Isn't saying that someone isn't really a christian not christian?

[Goblinmonger]

I've been silent for a little bit, but this got to me today during the Pope blaming god thread.

Let's say person A claims to be a Christian (believes in god, Jesus is divine).
Let's also say that person A is kind of an asshole and does really shitty things.
Let's now say that person B comes along and says, "Hey, look at person A. They are a shithead. They are a Christian."
Now person C, a Christian, comes along and says, "No way. Person A ISN'T a Christian because a real Christian wouldn't do that."

Hasn't person C violated that whole "judge not" business that JC taught which would mean that person C isn't a real christian because they do things that aren't christianlike just like person A did?

[Strong Atheist]

1. Not to mention committing the "No real Scotsman" fallacy. nt.

[stepnw1f]

2. All in the Eyes of the Beholder

sorry... I think calling fundis unchristian is appropriate and accurate.

[Goblinmonger]

5. But who gets to judge?

What are the standards? They can back up their claims with biblical references just the same as everyone else?

And, really, isn't that kind of judgement something that Jesus said not to do?

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. You might note, however, their bible passages are 90% Old

Testament, and 10% Paul, with little to no Jesus. And they are anything but 'the meek'.

I think those who prefer the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, might have a better claim to the title.

(Spoken as an outsider, looking in)

[pnwmom]

64. Thank you, NCevilDUer. And I would add

that literalists and fundamentalists often use single verses in the Bible out of context, and act as if the original text was written in King James English with no intervening translator.

[patrice]

3. It is possible to describe without judging.

Teachers do it all of the time.

[liberal N proud]

4. Person B is one of the smorgasbord Christians

They only take parts of the Bible that apply to situations in life that will help their cause at the moment, leaving out other parts that may conflict with their own actions.

[Goblinmonger]

7. I edited the OP

because I meant for that to be a three-person scene.

I don't think it changes your point except that you are talking about person C and not person B due to my error.

[liberal N proud]

9. Same principle

[Duer 157099]

6. Unfortunately there's a flaw in your premise

which is that most Christians believe that they are saved by faith, not works

That is, faith in JC is what saved them, not whether they are good or follow rules.

Second flaw is that the verse says "judge not, lest ye also be judged" -- and Christians will say that it's ok to judge in those things wherein you don't mind being judged yourself

These aren't my positions, but telling what some Christians might say

[Goblinmonger]

10. OK, valid points

1. I made no judgement about faith v. works. I understand that argument, but it is irrelevant. Even those that say that faith is what saves and not works would say that a person who has the faith would not do horrible things.

2. OK. I don't think the second "judged" is as positive as you make it out to be, but what about the "those without sin should cast the first stone" lesson? Certainly that is applicable.

[Duer 157099]

15. I agree with you

I'm just arguing what *they* would say

As for faith v works, I understand what you're saying, but I also know that Christians generally use a sliding scale when it comes to how they evaluate one's salvation -- if someone *slips" alot, they conclude they never were saved, but if it's only occassional or relatively minor slips, they just say it was backsliding. And of course, they apply different scales to different people, especially themselves.

There is absolutely NO rational way to discuss anything logically with these types of people -- they can prove ANY position they want using scripture.

So, it's hardly worthwhile to even deconstruct the arguments, if you know what I mean.

[Goblinmonger]

21. But deconstruction is so much damn fun

it was my favorite part of my literature classes. Too bad it is a little above the high school students I teach.

[pnwmom]

56. Don't know where you get your idea about what "most" Christians

believe. Faith vs. works is one of the MAJOR issues in Christian theology.

To many Christians ( to Catholics, for example) faith and works are inextricably bound up together. True faith will always be expressed in good works.

[beam me up scottie]

70. That's exactly why the op asked the question.

You can't even agree with other liberal christians.

[pnwmom]

83. So? Another liberal Christian and I disagreed on something. Big deal.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Exactly.

We don't think it's a big deal.

But some christians do.

[pnwmom]

90. Since this whole thread was started by an atheist, I'm not sure

who you're talking about.

[beam me up scottie]

94. The No True Scotsman fallacy.

And why using it might not be considered the "christian" thing to do to some christians.

[Union Thug]

8. Only if your a christian. Atheists like me are free to label, accuse..

and otherwise ridicule the fundies without concern for such details ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

11. I think that's the best part.

Maybe DU atheists should get together in the bible belt for a meet up and mockery.

[Proud_Democratt]

17. I vote for St. Louis.

[Goblinmonger]

22. I LOVE St. Louis

And then we can road trip over to East St. Louis for an all-night debauchery party.

[Proud_Democratt]

26. I'm with ya!!!

I'm only 30 mins.away from the eastside.

[shain from kane]

23. Corpus Christi. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

71. You're not a TRUE atheist.

You're not evil enough.

We ridicule everyone.

:evilgrin:

[atreides1]

12. Could you be more descriptive of what things person A does.

Just because person A believes in God and the divinity of Christ, doesn't make person A a Christian.

Person A would have to also practice the teachings of Christ, you know the whole idea of love, tolerance, and forgiveness.

Now being an asshole doesn't mean that person A isn't a Christian, and you don't really define "really shitty things".

Try being a little more descriptive.

As for the Pope blaming God for what happened during WWII, well this would be the same Pope who was too much of a coward to say no to the Nazis, who saw what was happening and sat with his thumbs up his ass trying to walk on his elbows? That Pope?

What happened wasn't God's fault, man came up with the atrocity of the Death Camps, not God.

[beam me up scottie]

72. That's your opinion.

Other christians would define it differently.

Who gets to decide?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

140. The Pope was a child during WWII.

I don't think cowardice played a part. I doubt seriously that he "saw what was happening and sat with this thumbs up his ass." He was born in 1927, which made him 11 when the war started, and 18 when it was over.

[Finder]

13. What Jesus said, according to Scripture...

21"(A)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22"(B)Many will say to Me on (C)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (D)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Matthew 7:21-23

[Lerkfish]

14. ah. the classic double-bind.

Your question is also interesting, in terms of a double-bind.

Many non-christians here exhort us liberal christians to do something about the evangelicals...theyre out of control and we must speak out against them.
And then liberal christians are told that to imply that evangelicals are not true christians is being judgemental.

which is it? point out how they're wrong, or completely forgive them and allow them to continue? You can't have both.


Can a plumber look at a person's work and decide if they truly understand plumbing? A person could claim to be a plumber and completely mess up the pipes. If the homeowner then hires the second plumber, would they simply say as a professional courtesy they're not allowed to comment on the quality of work of the first plumber, or should they instead warn the homeowner that the first plumber was no plumber and then set about to fix the mess?

[Goblinmonger]

27. So God is a P-Trap under a sink?

Religion = Plumbing? You gotta work a little more on your analogies. :P

But on to your point. I am not the person setting up the standard of determining who is and who is not a Christian.

I have always been of the standpoint that if someone declares themselves Christian, believes in God, believes that Jesus was divine, that they were/are a Christian. I grew up Catholic and it always slayed me when other sects would omit Catholics from the list of Christians. Still slays me that so many Christians (even here on DU) do not think that Mormons aren't Christians.

But once you start preaching that Bush, Robertson, Hitler, etc. aren't REALLY Christian, THOSE PEOPLE are the ones setting the standards. THOSE PEOPLE are the ones that are being judgemental.

Might be a double bind, but I'm just pointing it out; it is the people that make the claim in the first place that tied that knot.

[pnwmom]

58. No, the DU religion forum is the P-trap under the sink.

You may have grown up Catholic, but you missed the class where they taught everybody else that true Christian faith is expressed in good works.

It's the fundies, not the Catholics, who believe that faith is all you need. In fact, the fundies criticize the Catholic Church for its insistence on the equal importance of works as an expression of faith.

[beam me up scottie]

73. So you're christian and they're not?

I think they'd see it the other way around.

You all choose which parts to believe and which path to follow.


Why is your faith more legitimate than the fundies?

[pnwmom]

87. I'm not going to judge ALL fundamentalists. I know some of them

are good people, just as some atheists and some Catholics (and even some Republicans) are good people.

I'm not a scripture expert, but there is some verse that says -- by your works you will be judged. I think, if nothing else, our actions help to make us what we are -- and what we are is all we have to live with. We make our own hell.

Unfortunately, GWB is making a hell for all the rest of us. So my belief is that he is a kind of false prophet -- which scripture does warn us about. Just because he SAYS he is a Christian doesn't mean we should follow him.

[beam me up scottie]

92. That's great.

Seriously.

I said last night that I think christianity is morphing into something else among liberal christians.

And I hope you guys end up blazing the path into the future.

If your religion is going to survive, and I think it will, I'd rather have your version of it than theirs.

[pnwmom]

98. I've never thought you and I were all that different, Beam me up.

Both just struggling to figure things out.

[beam me up scottie]

104. I don't think we are either.

We both bristle when we think we're being insulted.

Intent is hard to judge on the internet.

I think trotsky, most of the DU atheists and I just want liberal christians to see things from our point of view.

You gotta admit, to someone who never believed in gods, miracles or sins, and thought that there was supposed to be separation of church and state, this country seems whacked.

[pnwmom]

107. Even to someone who did, this country seems whacked.

Because it IS whacked!

[SPKrazy]

194. This Country Isn't Completely Whacked Yet!

I think we still have a chance

but we have to defeat the RW bastards to stop this road to theocracy that some are angling for.

I too feel that we are in big danger if we don't stop them.

As the thread on the video game shows, the ideas that some of these theocrats have are no different than the Nazis had in Germany.

That kind of shit makes me cringe to say the least.

[Goblinmonger]

129. No, I took that class.

For three years at the seminary. Just because I am an atheist now, please don't assume that I don't have a significant theistic background. You would be wrong.

Faith or works does not matter to my OP. Either one is fine.

[Joe for Clark]

33. Yep,

But I do think there is a kind of "black and white" standard. Forgetting the label - I truly believe that if you do treat the lowest among you as you would treat Jesus (or the best among us) -you "got it".

And I know many people of many religions that qualify (and more than a few athiests).

Your point is good.

Joe

[Joe for Clark]

16. No, I don't think so.

Some months ago there was Jesuit Prof from Notre Dame on tv. He said to be a christian meant you relly believed the teaching that "What so ever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" and that every thing else is just a "bug on the windshield of life". I believe him.

There is really only the one important teaching. SO when people don't follow that, it shows.
We are not their judges, but we aren't blind either.

Joe

[Goblinmonger]

130. Don't get me wrong

I like Jesuits. Been taught by some gems from that order. But this is still the point, why choose just that and classify everything else as "bugs"? Why is that interpretation any better than someone who picks something different as important and sees the "least of" rule as bugs?

[azureblue]

18. It's really simple

A Christian knows the teachings of Jesus and applies those teachings to their daily life. And it is very simple to stop a Biblican: When they go off, just ask them "is this what Jesus taught us to do? It is not, so why are you ignoring the teachings of Jesus? If you ignore the teachings of Jesus and refuse to make His way your way, then your are not a Christian." A Christian is known by his works, and Jesus has told us that.

This has nothing to do at all with religion (religion is the politics of spirituality), but the application of a philosophy. Just claiming that one believes in Jesus, is simply a cop out for refusing to follow His teachings. this is not a "judge not" call- it is a "do you or don't you", like "do you steal or not?" So person C has not passed judgment but referred to a clearly stated set of rules.

[Goblinmonger]

40. But what about the contradictory stuff?

There is certainly a plethora of material in the New Testament to justify keeping women in subservient roles, hating homosexuals, waging war, etc. ad nauseum. So person C is choosing to ignore those things, condemn someone for not following the things that THEY like in the bible, and I think that is passing judgment.

[pnwmom]

65. If you were really interested in knowing more, there was

a book that addressed translation issues in the New Testament. As I recall, it was titled something like "What Paul Really Said About Women." The writer was a protestant pastor arguing that translation issues had distorted Paul's words and made him much more of a misogynist than he was.

[trotsky]

80. Curious.

How can "women need to shut up in church and not teach men" be spun as not THAT misogynistic?

[pnwmom]

95. Read the book. I have forgotten now what I took from that book

and what I remember hearing at church a long time ago, but one thing I remember is that Paul wasn't necessarily referring to women preaching in the Church. He was referring to women gabbing with each other while the service was going on.

In the early church, there were women who were deacons. Some of them are actually buried at the Vatican. And the word used was "deacon" not "deaconess," which signifies that they had the same stature as men.

How could a woman be a deacon and not allowed to speak? Also, remember that the early church meetings were held in people's homes, and women were active leaders.

[trotsky]

102. So, men talking to each other wasn't a problem?

Why isn't it just a universal admonition against making noise in church? Why single out women, and perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes? I have not heard of women deacons being on the same level as men - do you have a cite for that? And for women leading church meetings in their homes?

[pnwmom]

108. It was because of how Jewish synagogues were set up, with the women

separate from the men, and off to the side or back (I forget.) And they were with the kids, too. I remember people taking care of kids at the back of our church also getting kinda chatty. To the point where it was hard to hear the sermon. It happens.

You're asking ME to cite Scripture -- that's a toughie! But there's a deacon named something like Junia, as I recall, who is named in the New Testament somewhere. And Junia (or whatever the name is) is, according to the book I mentioned, a female name. And Junia is referred to as a deacon. I'll see if I can find more.

[pnwmom]

109. Here's "the more"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm

Apparently I mixed up Phoebe, the Deacon, and Junia, another female Christian leader. There is so much interesting stuff in here that I hope you'll follow the link. Anyway, here's a few bits:

"Female Prophets, Disciples, Ministers & Apostles Mentioned in the Bible
There were many women recorded in the Bible who exhibited religious leadership. Their stories appear in both the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

SNIP

Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister or deacon of the church at Cenchrea. The Greek word which describes her function is "diakonos" which means literally "official servant." She is the only deacon in the Bible to be identified by name. Some translations say deaconess; others try to obscure her position by mistranslating the Greek as a simple "servant" or "helper". Paul later refers to Phoebe as a woman, calling her "our sister." This prevented later church leaders from hiding her gender as they did with Junia in Romans 16:7 below - by changing her name and implying that she was a man.
SNIP
Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. 2,3 After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to deceptions in order to suppress her gender. For example:
The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles" The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles". The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle.
Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air, and converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's). Again, it was probably inconceivable to the translators that Paul would recognize a woman as an apostle.

SNIP

[sybylla]

19. Seems to me just about every church I've been near has done the same

My Baptist sister-in-law says Catholics aren't Christians. Catholics say Episcopalians are Christians. Lutherans think they are the only ones who are Christians, and on and on. Isn't that the whole raison d'etre for the different sects in the first place? They all disagreed about what it meant to be a "true" Christian. It is a holy war nearly as old as religion.

And if you haven't noticed, practicing Christians violate that "judge not lest ye be judged" commandment all the time. In my experience, the Christians who are most adamant that others are not Christian are the ones who most act like they've never seen this commandment.

[pnwmom]

66. Not true.

My daughter was recently married in the Catholic church, and the book she was given stated that all marriages with baptised Christians were recognized as Christian marriages by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does not share communion with other Churches, but does teach that Protestants are Christians.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

139. Episcopalians don't say that about anybody

[shain from kane]

20. They're used to it. Did you ever see a group of people that supposedly

profess the same beliefs that are so hateful in attitude towards each other? As for me, I think they all are going to Hell.

[moobu2]

24. I found atheists are much better Christians than Christians are. n/t

[Proud_Democratt]

28. I was just reading an article saying

the same thing.;-)

[Joe for Clark]

30. Sometimes that is right.

[Warpy]

25. You misunderstand that passage about passing judgment,

probably because it was mistranslated from the Greek. The orignial was closer to "CONDEMN not lest you be CONDEMNED." It's one thing to tell somebody that Calvinist god isn't god at all, and quite another to tell them they're gonna burn in hell for all eternity because you don't like who they are or what they're doing.

[Goblinmonger]

29. The point is still there in other passages.

Those without sin should cast the first stone. That one work better for you?

[Warpy]

34. Actually as an atheist who is nearly aggressive in MYOB,

I find that neither passage works for me because I generally don't find it an issue. People have a right to be wrong, and we all are about many things.

However, that changes when some Calvinist asshole starts shoving his bible in my face. He gets the rough side of my tongue, enough to discourage him from either pursuing or repeating the activity.

[Goblinmonger]

38. But my point is

what about the progressive christian that just dismisses the calvinist asshole as "not a christian" because "real christians don't do X." Aren't they committing a similar "sin" that they are using to discredit the other?

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. I think that a progressive Christian would not be as likely to say

they are 'not Christian' so much as to say they are "not very good at being Christian'.

Just my thought.

[Duer 157099]

31. If that is true, then can you explain

what the rest of the saying means? The part about "... for with such judgement as you judge, so shall you also be judged" (or something very close to that).

If the word "judge" is actually more like "condemn" than "evaluate" -- then how does the rest make sense? In other words, the follow-on seems to be talking about a set of standards that will be applied equally to the judge and judged. If the meaning is condemn, then all it is saying is that if you condemn, then you will be condemned -- and no need for the elaboration.

[sandnsea]

181. Man over God

If you choose to believe that man has the ability to condemn someone to hell, then that's how you will be judged too. If you believe that only God has the right to condemn, and "judge not", then you will be dealt with mercifully too. That's how I've always had that passage explained.

Which is completely different than discerning whether someone's behavior is helpful or hurtful, like watching someone get beaten up and doing nothing to stop it. Maybe because you aren't supposed to judge anybody as good or bad... or maybe you're a pacifist who believes violence is never right, not even to stop other violence. I don't condemn a pacifist to hell if they actually watched someone get beaten to death, I just don't think they're right either.

[Davis_X_Machina]

32. The parable of the wheat and the tares...

...is important, too.

The farmer among whose wheat weeds were sown allows them both to grow up together in the field. Not until harvest time are the wheat and the tares to be separated, says the master, though the servants wanted to tear up the weeds right now. To do so would kill by uprooting both the wheat and the weeds, says the master -- now is not the time for separating and sorting.

It's the same point John Rawls used to make with his idea of the 'overlapping consensus' as the basis of the liberal state -- there are things the wheat and the weeds both need -- water, sunlight, etc. enough to make a community even in the absence of a single agreed definition of justice.

[1620rock]

36. If a person harbors evil within, then it doesn't matter what they...

...label themselves as, and I call them on it.

[Joe for Clark]

42. RIGHT ON.

[pnwmom]

67. That's right. And I don't know who this "Father" is that GWB talks to,

but he isn't the God of Love.

[trotsky]

35. The main problem is no clear, consistent definition of "Christian."

For the vast majority of Christians, it essentially amounts to: "Someone who believes roughly as I do."

Such an approach usually gets bogged down in question-begging, especially since it's so easy to interpret the bible to say just about anything you want it to say. There's plenty of stuff even in the "liberal" New Testament that can justify treating women as second-class citizens, homosexuals as evil, etc. Liberal Christians ignore that, and say that "real" Christians focus only on the nice parts of Jesus' message. And vice-versa, fundie Christians ignore the nicer parts, and focus on the judgmental parts. Each group will say the other one ISN'T a Christian. And there we are.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Reminds me of

I'm just saying.

[trotsky]

43. Many people apparently have such a weak grasp on their faith...

that they feel the need to vehemently deny the existence of poor representatives of their own religion while defending generalizations and mischaracterizations of other religions, or of people with no religion at all.

Strange, but some of those folks are right here on DU.

[Goblinmonger]

48. I can't believe that.

Right here on DU? You MUST be joking with me.

[trotsky]

49. OMG, I'm so totally SERIES!!!11!!!1!!1

It's HUGH, I know!!111!1

[pnwmom]

63. But that seems to be exactly what the OP is claiming.

That liberal Christians shouldn't be able to say that right-wing fundamentalists like Bush are poor representatives of Christianity.

[beam me up scottie]

74. No, it's not.

He's saying that judging your fellow christians might disqualify you by some standards.

[pnwmom]

81. As long as you judge other people with the same standards by which

you judge yourself -- and not harsher ones -- then I think it's fine. And Christian. Anyone trying to adhere to a certain moral standard has to judge all the time whether they're meeting the standard or not.

It would be impossible to live in the world and not form judgments about other people. I'm sure you don't hold back. The question is how you do it, not that it is done at all.

[beam me up scottie]

84. But don't some christians think that's a sin?

I'm not saying christians don't or shouldn't judge other people, we all do.

But some christians seem to set the bar much higher than others.

[pnwmom]

89. I'm sure there are some who do, since there are zillions of them.

But I think, if God exists, She gave us our brains so that we'd use them, and not follow people like GWB just because they CLAIM to be Christian.

[beam me up scottie]

93. WHo said anything about Little Lord Pissypants?

I think the people that follow him don't do it because they think he's a good christian.

I doubt they think about anything at all.

They do what they're told to do.

[pnwmom]

96. Many fundamentalists follow him solely because of his Christian robes.

If he was calling himself an atheist do you think they'd follow him? No way!

[beam me up scottie]

97. I think that may be why some of them are parting company.

They want the God-bot they bought and paid for.

And he's not delivering the goods as promised.

If he leaves office in 2 years without giving them exactly what they were promised, there will be hell to pay.

[pnwmom]

100. I don't know. Some of them seem so darn dumb.

I would have thought they'd have seen through him long ago.

Maybe they're just waiting for Jeb. . . .

[beam me up scottie]

103. I guess it depends what they want from him.

They may still think he still has time to destroy the Constitution and turn this into a theocracy.

[pnwmom]

106. Which would also destroy Christianity, as far as I'm concerned.

And end in destroying the world. The policy of an American theocracy makes me as sick as it must make you.

[trotsky]

79. No, not just a "poor representative."

Christians like Bush are disowned as being Christians at all. I'd gladly settle for a "right-wing fundamentalists like Bush are poor representatives of Christianity", but very few Christians (at least here on DU that I've seen) are willing to grant that.

[beam me up scottie]

99. I think that would actually be more damning.

If liberal christians were to point out WHY * is such a bad christian, it will carry much more weight than just claiming he's not a christian at all.

[pnwmom]

110. Alas, the fundamentalists don't seem to care much what liberal

Christians believe, especially seeing as how we hang out with you guys.

[beam me up scottie]

113. But don't they care what others think?

In other words, isn't it possible to use the media to shame them and get the attention of the moderates?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

141. I personally don't disown them as Christians

and I don't think I have ever taken that stance here..but I might have. Can't really remember. If they are baptized, they are Christians. It's just a word, and if there IS a judgment to come (don't know if there is or not) the word "Christian" isn't going to be much use to them.

Therefore...spit...George W. Bush is a brother in Christ and I accept him as such.

We do, however, interpret our common faith very differently.

[trotsky]

146. Well said, T-Grannie.

I respect you for acknowledging ol' GWB. It creeps me out enough to admit that he's the same species as me.

[Joe for Clark]

44. There is only one "rule"

You think that way or you don't. Mostly, religion is an afterthought.

Labels don't work.

Fallwell says he is a christian - Is he?? I am not his judge, but I sure don't think so.

And I don't think so because of what he says (although that is a lot to think about) It is because of what he does. He doesn't believe the least of my brothers "rule" - he doesn't. If he did, he would live a humble life and those possessions he has would be used properly to help his brothers in Africa and around the world just survive- he doesn't do that.

Actions do speak loudest.

At least when priests takes a vow of poverty - they mean it.

Joe

[trotsky]

46. How do you know?

He doesn't believe the least of my brothers "rule"

Is it not conceivable that a Christian could interpret this in the light of a "god helps those who help themselves" kind of way? Is that really so far off? You take liberties with other parts of the bible, right? Or do you think homosexuality is a sin?

I just don't think it does Christianity itself any favors for Christians to point fingers and say "So-and-so isn't a REAL Christian," because as I pointed out (and as you perfectly illustrated), you all pick your favorite parts and say "The person who thinks like I do is the REAL Christian."

And we end up in the same place we started.

[Joe for Clark]

50. No, we end in the place we should be.

Gay or not, everything else - NOT IMPORTANT.

You treat the lowest among you as your brother - that is everything.

Not just my opinion, afterall I am just a mediocre Catholic, which I freely admit. But I'll tell ya, that was the message from all those years of CCD I went through - and it was the right message.

You read and you find the best of us say the same - Catholic, Jewish - religion really doesn't matter. The older I get the more I read. The more I read the more I am sure.

And that doesn't mean you turn dumb. I know athiests that are better "christians" that that asshole. Don't get stuck on the label here.

That Jesus said that, by the way - Gospel of John (maybe Matthew), isn't it?? Those are his words too. That is what it was all about, really. A philosophy all in just one sentence.

Joe

[trotsky]

53. Again, you prove my point.

You apply your own filter - you choose what is or isn't "Christian," and then you apply that label. Exactly what Falwell does.

Falwell picks words of Jesus like "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and "I come not to bring peace but a sword" and all that Revelations garbage, and ignores the rest.

You pick things like the "least of my brothers" and probably "judge not lest ye be judged" etc., and you ignore the rest.

I realize you are a much better person than him, hell even the worst Christian DUer is a better person than Fartwell. But that doesn't change how you both arrive at your definitions of "Christian."

[Joe for Clark]

61. NO no no

Falwell takes donations from people who can't afford them and buys 560sls.

There are no words that matter other than the "least of my brothers" sermons.

They are the only thing that counts in the end - no more, no less.

It is a one concept thing. I think more than faith. But Jesus did say it best and in one sentence.


That I think he is not "christian" - well that is my opinion. But if there is a judgment coming - that comes from a higher source - and I am glad I will not be him when that "verdict" comes down.

Joe

[trotsky]

88. Then you're setting up the word "Christian" to encompass no one.

Can a Christian buy himself ANYTHING for personal enjoyment? Or should you give every penny not used for your immediate sustenance to the poor? Are you not a Christian if you fail to do that? Where do you draw the line?

[pnwmom]

91. That is one of the things Christians are supposed to struggle with.

Again, my knowledge of scripture is VERY hazy, but there is the parable about how hard it is for a rich man to get into heaven -- (harder than putting a camel into the eye of a needle?? Something like that!) But it ends with Jesus saying, "but with God, all things are possible."

[Joe for Clark]

191. I am glad you posted that - made me think of something

from many years ago. I asked that very question once - because it is clearly impossible to put a camel thru the eye of a needle, right??

He wasn't talking about a sewing needle. The needle was a tall tower with a narrow opening. SO that if the camel was not burdened down, it could pass thru.

Thanks pnwmom. It was a good memory.

Joe

[pnwmom]

69. And in your view of Christianity, YOU are as much of a black and white

thinker as Falwell.

[trotsky]

77. Okey dokey.

Considering I don't really think along the lines of "good Christian" vs. "bad Christian" but rather "Christians comprise a spectrum of human personalities, just like any other group." Yeah, I guess that's black-and-white thinking. Sure. :eyes:

[pnwmom]

68. Sorry we don't fit nicely into that box you want to squeeze us all in.

We have all these inconvenient little differences. Things aren't as black and white among Christians as you or the fundamentalists want them to be. Deal with it.

[trotsky]

76. Totally on the contrary,

I'm not the one trying to put you into nice convenient boxes like "real Christian" and "not real Christian."

Somebody indeed needs to "deal with it."

[pnwmom]

82. No, you've made a box called "All Christians Go Here" and we don't.

[trotsky]

85. Heh... no, your box is "all REAL Christians go here"

and the rest don't.

I say that Christians are a wide variety of people and that you're going to find it very tough to draw a firm line and say "THIS is a Christian but THAT is not."

But please go on accusing ME of being the black-and-white thinker. It's highly amusing.

[pnwmom]

101. My definition of a real Christian, for what its worth, has to include

at least a sincere ATTEMPT at being a good person. Faith alone is not enough. There has to be some sincere attempt to follow the words of Jesus, despite all humans' tendency to sin.

But there are some people out there who call themselves Christian, who don't appear to think that their own actions matter at all. That all that matters is paying lip service to Christian ideals. In the case of GWB, for example, I believed he is the kind of false prophet we've been warned to steer clear from.

[trotsky]

123. But all you do there is shift the question, not answer it.

Instead of "What does it mean to be a Christian" it's now "what does it mean to be a good person" or "what does it mean to follow the words of Jesus".

Considering the incredible variety of answers you can get to those other two questions, I don't see how either of them is a good indicator either. But that's just me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

143. I know some very solid Christians

who believe to their souls that the worst thing you can do for the poor is give them welfare and charity. They actually see it as the most evil kind of discrimination.

I'm not here to argue for their point, but they don't believe it out of cruelty. They think they are correct regarding cause and effect.

[trotsky]

147. Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking of.

Thanks. They might truly believe their stance is out of love. So-called "tough" love.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Priests and a vow of poverty?

Are you serious? Have you ever met any non-order priests? They have to pay for NOTHING and they get a stipend from the church. How, exactly, is that a vow of poverty? How can priests, if they are truely in poverty, afford to retire to non-church supported retirement communities in Arizona, Florida, etc?

Have you seen the outlandish shit that Pope Benny has? Lest we forget he is also a poverty-vow priest.

[Joe for Clark]

57. You don't know a lot about it.

What the hell is a "non-order priest"?

They are not allowed to own anything - what they use belongs to the church.

That the church takes care of them when they are older - of course!!

I think "pope benny" is an ex-nazi, so I am not exactly his fan. But he owns nothing he didn't have going into the priesthood. That is the way it is.

And I may not be a great Catholic, but I know a lot about being a priest and what you have to give up. Poverty vows mean not owning anything you didn't start with. What don't you understand about it exactly???

Joe

[Goblinmonger]

132. For somebody who is talking smack

you certainly should bone up on stuff first.

Before we get going, let me tell you that I spent 3 years at a Catholic seminary. I think I am fairly well versed in the "priest thing."

There are two ways to become a priest. Most people are familiar with the priest that is ordained by the diocese. They go to seminary and study for a particular diocese which pays for their education. The other way is to join an order (like the Jesuits or Marians or whatever) and go through their particular method for becoming a priest (this will vary slightly by order). The priests that are "order" priests are generally much more so in the "vow of poverty" vein.

The diocese priests are not so much. They get everything provided for them and they also get a monthly stipend with which they can do what they please. They get to buy things or whatever (certainly, at death their goods belong to the church, but the items are "theirs"). Hell, one priest I now gambled like crazy with the salary he got. How does that fit into the scheme of things? Being a priest of a diocese is not a bad gig, monetarily; they certainly are better off than many of the teachers I work with.

[pnwmom]

62. Uh-huh. Like atheists never disagree. Spare me.

Religion isn't a science text or a law book, though some want to make it so. Especially, in my experience, religious fundamentalists and evangelical atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Of course we do. We just don't go around judging the truthiness of atheism

If somebody says they don't believe in gods and that they're an atheist, we don't argue with them.

We don't go around screaming emphatically that STALIN WAS NOT NOT NOT an atheist !!!!!!1! I'm SERIES!1!! because we think the guy makes us look bad.



Who do you think Anthony Flew was thinking about when he wrote about the No True Scotsman fallacy?

[NMMNG]

117. Stalin a real atheist? WAS NOT!!!!

Neither was Mao or Pol Pot!!!! x( :grr: :mad:

[beam me up scottie]

119. Well of course he wasn't.

None of them were evil enough.

We have standards you know.

[NMMNG]

120. Glad we cleared that up

:hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

37. Hmm

Nobody deserves to be a Christian in the truest form of the word. We all strive and we all fail. Some fail worse than others. I would say if you are judging whether someone is a better Christian than you or whether they are worthy of the title, you are on a slippery slope.

But what do I know? I'm just a middle school teacher on the next to LAST DAY OF SCHOOL!


WOOOOHOOOOOO!

[Goblinmonger]

39. I won't say this often Grannie

but YOU SUCK. I still have 7 days of school left ahead of me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

127. Oh man...

how many of those days are kid days?

[Goblinmonger]

131. All of them.

Last day with kids is June 8th. Then Friday is our last inservice day. Yippee

[TallahasseeGrannie]

137. Well, the shoe will be on the proverbial other foot

in August, when I go back on the 7th. Yikes!

[Goblinmonger]

138. Yikes is right.

Wisconsin just recently passed legislation that we can't start until after Labor Day. Have to keep the cheap labor out there for the tourism industry.

[manic expression]

45. The Bible does it all the time

The Gospels are full of passages condemning "false" Christians.

[pnwmom]

54. I just love it when atheists sit around talking about what makes

a good Christian.

:sarcasm:

[Lerkfish]

55. actually, in fairness, I think the question is valid.

its even more valid when viewing from the outside.
I don't think they're wrong for asking the question. I think they're wrong for the motive behind asking the question. Is it enlightenment they seek or entrapment?

[pnwmom]

59. It isn't enlightenment. I've heard a version of this question asked here

over and over again. It comes up every time they want to set Bush up as the epitome of Christianity.

[Random_Australian]

105. "Bush as the epitome of Christianity" No-one wants to set up * as the

epitome of Christianity.

Was this some kind of metaphor?

[pnwmom]

111. Bush has set himself up that way. He says he listens to his "real Father"

not his earthly one. And he's repeatedly said things like, (I'm paraphrasing here) "God told me to strike -- and so I did."

[Random_Australian]

115. Uh, could we just clarify who 'they' refers to in this context?

I had assumed that you meant the atheists (sorry about that), but if you mean * supporters, then sure.

(Atheists, no way)

[pnwmom]

134. Sorry, but you were right the first time

I have heard a number of atheists here condemn Christianity as a whole on the basis of people like Bush and then say that Christians shouldn't be "allowed" to disavow him. To me, that was the subtext of the OP, though it didn't mention Bush specifically. Many liberal Christians have been saying that Bush isn't really Christian -- that it's an act, and belied by his behavior -- and a number of atheists here are saying that as long as he says he's Christian, then he is.

[Goblinmonger]

136. how about a linky, please?

I would like to see that post by an atheist. Sorry to actually ask for data to back up your warrant, but I'm kind of like that.

Seriously, show me a post that does that.

And for the record, I wrote the OP as a reaction to the neverending "Hitler wasn't a true Christian" discussion that was going on yesterday in the "god caused the holocaust" thread.

[pnwmom]

142. Hitler wasn't a true Christian. Bush isn't a true Christian. But I'm too

tired to get into that now. Spent most the night in the emergency room with a family member, but things are okay for now. Just trying to unwind and de-wire myself so I can get some sleep.

Peace.

[Goblinmonger]

148. Family is much more important

than any R/T discussion. I hope all is better or improving with your family memeber.

[pnwmom]

149. Things are still up in the air

with the family member . But some bad stuff was ruled out, so that's good. Thanks for asking, Goblinmonger.

[beam me up scottie]

151. You mean the No True Scotsman fallacy?

We didn't exactly invent it, you know.

And I've never seen an atheist on DU call a christian on it and then "condemn" christianity based on its membership.

When christians claim they are morally superior to the rest of us, I'm going to call them on it.

Every time.

Christians are no better or worse than the rest of us.

Bush being a christian doesn't damn the religion and the fact that he shares your faith in God doesn't reflect on you at all.

You're not responsible for assholes who believe in the same god as you.

I'd also like to know which atheist said that you were.

[Random_Australian]

157. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to tell you your interpretation seems

to be somewhat *ahem* not aligned with the sentiments the authors were representing in such posts.

In short & plain speech, I mean that no-one is condemning Christendom as a whole.

In this is in error, links to such posts would be nice.

Saying; * believes in Christ therefore he is a Christian, when the definition is "Christian, one who believes in Christ" implies nothing about any other members, in any way shape or form with the sole exception that to be counted in that group they must also believe in Christ

Does this clear the matter up?

[beam me up scottie]

116. I don't think he represents christianity.

I don't even necessarily think he's a bad christian.

If he was an atheist, I wouldn't call him a bad atheist.

He's just an asshole who believes in God.

[pnwmom]

135. But atheism, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't include a particular

set of moral beliefs -- it's just a statement that people don't believe in a god.

Christianity, on the other hand, isn't just about a belief in a certain deity. It is about certain moral beliefs, the first and foremost being "love thy neighbor as thyself." And many Christians see no evidence that this is remotely true for Bush. In almost every encounter he treats every other person with some degree of contempt (if nothing else, with "teasing" and other evidence of his assumed superiority). And he literally treats the whole world with contempt.

How can someone who expresses (through his behavior) no love or even respect for anyone except himself possibly be considered a Christian, when that is the whole message of Christ?

[pnwmom]

60. P.S. I appreciated your "double bind" comment above.

I've found myself in that same Catch 22 here many times, but was never able to articulate it as well as you did.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Yeah, we can't compete with the professional hypocrites, though.

Our definition is pretty broad.

You guys are the ones who go around disqualifying people who can't reach the bar because you keep raising it.

[pnwmom]

112. That bar has always been way up there.

Much too high for me most of the time.

[beam me up scottie]

114. See, I think that's what the op was trying to get at.

One of the things, anyway.

If all christians can move the bar, who gets to decide?

Wouldn't it be better to use the broad definition and follow your own path based on your interpretation?

(not you, necessarily, but christians who tell others they're not true christians)

[pnwmom]

122. But how do we discourage people from following "false prophets" like

GWB if we feel that we can't judge the actions of other Christians?

[NMMNG]

118. Some of us are former Christians

We're just as worthy judges as anybody.

[Goblinmonger]

133. First of all, that's not what is happening here.

But if it were, why can't we do that?

Secondly, a lot of atheists have a pretty strong background in christianity. It just isn't where we are at anymore. So our background in religion is no longer valid because we don't believe is gods? What sense does that make?

Thirdly, I am just reacting to what CHRISTIANS are saying ON THIS SITE. Other christians are the ones make the judgments. I did not create the double bind, the people saying "person A isn't a true Christian" are the people that put THEMSELVES in a double bind. I'm just pointing out what I see as a double bind. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Evoman]

121. Anybody who worships christ is a christian..PERIOD!

Anybody who worships Allah and called Mohammed a prophet is a muslim. Anybody who does not believe in god is an atheist, period.

What god you believe in, or have no belief in, determines what religion you belong to. If you believe and worship christ, and then go and murder 500 people, you are a christian murderer.

Phelps, Falwell, and Hitler ARE OR WERE ALL CHRISTIANS. You may dispute whether or not YOU BELIEVE they are good christians or bad christians, but they were still christians.

[kwassa]

124. Says who? Who gives you the authority to make this statement?

Like, God or something?

[Random_Australian]

125. Literalist definition, philosophical proposition with presumption

of axioms is the technical term.

In understandable language now, you can define Christian as "person with blue eyes, faith in God is irrelevant" if you wish, but he takes the most literal definition; as in precisely what the suffix implies, that the two terms "Christian" and "Believer in Christ" are interchangeable.

[kwassa]

126. One definition among many

I was reacting to his absolute conviction about it.

[Random_Australian]

128. I see. Conviction stemmed from the fact that it is, by definition, the

simplest definition.

Certainty on his part I would suspect also came from what kind of definition it was, when you repeat the question you get the most easily transmitted response;

but, if you wish, you can say that you wish to put forward the notion that "christian = blue eyes" but we will have a lot of trouble agreeing over it. (To put it lightly), and you cannot really argue that something made from the terms of the question is invalid. Wow, I am soooo tired, bedtime now.

I have no idea if anything I have said made sense in the slightest. Wow.

Good night!

[pnwmom]

155. What about someone who only pretends to be a believer?

For the purpose of deceiving others? Why should we call this person a true Christian?

[Evoman]

161. Yes, of course

But you cannot know that. Its easy to say, "Bush doesn't follow every word of Jesus, so he is NOT christian." But how do you know that? Let me shift your perspective for a bit. When I was a kid, I pretended to be a christian when I went to my friends youth group, because I wanted to fit in. I did not believe in christ, but I also never stole, or judged people, or lied, or started fights. Was I a christian? No, but you would never had known.

Are there people who believe in christ, REALLY believe in him, but swindle others. Oh yeah, you bet. Are they christians? Yep.

The fact is, you can never know what someone is by their actions...religion is in the mind, and you can never know someones mind.

Think about these two terms:

He is a christian.

He is a bad christian.

The fact is, you can never know the first. You HAVE TO take it on faith that they are christians. Now, whether that person is a good christian or bad christian is opinion. Your free to give your opinion...you are NOT FREE to define other peoples beliefs or thought patterns.

Falwell, for example, is a christian. Know, it is your opinion he is a bad christian. The fundies think hes a good christian. Those are opinions.

Okay...lets ASSUME for a second that liberal christians, are in some objective sense, good christians.The problem is, when you say things like "Hitler is not a true christian or Falwell is not a true christian" your in essence claiming that christians are only those who are morally superior. And not only that, but your putting yourself in the morally superior group and excluding others. I.e, your claiming your own moral superiority. Of course, people like Kwassa say, "they are not true christians" and then AUOMATICALLY put themselves in the true christians category. Despite the fact that other people, for example, Joe Angel, may say, "Only people who have NEVER in their life told a lie are REAL christians". Who sets the bar? Who gets to exclude others?

Again, its possible that a person may be lying about being christian. But that person may also really be christian, and also a shmuck.

[pnwmom]

164. I hope you're not saying that Hitler was a schmuck.

I'm saying that it may be hard to discern in many cases, but a truly evil person like Hitler isn't a Christian no matter what he says.

[beam me up scottie]

167. Wow, God has a wife.

How long have you been able to read minds?

[pnwmom]

178. I'm not reading minds, I'm judging Hitler purely on the basis

of his actions. "By their fruits they shall be judged" is basic Christian teaching.

[beam me up scottie]

192. So it's your belief that he wasn't a christian, not a fact.

As long as you can tell the difference, I'll let the bigotry slide.

What deity you pray to has nothing to do with morality.

[bluesbassman]

197. Your on a slippery slope pnwmom.

And it's called legalism. The "basic Christian teaching" you are referencing does not concern salvation. Salvation is the "free gift of God", Rom 8: vs23, through the affirmation "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved" Rom 10: vs9. The former sets up the condition that we can provide nothing for salvation; it's a free gift. The latter provides for how we take possession of that free gift.

What you are suggesting would imply that someone could become a Christian, then lose their Christianity through "non-Christian" actions. Impossible, as that would negate the "free gift of God". Therefore it would not have been free if you had to spend the rest of your life "paying" for it. No, what unethical, immoral or "evil" actions result in is a judgment or accounting from God, and not from me or you.

But before someone jumps on this as an endorsement for bad behavior, let me stress that it is not. I think Jesus' command to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" sums up our obligation to be on our "best behavior". Will some slip?, sure. Will some slip badly?, history reveals as much. But, does that mean that the offenders are not Christians? That can never be our call. The only "man" to ever have the authority to execute judgment was Jesus, John 5: vs27.

edited for rogue smiley :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

169. No true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge.

Give




me




a




break





:banghead:

[Proud_Democratt]

170. One could equate that statement to many Christians.

It's amazing how no religion or group wants to claim Hitler as one of them, because of his evil doings. Everybody wants to put their claim on Einstein though...Jews, Christians, Atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

172. sigh...

one more time:

No true Scotsman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian:" Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgment between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction. In logic, the mutually exclusive contradiction is called a logical disjunction.

Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, may tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

It is also a common fallacy in politics, in which critics may condemn their colleagues as not being "true" liberals or conservatives because they occasionally disagree on certain matters of policy. It comes in many other forms - "No decent person would" - it is argued "support hanging/watch pornography/smoke in public", etc. Often the speaker seems unaware that he/she is, in fact, coercively (re)defining what the phrase "decent person" means to include/exclude what he/she wants and NOT simply following what the phrase is already accepted as meaning. The argument shifts the debate from being about hanging/pornography/smoking and tries to make it seem that anyone disagreeing with the speaker is arguing for the "indecent".

[pnwmom]

179. People who accept the "faith is everything" definition of Christianity

are aligning themselves on the fundamentalists' side of the "faith versus works" debate that has raged through the centuries.

The Catholic Church has always taught that faith without works isn't true faith.

Many fundamentalists, on the other hand, think they are Christians and are saved PURELY on the basis of faith, no matter what they do.

So the non-Christians who push the faith-only view are siding with the Christian fundamentalists.

One more reason to call some people "fundamentalist atheists."

[beam me up scottie]

193. And, of course, YOUR personal brand of christianity is the TRUE one.

And everyone who disagrees with your definition of it is wrong.

That makes you the fundamentalist.

And people who accept the broader definition of christian aren't bigots since they judge people independent of their faith.

But christians who claim they are the only real christians are the Archie Bunkers of religion.

[Evoman]

144. Lol...didn't Scottie just ask you the same thing?

What makes your definition of a christian better than mine?

When someone says they are a christian, and they worship christ, they are christian. If they don't follow christs words to the letter, it may make them "bad christians" but they are christians nevertheless. How do I decided that? Well, its easy...I let people define themselves.

By your definitions, a true christian does not exist. Nobody follows christs words to the letter,even you. Therefore, if we follow that definition, the word christian becomes useless, since its not defining anybody.

[kwassa]

145. Sorry, but you don't make my definition, do you?

evoman:
"By your definitions, a true christian does not exist."

I never said anything of the kind.

"Nobody follows christs words to the letter,even you. Therefore, if we follow that definition, the word christian becomes useless, since its not defining anybody."

Straw man. Set him up, knock him down.

[beam me up scottie]

150. Nice catch! Christians aren't legit unless they have kwassa's blessing.

He gets to define the atheists too.


He's like God's Mini Me.

[Ron Green]

152. There's a bit of a twist on this, I think,

because we're all part of what was called "Christendom." An archaic term now, to be sure, but it referred to the culture from which emerged English and Western Civilization. And just as the fish is unaware of water, our culture and system of meaning are so deeply entrenched in Christendom that the term "Christian" carries a different meaning in our part of the world, and requires, in my opinion, a slightly expanded definition; one that includes not only a profession of faith but a standard of behavior as well.

Throughout the scrutiny that "Christians" and "Christianity" have received in this forum and elsewhere, we might be aware of this broader definition, even as most of fully reject the beady-eyed, sweaty-upper-lipped, Bible-waving crazoids and their ravings.

[pnwmom]

153. Isn't it possible for someone to PRETEND to be a Christian, for political

or other purposes? Wouldn't that person be a false Christian?

[Random_Australian]

154. Sure, but then they wouldn't worship Christ and be excluded under his

definition anyway.

Surely, you're not about to tell me the fundies don't believe in Christ!

[pnwmom]

158. The Bush family occasionally goes to services. That doesn't tell me that

they all believe in Christ; that many of them aren't simply paying it "lip service."

Lots of non-believers go simply because society expects them to. They're going through the motions, not worshipping.

Hitler never completely disavowed Christianity, but "by his fruits you shall know him." (New Testament, somewhere.) By the last years of his life he wasn't following Christ. Any show he made about religion was just that -- a show.

[Random_Australian]

160. That could well be merely their interpretation of the Bible, after all

who decides what the best interpretation is?

[pnwmom]

163. It's no different that the decision we make on a daily basis as

to who we trust and who we don't. We each have to use our own judgments about the people we encounter in our lives. Sometimes, this is harder than other times.

[Random_Australian]

166. Yes. Now we agree on that, let us see the nub of contention; can

you call someone who you do not trust 'not a true Christian'? If so, what definition?

You know, I think definitions may be a central factor in this breaking out into flamewar.

I have to say, I do prefer the literal, "one who believes in Christ is a Christian" approach - that way you don't imply anything about someone when you say that they are Christian, the important effect of which is of course that then 'Christian' may not be used as insult nor for any other connotation. How about you?

[pnwmom]

187. We are really looking at this from different angles, but it all comes

down to a basic difference in the way Christians themselves have always viewed Christianity. You might be interested in a related discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=73600&mesg_id=73600

"Where do you stand on the issue of faith versus works?"

[sandnsea]

184. "by his fruits"

You're right on the money there, that might well be what's missing. We haven't put enough focus on "fruits" these last 20-30 years. I think the boring old mainstream religions did, faith and works. Even Lutherans and Episcopalians are big on charity and "fruits". But somewhere along the line, people decided they didn't have enough punishment in the mix or something. So now religion is all about overcoming our evil ways and if we just do that, every individual life will be wonderful. And if everything in your life isn't wonderful, you didn't get saved the right way and just need to keep doing it until it takes. That's why these people don't think there needs to be any works, just wave the magic "Jesus saves" wand and it'll chase all your blues away and money will rain down on you. Of course that's complete nonsense because Jesus isn't Santa Claus and never said He had anything to do with material wealth, we're supposed to take care of each other and if we aren't, we've missed the "by his fruits" part of the message.

[pnwmom]

188. Yes, sandnsea, that's how I feel too.

It is amazing to me to think that so many "Christians" think that material success proves that God must love you more. How did Christianity ever get perverted into that kind of belief?

[beam me up scottie]

156. And how would you know?

That's the thing.

If the person says they believe in the christian god, you have no way to know if they're lying.

[pnwmom]

159. No, but we often have to live with uncertainty. Even though it would

be so much simpler if everything was just black and white. And if only people always told the truth.

But there are clues. Christ said something like "by their fruits, you shall know them." (New Testament, I've no idea where.)

Actions speak louder than words. That's what it all comes back to, IMHO. Faith without works isn't faith at all.

[pnwmom]

162. To give examples at opposite ends of the spectrum

Mother Teresa, whatever her faults may have been, clearly was a believer. She gave her life in service to her beliefs.

Pat Robertson -- though, no, I can't see into his soul -- seems to me to be a charleton, a snake oil salesman. The same kind of guy who, to sell you his herbal concoction, would claim that a 70+ year old man could leg press 2000 pounds. Does he believe that? No. Does he believe anything else that he says? Especially for stuff he earns big money for saying? You have to wonder.

[beam me up scottie]

165. So you have the right to decide that he's not a true christian.

I had no idea there were so many omnipotent people on DU.

I guess you know exactly what I think of the holier than thou christians in this forum, then.

[pnwmom]

171. I have the same right to decide that I do whenever I need to make

judgements about whether I trust certain people -- just as you do. We each have to decide for ourselves. Not everyone can be taken at face value. Some people actually dissemble. Only the gullible trust everything that anyone else says, and I'm sure you don't fall in that category.

[beam me up scottie]

173. I believe you when you say you're a christian.

Does that make me gullible?

[pnwmom]

177. If you believe me only because you believe ANYONE who says they are,

no matter how much of a charleton, then I suppose the answer is yes.

[Random_Australian]

168. Alright, here is my problem, where do you draw the line, and for this

example, WHEN did Patsky cross from someone who believed in Christ to someone who did not believe?

(For the sake of argument, I'll agree that he no longer believes, but that he once did)

Under proposd definition, it seems to me, it would be when he started doing not-good works, but if he started that while he still believed (it is not like he went looniskis overnight, is it?), then he would be a not-Christian while he still believed in Christ, which contradicts "When did Patsky cross from someone who believed in Christ to someone who did not believe?"

See what I am getting at?

[Proud_Democratt]

174. I think all true Christians should be tested....

Carry a big heavy cross for a mile or two, up a hill. Only then...could they confirmed as a "True Christian".

[NMMNG]

176. Robertson would qualify easily

He can leg press 2,000 pounds after all. :rofl:

[pnwmom]

180. I think all true atheists should be tested

carry a big heavy chip on their shoulders for a mile or two. Only then . . . could they be confirmed as a "True atheist."

[Random_Australian]

183. Uh, I'll presume you are joking.....

[pnwmom]

185. I presume you missed Proud_democratt's post #174. My post is a "back at

you" post to his "I think all true Christians should be tested" post.

And yeah, it's a joke. And it's at least as funny as his. (Not saying much, I concede.)

[Proud_Democratt]

189. I suggested the test in post 174 because.....

many people were debating what a true Christianity is. I attempted in my own way. that nobody can define this. And if someone would be willing to carry that cross, would that action qualify them as a true Christian???

[pnwmom]

190. This is an ancient metaphor, proud_Democratt, but who

does not, figuratively, have to carry the Cross?

Just in case I'm not being clear, the Cross represents human suffering. And sooner or later, we all have our time heading up that hill.

[NMMNG]

196. There are some Christians here

Who have pretty big chips on their shoulders. I wonder what that means? :shrug:

[pnwmom]

175. Since I can't see into his soul (unlike GWB, who professes that special

ability), I have no idea when he crossed that line. And I can't prove logically that he ever did. But that is my belief.

[Random_Australian]

182. Sorry, allow me some small clarifications - firstly, this was a sake

of argument proposal that someone (In this case I continued the example, but it could be anyone) started out Christian and then moved to some stage where they were 'not Christian' and looked at the intermediaries as a method to see when someone becomes a not-Christian under the two different definitions. Like I said, I suspect that a lot of this argument stems from not understanding each other, which seems to imply different definitions in this case.

[pnwmom]

186. I don't think it is possible to draw a bright line. It's more like making

the kind of personal judgments we all do in our every day lives, than it is like conducting a science experiment.

[TreasonousBastard]

195. Having spent 3 years in a seminary, methinks...

you have a pretty good handle yourself on how this sort of question gets answered. And I would hazard a guess you were not all that happy with how it often was handled by the teachers there.

Having started out as a Missouri Synod Lutheran where we were constantly taught the errors of those horrid Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and other heretics, I'm not happy with a lot of answers, either.

Now that I'm a universalist Quaker, I still feel free to opine on the error of some ways, and I still feel free to opine on the actions of other alleged Christians. After all, if I thought someone else was correct, I would believe and act as they do.

What I don't feel free to do, however, is make judgments on the faith or actions of others, unless those beliefs cause actions that infringe on someone else, and then any judgment is only on the effects of those actions.

I don't have the right to judge whether or not anyone is more or less Christian than I am, but I do have a responsibility to insure that they do no harm with their beliefs-- a responsibility that admittedly can be problematic when put to effect.

I have no problem discussing my understanding of the religion with anyone who cares to discuss it, but it should be discussion, not debate, and I prefer it to be with respect for each other, not trying to prove who is right.

So, to get back to your three people, my first objection is to the second person who seems to be claiming that Christians do shitty things-- a slam on Christians.

Person C seems to be merely engaging in rising rhetoric and responding to the slam by claiming that Christians aren't automatically assholes.

Some people are assholes.
Some people are Christians.
Therefore some Christians are assholes.

Amazing how a true answer can come from false logic.