Blurring the lines.

[Drich]

Catholic are Catholic first. Meaning their direction comes from the pope first and then from scripture.

So what? You take your directions from King James or whatever edition is all the rage right now in your specific circle.

Yet you obviously and arrogantly claim, that you're possessing the truth. Yeah, well, that's between you and your fellow christians to match out. Personally I don't care, if someone calls themselves christian, muslim, jew or following the gospel of Donald Duck.

They all claim to possess the truth and with very few exemptions, to have some special insight. They all can't be right, but they all can very well be wrong.

And that's why I don't give one shit about what anybody claims to be.

Ok then, I'm a God believing Atheist! Or does Atheism have rules that prevent me from both believing in God and calling myself an atheist?

[rexbeccarox]

You have got to be the most intellectually dishonest person I have ever come across in my life. I wish I could put you on ignore.

[Drich]

It just comes down to a giant "nuh uh" contest. Mormons claim to be Christian, Drich says "nu uh", several Protestant sects say Catholics aren't christians, catholic church says "nu uh", Drich claims to be a real Christian, <insert random sect here> says "nu uh".

There's no end to the circle, because there's no "true christian" test.

Yet, i'm willing to bet there is a test to be deemed an atheist. Other than what a person claims for themselves.

[FatAndFaithless]

So what? You take your directions from King James or whatever edition is all the rage right now in your specific circle.

Yet you obviously and arrogantly claim, that you're possessing the truth. Yeah, well, that's between you and your fellow christians to match out. Personally I don't care, if someone calls themselves christian, muslim, jew or following the gospel of Donald Duck.

They all claim to possess the truth and with very few exemptions, to have some special insight. They all can't be right, but they all can very well be wrong.

And that's why I don't give one shit about what anybody claims to be.

Ok then, I'm a God believing Atheist! Or does Atheism have rules that prevent me from both believing in God and calling myself an atheist?

Because there is literally one definition of atheist, not a code or set of beliefs or a canon. Saying you're a god-believing atheist is like saying you're a married bachelor, it's not a question of doctrinal differences or anything vague, it's literally a definition of one stance on one question for one person.

It's very easy to "test" someone to see if they're an atheist or not.

---

It just comes down to a giant "nuh uh" contest. Mormons claim to be Christian, Drich says "nu uh", several Protestant sects say Catholics aren't christians, catholic church says "nu uh", Drich claims to be a real Christian, <insert random sect here> says "nu uh".

There's no end to the circle, because there's no "true christian" test.

Yet, i'm willing to bet there is a test to be deemed an atheist. Other than what a person claims for themselves.

Yeah, it's a really easy test actually.

"Do you hold a belief in a god?"

"No"--> Atheist

Anything else --> non-atheist

[Drich]

You have got to be the most intellectually dishonest person I have ever come across in my life. I wish I could put you on ignore.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander is it not?

I don't see a difference here. You all claim their are no rules concerning how one identifies themselves in a matter of faith, even when the rules of said faith are not followed.

then how is it that their are now rules when I wish to adopt a monicer that puts me outside the rules of what you believe?

Seriously, who is the dishonest one now?

[FatAndFaithless]

You have got to be the most intellectually dishonest person I have ever come across in my life. I wish I could put you on ignore.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander is it not?

I don't see a difference here. You all claim their are no rules concerning how one identifies themselves in a matter of faith, even when the rules of said faith are not followed.

then how is it that their are now rules when I wish to adopt a monicer that puts me outside the rules of what you believe?

Seriously, who is the dishonest one now?

Nnno...because other self-identified Christian groups consider the "rules of their faith" to be different than the ones you keep asserting flatly over and over. Your rules are just different from theirs. And until you can somehow provide a way to show that your rules are the real rules for defining a Christian, I don't know where you got this arrogation of power to be the True Christian arbiter.

[Angrboda]

Oh great. Drich has appointed himself arbiter of who belongs in the He-Man Woman Haters Club.

While the definition of Christian includes you, Drich, it is not defined by you. Words are defined by usage, and in common usage both Mormons and Catholics are called Christians. Your attempt to dictate usage by fiat is noted and ignored. Mormons and Catholics are Christians whether you agree with it or not.

[FatAndFaithless]

Oh great. Drich has appointed himself arbiter of who belongs in the He-Man Woman Haters Club.

While the definition of Christian includes you, Drich, it is not defined by you. Words are defined by usage, and in common usage both Mormons and Catholics are called Christians. Your attempt to dictate usage by fiat is noted and ignored. Mormons and Catholics are Christians whether you agree with it or not.

Drich is the new Allfather-Pope-Priest-Pastor-Monk Arbiter of True Christians, I thought you got the memo~

[Drich]

Ok then, I'm a God believing Atheist! Or does Atheism have rules that prevent me from both believing in God and calling myself an atheist?

Because there is literally one definition of atheist, not a code or set of beliefs or a canon. Saying you're a god-believing atheist is like saying you're a married bachelor, it's not a question of doctrinal differences or anything vague, it's literally a definition of one stance on one question for one person.

It's very easy to "test" someone to see if they're an atheist or not.

---

Yet, i'm willing to bet there is a test to be deemed an atheist. Other than what a person claims for themselves.

Yeah, it's a really easy test actually.

"Do you hold a belief in a god?"

"No"--> Atheist

Anything else --> non-atheist

There is a very simple test to determine whether one is a Christian or not. 1st do the claim to be? 2nd do they follow the canonical teaching of Jesus Christ?

Those are the only two requirements Per the Apstole Paul, and his letter to the Galations.

Why are their requirements for atheism who has no rules, and no requirements for those who claim Christianity who does have rules?

[Jenny A]

Just an open ended question.

What's with blurring the lines between those who claim Christianity and those who actually practice it? We've had a couple of recent examples of you guys assuming everyone who claims to be christian happens to be Christian just on their proclaimation. Why is this? I have brought up that Christ himself says in Mat 7 that not everyone who claims to be a follower is indeed a follower. What's more he even went so far as to say even some of those who do great things in His name are followers of Christ. But only those who do the will of the Father.

This means that a Follower of Christ is one who follows the instructions given to us to follow. Not anyone who just calls out 'Lord, Lord.'

I hope none of you think that God is bound by your understanding of some death bed effort on your part to keep you out of Hell.

What do you mean blurring the lines? You sound as if this is something new.

I look at Christianity from a cultural and historical standpoint. Just looking at the Gospels and Paul's letters, it's clear to me that Christians couldn't agree on what it meant to be Christian from the get go, and none of them really followed what Jesus said in any of the Gospels (the Gospels are quite different and following all of them as opposed to one requires some theological decision making). Further, the Bible wasn't canonized for another 1000 plus years after Jesus' death and we have a number of unCanonized writings that suggest yet more controversy.

What Jesus actually taught, and what he was, if he was at all, is not historically provable. But I'm really sure that none of you is doing what he actually taught, or even anything close to it. Therefore, from the outside, I define Christians as anyone following what they think is Christ, or his teachings.

Catholics, Mormons, all brands of protestants, Orthodox Christians, and I'm sure some others I've missed, all fit that definition. I don't think Protestants (evangelical or otherwise), Catholics, Mormons, or Orthodox Christians have any better claim to the title of "true" Christian. Should you have a problem with that, take it up with the other claimants. Who are you to say deathbed converts aren't Christian?