chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Is recognising his divinity a crucial part of this?

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Is recognising his divinity a crucial part of this?

Yes.

Amaya wrote:Do you know anything about the Bible?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Ulver wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

This.

The interpretations of those teachings that have been translated at least twice are obviously going to be varied.

Amaya wrote:You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Amaya wrote:]

Ulver wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

This.

The interpretations of those teachings that have been translated at least twice are obviously going to be varied.

It's not even that. It's that EVERY so called Christian church out there tacks stuff on that doesn't even exist.

Amaya wrote:There isn't a 'real one'.

Amaya wrote:Do you know anything about the Bible?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:There isn't a 'real one'.

This has been really helpful.

Phototoxin wrote:IMHO Protestantism fails due to the biblical authority element. Who gave Luther the authority to remove the apocrypha from the bible?

Catholicsm is a case of believe us as we have the authority which our book we compiled says we do.

By definition I think a person who accepts 'The Lord Jesus Christ as their God as Saviour' is a christian.

Phototoxin wrote:
By definition I think a person who accepts 'The Lord Jesus Christ as their God as Saviour' is a christian.

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:There isn't a 'real one'.

This has been really helpful.

Really, you didn't understand that before? You read Jesus saying talking about love and forgiveness and thought that anyone was teaching that? Maybe, the Quakers, or a group like that would be close, but how could you possibly think that these instutions that endorsed slavery, the crusades, sexism, racism, molesation of children, religious wars, and all that rot were really Christian?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Squig_herder wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Aren't the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ second hand accounts, and as psychology has proven free recall of things and events is much less effective when compared to recognition. My point is that you could be modelling your life after someone elses ideas of Jesus Christ, not what he wanted to teach exactly .

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:
By definition I think a person who accepts 'The Lord Jesus Christ as their God as Saviour' is a christian.

But even that most basic principle was challenged in the Arian heresy (before being denounced by the Catholic church).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:There isn't a 'real one'.

This has been really helpful.

Really, you didn't understand that before? You read Jesus saying talking about love and forgiveness and thought that anyone was teaching that? Maybe, the Quakers, or a group like that would be close, but how could you possibly think that these instutions that endorsed slavery, the crusades, sexism, racism, molesation of children, religious wars, and all that rot were really Christian?

I think that these were examples of how the definition of Christian has changed over time (though I can't recall one that supported molesting children).

youbedead wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Aren't the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ second hand accounts, and as psychology has proven free recall of things and events is much less effective when compared to recognition. My point is that you could be modelling your life after someone elses ideas of Jesus Christ, not what he wanted to teach exactly .

I feel that Jesus's overall message is "don't be dick"

Amaya wrote:And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions.

Amaya wrote:And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions reflect the actual religion.

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions reflect the actual religion.

Again, he is not damning christianity, he is making the same point you are, and if you bothered to read his posts you'd realize that. He is saying that there are those whoe belive them selves to be christian despite going against the words of christ.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you examine all the various catechisms and find the common factors, then that would be the core of Christianity.

Amaya wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:And your anti Christian rants are based on a bunch of whack jobs twisting words to suit their evil intentions reflect the actual religion.

Again, he is not damning christianity, he is making the same point you are, and if you bothered to read his posts you'd realize that. He is saying that there are those whoe belive them selves to be christian despite going against the words of christ.

And they are obviously not Christian.

What does this have to do with answering the OP's question?

Tim the Biovore wrote:I love this thread.

Ahtman wrote:

Tim the Biovore wrote:I love this thread.

Well it was bio-genetically engineered for both Tims and Biovores so it should be right up your alley.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you examine all the various catechisms and find the common factors, then that would be the core of Christianity.

Haven't you been reading? Amaya gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't.

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you examine all the various catechisms and find the common factors, then that would be the core of Christianity.

Haven't you been reading? Amaya gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how people who kill in the name of Jesus (y'know the guy who says love everyone?) are Christian.

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you examine all the various catechisms and find the common factors, then that would be the core of Christianity.

Haven't you been reading? Amaya gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how people who kill in the name of Jesus (y'know the guy who says love everyone?) are Christian.

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you examine all the various catechisms and find the common factors, then that would be the core of Christianity.

Haven't you been reading? Amaya gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how people who kill in the name of Jesus (y'know the guy who says love everyone?) are Christian.

Because they claimed to be so and their belief in such was either partly or in whole a motivator for their actions. Pretending they weren't Christian doesn't change what has happened. Your myopic understanding of how faith and philosophy works in the human animal is why you have trouble understanding that others that believe differently from you can claim the same things as you. They would say you aren't a Christian because you don't do what they do.

Amaya wrote:
Do you use the tenants establish by groups that openly go against Christ's commandants?

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Do you use the tenants establish by groups that openly go against Christ's commandants?

And this, my young padawan, is why you fail. The tenets (not tenant, you aren't leasing them out) haven't always been the same, and people disagree on what they mean and what they are. Just because two people accept Jesus Christ as the son of God doesn't mean that they will both believe the same thing. They aren't immutable and a great deal has changed over time. But that is what happens to living, breathing religions. If we took you back 100 years you would probably think they were crazy, and the further back we go, the more unrecognizable it gets. The fact you cannot grasp this fundamental fact means, again, you aren't geared for this discussion or you are just being difficult. Some take the fact that it is evolved over time as a sign that it is false whereas others see it as a positive note that Christianity is still alive and vibrant and being discussed.

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Do you use the tenants establish by groups that openly go against Christ's commandants?

And this, my young padawan, is why you fail. The tenets (not tenant, you aren't leasing them out) haven't always been the same, and people disagree on what they mean and what they are. Just because two people accept Jesus Christ as the son of God doesn't mean that they will both believe the same thing. They aren't immutable and a great deal has changed over time. But that is what happens to living, breathing religions. If we took you back 100 years you would probably think they were crazy, and the further back we go, the more unrecognizable it gets. The fact you cannot grasp this fundamental fact means, again, you aren't geared for this discussion or you are just being difficult. Some take the fact that it is evolved over time as a sign that it is false whereas others see it as a positive note that Christianity is still alive and vibrant and being discussed.

Way to ignore my post.

Really, opinions on the Bible change? They're different now than they were in 500 AD? There haven't always been Protestants and Catholics? Oh. My. God.


Get back to me when you can explain how someone who commits murder and torture in the name of Jesus can be a Christian.

It would help if you understand that Jesus says to love everyone, love your neighbor as yourself, and all that jazz in every translation of the NT.

Amaya wrote:Way to ignore my post.

Really, opinions on the Bible change? They're different now than they were in 500 AD? There haven't always been Protestants and Catholics? Oh. My. God.

Amaya wrote:Get back to me when you can explain how someone who commits murder and torture in the name of Jesus can be a Christian.

It would help if you understand that Jesus says to love everyone, love your neighbor as yourself, and all that jazz in every translation of the NT.

Amaya wrote:
Get back to me when you can explain how someone who commits murder and torture in the name of Jesus can be a Christian.

It would help if you understand that Jesus says to love everyone, love your neighbor as yourself, and all that jazz in every translation of the NT.

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

WarOne wrote:I am sure the Bible can spread upon us some light about why Christians may of believed that killing in the Lord's name (and Jesus) is okay as we look upon Bible passages that may be construed as thumbs up for killing people:

Deuteronomy 17-

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

A whole list of reasons why Bible tells to kill:

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Squig_herder wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Get back to me when you can explain how someone who commits murder and torture in the name of Jesus can be a Christian.

It would help if you understand that Jesus says to love everyone, love your neighbor as yourself, and all that jazz in every translation of the NT.

How do you explain the HOLY crusades?

I think it is time you exited this discussion, as you seem to be ignoring everyone else's post

youbedead wrote:

WarOne wrote:I am sure the Bible can spread upon us some light about why Christians may of believed that killing in the Lord's name (and Jesus) is okay as we look upon Bible passages that may be construed as thumbs up for killing people:

Deuteronomy 17-

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

A whole list of reasons why Bible tells to kill:

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

What else to you stone someone with, potatoes.

WarOne wrote:I am sure the Bible can spread upon us some light about why Christians may of believed that killing in the Lord's name (and Jesus) is okay as we look upon Bible passages that may be construed as thumbs up for killing people:

Deuteronomy 17-

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

A whole list of reasons why Bible tells to kill:

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Amaya wrote:Let's go over it once again. Jesus says DO NOT KILL.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Amaya wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Get back to me when you can explain how someone who commits murder and torture in the name of Jesus can be a Christian.

It would help if you understand that Jesus says to love everyone, love your neighbor as yourself, and all that jazz in every translation of the NT.

How do you explain the HOLY crusades?

I think it is time you exited this discussion, as you seem to be ignoring everyone else's post

Let's go over it once again. Jesus says DO NOT KILL. These so called 'Christians' killed millions in his name. How can they POSSIBLY be Christian?

Because they believe themselves to be Christian is not a valid answer. The first issue with that is that you accept what they are saying at face value. Do you really think that the Pope who commanded a Holy War against Muslims would ever come out and say, "Hey guys, I was just using you for political reasons. Jesus actually says we should be nice to them."

There isn't a simple explanation for the Crusades. To begin with, which Crusade are you referring to? The first Crusade began as means to drive out Muslim invaders from the Byzantine Empire. Of course, it isn't that simple. Suffice to say, they certainly weren't done to spread to loving word of God.

Amaya wrote:
Didn't Jesus say "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone?"

Spoiler:

The Virgin Mary is sometimes interpreted to have been without sin, geddit?

youbedead wrote:No, of course not, they were done to increase the economic power of italian cities. religion was used as a tool to recruit soldiers.

WarOne wrote:

Amaya wrote:Let's go over it once again. Jesus says DO NOT KILL.

This quote here can be debated on what was meant by Jesus (as the quote is attributed to him in the Bible).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Jesus said love your enemies. Not quite an explicit order to not kill. I can't recall if he had any thoughts on Capital Punishment or Self-Defense.

Amaya wrote:
Didn't Jesus say "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone?"

Dammit Mum!

Spoiler:

The Virgin Mary is sometimes interpreted to have been without sin, geddit?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:No, of course not, they were done to increase the economic power of italian cities. religion was used as a tool to recruit soldiers.

Not sure if serious. If so, sure, maybe every high ranking member of the clergy was driven by greed (unlikely), but would you consider the faithful masses that flocked to the cause to be Christian?

Amaya wrote:

There is a reason for the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I can't recall if he had any thoughts on Capital Punishment or Self-Defense.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:

There is a reason for the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

God is Omnipotent. All-powerful. Is that relevant?


Nevermind, veering off-topic, this is what I really wanted you to address.

I can't recall if he had any thoughts on Capital Punishment or Self-Defense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:No, of course not, they were done to increase the economic power of italian cities. religion was used as a tool to recruit soldiers.

Not sure if serious. If so, sure, maybe every high ranking member of the clergy was driven by greed (unlikely), but would you consider the faithful masses that flocked to the cause to be Christian?

Amaya wrote:I assume you mean Jesus?

God is an donkey-cave. "You don't worship me! Go to hell!" Not cool...

edit: switched believe to worship

youbedead wrote:
After Constantinople was sacked Italian cities like Venice became the main traders in the Mediterranean and the orient.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:I assume you mean Jesus?

God is an donkey-cave. "You don't worship me! Go to hell!" Not cool...

edit: switched believe to worship

Whaa-?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:
After Constantinople was sacked Italian cities like Venice became the main traders in the Mediterranean and the orient.

You've got the wrong Crusade.

Amaya wrote:Well, don't you think it's kind mean to send people who won't worship you to Hell?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well, don't you think it's kind mean to send people who won't worship you to Hell?

I guess...

WarOne wrote:I'll narrow my point a bit as I got up and now am tired as need sleep:

A Christian, despite what Jesus may say, has and will use violence when needed, as Jesus is one aspect of the Christian faith; you must also include in the context historical setting and cultural background along with the faction of Christianity and their views on the Bible. Our hindsight allows us to see Christians being hypocritical or obeying the scriptures regarding the teachings of Jesus. Some Christians had a right to their violence (or face extermination), and others used violence as a means to an end.

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well, don't you think it's kind mean to send people who won't worship you to Hell?

I guess...

No...everyone is allowed into Heaven.

Oh wait...the OTHER part of the Bible...

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well, don't you think it's kind mean to send people who won't worship you to Hell?

I guess...

No...everyone is allowed into Heaven.

Oh wait...the OTHER part of the Bible...

Amaya wrote:The OT was more along of the lines of "You're not a Jew, you're screwed."

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:I assume you mean Jesus?

God is an donkey-cave. "You don't worship me! Go to hell!" Not cool...

edit: switched believe to worship

Whaa-?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:
After Constantinople was sacked Italian cities like Venice became the main traders in the Mediterranean and the orient.

You've got the wrong Crusade.

Amaya wrote:I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well, don't you think it's kind mean to send people who won't worship you to Hell?

I guess...

No...everyone is allowed into Heaven.

Oh wait...the OTHER part of the Bible...

Have you seen Ricky Gervais, Old Testament God vs New Testament God?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:The OT was more along of the lines of "You're not a Jew, you're screwed."

Really? Where?

youbedead wrote:I thought we were talking about the crusades in general, my mistake

Amaya wrote:I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

What if your family is at stake? I can't see Jesus telling them to turn the other cheek as some psycho hacks away at your loved ones.

Amaya wrote:
I do not remember the specifics. I may be wrong in that case. The only thing I can immediately point to is that Jesus's gospel was specifically stated to be for Jews and Gentiles as opposed to the old beliefs that restricted Judaism to the Jews.

Aside from that, enemies of the Jews had a habit of getting curb stomped quite a bit.

WarOne wrote:

Amaya wrote:I don't know. Jesus taught that the world is secondary. He also taught to turn the other cheek and said "those who live by the sword die by the sword." There's not a lot of clarification in how far self defense would be allowed, if it is allowed. I would look like this, "Is killing someone so that you can remain in this mortal world justifiable when death in this existance is simply phyiscal death and not eternal?"

Let us put this into a terrible, terrible context that makes us all die a little inside:

If I were a brutal dictator that wanted to kill off an entire segment of my population, and your beliefs meant you would not resort to any defense or retalitory measures, and I had an army eager to kill all of you, what would be the end result?

While Earth may be a transitory realm, there is still the value of life as well as peace. Turning the other cheek has a limit, as why else would people who "live by the sword, die by the sword?" Certainly there are those who do not live by the sword, but must take it up in defense from time to time, and once not needed, be able to turn their swords into plowshares.

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends

mattyrm wrote:I think the answer is simply "somebody who says they are" surely?

Fred Phelphs IS a Christian. He says he is, he goes to Church, he prays, so therefore he IS a Christian, but he goes about it in a different way from most other people.

Isnt Religion just a personal choice? If he says he is one, then he is one, he aint very Jesus like, but he is one!

Amaya wrote:Are you allowed to restrain him? Are you allowed to kill him?

And how often did random people go off and start killing people in that era?

Amaya wrote:Claiming to be something doesn't make you that.

Amaya wrote:
I would argue that you the NT supports self defence, but does not condone violence, and certainly doesn't support warfare.

He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing gencide.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Are you allowed to restrain him? Are you allowed to kill him?

Does the metaphor 'turning the other cheek' stop at responding to aggression? Or does that include a sword to the gut, and dying like a dog?

And how often did random people go off and start killing people in that era?

Well, very often in fact. Romans were a brutal occupying force when they put their mind to it.

Amaya wrote:He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing genocide.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:
I would argue that you the NT supports self defence, but does not condone violence, and certainly doesn't support warfare.

Self Defence is a form of violence, so to support self defence is to admit that in some instance violence is acceptable. In regards to warfare, WarOne beat me to it.

He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing gencide.

Interesting piece of history here, at one point they very well could have been.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Are you allowed to restrain him? Are you allowed to kill him?

Does the metaphor 'turning the other cheek' stop at responding to aggression? Or does that include a sword to the gut, and dying like a dog?

And how often did random people go off and start killing people in that era?

Well, very often in fact. Romans were a brutal occupying force when they put their mind to it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Does the metaphor 'turning the other cheek' stop at responding to aggression?

"TURN THE OTHER CHEEK" ALWAYS? It is true that Jesus said to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:38-42. However, many scholars do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe Jesus was teaching to "turn the other cheek" in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (see John 18:22-23).

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."

The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.

In terms of following Christ's example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God's will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matthew 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God's timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ's unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection.

youbedead wrote:
Yeah but Christianity came about during the pax romana when rome was fairly peaceful and the majority of its citizens were happy. In fact thats the primary reason Christianity survived

WarOne wrote:

Amaya wrote:He never commanded the Jews to rise up against the Romans, but the Jews weren't exactly facing genocide.

Agreed. Jesus had no concurrent historical context with his life for which to fathom how he would formulate a response to genocide.

But I do believe that Christians in general do not condone the extermination of a people, and how could one stand by and watch others be mass murdered as a believer in the teachings of Jesus?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Yeah but Christianity came about during the pax romana when rome was fairly peaceful and the majority of its citizens were happy. In fact thats the primary reason Christianity survived

Are you talking about the inital decades, the years before or the century following? If it's the former you'd be quite mistaken. In the wake of a Jewish rebellion (to which some scholars point to being the real source of Jesus Christ) the Roman retaliation was appalling. Though admittedly Christians would have been a minority when compared to the Jewish population. They actually had a lot more to fear from them than the Romans.

Amaya wrote:I meant like a random murderer, not an organized oppresser.

Amaya wrote:
There's no easy answer to that. Jesus never told anyone that serving in the military was wrong, but it's not much a stretch to go from a self defense force, to some form of international police 'army', to invading non Christian nations over falsified injustices.

Amaya wrote:

Am I wrong though?

youbedead wrote:
Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

For the most part I'd agree with you.

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

For the most part I'd agree with you.

It was all a carefully laid plan by the Emperor of Mankind in his role as Jesus Christ.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

For the most part I'd agree with you.

It was all a carefully laid plan by the Emperor of Mankind in his role as Jesus Christ.

All those years as a carpenter really paid off when construction on the Imperial Palace started.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think he simply went with Malcador's suggestion of bedazzling everything that didn't quite fit in.

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think he simply went with Malcador's suggestion of bedazzling everything that didn't quite fit in.

And finally in frustration, he would then go on to rant:

BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM!

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think he simply went with Malcador's suggestion of bedazzling everything that didn't quite fit in.

And finally in frustration, he would then go on to rant:

BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM!

Final words of Horus?

kravus master of Horus wrote:Christianity is a religon that follows Jesus Christ, the son of God. He is our savior and died on the cross so that we could get into Heaven. We recognise him as divine. We take orders from God messanger, the Pope (if your Catholic). Apart from that it's corrupt and meaningless. I'm speaking for the Catholics in particular. Being from Ireland pretty much gives you a view on how corrupt and pointless Religon is. There's nothing wrong with beliving in God(s) but theres no point on putting a name on corruption. IMHO.

Kilkrazy wrote:How does an individual judge himself to be a Christian?

Is there any reference to external authority, or is it simply an act of will?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Belief that:

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.

Was the Son of God.

He lived a perfect life as a human.

He died for our transgressions, giving us an opportunity for Redemption.

He rose again after three days.

That is what makes a Christian.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Belief that:

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.

Was the Son of God.

He lived a perfect life as a human.

He died for our transgressions, giving us an opportunity for Redemption.

He rose again after three days.

That is what makes a Christian.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How does an individual judge himself to be a Christian?

Is there any reference to external authority, or is it simply an act of will?

How does an individual judge themselves to be anything?

Kilkrazy wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How does an individual judge himself to be a Christian?

Is there any reference to external authority, or is it simply an act of will?

How does an individual judge themselves to be anything?

Normally by reference to some sort of external metrics or concepts.

I don't see how else it can be done, so I question the concept that one can simply decide "I am an X or a Y" and it have any validity.

Wikipedia: Justifications and explanations wrote: Justification is the reason why someone properly holds a belief, the explanation as to why the belief is a true one, or an account of how one knows what one knows. In much the same way arguments and explanations may be confused with each other, so too may explanations and justifications. Statements which are justifications of some action take the form of arguments. For example attempts to justify a theft usually explain the motives (e.g., to feed a starving family).

It is important to be aware when an explanation is not a justification. A criminal profiler may offer an explanation of a suspect's behavior (e.g.; the person lost their job, the person got evicted, etc.). Such statements may help us understand why the person committed the crime, however an uncritical listener may believe the speaker is trying to gain sympathy for the person and his or her actions. It does not follow that a person proposing an explanation has any sympathy for the views or actions being explained. This is an important distinction because we need to be able to understand and explain terrible events and behavior in attempting to discourage it

Wikipedia: Theories of justification wrote: There are several different views as to what entails justification, mostly focusing on the question "How sure do we need to be that our beliefs correspond to the actual world?" Different theories of justification require different amounts and types of evidence before a belief can be considered justified. Interestingly, theories of justification generally include other aspects of epistemology, such as knowledge.

The main theories of justification include:
Coherentism - Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs.
Externalism - Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
Foundationalism - Self-evident basic beliefs justify other non-basic beliefs.
Foundherentism - A combination of foundationalism and coherentism, proposed by Susan Haack.
Infinitism - Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons.
Internalism - The believer must be able to justify a belief through internal knowledge.
Minority viewpoints include:
Reformed epistemology - Beliefs are warranted by proper cognitive function, proposed by Alvin Plantinga.
Skepticism - A variety of viewpoints questioning the possibility of knowledge.

Wikipedia: Justifiers wrote:If a belief is justified, there is something that justifies it. The thing that justifies a belief can be called its "justifier". If a belief is justified, then it has at least one justifier. An example of a justifier would be an item of evidence. For example, if a woman is aware of the fact that her husband returned from a business trip smelling like perfume, and that his shirt has smudged lipstick on its collar, the perfume and the lipstick can be evidence for her belief that her husband is having an affair. In that case, the justifiers are the woman's awareness of the perfume and the lipstick, and the belief that is justified is her belief that her husband is having an affair.
Not all justifiers have to be what can properly be called "evidence"; there may be some substantially different kinds of justifiers available to us. Regardless, to be justified, a belief has to have a justifier.

But this raises an important question: what sort of thing can be a justifier?
Three things that have been suggested are:
Beliefs only.
Beliefs together with other conscious mental states.
Beliefs, conscious mental states, and other facts about us and our environment (which we may or may not have access to).

At least sometimes, the justifier of a belief is another belief. When, to return to the earlier example, the woman believes that her husband is having an affair, she bases that belief on other beliefs—namely, beliefs about the lipstick and perfume. Strictly speaking, her belief isn't based on the evidence itself—after all, what if she did not believe it? What if she thought that all of that evidence were just a hoax? What if her husband commonly wears perfume and lipstick on business trips? For that matter, what if the evidence existed, but she did not know about it? Then, of course, her belief that her husband is having an affair wouldn't be based on that evidence, because she did not know it was there at all; or, if she thought that the evidence were a hoax, then surely her belief couldn't be based on that evidence.

Consider a belief P. Either P is justified or P is not justified. If P is justified, then another belief Q may be justified by P. If P is not justified, then P cannot be a justifier for any other belief: neither for Q, nor for Q's negation.

For example, suppose someone might believe that there is intelligent life on Mars, and base this belief on a further belief, that there is a feature on the surface of Mars that looks like a face, and that this face could only have been made by intelligent life. So the justifying belief is: that face-like feature on Mars could only have been made by intelligent life. And the justified belief is: there is intelligent life on Mars.
But suppose further that the justifying belief is itself unjustified. It would in no way be one's intellectual right to suppose that this face-like feature on Mars could have only been made by intelligent life; that view would be irresponsible, intellectually-speaking. Such a belief would be unjustified. It has a justifier, but the justifier is itself not justified. In fact, more recent observations have shown that the "helmeted face" does not look the same up close, nor when viewed from the side.

Commonly used justifiers
Abductive Reasoning
Empiricism
Induction
Occam's Razor
Pragmatism
Probability theory
Scientific method

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How does an individual judge himself to be a Christian?

Is there any reference to external authority, or is it simply an act of will?

How does an individual judge themselves to be anything?

Normally by reference to some sort of external metrics or concepts.

I don't see how else it can be done, so I question the concept that one can simply decide "I am an X or a Y" and it have any validity.

External metrics are essentially meaningless if there are so many of them that often contradict, a person could sample any selection of beliefs and depending on who you ask any of those beliefs could be Christian.

Don't forget that validity itself is a matter of opinion which any number of people may see as invalid.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Dammit Mum!

Phototoxin wrote:Not all churches have catechisms... some don't even have creeds.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Doesn't it also require, to truly be a Christian, that you have heard God's calling to you?

Example, my Gran is highly Christian and born again. She will sometimes say that we will all (immediate family) become Christian in our lives and she prays for it often. She also says that God called to her, that she heard God's voice in her heart and soul which caused her to become an evangelical Christian and that you cannot be a Christian until you have the Word of God. When she is talking about us or me becoming a Christian, I say that, should God call to me directly, that I would certainly not deny the Word of God and would on that day, become Christian.

This satisfies us both as she is happy I will heed the call and I am happy that the call is fairly unlikely and that if it does happen, then I am hardly likely to ignore the Word of the (suddenly proven) creator being...

Kilkrazy wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Not all churches have catechisms... some don't even have creeds.

I'm having some difficulty understanding how that would work.

How could you know the tenets of a church, if it cannot state them? How would a member know if they are following the correct teachings?

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, Gnosticism is not a form of Christianity, since it differs in several basic tenets.

Squig_herder wrote:
Jesus did not live a perfect life, nor was he perfect (stated in the bible by himself no less)

The Bringer wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:
Jesus did not live a perfect life, nor was he perfect (stated in the bible by himself no less)

Where in the world did Jesus say that? How would you ever infer that from anything in the Bible?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The DaVinci Code begs to differ!

The Bringer wrote:He was both perfect and noble.

Ahtman wrote:

The Bringer wrote:He was both perfect and noble.

Not every sect believes that. Making Jesus a super hero instead of a human removes an important element of the story for many people.

Ulver wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

This.

The interpretations of those teachings that have been translated at least twice are obviously going to be varied.

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:Do you know anything about the Bible?

Which one

youbedead wrote:
Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

The Bringer wrote:He was both perfect and noble.

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

Not sure if it's a "Sin",but I know it was a major point of contention between my Catholic Grandmother,who had pictures of Jesus all over her house,and her Baptist neighbor who called her an "Idolater"...I always thought it a bit odd,after all aren't you suppose to be on the same "side"?

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

Not sure if it's a "Sin",but I know it was a major point of contention between my Catholic Grandmother,who had pictures of Jesus all over her house,and her Baptist neighbor who called her an "Idolater"...I always thought it a bit odd,after all aren't you suppose to be on the same "side"?

That was the perhaps the single greatest piece of contention between orthodox and catholicism. The Iconoclasm almost brought the byzantine empire and western europe to war. It may have also been partly responsible for the 4th crusade

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

Not sure if it's a "Sin",but I know it was a major point of contention between my Catholic Grandmother,who had pictures of Jesus all over her house,and her Baptist neighbor who called her an "Idolater"...I always thought it a bit odd,after all aren't you suppose to be on the same "side"?

That was the perhaps the single greatest piece of contention between orthodox and catholicism. The Iconoclasm almost brought the byzantine empire and western europe to war. It may have also been partly responsible for the 4th crusade

Interesting...I'll have to read up on that.

Fortunately for the old neighborhood,things didn't escalate to that level,but I distinctly recall a bitter shouting match between the two over a statue of Jesus my Grandmother had placed on her front porch.
...I have to admit,I didn't understand it then...and I don't understand it now.

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

Not sure if it's a "Sin",but I know it was a major point of contention between my Catholic Grandmother,who had pictures of Jesus all over her house,and her Baptist neighbor who called her an "Idolater"...I always thought it a bit odd,after all aren't you suppose to be on the same "side"?

That was the perhaps the single greatest piece of contention between orthodox and catholicism. The Iconoclasm almost brought the byzantine empire and western europe to war. It may have also been partly responsible for the 4th crusade

Interesting...I'll have to read up on that.

Fortunately for the old neighborhood,things didn't escalate to that level,but I distinctly recall a bitter shouting match between the two over a statue of Jesus my Grandmother had placed on her front porch.
...I have to admit,I didn't understand it then...and I don't understand it now.

If you want to be really confused, Buddha explicitly said to not worship him, and to not build idols of him. There are many statues of buddha throughout the world that are 100's of feet tall, or solid gold, etc.

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

Not sure if it's a "Sin",but I know it was a major point of contention between my Catholic Grandmother,who had pictures of Jesus all over her house,and her Baptist neighbor who called her an "Idolater"...I always thought it a bit odd,after all aren't you suppose to be on the same "side"?

That was the perhaps the single greatest piece of contention between orthodox and catholicism. The Iconoclasm almost brought the byzantine empire and western europe to war. It may have also been partly responsible for the 4th crusade

Interesting...I'll have to read up on that.

Fortunately for the old neighborhood,things didn't escalate to that level,but I distinctly recall a bitter shouting match between the two over a statue of Jesus my Grandmother had placed on her front porch.
...I have to admit,I didn't understand it then...and I don't understand it now.

If you want to be really confused, Buddha explicitly said to not worship him, and to not build idols of him. There are many statues of buddha throughout the world that are 100's of feet tall, or solid gold, etc.

WarOne wrote:

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

Not sure if it's a "Sin",but I know it was a major point of contention between my Catholic Grandmother,who had pictures of Jesus all over her house,and her Baptist neighbor who called her an "Idolater"...I always thought it a bit odd,after all aren't you suppose to be on the same "side"?

That was the perhaps the single greatest piece of contention between orthodox and catholicism. The Iconoclasm almost brought the byzantine empire and western europe to war. It may have also been partly responsible for the 4th crusade

Interesting...I'll have to read up on that.

Fortunately for the old neighborhood,things didn't escalate to that level,but I distinctly recall a bitter shouting match between the two over a statue of Jesus my Grandmother had placed on her front porch.
...I have to admit,I didn't understand it then...and I don't understand it now.

If you want to be really confused, Buddha explicitly said to not worship him, and to not build idols of him. There are many statues of buddha throughout the world that are 100's of feet tall, or solid gold, etc.

Does Buddha have the same standards for idolatry that Judeo-Christian religions have?

Amaya wrote:A Christian is defined as a follower of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said that murdering people is wrong.
Someone commits murder in the name of Jesus.
How can they possibly be Christian?

I can believe that I am a Unicorn. Does that make me a Unicorn?

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

Not sure if it's a "Sin",but I know it was a major point of contention between my Catholic Grandmother,who had pictures of Jesus all over her house,and her Baptist neighbor who called her an "Idolater"...I always thought it a bit odd,after all aren't you suppose to be on the same "side"?

That was the perhaps the single greatest piece of contention between orthodox and catholicism. The Iconoclasm almost brought the byzantine empire and western europe to war. It may have also been partly responsible for the 4th crusade

Interesting...I'll have to read up on that.

Fortunately for the old neighborhood,things didn't escalate to that level,but I distinctly recall a bitter shouting match between the two over a statue of Jesus my Grandmother had placed on her front porch.
...I have to admit,I didn't understand it then...and I don't understand it now.

sebster wrote:Christianity doesn't define itself as those people who act according to tenets of Christianity (which aren't entirely clear anyway)

Amaya wrote:Aside from that, enemies of the Jews had a habit of getting curb stomped quite a bit.

[Mark 12:28] One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

12:29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

12:31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”

WarOne wrote:But I do believe that Christians in general do not condone the extermination of a people, and how could one stand by and watch others be mass murdered as a believer in the teachings of Jesus?

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy Christian church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Christianity doesn't define itself as those people who act according to tenets of Christianity (which aren't entirely clear anyway)

Technically speaking one could argue there's only two tenets of Christianity.

"Love god" being the first, and "love thy neighbor as if he were thy brother" being the second, with all other rules and laws subservient to and drawing from these two.

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Christianity doesn't define itself as those people who act according to tenets of Christianity (which aren't entirely clear anyway)

Technically speaking one could argue there's only two tenets of Christianity.

"Love god" being the first, and "love thy neighbor as if he were thy brother" being the second, with all other rules and laws subservient to and drawing from these two.

Note, though, that failing to live up to these doesn't stop you being Christian. Indeed, failing to walk the Christian path perfectly is a major part of the faith. Indeed, anyone who claimed that you have to love God and love your neighbour as if he were thy brother at all times or you stop being Christian would be greeted with great scorn by the greater Christian community, if only because it implied that the speaker thought he had maintained those two tenets at all times.

The only thing that would stop someone being Christian would be when he says "I don't believe in Jesus"

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Christianity doesn't define itself as those people who act according to tenets of Christianity (which aren't entirely clear anyway)

Technically speaking one could argue there's only two tenets of Christianity.

"Love god" being the first, and "love thy neighbor as if he were thy brother" being the second, with all other rules and laws subservient to and drawing from these two.

Note, though, that failing to live up to these doesn't stop you being Christian. Indeed, failing to walk the Christian path perfectly is a major part of the faith. Indeed, anyone who claimed that you have to love God and love your neighbour as if he were thy brother at all times or you stop being Christian would be greeted with great scorn by the greater Christian community, if only because it implied that the speaker thought he had maintained those two tenets at all times.

The only thing that would stop someone being Christian would be when he says "I don't believe in Jesus"

I don't know many people that actually follow the second most important law in Christianity (IE, love thy neighbor). Christians preach hate all the time, and if one doesn't preach hate they're seen as a softy who can't properly lead his (And they are almost exclusively male here) flock. Despite the fact that hatred is against the very core of the religion, but see, people don't let things like logic get in their way.

Slarg232 wrote: A Nitpick: Love thy Neighbor is actually more of the 7-8th law. Not the second

Melissia wrote:Ah, there, found it.

[Mark 12:28] One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

12:29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

12:31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”

Melissia wrote:

Slarg232 wrote: A Nitpick: Love thy Neighbor is actually more of the 7-8th law. Not the second

No, it's the second.

Melissia wrote:Ah, there, found it.

[Mark 12:28] One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

12:29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

12:31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”

IE, according to Jesus, the greatest law is the love god, and then the second greatest is to love thy neighbor. All other laws are subservient to these two.

Christians preach hatred all the time. At one point, it was hate the witch. Then it was hate the jew. Then it was hate the black. Then it was (and still is) hate the gay. And now they're adding hate the muslim on it too.

youbedead wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

The Bringer wrote:He was both perfect and noble.

Not every sect believes that. Making Jesus a super hero instead of a human removes an important element of the story for many people.

Jesus's divinity is one of Christianities most debated issues.

Quick quiz, is it a sin to have a picture of jesus

rubiksnoob wrote:I would think that there would be only one basic requirement for being christian: worshipping jesus christ.

Other than that it would seem that the rest is open to interpretation.

Melissia wrote:I don't know many people that actually follow the second most important law in Christianity (IE, love thy neighbor). Christians preach hate all the time, and if one doesn't preach hate they're seen as a softy who can't properly lead his (And they are almost exclusively male here) flock. Despite the fact that hatred is against the very core of the religion, but see, people don't let things like logic get in their way.

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I would think that there would be only one basic requirement for being christian: worshipping jesus christ.

Other than that it would seem that the rest is open to interpretation.

What about worshipping God, is that optional?

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I would think that there would be only one basic requirement for being christian: worshipping jesus christ.

Other than that it would seem that the rest is open to interpretation.

What about worshipping God, is that optional?

If you are Christian, aren't they all part and parcel of the same thing? If you just worship god but don't believe Jesus was the Messiah I think that would make one Jewish, not Christian. Hard to believe someone is the son of a god without acknowledging the god.

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I would think that there would be only one basic requirement for being christian: worshipping jesus christ.

Other than that it would seem that the rest is open to interpretation.

What about worshipping God, is that optional?

If you are Christian, aren't they all part and parcel of the same thing? If you just worship god but don't believe Jesus was the Messiah I think that would make one Jewish, not Christian. Hard to believe someone is the son of a god without acknowledging the god.

Not all of the various sects agree on the issue of the Trinity.

Ahtman wrote:It would seem the main activity of Christians is determining who is and isn't a Christian. Everything else is secondary.

Ahtman wrote:It would seem the main activity of Christians is determining who is and isn't a Christian. Everything else is secondary.

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I would think that there would be only one basic requirement for being christian: worshipping jesus christ.

Other than that it would seem that the rest is open to interpretation.

What about worshipping God, is that optional?

If you are Christian, aren't they all part and parcel of the same thing? If you just worship god but don't believe Jesus was the Messiah I think that would make one Jewish, not Christian. Hard to believe someone is the son of a god without acknowledging the god.

Not all of the various sects agree on the issue of the Trinity.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I would think that there would be only one basic requirement for being christian: worshipping jesus christ.

Other than that it would seem that the rest is open to interpretation.

What about worshipping God, is that optional?

If you are Christian, aren't they all part and parcel of the same thing? If you just worship god but don't believe Jesus was the Messiah I think that would make one Jewish, not Christian. Hard to believe someone is the son of a god without acknowledging the god.

Not all of the various sects agree on the issue of the Trinity.

This is the core tenet of Christianity as decided by the First Council of Nicea and laid down in the Nicene Creed.

The argument about whether a church or individual is Christian hinges around the acceptance of the Nicene Creed and the Triune nature of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

All the major Christian churches accept the Trinity and nearly all of them specifically espouse the Nicene Creed.

The sects which don't are the ones which throw up the question, are they truly Christian? These include Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and various others.

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:But I do believe that Christians in general do not condone the extermination of a people, and how could one stand by and watch others be mass murdered as a believer in the teachings of Jesus?

As history has shown, many Christians stood by during the holocaust, others profited from it or even took part, and others resisted, through either violent or peaceful means.

Life, history and religion are all very diverse things.

WarOne wrote:

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:But I do believe that Christians in general do not condone the extermination of a people, and how could one stand by and watch others be mass murdered as a believer in the teachings of Jesus?

As history has shown, many Christians stood by during the holocaust, others profited from it or even took part, and others resisted, through either violent or peaceful means.

Life, history and religion are all very diverse things.

Also, many Chrisitians justified standing aside from preventing the Holocaust or helping the Jews escape Germany because they had to win WWII and could not spare any time or effort to save millions of other lives.

Melissia wrote:
The idea that somehow there are no ethics without religion does nothing but piss me off.

Squig_herder wrote:

The Bringer wrote:He was both perfect and noble.

What about when he throws a fit when there are markets in the church? Was that a perfect fit of rage?

Amaya wrote:A Christian is defined as a follower of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said that murdering people is wrong.
Someone commits murder in the name of Jesus.
How can they possibly be Christian?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

The authority of the Nicene Creed to pass down such decisions is in question, seeing that it occured several centuries after the appearence of Jesus. Whether Jesus was the divine instrument of God, or was actually God in the flesh has been a matter of contention since the very beginning of the faith.

Kilkrazy wrote:The sects which don't are the ones which throw up the question, are they truly Christian? These include Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and various others.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I think you've got some of these guys muddled up. Mormons do acknowledge Christ's divinity, and I'm not sure if you're correct in calling Christian Scientists a sect.

The Bringer wrote:How can you prove their are ethics without religion? You can't.

You can only base off of what you would consider right or wrong, which is merely an opinion

The Bringer wrote:How can you prove their are ethics without religion?

Melissia wrote:

The Bringer wrote:How can you prove their are ethics without religion?

Because non-religious people still have ethics, duh. It's arrogant and insulting to think that without the bunch of fear-mongering douchebags that are Christian preachers that there would be no such thing as ethics. Christians don't follow ethics most of the time anyway, they just say "well, as long as I worship god and say I'm sorry afterwards, I'll be okay". It leads me to believe that most Christians are LESS ethical than non-Christians, but maybe that's just local culture.

Slarg232 wrote:No, Christians do not Preach hatred

The Bringer wrote:You can say you want to believe something is right or wrong, but you have no support or proof for that belief.

Melissia wrote:

The Bringer wrote:You can say you want to believe something is right or wrong, but you have no support or proof for that belief.

Neither can religious people.

The Bringer wrote:What is your base for the logical conclusion for certain morals?

The Bringer wrote:Ten commandments. Right there, you have a set of ethics.

The Bringer wrote:Based off of the Bible, you can.

The Bringer wrote:

Melissia wrote:

The Bringer wrote:You can say you want to believe something is right or wrong, but you have no support or proof for that belief.

Neither can religious people.

Based off of the Bible, you can.

The Bringer wrote:Also, the death and resurrection of Jesus is another excellent example. He was killed on the cross, there is absolutely not way you can question that.

The Bringer wrote:
Also, the death and resurrection of Jesus is another excellent example. He was killed on the cross, there is absolutely not way you can question that.

He was sealed in a tomb by a boulder, that ten strong men couldn't move. The area was guarded by a centurion that made sure tricksters and whatnot wouldn't go and mess around in the tombs. He would have seen if anyone had gone to move the boulder.

He saw no one go to the tomb at all (and btw, for falling asleep on the job he would have been executed).

The boulder was "moved" somehow by 1 "dead man" then, and he was seen living later. How can you question that?

The Bringer wrote:I gave one of many examples for ethics based on the Bible.

First of all, the coming of Jesus fulfilled many, many prophesies from before his time. Right there you have some evidence.

I think Jesus fulfilled some 300 prophesies, that were BEFORE the birth of Jesus. Some coincidence?

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/proph.htm

Also, the death and resurrection of Jesus is another excellent example. He was killed on the cross, there is absolutely not way you can question that.

He was sealed in a tomb by a boulder, that ten strong men couldn't move. The area was guarded by a centurion that made sure tricksters and whatnot wouldn't go and mess around in the tombs. He would have seen if anyone had gone to move the boulder.

He saw no one go to the tomb at all (and btw, for falling asleep on the job he would have been executed).

The boulder was "moved" somehow by 1 "dead man" then, and he was seen living later. How can you question that?

The Bringer wrote:Personally, I highly doubt that some centurion (who knew that if anyone spotted him) would have been talking with some girl or falling asleep. The sneaking up behind him and knocking him out could have been a possibility, but I would think it unlikely.
.

The Bringer wrote:You can say you want to believe something is right or wrong, but you have no support or proof for that belief. You cannot look at what Evolutionists would consider "matter" or "the real world" and actually come out to some moral conclusions. There is no basis for any morals in the world, without religion. Once you can prove a set of morals (actually prove) then I may believe it.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
And here we have the paradox of the moral conclusion; that is, that you cannot reach one without making at least one major assumption.

The Bringer wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
And here we have the paradox of the moral conclusion; that is, that you cannot reach one without making at least one major assumption.

Correct. But, the point still remains, without religion there is no ethics, correct?

The Bringer wrote:@ SilverMK2

I recall on the Wikipedia page that it said "...based on logic..."

What is your base for the logical conclusion for certain morals?

.

Ketara wrote:.

As for someone seeing him later, well, the last sighting of Hitler was in 1992, where he was supposedly working as traffic warden in London. ...

The Bringer wrote:Now you just need proof that that is the correct method for deciding morals.

The Bringer wrote:Now you just need proof

The Bringer wrote:need proof

The Bringer wrote:It isn't arrogance. One can come to ethical conclusions, but only from some reference point. (i.e. what feels good)

Religion is a reference point, "what feels good" is a reference point, "what helps the economy" is a reference point.

If religion is true, then what the say is ethics must be true.

The Bringer wrote:If the Bible is correct, what it says about ethics must be true.

The Bringer wrote:
Also, the death and resurrection of Jesus is another excellent example. He was killed on the cross, there is absolutely not way you can question that.

The Bringer wrote:If the Bible is correct, what it says about ethics must be true.

The Bringer wrote:

He was sealed in a tomb by a boulder, that ten strong men couldn't move. The area was guarded by a centurion that made sure tricksters and whatnot wouldn't go and mess around in the tombs. He would have seen if anyone had gone to move the boulder.

He saw no one go to the tomb at all (and btw, for falling asleep on the job he would have been executed).

The boulder was "moved" somehow by 1 "dead man" then, and he was seen living later. How can you question that?

The Bringer wrote:
Also, the death and resurrection of Jesus is another excellent example. He was killed on the cross, there is absolutely not way you can question that.

SilverMK2 wrote:

The Bringer wrote:If the Bible is correct, what it says about ethics must be true.

However, the main problem of this line of argument is what makes the bible correct (or more correct than any other text, religious or scientific), and what proof or evidence do you have for this being the case?

The Bringer wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

The Bringer wrote:If the Bible is correct, what it says about ethics must be true.

However, the main problem of this line of argument is what makes the bible correct (or more correct than any other text, religious or scientific), and what proof or evidence do you have for this being the case?

Yes, it does come down to whether or religion is true.


So on both sides of the argument:

Secular ethics comes down to what it should be based off of and why that base is correct. You can get nowhere with this, as there is no correct base for ethics from the world.
Ethics based off of religion comes down to whether or not that religion is correct. You can't really prove any religion to be ultimately correct, however improbable or probable they are.

So, there is really nowhere this discussion can go except to whether or not the Bible is correct, and that has been discussed for 2,000 years, and so we have nothing to add to this discussion.

The Bringer wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

The Bringer wrote:If the Bible is correct, what it says about ethics must be true.

However, the main problem of this line of argument is what makes the bible correct (or more correct than any other text, religious or scientific), and what proof or evidence do you have for this being the case?

Ethics based off of religion comes down to whether or not that religion is correct. You can't really prove any religion to be ultimately correct, however improbable or probable they are.

The Bringer wrote:Any argument for secular ethics will contain a fallacy

The Bringer wrote:Any argument for secular ethics will contain a fallacy, and so it really comes down to whether or not religion is true.

EDIT:

If you believe that religion to be true.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it is impossible to make some objective statements that give a baseline for ethical reasoning.

For instance, life is better then death.

The Bringer wrote:so it really comes down to whether or not religion is true.

EDIT:

If you believe that religion to be true.

The Bringer wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it is impossible to make some objective statements that give a baseline for ethical reasoning.

For instance, life is better then death.

Is it?

Was Hitler better dead or alive?

The Bringer wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it is impossible to make some objective statements that give a baseline for ethical reasoning.

For instance, life is better then death.

Is it?

Was Hitler better dead or alive?

EDIT - I'm saying that there is only ethics if you believe in a religion.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it is impossible to make some objective statements that give a baseline for ethical reasoning.

For instance, life is better then death.

The Bringer wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it is impossible to make some objective statements that give a baseline for ethical reasoning.

For instance, life is better then death.

Is it?

Was Hitler better dead or alive?

EDIT - I'm saying that there is only ethics if you believe in a religion.

The Bringer wrote:
Ethics based off of religion comes down to whether or not that religion is correct. You can't really prove any religion to be ultimately correct, however improbable or probable they are.

The Bringer wrote:
there can be no ethics without 1 religion being proved.

The Bringer wrote:Personally, I highly doubt that some centurion (who knew that if anyone spotted him) would have been talking with some girl or falling asleep.

The Bringer wrote:If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.

I'm not saying it exists or doesn't, I'm giving you the conditions.

Just because we don't know if a religion is true or not doesn't mean there is no ethics.

rubiksnoob wrote:

The Bringer wrote:If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.

I'm not saying it exists or doesn't, I'm giving you the conditions.

Just because we don't know if a religion is true or not doesn't mean there is no ethics.

What you said is that it is immpossible to prove any religion, and that without proving one religion, there is is no ethics.

What you are saying is that there is no ethics.

Ketara wrote:

The Bringer wrote:Personally, I highly doubt that some centurion (who knew that if anyone spotted him) would have been talking with some girl or falling asleep.

But you don't think it feasible to doubt that a man came back from the dead? REALLY?

Option 1. A man fell asleep.
Option 2. A man came back from the dead.

You're seriously telling me you think Option 2 the more likely and viable of the two? I'm not even an atheist, and I find this rebuttal awful.
*headdesk*

The Bringer wrote:If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.
I'm not saying it exists or doesn't, I'm giving you the conditions.
Just because we don't know if a religion is true or not doesn't mean there is no ethics.



EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth-values (if any) may be determined;
Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;
Moral psychology, about how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is; and
Descriptive ethics, about what moral values people actually abide by.

The Bringer wrote:
EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

rubiksnoob wrote:

The Bringer wrote:
EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

So not only do you have to accept the religion as true on the basis of faith (since it can't be proven), you also have to accept ethics on faith since its existence is dependent on the truthfulness of the religion that can't be proven to be true.

TheCapm wrote:If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible.

TheCapm wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

The Bringer wrote:
EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

So not only do you have to accept the religion as true on the basis of faith (since it can't be proven), you also have to accept ethics on faith since its existence is dependent on the truthfulness of the religion that can't be proven to be true.

If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible. If one knows the evidence, it supports their faith.

TheCapm wrote:If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible. If one knows the evidence, it supports their faith.

SilverMK2 wrote:

TheCapm wrote:If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible. If one knows the evidence, it supports their faith.

Did you bring a share size pack of evidence, or are you planning on keeping it all to yourself?

And when you say there is "actual evidence", what exactly do you mean, and when you say "certain supernatural biblical events", what exactly do you mean?

For example, there are things which can walk on water. There is also a story in the bible where Jesus walked on water.

One does not prove the occurrence of the other.

The Bringer wrote:If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.

The Bringer wrote:Anyways, would you yet agree that without religion there is no ethics?

The Bringer wrote:Can you prove ethics Melissia?

The Bringer wrote:But you can't have ethics without it.

Can you prove ethics Melissia?

micahaphone wrote:But-but- We need to see what would happen if humans disappeared, and why the Bermuda Triangle is haunted by USOs, which are submarine UFOs!

Melissia wrote:

The Bringer wrote:But you can't have ethics without it.

Can you prove ethics Melissia?

I am not an ethics major, so I would not deign to attempt to do such (my field of study being more scientific in nature than philosophical). I can, however, prove that ethics exists outside of religion, therefor your entire premise is false.

And it's quite simple. Ethical systems exist which do not require a belief in one or ore deities, therefor ethics are not tied to belief in one or more deities. There is no simpler line of logical reasoning than this.

TheCapm wrote:When i say evidence, I mean more like facts in favor of Christianity.

SilverMK2 wrote:Oh dear... I had high hopes of some actual evidence, rather than some conjecture and terrible understanding of basic scientific principals.

TheCapm wrote:The occurrence of The Flood would explain many things that evolution attempts to explain itself. For instance, the grand canyon could have easily been caused by a flood.