|
Post by ellie on May 6, 2016 22:06:06 GMT -5
These things really need whole library to address. However a few points to give you an idea to start with. Christianity: - Teaches Adam made in the image of God while teaching that Eve is just a helpmeet. Women as property available for sex, home making and possibly companionship. - Teaches women are the source of evil - Teaches women are inferior and not to be in positions of authority - Has sometimes encouraged life risking pregnancies and unaffordable number of children - Hase sometimes taught negative ideas about menstruation - Spreads the idea that people have something inherently wrong with them that makes them bad sinful people that need fixing - Worse still teaches original sin - Teaches normal biological drives are wrong - Teaches ideas there is something wrong with people who are attracted to the same gender - Teaches anti-Semitism - Tells people that they will go to hell and teaches fear - Teaches people to be “good” people because someone “god” is watching thereby messing with people’s ability to be moral people when no one is watching - Teaches people to judge the morality of others on outward visual things that can be “watched” - Teaches physical child abuse (spare the rod spoil the child) - Demonstrates god to be the divine child abuser - Uses the age old technique (that any abuser will be familiar with) of interlacing love with punishment (judgment) to control people. I have to say ellie , that the list you provided is certainly the teachings of a group I want nothing to do with. Sounds positively frightening. Sure does Would you mind directing me to a copy of the creed and tenants of faith to which your church subscribes. I would like to confirm that none of the things I have listed are implied by or listed in those documents.Actually it is just a short list of some of the awful things associated with Christianity. The list was not intended to describe every group.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 6, 2016 22:20:28 GMT -5
I cannot say that I agree that your list is representative of the teachings of Christianity. The list is not intended to be representative of all the teachings of Christianity. It is merely a list in repose to your question of how I believe Christianity has exacerbated some human issues.Not all groups identifying as christen teach all the things I listed. However, most (not all) groups do teach that god required the sacrifice of a son to save humanity. Then many people dress this up as god’s love.Most Christians teach that people are fallen or by nature sinful. I do not agree with this teaching. IMO it would be better to teach that we are just humans who make mistakes from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 6, 2016 22:26:38 GMT -5
You write like Luther, with those personal insults. Are you a Lutheran? Is God a Lutheran? Perhaps you aren't aware, but this user dmmichgood has spent many hours insulting me and throwing half truths at me in the past years. They are a very hostile user on this forum. Notice that they even go to the trouble to write in bold blue font. It's all a yelling match with this user. They have only a tentative grasp on reality, but they have a mouth (keyboard actually) that runs like a river. Geeze, now you using the word "they" to describe me as if I am more than one poor lone person! Please, dear god, pleeease don't let simpleton make me into some kind of Trinity, neither Holy or Unholy!
Simpleton, you must have missed out on some of my posts where I have explained why I write in bold & blue. It is because that my eyesight is not the best. (I have worn glasses since I was four years old)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 6, 2016 22:34:15 GMT -5
'Perhaps you aren't aware, but this user dmmichgood has spent many hours insulting me and throwing half truths at me in the past years.'......interesting comment this....considering @simpleton s registration date.....can anybody guess what this could mean?? Yes indeed, -simpleton's registration date was 2 Nov 2015, so it has been less than one year that she/hehas been around, not "years."
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 7, 2016 0:35:54 GMT -5
Most of the points mentioned are part of the doctrine of the RCC. They are indeed the source. If they are not supported by explicit points of the RCC doctrine they are strongly implied. No they are not. Prove that all those points at current RCC doctrine. PART ONE SECTION TWO CHAPTER ONE ARTICLE I Paragraph 7. The Fall Section 388Original sin - an essential truth of the faith
PART TWO SECTION TWO CHAPTER THREE ARTICLE 6 VI. WHO CAN RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT? section 1577Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible. PART THREE SECTION TWO CHAPTER TWO ARTICLE 5 section - 2258 Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being. PART THREE SECTION TWO CHAPTER TWO ARTICLE 6 section - 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
PART THREE SECTION TWO CHAPTER TWO ARTICLE 6 section - 2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved. PART THREE SECTION TWO CHAPTER TWO ARTICLE 6 section - 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
PART ONE SECTION TWO CHAPTER THREE ARTICLE 12 section - 1033We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." PART TWO SECTION TWO CHAPTER THREE ARTICLE 7 section - 1607According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations; their mutual attraction, the Creator's own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust; and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work. Catholic Laws on Marriage and Divorce (Imprimatur: Patrick J. Hayes, D.D., 1921) III. Duties of the wife. 1. St. Paul reduces the wife's duties to three, which are to take care of the house, and to be gentle and obedient to her husband (Titus ii. 5). 2. The primary duty of the wife is to obey her husband in all that is reasonable and not contrary to the law of God (Gen. iii. 16; Eph. v. 22). 3. The wife should, by her diligence and cleanliness, by her cheerfulness and amiability, strive to make her husband happy at home and in her company; she should find her pleasure in her home and not in going about. 4. By her prudent and economical management the wife should endeavor to make the best use of her husband's earnings. 5. It is the wife's duty to train the children in piety and religion.
There you go. Most of the items are supported by RCC doctrine. I will leave the implications of the others as an exercise for the reader. I am neither against the RCC or for the RCC. But when you make unsupported claims I will question what you claim. I don't have concerns about the RCC. I have concerns about people who make unsupported statements.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 7, 2016 0:51:38 GMT -5
What about the negative 2x2 experience people who jump to another church? That seems pretty common. I think there are multiple types of ex Christian atheists. One type are the negative experience people. Another type seem to have a clear understanding of mainstream Christianity.
These people I have difficulty picturing turning mainstream Christian.
Hard to quote from my phone so this is out of sequence. But I'd love reason to be a Christian again so please tell, what are these benefits? As a a former Christian who is now an atheist, I have really looked into many, many religions, -Christian as well as others; -I certainly do NOT see any benefits coming from a belief in Christianity or any other religion for that matter!
All I see from Christians on this board is a constant struggle to try & understand what this or that piece of scripture means and then trying to convince others that the way THEY interpret it is the right way!
|
|
|
New here
May 7, 2016 4:36:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sharingtheriches on May 7, 2016 4:36:07 GMT -5
'Perhaps you aren't aware, but this user dmmichgood has spent many hours insulting me and throwing half truths at me in the past years.'......interesting comment this....considering @simpleton s registration date.....can anybody guess what this could mean?? Reminds me of the gauntlet that new inductees/members are put through to prove their metal. Reninds
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 5:02:53 GMT -5
'Perhaps you aren't aware, but this user dmmichgood has spent many hours insulting me and throwing half truths at me in the past years.'......interesting comment this....considering @simpleton s registration date.....can anybody guess what this could mean?? Reminds me of the gauntlet that new inductees/members are put through to prove their metal. Reninds Yes, and anyone on here who has survived the old forum can survive hell's fire. Here is like a practice run for hell if we are unfortunate enough to make it to Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on May 7, 2016 8:01:48 GMT -5
To New Here,You have learn't how new denominations like the 2x2s pop up.Disagreement in things not relevant to our daily christian walk. You see founder William Irvine fell out with the Methodists as he claimed the Holy Spirit was not God,or currently relevant. They stopped him as the Faith Missions eventually did. So he went about solo and gathered a few together took "their possessions" told them to believe that God had placed him and them to reveal his doctorine to the world. A little later (documented)he kicked out one of his followers because he refused to preach that John Wesley was in Hell. So forget this board the sick and compassionless,graceless,ignorant,scripture twisters that will only further confuse and muck up your mind and hearts desires. May I appologise on behalf of all those who genuinely tried to encourage and advise you for the insensetive, unbiblical, rude,compassionless,nonoutreaching behaviour and to be in your seeing and hearing range,rude and ignorant.Wonder what God thinks of your board and this sickening squabble. Maggie.
|
|
|
New here
May 7, 2016 8:18:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ellie on May 7, 2016 8:18:57 GMT -5
What about the negative 2x2 experience people who jump to another church? That seems pretty common. I think there are multiple types of ex Christian atheists. One type are the negative experience people. Another type seem to have a clear understanding of mainstream Christianity.
These people I have difficulty picturing turning mainstream Christian.
Hard to quote from my phone so this is out of sequence. But I'd love reason to be a Christian again so please tell, what are these benefits? As a a former Christian who is now an atheist, I have really looked into many, many religions, -Christian as well as others; -I certainly do NOT see any benefits coming from a belief in Christianity or any other religion for that matter!
All I see from Christians on this board is a constant struggle to try & understand what this or that piece of scripture means and then trying to convince others that the way THEY interpret it is the right way!
I still see something inspirational in the life of Jesus as I understand it. Obviously I don't want anything to do with that list of stuff I posted in this thread. Limits the options somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 7, 2016 8:39:02 GMT -5
Sure does Would you mind directing me to a copy of the creed and tenants of faith to which your church subscribes. I would like to confirm that none of the things I have listed are implied by or listed in those documents.Actually it is just a short list of some of the awful things associated with Christianity. The list was not intended to describe every group. It's a very unusual list and one that is quite foreign from Christianity except for a couple. we can all write things in the most negative possible to portray any worldview as abhorrent if we want to. Sometimes things which have happened because of religion can be abhorrent. That isn't a good reason to not acknowledge those things IMO. I think there's evidence to suggest some of Christianity teaches that people are sinful If memory serves me correctly I heard that phrase from Spong who I don't consider an atheist. If just requires sacrificing of a child I don't think you will be hearing me using just and loving together.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 7, 2016 8:59:40 GMT -5
I can say that every person is born with the ability to both know and do good and evil - an atheist can say that Christianity teaches that people have something inherently wrong with them that needs fixing etc As demonstrated, it is not atheists saying this but the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Maybe you, as a theist, can explain how a being, divine or not, that is all powerful and all knowing does not prevent children from being abused. Here's hoping your explanation will show this loving and just nature. The references I provided were not mine but the doctrine of the catholic church.
|
|
|
New here
May 7, 2016 9:58:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sharingtheriches on May 7, 2016 9:58:14 GMT -5
I can say that every person is born with the ability to both know and do good and evil - an atheist can say that Christianity teaches that people have something inherently wrong with them that needs fixing etc As demonstrated, it is not atheists saying this but the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Maybe you, as a theist, can explain how a being, divine or not, that is all powerful and all knowing does not prevent children from being abused. Here's hoping your explanation will show this loving and just nature. The references I provided were not mine but the doctrine of the catholic church. Reminded me of the Psalmist who was very undone at the evil ones and how they got by and flourished in this life. Hesaid his feet were well nigh slipped...until he went into the sanctuary of God and THEN he understood their ending. God reserves the evil to the evil day. If all are to be judged by the faithful, surely that speaks to what will happen to the unrighteous and evil mankind.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 7, 2016 10:24:48 GMT -5
Reminded me of the Psalmist who was very undone at the evil ones and how they got by and flourished in this life. Hesaid his feet were well nigh slipped...until he went into the sanctuary of God and THEN he understood their ending. God reserves the evil to the evil day. If all are to be judged by the faithful, surely that speaks to what will happen to the unrighteous and evil mankind. I have a feeling it is not just the faithful who are doing the judging! I wonder who the unrighteous are that they would be considered both unrighteous and evil. In any case, I believe an atheist can be righteous just as a theist can be unrighteous.
|
|
|
New here
May 7, 2016 12:32:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sharingtheriches on May 7, 2016 12:32:41 GMT -5
Reminded me of the Psalmist who was very undone at the evil ones and how they got by and flourished in this life. Hesaid his feet were well nigh slipped...until he went into the sanctuary of God and THEN he understood their ending. God reserves the evil to the evil day. If all are to be judged by the faithful, surely that speaks to what will happen to the unrighteous and evil mankind. I have a feeling it is not just the faithful who are doing the judging! I wonder who the unrighteous are that they would be considered both unrighteous and evil. In any case, I believe an atheist can be righteous just as a theist can be unrighteous. I'm sorry,Rat, I didn't mean the faithful would be the judges. But by the lives of the faithful will those of wavering, off-and-on-again, and lukewarm faith as well as those of no faith. Those that live by faith lives will more or less be the standard used by the Judge. Yes many people from many walks of life live right. But there's so much more to it,IMO!
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2016 15:16:42 GMT -5
Sometimes things which have happened because of religion can be abhorrent. That isn't a good reason to not acknowledge those things IMO. There isn't any reason not to acknowledge abhorrent things that have been done. People who hold to a set of religious beliefs may do abhorrent things. If those abhorrent things are contrary to the beliefs they claim to hold ("love your neighbor" and "love your enemies", for instance), we should be careful not to think that the abhorrent things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. Perhaps they testify to the natural sinfulness of human nature that you're so reluctant to accept.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 7, 2016 16:15:18 GMT -5
Sometimes things which have happened because of religion can be abhorrent. That isn't a good reason to not acknowledge those things IMO. There isn't any reason not to acknowledge abhorrent things that have been done. People who hold to a set of religious beliefs may do abhorrent things. If those abhorrent things are contrary to the beliefs they claim to hold ("love your neighbor" and "love your enemies", for instance), we should be careful not to think that the abhorrent things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. Perhaps they testify to the natural sinfulness of human nature that you're so reluctant to accept. :) Suppose abhorrent things have been done because of the teachings of christianity. Should they be ignored? This brings up a problem that was introduced by Plato before there was christianity. Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good or are they morally good because they are willed by God?
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 7, 2016 17:08:32 GMT -5
Sometimes things which have happened because of religion can be abhorrent. That isn't a good reason to not acknowledge those things IMO. There isn't any reason not to acknowledge abhorrent things that have been done. People who hold to a set of religious beliefs may do abhorrent things. If those abhorrent things are contrary to the beliefs they claim to hold ("love your neighbor" and "love your enemies", for instance), we should be careful not to think that the abhorrent things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. If the teachings of a group claiming to be Christian are abhorrent and the actions that follow from those teachings are abhorrent we should consider that these things were done because of the teachings of Christianity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 17:23:43 GMT -5
There isn't any reason not to acknowledge abhorrent things that have been done. People who hold to a set of religious beliefs may do abhorrent things. If those abhorrent things are contrary to the beliefs they claim to hold ("love your neighbor" and "love your enemies", for instance), we should be careful not to think that the abhorrent things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. If the teachings of a group claiming to be Christian are abhorrent and the actions that follow from those teachings are abhorrent we should consider that these things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. If a group claims to be representing Christianity, is it in fact Christian? In my mind claiming to be X, and actually being X are two distinct things. Thus if a group claiming to be Christian does abhorrent acts based on the teachings of that group, that does not mean that those abhorrent acts are in fact Christian doctrine. This is why I have said multiple times in this forum that a person needs to figure out what Christianity is before anything else - go to the source, talk to the learned experts, etc. It's very easy to get conned by 'love bombing' groups, it's much harder work to actually do the research to figure out what Christianity is.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2016 17:40:06 GMT -5
There isn't any reason not to acknowledge abhorrent things that have been done. People who hold to a set of religious beliefs may do abhorrent things. If those abhorrent things are contrary to the beliefs they claim to hold ("love your neighbor" and "love your enemies", for instance), we should be careful not to think that the abhorrent things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. If the teachings of a group claiming to be Christian are abhorrent and the actions that follow from those teachings are abhorrent we should consider that these things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. Go ahead and consider it. Compare those actions to the teachings of Jesus himself.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 7, 2016 22:01:37 GMT -5
If the teachings of a group claiming to be Christian are abhorrent and the actions that follow from those teachings are abhorrent we should consider that these things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. Go ahead and consider it. Compare those actions to the teachings of Jesus himself. The point here is determining whether a group is to be considered christian because of the beliefs they hold and how they describe themselves or whether they should be considered christian because they conform to your definition of what believe makes a christian. In this case, you are suggesting comparing their beliefs/behaviors to the teachings of Jesus. By this claim I assume you are excluding the teachings of others in the bible? This would mean that the vast majority of people claiming to be christian would not match your definition. Do you consider the RCC to be a christian organization? Are there any denominations that you consider to be christian?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 7, 2016 22:05:38 GMT -5
If the teachings of a group claiming to be Christian are abhorrent and the actions that follow from those teachings are abhorrent we should consider that these things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. If a group claims to be representing Christianity, is it in fact Christian? In my mind claiming to be X, and actually being X are two distinct things. Thus if a group claiming to be Christian does abhorrent acts based on the teachings of that group, that does not mean that those abhorrent acts are in fact Christian doctrine. This is why I have said multiple times in this forum that a person needs to figure out what Christianity is before anything else - go to the source, talk to the learned experts, etc. It's very easy to get conned by 'love bombing' groups, it's much harder work to actually do the research to figure out what Christianity is. Starting on more-or-less the ground floor, do you consider the RCC to be christian? At what point do you feel the non-christian denominations began to splinter off?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 8, 2016 0:18:42 GMT -5
Too much focus on groups. Individuals are Christians or not and true Christians will show the fruits of Christ. Christ is the standard for a 'Christian', which means essentially those who are 'of Christ'. When a group acts in concert to commit abhorrent acts, such as marching off to massacre thousands together, it is evident that their works are not the works of Christ. When an organization has official sanctioned doctrines, those can be compared against the standard. By that standard an organization like the Roman Catholic Church cannot be considered Christian.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 8, 2016 1:31:13 GMT -5
If the teachings of a group claiming to be Christian are abhorrent and the actions that follow from those teachings are abhorrent we should consider that these things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. If a group claims to be representing Christianity, is it in fact Christian? In my mind claiming to be X, and actually being X are two distinct things. Thus if a group claiming to be Christian does abhorrent acts based on the teachings of that group, that does not mean that those abhorrent acts are in fact Christian doctrine. This is why I have said multiple times in this forum that a person needs to figure out what Christianity is before anything else - go to the source, talk to the learned experts, etc. It's very easy to get conned by 'love bombing' groups, it's much harder work to actually do the research to figure out what Christianity is. Does the power of the 'true Christian God' come into play in your understanding of how one would discern what 'true Christianity' is? What you describe sounds more academically driven than supernaturally driven. Or is it the 'power' of Western Civilization that is at the center, with Christianity serving? (i.e. If some, even many believe, to different degrees, in the existence of the supernatural (via a Simpleton-approved form of Christianity) so be it, while the rest wink at each other and play along with the Christianity thing as a means of preserving of a way of life.)
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 8, 2016 5:20:42 GMT -5
Too much focus on groups. Individuals are Christians or not and true Christians will show the fruits of Christ. Christ is the standard for a 'Christian', which means essentially those who are 'of Christ'. When a group acts in concert to commit abhorrent acts, such as marching off to massacre thousands together, it is evident that their works are not the works of Christ. When an organization has official sanctioned doctrines, those can be compared against the standard. By that standard an organization like the Roman Catholic Church cannot be considered Christian. A problem IMO in using this definition of Christianity is (based on my guess of what you mean by Christ as the standard) I've not yet met one true Christian. Every person I've met claiming to be christian has at some point done something out of line with that standard.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 8, 2016 10:19:21 GMT -5
Too much focus on groups. Individuals are Christians or not and true Christians will show the fruits of Christ. Christ is the standard for a 'Christian', which means essentially those who are 'of Christ'. When a group acts in concert to commit abhorrent acts, such as marching off to massacre thousands together, it is evident that their works are not the works of Christ. When an organization has official sanctioned doctrines, those can be compared against the standard. By that standard an organization like the Roman Catholic Church cannot be considered Christian. A problem IMO in using this definition of Christianity is (based on my guess of what you mean by Christ as the standard) I've not yet met one true Christian. Every person I've met claiming to be christian has at some point done something out of line with that standard. And it also means that each person has their own version of what the standard is. If there are a group of people who agree on the 'proper' meaning of the text in the bible as to what the attributes of Jesus are that they consider to be the standard of a christian they usually form a church/denomination with these standards as the doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 8, 2016 12:50:00 GMT -5
Too much focus on groups. Individuals are Christians or not and true Christians will show the fruits of Christ. Christ is the standard for a 'Christian', which means essentially those who are 'of Christ'. When a group acts in concert to commit abhorrent acts, such as marching off to massacre thousands together, it is evident that their works are not the works of Christ. When an organization has official sanctioned doctrines, those can be compared against the standard. By that standard an organization like the Roman Catholic Church cannot be considered Christian. A problem IMO in using this definition of Christianity is (based on my guess of what you mean by Christ as the standard) I've not yet met one true Christian. Every person I've met claiming to be christian has at some point done something out of line with that standard. Awww, we have all come short of the glory of God. However I'm not of the impression that rends us non-Christian or lose our Christian status. I thought that meant we needed to get closer to Christ..etc.
|
|
|
New here
May 8, 2016 12:52:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sharingtheriches on May 8, 2016 12:52:45 GMT -5
They were first called Christians at Antioch. What was it about the folks at Antioch that would qualify them "Christians"?
|
|