From: scruff	Date: June 17th, 2006 07:46 pm (UTC)		(Link)

It's been clear that the majority of Churches are not true Christians for some time. And Paul was just an arsehole.

As kensaro said once of the actual teachings of Christ, "Nice guy, shame about the fan-club."

	From: vexen	Date: June 18th, 2006 06:17 am (UTC)		(Link)

I think there is no such thing as "true" Christians: Every form of Christianity has been a continuum from previous religious beliefs and practices and therefore, there has been no "purely" Christian church and, given that Christianity is itself a collection of older myths, it is impossible that there ever will be such a thing as "true" Christianity.

Although I know where Kensaro is coming from, all we can really say is "Nice teachings, that some people rewrote in the name of Jesus, shame the fan club"

Annnnnnyway, how you doing? Want some sand?

	From: scruff	Date: June 20th, 2006 12:49 am (UTC)		(Link)

Agreed, the original texts, whatever they were, have been rewritten, reinterpretted, or just plain reduced-to-ashes so often over the years there's no way anyone could claim to be following the 'true' way.

That said, no modern denomination seems to be following the surviving texts, either, they have their own creeds and dogmas (in quite a few cases, based upon 'pagan' traditions that have survived the great whitewash of Christianisation) that seem to take precidence over the scriptures as written. Pretty much, they read the texts in ways that support what they've already decided is 'right'.

And extreme(ly amusing) example of this is http://www.sexinchrist.com/ - though you might not want to look at that on a work terminal. It's all text, and not all that descriptive, but I'm guessing some would find it inappropriate viewing material.


And I'm doing well, thanks! Keeping busy with the research, Yoga and rockclimbing, and trying to fit in teaching myself Dutch and the violin during my occasional free time. Spoke to Justin on MSN a couple of days ago, he seems to be busy-but-generally-good too :)

Mmmh, sand. Are you getting to see any of the historical stuff out there, or is it all army bases and patrolling?

From: ex_flashcat696	Date: June 24th, 2006 01:05 am (UTC)		(Link)

Mostly off-topic, but I thought you might like to see this:

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=70912
(I hope the video loads for you!)

It's Stephen Colbert talking with Bart Ehrman (author of "Misquoting Jesus") and basically calling agnostics "atheists without balls."

So, when you can get around to it ... what do you think?

From: ex_flashcat696	Date: June 24th, 2006 01:08 am (UTC)		(Link)

Addendum: in case it's not clear, no matter how he portrays himself, Colbert is an admittedly devout Catholic (though it's fairly clear in this snippet). Quite frankly, he's been getting on my nerves more and more--and so is his popularity.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: June 28th, 2006 07:02 am (UTC)		(Link)

Vexen, long time no talk. I'm not sure what you're basing your history on, but it's inacurrate. Maybe the same book you quote from? To speak of the big "C" Catholic Church during the time of Marcion is strange, since the Catholic Church started well after Marcion died. Also, to speak of Pauline Christians in this era seems a bit out of place.

On a related note, there were clear reasons why early Christians held some texts to be canonical, others helpful writings that weren't canonical, and still others as literature that didn't fall within the pale of Christian orthodoxy. In a similar way that Satanists can say that Wiccan literature is not accurately described as Satanist, so can Christians accurately hold that some literature isn't Christian.

John Smulo