Christian BS

[acs267]

Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if
religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.

-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.

We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.

Actually, we only keep the moral rules from the OT.

In our beliefs Jesus made a new covenant on the cross, so the OT is... outdated.

But, Jesus isn't God and the Bible/your law is supposed to be God's word. I don't get it, I don't know of any scripture that says you should listen to the NT over the OT, or to listen to Jesus' law. And, since he made a new covenant, wouldn't you be disobeying the old covenant, too?

What if, since there's not publishing date of the Bible, the NT was published before the OT?

[h4xx0r]

Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if
religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.

-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.

We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.

Actually, we only keep the moral rules from the OT.

In our beliefs Jesus made a new covenant on the cross, so the OT is... outdated.

But, Jesus isn't God and the Bible/your law is supposed to be God's word. I don't get it, I don't know of any scripture that says you should listen to the NT over the OT, or to listen to Jesus' law. And, since he made a new covenant, wouldn't you be disobeying the old covenant, too?

What if, since there's not publishing date of the Bible, the NT was published before the OT?

Jesus died for our sins according to the new testament, therefore a new pact between God and man was born. atleast thats what i got from reading it as a young man.

[vokain]

What I got out of it recently was that He died so that no one else would have to necessarily die like He did for Man to change the lives around us  in as meaningful a way as He was written to do, i.e. because He died(/lived)for us, we too now know how to be/live/die like Jesus. I haven't read the Book of John yet but I was told that Jesus's true mission is explained therein.

[BADecker]

What I got out of it recently was that He died so that no one else would have to necessarily die like He did for Man to change the lives around us  in as meaningful a way as He was written to do, i.e. because He died(/lived)for us, we too now know how to be/live/die like Jesus. I haven't read the Book of John yet but I was told that Jesus's true mission is explained therein.

The final answers are in the Revelation. But watch out! It is literal and figurative mixed. You have to watch for the hints when it is changing from one to the other.

The simple jist of the Revelation is, this universe is going to be destroyed in a lake of fire. All evil will be destroyed therein, as well. While it doesn't say it at all clearly, the lake of fire is God "melting" down everything in this universe so that He can get His "energy" back out of it.

There will be a new Heavens and a new Earth. No evil will be allowed to enter. The saved will be there with God forever, in joy and glory.

All the rest of the Bible has to do with the method to get to the new Heavens and the new Earth. There are examples of how people and circumstances will try to hinder you. There are examples of how you can bring other people to be saved so that you stand a chance of receiving "extra" glory in the new Place. God's Spirit actually comes into your heart more firmly as you study the Bible.

[DhaniBoy]

the true religion of Islam and the Koran and religious enhance previous books, in the Qur'an, it is mentioned that as a complement religion and book in advance then derive the Islamic religion and the Koran as a guide to human life, hopefully we can all take a lesson from all of these events ... 

[vokain]

^Baha'i?

[awesome31312]

I've always wondered how Christians come to terms with books or sections lost, censored, and/or banned by early Catholics. The Bible's known to be incomplete, so how can someone take a leadership role of moral authority if the moral authority comes from an incomplete ruleset?

Look up the Gnostic texts, it's a whole new series that the Christians had tried to get rid of

[BADecker]

I've always wondered how Christians come to terms with books or sections lost, censored, and/or banned by early Catholics. The Bible's known to be incomplete, so how can someone take a leadership role of moral authority if the moral authority comes from an incomplete ruleset?

Look up the Gnostic texts, it's a whole new series that the Christians had tried to get rid of

It's hard enough keeping the Word pure when translating into different languages. We are blessed that God guided a lot of honest scholars to keep all that "junk" from being added to the Scriptures.

[BADecker]

Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if
religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.

-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.

We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.

Actually, we only keep the moral rules from the OT.

In our beliefs Jesus made a new covenant on the cross, so the OT is... outdated.

But, Jesus isn't God and the Bible/your law is supposed to be God's word. I don't get it, I don't know of any scripture that says you should listen to the NT over the OT, or to listen to Jesus' law. And, since he made a new covenant, wouldn't you be disobeying the old covenant, too?

What if, since there's not publishing date of the Bible, the NT was published before the OT?

The Old Testament of the Bible was written over a period of about 1,100 years, roughly between 1,500 and 400 B.C.  Jewish traditions and the writings of the church fathers of old confirm this. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain parts of Bible books that were placed there as early as 400 B.C.

Jesus, Himself, says that He is God, the Son of God, in the New Testament. Jesus' close disciples state the same, and others have understood it as well. Traditionally, the church says the same, way back near its beginnings.

The Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament. The thread of the Messiah, Jesus, runs throughout the OT, right from the beginning. Believe in God according to the New Testament. Confirm your faith by the writings of the Old.

The Books of Moses - the first 5 books of the Bible - were/contained a covenant between God and the people of Israel. The people of Israel broke this covenant over and over. The evidence of this is in the rest of the Old Testament.

The New Testament is the new covenant between God and man, since people would not keep the old covenant. The new covenant (NT) exists in the body of the God/man, Jesus Christ. In this way (combining God and man in Jesus), and for His own purposes, God forced the covenant to be kept by man, even though individual people will not do it. It was done in the body of Jesus by the perfect life that He lived before God, and by His innocent suffering and death, and resurrection to everlasting life.

[awesome31312]

I've always wondered how Christians come to terms with books or sections lost, censored, and/or banned by early Catholics. The Bible's known to be incomplete, so how can someone take a leadership role of moral authority if the moral authority comes from an incomplete ruleset?

Look up the Gnostic texts, it's a whole new series that the Christians had tried to get rid of

It's hard enough keeping the Word pure when translating into different languages. We are blessed that God guided a lot of honest scholars to keep all that "junk" from being added to the Scriptures.

The best part is when they "translate" things so it looks like "Oh, gay people don't get stoned under Biblical law. The Hebrew word was 'fondled'"

[the joint]

Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if not outright counter to ideology held by most of today's modern Christians. Instead, it's a set of rules guided by men, often at conferences where they talk about which rules to ignore in the Bible like it's a US attorney general talking about which rules of the Constitution to ignore, whose rules are relayed (either in these conferences or through television/pamphlets/whatever) by pastors/deacons/whatever to members of this voluntary government. This is true of all religions I'm aware of.

-So when they talk about their religious customs or opinions extrapolated from any religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.

-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.

We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.

Christianity isn't Christianity like it was 2000 years ago because, as secularism has spread, politics has become the replacement. and money/power is God.

Seriously.  The parallels between religious and secular/political dominion, governance, and worship are astonishing.  All of the dogma is the same, just wrapped in a different package.  It's pretty hard to keep a populous in squalor for 2,000 years by keeping them gleeful by telling them the more poor they are the easier it will be to find salvation.  It's much easier to let people spend themselves silly into squalor.

Good post.  Mine is just a tangential comment.

[BADecker]

Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if not outright counter to ideology held by most of today's modern Christians. Instead, it's a set of rules guided by men, often at conferences where they talk about which rules to ignore in the Bible like it's a US attorney general talking about which rules of the Constitution to ignore, whose rules are relayed (either in these conferences or through television/pamphlets/whatever) by pastors/deacons/whatever to members of this voluntary government. This is true of all religions I'm aware of.

-So when they talk about their religious customs or opinions extrapolated from any religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.

-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.

We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.

Christianity isn't Christianity like it was 2000 years ago because, as secularism has spread, politics has become the replacement. and money/power is God.

Seriously.  The parallels between religious and secular/political dominion, governance, and worship are astonishing.  All of the dogma is the same, just wrapped in a different package.  It's pretty hard to keep a populous in squalor for 2,000 years by keeping them gleeful by telling them the more poor they are the easier it will be to find salvation.  It's much easier to let people spend themselves silly into squalor.

Good post.  Mine is just a tangential comment.

Real Christianity has to do with following the ways of Jesus... especially the part about believing and accepting Him for salvation in the resurrection.

Secular Christianity involves all the things that you say. True Christianity involves my previous paragraph. Both can be active in a person, but the more he becomes spiritually involved with true Christianity, the more secular Christianity will fade from his life.

[the joint]

Christianity today isn't what Christianity was 2000 years ago. Most Christians don't want to admit this, but wouldn't adhere to "Real Christianity." Much of it's irrelevant if not outright counter to ideology held by most of today's modern Christians. Instead, it's a set of rules guided by men, often at conferences where they talk about which rules to ignore in the Bible like it's a US attorney general talking about which rules of the Constitution to ignore, whose rules are relayed (either in these conferences or through television/pamphlets/whatever) by pastors/deacons/whatever to members of this voluntary government. This is true of all religions I'm aware of.

-So when they talk about their religious customs or opinions extrapolated from any religious text, I think it's worth respecting insofar as it's worth respecting that they willfully submit to a set of rules which generally command they act in a way the rest of us would consider moral. Geography-based, non-voluntary governments aren't generally accepted to enforce "non-pragmatic morality" (... .... though this thought seems to be eroding every day), so it's reasonable to have "gap coverage" for people who want a more comprehensive set of rules we "all" agree on. The value of religion, though, erodes dramatically if they don't command a high market share with regards to the adherent market.

-But it should be sold that way, these days, I think, if it's to be honest. It should just be a kind of honor code, and if you want to have a bumper sticker saying you adhere to the set of rules, and even if you try to "convert" people to accept your honor code -- great! At least everyone else can know what to expect. ... I'm not totally put off to the idea that honor codes should exist... but the books of most religions are far too long, and in archaic language. The Bible, I'd guess, could probably be compressed to ~20 pages at most.

We all want these kinds of rulesets to some extent, I think. Some want the exhaustive Bible list (or just the 10 Commandments), some want the exhaustive list in the Koran... some have their own individual codes (or as they interpret the NAP)... some go by mafia codes... some go by law. If we could just all agree on what is and isn't the behavior of an asshole, I'd guess there'd be no conflict.

Christianity isn't Christianity like it was 2000 years ago because, as secularism has spread, politics has become the replacement. and money/power is God.

Seriously.  The parallels between religious and secular/political dominion, governance, and worship are astonishing.  All of the dogma is the same, just wrapped in a different package.  It's pretty hard to keep a populous in squalor for 2,000 years by keeping them gleeful by telling them the more poor they are the easier it will be to find salvation.  It's much easier to let people spend themselves silly into squalor.

Good post.  Mine is just a tangential comment.

Real Christianity has to do with following the ways of Jesus... especially the part about believing and accepting Him for salvation in the resurrection.

Secular Christianity involves all the things that you say. True Christianity involves my previous paragraph. Both can be active in a person, but the more he becomes spiritually involved with true Christianity, the more secular Christianity will fade from his life.

I'd pretty much agree with this.

To me, *Christ*ianity is about Christ and the New Testament (mostly the book of Matthew).  Jesus is A-OK in my book.

[awesome31312]

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is

[Kluge]

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is

Not applicable. Almost every Christian adheres to (... or rather, is supposed to) an explicit ruleset created in the New Testament along with some additional axioms carried over from the Old Testament. Each denomination has specific interpretations (by man) providing a strict ruleset, but obviously, there can be only one truth with regards to God's and Christ's intentions, and most denominations declare their ruleset follows that intent. For example, some denominations have rules where phrasing that last sentence as "God's and Christ's" would be blasphemy, and there would be no room for interpretation because their men have interpreted the intent of God's and Christ's intent in that way. -But most denominations have liberalized over the years, some even becoming secular/"non-denominational," conceding morality in exchange for a larger member base accepting a vague, flexible - useless - ruleset.

As I was raised, a Catholic wouldn't be considered a true Christian because of their repeat violations both explicitly in their laws and implicitly by actions done in the name of Christ (rather, the Pope and, in older times, government controlling the pope). They've scrubbed Christ's words for their own ends and functioned as an authoritarian, militant government with some ridiculous claim that they have the authority to kill people before living through their natural life and possessing all opportunities to accept their obligations as was intended by God. They're considered idolaters who insist on putting decadent false prophets before Christ, and are necessarily disconnected from the message of Christ. I mean -- forget Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Confucians, and Buddhists, because these Catholics are running around like wolves in sheep's clothing who all need to be explicitly excommunicated - at least everyone else has a different ruleset. -but I was raised Baptist (really, Anabaptist) with a strong iconoclast sentiment pounded into us where a church owning property is itself a sinful act. It's not "no true Christian," it's "here're the rules you've institutionalized violation of, thus becoming a puppet of the devil." There wasn't some exhaustive text on what kind of ideas and rules you had to accept to be a Scot, but there are exhaustive texts on what you need to accept to be a Christian.

Incidentally, I haven't fully shaken Baptism from my own code. I found myself mildly offended when a great-aunt-in-law "baptized" my daughter when she was an infant (she didn't realize she was seen), not because my daughter was being involuntarily associated with stupid Christian rituals with absolutely zero effect, but because it made a statement to God that she accepted Christ and His ruleset without her being able to declare it herself. It's like a government forcing someone to be a citizen because they were born in a certain location. -Like, she can't even speak and you violated her sacred obligation as a creation of God (which, by God, only she has liberty to reject or accept) -- the very idea that a Catholic implies they have God-given authority over my daughter's soul offended me, as well as being offended on God's behalf since I was raised to be very sure this was an explicit rule violation. I know it's dumb as Hell, but it initially struck me as a rule violation which'd piss God off, because now if she wants to make a commitment to adhere to Christianity, she has to reject the Catholic soul-fascism at her real baptism, which means I have to talk to her about why her great aunt is an unwitting agent of Satan.

[awesome31312]

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is

Not applicable. Almost every Christian adheres to (... or rather, is supposed to) an explicit ruleset created in the New Testament along with some additional axioms carried over from the Old Testament. Each denomination has specific interpretations (by man) providing a strict ruleset, but obviously, there can be only one truth with regards to God's and Christ's intentions, and most denominations declare their ruleset follows that intent. For example, some denominations have rules where phrasing that last sentence as "God's and Christ's" would be blasphemy, and there would be no room for interpretation because their men have interpreted the intent of God's and Christ's intent in that way. -But most denominations have liberalized over the years, some even becoming secular/"non-denominational," conceding morality in exchange for a larger member base accepting a vague, flexible - useless - ruleset.

As I was raised, a Catholic wouldn't be considered a true Christian because of their repeat violations both explicitly in their laws and implicitly by actions done in the name of Christ (rather, the Pope and, in older times, government controlling the pope). They've scrubbed Christ's words for their own ends and functioned as an authoritarian, militant government with some ridiculous claim that they have the authority to kill people before living through their natural life and possessing all opportunities to accept their obligations as was intended by God. They're considered idolaters who insist on putting decadent false prophets before Christ, and are necessarily disconnected from the message of Christ. I mean -- forget Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Confucians, and Buddhists, because these Catholics are running around like wolves in sheep's clothing who all need to be explicitly excommunicated - at least everyone else has a different ruleset. -but I was raised Baptist (really, Anabaptist) with a strong iconoclast sentiment pounded into us where a church owning property is itself a sinful act. It's not "no true Christian," it's "here're the rules you've institutionalized violation of, thus becoming a puppet of the devil." There wasn't some exhaustive text on what kind of ideas and rules you had to accept to be a Scot, but there are exhaustive texts on what you need to accept to be a Christian.

Incidentally, I haven't fully shaken Baptism from my own code. I found myself mildly offended when a great-aunt-in-law "baptized" my daughter when she was an infant (she didn't realize she was seen), not because my daughter was being involuntarily associated with stupid Christian rituals with absolutely zero effect, but because it made a statement to God that she accepted Christ and His ruleset without her being able to declare it herself. It's like a government forcing someone to be a citizen because they were born in a certain location. -Like, she can't even speak and you violated her sacred obligation as a creation of God (which, by God, only she has liberty to reject or accept) -- the very idea that a Catholic implies they have God-given authority over my daughter's soul offended me, as well as being offended on God's behalf since I was raised to be very sure this was an explicit rule violation. I know it's dumb as Hell, but it initially struck me as a rule violation which'd piss God off, because now if she wants to make a commitment to adhere to Christianity, she has to reject the Catholic soul-fascism at her real baptism, which means I have to talk to her about why her great aunt is an unwitting agent of Satan.

Part of that "rule-set" is to kill your son if he is caught listening to hip hop

[BADecker]

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is

Not applicable. Almost every Christian adheres to (... or rather, is supposed to) an explicit ruleset created in the New Testament along with some additional axioms carried over from the Old Testament. Each denomination has specific interpretations (by man) providing a strict ruleset, but obviously, there can be only one truth with regards to God's and Christ's intentions, and most denominations declare their ruleset follows that intent. For example, some denominations have rules where phrasing that last sentence as "God's and Christ's" would be blasphemy, and there would be no room for interpretation because their men have interpreted the intent of God's and Christ's intent in that way. -But most denominations have liberalized over the years, some even becoming secular/"non-denominational," conceding morality in exchange for a larger member base accepting a vague, flexible - useless - ruleset.

As I was raised, a Catholic wouldn't be considered a true Christian because of their repeat violations both explicitly in their laws and implicitly by actions done in the name of Christ (rather, the Pope and, in older times, government controlling the pope). They've scrubbed Christ's words for their own ends and functioned as an authoritarian, militant government with some ridiculous claim that they have the authority to kill people before living through their natural life and possessing all opportunities to accept their obligations as was intended by God. They're considered idolaters who insist on putting decadent false prophets before Christ, and are necessarily disconnected from the message of Christ. I mean -- forget Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Confucians, and Buddhists, because these Catholics are running around like wolves in sheep's clothing who all need to be explicitly excommunicated - at least everyone else has a different ruleset. -but I was raised Baptist (really, Anabaptist) with a strong iconoclast sentiment pounded into us where a church owning property is itself a sinful act. It's not "no true Christian," it's "here're the rules you've institutionalized violation of, thus becoming a puppet of the devil." There wasn't some exhaustive text on what kind of ideas and rules you had to accept to be a Scot, but there are exhaustive texts on what you need to accept to be a Christian.

Incidentally, I haven't fully shaken Baptism from my own code. I found myself mildly offended when a great-aunt-in-law "baptized" my daughter when she was an infant (she didn't realize she was seen), not because my daughter was being involuntarily associated with stupid Christian rituals with absolutely zero effect, but because it made a statement to God that she accepted Christ and His ruleset without her being able to declare it herself. It's like a government forcing someone to be a citizen because they were born in a certain location. -Like, she can't even speak and you violated her sacred obligation as a creation of God (which, by God, only she has liberty to reject or accept) -- the very idea that a Catholic implies they have God-given authority over my daughter's soul offended me, as well as being offended on God's behalf since I was raised to be very sure this was an explicit rule violation. I know it's dumb as Hell, but it initially struck me as a rule violation which'd piss God off, because now if she wants to make a commitment to adhere to Christianity, she has to reject the Catholic soul-fascism at her real baptism, which means I have to talk to her about why her great aunt is an unwitting agent of Satan.

Part of that "rule-set" is to kill your son if he is caught listening to hip hop

Most Bible Old Testament law was for Israel/Jews only.

Love for God above all things, and love for your fellow human being as yourself is for everyone.

The rules for non-Israel/non-Jews are:
1. abstain from food polluted by idols;
2. abstain from sexual immorality;
3. abstain from eating the meat of strangled animals;
4. abstain from eating blood.

Your choice is one of the 2 positions above... be a Jew or don't be one.

If you don't follow loving God above all things, and your fellow human being as yourself, you are lost. If you die without changing, you will be lost permanently. If you accept being a Jew, follow all the Jewish laws. If you don't want to be a Jew, then follow the 4 that are listed.

Everyone is required to love God above all things, and to love fellow human beings as himself/herself.

All this stuff about how God is requiring ridiculous stuff from everyone, is itself ridiculous. Follow what I have written here, and you will be just fine. The only other thing for eternal life is to believe in Jesus, that He will raise you from the dead to life.

Get off all this nonsensical bickering about how bad Jewish laws were for the Jews. If you are not a Jew, they don't apply to you, no matter what the churches say. Remember, church leaders go into training. And a lot of the training is in what the Jews believed. So, they can't help it when they tell you to do like Jews even though you are not Jews.

[vokain]

The basic gist in my opinion is "do good, be good".

[awesome31312]

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is

Not applicable. Almost every Christian adheres to (... or rather, is supposed to) an explicit ruleset created in the New Testament along with some additional axioms carried over from the Old Testament. Each denomination has specific interpretations (by man) providing a strict ruleset, but obviously, there can be only one truth with regards to God's and Christ's intentions, and most denominations declare their ruleset follows that intent. For example, some denominations have rules where phrasing that last sentence as "God's and Christ's" would be blasphemy, and there would be no room for interpretation because their men have interpreted the intent of God's and Christ's intent in that way. -But most denominations have liberalized over the years, some even becoming secular/"non-denominational," conceding morality in exchange for a larger member base accepting a vague, flexible - useless - ruleset.

As I was raised, a Catholic wouldn't be considered a true Christian because of their repeat violations both explicitly in their laws and implicitly by actions done in the name of Christ (rather, the Pope and, in older times, government controlling the pope). They've scrubbed Christ's words for their own ends and functioned as an authoritarian, militant government with some ridiculous claim that they have the authority to kill people before living through their natural life and possessing all opportunities to accept their obligations as was intended by God. They're considered idolaters who insist on putting decadent false prophets before Christ, and are necessarily disconnected from the message of Christ. I mean -- forget Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Confucians, and Buddhists, because these Catholics are running around like wolves in sheep's clothing who all need to be explicitly excommunicated - at least everyone else has a different ruleset. -but I was raised Baptist (really, Anabaptist) with a strong iconoclast sentiment pounded into us where a church owning property is itself a sinful act. It's not "no true Christian," it's "here're the rules you've institutionalized violation of, thus becoming a puppet of the devil." There wasn't some exhaustive text on what kind of ideas and rules you had to accept to be a Scot, but there are exhaustive texts on what you need to accept to be a Christian.

Incidentally, I haven't fully shaken Baptism from my own code. I found myself mildly offended when a great-aunt-in-law "baptized" my daughter when she was an infant (she didn't realize she was seen), not because my daughter was being involuntarily associated with stupid Christian rituals with absolutely zero effect, but because it made a statement to God that she accepted Christ and His ruleset without her being able to declare it herself. It's like a government forcing someone to be a citizen because they were born in a certain location. -Like, she can't even speak and you violated her sacred obligation as a creation of God (which, by God, only she has liberty to reject or accept) -- the very idea that a Catholic implies they have God-given authority over my daughter's soul offended me, as well as being offended on God's behalf since I was raised to be very sure this was an explicit rule violation. I know it's dumb as Hell, but it initially struck me as a rule violation which'd piss God off, because now if she wants to make a commitment to adhere to Christianity, she has to reject the Catholic soul-fascism at her real baptism, which means I have to talk to her about why her great aunt is an unwitting agent of Satan.

Part of that "rule-set" is to kill your son if he is caught listening to hip hop

Most Bible Old Testament law was for Israel/Jews only.

Love for God above all things, and love for your fellow human being as yourself is for everyone.

The rules for non-Israel/non-Jews are:
1. abstain from food polluted by idols;
2. abstain from sexual immorality;
3. abstain from eating the meat of strangled animals;
4. abstain from eating blood.

Your choice is one of the 2 positions above... be a Jew or don't be one.

If you don't follow loving God above all things, and your fellow human being as yourself, you are lost. If you die without changing, you will be lost permanently. If you accept being a Jew, follow all the Jewish laws. If you don't want to be a Jew, then follow the 4 that are listed.

Everyone is required to love God above all things, and to love fellow human beings as himself/herself.

All this stuff about how God is requiring ridiculous stuff from everyone, is itself ridiculous. Follow what I have written here, and you will be just fine. The only other thing for eternal life is to believe in Jesus, that He will raise you from the dead to life.

Get off all this nonsensical bickering about how bad Jewish laws were for the Jews. If you are not a Jew, they don't apply to you, no matter what the churches say. Remember, church leaders go into training. And a lot of the training is in what the Jews believed. So, they can't help it when they tell you to do like Jews even though you are not Jews.

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Are you saying the OT is obsolete? Does that mean incest is okay by God's command, since you know, the NT does not prohibit that anywhere?

[BADecker]

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is

Not applicable. Almost every Christian adheres to (... or rather, is supposed to) an explicit ruleset created in the New Testament along with some additional axioms carried over from the Old Testament. Each denomination has specific interpretations (by man) providing a strict ruleset, but obviously, there can be only one truth with regards to God's and Christ's intentions, and most denominations declare their ruleset follows that intent. For example, some denominations have rules where phrasing that last sentence as "God's and Christ's" would be blasphemy, and there would be no room for interpretation because their men have interpreted the intent of God's and Christ's intent in that way. -But most denominations have liberalized over the years, some even becoming secular/"non-denominational," conceding morality in exchange for a larger member base accepting a vague, flexible - useless - ruleset.

As I was raised, a Catholic wouldn't be considered a true Christian because of their repeat violations both explicitly in their laws and implicitly by actions done in the name of Christ (rather, the Pope and, in older times, government controlling the pope). They've scrubbed Christ's words for their own ends and functioned as an authoritarian, militant government with some ridiculous claim that they have the authority to kill people before living through their natural life and possessing all opportunities to accept their obligations as was intended by God. They're considered idolaters who insist on putting decadent false prophets before Christ, and are necessarily disconnected from the message of Christ. I mean -- forget Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Confucians, and Buddhists, because these Catholics are running around like wolves in sheep's clothing who all need to be explicitly excommunicated - at least everyone else has a different ruleset. -but I was raised Baptist (really, Anabaptist) with a strong iconoclast sentiment pounded into us where a church owning property is itself a sinful act. It's not "no true Christian," it's "here're the rules you've institutionalized violation of, thus becoming a puppet of the devil." There wasn't some exhaustive text on what kind of ideas and rules you had to accept to be a Scot, but there are exhaustive texts on what you need to accept to be a Christian.

Incidentally, I haven't fully shaken Baptism from my own code. I found myself mildly offended when a great-aunt-in-law "baptized" my daughter when she was an infant (she didn't realize she was seen), not because my daughter was being involuntarily associated with stupid Christian rituals with absolutely zero effect, but because it made a statement to God that she accepted Christ and His ruleset without her being able to declare it herself. It's like a government forcing someone to be a citizen because they were born in a certain location. -Like, she can't even speak and you violated her sacred obligation as a creation of God (which, by God, only she has liberty to reject or accept) -- the very idea that a Catholic implies they have God-given authority over my daughter's soul offended me, as well as being offended on God's behalf since I was raised to be very sure this was an explicit rule violation. I know it's dumb as Hell, but it initially struck me as a rule violation which'd piss God off, because now if she wants to make a commitment to adhere to Christianity, she has to reject the Catholic soul-fascism at her real baptism, which means I have to talk to her about why her great aunt is an unwitting agent of Satan.

Part of that "rule-set" is to kill your son if he is caught listening to hip hop

Most Bible Old Testament law was for Israel/Jews only.

Love for God above all things, and love for your fellow human being as yourself is for everyone.

The rules for non-Israel/non-Jews are:
1. abstain from food polluted by idols;
2. abstain from sexual immorality;
3. abstain from eating the meat of strangled animals;
4. abstain from eating blood.

Your choice is one of the 2 positions above... be a Jew or don't be one.

If you don't follow loving God above all things, and your fellow human being as yourself, you are lost. If you die without changing, you will be lost permanently. If you accept being a Jew, follow all the Jewish laws. If you don't want to be a Jew, then follow the 4 that are listed.

Everyone is required to love God above all things, and to love fellow human beings as himself/herself.

All this stuff about how God is requiring ridiculous stuff from everyone, is itself ridiculous. Follow what I have written here, and you will be just fine. The only other thing for eternal life is to believe in Jesus, that He will raise you from the dead to life.

Get off all this nonsensical bickering about how bad Jewish laws were for the Jews. If you are not a Jew, they don't apply to you, no matter what the churches say. Remember, church leaders go into training. And a lot of the training is in what the Jews believed. So, they can't help it when they tell you to do like Jews even though you are not Jews.

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Are you saying the OT is obsolete? Does that mean incest is okay by God's command, since you know, the NT does not prohibit that anywhere?

Incest is not love, even though it might seem very loving depending on the partners.  

The place in the Acts of the Apostles that listed the 4 rules for Gentile converts to Christianity also says wording to the effect of, "for the law is preached every sabbath in all the synagogs."