What being a Christian "Was" like

[Baruch]

Relevant to life as a Christian ... if one thinks of Jesus as 100% good, or G-d as 100% good regardless of their relationship ... that is an idealization that I can't agree to.  It is a dualism that denies the Bible (as did Marcion).  The self-designated orthodox line of Christian communities prior to Constantine ... didn't completely free themselves from Marcion.  They partly agreed with him about anti-Semitism, but couldn't totally reject the entire OT, and part of the NT, in favor of this good cop idealization ... without dragging the NT in the mud ... so casuistry had to get busy back in the 2nd century, to try to keep as much of the NT, and all of the OT, and not have it fall apart in self-contradiction.  Including the ridiculous bit about the Gentile Christians being the new Jewish faith, and all the old Jews mere heretics.  And thanks to Augustine of Hippo, who had originally been a Manichee ... or Cyril of Alexandria who had been an Isis follower ... non-Biblical ideas and practices slipped into the Church.  So long as a synod or council would approve of it.

[popsthebuilder]

Pops can respond for himself, but I would like to comment, also.

One theory about the claims of resurrection is that the apostles all KNEW that Jesus was dead but they lied about this in order to start a new movement which became Christianity. This requires a conspiracy to be established and maintained, and there are numerous reasons I could give to show why this not probable. Plausible, sure, but not probable.

As for your dispute, sure. Test all the major religions to see which can provide the best support for their foundational stories. Christianity is based on an event...not a belief...but an event. Either Jesus was raised or he was not. Judge it by the evidence we can offer to convince you of its historicity.

I'm sorry, but Christianity is equally about the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the Christ as it is the resurrection and second coming.

Personal opinion though, sorta.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[popsthebuilder]

Was Muhammed a real, historical figure? Should I trust everything that is said in the religious documents surrounding the events if his life? No. And I will not believe the Bible either. Neither has a shred of evidence to support it.

Also, I don't know why you quoted me, since you didn't answer my question anyway.

The Qur'an and bible are both profitable towards the continued peaceable existence of life. It is man with greed and fear that has contorted these things into nearly unrecognizable atrocities.

Peace 

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Mike Cl]

The Qur'an and bible are both profitable towards the continued peaceable existence of life. It is man with greed and fear that has contorted these things into nearly unrecognizable atrocities.

Peace 

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I see pops is back at it--the same old tired garbled (good luck with trying to figure out what you are saying) platitudes.  Both the quran and the bible were written and crafted into the documents we have.  So, it only makes sense that those people who are contorted by greed and fear will commit atrocities.  And since religions are a major source of both greed and fear it only stands to reason that many atrocities are committed in the name of whatever god they fear.

[popsthebuilder]

I see pops is back at it--the same old tired garbled (good luck with trying to figure out what you are saying) platitudes.  Both the quran and the bible were written and crafted into the documents we have.  So, it only makes sense that those people who are contorted by greed and fear will commit atrocities.  And since religions are a major source of both greed and fear it only stands to reason that many atrocities are committed in the name of whatever god they fear.

Nice try, but greed and fear are not of faith, or the direction of GOD.

Fear of anything but the repercussions of ones own willful misdirection is specifically spoken against, as is greed. Repeatedly.

Weighing the profitability of Faith based on the erroneous actions of man in the past who may or may not have proclaimed to be faithful can indeed lead one to conclude that organized religion is not profitable.

Basing said inquiry on what one can ascertain from truthful introspection and unbiased review of core scriptures of the faithful will lead to a wholly different conclusion, however.

   

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Johan]

Seven pages and the OP as never come back.

[Randy Carson]

No, their not. And neither is the claim that God created imperfect beings, punished them for being imperfect beings, sent himself in the form of one of his imperfect beings as the only one capable of living up to his impossible standards, died, rose from the grave, and somehow used his self-sacrifice as an excuse to forgive us for being imperfect, but only if we have faith that all of these things are true.

Muhammed wasn't a real person?

[Baruch]

Muhammed wasn't a real person?

Nobody matches their legend ... even King Arthur.  The King Arthur of literature is a character in a story by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century.  The King Arthur of history is less clear, and may be more than one individual, and very Dark Ages, not at all like 12th century Europe.  Sound familiar?  What is real, is that in the 12th century, the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans and French got all hot and bothered by Celtic fantasies.  And ultimately King Henry II, apparently paid Geoffrey off to write a politically correct fantasy that would cause the legend to be supportive of his particular regime.  That and the false flag of finding King Arthur and Guinevere buried at Glastonbury Abbey ... this time not by Emperor Constantine's mother's diviner.  History doesn't repeat but it rhymes.

Somebody may be buried in Muhammad's tomb, but it has been destroyed twice.

[ApostateLois]

Yep. Consider the fate of the pagan religions.

Catholics overran pagan cities, towns and lands, bought and occupied pagan buildings and temples, altered pagan art, music and literature, absorbed and replaced pagan harvest festivals and religious feasts, and, above all, won over and converted the pagan people themselves. In doing so, Catholics brought all things under the dominion of the one true God, Jesus Christ.

Isn't that what He wanted us to do (cf. Mt 28:19)?

Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) wrote:

Scripture sanctions this practice. The Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was on the same day as a Canaanite vintage festival that it supplanted, much as Christmas coincided with the festival of Sol Invictus that non-Christians were celebrating.

This is the same principle that Protestant churches use today when they replace the celebration of Halloween with "Reformation Day" or "harvest festival" celebrations. It is an attempt to provide a wholesome alternative celebration to a popular but unwholesome one. Anti-Catholics who accuse Christmas of having "pagan origins" fail to recognize that it is precisely anti-pagan in origin.

All of this is the long way of saying that you condone the genocide of people who are different than you.

[Baruch]

Romans didn't call it genocide ... they called it domestic and foreign policy.

[Randy Carson]

All of this is the long way of saying that you condone the genocide of people who are different than you.

If you read more closely, you will see that I wrote "convert" - not kill - the pagans themselves.

[Mike Cl]

If you read more closely, you will see that I wrote "convert" - not kill - the pagans themselves.

"Convert"--Hmmm............seems to me I've heard the Ustasha used that word for reaping souls for god in WWII.