Bill O'Reilly: No True Christian would kill Norwegians.

philologos · 31-07-2011 06:38PM

Wicknight: Not that this is relevant as to whether or not Brevik is a 'Christian fundamentalist' (which he doesn't seem to be given what he's written in his 1500 page megadoc), but you are assuming that Christians must of necessity be perfect as a result of believing in Christ. In reality most Christians, myself included know that we screw up from time to time, but we aspire to live and speak for Jesus in every aspect of our lives. I've failed to do it from time to time. Becoming more and more like Christ is a continual process rather than an immediate process.

As for not seeing people living like Christians on a regular basis. I honestly don't know. I haven't seen quite the same commitment as Christians give in numerous aspects to their societies. A survey undertaken in evangelical churches in Britain (PDF - 2.1MB) shows (Guardian coverage here) that there is a correlation between Bible reading, and giving and volunteering along with other traditional forms of Christian expression such as prayer and evangelism.

I haven't heard of many atheists going into prisons, serving the homeless, criticising the injustice of prostitution and helping prostitutes, helping drug addicts, welcoming immigrants, giving guidance to youths, providing food for the poor and the elderly amongst other charitable activities. Churches have a long way to go, but there is a lot going on in this respect right now. Perhaps this is why in Britain David Cameron has noted the contribution that faith groups can make in British society. Christians aren't perfect, but in many ways Christians are seeking after the heart of God irrespective of whether or not people are too stubborn to recognise it. Jesus is a perfect exemplar for Christians in society to seek to strive for better things in an unbelieving world. That's exactly the type of society that Jesus was operating in.

Zombrex · 31-07-2011 06:44PM

raah! wrote: »

Yes that's fine. Of course the second point there is obviously not a clear cut one. As there are different interpretations of what he taught , or what he meant when he said this or that etc.

There are, but some things are pretty clear.

raah! wrote: »

A counter example to the claim that if someone says they are trying to be a doctor and then doesn't do well in the leaving cer then they are not trying to be a doctor. This alone should be enough to illustrate that you cannot go from "not doing" to "not trying".

It does. But then that wasn't the original analogy. The original analogy was the person neither trying nor getting it.

To clarify the analogy again. Jesus requires you try to be a doctor, you try to get 580 points. Of course to do this you must also pass your Leaving Cert. But that does not mean anyone who passes their Leaving Cert is trying to be a doctor.

Your argument, if I'm not misunderstanding you, was that you can try to hold to some of the lesser principles in the Judo-Christian religion (love your neighbour), while not trying to hold to the higher ones (also love your enemy) and this counts as trying to be a Christian.

Which is like saying you can try and be a doctor if you try and pass your Leaving Cert but don't try and get 580 points.

If that is your argument I reject it. Such as person is not trying to be a true Christian.

raah! wrote: »

Well, as I've said the order in which you wrote that sentence, and the subsequent unprompted appearance of the word "opposite" in your later post, suggests other wise. You are just restating your assertion.

The word opposite was originally used in a rebuttal to the very idea you are attributing to me and what I must have meant.

The opposite of trying to love your enemy is not hating your enemy. It is not trying to love your enemy.

As far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, that is the first use of the term opposite. Notice though that there is a definition of what I mean by "opposite" in that very paragraph and it is contrary to the position you attribute to me and what I must have meant.

Whether or not you think I'm using the word opposite incorrectly in this paragraph, there is no way you could say by the use of the word "opposite" I was implying that what I meant was hating your enemy, or that this continued to confuse you as to my actual meaning. I state my meaning in black and white.

raah! wrote: »

So you can't be currently changing what you want to say, and maintaining your claims that I am dishonest and strawmanning you at the same time.

I haven't changed anything. I'm rejecting your some what bizarre idea that "Christian values" can mean simply the Jewish values that Jesus told you to transcend without the transcending bit, given that the transcending bit is what makes Christianity Christianity, rather than simply Judaism.

I would have certainly been more clear if I had known that you or someone else would consider that to be what Christian values are, but unfortunately I did not anticipate this as frankly that is a ridiculous notion fo Christians values, one I seriously doubt you actually hold to.

raah! wrote: »

This does not adress the argument in any way. The argument, as was clearly demonstrated in the guise of lower to higher leaving cert points, is that the fulfillment of these lower values is sime indication that they are trying to fulfill the higher ones.

Not if they demonstrate they aren't, just like no one thinks someone is trying to be a doctor if they don't try and get 580 points, but only try to get a pass.

I certainly agree with you that one cannot assume that one is not trying to be a doctor without positive evidence to that position. But once one has that, once one knows they are not trying, it seems ridiculous to say it still counts that they got a pass.

Otherwise every Jewish person who tries to hold to the Old Testament would, under your logic, also be a Christian.

raah! wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't.

I know, I did.

They aren't trying (neither are you), therefore they aren't a true Christian. Trying to adhering to the lower ones is as irrelevant as passing your Leaving Cert is to trying to be a doctor.

A true Christian cannot be someone only trying to adhere to the easy ones.

I'm some what amazed this needs to be explained to you, and I once again find myself questioning how genuine this line of debate from you really is.

raah! wrote: »

Well you'll also notice that from day one I was saying that you don't know that they aren't trying.

Yes. And from day one I've said I did.

raah! wrote: »

And that their fulfillment of the baseline ones and statement that they are christians is identitcal to a person who says they want to be a doctor and thend oes bad in their leaving cert.

Yes it is.

Now if that person then doesn't try and get 580 points (irrespective of whether or not they do or not), I can happily say they don't truly want to be a doctor because they didn't try.

raah! wrote: »

This arguemtn you have not adressed.

Of course it is been addressed, they don't try to adhere to the standards of Jesus, the principles of Christianity (which means the top of the peak not the base camp), and thus they are not true Christians.

It was addressed in the original post.

raah! · 31-07-2011 09:04PM

So it appears you have given up with arguing, and are now merely repeating the things you've said. I'm going to sift through your posts. But I can tell you now, you haven't addressed my arguments, or supported your interpretation of the words you've used. This is patently clear to anyone who reads the posts. Your last 4 posts have been nothing but sophistry.

Wicknight wrote: »

And I know that this is not true (see the insertion of "not only" above as an example)

I told you why I inserted it. You have not been able to support your interpretation of that paragraph. I told you why "contrary" can't just mean "abondonment" a million times. You've never once supported it or refuted any arguments. You just keep repeating that you "meant" this strange singled out thing.

I've pointed out how this is grammatically ridiculous and unlikely a million times. I'm not doing again.

How would you be trying if you continuously do what you know you shouldn't do?

I'm sure you understand that there is a difference between not doing something and trying not to do something. I shouldn't have to say this again. I've already said it. You are pretending to adress my points, and the furhter we get away from my original points the more useful your tactic will be in tricking people into thinking you are actually making arguments.

No I don't accept that. Repeatably doing something and then apologizing afterwards does not count as trying not to do the something. I counts as apologizing afterwards.

It's not deucable from, but an apology and subsequent cessation is certainly an indication. Also, how would you ever know if someone was trying not to do something successfully? You are just hiding behind the peculiar negative nature of things.

You can't say you know they are not trying.

Trying not to do something is an active action.

Not if it's one of those "transcendent and impossible things". By your own argument these are somethings people must strive for, they are not the automatic ones. You have contrdicted yourself. But this is not important since you are giving a proper exposition of what you think in this same post.

They have actively abandoned a few of the teachings of Jesus when it suited them in order to gain momentary satisfaction out of situations.

True Christians do not do this.

Well, here we have the reduced version. We can treat this one on it's own now after this.

Asking me to alter my statement is not the same as asking me to clarify my statement, as you are well aware. You asked me did I wish to alter my statement in the spirit that I was wrong and now realized this. That is not a request for clarification.

You were wrong in that the words you used did not convey the meaning you wanted. The statement should be changed to proper convey this meaning.

Your argument is that I do not mean what I say and that I must mean what you then proceed to represent as a paraphrased version.

That is far from airtight. For example can you find anywhere where I said that I believe that all the Christians I meet actively hate people?

Not a paraphrased conclusion based on the mathematics you applied to what I said, but where I actually said that?

You didn't use those words exactly, but it makes no difference whatsoever. Remove the quotations where you see them if you'd like.

It is completley airtight, and you have failed to show a single argument against that interpretation. Most of your posts consisted of ad hominems and mockery.

Yes. You constructed a straw man of my position because it is easier to argue against.

It is far easier to argue against the statement that all Christians I've met hate everyone than it is to argue against the statement that all Christians I've met abandon Jesus' principles when it suits them.

The fact of the matter is that the former position is the one you first stated.

Loving your neighbour is a principle of christianity, loving your enemy is a principle of christianity.

Saying that every christian you've met actively pursues behaviours contrary to christian principles means that every christian you've met pursues behaviours opposite to those two. You can deduce that you think christians hate people from that. The word contrary means opposite. Especially in the context there.

Not really, since they are the same things.

Christian principles would include much of what is in the old testament. The teachings of Jesus could be argued to mean only what Jesus himself uniquely taught

Not really, since one cannot be a Christian by hold to the general teachings of Jesus while abandoning specific ones of them with it suits. That in itself goes against the teachings of Jesus.

So this amounts to another statement of your position that they are not trying to uphold those specific values, which completely ignores my point about being able to infer that they are at least trying to attain these higher ones by their upholding of the lower ones, and their statement that they would like to uphold them.

I stated what I meant in the paragraph (abandonment of principle when it suits).

Then when you misunderstood the word opposite (misunderstood is probably the wrong term, choose to continue to interpret everything as you assumed rather than as I was explaining is more accurate) I stated what I meant by opposite. You continued to ignore this clarification and insist that in my original post (that had not the word contrary nor opposite in it) I was saying that Christians I've met hate people.

You then attempted to prove that this is what I must have meant using mathematics.

Opposite means opposite. Contrary means contrary. I've used every word properly, you've been using them in some magic sense.

Where we are supposed to infer that by "actively pursuing behaviour contrary to the teaching of jesus" you mean "not pursuing the teachings of jesus". It's obvious that that's not what you meant.

You mentioned abondonment as well as contrary in the pargraph. There is nothing to suggest that you wanted this nonsensical linkage of the two. And I gave you the credit of being able to speak proper english. The conflation of those two sentences up there is just wrong. I've shown you it's wrong. Again you haven't provided a single argument. Saying afterward what you wanted to say is not an argument for what the words in their context mean.

Certain. I think that I've never met a true Christian, since every Christian I've met has displayed behavior where they have abandoned trying to adhere to Jesus' standards.

That includes you btw.

Ok well we can treat this statement now. In this one there are not as many problems as with the former, but there are still the issues of how you know they have "abandoned trying to adhere" and not simply "not adhered to".

raah! · 31-07-2011 09:22PM

Wicknight wrote: »

There are, but some things are pretty clear.

It does. But then that wasn't the original analogy. The original analogy was the person neither trying nor getting it.

To clarify the analogy again. Jesus requires you try to be a doctor, you try to get 580 points. Of course to do this you must also pass your Leaving Cert. But that does not mean anyone who passes their Leaving Cert is trying to be a doctor.

I actually gave a better analogy. All we know with the people doing the leaving cert, and the christians you've met, is that they haven't got 580, or haven't lived up to the standard. You don't know that they haven't that was the point.

Your argument, if I'm not misunderstanding you, was that you can try to hold to some of the lesser principles in the Judo-Christian religion (love your neighbour), while not trying to hold to the higher ones (also love your enemy) and this counts as trying to be a Christian.

Which is like saying you can try and be a doctor if you try and pass your Leaving Cert but don't try and get 580 points.

If that is your argument I reject it. Such as person is not trying to be a true Christian.

It's not my argument, my argument very clearly was about them trying and failing. They sit their leaving cert, but don't get 580. From their not getting 580 it would be ridiculous to automatically infer that they didn't try. Especially if they told you they were trying, and said they wanted to be a doctor.

The word opposite was originally used in a rebuttal to the very idea you are attributing to me and what I must have meant.

The opposite of trying to love your enemy is not hating your enemy. It is not trying to love your enemy.

As far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, that is the first use of the term opposite. Notice though that there is a definition of what I mean by "opposite" in that very paragraph and it is contrary to the position you attribute to me and what I must have meant.

Whether or not you think I'm using the word opposite incorrectly in this paragraph, there is no way you could say by the use of the word "opposite" I was implying that what I meant was hating your enemy, or that this continued to confuse you as to my actual meaning. I state my meaning in black and white.

It was from the word contrary that I built the opposite based argument. Your first use of the word opposite here shows that you knew what the word contrary meant when you used it, read my argument about what the opposite to this or that was (the behaviours contrary to) a nd then provided an argument, within the context of your having meant opposite, to say taht you weren't saying all the christians you've met hated everyone.

What that paragraph shows it that you saying [paraphrase] "I used the word to mean opposite, but opposite does not mean hate". If you did not mean opposite your first attempt at a defence would be "no by contrarty I mean abandonment".

I haven't changed anything. I'm rejecting your some what bizarre idea that "Christian values" can mean simply the Jewish values that Jesus told you to transcend without the transcending bit, given that the transcending bit is what makes Christianity Christianity, rather than simply Judaism.

I would have certainly been more clear if I had known that you or someone else would consider that to be what Christian values are, but unfortunately I did not anticipate this as frankly that is a ridiculous notion fo Christians values, one I seriously doubt you actually hold to.

The reason I said christians don't throw out the old testament is that principles in the hold testament are principles held by christians. They are therefore "Christian Values" i.e values of christians, i.e values held by christians.

But anyway, it's fine if you don't want to take that interpretation. We can take just the teachings of jesus, as I mentioned. It would have no affect on my argument. There are still many teachings of jesus, which merely abondoning, or doing the opposite of would make you a very very nasty person.

Take for example the christian virtue of meekness. The opposite to this arrogant. Being not meek is being "not quiet" , "not gentle" not... etc.

It makes no difference to the argument.

Not if they demonstrate they aren't, just like no one thinks someone is trying to be a doctor if they don't try and get 580 points, but only try to get a pass.

I certainly agree with you that one cannot assume that one is not trying to be a doctor without positive evidence to that position. But once one has that, once one knows they are not trying, it seems ridiculous to say it still counts that they got a pass.

Otherwise every Jewish person who tries to hold to the Old Testament would, under your logic, also be a Christian.

Well the point was that you have the evidence that they want to be a doctor. Jewish people do not want to be doctors. They never say they want to be doctors. So if the christian says "I want to be a doctor" I'm going to take my leaving cert, but fails. There is far more evidence to support that they tried and failed than there is that they never tried, completely abondoned, or fell far from their goal of being a doctor.

I know, I did.

They aren't trying (neither are you), therefore they aren't a true Christian. Trying to adhering to the lower ones is as irrelevant as passing your Leaving Cert is to trying to be a doctor.

A true Christian cannot be someone only trying to adhere to the easy ones.

I'm some what amazed this needs to be explained to you, and I once again find myself questioning how genuine this line of debate from you really is.

This just skips over the main point of the debate of how you know they aren't trying. This is what had been mentioned just up there. How you can now read this part in isolation is strange to me. Perhaps it is so you can put these accusations here on the screen for the people reading to see.

Yes. And from day one I've said I did.

And from day one you've never given a single argument about how you've gained this magical knowledge of peoples inner desires and efforts.

Yes it is.

Now if that person then doesn't try and get 580 points (irrespective of whether or not they do or not), I can happily say they don't truly want to be a doctor because they didn't try.

Of course it is been addressed, they don't try to adhere to the standards of Jesus, the principles of Christianity (which means the top of the peak not the base camp), and thus they are not true Christians.

It was addressed in the original post.

Well all of this is adressed above. But if you'd like to start the discussionf resh based on your rephrased version we can do that.

Also Philologos, since I don't know as much about 'Christian principles' though I'm fairly certain, could you tell us whether these include things found in the old testament, or how you would view that whole situation.

It's not crucial to my argument, but it will be one less thing to distract from proper discussion.

philologos · 31-07-2011 09:49PM

One thing I am noticing is the comparison of Christian faith as something that we need to earn. Jesus says jump and we say how high. However, the central notion of Christianity as I understand it is that Jesus doesn't require us to do X, Y and Z in order to love us and be a part of our lives. Indeed, Jesus doesn't only pay the price for our sins, but God will keep guiding us in our lives helping us to live more than more as He would like us to. This isn't our own work that we should be proud of, but rather than inward working of God inside the live of an individual Christian.

Comparing Christian action to something like getting 580 points in the Leaving Cert is a misplaced analogy as far as I can see it.

I know that I fall short of God's standards, indeed it was recognising that in the first place that I was able to accept Christ. I know that I will fall short of them again, but simply put in Christian existence even if we screw up that doesn't necessarily mean that we give up, it means that we try again. The manifesto of Christ in the Sermon of the Mount that Wicknight refers to us admirable, and it is something that Christians need to consider more and more as a living, active source of inspiration in their lives. However, I think there is plenty evidence that many Christians do consider the Sermon on the Mount narrative as being inspirational in their lives.

There are numerous examples of how Christians can make an impact in the societies that they work in, but here's one of how Christian volunteers have helped to reduce the rate of violent crime in Nottingham.

Turtwig · 31-07-2011 10:34PM

philologos wrote: »

There are numerous examples of how Christians can make an impact in the societies that they work in, but here's one of how Christian volunteers have helped to reduce the rate of violent crime in Nottingham.

The presence of church volunteers on the streets of Northampton has helped to reduce the the number of violent assaults, according to latest figures.
Northamptonshire Police has worked with pastors from local churches since 2008.
In the 12 months to March this year, there were 38 reported incidents compared with 110 the previous year.
Rev Mark Lees, who is behind the scheme, said: "I think it is reassuring for people to see somebody else there that's obviously involved and cares."

Hmm, 72 fewer incidents probably because the perps were the ones out patrolling the streets ensuring no one else takes their dough. On a more serious note there has been tonnes of these initiatives in the U.S and such is the beauty of year on year stats you can make it look like they are making a difference. In the long run though? No difference! I'd wager that if you took the crime rate of Nottingham over the last decade and compared it to the next the causal link between these pastor patrols will be very tenuous indeed. I don't fault their effort though, just think it'd much be better placed into volunteering, healthcare and education programs though.

Caulego · 31-07-2011 10:34PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I have to Bill O Reilly aside I think it's actually very disingenuous to say Brevik was undoubtedly a Christian. He may have written stuff down that implied that, but you have to take into account this guy's psych profile is probably something that we'll never comprehend. It might be the case that he himself doesn't know what he believes. What Brevik was and what he actually believed will probably never be known. In all honestly too, it's probably best left unknown. It's almost at the stage now where the media have idolised the guy.

It's hardly surprising that people like Brevik took Jesus at his word, and many religious lunatics do. I'm not saying they are right, of course, but that contradicts his 'right to believe' whatever he wants, regardless. We now live in a world gone mad and well fed on a diet of contradiction and belief, so something has to give, as reality is a thing of the past and has nothing to do with religion, which is based merely on opinion.

Regrettably, what lends to the mess is that the biblical texts are so contradictory and confusing. Jesus supposedly said "turn the other cheek" in Matthew 5:39 “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” i.e. let people abuse you.

Then Luke 22:36 contradicts this very statement when he supposedly said "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." This clearly says "sell the shirt off your back to buy a wapon", or am I wrong? Does no one see the flagrant contradiction here? I'm not making this up, and it's no less contradictory to much of the stuff all through the Bible, the Koran and all other religious texts that people claim to be 'true'. So, is it any wonder that religions foster a pick-it-as-you-want-it kind of mindset, which has led time and time again to incidents like the one involving Brevik? There will be more, and the one thing they all will have in common is that they will all be done by 'believers' of one sort or another (a belief is an opinion or mindset based on lack of evidence). We promote the right to believe, but never say what constitutes unreasonable opinions, as the right to believe is a carte blanche policy.

Brevik writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”

If one claims their 'moral platform' to be Christian, then that is his personal belief, which is protected by law. In his sense, he is as Christian as most Irish Catholics, most of whom have never actually read the bible cover to cover, but live in a cult-ure that is recognised as being 'Christian'. His beliefs were actually stronger than your average Christian, who does not actually take the literal interpretation as being a direct order, so this schizophrenic following lends itself to the actions taken in the name of the deity or outlook by default.

philologos · 31-07-2011 10:40PM

Malty T: So you don't see the value of having people who care out making sure that people get home safely after a lot of drink? You genuinely don't think that would have any impact? The Wikipedia entry looks at it in a broader sense across the UK as a whole. I wouldn't scoff at it without basis though. Unless you really don't believe that churches contribute positively at all to the societies around them?

Caulego: There is a difference between being an alacarte / nominal Christian and a Christian fundamentalist though?

Turtwig · 31-07-2011 10:48PM

Caulego wrote: »

Brevik writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”

I honestly don't believe Brevik's manifesto to be genuine. If he had read Atlas Lost, or any other nutter text he'd probably take inspiration from it and claim that to be his belief.:D

Caulego · 31-07-2011 10:51PM

philologos wrote: »

Caulego: There is a difference between being an alacarte / nominal Christian and a Christian fundamentalist though?

There is a difference in degree, to a point. All religions work on a pick-and-mix basis anyway, as it's impossible to follow all the rules. They won't revise or consider the contriadictions, so nothing changes, which is what we call being dogmatic.
However, fundamentalists regard themselves as being the right minded and ardent followers of a particular outlook, and see themselves as being completely entitled to take the teachings right to the letter of the words written in a book that is regarded as confirming their 'right' to believe what they want to. The alacarte believer chooses the bits they like and ignores the bits they don't, and so does the fundamentalist. The only difference is the depth of conviction, so the fundie is convinced that they are 100% true followers, and not only thinking but acting on the ideas, and not just following for the sake of being a silent member of the flock.

Turtwig · 31-07-2011 11:00PM

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: So you don't see the value of having people who care out making sure that people get home safely after a lot of drink? You genuinely don't think that would have any impact? The Wikipedia entry looks at it in a broader sense across the UK as a whole. I wouldn't scoff at it without basis though. Unless you really don't believe that churches contribute positively at all to the societies around them?

I'm a skeptic philogos. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your suggestion that it had an impact. One year does not a trend make. It sounds like a nice idea, I'll admit that, but just because something is nice or well intentioned doesn't mean it will work. So far the jury is still out and all indications from the US are that there is no difference. The UK is a different culture though, so we'll just have to wait a while and see.

Caulego · 31-07-2011 11:04PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I honestly don't believe Brevik's manifesto to be genuine. If he had read Atlas Lost, or any other nutter text he'd probably take inspiration from it and claim that to be his belief.:D

Again, it's of no actual relevance as to what you, I or anyone else believes about his ideas being genuine, as he is the one who acted out his belief, and that's the issue. In this case, he said and wrote down his ideas, which he said was that he is 'Christian' by culture, and as all religions are cult-ic (devoted to a system of belief or reverence) then his description is accurate.
A belief is simply an attitude or set of idea and values that are only supported by the idea or feeling (emotion) that they are correct and right, not necessarily actually and factually based on facts. They are opinions that are non-factual, but the laws protect such opinions regardless, so they are given the same weight as factual opinions (ones based on knowledge and reason), which is why people think that they are one and the same. They 'believe' (are convinced) that they are true, regardless, just like a child believes in the Tooth Fairy, because it profits them to do so. Mad ideas suit mad minds, and mad minds are influenced by mad and contradictory ideologies that leave themselves open to interpretation. Brevik acted on his beliefs, not reason or anything else, so it is not for us to say that he didn't, as he surely did act on his convictions, and they were 'blind', which is what religions promote as being the truest form of belief. Complete belief, with no shred of doubt, is the Holy Grail that religions preach, so it's hardly surprising that some people go for gold.

philologos · 31-07-2011 11:06PM

Malty T: At present there are teams operating in 150 towns and cities in Britain with the support for the most part of local politicians and police. Skeptical or not, I think it's still difficult to say that people who are out there caring for people who have had well too much to drink is a good idea given how much of a problem it is.

Obviously it's not the only way that Christians contribute to their societies but it is one idea of many.

Turtwig · 31-07-2011 11:13PM

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: At present there are teams operating in 150 towns and cities in Britain with the support for the most part of local politicians and police. Skeptical or not, I think it's still difficult to say that people who are out there caring for people who have had well too much to drink is a good idea given how much of a problem it is.

Obviously it's not the only way that Christians contribute to their societies but it is one idea of many.

But, you miss the point. It doesn't matter how good their intentions are, or how many teams there are. It might still be just as effective as paper ballistics vests Yeah it's nice to know that people care but if you want me to be really cynical about it this amounts to nothing more than glossing paint over a damaged wall in attempt to hide the cracks in society.Crime prevention begins with education and improved quality of living.

There are several ways a person can contribute to their society, some are betters than others.

philologos · 31-07-2011 11:27PM

Malty T: The current reception from authorities & statistics suggest that it isn't. (Meh, there's more but I think that's enough for now)

It's not as if police / local government have some kind of agenda.

robindch · 31-07-2011 11:37PM

philologos wrote: »

you are assuming that Christians must of necessity be perfect as a result of believing in Christ.

I'm sure it's been pointed out up there somewhere, but I suspect that Wicknight wishes that christians should at least pretend to follow Jesus' rules, even if they don't in practice.

philologos wrote: »

In reality most Christians, myself included know that we screw up from time to time, but we aspire to live and speak for Jesus in every aspect of our lives. I've failed to do it from time to time. Becoming more and more like Christ is a continual process rather than an immediate process.

There are differences between (a) pretending to have a set of rules (b) actually having a set of rules, (c) pretending to follow a set of rules, and (d) actually following a set of rules.

Christians, in my experience, almost universally fit into group (a).

Turtwig · 01-08-2011 12:15AM

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: The current reception from authorities & statistics suggest that it isn't. (Meh, there's more but I think that's enough for now)

It's not as if police / local government have some kind of agenda.

All the links you provided were useless except this one.

In that period, the number of violence against the person offences in the Grove ward, which includes the town centre, dropped by nearly
50 per cent between 2004-05 and 2008-09.

Now we have something. Obviously first of all this claim needs to be verified. Then we need to look at crime trends over the past, say, 30 years. And, we also need to look at other programs that were introduced. Only then can we look towards thinking about making the claim that all that 50% was down to these street pastors.

Zombrex · 01-08-2011 02:16AM

raah! wrote: »

It's not crucial to my argument, but it will be one less thing to distract from proper discussion.

I think the posts that take up a page are distracting from things more than anything.

My position is that you either misunderstood or (more likely to my mind) misrepresented for the sake of caricature, my original argument, and then ignored further clarification in order to continue to argue against this caricature.

Your position (if I might be so bold) is that I original stated something ridiculous and bigoted and then attempted to back track from it when this was pointed out to me by you and others.

I think we can leave it to the audience to decide which position they accept in this regard, as clearly we are not making any head way convincing each other of our position.

Zombrex · 01-08-2011 02:23AM

philologos wrote: »

Wicknight: Not that this is relevant as to whether or not Brevik is a 'Christian fundamentalist' (which he doesn't seem to be given what he's written in his 1500 page megadoc), but you are assuming that Christians must of necessity be perfect as a result of believing in Christ.

No, I'm assuming that Christians must try to be as perfect as Jesus instructed them to be as a result of believing in Christ.

philologos wrote: »

In reality most Christians, myself included know that we screw up from time to time, but we aspire to live and speak for Jesus in every aspect of our lives.

Not in my experience. I think you may aspire to lead good lives. But then Christians are asked by Jesus to do more than that.

philologos wrote: »

I've failed to do it from time to time.

How does one fail to aspire to live and speak for Jesus?

As Robin pointed out these excuses make the claims almost meaningless.

It is like Bart from the Simpsons "I can't promise I'll try. But I promise to try to try"

philologos wrote: »

As for not seeing people living like Christians on a regular basis. I honestly don't know. I haven't seen quite the same commitment as Christians give in numerous aspects to their societies. A survey undertaken in evangelical churches in Britain (PDF - 2.1MB) shows (Guardian coverage here) that there is a correlation between Bible reading, and giving and volunteering along with other traditional forms of Christian expression such as prayer and evangelism.

That is great, but that alone does not make one a Christian, at least not to my mind.

Like raah I suspect the issue is that you, and most Christians in my experience, don't really appreciate what Jesus actually asked you to do. Finding out if this is true or not is one of the reasons I started the thread on loving your enemies in the other forum.

raah! · 01-08-2011 06:25AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I think the posts that take up a page are distracting from things more than anything.

Perhaps you are right, taking both of those position representations into account, we can both be happy, from those positions, continuing with this statement (as I said in my last few posts) :

Wicknight
Certain. I think that I've never met a true Christian, since every Christian I've met has displayed behavior where they have abandoned trying to adhere to Jesus' standards.

I still disagree with this.

Just for the sake of clarity, it's important to note that this "Jesus' standards" is quite apart from "Christian Principles". On this you can push the argument that a christian who has all those qualities like meekness and forgiveness is still not a christian, because they have disagreed with you on a forum.

So, as before, on this clear and precise form of your meaning, how do you know they have "abandoned trying to adhere" and could you give examples of this? (it would be helpful if you did not cite what you see as deliberate misinterpretation, since this is not s omething we agree over).

I've already given reasons why you can't infer this, and reasons why you could infer that someone who calls them selves a christian and does well with the easier values, but struggles with those closer and closer to the attainment of christlike perfection is still "trying to be christian".

Youre inference is along the lines of

-I've seen christians who have not attained a state of christlike perfection.
???
-Therefore they have completely abandoned even trying to live up to this standard of Jesus.

Your examples are along the lines of things which are not clear cut, but rather subjective (this is where your subjective bias comes into account, and why words like predjudice and bigot become more appropriate). For example a person calls you a bigot for saying things they see as bigotted. There is nothing unchristian about informing someone that they are engaged in immorality and trying to improve them by doing so. It perhaps does not make you feel good, but this does not make it so that it is an instance of their not trying to love you.

Since we have separated from the topic of scriptural interpretation, and you have changed your statements, there is no need for you to refuse to defend it here.

raah! · 01-08-2011 06:32AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Like raah I suspect the issue is that you, and most Christians in my experience, don't really appreciate what Jesus actually asked you to do. Finding out if this is true or not is one of the reasons I started the thread on loving your enemies in the other forum.

So you could support this by showing any demonstration of our misunderstanding of what it is Jesus asks people to do.

You could also go into what specific kernals you have in mind that people are failing to aspire to. You could then support why you think no christians strive towards them.

As I said earlier, I hope this is not all an inference from people impatiently disagreeing with you on some internet forum.

We discussed this earlier, but you would also have to support how correcting someone is an instance of not loving them. How impatience and love are mutually exclusive. Things like ths.

A quick example to show they are not would be a parent becoming angry with their child after repeated antics or something. This is just one example. You might retort that the impatience was a manifestation of non-love, but it would still be the case that the impatience does not in anyway demonstrate that the person is actively trying not to love. Or that because they are impatient they do not love.

I've brought all these things up already (along with a whole host of others which are less relevent now that you have changed your statment). They were not addressed before.

philologos · 01-08-2011 10:09AM

Wicknight wrote: »

No, I'm assuming that Christians must try to be as perfect as Jesus instructed them to be as a result of believing in Christ.

Agreed in so far as Christians must strive to know Jesus more and as a result live by His example. As for your belief that nobody actually does lead Christ-inspired lives I would question as to how far you're looking. Most of the examples I've given you are examples of Christians living for Christ in their communities. In the case of what I was discussing with Malty T it has a real impact on crime rates.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not in my experience. I think you may aspire to lead good lives. But then Christians are asked by Jesus to do more than that.

It depends on what a "good" life is. Christians don't believe that anyone is good in and of themselves. A good life for a Christian is a life led with a heart that follows after His.

Wicknight wrote: »

How does one fail to aspire to live and speak for Jesus?

FYP to give you an understanding of what I meant. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

Wicknight wrote: »

As Robin pointed out these excuses make the claims almost meaningless.
It is like Bart from the Simpsons "I can't promise I'll try. But I promise to try to try"

Nonsense, many Christians actually do show in very tangible ways the love of Christ in their communities.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is great, but that alone does not make one a Christian, at least not to my mind.

So living in a Christlike manner doesn't demonstrate to you that people live in a Christlike manner?

One is a Christian by a living faith in Christ. That's how one is saved and how one becomes a Christian. As for what follows on from that, that is the fruit of God's working in an individuals life.

Wicknight wrote: »

Like raah I suspect the issue is that you, and most Christians in my experience, don't really appreciate what Jesus actually asked you to do. Finding out if this is true or not is one of the reasons I started the thread on loving your enemies in the other forum.

I'm afraid I can't comment on what Christians you may or may not know in experience but going from some to all is woefully bad logic isn't it?

Malty T: All of the links show that it has been a valuable scheme in communities.

Zombrex · 01-08-2011 10:31AM

philologos wrote: »

Agreed in so far as Christians must strive to know Jesus more and as a result live by His example.

And by how he told you to live, arguably more important than his example since his God and thus has authority to do things that you may not necessarily have.

philologos wrote: »

As for your belief that nobody actually does lead Christ-inspired lives I would question as to how far you're looking.

Again a Christ-inspired life can mean anything. The issue isn't whether Christ-inspired you, the issue is whether you are trying to honestly live up to what he asked you do in your life.

philologos wrote: »

Most of the examples I've given you are examples of Christians living for Christ in their communities. In the case of what I was discussing with Malty T it has a real impact on crime rates.

Again great, but again doesn't mean they are trying to be as Christ commanded them.

philologos wrote: »

It depends on what a "good" life is. Christians don't believe that anyone is good in and of themselves. A good life for a Christian is a life led with a heart that follows after His.

Good as in the things you have said, helping the weak and sick, giving to charity etc.

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense, many Christians actually do show in very tangible ways the love of Christ in their communities.

Again there is more to it than just leading a good life and helping others.

philologos wrote: »

So living in a Christlike manner doesn't demonstrate to you that people live in a Christlike manner?

They aren't living in a Christlike manner. They are living in a good human like manner.

This is what I meant earlier, "living in a Christlike manner" has become to watered down to simply mean doing nice things for those less fortunate than you.

In reality if you read the Bible Jesus actually commanded a lot more than that. It is this where Christians fall down. I've never met a true Christian.

philologos wrote: »

One is a Christian by a living faith in Christ.

One is a Christian by an honest living faith in Christ.

Zombrex · 01-08-2011 10:36AM

raah! wrote: »

So you could support this by showing any demonstration of our misunderstanding of what it is Jesus asks people to do.

I could, though I'm not sure the exercise would have much further purpose. I've already shown you what you were doing and how it was unChristian. You, unsurprisingly, disagreed.

Others asked you were you trying to love me at this moment, and you dismissed the questions as irrelevant.

Can you tell me what could change your mind about my position?

Until then the original comment probably has more value to atheists or non-Christians who are not themselves "in the box" so to speak of Christian faith.

philologos · 01-08-2011 10:41AM

Saving the chopping quotes and so on. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what Christianity means. It doesn't mean that all Christians are going to be perfect, it means that we are striving to be more and more like Him. As I've said already, it is a continual process. From time to time I do fail to reach God's standards, but I get up and try again. I earnestly believe that God has influenced my life in a positive way and He is helping me to be more like Christ on a daily basis. That's what a Christian is. It isn't about ones personal effort to do X, Y or Z, it is about the work of God in that individuals life. I believe I do have some way to go, but I'm certainly getting there with God's help.

As for your perception that Christians will be absolutely infallible, that isn't stated anywhere. I think honestly, that I and others are looking to Christ and learning from Him in many ways and that'll continue right until the point of death for me.

I think that you're essentially claiming that many people aren't Christian enough for you despite the fact that they are doing what Christ asked to. Loving the Lord their God with all their heart, soul and might, and loving their neighbour as themselves.

This is really going off the topic of Brevik, and probably warrants a new thread over yonder where you postulate your idea of a perfect Christian. Biblically, a Christian is someone who accepts the gravity of their sin, and accepts Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

Zombrex · 01-08-2011 10:48AM

philologos wrote: »

Saving the chopping quotes and so on. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what Christianity means. It doesn't mean that all Christians are going to be perfect, it means that we are striving to be more and more like Him.

I don't know why people keep saying that to me. I never claimed that Christians have to be perfect to be Christians.

But you have to try, honestly, to be perfect to be Christians. You have to honestly try to follow what Jesus commands of you. And you don't.

So there

philologos wrote: »

I think that you're essentially claiming that many people aren't Christian enough for you despite the fact that they are doing what Christ asked to. Loving the Lord their God with all their heart, soul and might, and loving their neighbour as themselves.

Jesus told you to do more than that. And you don't. So, er, there .. again

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Christian nor am I pretending to live up to this either.

philologos · 01-08-2011 10:52AM

Wicknight: You're going to have to pop over yonder with a systematic list of what I and others don't do because it seems like we're playing the guessing game otherwise?

Zombrex · 01-08-2011 12:51PM

philologos wrote: »

Wicknight: You're going to have to pop over yonder with a systematic list of what I and others don't do because it seems like we're playing the guessing game otherwise?

Well as I explained to raah I'm not sure of how fruitful such an exercise is. You already believe I'm wrong, that you do try and be what Jesus commanded of you.

philologos · 01-08-2011 01:53PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Well as I explained to raah I'm not sure of how fruitful such an exercise is. You already believe I'm wrong, that you do try and be what Jesus commanded of you.

I'm just saying if you're going to make claims that I and others don't try do what Jesus commanded and then fall back when questioned as to what then I wonder how fruitful you intended this discussion to be.

Zombrex · 01-08-2011 05:01PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm just saying if you're going to make claims that I and others don't try do what Jesus commanded and then fall back when questioned as to what then I wonder how fruitful you intended this discussion to be.

If by fruitful you mean convince you of the correctness of my position, not fruitful at all. But then that wasn't why I made the original point, nor why I engaged with you (that was merely to clarify my position).

If you want an easy example of what I'm talking about though, you don't try and love your enemies as Jesus commanded.

Bill O'Reilly: No True Christian would kill Norwegians.

Comments