True Christians
Ragtime wrote:
Everyone serves someone or something. And that's not just a Christian belief; we're born serving ourselves. With some people, that changes over time, whereas many people serve themselves foremost their entire lives.
Better to rule, than to serve.
I choose to learn to rule myself.
calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
God never "forgot" sin before. It ALWAYS had to be atoned for with a blood offering. The above clearly predicts a divine policy change in that regard.
Right, there is CLEARLY a difference. No dispute
there. But, there was no cause, from Jesus' words,
to think that the laws of the OT no longer applied.
Just as God will forgive a bit of murder and adultery,
also will he forgive other offenses. BUT, Christians
don't even see these as such, instead, they eat shellfish
and other such abominations.
I think that's been explained on the basis that the law still applies to Jews, but not to Christians of other origins.
WatcherAzazel wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
What constitutes a True Christian? Are only True Christians going to heaven? Who made you the judge? Isn't that up to God to decide!?
I would hate to use a term like "true Christians," but in the end I'd say it's very different from what alot of the fire-and-brimstone types make it out to be. Most of them don't follow Christ so much as Paul (the two are mutually exclusive when you get down to it: Christ was a moral relativist, Paul was a moral absolutist). I'd say that a true Christian is someone who attempts to help others and do the right thing.
I also think that it's necessary that they be doing this because they believe in Christ if they're going to take the name "Christians," but I also don't believe that God will punish them for simply not believing in him/Christ if they have some other set of believes. I mean, Jesus put alot more effort into preaching about not hurting others, not taking things that aren't yours, not sitting back while other suffer, and generally playing nice, than he did into preaching about why it's so important to accept him as your lord and savior.
I agree. I think using the term "true Christians" is Unchristian.
I don't agree that Christ was essentially a relativist, but I do think that he preferred the heart rather than the letter of religious laws. In the end, I think that a person's heart will probably matter more on the scale than a person's dogma.
Last edited by spdjeanne on 06 Sep 2007, 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WatcherAzazel wrote:
calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
God never "forgot" sin before. It ALWAYS had to be atoned for with a blood offering. The above clearly predicts a divine policy change in that regard.
Right, there is CLEARLY a difference. No dispute
there. But, there was no cause, from Jesus' words,
to think that the laws of the OT no longer applied.
Just as God will forgive a bit of murder and adultery,
also will he forgive other offenses. BUT, Christians
don't even see these as such, instead, they eat shellfish
and other such abominations.
I think that's been explained on the basis that the law still applies to Jews, but not to Christians of other origins.
But the thing is that Jesus never said that according to the Bible, actually according to the verse cited, he said that the law don't ever change, and early christianity was still observing the same law after Jesus' death, and that actually changed after the romans adopted christianity.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
greenblue wrote:
WatcherAzazel wrote:
calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
God never "forgot" sin before. It ALWAYS had to be atoned for with a blood offering. The above clearly predicts a divine policy change in that regard.
Right, there is CLEARLY a difference. No dispute
there. But, there was no cause, from Jesus' words,
to think that the laws of the OT no longer applied.
Just as God will forgive a bit of murder and adultery,
also will he forgive other offenses. BUT, Christians
don't even see these as such, instead, they eat shellfish
and other such abominations.
I think that's been explained on the basis that the law still applies to Jews, but not to Christians of other origins.
But the thing is that Jesus never said that according to the Bible, actually according to the verse cited, he said that the law don't ever change, and early christianity was still observing the same law after Jesus' death, and that actually changed after the romans adopted christianity.
I think, from the description in the Gospels of Jesus' actions and how he tended to break said religious laws, that he probably meant something different by "laws" than his contemporaries.
I suspect that he meant that the spirit
was more important than the letter of
God's laws, but still one shouldn't go
breaking them for no better reason than
to make it easier for huge numbers of
those who were not Jews into the faith.
But, sometimes delusional megalomaniacs
are contradictory.
Ragtime wrote:
Who's stereotyping now? I only noticed the capitalization because I'm a Christian? Hitting the shift key is almost never a typo. NOT hitting the shift key can be a typo. If you hit it, there's a reason. Don't patronize me as "one of those Christians who notices capitalization". Please.
I never fit in when I was young because I studied German and then crossed my 7s and made nouns uppercase whenever I wrote, or semi-randomly. It made obvious sense to me but drove people who read my stuff mad -especially the grammar nazis. I also use parenthesis and brackets to organize my thoughts in ways that should be obvious, but only a few programmers seem to get it.
I also have noticed that some Christians seem to be sensitive to capitalization. They are the people who don't like me spelling Christmas as Christmass or Christsmass.
And there was that time when I woke up and was listening to acorns falling on the roof. Asked myself why they are called acorns instead of oak nuts. Wasn't until I studied Old Norse that I learned that eik korn means oak nut, and that it was transmogrified to acorn on a phonetic basis.
monty wrote:
I also use parenthesis and brackets to organize my thoughts in ways that should be obvious, but only a few programmers seem to get it.
Which is why coding standards exist.
AND grammatical rules. One has to
operate under the accepted conventions,
in order to be fully understood.
greenblue wrote:
WatcherAzazel wrote:
calandale wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
God never "forgot" sin before. It ALWAYS had to be atoned for with a blood offering. The above clearly predicts a divine policy change in that regard.
Right, there is CLEARLY a difference. No dispute
there. But, there was no cause, from Jesus' words,
to think that the laws of the OT no longer applied.
Just as God will forgive a bit of murder and adultery,
also will he forgive other offenses. BUT, Christians
don't even see these as such, instead, they eat shellfish
and other such abominations.
I think that's been explained on the basis that the law still applies to Jews, but not to Christians of other origins.
But the thing is that Jesus never said that according to the Bible, actually according to the verse cited, he said that the law don't ever change, and early christianity was still observing the same law after Jesus' death, and that actually changed after the romans adopted christianity.
Yeah, but it does make sense, though, considering that even in the old testament the laws are different in many places for non Jews.
monty wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Who's stereotyping now? I only noticed the capitalization because I'm a Christian? Hitting the shift key is almost never a typo. NOT hitting the shift key can be a typo. If you hit it, there's a reason. Don't patronize me as "one of those Christians who notices capitalization". Please.
I never fit in when I was young because I studied German and then crossed my 7s and made nouns uppercase whenever I wrote, or semi-randomly. It made obvious sense to me but drove people who read my stuff mad -especially the grammar nazis. I also use parenthesis and brackets to organize my thoughts in ways that should be obvious, but only a few programmers seem to get it.
I also have noticed that some Christians seem to be sensitive to capitalization. They are the people who don't like me spelling Christmas as Christmass or Christsmass.
And there was that time when I woke up and was listening to acorns falling on the roof. Asked myself why they are called acorns instead of oak nuts. Wasn't until I studied Old Norse that I learned that eik korn means oak nut, and that it was transmogrified to acorn on a phonetic basis.
I love finding out the roots of words... well maybe not love..., but I find it interesting. I just recently heard about the origin of the word "lullaby" which means "Lilith be ye gone" referring to the legend of Adam's evil first wife in the Garden of Eden. She is not in the Bible, but was invented to try and make the two creation myths of Genesis compatible. People thought SIDS was caused by Lilith and sang to their babies to ward her off.
monty wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Who's stereotyping now? I only noticed the capitalization because I'm a Christian? Hitting the shift key is almost never a typo. NOT hitting the shift key can be a typo. If you hit it, there's a reason. Don't patronize me as "one of those Christians who notices capitalization". Please.
I never fit in when I was young because I studied German and then crossed my 7s and made nouns uppercase whenever I wrote, or semi-randomly. It made obvious sense to me but drove people who read my stuff mad -especially the grammar nazis. I also use parenthesis and brackets to organize my thoughts in ways that should be obvious, but only a few programmers seem to get it.
I also have noticed that some Christians seem to be sensitive to capitalization. They are the people who don't like me spelling Christmas as Christmass or Christsmass.
I see what you mean, there are a few people who are christians that feel somehow upset because a few failed to use the capital "G" to refer to God, like the word god with a lowercase g sounded offending to them, now I wonder how a person with some form of dyslexia could have a problem with writing capitals properly, if that's the case, then I wonder how a kid with such problem would be treated within a fundamentalist religious environment, just wondering.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
greenblue wrote:
I see what you mean, there are a few people who are christians that feel somehow upset because a few failed to use the capital "G" to refer to God, like the word god with a lowercase g sounded offending to them, now I wonder how a person with some form of dyslexia could have a problem with writing capitals properly, if that's the case, then I wonder how a kid with such problem would be treated within a fundamentalist religious environment, just wondering.
Proper nouns, and thus capitalization, should only be done for things that exist. If the person typing does not believe in said deity or belief, they are under no obligation to capitalize it. The offended are just projecting their beliefs onto others as usual. Instead of respecting the beliefs of the others who do not agree with them. Same old, same old.
_________________
I won?t tell anyone else how to be
You can be yourself, but just let me be me
Trigger11 wrote:
greenblue wrote:
I see what you mean, there are a few people who are christians that feel somehow upset because a few failed to use the capital "G" to refer to God, like the word god with a lowercase g sounded offending to them, now I wonder how a person with some form of dyslexia could have a problem with writing capitals properly, if that's the case, then I wonder how a kid with such problem would be treated within a fundamentalist religious environment, just wondering.
Proper nouns, and thus capitalization, should only be done for things that exist. If the person typing does not believe in said deity or belief, they are under no obligation to capitalize it. The offended are just projecting their beliefs onto others as usual. Instead of respecting the beliefs of the others who do not agree with them. Same old, same old.
If the word "God" is being used in a sentence as a name, whether or not you believe God exists, it should be capitalized grammatically. Not capitalizing the word when used as a name is usually done to emphasize disbelief because it is improper grammar and therefore eye catching. However, if the word "God" is capitalized because it is used as a name in a sentence that does not automatically imply belief, just proper grammar. The same is done with words where the grammatically correct capitalization is not as ambiguous, Bible, Koran, Mormon, Islam, Christian, Hindu, and Jesus. It has become such common practice to capitalize based on belief or respect that to not capitalize has become grammatically acceptable. I try to understand what someone is trying to say with their capitalization but also try not to read into it too much since the acceptable capitalization of these words is becoming more and more ambiguous.
spdjeanne wrote:
It has become such common practice to capitalize based on belief or respect that to not capitalize has become grammatically acceptable. I try to understand what someone is trying to say with their capitalization but also try not to read into it too much since the acceptable capitalization of these words is becoming more and more ambiguous.
Yes, the capitalization in this case comes from that, from the belief, and that is why some get upset if not used "properly" according to them, like the word christian with the capital 'C' for example. That is why when I capitalized the letter "D" for doubt, Ragtime thought I was somehow worshiping it, which I believe it would make sense for him because it comes from a certain belief system, but not for people who are not believers.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?