Blurring the lines.

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

---

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?

Because, you unbelievable dolt, there is a massive disagreement among Christians as to what constitutes your 2nd condition.

"The canonical teaching of Jesus Christ" is something that no two sects agree on (which is why they are two different sects in the first place), not to mention that some sects (Catholic Church, for example) don't place the literal scripture in the Bible as the paramount important deciding factor of Christianity. Shockingly, people in your own religion disagree with you, and until you can actually prove them wrong or why you have the magic true checklist, you can take a step down from your self-appointed high horse.

[Drich]

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.

Their not my rules they are found in the bible. Paul's letter to the Galatians is a whole book directed at this message.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV


7 There is no other message that is the Good News, but some people are confusing you. They want to change the Good News about Christ. 8 We told you the true Good News message. So anyone who tells you a different message should be condemned—even if it’s one of us or even an angel from heaven! 9 I said this before. Now I say it again: You have already accepted the Good News. Anyone who tells you another way to be saved should be condemned!

According to Joseph Smith His 'good news' about his new jesus came from an angel... It's almost like Paul had Joseph in mind when he wrote this.

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

Their not my rules they are found in the bible. Paul's letter to the Galatians is a whole book directed at this message.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV


7 There is no other message that is the Good News, but some people are confusing you. They want to change the Good News about Christ. 8 We told you the true Good News message. So anyone who tells you a different message should be condemned—even if it’s one of us or even an angel from heaven! 9 I said this before. Now I say it again: You have already accepted the Good News. Anyone who tells you another way to be saved should be condemned!

According to Joseph Smith His 'good news' about his new jesus came from an angel... It's almost like Paul had Joseph in mind when he wrote this.

And what about the people that think your interpretation of the Bible and the "rules of their faith" is just plain wrong?

[Angrboda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PZ6xtdfgc

[Ryantology]

Their is nothing to disown. It is by the words of their current day prophets that they themselves say they do not follow the Jesus of the Bible, but a Jesus of a different color.

Can you prove that they haven't received direct heavenly instruction telling them to behave the way they do? If you can't accept the faith-claims of others, why should you expect anybody to accept your own?

What is incorrect is the fact that you believe that these distnctions are mine, when in fact they come from the highest point of leadership in that church. It would be like the Apstole Paul making a modern day declration today. The presidents of that church have that power, so when one says they do not believe in the Jesus of the bible then their word superceeds all other written accounts.

Which of the 40,000 plus Christian churches has decided that your viewpoints on Christianity are absolutely correct, and why should I or the other 39,999 care?

According to mosaic law I am an unclean gentile and deserve hell anyway.

The whole point of this thread is to assert that simply saying you are Christian is insufficient to guarantee salvation. But, you don't uphold and teach these laws as you were instructed. You have not given all you have to the poor. All you do, when confronted with these requirements, is leaf through the Bible for loopholes that you think exempts you from them, that allow you to live your easy and comfortable life and still get all the rewards you think you're promised.

I doubt that your god would appreciate you thinking you can outsmart him.

It is because of selfish assumptions like these that no believer is qualified to accurately interpret their own religious texts. Only an objective non-believer can find truth in the Bible. Only we have no incentive to do otherwise, because we have nothing to gain.

[Nope]

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.

---

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?

Mormons believe that they are following Jesus too. If it bugs you so much join a Mormon forum and argue with them. Maybe a few will come over to your way of thinking. Mormon's interpretation of the bible is different from yours. They obviously believe that they are right and you are wrong.


I am not certain what you expect from a group of atheists. What you are doing would be like me coming to you and complaining that you were calling someone an atheist who believes in ghosts. Anyone who doesn't believe in a deity is an atheist, that's it. If someone states that they believe Jesus is the son of god, I am going to consider them a Christian and so will most other people.

Do we have any Mormons on this forum?

[Drich]

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.

No matter how perverse a belief is, it can not be ascribed to christianity just because one makes that claim.

I could not be Atheist simply because I adopt the title. Why? because I go against it's key rule. Like wise one can not be consider to be Christian if they inturn follow the rules.

If you wish to call a mormon a christian, then feel free to do so. just know your disregaurd for the rules, will inspire my own disregaurd for the rules.

Maybe i should change my belief status to 'God fearing atheist.' or Jesus loving shintoist, or Holy Spirit indwelt buddhist!

---

Their not my rules they are found in the bible. Paul's letter to the Galatians is a whole book directed at this message.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV


7 There is no other message that is the Good News, but some people are confusing you. They want to change the Good News about Christ. 8 We told you the true Good News message. So anyone who tells you a different message should be condemned—even if it’s one of us or even an angel from heaven! 9 I said this before. Now I say it again: You have already accepted the Good News. Anyone who tells you another way to be saved should be condemned!

According to Joseph Smith His 'good news' about his new jesus came from an angel... It's almost like Paul had Joseph in mind when he wrote this.

And what about the people that think your interpretation of the Bible and the "rules of their faith" is just plain wrong?

Then we can study the book of Galations in depth, and we can discuss why they think this way.

[Jenny A]

No matter how perverse a belief is, it can not be ascribed to christianity just because one makes that claim.

I could not be Atheist simply because I adopt the title. Why? because I go against it's key rule. Like wise one can not be consider to be Christian if they inturn follow the rules.

If you wish to call a mormon a christian, then feel free to do so. just know your disregaurd for the rules, will inspire my own disregaurd for the rules.

What other possible definition could you come up with for Christian than one who believes in and follows Christ? How could you possibly show that your definition of Christ and what he taught is the right one?

The definition of atheist is simple: one who does not believe in a god or gods. It isn't a doctrine, just a statement of fact about a person's lack of belief. We may not like irrational non-believers, or think those who believe in reincarnation, ghosts, or esp, are crazy, but they are still by definition atheists.

[Ryantology]

I could not be Atheist simply because I adopt the title. Why? because I go against it's key rule. Like wise one can not be consider to be Christian if they inturn follow the rules.

You're being characteristically dishonest yet again.

The only requirement to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your lord and savior, so I've been told repeatedly by many sources. Anybody who makes that claim and doesn't explicitly contradict themselves, is a Christian.

The added qualifier of "adhering to canon" is meaningless and arbitrary. You don't adhere to it yourself, and it is obviously very open to interpretation. Not to mention, humans decided what was canon and what was not, so I'm not particularly impressed by 'canon' anyway.

So, yes, to be an atheist, all you have to do is lack belief in a god. That is the description of atheism. There are no extra rules. And, there are atheists who are terrible human beings. I had a heated argument with one just the other day, when he suggested putting Muslims in concentration camps. He was a hateful asshole, but he's still an atheist.

[FatAndFaithless]

And what about the people that think your interpretation of the Bible and the "rules of their faith" is just plain wrong?

Then we can study the book of Galations in depth, and we can discuss why they think this way.

You don't think they've studied it in depth? And you can't do that for every member of every sect that disagrees with your "requirements" to be a Christian.

The point of that question is, if someone disagrees with your requirements for being a christian, you obviously think that they are just wrong. They obviously think that you are just wrong. Until you can prove that even their framework for constructing "requirements" to be a Christian is flawed, then you have no more solid ground upon which to stand than they do. And if Christianity can't even agree within itself as to what defines a Christian, then it sure as shit isn't up to us atheists to decide. If someone claims to be a Christian, we have absolutely no way of "proving" that they aren't, and the label isn't even the point in the first place, it's the specific beliefs (which we discuss anyway).