Who is Christian

[gilgames]

<<
Respectfully, well let's see if Christians really did all those things
you mentioned above. But first we have to define a "Christian". Anyone
can claim anything, right?
In our age the best definition of the Christianity is the "we hold it
truth that God created all men equal". This was the social message of
the early Christianity, and this is the message today. Naturaly not just
say, hold.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by gilgames
<<
Respectfully, well let's see if Christians really did all those things
you mentioned above. But first we have to define a "Christian". Anyone
can claim anything, right?
In our age the best definition of the Christianity is the "we hold it
truth that God created all men equal".

Oh, is it? Then why was the phrase coined by men who spent more time in Masonic
meetings than in a church? Or did you not know that George Washington even
habitually refused Communion -- when he showed up at all?

Post by gilgames
This was the social message of
the early Christianity,

No, I don't think so. For such social leveling was not at all consistent with
the civil laws of the time, and Paul _did_ say we were to obey lawful
authorities, even to the point of slaves obeying their masters.

[snip]

[Gordon]

Post by gilgames
<<
Respectfully, well let's see if Christians really did all those things
you mentioned above. But first we have to define a "Christian". Anyone
can claim anything, right?
In our age the best definition of the Christianity is the "we hold it
truth that God created all men equal". This was the social message of
the early Christianity, and this is the message today. Naturaly not just
say, hold.

I won't argue that all men were created equal, but I can not
bring myself to believe that we all remain equal throughout our
lives.

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given
unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to
them it is not given.

Passages like this seem to indicate that there is a gradient, and
that gradient may be quite severe.

Gordon

[suneejan]

Christian is a person who has Christ in their heart and follows Christ
with all of their heart, soul and mind.

Post by gilgames
<<
Respectfully, well let's see if Christians really did all those things
you mentioned above. But first we have to define a "Christian". Anyone
can claim anything, right?
In our age the best definition of the Christianity is the "we hold it
truth that God created all men equal". This was the social message of
the early Christianity, and this is the message today. Naturaly not just
say, hold.

[b***@juno.com]

Post by gilgames
In our age the best definition of the Christianity is the "we hold it
truth that God created all men equal". This was the social message of
the early Christianity, and this is the message today. Naturaly not just
say, hold.

This is a very poor definition of "Christian." But it is a very good
definition of "American."

To be an American Citizen is pretty much to believe that all men are
created equal. But such a belief is not "Christian." It is more of a
"Deist" belief, although Christians can certainly believe it as well.
If they wish.

I say it is a Deist belief, since the man who penned it (Jefferson) was
Deist. Even though I am Christian, I agree with Jefferson that in at
least one sense, all men are created equal.

[gilgames]

<<
h, is it? Then why was the phrase coined by men who spent more time in
Masonic
meetings than in a church? Or did you not know that George Washington even
habitually refused Communion -- when he showed up at all?
The truth of a sentence does not depend on who said it.

The 'we hold it truth that God created all men equal' is basic Christian
social teaching, against the Judaism which believed in God's handpicked
nation, or against the Roman empire which believed in the superiority of
their citizens.

The question is actualized recently. The 'liberals' abused this
principle to get the power the after the 2nd Liberal Manifesto in 1995
the abandoned it, it is the obligation of the Christians to talk about it.

laszlo

[gilgames]

<<
I won't argue that all men were created equal, but I can not
bring myself to believe that we all remain equal throughout our
lives.
That is true. This life is a test, and we have to distinguish ourselves
in front of God.

The problem is when the equality at birth is violated, and there are
people who born into a more equal status. This is anti-Christian.

laszlo

[gilgames]

<<
Christian is a person who has Christ in their heart and follows Christ
with all of their heart, soul and mind.
You can make more, and give your life for others, but it have to start
with the respect for the equality of others.

laszlo

[suneejan]

So, what do you mean by 'the respect of equality for others'? and you
can make more? From your posts it seems like you do not believe that
all men were created equal. I wonder if thefore fathers meant that we
are all equal in the sight of the law. This is not true now adays. It
seems that the law system is for those who have the biggest bucks.

Post by suneejan
<<
Christian is a person who has Christ in their heart and follows Christ
with all of their heart, soul and mind.
You can make more, and give your life for others, but it have to start
with the respect for the equality of others.
laszlo

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Gordon
<<
I won't argue that all men were created equal, but I can not
bring myself to believe that we all remain equal throughout our
lives.

Whose words were these? Why aren't you giving him credit for what he
says?

Post by Gordon
That is true. This life is a test, and we have to distinguish ourselves
in front of God.

But that 'distinguishment' has precious little to do with "equality at
birth". It is rather a matter of how we _use_ what God gives us.

Post by Gordon
The problem is when the equality at birth is violated, and there are
people who born into a more equal status. This is anti-Christian.

No, it is not. Recall Paul's words:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there
is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been
instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists
what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur
judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to
bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do
what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's
servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does
not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his
wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to
avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. (Rom 13:1-5
RSVA)

Really, I don't see how you can accept these words of Paul and still
claim that it is 'anti-Christian' for people to be born into a "more
equal" status -- whatever that would really mean.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Then why was the phrase coined by men who spent more time in Masonic
meetings than in a church? Or did you not know that George Washington
even habitually refused Communion -- when he showed up at all?
The truth of a sentence does not depend on who said it.

True. But this only applies if it _has_ truth to it. And why are you
pretending that Christians coined this? Indeed: why are you
pretending this is a Christian idea at all?

It really isn't. On the contrary: it is to be expected that there is
inequality in society, and we are bound to respect the authority of
those above us. This is what Paul is saying in the words:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there
is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been
instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists
what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur
judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to
bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do
what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's
servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does
not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his
wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to
avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. (Rom 13:1-5
RSVA)

Don't call down God's wrath by mindlessly accepting a Deist slogan!

Post by Matthew Johnson
The 'we hold it truth that God created all men equal' is basic
Christian social teaching,

No, it is not. Why, it is not even clear what 'equal' _means_ in this
slogan.

Post by Matthew Johnson
against the Judaism which believed in God's handpicked nation,

Ironic that you hold up Judaism as a counterexample, since it is in
Mosaic Law that we first see an important sense of 'equal' (for this
slogan) -- equal before the Law.

Post by Matthew Johnson
or against the Roman empire which believed in the superiority of
their citizens.

What _are_ you talking about? Whoever believed this? That belief died
with Cato the Elder!

Post by Matthew Johnson
The question is actualized recently. The 'liberals' abused this
principle to get the power the after the 2nd Liberal Manifesto in
1995

What "2nd Liberal Manifesto" are _you_ referring to? There is a
"Liberal Manifesto" of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy,
which happens to be from 2005,

Post by Matthew Johnson
but the abandoned it, it is the obligation of the Christians to talk
about it.

No, it is an "obligation of Christians" to talk _sensibly_ about
it. But repeating a Deist slogan without thinking about its
un-Christian roots does not qualify.

[gilgames]

<<
Whose words were these? Why aren't you giving him credit for what he
says?
When I came to this country I supposed that the Declaration of
Independence and especially the prologe of it, means for everybody the
basic norm of the life.

This is not so, but I still believe, that everybody in the English
speaking word is familiar with the author and the circumstances of the
'we hold it truth that God created all men equal' principle. (Jefferson
1776)

The authority is with more responsiblity, and in itself does not makes
anybody more equal. In Paul's time the emperor was 'Primus inter pares',
(first between the equals) no more no less, and either Him or the lesser
authorities were supposed to serve the common good, as Paul explained it
clearly.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson
<<
Whose words were these? Why aren't you giving him credit for what he
says?
When I came to this country I supposed that the Declaration of
Independence and especially the prologe of it, means for everybody the
basic norm of the life.
This is not so, but I still believe, that everybody in the English
speaking word is familiar with the author and the circumstances of the
'we hold it truth that God created all men equal' principle. (Jefferson
1776)

Yes, they are familiar with it. But true to form, you missed my point
completely. My point is that those who are _really_ familiar with it are also
familiar with the _controversy_ over those words, in particular, what 'equal'
can mean.

You have yet so show the same awareness.

[snip]