[hyteckit]

Seems like there is some Muslim versus Christian war going on.

Who will win? Who will out pray who?

Aren't the religions similar, but different sides of the coin?


Christians: Our spiritual leader wears kick ass hats and gowns.
Muslims: Our spiritual leader wears kick ass hats and gowns.



Christians: Our nuns wear modest outfits that cover almost everything except for face.
Muslims: Our women wear modest outfits that covers almost everything except for face or just the eyes.




Christians: We hate gays.
Muslims: We hate gays more.

Christians: We hate adulterers. Our Bible talks about stoning them.
Muslims: We hate adulterers. We do stone them.

Christians: We have the bible and believe our morals should be reflect by the laws.
Muslims: We have the Qur'an and believe our morals should be reflect by the laws.


Other similarities.

Islam and Christianity - Similarities and Differences

[OldManMac]

When you have people believing in unverifiable myths, it really doesn't matter what they call them. They act on emotion to defend their insecurities.

[Railroader]

You got a license for this trolling? What's currently in season? Trout? Walleye? Muskelounge?

[el chupacabra]

… .

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You got a license for this trolling? What's currently in season? Trout? Walleye? Muskelounge?

You are what's wrong with America today. You would rather listen to race-baiting trolls like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and a bunch of conservative media trolling topics like Mosque at ground zero, illegal immigrants, muslims, anchor babies, terrorist babies, and so forth to incite anger toward a particular group.

If thousands of forums can have a discussion on the similarities between Christians and Muslims, why can't you?


Sounds like you are dismissing it because you are afraid to learn about the similarities between Islam and Christianity?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

only to those of you who nothing about religion and therefore have no right to comment on either

If more Christians in the US learn more about Islam and see the similarities between the 2 religions, they will be less fearful of Muslims.

Maybe Christians and Muslims can finally get along.

After-all, they are more similar than different.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

[1.] You are what's wrong with America today. You would rather listen to race-baiting trolls like [2.] Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and a bunch of conservative media trolling topics like Mosque at ground zero, illegal immigrants, muslims, anchor babies, terrorist babies, and so forth to incite anger toward a particular group.

[3.] If thousands of forums can have a discussion on the similarities between Christians and Muslims, why can't you?

[4.] Sounds like you are dismissing it because you are afraid to learn about the similarities between Islam and Christianity?

Ha! You just continue to add bait to the trolling.

I'm going to nibble it just to encourage you more.

1. No, you are! Nah nah nah nah nah nah.

2. I don't have cable, am unable to watch cable news networks, can't stand Fox News, couldn't pick Glen Beck out of a line up to save my life and can genuinely say I have never heard his voice before, I think Rush Limbaugh is awesome only in the sense that LiberalConservative wackos are drawn to him like moths to a flame, otherwise he is a trolling idiot on the radio, I know it is not a Mosque and support the right for one to be built even if it was, and I am the result of legal immigration two generations ago and I am raising 4 children who themselves legally immigrated here in the last decade.

3. Go spout ignorance in one of those thousands of forums then and give this place a little dignity from such foolish ignorance.

4. The hilarious part is there are legitimate significant similarities, you are just so obviously trolling that you posted frivolous completely inaccurate arguments.

You ruined any hope of a legitimate discussion with your trolling.

[Railroader]

Old busted:

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If more Christians in the US learn more about Islam and see the similarities between the 2 religions, they will be less fearful of Muslims.

Maybe Christians and Muslims can finally get along.

After-all, they are more similar than different.

New hotness:
If more non-Christians in the US learn more about Islam and see the differences between the 2 religions, they will be more fearful of Muslims.

Christians and Muslims will probably never get along because of the true Muslim beliefs.

After-all, they are more similar than different, though Muslims have completely twisted the foundation of Christianity to their own ends to support their religion, follow a faith called "submission", and use those twisted beliefs in a possible attempt to make the world submit to them and their God.

[Dork.]

Who would win in a fight?





(Sadly, it seems like the original Jesus Christ Superstore site is down. I'm pretty sure there was a kick-ass Jesus action figure there, too. It Put the "fun" back into fundamentalism and the "laughter" into sectarian slaughter....)

[ebuddy]

GlennBeckRushLimbaughSarahPalinFoxNewsChristians! -Bush

Did I miss anything? I mean, this seems to pretty much sum up the primary fears of one side of the political spectrum around here. Not much room left for real problems like entitlement insolvency, increasing wealth disparity between the poor and rich, unemployment, housing decline, shrinking economy, and a starkly divided country. Why has intolerance become the rallying call of the left here and name-dropping the only argument to support it?

Seriously, is there nothing else in the ole bottomless quiver of leftist intellectualism to draw from? Is this what defines the Progressives™ of today? Y'all had such lofty ideals until you encountered the conflicting loyalties of party and an Administration that would hijack it for corporate interests and the almighty dollar; saying whatever it is your naive, itching ears want to hear. GlennBeckRushLimbaughSarahPalinFoxNewsChristians! -Bush

You've lost your way and before long, you'll lose your representation in office.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

only to those of you who nothing about religion and therefore have no right to comment on either

When we get caught in the middle of wars between the two mythologies, we *definitely* have the right to comment.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I clicked on this link and then realized OP was on ignore.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.




Edit: I see that doesn't work for quotes. Damn you, Railroader.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

If more non-Christians in the US learn more about Islam and see the differences between the 2 religions, they will be more fearful of Muslims.

Christians and Muslims will probably never get along because of the true Muslim beliefs.

What do you know of "true Muslim beliefs"? Have you yourself read the Qu'ran or any parts of it? Or are you basing your viewpoint of what constitutes "true Muslim beliefs" on what someone else has said about Islam?


As for comparisons among the three Abrahamic faiths, there are far more similarities than differences. And where the differences lie are in the implementation of specific edicts and/or precepts.

For example,
all three Abrahamic faiths have dietary restrictions but the difference comes into play as to what is restricted.
all three Abrahamic faiths have injuctions against pre-marital sex or out-of-wedlock births but the difference comes into play as to how to respond to such behavior by members of the faith.
all three Abrahamic faiths have a mandate to spread the word (proselytize) of their particular version of the faith (with Christianity and Islam supplementing that mandate with an additional requirement to convert as many others as possible to their version of the Abrahamic faith).


Do a little research and you will find many other similarities and maybe become more informed about a religion whose beliefs you claim to know so well.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

When we get caught in the middle of wars between the two mythologies, we *definitely* have the right to comment.

THIS!

Those of us indifferent to religion get a say in these matters when those who do care about religion decide it should come out of the house of worship and into the land of governance. If the religious in this country want to be left alone to practice their faith they need to stop trying to mingle the practices of their faith with affairs of the state.

And for those believers that wish to have their religious beliefs influence/determine procedures for governance, move to a theocracy where your beliefs truly can be the law of the land. But don't try and change the secular democracy in the US into a religious theocracy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

all three Abrahamic faiths have dietary restrictions

Dude, if you don't know what you're talking about it'd probably be best to leave it be.

...annnnd that's it from me for religious discussion since I'll only end up getting banned again.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

For example,
all three Abrahamic faiths have dietary restrictions but the difference comes into play as to what is restricted.

I'm not aware of any such restrictions on Christianity. Except for those special crazies who for some unknown reason like to mix 'n match with the Torah/Tanakh.

greg

Edit: I guess there is something on alcohol/wine, as per Paul.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Dude, if you don't know what you're talking about it'd probably be best to leave it be.

...annnnd that's it from me for religious discussion since I'll only end up getting banned again.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm not aware of any such restrictions on Christianity. Except for those special crazies who for some unknown reason like to mix 'n match with the Torah/Tanakh.

greg

Edit: I guess there is something on alcohol/wine, as per Paul.

Ummm . . . fasting during Lent anyone?
(Granted, not all Protestant sects follow this injuncture but many of the bigger Protestant sects do.)

Catholics who don't/shouldn't eat meat on Fridays?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Ummm . . . fasting during Lent anyone?

No. Giving something up during Lent.
Since most people don't want to give up their TV or Playstation or beer, it's usually some kind of food.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. Giving something up during Lent.
Since most people don't want to give up their TV or Playstation or beer, it's usually some kind of food.

No. Fasting. Fasting was the original practice of giving up among pre-Reformation Christianity and among the major post-Reformation Protestant faiths. It is only within the last century or so that substitutes were allowed for fasting by the various Christian sects where believers might give up use of "their TV or Playstation". But fasting always was and always has been a fundamental part of the Lenten practice among Catholic and (the major) Protestant sects of Christianity.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

GlennBeckRushLimbaughSarahPalinFoxNewsChristians! -Bush

Let us pray and we will be delivered, halla freaking leuelah.
The morons shall inherit god's brown stinking earth.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not much room left for real problems like entitlement insolvency, increasing wealth disparity between the poor and rich, unemployment, housing decline, shrinking economy, and a starkly divided country.

Most of these problems are caused by the vastly growing disparity between the extremely few really wealthy and the rest of us. When you speak of entitlement, you point your fingers at the poor, who are supposedly leeching off the government tit, even though welfare rolls have decreased dramatically in the last 15 years. You conveniently neglect the entitlement that the rich think they're somehow preordained to get, all while practicing their "Christian" faith (which says something about helping your fellow man, and not screwing him to get more for yourself). Once again, disingenuous.

Why has intolerance become the rallying call of the left here and name-dropping the only argument to support it?

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the Tea Party bigots and xenophobes, or more likely, conveniently forget about them as well.

You've lost your way and before long, you'll lose your representation in office.

We're not the ones who've lost our way, and if we lose our representation in office it will represent one more giant nail in the coffin of our country.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the Tea Party bigots and xenophobes, or more likely, conveniently forget about them as well.

You forgot the the other "N' word

Once again the press utilizes Alinksy's rules
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

As a multi-generational (1610) American of Latino descent, I find it funny that I am called xenophobic of Latinos.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Ummm . . . fasting during Lent anyone?
(Granted, not all Protestant sects follow this injuncture but many of the bigger Protestant sects do.)

Catholics who don't/shouldn't eat meat on Fridays?

Catholicism is its own breed of religion, I think. It's rather hard to attribute all their arcane and made-up practices as "Christianity" although granted, you certainly can't call it anything else.

In any case, I'm not sure where in the New Testament this comes from. Does anyone have a reference? I suppose there's some connection with the fasting and praying without ceasing, but nothing comes to mind.

greg

[screener]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You forgot the the other "N' word

Once again the press utilizes Alinksy's rules
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

As a multi-generational (1610) American of Latino descent, I find it funny that I am called xenophobic of Latinos.

Yeah, the old I'm alright jesus, f*#k you.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I clicked on this link and then realized OP was on ignore.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.




Edit: I see that doesn't work for quotes. Damn you, Railroader.

Sorry!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Catholicism is its own breed of religion, I think. It's rather hard to attribute all their arcane and made-up practices as "Christianity" although granted, you certainly can't call it anything else.

In any case, I'm not sure where in the New Testament this comes from. Does anyone have a reference? I suppose there's some connection with the fasting and praying without ceasing, but nothing comes to mind.

greg

Prior to the Reformation Catholicism WAS the main/only version of Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox rite has had its own version of Christianity since roughly the Fourth Council of Constantine when matters of doctrinal absolutism began to break down between the Easter and Western rites of Christianity eventually reuslting in the Great Schism.


Suffice to say Christianity is comprised of Catholicism--both Roman and Greek--and Protestanism which stands in opposition to Catholicism. Protestantism itself is further divisible into numerous subsets of faith practices that self-identify as Christian although there is a w-i-d-e range of differences in doctrine and practice among Protestants.

But almost all Christians believe in the same Christian bible. You can get into debates about the deuterocanonical texts and their inclusiveness but it's only when you get into, say, Mormonism that there are major differences among Christian faiths as to what comprises the bible.

(This is a gross simplification but covers the main outlines of the differences among/between the various sects that assert a claim to Christianity.)

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What do you know of "true Muslim beliefs"? Have you yourself read the Qu'ran or any parts of it? Or are you basing your viewpoint of what constitutes "true Muslim beliefs" on what someone else has said about Islam?

I've read about 50% of it, enough to find the good parts. Admittedly, I did read an english translation and I know true Muslims believe I am not reading the words of Allah unless I read it in Arabic. I think I still got the point. You? Have you read the Bible or the Qu'ran?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As for comparisons among the three Abrahamic faiths, there are far more similarities than differences. And where the differences lie are in the implementation of specific edicts and/or precepts.

That is my point. The items the OP lists are just wrong. Amazingly he (and it seems you as well, read below) are not getting it.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

For example,
all three Abrahamic faiths have dietary restrictions but the difference comes into play as to what is restricted.

Huh? Have you read the New Testament? Acts 10:

Peter's Vision

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour [2] to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him saying: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

all three Abrahamic faiths have injuctions against pre-marital sex or out-of-wedlock births but the difference comes into play as to how to respond to such behavior by members of the faith.

I think the differences on how to respond outweigh the similarities here. One faith says stone and kill, the other says love and support.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

all three Abrahamic faiths have a mandate to spread the word (proselytize) of their particular version of the faith (with Christianity and Islam supplementing that mandate with an additional requirement to convert as many others as possible to their version of the Abrahamic faith).

Again, the differences in evangelizing methods outweigh the message to prosthelytize. One says spread a message of love and grace, the other fear and submission.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Do a little research and you will find many other similarities and maybe become more informed about a religion whose beliefs you claim to know so well.

Follow your own advice it appears.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm not aware of any such restrictions on Christianity. Except for those special crazies who for some unknown reason like to mix 'n match with the Torah/Tanakh.

greg

Edit: I guess there is something on alcohol/wine, as per Paul.

Where is there a restriction on drinking wine in the Bible? Jesus' first miracle was making wine (no, it was not "grape juice"). Paul tells Timothy to drink wine in 1 Timothy 5

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Ummm . . . fasting during Lent anyone?
(Granted, not all Protestant sects follow this injuncture but many of the bigger Protestant sects do.)

Catholics who don't/shouldn't eat meat on Fridays?

Catholic does not equal Christianity, no matter how much they'll tell you.

The only time Jesus told anyone to fast was when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. Fasting was used as a time of preparing for a religious event. Jesus knew that his disciples would be tempted to deny him when he was crucified, so he wanted them to fast after he died. There are no other teachings by Jesus to fast. Jesus only fasted one recorded time.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I've read about 50% of it, enough to find the good parts. Admittedly, I did read an english translation and I know true Muslims believe I am not reading the words of Allah unless I read it in Arabic. I think I still got the point. You? Have you read the Bible or the Qu'ran?

This is the second time you have used the phrase "true Muslim". What is a "true Muslim" in your mind?

Is being a "true Muslim" something like being a "true Christian"? There are many different opinions on what constitutes being a "true Christian" so I wonder if you acknowledge the possibility that there might be different opinions on what constitutes a "true Muslim".

As for reading the Bible and Qu'ran I have read the whole bible several times and well over half the Qu'ran. (I had a beautiful leather-bound copy with gilt edging and simultaenous Arabic/English passages but it was destroyed, along with one of my four bibles, when a pipe burst and flooded the basement.) By the way, what translation of the Qu'ran did you read?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Catholicism is its own breed of religion, I think. It's rather hard to attribute all their arcane and made-up practices as "Christianity" although granted, you certainly can't call it anything else.

In any case, I'm not sure where in the New Testament this comes from. Does anyone have a reference? I suppose there's some connection with the fasting and praying without ceasing, but nothing comes to mind.

greg

Catholics picked Friday because Jesus was crucified on a Friday. Fish was allowed because of the fishes and loaves story. I have also heard other reasons such as donations from fishermen to the Church convinced the priests to allow fish, and also heard that fish is not considered flesh because it does not walk on land.

But there is nothing in the Bible about fasting for lent or eating no meat other than fish on Fridays. I would consider this extra-Biblical and do not follow it. It is legalistic because they consider it a sin not to follow, though the bible has no say that it is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Seriously, is there nothing else in the ole bottomless quiver of leftist intellectualism to draw from?

You are weakening your own arguments with making generalizations about the intellect of the left. This is hyteckit's quiver of intellectualism, he hasn't been anointed as the representative of all things left.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Catholic does not equal Christianity, no matter how much they'll tell you.

You kill me.

You speak assertively that "Catholic does not equal Christianity" when Catholicism was ALL there was to Christianity, not including the much smaller Easter rite, until the Protestant Reformation. What term do you use to describe pre-Reformation Christianity if Catholicism cannot be considered Christianity?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

This is the second time you have used the phrase "true Muslim". What is a "true Mumlim" in your mind?

Is being a "true Muslim" something like being a "true Christian"? There are many different opinions on what constitutes being a "true Christian" so I wonder if you acknowledge the possibility that there might be different opinions on what constitutes a "true Muslim".

As for reading the Bible and Qu'ran I have read the whole bible several times and well over half the Qu'ran. (I had a beautiful leather-bound copy with gilt edging and simultaenous Arabic/English passages but it was destroyed, along with one of my four bibles, when a pipe burst and flooded the basement.) By the way, what translation of the Qu'ran did you read?

A true Muslim devoutly follows all of the teachings in the Qu'ran. As a true Christian does not add or take away from the Bible, but devoutly follows all of Jesus' commands.

I can not remember the exact translation as it was loaned to me [edit: for only a few weeks] from a friend who was a missionary in Egypt. I did have a few liberal Muslim acquaintances who I talked about it with and they were impressed with the copy I had, not the actual physical book, but the translation itself. I have heard that Muslims do not like fancy Qu'rans because it will become an act of idolatry in itself. The ones I have seen in Muslim homes were rather bland and plain in appearance. Granted, these were Muslims living in Michigan, though devote nonetheless.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You kill me.

You speak assertively that "Catholic does not equal Christianity" when Catholicism was ALL there was to Christianity, not including the much smaller Easter rite, until the Protestant Reformation. What term do you use to describe pre-Reformation Christianity if Catholicism cannot be considered Christianity?

Why am I relegated to discussing pre-Reformation Christianity? Is that the times we are currently living in? How about we agree to go with strict Biblical knowledge and not traditions added by the Catholic Church? Catholicism can equally be labeled a denomination, sect, or cult of Christianity.

The OP may have limited his discussion to Catholic "Christianity" to Islam, but that is truly disingenuous. Catholics have added to the Bible when God commanded them not to. Is that Christianity to you?

If you view Catholicism as representing Christianity, then you are as hopelessly ignorant as the OP.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

A true Muslim devoutly follows all of the teachings in the Qu'ran. As a true Christian does not add or take away from the Bible, but devoutly follows all of Jesus' commands.

You've lost me here. You say true Muslims devoutly follow all of the teachings in the Qu'ran.

But then you say a true Christian doesn't add or take away from the Bible yet only devoutly follows all of Jesus's commands and not all of the teachings in the Bible. Why does a true Christian take away parts of the Bible they don't want and follow only the teachings of Jesus. Why doesn't a true Christian devoutly follow all of the teachings in the whole Bible?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Why am I relegated to discussing pre-Reformation Christianity? Is that the times we are currently living in?

You didn't answer my question. If you asser that Catholicism is NOT Christianity what term do you use to refer to pre-Reformation Christianity?

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Catholicism can equally be labeled a denomination, sect, or cult of Christianity.

Absolutely. Look at my reply to StM where I indicated Catholicism was one of the main sects of Christianity. Have I said anywhere else that Catholicism is not a sect of Christianity?

Originally Posted by Railroader 

The OP may have limited his discussion to Catholic "Christianity" to Islam, but that is truly disingenuous. Catholics have added to the Bible when God commanded them not to. Is that Christianity to you?

I do not believe in a god, let alone the JudeoChrIslamic God, so what constitutes Christianity to me is pretty much irrelevant. What I do believe in though is mocking those who claim to be authorities on knowing what constitutes the parameters of a given faith when they obviously do not know what they are talking about. So, when someone decides to speak authoritively and without equivocation regarding what constitutes Christianity--like you just did--I like to jump into the discussion to point out the idiocy, hypocrisy, and ridiculousness of such behavior.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

If you view Catholicism as representing Christianity, then you are as hopelessly ignorant as the OP.

As I said before, I consider Catholicism one of the main sects of Christianity. But, more fundamental than that, I consider the belief in Jesus and all the various Christian sects built around faith in him to be a form of collective insanity.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You've lost me here. You say true Muslims devoutly follow all of the teachings in the Qu'ran.
But then you say a true Christian doesn't add or take away from the Bible yet only devoutly follows all of Jesus's commands and not all of the teachings in the Bible. Why does a true Christian take away parts of the Bible they don't want and follow only the teachings of Jesus. Why doesn't a true Christian devoutly follow all of the teachings in the whole Bible?

If you have read the Bible and are able to comprehend the teaching therein, you would understand. There's a reason why Jesus poured out his blood, it was a way of instituting a covenant. Jesus called it a "New Covenant". Jeremiah prophesied it in Jeremiah 31

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

If you have read the Bible and are able to comprehend the teaching therein, you would understand. There's a reason why Jesus poured out his blood, it was a way of instituting a covenant. Jesus called it a "New Covenant". Jeremiah prophesied it in Jeremiah 31

Yes, The New Covenant replacing the Old. I got that bit. That's Bible History 101.

But you think that Christianity today is ONLY adherence to the teachings of Jesus? His teachings are found only in the Gospels: what about the rest of the New Testament? Is that just abandoned? And if today's Christianity really is only about the teachings of Jesus, why do today's "true Christians" still read the whole Bible and not just the Gospels where Jesus' teachings occur?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You didn't answer my question. If you asser that Catholicism is NOT Christianity what term do you use to refer to pre-Reformation Christianity?

Again, to help me answer your question, why are you focusing on pre-Reformation Christianity. I am willing to go right to day the last book of the Bible was written.

Though to answer your question with what little you've asked me to go on: I'd consider the beginning of papal rule, right to the nailing of the '95 Thesis to be a legalistic extra-Biblical version of the Church. A very shameful time for Christianity. Hence, the Reformation.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Absolutely. Look at my reply to StM where I indicated Catholicism was one of the main sects of Christianity. Have I said anywhere else that Catholicism is not a sect of Christianity?

And yet you seem to be responding as if Catholicism speaks for all of Christianity.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I do not believe in a god, let alone the JudeoChrIslamic God, so what constitutes Christianity to me is pretty much irrelevant. What I do believe in though is mokcing those who claim to be authorities on knowing what constitutes the parameters of a given faith.

You realize the irony and how foolish you look when people point out your errors and you fail to address them right?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, when someone decides to speak authoritively and without equivocation regarding what constitutes Christianity--like you just did--I like to jump into the discussion to point out the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of such behavior.

Again, the irony.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As I said before, I consider Catholicism one of the main sects of Christianity. But, more fundamental than that, I consider the belief in Jesus and all the various Christian sects built around faith in him to be a form of collective insanity.

Probably because of your flawed understanding of the Bible and the adherents beliefs. I suggest refraining from such discussion in the future, unless that is you like looking the fool.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yes, The New Covenant replacing the Old. I got that bit. That's Bible History 101.

Apparently you need bible History 001

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

But you think that Christianity today is ONLY adherence to the teachings of Jesus?

Yes.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

His teachings are found only in the Gospels: what about the rest of the New Testament? Is that just abandoned?

All of the New Testament supports Jesus' teachings. It is all edifying.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And if today's Christianity really is only about the teachings of Jesus, why do today's "true Christians" still read the whole Bible and not just the Gospels where Jesus' teachings occur?

And here is where your true ignorance of Christianity is revealed.

To truly understand the New T, you must understand the Old T. The New T. fulfillment of Old T. prophecies. The Old T. stories of man's attempts to earn righteousness, and the revelation of man's sin nature. And finally, God's grace and redemption in the New T.

There is also great songs of encouragement, praise, and worship written in there that do not relate to teaching. Proverbs is also for the building of wisdom.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Though to answer your question with what little you've asked me to go on: I'd consider the beginning of papal rule, right to the nailing of the '95 Thesis to be a legalistic extra-Biblical version of the Church. A very shameful time for Christianity. Hence, the Reformation.

What about those adherents of the Eastern rite of Christianity (the so-called Eastern Orthodox)? Do you consider them to be un-Christian as well? Both back then and today.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

And yet you seem to be responding as if Catholicism speaks for all of Christianity.

Nope. Not at all. Where did I ever say that Catholicism speaks for all of Christianity? I simply acknowledge that for much of the history of Christianity, Catholicism was the dominant sect. You on the other hand dismiss all aspects of Christianity from the "the beginning of papal rule, right to the nailing of the '95 Thesis". (Hint, it was the 95 Theses. 95 referred to the quantity of complaints Martin Luther had against the organized Church. It does NOT refer to the year in which his actions occurred, which was 1517.)

You do realize that the beginning of significant papal rule occurred in the 5th century. Therefore you are dismissing over 1000 years of Christian history as inauthentic. Of course, the form of Christianity that was practiced before the rise of the papacy was much closer to what was/is practiced by adherents of the Eastern rite (the Eastern Orthodox). This brings us back to my question at the beginning: Do you consider adherents of the Eastern rite of Christianity to be un-Christian as well?

[SpaceMonkey]

I love this stuff. Catholicism is dismissed as a "legalistic extra-Biblical version of the Church," as if the codification of the Bible itself was not a legalistic and political endeavor primarily of the Catholic Church? I'm LOLing here.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

To truly understand the New T, you must understand the Old T. The New T. fulfillment of Old T. prophecies. The Old T. stories of man's attempts to earn righteousness, and the revelation of man's sin nature. And finally, God's grace and redemption in the New T.

Looks like someone is back-pedaling on their statement that true Christians "devoutly follow all of Jesus' commands". His commands are found ONLY in the Gospels and nowhere else. If you meant what you said about "true Christians" then you should be reading the Gospels and nothing else as that is where Jesus' commands were uttered.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I love this stuff. Catholicism is dismissed as a "legalistic extra-Biblical version of the Church," as if the codification of the Bible itself was not a legalistic and political endeavor primarily of the Catholic Church? I'm LOLing here.

Shhhh. Don't mention the apocryphal texts, the Gnostic texts, the possible Gospel of Thomas, or any of the recent extra-Biblical discoveries (Dead Sea Scrolls, Q texts).

Heaven forbid there be any acknowledgement that the creation of the Bible was in and of itself a deliberate act on the part of early Church fathers to demarcate the limits of what constitutes Christianity and what constitutes being a "true Christian". Railroader doesn't realize he is about 17-18 centuries too late to decide what constitutes being a "true Christian".

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Catholics picked Friday because Jesus was crucified on a Friday.

Wasn't it Thursday? Three days and three nights, rose on Sunday? Or maybe it was Friday-Monday; the memory is admittedly failing.

But there is nothing in the Bible about fasting for lent or eating no meat other than fish on Fridays. I would consider this extra-Biblical and do not follow it. It is legalistic because they consider it a sin not to follow, though the bible has no say that it is.

Exactly. Not to mention, for dcmacdaddy's edification, that AFAIK there are some protestant sects that claim to follow their lineage straight through to the earliest times. As I understand it Martin Luther was revolutionary, but he wasn't the first by any means. (Of course not sure how much of this is revisionist history.)

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What is a "true Mumlim" in your mind?

I like it.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Where is there a restriction on drinking wine in the Bible? Jesus' first miracle was making wine (no, it was not "grape juice"). Paul tells Timothy to drink wine in 1 Timothy 5

Yeah you're right - I think it's the act of drunkenness, not drinking itself. Of course the straight arrows I know make some sort of analogy to how alcohol is stronger today and how you can get drunk off one drink/beer, etc. etc. Doesn't seem to explain the part about Jesus making more wine for wedding guests who were supposedly too drunk to appreciate it, but I'm sure they explain it away adequately.

greg

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What about those adherents of the Eastern rite of Christianity (the so-called Eastern Orthodox)? Do you consider them to be un-Christian as well? Both back then and today.

I believe any Christian sect with a religious leader such as a papal-type position is inherently flawed in that belief. I didn't say they weren't true Christians. I believe it is possible to be a Christian and be a member of the Catholic sect.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Nope. Not at all. Where did I ever say that Catholicism speaks for all of Christianity? I simply acknowledge that for much of the history of Christianity, Catholicism was the dominant sect.

Yes, you do seem to be acting as if Catholicism is the definition of Christianity. Otherwise you wouldn't be so hung up on it.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You on the other hand dismiss all aspects of Christianity from the "the beginning of papal rule, right to the nailing of the '95 Thesis".

I don't dismiss all aspects... look, to have an honest dialog here, you're going to have to be honest and not twist words. I stated: "it was a legalistic extra-Biblical version of the Church. A very shameful time for Christianity. Hence, the Reformation." I didn't say it wasn't the Christian Church of the time. Again, why are we focusing on The Catholic Church from papal rule to the Reformation?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

(Hint, it was the 95 Theses. 95 referred to the quantity of complaints Martin Luther had against the organized Church. It does NOT refer to the year in which his actions occurred, which was 1517.)

Arg. I admit, I made a mistake. I had an auto forum open at the time and by habit I added the ' mark. And I also admit I made a mistake in my spelling of the plural form of thesis.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You do realize that the beginning of significant papal rule occurred in the 5th century.

Yuppers.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Therefore you are dismissing over 1000 years of Christian history as inauthentic.

Huh? No, I am saying the Church went through a very rough time with leadership and their twisting of the teachings of Jesus. The history is authentic, their doctrine is flawed.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Of course, the form of Christianity that was practiced before the rise of the papacy was much closer to what was/is practiced by adherents of the Eastern rite (the Eastern Orthodox). This brings us back to my question at the beginning: Do you consider adherents of the Eastern rite of Christianity to be un-Christian as well?

Answered above.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I love this stuff. Catholicism is dismissed as a "legalistic extra-Biblical version of the Church," as if the codification of the Bible itself was not a legalistic and political endeavor primarily of the Catholic Church? I'm LOLing here.

Who said it wasn't? Ironically, they weren't happy with the Bible as it stood alone and could not allow their teaching to stand sola scriptura.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Looks like someone is back-pedaling on their statement that true Christians "devoutly follow all of Jesus' commands". His commands are found ONLY in the Gospels and nowhere else. If you meant what you said about "true Christians" then you should be reading the Gospels and nothing else as that is where Jesus' commands were uttered.

I earlier answered that query with:

To truly understand the New T, you must understand the Old T. The New T. fulfillment of Old T. prophecies. The Old T. stories of man's attempts to earn righteousness, and the revelation of man's sin nature. And finally, God's grace and redemption in the New T.

There is also great songs of encouragement, praise, and worship written in there that do not relate to teaching. Proverbs is also for the building of wisdom.

And I will add that Paul and the other epistles and revelation all further explain Jesus' teachings.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Shhhh. Don't mention the apocryphal texts, the Gnostic texts, the possible Gospel of Thomas, or any of the recent extra-Biblical discoveries (Dead Sea Scrolls, Q texts).

Heaven forbid there be any acknowledgement that the creation of the Bible was in and of itself a deliberate act on the part of early Church fathers to demarcate the limits of what constitutes Christianity and what constitutes being a "true Christian". Railroader doesn't realize he is about 17-18 centuries too late to decide what constitutes being a "true Christian".

And you don't realize that the only revelation we have about true Christianity can be derived from the Bible and Jesus' teachings. You want to add to it even when you yourself claim to intent mocking behavior in any regard. Have you ever meditated on your motivations? They might reveal a lot to you.