What is a good Christian?

[Andechs-Sisebut]

The point is that Blaatschapen is not a Christian, as far as I know, and his definition contradicts Christianity’s teachings. Therefore, his opinion is wrong.

Well it depends on what kind of "good" we are discussing.

Menassa argued that a "good" Christian needs only to follow Mark 16:16.

I disagreed because a strict adherence to Mark 16:16 opens the door to all sorts of immorality and terrible things.

We realized we were discussing different versions of good, theirs from a scriptural perspective, and mine from a moral, admittedly my moral, standpoint.

However, combining the two issues, it begs the question over one can be a good Christian, but a bad person. But I digress.

In any case, if your conception of "good" is different from mine, or Blaatschapen's, then you will obviously consider both of our views to be wrong.

I think Nakena makes a good point, in that, ‘good’ here means ‘is what it is supposed to be’. What is a ‘good Christian’? A person that does as he is supposed to do as a Christian. All other definitions, seem to me, are a distraction.

[Jedi Council]

Well it depends on what kind of "good" we are discussing.

Menassa argued that a "good" Christian needs only to follow Mark 16:16.

I disagreed because a strict adherence to Mark 16:16 opens the door to all sorts of immorality and terrible things.

We realized we were discussing different versions of good, theirs from a scriptural perspective, and mine from a moral, admittedly my moral, standpoint.

However, combining the two issues, it begs the question over one can be a good Christian, but a bad person. But I digress.

In any case, if your conception of "good" is different from mine, or Blaatschapen's, then you will obviously consider both of our views to be wrong.

I think Nakena makes a good point, in that, ‘good’ here means ‘is what it is supposed to be’. What is a ‘good Christian’? A person that does as he is supposed to do as a Christian. All other definitions, seem to me, are a distraction.

So what, in your mind, are Christians supposed to do?

As I pointed out, Menassa argued adherence to Mark 16:16 is enough.

Do you agree? Or is there more a christian needs to do?

[Andechs-Sisebut]

I think Nakena makes a good point, in that, ‘good’ here means ‘is what it is supposed to be’. What is a ‘good Christian’? A person that does as he is supposed to do as a Christian. All other definitions, seem to me, are a distraction.

So what, in your mind, are Christians supposed to do?

As I pointed out, Menassa argued adherence to Mark 16:16 is enough.

Do you agree? Or is there more a christian needs to do?

Yes, but Mark 16:16 must be taken in the context of the whole Christian Religion and not by itself in isolation.

He that loves Lord God with his whole heart, and with his whole soul, and with his whole mind; and loves his neighbour as himself. (Matthew 22:37-40) And further, ‘He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.’ (1 John 2:4) Be good children of His Church. Look to the saints as your examples, because they cling closely to Christ and imitate Him, they truly ‘wait upon the Lord’ and prepare for His Coming.

Anyways, I’m off for the day. Have a good one and God bless!

[Jedi Council]

So what, in your mind, are Christians supposed to do?

As I pointed out, Menassa argued adherence to Mark 16:16 is enough.

Do you agree? Or is there more a christian needs to do?

Yes, but Mark 16:16 must be taken in the context of the whole Christian Religion and not by itself in solution.

He that loves Lord God with his whole heart, and with his whole soul, and with his whole mind; and loves his neighbour as himself. (Matthew 22:37-40) And further, ‘He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.’ (1 John 2:4) Be good children of His Church. Look to the saints as your examples, because they cling closely to Christ and imitate Him, they truly ‘wait upon the Lord’ and prepare for His Coming.

So, essentially in your conception, a good Christian is one that;

1. Loves God.

2. Loves their neighbour.

3. Keeps the Ten Commandments.

4. Treat other Christians well.

5. Imitate the Saints.

Correct me if I have misrepresented you there, or if there is more you would like to add.

However, this comes to the question I was asking earlier. Can a good Christian be a bad person? If we are taking good to mean a religious, rather than a moral, good, and the metric we are using for measuring this is adherence to the tenants you have postulated, then we come to a pretty clear conclusion.

If a good Christian is one who follows these five tenants, then it seems to be that the question is, that yes, a good christian can be a bad person, from a moral perspective.

As I stated, in my mind, a moral person follows the Golden Rule, which is that one should treat others the way they wish to be treated. Masochists aside, this generally allows for a moral and functioning relationship between people.

However, in these five tenants, there is not much in the way of moral teachings.

The Ten Commandments were not particularly visionary, and all largely fall under the Golden Rule. They have glaring blindpots regarding slavery, rape and other crimes but Moses could only fit so much on those tablets right?

Treating other Christian's well is a good idea, but what of other non-Christians? Surely in response to this you will say that it is covered under the love thy neighbour clause.

However, if you truly loved your neighbour, wouldn't you be tolerant of them if they disagreed with you? Wouldn't attempting to force them to conform to your views be wrong, if you really loved them?

If so, then I do not see how either myself, or Blaatschapen, are wrong in our conceptions of a good christian from a moral perspective, which has a direct impact on a good christian from a religious one

By extension, if a good christian can be a bad person, then what is truly the point of devoting oneself to the tenants of the faith if wicked or otherwise unsavoury people can do so as well?

[Albrenia]

Obviously as a non-Christian I'm not even nearly an authority on what makes a 'very Christian' Christian, but I took the meaning of 'Good Christian' as 'a Christian who is a Good person' rather than 'One who is good at being Christian'.

Many of the faithful will likely think those two are the same thing though.

[Jedi Council]

Obviously as a non-Christian I'm not even nearly an authority on what makes a 'very Christian' Christian, but I took the meaning of 'Good Christian' as 'a Christian who is a Good person' rather than 'One who is good at being Christian'.

Many of the faithful will likely think those two are the same thing though.

Therein is the distinction I am interested in. I assumed the OP meant a good Christian AND a good person. If these two things are mutually inclusive, then the problem is not all that big.

However, I do not believe that a good Christian, in a strictly religious sense, can automatically be called a good person from a moral standpoint.

[Joohan]

I think it's a bit of a subjective thing too. With good being here definition at being "good at what it is supposed to be".

Like for example something that would make a good Jedi is different than what would made a good Sith. In both cases the definition of "good" would be as in they're good in their profession, good in living up to their ethos.

Exactly, the concept of "good" is very nebulous.

As another poster said earlier, it's quite defensible to say a "good" Christian is devoted to the Bible, proselytize, and is vehemently opposed to many of the things that I support.

It entirely depends on what you mean by good, and what metrics you are using.

I was merely remarking upon my interpretation, which is "good" in the moral and ethical sense, not the religious sense.

For Christians, such concepts are one in the same, as what is good and evil is an objective measurement based upon the whims of God.

[Jedi Council]

Exactly, the concept of "good" is very nebulous.

As another poster said earlier, it's quite defensible to say a "good" Christian is devoted to the Bible, proselytize, and is vehemently opposed to many of the things that I support.

It entirely depends on what you mean by good, and what metrics you are using.

I was merely remarking upon my interpretation, which is "good" in the moral and ethical sense, not the religious sense.

For Christians, such concepts are one in the same, as what is good and evil is an objective measurement based upon the whims of God.

So in short, a good Christian is automatically a good person? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Britannia Maior]

No doubt.

As I have said, as someone who is definitely not religious, my perception of a "good" christian is going to be very different from other peoples, especially those devoted to their faith.

I think it's a bit of a subjective thing too. With good being here definition at being "good at what it is supposed to be".

Like for example something that would make a good Jedi is different than what would made a good Sith. In both cases the definition of "good" would be as in they're good in their profession, good in living up to their ethos.

Aye, it is very subjective and based upon one’s biases, preferences and beliefs about what makes a person “good” in the moral vs “good” in the sense of adhering to religious doctrine and dogma, regardless of its absurdity. I personally prefer the more liberal, non-proselytising and simply ethically good Christians over what might be a “good” Christian (proselytising, strict adherence to the Bible, non-tolerance of non-believers, zealot, etc).

[The Free Joy State]

Exactly, the concept of "good" is very nebulous.

As another poster said earlier, it's quite defensible to say a "good" Christian is devoted to the Bible, proselytize, and is vehemently opposed to many of the things that I support.

It entirely depends on what you mean by good, and what metrics you are using.

I was merely remarking upon my interpretation, which is "good" in the moral and ethical sense, not the religious sense.

For Christians, such concepts are one in the same, as what is good and evil is an objective measurement based upon the whims of God.

You cannot speak for all Christians. There are many Churches that interpret things differently.

For example, following Psalm 137.9 would not be good, although it would be following the "whim of God". I don't consider Exodus 22:18 something that should be followed. Although that is also the "whim of God". Many Christians would disagree with Proverbs 23:13-14, yet it is the "whim of God".

Obviously as a non-Christian I'm not even nearly an authority on what makes a 'very Christian' Christian, but I took the meaning of 'Good Christian' as 'a Christian who is a Good person' rather than 'One who is good at being Christian'.

Many of the faithful will likely think those two are the same thing though.

Therein is the distinction I am interested in. I assumed the OP meant a good Christian AND a good person. If these two things are mutually inclusive, then the problem is not all that big.

However, I do not believe that a good Christian, in a strictly religious sense, can automatically be called a good person from a moral standpoint.

You're right. There need not be overlap.

Someone who beats their child (which a couple of verses in the Bible seem to encourage), or abuses their spouse (which is actually tacitly permitted in some denominations), slurs his LGBT+ neighbour and his neighbours of other religions, is not what can be considered a good person from a moral standpoint. Yet there are examples of Christians who do this kind of thing ( my mind goes to IFB pastor, Steven Anderson, who has previously wished... harm... on those he doesn't like), and yet go to Church, know the Bible word-for-word, pray daily, stick rigidly to the Ten Commandments.

It is very possible for a person to be good at following the basics of their religious denomination and not good in the moral, ethical sense.

The two are not the same.

[Jedi Council]

For Christians, such concepts are one in the same, as what is good and evil is an objective measurement based upon the whims of God.

You cannot speak for all Christians. There are many Churches that interpret things differently.

For example, following Psalm 137.9 would not be good, although it would be following the "whim of God". I don't consider Exodus 22:18 something that should be followed. Although that is also the "whim of God". Many Christians would disagree with Proverbs 23:13-14, yet it is the "whim of God".

Therein is the distinction I am interested in. I assumed the OP meant a good Christian AND a good person. If these two things are mutually inclusive, then the problem is not all that big.

However, I do not believe that a good Christian, in a strictly religious sense, can automatically be called a good person from a moral standpoint.

You're right. There need not be overlap.

Someone who beats their child (which a couple of verses in the Bible seem to encourage), or abuses their spouse (which is actually tacitly permitted in some denominations), slurs his LGBT+ neighbour and his neighbours of other religions, is not what can be considered a good person from a moral standpoint. Yet there are examples of Christians who do this kind of thing ( my mind goes to IFB pastor, Steven Anderson, who has previously wished... harm... on those he doesn't like), and yet go to Church, know the Bible word-for-word, pray daily, stick rigidly to the Ten Commandments.

It is very possible for a person to be good at following the basics of their religious denomination and not good in the moral, ethical sense.

The two are not the same.

Exactly the point I was trying to make, put much more eloquently than I did it. You have my thanks.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

For Christians, such concepts are one in the same, as what is good and evil is an objective measurement based upon the whims of God.

You cannot speak for all Christians. There are many Churches that interpret things differently.

For example, following Psalm 137.9 would not be good, although it would be following the "whim of God". I don't consider Exodus 22:18 something that should be followed. Although that is also the "whim of God". Many Christians would disagree with Proverbs 23:13-14, yet it is the "whim of God".

Therein is the distinction I am interested in. I assumed the OP meant a good Christian AND a good person. If these two things are mutually inclusive, then the problem is not all that big.

However, I do not believe that a good Christian, in a strictly religious sense, can automatically be called a good person from a moral standpoint.

You're right. There need not be overlap.

Someone who beats their child (which a couple of verses in the Bible seem to encourage), or abuses their spouse (which is actually tacitly permitted in some denominations), slurs his LGBT+ neighbour and his neighbours of other religions, is not what can be considered a good person from a moral standpoint. Yet there are examples of Christians who do this kind of thing ( my mind goes to IFB pastor, Steven Anderson, who has previously wished... harm... on those he doesn't like), and yet go to Church, know the Bible word-for-word, pray daily, stick rigidly to the Ten Commandments.

It is very possible for a person to be good at following the basics of their religious denomination and not good in the moral, ethical sense.

The two are not the same.

No, but this confused mess that you present to us is the reason why we have the Church. What recourse, then, do we have? Well, I am Catholic and Joohan is Orthodox, we should therefore appeal to the Fathers and Teachers of the Church.

1. Psalm 137:9 — The Catholic Douay Rheims reads, ‘The Lord will repay for me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: O despise not the work of thy hands.’. But I assume you actually mean this verse in Protestant Bibles (it is 136:9 in the Douay Rheims), ‘Blessed shall he be who takes your little one and a dashes them against the rock!’ Firstly, this is not God, but King David the Prophet, though the Psalms are inspired. We will forego the spiritual dimension because it isn’t relevant to your contention. God does fulfil this prayer through Cyrus the Great and Darius, that destroy Babylon that held captive the Jews. ‘Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me.’ (Isaiah 47:3) And, ‘There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.’ (Isaiah 48:22) (Really Isaiah 47-50). We revisit Job, ‘the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.’ (Job 1:21) You have not provided why God has done evil here? Rather, he punished Babylon and set free the Jews.
2. Exodus 22:18 — This reads, ‘Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.’ More commonly translated as ‘Thou shalt not suffer the witch to live.’ St. Thomas Aquinas (which I think Joohan won’t mind in this case) writes in Chapter 147 of Of God and His Creatures,

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, φαρμακούς) to live (Exod. xxii, 18)

And in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book Seven, p. 466, The Prohibition of Conjuring, Murder of Infants, Perjury, and False Witness,

Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, « Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. » (Exodus 22:18) Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for « everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed. »

What do we know from all this? That ‘witches’ are evil-doers, poisoners (metaphorically and literally), wicked people that make pacts with Satan and demons (See: Catholic Encyclopedia: Witchcraft). Why, then, shouldn’t lawful authority put these people to death if it is God’s whim, who can say that it is evil?
3. Proverbs 23:13-14 — This translates as, ‘Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.’ Rather straightforward, discipline your child. It is written by St. Clement of Alexandria in The Instructor,

In fine, the system He pursues to inspire fear is the source of salvation. And it is the prerogative of goodness to save: “The mercy of the Lord is on all flesh, while He reproves, corrects, and teaches as a shepherd His flock. He pities those who receive His instruction, and those who eagerly seek union with Him.” And with such guidance He guarded the six hundred thousand footmen that were brought together in the hardness of heart in which they were found; scourging, pitying, striking, healing, in compassion and discipline: “For according to the greatness of His mercy, so is His rebuke.” For it is indeed noble not to sin; but it is good also for the sinner to repent; just as it is best to be always in good health, but well to recover from disease. So He commands by Solomon: “Strike thou thy son with the rod, that thou mayest deliver his soul from death.” And again: “Abstain not from chastising thy son, but correct him with the rod; for he will not die.”

And in the Apostolic Constitutiond, Book IV, Sec. II — On Domestic and Social Life,

Ye fathers, educate your children in the Lord, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and teach them such trades as are agreeable and suitable to the word, lest they by such opportunity become extravagant, and continue without punishment from their parents, and so get relaxation before their time, and go astray from that which is good. Wherefore be not afraid to reprove them, and to teach them wisdom with severity. For your corrections will not kill them, but rather preserve them. As Solomon says somewhere in the book of Wisdom: “Chasten thy son, and he will refresh thee; so wilt thou have good hope of him. Thou verily shalt smite him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from death.” And again, says the same Solomon thus, “He that spareth his rod, hateth his son;” and afterwards, “Beat his sides whilst he is an infant, lest he be hardened and disobey thee.”2960 He, therefore, that neglects to admonish and instruct his own son, hates his own child. Do you therefore teach your children the word of the Lord. Bring them under with cutting stripes, and make them subject from their infancy, teaching them the Holy Scriptures, which are Christian and divine, and delivering to them every sacred writing, “not giving them such liberty that they get the mastery,” and act against your opinion, not permitting them to club together for a treat with their equals. For so they will be turned to disorderly courses, and will fall into fornication; and if this happen by the carelessness of their parents, those that begat them will be guilty of their souls. For if the offending children get into the company of debauched persons by the negligence of those that begat them, they will not be punished alone by themselves; but their parents also will be condemned on their account. For this cause endeavour, at the time when they are of an age fit for marriage, to join them in wedlock, and settle them together, lest in the heat and fervour of their age their course of life become dissolute, and you be required to give an account by the Lord God in the day of judgment.

None of these things are evil, not one. One of them isn’t even God commanding anyone to dash ‘them against a rock!’ Babylon, however, was destroyed to free the Jews from captivity and their enemies yoke. Killing people of all ages, male or female, was common in ancient warfare. As a sidenote, nowhere in the Bible can I find it endorsing ‘abuse’ of a man’s wife, I don’t care if some random denomination misinterprets scripture nor for Steven Anderson.

Yes, but Mark 16:16 must be taken in the context of the whole Christian Religion and not by itself in solution.

So, essentially in your conception, a good Christian is one that;

1. Loves God.

2. Loves their neighbour.

3. Keeps the Ten Commandments.

4. Treat other Christians well.

5. Imitate the Saints.

Correct me if I have misrepresented you there, or if there is more you would like to add.

However, this comes to the question I was asking earlier. Can a good Christian be a bad person? If we are taking good to mean a religious, rather than a moral, good, and the metric we are using for measuring this is adherence to the tenants you have postulated, then we come to a pretty clear conclusion.

If a good Christian is one who follows these five tenants, then it seems to be that the question is, that yes, a good christian can be a bad person, from a moral perspective.

As I stated, in my mind, a moral person follows the Golden Rule, which is that one should treat others the way they wish to be treated. Masochists aside, this generally allows for a moral and functioning relationship between people.

However, in these five tenants, there is not much in the way of moral teachings.

The Ten Commandments were not particularly visionary, and all largely fall under the Golden Rule. They have glaring blindpots regarding slavery, rape and other crimes but Moses could only fit so much on those tablets right?

Treating other Christian's well is a good idea, but what of other non-Christians? Surely in response to this you will say that it is covered under the love thy neighbour clause.

However, if you truly loved your neighbour, wouldn't you be tolerant of them if they disagreed with you? Wouldn't attempting to force them to conform to your views be wrong, if you really loved them?

If so, then I do not see how either myself, or Blaatschapen, are wrong in our conceptions of a good christian from a moral perspective, which has a direct impact on a good christian from a religious one

By extension, if a good christian can be a bad person, then what is truly the point of devoting oneself to the tenants of the faith if wicked or otherwise unsavoury people can do so as well?

A Good Christian is necessarily a good person, that is a moral person. But what does Mark record? ‘And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.’ (Mark 10:18) No person is perfect, and thus no person is ‘good’. This is what I say, men may be good but only by participation of God's goodness. I’ll just reiterate what Joohan said.

Therefore, a ‘Good Christian’ is someone that follows Goodness itself and is thus virtuous. They may stray, fall away, but if they return pertinent, they will be called Holy. St. Andrew Wouters was a Martyr of Gorkum (1572), he was a notoriously scandalous, horrible priest; a fornicator, but not a heretic. He joined his brother priests in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’, and was subsequently hanged. He proved in his last moments that he could, and was, a Good Christian, clinging to the Lord. This cannot be said of his dissolute life.

As for your reduction, I’m afraid much is left out in your assessment, and your assessment is even wrong (for instance, there are more commandments than the Decalogue, they’re summary, then there is Christ’s Summary of the Law). Your conception of ‘Love’ is deficient and faulty. If you do not have good will to your neighbour, then you truly do not love them. We force the addict to leave his addiction, we do not tolerate it because of a faulty sense of ‘love’. We conform men to Truth, to medicine, that is love. When you lie to a man, you do love him. We also must be conscious by what we mean by ‘force’. No man is allowed to coerce (through violence and other such means) someone to the Faith, they must assent freely.

[Baja California Autonoma]

You cannot speak for all Christians. There are many Churches that interpret things differently.

For example, following Psalm 137.9 would not be good, although it would be following the "whim of God". I don't consider Exodus 22:18 something that should be followed. Although that is also the "whim of God". Many Christians would disagree with Proverbs 23:13-14, yet it is the "whim of God".


You're right. There need not be overlap.

Someone who beats their child (which a couple of verses in the Bible seem to encourage), or abuses their spouse (which is actually tacitly permitted in some denominations), slurs his LGBT+ neighbour and his neighbours of other religions, is not what can be considered a good person from a moral standpoint. Yet there are examples of Christians who do this kind of thing ( my mind goes to IFB pastor, Steven Anderson, who has previously wished... harm... on those he doesn't like), and yet go to Church, know the Bible word-for-word, pray daily, stick rigidly to the Ten Commandments.

It is very possible for a person to be good at following the basics of their religious denomination and not good in the moral, ethical sense.

The two are not the same.

No, but this confused mess that you present to us is the reason why we have the Church. What recourse, then, do we have? Well, I am Catholic and Joohan is Orthodox, we should therefore appeal to the Fathers and Teachers of the Church.

1. Psalm 137:9 — The Catholic Douay Rheims reads, ‘The Lord will repay for me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: O despise not the work of thy hands.’. But I assume you actually mean this verse in Protestant Bibles (it is 136:9 in the Douay Rheims), ‘Blessed shall he be who takes your little one and a dashes them against the rock!’ Firstly, this is not God, but King David the Prophet, though the Psalms are inspired. We will forego the spiritual dimension because it isn’t relevant to your contention. God does fulfil this prayer through Cyrus the Great and Darius, that destroy Babylon that held captive the Jews. ‘Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me.’ (Isaiah 47:3) And, ‘There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.’ (Isaiah 48:22) (Really Isaiah 47-50). We revisit Job, ‘the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.’ (Job 1:21) You have not provided why God has done evil here? Rather, he punished Babylon and set free the Jews.
2. Exodus 22:18 — This reads, ‘Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.’ More commonly translated as ‘Thou shalt not suffer the witch to live.’ St. Thomas Aquinas (which I think Joohan won’t mind in this case) writes in Chapter 147 of Of God and His Creatures,

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, φαρμακούς) to live (Exod. xxii, 18)

And in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book Seven, p. 466, The Prohibition of Conjuring, Murder of Infants, Perjury, and False Witness,

Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, « Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. » (Exodus 22:18) Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for « everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed. »

What do we know from all this? That ‘witches’ are evil-doers, poisoners (metaphorically and literally), wicked people that make pacts with Satan and demons (See: Catholic Encyclopedia: Witchcraft). Why, then, shouldn’t lawful authority put these people to death if it is God’s whim, who can say that it is evil?
3. Proverbs 23:13-14 — This translates as, ‘Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.’ Rather straightforward, discipline your child. It is written by St. Clement of Alexandria in The Instructor,

In fine, the system He pursues to inspire fear is the source of salvation. And it is the prerogative of goodness to save: “The mercy of the Lord is on all flesh, while He reproves, corrects, and teaches as a shepherd His flock. He pities those who receive His instruction, and those who eagerly seek union with Him.” And with such guidance He guarded the six hundred thousand footmen that were brought together in the hardness of heart in which they were found; scourging, pitying, striking, healing, in compassion and discipline: “For according to the greatness of His mercy, so is His rebuke.” For it is indeed noble not to sin; but it is good also for the sinner to repent; just as it is best to be always in good health, but well to recover from disease. So He commands by Solomon: “Strike thou thy son with the rod, that thou mayest deliver his soul from death.” And again: “Abstain not from chastising thy son, but correct him with the rod; for he will not die.”

And in the Apostolic Constitutiond, Book IV, Sec. II — On Domestic and Social Life,

Ye fathers, educate your children in the Lord, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and teach them such trades as are agreeable and suitable to the word, lest they by such opportunity become extravagant, and continue without punishment from their parents, and so get relaxation before their time, and go astray from that which is good. Wherefore be not afraid to reprove them, and to teach them wisdom with severity. For your corrections will not kill them, but rather preserve them. As Solomon says somewhere in the book of Wisdom: “Chasten thy son, and he will refresh thee; so wilt thou have good hope of him. Thou verily shalt smite him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from death.” And again, says the same Solomon thus, “He that spareth his rod, hateth his son;” and afterwards, “Beat his sides whilst he is an infant, lest he be hardened and disobey thee.”2960 He, therefore, that neglects to admonish and instruct his own son, hates his own child. Do you therefore teach your children the word of the Lord. Bring them under with cutting stripes, and make them subject from their infancy, teaching them the Holy Scriptures, which are Christian and divine, and delivering to them every sacred writing, “not giving them such liberty that they get the mastery,” and act against your opinion, not permitting them to club together for a treat with their equals. For so they will be turned to disorderly courses, and will fall into fornication; and if this happen by the carelessness of their parents, those that begat them will be guilty of their souls. For if the offending children get into the company of debauched persons by the negligence of those that begat them, they will not be punished alone by themselves; but their parents also will be condemned on their account. For this cause endeavour, at the time when they are of an age fit for marriage, to join them in wedlock, and settle them together, lest in the heat and fervour of their age their course of life become dissolute, and you be required to give an account by the Lord God in the day of judgment.

None of these things are evil, not one. One of them isn’t even God commanding anyone to dash ‘them against a rock!’ Babylon, however, was destroyed to free the Jews from captivity and their enemies yoke. Killing people of all ages, male or female, was common in ancient warfare. As a sidenote, nowhere in the Bible can I find it endorsing ‘abuse’ of a man’s wife, I don’t care if some random denomination misinterprets scripture nor for Steven Anderson.

So, essentially in your conception, a good Christian is one that;

1. Loves God.

2. Loves their neighbour.

3. Keeps the Ten Commandments.

4. Treat other Christians well.

5. Imitate the Saints.

Correct me if I have misrepresented you there, or if there is more you would like to add.

However, this comes to the question I was asking earlier. Can a good Christian be a bad person? If we are taking good to mean a religious, rather than a moral, good, and the metric we are using for measuring this is adherence to the tenants you have postulated, then we come to a pretty clear conclusion.

If a good Christian is one who follows these five tenants, then it seems to be that the question is, that yes, a good christian can be a bad person, from a moral perspective.

As I stated, in my mind, a moral person follows the Golden Rule, which is that one should treat others the way they wish to be treated. Masochists aside, this generally allows for a moral and functioning relationship between people.

However, in these five tenants, there is not much in the way of moral teachings.

The Ten Commandments were not particularly visionary, and all largely fall under the Golden Rule. They have glaring blindpots regarding slavery, rape and other crimes but Moses could only fit so much on those tablets right?

Treating other Christian's well is a good idea, but what of other non-Christians? Surely in response to this you will say that it is covered under the love thy neighbour clause.

However, if you truly loved your neighbour, wouldn't you be tolerant of them if they disagreed with you? Wouldn't attempting to force them to conform to your views be wrong, if you really loved them?

If so, then I do not see how either myself, or Blaatschapen, are wrong in our conceptions of a good christian from a moral perspective, which has a direct impact on a good christian from a religious one

By extension, if a good christian can be a bad person, then what is truly the point of devoting oneself to the tenants of the faith if wicked or otherwise unsavoury people can do so as well?

A Good Christian is necessarily a good person, that is a moral person. But what does Mark record? ‘And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.’ (Mark 10:18) No person is perfect, and thus no person is ‘good’. This is what I say, men may be good but only by participation of God's goodness. I’ll just reiterate what Joohan said.

Therefore, a ‘Good Christian’ is someone that follows Goodness itself and is thus virtuous. They may stray, fall away, but if they return pertinent, they will be called Holy. St. Andrew Wouters was a Martyr of Gorkum (1572), he was a notoriously scandalous, horrible priest; a fornicator, but not a heretic. He joined his brother priests in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’, and was subsequently hanged. He proved in his last moments that he could, and was, a Good Christian, clinging to the Lord. This cannot be said of his dissolute life.

As for your reduction, I’m afraid much is left out in your assessment, and your assessment is even wrong (for instance, there are more commandments than the Decalogue, they’re summary, then there is Christ’s Summary of the Law). Your conception of ‘Love’ is deficient and faulty. If you do not have good will to your neighbour, then you truly do not love them. We force the addict to leave his addiction, we do not tolerate it because of a faulty sense of ‘love’. We conform men to Truth, to medicine, that is love. When you lie to a man, you do love him. We also must be conscious by what we mean by ‘force’. No man is allowed to coerce (through violence and other such means) someone to the Faith, they must assent freely.

So the deathbed confession will work or the 'virtuous' death is a cleaning of the sins of life? Merely because one says and acts if he believes. I think this dissuades me from being a Christian as I'd rather not be around people who treat others like shit but give God his lip service and are thereby saved. That sounds problematic and not conducive to a moral person but to a religiously devout one, which doesn't automatically make them 'good' people. But I suppose the point is moot for someone who only believes that a person could ge good by accepting not only Jesus but your denominations version of the truth. Sounds horribly anemic and problematic to attracting people.

I would like to be able to see and hear Jesus' teaching before it was codified into a religion when all kinds of hands and input turned it into an 'establishment'. I'm certain given the variety of literature from the centuries afterwards that people had various Christianity's or Jesus Movements, now we have the ones that managed to use state power and temporal power to banish, silence, kill, etc. Anyone who opposed them. This is surely a corruption and you can't attribute this as a virtue and call it holy on the level of being a good person. The virtue of good people is surely known and evident to everyone, even people who dont hold the beliefs currently. That and not a sycophant to man-made religious dogma is more worthy to me to be called good person+good Christian, anyone else has only proved that they managed to listen to the middlemen between you and Jesus Christ and value their words so much they become the religion instead of the figurehead. Instead of the teaching we must also add our own hatred of the other, violence, bigotry, holier than thou posturing, and hypocrisy in the name of faith.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

No, but this confused mess that you present to us is the reason why we have the Church. What recourse, then, do we have? Well, I am Catholic and Joohan is Orthodox, we should therefore appeal to the Fathers and Teachers of the Church.

1. Psalm 137:9 — The Catholic Douay Rheims reads, ‘The Lord will repay for me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: O despise not the work of thy hands.’. But I assume you actually mean this verse in Protestant Bibles (it is 136:9 in the Douay Rheims), ‘Blessed shall he be who takes your little one and a dashes them against the rock!’ Firstly, this is not God, but King David the Prophet, though the Psalms are inspired. We will forego the spiritual dimension because it isn’t relevant to your contention. God does fulfil this prayer through Cyrus the Great and Darius, that destroy Babylon that held captive the Jews. ‘Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me.’ (Isaiah 47:3) And, ‘There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.’ (Isaiah 48:22) (Really Isaiah 47-50). We revisit Job, ‘the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.’ (Job 1:21) You have not provided why God has done evil here? Rather, he punished Babylon and set free the Jews.
2. Exodus 22:18 — This reads, ‘Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.’ More commonly translated as ‘Thou shalt not suffer the witch to live.’ St. Thomas Aquinas (which I think Joohan won’t mind in this case) writes in Chapter 147 of Of God and His Creatures,

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, φαρμακούς) to live (Exod. xxii, 18)

And in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book Seven, p. 466, The Prohibition of Conjuring, Murder of Infants, Perjury, and False Witness,

Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, « Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. » (Exodus 22:18) Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for « everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed. »

What do we know from all this? That ‘witches’ are evil-doers, poisoners (metaphorically and literally), wicked people that make pacts with Satan and demons (See: Catholic Encyclopedia: Witchcraft). Why, then, shouldn’t lawful authority put these people to death if it is God’s whim, who can say that it is evil?
3. Proverbs 23:13-14 — This translates as, ‘Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.’ Rather straightforward, discipline your child. It is written by St. Clement of Alexandria in The Instructor,

In fine, the system He pursues to inspire fear is the source of salvation. And it is the prerogative of goodness to save: “The mercy of the Lord is on all flesh, while He reproves, corrects, and teaches as a shepherd His flock. He pities those who receive His instruction, and those who eagerly seek union with Him.” And with such guidance He guarded the six hundred thousand footmen that were brought together in the hardness of heart in which they were found; scourging, pitying, striking, healing, in compassion and discipline: “For according to the greatness of His mercy, so is His rebuke.” For it is indeed noble not to sin; but it is good also for the sinner to repent; just as it is best to be always in good health, but well to recover from disease. So He commands by Solomon: “Strike thou thy son with the rod, that thou mayest deliver his soul from death.” And again: “Abstain not from chastising thy son, but correct him with the rod; for he will not die.”

And in the Apostolic Constitutiond, Book IV, Sec. II — On Domestic and Social Life,

Ye fathers, educate your children in the Lord, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and teach them such trades as are agreeable and suitable to the word, lest they by such opportunity become extravagant, and continue without punishment from their parents, and so get relaxation before their time, and go astray from that which is good. Wherefore be not afraid to reprove them, and to teach them wisdom with severity. For your corrections will not kill them, but rather preserve them. As Solomon says somewhere in the book of Wisdom: “Chasten thy son, and he will refresh thee; so wilt thou have good hope of him. Thou verily shalt smite him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from death.” And again, says the same Solomon thus, “He that spareth his rod, hateth his son;” and afterwards, “Beat his sides whilst he is an infant, lest he be hardened and disobey thee.”2960 He, therefore, that neglects to admonish and instruct his own son, hates his own child. Do you therefore teach your children the word of the Lord. Bring them under with cutting stripes, and make them subject from their infancy, teaching them the Holy Scriptures, which are Christian and divine, and delivering to them every sacred writing, “not giving them such liberty that they get the mastery,” and act against your opinion, not permitting them to club together for a treat with their equals. For so they will be turned to disorderly courses, and will fall into fornication; and if this happen by the carelessness of their parents, those that begat them will be guilty of their souls. For if the offending children get into the company of debauched persons by the negligence of those that begat them, they will not be punished alone by themselves; but their parents also will be condemned on their account. For this cause endeavour, at the time when they are of an age fit for marriage, to join them in wedlock, and settle them together, lest in the heat and fervour of their age their course of life become dissolute, and you be required to give an account by the Lord God in the day of judgment.

None of these things are evil, not one. One of them isn’t even God commanding anyone to dash ‘them against a rock!’ Babylon, however, was destroyed to free the Jews from captivity and their enemies yoke. Killing people of all ages, male or female, was common in ancient warfare. As a sidenote, nowhere in the Bible can I find it endorsing ‘abuse’ of a man’s wife, I don’t care if some random denomination misinterprets scripture nor for Steven Anderson.



A Good Christian is necessarily a good person, that is a moral person. But what does Mark record? ‘And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.’ (Mark 10:18) No person is perfect, and thus no person is ‘good’. This is what I say, men may be good but only by participation of God's goodness. I’ll just reiterate what Joohan said.

Therefore, a ‘Good Christian’ is someone that follows Goodness itself and is thus virtuous. They may stray, fall away, but if they return pertinent, they will be called Holy. St. Andrew Wouters was a Martyr of Gorkum (1572), he was a notoriously scandalous, horrible priest; a fornicator, but not a heretic. He joined his brother priests in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’, and was subsequently hanged. He proved in his last moments that he could, and was, a Good Christian, clinging to the Lord. This cannot be said of his dissolute life.

As for your reduction, I’m afraid much is left out in your assessment, and your assessment is even wrong (for instance, there are more commandments than the Decalogue, they’re summary, then there is Christ’s Summary of the Law). Your conception of ‘Love’ is deficient and faulty. If you do not have good will to your neighbour, then you truly do not love them. We force the addict to leave his addiction, we do not tolerate it because of a faulty sense of ‘love’. We conform men to Truth, to medicine, that is love. When you lie to a man, you do love him. We also must be conscious by what we mean by ‘force’. No man is allowed to coerce (through violence and other such means) someone to the Faith, they must assent freely.

So the deathbed confession will work or the 'virtuous' death is a cleaning of the sins of life? Merely because one says and acts if he believes. I think this dissuades me from being a Christian as I'd rather not be around people who treat others like shit but give God his lip service and are thereby saved. That sounds problematic and not conducive to a moral person but to a religiously devout one, which doesn't automatically make them 'good' people.

As it is said, although this is a simplified answer: “ A martyr, or witness of Christ, is a person who, though he has never seen nor heard the Divine Founder of the Church, is yet so firmly convinced of the truths of the Christian religion, that he gladly suffers death rather than deny it.” (Catholic Encyclopedia). To die for Christ and the Faith is among the highest goods a follower of Christ can do, for to prefer death to a renouncement of Christ is the sign of the highest devotion. A deathbed confession is an act of mercy on the part of the priest, for he gives the dying of his flock a chance to confess their sins, that they may be prepared for the afterlife; in some cases it is initiated by a penitent person because they are genuinely sorry for their misdeeds and wish to confess them.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

No, but this confused mess that you present to us is the reason why we have the Church. What recourse, then, do we have? Well, I am Catholic and Joohan is Orthodox, we should therefore appeal to the Fathers and Teachers of the Church.

1. Psalm 137:9 — The Catholic Douay Rheims reads, ‘The Lord will repay for me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: O despise not the work of thy hands.’. But I assume you actually mean this verse in Protestant Bibles (it is 136:9 in the Douay Rheims), ‘Blessed shall he be who takes your little one and a dashes them against the rock!’ Firstly, this is not God, but King David the Prophet, though the Psalms are inspired. We will forego the spiritual dimension because it isn’t relevant to your contention. God does fulfil this prayer through Cyrus the Great and Darius, that destroy Babylon that held captive the Jews. ‘Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me.’ (Isaiah 47:3) And, ‘There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.’ (Isaiah 48:22) (Really Isaiah 47-50). We revisit Job, ‘the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.’ (Job 1:21) You have not provided why God has done evil here? Rather, he punished Babylon and set free the Jews.
2. Exodus 22:18 — This reads, ‘Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.’ More commonly translated as ‘Thou shalt not suffer the witch to live.’ St. Thomas Aquinas (which I think Joohan won’t mind in this case) writes in Chapter 147 of Of God and His Creatures,

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, φαρμακούς) to live (Exod. xxii, 18)

And in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book Seven, p. 466, The Prohibition of Conjuring, Murder of Infants, Perjury, and False Witness,

Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, « Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. » (Exodus 22:18) Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for « everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed. »

What do we know from all this? That ‘witches’ are evil-doers, poisoners (metaphorically and literally), wicked people that make pacts with Satan and demons (See: Catholic Encyclopedia: Witchcraft). Why, then, shouldn’t lawful authority put these people to death if it is God’s whim, who can say that it is evil?
3. Proverbs 23:13-14 — This translates as, ‘Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.’ Rather straightforward, discipline your child. It is written by St. Clement of Alexandria in The Instructor,

In fine, the system He pursues to inspire fear is the source of salvation. And it is the prerogative of goodness to save: “The mercy of the Lord is on all flesh, while He reproves, corrects, and teaches as a shepherd His flock. He pities those who receive His instruction, and those who eagerly seek union with Him.” And with such guidance He guarded the six hundred thousand footmen that were brought together in the hardness of heart in which they were found; scourging, pitying, striking, healing, in compassion and discipline: “For according to the greatness of His mercy, so is His rebuke.” For it is indeed noble not to sin; but it is good also for the sinner to repent; just as it is best to be always in good health, but well to recover from disease. So He commands by Solomon: “Strike thou thy son with the rod, that thou mayest deliver his soul from death.” And again: “Abstain not from chastising thy son, but correct him with the rod; for he will not die.”

And in the Apostolic Constitutiond, Book IV, Sec. II — On Domestic and Social Life,

Ye fathers, educate your children in the Lord, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and teach them such trades as are agreeable and suitable to the word, lest they by such opportunity become extravagant, and continue without punishment from their parents, and so get relaxation before their time, and go astray from that which is good. Wherefore be not afraid to reprove them, and to teach them wisdom with severity. For your corrections will not kill them, but rather preserve them. As Solomon says somewhere in the book of Wisdom: “Chasten thy son, and he will refresh thee; so wilt thou have good hope of him. Thou verily shalt smite him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from death.” And again, says the same Solomon thus, “He that spareth his rod, hateth his son;” and afterwards, “Beat his sides whilst he is an infant, lest he be hardened and disobey thee.”2960 He, therefore, that neglects to admonish and instruct his own son, hates his own child. Do you therefore teach your children the word of the Lord. Bring them under with cutting stripes, and make them subject from their infancy, teaching them the Holy Scriptures, which are Christian and divine, and delivering to them every sacred writing, “not giving them such liberty that they get the mastery,” and act against your opinion, not permitting them to club together for a treat with their equals. For so they will be turned to disorderly courses, and will fall into fornication; and if this happen by the carelessness of their parents, those that begat them will be guilty of their souls. For if the offending children get into the company of debauched persons by the negligence of those that begat them, they will not be punished alone by themselves; but their parents also will be condemned on their account. For this cause endeavour, at the time when they are of an age fit for marriage, to join them in wedlock, and settle them together, lest in the heat and fervour of their age their course of life become dissolute, and you be required to give an account by the Lord God in the day of judgment.

None of these things are evil, not one. One of them isn’t even God commanding anyone to dash ‘them against a rock!’ Babylon, however, was destroyed to free the Jews from captivity and their enemies yoke. Killing people of all ages, male or female, was common in ancient warfare. As a sidenote, nowhere in the Bible can I find it endorsing ‘abuse’ of a man’s wife, I don’t care if some random denomination misinterprets scripture nor for Steven Anderson.



A Good Christian is necessarily a good person, that is a moral person. But what does Mark record? ‘And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.’ (Mark 10:18) No person is perfect, and thus no person is ‘good’. This is what I say, men may be good but only by participation of God's goodness. I’ll just reiterate what Joohan said.

Therefore, a ‘Good Christian’ is someone that follows Goodness itself and is thus virtuous. They may stray, fall away, but if they return pertinent, they will be called Holy. St. Andrew Wouters was a Martyr of Gorkum (1572), he was a notoriously scandalous, horrible priest; a fornicator, but not a heretic. He joined his brother priests in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’, and was subsequently hanged. He proved in his last moments that he could, and was, a Good Christian, clinging to the Lord. This cannot be said of his dissolute life.

As for your reduction, I’m afraid much is left out in your assessment, and your assessment is even wrong (for instance, there are more commandments than the Decalogue, they’re summary, then there is Christ’s Summary of the Law). Your conception of ‘Love’ is deficient and faulty. If you do not have good will to your neighbour, then you truly do not love them. We force the addict to leave his addiction, we do not tolerate it because of a faulty sense of ‘love’. We conform men to Truth, to medicine, that is love. When you lie to a man, you do love him. We also must be conscious by what we mean by ‘force’. No man is allowed to coerce (through violence and other such means) someone to the Faith, they must assent freely.

So the deathbed confession will work or the 'virtuous' death is a cleaning of the sins of life? Merely because one says and acts if he believes. I think this dissuades me from being a Christian as I'd rather not be around people who treat others like shit but give God his lip service and are thereby saved. That sounds problematic and not conducive to a moral person but to a religiously devout one, which doesn't automatically make them 'good' people.

The whole crux of your post is that he ‘payed lip service’ and that you believe it is impossible to die a virtuous death. But this is not so! ‘Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this?’ (John 11:25-26) You accuse him of ‘lip service’, but his conversion was of the heart; his actions are witness. You believe it is impossible to die virtuously? But he proved that it was possible. Because truly he loved his brethren and his God; that he would lay down his life for his God and for his friends, there is no greater love. (John 15:13) How can you say, then, that it is ’problematic and not conducive to a moral person’? Blessed Charlemagne said, ‘Be swift to reconciliation; for to sin is human, to amend is angelical, but to persevere in sin is diabolical.’ This is the doings of a man doing what is morally right and just.

[Baja California Autonoma]

Because all I have to do to be saved is not just be a Christian but be your denominations Christian or what you think that means. This is bullshit. It means you can be terrible person but hold right beliefs and that this is what God wants from us. It means adherence to priests and judges and is a lot like the Saducees who condemned Christ to death. We should pray he doesnt come back as a woman, black, or gay, as this would interfere with the systems we have in place.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Because all I have to do is not just be a Christian but be your denominations Christian or what you think that means is bullshit. It means you can be terrible person but hold right beliefs and that this is what God wants from us.

Could you reiterate your first sentence, it’s incoherent.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

Because all I have to do is not just be a Christian but be your denominations Christian or what you think that means is bullshit. It means you can be terrible person but hold right beliefs and that this is what God wants from us.

No, it doesn’t. Right belief is dead unless you act accordingly, that’s why St. Andrew Wouters death is virtuous, because he ‘put his money where his mouth was’ and died morally and repentant of his evil life.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

And, to put it quite frankly, you just went off the deep end.

[Baja California Autonoma]

And, to put it quite frankly, you just went off the deep end.

I'm entitled to my own beliefs just like you are. I thank you for proving you are the condescending self-righteous prick I thought you were.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

And, to put it quite frankly, you just went off the deep end.

I'm entitled to my own beliefs just like you are. I thank you for proving you are the condescending self-righteous prick I thought you were.

No one has been condescending nor self-righteous to you in the past two pages, we have been nothing but soft-spoken and patient. But your final sentence is silly, and I’m not going to apologise for calling it so.

[Baja California Autonoma]

I'm entitled to my own beliefs just like you are. I thank you for proving you are the condescending self-righteous prick I thought you were.

No one has been condescending nor self-righteous to you in the past two pages, we have been nothing but soft-spoken and patient. But your final sentence is silly, and I’m not going to apologise for calling it so.

Who's we? I was only arguing with you.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

No one has been condescending nor self-righteous to you in the past two pages, we have been nothing but soft-spoken and patient. But your final sentence is silly, and I’m not going to apologise for calling it so.

Who's we? I was only arguing with you.

Felrik, who also answered your question.

[Baja California Autonoma]

Who's we? I was only arguing with you.

Felrik, who also answered your question.

His example wasn't using Carholic tracts and dogma and Saints in that tradition.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

These guys