Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

No, it's the second. I said "second greatest", and to quote the bible (other translations might have different wording, but the same relative meaning unless they're obscure).

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.

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.

My bad, was thinking more along the lines of commandments (twelve thirty in the morning!).

No, Christians do not Preach hatred, of the Witch, the Jew, the Black, the Gay, and the Muslim. PEOPLE who happen to be "Christians" Preach of hatred. Again one of the reasons I really hate the religion, is because most of the people (that I have met) in it are just a bunch of hypocrits, who preach tolerance but carry on prejudices and the like, all the while hiding behind the excuse "Oh, I am just human, I make mistakes". And after making that excuse, they go right back to doing what they were "just human" for in the first place....


Not just an isolated incident for me, either.

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

I hope not because there are some in one of my bibles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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?

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.

To be fair, it's a pretty damn hard law to live up to (as all good laws should be, if you ask me). Point being, failure to live up to the law doesn't stop you being Christian, especially when you consider how the religion teaches that such failure is just part of being human.

At which point, really, the only practical way of defining Christians would be asking if they consider Jesus to be their Lord and Saviour. If true, it doesn't necessarily make them good Christians or good people, but they'd still be Christians.

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.

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.

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.

Well dur, but they usually involve believing Jesus was the Messiah. It isn't a question of divinity.

Been a while since I've posted, let's hope this one is worthwhile.

My definition of a Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Christ to the best of their ability, which rules out a lot of people who call themselves Christians. Religion is complicated, and it's when you try to dissect it gets very messy. No one knows how it all began, be it Christianity or the whole universe itself, so no one can be truly sure that they are right. But even if it is impossible to know for certain if they are right, many people like to believe they do. I was raised by rather liberal 'Christians', and no doubt my beliefs are shaped by them and my life experiences, in my universe no one is perfect and everything is up for speculation. So this is why I am so perturbed when I see people blindly following something. They key to everything is how a person is raised, the environment they grew up in, the people they know the most.

A good believer should not only believe, but also think. I know this is a broad statement, and one that deserves elaboration, so here I go! What I mean is, have confidence in both your faith AND others. Don't go depending on a deity to solve all your woes, instead of ignoring the opinions and beliefs of others take them and find similar traits with your own and try to find common ground. Work with each other, and focus on that common ground and you will achieve a lot more than a crusade would ever have. After all you are just a human being, just like everyone else.

Instructor: "And what are humans, class?"

School children: "Imperfect!"

Instructor: "Excellent, you all get candy, except for you Jordan, you are too fat for candy!"

School child Jordan: "God damn it!"

A good believer should explore their surroundings. Keep your god-damn mind open for pete's sake. And again, speculate everything and take nothing at face value. To some the bible is reality, to others its a bunch of fairy tales, and to me its a collection of 'faith-inspiring' stories that some clergyman decided fit well with each other as he burned all the other material he didn't like five-hundred years after the time of Jesus. So do I read the bible, or consider myself a Christian? Hell no, I'm a believer. And I believe that everyone has some good concepts and ideas floating around, and if we work together we all will get in a big bed and have a wet dream about candy and rainbows.

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.

The main religious activity for the typical American 'Christian' is simply going to Church.

Personally I would love someone to open up the Vatican archives to the world of scholars and see what is hidden in there. I would imagine that they have a pretty good record of all the changes that have occurred (both natural evolutions in belief and man made alterations) within the Catholic faith, as well as a lot of documentation surrounding those changes.

They may well also have some fairly old copies of the bible that could be re-translated so they can be compared with modern versions.

I choose the Catholic archives here as they are, as far as I am aware, the oldest continuous faction of Christianity and so will be more likely to have the most complete record of such things.

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

I would argue the main activity for Christians is to go about their lives the same as everyone else in the world, except we get to sleep in on Sunday.

The main activity for people on the internet is to have long and painful discussions about who really fits a definition and who doesn't. And given people on the internet love arguing about Christianity, it seems inevitable that the two would mix, sooner or later.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This doesn't add up. The vast majority on the Western front did not know what was happening so there was no way they could have decided to let it slide in favor of the War. It also ignores that the Holocuast was just as much a part of the War as the Battle of the Bulge. They weren't seperate events.

The few that got out of Germany and told of some of the chicanery going on were dismissed. There really was a great deal of denial about the fact until we started finding camps.

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

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, and there is bound to be someone to disagree with you.

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?

First of all, please call things what they were. It makes matters simpler. He was angered that men turned the a temple into a market. There are many instances where God is angry in the old testament, and it is righteous anger. He hates sin. Is hating wrong a bad thing? Likewise, Jesus hated the sacrilegious actions of the men selling sacrifices.

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?

They are still a Christian. There are many misguided Christians that think bombing abortion clinics, for example, is allowed because it stops another evil. However, one evil never does excuse another. They have slightly flawed theology, and it leads to misguided actions. They are still a Christian though (or could be.)

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.

Nonetheless, it was done. Arianism was rejected, and Trinitarianism became the orthodox belief of all mainstream Christian sects from then until the mid 19th century, when some of these other guys popped up.

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.

Maybe so, however that is irrelevant to my argument, which is that Trinitarianism is the key defining characteristic of Christian religion.

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

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

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

AKA... ethics.

It used to be part and parcel of religion that you sacrificed a bunch of virgins every day (or however often) to make sure the sun came up the next day. It was an honour to be chosen/have a member of your family chosen for this. The god(s) demanded this to be so. The sense of right and wrong at that time and in that place, as decreed by the priests of that time as mouthpieces of the god(s) stated that this opinion was right and proper.

By todays standards, such action would generally be considered wrong in the extreme. I am sure that Christian missionaries (and other religious and secular groups) which spread through the "savage world" were the first to try and teach people who still practiced such things were "wrong".

What I find interesting is that you (meaning "religion as a whole") doesn't seem to see that the next wave of missionaries is always on the next ship, showing you a new way of doing things, and new ways of believing (or not believing as the case may be). Christianity has altered a staggering degree over the centuries as cultural and religious reform (sometimes interchangeable) have swept through society.

What it means to be a Christian now is substantially different to what it was even 100 years ago, let alone in the times "the religion" was founded.

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.

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.

I would say it's not just Christian preachers that are fear-mongering douchebags, but other than that, +1 to this whole comment. You can be eithical without being religious.

No it's not, it's religious preachers in general, but the ones I have to deal with on a day to day basis are Christian so meh.

@ SilverMK2

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

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

@ Melissia

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.

Also, please no name calling. It doesn't improve the discussion at all.


EDIT:

I really don't like this "preachers are stupid" trend. I know many Christian preacher, and they are not only sane, but honorable. Please stop this general "preachers are stupid." Yes, there are some who would consider themselves preacher who are certainly misguided, but please stop the over-generalizations.

Slarg232 wrote:No, Christians do not Preach hatred

Yes they do, all the time. You might not like it, but they're still Christians, and they're still preaching hatred.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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.

But then that merely comes to whether or not the Bible is true, which can't be proved one way or another.


Ten commandments. Right there, you have a set of ethics.

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

You will have to be more specific. However, on the most basic level humans are a social and pack-like creature and over the course of our evolution have developed certain traits or predispositions towards cooperative behaviour. Ethics, "morals" or anything else you decide to call the socially accepted pattern of human behaviour is simply the expression of this cooperative behaviour filtered through social and cultural pressures.

In return, what is your base for the logical existence of God as written in the bible and associated works, which I assume you believe in, and why must all moral fortitude be granted from this source?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

There are, I am given to understand, significantly more commandments than that. I seem to remember there are about 140 odd. But then, I am not a biblical scholar so the actual number may differ from this.

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

No you can't.

People debate ethics based off of the bible all the time, what is and isn't ethical based off of the bible, with extremely heated debates that frequently end in religious schisms. It's as clear as mud that's been shat on but doesn't smell quite as good.

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.

SO,based off a book (That has been altered and changes numerous times) filled with second hand accounts of things that may or may not have happened or been said as writen...

You can no more prove the validity of your book any more then I can prove the existance of the Loch Ness Monster (also written about in books)...

IF you want to devote your life to what may be a work of fiction, that is your choice, but others make more logic based choices (Logic vs. faith).

I always find it interesting that modern society demands logic, accountability, proof and common sense in all matters of life except the practice of religion...

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?

And there's at least a dozen different views on that subject which would object to your interpretation of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Yes I can, just because it's widely believed doesn't mean it's true.