Persecution of christians

[Jon Miller]

how does this have anything to do with what you were responding to?

Jon Miller

[Berzerker]

We don't have separation of church and state as long as "sinners" are sent to penitentiaries to repent, the very notion is religious, i.e., "sins" that are offenses against someone's deity.

[Ned]

Berzerker, to the Christian, it appears to them like atheists are raming their hedionistic philosophy down on them when the legislatures and the courts allow abortion and attack the family. But, in the end, this is why we have a democracy where the most votes win.

[chequita guevara]

Attack the family?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Okay Che, I'm going to stop you here. Why was this the orthodox position? Politics? Hardly.

Never discount the ardor and fanatacism of the politics of true believers in a messianic movement. Politics was very much part and parcel of the Christian religion from its inception and through its entire history up to today. Differences between churches today assume political diminsions, so why deny that early Christians would act in a similar manner?

So the Gnostics assert Christ never died on the cross? There is absolutely no room for accomodation if this is the case.

Some did, some didn't. Gnosticism is a blanket term for all of the non-Orthodox Christian creeds, covering a wide variety of beliefs. The followers of Valentinus (sp?) argued that Christ was a divine being, and that as such, he could not die, that his sacrifice and resurrection were symbolic of coming to know the true nature of God (and there was a whole lot of beliefs as to what the true nature of God was).

What's the use of arguing over which books ought to be in the canon, when you don't even believe in any of the books?

It shows that there was a debate about what was and wasn't Christian at the start of the movement. That there were conflicting claims as to who's version of events were true, that there are alternate sources of "truth" that were suppressed, and that the four "cannonical" Gospels aren't necessarily to be taken as gospel. You chose a particlar set of Christian works to be true, and ignore others. The basis on which you make this choice is based on the historical accident of the Orthodox position "winning" the debate through force (after Constantine, all heretical sects were physically surpressed).

It shows the complete arbitrariness of the Christian faith.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Our struggle is with the world, in that the world does not love Christians for what they believe and what they teach.

We don't hate Christians eithers. For the most part, we wish you'd leave us alone and stop trying to force your religion on the rest of us.

Why is it Christians in the West, where they are an overwhelming majority (85% of Americans identify themselves as Christian) complain of being perscuted? You have no clue as to what persecution for your beliefs really is. Have you ever been beaten for what you believe? Have you ever been fired for what you believe? Have you ever gotten a bureaucratic hassle about benig able to even continue going to school because of what you believe? Do you know anyone who was killed for being Christian? I can answer affirmatively to all those questions about being a communist. I can't even talk about what I really believe at work, meanwhile people have crosses in the cubes and bibles and talk to me about their faith.

The minority of Chrisitians who complain about being oppressed for being Christian aren't benig opprressed for being Christian. It's because you're a bunch of *******s. The majority of Christians don't feel they are being oppressed, because they aren't. The run the government, why should they oppress themselves?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The biggest case against the existance of Arthur as a person is the fact that Gildas doesn't mention him. Sorry, but you're falling flat there. No serious Dark Ages historian takes Arthur seriously, even as a "real man, not a legend".

That's not true. There are few serious historians who take the Arthur legend seriously. Interesting stuff, mostly in linguistics. It's all conjecture, as anything from that period would be, but there are some interesting coincidences.

Anyway, what's so hard about believing a King of the ancient Welsh held the Anglo-Saxons at bay for a generation?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

He did, and he was Maelgwyn of Gynnedd. A well-known character from Gildas and the Welsh annals, who had nothing to do with Mons Badonicus.

Incidentally he was also very gay. I'm fond of recounting that to BNP popular historians.

[Ben Kenobi]

No Ben, it's because most Christians feel compelled to "save" the rest of us by force, be it inquisitions or laws.

Through force? That's not gong to work. You cannot force someone to convert. This interpretation comes from a misreading in medieval times of the passage where Christ fills his banquet hall with beggars and prostitutes, because the ones who were invited did not come.

Christ invites all of us to come to his banquet hall, and it is our choice whether to accept his invitation or to reject his invitation.

And Berz, Christians are mocked by the world for their beliefs. Try to talk about chastity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Never discount the ardor and fanatacism of the politics of true believers in a messianic movement.

Che:

You miss my point. Why would politics compel the Christians to fabricate a bodily resurrection rather than a spiritual resurrection as advocated by the Gnostics Greeks and Jews?

You have no clue as to what persecution for your beliefs really is. Have you ever been beaten for what you believe? Have you ever been fired for what you believe? Have you ever gotten a bureaucratic hassle about benig able to even continue going to school because of what you believe? Do you know anyone who was killed for being Christian.

On what principle is boasting justified? God knows what I have gone through, and he is the only one who needs to know.

Does the more suffering you endure make you more of a believer? Does the more you talk about it make your beliefs any stronger?

[Ben Kenobi]

It shows the complete arbitrariness of the Christian faith.

I wish I had more time...

So much to do.

There are two ways to address this problem, from a Catholic perspective and from a Protestant perspective. The Catholic perspective emphasises the authority of the church and the councils, while the Protestant emphasises the inspiration of scripture.

The authority from the Councils comes from this concept of Apostolic succession which starts as an acknowledgment of the Apostles as not only witnesses but qualified to write their accounts. The Councils have a responsibility to uphold and maintain the teachings of the Apostles even in determining the canon.

The works that they chose had to not only be instrumental to faith, but had to be reliable and trustworthy. There are many good writings that did not make the book for reasons of length, such as the Didache. There are others that did not meet the standards of reliability or authenticity. Most of the books you mention fail the second standard.

However, it makes very little sense to argue inspiration with someone who does not believe that there are any inspired books. It is like trying to teach cosmology without a telescope.

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

Where is the evidence of the author of Luke emphasised on women? Furthermore, at least half of those names in Luke are not women names, so what gives? Lastly, why are there overlaps between the two lines?

This explanation simply does not hold water for any nonbelievers.

Overlaps are easy because both geneologies show Jesus as a son of David, as fulfilling Jewish prophecies as the Messiah. Luke goes further emphasising Christ as the Son of man, by tracing his geneology back to Adam.

So, as David is a descendent of Adam, there will be some overlap in the names.

Secondly, point out inconsistencies between the resurrection accounts. I will only deal with those you directly cite, with the passage and a quotation. I'm not doing your work for you.

[Ben Kenobi]

A Christian forger wouldn't want to appear much less restrained when masquerading as a non-Christian Jew.

Maybe he's an Islamic commentator trying to get both sides at the same time.

Interestingly, my argument in jest has as much evidence as yours of forgery.

[Ben Kenobi]

There does not appear to be any actual evidence for that assertion.

Well, the account assumes that the temple is still standing. That alone should allow us to date them before AD 70.

Secondly, if they were written after AD 70 why did they not affirm Jesus' successful prediction! It would be an amazing affirmation, and is certainly with precedent in the OT. Yet we don't see anything. Why?

[Ben Kenobi]

There is plenty of controversy for historians, however!

That's not the point. Surely if there were controversy, it would show up in dissenting opinions of the Church fathers. Yet we see nothing. Everyone agrees.

Why should we trust a historian 2000 years after Christ rather than the church fathers who wrote less than 100 years after Christ? They are much closer to the time than we are.