What Is A Genuine Christian?

Jump to Last Post 51-87 of 87 discussions (318 posts)
  1. Inspirepub profile image83
    Inspirepubposted 10 years ago


    I have been reading Ben's posts with interest, and he does seem to be less dogmatic and rigid than many of the Christianists who have argued with you in various threads.

    It may be the case that he is not entirely bent on converting you against your will, and can actually discuss the points you make on their merit.

    I'm not sure you are quite giving him the benefit of the doubt right now.

    I am ready to be proven wrong, but I suggest that if you enter into a dialogue with him on the definition, basis and nature of "authority" it could be an interesting discussion.

    Paraglider may also have some points of great value to add.

    I would be interested to hear the position of secular and individual authority defined and discussed. I feel that way myself, but I have never pulled apart the intellectual basis for my position, and I am sure that you and Paraglider would say very profound and interesting things which would help me to do just that, if you took Ben's questions at face value.

    I think Ben would be at least willing to entertain the notion that "authority" does not derive solely from The Word Of God, at least for the purposes of a discussion, but he would innocently ask the sorts of questions that would force the non-religious people to articulate things they may not have articulated in that form before.

    Which I for one would find valuable.


    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I would think in short, that secular authority is like the cartoons where the little devil and angel are hanging out on your shoulder and you are stuck wondering what to do...Like Parigliders example about coveting the neighbors cow. 
      I really like the cow, the devil says take it,  the angel says it aint yours....

      So the individual authority says, naa, I aint gonna take it but it would sure look nice in my yard.  I think I will go get my own.  smile

      Ultimatly, 'youself" has the authority otherwise there would be no such thing as "free will", however there are things that help us make our decisions.

      When it comes to Jesus I find him extremely secular, as I like to put it the deciever, or the beginning and end, good and bad, alpha and omega, christ and anti-christ. 

      I see it as though he is ultimalty giving you choices, in every parable, in every line, etc.  he says make a choice. And his fore- father David says, let the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in thy sights.  Let them override.

      In todays day it does seem that whether a person has accpeted Jesus as the sacrifice for life or not, the decision to do so has come through him.  Meaning you had to hear the words first before you could accept or reject.

      It does seem to me also that those who do not accept Christianity, do accept Jesus' way as good but that it is not the only way in which a person can come to the truth.

      The truth is what you believe.  I really believe that God is always good, Jesus can be good depending on what your hearts says as a reflection.  Like being made in his image. 

      Jesus' image goes two ways, as it is evident.  Good and bad, real and unreal, right and wrong, left and right (hands metaphore) christ and anti-christ, alpha and omega.

      The narrow path is extordinarily wide if you see it through his eyes.

  2. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 10 years ago

    Ben - I am not trying to be disingenuous. I am trying to explain this from my perspective. I will try and break it down further.

    You already have the Truth. You are not interested in hearing my Truth, because you already have yours. Therefore your only purpose here is to persuade me that your Truth is the one I should adopt.

    I don't think that is being disingenuous, I think it is calling a spade a spade.

    So - I have a question for you -

    Do you consider yourself a genuine christian?


    Now, let me take a look at what you just said to me:

    This is part of what helped me to decide to discard your cult. You yourself agree that many christians do not act like christians.

    Big one for me - If this is the case, which it is, should I then throw all my own observations out of the window? Should I discard the "evidence," I see before me as unimportant?

    Should I pretend that all these christians I see behaving in a way I see as un-christian are not really there? The ones who attack me verbally? The ones who have attacked me physically when I have suggested their religion is garbage? Didn't happen. Or doesn't count because they were not genuine christians? They just said they were. smile

    There is only one way to persuade me that yours is the Truth - Act like a christian - You and all the other christians.

    Brow beating me and threatening me with eternal damnation is not going to work. big_smile

    Now this is disingenuous. I see no proof that Jesus was an actual person, but yes - if Jesus behaved the way the bible says he did - he is not lacking. What a pity none of his followers exhibit the same traits.

    Actually, I have met a few christians in my time. And not one of them were christians lol


    My standards for what a christian is are surprisingly similar to Jesus'.

    But - you guys are missing one massive point -

    Behaving in the way Jesus behaved is accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

    Jenny - I agree - looking forward to it smile

  3. Paraglider profile image91
    Paragliderposted 10 years ago

    Jenny -

    I've stuck with this thread because aspects of it have always been interesting. I'm happy to see where it leads. What's also interesting, on this thread, is that two of our most religious people, from very different traditions, Mike & Mohit, are also being positive and cooperative. We've almost got a discussion going here!

  4. Paraglider profile image91
    Paragliderposted 10 years ago

    Something I'd like to throw in, while it's quiet -

    People who don't believe in God are often accused of rejecting God, or acting God, or even considering themselves superior to God.

    But that is illogical. If I don't believe in God, then go on to covet my neighbour's ox, I'm not disobeying His commandment, I just happen to like his cow. If there is no God, the commandment doesn't exist, except in an old book.

    I am bound by the law of the land which allows me to covet but not steal the ox. If I steal it, it's a crime, not a sin and I'll take the consequences.

    Sin, in fact, is not a useful concept to me. The ideas of sin and redemption are not in my philosophy. I live in society and am answerable to its laws. Above that, I think there is a pretty well accepted code of human decency - common law, if you like.

    But through all this, there's an asymmetry - I tell X what I think and X tells me what God thinks. Not very fair odds !!

    At various times throughout history, strong believers have become so angry with God that they have defied him and believed they were defying him. These guys must have had some courage, believing what they believed!

    But that's not where the average rationalist is coming from. I have chosen to dispense with belief because I think it is a psychological weakness that can be overcome. Anything I go on to say about 'authority' may be read in this light.

  5. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 10 years ago

    Mike - I don't have an answer for this. There are many that say this was a mass hallucination, dust storms, and goodness knows what else.

    I was not there smile

    I did look at the web page, and I did look at several others claiming similar evidences, and I don't know what to make of it. All the meteorological data from the time seems to disagree with anything happening.

    But I can attest to mass hysteria that I have witnessed personally - I have a phobia of crowds now, and it would seem that the events this was supposed to bring about has not come to pass:

    "The Miracle of the Sun was meant to give strength to the Pope who was instructed by Our Lady and Our Lord, through Sister Lucy, to enter into the national affairs of one nation — Russia. He was to use a supernatural means to enter into the very life of this nation, so that it would achieve national rejuvenation through the Consecration to Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. This would bring Peace, true Order, and Stability to the whole world. This Consecration would be a great triumph for the Papacy, for Russia, and for the indirect jurisdiction of the Church in the affairs of nations. And the world would stand in awe."

    If this is what you base your belief in god on, all power to you.

    But - If I had witnessed this myself, who knows....

    For now, I trust my own "authority."

    And I ask myself - Does it make sense that the sun moved it's orbit and danced around in the sky for a time?

    Guess what answer I come up with big_smile

  6. Make  Money profile image77
    Make Moneyposted 10 years ago

    Thanks for reading it Mark.

    The miracle of the sun was not the event that was suppose to bring about any change.

    The simple consecration of Russia is the event that is suppose to bring about change.

    But for some reason it has not been done properly yet 90 years later.

    I started a new topic called Heavens Key to Peace if anyone wants some more information about this.

    I hear what you are saying about mass hysteria at some revivals.  But this was even witnessed by some masons and other detractors.  A lot were there to prove it wrong.

    Thanks again for reading the above web page Mark.


  7. Inspirepub profile image83
    Inspirepubposted 10 years ago


    I can't really comment on the incident you mentioned, as I wasn't there, and I haven't read up on it.

    I have personally experienced miracles, though. Many times. The information in the (ironically, Christian) manual "A Course In Miracles" works whether you accept Jesus as your personal saviour etc etc or not.

    I don't deny that miracles occur.

    What I deny is that Christians have a monopoly on them.

    The miracles that I personally have seen, experienced and caused were not associated with any particular religion.

    Therefore, I conclude that miracles are a naturally-occurring phenomenon available to all human beings. Anyone claiming ownership of the source of all miracles is a con artist. Miracles are freely available to anyone.


    1. Make  Money profile image77
      Make Moneyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree Jenny that miracles are available to all human beings.  Like I mentioned, even masons witnessed the sun dancing in the sky at Fatima.

      For instance the Virgin Mary sightings in Egypt in the 1960s.
      Quote from this site http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/vmary.htm
      "She was seen by more than a million people (Muslims and Christians). The apparitions were broadcast by Egyptian TV, photographed by hundreds of professional photographers and personally witnessed by Egyptian President Abdul Nasser."

      It seems to me that Mary is trying to tell us something with apparitions of her all over the world.

  8. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 10 years ago

    If you guys want an interesting argument on the sun's recent activity, this is "entertaining" Who knew this was a subject to argue over also? lol

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 … f-the-sun/

  9. Paraglider profile image91
    Paragliderposted 10 years ago

    Good link Mark, but the highlight for me was:

    "Well I’m just glad the Sun is doing it’s small part to help fight global warming."

    Now, that's true post-post-modern wit smile

  10. Ben Bush profile image60
    Ben Bushposted 10 years ago

    I'm  finally back.


    I must inform you that I spent the day performing manual labor, a most "Christian" activity if there ever was one, wouldn't you agree???!!!???wink

    Inspirepub, Kelly,

    Thank you for your timely and calming influence. It is definitely appreciated. And you bring up some good points as well as potential points of interest.....which brings us to this:


    You and I both have Truth to present, our own or otherwise. Regardless of the origin, we both desire to present it. And that is not a negative thing.

    However, the presentation of the Truth, though important in its method of presentation, is not nearly as important as its content. And that's what we're here for. As much as we can say that we want Truth, the details can be acertained and acknowledged.

    You've asked me the following question, Do I consider myself a Genuine Christian?

    In the same post, you state that you don't consider someone to be a genuine Christian unless they act like it.

    For me to answer the question would serve no purpose. My thoughts on the subject are irrelevant, because your standard is "actions."

    I have no problem with that standard. I only hope that I can meet the standard in your eyes. Admittedly, that is a limited endeavor, since our only contact is through impersonal means. So any judgment on your part is just as limited.

    I must also admit that this limited exposure can, nevertheless, give an indication of the true condition of a person's life. Words, their meanings and their usage are not to be ignored and must be recognized for their importance in revealing the condition of our minds and heart. Communication, is after all, an action and is subject to scrutiny by all who come in contact with it. If one finds the scrutiny distasteful or undesirable, they can always refrain from speaking.

    This leads us to what Jenny mentioned, authority. She also mentioned discussing that authority within its secular context, which I find interesting also.

    Paraglider has also mentioned the same in relation to laws, which he recognizes as legitimate authority.

    I wonder if all participating would be able to stipulate that secular authority is recognized as legitimate authority. If so, we can proceed to discuss different aspect of that authority.


    I haven't ignored your statements about my misunderstanding of your hub article. You are correct that I did misunderstand it. That's partially because of my hast in reading the article and partially because, as you stated, I failed to account for the dichotomy within Science.

    At this juncture, I'm not sure your article contains enough detail for me to accurately understand the broader ramifications of your position regarding belief and knowing. If you point me to other articles which tend to clarify some of the points, I would be happy to read them and respond.

    Otherwise, let me see if I have a basic understanding of your position. Are you saying that the only way we can truly "Know" anything is if it is verifiable mathematically or scientifically?

    I guess to continue this discussion further, we can start with Paraglider's statement,

    Interestingly, the Biblical definition of "Sin" is as follows:  1 John 3:4, "....for sin is the transgression of the law." In other words , a sinner is nothing more than a lawbreaker.

    Also, "redemption" is a very legal concept around the world.

    For the sake of the discussion, the definition of "Secular" is" that which pertains to the unholy or non sacred; that which pertains to the World.


    1. Paraglider profile image91
      Paragliderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No. I'm saying that nothing can be proven true, but scientific hypotheses are put forward in a way that could be disproved by counter-instances but no counter-instances have yet been observed. So, they might be true.

      If a proposition is untestable (e.g. Jesus was born of a virgin) then it is unscientific. You can choose to believe or disbelieve it, or simply ignore it which is my preference.

      I think you're trying to give us an easy ride, Ben, by not mentioning the idea of original sin, since it's hard to see how a new born infant has broken any law.

      1. Ben Bush profile image60
        Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think this is the time or place for a discussion of Original sin, though Scripture does reveal what is know as innocence or a time before a person is able to make conscious, rational decisions.

        Let's take your proposition that says, "I am bound by the law of the land...." Would you please apply your principles as a demonstration and for a better understanding? In other words, is this proposition true, knowable. etc. Thanks.

        1. Paraglider profile image91
          Paragliderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          The law of the land has nothing whatever to do with epistemology (the theory of knowledge) or philosophy. It is simply a construct, based on certain principles, but modified and expanded through centuries of precedent, by people empowered to do so.

          It is important to understand that though a citizen is 'bound' by the law of the land, he is free to break the law if he wishes. But then the law's officers are liable to take steps and probably will.

          1. Ben Bush profile image60
            Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            How can something that has nothing to do with theories of knowledge or philosophy bind you or anyone else?

            Have you merely chosen to believe that they are binding on you?

            Or, are they binding on you because you personally recognize them to be so?

            Or, as you suggest, are they binding on you because of an authority independent of yourself?

            And what is the origin of the authority possessed by the people empowered to make and enforce law. In other words where did they get the power?

            1. Ben Bush profile image60
              Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this


              It seems that Popper's thesis severely limits the realm of enquiry, especially as it pertains to fact and knowledge, to almost striclty the realm of the material. And even the material is limited in having conclusions drawn.

              There seems to be inherent bias against that which is non material. This effectively excludes the contemplation of the realm commonly known as the mental-spiritual-moral aspect of mankind. The workings of the mind and/or spirit, which is not quantifiable or reduceable to a mathematical formula or equivalent, is just as real as any material we can see or touch. Regardless of this non quantifiable character, the results of the mind's work is evident for all to see. And these expressions are dealt with by all of us on a daily basis.

              According to Popper, my mind only exists as a mere possibility or best guess simply because I can't prove that it doesn't exist. Am I to deny someone's thoughts simply because I can't quantify the actions of someon'e mind. Am I do deny that someone thinks simply becasue I can't watch the process of synaptic contacts and understand them. Am I to deny or doubt that I  or anyone else can think? Of course, in order to make that denial or doubt, I must do that which I am about to deny or doubt I have the ability to perform.

              Where do the laws of logic enter into this equation?

              1. Paraglider profile image91
                Paragliderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Popper gave a criterion for differentiating between science and non-science. By extension, between objective knowledge and subjective conjecture.

                He didn't deny the value of non-science or say people shouldn't pursue non-scientific fields. He simple showed (correctly) where the demarcation lies.

                As to 'mind', you can go back to Descartes - cogito ergo sum. (I think therefore I exist). OK. I know that I think. I don't know that I 'have' a mind. Freud insisted that people 'have' egos, ids, selfs etc., whereas in fact the merely behaved in ways that Freud chose to interpret as evidence of these entities. The same could be said of the mind.

                As for logic - it is simply an analytical tool, a construct of theorems, operators and methodology entirely derived from a very few fundamental axioms. It is useful for analysing a proposition for what it contains, but it cannot, of itself, create information that was not previously there. (remember our tautology exchange?)

            2. Paraglider profile image91
              Paragliderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              It's all simply a social contract. There's no 'holy' authority to law, if that's what you're fishing for. But people have agreed, everywhere and for centuries, that things tick along better within a framework of law.

              The 'binding' is relative and voluntary. If you feel strongly enough that, say, taxation is a bad thing, you can decide unilaterally not to pay. But you can't complain when they come after you.

              (which is very much what knolyourself said after I'd retired for the night)

              1. Ben Bush profile image60
                Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Very Simple, indeed!

                It is interesting that people you don't know, have never met, have only heard or read about through various media, can do anything that would cause you to be "bound" to act in a certain way. And to think that if you don't act in a certain way, these binding authorities will somehow come after you and take action against you?    And this is relative?  And voluntary?

                Do you mean that you get to choose what you do, even though there may be consequences to your actions or lack thereof, but you actually took no part in creating this "social contract." And this is voluntary. This sounds rather arbitrary don't you think? Someone applying a standar to you in which you had no part in creating? How can that be binding on you?

                And at best, your personal knowledge of any of this state of affairs is severely limited. (And in relation to informing me or anyone else as to the reality of this state of affairs, it is purely subjective on you part, therefore, I am not required to accept this conjecture) The remainder is your best guess. You don't really know it, you don't really know it to be true.

                Yet, it is all binding on you. How interesting.smile

                1. Paraglider profile image91
                  Paragliderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

                  I've now said many times that I am 'bound' by the law of the land, that this 'binding is voluntary, and that choosing to unbind myself and become an outlaw is an available option, but not usually a good idea.

                  What are you finding so difficult?

                  Right now, I'm in Doha and it's Ramadan. Even though I'm not a Muslim, I'm bound to obey the law about not eating or drinking in public in daylight. Of course, I am free to stroll along the Corniche wolfing a coke and a donut, but if I do I'll be arrested. If I resist, I'll be imprisoned and possibly deported.

                  Your defence seems to be that I'm not bound because I don't personally know whoever wrote the law???

                  You're the one that needs to explain, not me.

                  1. Ben Bush profile image60
                    Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    I assure you that I am not being obtuse. Am I'm not finding anything difficult.

                    My point is that you are bound in spite of your not personally knowing those who wrote the law or having anything to do with its creation.

                2. Inspirepub profile image83
                  Inspirepubposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I had no part in creating the Law of Gravity, either, but it is binding on me.

                  If I leave my towel on the ground by my swimming pool, it will rot into uselessness. Choice, consequence.

                  If I leave my laptop on the bus, it will disappear. Choice, consequence.

                  If I take a laptop that is not mine, the owner will report it stolen, and if it is found in my possession, I will be charged with theft. Choice, consequence.

                  I had no part in creating a world where people take things if they can get away with it - like gravity, it is simply a fact of life.

                  Likewise, laws are simply a fact of life.

                  Is it "evil" that people steal? I don't think it's worth considering the question. I just deal with the fact that some do. Calling them "evil" in my head will not make it any less likely that something of mine will be stolen, in fact, all it will do is raise my blood pressure, so why would I put myself through that?

                  The whole process of choice and consequences is value-neutral, ie it can take place perfectly well without reference to any notion of "good" or "evil".


                  1. Ben Bush profile image60
                    Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this


                    Are you saying that the words you have just chosen to use to communicate to me are value neutral? Did you not choose certain words over others because of their value in communicating to me. Don't I place value in your words? In other words, You are saying this as opposed to that, all because of your choice of words. Words have meaning. Their value lies in their meaning, therefore, you choose certain words over others according to their value in communicating a certain message.

                    When it comes to theft, would you prefer to have your property stolen by someone else or not? Do you desire to keep your property?

                    The Law of Gravity. Do you desire to cooperate as much with the law of gravity and reap its benfits? Or do you desire to fall, do you desire your plane to crash?

                    Don't we all place value on things constantly? Don't we make choices?

                    If the whole process of choice and consequence is value neutral, then you have said nothing.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Ben,

      Oddly enough, I have spent the day performing manual labor myself. Synchronicity? lol

      I am not sure this fits in to my definition of christian behavior actually. I spent all afternoon digging, then mixing and laying concrete. It was christian in that a friend asked me to help them with the task and I said yes, but the labor itself.... Nah. smile

      Any way, I don't think my question as to whether you regard yourself as a genuine christian should be dismissed merely because my standards are different to yours.

      I asked whether you considered yourself to be a genuine christian - unless you are bowing to my authority and accepting my definition, and have found yourself wanting?

      And please do not take it personally if I seem antagonistic towards christianity. It is nothing personal directed at you. I feel the same way about all the other cults.

      I agree that we are limited in our ability to properly judge the other, talking online as we are, but I have become reasonably adept at discerning the underlying persona, and thus far, have no problem with the way in which you are comporting yourself, in fact I am enjoying our discussion.

      As you may have noticed, one of the ways I do this is to antagonize people and see what their reaction is. It gives me a good idea as to their personality. smile  Many thank me afterwards once they appreciate it is not personal and often helps them grow.

      Of course, some of them despise me and will go to the trouble of attacking me outside of hubpages, but that is a price I am prepared to pay to see into someone more clearly.  smile  It is very easy to disguise one's genuine nature using online discussions........

      Authority. Interesting. I will be back with more after we have got over the question of genuine christianity. smile

      1. Ben Bush profile image60
        Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Mark, I haven't dismissed it. I was simply holding it at arms length until I believed it to be appropriate; for a couple of reasons.

        First, I presume you know the answer to your question.

        Second, the statement is not one I make in a glib manner. It is a very serious statement and automatically brings with it a level of watchfulness and scrutiny which proves unnerving and disconcerting to many. I don't make it lightly.

        The answer to your question is, Yes, I consider myself to be a genuine Christian.

        I bow to your authority to the extent that you view me according to Truth.

        Don't worry about me taking it personally. I understand.

        My Dad was the same way. In my mid twenties, I told my Dad, that, having survived growing up with him as my Dad, dealing with everyone else was easy.cool

        I. too have enjoyed the conversation. I trust that it will continue.smile

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Ok, rather than clutter the forum up with all the other stuff, I will stick to this.

          I now have 2 more questions:

          Why do you consider yourself a genuine christian?,

          and - who's Truth. Yours or Mine ? big_smile

          Actions, or Words?

          1. Ben Bush profile image60
            Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Rather than give a citation or series of citations from the Bible, I'll say it this way. I consider myself to be a genuine Christian because I am a changed man. I am not the person I used to be. God has done and is doing a work within me that is undeniable and evident to me.

            Ultimately, God's Truth as revealed in the Bible.

            It goes much deeper than either of those two options. Jesus said in Mark Chapter 7,

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

            21  For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

            22  Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

            23  All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

            If my heart is not changed, all words and actions would simply be the mechanisms of my hypocrisy. I would be nothing more than what the word Hypocrite means, a stage actor.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              How is this being a christian? I too am a changed man. Take it from me that I am not the 18-year-old hellion, nor the 25-year-old entrepreneur, nor the 35-year-old "how many women can I sleep with?" man I was.

              I am a changed man. None of which makes me a christian.

              Well, this doesn't really mean anything. As we both agree, there are many different interpretations to the "Truth" revealed in the bible. Personally, I do not see it as God's Truth any way. So - what you are basically saying is, that you are discounting my Truth, and you are using your interpretation of what you think the Truth in the bible is.

              And is this "change," evident to anyone else, or are you the only one that sees it?

              Or are we talking about the "I was lost, but now I am found," sort of change?

              Well, I can turn that around on you. The same hypocrisy comes when you say your heart is changed, yet continue to act in un-christian ways.

              Also, the good thoughts come from the same place, no?

              To me, this is all just rhetoric.

  11. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    You ougtha be a philosopher.
    "How can something that has nothing to do with theories of knowledge or philosophy bind you or anyone else?"
    Mother and child.
    "Have you merely chosen to believe that they are binding on you?" Try robbing a bank.
    "Or, are they binding on you because you personally recognize them to be so?" Personally I may choose not
    to lie.
    "Or, as you suggest, are they binding on you because of an authority independent of yourself?" There are both
    authorities of self and authorities of others ultimately backed up by the military. The authority of god is a personal choice and can be considered as inherent in the self or separate in the heavens.
    "And what is the origin of the authority possessed by the people empowered to make and enforce law. In other words where did they get the power?" Take the wild west,
    which was lawless until the community got together and
    hired a sherrif.

  12. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    "As you may have noticed, one of the ways I do this is to antagonize people and see what their reaction is." So you're a psychologist as well.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I wouldn't say that exactly, but you can tell a lot about some one by the way they react to stress. smile

  13. maestrowhit profile image61
    maestrowhitposted 10 years ago

    I just now joined this discussion. I joined this site today upon being directed to it by a friend. I've read most of this particular thread, skipping spots here and there.
    At this time, I just gotta say: Man! What a slippery subject this is! Why is this thing that claims to be the answer to life so hard to nail down? Why does it take so much wind to sound even slightly convincing? Aren't all the most irrefutable truths in life able to be contained in one or two, easily agreed upon statements?

    I'm picturing the Big Guy up on his lofty perch thinking, "Well, now, I've really made this one tricky! Let's see how long it takes them to fgure it out. The ones who do, get the prize. The loosers get the fire. How fun!"

    You can twist the Christian faith around to look more warm and inviting, but all you're doing is looking at the same tangled mess from a different angle.

    My answer to the question, "Who is a Christian?" is: someone who believes in Christian theology. If you really believe that stuff, then I'd say you are a Christian. Furthermore, I do not think believing is a choice. I, for one, cannot believe it. I am incapable. I have no choice in the matter. Believe me, I've tried. When some jerk tells a six year old kid that Santa is just his Dad dressed all in red with a fake beard on, that kid can't go back to believing Santa is real no matter how hard he tries. He can't choose to believe it again. How is this choice more possible than that one is?

  14. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    "He can't choose to believe it again. How is this choice more possible than that one is?" Well he can actually. The human mind can believe whatever it wants, which is the beautiful thing about the human condition, if it does not contradict the laws of injury and death. This might be called free-mind. The problem is, while most of us can agree upon the necessity of stop lights, we will never agree upon what cannot be sensed. But it is insisted that we should.

    1. Ben Bush profile image60
      Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      AS Paraglider has stated earlier, most of us have agreed to subject ourselves to that which we cannot sense, the law. We are bound by the unseen law of the seen stop light. We acknowledge the unseen every day.

    2. maestrowhit profile image61
      maestrowhitposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Uh, you mind interpreting this? Can't you speak about your beliefs with clarity? With words that other people can understand and see the truth of? Rhetoric is the tool of the unsure. Jargon, the weapon of the illegitimate.

  15. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    "most of us" Wasnah talkin' to you.

  16. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 10 years ago

    I wonder, maybe Ben, you have the answer. 

    Why in James do they refer to the Adultresses as those who wish to be friends with the world?

    Maybe the church interpretation of adultry and the world conflict because being friends somehow voids Gods law, when Jesus wants unity???  And the church has somehow focused it's attention to meaning that adultry is sex related, when things related to sex are called "sexually immoral". 

    Then the 10 commandemts, God's law, say thou shall not committ adultry???

    Quick, go look it up.  I think it is at the end of chapter 3, if I can recall without looking, it is maybe the thrid to the last paragraph. 

    Which one is it?

    1. Ben Bush profile image60
      Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sandra, in the particular passage in James 4, it is talking about spiritual adultery. But there is also physical adultery against your spouse.

      This aspect of Christian action is not usually thought of. As Mark and others have pointed out, it seems many think that they are free to do many things without any thought as to the nature or the result of their actions in the secular world. Great point!

  17. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    " Let's never forget most Christian Churches are built on former Pagan sites" Also there is the theory that pagan sites were built over spiritual power centers, and the churches were built over that. This power can only be felt and thus is given no considereation but by a few.

    1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image94
      mistyhorizon2003posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If Pagan Sites were built over "Spiritual Power Centres", and "Churches were built over that", then why are the Churches any more valid than the Pagan sites of worship? They felt the power too, their sites were simply hijacked, and who is to say for certain who was right?

  18. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    "what is your authority for your Paga belief?" How about the natural world of the planet earth.

    1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image94
      mistyhorizon2003posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It seems pretty obvious from archaeology that planet earth has developed from evolution, and that the ancients revered Gods that believed in nurturing the planet and protecting it in a way recent generations have failed to do, I am not saying that I personally believe in a Pantheon of Gods, but I do believe in the ethics and conscience of those cultures that protected the planet and all of the species that resided on it, and did not abuse this privelege like we do today.

      1. Ben Bush profile image60
        Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Since the earth and all on it are the products of evolution, are the ethics and cultural conscience traits determined by evolution? Or does man exercise these traits based on free will? Did these ancient ethical cultures rise above their evolutionary heritage?  Or does evolution still hold sway so that any ethical or cultural consensus is predetermined?

        Or who is to say that the prevelant tendency to abuse the planet is not evolutionary determinism?

        And regardless of your response, are the ethics and cultural conscience a good thing as opposed to the evil abuse of modern societies? And what moral authority do you have to determine good and evil?

        1. Inspirepub profile image83
          Inspirepubposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Ben, I am leaving aside your questions to misty, but I have a response to these ones.

          Evil abuse has been around forever - it is not a product of modern societies. In fact, the average person alive today enjoys more freedom and safety than the average person in any other historical period, notwithstanding the human rights abuses that are happening on a daily basis.

          The development of notions such as the impersonal State, the impartial police and judicidary, and the uniform legal code has created a world in which an individual can be born, grow up, raise a family, grow old and die without ever once being forced to comply with someone else's demands under threat of  physical violence. Not everyone has that experience, of course - there are still some rapes and robberies - but at least a good proportion of people get through life without being victims.

          This was not the case even 200 years ago, when the average person in the so-called "civilised" world grew up contending with neighborhood gangs, stand-over extortion tactics in local businesses, press-gangs dragging boys off the street to serve on ships, and these things were widespread and considered "normal".

          With regard to your second question - what evidence do you have that there is some objective nature to the words "good" and "evil"?

          It is my understanding that eating the fruit of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" was Original Sin, and therefore the way to Heaven is to renounce that fruit, ie renounce judgement, and stop trying to "determine good and evil".

          It is people who believe they CAN determine good and evil who cause the worst problems on Earth. Those who renounce judgement become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.


          1. Ben Bush profile image60
            Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The objective nature of good and evil is inherently exercised within the legal systems of the world.

            Determinations of good and evil made every day within our legal systems.

            Are you in any way implying that the exercise of judgment within the legal system is part of the problem?

            1. Misha profile image69
              Mishaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              While you are waiting for Jenny, here is my take on this - if you don't mind smile

              "Good" and "evil" are not objective, neither are legal systems. Laws vary from country to country and even more from culture to culture.

              Yes, I think that exercise of judgment within the legal system, as well as everywhere else is "the part of the problem". smile

              1. Ben Bush profile image60
                Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                But the determinations are made, are they not, even though the criteria used to make the determinations may vary?

                And if the exercise of judgment is part of the problem, then aren't you part of the problem also by the judgments you just made regarding good and evil?

            2. Inspirepub profile image83
              Inspirepubposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Source, please?

              Which legislation contains the word "good" and/or the word "evil"?


  19. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    "If you feel it necessary to go to great lengths, you probably don't have much confidence in what you think the answer is." Sorry can't help you.

    1. maestrowhit profile image61
      maestrowhitposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, so you're saying you can't talk about your beliefs in concise, easily understood language. Well, at least you are honest and unapologetic about it. That's respectable. Kudos to ya.

  20. mistyhorizon2003 profile image94
    mistyhorizon2003posted 10 years ago

    Paganism came centuries before Christianity. I believe as Paganism pre-dates Christianity by so many many years, it is far more likely these worshippers had "something to go on", not to mention the love and respect for the planet make perfect sense to anyone with a conscience.

    I attended two Catholic Convent Schools, (including infant school), both of which were great schools, but neither of them managed to convince me the words of the Bible were anything other than propaganda, and the only thing I noticed was that some of it made sense in terms of conscience, but large amounts of it were threats as to what would happen to an individual if they failed to obey the teachings. I also have good reason to doubt many of the translations as King James (I believe), conveniently changed many of the words to the Bible to suit his own beliefs, e.g. "Thou shalt not consort with evil spirits", when the original text said, "Thou shalt not consort with Spirits", ( a popular quote from Christians saying "Psychic Mediums should not be consulted according to the Bible).  Another quote, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", when the actual quote translated as "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". Vastly different interpretations of the original words.

    Let us also not forget the Pope himself tells us contraception is wrong, yet in a world with AIDS, and one that is drastically overpopulated, surely this is a completely irresponsible message to send.

  21. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    "then why are the Churches any more valid than the Pagan sites of worship?" What are you arguing with me for. I am simply stating what is commonly believed by some. It is obvious that the theives were wrong. And these churces with their congregations have not a clue to any of this. Pagans are probably the most reviled people on the planet by the religions. That's why they get to steal the sites.

    1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image94
      mistyhorizon2003posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Whoa! Pagans are only reviled because it is one of the hardest religions to break, with good reason as it feels so morally correct to those who ARE Pagans. I am not arguing with you personally, as I think it is well known now that Pagan sites were hijacked by the Christian Faith, and this is not known by most Christians who in blissful ignorance attend their churches each week, or read the Bible (which obviously doesn't mention this). This is not an attack on you personally, believe me, as I appreciate an open debate and appreciate everyone does have a viewpoint even if I don't always agree with it.

      Needless to say religion and politics are the two most contraversial subjects and are always bound to result in disagreements.

      1. Misha profile image69
        Mishaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Cindy, knol often talks in a cryptic language. I think he is in a full agreement with you smile

  22. mistyhorizon2003 profile image94
    mistyhorizon2003posted 10 years ago

    PS. I have had Jehovas Witnesses come to my door and try to "convert me", but when I have told them I "am a Pagan", they have left me alone, largely because they know they will be unable to convert me.

  23. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    "" What are you arguing with me for."" Just in jest.
    "evolutionary determinism" Got to like that one. 
    "And what moral authority do you have to determine good and evil?" Suppose empathy for all creatures. Buddists call it compasion.

  24. Misha profile image69
    Mishaposted 10 years ago

    Ben, can't fully understand your first sentence, try to re-phrase please smile

    And no, I did not make any judgment. I did not say this is good and this is bad. I even enclosed "part of the problem" into quotes to indicate I am using your terms. I personally don't see any problem. smile

    Judging leads to the state of affairs we are in, it's neither "good" nor "bad". If we manage to stop judging, we see the perfect World. smile

    1. Ben Bush profile image60
      Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I was saying that judgments of good and evil are made around the word, though the standards and methods may vary slightly.

      Then what exactly is the state of affairs you are talking about. How do you describe it? You say that judging and the state of affairs is neither good or bad and you don't see a problem, yet, judging is, at least, imperfect. To stop judging leads to perfection? Are you not making judgments?

      In answering my question(s) are you not making judgments?

      1. Misha profile image69
        Mishaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Ah, OK, yes, judgments are definitely made all over the place all the time, no question about it.

        The state of affairs I am talking about is our World, in which we think we are separated from one another and our common soul - God, Absolute, Universe - whichever way you choose to call it. Getting rid of judgment allows to re-establish those connections, or rather to recognize them. It is neither "good", nor "evil", it just is. smile

        I am making judgments, too, I am still human. But I am consciously working on eliminating judgments from my way of thinking..

        And I think I did use some judgment when I said the World is perfect, cause yeah, in this context "perfect" bears a connotation of "good", I agree. More precise term would be "World just is" probably smile

  25. Ben Bush profile image60
    Ben Bushposted 10 years ago

    When it comes to words and actions, you and I are in agreement.

    I have simply taken it to the degree that Christ does because Christ deals with the root of the problem. The problem with hypocrisy isn't a problem of actions, it's a problem of the heart.

    Reformation is, ultimately, useless because it only deals with the outward. It's true that the results of reformation are usually much more desirable than the prior condition, but it remains outward in nature. The Bible speaks of "obedience from the heart."

    Reformation is simply an outward change and nothing more. And you are right, there are various changes a person can make without their heart being changed.

    Truth is neither yours or mine. It's not simply a matter of perspective. Try telling that to a judge and see what he says. There are some things that are determined without our input or participation. And we are not going to change them.

    I am sorry that you don't approve of my way of telling you that I am a Christian. I didn't realize that I was doing something wrong. You are free to disagree with or dislike my words, but ultimately, you have nothing to say about the standard of what a Christian is or isn't. It's already been determined. And as I said, neither you nor I will change that.

    Ans as far as Truth, how important is Truth to you? Are your words about Truth nothing more than that, words? Or do you genuinely desire to know Truth? Only you can answer that question.

    But I can personally say that, if you genuinely desire to know Truth, you will find it. Truth is waiting.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I am glad we are in agreement. smile

      But - and this is s BIG but. The contents of your heart are a matter for you, and you alone. It does not affect any one outside of you. Your actions, on the other hand do affect others. This is one of my main issues with christianity. You are saying you are a genuine christian, but seem unable to demonstrate that fact.

      How do you show that you are a genuine christian?

      All you are doing is saying you are. Just like all the other "genuine" christians.

      This is where we diverge. The outward changes I have made, could not have been made without inner changes, or "obedience from the heart."

      The inner seems far more important to you than the outer. Presumably so you can go to heaven when you die. Far too selfish an approach for me to wish to take.

      For me it is the other way around. I can see from some one's behavior and actions what sort of a person they are, and I have met too many who say one thing and act the other way to be able to accept what you are saying.

      Truth is both yours and mine. Although, I am not sure what you mean by referencing a judge. Judges do not deal in Truth, they deal in whether or not you have broken the law. Of course some things are determined without our input or participation. Neither of us are directly involved in every single thing that happen. You lost me here also.

      You have no need to apologise to me for anything. But - I did not say I don't approve of the way you are telling me you are a christian - I said it means nothing to me. Empty rhetoric.

      I disagree that I have nothing to say about what standard determines what is a christian and what is not.

      It has not already been determined. And I have already changed it. By my own authority.

      Have you heard of Seth Godin? He said something profound, and I will try to paraphrase it. he says:

      "If I think something is broken, then it is broken."

      I am saying it is broken, therefore it is broken.  smile

      I think your definition of a christian is broken. Just scroll back and take a look at all the stuff said in this thread by so-called christians.

      I already have Truth. I am trying to share it with you, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears, and you have already decided that my Truth is broken, because it is not the same as yours.

      My Truth requires some accountability in this life rather than the next, which does not seem to appeal to many christians, I have found. lol

  26. Paraglider profile image91
    Paragliderposted 10 years ago

    Jenny, Ben -

    If I may intervene on this one -

    The law of gravity is descriptive. It was Newton's description of the status quo.

    The law of larceny is prescriptive. It commands people not to steal.

    Let's not confuse these two types of 'law'. It's a common mistake.

    1. Ben Bush profile image60
      Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Wasn't Newton describing the prescriptive natural law he saw in force"

      Can't a prescriptive law be described?

      1. Paraglider profile image91
        Paragliderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        If you believe in a prescriptive natural law of gravity, then you must also believe that stones are choosing not to disobey it !!  I hope they never change their little minds wink

        The law is descriptive.

        1. Ben Bush profile image60
          Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Law, by its very nature, is prescriptive. To understand that law, we need description.

          1. Paraglider profile image91
            Paragliderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Prescriptive laws are prescriptive. Descriptive 'laws' are descriptive. Probably there should have been a different word used. But there wasn't. So we have two kinds of law. Not difficult.

            Sorry, three kinds. Purple laws are purple.

  27. Ben Bush profile image60
    Ben Bushposted 10 years ago


    Is it possible for you to accept as Truth me being a "Christian" until proven otherwise? Can you take my words for what they are and measure them against my actions?

    Personally, I find nothing in that scenario which would violate the spirit or letter of Truth. Isn't that a form of accountability in this life, the watchful eye of others? And would that not inform you as to whether or not my words were "empty rhetoric"? And wouldn't that inform you of whether or not there was an inward reality?

    The question remains, "How can I demonstrate to you that I am a Christian?"  Maybe you should come to Texas and we can pour concrete together!smile  And when we finish, go the India and pour more concrete with Paraglider.smilesmile And we can also invite Sandra & Jenny to keep us all on an even keel.

    You know? I can only imagine how interesting it would be to negotiate a business deal with you!big_smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I am certainly prepared to accept that you are a christian by your definition. I will also accept that you believe you are a genuine christian. I am already taking you at your word and measuring them by your actions, as far as I can in this limited media. In fact, I would say that I accept you as a christian until you prove otherwise.

      Nonetheless, they are still words, and you are quite right that we are limited in an online discussion, so I will have to reserve judgment until later as to whether you are a christian by my definitions smile It is up to you if you wish to demonstrate you are a genuine christian.

      I would like nothing better than to come to Texas to mix concrete smile I had a great time last trip to Texas.

      I am fun to play poker with also smile

      So, having accepted the above and gone halfway to determining that you are a genuine christian. Guilty until proven innocent as it were. big_smile  Maybe you could tell me how that manifests itself on this plane of existence?

      And how you feel about others who demonstrate un-christian behavior whilst at the same time claiming to be christians?

      1. Ben Bush profile image60
        Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this


        Could you ask simple questions like "Did Jesus wear sandles?" And if so, were they His own creation or were they non-Christian sandles?

        The outward manifestation of a genuine Christian can a broad as well as deep subject. Not that it is difficult to understand, but there's so much potential variety depending on the individual and his circumstances. Are there laws and principles that apply across the board? Yes, definitely. You are almost forced to stick to broad generalities.

        If you have a particular case or situation to address, maybe we could.

        Maybe we should address the issue of whether or not a professing Christian should even consider pouring concrete with a known poker playing antagonist?cool   After all, I have a reputation to uphold and protect.smile

        As far as unchristian behavior, I am guilty of some myself. So, before I deal with my feelings about others not acting correctly, I wonder how Jesus felt and responded. After all, He is my ultimate example.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I am pretty sure the pouring of concrete with the known poker playing, dolphin-hating, atheist, communist antagonist is the very definition of christian behavior. Although, that is not what many christians seem to believe.

          I know how Jesus responded to people who declare themselves christian and then act in an unchristian fashion. smile

          How do you respond?

          1. Ben Bush profile image60
            Ben Bushposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I must admit that, when pouring concrete, my first consideration is whether or not he can do the job and do it correctly, not his relationship to God. A holy incompetent accomplishes little in that case except more work for me and others. 

            "dolphin-hating'    Is this dolphin of the literal variety or the NFL variety?

            I'll tell you a story.

            I was pouring concrete with three others. The driver of the concrete truck was a good driver, but impatient, always in a hurry. The situation required us to pour slower than we nornally would have. We got to a point where we could start pouring faster and I signaled for him to turn the drum faster. He not only revved it fully but continued to do so till the truck was almost empty. Almost the entire time, I was screaming and holloring  and signalling for him to stop the drum, but to no avail. We ended up with 5-6 yards of concrete within a very small area - not good.

            Well, I met him at his door and we commenced to screaming at one another. He said the sun was in his eye and he couldn't see me. Needless to say, we almost came to blows. I really don't know how or why we didn't. Before he left, I told Him he would never comeon  another job site of mine and he agreed.

            A couple of weeks later while helping another guy pour and finish a foundation, this driver pulled onto the site and I knew what I had to do. As soon as I found the opportunity, I went over to him and apologized for my actions and asked him to forgive me. He tried to shrug the whole incident off. I told him that I was wrong for everything I said and did and asked him point black, "Do you forgive me?" He smiled and said "yes" and we shook hands. We actually became friendly toward one another from that point on. As far as I know he never became a Christian, though we discussed the gospel. I know that he would never have listened to me if I had not made the apology and confession to him.

            1. Make  Money profile image77
              Make Moneyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              To me that sounds like the genuine Christian thing to do.

              Under the same circumstances do you think that you would have went out of your way to apologize to this cement truck driver Mark, Paraglider or anyone?  Keep in mind that those 5 or 6 extra yards of concrete would have had to have been manually moved in a quick fashion before it set otherwise the whole job could have been ruined.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Mike - No, athough not for the reasons you might imagine. smile

                In fact, the last time I was laying some serious concrete, a similar thing happened to me. The truck arrived, and we were shifting it across some rough ground in wheelbarrows. The driver was in a hurry, as they always seem to be, he pulled up and started pouring, expecting us to catch the concrete and move it as fast as he could pour it.

                There were three of us. Me and two carpenters whom I was helping to build an extension. Both friends, both smaller than me. We couldn't keep up, so I swallowed my pride, walked round the truck and knocked on the driver's window. I asked him to come around back and help us. He did that, took one look at the three of us, and said "You ain't a concrete crew," with a smile.

                I said, "Nope. One massage therapist and two carpenters," although I was slightly offended that it was so obvious. smile

                He manually adjusted the flow of concrete, and helped us fill the wheel barrows half full, which was about all we could manage. smile He slowed his day down to help us once he understood what the problem was.

                Christian? Who knows..... We never discussed it.

                Ben - this brings to mind a story of my own.

                Some one was on these forums claiming that he had "Got his hub on the front page of google," for a pretty meaningless term. I accused him of spamming the forums and gave him a right mouthful.

                I even went to the trouble of writing a hub about the experience. How I got my hub on the front page of google.

                Now, I was pretty aggressive and nasty in my attack on him. He got a little pissed at me and started calling me names,  but then realized I was actually helping him. He chose to take that as a learning experience, listen to what I was saying underneath the aggression and realized I was preventing him from getting his account deleted. he thanked me and we have since become friends. I even linked to him in my hub and thanked him for the idea smile

                Not long after wards, a christian came on spamming the forums in a similar way. I treated him in the same fashion. He reacted badly, got pissed and started calling me names. Eventually, he realized I was actually helping him and preventing him from getting his account deleted.

                After wards.

                He forgave me. And no matter how I tell him, he will not accept that I did not need to be forgiven. He was the one who benefited, yet, as a christian, he decided that the correct course of action was to forgive me rather than to thank me.

                Christian? Who knows.

                1. Make  Money profile image77
                  Make Moneyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Good stories Mark.  I had the same idea when I joined HubPages, that's why my profile name is Make  Money.  But I didn't read the TOS close enough and HubPages disqualified my first Hub. lol  I guess I should have read your Hub first. smile

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this


                    I have had accounts deleted myself smile Although - not here..

  28. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 10 years ago

    Seems to me, going to use judgemental terms (no way around it) What would more matter would be the judgement in the personal mind. One eliminates judgemental association, or having too much fun, one does not take it seriously. I am separate from that. Other people's judgement is their concern.

  29. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 10 years ago

    Jesus wore redwings, lol!  smile  it's a joke.

  30. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 10 years ago

    Ben - I think you started with this statement:

    What this means is that what one "prefers," becomes "good," and what one does not "prefer," becomes "evil,"

    For that person.

    So, for example, I might "prefer," that women be allowed to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and,for me, this becomes "good."

    But, another, who thinks abortion is "bad," might also think that this choice is "evil."

    Thus, we both have different perceptions, based on our personal preferences.

    Make sense?

  31. secondsamuel profile image60
    secondsamuelposted 10 years ago

    A genuine Christian is one who repays a wrong suffered with an act of love.

    A genuine Christian is one who seeks out hurting people and comforts them.

    A genuine Christian will go hungry to feed the hungry.

    A genuine Christian will always put others before him/herself.

    A genuine Christian is one who takes a lot of crapt from the outside world and keeps on walking with a smile on their face and a song in their heart.

    A genuine Christian is genuine. smile

  32. PeterJ profile image60
    PeterJposted 10 years ago

    AIUI a christian is simply someone who believes Jesus was the son of god and accepts him as their saviour.

    all that about having to be pure of soul all the time etc is pretty unrealistic IMO and if there was a Jesus then I'm sure he'd be forgiving of the occasional slip ups of otherwise generally good people.

    after all isn't that what christianity is meant to be about? forgiveness?

    1. Make  Money profile image77
      Make Moneyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Coincidentally Peter I was just about to add to some of the posts on the previous pages that a genuine Christian is quick to offer forgiveness.

  33. JKSophie profile image72
    JKSophieposted 10 years ago

    Being a true Christian involves believing, doing good acts, and obeying God's Words. :-)

  34. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 10 years ago


    1. mohitmisra profile image58
      mohitmisraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      For what? Whats wrong with the Hindu doctrine.?What Jesus says the masters of India have been saying for a long time.Shiva is a lot older tha Jesus try not to forget that. smile

  35. webismine profile image59
    webismineposted 10 years ago


    Forum messages when typed in uppercase are considered to be Shouting smile

    And, leaving your email address here might result in unwanted spam emails filling your inbox big_smile

  36. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 10 years ago


    1. mohitmisra profile image58
      mohitmisraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      India has produced thousands of saints,Shiva is considered  the first yogi-enlightened one.
      Truth is God exists everywhere so I will keep saying it.I am not denying Jesus is a master.
      One story goes he came to India studied yoga here ,got enlightened and went back to spread the message of the light.Enlightened beings have happened in every part of the world.God does not restrict himself by imaginary lines or countries or Religions.There is absoluetely no differenece between the enllightened ones in India or elsewhere on the planet.Accept all rather than only one as being supreme and true over the others.All paths-Religions lead to God like all rivers lead to the Ocean. smile

      1. mohitmisra profile image58
        mohitmisraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Also talking about encroaching ,Hindus hold Jesus in the same league as Krishna,Buddha or Rama- Enlightened beings. smile

  37. Paraglider profile image91
    Paragliderposted 10 years ago

    Muslims can show the birthplace of Muhammad, not of Allah.

    But please start using lower case, or people will stop responding to you


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)