"Good" & "Bad" Christians?

[EgoDeath]

Today's Christians are hardly Christian at all.

I'm always surprised how confidently atheists judge who is truly a Christian and who isn't.

This isn't even a debate dude lol.

Christians defined themselves a long time ago. They then strayed far, far away from that original definition. Meaning they are no longer even really Christian anymore. It's not rocket science.

If I create a dish that resembles a lasagna, but then fold the sides over and crimp them, it becomes a ravioli. When something changes, you stop calling it by what it used to be called.

When the calendar runs out, we change the number of the year. We don't sit there and argue,"NO! This is 2018, day 565!!"

No, it's simply 2019 now.

Nothing really hard to grasp here, you're just looking for an argument. As per usual.

[Acrobat]

I'm always surprised how confidently atheists judge who is truly a Christian and who isn't.

This isn't even a debate dude lol.

Christians defined themselves a long time ago. They then strayed far, far away from that original definition. Meaning they are no longer even really Christian anymore. It's not rocket science.

I'm curious how where real Christians defined long time ago? That such Christians have apparently gone extinct? 

Christianity pretty much from conception, had a variety of competing views, so it would be interesting to hear what you think defined the real ones, from the fake ones?

[EgoDeath]

This isn't even a debate dude lol.

Christians defined themselves a long time ago. They then strayed far, far away from that original definition. Meaning they are no longer even really Christian anymore. It's not rocket science.

I'm curious how where real Christians defined long time ago? That such Christians have apparently gone extinct? 

Christianity pretty much from conception, had a variety of competing views, so it would be interesting to hear what you think defined the real ones, from the fake ones?

That's beside the point. A mild-mannered Christian 500 years ago would make a modern fundamentalist fanatic look like a fence-sitting agnostic.

[Acrobat]

I'm curious how where real Christians defined long time ago? That such Christians have apparently gone extinct? 

Christianity pretty much from conception, had a variety of competing views, so it would be interesting to hear what you think defined the real ones, from the fake ones?

That's beside the point. A mild-mannered Christian 500 years ago would make a modern fundamentalist fanatic look like a fence-sitting agnostic.

It does matter. What sort of beliefs do you think would distinguish the two?

Are real Christians, the sort of non-violent, commune living, charitable, kind sort, that took care of the sick, and each other, and didn't care all that much about their material possessions? If so wouldn't we say such real Christians are good? And only fake ones are bad?

[EgoDeath]

@Acrobat

Dude, it's not hard to comprehend. I'm not letting you drag me into the weeds. Most Christians used to take the Bible quite literally. Now, most Christians treat the Bible as a metaphor, as well as a crutch, whenever it's convenient for them.

Burning people at the stake is no longer a common practice for a reason.

Today's Christians are hardly Christian at all. Not much else to say.

[Acrobat]

@Acrobat

Dude, it's not hard to comprehend. I'm not letting you drag me into the weeds. Most Christians used to take the Bible quite literally. Now, most Christians treat the Bible as a metaphor, as well as a crutch, whenever it's convenient for them.

Burning people at the stake is no longer a common practice for a reason.

Today's Christians are hardly Christian at all. Not much else to say.

I'm not dragging you into the weeds, I just wanted to understand what distinction you were trying to make. The above is false, for a variety of reasons. The early Christians didn't advocate burning witches, or etc... In fact if you can recall they even included a story admonishing the idea of stoning an adulterer. In fact early Christianity abandon any real political interests, and focused primarily on the tightly nit community of believers. 

Secondly the high value placed on literalism, is a more product of our scientific and modern age, than anything else. Hence why religious writings predominantly involve narrative, poetry, stories, etc.. rather than resembling the style of a text book. Ancients cultures made little distinction between historical and metaphors, smilies, etc..., just like early cultures made little distinction between religion and culture. The fundie literalist isn't some return to some early era of Christianity, he is a product of the modern age, whose views are quite distinct for those of the early church fathers, leaders, and thinkers. 

I mean ancient Christians and Jews had such disregard for literalism, that they included two competing accounts of creation side by side, anthologized in their sacred text four different gospels, that each took a variety of competing liberties, like John's Jesus, or the competing depictions of his lasts moments on the cross, or the incorporating of non-historical elements into their stories, such as the stoning of the adulterer etc...

Usually when atheists such as yourself attempt to lay some claim about the original authentic believers, and others, what they tend to peddle is something shallow and credulous, and far from the truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

Disdain for literalism isn’t why magic book contains competing accounts of important events.

Johns Jesus is a perfect example of the actual reason for that. The gradual development of the the myth.

[Abaddon_ire]

That's beside the point. A mild-mannered Christian 500 years ago would make a modern fundamentalist fanatic look like a fence-sitting agnostic.

It does matter. What sort of beliefs do you think would distinguish the two?

Are real Christians, the sort of non-violent, commune living, charitable, kind sort, that took care of the sick, and each other, and didn't care all that much about their material possessions? If so wouldn't we say such real Christians are good? And only fake ones are bad?

Christianity is none of those things today. It is not non-violent, commune living, charitable or kind. It cares not for the sick, nor each other and very much cares about material possessions.

[Acrobat]

It does matter. What sort of beliefs do you think would distinguish the two?

Are real Christians, the sort of non-violent, commune living, charitable, kind sort, that took care of the sick, and each other, and didn't care all that much about their material possessions? If so wouldn't we say such real Christians are good? And only fake ones are bad?

Christianity is none of those things today. It is not non-violent, commune living, charitable or kind. It cares not for the sick, nor each other and very much cares about material possessions.

Clearly you’ve never visited the Amish or Mennonite communities. 

Regardless I was asking about the distinction the poster was making between real and fake Christians, whether real Christians in his view were those who once did partake in such a  life, like the earliest believers did.

[The Valkyrie]

Good and bad is generally dictated how you prepare them.

Granted, they do go bad fairly quickly if you leave them sitting too long.