RE: Why hate Athiest?
March 7, 2013 at 1:25 am
(This post was last modified: March 7, 2013 at 1:26 am by jstrodel.)
[quote
I am just as much correct to judge violent actions as christian by the violent acts in that damn book as you are to do otherwise. In the end, it all comes down to the fact that you want to exclude any inconvenient members from your club and claim moral superiority, doesn't it?
[/quote]
No. It comes down to the fact that I meet people all the time who say that they are Christians, but when they talk, I sincerely doubt that they have the Holy Spirit. This might not be convient for anti-Christian social science research, but unfortunately, God did not see fit to order the world according the prejudices of anti-Christian social science research.
Probably the best way to judge who is a Christian is just to use different scales and maybe label the term Christian with some kind of qualifier, such as "considered himself to be Christian" or "devout Christian".
You are free to use a non-standard definition of the term Christian and use people as representatives of the faith that are very far from Christian doctrine, such as Hitler, who was involved in the occult. But if you are serious about understanding the world, you will recognize that it is fallacious to consider Christianity to be the same kind of civilization as Scotland. Christianity, from the time of the monastic rejection of the pagan Roman empire has always acknowledge the existence of large numbers of unsaved or barely saved people in the churches and has not formulated its authority based on the number of people saved or understood its identify through this, but through real conversions.
It is not a fallacy to distinguish between real converts and false converts, it is fallacy to not do so. Christianity is not like voting for a politician, people can create their own "fallacies" of reasoning that match their goals (of undermining Christianity), but if you want to understand Christianity, consider the Christians who actually follow Christ.
I am just as much correct to judge violent actions as christian by the violent acts in that damn book as you are to do otherwise. In the end, it all comes down to the fact that you want to exclude any inconvenient members from your club and claim moral superiority, doesn't it?
[/quote]
No. It comes down to the fact that I meet people all the time who say that they are Christians, but when they talk, I sincerely doubt that they have the Holy Spirit. This might not be convient for anti-Christian social science research, but unfortunately, God did not see fit to order the world according the prejudices of anti-Christian social science research.
Probably the best way to judge who is a Christian is just to use different scales and maybe label the term Christian with some kind of qualifier, such as "considered himself to be Christian" or "devout Christian".
You are free to use a non-standard definition of the term Christian and use people as representatives of the faith that are very far from Christian doctrine, such as Hitler, who was involved in the occult. But if you are serious about understanding the world, you will recognize that it is fallacious to consider Christianity to be the same kind of civilization as Scotland. Christianity, from the time of the monastic rejection of the pagan Roman empire has always acknowledge the existence of large numbers of unsaved or barely saved people in the churches and has not formulated its authority based on the number of people saved or understood its identify through this, but through real conversions.
It is not a fallacy to distinguish between real converts and false converts, it is fallacy to not do so. Christianity is not like voting for a politician, people can create their own "fallacies" of reasoning that match their goals (of undermining Christianity), but if you want to understand Christianity, consider the Christians who actually follow Christ.
