Actually, the original followers of Jesus called themselves “The Way”. The term Christian wasn’t used until much later.
Dang this is a long thread, but I wanted to point out that all logic systems are based on some axiom which in and of itself can not be proved by logic. Thus nothing is “logical because it is pointed out for all to see” unless all these people agree on the axioms.
True enough, jmullaney. We are simply trying to point out that his axioms should not be contradictory, i.e. “all apples are green” and “A red apple exists.”
Scylla
I apologize for misreading your name twice.
Not disciples. Christ’s disciples. I cannot imagine a better definition of Christian than one who follows Christ. I gave you what He said of those who follow Him.
The term, like most others, can mean many things, perhaps. I simply consider Jesus’ own requirement as definitive.
Me too.
Gaudere
I see that it did post.
Xeno
I use ablative and genitive in their ordinary sense. I’m sorry I missed your question.
OK, just for arguments sake, what are his contradictions? We could split off a new thread. I ain’t seen a thread on a religious topic since I don’t know when!
Lib:
Awwrightee then!
Let’s apply a little logic.
Of all the people in the world, A There are a certain number of people who profess to follow Christ, B{A}. Convention, and generally accepted language practices calls B{A} “Christians.” Of the group B{A} a certain percentage actually follow Christ’s do unto others tenant, C [B{A}].
Rather than attempting to put words in the savior’s mouth, or creating confusion by terming these folks “Christians” as well, why don’t we just use GOD’s own word, and call these people Disciples?
This will avoid confusion as well as the risk of pissing our deity and other posters off. If you want to we can call them “True Faith Holders,” “God’s Team,” “The Chosen” or whatever you want however I think it best that we stick with Jesus’ own words whenever possible so as to avoid misinterpretations. 'Kay?
Now of A, there is also a subset D{A}, who follow Christ’s do unto others tenant without specifically crediting him with the idea.
They may be on the same road, but they are not on your particular bus. Do you understand? Maybe they are Jews, Budhists, Muslims, humanitarian agnostics, Heretical followers of Chthulu, or just plain people with good hearts.
In a passage of the Bible I don’t wish to look up, Jesus talks about other good people who are not within reach of his word. Basically he says “Don’t worry about it, they have their own deal.” Good advice, Huh?
Anyhow, assuming that you wish to be a member of C[B{A}] and follow Christ’s golden rule, let’s apply some further logic and see how things work:
How would you feel if I arbirtrarily decided that the Libertarian Objectivist Christian philosophy actually boiled down to Budhism, and decided to call you a Budhist from now on?
You would probably not like it?
You prefer to be dealt with and called the terms that you define yourself with, since to you they are carefully chosen and a part of your identity. Yes?
Applying Christ’s golden rule then, we must also be careful to apply to other people only the terms and labels that they have chosen for themselves, and not to inflict our labels.
It is simply rude.
If we are not doing so then we may be Christians, but we are not disciples of Christ because we are not following the golden rule.
Ergo, by inflicting the term “Christian” upon Gaudere against her obvious wishes you prove only that you are not one (accaording to your definition)
Dang, read the last few pages! They go pretty in-depth. Basically, he is saying that God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful. I argue that that is a contradiction since his defintion of merciful means God does not punish the guilty for their sins, and a perfectly just God would punish people fairly for their sins. So FoG argues that “just” means that God has to punish someone for sin, but it doesn’t have to be the guilty. I counter-argue that no one on earth thinks it is just, let alone perfectly just, to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. The he says it is logical, I just don’t understand it, and I argue that even God cannot do a logically contradictory thing (make a rock so big he can’t lift it).
There are some other arguments we haven’t even gotten into in the same depth, so they’re not as tidy: A perfectly loving God would not pay the price for your sins, and then refuse to let you in since you didn’t believe in Him. If God requires some sort of criteria, picking one that could allow Hitler in but send Ghandi to Hell does not seem the most “just” move. If a perfectly loving God does require you to believe in Him or else He’ll torture you for eternity, He would make it crystal clear what His requirements were, not rely on a 2,000 year old book and FoG’s gentle ministrations. Infinite torture for finite sin is not just. A perfectly loving and merciful God would not require blood sacrifice of the innocent to absolve sin. “Original sin” is not just.
Where have you been?! 
Scylla says:
But he calls me a Christian because he loves me. Ergo, he is a Christian. 
[/schmaltz] I honestly don’t really mind that he calls me a Christian. In Lib-speak that means “I think you’re a wonderful person.” Now, what sort of cad would I be to seriously object to that? I don’t take myself so seriously that I can’t let him call me a Christian; I just like to tease him about it. Now I’m kind of sorry I even mentioned it. 
Well hello folks. Glad I’m making such a splash on the boards here that you’ve all dedicated a hate-post to me! I feel so honored :). And no, I’m not going to read it. I’m not inclined to jump into a room and play punching bag. I DO have more than just a little self-respect :).
Gaudere, I finally followed ChristianStudent’s example and started letting the Bible speak for itself. Guess I should practice what I preach huh? I keep saying it’s all about what the Bible says and not what I say, but I haven’t quoted much scripture.
I looked in the Bible to see what it says about God’s love/mercy and justice.
Here are three of the love verses:
-
“God is love”, I John 4:8
-
“At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” Titus 3:3-7
-
“The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9
(Parenthetical thought that I just can’t resist: this is the merciless tyrant David keeps ranting and raving about :))
Here are two of the justice verses:
-
“. . . You have come to God, the judge of all men . . .” Hebrews 12:23b
-
“He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” Exodus 32:4
Now, are you ready for this Guadere? God put both of these concepts together, side by side, back to back, in at least one passage in the Bible, which I’m about to quote. While reading this passage, I truly believe God showed me the answer to your question about how He can be just and merciful all at once. Ready?
“The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished…” Exodus 34:6-7
There is is Guadere, side by side. God forgives wickedness. He doesn’t leave the guilty unpunished. Seems to contradict itself, doesn’t it?
God asked me a question after I read this verse (go ahead and laugh but I’m gonna tell it like it happened)! He put this question in my heart: “And who are the guilty?” Then I saw it. If I give my heart to Christ, He NO LONGER SEES ME AS GUILTY!
Let me explain more indepth. Up until the day I accepted Christ, God saw me as guilty, and in His justice He has to punish me.
The instant I accept Christ into my life, His blood cleanses me of my sin and He takes over my Spirit. Jesus is perfect and sinless, and that is what God sees when He looks at me now! He doesn’t see my sins and imperfections, He sees Jesus, who is innocent!
Therefore, yes, I’m afraid so Gaudere - God IS perfectly merciful and perfectly just. His justice doesn’t let any guilty people go … but His mercy allows Jesus’ innocence to override my guilt. In other words, BECAUSE of Jesus, when God looks at the world to determine who is guilty, all He sees are those who haven’t given their hearts to Him!
This is why the Bible calls me a “new creation” in Christ. He literally transforms who you are and makes you a brand new person!
I just realized this answers one of your other questions as well. You’ve constantly wondered WHY it was so important for Jesus to be “innocent” (ie “Why does the innocent have to suffer for the crimes of the guilty”). This point answers that as well. If Christ were not innocent, we would still be seen as guilty, and His sacrifice would have been pointless because it wouldn’t have fixed anything.
Now Guadere, you have a history of arguing against EVERY thing I might say, regardless. If you’re gonna again, go for it. But I ask you, APPEAL to you, to STOP before you dive in on picking apart what I said, and at least CONSIDER the possibility that this might make sense.
Okay, I’m going to respond to a few other posts in a bit, but I wanted to go ahead and get this one out there.
I steered clear of this thread when I first read the OP because I thought it would be dull. I knew what most camps would say on this issue just like I knew some fundie would spout off something that would (rightly) have Esprix jumping down his throat. (I did not expect to see David B. lose his cool, although I got the frustration.) But the thread just kept growing! I had to see what everyone was arguing over, so I read the whole durn thing.
I have come to the unmistakable conclusion that you rock Gaudere! Does your hairstyle hide pointy little Vulcan ears?
quote:
Actually (and speaking as a non-Christian) I would buy that particular scripture quote of Libs as a valid support for his definition of "Christian." Not that it need be the only definition, but Lib ain't coming completely out of left field in my opinion.Scylla asked Libertarian:
You’ve apparently merged with slythe. It’s a miracle of modern science!
[Moderator Hat: ON]
This thread has gotten too long and slow. I’m locking it up. You can find Part 2 of this thread, which I just started, here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=28843
Please continue there the discussions that have been going on here.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
A few quick comments regarding what the other posters said:
First, Esprix.
The more detailed reason I didn’t want to continue this discussion:
- It distracts totally from the main point I’m trying to make. I never intended it to be a point in this debate at all.
- You don’t appear to be interested in a pleasant, healthy debate. You appear only interested in venting your steam off at me. That’s apparent by the fact that you linked to my very special hate-post with such glee. I almost think you WANT me to say something that might offend you so you can get mad again.
If you want to convince me that #2 above isn’t true, I might be willing to discuss it. And as for “evading” the issue … I’m telling you outright I’m not commenting on it! I’d love to clarify some of the misconceptions you’re spreading about what I believe, believe me. It’s taking a LOT of “biting my tongue” to keep quiet. But I won’t get involved in a rude shouting match …
…which leads me to my next poster.
David B. I will respond to some of your comments, but I am going to ask again that you refrain from rudeness. If you choose not to, that’s your business, but I will not be responding to any more posts of yours that don’t use my actual user name, “FriendOfGod”. You don’t have to like it but that’s what it is. I don’t particularly like “Satan’s” username either, but that’s what I call him cuz that’s what he chose. I will not respond to any more posts of yours that blatantly curse God in the way you did.
I somehow don’t think this will cause you to lose sleep. If you aren’t interested in discussing these issues with me anymore, that’s fine. If you are, I ask that you call me FriendOfGod and that you don’t deliberately curse God just to “provoke” me. (Note: obviously I’m not saying I won’t listen to your honest feelings about God - if you truly think He’s a tyrant, I’d like to know more why you feel that way). If you can live with that, I’d love to continue our discussion.
“Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” Titus 3:10. 'Nuff said.
On to your specific points.
I asked you how believers could not be miserable if God were a dictator. You basically said He only shows His TRUE colors after we’re dead. You said “His evil wouldn’t be detectable in life”.
So are you saying God’s a nice guy while we’re on earth, then BAM He turns into evil personified? You are so focused on eternal punishment, that you are totally discounting the tremendous, overwhelming eternal REWARDS for those who DO choose to follow Him. And it’s not like God doesn’t give everyone a chance. David, you’ve made it clear that you don’t believe in God. Would you rather God FORCE you to believe in Him and FORCE you to do things His way, or would you rather Him leave it up to you?
I asked how you can be sure of what you believe and you said: “I can’t. That’s just it – I don’t make absolute claims like you do. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a new scientific theory will come along to explain things differently.”
So I think I’m finally getting an answer to the question, “What do you base your beliefs on”. It seems you base your beliefs on science, or at least partly. Am I correct? (Correct me if I’m wrong). But isn’t that a shaky foundation? Science, as you know has been proven wrong before. It could be proven wrong again.
You then said: “You admit that your belief is based on the Bible; we know you won’t accept anything that opposes that belief. That is why you are blinded by your belief. Since I don’t have such beliefs and since I use the objective standard of science and rationality, how, exactly, can I be blinded by a belief? I’d love to hear an explanation for this one, but I suspect it will be 180 degrees from reality, as your explanations usually are.”
Well, my belief in the Bible is based on my belief in God, which is based on the fact that I’ve had a life-changing walk with Him for nearly 30 years. It’s not just “blind faith” or “I’ll just believe because I just believe”. I say you are blinded by your belief, becuase you blindly accept science and what you consider rational to be the truth. The so-called “objective standard of science” can be incorrect. The so-called “objective standard of rationality”, in THIS day and age, can be incorrect. The two guys who shot up Columbine THOUGHT they were doing the rational thing, but they obviously weren’t.
Regarding poisonous snakes in the jungle, you responded: "If there’s no evidence they exist, then I wouldn’t worry about them. If there is evidence, such as scientists and others having found poisonous snakes in jungles, then I would worry. "
So you literally ONLY worry about something if there’s cold, hard evidence. That’s dangerous. Suppose a cold blooded ax murderer is hiding out in your basement, and there’s not a shred of evidence from law enforcement that he’s there. You might GET your evidence, but it might be too late - you might be the next victim!
Regarding image of God, you said: "My image of God? Nonexistent. I thought you’d have figured that out by now. "
Duh. I should’ve seen that one coming. Sorry, dumb question.
You later said: “If it interacted with reality, it would be testable.”
Again, YOU might be the test that proves it. And you might be the only person with that proof. Using the ax murderer illustration again … isn’t that extremely dangerous? Yeah it might be proven that the ax murderer lives in your basement … to you. What if no one ever catches him? No one will know he did it. Well, YOU will, but a lot of good that’ll do ya!
Later, you quoted me as saying that if YOU believe that people are being punished merely for failing to become mindless sheep, you’ve missed my point.
You responded: "I don’t “believe” it. It’s true. "
I thought you said earlier that “I don’t make absolute claims like you do”. You just did.
In response to my recitation of sins, you said "Some of the examples you used were thought crimes – things you might have thought but never acted upon. "
Exactly. One of the most misunderstood points of the Bible is that there is nothing seriously sinful about your thoughts. If you’ll read Matthew 5 - 7, the famous Sermon on the Mount, you’ll see that in reality, our thoughts are SERIOUS sins because they LEAD to action - sins.
A small sampling:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder’, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” (Matt 5:21-22)
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in her heart.’ (Matt 5:27-28)
Now do you see, ESPECIALLY after that last one, why I say that the weight of the guilt of our sin is overwhelming and can never be paid?!?
You said in the same paragraph: “And I notice you didn’t explain how any sane person can equate mass murder to thought crimes and failing to bow down.”
EASY to explain David. Thoughts lead to actions. There. There’s the explanation. Go into any prison and talk to the people there. You won’t find a single person who said, “Ya know, I just decided one day to blow my boyfriend’s head off” or some such statement. Everything started with a thought, that grew and grew until it turned into an action.
Truthfully, it is insane to NOT realize that evil thoughts are dangerous and serious things.
Regarding my rejection of your statement that God tortures people “Just for the hell of it”, you said "No, as before, I am merely holding up a mirror to your beliefs. You are the one who decided this, not me. "
And once again you’ve put words in my mouth David. I notice you conveniently ignored the scripture that I quoted that clearly contradicted what you said. I quoted it in response to your original statement, a few posts back. Here it is again:
“The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Pet 3:9)
So how does this jibe with, “God just throws people in hell for the hell of it?”
later you said: “I was waiting for this. You really are like so many of the other preacherboys we’ve had around here before. “You don’t like God? That must mean something happened to make you feel that way.” Well, I got news for ya: As usual, you’re wrong.”
Well, most people form their beliefs about God as they grow and experience things. They attribute certain events to God and it forms their opinion. I just figured you were no different than the rest of us.
Finally, you said:
“Yes, I did cross the line of civility. And I did it on purpose. Nothing else I was saying was getting through to you, so I thought maybe throwing in a few well-placed profanities might jar you a bit. Obviously, it didn’t work.”
How on earth was this supposed to work? You curse my Best Friend, and I’m supposed to start believing what you say? I don’t even get that.
Okay David, I truly would like to continue discussing this with you. As I said before, all I’m asking for is respect. If you don’t want to give it, that’s your choice and I’m sure you and I will find plenty of other people to debate.
avolongod:
You make a fair point (God I hate saying that.) I just can’t help but get frustrated at the special definitions and unstated axioms that serve no purpose but to obfuscate meaning.
That, and I’m still trying to figure out what “avoid
even the appearance of audiatur et altera pars,” means. I tried a translator and I came up with “avoid the appearance of listening to chicken parts.”
How this applies to Lib’s being " tu quoque," I can’t even begin to understand.
Then again, I’m a Key Westian.
DavidB:
:Writing this down:
You say it’s a miracle, huh? I’ll file that with your earlier claim of psychic abilities and save it for future use.
One of these days another poor Schlepp is gonna lose a creationist battle, start a pit thread about you and need some ammo. Then I can offer proof of your hypocrisy…
…for a price.
On the other hand, my silence can also be bought.
I’ll have to think this over as I continue to subsumate the Slythe personality.