Science is our friend - says Lion IRC (is not, is too, is not, is too,)

[DrZoidberg]

Early Christians were closer to the teachings of Jesus than any other period in history imo.

What are you basing this on? All the evidence is that early Christianity was really weird. Very quickly you got all manner of sects popping up that were wildly different. A big problem was the huge variety of Bibles. Yes, that's right. It wasn't until the council of Nicea that there was any agreement on what the teachings of Jesus were. And that was 330 AD. The Apocrypha is all the Bibles that early Christians used but which later Christians decided wasn't true Christianity.

This means treat your neihbour as you treat yourself literally, terrorism is the opposite in this context.

S:t Nicholas (a bishop of Constantinople) was sainted because he would sneak out at night to burn down pagan churches. This was back in the day when Christianity wasn't the main religion. His image was changed later on. The justification for his canonisation bothered medieval monks. So they changed it.

Romans refusing to fight after conversion to Christianity was the main reason for persecution.

Why would Rome require anybody to fight? Rome had a professional army. They didn't force anybody to fight. Unless you were a soldier in the army, and then it was your.... well.... um... job. You won't find an army on the planet that allows it's troops to treat the fighting as optional. So this one is clearly you just making shit up.

The "Peace of the Gods" is a Roman concept which allowed them to keep the empire together. It meant that, no matter what religion you belonged to or what god you prayed to you had to show up at other religion's feasts and at the very least showed that you respected them. Roman civil society was highly performative. They didn't have newspapers. The only way to know what was going on was to show up public events.

Christians refused to do this, which really did threaten to break apart Roman society. It was no joke. Early Christians were highly intolerant.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

These aren't compatible with free speech or free expression.

So you were saying what?

I don't know , Presidents have sworn themselves into office whilst including the words like or similar to "so help me God" then running the country. I guess this goes for law and court systems. Not all of course swear on holy books but God does seem compatible from this perspective.

This only means that they ignored parts of the Bible. Which is a good thing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Learner replied in a +rep comment, which was mighty nice of him. The rep comment was this:

"Matthew 5:34-37"

The problem is that this is... well... bullshit. Both before and after Christianity became the state religion did they continue to swear oaths to the emperor as well as to the empire. The Christianisation of the Roman empire was a long and slow process. Christianity is still, in practice, full of pagan remnants. The American pledge of allegiance violates it. That doesn't stop American Christians from swearing oaths. Not to mention every other nominally Christian army ever to have assembled. The Crusader knights swore oaths to all manner of people and things. So this is not a rule that Christians have ever respected much. I think only the Jehovas witnesses ever took it seriously, and they were in places persecuted for it, by other Christians.

There's also the little thing that the religion of choice for Roman legionnaires ca 100 - 400 AD was Mithraism. So Christian soldiers refusing to swear oaths must have been a non-problem. They were among the last groups to convert.

 

[Kharakov]

The point of bringing up M 5:34-37 is that while many Presidents swear on the bible, they do so without following the rules that Jesus was alleged to have laid out.

So while they say "so help me God", they aren't doing it in a Christian (by the book) manner.

 

[Learner]

What are you basing this on? All the evidence is that early Christianity was really weird. Very quickly you got all manner of sects popping up that were wildly different. A big problem was the huge variety of Bibles. Yes, that's right. It wasn't until the council of Nicea that there was any agreement on what the teachings of Jesus were. And that was 330 AD. The Apocrypha is all the Bibles that early Christians used but which later Christians decided wasn't true Christianity.

Basing on "All" the evidence that early Christianity is "really wierd" is fine by me depending the context. I can use the statement that " ALL" the evidence of early Christianity was closer to the teachings of Jesus. That is earlier or before the council of Nicea.

S:t Nicholas (a bishop of Constantinople) was sainted because he would sneak out at night to burn down pagan churches. This was back in the day when Christianity wasn't the main religion. His image was changed later on. The justification for his canonisation bothered medieval monks. So they changed it.

It is fortunate that his ways are not accepted as part of bible teachings.

Why would Rome require anybody to fight? Rome had a professional army. They didn't force anybody to fight. Unless you were a soldier in the army, and then it was your.... well.... um... job. You won't find an army on the planet that allows it's troops to treat the fighting as optional. So this one is clearly you just making shit up.

The "Peace of the Gods" is a Roman concept which allowed them to keep the empire together. It meant that, no matter what religion you belonged to or what god you prayed to you had to show up at other religion's feasts and at the very least showed that you respected them. Roman civil society was highly performative. They didn't have newspapers. The only way to know what was going on was to show up public events.

Christians refused to do this, which really did threaten to break apart Roman society. It was no joke. Early Christians were highly intolerant.

I should have made it clear and this was covered a while back somewhere but I was referring to Romans in the military converting to Christianity that caused problems. And they would have no doubt found it quite hard to recruit in new conscripts that were already Christians.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can use the statement that " ALL" the evidence of early Christianity was closer to the teachings of Jesus. That is earlier or before the council of Nicea.

Before Nicea, some of those who called themselves Christains held the belief that John the Baptist was the Christ, and Jesus one of his prophets.
Thus Constantine felt a need to establish an actual standard for what it meant to be CHristain. Like, who was the Christ for a starter.

 

[Learner]

This only means that they ignored parts of the Bible. Which is a good thing.

People complain and get quite upset when leaders turn out not to do the things they promised. Maybe some shoudn't ignore parts of the bible , as in Karakovs example.

The point of bringing up M 5:34-37 is that while many Presidents swear on the bible, they do so without following the rules that Jesus was alleged to have laid out.

So while they say "so help me God", they aren't doing it in a Christian (by the book) manner.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

People complain and get quite upset when leaders turn out not to do the things they promised. Maybe some shoudn't ignore parts of the bible , as in Karakovs example.

The point of bringing up M 5:34-37 is that while many Presidents swear on the bible, they do so without following the rules that Jesus was alleged to have laid out.

So while they say "so help me God", they aren't doing it in a Christian (by the book) manner.

They should just ignore the bible. Period. There isn't a person on this planet calling themselves Christian or anything else that does all the things their sacred storybooks tell them to do. And that's not really their faults. It's that their sacred books are an immiscible amalgam of contradictions and inconsistencies that no sane person can apply in his or her life without appearing certifiably insane.

 

[Kharakov]

They should just ignore the bible. Period. There isn't a person on this planet calling themselves Christian or anything else that does all the things their sacred storybooks tell them to do. And that's not really their faults. It's that their sacred books are an immiscible amalgam of contradictions and inconsistencies that no sane person can apply in his or her life without appearing certifiably insane.

Religious people don't care (about a lot of reality). Period. They cut off their minds from portions of reality, whether they are rich (guilt), poor (suffering), or oblivious (mind already "circumscribed", or cut off from reality).

 

[Learner]

They should just ignore the bible. Period. There isn't a person on this planet calling themselves Christian or anything else that does all the things their sacred storybooks tell them to do. And that's not really their faults. It's that their sacred books are an immiscible amalgam of contradictions and inconsistencies that no sane person can apply in his or her life without appearing certifiably insane.

Its the being 'honest' part ,not ignored, that would have been the important aspect for the individual who believes in the ethic.

 

[bilby]

They should just ignore the bible. Period. There isn't a person on this planet calling themselves Christian or anything else that does all the things their sacred storybooks tell them to do. And that's not really their faults. It's that their sacred books are an immiscible amalgam of contradictions and inconsistencies that no sane person can apply in his or her life without appearing certifiably insane.

Its the being 'honest' part ,not ignored, that would have been the important aspect for the individual who believes in Christianity.

I have seen no evidence of that; The most vocal claimants to a belief in Christianity all act in a manner that indicates that being honest is very low on their priority list.

 

[Learner]

I have seen no evidence of that; The most vocal claimants to a belief in Christianity all act in a manner that indicates that being honest is very low on their priority list.

I don't disagree to some point, not being a saint myself.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Kharakov]

I have seen no evidence of that; The most vocal claimants to a belief in Christianity all act in a manner that indicates that being honest is very low on their priority list.

They have to appear like they believe what they are saying, or they'd have a revolution on their hands. Well, unless they had control of the majority of the weapons, like in the USA.