"Good" & "Bad" Christians?

[Belacqua]

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

I was hoping you'd tell us exactly what criteria you are using to determine who is and who isn't a Christian.

I certainly agree that things have changed. I just don't understand how you say that, for example, Pope Francis isn't Christian. 

Maybe you're right! I've just been hoping you'd say why.

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. 

Oh, that was you! I remember that.

You've mischaracterized my argument there. It may well be possible that Satanism had no "codified philosophy" until 1966. I didn't deny that. (You can find the thread I'm sure.)

What I was claiming was that there were lots of people who claimed to be Satanists before LaVey, and that I don't see why you want to deny them that title. I gave you a list of French people in the 19th century who called themselves Satanists, and were called that by others, but you told me they weren't Real Satanists. You never made it clear why they weren't Real Satanists, other than the fact that they failed to join a 20th century group in the US.

Here too, you are claiming that you can determine who is real and who isn't. 

Anyway, I suspect you've forgotten that the real claim I was making on that thread was simpler: Modern American Satanists are cosplayers whose connection to Satan is trivial. They are using a mildly shocking image to draw themselves CLOSER to standard American bourgeois values, MORE similar to their neighbors. Unlike, say, French Satanists of the 19th century who had actual differences with the Christians around them, and offered an alternative to mainstream lifestyles. 
On that thread as on this one, you've focussed on a narrow point you want to make, while I was mostly making a different one.

I've shown a decrease in Biblical literalism over time, and cited a source. 

Your source, as you pointed out, knew very well that there is non-literal symbolism in the Bible. So that supports my point, that even the earliest Christians were not entirely literal. In fact, the source you cited is LESS literal than Ken Ham.

You still have not shown that there is a decrease in literal interpretation over time.

I've shown that Early Christians DID in fact take the Bible literally, and cited a source. 

Again, the source you cited said that Early Christians took many parts of the Bible NON-literally. This was your own source. 

You've also shown that you use the term "Early Christianity" in a very odd way. You used the Inquisition as an example of the evils of Early Christianity, although the Inquisition began in 12th century France. No scholar calls 12th century France "Early Christianity." You're off by about 1000 years. So your lack of clarity about historical time may be confusing you about changes in Christianity.

And I've talked about a decrease in a number of behaviors that show a departure from earlier attitudes in modesty and sin. 

Do you think that a departure from earlier attitudes in modesty and sin means that in the old days they were Real Christians and now they're not? You still haven't demonstrated that this is the stick we use to measure who's real. 

Different, yes. Real, maybe -- you'd have to argue for that. Catholics, for example, say that their faith is based on the Bible and tradition, and that ongoing debates within the Church can change practices. There is constant dialectic within the Church as to what should be kept and what amended. According to you, I guess, this means they aren't Real Christians any more. This means that you are telling Pope Francis what Real Christianity is. 

As with the Satanism thing, you mistake repetition for argument. I asked for background, more information -- I specifically asked you to teach me more about modern American Satanism. You offered one sentence that you'd copy/pasted from the top page of the US Satanists' web site, that I'd already seen. And then you offered it again and again. 

On this thread, you repeatedly assert that modern Christians aren't Real Christians. You offer some examples -- styles in clothing are less modest, the interpretation of some biblical assertions have changed. But you have failed completely to offer any justification for calling modern Christianity Not Real Christianity. This is purely your own opinion, and we have been given no reason to believe you.

[Belacqua]

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

I am here in the room with me. You are not. 

It's been surprising to me how many people tell me that I don't know my mind, but they do -- based on these posts.

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.

This is YOUR definition of the timeless essence. I can name a number of Christians who don't agree with you. How can you prove who's right?

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.

On the contrary. I have been able to decipher, for example, that when you say "continence" (more than once on this forum) you mean "countenance," and several other oddities. 

What you said earlier, that I have something I have conceived to be my "studied lubricity," is difficult to decipher. I'd be glad if you'd tell me what it means. Maybe something about reducing friction, or maybe something about lewdness. But I do my lewdness on other forums.

[Anomalocaris]

On the contrary. I have been able to decipher, for example, that when you say "continence" (more than once on this forum) you mean "countenance," and several other oddities. 

Really?

Here I was, thinking your taking pains to point that out before was merely the cheap opportunistic nitpick indulged in by the crass low born affecting the superior sneer. But as it turns out, it was really an amazing exhibition of pride worthy linguistic prowess to tell, from the context no less, what the intended word had been from a homophone substitute by mistake.

[Belacqua]

Really?

I have never conceived anything to be my "studied lubricity."


So it this is meant to be a puzzle, I'm not getting it.