Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i am confused if Jesus came to die for sins of Christians then doesn't that mean Christians can do what they want and get away with it coz Jesus died for them?

The thing is anybody that believes in Jesus can be saved. But anyone of any religion is now called a Christian, and yep, you can go on sinning and sinning and sinning and just say the magic words "Forgive me."..Then go on sinning and sinning again...........

Just like that,..........see how easy it is...........

but jesus died so people wont have to ask for forgivness and i thought he was god?

Originally posted by muslimscholar
but jesus died so people wont have to ask for forgivness and i thought he was god?


And this is where the trouble starts Muslimscholar.....Christians will often use the "get out free" card, and commit all the wrongs they wish....

anyone got any answers

There are some Christians that would commit sin and do it over and over again while using the I am sorry and accept Jesus in their hearts but without them truly repenting their sins its just empty words and only God can be the judge of that.

The End

Originally posted by muslimscholar
i am confused if Jesus came to die for sins of Christians then doesn't that mean Christians can do what they want and get away with it coz Jesus died for them? Depends on which Christian denomination is being examined. Typically repentance is required for forgiveness to be obtained. Then if one sins following repentance then that individual did not truly repent and has not yet obtained forgiveness. But, yes, there are some (not that my denomination or myself agree with them) that hold that the hypothetical you state is true.

so what sins did jesus die for if u can ask for forgivness and get rid of ur sins?

Originally posted by muslimscholar
so what sins did jesus die for if u can ask for forgivness and get rid of ur sins?


He died for the sins of mankind (he didn't differentiate which ones so it's assumed he died for all of them)

There is a story written about it, you should read it before asking a billion questions about it.

Originally posted by Soleran
He died for the sins of mankind (he didn't differentiate which ones so it's assumed he died for all of them)

There is a story written about it, you should read it before asking a billion questions about it.

yes but if people can ask for forgivness and be forgived

Originally posted by muslimscholar
so what sins did jesus die for if u can ask for forgivness and get rid of ur sins? All sins can be forgiven following true repentance, but then, can one truly repent of all types of sin?

Originally posted by Soleran
There are some Christians that would commit sin and do it over and over again while using the I am sorry and accept Jesus in their hearts but without them truly repenting their sins its just empty words and only God can be the judge of that.

The End what if they do truly repent their sins then go off doing other sins?

Originally posted by lord xyz
what if they do truly repent their sins then go off doing other sins?


Yes WHAT IF then, WHAT IF!?

Man WILL make mistakes, I believe the system in place allows and recognizes that sins will be made, crazy huh.

Originally posted by muslimscholar
yes but if people can ask for forgivness and be forgived
Yes. That's how Christianity works.

Yet sins are also your thoughts which us being human cannot control. There should be a "Ask only once " clause....

Just like the "Once Saved always saved."

* there are sins committed accidentally, or because of ignorance, or due to weakness of flesh... these things are considerable...

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."
I John 5:16-17

* Saint John preached that the brethren in the Church should pray for fellow brethren who committed sins which are NOT mortal... one example of a mortal sin which cannot be forgiven is:

"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
But a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."
Hebrews 10:26-27

* sins committed deliberately... so the logic that states if we commit sin and ask for forgiveness and we will be forgiven regardless of what kind of sin committed is not in accord with Christ's teachings...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yet sins are also your thoughts which us being human cannot control. There should be a "Ask only once " clause....

Just like the "Once Saved always saved."

* the "Once Saved Always Saved" doctrine, often used by Baptist churches and Born Again / Charismatic fellowships, is not in accord with the Bible...

"Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward."
II John 8

* salvation can be lost...

According to the scriptures yes....You're name CAN be taken out of the book of life..........I agree.

Originally posted by muslimscholar
yes but if people can ask for forgivness and be forgived
And they couldn't before. Nice of Jebus to do that for us folks, eh?

yes but jesus is god and he couldent forgived them so he kills himself so people can be forgived

I belive most Christians say that he didn't kill himslef, but rather allowed himself to be killed.

In some branches of Christianity, Jesus is not God, but a man.

Originally posted by Soleran
Yes WHAT IF then, WHAT IF!?

Man WILL make mistakes, I believe the system in place allows and recognizes that sins will be made, crazy huh. Not so much crazy, more along the lines of ridiculous.

Originally posted by muslimscholar
i am confused if Jesus came to die for sins of Christians then doesn't that mean Christians can do what they want and get away with it coz Jesus died for them?

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" Romans 6:1-2

Originally posted by Alliance
I belive most Christians say that he didn't kill himslef, but rather allowed himself to be killed.

In some branches of Christianity, Jesus is not God, but a man.

I believe I read that somewhere as well...or I could be wrong.

There are so many sects and differing opinons, its often hard to keep them straight.

Originally posted by Alliance
There are so many sects and differing opinons, its often hard to keep them straight.

That is why my only source for Christianity is the Bible, not some person who makes something up that seems better, because in the end it leads to death.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12

So, that means everyone should ignore the Pope. If thats the case, I agree.

Your opinon is just as guilty. The bible has been irrovcable changed throught history by varying religious sects. The bible too, was made up by people.

That quote is not contextual at all, and doesn't even make sense in this situation.

if the bible is the word of god then why are things sometimes been thrown out or put in by men?

what if god just one of us.

Originally posted by muslimscholar
if the bible is the word of god then why are things sometimes been thrown out or put in by men?

Its not. Thats why ALL holy texts are wrong.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its not. Thats why ALL holy texts are wrong. OR rather some are right, but it's impossible to tell.

Yes, Better explination.

And many texts were edit and others thrown out.

And they weren't even written at the same time.

And seems the texts are added onto from one to the other. Like they were copied, then added to.

Biased sources.

Selected sources too.

sources with alterior motives?

Who cares ? Most religions suck ne way.....

So? We can still study them.

Originally posted by Alliance
sources with alterior motives? Sources with different views were thrown out. And new ones added in with the alterior motives...........ta ta ta daaaa!!............St. Paul The new guy that god didn't pick.

Yet there really are not any scriptures to be seen today. Only bits and pieces. What we have today are the early fathers views and additions and what they thought were important.

Originally posted by muslimscholar
if the bible is the word of god then why are things sometimes been thrown out or put in by men?

All Holy Books were written by men. God would not put all this wisdom to us in a single book then expect us to blindly follow it.

That is why God would not bring a book down to begin with. There are far too many complex relations and things in this world, socially consructed and otherwise, which are not static - eveything changes, and everything will keep on changing.
God wants you to read othe things, explore other ways (that is assuming God is watching you)

A God who believes one book is for all time is a very simple God.

(And above is my logical evaluation of things)

However...

If reading the Qur'an makes you spiritually fullfilled, than thats fine. This might be the way to God, but it is not THE ONLY way.
Same goes if you believe in Jesus, Moses or abraham. If such makes you spiritually fullfilled, then who am I to claim otherwise.

Believe in stones brother, as long as you don't throw them at me.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I believe I read that somewhere as well...or I could be wrong.

No thats correct they are called Unitarian Christians. They believe that Jesus was man and not God. If thats what you are refering to.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No thats correct they are called Unitarian Christians. They believe that Jesus was man and not God. If thats what you are refering to.

I think so. Im pretty sure I read it somewhere, or heard it, but I was not sure.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Alfheim
No thats correct they are called Unitarian Christians. They believe that Jesus was man and not God. If thats what you are refering to.

Thats at least what I was referring to. I'm sure lil thought the same.

Originally posted by Alliance
So? We can still study them.


That is true

Originally posted by muslimscholar
if the bible is the word of god then why are things sometimes been thrown out or put in by men?

It is not. The same thing with other religious text, the Torah, Koran, the Bhagavad gita etc... the concept of God did not descend from religions. Both religion and god are the inventions of man

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Who cares ? Most religions suck ne way.....

Is Buddhism rocks?

Originally posted by mahasattva
Is Buddhism rocks?

Its too laid back for me.

Originally posted by mahasattva
Is Buddhism rocks?

Originally posted by Alliance


Highly educated people and even ordinary man have highly respect with this great religion...Buddhism is becoming popular to the west...

Its a fad.

A bunch of people figured out that Abrhamic gods weren't the only ones around and went slaphappy.

Buddhism is too often viewed as this perfect relgion. People overlook its own flaws because its currently considered popular.

Originally posted by mahasattva
Is Buddhism rocks?


Buddhism is hott....

My prior statement was just a joke....Christianity and Islam have the potential to become very productive and positive forces..they always had that potential. But unfortunately, since religion is nothing more than a human construct in general, they are prone to corruption.

Buddhism's is not a religion, its a philosophical thought, for a lot of people.

Buddhism is in the same group as Epicureanism, I would say. (not by the philosphy, but by the type)

Buddhism is a lot more appealing to me than all other religions though, atleast as a philosophy...

However, as a mythology Hinduism definately beats all !

Buddhism is very difficult to practice - properly at least.

Buddhism seems ok, but New age is kinda cool, they accept all views ecpect traditional religions..It's a very acceptive spiritual view and encompasses very much.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Buddhism is very difficult to practice - properly at least.


Yes, because it asks us to let go of the self, and to resist all urge to do harm to another. That's not something most people are ready to do yet....

Originally posted by Alliance
Its a fad.

A bunch of people figured out that Abrhamic gods weren't the only ones around and went slaphappy.

Buddhism is too often viewed as this perfect relgion. People overlook its own flaws because its currently considered popular. I too am skeptical of this religion being as great as it is said to be.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, because it asks us to let go of the self, and to resist all urge to do harm to another. That's not something most people are ready to do yet....


"There could be no greater mistake than for a Westerner the direct practice of *, for it would be a matter of his will and his consciousness, and would only strengthen the latter, bringing about the very effect to be avoided."
-Jung (1930)
"Secret of the Golden Flower"

Of course, this was written in the 1930s when the divide between the East and West was more distinctly felt, but my impression is that in addition to some people not being ready for it yet, their conscious efforts to do so would have the opposite effect of reinforcing the ego.

Undoubtedly, native practitioners of their respective spiritual traditions faced that same paradox, but seems like a considerably different problem when people of a much different culture attempt to practice that same spiritual tradition. Buddhism was transformed by and adapted to each culture it was introduced to, from India to China to Japan. Each time it was assimilated into a new culture it adapted to the sensibilities and peculiarities of the people. I am skeptical that many people are able to successfully reconcile their identity as a Westerner as well as successfully engage in a foreign spiritual practice as it was originally meant to be practiced verbatim (and hence the need to adapt it to one's own personal needs).

I'm not saying that it's not possible or that it hasn't been done... but I'm skeptical. One good example to the contrary is John Cage. Or the beat poets, who were able to capture the spontaneity and creativity of zen. Many people are also able to successfully integrate various philosiphies originating from different religions, but I don't necessarily see the traditional practices of those religions as appropriate. They're valuable no doubt, but they were developed and suited to an entirely different people. As Jung put it, we have “an entirely different point of departure in these things.”



*sorry, this was meant to be a single post, but I accidentally posted the first part

Originally posted by Alliance
Its a fad.

A bunch of people figured out that Abrhamic gods weren't the only ones around and went slaphappy.

Buddhism is too often viewed as this perfect relgion. People overlook its own flaws because its currently considered popular.

Not so in Buddhism. Its because buddha's teachings are humanistic philosophy that elucidates the truth and the workings of human mind which guides the supreme way of life and the reverence of all living beings.This what makes it popular and appealing to the people.

Any religion will sell itself, and its not that simple.

Besides, there are many other philosophies that teach the same things.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Buddhism is very difficult to practice - properly at least.

Traditional Buddhism, indeed, involved difficult practices and austerities to attain one's goal of supreme enlightenment. However, my Buddhism taught by Nichiren, 13th century buddhist reformist monk, is very practical, and widely accesible to anyone who practice it.

http://www.middlewaypress.com/mirror.html


The Road to Enlightenment

Today there are many schools of Buddhism, perhaps even thousands. The British scholar Christmas Humphreys once wrote: "To describe is as difficult as describing London. Is it Mayfair, Bloomsbury, or the Old Kent Road? Or is it the lowest common multiple of all these parts, or all of them and something more?"

As the Buddhist philosophy gently flowed from India - north through China and Tibet, south into Thailand and Southeast Asia - it tended to absorb and be influenced by local religious customs and beliefs. The Buddhism that spread to Tibet and China and eventually to Korea and Japan was called Mahayana, meaning "greater vehicle." That which spread southward, to Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka was called Hinayana, for "lesser vehicle," a pejorative term applied to it by the Mahayanists. The Hinayana schools, based on the earlier teachings of Shakyamuni, typically emphasized a strict and highly detailed code of personal conduct geared toward one's personal salvation. The Mahayana schools emphasized the need for Buddhism to be a compassionate means for common people to attain enlightenment - to search for a practical method that could serve as a vehicle for greater numbers (the greater vehicle) to make the journey to Buddhahood. The profusion of different Buddhist sutras and theories came to be a source of great confusion, particularly in China in the first and second centuries. At that time, Chinese scholars were confronted with the random introduction of the various sutras of the many Hinayana schools as well as the Mahayana scriptures. Perplexed by these diverse teachings, Chinese Buddhists attempted to compare and classify the sutras.

By the fifth century A.D., the systematizing of the Buddhist canon had become very advanced. In particular, a priest named Chih-i, later known as the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai, developed the definitive standard known as "the five periods and eight teachings." Based on his own enlightenment, which may have rivaled Shakyamuni's, T'ien-t'ai's system classified the sutras chronologically as well as from the standpoint of profundity. He determined that the Lotus Sutra, the penultimate teaching of Shakyamuni expounded toward the end of his life, contained the ultimate truth. T'ien-t'ai formulated this truth as the principle of "three thousand realms in a single moment of life." It employs a phenomenological approach, describing all the kaleidoscopic emotions and mental states that human beings are subject to at any given moment. The theory of three thousand realms in a single moment of life holds that all the innumerable phenomena of the universe are encompassed in a single moment of a common mortal's life. Thus the macrocosm is contained within the microcosm.

The vast dimension of life to which Shakyamuni awoke under the Bodhi tree was beyond the reach of ordinary human consciousness. T'ien-t'ai described this ultimate truth as three thousand realms in a single moment of life, recognizing that the Lotus Sutra was the only sutra to assert that all people - men and women, good and evil, intellectuals and common laborers - had the potential to attain Buddhahood within their lifetimes.

A crucial question remained: How could common people apply this to their lives? Toward that end, T'ien-t'ai advocated a rigorous practice of observing the mind through meditation, delving deeper and deeper until the ultimate truth of three thousand realms in a single moment of life was grasped. Unfortunately, this type of practice was feasible only for monks, who could spend indefinite periods of time contemplating the message implicit in the Lotus Sutra. It was almost impossible for people who worked for a living and had other things on their minds. The full flowering of Buddhism was not to be accomplished until it migrated along trading routes to Japan. It would not be widely practiced and revered today without the incredible courage and insight of a thirteenth-century Japanese monk named Nichiren, who brought the Lotus Sutra into sharp focus in a way that had a direct impact on people and their daily lives.

Back to Top

Modern-Day Buddhism
Nichiren, born in Japan in 1222, gave concrete and practical expression to the Buddhist philosophy of life that Shakyamuni taught and T'ien-t'ai illuminated. He expressed the heart of the Lotus Sutra, and therefore the Buddha's enlightenment, in a form that all people could practice. He defined this as the invocation Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, based on the characters of the title of the Lotus Sutra.

His achievement was akin to translating a complex scientific theory into a practical technique. Just as Benjamin Franklin's discovery of electricity was not harnessed for practical use until many years later when Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, Shakyamuni's enlightenment was inaccessible until Nichiren taught the fundamental practice by which all people could call forth the law of life from within themselves. His realization of this principle had the power to directly affect and move the people who encountered it, heralding a new epoch in the history of Buddhism.

He had revealed the ultimate Mahayana teaching - the greater vehicle - by which all people could journey to Buddhahood. In Nichiren's own words, "A blue fly, if it clings to the tail of a thoroughbred horse, can travel ten thousand miles, and the green ivy that twines around the tall pine can grow to a thousand feet." For the first time, ordinary people could take a journey previously possible only for saints and sages.

Nichiren's Buddhism has proved itself to be of profound value to millions of people. It was Nichiren who expressed the essence of the Lotus Sutra in a way that enables all people, regardless of their level of knowledge, to enter the gateway to enlightenment. This was a revolutionary development in the history of religion.

While Buddhism began with the teaching of one human being who awoke to the law of life within himself, it has come to include the interpretations of that teaching by subsequent scholars and prophets. As we have said, the word Buddha originally meant "enlightened one," one who is awakened to the eternal truth or law of life (dharma). This truth is eternal and boundless. It is present always and everywhere. In this sense, the law of life is not the exclusive property of Shakyamuni Buddha or of Buddhist monks.

The truth is open equally to everyone. In the Buddhism described on these pages, there are no priests or gurus, no ultimate authority that decides what is correct or incorrect, what is right or wrong. In this Buddhism, the wall between priesthood and laity has been torn down, leading to a complete democratization of the practice. Because it is essentially nondogmatic, it suits the skeptics among us. The ultimate and all-abiding law that the Buddha perceived may be another name for some people's concept of God. On the other hand, a person who cannot believe in an anthropomorphic God can see an underlying energy to the universe. The breadth of Buddhism encompasses both views and focuses on the individual.

There is no one to blame - and no one to implore for salvation. In Buddhism, no God or supernatural entity plans and shapes our fates. In Western religion, you can bring yourself closer to God through your faith, but you can never become God. In Buddhism, one could never be separate from the wisdom of God, because the ultimate wisdom already exists in the heart of every person. Through Buddhist practice, we seek to call forth that portion of the universal life force existing originally and eternally within - what we call Buddhahood - and manifest it by becoming a Buddha. Buddhists become aware of the existence, in their innermost depths, of the eternal law that permeates both the universe and the individual human being. They aim to live every day in accordance with that law. In so doing, they discover a way of living that redirects all things toward hope, value and harmony. It is the discovery of this objective law itself, as it manifests within the individual, that creates spiritual value, not some exterior power or being. As Nichiren stated in a famous letter titled "On Attaining Buddhahood In This Lifetime":
Your practice of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of the sufferings of birth and death in the least unless you perceive the true nature of your life. If you seek enlightenment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain. It is like the case of a poor man who spends night and day counting his neighbor's wealth but gains not even half a coin.

This idea that the power to achieve happiness lies totally within can be disconcerting. It entails a radical sense of responsibility. As Daisaku Ikeda has written: "Society is complex and harsh, demanding that you struggle hard to survive. No one can make you happy. Everything depends on you as to whether or not you attain happiness·. A human being is destined to a life of great suffering if he is weak and vulnerable to his external surroundings."......................

Originally posted by Alliance
Any religion will sell itself, and its not that simple.

Besides, there are many other philosophies that teach the same things.

Buddhism don't sell by itself. People just love the Buddha Dharma if they could discover it..

Oh I love hearing that. Thats what every religion says.

I find all the exalted sentiment upsets my stomach... sick


If I had to state a preference though, it would definitely be Chinese Buddhism, specically Chan Buddhism.... (Linji was the man chair)

concerning....buddhism?

i was specifically referring to the article above and mahasattva's promotion of nichiren buddhism... but in general i do find enthusiastic zeal.... nauseous


no, i respect buddhism, but i don't feel obligated to like it

I have a question, my wife and I were watching Passion of Christ last nigh (I know way late) and we were talking about the difference between the Catholic religion and Christianity. Now from what I have read is that Christianity has been around since 1400 BC and the Old Testament but Christ wasn’t around then? Some things I would like answered…

Where did the word Christianity come from?
What is the difference between Christianity and Catholic religion?
Was it always called Christianity even before Christ?

Just a note, I’m not making fun these are things I couldn’t find clear answers for.

Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, they are not two separate religions.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, they are not two separate religions. Well I know that there are many branches of Christianity and many have different views and beliefs.

Christianity was not around until about 50 years after "Jesus's" death. That is when the first books of the New Testement were first written.

Religions similar to Christianity were around before Christianity.

Catholicism is Christianity, one of its three main branches.

The ironic message that you are indirectyl hitting on is that the Jews, who worship the same god as Christians, supposedly were not saved, according to some versions of Christianity, because they did not accept Christ. So, even though they were following God's will, because he had not sent his "son" yet, they were burned.

Of course, in Christianity there are so many sects and competing ideas that there is no "this is Christian" archtype.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Well I know that there are many branches of Christianity and many have different views and beliefs.

You asked the diffeance between Chistianity and Catholicism, so I assumed you meant that Catholicism is different to Chistianity.

So if I understand right Christianity wasn’t around before Christ? However I have read that Christianity was founded with the first Bible in 1400 BC.

No. You've, frankly, read wrong. The Old Testement was around, but that was co-opted from the Torah. Christianity was not founded as a religion until maybe about 100 CE

Thanks for the answers, that what was bugging me. I found several religion sites that had timelines of religions and many of them had Christianity going back to 1400 BC which didn’t make sense to me from what I had previously learned.

Didn't you mother ever teach you about the quality of websites on the internet?

Any religion will do anyhting to justify its historical existance as THE religoin. Fortunately, most do so against fact, so its easy to spot the liars.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I have a question, my wife and I were watching Passion of Christ last nigh (I know way late) and we were talking about the difference between the Catholic religion and Christianity. Now from what I have read is that Christianity has been around since 1400 BC and the Old Testament but Christ wasn’t around then? Some things I would like answered…

Where did the word Christianity come from? Greek I would assume.
Originally posted by ThePittman
What is the difference between Christianity and Catholic religion? Catholics are christians, what you're thinking of is called Anglican/Protestant/Church of England where the ruler is The Queen of England, and has been England's Monarch since Henry VIII who invented the religion.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Was it always called Christianity even before Christ? I don't understand what you mean. Christianity is after christ, before christ they were jews, which is why the old testement is jewish beliefs.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Just a note, I’m not making fun these are things I couldn’t find clear answers for. Try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/christianity

Originally posted by Alliance
Didn't you mother ever teach you about the quality of websites on the internet?

Any religion will do anyhting to justify its historical existance as THE religoin. Fortunately, most do so against fact, so its easy to spot the liars. I was looking at different sites from religion sites to non-religion sites to get the wider scope because of that. The books that I had at home were more the history of western religion and didn’t do much to answer my queston.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I was looking at different sites from religion sites to non-religion sites to get the wider scope because of that. The books that I had at home were more the history of western religion and didn’t do much to answer my queston. The history of western religion?!? That book sounds retarded. No offense.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The history of western religion?!? That book sounds retarded. No offense. It was a pretty good book; we had to read it for my university class.

Oh yeah, as aleady pointed out, all of the Old Testament is Torah. Chistianity, technically is only the New Testament.

As for Christianity beginning before Christ, it may have been a reference to the belief amongst the Jews that a Messiah would come according to prophecy. That is the only explanation that I can think of.

As for name Christians, it is first used in the Bible in Acts 11:26 where it says:
"The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

Basically there were thousands of people already following the teachings of Christ and accepting him as the Messiah at the time Acts was written for which there are varying dates from about 60AD-80AD, both of which are equally feasible as far as I can tell. If the book was recorded after the events it seems feasible that the term 'Christians' could have been used as early as five years after the death of Christ and no later than fifty years after.

Christian is a Greek term as Christ is the Greek word for Savior which is why it would be used in Antioch, a Hellene city.

teaching of Jesus, christ is a label that his followers pinned on him