Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[PruePhillip]

I didn't bring up Hitler, but there are long history of persecutions of Jews, in the medieval Germanic states and the holy roman empire (an empirr which was ruled by the Austrian dynasty, the Hapsburg).

The mass persecution in central Europe, which led to mass migration in the 15th & 16th centuries, from the Germanic regions to Poland, where Jews found refuge, a safe haven.

Imagine, @PruePhillip, acouple of decades after the dissolution of Austrian dynasty at the outbreak of world war 1, the Nazi gain control of government in the 1930s, followed by German invasion of Poland in 1939.

The former holy Roman empire, which included Austria have always been pro-Catholics, and Hitler being Austrian, then I am not surprise by the Nazi policy against Jews.

The largest genocide against Jews occurred in Poland.

By what you have just said to me, I am not at all surprise of your ignorance about German history toward Jews, predated the Nazi Holocaust.

BTW, I am not saying Catholic church supported the persecutions, but they didn't stop the persecutions. Both Protestant Germans and Catholic Germans have treated Jews poorly after the Middle Ages.

I refer to the definition of a Christian. Some on this site have declared that yes, Hitler was a Christian. And this 'proves' the culpability of Christians for all that is wrong in the world. The true definition is the one I refer to - being like Jesus.
Churches like the Catholic inquisition are not Christian, not by a long long stretch.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, I very much disagree. Throw out the Bible and you throw out slavery, bigotry, self-aggrandizement, misogyny, parochialism, and many other evils. There have been many much better ethical systems. Greece and Rome alone accounted for several.

Like 'Gone with the Wind', it is a glorification of a fundamentally unethical system that needs to expire.

Times were different then in terms of slaves. By the time of Jesus, structures were also different. You might as well talk about the Greeks and their system at the time. I looked it up on wikipedia and see it starts this way: 'Slavery was an accepted practice in ancient Greece, as in other societies of the time. Some Ancient Greek writers (including, most notably, Aristotle) described slavery as natural and even necessary.[2] This paradigm was notably questioned in Socratic dialogues; the Stoics produced the first recorded condemnation of slavery."
Ok so it was a pretty well accepted practice back then. Now let's see the present. Here's what I know about the society I live in: there is a lot of drug addiction and graft and illegal dealings. There are a lot of trades that rob the people of benefits because some people know how to use (abuse) the system, such as hiding their assets so they don't have to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Then there are deals made that hurt others. There are selfish people. And -- there are jobs with minimum wage. Would you say a person can do well on minimum wage? And then there is a high cost to get a "higher" education, putting a person possibly in debt for a long, long time. Then there are murders by drug dealers and other nuts who are brain sick, have been mistreated themselves and kill others. Jesus had a different take on things, but then -- he couldn't change society too much, could he? And he was put to death by the more powerful leaders.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is that all you have? Poverty is a misallocation of resources, driven by greed of those in power, not a direct subjugation of individuals to ownership by another.

Yes, poverty is horrible. But banning it and banning slavery are not comparable issues.



No, they did not. And neither did they argue forcefully against slavery. Since their deity is supposed to be the source of morality, that leaves quite a problem.



Every age has had issues with drugs (or alcohol) and with unfaithfulness. Every generation has had those who abused children.

Our technology makes these more extreme now, I would agree, but the problems are not new by a long shot.

But we have made some progress. We no longer consider women to be property nor that they need to be hidden when they have their period. We no longer consider slavery as necessary and divinely given. We no longer consider any deviation from a societal norm to be worthy of torture and persecution. We no longer consider it good enough to say 'God orders it' as an excuse to harm others.

Oh, there are exceptions; those who cling to outmoded views and traditions that hate. But each generation is getting a bit better on these matters.

And even when dealing with the evils you point out, it is *far* more likely that a child abuser will be motivated by religion or find refuge in such. How often are drugs turned to because parents reject their children for religious reasons or to salve the wounds given by fanatical parents?

Humans are quite far from being perfect. But adherence to a morality based on religious ideas from 2000+ years ago isn't going to help us with the problems of today.

Oh, and in addition to your comment about adherence to a morality based on religious ideas, etc., let me put it this way: there are various religions and sects. Each has its own ideas. Some of the world's richest people who hire people giving them hardly a living wage go to church or other forms of religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, I very much disagree. Throw out the Bible and you throw out slavery, bigotry, self-aggrandizement, misogyny, parochialism, and many other evils. There have been many much better ethical systems. Greece and Rome alone accounted for several.

Like 'Gone with the Wind', it is a glorification of a fundamentally unethical system that needs to expire.

(It will expire...but not by man's hand. Thank God for that. The knowledge of which I am very grateful.)

 

[YoursTrue]

God to me is the anthropomorphism of the natural processes that prevades nature in flux and the qualities of its dynamics.

It's not hard to see this as not having a beginning in terms that energy is pervasive throughout, and as Alan Watts liked to put it, "nature is wiggly".

Unceasing movement and vibration, for which it's impossible for anything to perfectly stand still that enables energy to form mass out of essentially 'nothing' , hence mass energy.

I used to read Alan Watts. I don't want to be demeaning, but I found his writings diffuse and unenergetic. (Like real dumb.)

 

[gnostic]

I refer to the definition of a Christian. Some on this site have declared that yes, Hitler was a Christian. And this 'proves' the culpability of Christians for all that is wrong in the world. The true definition is the one I refer to - being like Jesus.
Churches like the Catholic inquisition are not Christian, not by a long long stretch.

I don't know who change the subject or when the subject have have switched to about the poverty, prostitution and slavery.

I believe it was you, trying to justify that religions tried to make the world a better place, like the Islamic empire trying to moderate slavery.

Moderating slavery don't change the fact that both Christian and Muslim nations have centuries to abolish slavery but they never did any such thing. In fact, they benefit from legalizing slavery.

And slavery weren't the only problem that Christian and Muslim nations overlook.

Neither faiths stop persecution of minorities, of women, and of Jews. Sure, some few may treat them right, but there have always being biases against these people, largely because both religions are based on patriarchal culture, where they think they are "special".

You were the one who that the Abrahamic religions weren't the ones who brought slavery into the world, which is true, but these religions advocate God being "all-powerful" and "all-knowing", so he should have the power to say it is "wrong" to treat people as property, but your God never did anything, so the Abrahamic religions are part of systems that are wrong.

You cannot bring up Hitler, and then expect others not to bring up Christians who are bad after Jesus, by redefining what being a "Christian" mean.

You are cherrypicking as to who is Christian and who is not. There are no such thing as "true Christians", and to define it in a way that it suit you, is not being honest with us and with yourself.

 

[joelr]

Amazing that Jews in the 'second temple period' knew so much about Bronze Age culture, places, monarchs and events that Jews of later centuries had no idea about. Maybe they just copied their 'fiction' from earlier books?

Uh, did you read the quote? The Jewish people were exposed to the Persian myths because the Persians INVADED ISRAEL? The Persian emissary to the Hebrew leaders was also very nice to them and allowed the exiled leaders to return. For almost 3 centuries the Persians lived in Israel and had a great impact on their theology.
In fact Revelation, the final war between God and the devil where all members of the religion get resurrected into new bodies and live forever in paradise on Earth was originally a Persian myth.

In 100B.C. the Greeks took over ruling Israel and this gave the Israelites exposure to Greek Hellenism. The period where the Hebrews started using Persian myths was the time when they were occupied by them.

In centuries later they are not going to say they took myths from the Persians? The Hebrew writers who used their theology didn't say "let's steal these myths", they knew about them and that they were popular and then Hebrew leaders began saying "Oh look Yahweh says we are also going to have a final battle and resurrect and live forever in new bodies on Earth!". New generations have no idea. It wasn't known until Mary Boyce lived in Iran in modern times and learned their religion and archaeologists dated their culture and mythology and so on. Also the OT talks about this as well to some degree.



Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Jesus had a different take on things, but then -- he couldn't change society too much, could he? And he was put to death by the more powerful leaders.

I do not know what kind of kingdom did Jesus want, Ruled by himself (aka 'Rama Rajya' in Hinduism, ruled by Rama)?

I used to read Alan Watts. I don't want to be demeaning, but I found his writings diffuse and unenergetic. (Like real dumb.)

These are personal views. Someone could say exactly that for your posts, though I find them interesting and quaint (not that I have read Watts).

 

[PruePhillip]

Uh, did you read the quote? The Jewish people were exposed to the Persian myths because the Persians INVADED ISRAEL? The Persian emissary to the Hebrew leaders was also very nice to them and allowed the exiled leaders to return. For almost 3 centuries the Persians lived in Israel and had a great impact on their theology.
In fact Revelation, the final war between God and the devil where all members of the religion get resurrected into new bodies and live forever in paradise on Earth was originally a Persian myth.

In 100B.C. the Greeks took over ruling Israel and this gave the Israelites exposure to Greek Hellenism. The period where the Hebrews started using Persian myths was the time when they were occupied by them.

In centuries later they are not going to say they took myths from the Persians? The Hebrew writers who used their theology didn't say "let's steal these myths", they knew about them and that they were popular and then Hebrew leaders began saying "Oh look Yahweh says we are also going to have a final battle and resurrect and live forever in new bodies on Earth!". New generations have no idea. It wasn't known until Mary Boyce lived in Iran in modern times and learned their religion and archaeologists dated their culture and mythology and so on. Also the OT talks about this as well to some degree.

.

You mean, there was no Abraham 1750 BC
and no Sodom and Gomorah 1650 BC
and no Canaanite invasion of Egypt (late Bronze)
and no Moses (mass migrations Bronze Age Collapse)
and no Joshua's curse on Mount Ebal
and no cultic center at Shiloh (war of the Phillistines)
and no House of David ca 1000 BC
and no House of Omri in Samaria ca 885 BC
and no Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah ?????
And what about Jesus and those of his ministry during Roman times, they didn't exist either ????

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't know who change the subject or when the subject have have switched to about the poverty, prostitution and slavery.

I believe it was you, trying to justify that religions tried to make the world a better place, like the Islamic empire trying to moderate slavery.

Moderating slavery don't change the fact that both Christian and Muslim nations have centuries to abolish slavery but they never did any such thing. In fact, they benefit from legalizing slavery.

And slavery weren't the only problem that Christian and Muslim nations overlook.

Neither faiths stop persecution of minorities, of women, and of Jews. Sure, some few may treat them right, but there have always being biases against these people, largely because both religions are based on patriarchal culture, where they think they are "special".

You were the one who that the Abrahamic religions weren't the ones who brought slavery into the world, which is true, but these religions advocate God being "all-powerful" and "all-knowing", so he should have the power to say it is "wrong" to treat people as property, but your God never did anything, so the Abrahamic religions are part of systems that are wrong.

You cannot bring up Hitler, and then expect others not to bring up Christians who are bad after Jesus, by redefining what being a "Christian" mean.

You are cherrypicking as to who is Christian and who is not. There are no such thing as "true Christians", and to define it in a way that it suit you, is not being honest with us and with yourself.

Not changing the subject. You said that Christians introduced or overlooked slavery.
I suggest your definition of Christianity is the problem - so-called Christians are 'responsible' for war, slavery, exile, murder, rape, oppression etc.. But again, that's not what Christianity is about.
So yes, there was slavery in Christian times, and warfare, crime, poverty, hate, adultery, drunkeness and the like. And yes, Christians did 'nothing' about it. But what Christianity DID do was preach that all these things were sins against God, and against those committing them.

 

[Polymath257]

Times were different then in terms of slaves. By the time of Jesus, structures were also different. You might as well talk about the Greeks and their system at the time. I looked it up on wikipedia and see it starts this way: 'Slavery was an accepted practice in ancient Greece, as in other societies of the time. Some Ancient Greek writers (including, most notably, Aristotle) described slavery as natural and even necessary.[2] This paradigm was notably questioned in Socratic dialogues; the Stoics produced the first recorded condemnation of slavery."

And if the Bible is supposed to be a source of morality, would you not expect it to condemn slavery clearly in spite of the beliefs of those around? it did so in many other ways (condemning pagans, for example).

Don't forget that Socrates lived 400 years before Jesus and the Stoics started 200+ years before. yes, somehow, slavery was not on Jesus' (God's) radar.

Which is worse? Slavery or paganism?

Ok so it was a pretty well accepted practice back then. Now let's see the present. Here's what I know about the society I live in: there is a lot of drug addiction and graft and illegal dealings. There are a lot of trades that rob the people of benefits because some people know how to use (abuse) the system, such as hiding their assets so they don't have to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Then there are deals made that hurt others. There are selfish people. And -- there are jobs with minimum wage. Would you say a person can do well on minimum wage? And then there is a high cost to get a "higher" education, putting a person possibly in debt for a long, long time. Then there are murders by drug dealers and other nuts who are brain sick, have been mistreated themselves and kill others. Jesus had a different take on things, but then -- he couldn't change society too much, could he? And he was put to death by the more powerful leaders.

And take these things and ask how things were 200 years ago. Or 500. You will find that even minimum wage is *far* better than the average lifestyle possible when religion was in charge. Robbing people of benefits? Have you ever heard how medieval society was set up? it was the *church* that took most of the resources to glorify itself. And the royalty didn't pay taxes at all. But that was a system favored by God (according to those in power).

Debt? Have you ever heard of debtors prisons? Not only were those in debt kept that way, there were put in prison on top of it. At least now there is a possibility of debt forgiveness and getting a decent job.

Life has 8always* been cruel and hard for the vast majority of people. if anything, it has been getting better since we stopped thinking it was all 'Gods plan' and started taking matters into our own hands; trying to fix the evils instead of enduring them.

Jesus did very little. And, if Jesus was God incarnate, that means God did very little. Which either means God is powerless or evil (or non-existent).

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, and in addition to your comment about adherence to a morality based on religious ideas, etc., let me put it this way: there are various religions and sects. Each has its own ideas. Some of the world's richest people who hire people giving them hardly a living wage go to church or other forms of religion.

Or run the church, dictate what it teaches, and determine what is in the books.

Think about it.

 

[Polymath257]

Not changing the subject. You said that Christians introduced or overlooked slavery.
I suggest your definition of Christianity is the problem - so-called Christians are 'responsible' for war, slavery, exile, murder, rape, oppression etc.. But again, that's not what Christianity is about.

Start reading at Luke 12:49. or at Matthew 10:34.

That sounds like war, exile, oppression, etc all dictated by Jesus.

So yes, there was slavery in Christian times, and warfare, crime, poverty, hate, adultery, drunkeness and the like. And yes, Christians did 'nothing' about it. But what Christianity DID do was preach that all these things were sins against God, and against those committing them.

When? Where in the Bible was slavery condemned as a sin? Where did any of the apostles preach against it?

 

[PruePhillip]

And if the Bible is supposed to be a source of morality, would you not expect it to condemn slavery clearly in spite of the beliefs of those around? it did so in many other ways (condemning pagans, for example).

Don't forget that Socrates lived 400 years before Jesus and the Stoics started 200+ years before. yes, somehow, slavery was not on Jesus' (God's) radar.

Which is worse? Slavery or paganism?



And take these things and ask how things were 200 years ago. Or 500. You will find that even minimum wage is *far* better than the average lifestyle possible when religion was in charge. Robbing people of benefits? Have you ever heard how medieval society was set up? it was the *church* that took most of the resources to glorify itself. And the royalty didn't pay taxes at all. But that was a system favored by God (according to those in power).

Debt? Have you ever heard of debtors prisons? Not only were those in debt kept that way, there were put in prison on top of it. At least now there is a possibility of debt forgiveness and getting a decent job.

Life has 8always* been cruel and hard for the vast majority of people. if anything, it has been getting better since we stopped thinking it was all 'Gods plan' and started taking matters into our own hands; trying to fix the evils instead of enduring them.

Jesus did very little. And, if Jesus was God incarnate, that means God did very little. Which either means God is powerless or evil (or non-existent).

Yes, Jesus didn't condemn slavery. Nor did he do anything about
ADULTERY
WARFARE
STEALING
MURDER
PORNOGRAPHY
DRUGS
DIVORCE
etc
etc

But what He DID do was preach the Gospel and established THE EXAMPLE of righteous living.
LOVE GOD
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
Don't do unto others what you would not want them to do to you.
Don't live for yourself
Show compassion, love and grace in your life.
Let the wicked continue as they are - don't stand in their way.

Quote, "Jesus did very little"
He didn't bring a corporate message, He came to change the individual. Thats a big thing.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, Jesus didn't condemn slavery. Nor did he do anything about
ADULTERY
WARFARE
STEALING
MURDER
PORNOGRAPHY
DRUGS
DIVORCE
etc
etc

But what He DID do was preach the Gospel and established THE EXAMPLE of righteous living.
LOVE GOD
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
Don't do unto others what you would not want them to do to you.
Don't live for yourself
Show compassion, love and grace in your life.
Let the wicked continue as they are - don't stand in their way.

Quote, "Jesus did very little"
He didn't bring a corporate message, He came to change the individual. Thats a big thing.

By his own words, he came, not to bring peace, but a sword. He comes to separate families and cause destruction.

 

[PruePhillip]

Start reading at Luke 12:49. or at Matthew 10:34.

That sounds like war, exile, oppression, etc all dictated by Jesus.



When? Where in the Bible was slavery condemned as a sin? Where did any of the apostles preach against it?

You will find that Apostles did not make an issue of drunkeness, adultery, war, slavery, corruption - they preached the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who embraced it in a genuine way, had their lives transformed. The Apostles didn't run for public office, didn't take up issues of transgender or the environment, didn't overthrow governments and didn't seek to prohibit things like alcohol or divorce.

 

[PruePhillip]

By his own words, he came, not to bring peace, but a sword. He comes to separate families and cause destruction.

I wouldn't say 'destruction' - He said our enemies could be those of our own household if they do not believe. Happened to Jesus, I suppose.

 

[wellwisher]

I refer to the definition of a Christian. Some on this site have declared that yes, Hitler was a Christian. And this 'proves' the culpability of Christians for all that is wrong in the world. The true definition is the one I refer to - being like Jesus. Churches like the Catholic inquisition are not Christian, not by a long long stretch.

In the 4th century AD, Christianity became the official religion of Rome. The original religion of slaves changed via this new position of power. It became an amalgam of Christianity and Rome; paradox of advanced secular with humble spiritual. Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's and render onto God what is God's. This union lasted about 1000 years; reign of peace, until about 1400 AD.

Around 1400 AD began the Age of Exploration and the beginnings of the Protestant movement. The amalgam of Rome and Christianity started to break apart as the Roman Catholic Church lost its unifying influence. The Spanish inquisition was heavy on the Roman side. Hitler was also very slanted toward the Roman side of the split. The Nazi goose-step came from the way Roman soldiers used to march. Hitler saw himself as being like a Caesar. The advanced technology and science of Germany came from their Roman side. Hitler not only killed Jews but also Catholics; persecution by Rome was repeating itself.

America was built on human rights and religious liberty which began with migration from Europe. This people were more slanted toward the Christian side, running away from the Roman side in Europe. The amalgam of Rome and Christianity is no longer one thing like it had been from 400AD to 1400 AD. It is now based on various percentages of a paradox of love and hate, rich and poor, faith and knowledge, spiritual and secular.

Atheism also came from the Roman-Christian amalgam and is more concentrated on the Roman side. They still come together with their Christian cousins to have lively debates; love-hate. The world wide success of Christianity is a testament to the alliance with Rome; advanced secular mixed with love. Within the paradox of opposites the Holy Spirit became manifest, evolving the Church and Christianity.

 

[PruePhillip]

In the 4th century AD, Christianity became the official religion of Rome. The original religion of slaves changed via this new position of power. It became an amalgam of Christianity and Rome; paradox of advanced secular with humble spiritual. Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's and render onto God what is God's. This union lasted about 1000 years; reign of peace, until about 1400 AD.

Around 1400 AD began the Age of Exploration and the beginnings of the Protestant movement. The amalgam of Rome and Christianity started to break apart as the Roman Catholic Church lost its unifying influence. The Spanish inquisition was heavy on the Roman side. Hitler was also very slanted toward the Roman side of the split. The Nazi goose-step came from the way Roman soldiers used to march. Hitler saw himself as being like a Caesar. The advanced technology and science of Germany came from their Roman side. Hitler not only killed Jews but also Catholics; persecution by Rome was repeating itself.

America was built on human rights and religious liberty which began with migration from Europe. This people were more slanted toward the Christian side, running away from the Roman side in Europe. The amalgam of Rome and Christianity is no longer one thing like it had been from 400AD to 1400 AD. It is now based on various percentages of a paradox of love and hate, rich and poor, faith and knowledge, spiritual and secular.

Atheism also came from the Roman-Christian amalgam and is more concentrated on the Roman side. They still come together with their Christian cousins to have lively debates; love-hate. The world wide success of Christianity is a testament to the alliance with Rome; advanced secular mixed with love. Within the paradox of opposites the Holy Spirit became manifest, evolving the Church and Christianity.

I hold that Christianity DOES NOT EVOLVE. How can the simple edicts of Christ 'evolve' into something better? So instead of worshipping Jesus we worship His mother. Instead of Christ being the intermediary between God and man we now have the Priest being intermediary between man and Mary, and this Mary is intermediary with God. Nothing like this exists in the bible.

ps did you copy and paste the above? If you wrote it yourself then it's pretty good.

 

[Polymath257]

I hold that Christianity DOES NOT EVOLVE. How can the simple edicts of Christ 'evolve' into something better?

Christianity changes over time: early Christians were mainly Jewish until Paul came along to change things. The exact nature of Jesus humanity and divinity was hotly debated for centuries, a debate that was current when the books of the new testament were chosen by one side. The other side had a *different* list of 'sacred texts' that they advocated. Other branches of Christianity denied the trinity (Nestorians--historically very important).

Those that lived just after Jesus would not have recognized Christianity 500 years later, let alone what it is now.

Those 'simple edicts' have been debated, argued, and interpreted in many different ways over time. What it means to be a Christian has similarly been debated: is it simply a matter of faith? of deeds? or does the heart need to change? The answers vary over time and place, even among 'good Christians'.

This is why it often seems disingenuous to say that Christians cannot do this or that. Those that *defined* what Christianity is did those things. They thought they were following the dictates of Jesus. They just disagreed with what you think those dictates decreed.