In my experience, athiests act more like Jesus's teachings than many Christians. So can I say that athiest are the best Christians?
Sure, you can say anything but obviously, just by definition alone, athiests can't be Christians. Sorry. As for my 2c, I don't think it is some type or form of religion which makes a good Christian... but rather, what is in his/her heart-soul and how he/she acts on that in everyday stressful life towards others and alone.
My vote is for the Orthodox. They were the original church (Roman Catholics also make this claim, but they have changed more since the beginning, and besides that, their actions speak for themselves). As for the drinking of alcohol, though, it is actually mandated by Christianity. Ever heard of communion/Eucharist? And Jesus' first miracle was to make wine for a wedding party. Odd that he would do that if he didn't want people drinking it.
I was raised Russian Orthodox and then changed by my parents to Roman Catholic in third grade so I know them both. Still speak a little slovak but am no longer Catholic due to their past ambiguity over a baby being required to be born alive to have a Catholic Burial Mass vs their stance against abortion as being killing a human... but that's another thread altogether. As for Jesus first miracle as related by John, it is thought that his mom Mary who came to him with the wine problem was coming to them since they (Jesus and the Apostles) were the ones who drank most of the original wine.... and Mary wanted them to do something to replace the wine they already drank. As it was reported by John: So, the original wine at the wedding was something like inexpensive Chilean red while the wine Jesus made was more like a fine Napa cabernet.
Personally, I like the Gnostic Christians the best. Of course, I'm saying that as a Daoist. Gnosticism is pretty creative and more egalitarian than most forms of modern Christianity. I like their creation story where the god of the Bible is the bad guy and tales of Jesus being taught in China and so forth, as well as the emphasis on enlightenment. As an interpretation of Christianity, it's totally dishonest, but it's nonetheless the coolest! Seriously, if people here were really committed to following the letter of Jesus' words and worldview (which was pretty well carried over by his brother James), they would be practicing animal sacrifice and getting circumcised and eating restrictive diets, not to mention living in a nomadic, collectivist fashion where no one owns anything as private property because the end is nigh. (Jesus was no capitalist.) That was what Jesus believed in. Modern Christianity, and especially mainline Protestant version of Christianity (e.g. Baptist groups and so forth), bears little resemblance to that cultish outlook, if any at all. (And yes, that's exactly what Christianity was founded as: a personality cult. Pretty much all religions start out that way.) Oh well, what has honesty to do with faith?
Some of the things you say are true but much of your information is false where it pertains to these three points "they would be practicing animal sacrifice and getting circumcised and eating restrictive diets." If you read through the Gospels you will find where animal sacrifice was no longer necessary. Originally the sacrifice of a perfect animal was to signify the cleansing of sin from a person. Then when Jesus was crucified he was the final sacrifice that cleansed our sins thus we do not need any more animal sacrifices. Next you have the restrictive diets, this was a part of the old laws but when Jesus arrived he taught us that it is not what goes into you that is a sin but what come out. Finally as to circumcision, the also was a part of the old laws and in fact was the first real controversy of the brethren. But if you read in acts, it was decided that the Jewish followers would continue to get circumcised if they wished but that the gentiles and new believers did not again because of the new covenant with Christ. Now as to the collectivist life, that I could see and in fact the Orthodox has a long tradition of monastic life. When the Lord asked that young man to sell everything and follow him he was not joking. The worldly concerns can and do blur our commitment to Christ. But at the same time I do not believe that our Lord wanted us to forsake the world in its entirety. I think it is more that if a person had the will and the faith that the "ideal" would be to commit your whole life to him. Of course this is opinion I am not a theologian or a Priest.
That depends entirely on how exactly you define the term "better Christians." If you mean those who best represent the ideology, I'd say blood spattered Crusaders covered in the gore of people whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time when said Crusaders got tired of waiting to find genuine heretics. If you mean those who best represent the every day reality of what Christianity is, I'd say ordinary people who've let themselves get addicted to having an instant self-righteousness high on demand. If you mean "better" as in "more like decent human beings" clearly it's those who aren't Christians at all.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in that Jesus was sacrificed for our sins and that the only way to salvation is to subscribe to that sacrifice. They form a community based on their shared faith and they do charitable works in Jesus' name. They believe that the Harlot of Revelations is God's nominal Church lusting after mundane wealth and power and thus serparate themselves from involvement with government. Works for me. I am sure Jesus approves. I couldn't live their life style, but i have to admire their commitment to their faith. The mainstream churches are too easily led into the pursuing or enabling the pursuit of mundane wealth and power. Southern Baptists are tyrannical in their treatment of women and interfere farmore than they should in the operation of government, often to the harm of organizations that would do charitable works. May God guide and keep them, preferrably far from the seats of power.
some of the best Christians I know don't belong to any denomination, heck most don't even go to church except maybe on Christmas eve
We are ALL work in progress, and no one, not one of us, should stand in judgement of another. Its not our place. Difficult? Absolutely, and its why we are work in progress, because we all fail, even at the smallest tasks.
Hmmm, obedience to Yahweh. Now what does that get you? Come to think of it, I do believe the Christians' book has a thing or two to say about that. I seem to recall Yahweh commanding Abraham to murder his own son in cold blood just to see if the poor sap would actually do it. And it was only the intervention of a different god that prevented that crime from being committed. There's a word for gods who tell people to do things like that simply for that god's own amusement. Evil. And evil gods should not be obeyed.
Well if you go by what Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount - which takes into account people's internal motivations as well as their external actions - then everyone pretty much sucks equally. But if you're only going by who fools everyone the best with restraint and acts of piety, I think the Mormons win it hands down, especially now that they no longer consider black people subpar to whites.
Fundamentalist Independent Baptists. After having read the entire new testament, they are the only church that checks off all of the boxes.
Christ made many things clear. Love yourself and love others (they are part of you). Love God. If you can understand that then all of Gods laws make sense. To understand scripture you must accept these things. If you do not allow yourself to love others, because they oppose you, or because they disagree with you, you deny christ. Jesus made clear that law and scripture was secondary to love. People who hate in the name of a christian god are heretics.
See this would be a standard Pauline reading. Now I realize that doubtless more than 95% of modern Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians...) subscribe to some variation on Paul's brand of Christianity, but I really think it pretty clear that Paul and Christ himself differed in a number of areas. There is a historical reason why Paul's version of Christianity won out: because it was more liberal. That doesn't mean it was more honest than alternatives in circulation during his day. Christ plainly taught that he "did not come to abolish the Law [of Moses, i.e. Old Testament law], but to fulfill it", and you can see the essence of that throughout his teachings. Everywhere you turn in the gospels, you will find Christ advocating for a more stringent, not a more liberal, interpretation of the ancient law; one that obliges his followers to not only adhere to the letter of the law, but also to the spirit in which it was intended. In other words, go farther. If the Law requires you to tithe one-tenth of your income, then tithe 100 percent instead. Etc. Or, as Christ put it, "be therefore perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect". It was James, Jesus' brother, who took up this line, and you can see that essence sprinkled all throughout his book of the New Testament. He was the best posthumous example of Christ's teachings in practice, not some later convert (Paul) who never met Christ in person. (Well except in one vision he reportedly had whilst traversing the desert. You can see a lot of things while traversing the desert though. ) James was strict. It was no coincidence that said branch continued on with the traditional Jewish customs I spoke to before well after Christ's passing. Obviously they, the mere people who actually knew Jesus, did not see Christ's passing "and resurrection" as a sign that such things were now outdated. No, that would be the convenient interpretation of some guy who never met Christ and was trying to spread the faith to foreigners who didn't practice Jewish customs and probably didn't care to. While Christ taught that he had "not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it", Paul taught that Christian believers were "not under the Law". You see what I mean? Paul's version is certainly more accessible (and thus more spreadable, hence why it won out), but it's really not honest. Well I'm pretty much just taking this from how the early Christians actually lived. The end of Acts 2 makes it clear, and Christ's teachings, as you highlight, reinforce the idea. These weren't exactly the equivalent of affluent modern American business people who invested only a small chunk of their surplus time and money into their faith, if any at all. These people literally believed that the end would come within their generation, and so there was no point in investing either time or money in anything worldly. They believed that "some alive today [that day] will not taste death" before Christ's return. Some 2,000 years later, I guess I can understand why people have grown impatient though and decided to settle in and get comfortable. That's alright. Neither am I and neither was Jesus.
