Exposing the Atheist

get-a-brain-moransReligious nutcases are a dime a dozen, but Robert T. Lee outshines the competition. On his site, Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments, he has a section dedicated to “Exposing the Atheist.” He makes the following claims, and asks us to “examine these articles very carefully.”

  • Satan is the “author” of atheism and the “atheistic god”
  • “Atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist.”
  • “Atheists are extremely dangerous people. Therefore laws should be made against them by all the governments of the world community.”
  • “Atheists are responsible for youth crime.”
  • Atheists “hate the TEN COMMANDMENTS” because God wrote them, so we teach our children to disobey them.
  • “Atheism is therefore a doctrine of demons, and in many, if not all cases, atheists are demon-possessed.”
  • Atheists are “the biggest fools on earth.”

In other words, this psycho is actively working towards laws being made against atheists because they are “extremely dangerous.”

Could you imagine if he used a different word than atheists? For instance, “Jews are responsible for youth crime.” Or, “Black people are extremely dangerous. Therefore laws should be made against them…” Or heaven forbid, “Christians are extremely dangerous people. Therefore laws should be made against them…”

Doing that isn’t acceptable. So why is is acceptable to do it with atheism?

  • http://www.slim-blondje.com/eng Pascalle

    There is one problem with his thinking.

    We don’t believe in satan either :)

    • ela

      neither does satan ;-)

  • Proto

    Perhaps because we don’t have political representation yet? It doesn’t seem to matter what arguments are put forth, until someone makes a well televised speech such prejudice will still be generally acceptable.

  • Francesc

    I love specially that one:

    “Atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist.”

    Yeah! He got us. We know that the true -his?- God exist and that we will be doomed for all the eternity to hell. And still, we choose to fight against God. Why? Two options:

    1.- “Atheism is therefore a doctrine of demons, and in many, if not all cases, atheists are demon-possessed.”
    So, I should have some supernatural power, shouldn’t I? Oh yes, rational thinking.

    2.- We want to go to hell to avoid sharing our eternity with people like him. Disgusting.

    P.S.: I can hear it: “he is not a real christian”

  • Mogg

    Did you read his article “Evil freedom should not be allowed” on the main website? Whoa!

    Incidentally, Daniel, clicking directly from the link you gave to the Society’s main website gave me a 404 error.

  • xian-x

    > So why is is acceptable to do it with atheism?

    Because we non-believers are demon-possessed. Remember what Christians have historically believed themselves justified in doing in the name of “saving” those plagued by demons.

  • http://endemoniada.org Martin

    My favorite was this part:

    So, lets assume (in order to prove a point here) that atheists are right. If a human author them (and I speak as if insane), then we know for sure that no atheist, agnostic nor any other unbeliever had sense enough to author them.

    Why is that so? Because atheists are OPPOSED to GOD and His Holy COMMANDMENTS. And again, some even say the TEN COMMANDMENTS don’t exist. So if a human authored them, it was a person who had far more intelligence than any atheist, agnostic or unbeliever.

    I don’t even know what to say… The utter insanity of the “logic” used here goes beyond words.

  • http://longfun.multiply.com/ longfun

    This is fun
    From a theists point of view it is only logical to blame Satan “doubt” to be the “author” of atheism and the “atheistic god”

    I agree Atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist but can’t be defined… in other words is an undefined and in such every defined god is none existing. (this includes every theists god)

    non controlled Atheists are extremely dangerous people. Therefore laws should be made against them by all the governments of the world community.
    This is a logical event as religion is no more than freely accepted laws and rules to life by, atheists will follow discussed laws, and this is growing drastically…
    The theist only forgets that all such laws also include their world of thinking

    Atheists are responsible for youth crime is only unfounded rhetoric, but if true it shows how theism is loosing its influence in society.

    This # Atheists “hate the TEN COMMANDMENTS” because God wrote them, so we teach our children to disobey them.
    is illogical atheists are simply replacing them by debatable and binding laws.

    From a theist point of view Atheism is therefore a doctrine of demons, and in many, if not all cases, atheists are demon-possessed. As atheist and even theist laws slowly drag them do disagree with their own religion.

    Atheists are “the biggest fools on earth.” is probably relating to the theist point of view on this “god” subject. it is true we atheist don’t know anything about it as there is no point in nature pointing at this “god” theory.

  • Francesco Orsenigo

    These people are cruel and dangerous monsters.
    I’m scared of what they would do if secular law wasn’t restraining them.

  • http://mehbooks.wordpress.com/ Bissrok

    I like that there are people out there that think I’m extremely dangerous. Watch out world, I follow the doctrine of demons.

  • http://arkonbey.blogspot.com arkonbey

    I just read the full article and found, what I think, is the most perfectly circular argument I’ve ever found:

    “There’s no greater argument for the existence of God than the truth of His existence”

    I mean, seriously?

  • cynic

    ” (atheists) are in favor of murdering innocent human embryos and fetuses; who are perpetuating homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, pornography, pedophilia and etc; ”

    “Atheists and all other nonbelievers in the true God – regardless of their level of “education” and position in society – are therefore the true criminals of the world community and if there is a sane government, it should treat them accordingly”

    Also, at the top of the website there, is a ‘produced by an ex-atheist’ icon. the way i see it , the guy was an ex-atheist and as an atheist he was involved in ‘beastiality’ and ‘pedophilia’, i mean , why else would he think atheists do that kinda thing unless he’s writing from experience

    i hereby nominate the writer of that article as a contender for biggest idiot in the world.

  • http://foreverinhell.blogspot.com Personal Failure

    oh, yeah, this guy! i forgot about him. he’s way crazy fun!

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    I am extremely dangerous?

    If there were a large number of people saying detestable and nasty things about this moron, he’d feel endangered, too!

  • Roger

    I’m only dangerous if I haven’t had my breakfast…a breakfast consisting of scrambled baby, baby toast, and a big glass of baby juice.

  • http://ohdeath.smackjeeves.com Tyler

    I especially like that the subdomain for his Atheist section is ‘heathens’

    I think I will put a site dedicated to them under the subdomain, ‘hatemongerer’

  • http://www.theamenheresy.com Bill

    8 of the 10 commandments can be tracked directly to similar negative affirmations in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

    I think he should persecute the Egyptians before the atheists.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    You know, we can mock this idiot and make jokes at his ignorant, red-kneck expense – but one day he’s going to turn up at some secular society dinner and unload an assault rifle on a bunch of people. Betcha. Being as fucked in the head as that guy = mental illness, and metal illness = no joke.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    *mental

  • http://www.nbphotographix.com nbphotographix

    Im a Christian, and I agree, this guy sucks. Whatever happened to Co-Exist?

  • ucbones

    Some people use religion-in this case Christianity-as an expression of their personal problems.
    This guy is one of them.

    With an attitude like this he is way outside of all that the Bible teaches, more than that he is completely wrong in his statements and has no respect for your views.

    I don’t agree with atheism, but we are all brothers and sisters.

    This guy definately needs to find Jesus, because, although he professes to speak for Jesus, he certainly does not know Him and only speaks for himself.

    Blessings

  • http://alphonsuspeck.wordpress.com Alphonsus

    Poor guy. It must be hard living in a brain that narrow. His thoughts come out all squished and distorted.

    This fruitcake is just an example of how much danger the would would be in if not for the constant vigilance of people who thank God every day for our constitutional right to say that God doesn’t exist.

    Wait…there’s a contradiction in there somewhere. Let me think about this for a while.

  • http://www.onyxbits.de Patrick

    As a request: Please use a rel=”nofollow” tag when linking to these nutcases. Otherwise, you provide undeserved search engine optimization for them. I bet, sites like answers in genesis or the discovery institute would rank much worse with google, if it were not for tons of disagreeing articles and blogposts, providing free backlinks.
    Nobody should help these twits spreading their message by pushing their pages in the search engines.

  • gamingguy

    Unfortunately, I think this guy expresses the views of a lot of Christians. More than there should be. I mean, atheists are less likely to be elected than any other group, including Muslims. All I have to say is this:

    http://reasonstohateamerica.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/comon-sense.jpg

  • Omar

    The last three paragraphs opened my eyes.

    I read the incongruities and I smiled but after reading the last three paragraphs I am indignant and angered.

  • trj

    On my way home from work today I went grocery shopping, and rather than just pocketing the equivalent of $20 which the clerk mistakenly gave me back in change, I returned it. It completely slipped my mind that I’m an immoral atheist.

    DAMN IT!

  • http://www.anatheist.net James

    Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims. I would want to know how many people actually take this position as seriously as he does.

  • Sophistry

    My personal favourite:

    “the Bible puzzles them as calculus puzzles the dimwitted”

    I’m puzzled by both the Bible AND calculus. I wonder what that means.

  • DarkMatter

    I suspect this site (Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments) is a joke or satirical.

  • DarkMatter

    It is the links about the jews and inner scantuary that brings suspicion. The other link is questions and answers.

    It is like:
    http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

    Anyways, it is my opinion.

  • http://www.atheist-r-evolution.com Paper

    What about us Atheist that follow Joe Pesci?

    And why isn’t rape in the 10 commandments? You would think that would of been put in there somewhere…

  • http://godbegone.blogspot.com/ [GBG]

    He gets away with it for the same reason Hitler got away with marginalising the Jews and the KKK got away with marginalising black people….. he rallies the majority against the minority by demonising them (literally in his case).

    it’s not a particularly “christian” thing to do, but modern christianity isn’t particularly “christian”, It just pretends it is.

    It hides behind faith as an excuse to hate people (gays, women, atheists). The reality is, these filthy liars don’t believe in this shit any more than we do, they just pretend to to justify an otherwise abhorrent opinion.

  • a2audrey

    I’m wondering if Robert T. is a member of the Phelps clan?!?!

    I haven’t read this level vitriol outside of the Westboro Baptist Church…

  • Dr. Karl E. Taylor

    This joker has been around for a long time. I first ran into him on the alt.atheism newsgroup. He is a very sick and twisted person and his son is no better. On A.A. he had his ass handed to him so many times he ran away screaming that we were all damned to hell and he’d laugh as we burned.

    No, Lee is not satire or parody. Like Phelps and VenomFangX, he firmly believes what he says and writes. His mental capacity is lacking in any form of critical thinking skills and he is likely someone you’d see on the front page someday for taking out a group of people that didn’t believe as he does.

    He is a danger to himself and society.

  • http://radiometricx.orgfree.com Steve

    The only “moran” I’ve heard of goes by the name of Erin. Is he telling the family of Erin Moran to get a brain?

  • Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  • http://tabbiesgarden.wordpress.com Tabbie

    Bottom Line: This guy is a nutcase.

  • David Waddell

    I’m a Christian, but I find the accusations funny. I hope no one other than the author presumes to take them seriously!

  • http://misterjebsblog.blogspot.com TinaFCD

    Satan is the “author” of atheism and the “atheistic god”

    How many times do I have to say this? I don’t believe in ANY gods. :)

  • http://starvingjournalist.wordpress.com/ E. Kimbell

    Interesting find. What’s strange is that I’ve been putting together an interview series on faith and religion, and lo and behold, when I curiously searched for “atheism” in WordPress to gauge some sort of public opinion, I arrived here.

    I think an even funnier word to stick in there would be “clowns.”

  • dr.R.

    Could you imagine if he used a different word than atheists? For instance, “Jews are responsible for youth crime.” Or, “Black people are extremely dangerous. Therefore laws should be made against them…” Or heaven forbid, “Christians are extremely dangerous people. Therefore laws should be made against them…”

    Doing that isn’t acceptable. So why is is acceptable to do it with atheism?

    Oh, come on! You’re not developing a persecution complex, are you? You sound like a christian here…

  • Margaret

    Miguel: “No, I disagree. If Christ taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves, then someone who consistently tried to hate everyone (because he thinks this is what Jesus wants) can claim to be a Christian, but I have every right to say He isn’t a real Christian because he goes against Christ’s teachings.”

    Someone who tries to hate everyone is following Jesus: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” -Luke 14:26

    The NT is very contradictory, so Christians can justify very different beliefs.

  • http://1upfilms.wordpress.com Joe atheist

    Thanks for putting it on the site, I hoped you liked the heads up

    The man Is obviously bat fuck insane.

    I’ll look aroun for more stuff as well

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “Are you now saying that any sect which includes lessons or books outside of the new testament is not truly christian?

    Are you really this thick? YES thats what I’m saying!

    If someone follows the Quran and follows the new testament, ya think he can logically call himself a Christian? No! The Book of Mormon makes specific claims about Jesus and is their primary source of teaching. Ofcourse they will *claim* to follow the NT because they *claim* to be Christians to which you erroneously *claimed* not all of them claim to be.”

    1. I’m trying to get your understanding of what a “true christian” is. Further up thread, you said true cristians follow the lessons in the new testament, you DID NOT say that true christians follow the lessons in the new testament to the exclusion of all other lessons/books. Perhaps you should consider actually saying what you mean.

    Now we have narrowed your criteria for true christians down a bit more. As near as I can tell here is what we know about true chritians according to Miguel:

    a. They believe in the divinity of jesus.

    b. They follow the lessons in the new testament. (Although you won’t tell us exactly what those lessons are or how they impact real life decisions.)

    c. They don’t follow lessons/books outside of the new testament. (I am curious about things like the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed, which clearly are not in the new testament but offer lessons many “christians” live by.)

    Do other christians want to chime in? Do you agree with Miguel’s definition?

    2. Why do you think mormons only “claim” to follow the nt? Do you have evidence that they actually don’t?

    3. I never said that mormons don’t all claim to be christian. I said that I know mormons who claim to be christian, and while it’s possible that not all mormons claim to be christian (I don’t know t), at least some do. You see, I was limiting my statement to what I have knowledge of. Try it sometime.

  • Sock

    No no. There are MANY problems with his thinking. You just pointed out the easy one. ;)

  • Reginald Selkirk
  • http://www.slim-blondje.com/eng Pascalle

    You are right.
    But come on.. he put the ball there.. 1 yard of the big open goal..

    even me.. who sucks at football (soccer for you americans) couldn’t resist kicking it in :)

  • chester bogus

    Hahaha! I noticed the same quote, too. I had to share it with a friend I was chatting with.

    Just, wow.

  • gamingguy

    21. ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY
    (1) God exists, you bastards!
    (2) Therefore, God exists.

    136. ARGUMENT FROM SERIOUS ASSERTION
    (1) God exists.
    (2) No, seriously.
    (3) Therefore, God exists

    451. ARGUMENT FROM ASSHOLE
    (1) God exists, asshole.
    (2) Therefore, God exists. Asshole.

  • xian-x

    And, oh, the irony of there really being “…no greater argument for the existence of God…”

  • J. Allen

    Oh we don’t? I never get the memos.

    What am I going to do with all this chicken blood I ordered? :(

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Yeah, reminds me of the day Goldstein saw his friend Moshe at the park reading a horrid right-wing rag of a newspaper.

    “Moshe,” he said “For why do you read that thing? You know they hate Jews.”

    “Yes,” said his friend, “But look you: The other paper is full of misery and woe for the Jewish people. But according to this one we control the world!”

  • LRA

    Dr. Bissrock, DA, DoD

    ;)

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Mmm. Fresh baby juice.

    Do you squeeze your own?

  • LRA

    Mmmmm…. baby, the other other white meat… (get in my belly!)

  • trj

    Use it in the sauce for the babies you’ll be eating.

  • trj

    Nah, the guy is a total idiot. Political representation will not change that. People like this are way beyond changing their mind because of any actual information.

  • Proto

    I agree, but political representation would perhaps result in his fellow Christians hiding him somewhat better – if not outright denouncing his beliefs.

  • trj

    Atheists being “the biggest fools on earth” is without a doubt based on the quote that goes something like “The fool says in his heart there is no god”.

    Fundies simply can’t resist dragging out this quote whenever they feel in need of confirming their own faith or they want to score some cheap points against those foolish atheists.

  • Devysciple

    I agree Atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist but can’t be defined… in other words is an undefined and in such every defined god is none existing. (this includes every theists god)

    And yet again a fellow Atheist has made my day! Thank you.

  • trj

    Yes, it might work on others, you’re right about that.

  • http://iwant2knowyourstory.blogspot.com/ Niva Tuvia

    That reminds me of dead baby jokes :(

  • Roger

    Fresh squeezed is the only way to go! Of course, you can procure the best fresh-squeezed baby juice at your local abortionist’s office. They have a wonderful co-op in the back (shh–don’t tell the theists!).

  • Francesc

    “Atheists are not fit to be parents; they are not fit to be employed in any portion of any society; they are not fit to be any kind of leaders in any society, nor are they fit to serve in any area of public trust. Atheism makes every person who embraces it unfit for any good work.

    Atheists are not even fit to live. They have forfeited the right to life by virtue of being unfit for any good thing”

    Who is dangerous then?

  • LRA

    They might do what this atheist-hater did:

    http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/19165557/detail.html

  • 2-D Man

    It’d be something like this.

  • http://iwant2knowyourstory.blogspot.com/ Niva Tuvia

    O.o Wow… That’s… Wow. The kid’s crazy laugh on the vid was the creepiest part…

  • Nope

    I’m assuming that by saying this, you found him already. So where was he hiding? We’ve been shouting “ollie-ollie oxen free!” for years now.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Actually, I think finding a brain and some tolerance would be preferable to Jesus. He thinks he’s already found Jesus, and see what that’s done to him?

    We’re all rational and tolerant without Jesus, and he can be too.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    This guy definately needs to find Jesus, because, although he professes to speak for Jesus, he certainly does not know Him and only speaks for himself.

    I see, so he’s not a true Christian. Like you, presumably.

  • claidheamh mor

    Oh all together now:

    “He’s no *true* christian!”

    Seemed like a pretty real christian to me.
    Frighteningly real.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    Ok – I’ll try this question again. I’ve asked it of a few believers already and I never get an answer. Maybe this time will be different.

    Clearly this nutjob holds himself out to be a christian. Yet, you are telling us he isn’t a true christian. If we can’t rely on the labels alleged christians give themselves, how are we suppose to tell the true christians from the false ones? Is there an objective list of traits somewhere that we can consult?

  • Karleigh

    “He’s not a real Christian”…
    Oh, we’ve heard this before.
    How can you be so arrogant as to assert exactly what another person does and does not know? You don’t know shit about Jesus either. There’s no evidence he even existed.

    We don’t want your blessings, mate.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    A great reminder, thanks!

  • http://iwant2knowyourstory.blogspot.com/ Niva Tuvia

    Btw, thanks for replying to my email. Good point. I didn’t even think about that. Blonde moment I guess (not picking on blondes, it’s just a figure of speech).

  • trj

    Turns out he was behind the sofa the whole time.

  • Sunny Day

    Easter’s canceled, they found the Body.

  • http://iwant2knowyourstory.blogspot.com/ Niva Tuvia

    Have you ever been to a southern baptist church? Well, not all people who claim the southern baptist denomination are like that of course, and I’m not dissing them with a prejudice, but that’s where most people I’ve met that are like that come from. It’s actually kinda scary when you meet someone who believes things like that. Especially when you’ve been surrounded by them on a Sunday morning before… 0.0

  • claidheamh mor

    Watch the fats in your your diet!

    If peanut oil comes from peanuts and olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?

  • rodneyAnonymous

    You are a dimwitted heathen.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    I believe in Sid Crosby more.

  • Logan

    Hahahaha… My (christian) girlfriend and I were at a hockey game, and one of the fans was wearing his jersey. She was shocked until I told him that was actually a hockey player’s name.

  • Mark D

    And there are plenty Jesuses (or is that Jesi) playing major league baseball.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    What’s even funnier is that in Matthew it says “anyone who says ‘you fool’ is in danger of hellfire”.

    Try that the next time a fundie quotes that verse at you and see what response you get.

  • Yoav

    That’s true a fool say in his heart there is no god a smart man say it out laud.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    I’d be very surprised if it was a joke or satire.

  • http://blog.elliottcallahan.com Elliott

    Buy the domain ‘hatemongerer’, set up the subdomain ‘idiot,’ and mirror his whole site.

  • claidheamh mor

    I can’t afford to be a heathen or a pagan. “Heathen” comes from an English word meaning “dweller on the heath”, and “pagan” comes from Latin “paganus: country dweller”.

    Out there in the country, where they couldn’t easily be controlled by the long arm of the church.

    But it costs so much to live in a home in the country these days! The city too, but there they can stack us like cordwood.

  • Miguel

    Well by the word Christian – a true Christian would try and live in accordance with Christ’s teachings. I don’t think Christ ever taught his followers stuff of this sort. So therefore, he really isn’t a true Christian.

    Can we call someone who doesn’t believe in God a true Christian on account of his claiming to be one?

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    And what are the teachings by which we can identify the true christian?

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “Can we call someone who doesn’t believe in God a true Christian on account of his claiming to be one?”

    Perhaps – It’s possible that someone might not believe in the existence of god, or the divinity of christ, but still think christ existed and had valuable lessons.

    They might call themselves a christian. Why not?

  • DarkMatter

    Yet you can see like “mocking” by christians “leaders” on the person of atheists.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “I certainly don’t know about “Branch Davidians”, but obviously the religious groups you mentioned follow radically different teachings than Christians. They can certainly claim that they are following Jesus’ teachings, but a simple look at what they actualy believe in will show otherwise. ”

    So now we are applying criteria other than following the teachings of the new testament regardless of interpretation.

    Sorry but you are going to have to provide an actual list of the teachings, and the proper interpretation.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    That Joe Pesci…he doesn’t mess around. He’s a guy who knows how to get things done.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    God didn’t put it there because he knew he’d be saying it was okay for the Israelites to do when they were conquering nations, and he didn’t want to confuse them.

  • Sock

    Thou Shalt Not Rape was actually included in the first version of the ten commandments, but Moses broke it in anger when he saw those that he’d brought with him worshiping a golden calf.

    Since God likes to punish us, his response was to remove that commandment from the second set of plates and put up another one about not worshiping anyone else, since that was clearly a more prevalent problem.

  • LRA

    Why isn’t child abuse in the ten commandments?!?!!?!!!?!!?!

  • xian-x

    I suppose we’ll have to think of some atheistic equivalent to excommunication to punish you for your moral behavior. Perhaps, we’ll have to cast you out of our demon-infested revelry and condemn you to an eternity of wholesome, Christian worship. Be sure not to miss the special music.

  • Devysciple

    EPIC FAIL

  • Miguel

    Well.. You can’t expect me to list them all here. Its in the NT.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    So anyone who follows teachings in the NT is a “true christian” regardless of what their interpretation of those teachings is?

  • Miguel

    So anyone who follows teachings in the NT is a “true christian” regardless of what their interpretation of those teachings is?

    - Yes, if one follows the teachings of Christ as was written in the NT – he can call himself a Christian. Regarding the differences in interpretations, while there are differences among Christian denominations, their differences are on less substantive points.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    ” Yes, if one follows the teachings of Christ as was written in the NT – he can call himself a Christian. Regarding the differences in interpretations, while there are differences among Christian denominations, their differences are on less substantive points.”

    So Jehova’s witnesses are “true christians”

    Mormons are “true christians”

    Fred Phelps is a “true christian”

    Branch Davidians are “true christians”

    They all try to follow the teachings of christ in the nt – of course they reach very different conslusions about what those teachings mean.

  • Miguel

    “They all try to follow the teachings of christ in the nt – of course they reach very different conslusions about what those teachings mean. “

    - I certainly don’t know about “Branch Davidians”, but obviously the religious groups you mentioned follow radically different teachings than Christians. They can certainly claim that they are following Jesus’ teachings, but a simple look at what they actualy believe in will show otherwise.

    I’m surprised you didn’t know this?

  • Miguel

    “Perhaps – It’s possible that someone might not believe in the existence of god, or the divinity of christ, but still think christ existed and had valuable lessons. “

    - But in Christ’s “lessons” He teaches that He is the son of God and other stuff to that effect. So, no it isn’t possible.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “- But in Christ’s “lessons” He teaches that He is the son of God and other stuff to that effect. So, no it isn’t possible.”

    Ok – now we are getting somewhere – so on your list of “true christian” characteristics we have to put:

    1. Believes jesus was the son of god and other stuff to the effect.

  • Miguel

    Ok – now we are getting somewhere – so on your list of “true christian” characteristics we have to put:

    1. Believes jesus was the son of god and other stuff to the effect.

    - Yes.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    Miguel, I don’t believe that Jesus ever actually said that he was the son of God explicitly (according to the NT, anyway), did he?

  • Miguel

    custador,

    I don’t know the exact words, but it was implied a number of times in the NT, as far as I know. I’m not a Bible scholar though.

  • xian-x

    Miguel,

    The closest Jesus comes to explicit claims to divinity are found in the Gospel according to John, especially in chapter 8 which culminates with Jesus echoing (“I am”) God’s Exodus 3:14 self-identification (“I am that I am”). (There are passages in other Gospels that can be taken as implying that Jesus was making a claim to divinity, such as his forgiving sins that were not committed against him personally.)

    I take it that your position is that in the face of such passages it is not plausible to assert that Jesus taught “valuable lessons” while at the same time denying Jesus’ divinity. The problem, as I see it, is that one need not interpret these passages in the way that Roman Catholicism or mainstream Protestant Evangelicalism usually interpret them–even if one accepts the passages as scripturally authoritative (see, for example, Jehovah’s Witnesses). Moreover, if you do not take the passages as scripturally authoritative, then your range of possible interpretations is expanded even further. Thus, I don’t think it’s problematic to admire some of the teachings attributed to Jesus while denying mainstream Christianity’s divine claims about Jesus.

  • Miguel

    xian-x,

    Well, I see your point. But I was simply arguing that If you do not take His divinity to be true, as Muslims seem to do, then you cannot be called a ‘Christian’, well at least not in the conventional sense of the word.

    Thats why this lunatic that this post was about, is not a ‘real Christian’ because what he does is completely contrary to Christ’s teachings.

    You guys always mock us Christians when we make the claim that someone (usually someone atheists accuse of being a nutcase) “isn’t a real Christian”, well we can make that claim, and are justified in doing so if the ‘nut’ isn’t trying to adhere to Christ’s teachings.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    I didn’t see those pages, you are right, they are more suspicious. Perhaps this is satire.

    Poe’s Law strikes again!

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Hey, question… I understand what “Poe’s Law” means (thanks for the link), but I can’t figure out what “poe”-as-noun means. When you say someone “is a poe”, what does that mean?

  • Logan

    Until I told *her*

    Sheesh, how embarrassing…

  • The Wrath of Oliver Khan

    I was at the local professional rink a number of years back for a game against the Sabres, back when he was still with them. When I pointed out to my 9-year-old daughter that Satan had just picked up a penalty for hooking, she looked at him for a moment and said, “I always thought he’d be taller.”

    Cracked me right up, it did.

  • trj

    Aaargh, no! Please! Not Christian rock music! I’ll steal the money back, I swear!

  • rodneyAnonymous

    I always thought it was weird that Jesus is a popular Latin name, but not otherwise (as far as I know).

    (…and it’s “Jesuses”, proper names don’t get truncated for tense, I think.)

  • Logan

    You should watch The Big Lebowski.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    You mean for the 1001st time? Yes, I think I should.

  • LRA

    hey, don’t f*ck with the Jesus.

  • Mogg

    Moran make very comfortable sofas. I don’t want my chair to start thinking about its place in the world though.

  • Devysciple

    So, I should have some supernatural power, shouldn’t I? Oh yes, rational thinking.

    Oh man, if you look at about 95 to 98 per cent of the people surrounding you (irl), rationality is indeed a supernatural phenomenon…

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    And yet there are more atheists in America than there are Jews. The Jewish lobby (nothing against them, by the way) has a strong voice, but there is effectively no atheist lobby. We need an organisation! I propose Daniel Florien for President of the International Society of Atheists!

  • Devysciple

    Can I please have another helping of

    homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, pornography

    in no particular order?! Gawd, I never thought it was so much fun being an atheist.

  • Devysciple

    ROFLMAO!

    Excellent use of analogy, my (pseudo-)scottish atheist brother.

    (On a sidenote: If you could explain to me your slightly extraordinary nickname, I would feel delighted)

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    Number 2 on the list of Things That Make You a True Christian: Being prepared to spend a Sunday morning in the company of scores of people who potentially have severe mental health and violent impulse control issues.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    Indeed. I have relations who won’t speak to me, the atheist heathen – And I’m British, where there’s far less Christian lunacy than in the US.

  • Devysciple

    1) picking on blondes is absolutely PC (if you pick on all other hair colours as well (except bald)

    2) With every additional post from you that I read, my affection towards you grows. Are you completely sure you don’t want to join us on The Dark Side(tm)??? ;-)
    We could have so much fun. (For all overly PC people out there: there is absolutely no sexual innuendo going on in this comment!)

  • Devysciple

    Well, I guess I’ll choose “dimwitted heathen” over “blithering idiot” any time :D

  • Sophistry

    Welcome to Dimwitted Heathens Anonymous. Hey, dudes! We forgot the chicken blood!

  • Devysciple

    Someone being a Poe means that there is a increased likelyhood that the person in question is rather being satyrical than actually believing in what they post. Or, as often in my case, the wishful thinking that a certain comment would rather be satyrical than an opinion actually and truely held by someone.

  • exrelayman

    There was a real person named Poe who stated the law in a discussion forum. Can be looked up on Wikipedea.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    What if there is an increased likelihood that the person is being satanical?

  • Devysciple

    Being an Atheist, which also means that I am an a-satan-ist, renders your question senseless. But that’s just me. Maybe someone else jumps in and clarifies away all doubt (hopefully wittily)

    On the off chance that you yourself are being satyrical, which is forbidden for all true atheists, I’d answer: Show me solid proof that satan exists, and I might reconsider your question. ;-)

  • rodneyAnonymous

    You have mistaken me for someone who disagrees with you :)

  • rodneyAnonymous

    (Thanks for the answer. I guessed something like that, based on context, but wasn’t sure.)

  • Devysciple

    I am afraid that you are wrong. Because justifying your crimes with the fact that the victim was worthless still requires you to believe that they were actually worthless.

    You are right in describing the mechanism with which those abhorrent deeds were justified, but you don’t take into consideration that those very arguments were used not only in rationalizating (is that a proper verb?!) evil deeds after they were done, but that this line of thinking was a prerequisite for many of the atrocities mankind has inflicted on one another.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    And why! I mean, how.

  • Sock

    Well that’s disappointing. :(

  • LRA

    Niva…. join the dark side!!! ;) (Ha! Not really- join the Light side… the Enlightenment! The Elucidation!)

  • Viridid

    Your daughter is now my comedy idol.

  • Sock

    How many babies does it take to paint a house?
    Depends on how hard you throw them.

    How do you stop a baby from crawling in circles?
    Nail it’s other hand to the floor.

    What’s the difference between a Mercedes Benz and a pile of dead babies?
    I don’t have a Mercedes in my garage.

    What’s the difference between a baby and a trampoline?
    You take your boots off to jump on a trampoline.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    What’s the difference between a truckload of bowling balls and a truckload of dead babies?

    You can’t unload the bowling balls with a pitchfork.

  • 2-D Man

    Q: How do you stop a baby from tapping on glass?
    A: Turn on the microwave.

  • gamingguy

    What’s worse than five dead babies in a dumpster?

    One dead baby in five dumpsters.

  • Viridid

    Heheh, I might have to steal that joke.

  • claidheamh mor

    I might have to go back to Anchorage and listen to everybody complaining about that “biased, liberal newspaper” and how liberals have taken over the world. They are certainly winning and controlling the world in some imaginations.

  • Logan
  • DorkMan

    Yeah – you better!!

    Remember we are omnipresent and see all.

    Oh wait, wer’e not, nothing is …

  • claidheamh mor

    I had a blacksmith friend, like Gaelic and Celtic, and like claymores.
    Bodhrans too, but that’s another story.

  • LRA

    I love my babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback…

    I love my babyback, babyback babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback…

  • LRA

    (as a reminder… Doctor of Awesome, Doctor of Demons)

    ;)

  • LRA

    You forgot the argument from sh*t:

    (1) My pastor says God exists
    (2) I can’t be bothered to explore this myself
    (3) Anyone who argues against me is full of sh*t
    _____________

    (4) Therefore, God exists.

  • LRA

    ps “Thou shalt not rape” was a commandment, until they built prisons (before and after Jesus) because what better punishment for marijuana smokers (and other infidels) and non-believers than forced sodomy???

    (Also, forced marriage and rape of subsequent wife is NOT considered rape by biblical standards… so when said Israelites take on the young girls of the cultures they conquered (having killed these girls fathers, mothers who were not virgins, and their little brothers who were first born to that nation) it was not rape if they were married first. You know, HOLY matrimony…

  • http://noiseatnoon.wordpress.com aspir8or

    The scary part to me was the extremely cheerful woman selling cars in the lead-up ad. Right, I’ve just watched a very disturbing video. Now I’ll go buy a car and use it to ram into a crowd of pedestrians.

    Oh, and 17,000 students in one school. Now that’s scary.

  • http://noiseatnoon.wordpress.com aspir8or

    I’ve always understood a “poe” to be a diminutive for “potty” or “chamber pot”, which leads to “poe” meaning “s…head.”

  • Devysciple

    Okay, to wipe out all misunderstandings:

    Poe’s Law

  • Miguel

    So now we are applying criteria other than following the teachings of the new testament regardless of interpretation.

    - No, we aren’t applying criteria. Isn’t it simple? They do not believe in the teachings of Jesus in the NT; they do not believe in conventional Christian doctrines. Mormons, for example, have another ‘bible’ altogether, which was apparently recited to their founder by an angel.

    I don’t have to provide a “list”.

  • Miguel

    By your logic, anyone who says he is a Christian is really a ‘Christian’ – this is illogical.

    Doesn’t try to follow Christs teachings, then No, not a Christian.

    Can an Atheist believe in God and still claim to be an atheist? No, ofcourse not. Doesn’t fall into the definition of being an athesit, then No, not an atheist.

    How simple can it get.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    “Doesn’t believe in a god” is a pretty universal definition of “atheist” and is open to little or no interpretation. “Follows Christ’s teachings” is a pretty specific definition of “Christian” and is open to a lot of interpretation.

    As someone else pointed out, there are many different sects that believe widely different things and consider themselves Christians who follow Christ’s teachings.

    What about someone who claims to follow Christ, but is honestly wrong about his teachings? Who is the arbiter of right and wrong interpretations?

  • Miguel

    “As someone else pointed out, there are many different sects that believe widely different things and consider themselves Christians who follow Christ’s teachings.”

    - Yes, but the differences among Christian denominations is not substantive.

    For example, Catholics believe in the Transubstantiation, other denominations do not. This difference in belief is obviously not substantive because it is a superficial difference in scriptural interpretation. Jesus didn’t say “Hey this is literally My body and blood, literally!” And He didn’t say “Hey this is a metaphor, this isn’t literally my body and blood” either. So there are differences in interpretation, which is, in the larger scope of Christian teaching, insignificant.

    With other sects like ‘Mormonism’ their beliefs are radically different. Someone who bombs abortion clinics because he thinks it is what Jesus would want, also has radically different views that galactically diverge from *conventional* Christian beliefs and doctrines, so therefore we can definitely say that they are NOT Christians. Unless someone redefines the word to cover them, I don’t think its logical to call them such.

    What about someone who claims to follow Christ, but is honestly wrong about his teachings? Who is the arbiter of right and wrong interpretations?

  • Miguel

    Sorry, in my last comment, I forgot to erase this:

    What about someone who claims to follow Christ, but is honestly wrong about his teachings? Who is the arbiter of right and wrong interpretations?

    Which was accidentally copy pasted from your comment.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “They do not believe in the teachings of Jesus in the NT; they do not believe in conventional Christian doctrines. ”

    Look – I’m starting to think you are being intentionallu difficult.

    I’m not the one claiming there are “true” and “false” christians. You are. Each of the groups I listed claim to follow the teachings of jesus, as do thousands of other groups. Of course they reach radically different conclusions about what those teachings mean.

    I’m asking you to explain to me – as an outsider looking in – how can I tell the “true” from the “false” christian. Just saying “true christians follow the NT” doesn’t shed any light. All these groups claim to follow those lessons. Obviously you have some specific lessons that have to be followed for someone to be “true” – tell me what they are.

  • Miguel

    Look – I’m starting to think you are being intentionallu difficult.

    - Thats funny, I’m starting to think, you are.

    I’m not the one claiming there are “true” and “false” christians. You are. Each of the groups I listed claim to follow the teachings of jesus,

    - So those who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus are automatically *real Christians*? If someone follows the teachings of Buddha but *claims* to follow the teachings of Jesus, should we call him a Christian?

    And, No, the groups you listed DO NOT follow the teachings of Jesus.

    Mormonism follows the *Book of Mormon*

    Jehovas witness’ Follows their *Watch Tower* which apparently took some extra Biblical orders from angels.

    Fred Phelps claims that God Hates Ireland, Sweden, Catholics, Jews and Gays.

    Their beliefs diverge from Christs teachings, therefore NOT REAL CHRISTIANS.

    If you still don’t get it, I’m sorry, but I’ll have to think of you narrowly.

  • Ty

    “Jehovas witness’ Follows their *Watch Tower* which apparently took some extra Biblical orders from angels.”

    This lets me know that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, and don’t have the first clue what these other religions actually teach.

    And yet, you are perfectly happy to make an uninformed decision about which of them gets to call themselves ‘Christian’.

    You’re making the classic Christian error and mistaking ignorance for certainty.

  • Miguel

    This lets me know that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, and don’t have the first clue what these other religions actually teach.

    - Really? Lol!

    I think it is you who is completely clueless about what it is your saying. If you want to learn what the average Jehovah’s Witnesses believes, you don’t read the Bible, you read the Watchtower Magazine. This is because the Watchtower is the source of their theological beliefs, not the Bible. If you want to quickly learn what the Watchtower teaches, spend an hour with any Jehovah’s Witness. The Jehovah’s Witness is, quite plainly, a Watchtowerite.

    And yet, you are perfectly happy to make an uninformed decision about which of them gets to call themselves ‘Christian’.

    - And yet you are perfectly happy to make an uninformed decision about all of them being ‘Christians’?

    You’re making the classic Christian error and mistaking ignorance for certainty.

    - You are making the classic Atheist error, mistaking ignorance for certainty.

  • Miguel

    The Watch Tower Society claims that Jehovah’s Witnesses alone practise true Christianity and that the religion’s Governing Body is the sole “channel” of communication between God and man.

    It has claimed God used “invisible deputies” and “invisible angels” to pass his “messages” to the Watchtower.

    The Watch Tower Society has claimed the Bible cannot be properly understood “without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind” and warned that individual interpretation of the Bible is dangerous and foolish.

    The Watch Tower Society has substantially altered doctrines since its inception and abandoned core teachings, many involving Bible chronology, it had earlier claimed as beyond question.

    So please research more on your IGNORANT CLAIMS before you accuse anyone of making ignorant claims.

  • Miguel

    How can you be so arrogant as to assert exactly what another person does and does not know? You don’t know shit about Jesus either. There’s no evidence he even existed.

    - I see his actions. Its that simple really, there is no arrogance involved. I don’t know shit about Jesus? Well, how can you be so arrogant as to assert exactly what another person does and does not know?

    There’s no evidence that Jesus existed? Lol! Read more buddy!

    We don’t want your blessings, mate.

    - I wasn’t offering any blessings, “mate”. I couldn’t care less on what you want or don’t want.

  • boomSLANG

    “How can you be so arrogant as to assert exactly what another person does and does not know?”

    @ Karleigh,

    No human being has yet to give any demonstrable, objective evidence that they “know” any invisible, conscious beings, in this case “Jesus”. Thus, the Xian proselytizer is really asserting to know what another person actually *believes*, when he or she asserts that another person isn’t a “True Christian”. It’s ultimately a fallacious argument.

    Take care.

  • Miguel

    “No human being has yet to give any demonstrable, objective evidence that they “know” any invisible, conscious beings, in this case “Jesus”. Thus, the Xian proselytizer is really asserting to know what another person actually *believes*, when he or she asserts that another person isn’t a “True Christian”. It’s ultimately a fallacious argument.”

    - Supposing Albert Einstein made his own religion. He called it ‘Albertians’. All Albertians believe in the teachings of Albert Einstein, and as such, believe that E=MC2.

    Joey, an Albertian claims that “E=MC3!” He thus creates his own ‘Albertian’ denomination where they believe that E=MC3.

    Now in the following situation, I’m the original Albertian, Joey is the guy this post is about, and you are you, telling me that I’m proclaiming to know what joey *believes* – which is fallacious, and that Joey is in fact a *true Albertian*

    Who is illogical now?

  • Miguel

    hich is also testable and falsifiable.

    - I wasn’t arguing that it was otherwise.

    My argument was that Christians *can* make the claim that someone isn’t a *true Christian* when that someone obviously holds beliefs contrary to conventional Christian beliefs and teachings.

  • LRA

    Ummm… Miguel, you are. E=MC2 is a demonstratable fact of our universe. Jesus is not.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    …also testable and falsifiable.

  • Miguel

    LRA,

    It was just an example. You can replace E=MC2 with “Einstein has white hair”.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    …which is also testable and falsifiable.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Try it with “Einstein was divine, one part of a three-part godhead.” versus “Einstein was a prophet of a single undivided god.”

    Now it’s not testable or falsifiable. How do you prove one or the other is true? Would it be reasonable to conclude that both are false, or that the probability of either being true is very small?

  • claidheamh mor

    Miguel Who is illogical now?

    You still are.

  • Miguel

    claidheamh mor,

    Please explain why I am. Go on.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    “Ok, then using your logic, we can therefore, never objectively argue WHO is in fact a homosexual, democrat, communist, Chinese, Arab, Muslim, and so on and so forth.

    All our definitions of who these people are are subjective, therefore only an opinion, and so probably not important.

    Ok, I get it. You win.”

    No. Wow. Please stop assuming you understand my point. You have demonstrated that you certainly do not, in for instance the “A and not-A” example you gave. The point is very, very simple. You claim “The meaning of Christ’s teachings are clear. They say what they say. We have the NT writings. A Christian is someone who follows the writings of the NT.” Right? Great. Here is my entire objection: the meaning of Christ’s teachings are not clear.

    You could objectively define a Christian as “a person who claims to follow Christ’s teachings”, or even “a person who claims to be a Christian”, but not “a person who follows the meaning of Christ’s teachings” because that definition is subjective.

    Pretend for a moment that we know the Bible is a factual account of actual history. It is actually, literally inerrant. The stuff that it claims Jesus said are certainly, precisely, definitely the things he said, and for some reason he was speaking English so they’re not even translated. In that case, “Christ’s teachings” have a precise, objective definition. “The meaning of Christ’s teachings” still do not.

    My point is not that no one is a Christian, or that all definitions are subjective, or any nonsense like that. My point is that you can say someone “is not a real Christian” from your point of view, but it is unreasonable to expect anyone else to be able to make the same distinction you do. So far as I am aware, there are no objective guidelines to make that distinction. It can’t be whether their actions are “good” or “bad”, my definitions of “good” and “bad” disagree with “real” Christians’ definition already. Does someone need to be a scholarly theologian to tell? That is unreasonable. For all “we” know, anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

  • Miguel

    As with everything there is no objective interpretation, “widely accepted interpretation at best”, but *logical* interpretation still.

    So, I can *logically* argue that there are “false Christians”. And these would be the ones who claim to be Christian but fall short of the *logical*/widely accepted definition of what it means to be a Christian.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    You think I’m changing the subject, but I’m not. I think your argument is fundamentally flawed because you are drawing a distinction between things that can’t be objectively distinguished.

  • Miguel

    Ok. But are you also arguing that we cannot distinguish between people who try to follow Christs teachings and people who don’t?

    If you agree that we can distinguish between the two, than my example may have been flawed, but my initial point wasn’t

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Yes, that is precisely what I’m saying. “Following Christ’s teachings” is subjective; drawing a distinction between two people who honestly claim to be Christian requires subjective evaluation.

  • Miguel

    No, I disagree. If Christ taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves, then someone who consistently tried to hate everyone (because he thinks this is what Jesus wants) can claim to be a Christian, but I have every right to say He isn’t a real Christian because he goes against Christ’s teachings.

    drawing a distinction between two people who honestly claim to be Christian requires subjective evaluation.

    - Then there was no error in my ‘Einstein’ example, I was arguing that one group believed what Einstein taught, not necessarily what could objectively be proven.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    You are guilty of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, where “the meaning of a term is ad hoc redefined to tautologically make a desired assertion about it true”… except the redefinition of Christian is disguised as the “constant” one who follows Christ’s teachings, which is redefined, or at least ostensibly well-defined but actually defined differently by different people.

    In other words, one who follows Christ’s teachings is not, in fact, an objective definition of Christian, because Christ’s teachings are interpreted variously.

    There is a much stricter definition of Einstein’s teachings. You have every right to say someone isn’t a real Christian, but your evaluation is subjective; someone else might say the same person is a real Christian, and they would also be “right”, because the distinction is subjective.

  • Roger

    Your problem here is the use of the phrase “conventional Christian beliefs and teachings.” Those teachings themselves never remain fixed–if they did, the church would still be advocating slavery, the subjugation of women, and the wholesale avoidance of modern medicine.

  • Miguel

    But when you say “interpreted variously” I essentially agree that there are variations in scriptural interpretation. I made the example earlier about the ‘Transubstatiation’ being a belief that Catholics hold, and other Christian denominations do not. But such types of varied interpretations have essentially no bearing or are not substantive in the sense that it wouldn’t enable Catholics, for example, to say that Protestants aren’t Christians.

    But, for example, an Abortion clinic bomber, who *believes* He is doing Jesus’ will cannot justify his actions and claim this is indeed Jesus’ will, by referencing Jesus’ teachings in the NT. He simply cannot. And I would doubt the reading comprehension of anyone who would argue otherwise. Therefore, I believe, someone *can* logically say that this guy, who bombed this abortion clinic, and, claims to have been doing *Jesus’ will* is NOT a real Christian.

  • Miguel

    “Your problem here is the use of the phrase “conventional Christian beliefs and teachings.” Those teachings themselves never remain fixed–if they did, the church would still be advocating slavery, the subjugation of women, and the wholesale avoidance of modern medicine. “

    I’m not a theologist, so this would be difficult for me to argue. But what I would argue is that, ‘Christ’ did not advocate slavery, the subjugation of women, and wholesale avoidance of modern medicine (How could He even do the last part? Modern medicine? 2000 years ago was still modern? )

  • rodneyAnonymous

    You just expressed many opinions. That is critically important. It may be that the Roman Catholic Church does not claim that Protestants are not Christian.

    But they could. They might be subjectively wrong, compared to your subjective definition, but they are not objectively wrong, because there is no objective definition.

  • Roger

    If your argument is that Christianity ought to follow only Christ’s teachings, then here’s what Christ didn’t teach that seems to be inextricably linked with him:
    * Prohibitions concerning homosexuality (Christ didn’t say diddly about homosexuals)
    * Worshipping in a church every Sunday. (Jesus never commanded his followers to gather together every Sunday…that became a custom after he died)
    * Prohibitions concerning alcohol (Jesus seemed to like the fruit of the vine as much as the next guy)

  • Miguel

    “But they could. They might be subjectively wrong, compared to your subjective definition, but they are not objectively wrong, because there is no objective definition. ”

    - Some cases there is no objective definition. Like my example, the transubstantiation. But in the cases I was referring to, there is an objective qualifier, writings in the NT.

    Are you saying that we can only interpret the statement “love your neighbor as you love yourself” subjectively? It seems pretty straighforward to me.

  • Miguel

    Roger, don’t stop there.

    Christ also didn’t teach us to love sports, therefore, if someone loves sports, He’s not a true Christian.

    You can go on and on with your reasoning this way.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Your case would be stronger if it weren’t about a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a second- or third-hand account of something that may or may not have been said by someone who may or may not have existed.

    “Love your neighbor as yourself”? Does that have a clear meaning? Maybe if the original was English, but even then, there is wiggle-room… define neighbor. What if neighbor is a mistranslation of the Aramaic word for, say, countrymen? Jews?

  • Miguel

    Oh, thats what you mean.

    Well, I seriously think you are digging deeper than you should.

  • DarkMatter

    The abortion clinic bomber can be a christian with mental problem and God will work out all things for good for the abortion clinic bomber who love Him, getting rid of the doctor who performs abortions and receiving his soul in heaven. Do you know the mind of your “God”?

  • rodneyAnonymous

    I don’t think so. You and I are apparently reasonable people who can come to an agreement on Jesus’ “message”. But there are a lot of unreasonable people in the world, and even reasonable ones who come to very different conclusions. Whether you like it or not, many of them are on “your side” because they claim to “be Christian”. I would like you to understand that their claim is not any more or less valid than yours, unless you evaluate them with a special set of subjective rules. Some sets agree with yours, some do not.

    Your claim, repeated somewhat frequently on this blog, is that Christian can be objectively defined. Several of your arguments are based on this premise. If my exploration of why this premise is false looks like “digging too deep”, that’s too bad. A mathematical proof is much more complex than the statement it proves.

  • Miguel

    Perhaps this will make my position more clear.

    Christ teaches, as written in NT:

    A,B and C.

    Therefore, ‘Christians’ who, by definition, adhere to the teachings of Christ has to (at least) try to follow:

    A,B and C.

    If someone follows the opposite of A, and calls himself a Christian, then I am justified in saying that he is not a true Christian.

    Your arguing, well, he interpreted A to mean the opposite of A. His subjective interpretation is just as valid as yours.

    Well, then. If thats the case, everything besides what we can mathematically prove, can be argued in that sense. We cannot therefore say “He is a real Democrat” despite voting GOP ALL his life, or a real Muslim, despite his worship of Baal, or a real Heterosexual, despite having completely homosexual tendencies.

    So if you dig deeper, your argument may, in some sense, be sound. But, thats just because you’re digging deeper than you should.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    “It seems pretty straighforward to me” is an opinion. You are saying “the meaning of A is X, B is Y, and C is Z”, then proceeding to argue “if A, B, and C…” as if the initial meanings are carved in stone (intentionally bad metaphor). The meaning of “triangle” is “a geometric shape with three vertices and three sides”. The meaning of “love thy neighbor” is open to very wide interpretation.

    Then, even if you are right that the teachings of Christ can be objectively quantified, your definition of “Christian” is subjective: not everybody defines “Christian” as “one who follows Christ’s teachings”. Are they wrong to use a different definition? Says who?

    If you want, you could argue that all English (etc) definitions are subjective, which would be hard to refute, but some (e.g. “triangle”) are more widely-accepted than others (e.g. “Christian”).

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Addendum: “Your arguing, well, he interpreted A to mean the opposite of A. His subjective interpretation is just as valid as yours.”

    No, that suggests that there is a concrete meaning of A, and also suggests that the distinction is between A and not-A. In those terms, I am arguing:

    “Well, he interpreted A to mean X. You interpreted A to mean Y. His subjective interpretation is just as valid as yours.”

  • Roger

    Miguel, are you being this obtuse on purpose?

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “My argument was that Christians *can* make the claim that someone isn’t a *true Christian* when that someone obviously holds beliefs contrary to conventional Christian beliefs and teachings.”

    Please tell us what these “conventional” beliefs and teachings are.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “But, for example, an Abortion clinic bomber, who *believes* He is doing Jesus’ will cannot justify his actions and claim this is indeed Jesus’ will, by referencing Jesus’ teachings in the NT. He simply cannot. ”

    What you are really saying is you disagree with his interpretation of the “jesus’ will.”. Which brings me back to the fact that you are applying some list of criteria or “teachings to be followed” before you will call someone a “true christian.”

    Why won’t you just tell us what those criteria are?

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “Perhaps this will make my position more clear.

    Christ teaches, as written in NT:

    A,B and C.

    Therefore, ‘Christians’ who, by definition, adhere to the teachings of Christ has to (at least) try to follow:

    A,B and C.

    If someone follows the opposite of A, and calls himself a Christian, then I am justified in saying that he is not a true Christian.”

    Why won’t you just tell us what “AB and C” ACTUALLY ARE!

  • Miguel

    Why won’t you just tell us what “AB and C” ACTUALLY ARE!

    Oh right, You want me to list all Christs teachings here?

    That isn’t impossible, but I don’t think I’m willing to exert that much effort for your clarification.

  • Miguel

    “Then, even if you are right that the teachings of Christ can be objectively quantified, your definition of “Christian” is subjective: not everybody defines “Christian” as “one who follows Christ’s teachings”. Are they wrong to use a different definition? Says who?

    - Ok, then using your logic, we can therefore, never objectively argue WHO is in fact a homosexual, democrat, communist, Chinese, Arab, Muslim, and so on and so forth.

    All our definitions of who these people are are subjective, therefore only an opinion, and so probably not important.

    Ok, I get it. You win.

  • Miguel

    What you are really saying is you disagree with his interpretation of the “jesus’ will.”.

    - Yes, wouldn’t you? I would question your reading comprehension if you didn’t.

    Which brings me back to the fact that you are applying some list of criteria or “teachings to be followed” before you will call someone a “true christian.”

    Yes, I call it “the Teachings of Christ as seen in the NT”. Got it?

    Why won’t you just tell us what those criteria are?

    - Tell, you what, go get your Bible, open it up to the NT, then list them down here. I’ll tell you if it is accurate. That way, I don’t exert that much effort. You want to see it so badly, you exert the effort.

  • Miguel

    Then, even if you are right that the teachings of Christ can be objectively quantified, your definition of “Christian” is subjective: not everybody defines “Christian” as “one who follows Christ’s teachings”. Are they wrong to use a different definition? Says who?

    - Well I see your point. Indeed, someone could define “Christian” to mean someone who follows Buddhas teachings. Or someone could indeed define “Christian” as a person who worships his own penis, so yeah who are we to say that a “Christian” is someone who follows “Christs” teachings, we certainly have no right to do that.

    Likewise, If someone defines “homosexuality” as a person who has sex with the opposite sex, then who are we to refute his definition?

    Likewise, if someone defines “democrat” as someone who votes for the GOP every single time, again, He has a right to do so, who are we to refute His subjective definition of the word.

    Chinese people could also be defined as Japanese people.

    I get your point.

    You win.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “What you are really saying is you disagree with his interpretation of the “jesus’ will.”.

    - Yes, wouldn’t you? I would question your reading comprehension if you didn’t.

    Which brings me back to the fact that you are applying some list of criteria or “teachings to be followed” before you will call someone a “true christian.”

    Yes, I call it “the Teachings of Christ as seen in the NT”. Got it?

    Why won’t you just tell us what those criteria are?

    - Tell, you what, go get your Bible, open it up to the NT, then list them down here. I’ll tell you if it is accurate. That way, I don’t exert that much effort. You want to see it so badly, you exert the effort.”

    Ok – we have clearly reached the breaking point. You either can’t or won’t tell us what the criteria actually are that make someone a “true christian.” I understand that it may be burdensome to list all the teachings in the nt, but I’m actually trying to get some insight in to what you believe the criteria for “true christiandom” are. Only you can give me that list if you are the one who assembled it.

    I can pick up the NT and read it (I have), but I guarantee that I will come to different conclusions from you about what those teachings are. I’m guessing – were I a believer in christs’ divinity (the one criteria you were actually willing to list) – you would tell me those differences make me a “false christian.”

    You have created a moving target. You get to call anyone you want a “false christian” but you won’t tell us what makes a chritian false or true. That makes me suspect that the false christians are just christians you disagree with.

  • Miguel

    Why won’t you just tell us what those criteria are?

    - Like you said, burdensome.

    Ok – we have clearly reached the breaking point. You either can’t or won’t tell us what the criteria actually are

    - I can, but like you said, burdensome.

    that make someone a “true christian.” I understand that it may be burdensome to list all the teachings in the nt, but I’m actually trying to get some insight in to what you believe the criteria for “true christiandom” are. Only you can give me that list if you are the one who assembled it.

    - Wait a minute.. I didn’t say I assembled it.

    I can pick up the NT and read it (I have), but I guarantee that I will come to different conclusions from you about what those teachings are. I’m guessing – were I a believer in christs’ divinity (the one criteria you were actually willing to list) – you would tell me those differences make me a “false christian.”

    - Well that would depend if your beliefs galactically diverge from Christs teachings. Like I said, if you don’t believe in the transubtantiation, that still wouldn’t give me reason to say your not a “real Christian”. Likewise, if you believe James was the younger brother of Jesus, which Catholics don’t believe, that still isn’t a substantive divergence from what Christ teaches. I grant there are scriptural passages that are open to interpretation because of their ambiguity – I can accept this, and I’m not talking about these differences. Thats why Catholics, Protestants, or whatever Christian denomination that have different interpretations of particular parts of scripture, do not, and cannot call each other “not real Christians” – because the differences are not substantive.

    But we are, Like I’ve been arguing, justified in calling *those* who have radically different beliefs, which cannot be logically defended by referencing the NT, as “not real Christians”.

    Because THEY DO NOT FOLLOW CHRISTS TEACHINGS. Mormons, for example, follow the *book of Mormon* and NOT Christs teachings in the NT. Likewise, abortion clinic bombers cannot justify their actions as being acceptable by Christ. And it is people like these that we can logically say are *NOT REAL CHRISTIANS*.

    You have created a moving target. You get to call anyone you want a “false christian” .

    - No. I get to call anyone who *logically* isn’t following Christs teachings in the NT, not real Christians. Just the same way we both get to call anyone who *logically* isn’t a homosexual, a heterosexual. The same way we get to call someone who is *logically* a Democrat, a Democrat.

    but you won’t tell us what makes a chritian false or true. That makes me suspect that the false christians are just christians you disagree with.

    - No. I’m a Catholic, I disagree with Calvinists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Methodists -but I don’t call them “False Christians”, because I know our disagreements are not substantive. You cannot blame me if I call a Mormon or a mass murderer a *false Christian*.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    “Ok, then using your logic, we can therefore, never objectively argue WHO is in fact a homosexual, democrat, communist, Chinese, Arab, Muslim, and so on and so forth.

    All our definitions of who these people are are subjective, therefore only an opinion, and so probably not important.

    Ok, I get it. You win.”

    No. Wow. Please stop assuming you understand my point. You have demonstrated that you certainly do not, in for instance the “A and not-A” example you gave. The point is very, very simple. You claim “The meaning of Christ’s teachings are clear. They say what they say. We have the NT writings. A Christian is someone who follows the writings of the NT.” Right? Great. Here is my entire objection: the meaning of Christ’s teachings are not clear.

    You could objectively define a Christian as “a person who claims to follow Christ’s teachings”, or even “a person who claims to be a Christian”, but not “a person who follows the meaning of Christ’s teachings” because that definition is subjective.

    Pretend for a moment that we know the Bible is a factual account of actual history. It is actually, literally inerrant. The stuff that it claims Jesus said are certainly, precisely, definitely the things he said, and for some reason he was speaking English so they’re not even translated. In that case, “Christ’s teachings” have a precise, objective definition. “The meaning of Christ’s teachings” still do not.

    My point is not that no one is a Christian, or that all definitions are subjective, or any nonsense like that. My point is that you can say someone “is not a real Christian” from your point of view, but it is unreasonable to expect anyone else to be able to make the same distinction you do. So far as I am aware, there are no objective guidelines to make that distinction. It can’t be whether their actions are “good” or “bad”, my definitions of “good” and “bad” disagree with “real” Christians’ definition already. Does someone need to be a scholarly theologian to tell? That is unreasonable. For all “we” know, anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

    *double post, the first was in the wrong place

  • Miguel

    My point is not that no one is a Christian, or that all definitions are subjective, or any nonsense like that. My point is that you can say someone “is not a real Christian” from your point of view, but it is unreasonable to expect anyone else to be able to make the same distinction you do.

    - And, like I said, using your line of reasoning, we could apply that to everything else. Yes I do understand that there is ambiguity in the NT- I accept that. This is exactly why we have many Christian denominations who have varying interpretations of particular parts of scripture.

    But my *point* is, when the *actions* clearly go against Christs teachings, like *bombing clinics* for example, then I am completely justified in calling that person a “False Christian”.

    Much the same way we both are justified in calling someone a Democrat, when he find that he *logically* is. Or when we call someone a *homosexual* when He logically is.

    He then isn’t only a false Christian in my point of view, but would also be one in the point of view of someone with *common sense*.

    And furthermore, it is your digging too deep that makes you philosophize this thing so much as to completely miss my point.

    So far as I am aware, there are no objective guidelines to make that distinction.

    - Are there any “objective guidelines” to make a distinction for anything other than mathematical ones? There may be no “objective guidelines” but there sure are common sense ones.

    It can’t be whether their actions are “good” or “bad”, my definitions of “good” and “bad” disagree with “real” Christians’ definition already.

    -I’m a Catholic, its likely that my definition of good and bad slightly diverge from Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Evangelicals etc, but you won’t hear me calling them “False Christians”. You can, however, expect me to say that of Mormons, who *claim* to be Christians, but follow the Book Of Mormon.

    Does someone need to be a scholarly theologian to tell? That is unreasonable. For all “we” know, anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

    -Maybe a scholarly theologian could make better and clearer distinctions. But I think its pretty clear that I can make distinctions too. An axe-murderer who claims to be a Christian and *thinks* murdering is the Christian way – False Christian by my reckoning, and etc. etc.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Look, I know it’s hard, and I know it might not be true, but please pretend I am at least as familiar with the Bible as you are.

    No, you are making generalizations about a specific topic. Unfortunately for your case, Jesus taught largely by allegory, and somewhat by what I can only call poetry. He answered some of the same questions differently at different points in the NT. Some of his pronouncements countermand others of his pronouncements. He never said E=MC2 or anything similarly precise. It’s not just that his teachings are not clear in the sense that nothing is perfectly clear; they are not clear by most standards of clarity.

    Perhaps some themes were consistent. But what if someone blows up a mosque because Jesus threw down the Temple? Or murders his parents and leaves his country to join a monastery because Jesus said to hate your family and love him? Or shoots an abortion-clinic doctor because Jesus loves the little children and he wants to prevent further murders? Or champions slavery because Jesus didn’t seem to mind?

    Maybe these interpretations are “incorrect” based on study of other things Jesus said, or the context the stories are in, or something. But they are still valid interpretations because the meaning of Jesus’ specific teachings are not perfectly clear. They’re not even “mostly clear”. They are somewhat clear. Kind of.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Also, you’re using extreme examples when I am talking about fine gradations. Sure, Mormons aren’t Christians, but they don’t claim to be, do they? Does the axe-murderer claim to be a Christian? Is he objectively, definitively not a Christian, even if he says he is? What if he only murdered one person? That’s an action, it doesn’t define the person’s being. We’re all sinners, we all make mistakes, right? Maybe the murderer is extremely devout, usually kind and generous, with one terrible lapse for which he has begged God’s forgiveness. Is he a Christian?

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Hm, belay the question “Mormons don’t claim to be Christians, do they?” You said they do; I should have checked it before I posted. They do. They call themselves Christians because they kind of, sort of, follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, although they throw out almost all of Christian doctrine and claim to be the only true church. Weird, seems like they have a different definition of “Christian”.

    Anyway, ignore that line.

  • Miguel

    No, you are making generalizations about a specific topic. Unfortunately for your case, Jesus taught largely by allegory,

    - Yes, the topic I was generalizing was specific, but I reckon if I dig deeper and philosophize deeper, I can justify anything using your reasoning. I bet you will agree, go ahead and try it. Like I said, you can ONLY have objective guidelines on mathematical matters. Take homosexuality, YOU can *logically* call someone a homosexual if it fits *your* definition (which simultaneously happens to be the definition of most logical people) , but your, previously demonstrated, reasoning will enable me to argue that everyone else’s definition no matter how bizarre could, in a way, be acceptable if I argue the natural subjectivity of peoples’ ‘definition’. Hey maybe he just fantasized once about engaging in a homosexual act, I immediately equate him to being a homosexual. Likewise I could use this reasoning to argue against the validity of everything else I mentioned earlier, which would make you *think* that what I’m doing is illogical, but at this point, you would understand what I’m trying to tell you.

    and somewhat by what I can only call poetry. He answered some of the same questions differently at different points in the NT. Some of his pronouncements countermand others of his pronouncements. He never said E=MC2 or anything similarly precise.

    - But are you seriously saying that He cannot be understood? How difficult is it to understand the turn the other cheek part? Or the love your enemy part? I would seriously doubt the reading comprehension of anyone who would argue that it is as such, seriously. Thats not to say that there aren’t any varying interpretations wrought by some scriptural ambiguity – which is why many Christian denominations have spawned – but these differences are not substantive enough for one of them to call the other a “false Christian”.

    It’s not just that his teachings are not clear in the sense that nothing is perfectly clear; they are not clear by most standards of clarity.

    - I disagree. Most of the things at NT are pretty clear to most people.

    Perhaps some themes were consistent. But what if someone blows up a mosque because Jesus threw down the Temple? Or murders his parents and leaves his country to join a monastery because Jesus said to hate your family and love him? Or shoots an abortion-clinic doctor because Jesus loves the little children and he wants to prevent further murders?

    - See? Look at these examples and seriously tell me if you wouldn’t find the man who interpreted it this way as being crazy. You would, ofcourse.
    Can we not say that it *logically* diverges from what Christ teaches, therefore someone who would do these things are not “real Christians”? It is a far stretch, but if I dig deeper, I can argue that Jesus meditated at the Garden of Gethsemane, Buddha meditated too, so can the man who claims to be Christian but follows Buddha’s teachings on account of Jesus meditating, be called Christian? NO. Jesus walked on water, Chris angel walked on water too, a really stupid man can claim that He believes Chris Angel is Jesus and follows whatever CA says while calling himself a Christian. Do we *logically* assume he is a Christian? NO. Now I know my examples seem *illogical*, but continue to dig deeper, and they have no difference whatsoever to yours.

    Or champions slavery because Jesus didn’t seem to mind?

    - See, this is one example that was indeed ambiguous. Do we follow this? Or do we follow what Jesus said as all men being created equal under God? I don’t doubt that the early Christians justified slavery because of the bible. Which makes me unable to call them “False Christians”. Maybe a theologian could make an argument that they were, but not me.

    Maybe these interpretations are “incorrect” based on study of other things Jesus said, or the context the stories are in, or something. But they are still valid interpretations because the meaning of Jesus’ specific teachings are not perfectly clear. They’re not even “mostly clear”. They are somewhat clear. Kind of./i>

    -Again, I disagree. They seem clear enough to me. For the most part anyway.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    No, I am not saying he can’t be understood at all, that’s silly. I’m saying he can be understood different ways. Legitimately different ways. What you consider “for the most part clear enough” is an opinion. Your definition of “the meaning of Christ’s teaching” is an opinion. There is no “correct” interpretation; maybe “widely accepted interpretation”, at best.

  • Miguel

    As with everything there is no objective interpretation, “widely accepted interpretation at best”, but *logical* interpretation still.

    So, I can *logically* argue that there are “false Christians”. And these would be the ones who claim to be Christian but fall short of the *logical*/widely accepted definition of what it means to be a Christian.

    (Mistakenly posted above)

  • rodneyAnonymous

    The world is not black and white, perfectly clear and totally incomprehensible. Some things are clearer than others. “The meaning of Christ’s teachings” are particularly unclear, or not clear enough that it is easy to distinguish a “true believer” from a “false believer”, especially when the latter honestly, earnestly considers themself a true believer.

    This has come down to “Christ’s teachings are clear”: “no they aren’t”, “yes they are”, “no they aren’t”…

    I think my point is made by the fact that we can disagree at all without my making some esoteric argument that triangles could theoretically have four sides.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Another point just occurred to me. I had been avoiding the phrase “easy way to make a distinction”, but actually, that’s important. The definition of a triangle does not require the listener to be an expert geometrician, or mathematician. The definition of Democrat (although this definition has changed over time) does not require the listener to be an expert on Democratic policy, or politics. You could argue that “the meaning of Christ’s teachings” is clear to people who have studied Christ’s teachings, and even if you win, you would fail to demonstrate that they are clear to everybody. Can you summarize, in about a sentence, how to tell the difference between a “true Christian” and a “false Christian”, for someone who has no idea what “Christ’s teachings” are?

  • Miguel

    When I mentioned about Homosexuality, Democrats, etc, you said:

    No, you are making generalizations about a specific topic.

    But I still am with regards to Christianity. I was referring to “specific” teachings that couldn’t be *logically* interpreted in any other way. Thats why I said an axe murderer can never *logically* justify his actions as being favorable to Christ. Certainly, he can try and justify his actions, but would they be logical? No. Likewise, A Mormon could never *logically* call himself a Christian in the truest sense of the word, if he does not follow Christs teachings – but the Book of Mormon.

    I was also careful to grant that ambiguity exists in certain scripture – which is why there isn’t just one Christian sect; there are hundreds.

    But yet you still are essentially asserting that my subjective opinion on someones quasi Christianity isn’t any more valid than the next guy, even if, unlike his, mine is rooted in *logic*, common sense, and conventional Christian notions?

    Then I can only logically assume that what you have been arguing is that every definition is subjective. It doesn’t matter if one concept is easier to define than another. If I used your logic, I can change the definition of everything.
    This isn’t me thinking in black and white. This is you digging deeper than you should.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “Sure, Mormons aren’t Christians, but they don’t claim to be, do they?”

    Actually I know mormons who claim to be christian. mormons may not universally make that claim, but some do.

    Of course Miguel won’t tell us why that claim is false except to say they follow the book of mormon, which apparently excludes the possibility of alos following jesus’ teachings in the nt.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Your definition is not logical, and I have repeatedly said that “every definition is subjective” is not what I’m arguing. You are reading mindful of how you’re going to respond, rather than reading for comprehension.

    Debate tip: it gives you a great advantage to be able to state your opponent’s case in a way that pleases your opponent.

  • Miguel

    Actually I know mormons who claim to be christian. mormons may not universally make that claim, but some do.

    Mormons always make that claim. They are essentially called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So yes, being a member entails claiming you are a follower of Christ. Do you even know what your talking about?

    Of course Miguel won’t tell us why that claim is false except to say they follow the book of mormon, which apparently excludes the possibility of alos following jesus’ teachings in the nt.

    - I’ve already told you why it is false. A Christian by definition is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ teachings can be found in the NT. Mormons do not adhere to the NT but to the Book of Mormon. How hard is that to follow, Bill? If I write a book with its own set of teachings and claim it comes from Christ, can I logically call myself a Christian? No.

  • Miguel

    Your definition is not logical,

    - My interpretation of certain specific teachings of Christ is not logical? Is that what you meant? How so?

    and I have repeatedly said that “every definition is subjective” is not what I’m arguing.

    - I know you *claim* that that isn’t what you’re arguing.

    But you also claimed that ‘homosexuality’ was a “specific topic” – I was also talking about “specific topics/ teachings” of Christ. How are those two things different? They aren’t.

    So if you still make the claim that *specific teachings* of Jesus cannot be *logically* interpreted as to have a single coherent meaning, then isn’t that simply an argument on the subjectiveness of interpretation?

    Debate tip: it gives you a great advantage to be able to state your opponent’s case in a way that pleases your opponent.

    -Uh, ok. Thanks, i guess.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    “I know you *claim* that that isn’t what you’re arguing.”

    No, I also explained why “all definitions are subjective” is not what I’m arguing. You have given me no evidence that you understand and disagree with my argument, only that you disagree with it.

    I am not talking about the subjectivity of all interpretation. I am talking about the subjectivity of the interpretation of Jesus’ teaching specifically.

    You have also failed to address the efficacy of your definition for someone who is unfamiliar with Christ’s teachings.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “- I’ve already told you why it is false. A Christian by definition is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ teachings can be found in the NT. Mormons do not adhere to the NT but to the Book of Mormon. ”

    Miguel are you really this thick? Do you really not know that mormons follow the book of momon in addition to the old and new testaments? They don’t follow the book of mormon to the exclusion of the new testament.

    See this LDS website, which clearly shows that the nt is part of mormon teaching:

    http://scriptures.lds.org/

    Are you now saying that any sect which includes lessons or books outside of the new testament is not truly christian?

  • Miguel

    Are you now saying that any sect which includes lessons or books outside of the new testament is not truly christian?

    Are you really this thick? YES thats what I’m saying!

    If someone follows the Quran and follows the new testament, ya think he can logically call himself a Christian? No! The Book of Mormon makes specific claims about Jesus and is their primary source of teaching. Ofcourse they will *claim* to follow the NT because they *claim* to be Christians to which you erroneously *claimed* not all of them claim to be.

  • Miguel

    I am not talking about the subjectivity of all interpretation. I am talking about the subjectivity of the interpretation of Jesus’ teaching specifically.

    Rodney, you are obviously not getting this. I’m saying that there is no difference between the “subjectvity of the interpretation of (certain *specific*) teachings of Jesus” AND the “subjectivity of interpretation” of a *specific topic* in general – you said the examples I gave were *specific topics*.

    You have also failed to address the efficacy of your definition for someone who is unfamiliar with Christ’s teachings.

    I do not have any “definition” of “Christs teachings”, I do have a definition for some of Christs *specific* teachings.

    I define “love your enemy”, for example, to mean that one must try to love everyone even someone who he, normaly, would consider his enemy.

    I do not have a definition for Christs teachings, I have a *logical* definition of Christs specific teachings -Just as we have *logical definitions* of specific topics.

    If you are not getting this, I guess I’ll just have to leave it at that.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Consider the possibility that it is not I who misunderstands.

  • http://iwant2knowyourstory.blogspot.com/ Niva Tuvia

    Luke 14:26, taken in context of the entire book of Luke, is suggesting that followers hate all -in comparison- to their love for Him.

  • Margaret

    Yes. In that passage Jesus says that his followers should hate everyone except himself. I was incorrect in leaving out the exception.

  • Devysciple

    We forgot the chicken blood because we are Dimwitted Heathens Anonymous ;-)

    Besides, as long as there is a sufficient supply of babies and BBQ sauce, we’re still in for the party :D


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X