CHRISTIAN FIGHT!!!

[cmdrjones]

Anybody sane? The OT condones and sometimes advocates genocide, rape, pedophilia, slavery, people being punished for something their ancestors did, children being murdered for something God made their Pharao do...

To be fair, that's anyone sane now. We've had centuries of Enlightenment thinking behind us helping to build an idea of morals that isn't based on authoritative figures.

Yeah and the enlightenment gave us the Reign of terror too didn't it?
To be even more fair, the enlightenment came out of 2,000 years of Christian thought as well, it certainly wasn't derived from the Vikings.

[Adam Reynolds]

Yeah and the enlightenment gave us the Reign of terror too didn't it?

All I have to say is "Post hoc ergo propter hoc"*. In any case, the primary intellectuals behind the enlightenment had no connection to the Revolution. Those that did were relative lightweights.

And even if this were true, the French Wars of Religion alone killed more per capita than the Revolution and Napoleonic wars added together. Adjusted for population increases, those wars killed more. Using the mid 20th century as a base for adjusted population, the French Wars of Religion killed 14 million(raw total 3 million). The Napoleonic wars, only 11 million(raw 4 million).

*(after this, therefore because of it) As a side note, at the time of the French Revolution, yours was a common argument against enlightenment being a force for good.

To be even more fair, the enlightenment came out of 2,000 years of Christian thought as well, it certainly wasn't derived from the Vikings.

It is no coincidence that it came at a time when secularism was at a point of strength, as a direct result of the various wars of religion weakening the overall power of any particular church. And you are missing the obvious origin, the Greeks.

[Flagg]

2000 years? Are you on crack? Christianity only became a truly major force to be reckoned with decades after Constantine made up a story about seeing shit in the sky and like most people that see shit in the sky he was probably drunk as they didn't exactly drink much water back then, and added lead to the wine because it was bitter as hell and as everyone over the age of 50 most likely knows first hand, lead is sweet. He then ordered his soldiers to paint their shields with the contemporary symbol of Christianity, went into battle, won, after finishing off all of his enemies and entering Rome legalized Christianity and started persecuting Jews more. You know, for fun.

When did Constantine do all of this? about 360 CE. Yeah, that would be almost 400 years after Jesus of Nazareth allegedly lived and then got nailed to a board, tree, whatever, for pissing off the Jewish high priests enough that he became a threat to peace in the Roman province of Judea, and Pilot, the Governor (Spoiler

pre-losing an eye to Michonne

) ordered his execution. If you even believe in the "historical Jesus", and since no one can find anything written about this alleged crazy cult leader until decades after his supposed crucifixion, I'm not inclined to.

So Eastern Christianity basically flourished since the Western part of the Empire was circling the drain, but western Christianity endured. But it was by no means a sure thing.

[jwl]

cmdrjones, are you actually Christian or are you just claiming to speak for them? Because I am and I certainly don't agree with you on the "core tenants" of Christianity are, and neither do the vast majority of christians and christian leaders I've met. And I've been to a lot of churches; all of the ones in my area and I go to a different one every time I go on holiday (admittedly mainly Anglican and Methodist ones in that case), so I would say I have a fairly good grasp of christian opinion.

I would certainly disagree highly with your interpretation of judas's comment to jesus, and the idea that the process of bringing the kingdom is not one of progress, but I don't want to turn this into an off-topic theological discussion.

However, what I will comment on is what counts as the "core tenants" of Christianity. Some would say that the "core tenants" are best summed up in the nicene creed (for most Protestants at least the "holy catholic and apostolic church" means the world church, not the roman catholic one). I would disagree, I think it's too exclusive. I think a broadly better summary would be the ones we actually see in the bible:

Romans 10:8-12

But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

or

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

And by that of course I mean loosely. There are bits even in these that are too exclusive if taken absolutely literally. For example I have heard a sermon which is explicitly based on a point of contention with the "last of all" bit.

[Borgholio]

Violent and cruel by whose standards?

Others have pointed out that it's cruel by modern standards, but if you think about it...it's cruel even by the New Testament standards. Jesus preached love. He preached forgiveness. He preached hating the sin but not the sinner. He did not condone or advocate genocide, infanticide, slavery, or anything of that sort. The New Testament is basically God's Word v2.0™. God tried the whole wrath and vengeance thing in the Old testament (flood, fire and brimstone, plagues of Egypt, etc...) and it only made mankind worse and caused a ton of deaths. So he tried preaching love, forgiveness, and tolerance through Jesus...even though God would have been delighted to smite some of the same people Jesus freely associated with. The attempts of "progressive" Christians these days to extend those ideas to include other Old Testament sins such as homosexuality only seems like a natural evolution of the idea.

[Elheru Aran]

Bits like the 10 Plagues of Egypt and Canaanite genocide can be interpreted as an worldly evocation of literal spiritual warfare-- God showing the people of pagan countries that he's the superior deity and what he says goes. People who side with the Israelites tend to get exempted from the nastiness, such as the prostitute who hid Israeli spies in Jericho and survived the fall of the city. Borgholio above presents another argument (God changed tacks between the two periods).

Anyway. Yes, Christianity has been around for close to 2,000 years. The progressive part isn't about the theology, pretty much everybody agrees on that to varying degrees of interpretation. The progressive part is about the *behavior* of various denominations or churches. It can be as silly as having a praise band lead the worship service, or as serious as being welcoming of out homosexual individuals as part of the church. It's all a matter of how seriously you take which parts of the Bible in your church.

[Metahive]

It's actually quite funny when you think of it, Christianity with a clearly formulated dogma only exists since the Council of Trient in the 16th century. Before that they were a tad wishy-washy about their teachings which made it possible for the reformers like Luther and Calvin to get so many followers in the first place.

So yeah, Christianity as we know it today isn't even all that old.

[Elheru Aran]

Seriously, one of the arguments that a lot of 'liberal' churches use is that they're *closer* to original 1st or 2nd century Christian practice than more conservative churches... it's a bit of a specious argument and I'm not sure I buy it entirely (or at all), but it's rather amusing to see the fundy rage that results when stuff like that pops up.

[Flagg]

I just find the whole thing funny as hell, TBH.

"YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXACT SAME GOD AS WE DO BUT YOU'RE NOT HARD ENOUGH ON PEOPLE WE HATE SINNERS!!!"

[Elheru Aran]

I just find the whole thing funny as hell, TBH.

"YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXACT SAME GOD AS WE DO BUT YOU'RE NOT HARD ENOUGH ON PEOPLE WE HATE SINNERS!!!"

That is more or less what it comes down to, frankly. And they wonder why the numbers of Christians in the US are declining...

[General Mung Beans]

I just find the whole thing funny as hell, TBH.

"YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXACT SAME GOD AS WE DO BUT YOU'RE NOT HARD ENOUGH ON PEOPLE WE HATE SINNERS!!!"

That is more or less what it comes down to, frankly. And they wonder why the numbers of Christians in the US are declining...

As this article points out (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/evan ... ge-faiths/), declining Christianity in America is attributable to the decline of the mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, so stricter forms of Christianity appears to be a net gain...

The bigger question is how much do people have the right to determine whether others views and actions actually mesh with the ideology they hold? I mean on this forum, we hear plenty of complaints about Obama and especially Clinton not being really "liberal" due to their support for neoliberal economic policies and/or interventionist foreign policy.

[Flagg]

I just find the whole thing funny as hell, TBH.

"YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXACT SAME GOD AS WE DO BUT YOU'RE NOT HARD ENOUGH ON PEOPLE WE HATE SINNERS!!!"

That is more or less what it comes down to, frankly. And they wonder why the numbers of Christians in the US are declining...

As this article points out (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/evan ... ge-faiths/), declining Christianity in America is attributable to the decline of the mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, so stricter forms of Christianity appears to be a net gain...

The bigger question is how much do people have the right to determine whether others views and actions actually mesh with the ideology they hold? I mean on this forum, we hear plenty of complaints about Obama and especially Clinton not being really "liberal" due to their support for neoliberal economic policies and/or interventionist foreign policy.

Yeah, but there is a definition of what a Christian is. It's basically "Get baptized, believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of our sins, rose on the third day after his death, and is The Lord God Our Creator." Though I'm not 100% on the getting baptized part. That was what they told us in Sunday (it was Tuesday night for me) school during the ultimately doomed "Catholicism: WOW!" campaign. I still have my buddy Christ, do you have yours?!

Liberal and conservative are more relative. Because while Obama is center-left here in America, he's more center-right in Canada and I think the UK, if not full right in a lot of Western European countries. Like, I don't know much about German politics, (hopefully Thanas or another German member of das board can set me straight if I'm wrong) but I doubt Angela Merkel could win a single state in the Union if she ran for President (assuming she were American, and blah blah blah, you get my drift) because she's to the left of Elizabeth Warren on most issues unless I'm way off the mark, and she's in the German Conservative party, correct?

Though my unfamiliarity with the various parties in Germany may offend, and I apologize if it does.

[General Mung Beans]

Yeah, but there is a definition of what a Christian is. It's basically "Get baptized, believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of our sins, rose on the third day after his death, and is The Lord God Our Creator." Though I'm not 100% on the getting baptized part. That was what they told us in Sunday (it was Tuesday night for me) school during the ultimately doomed "Catholicism: WOW!" campaign. I still have my buddy Christ, do you have yours?!

I mostly agree, but at least some liberal Christians don't fit even this relatively basic definition. There are quite a few who think (for example) that Jesus was just a good ethical teacher and thus don't believe in the Resurrection. Hell, there's even a Presbyterian minister who is an open atheist.

Liberal and conservative are more relative. Because while Obama is center-left here in America, he's more center-right in Canada and I think the UK, if not full right in a lot of Western European countries. Like, I don't know much about German politics, (hopefully Thanas or another German member of das board can set me straight if I'm wrong) but I doubt Angela Merkel could win a single state in the Union if she ran for President (assuming she were American, and blah blah blah, you get my drift) because she's to the left of Elizabeth Warren on most issues unless I'm way off the mark, and she's in the German Conservative party, correct?

Though my unfamiliarity with the various parties in Germany may offend, and I apologize if it does.

Conservatism and liberalism is definitely relative, but that's what causes conservative politicians in Europe (for example) to accept the status quo on universal healthcare and the death penalty. Obviously, I defer to the Germans, but Merkel can be pretty conservative considering she's quite supportive of tight fiscal policies and is at best ambivalent to gay marriage. She supports Germany's universal healthcare system and social market economy since that's basically the status quo in Germany, much as Republicans (at least rhetorically) claim to defend Social Security and Medicare. If they were in America, a lot of European right-wingers wouldn't be in any hurry to expand healthcare access and I doubt Obama would be railing for abolishing the NHS if he was a British politician.

[Flagg]

Yeah, but there is a definition of what a Christian is. It's basically "Get baptized, believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of our sins, rose on the third day after his death, and is The Lord God Our Creator." Though I'm not 100% on the getting baptized part. That was what they told us in Sunday (it was Tuesday night for me) school during the ultimately doomed "Catholicism: WOW!" campaign. I still have my buddy Christ, do you have yours?!

I mostly agree, but at least some liberal Christians don't fit even this relatively basic definition. There are quite a few who think (for example) that Jesus was just a good ethical teacher and thus don't believe in the Resurrection. Hell, there's even a Presbyterian minister who is an open atheist.

Liberal and conservative are more relative. Because while Obama is center-left here in America, he's more center-right in Canada and I think the UK, if not full right in a lot of Western European countries. Like, I don't know much about German politics, (hopefully Thanas or another German member of das board can set me straight if I'm wrong) but I doubt Angela Merkel could win a single state in the Union if she ran for President (assuming she were American, and blah blah blah, you get my drift) because she's to the left of Elizabeth Warren on most issues unless I'm way off the mark, and she's in the German Conservative party, correct?

Though my unfamiliarity with the various parties in Germany may offend, and I apologize if it does.

Conservatism and liberalism is definitely relative, but that's what causes conservative politicians in Europe (for example) to accept the status quo on universal healthcare and the death penalty. Obviously, I defer to the Germans, but Merkel can be pretty conservative considering she's quite supportive of tight fiscal policies and is at best ambivalent to gay marriage. She supports Germany's universal healthcare system and social market economy since that's basically the status quo in Germany, much as Republicans (at least rhetorically) claim to defend Social Security and Medicare. If they were in America, a lot of European right-wingers wouldn't be in any hurry to expand healthcare access and I doubt Obama would be railing for abolishing the NHS if he was a British politician.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. But of course, George W Bush (now considered a fucking moderate, which blows my fucking mind), whose main platform for his second term was "Privatize Social Security", found out that it doesn't really matter what the President and Congress want when it comes to Social Security and Medicare because even with a practically a 50 state campaign to privatize Social Security, people were just not having it and it flopped, much like when Dick Cheney pistol whipped him for failing to call him "Master" in private he chocked on a pretzel and whacked his head on a table.

[Zeropoint]

You cannot through human means eliminate the poor or change the human condition. It is only with the intervention of the divine that human nature can be elevated.

On the contrary, it is ONLY through human means that we have any hope of changing the human condition. All we have is ourselves, and if there is to be any change for the better, it must come from us.

Divine intervention is a nice fantasy, but down here in the mud and blood of the real world, it's human hands that we rely on.

[jwl]

Liberal and conservative are more relative. Because while Obama is center-left here in America, he's more center-right in Canada and I think the UK, if not full right in a lot of Western European countries. Like, I don't know much about German politics, (hopefully Thanas or another German member of das board can set me straight if I'm wrong) but I doubt Angela Merkel could win a single state in the Union if she ran for President (assuming she were American, and blah blah blah, you get my drift) because she's to the left of Elizabeth Warren on most issues unless I'm way off the mark, and she's in the German Conservative party, correct?

Note that political (or at least economic) conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same thing. In the UK con-evos are often more likely to vote labour.

[Flagg]

Liberal and conservative are more relative. Because while Obama is center-left here in America, he's more center-right in Canada and I think the UK, if not full right in a lot of Western European countries. Like, I don't know much about German politics, (hopefully Thanas or another German member of das board can set me straight if I'm wrong) but I doubt Angela Merkel could win a single state in the Union if she ran for President (assuming she were American, and blah blah blah, you get my drift) because she's to the left of Elizabeth Warren on most issues unless I'm way off the mark, and she's in the German Conservative party, correct?

Note that political (or at least economic) conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same thing. In the UK con-evos are often more likely to vote labour.

Well, I was purely talking politics, though if I understand correctly politics and religion are pretty intertwined in a very public way in Western and Central Europe, and if I don't understand correctly, please correct me as I like to learn new things. .
But I do have to admit that the whole religious aspect of some major European political parties is still kind of a foreign concept since in the US all the religious stuff is considered "separate", even though in reality a conservative Republican will likely be a God-fearing Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian from what I can tell, while a Democrat will tend to be a more tolerant God-fearing Christian and any of the rallies I've been to tend to be pretty secular, but to deny that religion plays no part in American politics would be a bald faced lie. It's just that Republicans kind of wear it on their sleeves and Democrats kind of just do the whole "God Bless America!" at the end of speeches and pray at solemn ceremonies thing.

Unless Democrats are talking to black people at a church, as they tend to be pretty conservative Christians in their own right and it's hilarious how Obama and even Hillary & Bill Clinton will switch into "stereotypical black preacher mode" when talking at black churches. I've just never had a black evangelical come to my door (Ignoring the "NO SOLICITING EVEN FOR RELIGIOUS CRAP" sign I made using mailbox letters I got at home depot and have displayed so that it's fucking impossible to miss on my fucking door) trying to give me pamphlets I don't want because they are apparently illiterate. That may be for their own personal safety, though, I don't know. All I know is that in both FL and here in WA it's always white people.

[Metahive]

[
Yeah and the enlightenment gave us the Reign of terror too didn't it?

On what values professed by the Enlightment is the Reign of Terror based? Name one.

To be even more fair, the enlightenment came out of 2,000 years of Christian thought as well, it certainly wasn't derived from the Vikings.

No, dude, that was humanism. At least get your philosophical history right. The enlightenment proposed values that were rather explicetly not shared by the then current church hierarchy and served to undermine its position within the population. Only logical since it got its start shortly after one of the most devastating religious wars on the continent, the Thirty Years War, had ravaged the land.

[cmdrjones]

On what values professed by the Enlightment is the Reign of Terror based? Name one.

No, dude, that was humanism. At least get your philosophical history right. The enlightenment proposed values that were rather explicetly not shared by the then current church hierarchy and served to undermine its position within the population. Only logical since it got its start shortly after one of the most devastating religious wars on the continent, the Thirty Years War, had ravaged the land.

#1 The rejection of the Divine Right of Kings due to a focus on rationalism.

#2 "To be even more fair, the enlightenment came out of 2,000 years of Christian thought as well, it certainly wasn't derived from the Vikings."

You need to review the meaning of the phrases "came out of" and "derived from"

Did Viking paganism dominate continental europe through the middle ages until the enlightenment? How much did viking paganism influence the Enlightenment?
Was the Enlightenment a reaction AGAINST Thor worship?

The Enlightenment was a reaction largely AGAINST the old order, which included Christianity. The Ideas that the Enlightenment loved to espouse, but rarely lived up to, such as the Equality of Man, rational thought, limitation on the power of the state and so on ARE derived from Christianity. Whether the medieval church abused, obfuscated or failed to live up to these ideals (much like the enlightenment thinkers themselves) does not negate the facts.
Try again.

[Zeropoint]

I'm a bit late with this question, but ARE there any points of Christian doctrine that ALL Christians agree on?

Baptism was mentioned, but there are Christians who believe that baptism is not at all necessary for salvation. There are Christians who don't believe in original sin; there are Christians who don't believe in the Trinity; there are Christians who try to follow the example of Jesus but don't believe in the resurrection. I'd be willing to bet that for any belief that you identify as "core" to the Christian faith, you can find one of the tens of thousands of Christian sects who don't believe it.

[Borgholio]

ARE there any points of Christian doctrine that ALL Christians agree on?

God exists.

[cmdrjones]

ARE there any points of Christian doctrine that ALL Christians agree on?

God exists.

That and Jesus Christ is the Word of God.... his exact nature is still debated of course.

[Elheru Aran]

Hmm.

--God exists, (probably had a hand in) created the world.
--Jesus is the Son/Word of God
--Holy Spirit is the one that people will dither on. It's either a complete aspect of the Trinity in its own right, or it's something that comes *from* God, in which case you're denying a Trinity, but that's a story for another day...

Most Protestant denominations will agree that salvation comes via Christ. The more liberal ones might not harp on it as much as the conservatives will, but it's generally a given. I'm a bit muddy on the Catholics, to be frank, but I think they agree with the general theory and then add a bunch of bollocks to it.

Church attendance isn't compulsory-- but it helps. Worship isn't compulsory either-- but again, it helps. Personal devotions aren't compulsory-- but they help.

A LOT of denominations won't stick to a particular thing-- but they won't say it's a bad thing, either. For example, the Duggars are pretty popular in the conservative churches, even though nobody would really advocate having that many kids per se-- but they're held up as an example of a good Christian family. Same with Duck Dynasty (although people on both sides of the fence really wish Phil Robertson would keep his trap shut).

[Zeropoint]

Are you certain that all 40,000 sects of Christianity would agree on those things?

[Borgholio]

Are you certain that all 40,000 sects of Christianity would agree on those things?

I don't think you can even call it Christianity if you don't believe in God or Jesus Christ (after whom the religion got it's name from in the first place).