Why did Jesus allow demons to enter a herd of pigs?

theological

smacl wrote: »

If I was looking to find out what it meant to be Christian in a majority Christian country I'd tend start by looking at what the majority of Christians believe. No offence, but at 1.5% of the population, Evangelicals are hardly representative of Christianity in Ireland now are they? While you might not consider the vast majority of Christians to be Christian using your terms of reference that amounts to little more than sectarianism.

The problem is the question - what is a Christian? If someone is not interested in following the teachings of the Catholic Church how much can one say they are a Catholic. If someone is not interested in Biblical Christianity as an evangelical or a Protestant how much can one say they are a Protestant. If one isn't interested in hearing and obeying what Jesus says how much can we say they are a Christian.

If one is interested in following after an atheistic worldview without consideration from the words of Jesus then those people are secularists. It is the way out from considered faith. Jesus has higher standards for following Him than ticking a box on a census form.

auspicious

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Apologies, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Jesus is of course fully human, but also fully God. The fact that he is God means that he has absolute authority over the demons, and they have no choice but to do what and go where he commands.



Not sure what you mean by proven, the Bible doesn't have much to say on the topic. Personally, I like the idea of there being animals, and would love to be reunited with dearly loved pets etc., but again we don't have much data to go on. Either way, I don't think anyone will be bored in the new heavens and the new earth.

"For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other, and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast; for all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19)

smacl

theological wrote: »

If one is interested in following after an atheistic worldview without consideration from the words of Jesus then those people are secularists.

You seem to have a rather bizarre notion of what secularism means. From the national secular society page 'what is secularism?'

- Separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate.
- Freedom to practice one's faith or belief without harming others, or to change it or not have one, according to one's own conscience.
- Equality so that our religious beliefs or lack of them doesn't put any of us at an advantage or a disadvantage.

It has nothing to do with an atheist worldview, whatever that may or may not entail. So for example, the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" yet America is predominantly Christian. The alternative to secularism is theocracy, where the only active theocracies that come to mind are Islamic states that impose Sharia law.

Perhaps, given the above, you could explain what you find objectionable about secularism?

smacl

theological wrote: »

The problem is the question - what is a Christian? If someone is not interested in following the teachings of the Catholic Church how much can one say they are a Catholic. If someone is not interested in Biblical Christianity as an evangelical or a Protestant how much can one say they are a Protestant. If one isn't interested in hearing and obeying what Jesus says how much can we say they are a Christian.

You might want to re-visit the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy there, which is so overused is religious debate it is often referred to as the 'No true Christian' fallacy. From RationalWiki

With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use NTS to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups (and vice versa), but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious — they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "Religion of Peace."

Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not True Christians™," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association. The NTS fallacy likewise occurs when believers attribute any and all good fortune to divine intervention on their behalf, yet insist that the same can never be true when things go awry.

The NTS fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don't believe the extremist's viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (i.e., Christians who support gay marriage or accept evolution as fact are not "real Christians" or Muslims who support women's rights are not "real Muslims").

The Nal

The Gospel of Luke was written many decades after Jesus' apparent death by unknown humans. ie its total man made fiction thats also contradictory at times. I wouldn't worry about it.

theological

I guess I'm a fundamentalist for believing the historic Christian faith.

Look, I don't care for the particular names you call me. I'm more interested in the substance of the argument and for engagement with the points I've made.

If you're not interested to engage then thanks for the conversation but we're not getting anywhere.

Edit: as said in the other thread you seem to have a preoccupation with law. I've got no interest in legislating for Christianity in law because Jesus' kingdom isn't of this world. What I don't accept is the idea that calling things in society that are against Scripture great and good is compatible with faithfully following Jesus Christ.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

The alternative to secularism is theocracy, where the only active theocracies that come to mind are Islamic states that impose Sharia law.

Perhaps, given the above, you could explain what you find objectionable about secularism?

We're not talking about government here, were talking about people.
People can choose to live a religious life (not necessarily inside a religious order) or they can choose to live a secular life.
When you tell religious people to live a secular life, they may find that objectionable.

Blueshoe

Once Thanos had all infinity stones it was a foregone conclusion

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

You might want to re-visit the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy there, which is so overused is religious debate

Sorry, but that simply won't do. Christians can and do disagree on very important matters but what you believe about gay marriage, evolution or anything else is not what makes you a Christian. Having faith in Jesus as lord and saviour is what makes you a Christian.

You are starting with the assertion that Ireland is a majority Christian country, and using that to define what a Christian is. But that's nonsense, you need to look at it the other way around. So, what is a Christian, and how do you know if you are one?

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

You are starting with the assertion that Ireland is a majority Christian country, and using that to define what a Christian is. But that's nonsense, you need to look at it the other way around. So, what is a Christian, and how do you know if you are one?

It is a fair question. To my mind if somebody tells me they're a Christian I wouldn't consider it my business to tell them otherwise. So while they might not meet your criteria for being a Christian, neither might you meet theirs. I'm not a Christian but do have a number of devout friends and family members who to my mind are most definitely Christian. They consider themselves Christian and practise their religion. At the same time are very much secularist and have not great interest in foisting their religion on others.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

It is a fair question. To my mind if somebody tells me they're a Christian I wouldn't consider it my business to tell them otherwise. So while they might not meet your criteria for being a Christian, neither might you meet theirs. I'm not a Christian but do have a number of devout friends and family members who to my mind are most definitely Christian. They consider themselves Christian and practise their religion. At the same time are very much secularist and have not great interest in foisting their religion on others.

Fair enough, and whether any individual is a Christian or not is ultimately between them and the Lord. Neither my criteria nor anyone elses is important, but there has to be some criteria. Scripture does clearly outline marks that distinguish a Christian and these have also been affirmed by Christians throughout the ages. The most basic is belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Without that it makes no more sense for someone to call themselves a Christian than for me to call myself an atheist even though I believe in God. Words have to mean something, they can't be endlessly malleable.

ChrisJ84

auspicious wrote: »

"For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other, and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast; for all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19)

I don't know that the Preacher is commenting on the eternal fate of animals - his point there is that both people and animals die. In the wider theme of Ecclesiastes he's commenting on the futility of all our endeavours and achievements, since we're all going to die anyway. Cheery!

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Fair enough, and whether any individual is a Christian or not is ultimately between them and the Lord. Neither my criteria nor anyone elses is important, but there has to be some criteria. Scripture does clearly outline marks that distinguish a Christian and these have also been affirmed by Christians throughout the ages. The most basic is belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Without that it makes no more sense for someone to call themselves a Christian than for me to call myself an atheist even though I believe in God. Words have to mean something, they can't be endlessly malleable.

True, but while your expression of faith would seem to be based very much in the specifics of scripture I think others might express their faith differently. My experience has been that those more devout Irish Catholics that I know are more concerned with kindness, tolerance and doing what they consider to be the right thing for humanity at large than any specifics of the bible. There would appear to be a substantial difference between those who believe their actions in this life will influence where they will be saved and those who do not. The disconnect between the Catholic hierarchy and laity to my mind is an expression of this sentiment.

theological

For the record, we all want "the right thing for humanity at large". Some of this terminology you're presenting isn't helpful. We all want "the right thing for humanity".

What we believe Scripturally is that accepting Jesus Christ, His life, death and saving resurrection is "the right thing for humanity". Even more than that it is the best way for humanity.

We hold that out because we love our world and want others to know the truth and trust in Christ while the opportunity is still there.

If people think that "the right thing for humanity" is something else that is up to them but it is a departure from orthodox Christianity.

smacl

theological wrote: »

For the record, we all want "the right thing for humanity at large". Some of this terminology you're presenting isn't helpful. We all want "the right thing for humanity".

What we believe Scripturally is that accepting Jesus Christ, His life, death and saving resurrection is "the right thing for humanity". Even more than that it is the best way for humanity.

We hold that out because we love our world and want others to know the truth and trust in Christ while the opportunity is still there.

If people think that "the right thing for humanity" is something else that is up to them but it is a departure from orthodox Christianity.

I wouldn't dispute any of the above but at the same time what I have seen quite often is scripture used to defend a given preferred position, notably one of authority. There seems to be enough content in the bible that one could find a chapter or verse that when applied to a given context could be used to support just about any argument. So for example, over on this thread in the A&A forum we have a Christian starting a thread that attacks communism based on scripture and then goes on the extend that argument stating they are against social welfare, minimum wage, public healthcare etc... This seems to be a common enough theme in American right wing Protestantism yet would be an anathema to most Irish Catholics, who while traditionally conservative are also traditionally left leaning. I suspect Evangelicalism itself is a broad church within a broader church and would not seek to tar all evangelicals with the same brush. In saying this, I hope it illustrates to some extent that what being a Christian means can vary widely from one Christian to the next. It would certainly seem that the majority in this country eschew biblical literalism and heavy handed orthodoxy but it seems disingenuous to suggest they are lesser Christians on that basis.

highdef

If all pigs are demons, does that make every human who has eaten bacon a demon too? Would be kinda disappointed to hear that I myself am a demon especially as I consider myself to have excellent moral values.

Peregrinus

highdef wrote: »

If all pigs are demons, does that make every human who has eaten bacon a demon too? Would be kinda disappointed to hear that I myself am a demon especially as I consider myself to have excellent moral values.

. . . but maybe not great powers of analysis or reasoning. There is nothing in the scriptural story to suggest that all pigs are demons.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

If I was looking to find out what it meant to be Christian in a majority Christian country I'd tend start by looking at what the majority of Christians believe. No offence, but at 1.5% of the population, Evangelicals are hardly representative of Christianity in Ireland now are they? While you might not consider the vast majority of Christians to be Christian using your terms of reference that amounts to little more than sectarianism.

You seem to have a low expectation of what a Christian looks and behaves like if you are looking to the mainline denominations.
If I asked anyone I worked with where they. Christians they'd say they were and then swear at me using Jesus name as a curse word to prove it!

To say you love Him and not do what it says proves you're not a Christian despite being sprinked when a baby and told you were.

smacl

Iliana Cold Mayonnaise wrote: »

You seem to have a low expectation of what a Christian looks and behaves like if you are looking to the mainline denominations.
If I asked anyone I worked with where they. Christians they'd say they were and then swear at me using Jesus name as a curse word to prove it!

To say you love Him and not do what it says proves you're not a Christian despite being sprinked when a baby and told you were.

Not at all, I don't have any expectations of what Christians are, or are not for that matter. If someone tells me they're a Christian, I take them at their word. What seems to be a common source of strife within Christianity is one group of Christians denouncing another group based on differing understandings of what it means to be Christian. As an outsider, to me this seems no more than sectarianism.

highdef

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . but maybe not great powers of analysis or reasoning. There is nothing in the scriptural story to suggest that all pigs are demons.

But the OP stated "Jesus commands the evil spirits to come out of the man but they beg him not to send them into the "Bottomless pit", but instead they ask to be sent into a herd of pigs. Jesus actually agrees to this and the pigs end up throwing themselves into a lake and drowning.
What is this about? Why would Jesus allow any concession to demons? "

There is nothing in the above to suggest that I would think that only some pigs are demons and not all. How do we know that the particular herd of pigs that are mentioned were demons? Where does the OP make it known that not all pigs are demons?

Also, why would any pigs be demons in the first place and why are they considered so? They are intelligent creatures and can even be kept as pets (not my kind of pet but each to their own).

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

being a Christian means can vary widely from one Christian to the next. It would certainly seem that the majority in this country eschew biblical literalism and heavy handed orthodoxy but it seems disingenuous to suggest they are lesser Christians on that basis.

There is indeed a wide and rich range of expressions of Christianity, and Christians are to be found from every background, culture, political viewpoint etc. But there has to be some shared set of beliefs or values that they hold in common, that unites this disparate group of people, otherwise the label "Christian" becomes meaningless.

smacl wrote: »

What seems to be a common source of strife within Christianity is one group of Christians denouncing another group based on differing understandings of what it means to be Christian. As an outsider, to me this seems no more than sectarianism.

You are correct in saying that we make a mistake if we elevate secondary or trivial things into core marks of genuine Christianity - "If you vote for that party you're not a Christian." But that is quite different from saying that there are no such marks, or that we can't know what they are.

In fact, it is quite clear what the core tenets of Christianity are and they have been outlined above - faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. As I said before, sincere assent to the Apostles Creed is a useful baseline. If someone can do that then they are a Christian, whatever else we may differ on. These things are of primary importance.

In turn, the bible leads us to expect that our belief in Jesus will influence and shape what we think about everything else, how we treat others, how we act as citizens etc. Scripture may or may not speak to these things directly, or in more or less detail, but there is legitimate room for difference between Christians.

As an aside, that is one of the reasons that the Bible consistently emphasises the importance of the local church, where we have a family of fellow believers who know us, love us, and want to seek after our good. That is the main context for working these things out, and understanding where we can legitimately differ, and where we may be straying into sin or believing/doing things that contradict our professed belief in Jesus.

smacl wrote: »

I don't have any expectations of what Christians are, or are not for that matter. If someone tells me they're a Christian, I take them at their word.

I think this is the crux of the matter - you seem to be emptying Christianity of any objective content, and leave it up to each individual to create their own reality. That is quite alien to the way the bible sees things, and to the history of Christianity over the last 2000 years. Christianity makes objective and unchanging claims about Jesus, about us, and about our need for salvation in him.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think this is the crux of the matter - you seem to be emptying Christianity of any objective content, and leave it up to each individual to create their own reality. That is quite alien to the way the bible sees things, and to the history of Christianity over the last 2000 years. Christianity makes objective and unchanging claims about Jesus, about us, and about our need for salvation in him.

That being the case, let me ask you a simple question. Do you consider all those people that consider themselves Christian who voted in favour of repealing the 8th amendment and those in favour of allowing gay marriage, against the direct instructions of their church hierarchy, to genuinely be Christians?

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

That being the case, let me ask you a simple question. Do you consider all those people that consider themselves Christian who voted in favour of repealing the 8th amendment and those in favour of allowing gay marriage, against the direct instructions of their church hierarchy, to genuinely be Christians?

This just brings us back to the question, "What is a Christian?", and I've given my answer to that already. If someone believes in Jesus as lord and saviour, and is seeking to follow Him and live as Jesus commanded us to live, then they are a Christian. If I want to know if someone is a Christian, I will ask them what they think about Jesus, not how they voted in a referendum.

That being said, faith in Jesus has implications for how we live and think about everything else. If we really believe in Jesus, then we will love God and will want to listen to what he says in his word; we will subsequently take the bible seriously. The bible is clear in affirming the value and essential humanity of the unborn, and is also clear in the definition and place of marriage. I imagine there were Christians who voted on both sides in each referendum. That doesn't mean that those on one side are Christians and those on the other aren't; but I would suggest that one group are voting in way that is more consistent with their profession of faith.

In any case, the important question is "What is a Christian?" I'm still curious to know what your answer to that is.

highdef

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

This just brings us back to the question, "What is a Christian?", and I've given my answer to that already. If someone believes in Jesus as lord and saviour, and is seeking to follow Him and live as Jesus commanded us to live, then they are a Christian. If I want to know if someone is a Christian, I will ask them what they think about Jesus, not how they voted in a referendum.

That being said, faith in Jesus has implications for how we live and think about everything else. If we really believe in Jesus, then we will love God and will want to listen to what he says in his word; we will subsequently take the bible seriously. The bible is clear in affirming the value and essential humanity of the unborn, and is also clear in the definition and place of marriage. I imagine there were Christians who voted on both sides in each referendum. That doesn't mean that those on one side are Christians and those on the other aren't; but I would suggest that one group are voting in way that is more consistent with their profession of faith.

In any case, the important question is "What is a Christian?" I'm still curious to know what your answer to that is.

smacl asked a simple question, one that is suited to a simple Yes or No answer yet you were unable (or were unwilling) to do so. I will now ask:

Please answer yes or no to the following - Do you consider all those people that consider themselves Christian who voted in favour of repealing the 8th amendment and those in favour of allowing gay marriage, against the direct instructions of their church hierarchy, to genuinely be Christians?

To ensure there is no confusion, the answer is either Yes or No. The question was structured in a way that would result in either Yes or No being the answer and not a long winded political response.

ChrisJ84

highdef wrote: »

smacl asked a simple question, one that is suited to a simple Yes or No answer yet you were unable (or were unwilling) to do so. I will now ask:

Please answer yes or no to the following - Do you consider all those people that consider themselves Christian who voted in favour of repealing the 8th amendment and those in favour of allowing gay marriage, against the direct instructions of their church hierarchy, to genuinely be Christians?

To ensure there is no confusion, the answer is either Yes or No. The question was structured in a way that would result in either Yes or No being the answer and not a long winded political response.

No, they probably aren't. It depends whether they have faith in Jesus or not. Not all questions can be answered with a simple yes or no, but I think you already know that.

What is a Christian?

uck51js9zml2yt

highdef wrote: »

smacl asked a simple question, one that is suited to a simple Yes or No answer yet you were unable (or were unwilling) to do so. I will now ask:

Please answer yes or no to the following - Do you consider all those people that consider themselves Christian who voted in favour of repealing the 8th amendment and those in favour of allowing gay marriage, against the direct instructions of their church hierarchy, to genuinely be Christians?

To ensure there is no confusion, the answer is either Yes or No. The question was structured in a way that would result in either Yes or No being the answer and not a long winded political response.

I don't know any Christians who voted yes in either but it goes back to the question of what a Christian is and not everyone who says they are one is..that goes for members of the so called evangelical churches too.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

In any case, the important question is "What is a Christian?" I'm still curious to know what your answer to that is.

Sorry, thought I'd already been clear on that. In my opinion if someone honestly identifies as a Christian, they're a Christian. Given the vast majority of Christians in this country are Roman Catholics, this will typically also mean they been Christened, gone through confirmation and are considered to be members of their church by their church. I would imagine many of them don't pay that much heed to their religion on a day to day basis, or consider themselves particularly religious, yet they still consider themselves part of that tradition as does their church.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, thought I'd already been clear on that. In my opinion if someone honestly identifies as a Christian, they're a Christian. Given the vast majority of Christians in this country are Roman Catholics, this will typically also mean they been Christened, gone through confirmation and are considered to be members of their church by their church. I would imagine many of them don't pay that much heed to their religion on a day to day basis, or consider themselves particularly religious, yet they still consider themselves part of that tradition as does their church.

To simplify it..
Being born in McDonald's doesn't make me a Big Mac..even if I do have all the dressings and a wrap saying I'm one.
I need to look like one and taste like one too to be one.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

No, they probably aren't. It depends whether they have faith in Jesus or not.

You're possibly making a serious error of judgement there. Those going through the Irish Catholic schools system will be taught at a very young age that first and foremost among Christian values are love and compassion for one's fellow man. I would suggest that when making a value judgement in later life, on something such as repealing the eighth or allowing gay marriage, they apply this compassion as it runs deeper than any scriptural chapter or verse. At the same time, given the many scandals and abuses that have happened within the church over the years, there is an increasing distrust of the hierarchy and with it, religious orthodoxy.

smacl

Kareem Old-fashioned Supper wrote: »

There are plenty of references to and warnings of 'Christians in name only' in the New Testament, the most damning of them being "And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’". Appropriating a label and demonstrating love and compassion are not in themselves enough to be biblically Christian.

I hardly think someone born and raised in the Catholic tradition can reasonably be accused of appropriating the label "Christian" on the basis that they aren't particularly zealous in their beliefs. Perhaps they might not be "biblically Christian" as you put it but I'd consider them Christian nonetheless.

smacl

Iliana Cold Mayonnaise wrote: »

To simplify it..
Being born in McDonald's doesn't make me a Big Mac..even if I do have all the dressings and a wrap saying I'm one.
I need to look like one and taste like one too to be one.

You might want to work on those metaphors a bit, the cannibalistic imagery there is strange to say the least. Think I'll be staying away from those yellow arches for awhile...

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, thought I'd already been clear on that. In my opinion if someone honestly identifies as a Christian, they're a Christian. Given the vast majority of Christians in this country are Roman Catholics, this will typically also mean they been Christened, gone through confirmation and are considered to be members of their church by their church. I would imagine many of them don't pay that much heed to their religion on a day to day basis, or consider themselves particularly religious, yet they still consider themselves part of that tradition as does their church.

Ok thanks, I understand you now. I'd still say that identifying as a Christian is one thing; being able to tell if you are one or not is another. I think you're onto something with your summary of Catholicism; I'll leave it to a Roman Catholic to comment on whether it's an adequate summary, but you'd have to agree that at least there is some substance to it?

As an evangelical protestant, I would give a slightly different answer. I've said in previous posts that the core question is whether or not you have faith in Jesus as lord and saviour. I think that does most justice to the witness of the bible, and is consistent with the history of Christianity from its beginning.

smacl wrote: »

You're possibly making a serious error of judgement there. Those going through the Irish Catholic schools system will be taught at a very young age that first and foremost among Christian values are love and compassion for one's fellow man. I would suggest that when making a value judgement in later life, on something such as repealing the eighth or allowing gay marriage, they apply this compassion as it runs deeper than any scriptural chapter or verse. At the same time, given the many scandals and abuses that have happened within the church over the years, there is an increasing distrust of the hierarchy and with it, religious orthodoxy.

As others have said already, there is more to Christianity than love and compassion for our fellow man. It also begs the question "What do love and compassion look like?" Again, as an evangelical protestant I would say that scripture defines and informs what love and compassion actually mean, and that we are truly loving and compassionate in so far as we are conformed to what scripture teaches.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Again, as an evangelical protestant I would say that scripture defines and informs what love and compassion actually mean, and that we are truly loving and compassionate in so far as we are conformed to what scripture teaches.

That's entirely reasonable but I would suggest that other expressions of Christianity are equally reasonable and it is invariably better to concern yourself more with your own actions than judge to others. Incidentally, if you were to look up Christian in a dictionary, one meaning is as an adjective to be kind and generous of spirit. To suggest someone who identifies as Christian is not Christian as they fall short of what you believe it means to be Christian is thus by definition un-Christian.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

That's entirely reasonable but I would suggest that other expressions of Christianity are equally reasonable and it is invariably better to concern yourself more with your own actions than judge to others. Incidentally, if you were to look up Christian in a dictionary, one meaning is as an adjective to be kind and generous of spirit. To suggest someone who identifies as Christian is not Christian as they fall short of what you believe it means to be Christian is thus by definition un-Christian.

As has been said, identifying as something doesn't make you it.

Jesus said, you would know a follower of His by their fruit. No judgement is needed in this. Fruit is fairly evident.

I picked some apples this evening. It was evident they were apples. If they had somehow identified as pears it would have been noticeable and clear they were indeed apples.

The Bible clearly shows us what a Christian should look like. If he behaves like an unbeliever then he is. If he is devoid of the life of God being manifest in him, then he hasn't got it.
If it quacks like a duck ..it's a duck.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

That's entirely reasonable but I would suggest that other expressions of Christianity are equally reasonable and it is invariably better to concern yourself more with your own actions than judge to others. Incidentally, if you were to look up Christian in a dictionary, one meaning is as an adjective to be kind and generous of spirit. To suggest someone who identifies as Christian is not Christian as they fall short of what you believe it means to be Christian is thus by definition un-Christian.

Ah come on smacl, you don't really believe that do you? I think saying that Christians need to have faith in Jesus is a fairly minimal standard!

And who said anything about judging? Paul declared himself to be the chief of sinners, and most Christians I know would echo that sentiment; I am more acutely aware of my own shortcomings than anyone else's. But that doesn't mean that God hasn't clearly told us, in the Bible, what a Christian is and how you can know if you are one. There is more to the Christian ethic than live and let live, and pretending that people who show no sign of a living faith are Christians anyway is in no way loving or compassionate.

That attitude relies on the assumption that the question is of no real importance. But to Christians, it is of utmost importance, and has eternal consequences.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Ah come on smacl, you don't really believe that do you? I think saying that Christians need to have faith in Jesus is a fairly minimal standard!

In all honesty, I think many if not most Christians in this country are very casual about their religion and it doesn't actually play a major role in their lives outside of specific events or times of stress. They mightn't be in any way devout, nor attend church on any regular basis, nor consider their beliefs on any regular basis. Once they honestly consider themselves Christian and their church considers them Christian, they're Christian regardless of how small a role religion plays in their lives.

Your argument is akin to that of the fanatic Man Utd supporter, who talks nothing but football and can (and does) list every play, squad member and victory the team has had in recent decades, disparaging the casual supporter who shouts for the team passionately enough when they're on the telly at the pub but can barely name half the team and hasn't been to Old Trafford in years.

The Nal

smacl wrote: »

In all honesty, I think many if not most Christians in this country are very casual about their religion and it doesn't actually play a major role in their lives outside of specific events or times of stress. They mightn't be in any way devout, nor attend church on any regular basis, nor consider their beliefs on any regular basis. Once they honestly consider themselves Christian and their church considers them Christian, they're Christian regardless of how small a role religion plays in their lives.

Outside of my mother in law, I don't know anyone who goes to mass anymore. literally not one person.

Only time people go is for weddings, funerals, Christenings etc. But three of the last four weddings I've been to have been humanist weddings.

Its dying a death, the auld religion. With threads called "Why did Jesus allow demons to enter a herd of pigs?" in 2019 you can see why. Utter insanity.

Three primary schools transfer from Catholic to multi-denominational patronage

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

In all honesty, I think many if not most Christians in this country are very casual about their religion and it doesn't actually play a major role in their lives outside of specific events or times of stress. They mightn't be in any way devout, nor attend church on any regular basis, nor consider their beliefs on any regular basis. Once they honestly consider themselves Christian and their church considers them Christian, they're Christian regardless of how small a role religion plays in their lives.

Your argument is akin to that of the fanatic Man Utd supporter, who talks nothing but football and can (and does) list every play, squad member and victory the team has had in recent decades, disparaging the casual supporter who shouts for the team passionately enough when they're on the telly at the pub but can barely name half the team and hasn't been to Old Trafford in years.

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree. To pick up on your metaphor, I would say that the people you are describing are saying that they are Man U fans, but actually support Liverpool.

The kind of people you are describing are less and less engaged with Christianity, and as you say find it largely irrelevant in everyday life. That is a pattern seen throughout Europe and does, over generations, result in them having no link to Christianity at all. Ireland is perhaps somewhat further back than other European countries, but does seem to on the same trajectory. I find that deeply concerning, and as a Christian I want everyone, whether they think they are a Christian or not, to truly engage with what the Bible says, and to seriously consider who Jesus is and the claims he makes.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree. To pick up on your metaphor, I would say that the people you are describing are saying that they are Man U fans, but actually support Liverpool.

Nope, they're Man U fans just not football fanatics

The kind of people you are describing are less and less engaged with Christianity, and as you say find it largely irrelevant in everyday life. That is a pattern seen throughout Europe and does, over generations, result in them having no link to Christianity at all. Ireland is perhaps somewhat further back than other European countries, but does seem to on the same trajectory. I find that deeply concerning, and as a Christian I want everyone, whether they think they are a Christian or not, to truly engage with what the Bible says, and to seriously consider who Jesus is and the claims he makes.

Less engaged certainly, but less religiously inclined is debatable. For example, if you look at religious attendance in this country thirty years ago, numbers were far higher. This wasn't because people were more religious so much as it was a social expectation that for most was effectively mandatory. Those that actually enjoyed mass, notably the older generation, did so as much from a social perspective as a spiritual one. Most people would rather not attend, and once that became a viable option ceased to do so. I suspect this is the case in most Christian majority countries include the USA, as caricatured in Homer Simpson's ongoing disdain for going to church. In my opinion, those belonging to more conservative Christian groups are more overtly religious as much because of their conservatism as their faith.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Nope, they're Man U fans just not football fanatics



Less engaged certainly, but less religiously inclined is debatable. For example, if you look at religious attendance in this country thirty years ago, numbers were far higher. This wasn't because people were more religious so much as it was a social expectation that for most was effectively mandatory. Those that actually enjoyed mass, notably the older generation, did so as much from a social perspective as a spiritual one. Most people would rather not attend, and once that became a viable option ceased to do so. I suspect this is the case in most Christian majority countries include the USA, as caricatured in Homer Simpson's ongoing disdain for going to church. In my opinion, those belonging to more conservative Christian groups are more overtly religious as much because of their conservatism as their faith.

Ok, we're going in circles here. Jesus clearly said how we could know if we are his followers, and these things are recorded in the bible. I take that to be the final an authoritative word on the matter. They are also what has been believed by Christians through the ages.

You obviously have different ideas on these things and like I said on the other thread, I think that your presentation of Christianity depends on words having no fixed or objective meaning, and on the individual being the final arbiter of what is true. I'm clearly not going to change your mind but that's ok, I've enjoyed the back and forth anyway.

The Nal

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Ok, we're going in circles here. Jesus clearly said how we could know if we are his followers, and these things are recorded in the bible.

You see I think thats what the issue is for people. The Bible was written decades and centuries after Jesus had allegedly lived and died. None of the writers knew him and its debatable that they even lived in the same country.

Why on earth would we live out lives on such flimsy evidence?

The vast majority of Christians are Christians because they grew up with it. Its simple conditioning. If you grew up in Pakistan you be a Muslim.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm clearly not going to change your mind but that's ok, I've enjoyed the back and forth anyway.

Nor I yours clearly, and I also enjoy the banter so thanks for that.

Grizzly 45

Where did a herd of pigs come from first off in Judea in the time of Christ? They are considerd unclean["Haram" by Muslims and "Tame" by the Jews animals by both Jews and Muslims.So its hardly likely anyone was actually herding or raising them.Nor are wild pigs native to that part of the world.

ChrisJ84

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Where did a herd of pigs come from first off in Judea in the time of Christ? They are considerd unclean["Haram" by Muslims and "Tame" by the Jews animals by both Jews and Muslims.So its hardly likely anyone was actually herding or raising them.Nor are wild pigs native to that part of the world.

This episode took place in a Gentile area with a large non-Jewish population, so we can safely assume they were being raised for food.

Peregrinus

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Where did a herd of pigs come from first off in Judea in the time of Christ? They are considerd unclean["Haram" by Muslims and "Tame" by the Jews animals by both Jews and Muslims.So its hardly likely anyone was actually herding or raising them.Nor are wild pigs native to that part of the world.

What Chris said. We know that the event isn't set in Judea, but the gospels differ slightly at to where it is set.

Mark says it happens "in the region of the Gerasenes". Gerasa is a city about ten km south-west of the Sea of Galilee (therefore not in Judea, which is south-east, on the other side of the River Jordan). It's part of an area known as the Decapolis, which wasn't under Roman rule at the time, though it was subject to considerable Roman and Greek cultural influence, and had a mixed population of Jews, Samarians, Arameans, Nabateans and Greeks. Luke agrees with Mark.

Mathew says it happened "in the region of the Gadarenes". Gadara is another city of the Decapolis, further away from the Sea of Galilee than Gerasa is, but larger than Gerasa.

All three gospels have the event happening on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, since the pigs drown themselves in that Sea.

So, it's located on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, in an area that, although some distance from the Gerasa and Gadara, is part of the territory controlled by one or both of those cities. Either way, although there are Jews in the area, it's not a Jewish-dominated or Jewish-ruled area. And, of course, there were no Muslims at the time. Although the area wasn't ruled by Rome, the Roman civic religion was widely practiced and many Roman temples existed. So the farming of pigs in the area is not anomalous.

realdanbreen

So keeping things simple.
Is the God that muslims believe in the same god that Christians believe in or is there more than one god?
It would be great to receive simple short replies but I do realise some guys find it hard to contain the infinite wisdom that they have.

Effects

realdanbreen wrote: »

So keeping things simple.
Is the God that muslims believe in the same god that Christians believe in or is there more than one god?
It would be great to receive simple short replies but I do realise some guys find it hard to contain the infinite wisdom that they have.

It's the same God, just worshiped differently.
It's just the humans who worship God in each religion that dispute the other persons God not being the one true God.

smacl

realdanbreen wrote: »

So keeping things simple.
Is the God that muslims believe in the same god that Christians believe in or is there more than one god?
It would be great to receive simple short replies but I do realise some guys find it hard to contain the infinite wisdom that they have.

To throw a spanner in the works I reckon the god the Christians and Muslims worship is pretty much the same god but the gods that Hindus worship are altogether different. On that basis, if you hold that these are all valid religions, there are many equally valid gods.

ChrisJ84

realdanbreen wrote: »

So keeping things simple.
Is the God that muslims believe in the same god that Christians believe in or is there more than one god?
It would be great to receive simple short replies but I do realise some guys find it hard to contain the infinite wisdom that they have.

Christians and Muslims do not believe in the same God. Christians believe that God is trinity, one God in 3 persons, and that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh. Muslims do not believe in these things.

The Nal

What about say, the Hawaiian God Lono? Why don't Irish people believe in him?