@^&$

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Nooooooo!!!!!!!!, that is what he wants you to do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No I'm perfectly OK with the suggestion that some people who vaguely believe in Jesus Christ are very nasty indeed. I have no interest in arguing that such a vague mental assent has any moral value whatsoever.

kiffer

Wicknight wrote: »

Nooooooo!!!!!!!!, that is what he wants you to do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know that moment when you're walking along with a tray full of drinks and everything starts to slip...
You have that moment in which you can see everything is going to go everywhere.
Time slows and you know what ever you do to try and save the situation will just make the whole thing worse?
Tilt the tray to the left and the tray will go all over the sofa, tilt to the right and half the glasses will shatter on the fireplace... but really you don't have any choice at that moment because which ever way you tilt the tray as you fall at least half of the drinks are going straight onto your bosses wife's new dress?

Sometime you've just got to go with the flow...

PDN wrote:

No I'm perfectly OK with the suggestion that some people who vaguely believe in Jesus Christ are very nasty indeed. I have no interest in arguing that such a vague mental assent has any moral value whatsoever.

Would you consider Fred Phelps a Christian?

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

Would you consider Fred Phelps a Christian?

By the definition you guys use? Yes. I'm sure he has a mental belief in the existence of Jesus Christ.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that that is the case. It seems to me that Christians there have said that if they lost their faith then the the basis of their morality would be challenged, not that they would suddenly feel the need to start raping.

Well one or two regulars (that's an alarming percentage to me considering the relatively small demograph), from what they have said, seem to be acting good because they believe/know the man upstairs is watching/judging rather than any personal morality.

PDN wrote: »

By the definition you guys use? Yes. I'm sure he has a mental belief in the existence of Jesus Christ.

What about you though, as in personally?
Personally I wouldn't consider someone like that a 'proper' Christian because I feel 'proper' Christians should be nice and stuff.
For the record, no I don't consider the likes of the Pope or George Bush 'proper' Christians.
Of course my definition of 'proper' Christians is those who follow Jesus' teachings.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

By the definition you guys use? Yes. I'm sure he has a mental belief in the existence of Jesus Christ.

Nicely done.
How about by the dictionary definition?
Lets not define words to suit ourselves shall we...


Christian
n.
One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

What about you though, as in personally?
Personally I wouldn't consider someone like that a 'proper' Christian because I feel 'proper' Christians should be nice and stuff.
For the record, no I don't consider the likes of the Pope or George Bush 'proper' Christians.
Of course my definition of 'proper' Christians is those who follow Jesus' teachings.

Personally I prefer to use the word 'Christian' to refer to those who make a genuine attempt to live according to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

However, on this forum I'm generally happy to go with the majority view and use 'Christian' in its cultural sense or to refer to a mental assent to the existence of Christ. Maybe that's because I don't share the passion of other posters for arguing about semantics.

Then again, you might even get the odd person who objects to calling anyone a 'Christian' at all since there are many different Christianities.

PDN

Dades wrote:

I'd be more liberal with the definition, myself.

Like anyone who has a vague belief that Jesus rose from the dead and God was his father. And was maybe afraid sometimes that God was watching them.

Genghiz Cohen wrote:

If you believe in Christ you are Christian<<endl

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

Martin Luther King was in no real sense a Christian

Galvasean wrote:

Of course my definition of 'proper' Christians is those who follow Jesus' teachings.

Tim Robbins wrote:

What Christianity means isn't objectively defined or agreed. So it's meaningless.

kiffer wrote: »

Nicely done.
How about by the dictionary definition?
Lets not define words to suit ourselves shall we...


Christian
n.
One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

Tell you what, you guys decide among yourselves how you define 'Christian'. Then maybe we can engage in a sensible debate.

The Mad Hatter

I think years of exposure to members of the Christian right have left some atheists with the opinion that you can't be rational and a christian, which is why sensible people who profess christianity (like Barack Obama) are such a surprise.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

Tell you what, you guys decide among yourselves how you define 'Christian'. Then maybe we can engage in a sensible debate.

I'm entertained by the lengths you've gone to to avoid saying "No, Fred Phelps is not, in my opinion, a Christian" or words to that effect. :-D

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

I'm entertained by the lengths you've gone to to avoid saying "No, Fred Phelps is not, in my opinion, a Christian" or words to that effect. :-D

I've gone to no lengths at all, but I'm amused at how you want to turn discussion away from the atheists' inconsistency in their use of the word 'Christian' to Fred Phelps as a bogeyman figure.

I said: "Personally I prefer to use the word 'Christian' to refer to those who make a genuine attempt to live according to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ." So, no, I do not consider that Fred Phelps meets that criteria in the slightest.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Tell you what, you guys decide among yourselves how you define 'Christian'. Then maybe we can engage in a sensible debate.

Well, why don't we agree to use the definition that's used in sociology which studies these things in a religion-neutral manner?

In that, you're a christian if you describe yourself as one -- "self-description" is where it's at. And that lets Phelps, Ken Ham, the Pope, Jerry Falwell and, of course, your excellent self, all be "christian", while letting each one harbour their deepest convictions that all the other ones probably aren't.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, why don't we agree to use the definition that's used in sociology which studies these things in a religion-neutral manner?

In that, you're a christian if you describe yourself as one -- "self-description" is where it's at. And that lets Phelps, Ken Ham, the Pope, Jerry Falwell and, of course, your excellent self, all be "christian", while letting each one harbour their deepest convictions that all the other ones probably aren't.

And I've already said that I'm happy to use that description here on this forum.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

I've gone to no lengths at all, but I'm amused at how you want to turn discussion away from the atheists' inconsistency in their use of the word 'Christian' to Fred Phelps as a bogeyman figure.

Oh I don't deny that there is a usage problem when it comes to many words, not just 'Christian'.
I agree it might be a bit silly to say, Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't really a Christian ... although by some reports his behavior was, at times, less than ideal...
I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know the context in which Hitchens was speaking at the time. I'll spend a few minutes looking it up...

In the mean time...

Galvasean wrote:

Of course my definition of 'proper' Christians is those who follow Jesus' teachings.

This seems to agree with you, don't see why you object.

Dades and Cohen seem to agree with a basic dictionary definition ...

Tim seems to think that it's such a loose definition that it's pointless and this can be somewhat of an issue, if you so choose you can just say, "oh that lot aren't actually Christians so any argument you make against them I can just ignore"...


I asked you a straight question and it took you till now to actually answer the question in a straight manner.

I said: "Personally I prefer to use the word 'Christian' to refer to those who make a genuine attempt to live according to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ." So, no, I do not consider that Fred Phelps meets that criteria in the slightest.

Wow, a straight answer from a preacher...
Up untill you actually said "No, I don't think he is not a Christian", you could always have gone back and said, "Yes, He is attempting to live according to Jesus's teaching, but he's got the wrong end of the stick, but justification is by faith alone and so ... blah blah blah".

I think I consider him a Christian... but a really really really really crap one.

kiffer

Right. I've looked into the Martin Luther King Jr. issue...

Frankly Hitchens can be a bit of a dick...

And he even phrased that appeal more courteously than, in my humble opinion, its targets deserved. In no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Personally I prefer to use the word 'Christian' to refer to those who make a genuine attempt to live according to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

PDN wrote: »

I'm amused at how you want to turn discussion away from the atheists' inconsistency in their use of the word 'Christian'

Really? Because I see blatant inconsistancies in your definition. I'm pretty sure you don't accept nontrinitarians as being Christian, regardless of whether they live according to Jesus' teachings and example.

Or are you somehow drawing the distinction that a denomination can be made up entirely of people you view as Christian, but the denomination itself is not Christian. If so, how do you define such a denomination that claims to be Christian. If not, perhaps you should expand on what your actual definition of a Christian is.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Really? Because I see blatant inconsistancies in your definition. I'm pretty sure you don't accept nontrinitarians as being Christian, regardless of whether they live according to Jesus' teachings and example.

Or are you somehow drawing the distinction that a denomination can be made up entirely of people you view as Christian, but the denomination itself is not Christian. If so, how do you define such a denomination that claims to be Christian. If not, perhaps you should expand on what your actual definition of a Christian is.

I'm flattered that my personal beliefs are of such interest to you.

It all seems to be veering off-topic, but I hope the mods will understand I'm simply answering a direct question. Otherwise some muppet will accuse me of evasion or of refusing to give a straight answer to a straiight question.

I don't think any denomination is composed entirely of people that I would view as Christian. Every denomination and local church, including my own, contains some people who are there for other reasons.

Also, an organisation may be mostly composed of Christians without itself being Christian. For example, I know of a U2 fan club in Tennessee where, AFAIK, every member is a Christian. However, I would not classify that club as a Christian organisation.

I think someone can deny the Trinity and still be a Christian. Jimitime, on the Christianity forum, would I believe fit this description. I think he is mistaken about an important point of doctrine, but I certainly recognise him as a fellow Christian.

However, I would not recognise a non-Trinitarian organisation as a legitimate Christian denomination, even though many or most individual members may be sincerely attempting to follow Christ.

There. I hope that clarifies things for you.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

I think someone can deny the Trinity and still be a Christian. Jimitime, on the Christianity forum, would I believe fit this description. I think he is mistaken about an important point of doctrine, but I certainly recognise him as a fellow Christian.

However, I would not recognise a non-Trinitarian organisation as a legitimate Christian denomination, even though many or most individual members may be sincerely attempting to follow Christ.

veiled insults and patronising aside, yes it does clear things up.

* An Individual who believes they should live according to Christ yet rejects the trinity IS a Christian
* A Denomination who believes they should live according to Christ yet rejects the trinity IS NOT Christian

Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

veiled insults and patronising aside, yes it does clear things up.

* An Individual who believes they should live according to Christ yet rejects the trinity IS a Christian
* A Denomination who believes they should live according to Christ yet rejects the trinity IS NOT Christian

Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

Yes, it does make sense if you are more interested in thinking logically than in scoring points. I believe the key criteria in determining whether an individual person is a Christian is their relationship to Christ. People, by their nature can have relationships.

Organisations, by their nature, cannot enter into such relationships. Therefore the key criteria in determining whether an organisation is Christian is whether it is promoting accurate information about Christ.

BTW, the posters here use similar language and definitions in regard to atheism.

* An individual who denies the existence of God and believes they should live their life without reference to sacred books etc IS an atheist.
* An organisation which denies the existence of God and believes people should live their lives without reference to sacred books etc. IS NOT atheist.

Do you agree? (Think carefully before you answer).

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

... Otherwise some muppet will accuse me of evasion or of refusing to give a straight answer to a straiight question.

I know, it terrible, muppetry is rife on the internet.

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

I know, it terrible, muppetry is rife on the internet.

True that.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Yes, it does make sense if you are more interested in thinking logically than in scoring points. I believe the key criteria in determining whether an individual person is a Christian is their relationship to Christ. People, by their nature can have relationships.

Organisations, by their nature, cannot enter into such relationships. Therefore the key criteria in determining whether an organisation is Christian is whether it is promoting accurate information about Christ.

I really think you are overly complicating your definition of an organization. It is merely a group of people who share the same opinions and work together. If an individual is defined as Christian if they reject the trinity, it doesn't matter if there are 100 or a billion of these individuals. If they organize to promote this opinion they are still Christian by your definition, and as this body of people fits the definition of a denomination also, they can be validly defined as a "Christian Denomination".

You seem to be drawing the fallacious distinction that the only separating critieria between an individuals beliefs, and the beliefs of an organization, is the opinions they promote about Christ. This is false, because the individual is still allowed to promote their opinion and still be defined as Christian in your opinion, regardless of whether you believe the information they promote is accurate.

PDN wrote: »

BTW, the posters here use similar language and definitions in regard to atheism.

* An individual who denies the existence of God and believes they should live their life without reference to sacred books etc IS an atheist.
* An organisation which denies the existence of God and believes people should live their lives without reference to sacred books etc. IS NOT atheist.

You are not comparing like with like. Atheism is the lack of something, once you apply it, it becomes something else, secularism, humanism... etc. The same quality is true of mathematics. Once a person tries to apply maths it becomes something else. Christianity is in no way the same, as it has no existence outside of application.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

Yes, it does make sense if you are more interested in thinking logically than in scoring points.

These to activities are not mutually exclusive but it's quiet easy to dismiss people that point out flaws in ones logic as just point scoring muppets.

I believe the key criteria in determining whether an individual person is a Christian is their relationship to Christ. People, by their nature can have relationships.

Organisations, by their nature, cannot enter into such relationships. Therefore the key criteria in determining whether an organisation is Christian is whether it is promoting accurate information about Christ.

BTW, the posters here use similar language and definitions in regard to atheism.

* An individual who denies the existence of God and believes they should live their life without reference to sacred books etc IS an atheist.
* An organisation which denies the existence of God and believes people should live their lives without reference to sacred books etc. IS NOT atheist.

Do you agree? (Think carefully before you answer).

Hum... I would think that an organisation that made a large enough issue of the non-existence of God to actually officially deny his existence, would be an Atheist organisation...
So Camp Quest from the other thread would be obviously be an Atheist group...
but an alternative Scouting type group that merely made no issue of religion would not be.