Charles Manson did the same thing when he sent Tex and the gang out to murder innocents.

What do you think - did Charles Manson follow a directive of God, or did he use pretext and find a passage to support his wild idea's?

Let's put your understanding of Christianity to the test.

I'm not going to state that non of these events occured, but I find that there is one thing in common with your list. You are jusging Christainity by those who use it's name to abuse it. I do not doubt the tennets of christainity by those events, I doubt the claim of those who did them of being christains.

You can see where I come to this conclusion.

I will give you an example I have from life to illustrate this.

I am a Director, and when I hold auditions - everyone who comes into the theater tells me: "I am an actor/actress". Then they get to prove it to me by reading in a scene - or doing a few improvisations. After doing this for over 25 years, I can stae unequivically that not all who walk into the audition claiming to be performers - are so. At least a third of them have never performed outside of a high school production, or an acting class. Usually, the group bils down to asmall handful of individuals who demonstrate the necessary skills and talent to earn my trust that they'll execute the role I give them. These are the "actors". Not because they claimed to be, but because their actions supported their claim. And to refute the "it's just your opinion" claim, I have a casting committee in my auditions, so I'm not the only opinion determining if one is an actor or not.

Another example of this - is just watch the first auditions of "American Idol", and all those who "claim" to be singers, and are anything but. As soon as they open their mouth's - their actions support, or disprove their claims.

Do you really think the actions of the Catholic church during the crusades were representative of every Catholic on the planet? And that Jesus cndoned those actions? Where is there evidence of that in the New Testament?

You've read the bible - and you're attempting to convince me that Hitlers actions were representative of a christain?

Forgive me if I say I don't believe you.

Shakespeare was boring. I prefered Pinter, Ionesco and Beckett. Besides - college actors butcher Shakespeare so bad, it makes dealing with it unbearable.

But back to the subject at hand. If you've read the gospels you know that "Just wanting to be a Christain" does not make you one. There are numerous accounts of Jesus pointing this out. He tells Nicodemus that one must be born again, That one must believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be, He tells the rich young ruler to sell all that he has and give the money to the poor, then follow him, One has to "pick up their cross" and follow him. Though there is no definitive check list that one must perform, there is a path that one must follow - so it is more than just "wishing" to be a Christian. Which is why there are so many who claim to be christains, or profess to have once been a christain (a biblical impossibility) - yet fall away due to a lack of fullfilled expectations that were due more from presumption than from education.

And I tend to agree with you about arguing the point. Most who post their understanding of what the christain faith is and then proceed to refute it are absolutely correct in their refutation because their presumption about what christainity is in the first place is wrong to begin with. They claim that there are all these contradictions in the bible - never stating what they are, and never haveing read the book to begin with. They show no comprehension of exegesis, and know little or nothing of the intent of the author, the audience to whom the passages they are quoting are intended for, and think that the traditions of today are comprable to the traditions and practices of the first century. How can one argue from a position of ignorance. I don't expect that everyone should believe in what the bible says - I know that more do not believe than do - but if one is going to debate historical christain concepts, they should at least have read the bible. Wouldn't you think?

Now hold on there dear...

I'm staring at a snow back in front of my house that is taller than I am. It's not supposed to get above 20 degree's here all week.

Don't you mean you need your sandals?

Have you read the Gospels?

What is a "decent understanding" of the bible? Have you read it? Even just the New Testament?
If you haven't - you are basing your understanding on everything else but the source.

Due to the discussion of Hitler - and your stance on his being a Christain, I know for certain you have not read the New Testament.

Therefore...

You have no experience or understanding from "where you're sitting" because it is from the seat of ignorance. And heading off to Wiki to get a definition of Christainity is like writing a book report on the Illiad from the Cliff notes. Your opinion is not your own, but somebody elses, and what evidence do you have that they've done the work for themselves.

And aside from giving a brief overview of what the gospels say about salvation - how do you even know what my definition of Christianity is to determine there isn't anyone who is one?

Read the manuel - then join the discussion. By your own analogy - why should you be allowed an opinion?

Well - you've got to see "Burn Before Reading".

Then cancel. Blockbuster is much better - unless you have more than a 2 mile drive to one.

As do we who believe in the God of scripture. The actions of 9/11 come from the standpoint of pretextaul understnding of the Koran. Making a claim and surching for passages out of context to support it. If you examione your posts closer - you are guilty of that which you claim to fear the most. I have no problem with your entring the discussion of the exisrance of God - I have a problem with your presumptions of Christianity, and your misinformed prejudices of what behavior a christain demonstrates. The problem therin is you attribute the actions of those who abuse it (the bible refers to these as wolves in sheep's clothing) as representative of the belief as a whole. Then you attempt to use scripture to support your argument without understanding the context of what you are quoting. This is not demonstrating that you understand Christainity at a level of those you are attempting to refute.

In plain terms - If you want to be a rocket scientist - at least understand how a rocket works. If you keep seeing rockets crash - that only demonstrates that those who built them didn't know what they were doing - not that rockets don't fly. And stop ignoring those who's rockets don't crash because they're not supporting yuor pretext.

You need to get a handle on your Atheistic apologetics. Paul does not declare that the only thing a person need do is have belief in Jesus to gain membership of the christian community. First of all - you are referencing the book of Romans. A letter written to those who were already christains. Second of all the reference of faith being discussed in the passage you've wrongly chosen to support your position is referencing faith that leads to rightiousness - which follows the discussion he has about no one being rightious. Not one. Obviously you have demonstrated the incapabability to read James, Peter and John, all three of which discuss this topic directly - in order to refute them and support your position. But no surprise there.

As to your second point. Where do you find this idea in the New Testament. Or have you forgotten that you are trying to demonstrate that Hitler was a christian. This question is attempting to prove that he was Jewish.

Why do you bother?

See 2 Peter 1:3-11; All of 1 John; and James.

Start there, and this will give you an idea of the actions of a christain - as well as insight into the actions of those claiming to be christians - but do so in vain.

Don't blame the philosophy with the actions of those who abuse it. The bible is clear on what the actions of a christian are - History is clear about those who have abused it.

A written requirement? What bible are you reading?

Well - your education on the topic is limited.

I don't "decide" who is a christian and who isn't. I've examined enough of the documentation and quotations on Hitler to have no problem agreeing with the majority of historians and anyone who has casually investigated this topic that Hitler was a non-christain through his own statements of beliefs, and by his demonstrated actions.

But believe what you want.

I'm curious as to what your evidence is to refute the actions of Hitler that demonstrate clearly that he was not a christain.

So how does Hitler fit your "definition/understanding" of a Christain?

But that was not a definition - just an example.

Do you own a car? Don't you have faith it will start when you turn the ignition? How can anyone exist without faith?

If you think you live your life without faith - you're delusional.

Of course I am. But what are you basing your belief of the validity of the interpretation on?
Is this not blind trust in the interpretation of one who claims expertise? Yet you discredit anyone who is a Christain when they are brought up and quoted. I don't understand what supports this double standard.

Excuse me - but you aregue that he was a Christain - which he was not.

Because that it not what the context of scripture dictates.

That isn't proof af anything. The interpretation's of Heiroglifics are subjective at best. (Or however that word is spelled)

Also - what evidence is there that what was found in the Heiro's weren't themselves fiction - in which case there would be no mention of anyone real. There's no basis for the claim the the bible is fiction - as there's no way to verify the claim.