I don't believe America is a majority Christian nation

[Glaurung]

We don't get to determine what makes someone a Christian, sadly.

I think there is a valid distinction to be made between the sincere and the nominal. The fact is that the majority who identity as Christian do not practice to any significant degree. The majority who identity as Catholic will be lucky to attend church more than a few times a year. When you have a situation where most so called Christians are indistinguishable from the irreligious, when the so called Christians condone rank immorality, it's quite reasonable to reject the so called Christianity of the nominal.

If Christianity does not actually inform the lives of the majority, then to insist that a mere identification as Christian makes them so in any real sense is almost nonsensical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's really simple. God gave us tools of discernment and told us to use them.

God gave you tools to decern so you can support and be one with your brother in Christ. He did not give you the tools to be God Himself.

There is a huge difference in what tools are used, by whom, and which authority has the right to use them.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I think there is a valid distinction to be made between the sincere and the nominal. The fact is that the majority who identity as Christian do not practice to any significant degree. The majority who identity as Catholic will be lucky to attend church more than a few times a year. When you have a situation where most so called Christians are indistinguishable from the irreligious, when the so called Christians condone rank immorality, it's quite reasonable to reject the so called Christianity of the nominal.

If Christianity does not actually inform the lives of the majority, then to insist that a mere identification as Christian makes them so in any real sense is almost nonsensical.

I'm not the one to argue this point with.
I actually somewhat agree with you, I don't personally consider loose Christians as actual Christians.
Then again, if you don't take the bible literally I don't consider you a Christian either.

 

[Sunstone]

It's really simple. You either agree with Jesus' teachings or you don't

Please cite chapter and verse where Jesus speaks about homosexuality.

 

[Sunstone]

We have to be able to separate cultural Christians from those that actually believe in the teachings of Jesus. We can't do that by asking if people are Christian. The term "Christian" doesn't mean anything anymore. We must look to what people actually believe about the teachings of Jesus in order to discern who truly believes in him. If the polls below on divorce, sex out of marriage, and homosexuality are correct, it's clear that the majority of Americans do not agree with the teachings of Jesus.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2001/...ns-Say-Premarital-Sex-Morally-Acceptable.aspx

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gallup-slight-majority-say-homosexuality-morally-acceptable-74989/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...ricans-find-divorce-morally-acceptable-32435/

Your notion about who is or isn't a Christian seems to depend on your belief that your own definition of "Christian" is the only true or right one. Do you often harbor silly beliefs like that? Or is this time around atypical?

 

[Glaurung]

Then again, if you don't take the bible literally I don't consider you a Christian either.

It really depends on what you mean by literally. If you mean a totally face-value, Evangelical sola scriptura take on it then that's rather naive. The Catholic and Orthodox Chruches actually predate the very canon you (falsely) think our faiths are utterly predicated upon.

You may be an atheist, but your understanding of Christianity is still very Protestant.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that only someone who follows the bible alone is a true Christian -- that notion is rather arrogant, and like most arrogant views, ultimately childish.

 

[Glaurung]

The notion that only someone who follows the bible alone is a true Christian -- that notion is rather arrogant, and like most arrogant views, ultimately childish.

It's actually a great example of circular reasoning. Because there is nothing in the Bible that states that it alone is the sole source for Christian doctrine. To even accept the canon is to accept the extra-biblical authority of those who complied it.

 

[Zardoz]

We have to be able to separate cultural Christians from those that actually believe in the teachings of Jesus. We can't do that by asking if people are Christian. The term "Christian" doesn't mean anything anymore. We must look to what people actually believe about the teachings of Jesus in order to discern who truly believes in him. If the polls below on divorce, sex out of marriage, and homosexuality are correct, it's clear that the majority of Americans do not agree with the teachings of Jesus.

Agree with his teachings? It's clear to me that Xians, cultural or other, don't follow his teachings. So what?

 

[Skwim]

It's really simple. God gave us tools of discernment and told us to use them.

Like "Judge not lest ye be judged"?

 

[viole]

I thought we were talking about the teachings of Jesus, not the 10 Commandments. By the way, I don't see premarital sex, divorce and homosexuality listed in the 10 Commandments, either.

This is what happens when we waste more than 50% of the available stone space with morally useless commandments.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

We have to be able to separate cultural Christians from those that actually believe in the teachings of Jesus. We can't do that by asking if people are Christian. The term "Christian" doesn't mean anything anymore. We must look to what people actually believe about the teachings of Jesus in order to discern who truly believes in him. If the polls below on divorce, sex out of marriage, and homosexuality are correct, it's clear that the majority of Americans do not agree with the teachings of Jesus.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2001/...ns-Say-Premarital-Sex-Morally-Acceptable.aspx

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gallup-slight-majority-say-homosexuality-morally-acceptable-74989/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...ricans-find-divorce-morally-acceptable-32435/

If we count how many americans sold all their possessions and gave the money to the poor, then you were never a Christian nation to start with.

That is also a teaching of Jesus, if I am not mistaken.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Deathbydefault]

It really depends on what you mean by literally. If you mean a totally face-value, Evangelical sola scriptura take on it then that's rather naive. The Catholic and Orthodox Chruches actually predate the very canon you (falsely) think our faiths are utterly predicated upon.

You may be an atheist, but your understanding of Christianity is still very Protestant.

I mean their interpretation of the bible goes along with what the text says, not what it is made to say.
Whatever denominations that may apply to.

I only expect them to interpret the bible the same way it was when first enforced.

The notion that only someone who follows the bible alone is a true Christian -- that notion is rather arrogant, and like most arrogant views, ultimately childish.

Thank you for your opinion, I will eventually take notes once the caring process begins.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The notion that only someone who follows the bible alone is a true Christian -- that notion is rather arrogant, and like most arrogant views, ultimately childish.

This is why a lot of Christians are actually dropping the term Christian from their vocabulary, because the term doesn't mean anything anymore. The term has been appropriated by people who want to call themselves Christians who may not even believe that Jesus is Lord. They simply like some aspect of his teaching, usually the really easy stuff to put into action that doesn't intrude on how they want to actually live their lives. Our definition of what it means to follow Jesus (be a Christian) should be Jesus' definition. That's only found in one place. People often also try to complicate the process of discerning what Jesus' actual commandments are. I think most of the people that do that are the ones whose hearts are hardened to what he has to say in the first place. So they come up with nonsensical reasons why the stuff Jesus is saying that intrudes on their life means something completely different than what it actually means.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them."

 

[Glaurung]

I mean their interpretation of the bible goes along with what the text says, not what it is made to say.

Indeed, but the problem is that what the text says isn't always that obvious, otherwise the divisions in Christianity wouldn't be so numerous and intractable. This is why sacred tradition is so important. It is that very tradition that gave us the Bible to begin with, not the other way around. From our conversation so far, I can be pretty confident that everything you think you know about what the Bible says is based off some very Protestant presuppositions.

So before you start to question me whether or not I follow the Scriptures, I would have to ask you your qualifications in making such a determination. What do you actually know of the Scriptures? For me, I trust the teaching tradition of the apostolic faith, not any given interpretation of a book. The Bible is very important to the Catholic faith, but it's still just a book at the end of the day.

Thank you for your opinion, I will eventually take notes once the caring process begins.

If you're not interested in the question, why enter the discussion at all?

 

[Father Heathen]

We have to be able to separate cultural Christians from those that actually believe in the teachings of Jesus. We can't do that by asking if people are Christian. The term "Christian" doesn't mean anything anymore. We must look to what people actually believe about the teachings of Jesus in order to discern who truly believes in him. If the polls below on divorce, sex out of marriage, and homosexuality are correct, it's clear that the majority of Americans do not agree with the teachings of Jesus.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2001/...ns-Say-Premarital-Sex-Morally-Acceptable.aspx

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gallup-slight-majority-say-homosexuality-morally-acceptable-74989/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...ricans-find-divorce-morally-acceptable-32435/

Jesus also taught love they neighbor, turn the other cheek, judge not lest ye be judged, don't point out the speck in another's eye when you have a plank in yours, it's easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, render undo ceasar what is ceasers, pray in private, etc.

So I guess that rules out conservatives, too.

 

[Deathbydefault]

If you're not interested in the question, then why enter the discussion at all?

Being referred to as arrogant and childish does nothing for a counter argument against me.

Indeed, but the problem is that what the text says isn't always that obvious, otherwise the divisions in Christianity wouldn't be so numerous and intractable.

I don't see an issue with interpreting less specific verses, they of course have to follow the theme of the chapter, though. We can't have the whole first part be about food then interpret the second part to be about how fun skydiving is.

This is why sacred tradition is so important. It is that very tradition that gave us the Bible to begin with, not the other way around.

Great load of good that did, the Bible isn't the friendliest book in history.
It has a lot of death in it, and promoted a lot of death as well.
Not to mention the rather blatant support of slavery.

I deny such tradition as sacred, as I deny the bible being sacred.

From our conversation so far, I can be pretty confident that everything you think you know about what the Bible says is based off some very Protestant presuppositions.

I read the book the way my parents read the book, but without the reverence.

So before you start to question me whether or not I follow the Scriptures, I would have to ask you your qualifications in making such a determination. What do you actually know of the Scriptures? For me, I trust the teaching tradition of the apostolic faith.

I don't really care for qualifiers.
I read the book, and was more or less forced to follow many of it's rules for more than half my life.
Still it's just a book to me, I don't need to be some devout believer to debate its contents with others.
Especially those of faith.

 

[Glaurung]

Being referred to as arrogant and childish does nothing for a counter argument against me

You weren't. Your position was. It's a naive and horribly simplistic one.

Great load of good that did, the Bible isn't the friendliest book in history.
It has a lot of death in it, and promoted a lot of death as well.
Not to mention the rather blatant support of slavery.

I deny such tradition as sacred, as I deny the bible being sacred.

Before you go out spewing ill-informed rhetoric, please make an effort (even if only in passing) to understand the subject matter. Sacred tradition refers to the teachings passed down through the Church originating from the Apostles. The canon of the Bible was selected on each book's alignment with that tradition, it predates the canon. This also means that the truth of the Christian revelation and the authority of the Church are utterly independent of the Bible. My point is to establish that your views on the Bible and what makes a Christian a real Christian are incoherent to Catholics and Orthodox, who are (mind you) the majority of the world's Christians.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

I read the book the way my parents read the book, but without the reverence.

Without their reverence, but their assumptions taken for granted. That's really no basis to be making the pronouncements that you're making.

I don't really care for qualifiers.

Oh yeah you do. You wouldn't take any given random's views on experimental physics as equal with the views of a qualified physicist. Likewise, just because you dismiss Christianity doesn't mean you understand it. You don't. The only thing you know is one very narrow idea of Christianity which you take for granted (as you just stated) on the mere basis that your parents believe such.

That's fine, but don't whine when your wilfully uninformed views are not taken seriously for it.

Still it's just a book to me, I don't need to be some devout believer to debate its contents with others.
Especially those of faith.

No, but you do need to take off your blatant ideological blindfolds and actually listen to what people are telling you. If you want to discuss what makes a real Christian you ought to have some actual knowledge instead of spouting simplistic nonsense.

 

[Deathbydefault]

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't have time nor the patience to continue this argument.

I knew I was in the wrong on this from the start.
My biased is very much against Christianity, and it will stay that way.

All I can say is the bible is not science, nor is it something that needs qualified officials to make arguments against. It is subject to criticism just as much as everything else. I dislike religion as a whole, but I despise Christianity for more than personal reasons. I acknowledge my views are more than likely incorrect on most of what you mention, but I have no intention of changing them. Just as there are the ******* Christians that see atheists as baby eating God haters, I am the ******* atheist that sees Christians as mindless and gullible surrogates for religious dogma and ideology. As far as I'm concerned, the world can only go up if your religion became obsolete.

I'm not going to ask you to let me be incorrect, I'm going to be incorrect. I'm going to be bigoted against your stance, and I'm most certainly not going to agree on points you make in respect to what a Christian is. So we can continue our argument another day, or you can just take it as your win and feel whatever emotion you like.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have an exam to take.

 

[leibowde84]

If the polls below on divorce, sex out of marriage, and homosexuality are correct, it's clear that the majority of Americans do not agree with the teachings of Jesus.

We really don't know for sure what Jesus actually said. Even granting the gospels some validity/accuracy (even though they are, at best, 3rd hand accounts), it seems that portions were added and changed throughout the first centuries.

But, that being said, even in the gospels, Jesus did not speak committed homosexual relationships or homosexuality in general, for that matter. He also did not speak about sex outside of marriage, to the best of our knowledge. St. Paul, who never met Jesus during his lifetime, made claims about such things, but it could be argued that he wasn't authorized to put words into Jesus' mouth.