Hi Brie... Maybe this info will help with your point.
I wrote an article last week on this topic <no promotional links> and also provided a link in the article to where Breivik’s Manifesto is posted on the internet @ the (Kevin I. Slaughter) website - if anyone wants to read what he had put in his own words. The manifesto clearly describes what type of person he was, even if the video you have linked to is not as clear an example for some people.
*Feel free to copy & paste anything here in the forum from that info that you feel is relevant to the discussion at hand.
One of the larger issues and problems is not only the fact that he only 'claimed' a connection to Christian groups, but that the media was so quick to label him as a "Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist" (which appears to be a growing trend in the more liberal-minded media with incorrecting 'labelling' right-wing activists) and this fact is having an even more detrimental effect on the perceptions of people in society at large.
Point blank, call these things what they actually are! As these 'extremist' type of behavior (regardless of what faith they proclaim - Muslim, Christian, or right-wing, leftist, or whatever) are quite simply murderous and evil, wrongful actions that have no connection whatsoever to the concept of all goodness. 'REAL' Christians (especially a 'Fundamentalist') have a system of faith that prohibits these type of actions and thus it goes against their core beliefs. Therefore, anyone who commits such an atrocity, cannot be a "true" believer or practitioner of that faith, simply by default, no matter what they profess as thier belief, or what the media for that matter chooses to incorrectly label them as.
Hope that helps... Rev.Ted
Sorry, but after watching that video, I saw no proof of Breivik not being a Christian. The vast majority of what he said can be found right here on these forums from Christians.
He SAID in the video that he only considered himself a Christian because of the friggen HOLIDAYS! How much more proof can you get. He also said that he DOESN'T HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST! WHICH IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN.
He is culturally "Christian", but unobservant of many of Jesus's teachings and doctrinal requirements...
...which is similar to many of the loudest "Christians" here, too.
I agree he's not a fundamentalist, but neither are those on their second/third spouses, liars, etc.
That's right..I would say that anyone who claims that they are a Christian but doesn't follow the teaching of Jesus Christ is deluding themselves and others. That is the only legitimate definition.
That would include almost all self-proclaimed Christians. Do you actually know anyone who follows Christ's teachings?
I know literally one. They are extremely rare and they tend to keep a low profile.
She has no interest in covering up the widespread abuse of children by priests.
Maybe she can fix it instead of covering it up, that would be a novel idea.
Are you talking about me? I'm not Catholic...I have talked about the pedophile priests in other posts. As far as I'm concerned Catholics are NOT Christians.
Again, if a Catholic wants to call himself a Christian, there isn't anything you or anyone else can do about it, just like they can't do anything about you calling yourself a Christian.
if christians make mistakes, and sin, this does not make them non christians. Christians are not chosen because they are perfect, they are called to be perfect (they are chosen because God loves them) but along the road to perfection, mishaps will occur. There are basic requirements to being christian, none of which are followed by catholicism. Catholicism is everything else but Christ based and therefore does not allow them to be christian - which means christ like.
People who are not perfect are indeed privileged to call themselves christians and still be telling the truth, which is, they follow jesus Christ and therefore they are christian.
If a catholic wants to call themselves christian this is another area they are deceived in also. God bless the heart of a catholic but they need to come out of that false system.
Why would the Roman Catholic Church, one of the oldest institutions in the world and largest Christian Church with a billion members have as its primary mission the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Why is that a problem for you? Why would you even care?
Yes, I know many...maybe it's the company you keep?
I agree that most Christians totally overlook the most important aspect of Christianity - trying to follow the example Jesus set.
You can't use your definition of christian as the only one for christian. Anyone that labels themselves to be a christian is one. You can say he isn't Baptist, Catholic or pentecostal; but you are deluding yourself if you think he wasn't Christian.
Why are you worried about it? It isn't his professed religion that drove him to this act.
I can define myself by the historical definition of Christianity which is what I am doing. I will NOT allow other people to redefine the meaning of Christianity.
Yes, his professed religion is what drove him to commit those acts which is why I am telling you that his professed religion WAS NOT Christian.
You say that but you're probably just referring to others who share your particular version of Christianity.
That would be the obvious motive for this thread.
What do you think of Muslims who say the same thing?
Muslims do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible...they have made up a phony Jesus.
I meant what do you think of Muslims who say that Islamist terrorist who kill civilians are not true Muslims? Do you agree with them, or understand where they're coming from?
There Koran says to kill unbelievers..so I would say that they are not being true to what their own religion teaches. Whereas, Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and to do good to those that hurt you.
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Exactly. You'll find lots of "kill everyone else" in books written during primitive times. Fundamentalists take that stuff literally, while moderate religious people realize it was in the primitive language of a primitive time.
Besides, Brie, Muslims are far less likely to condone terrorism against civilians than Christians in this country. Take a look at page 31 in this Gallup survey.
Muslim Americans are considerably more likely to believe that terrorist attacks against civilians are never justified than Christians. Higher levels of mosque attendance did not affect the likelihood of supporting terrorism.
These were laws for Israel at that time because they were a Theocracy and even by the time of Jesus when they were under Roman rule they were not applied because they couldn't. They are not rules for us to live on.
Then, we can say that about any scripture. You can't just cherry pick the Bible for quotes that appeal to you. It's all or nothing.
I'm not cherry picking I'm giving you the verses in the context that they were given, rather than "cherry picking" them out of their context.
The same applies to this too, in context.
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
and the context of 2 chronicles is that every person who entered into a covenant of the lord and broke that covenant would be put to death, for they were very grateful the lord had done what the lord did for them.
This is a local cleansing of Gods people not the nations all around them. Gods people were never bloodthirsty.
So what was your point again?
Scripture has to remain in context always. Scripture is always backed up by other scripture. The entire council of God always keeps within the dictates of Gods personality.
People who carbomb think they help God, but logically, God needs no help and murdering is commandment number 6. So people who declare they are helping God by murder are, logically, not helping God. Since we now know they do not help God but are deceived we can deduce that they are not following Gods ways and we ourselves cannot say that they do, because we know they do not.
If god needs no help, then why do you push his agenda? Why are missionaries necessary? Why not do away with preachers and folks like you who feel the need to defend his old novel? Inquiring minds..........
Such a positive, upbeat phrase to use when talking about mass murder and genocide ...local cleansing... everything's sparkling and shiny afterward.
I'm not sure I understand your point. We can find ample examples in the Bible where God has ordered people to kill others. If we can find these examples in the Bible, who is to say God is not ordering people to kill?
Because people don't just imagine the right things. How will people hear if they are not told? This is human nature to respond to input from other human beings. Jesus did say to go and preach the gospel. I am not really defending the bible, but if people need assistance to assimilate information, i am glad to accommodate I suppose if this were about cars or finances people would be happy to listen.
Mass murder and genocide, in some instances yes, in this instance i am not entirely sure. God put some harsh rules down for his own people but I figure this was to deter more than to have a blood bath. Enough evidence purports that those times back then were extremely uncivilized, our gentile minds cannot fathom it. During the flood time God saw that the intentions of mans heart was only evil continually and he found only 8 people that managed to please God according to Gods standards. I figure only 640,000 crossed the red sea so i don't think destroying the earth was killing billions, especially if the flood was local and not earth wide.
Local cleansing..lets look at idolatry for a while. Other nations had sexual rituals, orgies, and drunkenness in their god worship and lets face it, who doesn't like a good party, especially with orgies. I can recall a few..... now if i may generalize, the problem with sin is, its contagious and can spread like wildfire, even under these horrible circumstances, lol, it even leads to deeper depravity and hardness of mind and heart (porn for example), so God had to be tough, sometimes even that did not work. A man sees his neighbor stealing money from clients and then he notices the nice new alpha romeo car the dude is driving, pretty soon he's askin the guy for his secrets of success.
Your second point is quite involved i can only hope for brevity. When God brought his people out of egypt where were they to go? all the world had been used up, surrounding nations warred for gain and prosperity, land and greed and made sport of their victims whom they sacrificially victimized. The hebrews were slaves, totally untrained in war - at first - necessity is a good mother of invention - later - and God had to move them through hostile territory, in which the Hebrews asked permission to go through. When they camped, eventually, a few battles after asking permission and being denied and being camped against for battle. When they camped on this side of jordan the moabites sent their women to entice the hebrews to sin so that God would be mad and they would be easy prey.... baalams idea. God realized his people had to move forward to alleviate the schemes and threats of nations around them.
All God wanted was a place to have his people, the best land, the best life and all that God did was to accommodate that plan. Gods love in this instance toward his people was a jealous love, a love of protection, indeed the Hebrews thought little of afterlife they thought God just wanted to prosper them in this life. So in reality God is not enjoying the blood bath of killing his creations he is doing what anyone would do to protect his people and provide for them, its a father thing. As terrible as it was this was the reality of life back then. You gave no one quarter and expected none. I can show many examples in the bible of God giving nations lots of time to show mercy or to adopt Gods ways but instead they chose battle.
Deuteronomy Chapter 13 states pretty much the same thing. "Put anyone to death who tries to lead you away from God".(paraphased)
deu 13 is interesting. I'll use a term from before "local cleansing". Chapter 1-5 is about false prophets. Something we do not do today is clean out the falseness. We know there are false prophets, false healers, false teachers leavening our population and we often hear because of this, "who are we to believe, you say this and another says that". Well today we are many years forward in time from then, from the start of Godianity and a peculiarity about starting something is ya gotta be tough from the beginning otherwise things soon start to break down and then comes competition. You will notice in this chapter 13 a progression.
chapter 6-10 deals with family. 1-5 a single person, 6-10 family.
chapter 11 gives the reason for this local cleansing... so that one true and direct path only is made clear and not confusing like we have today with probably, i am guessing, 7 million paths to god or a god like form or inner self or the powers of nature, etc.
chapter 12-17 talks of cities. Sinfulness spreads like wildfire if not put out quickly.
verse 18 gives the reason why and that is so that they shall know the way of the Lord.
Sure they believe in the Jesus of the Bible, they just don't consider Jesus to be the son of their god; Allah.
You can't just stick the name of Jesus on some fictitious character and say he is the historical Jesus...that's what Muslims, Mormons and JW's do.
That may very well be what Christians did too. It's not an argument because Muslims got their information from scriptures.
It is an argument because God crucified Jesus on the cross and if this act is considered a moot point, we can easily understand how wrong the person doing the mooting is and therefore if we notice the cross of christ being mooted we can safely deduce that this belief, which moots the cross of Christ, is completely wrong and therefore must not be from any scripture that God compiled because why would God logically, moot the incredibly important sacrifice of his own son.
You raise a very moot point. Well spotted.
"God crucified Jesus on the cross..."
I thought it was the Romans?
Could you define "historical definition of Christianity", please?
And not to pick...But the meaning of Christianity is re-defined on a daily basis by those who are experts of Christianity and it's doctrine. Even if you are to examine the OT, you will see an evolving of the doctrine, teachings and understanding of God written there as well.
Christians might be defined historically as that particular religious group demanding that the rest of the world accept the same dogma.
The crusades started it (although they mostly turned into a rape and pillage affair) - demanding that the terrible infidels in the near east conform.
The church of England continued the same thought by demanding everyone join and agree with the church - it's what started early settlements in America as people fled.
The puritans forged on, once more demanding that everyone be of the same faith and beliefs, killing anyone they called a witch that didn't.
Even today the same group does everything possible to force their beliefs on the rest of America - teach creationism in schools, require school prayer wherever possible, change our history to indicate that everyone then was Christian so we should be also.
That's a good point that Christianity is a dogmatic religion, and a proselytizing one. You must (force yourself to) believe certain things, and you must try to get other people to believe those things, too.
It's not unique in this way (Islam comes to mind; Islam and Christianity are far more similar to each other than they are different), but it does explain why it's grown so successfully and why it's, frankly, caused a lot of problems for non-Christians over the past 1200 years or so where they've been the majority.
(No disrespect to those Christians who practice their faith privately, of course.)
Islam and Christianity are nearly identical in their effects on outsiders. Islam is just a 100 years behind in civilizing itself is all.
I disagree, islam and christianity are not close at all. Islam and catholicism are close, but not christianity. Islam is not jesus centered - neither is catholicism, islam has mary so does catho, the women dress alike, priests are fathers - in christianity there is only one father and that is God. islam is a religion based on works and so is catho - christianity is based not on works but on the work done by jesus christ.
As to christianity being dogmatic that is dubious because really, Gods holy spirit does the changing in the life not a set of rules although many purport the rules this is called legalism, christians need to understand that God does the work not any person. Yes there are basic beliefs which revolve around the gospel of Christ but beyond that how much of scripture is correct is not important, love is, faith is, belief is and growth is.
All I'm able to gather is that you don't like Catholicism or Islam, which is why you insist (incorrectly) that they're nothing like Protestant Christianity.
Boy you are a breath of fresh air Brotheryochanan!
I enjoy your veracity, figures yer a new yorker
which came first, the veracity or new york
Sorry, as long as no one has a problem with them calling themselves Christian prior to the violence, you'll have to keep on claiming them after. The church can't have it both ways.
Well ,I get it.
If he was a Christian, then I might as well put on a white coat and call myself a doctor
There is no college degree required to be a Christian. Only Faith is required to be a Christian.
With the white coat, you could claim to be a doctor and be thought the same, that is, until someone asks to see your college degree.
And since faith can't be proved or given, there is no way to disprove someone as being a christian if they claim to be one. (even if their actions don't live up to the "christian" standard)
Yep sooner or later ,lack of evidence would be ones greatest clue, even for the Christian.
Guess my point was saying you are something -doesnt make it so.
Most agreed. Many claim to be christian (or anything else for that matter) but does not make it true. I have met very few that I consider "Christian" and of those, there are some who don't claim the title.
"Guess my point was saying you are something -doesnt make it so."
Would that also apply to someone who calls himself Muslim, but does something un-Muslim?
Are you saying that the only Christians are the Christians who follow your church's interpretation of Christianity?
No, I am saying that the only Christians are Christians who follow Jesus Christ's directives as clearly stated in the Bible.
And if you think that is insulting I really don't care.
Didn't Jesus Christ preach tolerance and love?
He preached love but no he did not preach tolerance. He said (and I quote) I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.
Very intolerant I would say..very exclusive and very direct.
(Mat 7:13) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
(Mat 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Very intolerant I would say. But Loving because he provided the way through his sacrificial death on the cross.
how sweet that is
I think Christ was very accepting and part of his acceptance was his ability to forgive but still he said "Go and sin no more". After a point is crossed intolerance dominates. Choosing to discover God by another path would lead to intolerance.
John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
No one tolerates a thief or a robber.
If i could wrap my mind fully around the cross i believe my eyes would always be leaking. I put a cat down at the vets and i'm cryin.
Yes Jesus did preach tolerance Marissa.
John 3:17. This follows the verse that is perhaps the most recited verse in the Bible. Jesus was still talking in plain and simple terms. "For God sent His Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."
Christianity does not carry a message of intolerance or condemnation, but a message of reconciliation and salvation.
There are lots of parables where Jesus stepped in show the disciples examples of tolerance
Thank God he did ,because most of us wouldn't even see the pearly gates if he hadnt ( oops IMO)
I think he may have thought of himself as "culturally" Christian. I often hear native British people say 'We are a Christian country, you know!' But if they are asked if they believe in Christ, they will say no. They mean they are Christian because they enjoy Christmas and are British, because they almost consider Jesus to have been an honorary Englishman.
Well, Great Britain has an official State Religion: the Church of England. Therefore, Great Britain can in fact be considered a Christian nation.
If he believes in Jesus, he is a christian.
If I have to claim fundies as my brethren, then fundies have to claim the (slightly) more dangerous members of the faith. And Catholics? Seriously, if you have a 12 foot crucifix over your church door, you are most certainly a christian.
And here is one that is really gonna knock your socks off. Satanic cults are sub-sects of Christianity as well, as you have to believe in Christ to believe in the anti-Christ.
One may believe in christ and the anti-christ but here is a mystery. Anti-christ means against christ and is referred in scripture as the spirit of anti-christ which means the spirit of being against christ, which is what most of the world already has. Yes there will be one man who moves the world against God but he will be driven by the spirit of anti-christ not the Anti-christ himself is never personalized.
Satanists don't believe in a supernatural being.. Anton Levey's satan in his statement of faith is stated to be...:
"The beliefs, practices and rituals of the Church of Satan have few, if any, points of similarity with the Christian or Muslim concept of Satan. The CoS' Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality. Satan is viewed as a force of nature, not a living quasi-deity."
(taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm)
LMAO, I read it. It seems that the poor satanists are trying to separate themselves from Christianity too. We really are a bunch of unlikable sods aren't we?
"Satanic cults are sub-sects of Christianity as well, as you have to believe in Christ to believe in the anti-Christ."
Clever, but I'm not buying it.
I'm not sure of the purpose of the thread. Regardless of what brand of religion he may practice, he is a murderer. Are you saying Christians aren't capable of mass murder?
Yes, because if they are Christians they wouldn't do that.
Why not? They have throughout history. Who defines a true Christian? Just because someone is Christian doesn't mean they don't do wrong, including murder, rape, on and on. Have you studied history regarding Christianity?
You can't just say someone isn't a true Christian because you don't want them to mar the name of Christianity. Perhaps someone is not religious, but that doesn't mean they're not a Christian. As far as I understand the Christian Bible, once someone is 'saved', they are a Christian.
Why you don't see me often in the religion forums. None of it makes sense.
Timothy McVeigh (remember him?) and Breveik share common right- wing extremist beliefs. McVeigh was a Christian.
Timothy McVeigh was NOT a Christian either, geez do you believe everything the MSM tells you?
You can't address the rest of my post?
I don't know what you're referring to MSM, mainstream media? I don't generally get my news from mainstream media. I read a number of different periodicals. I certainly don't get my news from biased youtube videos.
McVeigh was a confirmed Catholic and had connections with religious groups.
Back to the premise of the thread. Why do you go to such trouble to defend Christians as being unblemished?
The problem with much of this ado is that christians need to stay attached to the vine
John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Abiding is the key point. Its like a doctor who forgets to keep undated on his profession, he falls behind and at some point a patient can be heard to mutter, "he's not much of a doctor", yet he has a diploma on the wall.
Christians don't get diplomas, we each have to try our best to stay attached to the vine.
What fruit is borne of each branch depends on whether the branch is good or bad - connected or not to the vine - if bad fruit is borne then something is wrong with the connection. Good fruit = good connection.
kinda simply put, i'll leave it there.
When we say he is not a christian who has killed many people we mean to say, his connection is lost and he is deceived or gone astray. Yes that person may be saved - God judge the heart - being saved is not a permanent position that one automatically keeps because of a sinners prayer but keeps, by diligently staying attached to the vine. Although many people can honestly say "i would never kill somebody" and they would be telling the truth. Murder is quite a ways away from a good connection to the vine.
Quick question or two...
According to the bible, What is to be done to witches (sorceresses)? What about those that break the Sabbath? Or anyone who attempts to lead you away from God?
And if one can be a Christian and follow these laws? How is it different for any other who claims to be Christian?
The way I understood this was that any witches that rose up among them were to be cast out or killed.
Point being, they wee not told to go out among the gentiles hunting witches wherever they might be found.
First off this is OT and when referring to OT ordinations we must remember that these things have changed. They are not in effect the same way they were back then. Sabbath is still important to God but it has taken on a new face so to speak, as i see it, the sabbath day can be any day which one sets aside to dedicate to God. Perhaps the day itself will vary depending on 'shift work' or sometimes a trucker, trucks a good long haul and is at if for 10 days. Maybe its the 6th day of the week and you cross the international date line, lol. The point is new system now.
The difference is, too your question directly, God told the Hebrews what to do and he put it in a book - God believes in writing things down so ya don't forget, and incidentally a book may form, lol. God told them not to tolerate other false beliefs so they would not be tempted (by the orgies and drunkeness of baal worship etc, and not be drawn away from God by the self serving people worship of seemingly magical persons, like chris angel, lol.. i make joke sorta, back then someone who could make a shekel after swallowing it appear out of his forearm could be the next holy man of God, so to speak.
I guess the point is, that God does not adhere to that frame of reference any more, times have changed and that OT covenant and its law has ended. Jesus said on the cross, "it is finished" and 'love your neighbor and your enemies'. I am so convinced of this that i will go on record as saying "God will never tell anyone to kill anyone under any circumstance or in any situation for any reason, so if people claim that God told them to kill that person, they are completely wrong because the God of the bible will not say that".
You will go on record? How do we find out if you are right or wrong, BO? I mean, seriously? What do you have to lose by "going on record" here?
We could just wait until we hear someone say it, then we can remember that i went on record to refute it... If i heard someone say that to me i would tell them to their face they are wrong. Does that help?
Dang is this MOOOTED then?
I hope not.
There are no unblemished Christians.
Your example gives no indication that this could be true.
If fruit is how Christians manifest their godly relationship, then where is it? I see nothing but judgement and intolerance posted by many of those who claim to be Christian. Love is not slamming someone for their beliefs or for what part of the world they live in. Fruit is desirable, something you want, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/fruit-of-the-spirit.htm It should be more apparent?
Maybe quite a few Christians haven't reached that maturity in their spiritual lives. To take aim at others would indicate rotten, decaying fruit.
It would be unloving of me to let you go to hell without warning you.
I'm sorry, but you have no control over my life. You have no idea what I believe or how I live my life. Nor do I believe in hell. Hell means grave. There is no burning pit, what kind of god who claims to be all love oversees an eternal pit of fire? Look, you can believe whatever you want, but don't tell others they're going to hell if they don't believe you.
My point is, where's the fruit for others to see, the fruit that indicates you ( any Christian) live a godly life?
God will be our judge as He will be yours.
Well, my god Moe is getting ready to go over and whip your god's ass. He's tired of your god giving all of the other gods a bad name. None of the other gods knock up 13 year old virgins or drown everything on the planet.
If you do indeed talk to your guy, you better straighten him out. Otherwise, he'll have to go stay awhile with the last troublemaker they had problems with in heaven. Just felt I needed to warn you.
Thanks, really. You've warned us enough, so no additional warnings are necessary. Please let all the other born-agains know that you've warned us already so they can save their breath, too.
I'm with you Rebekah, I can't actually see that it matters what religion this guy is or says he is. He's a murderer.
But to wade in behalf of Catholics, having been brought up as one I can assure you that Catholics regard themselves and refer to themselves as Christians. As they believe in Jesus and follow his teachings, why wouldn't they? Don't forget that Catholicism has been around for a very long time and used to be the only Christian religion in Europe, and that all Protestant churches are basically just offshoots, even fundamentalists.
Yes but they do not regard jesus as diety. They incorporate mary worship and artifacts (idolatry) and pray to dead saints who can neither help nor hear, they rely on works - confession being one of them. Their communion is closed, only for catholics - which is not correct and other sundry wrong doctrines.
I must clear up jesus as deity, jesus was God in the flesh, and jesus having died on the cross must not take second place to mary's immaculate heart - which is not scriptural either.
Sprinkling of infants is not a baptism
no one is born catholic nor into the kingdom of heaven by physical birth.
Protestantism emerged from a wrong relgion and nothing has changed to make them join again.
Yes catholicism was around for a very long time but only because they kept the bible out of the hands of the people, interpreted it they way they wanted to and murdered thousands if not millions to keep control <-- definitely not what jesus preached. One cannot determine a good religion as being correct because it was around for a very long time, the early church of pentecost, acts chapter 2 predates catholicism by 100yrs.
O'Reilly makes several good points. No proof is provided that killer was a practicing Christian.
Bree's bigotry against other religions (in fact her own..though she fails to see her own ridiculousness) is quite sad to observe...
Without Catholocism there would be no "Western Christianity" or Protestantism... To deny Catholics their "Christian-ness" is pure folly...
Bree speaks of "historical Christianity" but overwhelmingly proves that she hasn't a clue as to what this term means...
In terms of Muslims...they are following Abrahamic tradition...as are Jews, and as are many Christian sects... Bree's ignorance (willfull I would wager) regarding Islam is plain to see...
Hatemongering (as seen through Bree's mentality) is hardly "Christian"......oh, wait a minute....that's largely what it historically has been...
Couldn't have said it better myself. Put me down for a +1
You can't even get my name right, I am not surprised that you don't know your history either!
the early church in acts chapter 2 predates the abomination of pagan incorporated catholicism which even contained many other horrendous books in their bible. Much deception. So to say that christianity would not be around without catholicism is not correct. If the church in rome which became roman catholic (catholic meaning universal - and included pagan beliefs on purpose) had not become at all, the Christian church of acts 2 would have been far better off and so would many many many other people, especially those alive during the inquisiton - which was catholic driven and not protestant driven.
The early church you are speaking about, was based off of the Judaic faiths, which was based off of pagan practices in it's beginnings as well. And the protestant version of the Christian faith didn't come about until the late 1500's which was after the Inquisition which started in the 12th century. The witch trials of salem was protestant based though.
The early church of pentecost chapter 2 is under influence of God. His disciples are the main leaders and the baptism of the Holy Ghost bears them witness. The letters we read today as NT were written by them, inspired of their belief in God.
Judiac faith was countered by the early church. Christianity is far removed from judaic belief as they were all moses, moses, moses, and law, law, law and peter in acts chapter 15 said "why put a yoke upon the gentiles that neither our fathers or we are able to bear" and circumcision was made non binding. There were a lot of beliefs trying to infiltrate the early church, they battled royally.
No, my friend, there is a big difference between the early church and what rome decided to bring about or what the judiasers thought best to do.
The protestant faith is painfully slow at separating from catholicism and getting back to the early church which catholicism did much to hurt.
I am uncertain about the salem witch trials.. so much for my knowing everything.
dang double.. now you got me all curious about the salem witch trials
1. any of the more extreme English Protestants, most of whom were CALVANISTS, who wished to purify the Church of England of most of its ceremony and other aspects that they deemed to be Catholic.
2. the established church in England, Catholic in faith and order, but incorporating many principles of the Protestant Reformation and independent of the papacy.
3 Puritans in new colonial america.
How interesting is that.
Oddly i have trouble with calvinist belief system.
The same old "he wasn't a real Christian like me" argument. Sorry Brie, but you cannot decide this for others. Unless of course, you will grant this same privilege to others concerning your own true Christianity.
I don't believe you would like this, though.
And your attitude about your personal judgement of other Christians "says it all." And, you are judging me by my avatar and snake smilie?
You do look a lot like Sarah Palin. Think like her too, apparently. You betcha!
I don't think she was judging you by your avatar. She just said it suited you, she was complementing your choice of befitting avs. We need not look to far to notice that you purposely picked the snake avatar to describe you, so one might say, you judged yourself.
Bree is correct to stamp on catholicism the same way many stamp on christian science, mormonism and jehovahs witness to name a few main stream cults.
Sometimes truths are hard to hear, harder to accept and often quickly dismissed when painful. God bless all these people in these channels of belief but they need to come out of these wrong teachings before rightfully gaining the title of christian according to the scriptural pattern. Oh yes, God has patterns and ways, you bet.
so when you say that she is wrong to judge other christians (recall we are talking about a mass murderer here), but she speaks the truth are you not doubly wrong to judge her, without sufficient evidence to either know or prove that she is wrong? (which she is not
food for thought
have a nice day
Thanks Brotheryochanan for coming to my defense!
Sure BO, I merely gave Brie a dose of her own attitude. Christians do not like to be judged as they judge others. Take yourself, for instance. You assume I took my avatar because I identify myself with a snake, or a serpent, if it seems more biblical to you.
But as usual, you are wrong, BO. I started writing about reptiles because I encounter them frequently and find them fascinating, similar to the way I feel about you christians.
Both have certain scary aspects, but Christians are much more venomous when cornered. Ergo my avatar.
If Im cranky ,make the lions all made of chocolate roarrr..lol
How odd that is randy because checking your hubs i found 4 out of 99 on snakes and checking 10 pages of hubtivity i find you are all over the christian forums about 96% of the time.
so please, do not tell me the snake av does or did not give you a smirk, and that the snakey coiled at the bottom is not intended to smite christians, lol.. smite.. hehe
If you picked your most popular animal you would be a deer i think
But i am glad you did mention that the snake has something to do with your feelings towards christians.
No offense intended. I just needed to address the post concerning judging. I don't think brie has an attitude. Honesty can be misinterpreted often. Did jesus have attitude toward the pharisees? I think he had attitude toward their belief system because whenever a pharisee, Nicodemus for example, approached him, he treated Nico like a human deserving respect. I thought you jumped on brie without cause, again no offense.
No offense taken, BO. I think we both have communicated here enough to take what the other says with a grain of salt, and humor too, I hope.
But really, I used the snake avatar as a whim because my wife didn't want me to use my real photo here. I had just written a hub about local snakes and simply used one of the photos for my avatar.
But after I observed how those of your cult seemed to detest the snake, I decided to keep it. Not to mention, it is a bit harder to gain followers using such an avatar as many people simply do not like snakes. So, I consider it sort of a personal challenge to myself.
So what's the story on your "corpse" avatar? There's gotta be one.
I, as a Christian, declare that fundamentalists are, indeed, not real Christians at all. As a Christian, I apparently have that right. May I suggest Judaism for everyone in this thread whose religion I have just displaced?
(That was for you Randy.)
Hmm, Christianity just got more appealing. Assuming the fundamentalists do as they've been told.
Not me, Melissa. I started my own religion of Stoogism, as you well know! Moe would not take it kindly of you suggesting I switch to one of the more violent religions, such as Christianity or Judaism. Have you met Moe Jr.? He loves you, you know.
Why not switch to the faith of laughter and happiness? No virgins required.
I'm sorry Randy, I didn't mean to imply anything negative about stoogism. You of course are exempt from all christian fundamentalists not being christian because you weren't a christian to begin with. May Moe be with you!
@Sherlock, you are right of course but calling them "zealots" tends to ruffle their feathers.
@Brothery... dang thats a lot of mooting.
Nope, never have been a christian, but I was baptized in a river by a preacher once. That's okay about the Stoogism slur. My people are used to it coming from Christians. They don't understand the placidity and lack of self righteousness in our faith. Go figger.
Phew-did BO moot again?
I think all of us now use "fundamentalist" incorrectly. Literally, a fundamentalist means someone who believes in the fundamentals of a faith. For a Christian, this will include the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, when the world became used the the term Muslim fundamentalist, fundamentalism is associated with extremism.
The point being...that for many "sins" death was the punishment and was condoned by God.
And exactly who was he talking to when he said this?
He was talking a small group of people that he had pulled aside from the rest of the worlds population.
Before this he told them to cross the red/reed sea.
Do I have to go and cross the red sea in order to follow Gods will?
A lot o things have changed sinse then.
Is the spelling of your name the only comment you can make in response to my statement?
I figured as such...
No, I've just decided that there is no use talking to people who are willfully ignorant.
Projection is a concern you should address Brie...
Pride cometh before the fall....false pride falls faster..
If I were to say anything else I would be lying...
"...Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast...(1Co 5:7,8)
How many "Christians" here celebrate Passover....or still follow the seventh day sabbath?
None of this was done away with.... The "Apostle" Paul kept the feasts and Ten Commandment bounded Holy Day, and instructed his followers to do the same... Jesus celebrated them until his death, and continued to do so after the crucifixion, until the day he supposedly ascended to heaven...
"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the Most High God:" (Ge 14:18) in conjunction with:
"For he testifieth, Thou (Jesus) art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7:17).
There also continue to be firm directives on what "followers of the Lord" can eat...or cannot..."clean and unclean"... Again
These are the simple rules and customs that were set up...that were never abolished...regardless of what most "Christians" commonly believe...
Where is the Biblical directive to stop following the specific customs and laws that are found in both the Old and New Testaments?
Do the Council of Nicea and anti-Semitism trump the "word of God"?
We will begin the discussion of "historical Christianity" here and move forward...
Regardless of the tangent, the loon who carried out the atrocities in Norway..his identity was founded in Christianity...he likened himself to the Knights Templar...who were solely Christian.."defending against Islam"....as the bomber views his actions..
The passover is communion.
Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luke 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
the passover feast became the communion of wine and bread in remembrance of Him.
Jesus celebrated them (the feasts) until his death, and continued to do so after the crucifixion, until the day he ascended to heaven.
the new testament was not operating in full until the day of pentecost 40 days after jesus resurrection. Jesus was under the law until while he lived not after.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away (ascend), the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." This is acts 2, pentecost, the arrival of the holy ghost, the comforter and the begining of joel 2:23.
Where is the Biblical directive to stop following the specific customs and laws that are found in both the Old and New Testaments?
Its called the new testament which means different, new, another. Jesus on the cross is the last sacrifice to end all sacrifices and when jesus said on the cross "it is finished" he was talking about the OT rules, festivals and laws, the whole thing, not just part or select bits.
......does eating seafood ruin a persons walk with God today?
Do the Council of Nicea and anti-Semitism trump the "word of God"?
Only to catholics
The knights templar were catholic not christian.
The keeping of the sabbath day was because that is when the word of God, OT was preached and the people came together then not because this was a stipulation until christ came back.
So, because it says "New Testament", the doctrines set down by God, reinforced through Jesus and engrained through the examples of Paul and the apostles following Jesus' death are done away with?
Not so.... Communion as it pertains to Catholocism is a creation of Nicea.... Not the "word of God"... Which is the vital source?
Where are the proofs of your claim that the words "New Testament" mean "no more feasts"?
The words "it is finished" can be understood many differnt ways...and the words of Paul and post-death customs of the apostles show that your translation is inadequate... This isn't intended as a slur towards you, however I would like more substantive support for your claim.
As for the seventh day sabbath....your response to my statement does not address what I said... The laws of God have not changed...if one is following the Catholic-Post Nicea Sunday, then one is following "Pagans" over the Prophets...
Catholics are Christians.... Greek, Armenian, and Russian Orthodox are also Christians...as are Copts.. Protestants can try to usurp the title....but without Catholics there is no Protestantism...there is no "Jesus" at all... Western/Northern Europeans would still be pagan...
The Knights Templar were Christian, and their legacy inspires Catholics and Protestants alike...perhaps not all, but I would argue most..
NO..the only people who are Christians are those who are BORN AGAIN..Jesus said so!
Jesus said a lot of things. Funny how the few that get discussed by born again Christians are the ones they can use to insist they are better than others.
You can argue until the sun goes down. It doesn't change the fact that you don't get to define the word Christian.
Maybe he said that, but I doubt it. I really cannot see him viewing your attitude as being Christian, if he did exist. If so, I'll pass on your cult.
By all means don't take my word for it:
(Joh 3:3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
(Joh 3:5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
You are not passing on "my cult" you are passing up your only access to eternal life. I hope you change your mind before you die.
Got anything other than an old novel to prove your statements? I mean, anyone could, and did, write fictional stories about Jr. I would like something substantial, if you don't mind.
I simply won't take your word for it, especially with the attitude you have towards others who don't buy in to your cult.
If you do not believe the words of Jesus, no other person will you believe either.
I've never heard Jesus say anything and why in heck would I take YOUR word for anything? I mean, seriously? What great things have you accomplished which would make me have faith in your opinion, Brie?
And your point is? So it's in an old book, so what? It's an old book which is full of myths and downright plagiarism from older religions. The NT was written long after Jesus was supposed to have existed. The writers are unknown. Live with it.
If I remember correctly, there is a verse that says "if you break one commandment (referring to the 10 Commandments), you have broken them all"...
If you don't keep the sabbath (the seventh day of the week) as those commandments state, then it doesn't matter how "born again" one presumes to be..
Paul is clear in his directions, as are Jesus and the apostles... One can either follow the example or not...
I choose to disregard all of this personally...
Whether you like it or not, all who follow Jesus are Christians, whether they are Gnostics, Nestorians, Pentacostals or Roman Catholics...
You're claiming otherwise is simply an opinion...nothing more..
The essence of the Bible, both testaments, is time...a calendar was created...and it is still in motion.
The Catholics are not perfect in their interpretation of Christianity...but, in the Western sense, they created it.. Protestantism benefitted (if one can say so) from having something already established to critique... The church that I belonged to in the past baptized not at birth, but at some point in adulthood when the person is ready and able to make the commitment that such a decision entails... Yet, we also followed the seventh day sabbath and the feasts of Passover, Tabernacles, and Pentecost..among others.
Again, the Western Church decided to move Saturday to Sunday and remove the traditional feasts out of a desire to separate themselves from the Jews...anti-Semitism...not because they had anything valid in terms of doctrine...
All who claim to follow Jesus (whether they claim him to be the "Christ" or just some special guy, like the Nestorians) are Christian..
You don't have to like it...
It's difficult to presume things out of words only. I think it's better to have his document and check his biography just to determine his real religion. But no matter what religion he has, whether Christian or Muslim what he did is insanity. Killing of more than 90 people is unforgivable!
Awesome. I wonder why christians don't apply this logic while blaming islamics or any other person. Personal relationship ? lol.
Well its a bit like family -
You can pick your friends ,but ya cant pick your family
Guy who failed to save his own life from mere mortals and died more than 500 years ago, maintains personal relationship with people in 2011. Cool. Find someone else for this BS. Thank you.
Is this SOP? I don't frequent the religious forums, so I don't know. I think I'll refrain from clicking on a religious thread until I have the forum filter back in action, and I can't see them!
Very often, yes! There are some interesting discussions, but rarely do they involve the Christianists, militant atheists, or the like.
It's why I generally have this forum blocked. People should be allowed to believe whatever they choose without being 'warned' or ridiculed. I think if more time were given to individual growth, there may be more harmony in the world.. which I know is highly improbable.
I studied the Bible in college along with other religious texts in World Religion classes. The Bible is an Eastern book, full of orientalisms from Eastern culture. The Western mind doesn't understand much of the Bible because we don't understand their culture, their customs and mannerisms. Even the word hell and pit. I think very often some people choose to forget that Jesus was born in the Middle East.
You know, if it bothers you so much you are free to leave..or maybe start your own post.
this bother me? no, it's craziness. You seem to believe you have some elitist power over others. Religion is nothing more than beliefs. I won't waste anymore time here.
Aw come on Rebekah, Brie's not serious. No one can be that dingy in real life, not even her heroine Sarah Palin. Tell her you aren't serious, Brie! Just kiddin' right?
Dead serious..seems like you both enjoy the arguing otherwise why haunt these posts. I mean I don't waste my time on atheists posts...maybe you need something to do!
Very true. People forget that evangelical Christianity is basically a collection of English sects that make their cultural origins clear. It would be near impossible to convince one of them that Jesus didn't speak Middle English and have light brown hair and blue eyes.
As a person who was raised with Catholicism but is now Jewish, the interpretation of many Biblical stories, like Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc are starkly different, I think mostly due to Judaism's linkage to the historical context and the original-language text.
Jesus was so a white man! With blond hair and blue eyes... walking around in the middle east... God granted him AMAZING sunblock.
yep, its pretty much SOP...
Someone is irrational, someone is going to burn in hell, yada yada yada...
Hey LL, didn't see you til after I posted. How is my favorite little heathen?
Good! Or, I guess, evil. Which is good. Wow, I need to be careful about what I'm absorbing around here. You?
Nasty migraine which I'm medicating the hell out of. My girlfriend has her bachlorette party this Friday and I really would like to go with writhing in pain from the live band.
I think you are pretty safe from conversion... considering the folks that are trying to do the converting
Oh, man - I've never had a migraine but know several that suffer from them. Hope it's over soon!
Yeah, I'm completely safe from conversion at this point. I don't think any of us are going to suddenly think day is night or up is down, no matter how often they repeat it on Fox News.
I suggest if you don't like people to disagree with you that you find a nice born again forum, i'm sure they exist. And before you complain, you are basically telling those who disagree with you to do that...
I see Christians disagreeing with you too. Where should they go?
Hey LL. Say I become a Messianic Jew. Hypothetically speaking, I still get my place in heaven (as granted by the OT), I still get to believe in Christ, and I don't have to have my religion twisted and perverted by zealots. And I what, have to give up pork and have 8 days of winter holiday instead of one? Am I missing a downside somewhere?
Are you playing Pascal's Wager in this scenario? If so, you should simultaneously pray to Mecca 5 times a day, avoid eating beef, and consider meditating to cover all possible bases.
But, seriously, Messianic Jews is just a variant of Southern Baptists. It was invented by them in the 20th century to try to convert Jews and confuse everyone else, and theologically they're identical to each other. PLENTY of MJ zealots (IMHO Baptists tend to be pretty bad, too).
I personally think whatever you're doing now seems to be working beautifully for you, although I know your post was tongue-in-cheek.
How is nothing that I said true?
Is there not the firm placing of the seventh day in the creation story...the very first week, carried on up to and past Jesus?
Remember, the first Christians...the original Christians were Jews..and they did not change to Sunday worship, stop following the feasts, or start celebrating Christmas or Easter..
The 10 Commandments are pretty clear...
Constantine changed the Saturday to Sunday holy day a year before Nicea...
Do you celebrate Easter? Or rather, the birthday of Eostur?
Three days and three nights in the belly of the earth (Jesus' entombment, corresponding to Jonah's entrapment in the belly of the fish in the Old Testament) turned into a day and a half....
Paganism... "Thou shalt have none other gods before me"...
That's two commandments down....
Looking at the earliest Christians we know anything about:
“The Ebionite Christians [...] believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. They also believed that to belong to the people of God, one needed to be Jewish. As a result, they insisted on observing the Sabbath, keeping kosher, and circumcising all males. [...] An early source, Irenaeus, also reports that the Ebionites continued to reverence Jerusalem, evidently by praying in its direction during their daily acts of worship.
Their insistence on staying (or becoming) Jewish should not seem especially peculiar from a historical perspective, since Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. But the Ebionites' Jewishness did not endear them to most other Christians, who believed that Jesus allowed them to bypass the requirements of the Law for salvation. The Ebionites, however, maintained that their views were authorized by the original disciples, especially by Peter and Jesus' own brother, James, head of the Jerusalem church after the resurrection.”
"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)5
Regardless of this exchange...
What I have attempted to show through this dialogue is that there is no true consensus as to what "Christianity" is...
However, everyone else who claims to be one is also a Christian...
I am not a Christian... Since you claim to be one, you are one...though the Ebionites wouldn't agree with me...
(Rom 3:19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
(Rom 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
(Rom 3:21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
(Rom 3:22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
(Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(Rom 3:24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
(Rom 3:25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(Rom 3:26) To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(Rom 3:27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(Rom 3:28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
by lucieanne6 years ago
After reading and contributing to so many posts about Christianity on here I'd love for someone to answer this question. Which form (if any)of Christianity is the real deal? It's one thing to get into heated debates...
by Evolution Guy6 years ago
http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/oslo- … or-terror/More proof this religion is dangerous to others as well as the people who follow it.
by Elizabeth2 years ago
How can the Bible be considered proofI would say that 8 out of ten times when discussing proof of god with a theist, they quote the Bible. In my perspective, the Bible is the collection of claims...
by Melissa Barrett3 years ago
It was suggested to me that I start a thread about my own faith... I think that's a wonderful idea. Christianity, which was always fractured at best, has largely broken down into the progressives vs. the...
by Paul Wingert3 months ago
I heard this on the radio and shook my head. Bring your Bible to school and do what? Show everyone that you can't distinguish fact from fiction? Here's a novel idea, how about bring your textbook instead and leave the...
by Mark6 years ago
Over the last few months, I have been wondering what would happen to the Christian belief, if the body of Jesus was to be discovered. And he did not die as described in the bible. And along with the discovery of the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.