"Good" & "Bad" Christians?

[Belacqua]

Reading through the text, you can clearly see that even back then, they understood what symbolism was. 

Yes, that's certainly true.

Well, they, or at least this Catholic Bishop, also took many parts of the Bible quite literally

Right. If you look at what I said yesterday, you'll see that I've acknowledged this. 

The Bible is an anthology of different texts, which are read in different ways.

There's also the case that some verses cannot be interpreted in any sort of allegorical way, as we've already seen with the likes of Deuteronomy. 

That's what I said yesterday.

Today's Christians 

-Work on the sabbath
-Sleep in
-Commit gluttony
-Are guilty of pride
-Are guilty of adultery by simply THINKING LUSTFULLY of another person
-Churches use modern devices to gain followers/members, things that would be considered heresy in the days of Early Christianity (rock n' roll or "Christian rock," pretty girls leading youth groups, using movies, phones, tablets and social media to promote Christ)
-are far less modest than in the past


The list goes on and on. Bad Christians. Bad, naughty Christians! 

I'm sure there are many Christians who are guilty of these things. 

As I said yesterday, the use of modern media is not heresy. Heresy is opinions which go against orthodoxy. If you express orthodox opinions on a smart phone or if a pretty girl sings orthodox opinions with her electric guitar while vaping, it might be distracting, it might be laughable, but it's not heresy. These words have meanings -- you can't just use them to mean whatever you want.

Times have changed. Christianity isn't what it used to be. 

If you have some evidence that Christianity has somehow stayed the same over 1000s of years, I'd love to read it. Until then, you have nothing to say that's worth reading. 

I have already said that. Christianity has changed a great deal. There have always been different kinds of Christians. 

You seem to think you can determine who is a Real Christian and who isn't. I think that, because there have always been different kinds, and because ideas evolve, there is no such thing as a Real Christian. Unless you believe in a magical Jesus who sits in the sky holding Real Christianity in his mind. (I don't believe in this.)

You are both known for being inherently slippery around here and are constantly called out for it

Yesterday you made dozens of unsupported assertions, refused to acknowledge that you hadn't supported anything, and when you couldn't go on any longer you typed a bunch of insults and ran away. I have consistently said what I think, what I hold to be supported by history, and have asked for evidence to be presented against me. 

Who is slippery?

Let us too keep in mind that Jesus says "eye for an eye" is still in effect for those who sin against god.

In the Old Testament, the lex talionis is a way of preventing the escalation of feuds. If someone harms you by killing your cow, and you respond by killing all his cows and also his family, violence escalates. Eye-for-an-eye holds the punishment within limits. 

Jesus doesn't say this is still in effect for those who sin against God. For one thing, it is impossible to damage God, so a punishment in kind is nonsense. 

Read Matthew 24:48-51

I did. What point do you want to make here? 

Are you reading it as an allegory? 

The Bible is a complicated work, filled with a beautiful number of contradictions. No surprise there. Even when there are as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians, 

We covered this yesterday. 

The Bible is not a text to be read like a science book or journalism. There is not a single correct way to read it. Much of it consists of puzzles and challenges. We have to do the work ourselves, and this is what's good about it. We have to think hard, and work on being moral. 

we can assume most christians are getting it wrong. 

You have shown us that you believe yourself to be the arbiter of who is a Real Christian and who isn't. So I'm sure you can determine who is getting it wrong. 

So, most Christians are still bad Christians. 

In your humble opinion. 

But please note that it is traditional in Christianity for its adherents to confess to being bad Christians. They know that they fall short. They actually agree with the judgment you have passed. 

True, there are also many arrogant Christians. In my opinion, they shouldn't be arrogant. But criticizing the arrogant is built deeply into Christianity. Dante, for example, sees pride as the worst sin, because it provides the mental justification for committing all the others. (Lust, for him, is the least bad.) 

So basically what you've done here is to repeat what you said yesterday, as if you hadn't read anything I'd posted at all. I appreciate that you link us to Fortunatianus -- it's the first time you've tried to back up anything. But please notice that what you've supported is exactly what I said yesterday.