No true Scotsman, no true Christian.

The beast is the man who thinks he is anything but god.
God is pure, untainted.
God has taken on the mark (the symbols, words, ideas and beliefs) and for a while believed he was man and acted like a beast. The mark it is no more than a stain and can easily be removed.

thall shall not judge. Judgement should be left up to God, just believe. Every knee shall bow and tounge confess, its in the prophecy. Jesus says three times in the bible that the heavens and the earth shall pass away before his word passes away. With Love

Christianity is a way of life that we can choose or not choose. It is not standing behind a pulpit or lives in a building. I know this because I was raised by fundamental Baptists. The kind that beat and cheat on their spouses on Saturday night and go to church Sunday to ask for forgiveness. If christians really believe that the bible is the Word of God, they do not take it seriously.

This is how the early christians were told to recognize one another: the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.

As opposed to fruitage of the flesh: fornication, uncleaness, loose conduct, idolotry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects. From Galatians 5.

Hyprocrisy will always be rampant in the christian belief because most of them discount these words.

reply to post by MOMof3

I know this because I was raised by fundamental Baptists. The kind that beat and cheat on their spouses on Saturday night and go to church Sunday to ask for forgiveness.

YAY!!! Let's use the classic "using the exception to define the rule" fallacy!!!!

ALL Christians must beat their wives and seek forgiveness on Sunday, it has to be true because a couple Christians you know do this!!!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well....if you go statistically....Christians are as the user described. In fact, general religiosity has an odd correlation to societal woe. Granted, this could be due to a number of factors, not necessarily "religion = bad society!" Religiosity may simply increase as societal woes increase. Religiosity may be a cause of a single woe that causes other woes. There could be a founder anomaly where a particular group happened to start out as very religious and then happened into unfortunate circumstances.

The problem is...there's still no way to derive a 'true Christian'. If it's based on their 'fruits'...then what about all the non-Christians who give us even greater fruits?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



What I commented on is true, the user made an arbitrary remark based on their extremely narrow sample of Christians.

That's a fallacy.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Perhaps what you say is true. I am 60 and accepted Jesus and was baptized at nine years old. I just know what I have personally witnessed after attending church for 50 years. I no longer attend organized religious groups because they have become so political instead of teaching Christ. As for the fruits. It is amazing how christians go on the belief the the bible is the infallible word of God then deny them.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I have read this on some of the post 'the fruits', and i think it is the way that life becomes easier, happier, fulfilled. That is the fruit, what comes after the discovery of god. This fruit however will not be tasted by the believers only the knowers of god.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The problem with the majority of Christians (well, most people i suppose) is they don't understand that the word Christ is not Jesus' surname.
Christ is a word with meaning. The word Christ means consciousness. The message that Jesus and Buddha and all seers, sages and prophets are spreading is consciousness.
Take the cross, at the centre of the cross, the bullseye is where you and the eternal now meet. It is trying to show you the only location that exists.
Here and now.
It shows you that you are nowhere (now-here).

reply to post by adjensen


Actually, coming from the Highlands of Scotland, a lot of debate did centre around whether someone was truly Scottish or not!

For some, only those who could prove generations of Gaels as ancestors would be considered, and they would certainly need a Gaelic surname/be able to claim some Clan descent.

In times past, the Lowlanders did not consider the Highlanders Scots, referring to them as Irish.

Of course, to anyone outside 'Scotland', we were all regarded as Scots.

Who is right? Those who are 'Scots', or those who are not?