Caravaggio
Senior member
- Aug 3, 2013
- 508
- 1
- 0
That's how we want to do it.
That's a big jump from your individual fascism to an assumed value of collective fascism.
There is 'you' and who else, precisely? Name the guilty participants.
That's how we want to do it.
We have all had to live with the most rudimentary of tenants at "the God Bless Me Jesus", St. Sarah Palin, Bible College, Alabammy. I feel your pain. I know, they are worse than Scientologists.
But the basic TENETS of the Christian faith are love and forgiveness.
I'm an atheist but I thought you should know that.
If you get nasty with me I will set Moonbeam on you. He knows more about faith, its loss and its renewal, than you will barely comprehend.
Coming full circle, removing evangelism and public worship from Christianity leaves an incomplete and hollow "version" and is anything but tolerant. And a full expressive Christian life is definitely in violation of that poster's view of Sharia.
Come on Inachu, you are too smart for that 'eye for an eye' primitive stuff.
Snarkiness is usually why I don't bother posting in these threads.
I would politely say you are deflecting from the issue: RE: the poster's version of Sharia and whether it is tolerant of a person being a Christian.
The other poster's shoehorning of an Islamic "version" of Christianity as a viable version is ignorant at best, disingenuous at worse. This is miss/disinformation at its worse as it propagates a belief, in this case his version of Sharia tolerance of Christianity, when in fact it is anything but tolerant.
Regarding your deflection, I never said that public worship and evangelism were the only core or principle tenets. My statement is that both these items are almost uniformly agreed upon as (some of) the identifying markers of "genuine" Christianity and that to assail them--as the poster did--would be a violation of some of the core, boundary marking, tenets of Christianity.
To say you can have Christianity as Christianity would define itself without these two items is dishonest.
To prop up other tenets as a subtle deflection, somehow validating the Sharia position (?), is a non-starter. Even if you were right and I was wrong, the bunny trail is irrelevant as the two issues I identified remain core to the faith and in direct conflict with the poster's position.
You would be wrong to say Christianity is permissible under that poster's version of Sharia. What that poster is calling "Christianity" is a hollow shell.
Regarding your sticking points, love & forgiveness, it is easy for outsiders such as yourself to overlook that these principles as taught by Jesus (e.g. Matthew chapter 5 and following) are intimately tied to evangelism which were Jesus' last instructions to the disciples in Matthew (chapter 28, verses 18-20).
Disciple making, evangelizing to all people and nations in the teachings of Jesus, is the Great Commission.
To deny the Great Commission, that is overt rebellion against the Lord's teachings and instructions, would show a lack of genuine love and a negligence toward the message of forgiveness Christian's are to charter. Lacking love and forgiveness, too, would be utter failure to perform the responsibilities evangelism entails. It is not an either/or but a both and. Core Christian belief is more than 3 or 4 items such as love, forgiveness, evangelism, etc. But if you pressed there is an unequivocal, singular, core to New Testament theology and praxis:
The Lord Jesus Christ.
And all that those names would entail. You cannot have true love or forgiveness in Christian theology (or proper worship or evangelism, either) without the teachings and praxis being founded upon, and flowing through, him. But typically we don't position essentials against each other to demarcate which has priority. You could argue love is more important than faith or hope (1Co 13) but then turn around and see that love is attached to the Lordship of Jesus and obedience to his teachings/definition of love (e.g. John chapters 14-15). Removing obedience, love, forgiveness, faith, hope, or Jesus (!) from Christianity leaves something other in its place.
Coming full circle, removing evangelism and public worship from Christianity leaves an incomplete and hollow "version" and is anything but tolerant. And a full expressive Christian life is definitely in violation of that poster's view of Sharia.
Vaguely assenting to Christian tenants or principles is not the same as "being a Christian."
"Being a Christian" historically and based on the most rudimentary tenants almost all denominations agree to involves regular public worship as well as evangelizing non-believers with the objective of bringing them into the Christian fold. So going back to your summary:
"Being a Christian" involved regular public worship.
Evangelism is a principle pillar of the Church.
Conversion is the objective of Evangelism. Muslims are not considered remotely "orthodox" by any relevant Christian standard and therefore would be those evangelized with the purpose of conversion.
Talk about a lot of half truths. The version of a "Christian" you are saying Islam allows is not too dissimilar to how other oppressive regimes (think Nazis, or even at times the Catholic Church for that matter) dictate others must practice a faith under their terms, not the actual terms of the religion itself.
Of course, none of that matters unless you believe that any moment a Christian spends not proselytizing is a moment where they are no longer a Christian. Is that the case?
Because if it's not, then you're simply incorrect. Being Christian being illegal is not the equivalent of proselytizing being illegal. The crucial difference is that a Christian who is not proselyting at the moment is still committing a crime in the former, but not the latter.
Being Christian being illegal is not the equivalent of proselytizing being illegal. The crucial difference is that a Christian who is not proselyting at the moment is still committing a crime in the former, but not the latter.