What is a Christian?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
madnessinmysoul,

You asked What is a Christian? Well there is only one answer. That is one who follows Christ and does His will. Now there is a lot of difference these days about that. What the trouble is many think they are but have not looked close enough and have missed the mark, or have not measured up. A true Christian is a totally free man or woman within His will. They are not of this world. They have nothing in the deciever. They are the faithful bride of Jesus Christ.

Truthiron.

Yay, you actually tried to answer my questions. I'm giving you a star for effort before I even read the reply.[/q] Hello Mims (Is it ok to call you that ?) Well,I will do my best to do so and thank you for the star,i do appreciate it...

As a divine human,That is,that God came to earth as a human being,He did this so that he could understand what it was to be human,to empathize with us.

All right, that clears it up a little bit. What is your basis for making this claim?[/q]

[18] For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to strengthen them that are tempted.
Hebrews 2


[14] Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
[16] Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need...Hebrews 4

We can read in these two passages that God came here to know what it is to be one of us,that he left a Heaven
free of sorrow and pain to come and experience the things that we go through,His heart was and is to draw
men to him and there was no way that he could do that if he had no understanding of what it is to be us.

Are real Christians trinitarian or unitarian?

I had to look these words up,hehe,Christianity generally holds that there is a trinity even tho the word is not mentioned in the Bible,



It's ok, I only really picked up the terms because I had to learn them as part of my religious education when I was religious.

But there is a word that I should point out, generally. It's not consistent, so where is the point on which the non-trinitarians are wrong?

Well,I see your point and understand where you are coming from,For myself it is not my place to say
who is right and wrong,I have to make what i think are the right decisions for my own conscience and heart,
With the same measure that i judge the same i will be judged with,so seeing that i don't know the heart
of a man,only God does,then for me to tell someone that they are wrong is actually asking for the same
judgment to be applied to me and that is not really where i want to put myself,What i do know is that,
and i place myself first in this judgment,is that when it comes to understanding God we are all wrong
at some point,If God is a dollar,i have about two cents...

There are numerous scriptures and stories that expound on there being three of them,
Jesus prayed to the Father and told his disciples that when he left the earth that the Father would send another,a comforter and councilor,that is the Holy Spirit,So there is context that shows them to be separate entities
yet of one and the same.



I might have missed something, but where did you show that they are one in the same?

John 8:58-59:"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham 1was born, I am.” "

"I am" being the name that God told to Moses in Exodus 3:14


John 10:30 Jesus said "I and the Father are one"

Do real Christians observe Judaic law?

No,Thats for the Jewish people,They have some good precepts tho...



Again, I ask this as politely as possible, where is your justification for that claim?

Ok,i realized that i made a generalization here,When i said Jewish people i was really meaning
the Jews who practice Judaism,Sorry bout that,
Anyway as for the reference on the law,


Rom 6:14-15 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Gal 3:23-26 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

As you can see by reading these that as a Christian i am no longer subject to the law and the
judgment that comes from that being applied against my life but under Grace,Does this mean that
I can do as i please and get away with it?,No,even the more so now,knowing what God asks of me
and being willing to do it,then God still judges me based on his standard but in that his love
and Grace shows through in the fact that even tho i am not perfect he doesn't reject me,doesn't
send me away or love me less but still loves me as a Father loves a son,doesn't not love him
because he stumbles,Does this make sense?

The concept of Peter being anything more than a man is a man made concept as well,He is not esteemed in the Bible and more than anyone else and was given no position of power save that of being a disciple and friend of Jesus.



What about Matthew 16:18 where Jesus calls Peter the "Rock" upon which he will build his Church? Wasn't he known as Simon prior to this and became Peter because of this passage?

Ok,I stole this,it splains it better than i could...

What does "upon this rock I will build my church" mean? The word "rock" obviously stands for foundation. A solid foundation is vitally important (Matt. 7: 24-27. Lk. 6: 46-49). A rock foundation was the ultimate, lasting foundation. Notice that this rock was to be the foundation for the church Jesus would build. Since the church is no better than its foundation, the right foundation was imperative.

Peter was the foundation. Some contend Peter was the rock upon "which" Jesus would build his church. The word "Peter" (petros) does mean stone. Peter was a mere man. Peter stood in the way of Jesus’ sacrificial offering, denied the Lord, and sinned publicly (Matt. 16: 21-23, 26: 69-75, Gal. 2: 11-14). Does the church rest on Peter, a man? Back to "upon this rock." When Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church…," he used a different word in the original ("rock" here is petra). W.E. Vine comments on Petros ("Peter") and petra: "Petra denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved..." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Petros and petra also differ in grammar, petros (Peter) is masculine, referring to Peter and petra (upon this "rock") is feminine gender. Jesus did not build his church on a stone which could be easily thrown away (petros, Peter), but on a mass of rock (petra).

My bit- Jesus didn't come to establish an earthly institution,He said-

John 18:36 "My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world."

It was not his intent to establish a religion nor a house of bricks and mortar but to bring the Kingdom of God
to the hearts of men,

He also said that he only came to exalt the Father,not himself nor anyone else so the context of these
statements negates placing a person (Peter) in any position above servent and friend.

Do real Christians give Mary, the mother of Jesus, special privilege?[/]

No,She was a normal girl,Chosen by God to do something,as were many others,to ascribe to her
something more than that is idolatry.



Again, why? I'd like justification for these claims.

Well,there is no scripture that speaks of Mary exalted,In fact,He said-

Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked round at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:33-35, cf. Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 8:19-21)

Jesus didn't elevate his Mother at all,he said that his family are those that love God,

(Topical for today): Do real Christians think Mary was born without original sin?

No,she was subject to the same as everyone else,God must have thought her capable to do as he asked
tho,look after a baby and be obedient so she had something going for her.



Again, why? I'd like justification for these claims.

As above,there is no scripture that says anything about Mary being anything different,She was like everyone else,
The fact that she was his Mum doesn't mean that she had to be divine,only willing and obedient,there are many
references in the Bible that show that God uses men/Women who are less that perfect,Peter being one of them.
God doesn't expect perfection,no one can be that,only willingness.

Do real Christians have Saints?

No,It is idolatry to put it bluntly,Who is a man?,There are no saints (in the sense that we know them) in the
bible,That is a man made concept,one that is born from men needing to esteem themselves in their own eyes.



Can I please have a bit more elaboration?

Sure,Well,The apostles and what we think of the great men of the Bible thought themselves to be nothing more
than servants,their only thoughts and intents were to glorify God and if you read their heart in their words
you would see that for them to be exalted by other men to the point of what could be called worship would
be grieving to them,
It is an age old problem,The need for men to have a visible representative that they can see with their eyes
instead of walking by Faith,From Moses rebuking the Israelites in Exodus for Golden Calf Gate, to Samuel the
Prophet rebuking Israel for demanding a king,which he appointed anyway,that being King Saul.
This is the same as today,men exalting men,placing them in positions that they shouldn't be,
God asks that hes is first place in our hearts,If that is the case then there is no need to esteem
another to that place.

Are real Christians saved through "faith" or "works" or some combination of the two?

A tricky one,needing more words than i can type in a short time but through "Faith",that is trust
that what Jesus did was the payment for my sin,I can't buy my way into Heaven,to think that i can
is an affront to God and i shall surely pay a high price for that if that is my heart.
The "works"part is pertaining to"If i believe what i do then what i do will show what i believe"



But what about those who do immeasurable good but have absolutely no faith?

I understand what you are saying but would have to ask"Do you really know the heart
of a man?,One may say that he doesn't believe in God but who can know what his last thoughts
are?,On his death bed,Does he relent,I wouldn't know,I am not God and i can't make judgments
on what others have in their hearts,I mean,maybe they really do believe in that moment,Maybe God
shows them,I don't know that,
I feel that is a bit simplistic and flippant so i will add that,God is God,and he knows what he is doing,
I know that his heart is one of love and that he sent his Son to die for all men,For me,I am to make sure
that i keep my heart right and show his love,I fail at that miserably at times tho,I trust him that he has
those things under control,I will think on this some more and hopefully i can give a better answer.


More soon...


Afterword-

MIMS,I have to say,You may think me a fool and that is perfectly fine,really,I know in whom
i believe and his love,that alone is where i get my identity from,The praise of men means
little,I apologize if i have misjudged you in this also,If this is the case then so be it,
I strive not to be a self righteous prat,prolly blow that at times too, but ultimately
I am secure in his love for me and my heart,as fickle as it is wants to show that to
others,to share that,so i won't partake in arguing with you about it but do my best to answer,
I don't know everything but will try my best,


Edit- Wanted to post a link to my testimony but for some reason it is not working...???


Thanks for talking

Violet.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
As per my response to this thread, I'd like to see if anyone can address the question of what a Christian truly is.

Is it possible to give a simple definition, or will you have to explore the following questions (taken from the aforementioned thread)

Does a real Christian see Jesus as merely a human, as a divine human, as a human that is both 100% human and 100% Yahweh, as a being that is 50% human and 50% Yahweh (or some other proportion, as I'm not going to bother writing out all possible proportions because that would be both silly and painful), or some other version I haven't bothered to mention?

Jesus must be seen as the way to God again.

Are real Christians trinitarian or unitarian? There is only one God, the rest of your worship do not compete all encompassing God.

Do real Christians observe Judaic law? The law is spiritual

Do real Christians subscribe to the Pope as the successor of Peter and thus extend Petrine privilege to him?
no idea

Do real Christians give Mary, the mother of Jesus, special privilege? nope, worship only one God. Do not take anyone above the Almighty, it would be foolish to do. It will lack in all things. God is almighty.

(Topical for today): Do real Christians think Mary was born without original sin? no
Do real Christians think Mary maintained her virginity throughout life? Was this because of a divine "instant regeneration of virginity" spell Yahweh placed upon her or was it simply because she abstained throughout life? She lived normal

Do real Christians have Saints? hm, good question, christian isn't therefore a saint, what is a saint? Must be more than a good friend.

Are real Christians saved through "faith" or "works" or some combination of the two? They were saved by God, God gives everybody a chance in regaining eternal life. Jesus is the way to God. Faith in JEsus comes spontaniously.

Do real Christians have to be "born again"? There is said, we die in christ and are newborn. Spiritual happening. You feel as before but with faith. :k
If yes, what would being "born again" entail? answer to previous question

What place does baptism have in the life of real Christians? like reminding Jesus with the act of drinking wine and eating bread. Keypoints??

Do real Christians interpret the Bible literally? Figuratively? Do they have a specific criteria for which parts are literal and which are not? Both, you'll be amazed when you read you have eternal life, that part must be taken literally, njah, it can ''only' be taken literally.

Which version of the Biblical canon do they accept? you know from yourself or will be guided to know what is true. The bible is only truth.
Do they give equal credence to the Old Testament? historybooks and books of law, books of wisdom, books for comfort.

Are real Christians creationists? aaaaaah, no, they are not. Although I don't quite get what creationists are.
If yes, are they old Earth or young Earth creationists?
If old Earth, is it a perpetual Earth that existed from the moment of creation or is it an Earth that was formed by Yahweh or natural processes later on in the existence of the universe? Once created to be in use forever. The earth is a disc the bible states.
If young Earth, exactly how young is the Earth for real Christians? 8000 years

Which version of the 10 commandments do real Christians accept? ??I believe you do as the commandments tell spontaniously out of love and respect for brothers and sisters. we are trained to be good.

Which version of the death of Jesus do real Christians accept? He died for our sin of death we inherited, as to say, Jesus Christ is the gift for eternal life.
Do real Christians see one Gospel as more important than the others? Nah
If so, which Gospel do real Christians hold up above the others? John, John was JEsus sweetest brother

What position do real Christians take on icons? I don't know Icons.

What opinion of women do real Christians have? life out of silence. she must suit her man.
Do real Christians allow women to teach? When she knows something to teach, ofcourse. Life is learning.

What is a real Christian's opinion of homosexuals? 1What the hell are you doing? 2I lost my wife. 3Give me a hand..

What is a real Christian's opinion of Jewish individuals? Be true to God.

And can you please provide arguments and evidence (be it Biblical or otherwise) to support your position?

phew, I just know. That's how you have to take it from me. thank you

What's good in it for me is what is a saint, a holy person, it is better to be an apostle.

An icon is a religion?

Also, christian,.. slave of God.

person who put the one and only ALMighty God above themselves.

I have the greatest respect for 'Madnessinmysoul' and it's not my intention to divert the tread from his approach. So take this as an additional perspective; to be ignored if of no interest (i'll neither be downcast or bristle in that case).

The human intellect has grown unproportionally as compared to the rest of human 'components', and correspondingly it's not quite 'tuned' to these other components.

While the intellect's ability for evaluating/storing information and for conceptualizing is impressive, this can be a double-edged sword. When our bodies and emotions send more uncomplex signals of a need of 'safety', the unsynchronised intellect tries to construct maps of existence, which from various initial considerations, are expected to bring such 'safety' (be it practical, abstract or whatever).

The initial considerations, ...assumptions, can be multiple or few, can sometimes be pragmatically defined as axioms, and can be structured (by their relationship) into exclusive, 'closed' systems or inclusive, 'open' systems.

In a few-assumption exclusive, closed system, much of the available 'energy' in the system will be used internally to defend the initial assumptions. USUALLY LEADING TO HIERARCHIES OF ORTHODOXY, WHICH WILL EITHER DEBATE DOCTRINAL POINTS TO SCHOLASTIC EXTREMES OR ALTERNATIVELY MANIFEST SOCIALLY IN POWER-HIERARCHIES.

In a multiple-assumption inclusive, open system the intial assumptions can be questioned, revised or some even be removed.

I believe, this perspective is valid for all abstractions, ideologies etc., but in the context of this thread 'what is a christian' is ofcourse the topic, so ....

It's my impression, that a major part of the collective, generally known as christianity, agrees on pauline redemption doctrine as a common platform. From a non-christian perspective this common christian platform appears to be a few-assumption, exclusive and closed system, which many christians then go on to interpretate in different ways, often with open conflicts as a result. This is an internal christian situation, actually nobody else's business....

....except when it manifests in the broader context of society, where there are competing maps of existence (e.g. other religions, science etc). Then the closed and exclusive christian system must by necessity either accept a broader and more inclusive attitude (doctrinal, communication-wise or even epistemologically), alternatively use various invasive methods to remove competition (from relatively non-violent missioning or infiltration to direct violence).

In- and outside christianity, the question of a closed or open system, is in contemporary society THE question. It's not my intention as a person to suggest any interference with internal christian doctrines, but I certainly am in a position (as part of society) to suggest a revision of the external manifestations between christians and the rest of society.

For motives of being left in peace, or possible for missioning, the external christian (in a social context) seems to be too vague. 'Loving god' is private, whereas the social 'loving your neighbour' has manifested in everything from burning him/her (your neighbour) for his/her own good, to an UNCONDITIONAL deed-before-doctrine compassion.

It's not up to me how christians define themselves as 'true' christians, but in the more open and inclusive perspective of society life would be much better for everyone, if christians could find their collective way towards a doctrinal interpretation leading to inclusive attitudes. By presenting a 'true' christian as able to function in social contexts would maybe appeal to some christians, while other christians would consider this as a violation of their basic doctrines. The later variety sometimes manifests on ATS, with the more or less direct attitude of: "Put this suggestion, where the sun doesn't shine".

Eventually power as the final outcome of competing ideologies, will always clash.

It may not be obvious, but I do act parallel to Madnessinmysoul by in another way put the light on what people ASSUME.

Sorry, I went the long way on this, and this is just the top of the iceberg. Comparisons can be made with other ideological and even mundane systems/structures, but more than enough is enough.

I'm just going to let everyone know that I will be posting lightly this weekend, so don't expect much in the way of replies.

I mean, the post size for each reply to myself is quite large if I do say so myself, so I'll have to put quite a bit of effort into posts when I have....at least 9 assignments to get done.

...blame my lecturers and professors.

reply to post by bogomil
bogomil,

It wouldn't never matter to me who the majority are as it never has been safe to follow them and never will. Evil is now the majority in this world and I don't know that Christianity has ever come close. I am a Christian because I am of Him and belong to Him. Frist by creation and second by redemption. I am His twice and then bought with a terrible high price. He first loved me and now I love Him with all my heart and soul. Yes He is my master and I am His subject and love to do His will. I do not ever intend to change that and grow stronger each day in my stand to stay with Him. I would be His slave but He turns around and sets me free and yes I am. I am totally free within His will for me. That's what it means to be a free man in Christ. Christian, ahh yes you bet.

Truthiron.

Re Truthiron

No offense meant, but there's nothing new in your post.

If you choose to live in, what I call a 'closed system', ....well, that's your choice by all rights.

It's when such a closed system is being enforced on the rest of mankind, who often have other values, the problems start. And the harder missionaries of a closed system push, the harder will the pushing back be.

Invaders will be invaders until compromises can be made. E.g. a common communication platform to start with.

I've met other christians more willing to give and take in a social context. Maybe they are the 'real' christians. Not my problem until the invasion begins.

My special approach to the thread was: Shoot it out amongst yourself. Not out here.

reply to post by bogomil
bogomil,

My reply seemed trouble you but I don't see why. Christianity a closed system? It is the Christian that is being persecuted now in many parts of the world. I just read of a number that where killed just because they are Christian. I didn't know Christianity pushed anyone to be a part of it as the Master of it doesn't work that way. He only has willing subjects who have come on their own. That is the way and the only way it is. No we must leave each to make his own bed to sleep in.

I wonder what you see that the future holds. Do you as a non Christian find the situation the world is in will do any turn around before it's too late? What is the answer non Christians have?

Truthiron.

I have some responsibility for opening this avenue to off-topic, this will be my last post in that direction unless relevant material turns up.

Truthiron

You wrote "My reply seemed trouble you but I don't see why."

If I've given that impression, it could be that I formulated myself badly. I was not troubled.

You wrote: "I just read of a number that where killed just because they are Christian."

People of all kinds are getting killed as a result of ideological gangwars. Christians amongst them, but to my knowledge not in any prominent numbers.

You wrote: " I didn't know Christianity pushed anyone to be a part of it as the Master of it doesn't work that way."

From the third century and onwards, militant fringes of christianity have used very invasive methods. Don't tell me, that you've never heard of the crusades, the inquisition, the genocides on native americans, the Stalin-like enforced centralising migration of Greenland eskimos (so it would be easier to enrol them in christianity), the bloody irish wars between two kinds of christianity, both claiming to be the 'right' one, the resistance to female priests and gay civil rights.

You wrote: "I wonder what you see that the future holds. Do you as a non Christian find the situation the world is in will do any turn around before it's too late? What is the answer non Christians have?"

I can only answer for myself. I believe, that mankind has a chance for survival, if we slowly could 'neutralize' the impact of sociopathic wanna-be gangleaders (in all parts of life). This is best done through general education on practical things like reading, writing etc, helping the weak and poor, not stealing resources and aspire towards egalitarian society. This necessitates voluntary participation from a majority of mankind. I'm strictly against any 'education of the masses' in any specific ideological direction, as this usually is 'indoctrination of the masses' and would be like adding oil to a fire.

None of the major ideologies on our planet has demonstrated any ability to take a leading role. Only inclusive society has shown good results in balancing power-factions, and is by itself not really an ideology except for the non-denominal egalitarian principle.

As I said. For me end of this line.

reply to post by bogomil


We are in the 21st century. I am sure you are aware that every walk in life has had it's dark past and many will continue to struggle in the future. When someone has authority, total authority, they tend to get corrupted along the way.

You can't tell me atheistic leaders have had a rosey past because the track record is just terrible. But I know it isn't the theistic view that corrupts but the lust for power and greed.

The dark ages harbored many wars due to religion, granted. There was much evil and barbarism. There was much imagination running rampant and it was eating the best of the people. However, there was also much politics which played roles in the killing of many. In example, the famous witch hunt. Some were accused because they had wealth, by killing them, their land was split amongst their heirs.

Another example were the Knights Templar's who were wealthy people. They were murdered because of the greedy snakes who ruled.

The good news is that we can use the dark past as a guide to the future. We can all band together, theists and atheists, to fight off extremism from both sides.

reply to post by truthiron


§Go brother!!

how are you doing?

JESUS Glory!! Hail!

Re Equinox99

You wrote:

"You can't tell me atheistic leaders have had a rosey past because the track record is just terrible. But I know it isn't the theistic view that corrupts but the lust for power and greed"

I'll make a small, but relevant digression. I find the extremist-christian habit of putting everything in black/white rather annoying. Annoying, not in the sense of disagreeing with me (that's ofcourse OK), but annoying because it's used either as a deflection maneuver or as a preparing a way for ready-made answers.

Even when done unaware, it's still a demonstration of the christian inability to move outside the holy bubble, through using a semantic so bad, that count Korzybski would rotate in his grave.

Back to the subject: It's YOU putting up atheists with a shady reputation up as a kind of excuse for christian excesses. Just like some christians justify their shortcomings by muslims, buddhists, science or females showing their knees in public.

Christian extremists have probably the Guiness record of 'bigotry and 1001 ways to justify it'.

You wrote:

"In example, the famous witch hunt........"

I have noticed a recent attitude amongst christians of: "It wasn't that bad", comparable to neo-nazis, who claim that the kz-camps didn't exist.

Furthermore: "Some were accused because they had wealth, by killing them, their land was split amongst their heirs."

With the church acting as prosecutor, judge and jury. And with the church deciding on the amount of torture needed, ofcourse cheating on the rules made by impotent secular authorities.

You wrote: "Another example were the Knights Templar's who were wealthy people. They were murdered because of the greedy snakes who ruled."

Royalty wanted to grab the money, Rome gave the ideological justification for the slaughter.

You wrote: " We can all band together, theists and atheists, to fight off extremism from both sides".

Perfect. When you stop paying lip service to this principle and join honestly, I'll welcome you. Now you're just using it as a distraction from your one-way sympathies.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Equinox99

You wrote:

"You can't tell me atheistic leaders have had a rosey past because the track record is just terrible. But I know it isn't the theistic view that corrupts but the lust for power and greed"

I'll make a small, but relevant digression. I find the extremist-christian habit of putting everything in black/white rather annoying. Annoying, not in the sense of disagreeing with me (that's ofcourse OK), but annoying because it's used either as a deflection maneuver or as a preparing a way for ready-made answers.

Even when done unaware, it's still a demonstration of the christian inability to move outside the holy bubble, through using a semantic so bad, that count Korzybski would rotate in his grave.

I am simply showing that every side has had its dark ages. When we see how far we come and what we overcame we could do a lot of good. I didn't deflect anything. I stated that Christians have had a dark past and I admitted it. I find it kind of annoying that atheists can't admit that non theistic leaders have committed such heinous acts.

The ready made answers are a way to prove that both sides have been wrong and that we could put the past behind us. You won't find many Christians, if at all, who agree with the mass murder.

Yet people seem to always bring the same arguments and nothing better. In example, you brought up the inquisition, bloody irish wars, and our invasive methods. I am simply trying to show, yes we did have them I admitted, but it doesn't matter what kind of leader you have. In the end, the leader will find a way to justify wars through many different resourceful tactics. Whether it be the color of your skin, your wealth, theistic, atheistic, for land, terrorism, and etc. There will always be a way for us to fight.

So I think it is very annoying that you can throw the inquisition, religious wars, and try your own "deflection maneuvers" by stating our side is using that tactic, when in reality, you are using the same tactics.

Back to the subject: It's YOU putting up atheists with a shady reputation up as a kind of excuse for christian excesses. Just like some christians justify their shortcomings by muslims, buddhists, science or females showing their knees in public.

Christian extremists have probably the Guiness record of 'bigotry and 1001 ways to justify it'.

Every side has the same record. The fact is we have more Christians in the world, so statistically speaking, we should have more rotten humans than the rest. I don't justify it but those are the facts. Do I agree? Heck no, I disagree with the whole thing, but I am one person. My views mean nothing to the rest of the world.

You wrote:

"In example, the famous witch hunt........"

I have noticed a recent attitude amongst christians of: "It wasn't that bad", comparable to neo-nazis, who claim that the kz-camps didn't exist.

Furthermore: "Some were accused because they had wealth, by killing them, their land was split amongst their heirs."

With the church acting as prosecutor, judge and jury. And with the church deciding on the amount of torture needed, ofcourse cheating on the rules made by impotent secular authorities.

No Christian today agrees with what happened in those ages yet many people throw the subject around like this is what every Christian believes. In 40-50 years people are going to look at America, what do you want them to tell our sons and daughters? They are murderers and torturers because Bush authorized water-boarding?

This was an age where fear, ignorance, and intolerance were running wild. But I challenge you to find me one Christian in the modern world who kills witches. Notice how I said modern meaning in our standards. Don't find me people stuck 200+ years behind us such as Africa.

You wrote: "Another example were the Knights Templar's who were wealthy people. They were murdered because of the greedy snakes who ruled."

Royalty wanted to grab the money, Rome gave the ideological justification for the slaughter.

And no one agrees with that today. We aren't following the same path as Rome we have evolved for the better.

You wrote: " We can all band together, theists and atheists, to fight off extremism from both sides".

Perfect. When you stop paying lip service to this principle and join honestly, I'll welcome you. Now you're just using it as a distraction from your one-way sympathies.

I am sorry you feel that way. It is the truth and if you can't accept it than I have nothing left to offer.

I don't care for your sympathy, I actually care for the world for what it is. I acknowledge the dark past that the church has brought on the world and I don't agree with it, at all. I am sure if you took the time to ask Christians what they think of the witch hunts, the inquisition, and etc they will be on the same boat.

If a Christian feels murders and tortures are the answer than they are not Christian at all. And if you think I am "paying lip service to the principal", you don't know me at all. Before you say anything like that you should really get to know someone rather than throw accusations. Thinking you know one doesn't mean you know all.

Re Equinox99

I appreciate your will and ability to join an effort of common meeting-ground, and will correspondingly tone down my end of our exchange, by 'giving you some points' (I don't mean as points in a boxingmatch, but as admitting to you being reasonable about specific things).

IMO you are quite correct in assuming, that the gangleaders of ALL aggressive ideologies have a lot to answer for, and that they reasonably can be classified as the 'bad guys'. Amongst such types it's common to 'excuse' their own excesses, with: "'They' did it first, we're only defending ourselves". Comtemporary christians are very well represented amongst such attitudes, but far from alone.

You wrote:

"No Christian today agrees with what happened in those ages yet many people throw the subject around like this is what every Christian believes."

Again I can agree with you, though with the addition of two critical facets.

a/ What is the reason for this general change of attitude? An inter-christian introspective voluntary betterment of ethical standards towards social responsibility, or the fact that secular laws have the power to interfere now? Sad to say, I often confront extremist christians, who on a practical level acknowledge their limitations, but openly have the same attitude of elitistic, privilige-arrogance, characterizing the dark period. Call me paranoic, but I see this invasive attitude on many levels of contemporary life, where the extremist christians make claims far beyond any justifications.

b/ The basic christian manual, the bible, contains commands/instructions of atrocities only doctrinally paralled officially by nazism. The inter- and outer debate on christianity centers much on this, with inter-christian attitudes ranging considerably. Take away OT (then what about pauline redemption doctrine?), edit it (literalists raging and critics mocking about god's words being revisionable), hiding it in apocrypha (with new secterian schisms turning up, resulting in more 'heretics') or engaging in the rather (for me) comic effort of making semantic (but not logical) cover-ups with changing covenants etc.

Such maneuvers ofcourse have meaning for christians, but for a non-christian or critic-christian it doesn't give meaning or inspire confidence. The image of extremist christians as irrational and violent, biding their time, is deep. Ofcourse this is unfair towards decent christians, but christianity has schismed so often, and been so much in conflict with itself, that it will take more than cosmetic changes to change this image. Non-christians in general will not settle for less than a deep, convincing and transparant change into accept of egalitarian principles by christianity in general.

And I've said it often enough, christianity must clean its own backyard, also for the sake of liberal society which would be flawed by to much intervention in ideological matters.


You wrote:

" So I think it is very annoying that you can throw the inquisition, religious wars, and try your own "deflection maneuvers" by stating our side is using that tactic, when in reality, you are using the same tactics."

I can both understand and see the justification for your annoyance. The other half of it is, that my 'deflectionary tactics' (I admit to doing so sometimes) together with more serious criticism, never are directed against any exclusively picked ideology, but just generally against fascist extremist ideologies. I've had the same confrontations with stalinists, maoists, neo-nazis. Neither am I defending or proposing any specific ideology, except the broad principles of inclusive liberal, egalitarian democracy (which one period can be run by christian-conservative constelllations, the next by liberals midwayers, the next by socialists of various kinds).

At least I tried a reconciliatory attitude, hope you can see that. Just a short comment, and I'll be off. I take it, that you agree with me on democracy as outlined above. Try to take a look around on various threads and see how many 'christians' not only disagree with these principles, but actually seem to unable to understand them, only seeing them as a threat to christianity.

(It goes without saying, that such narrowminded-ness also applies to all other kinds of invasive extremism).

reply to post by bogomil


I have read many of these threads and I realized a few things. There are Christians who don't know what they are talking about. Often, those Christians are defending themselves because the OP has decided to take an aggressive approach rather than debatable one.

I have been on ATS long enough to understand how to deal with aggressive attitudes towards my arguments, but I say the same about my fellow Christians.

I welcome any rational debate about my belief. I came to ATS when people were making threads that were thought provoking and I learned to debate and even doubt my beliefs. But this trend, now, has changed for the worse. I see plenty of ridiculous threads with very little research, much assumptions, and no regards for debate.

Because of that many of the Christians are forced to use defensive tones rather than rational ones. With being on the defensive people tend to attack rather than rationalize.

One more thing.

The basic christian manual, the bible, contains commands/instructions of atrocities only doctrinally paralled officially by nazism. The inter- and outer debate on christianity centers much on this, with inter-christian attitudes ranging considerably. Take away OT (then what about pauline redemption doctrine?), edit it (literalists raging and critics mocking about god's words being revisionable), hiding it in apocrypha (with new secterian schisms turning up, resulting in more 'heretics') or engaging in the rather (for me) comic effort of making semantic (but not logical) cover-ups with changing covenants etc.

Whether Christians agree or disagree this is my belief and I think this is for the best. The laws were written over 2,000 years ago and slowly changed with the times. I think Jesus would have wanted us to change with society not hold it back. In example, if the Bible says stone your daughter for adultery, and you do, it would be considered a sin. Jesus said if you are without sin cast the first stone. Everyone on this Earth is a sinner.

As I told maddnessinmysoul before, Jesus summed up the whole Bible with these two laws:

1) Loved your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul.
2) Love your neighbor as you do yourself.

Of course we must also follow the ten commandments. Those are the base laws, everything else could be built around them.

As holy as the Bible is, we must take the important teachings and apply them to real life. All the barbaric teachings we must leave behind with our barbaric past.

Re Equinox99

thanks for your answer. Fair enough according to my taste. Which ofcourse won't prevent me from presenting my own opinions, when contrary to yours.

You wrote:

"I welcome any rational debate about my belief."

Later you also wrote:

"Everyone on this Earth is a sinner."

You present here a doctrinal point, which contains sweeeping generalizations. I'm not trying to backstab you debate-technically, but ask you seriously: "How can this point be debated rationally?".

I welcome any approach to this question, from a definition of 'rational' to the 'how?' of classifying mankind in general, including all of us into the group sinners. A lot of non-christians would strongly deny this kind of classification, so ergo we have two contradictory operational worldwievs.

It's reasonable to expect, that if this is carried to the point of public debate where 'authority', 'truth', 'reality' will be called upon as evaluation background, the outcome will be entrenched positions of: "You are a sinner" versus "You are a missionary moron". May I suggest care with doctrinal 'authority', if you want a civil and rational debate.

And again:

"Of course we must also follow the ten commandments."

The 'ofcourse' and the 'must' are only valid for you and your likeminded. I and others with me, have different basic rules.

"Love your neighbor as you do yourself."

I see your point, and I don't want to be nitpicking demagogic about it. But there are some considerable dangers in this rule. It basically means, that said neighbour is to be loved as you love yourself or want to be loved. Not as he/she wants to. There's quite a difference when it manifests practically, and I take it, that examples are unnecessary (I can supply them on request). Taken to extremes it's an elitist statement.

I'm not trying to counter these basic rules you adopt in your life; I'm only pointing out, that the christian missionary zeal of pointing out conclusive cosmic/existential 'laws', even unwittingly sneaks into much christian argumentation, and produces the impression of christian delusions of grandeur, as seen by non-believers considering most of it bosh.

I'm a hard sparring partner, but I hope, that I keep my promise of a civil tongue.

reply to post by Sahabi

Ask that short list of questions in the OP to 100 Christians and you will get 100 different answer combinations. Not 2 single people will agree perfectly on every single answer. This will stand true with 100 people of the same church.

That is the problem right there. I can go against every law of God in the Bible and still believe myself to be a Christian and who will be able to contradict me? Anyone can try to dispute another's opinion but that would be like placing a guy inside a freezer because you want him to take his jacket off. But just because there are one thousand Christian churches existing at the same time, with differing doctrines; different ideas concerning God and Jesus Christ, different practices, it doesn't mean that there is absolutely no possibility that there is one that is true and is ordained by God. It is out there. A church unified in all its decisions. A church that perfectly agrees on every single answer to every single question asked of it.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I am a believer in Jesus Christ.

Defined from Strong's Concordance:

2424
Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

5547
Christ = "anointed"
1) Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God
2) anointed

With that defined yes I am a Christian, upon my acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, of which I believe he is God robed in the flesh born of a virgin birth ministered for about three years teaching and preforming miracles, falsely persecuted for our sins, died upon the cross, left in the grave for three days and rose again.

As a true believer I believe you must except the Bible as 200 percent true, as there is not one man now or ever that could make claim to what is true and what is not.

We are "anointed" upon our acceptance to spread the Gospel.

Yes there are many claiming to be Christians, yet the Bible tells us how to know if they truly are, by their fruits. That is do they love one another, do they witness about Jesus, do they live as the Bible says to, do they forgive, do they hate the sin of this world as God does.
This is just a few examples, and yes many that do follow this stray, but when they do they are to repent and also make right to those they had wronged.

May the eye salve of the most Holy God open your eyes to the truth.
In Jesus Name I pray Amen.