Your Suggestions Would Be Appreciated

[Drich]

Right on cue with the weasel-dicked excuse I predicted, set up by your narrow definition.

Because again the bible is the only thing we have been given to define Christianity. Which means the rules in it concerning what it is to be Christian are the only parameters we can use to define what it is to be Christian. it is how we can 'inspect fruit.'

Because the words 'kill in the name of Christianity' aren't specifically written in The Bible doesn't mean that killing hasn't happened in the name of Christ.

So? Anyone can do anything and proclaim he is doing it in the name of God. Again Mat 7 Jesus Himself warns us of the false prophets in mat 7: "you shall know them by their fruits" 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.  16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?  17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.  18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.  19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

If those who kill in the name of God do so with out scriptural precedent, they do so by their own want and will, not that of Christianity. Again their fruit has shown us who they really are and who they serve.

To think otherwise is idiotic.

What is truly idiotic as to assume that everyone who wears the name Christian is indeed working for God.

Whipping out a True Scotsman defense also doesn't change the fact that Christians have committed atrocities in Christ's name.

I thought I broke most of you from trying to march out the no true Scotsman defense..
If you want to be humiliated for not understand the no true Scotsman fallacy you can press the issue, but essentially the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' can only work if their aren't RULES to being a Scotsman. As in "No true Scotsman would put sugar in his porridge." Their are not rules on being a Scotsman concerning porridge.
How ever if I said not true Scotsman would ever be born to irish parents, live his who life and die irish then by definition if one were to do so he could not be considered a Scot.

Why? because the very definition of being a scot has been broken if the 'scotsman' were actually an irish citizen.
Like wise if someone (according to Christ in Mat 7) acts in a way not consistant with Christianity, he can not be considered Christian. Why? Because again their are core rules concerning who is and who iis not Christian.

To Kill/Murder is against a core value of Christianity. So if a 'spiritual leader' demand the whole sale slaughter of millions, then they are one of the 'false prophets' Jesus warned us of in mat 7.

Disagreeing with them doesn't make them any less Christian. The fact that there continues to be differences among adherents and that the religion itself was not a deterrent to ardent believers simply means that it is impractical and a failed moral system. Despicable.

Agreeing or disagreeing with someone has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they belong to one faith or another. It is adhearance to the rules that define one's allegances. In this case if their isn't scriptural precedence in any way shape or form then by their fruit we can judge those men as not acting in the will or on the behalf of God. Therefore to claim to have 'special revelation from God' only furthers supports what Jesus said about them being a false prophet. Which by the words of Christ in mat 7 means they are not Christian