On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:08:29 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

>> But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was
>> the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as
>> throughout history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so
>> who gets to decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no,
>> that's not a Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't
>> Christian".
> 
> That's not hard.  Read the Bible and see what it says about how to
> become a Christian, and what it commands Christians to do.  Then compare
> it to the doings of the religious bodies in question.  Time and again,
> at so many points of teaching, we find things taught and practiced that
> cannot be found in the Bible, from even the very basics of becoming a
> Christian, to the organization of the church, liturgy, and so forth.

So that's why there's only one sect of Christianity, then?  (Oh, wait, 
there isn't).  So whose interpretation is "correct"?

That's kinda the point, John.

> Getting back to the point at hand:  There simply is no command in the
> Bible for Christians to kill Jews, to make them second-class citizens,
> or to maltreat them in any way.  Those claiming to be Christians who did
> these things were following another authority.

Maybe not in your interpretation, but I'm sure there are others who 
interpret it as being there.  So it again comes down to *whose* 
interpretation are we using.

Just like with the Qu'ran the question is *whose interpretation* is being 
used - the one that says 'kill the infidels' or the one that says 'Islam 
is peaceful'.

That's the problem with having a holy book that's used as a 'set of 
directions' where it's been translated, re-translated, interpreted, re-
interpreted, and heavily edited over a couple millenia.  Not to mention 
the books that have been removed over the centuries because they didn't 
fit with the politics of the time (or whatever other excuse was given).

Jim

Post a reply to this message