If your PC program is meant to accommodate wimps who want the whole world to call them what they want, then I’m jealous of my forebears.
It’s “Mohammedans” who follow “Mohammedanism.”
Oh sorry. Borrowed the host for black mass, it’s got an integral role. Requires a ginger too. It’s gotten a bit wet - no time to explain (actually, so has the ginger). Would you like it back?
You’ll convert dozens of Catholics with that news. Way to go. :o
Actually, it’s ur-Christian. In first two or three centuries of the Christian Era, what you’re describing was all over the Roman Empire.
Yes, it’s typical kanicbird, and as typical kanicbird, it makes sense if you (1) think about it in fundamentalist theology terms* and (2) don’t assume he’s spouting nonsense.
All he said was that no church is 100% right, that all of them have a mixture of good (God) and evil (Satan). And that, when Christians realize this, that’s when things will get better.
*It isn’t fundie theology, but he does use the same terms. Well, that and a few New Agey ones. It’s just typical salad plate religion, with an emphasis on Christianity.
That can’t be right! The Pope is a primate!
Well, certain substances of a consecrated nature. On the premises. To be removed for clinical tests.
But it’s worth a movie! Godzilla vs. the Gold-Plated Monstrance!
Wow that is pretty cool 
I disagree.
Practically all Christian groups throughout history have considered it extremely important to separate what they consider “true” Christians from “false” Christians, and to crack down on heretics, pagans, “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and the like.
Scholars like Wouter Hanegraaff and Jan Assmann have written a great deal about this. I can recommend some books or .pdf’s, if you’d like.
If this was 2,000 years ago, I might agree. But today wherein some people see religion as “only religion” it should lessen on either side, don’t you think?
The Satanists I knew were more precise with their adherence to Catholic liturgical forms than any practicing Catholic I know. They seemed to like the ritual, even while actively inverting / subverting it.
I heven’t seen any of them in years. I wonder how many have outgrown that whole “Look how naughty we are with our Black Robes and Sex” thing.
^
I’d like to believe you but we have no knowledge of such a group here. They’re bound to leak out their activities.
No, I don’t, actually.
Sure, some people see religion as “only religion” – i.e., they don’t care either way – but there are still plenty of religious people out there who hold on to the idea that there are true Gods and false Gods, true Christians and false Christians, etc.
For them, it’s practically a religious duty to expose the false Christians wherever they can find them – even if it’s in that other church two blocks over. From their point of view, it makes perfect sense: They are not only trying to protect their own flock from falling in error, but they are even doing the heretics a favor by pointing out the error of their ways.
This is nothing new, it’s certainly not exclusively a Filipino thing, and I absolutely do not agree that it’s “un-Christian”, as you put it in the OP.
Black Mass?! Does anybody actually do that?! Doesn’t sound like LaVeyan Satanism at all. (Smite the heretics!)
No idea. I have a very bad habit of lying on the Internet, and will never allow facts to get in the way of a story, joke, or the twitting of a fool.
Oh.
What do you call followers of Islam, then?
Kids, what’s PC here is normal and perfectly polite in other cultures, and “Mohammedan” isn’t all that un-PC here. It’s archaic, more “Negro” than “nigger,” so cut the guy some slack.
I disagree too. How old is the Bible passage concerning false gods and false Christians? If you’re going to stay Bible-based, then we should stop arguing right here. In that case everything that came after those passages don’t matter. What about free will and introspection? What about pacifism and tolerance? What about non-sectarian worship?
From a Christian standpoint, it doesn’t matter. If it was true then, it’s true now.
Look, I’m just trying to show to you that the kind of thing you describe in the OP – different churches bickering with one another over who’s “true” and who’s “false” – isn’t “un-Christian” at all. It’s not only mandated in the Bible, but furthermore, it’s been going on throughout all of the history of Christianity. It’s not just a text passage in an old book. It’s 2000 years of history.
I’m all for it myself, if that’s what you’re asking. But I also understand why a lot of Christians aren’t.