Yes, there is an objective standard. Christian means “Christ-like”. If you aren’t acting like Christ, then you aren’t really a Christian. It’s not complicated. And it’s not disuseful. It helps separate the philosophy from people who use it to get what they want.
The amount of people excluded is irrelevant at best. At worst, it’s an attempt to justify a counter position based not on a disagreement with the philosophy, but bringing up a wide ad hominem against its proponents. “These people called themselves Christians. Look what they did!” rather than “These people called themselves Christians. Do their actions show they really embraced the philosophy.”
Why can’t I? Who made you the arbiter of words? I hate it when people a semantic argument and try to make it like it’s some sort of trump card. My definition of Christianity does not include these people for the simple reason that, the only written text which we all have in common condemns their actions.
Then you have a beef with them, not the philosophy. You want to call them Christians, fine. The problem is when you equate them with modern Christianity. Surely you know that modern Christians are as against them as you are.
I’m sure you’ve been wrong before, too (as loathe as you are to admit it) And I’m sure you’ve taught people stuff that was wrong. Are you completely unable to understand why you taught them that?
My point is that your (plural) intolerance is no better or worse than theirs. Equating modern intolerance to the violence of the past does no one any good.
The point of my previous post was just to decry how hypocritical it is for us to want to silence people who are doing the same thing we are–trying to fight (what they perceive as) ignorance by sharing (what they perceive as) the truth. And to expose the chip on certain posters’ shoulders.
Support for slavery, mass murder of unbelievers, a state church are a few examples.
Holding women as inferior, gays as evil. Holding nonexistent souls to be important at all. Regarding God as something to be followed rather than as an enemy ( assuming he existed ). Holding dogma up as more important than truth, and faith as more important than suffering. The hatred of all forms of happiness that don’t come from the infliction of misery on others.
Just a few; Christianity is pretty close to pure evil as far as I’m concerned.
But it’s a standard that essentially no one follows ( or should ); and one based on selective reading of the Bible naturally. A definition of “Christian” that basically defines them out of existence is hardly useful.
YOU are the one claiming to be the arbiter of words. YOU are the one insisting that your definition trumps all others.
No; modern Christians are just less powerful. Less able to get away with what they’d prefer to do if they could.
My “intolerance” is based on reality, not fairy tales. And your statement demonstrates the double standard involved; MY “intolerance” consists of arguing with people; not of trying to pass my beliefs into law. To the believers, merely disapproving of their beliefs qualifies as "intolerance; only praise is supposed to be allowed. They of course don’t hesitate to sneer at unbelievers, or to push for laws ramming their dogma down everyone else’s throats.
:rolleyes: Ah, yes. Daring to express disapproval for Christianity is “silencing” them. The believers just love their persecution fantasies.
Well, I wouldn’t call it understanding because we’re always arguing about it. But, you’re right that I misspoke. I was merely referring to the group that seems to think that Christianity is just a pox on humanity, with no redeeming qualities.
Point taken. The usual position is that Christ, being God, is the only one allowed to make such proclamations. “‘Vengeance is mine,’ says the Lord. ‘I will repay.’” This does not change my point that he specifically told us not to do it.
Mathew 5:21-22
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
[quote]
Acts 13
8But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 9Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. 10And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? 11And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
Is this the same Jesus we’re talking about here? Because the one in the Bible sure had no problem wishing harm upon others. Nor did he have a problem granting magic powers to his followers to allow them to actually work the wished for harm upon others.
[quote]
You seem to have anticipated the conventional argument for why Jesus was allowed to condemn them. This is a hard one, as it is the only example of someone using the Holy Spirit’s power for destructive purposes. But it actually ties in quite nicely with my own understanding. The scripture makes sure to point out that Paul was “full of the Holy Spirit.” In other words, it was not Paul speaking, but God himself. And, as I pointed out earlier, God is the only one allowed to say such things.
Note that this was definitely an unusual situation, in that the pronounced judgment actually had to be demonstrated to show God’s power. So those who attempt this sort of thing today, and their curses do not demonstrate that they come straight from God, are attempting to God themselves, and are thus condemned. Myself, I merely doubt their Christianity.
Man, I was getting worried that no one would try the “true Scotsman Fallacy” on me. For it to be true, I’d have to have previously defined Christians differently. While I recognize the use of calling someone a Christian for sociological reasons, I have always believed that one’s actions speak louder than words. Shouting “I’m a Christian” while molesting little boys doesn’t make it so, as Jesus said you aren’t to harm children.
In fact, the wiki article actually points out this very exception.
[
Thanks for exposing your bias to the world. As I pointed out, that was the point of my arguments. I love that a “false religion” has so much power over you.
I almost should quit now. I don’t usually even comment in GD because I honestly think that impassioned debate accomplishes nothing. At least, nothing that couldn’t be accomplished by rational, unemotional conversations between open minded individuals. Something as foreign to GD as Christianity is to you.
I follow it. And you didn’t argue why my reasons for defining it thus are useless. You seem to lack the ability to separate the philosophy from actions, due to your definition.
It would be if it were my definition alone. The Bible itself defines Christians as followers of Christ. (Acts 11:26 defines the word as the same as Jesus’ disciple. ) If they claim to follow the Bible, claim to be Christians, but do things that the Bible says is wrong, they are logically inconsistent and their argument fails. Ergo, they are not Christians. How is this being selective?
It still remains just a semantic argument. I argue that using Christianity as the actions of Christians and not the beliefs they claim to have is less useful when debating why they practice a certain belief
Since you’ve already worked out that I am Christian, it’s hard for me to see that you didn’t just say that I would murder people as you say. As I know that I wouldn’t, your argument falls flat on its face. When you use a term as being all-encompassing, all it takes is one detractor to make the statement untrue. More proof of the uselessness of your definition.
I call it intolerance because I didn’t want to use more inflammatory words. What do we usually call judging an entire group of people based even on a majority of them? I mean, my experience is that most “evangelical atheists” (read those that try to actively discredit theist beliefs) are hateful individuals that I am glad I am not. But I wouldn’t dare assume that that means all of them are.
AS for the rest of that paragraph, I grant that it is true. I honestly hate that. I would have said nothing if this wasn’t GD, where defending one’s religion is allowed. I disagree that you merely disapprove, though. Not all Christians, even using your definition, do the things you say they do. That seems to be the big disconnect with you.
I interpreted the posts in this and other anti-Creationist threads as saying you want to get rid of these people. That would definitely be silencing them, unless you meant something worse. If I misinterpreted, I’m sorry, but the hateful attitude some express in their posts on these matters doesn’t help people think the best of their intentions.
How’s that for GD talk? Man, this place is starting to rub off on me. Maybe some of you actually enjoy this sort of arguing, but, for me, it just makes me feel worse after a bit. So, goodbye. I’m sure our illogically camouflaged redshirt will make some sort of anti-Christian response. I hope I can count on other GDers to point out its flaws.
It’s “selective” because it’s so narrow that it renders the word useless. And because it arrogantly asserts that the millions of people who call themselves Christians aren’t; what ARE they then? And it conveniently means that the evils committed in Christianity’s name can’t be laid at its feet.
You are just indulging in more demands for religious privilege. When a group of people acts in a certain way, there’s nothing wrong in judging the group according to that; but somehow doing that becomes taboo when the group is a religious one. If I bought your argument then I couldn’t condemn Nazis or Communists because of what they did as a movement.
Why should I care? Does Oskar Schindler redeem the Nazi Party? What matters is what Christians as a whole do.
Sounds like psychological projection to me; you assume that I would do what the believers would do, if they could get away with it. What they HAVE done, historically, and continue to push for.
Oh fer frigs sake… Der Trihs…can’t you weave a little tenderness into the whole proposition?
Whether it is Christians, or Muslims, or Communists, or Republicans or Democrats or Socialists or Philosophers or Doctors or Scientists…or Countries or Continents …can’t you dig yourself into something more intellectual?
Like “The Selfish Gene” and “Human Nature”??
Simple. Really.
Let’s “dig into” that.
YOU know, of course, that every ‘hanger-on’ of every belief system is nothing more than a ‘Rube’.
Let’s hear YOUR plan.
Get rid of “Religion.”
There!!
You and every other of the “Brights”, “Enlightened” persons have the answer to the woes and difficulties of human interactions.
No. Some “belief systems” are more accurate, more rational than others. They are not all equal.
No, and I’ve never said that. Getting rid of religion would eliminate ONE source of the world’s problems; one of the worst. But not the only one. And being atheist doesn’t make me “Bright” or “Enlightened”; not being religious simply means I’m not that particular variety of fool. Morally & intellectually atheism isn’t good; it is simply the lack of a negative.
There isn’t anything worthy of respect about religion. No matter how many times people like you try to insist that it deserves to be treated with respect, there is simply nothing there better than self indulgent fantasy - and it goes downhill from there. It’s not deep, or profound, or true, or moral, or benevolent; it’s just ignorant, destructive nonsense.
If some misguided Atheist were to being shooting Christians should we condemn all Atheists? Or should we see them as the lunatic fringe? (And not representative of the bulk of Atheists).
You seem to see the reasonable believer as the exception, while I see the fundamentalist as the lunatic fringe. (I guess it’s possible that our societies are different enough that we are both right in context… in which case you have my sympathy).
Der Trihs, I have read many of your posts over the years, and if you don’t mind, can you briefly summarize your ideal solution for humanity? You obviously would like to see some (all) religious structures dismantled, how can that be done?
My own belief is that God is above all structures (religious, educational, political, scientific, etc.) that man created, so trust God, not man, and He will bring His children home, he is the only one who can anyway. Our job is to let God use us, live through us, to bring the love of Christ to the world, to be salt and light for the souls.
False comparison; atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism is the absence of a belief; it can’t impel you do do anything. Atheism doesn’t even say that it’s good to be atheist or bad to be Christian. Christianity of the other hand IS a belief system, and it makes plenty of demands and makes plenty of judgements.
Being a believer IS unreasonable. And regardless of the numbers; the extremists, the fundamentalists are and always have been the ones who are the dominant force. Religion is for them; it is theirs to shape and use. Because once you move away from that level of fanaticism, the sheer insanity of religion will force you to abandon or marginalize it; religion requires craziness to survive as a significant force.
My ideal solution would be for humanity to technologically alter itself into something better; humans are fundamentally flawed. Humanity IMHO is primarily valuable as being a species that can potentially pull that off.
In the meantime; just continue moving towards rationality, better technology and social justice.
By people simply no longer believing in them, naturally.
I don’t believe in God; and if I did I’d want to kill the thing, not worship it. I have no interest in being “used” by your supernatural megalomaniac.
Agreed, and I’d never argue otherwise. It is however an identifiable or self-identified group of individuals who believe different things while using the same label. (“What do we mean by atheist?” is a complex and ongoing argument). In any case the comparison I was drawing (perhaps poorly) was about your statement regarding what “Christians as a whole” do, which risks tarring everyone who self-identifies with a group with the same brush.
From discussions here on the Dope I have yet to see (and doubt I will see) a clear and definitive definition of “Christian”; heck they (collectively) don’t agree on anything… with the possible exception of agreeing that Christ existed (and then disagreeing whether he was divine or divinely inspired, or just this guy y’know).
Yep, and like everything else about their religion the self-identified followers cannot agree on what those demands are, how important they are, or how they should be met.
OK, that is an interesting argument; the more reasonable and rational people will necessarily move away from religion, leaving the crazies. I don’t know the situation in the States, but yes… here religious adherence / church attendance has declined significantly in recent years in all mainstream denominations, but increased among the evangelicals.
(I won’t take that “your” personally – he/she/it sure ain’t mine).
Years ago Heavy Metal magazine ran a series by Angus McKie called So Beautiful, So Dangerous. One of the characters in that story (an otherwise rather reserved chap) made the memorable pronouncement regarding the nature of god:
You’re going to have to demonstrate some non-arbitrary substance to religion before such an accusation means anything. One could be called a “rube” about Pokemon, if one knows nothing about the elaborate fictional (and ultimately meaningless) world it describes, but it’s hardly an accusation worth getting ruffled about.
