How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

[Didymos Thomas]

Do you think there's a possibility you're just watering down the concept of being a Christian in order to fit your own ideals? In other words, maybe you're not really a Christian in the majority sense of the word, but still have some faith that you want to hold onto that's making you want to label yourself as such?

I doubt that. I think I also present evidence for the things I say, information other than 'I feel blah blah blah'.

That said, the word Christian in the 100 AD context is NOT the same word as in the 2008 AD context. It's a historical belief system from a time with more diverse beliefs. But there are no more ebionites or gnostics. Someone can identify with the ebionites and call themselves that, but frankly that's a fringy solipsistic thing and it's not what Christianity contains anymore. Just as there are no more Jewish temple priests, no more sagisees and pharisees, etc.

You're right, faith traditions change over time, especially as they spread to new places and encounter unfamiliar cultures. And you're right about calling one's self an Ebionite or a Gnostic; these cultures died out hundreds of years ago. But what we can do is borrow from their doctrine, from their ideas, and use them in a modern context. The faith tradition changes, but what cuts off past incarnations from informing current incarnations?

Incidentally, I doubt that any early Christian belief system denied the divinity of Jesus whatever way you define that word.

You mentioned one such group in your post - the Ebionites. According to the extant early Christian sources, they rejected the divinity of Jesus. Now, I'm not sure in what sense they rejected his divinity as they, obviously, considered him a great prophet.

Either way, what does divinity mean? What is the nature of Jesus' divinity?

Consider how Jesus is referred to in the Synoptic Gospels. Here is from Mark (Mathew has almost the identical event):

10:17 ...a man ...asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

If Christians can have contradictory understandings of Jesus' divinity, I do not see how we can use 'belief in Jesus' divinity' as a necessary condition. Belief in Jesus' divinity is certainly a sufficient condition, though.

[Zetherin]

Well, I'm curious as to a necessary condition, still.

[boagie]

He is not a Christian, he is a heretic , with ambitions in the lens grinding field---- just yanking your chain Thomas!!! A pantheist, are you a pantheist Thomas??

[Didymos Thomas]

Christian - one who finds value in (at least some of) the teachings attributed to Jesus, and refers to these teachings as their primary source of spiritual guidance.

Not to try and set this into stone; I'm not sure I can even buy into this. But it's something to float out there for consideration, and something I think is probably close to a reasonable necessary condition.

My concern with the above is this: imagine someone who meets the qualifications presented above and studies his scripture. After some time of study and contemplation this individual begins studying the scripture of other traditions and quickly recognizes great spiritual value in non-Christian scripture X. Being well versed in his Christian scripture, the individual begins to reference scripture X more than his Christian scripture for spiritual guidance.

Is this individual still a Christian? Does he meet the qualifications above?

If the answers are yes and no respectively, then the above necessary condition does not work.

He is not a Christian, he is a heretic , with ambitions in the lens grinding field---- just yanking your chain Thomas!!! A pantheist, are you a pantheist Thomas??

There have been times when I would have been burned alive - or at least more careful with my words.

Am I a pantheist? Probably, but pantheism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, anyway.

[boagie]

"The Truth Is One, The Sages Speak Of It By Many Names." Upanishads

[Solace]

Getting back to the original issue for this thread, essentially, how do Christians rationalize all the killing, raping, pillaging, and other nasty stuff frequently demonstrated in the Bible? Well, here's a simple, unorthodoxed, dare I say, laughable, even, way that I would rationalize it (bearing in mind that I don't claim to fit any criteria of "Christian", and as such, my rationalization wouldn't likely find much support among those who do consider themselves Christian...) but here's what it boils down to, "If you're not with us, you're against us." This notion that everyone is God's child and that all men are equal in God's sight is a relatively new idea. The people who wrote the scriptures, and the people who lived in those days, even, believed they were unique, set apart, basically, better than other people. So they had no qualms about killing, raping, pillaging, or any of that other fun stuff.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating this way of thinking. All I'm saying is that it's how these people believed. In fact, if you look at history, and not just Christian history, but pretty much any history where different cultures/religions clashed, a whole lot of people throughout history have held similar views that they were better, or that their way of doings things was superior, and thus granted them the right to mistreat other people.

So unless you actually are better than other people, I don't recomend mistreating others. Of course, if you actually are better than other people, you probably wouldn't. Sort of a catch-22.

[Didymos Thomas]

This notion that everyone is God's child and that all men are equal in God's sight is a relatively new idea.

"Our father, who art in Heaven..." - Jesus

He preaches "Our father" but does not limit the audience.

The idea is relatively new as of two thousand years ago.

The people who wrote the scriptures, and the people who lived in those days, even, believed they were unique, set apart, basically, better than other people. So they had no qualms about killing, raping, pillaging, or any of that other fun stuff.

Believed who was unique? Didn't the Apostles preach throughout the known world, bringing the teachings of Jesus to many nations and many different people?

Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating this way of thinking. All I'm saying is that it's how these people believed. In fact, if you look at history, and not just Christian history, but pretty much any history where different cultures/religions clashed, a whole lot of people throughout history have held similar views that they were better, or that their way of doings things was superior, and thus granted them the right to mistreat other people.

Sure, cultural interaction usually leads to prejudice among some of the population, but I do not see any evidence for this idea that the earliest Christians promoted the brutalization of other people. It's a hard sell "I'm better than all of you, I don't care if you're brutalized. Now, would you like to join my congregation?"

Not to say that no Christian ever uses the sort of justification you present - unfortunately, I've met some who promote that sort of thinking. Scary stuff. I just don't think we can, given the history, make any such accusation about the authors of the Gospels.

Oh, and if you were focusing more on the Old Testament, I'll leave that alone. I'd have to do some reading before I could really comment.

[Zetetic11235]

An attitude that considers onself as any better than anyone else is antithetical to the teachings of christ-love thy neighbor as thyself
It is simply not christian to commit any of the evil acts done in the name of christianity, but rather, it is human weakness, which bends under the weight of greed and laziness. It is not the philosophy and teachings of jesus which deserve attack, but the acts of men who claim to be just under his banner, somthing which I believe is actually adressed in the new testament, those who believe themslefs just in their actions and thus not accountable. The good things in christianity actually shaped western thought to a great extent away from the evils of ancient times and was the greatest proponent for human compassion in its time and after.

It seems that many of you are ignorant atheists who likely have not done a very thorough analysis of the actual writings in the new testament versus the acts done in their name, because if you had, you would have seen that the problem is a very human and very pervasive one rather than a problem of scripture or doctrine, The things under attack in theis forum are as follow:
Human Ignorance
Human greed
Human Calousness
Human Fear
Human love of comfort

All of these things give the emds and injustices sited and are the only things accusable of them, for it is only the weakness in man that can bring such horrors, and all true 'evils' spring from the human vices listed above. These traits are also attacked in the new testament. Go figure.

I may not believe in the metaphysical and supernatural considerations in the new testament as shown when taken literaly, however, I do find value in its teachings, though I am not a christian, nor a pantheist but still a skeptic and a positivist who refuses to make convictions lest a decision is necessary. I see the same value in many religions, and believe that there is a logcial basis to the values.

[Solace]

Sure "Our Father" doesn't limit the audience, but it doesn't set the audience either. So it doesn't automatically lend to the audience being completely open-ended. The Book of John also said, "For God so loved the world", which could easily be interpreted as better suggesting that everyone is equal in God's eyes than Jesus saying, "Our Father". But then, even that is only suggestive; after all, it only says he loved the world, not all the people in it.

Believed who was unique? Didn't the Apostles preach throughout the known world, bringing the teachings of Jesus to many nations and many different people?

Well, it might have been Paul who coined the term "the Elect", but since his teachings found a rather widespread, receptive audience, it may be safe to say that a lot of early Christians thought of themselves that way. Now, that term, "the Elect", may be interpreted a good many ways, but it seems to suggest at least a certain amount of being different from other people.

I never said, nor did I even think it was insinuated, that the earliest Christians promoted brutality. I did make reference to Christian history, but that's a whole expanse of two thousand years. Christian teachings, like any teachings, often get left by the wayside when men of lesser character are left to determine the greater good.

[Solace]

Zetetic11235,

how you can call people "ignorant atheists" in one breath, and then call yourself "a skeptic and a positivist" in another is completely beyond me. Climb down off that high horse you're on and see for a moment that all I attempted to do was exactly what the person who started this thread asked someone to do. Which, I might add, no one else even attempted to do! This makes me an ignorant atheist!?