A Book?

[Kyuuketsuki]

(4th May 2009 23:17)fr0d0 Wrote:  Well you could say the same about Christians, except that Christians accept a few things. Even then secular definition doesn't even allow those common attributes that Christians themselves claim. And some say there is no unity in Christianity.

I think it is hard to argue there is uniformity in Christianity when you claim Catholics are wrong, other Christian cults will claim you are wrong (including those dopey sodding Catholics) .... I think, like Tiberius I believe said, that if someone claims to (and indeed appears to) follow the teaching of Jesus Christ then they can be called Christian regardless of they do it imperfectly or if they add little bits of this that and other things.

(4th May 2009 23:17)fr0d0 Wrote:  Like Tiberius has said recently, atheism isn't the group name. Much the same as theism. Maybe one day there will be followers of prominent atheist thinkers known collectively.

[SHRUG]I'm sure there are some who do already ... what does it matter? Typically though I would say rational atheists don't do this but no one claimed that being an atheist automatically means you can't be a divvy.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

(5th May 2009 10:46)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  I think it is hard to argue there is uniformity in Christianity when you claim Catholics are wrong, other Christian cults will claim you are wrong (including those dopey sodding Catholics) .... I think, like Tiberius I believe said, that if someone claims to (and indeed appears to) follow the teaching of Jesus Christ then they can be called Christian regardless of they do it imperfectly or if they add little bits of this that and other things.

No, I said Catholics do a lot of anti Christian stuff and aren't necessarily 'Christian' as understood in it's most basic form.. that is: believing in Jesus and changing your life to suit. I also said that Catholics are considered part of the Christian church. Tiberius doesn't seem to know what a Christian is. There are very many people that follow Jesus thataren't also Christian. It really doesn't matter at all, but you really should get your facts straight if your gonna make such a statement of fact.

Adding bits here and there is perfectly acceptable in mainstream Christianity, as long as you agree with the Nicene Creed.

[chatpilot]

Frodo that is your personal interpretation of what a christian is but according to Encarta.com it is what I once said in another thread. 1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody whose religion is Christianity.

As I have stated before a christian is a follower and believer in Christ and his teachings.It's true that not many religious groups that fall under that title follow the teachings of Christ to the letter and all of them add or take away things from the N.T.It's all a matter of interpretation which if I recall you said in another thread was okay and expected.

When I was a pentecosal evangelist I would have agreed with you about Catholicism and many other christian isms,but like it or not catholics are christians based on the definition and common usage of the word.

[fr0d0]

I don't think you're disagreeing with me chatpilot.

Mostly secular definitions don't cut it.
I said it (interpretation) 's acceptable within limits.
I said that the Catholic church is part of the Christian church (above).

[chatpilot]

"No, I said Catholics do a lot of anti Christian stuff and aren't necessarily 'Christian' as understood in it's most basic form..
I also said that Catholics are considered part of the Christian church".

The above quotes are yours Frodo and it looks like a pretty blatant contradiction on your behalf.They are not christians in the sense that their idea of christianity does not suit your fundamental interpretation of scripture.It's true that they are idolators,and created the marian cult,purgatory,the cannonization and worship of saints,the pope,and a slew of other crap that is not in the bible but in the end they are as you stated not just "part of the christian church" but christians and a christian church.

[Tiberius]

fr0d0 you are the the worst abuser of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy I have ever met. How many times must we explain to you that the definition of a Christian isn't decided by you, it is decided by a mixture of original definitions and majority opinion.

You don't get to decide what Christianity is; you only get to decide what your type of Christianity is. Catholics aren't Christians by your tight definitions, that is fine with me. However, to go further and say that because they aren't Christians by your definition therefore they are definitively not Christians, is a fallacious statement.

[fr0d0]

@ chatpilot: That the Catholic Church is accepted as a Christian church has no bearing on it's members. If a 'member' fulfills the requirements then they are Christian. If not, they aren't. Simples.

@ Tiberius: It isn't my definition. The NTS fallacy applies to someone that defines something and then abuses the definition to widen it. This doesn't apply.

[chatpilot]

Frodo the members are following the teachings of their churches belief system.Their requirements are quite different from yours.

[Demonaura]

I recently heard a joke that I think is somewhat relevant. Goes like this:

A young pastor past in his sleep and found himself at the pearly gates. After being welcomed by Jesus he was given a tour. "Here are the catholics in this area of heaven, and over here the methodists." Jesus said. "But, we must be very quiet as we walk to the next area." The pastor asked "Why must we be quiet only in this area?" And Jesus replied "This is where the baptists stay, they think they're the only ones here."


Basically christians disagree on lots of things, I'd go as far as to say that no two of them actually worship the same god. However there are a number of dogmas and traits you can safely assume of every christian you meet such as use of the bible.

[chatpilot]

Well said Demonaura and by the way thanks for the joke as well.