"Good" & "Bad" Christians?

[Belacqua]

You keep just repeating that I'm not the arbiter of determining who is Christian and who isn't, but I never claimed to be.

Good! This is progress! I am glad that you are going to stop telling us who is a Real Christian and who isn't. 

 I've simply observed a separation from what once was to what is now. A change in methods of worship, beliefs and behaviors requires a change in the name of said believers. 

Nope, you said that the change was from Real Christians to not Real Christians. 

Christians are no longer Christian. 

Oh, you were doing so well.

Christians are Christians. They are different kinds of Christians. There has never been a single type of Christian, and you cannot tell us which kind is real and which isn't. 

We have gone from stoning adulterers and burning heretics and exiling pagans to now politely disagreeing with one another on the internet. 

Not so politely, it seems to me. But OK. 

As I pointed out yesterday, one of Jesus's most famous messages is that we shouldn't stone adulterers. So I'm not sure why you bring this up as an example of change. 

It's true things have changed. Why do you think that the old ways were Real Christianity and the new ways aren't? Maybe both ways are just different kinds. Unless you, again, feel you have the right to judge. 

Times have changed. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about this. 

It's not hard to grasp. I agreed with you on this yesterday. It's true. Everybody knows it. But what does this mean? Does it mean that the old ways are Real Christianity and the new ways aren't? Prove it. 

That you're going to sit there and try to say that the Christians of today are like the Christians of then is insane.

It would be insane if I had ever said anything like that. I have been clear that they aren't. Things have changed. Things have changed. 

Whatever the case may be, certainly Christians today are nothing like what they were then

Mr. Ego, I would like to assert that Christians today are different than they used to be. DIFFERENT. I think you agree.

So whatever your view of what a Christian is today, it's certainly vastly different from what it was then. End of story. Not sure how you could even argue otherwise.

I have not argued otherwise. I have said that Christians then were different from Christians today. DIFFERENT. 

How do you determine that they were Real then and not real now? Yes, they were different. Maybe they are more real now.. because the original message of Christ took some time to figure out. I don't know. How do you determine which is real? 

You want to paint this as impossible to define, and it isn't. 

No I don't. You made that up. 

Different kinds of Christian each defines it differently. There are a lot of definitions. But since I am not a Christian, and I certainly don't know the mind of God (since there is no God), I am unable to say which kind is Real. 

We can say they are different. They are DIFFERENT!!! Why do you say one kind is real?

You want the idea of "good" or "bad" Christians to be impossible to pin down and that's simply not the case.

No I don't. I think that I can pin down which are the good ones ACCORDING TO ME. Or I can pin it down if I apply the rules of a particular sect -- say, the Cathars. But I don't have the confidence, as you do, to say what Real Christianity is, and which groups meet that. 

considering most people couldn't tell you a single Bible verse from memory, let alone actually claim to be knowledgeable in its teachings, most people are bad Christians.

Excellent! Finally, the definition you're using to determine who is a good Christian. They have to know a single Bible verse from memory, and then they're a good Christian. I guess you can use that standard if you want. It's not the one that any Christian group I know of would use. But you're the boss.

You want so bad for this not to be true, and I'm really curious as to why.

I want so bad for what to be true? That what you're saying is not historically accurate? Granted, your claims have slipped around a little bit. First you were saying that the earliest Christians were the most literal, and that this declines in a linear fashion. Now you seem to have quietly dropped that claim -- for the best, since it isn't supportable. 

What I want is this: to make sentences that are historically accurate.

 You really do seem like you're a christian pretending to be an atheist on an atheist forum. 

The odd thing is that if I say, "It's important for us to make historically accurate sentences, because even if we hate Christians we should still speak truly," people assume I must be Christian. As if atheists don't care about what's true. 

But this is not true. Some atheists want to say accurate things, as much as is humanly possible. 

Until you have something worth reading, the conversation's over.

That's fine. You have made so many unsupported assertions that you must be tired.

---

Once upon a time there were only a few breeds of dogs. They were a lot like wolves, but they were dogs. There were only a few types.

Then people bred the dogs. More and more breeds. Big ones, small ones. But look! They are all Real Dogs. They are different, yet they are Real Dogs.

Unless someone wants to say that a Grand Basset Griffon Vandeen is not really a dog. That the only Real Dogs are the original, wolf-like dogs. Because that person feels qualified to determine what is a Real Dog and what isn't, even though he disagrees with all the dog experts. Such people may exist!