How many True Christians are there?

[Dinwar]

...and scholars have spent 2k years debating what, exactly, all of that means.

For example, "Love God" has been taken to mean everything from simply feel fondness towards some disembodied being called "god", to obeying the entire Old Testament.

And treating others as I treat myself has gotten me punched a few times. People generally don't like it when someone points out flaws, even if they do it to themselves constantly.

My point is, like most theistic statements such a list sounds incredibly simple, but as soon as you dig into the details you realize that no one can agree on what any of the terms even mean.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Love God.

Love each other.

Treat others as well as you treat yourself.

Spread the message of Christ to others.

Join a body of believers, and serve God through them.

Pray.

Only in a Platonic way, right?

[Pup]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Love God.

Love each other.

Treat others as well as you treat yourself.

Spread the message of Christ to others.

Join a body of believers, and serve God through them.

Pray.

How can you tell that Jesus was instructing everyone to do those things, and not just the people he was talking to?

For example, the third one, "Treat others as well as you treat yourself." In Mathew 7, Jesus says that, along with other stuff, to a group of people. Same with Luke 6.

How can you tell that that's the one thing everyone should do, but the other things were only meant for the people listening? For example, Luke 6:30 and 31 are:

"Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

How can you tell that the second sentence is universal, but the first isn't?

[AvalonXQ]

They're both universal.

These messages were not specific commands given to one person, but part of his sermons that he delivered to the multitudes to be spread -- the "new commandments" that he gave to them.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by tsig

Only in a Platonic way, right?

"No, we mean it sounds like you're really....IN love....with Jesus."

As I've said before: When your position can be successfully lampshaded by a single line of a one-off South Park character, you're probably doing something wrong.

For those interested to see exactly what the complications of AvalonXQ's statements are, I suggest looking into St. Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus. They both started from the same position, but took opposite sides in interpreting that position. The result was a centuries-long feud between various factions of Christianity. It's no where NEAR as simple as what AvalonXQ presents it as.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by Craig4

You'd think he'd pick someone who wasn't such a dick.

I highlighted the problem. Precious little thinking goes into such things, since they break down when thought about too much.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

"No, we mean it sounds like you're really....IN love....with Jesus."

When the 'Family of God' talked about it, they were being literal. Of course it was important to visualize yourself in the female role when visualizing yourself being penetrated by jesus.

[Dinwar]

Wait, is THAT what started the whole Eucharist thing? Eating Christ's body....I always wondered why they never mentioned which part!

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

They're both universal.

These messages were not specific commands given to one person, but part of his sermons that he delivered to the multitudes to be spread -- the "new commandments" that he gave to them.

What makes that interpretation any more valid than any other?

[dafydd]

Can anybody give me the name of a true Christian?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Craig4

What makes that interpretation any more valid than any other?

I have a couple of used geese, but still no ducks for sale. Sorry.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I have a couple of used geese, but still no ducks for sale. Sorry.

You'll do anything except answer a question.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Originally Posted by Pup

"Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

How can you tell that the second sentence is universal, but the first isn't?

They're both universal.

These messages were not specific commands given to one person, but part of his sermons that he delivered to the multitudes to be spread -- the "new commandments" that he gave to them.

Ah! Every Christian needs some room to fudge things when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and I think I just realized where the Biblical literalism one is.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Pup

Ah! Every Christian needs some room to fudge things when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and I think I just realized where the Biblical literalism one is.

Why would the infallible, holy word of god need interpreting?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Pup

Ah! Every Christian needs some room to fudge things when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and I think I just realized where the Biblical literalism one is.

I don't follow you. Can you explain?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't follow you. Can you explain?

I think he is saying that it is always pic 'n' mix time at the bible candy store.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I have a couple of used geese, but still no ducks for sale. Sorry.

You refuse to explain why your interpretation is more valid than those of all other Biblical scholars? And you think you have ANY credibility left?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I have a couple of used geese, but still no ducks for sale. Sorry.

My point exactly.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

You refuse to explain why your interpretation is more valid than those of all other Biblical scholars?

Nobody has presented an alternate interpretation for me to address.

Instead, someone is maintaining the absurd assertion that all interpretations are equally valid. Why he continues to bring duck sales into a thread like this, I have no idea.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nobody has presented an alternate interpretation for me to address.

Instead, someone is maintaining the absurd assertion that all interpretations are equally valid. Why he continues to bring duck sales into a thread like this, I have no idea.

You keep making the absurd assertion that only your interpretation is valid. Why you need an interpretation of an old book of fairy-tales to tell you how to lead your life is a mystery.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

When the 'Family of God' talked about it, they were being literal. Of course it was important to visualize yourself in the female role when visualizing yourself being penetrated by jesus.

I thought J swung both ways.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Why would the infallible, holy word of god need interpreting?

Apparently it's beyond god's ability to write a simple declarative sentence in any language.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nobody has presented an alternate interpretation for me to address.

Instead, someone is maintaining the absurd assertion that all interpretations are equally valid. Why he continues to bring duck sales into a thread like this, I have no idea.

To what authority do I appeal to determine you've made a correct interpretation?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nobody has presented an alternate interpretation for me to address.

That's a lie. I've referenced not one but TWO alternate explanations: that of Thomas Aquinas and that of Erasmus. Both disagree with each other, and both STRONGLY disagree with you (Erasmus, I'm pretty sure, would have called for your head; Aquinas was more understanding, but he'd have argued against you none the less).

Quote:

Instead, someone is maintaining the absurd assertion that all interpretations are equally valid.

This is either a lie, or you can't understand basic English well enough to discuss a topic this complex in the language. No one has said that all interpretations are equally valid. What's happened is that people have argued that other interpretations are at least as valid as your own, and that thus far you've not presented enough data for us to conclude that your interpretation is anything close to valid. YOU accept it, but then it can be assumed (if one is a Catholic, anyway) that Satan thinks himself in the right as well. In other words, the mere fact that AvalonXQ says something about Christianity is not sufficient reason to conclude that it's true.

The whole absurd thing with the duck sales merely demonstrates the vapidity of your position. Rather than presenting evidence for why we should give a rat's backside about what you think, you'd rather insult people how question you. It is in the proudest tradition of the Catholic Church, I'll grant you--but it makes you look like a fool.

And all of this is giving you the best of it. It's assuming that the Bible is worth the paper it's written on--an assumption that is by no means well-supported enough to even seriously consider.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Can anybody give me the name of a true Christian?

'Jesus' (Haysoos) is pretty popular among Catholics... I bet at least one of them is TC.

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Love God.

Love each other.

Treat others as well as you treat yourself.

Spread the message of Christ to others.

Join a body of believers, and serve God through them.

Pray.

If Christians really believed they should love each other and treat others as well as they treat themselves, then why do so many self-proclaimed "Christians" treat others with contempt and discrimination? The men at the echelons of some of the largest Christian religious organizations do not treat women as well as they treat themselves, and their behavior toward women and gays is far from loving.

I like being treated as an equal and autonomous person, and yet many churches would treat me as "less than" simply because I was born female. I believe that your church does not allow women to speak inside its walls or to assume leadership positions. Are you treating them the way they would treat themselves? Are you treating them the way you would treat yourself? Or are you coming up with some interpretations which allows you to maintain some sort of separate but equal stance when it comes to women?


Skip all the nonsense about the supernatural gods or worshipping a god who would order rapes and genocides (old testament or not, that Yahweh is a frikkin' monster completely unworthy of worship).....why would any woman want to join an organization which does not consider her a full member, able to assume the same positions of men, especially if they supposedly believe that they're all supposed to love one another and treat others as they would treat themselves?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nobody has presented an alternate interpretation for me to address.

Instead, someone is maintaining the absurd assertion that all interpretations are equally valid. Why he continues to bring duck sales into a thread like this, I have no idea.

That assertion came from you.. identity crisis?

[Pup]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't follow you. Can you explain?

It's clear that some things, like building an ark, are aimed at a particular person and unique circumstance, but for other things, it's less obvious whether it's a general principle or not. Allowing a loose interpretation of when something applies to everyone and when it's specific, means one can fudge things in the direction one wants.

If a teacher tells a kid to go to the blackboard and do a problem, it's clear not everyone is supposed to go to the blackboard. If a teacher notices one kid chewing gum and publicly orders the kid to stop, then another student might think it's a general rule that gum shouldn't be chewed and spit his out too, but it's also possible for another kid to claim, "well, he didn't tell me not to chew gum, and that other kid was being noisy about it, but as long as I chew quietly, it's okay." And there's really no objective way to tell which is correct.

I'm also surprised that the following passed the test as a universal command: "Give to every man that asketh of thee."

May I have $100? I'll PM you my Paypal address.

Originally Posted by daffydd

Why would the infallible, holy word of god need interpreting?

See above.

[Elypsis44]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Instead, someone is maintaining the absurd assertion that all interpretations are equally valid.

Because we all know your interpretation of all things Bible is the correct one.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

That's a lie. I've referenced not one but TWO alternate explanations: that of Thomas Aquinas and that of Erasmus. Both disagree with each other, and both STRONGLY disagree with you (Erasmus, I'm pretty sure, would have called for your head; Aquinas was more understanding, but he'd have argued against you none the less).

I don't appreciate your accusation that I'm lying. You're correct, though; you had mentioned Aquinas and Erasmus.

Quote:

This is either a lie, or you can't understand basic English well enough to discuss a topic this complex in the language. No one has said that all interpretations are equally valid.

Oh really? Did you read the post that started this particular tangent? Here it is:

Originally Posted by Craig4

That's an interesting interpretation. Of course all other interpretations are equally valid.

Can we quit with the lie accusations now please?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Pup

It's clear that some things, like building an ark, are aimed at a particular person and unique circumstance, but for other things, it's less obvious whether it's a general principle or not. Allowing a loose interpretation of when something applies to everyone and when it's specific, means one can fudge things in the direction one wants.

If a teacher tells a kid to go to the blackboard and do a problem, it's clear not everyone is supposed to go to the blackboard. If a teacher notices one kid chewing gum and publicly orders the kid to stop, then another student might think it's a general rule that gum shouldn't be chewed and spit his out too, but it's also possible for another kid to claim, "well, he didn't tell me not to chew gum, and that other kid was being noisy about it, but as long as I chew quietly, it's okay." And there's really no objective way to tell which is correct.

That's a very good point. It does provide at least a potential issue if it can be argued one way or another whether certain instructions were supposed to have universal applicability.

This isn't just an abstract problem, either -- certain instructions in the Pauline letters particularly are interpreted different ways based on a claim either that Paul was only instructing that specific church or that the instruction should apply to all believers. The discussion of head coverings in 1 Cor 11 are especially contentious in this point.

Fortunately, most of the basic stuff doesn't suffer from this ambiguity, but there are things that do.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

No. You are wrong. Missing Sunday services is a MORTAL sin.

Actually, missing Mass is a mortal sin in Catholic practice. Given that people may do so, there is a way to (in that denomination) reconcile and get back aboard the bus.

Not quite as sure with how other denominations view this, in detail, but there are passages in the NT that discuss approaching those who sin, or who fall short, and confronting them with their error.

You general idea on how serious a problem it is NOT to keep the Sabbath holy (be it Sunday, Saturday, or Friday, depending upon denomination) rings true as a generalization.

That one miss a Mass does not vacate one's conditions as Christian.

A Christian is one who follow Christ (that seems to be how the appelation originated by those describing Christians) but there is no guarantee that doing so will be perfect in form.

Indeed, as I understand the faith, people are expected to fail, which is pithily summed up by the Apostle Paul:

"For all will sin, and fall short of the glory of God." (Letter to the Romans)

It is thus, as I read it, expected that a Christian will, in his or her exercise of faith, screw up now and again or screw up with some frequency. There is a variety of opinion, and scripture, that offers considerable flexibility in how the Christian community handles that.

Each denomination seems to have its own path, its own "way back into Grace" if you like.

What they mostly seem to agree on is that there is a way back into Grace.

[Elypsis44]

Question for AvalonXQ:

Is it possible that some of your interpretations of Scripture are incorrect and that some other interpretations are correct?

Why or why not.

Thanks.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Scott,

We are called to be perfect, are we not? If you're not willing to die for your faith, how much faith do you really have?

Cpl Ferro

What?

I am convinced beyond doubt that 2+2 = 4.

If you point a gun to my head, I'll swear upon any book of your choice that it is whatever number you want me to say it is. It doesn't even have to be a number. I'd say 2+2 equals strawberry if that's what you wanted to hear.

In fact, you wouldn't even have to point a gun at me. I'll do it under somewhat realistic threats of having my toes stupped or my fingers paper cut.

That has nothing to do with the depth or sincerity of my conviction that 2+2 = 4. It has a lot to do with me not being a suicidal maniac.

(Unless there's some underlying argument that you didn't tell us about. I think genuine belief in an afterlife, e.g. ought to make people very welcoming of their own death, especially if martyrs are guaranteed entry to whatever version of heaven they belief in. But if that's it, you should explain that...)

[deaman]

0.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Indeed, as I understand the faith, people are expected to fail

Yes. However, failure is still punished by eternal hellfire. You CAN be forgiven, but until you are you're damned. And you're still an unworthy pile of filth if you are forgiven, you're just an unworthy pile of filth that God has chosen to take mercy on. None of which gets around the fact that according to RCC dogma missing mass on Sunday is officially a MORTAL sin.

If you want to talk other denominations, that's fine. I don't claim expertise on them, nor do I pretend to have an in-depth understanding of their interpretation of scripture. But as far as the RCC goes, any interpretation other than "Miss mass, go to Hell, unless a priest mumbles some words over you" is simply and officially wrong.

You can evade and equivocate all you want, but at the end of the day you're still saying "God didn't actually mean those ten commandments He personally gave humanity".

Quote:

Each denomination seems to have its own path, its own "way back into Grace" if you like.

Many of which are mutually exclusive, and a large number of these disagreements have lead to a rather unsettling amount of bloodshed (the term "Bloody Mary" didn't start with the drink or the children's dare). You're saying nothing more than "Anything goes" with this statement.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Elypsis44

Question for AvalonXQ:

Is it possible that some of your interpretations of Scripture are incorrect and that some other interpretations are correct?

Absolutely.

Quote:

Why or why not.

Because I'm not God.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear All,

I highly doubt that most people who call themselve "Christian" are True Christians. By True Christian I mean someone who would die for Christ's message, or for another person in imitation of Christ. Judging it by this standard, what percentage of people who style themselves Christians are True?

Cpl Ferro

I've been a Christian since birth.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Absolutely.


Because I'm not God.

Okay. Fair enough.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but why should we believe what you say? I mean, we only have your word for it. Other interpretations--including Aquinas, Augustus, Abulard, both Benedicts, pretty much all the monks in the Chino family of monasteries, Erasmus, and most popes--disagree with you. And considering for most of this it's your word against theirs, why should we accept what you say over and above what, for example, the official philosopher of the Catholic Church said?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Okay. Fair enough.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but why should we believe what you say? I mean, we only have your word for it. Other interpretations--including Aquinas, Augustus, Abulard, both Benedicts, pretty much all the monks in the Chino family of monasteries, Erasmus, and most popes--disagree with you. And considering for most of this it's your word against theirs, why should we accept what you say over and above what, for example, the official philosopher of the Catholic Church said?

I'm not arguing from authority. My opinion is that the Bible speaks for itself; if you don't agree that a clear reading comes to the same conclusions l do, I invite you to use your own judgement.