You know what's fun?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

How quickly libs can go from attacking people for being Christian (despite... you know... those people not actually being Christian) to defending terrorists acting explicitly in the name of Islam on the grounds that people of all faiths deserve to be treated with respect. Just another of those funny little tendencies I've noticed for a while.

 

[Moonglow]

How quickly libs can go from attacking people for being Christian (despite... you know... those people not actually being Christian) to defending terrorists acting explicitly in the name of Islam on the grounds that people of all faiths deserve to be treated with respect. Just another of those funny little tendencies I've noticed for a while.

and then???

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How quickly libs can go from attacking people for being Christian (despite... you know... those people not actually being Christian) to defending terrorists acting explicitly in the name of Islam on the grounds that people of all faiths deserve to be treated with respect. Just another of those funny little tendencies I've noticed for a while.

 

[deltex1]

Crusades vs No Carolina....and some jerk named Hussein.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

That's because the left are unconscionable cowards.

 

[Moonglow]

That's because the left are unconscionable cowards.

more like sinister....

 

[G.T.]

It sounds more so like you dont understand nuance which is why you only see the surface level talking point based discussion going on which does look contradictory.

But its your own lack of curiousity that it appears that way.

 

[Agit8r]

How quickly libs can go from attacking people for being Christian (despite... you know... those people not actually being Christian) to defending terrorists acting explicitly in the name of Islam on the grounds that people of all faiths deserve to be treated with respect. Just another of those funny little tendencies I've noticed for a while.

Do you get to decide who is and who is not a "real" member of any given religion? Or just of your own?

 

[Agit8r]

That's because the left are unconscionable cowards.

Are those who are not xenophobic the cowards? Or is it really those who are afraid of "different" folks?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Do you get to decide who is and who is not a "real" member of any given religion? Or just of your own?

To be a real member is to the the one actively observing all your religion's teachings. If your religion clearly gives these commands, and most people ignore them because they were fucked while a relatively large minority are willing to die if that's what it takes to carry those commands out, then could the majority of people who don't know or care about the essence of their supposed faith be called actual members of that faith? Let's take Catholicism for an easy example. Do you consider there to be an equivalence between the level of observance between a diehard believer who knows the Bible front to back and joins a monastery to prove their devotion and the average Easter and Christmas cafeteria Catholic who figures the details will work themselves out if they just be a good person and is secretly, apathetically agnostic about the whole thing? Would you personally describe both as true Catholics? What do you believe is the point of the latter group even affiliating with that religion in the first place if they don't know it, barely practice it, and don't care what its doctrines or the pope say?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

How quickly libs can go from attacking people for being Christian (despite... you know... those people not actually being Christian) to defending terrorists acting explicitly in the name of Islam on the grounds that people of all faiths deserve to be treated with respect. Just another of those funny little tendencies I've noticed for a while.

Pointing out people's hypocrisy's pretty fun.

In just this one graph you acknowledge people not being real Christians then condemn Muslims when your own logic should acknowledge they're not real Muslims.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Pointing out people's hypocrisy's pretty fun.

In just this one graph you acknowledge people not being real Christians then condemn Muslims when your own logic should acknowledge they're not real Muslims.

What I said:

To be a real member is to the the one actively observing all your religion's teachings. If your religion clearly gives these commands, and most people ignore them because they were fucked while a relatively large minority are willing to die if that's what it takes to carry those commands out, then could the majority of people who don't know or care about the essence of their supposed faith be called actual members of that faith? Let's take Catholicism for an easy example. Do you consider there to be an equivalence between the level of observance between a diehard believer who knows the Bible front to back and joins a monastery to prove their devotion and the average Easter and Christmas cafeteria Catholic who figures the details will work themselves out if they just be a good person and is secretly, apathetically agnostic about the whole thing? Would you personally describe both as true Catholics? What do you believe is the point of the latter group even affiliating with that religion in the first place if they don't know it, barely practice it, and don't care what its doctrines or the pope say?

Those Catholics who are culturally observant at best are barely Catholic at all. Those Muslims who are culturally observant are barely Muslim at all. Those Catholics and Muslims who practice the central tenants of their respective religion as defined in their respective scriptures are what I would consider to be practicing. You may not. You may think that the non-practicing ones with little knowledge of or belief in their supposed beliefs are the real members and the fundamentalists reading and carrying out exactly what their religion tells them to do are imposters, but I'm not really sure I respect your opinion on this anyway.

To break it down another way, the Jews reading and practicing the Torah are the observant Jews. The Christians reading and practicing the Bible are the observant Christians. The Muslims reading and practicing the Qur'an are the observant Muslims. Those Jews, Christians, and Muslims who've never read the entirety of their scripture and don't really care what it says can scarcely be called practicing. Who do you consider a more observantly Jewish? The American Jew who's never read the Torah, doesn't go to temple, thinks Yhwh is basically the Force, refuses to cut part of their son's penis off, and has a cheeseburger every Tuesday, or the Israeli Jew with a degree in the Torah and another in the Talmud, finishes rereading the Torah annually, goes to temple without fail, believes that Yhwh is the tribal god of the divinely anointed people, observes all the rights and rituals, and kills innocent women and children to further the conquest of Canaan/Israel/Palestine for his tribe exactly like the Torah tells him to do? Who's more Catholic? The Catholic who goes to church twice a year, doesn't really give a shit about any of the rules or know what liturgical season it is, figures the pope can blow it out his ass when it comes to anything that clashes with her modern urban liberal East Coast lifestyle, and considers Jesus to have been a nice story at best, or the Catholic who goes to mass daily, follows the rules to the letter, places the words of the Bible and pope ahead of her own personal views, and fervently believes that Jesus was exactly what the Catechism says he was? Who's more Muslim? The Muslim who figures the parts of the Qur'an he's read make a nice story, drinks alcohol on the weekends with his girlfriend, hits the casino every year, and might go to masjid on the Night of Power if he can bother himself to, or the Muslim who's memorized and can recite the entire Qur'an back to front, believes it's the literal and exact word of Allah as flawlessly delivered throw Gabriel to Muhammad, refuses to do any haraam act, leads the prayer at the masjid every Friday, and strives to emulate Muhammad as his perfect example in every given situation?

 

[Agit8r]

Do you get to decide who is and who is not a "real" member of any given religion? Or just of your own?

To be a real member is to the the one actively observing all your religion's teachings. If your religion clearly gives these commands, and most people ignore them because they were fucked while a relatively large minority are willing to die if that's what it takes to carry those commands out, then could the majority of people who don't know or care about the essence of their supposed faith be called actual members of that faith? Let's take Catholicism for an easy example. Do you consider there to be an equivalence between the level of observance between a diehard believer who knows the Bible front to back and joins a monastery to prove their devotion and the average Easter and Christmas cafeteria Catholic who figures the details will work themselves out if they just be a good person and is secretly, apathetically agnostic about the whole thing? Would you personally describe both as true Catholics? What do you believe is the point of the latter group even affiliating with that religion in the first place if they don't know it, barely practice it, and don't care what its doctrines or the pope say?

That can devolve pretty easily. Jesus said "Woe to you who are well-fed now" and yet, how many Catholic priests or Protestant pastors have you seen who are not WELL fed?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Religions can devolve pretty easily. You can reach a point where barely anyone really follows the original form. Revealed, scripture-based religions aren't supposed to change though. Those scriptures are supposed to record the eternal commands of God. To know what they teach you need to go to the source and read those scriptures. Guesstimating from the actions of the followers themselves is pretty much worthless. To understand it, you need to read its scripture and look at how the ones who truly believe in and strive to follow it speak and behave. The majority most likely care more about the real world and very well probably haven't even really read it much.

 

[MaryL]

Petting cats is also fun.

 

[Agit8r]

Religions can devolve pretty easily. You can reach a point where barely anyone really follows the original form. Revealed, scripture-based religions aren't supposed to change though. Those scriptures are supposed to record the eternal commands of God. To know what they teach you need to go to the source and read those scriptures. Guesstimating from the actions of the followers themselves is pretty much worthless. To understand it, you need to read its scripture and look at how the ones who truly believe in and strive to follow it speak and behave. The majority most likely care more about the real world and very well probably haven't even really read it much.

Right. How many Christians follow the practice of the early Church?

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."
-- Acts 4:32-35

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Right. How many Christians follow the practice of the early Church?

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."
-- Acts 4:32-35

There aren't a whole lot of actual Christians following the Bible's teachings and definition of how to be a real Christian either. I think we can both agree on that. I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with this?

 

[Agit8r]

Right. How many Christians follow the practice of the early Church?

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."
-- Acts 4:32-35

There aren't a whole lot of actual Christians following the Bible's teachings and definition of how to be a real Christian either. I think we can both agree on that. I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with this?

Are Christians who do not share their possessions in common "real" Christians? And who gets to decide that?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Are Christians who do not share their possessions in common "real" Christians? And who gets to decide that?

I'm pretty sure the Bible decides that, just like the Tanakh decides who's Jewish and who's not and the Qur'an decides whether someone is Muslim. You can't really be a Christian if you don't believe, live, and act in accordance with what the Bible tells you you have to do in order to be a Christian. You can't really be Jewish if you don't believe, live, and act in accordance with what the Torah tells you you have to do in order to be a Jew. You can't be Muslim if you don't believe, live, and act in accordance with what the Qur'an tells you you have to do in order to be a Muslim. Are you seeing a trend here? You can call yourself a member of any of these faiths, but without actually believing in them and following them it doesn't really mean much more than that you identify with a subculture to an extent. You might as well not use the label at all.

 

[Agit8r]

Are Christians who do not share their possessions in common "real" Christians? And who gets to decide that?

I'm pretty sure the Bible decides that, just like the Tanakh decides who's Jewish and who's not and the Qur'an decides whether someone is Muslim. You can't really be a Christian if you don't believe, live, and act in accordance with what the Bible tells you you have to do in order to be a Christian. You can't really be Jewish if you don't believe, live, and act in accordance with what the Torah tells you you have to do in order to be a Jew. You can't be Muslim if you don't believe, live, and act in accordance with what the Qur'an tells you you have to do in order to be a Muslim. Are you seeing a trend here? You can call yourself a member of any of these faiths, but without actually believing in them and following them it doesn't really mean much more than that you identify with a subculture to an extent. You might as well not use the label at all.

Since most translations of the Bible are well above the reading level of the average adherent, that isn't really practical on a macro level. So, just as the temporal realm has it's judiciary, so religions have their theologians. And if their shepherds are corrupt, so will be the flock.