moderator, can we have a "True Christians" section and a "Fake Christians" section?

I especually like this artical that was written about a "disruptive" church attender.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0999/effeminate.html

 

oh Bree, this thing your talking about can i be apart of it? I like having smart conversations about Christianity with other smart, none judgemental people.

 

Sure! *hugs*

 

YEAH!!! thanks a bunch. Your awsome.
​

 

cmon chief i thought you were a smart guy. christians never killed anyone. those were kings and generals, they just used religion as an excuse to gain support. most of then actually were gnostic themselves.

 

Im a little confused as to why someone thought it was alright to post a topic with no other purpose but to call Orthodox (or non-gnostic) Christians 'Fake Christians' - and the moderator not only allowed it to go by but seemed to join in on the flame?

Personally Im not overly bothered by the insult but it seems odd it would be 'cheered on' by Admin.

Maybe we should clarify the word 'fake'.
Fake should refer to someone knowingly, deliberately and falsely masquerading as something legit.

Even if the 'Nicene' Christians were misguided it wouldnt necessarily mean they are 'fake'.
You could even call the Gospels 'Fake Gospels' (That what most of us think Thomas and Mary Magdeline Gospels are) but that isnt to say believers like ChiefcowPie are themselves 'Fake'.

In fact - because he believes in them means he is not a 'Fake believer'

Well... you all get what I mean right ?

 

"fake" in this sense means altered...the fake christians follow the altered message of christ

 

hey, if history is written by the winners, i suppose that you could say the creedal, trinitarian christians pretty much "won" ...

 

First off, Brocktoon, who is this "the moderator" you are referring to?

I have never, and never will encourage others to call what someone else does as being "fake." And being the moderator of the Philosophy & Religion forum I would like very much for you to point out to me where I have encouraged this. Now if you were referring to a moderator, then you should know there are several moderators on this site.

Now there is only one Admin and that would be Skip. So, I ask that you point out to me where an Admin "cheered on" anyone.

You have every right in your own beliefs to say whatever you wish. However, when pointing fingers, you should be a bit more specific. When accusing one moderator of doing something and not being specific on which moderator it is, your in essence accusing all moderators. Do you find this fair judgement?

Think first. I know we all have a problem with thinking first, especially when we disagree on something. But it does prevent wrong ideas or missapprehension of ideas and can help prevent or eliminate overly sensitive attitudes from flaring.

Metta,

Darrell

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Not to mention the fact that the original poster is a moderator, as well....

 

Is that really the best you can do? Pathetic. Where's your factual evidence that (A) Christians have killed 50 million people and (B) they've textually altered the "real" teaching of Jesus?

 

The reason for Christianity allowed Himself to be killed (murdered), as He knew, it would give us eternal life.... (well, for those who take the offer).

Anyone who murdered in ''His name'' was false...IGNORE them. The end.

 

DarelKithen
Quick note on my previous 'open question' regarding Moderators/Admins

I thought the readers of this thread would have known 'of what' I was refering to and in the interest of making a generalised (non-personal) question I chose not to name names lol.

For the record - I wasn't refering to you Darryl.

You have to excuse me but the other forum I visit always refers to the Mod as 'Admin'.
Here I see that there is one 'Admin' and several 'Mods'.
My bad.

Anyway... it was just something that stood out as unusual and I had to ask the question.

My question has been answered now anyway so ....

Lets all move on to good times!

 

James the Just & Salvation via Works



In the first century, two concepts of Christian salvation contended for acceptance by a nascent church. One viewpoint was championed by none other than the official leader of the first century Christian church, James the brother of Jesus. This is the James who was also known to the early church as "the Righteous" or "the Just."

In a short New Testament epistle bearing his name, James asks: "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? … faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."

James is clearly writing to refute an alternative viewpoint – expressed by Paul the apostle. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul had declared that: "… we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ."

To churches of the 20th and 21st centuries, the debate remains as fresh as it was almost two thousand years ago. Fundamentalist, evangelical Christians typically put their doctrinal eggs in the basket of faith; mainstream churches emphasize works – often in the form of social action. In the pantheon of Christian nobility, the role of James (and his one little book) today goes virtually unnoticed. Yet his influence at one time pervaded the early Jewish church. Even today, the perspective of James lives on, prompting a more careful look at what we know about the man and his mission.

 

ChiefCow... I believe the James and Paul agreement was already discussed at great length in these forums before the switchover.

Amazingly... everyone including you agreed there was no contradiction and that the two perspectives actually complimented each other (as I recall)

Now it seems like you are just plopping that debate into the middle of this thread because you ...?.... you just think its something to disrupt this topic?

 

if the debate was finished, everyone would be a deist

 

That picture is really offensive.

Would anyone post something like that mocking Islam?

Even non-Christians like the historian Josephus (around at the time of the early Christians), knew Jesus was a real Person, who had lived, done miracles, was crucified and whose followers believe was raised from the dead.

True faith leads to works, but works do not bring true faith.

Those who are Christians get this understanding in their lives in a practical, experiential way.
We serve out of love and gratitude, not to earn salvation...a totally free gift.

No clash between James and Paul at all, for those with the Holy Spirit to teach them.

 

Quote from the baptist church : What We (and God) believe:

As most churches liberalize themselves and reject the commandments written by God in the Holy Bible, the Landover Baptist Church continues to do exactly what scripture teaches every Christian to do.

Oh my... they really trademaked the Saved One.

Oh my...


I quote that most of extremist may introduce them exactly with that sentence.

But I'm sad

 

Same site : a bit under in the same text:

If the individual is a female, then a dress not raised over an inch above the knee is acceptable.


I always knew He said something about that.

Sad as I said