(Right Winger Evangelicals) brand of Christianity IS NOT the Truth of Christ

[Civic Justice]

Matthew 7:12
Therefore, whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.


If they believed that, they would not be racist, there would be no long history that goes back into the days of slavery, where they supported such vile abuse of mankind, and chased material greed and money with a passion that no evil was beyond their will and want to engage.

True Christianity Teaches the Help of and Unto Other mankind. These people, believe too much in "survival of the fittest at the expense of any and all". It's seen in how they detest paying taxes, and detest tax money helping other people.

These are people with carry over "desperation and greed mentality of the lowest of the low" who came from European Nations in a continual stream over many Centuries and Decades. They brought with them the vile of peasant cut throat mentality and serf like submission and devotion to the wealthy. They passed it on from one generation to the next up to this very day. They are delusions to think their skin makes them what they can never be. They have lived with the fiction that material measure is all there is. SADLY, for us as a society, these are not just members of the Right Wing, we too have some who claim to be Liberals, but Only as long as it does not infringe upon their historically groomed in sense of white entitlement. It can be seen within the many divisional factions within the liberal ranks.

Thankfully, the majority of Liberal do care more for equality than they care for "sustaining and prolonging the madness of mentality of white privilege, but unfortunate as it is, the mentality of "material measurement of others" has not been vanquished.

Today, we have a mass of "prosperity ministry" that has no true regard for the challenged and the poor, they give for a tax break for themselves, and some give for public accolades.

The True Christian is without such vanity, and without such ego and have a heart filled with compassion, to help because they have the compassionate care for and of others.

No man, woman or child shall take from this earth any thing...... !!!!

Matthew 6:19-21
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."



We see a society where the wealthy are not satisfied with wealth, AVARICE has infected them to levels, they can never get enough, they want more and can never in many lifetimes expend what they hoard. They chase a fiction and madness, that often times turn them into glutton driven and filled by any act of evil to gain more. It all amounts to "madness'... they want many homes, but can only live in one place at a time. They want Power, and as the world changes, all power is eventually made to be powerless.... some want to control society, and too blind to see or know, every generation changes how life is lived and no man can control the ongoing of life among the living. They are but fools who despise God, with their vile mentality of seeking to Usurp God... but 'No man can make even the simplest "dirt" that is beneath our feet. Nor can any man bring himself back to life when death comes upon him.

We have those who think themselves wise, but no man can create anything with the magnificence of even the life of a baby brought into this world, and the magnificence of its living self.
Sadly, some white man continues to try and seek ways to deny the realism of Gods Creations. with fantasy and madness to blind himself of the pure nature of life, this earth and the universe and its natural perfection of being. He has tried to make stories even of the earth and the moon, yet no man can create either, not can he establish the order and synchronicity of the two.

The madness of man, to want to be more than he is, yet, cannot be what he was made to be. That is to be of the wisdom and honor to respect and appreciate the equality of other mankind's life. He is of such vile, that he hunt animals not for food, but for sport, and this ego and vanity desecrates the same animals, by hanging their heads on plaques and pander to his ego for his own vile conduct.

To be a Christian is far more than making such a vain claim... To be a Christian is within the ways one lives.

Not all people who live by christian values choose to claim the label as Christians.

[NeoGreen]

1. Well...

...that is one interpretation...your mileage may vary...

Matthew 10:34-35

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--"

[sprinkleeninow]

4. This response does nothing to refute any Holy Scripture in the original post.

Just sayin'.

[NeoGreen]

9. Well...duh...

...my quote wasn't intended to "refute" anything.

The purpose of my quote was to point out that was is reportedly written in any one version of said bible can easily be interpreted to mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.

Contradictions R' Us

And no Scotsman was required, the old book does it all by itself.

[Major Nikon]

42. If you kill your kids for talking back are you a good Christian or bad Christian?

Just sayin'.

[sprinkleeninow]

43. Who you talkin' 'bout? God the Father?

[Major Nikon]

47. I thought there was only one choice

But if you want to go tritheist instead of triune, no worries. You pick. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t matter either way.

[sprinkleeninow]

50. Three in One.

Here:
I've had heartache, numerous fractures to my heart over the last several decades, all of which pains me so in my recollection of them.

There are degrees of probability.

The degree of probability for me to cross-over and deny what I've experienced and have in my 'knowing' is no chance. Not now, not ever.

The degree of probability for others to cross-over to where I am is fair to moderate. Or mb not ever.

It's not in my job description.

I can have caring love for y'all, but I'm only exchanging in conversation. No sneaky conversion tactics.

Need to call it a night. Ni-Ni.

[Major Nikon]

51. Which brings us back to the unanswered question

Just sayin’

[Beartracks]

105. Due to contradictions in The Bible, following it or not...

... does not define what makes one a good Christian.

This is what probably bugs me most about Bible literalists.

=====

[NeoGreen]

109. You might like this...

...
https://visual.ly/community/interactive-graphic/education/bible-contradictions-interactively-visualized

Interactive visualization showing Bible contradictions, historical & scientific inaccuracies, misogyny, violence, homophobia, and more in the Bible. The contradictions graph can be filtered and each line can be clicked to open details about the contradiction. Each book of the bar charts can be clicked as well for more information.

[Major Nikon]

2. Obviously the bible is up for interpretation. Those who claim to be Christian are Christians

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Explanation

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Real-World Examples

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

[sprinkleeninow]

5. Look, hard to perceive in this discussion room of religiosity,

but I do personally have near profound 'care' for all.

Please forgive me, but this scottish dude debate thing sets my teeth on edge.

Love you! 🤗

[Major Nikon]

7. Such is certainly a virtuous attitude

I just never have seen the merit in judging who is or isn't whatever doctrine they subscribe.

While it's noble to believe organized religion has the capacity for substantial good, we can't forget it also has the power to do substantial bad. It's really two sides of the same coin.

[NeoGreen]

10. I think the "double edged sword" analogy is more...

...apropos, versus the 2-sides of a coin analogy, in this particular case...
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=282108

Just sayin'

[Major Nikon]

13. That particular passage can be interpreted a number of different ways

The context here is important. Jesus was speaking to his disciples, not to the public in general. He was also a Jewish rabbi preaching a doctrine that was decidedly unorthodox and they all would have been very aware of this. What I believe he is doing is reminding his disciples they will be shunned by society and their own family. He is reminding them their path will be divisive and they need to just love him more than their own family. Sounds quite a bit like a cult to me, but I'm sure most Christians don't see it that way.

[NeoGreen]

15. You make me smile...

..."can be interpreted a number of different ways".

Testify! Brother!

And you lead me to ponder, what were the qualifications and/or requirements to gain the title rabbi, back at the dawn of the common age? Just having a sufficient number of hippies following your every word, was was there a test, possibly after completing a number of years at a particular place of indoctrination or some other means?

[Major Nikon]

16. It's generally a term of respect for any teacher within the faith

Jesus is referred to as Rabbi in several of the gospels. It usually entails someone who has at least some formal education and could read religious tomes. It's debatable whether or not Jesus was literate and I suspect he was. Assuming he was, it's interesting to ponder how he would have received that education. He reportedly came from limited means and virtually the only other path to education would have been as a disciple of a Rabbi. Some believe he was a disciple of John the Baptist who was also called Rabbi and probably did have some type of formal education. If you want to ponder something else that's interesting, consider that JtB made his bones baptizing nude young boys in the Jordan river and pederasty was extremely common and well accepted in the day and was generally viewed as a cost of entry to that path of formal education. I'm not saying that was what was going on, but it seems quite possible if not likely. It's also possible Jesus would have had that same type of relationship with one or more of his own disciples. That's not the kind of thing you'll likely learn in Sunday school, but the history of the time and place speaks for itself.

[sprinkleeninow]

19. Y'all was doing pretty fair, then you make a remark about John the Baptizer and

pedophilia?
Oy.
Do I still love you?
Yes.

Jesus may have been literate?
Another Oy!

Love you, but my lips are 'pursed' in a way that you know how I mean.

[Major Nikon]

22. I choose not to view history through romanticized lenses

By all accounts Jewish residents of the time and place would have had an extremely low literacy rate somewhere between 5 and 20%. Going by this alone it's probable Jesus was illiterate. For more evidence all we have are various gospels which suggest both literacy and illiteracy and biblical historians are divided on the issue. To positively decide one way or the other is more of an act of faith than evidence. Personally I'd guess Jesus was literate simply because at least one of his disciples was most certainly literate and would not have likely followed an illiterate Rabbi. However, I'm most certainly not going to say one way or the other because the evidence either way just isn't that strong.

As I said, assuming Jesus was literate which obviously you do, the question then becomes where did he get his education in literacy and religion? The obvious answer is he was a disciple of someone and JtB is pretty much the only suspect. Does this mean he must have been in a pederastic relationship? Certainly not, but it's also pretty naive to positively assert this wasn't the case. Such practices were extremely common at the time, well tolerated, if not expected in teacher/disciple relationships of all sorts. Ancient Latin, Greek, and Hebrew had no words for homosexual and heterosexual. It was assumed same-sex attraction existed at various times to various degrees. It's also worth noting that Jesus had not one word to say about the subject. There were also religious rituals practiced in the nude with disciples by both JtB and Jesus including baptism and foot massages. Does this mean positively there was a pederastic relationship? No, but neither does it mean there wasn't and it would be naive to positively assert there wasn't. The disciple who Jesus loved makes for some interesting reading.

[The Genealogist]

28. See the Secret Gospel of Mark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

May or may not be a forgery, but an interesting read.

[Major Nikon]

31. The secret is they are all forgeries

All of the canonical gospels were written decades if not a century after the death of Christ and not by whom they are attributed.

[The Genealogist]

32. Yes, I know

I studied early Christianity and the New Testament for years in college. I've seen dates for the Gospel of John as late as 120 CE, due to its developed more developed Christology. The Secret Gospel of Mark is not a full gospel. It is a few fragments that were supposedly part of the canonical Gospel of Mark, but reserved for more advanced students. And by forgery in this case, it would be a modern (20th Century) forgery. I pointed it out because it is interesting and what it says relates to what you posted.

[Major Nikon]

37. I'm not sure how

I'm not suggesting Jesus was a wizard.

[sprinkleeninow]

44. The Apocryphal Books are an interesting read. 👍

[NeoGreen]

71. So...it's an apparent combination of...

..."benevolent" instructor and lots of hippies.

On a side note, your suggestion of possible early homosexual activity by jesus and the deciples reminds me of an old late 1990's atheist podcast where there was a fictional atheist who goes back in time to be a jesus imposter with the intent of ruining the nascent christianity by introducing male rape to the disciples as a required sacrament/blessing only to find upon his return to his present day that not only was the act embraced by the church but it became the main mode of declaring/demonstrating ones faith.

A clearly thought provoking and bizarre story.

I forgot all about it, and now wish i could remember the web-site/podcaster who created it.

[Major Nikon]

72. Not all that far from being historically accurate

There was no law, Jewish or otherwise against homosexuality, only certain homosexual acts. There was no social stigma against pederasty and the practice was widespread and well accepted. Boys as young as 12 were fair game up to the point at which they developed facial hair. Both homosexual and heterosexual relationships typically began with one in their teens and a man in his early 30's or late 20's and a Rabbi would have been expected to be married at that point and it would have been unusual if this wasn't the case. Now fast forward to present day and you find all of these things are taboo to various degrees and some are illegal, yet it still goes on within churches. Imagine what it would have been like with no laws or social stigma against it.

Obviously these subjects are uncomfortable with Christians, but the historical context matters if you really want to understand what was going on at the time.

[NeoGreen]

74. What I find interesting...

...as a non-historian or as layman-philosopher, is how the notion of what is specifically moral verses immoral between cultures and within cultures over time, in relation to the question of objective-morality and whether there is anything that can be unquestionably identified as objective moral behavior.

[Major Nikon]

84. What is ethically acceptable today may not be 50 years from now

Things that are ethically acceptable today may not have been 50 years ago.

That’s why a book that gives instructions on how to sell your kids into slavery probably isn’t the best one to use as your moral compass.

[sprinkleeninow]

18. That's close enough. The last sentence however, dot dot dot 😕.

This saying from Jesus does not translate to Him literally using a sword to commit violence in forcing 'those who will' to follow Him.

This is why the tradition of Faith I myself [poorly] follow instructs us by means of Scripture, the holy Fathers, theologians and especially The Church in Her teaching, iconography, hymnography and hymnnology.

So the message and purpose of Christ is properly put forth for all.

Love you!

[Voltaire2]

21. Warrior-god Jesus has been a thing since 312 CE.

So unless your church is not descended from either eastern or western Catholicism your tradition includes that aspect of your god(s).

[sprinkleeninow]

45. Would you please explain more specifically? Thanks.

[Voltaire2]

59. Starting with emperor Constantine at the battle

of the Malvine Bridge, armies have been going to war with their Christian god’s assistance. Whatever the original religion was, by the 4th century it, like most other religions, had a ‘god of war’ who assisted its believers in battle.

“Onward Christian Soldiers” - and all that. We still practice warrior god Jesus rituals.

[Major Nikon]

69. Not to mention it's easier to get someone to march to their death with the promise of reward

...which conveniently is unverifiable and budget neutral. That's why our military has a sky pilot program.

[Sophia4]

76. Jesus, however, mostly taught his followers to turn the other cheek.

The warring in the name of Christianity followed Constantine's conversion.

Constantine popularized Christianity but was not among the very early Christians. He was born 300 years after Jesus.

Constantine the Great (Latin: Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus;[2] Greek: ????????ῖ??? ὁ ?έ???; 27 February c. 272 AD[1] – 22 May 337 AD), also known as Constantine I or Saint Constantine, in the Orthodox Church as Saint Constantine the Great, Equal-to-the-Apostles,[3] was a Roman Emperor of Illyrian and Greek origin from 306 to 337 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

The early Christians were probably very different from Christians after the influence of Constantine.

[Voltaire2]

78. Well yes sure, only for the last 1700 years.

And “what Jesus taught” is interpreted differently by each sect, of which there are thousands.

[Sophia4]

79. But that is what he taught if what remains of the version of his teachings that we

have today is at all accurate.

Anyway, it's a very good philosophy and teaching because it encourages people to live in peace.

There are two aspects of religion. One is social. Religion teaches people rules for living together in a social order that in most cases encourages peace WITHIN the society adhering to the religion. As you point out, the teaching is not always applied with regard to people outside the society that consciously adopts the religion.

The other is spiritual, that is it has to do with man's attempt to understand his or her place in the universe and connection to everything around him or her on the level that is beyond feelings and thoughts. Many people do not connect at all to the world around them without feelings and thoughts. I find that sad, but we are all free to be who we are.

We forget that as humans our physical senses are very limited. Just for a very simple and easily explained example. My cat, if outside, goes wild when an ambulance or police car or fire truck sounds its siren. That noise is to me not painful, but it is obvious to me that my cat's hearing is more sensitive to that sound than mine is.

Birds seem to have some kind of system, similar to radar, that directs them when they migrate. The Monarch butterflies gradually migrate also to specific places, one in Mexico. We understand these phenomena because we have developed science. They are still marvelous and mysterious and, in some cases, unique to specific species. The variety in life on this planet is remarkable.

And in spite of our knowledge and understanding of the variety of species and experiences just on our earth, we have utmost confidence in the perfection of our species and its superior knowledge of the universe. In reality we are very limited by our bodies. Rare, for example, is the woman who gives birth to a whole litter of babies. But in a cat's world, that is not so rare.

I am particularly aware of this because I was born with extremely bad eyesight. I did not get glasses until I was in the second grade. My mother told me that after I got them I came home and reported to her that the children on the other side of the room had faces. My behavior improved considerably. I also learned how limited my senses were at birth.

We think we are so perfect and know so much. We aren't, and we don't. We are simply very haughty and conceited -- as a species -- and for a plausible reason -- because we have speech and can communicate and have our brains that think as they do.

Admitting that there really could be a higher power that organized the planets and universes, on one of which and in one of which we live, is something that is very difficult for many of us. But the possibilities are truly immense and countless. And that is why we should be humble.

Who knows? We each have to know and discover what we are capable of knowing and discovering. Best not to ridicule or even argue with others.

But what we now know through science should help us to feel very humble.

[sprinkleeninow]

80. Constantine was a Roman.

He used the 'dream' of "In this sign conquer."

This phrase is used by Orthodox referencing Jesus Christ Who Conquers--'ICXC NIKA'. He 'conquers' spiritually, not carnally.

Not a permissive green light to go to physical war.

So if Constantine was misled by his own reception of this 'message', it was not the fault of Christ.

Constantine allowed Christians to practice the Faith without persecution.

I do not appreciate this 'Onward Christian Soldiers" 'song'. I am partial to Eastern Orthodox based hymnology and appropriate music that reflects the Faith I hold. Sorry to say, western traditions of christianity disturb my spirit. They [mostly] do not contain the "WHOLE fullness of truth". But, I love its adherents in the spirit of Christ. [Now 'I' used the term 'mostly'.]

What do you seek?

[Voltaire2]

108. And yet 1700 years of history disagrees.

Christ has been going to war since 312.

[Major Nikon]

112. You'd think someone who is omnipotent would have seen that one coming

[sprinkleeninow]

117. So you're saying that the Christ is responsible for all warring, bloodshed, atrocities, etc. from

that time to the present?

[NeoGreen]

118. If the claim is he's the god of gods...

...omnipotent, with the comprehensive plan for life, the universe and everything, then yeah, he owns it, ALL of it.

[sprinkleeninow]

122. Let's just say He did create you yourself. no text

[NeoGreen]

125. Yeah? Well...

...

[sprinkleeninow]

124. I cannot go any further with this. Love you! eom

[NeoGreen]

126. Of course you can't. I understand. (nt)

[Voltaire2]

127. Um, no, I didn't say that.

I said that by 312 the god had developed a fairly standard war god aspect. From then until the present day European Christian dominant nations have gone to war with the blessing of warrior Jesus.

[sprinkleeninow]

104. Today's early Humpday already. I lost my way in this here thread.

You say truth in your response.

Jesus told His disciples they would be shunned, mocked, derided, called loopy for choosing to follow Him.

Why He said get prepared for this possibility bc it happened. Got so bad, people were put to death. He would not be uncaring/cold-hearted vis a vis a disciple's relationship with his family. But shows that only He was able to offer salvation to them and followers. Not something their parents or family was capable of. It sounds harsh, but it is not. It's a truth.

[sprinkleeninow]

20. Agreed that organized 'religion' can do good and sadly also be used do harm.

So where I'm coming from, the difference being what the [my] actual Faith is about and not an institution of 'religion'.

My Tradition of Faith works for me in and because of its completeness.

[Major Nikon]

23. Nothing wrong with that

I just tend to believe people can be genuinely good or bad without the influence of organized religion and many will simply use it to reinforce what they already feel. I suspect if you are a good person with religion, you'd most certainly be a good person without it.

Where the problem comes in is that organized religion certainly isn't immune to sociopaths who can and do use it to manipulate other people.

[ollie10]

26. Some but not all... actually hardly any

[Major Nikon]

40. By what standard?

Certainly not one that is fully literate.

[trotsky]

3. "Not all people who live by christian values choose to claim the label as Christians."

Simple question: do ALL Christians agree on what "christian values" are?

Think carefully before you answer.

[Major Nikon]

11. The first century Christians undoubtedly had a much different set of values

It's safe to say even so-called "Christian values" are subject to change, and the reason why they change is because secular values force them to do so. So-called "Christian values" will always seek to conserve the status quo. That's why I always say it's not the best idea to derive your personal ethics from a book which provides instructions on the proper way to sell your children into slavery.

[MineralMan]

6. As an atheist, it is not my job to distinguish between who is and is not a Christian.

I have no tools with which to do that. So, if someone tells me he or she is a Christian, I really have no choice but to accept that.

Once I do, I can observe that person's behavior. Then, as a human being, I can decide whether the person is a good or bad person, and decide whether or not to associate with him or her. What I have discovered, again and again, is that the self-label of "Christian" has little or nothing to do with how that person behaves.

From that I conclude that the label of "Christian" is a predictor of nothing at all. It is a meaningless word to me, as someone who doesn't believe any religious stuff.

It is not what one calls oneself that identifies one. It is behavior, pure and simple. I can determine how someone behaves, but not what is in that person's mind with regard to religion. The label is meaningless. If someone is a bigot, for example, their claim of being a Christian is irrelevant. That person is a bigot, and that's all I need to know.

So, your post really doesn't tell me anything. I can quote verses from the Bible, but there's no point to it. The Bible also doesn't tell me how someone will behave, even if that person claims to follow it.

[ollie10]

27. Be honest. You like to judge

[Mariana]

34. MineralMan doesn't judge the validity of people's claim to Christianity.

The OP is the one judging who can be a Christian and who can't be one. And of course, you do it too:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218282106#post26

I wonder if you pass muster by the OP's standards, and if the OP is a Christian according to yours?

[Major Nikon]

41. You are making it far more complicated than it needs to be

If someone professes belief in the holy poltergeist and they do something good they are a Christian. For instance, if you run across someone who just got mugged, bandage them, give them some wine and a ride home on your donkey, you are a Christian.

If someone professes a belief in the holy poltergeist and they do something bad, they are not a Christian. For instance, if you kill your child for talking back to you, then you aren't a Christian.

[sprinkleeninow]

48. Funny, that happened to me the other day on the way to the forum.

A neighbor down the avenue a piece got totally stewed on evidently tee many martoonis. I came across them and got out of my brand spankin' new Beemer SUV, wrapped their head in my brand new Hermes scarf, gave them a swig of some Slivovice I just received as a gift from my artist friend who played in Bulgaria, loaded them into my whip and delivered them to their abode. They were so grateful. "Thx good and faithful Christian!"

[Mariana]

49. But they don't agree on which deeds are good and which are bad.

They all think they're doing good deeds. Each one is certain that he or she is right, and everyone who does something they don't like is doing it wrong.

[Major Nikon]

52. We all should agree that killing your kids for talking back is wrong

Oh wait. Forget about that one.

[MFM008]

60. Anyone can claim

To be a Christian, and many do.
However, HOW they act is not how Jesus of
Nazareth laid out to act in the gospels.
It's pretty plain.

[Mariana]

61. I don't agree.

If it's so plain, why do we have thousands of denominations of Christianity, and who knows how many independent practitioners, all of them having different ideas about how to act like a Christian? Each one is utterly convinced that they are right and that everyone else is doing it wrong.

[Major Nikon]

70. Have your children ever cursed you?

If so Jesus of Nazareth has a pretty plain set of instructions on your next action.

If you still have any doubt about that, this should clear it up.

[MFM008]

75. I was talking about

Sermon on the mount type stuff, how to treat your fellow man.

[MineralMan]

77. See, you're being selective with the Bible.

Pretty much everyone does that, which is why it's impossible to predict what someone who calls him or herself a Christian will do. It all depends on what that person has selected to follow, and pretty much everything is possible and has a proof text that can be quoted.

[Major Nikon]

81. So the rest of the book can be safely ignored?

Or is this just for figuring out who makes the cut?

[MineralMan]

67. I judge only behaviors, not claimed adherence to some religion.

As I stated, there is nothing in claiming one is a Christian or a follower of any other religion that is predictive of behavior. Nothing. Behavior can only be determined through observation.

I judge people who behave badly to be people who behave badly, regardless of their statements of religious belief.

[Bretton Garcia]

8. To me, some Christians behave better than others.

From my past years as a Christian, I'd say the milder and more permissive or healing Christians, are somewhat more true to the better part of the New Testament. While evangelicals follow the Old Testament more. Ignoring the" New covenant."

Or? Some Christians are better people than others.

Though all Christians are significantly deceived to one degree or another.. Even the "good" ones.

[sprinkleeninow]

85. Now I yam significantly deceived to a certain degree? Oy again.

In addition to my slot on the 'not so vile Christian' chart. 😉 Which had improved as of recent. I yam a notch above! 😆

[marylandblue]

12. Christians have spent the better part of 2,000 years arguing

about who is a Christian. The argument often ended in violence. So an outsider, I'd prefer you criticize behaviors rather than credentials.

[Bretton Garcia]

14. I feel that right-wing evangelicals are worse than liberal Christians

So if liberal Christians verbally attack right wing evangelicals, that could be a positive development. If they manage to embarrass or convert them to a more liberal point of view.

[Mariana]

35. But it's so much easier to just shrug and say, "They aren't Christians." nt.

[sprinkleeninow]

46. So as a liberal Christian, I am thankfully a notch above the despicable RW

so-called evangelical 'christian'? 🤔

[Major Nikon]

53. Who can judge?

Next time I pick up the red phone to the almighty I’ll ask.

[Bretton Garcia]

56. Personally, I'd rate you higher. Though all Christianity has problems.

The story of the Good Samaritan rates folks not by labels, but good behavior or good deeds.

So be good.

[sprinkleeninow]

82. It's risque what's said.

"If you can't be good, be careful."

Being careful is the next best thing, I spose.

As long as you ain't committing an infraction. 🙂

[ollie10]

29. Yeah. Violence.

Back in the 8th century.....the last religious war....

[marylandblue]

33. You say you were a history teacher

So you know that isn't true. And war is not the only form of violence.

[Mariana]

55. Maybe he was a teacher at a Christian school.

That would explain an awful lot. "The last religious war was in the 8th century" is up there with "The earth is 6000 years old".

[Voltaire2]

63. Or now it's the 18th century, or maybe the 28th.

[ollie10]

58. typo. 18th century. 1 didn't come out

Last edited Tue May 1, 2018, 06:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I therefore am not a former teacher?

[Voltaire2]

62. George Bush declared his god told him to go to

war with Iraq.

[Mariana]

64. He wasn't the only one who believed it.

Plenty of Christians in the US agreed that war with Iraq was God's plan and God's will.

[sprinkleeninow]

99. When one having civil powers chooses to a perpetrate an act of folly,

they are responsible in answering eventually. Especially bringing the Holy One's Name into it.

The Faith I chose to embrace could abhor war, the spilling of blood and atrocities, and so speak out against such. But after that, it has limited power. It relies on the followers to right wrongs as to the best of their ability.

[Civic Justice]

17. The last two sentences, sum to what some of the commentators are saying.

To be a Christian is far more than making such a vain claim... To be a Christian is within the ways one lives.

Not all people who live by christian values choose to claim the label as Christians.

(....mankind has always had the choice to choose what he think, what he believe and what he will or will not do).

It does not negate the factor and premise that the Bible is a book with much wisdom's within that many may read, and still man has the right to choose how he interprets that wisdom as well as what his actions are within his daily living. As is the same with the various books that many other religious ideologies present.

One premise holds true across the spectrum of various religious ideologies and among those who do not claim a bond to any religion or religious ideology:

Matthew 7:12
Therefore, whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. Nope.

To be a Christian is far more than making such a vain claim... To be a Christian is within the ways one lives.

No, it isn't. Christianity is spectrum of shared beliefs, texts, traditions, and practices so broad it defies propositional definition.

Dress it up however you want, at the end of the day everyone knows you're just defining the religion in such a way as to deliberately exclude those you find distasteful. And you know what? They're doing the exact same thing to you.

[Major Nikon]

25. Many believers here suggest it's inappropriate to interpret the bible literally

Certainly the most hardcore do which is where we get notions of young earth creationism and talking donkeys, but this seems to be a minority opinion even among Christians.

So either the bible is up for interpretation or it isn't. Trying to have it both ways just doesn't pass the smell test.

[Act_of_Reparation]

66. Many of those selfsame champions of "nuance"...

...keep on hand a veritable liturgy of quips, quotes, passages, and verses they are more than happy to take literally because they find them agreeable to their politics. So-called "literalism" is only a problem for them when someone they don't agree with reads a passage supportive of something they don't like. Rather than admit their silly book is full of asshole-enabling horseshit, they instead insist the horseshit is really ice cream in disguise, that the right-wingers are too unsophisticated to detect the hints of vanilla and sugar just beneath the potent tones of cud and bilirubin.

[Major Nikon]

92. Literalism seems to be the most honest approach to Christianity

At least those who truly believe in talking asses and 900 yr old humans have some sort of consistent doctrine.

[ollie10]

30. Yeah. I find hitler distasteful .

Can you honestly say you DON'T?

[Major Nikon]

38. ...

[Bretton Garcia]

36. Even that Golden Rule has problems.

For instance? If you needed a blood transfusion,.you would want to get say, A-. But someone else would need O negative.

So what you want for yourself, is not necessarily what others want or need.

As critiques of Kant's Categorical Imperative might also suggest.

[Major Nikon]

39. The most notable is it doesn't work on sociopaths

[Bretton Garcia]

54. The biblical Good Samaritan tale though is useful

It says that a good, moral unbeliever or non-Christian is better than an uncaring priest or rabbi.
That tale says this furthermore, without calling the unbeliever a Christian.

[Mariana]

73. Most Christian denominations teach that the Good Samaritan

still goes to hell, because salvation is based on faith and not works.

[sprinkleeninow]

86. Most again. 😉

Faith without works is a make believe faith.

One does not solely 'believe. One also acts in accordance. Otherwise, bogus.

[Major Nikon]

91. I'm guessing you've never heard of sola fide

Or you simply reject the idea and pretend it doesn’t exist. Nevertheless it’s the foundation of “most” protestant doctrines. As religionists like to say, just because you don’t believe in it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

[marylandblue]

93. Sprinkle is Eastern Orthodox, so as far as her tradition is concerned, it never came up

From the Eastern perspective, its a dispute between Catholics and their heretics, not something she really needs to consider.

[Major Nikon]

94. Religious exclusivism is common among Christians

It’s not good enough to just worship my god, but you have to do it my way. And so the mind narrows that much more.

[marylandblue]

95. She doesn't strike me as an exclusivist

It's just that the sort of fundamental Christian controversies that occurred in Western Europe had little impact on the Eastern tradition, so they have a different perspective on issues that are very important to Catholics and Protestants.

[Major Nikon]

96. It seems that way

This thread is discussing evangelical Christians who are predominately Protestant and the vast majority of those denominations fully subscribe to sola fide. In fact it’s the defining feature of Protestantism. The suggestion those people aren’t true Christians goes well beyond a simple difference in theology.

[sprinkleeninow]

101. I did not say 'those people' were not 'true christians', did I?

[Major Nikon]

111. Nor did I claim you did

What you actually did say was their faith was "make believe" and "bogus", which is arguably worse. Either way it demonstrates an exclusivist attitude towards those with a different doctrine, at least from my POV. You may have a different take on it.

[sprinkleeninow]

120. You makin' my fur stand on end.

I PERSONALLY do not exclude any from seeking a spiritual path ever.

This true christian thing is getting way bent outta shape. People can't express themselves without possibly getting caught inna sticky web.

I appreciate the Original Post, BTW.

MY Faith SAYS: "IT knows where the Orthodox Faith IS, but IT does not know where IT IS NOT."

Upper case for accentuation, not yelling.

If the Faith I embrace, and its doctrines, does not uphold and 'explain', and put forth its stand regarding the organic evolution from its inception, then itself is a sham.

[Major Nikon]

133. I didn't say that either

Exclusivism is the belief your idea of religion is correct and others’ ideas are bogus. It often takes the form that your path to salvation is the right one and others are going somewhere else.

Now it’s certainly possible that wasn’t your intent, but that’s how I interpreted your comment.

[sprinkleeninow]

136. Any of my words are wrong.

Who's to say that a person mb practicing Buddhism is on a path that may eventually lead him or her to Christ Himself.

It can and has happened. Or someone on a personal path. Or ________.

That's how I believe. The ultimate path leads [can lead] to Him. Yes, Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer. He is the Lover of Mankind.

[sprinkleeninow]

106. Well, hello!

Thanks for that.

Our theologian 'contemporaries', for lack of a better word, have more strongly 'argued' against all these newly founded Sola doctrines that emerged in the chunk of centuries since the reformation.

As protestantism grew and grew, they had no choice but to succintly counter these newer doctrines. You have the inception of a Faith and what its doctrines are, then all this new stuff tries to get added, making major changes to the Faith that was handed down from the Apostles.

This is me speaking. I will defend the Faith I hold, charitably. But I won't roll with nouveau stuff like holy laughter silliness or get rich quick thru believing in Christ. Sorry.

[marylandblue]

142. Your Welcome

I think it's hard for Americans to understand that there are the versions of Christianity besides the common Catholic and Protestant versions we mostly see here.

[sprinkleeninow]

143. Incoming»»»

[sprinkleeninow]

103. Sola Fide. Salvation by works alone. A more nouveau doctrine.

Along with Sola Scriptura doctrine. [And the other solas.]

The Bible alone and only the bible. Forget the what the Church Fathers wrote, Church doctrine formulated in holy wisdom following when Christianity was 'founded', the fullness of the Faith, what the Liturgy and all services consist of reflecting the entirety of Holy Scripture, iconography, hymnography, hymnology and the whole enchilada. Not there for whimsical reasons. Or entertainment. Or, I dunno. Something else.

I may be forward thinking, yes, when it comes to my politics, but I am quite comfortable with the Faith that was handed down to me from 33 Anno Domini. And it has not changed to make it more appealing and funner. It's not rigid. It's stable and grounded. And I love that about it. Just sayin'.

[Major Nikon]

110. Regardless other Christians don't subscribe to your doctrine

The degree to which you love your doctrine does not make them any less Christian. Many of them undoubtedly have the same attitude towards your doctrine and lack of qualifications and they are no more correct either.

[sprinkleeninow]

119. There are unchurched, non-believers that adhere to

no doctrine[s] of any faith and yet they reflect the pure image of Christ in their lives in their relationship to and dealings with other sisters and brothers in humanity.

I do not exclude any human being from their positioning in obtaining eternal life. But I can't be of my Faith and not be somewhat defensive of it in a charitable way.

What is the answer to why there are so many thousands of denominations today?

It didn't help/promote Christianity. It diluted it.

Please forgive if I have offended. I only speak from which I embrace.

[Major Nikon]

134. I have no faith to defend so it's hard for me to take offense

Any effort of concern for my own personal eternal existence is a wasted effort as far as I’m concerned. I’m too busy with the here and now and prefer to make the best use of the limited number of trips I get to take around the sun.

[sprinkleeninow]

137. Received. And I am appreciative of our exchange.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

113. So you are a Catholic and disagree with most Protestants. Cool

What makes them wrong?

[sprinkleeninow]

121. Not Roman Rite Catholic.

Eastern Orthodox.

Origin: One Holy Catholic [universal] and Apostolic.

What be the answer to why there are 2,000 plus 'protestant' denominations.

My Faith was offered to me and I voluntarily stay in it. For almost 71 years. The Faith is rich, deep, joyous, serious, beautiful, consoling. It's my vehicle.

My husband's parents and whole family were Covenant Congregationalist. So was he before he desired to become Orthodox. I used no coercion or any suggestive dialogue. In fact, I interviewed him before he spoke to our priest. 😄
He gave me reasons that I approved of. 😄

We got married when he was still a congregationalist. So, no forced conversion ultimatum.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

123. So you know there is a whole world of Protestants (even liberal ones)

that disagree with you on your good deeds position and have the biblical support for it, right?

[sprinkleeninow]

128. I am exhorted to not JUDGE. I am exhorted to hold my 'neighbor'

higher than myself. Is this easily accomplished. No. It's most difficult. Bc of pride, vanity, vainglory.

Then they do disagree. So? Scripture was meant to be taken in the context it was meant to be in conjunction with early writings, teaching, etc.

You fixated on the exclusionist thingy.

My Faith says to not judge others. Watch out for your own sorry derrière. Not the exact wording.😊

I wrote additional but it got lost.
Dumb chrome interrupted with an update.

For instance, protestantism has strong difficulty and pushes back when hearing of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism in their veneration of Mary. They say it's a worship of her, but they have erroneous understanding. She has been venerated and held in high esteem since the origin of Christianity. That's one point of divergence among others.

[NeoGreen]

129. Where does it say that...

...?

My Faith says to not judge others.

Chapter and verse please.

[sprinkleeninow]

130. You know the chapter and verse.

Then you will inquire about the end of the passages regarding pearls before swine, no doubt.

"Lord, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother/sister."
Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian

[NeoGreen]

132. So when the big guy is reported to exhort believers to...

Mathew 6: 5-6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Do you follow the rule, the exhortation, to the letter?

I mean, this is purportedly the big guy speaking here, it's not some epistle from some apostle, this is the BIG GUY.

Or are you, as the text suggests, a hypocrite?

[sprinkleeninow]

135. And in what context and during what time period was this written.

So then, those who call themselves Christians and interpret the two testaments literally and verbatim are praying with others on TV and in church meetings, and in public, etc. Uh-oh.

I said we practice our Faith with preceding teaching and instruction. Oral and written.

If you have no understanding, I cannot go further. Sorry.

[NeoGreen]

138. I get it...

...you pick and choose like all the rest.

Dismissing "what is written" because context becomes ever-so important,when the exhortation is inconvenient.

I fully understand.

[sprinkleeninow]

139. Huh?

'Dismiss'. Pickin' & choosin'. Inconvenient exhortations.

Do you fancy me audibly praying out in the square, down the avenue, on the mall with my arms outstretched to the heavens? I got a retro peach basket I can turn over to stand on.

This scripture was put out there for those at that time. For a reason.

Go online and read everything from soup to nuts regarding Eastern Orthodoxy with your 'intellect' or 'nous' and then let me know your thoughts. Or not.

[NeoGreen]

140. It's ok...

...you don't have to equivocate...I understand.

Plain language doesn't mean what it says.

I get it.

[marylandblue]

141. She is saying she follows an interpretative tradition rather than a single book

That's how Eastern Orthodoxy is set up. Also Orthodox Judaism and Shia Islam. The book means what the tradition says it means. Like in America, the Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means. Unless you are an originalist, in which case you ignore everything that's been said and done about it for the last 250 years.

That doesn't mean the tradition is right, but it's a much more nuanced approach than the Protestant way that we are used to.

[NeoGreen]

144. "Tradition", in this case is...

...synonymous with equivocation (albeit with a long history), "nuanced tradition", even more so.

Age, and/or persistent, do not provide the least bit of validation to the truth any one particular idea.
We still have Kings in this 21st century of this common age, but that doesn't add one whit of validity to the concept of monarchy.
Divine-right is a false doctrine.

The old-book does not provide a mechanism for self examination and interpretation, the Constitution does.
Your analogy does not help your argument.

[sprinkleeninow]

83. 'The *elect* will be judged more harshly.' It it written. eom

[trotsky]

65. No, the problem here is an over-simplified, naive view of the problem.

No two Christians agree totally on exactly what "Christian values" are. More importantly, NO ONE can conclusively demonstrate that they alone have interpreted the bible correctly.

Not even you!

[Bretton Garcia]

68. A tradition in liberal Christianity sez no one can judge others

Except God himself, on Judgement Day. That position seems consistent with much (if not all) of the Bible (insofar as I can judge it)..

This doctrine keeps the various Christian churches, denominations, from going to war with each other, about who is right.

Though? In my reading, judgement day comes to each of us, whatever day it is that you begin to gain good adult judgement. And notice, through science and experience, that Christianity overall, is so apparently shot through with holes, that it would probably be judged by any real God himself, to be a false Christianity.

Thats my best guess. Insofar as I might be allowed to advocate what reason and science might suggest.

[Alice11111]

57. Most of them are hypocritical, lying bigots anyway.

[Civic Justice]

87. One point is vivid, there's a voluminous number of Atheist among the patrons of these forums...

[uriel1972]

88. Gosh imagine that...

Someday atheists may even be allowed to openly walk the streets... for shame

[Civic Justice]

89. they can do what they want... its their life

[Major Nikon]

90. Don't count me as one

I’m an unaffiliated apatheist.

[sprinkleeninow]

100. They apparently are fond of roomy rooms that are billowy. 😊

Hay, who squeezed my charmin?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

114. Is that a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion.

And in case you don't know, there are a number of protected groups focused on various religious viewpoints that do not allow negative discussion of religion. If you find the presence of atheists discussion religion problematic, you might feel more at home there. Fair warning: they are mostly barren wastelands, but maybe you can resurrect them.

[sprinkleeninow]

131. Those other rooms are mostly barren wastelands. My lips are pursed. 🙄 😄

This place is jumpin' mostly due to, how do you say, resistance and tension? Of a most desirable sort, I guess.

[Bretton Garcia]

97. Some Christians may be better than others

The Bible suggested that "all have sinned." Including Christians. But it suggested we could tell which Christians - and non-Christians too - were better. And which were worse. By examining their behavior and outcomes. Their" fruits," "works," and so forth.

In the case of the story of the Good Samaritan, the standard was to see who physically helped others; who helped the victim of a crime. By that standard, the allegedly good rabbi and a priest, both walked by a victim in need. But as it happened, a non-Christian Samaritan actually stopped and helped the victim.

We could use this kind of standard today, to evaluate people independently of whether they call themselves Christians or atheists. Looking to see if they physically help victims, the poor, and so forth.

[sprinkleeninow]

98. Kudos! 👊

[Bretton Garcia]

107. Thanks. This standard is implicitly in force at DU, Democratic Underground

In effect.

DU is a blog for essentially, liberals; Democrats. Who are generally centered around the idea of helping minorities and the disadvantaged. So generally, automatically,. posters are evaluated by everyone, according to whether they support these and related basic, Democratic principles.

Those who seem to violate these or related democratic ideas, who constantly attack basic Democratic principles, would probably be alerted on by readers. And eventually invited to go elsewhere, likely.

So in effect, something like the Good Samaritan standard is probably in effect, implicitly imbedded, in DU policies and practices.

[democratisphere]

102. RW evangelicals are all about saving their own individual ass if

there is an afterlife. They sure as hell never act Christ-like and only care about their own salvation.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

115. Seems like a good place for this South Park Movie snippet

[NeoGreen]

116. Whew...at least it wasn't the...

...scientologists...dems some freaky ideas...

[Bretton Garcia]

145. Good discussion from everyone

Last edited Mon May 7, 2018, 12:48 AM - Edit history (1)

[Civic Justice]

146. Choices

Church is a voluntary choice as is the belief in Christ, is too a voluntary choice "INDIVIDUAL'S" make or do not make.

Principles are Principles, as is "Truth is Truth" .... one can fight either and/or both.. but what remains the same is Principles will remain being Principles, and Truth will remain being Truth.

The elements with Church and the element of God... is a matter of choice to have "faith" in and of, or not to have faith in and of.

Mankind as individual's is made up of Multiple Billions of Character's and has been for the existence of mankind presence... none living can create the simplicity of "dirt"...
Yet, man may choose to consider himself to be whatever he can conjure to think of being supreme, but that will never make it so; for all that is, was here when any man became to exist and will be here when any man exist no more. His body will at some time come to be lifeless; and will deteriorate when the spirit of energy that gives that body life is no more.
Nothing that man has devised nor constructed was possible except by the composition of what already exist of elements of this earth. He may in his conscientiousness exalt himself however he conceives and still a time comes that what he knows of himself will become a lifeless body, and what of spirit/energy that gave that body life.. will become or go where it is unknown to him, and upon his death the mass of body that was him, will have no means to convey anything.

Therefore, he has a choice to believe or not believe in God... it changes nothing except himself.