PDA

View Full Version : Christian Bashing



Spartacus
September 11th, 2004, 11:21 PM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?

chadn737
September 11th, 2004, 11:56 PM
Why are you surprised by this Spart?

Galendir
September 12th, 2004, 12:23 AM
There are numerous reasons.
For one, because Christianity is made up of Christians who in aggregate behave no better than non-Christians, yet often wish to impose their own moral ideals on everyone else with the claim that they are in fact God's very own.

For another, their archaic dogma is often at odds with modern scientific/medical discovery, and acts as a ball and chain about the ankle of human progress.

Regarding JC, Even non-believers generally don't give him much of a bad rap, it's just that those who do not presume that he was the perfect being that Christians claim he was can still find fault and hypocrisy in his teaching/actions as presented in the Bible, even after it has undergone a millenium or so of redaction and interpolation.

Zhavric
September 12th, 2004, 10:01 AM
Here's some calmer pics of Brother Jed where he's not calling passerbys "sluts" for wearing shorts and tee-shirts. (http://www.brojed.org/collage.html)

"Anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual Christian groups". (http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Christianity/Commentaries/Lesbians__Gays__and_Bisexuals/)

Some anti-gay Chrisitan sentiment from the U.K. (http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_hunt.htm)

Let's not forget the Christian pro-lifers who are always ready to show horrific pictures of aborted fetus to anyone (including kids)... but also support censorship. THAT'S not hypocritical at all... (http://www.prolifeaction.org/)

Historically, there's the crusades, the inquisition, and the Puritan witch trials.

... but since you believe in Jesus and you specifically don't do all those things we should just ignore the big picture, forgive and forget. Riiiiiight.

On a personal level, I believe that Christians comprise the majority of "faux-merica" namely those who claim, "I believe in personal freedom" and in the same breath blurt out, "but people shouldn't be allowed to do XYZ because XYZ is bad."

Please.

Right or wrong, this is the answer to your question, Spartacus. There are a lot of individuals in the world who don't fit into the Christian worldview of "repentant" for their "sins" and there are a lot of Christians who want to give them the Bone at every turn.

Sure, there are good Christians out there working for a better world / living their life according to the bible / not trying to impose their beliefs on others / are just freakin' cool. There is also a very disturbing trend to say of anyone deemd "bad" to say, "Well, they're not REALLY Christian." That line gets old real fast.

KevinBrowning
September 12th, 2004, 10:28 AM
Here's some calmer pics of Brother Jed where he's not calling passerbys "sluts" for wearing shorts and tee-shirts. (http://www.brojed.org/collage.html)

I looked through that Website, and Brother Jed is obviously a hypocrite. The things he says and does are overly harsh, and not Christ-like.




Let's not forget the Christian pro-lifers who are always ready to show horrific pictures of aborted fetus to anyone (including kids)... but also support censorship. THAT'S not hypocritical at all... (http://www.prolifeaction.org/)

You seem angry about people showing pictures of these murdered babies, yet you do not seem to share this indignation for people actually murdering them. Strange.


Historically, there's the crusades, the inquisition, and the Puritan witch trials.

... but since you believe in Jesus and you specifically don't do all those things we should just ignore the big picture, forgive and forget. Riiiiiight.

Are you saying Christians today should not be forgiven for what Christians did hundreds of years ago? That does not even make sense.

Zhavric
September 12th, 2004, 10:33 AM
I looked through that Website, and Brother Jed is obviously a hypocrite. The things he says and does are overly harsh, and not Christ-like.

This is what I'm all-about. You're not going to convince Jed that he's not a Christian. He believes he has a personal relationship with Christ / is born-again / etc. Simply stating, "Well, he doesn't seem Christ-like" is an irresponsible remark. It tells me that you are not willing to take ownership for Christians who have different views from your own. Anyone on the "fringe" or going agains the grain is cast out.

"He's not reallyChristian."

More fuel for the fires against you.

Zhavric
September 12th, 2004, 10:36 AM
Are you saying Christians today should not be forgiven for what Christians did hundreds of years ago? That does not even make sense.

Not so much "forgive" but recognize what was done in the name of Christiandom. Your past hasn't all been strawberries and cream. Often, modern day Christians have a dismissive attitude towards these past transgressions.

Fyshhed
September 12th, 2004, 11:05 AM
The current mindset of Christianity is different than the mindset of Christianity in the past.
-Chrisitianity no longer directly controls the government (In the case of medieval Catholicism) but is on its way to correcting that
-Atrocities in the past have been committed by mass numbers of people in the name of Christ, and this is great hypocrisy. Fewer transgressions are committed today, but a few still do occur.
-Scientific progress has been impeded by Christianity since its rise to power. The development of the fork was shunned by the Church at the time (kind of funny actually). Various great minds had been tortured and "cleansed" for having disputing claims to the Church.
-Christians impose their beliefs on others, claiming absolutes when they do not have evidence.
-many casual Christians are plainly hypocritical in that they preach justice, fairness, love, and equality, and yet are clearly bigoted, racist, violent, or otherwise unchristian in their actions and words.
-Much Christian aid to foreign countries comes with a "healthy dose" of conversion to the population
However, these days it is commonplace to find Churches giving donations to charities and causes, and this is actually a respectable trade. Christians today often have good intentions and try to live according to their beliefs (an impossible goal, but it gives them something to do)
To top of the list, Christians claim to know, but they do not "know" any more than any other religion. They are not different or special from others, except from their own point of view.

KevinBrowning
September 12th, 2004, 11:20 AM
This is what I'm all-about. You're not going to convince Jed that he's not a Christian. He believes he has a personal relationship with Christ / is born-again / etc. Simply stating, "Well, he doesn't seem Christ-like" is an irresponsible remark. It tells me that you are not willing to take ownership for Christians who have different views from your own. Anyone on the "fringe" or going agains the grain is cast out.

"He's not reallyChristian."

More fuel for the fires against you.

Christian ministers who are truly saved and preaching in the Spirit of Christ do not go around calling murdered homosexuals "little queers," like "Brother Jed" does. He admits to using crude phrases and slurs to describe gays, and he is so accusatory and vitriolic it is ludicrous to me that anyone would believe he is a Christian, a follower of Christ.

3rdPersonPlural
September 12th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Christian ministers who are truly saved and preaching in the Spirit of Christ do not go around calling murdered homosexuals "little queers," like "Brother Jed" does. He admits to using crude phrases and slurs to describe gays, and he is so accusatory and vitriolic it is ludicrous to me that anyone would believe he is a Christian, a follower of Christ.

I believe that this is the root of the problem, isn't it?

Christians who adhere to the 'christ-like' mantle are low key, humble, and let their actions speak for their savior. These people never make headlines.

Those in the headlines generally did something, or propose that something be done, in the name of their faith that is a-social.

In general, the people publically opposed to this behavior are non christians. The mistake made by the good christians is that it is patently obvious to non christians that the misbehavior is not representative of their faith because it is obvious to them.

Christians, like most faith groups, tend toward insularity, and rarely mingle with people who don't share their brand of faith. This may contribute to their oblivion to the growing public perception that they all are like the headline makers. They feel a brotherhood with the radical fringe that is stronger than the bond they feel with the non aligned public, so they are uncomfortable speaking out. Christians WANT to have a comfortable uniformity, or maybe believe that deep down such a uniformity exists, so they close ranks rather than try to publically distance themselves from transgressors.

The result is a resounding silence from the ranks of mainstream christianity whenever the fringe acts kooky, contributing to the public's perception that ALL christians believe the same way.

HappyLady
September 12th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?

I think the problem is that Christians who "preach" at all fall into two camps. Camp one is the Christian who wants others to become Christian, too, out of a heartfelt desire to save everyone in the world and to spread the love, and all the warm and fuzzies. Camp two is the Christian who wants others to become Christian, too, because he views the world as a damned place unless everyone realizes they are a sinner and it isn't so much a heartfelt warm and fuzzy feeling, but more a fearful feelings. Basically, Camp one is motivated by love and compassion and Camp two is motivated by fear and righteousness.

The problem is that all the preaching sounds the same so it's difficult to differentiate between the lovers and fearers. So, they all get lumped together in one camp of Christians who don't know how to mind their own business who are trying to write prescriptions for salvation for all the needy people.

I think the western world of atheism and agnosticism have little tolerance for the preachers, less because they are atheists and agnostics, but more because society, in general, has become very self-involved and intolerant of others. With the relatively new science of psychology, we place a lot of emphasis on our individual well-being, and the science of psychology preaches euphemisms such as "Take responsibility for your feelings," and "Own yourself," and "Only *you* can change your behavior," and all kinds of other self-centered quips that lead people to believe that they don't "need" anything at all beyond what is within their brain. While there is truth in all those catchy phrases, there is also an element of connectedness missing from them. (It doesn't surprise me that 12 step programs are fairly successful because they emphasize a belief in a higher power of some kind.)

I'm digressing. The point is, we have evolved into a very self-centered society. It's all about ME. People don't have the time, patience, or desire to listen to new ideas, especially any idea that embraces depending on anyone or thing other than one's self. However, this isn't a phenomenon that is privy to agnostics and atheists. I imagine a lot of Christians could learn a thing or two if they stopped preaching so much about their own self-centered endeavors and truly listened to those they are preaching to.

Spartacus
September 12th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Why are you surprised by this Spart?

I am not at all surprised by this ....

All throughout the Gospels Christ says this is how it will be.

As far as Christian history...well as an Orthodox I am very aware of of how the Pope's Crusaders' sacked, pillaged, raped and killed Orthodox Christians by the tens of thousands in Constantanoble on their way to do the same to the Muslims.....

There are also many Judases today...."Christians" so blinded by their "love" of Christ, they betray Him with a kiss...I am using this as a metaphor because I personally believe that Judas when he identified Christ to the Temple Authorities....really wanted Christ to "Have His day in Court" and probably thought the whole world...or at least all of Judea would follow Christ once the truth was demonstarted by Christ. Perhaps by some undeniable world-changing miracle. But that is not how it was to be. That was not God's Will.

As for the "preachers" and others who contsantly betray Christ...In the Gospels Christ says that many will come to Him claiming to have done good works in His name...only to be turned away becaue "I never knew you"....I always remember this Gospel passage whenever I see one of these Judases...

Christianity began as an extremely persecuted sect. It went on to become official state religons in most of Western and Eastern Europe. As such it can be argued it bares the blame for the sins of these nations - rightly, wrongly or both.

Unfortunately...I see the tide starting to ebb. I fully expect Christians will once again be severley persecuted in the developed world...we can already see the seeds of this in the MIddle East, Asia, and even in parts of society in Western Europe and the America.

Sadly, anyone can say they are a Christian...or commit any act and do it in "Jesus' name". Even more sadly, most people are not well enough acquainted with Christ's teachings to be able to discern this...

Iluvatar
September 12th, 2004, 06:20 PM
Drat, i was hoping to be able to bach christians here. ;)


nfortunately...I see the tide starting to ebb. I fully expect Christians will once again be severley persecuted in the developed world...we can already see the seeds of this in the MIddle East, Asia, and even in parts of society in Western Europe and the America.
An interesting insight. I suspect you are right, that for a while now, Christianity will become persecuted and lose it's numbers. It will become a much smaller religion, and small religions are less likely to attract fringe followers, and will thus allow it to heal, and become a large religion again, and so on.

As for the distrust, it is mainly due to the fringe people. I know one such person, and she is constantly driving people, even other christians, away, with her preaching. Everytime she sees a new way to look at her faith, she immidiatly jumps on it, and tries to preach it to everyone she meets. She constantly tells others of her faith, and tries to force it on others. She acts morally superior to all people who don't share her beliefs. She stops all debates with casual somments like "Oh well, god will show you the light if he chooses to."

She is typical of many Christians I know, who use thier faith in jesus as an excuse for all other shortcomings, and must try to force it on everyone they meet. People like her tend to obscure the kind, decent christians who form a good portion of the religion, of which, I know several.

Besides that, there is the rich Christian history, with the crusades, witch trials, hypocracy, inquisition, etc.

Spartacus
September 12th, 2004, 06:40 PM
Besides that, there is the rich Christian history, with the crusades, witch trials, hypocracy, inquisition, etc.

Here is a piece of Christian History known by few....I am sure the idea of a religious pilgramage to Alaska sounds new and strange to most who read this....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3531458.stm

Apokalupsis
September 12th, 2004, 06:43 PM
When it can be demonstrated by the anti-Christians...that those CLAIMING to be Christian yet commit hate crimes or any other detestable act...are actually following and adhering to Christ's example, teachings, and philosophies...only then is there a valid argument against Christianity along these lines.

Until then, the only thing demonstrated, is that people exist who use the name of a philosophy to further their own agenda, or justify an otherwise detestable act.

I've yet to see any anti-Christian provide a sound argument that justifies the acts of those mentioned in this thread according to Christian doctrine. Simply because someone claims it, doesn't make it so. Simply because I say "God hates black people and I must hang ya in accordance with Christ's will.", doesn't make it so. Simply because I claim "God hates fags, and all homo's will burn in hell for all eternity.", doens't make it so.

And until it is shown by the opposition that the Christian philosophy does support such statements/claims...then the oppositional argument will repeatedly fall flat.

I also continue to hear that Christians are all about "forcing their morals upon others"...and I continue to wait for a sound argument supporting that claim. Christianity doesn't "force" anything upon another. In fact, Christ's philosophy was just the opposite, and Christians are instructed to not waste time fueling the fires of those who have already made up their mind.

Lastly, suggesting that the exceptional tells the picture of the norm, is an obvious fallacy. Christianity, like all philosophies, have had those who claim it, or adhere to it who do heinous things. The fault doesn't necessarily lie with the philosophy, but with the practitioner. Likewise, taking the exception instead of looking at the whole, doesn't help the argument...but reveals the lack of thought put into it.

Galendir
September 13th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Address the contention of why the putatively revealed word/will of an All-wise All-good God so easliy and readily lends itself to such abuse, perversion, and misapprehension so as to so ably be used to justify all manner of oppression and hatred against fellow man.

You employ the No True Christian fallacy so much, that when pressed you've even been forced to admit that you yourself do not qualify as a true Christian according to your own definition of one, which of course belies your argument as everyone here recognizes the hollowness of such an admission.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 05:51 AM
Christian ministers who are truly saved and preaching in the Spirit of Christ do not go around calling murdered homosexuals "little queers," like "Brother Jed" does. He admits to using crude phrases and slurs to describe gays, and he is so accusatory and vitriolic it is ludicrous to me that anyone would believe he is a Christian, a follower of Christ.

And here in lies another reason for so-called "Christian-bashing".

Jed: "I'm Christian. Anyone who's not born again / believes as I do / no questions asked / convert or be damned is not Christian / not getting saved."

Kevin: "I'm Christian. Folks like Jed shouldn't be considered Christian."

This is a HUGE problem for non-Christians. On the one hand, we have Jed who at best is overzealous and at worst downright spiteful / turns people away. Then, we have Kevin and people like you / more moderate who have an attitude towards Jed of "He's no really Christian." This attitude is irresponsible at best. It looks to me as though you are ignoring a fact.

Jed considers himself Christian.
You deny that he's Christian.

It appears that you are unwilling or unable to take ownership.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 06:00 AM
Lastly, suggesting that the exceptional tells the picture of the norm, is an obvious fallacy. Christianity, like all philosophies, have had those who claim it, or adhere to it who do heinous things. The fault doesn't necessarily lie with the philosophy, but with the practitioner. Likewise, taking the exception instead of looking at the whole, doesn't help the argument...but reveals the lack of thought put into it.

It is this last part that is troublesome. As demonstrated above by Kevin's comments about brother Jed, Christians are sometimes too quick to relegate certain groups to "fringe" status / dis-associate themselves from such individuals / groups. The appearance is that if a group is doing something acceptable, they are Christian / if their behavior is unnacceptable in some way, they are instantly tossed to the side / not real Christians.

It's a fine line, no doubting that. Clearly, we cannot judge all Christians by David Koresh or Brother Jed... but, at the same time, both individuals believe they had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Thus, they are both Christians.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 06:05 AM
I think the western world of atheism and agnosticism have little tolerance for the preachers, less because they are atheists and agnostics, but more because society, in general, has become very self-involved and intolerant of others.

You're on to something interesting here.

Consider this: society has become less tolerant of intolerant people.

In ages past it was...

Preacher: "Convert or be darned to heck."
Average Joe: "I better straighten up and fly right...

In modern times...

Preacher: "Convert or be darned to heck."
Average Joe: "I don't have to listen to this. I'm free to do as I please in this country."

I do agree that atheists and agnostics aren't tolerant towards being preached at... and they shouldn't have to be.

Spartacus
September 13th, 2004, 06:23 AM
It is this last part that is troublesome. As demonstrated above by Kevin's comments about brother Jed, Christians are sometimes too quick to relegate certain groups to "fringe" status / dis-associate themselves from such individuals / groups. The appearance is that if a group is doing something acceptable, they are Christian / if their behavior is unnacceptable in some way, they are instantly tossed to the side / not real Christians.

LUKE 5:32

"I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners"

Christians are commanded by Christ to go forth and minister to the poor, sick, and the down trodden in life as well as the rich and especially the ones sick in their souls....But Christ also teaches that if none will welcome the message...then walk away and shake the dust off your sandals.

If you were a member of a club or fraternity and a crazy person claiming to be in your fraternity made all sorts of ludicrous claims....is it correct for the rest of the world to identify him as part of your group?

The problem Christianity has is that with 17,000 sects in the US alone...there probably are some nutjobs who claim Jed and the like.

I have been criticized for having criteria that defines Christian belief and Christians...given th example of Jed and many others, perhaps now some might understand why I find the criteria necessary for any discussion regarding Christianity.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 08:58 AM
It's refreshing to hear 17,000 sects of Christians without qualifying that X number of them aren't really Christian.

At the same time...


If you were a member of a club or fraternity and a crazy person claiming to be in your fraternity made all sorts of ludicrous claims....is it correct for the rest of the world to identify him as part of your group?

I would agree with this analogy were it not for the boldface word. From this, I draw the idea that you would say, "Well, such-and-such group is claiming to be Christian, but they aren't really Christian..."

I would say your analogy would be accurate if you had stated a person WITHIN one's fraternity / club made all sorts of ludicrous claims.

Be very careful here. There is no force in the universe capable of convincing Brother Jed that he's not a Christian. To him, those who are not born-again are the ones who are just "claiming" to be Christians.

As I non-Christian, sometimes I just want to say, "Get your story straight." If Jesus showed up 2000 years ago and said XYZ, and did ABC, then why do we need 17,000 different sects of Christianity? If you're sure about what He had to say, why is there so much inconsistency?

Again, I already know the answers to the questions I have asked, but the point of this thread was to explain "Christian-bashing". Think of me as your friendly neighborhood devil's advocate and remember that you cannot change the perceptions of others.

CC
September 13th, 2004, 09:18 AM
I see this a lot more on the web than in RT.................When you live in a small bible-belt town being an atheist can be worse than being a leper, even if you have spent years helping the community in many ways. I make it a point not to discuss politics or religion with any of my students. That is typical in MA though. I know there are students who would take my views as their own simply because I espoused them. I also know that if I were to have an open discussion about religions that I would lose some of my (especially) younger students.

So, in some areas the topic takes the other approach, putting atheists on the spot of defending themselves. When it come to the national level though, and all of our denizens of those cities are involved, the dynamics begin to shift, swinging back to followers defending their beliefs.

As I read in a book By Harold Browne long ago. I live my life in a way that I feel okay with myself and no longer (except in debate forums from time to time) feel I have a cause. I simply do not care if someone is religious or a "devil worshipper" so long as their actions do not harm me or any others I can help.

I have friends ranging from neuro-surgeons, priests, bikers and ex'cons. I think I have such a cornucopia of friends precisely because I don't care how they think, but how they treat others...................:O)

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Address the contention of why the putatively revealed word/will of an All-wise All-good God so easliy and readily lends itself to such abuse, perversion, and misapprehension so as to so ably be used to justify all manner of oppression and hatred against fellow man.
It hasn't. Be specific. JUSTIFY it yourself. Your argument falls flat simply because you are saying here: "Since Christian X believes that the Bible says he can commit such acts, it must be true, or at least it must be true that the Bible hints at it to be OK." And this is false. I'm still waiting for ANYONE to support or attempt to even defend such a position. Until it is done...there is no argument here against Christianity along these lines.

Instead, it's the same tired argument: "Christian X says he believes the Bible, Christian X says he believes and follows Christ, yet, Christian X commits heinous crimes against humanity...therefore...Christianity is to blame". It's fallacious. The subject is Christian X...not Christianity.



You employ the No True Christian fallacy so much,
There is no such fallacy.


that when pressed you've even been forced to admit that you yourself do not qualify as a true Christian according to your own definition of one,
1) I wasn't pressed by any means.
2) Yes, I stated that I am not living a Christian lifestyle.

Both points are irrelevant.


which of course belies your argument as everyone here recognizes the hollowness of such an admission.
This makes no sense. Please try again.

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 09:40 AM
And here in lies another reason for so-called "Christian-bashing".

Jed: "I'm Christian. Anyone who's not born again / believes as I do / no questions asked / convert or be damned is not Christian / not getting saved."

Kevin: "I'm Christian. Folks like Jed shouldn't be considered Christian."

This is a HUGE problem for non-Christians. On the one hand, we have Jed who at best is overzealous and at worst downright spiteful / turns people away. Then, we have Kevin and people like you / more moderate who have an attitude towards Jed of "He's no really Christian." This attitude is irresponsible at best. It looks to me as though you are ignoring a fact.

Jed considers himself Christian.
You deny that he's Christian.

It appears that you are unwilling or unable to take ownership.
There is no "ownership" issue here. When it can be shown, that Jed is indeed following the principles, teachings, examples of Christ and Christian doctrine...then you have a case. Until then, it's just an issue of someone perverting a philosophy for his own ends.

Can SOMEONE, ANYONE, please justify such acts by these groups of people, through the Bible? How are these people following Christ's example? Even the most noted of atheist philosophers and skeptics recognized that these sorts of people, are not Christians. Read Kant. Also, even Christ called these sorts of people, NOT-CHRISTIAN.

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 09:44 AM
It is this last part that is troublesome. As demonstrated above by Kevin's comments about brother Jed, Christians are sometimes too quick to relegate certain groups to "fringe" status / dis-associate themselves from such individuals / groups. The appearance is that if a group is doing something acceptable, they are Christian / if their behavior is unnacceptable in some way, they are instantly tossed to the side / not real Christians.

It's a fine line, no doubting that. Clearly, we cannot judge all Christians by David Koresh or Brother Jed... but, at the same time, both individuals believe they had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Thus, they are both Christians.
No, they aren't. I'm still waiting to be shown, in what sense that people such as Brother Jed are Christian. YOUR only qualification (and that of the opposition), is "anyone who claims to be Christian". That's it...nothing more. And this is false. Christ certainly doesn't accept these people as Christian...he even says that he doesn't know them (to be Christian).

Anti-Christians, have a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be Christian. The only qualification to any non-theist...to be a theist...is merely the "theist"...claiming he is a part of that particular theology or that he believes in that particular theological philosophy. And frankly, that is an absurd position to take. It is perhaps the weakest attack on any theological philosophy possible.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 09:45 AM
There is no "ownership" issue here. When it can be shown, that Jed is indeed following the principles, teachings, examples of Christ and Christian doctrine...then you have a case. Until then, it's just an issue of someone perverting a philosophy for his own ends.

Can SOMEONE, ANYONE, please justify such acts by these groups of people, through the Bible? How are these people following Christ's example? Even the most noted of atheist philosophers and skeptics recognized that these sorts of people, are not Christians. Read Kant. Also, even Christ called these sorts of people, NOT-CHRISTIAN.

Jed is just spreading the word. To play Devil's Advocate for him, no one has to stand near him and listen. Many walk on by without a second thought. He doesn't go chasing after people. He does, however, preach in public places (college campuses). His teachings espouse being "born-again" and the following of the tenets of the bible. He claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus.

He is a Christian. A very loud, confrontational Christian.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 09:46 AM
I'm tempted to invite Jed here to debate.

Fyshhed
September 13th, 2004, 09:50 AM
Apok, the argument you're presenting, if I am correct (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that because none of the acts committed in the name of X did not adhere to the policies and teachings of X, then a person who commits the acts is not a member of X.

It is then the case that since people in general do not entirely adhere to the X sytem, (just ask anyone here if they have ever been a hypocrite.) then there are no true adherents to any belief system X.

It is then the case that the No True X can be applied to any situation. Because the nature of Christianity is so specific in its demands, there are mandates that are disobeyed or ignored (Do not eat shellfish...). It is observable as well, that few "adherents" to any group X will be motivated to or able to adhere completely to X's mandate. It is also evident from the many sects and denominations of religions that few people act exactly the same even though they all "act in accordance" to X mandate.

It is then the case that "No true Scotsman" can be extrapolated to mean "No true X," and one possible value of X is Christianity.


Side Note: You are not the first to voice your views in this manner. However, the definition of No true Scotsman has something to say about that. ;)
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm

You can change this to any other bad act and any group you like to get a similar argument — and you’ll get an argument which has probably been used at some point. A common one which is often heard when a religion or religious group is criticized is:

3. Our religion teaches people to be kind and peaceful and loving. Anyone who does evil acts certainly isn’t acting in a loving manner, therefore they can’t really be a true member of our religion, no matter what they say.

But of course, the exact same argument can be made for any group — a political party, a philosophical position, etc. Here is a real life example of how this fallacy can be used:

4. Another good example is abortion, our government has such a small Christian influence that the courts have ruled it’s ok to kill babies now. Typical. The people who support legalized abortion but claim to be Christians don’t really follow Jesus — they have lost their way.

In an effort to argue that abortion is wrong, it is assumed that Christianity is inherently and automatifcally opposed to abortion (begging the question). In order to do this, it is further argued that no one who supports legalized abortion — for any reason — can really be a Christian (equivocation through an ad hoc redefinition of the term “Christian”).

Similar arguments are made regarding a host of controversial political, social and economic questions: real Christians can’t be for (or against) capital punishment, real Christians can’t be for (or against) socialism, real Christians can’t be for (or against) drug legalization, etc. We even see it with atheists: real atheists can’t have irrational beliefs, real atheists cannot believe in anything supernatural, etc.

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 10:15 AM
Jed is just spreading the word.
Whose word?


To play Devil's Advocate for him, no one has to stand near him and listen. Many walk on by without a second thought. He doesn't go chasing after people. He does, however, preach in public places (college campuses).
OK...but this is a free speech issue, not a theological one. Thus far, it hasn't been shown that what he is saying is Christian. He is only claiming it is. Don't accept something just because someone claims it. ;)


His teachings espouse being "born-again" and the following of the tenets of the bible.
No they don't. WHAT ARE HIS TEACHINGS? You've already shown us what his "teachings are"...and they are in no way, Christian or taught by Christ. If you disagree...please defend his position using Christ's teachings and examples. If you can't...then you must submit, that he is not following Christ's example...and if he is not doing so...(through action, philosophy), then he is not Christian.


He claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus.
I claim to meet with Santa and the Easter bunny every year to discuss who gets bicycles and eggs...does that make me a Christmas/Easter advisor?



He is a Christian. A very loud, confrontational Christian.]
Still waiting for this to be shown to be true...

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 10:16 AM
I'm tempted to invite Jed here to debate.
That would be fun. Didn't he attempt to debate at DF.net? I recall something like that...but not sure.

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Apok, the argument you're presenting, if I am correct (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that because none of the acts committed in the name of X did not adhere to the policies and teachings of X, then a person who commits the acts is not a member of X.
No. Acts are merely the reflection of one's philosophy. Jed not only acts contrary to Christ's message, but also expouses Christ's entire philosophy incorrectly. He then calls this NEW practice/belief/philosphy...Christian. He takes a new belief, slaps on a label that already defines a philosophy. Then, anti-Christians believe that by attacking this belief with the incorrect label, they are attacking actual Christianity...which is taught by Christ.

When it can be demonstrated by anyone here, that his philosophies are taught, practiced, and believed by Christ...then there will be a case against Christianity along these lines. Still waiting.



It is then the case that since people in general do not entirely adhere to the X sytem, (just ask anyone here if they have ever been a hypocrite.) then there are no true adherents to any belief system X.
It isn't a matter of "falling short" of the mark...that is what every Christian does. This goes much deeper. The argument has never been "Since someone does X, and Y believe says non-X...then someone cannot be Y". That is not the case here. We are talking about fundamental doctrine and principles.

IN WHAT WAY IS JED TEACHING/PRACTICING CHRISTIANITY THROUGH CHRIST'S EXAMPLE?

When that can be validly answered, this thread's oppositional arguments will start to have some real meat to it. ;)



It is then the case that the No True X can be applied to any situation.
It's not the case. See above. ;)


Because the nature of Christianity is so specific in its demands, there are mandates that are disobeyed or ignored (Do not eat shellfish...). It is observable as well, that few "adherents" to any group X will be motivated to or able to adhere completely to X's mandate. It is also evident from the many sects and denominations of religions that few people act exactly the same even though they all "act in accordance" to X mandate.

It is then the case that "No true Scotsman" can be extrapolated to mean "No true X," and one possible value of X is Christianity.
It's not a matter of "Don't do action X else you are not Christian". That is not the argument here.



Side Note: You are not the first to voice your views in this manner. However, the definition of No true Scotsman has something to say about that. ;)
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm
That lends nothing to this discussion. No such fallacy has been committed here. We aren't talking about "Jed hates gays, therefore he is not Christian". We are talking about what it is that encompasses Jed and his beliefs.

I'll make this as simple as I can...

In what way are Jed's philosophies in accordance with Christ's?

When that is answered validly, then we have an argument.

Booger
September 13th, 2004, 10:41 AM
And until it is shown by the opposition that the Christian philosophy does support such statements/claims...then the oppositional argument will repeatedly fall flat.

As I have argued with you time and time again, it is all a matter of interpretation for Christians. While you may claim that Christian philosophy says X, many more Christians may say "no, Christian philosophy says Y." It seems that the only Christain doctrine that is agreed to with 100% unanimity is that Christ died for our sins. Beyond that...it's all a matter of interpretation.

So what you've done here is nothing more than to set an evidentiary standard that cannot be met because Chrisitian philosophy is really all over the map, even on issues as major as the existence of Hell itself. Can one who claims to disavow the existence of Hell, be correctly called a Christian? Yea or nay?

The bottom line is that while you may believe that those who claim "God hates fags" are not Christians, that is your interpretation only (and others of like mind). So while you can argue that X group is not a Christian group because X group believes Y about Christianity, the fact of the matter is that X group can equally show that you are wrong about belief Y. So when Spart asks why are there some many people with low opinions of Christianity, it is because there are a large number of "Christians" who adhere to Brother Jed's beliefs (and others like him) and when you have bigots like Jerry Falwell active in the political process and formulating public policy, you're going to see a backlash. It does nothing to claim that this is unreasonable because you believe they're not Christians. They are, they claim it and claim they're acting on the Lord's behalf. That's all I need to know...

BTW, on Bro Jed's website, we see the following quote: "Brother Jed has become an American legend. A worldwide computer network monitors his progress. He has spawned a flock of fans who, in comparison to the fanatical followers of the Grateful Dead, call themselves 'Jed-Heads.'" The Mustang Daily, California State Polytechnic University.

Can one who calls himself a Jed-Head be a Christian?


I also continue to hear that Christians are all about "forcing their morals upon others"...and I continue to wait for a sound argument supporting that claim. Christianity doesn't "force" anything upon another.

lol. Come on now. Who's behind sodomy laws; gay marriage amendment?


I'm tempted to invite Jed here to debate.

Do it!! I'd love to see a bunch of Christians debating each other about how they're not really Christians. It would be fascinating (and illuminating) to say the least.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 11:42 AM
Whose word?...
...Still waiting for this to be shown to be true...

This all tells me that we need to better define how one defines a Christian.

Jed makes the claim that he lives his life according to the Christian bible, is born again, and has a personal relationship with Jesus. If that doesn't make someone a Christian then please explain what does.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 11:43 AM
That would be fun. Didn't he attempt to debate at DF.net? I recall something like that...but not sure.

I tried to get him to come online and debate, but he had trouble setting up an account.

He's pretty good about replying to e-mails that are sent to him.

Fyshhed
September 13th, 2004, 12:05 PM
I tried to get him to come online and debate, but he had trouble setting up an account.

He's pretty good about replying to e-mails that are sent to him.
Keep at it. I have $10 that says we can tear his logic to shreds ;)

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 12:07 PM
The bottom line is that while you may believe that those who claim "God hates fags" are not Christians, that is your interpretation only (and others of like mind). So while you can argue that X group is not a Christian group because X group believes Y about Christianity, the fact of the matter is that X group can equally show that you are wrong about belief Y.
Yet, no one is able to defend Jed's position as to how it is possible for him to hold such beliefs, yet validly claim to be a Christian.

So...we are again left with the very weak argument of:

If someone claims X, then it must be true.

Therefore, I claim to be Muslim. I don't believe in the 5 Pillars, Muhammad was actually a transvestite seer, the Hadiths are songs and the Koran is a book made up 100 years ago to tell our beloeved transvestite's story. I, am Muslim, and this is what Islam is all about.

Then, by your own logic, you must concede that this is true, Islam is as described above and I am Muslim. Very weak argumentation indeed.


So when Spart asks why are there some many people with low opinions of Christianity, it is because there are a large number of "Christians" who adhere to Brother Jed's beliefs (and others like him) and when you have bigots like Jerry Falwell active in the political process and formulating public policy, you're going to see a backlash. It does nothing to claim that this is unreasonable because you believe they're not Christians. They are, they claim it and claim they're acting on the Lord's behalf. That's all I need to know...
Yes, this is a reason why Christian's get bashed. No one is disputing that. What I have claimed however, is that it is not Christianity, but the the practitioners of the perversion of a philosophy who are to blame. Instead of people attacking an erroneous belief system that claims to be the belief system...people attack the belief system instead, believing that said belief system is representative of the faulty practitioners.


BTW, on Bro Jed's website, we see the following quote: "Brother Jed has become an American legend. A worldwide computer network monitors his progress. He has spawned a flock of fans who, in comparison to the fanatical followers of the Grateful Dead, call themselves 'Jed-Heads.'" The Mustang Daily, California State Polytechnic University.

Can one who calls himself a Jed-Head be a Christian?
Can one who calls himself a Muslim, be a Christian? Can one who claims to be atheist, be Christian? Can one who claims that Christ hated, flamed, harmed, abused others, be Christian? No. The compared belief systems are not compatible.



lol. Come on now. Who's behind sodomy laws; gay marriage amendment?
Horrible argument Boog. 1) The fact that some may do something, doesn't mean that their belief system condones it. That is like saying: Since the Bible records murder and rape, means that it is condoned, even advocated in the Bible, by Christ, and through scripture. Simply because people DO, doesn't mean they SHOULD, nor does it mean that they are adhering to a claimed belief system.

2) This nation is a democracy. This nation has many groups of people with varied belief systems. THROUGH democracy, ideals, philosophies, morals, etc... are made law, and/or are culture is influenced through them. EVERYONE has a right to further their belief system within the boundaries of the law. NOBODY has the right to force their belief system upon others. If people vote through democracy, that gay marriage "should not be"...then it simply "should not be".

If this was not the case, then no idea of any group, could ever be "voted in" because it would then be "forcing your ideas upon another person" who didn't vote for it. Obviously, this is nonsensical.

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 12:08 PM
This all tells me that we need to better define how one defines a Christian.
Agreed.



Jed makes the claim that he lives his life according to the Christian bible, is born again, and has a personal relationship with Jesus. If that doesn't make someone a Christian then please explain what does.
But how is he living the life according to the Christian Bible? In what way? Does he support this, or just say it and want you to accept it to be true? If so, why would you believe it to be true on face value?

In other words...you are willing to accept that Jed lives a Christian life...that is, it involves such hate and "abuse" directed towards others. Yet, you are not willing to accept that others live the opposite as Jed can be Christian. After all, you have just defined Christianity by how Jed does. And how he lives Christianity, is NOT compatible for the overwhelming majority of those who call themselves Christian. Why do you accept Jed? On what grounds do you accept his version or claims?

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 12:13 PM
But how is he living the life according to the Christian Bible? In what way? Does he support this, or just say it and want you to accept it to be true? If so, why would you believe it to be true on face value?

You may as well get rid of the cross next to your avatar as by this logic we could never know that you were really Christian unless we were to scrutinize your entire life.

It is the case that Jed makes the claim that he is Christian. Do you really think he's lying? He hasn't given me any sign to warrant such an accusation in the four seasons I happened upon him at Ohio State University.

When someone states to you, Apok, "I'm a Christian" are you so much of a skeptic as to instantly doubt their claim? How would one go about proving / disproving such a claim?

The answer that I'm wagering you'd state is by living one's life by the teaching of Christ / in the bible. Jed claims to be doing this. I have never seen him do otherwise. His knowledge / memorization of the bible is impressive. He says what he means and lives according to how he interprets the bible.

Fyshhed
September 13th, 2004, 12:18 PM
Therefore, I claim to be Muslim. I don't believe in the 5 Pillars, Muhammad was actually a transvestite seer, the Hadiths are songs and the Koran is a book made up 100 years ago to tell our beloeved transvestite's story. I, am Muslim, and this is what Islam is all about.

Then, by your own logic, you must concede that this is true, Islam is as described above and I am Muslim.
Better start converting ;)


Yes, this is a reason why Christian's get bashed. No one is disputing that. What I have claimed however, is that it is not Christianity, but the the practitioners of the perversion of a philosophy who are to blame. Instead of people attacking an erroneous belief system that claims to be the belief system...people attack the belief system instead, believing that said belief system is representative of the faulty practitioners.
One must have a base philosophy to pervert if one is to be a false prophet. The attacks go to the source of perversion, not the perverts themselves :evil:



Can one who calls himself a Muslim, be a Christian? Can one who claims to be atheist, be Christian? Can one who claims that Christ hated, flamed, harmed, abused others, be Christian? No. The compared belief systems are not compatible.
It all depends on the validity of the Bible. Jed could be the only one right if the Apostles screwed up the story. We cannot know.




2) This nation is a democracy.
Republic.

This nation has many groups of people with varied belief systems. THROUGH democracy, ideals, philosophies, morals, etc... are made law, and/or are culture is influenced through them. EVERYONE has a right to further their belief system within the boundaries of the law. NOBODY has the right to force their belief system upon others. If people vote through democracy, that gay marriage "should not be"...then it simply "should not be". Argumentum ad populum. Besides, one cannot make one's belief system law without forcing it on others. I cry foul at your hypocrisy!


If this was not the case, then no idea of any group, could ever be "voted in" because it would then be "forcing your ideas upon another person" who didn't vote for it. Obviously, this is nonsensical.
That's why issues like abortion, stem cells, contraception, gun control, etc etc ad infitum are ALWAYS under debate. Nonsensical, yes. But that's reality.

Booger
September 13th, 2004, 12:24 PM
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/brotherharry/studypic.jpg

:lol: :lol:

3rdPersonPlural
September 13th, 2004, 12:38 PM
Yes, this is a reason why Christian's get bashed. No one is disputing that. What I have claimed however, is that it is not Christianity, but the the practitioners of the perversion of a philosophy who are to blame. Instead of people attacking an erroneous belief system that claims to be the belief system...people attack the belief system instead, believing that said belief system is representative of the faulty practitioners.


This debate should not have gravitated toward 'quality' of beliefs. it should be about quality of PR. The arguement that people should learn enough about christianity to ascertain who is true and who is heretical is really profoundly bad PR. Allz I see in the papers and on TV are bible thumping literalists fulminating about who God hates and what he'll do to them once he gets his mitts on them. I never see anyone opposing them from the christian perspective, only from the un christian perspective. It's as if christianity has defaulted the voice of the faith to the flamboyant and figure a few whispered tsk-tsk's in the sanctity of their congregation is all that's necessary to counter the draconian perception that is layering itself on the minds of the non religious community.

As a member of the public, I don't care that you feel that my perception is wrong unless you make an equally noisy and compelling case that in simple, non theological terms, clarifies where you AGREE with ME about the insanity being preached in the media.

Until and unless you and your fellow moderates recognize and act on this imperative, you will have conceded the voice of your faith to those who may misrepresent it.

Booger
September 13th, 2004, 12:52 PM
Yet, no one is able to defend Jed's position as to how it is possible for him to hold such beliefs, yet validly claim to be a Christian.

Answer yes or no as to whether the following Jed beliefs (from his website) are 'Christian beliefs.' If you answer no to any of the following, explain how these views are anti-Christian:

1. Sex between married couples should be for the purpose of procreation only.
2. Gay sex is immoral.
3. "I usually make the distinction that God's hatred of the sinner is a holy hatred or righteous indignation, actually rooted in His benevolence."
4. Believes that Jesus is described in the Bible as "the Prince of Peace". He taught, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"
5. "The sodomites want to make a martyr out of a pervert [Matthew Shepard], who the Bible teaches was deserving of death. Nor should we have anything but disgust for the thieves that murdered him."

Or, in lieu of answering these questions, perhaps you can tell us exactly what beliefs that Bro Jed holds that disqualifies him as a Christian.


So...we are again left with the very weak argument of:

If someone claims X, then it must be true.

Therefore, I claim to be Muslim. I don't believe in the 5 Pillars, Muhammad was actually a transvestite seer, the Hadiths are songs and the Koran is a book made up 100 years ago to tell our beloeved transvestite's story. I, am Muslim, and this is what Islam is all about.

Then, by your own logic, you must concede that this is true, Islam is as described above and I am Muslim. Very weak argumentation indeed.

Straw man. I never claimed the "very weak" argument of or subscribed to the logic of "If someone claims X, then it must be true."

What I claimed was the following:

So while you can argue that X group is not a Christian group because X group believes Y about Christianity, the fact of the matter is that X group can equally show that you are wrong about belief Y.


What I have claimed however, is that it is not Christianity, but the the practitioners of the perversion of a philosophy who are to blame. Instead of people attacking an erroneous belief system that claims to be the belief system...people attack the belief system instead, believing that said belief system is representative of the faulty practitioners.

There can be no others to blame BUT the practitioners of a religion. As Ghandi once said (paraphasing) "I like your Christ, but do not like your Christians for they are so unlike your Christ." The practitioners are the representatives of the religion. And if a sizeable population of the practitioners of religion X subscribe to Y view, then it is only reasonable to conclude that Y view is representative of religion X, even if a minority of the practitioners of religion X do not subscribe to Y view.

And as far as a "perversion," if there are 10,000 sects of Christianity, your brand of it can be construed by the other 9,999 sects as a perversion.


Horrible argument Boog.

I don't think so, for you haven't disagreed with my conclusion, i.e., that the Christians are behind laws regulating sex between consenting adults and pushing for an amendment to the constitution outlawing gay marriage.


NOBODY has the right to force their belief system upon others. If people vote through democracy, that gay marriage "should not be"...then it simply "should not be".

You mean like when the residents of Mississippi in 1950 voted, through democracy, that marriage between blacks and whites "should not be"...then it simply "should not be"?

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 12:55 PM
I tried to get him to come online and debate, but he had trouble setting up an account.
Either he didn't see the register button at the top of the front page, or he didn't try.

Give him this link:
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/register.php?

Booger
September 13th, 2004, 12:57 PM
This debate should not have gravitated toward 'quality' of beliefs. it should be about quality of PR. The arguement that people should learn enough about christianity to ascertain who is true and who is heretical is really profoundly bad PR. Allz I see in the papers and on TV are bible thumping literalists fulminating about who God hates and what he'll do to them once he gets his mitts on them. I never see anyone opposing them from the christian perspective, only from the un christian perspective. It's as if christianity has defaulted the voice of the faith to the flamboyant and figure a few whispered tsk-tsk's in the sanctity of their congregation is all that's necessary to counter the draconian perception that is layering itself on the minds of the non religious community.

/\ /\

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 01:04 PM
You may as well get rid of the cross next to your avatar as by this logic we could never know that you were really Christian unless we were to scrutinize your entire life.
lol That isn't a cross. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It has more to do with goblins than it does with Christ. ;)

Furthermore, a cross represents the Christian faith. However, simply because one wears it, doesn't mean they are adhering to the Christian faith.


It is the case that Jed makes the claim that he is Christian. Do you really think he's lying?
He could be 1) lying, or 2) misunderstanding Christ's message (to which Jed's...is the exact opposite).



When someone states to you, Apok, "I'm a Christian" are you so much of a skeptic as to instantly doubt their claim? How would one go about proving / disproving such a claim?
I have no reason to doubt, until they actually share their beliefs about what it is to be Christian, as well as behave in contrast to Christ's message.



The answer that I'm wagering you'd state is by living one's life by the teaching of Christ / in the bible. Jed claims to be doing this.
HOW is he doing this? We have 10 people in a room. Each say they are following Christ, but each one lives a complete different lifestyle. One may be murdering those who are unlike him, another may be sleeping with every person they can saying that Christ wanted it, another may claim that Christanity teaches that children should be beaten and abused, another may say that Christ taught that money is the most important thing, another may say that all material goods are irrelevant and we ought to love others as well as our enemies, etc...

Since we have many claims here, none showing support...we must examine them or ask for support. Jed's perversion of Christianity, is unsupported. He is NOT following Christ's example. If you disagree, please point out how he is. What did Christ do and say to those who were different, living in sin, etc...?



I have never seen him do otherwise. His knowledge / memorization of the bible is impressive. He says what he means and lives according to how he interprets the bible.
Simply because one memorizes text doesn't mean that one understands it. And simply because one claims what he says is true, doesn't mean that it is. Either it is true, or it is not. What is the support that he has, that what he says...IS Christianity? How is he following Christ's example and message?

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 01:14 PM
One must have a base philosophy to pervert if one is to be a false prophet. The attacks go to the source of perversion, not the perverts themselves :evil:
No they don't. That's like saying: An atheist believes that there is no God. A particular atheist believes that those who believe in God(s) are evil and should be destroyed...and that this is the TRUE belief of atheism.

Then a theist coming along as argueing "Atheist teaches genocide". No...it's not the belief system here that should be under attack, but the one perverted what the belief system is.



It all depends on the validity of the Bible. Jed could be the only one right if the Apostles screwed up the story. We cannot know.

Since Jed and I read the same Bible...the one that is either true, or false for the both of us...your argument doesn't hold up. Jed is basing his beliefs on the same Bible that all are reading. So...what is his support? What is YOUR support that Jed is Christian? Please let it be something other than "Jed said so."

By the way, I'm now Hindu, but I eat cow and rat on a daily basis, believe in only 1 God whom I shall call "Bunny of the Easter".

I claim it, so it must be true.



Argumentum ad populum. Besides, one cannot make one's belief system law without forcing it on others. I cry foul at your hypocrisy!
1) false charge of fallacy. I really need to get our fallacy page online. ;) Also, if you disagree w/ the false charge, please expand on it instead of merely throwing out the name of a fallacy. Your error here is confusing the subject and predicate of the statements made.

2) So then, it is true that you believe that anything voted for is forcing beliefs upon others? And since we ought not to force beliefs upon others...all governments, are immoral. In fact, laws are wrong. They force people to do things that may be contrary to their will. I wish to steal from you...the law will punish me if I do therefore forcing YOUR beliefs that stealing is wrong, upon me. See how absurd that position is? :)



That's why issues like abortion, stem cells, contraception, gun control, etc etc ad infitum are ALWAYS under debate. Nonsensical, yes. But that's reality.
Again, you miss the point. Fallacy of equivocation. That's not what was previously argued by Booger (as to Christianity's fault). With your logic, all laws are wrong, all beliefs are wrong, anything that 100% of all people do not agree with, is wrong, because it would mean forcing that belief upon someone who disagrees.

The argument is juvenile IMO. The only way it stands up is if it could be shown that Christianity teaches to force Christanity and Christian morals, upon others.

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 01:16 PM
Until and unless you and your fellow moderates recognize and act on this imperative, you will have conceded the voice of your faith to those who may misrepresent it.
Horrible logic. This says "Who ever speaketh loudest, is right".

You don't discover truth this way. You discover it by examining the claims. You are conceding truth to the biggest noise makers.

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 01:33 PM
Straw man. I never claimed the "very weak" argument of or subscribed to the logic of "If someone claims X, then it must be true."
But that is what you are doing.



What I claimed was the following:

So while you can argue that X group is not a Christian group because X group believes Y about Christianity, the fact of the matter is that X group can equally show that you are wrong about belief Y.
HOW SO? This is my point...you are saying that we must accept the claims simply because they are claimed. BE SPECIFIC here. SUPPORT that Jed is Christian and that EVERYONE else who claims to be Christian, are not. Now you may not have intended to argue that...but you have nevertheless. Jed's "Christianity" is not compatible with the Christianity practiced and believed by the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be Christian. It's X vs non-X. Law of non-contradiction. They cannot be the same at the same time in the same sense. Either one is Christian, or it is not. You for some reason...believe the Jed is Christian...which means...that those who do not follow Jed's interpretations...are not Christian. Please support this.



There can be no others to blame BUT the practitioners of a religion.
This assumes that the practitioners of belief X, actually believe and practice belief X. If they don't...then they aren't practitioners of belief X, now are they? ;)


And as far as a "perversion," if there are 10,000 sects of Christianity, your brand of it can be construed by the other 9,999 sects as a perversion.
Sure, if 9,999 other sects all agree on what it is that makes my sect different. The problem is, you misunderstand the nature of sects and denominations. And in this instance, Jed's would be defined as the perversion, not the norm.



I don't think so, for you haven't disagreed with my conclusion, i.e., that the Christians are behind laws regulating sex between consenting adults and pushing for an amendment to the constitution outlawing gay marriage.
I've not seen any studies of who is behind what laws. Perhaps you can link to some. Let's start there. ;)



You mean like when the residents of Mississippi in 1950 voted, through democracy, that marriage between blacks and whites "should not be"...then it simply "should not be"?
They had the right to do so. But this does not mean that it was moral or immoral. What is, doesn't tell us what "ought to be". And laws, are not the highest authority or standard of morality.

Fyshhed
September 13th, 2004, 02:12 PM
OK then Apok, where do you draw the line at true Christian? Are all Christians who adhere mostly to their denomination true Christians? Is one particular denomination true Christians? If you're going to use the Bible as a point of reference, then every Christian has strayed in some way or ways. The question is then, how much straying makes one unchristian? And where is the line drawn?

Galendir
September 13th, 2004, 02:31 PM
lol That isn't a cross. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It has more to do with goblins than it does with Christ.He said the cross next to your avatar, not in your avatar--That is, the icon designating one's religious affiliation. This is an example (albeit trivial) of why it's often frustrating to argue with you--you don't pay attention to the real argument being made.

Btw, you have suggested in about half a dozen posts so far that Jed's claims to Christianity are unsupported. Even a cursory look at his website would show that he offers Biblical support for his theology, so stop pretending that he doesn't.
Is he just abusing, perverting, misapprehending the Divine Word of God? What about the likes of Fallwell and Robertson? Do they not appeal to the alleged Word of God in support of their condemnations? Do not thousands upon thousands with access to the same Bible believe them? You think my contention in post 16 is unfounded? I think you have chosen to bury your head in the sand.

3rdPersonPlural
September 13th, 2004, 02:51 PM
Horrible logic. This says "Who ever speaketh loudest, is right".

No. 'Whoever speaks the loudest is HEARD'


You don't discover truth this way. You discover it by examining the claims. You are conceding truth to the biggest noise makers.

You are assuming that John Q Public CARES to drill down to the bowels of christian doctrine, which is murky and dense for even those who really give a darn. I'm not sure if this attitude is based on a theological certainty that God will promote the right doctrine on his own or the misapprehension that people hear Falwell, are disgusted by his rhetoric, and then dutifully repair to their home study and pore through the bible.

If the only music ever played on the radio or advertised was headbanging metal, after a while, do you think folks will go poke through record stores anymore?

Lousy analogy, that, but you may get the drift.

Booger
September 13th, 2004, 03:05 PM
Christ certainly doesn't accept these people as Christian...he even says that he doesn't know them (to be Christian).

OK, according to you, is Jerry Falwell a Christian?

Some Falwell beliefs (quotes):

"Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America."

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that *tolerates* homosexuals."

Can a Christian claim that AIDS is a punishment from God?

How about Pat Robertson?:

"We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?" Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us."

Can a Christian claim that 9/11 happened because God is lifting his protection of us because we have "insulted" him?

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."

Apparently Pat thinks that Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists hold false beliefs. Are they, too, not Christians? Or is Pat Robertson who is not Christian?

Or is it you're all Christians, you just interpret the Bible and God's commands differently?

3rdPersonPlural
September 13th, 2004, 03:07 PM
Better analogy: Perhaps you are entirely ambivolent about....say..... World of Outlaws Sprint Car racing. What little you've seen or heard of the series consists of footage of crashes spectacular enough to make it onto sportscenter.

If your perception was that sprint cars are dangerous and prone to spectacular crashes, would you be wrong? Yup. If I told you that it was YOUR responsibility to travel around the country to follow the circuit for a season or two because 'You don't discover truth this way (by glancing at sportscenter). You discover it by examining the claims (by attending races, mostly in the midwest...). You are conceding truth to the biggest noise makers (sportscenter).' would you shrug and say: "Whatever. It looks like a crashfest to me. Let's go golf".

You gotta have an interest and a compelling reason to explore to be responsible for your own research.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 03:25 PM
Simply because one memorizes text doesn't mean that one understands it. And simply because one claims what he says is true, doesn't mean that it is. Either it is true, or it is not. What is the support that he has, that what he says...IS Christianity? How is he following Christ's example and message?

I believe your examples would apply very nicely to the Pope and every other person making the claim to be Christian on the planet.

Remember that this thread was about the reasons behind Christian bashing. A lot of Americans do define a group by its most radical / fringe members. It's also a little disheartening to hear from the majority "We don't take responsibility for them." Right or wrong, it still comes off as being irresponsible.

*shrugs*

Hate is rarely logical.

P.S. No, I don't have Christians.

Dionysus
September 13th, 2004, 03:30 PM
P.S. No, I don't have Christians.

You don't? Who has them, then?

3rdPersonPlural
September 13th, 2004, 03:30 PM
P.S. No, I don't have Christians.

I got a few. Replaced the little statue of the colored boy with a lantern in the front yard with one a few years back.

If you leave 'em out too long they fall over and need to be temporarily replaced, so I have several and cycle them at regular intervals.

My friends say they look almost human, for pete's sake!!

Dionysus
September 13th, 2004, 03:44 PM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?


<a href="http://www.chick.com/" target= "new window">Jack Chick - Promoter of hate, fear and ignorance</a>

<a href="http://www.trinityfi.org/press/tulsaworld02.html" target= "new window">Money-monger Robert Tilton</a>

<a href="http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/bhinn.html" target= "new window">Benny Hinn</a>

<a href="http://www.fallwell.com/" target= "new window">A little bit of everthing above - Jerry Falwell</a>

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 04:11 PM
I concede the argument. There are too many of the opposition to respond to. I can't keep up.

However, I will respond to a couple things...



He said the cross next to your avatar, not in your avatar--That is, the icon designating one's religious affiliation. This is an example (albeit trivial) of why it's often frustrating to argue with you--you don't pay attention to the real argument being made.
That was a slip up. I often have to skim through posts. It is the only way I can keep up w/ a thread. HOWEVER, I knew what he meant...and I responded to it. Your objection here is rather silly considering that point. Quit trying so hard, it's cute at times...but rather revealing. ;)



Btw, you have suggested in about half a dozen posts so far that Jed's claims to Christianity are unsupported. Even a cursory look at his website would show that he offers Biblical support for his theology, so stop pretending that he doesn't.
WHERE?

Enlighten us Gal. I've browsed through: http://www.brojed.org/, didn't find anything that supports his position. SO...what is it exactly that you believe, DOES support his position?

I'll keep repeating since this seems to be a problem area....

SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE CLAIMS X, DOESN'T MAKE X TRUE.

Zhavric
September 13th, 2004, 04:21 PM
I got a few. Replaced the little statue of the colored boy with a lantern in the front yard with one a few years back.

If you leave 'em out too long they fall over and need to be temporarily replaced, so I have several and cycle them at regular intervals.

My friends say they look almost human, for pete's sake!!

Oops. :red:

That was supposed to be "hate".

I'd edit it, but your post is too funny.

chadn737
September 13th, 2004, 06:48 PM
Oh my, Brother Jed was at my school not to long ago and I missed him. Now that I think about it I do remember a lot of opinion letters in the school paper about him.

chadn737
September 13th, 2004, 06:50 PM
wait a minute, hes coming back on the 16th, I'll have to go check this guy out.

Fyshhed
September 13th, 2004, 07:41 PM
wait a minute, hes coming back on the 16th, I'll have to go check this guy out.
I wonder if he'll come to my school. I'd love to debate him. It would give me a chance to publicize Grabzor :D

Spartacus
September 13th, 2004, 07:45 PM
Hate is rarely logical.


Neither is love

Fyshhed
September 13th, 2004, 07:47 PM
I wonder if he'll come to my school. I'd love to debate him. It would give me a chance to publicize Grabzor :D
Pity. He barely comes near the East Coast.

I think he knows he'd be assaulted by the local intellectuals. They're deadly. ;?

Spartacus
September 13th, 2004, 07:53 PM
<a href="http://www.chick.com/" target= "new window">Jack Chick - Promoter of hate, fear and ignorance</a>

<a href="http://www.trinityfi.org/press/tulsaworld02.html" target= "new window">Money-monger Robert Tilton</a>

<a href="http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/bhinn.html" target= "new window">Benny Hinn</a>

<a href="http://www.fallwell.com/" target= "new window">A little bit of everthing above - Jerry Falwell</a>

So I think we have some of the answer to the thread's questions here.

It is how Christianity is portrayed in the Media that seems to be largely responsible for Christian bashing....And we have seen a good deal of Christian bashing (trashing) here on this thread...

Yet these people here are the extreme minorities of Christianity....Christian Hezbollah if you will. But...since they buy time on TV and almost their entire "ministry" consists of TV programs...in our media-Hoolywood world...this is how non-CVhristians...and uneducated Christians....view Christianity...With lot's of OT fire and Brimstone and very little of Christ's infinte love and forgiveness.

I would ask people who think these men and their beliefs re[presnt Christianity ...

With Christians believing that Christ is the ultimate Judge of our souls...
..and given that He forgave and asked His Father to forgive the people who actually nailed Him to the Cross...with some of his last breaths....Why do you take these people at their word that they are Christian merely because they can recite Chapter and verse?

Spartacus
September 13th, 2004, 07:58 PM
I've browsed through: http://www.brojed.org/, didn't find anything that supports his position. SO...what is it exactly that you believe, DOES support his position?.


I didn't go past the first page



HMMMM a sword...lot's of pictures of Jed...No Cross, No image of Christ...This Orthodox did not need to go any further toknow wher this man was coming from......The same place in the human heart and psyche that gave us the Pope's Crusades....

Spartacus
September 13th, 2004, 08:06 PM
OK then Apok, where do you draw the line at true Christian? Are all Christians who adhere mostly to their denomination true Christians? Is one particular denomination true Christians? If you're going to use the Bible as a point of reference, then every Christian has strayed in some way or ways. The question is then, how much straying makes one unchristian? And where is the line drawn?

FYSH..we cvered this in another thread.....

to recap:

Christian belief is best defined in the Creed of the Council of Nicea or one of the later councils.

A Christian is a member of a faith community subscribing to one of these credes who tries to live their life by the Ten Commandments and Christ's Greatest Commandment.

A person with a Bible who knows the Bible backwards and forwards -- yet relies on their own interpretations solely --- can not just be assumed to be a Christian. In fact throughout most of Christian history such people were considered heretics.

Fyshhed
September 13th, 2004, 08:08 PM
A person with a Bible who knows the Bible backwards and forwards -- yet relies on their own interpretations solely --- can not just be assumed to be a Christian. In fact throughout most of Christian history such people were considered heretics.
Perhaps we'd best let Jed defend himself then ;)

Hello, my name is Eric, but I’m emailing you as the debater Fyshhed on the debate website www.onlinedebate.net. An associate of mine has brought up your name in several arguments concerning the nature of Christianity, and I would like to invite you to the debate network to defend your beliefs. The argument has arisen from certain Christian debaters that claims of the “fringe extremists” of this religion are often and usually A) incorrect biblical interpretations, or B) unfounded claims. Your particular claims have been called unchristian and inappropriate to the nature of biblical mandate. The claim is made that you are not a true Christian. Again, I offer you the opportunity to clarify and defend your reasoning, as I suspect there is more validity in your claims than the accusers perceive. If you would like to take advantage of this opportunity, feel free to register and post on the boards of the debate network. If you choose to do so, and encounter any difficulties registering, feel free to contact myself or the administrator, as your input could be very insightful for us. Thank you for your time. -Eric/Fyshhed

Meng Bomin
September 13th, 2004, 08:09 PM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general? I think it is because of the rise of the evangelical Christians in politics and their very conservative stance, that has sent many nonreligious liberals against Christianity. I do not think that there are many that denounce Jesus as he is viewed as having good character even if he isn't divine or a product of divinity. What has influenced opinion, as has been pointed out, has been the actions and words of ultraconservative, fundamentalist Christians. However, I do not think that the majority of non-Christians in the West are anti-Christian, just a vocal minority, similar to the fundamentalists.

Galendir
September 13th, 2004, 09:46 PM
That was a slip up. I often have to skim through posts. It is the only way I can keep up w/ a thread.If you can consider a cursory glance at your opponents arguments 'keeping up'. Yes, your responses often do seem to indicate that you have not bothered to employ sufficient attention to the arguments put forth so as to ensure that you understand them. Do you think this is a good way to conduct debate?


I've browsed through: http://www.brojed.org/, didn't find anything that supports his position.Then you probably applied as much effort as you do to following the arguments you debate on this forum. Did you look through the various topics in his Theology section (http://theology%20section/). You may disagree with his conclusions, but his methodology of expositing Christian doctrine takes essentially the same form as that of most of mainstream Christianity (albeit rather shallow).

Since you seem to think that what makes a Christian a Christian is that they follow Christ's teachings, your arguments can ultimately be reduced to: No one is a True Christian because no one truly follows the teaching of Christ. But most of 'Christendom' does not does not consider this the measure of a true Christian. Rather it is anyone no matter how flawed that puts his faith and dependence upon the vicarious salvific work of Christ on the cross. Even this is debatable. But, why should we be expected to defer to your definition?
(This really belongs in the True Christian thread.)

Apokalupsis
September 13th, 2004, 10:23 PM
If you can consider a cursory glance at your opponents arguments 'keeping up'. Yes, your responses often do seem to indicate that you have not bothered to employ sufficient attention to the arguments put forth so as to ensure that you understand them. Do you think this is a good way to conduct debate?
Still trying so hard aren't ya kiddo? :) I misread his statement. I admited I did. You wanting so badly to make this an issue is juvenile. Grow up. ESPECIALLY since I replied to what I understood he meant by the statement.

Furthermore, it simply isn't possible for me to put any more time into ODN than I already have. Either I drop admin responsibilities and focus more on debate, drop debate time and focus on the site, or try to balance all. I've mentioned many times before that my duties at ODN are varied...I'm surprised at how quickly you repeatedly forget. I do not have the same luxury that you or any other member has here at ODN, due to the nature of being its admin. To most rational people, this is understood to mean that many debates/threads will go unchecked and many arguments won't have the support that they should. I understand that you find some twisted pleasure in attempting to make things personal all the time and it is apparently beyond your abilities to focus on the topics and arguments themelves, but this really is something you are going to have to work on, one way or the other.



Then you probably applied as much effort as you do to following the arguments you debate on this forum.
Quit with the cheese please.


Did you look through the various topics in his Theology section (http://theology%20section/).
Yes. I'm STILL waiting for you to show where on the site, that his beliefs about homosexuals are defended. You say there are...but cannot provide evidence for it. Perhaps if YOU took as much time actually thinking about what you write instead of making absurd claims about other people, you may be taken a little more seriously.


You may disagree with his conclusions, but his methodology of expositing Christian doctrine takes essentially the same form as that of most of mainstream Christianity (albeit rather shallow).
*sigh* Missed the point again, eh?



Since you seem to think that what makes a Christian a Christian is that they follow Christ's teachings, your arguments can ultimately be reduced to: No one is a True Christian because no one truly follows the teaching of Christ.
Wrong. See previous post re: actions vs philosophy and their relationship with a belief system. I'm not repeating myself. Perhaps you should do a little of your own "reading carefully" that you accuse me of not doing?


Even this is debatable. But, why should we be expected to defer to your definition?
(This really belongs in the True Christian thread.)
I'm just wanting you to defend your claims in any way. You haven't. I was waiting for someone to justify his [Jed's] beliefs, using scripture and Christian doctrine. It hasn't been done (because it CAN'T). While I have conceded this argument because of too many responses that I do not have time for, I'm rather disappointed that no one has yet to come foward with any evidence in support of their argumentation. Again, it comes down to "It must be true since it was claimed." It's convenient...but fallacious.

Zhavric
September 14th, 2004, 04:30 AM
You guys: "Why y'all gotta be the H8 24/7?"

Me: "Jed gives you Christian folks a bad name."

You guys: "Jed's not Christian."

Me: "That would probably come as a great surprise to Jed, but this is also ANOTHER reason why people H8 on you. Who are you to tell someone else that they're Christian or not?"


And thus the argument goes. I'm surprised no one has brought up Mormons yet.

Like I said, hate is rarely logical. So saying...

"We do people hate Christians."

"Because of XYZ."

"That doesn't make any sense! Let me pull apart XYZ and explain why..."

"Don't bother. You asked a question and I gave you the answer."


When is "bashing" rational?


Finally, many Christians believe that everyone they see who is not Christian is going to hell or in danger of going to hell. Like a time traveler from the future on the docks next to the boarding Titanic, they preach and pray for others. The problem is that not everyone believes as you do.

You see danger where others see folklore.

KevinBrowning
September 14th, 2004, 06:21 AM
And thus the argument goes. I'm surprised no one has brought up Mormons yet.



One of the requisites of being a Christian, I believe, is belief in the Trinity. Neither Mormons nor Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the Triune God, and thus aren't Christians, in my perspective.

KevinBrowning
September 14th, 2004, 06:36 AM
Pity. He barely comes near the East Coast.

I think he knows he'd be assaulted by the local intellectuals. They're deadly. ;?

I hope that was a humorous generalization. Otherwise you'd seem to be saying "There are no 'intellectuals' in the Bible Belt."

KevinBrowning
September 14th, 2004, 06:37 AM
Perhaps we'd best let Jed defend himself then ;)

Hehe. Has he replied yet?

Zhavric
September 14th, 2004, 07:16 AM
Jed and I go back a few years. I haven't e-mailed him yet. What I would like to get is a 500 word or less message from one of the Christians on here. I'll send whatever you want to say (with my greetings... he remembers me) and get his reply (if any) and post it here. He never did make it to DF.net in spite of a relatively easy log in.

If he wants to debate further, such a message may entice him to. I will take the first one I get. State it here in this thread and start the message with "Dear Jed".

Slipnish
September 14th, 2004, 11:05 AM
I think the problem comes in identity. Apok assuredly does not identify the teachings of Jed as what he understands Christianity to be, ergo Jed does not measure up to Apok's standards. I am sure the reverse of that is true.

Ultimately, there is no "litmus" test for Christianity. Someone saying they are a Christian is not really sufficient in my book. You can call yourself a football player, but unless you are on the field, shut up and hand me a towel...

The problem is indeed twisty as the very definition of what makes someone "Christian" vary from sect to sect. I think the dividing line should be the identity of the sect and less emphasis on the Christian part. For instance, Jed is a "whatever" Christian. Apok is a Non Denom Christian, Kev is an Anglican Christian.

That removes the onus of "ownership" of one Christian to another, as it were. It also removes the No Scotsman Fallacy. One can now in perfect alacrity state, Jed has his brand of belief and I have mine. I believe XYZ whereas he believes in ABC. The broader sense of does he belong to my club is ostracized at the door, by the qualifier of X brand of Christianity.

Doubtless some would still want to rattle the cage and say, "How can they all be Christians?" The answer is, cause life is seldom simple. You see the same thing in the Muslim tradition. There are several branches there as well.

Overall the problem lies in the humanity behind the issue, rather than the issue itself. Eyewitness testimony is only 33% reliable, so is it any wonder that over the course of 2,000 yrs schisms develop? Is it any wonder that charismatic people will take something and use it to their own advantage?

Is the religion or the faith to blame? Not at all. No more so than a gun is guilty of killing someone. The problem is the person...everytime.

Spartacus
September 14th, 2004, 02:54 PM
I think the problem comes in identity. Apok assuredly does not identify the teachings of Jed as what he understands Christianity to be, ergo Jed does not measure up to Apok's standards. I am sure the reverse of that is true.

Ultimately, there is no "litmus" test for Christianity. Someone saying they are a Christian is not really sufficient in my book. You can call yourself a football player, but unless you are on the field, shut up and hand me a towel...

The problem is indeed twisty as the very definition of what makes someone "Christian" vary from sect to sect. I think the dividing line should be the identity of the sect and less emphasis on the Christian part. For instance, Jed is a "whatever" Christian. Apok is a Non Denom Christian, Kev is an Anglican Christian.

That removes the onus of "ownership" of one Christian to another, as it were. It also removes the No Scotsman Fallacy. One can now in perfect alacrity state, Jed has his brand of belief and I have mine. I believe XYZ whereas he believes in ABC. The broader sense of does he belong to my club is ostracized at the door, by the qualifier of X brand of Christianity.

Doubtless some would still want to rattle the cage and say, "How can they all be Christians?" The answer is, cause life is seldom simple. You see the same thing in the Muslim tradition. There are several branches there as well.

Overall the problem lies in the humanity behind the issue, rather than the issue itself. Eyewitness testimony is only 33% reliable, so is it any wonder that over the course of 2,000 yrs schisms develop? Is it any wonder that charismatic people will take something and use it to their own advantage?

Is the religion or the faith to blame? Not at all. No more so than a gun is guilty of killing someone. The problem is the person...everytime.

This is all well and good but.....

Do you think Christians are being "bashed" or handed a bad rap by Wetern Society? What are the underlying reasons pro or con in your opinion?

3rdPersonPlural
September 14th, 2004, 04:20 PM
This is all well and good but.....

Do you think Christians are being "bashed" or handed a bad rap by Wetern Society? What are the underlying reasons pro or con in your opinion?

Spart, I'm going to give you a list of reasons. None are open for debate or refutation, because they're demographic facts that reflect the preconceptions and prejudices and fears and observations of the non christian and nominally christian community.

---Televangelists. Their shame is the shame of the entire christian community. It is asking too much to expect a non christian to split the theological hairs necesssary to tell your churches doctrine apart from the highly visible tv doctrine.

--Proselytization. It's hamfisted and effective only on frightened and dimwitted people. When an intelligent and confident person is cornered by a proselytizing christian, they're put off of the faith for good.

--Hell. I'm aware that many sects don't brandish hell as a means to intimidate people into joining, but one needs only to consider the doctrine of hell once from a non-believer perspective to determine that the concept is a keystone of a brutal and arrogant faith.

You can differ with me all you want, but you asked why respect for christianity is falling and committment is softening, and I told you. These are not my feelings,because I engage with good gentle christians such as yourself and have learned more about the faith than many, perhaps most, professing christians. I ain't that shallow anymore.


But most people are.

Spartacus
September 14th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Spart, I'm going to give you a list of reasons. None are open for debate or refutation, because they're demographic facts that reflect the preconceptions and prejudices and fears and observations of the non christian and nominally christian community.

---Televangelists. Their shame is the shame of the entire christian community. It is asking too much to expect a non christian to split the theological hairs necesssary to tell your churches doctrine apart from the highly visible tv doctrine.

--Proselytization. It's hamfisted and effective only on frightened and dimwitted people. When an intelligent and confident person is cornered by a proselytizing christian, they're put off of the faith for good.

--Hell. I'm aware that many sects don't brandish hell as a means to intimidate people into joining, but one needs only to consider the doctrine of hell once from a non-believer perspective to determine that the concept is a keystone of a brutal and arrogant faith.

You can differ with me all you want, but you asked why respect for christianity is falling and committment is softening, and I told you. These are not my feelings,because I engage with good gentle christians such as yourself and have learned more about the faith than many, perhaps most, professing christians. I ain't that shallow anymore.


But most people are.


Brutal and arrogant faith....or is it more accurate to say "brutal and arrogant people professing the faith"?

I agree with you entirely up to this point...except I did not see any "demogarphics" just opinion. The early Christian fathers stressed humility and gentleness refelective of Christ's teachings. Christ never taught the Apostles to proseltyze in the manner we see in the US among prominaent Sola Scripturas today.

I am not aware of any Orthodox Saints who were professional soldiers who did not undergo a conversion of spirit before being qualified for consideration as a Saint. Also, it might interest you that in Orthodoxy and in the RCC for the first 1,000 years a priest who killed or severely injured-- accidently or intenionally-- another human can no longer be a priest. Contrast this to the RC Bishop in AZ or the many RC priests who abused children, yet remained priests. Also...contrast this to Brother Jed whose website has a blood drenched sword, but no mention of humility or gentleness that I could detect. In fact Jed seems to think Christ was a warrior in the literal sense. An Orthodox priest is not allowed to sanction any violence other than to bless soldiers indiviually or approve of defedning against an invasion.

When I use the word "Orthodox" I do not mean to tout my own Church...rather for about the first 1,000 years all Christians were Orthodox (Including the RCC). Somewhere along the way, in many different ways, Christianity as a profession of faith has become something other than it was in the beginning. To the non-Christian as well as for the Christian.

3rdPersonPlural
September 15th, 2004, 12:44 PM
Brutal and arrogant faith....or is it more accurate to say "brutal and arrogant people professing the faith"?

Does it make a difference? Someone says "My faith condemns you to hell', and you expect the victim of this psychological assault will take the time and trouble to seperate the faith from the faithful? You ask too much of a demographic no better than apathetic to your cause.




I agree with you entirely up to this point...except I did not see any "demogarphics" just opinion.

I read a lot, and talk to a lot of people. I would consider my synopsis as accurate as you can come up with regarding an answer to your question.



I am not aware of any Orthodox Saints......

I know. Beside the point. I am an audience of 1 who does not need to be told that Orthodox christians are not to be lumped with evangelical fundamentalists. It is the audience of 100 million whose last experience was a brief pause on TBN while channel surfing who needs to hear it, but they don't care enough to listen.

Spartacus
September 15th, 2004, 12:51 PM
It is the audience of 100 million whose last experience was a brief pause on TBN while channel surfing who needs to hear it, but they don't care enough to listen.

or educate themsleves....

3rdPersonPlural
September 15th, 2004, 01:25 PM
or educate themsleves....


You can persist in believing that non christians care enough about the institution to study comparitive doctrines, and I'll persist in believing that pizza lovers will switch to an ascetic diet of raw foods once I tell 'em that pizza is fattening.

Good luck to us both.

KevinBrowning
September 15th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Someone says "My faith condemns you to hell', and you expect the victim of this psychological assault will take the time and trouble to seperate the faith from the faithful?

That statement is so false. Everyone is inherently condemned to Hell, because we are sinful and don't deserve eternity with God. Christianity is the faith that allows a person to be saved through the atoning blood of God Himself. A more accurate sentence, if you must reduce an entire religion to one sentence, is: "Everyone is originally condemned to Hell, and you have not accepted salvation."

Zhavric
September 15th, 2004, 04:23 PM
Everyone is inherently condemned to Hell

Ah, the core of the matter. A nice broad, sweeping generaliztion that causes everyone to be subject to Christian beliefs / no questions asked / convert or be damned.

How about sticking an, "I believe" before that phrase?

Christian: "You're going to hell!"

Non-Christian: "Why?"

Christian: "Because you're a bad person / sinner."

Non-Christian: "You don't even know me and you've threatened me and insulted me."

Oh yeah... that sounds like a winner of a way to make friends with folks.

This is why Christians get bashed. Your religion needs to make it a point that everyone else who doesn't follow your religion is bad / wrong / sinners / damned / going to a bad place when they die. If perhaps your religion just focused on, well... you and didn't make such absurd generalizations about all people while threatening and insulting them at the same time, you might not feel like everyone is "bashing" you (whatever that means).

Fyshhed
September 15th, 2004, 05:37 PM
That statement is so false. Everyone is inherently condemned to Hell, because we are sinful and don't deserve eternity with God. Christianity is the faith that allows a person to be saved through the atoning blood of God Himself. A more accurate sentence, if you must reduce an entire religion to one sentence, is: "Everyone is originally condemned to Hell, and you have not accepted salvation."
Tour guide: Now to your left, we see a fine example of the archaic "Preacher."
Small Child: That's scary!
Tour guide: You bet your buttons it is.
Small Child: Am I condemned to hell? *cute and innocent smile*
Tour guide: According to the preacher you are.
Small Child: But what did I do?
Tour guide: You were born. In the next exhibit, we will witness a jihadist suicide bomber just like in Palestine. I'm going to ask all you kids to put on your kevlar and stay behind the riot shields...

3rdPersonPlural
September 15th, 2004, 05:48 PM
That statement is so false. A more accurate sentence, if you must reduce an entire religion to one sentence, is: "Everyone is originally condemned to Hell, and you have not accepted salvation."

Kevin, Spart asked what the general public perception was that caused christians to be viewed with suspicion and distaste. I cited several of the general public perceptions that causes this conception. Public perceptions are not necessarily correct or based on a detailed analysis of the subject - they're usually simplifications of casually observed data, frankly.

As Z pointed out, defending your faith from that perception by exclaiming "Oh no! EVERYONE is condemned to hell unless they chose salvation through Christ!!" is a split hair that convinces nobody to change their mind.

I also reinterate that folks like me who care enough about theology to discuss the topic with an array of believers are not those who you need to address. It's the people who don't have two thoughts to rub together about faith issues and whose entire impression of christianity consists of televangelists encountered while channel surfing.

Spartacus
September 15th, 2004, 06:16 PM
"Everyone is originally condemned to Hell, and you have not accepted salvation."

Wow ... :?: :rolleyes: ;? :?: ;?

I can now understand where the atheists are coming from in how they view Christianity.


Where do we find this in scripture KB?

Fyshhed
September 15th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Wow ... :?: :rolleyes: ;? :?: ;?

I can now understand where the atheists are coming from in how they view Christianity.


Where do we find this in scripture KB?
Tour guide: The nature of denominations caused disputes in interpretation of scripture, which revealed that the entire concept was subjective after all.
Small child: What?

Zhavric
September 16th, 2004, 03:41 AM
Tour guide: The nature of denominations caused disputes in interpretation of scripture, which revealed that the entire concept was subjective after all.
Small child: What?

Ehl Oh Ehl /\ /\

Kevin: "My religion affects EVERYONE! and not in a positive way, either..."

3rdPersonPlural
September 16th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Wow ... :?: :rolleyes: ;? :?: ;?

I can now understand where the atheists are coming from in how they view Christianity.


Where do we find this in scripture KB?

Not just atheists, Spart. Moderate Christians, Pagans, Agnostocs, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Buddhists, Wiccans, Spiritualists, New agers, and anybody who feels that they have a right to a shred of personal dignity.

chadn737
September 16th, 2004, 03:33 PM
Quote: Originally Posted by KevinBrowning

"Everyone is originally condemned to Hell, and you have not accepted salvation."


Wow ...

I can now understand where the atheists are coming from in how they view Christianity.


Where do we find this in scripture KB?

I used to have the same view, but of late have decided that I do not agree with this.

This is how people reason that we are all condemned to hell.

1) All people are sinners
2) The fate of sinners is hell, unless they are saved

hence we are all born condemned to hell.

That is the reasoning behind the argument. It is not something the Bible says directly, but a conclusion that is arrived at by some.

chadn737
September 16th, 2004, 03:41 PM
I got the chance to listen to Brother Jed today adn have to say that I do not see why so many are bothered by this guy.

I did not hear him openly insult or attack anyone. Yes he did openly espouse views that are not popular, like saying that we are all sinners and such. But I do not see what so many have against the guy, except that hes not afraid to speak what he believes.

I have to give it to the guy, he has far more guts than I do, openly putting himself up to everyones attack so that he may preach the word of God. I myself find it hard to share the gospel with anyone I dont know or who hasnt shown interest. This guy, however stood outside surrounded by a sizeable crowd, preaching to whoever would listen. He did not only preach and ignore challenges, but readily accepted any question and gave his best answer.

3rdPersonPlural
September 16th, 2004, 04:20 PM
I got the chance to listen to Brother Jed today adn have to say that I do not see why so many are bothered by this guy.



I read the text of an early speech by Adolph Hitler, and the guy didn't seem that bad either. Not one word about Jews!! One speech is all it took to convince me that the guy is a little shrill but not a monster. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you might want to review the links provided by GP and others to Brother Jed's more odious views.

Maybe as a fundamentalist christian you'll find his opinions comforting and familiar, but the public at large finds them arrogant and invasive.

FruitandNut
September 19th, 2004, 04:44 PM
Oh, here I go, condemning myself to eternal oblivion. It is my belief that 'original sin' is reference to the darker or negative side in everyones natures. Baptism does not remove that dark side so much as formally allow us access to redemption should we choose. I believe those who do not believe, including atheists, can also by good living and a genuine search for the truth as they understand it, stand to experience a 'Baptism of the Spirit'. I believe that it is only those who 'know' they are in error who are sinful, and while in that state are in danger of condemnation.

As for Christian bashing, it gives some people something to occupy their time while keeping some of us Christians from becoming too smug or complacent.

Booger
September 22nd, 2004, 12:32 PM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?

Because of things like this:

(09-22) 12:45 PDT BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) --

Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart apologized Wednesday for saying in a televised worship service that he would kill any gay man who looked at him romantically.

A complaint was filed with a Canadian broadcasting group, and Swaggart said his Baton Rouge-based Jimmy Swaggart Ministries has received complaints from gay groups over the remarks made on the Sept. 12 telecast.

In the broadcast, Swaggart was discussing his opposition to gay marriage when he said "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry."

"And I'm going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died," Swaggart said to laughter and applause from the congregation.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/09/22/national1416EDT0631.DTL&type=printable

Apokalupsis
September 22nd, 2004, 01:20 PM
By that same logic, let's attack atheists because Stalin was an athest who murdered millions. Guess which fallacy that is Boog? :)

KevinBrowning
September 22nd, 2004, 01:36 PM
Wow ... :?: :rolleyes: ;? :?: ;?

I can now understand where the atheists are coming from in how they view Christianity.


Where do we find this in scripture KB?

I realized that even other Christians here would take issue with my blunt comment about everyone being born deserving of Hell. But it is what I believe. Spart, rather than finding several related Scriptural passages, let me ask you a question: If everyone is not originally destined for Hell, then what was the point of Christ's Atonement on the cross? If there is no Hell, then Christianity is an utterly meaningless religion.

KevinBrowning
September 22nd, 2004, 01:39 PM
I believe those who do not believe, including atheists, can also by good living and a genuine search for the truth as they understand it, stand to experience a 'Baptism of the Spirit'. I believe that it is only those who 'know' they are in error who are sinful, and while in that state are in danger of condemnation.

So Christ's Atonement was unnecessary, and repenting to Him as one's Savior is optional to be saved?

KevinBrowning
September 22nd, 2004, 01:43 PM
Maybe as a fundamentalist christian you'll find his opinions comforting and familiar, but the public at large finds them arrogant and invasive.

I sincerely despise that term. I am a fundamentalist, but I do not go around threatening to murder homosexuals. To be a Christian fundamentalist is simply to believe in the fundamentals of Christianity (such as the existence of Hell, and the only way to be saved from Hell is through Christ). From my observation in the threads concerning Hell, I am one of only 2 or 3 "fundamentalist" Christians here, and it is not something that I am ashamed of.

KevinBrowning
September 22nd, 2004, 01:45 PM
By that same logic, let's attack atheists because Stalin was an athest who murdered millions. Guess which fallacy that is Boog? :)

But that is inconvenient. Let us focus on dictators such as Hitler, who claimed to be Roman Catholic. He did not have nearly as many millions of people killed as Stalin did, but that is clearly irrelevant.

3rdPersonPlural
September 22nd, 2004, 03:00 PM
But that is inconvenient. Let us focus on dictators such as Hitler, who claimed to be Roman Catholic. He did not have nearly as many millions of people killed as Stalin did, but that is clearly irrelevent.

Stalin was a Tyrant who beheaded any and all organizations that possibly presented a power base to compete with his "State". This included the christian church, but also included capitalists, labor unionists, Jews, Muslims, foriegners, poets, writers, artists, and random citizens picked up just to keep the neighborhood on edge. He committed these atrocities in the name of the state which nominally represented the interests of the prolitatiatHis driving ideology was nominally communism, actually tyranny, but not atheism. There is no atheist ideology except 'I dont care for religion', really. Keep in mind that Stalin studied for the priesthood for a while and may have learned a thing or two from the church's history about how to consolidate power.

Hitler was also a tyrant, and his main ideology was tyranny. However, even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf will reveal that he was also a theist, steeped in the ruder elements of Catholic doctrine, and that he was convinced that he was doing god's work by exterminating the Jews. I concede that his main objection to Jewry was cultural, not theological, but the influence of late 19th century bavarian catholicism on his ideology is undeniable.

Meng Bomin
September 22nd, 2004, 03:14 PM
By that same logic, let's attack atheists because Stalin was an athest who murdered millions. Guess which fallacy that is Boog? :) Booger does answer the orginal question:
<table height="91" width="818" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255) none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;"> <tbody><tr><td valign="top" background="http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/odnimg/misc/quote/leftbg.gif">
</td> <td valign="top">Quote: Originally Posted by Spartacus
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?
</td> <td valign="top" background="http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/odnimg/misc/quote/rightbg.gif">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top">http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/odnimg/misc/quote/bottom_l.gif</td> <td valign="top" background="http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/odnimg/misc/quote/bottombg.gif">
</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody> </table> The answer itself is logical, but the reasoning of the Christian bashers is not. You are right, by the same logic we should bash atheists for Stalin's doings. In fact, we should probably bash everybody, since there is no doubt some evil dictator who held or demonstrated a belief held by any given human. What we can draw from this is that Christian bashing as well as other forms of bashing, are based on illogical grounds.

Galendir
September 22nd, 2004, 05:20 PM
If everyone is not originally destined for Hell, then what was the point of Christ's Atonement on the cross? If there is no Hell, then Christianity is an utterly meaningless religion.The wages of sin is death, not an eternal life of torment. The gift of God is life eternal.
It's not that difficult Kevin. To be saved from oblivion to exist in an eternal state of bliss would not be meaningless.

Galendir
September 22nd, 2004, 05:25 PM
By that same logic, let's attack atheists because Stalin was an athest who murdered millions. Guess which fallacy that is Boog? :)I wonder how many atheists responded with laughter and applause.

Apokalupsis
September 22nd, 2004, 05:48 PM
The same amount of Christians (actually, far more most likely) that responded with laughter and applause at the statement concerning them.

*hint*
Both reasons for bashing the groups, were illogical. That's what we mean in the context of "by that same logic". I'm surprised you didn't know that...

Spartacus
September 22nd, 2004, 07:00 PM
I realized that even other Christians here would take issue with my blunt comment about everyone being born deserving of Hell. But it is what I believe. Spart, rather than finding several related Scriptural passages, let me ask you a question: If everyone is not originally destined for Hell, then what was the point of Christ's Atonement on the cross? If there is no Hell, then Christianity is an utterly meaningless religion.

KB...there is Apostolic Traditional teaching on this matter I will PM you.

Suffice it to say that in the opriginal text of the Bible, there is no "spiritual place" we think of as Hell where Satan rules and shove spineapples up the butt of people like HItler or anything like that.

Also.... Forget The Book of Revelation. It is a prophetic work whose prophesy has been fulfilled with the destruction of the Roman Empire. Christianity I think would be better perceived if all Christians followed the lead of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church and never used Revelation in Liturgy.

Revelation was written about 92AD By Shrist's last living Apostle -- the only who had not died a brutal death and at a timne when Christians were being used as torches and lion chow. In addition to being a a Divinely revealed prophecy it is also a book of resistance...resistance against Rome -- written with such allegory so as it could be disceminated more easily, using numbers as codes. Christians due the faith a disservice by placing more meaning on it than it warrants.

KB I will PM you a response to your question...as an Orthodox I promise to never reveal the mysteries of our faith to its enemies or betray it like Judas with a kiss. (e.g. being so stupid as to think all will embrace the Way)...and there are many enemies of the faith here.

chadn737
September 22nd, 2004, 08:42 PM
To be a Christian fundamentalist is simply to believe in the fundamentals of Christianity (such as the existence of Hell, and the only way to be saved from Hell is through Christ). From my observation in the threads concerning Hell, I am one of only 2 or 3 "fundamentalist" Christians here, and it is not something that I am ashamed of.

KB, my problem is that such a statement implies that I in someway can judge men and that in some way I know the mind of God.

To further complicate matters there is the idea of General Revelation and those that never hear the word of God. How can I pretend to pass judgement on the someone who never heard of Christ?

Rather than spread a gospel of judgement we should spread a gospel of love. It was one thing for Jesus to confront and judge a man, but I am far from being God incarnate.

KevinBrowning
September 22nd, 2004, 09:19 PM
Suffice it to say that in the opriginal text of the Bible, there is no "spiritual place" we think of as Hell where Satan rules and shove spineapples up the butt of people like HItler or anything like that.

The human Soul is eternal. Souls do not disappear if they are not Saved. They are either eternally punished/regretful, or rewarded/thankful. I agree that there is no red Demon who sodomizes dictators.


Also.... Forget The Book of Revelation. It is a prophetic work whose prophesy has been fulfilled with the destruction of the Roman Empire. Christianity I think would be better perceived if all Christians followed the lead of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church and never used Revelation in Liturgy.

I cannot "forget it". It is an essential part of my faith. I am not a Preterist. I believe Armageddon is still to come.


Christians due the faith a disservice by placing more meaning on it than it warrants.

It is not my job to decide which Books of Scripture are more "meaningful" than others. As a Book recognized by all three major Christian sects as Canonical, Revelation cannot be ignored.

KevinBrowning
September 22nd, 2004, 09:21 PM
KB, my problem is that such a statement implies that I in someway can judge men and that in some way I know the mind of God.

Certain aspects of the Mind of God can be discerned from Scripture.


To further complicate matters there is the idea of General Revelation and those that never hear the word of God. How can I pretend to pass judgement on the someone who never heard of Christ?

I do not judge them, but I believe what the Bible teaches concerning the necessity of accepting Christ as Savior to be Saved.


Rather than spread a gospel of judgement we should spread a gospel of love. It was one thing for Jesus to confront and judge a man, but I am far from being God incarnate.

We should spread a Gospel of both. Heaven and Hell are equally real.

KevinBrowning
September 22nd, 2004, 09:23 PM
The wages of sin is death, not an eternal life of torment. The gift of God is life eternal.
It's not that difficult Kevin. To be saved from oblivion to exist in an eternal state of bliss would not be meaningless.

"Death" is not used to mean a sudden ceasing of existence of the Soul, which is eternal, but of eternal regret and torment. So yes, if Hell does not exist, then Christianity is meaningless.

KevinBrowning
September 22nd, 2004, 09:24 PM
I wonder how many atheists responded with laughter and applause.

Probably dozens, especially those top officials in Stalin's communist, atheist regime.

Galendir
September 22nd, 2004, 11:12 PM
"Death" is not used to mean a sudden ceasing of existence of the Soul, which is eternal, but of eternal regret and torment. So yes, if Hell does not exist, then Christianity is meaningless.So much for the literal word of God.
I'm aware of the handful or so of Biblical passages that are used to support this view. I am also aware that there is far more in scripture to support the idea that man is not born with an immortal soul, but that immortality is bestowed only upon the redeemed. I put very little stock in the value of Biblical scripture, however, and am far more interested in theology from a purely philosophical standpoint.
From a philosophical standpoint, replacing "eternal regret and torment" with literal 'death' or 'oblivion', would not render Christianity meaningless. The message of eternal life through Christ Jesus would remain essentially the same. Everyone is doomed to die (because of sin), but through God's grace (via Christ's suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension) man can live again in everlasting bliss. Why do you think such a message is meaningless?

(Should this be taken up in another thread?)

Spartacus
September 23rd, 2004, 07:15 AM
I cannot "forget it". It is an essential part of my faith. I am not a Preterist. I believe Armageddon is still to come.......It is not my job to decide which Books of Scripture are more "meaningful" than others. As a Book recognized by all three major Christian sects as Canonical, Revelation cannot be ignored.


So in your Church do women speak?

Do people pluck out eyes or cut off arms?

WE do not have to discern which parts of the Bible to emphasize and whch parts to de-emphasize. That is why we have APostolic Tradition. The Apostles taught the Church which areas are more relvenat than others. Those teachings then translated over to the Holy Bible as well when it was compiled.

Perhaps "ignore" was the wrong word to use for Revelatiopn...how about "De-emphaisze". Like I stated, it is prophesy that has already come to pass. The Roman EMpire already exists. Will the end of the world come -- yes. Will judgement day come? -- yes. Can we discern the signs of current venets from the Book fo Revelations? Well if you do that you'll be doing what people have been doing for almost 2,000 and we are still here. Christianity is not a dommsday cult or religion. It is the Way to live life her so we might all be in paradise with God for eternity.

Christians do a disservice to the faith by constantly referring to Revelations.

and BTW...tis whole concept of Hell and heavy refernce to Revelation...is not fundamental in that it was an integral or "fundamental" part of early Christian belief.

Apokalupsis
September 23rd, 2004, 09:13 AM
Gal is right...we are horribly off topic now. You are debating Christian doctrine as determined by different Christian denominations...this has nothing to do with WHY Christians are "bashed", which IMO, has already been established.

How about starting a new thread. Feel free to reform your arguments from above, or just copy/paste. But this thread isn't the place for such a discussion.

FruitandNut
September 27th, 2004, 02:16 AM
The wages of sin is death, not an eternal life of torment. The gift of God is life eternal.
It's not that difficult Kevin. To be saved from oblivion to exist in an eternal state of bliss would not be meaningless.

'The wages of sin is death'. Find your Rosetta stone and you may tranlate this to 'the spiritual death of salvation or hope', it is not necessarily our modern more literalist meaning of death, though it does have ethoes in 'the permanent dysfunctionality of systems and functions.'

Zhavric
September 27th, 2004, 05:48 AM
Consider this: people bash Christians because whenever you try to explain to them why they are being bashed they fly off topic into discussing conflicting doctrines.

|)| Love you all. |)|

Spartacus
September 27th, 2004, 08:48 AM
|)| Love you all. |)|

No you...and many others do not...for various reasons...that is why Christians are bashed.

Zhavric
September 27th, 2004, 09:06 AM
No you...and many others do not...for various reasons...that is why Christians are bashed.

What, did you strap on your mind reading hat today? Did your crystal ball show you an image of me standing on some Christian's neck?

Of the two of us, I am the authority on Zhavric. The truth is that the only people I hate in this world are white trash. I'm actually very partial to Christians...

...except the kind who like to tell me what I'm feeling and what my opinions are.

So, congratulation, Spartacus: I, as a general rule, like Christians, but I'm making a special exception for you. /\

*goes off to look for HappyLady*

Fyshhed
September 27th, 2004, 09:06 AM
No you...and many others do not...for various reasons...that is why Christians are bashed.
Incorrect.
Christians/conservatives/Republicans (all synonyms in many instances) have a bad habit of perceiving reality in this horribly distored, simplified version of black and white, good and evil. If you are not Christian/conservative/Republican, you are evil. Otherwise you are good.
"You are either with us, or against us."
How about indifferent, or conditionally either, or both? Get real please.

"Christian bashers" do not appeal to ignorance, subservience, or distorted perception to make their case. Rather, they criticize such qualities, and are met with resistance from such distorted perceptions. This, coupled with the barbed-hook element of Christian faith-adherence, irritates those who have not been indoctrinated into losing patience with those who are. Coupled with the fact that there are arguably few or no True(tm) Christians, it's surprising that they aren't bashed even more.

Booger
September 27th, 2004, 12:38 PM
By that same logic, let's attack atheists because Stalin was an athest who murdered millions. Guess which fallacy that is Boog? :)

Not quite. Swaggart is a spokesperson for Christianity and is a major Christian figure in the United States and, accordingly, represents the Christian community. Stalin, OTOH, was not a spokesperson for atheism, as far as I know, never contributed to atheistic philosophy. He was just a brutal dictator.

Now, if I had said, let's attack Republicans because of what Swaggart said, then your analogy holds up.

In this context, however, it falls flat. :P

Apokalupsis
September 27th, 2004, 12:46 PM
There is no such thing as a "spokesperson" for Christianity. ;) Sorry.

Analogy holds.

Fyshhed
September 27th, 2004, 12:57 PM
There is no such thing as a "spokesperson" for Christianity. ;) Sorry.

Jesus, if he ever comes back (;))
He could be Booger you know.

Apokalupsis
September 27th, 2004, 12:58 PM
...Jesus has more facial hair.

Dionysus
September 27th, 2004, 01:04 PM
There is no such thing as a "spokesperson" for Christianity. ;) Sorry.

Analogy holds.

Then what does he (Swaggart) speak for?

Apokalupsis
September 27th, 2004, 01:15 PM
His personal beliefs and those of his supporters.

Booger
September 27th, 2004, 01:18 PM
...Jesus has more facial hair.

You think he'll show up in a white robe and sandals too? :p

Dionysus
September 27th, 2004, 01:21 PM
His personal beliefs and those of his supporters.

And as a Christian, when he promotes those beliefs, this makes him a spokeperson for.......?

FruitandNut
September 27th, 2004, 02:05 PM
I Kind Of Like Being Bashed - Either I Am A Closet (well, Out Of The Closet Now), Masochist - Or I Go For The 'carrying My Cross Bit'. Perhaps I Am Just Thick Skinned, Or Just Thick.

Booger
September 27th, 2004, 02:11 PM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?

And this....

http://www.ishipress.com/falwell.jpg http://www.ishipress.com/tinky.jpg

3rdPersonPlural
September 27th, 2004, 07:42 PM
Gal is right...we are horribly off topic now. You are debating Christian doctrine as determined by different Christian denominations...this has nothing to do with WHY Christians are "bashed".

It has everything to do with why people chuckle at the futile and petty condemnations that speckle the faith.

It's all about doctrine and who can send whom to hell. Sort of embarrasing, if you ask me. A power struggle amongst the impotent.

Spartacus
September 27th, 2004, 08:48 PM
And this....

http://www.ishipress.com/falwell.jpg http://www.ishipress.com/tinky.jpg



I find it very close minded, ignorant and unworldly that everyone here who defames Christianity automatically assumes that Christianity is represented by the likes of a few who profess to be Christian...but really appear to be nothing more than hosts of TV porograms...pretty lame TV programs if you ask me.

Christianity existsed long before Radio and TV were invented.

Spartacus
September 27th, 2004, 08:54 PM
What, did you strap on your mind reading hat today? Did your crystal ball show you an image of me standing on some Christian's neck?

Of the two of us, I am the authority on Zhavric. The truth is that the only people I hate in this world are white trash. I'm actually very partial to Christians...

...except the kind who like to tell me what I'm feeling and what my opinions are.



I never said you hated anyone...just that you did not love...lot of gray area in between. Please try not to be so sensitive...but nowhere in your posts do I see any evidence of love toward Christians. Besides the previous post which I have quoted...can you please point out where you expressed good will toward, or about a Christian?

Oh..and does a person need to be a Christina to be considered "White Trash" in your book...or is that an affirmative action perjorative?

Zhavric
September 28th, 2004, 03:51 AM
I never said you hated anyone...just that you did not love...lot of gray area in between.

Then try wording it, "I don't believe you." Telling someone what their opinion is may be the lamest thing one can do.


Please try not to be so sensitive...but nowhere in your posts do I see any evidence of love toward Christians.

I can't imagine why...


Besides the previous post which I have quoted...can you please point out where you expressed good will toward, or about a Christian?

This is a web forum. You ASKED why people in the world bash Christians so a TOLD you, but you insist on DEFENDING yourself and other Christians... which is absurd as I've already explained. It would be like me asking, "Why did the Nazis hate Jews?" and you explaining to me and then me saying, "NO! NO! NO! The Jews weren't like that!" You'd of course say, "I know. This is just how things were."

IT'S JUST HOW THINGS ARE, SPARTACUS. Deal.


Oh..and does a person need to be a Christina to be considered "White Trash" in your book...or is that an affirmative action perjorative?

White Trash actually applied to all colors / creeds / economic levels. It is my pet name for individuals who are undereducated and irrationally aggressive. Every society has them, but for some reason, whites seem to be one of the only races / ethnicities who revel in their own white-trashdom / do nothing to get rid of it. There are tons of programs to help black kids out of the ghetto. There are next to zero programs / initiatives to get the kids out of the trailer. That's a topic for another thread.

You can expect negative rep should you ever decide to tell me what my opinion is again.

tinkerbell
September 28th, 2004, 06:14 AM
Zhav....Watcha wearing? :)

I can tell you why I don't like many Christians..1st off I love Christ, I love Christianity.I wish everyone would try to act more like Jesus. Jesus was a down brother.
Unfortunatly, there is a large group of Christians out there that do worry about EVERYONE else but themselves. They are so concerned with converting and or condemning that they forget to REALLY live by the word. They spend more time chasing people away from Jesus than bringing people to Jesus..Jesus came to the world for sinners.Christians are quick to forget who was invited to that manager 1st..It wasn't holly men and or the socially elite.
I know PLENTY of Christians that will do ANYTHING if it goes recognized and put into a church bulletin, but would NEVER go out of their way for anything if there wasn't some recognition.
Now I also know plenty of Christians that are not like this..However sterotypes do not just form because of 1 persons actions.There are plenty of Christians out there that use religion as a social stepping stone.The forget what real worship and servitude is.They just use it as another way to trample over others.

Apokalupsis
September 28th, 2004, 10:33 AM
And as a Christian, when he promotes those beliefs, this makes him a spokeperson for.......?
Someone promoting something, doesn't make them a spokesperson. If I loved my shampoo so much that I went out and started telling people that it was the greatest product in the world...does that make me a spokesperson? What are the qualifiers of a "spokesperson"? It would seem, that all you require, is someone claiming something...if that is the case, then there are millions upon millions of spokespeople just in our nation and they do it almost every day. Is Jimmy Swaggart representative of a group as a whole? Has he been appointed? If so, by whom and for what purpose exactly? How is he different (as a spokesperson) than any other pastor/minister? Is it merely because he is on TV or has more of a following?

Sorry, no dice.

Zhavric
September 28th, 2004, 11:00 AM
Someone promoting something, doesn't make them a spokesperson. If I loved my shampoo so much that I went out and started telling people that it was the greatest product in the world...does that make me a spokesperson? What are the qualifiers of a "spokesperson"? It would seem, that all you require, is someone claiming something...if that is the case, then there are millions upon millions of spokespeople just in our nation and they do it almost every day. Is Jimmy Swaggart representative of a group as a whole? Has he been appointed? If so, by whom and for what purpose exactly? How is he different (as a spokesperson) than any other pastor/minister? Is it merely because he is on TV or has more of a following?

Sorry, no dice.

Be very careful here, Apok. While I agree with you that Swaggart does not represent Christiandom, we are treading into a realm where Americans have a lot of trouble: we have a really bad habbit of defining a group by its most extreme members. Also, we look at the most extreme examples as evidence. What do I mean?

Take Dungeons & Dragons from back in the 80's when there was a killing that happened which people thought was related to Dungeons & Dragons. Nevermind that there were tens of thousands of perfectly normal (albeit Geeky) D&D players; D&D must be bad because of the actions of one extreme case. When I worked at Jacob's Field where the Cleveland Indians play Baseball, the vendors weren't allowed to toss bags of peanuts to members of the crowd because ONE person got a bag of peanuts to the head. Nevermind the thousands of bags sold at every game that went the right way.

Point being, if you don't want others to define your group by its fringe membership, then do not define other groups by their fringe members / most extreme incidents.

Fyshhed
September 28th, 2004, 11:18 AM
He doesn't represent Apok's views.
|)|
Therefore he is not a True(tm) Christian.

Dionysus
September 28th, 2004, 11:24 AM
Someone promoting something, doesn't make them a spokesperson. If I loved my shampoo so much that I went out and started telling people that it was the greatest product in the world...does that make me a spokesperson? What are the qualifiers of a "spokesperson"? It would seem, that all you require, is someone claiming something...if that is the case, then there are millions upon millions of spokespeople just in our nation and they do it almost every day. Is Jimmy Swaggart representative of a group as a whole? Has he been appointed? If so, by whom and for what purpose exactly? How is he different (as a spokesperson) than any other pastor/minister? Is it merely because he is on TV or has more of a following?

Sorry, no dice.

Sure. Anyone CAN be a spokesperson for anything. And this is what Boog said. He didn't THE sole representative that speaks for and mirrors the view of EVERY Christian. He said A spokeperson, A representative.

What do you think the media would say if there were a rash of random attacks on ALL the different sects of Christianity?

Would they say, "There is a new and disturbing trend of random attacks on Christians... yadda, yadda, yadda.."

OR

"There is a new and disturbing trend of random attacks on Anglican/Episcopals, Assemblies of God, Baptists, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science Church of Christ members Church of the Nazarene members, Disciples of Christ Eastern Orthodoxy, Essenes Friends (Quakers), Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutherans, Lutheran: Missouri Synod Lutherans, Wisconsin Synods, Mennonites, Methodist, Metropolitan Community members, Church of Mormon members, Non-denominational Churche members, Pentecostals, Pentecostal Trinitarians, Presbyterians Reformed & Calvinist Churches, Salvation Army members, Seventh-day Adventists, Swedenborgians / New Church members, United Church of Canada United, Church of Christ members, Vineyard Movement....."

I bet they's stick to the term "Christians".

Of course, the fact that Swaggart promotes Christianity (his brand at least) AND gets financially compensated for said promotion qualifies him in my book as a representative.

Galendir
September 28th, 2004, 05:52 PM
There is no such thing as a "spokesperson" for Christianity.
[Y]ou do not speak for the majority (or even a significant minority) of Christians.
Yes I do.___

Booger
September 28th, 2004, 07:16 PM
Quote: Originally Posted by Apokalupsis

"There is no such thing as a "spokesperson" for Christianity."

Quote: Originally Posted by Galendir 8/19/04 Conservatives and religion

"[Y]ou do not speak for the majority (or even a significant minority) of Christians."

Quote: Originally Posted by Apokalupsis 8/20/04 Conservatives and religion

"Yes I do."

http://www.bruner.net/blog/archives/img/fatty.gif
/boog's inner fat child celebrates wildly at Galendir's ultimate pwnage of Apok. :lol:

Apokalupsis
September 28th, 2004, 07:43 PM
What "pwnage"? I am not a "spokesperson". But I can claim that my views are mainstream Christian, and what I claim here on the boards, and what I debate, are in fact, considered mainstream. Nice try...but again, no dice. ;) I am NOT a spokesperson for Christianity any more than Swaggart is. My views do however, represent the majority of Conservative Christians. Quite a bit of a difference here.

Zhavric
September 29th, 2004, 04:41 AM
Apok, you are not obeying the first rule of being in a hole... that being to STOP DIGGING.


What "pwnage"? I am not a "spokesperson". But I can claim that my views are mainstream Christian, and what I claim here on the boards, and what I debate, are in fact, considered mainstream. Nice try...but again, no dice. ;) I am NOT a spokesperson for Christianity any more than Swaggart is. My views do however, represent the majority of Conservative Christians. Quite a bit of a difference here.

Please.

"Speaking for" and "spokesperson" are just somantics.

Booger
September 29th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?

And this...

Spartacus
September 29th, 2004, 07:47 AM
And this...


And so it has always been in Christianity. St. Peter wrote and warned about false teachers and prophets 2,000 years ago. He said they would continue...and we see them today.

2 Peter 3:16 "...as also in all his epsitles (Paul's Epistles), speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught, unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures."


Quite frankly Boog...I look at your sophmoric posts and just find it as more evidence of the eternal Truth of the New Testament. Particularly as it relates to the writing of St. Peter in the New Testament. Everything on this post here...everything we have seen mentioned and written by the skeptics...St. Peter speaks of of in clear language. It has always been this way. Christians in one place or another...in one form or another, have always been bashed or worse. They are in fact being tortured, raped and killed for refusing to renounce their faith in places like The Sudan today.

Again...all more evidence of the eternal Truth of the New Testament. Thanks for helping to graphicly show that Boog. /\

Zhavric
September 29th, 2004, 08:43 AM
EDITED:

Have Christians always acted in an anti-social / wannabe-martyr sort of way and then complained about how persecuted they are, or is that just your modus oporandi. I notice that you're the only Christian on this site or that I know of who makes such ridiculous complaints.

Booger posts a silly picture on a website and that gives credence to subject matter dealing with rape, murder and persecution?

Please.

I've seen soap operas with less drama...

KevinBrowning
September 29th, 2004, 09:28 AM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?



And this...

Why do you keep posting pictures of Christians that you dislike to answer Spart's question of why so many people dislike Christians in general, and even Jesus Christ? You are posting exceptions to support dislike and distrust of the rule.

By the way, your new signature is funny, if not entirely accurate.

Booger
September 29th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?

And this....

http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/whippleinhell.gif

Diane Whipple has been in hell for 1342 days.

Diane Whipple, a filthy dyke, died in her sins on Jan. 26, 2001, as a result of being mauled by two dogs. God used literal dogs to kill a figurative dog - sodomites being likened unto dogs for beast-filthiness (Deut. 23:17, Mat. 7:6, Phil. 3:2, 2 Pet. 2:7,8,12,22; Rev. 22:15). Fags & dykes = dogs & sows. She lived like a beast, died like a beast, at the hands of beasts, and is mourned by a family of beasts! The wrath and fury that smote Diane Whipple - suddenly and violently ripping her throat out and casting her forthwith into the everlasting flames of Hell - is poised to similarly visit this evil sodomite-dominated nation in final overwhelming vengeance. Jer. 9:9. Sharon Smith (the dead dyke's lover) and Penny Whipple-Kelly (the dead dyke's guilty, dyke-pimp, mother-from-Hell) need a reality check. Diane is in Hell, and you will join her there - where you three will bitterly curse each other forever, as you gnaw your tongues in pain and blaspheme God. Flames of God's wrath will engulf you and fill your heads, bowels, and limbs. The same is happening to Diane now.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/mattinhell.gif

Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 2179 days.

Those of you reading this Gospel Memorial need to have a very clear understanding that there is a God in heaven, and He has created a hell for people who despise His commandments. If you are living a life where you disregard the commandments of God, like Matthew Shepard did, or if you are supportive of such a lifestyle (either overtly, or through your apathy), you need to repent. And you need to repent now, because God will appear to you when you least expect it, saying "thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee." Luke 12:20. Just like He did to Matthew Shepard.

Zhavric
September 29th, 2004, 09:36 AM
Why do you keep posting pictures of Christians that you dislike to answer Spart's question of why so many people dislike Christians in general, and even Jesus Christ? You are posting exceptions to support dislike and distrust of the rule.

Why do you keep trying to distance yourself from these Christians rather than accepting that they are Christian and taking ownership for them. We'd have more respect for you (Christians in general) if you would be willing to take responsibility for your alleged "fringe" members.

Booger
September 29th, 2004, 09:41 AM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?

Some Jerry Falwell beliefs (quotes):

"Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America."

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that *tolerates* homosexuals."

Good old Pat Robertson on the 9/11 attacks:

"We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?" Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us."

FruitandNut
September 30th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Why do you keep trying to distance yourself from these Christians rather than accepting that they are Christian and taking ownership for them. We'd have more respect for you (Christians in general) if you would be willing to take responsibility for your alleged "fringe" members.

What do we do with them Zhavric? Tie them up and gag them? Censor their opinions? Pack them off to a desert Island to frighten eachother with smitings, smegings and damnation? Offer them psychotherapy or try to get them to open up a bit in their 'intellectual' thought? Why should I take full responsibility for another person's thoughts and feelings? They are entitled to the limited 'free will' that we are all entitled to.

In some ways they remind me of some of your postings. Fundies often lack the imagination to look at the whole picture and accept that in the light of developing knowledge and understanding, and the lack of full knowledge, that there might be alternatives to a narrow focussed view of things. In their case they fail to see that much of the more flowery and lurid stuff in the Old Testament is of its time and culture. That through Jesus sacrifice and Paul's ministry beyond the Jewish world, salvation is now a universally available contract.

CC
September 30th, 2004, 09:41 AM
What do we do with them Zhavric? Tie them up and gag them?

Be worth a try.....j/k.........:O)

absoluttruth
October 9th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Clearly, we cannot judge all Christians by David Koresh or Brother Jed... but, at the same time, both individuals believe they had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Thus, they are both Christians.

Why do you say that? Is it their belief that they are a Christian that makes them a Christian?

The word "Christian" means "Christ-like". If what Koresh and "Brother Jed" are against what was taught by Christ, then despite what they may believe about themselves, they are NOT acting as Christians. If they act against what Christ taught, their actions should not be considered "Christian", nor should anyone say that ALL Christians have the same faults as they.

Do those who hate Christians believe in racism or steroetyping? Christian Bashing is the same thing as these. If one sees the actions of Osama Bin Ladin and says, "All Muslims must be like this," isn't he wrong? If someone saw Hitler and said, "All Germans are anti-Semitic," wouldn't he be wrong?

Then if thinking this way is wrong, why do some say, "Brother Jed is a hyocrite so all Christians must be that way,." Is he not wrong also?

The ones that should be called Christians are those who emulate the teachings and the life of Jesus Christ. Jed and Koresh can think they are Christians all they like; their belief that they are following Christ does not mean that they are following Christ. Since the term "Christian" menas Christ-like, and they are not acting in a way which is Christ-like, they are not Christians. Perhaps there was a time when they followed Christ, but even a Christian can fall to temptation.

absoluttruth
October 9th, 2004, 09:59 AM
"We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?" Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us."

If you don't mind me asking, what so terrible about this statement?

Galendir
October 10th, 2004, 12:15 AM
The word "Christian" means "Christ-like".No it doesn't.
But supposing it did, how 'Christ-like' would one have to be to be a Christian? In what regard would one have to emulate Christ?
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
Do you consider yourself 'Christ-like'? (Note, I am not asking if you strive or desire to be Christ-like, I'm asking if you are.)


Perhaps there was a time when they followed Christ, but even a Christian can fall to temptation.Would that mean that they are no longer Christian?

absoluttruth
October 10th, 2004, 07:14 AM
No it doesn't.

Actually it does. It means "Christ -bearer", which would mean the same to me as "Christ-like"; that someone bears the teachings of Christ. But let's not argue about it, it really doesn't matter.


But supposing it did, how 'Christ-like' would one have to be to be a Christian? In what regard would one have to emulate Christ?
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
Do you consider yourself 'Christ-like'? (Note, I am not asking if you strive or desire to be Christ-like, I'm asking if you are.)

In short, yes. As a human, i cannot be exactly like Christ; I fail at times. But this does not negate me from being Christ-like.

I'm not striving or desiring to be Christ-like, I am Christ-like. Thelike that comes after Christ in the term "Christ-like" means that i am not exactly like Christ in every way but that I am alike him in many ways. So though I may stumble or fall, I can still be like Christ.


Would that mean that they are no longer Christian?

Yes. At least if we're going by my definition of Christian, which is "Christ-like". If they cease to be Christ-like, then they are no longer a Christian.

They may still have recieved the gift of salvation; this cannot be taken away from them no matter what they do. I believe there is such a thing a someone who is saved and does not follow Christ.

As far as how much sin someone has to be in to not be a Christian; I don't think it's how much sin they are in but instead the condition of their heart. In their sin; are they repentitive? Do they strive to follow God despite their sin?

Frankly, it does not even matter if I think one person is a Christian or not. That is between them and God. What i think about their spirituality won't matter in the long run.

FruitandNut
October 11th, 2004, 12:18 AM
Cummon Galendir, you know that for people to be termed Christian is not that they ARE Christlike, that they could not possibly achieve. (Not even you are perfect!) BUT that they should STRIVE with the talents they have to be Christlike. Christ should be their exemplar, their journey marker and compass.

Galendir
October 11th, 2004, 01:47 AM
As a human, i cannot be exactly like Christ; I fail at times. But this does not negate me from being Christ-like.
I am not exactly like Christ in every way but I am alike him in many ways. So though I may stumble or fall, I can still be like Christ.You did not answer the question: "How 'Christ-like' would one have to be to be a Christian? In what regard would one have to emulate Christ?"


Cummon Galendir, you know that for people to be termed Christian is not that they ARE Christlike, that they could not possibly achieve. (Not even you are perfect!) BUT that they should STRIVE with the talents they have to be Christlike. Christ should be their exemplar, their journey marker and compass.Yes, but it is not I making the claim that to be Christian is to be Christ-like. I refute that claim.

Zhavric
October 11th, 2004, 04:47 AM
Why do you say that? Is it their belief that they are a Christian that makes them a Christian?

In effect, yes. Their belief that they are Christian makes them Christian in their own minds. You can slander them all you want... call their actions "un-Christian" and accuse them of ignoring Christ's teachings. The problem you run into is that Christiandom is so diverse and that anyone's definition of Christianity is as good as anyone else's. Don't believe me? Why don't you just try asking a Mormon... or are they not "real" Christians either? Add into the mix a little phrase that sounds something like, "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself..." and you have a religion to which anyone can belong regardless of their actions; so long as they are reasonably Christian, who are you to deny them?

Point being is that Jed, Falwell, and Koresh don't look without to tell wether or not they are Christians. They look within to their own convictions as set out in the bible. They BELIEVE they are Christians. That's all it takes. What? Are you going to try to tell them, "Because you say XYZ but do ABC, you're not really Christian." Are you going to try to logically explain why they're not really Christian?

Please. Welcome to my world.

FruitandNut
October 11th, 2004, 09:18 AM
Zhavric: Like in most walks and areas of human endeavour, there are those who think they are Christians but are not, and those who think they are Christians and are. I leave it for Christ to decide; not you or I, or anyone else has that certainty.

Fyshhed
October 11th, 2004, 10:29 AM
Zhavric: Like in most walks and areas of human endeavour, there are those who think they are Christians but are not, and those who think they are Christians and are.
So you have decided there exists a thing as a True (tm) Christian...but


I leave it for Christ to decide; not you or I, or anyone else has that certainty.
Nice try. Who are you to know that Christ filters out True (tm) Christians? What if all he wants is people to understand that he existed? In that case, anyone who has skimmed the bible is saved. Nice thought huh? Jesus COULD, for all you know, be hanging out in heaven with Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan while the rest of you hopeless wannabes who didn't understand that Christ was trying to promote selectivity in the world rot in Hell. :)

Christ hasn't spoken up about it. Who are you to know if there is even such a thing as a True (tm) Christian?

Zhavric
October 12th, 2004, 04:09 AM
Zhavric: Like in most walks and areas of human endeavour, there are those who think they are Christians but are not, and those who think they are Christians and are. I leave it for Christ to decide; not you or I, or anyone else has that certainty.

So then we are in agreement that those claiming to be Christian must be given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be Christian.

Glad we cleared that up.

:*

FruitandNut
October 12th, 2004, 06:08 AM
Only insofar as I may give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a card carrying atheist, Zhav.
I was brought up under a legal concept of innocent until proved guilty - what a quaint and novel concept!!!!!!!

Fyshy: Please don't twist my words. A Christian is one who strives to be Christlike, but being merely human, may stumble from time to time, they acknowledge their faults and weaknesses and get up and try again. In many ways it is far easier to be a cynic and an atheist, always demanding proof to come to them, not being bothered much to look or use some of the tools that are open to humanity, those of faith, hope and charity. Just how is a card carrying cynic convinced anyway? They can always invent some excuse, no matter how implausible or spurious as an excuse/ reason not to accept something. They can always manipulate meaning to appear to score points. Christ of 'The Beatitudes' hanging about with that trio of likely lads you mentioned - cummon, give it a break.

Galendir
October 12th, 2004, 01:35 PM
I'm sure you do not mean to imply that atheists in general are cynical, or that they are less charitable then theists.

KevinBrowning
October 12th, 2004, 01:46 PM
I'm sure you do not mean to imply that atheists in general are cynical, or that they are less charitable then theists.

I would say both are generally true. Atheists believe there is no absolute meaning to life. Most charities in the world have been and are Christian organizations.

Galendir
October 12th, 2004, 02:55 PM
I would say both are generally true. Atheists believe there is no absolute meaning to life. Most charities in the world have been and are Christian organizations.False. The demographic ratio of Christian/secular legal charities (which is NOT what F&N or I were referring to) does not substantially differ from that of the relevant Christian/atheist population.

And being a cynic has nothing to do with whether or not one believes there is an 'absolute' meaning to life.

KevinBrowning
October 12th, 2004, 03:56 PM
False. The demographic ratio of Christian/secular legal charities (which is NOT what F&N or I were referring to) does not substantially differ from that of the relevant Christian/atheist population.

And being a cynic has nothing to do with whether or not one believes there is an 'absolute' meaning to life.

Notice I did not limit it to Christians and atheists. Out of all religions and lack thereof, I can assure you a majority have been and are Christian institutions. And comparing Christian and atheists, notice I did not address the proportion of both groups, but simply said there are far more Christian than atheist charities. Further, I know you and FN were not talking about organized charities, but these are the most important and beneficial kind.

Zhavric
October 13th, 2004, 06:04 AM
Christian: "We're right wing republicans who don't believe in welfare... but we love to distribute money to the poor / brag about our charities!"

Please.
Give us this day our daily hypocracy.

Ibelsd
October 13th, 2004, 08:42 AM
Christian: "We're right wing republicans who don't believe in welfare... but we love to distribute money to the poor / brag about our charities!"

Please.
Give us this day our daily hypocracy.

Wellfare -> government takes money from the wealthy by use of force and redistributes via an arbitrary selection process.

Charity -> individuals give money of their own free will to a cause which is important to them.

Bragging? -> Are you claiming all people who donate to charities later brag about it, or only Christians? Does the donation become less signifcant or less helpful as a result of such bragging? Should we be equally condescending of Democratics who brag about getting more tax money to pay for wellfare?

Christian? -> Is your quote from a guy named Christian? Or, are you portraying a hasty
generalization of all Christians, and as such, misusing the quotation marks?

Hypocracy? -> This simply needs some sort of explanation in light of my cocncerns expressed above.

FruitandNut
October 13th, 2004, 08:57 AM
oops!

FruitandNut
October 13th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Christian: "We're right wing republicans who don't believe in welfare... but we love to distribute money to the poor / brag about our charities!"

Please.
Give us this day our daily hypocracy.


I can go with you there Zhav., mind you its not just us Christians, though we should perhaps know better than most.
See the parable of the 'Widow's Mite'.

http://www.ewtn.com/gallery/tnt/nt8s.htm

Zhavric
October 13th, 2004, 09:04 AM
Wellfare -> government takes money from the wealthy by use of force and redistributes via an arbitrary selection process.

Force? Please. Unwrap yourself from this idea that every tax dollar you pay is being converted to a handout to some do-nothing with 8 kids and no job.


Charity -> individuals give money of their own free will to a cause which is important to them.

Splitting hairs. These are effectively the same concept.

FruitandNut
October 13th, 2004, 09:11 AM
False. The demographic ratio of Christian/secular legal charities (which is NOT what F&N or I were referring to) does not substantially differ from that of the relevant Christian/atheist population.

And being a cynic has nothing to do with whether or not one believes there is an 'absolute' meaning to life.

Most charities large and small usually have some Judeo-Christian ethos or inspiration behind them.

KevinBrowning
October 13th, 2004, 09:55 AM
Force? Please. Unwrap yourself from this idea that every tax dollar you pay is being converted to a handout to some do-nothing with 8 kids and no job.



Splitting hairs. These are effectively the same concept.

Unwrap yourself from the idea that having money forcefully redistributed is the same as willingly and cheerfully giving it to charity.

Please.

Ibelsd
October 13th, 2004, 12:08 PM
Force? Please. Unwrap yourself from this idea that every tax dollar you pay is being converted to a handout to some do-nothing with 8 kids and no job.
I said nothing about the intent nor benfactor of government redistribution. This is your assertion not mine.




Splitting hairs. These are effectively the same concept.
If I give you dollar, is it the same as you taking a dollar? Hmm. I guess the entire concept of theft should be redefined. If these are effectively the same concept, then why tax at all?

KevinBrowning
October 13th, 2004, 01:49 PM
Splitting hairs. These are effectively the same concept.

Giving money and having money taken without your permission are different.

Inquisitor
October 16th, 2004, 08:13 PM
Why does it seem like so many people in the Western World today dislike, distrust, ridicule and in general do not have very high opinions of Christianity, Christians or even Jesus Christ in general?

This by the way is a perfect evidence that Christianity is the Truth. Since all this was predicted long ago.
Revelation 2:10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

It hasn't come to that yet, but no doubt will. More precisely it will happen when there is one world government.


It is this last part that is troublesome. As demonstrated above by Kevin's comments about brother Jed, Christians are sometimes too quick to relegate certain groups to "fringe" status / dis-associate themselves from such individuals / groups. The appearance is that if a group is doing something acceptable, they are Christian / if their behavior is unnacceptable in some way, they are instantly tossed to the side / not real Christians.

This may be confusing to atheists, however Christians don't have this problem. He is a Christian who belongs to The True Church of Christ, refered to in the Bible as the Bride.
Revelation 19.7 Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;

Now, I do realise what this sounds like to atheists ( insane ravings?). Yet the truth is one who belongs to The True Church is by definition the true Christian.


In ages past it was...

Preacher: "Convert or be darned to heck."
Average Joe: "I better straighten up and fly right...

In modern times...

Preacher: "Convert or be darned to heck."
Average Joe: "I don't have to listen to this. I'm free to do as I please in this country."

Very good point. Lest we forget:
Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Unrealistic to expext an average Joe be willing to be hated by all. So Chrisianity is not for average.


As I non-Christian, sometimes I just want to say, "Get your story straight." If Jesus showed up 2000 years ago and said XYZ, and did ABC, then why do we need 17,000 different sects of Christianity? If you're sure about what He had to say, why is there so much inconsistency?

Matthew 7.15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

You see there are both real and supernatural forces working against people who aspire to be saved. These forces employ different methods to achieve their goals. Various heresies are only one method.


I have friends ranging from neuro-surgeons, priests, bikers and ex'cons. I think I have such a cornucopia of friends precisely because I don't care how they think, but how they treat others...................:O)

I was always under impression that the way people treat othes depended on how they thought. :?:


1. Sex between married couples should be for the purpose of procreation only.
2. Gay sex is immoral.
3. "I usually make the distinction that God's hatred of the sinner is a holy hatred or righteous indignation, actually rooted in His benevolence."
4. Believes that Jesus is described in the Bible as "the Prince of Peace". He taught, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"
5. "The sodomites want to make a martyr out of a pervert [Matthew Shepard], who the Bible teaches was deserving of death. Nor should we have anything but disgust for the thieves that murdered him

1. Sex between married couples should be in such way that it may lead to procreation ( no oral, anal etc).
2. Since a man's body is created in God's image, homosexuality is similar to someone urinating ( and more) in your lounge room.
3. God doesn't hate the sinner, God hates the sin.
4. Peace is not universal virtue:
Revelation 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”
5. He is not a myrtyr, but a victim of his own perversion and psycho-pathology.


Now it's a lengthly debate, but I believe I have made the point. Whoever disagrees please feel free to question it.
I apologise to everyone whose points I haven't addressed and to those whose points I involuntary duplicated.

PallidaMors
October 16th, 2004, 08:31 PM
This by the way is a perfect evidence that Christianity is the Truth.
Just because alot of people either do believe in something, or don't does not prove anything....this is fallacy I believe. ad populum




This may be confusing to atheists, however Christians don't have this problem. He is a Christian who belongs to The True Church of Christ, refered to in the Bible as the Bride.
Revelation 19.7 Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;

Now, I do realise what this sounds like to atheists ( insane ravings?). Yet the truth is one who belongs to The True Church is by definition the true Christian.

I have not had the pleasure of such a sidestepped answer since the last Presidential debate.



Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 7.15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

Is quoting the Bible considered to be a good reference here? I honestly don't know and would like to. I would be against it, unless the debate is specific to something the Bible actually says. Somebody let me know, either here or through PM. Thanks.

FruitandNut
October 17th, 2004, 02:02 AM
PM: As a Christian, I prefer to look to the message rather than the words alone. I see the problems that can beset nit picking the words, you just have to look at The US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, frozen for all time amid a world of changing knowledge and circumstances.