PDA

View Full Version : Are there any real Christians in here?



kilroyturner
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 02:46 AM
Hi I am new to this fourm and was just wondering if there were any real christians in here? And what I mean by that is are there any christians in here that belive that Jesus Christ is the only way to go to heaven? I have seen a lot of people on here that think that Catholics are also christian. I am from the South and I know that a True Christian is hard to find, and was wondering if there were any on here? :)

Leofric
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 02:54 AM
Hi I am new to this fourm and was just wondering if there were any real christians in here?

Based on Jesus's words as recorded in John 13:35, I'd say there quite a few real Christians here.


And what I mean by that is are there any christians in here that belive that Jesus Christ is the only way to go to heaven?

I believe this.


I have seen a lot of people on here that think that Catholics are also christian.

I believe this, too, and I don't see any conflict at all between this and the criterion you have suggested.


I am from the South and I know that a True Christian is hard to find, and was wondering if there were any on here? :)

Going back to John 13:35, I'd have to say I agree with you about the scarcity of true Christians.

kilroyturner
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 03:11 AM
Leofric thank you for your post! I am glad to hear that there are other christians on hear as well!:)

Waarnemer
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 02:29 PM
Based on Jesus's words as recorded in John 13:35, I'd say there quite a few real Christians here.



I believe this.



I believe this, too, and I don't see any conflict at all between this and the criterion you have suggested.



Going back to John 13:35, I'd have to say I agree with you about the scarcity of true Christians.

It's a shame that a person with a knowledge you oftent display, feels any affaction towards something like christianity or even religion in general. :thumbdown

Vespasian
Friday, November 4th, 2005, 11:53 AM
It's a shame that a person with a knowledge you oftent display, feels any affaction towards something like christianity or even religion in general. :thumbdown

Every man ever born has a religion, whether he follows a God or not well that's a different story....

kilroyturner
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 01:24 AM
It's a shame that a person with a knowledge you oftent display, feels any affaction towards something like christianity or even religion in general. :thumbdown
Maybe one day Jesus will open your eye's, I will pray for you.

Waarnemer
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Maybe one day Jesus will open your eye's, I will pray for you.
Whatever you want. Hoop you enjoy talking to yourself, and maybe someday you grab a book and begin to think for yourself.

Elite
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 01:11 PM
im born and raised a catholic but
i gess that dosent count. :~(
but i was thinking about converting
to another section of this religion
sense catholicsm dosent fill my reliogus needs.
im very depressd that reuglar christyans dont
consider us to be real christyans so i thought
converting would be the best anser to that problem. sorry if my spelling is rong but english is not my best langage.

Theudanaz
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 03:44 PM
im born and raised a catholic but
i gess that dosent count. :~(
but i was thinking about converting
to another section of this religion
sense catholicsm dosent fill my reliogus needs.
im very depressd that reuglar christyans dont
consider us to be real christyans so i thought
converting would be the best anser to that problem. sorry if my spelling is rong but english is not my best langage.



I believe it may be possible, after all it was the first Church. I think there may be a lot of true believers among the Catholics, but I don't think they are necessarily saved just because they are born Catholics, same goes for protestants too. At first the difference was that Lutherans didn't support indulgences, later there were other issues protestants didn't support like praying to saints, salvation through faith, not by works alone, loss of salvation, placing tradition equal with Bible, etc.

But basically, if you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that Jesus is God and that he is the only way to be rescued from the completely sinful condition in which you were born (where you have no power to please God or do good at all), then we are brothers in Christ and fellow believers.

Drömmarnas Stig
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 03:48 PM
I am a real born-Christian (catholic). Quit my membership at the age of 18 though.
I just can't stand religions and especially the Vatican.

Crownshelm
Thursday, December 22nd, 2005, 03:32 AM
I was wondering the same thing, kilroyturner, about 'real Christians' because I see a lot of people with 'christinaity' as their "religion" but it's rare to see a sincere Christian. I am one of those, and I think it's great to see our kind on these boards!

sceagacros
Friday, December 23rd, 2005, 08:33 AM
I am a "real" Born again Christian - I believe that Jesus allowed himself to be sacrificed on a cross to fufill the blood atonement of an "unblemished lamb" nessessary for the wages of sin , so that any and all who choose to call on him can be freely forgiven - I believe the bible is unfailingly accurate and that we live in a fallen world , and wrestle not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities . I also believe that ye shall know them by their fruits and that 99.9% of those who consider themselves "born again" -may not in fact be. I also believe that some of the more rabid denouncers of "born Again" Christianity may very well be backsliders(as I have been ) or those going through the stage (I also went through) of resisting gods calling ... Luckily (for me at least) - he is by his very nature long suffering ... I also believe that we are to "love one another" and be "fishers of men" - and to never forget that we are saved by grace not because we are in any way smarter , more valuable , or better in any way than any other human being ever created.Luckily (again) we are saved by grace as I constantly find myself being made aware (usually in hindsight) that my works would never suffice.And although I'm VERY aware that this post is totally ruining my chances at winning "most popular Skadite" - I'm compelled by the words that he who acknowledges me before men , him will I acknowledge before my Father.:)

Bismark
Friday, December 23rd, 2005, 10:29 AM
The following are my personals views, and beliefs on the subject. I ask you not to take offense for what is written, should you disagree with it. I'm not trying to convert you, and I would ask that in return, you don't attempt to convert me. These are my beliefs, and I won't debate them, I'll only explain them...


I am a Christian as well in most respects, although my beliefs vary from most other Christians. I study the scripture regularly, and I guess in the widest sense of the commercialized word 'saved', I am 'saved'. However, I don't go to church and, I've never been held under water by a priest, baptism I believe it's called.

I believe organized religion (church) is a terrible thing. Why? Firstly, it's the whole group mentality thing, “if we all agree, and act together, then none of us is individually culpable”. Second, I believe many to most (depending on the church) of the people who attend church services are hypocrites, who go to be seen there by others in the community in hopes that going to church reflects well on them, Mathew 6:5 Christ said: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” Thirdly I disagree with the many 'shepherds who lead their lambs astray' for the purpose of collecting tithes to support themselves. Finally I don't believe a priest, pastor, minister, etc dunking my head in watter, or trickling it down my forehead makes me anymore Christian. Luke 3:16 John the Baptist said: “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit...”

I strongly disagree with catholicism. I believe they above all others cling to false idols, whether it be worshiping Mother Mary almost more than Christ, or God; worshiping the man that heads their church, 'The Pope'; or the crucifix many of them cling to like a golden calf. Exodus 20:4 God said: “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” I think confession is wrong, admitting your 'sins' to a holy man and receiving his forgiveness does a person no good, try repenting to god, instead of man. Hail Marries are wrong the bible confirms this, Mathew 6:7 Christ said: “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” I will not get into the Catholic Churches' many pedophiles, other than to say, true they make up a low percentage of the clergy, but 1 is to many. I could go on for pages about the catholic churches many 'sins' (as described by scripture), but I think I've outlined the major ones. No man is without sin, however the Catholic Church makes sin a habit for those it leads astary.


I ask you not to take offense for what is written, should you disagree with it. I'm not trying to convert you, and I would ask that in return, you don't attempt to convert me.
Bismark,

Treue
Friday, December 23rd, 2005, 10:44 AM
I have never been a Christian. Even at elementary school at the age of six or seven those oriental fairy tales made me laugh.

My best friend at that time came from a family of hardcore Christians and it was very hard for me to suppress myself expressing my thoughts loudly about Christendom and so on.

I think Greek-Roman and Nordic mythology and religion are quite interesting, but if there are any gods they have not made it yet to enter my consciousness.

Crownshelm
Monday, January 2nd, 2006, 07:30 AM
Bismarck:

I see your 'religion' is "Christianized Neo-Pagan". What exactly is that? I've never heard of or seen that before.

About organized religion: I do agree with you, that sadly many who attend church do it hypocritically. However, I don't think that this should cause believers to give up on the Church. It is imperative to have fellowship and challenge each other.

About baptism: I do agree that it seems in some churches that it's the golden ticket to Heaven, which is of course unbiblical. However, I do believe that we as Christians are called to profess our faith in Christ, a great way of doing this is baptism in front of our congregation.

As far as the Catholic Church goes, I agree with you about pretty much all of it.

(Not trying to sound smart, or picking a fight, if that comes across.. :))

EDIT: sceagacros, I agree 100% with you :)

nurnberg
Monday, January 2nd, 2006, 10:54 AM
Every man ever born has a religion, whether he follows a God or not well that's a different story....

You are absolutely correct.

Although it is doubtful many would understand your definition of religion.

nurnberg
Monday, January 2nd, 2006, 10:56 AM
Whatever you want. Hoop you enjoy talking to yourself, and maybe someday you grab a book and begin to think for yourself.

Of course education helps some, but Christian "faith" tends to discount things like a genealogy of source texts ...

nurnberg
Monday, January 2nd, 2006, 11:01 AM
The following are my personals views, and beliefs on the subject. I am a Christian as well in most respects, although my beliefs vary from most other Christians...
The essence of Christianity can be summarized by its encapsulation in the form of the Cross. That should say it all.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, January 4th, 2006, 11:25 AM
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. - GK Chesterton

nurnberg
Wednesday, January 4th, 2006, 11:57 AM
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.
If Germanics imagine that the ideal is Christianity then this only means that Germanics have subscribed to a non-Germanic explanation of origins, cosmology, and Wurzel und Schicksal.

Wjatscheslaw
Wednesday, January 4th, 2006, 12:14 PM
None?! :-O

Vestmannr
Wednesday, January 4th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Um - that's GK Chesterton's quote, not attributable to me. Minor point, but important point.

Wjatscheslaw
Wednesday, January 4th, 2006, 12:53 PM
--I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.--The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding--at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "Gospels" died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the "Gospels" was the very reverse of what he had lived: "bad tidings," a Dysangelium.14 (http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm#f14)It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in "faith," and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian. . .
Friedrich Nietzsche -The Antichrist- 39

E-text: http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Nietzsche saw Christ as a model for his superman I hope you know.

Waarnemer
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 07:49 PM
Nietzsche saw Christ as a model for his superman I hope you know.
Perhaps but since your not christ, but a christian he would have thought low of your way of life.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 07:58 PM
but a christian he would have thought low of your way of life.

Like I'd give a shit!

Waarnemer
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 08:02 PM
Like I'd give a shit!
I just hoped you'd know.

Siegfried
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 12:26 AM
Nietzsche saw Christ as a model for his superman I hope you know.

No, he didn't. :)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 07:16 PM
Yes he did and here's an entire article about his postive feelings towards Christ. It was rather St. Paul that angered him.

http://facweb.stvincent.edu/academics/religiousstu/writings/rodkey2.html

Some excerpts:

In short, Nietzsche respects and admires Jesus of Nazareth, "but denies that he has any meaning for our age" Nietzsche believes the Jewish contention that Jesus is not the Messiah and that the Messiah has not yet appeared in history. Even so, Nietzsche reveres Jesus as no other character in history, particularly because he came to know Jesus as the very opposite of Christianity.
///
In conclusion, Nietzsche clearly has pronounced separate judgements upon the man Jesus of Nazareth and the religion that is believed to be loosely based on Jesus' life, Christianity. To Nietzsche, Jesus was a great man worthy of respect, perhaps even an Übermensch; Christianity, however, is corrupt insofar as the fathers of the church institutionalized the teachings of Jesus in an act of hostility towards the Jews. Furthermore, Nietzsche believes that Christianity has become the very establishment against which Jesus rebelled in Judaism: an already corrupt, stagnant, static, hierarchial religion.

I have yet to find any literature on Nietzsche that explains anything but his admiration for Jesus Christ.

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Not I, that's for sure.

Siegfried
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 08:14 PM
To Nietzsche, Jesus was a great man worthy of respect, perhaps even an Übermensch

The last part is really an unwarranted conclusion. It is true that Nietzsche believed modern Christianity is a corruption of Jesus' teachings (which he blames largely on Paul) , but nowhere does he indicate that Jesus was an Übermensch. Nietzsche calls Jesus a "decadent", even an "idiot" in the Antichrist.

From my perspective, this is just another attempt by Christians to take some of the sting out of Nietzsche's philosophy.

Georgia
Monday, February 20th, 2006, 03:51 AM
Hi y'all. Wasn't quite sure where to put the following article.
I was intriged by the question from a member from the CSA "Are there any real Christians here?" Georgia



http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/blog.php (http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/blog.php)

A Christian Nation... Once Upon a Time
The epicenter of present political debate between sacred and secular is the question of America's religious identity. Were the founding fathers
intending a secular society by initiating the Constitutional amending
process with the following?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
It is gross anachronism to paint the early Americans as a horde of
left-wing secularists bent on multi-cultural pluralism and a strident
distrust of Christianity. It is likewise an error to prop up our 18th
century ancestors as theocrats who haphazardly neglected to add an
establishment clause to declare America a Christian state. Yet, it is some
form of the former and the latter that is presently crossing swords over
the title deed to America.

A small snippet from the farewell address of George Washington adequately portrays the essential religious and political makeup of the infant nation:

With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners,
habits and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and
triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
"The same religion," "with slight shades of difference." By this Washington
spoke of the diversity of Christian faith expressions represented
throughout the Colonies. And the Constitution was meant as a limiting
factor for the state lest it grant undue warrant to any one branch of
Christianity as was the case in Great Britain. The Constitution writers
were quite familiar with the persecution of the continental puritans, and
deemed religious liberty of chief significance by including it in the First
Amendment.

Therefore, the basic identity of the nation was Christian at the time.
Denying this does not solve the present political dilemma anymore than
those who affirm it. It's simply not 1791. It's 2006 and America is a
grossly different nation.

I believe the debate over our religious origins will not prove to be a
profitable one for either side. Is America a Christian nation? Yes, I think
so. But, it's also a secular nation. It has become so. It is a humanistic
nation, and a nation of pluralists. It is a nation of multiple
personalities with each persona vying for corporate dominance.

The Constitutional Battle

Both sides are laying claim to the Constitution, but neither side has
adequately described the nature of this marvelous document. The secularists
are genuinely in error because they make appeals to the Constitution in
matters of moral legislation with the mantra "separation of church and
state." This is a misuse of the Constitution because it contradicts the
stated purpose of the document.

When discussing the Constitution, Rushdoony often noted that the
Constitution did not provide us with substantive morality, but rather
legislative morality -- meaning it's intent was to shape the legislative
process not declare abortion as murder. So, when secularists appeal to the
Constitution and a separation of church and state as to why certain laws
should not be enacted they are reaching for the wrong document. The
Constitution will only aid them in policing the legislative process not
whether an issue is inherently religious.

A Religious Issue

This is really the central question. When exactly does an issue become
religious? Is it only issues regarding homosexuality and abortion that are
religious? In a democratic society can Christians use the political process
to enact and or change laws? Of course they can. So can the secularist. How do you think they got abortion legalized in the first place? But, that same process may one day see Roe v Wade overturned.

When does an issue become religious? And, by what standard will you then judge any substantive moral question? Will it be conventional standards such as pragmatism, positivism, and utilitarianism? Why did the founding fathers not create any document of substantive morality? Firstly, they would leave it up to the states to decide. Secondly, they lived in a
predominantly Christian society where God's Word was the primary source
document for substantive moral legislation. And, better yet, they lived
amongst a more responsible citizenry that better demonstrated
self-government than today's American social dependency.

Theocracy Looms

The fear mongering of many secularists is the threat of theocracy -- a
Christian takeover of the present apparatus of the federal government. News flash: it ain't gonna happen! Believe you me, Bush and Cheney respond to Halliburton, KRB, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing, not James Dobson. The thought is laughable. No, the Religious Right is an electoral tool because they represent a massive conservative constituency. Therefore, the executive branch will placate them and cultivate a controlled alliance, but not on Dobson or Robertson's terms.

Is there a threat to abortion on demand? God, I hope so. Anything to start washing the last 30+ years of state sponsored bloodshed. If that were to happen, which I doubt, it would likely amount to a slightly watered down version of present abortion policy. But, like lowering gas prices it'll shut people up. We're so pathetic.

But changing (or adjusting) Roe v Wade does not equate to theocracy. That's just asinine. Debate over issues like abortion are to be expected. These are serious matters and the Christian outcry is perfectly reasonable. (I am always dumbfounded at how the secular left offers not a hint of conscience as to the questionable morality of abortion, not a hint. It's as if we were discussing a woman's right to join the military. You'd think such bleeding hearts could at least shed one drop of sympathetic blood for the unborn.
Nope. Not a drop. In fact, they demonstrate an even greater callousness by their recent change from "pro-choice" to "reproductive rights for women."
This is a textbook example of Orwellian doublespeak. Abortion means
termination. How in the hell did that become "reproductive rights?" It's
the Christian who may one day need "reproductive rights" as a line of
defense against the myth of overpopulation and the left's desire to reduce
birthrates.)

May the Best Man Win

We are a far cry from the Christian culture of early America. How in the
world the secularists can imagine the founding fathers were sitting in
progressive textbooks. No, a good many founding father was reading his
Bible and attending church. The simplicity of agrarian living at the time
helped to curb the political discussion, and little time was spent on the
matter of the church's influence on the state. The focus was on keeping the state out of the church.

Yet, the church has a moral voice because it holds a document of
substantive morality. At present, it should not seek to alter the
Constitutional legislative process, but it can use that process to seek
change in public morality. However, our goal is not simply the imposition
of trivial morality on others. Of greater concern to the Christian should
always be the preservation of the church's mission more so than the aimless debate over Intelligent Design. However, other moral issues must be contended for because of their heinous nature. We should seek to change the abortion ruling because it's murder -- a REAL holocaust. (And in this sense, the liberals are the greatest of "holocaust deniers." To them, it's simply good medicine. How Nazi is that?)

Is the stopping of abortion on demand the imposition of morality on others? You bet your life it is. Just the same as the prohibition of any kind of murder is an imposition of morality. The left knows this, and therefore
works to remove the idea of murder, death, or termination. In doing so they make it a debate over a woman's right to choose or to govern her own body.
This was too easily done. Again, there should be some hesitancy on the part of liberals to at least show some semblance of conscience regarding the unborn instead of demeaning their brief lives as irrelevant in light of the mother's "choice."

In Closing

America was once a devoutly Christian nation. It is no longer. Are there
millions of Christians? Yes, but they are a far cry (including myself) from
the Christians who lived closer to the reformation. What about the future?
Good question. I'm still praying and working for theocracy. What does that
mean? For me, it's when men and women are governing their individual lives by the standards of God's law in every area of life. I do not believe this is anytime near. Likely, it's several generations away. But, I can do my part by applying my faith now and instilling that same mission in my
children. I can also encourage my brothers and sisters to do the same.

I'm not called to "reclaim America." I'm called to build the city of God
irregardless of the flag that waves over the statehouse. My allegiance is
to Christ and His Word (though there is always a soft spot in my heart for
the once Christian South!). Although it is a marvelous document the
Constitution is just that, a document. It will not save man from his sinful
pursuit of power. That should be evident by the present despotism being
cast over America. No, my hope is in the Lord and what He plans for the
future of this world. I can't look back to 1791 as a goal. Providence has
brought us where we are and our sins have gotten us this present tyranny. I will commit myself, then, to a greater learning of obedience. If you are a Christian, I encourage you to join me. If you are not, then I pray God grant you repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25).

schwab
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 06:27 PM
What is a real Christian? A real Christian follows the teachings of Christ Jesus that shed His blood on the cross for our sins.
There are no denominations in Heaven. Many Christian denominations are adding extra teachings that result in many cases being cultish. "Scriptures only" should be the basis of true Christianity. These days it seems like that many so-called Christians follow certain denominations to fit their spiritual needs, they want a designer religion. They only believe want they want and miss the message of salvation. Christianity is severely divided. Cults are on the rise.
The basic message is simple: Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved from eternal separation from GOD.

Jonathan Eells
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 09:48 PM
I genuinely understand and sympathize with those who've made truly shitty decisions in their lives that have led to their own suffering and even more so for the ones whom they love. Life is rough, it's a full contact sport, often leading to repeated kicks in the teeth. But worshipping a fake magical charlatan from a 4th century dying empire is no way to go through life!

There's no such thing as sin. You're not guilty of anything other than human frailty (I'm talking to you, christians), and hoping for magical forgiveness (that you don't need) from somebody OTHER than whom you have directly harmed is folly bordering on sociopathy. If you think you've done something wrong to somebody, get your ass over to that person and beg their forgiveness. Just saying.

But anyway, if you REALLY want to know where the Germanic ideal of "christianity" came from, might I suggest you all read the oldest existing work of Saxon literature, "The Heliand"? There's an awful lot of back-story and context involved in THAT book, but you all need to know about it, and to read it, and to understand that your Germanic ancestors were sold a frikkin' bill of goods as the church forcibly murdered and converted Northern Europe to its bestial belief system.

Nothin' but love, baby.

jwe



https://youtu.be/Z_v18HLQrCs

Astragoth
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 11:25 PM
Oh yay pagans playing the victim card again....
Mighty Aryan warrior or victim please pick one. Oh and paganism isn't even a religion.
Its a set of traditions and folk tales. It's like calling football fandom a religion.

Chlodovech
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 11:33 PM
What's up with these off topic conversion attempts in nearly every thread we have about Christianity? Is it so difficult to keep your confessional opinion to yourself in threads which have nothing to do with your own religion/heathenry?


But anyway, if you REALLY want to know where the Germanic ideal of "christianity" came from

No, nobody asked that question.

fjaran
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 11:44 PM
Oh and paganism isn't even a religion.
Its a set of traditions and folk tales. It's like calling football fandom a religion.

You don't suppose that your religion and its ascending judaism is not also ultimately derived from a "set of traditions and folk tales?" Those of middle eastern semitics and other related groups, of course. I don't care about this debate but I find hypocrisy in your statement.

Jonathan Eells
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 11:50 PM
Chlodovech, I think you missed my point, and if you want to chat about things privately together then I'm open to the idea.

(But here's the Cliff Notes version: How did the ancient Germanic tribes, so well known for their war-like disposition and elevation of honor and fame as the principle values of a manly life, suddenly convert to a religion fronted by a filthy, poor, bastard son beggar from Judea? The answer is THEY DID NOT. The Heliand is arguably the first massive Public Relations Spin-Job ever written and it duped the Germans into adopting a foreign god, whom they were told was the richest, greatest, fiercest son of the most awesome king and the loveliest mother ever known - wait, is that even jesus??? No, it ain't.)

But I can't go back to making dinner (bread pudding with bacon) without howling with laughter at an adherent of the Original Evangelical Movement (that's you, Catholic) pleading for some peace & quiet... e.g. "Is it so difficult to keep your confessional opinion to yourself..." By the Gods, man, the sheer obduracy of such a statement, given the centuries of non-stop catholic intrusion into every single segment of Northern European culture is absolutely gob-smacking. Well done.

Jonathan Eells
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 11:59 PM
ASTRAGOTH: Ow, chihuahua. But fair's fair; I called your jeezy cult a bill of goods/pack of lies/bucket of spit/horse-hockey/paranoid delusion/absolutely nonse- I am rambling a bit, aren't I... too much mead.

Sorry. Bygones.

And I'd rather you used baseball as a metaphor. Personally, I'm a Cubs fan, and have been since I became aware of baseball. Berserkers are ALL Cubs fans. And Chicago Deep Dish is the ONLY kind of pizza. Oops, rambling again! MORE MEAD.

Terminus
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 07:29 AM
What is a Christian (not going off of that definition provided by the probable forgery known as the Acts of the Apostles) as understood by the great humanists and reformers? They are renegade non-Christians who correctly distinguish between Christianity (teachings imputed to Christ by the Church and it's priestly interpreters) and the teachings of Christ. Refer to Goebbels' Is It Pagan? speech. In the first place, Jesus' highest teachings can be found in the Sermon on the Mount. Excluding certain interpolations (the context surrounding "Do not resist evil"), it's safe to assume it's still somewhat preserved. I've already mentioned Hitler's application of Matt. 5:29 towards eugenics. Here's another way to look at "do not resist evil": when you receive a bad "sinful" thought, your first instinct is to try to stamp it out by meditating on the Bible or perhaps a Jesuit prayer book (the Meditations of St. Ignatius). The problem with this approach is that you're not stamping out the fire, but fanning the flames. You strengthen evil with your mental concentration or fixation on it. What you want to do here is not give these evil thoughts any attention. Evil dies out for a lack of attention. The flames die out on their own. I first came across this interpretation in the West, but I'm pretty sure it has also been promoted in the Orient among the Hindus. Applied politically, if enough people ignored the propaganda being spouted between false flag events or alleged atrocity reports in a world war, it'd just be a voice in the wilderness, completely harmless. This is completely different from Gandhi's pacifism.

The Pauline/Catholic dogma and the numerous sects which have sprung out of Protestantism (the presence of sects in itself suggests all-pervasive error which needs to be corrected) are all in the wrong. With Catholicism, they do well to not omit work ethics, but with their forgiveness of sins, on which it's power is based upon, neutralize the need for development since you can just go to a confession and have a priest clear everything for you (the Catholic Church doesn't make too much of a big deal about sin compared to the cold, ruthless Protestants). With Protestantism, they do well to recognize that the Catholic Church has been a real monster (up until the German humanists shaped it into its currently tolerable form), but with their emphasis on belief, they subscribe to a form of fatalism in which your salvation is practically guaranteed as long as you maintain this belief your whole life. It's logical extreme is Calvinism, an enabler of capitalism (there will always be poor and rich people).

The least Jewish interpretation of Jesus' life can be found in the Gospel of John.

In 1929, Goebbels wrote down this declaration in his novel Michael:

Das Christentum ist keine Religion für viele, geschweige für alle. Von wenigen gepflegt und in die Tat umgesetzt, ist es eine der köstlichsten Blüten, die eine Kulturseele je getrieben hat.

This is the same teaching laid down by Plato (can be found in his book Meno). If the reports from John Robison on the Bavarian Illuminati can be trusted, then the founder of that order also thought similarly.

In Otto Wagener's memoirs, an unique interpretation of the Logos of St. John is imputed towards Hitler. Hitler builds upon Goethe's efforts to put the logos into a rational context (sense, power, deed), arriving at the word substitute "urge". To paraphrase: In the beginning, was the urge and the urge was god. The urge was with god from eternity. And the urge was the illuminating spark of life. The universal yearning for divinity (which is mentioned by Julian the Apostate) and for eternity (which is mentioned in Ecclesiastes 3:11) are validated in this expression. It exists in all human beings, manifested through their instinct, whether it's corrupted or pure.

Chlodovech
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 08:12 AM
Chlodovech, I think you missed my point, and if you want to chat about things privately together then I'm open to the idea.

I think you missed my point, you continue to go off topic. I'm not pleading for peace & quiet and I'm supremely disinterested in this ranting. It doesn't matter who did what to whom once upon a time, stop it. I'm reminding the people here (that's you, member) to stay on topic and to be mindful of the rules of this forum - there are hundreds of existing threads where you can complain about Christianity and this is not one of them. I'm gonna move all off topic posts to such a thread if this continues.

Alice
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 08:15 AM
This question is for the Protestants: Do you believe that baptism (with water and the Trinitarian formula) is necessary for salvation or is baptism merely symbolic? What do you think of infant baptism? I'm not trying to be contentious; I'm sincerely interested in your opinions.

My opinion is that a "real Christian" is anyone who is validly baptized with water and in the Trinitarian formula.

Primus
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 08:34 AM
I am Roman Catholic.

Wuotans Krieger
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 11:55 AM
Hi I am new to this fourm and was just wondering if there were any real christians in here? And what I mean by that is are there any christians in here that belive that Jesus Christ is the only way to go to heaven? I have seen a lot of people on here that think that Catholics are also christian. I am from the South and I know that a True Christian is hard to find, and was wondering if there were any on here? :)

I wouldn't have thought so as Christianity according to the New Testament is diametrically opposed to a racial world view so one cannot be an authentic Christian and a racialist.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 01:58 PM
This question is for the Protestants: Do you believe that baptism (with water and the Trinitarian formula) is necessary for salvation or is baptism merely symbolic? What do you think of infant baptism? I'm not trying to be contentious; I'm sincerely interested in your opinions.

My opinion is that a "real Christian" is anyone who is validly baptized with water and in the Trinitarian formula.

No , it might be also "holy silicium dust" , "holy ash" from a holy considered tree , "holy grain" like nuts and rice ,
"holy gas" like oxigen , "holy shit" from a considered holy animal , "holy feathers" , "holy cloth" from a holy stuff , ...

Anything , that does not harm and could be poured over a head without lasting damages .

Very strange people would then probably use harmfull materials , to show , how male and tough they are .


The water had been available , water had been precious there in Isreal Palestine at that time .

Water is also used for cleaning purposes : A clean person with a cleaned washed mind .


The only salvation is during lifetime .
There is unfortunately no souls howling somewhere .
The souls are crippled during life , and will be gone after death .

In our societies , it had been difficult to feel like supressed peasants ,
sucked off by Public Service and Carrer-Greedy Opportunists .
But the times will come again , in which people will feel like living
during the Dark Pestilence Ages .

During these times , it had been the HOPE for a better life ,
that made the concept of rebirth, hell, heaven admireable .

schwab
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 06:27 PM
Being protestant in my upbringing, I was baptized as an infant. Was it Biblical? There is no evidence in the Scriptures that babies should be baptized. Jesus himself was baptized as an adult.
After being born again and repenting from sins it is a symbolic way of accepting Christ as your savior and follow all of his teachings. Baptists actually having it right on that matter, however you must continue to live the Christian life and turn from your old ways. It is that simple.

Gareth Lee Hunter
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 08:17 PM
My wife was baptized by submersion before I was, and before we were joined together as husband and wife in a nondenominational Christian church ceremony. :)

According to this Protestant church's doctrine, submersion was the only recognized form of baptism.

schwab
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 09:19 PM
Agree, all other forms of baptisms are man made probably for convenience purposes only.
Beware of church doctrines that are misleading and do not lead to salvation. Most denominations create rules that cannot coexist with the Scriptures. Thousands of books have been written trying to interpret the Scriptures, but none of them can surpass the Gospel truth.
Why do we have so many denominations? Most of them try to create a different way to salvation.
The Gospel is so simple but man try to make it complicated.

Terminus
Thursday, November 29th, 2018, 07:38 AM
Most denominations create rules that cannot coexist with the Scriptures.All communities must have rules to maintain their existence. The basic ethics laid down in the Ten Commandments were present in all other pre-Christian communities.


Thousands of books have been written trying to interpret the Scriptures, but none of them can surpass the Gospel truth. Why do we have so many denominations? Most of them try to create a different way to salvation.Then why do you let Paul interpret the gospels? While it's plausible that Paul may have been a genuine disciple, it's certain that his letters have been tampered (Marcion certainly suspected it). The Acts of the Apostles is contradictory in Paul's conversion account (what a wonder story, the man who persecutes a sect becomes it's greatest advocate and introduces unnecessary coercion into the religious principle laid down by Jesus) and only helps to represent Paul as a subversive.

Galatians 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
If we assume Jesus to have been one of many emissaries sent by god, then this supports Julian's argument that man comes to know of god, not by teaching, but by inner yearning and by heavenly guides.

Galatians 1:13-14 This is probably interpolated. A Jew raised strictly in the law of Moses would never be in a position to understand Jesus' teachings. Everything he taught would remain alien. Paul was either a kabbalist or an Essene (an Essene would still be one-sidedly pro-Jewish and fanatical).

Galatians 1:16-17 "my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus."
So he isolated himself from the others to prevent them from interfering from his attempt to make sense of the deity's presence in Nature. Not all of Jesus' disciples were influenced by the divine spark (i.e. Judas), if they existed. You will recall that Jesus himself was led into the wilderness, not to be "tempted by the devil", but probably to establish communication with his Father. There are also accounts of him leaving his disciples behind and going up to the mountains alone to pray. This is not different from Hitler's visit to the Freinberg.

Why do Protestants have so many denominations? Because Protestantism is sick and needs treatment. The missionaries neglected their own people for foreigners, as indicted by Martin Luther (1514 letter) and Hitler. That is the core deficiency of the Protestant sects which say they represent god and cherish his image, but allow man to degenerate. In the first place, "salvation" is an inevitability for all. It's not a matter of "saving souls", but "arousing them to higher ideals".


The Gospel is so simple but man try to make it complicated.Plato writes simply and people rank Kant next to Plato. Kant is unnecessarily complex (the only thing I've been able to extract from his writings were his indictments of the Jewish community and his critique of art lacking form) and was indicted by both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as a sophist.

What is written simply is often the hardest to understand. People speed read through the gospels and overlook the pearls contained within it.

schwab
Thursday, November 29th, 2018, 07:06 PM
The problem with all religions is that knowledge and practice of them stays in the head of the individual and does not move in their heart. Knowledge must be practiced.