Christianity

[Dubious]

Pretty sure not everyone, in-thread, agrees.

I'm quite sure you're right but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity derived from a minority of Jewish believers in Jesus.

Sure, I'm not disputin' that. What I'm sayin' is its history isn't its definition.

It's definition or intent was defined at the very beginning of its history as made explicit in the NT itself. The four gospels - the synoptic ones especially - overlap in their goal. That's one reason why these specifically were chosen for inclusion. History, per se, may not be its definition, but history declares how under what circumstances those definitions were created. All religions have a leitmotiv.

[Gary Childress]

If someone gives money to a beggar, does that make the beggar a thief?

If those who can afford taxes are too stingy to help those who can't afford proper healthcare, then that is immoral on their part.

It's theirs, Gary, not yours.

I know it's not mine. I'm not the one receiving the money. So it's a moot point.

[Gary Childress]

I'm the one who would be helping your sorry ass if you were homeless and living on the street.

[henry quirk]

I'm the one who would be helping your sorry ass if you were homeless and living on the street.

If my sorry ass were on the streets, and you chose to lend me a hand, I'd be very thankful.

But: does my sorry ass bein' on the streets entitle me to your help?

Of course not.

Are you, bein' in a better position than my sorry ass, obligated to help?

Of course not.

Is Joe, who's better off than you, obligated to help my sorry ass becuz you choose to?

Of course not.

[henry quirk]

I'm quite sure you're right but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity derived from a minority of Jewish believers in Jesus.

Sure, I'm not disputin' that. What I'm sayin' is its history isn't its definition.

It's definition or intent was defined at the very beginning of its history as made explicit in the NT itself. The four gospels - the synoptic ones especially - overlap in their goal. That's one reason why these specifically were chosen for inclusion. History, per se, may not be its definition, but history declares how under what circumstances those definitions were created. All religions have a leitmotiv.

Apparently there's enough slack built into that leitmotiv that everyone here can reinvent Christianity to be a whole whack of different things. Hell, seems like, accordin' to some, we can dispense with the recurrin' theme (Christ) altogether and still have Christianity.

[Gary Childress]

I'm the one who would be helping your sorry ass if you were homeless and living on the street.

If my sorry ass were on the streets, and you chose to lend me a hand, I'd be very thankful.

But: does my sorry ass bein' on the streets entitle me to your help?

Of course not.

Are you, bein' in a better position than my sorry ass, obligated to help?

Of course not.

Is Joe, who's better off than you, obligated to help my sorry ass becuz you choose to?

Of course not.

I'll always try to help others who need it, Henry. And if I can't afford to then I'll vote for laws that obligate those many times wealthier than I am to do it. If that bothers you, then go live on the street with the homeless and see how you like it.

[henry quirk]

I'll vote for laws that obligate those many times wealthier than I am to do it.

Of course you will. And I'll continue to scoff those laws. When I help: I'll be the one to decide who & how, not you or your proxies.

[Gary Childress]

I'll vote for laws that obligate those many times wealthier than I am to do it.

Of course you will. And I'll continue to scoff those laws. When I help: I'll be the one to decide who & how, not you or your proxies.

Fair enough.

[Dubious]

Sure, I'm not disputin' that. What I'm sayin' is its history isn't its definition.

It's definition or intent was defined at the very beginning of its history as made explicit in the NT itself. The four gospels - the synoptic ones especially - overlap in their goal. That's one reason why these specifically were chosen for inclusion. History, per se, may not be its definition, but history declares how under what circumstances those definitions were created. All religions have a leitmotiv.

Apparently there's enough slack built into that leitmotiv that everyone here can reinvent Christianity to be a whole whack of different things. Hell, seems like, accordin' to some, we can dispense with the recurrin' theme (Christ) altogether and still have Christianity.

Yeah! One can "reinvent" Christianity to be all kind of things but then is it still Christianity? Dispensing with Christ is a full-blown oxymoron because then you will have to dispense with the center of what created it during the first century AD. If you want to dispense with Christ and still call it Christianity you will at least have to put "Neo" in front of it to separate it from its original which usually amounts to a massive derogation. If after centuries of belief, we now have to inquire for a re-definition of Christianity then Nietzsche was absolutely correct in saying God is dead because the question itself already assumes that.

As for what people write here over 90% is hogwash anyway and wouldn't influence me in the least.

[Gary Childress]

I'll vote for laws that obligate those many times wealthier than I am to do it.

Of course you will. And I'll continue to scoff those laws. When I help: I'll be the one to decide who & how, not you or your proxies.

Henry Quirk, admonishing the generous and sticking up for the greedy. What a hero.

[Nick_A]

To whoever posted questions as to why I believe the Cross expresses the essential meaning and purpose of Christianity, I had some personal problems necessitated being away from the Internet for a week. Your questions were good and deserve answers. Feel free to try again since your post may have been deleted since I can't find it..

[Immanuel Can]

*All I'm sayin' is: you better ask first.

Yep, fair enough.

[Immanuel Can]

I'll vote for laws that obligate those many times wealthier than I am to do it.

Of course you will. And I'll continue to scoff those laws. When I help: I'll be the one to decide who & how, not you or your proxies.

Henry Quirk, admonishing the generous and sticking up for the greedy. What a hero.

I haven't noticed the munificence of Socialism. They do seem to be free in their dispensation of poverty, oppression and misery, but beyond that, their care for the common man, I would say, is quite inauthentic.

Until covid, free markets were actually defeating world poverty. But the Socialists couldn't stand that...nothing is allowed to work but giving all the control to Socialist dictators, it seems. So they killed that progress. It will take years to get the world back to where it was...if we ever can.

[ThinkOfOne]

To whoever posted questions as to why I believe the Cross expresses the essential meaning and purpose of Christianity, I had some personal problems necessitated being away from the Internet for a week. Your questions were good and deserve answers. Feel free to try again since your post may have been deleted since I can't find it..

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33261&p=606779#p606779

[Harry Baird]

It's true, though. I've told you.
So there won't be any saying you haven't been told.

God told you to tell me that I'm going to hell for not believing in Yahweh? What were God's exact words to you concerning that? Can you at least paraphrase what the voice said without citing the bible? I don't believe the Bible is an entirely accurate interpretation of the divine so I'm not going to accept that as an answer.

This is such a difficult set of questions for Immanuel Can that I flagged them, knowing that their awkward difficulty meant that he would avoid them.

Of course, I was right, and, of course, Immanuel Can's avoidance demonstrates what we all already knew: God has never spoken to him. All that Immanuel Can "knows" about God comes from a set of books thousands of years old and written by other men who, as AJ has pointed out repeatedly, were a priestly class seeking power.