Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Celritannia]

You don't have to accept that you know? Who can formulate your own opinion.

I don't believe in the existence in any religion, nor do I think anything is demonic, because that would intolerant.

This is this xtian discussion thread, its kind of rude to argue God doesn't exist here. The framework of the thread is to discuss the theological implications and doctrines of xtianity, not to question the rightness or wrongness of its existence

I was refering to you don't have to believe other religions are demonic just because "Jesus says so". Although, did Jesus ever say all other religions are demonic or wrong?

[New Visayan Islands]

Fratres et sorores, it would be in everyone's best interests to take a breather. Why don't we get back on track, shall we?

[Tarsonis]

But what does demonic means?
Why is it a bad word?

I'm not on about the word.
I am on about calling other cultures and religions demonic.
It's establishing an "other", making them separate, or inhuman.

"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."

Pretty explicit.

[Celritannia]

Gremlins don't exist for example, but calling someone a gremlin could be seen as offensive and intolerant. So yes, fantasy things can be used to offend and be intolerant.

Example time:

Now, imagine there is a religion which believes in Gremlins. Gremlins in that religion are defined with specific traits and qualities. That's definition1 of "Gremlin".
Then, there is what you said. The generic usage of "Gremlin" by people who don't believe in Gremlins, which could be seen as offensive and intolerant, for reasons unknown. That's definition2 of "Gremlin"

Sundiata used "demonic" by definition1 of demonic.
Celritannia has been going on how definition2 of "demonic" is intollerant.

Ok. We don't care for definition 2. That's only on you.
You people getting your pants dirty for definition2 of "demonic", are failing to grasp there exist a definition1 of "demonic".

"Let's point out how other groups are different from us by condescending them"
That's what it is.

[Celritannia]

I'm not on about the word.
I am on about calling other cultures and religions demonic.
It's establishing an "other", making them separate, or inhuman.

"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."

Pretty explicit.

Does that make other religions demonic? Did Jesus ever say that specifically?

[The New California Republic]

Gremlins don't exist for example, but calling someone a gremlin could be seen as offensive and intolerant. So yes, fantasy things can be used to offend and be intolerant.

Example time:

Now, imagine there is a religion which believes in Gremlins. Gremlins in that religion are defined with specific traits and qualities. That's definition1 of "Gremlin".
Then, there is what you said. The generic usage of "Gremlin" by people who don't believe in Gremlins, which could be seen as offensive and intolerant, for reasons unknown. That's definition2 of "Gremlin"

Sundiata used "demonic" by definition1 of demonic.
Celritannia has been going on how definition2 of "demonic" is intollerant.

Ok. We don't care for definition 2. That's only on you.
You people getting your pants dirty for definition2 of "demonic", are failing to grasp there exist a definition1 of "demonic".

You haven't proven that definition 1 and 2 are different, because you can't, namely because you have actually accused Cel of having no idea what the word means. If he has no idea of what the word means, then it means that he has no definition of it at all. Ergo, there can really be no definition clash.

And for the record I really don't give a shit about this discussion about demons, so I don't know why you are including me in that "you people" statement.

[Tarsonis]

"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."

Pretty explicit.

Does that make other religions demonic? Did Jesus ever say that specifically?

I've already explained why and where the "demonic" aspect comes from.

[Tarsonis]

Example time:

Now, imagine there is a religion which believes in Gremlins. Gremlins in that religion are defined with specific traits and qualities. That's definition1 of "Gremlin".
Then, there is what you said. The generic usage of "Gremlin" by people who don't believe in Gremlins, which could be seen as offensive and intolerant, for reasons unknown. That's definition2 of "Gremlin"

Sundiata used "demonic" by definition1 of demonic.
Celritannia has been going on how definition2 of "demonic" is intollerant.

Ok. We don't care for definition 2. That's only on you.
You people getting your pants dirty for definition2 of "demonic", are failing to grasp there exist a definition1 of "demonic".

You haven't proven that definition 1 and 2 are different, because you can't, namely because you have actually accused Cel of having no idea what the word means. If he has no idea of what the word means, then it means that he has no definition of it at all. Ergo, there can really be no definition clash.

The issue isn't Cel not understanding the word demonic, the issue is Cels lack of understanding of basic Christian theological systems.

[Celritannia]

Does that make other religions demonic? Did Jesus ever say that specifically?

I've already explained why and where the "demonic" aspect comes from.

And I have yet to see any text in which Jesus has specifically called other religions Demonic, or if it's just the interpretation of man.

[The New California Republic]

You haven't proven that definition 1 and 2 are different, because you can't, namely because you have actually accused Cel of having no idea what the word means. If he has no idea of what the word means, then it means that he has no definition of it at all. Ergo, there can really be no definition clash.

The issue isn't Cel not understanding the word demonic, the issue is Cels lack of understanding of basic Christian theological systems.

LM has clearly been taking issue with the former rather than the latter.

[Celritannia]

You haven't proven that definition 1 and 2 are different, because you can't, namely because you have actually accused Cel of having no idea what the word means. If he has no idea of what the word means, then it means that he has no definition of it at all. Ergo, there can really be no definition clash.

The issue isn't Cel not understanding the word demonic, the issue is Cels lack of understanding of basic Christian theological systems.

And one can be a Christian without calling other religions demonic.
You can say they are wrong, but calling them demonic is practically calling them evil.

[Tarsonis]

I've already explained why and where the "demonic" aspect comes from.

And I have yet to see any text in which Jesus has specifically called other religions Demonic, or if it's just the interpretation of man.

You think you're giving a strong rebuttal here, but what you're actually saying is "I don't understand how Christianity works"

[Washington Resistance Army]

I've already explained why and where the "demonic" aspect comes from.

And I have yet to see any text in which Jesus has specifically called other religions Demonic, or if it's just the interpretation of man.

You're arguing against a version of Christianity that didn't really exist until a couple centuries ago. Christianity didn't have the bible as a compiled work for centuries, while important it is not the basis of the faith except in wacky Protestant denominations.

[Celritannia]

And I have yet to see any text in which Jesus has specifically called other religions Demonic, or if it's just the interpretation of man.

You think you're giving a strong rebuttal here, but what you're actually saying is "I don't understand how Christianity works"

Jesus did say "love Thy Neighbour", did he mean just other Christians?

[Tarsonis]

The issue isn't Cel not understanding the word demonic, the issue is Cels lack of understanding of basic Christian theological systems.

And one can be a Christian without calling other religions demonic.

Sure.

You can say they are wrong, but calling them demonic is practically calling them evil.

Except for the whole, if they are wrong then they are by nature, of the devil, within the Christian framework. You might object to people using that particular word given its charge, but it is in fact a correct word to use in many schools of Christian thought.

Now the line of thinking is itself debatable, within the Christian framework, but saying it is wrong because it's intolerant is just asanine. Christianity isn't a tolerant religion, it is exclusive.

[Luminesa]

Question for you xtians.

Jesus's birth. Did God implant Jesus into Mary, or did God impregnate Mary? Is the biological being of Jesus, Jesus's DNS, half human or fully devine?

Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. Jesus was born of a human mother (Mary) and thus Incarnated. However, the Second Son of the Trinity is fully Divine as well. So Jesus is both!

[Tarsonis]

You think you're giving a strong rebuttal here, but what you're actually saying is "I don't understand how Christianity works"

Jesus did say "love Thy Neighbour", did he mean just other Christians?

You're conflating conduct with theological premise. Loving your neighbor doesn't mean falsely ascribing validity to their beliefs, beyond acknowledging that those are their beliefs.

[Luminesa]

You think you're giving a strong rebuttal here, but what you're actually saying is "I don't understand how Christianity works"

Jesus did say "love Thy Neighbour", did he mean just other Christians?

Of course Jesus says to love everyone, but not every practice is considered connected to Christianity. However, we can love other people who do yoga, obviously.

[Celritannia]

And one can be a Christian without calling other religions demonic.

Sure.

You can say they are wrong, but calling them demonic is practically calling them evil.

Except for the whole, if they are wrong then they are by nature, of the devil, within the Christian framework. You might object to people using that particular word given its charge, but it is in fact a correct word to use in many schools of Christian thought.

Now the line of thinking is itself debatable, within the Christian framework, but saying it is wrong because it's intolerant is just asanine. Christianity isn't a tolerant religion, it is exclusive.

Perhaps Christianity should be less intolerant, and stop thinking other religions are by the devil or demonic.
Call another religion wrong, but demonic?
At least we have moved on from burning and killing people from not being Christian.

[Sundiata]

You haven't proven that definition 1 and 2 are different, because you can't, namely because you have actually accused Cel of having no idea what the word means. If he has no idea of what the word means, then it means that he has no definition of it at all. Ergo, there can really be no definition clash.

The issue isn't Cel not understanding the word demonic, the issue is Cels lack of understanding of basic Christian theological systems.

That's exactly the problem. I think that we should start with the beginning with Cel about who God is and God's nature before we get into the more specific questions. He's a smart cookie so I'll be very excited to get into this topic if he's interested.

[Lost Memories]

"Let's point out how other groups are different from us by condescending them"
That's what it is.

Ok. That's how you are understanding the word "demonic". Good to finally have it spelled out.

Now. That isn't what "demonic" means in christianity. Which, the christian meaning, is most likely what Sundiata was using.

So Sundiata said: "I like drinking from a glass"
And you went: "Nooo, glasses are to put on yout eyes to see better!!"

I'm dramatizing it, but do you get it? Same word, different meaning. You set on a tirade, which failed in communicating anything of worth.
Would you like to know what christians mean for "demonic"?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

And one can be a Christian without calling other religions demonic.

Sure.

You can say they are wrong, but calling them demonic is practically calling them evil.

Except for the whole, if they are wrong then they are by nature, of the devil, within the Christian framework. You might object to people using that particular word given its charge, but it is in fact a correct word to use in many schools of Christian thought.

Now the line of thinking is itself debatable, within the Christian framework, but saying it is wrong because it's intolerant is just asanine. Christianity isn't a tolerant religion, it is exclusive.

Finally someone admitted the truth about Christianity.

[Celritannia]

Jesus did say "love Thy Neighbour", did he mean just other Christians?

You're conflating conduct with theological premise. Loving your neighbor doesn't mean falsely ascribing validity to their beliefs, beyond acknowledging that those are their beliefs.

You can say another religion is wrong, but you don;t have to think another religion is by the Devil. Otherwise, how will you adapt?

Jesus did say "love Thy Neighbour", did he mean just other Christians?

Of course Jesus says to love everyone, but not every practice is considered connected to Christianity. However, we can love other people who do yoga, obviously.

Yes.
And calling other religions evil and demonic is not loving thy neighbour.

[Tarsonis]

Sure.


Except for the whole, if they are wrong then they are by nature, of the devil, within the Christian framework. You might object to people using that particular word given its charge, but it is in fact a correct word to use in many schools of Christian thought.

Now the line of thinking is itself debatable, within the Christian framework, but saying it is wrong because it's intolerant is just asanine. Christianity isn't a tolerant religion, it is exclusive.

Perhaps Christianity should be less intolerant, and stop thinking other religions are by the devil or demonic.
Call another religion wrong, but demonic? At least we have moved on from burning and killing people from not being Christian.

Christianity is a dichotomous religion. Something is either of God or it is not of God. Anything that is not of God, it is of the devil aka demonic. These are clearly defined terms within the Christian logia.

You can think that's wrong all you want, but frankly that's irrelevant.

[Celritannia]

The issue isn't Cel not understanding the word demonic, the issue is Cels lack of understanding of basic Christian theological systems.

That's exactly the problem. I think that we should start with the beginning with him about who God is and God's nature before we get into the more specific questions. He's a smart cookie so I'll be very excited to get into this topic if he's interested.

I don't, and will never believe in the existence of God, for a multitude of reason.
But that does not mean I am stopping other from.
Just stop thinking other religions are evil and an enemy.

This is why we have a secular society.