It may be true, but it doesn't follow that therefore all Christians share those beliefs. Some Christians don't even know what's in the Bible because they haven't read it. Some Christians are liberal in their sexuality. Some Christians do not believe homosexuality is a sin. Some do not believe divorce, adultery, or pre-marital sex are sins.

Even those who have read the Bible pick and choose the bits they want to follow; no one can believe everything in the Bible because there are so many contradictions. There are so many denominations within Christianity all with different beliefs, and there are as many types of Christian as there are Christians in America.

There might be strong correlations among close-knit groups (even then they won't all believe the same thing 100% of the time), but if you compare them to the other Christians in the rest of America, the world, or other tight-knit groups in either, you'll find there's probably more differences than there are similarities and there is not a single defining commonality between them all. There is not one single necessary condition for all Christians. Even if you said it's their belief in the same God, ask them to define it and they won't all give the same definition.

It may be true, but it doesn't follow that therefore all Christians share those beliefs. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Is someone a Christian if he doesn't believe in the teachings of Christianity's foundational text? Can someone be a Christian while not following Christian practicies? Really? Then in what sense are they Christians?

Some Christians liberaly in their sexuality — WhiskeyWhiskers

If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians - that much is self-evident, because we call someone a Christian who follows the Bible. Catholics differ from Eastern Orthodox - but they both follow the Bible. Teachings which aren't in the Bible are different from one group to the other. But those teachings which are in the Bible are shared. Sexual morality is one of them.

Even those who have read the Bible pick and choose the bits they want to follow; no one can believe everything in the Bible because there are so many contradictions. — WhiskeyWhiskers

St. Thomas Aquinas and many other thinkers who have studied the Bible would not agree with you. So please - state that it's your opinion that there are contradictions. This isn't shared by many people - some of whom are very intelligent people.

There are so denominations within Christianity all with different beliefs, and there are as many types of Christian as there are Christians in America. — WhiskeyWhiskers

As I said, there are differences and similarities. There is a core which is common. You ignore this. You only emphasise the differences. I agree there are differences.

There might be strong correlations among close-knit groups (even then they won't all believe the same thing 100% of the time), but if you compare them to the other Christians in the rest of America, the world, or other tight-knit groups in either, you'll find there's probably more differences than there are similarities and there is not a defining commonality between them — WhiskeyWhiskers

This is not true. The Orthodox and the Catholic traditions are different in rituals, etc. but in terms of sexual morality for example, they are the same. Because that's what the Bible teaches. You can't ignore the teachings of the Bible and call yourself Christian.

You don't make for much nuance here. You're either a social conservative like you, or a deluded liberal. There's zero fine-line.

And I also don't know what discussion you're after anymore here. Seems to just boil down to projection.

It's like he's never heard of No True Scotsman.

According to Agustino, there is a single belief that unites all Christians, and it's the belief in sexual morality (whatever that means once you look into the details). If you don't believe in this 'sexual morality', then you're not a real Christian. Even if you were to believe 99.9% of the rest of the Bible. That's the depth and breadth of the entire Christian religion throughout the world and the ages, in all it's wonderful nuance. Boiled down to a single necessary and sufficient condition that Agustino from the internet has divined all on his lonesome.

It is entirely down to projection and fallacies.

If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians - that much is self-evident, because we call someone a Christian who follows the Bible. — Agustino

Really?

Should you help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon you from before the Lord.” - 2 Chronicles 19:2

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people -- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior…” - 1 Timothy 2:1-3

I would agree that if they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, they are not Christians, so I recently concluded that anyone supporting such an ungodly man like Trump is not a Christian. Christian authorities are pretty unanimous that God's law is a form of absolute morality, therefore these strange appeals to consequentialism, (the ends justify the means), ought to be rejected.

You don't make for much nuance here. You're either a social conservative like you, or a deluded liberal. There's zero fine-line. — Heister Eggcart

Okay let me illustrate. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe priests should be married. Catholics don't. Eastern Orthodox Christians accept the use of condoms as non-abortive contraception. Catholics don't. And on and on. But both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics consider promiscuity, fornication, adultery and sex outside of marriage immoral. Now do you Mr. Heister Eggcart disagree with any of this? If you don't - then you should recognise that your characterisation "you're either a social conservative like you or a deluded liberal" is nothing but slander.

And I also don't know what discussion you're after anymore here. Seems to just boil down to projection. — Heister Eggcart

Why should religious believers sit down? — Agustino

Why should we keep on losing? Because they're telling us, and brainwashing us from childhood that we've already lost, not to bother? I will bother - because even if we have already lost, it's honorable that we fight to the end - upholding the truth and the light. Isn't that what we're called to do as religious believers? That we will live proclaiming the truth, and fighting for the truth? — Agustino

I'm looking for your answer to these questions my friend. And if you think the questions are wrongly phrased - or they're the wrong questions - then I'm looking for your position, as a religious person, on these issues that the questions attempt to tackle.

According to Agustino, there is a single belief that unites all Christians, and it's the belief in sexual morality (whatever that means once you look into the details). If you don't believe in this 'sexual morality', then you're not a real Christian. Even if you were to believe 99.9% of the rest of the Bible. That's the depth and breadth of the entire Christian religion throughout the world and the ages, in all it's wonderful nuance. Boiled down to a single necessary and sufficient condition that Agustino from the internet has divined all on his lonesome.

It is entirely down to projection and fallacies. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No I never said a single belief. I said sexual morality is one of them. So don't lie. Have some honor in this discussion. Sexual morality is one of the core tenets of Christianity. Not the only one. If you disagree with that, I'd advise you to go to a Roman Catholic and ask them. Go to an Eastern Orthodox Christian and ask them - see for yourself.

New Testament or Old? Or both? — Michael

Both.

Really? — swstephe

Would you not say so? Can you go around raping women and be a Christian? Would you call someone who goes and beats people on the street but says he believes Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour a Christian?

I would agree that if they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, they are not Christians, so I recently concluded that anyone supporting such an ungodly man like Trump is not a Christian. Christian authorities are pretty unanimous that God's law is a form of absolute morality, therefore these strange appeals to consequentialism, (the ends justify the means), ought to be rejected. — swstephe

>:O Yes you should know that those passages are passages of advice to specific communities in specific circumstances. Furthermore I am not supporting Trump. So I have no clue what you're talking about. Voting for him isn't the same as supporting him.

As I said the old progressive tropes - "you're too moral to beat us - let us take over your world and your society you just sit down". Lies. Sitting down in the face of immorality is immoral.

Yes you should know that those passages are passages of advice to specific communities in specific circumstances. — Agustino

So that's the game you're going to play? When something in the Bible tells you to do something that you disagree with you'll just counter by saying that it doesn't apply to you? But when it tells you to do something that you agree with then you'll say that it's a universal decree?

How do you determine which of the teachings are directed only at specific communities in specific circumstances and which are directed at us all? What if I were to say that the condemnation of fornication and adultery only applies to those to which swstephe's passages apply?

Furthermore I am not supporting Trump. So I have no clue what you're talking about. Voting for him isn't the same as supporting him.

Of course it is. You're helping him achieve a position of power. What, exactly, do you think it means to support someone?

The extent to which you will try to weasel your way out of things is mind boggling.

Would you not say so? Can you go around raping women and be a Christian? Would you call someone who goes and beats people on the street but says he believes Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour a Christian? — Agustino

Would you be surprised if I told you there isn't one perfect way of defining who is and isn't a Christian because there are issues with them all?

Although, all this is merely academic given that, according to Romans 13:1-7, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.".

Whoever is in (and achieves) authority is endorsed by God. So it doesn't really matter who we vote for. And given this, how can a Christian criticise the laws and policies and Supreme Court decisions that those in authority make? If Row vs Wade didn't have God's support then it wouldn't have been made in the first place.

So that's the game you're going to play? When something in the Bible tells you to do something that you disagree with you'll just counter by saying that it doesn't apply to you? But when it tells you to do something that you agree with then you'll say that it's a universal decree? — Michael

No that's how you frame it. The Bible doesn't tell me to do that at all. That's what you - who don't understand the Bible - thinks it is telling me. So stop with this nonsense.

How do you determine which of the teachings are directed only at specific communities in specific circumstances and which are directed at us all? What if I were to say that the condemnation of fornication and adultery only applies to those to which swstephe's passages apply? — Michael

By understanding the Bible my dear. You have to read it in context, and understand what the message is. The 10 Commandments for example - which say don't commit adultery, don't covet your neighbour's wife or engage in fornication - and other such instances refer to universal commands which apply in all cases. Some of the letters to specific communities refer to practices which are encouraged in that case in regards to a specific problem. You read in context and use your God given brain to understand.

Furthermore, the passages quoted have nothing to do with voting for Trump. The Bible doesn't say if you vote for Trump in this particular situation you're doing something wrong - although I would agree it is a possible argument to make based on the Bible - but it's not as clear cut as you want to make it, nor would you, most likely, be able to make it because your knowledge of the Bible and Judaic culture is insufficient.

Would you be surprised if I told you there isn't one perfect way of defining who is and isn't a Christian because there are issues with them all? — WhiskeyWhiskers

No the fact there are problems with all means that we have a standard, which we haven't yet found, with which we're comparing them when we say there are issues with all.

Although, all this is merely academic given that, according to Romans 13:1-7, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.".

Whoever is in (and achieves) authority is endorsed by God. So it doesn't really matter who we vote for. And given this, how can a Christian criticise the laws and policies and Supreme Court decisions that those in authority make? If Row vs Wade didn't have God's support then it wouldn't have been made. — Michael

You're misunderstanding the Bible - if you want, open a thread, and we will discuss the meaning of Bible passages. The fact is that the beleivers - who follow the Bible - and their authorities - including the Catholic Church amongst many others are against Row vs Wade. So if what you were saying were true, they wouldn't be against it. It's very likely you don't understand the Bible. You just snip a piece from here and a piece from there. What a joke...

And how is a Trump presidency going to help stop abortion? The Supreme Court has already ruled that abortion is a constitutional right, and that's not something that the President can overrule. The best he can do is appoint a pro-life Justice to replace Scalia, hope that the Supreme Court agrees to consider the case again, hope that this new pro-life Justice disagrees with the previous decision (one can believe that abortion is immoral but still agree that it's allowed by the Constitution; as Scalia himself said "I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says."), and then hope that a majority of the other Justices think the same way. — Michael

Well, technically, Roe vs. Wade essentially ruled that laws prohibiting abortion would violate the "right to privacy" implied by the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". It was reasoned that the government couldn't arrest someone for an abortion unless they were able to constantly monitor medical procedures.

Also, technically, it is possible to amend and repeal any amendment, even in the bill of rights. That was demonstrated when prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment, by simply saying "the 18th is repealed". Trump has been making a lot of vague promises, which seem to imply that he might be open to repeal parts of the constitution. I'm not sure how many of his followers are aware of this, or even counting on it.

Here is a partial list I've been making on things he has said:

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.

• Wants to create a Christian lobby.
• Create a religious/patriotism test.
• Require people to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays".
• Throw out libel laws and make the press accountable to government censorship.
• Regularly bans members of the press.
• Claims that people don't have the right to criticize him.

4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

• Track and id Muslims, close down mosques.
• Loves "stop and frisk".

5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.

• Supported government seizure of assets (Kelo v. City of new London)
• Wants to kill and torture family members of suspects.

6. Right of accused persons, e.g., right to speedy and public trial.

• Execution of deserters
• Imprisonment of political opponents
• Suspend rights of US citizens accused of terrorism.
• Advocates shooting suspects to "send a message".

8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punisments.

• Supports waterboarding and torture

14. Birthright citizenship

• Wants to repeal, converting millions of US citizens into illegal immigrants.

That's just a rough sampling. So to appeal an amendment, he would either have to get enough support in Congress to create the amendment and in the Senate to approve it. He might have to work on a complete overhaul of the US election system so politicians don't have to fear a public revolt. He could also potentially declare martial law and the suspension of rights.

However, I suspect he is mostly motivated by his own ego, so he might not do anything more than get a few executive actions, tax reliefs and pardons through for his and his friends assets, then just play golf for the rest of his term.

Okay let me illustrate. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe priests should be married. Catholics don't. Eastern Orthodox Christians accept the use of condoms as non-abortive contraception. Catholics don't. And on and on. But both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics consider promiscuity, fornication, adultery and sex outside of marriage immoral. Now do you Mr. Heister Eggcart disagree with any of this? If you don't - then you should recognise that your characterisation "you're either a social conservative like you or a deluded liberal" is nothing but slander. — Agustino

I think you mistake me for Whiskers. I've never disputed this. Also, how encompassing are you using these terms "conservative" or "liberal"? Because I thought we were talking more politics here, rather than religion. I mean, I realize that everything is all interconnected, but..? I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. I think you can do that...

The fact is that the beleivers - who follow the Bible - and their authorities - including the Catholic Church amongst many others are against Row vs Wade. So if what you were saying were true, they wouldn't be against it — Agustino

This is circular. You define a Christian as someone who follows the (correct interpretation of the) Bible but then determine which interpretation of the Bible is correct by looking to see what self-professed Christians believe.

And what do you do when two self-professed Christians disagree on the correct interpretation of the Bible, as is the case when it comes to sexual morality?

No the fact there are problems with all means that we have a standard, which we haven't yet found, with which we're comparing them when we say there are issues with all. — Agustino

Do you know how to tell who is and is not a true scotsman true christian?

This is circular. You define a Christian as someone who follows the (correct interpretation of the) Bible but then determine which interpretation of the Bible is correct by looking to see what self-professed Christians believe. What do you do when two self-professed Christians disagree on the correct interpretation of the Bible, as is the case when it comes to sexual morality? — Michael

Oh yeah as if I hadn't heard that argument from clueless atheists a billion times before. There isn't only one correct interpretation of the Bible. That's why both Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics are following the Bible for example. But there's quite a lot of wrong interpretations of the Bible, and yours are amongst them if you believe that anyone who follows the Bible could argue that casual sex for example isn't wrong.

Do you know how to tell who is and is not a true scotsman true christian? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Do they follow the Bible? If yes then they're true Christians. If no, then they're not. How do you determine this? By understanding what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. About sexual morality matters are clear. About whether clergy should marry or not matters aren't so clear. About whether condoms or similar devices should be used, the matters are also not so clear. So it is conceivable that differences can exist between believers on these matters.

I think you mistake me for Whiskers. I've never disputed this. — Heister Eggcart

Ok my apologies.

Also, how encompassing are you using these terms "conservative" or "liberal"? — Heister Eggcart

For the sake of this specific discussion in this thread...
Progressive/Liberal = permissive when it comes to sexual morality - permissive (and encouraging) of casual sex, adultery, fornication, promiscuity, etc.
Conservative = the opposite position. Restrictive and discouraging of casual sex, adultery, fornication, etc.

I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. — Heister Eggcart

So do you think casual sex is moral - apart from religion?

But there's quite a lot of wrong interpretations of the Bible, and yours are amongst them if you believe that anyone who follows the Bible could argue that casual sex for example isn't wrong. — Agustino

Given that there are those who follow the Bible but who argue that casual sex isn't wrong, I'm right in believing that there are such people. But, of course, according to you they're not really Christians because they're following a wrong interpretation of the Bible. And you know what the correct interpretation is because you've looked at what self-professed Christians believe.

Again, it's circular.

And you haven't explained to me how you determine which interpretation(s) are correct. When two Christians disagree, how do you figure out who is right?

Given that there are those who follow the Bible but who argue that casual sex isn't wrong, I'm right in believing that there are such people. But, of course, according to you they're not really Christians because they're following a wrong interpretation of the Bible. And you know what the correct interpretation is because you've looked at what self-professed Christians believe. — Michael

I doubt there are such people who understand the Bible and argue that way. But of course you can go on pretending. If they do exist, then yes their interpretation is wrong (because it flat out contradicts the Bible - that's why). It's one of the many interpretations which are wrong. There's also many correct interpretations - this just isn't one of them.

Again, it's circular, and you haven't explained to me how you determine which interpretation(s) are correct? When two Christians disagree, how do you figure out who is right? — Michael

Depends what kind of disagreement there is. If it's a doctrinal disagreement - should priests marry or not? Then you look at the relevant Bible passages, you see what is said, as well as your own knowledge and understanding of life and you discuss. Which interpretation is likely to be closest to the truth - which agrees with the whole of the Bible the most? And that's not necessarily a black and white answer on such a matter. I have views on it - other Christians I know disagree, and that's fine. I understand their reasons for disagreement, and I see how they could disagree and still be within the framework of the Bible. But on casual sex (known as fornication) there are multiple very very clear answers in the Bible, and also in your own life by the way. I mean do you want your wife to have been shagged by a thousand men? Does your wife want you to have shagged a thousand women before her? Let's be real - none of us like that - that's disgusting actually.

No the fact there are problems with all means that we have a standard, which we haven't yet found, with which we're comparing them when we say there are issues with all. — Agustino

So there is an infallible definition of a true Christian, we don't know what it is, but we've compared it with all the previously tried definitions and we know it isn't the same thing. How do you even know there is one if we haven't found it?

If I hide an object in my fist and ask you to find and bring me the same object without knowing what it is beforehand, how do you know you've found the right one? Not only that, there might not even be an object in my hand in the first place.

Tell me, which of these are the true Christians? How do you know?

All who follow the Bible - I answered that before. I don't know what all the denominations follow because I haven't studied them, so don't ask me useless bullshit. But for example I can tell you that Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics are true Christians, because I have studied them, and their teachings are in accordance with the Bible.

So there is an infallible definition of a true Christian, we don't know what it is, but we've compared it with all the previously tried definitions and we know it isn't the same thing. How do you even know there is one if we haven't found it? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I never agreed there are problems with all definitions of true Christians :) I said even if there are, it would still only mean that we realise its a problem because we understand when we look at each definition that it is missing something. How do we understand this? By comparing it to some standard, otherwise it would be impossible.

I mean do you want your wife to have been shagged by a thousand men? Does your wife want you to have shagged a thousand women before her? Let's be real - none of us like that - that's disgusting actually. — Agustino

What does what I want have to do with what is right? This is a non sequitur (unless you want to argue that morality is a personal thing, which I doubt you do).

Furthermore, even though I wouldn't want my would-be wife to have slept with a thousand men, I also wouldn't want her to be a virgin. So if what I want is the measure of what is right, it then follows that the issue isn't with casual sex tout court but with excessive casual sex. It is right (or at least acceptable) to have had some casual sex.

But on casual sex (known as fornication) there are multiple very very clear answers in the Bible

It's hardly clear. The term usually used is "adultery", which refers to a man (whether married or unmarried) having sex with a married woman (who isn't his wife).

There's also mention of "sexual immorality", a translation of the Greek word "porneia" which means "illicit sexual intercourse", i.e. sexual intercourse which is forbidden by law, rules, or custom. This doesn't prima facie include pre-marital sex (and certainly doesn't in today's age where there are no laws or rules or customs against it – at least not in the progressive societies that you're condemning).

And even any mention of the wrongness of pre-martial sex can be interpreted as "advice to specific communities in specific circumstances" as you say, presumably like the condemnation of eating shellfish, and so can be understand as inapplicable to us.

Are you a true Christian?

Progressive/Liberal = permissive when it comes to sexual morality - permissive (and encouraging) of casual sex, — Agustino

I'd agree...

...adultery, fornication, promiscuity, etc.

Uh, no, I don't think so.

So do you think casual sex is moral - apart from religion? — Agustino

Apart from religion? What do you mean by that, exactly? (I actually typo'd and wrote sexactly >:O ) Sex is sex. It's not special whether one does or does not partake in it regardless of their faith, or lack thereof.

I am of the opinion that sex is only moral when it is necessary as a means of healthily releasing the sexual tension most people instinctively find themselves crippled by. I myself am thankful that I have a very low sex drive and thus am not burdened all that much with this dilemma. If one has sex just because it feels good, then I'll be unimpressed. If a couple, say, must have sex in order for them to keep "loving" them, then to me that quite distinctly tells me that they don't actually love each other. They're only lusting after the other's body.

What does what I want have to do with what is right? This is a non sequitur. — Michael

Well if in society we were all to do what others and we ourselves don't want, we'd live in an utter hell-hole.

Furthermore, even though I wouldn't want my would-be wife to have slept with a thousand men, I also wouldn't want her to be a virgin. So if what I want is the measure of what is right, it then follows that the issue isn't with casual sex tout court but with excessive casual sex. It is right (or at least acceptable) to have had some casual sex. — Michael

For you maybe that's acceptable. For Christians definitely it's not, and for most people that I've met it's also not. Most guys that I've met enjoy shagging other women - but if I were to ask them if they would like others to do the same to their future wives they always are a bit shocked and say "of course not!". Most women that I've met want a man for whom they are special, and no woman is like them to their man. These are just natural human desires in that most people have a clear emotional reaction to them.

Now a question that you should ask yourself - and you don't have to tell me nor do I care to know - is whether you don't want your wife to be virgin because you actually don't think this would be good - or you don't want her to be a virgin because you're not a virgin either? For me, I made the mistake of having sex with two girlfriends I had when I was a teenager, and I admit that they were mistakes and I wouldn't do them if I could live again. But anyway, for a time I also felt negatively about a woman being a virgin. But I realised I was just upset at my own behaviour - that I couldn't be that for her. Now I look at virgin women with nothing but admiration and respect.

It's hardly clear. The term usually used is "adultery", which refers to a man (whether married or unmarried) having sex with a married woman. — Michael

No the term used for casual sex in the Bible isn't adultery. It is fornication.

There's also mention of "sexual immorality", a translation of the Greek word "porneia" which means "illicit sexual intercourse", i.e. sexual intercourse which is forbidden by law, rules, or custom. This doesn't prima facie include pre-marital sex (and certainly doesn't in today's age where there are no laws or rules or customs against it). — Michael

In the culture in which the Bible was written it does imply that. Maybe in modern culture it doesn't. Furthermore, fornication is the term we were previously talking about not adultery just to make that clear.

Are you a true Stoic?

No. Answer my question.