Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 139
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Are they still Christian, ye or ne?

    Thread split from: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Gal's original statement to which Mustang5 is responding to is in the quote bubble below.

    Galindir:Newsflash: It's Christians who rely on law to tell them what is moral and what is immoral. The Ten Commandments are laws, no?
    Yes the Ten Commandments are Gods Laws. God also ordain's government and we are to follow the government laws as well. We should only practice Civil Disobedience if we are asked to do something that goes against scripture. Can you tell me of a law that makes someone go against scripture.
    Galindir:Wrongo. You seem to not understand a sentence so simple as "[That the law permits certain acts of killing] speaks nothing to whether such killing is morally justified or not." I'll rephrase for you. The law states what is legal. It does not state what is moral. Is that clearer for you now?
    Maybe you cleared it up for yourself. I know the comment wasn't directed at me, can you tell me one law as you state that is justified but is immoral?

    Galindir:Like those who bomb abortion clinics?
    Wellwho do think it is that bombs abortion clinics. It's not Christians, I can tell you that Bullman.

    Galindir:Of course, by definition. I have never heard of anyone claiming that murder isn't wrong. The problem is getting agreement on whether any given act constitutes murder or not. Christians can look at any act of killing, and as long as they can be persuaded that God sanctions it for some reason, they immediately convince themselves that such an act isn't really murder.
    Look anybody that has a soul or for non-believers a conscious knows in their heart if they committed murder. All we can do is make laws as best we can, and have jurys interpret the consequences as best they can. In your last sentence here you start our by stating an act of killing, then turn it into justified murder. They are not one in the same!
    Galindir:And some, it would seem, can offer no rational justification for their morality other than "This ancient book says God is against this so it must be bad."
    This ancient book is only non rational to atheists. You think you were just born to be moral.

    Galindir:Unlike the Bible which has always been unambiguously, clearly, and consistently understood, and never reinterpreted through current societal standards, and is so applicable and timely in providing ethical guidance in the fields of medicine, technology, business, international affairs, warfare, politics, etc.
    The Bible has stood the test of time, never once wavering off course. If you would ever go to church you would see its applications applied to todays society. Society, fads, people, beliefs, all change. God and the Bible never changes. No amount of debating by any of us, is going to change that fact.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; February 19th, 2006 at 10:51 AM.
    Mike

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by mustang5
    Wellwho do think it is that bombs abortion clinics. It's not Christians, I can tell you that Bullman.
    Christians bombing or supporting bombings of abortion clinics? Impossible? Perhaps not.
    http://www.armyofgod.com/ChristianNews.html
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyshhed
    Christians bombing or supporting bombings of abortion clinics? Impossible? Perhaps not.
    http://www.armyofgod.com/ChristianNews.html
    I tell you these people are not Christians. The main stream media is on your side. They are biased. I didn't even go to your link. I didn't see the point. But thanks for putting there.
    Mike

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by mustang5
    I tell you these people are not Christians.
    Not Christians of your type and perhaps not "good Christians", but they have a belief in Jesus, which follows the definition of Christian:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
    Chris·tian
    adj.

    1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
    2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
    3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
    4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
    5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
    [emphasis mine]
    So to not call them Christians would be to be guilty of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".
    The main stream media is on your side. They are biased. I didn't even go to your link. I didn't see the point. But thanks for putting there.
    Fyshhed's link was not to the mainstream media, but to a group of anti-abortion Christian zealots, so I don't see why you don't see the point.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverending
    Not Christians of your type and perhaps not "good Christians", but they have a belief in Jesus, which follows the definition of Christian:
    So to not call them Christians would be to be guilty of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".
    Fyshhed's link was not to the mainstream media, but to a group of anti-abortion Christian zealots, so I don't see why you don't see the point.
    Well in your definition of a Christian, you defend my case. Merely believing in Jesus does not merit a Christian. That would be like saying, I believe in Jesus now I can do whatever the hell I want, including Bombing Abortion clinics. Wrong. I don't know what the True Scotsman fallacy is. I believe his link was his way of stating something Bad about Christians, and my point was that these people are not true Christians, and based on the definition that you posted to help prove my point.
    Mike

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by mustang5
    That would be like saying, I believe in Jesus now I can do whatever the hell I want, including Bombing Abortion clinics. Wrong.
    They may be wrong, but they fit the classification of "Christian".
    I don't know what the True Scotsman fallacy is.
    It is a falacy regarding non sequiturs and classification. Here's a link that has a classic explanation that lends it its name:
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    The "no true Scotsman..." fallacy: Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. I basically limit the meaning of the word "Scotsman."
    I believe his link was his way of stating something Bad about Christians, and my point was that these people are not true Christians, and based on the definition that you posted to help prove my point.
    No, I think it was his way of showing that not all Christians do good, since his link only applies to the anti-abortion zealots.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  7. #7
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    NE, it's very poor form to believe that a philosophy or theology can be simply defined through a dictionary.

    Using your line of argumentation, Satan is a Christian, demons are Christians. Your entire argument re: "What is a Christian" conveniently leaves out the rest of the definition that you would use for support.

    1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
    2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
    3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
    4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
    5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
    From that, YOU get for some reason: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ

    For what reason other than bias would you ignore:

    1) following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus (not doing so violates what it is and means to be Christian - yet...you believe those who harm others are fine w/ this little exemption and it ought not to apply).

    All of the other points follow the same as the above. If you disagree, then you should be able to answer:

    2) Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings: In what way were they doing so?

    3) Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike: How were they Christlike by harming others?

    4) Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents: How is what they have done, characteristic of Christianity? And is it the case that Christianity teaches what the believe or is it the case that men use the name of Christianity to excuse and/or justify their actions?

    5) Showing a loving concern for others; humane: In what way were those guilty showing a loving concern for others? How is it humane to harm others?

    This was a pretty poor argument. If you are going to create such nonsense, next time you should leave out the obvious evidence that counters your own argument.

    Also, you are making an incorrect charge re: Scotsman's Fallacy. There ARE such things as Scotsmen. There ARE defining characteristics that IDENTIFY and QUALIFY that person AS a Scotsman. By YOUR logic and your misapplication of the fallacy, anyone who says "But that's not what a ______ is (or does)." is guilty. And that is just false.

    It's like me saying: "But white caucasions are not African-American."
    Neverending: "Scotsman's Fallacy! You are just saying that because they aren't YOUR sort of caucasion"
    Apok: "No, a caucasion has definite characteristics that MAKE that person a caucasion, else they cannot be. Just because the caucasion is a human being, which is a sharing trait of what it is to be an African-American, doens't mean that this one trait makes them one and the same"

    Likewise, merely because someone believes in Christ, which is one of the defining variables, it doesn't default them to be a Christian. LOTS of people believe in Christ who are not Christians.

    -----------

    As far as Galendir's nonsense, I'll responde to that next response.

    -----------

    Also, the thread is starting to go off-topic. I'm going to split the thread soon depending upon the next few posts.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; January 30th, 2005 at 05:56 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Using your line of argumentation, Satan is a Christian, demons are Christians.
    Do Satan and the demons (of the Christian belief system) believe that Jesus is their savior, their Christ? If not, then I believe my argument stands.
    For what reason other than bias would you ignore:

    1) following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus (not doing so violates what it is and means to be Christian - yet...you believe those who harm others are fine w/ this little exemption and it ought not to apply).
    It's an "or" statement. It doesn't need to be the second of the two if it qualifies for the first.
    2) Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings: In what way were they doing so?

    3) Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike: How were they Christlike by harming others?

    4) Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents: How is what they have done, characteristic of Christianity? And is it the case that Christianity teaches what the believe or is it the case that men use the name of Christianity to excuse and/or justify their actions?

    5) Showing a loving concern for others; humane: In what way were those guilty showing a loving concern for others? How is it humane to harm others?
    Usually, words only have to match one of the definitions to be considered. For instance, Definition 4 is describing an adjective form of "Christian". If it qualifies for Definition 1, than it qualifies as the classification, at least according to the dictionary's interpretation of vernacular speech.
    It's like me saying: "But white caucasions are not African-American."
    Neverending: "Scotsman's Fallacy! You are just saying that because they aren't YOUR sort of caucasion"
    Apok: "No, a caucasion has definite characteristics that MAKE that person a caucasion, else they cannot be. Just because the caucasion is a human being, which is a sharing trait of what it is to be an African-American, doens't mean that this one trait makes them one and the same"
    No, it's like:
    You saying: They're not Christians because they misinterpret the word of the Bible.
    Me saying: Actually, to be a Christian, the criteria is that you believe that Jesus is your savior. Misinterpreting the Bible has nothing to do with that.

    I think you wholey misunderstand the argument.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  9. #9
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverending
    Do Satan and the demons (of the Christian belief system) believe that Jesus is their savior, their Christ? If not, then I believe my argument stands.
    1) They don't believe he is their savior. Christ is the savior of humankind, not of other angels (which Satan and demons are). They do believe that Christ is mankind's savior, which WOULD qualify under your statement that I responded.

    2) According to your original post w/ the definition, THAT is not what it takes to be a Christian. In your OWN post, you highlighted and made that argument from: rofessing belief in Jesus as Christ.

    So #1, they DO believe that Jesus is Christ. #2, Jesus being THEIR savior is not a qualifier.

    It's an "or" statement. It doesn't need to be the second of the two if it qualifies for the first.
    You misunderstand the nature of dictionary definitions. It's not an "either/or"' situation, it's an "in otherwords" one. It's a "clarification". If it were "either/or", the 2nd statement woudl be a separate # in the list.

    Usually, words only have to match one of the definitions to be considered. For instance, Definition 4 is describing an adjective form of "Christian". If it qualifies for Definition 1, than it qualifies as the classification, at least according to the dictionary's interpretation of vernacular speech.
    Your definition was that of The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

    It's found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian

    The word "Christian" that you have defined according to AH, is an adjective. That is, ALL of the definitions for the word "Christian" are definitions for the ADJECTIVE "Christian". How do we know? Easy, here is what the entire entry is:

    Chris·tian Audio pronunciation of "christian" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krschn)
    adj.

    1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
    2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
    3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
    4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
    5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
    Emphasis mine. The word is an ajective, therefore, the entire list of definitions is given for a word (Christian) that is an adjective.

    You have also failed to answer ANY of the questions asked of you. I'll repeat them for convenience. Can you try to answer just one perhaps?

    1. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings: In what way were they doing so?
    2. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike: How were they Christlike by harming others?
    3. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents: How is what they have done, characteristic of Christianity? And is it the case that Christianity teaches what the believe or is it the case that men use the name of Christianity to excuse and/or justify their actions?
    4. Showing a loving concern for others; humane: In what way were those guilty showing a loving concern for others? How is it humane to harm others?


    No, it's like:
    You saying: They're not Christians because they misinterpret the word of the Bible.
    Me saying: Actually, to be a Christian, the criteria is that you believe that Jesus is your savior. Misinterpreting the Bible has nothing to do with that.
    No, it's not like that at all. You see, to be a Christian, there MUST be certain criteria that is met. I see this sort of argument quite often from atheists/agnostics or others attempting to formulate anti-Christian arguments, and I just see it as one of most absurd and desperate attempts possible.

    It's saying to the Christian: "No you don't know what your belief is nor do you know what is required to 'qualify' as an adherent to your belief system."

    This same line of reasoning is seen in nearly every argument against Christianity. Whether it's the nature of the Christian God, Christian theology, Christian philosophies, Christian claims of the afterlife, etc...

    If you wish to attack a belief system, you should at least KNOW what it is you are attacking, or know what it is you oppose. Creating straw men to knock down, does not help the anti-Christian argument at all.

    How is the above related to this specific argument? It's related due to your belief that to be a Christian, only 1 thing is required...and that is the belief in Christ. I find it interesting how the anti-Christian crowd believes this when Jesus spoke of this very issue and claimed otherwise (see further below).

    It is not as simple as believing WHO Christ says He is...that isn't what is meant by having faith.
    John 3:36 NAS, see also 1 John 2:3-5
    He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
    Is this telling us that Christians (according to Neverending's limited and erroneous belief of what a Christian is) will not inherit the Kingdom of God and will instead receive his wrath if they don't obey Christ?

    Or could it mean instead, that there just might be something a little more to Christianity that just "believing in Christ"? Is it possible that there are other qualifiers? Or shall we take verses out of context to play games and create straw men so we may hold on our our misunderstandings instead of learn from them and attempt to create stronger arguments that are logically based?

    2 John 9
    Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.


    Oh wait...what about this one? Isn't this so blantantly obvious to the objective reader that to be saved (or a "true" Christian), that one must follow the doctrine of Christ? It pretty much puts it in the most simple of terms doesn't it? "If you don't abide by Christ's doctrine (teachings), you do not have God"? That is, you don't know him. And if you don't know him, you aren't a Christian.

    Revelation 22:14-15; see also Revelation 21:8
    Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

    Hmmmm...nothing above re: "just believe" is there? Seems like scripture places some pretty heavy emphasis on adhering to Christ's teachings. Seems to me like it may just be a little more complicated than what you would want us to believe there NE. Are you STILL insistent that one merely must believe he is their savior? Before you answer that one, let's see what Jesus himself claimed about the issue...

    Matthew 7: 13-27
    13 Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

    15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.

    21 "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

    24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall."

    v 13-14 tell us that those who are TRUE Christian (and thus saved), are few (relatively speaking).

    v 15-20 tells us that there will be those who CLAIM to be TRUE Christian, but they won't be. And we will be able to tell them apart from TRUE Christians by their "fruits", their acts, their behavior, their true feelings, their thoughts. Jesus was always attacking the Jewish priests for their hypocrisy in not practicing what they preached, as well as putting so much emphasis on "the law" or the word, instead of placing that emphasis where it belongs...the "spirit of the law", or the acts, the reasons for what is taught. These people that Jesus warns us about, call themselves Christian, use the name of Christ to justify and excuse their actions, and lead people away from Jesus. This would include cults who claim to be Christian, scam artists/evangilists on TV (like Benny Hinn for example), scam miracle healers, those who use Christianity to hate other races, those who use Christianity as an excuse to bomb abortion clinics, etc...

    Jesus is saying here that you will know the REAL Christian, through their adherence of Christ's teachings. I KNOW you want to be able to say "But these people are just "bad" Christians, they merely misunderstand or pervert Christ's message." Problem: Christ's message...is EASILY understood. It isn't complicated. There is no confusion on the core issues and teachings of Christ. While denominations may disagree about the nature of praise music, baptism immersion/sprinkling, communion, etc... these are MINOR issues. In NONE of what Jesus teaches do we find anything that even REMOTELY resembles a lesson in "a superior race"; destruction of property and lives; scamming money out of others; etc... Jesus says just the opposite...that these things are WRONG. He actually ADDRESSES EACH AND EVERY one of these points SAYING that they are wrong.

    So if you INSIST that they are just simple misunderstandings, you will have to provide a cogent argument to SUPPORT that such a thing is possible, as well as provide the scriptue that is so easily misunderstood. You are the one who is claiming it, you are the one who has the burden of proof to offer.

    v 21-23 tells us Jesus' response to these people when they meet him in judgement. They will claim that they were spreading Jesus' word and only doing what Jesus' wanted. Jesus will will tell them "Oh contrare bonjour! You didn't know me, you didn't teach what I taught, you didn't practice what I practiced, you are NOT a TRUE Christian!"

    Jesus says there is a difference between a TRUE Christian and a FALSE Christian. Why does Neverending and the rest of the atheist corner who haven't even opened up the book to understood what is actually said...claim otherwise? Paul also discusses the issue of "false brethren", there IS a difference between the 2. And a FALSE Christian, is NOT a Christian. It is merely one who "claims to be". And CLAIMING it, does not make it so.

    If you still disagree that there are such an animal as "false Christians", how do you respond to Jesus and Paul, the "founder" of Christianity and a great apostle of the founder, who say the opposite?

    v 24-27 tells us that those who TRULY listen, learn and practice what Jesus says, have a foundation in Christ and are truly Christian (a follower of Christ). And those who do not, have no foundation in Christ (and thusly, cannot be a follower of Christ despite their repeated claims to the contrary).

    Being a Christian is being a FOLLOWER of Christ. That means abiding and practicing what he said and taught. It includes believing he was who he claimed to be, but also a great number of other things. Don't get hung up on a singular word "believe". Especially in a philosohpical or theological discussion. Don't make the mistake of EVER, EVER using a dictionary to base your entire position on in an argument, ESPECIALLY when it is something as complex as a philosophical or theological concept, notion or ideal.

    Back to:
    No, it's like:
    You saying: They're not Christians because they misinterpret the word of the Bible.
    Me saying: Actually, to be a Christian, the criteria is that you believe that Jesus is your savior. Misinterpreting the Bible has nothing to do with that.
    It isn't merely "misinterpreting the word of the Bible". I am 100% sure that I do not have a 100% accurate account or interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I'm 100% sure that no Christian does. This is the reason for continued study. This is the reason for learning Hebrew and Greek. This is the reason for Hermenuetics. It is to understand as much as we possibly can.

    However, do not confuse this with saying "Since I cannot understand 100%, it is the case that there are core issues that I do not understand". This, is not true. There are fundamental issues, beliefs, "requirements", teachings that are made abundantly clear and are put very simply. One of those teachings, is that it takes MORE than a "simple belief" to be a Christian. I could "believe" that Jesus is my savior...but do absolutely nothing about it, not care one iota. This does not mean that I was Christian. I have no "fruit" to bear. I'm "luke warm"...and Jesus warns that those who are "luke warm", have more to be concerned about than those who are "cold" (or do not believe).

    YOUR criteria for what qualifies one to be a Christian...is flatly wrong. And for THAT reason, your Scotsman Fallacy charge is incorrect.

    I think you wholey misunderstand the argument.
    I understand your argument perfectly well. It is you who does not understand Christianity nor its doctrine, nor what it is to be Christian.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    I understand your argument perfectly well. It is you who does not understand Christianity nor its doctrine, nor what it is to be Christian.
    What a nice long post. Unfortunately, it is just beating around the bush. While the bombers of abortion clinics will not go to heaven in your mind, that does not mean they are not Christian.
    No, it's not like that at all. You see, to be a Christian, there MUST be certain criteria that is met.
    Well, in the vernacular these criteria are somewhat variable, but here is a general idea:
    Quote Originally Posted by Merrium-Webster
    Main Entry: Chris·tian
    Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
    1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961


    Quote Originally Posted by Compact Oxford English Dictionary
    Christian



    adjective relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.

    noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSN Encarta
    1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to follow his teachings and example
    Quote Originally Posted by Cambridge Dictionary
    Christian

    noun [C]
    someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ
    Quote Originally Posted by infoplease
    n.
    1. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
    2. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
    3. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
    4. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
    5. a male given name
    That was just a small sample, and you can see some variation. However, those that bomb abortion clinics believe that they are doing what is right according to the Bible. They may not be correct, but the real issue is that they believe that they are following the Bible.
    I see this sort of argument quite often from atheists/agnostics or others attempting to formulate anti-Christian arguments, and I just see it as one of most absurd and desperate attempts possible.
    Ok, well, I am not trying to formulate an anti-Christian argument as guilt by association doesn't really work in this instance, and neither does it when trying to apply this mold to me. I have seen numerous Christians try to shrug off those who misinterpret their faith as non-Christians because they are afraid of guilt by association when there is really no such fear. Is there any part of the definiton of Christian that requires that they follow the the religion correctly? If so, then there are very few Christians, and you are most likely not one of them, as your interpretation of the Bible is only one of many, where only one is correct.
    Seems to me like it may just be a little more complicated than what you would want us to believe there NE.
    So, one has to be eligible to the tree of life to be a Christian? I see no mention of that in the Dictionaries. If that is the case, then most who proclaim to be Christian are not.

    You see the problem with your argument is not that the offending Christians are correct, it is that they still count as Christians by the vernacular definitions of what Christians are. You seem to be warping the definitions to suit your purpose, when your definitions are actually likely to restrict you as well as the abortion clinic bombers.

    Who do you count as a Muslim? Obviously only one of the sects follows how Muhammad meant if any do. Does this mean that there are only a handfull of actual Muslims in the world?

    Another thing, we have gone quite far off topic. This thread is about the interpretation of one of the commandments. I offered a prime example of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", and you attempted to refute it. This section does not belong in this thread but in another one about fallacies.











    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  11. #11
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    NE, that wasn't even a "good" attempt at trying to dodge the issue. You blantantly ignored the questions asked, AND you ignored scripture, Jesus' words, and Paul's teachings that CONTRADICT and REFUTE your own claims.

    Christ made it quite clear. NE disagrees with Christ. Fine. But when it comes down to the study of the faith or belief system, it's prudent to trust in the founder as to what they believe/said as opposed to those who are unfamiliar with the theology itself.

    ----

    Yes, of course we've gone off-topic. I'll fix it tomorrow.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    NE, that wasn't even a "good" attempt at trying to dodge the issue. You blantantly ignored the questions asked, AND you ignored scripture, Jesus' words, and Paul's teachings that CONTRADICT and REFUTE your own claims.
    What claims? I say that the abortion bombers attempt to follow the scripture but are misguided. I don't say they are good Christians, or that your religious sect would accept them. I am simply saying that in vernacular language, htey are Christians. However, maybe they are not in your interpretation of the English language. In the vernacular, a Christian need not be "saved" to be a Christian. In yours, perhaps. It is you who have dodged the issue. I decided not to reply to the majority of your response, because I found it irrelevant.
    Christ made it quite clear. NE disagrees with Christ. Fine.
    Of course, disagree with your religion; I would be a Christian if I didn't.
    But when it comes down to the study of the faith or belief system, it's prudent to trust in the founder as to what they believe/said as opposed to those who are unfamiliar with the theology itself.
    True, but most laypeople have not fully read the scriptures or do not understand them. In fact, I would venture a guess that even most clergy do not correctly understand them. However, this does not make them non-Christians. It just makes them wrong in their interpretation of the faith. Perhaps they are not "saved", but they are Christians.

    EDITED TO ADD: Don't you just hate wars of terminology? They seem to end up going nowhere and the "winner" of the debate hasn't won much in terms of substance. I actually don't see much point in arguing what the word "Christian" applies to, since language is a medium for ideas and it is the ideas expressed that are important, not the medium.
    Last edited by Meng Bomin; January 30th, 2005 at 10:27 PM.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  13. #13
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverending
    What claims? I say that the abortion bombers attempt to follow the scripture but are misguided.
    I know you BELIEVE this, you certainly CLAIM it, but you never support it. WHAT part of scripture are they following exactly?

    I don't say they are good Christians, or that your religious sect would accept them. I am simply saying that in vernacular language, htey are Christians.
    OK, just to clear this up...I would AGREE that in the vernacular, they would be Christian. They aren't Muslim, they aren't Atheist, they aren't Buddhist. HOWEVER, when someone objects to them being Christian, it is ALWAYS in the factual or technical sense. Those who say they are not "true Christian" are saying that "According to Christ, they are NOT Christian." Thus, when we are in a theological or philosophical discussion, it is important to understand that vague, broad terms are unnacceptable to discuss the soundness of the claims being made. Mustang was saying that THEOLOGICALLY, SCRIPTURALLY, TECHNICALLY, they are NOT Christian. And he is correct.

    Of course, disagree with your religion; I would be a Christian if I didn't.
    It's not a matter of you accepting the religion for yourself...but accepting the religious teachings of the religion TO BE that religion. That is, I would be quite wrong to say that there is no such thing as the Pillars of Faith in Islam. What you are doing is saying: "There are no pillars of faith in Islam". What you can legitimze saying is "I do not agree with the pillars of faith in Islam." There are IN FACT, the 'pillars' in Islam. Likewise, Christ's teachings ABOUT Christianity and Himself, ARE IN FACT ABOUT Christianity and what it entails. Whether you personally accept those teachings for yourself is irrelevant. There is no getting around that those teachings, are what Christ taught. If you disagree, you'd have to show that Christ never taught such things. Are you prepared to do that? That's my point. Christ said it. If you disagree he said/taught it, refute it. I didn't ask for you to accept his teachings...I ask that you acknowledge what his teachings are...and if you do not agree, that you put forth an argument to refute them.

    True, but most laypeople have not fully read the scriptures or do not understand them. In fact, I would venture a guess that even most clergy do not correctly understand them. However, this does not make them non-Christians.
    Whoa...you just said:

    A, B, C = Faith X.
    Someone may believe C, D, E, and still be a follower of Faith X.

    OK, so where did D and E come from and since it is not a part of X, how is it possible for our "someone" to be a follower of it?

    It just makes them wrong in their interpretation of the faith. Perhaps they are not "saved", but they are Christians.
    Remember, we must use the technical term here. And according to Christ, teachings of Paul, and throughout the rest of the Bible...they are NOT Christian.

    Now, please refute scripture. I've provided scripture that counters your claims. You'll have to attack the source for your argument to hold any weight. Simpy saying "Yeah they are" doesn't help much.

    EDITED TO ADD: Don't you just hate wars of terminology? They seem to end up going nowhere and the "winner" of the debate hasn't won much in terms of substance. I actually don't see much point in arguing what the word "Christian" applies to, since language is a medium for ideas and it is the ideas expressed that are important, not the medium.
    I agree. I brought this to someone's attention last week. There is a great essay written by a famous philosopher about this very topic. In it, he makes the case that it is often the error of philosophers to get wrapped up in the meaning of the WORD, instead of what is actually being said. That is, much is spent on debating what the word means.

    This is why for the sake of PHILOSOPHICAL, THEOLOGICAL, and TECHNICAL discussions, the term must be defined well, and in the most factually detailed sense.

    For example, if we were casually talking about Christian con-artists, I would agree that Benny Hinn, Jim and Tammy Fay Baker would fall into that group. However, if someone were to ask if they really were Christian, or if they were "true" Christians, I would say absolutely not. Jesus talked about these "Christians", Paul called them "false Christians" (among other things). Scripture says that these sort of people who CALL themselves Christian, are NOT. The reason why they are NOT, is because they do not follow Christ...there merely claim to and put on a good show. They USE the name of Jesus and Christianity for personal gain.

    So when we speak of "Christian" here on the forums, or Jew, or Muslim, etc... we discuss it in its true theological sense, not layman's terms. And if there is a question as to one is truly an adherent of that faith, one only need to verify their actions/beliefs through the scripture they claim to follow.

    There is NO scripture that comes close to the allowance for the acts of those you described to be Christian. NONE. It is NOT an interpretation issue as these things are so self-evident and elementary. It does not take a Biblical scholar to understand these things. The Bible wasn't written for the uber-educated.

    And even if someone was so tweaked out that they DID believe they were told to kill people to prevent them from killing others, that person would NOT be following anything that Christ taught and would NOT be Christian. Simply because one believes something, doesn't make it true. ONLY when their belief corresponds to reality, is it true. And there ARE many ways to tell what that reality is in scripture on the issues that define what it is to be Christian.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    I know you BELIEVE this, you certainly CLAIM it, but you never support it. WHAT part of scripture are they following exactly?
    I think they see themselves as the punishers of musrder and that they feel that they are actually preventing murder. However, their beliefs in whole qualify them to be considered "Christian" in vernacular language, though perhaps not Apok language.
    Those who say they are not "true Christian" are saying that "According to Christ, they are NOT Christian."
    Jesus never used the term Christian. It is a term that is made up by society.
    OK, just to clear this up...I would AGREE that in the vernacular, they would be Christian. They aren't Muslim, they aren't Atheist, they aren't Buddhist. HOWEVER, when someone objects to them being Christian, it is ALWAYS in the factual or technical sense.
    Alright, then we are settled. They do not technically follow Christian beliefs accurately but they do fit the vernacular criteria. I think we were shooting past each other.

    X marks the spot. Would any roaming super mods or Apoks that happen to see this post please move the above discussion to another thread or create it as a separate thread?
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverending
    Jesus never used the term Christian. It is a term that is made up by society.
    He did however proclaim himself to be the Messiah which = Christ but in Greek. I dont know Greek, but I would guess that the "ian" represents one who follows?

    Jesus mentions his followers multiple times in the gospells, so one can come to the conclusion that he did talk about "Christians", since they followed Christ/Messiah.

    That would be like me saying "hey the Book of Exodus never mentions a burning bush", yeah I could be true if im talking about the English word "burning" and "bush" and not finding them in Hebrew scripture.

    /rant.
    Do or do not, there is no try. - Master Jedi Yoda
    He's Kermit on acid who happens to carry a big stick when pissed off. Big deal. - Apokalupsis
    Actually, didn't Frank Oz do Bert as well? We're cousins! - Withnail in reference to Bert and Yoda

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are they still Christian, ye or ne?

    bump.

    I'm not sure whether I will participate, as my opinions here are over a year old, and as all people do, I change through time.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  17. #17
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Banville
    Posts
    4,160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    NE, it's very poor form to believe that a philosophy or theology can be simply defined through a dictionary.

    Using your line of argumentation, Satan is a Christian, demons are Christians. Your entire argument re: "What is a Christian" conveniently leaves out the rest of the definition that you would use for support.



    From that, YOU get for some reason: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ

    For what reason other than bias would you ignore:

    1) following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus (not doing so violates what it is and means to be Christian - yet...you believe those who harm others are fine w/ this little exemption and it ought not to apply).

    All of the other points follow the same as the above. If you disagree, then you should be able to answer:

    2) Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings: In what way were they doing so?

    3) Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike: How were they Christlike by harming others?

    4) Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents: How is what they have done, characteristic of Christianity? And is it the case that Christianity teaches what the believe or is it the case that men use the name of Christianity to excuse and/or justify their actions?

    5) Showing a loving concern for others; humane: In what way were those guilty showing a loving concern for others? How is it humane to harm others?

    This was a pretty poor argument. If you are going to create such nonsense, next time you should leave out the obvious evidence that counters your own argument.

    Also, you are making an incorrect charge re: Scotsman's Fallacy. There ARE such things as Scotsmen. There ARE defining characteristics that IDENTIFY and QUALIFY that person AS a Scotsman. By YOUR logic and your misapplication of the fallacy, anyone who says "But that's not what a ______ is (or does)." is guilty. And that is just false.

    It's like me saying: "But white caucasions are not African-American."
    Neverending: "Scotsman's Fallacy! You are just saying that because they aren't YOUR sort of caucasion"
    Apok: "No, a caucasion has definite characteristics that MAKE that person a caucasion, else they cannot be. Just because the caucasion is a human being, which is a sharing trait of what it is to be an African-American, doens't mean that this one trait makes them one and the same"

    Likewise, merely because someone believes in Christ, which is one of the defining variables, it doesn't default them to be a Christian. LOTS of people believe in Christ who are not Christians.

    -----------

    As far as Galendir's nonsense, I'll responde to that next response.

    -----------

    Also, the thread is starting to go off-topic. I'm going to split the thread soon depending upon the next few posts.
    Im scottish or a scotsman and would never bomb innocent people, (that is not to say i might not shoot osama )

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are they still Christian, ye or ne?

    Interesting exchange. I would like to ask a few questions. Make a point if I can.

    NE has the definition of Christian basically being anyone who claims to be one. Apok has the definition as, "One who follows the teachings of Christ." Now, from where I sit, these definitions look almost the same.

    The only difference is where you draw the line in the sand as to what constitutes, "Following the teachings of Christ." Why is this such a point of contention?

    It really seems to be a case of equivocation where we are talking about who IS a Christian (passive) as opposed to who is BEING a Christian (active). I think the lenient description is adequate for the passive, as we cannot truly know the entire sum of anyone's life to make a reasonable judgement. It is reasonable to err on the side of caution and assume anyone who proclaims Christianity IS a Christian. Apok's definition is proper for the active version, where we can know a certain action or series of actions to meet or not meet the criteria of BEING Christian.

    So, yes I believe the abortion clinic bombers are Christians under our lenient discription of who is called that, but not everything they do is a Christian act, where acts can easily be determined to follow the teachings of Christ or not. Why would this not be acceptable? That way when they are following Christ's teachings they are being Christians and when they are not following Christ's teachings they are not being Christains. Whether they are a Christian at any given moment depends upon what they are doing. But overall, they are Christians, because they are attempting to follow the teachings of Christ. Everybody wins, right?
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are they still Christian, ye or ne?

    Looking back, this was purely a semantics debate. Apok and RT were using different definitions that I was. Each definition has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantage to my definition is its easy to objectively determine. Go up to a person and ask them: "Are you a Christian?" Their answer is accepted as the answer to your question. The disadvantage is that it doesn't tell you what their specific beliefs and actions are. They may or may not believe all of Christian doctrine and they may or may not act upon it. However, while that acts as the advantage in Apok's and RT's definition, the disadvantage corresponds to advantage of mine. How do you determine if someone is a Christian? Are mormons Christians? Are Catholics Christians? Are Protestants Christian? Are Orthodox Christians really Christians? Can one do action X and still be a Christian? How many times? What are all the boundaries? The definition requires a subjective, yet detailed analysis. Thus, I believe that my definition is more commonly used by those compiling statistics.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  20. #20
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are they still Christian, ye or ne?

    The problem is of course, your argumentation here is not one of statistical survey, but rather of philosophical and religious. Thus, SK and my own definition is the proper for this universe of discourse.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; February 20th, 2006 at 09:26 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Religion
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: June 15th, 2012, 11:47 AM
  2. Halloween on the Sabbath.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 01:18 PM
  3. Founding Fathers: Christian Influenced? YES!
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: August 21st, 2004, 09:24 AM
  4. Proof that the Christian God Does Not Exist
    By Booger in forum Religion
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: July 20th, 2004, 12:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •