Didymos Thomas,

So who or what is one to address, I do not wish to blame any individuals, however if a deed is done in the name of Christianity, how is it wrong to address that entity calling itself Christianity? What's the alternative boys?

Didymos Thomas,

So who or what is one to address, I do not wish to blame any individuals, however if a deed is done in the name of Christianity, how is it wrong to address that entity calling itself Christianity? What's the alternative boys?

Martin, I don't think he's hung by his own rope; he's simply considering. His feeling toward hypocrisy or murder as being intrinsically wrong is irrelevant. It's not wrong to consider, even if the one considering may appear hypocritical based on their set of morals, in my opinion. Hell, I consider things all the time and sometimes don't have a 'good' or reasonable basis - I consider just to consider.

I can't imagine that demanding such a thing from others is a necessary condition for being a Christian.

You are changing the argument here. You made a statement about the common denominator of what it means to be a Christian. And to simply regard Jesus' teachings as having some value is frankly an insufficient standard -- that is, if the word "Christian" is to have any specificity.

Honestly Boagie, it seems what really frustrates you is human ignorance and its consequences. And I share the sentiment, but also see that it is not a problem to be solved.

To answer the inquiry of who do we blame, we blame no one, but rather we allow the momentum of our ideas seep into the public conciousness and shape the world, so is the way of intellectual influence. New thoughts influence further up in the academic chain and then they become validated, and it is many years before they fully set in, and when it comes to such things as new world views and philosophies taking hold, why you look at many decades. I am convinced that it is simply impatience when taken in perspective. Governments are social experiments waitng for a reset after some overload point and once the smoke clears, a new better society is build from the ruins. Eventually logic may be the religion of the people, but it can only be so through time and perhaps a bit of tyrrany, as any religion, and as any religion, ignorance of the people might be exploited, although the nature of the religion might be contradicted in doing so, but such is true of all religions.

I am not so sure your problem can be adressed as such.

You are changing the argument here. You made a statement about the common denominator of what it means to be a Christian.

And to simply regard Jesus' teachings as having some value is frankly an insufficient standard -- that is, if the word "Christian" is to have any specificity.

Didy, to tell you the truth, (even with the disclaimer that I don't even enjoy using these sticky labels) you don't sound like any Christian I've ever come across, ever. I mean, you support science, state that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, and then only call yourself a Christian on the basis that you value some of Jesus' teachings. By no means is this a personal attack, I'm just curious as to how you've come to your conclusion. Ultimately, you can label, call yourself whatever you want, but know that it may cause confusion. And in this case, it most certainly is.

I'm cautious to use the word divine because Christians can have such different views on the nature of Jesus - I'm not even convinced that one must accept the historical existence of Jesus to be a Christian.

There will always be those who are behind the curve and those ahead of the curve, it is the heterogenous nature of humans. That being said, those who by nature or virtue stay ahdead of the curve deserve good information and good teachers to help put it in their heads. If you wish to provide this, zetherin, I applaud you, however, my applause comes with a caveat; do not fret over the insurmountable depth of any persons apathy nor their ignorance, for it is not your place to change them.

Divinity is certainly applicable to allegorical figures. Most people don't accept the historical existence of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Lot, Job, etc. Sure, they could be mythologized amalgamations of what were once real people -- like Odysseus and Arjuna, for instance. But you can still be a Jew without believing in the literal Adam and Eve. And the historical Jesus is immaterial to Christian doctrine anyway.

I have never met a Christian, other than on line, that did not take the bible literally, Christs divinity is literally held.

Christ divinity is very important to most Christians. I have never met a Christian, other than on line, that did not take the bible literally, Christs divinity is literally held.

But what do we mean by divinity? For Christians, the term can mean many different things. Granted, the depth and popularity of these disagreements is not as significant as in the time just after Jesus' death and before the larger centralized Churches became supremely powerful, but I think they are still worth considering if we are going to give the subject a fair treatment.

Shouldn't Christians have the same beliefs in terms of Jesus' divinity? If not, then what exactly is the common denominator between all Christians again (I know you spoke on this earlier, but someone called you out on it, still leaving me confused)? Or, is there no common denominator (which wouldn't even make sense)?

I think that's the problem in front of us. Christians do not share all of the same beliefs about the nature of Jesus. So, now the problem is formulating necessary and sufficient conditions for being a Christian.