I always enjoy your replies BD, they are so flawed. The Nadan fragments numbered 119, not one. The Nag hammadi are letters between the disciples and others discussing the disciples, what you have read is what the catholic and jewish churches released as being the translations. Most of the dead sea scrolls have never been released to the public and are held by the Russina orthodox church. You certainly have no idea of true religious history, just what you have learnt from recent translations designed to give acceptable outcomes for religion, a common ploy.

“In fact they admit that the dilemma of "What is right, what is wrong' is the very first philosophical challenge they face.” You sure do live in fantasy, how can you say that, when all living things have a differentiation between right and wrong, if not then nothing would exist, for they would destroy each other upon sight. Reason, is a part of existence, it is the religious that cannot reason, or discern between right and wrong, they are most war like beings on the planet.

“As I've said numerous times, this leads to 5 people (even humanists) having 5 different ideas about what is right/wrong. They have no anchor, rudder, lighthouse.” This surely is one of the most ludicrous statements you have ever made. If this were so, then it would mean that meaningful conversations would never occur between those that didn't believe. The actual facts are, those that are not restricted by mythical illusion and fear, are able to freely interact, rather than be directed.

To state that all our values come from religion is also a figment of your imagination, your religion has only been around 2000. If what you say about those that don't believe is true, then there would be no society, no religion, no co-ordination and no interaction, as everyone would disagree.

Therefore your god, your understanding and your beleifs wouldn't exist. Could that be why you are all so blank and have no free choice, other than to repeat over and over, fantasy

"Its not easy being" and others.

Point taken, let me attempt to clarify/re-express myself on the issue of 'right and wrong'

I seriously doubt that any Christian would disagree on the 'rightness' of the 10 commandments. Nor with the concept of "Love God first" "love your neighbour as urself" These 2 commands sum up the whole law, its not rocket science :)

From these 2 all other ideas of right and wrong must be subject.

Yes, of course there will be diversity, some will speak from what they think is a 'Christian' perspective, but it may turn out to be nothing more than a 'cultural orientation' rather than a committment to Christ through repentance and faith. If I may, that is the criteria of determining if someone is 'Christian', and is the gospel Jesus proclaimed. Repentance is based on an understanding of 'right and wrong..... as expressed in the commandments.

Alchemist,

not only are you the "all knowing" who has access to the dead sea scrolls which up to this moment you inform us are hidden...etc etc.. :) but also u know what "I" have been reading.

So, you, are the one person on earth outside the Russian Orthodox Church (as you claim) who knows what is 'in' these scrolls.......My 'flawed argument' meter is whacking on the full scale deflection stopper. (I do recall reading something on that a while back, I'm a bit skeptical about your claims)

I'll get back to you on the Nadan fragments, as I continue to inform my rather lead impeded brain.

Blessings all

Dear Philo,
Thanks, the more people who love me, the better, I guess.
Of course your views have equal status with mine. I am always prepared to accept I may be wrong, but you have to persuade me first.
I see the world through my own very limited paradigm. Like you, I am a product of my upbringing, culture, education, experience and time. Most of what I think works from my point of view, but time will move on and, one day, I am sure, my beliefs and yours, indeed everyone's on this website, will look quaint and silly in the light of future knowledge and growth.
I like the idea that what I think is just what i think, I like the idea that life is an adventure of discovery of new ways of thinking and being. I'm glad I don't have a view that someone called God decreed the truth and I can stop looking for it, but, that's just me. I'll put my views forcefully, but respectfully I hope, and expect you to do the same. I guess that's what equality means to me, equal respect.
By the way, I don't expect to ever find the truth and that doesn't worry me either.

David, I can't agree with you on this one:

"If I may, that [a commitment to Christ through repentance and faith] is the criterion of determining if someone is 'Christian'."

There can never be "the" criterion, but only "your" criterion. Other people will have different ways of defining whether they (or others) are Christians, and they are not subject to your views.

Since you seem to feel that you have the right to define other people's experience of Christianity, do you also see it as your prerogative to define who is a "true" Muslim?

Bless you Ian :)
mate.. your not disagreeing with 'me'....your disagreeing with the foundation.. Scripture.
But if one does not accept Scripture as a foundation for 'what is Christian' then anything goes, agreed. But please keep in mind, we only 'know' of the word/concept "Christian" because of those documents, (+ church history of course).

I'll concede that if one is of the Catholic tradition, then the view of the Holy Spirit continually at work "in" the Church on matters of doctrine, and the supposed infallability of the Pope, might persuade a person to change the definition of 'Christian' though I think that would be like a ship which had cut off its anchor chain in a stormy sea.
I have a simple approach to this, "If the church manifestly errs from its own foundation in defining 'Christian' then I will go with the foundation rather than 'the' Church"

"repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand" (many references)
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no-one comes to the Father but by me" John 14.6

"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness" John

on this basis, and subsequent apostolic preaching (of the same kind)
"The disciples were first called 'christians' at Antioch" Acts 11.26

Ian I don't think its unreasonable or unsound to 'define' a 'Christian' in these terms. I think you can define 'church experience' or 'religious interest' in however terms you like, but 'Christian'... I feel does have a clear form.

As for 'true Muslim' well, I would refer to the '5 pillars' of Islam, again which seems reasonable. Taking this a step further, 'as practiced by Mohamed' is a goal the ICV had on its web site (until they were reminded of some of his questionable war-like/cruel actions by some of us, and they removed this very recently(most likely because of the Anti Terror laws)

Anyway, thanx for challenging me on this issue, vigorous interaction is always helpful.
Take care

Again, David, you (and many others) are defining Christianity as being based on your reading of Scripture, but there are other possible definitions, as there are many other ways of reading those works. You simply do not have the right to define other people's experience for them.

You say:
"I don't think it's unreasonable or unsound to 'define' a 'Christian' in these terms."

I didn't say it was unreasonable, just that it isn't and can never be the only way. No one is in any position to impose their definition on anyone else.

It is like one person saying to another "ah, but you are not a REAL Collingwood supporter, because REAL Collingwood supporters do this, that or the other". It just isn't a plausible way to behave, no matter what one book or another might have to say about it.

(By the way, I have read the Bible, and quoting little snippets of it to me is unlikely to change my views on anything.)