Amos

That is the benefit of having their insight. It is not important to me whether they could stop it or not because I wasn't there and I am not interested in getting into this argument because then I would have to make it my own.

I will say that the Church understands the fires of hell (such as what motivated Hitler, Luther and still motivates Billy Graham and Bush) and they should have every right to use it to their own advantage if they can later say "I told you so" . . . or do you think that they should forever be held accountable when things go wrong in the world because they knew better. The Church has never been part of government but always been there to give advice and that is all it wants to do.

winstonjen

Because he supposedly loves us, and doesn't want those not responsible for the atrocities and mistakes to suffer as a result of them.

And you can't "go against" an omnipotent being. The things only happened because he wanted to happen, and let them happen (if he exists, of course).

He could and should choose to stop the worst ones, and stop letting those not responsible suffer, such as the victims of the Holocaust.

Magus55

I agree, and I never claimed specifically who was Christian and who wasn't. Only God knows that. But Jesus did teach that we will know them by their fruit. Slaughtering other people in the name of God, goes against Jesus' teachings, and as such, Christianity. Thats bad fruit, and makes you wonder if they actually were living for Christ.

Catholicism is responsible for the majority of Christianity organized churches, but I don't think the original Catholic church was anything like the heresy it is today. This is also why I don't really like organized religion. And btw, I'm not protestant.

Magus55

So your little statement only applies to religious groups. Interesting... Sorry, but if I started calling myself Muslim, but rejected 5 Pillars of Islam, i'm not Muslim.

winstonjen

Well, everyone who is part of a religion has their own view on it. They may be hypocritical and not follow some things, but they are still a part of that religion.

Jesus did say to bring his enemies and slay them before him.

Goliath

In particular, it applies to any belief that is not physically verifiable. Religious beliefs are amongst these.

You most definitely would be. Since reading minds seems to be impossible, no one would be able to know that you did not have muslim beliefs.

Sincerely,

Goliath

bleubird

Amos. I am sure you are right.
I have never known a catholic that was wrong.
All the priest and sisters that told me I was bad because of original sin.
Not 0nly that, But the sin of intent. The SIN of lust.
Do not get me started on masterbation

bleu

Amos

You mean they introduced you to the forbidden fruit?

Did they also tell you that if the first sin 'cost' you heaven the second one was free?

And that if the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only sin must be good?

And while we're at it, don't forget the confessionals where you can get a clean conscious and renewed courage for as little as two hail Mary's.

chapka

The confusion here is based on terminology. The general definition of "Christian" as used by almost everyone in the world is someone who belongs to a religion which accepts (at least to some degree) the divinity of Jesus Christ. This makes all Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Mormons, etc.

Within various Christian sects, there is another widely used definition, which is someone who is "saved". What "saved" means depends on the sect. In the case of American fundamentalists, it means being "born again." In some other groups it means "being one of the elect."

However, the second definition is only useful in the context of a theological discussion between members of the same sect, where definition isn't an issue. For the general public, the first definition is the default, and the one the OP intended. There's no point in arguing that anyone is or isn't "saved" by your definition, because that's not what the OP or any of the following posts are about.

Amos

So then who were the Christians before the Reformation? Not the Catholics or they would be Christians and not Catholics. Also not the various groups of heretics because they were seen as the anti Christ by the Catholic church.

The problem here is that just because Protestants want to be counted among the righteous does not make them Christians except maybe in their own imagination. Of course you are welcome to call them Christians but that would just identify another form of slavery.

Interesting to note that you have excluded the only group that could become Christain and those were the Jews . . . after which they would no longer be Jew and if you don't agree with that just look at the example set by Jesus.