When DU Christians say that President Bush is not a Christian . . .

[bryant69]

is that an indirect (and possibly subconscious) attack on both Atheists and Believers who are not Christians?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Edited to add DU I meant this to apply to DU Christians or Progressive Christians - progressive wouldn't fit.

[Warpy]

1. No, it only means they've acknowledged the sharp disconnect

between what he claims to be and what he actually is.

He's a Calvinist.

[peabody71]

39. Bush is the ANTICHRIST. Let me explain!

The Anticrist is a Biblical interpretation from only a Christian perspective.
The Atichrist is one who is viewed favorable by the Chrisitians but are decieved.
I emphasize, from a purely Christian perspective.
Only the true believers.
I believe Bush is the Prophetic Antichrist.

[Leopolds Ghost]

48. Bible said there would be many anti-christs and demagogues...

Jesus anticipated his words being used against him.

[appleannie1]

141. Bible also said

many would be fooled but by their deeds ye shall know them. The deeds of Bush go against anything taught by Jesus.

[Goblinmonger]

58. Um, Calvinist are Christians

Or did I miss something?

[liberal N proud]

2. It is just an observation that the man isn't what he says he is.

Calling out hypocrisy

[Phredicles]

3. Naw, it's a slam on The Decider.

And I appreciate their saying so.

[William769]

4. It means exactly that!

"President Bush is not a Christian".

[peace13]

7. Exactly! n/t

[Lerkfish]

5. no, its acknowledging that his every action and attitude is the antithesis

of Christ's teachings. It would be like the KKK imperial wizard proudly labeling himself a jew, with no change or outward appearance to support that claim.

Christ spoke on compassion, loving your fellow man, peace and righteous living.

Bush doesn't even come close. Its galling to hear him call himself (and his right wing nutjob enablers) "christian".

a christian would NEVER torture.

[Goblinmonger]

59. So the Inquisition Catholics

weren't Christian? Right.

So if somebody goes against the teachings of christ, they are not a Christian. Yet the teachings of Christ say that all people sin and fall short of the ideal. So there are no Christians. Do you see the problem with this line of thinking?

[Zhade]

79. Apparently, neither were the popes at that point, or during the Crusades.

Christians saying he's not one of them is a self-defense mechanism, but they're still wrong.

[bridgit]

6. it is far easier to be 'anti christ' than one may presume it to be...

atheist' may not believe it so, but even they are capable of being Christ-like, as are others in other beliefs it is my belief

[Theres-a]

10. Amen

I know athiests with very good character and imo,it's the very nonchristian habit of judging that causes the gap between christians and athiests,not a lack of character on the part of athiests.

[bridgit]

15. hallelujah!!

O8)

[acmavm]

8. Here we go again, people reading stuff into issues where it

doesn't belong.

[Lerkfish]

9. I'm confused by this concern, as well.

someone claims to be christian, progressive christians say he's no christian, therefore progressive christians are slamming atheists?

that doesn't really track. I'm sorry if any atheists feel that way, but honestly, this issue is COMPLETELY not about them.

[bryant69]

14. If atheists and other non-Christians do feel that way

mightn't it be better to change the way we talk so as not to make them uncomfortable?

Bryant

[acmavm]

19. No, how about just getting over yourselves and understanding

that sometimes when someone comments on george w. bush** and his extremely fake compassionate Christianity, they are talking about george w. bush** and his extremely fake compassionate Christianity.

Maybe some people should learn to listen or read or reason better.

Don't borrow trouble. It'll find you soon enough. And you'll know it was meant for you.

[bryant69]

No offense but that last line sounds pretty ominous

Is there any particular trouble I should be watching out for?

Bryant

[acmavm]

30. There you go again. That was just a little lecture about life

and what happens just naturally. But again you couldn't help yourself. You decided there was a hidden threat or whatever and the paranoia kicked in full bore.

Sheesh, maybe a Valium or something might help that condition you got going there.

[bryant69]

33. "You'll know it was meant for you"

Yeah you are right - I guess I am reading too much into stuff - I apologize for taking it the wrong way.

I don't apologzie for asking a question though - particularly not one a lot of people are responsding to.

Bryant

[Lerkfish]

83. no, not really, it mightn't NOT be better to change

I think you're being overly sensitive.

[Goblinmonger]

44. When it is said that he isn't a Christian

what is he then? Many atheists (myself included, but it doesn't get my panties in a wad) feel that the implication would be that he is non-religious, or a-religious if you will. Christians are trying to eliminate the assholes from their camp and put them in ours. Just my $0.02

[TallahasseeGrannie]

60. Here! You take him!

No, You!

No, YOU!

We don't want him.

But you HAVE to take him. He's a Christian.

No, he isn't.

Yes, he is.

Isn't.

Is.

Yeah, well, you're DUMB.

Well, your mama has cooties.

DON'T YOU BE TALKIN' 'BOUT MY MAMA!


Maybe that's why I feel so comfortable on DU. I teach second graders this quarter. Feels so right!

[Goblinmonger]

62. You're the best TG

If Bush were to come out and say that he was an atheist, I would deal with having that asshole in my camp. But, gladly, he is a Christian, so he is your asshole to deal with.

Your little dialogue sounds like my Freshman class sometimes, too. Never seem to grow up do they?

[Vidar]

136. Snork. Brilliant summary, TG.

[bryant69]

11. What do you mean?

Bryant

[peace13]

12. Unfortunately acting christian and being a christian

are two completely separate things. Being an atheist does not mean that you don't act like a christian should. That is a point that most 'christians' miss! The funniest thing is you don't have to act like a christian to be a christian you just have to be forgiven. I don't get that part! Peace on earth, Kim

[TahitiNut]

13. It's always about the self-centered.

:shrug:

[bryant69]

16. Hey I'm not just self-centered - I have lots and lots of other flaws too.

I'm a well rounded jerk, when you get right down to it.

Bryant

[alfredo]

17. A person saying he's a Christian is just words. Does his actions

reflect the teachings of Christ?

In bike racing we used to say, "When the green flag drops, the bullshit stops."

[CarbonDate]

137. "Does his actions reflect the teachings of Christ?"

"Is our children learning?"

:P Sorry, it was right there.

[WoodrowFan]

18. Good Lord No!

It means he isn't following the standards he professes to hold. If I say I'm a baseball player and can't throw, catch, or hit, it doesn't mean I'm a football player, it means I'm a bad baseball player!

[zeemike]

20. Not at all

Most of the atheist and non Christians here share the same set of values as those that really do follow the teachings of Jesus.
It is only the "So Called Christians" that reject his teachings and do the opposite.

[warrens]

21. DefinITELEY

Not ately. Sorry, a pet peeve.

[mondo joe]

22. I don't think so. But I also don't know who is in a position to say who

is or isn't a Christian.

[undeterred]

23. You spelled definitely wrong.

Spelling cop here.

[MrCoffee]

24. I didn't vote for ambiguous, i voted for craptacular.

[bryant69]

25. Thank you for clearing that up.

[MrCoffee]

26. glad to help.

[Shakespeare]

28. Second that craptacular. n/t

[Deep13]

27. They mean Bush does not reflect their values.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. No. All it means is he's putting on AN ACT for the religious right.

It really is an ACT.

[heidler1]

41. To me all of the self righteous talk is a act.

Each of them are trying to one up the others who pretend to be pure something or other. The God element was/is added to add fear and rewards for the gullible. We evolved to be susceptible to this so loyalty was possible. Tribal loyalty was and is pretty necessary. Once the soul thing was accepted it bundled rather neatly. To kill this, the soul notion will have to go. U.S. News and W. R. has a cover article about "Science and the Soul" out this week.

[Goblinmonger]

45. So what is he then?

a-religious? that would make him a-theistic. He ain't one of ours, brother.

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. A LIAR? A FRAUD? That's how I would describe him.

(paraphrased from a Newsweek article I read YEARS ago) During his 2000 campaign he gave a speech and used some common Bible phrase like, "The truth shall set you free" or something like that. A phrase EVERYONE uses. Anyway, KKKRove was BESEIGED with phone calls from the religious wacko nut jobs like Pat Robertson telling him "THIS is how you can win!" "IF you continue with courting the religious right with Bible quotes and such, you will win!" Soon thereafter was when the idiot-in-chief made his visit to the Bob Jones University. The rest is history. This whole "religious" thing is nothing but an act and David Kuo's new book proves it. They can't stand the religious right. They NEED their votes so they tolerate their crap. They USE the religious right.

[trotsky]

55. Doesn't that imply, though...

that a Christian can never be a liar or a fraud?

I agree that Bush is both, and worse. But I would submit that Christians are fully capable of doing those things and more, and just because they engage in a bad action doesn't automatically expel them from the club.

[Goblinmonger]

61. So using the religious right for political gain

makes him not a Christian? How so. And the original question is still there: what is he then? The implication that I think most who disavow Bush as a Christian are making is that he is one of the godless horde that is using the concept of god for the pursuit of power.

[shadowknows69]

31. I haven't claimed to be a Christian for over 20 years

and I think I still adhere to more of Christ's teachings than these monsters.

[jonnyblitz]

32. it means people don't want to admit there are BAD christians. nt

[redqueen]

34. Seems to me it's only stated that way because he claims to be Christian.

If he claimed to be anything else, he'd be attacked for being a fraud for that specific claim.

[Bluebear]

35. It means people don't want to fathom an evil Christian? nt

[bryant69]

36. So they naturally assume an evil person must be

either an atheist or a member of some other religion?

Bryant

[Bluebear]

38. I would think so.

Just as a peaceloving Muslim must shudder when they read about a suicide bomber, and say, "there is a corrupt Muslim. Islam is a religion of peace"; so a Christian will often say "Bush is not a 'real' Christian as he does not adhere to the true teachings of Christ."

In either case though, we have to take the believer at their word. They ARE Muslim or Christian because they say so, and we have to admit there are wonderful and disgusting examples of all belief systems.

[bryant69]

40. Christian might be taken in different ways

It could at the very base mean someone who calls himself a Christian, and in that sense you are definitely correct. It could mean someone who is a member of a Christian Church, and again you would be correct.

But it could also mean someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ - and in that sense, there might be more grey area. Because as I understand the teachings of Jesus Christ, Bush isn't living up to them. He's failing to live up to them.

But then I suppose I fail to live up to those same standards (although I don't actually torture anybodY) - how closely does one have to live like Christ before one can consider one a Christian? Impossible to make a blanket statement there I suppose.

Bryant

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. Is Bush a real conservative? Is Zell Miller a real democrat?

These things are called "contested ideologies".

[lukasahero]

37. If someone claimed he's an Atheist, it would be an attack

Saying someone is not something is not saying he is something else.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Ah, but there is a special circumstance here

When you claim that he is not religious, that makes him a-religious. Which would be a-theistic. So by claiming he is not something, you put him in the camp that is identified by their LACK of something. And he ain't one of mine, let me tell you that.

[lukasahero]

47. But that isn't the question posed

The question isn't is he religious - it's is he a christian. I would say he most definitely is religious and his god is money. That makes him neither christian nor atheist.

[Goblinmonger]

63. "his god is money"

would make him atheistic. He would not have a believe in a real god but only the metaphoic god you put forth. THAT is exactly the attitude that a lot of atheists respond to: "He isn't a christian" carries the subtext of "He is godless" so he is an atheist and atheists are where we send all the pricks.

[Lilith Velkor]

72. No, that would make him a capitalist.

"His god is money" implies that he has a god and is therefore not godless.

[Goblinmonger]

75. Oh, come one, tell me that isn't figurative language.

You are seriously telling me that you think when people say "his god is money" that they are NOT talking metaphorically and that they think Bush has a little shrine to money and thinks that money has supernatural powers. Give me a break.

Capitalism and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism is not a religion. Don't insult my intelligence.

[Lilith Velkor]

88. Capitalism is also not atheism.

And I think in thise case, money is a metaphor for Satan.

[Goblinmonger]

92. Right

Economic systems are not involed in the discussion of religion/theism. So if Bush does not believe in god but instead worships money, he would not be a theist.

[Lilith Velkor]

105. Wrong

If Bush were a follower of Pluto or Laxsmi or Satan, worshipping money would be compatible with his religion. Bush claims to follow the Christian religion, most sects of which consider greed a sin, but the one he belongs to probably subscribes to Prosperity Theology.

So the implication is that Bush is either a heretic or (figuratively) a Satanist, which he indeed is according to some branches of Christianity.

[Goblinmonger]

114. Don't have much to say to that

I am sure the satanists on here would have a few things to say about it, though.

But just so I am solid on this, anyone who is really rich is not a Christian because they should be giving that money away, right?

[Lilith Velkor]

115. Unless they go in for Prosperity Theology, yeah, pretty much

As for Satanists, why the Hell would they care what any Christians think? :wtf:

[Goblinmonger]

116. So, by your definition, the pope is not a Christian

He wears Prada and his clothing, if sold, could probably feed several African countries for several years.

I don't want to speak for the Satanists, but I would imagine they are pretty damn sick of the untruthful stereotypes the Christians spread about them much like atheists are.

[Lilith Velkor]

117. By my definition, he is because he says he is

I'm pagan so I don't have a dog in that fight. It's funny how Proddies sometimes assume I'll take their side when they whip out the sectarianism...

Anyway, it's a shame you don't want to speak for the Satanists, because most Satanists would laugh their asses off at such a display of Good Intentions.

"WhatwhatWHAT? Christians, lying?! I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked!!" :spray: :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

122. I know a satanist who HATES it when christians call * one.

She also hates it when christians claim Hitler was a satanist.

It's the "soft" bigotry of christian supremacy that pisses us off.

[Lilith Velkor]

129. Oh, I know

There was this one twit a few months back who was seriously trying to argue that Hitler was a pagan. :eyes:

But when Christians call Bush a Satanist, they are usually speaking figuratively.

[beam me up scottie]

132. I've seen that here too.

Because he couldn't possibly be a christian since christians don't kill other people.

Calling Hitler/Bush an atheist, pagan or satanist is just their own special way of saying that.

[Dorian Gray]

139. It would?

I don't understand how saying someone is not a Christian or that one worships money makes one an atheist. I don't think that either one of those phrases follows at all.

Personally, I believe that Bush is a Christian, but a really sucky one. (How's that for a mature analysis, Tallahassee Grannie?) ;)

I believe that he believes in God, I don't think he thinks so much about Christ's sacrifice, and I suspect that he is most like the nominal Christians that permeate my life. They have some inkling that there is a God, but they don't truly reflect on that or what it means all that much.

I do believe that this war is truly against anything that Jesus Christ would uphold as good, and in that way, Bush's actions are distinctly anti-Christian. Not that Christianity is the only path to goodness, but any path to destruction results from ignoring or betraying Christ's words.

And NONE of that means that goodness can not be born out of other sources.

[okasha]

90. You've created a false dichotomy, Goblinmonger.

Not-Christian doesn't equate to atheist.

"Non-Christian" can include Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, Pagan, Voudoun, Buddhist, Shintoist, Confucian, Palo Moyambe, Shamanist, etc.. There are literally thousands of other, non-Christian, religions in existence.

"Non-Christian" can also include atheist, of course, as well as agnostic and (for want of a better term) a-religious. Deists, it would seem to me, would fall under the a-religious label, as would secular Jews and some Buddhists. A-religious would also apply to people who believe, (sometimes rather vaguely) in a (sometimes rather vague) deity, but don't participate in religious services or maintain a spiritual practice. Bush, I suspect, falls into the last category, which is not at all uncommon.

[Goblinmonger]

97. OK, fill me in.

What do you think most people mean when they say Bush isn't a Christian? Are they saying he is a Muslim? A pagan? Let me know.

Regardless of the answer, it seems that the Christians that are doing this are taking an air of superiority because they are saying that Bush is something LESS than a Christian because only good people are Christians.

My point about him being godless by implication seems logical to me, but is offered even more so that you can see life through me eyes a little bit.

[okasha]

101. Sorry, I don't see what is ambiguous

about "Bush is not a Christian." Why do you think it means something other than what it says? As I've said elsewhere, I'd put him in the a-religious category: someone who believes in but largely ignores a deity. I know a good many folks who fall into that particular classification--some of them good people, some of them not.

[Goblinmonger]

102. I think it is superiority

Why don't you address that? "Only good people are Christian. Bush is an evil man so he can't be a Christian. He is clearly less than a Christian."

Secondly, this is how things feel on my end of the street. Perhaps it is me being on the wrong side of the "atheists are immoral godless pricks" arguments (or not real Americans a la Poppy Bush) that make me a little touchy on this. I can admit that. But it is my view and how I interpret a lot of these comments. Why do people insist on dismissing the interpretation of the by atheists?

[beam me up scottie]

107. She never addresses anything that doesn't support her opinion.

Just like the christians who deny that they and their fellow believers can be just as un-Christlike as any member of the "moral" majority.

Whether or not they admit it, claiming that christians are morally superior by redefining their religion IS intolerant, not to mention a bad habit that many, if not most liberal and conservative christians can't seem to break.


Both types seem to think God will know his own by their hypocrisy and intolerance, and the irony is lost on them.

[nosillies]

42. It's an attack on hypocritical behavior, not atheists

Nor is it an attack on overly-sensitive people :evilgrin:

[hlthe2b]

43. Heavens... that would never even have occurred to me...

For me, at least it is a very well deserved smack to Bush* and the Xian RW on their hypocrisy and a defense of true Christianity, which they seek to exploit (and in the process, bastardize).

I was raised Christian. I can't say I am agnostic today, but I am not exactly "religious" myself-- although I do think of myself as "spiritual." "Spiritual," is not specific to any religion or belief. Nor is it inconsistent with atheism. And, spirituality is (at least for me) extremely consistent with my scientific beliefs. :shrug:

I believe in the tenets of Christianity, however--which are certainly consistent with most religions, as well as with more secular humanists philosophies. For this reason, I will do my best to defend "true" Christianity against these charlatans.

[Goblinmonger]

64. I was saving this for BMUS

but you do realize the "No True Scotsman" fallacy you are breaking out here, don't you?

[beam me up scottie]

108. Why thank you.

No true Scotsman Fallacy
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.

***

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. If Bush claimed to be an atheist but insisted "there is a higher power"

Based on his AA teachings, how would atheists react?

1. "I'll have the roast duck and the mango salsa."
2. "I'm afraid I don't have much of an appetite, Mr. Bush."
3. "You're a mean one, Mr. Bush."
4. "?This poll is BO-OO-OGUS" (Boston accent required!)

[Goblinmonger]

65. Well, if he claimed to believe in god and then claimed

he was an atheist, I would say he was dumber than I thought. If he didn't claim to believe in god and claimed to be an atheist, then he would be a prick in our camp. But he hasn't done the converse of that either. He says he is a Christian, he says he believes in God, he says he believes that J.C. was the son of god. That makes him a Christian. NOWHERE has he said that he doesn't believe any of those things, so he is not an atheist.

Pricks can be Christians. Pricks can be atheists. There are pricks all over the world. Christians seem to want to kick their pricks out of the club, though.

[Bluerthanblue]

50. "CHRIST"ian is

a word which means (to me) one who seeks to embody, and embrace the teachings and life of Jesus Christ.

It is a word that has been 'high jacked' by 'religious' people- and secular people to define such extreme positions and beliefs - from 'righteousness','superiority' to 'blind acquiescence' or 'mindless evil domination' mentalities.

To call one-self a Christian, and to think, act, and advocate living a life is the complete opposite of what Jesus taught and lived is deceptive-

Being one who seeks to follow Christ doesn't make me any 'better' than anyone else. We all have "ideals" which we feel drawn towards, and that we find to be the most positive ways in which to conduct our own personal life-
It is NO threat to me if others don't embrace my belief/perspective- As long as they don't force me to change my OWN perspective to 'suit' them- which is what I believe is the TRUE evil that drives and poisons both religious AND secular extremism.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. When DUers say Foley is not really "gay", is it a slam on heterosexuals?

[bryant69]

57. No it means they are deluded.

Unlike Christian, homosexuality can be defined in a limited number of ways, and in all of those ways Foley qualifies as a homosexual.

Has anybody actually said that?

Bryant

[trotsky]

53. Is there any point to your loaded polls...

other than to just try and reinforce your own beliefs?

[bryant69]

56. How is it loaded? I thought it was fair enough

Certainly a number of Christians took me to task for my anti Christian bias.

How would you have asked the question?

Bryant

[trotsky]

68. You don't even understand the problem...

what makes you think the majority of DU Christians do?

Of COURSE they're going to say that in no way are they bashing every other religious grouping other than Christians by saying Bush is obviously NOT one of theirs. Goodness no, they aren't saying that!

But clearly that is the conclusion - bad people can't be Christians, because Christians are by definition good.

It's insulting and 100% DEAD WRONG.

[Goblinmonger]

69. Why, that almost sounds like

*GASP* Circular reasoning and *GASP GASP* Begging the question.

True Christians don't use logical fallacies. That's what they taught me at the seminary.

[bryant69]

70. So how would you have posed the question?

Or are you saying it was wrong of me to even ask it?

Bryant

[trotsky]

71. Your history of polls has shown you'll ask whatever you feel like.

But overall, there's just not going to be a way to get people to answer a poll when doing so admits, "Yeah, I guess I am being an arrogant prick by declaring that people I don't like are not members of the group that we both self-identify with."

[bryant69]

73. I don't know how you phrase that as a poll

Hmmmmm

How about this "Is it being an arrogant prick to declare people who do things I disapprove of are not part of the group we both self identify with?"

That could work

1. Definitely
2. Probably
3. Maybe/Sort of
4. Probably not
5. Definitely not
6. This poll is biased / Bogus
7. I like to vote.

Would that be enough or do you think I should underline that this is in reference to George W. Bush being a Christian?

Course when I do this, I presume I'll get in trouble with the moderators.

Bryant

[trotsky]

76. "...I presume I'll get in trouble with the moderators."

Hasn't stopped you before.

[bryant69]

78. It's posted

Let's see what happens.

Bryant

[bryant69]

82. I can only keep it kicked for an hour or so, I'll note.

People don't seem to be responding to it.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

67. I don't think it is loaded too badly

Oh, I knew how it would come out, but at least he tries to follow a 5-point Likert scale with a couple "funny" options on the end.

[Goblinmonger]

66. I liked this in another post, so I will put it on the OP

Pricks can be Christians. Pricks can be atheists. There are pricks all over the world. Christians seem to want to kick their pricks out of the club, though.

[bryant69]

74. Muslims do it to, actually Well many groups do it, actually

It's human nature. I do think there is more to the story than you and Trotskey want to admit, but I've accepted that you aren't interested in hearing it (well maybe you would be, but Trotsky isn't).

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

77. Let me have the rest of the story.

I'm willing to listen. I do agree with Trotsky that most (probably all) of the people that say "Bush isn't a Christian" have no clue how insulting that is to atheists as well as how illogical it is. But, hey, fill me in on the rest of the story and I would be happy to respond.

[bryant69]

80. Identity politics

President Bush and his followers are claiming every day that theirs is the real christianty and that liberal Christians don't exist. In my own church i've faced insulting questions about how one can be a Christian and a Liberal at the same time. They want to cut my identity as a Liberal and my Identity as Christian in half. I can be one or the other, but I can't be both.

Saying President Bush isn't a Christian or isn't a real Christian has very little to do for me, at any rate, in saying he must be an atheist. It's more about reclaiming a Christian identity that they are trying to steal from me - or at least that's what's going on in my head - I can't speak for anybody else.

I suspect that at least some people who say it around here are just pointing out the hypocracy, the difference between what a peson claims to beieve and what a person does. I would even imagine that some of them aren't particularly religious.

Of course this sort of split is worse for atheists. As it is right now, if you run for office as an Atheist, your Atheism will be a handicap, thus splitting apart your identitys as an Atheist and as an American. Real Americans aren't Atheists - which of course a lie and that attitude should be done away with.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

85. I can understand that

I have often thought that the Christian left needs to do more to counter the utter bullshit from the Christian right.

But certainly you can see that it feels different from our side. People who are pricks just aren't "real Christians." They are something else. That would most likely be godless since the claim isn't that they are Muslims or some other religion. This, at least subconsciously, helps to solidify the concept that atheists are the bad guys and Christians, definitionally, are the good guys. Which of course is a lie, but one that may atheists, myself included, think is perpetuated by this "nobody who is a bad person is really a Christian."

[bryant69]

87. I can see how it looks different from your side

but of course you realize that if Liberal Christians battle with Conservative Christians the phrase "real christianity is this - those buys aren't real christians" is likely to come up again and again.

More to the point if you believe religion to be a generally negative force in America what is the value in letting Christians, no matter how much you might agree with them on other issues, off the hook for continuing to support the religion of torture and oppression?

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

81. Wait a minute???

Christians aren't supposed to be judgmental. So those who say GWB is not a Christian are not Christian themselves. And those who say that the accusers are not Christian are not Christian either.

Wait a minute??? My head hurts.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Yeah, good luck with that. We tried using that logic last night.

The ability to recognize hypocrisy doesn't seem to be a common christian trait.

[Lerkfish]

84. maybe this will help...

a nasty rhombus rolls into town, and declares itself a circle.
the other circles say "that's not really a circle"
That does NOT mean everything that isn't a circle is nasty.
That means the rhombus is not a circle. The rhombus also is nasty. The rhombus is not nasty because it is not a circle. There are many good rhombuses, this is just not one of them.
If a triangle bystander looks at that and says, is this an unconscious attack on triangles...

that does not logically follow.

perhaps the part of the equation you're forgetting is the part in bold.
Atheists are and can be good moral people.
But to say someone claiming to be a christian is not following christian principles, is not intended as an aspersion on nonchristians.

Not sure if I'm explaining that clearly, but there ya go.

Ironically, I've stopped coming to the religion/theology forum because every time christians are attacked directly and blamed for all the killing in the world, I'm told to have a thicker skin.

:shrug:

straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

[Goblinmonger]

86. You're getting close

The problem with your analogy is that you are confusing something that is about self-identity (being a Christian) with something that had definable properties (geometric shapes).

If you are going to argue that Christianity is not about self-identity, then you will need to give the specific properties/definition of what it means to be a Christian and then we can judge all of you to see if you meet it.

[Lerkfish]

89. I see a great many threads here with atheists complaining about how

they are defined or judged by others.
:shrug:

The specific properties of being a christian are to be as christ-like as possible, to live your live by his example.
Since Jesus was not a sadistic warmongering dictator who tortured others and abused power, someone who does those things is not a christian.

Jesus was an example of humility, of compassion, of sacrifice and of love for others.
If someone who claims to be a christian intentionally practices bigotry, hatred, glories in war and justifies torture, and does so with no remorse or willingness to change their ways, then they are not really christian.

If atheists are allowed on this forum to define who they are, and are justified in posting thread after thread attempting to clarify who they are, and upbraiding those who mistakenly define them as "believing" there is no god, then that is a good thing, IMHO.
We all deserve to be able to explain to others how we define ourselves.

too bad you're not willing to afford the same leeway to christians who try to define what being a christian means.

:shrug:

this is another reminder of why its pointless for me to be in the forum.

I wish you all peace.

[okasha]

91. Well said. You beat me to it.

As far as I can tell, though, the point isn't to define "Christian." It's to set up a logical sequence that goes:

Bush=Christian.
Bush=Evil.
Christian=Evil.

It's the same old same old, undistributed middle and all.

[Bill McBlueState]

93. that's an interesting way to formulate it

As one of those "Bush is a Christian" guys, I would write,

Bush=Christian
Bush=Evil
MLK=Christian
MLK=Good

Christian=just as likely to be good or evil as anyone else

[beam me up scottie]

110. How dare you state facts and use logic to defend your obvious intolerance?

We all know that only "true" christians have the right to decide who is a "true" christian, Mr. Science is my God. :D

[Goblinmonger]

94. I don't have a problem defining Christian

It is the Christians that seem to have a problem. Most on here want to define Christian as being "a good person" so that definitionally, anyone who is a bad person isn't a Christian. How nice for you to belong to a group of only nice people.

[okasha]

96. I'm not a Christian.

I just have a low bullsh*t tolerance.

[Goblinmonger]

98. So please tell me

where I have said that all Christians are evil? Seriously. Look up thread a little bit and tell me that I don't have great respect and love for Grannie. I have NEVER said that all Christians are evil. But MY bullshit meter goes off when the Christians try and say that only good people are Christians and that the evil ones are something else. You don't have a low bullshit tolerance for THAT?

[okasha]

99. Except that that's not what they've been trying to say.

They've been saying that George Bush does not live by the central principles of Christianity, which he demonstrably does not. They have been saying, as is their right, that a Christian is defined by adherence to those principles. Ergo, Bush cannot validly claim to be a Christian. And no, that doesn't strike me as bullsh*t. Atheists are due the right to define atheism to their own satisfaction; Christians are due the same right. You say you believe Bush when he says he's a Christian. Do you also believe him when he says his only motivation for invading Iraq was to liberate its people? Did you believe him about WMDs?

My bullsh*t meter does go off, though, quite loudly, when someone tries to set up an either/or choice between Christian and atheist--then uses that false choice to claim insult.

I did not, by the way, single you out as saying that "Christians/Christianity are evil." But I don't think you can honestly claim that many posters have not made just exactly that equation, and have done so by holding up evil men as proof.

[Goblinmonger]

100. But there is a large portion

of people that claim to be Christian that would say Bush is correct and the progressive Christians are wrong. They each have scripture and interpretation and cherry picking to support them. Hence lies the problem. When there are so many contradictions about what it means to be a Christian, I can either call it all bullshit or let people self identify. I choose to let people self identify. Bush might be an asshole, but he is a people so he gets to self-identify, too.

Speaking of bullshit meters, how can you compare self-identification of religion to the presence of WMDs. I don't believe there were WMDs because there is zero proof (ironically, the same reasoning I have which leads me to my atheism). The presence of WMDs is in no way similar to declaration of religion.

And finally, you never address the point that I am trying to have people see things from my side of the fence. What else are they saying he is if they say he isn't christian? And why doesn't your bullshit meter go off when a group of people say that only good people belong to their group? when they say that Christians are good and anyone bad is a non-christian? You might want to get that meter recalibrated.

[okasha]

103. Your third option is to inform yourself and make a decision on that basis.

There's not a whole lot that's ambiguous about Jesus' teachings: love God, love your neighbor, deal fairly, help people who need help and don't stand on the streetcorner yammering about how righteous you are. A friend of mine who taught Sunday School in her church used to ask her students: "If it suddenly became illegal to be a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" Shrub would walk.

I don't believe there were WMDs because there is zero proof

See above. I, and others, don't believe Bush is a Christian because there is zero proof.

And why doesn't your bullshit meter go off when a group of people say that only good people belong to their group?

It would go off, except that that's not what they're saying. You're extrapolating again, just as you did when you set up "Christian" and "atheist" as the only two possibilities. They're both straw men.

What, exactly, do you want us to see from your side of the fence? If you would like people to empathize with your position, you won't do it by berating them for claims they're not making.

[Goblinmonger]

104. Oh, there's some ambiguity

There are contradictory messages about how you get to heaven, about coming to bring the sword, too late for me to get chapter and verse.

There is proof he is a Christian. He says he believes that Jesus is the son of god. That belief makes you a Christian.

I might be extrapolating, but is it correct. Anytime some asshole pops up that self-identifies as a Christain, the Christians come on here and say "X is not a true Christian. No true Christian would do the horrible things X does." How is that NOT saying that Christians are good people and anyone who isn't good or isn't a Christian is somehow lesser than a Chrisitian? That is not a straw man. Give me some other interpretation of the rash of "asshole X is not a Christian because he is an asshole." And don't even get me started on the circular nature of that argument.

I don't give a rat's ass if they empathize with me. I am just saying how I see the world. And why shouldn't I berate someone for something that seems to be off? They berate Bush for being "non-Christian" but they don't want to be berated for their actions? I don't think hypocrits can be Christian.

[beam me up scottie]

109. NO conservative christian has ever been and is not now a "true" christian?

Right.

In the No True Scotsman region of Fallacy World maybe.

I, and others, don't believe Bush is a Christian because there is zero proof.

Zero, eh?

Sorry, okasha, Bush claiming to believe in the christian god is not "zero proof". As a matter of fact, it's the only way we can tell who is christian and who isn't since all types claim to have the patent on "true" christianity and can use the bible to support their claim.

Or are you trying to redefine the word "zero" this time around?

[beam me up scottie]

113. Who gave them the right to redefine christianity to exclude others?

That is a wonderful example of religious intolerance, though, thanks for pointing it out.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Evil men as proof of what?

I did not, by the way, single you out as saying that "Christians/Christianity are evil." But I don't think you can honestly claim that many posters have not made just exactly that equation, and have done so by holding up evil men as proof.

Actually, most of us hold up evil christian men to prove that christians are not morally superior to non-christians.

Most of us believe and acknowledge that christians aren't morally inferior to non-christians, either.

And finally, most of us also stipulate that evil christians do not represent all christians/christianity any more than evil atheists represent all atheists or atheism.



The straw-atheists you've spent so much time building are pathetically weak and flimsy and getting worse by the thread, okasha.

You really should retire them.


But that would mean you'd have to acknowledge and truthfully represent the words of most of us.


And that's no fun, is it?

[Goblinmonger]

95. Here's your disconnect.

You think it is fine for atheists to define themselves (I think), but you don't want to give people the same thing as to Christianity. I personally don't care how people define Christianity, and I try to give the same accord I would like given to me. I think that individual atheists bet to define what it is they believe and what they don't. I give Bush that same leeway. If he says he believes in god and Jesus Christ and that he is a Christian, I will take him at his word the same way that I want him to take my word as to my lack of beliefs. I guess I am following the golden rule.

You, on the otherhand, don't like Bush's version of Christianity so you don't offer him that same option.

I think I am being 100% consistant with MY position. You, on the other hand are taking part in a logical fallacy. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but such is life in the arena.

[beam me up scottie]

106. Christians are the ones who won't let other christians define themselves.

You are the ones who use narrow and biased definitions to exclude Bush and others while assuring us that you are the "true" christians.

Christian conservatives: "Based on my own personal and specific definition of "christian" which I can prove is the only correct one by using supporting information from the bible, liberal christians aren't true christians."



Christian liberals: "Based on my own personal and specific definition of "christian" which I can prove is the only correct one by using supporting information from the bible, conservative christians aren't true christians."



Atheists: "WTF? All of you can "prove" you're the only "true" christians by using the bible to support your claim.
We can't read your minds, and since none of you is more credible than any other, we have to accept your definition of your religious belief.

Besides, I thought the bible said only God has the right to judge christians."

Gee, how intolerant of the atheists. :eyes:

[Evoman]

118. Didn't I write a play about this.

Sounds familiar ;)

On edit: I found it!

<scene start>

*Evoman is walking down the street when he sees his old friend and nemesis, Pat the Fundie on the street*

Evoman: Hey Pat, hows it going?

Pat: Not bad, Heathen. You?

Evoman: Oh, I'm fine. You heading to church?

Pat: OF COURSE HEATHEN. We are having a special sermon on liberal swine.

Evoman: Um..thats..ah...pretty christian of you I guess.

Pat: ARE YOU SAYING I AM NOT CHRISTIAN, HEATHEN!!

EVoman: Oh no...I'm letting you DEFINE YOURSELF. I wouldn't presume to know your mind. You go to church religiously....I would say your a christian.

Pat: *calming down* Okay Heathen. See you later *leaves*

*Evoman continues on his walk down the street. Out of the corner of his eye he see his good friend
Kielbasa Sausage*

Evoman: Kielbasa! Over here. Hows it going?

Kielbasa: Great, great Evoman. And you?

Evoman: Fantastic, thanks Kielbasa. Off to church?

Kielbasa: No! Its tuesday!. We are having a special sermon on How to Be More Christlike on Sunday though.

Evoman: Cool, Cool...I just saw Pat. Hes going to church too...

Kielbasa: Pat! Bah. Hes not a real christian.

Evoman: No? He goes to church about seven times a week, and told me he is a christian.

Kielbasa: He is not.

Evoman: How do you know that. From what I know about PAt, he seems to really believe in christ and love him. I imagine that if your worship christ, your a christian.

Kielbasa: Says who? Who gives you the authority to make this statement? Like, God or something?

Evoman: So your saying that no one has the authority to define others? So then, by his own definition, Pat is christian.....

Kielbasa: NO! Bottom line, there are many different ways one can be judged or not judged to be a Christian. Anyone with a tiny understanding of the teachings of Jesus could not consider Pat a Christian. I note that the "evidence" supporting this notion is from Pat own speeches. Since Pat was attempting to manipulate the world with these speeches and an inveterate liar, there is no reason to consider this evidence at all. We can only consider his actions, which certainly contain no Christian element whatsoever.

Evoman: So people who lie and cheat, or commit genocide, are not true christians?

Kielbasa: Egg-zactly, Evoman.

Evoman: So then your defining Christians as people who don't lie or cheat.

Kielbasa: Right.

Evoman: But..its that a bit..um...hypocriti....

Kielbasa: Why do some you care so much as to who is Christian or isn't? A number of atheists here are working very hard to insist upon a certain definition of who is a Christian or not. Very, very hard.

Evoman: No..I wasn't defining anybody..I was letting people define thems....

Kielbasa:I have to go now. Bye Evoman...have a great day.

Evoman: Um..yeah. See ya Kielbasa Sausage.

*end of scene*

[cosmik debris]

119. Standing Ovation

Curtain Call!

[beam me up scottie]

121. Bravo! Encore!

But didn't trotsky have a bit part in the original?

The Evil Atheist Union isn't going to like this.

[Evoman]

123. The bit character of Blotsky shows up later in the play

but its not like he does anything important...he basically just burps a lot. Not exactly a deep character.

[beam me up scottie]

124. But it's HOW he burps that's so profound.

Don't you remember Bluto?

[beam me up scottie]

125. Oh gee golly gosh darn it.

Are we hijacking this incredibly deep and philosophical thread?

I'll never forgive myself.

[salvorhardin]

127. I never tire of the classics!

Brings a tear to my everytime it does. Now I wonder who they're going to get to play Evoman in the film adaptation?

[Evoman]

131. The funniest thing about this play is that I actually cut and paste

most of it from a certain DUer. Lol..it sound like a caricature but its really not..someone actually said that stuff. The best part is that person found it hard to refute my play for that reason. HA!

[beam me up scottie]

133. Nice.

I've done that in a few posts but turning your compilation into a Jen-you-whine work of art is a credit to your talent.
:applause:

[CarbonDate]

138. Jesus is a cool guy.

His dad's a real dick, though.

Do DU Christians feel that Leviticus is still relevant? Jesus taught that The Law of Moses should still be observed:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Mat 5:17-19)

The old law has not been abolished, which means you're still supposed to kill witches, atheists, homosexuals, and disobedient children. You're not supposed to cut your hair or shave your face. You're not supposed to work on Sabbath. Hell, just read Leviticus. It's all still valid according to the Bible.

Maybe Bush isn't a true Christian, but neither are any of you. Not by a long shot. Be glad of it. A "true Christian" is something to be feared and reviled.

[beam me up scottie]

111. When did you stop beating your wife?

Intolerant people NEVER claim to be intolerant, so this poll is ridiculous and self serving.

[ulysses]

120. doubt that.

I figure they just mean that Shrubulus doesn't walk the walk, much as he might talk the talk. That doesn't mean that they're saying that he's an atheist, or a Buddhist, or whatnot. It's really pretty simple.

But what do I know? Agnostics don't think much, I'm told.

[Chulanowa]

126. Not at all

I think it's just them trying to kick the dude out of their corner. Sad fact is, he is a Christian. He justsucks at it something awful.

[immoderate]

130. Christian: commendably decent or generous

That's one of the meaning listed in my Mirriam Webster Collegiate. And it's the basis for this thread. Words can have more than one meaning. We do this when we talk about "theory" too.

One the one hand Christian means a follower of that religion, on the other hand it has come to mean the above, that is, it is synonymous with virtue. This is disturbing to atheists who, in general, are every bit as virtuous as Christians (the religious sense) and resent the fact that the term is used as a word that means morally superior.

This, and similar disputes, are of the exigencies of language. If you mean Bush is a religious Christian -- he is. If you mean Bush is a moral person -- he's not.

This argument has no end because even though we are all saying "Christian," we are using different meaniings.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

134. "Bush isn't a white person, no white person would be so evil."

Oh, but the person saying something like that couldn't possibly be inferring that non-caucasians are morally inferior to white folks. :sarcasm:

It doesn't exactly pass the Minority Switcharoo smell test, does it?

[immoderate]

135. I agree with you, but I'm playing neutral for clarity's sake.

Just to point out that the argument really is about how words are commonly used, especially because no one else has. It's a usage so common as to be cited in the dictionary.

If I had my druthers, of course, I would strike that definition because it is prejudiced and worse, not true. For the most part, I resent the fact that Christian is used as a synonym for virtue. But I would be remiss in not pointing out that it is.

Unfortunately, the dictionary does similar things with white and black. White means pure, unblemished, and virtuous. Black means wicked, sinister or evil. Not my fault. You know that we agree on the issues, including religion and racism. That doesn't mean these nuances of meaning don't exist, and that's why I'm pointing them out. As I've frequently quoted in these threads, "most arguments are about the meaning of words."

And so it is here. The argument is not whether George Bush is a Christian, but what it means to be Christian. If you mean a believer in the divinity of Christ, Bush is one. If you mean a virtuous person, then Bush is disqualified. I'll point out again, but you well know, that I resent that latter definition as much as you do. I personally, would not describe a good person as Christian. And if others do, I might very well indicate the prejudice in such a statement.

Alas, to try to eradicate this foul usage would be to try to beat back the dawn. The best we can do is make people aware that non-Christians can take offense.

BMUS! :hi:

On edit: Evoman's play is a kind of take on this.

--IMM

[Dervill Crow]

140. I vote "no."

It just means that the shrub is a liar and a phony.