Summations Only

Typical that you don't. Jar raised a serious point and you appear to have no answer. You seem to have only a single arrow in your quiver for any topic these days, and after you've used it it's all "I've already answered that," "That doesn't deserve an answer," "I'm redefining words to suit my own purposes," "That's idiotic," and "There's no use talking to you" (though you keep talking anyway, and I'm paraphrasing, of course). And yet it's the very topic of this thread, and something else you seem to have no answer for. A Tale of Two Cities is fiction, too, even though it's about historical places and events like London and Paris and the French Reign of Terror. Calling A Tale of Two Cities or the Bible fiction is not to accuse them of containing nothing accurate or factual. This shouldn't have to be explained.--Percy

Amazing. I think I'll lay in a year's supply of popcorn and sit back and watch the world self-destruct.

Okay. That's reasonable.In any event, I'm not the only person here who seems willing to discuss Bible based arguments. Jar has taken on some of those arguments.Regardless of whether you are moderating or not, I take the point that Bible-based arguments are actually off topic, and I won't engage in further posts along those lines. Given that Faith isn't actually addressing such questions anyway, I don't see how the discussion would suffer.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Ah, thank you for treating us to yet another definition from the Faith Dictionary of the English Language. Whether you use the word "orthodox" or "mainstream" (I'm using the standard definitions, now, not the special ones that you make up), Catholicism qualifies. By no logic or rationale can Catholicism be classified as unorthodox or out of the Christian mainstream.--Percy

Gee, I didn't mean to have that effect. I'd really rather you continue, although... There is that.--Percy

Stop and think.Whose doctrine?The doctrine you wish to market?

Do you not understand the problem you are encountering? Nobody here seems to agree with your definition of what constitutes Christianity, thus they cannot reach the same conclusion as you about which doctrines are none Christian and which are not. During past discussions we've seen you complain about everything Catholic including the shape of their hats. Here we see you complaining about Popes calling themselves Father, while in other posts we find you making excuses for the Divine Right of Kings doctrine. Because King James must be found to have lived a blameless life.Given that kind of waffling, I see nothing really so amazing. I suppose you might find the positions of other amazing because you never seem to appreciate how people reach different conclusions on any topic. Faith's conclusions are always obvious. Or so goes the brag of Colonel McBrag. Even for simple things such as the definition of 'parallel' and 'mainstream' there always seems to be a 'Faith definition' that resounds only with you.And finally, what kind of argument is claiming the 'mainstream' anyway? Is it not the case that there are far more people who claim to be Christians than there are people who actually saved? Clearly, being in the majority is no guarantee that you are on the right path.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You didn't show that, and I showed that you didn't show that (to borrow a page from the Faith Guide to Debating Without Actually Saying Anything). I see you're using the Faith Dictionary of the English Language again. Oxford Dictionaries says faith is "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." If you need evidence then it isn't faith. So now it seems the truth of the Bible is "spiritually discerned" rather than demonstrated by evidence. I think you're confusing ignorance with disagreement. Muslims as prejudiced as yourself could say the same thing about Christianity. This is true of both some Christians and some Muslims. You don't have to wonder about this because Christians do have a history of slaughtering Muslims. Here's a nice passage from the Wikipedia article about the First Crusade:

quote:

---

The crusader armies initially fought the Turks at the lengthy Siege of Antioch that began in October 1097 and lasted until June 1098. Once inside the city the crusaders massacred the Muslim inhabitants and pillaged the city.
...
Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks. On 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city. They proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and Muslim civilians and pillaged or destroyed mosques and the city itself.
  —Wikipedia

---

I think a rather large majority of any religion would chose life over faith.--Percy

Interesting claim. Surely you are familiar with the very famous Biblical counter-example to what you claim.

An opinion the rest of the world shares.And besides, it is not a tenet of Islam. I await your (Islamic) references. I suppose you could try and argue al-Sadiq - looking at Taqiyya and Kitman - but he is representative of a minority of Muslims. About comparable to Anglicans I'd say (aka Shi'a). Also, lying is only permitted as a means to preserve safety and never if an innocent would be harmed.Similar to Western notions of the morality of lying.In the majority, Sunni, sect - the general historical principle is that lying is not obligatory but may be permitted if under duress. In Sunni Islam although lying if your life is under threat is permissible, it is considered preferable to die as a martyr reaffirming your faith.Similar to Christian notions on the morality of lying.

quote:

---

There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license [to deny one's faith under duress], but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that [instead of choosing death].

---

-Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari If you did take back your faith you'd be an apostate. If you told an immoral torturer that you had taken back your faith, but you still believe God is the only God and Muhammed is his prophet, then you haven't really taken back your faith and you haven't committed a moral offence (if it is OK to kill oppressors, of course it is OK to lie to them). Not really. First, most Muslims actually agree with this, but forgive those that crack under pressure. Just like Christ forgave Peter and venerate those that stick to their guns. As ever, reality is not quite as simple as you would like to preach it is.Of course, if you want to argue that Christians favour martyrdom more than Muslims - I'm sure that'd be entertaining.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I know, I know...majority belief, worldview and/or opinion...right? I am referring to a mainstream spiritual vibe. Atheists, of course, have no religious belief but many do ascribe to a vibe. Our very own Stile, for example, speaks of spirituality as unique and relative to the individual...whereas I would disagree only in saying beware of imitations---there is but One Holy Spirit. My viewpoint assumes that God exists regardless of what people do or do not believe. I'll admit that this black/white worldview is interpreted by many as narrow minded, but I might add that the Bible even speaks of a narrow path that few find. Percy did have a point in that by being anti Roman Catholic you were in essence non-mainstream. One point I might make: Just as foreign policy of the US goverment is not shared by some if not a majority of Americans, official church sanctioned beliefs by a denomination may not represent the actual beliefs of the members of that denomination.In my mind, a oneness pentecostal is not necessarily out of the mainstream nor is trinitarianism concretely important. I might assert, however, that belief in Jesus as more than simply a controversial human prophet is mainstream,at least in my stream that I choose to fish in.I tend to give God credit for drawing many nearer to Him despite their reluctance to do so. I suppose I could say that not all of humanity is in communion with and/or through the Holy Spirit and to me, this communion is itself orthodox. As to whether it is in fact mainstream, I might point out again that a majority are called and a minority are chosen.

Would you be a Christian had you been born in Iraq?

It all depends on whether my belief---as an adult---is determined only through my cultural upbringing. In fact, it would be interesting to crunch the number of converts from childhood culture into any given belief...and see how the numbers compare. If Christianity is more than simply cultural indoctrination, we might see a trend through these statistics.Anyway...steering ever so slightly back towards the topic....can it ever be shown that the "words of God" differ from the words of men? One argument thus far presented is that Protestant orthodoxy (mainstream, if one prefers) is somewhat consistent and could be explained as Gods word as opposed to human reasoning, wisdom, or political motive.Realistically, however...I doubt that I can prove that God actually speaks through certain words,passages, and books....not to mention His existence. Play along with me for a moment, Tangle. Take a contrarian view. Give us something that God would say to humanity. (Not a God of human imagination, but a hypothetical Creator of all seen and unseen who plausibly exists despite lack of evidence.)

I never really agreed with the idea that Paul was marketing a new religion. I believe that Paul was influenced by an otherworldly epiphany and that he had it in his heart and soul to persuade the pagans that they too were now chosen by God. Besides...what is the difference between marketing and persuasion? There may well have been a Prophet motive but certainly not a profit one.

Would I be a Christian if I'd been born in Iraq? It's possible. There are Christian Iraqis. Or were, they've been driven out by the Islamic State in great numbers recently.I'm not a Christian by birth although I was sent to church as a child, and learned very little, was most likely not saved, don't see how I could have been. Spent thirty years from age fifteen to about 45 as an atheist of varying degrees of commitment and intensity. Became a believer in God through the books of a couple of Hindu gurus, got fascinated with the concept of God, particularly that He could be experienced, which they claimed, and read tons of books after that over the next few years, through all the main religions plus stuff like Rosicrucianism and occultic beliefs, until after about two to three years I knew I believed in Christ. I had been persuaded. I had no Christian friends, in fact my friends who knew my mental progress through that reading tried to turn me away from Christianity by giving me books on such things as Gnosticism.That probably doesn't answer your question because you are looking for the obvious statistical answer, that it's highly unlikely. But the point of course is that one doesn't always follow the religion of one's culture and I'm sure you know that too. People become Christians out of other religions every day, and get killed for it in some places. Nominal Christians or at least westerners turned to Hinduism in great numbers in the sixties and seventies, and now quite a few are turning to Islam.The Christian answer to your question is that God elects those He chooses to save, from every culture in the world. I consider myself one of those extremely fortunate people.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.