No such thing as a "true" Christian

[theVOID]

I think it comes down to "Labels" VI0D...

Humans are very good at trying to put things into little boxes.

The same argument can be had with the word atheist. Look up "Evil Bible" for definitions on Atheism. Very confusing.

Any way ...the argument of "Oh...THEY (I'm not really fusssed as to who THEY are) are not 'TRUE' [insert religion of choice here] is just another way of saying...I am not ready to look at a world that will NOT fit into my own private little paradigm ?

Well yeah, but without putting things into the boxes as best as we are able to our discourse would be extremely difficult, I like labels for the very reason that when they are coherently defined we are able to be much more efficient in discussing issues - There is always the problem that people can end up having a different use of terms that leads to problems, or that the labels can be hard to define, but that is nowhere near as much of a problem as having a discussion without labels where each and every relevant belief needs to be established in a case by case basis.

[KichigaiNeko]

I think it comes down to "Labels" VI0D...

Humans are very good at trying to put things into little boxes.

The same argument can be had with the word atheist. Look up "Evil Bible" for definitions on Atheism. Very confusing.

Any way ...the argument of "Oh...THEY (I'm not really fussed as to who THEY are) are not 'TRUE' [insert religion of choice here] is just another way of saying...I am not ready to look at a world that will NOT fit into my own private little paradigm ?

Well yeah, but without putting things into the boxes as best as we are able to our discourse would be extremely difficult, I like labels for the very reason that when they are coherently defined we are able to be much more efficient in discussing issues - There is always the problem that people can end up having a different use of terms that leads to problems, or that the labels can be hard to define, but that is nowhere near as much of a problem as having a discussion without labels where each and every relevant belief needs to be established in a case by case basis.

But it doesn't does it?? It's a bit like Quantum physics is the direction in my thinking. I have had some training with science to know that just when you "think" you have something pinned down it goes off and does something utterly in defiance of your nice little definition. VERY annoying I KNOW but there you have it. One can ONLY generalise....to a degree there will always be the exceptions to the 'rule'

I think it is a quaint little theory called Evolution...heard of it? It just might catch on. *sarcasm*

[Strongbad]

---

I'm of the opinion that the "no true Scotsman" is one of the most misused logical fallacies in the history of critical thought, people who use it can often fall into the trap of some form of "guilt by association" or deem that the person defining themselves as x has some authority over the definition of x.

It entirely depends on the rigidity of the definition, not what a person believes they are or labels themselves as, but on whether or not they meet the criteria established.

In you define "Christian" as a person who believes in Jesus then any person who believes is a Christian, I'm not so sure that it's a good enough definition, for instance; A satanist who believes in Jesus but worships Satan and does not take as an authoritative moral source any of the content of the New Testament. Suppose for the sake of argument that a "Christian" is a person who not only believes in Jesus as the son of god, but also believes him to be a moral authority who's moral teachings are expressed in the New Testament - That I feel is a better definition. So a person who believes in Jesus and believes the NT is a source of moral authority may be justifiably called a Christian.

This is where the "No true Scotsman" may be applicable (if the definition is sufficient), suppose a person is a Christian but acts in a way that is contrary to the instructions present in the NT, would one be justified in saying he is not a "True Christian"(TC)? No, not if the definition of Christian is as I presented above.

This is why it seems some Christians believe that to be "Christian" is to be "Christ like" a definition that encompasses the aforementioned definition and requires that one behaves at all times as Jesus would given the same circumstance, it is not simply a matter of belief but one of action. Given this definition of "Christian" you would very much be justified in calling someone who behaves in a way that is not prescribed in the NT as "Not a true Christian".

That however also raises problem, or more frankly, an absurdity. Suppose someone is a Christian in the sense of the second definition, does their committing an act or series of acts that are forbidden in the NT make them a "False Christian" (FC) for the period of time in which they committed these acts? It seems bizarre to me that you could be TC up until a point in time where you coveted another mans car where you would become a FC, and then once you stop coveting his car you are a TC again.

Perhaps you are a FC until such point in time as you repent for your sins. Well suppose a TC is a pedophile, he rapes little altar boys and is therefore a FC, then asks for forgiveness and becomes a TC again, then rapes another altar boy and once again becomes an FC and so on and so forth, this juggling of TC and FC is not only bizarre but makes it clear that the Christians who insist on such a definition as "Christ like" do so in such a way that absolutely wreaks of intellectual spinelessness.

So for now I stand that a TC is a person who "Believes that Jesus is the son of god and that the NT is a source of moral authority", though it would be interesting to see what some of our Christian members think of these terms.

---

[theVOID]

Totally agree

[Watson]

It means that Hitler(a catholic) got into heaven.

Hitler died believing what he did was right. Do you think he asked for forgiveness for the things he believed he did right? No, he didn't. Being Catholic doesn't grant him immediate redemption.

so this person lives a hypothetically perfect life and yet doesn't ask for redemption.

If this person is perfect then he or she doesn't have anything to ask for redemption for at all, he or she is... basically Jesus. lol

Yet Adolf, after all the actrocities he has committed, does ask for it.....

What then?

If he asked for it, then he got it.

[KichigaiNeko]

Yeah...funny about that mate. Who knows what Adolf's thoughts where before he died...

Which is the crux of the whole argument.

[fr0d0]

Correct me if I'm wrong Frods but as I understand it as long as you repent and ask for forgiveness you will get into heaven.

Yes or no?

Yep

...ah yeah - you don't think God is just. <--- STRAW MAN!

After reading the bible, no, I don't.

So I don't see how it's a strawman.

Because the only mainstream Christian interpretation of God is that he is just. THEREFORE your interpretation, which you are welcome to hold, is a straw man if used in opposition to the Christian view of God > from the Christian POV.

If we're going to talk theories OTHER than the Christian faith... then I would strongly disagree with your observation on very many grounds. I find it to be grossly untenable. But then we're not discussing NOT Christianity. We are questioning the Christian concept of forgiveness are we not?

Like I said, Cheeta, you made the assertion that divine powers exist. When you prove the existence of anything divine, I'll take your challenge.

Dodge #2 ?

Ah yes, spoken like a true christian - preach love, peace, understanding, forgiveness, etc. out of one side of your mouth and spew vitriol out of the other. After having this brief exchange with you, I can see why many members of this forum (especially the more intelligent ones) refuse to engage you seriously. I'll be joining their ranks.

Hillarious! If you're the intellectual elite of atheism there really is no hope!

I was agreeing with you.

Apologies

*Rests Axe*

@ VOID: There is no confusion over the accepted definition of mainstream Christian or members of the Universal Church, as has been widely posted on this forum. That is a belief in line with the Nicene creed. This includes Catholics, Protestants and every flavour in between, but not Mormons, JW's, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, etc..

@ Strongbad: You are hiding behind your illogicality. But please keep your eyes closed to reason if you intend to keep deceiving yourself.

---

Yeah...funny about that mate. Who knows what Adolf's thoughts where before he died...

Which is the crux of the whole argument.

If ultimate justice decides that Hitler is innocent are you saying that you know better? I really don't get that, unless you aren't talking about Christianity and conclude that God isn't just.

[Anomalocaris]

Because the only mainstream Christian interpretation of God is that he is just. THEREFORE your interpretation, which you are welcome to hold, is a straw man if used in opposition to the Christian view of God > from the Christian POV.

Fr0d0, fr0d0, fr0do. I would have thought "He exists", "He cares", "He is wise" and "He is effective" might each be required if "he is just" is to be anything more than just a fart.

[Strongbad]

@ Strongbad: You are hiding behind your illogicality. But please keep your eyes closed to reason if you intend to keep deceiving yourself.

I am not hiding behind anything, and self-deception is the specialty of christians. Uh oh! Are you going to grab your axe again!?

[reverendjeremiah]

So for now I stand that a TC is a person who "Believes that Jesus is the son of god and that the NT is a source of moral authority", though it would be interesting to see what some of our Christian members think of these terms.

I personally agree with you on this situation.

Jesus, on the other hand, left us a laundry list of proofs of wether someone is his follower in the New Testament. You see, Jesus will give you these powers if you really believe in him.

..every person on here that claims they are christian, but try to talk their way out of the list, to me, is hiding themselves from the truth. The truth is that they know deep down that they DO NOT have the powers to cast out devils, or heal people with a touch, or drink poisonus things and live. In fact they try to water them down. They try to question out of existence the obvious and simple context right in front of them. If it were any other verse, like this one:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Then oh, it so cut and dry and obvious. There is no questioning its context. Its black and white and we atheists are stupid for questioning it.

..lets completely forget that John 3:16 is dead WRONG when it comes to the entire context of the bible.

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

..flat out says that god has many sons. So that either makes God a LIAR in the bible, or it means falable humans were speaking for this god, making shit up, etc..

Godschild would say that I was twisting scripture, that Jesus was gods only begotten son, while the others were just his sons.



What did God do? Find a few hundred baby angels on his doorstep and adopt them as his sons? Where did they come from? I dont know...but god couldnt of created them because then they would have been "begotten sons".

Byt the way, love the genesis verse. Remember it. When Christians say it was "the sins of man" that caused the flood, be sure to tell them they are DEAD WRONG. It was the SONS of god who came down to rape human females, and the GRAND CHILDREN OF GOD who pissed god off. Gods sons were wicked, and gods grandchildren were wicked (are you suprised?)

So what did god do? He declared mortal men to be evil because of this (?????? fucking idiot tyrant god) and killed EVERYONE (including unborn babies that had NOTHING to do with gods disfunctional family) except 6 or so hebrews.

So that pretty much means everyone on Earth is a Hebrew.

How do you like that "Oh, by the way, there were giants in the Earth back then..but enough about that insignificant detail, lets get on with the angel/mortal fucking and the blood thirsty carnage afterwards!!!"

*Thumbs up if you like my rantings*