The only good Christian is a crusading Christian. True or false?


The only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian. True or false?

A nutshell view of Gnostic Christianity is expressed in the first two links. The third shows the attitude and result of Christian and Gnostic Christian interaction. I should point out that Gnostic Christianity does not hold to any supernatural belief, although I know that the literature, mostly written by those who won the God wars, wants to show that we do. Our myths have a lot of supernatural entities but they are myths, not reality.

I heard the saying in the title of this O. P. some time ago and after looking at the moral aspects of both ideologies/ theologies; — I think that statement to be true from a moral point of view.

Do you?



Dude. You’ve been arguing this position for literally 9 years. One way or another, people are holding their religious opinions, and as long as they do not try to enforce those morals on me, I’m fine with them doing whatever they want.


I am Eli ______- ______ and I approve this message


If life is all about you, then you are not living by the Golden Rule and are not worth my time.

The world is still very homophobic and misogynous thanks to religions, and I recognize that many are generally to self-centred, as you seem to indicate for you, to care about the hardship that religions send to others.

I hope someone is there for you when you need help even though you will not do the same for your neighbors.




Thanks for the reply.



By pure logic of the Golden Rule, that means you would allow rape (because you have sex with someone because you would like them to have ex with you).

If someone is enforcing their religious morals on another, then that is clearly a violation of what I said. For example, if someone is not letting two people marry because of their religious beliefs, that obviously is them enforcing their morals on others.

What do you mean by this?


Also, one of the key pillars of a democratic and free society is that you need to tolerate all people, even those who hold intolerant opinions.


I was replying to @Sharpandquic not you


Interesting that you equate normal loving sex with rape.

It seems my first sentence was on the mark.



Sure, and a good example of this is Trump not speaking up for those who are not white supremacists.

The KKK are all good people according to him.



But the point that just because you want something means everyone else would want it.

Humans are not all the same in their wants and desires.

He never “spoke up” on either side. He said there was violence on both sides.

You’re taking a quote out of context. What he said was some of the people at the Charlottesville protest were good people. He never said the KKK was made of all good people.

But anyways, you need to respect peoples’ right to hold an opinion different from your own.


Love I cannot help.

Respect has to be earned, but if you think all opinions deserve respect, then you are a fool.

I get the impression of youth so you have time to smarten up.



But a base amount of respect is still necessary.

As many opinions as possible deserve consideration when making a decision.

Provide me with some explanation as to why the freedom of assembly should not be allowed?


Where did I say I would disallow that?

I happen to like freedom of speech but I draw the line at the freedom to lie to people so as to gain their cash.



But with religion, you cannot objectively say something is a truth or a lie.


Yes you can, by looking at what facts the statements are based on.

That is how the judge was able to judge against Intelligent Design.



Can you provide me with an example of this?


Sure. But better for you to do it to yourself.

Make any faith based statement in a court.

Do you think a judge would allow it in the record?

Not a good one.

Remember that faith is a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

IOW belief without evidence.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you try to get another to believe it while taking their cash, it is fraud if you cannot show proof of your claim.



No, but not because it is false, because a) we live in a secular society and b) the court relies off of (what should be) absolute truths, and not unconfirmed truths.

Just because something cannot be proven true does not mean it is false.

Is the bible not, to an extent, a historical record?

Would someone referring to the bible not be considered proof of claim?


Such as?

The law of the excluded middle says it is either true or false.

Not according to the intelligentsia and biblical history scholars.

I have two links for you.

She does her thing in the first few minutes in this.

This one takes more time.