The 613 Biblical Commandments

[steve_bank]

I am not defining what a Christian is. I am saying that Christianity is anything anyone wants it to be. I don't have a problem with that except when people start acting out their interpretation of god's will on others. Like a govt worker who refuses to hand out marriage licenses to gays. Remember the iconic Pilgrims were fleeing other Christians not Muslims and atheists.

Yet, those exact people are the ones you personally endorse as speaking for "true Christianity". You have a funny way of responding to a problem.

Freedom of religion and the prohibition of govt promting religion and the ban on religious tests for govt office were put in COTUS to protect Christians from Christians. The Church Of England, create by Henry 8, was precalent in the co,lonies. It was and remains a state religion. The problem the founders faced was all the Christian variatiions not neccesarily tolerant of each other.

As to the OP, somebody seems to say Paul does not speak for god. If so, then the Leviticus diet laws are still in force, unless you also reject Moses as a moral authoriyty.

In the gospels Jesus was a rabbi speaking to Jews, who did not appear to reject keeping kosher.
To the OP Christians freely interpret throughout the bible to find a way to support a moral view.

And demonize the rest of us based on these interpretaions. An interpretaion of the Mark Of Ham was used through the last century to treat blacks as subhuman. Bizzare and ugly.

I will say again. A Christian can be a Christianity of one. There is no well defined structure and morality as you see in Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam.

I assume you are a true Christian as opposed to some who are not?

 

[steve_bank]

I am Jeffersonian. I have no problem with religion as the right to free speech, expressions, and free asociation. If you want to paint your ass pink and howl at the moon naked as a relgious ritual, no problem. Just don't presume to impose a morality on me you think you interpret as the will of the god in the moon

The problem I have with Christians is the presumption to derive justice and morality from ancient collection of disjointed texts written at different times by unkniwn authors.

Jeffersonian...Christians are free to form a church that preaches hatred of gfays, Jews, and others. They do exist. The rest of us are free to work aginst those ideas within the bounds of civil law. That is what Christians today see as an attack on Christianity. Christians freely interpret the bible and judge the rest of us expecting us to conform. Dome of us are plainly sayong go to hell, so to speak.

The OP is about the contradictions and hypocrisy in American Christianity. Any cursory review of 2000 years of history reveals the moral failures of the interpretations.

IMO there is no such thing as a ttrue Christian.Least ways not by any scripture. The closest thing to a coherent moral statement is the Sermon On The Mount.

 

[bilby]

I am not defining what a Christian is. I am saying that Christianity is anything anyone wants it to be. I don't have a problem with that except when people start acting out their interpretation of god's will on others. Like a govt worker who refuses to hand out marriage licenses to gays. Remember the iconic Pilgrims were fleeing other Christians not Muslims and atheists.

Yet, those exact people are the ones you personally endorse as speaking for "true Christianity". You have a funny way of responding to a problem.

Freedom of religion and the prohibition of govt promting religion and the ban on religious tests for govt office were put in COTUS to protect Christians from Christians. The Church Of England, create by Henry 8, was precalent in the co,lonies. It was and remains a state religion. The problem the founders faced was all the Christian variatiions not neccesarily tolerant of each other.

As to the OP, somebody seems to say Paul does not speak for god. If so, then the Leviticus diet laws are still in force, unless you also reject Moses as a moral authoriyty.

In the gospels Jesus was a rabbi speaking to Jews, who did not appear to reject keeping kosher.
To the OP Christians freely interpret throughout the bible to find a way to support a moral view.

And demonize the rest of us based on these interpretaions. An interpretaion of the Mark Of Ham was used through the last century to treat blacks as subhuman. Bizzare and ugly.

I will say again. A Christian can be a Christianity of one. There is no well defined structure and morality as you see in Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam.

I assume you are a true Christian as opposed to some who are not?

Islam specifically denies a defined structure - Any Muslim can be an Imam, there's theoretically no central authority (although of course there are, in practice, powerful Imams at the head of each sect). Your assumption of a 'well defined structure' seems to be unfounded. In contrast, the largest Christian sect, the Roman Catholics, very much oppose the idea of a 'Christianity of one', and they have a clearly defined and well ordered hierarchy, with the Pope at the top, and a history of rooting out heresy of any kind. I don't know about Hindus or Jews, but your claim here regarding Muslims and Christians is completely arse-backwards. What you say about Christians might be true of some Protestant sects, but it's certainly not true of Christianity in general, and even less so of Christianity for its first ~1500 years.

 

[Jobar]

And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?

OK, Mr. Bones; who does get to decide who/what is a "true Christian"?

If it's each individual believer, then Christianity can be anything at all, as long as one person styles it so.

If it's only one person, like the Pope, then everybody needs to be a Catholic. I daresay that wouldn't work out very well, wouldn't you agree?

If it's only one denomination- let's say, oh, Lutheran- then all the other myriad denominations are heretics, not Christians at all. Also unlikely to prove very workable, eh?

I suspect things would be simpler today if the Gnostic Christians who threw away the Old Testament had won out, back in the first few centuries AD. But since they didn't, you believers have to decide which of the Jewish laws were rendered null by Jesus' sacrifice, and which ones are still in force.

I'm really glad it's y'alls problem, and not mine!

 

[Politesse]

He is in full right to define what he means by a true believer. Who are you to say that he cannot do that?

He can say what the word means to him, of course. But if he expects anyone else to agree, that's another matter.

Exactly the message to the Christians obcessed with converting us non believers.

And you don't find it awkward, sharing so much in common with them?

- - - Updated - - -

And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?

OK, Mr. Bones; who does get to decide who/what is a "true Christian"?

If it's each individual believer, then Christianity can be anything at all, as long as one person styles it so.

If it's only one person, like the Pope, then everybody needs to be a Catholic. I daresay that wouldn't work out very well, wouldn't you agree?

If it's only one denomination- let's say, oh, Lutheran- then all the other myriad denominations are heretics, not Christians at all. Also unlikely to prove very workable, eh?

I suspect things would be simpler today if the Gnostic Christians who threw away the Old Testament had won out, back in the first few centuries AD. But since they didn't, you believers have to decide which of the Jewish laws were rendered null by Jesus' sacrifice, and which ones are still in force.

I'm really glad it's y'alls problem, and not mine!

I don't think it's wise to make such declarations at all. Whatever measure one chooses to judge others by, one will be hoist upon in time.

I note that it would be very un-Lutheran to fling the term "heretic" around. We judge in secret.

 

[Learner]

As to the OP, somebody seems to say Paul does not speak for god. If so, then the Leviticus diet laws are still in force, unless you also reject Moses as a moral authoriyty.

With interpretations like that I might as well post the following:

Mark 7:18-20 (KJV)

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

In the gospels Jesus was a rabbi speaking to Jews, who did not appear to reject keeping kosher.
To the OP Christians freely interpret throughout the bible to find a way to support a moral view.
And demonize the rest of us based on these interpretaions. An interpretaion of the Mark Of Ham was used through the last century to treat blacks as subhuman. Bizzare and ugly.

Although....the Jews rejected Jesus but HE was accepted by the Samaritans and gentiles etc. Anyone treated as subhuman by another is opposed to the "love your neihbour" teachings of Jesus.

I will say again. A Christian can be a Christianity of one.

There is no well defined structure and morality as you see in Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam.

Depending which way you see it (or not quite in the same way), Christians have been sort of saying this all along. As its often said "All religions are all the same" but... there is that one, that sticks out from amongst the rest. (take from it what you will)

 

[bilby]

Depending which way you see it (or not quite in the same way), Christians have been sort of saying this all along. As its often said "All religions are all the same" but... there is that one, that sticks out from amongst the rest. (take from it what you will)

What I take from that is that Christians (like most humans) lack both humility and self-awareness.

There is nothing about Christianity that 'sticks out from amongst the rest' of the world's religions. Devotees of EVERY religion would equally claim that theirs is the one that sticks out. They are all wrong.

 

[Learner]

OK, Mr. Bones; who does get to decide who/what is a "true Christian"?

If it's each individual believer, then Christianity can be anything at all, as long as one person styles it so.

If it's only one person, like the Pope, then everybody needs to be a Catholic. I daresay that wouldn't work out very well, wouldn't you agree?

If it's only one denomination- let's say, oh, Lutheran- then all the other myriad denominations are heretics, not Christians at all. Also unlikely to prove very workable, eh?

I suspect things would be simpler today if the Gnostic Christians who threw away the Old Testament had won out, back in the first few centuries AD. But since they didn't, you believers have to decide which of the Jewish laws were rendered null by Jesus' sacrifice, and which ones are still in force.

I'm really glad it's y'alls problem, and not mine!

Practically anyone (Jews or Christians and perhaps others ) who abides by the old laws would be righteous but more so to those (Jews) who followed and kept to the laws before Jesus arrived in the world. (He came for those who fell short or who would find it hard to keep to such commandments - from the time then and the future generations by the gospel, as we are all sinners.

For Jews who would keep to the old commandments (after the knowledge of Jesus)...there is perhaps one condition (overlooked at times). They MUST accept Jesus as the Messiah!

 

[Learner]

What I take from that is that Christians (like most humans) lack both humility and self-awareness.

There is nothing about Christianity that 'sticks out from amongst the rest' of the world's religions. Devotees of EVERY religion would equally claim that theirs is the one that sticks out. They are all wrong.

Its probably me.. that lacks humility and self awarness I gather being its a reply to my post but there are theists that do. I am not representative of Christianity obviously and perhaps I do need to work on it.

 

[bilby]

What I take from that is that Christians (like most humans) lack both humility and self-awareness.

There is nothing about Christianity that 'sticks out from amongst the rest' of the world's religions. Devotees of EVERY religion would equally claim that theirs is the one that sticks out. They are all wrong.

So whats left of "most humans" ... a smaller number who would have the humility. What people do they consist of ?
( I'm not suggesting it should be Christian)

There are a very small number of people who are both humble and self aware. They tend to be referred to as 'geniuses', but that's really a misnomer - they are just able to accept that they have made mistakes, and that their previous understanding of reality was flawed, when they discover new evidence. The VAST majority of people cannot (or will not) do this - when they find evidence that they are badly wrong about something, they rationalize ways to ignore it, so that they can keep their self-image (as a person who hasn't been embarrassingly wrong all his life) intact.

You can find examples of people doing that everywhere - it's practically a defining trait of humanity to contort ones mind into a pretzel, rather than publicly admit that long held errors are, in fact, erroneous.

 

[Learner]

Oops I re-edited my post just as you posted yours but I think it should respond to your new post #50

 

[Learner]

There is nothing about Christianity that 'sticks out from amongst the rest' of the world's religions. Devotees of EVERY religion would equally claim that theirs is the one that sticks out. They are all wrong.

Sure ...each to their own claim but it doesn't mean they are all wrong when one could be right.

There are a very small number of people who are both humble and self aware. They tend to be referred to as 'geniuses', but that's really a misnomer - they are just able to accept that they have made mistakes, and that their previous understanding of reality was flawed, when they discover new evidence. The VAST majority of people cannot (or will not) do this - when they find evidence that they are badly wrong about something, they rationalize ways to ignore it, so that they can keep their self-image (as a person who hasn't been embarrassingly wrong all his life) intact.


You can find examples of people doing that everywhere - it's practically a defining trait of humanity to contort ones mind into a pretzel, rather than publicly admit that long held errors are, in fact, erroneous.

Yes for individuals but thats not "Christianity" itself and also religion in parrallell to science etc ... has continuous study ,research , collaborative sharing and investigation also "updates" or corrects errors and highlights flaws to previous knowledge which gradually makes it a little clearer to understand each time continually.

 

[Jobar]

OK, Mr. Bones; who does get to decide who/what is a "true Christian"?

If it's each individual believer, then Christianity can be anything at all, as long as one person styles it so.

If it's only one person, like the Pope, then everybody needs to be a Catholic. I daresay that wouldn't work out very well, wouldn't you agree?

If it's only one denomination- let's say, oh, Lutheran- then all the other myriad denominations are heretics, not Christians at all. Also unlikely to prove very workable, eh?

I suspect things would be simpler today if the Gnostic Christians who threw away the Old Testament had won out, back in the first few centuries AD. But since they didn't, you believers have to decide which of the Jewish laws were rendered null by Jesus' sacrifice, and which ones are still in force.

I'm really glad it's y'alls problem, and not mine!

Practically anyone (Jews or Christians and perhaps others ) who abides by the old laws would be righteous

Some of those laws, yes; there are noble and timeless precepts to be found in the OT, no argument. My father's favorite verse was Micah 6:8; "He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?"

But there's also a lot of plain ignorance and barbarism in there, too. Stoning your child because he was disobedient? Forbidding mixed fabrics? Killing the poor raped dog that Tom Sawyer referred to in post 7? Executing homosexuals and witches? All supposedly God-given laws.

And there's plenty of stuff that is just pointless or silly, minutiae concerning dress or hair style or forms of speech or action which simply are no longer relevant. Ignoring those things seems quite reasonable; except that they, too, are said to have been handed down from on high.

For Jews who would keep to the old commandments (after the knowledge of Jesus)...there is perhaps one condition (overlooked at times). They MUST accept Jesus as the Messiah!

To quote Politesse- "And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?"

 

[bilby]

There is nothing about Christianity that 'sticks out from amongst the rest' of the world's religions. Devotees of EVERY religion would equally claim that theirs is the one that sticks out. They are all wrong.

Sure ...each to their own claim but it doesn't mean they are all wrong when one could be right.

If one was right, it would rapidly outcompete all the others. The mere existence of competing religions is evidence that none are correct.

"Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?" cuts both ways.

There are a very small number of people who are both humble and self aware. They tend to be referred to as 'geniuses', but that's really a misnomer - they are just able to accept that they have made mistakes, and that their previous understanding of reality was flawed, when they discover new evidence. The VAST majority of people cannot (or will not) do this - when they find evidence that they are badly wrong about something, they rationalize ways to ignore it, so that they can keep their self-image (as a person who hasn't been embarrassingly wrong all his life) intact.


You can find examples of people doing that everywhere - it's practically a defining trait of humanity to contort ones mind into a pretzel, rather than publicly admit that long held errors are, in fact, erroneous.

Yes for individuals but thats not "Christianity" itself and also religion in parrallell to science etc ... has continuous study ,research , collaborative sharing and investigation also "updates" or corrects errors and highlights flaws to previous knowledge which gradually makes it a little clearer to understand each time continually.

Thanks, but as I already mentioned, you can find examples everywhere. There's really no need to supply another.

 

[Jobar]

And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?

Amazingly often, I find the most recent Jesus & Mo cartoon to be relevant to the discussions we have around here. It's happened again!

 

[Politesse]

And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?

Amazingly often, I find the most recent Jesus & Mo cartoon to be relevant to the discussions we have around here. It's happened again!

View attachment 15492

I am not making any claim of moral superiority.

 

[Jobar]

Okay; but my own question is still unanswered. Who does decide what constitutes true Christianity? And if each individual is free to make that call, how can you more liberal and loving ones then protest that the haters such as Fred Phelps aren't also Christians?

I honestly wish that there was a clear answer.

 

[Jobar]

N.B.- I do realize that the question quo jure? that Moses and Mo ask the barmaid is also a valid one. We unbelievers can answer that we do our human best to judge fairly, and are willing to be judged the same way; but we realize that perfect fairness is an ever-receding target.

But that's getting us well off topic; perhaps a thread split (or just a new thread) would be in order, if others want to pursue this.

 

[Politesse]

Okay; but my own question is still unanswered. Who does decide what constitutes true Christianity? And if each individual is free to make that call, how can you more liberal and loving ones then protest that the haters such as Fred Phelps aren't also Christians?

God, if anyone, and I honestly don't think the gods care think these things the same way politicians do anyway.

Why do you feel that you need a clear "rubric"? I see where it is comforting to draw strict social definitions around people, but it doesn't account for the complexity of real human lives. Most people inherit their religion, and it makes as much sense to me to draw strict boundaries around religion as it would be to attempt the same with race, class, or any other naturally fuzzy form of cultural identification.

As for Phelps et al, I refuse to be defined by the actions of a handful of loons and have many disagreements, but trying to deny them "membership" in a definition would be a childish way to express that disagreement, and not one that I would stoop to. Of course they are Christian. They just, imo, fail at living out the principle of universal love (which I see as the beating heart of the gospel). They got high on the idea of being among the elect and carrying a secret message of hope, and forgot that the position comes with responsibilities to others aside from just their families, or "family".

My biggest problem with atheists is that they de facto support Phelps and friends by treating them as normative and constantly publicizing their actions, while cheerily ignoring the roughly 2.3 billion Christians who have never protested at anyone's funeral or waved angry signs about who's going to hell. Getting a lot of press is not the same thing as being average; in fact, those conditions contradict. Aren't you guys supposed to be good at math and science? If so, why do you insist on knowingly, intentionally picking a stereotype instead of a type for the set?

 

[funinspace]

3.141592653589793238

My biggest problem with atheists is that they de facto support Phelps and friends by treating them as normative and constantly publicizing their actions, while cheerily ignoring the roughly 2.3 billion Christians who have never protested at anyone's funeral or waved angry signs about who's going to hell. Getting a lot of press is not the same thing as being average; in fact, those conditions contradict. Aren't you guys supposed to be good at math and science? If so, why do you insist on knowingly, intentionally picking a stereotype instead of a type for the set?

Though I really do get your point...didn't you kind of just lump all atheists into one monolith? I was kind of picking on the Gnostic Christian Bishop the other week for lumping Christians into one monolithic caricature.