Who is a Christian, Muslim, Marxist, etc.? Who decides? It’s all very well to say that a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, but then people who identify themselves as Christians on here argue among themselves over exactly what beliefs are, or are not, required. Protestants have accused Catholics of not being Christian, unless they aren’t “really” Catholic. And Christians on here have claimed that any Muslim who does not believe in killing all Christians isn’t following the Qur’an and isn’t a “true” Muslim. Non-Christians have said that certain “fundamentalists” are not really Christian because they by-pass Jesus’ teachings to keep the OT law. Etc., etc., etc.
Hell, I spent 40+ years in the church (with great seriousness about it), and I don’t know what the “rules” are! I was called a pupil of Satan on here for doing no more than raising questions about how to interpret scripture. There are so many “brands” of “Christianity,” that if someone identifies themself to me as a “Christian,” that in itself tells me practically nothing at all. I doubt if it does for anyone who isn’t already familiar with whatever “brand” of Christian, or Marxian or whatever you are—or they assume you are.
Imagine a Hindu listening to a Protestant minister advocate killing abortion doctors, or seeing Protestants and Catholics killing each other in Northern Ireland. Did the Jews in Spain and Italy and Portugal “know” that they weren’t “really” Christians who were persecuting them? Do Christians in this country “know” that Ossama Bin Laden’s renegades are not “really” Muslims? Who are the “real” Muslims in Iraq—the Shiites or the Sunnis or both or just really a few of each?
How is an outsider—to any religion—supposed to tell? (That’s why, for example, I decided not to let Christians tell me what Islam was about, but to study it myself.) If I call myself a Christian, what does that say to someone who does not so identify themselves? Does it really say anything at all anymore? If you identify yourself as a Christian to a Muslim stranger, does he think you’re going to help him, preach at him or curse him (or worse)? Maybe he wouldn’t have any idea what to expect; I suspect that would depend on how other “Christians” behaved toward him in the past. In turn, what do you expect from a stranger who identifies themselves as a Muslim?
I don’t think Hitler was a Christian; he may have thought himself one. But the horrors he committed he did at least partly under the “Christian” label, and a whole lot of German “Christians” believed him and followed him. (And some, notably those who established the “Confessing Church,” Bonhoeffer, Barth, Niemoller and others, did not—but I do not think they were in the majority).
Originally posted by frogstompSo that leaves us with a couple of ways this can be looked at.
That's all true , but not every murderous leader that claims to be doing God's work show up as a hero in the Bible. Read Joshua and you will know what I mean. Pay close attention to what god tells Joshua to do to Ai . At least that's what Joshua said god told him to do.
1. God did really tell Joshua...
2. Joshua made it up...
3. Someone else made it up...
If God spoke as it is written does that make Joshua's action okay
or not?
If it is either 2 or 3, I believe we can all call the acts just someone
using God's name to do what they want.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayEven if God commanded Joshua to commit genocide, Joshua would still have acted wrongly. Genocide is morally wrong, regardless of who orders it to be done. I can't believe this is even a subject of debate.🙄
So that leaves us with a couple of ways this can be looked at.
1. God did really tell Joshua...
2. Joshua made it up...
3. Someone else made it up...
If God spoke as it is written does that make Joshua's action okay
or not?
If it is either 2 or 3, I believe we can all call the acts just someone
using God's name to do what they want.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDoesn't Christ's words rule out 1,,,making 2 or 3 the only the only choices?
So that leaves us with a couple of ways this can be looked at.
1. God did really tell Joshua...
2. Joshua made it up...
3. Someone else made it up...
If God spoke as it is written does that make Joshua's action okay
or not?
If it is either 2 or 3, I believe we can all call the acts just someone
using God's name to do what they want.
Kelly
Originally posted by bbarrActually, there’s a Jewish exegesis of the Abraham/Isaac story I once heard by a Rabbi. Basically, Abraham’s faith was tested when he was told to sacrifice Isaac—and he failed the test. No righteous man would kill his son, or any other child, command of God or no.
Even if God commanded Joshua to commit genocide, Joshua would still have acted wrongly. Genocide is morally wrong, regardless of who orders it to be done. I can't believe this is even a subject of debate.🙄
Setting aside questions of God’s testing people, etc., that was, according to the rabbi, the point of the story, as a story.
Originally posted by vistesdThis brings up something you have raised before : Jews have other writings that need to be understood , before one can understand the meaning of the stories in the bible. Christians, however do not have this understanding.
Actually, there’s a Jewish exegesis of the Abraham/Isaac story I once heard by a Rabbi. Basically, Abraham’s faith was tested when he was told to sacrifice Isaac—and he failed the test. No righteous man would kill his son, or any other child, command of God or no.
Setting aside questions of God’s testing people, etc., that was, according to the rabbi, the point of the story, as a story.
For this reason and my own rather simplistic idea that Christ was capable of stating His message without intermediaries , the church erred in following Irenaeus ,Tertulian et. al. advocacy of incorporating both the OT and Paul into the canon.
Originally posted by bbarrDo you accept capital punishment at all?
Even if God commanded Joshua to commit genocide, Joshua would still have acted wrongly. Genocide is morally wrong, regardless of who orders it to be done. I can't believe this is even a subject of debate.🙄
If God is the only one that starts life, and sets all boundaries for it,
is God able to judge mankind in righteousness?
Now if you reject that God is real, it doesn't matter, but if you accept
scripture as written about God being the creator, do you think God is
in the unique position to order, or command these things with good
cause? God would be the only one able to do it, no man could really
take it upon themselves to do in rightousness. Many could make the
claims, but they would simply be evil people wanting to kill for some
other reason. Without God being real, all who would kill like that
would be completely evil people in my opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayRejecting God is not the same thing as rejecting claims made by scripture.
Do you accept capital punishment at all?
If God is the only one that starts life, and sets all boundaries for it,
is God able to judge mankind in righteousness?
Now if you reject that God is real, it doesn't matter, but if you accept
scripture as written about God being the creator, do you think God is
in the unique position to order, or command t ...[text shortened]... eing real, all who would kill like that
would be completely evil people in my opinion.
Kelly
Your opinion wouldn't help the victims of the evil people, especially since you have no way of knowing whether they were or weren't acting on God's command.
Originally posted by frogstompI agree with you 100%, my only point is that God is the only one
Rejecting God is not the same thing as rejecting claims made by scripture.
Your opinion wouldn't help the victims of the evil people, especially since you have no way of knowing whether they were or weren't acting on God's command.
that can stand and judge nations and individual people. It isn't
something any human can take upon themselves to do both to
the same degree God can. We can and do judge those within our
own society, by our own laws judge us, those we give power
over us judge us. How they do it is another thing but it is the
way it is. God doesn’t have to deal with getting power, it always
was His, it is His, and it will always be His, just as His authority
is the same, creation is, was, and always will belong to Him.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettIf that is so, then how did the first theist come to believe in a god?
...
All infants are born atheists. Some remain so. But most are subsequently taught to believe as their parents do. If you had an infant that was to be truly raised by wolves it would remain without any concept of god as it grew up and would thus be an implicit atheist.
If he or she had the capability to believe in a god without being taught about the concept of god, then why wouldn't other humans have the same ability?
Originally posted by rwingettBig deal no one is born with knowledge about God to believe in God.
Someone who has no idea what god is is an implicit atheist, as opposed to being an explicit atheist. They are without belief in god. That makes them an atheist. All infants are born atheists. Some remain so. But most are subsequently taugh ...[text shortened]... ncept of god as it grew up and would thus be an implicit atheist.
You may as well say that they were born without knowledge of thier
father and mother too but they come to know them if they are around
when they grow up, they don't have an inborn knowledge of trees
but they come to understand them if they are around they grow up.
Your point is pointless.
Kelly