Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Korhal IVV]

I am not inventing anything new tho.

An answer to a question. So yes, you are.

An answer that is also the answer by apologists everywhere for many years, so not really.

[New Legland]

I also have a lot more showing how the Bible is not fighting against the patriarchy. But I am guessing you will respond with "You are interpreting it wrong", while at the time period, with certain exceptions on cultures, were male dominant.
Further, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor as he did not agree that Irene of Athens, daughter of Constantine VI, should be named Emperor of Rome as she was a woman.

So no, the Bible is not anti-Patriarchy.

-EDIT-

The church does support male leadership

I wanted to add this one in:



So out of curiosity, why does this non-binary, non-gender specific yet somehow referred to as male CLEARLY throughout history (despite males and females being mentioned throughout the Bible with no problems of translation)

Just because God is neither male nor female, and Hebrew has no way of expressing that, it doesn't mean that His human subjects aren't male and female. Obviously I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gender-neutrality is impossible in Hebrew, and therefore, gender-neutral things are refered to as male. That however, does not mean that everything referred to as masculine is gender-neutral. Obviously, otherwise it would be called the gender-neutral gender, not the masculine gender. I could spend my life trying to explain this, but unless you speak a gendered language, I can't help you. Tell me something, do you speak Spanish? French? German? Latin? Italin? Punjabi? Or any of the many orher binary gendered languages? If so, please tell me how you would add gender-neutrality to them

(Why would) God want the foreskin?

Also, Verse 5 clearly states women are dirtier than men:

I don't know

Double post

[New Legland]

Keep on going with the condescending shit and I will keep pointing it out.

And perhaps they don't blindly accept your interpretation of it? Perhaps that's the reason that they dismissed it?

“Your”

Why, I am just sourcing from PhD holders and literally professional theologians. So it is not really *my* interpretation. The more proper term would that I (and the aforementioned people) read it in context (and not from the eyes of the 21st century) of the setting, plot, the covenants, and literally everything considered.

And I'm sure there are plenty of qualified individuals who disagree with that interpretation entirely. What makes this interpretation the correct one?

Also, I'm sure everyone here would love to see this:

The reasons why you are taking it wrongly have already been said so many times. You just have chronic amnesia, somehow.

Do you do this?

Then you have it wrong.

The proper way is this:

How about this: you show us the proper way to do it. Go to each of those verses, explain to us heathens what is saying and why it is saying that, then explain how our interpretation of the text is wrong. If I agree with your analysis, I'll admit I'm wrong. If I dont agree, I'll explain why . This is called debate. Stop telling us we are wrong and show it.

[Korhal IVV]

“Your”

Why, I am just sourcing from PhD holders and literally professional theologians. So it is not really *my* interpretation. The more proper term would that I (and the aforementioned people) read it in context (and not from the eyes of the 21st century) of the setting, plot, the covenants, and literally everything considered.

And I'm sure there are plenty of qualified individuals who disagree with that interpretation entirely. What makes this interpretation the correct one?

Also, I'm sure everyone here would love to see this:

How about this: you show us the proper way to do it. Go to each of those verses, explain to us heathens what is saying and why it is saying that, then explain how our interpretation of the text is wrong. If I agree with your analysis, I'll admit I'm wrong. If I dont agree, I'll explain why . This is called debate. Stop telling us we are wrong and show it.

Give a particular verse you are having “problems” with for an example.

[Celritannia]

Just because God is neither male nor female, and Hebrew has no way of expressing that, it doesn't mean that His human subjects aren't male and female. Obviously I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gender-neutrality is impossible in Hebrew, and therefore, gender-neutral things are refered to as male. That however, does not mean that everything referred to as masculine is gender-neutral. Obviously, otherwise it would be called the gender-neutral gender, not the masculine gender. I could spend my life trying to explain this, but unless you speak a gendered language, I can't help you. Tell me something, do you speak Spanish? French? German? Latin? Italin? Punjabi? Or any of the many orher binary gendered languages? If so, please tell me how you would add gender-neutrality to them

The ancient Mediterranean world was structured to be masculine dominated, and the languages you mentioned, (Spanish, French, Italian, German) have roots from their older masculine languages like Latin and Frankish which they derived from (sadly I am not a linguist, just an etymology hobbyist with a history degree).
Therefore, going by the basic structure on the historical basis, God is mentioned to be the father as males were seen as dominant, which is why women were not allowed to hold high religious positions. God is a male because the men who held the power at the time demanded it to be so.

-EDIT-

I forgot to ask, which church promotes female leadership? I have no seen bishops, cardinals, or Popes of the Roman Catholic Church, Primachs of the Orthodox Catholic Church, and only in the past few decades has the Church of England allowed female vicars.

Women in churches is fairly modern and unthinkable in the time period we are discussing, and still considered against tradition in the modern day for certain sects.

[Kowani]

Just because God is neither male nor female, and Hebrew has no way of expressing that, it doesn't mean that His human subjects aren't male and female. Obviously I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gender-neutrality is impossible in Hebrew, and therefore, gender-neutral things are refered to as male. That however, does not mean that everything referred to as masculine is gender-neutral. Obviously, otherwise it would be called the gender-neutral gender, not the masculine gender. I could spend my life trying to explain this, but unless you speak a gendered language, I can't help you. Tell me something, do you speak Spanish? French? German? Latin? Italin? Punjabi? Or any of the many orher binary gendered languages? If so, please tell me how you would add gender-neutrality to them

The ancient Mediterranean world was structured to be masculine dominated, and the languages you mentioned, (Spanish, French, Italian, German) have roots from their older languages like Latin and Frankish which they derived from (sadly I am not a linguist, just an etymology hobbyist with a history degree).
Therefore, going by the basic structure on the historical basis, God is mentioned to be the father as males were seen as dominant, which is why women were not allowed to hold high religious positions. God is a male because the men who held the power at the time demanded it to be so.

You’d think a book that was supposed to be eternal would be above fallible human morality.

[Celritannia]

And I'm sure there are plenty of qualified individuals who disagree with that interpretation entirely. What makes this interpretation the correct one?

Also, I'm sure everyone here would love to see this:

Give a particular verse you are having “problems” with for an example.

Any verse can be shown to a number of Christians and each one may come up with a different interpretation or answer, making all bible verses difficult to perfectly interpret.

[Celritannia]

The ancient Mediterranean world was structured to be masculine dominated, and the languages you mentioned, (Spanish, French, Italian, German) have roots from their older languages like Latin and Frankish which they derived from (sadly I am not a linguist, just an etymology hobbyist with a history degree).
Therefore, going by the basic structure on the historical basis, God is mentioned to be the father as males were seen as dominant, which is why women were not allowed to hold high religious positions. God is a male because the men who held the power at the time demanded it to be so.

You’d think a book that was supposed to be eternal would be above fallible human morality.

So true.

[Celritannia]

I also have a lot more showing how the Bible is not fighting against the patriarchy. But I am guessing you will respond with "You are interpreting it wrong", while at the time period, with certain exceptions on cultures, were male dominant.
Further, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor as he did not agree that Irene of Athens, daughter of Constantine VI, should be named Emperor of Rome as she was a woman.

So no, the Bible is not anti-Patriarchy.

-EDIT-

I wanted to add this one in:



So out of curiosity, why does this non-binary, non-gender specific yet somehow referred to as male CLEARLY throughout history (despite males and females being mentioned throughout the Bible with no problems of translation) God want the foreskin?

Also, Verse 5 clearly states women are dirtier than men:

When you say "the patriarchy" you make it sound like a global government of men forcibly keeping women at bay

Isn't that called the Catholic church? (*snicker snicker*)

[Celritannia]

I also have a lot more showing how the Bible is not fighting against the patriarchy. But I am guessing you will respond with "You are interpreting it wrong", while at the time period, with certain exceptions on cultures, were male dominant.
Further, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor as he did not agree that Irene of Athens, daughter of Constantine VI, should be named Emperor of Rome as she was a woman.

So no, the Bible is not anti-Patriarchy.

-EDIT-

I wanted to add this one in:



So out of curiosity, why does this non-binary, non-gender specific yet somehow referred to as male CLEARLY throughout history (despite males and females being mentioned throughout the Bible with no problems of translation) God want the foreskin?

Also, Verse 5 clearly states women are dirtier than men:

1. The entire question hinges upon the meaning of the Greek verb sigao. This word never did demand absolute, unqualified silence. Rather, the nature of the silence is determined by the context.

The verb sigao isn’t found very frequently in the Bible — only nineteen times in the Greek Old Testament and less than a dozen times in the New Testament. But a careful examination of the word reveals that the context identifies the nature of the silence under consideration.

For instance, when the Israelites were pursued by the Egyptians and arrived at the Red Sea, they were terrified. They complained of their plight to Moses. He told them that Jehovah would fight for them, and so they were to “hold [their] peace,” (i.e., be silent; Ex. 14:14).

Obviously, that didn’t mean that they were forbidden to speak at all. Rather, the kind of silence commanded was that they were to cease their faithless whimpering.

When David described certain hardships associated with his transgressions, he “kept silence” as his bones wasted away (Psa. 32:3). But he was not speaking of general silence but keeping silence regarding his sin.

After the disciples witnessed the transfiguration scene, they “held their peace” (i.e., remained silent; Lk. 9:36). That doesn’t mean they didn’t talk at all. Rather, they did not discuss with others what they had seen on the mountain.

The Context of First Corinthians 14
Now to First Corinthians 14. The verb sigao is used three times in this chapter.

One who has the gift of tongues is to keep silence if he has no interpreter to use with his alien audience (1 Cor. 14:28).

If a brother is speaking and another receives an immediate revelation, the former is to keep silence (1 Cor. 14:30).

Finally, women are to keep silence (1 Cor. 14:34).

The first two prohibitions demand silence only in the matters being discussed. They do not forbid these men to otherwise speak consistent with their divine obligations.

So similarly, Paul’s direction to women does not demand that she be absolutely silent at church. Rather, in harmony with what the apostle taught elsewhere (1 Tim. 2:12), the woman is not to speak or teach in any way that violates her gender role.

She is not to occupy the position of a public teacher in such a capacity as to stand before the church and function as the teacher (or co-teacher) of a group containing adult men. In assuming this official capacity, she has stepped beyond her authorized sphere and she violates scripture.

Thus, mark “silence” in verse 34. Draw arrows back to verses 28, 30, and note: Silence not absolute, but qualified by context.

Furthmore, Popes are not absolute authorities, and are just men. You seriously take the Pope as the Word of God as well. Wow.

Personally, I would tell Pope Leo to look at merit to see who is fit to be Emperor/Empress, but he is too busy being dead.

2. From Here

“THE BASICS OF TITUS 2:4-5
In his letter to Titus (who was temporarily stationed in Crete), Paul wrote that the older women should “train younger women to love their husbands and love their children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home [or workers at home], to be kind [or good], and to be submissive to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God” (Tit. 2:4b-5).

The content of this training is basic, and so it might be inferred that some of the young women of Crete were negligent wives, mothers, and household managers, and lacking in elementary virtues. Nevertheless, while the teaching is basic, it is also important. And some of it can apply to more than just young wives.

~ It is important for wives to love their husbands. It is also important for husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25).
~ It is important for women to love their children. It is also important for men to love their children (cf. Eph. 5:2).
~ It is important for young women to be self-controlled and pure. It is also important for young men to be self-controlled and pure (2 Tim. 2:22).
~ It is important for women to be kind. It is important for everyone to be kind (Col. 3:12).
~ It is important for wives to be submissive—deferential, cooperative, supportive and loyal—to their own husbands. It is also important for husbands to be submissive—deferential, cooperative, supportive and loyal—to their wives (1 Pet. 3:7 cf. Eph. 5:21). (Note that the word “obedient” in the King James Version is not the most precise or accurate translation of hupotassō in Titus 2:5.)

Was it also important that the young wives of Crete be busy at home? If the alternative was being lazy and idle, which may have been the case, then ‘yes’, they should be busy at home (cf. Tit. 1:12-13).[4]

Being mostly housebound and occupied with work such as spinning and weaving was the only socially acceptable situation for respectable Roman matrons in some parts of the Greco-Roman world.[5] In western society today, however, young women have more freedom, and they can choose to use their talents and gifts to be useful and productive outside their homes without causing a scandal. (See Matthew 25:14-30 NRSV.)

DOES TITUS 2:4-5 PRESCRIBE OR DEFINE WOMANHOOD?
Unlike what some Christians suggest, Titus 2:4-5 does not equate womanhood with being homemakers. I like what my friend Retha has said on this.

Some read Titus 2:3-5 as if it says: “Women should dedicate their whole lives to xyz.” But it actually says: “Older women[6] should train younger women to xyz.” The difference between these two statements is like the difference between saying: “Connie should spend all day, every day, in the water practising swimming strokes”, and “Teach Connie how to swim.”

Paul’s directive in Titus 2:4-5 was appropriate for the young wives in Crete at that time, yet these instructions do not define these women or women in general. None of the biblical authors attempt to define “womanhood.” Instead, the Bible shows that some women, even in ancient times, were involved in all kinds of ventures, ministries, and roles with God’s blessing.

Furthermore, nowhere does the New Testament give any indication that young girls or older women should be confined to the home or restricted to domestic duties. Paul’s instruction in Titus 2:4-5 (and in 1 Timothy 5:14) was specifically related to young women of childbearing age and is similar to instructions, also concerning young wives, that were written by pagan authors of the time.[7] Paul’s instruction directly reflects the cultural values of his day.[8] Since his words relate to a group of women in a culture different from our own, some of it may not be applicable to all women everywhere. The principle behind his instruction, however, continues to have relevance.

PAUL’S MAIN POINT IN TITUS 2
Paul’s principle is that Christians should not behave in ways that their society finds offensive, or in ways that their society believes is disruptive to social harmony. Otherwise, Christians may find themselves bringing disrepute to God and Christian doctrine (cf. Tit. 2:5, 8, 9-10).

Modern western society is moving towards regarding and treating men and women as social equals.[9] Equality and mutuality are seen by many as the ideals. The clearly delineated gender roles that were part of a particular demographic of past ages and previous generations are now recognised as not being appropriate for all people and all marriages. Every person is unique and every marriage is unique. Not everyone, for example, fits the mould of post-war, white, middle-class gender roles that some presume to be “biblical”.

Churches and Christians in western society who insist that men and women follow fixed, hierarchical gender roles, roles that include women staying at home and only men being productive outside the home, are giving the church and God’s word a bad name, the very thing Paul wanted to avoid.[10]

What was socially respectable in Cretan society in the first century is different to what is socially acceptable in western society today. Yet, even in the first century, it was sometimes possible for gifted and enterprising women to rise above social norms and not necessarily cause disgrace. Nowadays it seems to be some sectors of the church who are disgracing themselves in contemporary society by limiting, restricting, and subordinating their women.

CONCLUSION
The Bible never tries to make the case that women should not work or have influential roles outside the home. In fact, the Old and New Testaments show us that many godly women were not confined to the domestic domain. New Testament women such as Lydia, Priscilla, and Phoebe worked, travelled and had influential leadership roles in ministry. Paul did not identify these women primarily by their family relationships or their domestic situations. Instead, they are described and identified by their work, their travels, and their ministries.

3. It is symbolism of the covenant between Israel and God, as it set Israel apart from pagan nations, who didn’t cut off foreskins.

4. It doesn’t call women dirtier.

You can just google how it is explained. Too busy.

And of course, I will keep saying that are misinterpreting, because that is what you are good at.

You already have online resources to see what they are actually talking about and yet you take them as “EvIdEnCe” of “oppprressssssiooonnnn”.

1) We are not talking about a battle, the rules clearly state how women should behave in an everyday circumstance. Therefore they had to be silent.
(As a side note, that never happened as there is zero historical and archaeological evidence.)

By the way, you confirmed the quote, women are not allowed to teach men scripture. So yeah, not very equal back then.

You are using modern philosophy in the early medieval period. Back then the Pope was the highest figure of Authority for Christianity so do not mock me for being historical if you are basing modern idealism in the ancient world.
Yeah, if you told Pope Leo that, you would have been executed for heresy.

Also:

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

This one seems pretty clear, unless you'd like to interpret it?

2) Most of that is basic common sense and doesn't need a book to teach that. Many cultures were doing so before christanity expended through imperialism.

3) Hardly any other cultures cut off fore skins. And quite interesting to say humans are made out of his image and left something on that was not needed.

4) No, I am not misinterpreting them, I am just misinterpreting to your standards, no one else's. If I show the same bible verse to several well read Christian scholars, they'd all give me a different answer.

Of course oppression is in there, against women, slaves, homosexuals. There are so many.

[Korhal IVV]

Hmmm. Why should a bag of stardust complain about oppression?

Give a particular verse you are having “problems” with for an example.

Any verse can be shown to a number of Christians and each one may come up with a different interpretation or answer, making all bible verses difficult to perfectly interpret.

What kind of Christians though? Are they even Christian?

[Neanderthaland]

Hmmm. Why should a bag of stardust

Any verse can be shown to a number of Christians and each one may come up with a different interpretation or answer, making all bible verses difficult to perfectly interpret.

What kind of Christians though? Are they even Christian?

Probably not Scotsmen either.

[Korhal IVV]

Hmmm. Why should a bag of stardust
What kind of Christians though? Are they even Christian?

Probably not Scotsmen either.

Yeah, I am going to ignore you completely whenever you bring up that No True Scotsman shtick. Looks like all of you are amnesiacs.

You are seriously taking pretentious Englishmen as Scotsmen... which is dumb.

[Thuzbekistan]

And?

Your entire argument is that Christians hated her, when in actually, Catholics, the largest group of Christians, don't hate her. In fact, it's the opposite. They regard her in one of rhe highest honours. Therefore, your entire point about Christians hating her is wrong, considering that there are [i]more[i] Christians who regard her in one of the highest orders, then what there are Christians who condemn her. Millions and millions more

No one argued that

[Thuzbekistan]

More condescending shit.


Or you could stop with the condescending shit. Just throwing it out there...

No.

You can scroll back and see how I wrote/copy pasted long essays to explain verses that you people were taking out of context or skewing.

You pasted articles that you didnt write as defenses. Its disengenuious and dismissive.

[Thuzbekistan]

And I'm sure there are plenty of qualified individuals who disagree with that interpretation entirely. What makes this interpretation the correct one?

Also, I'm sure everyone here would love to see this:

Give a particular verse you are having “problems” with for an example.

That post contained several.

[Korhal IVV]

No.

You can scroll back and see how I wrote/copy pasted long essays to explain verses that you people were taking out of context or skewing.

You pasted articles that you didnt write as defenses. Its disengenuious and dismissive.

Or, I just had no time.

[Thuzbekistan]

Probably not Scotsmen either.

Yeah, I am going to ignore you completely whenever you bring up that No True Scotsman shtick. Looks like all of you are amnesiacs.

You are seriously taking pretentious Englishmen as Scotsmen... which is dumb.

Yeah yeah we've heard it before. "They're living in what I think is sin, so they obviously arent christian." That bs don't fly in debate and the no true scotsman fallacy still applies. As a matter of fact, your issues with them mostly stem from a difference in interpretation of Jesus's life and actions and teachings and especially regarding Paul's writings. They're all Christians by definition. Theres no weaseling your way out of that. But I mean you've consistently shown that you dont actually care what others think because you have a set of preconceived notions that you refuse to question. Namely, that your method or interpretation is the correct one, that anyone who disagrees and lives less than desired isnt really Christian, and that atheists cannot understand the bible because, if we did, we would not come to conclusions in disagreement with your own.

That's all well and good, but it makes debate useless. I'm not even sure why you're here except to smirk and call us wrong, maintaining this threads activity level long past it's due date. But hey, to each their own.

[Greater Westralia]

Yeah yeah we've heard it before. "They're living in what I think is sin, so they obviously arent christian." That bs don't fly in debate and the no true scotsman fallacy still applies. As a matter of fact, your issues with them mostly stem from a difference in interpretation of Jesus's life and actions and teachings and especially regarding Paul's writings. They're all Christians by definition. Theres no weaseling your way out of that. But I mean you've consistently shown that you dont actually care what others think because you have a set of preconceived notions that you refuse to question. Namely, that your method or interpretation is the correct one, that anyone who disagrees and lives less than desired isnt really Christian, and that atheists cannot understand the bible because, if we did, we would not come to conclusions in disagreement with your own.

That's all well and good, but it makes debate useless. I'm not even sure why you're here except to smirk and call us wrong, maintaining this threads activity level long past it's due date. But hey, to each their own.

No True Scotsman has become an actual fallacy fallacy by this point. The original "No True Scotsman" refers to creating arbitrary changes to what constitutes a "Scotsman" in order to protect their generalisation from negative counter-examples. Questioning the religion of "Christians" who do not follow core Christian doctrines is NOT a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, because you're basing your judgement on mostly-defined Christian values. The real issue in this kind of discussion is what constitutes core Christian doctrine. Some of which are obvious, whereas others are not.

[Neanderthaland]

Probably not Scotsmen either.

Yeah, I am going to ignore you completely whenever you bring up that No True Scotsman shtick. Looks like all of you are amnesiacs.

You are seriously taking pretentious Englishmen as Scotsmen... which is dumb.

I get that it's inconvenient for you when we point out the obvious fallacy that you are obviously committing. But that doesn't change the fact that you are committing it. And we're not going to stop pointing it out.

[Korhal IVV]

Yeah, I am going to ignore you completely whenever you bring up that No True Scotsman shtick. Looks like all of you are amnesiacs.

You are seriously taking pretentious Englishmen as Scotsmen... which is dumb.

Yeah yeah we've heard it before. "They're living in what the Bible calls living in sin deliberately as to show that there is no evidence of sanctification and justification as defined by the Epistles and are violating the core principles of Christianity so they most probably arent christian."

Correction.

Be more specific.

[Korhal IVV]

Yeah, I am going to ignore you completely whenever you bring up that No True Scotsman shtick. Looks like all of you are amnesiacs.

You are seriously taking pretentious Englishmen as Scotsmen... which is dumb.

I get that it's inconvenient for you when we point out the obvious fallacy that you are obviously committing. But that doesn't change the fact that you are committing it. And we're not going to stop pointing it out.

Then your fingers will shrivel at so much pointing.

[Korhal IVV]

Yeah, I am going to ignore you completely whenever you bring up that No True Scotsman shtick. Looks like all of you are amnesiacs.

You are seriously taking pretentious Englishmen as Scotsmen... which is dumb.

I get that it's inconvenient for you when we point out the obvious fallacy that you are obviously committing. But that doesn't change the fact that you are committing it. And we're not going to stop pointing it out.

It is obvious that it also convenient when you just use the ultra shallow definition of Christian.

Or, should I say, the elect.

[Thuzbekistan]

Yeah yeah we've heard it before. "They're living in what I think is sin, so they obviously arent christian." That bs don't fly in debate and the no true scotsman fallacy still applies. As a matter of fact, your issues with them mostly stem from a difference in interpretation of Jesus's life and actions and teachings and especially regarding Paul's writings. They're all Christians by definition. Theres no weaseling your way out of that. But I mean you've consistently shown that you dont actually care what others think because you have a set of preconceived notions that you refuse to question. Namely, that your method or interpretation is the correct one, that anyone who disagrees and lives less than desired isnt really Christian, and that atheists cannot understand the bible because, if we did, we would not come to conclusions in disagreement with your own.

That's all well and good, but it makes debate useless. I'm not even sure why you're here except to smirk and call us wrong, maintaining this threads activity level long past it's due date. But hey, to each their own.

No True Scotsman has become an actual fallacy fallacy by this point. The original "No True Scotsman" refers to creating arbitrary changes to what constitutes a "Scotsman" in order to protect their generalisation from negative counter-examples. Questioning the religion of "Christians" who do not follow core Christian doctrines is NOT a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, because you're basing your judgement on mostly-defined Christian values. The real issue in this kind of discussion is what constitutes core Christian doctrine. Some of which are obvious, whereas others are not.

Except the way our friend here is using it follows the original example. He is using it to dismiss arguments based on any interpretation from his own. In the post I quoted, he questioned whether even the hypothetical scholars were Christian. By his definition, people can only be Christian if they try to live like jesus did. This falls to interpretation which he believes he has the only answer for. Thus, our friend here is pointing to Christian's that do believe in and follow what the vast majority believe are the core doctrines and do fall under the basic definition of christianity and saying that if they dont live exactly right or fall on their face in repentance for every wrong they do, then they arent Christian. Meanwhile, he forgets that interpretation has produced tons of denominations of christianity that all follow the basic idea.

Our friend is modifying the group to exclude those he disagrees with based on subjective definitions in order to avoid criticism based on the fact that other interpretations exist. Just as there seem to be no true scotsmen, there are also no true Christians. From what I see, only the calvinists seem to be on his good list.

[Thuzbekistan]

Yeah yeah we've heard it before. "They're living in what the Bible calls living in sin deliberately as to show that there is no evidence of sanctification and justification as defined by the Epistles and are violating the core principles of Christianity so they most probably arent christian."

Correction.

Be more specific.

According to you mate. Theres hundreds of millions of Christians who simply disagree and many can defend their points biblically.