They see gender pay gap as a problem but ...

[Immanuel Can]

...who the f*ck are you that you know Christianity so much better than them?

An actual Christian.

It's actually impossible to "impose" a belief.

The Church of England definitely did impose their beliefs onto the Puritans.

The C of E has also been called, "Catholicism without the Pope." Again, you just don't know what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Consult John Locke, for a start...then consult all those groups you dismiss...the Anabaptists, the Quakers, the evangelicals...and see what they believe about that.

So you don't want to know the truth? Okay. I can't force you. And if you want to force all your knowledge to fit your Islamic suppositions, I guess you can. I can't stop you from being wrong.

But think of this in relation to Islam, if that's all you can do. There are two major divisions: the Sunnis and the Shia. They hate each other quite passionately. They don't have the same "prophets," or recognize the same authorities. They won't acknowledge each other's mosques, in many cases -- I know, I've asked. But then, what about the Ahmadis? What about the Bahai? you probably don't consider them even Muslim. What about the Sufis?

You see, if it makes a difference what sect of Islam a person holds, why does it make no difference to you what differences exist within the group that calls themselves "Christian"?

[godelian]

It's actually impossible to "impose" a belief.

The Church of England definitely did impose their beliefs onto the Puritans.

The C of E has also been called, "Catholicism without the Pope."

So, did the Church of England impose their beliefs onto the Puritans?
Yes or No?

Again, you just don't know what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

Where is "the logic" that you want to introduce into Christianity?
You are denying and making U-turns about well-established historical facts.
You claim that the US Congress of Library "just don't know what they're talking about".
Again, who the f*ck are you, to call other people ignorant?

[Immanuel Can]

The Church of England definitely did impose their beliefs onto the Puritans.

The C of E has also been called, "Catholicism without the Pope."

So, did the Church of England impose their beliefs onto the Puritans?
Yes or No?

I'm not either one, so you'll have to ask somebody for whom that's some kind of important issue.

Would you explain what the Buddhists do? Neither do I feel a need to explain what the C of E does.

Again, who the f*ck are you, to call other people ignorant?

Well, some are. You don't seem to know what a "Christian" is, but I wouldn't call you "ignorant." I'd just say you're making a bunch of wildly untrue assumptions. People sometimes do that.

But you may have missed this. I'll repeat it for you.

...think of this in relation to Islam, if that's all you can do. There are two major divisions: the Sunnis and the Shia. They hate each other quite passionately. They don't have the same "prophets," or recognize the same authorities. They won't acknowledge each other's mosques, in many cases -- I know, I've asked. But then, what about the Ahmadis? What about the Bahai? you probably don't consider them even Muslim. What about the Sufis?

You see, if it makes a difference what sect of Islam a person holds, why does it make no difference to you what differences exist within the group that calls themselves "Christian"?

[godelian]

I'm not either one, so you'll have to ask somebody for whom that's some kind of important issue.

You say that Christianity is about "loving your neighbor".
So, look at what your Christians did to their neighbor, according to the US Library of Congress:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

Zealous Puritan laymen received savage punishments. For example, in 1630 a man was sentenced to life imprisonment, had his property confiscated, his nose slit, an ear cut off, and his forehead branded "S.S." (sower of sedition).

Your neighbor-loving Christians slit the Puritan's nose, cut off his ear, and branded his forehead "S.S" (sower of sedition), and then deported him to their penal colony in North America.

You don't seem to know what a "Christian" is, but I wouldn't call you "ignorant." I'd just say you're making a bunch of wildly untrue assumptions. People sometimes do that.

So, all these historical facts are just a lie?
The "neighbor-loving" Church of England did not slit the Puritan's nose, cut off his ear, or branded his forehead "S.S"?
Are you claiming that the US Congress of Library are merely spreading lies?
On what grounds do you claim that?

...think of this in relation to Islam, if that's all you can do. There are two major divisions: the Sunnis and the Shia. They hate each other quite passionately. They don't have the same "prophets," or recognize the same authorities. They won't acknowledge each other's mosques, in many cases -- I know, I've asked. But then, what about the Ahmadis? What about the Bahai? you probably don't consider them even Muslim. What about the Sufis?

I have never said that Muslims are not human but that they are instead some kind of angels.
They are capable of all the same atrocities as every other human being.
There are very dark sides to human nature. I totally acknowledge that.
Seriously, it is you who live in Delululand and not me!
It is not me who believes that everybody is everybody else's friend!

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not either one, so you'll have to ask somebody for whom that's some kind of important issue.

You say that Christianity is about "loving your neighbor".

I say that anybody who does not do that is disobeying the explicit commandments of Jesus Christ. So that should tell you the truth.

You don't seem to know what a "Christian" is, but I wouldn't call you "ignorant." I'd just say you're making a bunch of wildly untrue assumptions. People sometimes do that.

So, all these historical facts are just a lie?

You're citing irrelevancies. Would you explain what Buddhists did in Myanmar? Why not? Because Buddhists are not Islamic. Why would I not defend the C of E? Because I'm not C of E. So you'll have to find somebody who cares about that enough to defend it. I don't. I think the C of E was behaving wrong, and very unchristianly. And by the explicit authority of Christ Himself, you have every reason to doubt the profession of their faith, and to assume they're not being Christian at all.

A deed doesn't become a "Christian" deed by being done by somebody who says, "I'm a Christian." It only becomes a Christian deed when it conforms to what he was told to do by Christ. Otherwise, what you've got there is simply a faker.

...think of this in relation to Islam, if that's all you can do. There are two major divisions: the Sunnis and the Shia. They hate each other quite passionately. They don't have the same "prophets," or recognize the same authorities. They won't acknowledge each other's mosques, in many cases -- I know, I've asked. But then, what about the Ahmadis? What about the Bahai? you probably don't consider them even Muslim. What about the Sufis?

I have never said that Muslims are not human but that they are instead some kind of angels.

Their "humanness" is part of the problem, not an excuse for it. One thing human beings do is claim to believe things they don't, or believe things in theory they don't perform in practice. It's called "hypocrisy." And it's an old thing.

So being smart means knowing that, and realising that just because a person says, "I'm an X" doesn't tell you very much. What you really need to know is what he actually believes, and how that makes a difference in his life. If you don't know those things, you don't even know if he's telling the truth.

[godelian]

You're citing irrelevancies.

No, I am pointing out uncomfortable facts.

A deed doesn't become a "Christian" deed by being done by somebody who says, "I'm a Christian."

Yeah, but that is only when it is a Christian. Suddenly, he is not a "true Scotsman".
When an individual Muslim does something wrong, then it is the fault of Islam!

Their "humanness" is part of the problem, not an excuse for it.

Double standards.

[Immanuel Can]

You're citing irrelevancies.

No, I am pointing out uncomfortable facts.

Who are they making uncomfortable? Not me. They've got nothing to do with me, so I keep wondering why you bother.

A deed doesn't become a "Christian" deed by being done by somebody who says, "I'm a Christian."

Yeah, but that is only when it is a Christian.

Well, you need to understand that nobody's born a Christian. Christianity is a belief, not a cultural artifact or an institution. So if a person doesn't believe and obey Christ, you can count on it: he's not a Christian. Christ Himself set that as the standard. (Matt. 7:15-20)..and I really can't point out a higher Authority than Him.

When an individual Muslim does something wrong, then it is the fault of Islam!

Is that what you believe? You won't find I said that. It would only be Islam's fault in the cases in which Islam commanded it, I would say.

Their "humanness" is part of the problem, not an excuse for it.

Double standards.

Not at all. We all have a human nature, and it's a problem for all of us. It's a thing to be mastered and made rational and moral, not a thing to be indulged.

So where are we going with all this?

[Harbal]

Well, you need to understand that nobody's born a Christian. Christianity is a belief, not a cultural artifact or an institution. So if a person doesn't believe and obey Christ, you can count on it: he's not a Christian. Christ Himself set that as the standard. (Matt. 7:15-20)..and I really can't point out a higher Authority than Him.

The police are a much higher authority where I live, and they know it.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, you need to understand that nobody's born a Christian. Christianity is a belief, not a cultural artifact or an institution. So if a person doesn't believe and obey Christ, you can count on it: he's not a Christian. Christ Himself set that as the standard. (Matt. 7:15-20)..and I really can't point out a higher Authority than Him.

The police are a much higher authority where I live, and they know it.

I always suspected them of God-level delusions of power. But they've got nothing on government office-holders.

[godelian]

So if a person doesn't believe and obey Christ, you can count on it: he's not a Christian.

You membership criteria are highly unrealistic. No religion in the world can afford that kind of membership criteria.

You see, someone is a Muslim, basically, if he says that he is. He may break Islamic law, but that only makes him a sinning Muslim. It does not make him a non-Muslim.

The Catholic Church may seriously dislike what Hitler did, but they still consider Hitler to be a Catholic.

You are trying to speak for the whole of Christianity, but you are not competent enough to do that. You have absolutely no clue as to what the consequences would be of what you are saying. No Church or Christian congregation would ever allow you to decide on who is Christian and who is not. As you can imagine, a religion like Christianity existentially depends for its long-term survival on preventing people like you from having any say whatsoever.

[Immanuel Can]

So if a person doesn't believe and obey Christ, you can count on it: he's not a Christian.

You membership criteria are highly unrealistic.

They're not mine. They're the ones stipulated by Jesus Christ Himself.

You see, someone is a Muslim, basically, if he says that he is.

Yes, I know. "Submission" is thought to be everything. I'm seeing that.

I just think it's not enough.

What do you do with the case of the Jewish Sadducees and Pharisees, as described in the Gospels? They were fastidious keepers of the Law of Moses, and Jesus Christ called them "whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones," because they were clean and "white" only on the outside, but in their hearts had no love of God (Matt. 23:27) Apparently, surface submission was nowhere near enough for Him.

How can somebody who hates Allah, and only forces himself to comply out of fear, then, be even potentially a better person than one who loves him and serves him with joy? Does that not strike you as quite backward?

The Catholic Church may seriously dislike what Hitler did, but they still consider Hitler to be a Catholic.

That would be their problem.

You are trying to speak for the whole of Christianity,...

Not at all. I'm just repeating exactly what Jesus Christ Himself taught. And that's the only Source you should take seriously on the subject, I would suggest. If anybody has a right to say who qualifies as a genuine Christian and who does not, it would surely be He.

[godelian]

What do you do with the case of the Jewish Sadducees and Pharisees, as described in the Gospels? They were fastidious keepers of the Law of Moses, and Jesus Christ called them "whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones," because they were clean and "white" only on the outside, but in their hearts had no love of God (Matt. 23:27) Apparently, surface submission was nowhere near enough for Him.

They were Jews. They may not have been particularly good Jews, but they were Jews nonetheless. I am not even sure that they were sinning Jews. You would have to point out a serious sin to that effect.

How can somebody who hates Allah, and only forces himself to comply out of fear, then, be even potentially a better person than one who loves him and serves him with joy? Does that not strike you as quite backward?

As outsiders, we don't know that somebody hates Allah. That is between him and Allah. There is simply no legal case possible against such person.

Not at all. I'm just repeating exactly what Jesus Christ Himself taught. And that's the only Source you should take seriously on the subject, I would suggest. If anybody has a right to say who qualifies as a genuine Christian and who does not, it would surely be He.

No church has ever applied or will ever apply what you suggest. If someone joins a congregation, the church will take him in, regardless of what you say concerning membership. That person will be treated as a member. Your take on the matter, is not usable as law or even just as a practical directive.

Your views are based on misinterpretation of the Gospels, leading up to unrealistic conclusions.That is the problem with trying to use Biblical elements as input for logic. There are good reasons why the Catholic Church and the Church of England have always considered that to be heretical activity.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you do with the case of the Jewish Sadducees and Pharisees, as described in the Gospels? They were fastidious keepers of the Law of Moses, and Jesus Christ called them "whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones," because they were clean and "white" only on the outside, but in their hearts had no love of God (Matt. 23:27) Apparently, surface submission was nowhere near enough for Him.

They were Jews. They may not have been particularly good Jews, but they were Jews nonetheless. I am not even sure that they were sinning Jews. You would have to point out a serious sin to that effect.

Jesus did. Their chief one was pretending to a righteousness they did not have, even though they kept the letter or the Mosaic Law better than all the other Jews. He said they did not understand God at all. But they certainly "submitted" outwardly.

How can somebody who hates Allah, and only forces himself to comply out of fear, then, be even potentially a better person than one who loves him and serves him with joy? Does that not strike you as quite backward?

As outsiders, we don't know that somebody hates Allah.

It was you who claimed it, as I recall. You said that such a person could be an even better person than the person who loves Allah, because he has to force himself to submit. Have you forgotten?

Not at all. I'm just repeating exactly what Jesus Christ Himself taught. And that's the only Source you should take seriously on the subject, I would suggest. If anybody has a right to say who qualifies as a genuine Christian and who does not, it would surely be He.

No church has ever applied or will ever apply what you suggest.

Oh, they certainly have. But you'd have to know what Jesus taught them to do, not merely what you expect them to do.

If someone joins a congregation, the church...

Which "congregation or church"?

I know of none of which your statements about what you think they do ring true. Even the Catholics have specific rituals, routines, confirmations, credal oaths and performances that are required of any potential new congregants, as does the C of E. So you're not talking about them, I guess...so who is it?

[godelian]

Jesus did. Their chief one was pretending to a righteousness they did not have, even though they kept the letter or the Mosaic Law better than all the other Jews. He said they did not understand God at all. But they certainly "submitted" outwardly.

In Islam, there is also a notion of hypocrite termed "munafiq".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munafiq

In Islam, the munafiqun ('hypocrites', Arabic: منافقون, singular منافق munāfiq) or false Muslims or false believers are a group decried in the Quran as outward Muslims who were inwardly concealing disbelief ("kufr") and actively sought to undermine the Muslim community.

The munafiq still has to perform certain objectionable actions, though:

There are four signs that make someone a pure hypocrite and whoever has them has a characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it: (1) when he speaks he lies; (2) when he makes a covenant he is treacherous; (3) when he makes a promise he breaks it; and (4) when he argues he is wicked.

These would be actionable offenses.

So, in the case of Christ, it would be necessary to catch the Rabbis on speaking lies, breaking contracts, or black mouthing others.

In my impression, the only thing they did that qualifies as an offense, is that the Rabbis black mouthed Christ. Since Christ pointed that out very publicly, that was in my opinion enough in terms of reprisals.

So, yes, sh*t talking other people is an offense against religious law.

[Immanuel Can]

There are four signs that make someone a pure hypocrite and whoever has them has a characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it: (1) when he speaks he lies; (2) when he makes a covenant he is treacherous; (3) when he makes a promise he breaks it; and (4) when he argues he is wicked.

These would be actionable offenses.[/quote]
Well "actionable" is one thing. You can't tell what a person has inside them, so other people can't take action based on things that don't show. But I think it's sketchy to think Allah would be impressed by somebody who inwardly hated him even while remaining outwardly forced to conform. But if Allah can be fooled that way, I guess he can be fooled that way. If you say so.