"Good" & "Bad" Christians?

[Belacqua]

Ego subtlety dropped his original claim

He seems to have made and then quietly edged away from a number of assertions here, without ever acknowledging that he was mistaken.

But remember: you and I are the slippery ones.

[GrandizerII]

As I pointed out yesterday, one of Jesus's most famous messages is that we shouldn't stone adulterers.

It's not really clear Jesus (if he did exist and said some of the stuff in the Gospels) said we shouldn't stone adulterers. If you're referring to a passage in John, then it's clear whatever Jesus said or did according to "John" is not what Jesus said or did historically (if he was a historical figure).

But I get your point. Christians believe this to be one of Jesus' many important messages.

It's true things have changed. Why do you think that the old ways were Real Christianity and the new ways aren't? Maybe both ways are just different kinds. Unless you, again, feel you have the right to judge.

Obviously a lot has changed between now and then. But I don't agree that the more devoted early Christians were necessarily that different in faith-based attitude from some Christian groups today. And the Epistles clearly show that a lot of those professing the faith back then were just as "lax" as a lot of Christians today.

[Fake Messiah]

As I pointed out yesterday, one of Jesus's most famous messages is that we shouldn't stone adulterers.

And one of the less famous of Jesus messages is to stone children who disobey their parents in Mark 7:9-11 -- why is that?

Besides, Jesus only said "Who is without sin should throw the stone first" at adulterous woman, but if Mary was there, his mother-wife, she could have thrown the stone since she was sinless.

[GrandizerII]

As I pointed out yesterday, one of Jesus's most famous messages is that we shouldn't stone adulterers.

Besides, Jesus only said "Who is without sin should throw the stone first" at adulterous woman, but if Mary was there, his mother-wife, she could have thrown the stone since she was sinless.

To be fair, that's a Catholic thing.

[Fake Messiah]

Quick question: Good or bad Christian? Now, she's in a city council which means that she was elected which means she must have a lot of people "thinking" like her

[Acrobat]

Quick question: Good or bad Christian? Now, she's in a city council which means that she was elected which means she must have a lot of people "thinking" like her

Good Christian, because she used the Bible to support her racist views.

[Anomalocaris]

Ego subtlety dropped his original claim

He seems to have made and then quietly edged away from a number of assertions here, without ever acknowledging that he was mistaken.

But remember: you and I are the slippery ones.

correction.  You are the smarmy one.   Your apoplectic reaction to the suggestion that Christianity's own camouflage be ignored when reviewing Christianity introduced a sort of grittiness that completely negates what you conceived to be your studied lubricity.

[Belacqua]

Your apoplectic reaction to the suggestion that Christianity's own camouflage be ignored when reviewing Christianity

I have never been apoplectic on this forum. 

I do not think we should ignore Christianity's "own camouflage." Though I do think  that what constitutes "camouflage" and what constitutes "Real Christianity" may not be as clear as some people make out. For example, what's real to one denomination may not be in another. 

If you, like Mr. Ego, can tell me the timeless and essential definition of Real Christianity, as opposed to the camouflage parts that lots of people nonetheless believe, I'd be happy to read it. 

 introduced a sort of grittiness that completely negates what you conceived to be your studied lubricity.

Here again, I am curious about your English. Are you a native speaker? Are you using some kind of translation software? 

I don't conceive of anything being my "studied lubricity." (Though it's true I'm a deft hand with the Astroglide.) You'll have to speak more clearly if you intend this to come across to others.

[EgoDeath]

I've never dropped my original claim. Christians today are not Christian anymore.

Its really curious to me that @Belaqua will actually leave this exchange thinking he's made some convincing argument. He hasn't. And neither have you, @Acrobat

Much like the thread about Satanism where Belaqua refused to acknowledge that Satanism wasn't a codified philosophy until 1966, and that earlier Pagan/witchcraft practices had nothing to do with Anton LaVey's creation. It's like talking to a wall with this guy. Insane. Or how about the time where he literally described himself as being an atheist but then turned around and said he wasn't an atheist.

I'd rather beat my head against a wall than continue this pointless back and forth. You two also clearly take some delight in this sort of argument. Too bad I'm not gonna entertain you any longer.

I've shown a decrease in Biblical literalism over time, and cited a source. I've shown that Early Christians DID in fact take the Bible literally, and cited a source. And I've talked about a decrease in a number of behaviors that show a departure from earlier attitudes in modesty and sin. What have you shown? Nothing.

Neither of you have yet to say anything worth responding to. When you think of something, shoot me a PM. Enjoy having the last word.

[Anomalocaris]

Your apoplectic reaction to the suggestion that Christianity's own camouflage be ignored when reviewing Christianity

I have never been apoplectic on this forum. 

I do not think we should ignore Christianity's "own camouflage." Though I do think  that what constitutes "camouflage" and what constitutes "Real Christianity" may not be as clear as some people make out. For example, what's real to one denomination may not be in another. 

If you, like Mr. Ego, can tell me the timeless and essential definition of Real Christianity, as opposed to the camouflage parts that lots of people nonetheless believe, I'd be happy to read it. 

 introduced a sort of grittiness that completely negates what you conceived to be your studied lubricity.

Here again, I am curious about your English. Are you a native speaker? Are you using some kind of translation software? 

I don't conceive of anything being my "studied lubricity." (Though it's true I'm a deft hand with the Astroglide.) You'll have to speak more clearly if you intend this to come across to others.

Whether your reaction was apoplectic is not for you to judge.

The timeless essence of Christianity is the determination to diminish and rule men by convincing him that his deserts are small, he is indebted by being born, his judgement are untrustworthy, and his fate dependent upon the currying of favor as a child without concept of dignity would from a vainglorious god to whose caprices he ultimately has no recourse.   In other words, misanthropy.

As to English, yes, I am a native speaker.  But either your dexterity with the language is also far less than what you conceived it to be, or your general power of comprehension is far less than what you might have imagined it to be.