]

There's another aspect of this, maybe. Who wants to recognize that the institutions of their Faith are, at the moment, failing to provide good guidance to the followers and rein in the extremes?

I can understand why people wouldn't want to look very hard at that. They might think that the institutions being off says something about the validity of the original message. But (imo) it doesn't. It only speaks to the current state of things. And all religions go through these cycles anyway, so what's the big deal?

If I understand you correctly, you're stating that religions go in cycles of extremes, yes? If that's what you are stating, then I think it can be a big deal, for anything taken to extremes is dangerous. Radical Islam is a great example of this.

Well, yeah, Pat Robertson is a Christian. And guess what? What are the rest of y'all going to do about it, if you think he's gone astray? You know the media won't give you equal airtime, because they're looking for ratings. But what I don't hear is much criticism of the *views* (not the man) from pulpits or other sources. There's no PR going on to counter crazy stuff. The institutions are pretty much silent. And if that persists, then you get what you get, and get stuck with the crazy stuff by association.

:clap Great point! I often hear the man criticized, but not the views. I wonder why that is. Methinks it has something to do with secretly agreeing with much the man says.

From individuals sometimes you get, "Well, we shouldn't criticize a man of God!" Ok, so don't criticize the man, but for heaven's sake, does that mean you can't show how what he's saying is 100% counter to what Jesus said? sheesh

Ah yes, another statement for which I have total disdain. What the hell is a "man of God?" He's a man like everyone else and should be criticized for any damaging or stupid, careless remarks he makes. A "man of God" means nothing to me as a person who holds secular beliefs. If a member of your religion is doing something reckless or dangerous, or just plain careless, by all means, do something about it!

 

[lunamoth]

Wow, there were lots of great responses to this thread. Damn... Why did I have to work overtime?

What prompted me to make this thread was a Christian member's post in a different thread (I won't name names) stating that the certain, what I'll call them, "conversion techniques" made by certain Christians made them not "real" or "true" Christians - but I didn't see how that could be. For if someone believes in Christ and does their best to follow Christ's teachings and tries to convert people to their faith, how does that make them not a "true" or "real" Christian?

Whenever I see a member of a certain religion (I'll stick with Christianity as an example, since that happens to be the religion I see do this the most) say something like, "They are not true Christians." I see it more as a way to:

1. Discredit these certain Christians (or whatever other religion)
2. Distance themselves from these certain Christians (or whatever religion)
3. Not have to take responsibility for such uses (or maybe, misuses) of Christianity (or whatever religion)

I see this finger-pointing and "not true Christian (or whatever religion)" name-calling more as a way to not have to deal with those who take the faith to "dangerous" extremes, since it's much easier to just claim that those "dangerous" individuals are not a member of the faith, rather than dealing with the root of the problem, which is often different sects of the religion or the "holy" books themselves. At least, that's how I view this.

Hi Standing Alone,

I think you make a good point about the futility and harmfulness that can come from playing the "Who's a Real Christian/Baha'i/Muslim," game. (Funny, not many people do this about Judaism or Buddhism, but perhaps I live a sheltered life).

I'm not sure what these "institutions" are in Christianity that Booko is referring to, but Christ did not found a religion nor an organization nor an institution. He came and showed us God's nature, which is love. He was the Message. Now, the Church is one (and just to be clear here the Church is indeed the people, but it is not an organization, a religion, or a denomination). And yes, we humans are all unique and process things differently and express all that we are in a myriad of ways, and this is reflected in the wide variety of Chirstianity we see being practiced today. It is a bit messy, because people are like that, but when God looks at His children all He sees are...His children. Squabbling children a lot of the time. Sigh.

We have a hard time doing what Christ did, loving each other perfectly. No wonder He gave us a new commandment: Love each other as He loves us. It is a cycle of love and all we need to do is stop a minute, and step into the stream. We look to God and know His love for us. We are in turn transformed by that love. And we then take that love out into the world. That's it.

It's not about enforcing the borders and guarding the gates. It's an invitation. It's an invitation to see and do things differently. It's not about who's out and who's in. It's not about discrediting or distancing or name calling or shunning or taking charge. God give us guidance, in the OT in the form of the ten commandments, in the NT in the example of Christ. This guidance is for our benefit, to help us step into that cycle of looking up to God, transforming within, and carrying that love out to the world. If we get it wrong, yes, things will be messy. And we invariable fall short and it is messy. But the response is not to keep drawing lines in the sand and digging trenches and pointing fingers. The response, always, is love.

Booko, there was a lot in your last post in particular that I must say comes from such a completely different direction than I have ever approached my faith from that I don't really know how to answer your complaints. But, my experience is that the vast majority of Christians I know understand very well that the Message is still clear and salvific, in spite of our many human failings. Priests and ministers, as you say Standing Alone, are very much humans too. But we never need to confuse our limitations as being God's.

 

[Booko]

If I understand you correctly, you're stating that religions go in cycles of extremes, yes? If that's what you are stating, then I think it can be a big deal, for anything taken to extremes is dangerous. Radical Islam is a great example of this.

Aside from being one of the principles taught by the founder of my religion (i.e. "progressive revelation"), as an atheist I observed through reading histories of religions that it was true.

I've pointed out elsewhere in the past couple of days that yes, imo, Islamic *institutions* aren't functioning well, which means nothing about Islam the religion as taught by Muhammad. Clearly the Taliban had no concept of "let there be no compulsion in religion." :sarcastic

Why was there no "radical Islam" in 1200 A.D.? Uh...because the institutions were working and the leaders were leading properly? It's clear that they aren't now. Oh, there are imams that are moderate that try to make a difference, but there's more money behind teaching children lies and hatred, and no one in Islam right now to cut off the flow of money and quash the terribly unIslamic ideas.

Great point! I often hear the man criticized, but not the views. I wonder why that is. Methinks it has something to do with secretly agreeing with much the man says.

I wonder about that sometimes myself, though often I think it's just a case of giving him a bye. As for criticizing the man and not the views, that seems to be a facet of human nature. I guess it's easier to just say "he's a jerk" instead of putting forth something to contend with the views. Ah well.

Ah yes, another statement for which I have total disdain. What the hell is a "man of God?" He's a man like everyone else and should be criticized for any damaging or stupid, careless remarks he makes. A "man of God" means nothing to me as a person who holds secular beliefs. If a member of your religion is doing something reckless or dangerous, or just plain careless, by all means, do something about it!

I don't think it's helpful to anyone to give someone the uber-benefit-of-the-doubt because they happen to serve a religion in some official capacity.

What I think *is* important is *justice*. That means not jumping to conclusions without looking at evidence, the same as you would for any person. But it also means looking at the evidence, and if it points to something that illegal, terribly harmful to others, etc., it needs to be dealt with, not ignored.

"Discipline" and "commandments" are not just for the laity. They're for everyone.

Does that mean a religion has to put its business in the street all the time? No. I don't even think it's usually productive to put things out publically within the religion -- that just causes people to gossip and take sides, and makes for a lot of division. But you can talk about ideas and challenge them, without bringing personalities into the picture.

But institutions should be handling things that go astray -- what else are they there for?

Sometimes, though, when it's clear that laws have been broken, you do what you would do if you saw any crime on the street -- call the cops and let the secular system of justice do its job.

 

[Booko]

I think you make a good point about the futility and harmfulness that can come from playing the "Who's a Real Christian/Baha'i/Muslim," game. (Funny, not many people do this about Judaism or Buddhism, but perhaps I live a sheltered life).

In Judaism sometimes people just make comments about those who are less observant, and usually without mentioning any names. What they say when the goyim aren't around, I wouldn't know.

I'm not sure what these "institutions" are in Christianity that Booko is referring to, but Christ did not found a religion nor an organization nor an institution.

If you want to know about the institututions, you can ask any RCC or Orthodox Christian about them and the history of them. And there's the general opinion that Jesus' remarks about Peter being the rock on which His Church would be built at least implied there would be some sort of polity.

Of course, Jesus did not outline any institutions directly. But there certainly is a history of organization throughout Christian history, isn't there? It's revealed in Acts and the Epistles. The job fell to the Apostles, according to your texts.

As for Christ not founding a religion, I'm sorry lunamoth, but I've heard that time and again, and it sounds as much as a canard now as it has before. Jesus founded a religion. He did not found a sports team or a shipping firm.

Look if "institutions" is too Baha'i word for you, feel free to substitute "leadership" or "polity" or whatever you like. It was you yourself that for many posts tried to make a point that there was no effective difference between the Baha'i "Administrative Order" and Christian clergy.

It's not about enforcing the borders and gaurding the gates. It's an invitation. It's an invitation to see and do things differently.

Sorry, lunamoth. Sometimes it *is* about enforcing the borders. Or did you think that the pedophilia problemin the RCC should be handled just with pure Christian forgiveness?

That may be an *individual* Christians proper response to the situation, but if you're suggesting that Christian "organizations" shouldn't be cleaning up messes like that and helping the victims, which I seriously doubt you are, then you would have a really strange idea of what Christ meant by love. :sarcastic

Booko, there was a lot in your last post in particular that I must say comes from such a completely different direction than I have ever approached my faith from that I don't really know how to answer your complaints.

I have no complaints. What's to answer? Like you, I recognize that humans are not perfect.

But, my experience is that the vast majority of Christians I know understand very well that the Message is still clear and salvific, in spite of our many human failings.

Yes, I said that. To elaborate, the message will always be salvific.

You do realize, I hope, that I could've used pretty much any religion as an example. Unfortunately, Christianity is the most familiar one, so it seems to get "picked on" a lot.

As for my own, pfft, don't think we won't have our serious downturn in our time. I know there are some ostriches to be found, but I would not be one of those.

 

[standing_alone]

Hey guys, you make some interesting points, but you sort of went off in a direction that I didn't intend to - it's sort of off topic, to me. I didn't have religious institutions in mind when I wrote the OP. I was simply referring to your every-day Christian or Muslim (or whatever the heck else) calling another every-day Christian or Muslim (or whatever the heck else) not true Christians or Muslims (or whatever the heck else). Maybe we could just address that now.

 

[Mathematician]

Personally, I just go by whatever an individual wants to call himself/herself.


I once knew a person who claimed to be a Christian, but when I dove into discussions with her, she claimed that there were three separate gods. I say she is a Christian in her own sense, just like I am a UU in my sense. It's better than arguing over whether not a gay is a Christian, or if a Catholic is, or a Mormon, J.W., rapist, killer, ...

 

[Booko]

Hey guys, you make some interesting points, but you sort of went off in a direction that I didn't intend to - it's sort of off topic, to me. I didn't have religious institutions in mind when I wrote the OP. I was simply referring to your every-day Christian or Muslim (or whatever the heck else) calling another every-day Christian or Muslim (or whatever the heck else) not true Christians or Muslims (or whatever the heck else). Maybe we could just address that now.

No sweat. I only brought up in the sense that in some religions anyway, there are structures that have the job of defining who is and who is not religion X. That's not universally so by any means, so you end up sometimes with individuals trying to make definitions. Except they're just individuals like the rest of us.

 

[lunamoth]

Hey guys, you make some interesting points, but you sort of went off in a direction that I didn't intend to - it's sort of off topic, to me. I didn't have religious institutions in mind when I wrote the OP. I was simply referring to your every-day Christian or Muslim (or whatever the heck else) calling another every-day Christian or Muslim (or whatever the heck else) not true Christians or Muslims (or whatever the heck else). Maybe we could just address that now.

Hi Standing Alone,

Sorry if my reply was a derailment. I just wanted to point out that there is an alternative to the judgmental attitude you are talking about. And you are quite correct that it is appropriate to disagree with the views espoused by Christians that do not communicate Christ's message of love. This does not mean we overlook criminal acts or cover up abuses or stand in silence when one among us makes statements of hatred, even if (especially if) those making the offensive statements are members of the clergy. We have an obligation to face down hatred and prejudice and fear-mongering. The commandment of love is not wimpy. I think the most harm is done when we blindly follow and do not question the actions of those in our religions who have 'authority.'

2 c,
lunamoth

 

[standing_alone]

No sweat. I only brought up in the sense that in some religions anyway, there are structures that have the job of defining who is and who is not religion X. That's not universally so by any means, so you end up sometimes with individuals trying to make definitions. Except they're just individuals like the rest of us.

Yeah, it's all cool, I understand that things vary among different religions, or even among just different sects of the same religion. Except I was just referring to everyday people (people more or less like you and me) doing this finger-pointing "name-calling." Take for example from this thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30011&page=2 :

christians may seem mean, but those people who profess to be christians, and spit in your face, are not christians...

I understand that there are some so called christians out there that truly have no right calling themselves followers of Christ...

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Nothing regarding institutions at all. Maybe this will bring the debate in the direction I intended it to go.

 

[standing_alone]

Sorry if my reply was a derailment.

Nah, it wasn't. I just saw the thread starting to go away from what I originally wanted debated. It wasn't one post that did it and I kind of aided that off-topic drifting myself.

 

[Buttons*]

Sorry if this isnt OP material...

People tend to have a "see it my way or you're wrong/stupid" attitude. I think religions are supposed to attempt to stop that way of thinking; however, it's only created more differing opinion and ignorance. You can't tell someone that they are not a member of a certian faith, but you can tell them that they are not representing it well. People are always subjective.