Christianity - Which One?

2010-05-17 06:06:25

#1

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

Which branch of Christianity is closest to the real teachings of the NT (Lets forget about the OT for this thread).

Catholicism?
Church of England?
Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism?
Other?

Which one and why?

Edit:
I guess the other question is which edition of the NT is the 'right' one.

(Not interested in taking it up, but the NT isn't all bad and there seems a huge gap between 'church' and the book)

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-17 06:36:55)

Fuck Israel

2010-05-17 06:35:02

#2

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

Probably Quakerism imo.

Unfortunately you're gonna have to decide what the 'real' teachings are first.

2010-05-17 06:35:14

#3

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7061|Moscow, Russia

impossible to answer i'm affraid. NT's been purposefully fucked up beyond repair, nobody's going to recover it, imo.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2010-05-17 06:38:03

#4

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Quaker

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-05-17 06:49:10

#5

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

Laudianism! Huzzah!

i guess renaissance-era puritanism was the 'closest', no?

or if you're just taking it as a literary document, then clearly the westboro baptist church have the most concise literal understanding

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-17 07:14:20

#6

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7007|Sydney, Australia

ruisleipa wrote:
Probably Quakerism imo.

heh, they don't sound half bad..

2010-05-17 07:21:07

#7

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:
i guess renaissance-era puritanism was the 'closest', no?

They were a bit draconian weren't they? Jesus didn't say you can't have fun, or electricity.

Fuck Israel

2010-05-17 07:28:16

#8

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

should've done a poll.

Uzique wrote:
i guess renaissance-era puritanism was the 'closest', no?

ahhh...no.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-05-17 07:28:56)

2010-05-17 07:49:47

#9

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

Dilbert_X wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i guess renaissance-era puritanism was the 'closest', no?
They were a bit draconian weren't they? Jesus didn't say you can't have fun, or electricity.

no they just had the platonic view that arts and theatres were mimetic, untruthful and misleading affairs...

it wasn't "no fun". that's a shakespearean parody of a puritan ("there will be no more cakes and ale").

all im saying is that puritanism or previously lutheran beliefs stripped away all the artificial ecclesiastical bullshit and got back to grass-roots.

one man and his direct connection to god.

that, in my view, is the 'truest' form of spirituality. do away with the 'organized' part of 'religion'.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-05-17 07:50:40)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-17 07:52:39

#10

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i guess renaissance-era puritanism was the 'closest', no?
They were a bit draconian weren't they? Jesus didn't say you can't have fun, or electricity.
no they just had the platonic view that arts and theatres were mimetic, untruthful and misleading affairs...

it wasn't "no fun". that's a shakespearean parody of a puritan ("there will be no more cakes and ale").

all im saying is that puritanism or previously lutheran beliefs stripped away all the artificial ecclesiastical bullshit and got back to grass-roots.

one man and his direct connection to god.

that, in my view, is the 'truest' form of spirituality. do away with the 'organized' part of 'religion'.

Are you not mixing Quakerism with Puritanism? Quakers don't have clergy of any form, every man is his own direct link to God.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-05-17 07:59:20

#11

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

that is puritanism and, by extension, presbyterianism (who still believed in organized clergies and preachers, but without any of the ecclesiastical pomp)

i always understood it that quakerism was essentially the same, only it was the name-tag given to the public dissenters (during the Protestant reign) that then jumped ship and went to america.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-17 08:03:24

#12

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
that is puritanism and, by extension, presbyterianism (who still believed in organized clergies and preachers, but without any of the ecclesiastical pomp)

i always understood it that quakerism was essentially the same, only it was the name-tag given to the public dissenters (during the Protestant reign) that then jumped ship and went to america.

Well, the primary difference between the two is use of force. Puritans were known for exactly swift and harsh punishment against any 'heretics' among them (see: Salem Witch Trials) while Quakers abhor violence of any sort. I went to a Quaker high school and the tenets were honesty, humility, plain dress and speech, and pacifism.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-05-17 08:06:43

#13

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

Yeah I understand both are pretty ascetic sects of Christianity but Puritans were more strict and dogmatic, whereas Quakers were slightly more universalist and pacifist. but anyway, in regards to who keeps closest to the New Testament... i think the steely puritan determination ensures there are no deviations from the code, full stop. you can argue over whether that's 'right' or 'wrong' - but i think that debate lies more in the ancillary question about the new testament translation/version itself. the puritans just stuck to the doctrines that were prescribed to them.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-17 08:31:21

#14

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6906|London, England

they all have their own versions of the bible, right. One would need to find the oldest version of the bible which is probably in ancient jewish hebrew or something, and from that you'd need to be able to have a good understanding of the original language itself to interpret it into a modern language. Of course, those have all probably been destroyed. Then again, maybe that's a good thing. I think something like the Quaran has remain unchanged since it was written, and just look at the shit it has in it and the problems it causes. Whereas with the Bible it's been rewritten countless times for various political reasons for all the sects but it's probably for the better, in terms of the broader outlook for Christianity and its place in society as a whole...

2010-05-17 12:41:46

#15

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6867|SE London

I quite like C of E - it's the least like a religion, more a sort of national institution. I don't even think my vicar believes in god (I bet a sizeable chunk of his congregation don't either).

I also think it's pretty close to the message of the new testament, which basically just seems to be, be nice to each other and don't do bad stuff.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-05-17 12:50:38)

2010-05-17 12:44:08

#16

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6906|London, England

You can't assume that it's the closest just because it's the nicest and fits modern society and all that, if anything that makes it the least likely to be faithful to the original books/documents...

2010-05-17 12:50:21

#17

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6867|SE London

Mekstizzle wrote:
You can't assume that it's the closest just because it's the nicest and fits modern society and all that, if anything that makes it the least likely to be faithful to the original books/documents...

Who's talking about modern society?

I'm talking about the message of the new testament, which seems to be basically, be nice to each other.

There aren't loads of rules and stuff in the new testament. None of the sort of restrictions that the more puritanical branches of christianty go in for. I certainly can't see Jesus having approved of the catholic church with all their power and wealth. Whereas the C of E, with their message of being nice to each other and their stance of complete inaction in all circumstances, seem very much in line with the new testament.

Just being nice was what Jesus was all about....

It's not about glory for god or anything like that, it's about being nice to people.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-05-17 12:55:12)

2010-05-17 13:03:19

#18

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6970|United States of America

Bertster7 wrote:
Mekstizzle wrote:
You can't assume that it's the closest just because it's the nicest and fits modern society and all that, if anything that makes it the least likely to be faithful to the original books/documents...
Who's talking about modern society?

I'm talking about the message of the new testament, which seems to be basically, be nice to each other.

There aren't loads of rules and stuff in the new testament. None of the sort of restrictions that the more puritanical branches of christianty go in for. I certainly can't see Jesus having approved of the catholic church with all their power and wealth. Whereas the C of E, with their message of being nice to each other and their stance of complete inaction in all circumstances, seem very much in line with the new testament.

Just being nice was what Jesus was all about....

It's not about glory for god or anything like that, it's about being nice to people.

Basically, yes. I'm not quite sure how the rest of us have managed to miss that message that a gradeschool child could understand.

2010-05-17 13:07:51

#19

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5987|College Park, MD

Quakerism. If I had to be religious I'd probably be a Quaker. Although my stances on things like war and capital punishment are pretty inconsistent with Quaker teachings.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2010-05-17 13:08:32)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2010-05-17 13:30:20

#20

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6952

Peace and being nice to people is all fine and dandy, so long as there is someone to do the protecting and dieing to preserve ones freedom to practice ones beliefs...

Can't comment too much about NT, since I grew up Roman Catholic. But I have a discord against a parish that can make/change rules at will.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-05-17 13:31:07)

2010-05-17 13:39:17

#21

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5987|College Park, MD

Ilocano wrote:
Peace and being nice to people is all fine and dandy, so long as there is someone to do the protecting and dieing to preserve ones freedom to practice ones beliefs...

Can't comment too much about NT, since I grew up Roman Catholic. But I have a discord against a parish that can make/change rules at will.

I believe there were Quakers who served in WW2. I recall reading a short memoir of an American soldier who fought in WW2 and was a Quaker. He reasoned that while Quakerism condones pacifism, it also condones the exact opposite of what the Axis was doing. As such he thought it necessary to help good prevail over evil.

2010-05-17 13:41:43

#22

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
Peace and being nice to people is all fine and dandy, so long as there is someone to do the protecting and dieing to preserve ones freedom to practice ones beliefs...

Can't comment too much about NT, since I grew up Roman Catholic. But I have a discord against a parish that can make/change rules at will.
I believe there were Quakers who served in WW2. I recall reading a short memoir of an American soldier who fought in WW2 and was a Quaker. He reasoned that while Quakerism condones pacifism, it also condones the exact opposite of what the Axis was doing. As such he thought it necessary to help good prevail over evil.

Alvin York was a pacifist as well and a conscientious objector but a chaplain explained to him that killing under certain circumstances was ok.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-05-17 14:08:46

#23

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6952

JohnG@lt wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
Peace and being nice to people is all fine and dandy, so long as there is someone to do the protecting and dieing to preserve ones freedom to practice ones beliefs...

Can't comment too much about NT, since I grew up Roman Catholic. But I have a discord against a parish that can make/change rules at will.
I believe there were Quakers who served in WW2. I recall reading a short memoir of an American soldier who fought in WW2 and was a Quaker. He reasoned that while Quakerism condones pacifism, it also condones the exact opposite of what the Axis was doing. As such he thought it necessary to help good prevail over evil.
Alvin York was a pacifist as well and a conscientious objector but a chaplain explained to him that killing under certain circumstances was ok.

Prior to his "conversion", Alvin York was a mountain boy drunkard and gambler. So, the idea of being a pacifist wasn't exactly ingrained.

2010-05-17 14:19:05

#24

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

my school was anglican, fuck yeah

toff C of E.

pointless pomp wankery

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-17 14:24:16

#25

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5464|Sydney

ruisleipa wrote:
Probably Quakerism imo.

And have a barn raising.

Unfortunately you're gonna have to decide what the 'real' teachings are first.

Unless you have a tardis, this isn't going to happen.

BF2S Forums Christianity - Which One?

ruisleipa wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Board footer