Summations Only

I was unaware that "Christianity" had an army.

I will dispute the figure of a million people per year. Show me the data and link it (not to a Country) but to a church. "The Church". Governments kill people. Armies kill people. Bad Priests do other things. But the good Priests far outweigh the bad. And last time I checked, neither Jerry Falwell, Joel Olsteen, or Pope Francis had any armies.

just out of curiosity, do you think that all churches are evil? or only all Christian churches

Building on that... So by Christianity do you mean ALL people who identify as Christian? do we get majikally washed in pigs blood once we renounce our faith and become ex-believers?

But it is real. He is real. He is alive. None of the forces of darkness masquerading as progressive ideas nor of modern secular ideologies nor any other manifestation through an anti theistic zealot (not you of course ) will ever eliminate the idea of Jesus Christ for the simple reason that He is, was, and will forever be. *sips coffee*I will grant that I am not a good walking advertisement for Him. I'm working on that.Now...lets have a topic synopsis.

Here is my latest attempt at a topic synopsis. Message 1276

jar:

---

What is the title of the topic?

---

Despite our many rabbit trails...some political, some ideological, and some roughly on topic, we need to focus on what the Meaning of the Trinity is. jar and AZ and Theo are pointing out the hypocrisy of the Church. Dredge is defending his church but not the rest of them. And candle2 is lamenting the evils of secular godless governments. Allow me to address all of you in this topic synopsis. This line of thinking reminds me of what jar said many moons ago. Something to the effect of Christians need to be responsible for the bad done in the name of their religion as well as the good.AZ sees absolutely no good, but according to our (some of our) Theology he leaves himself open for other spirits to poison him. Just because one does not believe in a spirit is no barrier to influence by a spirit. And of course we would argue (how conveniently!) that the Holy Spirit...unique and alone...never possesses or forces itself on to or in to anyone. No way to prove it, though. We all will just have to agree to disagree. There is another R word. Religion. The educated among you will argue that the Trinity doctrine is/was a product of religion. Organized religion. Church people behaving manipulatively and purposefully. And its not an argument I will ry and refute.The question in my mind is whether This group of people known as the Church will ever distance themselves far enough away from secularism so as to be unique.

As a Christian, do you in any way believe that Jesus is real?(Perhaps, as ringo believed, through His message...as an abstract idea? Why would I want to counter what you have posted? Are we not on the same team? This isn't a giant football game between TEAM Evidence starring logic, reason, and reality in the backfield vs TEAM Creator featuring The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Or is it?

Early Christianity avoided politics, according to the wisdom of its Jewish founder. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars...and all that.
Was it Saul/Paul who dragged the growing church into politics? Or was it later...when the five cities became a split in 1066?

How many cults are we talking here? I know I am in one.

Both Madison Avenue and the CCP propaganda from China also promote fantasy over reality. Perhaps what angers you is the bastardization of rational, critical thought. And I'm with you on that one until we get to my belief in an irrational concept of a supernatural spiritual realm. Perhaps I should kill some babies or pagans and just shake it all off. If I get really bored I could go kill other Christians. So much on my plate!(I know! Lets help kill some Russians! We can blame Putin and they are just useless atheists anyway! )

The problems I see include groupthink and crowd behavior versus critical thinking and taking responsibility for what one does rather than simply march to the drummer of the group/church/political party. And of course I am as guilty of this as anyone, and it is only recently (with the help of stable blood sugars) that I have even wanted to address it. Although one could argue that secular progressives are also prone to groupthink. They seemingly push for moralities based on political ideologies. Any group of people who have similar beliefs exhibit varying degrees of (im thinking of the proper term) herd mentality and/or group think. This is the underlying mechanisms of political and ideological division in this country.

Here you go...shoving and framing the argument into jars box. Quit calling my character into question and then proclaiming what I *should* be thinking. And yes, I know more than I knew ten years ago about church history though I have my own sources and ideas. I never attended your liberal boarding school with Socratic teachers who told me to throw everything I had been taught away. I am a product of my upbringing and habit. Part of my habit is arguing with the peanut gallery. Well no duh. I brought Paul up only because one of your pet arguments is that Paul started a new religion. Thats another topic, though. You asserted that the meaning of the Trinity was all about politics. I believe that it had to do more with early beliefs stated by some of the founders (aside from Jesus) of Christianity and Christian thought. It seems to me, based on my limited knowledge of History, that the political divisions which you talked about between competing "clubs" of Christianity came to a head in 1066.I will agree with you that the concept of the Trinity was used as a political talking point by one "side" or club versus another. I will also agree that the church (proper) was divided ideologically and politically. I only asked you where you stood as a Christian because having some insight into your own personal ideology would shed light into how you personally view the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because unlike you, I would prefer to be taught by someone who knows who Jesus iss...not who He was as a character in a book...not who such and such a church writes that He is...not as some atheist noob with a bad agenda seeks to define Him as...and certainly not as a bunch of Socratic secular humanist teachers who prefer Comparative
Religions over Club:Christian try and shove into my brain. They were probably the ones who initially taught you to "throw Him away". You never ask the right questions. If you were a Socratic teacher (which you may well have become) you would be challenging what I think and telling...urging...demanding that I think. And perhaps the issue is that no conservative church would even let such a character in the door. Hence my earlier comment to Taq regarding Groupthink and Herd mentality.Its not what The Trinity© stands for politically. Its what Christians think it means. (and there is no consensus)

Theodoric:

---

Sorry but I do not understand the reference.

when the five cities became a split in 1066?

---

To be honest, I got that from a pamphlet put out by an Eastern Orthodox Church defending their legitimacy of being the True Church as much as the Roman Catholic Church.(This was twenty years ago) They taught me (the pamphlet did at least) that initially there were five cities where the governing Apostles/Officials resided.
IIRC (from memory) the cities were Rome, Antioch,Jerusalem, and...I forget the other two. Perhaps Damacus and Cairo? I never really fact checked that pamphlet! Their point is/was that Rome alone broke off from the other four cities and hence the 1066 split. Being a History guy, perhaps you can enlighten me as to the real causes of the 1066 split.
I know that long before the actual split there were divisions within the church proper. And while we are on the topic of what I have learned about church history, I got most of what I know from reading Church History In Plain Language by Bruce L. Shelley.

I perused the comments from some who have read the book over at Goodreads. I can see why you and Theo would enjoy such a book. It pokes fun at human attempts to mae everything "official" all for the Great Power in which they reside. I might actually read the book if I get time, but its no authoritative History Book except to reinforce one of your entrenched beliefs that humans created religion. My world view is a bit different. One Human (God Incarnate) passed His wisdom and presence down throughout History where the actual intent was and is being increasingly diluted by fallible men. Were I to have learned what you and Theo have learned, I too would literally throw God away. Thank God I didn't.

It may be politics and it may well be human nature, tragedy and humor writ large, but its not Jesus. And if Jesus never existed, the Trinity would fall apart. Tales told round a campfire or in an English satirical novel are no substitute for the origin (SOURCE) of Christianity as often opposed to the CONTENT (Human History) of what "it"(He?She?They?) meant. If Jesus never existed, the church would fall apart. If it stayed together at all, it would simply become a secular humanist do-gooders club.The meaning of the Trinity...to me...is the idea that God (Creator of all seen and unseen) sought to have relationship with humans(so far the only animal who documents its existence and takes selfies) through a human character who told us that He must die and that He would send the comforter(Holy Spirit).You will argue that such thinking leads to exclusivity since only "some" receive this Spirit.And you will point out that this was essentially your original point.

jar:

---

It's meaning was that one group were REAL Christians while the other was excluded from the power and control hierarchy. It was successful and so became a touchstone for defining who was politically in power and who was not.

---

You will likely argue that GOD if GOD exists would not simply pick and choose who to help.