Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 76

On April 16 2014 14:01 Roswell wrote:
Whats the best current rock band in the world right now? Arctic Monkeys? Radiohead? Arcade Fire?

On April 16 2014 18:13 walsh_walsh wrote:


A friend of mine talked shit about me behind my back. I was really pissed off so I drugged him and dragged him to the family catacombs. I buried him next to my great-grandfather. I think my old man ate his balls in the end.

On April 17 2014 09:34 zlefin wrote:
clean it up for them as a present would work.

On April 17 2014 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
All Creationists say they are Christians, they also say that all Christians should be Creationists or they are not being faithful to Christianity.

Can Non-Creationist Christians and Creationist Christians both really accurately be lumped under the same umbrella term of 'Christian'

More so with smaller sects (cults) like Mormonism is it appropriate for people especially non-religious people to identify them as 'Christian' when the majority of those 'claiming' to be 'Christian' would not identify them as true 'Christians' or even refer to them as threats to Christianity?

On April 17 2014 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
All Creationists say they are Christians, they also say that all Christians should be Creationists or they are not being faithful to Christianity.

Can Non-Creationist Christians and Creationist Christians both really accurately be lumped under the same umbrella term of 'Christian'

More so with smaller sects (cults) like Mormonism is it appropriate for people especially non-religious people to identify them as 'Christian' when the majority of those 'claiming' to be 'Christian' would not identify them as true 'Christians' or even refer to them as threats to Christianity?

On April 17 2014 13:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Christian is a term to define someone as "Christ Like" or "Similar to the Christ" with a specific cultural modifier wherein we determine "christ" or "the christ" to mean "Jesus." This means that:

A.) People can believe in "the christ" and not believe that "the christ" was Jesus; wherein that group of people are still waiting for the "first coming" as opposed to modern day christians who are waiting for the "second coming."

B.) The term Christian is supposed to be a descriptor, not a noun.

That means that you can call anyone "Christian" and be accurate, so long as the person is acting in the way you imagine "the christ" or "a christ" would act. Because of this, there is nothing wrong with calling someone christian even if they don't believe in Jesus so long as that person is acting how you imagine "the Christ" (whether its Jesus or not) would act.

This also means its very easy to call someone non-christian or non-christ-like if they act in a way that you don't imagine "the christ" to act and you would not be wrong no matter how orthodox they are.

So, with all that in mind, going back to your question, all Christians and non-Christians can be called Christian and non-Christian for any arbitrary reason and it would all be accurate.

On April 17 2014 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:



Thank you that was far more helpful than anything I imagined I would get here. With only one potentially correct interpretation of an infallible word of God there sure is a lot of variety in beliefs and practices. Sure would be nice if they could all agree on what the right answers were when you asked them what a 'true Christian' was.

On April 18 2014 02:43 ComaDose wrote:
There are two creation stories in the bible back to back. do creationists just use one? or is it a hybrid? or do they think the world was made twice in a row,

On April 18 2014 02:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:


There is a lot of nuance because the academics of each "sect" are taught to study the texts with skepticism and hence they get caught up in tiny details that, when extrapolated, changes the entirety of the philosophy.

For example, in Catholicism confession and communion are integral things because they are attempting to maintain the practices and rituals of their past. Protestantism believes in a personal relationship with God, so they let go of petty rituals and hierarchical orders. In a sense, their only difference is that catholics wishes to be part of its history while protestants, at their core, believes that man-centric rituals are done by man for man. And as each major christian group keeps studying their lens of the text they find more and more minutia. Some find new prophets (like Mormonism) some are still waiting for their "Christ/god" (like Judaism), others feel that someone else other than Jesus was "the christ/chosen" (Like Islam), etc....

They all have a common thread--that they are the *legitimate* children of Abraham. Where they go from there is, well, murky.

As the academics of each group studies the text they find more and more details that evolves their belief systems and as their beliefs evolve they break off and began preaching the new truth while the old establishments maintains their own teachings.

A lot of European and north African science that eventually became the pillars of which atheists stand their ground came about from believers trying their damnest to get closer to God. In a way, Atheists of today owe a lot of their groundwork from the same academic institutions who lit the way for all the various abrahamic sects.

As an example, I as a protestant can't figure out why Catholics honestly believe that the bread they eat on Sunday transforms into the literal flesh of Jesus. To me, its just bread. But an Atheist would ask me why I pray to open air as if I'm talking to an invisible whatever. And so on and so forth. Each group looks at the other confused why they "ignore" the "obvious" things around them.

To go back to your question of "Sure would be nice if they could all agree on what the right answers were when you asked them what a 'true Christian' was."

The reason its impossible for them to agree what a "true Christian" is defined as is because they don't even agree who "the Christ" is nor do they even agree if he's already come, is still coming, or if he meant what he said literally or figuratively.

Protestants, for example, believe that a lot of the bible is figurative. Catholics, less so. Orthodox, even less so. Judaism doesn't believe Jesus was the right "first coming" and Islam doesn't even believe that Judaism is the rightful sons of Abraham. And so on and so forth.

If people can't even point *who* the christ is, trying to get them to agree what a *true* christian is will be impossible.

On April 18 2014 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:


I myself am agnostic, which based on your response you likely appreciate the difference between that and an atheist. I have rarely heard such a thoughtful and honest answer from anyone who described themselves as 'religious' let alone protestant. These types of responses tend to come from more scholarly sources than a gamecentric hub forum.

Even within each sect you mentioned there are smaller divisions on those minutia you describe so I understand what you mean there. I feel inclined to ask if you personally ascribe to a variation of a ~10,000 year old earth? I don't ask in an attempt to besmirch you but quite the opposite. I would commend your responses tone, thoroughness, and intelligibility. And I would have to admit this, to a degree, flies in the face of my perception.

On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, atheism refering to a lack of belief/faith and agnosticism refering to an absence of (absolute) knowledge. In practical terms the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, and vice versa. So I'm not sure why anyone would have a particular appreciation for the difference between those two concepts.

On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong.

On April 18 2014 04:02 Crushinator wrote:
On the topic of two creation stories, this kind of repetition fit literary works that originate from an oral tradition and were compiled by some sort of editorial process. I would think the christian denominations pretty much agree that it is the same creation story told twice in slighly different term, could be wrong.

On April 18 2014 04:16 Crushinator wrote:
I apologise for my mistake, theists can indeed be agnostic, and are in significant numbers.