(February 12, 2013 at 2:52 am)missluckie26 Wrote: 1. X is still a "Christian" matter if X religion was brought to Y people and Y people used quotes from X religious texts to burn Z people. Just because the texts of Christianity were misinterpreted (word for word might I add), does not mean that Christianity gets to put it's hands in the air and call time-out.But that is exactly what it means. If troop of girl scouts decides to break off from the offical organization, and sell their own brand of cookies, wear different uniforms, rewrites it own rules and bi-laws, are they still to be considered 'Girl Scouts?' What if they still identify themselves by that name? What if a 37 year old man wanted to call himself a girl scout? Does it make him one? In a word, no.
Why? Because there are rules that one must fall under to be considered apart of an organization. You all have been arguing the 'No true scotsmen fallacy' against Christianity so long unchecked you actually believe it. What your arguement does not take into consideration is the fact that Christianity is a organization like any other. As such there are rules and regs that determine who and what are christian. If this group who calls themselves christians does X and X is not a 'sanctioned' Christian behaivor, then its real simple. those who do X do not do it under or for Christianity.
Quote:I see it's encompassing grip on the society as an open admission of responsibility and at the very least, it should take responsibility for the effects it's influences have on the society it infiltrates.Should Christianity also be responsiable for those people getting the witch hunters high/drunk before sending them out, when clearly Murder is a sin, Drinking, and doing Drugs is a sin?
The Christian Faith has already condemned every part of what these people have done. what more is their to do?
Quote:2. Try explaining that to illiterate New Guineans and see how far that goes. Just sayinI can explain it to the "educated," the problem is the 'educated' think the know better, and ignore what has been explained:If it's in the bible it's the word of god, straight from the horses' mouth. That's all they know. OT vs NT bi-laws are not going to be explainable to the uneducated if you can't even explain it to the educated.
The bible repersents 2 Different religions. Judism, and Christianity. These are divided by what are known as covenants or "testaments." The Old Testament refers to Judaism, and The New Testament refers to all things Christian.
Done..
The problem? The 'educated' who do not practice this religion don't want a reconcilliation. They have found a justification in the confusion they have created for themselves, and are content living there.
Quote: Thus if history has shown us anything, it's that the ignorant will use the bible against one another when it's proclaimed to be the direct words of a higher power and states clearly (albeit OT or NT) statements that condemn someone.Actually no. The Evil will try and use 'religion' to mask the evil in their hearts. This is the lesson History teaches. This is the lesson Christ taught. One does not have to be uneducated to be Evil.
