Ten signs someone is a fundamentalist christian

Winters

Taken from here. It gave me a good giggle reading through

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Dades

I was wondering if this was going to contravene the charter (ridiculing of a faith) but to be fair it is simply a list of perfectly valid observations.

Did God really order the elimination of certain trees?!

robindch

Well, at one point, Jesus had a hissy fit at a figless fig tree -- I suppose that's it? BTW, that was just before telling everybody that if you believed enough stuff, you could tell a mountain go jump into the sea. Bizarre.

Winters

The Atheist wrote:

I was wondering if this was going to contravene the charter (ridiculing of a faith) but to be fair it is simply a list of perfectly valid observations.!

Yea, I wondered how close I was to it


Tbh, a lot of them; like numbers 10, 2 and 1, can apply to most religions.

PDN

I'm disappointed. There I was thinking I'm a fundamentalist and yet none of the 10 signs are true of me.

BTW, I don't think there's much danger of falling foul of the charter. It's a bit like the law that says a driver on a provisional license must be accompanied by a qualified driver.

Dades

PDN wrote:

BTW, I don't think there's much danger of falling foul of the charter. It's a bit like the law that says a driver on a provisional license must be accompanied by a qualified driver.

I take it you think it's not enforced? Perhaps things are let go sometimes for the better of free speech I hope.

Of course if you ever think someone has crossed the line you can PM me or Asiaprod.

philologos

I don't fall into any of those categories either

Fallen Seraph

Well then you couldn't possibly be a fundamentalist christian then; because as a scientific atheist I know that this scientifically compiled list cannot be be wrong and I know that science can describe every aspect of human existance

unkel

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering

My cousin seemed to honestly believe that. Even when I pointed out that his particular religious group was a very small minority within mankind. I was 9 years old at the time we had this discussion and I've been an atheist ever since

stevejazzx

list wrote:

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

Seems pretty extreme when phrased like this but it's true. Reminds me how the world feels now about fundamnetalist muslims yet here we are now, a race of christians dogmatically preserving our own (false?)history of fundamentalism. How perverted is that?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I'm disappointed. There I was thinking I'm a fundamentalist and yet none of the 10 signs are true of me.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't fall into any of those categories either

I think you both fall into at least one or two

4 for example

subway

Winters wrote:

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God

better succes rate than i would have expected,
i guess there must be something to this praying lark after all...

stevejazzx

subway wrote:

better succes rate than i would have expected,
i guess there must be something to this praying lark after all...

Yes, it's called statistical probability

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I think you both fall into at least one or two

4 for example

Afraid not, I wouldn't dream of arguing that 'rival sects' that share my beliefs are going to hell. As usual, when atheists want to attack Christians they can't help over-egging the pudding.

Zillah

Please do not make statements as to what "atheists" do or will do. The only statement that fairly applies to atheists as a group is "Those who have no belief in God". I assure you, I'm perfectly capable of attacking Christians without resorting to exaggeration or strawmen.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Afraid not, I wouldn't dream of arguing that 'rival sects' that share my beliefs are going to hell.

But the rest of us are, right?

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

But the rest of us are, right?

At last we agree on something!

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Please do not make statements as to what "atheists" do or will do. The only statement that fairly applies to atheists as a group is "Those who have no belief in God". I assure you, I'm perfectly capable of attacking Christians without resorting to exaggeration or strawmen.

How refreshing it is, in this PC obsessed age, to find someone who still boasts about his ability to attack those with whom he disagrees.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote:

How refreshing it is, in this PC obsessed age, to find someone who still boasts about his ability to attack those with whom he disagrees.

PDN, I have to say well done. Theres not many who hold their own here. Your making a good job of it and putting acrosss a decent view of christianity aswell. I am of course an ardent atheist but I am also genuinely pleased to see a christian fighting his/her corner for once instead of dismising the whole thing and returning ot the christianity forum, bruised, battered and bewilered. Keep up the good fighting and the bewithching aphorisms.....

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

At last we agree on something!

Maybe I'll see you there then

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Afraid not, I wouldn't dream of arguing that 'rival sects' that share my beliefs are going to hell. As usual, when atheists want to attack Christians they can't help over-egging the pudding.

Er...

I've had long conversations with you about some "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" aren't really "Christians" Are you saying that these people who aren't really "Christians" in your opinion, despite their claims to the contrary, are actually saved and going to heaven? I doubt it.

I also seem to remember you saying that to you a real Christian is someone who has been born again, touched by Jesus. Without that experience one is not really a "Christian" That would exclude most Christians I know.

Do they not end up in hell?

The point of number 4 in the list is that a fundamentalists will often hold quite well defined ideas of who is saved and more importantly who is going to hell, and this will extend down to not just the religion itself as a group, but to those in the religion.

I know you hold these views because you say you do.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Maybe I'll see you there then

Ah, yes, anything is possible, of course.

I wonder who would be the more surprised? You, to discover that a God who doesn't exist has sent you to a hell that doesn't exist, or me, to find that my Get Out of Jail Free card didn't work after all?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Er, I've had long conversations with you about some "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" aren't really "Christians" ... are you saying that these people who aren't really "Christians" despite claims to the contrary are actually saved and going to heaven? I also seem to remember you saying that to you a real Christian is someone who has been born again, touched by Jesus. That would exclude most Christians I know. Do they not end up in hell?

Looks like we're back to exegesis again, doesn't it? Let's exegete a couple of statements.

Can I remind you of what #4 actually said?:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

This, then, is what I said:

I wouldn't dream of arguing that 'rival sects' that share my beliefs are going to hell.

If someone doesn't share my belief that "a real Christian is someone who has been born again, touched by Jesus" then they are not covered by #4 or by my statement, are they? Since I understand that approximately 1 billion of the world's population claim to share my beliefs and to be 'born again', and since my particular 'sect' has only 7 million members, this then leaves about 993 million people who belong to 'rival sects' but share my beliefs and so are, IMHO opinion, on their way to heaven.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

I wonder who would be the more surprised? You, to discover that a God who doesn't exist has sent you to a hell that doesn't exist, or me, to find that my Get Out of Jail Free card didn't work after all?

Indeed. But sadly one of the most annoying things about the non-existence of an afterlife is that I won' t get the chance to say I told you so

Dades

Zillah wrote:

Please do not make statements as to what "atheists" do or will do. The only statement that fairly applies to atheists as a group is "Those who have no belief in God".

I suspect PDN was not trying to redefine the term in toto. I'd imagine his point was directed toward the atheists he has argued with here, or perhaps elsewhere.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Since I understand that approximately 1 billion of the world's population claim to share my beliefs and to be 'born again'

The majority of Christians do not claim to be "born again" in the sense that you mean it here, the evangelical sense

For example Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox associate being "born again" with baptisim, which most often happens when a person is a new born baby.

In these cases a personal choice to love Jesus, or any form of conversion experience, has nothing to do with it since the person is a child, but they are still born again in th eyes of God and still "saved". They might never communicated with God again, and in some cases any such claims to communicate with God would be considered strange and even heresy by the rest of the religion.

Judging by previous posts you have objections to this as meaning someone has been born again or meaning they have accepted Jesus and are saved.

You also seem to be stating that the 1 billion Christians who say they are Christians actually are Christian, which again I've had discussions with you where you expressed the opposite view, that while someone can claim to be a Christian that doesn't make them one in your mind, they must be a Christian as defined by above. Simply claiming to be a Christian is irrelevant.

Zombrex

Re-read my post, and it comes across as rather argumentative. I mean it more in a puzzled way () than an argumentative way.

I'm not saying you are wrong PDN (there is after all no right or wrong), I just don't really understand where you are coming from. Some times you seem quite happy to say that most Christians aren't real Christians (normal when an atheists is saying "Look at what Christianity has done!"), and others you thing of the religion as a whole unified (saved) entity.

As my great uncle Huggy Bear would say, whats the deal'e'o?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

The majority of Christians do not claim to be "born again" in the sense that you mean it here, the evangelical sense

For example Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox associate being "born again" with baptisim, which most often happens when a person is a new born baby.

In these cases a personal choice to love Jesus, or any form of conversion experience, has nothing to do with it since the person is a child, but they are still born again in th eyes of God and still "saved". They might never communicated with God again, and in some cases any such claims to communicate with God would be considered strange and even heresy by the rest of the religion.

Judging by previous posts you have objections to this as meaning someone has been born again or meaning they have accepted Jesus and are saved.

You also seem to be stating that the 1 billion Christians who say they are Christians actually are Christian, which again I've had discussions with you where you expressed the opposite view, that while someone can claim to be a Christian that doesn't make them one in your mind, they must be a Christian as defined by above. Simply claiming to be a Christian is irrelevant.

OK, I don't see what there is to be confused about, so let's go over it again.

If you count your wider definition of 'Christian' (those people who happen to be born into a family that has a church affiliation) then the figure would be well in excess of 2.2 billion. However, as you have stated, I would not see many of these as being really Christians since their affiliation is more cultural than anything to do with faith.

Worldwide there are about 600 million Pentecostal/Charismatic believers who claim a born-again experience, speak in tongues and believe in miracles. (These actually include millions of Catholics who belong to the Catholic Charismatic renewal movement). Obviously I would count them among those who share my core beliefs, even though we would disagree over a lot of minor points of doctrine and practice.

Then you have anywhere from 300-400 million believers who are non-Pentecostal evangelicals. These would include Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, most Anglicans outside of Europe & North America, many Catholics who sincerely have a personal relationship with Christ etc. Again, all these people would claim to be born again and to have a personal experience of Jesus Christ.

(My statistics may be out by a few tens of millions on one side or the other as precision is difficult, particularly when dealing with cases like China where most Christians are unregistered).

So, the following facts are all true and non-contradictory:
1. The majority of the world's 2.2 nominal Christians do not claim to be born again.

2. PDN does not believe that simply being a nominal Christian constitutes true Christianity. Instead he believes that a true Christian is one who has made a personal commitment of faith to Christ, thus being saved.

3. A large minority of nominal Christians (approx. 1 billion) do profess to having made a personal commitment of faith to Christ. While some of these may be hypocrites, PDN would see no reason not to accept that most of these people are genuine believers.

4. PDN's little 'sect' only has 7 million members worldwide.

5. That leaves 900 million or so Christians who, while not belonging to PDN's denomination, claim a personal faith experience in Christ, share PDN's core beliefs, and are (in his very subjective opinion) going to heaven.

Now, what's confusing about that?

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

I suspect PDN was not trying to redefine the term in toto. I'd imagine his point was directed toward the atheists he has argued with here, or perhaps elsewhere.

All atheists, at all times, make sweeping generalisations. No theist, ever, under any circumstances, stoops to sweeping generalisations.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

However, as you have stated, I would not see many of these as being really Christians since their affiliation is more cultural than anything to do with faith.

Ok, so are these Christians going to hell?

PDN wrote:

Now, what's confusing about that?

The confusing bit is that by your own admission there are a large number of people who call themselves "Christian" who you seem to believe are going to hell, yet for some reason you still don't think you fit into 4. Do you not consider these people in a different sect or denomination simply because you don't consider them Christian in the first place?

I think you are missing the point that it doesn't really matter if you consider them Christians or not. They consider themselves Christian and probably consider themselves totally saved. You disagree.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

The confusing bit is that by your own admission there are a large number of people who call themselves "Christian" who you seem to believe are going to hell, yet for some reason you still don't think you fit into 4.

I think you are missing the point that it doesn't really matter if you consider them Christians or not. They consider themselves Christian and probably consider themselves totally saved. You disagree.

Sigh, let's quote number 4 again:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

Only those who believe in being born again "share my beliefs". I do not believe that those in 'rival sects' who share my beliefs are going to hell. therefore #4 doesn't apply to me.

It's very simple really.

Incidentally, it is perfectly possible to believe that other people are going to hell and still be tolerant and loving. But then again, the writer of the piece quoted in the OP was obviously more interested in rhetoric than in logic.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

The confusing bit is that by your own admission there are a large number of people who call themselves "Christian" who you seem to believe are going to hell, yet for some reason you still don't think you fit into 4. Do you not consider these people in a different sect or denomination simply because you don't consider them Christian in the first place?

I think you are missing the point that it doesn't really matter if you consider them Christians or not. They consider themselves Christian and probably consider themselves totally saved. You disagree.

PDN wrote:

Only those who believe in being born again "share my beliefs". I do not believe that those in 'rival sects' who share my beliefs are going to hell. therefore #4 doesn't apply to me.

Incidentally, it is perfectly possible to believe that other people are going to hell and still be tolerant and loving. But then again, the writer of the piece quoted in the OP was obviously more interested in rhetoric than in logic.

PDN is being very exact here. "No-one who shares his beliefs" means "no-one shares the beliefs that PDN considers vital for salvation" - whether those people are in different denominations of Christianity or not. Thus section #4 can be said not to apply to him exactly as written, as long as one is using beliefs in the exclusive rather than inclusive sense - people who call themselves Christian may share some of PDN's beliefs, but they don't share the important ones.

I agree with PDN that "the writer of the piece quoted in the OP was obviously more interested in rhetoric than in logic" - and certainly was more interested in being pithy rather than exact - and so PDN escapes the letter, while unquestionably being filled with the spirit.

I don't see any particular point in trying to get PDN to admit it, though. While it's clear that he considers as damned people who we would consider as Christians, and who consider themselves Christians, he doesn't consider them Christians, and therefore doesn't consider #4 applicable. We are surely well aware at this stage that this is how good Christian/bad Christian conflicts are almost invariably resolved?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

Simply claiming to be a Christian is irrelevant.

Ummmm... but it seems that people only believe themselves to be fully christian if they believe, to a greater or lesser extent, the belief or beliefs that they believe (or have been told) that they have to believe.

Not sure if I've put that as clearly as I could but in short, you're a christian if you think you are. No other general definition that I can think of fits peoples' mutually-exclusive claims to christianhood.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Ummmm... but it seems that people only believe themselves to be fully christian if they believe, to a greater or lesser extent, the belief or beliefs that they believe (or have been told) that they have to believe.

Not sure if I've put that as clearly as I could but in short, you're a christian if you think you are. No other general definition that I can think of fits peoples' mutually-exclusive claims to christianhood.

That's rather an external view, though - we say "we can't see any way to distinguish a Christian other than the claim".

They, on the other hand, can tell minutely who is, and isn't, a Christian. They, and people who believe more or less exactly like them (tolerance varies with the individual) are Christians, other people who claim to be Christians are not.

We see no reason to exalt one of these sets of "Christians" above the other, and no basis for any such discrimination - they, on the other hand, see every reason in the world to do exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

They, on the other hand, can tell minutely who is, and isn't, a Christian.

Yes, it's the in-group/out-group thing again -- Freud's "narcissism of minor difference".

The point I was inexpertly making is that there are two levels of belief working here. The first level of belief consists of simple statements of primary facts to be believed -- generally unsubstantiated facts like that there's one and only one god, that he comes in three parts, one of which he sent to earth, that "Jesus saves", that you can live after you die (etc, etc). The second level of belief governs the first, a meta-belief if you will, and could be phrased something like "if I believe the right set of primary facts, then I may call myself a christian (muslim, jew, whatever) and I will benefit in some way".

Religious believers will believe all manner of internally- or mutually-contradictory primary facts and expend huge energy disagreeing with each other about which are the right ones. However, they will fully accept the meta-belief, without which, the effort expended in believing the primary facts is pointless. Then, having believed the meta-belief, many will deny that it's a belief in the first place.

Hence I assert that the meta-belief is the governing criterion, and therefore, that you can call yourself a christian if you believe you are. Needless to say, this is my belief

Any clearer?

rockbeer

So basically, christians are inclined to argue amongst themselves at the slightest provocation, but they will unite in the face of a common enemy i.e. atheists?

Reminds me of when I was a naive young militant socialist - and why I had to abandon ship

Zillah

PDN wrote:

How refreshing it is, in this PC obsessed age, to find someone who still boasts about his ability to attack those with whom he disagrees.

I've been reading Sam Harris He really makes very good arguments about why people should always battle each other with words so they don't need to battle each other with weapons.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Only those who believe in being born again "share my beliefs". I do not believe that those in 'rival sects' who share my beliefs are going to hell. therefore #4 doesn't apply to me.

It's very simple really.

Incidentally, it is perfectly possible to believe that other people are going to hell and still be tolerant and loving. But then again, the writer of the piece quoted in the OP was obviously more interested in rhetoric than in logic.

Ok, it is clear now. As Scofflaw says you are being very exact as to the definition of "share my beliefs"

I would imagine though that "rival sects" would differ on beliefs as much as they agree, hence the rival sect. So to pick one belief and say that this is what we share, while ignoring the other demonstration that you also share beliefs with, is a bit confusing, hence my confusing.

For example if you look at the group of people who share your belief that Jesus was the son of God, his death saved humanity, and that belief in this is what is needed for salvation, yet ignoring the belief in a conversion or "born again" experience, your pool of rival sects or denominations becomes much wider as does the number of people who share your belief but who are also heading to hell.

I think you are being rather selective in your choice of interpretation PDN. But then again you are a Christian

PDN wrote:

Incidentally, it is perfectly possible to believe that other people are going to hell and still be tolerant and loving.

Well that is open to debate, but possible in another thread.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

For example if you look at the group of people who share your belief that Jesus was the son of God, his death saved humanity, and that belief in this is what is needed for salvation, yet ignoring the belief in a conversion or "born again" experience, your pool of rival sects or denominations becomes much wider as does the number of people who share your belief but who are also heading to hell.

You're just playing word games. Earlier in the thread you said this:

The majority of Christians do not claim to be "born again" in the sense that you mean it here, the evangelical sense

For example Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox associate being "born again" with baptisim, which most often happens when a person is a new born baby.

In these cases a personal choice to love Jesus, or any form of conversion experience, has nothing to do with it since the person is a child, but they are still born again in th eyes of God and still "saved". They might never communicated with God again, and in some cases any such claims to communicate with God would be considered strange and even heresy by the rest of the religion.

Now make your mind up, what are you referring to as Christians? People who were baptized as a baby, yet have no faith in God whatsoever? Or, as you know appear to be saying, "people who share your belief that Jesus was the son of God, his death saved humanity, and that belief in this is what is needed for salvation"? If someone really believes that faith in Christ's saving death is necessary for salvation, and profess to have such a faith, then most evangelicals (myself included) would see them as Christians, and saved, irrespective of whether they use the "born again" terminology or not.

If we're talking about "sharing beliefs" then just trying to lump together everyone who has a vague belief in a guy called Jesus, will not work. Neither will lumping together everyone who has a cultural attachment to Christianity, irrespective of whether they actually believe anything at all.

Point #4 in the original post was obviously referring to those who believe that only their particular sect is going to heaven. As such you may apply it to Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses or even traditional Catholicism - but I know of no "fundamentalist Christian" that actually believes such a thing.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

I've been reading Sam Harris He really makes very good arguments about why people should always battle each other with words so they don't need to battle each other with weapons.

So, Fred Phelps for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Incidentally, while we're mentioning Phelps, what is it with the whole "God hates fags" thing? I know cigarette smoking is a dirty habit, but isn't that taking the smoking ban a step too far?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

PDN escapes the letter, while unquestionably being filled with the spirit.

And here I was thinking atheists might approach things in a logical way.

So, what this means is you can say anything untrue about a person, then, when they point out that the allegation is untrue, you say, "Ah, but the spirit of it applies to you."

What next? Attack someone for saying something that they never said, then say, "Ah, but you were probably thinking it."?

Zillah

PDN wrote:

And here I was thinking atheists might approach things in a logical way.

You're really starting to piss me off.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

You're really starting to piss me off.

Now put that passion into a rebuttal that won't get you chucked.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Now put that passion into a rebuttal that won't get you chucked.

Sigh. Surely we're getting tired of this song: "Atheists are not a group that share beliefs, arguments or habits beyond the notion of having no belief in God".

Altogether now...

For example. I'm sure PDN would begin to get irritated if I kept insisting things like "Christians hate homosexuals" or "The religious don't want secular government".

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Now make your mind up, what are you referring to as Christians?

Well normally I take the view that a Christian is someone who considers themselves Christian.

I obviously understand that you have objections to that, that there are people who would consider themselves Christian yet you who do not think are Christian nor should they call themselves Christian, even if they share most of your beliefs.

But that I think is the point of section 4.

It is the process of saying "I know you think you are a Christian but you aren't really" that makes you a fundamentalist.

PDN wrote:

If someone really believes that faith in Christ's saving death is necessary for salvation, and profess to have such a faith, then most evangelicals (myself included) would see them as Christians, and saved, irrespective of whether they use the "born again" terminology or not.

Would you though? Members of the KKK most likely believed in that. So did the members of the Spanish Inquisition. Or pick any Christian group that did bad things.

The defense given by yourself and others against these attacks on Christianity is that these people are not Christians, and therefore the actual religion is not associated with them.

You say now that anyone who believes in Jesus, believes in the resurrection and believes in the power of this faith to save them from hell, is a Christian. This includes pretty much everyone that has been given as examples of how Christians can do bad things.

You see my confusion. You seem to want it both ways. Christians are everyone who has faith in Jesus as savior, except not when they do bad things. Then they aren't Christians, and they are going to hell.

PDN wrote:

And here I was thinking atheists might approach things in a logical way.

Well TBH I think it is the lack of logic in your replies that is causing the problem.

Perhaps it would be clearer if you explained who of the people who call themselves "Christian" do you think are going to hell? Using Zillah's example, do you think that the people who march up and down outside funerals with posters saying "God Hates Fags" are real Christians and saved? They no doubt share most of your religious beliefs, and probably proclaim a spiritual awakening, or being touched by God. Does this matter?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

PDN escapes the letter, while unquestionably being filled with the spirit.

And here I was thinking atheists might approach things in a logical way.

So, what this means is you can say anything untrue about a person, then, when they point out that the allegation is untrue, you say, "Ah, but the spirit of it applies to you."

What next? Attack someone for saying something that they never said, then say, "Ah, but you were probably thinking it."?

Not at all. If we look at what the writer says (and in a sense, I can't believe we're arguing over something clearly written as throwaway humour):

Some Idiot on the Internet wrote:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

You escape the "those in rival sects" clause by pointing out that you believe everyone who "shares your beliefs" is saved. However, this is an extremely narrow definition of "shares your beliefs" - and an inappropriate one.

The word "sects" indicates sub-religions, who are differentiated from each other by their unshared beliefs, but are grouped together by their shared beliefs. Thus Presbyterianism and Orthodox Christianity are both Christian sects, and hold the bulk of their beliefs in common.

What you have done is essentially to redefine as "not actually Christian" everyone who doesn't share the specific subset of Christian beliefs that you consider essential for salvation, even if they are nominally in the same sect - and define as Christian anyone who shares those particular beliefs, even if they are nominally in a different sect.

This is exactly the spirit of #4 - that everyone who doesn't share your specific subset of beliefs is damned, even if they share the bulk of beliefs to the point where any outside observer would immediately assign them the same religion. To claim that it doesn't apply because your definitions don't follow exactly the boundaries of 'official' sects is mere spin.

I admire your rhetorical skills, but you are applying them to sophistry, not truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Yeah, what he said ^^^

Well done Scofflaw, put it better than I could have

PDN

Maybe we could make some additions & alterations to number 4 to say:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share very general Christian beliefs, and also with the exception of all the billions who die in infancy, and also with the exception of billions of others who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel -- though excluding all except a few hundred millions in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "loving" (but you have never actually believed or claimed that it is the most tolerant.)

While not as polemical as the original, it would have the advantage of actually being truthful. This is not sophistry. I am appalled, when I read some of the quotes in "The Hazards of Belief" thread where Christians demonise atheists by misrepresenting them and making their views appear much more extreme than is really reflected in most atheists I have met. I believe it is equally wrong to demonise Christians by deliberately misrepresenting their views.

Scofflaw, while we disagree on many things, I have always found you to be a courteous and cultured sparring opponent in debate. I think that for you to apply a totally untrue statement to me on the grounds that "Well, even if it isn't actually true, the spirit applies to you" is unworthy of you.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Maybe we could make some additions & alterations to number 4 to say:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share very general Christian beliefs, and also with the exception of all the billions who die in infancy, and also with the exception of billions of others who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel -- though excluding all except a few hundred millions in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "loving" (but you have never actually believed or claimed that it is the most tolerant.)

While not as polemical as the original, it would have the advantage of actually being truthful. This is not sophistry. I am appalled, when I read some of the quotes in "The Hazards of Belief" thread where Christians demonise atheists by misrepresenting them and making their views appear much more extreme than is really reflected in most atheists I have met. I believe it is equally wrong to demonise Christians by deliberately misrepresenting their views.

Scofflaw, while we disagree on many things, I have always found you to be a courteous and cultured sparring opponent in debate. I think that for you to apply a totally untrue statement to me on the grounds that "Well, even if it isn't actually true, the spirit applies to you" is unworthy of you.

I am slightly at a loss, here. That those who are not saved are damned is, I thought, one of the standard tenets of Christianity. That there are certain beliefs you must hold in order to be saved is, I think, another. That it is possible to share some of those beliefs but not all should be obvious. Finally, that those who share some of the necessary beliefs with you, but not all, are therefore not going to be saved (even though they too consider themselves Christian) follows pretty logically on from the preceding.

I am not claiming by any stretch that you are at one with wolfsbane in following the doctrine of election or anything like that, but I cannot see where exactly what I have outlined above doesn't apply - and the above is what I take to be the spirit of point #4.

Certainly I'm neither trying to offend, nor tar you with something that doesn't apply, but the above is, I think, true of every Christian who follows though on the logic of their religion, surely? If you'd like to tell me where I'm wrong, please do. I am as willing as ever to stand corrected.

humbly,
Scofflaw

skeptic griggsy

We see the divine protection rackett! Yahweh is so narciissistic that He insists on people kissing His backside and if they don't, they should suffer thouroughly eternally.Some say that sins are such that they are against His awesome presence that they require this punishment.We find here on Earth that there are degrees of wrongdoing that require different punishments, not one eternal suffering one necessarily.We find wrongdoing, not sin, for that is against the imaginary God.The authors who made up the sin-notion were wrongheaded and vindictive.We don't need to do penance before Him but before humankind only.Judaism requires no animal sacrifice.Yet Christinsanity requires one in the form of a human and also ritual cannabalism and vampirism.Christians bray at that notion! [It is Moses's Folly and Mohammed's Lunacy.]

Asiaprod

skeptic griggsy wrote:

He insists on people kissing His backside....

I understand what you are trying to say griggsy, but this is a little over the top. We should try not to offend our christian poster. Better to say something like adore or praise him.

skeptic griggsy wrote:

Mohammed's Lunacy.

I really think it would be best for you to leave Mohammed out of this.

I do agree with you that it would be better to do penance before humankind. Be careful there, you are beginning to sound like a Buddhist:D